[Speaker 1] (5:20 - 6:47)
Okay, so good evening everyone. Welcome to the March 22nd, 2022 meeting of the Swanscott Zoning Board of Appeals. We are here hybrid, so some people are here, some people are remote through Zoom, and it now being after 7 p.m. we're going to get started with our agenda. The first item on our agenda is approval of past meeting minutes. So those meeting minutes were circulated today, so I think I'm just going to wait to the next meeting to give everyone a chance to review them, and then we'll vote on those the next meeting. The next item, item number two on our agenda, is petition 2128 for Cheryl Miller for 17 Crossman Ave, and I was informed a short time ago that there's a request to continue that matter until April 27.

Well, to continue to our April meeting, and we've had a discussion about which dates might work, and April 27th has been proposed by the board. I think that's going to be the date that we do, so I would make a motion to continue 2128 to April 27th. Do I have a second?

I'm going to do a roll call because we're still hybrid, so I'm a yes. Andy? Yes.

Ron? Yes. Heather?

Yes. Tony? Yes.

Paula?

[Speaker 17] (6:47 - 6:48)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (6:48 - 7:28)
So that matter is continued until April 27, and conditioned upon their being continued and signed by the petitioner, which I understand Attorney Trucas has indicated he will do. The next matter is continued matter for 219 Paradise Road, LLC, petition 2201, which is continued from our March 2nd meeting, and I saw Bill Stivel is here present. So do you want to come forward a bit?

So where's the spot for our?

[Speaker 8] (7:29 - 7:29)
I will.

[Speaker 1] (7:30 - 8:17)
Okay, actually we can see you on the Zoom screen here. I see Gus. So, Mr. Stivel, when you were here the last time, we continued to allow you and a neighbor to talk about a redesign of the buffer area.

[Speaker 3] (8:17 - 8:17)
That's right.

[Speaker 1] (8:17 - 8:21)
The site plan. So do you want to tell us what's happened since that?

[Speaker 3] (8:21 - 12:53)
Sure. Since that time, Mr. Moussa met with the neighbor, and the neighbor's name is Ghilardi. He met with the mom and the son who used to live there, now lives elsewhere in Swampscott, and they have agreed that Mr. Moussa would not disturb the 25-foot parking setback between where he's going to install the parking and the property line, and instead would create what I think Mr. Rose called tandem spaces, and we're going to have these spaces now as tandem spaces, and the neighbor was comfortable with that. The neighbor agreed that Mr. Moussa would extend the white vinyl six-foot fence. If you'll notice on the new plan, has everyone had an opportunity to see the new revised plan? You'll see at the top of the plan, the existing fence takes a slight dogleg to the right. That's going to be eliminated, and then become straight and will be extended all the way to the end of the property line where that concrete bound is.

That'll be a six-foot fence, and Mr. Moussa will not be cutting down any trees within that 25-foot area between the parking and the property line. That appears to be what the neighbor was most concerned about, and it was comfortable with that situation. The neighbor understood that we wouldn't be doing any plantings in that area.

That area is overgrown with sort of a little grove of what I'm informed are Norway maples. Apparently they're an invasive species, and it's going to be very hard to grow anything under there. Mr. Moussa also agreed that he would allow Mr. Ghilardi to plant any trees that he wished to plant that were that he wanted to plant on Mr. Moussa's property, even though it was on the other side of the fence. I'm talking really specifically about the area. If you'll notice, the the Ghilardi property impinges on the 219 Paradise lot line. You can see the driveway is actually on the property, and he's putting the fence up.

The existing fence is probably 10 or 12 feet from the property line, and if Mr. Ghilardi wishes to plant any trees on his side of the fence, even though it's Mr. Moussa's property, he's given him permission to do so. So the party seemed to have come to an agreement with respect to those issues. I was not at that meeting, but Mr. Moussa met with Mr. Ghilardi directly. If you just give me just a moment, I'll just take you through the changes from the revised plan to the new plan, from the original plan to the revised plan that's being submitted now. The entry-exit lane has been eliminated. There's a small retaining wall that begins close to the Paradise Road entry on the right.

There's a small retaining wall that travels up toward the Ghilardi property. In the original plan, it traveled quite close to the property line now. It stops 25 feet from the property line, and it turns left, and it encloses this new parking area.

So that's what makes this now a tandem parking situation. This wall will now border the parking area, and the area between this wall and the property line is 25 feet parcel, will be left intact. There won't be excavation there.

There won't be any trees removed from there. All the excavation and tree removal will be as shown within the parking area on the, I'm not sure where north or south is, let's see, it will be on the Paradise Road side of that new retaining wall.

[Speaker 1] (12:56 - 13:09)
What's happening with with Petumenis? I see you have the existing edge of Petumenis, but what are you doing in the parking area? Is it all proposed to be paved?

[Speaker 3] (13:10 - 18:20)
It's all going to be paved. I don't know exactly what it's being paved with. It's going to be, as you can see, there will just be two spaces across, 10 and then 10 right behind it, and that'll be the tandem setup.

So that that's really the change on this plan. I believe that's the only change that we're asking for. The other change relates to the to the to the landscape plan that was submitted.

I've had several conversations with Mark, with James Emanuel since since we had our last meeting, and we're proposing the following. With respect to the area at the rear of the property adjoining the Gilardi property, there are, I believe it's 15 trees. It says 15-PAV.

The PAV are the set of arborvitaes. Those are, we're eliminating that. We're not going to install those trees.

Instead, there's going to be a six-foot vinyl fence that's going to extend from where the current vinyl fence is to the end, and I'm told by Mr. Emanuel it's going to be very difficult to grow anything there under any circumstances because of the overhang. It's all shaded with underneath these Norway maples. The area between Swampscott Road and this, well, let me say this.

The plantings that you see, one, two, three, four, five, six, there are seven plantings and a tree shown on the left- hand side of that rear boundary. Mr. Moose is going to put some plantings in there as well and put that tree in. Those plantings are called for arborvitae.

