Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thanks. Sorry, everyone. I think we had trouble here at town hall. Jim, can you give us a, you can hear us?

Yep, hear back.

Great. I'll just start where we left off.

Sure.

A question anymore? Are we still on?

Yes.

Hey, Jim, can you give me an audio check?

I think we may have had a power issue. I just heard a UPS device go off.

Yeah, everything looks frozen.

All right, can we get another audio check, please?

I can hear you, yeah. We're having power surges here at Town Hall. At least it's not a water issue here this week. So what I've taken from this meeting, Jim, is some changes to the parking canopy area, as we discussed. Was there any other changes requested from the board? And then the walkway at the end of the powder mill walkway within the garage right as it changed the update the so that the. Sorry, I think we're still having issues here guys. Um Jim to the two changes I'm tracking are the canopy design feature and the walkway that so that it doesn't terminate into a dead end into a parking spot under under the building.

Okay. Have continued upon.

Or as as a contingency for the.

I think we have. Would the board be okay with a. Update to the canopy design being approved by.

Somebody freaking away.

We would need to see a design change in that, I think. OK. Other comments from the board? Do you have a development agreement question?

Well, I mean,

I am watching. I got two.

I'm good. I got mine. You're good.

Okay. Do you want to try? It's a better story.

I also don't know how to do it.

All right.

Very good.

It's pretty weird. It's silly. It's pretty killer.

It's very good. It's very good. Yes. It's very good. No, that seems, if it's small.

I will open up this meeting of the Maynard Planning Board. Today's date is September 8th, 2026. The time is 7.02 p.m. All members of the planning board are here in town hall. This meeting is being held in hybrid format, which means that members of the board, the public, or applicants can participate here in town hall or virtually through the Zoom link Please note this meeting is being recorded. Bill, we'll skip item one minutes. Okay. Were you anticipating going right to item two, 16 Waltham Street?

I'm sorry?

We can go to item two, 16 Waltham Street.

Okay, we can do that.

Before I open up the continuance, is the applicant here or virtually?

Yes, Mr. Clemmons is here and- Okay.

All right, then I will open up the continuance. open up the public hearing for 16 Waltham Street. This is a continuance from August 25th, 2026. This is an application filed by Mr. Daniel Souza and counsel. Bill, do you want to give us a primer? And then we'll turn it over to the applicant's team.

Just picking up from the previous meeting or going further back than that?

Just where we're at.

Oh, OK.

The status since the last meeting.

Yes. So there were some questions remaining at the last meeting about particular details of the site, including parking and snow storage. Some modifications were requested of the applicant to show an updated plan. And the applicant has provided an updated site plan. which changed the parking configuration as a snow storage area. I'll pull that up on the screen. Let me share the screen for the benefit.

I'd like to zoom this video. So.

The modified site plan now includes three angled parking spaces on the right side of the site, two tandem spaces remaining, and one space on the other side of the retaining wall. And there's no storage area in the frontmost area of the parking, of the angled parking, next to the other long retaining wall. At this point, would you like to turn it over to the applicant's counsel?

If there's no other updates from your bill, then yes.

We made the trip over. We did make a trip over and I just sent you some photographs, some additional photographs. Just to kind of add some perspective to the space.

I'll turn this over to the applicant's counsel. And just a reminder, if you could identify yourself for the record, please.

Absolutely good evening planning board. My name is Ryan Clemens of at 255 state street in Boston here tonight on behalf of Daniel Sousa, the owner of 16 wall street. And as was just summarized, we previously presented our application for special permit and site plan to the board. After hearing comments back about the configuration of the parking and other details, we've since updated the site plan to show the six parking spaces, the lighting, the trash and recycling storage, and the snow storage as well. I want to note too that the two tandem spots in the driveway is how the parking currently works at the property. and that the owner, Daniel Souza, uses those two spots himself, so there is no coordination across units or difficulties with the logistics of that configuration. He plans to keep those two spaces for his own use as well, and then the other tenants have the ease of the easier spots. We're having some trouble with your audio.

Your audio is dropping out a little bit. Mr. Clemons, can you just back up about 15 seconds and repeat it? We had some trouble with your audio.

Sure. I'm hearing a bit of static on my end, but sometimes when I talk it goes down. Hopefully you can hear me now. the board's comments address and have to answer any more questions tonight. Looking to close out the application for the respectful permit and the site plan review. Thank you.

Questions from the board?

The parking dimensions aren't For the zoning requirements, do they have to request a waiver or in that case ?

I don't know.

What you could do for the, you said for the reduced parking dimension? Yes. Yeah, the planning board, in this case, they're going to be granting a special permit if they choose to for multifamily and approving the site plan amendments dated as whatever. As a special permit granting authority, the planning board can approve for parking specifically under the parking section of zoning bylaws. So that would be a special permit allowing a deviation from the zoning bylaws.

So Bill's question was whether the site plan, since it shows the dimensions, do not meet the parking requirements, is it implicit in the site plan, or do we actually have an actual waiver that gets voted on?

I would quickly note that the parking dimensions do comply with the bylaw. They're the compact small space dimensions, and there is nothing in the bylaw that prevents that for this site, for this number of parking spaces, or for this use.

All right, Mr. Clements, I'm just curious. I want to make sure, because if not, I'd request a special permit waiver. But is it, are the small, I've got to pull it up in front of me. I thought there was a, it's only triggered after a certain number of units. I could be wrong. Let me look real quick.

John Gerstle, yeah we're out in the at the four units and the other requirements for the split between the. John Gerstle, The compact spaces and the regular are for. John Gerstle, Other uses that aren't the residential use here.

I said.

Okay. While Bill looks into that, what other questions from the board?

Just a general comment of, you know, there's not a lot of maneuverability in the site, so I'd like to do what we can to protect the sidewalk. Maybe a little fence railing or I think earlier Bill Nemzer had thrown out the idea of putting plantings there in pots. Something that would protect the sidewalk from cars trying to maneuver out of these tight spaces.

On the non-curb cut side of the property?

Yeah, right. Yeah, I mean the curb cut, whatever, the 24 feet for the curb cut and then the rest of it has

Mr. Clemens, did you hear that comment? And is that something that could be amenable to the applicant?

That could be amenable to the applicant. I just want to note too that these parking spaces are designed with the turnaround angles and radiuses prescribed by the bylaw. And I want to note too that the sidewalk is shown between the blue line and the black line. So there's... even with the spot number six which is closest to the sidewalk there they would have full visibility of this block for passing other questions or comments from the board um we're

I can't seem to find the lights located on this figure just at the doors.

Sure, so the lights are indicated in that kind of greenish. There's 1 who were on the right 1 to slightly left of that and then. of the middle door and two above the garage.

Got it. Three, four, five. Got it. Okay.

Thank you.

Bill, did you happen to find an answer to that parking question?

Yes. I think that I'm not sure of Mr. Clements. I understand that I'm reading it a little differently. but that it's parking facilities for where there's a greater number than 40 stalls. That was my understanding. It's section 6.9, Mr. Clements. And I believe that the easiest way to address this would be just wrap it into the special permit and approve the parking as depicted in Exhibit A, which would be the revised site plan. It just makes it tidy. Now, does that make sense to you, Mr. Clemmons?

It does. And if the board's available to that, whatever's easiest is best for us as well.

I don't know if you saw what I'm talking about, but I believe that that's the way I read it. And that was my understanding for compact cars.

but um our our reading was that um this is a residential use and parking facility doesn't fall within that it's a um a parking it's not for uh commercial use or a large public parking lot uh so there's no specific requirement between the um the small and the standard other than um the bylaws general, they shall be the size, the sizes, which the bylaw has the two.

Okay, well, that's just, you know, but I think the tidiest way to do it is we're trying to bring this, you know, the app has been working hard enough to get to get, make this compliant. I think that would just tidy it up in the easiest way, Mr. Chair, that would be my suggestion. And the way I would be inclined to do that would be that the planning board grants, approves the parking plan as presented in the applicant's site plan dated such and such, and we'll attach it as exhibit one in the special permit. I think it's just, that would be my suggestion. And if Mr. Pons is good with that, then I would say that would be.

