Planning Board - Regular Meeting

There we go.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Bill. I'll open up the seating room for Maynard Town. The planning for the town of Maynard today's date is August 25th, 2026, and time is 7.05 p.m. All members here are present in town hall. This meeting is being held in hybrid format, which means that members of the board, staff, and the public can participate here in town hall or virtually zoom in. Please note this meeting is being recorded. So let's go to item two. And we will, I believe, we will reopen the public hearing, of course, but I believe the applicant has requested it continues.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Ryan Clements is here. I believe it's going to request a continuous. There's some material that was sent today. It was circulated to the board, but at last, you know, it was a little bit short. And I did recommend that request a continuous for maximum effectiveness for the applicant. So you guys can have a chance to look over changes and if there's any suggestions, questions, or things that you need that you'll have an opportunity to provide it to the applicant prior to the September, I think it's 8th, hearing. So then I'll turn it over to Mr. Clemmons, unless you have any questions for me.

No, I don't. Mr. Clemmons, just for the record, can you identify yourself and then confirm that that's all correct?

Absolutely. My name is Ryan Clemmons of ROW at 255 State Street in Boston, here tonight on behalf of applicant Daniel Souza. for the site plan review application for 16 Waltham Street. And as a quick recap, we had come before you at the request of the building inspector for the site plan review and following review from the board and comments, we took the plans back to show, excuse me, took the plans back to show parking, snow storage, lighting, and trash and recycling, which we've done. As the planner noted, we had sent those plans to you today, and as discussed at the last meeting too, board indicated they would like a couple of days in advance of a meeting to review subsequent plans. So tonight we're asking for a continuance to your next meeting on September 8th in order to give you enough time to review the plans that we submitted, which do show the six parking spaces, the snow storage, the trash and recycling, and the building lighting. And with that, happy to jot down any questions that you may have now that we can answer at the next meeting.

No, that's pretty much it. I would say I have received a couple of comments from the board, primarily regarding dimensions on parking and some questions about the parking. So if the board has any questions, we'll go ahead and ask them to provide them to me and we'll forward them directly to you. So it should be very clear. And unless there's any other questions the board have at the moment.

I'll make a motion to continue the hearing until September 9th at 7 p.m. September 9th at 7 p.m. Oh, sorry. September 8th at 7 p.m. I'll take that. All in favor of the motion to continue to September 8th at 7 p.m. That's 5-0. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McConaughey.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Bill, let's go to item three, and we will continue. There's a continuance, right? No, this is a new, this is a new, this is a new. Yeah, just to refresh the board. Let me open it up. I will not be appearing for two to six hours in the rally. This is a request for modification of the planning board for a structured permanent site plan that was originally approved on February 27, 2024. And we did have a determination of the age modification previously by the planning board sometime in the summer. And now this would be the public health care for the modification. I get that, correct?

Yes. Go ahead. And the Board has directed the applicant to prepare an updated elevation, demonstrated proposed changes. The Board did review the changes and largely determined that provided that the footprint was to remain the same, that design review would be the core of this review. Consequently, we have think we have our amy from arrow street is on i think oh yeah and we have adams adams on adam stack is the uh developer and we have uh james james jones who is uh mr stack's um architect and with that um

I think that's everybody that we have from the team. All right, let's turn it over to you guys. Adam and team, could you guys just identify yourself in public for the record, please?

James Jouzoukas, architect with Jouzoukas Architecture Incorporated. Do you want to go through with Adam and Arrow Street as well, or do you want to just...

This is Adam Stack. uh applicant for to dash for powder mill road hi everyone amy corte with arrow street i'm an architect doing the design review we also have um in person tonight uh

executive director of Office of Municipal Services, Steve Silverstein, who will be present if you have any questions that I can't answer from other areas of the approval.

Okay. I'm happy to turn it over to you guys.

Okay. I'm going to just share my screen so it's probably easiest to Talk about this request. Great. Thank you. So, Let's see if this is big enough. So basically we presented a design change to the exterior and Arrow Street came back with some comments that we were happy to address and make the appropriate tweaks and what you're seeing is the result of those changes. I can go through the majority of them pretty quickly. Basically we put in the drawings, people in cars and everything to give this better scale of how the building would appear in closer to reality. There was comments regarding some of the green. The hunter green would be more in line with a glazed brick, more of a soldier course. We definitely would utilize all the different techniques to make a brick building look good with coins on the side and belly bands and soldier courses and different elements to make it pop as opposed to just a boring flat brick building. So we're happy with that. The windows are designed to be more of a residential window. The commercial element on the first floor was removed so that it's more of a residential space on the first floor. And we kept those windows appropriately sized for that. You don't want a giant storefront in your bedroom, especially on the first floor level. The entrance is more predominant. We have an A-frame protecting from the weather. We get more rain than Seattle, so we definitely want to protect people from coming in and out. The... walls, all the sides will be all brick. It's not going to be where the water side doesn't have the same details. But the intent is all sides will have the same details. And see Yeah, I believe that's just about it for the comments. I'm sorry, Amy? From Arrow Street?

Yeah.

