October 14, 2025 – Design Review Board – Video & Transcript
October 14, 2025 - Design Review Board
Great. 701, I should say, we're in a design review board meeting on Tuesday, October 14th, and we have an outing with a public comment that I see, so we'll move to the next item, which is the Carroll School.
So, and I know that they, I think a lawyer was going to tune in tonight.
They're not on the agenda till 7.05, so now somebody's there. Okay. So I look at the raised hand. Sylvia Diaz. I don't remember that being the name of who was going to show up.
I don't know where this is. So, you want to just do the minutes while we wait for it to be 7.05? Yeah, let's do that. The, we have two to do. Yep. September 3rd and September 9th. And let's start with the older one. September 3rd, I have a copy of it here. If you have any questions, have you both had a chance to review them? I looked at them. They seemed fine. Yeah. Okay. So anyone want to make a motion?
I move that we approve the minutes from September 3rd, 2025, as amended.
Anybody second? I second it. Okay.
It's going to hand vote, I guess. Robin? Yes. Yes. Tanya and myself. Yes. So it's 3-0-0. Now let's go to September 9th while we still have a minute left.
They look fine to me. Anything for you, Tanya? No. All good. Okay. So I move that we approve the minutes from September 9th, 2025, as amended.
I second it. I second it.
And the vote is Robin? Yes. Yes. Tanya? Yes. And myself, yes. All right. So we got that housekeeping out of the way.
We could now go back to the application on 37 to 45 Waltham Road, the Carroll School. And if no one is here, I suppose I can speak for them. Well, Sylvia Diaz there. Ms. Diaz, are you here for the applicant or are you just here for the meeting? If you're here for the applicant, could you raise your hand? How do I accept her?
I think if you either right-click or click on this, I think you can elevate her to a participant. Okay. She didn't raise her hand, so I don't think she's here on behalf of the applicant. Oh, she's not.
So if she raises her hand, then how do I get her to speak? So if you click on her, so I'm not the host, so if you click on her, you might get a little thing that says go on. Oh, there it is. Okay. Yeah.
There it is. I can allow a talk. Okay. I can't believe that a month goes by and I can't remember how to do this. I'm just here for the meeting. Okay. Okay. So you can mute me. Thank you for tuning in. Sure. Thank you. All right. So you can return her back to the observation deck or something. I don't know.
Okay. So here's what's up. If you didn't know, Tanya, there was an email sent about five days ago by the applicant for the Carroll School requesting that they continue this hearing. They couldn't get all of their experts to join this meeting, and so they want to reschedule for another date when everyone that they want can join the meeting. So they were going to tune in and ask in person, but I don't think it matters since they sent the email.
I'd like to make a motion that we continue the hearing to a date to be determined when we find out from them when all of their team can be assembled. Yeah. It's almost reasonable. The only thing is, I think we have to have somebody in the office, Robert or Nina, request that they seek to continue them, because otherwise we're going to hit the deadline perhaps too soon. So they have to request to continue. They actually have to request the deadline, yeah. Yeah. The extension. Yeah. So they were supposed to jump on tonight in order to do that. So I don't know if Nina or Robert can ask them to do it in writing more formally, or if we have to reconvene before their deadline comes and goes.
So other than that, I second the motion, but we do need to formalize their request.
Yep. So you second it? Okay. I second it. So the votes, Robin? Yes. Yes. Tanya and myself. Yes. So what the hell is this? Okay. So that closes that discussion for, it doesn't close the discussion. That's a motion. I think that if anyone wants to, we have the opportunity to discuss our first observations on the application. Otherwise, we can just extend that discussion to the next meeting. I found that the drawings that were submitted with this application were really, I think, insufficient. They did not include enough material for us to be able to review lighting, setback dimensions, and things of that sort. But when I talked to Robert earlier today, he gave me a copy of their full application, which you probably already have, Robin, which is a really large set. It's very, very thorough. It has all the information that we would need and more. So I suggest that we ask them to submit additional information in compliance with our application for design review so that we can cover all the material at the next meeting. Okay.
Therefore, really, there's not much to talk about. So my suggestion is that we defer that discussion. But if you have questions or items you want to bring up, feel free. No, I think we have to be careful. I think, to me, I would pay a lot of attention to the lighting plan and the landscaping plan because it's really smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Yeah. You know, so I think we just want to be... And there are lots of, obviously, from the letters coming in, other concerns in the neighborhood, but our concerns are design-related. And so I would look at lighting and landscaping, screening, that kind of stuff. Yep.
Okay. Anything else, Tanya? No, I didn't have a chance to read the latest set, so... Okay. There wasn't much there. Yeah. I don't think... I don't think there was a parking plan that showed lighting, for example, so you really wouldn't have any... Nor would you see lighting on the building elevations. So, those are things that we will comment on when they come back to us. Okay.
Now, the next item on our agenda is 725, and it's not that time yet. So, we could jump to the review of the design guidelines, I think, since there's no applicant for that.
Yep. Okay. And I had sent you a couple of items. Now, we're talking about design guidelines. One of them was the photo study of what Concord and some other nearby towns have in the way of, you know, the village character, which is what's the buzzwords in our Wayland guidelines. And if you have an interest in doing a review of that document, I don't know if you can post it, Robin, on the... Yeah, I was looking for it before we started, and I'm... Oh, you know what? You sent it to my home email and not to my town email. That's why I couldn't find it before. Let me pull it up.
There it is.
So, if nothing else, I think we could at least go through the various photographs in the report and identify which ones we think could be improved, and then to... And maybe your mark, some of the ones that I have sent you. That is not what I'm supposed to be sharing. I like the pairs. Oh, okay. Wait a minute.
You never know quite what you're getting on a Mac. Here we go.