I plan to reference the site plan in the special permit. And yeah, that makes sense.

And I just want to confirm, I think the applicant said that the mentions are such that it does not require backing out onto Waltham Street to exit the lot.

I believe so. Looking at the plan, that sixth spot would be the closest to the street. You can see that this would be able to back out and go parallel to the street by the driveway to the garage, at which point it can turn out slightly and see the full street without having to pull into the sidewalk or the road at that point.

Okay. I'm just making sure that

know from a potential approval of the site plan we're not approving backing out onto waltham street no i don't think the um none of the spots have that challenge or that difficulty there would be enough any of them would have enough room to either on the first try back out to have a view and the access to just drive straight or to um to reorient themselves to not have to back into the street OK. And I believe, oh no, sorry, different box.

Does the board want to request some type of device to protect the sidewalk, as mentioned earlier?

Bill, what were you thinking?

I thought some planters. I thought some small planners would serve two purposes. It would protect the sidewalk, but it also softens the view a little bit. And I think if the applicant was willing, on their property, not a town property, I think there's room there and I think that would be a good mitigation and it would look nice. It could be something that the board could, if they wanted to look at it after one of the board could be designated to approve. A good planner would look nice in that area.

Would you mind? I think it also would help define the snow storage. That's a good point, too. That's a good point, too.

That was my question to this comment on the planners. In the same... same consideration of not backing out onto the street and having enough room to turn around as well as access to the snow storage area um also from the uh that wouldn't that wouldn't impede where the snow was going to go and where cars and where uh uh pedestrians would go where on the plan were you thinking those would go well just in in the um

Zoe, could you pull it up, please? And just on the little doodle I sent you guys, it was just basically where the snow storage is. I just proposed some planters to the...

If you share that screen, Zoe, I can describe it. I think the thought is to place a planter or two immediately below the phrase snow storage area along the sidewalk. As we know, the curbs in that area are just pretty low. So I think a differentiation between the sidewalk and the parking lot would be useful. And so if there were just a planter that could be moved when necessary, you know, if you were doing some work, but that would remain there to delineate the property line would might be useful.

I would also have a planter that extends the length of the sidewalk up to the curb cut. You can see the curb there. That curb cut's offset from the sidewalk. It's a little farther up than that too. I don't think it'd be a solid line, just three or four maybe.

speak as a mitigation I think it would improve the pedestrian experience when it comes to the dimensions of the parking spaces I don't have any concerns Bill how do we close this hearing with this concept what we would do would be there's a number of people on

on the Zoom that might want to speak. I don't know of anybody in here. So if anybody, I don't know if anybody here is for this project.

I will open up for public comment in a minute. But how do we close this hearing with this concept of planters?

Well, we just added this .. Just a condition? And I would say that .. I was saying one of the board to approve it back if they wanted to look at it or staff.

Yeah.

I would say town staff on this one. I think it's completely appropriate. So Mr. Clemmons, the condition that would be proposed by the board would be to add planters as discussed as a condition and then approved in the field by town staff. Do you have any concern about that?

As long as the planners don't interfere with the use of the driveway for safe ingress and egress and for snow storage.

I think both of those can be maintained. And I think that is the concept here, right? So egress... shall not be impeded, snow storage may be used, and the addition of some type of small planting to distinguish and delineate that area as a condition. Any other comments from the board? Bill, let's open up to public comment. If there's members of the public that would like to comment on this project virtually, if you're on the Zoom call, please use the raise hand feature or raise your hand and we will call on you. And Bill, I don't believe there's any members of the public here to give public comment in town hall. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. I'm not seeing any public comments on the Zoom. Is that correct, Bill?

I don't see anybody. Last chance, would you raise your hand, please? Use the raise hand feature if you'd like to speak.

All right. Before I close, Mr. Clemmons, is there any additional information that you or the applicant would like to present to the board this time?

I believe we've covered every update since the last meeting and since our initial presentation. And if the board doesn't have any other questions, we're set to. Board?

No.

Nope.

All right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Second. All in favor to close the hearing, please raise your hand. That's 5-0 to close the hearing bill. The request here, so I'm clear, is a special permit and site plan review, correct?

Mr. Chair, the request is for the special permit for multi-family use in the DRD, but for a modification of the previously approved site plan dated July 7, 1987. OK.

So it's a modification of site plan and a special permit for a forward unit residential.

Multifamily use.

Multifamily use.

Is that a DOD special permit?

Yes.

All right. I'm going to try to make a motion. I will make a motion to... Let's see. I make a motion to find that the... but the applicant's presentation and application presented during the hearing has met the requirements of a special permit for the downtown overlay district for a four-unit multi-family use as well as a modification of a site plan dated from july 7 1987 updated to the site plan presented in this public hearing including tonight which is dated I have June 3rd 2026 but there I believe there's an updated date on that there it is yep with revision of September 2nd 2026 presented tonight labeled the concept plan of land including in this motion is a condition for planters that were discussed along the property boundary adjacent to the sidewalk within the snow storage area to distinguish the sidewalk from from the egress itself is there a Waiver any other special permits?

I would say the approved special permit approves the site plan by reference and as an exhibit.

And the special permit also approves the site plan as its first exhibit.

Do we have to say that it meets the conditions of the 10.4 special permit as well? Or just the DOD special permit? I don't know.

Bill? It should include them.

OK. So the motion was that it met the special permit criteria of the downtown overlay district, which is 9.4. This motion also will find that the special permit meets the criteria of the general special permit criteria of section 10.4 of our zoning bylaws. And that is the motion.

I'll second that.

All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. That's 5-0 to approve. Mr. Clemmons, thank you for your time. And thank you to your applicant.

Thank you all very much.

OK. All right, Bill. Item three, let's continue the public hearing for 2-6 Powder Mill Road. This is a continuance from August 25th, 2026. This is a request for modification of a special permit and site plan from Adam Stack, ASMC, LLC. And this is a continuance of the discussion from our last meeting. Bill, do you want to? give us an update, and then we'll turn it over. I believe we had some design comments to work through.

Yes, we have.

So we'll turn it over to the design group, the design teams, after your comments.

So at our last meeting, we worked our way through a number of the design changes, which were There is a couple of aspects regarding the location of lighting and a couple of modifications regarding the, or clarifications regarding the entrance on Powder Mill, where there is a question of a recess being added to the entrance to the structure. The applicant has provided an updated site plan. The site plan provided last week didn't have the clouding that the board had asked for. It caused a little bit of delay. But we do have that, I believe, here. Even everything clouded, changes clouded. Reviewing, before we turn it over to the applicant, just to refresh the board, this is a modification assisting site plan special permit that was It's centered on building design, largely. So there is no change to the footprint. Any changes that are highlighted, I'll leave to the architect and the applicant to explain. The only other addition that the board requested was clarification also on the bike rack area, which is called out as well now. It's in the same, basically, area. With that, We also did speak to the fire department. I did speak to that. But in general, everything would remain the same as the original approval with that, which for the role of design, the builder would work with the fire chief on the specifics. The dimensions are, we can speak to that, but they're adequate for the ambulance. The ladder truck is, I think the fire chief's comment addressed that. It's not proposed to go in the building for it. And with that, I think I turn it over to the applicant, James.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Jim Jouzakis, architect with Jouzakis Architecture Incorporated. I just want to go over exactly what the chairman had mentioned. Share screen, I think that's the easiest. I'm going to send a request to share screen. Okay. Thank you. And see. So. As mentioned. The clouded area is shown on the site plans showing the bike rack here. We also. In the rendering you see the bike rack here as well. Regarding. Sure, this is Waltham St. Oh, is it not shared?

We're still on the clouded drawing. It's clouded.

Here we go. Thank you. So the bike rack here. All right. Also in this rendering, you'll see that the rendering has been adjusted to show the proper location of this screening element here in line with the face of the building here.

Just gonna flip to another

back to this drawing here. So just a little. So these are the proposed screening area and the two columns that are proposed to be removed. Slip back to the proposed face of the new building. shown here, the new privacy screen location. The next item is that since this column right here is being removed.

Loretta here and I've got a bet riding on this.