We capped everything? I'd be happy to change anything else, but

Yeah, I mean, I can just offer my responses. I think the biggest change that James and Adam made was really in response to our comment about the front entryway, your design guidelines require basically primary entrances are principal element. and are more connected to the street. So what James did was recess that entryway, put a canopy over it. I think my only question would be, I think you guys should just make sure it's not going over the property line. And if it does, you have the appropriate approvals for that. And then You know, somebody on the planning board in the city, the town side had mentioned that they weren't sure if the green glazed color really worked and matched with the historic downtown Maynard. There are some elements of green. We went back and looked at the brick buildings and some of the existing buildings that you have. So there is precedent of these types of tones being used in different ways as accent colors through your downtown. Um, so it really comes down to as the team is picking the brick colors and the materials that you make sure that you like it in the final permit review and the CD review. Um, the materials are definitely high quality. That was one of your design review guidelines. Um, full brick is not something we typically see on a lot of apartment buildings. So you are, as James said, getting a, um, a well, uh, It's a detailed building assuming the details are done for the for the CDs are only additional comment and James and Adam I didn't you know we forgot to put this on the excel file our suggestion would be to look at. A building 74 Main Street is actually probably a good example in downtown Maynard with how they do the cornice. It's a bit lighter. It doesn't project out quite as much as your cornice, especially on the front side and has a little bit more of that historic lighter touch to the top of a building. So that would be our suggestion as you move it forward into CDs. There are some areas of the rendering where the cornice, the revised rendering, the cornice pops out a little bit more on one side of the main entry vertical volume. If you zoom into the upper left image, you can see it. And just pulling that back, making it probably a little bit more flush with the top and then pulling it out at the very top of the building. I can share my screen as the example if that's helpful. But overall, the building design seems, yeah, that's it. Yeah.

That's pretty easy.

Yeah. Yours is a more modern interpretation. I think you could probably flatten it a little bit more at the base and then keep a more modern interpretation at the top.

Yeah. We've captured that detail a couple of times. Just with 4x4s, it's really pretty easy to mimic that with just what's available at Home Depot. So...

Yeah, so I mean, I think overall, our feeling is this will come down to the final details and the CD drawings, how those soldier courses and belly bands are detailed and the connections between the details. But it's a pretty simple building. It's all brick. It's very durable. And it seems to meet your design guidelines.

I'm happy to turn it over to the board, sir. We promise the board may have it.

I'd like to hear some of the stuff on the canopy over the parking and what it looks like for those purposes.

James, did you hear that comment?

Yes. Well, the It's basically always been there in the original design. The building above it disappeared. And we kept the covered parking area to keep it covered as well as provide a covered walkway to it. And it was just features that if we took away may trigger more of a major review by conservation and other boards so we it was an element that we just were okay with keeping it's basically providing cover and once again it's New England you know we get tons of rain and snow so it's nice to have covered parking

What are the materials that are used there, particularly the deck on top?

It's just a roofing element. Probably do a 20-year IDPM with steel framing that would be painted very close to the awning, the the cap as well as come close to matching the proposed glazed brick belly bands.

Can you stand on the walkway?

It's not there.

Who's it serving and what are the effects of it? Here's the next part, right?

Are you referencing the walkway along the river?

No, the walkway, there's a new walkway that comes out on the powder mill. It used to be just a little narrow landscape strip, and now it's a whole walkway that somehow connects to an archipelago. I'm not really assuming the name for it.

Now, if you're looking at the top left photo of the building, are you referring to the walkway to the left of the building?

Correct. No, the landscape strip will remain. It's just that the proposed building back in 24 has been narrowed in that narrowing left strip. Let's see.

Where does the parkway go to? Does it terminate into the parking lot?

It just goes right into the parking area, yes.

So that would be a walkway for people exiting the building to walk back into the covered parking area?

Right. You could go to your bike. There's bike parking. There's other areas.

I'm not quite following. Do you have to exit the building to get to the parking?

No, there is ways to get to the parking through the underside of the building. It's just multiple ways.

It just strikes me that that's an opportunity for either more landscaping or to shift the building away from residential employees. to get closer and more tight with the other commercial buildings.

We can in this, but Can you tell me a little bit about the screening of the parking that is next to the gate on the... That is what was originally agreed upon back in 24, and it still remains. There's just no building above it. there's still the gate, there's still all the elements that was originally proposed.

Okay. I think my brain is out of trouble. This part of my computer is too much. Yes, I'm playing.

That was a situation that when we discussed this originally, we limited this to a landscape plan and a limited design review, basically, and lighting where it was going to be removed or replaced. If the essence of this was that the footprint wasn't going to change. not just because it was to maintain the existing dimensions, but also because of Conservation Commission considerations. So I think that if the board wanted a revised dimensional plan, that would be basically what you have already. The elevations And the landscape plan, I think, would be being modified or following the board feels different, of course, in the time.

Well, maybe a lot of people expect to modify it without . And especially that seems to me that it wipes out the parking space. And now I don't know if it's labor or if it's all still good or whatever. I don't think I understand the question.

Why did conservation reprove it the way in the current configuration?

Why does conservation want canopy over the parking? Why are they requiring more infrastructure?

It's not so much that conservation wants it, it's what they had approved and we only presented minor modifications to what conservation was seen as the footprints. So that we only eliminated a couple of columns versus wiping out all the columns on that side.

Okay, the footprints are eliminated all of the coverage is still required to be made a lot of patients go from home likely. Is that a problem?

I don't know that it would be made a modification, but I think the positioning was critical to what they they felt. Maintaining the position was critical. What had been approved before and would prevent a further series of hearings to I made the movie. This was where it was originally placed. And I guess the thinking was, why would it be approved two years ago and didn't want to change it, the position.

And back to the walkway, it does look like the lighting shows the proposed changes of that walkway to the west of the current building.

Is that correct, James? The lighting plan did not change even the light at the front door. We most likely will just have two or three lights underneath that walkway.

So what does the pink represent on this figure?

That is what was the 2024 Footprint of the building that's being reduced to back to this column Um I think we have it all the way to the original. I know this plan is a little deceiving where it shows pink in front here. I believe we have the building coming right to the street.

But at the same time, James, there is a feature on the front that there's a prominent feature in the front where the door is. which definitely protrudes out from the face of that.

Is that correct?