So, that was one of the pictures. Yeah. And I think we wanted to look at it for both sort of that village feel question, but also we were looking at their signage. Yes. I had a few. Yep. At the back of the report, I had one page where I had signage there. And there are a few right here in this image here. The sign bands sometimes are created. Yep. Yeah. Even further down, the sign band is a band across the face of the building, right? Right there. It's about four signs to be placed. But quite a few don't have that. Like the one you first pointed at is just an awning with a sign on it and a bracket sign. And that one there, there's no band, so it's just a freestanding face-mounted sign. Well, I do like their little shoe that's up there. That's great. And then, yeah, there's an awning with a freestanding sign. And that's sort of just going down the row. So, and then, this was the other. Yeah, there were the shots I took. They were just a little fuzzy. Yeah. Well, hand out camera. But I can improve on any that you think need to be used in the document. Yeah.
And I think that from the study that was done for the town center plan and the changes we're going to make, the idea is to not have it like a sidewalk that goes right up to the storefront, but to have, and not even just window boxes, but to really have green strips on both sides of the sidewalk. Yeah, that's the last one. You had asked to find one that works for a gas station. And this is one in Chestnut Hill on Route 9. Yep. I don't think we want to leave behind the need for being as green as we possibly could, and that if they wanted to create solar collectors over a gas station, I think that would be encouraged. I wonder if it's allowed, though, if they'd be allowed to have a solar system on top with their fire suppression system, or if that would be an issue. That's a good question. An issue. They're very touchy about that. Right. If you get a fire there, it really blows. Yeah. So maybe on such a thick awning like this, maybe you could have solar panels up here. Facing south, you could, yes. Yeah, but on such a thin one, even on a thick one. I just don't know if they would want that. Yeah. I don't think you want solar panels in a place where they might combust. It's a lot of toxic chemicals in those PV cells. Right. But certainly that looks a lot nicer than that. But if it's for solar panels, it's something different. But I just, I would question whether that's even allowed.
Yeah, maybe. Anyway. Okay. So, well, we have lots of pictures to work from. Any comments on these? So, first of all, I do like this option that you found for the gas station. It's a refined, actually. And it's a good example. How it could blend in the styles that we want to happen. And my only comment about the other concrete pictures that you found, it's actually the, you know, the downtown that happened over time. It's all those buildings are historic buildings. And maybe we should also find some new examples which were built, which are new buildings, which were built to match the style. I think a few of them are, but I really wouldn't know without checking with their building department. I think that the one on the corner, the other view, Robin, I think the next, if you roll it, scroll down to the other part of the report. Or, there's a corner shot.
Yeah, scroll up, please. Corner shot. That one's fairly new, I think. And this one down here? I suspect it is. It's just too perfect. The bricks are all perfect. Then the, if you go up a little bit higher, there's a wood frame one. Maybe it was lower. I guess it is lower. There's a wood frame and a corner shot of, this is the corner on one side. There's a full corner shot of that, that I think is probably not old. This one? Yeah. Yeah. Probably not. Well, for one thing, the little gable and dormer on the side there is probably not consistent with a really old building. I mean, it's cute, made to look old, but I don't think it is. Yeah.
I can confirm that. Yeah. So, and I know for the... Oh, this one, by the way. Yeah. It's all in shadow, so it's hard to read. But it's basically built like an old stable. And this is clearly brand new. I don't even remember seeing it before. So, it's, you know, fairly recent, the last 10 years. Yeah. Okay. But, you know, for Tanya, looking for something more modern, I mean, the whole idea for Route 20 is to, and even the town center was supposed to be modeled a little bit on Linden Square down in Wellesley, where on the street side, there's greenery and sidewalk and the buildings with the entrances to the building around the backside from the street. And I think we're really looking at a different scale from that, but that's a more modern construction. I would like to add to that, though. I agree, Robin, that when we were on the committee back in 2011, that was a unanimous decision on the part of the members. And we had public hearings, and we had public hearings, and the public stood up and said, we want, you know, we want quaint, old looking buildings. However, we have quite a few modern buildings in town already, not modern, I mean, 50s modern. And I would recommend that we encourage keeping those and restoring them to their, you know, mid-century modern style and not basically insist on tearing them all down. Right. Right. Absolutely, yeah. Yeah. I mean, one of the things about this picture that, to me, makes it appealing is the fact that it's all broken up. It's not one long building that was torn down and rebuilt. It's buildings that have kind of clustered together over time with things added in between. And, you know, so even if people were to tear things down, to encourage them to break up the storefront faces so that it looks like separate buildings that have grown together. Yeah. Actually, if we do want to create a little bit more urban environment or urban feeling for the central street, we do want some density, certain density. And it's not a bad thing when building touching each other. You know, it's create continuous pedestrian experience. Yeah. Well, I think that there are some developers that would want to do that. Certainly a lot of architects. All of us were trained that there's nothing that follows international style. That's the end of the world. And in fact, that's just not the case. Yeah. Yeah. One interesting question with the Route 20 development that we've been going back and forth on is, you know, how much density can actually be achieved there, though, because septic is a little bit of a limiting factor. And the balance between the limited parking and then the size of the buildings, because if you look at those places along Route 20 on the on the north side of Route 20, you know, if you if there is no parking on the street. So cars have to go around the back side to park, you'll have a very limited size parking lot, even if the building owners work together and share their parking. It's still a limited parking area. So there are some restrictions on the density that can be achieved in that area. Yeah, I understand that. In fact, that's part of the problem that we have with the old. The old the old Greek style building that we have in town that they're trying to put in a coffee shop there and they have like three parking spaces in front and nothing in back or the side. So, yeah, I think I'm very self limiting site. I think there's some on the street side, though, because the people who worked at the bank parked on sort of perpendicular to Route 20. And then if you were coming to the