The column here is gone, so therefore there is no light. So there's no light to mount on the column, so the light is being removed. So we just wanted to make sure that was well noted. Also that the other two lights underneath the proposed walkway as shown here, they're the same lights as underneath the parking as the original approved lights, which all lights shall be in accordance with the dark sky compliance. Line item four for us, it's also where the calls remote, let's see, five, I don't know, And we just wanted to also make sure that the building facade facing Outermill Road will be set back just enough so that all the elements of the building are on the correct side of the setbacks. So there'll be no elements of the building including roof overhangs, front entrances, any bump outs, including the foundations underground, shall all be back within the setback of the front, as well as all the other sides. But the other sides, there's really no issues. But that, just to clarify, will be all set back from this front line. So no parts of the building shall go beyond any setbacks. Go back to the renderings. So this element up here as recommended to be similar to other buildings in town to show the cornices and the extensions to give a better traditional detail. The hardscape and landscape elements have also been updated on the civil drawings. So basically the clouded area is showing where there's alterations to the proposed landscaping. So hardscape, landscape elements, which is basically minimal. It was just the removal of columns in those areas.

Can you zoom in on the landscape change? I don't seem to have a hard copy to look at. Sure.

Let me just...

I don't know. I got the... I got my notes and pages.

So the pervious paved sidewalk and the public access, all these elements were already on the original 2024 set.

And let's see, does this show anymore?

Basically the same, it's just...

So on the entranceway from Waltham Street we don't gain any landscaping by moving that column back?

It was originally shown as just a paved patio area and we're still showing as a pervious paver patio area. So picnics and picnic tables, benches, a great place to hang out, you know, along Riverside.

Any other changes, Jim, that you need to highlight?

Sure, I guess. Let's see. The Waltham Street gate. Let's see. Back to the renderings. This screen. This gate here is to stop. Be continuously closed. and to prevent people from coming in and out off of Waltham Street. But in the need, the fire chief or any emergency apparatus can just easily get through this. And it'll be a breakable link that, you know, if they really needed to get in quick, they can just bump it with the bumper and get in or just stop and cut it and get in. Let's see, there was talk about the affordable units and a proposal to alter that, but there is none at this point. It will stay with the original nine units with five units at 80% AMI and four of the units being 60% AMI. And that's all for the original approvals. The other item is that since, and I believe that Bill, the chairman researched this as well, and the only real change that would affect this building from the 2024 approval and actually permitted set in 2026 would be the dark sky compliance with the lighting and all lights will exterior light shall be in accordance with the dark sky compliance. The other item is that this, once again, this gate and the entrance off of Wall Dam Street and the rest of it. According to the building code, you're required to at least provide a height of 8'2", to provide ambulatory vans such as handicapped wheelchair accessible vans to allow them to open up their the backs and the fronts and any pieces to get in and out properly but fire departments tend to have bigger pieces of equipment and we're obviously going to make any adjustments to the height requirements if the chief wants us to do so it helps make sure that this building is accessible by any emergency equipment and it also allows them to purchase pieces of equipment of certain heights and it doesn't pigeonhole them into staying within a certain height restriction to service all the buildings in town so I believe right now they have a 12 foot ladder truck and a nine and a half foot emergency ambulance. So it would be a discussion that we definitely would have with them and make sure that everything conforms to what they want. The last item. Actually, it's already been addressed. It was just the overhangs of the roof, making sure that they're set back. I'd be happy to address any other concerns or any other questions.

Thanks, Jim. Amy, I believe you joined this meeting. Are you on?

Yes, I am.

Hi, Amy. Thanks for joining. um i just wanted to get your final sense if you had any final feedback about the project for the board and particularly if there's anything that from your review would remain sort of loosely non-compliant with our bylaws as you reviewed them we issued a letter yesterday apologies for the delay on this um we had

Two comments. One James already addressed, which he mentioned everything from that front entry area would be pulled back behind the property line. We had noticed that that front three stories was probably still overhanging the property line even when the canopy was deleted. So I think as long as they push the building back, which I'm sure they will do. Um, they'll be in compliance with that. There was a second comment that we made on the letter. Um, and we had missed this in the first review, um, because we noticed that that facade was looking and measured in blue beam. James, it was about 136 feet long. The bylaws require, um, I think it's a 3% change in depth for every 100 feet, or that's one of the recommended strategies that you could do to mitigate the length for longer facades that are highly visible from the public way. Because there's not a lot of landscaping in front of us, there's some landscape screening in front of the transformer, which is that lower right rectangle. If you look at the lower right rendering, but that's not gonna be enough to screen the facade. So we would... We would recommend doing something. I played around in chat GPT. I hate to do this to you, James, but you could break up the facade. I don't think you need to set it back a lot, but you could break it up with like three vertical divisions of the building with a slight recess that might help just mitigate some of the horizontal Length of the building and that would be a simple solution and happy to share the image if it's helpful you guys you don't need to take it. But I was just trying to think through some some easier solutions without changing the building footprint at this point because I don't think a four foot setback is realistic for the applicant and it's really I would say this is up to the planning board if this warrants a. a change in the design on the elevation because of the longer elevation on your bylaws.

Can I ask a clarifying question? Amy, is this something that should have been reviewed during the original hearings? And I ask it in the context of did any of the proposed changes the applicant make trigger you know, this being an item for discussion?

I think the previous design, I'm trying to remember it exactly, it had a number of material changes, you know, whether you define those as being integral with the building. And so there was a number of material changes along this facade that went from brick to fiber cement, large format panels. And that did help break up the scale. Now with everything at brick, with these long horizontal bands, you notice the length more, which is why we noticed it in this last review. I would say this is up to the planning board's discretion if you want to do anything on this.

Thanks, Amy. Jim, do you have any, I know it's short notice, but do you have any thoughts on that?

We'd be amenable to anything that the board suggests as long as it doesn't

know yeah further us into another whole round of design and discussions and so um let me do this first does the board understand um any questions about what's being discussed at this moment it's 136 and how long is it supposed to be if we're going to break it up

100 feet. So you're 36 feet over. And I noted in my comments, there's quite a few examples in downtown Maynard where you've got, and really Maynard, where you have longer facades.

I don't care.

The board can think about it for a moment. Let's table that, and let's go to board questions then. Does the board have any questions or comments for the applicant?

Related to the topic that they were discussing, moving the building back a little bit so the cornice doesn't overhang right away, how does that show up on the plans that get approved?

Sure, I guess. Really, right now, we're just showing a massing there's no and forever that's always driven me nuts on civil engineering drawings, not dimensioning. Basically, all it shows is edge of building on the civil plans. And it's set back. So regardless of So but in reality, the base of brick will most likely be right around 12 to 14 inches back from the city's property line or the line of the sidewalk. And that will give us enough cushion to not give the concrete installers a heart attack and to make sure that all the elements are set back. And so basically all elements would be within a couple inches of the actual setback.

Is there a standard way to document that in site plan designs, Jim?

In site plan designs? No, there's a check and balances. During construction, the surveyor who generated these plans or was part of generating these plans would go out and stake out where the footings would go. And then once the footings are poured, they come back and put a nail, they call pinning the foundation. They actually drive a little nail into where the forms go and they pour the foundation at that location. And then, they come back after the forms have been stripped off to do another survey and then that as-built drawing is submitted to the building department again for building permit basically the surveyor is certifying that now the building is where it's supposed to be and if you ever drive around and you see a little kink chiseled out of a foundation or buildings quite little slices because at that moment it was over and uh i get a good chuckle out of it every now and then when i drive around and see these little kinks taken out of buildings because of the setbacks where um

inclusive sorry jim is it common in the industry to not have to detail out this overhang of the cornice yes yes it is common at this point yes okay so i had a question from last meeting about the walkway and how it connects to the parking area and i

I still don't see that clearly in the new plans.

From Waltham Street?

I don't know. The new block right next to the building somehow goes down and it...

If the renderings are accurate, could you zoom in on the one that shows the top right maybe?

Now, mind you, this gray mass here, there's a one-story building. And we have a landscape element that comes along in between the two, the walkway, then the landscape element, and then this one-story building.

Right. But my question is, you go down that walkway, what do you hit in the parking lot? Just right into where the cars are. Yes.