Second here. So we just need clarity whether the building is on a property land as previously approved, or if it's been modified, the building facade has to push back to allow.

We we will have it. Yeah, it'll be set back to not require. It's easy to modify the back of the bus here to accommodate not bleeding over the city sidewalk. So yes, it would be set back the couple of feet.

You know, You say a couple feet. Do we have a sense of what that dimension is?

Just to be on the safe side, three feet. With the door inset and the A cover only needs to protrude maybe 18 inches. So we get a good five foot cover. So the doors can swing out, not hit people on the sidewalk.

I mean, this is pretty much it. We had a very simple site plan highlighting what is it. I don't want to re-talk about everything to the reader. Right. Check that box. Say, okay, let's do it. We've got to tweak that.

So the original concept here was that planning work was HAB-Jacques Juilland- Not necessarily requesting. HAB-Jacques Juilland- To modify all of the site plans because the intent was to not change the building book, but we do see that the program is changing. HAB-Jacques Juilland- And we just need to know what we're doing. HAB-Jacques Juilland- And then, and the cyclines, I think the site plan. HAB-Jacques Juilland- needs to be updated show the change in the building. Okay. At least that's what I'm hearing from the board.

Do I hear that correctly, board? I agree. It's been a while to figure out what's existing in the past once it's supposed to be proposed.

There's differences. So let's move on to lighting. James, you said that the lighting scheme has not changed at all. Is that correct?

At the moment, no. It has not changed.

And, you know, I do see the lighting plan has obviously light locations shown on it. And just to make sure that the architectural records do not show lights, but obviously we defer to the lighting plan, right?

Right.

Yeah.

I think they're the exact same, like, six years of the position, because that's a good one, right?

As a result, the condition for the lighting, just to be clear for the board, one of the conditions was to add one additional light that's designated in the decision. So that would, that all, if the board chooses to move forward, we would keep that condition consistent.

Other questions from the board?

We'll talk about changes in the river side, if you want. I didn't quite understand from your practices. Is it a plaza area or is it just along the way?

I didn't quite hear that question. Sorry.

So on the river side, there's some building structure that's going away. I'm wondering what the place is. Is it the name of the river? I don't know. I don't know what's happening there.

what's happening in these green areas that we're proposing to remove just the landscaping that is there is going as proposed is going to stay as proposed all there's no proposed structure on the ground level other than the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 columns. So it was originally proposed that the paved walkway would be in this area. So that's what would be in that area, paved walkway and sidewalk here. And this would be a proposed parking space.

it's originally proposed hardscape that's going that we're proposing to stay this is a second plan that just highlights what is different Correct.

I will note that some of these green areas where there's building and columns being removed, there are light fixtures, light plan attached.

So the the light plan is not the accurate building. So basically the top left of that light plan you show, there are light fixtures that I believe were attached to the building that is no longer completed. Is that correct?

The only is S1's proposed on this column, this column, this column, and this column, and the only column that's going, one of the lights in column is proposed to go away.

Right. So there won't be any place to put a light fixture then, right?

Other than, yeah.

Because the image above would with the red and the green shows that the building is being removed above that.

Right. Let's see. So where else would we

the plans just need to be modified to show that that the planning plan that okay i think the rendering shows is covered by that but the building equipment side

Okay. Where are we on the gate for the emergency access? You're talking about the roll-up gate, Bill?

Yeah, so what we talked about, where we left this at the last approval, the fire chief was not wild about the roll-up gate, but we said that it would be installed on the garage that the color and material aesthetically consistent, blah, blah, blah. In the event the fire chief didn't find the roll-up gate to be adequate or sufficient, an alternative gate will be provided to the planning board chair for approval. That's how we left it. So I don't know if Adam or Jonathan speak to any recent conversations with the fire chief, but I would say that's probably... something that for now anyway would want to you know i would want to keep in the conditions um that we just debated that quite a bit but it was my understanding fire chief was not comfortable with that i could be wrong and i'll refer to adam on that he may remember

So again, we didn't like go back to the fire chief about this because we're not changing anything that is physically on the ground footprint. Um, so anything that was approved before is staying in this permit and that's what we're trying to express that this footprint is staying the same so that parking stays the same so that the snow storage stays the same so that the, you know, all the dumpsters, all the things we had to fit onto this tight location stays the same. Um, we're only asking to change the building above the first floor. And that's why it shrunk down to make it more economical to build right now and for the one-bedroom units that we're trying to do. So that's why we were trying to leave everything on the ground level that was approved as is and just get the changes above, if that makes sense. I think that's what we tried to express last meeting, and that's what we wanted to talk about this meeting. So we weren't really trying to start a whole new permit here.

And Adam, that's what we understood as well. But what I'm seeing proposed, for example, on Powder Mill is that the building front is going to go into the site by what we heard to be about three feet. So the building there is being proposed to change.

And this is from me saying that this is either an oversight on how that was drawn or not, but that line at the at the sidewalk should not move. Nothing should be moving here. So if Jim put this covered entry in because Arrow Street asked for it, that's kind of where that came from. And if that's gonna adjust the whole building, then I would ask, then is it that necessary to have this three foot covered entrance to get in there? Or can we just have basic entry door Because most of the people will be going into the building from the covered parking underneath. Because to move the building back three feet just to have a covered entrance doesn't make any sense.

I mean, I can respond to that. We had asked for, we thought your previous design of the recessed entry was sufficient. So in our opinion, I think recessing the entry gives it enough cover and denotes the primary entry and would be OK. I do have a different question. This is the first time I'm seeing the site plan. on the left side where you have the orange zone where I guess the canopy is. If you look at your rendering in the lower left of your new renderings, it looks like the brick wall comes out and basically continues that orange line on the left going through the word building. And so I'm just curious. It looks like your site plan shows planting between that screen wall and the green screen on the lower left. And then where that green canopy starts is rendered as all planting in the site plan. But here it looks like parking.