He's not a hundred percent sure that arborvitae is what those plantings are. They will likely be arborvitae, but he'd like to look at that again. And so the main difference in the rear of this landscape plan is that we're eliminating these new plantings along the half, or a little more than half, of that boundary line.

On the left-hand side of the property, on the portion of the property that joins Swampscott Ave, this plan originally called for new plantings all along, but their current plantings, there are currently plantings as you see here. These are arborvitae that were called for. The current plantings are, I'm told, are U-plants, Y-E-W, and they're a nice screen.

They're an evergreen. They're about five feet in height, and the four trees that we were going to replace with JTL, stands for Ivory Silk Japanese Tree Lilac, whatever that is. Those were going to replace some flower and cherry trees.

We're going to retain those flower and cherry trees. So what we're proposing is not to do any work along the Swampscott Avenue side of the property. The screening that that we currently have is not going to be increased by this screening.

When I spoke to Mr. Emanuel, he thought that was a good solution. He said to minimize site disturbance, he said that should work fine. So he supported that.

At the very bottom of that row along Swampscott Ave, at the corner of the property, you'll notice there's plantings 10 GLS, which stands for, I'll call it Grow Low Sumac. We're going to continue to plant those as well. Those will remain.

And on the right side of the property, you'll see that there's an existing tree. And below that tree, there's another 10 plantings of this Grow Low Sumac. We're going to keep that planting.

We're going to keep the existing tree. And then for the point from where that existing tree is, not all the way to the end of the property, but to the point where that retaining wall turns, which isn't shown on this plan, but it's 25 feet before you get to the rear property line. We're going to do plantings.

The plantings here are called for, I think there's 40 of them. There's 10 Northern Burberry, and then 10 Dogwood, and then again Northern Burberry, Dogwood, Northern Burberry, and Dogwood. I'm told by Mr. Manuel, this is all ledge here. It's going to be difficult to get anything to grow very well. So he's chosen to try to plant the Dogwood and the Northern Burberry.

[Speaker 1] (18:21 - 18:35)
I was trying to figure out where this planting schedule is on the site plan. Is it on a plan that you've given us? The new one I'm proposing now?

Yeah, when you're talking about all these plantings, I don't see it on the plan. The two plans that I have, one is...

[Speaker 3] (18:35 - 19:18)
No, no, I'm sorry, Mark. We did not submit a new plan schedule. So I'm working off the original landscape plan that was submitted when we...

Okay. Because we haven't had an opportunity to have a new plan drawn, and I wanted to get a sense of the board as they were going to agree with this new planning, with our revisions to the landscape plan. Does everyone else happen to have the landscape plan available to them?

I've got one here. You don't have large ones? Oh, I see.

There we are.

[Speaker 8] (19:18 - 19:22)
I'm bringing it up. I can also, I think I have paper copies available if you guys would rather see paper copies as well.

[Speaker 1] (19:25 - 19:35)
Okay, so maybe it's best if you tell me from the plant schedule that you have here, what's changing? So again, what's that?

[Speaker 3] (19:35 - 19:35)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (19:36 - 19:40)
All right, so what you've put on the record... I think it's a little...

[Speaker 3] (19:40 - 19:45)
I think it'll be a little simple if I just go through the plan again. I can do it briefly. No, that's okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (19:45 - 19:45)
That's okay.

[Speaker 3] (19:47 - 21:02)
So where I just left off was on the right side. On the other side of this property line is the mass electric substation. There are structures there creating, I guess, electric power.

So it's not like there's necessary screening from a residential area, but my client does want to put plannings along this boundary. He would prefer, if he can, to put evergreens. The northern bayberry and the dogwood are not evergreens.

You get a little more color and screening with the evergreens, but we're told by Mr. Emanuel that it's going to be difficult to grow evergreens in this area because of the ledge. We won't really know that until we actually know exactly where that wall is going to be built. It's gonna have to be kind of a site-specific decision at the time.

We'll go with this plan as it's indicated, which has this northern bayberry and the dogwood from the tree at the lower right corner up until the turn of that wall. We won't do anything beyond the turn of the wall. That's just open space.

So simply, say what he said.

[Speaker 4] (21:02 - 21:16)
He's leaving Swampscott Avalon. He's not touching the back property line because he's leaving 25 feet, leaving it natural and just putting a fence all the way across. He's going to grow whatever he can grow in the ledge between that and the power station.

[Speaker 3] (21:17 - 21:19)
Why didn't I say that?

[Speaker 1] (21:22 - 21:34)
Okay, got it. All right, so that looks fine. Anything else you want to tell us before I see if anybody wanted to be heard about this petition?

[Speaker 17] (21:35 - 21:35)
No.

[Speaker 1] (21:36 - 21:46)
Okay, is there anyone that wanted to be heard about this petition that's present or if you're on Zoom, please use the raise your hand feature.

[Speaker 8] (21:48 - 21:50)
I have Mark Gillardy via Zoom.

[Speaker 6] (21:56 - 21:57)
Good evening.

[Speaker 8] (21:58 - 21:59)
Good evening, Mark.

[Speaker 6] (22:00 - 22:32)
All right, I agree with everything that he said. The only thing that we did talk about with Gus on my side of the fence that he was going to put full-size arborvitaes on not along the whole length of the fence but towards our backyard where the actual parking is going to be closer to the substation. So that was the only thing that was different from what was said tonight from when we had a meeting with him on our side of the fence.

[Speaker 1] (22:33 - 22:37)
Other than that, you'd be satisfied with the planting schedule and the changes?

[Speaker 6] (22:38 - 23:04)
Yeah, like you, I didn't have the planning schedule in front of me but the swamp's got out of it. It's pretty well protected and the other side, like he said, is the substation so you can't really, you can't see, there's no one there to see it anyway. So yeah, that was the only thing that I was in basically my backyard arborvitaes too so they can grow, you know, so they can grow taller up over the fence and block it out.

