Planning Board - Regular Meeting

i will open this meeting for the planning board for the town of maynard it is september 22nd 2026 and the time is 703. this meeting is being held in hybrid format which means that members of the public the board or the applicant can participate here in town hall or virtually using the zoom link that is provided please note that this meeting is being recorded The chair is going to be joining us in a few minutes. So for now, we have four members here in town hall. Let's jump, until Chris gets here, to item three, meeting minutes from August 11. Nope. Item One, minutes, sorry. We have two sets of minutes.

One. One?

One.

One set of minutes, August 25th.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of August 25th.

I'll second.

All right. All those in favor of the minutes from August 25th? by hand. Four votes to approve the minutes, Bill.

Thank you. Well, we have four present now, Madam Chair. And Chris is going to be five minutes later, so we have three items on the agenda. I don't know if the board would like to We have one that we probably go through pretty quick, I believe.

Is that number three?

With 17 Mason. Yeah. It's a continuous. Yeah.

I think that we can open up.

Are you OK to reorder that? Yeah. OK. Just to give you a little background, 17 Mason was just renewed for a recreational. They've been a for retail marijuana and have applied for a medical dispensary for marijuana as well, which would be in the same structure, operating under the same circumstances. The attorney recently separated them is because medical marijuana and retail marijuana is just two different licenses. And they'll always be two different, correct or wrong? As of right now, yes. Right, as of right now. So it's just a convenience. Anything that if the board chooses to approve, which staff does recommend, the attorney general has not issued a final finding. So it would all be subject to that. Of course. But we think that after reviewing everything, basically just adding another product to the establishment to sell. And it requires a separate license. So I would say that that's why we recommended approval on it. They've already met the criteria on everything, I believe. And it's just another product. OK. So it's also a two-year permit, the same as the other recreational.

Right. So what we would be voting on is just issuing a new special permit authorizing medical marijuana specifically.

Yeah, I drew up this before this clarification. This is what, and with the understanding that it would be subject, I expect the approval from the AG in the next, month, I guess. Or is that correct, Olaf?

I believe so. It could be on a day.

Yeah, yeah. So what I would recommend that the board only share is for the, would be the standards for the, it's not a renewal, it's a special permit. as prescribed. They're remaining the same. Exhibit A will be the special permit, the original special permit for recreational marijuana. And requesting to approve a special permit for a two-year period commencing on the effective date. That way, it won't be effective until the attorney jowls us so he doesn't burn time in between, no pun intended. And I think that's everything.

Okay. Does anyone on the board have any questions about the co-located separate special permit?

Is this a relocation of the business from Acton? Yes. Yes, that is partially true. Definitely retail component. So that's the thing. The CCC is actually reworking all the licenses going forward. But yes, that's the idea, to move from active to mainline. And just to give an idea, how much busier the mainer site would be. How does active medical sales transactions compare to the mainer recreational transactions? Is it more or less? It's way less. And it's actually dying, so I wouldn't be surprised if the medical would disappear in two years.

OK. That's good to know. Anyone else?

Just a reminder that because we only have four, it does require .

OK. I'll open this up for public comment if there's anyone online. I don't believe there's anyone in the room present to comment. But if anyone is online who wants to comment, please use the raise hand feature or just unmute and raise your hand.

I don't see any reactions or comment, Madam Chair.

All right. Will you bring up that document again so that I can use the language? Thank you. I will make a motion to approve a special permit allowing a registered marijuana dispensary to be used to be located at 17 Mason Street. for a two-year period commencing on the effective date of this special permit renewal subject to the following conditions of approval. All the conditions for this special permit will be the same as the original special permit decision for the co-located marijuana retail business approved on April 26, 2022.

And do we also find that it's consistent with 10-4 and 9-4 steps?

Yes. I find that the standard for the special permit as described in 10.4 of the zoning bylaws and 9.4.6 of the zoning bylaws have been and continue to be met. That was a motion, if anyone wants to agree. Thank you. All those in favor? That's four votes in favor.

OK. Thanks, guys. You know the process. I'll be in touch with you. And give me the advice of the attorney general, please. Absolutely.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. All those in favor?

How does the board want ? I mean, Christian, come in. You can open up if you want. Do you want to wait a second? Let's talk to the board. I feel like since Chris doesn't discuss that, I feel like I should be here.

What would you like?

I think we can probably open up the public hearing for a two to six powder mill.

For a two to six powder mill? OK. Yeah.

And Chris can join us soon, hopefully.

is coming here today. OK. All right. So yes, we left off with two to six powder mill. There were some changes. Oh, here's Chris now.

Great.

So where we left off was two to six-pattern mill. There were some changes, some design changes. The design reviewer provided comments, felt that everything had been satisfied. We also have tonight, we have Jim and Adam both here, I think, and they'll talk through anything that you want to discuss. I also requested the executive director of OMS, Steve Silverstein, to just drop in for a moment and provide any questions the board may have regarding updates. And for the .. I think there has been Also, I'm going to let Adam and Jim discuss. There's been a couple of questions about the breakdown, before we break down again. And we'll go to that. But I think I'll turn it over to Adam and Jim at this point, however they want to go forward and ask the board if there's any specific questions starting before we go.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Jim Jizokas, architect. Just want to briefly highlight the alterations we made from the recommendations from Arrow Street, the peer reviewer. Let me just share my screen.

I'll let you, let me just, yeah, there you go.

Great, thank you. There was a recommendation from Arrow Street to give more continuity with the columns in the covered area to tie it into the building better. And they provided a couple of sketches and we incorporated those sketches. And so this is result of that. So much easier to follow and nicer lines with the brick columns versus steel columns. And other than that, that's just about it. And we also took the site rendering this is the existing condition and this would be a rendering of the proposed happy to address any questions that the board has thank you um

Bill, do you have anything to add? I do not. Okay, so let's just capture what the three items were previously that were discussed. It was integrating the parking area to make it more incorporated into the design of the building, which I see the architect has done with these renderings. I won't speak for the full board on that, but I see that that was what was intended. We had comments about the walkway in between this building and the other current building that I believe dead-ended into the parking lot. Jim, was that comment addressed?