bank for business, they had some spots that you come up to the side where the door is kind of on the dentist's office side. So there's some parking, but yet it'll be it'll be crowded on a Saturday or Sunday morning. But also, in addition to it, they do have some like parking close by where they could park and walk. And again, we do want to encourage the pedestrian experience, especially if we have it all tied into the rail trail. That's the idea. Yeah, that would be nice. That would be nice. Yeah, there is land at the rail trail if they were to extend, if they were willing to extend, they probably aren't the parking lot. That's that's right there and pick up, you know, even five or six spaces would help. Mm hmm. Okay. Okay. So, at some other time, if you want, we could or I could just draft a proposed list of there are a number of pictures. I don't know if you have your copy of the report in front of you, but I can draft a suggested page by page edit to the as a draft to the guidelines and then it might be easier than trying to do it on a zoom meeting like this. Yep. Yep. Yeah, definitely. Okay. We do at 725 now so we can go back. Yep. Yep. To discuss we had. I got two letters. Another one came in today, but I had emails, two emails, on the topic of the Coptic church. I think you were copied on them. I'm not sure whether you have them handy. I think I was, yeah. But I can walk you through what I think. The one that is really sums it up was a later one that came in on September 29th. And it was apparently a group of neighbors got together and I think they suggested that they had hired or gotten the help of a lawyer. And they have a list of 10 items, so I'll just quickly go through them. The one was the height of the building. Their suggestion is that we recommend that any structure be any taller, and I meant to say not, I guess, not be any taller than the existing tree canopy so as not to be visible from the surrounding neighborhood. That, you know, that's the height is an issue. And I don't know on any of these, Robin, maybe you can help me, how the Dover amendment might weigh in on this as we get into these weeds. Right. So I think there are sort of two things to be mindful of. The Dover amendment obviously applies to the project, but it applies to the planning boards work for the project. And I would say that in terms of our review of the design aspects that we should review it as if there's because we're not approving or denying anything. So we can make a determination that the design is or is not consistent with the bylaws, with the character of the surrounding area. And those are things that we can do because we're not denying anything based on that. So I would suggest, and I don't know if you two agree, that we review it as if it's a regular application, looking at whether it's, you know, whether it detracts from the surrounding area or if it's consistent or not consistent with our view of the design bylaws. And we just go through and we say what we think. And then, you know, the fact that the Dover amendment makes some of the restrictions that the town might have either applicable or in applicable from a design perspective, we've made a decision and, you know, issued that to anybody who wants to read it. But it because we're not denying anything based on that. I think that's a great idea. So what do you think, Tanya? Yeah, no, absolutely. I think it's going to give some ways for the arguments. Yeah. So in that case, my first reaction to that suggestion is that we may want to take into consideration that in the history of buildings in town, there have been many buildings taller than nearby trees, including the UU church that was built in 1815. So I think that for us to set a policy like that would be contrary to precedent in the town. And I think it might be better to say something like, we don't think you should build anything taller than prior religious buildings in town. That's the kind of limit that I think would be equitable. Do you two have any comments on that? Oh, it sounds reasonable. Wait a minute. I'm just writing this down. The only other thing I would add to that is I would also factor in the fact that those other religious buildings in town are for the most part in the center of town on main roads in more, at least slightly more business districts. Um, where the height is not as intrusive. And this project to me is a little bit different if we're looking at the surrounding area. Um, having the height be so significantly higher than everything else around in a residential and, and conservation area, I think makes it a little bit different. And that we should factor that in. Uh, I don't disagree with you on that. I, I do think though that that's on some of the other items coming up. So. Yeah. Yeah. Like item two is, um, deforestation. And that from our point of view, that's, that's a conservation commission issue. Uh, that I don't think we have much to say about, except from the point of view of screening, which I think it was your. Right. Robin. Yeah. And I, I do agree. I think the more existing mature trees I can say, the better off the, the project will look and a better neighbor. It will be. Yep. Uh, third one is buffer zone. And I agree with that a lot. Um, and I wanted to bring up that, uh, when we were involved in what was called greenways, you know, may not have been here then Tanya. But, uh, what is, uh, the old green estate, uh, opposite the, uh, Catholic church, uh, St. Anne's, you change this name to something else. The, um, the old pain estate, um, got converted into, uh, assisted living and, um, independent living complex. The, I believe, I don't remember the number, but we can find out, uh, there was a buffer required of them. I believe it was 50 feet. Uh, and I, if we go and check, we can see whether that's, um, it's certainly from a fairness point of view and a precedent point of view. I think it would be something we could reach to and say, you know, this is, it's already been applied to other facilities that are not nonprofits and not religious. And it's still a reasonable request. Yep. Yep. Construction timeline. Of course, that's nobody's business. Uh, I know that it's a nuisance to them, but we have no control over that. None of our boards do. So I think that's not anything we can discuss. The scenic road issue, though, I think could be very interesting if we could get someone to weigh in on what I would suggest that maybe town council can look into prior cases of the Dover amendment, uh, with regard to scenic roads and to find out how they have weighed in past cases. Well, I think it is a little bit of an issue for us because we are supposed to be considering the surrounding area and the bucolic nature. You know, I agree that it is bucolic. Yeah, I agree too. I agree too. So to some extent we can comment on the fact that this is, uh, not consistent with the bucolic nature of the area and the fact that it's designated as a scenic road. Yes, perhaps town council might tell us that that gives somebody else in town some, uh, you know, a little bit of oomph behind what they're going to decide. But for us, it is a consistency issue in terms of the surrounding area. Yep. I agree. Tanya, you have any comments? No, I agree with you. Okay. Um, soccer field. This is one that I think, uh, we can weigh in on. And I, I am concerned that if you get everyone to agree that we have to have at least a 30 foot, if not 50 foot buffer that is landscaped with as much, uh, original growth trees as