Yes.

So the planning board members point is that the walkway terminates. Just terminates into a parking space. Right. And that doesn't seem like good pedestrian flow. Is that a fair statement there?

It looks like there is some wiggle room, so we would just shift things around a little to allow. or let's see, let me share this. So right now there is a two foot path, but these elements and this over here, we could definitely consolidate and give a five foot path at the end of this walkway to access this properly.

One of them is the EV chargers, right? But anyway, a bigger question on that, though, is this is a much smaller project, but it has the same number of parking spaces. Why do we need so many parking spaces for this smaller project?

The number of units, I believe, stay the same.

The bedroom mix is radically different.

Yes.

So that's a lesser parking demand. And then there's no commercials, so that's a lesser parking demand. So why do we need all these parking spaces and can't we take advantage of the reduced parking demand to, I don't know, more landscaping or more buffer or, I don't know, a walking path from that waterway?

I just want to see the table of parking at the civil engineer. So what I see here is 54 there's 36 units 54 are required

And there were 41 spaces provided in the previous plan.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I didn't want to speak out of turn, but I thought it was under so.

What I'm saying is, I mean, we usually on these things target a 1 to 1. So, if a couple of spaces need to go away to make enhancements for the project, or for the. For the community, it doesn't seem like a bad thing.

If we. I don't want to say clean up, but if we adjust some of these spaces to make it a little more amenable plus. It always happens where the proposed handicap spaces shift over a little to the left, a little to the right, depending where that door finally ends up. So there are some adjustments that are made before the final lines get painted. I got a couple questions about the canopy.

Can you go to the rendering that looks at the walkway entrance from Waltham Street? The lower right, I guess. Yeah, I guess this would be... Is this view here? Let's look at the other view. There you go. So, what's the thinking of leaving open that side of the canopy area so the view is just of parked cars and things? Why is that?

side need to be open right here yeah it's it does help that um i mean there definitely could be some elements here to dress it up but you don't want to um what's the depth of the parking spaces well there aren't any parking spaces Yeah, you're right. There is nothing there. So yes, we could close that in with these privacy screens if necessary.

Maybe I'm just missing the landscape. Maybe the landscape covers that, but I don't know.

Yeah, unfortunately every bush and every leaf is a polygon and to render That many polygons, it just takes so much time and sometimes it takes a day just to render with so many bushes.

And then you were talking about the emergency vehicle access and you got to kick up the clearance from 8.2 to 9.6 plus.

Yep.

So you got to jack it up a foot and a half or so. Is that whole canopy going up a foot and a half? Is the building going up a foot and a half?

What's going up? We would just make sure that the clearance and the height of the proposed building does not change. So with the variety of materials that we have, we can... play around with the different floor thicknesses. I mean, ideally on a building like this, you'd like 16 inches of thickness between the ceiling of one floor and the top of the next floor. But we've done them as shallow as 10 inches. So you get a lot of play between in the floor systems themselves. And same with the roof.

So I assume the building structure, the big mass, in the original apartment had the correct clearance. Is that correct? I don't know.

I think that that hadn't been worked out with the fire chief yet either.

Oh, really? Yeah.

This is clearly easier to move because there's nothing above it.

Well, no, but then the building's going to move because if the building's over the fence, below the lighting and sprinklers, Great. And the electrical, blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, no, it's all pretty easy to do.

So how does that get included in any approvals? Well, basically, we have the ground, and then you can't move an inch, and whatever happens below happens?

Well, for the planning board, it's just the total height. I think that matters, right? so it's just total height and then it's not I don't believe there's any submittal for for the for the specific heights elevations necessarily per floor or for for this canopy area so I don't think it goes I don't think it's a planning board item unless it's modifying this site plan well technically it's circulation but As long as the circulation meets the intent of the site plan approval, right? Yeah. It only has a proper height. It's weird.

And building code. Building code also lists what the heights have to be.

Right.

Minimum.

Right. And the project will have to abide by that. But what I'm suggesting is that the height is not necessarily a planning board item of the door itself unless it changes some type of circulation or egress pattern.

OK.

My last question about the canopy is the question I had last time of how is that compatible with the downtown? To me, I would have just wrapped the building around the game store and had the building front on both Waltham and Powder Mill, but for some reason we have a canopy which is way not in the intent of the DoD. So what's the thinking of how we can make that compatible with the downtown?

Bill, I might help to elaborate. What do you mean by ?

Well, the downtown design says we're supposed to be building buildings up the property line. We're not supposed to be having setbacks. We're not supposed to be having parking in front of the buildings. But all we've got is a parking canopy in front of this building facing the major street. And we wouldn't allow that anywhere else, because the buildings are supposed to front the street. And here, it just seems like there's plenty of room to have buildings shipped over. front on Waltham Street and then all problems are all gone. I just don't understand the canopy and how that's better for the downtown than just having the building wrap a little tighter.

Well I think part of it was the public access there.

That wouldn't affect the public access footprint at all. It's the same footprint. I mean the building could take the footprint of the canopy. It's the same width.

Maybe it's that it's trying to be more in kind of the adjacent building?

Yeah, but that's not a big long-term planning call for building out of downtown because sooner or later that other building's gonna go in 10 or 20 years. And then you're building it next to a weird little canopy.

I don't know, just... Or a double canopy.

I don't see the value added for the town there and it just seems counter to the intent of a lot of the DOD elements.

I mean the intent was that they were trying to reduce the size of the building.

Right, and they could have reduced the size of the building and left the building touching Waltham and touching Powder Mill and still reduce the size and then add extra, well, extra room for the river, extra buffer to the river, extra buffer to the...

If they had left it and had it be open parking, would that be also less than ideal?

Yeah, that's not the DMD intent. You don't put parking in front of the building.

I think in all fairness for that, the intent was about open parking lots. And I can recall specifically when we had a request for a fast food location downtown and we went back and forth with it for a while because it required a special permit. And the idea is to not present the seat of parking that is incompatible with the streetscape itself but in this sense you're working with what you have and we have in this case I mean it's unusual because there's another building really blocking streetscape on one side and then the other is a high It's not a typical DOD. And the reason I would say that is because originally, if you remember a couple years ago, this project started out as an excuse. And we thought that was a terrible idea to integrate it with people walking around from that for commercial uses. And that was something that originally, going way back, it started out as a much larger project with a, at the time it was marijuana was proposed, I remember, as an out parcel and everything. And in the end, we went through a number of revisions culminating in what we thought was the most practical use. And it was within the spirit of the DoD, which was multifamily, higher density, with working with the landscape that we have. And in this case, in a perfect world, we all agreed that it would have encompassed that whole corner. But we don't have that. And I think at this point, we'll look at, does the good outweigh the bad? Is this project? And I think it is consistent with it. Is it the perfect location? Like I said, I would rather have, I'm sure the applicant would rather have the entire quarter. But I think we really have to step back and look at what, this is a multi-year project that in the end is going to be, I think, largely consistent with the aesthetics. I think they talk that it looks largely consistent. The idea of parking that's not really right in the face on the street or even closed, I don't know what, you know, that's my opinion. I mean we've been through this. This has been the start of us. This started really in like what 2022 as a But we approved this version.

We're being asked to change what we approved. And what we approved matched all the goals and objectives of the DoD. But in this case, maybe the issue is how to make the canopy area look less canopy, less parking, more like a building, and less auto-visible or something. Right now it's just a canopy over a bunch of cars. But you could, I suppose you could, you know, like you facade a garage so it looks more like a building rather than a garage. You could do that and make it look more structured.

I mean would having the, whatever, the landscaping treatment that they have in in the two other spots along that wall, along the side of the parking canopy be beneficial. The other thing is maintaining a non-parking lot adjacent to the river is also important to us. If you have to have the building on two sides and the parking not on the streets, but also the parking not all up against the river, They've run out of places, and they did put the majority of the parking on the fourth side, but it's a complicated site.

Big picture, if you could design a building so it fronted on both streets and the parking would stay underneath, the parking would not get close to the river, but if we're stuck with a canopy, I would want to see that to look less like a parking canopy and more like a piece of the building.