It actually doesn't, it never really dead-ended it, but it came to a three-foot-wide walkway, which you could go left or right to the back entry of the building. Say if you met somebody at the front door, they say, hey, I'll meet you back underneath by the back door. It's like, okay, and they can walk around through the covered area and meet them in the back. And that would run right along here. So... But now we adjusted it a little more, so that corridor comes into a T, which that walkway, you could either go back out to Waltham Street or go more internal towards the rear entry of the building on a walkway, the five-foot-wide walkway.

Are you able to show us that?

Let's see. Second here.

Yeah, Jim, it should be on the new site plan that was updated. Okay. And just to clarify what he's saying, you follow that pathway all the way straight to the parking lot, take a right into the handicapped ramp, and then into the parking lot. It does not go as a T intersection. I think he was thinking about something else. It's shown on the site plan where it goes straight back to the right and then into the parking lot.

Okay, just... I can pull it up if not.

Yeah, Bill, you have the new site plan. Yeah.

It's on the agenda here. Let me just pull it up. Let me share it with you. Hang on. I'll share it with you with our. All right. Is there a way to turn? Oh, this is tough. Is there a way to turn this? This is where we're talking about. Can you zoom in? Yeah. Let me click on the image itself. There's a layout at the top.

There, we can look at it.

Yeah, it does look good.

Just a minute. We don't need to rotate.

Yeah, we're good. And to zoom it in is, let's see, where did the zoomer go? Behind all of our heads. Which one? I think if you move all the heads out of the way, on the right. Oh, these guys? Oh, they're all on the way. Sorry.

yeah that's how it shows right there you would walk straight back to the parking lot and then take a right on the concrete sidewalk which then leads to the handicap parking and ramp to enter the uh to the parking lot in the back side of the building so there was no there was no parking spaces that needed to be adjusted um it just wasn't shown clear in our last meeting but there is a a right hand turn to get to the parking lot and backside of the building.

And then the final item, I can't recall. I don't have my notes in front of me. There was three items. I can't recall what the final item was. The development agreement. Okay. So let's table that for a second and focus on the site plan. Any comments on the site plan updates that were presented?

I got a comment on the cladding on the canopy, but not on the site plan.

Yeah, anything on what was presented for site plan?

So the change to brick for the canopy, is that all brick? Is it a clad of brick? Do we care? I mean, it looks good to me, but I don't know if materials matter to anybody.

The intent and what is believed is more economical is a full brick. The veneered brick systems on a building this side would be about $150,000 more to get the thin brick versus a full brick. The powers to be wants the brick. We want the brick. It's always a nice feature. It's 100-year material.

Other questions, comments? No? OK. I'm not hearing any more comments from the board regarding the site plans and designs. jim i think where i think we've worked through uh the board's comments and questions on all that so thank you for your efforts and time um jim what's what's the date that where that these plans are are being stamped with just so i understand um the si the civil set

we'll probably marry that to the civil set that was just submitted.

So the set, just so the board's clear, would be, it'll be the same, this is the set that came, the last set that we received, which is dated, September 8th. And with the latest revision is September 9th, sorry. September 9th, 2026. And if you're going to change it for clarity to add the elevations to it is what you're saying?

So there'll be one package for the board to

reference if that's i think that is that what the board would like yeah i just so i have the final civil set as nine nine right as presented tonight um and then the renderings do they have a date on them yes at all they do nine nine nine yep nine nine as well yes okay and okay so the nine nine sets is what was presented tonight okay yes All right. Good. Thanks.

All right.

Steve, can I ask you to help us understand where we are with the development agreement?

Yeah, sure. So I know there is a last minute wrinkle that was introduced in terms of the unit mix for the affordability account, actually. set aside that for now. The crux of the development agreement is that the applicant will pay for improvements to his corner of the intersection of Powder Mill and Waltham, or, you know, he will not, he'll pay for it. He will perform the improvements that we had previously discussed with the applicants beginning in 2023, which are outlined on this sheet that the town engineer provided. So essentially, new cement concrete sidewalks and reset granite curbing along the entire frontage of property on Powder Mill Road and Waltham Street. And this extends all the way up to the foot of the bridge on Waltham and around the corner, I think all the way up to the Butters property. You're facing the building to the right and as well as up The formula that you have in your rules and regulations has it so that 19 additional units equates to approximately $216,000. And the town has asked for that in cash. And with that cash, we will make improvements to the remaining three-quarters of the intersection.

This is the exhibit A. There you go. And for clarity, this is what was discussed and agreed upon. You know, the terms of that was agreed upon during the initial hearings? I believe so.

I don't believe so, no. No. My... They're two different things.

The payment was separate from the intersection improvements.

So the exhibit, was that part of the initial special permit discussion?

The attorneys, I believe it was. As a matter of fact, it was.

Okay. And so, Bill, what was your comment?

The original draft that the Board saw during the hearing had the open space payment separate from the intersectional improvements.

And that open space payment was considerably less, I believe. I think it was $30,000. That's correct. Yeah, instead of the $216,000, because at the time, I believe the applicant was going to be conducting all of the repairs to all four corners, that's no longer the case. That's the reason for the reconfiguration of the DA.

Okay. How far along we are with a development agreement that can be executed? And it has to, for clarity, the Planning Board and Select Board both have to vote and sign off on it, right? Yeah. And obviously applicant has to sign it as well. How far along are we with that path?

The draft DA was communicated to the applicant a few weeks ago. I spoke with him earlier today. He agrees in principle. The next step is to send it to our council. They could have it turned over, you know, track changes, bell check, et cetera, done probably by mid to late next week. So, I mean, the next steps in terms of planning board and then select board and next meets?

I think that the, yeah, the sequence is not specified who has to go first. Okay.

Yeah. Okay, so there's sort of loose terms agreed with the applicant that mitigation will be the the public space improvements for the sidewalk on on this corner of the parcel will be done under mitigation and that the density bonus totaling two hundred and sixteen thousand dollars will be earmarked for improvements on the other three corners so what so mitigation for his corner Density bonus for the rest.