Yeah.

Certainly understand that the ground floor is trying to not be changed significantly. So as to, you know, allow reservation and everyone to, you know, see the same as in 2024. But when it does change, sign our names with an accurate plan. So

That's the reason having updated site plan if there are going to be changes, which there are.

Well, we don't want site plan changes. So if we have to adjust to the recess entrance like Amy had just said, then that's what we have to keep it as.

There are changes to adjust the recess entry. I struggle with just looking at the renderings. That's my only indication of how the site is changing.

So for another example, on the color rendering on the top left, you know, there's a building about to be moved in green. There's columns being removed. And we just need to know what's being done with the lighting there because lighting was being attached in that area. It seems there's no longer a building for columns to attach to. So if that green box on the bottom left is going away, we just need to know. It's now in conflict with the lighting. So the light that was here will go away and

Unfortunately, the renderings do show this element here over here. And it really should be back here.

Can you use the library on that? I can't follow.

Yeah. Can you see my cursor on the screen? Yes. OK. So there was originally a comment regarding this is where the gate is. And then there's a planter here. And this is a planter here. And the rendering, it's showing them in line with the gate. But in reality, it's proposed to be not here, but back here.

So to clarify, earlier when I talked about that, and I was told it's the same as it was in 2024, I'm not crazy. It's not the same as it was. Since I don't, yeah, I'm just clarifying. Okay.

No number. You probably understand what the final procedure ends up being with this sort of modification. all new bindings for approval? Do we need to change that condition? Do we need to edit the existing condition?

Yeah, no, it's a good question. Basically, when we've done this before, what I'd recommend here, this is a modification. We would want to review the conditions in a fashion that are they unchanged from the original approval. So looking through them, for example, and I have a couple of questions I want to ask the applicant before we leave. But for example, obviously the dating of the architectural plans or whatever are going to change, of course. But in the findings, some of the findings will change. But you look at, like, we want to talk about the Fort Lee units, but that aside, most of the stuff I looked at would stay the same. I have a couple of questions, but in general, they say the same. If they needed anything, I would say the findings remain the same as the original approval with the exception of number X. In the conditions of approval, looking through them, there was a question I had, but not really anything I saw would change to two of them. And that one was specifically about the fire gate that we had talked about already. And the second is about the light that I brought up earlier. So in my opinion, what I could see this saying is similar to what we did at Maynard Crossing, for example, whenever we amended The original approval dated blah, blah, blah, is superseded in conditions this or whatever the case is. And all other conditions not specifically amended by this action remain the same. That would be my suggestion. May I ask the applicant a question?

Mr. Chair? Do you answer Bill's question, sir? Is that unsatisfactory? I don't know. It would be a good answer.

Well, it's true, but giving another, I mean, is it effective and fair to re-examine the condition is still met. So if we said,

You know, if we do, we really want to change something that says.

Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Wiping out the old findings and putting in new findings. It's up to the board. We could go through the whole thing and do it again. To me, like I said, most of them, from my glance from them, you know, I mean, there's some, the spirit of most of these is the same. But there's, I have a couple of questions that I would want to clear up. But in general, if the board were comfortable with that, we can certainly do that. We could run through the, and when we got to the condition, we could just go through the conditions and see, does it, Is this still exactly what we want to prove? This is a major modification, as we said. So it's essentially a new permit, and the permit's open. So the board can change how it is. But I would say that the level of prudence should be exercised on it, seeing as the permit is, what, three years old or whatever. But sure, whatever's easiest for the board, I would be happy to go through it. But so we can do it either way. But the findings would circle back. You're finding that the site plan and special permit have been modified by X. And we have a special permit condition. We have a special permit condition for the DOD. And then there's some in the conditions, there are some specific site-specific conditions that the board worked on quite a bit in the last approval. The other thing that I might suggest was to maybe move everything would be we could continue with our, if there's design questions that are going to require the design reviewers present, You know, maybe we want to, we want to get everything we can with that. And if we can, but just however the board feels, you know, it's most effective.

Yeah. Can we, can we still have it?

Can it be between the adjacent building quarter and the building?

Well, yeah, over the park and stuff.

I mean, the building in front of it in the corner there has a flat roof as well. So it's just basically the same plane as that. Remember, there's a building in this corner that's covering all of this area.

That can't be said. I would like our consultants to think a little about integrating that better into the downtown.

The cabin?

Yeah.

Just to clarify, we're not So to the left, there's a roll-up gate or whatever ends up being subject to approval by the buyer chief. It's not a screening feature. It is a couple of parking spaces and then a screening feature to the back of the parking, correct?

Yes.

I'm sorry. What was the question?

My question was, just to clarify, the roll-up gate on Waltham Street, to the left of it is not a screening picture. To the left of that will be several parking spaces with a screening picture at the back, if you're looking at it from Waltham Street.

This is... rendered correctly. This is rendered correctly. This element here is actually back to this plane and has proposed landscaping in this area. So it was... So this is all landscaping in front of that area.

So there isn't a parking space there?

There's no parking spaces there. It's all, there's a walkway. There's a path, a meandering path with trees all around, bushes are all around it.

And that little green square, that's becoming more and more interesting.

Or is that creating the heart of the state like the other green patches?

I'm sorry, I'm having a little hard time hearing the question.

On a dry, big town, low-grade square.

Yes.

Is that going to be more landscaping or just hardscaping?

That... Dealers choice. It doesn't affect the parking. So that can be hardscape or

um i think that would be a mixture of both because that's going to be a continuation of the marine the walkway to it the two in the back will be green space not hard space so the one that he had his cursor in front of obviously part of the walkway is going to have to be in there and part of it will be green space uh towards the back towards the river more green space unless instead of hard space is what conservation is looking for. So if that answers your question.