[Speaker 1] (23:05 - 23:10)
Okay, let me ask Justice Council about that. So Bill, I'm just trying to clarify.

[Speaker 3] (23:11 - 23:23)
Mark, we can't see each other but are you saying that you and Gus discussed Gus planting arborvitae on your side of the new fence area? Is that what you're saying?

[Speaker 6] (23:24 - 23:29)
Yeah, basically in my backyard, not all the way down the driveway but just the backyard portion.

[Speaker 3] (23:30 - 23:52)
Okay, and Gus is with us today? Gus? Yes, he's on the Zoom.

Yes, I'm here. Yeah, so Gus, when you described your conversations with Mr. Ghilardi, what you told me, and maybe there was some misunderstanding, is that you weren't going to do any planting there, that any planting on Mr. Ghilardi's side of the fence he was going to do. Is that your understanding?

[Speaker 13] (23:53 - 24:18)
Yes, that was my understanding. I asked him if he wanted it for the fence or trees. He said no, he wanted the fence.

I said, you know, I put either both. I wasn't going to put both. And then since we spoke, if you're going to keep those trees, I'm not sure if they're going to grow because of the maple trees.

Because there are a lot of trees above it. And that's part of the reason why.

[Speaker 6] (24:18 - 24:20)
I can trim what's on my side of the fence.

[Speaker 13] (24:23 - 24:28)
But, Mark, remember when I spoke to you, I said I'll leave it for the fence, or because this is a double...

[Speaker 6] (24:29 - 24:45)
Yeah, there was a mom. She wanted our bodies on the fence, and said okay. So, you want both?

Just in the backyard portion, yes.

[Speaker 13] (24:56 - 25:05)
How many trees? Because, you understand, this is double expenses at this point, and I'm putting fence.

[Speaker 6] (25:06 - 25:10)
You're doubling the size of your business.

[Speaker 1] (25:12 - 26:10)
Well, you're asking for a lot of relief, Mr. Musa. So, you know, there is the issue of you have a lot of mature trees that are there. You talk about those Norway maples and being an invasive species, and they grow very aggressively, and it may limit the growth of other vegetation there.

My thought is that area that your butter is requesting there be both, fence and mature arborvitaes, that we may get a condition that that be part of the plan. You could ask Jim Emanuel his thoughts about that, and I'd like to leave it in the discretion of the planning department. If there's any change to the plan, that it go there.

If you don't agree with the decision of the planning department, then it would come back to us.

[Speaker 4] (26:15 - 26:16)
I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (26:22 - 26:23)
Yeah, right, right.

[Speaker 3] (26:24 - 26:42)
If I can go ahead, just that probably a third, maybe a half of that distance where he's looking for the arborvitae is going to be very close to a fence, and he's really asking us to plant trees on his land, not really even on our land yeah I thought the end I mean what was reported to me was that if

[Speaker 1] (26:42 - 27:24)
you've kept this big buffer area you know maintain the big buffer area the driveway is encroaching mr. Luce did say he was willing to do one the fence or the Arborvitaes so that might be the better choice do you want a fence if you want the Arborvitaes on his side yeah right right there's a lot of relief but it has made the changes to keep that buffer to have the the added parking area that should alleviate a lot of the congestion at the

[Speaker 7] (27:24 - 27:35)
front making it a condition right okay I agree with that is there any mr.

[Speaker 1] (27:35 - 28:28)
Galardi well we'll get into it mr. Moose in a second I just want to make sure there's no one else that wanted to be heard about the petition but first I just want to ask mr. Galardi mr.

Galardi I think what this board is likely to do is require the fence in that area you're in and you're permitted to plant on the other side of the fence and if mr. Musa decides to plant anything on the other side of the fence pay for any data contribute to it that would be his decision but not a requirement of his relief that's what it sounds like I think the board is inclined to do I'm gonna see if I'm gonna ask you if you have any comments about that and then I'm going to open up for any other comment and then I think we're gonna close our meeting and vote so mr.

[Speaker 6] (28:28 - 28:40)
Galardi any comments on on that well we can note your opposition to the

[Speaker 1] (28:40 - 28:58)
petition if that's what you are saying absolutely yeah okay is there anyone else I wanted to be heard about this petition again you may use the raise

[Speaker 8] (28:58 - 29:05)
your hand function on zoom nobody else

[Speaker 1] (29:13 - 29:25)
oh that was right I wanted to ask about that about the stormwater that's going on the proposed site plan I can give you some additional information I took that

[Speaker 3] (29:25 - 30:03)
up with Chuck Bayer who did these plans what he explained was that the original plans have these catch basins as shown he says that the fact that we're excavating probably 40% of what the original excavation eliminates any concern that he had at all about the ability to channel the water probably so that I think the the fact that we've cut back I think it's approximately half or even 40% of the of the amount of excavating we're doing is gonna lessen any issues when it comes to the permeability what I would want to make

[Speaker 1] (30:03 - 30:22)
sure is that any stormwater issues are better and not worse from the proposed plan you know to review and approve any of the stormwater so I think that's what we

[Speaker 16] (30:22 - 30:32)
need to do is just to work as a condition right right I just don't want

[Speaker 1] (30:32 - 31:07)
to make it any worse so they may need to perform some stormwater analysis for Gino in the town engineer to determine improve that any stormwater condition is improved okay that's fair okay does anyone feel like making a motion on this one I can give an old decision that I did on this property it has all the

[Speaker 3] (31:07 - 31:43)
info before before we make the motion can I just can I just confirm the relief that we're requesting or is that in front of you and that's part of the motion we're requesting just so I'll go through yeah that's a good idea for me yeah approving the construction of the addition approval for the increase in use the service bays going from three to five approval to increase the number of cars that can be parked overnight to 35 and approving the increase in the number