Yep. Are we allowed to use the density bonus money for that? I thought it was open.

Isn't it supposed to be open space?

I know we loosened it a little, but I don't know.

That was part of the, both counsels. If I may, I asked Steve and Bill to look into that question back on the record with counsel, and I believe it was counsel and their lawyers had advice is what you guys told me, but I don't recall what that was.

Yeah, so the advice was that those improvements can be construed as being access to open space. I don't remember the exact terminology. I believe it's the last clause in the ZBL, which says, or provides access to open space. And so in this construction, We're talking about accessibility improvements to this intersection, which will allow people who have mobility challenges, as well as people who are just trying to get to downtown or wherever, a way to seamlessly get to Maynard's open space areas.

And the work on their corner, you said included updates to traffic equipment. What does that mean? I mean, they're putting in new boxes, they're putting in new signal heads and new mast arms.

Can we read it?

Yeah, we'll make it bigger here.

New 10-foot traffic signal poles on new or existing foundation if reusable, pedestrian signal heads, APS push buttons, and applicable signage. Oh, so they're just doing the crosswalk signal on that corner.

I believe it's the pedestrian signaling, not the traffic signaling.

Okay, so nothing with the masked arm?

Nothing with the masked arm and traffic signaling.

And just the pole and buttons on that corner, not the opposite corner?

The other, my understanding is that that corner will be done under mitigation. The other three corners would need to be done under the funds provided for the density bonus. As the proposal? Yeah. How do we... I might be getting a little far ahead of this, but how do we ensure that that money does go towards the improvements on this corner and not something else? Can the DA ensure that? It's currently written into the DA. Right, but how do we make sure that that actually occurs Because once the town has the funds, I want to make sure that that actually occurs that way. And if we don't have an answer now, that's fine.

Yeah, I don't have an answer right now, but I think that would be something. I'm pretty sure there's a way to fire them all the money. Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I know there's a way to fire them all the money. I just want to have legal bless the process for doing so. I just want to make sure.

It's a good point. We don't need to go any further with this. I just want to make sure. We'll just put a plug in this for now. want to make sure that whatever the board intends it actually happens and if it can't happen I we need to know that like now yeah right so I don't want to go you know three months after the DA and someone says oh we can't actually do that right that's not acceptable so we need to figure that out as a town and road paving is that on the applicant or is that

on the town as part of the money.

Is there any pavement listed in this?

I didn't see it. Why do you want road pavement?

Where did you say that, Bill?

Well, the old agreement had, you know, repavement of the road where it got, you know, affected by the construction of, you know, utility connection.

You mean it was damaged?

But I think, isn't, is Verizon,

doing this ever first like ever sources can do this like next month yeah there I mean the any any work on Tom property would need to be brought to original conditions yeah some DPW right well I'm just trying to make it clear you know what is coming out of one pond what is coming out the other pot I don't know argument later I don't so as I understand it this these da items would not include any type of roadway pavement. That's my understanding, but someone can correct me if that's wrong.

If it gets screwed up, then there's presumably already another mechanism for that with any project, right?

From my understanding, these DA items do not include roadway pavement. Other questions from the board?

I have a question about the public overlook. In the last round for the development agreement, that was kind of taken out because there were too many perceived issues with regard to easements approximated the river and right away with the bridge and all sorts of stuff. Is that still in? it's it's still listed on the site plan or on the one of the plans it's still included you know but and do we want it we never really went i thought that we had dropped it so no it's right by the bike um by the bike rack right but is that in the da because that would be a big part of the development agreement so where's the hang on let me have a discussion on that so far this is my understanding that we took this out of the da and that is uh because we didn't have

the overview of the deck on the riverside. Because when we talked to Army Corps, that wasn't going to be possible. So there's still like the access from the bridge to the tenants amenity and bike racks and stuff. And that's what you're seeing there. But this was not meant to be public anymore. And that's why it's not in the VA.

Okay, that's fine. But the plan still says public overlook.

yeah if that's still there then that just that wording just needs to be taken off of off that area okay so the september 9 plans are not the plans we will be acting on there'll be an updated plan

Do you guys see it? Well, I can't see the... Yeah, I was wondering about that. It's right here. Public access, proposed, and here's the proposed walkway here. And it would be nice if there was a little marking right here. The public would come right in here. Right, but it's not public access. They're not. Huh? It's not public.

What do you mean it's not?

He just said it wasn't.

Yeah, it's not the...

So that plan sits not correct in that regard. It needs to be updated.

That request was sent into Cornerstone. I thought they had sent it to you, but apparently they haven't.

So I didn't hear what Eric was going to say. You're saying the public access there is not?

Correct. There is no public access anymore. There's a walkway. But it's leading to that's tenant space now. That was decided during the last round of all of this.

OK. I missed that. I thought it was still there. It was going to be.

If it was there, then we would have to have something in the DA about it. And that's not happening.

Well, that's on the site plan. That would be. I know. But the e-fence, it's a huge thing for public access that we learned from the but it's not in the DA. Personally, I don't really need it.

that would be so that would be corrected then jim on the final plan all right cornerstone would update that bill yeah cornerstone i did request that already all right okay um all right um i'll open up to public comment bill can you

Mr.

Chair? Yes.

Just quickly to Bill's point. The only repavement that's stipulated in the DA, repaving of sections of Powder Mill and Waltham, that's required for the intersection to achieve ADA and AAB compliance. That's the only language relating to street repaving that we have.

So nothing scheduled, but potentially if there's requirement for it.

So who's that on? Is that on the applicant, or is that on the money given to the town? That is on the money given to the town.

OK. OK. All right. That's on the money given to the town for the three and on the applicant for their corner.

So I mean, the relevant one is their corner because that's where they're doing the construction. So therefore, it's on them.

I'm not sure you can differentiate with grading of an intersection. as to what corner is impacted by what cost share.

But the corner is going to be impacted by the construction of the building, and the construction of the building is only on one corner.

Yeah, but they're talking about slopes to make the ADA slope along the crosswalks correct and the ramps correct. And you're trying to balance it between four different corners. And it's like, well, is 10% of the share cost allocated to that is 40% of the cost allocated to this corner. You've probably got to find a definitive way of allocating that cost if you want to do that.