How many parking spots are under the parking canopy, Jim? 67. seven six six or seven depending on what what we do at the end of that run it it seems like an awfully lot of construction for six parking spots is that is that a fair statement

Yes. Once again, having that covered area, seven spots covered plus the covered walkway.

Can I make a suggestion? I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but your covered parking and by covering the surface parking, that's allowing you not to have to treat that drainage in the water and the runoff that basically hits that surface parking lot. So it's better for the environment if the water is captured at the roof level and then goes into your system without additional treatment. And that's probably why you're reluctant to change it because you already have the CONCOM approvals, correct?

Yes, yes. The biggest thing is definitely the conservation approvals.

And that's a new calculation, I think, that you'd have to run and go back for that change. I mean, maybe a solution here is to make it look a little bit more like the building and the structure of the canopy gets bigger, slightly heftier. If it looks like a brick arcade, that then has the presence of the building where it's brick and a mix of metal.

Yeah, more like a Venetian sidewalk covered area. That's fine.

Yeah, I mean, that may give it more of a building presence and less of a canopy presence. I mean, those would be a canopy, so.

If that's amenable, Jim, I think that would be more in the taste of the comments of what you've heard from the planning board tonight.

to just basically beef up the elements and make it more, make it tie into the building better as opposed to just a canopy.

Yeah. It could read like brick piers or brick clusters. And you've got landscape in front of that and the landscape plan from 23. So along the side of it, there already is a planting bed with bushes that will buffer it a little bit.

That's what I'm planning. Hello. Yeah.

Yeah. Uh.

Home agreement elements are part of the benefits of the project, which is part of the decision on us. or disapproval of a special permit. So what's the status of the development agreement? It's been two and a half years. I would think that we would have some pretty close to final version.

I did a little research on that, and I have an answer for Bill, too, if you want me to jump in. I look back on what we originally... The answer is, it's... I guess it would be... It could be within the, it requires a vote of the both boards, plan board and site board. Steve's working on that with Adam. I would say it is, I mean, I'm not doing it so good, but certainly within the next month or two. I can't see it going longer. And that's the answer for that. I'm not working on it myself, so that is, but we did discuss it today. I did do a little research on it, because I couldn't remember exactly how we left it on the other, because since then, now we've made changes for how the development agreement is done, but at the time, this was, I went back in a minute, so I should be curious on this, how we live it. At the time, Adam was being represented by Mark Hrabowski, who was talking about this. The wording of the condition related to the development agreement would be important to consider at this time. Mr. Hrabowski voiced a suggestion to consider a condition prior to the issuance of any mutually agreeable building permit development. It would be filed in the office of the town clerk and approved by staff. Mr. Nemzer asked for clarification on timelines. Mr. Obrowski shared that the best course of action they thought at the time was to close public hearing subject to an appropriate development agreement to be approved shortly thereafter. Well, it hasn't been shortly thereafter. So Chris Arsalt clarified that the final VA would need to come back in front of the planning board for review and signatures. And they agreed to the timeline. Mr. Cranshaw acquired the planning board with the public area need to be closed Before they ended for considering condition languages, and they said they want to talk through the conditions so Nice if we just meant the we've since changed this how we do it in our bylaws, but modifying this the board could say I Mean there's a number ways you do except for the effective date of the special permit I mean, then the permit's not good until it's executed. That probably is the neatest and cleanest way to do it now. If we were doing a new development agreement now with a brand new project, it's hard because sometimes we do them simultaneously, sometimes we don't. But in a perfect world, yeah, they would. It's not perfect. So that would be my answer about that. As for what's going to be involved in the development boards basically. Adam, are you on still?

Yeah, I'm here.

I didn't want to really get too much into this right now, but you've been working with Steve on the development agreement basically, right?

Yes, we have.

And the type of stuff that's involved basically is what we've discussed before. There's an open space requirement that's got to be worked through based on our zoning bylaws and on our Plan board rules and regulations, and we also. There were some intersection modifications that we discussed. But so far as your timeline added, would that work for you if. If the board was willing, and we said before the special permit is effective. The development agreement has to be executed.

Yeah, I have no issue with that.

I can't hear you said yes.

Yeah, no, no issue with that.

So yeah. Now would that help? No. That's, I mean, or if you want like a date, I mean, I don't know. I can't, I can't sit here and tell you yeah.

Well.

I understand your concern.

I mean, to approve a special permit, you have to find that the good outweighs the bad. You have to find what? You have to find out that the good outweighs the bad. That's correct. But if we don't know what good is in the development agreement, then the scorecard is leaning towards the bad side. Well, then you wouldn't sign the development agreement. Or I might not approve the special permit. It's been two and a half years, and there's been no progress, so I have little faith that pushing it out to an indefinite time now is going to make any difference.

I understand. However, the special permit, if it's not effective until then... Well, I would also point out that

Our zoning says that the development agreement must be in place before special... That is correct, but that was our 2024 amendment.

And before it said the development agreement should be executed before the special permit is issued.

We're working under new rules for this process. And there are new rules. Yeah.

And it's a creature of the development agreement, too. As we look at the past minutes, that was our approach, was that working with the development agreement, there's going to be certain amendments that are made that are just like we do with that's how the density bonus gets done. It's another process. Do you have a suggestion on any way for a condition on it? If that was the case, then you could say that has to be approved.

I don't really understand. They must have agreed on the major points, and they're just working out a tiny little language, right?

So what are the major points that have to be agreed on? Ask Adam on this one.

I would like that into this hearing so it can be into the decision.

Adam, do you have anything to add with this?

The only major change I think that we're looking to figure out the legal language for is how the contribution to the open space funding works, the money towards the town. And if that was to go just directly as a check to the town or work in the intersection, and does that work in the intersection need to be done by a town approved um, site contractor, or like it was, that was the language really that we're trying to me and Steve are trying to just have cashed out just to make sure that, uh, just to make sure that that work is done, uh, in the best best effort for the for the town either like I said through a town specific site um contractor or just the straight money to the town to then hire somebody to do it so that was kind of the the hiccup that we have and there Adam are you referring to the um the improvements in the public way with the um pedestrian signaling and sidewalks exactly that's exactly what it is

And just to be clear for everybody here and a refresher, the open space requirement that Adam is alluding to is required for whenever there's bonus units issued for provision of open space or in-kind contribution. So those two areas are what we're talking about. There's one other way to do this, I can think of. And that would be if continue the public hearing for a date and give them as time to get it worked out. You know.

Well, they need to do new drawings anyways.

So I have a request, if I may. Go ahead, Adam. Obviously, this project has been going on for quite some time now. And we do have a buyer that's, you know, getting a little antsy. And obviously, we have to take the proper steps to make this correct for the town. I understand that. My concern is every time we come to this meeting, there's a new aspect that needs to be looked at. So what I'm hearing right now is that yes, you want to see new drawings for the canopy. I agree and we can do that. Yes, you want to see a development agreement. Okay, you want to see where the walkway ends into the parking lot. I'm counting three things right now. Could we hash out the other 10 items tonight and just say that the next meeting we're going to look at A, B and C? so that then when next meeting comes, there's not D, E, and F that we have to go figure out. That would be my request.

Well, I'd point out that the three items you cited were all brought up last meeting, but speaking as an individual, I don't see anything else on the list.

Board, do you see anything else that would be that you would like to see changed or updated so that you have the correct information to take a vote on this I see nothing else good hearing none the three items listed design change canopy showing a change in the walkway egress as discussed, and the outline proposal for the development agreement. Those are the three items.

May I ask a question before you... As long as you don't add an item, Bill. Well, not in so many words. Before it was... We had... I know Steve and Adam are going to be working on this, and I think it's helpful to have a member of the planning board work as well as a member of the select board.

On what?

With the development agreement.

I will be the member for the planning board.

Okay. Adam, I'll tell Steve about this and everything.

Which is, by the way, not a change. You were with Chris Soma, I think, as chair. I was the member of the... Who's our liaison?

Lindsay. Lindsay.

So no change in planning board membership for the delta. So I'll ask, I guess, Lindsey. Or ask Mike Stevens. Mike Stevens, if you want to get on the phone. As chair.