And building code wise, this is a remote second means of egress. I just need to be able to either get to the parking lot or to the street either way.

Okay, so this, the updated, the updated drawings should show what the final answer is on those, hardscape versus softscape, so that we have the correct record. I would suggest that the best approach for the lighting is to simply update the lighting plan to show how we're going to handle the top left lights in the top left figure, but also the lights on PowerMill. If the building does shrink, obviously the location of those lights will probably be modified. One of the conditions was that a light fixture that will also be placed on the southwest corner of the building, which in this figure is the bottom left, And so there's also a light there. So we should just see what the new light figure is. I would suggest that the best way to do this, we'd have a light in each corner, and then lights proportionally located in the middle as needed. I think four lights in total would make a good splash here. Those changes should be included And then the walkway to the west of the building, so the pink area to the left of the building here, is that going to be a concrete walkway similar to the other walkway construction?

Yes, right right now that is how it's proposed.

If it's not a pretty good if I can see it, but it's not going to be should know that that walkways that will be on 3 similar to the other is probably walkways. Okay, I'll just plan to get the building the side on our bill is not going to be assessed as a spot as show. And obviously this is you should modify figures so that the facade is matching the sidewalk as was previous. Those are the changes that I heard from the board tonight. Was there anything else for clarity that the board would need to see?

I guess question to the planning director. Is it worth incorporating any of the conditions into the revised site plan since it's a major modification? Is that something that's done where there are other modifications? I don't think I understand.

I'm sorry. So we have quite a few conditions. Yes, that's correct.

Is it worth incorporating? Since this is the modification we're doing now, is it worth incorporating those into the site plan for clarity?

If you're going to open a site plan and it would eliminate a condition, I would say, yeah, it would be a good move. So in other words, like if there's a specific aspect of the conditions that we could eliminate a conditional approval, if they're going to open the plan anyway, the site plan. It sounds like they need to open the site plan. I think that would be the best, the most efficient for the applicant and the board, if the board agrees. And if you're making changes, let's just get it right up.

We're talking about one of Wisconsin's. Yeah, I mean, it's not big.

Instead of healing this, he needs to make sense. Well, that would be, I would recommend. And I think, I think I can't speak for the applicant, but I mean, I believe he would, if he's got to make an amendment, let's get rid of whatever we can for the conditions. I think it's just light. And what else?

Guardrails.

Oh, the guardrails.

Yeah. Yeah.

The gate?

Well, the gate, I don't know. It's not going to be .

I don't know without a gate. And that may change as time progresses towards this construction. I don't know that I would change the gate.

OK.

I like the idea of having the fire chief and if there's a problem. For sure. And then Chris can tell them. What's that? width of the gate that should be on a safe that should be on the site what they need for i have to check their previous comments because they did review this right i think they may have i don't know if i can do it right now i'll make a note to get that um

to any plans. I would suggest that condition 17. And can be and be considered and do not need to be which was present. I'm sorry, six. I'm not modifying any plans to remove conditions. So the HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, well, I think those as well. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And. HAB-Masyn Moyer- It can stick and remain as is just. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Sure.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- And. HAB-Masyn Moyer- That. back back to the uh so the board needs to understand what needs to understand about the course changes are some of the back report i listed a few items previously any other items that you would need to see for clarity understand what is being told i i just i mean not being part of the original decision and seeing the complex between the renderings and the site plan i'm just thinking the importance of

figure out what's changing the red clouds are efficient.

Yeah, I'll second the clouding. Yeah, clouding.

You know, the clouding supplies for everybody. I agree. As a matter of fact, we put that, we recommend that in our. Does that make sense, John?

There's no John involved, but.

Yes, that all makes sense. I can definitely talk to Adam and get this all clarified and cleaned up. So it'll be nice and easy to approve.

I apologize, James. Can I just need some waivers? Yeah, well, that's what I had done.

Yeah, I have two questions. We need to I have, I have a couple of questions about that. That was one. If I can speak to the applicant about that.

Yeah, let's. Okay. So I think we're good on the sort of, um, planning for bill. You can, you can ask me questions on leaders, but then let's move on to finalize tonight. Um, so you got a plan, right?

Yeah.

Um, Adam, um, And I think in the original request for minor modification, are you still proposing nine affordable units, or are you proposing to use the reduction to five units at 60% AMI? Could you clarify that for the board? Now, I remember that With a minor modification, we had to take that out because it would have made, we would have had to alter the decision. Can you clarify what you're proposing?

We do want the reduction, that's correct.

He does want the reduction.

Okay, so just to be clear, Board, that would be something else we're looking at using our 60%, our new 60% buy-off. And that would give The applicant reduction is five units at 60%.

So that the original had five units at 60%. What? The original had five units at 60%.

The original has four units. Four, yeah. Well, this was prior. This was a bylaw change we made to encourage 60%.

I really hope I'm not hearing that. This might be less than five to four units. That's what's being not very excited at all that we're no longer getting our first 60% AMI-3 better than our first two 60% AMI-2 better. Well, I think we might have to be a significant change in our consideration of findings.

So are you saying, well, the board, we just, as a board, now remember we did our breakdown originally, to be clear, We had, it was nine units with four at 60%. That was the original 80. There was five, nine units required. Five units were at 80, four units were at 60.

Do you remember the makeup of those units in terms of number of bedrooms?

We didn't get into bedrooms.

Okay.