Is it each?

It's not the same because the slope and because they're sloped for storm drain and they're sloped for ADA. And so it's a very complex geometry. Meaning you can't do one without the other? Often, yeah. But they should just say, you know, okay, whatever it costs, X percent is town-owns and Y percent is African-owns or something. Unless you've got some number you don't have to argue about later.

Sounds like a DA discussion.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Anything else on that? Any other thoughts on the DA?

I don't know if the letter that came in late today, does that need to be discussed? We need to discuss that for the decision, too.

Let me open it up to public comment. If there's any members online that would like to provide a public comment, please use your raised hand feature and we'll call on you one at a time. And Bill, just for the record, can you confirm that there is no one here in town hall that is able to provide public comment?

No, it is just staff. Does anybody online wish to comment? The comment period is open. You can use your raise hand feature if you do. We have, let's see, a half dozen or so that are not with the team. Public comment, anybody? We don't seem to have anybody that wants to comment, Mr. Chair.

OK. All right. Let's turn to the question about affordable units. Adam, last meeting, I believe you confirmed that there wasn't going to be a request for a change in affordable units, but I did receive a letter from Um, someone from your team that suggested that there's that there could be a change. So, can, can you just help us clarify. Whether whether there is a request to change the affordable unit accounts.

Yes, so during the review of the development agreement with the buyer, this is where this came up. This was talk that had been. Talked about prior, I think, into the actual, uh, putting the property under agreement. And it's become a sticking point where I know we talked about having nine affordable units, five at 80, four at 60. But we also know that there's an option to ask for to reduce the number of affordables to five units, all at 60. And that's what the applicant is, me, the applicant and the buyer is requesting.

Okay. Again, so the request is to change the mix to five units at 60% AMI. OK. I'll turn to the board about if anyone has thoughts or comments on that proposal. Yeah, I got lots of them. Well, start with one first.

Well, the discussion seems to be talking about two different sections of the zoning code. There's one treatment of density units in Section 7, which covers everywhere. And there's a different treatment of bonus units in Section 9 for the DOD only. So I would like to have town council help us understand whether you can overlap both or whether they're really I mean in my mind usually the overlay stuff rules and you just use that but maybe there's something different here and then the other question I had was in the calculation because the section 7th sense basically you can change that you know once you can change a couple 80s to a 60 so My math would be, okay, we have five 80s and we're gonna change four of them to two 60s, but that's not the math they get. Somehow they arrive at just five units total. If I was doing math, I'd end up at six and a half. But, you know, it's a confusing, always-ever thought to consider it, and so I don't know what counsel says.

Well, let's start with Bill first, if that's okay.

Let's see what Bill thinks.

Yeah.

So, can you bring up the text?

Yeah.

Just give me a second.

All right.

So the first question you're asking, Bill, is how many units are due? The first question I'm asking is, does the text in Section 7 apply to the DoD if DoD 945 is being chosen? restrictive was. So that would be the DoD then? I don't... I think...

I'm not 100% that it says that. That's why I want counsel to tell us, but that's generally how it works.

All right. Okay, so as he starts here... All right, so sections... OK, six years. By project size, 25% of the units are required to be affordable. Right. The OD has its own requirements that supersede that. Well, how do I supersede it? If it's more restrictive, it would, right? I mean, that's the way I understand it. But let's establish this. OK, so we're talking, without bonus, with 25% of the project.

Can you start at the beginning of section 10? 10.3, 7.10.3.

I'm sorry, which one? Just the beginning of that same page. 7.10.3. OK, let me share this for everybody. Let's see what we're doing. All right, everybody should be able to see it. OK, 7, 10, 3.

You want me to go to it? Yeah, because that's the section. So what's the intro of that section? Make sure we're all good there.

Right here. Do you want me to read it out loud, or just let everybody? Mr. Chair, whatever.

One of my questions is, it keeps saying subject to this section, pursuant to this section, but the DOD is a different section.

Well, that could be the way we wrote that. But I guess the... What I'm struggling with to understand is what you want is, are we trying to establish the number of units that would be required before the 60% reduction? Yes. Okay. No. We know that, right?

25%.

Right. So that 25% of 36 units would be what? 9. 9.

And according to the DOD, 4 have to be 60%, and 5 have to be 8.

So DOD, should we go to the DOD?

Yeah, go to the DOD.

OK, I'll just look at the page.

And DOD.

Here's DOD.

Yeah. And then if you choose lesser land area, then you have this section that tells you how many affordables you have.

Okay. Yep. For projects of 17 or fewer units, we'll do this with about 18 or more units. Okay. Reducing the minimum lawn area from

Right, so what's a quarter of the additional units? There was 16 additional units or something?

What quarter of those have to be 60%? What was the total? The bonus units? I don't think it was.

Oh, no, I'm sorry. I thought Steve said 16 when he was calculating. It may be wrong.

We just did the calculations on it. Adam, can you help me with that? We did the calculations.

Yeah, it should be the total square footage we could use for land was $25,672. If you divide that by $1,500, that's 17 units, so we're getting 19 bonus units altogether. Oh, 19.

So a quarter of 19. Oh, that's 5.

That's the only thing with that number.

That's 5 at 60? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was 4 at 60. OK. 5 at 60 and 4 at 80 under the DOD number, right? And then you're saying? Section 7 can allow you to convert those four 80% units to 60s, which I kind of like the idea, but I don't know if we can. Because we've never actually figured it out. That certainly wasn't the intent, but maybe it is allowed. But we don't know until the town council helps us with it.

What was it? 7310, was it? 7310.

Well, either way, if we were to do that, it would still be more than five, right? It would be seven? I think, yeah. If we're supposed to have five 60% units and four 80% units, if we were to transfer, if we were to change the 80% units down, it would still be two 60% units, right?

I think that's one way of figuring it out, yeah.

I'm happy to consider how it could be 5 at 60%. I just don't know how to get the math there.

Well, the first thing is we can't ever go below 10% with the reductions, which we're not going to in this one with 5. We account...