[Speaker 11] (31:43 - 32:07)
of employees to 12 Mark I'm sorry to interrupt I know you didn't close the

[Speaker 8] (32:07 - 32:11)
public hearing yet at least I don't think so I'm mr. Demento has his hand

[Speaker 9] (32:11 - 33:15)
raised okay bill Demento 1008 Paradise Road can you hear me I can okay just to mention that Chuck is a great register lens of air but he's an art and engineer and isn't qualified to opine on stormwater drainage and I think that's as you know the area in front of that area is a very bad flooding area and it should be some engineers should opine as to what's necessary for this route a large increase in impervious area that it's sufficient I don't know that it is or it isn't but I do know a registered professional engineer should be the one to opine whether it is sufficient without that stormwater system you know

[Speaker 11] (33:15 - 33:25)
that's something that we're definitely require bill thank you thank you I have

[Speaker 8] (33:25 - 33:33)
another hand raised from a Brandon Barbosa okay oh no he lowered it false

[Speaker 1] (33:33 - 36:41)
alarm okay so I'm gonna make a motion to close the public hearing I have a second on that okay I'm gonna do a roll call just because we felt the zoom so I'm a yes Andy run yes Heather yes Tony yes Paula yes I'm going to constitute the board as everyone except for Paula and I'm gonna make a motion to approve the petition in 2201 by 219 Paradise Road LLC for a use special permit for the increase in use and the increase from three to five days and the increase the number of employees to 12 and the increase in the overnight parking the 35 cars and with a special permit for the construction of the proposed addition shown on the plans and for subject to the following conditions that the construction and site plan be constructed as shown on the plans as filed which are proposed site plan dated March 14th 2022 and the proposed plot plan March 14th 2022 and a as far as the the two sides of the property the landscape plan that was submitted with earlier at our last meeting subject to the changes as described by the petitioners council pretty stable with the condition that with respect to stormwater that the petitioner submit a stormwater plan by a licensed professional engineer which should be which will be required to be approved by the DPW and town engineer so that the stormwater at the site is made better than it is currently at the site and with any areas that may be kept impervious rather impervious should be kept pervious anything else I need on that for conditions good I think the

[Speaker 3] (36:41 - 36:46)
discussion was that it wouldn't be made worse not necessarily that we wouldn't prove it but it wouldn't we wouldn't make it a little bit better that's all

[Speaker 1] (36:46 - 38:28)
won't be me it's just yet but that's the standard right that it it's you know one at least 1% I'm not saying it has to be 50% better I'm saying if you look at it you're saying if it's completely neutral right it should pass I'm saying just a little bit better that's all doesn't need to be more than a fraction better a fraction better okay so on that actually I just want to take a look at the prior decision there's no request to change any of the hours of operation so that's all remaining the same so I would suggest that the relief that's not altered by this decision from prior decisions shall remain so on that do I have a second Andy's a second I'm gonna do a roll call so I am a yes and he's a yes Heather yeah Ron yeah and Tony yeah okay so you have your relief we'll get a decision filed soon as we can and we'll file it with the town clerk you can keep Marissa see when that 20-day appeal period will expire and then you'll be able to get that decision in recording thank you very much okay thank you very

[Speaker 12] (38:30 - 38:33)
much will you be willing to draft a decision and email it to me a proposed

[Speaker 1] (38:33 - 39:08)
decision I can give you in word the most recent decision okay and I can give you another sample of one that's similar to the type of relief you're looking for yeah so if you email Marissa to get in touch she can email both of us and I'll get you a proposed decision of the earlier decision thank you to the bridge all right thank you okay the next matter is petition 2126 Pine Street

[Speaker 2] (39:08 - 41:32)
development LLC now being after 720 p.m. attorney Quinn how are you how's everybody I'm attorney bill Quinn from Salem nice to see you representing the developers or would-be developers and owners of the property at 12 Pine Street in Swampskate which is I'm sure you're all familiar as a a non can well it's commercial property which is sparsely used at the moment but historically has been used for automotive and automotive storage purposes for decades the neighborhood is interesting one side of Pine Street is zoned for residential the other side and this side is zoned be one I believe it is and this property the VFW the former liquor store makes sort of a line of commercial properties heading towards the ocean my clients bought the property and particularly with a couple of things in mind one thing I'd like to just quickly pull out of the Swampskate housing production plan of June to 16 which I was referred to by the planning board to make sure we knew what it said to make a long story short Swampskate needs a lot of small single-family or single occupant housing it doesn't have a lot of room for the development of that kind of towels housing in the town and a couple of the recommendations of the report although it's several years old I think it's still highly relevant were consider transit oriented compact development with smaller units and high traffic areas as a potential source of additional housing for people who are going to age in sight or working people who are likely at least many of which are likely to use public transportation hang on one second mr.

[Speaker 1] (41:32 - 41:36)
Quinn I see some people trying to hear you in the back if you if you wanted to come closer to here you're

[Speaker 2] (41:36 - 41:41)
more than welcome to move closer I'll try and address address myself does this

[Speaker 8] (41:41 - 41:47)
make a difference that's more presumed than anything I'll just speak up right

[Speaker 1] (41:47 - 41:50)
maybe if you if you spoke up a little bit I think some people looking maybe to