Now, the other question is timing. This is not a two-acre. And we're going to tidy it up like that. I don't know how, I mean, that's how we got, Two weeks is tight.

No, Bill, we're going to have to make this two weeks. I fear that somebody's going to walk away, to be quite honest with everybody here. So me and my team on the architectural side have done what you asked us to do in two weeks. You have my full attention for the next two weeks to get this done. If you're talking about the development agreement, we really need to make this move forward unless I'm going to be left without a buyer again.

Thank you.

All right, so I'll make a motion in a second, but first I'm going to open it up to public comment. Zoe, would you stop sharing screens and let's see if there's members of the public that would like to enter a public comment tonight. If you're joining us virtually, please use the raise hand feature, or you can turn your camera on and raise your hand and we'll call on each individual one at a time.

Jim, do you mind turning off your screen sharing? Because I'm not actually screen sharing. I think it's still yours. There we go.

All right.

All right. And Zoe, I'm not seeing any.

If there's anybody from the public who wishes to make a public comment, if you would please use the hand raised function of Zoom, and you will be called on.

And Zoe, looking here at town hall, I don't see any members of the public able to provide a public comment.

That's correct.

OK. All right. I think we have good instruction on this. I'll make a motion to continue this hearing until September 22 at 7 PM. Second. All in favor for the continuance, please raise your hand. It's 5-0. Thanks, everyone. All right, let's now turn to item four. This will be, I'll open up the public hearing for 17 Mason Street. This is an application to renew an existing special permit to operate a marijuana retail establishment in the central business zoning district at 17 Mason Street. Olaf, thanks for coming in. Thanks for having me. Just for the record, could you please introduce yourself?

Sure. My name is . I'm with the and, like you said, I'm here to renew our existing special permit to operate adult use dispensary at 17 Mason Street and also a new special permit application for a medical license to operate at the same address.

Thanks, Olaf. Bill or Zoe, do you have any comments on this renewal? Particularly, has there been good compliance from the applicant over the past couple of years? Are there any fines or anything else that are pending, any noncompliance that the board should be aware of?

Nothing that's been reported to us.

It's been fine. Everything's been fine. Renewal's been fine. This particular renewal, we asked them to run them both together because there's a marijuana application that has yet to be approved by the Attorney General. We've been waiting for it to go forward. We contacted the Attorney General's office and we don't expect approval. They're behind and they don't expect approval until October. What I would recommend the board did at this point, because we're running behind already and we're trying to do it together to make it simple for the board.

Sorry, I'm not following. What I have here on the agenda is just a renewal of the existing special permit on the agenda. Maryland should be on there, too. Medical?

This attachment is not on the agenda.

The agenda I have just says existing special permit for a retail establishment.

Ah, OK, that's a blunder on my part.

So that's what I opened. I opened the public hearing for that.

I see. I see.

Well, I think we're going to have to.

Let's see here. So OK, we'll have to. Well, OK, we'll take care of that offline. What that would involve is it was already advertised. It was advertised. Yeah, but it wasn't advertised. Here's what we'll do. If you continue the medical marijuana.

It hasn't been opened.

There's no medical marijuana.

It was advertised on a legal notice. It was?

It was advertised, but the public hearing wasn't open.

That's correct. So the public hearing will be postponed or what we would call it. Yeah, postponed until the next hearing for the medical marijuana. Okay. At that point, we're going to have to continue it because unless the Attorney General comes through with a finding in between now and two weeks. That is my fault. It was just knocked off of there. The renewal should be active on tonight. There's been no problems. He's been all sort of fine with it. And so what I would say is a formula just to postpone so it can be properly advertised. Anybody who came for the meeting tonight for the legal notice is aware. And we'll put that to the, what did you say, 22nd? Yes. And then understanding that we're going to have to continue it again until the end of October, probably. Apologies all off. That's my fault. But it should be relatively painless. OK. So far, compliance has been excellent. No issues whatsoever. And in the end, it's going to be a separate special permit anyway, because of the dates.

Can you bring up the notice? Yes. Just so I can see it before I take any more action. I just want to make sure. I'm looking for it too.

This is a copy of what was published in the Metro West Daily News. Yeah, so what was advertised is the petitioner is requesting a new special permit authorizing medical marijuana use and the renewal of the existing special permit to operate a marijuana retail establishment in the central business district at 17 Mason Street.

Let's pull up the agenda and make sure I didn't put that this one was printed wrong. Now that you mention it.

No, this one just says public hearing at 17 Mason Street. It has the original special permit, last renewal, which was approved in 2024, and then 2605. 2605.

Okay, so we advertised and we have an agenda with the renewal?

Correct.

Which is the hearing I just opened?

Yes.

So we can take action on that?

Yes.

And it seems like we don't need to take action on anything else because it was not on the agenda?

You can postpone it because it was advertised.

Okay, so we'll take care of that after? Right, as a separate item. I wanted to split them anyway. Understood. Well, you did that. OK, back to the renewal special permit. Any comments or questions from the board? And to be clear, this is about a special permit renewal for a retail establishment in the central business district.

They're limited to two years from the effective date of the new special permit. You know, after the appeal period, same as the others. There's two years. Everybody has to come two years.

Understood.

Are the conditions still valid or some no longer needed or anything?

I don't know. I would, in general, defer to all conditions remaining valid unless there's a good reason. Are there any reasons to drop some of the conditions? Is there any request to change any of the conditions?

I think the big one was maintaining the clock.

And have you maintained the clock? I believe so, yes.

We love that clock.

Do you have any requests of the board?

Maybe after this, because I have a follow-up question regarding opening hours. So I'm not sure if that's part of this. Because it's a more general question, I guess. Because the Board of Health, they think that they are the authority to regulate opening hours. And the Select Board, they also say that they are the authority. And I heard that the Planning Board also So I don't know which one is the good question.

It's probably not us. The host community agreement by the select board controls. The select board, OK. Right. This is a zoning. What we're doing is saying, OK, the zoning is good here. Here's the conditions we are approving under. But the select board, without a host, well, it's actually both ways. The planning board, I suppose, could trump something the HCA did. I suppose, but...

I think it would be the more restrictive of the two. The public health officer I don't think has a role. I don't think. In the hours of operation.

Did you have to go see them for something?

Well, initially, yes. I had to, because the Board of Health bylaws, they added that they are regulating the opening hours. I don't think they have any role in that. That was years ago? Yes, it was a long time ago.

That might have been when the state was more heavy-handed with the regulations of this, and some of it was through the public health departments.

Can you check in tomorrow? We can clear that up.

Sorry. My understanding, it would be the planning board has some authority to limit and restrict, but select board with the horse agreement is the primary vehicle for hours of operating. We don't have one. We would have been there about three hours.

We do, I believe.

Don't we? Yeah, we do.

Yeah, we do. Is it more restricted than Select Board?

Same right now, but we are discussing. I was talking to Greg last week and we're going to this and he said let's talk about the Select Board meeting.

What hours would you like to propose?

We have not decided yet, but I think that we will expand the hours.

Not with your conversation, what hours would you like?

Well, we're still looking at the logistics of the staffing and stuff like that, but it definitely had hours to end of the week, maybe reduced hours on Sundays, and maybe Mondays and Tuesday early in the week. But also we discussed opening way later and even earlier, but we haven't really decided yet, so I just wanted to check to see who I should talk to.

Seems like we don't really know, but Bill will figure it out for you.

I thought we put it in yours. Maybe we didn't put the...

I remember too, because it's 8 to 10 now or something?

10 to 8.

Oh, okay. Okay. Well, apparently I'm okay with the other way around. That's what I thought it was.

It doesn't look like there's anything in this record of decisions from this location. It was probably carried over. But no, I think this goes back to the first special permit that was approved for this location.

I remember distinctly we changed it at one point.

Me too.

But I'm looking at all.

But if there's something you want. Bill, let's do this. Bill, should we continue?

When's the operation?

10 to 10.

Oh, 10 to 10. That's the first one. The first one.

That sound about right, Olaf? Yes, most likely yes. But we never stayed open until 10.

Well, you have permission to. As far as these guys are concerned. No breakfast. Maybe you're missing a market.