So would the request for 5 be a waiver?

I don't know that we can. I don't know. I don't think we can waive stuff like that.

ZBA maybe, I guess. I don't know. So, Adam, I'm not sure the math on that stands up. It looks to me that the math would only allow a reduction down to seven units at 60% in total. I could be wrong about that, though, but that's my interpretation of what I'm seeing.

Does that, do you understand that? If that's what the math comes down to, then I would be able to explain that. But I think that's the general aspect is to have them all at 60% with a lower number.

So I think we could move forward with that math now. If the request is to try to apply the five units at 60%, I think we're going to need to bring in counsel for that because I don't see how that math works out. Okay. Should we proceed with seven units at 60%?

I believe we should if that's what the math is coming to right now, yes. Okay.

And now, obviously, if this all passes and the board votes in favor of these motions, and for some reason I'm wrong about the math, obviously that can be brought back to the planning department for discussion. Because the math is what the math is. So this is my understanding.

Well, I think we'd have to come back for the board.

Well, I would say bring it to the planning department for discussion to counsel. It might have to come back to the board. I don't know.

Well, I say that because the ability to reduce from 80 to 60 is subject to board approval. It's not mandatory. It's not part of the calculation if the planning board wants to. So a vote tonight on 7, in my mind, is a vote tonight on 7. Right. And if they're going to say later on, oh, it was really 5, but we still get our permit. I totally agree with that.

My comment was that they would have to bring that back to the planning department for discussion.

and then yes i agree i agree another vote for the board for modification would most likely i don't see a way around it would have to be necessary because i think we have to do a special vote yeah on the reduction from four to two or whatever can we just do that tonight i guess so we've never had to do it so can't we just make a separate motion to approve conversion of four eighty percent units to two sixty percent units Yeah, in accordance with whatever section it is. Probably, yeah, that's probably good enough. We just have to make sure we do it specifically, because it requires us to do that.

Yeah.

So can we, let's, I just want to make sure we get this all captured correctly, so we can recap this. The board is, believes, and I'm not disagreeing, I just want to make it for clarity. With the math works out to seven units would have to be provided at 60% for the density bonus.

That's my, that seems like the consensus on that matter. Okay.

Really, it was 19 bonus units? That's what, it was 19 bonus units, correct, Adam?

Yes. Steve, 19? Yeah. Okay. Yep, we both confirmed.

So, the options would be, okay, if they want to stick with the original,

No, we already, we're moving forward with the seven.

Moving forward with that?

Yeah.

Okay, understood. And seven units at 60% would sell.

Okay. Okay. Okay, any final comments on that topic? Makes sense to me. From my point of view, In my mind, I've closed out topics for discussion, but is there any other topics, any other comments from the board regarding the modification of the special permanent site plan, including the AMI reduction council?

When does the DA have to be complete? The current... For building permit or for occupancy?

We had a condition in the current special permit, which was... You can see how Libra was changing that to building permit, Bill?

Well, we have currently it reads, the development agreement shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. That was from the original.

I would I would I would suggest just don't touch that okay so that would be prior to building for us it would stay the same we're not we don't need to modify that condition okay other comments other comments from board are we putting in something about just providing an updated site plan that has the things we discussed tonight mostly removing the public access

Yes, so I was thinking we could condition that additional, a new revision on site plans would be required to be submitted by applicant within 30 days. That includes the change of removing the language showing that there's public access.

Great. Adam and Jim, did you understand that?

Yeah, that's that. I'm sorry that I did put a request into Cornerstone to have that. I thought he sent it out and I will make an email to him again tomorrow, but he knows to take that out. So you will have that as soon as possible.

Let's change the date so we haven't right. We want to update it a date for that then with the revision should have an updated right?

Whatever right?

Whatever the appropriate date is exactly. We'll put a whole package together with the new elevations, all the drawings and just have it with that date. So they're all correct dates. Thank you, Adam.

That's going to be helpful. And that will be a condition.

Other comments questions or any of the existing conditions being changed.

The existing conditions are going to change, as you say, are they going to change, Bill? Yeah.

We've got 24 of them on the first one.

They all stay? The ones that would change would be denoting if the board's going to change the affordable. That's not a condition. That's a finding.

Shipping. Do you want to bring up the list of conditions, or do you just want to talk about them? I mean, most of them I can understand.

Well, let's do this. Bill, do you have any recommendations on changing any of the conditions?

The only ones that I saw that we had a question about. Obviously, the changes in the findings are going to change with the numbers of affordable. And the same with the waivers, I would, where they talk about a density bonus for nine units, I would change everything to seven at 60%. But that's throughout the, I'll make a blanket revision that all allusions to that in the original decision are modified. So far as the conditions of approval, I can bring them up and go through them. We did this, I think we did this last time, and I'll bring it up again. I marked it all here. But the only ones that came up to change were the condition about sconce light, which I, this is, but everything else was the same. And the roll-up gate, in which we already got that straightened out as well, I think. But would your board like me to bring them up and run through them? The clock starts... 24 months again?

The clock's reset? The clock is reset for the special permit? That's correct. And the site plan.

I don't need to look at them again as long as we're adding in, you know, we're adjusting for the affordable calculation references and the gate is already there and the sconce is there. I know the sconce. Leave it in.

I don't know what this constant, I can't...

It was on the part of the build that got taken away.

Yeah, so it's not even... Should I... It's... We removed that? I can't remember at all where that came from.

That was new, right?

No, that was not new.

Oh.

No, I don't remember. I thought one of the renderings added it. We can just leave it in there. Okay, all right. All right, yeah. It won't hurt, okay. We don't want to change it.

You say we got to do all the waivers again? Is that right? No. The waivers... Just the ones that have changed? The ones that have changed... The only waivers that have changed would be the number on it where we talk about provision of nine affordable units. It would be provision... like the explanation of the waiver. The waivers...

The number of parking spaces the same?

Yeah. Parking spaces stay the same, right, Jim?

Yes, we didn't change that.

Yes.