possible. Uh, I don't think they'll find room on the site for a soccer field, uh, without sacrificing one of their building footprints. Uh, it could be that they use one of the future building sites for a small soccer field, probably not large enough to be regulation, but a playing field for children. Um, it'd be very expensive for something that they're going to throw away in the future, but that's a possibility. Uh, pesticides, fertilizers, salt, and so forth. I think that's another con-com issue that we probably don't have an opinion on. Same with wildlife, but we do, I think, uh, want to weigh in on the light pollution, item nine. Um, so I think it's very important that we suggest, I think I already mentioned low profile lighting with, uh, shielded lights. That means lighting on poles no higher than 12 feet high. And, uh, that would really protect all the abutters and the public way, the scenic way. Yeah. Yeah. That's definitely our issue. We know that. Yeah. Um, and the last time the plans that we got, when we first looked at it, didn't include a lighting plan at all. Right? No, that's right. And then the last item is traffic. And I think we all agree that there needs to be a traffic study, an independent study that would, um, demonstrate, uh, safety. But it's not our issue though. That's a planning board and police and fire issue. Yeah. Anything that could, uh, make them to rethink the program overall? Sorry, what was that? Do we have any arguments that would make them to rethink the overall program? Because, uh, the, the, the main issues that they have a lot of things that they're trying to pack on the side, including the socket field. Yeah. A lot of that's going to fall under the Dover amendment issues. Yeah. I think it all falls into one basket for a nonprofit to do whatever they want to. Well, there is a question because their administrative building is going to include some housing. And that is outside the picture. Yeah. So the question is, is, does that pull it outside of the Dover amendment and even the educational use of the, um, the school building, you know, for religious education, gymnasiums are not usually required. So, um, cause it's not a, I don't think it's a, like a full-time school. It's only for religious education. So there's some question about some of these issues, but again, they're not, they're not design issues for us other than looking at the character of the site. So. Okay. All right. Any other comments? No. Um, do we want to see if there's public comment from our. Sure. Let me, um, there's another one. Bill Proya. Oh, it's a different. Yeah. Anybody. Would you unmute Bill. Yes. There you go. Hi. Hi. Um, yeah, I was here for. Not this matter. And I came late because the link wasn't working for me, but I need to send me another link. I was here in case there were. Questions about the Carol school. We were sorry that we couldn't show up tonight. With a full team. Yeah. So that's all. That's the reason I came. Oh, thank you for doing that. We, uh, if you want to see, we did discuss it for about 10 minutes or so. And, uh, this is being recorded. If you want to see what happened, you can find that on the town website. Are you here about the application or are you here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Proya? On behalf of the applicant, we were. Okay. So, right. So we discussed that we needed you to make a formal request to continue the hearing. In writing. I presume you're asking me to. Well, yes. The key point there is that you're willing to extend the deadline for the planning board to make a decision by whatever amount you extend this hearing. Yes. I, I, you know, we wanted to accommodate the next time that you folks were going to have a hearing. We think we could pull our team together, um, and provide any supplemental information. I actually heard a couple of topics you were just talking about on the other project that I think might help our review. So I would send those through to Anina. So, I mean, uh, we would do that. I guess it would the best process just be talking to Anina about that and getting it in the proper written form. Yeah. We, we only schedule these meetings as needed. So there isn't any, uh, any one scheduled for right now, but as soon as you're ready, we'll find a way to, you know, give us two or three dates. So that the three of us can coordinate our schedules. Okay. Great. Very, very good. And by the way, I didn't mention at the beginning of that, um, you have a very thorough application to the planning board, but the material submitted for the design review, uh, was not really enough for us to discuss. Yes. So I, I think that, uh, a lot of the materials in your larger package would be useful to include in our review. And if, um, um, if you can do that, that'd be great. Otherwise we'll just, um, I have a copy of the full application to the planning board and can find everything. And the things that we're talking about that you probably picked up on were site lighting, for example, uh, landscape screening for another example. Um, and, uh, you know, building heights and building setbacks so that we get a better sense. And I think that you've got it in other drawings, the clear definition of what is existing versus what is proposed. I think that the sheet you gave us, um, was not as clear as some of your other drawings. Understood. Yes. I can pull those materials to get together and get them to, I mean, for the, for the board. And then. Yes. Not to review a landscape plan. Uh, we, we do a pretty careful review of that. So I think that would be good to include. Very good. Will do. So then, um, Bill Sterlin, why don't I move that we accept the applicant's request to continue the application. Till a date that he sets up with the planning office. Okay. Tanya, do you second that? I second you. Okay. Okay. But that nullifies my motion earlier on. You want to take a vote? As soon as I get my notes down. Sorry. Okay. Yes. Uh, Robin, your vote. Yes. Tanya. Yes. My own vote is yes. So thanks Bill for showing up. Yeah. Do you have any other questions for us, Bill, before you go to help make it more productive when you do come back? Uh, no, I think I, I get it. Um, and if I have any, I can ask, I mean, I guess, but I will let you know that we will have a full team, you know, architects, uh, landscape designers, site people. So, uh, hopefully, let me, let me add one more thing, Bill, that you haven't asked yet, uh, that when you do the elevations of the building, we, we also review all materials and ideally, uh, your color palette, uh, those materials of being built. So that, that was not on the elevations we had. They're too small a scale to pick any, uh, detailed information out of. Very good. I'm glad you mentioned that. I will, um, I'll ask Flensburg to work on that as well and have a full package to you, you know, before we, we meet again and again, full team there to answer questions. Right. Very good. Thank you all. Appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Good night. Okay. Okay. So I guess we have no public comment about anything cause there's nobody there other than him. Yeah. Yeah. She left. Um, so that leaves us with, um, um, someone to move to adjourn. No, no. The last meeting notes. Sorry. We have, oh, we did those early. No, we did those already. Yeah. So that's, uh, we're on the motion to adjourn. I moved to adjourn. All those in favor. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you all for joining. Thank you all for joining.