[Speaker 2] (41:50 - 47:39)
move a little bit closer to here yeah I'm not used to needing to speak up but I will so again what I was saying is the traffic studies for the community indicate a large need and a small area available for a single apartment one bedroom units or aging in place housing in the community and this particular site is uniquely fit in terms of that kind of definition it's a flat right now concrete covered site with an old concrete building on it it's about 15 thousand square feet of land it's underutilized and it's in a b1 district across the street from a residential neighborhood district the other thing I'd like to point out is that in terms of parking we're basically proposing today 22 units of housing 70% of which are one bedroom units a couple of doubles and a couple of triples but basically mostly one bedroom units in a three-story building it's basically a hard surface three-story flat roof building and proposing 30 indoor parking spaces on the first level to serve those 22 units there's also going to be about 1,100 square feet of commercial space on the first floor to provide an amenity to the neighborhood and we did submit a traffic report from the company known as the engineering corporation from Andover Mass and a summary of their findings were that the addition of the site generated traffic will not be noticeable on or measurably impact operations of the roadway system adjacent they also found that factual analysis indicates that it's more likely that about 22 parking places would be necessary to serve the 30 the 22 units because of the number of people that are likely to be walking or commuting so from a from a traffic point of view although we're a little short because we don't have commercial parking in the building we have to be on the street parking we do have more than one space per unit that is again 30 spaces for 22 units and it appears from the traffic analysis performed that that's more than adequate for the normal parking load of a building this size and configuration it's what they call a low-rise multifamily development so we've been working with the planning board for about four months and have appeared before them on four occasions and we have to thank them for their willingness to spend that much time with us we originally filed a proposal for a four-story 33 unit building with the same 30 parking places and the basic same footprint which is most of the property neighbors were very concerned and members of the planning board were concerned about the scale of the building in its location and surrounding neighborhood as a result of that dialogue my clients have reduced the size of the building significantly by chopping the top floor off and by shortening the building on one end to put in a controlled entrance into the parking garage with a little more landscaping the architect Peter Pittman is here with us he's online I'm sure and I'm gonna leave it to him to describe the major changes and the configuration of and answer your questions about the configuration tonight but as a result of our last meeting with the planning board it was agreed by us and the planning board that they would refer to you with their recommendation which they did a majority of the planning board supports this project and recommends it to you for site plan approval two members abstained including the chairperson they I don't mean to speak for them but the dialogue was that they weren't satisfied that the scale of the building was appropriate for the neighborhood is the simplest way I think I can provide it and they didn't think the public benefits that we were proposing made up for that so what I'm here for tonight is actually a series of five special permits and I don't know if you have it I filed an original application field for the former building the four-story 30-yard unit building that I have since filed an amended application with amended grounds and if it's easy for you I brought copies of that I mean this was filed weeks ago but I have this if you'd like some copies or if you don't need them that's what I need more than I had let me just give you a few when you can hand them out pass them along oh my goodness okay we're gonna let

[Speaker 1] (47:42 - 48:02)
trying to be polite so what I'm gonna ask everyone to do is just hold their comments I'll give everybody a chance okay we're gonna treat everyone with respect I'm gonna treat you with respect petition with respect and I expect that everyone on this board everyone that speaks is going to be

[Speaker 2] (48:02 - 52:26)
treated with respect so as you can see if you look at this amended petition basically whereas initially we needed a variance of the number of stories because even with this bonus of the special permit on height as to stories we propose for and this dimensional special permit would not allow for so with three however we don't need a variance that was the only variance we needed but we do need an array of special permits we need a special permit for use because anything with more than four new dwelling eight new dwelling units by its definition requires a special permit we need dimensional special permits and I'll go through those in a minute the several we need a special permit as to parking and loading requirements and we've made a request to reduce those the ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit which would be 33 parking spaces for the dwelling units and we have 30 and the zoning requirements for the commercial space would be six additional spaces and we haven't provided any within the building we have a request for a special permit for construction in the floodplain conservation overlay district we spent a lot of time both up front with the building inspector and DPW and several subsequent occasions we agreed to raise the we have to raise the definition of the building sufficiently I think it's about 10 feet to get above what's necessary to construct in the floodplain we've done that and our civil engineer is also attending tonight who can explain this in more detail and we need a special permit for site plan approval that's the one that we've been working together with the planning board to try and see all right so use dimension on dimensions the second page of this amended application that I gave you reviewed by your building inspector like just a few days and signed by him before he left for his new booties show you the the required dimensions under the zoning the existing the proposed and I have calculations I'm not sure if they're on the one you have of what the maximum width is 20% bonus under the special permit provisions would allow but everything that we have proposed is under what the 20% bonus would allow all right we are proposing 79% maximum lot coverage we have 70 is the requirement we're proposing 79 and 84 would be allowed up to 84 by special permit the open space it can be factored down by 50% the requirers 15% and we have 7.5 odd percent several things don't apply because they don't have requirements in the b1 district but getting down to the building height 2.5 stories with the 20% bonus is three stories which we're proposing and again I don't want to try and describe this calculation I'll leave this to mr.

Pittman but basically because we had to raise the foundation of the building above the flood area the calculation of the three-story building for height is apparently 25 feet the maximum that would be allowed is up to 42 feet we're nowhere near that so again I'll leave that to mr. Pittman or the engineer to explain but those are the dimensional requests that we have for special permits mentions use for more than eight units reduction of the parking to allow the 30 parking places to serve to construct in the floodplain in compliance with the orders of the town departments and the site plan special permit that we went through and have presented to the planning board and you have their list of concerns and

[Speaker 1] (52:28 - 52:46)
recommendations thank you I think I have some questions before we get to Peter okay one would be the three stories and a special permit for a sub variance because we had this issue in another matter and my memory is that we

[Speaker 2] (52:46 - 53:13)
concluded it needed a variance I know you had it at the White Castle I'm going attorney McCann's memo and I looked it over I don't think you had to resort to his memo I think it if I remember correctly the calculations were under

[Speaker 4] (53:13 - 53:30)
the three stories that might have been required well the requirements I believe

[Speaker 2] (53:30 - 53:44)
are two and a half stories at least in this district this is the different district he won but two and a half stories if you add 20% that's five so on

[Speaker 1] (53:44 - 53:46)
that on the dimensional special permit

[Speaker 2] (53:47 - 53:53)
problem with this and he agreed with this but okay well I just want to we