Didn't we update it to 8 AM to 10 PM?

It sounded like it was 8 AM.

I could have sworn we did at some point.

If we asked for it. The guys in Boulder are open until 7 AM. 7 a.m. Yeah, right next to the coffee. Do we want to like just change that to defer to a select board or do we want to set a, you know, nothing between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.? No, no, no.

I don't want to make... Let's do this. Does your advice to continue this until this item should get figured out or should we just vote on the renewal?

Are you happy with the way it is, 10 to 10? Yes. We're going with it. Yeah. If there's a subsequent modification, I turn it up. Because I could have sworn we did 8 to 10.

All right. So there's no proposed changes.

Whatever the most current is, it would have been more literal. That's fine. Because his first one was, he was the first one we did, and he had a huge number of conditions.

I'm just trying to get through this hearing right now. So no proposed changes to the conditions. Okay. I'll open up for public comment. If there's members virtually online, if you'd like to provide a public comment, please use the raise hand feature. Zoe, I'm noting that there is no one here at Tom Hall to provide a public comment. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board? Bill or Zoe, what is the motion here? To renew the special permit for a period of two years? Two. Okay.

Two years. From effective date. So we give them every, as soon as, you know, the effective date of the permit.

okay so the mood okay i'll look at that in a second but that doesn't need to be does that need to be specified or does it does it attach automatically as a term well that's a good question and also there's one other thing i want to add here which is relevant to it's not in the public hearing for the frame medical use but there will be a two-year There will be a two-year renewal period on the medical use as well? I think so. Okay, so is there any mode by which the board can synchronize the renewal period?

That's what we were trying to do originally, but because the AG approval, and then, oh, it's going to be expired. It's already expired. So you filed it here. All right. So that's why I don't want to do it. Okay, all right, never mind. But in a perfect world, yeah, we would put them together, and we would... There's probably a way we can do it at our next two years. Yeah, for now. Because the Attorney General will say, no, something's wrong. We don't want it. Yeah, that's not a request. We're doing him as an existing.

All right. Seeing no comments from the board, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.

Second.

All in favor to close the hearing, please raise your hand. That's 5-0 to close the hearing. So what is, what's the date I'm referencing in this motion?

The, you know, the, yeah. The, there is a number. 2410.

Yeah.

Just say we're doing addition number 2410 for a period of two years.

What's petition 2410?

No, I'm sorry. I think it should be a motion to renew the existing special permit because this was a renewal of its own special permit. And we have a reference number here that we'll get next time.

For a period of two years, that's it, right?

Renewing the existing special permit for adult use marijuana retail. for a period of two years.

I'll make a motion to renew the special permit for Mass Wellspring LLC at 17 Mason Street to renew the existing special permit for marijuana retail establishment for two years.

I'll second that. All in favor please raise your hand. 5-0 to issue the renewal.

And now if we could postpone because of the failure included on the agenda. It was advertised that I just postponed until the 22nd. And that will be the marijuana. And as I said, unless someone comes in, we'll continue.

Sure. So as a note to the public and for the meeting minutes, there was a public hearing that was scheduled for tonight for 17 Nation Street regarding medical marijuana establishment for the Central Business District. That public hearing is being postponed until... Are for sure or until further notice?

Until September 26th.

Okay, that public hearing is being postponed until September 22nd at 7 p.m. End of notice. Okay, that's it, Olaf. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming in. Thank you.

Thanks, Olaf. See you in two weeks, right? We'll see you before.

all right we have zoning amendments i'll open up the public hearing for zoning bylaw amendments there are three amendments listed in the agenda and these are bylaws that will be recommended for approval for town meeting on october 13th 2026. the three amendments are listed a b and c a is to amend section 7.5 of the wireless telecommunications tower and facility requirements as noted. B is amend section 312 of the use regulations for table A use regulations, as noted. And C, amend section 710, inclusionary housing, as noted. I presume Zoe or Bill may lead us in this discussion. Sure.

Where would you like to begin?

I would start with A.

A? Telecommunications tower safety? Yes. The gist of it is that telecommunications towers, cell towers, have to come before the board every two years for renewal of special permit. The standard in the industry for attestations of the structural integrity of the towers is five years. And we wanted to prevent a circumstance whereby a cell tower would come in for a two-year special permit and one year left on their structural certification. And then that certification would require updating in between the term of the special permit. So the idea here is that if the certifications is dated within three years of the application date, it will have two years left at least, so that it won't expire before their special permit expires.

How do all the structural engineers feel about this? Speaking as a non-structural engineer. I think we have one maybe. Yeah, man.

I don't have an SE, but that's what I do. Don't count.

He does count. Sounds good to me.

I'm fine. Any questions, comments about the way this is phrased?

Yeah, so my only question is, it says three years of the application date. I mean, it really wants to be, is that enough? I mean, the day they put the application up, the day the renewal starts. You okay with that?

I think that's a valid observation.

Well, we went by the members of the spec manual that recommended five years.

No, but he's saying within three years of the application date for the special permit renewal or the issuance of the renewal.

You can change the wording. I mean, you can do that.

Are you going to put the application in more than a year before the renewal?

No, because it has to go before the deadline. What, 20 days? Were there 14 days? Not 14 days. Oh, really?

Yeah. Oh. I don't think it matters much.

I mean, I guess it could be continued, but...

I guess my decision factor on this would be Where are we in the town meeting timeline? Has this already been printed?

Yes. No, yes and no. If you would like to join us for glue stick time for the revised text that we will glue in each copy of the warrant. I think that they haven't been printed yet, but if we need to make changes, we have to make them, like...

Okay, we're just trying so our chair doesn't have to... Amended motion.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Chris loves the limelight.

I love presenting amended motions. It is so much fun.

I think it's fine as it is. I also don't really understand what he said, so.

No, I get what he means. Because what if somebody applied for a renewal of a special permit and then it was caught up in hearings continuing for years and years? Woof.

Yeah. Then they can just pay for another structural engineer.

Yeah, I think this would all probably be dealt with in the proceedings of the permit.

Then they wouldn't have a tower anymore. It wouldn't be active. I think the whole point is that they need these things renewed, I think, so that they can continue to operate the cellular devices. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? PETER, I SEE YOU'RE STILL JOINING THIS HEARING. I'M JUST GOING TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON ANY OF THESE THREE, JUST PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, BUT NO PRESSURE IF YOU DON'T.

YEAH, I'M MOSTLY JUST LISTENING, BUT I WILL ASK QUESTIONS IF I HAVE THEM, BUT NOT ON THIS ONE.

THANK YOU. OKAY, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU FEEL LIKE COMMENTING. OKAY, ZOE.

OKAY, NEXT. Now, does the board have to vote on the recommendation?

The board will vote to recommend approval of the plan.

But they don't have to vote on each particular?

Well, this is one public hearing. So the way I see it, we should take one vote on the public hearing. Well, let's do them all at once.

Yeah. You can do them all together if you want, right?

OK. All right. So next, we're looking at the use table. Is that correct? This is the addition of a footnote to our use table, which restates that in the section, zoning bylaw section 9.6.3, which regulates the health care industrial zone, i.e. the mill, that multifamily use is only allowed by right for existing structures. That if you want to put multifamily housing into the mill, already that that can be by right, but if you wanted to build a new building or demolish an old building and rebuild it, you will have to come before the planning board for a special permit. This isn't adding any new policy, it's just adding an additional note of the policy and it would be disabled.

I like it.

Clarification. Clarification. And a dagger.

A dagger?

A dagger. That's right.

All right.

The upper parking lot is GR, correct? What?

Sorry, what?

The upper parking lot is GR? Yes.

OK. Any questions?

What is 166?

That is the footnote that shows which meeting policy was adopted. Oh my god, we gotta squeeze another footnote in there?

Another 182 or something?

They're handy though sometimes when you need it. We're always glad of information or questions when you see those.

And by the way, the footnote is already there. It's just the dagger that isn't there.

Right. Oh. Then why is the footnote on the line?

It's not. It is.

Only the dagger's on the line. The 166 is not the dagger.

So close.

See, it doesn't light. Oh. Yeah. That's good.

OK. Good job.