They're not on the agenda till 7.05, so now somebody's there. Okay. So I look at the raised hand. Sylvia Diaz. I don't remember that being the name of who was going to show up.
I don't know where this is. So, you want to just do the minutes while we wait for it to be 7.05? Yeah, let's do that. The, we have two to do. Yep. September 3rd and September 9th. And let's start with the older one. September 3rd, I have a copy of it here. If you have any questions, have you both had a chance to review them? I looked at them. They seemed fine. Yeah. Okay. So anyone want to make a motion?
I move that we approve the minutes from September 3rd, 2025, as amended.
Anybody second? I second it. Okay.
It's going to hand vote, I guess. Robin? Yes. Yes. Tanya and myself. Yes. So it's 3-0-0. Now let's go to September 9th while we still have a minute left.
They look fine to me. Anything for you, Tanya? No. All good. Okay. So I move that we approve the minutes from September 9th, 2025, as amended.
I second it. I second it.
And the vote is Robin? Yes. Yes. Tanya? Yes. And myself, yes. All right. So we got that housekeeping out of the way.
We could now go back to the application on 37 to 45 Waltham Road, the Carroll School. And if no one is here, I suppose I can speak for them. Well, Sylvia Diaz there. Ms. Diaz, are you here for the applicant or are you just here for the meeting? If you're here for the applicant, could you raise your hand? How do I accept her?
I think if you either right-click or click on this, I think you can elevate her to a participant. Okay. She didn't raise her hand, so I don't think she's here on behalf of the applicant. Oh, she's not.
So if she raises her hand, then how do I get her to speak? So if you click on her, so I'm not the host, so if you click on her, you might get a little thing that says go on. Oh, there it is. Okay. Yeah.
There it is. I can allow a talk. Okay. I can't believe that a month goes by and I can't remember how to do this. I'm just here for the meeting. Okay. Okay. So you can mute me. Thank you for tuning in. Sure. Thank you. All right. So you can return her back to the observation deck or something. I don't know.
Okay. So here's what's up. If you didn't know, Tanya, there was an email sent about five days ago by the applicant for the Carroll School requesting that they continue this hearing. They couldn't get all of their experts to join this meeting, and so they want to reschedule for another date when everyone that they want can join the meeting. So they were going to tune in and ask in person, but I don't think it matters since they sent the email.
I'd like to make a motion that we continue the hearing to a date to be determined when we find out from them when all of their team can be assembled. Yeah. It's almost reasonable. The only thing is, I think we have to have somebody in the office, Robert or Nina, request that they seek to continue them, because otherwise we're going to hit the deadline perhaps too soon. So they have to request to continue. They actually have to request the deadline, yeah. Yeah. The extension. Yeah. So they were supposed to jump on tonight in order to do that. So I don't know if Nina or Robert can ask them to do it in writing more formally, or if we have to reconvene before their deadline comes and goes.
So other than that, I second the motion, but we do need to formalize their request.
Yep. So you second it? Okay. I second it. So the votes, Robin? Yes. Yes. Tanya and myself. Yes. So what the hell is this? Okay. So that closes that discussion for, it doesn't close the discussion. That's a motion. I think that if anyone wants to, we have the opportunity to discuss our first observations on the application. Otherwise, we can just extend that discussion to the next meeting. I found that the drawings that were submitted with this application were really, I think, insufficient. They did not include enough material for us to be able to review lighting, setback dimensions, and things of that sort. But when I talked to Robert earlier today, he gave me a copy of their full application, which you probably already have, Robin, which is a really large set. It's very, very thorough. It has all the information that we would need and more. So I suggest that we ask them to submit additional information in compliance with our application for design review so that we can cover all the material at the next meeting. Okay.
Therefore, really, there's not much to talk about. So my suggestion is that we defer that discussion. But if you have questions or items you want to bring up, feel free. No, I think we have to be careful. I think, to me, I would pay a lot of attention to the lighting plan and the landscaping plan because it's really smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Yeah. You know, so I think we just want to be... And there are lots of, obviously, from the letters coming in, other concerns in the neighborhood, but our concerns are design-related. And so I would look at lighting and landscaping, screening, that kind of stuff. Yep.
Okay. Anything else, Tanya? No, I didn't have a chance to read the latest set, so... Okay. There wasn't much there. Yeah. I don't think... I don't think there was a parking plan that showed lighting, for example, so you really wouldn't have any... Nor would you see lighting on the building elevations. So, those are things that we will comment on when they come back to us. Okay.
Now, the next item on our agenda is 725, and it's not that time yet. So, we could jump to the review of the design guidelines, I think, since there's no applicant for that.
Yep. Okay. And I had sent you a couple of items. Now, we're talking about design guidelines. One of them was the photo study of what Concord and some other nearby towns have in the way of, you know, the village character, which is what's the buzzwords in our Wayland guidelines. And if you have an interest in doing a review of that document, I don't know if you can post it, Robin, on the... Yeah, I was looking for it before we started, and I'm... Oh, you know what? You sent it to my home email and not to my town email. That's why I couldn't find it before. Let me pull it up.
There it is.
So, if nothing else, I think we could at least go through the various photographs in the report and identify which ones we think could be improved, and then to... And maybe your mark, some of the ones that I have sent you. That is not what I'm supposed to be sharing. I like the pairs. Oh, okay. Wait a minute.
You never know quite what you're getting on a Mac. Here we go.