Yeah, that doesn't change. Right. It's 40. That's the number? 4-0? 4-0. 54 required. Well, that's not true anymore, is it? Well, maybe it is.

Well, no, actually, that's not true either. Yeah, but so this is a modification. I don't think we need to change that. If it was a new site plan, we would have to...

So we're just doing a site plan review vote again.

Yeah, it would be a site plan review, modification of site plan... And the design guideline approval... Modification of special permit, that it matches... Yeah, here's... ...airside guidelines, all that.

Here's what I wrote out basically that we're doing for that house.

Yeah, I had Bill... I worked with Bill on draft motions for all this.

Yeah, if that sounds correct. Thanks, Bill. The numbers, I didn't put the numbers in there for the affordable.

Other questions or comments from the board? No. Adam, anything final to add before we close the hearing?

No, I just appreciate everybody's time on this. I know it's been a lot, and hopefully we have everything squared away, and we can get this building built.

Bill, Steve, any final thoughts?

I do not. No, I think we've covered it. The board's been thorough with this review. I think in the end, the The changes that were made with the modification that we addressed, it'll be a good project. We get it going and get it up. And I like the way that it turned out aesthetically and functionally.

No comments from my end.

All right, I will make a motion to close the hearing. Second. All in favor to close, please raise your hand. So 5-0 in favor to close the hearing. There's a set of motions here, but any comments or discussion before from the board? We're allowed to deliberate and discuss.

No, man, I think you got this. Good luck.

nothing else okay so I'm before I make a motion I'm just going to cover this with everyone the motion will include that the revised site plan is consistent with the zoning bylaws and the planning board rules and regulations that the that the planning board finds that the criteria for a special permit has been met and and that it's consistent with the two sections of special permit requirements based on for the modifications themselves and the unaffected remaining areas are also consistent based on the previous decision and that the modifications dated consistent with both the new with the site plan regs and the conditions and sorry I'm being redundant here and that the affordable unit counts the bonus unit portable counts in accordance with seven point ten point four of the zoning bylaws The board will vote to allow a reduction down to seven units at 60% AMI. And then the conditions will be a modification of the development agreement. Well, actually, we're not modifying the conditions of the development agreement. We're just keeping the condition of the development agreement. And there will be a condition that the new design package from the applicant will be submitted within 30 days. That includes the updates presented tonight as one package with the new data on it. And it will also denote, it will remove the language denoting the public access. That was discussed. And any comments on that before I attempt this motion?

Good luck.

Phil, any comments?

No. No. He's never done one like this.

OK. Let's see. Just give me a second. All right, I will make a motion to find that the modifications to the site plan as presented tonight and throughout this hearing is consistent with section 10.5 of the zoning bylaws and the planning board rules and regulations. we will also find that the modifications to the special permit criteria or the special permit is also consistent with the criteria for section 9.4.6 and section 10.4 of the zoning bylaws and that the original findings and conditions from the original special permit shall also remain and that the special permit will be amended as presented and discussed. We will also find that the board will allow a reduction in affordable unit counts from a total of nine to be reduced down to seven units earmarked for the 60% AMI, and that an additional condition will be added that the applicant will submit a new design package as discussed tonight within 30 days of tonight's meeting that will include the renderings and the updated designs, civil designs as shown tonight, which had a date of 9-9-2026, but this new package will also include the removal of language denoting the public access as discussed, and that package will have a new updated date on it. And that is the motion.

I'll second that beautiful motion.

Did I get that correct? So just to summarize, the intent here is to find that the modifications of the site plan is consistent. The previous site plan that was not modified is still consistent and remains unchanged. The special permit criteria, the special permit that's modified is consistent with the special permit criteria, and the items that were not modified also remain consistent. Right. And that the board approves of a reduction of unit counts down to seven at 60% AMI, and that a new design package needs to be submitted in 30 days with a new date and denoting the removal of the public access language.

That's what I got.

OK. So to be clear, that was the intent. All in favor, please raise your hand. That's 5-0 for approval of that motion. Adam and team, thank you for your time and effort. And thanks again for tonight. Thank you very much. Bill and Steve will be in touch.

OK. We have one more item, Mr. Chair. I did prepare a staff report real quick for this. And the applicant, are you ready to go to the next item?

I'm sorry. I guess I am. My brain needs a minute.

No, go ahead.

Let me open it up first, though. OK. Does anyone need a minute, a break? No? OK. All right. Let's open up the public hearing for 94 Powder Mill Road. This is an application filed by Posh Pup LLC of 77 Powder Mill Road. And the applicant is requesting a special permit to authorize the use of a commercial kennel in the business district at that location. Bill.

Yes, Mr. Chair. We have the applicant, Scott, I think. Can you hear me, Scott?

Yes, I can.

OK. The applicant has prepared a brief presentation for you explaining the operation. But just to give you a quick overview, I think I put everything in the staff report for this, too. But in a nutshell, this is what we call the former John Deere site. This use is a commercial kennel, and it requires a special permit. But using the existing structure, there are some changes which the applicant has provided an inter-staff report and also on the presentation. We have, oh yeah, it's showing. OK, there it is right there. What we're looking for tonight is just a standard special permit to allow the kennel. And with that, I will turn it over. Scott, if you're going to introduce yourself. And he's been working with the town. He's been terrific to work with. And this has been in the works for some time. So I'll turn it over.

Thank you. Can everyone hear me?

Yes.