And because this was something that the development agreement was being, it was in process at the time. Bedrooms were not. The change now for bedrooms, to be clear, was based both on market demand and on availability of services and water. We changed our bylaws last year in order to incentivize 60% units. And there is a reduction allowed or a provision of 60% units. Now, conditions have changed. And if the board doesn't feel that's what they would like, then so be it. But I think it would be no different than if the new project came in for what we'd be requiring of them. But that's up to you. But so far, that's why I wanted to clarify that one point. uh so you've heard the applicant is proposing that it's up to them where they do it the second question i had uh i want to make sure uh we're still the waivers i think were for to allow a reduction in 40 parking spaces i believe um is that waiver is that still what you're proposing in 40 parking spaces

Yeah, the parking requirements should stay the same, that we're going to need the same waiver to keep the same parts that we have.

So that waiver would remain. And what was the other waiver? Oh, yeah.

Well, then this goes back to the provision

The waiver was for the 1,500 square feet of lot area for the density bonus. Now, I mentioned, remember, while it's true, there is a density bonus being issued. The board is discretionary on the board's point. However, if the board goes by The request is to use our 60% AMI. Right now, the current breakdown is nine units, and they are four at 60% AMI and five at 80%. So if the board wants to keep that, that's their prerogative. The applicant's requesting is 60%. So I think... The applicant is requesting 5 and 60%. That's my understanding. That's why I just want to clarify. Correct, Adam? Yes. 5 and 60%.

Yes.

And the previous was, so we're losing, we're gaining a 60% unit, but we're losing 4 and 80%.

At some point, can you confirm on the applicant's experience with units?

On what? 36 units?

Yeah. You can cross the sides and stuff.

Okay. I don't know what you're saying about that.

You don't have that in front of you. Yeah, I have to work that out. Great.

So we're totally going to count sales at 36. Right. And reuse the research. One thing I will note is that at the time of the decision, there was a requirement for nine Tennessee college students.

I honestly can't remember how we worked out the AMI that I don't remember. So I'm just reading and screening. Yeah, what we decided on.

The area number one here is that, has that, that yet has met the requirements for density of orange units by provision of nine and four weeks.

Right. I don't remember how the six, we didn't have a six percent requirement then. I don't know how that came. I can't remember.

I understand that. So what I believe what occurred is that the second permit There was a voluntary element here to have some units be at 16 units, right? So that was part of me expecting. Yeah. So we just got to go through this because to then remove, to go down to five units, it's not just a change in calculation. It's changing how the spectrum is determined. Yeah. would justify.

No, it would change it would 60% units were bonds. Right. Right. We didn't have it. That's correct.

We didn't but we didn't have the provision in the zoning bylaws which have been updated.

Right. So we're this a new we're this a new project the board had never seen. I agree with that.

What I'm saying is that it helps meet the special permit criteria by Providing. Absolutely right this isn't it's not quite so correct. So we're actually going to be changing what was presented. Yeah, and that would not.

And that would for the that would affect waiver number one as well as yes, that way or wouldn't be.

Okay, so those are the waivers. You could speak with the applicant offline about that. Make sure that the math is correct and all this. About the waivers? Yeah. Yeah. Just make sure that it's all correct. I will speak with the applicant as soon as he's available tomorrow. Yeah. And so we have what the board advises to update on site, the plan changes.

And this is, the plan here is what the board would like to see updated, correct? To the package. The package is this one. Right. That's, yes, what's being presented. James, you're clear with that, right?

Yes. Yeah, I'll go over with Adam and we'll adjust everything that needs to be adjusted.

And it sounds like that whatever zoning changes that happened in the last two and a half years now apply to this. Because we should check all that stuff to make sure that it's new. I don't remember if it had it or not. This is a modification. So I don't know that it would be to anybody's advantage to

depending on i guess depending on some boards describing but it is modification of the attention keeping things is similar to what the board approved a few years ago but i could run through them again for sure and look at anything that was wearing like that but i i Well, no, I would say that because what we're saying, if you remember when we're talking about what I would do to modify this permit would be, you know, the planning board is modifying the original decision dated such and such, specifically in this area, this area, and this area, rather than just say, and all other conditions not affected by this still apply. And that's how we did it. The only way we've really done a lot of these is made across. And that way, keeping it the same, it simplifies it. And if it's beneficial, then the board can change it and use it. And in the case of a modification like the 60%, if it works, it's the board's discretion. But, I mean, if we went through the whole zoning code, and I don't know that we'd find anything specifically, but we might. But in this case, it's reduced parking already in the DOD. It meets the DOD reduced parking goals. But I can certainly give it another look, as you asked for.

I'm happy to note everything. your project, meaning if we're going to apply for the affordable housing compilation.

Well, it's an optional application. So it's like, are you going to, do you want to just, what was approved before? If you're keeping it and adjusting A, B, and C, do you want to adjust C, B, and F? I would, I would, I guess I will go to

I'd have to think about it a lot. We started mixing and matching things that were previously approved versus what is a new zone.

I see. And then, of course, if that was the case, then the applicant could just stay with his nine units as they were approved.

I think it would be very complicated if we started going through and figuring out what's the same, what's different, what was the condition, what wasn't, what is, what should be.