All right.

OK. How come it looks to me like the footnote's on the line?

Dot game?

Or existing structures only?

He's talking about the text on the bottom.

Oh, because this isn't a footnote. This is a footnote. OK, so I guess, OK, this is an endnote. And this is a, I guess this is a footnote.

I think that's all new text.

Yes, correct. Correct.

So yes, exactly. The cross is a footnote and the number 166 is an endnote. Is that the end of the document? Correct. Yes. Right. Nice job. Noted.

At the end. All right. That'll be a test at the end of town meeting. Yeah.

Next one. All right.

That's going to be my whole presentation.

Moving on. A dagger.

Dagger? Well, I'm going to include dagger, but I'm going to... Endnote.

This one has some substance to it. And there is an ellipsis here. But what this amends is item B under the density bonus section of the 7.10.4, mandatory provision of affordable units section of inclusionary housing. And what this does is- Can you zoom in? Yes. I can't do it anymore. Sorry, you can keep talking. I'm just blind. In our bylaws right now it says new residential development allowed by right that is not subject to this bylaw can provide affordable units should the applicant volunteer and therefore be eligible for the same benefits specified above. And what that means is that if you have a project with under six units and you aren't required to provide affordable units under our inclusionary zoning bylaw, and your project is buy right, you can have an affordable unit voluntarily and get a reduction in the square footage minimum. So you can reduce the size of the units to a smaller square footage. if you voluntarily agree to have an affordable unit, even if you're not required to. Right now, this only is offered to projects that are allowed by right. But as we saw, for example, a project like 16 Waltham Street, sometimes a small project comes along that is still subject to planning for a special permit review that might want to do that. And so this would amend the bylaws to say that any new residential development not subject to inclusionary zoning may provide affordable units should the applicant volunteer and therefore be eligible by the benefits specified by special permit of the planning board. So it's up to the board to consider that arrangement. And it's not limited to only by-right projects. It remains open to myriad projects, but it also allows small residential projects that would, say, be five units to have one affordable unit, for example, and negotiate smaller square footage with the planning board as part of their special permit.

I don't remember where this is in the zoning, but if they do that, do they also get involved in all the rigmarole of a development agreement and open space commitment?

No. No, that's only the DoD.

But that would apply to 17 Waltham Street because it is in the DoD, right?

This inclusionary zoning would apply throughout the town and so it would provide an option even within the DoD for smaller projects that would not necessarily want to go through the DoD's own version of this. So it could potentially cause a duplication or even a conflict with the density flexibility of the DoD. That's something to contemplate. But it would grant that. It allows this now for biometric projects. It's a little unclear to me. Like, for example, a six-unit mixed-use project in the DoD is a BioRite project. And they could benefit from this and not go through the DoD's own density bonus section. Isn't that right?

That's correct. They're basically, they're not able to participate

program with the inclusionary zoning if you're under six yeah so but all this would still be within the planning board special permit authority so I don't see it I can't personally see scenario in which a person would be gaming the system because the board would still be able to see and apply the criteria as appropriate to the application and its specifics.

Sure, sounds good. I might perish at this meeting, so I say let's do it.

I love the positivity. But are there any other questions about this or concerns about it? you know, we do have this inclusionary zoning, we do have this reduction of floor size minimums in the DoD and it's creeping into other, and it's also available in, through our inclusionary zoning throughout the rest of town, so there are some places where the DoD and our inclusionary zoning bylaws overlap or are duplicative and a person in the DoD might pursue one or other approach based on whether or not they want to go through the original development agreement.

It sounds like the change is going to just allow us to have more oversight for these eventualities.

Yes.

But this density bonus is, you build an affordable, you can build an extra market, right? No.

That's not a bonus unit. It's only a reduction in the size. If I'm not mistaken.

710 has a reduction in size?

Isn't that what that is?

Well, what Section 10 does, it allows for a reduced area as necessary to achieve a requested number of units. So the way it reads is,

Are you sharing that screen?

So this is a discussion. It's a subparagraph of density bonus. But the planning board may allow an increase in the total number of market rate units by a number equal to the required affordable units not to exceed 10 bonus units. Okay.

So this is bonus units?

Right. Okay. And the minimum lot area per dwelling unit normally required in the applicable zoning district may be reduced by that amount area necessary to permit the additional market rate and bonus units. For example, in a development that must provide two affordable units, an additional two market rate units may be allowed through the reduction in minimum lot area per dwelling unit. All other standard dimensional requirements shall be met. The density bonus may only be granted for developments providing the units on site, blah, blah, blah. And then what Zoe is amending there, is the second part to that underneath, which is B, new residential allowed by right that is not subject to this bylaw. So in other words, this is where we're talking about five unit development, can provide affordable units should the applicant volunteer and therefore be eligible for the same benefits specified again above. So when we put by right, that was the poison pill there.

But you guys, not you guys, but the by-law here was trying to capture the other option, which is the by-right option, instead of the special permit path option. So I get why that thing was there.

Right, but we require special permit for multifamily, so we kind of tripped ourselves up with that. Right, I get it. Okay.

So this doesn't prevent anyone who could build a by-right from doing that, it just allows everyone else.

It still allows people. this is still applicable.

Correct. Yeah. It all comes in tomorrow. And maybe the special permit would do it. You just say, hey, look, we're not required to participate in your inclusionary zoning to achieve our density bonus and get the extra unit. So we want to do it.

And you guys just do it. There's no development agreement, no. And it just has to go to, so the special permit criteria would be the 10.4 special permit?

Yeah. Yes. Well, if it was in the DOD. If it's in the DOD, then the DOD would apply. But the question, I think, is about whether the DOD's own internal density bonuses. Because the DOD has its own language about density.

It does. It does. But that's a different process that requires open space agreements designed for larger scale. It's not designed for two or three units.

The board's discretion about whether they apply this or the DOD for DOD projects that meet this very restricted set of criteria because it would be five units or fewer.

This would be a very strict special permit just for the density bonus units? Just for us to get the informal. That's it?

If it were a multifamily use outside of the DOD that required a special permit, then they could apply for this. So let's say that it was in GR and they wanted to put in, you know, and they wanted to put in five units that they could make, they wanted to put in four units that they could make one affordable and then get five.

But they, let's say there's by right and the special permit would only be for, wouldn't be for the whole project, it would just be for the promise units in that case, right?

Yes.

Right?

Correct.

So someone came in for a buy right use. They wanted to apply this. And it says they have to go to special permit with the planning board. Our special permit review would just be about the density bonus units?

No, because we require special permit for multifamily uses. So three.

I'm just trying to think of anything else that would get triggered.

This buy right, the notion of residential multifamily development would even do this by right? I don't even know if that ever existed.

So yeah, so I'll say it differently. Here's my question, right? This now means that any by right use would have to come to special permit if they wanted to use this part of the zoning bylaw, right?

Yes, but there is no by right use that would, there is no by right use that allows multifamily development.

Okay, what's multifamily?

Three and over.

Three and over.

Three and over, okay. So a duplex wouldn't trigger?

No. But at the same time, I don't know whether that we're closing ourselves off to... That's what I'm just thinking.

Yeah. So if I had a duplex and I added, made one affordable and then made it into a three, am I just getting a special permit to go to three and no other special permits? Because it was as of right Yeah, that's it.

Well, I think so. Not that that's really going to happen. Well, the easy insertion would just be new multi-family residential development.

I'm fine with the... Then we could use our crayons on the town hall meeting. Huh? Then we'd have to break up the crayons for the town hall. Oh, I'm sorry.

Well, no, I think we can... No, I think if we do that, you just get them first thing in the morning.

Yeah, we can get this changed up.

If you want that, I think that would do it.

New multi-family because now the truth is what bill just said could happen anyway because the adu if it's under But that's not that's not regulated No, no, I know But assuming one third unit we do we do want to consider the idea of affordable aid news coming into existence So it's certainly good to leave that open So yeah, I'll put in multifamily.

I thought the concept of ADU was that it was affordable.

Yeah, but that's not true anymore. We're not allowed to make them affordable.

Right.

No, we can't. We tried, remember? Oh, right. Yeah, we know they threw it back at us.