Perfect. Good evening. My name is Scott Michelle and I'm the owner of the Posh Pup. Thank you guys for giving the opportunity to present our plans for 94 Potter Mill Road. The Posh Pup is a dog daycare, resort, and spa. We operate in Acton right down the road and in Bolton. We're excited to have this opportunity to invest in this property and become part of the managed community as well. As far as I'm aware, we're able to open up dog daycare and grooming at this facility. We are just requesting a special permit to operate overnight boarding. Daycare and grooming are already permitted. We are asking the board to approve boarding, which is just an extension of those services. We'll have the same staff supervision, sanitation procedures, and safety standards that apply during the day would continue overnight. At our Bolton location, we are doing about 40 dogs per night for overnight boarding. This was our first summer in operation, and we were full from Memorial Day to Labor Day. We have someone that sleeps on site overnight with the dogs. So if there's any issues, there's staff there. Any noise concerns, we have a staff member there as well. All our dogs sleep in suites overnight. If there is an issue and they're not comfortable in their suites, usually they end up in bed with the staff or we'll make them comfortable throughout the night. As you can see on this photo here, this is what one of our playgroups looks like at our new Bolton facility. We've been operating in Acton since late 2023. We operated there with just boarding and daycare in the beginning. And then right now it is only daycare as we've grown out of that space within the first six months of operating at that location. When we opened up Bolton, our capacity in Bolton is 150 dogs per day. We're not looking for that in Maynard. Our facility in Bolton will primarily be the overnight boarding facility. We're just asking for Maynard to be the extension on peak dates like summertime, school vacations, and holidays. As Bill mentioned, we're going to pretty much keep the same structure. We are rebuilding everything from the ground up, reframing, updated plumbing, HVAC, electrical, cleaning up the whole property in the back. There's a lot of stuff that they're already working, cleaning all the lawnmowers and everything previously that was there. We'll fence in the property, use the existing parking lot, expand it as needed for business. Just a quick little overview of the backyards. Everything will be in the back towards the waterfront to keep everything off the roadway. We'll keep the same existing entrance in that area and just allow more parking spaces for clear circulation and easy access to pull inside and outside of the parking lot. Traffic will not be an issue as all our clients stay about two to three minutes throughout the mornings from 7 to 9 a.m. We have two people on site in the lobby checking in dogs. So basically, they'll just hand off the dog, goes right into the backyard or into the indoor play groups. And right now in Bolton, we're dealing with, I would say, about 100 dogs per day. And there's a maximum of three to four cars there at a time. For boarding and grooming, those appointments and those drop-offs are scheduled so they stagger throughout the whole day. Just an interior sketch of the playgroups. This is the main level here. We're gonna utilize both levels. All our boarding suites will be in the basement, which will be soundproofed with blue board and insulation. The main level will have grooming. We're gonna utilize the existing bathroom and have indoor play areas for their dogs as well. These are our suites that we use in Bolton. We'll have about 15, give or take a little bit less or a little bit more for Maynard. Again, those will be in the basement area, so it will help out with sound as well. For daycare, we plan on having about 75 dogs per day. Right now in Acton, we have about 45, but our wait list is very long, and a lot of people from Maynard are going to Bolton, driving that extra 20 minutes just because there's nowhere else in the area like us. The way we do boarding, they have full access to daycare during the day. We don't leave them in kennels all day long, so if they're not able to be around other dogs, Most of our boarding dogs during the day. So they k they're comfortable in th know the staff. We just dogs. They all have to go and we're honest with the not a good fit for dayca We tell them, hey, your dog, this is not the environment for your dog. We try our best to, you know, make them comfortable in the environment. But daycare and boarding is not for every dog. These are our outdoor yards in Bolton. We use the best canine turf. If you pick it up, you can actually see through it. That's the type of turf that you want for the yards. It provides great drainage. It's easy to clean for sanitation and odor. We pick up all the dog feces right away as that could spread germs and bacteria. They'll have a dumpster on site and we clean both indoor and outdoor play groups daily. For overnight boarding, they're inside from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., unless there's an emergency or something like that. But our last let out at night is typically around 8.30 to let the dogs out, go to the bathroom. We do that in smaller groups just so they're not playing. Most of the boarding dogs go into their suites around 6 o'clock for dinner, and then they rest and settle down for the night. Again, we'll have someone that sleeps on site overnight with the dogs. If there is barking, they'll redirect them, make them calm. We plan on using the existing water in town water and sewer. We'll have a dumpster on site. To keep everything as clean as possible. We pride ourselves on having a very clean facility. All our staff clean very, very thoroughly throughout the day and at night. Our overnight staff is responsible doing deep cleaning as well. So they're up and alert with the staff. This will create a lot of local jobs for Maynard. We take a lot of co-op students from local tech schools. We have Minuteman, we have Acibit, and then we also have a student that started from Monte Tech. They're all in the vet tech programs at those schools. So they are CPR certified. They've gone through the vet tech certifications. So we like to give back to the community as well. That's pretty much it. Any questions?

Thanks, Scott. Bill, so just so I understand a few things, we're only looking at special parameter criteria for section 10.4.2. There's no other specific guidance on kennels and the zoning bylaws. Is that correct?

That's correct. We do have the animal control officer on board as well. I should have pointed her out earlier. But that's what we have. The site you're all familiar with, I think, is the applicant has also provided a thorough justification statement at the back of your application. of your staff reports that lays out how he believes he meets criteria. They did a very thorough job with that. Oh, there's John.

OK, so is this going to the Conservation Commission at all? It is. OK.

The Conservation Commission is going to hear it. When are you scheduled for that, Scott? Conservation Commission, I did not get scheduled for that yet Okay, they're waiting for this.

Okay, and that will review items I mean just I'm just thinking one of our items is impacts to the natural environment. So yes Conservation Commission is also reviewing that that's correct. Okay Okay, and I see that the internal review that there were no No comments from the health agent building Commissioner. No town engineer police and fire. No comments Okay Hi, Jen, it's Julie Gagan's husband. Hi. Good to see you. Um, do you have as as, um, as animal control officer for the town? Do you have any any comments on this?

Um, I'm super happy about it. I think it's going to be a great thing for the town. A lot of people are traveling up to Bolton and I hear, you know, they'll call my office, look for something closer and the place to be. So they're willing to do the drive. But I think it's something great and Scott knows how to do it and I have full faith in him.

Thanks, Jen. As the animal control officer, do you recommend any other additional stipulations or requirements besides what Scott presented?

No. So right now, Scott is operating in Acton, which is not a town that I cover, as well as Bolton is not a town I cover. I will say that I am in and out of both locations quite frequently, as my daughter works at one. And, you know, my dogs get groomed up in Bolton, and it's an amazing place. And he follows all the rules to a T. And when he's ready to do a kennel inspection, he'll notify me, and we'll go in and do it.