So, that was one of the pictures. Yeah. And I think we wanted to look at it for both sort of that village feel question, but also we were looking at their signage. Yes. I had a few. Yep. At the back of the report, I had one page where I had signage there. And there are a few right here in this image here. The sign bands sometimes are created. Yep. Yeah. Even further down, the sign band is a band across the face of the building, right? Right there. It's about four signs to be placed. But quite a few don't have that. Like the one you first pointed at is just an awning with a sign on it and a bracket sign. And that one there, there's no band, so it's just a freestanding face-mounted sign. Well, I do like their little shoe that's up there. That's great. And then, yeah, there's an awning with a freestanding sign. And that's sort of just going down the row. So, and then, this was the other. Yeah, there were the shots I took. They were just a little fuzzy. Yeah. Well, hand out camera. But I can improve on any that you think need to be used in the document. Yeah.
And I think that from the study that was done for the town center plan and the changes we're going to make, the idea is to not have it like a sidewalk that goes right up to the storefront, but to have, and not even just window boxes, but to really have green strips on both sides of the sidewalk. Yeah, that's the last one. You had asked to find one that works for a gas station. And this is one in Chestnut Hill on Route 9. Yep. I don't think we want to leave behind the need for being as green as we possibly could, and that if they wanted to create solar collectors over a gas station, I think that would be encouraged. I wonder if it's allowed, though, if they'd be allowed to have a solar system on top with their fire suppression system, or if that would be an issue. That's a good question. An issue. They're very touchy about that. Right. If you get a fire there, it really blows. Yeah. So maybe on such a thick awning like this, maybe you could have solar panels up here. Facing south, you could, yes. Yeah, but on such a thin one, even on a thick one. I just don't know if they would want that. Yeah. I don't think you want solar panels in a place where they might combust. It's a lot of toxic chemicals in those PV cells. Right. But certainly that looks a lot nicer than that. But if it's for solar panels, it's something different. But I just, I would question whether that's even allowed.
Yeah, maybe. Anyway. Okay. So, well, we have lots of pictures to work from. Any comments on these? So, first of all, I do like this option that you found for the gas station. It's a refined, actually. And it's a good example. How it could blend in the styles that we want to happen. And my only comment about the other concrete pictures that you found, it's actually the, you know, the downtown that happened over time. It's all those buildings are historic buildings. And maybe we should also find some new examples which were built, which are new buildings, which were built to match the style. I think a few of them are, but I really wouldn't know without checking with their building department. I think that the one on the corner, the other view, Robin, I think the next, if you roll it, scroll down to the other part of the report. Or, there's a corner shot.
Yeah, scroll up, please. Corner shot. That one's fairly new, I think. And this one down here? I suspect it is. It's just too perfect. The bricks are all perfect. Then the, if you go up a little bit higher, there's a wood frame one. Maybe it was lower. I guess it is lower. There's a wood frame and a corner shot of, this is the corner on one side. There's a full corner shot of that, that I think is probably not old. This one? Yeah. Yeah. Probably not. Well, for one thing, the little gable and dormer on the side there is probably not consistent with a really old building. I mean, it's cute, made to look old, but I don't think it is. Yeah.
I can confirm that. Yeah. So, and I know for the... Oh, this one, by the way. Yeah. It's all in shadow, so it's hard to read. But it's basically built like an old stable. And this is clearly brand new. I don't even remember seeing it before. So, it's, you know, fairly recent, the last 10 years. Yeah. Okay. But, you know, for Tanya, looking for something more modern, I mean, the whole idea for Route 20 is to, and even the town center was supposed to be modeled a little bit on Linden Square down in Wellesley, where on the street side, there's greenery and sidewalk and the buildings with the entrances to the building around the backside from the street. And I think we're really looking at a different scale from that, but that's a more modern construction. I would like to add to that, though. I agree, Robin, that when we were on the committee back in 2011, that was a unanimous decision on the part of the members. And we had public hearings, and we had public hearings, and the public stood up and said, we want, you know, we want quaint, old looking buildings. However, we have quite a few modern buildings in town already, not modern, I mean, 50s modern. And I would recommend that we encourage keeping those and restoring them to their, you know, mid-century modern style and not basically insist on tearing them all down. Right. Right. Absolutely, yeah. Yeah. I mean, one of the things about this picture that, to me, makes it appealing is the fact that it's all broken up. It's not one long building that was torn down and rebuilt. It's buildings that have kind of clustered together over time with things added in between. And, you know, so even if people were to tear things down, to encourage them to break up the storefront faces so that it looks like separate buildings that have grown together. Yeah. Actually, if we do want to create a little bit more urban environment or urban feeling for the central street, we do want some density, certain density. And it's not a bad thing when building touching each other. You know, it's create continuous pedestrian experience. Yeah. Well, I think that there are some developers that would want to do that. Certainly a lot of architects. All of us were trained that there's nothing that follows international style. That's the end of the world. And in fact, that's just not the case. Yeah. Yeah. One interesting question with the Route 20 development that we've been going back and forth on is, you know, how much density can actually be achieved there, though, because septic is a little bit of a limiting factor. And the balance between the limited parking and then the size of the buildings, because if you look at those places along Route 20 on the on the north side of Route 20, you know, if you if there is no parking on the street. So cars have to go around the back side to park, you'll have a very limited size parking lot, even if the building owners work together and share their parking. It's still a limited parking area. So there are some restrictions on the density that can be achieved in that area. Yeah, I understand that. In fact, that's part of the problem that we have with the old. The old the old Greek style building that we have in town that they're trying to put in a coffee shop there and they have like three parking spaces in front and nothing in back or the side. So, yeah, I think I'm very self limiting site. I think there's some on the street side, though, because the people who worked at the bank parked on sort of perpendicular to Route 20. And then if you were coming to the