[Speaker 4] (53:53 - 54:19)
just want to make sure we agree yeah I mean I think because we're so far under

[Speaker 2] (54:19 - 54:26)
the 20% well that's true well so here's here's the language that for dimensional

[Speaker 1] (54:26 - 54:37)
special permit the Board of Appeals may grant a special permit to reduce otherwise applicable requirements of a yard height open space or lot coverage

[Speaker 11] (54:38 - 54:46)
restrictions upon a finding that and then it goes through the criteria it's a

[Speaker 2] (54:46 - 54:51)
story story is the height of it no story in high well I guess that the question

[Speaker 4] (54:51 - 54:57)
would be in category of the dimension build two and a half stories at this

[Speaker 2] (54:57 - 55:38)
height yeah I'm trying to think of a way to address what you're saying there's a double limit you know sometimes they put any walls in a in a dorm or something and it triggers a third story because of the state building code three stories but you could still be under or over the fight to the height limitation of so many feet so when you run into that basically you have to comply with both you have to comply with the height in terms of feet you have to comply with the height in terms of stories and we're doing that that the height of the building is both

[Speaker 4] (55:38 - 55:50)
three stories and we're not talking about height we're talking about the area of the third floor in our bylaw the definition is more than half a story

[Speaker 12] (55:50 - 55:54)
it means 50% of the gross square footage of the story below it it doesn't mean

[Speaker 4] (55:54 - 55:59)
50% of the height right you're talking about the high no I'm not talking about

[Speaker 2] (55:59 - 56:04)
percent I'm saying no what was it over two and a half stories what the half the

[Speaker 12] (56:04 - 56:12)
story is the half the story doesn't have anything to do with height the half the story means 50% of the gross square footage of the floor below well let's

[Speaker 1] (56:13 - 56:23)
I think we should let attorney Quinn make his argument his person is his position on it is so it's fair I'm just looking for the dimensional

[Speaker 7] (56:23 - 56:30)
this is fine I think he just he should be aware that there's it looks like there's at least three board members that disagree with this position well

[Speaker 4] (56:30 - 56:34)
let's let's first make sure we I mean I think it's critical because it changes

[Speaker 1] (56:35 - 56:55)
we don't have jurisdiction well somebody have a copy of the dimensional table the bylaw I didn't bring I have the bylaws so the dimensional the table okay I've

[Speaker 2] (56:55 - 57:27)
got the tables an appendix the table of dimensional requirements so we're b1 is

[Speaker 1] (57:27 - 57:31)
that what you're saying first I don't know what it is it's an appendix or

[Speaker 2] (57:31 - 57:39)
what what is the arm just dimensional I can't read it all I'm looking for is the

[Speaker 1] (57:39 - 57:44)
table with we'll get it we'll get it for you

[Speaker 8] (57:49 - 57:57)
I went too fast yeah all right I mean just make sure I'm screen sharing it

[Speaker 2] (57:57 - 58:08)
first and can you see it mark I can't I can't see that I'm sorry all right I'll

[Speaker 8] (58:08 - 58:20)
zoom in what does it say on the table what I'm asking be one it says 2.5 stories but not in excess of 35 feet right but underneath it says maximum

[Speaker 1] (58:20 - 58:30)
height that's the maximum height of the door not in excess of 35 feet then it has a footnote number two yeah

[Speaker 4] (58:34 - 58:52)
that's just calculating the normal height so that be one that statement is the same as all of the a districts and I can tell you in a one this board required a variance for a full third story nothing to do with height and I

[Speaker 2] (58:52 - 59:19)
can't argue with you if that's what your findings have been I just know we met with the building inspector on at least two occasions went through this whole table and that was not what I understood from those discussions I understood that we could have 20% bonus on stories and 20% bonus on feet and that's what we used and that's what we've come in I wrote in both cases unfortunately so so

[Speaker 1] (59:19 - 59:29)
I just want to understand so you're saying so with the 20% on stories if that were the application yeah it was your opinion that another half story

[Speaker 2] (59:29 - 59:46)
would be permitted on that 20% another under special permits yeah another half story that would be 20% of two and a half stories one fifth so an extra half story would be allowed if you granted this you're saying of course but that

[Speaker 1] (59:46 - 1:00:09)
wouldn't that would permit us up to one story it would not permit us up to if we had put in 20% so that's not the way it was treated with with white court any

[Speaker 7] (1:00:09 - 1:00:14)
other person doing an addition on the house could have made the same argument

[Speaker 1] (1:00:14 - 1:00:24)
and right we had I was recused from that one in my neighborhood as well

[Speaker 2] (1:00:35 - 1:00:59)
really a construction direction it's a dimensional direction right you know we're not saying what's going to be put in that but it's going to start the three stories whatever it is and it's going to be within the bonus amount of feet which in this case is 46 feet so yeah well it's I mean get the day it's

[Speaker 7] (1:00:59 - 1:01:07)
it's not it's not by right no it is the board to decide discretion it's we tried

[Speaker 2] (1:01:07 - 1:01:21)
to fashion a project that made sense from an economic point of view for meeting the housing needs of the community and that needed the relief that we asked for and I honestly believe that's what we've got I'm trying to

[Speaker 1] (1:01:21 - 1:02:24)
think how it played out as well with building on a big controversial project but Bruce's building on accordion that's three stories we did it most recently with what I'm thinking right most recently with white court we treated it as a variance analysis I don't know if you checked off on your application as well for on the amended no so it wasn't noticed we were

[Speaker 2] (1:02:24 - 1:02:28)
trying to avoid needing a variance that's part of why we reduce the yeah

[Speaker 1] (1:02:28 - 1:03:29)
right right but so so we have that issue but I'm thinking there was another project that we that goes back sometime Concordia which I can pull up the decision well I think I think that we're gonna need to continue beyond today anyway because it's gonna need another amended petition for an application of a variance if you're going to continue to look for that relief and I don't know that you'd get it or not but I think in the interim I think it would make sense to notice it for that I think it would make sense to look at the Concordia decision and and how it was treated on that project and perhaps I'm not sure if there any other structures I can think of that have had the same question on