Maybe. Maybe not, depending on that. think some of it could be but some of it could be need to be complicated i i don't think but depending on the issue you're right um and like i said the the atmosphere of what he has you know that's what he wants all right yeah about this um and one other comment if i could make mr chair i asked uh so silver speed uh has steve stoner's going to come in tonight um just to give you a base animated board of action a couple times update on um the development agreement so we didn't have to yank them back uh next time um are there any questions specifically i think you've seen that the outline is more or less the same as the previous draft the board will have an opportunity

to approve this and sign it then and it's just a select board but today questions are not part of this decision everything can you just explain what the da is for what it covers and what's the sash give the background generally

Yeah, the DA is anytime the board grants a permit under downtown overlay reduced lot area requirement development agreement is essentially a private agreement between the town and the developer. Purpose of it is to ensure that everything from mitigation to any Negotiated items remain as part of the agreement are enforceable by a civil option as opposed to just land. It's not a it's not a zoning. So it's a separate agreement. That's why it's done separate. It's a requirement by the zoning bylaws to have it for when we use reduction. Typically, when there's a reduction in lot area, it's a give and take. So whatever's given, you want to make sure it's memorialized. What's typically found in it, we've been trying to scale them back somewhat because they're not, you know, we've had some really long developments and it's just asking for stuff to get missed, actually. But typically what we would put in there was any specific mitigation, specifics about a, a requirement. So, for example, in this case, if there is anything pertinent that's site-specific or in any sort of other mitigation that may be called out, it would be a memorialized net. Something like our open space requirement, this is also uh necessary under our uh violence uh that's something we call out already in the decision so that wouldn't be it typically because it's this number that we've revived that it's very simple so that's the gist of it so it's basically a private agreement between the town and the uh applicant and it's uh it's different and that's for a similar agreement um And so Steve had this skeleton of one that Megan had been working on at the time. And it's basically more or less the same. It's different now.

I don't know if it's the more seen previous graphs of it or if you've never seen one since.

I mean, I've seen a graph of a TA, but not.

Oh, just a TA in general. Well, the previous round of So the intention was to make it more simple than it had been in 2020. So a bit of context. The applicant in 2024 had engaged with the town and discussing some specific improvements that could be made at the intersection of Waltham and Park. And in discussion with the director of public works and planning director and myself, we had really been considering that applicant himself would do the construction uh improvements to that intersection things have changed you know rising cost of materials app and desire to engage in work other than work to be done on the site has changed so we figured that to make it simple we would just go to the planning board rules and regulations and ask for a monetary contribution against which is quantified in your rules and regs, basically stipulates that each additional unit is worth $9,800, includes an inflation factor of 2%, so $9,800 is indexed to FY21 or FY27. We increased the $9,800 to its appropriate amount. multiply it by the 20 units, we've arrived at a number which is 220,000. So essentially that amount will be given to us, the town, and with that money we'll make improvements to open space, specifically that intersection and continuity between the leaves to give people access to main or extreme spaces from Waltham and into downtown, et cetera.

That was what we had discovered previously. Sounded what?

Open space.

Yeah, so we're not, as far as I understand, we're not opening any modificated discussion of the VA through this modificated request.

And I

It factors into my findings, but benefits to the town when you have to do this kind of compartment.

We're not being asked to modify any of that. We're just being asked to modify what was being discussed for some of the cycling conditions. So from my point of view, any changes to what was proposed prior is not up for discussion.

That's my understanding. Did I miss something? But I disagree because the development agreement is part of the requirement that we've chosen to take in post-approval when we're really supposed to be approved. And currently, we're discussing permanent approval. So I still think it's important. It's such a radical change that we've apparently decided.

All I'm saying is that I don't agree with that. It's a change.

It's we've done both. It's there's advantages to both but

I mean, the reality is that the approval requires a development agreement before the permit is valid. And so that's pretty much as direct as it can be. But in this case, you know, The complications from this project are clear. Everybody knows what's been going on with it. And the difficulties in trying to improve this intersection have been... And it's always been able to happen for 20 years. It's a big undertaking. But the development agreement is something that is required by the bylaws. But I don't think it's a question of evading it. It's a question of sequencing it. and um if the board doesn't like it they don't sign on um however it's your choice you know you can do it however you want but i i would say and right now um you know we have a uh an opportunity to improve this corner significantly and the development agreement can do that and it needs to be negotiated it needs some time to do it fine if the board you know feel circumstances have changed since their last approval. But I think the only reason I brought Stephen was not to open it and not to give any sort of sense of opening. It was to give some transparency that here's what the story is right now. Also, I would point out that the board has, in the past, typically worked with, you know, worked with the development agreement, at least one member or something like that, to get it.

So far as significant change from what was before, that's something that I... Well, to clarify, you categorized it as if the circumstances have changed, then the board wants to change their mind about what's appropriate.

Yes.

In terms of the development agreement, they're changing. That's what's changing.

Well, there are other terms, because it wasn't executed.

intent of the development agreement as we understood it. Okay.

How's that? What particular?

Well, if the funds are being given to specifically improve that intersection, then that's different than the funds being given to generally improve that create experience. Oh, yeah. Oh, yes.

Yeah, I'm I can't speak to

I know.

Right, right. But I understand.

And I still want to speak to the legal class to see if that needs to be stipulated in the development program, which I don't think it does. It doesn't really concern the applicant.

For sure. To be clear to the applicant right now, I guess this is maybe an internal conversation. I just want to make sure that if the intent of the quiz, the project, or that intersection, that's what I think can happen. And we have struggled with this in the past. So if there's a way to make it actually happen, that would be great. And I don't think saying improvement of pedestrian experience is a good basis for the debate, but maybe we can figure something out.

The special permit application says clearly that the project will provide pedestrian-enhancing signals. The process will be handed in front for the wall-enhancing carbon monocoque intersection. the stuff that plans were provided that would accomplish that right so so that's that's the bar and if that needs to be changed um so um all that said i think obviously we need to find a continuing state um uh adam and james uh we have Let's see, we have meetings in the second and fourth Tuesday of September, which I believe is September 8th, and the following two weeks after that. So that'd be September 8th and the 22nd. Those are for the upcoming meetings. Do you have a sense of when you may be able to finish off the changes discussed tonight?

Yeah, we'll be ready for September 8th, for sure.

I just want to clarify that, and I'll confer with Adam, that the lighting plans and the other plans, are we just noting or are we having them re-engineered?