bank for business, they had some spots that you come up to the side where the door is kind of on the dentist's office side. So there's some parking, but yet it'll be it'll be crowded on a Saturday or Sunday morning. But also, in addition to it, they do have some like parking close by where they could park and walk. And again, we do want to encourage the pedestrian experience, especially if we have it all tied into the rail trail. That's the idea. Yeah, that would be nice. That would be nice. Yeah, there is land at the rail trail if they were to extend, if they were willing to extend, they probably aren't the parking lot. That's that's right there and pick up, you know, even five or six spaces would help. Mm hmm. Okay. Okay. So, at some other time, if you want, we could or I could just draft a proposed list of there are a number of pictures. I don't know if you have your copy of the report in front of you, but I can draft a suggested page by page edit to the as a draft to the guidelines and then it might be easier than trying to do it on a zoom meeting like this. Yep. Yep. Yeah, definitely. Okay. We do at 725 now so we can go back. Yep. Yep. To discuss we had. I got two letters. Another one came in today, but I had emails, two emails, on the topic of the Coptic church. I think you were copied on them. I'm not sure whether you have them handy. I think I was, yeah. But I can walk you through what I think. The one that is really sums it up was a later one that came in on September 29th. And it was apparently a group of neighbors got together and I think they suggested that they had hired or gotten the help of a lawyer. And they have a list of 10 items, so I'll just quickly go through them. The one was the height of the building. Their suggestion is that we recommend that any structure be any taller, and I meant to say not, I guess, not be any taller than the existing tree canopy so as not to be visible from the surrounding neighborhood. That, you know, that's the height is an issue. And I don't know on any of these, Robin, maybe you can help me, how the Dover amendment might weigh in on this as we get into these weeds. Right. So I think there are sort of two things to be mindful of. The Dover amendment obviously applies to the project, but it applies to the planning boards work for the project. And I would say that in terms of our review of the design aspects that we should review it as if there's because we're not approving or denying anything. So we can make a determination that the design is or is not consistent with the bylaws, with the character of the surrounding area. And those are things that we can do because we're not denying anything based on that. So I would suggest, and I don't know if you two agree, that we review it as if it's a regular application, looking at whether it's, you know, whether it detracts from the surrounding area or if it's consistent or not consistent with our view of the design bylaws. And we just go through and we say what we think. And then, you know, the fact that the Dover amendment makes some of the restrictions that the town might have either applicable or in applicable from a design perspective, we've made a decision and, you know, issued that to anybody who wants to read it. But it because we're not denying anything based on that. I think that's a great idea. So what do you think, Tanya? Yeah, no, absolutely. I think it's going to give some ways for the arguments. Yeah. So in that case, my first reaction to that suggestion is that we may want to take into consideration that in the history of buildings in town, there have been many buildings taller than nearby trees, including the UU church that was built in 1815. So I think that for us to set a policy like that would be contrary to precedent in the town. And I think it might be better to say something like, we don't think you should build anything taller than prior religious buildings in town. That's the kind of limit that I think would be equitable. Do you two have any comments on that? Oh, it sounds reasonable. Wait a minute. I'm just writing this down. The only other thing I would add to that is I would also factor in the fact that those other religious buildings in town are for the most part in the center of town on main roads in more, at least slightly more business districts. Um, where the height is not as intrusive. And this project to me is a little bit different if we're looking at the surrounding area. Um, having the height be so significantly higher than everything else around in a residential and, and conservation area, I think makes it a little bit different. And that we should factor that in. Uh, I don't disagree with you on that. I, I do think though that that's on some of the other items coming up. So. Yeah. Yeah. Like item two is, um, deforestation. And that from our point of view, that's, that's a conservation commission issue. Uh, that I don't think we have much to say about, except from the point of view of screening, which I think it was your. Right. Robin. Yeah. And I, I do agree. I think the more existing mature trees I can say, the better off the, the project will look and a better neighbor. It will be. Yep. Uh, third one is buffer zone. And I agree with that a lot. Um, and I wanted to bring up that, uh, when we were involved in what was called greenways, you know, may not have been here then Tanya. But, uh, what is, uh, the old green estate, uh, opposite the, uh, Catholic church, uh, St. Anne's, you change this name to something else. The, um, the old pain estate, um, got converted into, uh, assisted living and, um, independent living complex. The, I believe, I don't remember the number, but we can find out, uh, there was a buffer required of them. I believe it was 50 feet. Uh, and I, if we go and check, we can see whether that's, um, it's certainly from a fairness point of view and a precedent point of view. I think it would be something we could reach to and say, you know, this is, it's already been applied to other facilities that are not nonprofits and not religious. And it's still a reasonable request. Yep. Yep. Construction timeline. Of course, that's nobody's business. Uh, I know that it's a nuisance to them, but we have no control over that. None of our boards do. So I think that's not anything we can discuss. The scenic road issue, though, I think could be very interesting if we could get someone to weigh in on what I would suggest that maybe town council can look into prior cases of the Dover amendment, uh, with regard to scenic roads and to find out how they have weighed in past cases. Well, I think it is a little bit of an issue for us because we are supposed to be considering the surrounding area and the bucolic nature. You know, I agree that it is bucolic. Yeah, I agree too. I agree too. So to some extent we can comment on the fact that this is, uh, not consistent with the bucolic nature of the area and the fact that it's designated as a scenic road. Yes, perhaps town council might tell us that that gives somebody else in town some, uh, you know, a little bit of oomph behind what they're going to decide. But for us, it is a consistency issue in terms of the surrounding area. Yep. I agree. Tanya, you have any comments? No, I agree with you. Okay. Um, soccer field. This is one that I think, uh, we can weigh in on. And I, I am concerned that if you get everyone to agree that we have to have at least a 30 foot, if not 50 foot buffer that is landscaped with as much, uh, original growth trees as