[Speaker 4] (1:03:34 - 1:03:42)
the residential we haven't into doing that's what we've done on residential

[Speaker 1] (1:03:42 - 1:03:47)
and it's it's it doesn't distinguish between a commercial project and a

[Speaker 2] (1:03:47 - 1:04:04)
project everything should be treated at the same can I just ask I you know our architect is here yeah and comment on this yeah Peter you there good evening

[Speaker 5] (1:04:04 - 1:04:59)
everyone yet the two and a half story versus three stories we reviewed that with Rich Baldarchi and you know rich signed off on the 20% increase for that third story so we wouldn't have proceeded with the amount of work and effort in meetings if at any point we thought that this was going to trigger a variance as council pointed out it was the whole reason we reduced the size of the building was to avoid the whole variance condition so you know really nothing new to add that council hasn't hasn't already covered yeah that's in

[Speaker 1] (1:04:59 - 1:06:03)
that's unfortunate you know it's very unfortunate and but if this board has a bylaw to interpret and to address what I think we should do though is talk about some of the other issues that we have I wanted to first ask the questions about the planning board decision there's a in the third paragraph bill there's a reference to are you looking yeah March 18th you have that in front of you we could pull it up to I'm sure I can it's only one sentence I'm sure you can answer the question yeah it's it reads in any event in accordance with the town's inclusionary zoning bylaw 10% of the proposed units must be certified as affordable units yes so I'm just trying to understand that is that something that the petitioner is yes

[Speaker 2] (1:06:03 - 1:07:13)
we're proposing three affordable units out of the 22 units so we've rounded up the three rather than kind of fight okay so I just want to understand that in that's a fraction 21 that we can agree on on the other issue can I just say what I'd like to do we'll go through as much as you'd like to hear from us tonight we'll continue I will look at the white rose decision again and get the Concordia decision out and look at them so I'm familiar with what you've done and the best reasoning do you ever refer a question to town council if there is a question about in we do reputation of the vote zoning bylaw we do I think that's an appropriate question until you answer that no I think that's a good way of approaching the question I mean if we get cooperation we can answer that in short order and we can amend our petition in the meantime if we need to so what I what I stories what I'd look to

[Speaker 1] (1:07:13 - 1:07:46)
do is I would look to ask the question of town council and if you wanted to submit anything on that issue I would make that part of the record of what submitted at town council yeah if any of the butters had anything they wanted to Smith in terms of a legal opinion about this very narrow legal issue I would suggest that it be filed with with Marissa the interesting thing is with a

[Speaker 4] (1:07:46 - 1:07:56)
hundred percent certainty was a variant we required a variance at white court the real key is what do we do with the Concordia you think the only other

[Speaker 1] (1:07:56 - 1:08:13)
record would it if if we got an opinion from town council that said either our bylaw was you know said yes or no or it's unclear and it may not be enforceable I think then this board takes that opinion from town council can

[Speaker 4] (1:08:13 - 1:08:32)
agree with it or disagree well I'm saying that you know because we had a very friendly petition at white court we were just like we're crossing all the don't take any chance right that's the impression I got reading it right right

[Speaker 2] (1:08:32 - 1:08:40)
put down all the relief that might be necessary right so I think that we'll

[Speaker 1] (1:08:40 - 1:08:50)
have an open mind about that issue and we can we can get an opinion on that I

[Speaker 7] (1:08:50 - 1:09:15)
guess the question is so even if he gets an opinion and says yes we have authority to issue a special permit when you look at the other requirements for us to issue a dimensional special permit do you think you need so you know one jumps out and it's the first one there's no practical alternative to the proposed specialist people who complying I mean I'm not saying I'm but this is just a

[Speaker 1] (1:09:15 - 1:09:18)
long threshold argument no I got I doesn't mean the burden is any less it

[Speaker 7] (1:09:18 - 1:09:33)
might be no maybe just a bit less than a variance no I understand don't want to give give any false hope false hope and say yeah if the town council says yes then you get a yes here right but it's also it's also a much different standard

[Speaker 1] (1:09:33 - 1:10:23)
for appeal yeah of course on on a special permit for a variance of course on either side there might be other ways to look at this that's your worst-case scenario in so you're looking for the two-and-a-half stars right I don't know that project works that way or not I'm the last one today so I mean I believe our application

[Speaker 2] (1:10:23 - 1:10:38)
was whittled down to what our clients felt their experienced developers felt was the most that they could cut it I mean there was a lot of angst going on and taking units off and finally the decision to eliminate a floor and all

[Speaker 4] (1:10:40 - 1:10:51)
trying to reach compliance right no I understand that so I mean I certainly

[Speaker 2] (1:10:51 - 1:11:14)
understand your concerns I hear what you're saying about the precedents of those two other projects but if you don't mind I would like to at least look at them those decisions and see if I agree and if I can submit something simple to mark or a question to the town council about the specific issue we're talking about the difference between right there may be worries there

[Speaker 1] (1:11:14 - 1:11:21)
may be some case that that seems like it probably is a pretty common table of dimensional requirements that they have stories so there might be some other

[Speaker 2] (1:11:21 - 1:12:16)
communities that all the time I practice mostly in Salem and I do a lot of zoning there and we run into it often people want to put that third level apartment on they're gonna do it with a dormer the dormer triggers a third story calculation because it's got any walls more than three feet high under the state building code and they don't get it they don't understand that even though they're still under the 30-foot limit or whatever it is they've triggered and it looks just like that it's got height and then it's got the alternative both in feet and story so it's routine in Salem anyway it doesn't bind you in any way but that's how it's interpreted and used so because if it isn't height what is it you know it's on the table of dimensional relief of required dimensions so it's it's a dimension right and we get it a lot with