In my opinion, you just need to see a plan that shows accurate lighting conditions you know, shows everything and we will actually be able to accurately know what it's going to look like.

Yep.

Well, it allows us to show what's changing.

At the end of the day, we didn't plan on a market of this kind.

I guess this site is either the right building, the right light location to say, this is what's changing. I don't know if I need to go to the cloud.

So you guys have to go out and decide if you need to plan or maybe it's unclear with the cloud and what the total changes are. And either one of the board will review it.

We'll make it clear for you.

All right. Now, you said September 8th. Just be aware that's two weeks from tonight. So then we would need to see something in about a week.

Yes.

So that stat has kind of reviewed. So we need to see submittals by September 1st.

September 3rd?

Well, September 1st is Tuesday. We need a week, typically.

Okay, so the 1st. Okay.

Right. So is that still your final answer, September 8th?

Yes.

Right. I'll make a motion to continue. Oh, sorry. I'll open it up for public comment. So can you check online if there's anyone online that would like to make a public comment for tonight? I'm noting that there are no folks standing to follow up on here. We will do then go to online. If anyone there's a comment to be entered, please raise your hand feature or raise your hand. And Bill, I'm not seeing any hands being raised online either for public comment. Is that correct?

No, I don't have any.

All right. Then I'll make a motion to continue to September 8th at 7 p.m.

Thank you.

That's seconded. All in favor for the continuance, please raise your hand. That's 5-0 to continue to September 8th. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in. Amy, don't waste your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Fred. Thank you.

Okay. Let's turn to the right one.

Yeah, that one set from August 11th. Very long. They're modest.

I thought we were done before. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

Well, I believe that on our next

I planned on bringing our, I'm going to pull a little more, I believe, for our zoning based on some recent changes. So I'll explain that next week at our next meeting. But in a nutshell, it's our data center. We're going to have a big man of it. I think it needs more reworking.

I spoke to Bill about this. I think it's important to be thoughtful during the time around because I'm sure I asked. Right.

And the other things we have, we're finalizing the ADA update. I think Friday is supposed to be the last visit. That would be good. And I think I'm missing anything else. We have new benches going in, thanks to Steve, on the rail trail, which were, has to be able to, to have to be approved. Oh, right, okay. He's got the, they're going to town meeting, this town meeting, to be approved by CPC, a CPC budget.

So we're, we're, from that Appleton border to, Um, the corner with Brooks and Maple, it's like three sites, probably along the same lines as the, the mile.

Great. So for both of you, that's good. Yeah.

And that's not nice to me. That's thanks to resident Dave Brown, who advocated for it. And the CPC, there was some sort of fit to prove it.

That was in the mobility survey, right? So for sure. Any more mentions? Great. Thank you.

That's right.

Well, they're going out to inspect the area on Friday. That's what we did. The other thing, which does include Mr. Panza, which was good. We are going to talk. I talked to the Affordable Housing Trust chair today. And so we would like to reiterate that we would like to see if we can work with the A.H.T., the Affordable Housing Trust, on implementing, we'll see some of the new initiatives that come out of the housing production plan update. So maybe, because we're limited in what we can do now with the water and stuff. So we agreed that a closer collaboration with our groups would be beneficial and could come up with some innovative strategies on a very small scale. But using, there's some budgets of funding available and maybe come up with something that works for forwarding affordable housing. So I thought that was really exciting. And I think that's everything I got. Zoe's going to attend our next planning board meeting. I've asked her to handle the zoning articles to keep trying to get her some experience with that and stuff. So I'm going to have her When we next and next meeting, I'm going to have Zoe run the zoning part. Anyway, the zoning market is part of the project.

And I think that's all I got.

Do we have a question? Yeah. Yeah. Chris, you can meet with Zoe on that right now.

I mean, or you're going to, you have the. I'm meeting with Zoe about best stuff. Right. And then the, but the, you're talking about the expedited or the, what do you call it? Consolidated permitting for energy systems. Yeah. We're in the middle of that now. Yeah. We have a grant for that. That's great.

Come on, man. Oh, yeah, that's in that on Wayne.

Still, they're not gonna have it until the spring. Okay, so we're not we're not going to be really known.

And I'm getting No. No, no. Oh, Eric.

16 Walton Street.

Yeah.

Who's working on that? Is it the five of us? Is Mark involved? Who's going to be involved? Who's going to have all the meetings?

I have to check my minutes. If anybody has anybody 16 Walton has we've had we had Yeah, two here.

Two meetings. I don't think they're continuous. No, but what did we do so long? Well, yeah, or if in doubt, we mow and whoever's not in there, watch the movie.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- You know it's not funny. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The video all right. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The talking picture. HAB-Masyn Moyer- it's not right.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- With a question instead of a neighbor and powder mill and raise about this building. HAB-Masyn Moyer- yeah I think we talked about that. HAB-Masyn Moyer- But. HAB-Masyn Moyer- We can we closed or we knew the hearing, so we can't really talk about. HAB-Masyn Moyer- In power, you can talk about it again.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Again can talk to cities, but I can say, in general, playing playing board members can review the comments. HAB-Masyn Moyer- roll it into their consideration, I like oh.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- i'll be happy to talk to you right. HAB-Masyn Moyer- We told her. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Soon.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- i'll ask you anything. HAB-Masyn Moyer- about. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Public comments or oral public comments. Those can be provided as well, but we're going to do and plan board members. I personally, I typically don't. Anyway, we just we just hear comments. I don't make it forward.

It's up to them. And that is everything we have, folks.

Okay. I'll make a motion to close the meeting.

Second. I'll make a motion to close the meeting. 5-0 to close. Note the timings. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Good minutes.