possible. Uh, I don't think they'll find room on the site for a soccer field, uh, without sacrificing one of their building footprints. Uh, it could be that they use one of the future building sites for a small soccer field, probably not large enough to be regulation, but a playing field for children. Um, it'd be very expensive for something that they're going to throw away in the future, but that's a possibility. Uh, pesticides, fertilizers, salt, and so forth. I think that's another con-com issue that we probably don't have an opinion on. Same with wildlife, but we do, I think, uh, want to weigh in on the light pollution, item nine. Um, so I think it's very important that we suggest, I think I already mentioned low profile lighting with, uh, shielded lights. That means lighting on poles no higher than 12 feet high. And, uh, that would really protect all the abutters and the public way, the scenic way. Yeah. Yeah. That's definitely our issue. We know that. Yeah. Um, and the last time the plans that we got, when we first looked at it, didn't include a lighting plan at all. Right? No, that's right. And then the last item is traffic. And I think we all agree that there needs to be a traffic study, an independent study that would, um, demonstrate, uh, safety. But it's not our issue though. That's a planning board and police and fire issue. Yeah. Anything that could, uh, make them to rethink the program overall? Sorry, what was that? Do we have any arguments that would make them to rethink the overall program? Because, uh, the, the, the main issues that they have a lot of things that they're trying to pack on the side, including the socket field. Yeah. A lot of that's going to fall under the Dover amendment issues. Yeah. I think it all falls into one basket for a nonprofit to do whatever they want to. Well, there is a question because their administrative building is going to include some housing. And that is outside the picture. Yeah. So the question is, is, does that pull it outside of the Dover amendment and even the educational use of the, um, the school building, you know, for religious education, gymnasiums are not usually required. So, um, cause it's not a, I don't think it's a, like a full-time school. It's only for religious education. So there's some question about some of these issues, but again, they're not, they're not design issues for us other than looking at the character of the site. So. Okay. All right. Any other comments? No. Um, do we want to see if there's public comment from our. Sure. Let me, um, there's another one. Bill Proya. Oh, it's a different. Yeah. Anybody. Would you unmute Bill. Yes. There you go. Hi. Hi. Um, yeah, I was here for. Not this matter. And I came late because the link wasn't working for me, but I need to send me another link. I was here in case there were. Questions about the Carol school. We were sorry that we couldn't show up tonight. With a full team. Yeah. So that's all. That's the reason I came. Oh, thank you for doing that. We, uh, if you want to see, we did discuss it for about 10 minutes or so. And, uh, this is being recorded. If you want to see what happened, you can find that on the town website. Are you here about the application or are you here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Proya? On behalf of the applicant, we were. Okay. So, right. So we discussed that we needed you to make a formal request to continue the hearing. In writing. I presume you're asking me to. Well, yes. The key point there is that you're willing to extend the deadline for the planning board to make a decision by whatever amount you extend this hearing. Yes. I, I, you know, we wanted to accommodate the next time that you folks were going to have a hearing. We think we could pull our team together, um, and provide any supplemental information. I actually heard a couple of topics you were just talking about on the other project that I think might help our review. So I would send those through to Anina. So, I mean, uh, we would do that. I guess it would the best process just be talking to Anina about that and getting it in the proper written form. Yeah. We, we only schedule these meetings as needed. So there isn't any, uh, any one scheduled for right now, but as soon as you're ready, we'll find a way to, you know, give us two or three dates. So that the three of us can coordinate our schedules. Okay. Great. Very, very good. And by the way, I didn't mention at the beginning of that, um, you have a very thorough application to the planning board, but the material submitted for the design review, uh, was not really enough for us to discuss. Yes. So I, I think that, uh, a lot of the materials in your larger package would be useful to include in our review. And if, um, um, if you can do that, that'd be great. Otherwise we'll just, um, I have a copy of the full application to the planning board and can find everything. And the things that we're talking about that you probably picked up on were site lighting, for example, uh, landscape screening for another example. Um, and, uh, you know, building heights and building setbacks so that we get a better sense. And I think that you've got it in other drawings, the clear definition of what is existing versus what is proposed. I think that the sheet you gave us, um, was not as clear as some of your other drawings. Understood. Yes. I can pull those materials to get together and get them to, I mean, for the, for the board. And then. Yes. Not to review a landscape plan. Uh, we, we do a pretty careful review of that. So I think that would be good to include. Very good. Will do. So then, um, Bill Sterlin, why don't I move that we accept the applicant's request to continue the application. Till a date that he sets up with the planning office. Okay. Tanya, do you second that? I second you. Okay. Okay. But that nullifies my motion earlier on. You want to take a vote? As soon as I get my notes down. Sorry. Okay. Yes. Uh, Robin, your vote. Yes. Tanya. Yes. My own vote is yes. So thanks Bill for showing up. Yeah. Do you have any other questions for us, Bill, before you go to help make it more productive when you do come back? Uh, no, I think I, I get it. Um, and if I have any, I can ask, I mean, I guess, but I will let you know that we will have a full team, you know, architects, uh, landscape designers, site people. So, uh, hopefully, let me, let me add one more thing, Bill, that you haven't asked yet, uh, that when you do the elevations of the building, we, we also review all materials and ideally, uh, your color palette, uh, those materials of being built. So that, that was not on the elevations we had. They're too small a scale to pick any, uh, detailed information out of. Very good. I'm glad you mentioned that. I will, um, I'll ask Flensburg to work on that as well and have a full package to you, you know, before we, we meet again and again, full team there to answer questions. Right. Very good. Thank you all. Appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Good night. Okay. Okay. So I guess we have no public comment about anything cause there's nobody there other than him. Yeah. Yeah. She left. Um, so that leaves us with, um, um, someone to move to adjourn. No, no. The last meeting notes. Sorry. We have, oh, we did those early. No, we did those already. Yeah. So that's, uh, we're on the motion to adjourn. I moved to adjourn. All those in favor. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you all for joining. Thank you all for joining.