Okay. How often do you have, is there like routine inspections that occur like annually or anything like that?

Yes. All kennel inspections for the town happen in January. So, and then of course we handle anything that gets complaints or, you know, that would come to the office throughout the year. But generally all the kennel inspections are done in January as they have to be uploaded and turned into the state. And that falls, you know, under animal inspector, board of health and the whole nine yards. So...

Okay, and you submit those reports to the board to Maynard's board of health or to.

Okay, so it actually gets submitted to the town clerk's office as well as board of health and the state. So, the town has to upload it. It's the required the new requirements with the.

Okay, understood anything else to add.

No, I'm good.

Thanks. Thank you for questions or comments. Or Scott, or Jen, or Bill?

I got two for Bill and one for Scott.

Go ahead.

So Bill, just confirm, the adjacent properties are business owned?

Yes, they're business owned. Okay, so that's not quite a regret.

And did we get any feedback from Acton on how it works up there and whether it's all good or anything we should be looking out for?

I did not speak to Acton.

I did not. Okay. All right, question to the applicant. You showed a real pretty picture of the front of the building. And it got me thinking that we're looking to improve the pedestrian experience along that stretch of road. And at this point, nobody knows what that would take. But one potential would be maybe the sidewalk needs to be widened a couple feet, which would push into your property. So I was just wondering if you were OK with making sure that anything permanent, like your sign or a mature tree or something like that, was, say, three or five feet back from the sidewalk, so in the future it didn't get in the way of a pedestrian improvement?

that's totally fine um the sign right now we're going to use the existing sign that's there and just you know put another sign on top of that but as far as like anything close to the street our landscape in the front will be very minimal we'll make it look nice but they're dogs they like to pee on everything so we're gonna we'll make it as clean as possible yeah i mean it looked like you were setting it back anyways it's just i don't want you know 10 years down the road that oh well there's this huge oak tree

Yeah, no, for sure.

The building is pretty much pushed back from that as well. So there'll be plenty of space.

We could add that as a condition that applicant will not install items within five feet of the property boundary. Sidewalk. Five feet of back of sidewalk. Yeah. Five feet of back of sidewalk.

Could you say that one more time? I had the air conditioner running. I'm sorry. How much from this? Five feet?

Five feet from the back of the sidewalk.

Yeah, just trying to keep it clear of permanent or semi-permanent installations.

We have a dream of a nice sidewalk there.

It's going to take a couple decades to make it happen. Any other comments from the board?

Cheap job. Okay, I'll open up to public comment. Members that are online, if you'd like to enter a public comment, please use the raise hand feature through Zoom and we'll call on you one at a time. And Bill, can you also confirm again that there are no members of public available to provide comment here in Telmo?

We have no members of the public here to comment. Would anybody like to comment online? Raise your hand, please. Use the raise hand feature.

Seeing no hands, I'm presuming there is no public comments to be entered. Okay. Scott, any final information to provide before we consider closing the hearing?

No, I'm good. Thank you.

Bill?

No, I don't think everything is.

Okay. I'm going to ignore Steve over there. I'm going to ask him.

I have a question for you, Chris. Yeah. I don't know. Wisconsin hasn't met yet. If we were to say it met the impacts of natural environment, is that a conditional?

I don't know. I was trying to think if I had any concerns beyond what was presented. I don't.

There's a lot of nutrients that will end up in the river if you don't do it right.

But if you want to chat with Bolton as well, I'm in the buffer zone in Bolton, and I went through the whole conservation with their committee there as well. So I'm sure they're happy to guide you guys along the way as well.

I mean, I don't think there's going to be a problem. I think usually ConsCom was already met before we do this, right?

Yeah. I mean, procedurally, ConsCom and the health agents, right? The health agent would be involved.

Yeah, I don't think it's a real health thing. It's just a river health thing.

I don't think you need to condition it. I mean, they say no. They say no. Yeah. Right.

But it is one of the things that's listed in one word. I mean, we have to say it's OK in our special permit determination.

Yeah, I mean, we could condition that the Conservation Commission will provide environmental approval. No, we'll just approve the project.

This special permit criteria is just the standard one. So you're considering it. And the consideration, I would think, might be that it has to go before the conservation commission. And that would be where that would be addressed the most effectively.

I mean, in a way, we did consider that. That is the consideration. So I guess it is kind of redundant. Okay. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.

I'll second that.

All in favor to close the hearing, please raise your hand. 5-0. Would someone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to determine that this request meets the special permit criteria as described in Section 10.4 of the Zoning Bylaws. Continue the motion to approve a special permit that will allow a commercial kennel use for the property at 94 Powder Mill Road.

I'll second.

With the condition, sorry, of the no permanent plantings or other hardscaping within five feet of the back of the sidewalk along the frontage of the property. Or something more eloquently put than that. I'll second it.

I'll second it. I'll second that. All right. Motion and seconded. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It's 5 0 to approve the motion, which means that your special permit is approved. Thank you Scott for your time.

Thank you very much. Have a great night. Thank you.

Bill, there is no item on here for planner updates.

So I think we just closed the meeting October. 13.

Oh, yeah.

Does that mean. No meeting for us.

I don't have any items anyway.

We won't cancel now in case there's a site plan that someone tries to sneak in.

We can't do it. Because we're going to be at town meeting. You're not supposed to say that out loud, but yeah. If something came in urgent, I would contact the board. We could schedule it.

Sure.

Okay.

So does that mean the next meeting is just going to be on?

The 20 whatever of October. the 28th nope the 27th yep oh that's a good day great well but i don't like you guys just i feel like we've put enough time in this month um i will not be here for that meeting that's right near your birthday bill 27th

I hope you're doing something better.

I'm entertaining my mother. Oh. So we'll go ahead. Oh.

So yes, better. Excellent. Sure.

Better. All right.

So unless we hear otherwise, our next meeting will be the 27th of October.

Yeah. But we'll see each other at?

Town meeting. Town meeting.

Right. OK. I'll make a motion to close the meeting.

Second.

All in favor to close, please raise your hand. 5-0 to close the meeting. Six zero, the closing line.