[Speaker 1] (1:12:16 - 1:13:01)
with residential and it's routinely it's always been treated the same way yeah so we had the issue with white court we had the issue and I can't remember how it was decided with Concordia which peers looking at but I'm open to sending it out getting an opinion and finding out what town council thinks about about the issue anybody else have any questions because I think we ought to get this threshold issue looked at before we get too deep into the remainder of the petition everyone agree is there anything else bill that you or your team and you've

[Speaker 2] (1:13:01 - 1:13:54)
got everyone here wanted to know but as I said again without meaning in any way delay the neighbors we'd like to talk about all five special permit requests that's one of them dimensional relief we have the others there's the special multifamily special permit to reduce the parking as verified at least by the traffic study that we submitted the wet wetland floodplain which again is pretty much a matter of whether the building department DPW are satisfied we've taken steps to approve building in a wetland and we've taken those steps in terms of design of the building as far as I know and the site plan itself which is the one we've spent this amount of time talking about so if anybody wants to

[Speaker 4] (1:13:54 - 1:14:02)
talk about the parking let's do it yeah I I do think we should answer the

[Speaker 1] (1:14:02 - 1:14:52)
questions okay those there was a comment to a lot of projects I think that you have this threshold issue and and I know you've been working for a long time with the planning board but I think we ought to get an answer here I you know I know it's a big project for this neighborhood I know there's it appears there's some opposition to it so I even if you get by that dimensional special issue for the number of stories I think that it's still going to be a decision that's made with a clear analysis of all of the standards that we have in our

[Speaker 12] (1:14:52 - 1:15:10)
bylaw so the height that you have as the mat as the height is that the top of the third floor or is that the top of the do we include the storage room and elevator shaft and stairwell that's on top of the building is that my

[Speaker 2] (1:15:11 - 1:15:29)
understanding but I am NOT an architect is that those don't count I think there's a specific yeah the tariff that we have language about your pitman is the expert if he wants to stop Peter knows would you Peter of the things on the roof above the roof counted as height

[Speaker 5] (1:15:33 - 1:15:54)
no against the overall height limit and there is a two-foot allowance for parapets as well so again this was all reviewed with the building inspector and signed up on it right so just it's in two point three point seven point zero

[Speaker 1] (1:15:54 - 1:16:41)
the provisions governing the height of building shall not apply to chimneys cooling towers elevator bulkheads non-mechanical ventilators and other necessary pertinent features usually carried above roofs such features and structures may be erected to the required height and nexus of the height limits otherwise provided for district which the structures built the so about the roof deck in terms of features that are associated with the deck that's a good question so Peter I what do you what do you think about the position about the roof deck if that increases the height at all again as reviewed with

[Speaker 5] (1:16:41 - 1:17:06)
with the building inspector he did not see that as against our height but we're so under the height limit that it's almost a new point can we can take it to the top of the handrail and still meet the requirement in feet so is I see that

[Speaker 1] (1:17:06 - 1:17:14)
the proposed is 36 feet 2 inches what is that 36 feet 2 inches if Marissa will

[Speaker 5] (1:17:14 - 1:18:52)
let me share I can bring up the plans and that looks higher than 36 it's all how you count it let's get to the study okay so what we're talking about is about two feet above the parapet because we have a two-foot allowance for the parapet the max building building height from the lowest point of the property to the top of the parapet is is 36 to but we get because we're in the flood zone AE we're allowed at eight foot allowance against height because the flood zone is forcing us to put the building much further above grade than we would otherwise like to do so which might be so various so the so the unique conditions right again it was it was determined that a variance wouldn't be necessary that it was allowed so with that we certainly have the

[Speaker 1] (1:18:53 - 1:19:18)
the 25 to to the bottom of the parapet so where is that so is there so what about the roof deck is a roof deck you can see the railing here right so that's a bit taller than the 36 to for the rail yeah yeah so there's a question is

[Speaker 5] (1:19:18 - 1:19:39)
quite an instance back so it wouldn't be visible from a pedestrian way but you can see if in fact that you know we're questioning some of riches decisions tonight if this is based upon that discussion with this eight foot allowance

[Speaker 1] (1:19:40 - 1:20:38)
right right it's an interesting analysis with the increased height that's necessary to move all your mechanicals right it's not as high as you know yeah we have language in our bylaw about decks and well what it's not covered with it so well it's a covered deck it's it's an open deck okay but good question anyone on the board have any other questions follow before we continue just on parking you said you

[Speaker 15] (1:20:38 - 1:20:55)
have 30 spaces but the traffic report recommended 32 and you're required to have 33 actually I think I mean we required to have 33 that was for the housing plus six six for the for the commercials yes so we're short the six

[Speaker 2] (1:20:55 - 1:22:07)
commercial and I think three residential yeah I'm the requirement I don't know if you run into this before but there's a lot of this going on in urban areas which is the one and a half spaces per unit is considered great in the sub for downtown dense housing impractical and many communities are not in well they were changing it especially Boston and some of the projects there but in any case we have more than one space for every resident and the other important thing is because again we've designed this is basically one bedroom housing for the elderly individuals that want to stay there because there's an elevator and they can stay there or working people who are going to walk a bike to the train station who may not have a car the traffic engineer looking at the standards for this type of housing said that with the units that we have we really only need 25 spaces from a practical point of view not from a legal point of view but from a stand construction standard of what would serve the average building of this dimension in a number of units

[Speaker 4] (1:22:13 - 1:22:41)
I mean my question the 1300 square feet of retail can't be making any money nobody builds a residential project or wants to put commercial because it doesn't rent but you could put you know and so you need six spaces for something that if with one apartment or two studios you only need two spaces are you prevented by putting residential in that slice no we're not prevented what

[Speaker 2] (1:22:41 - 1:23:18)
happened was when we went to the planning board we were strongly urged to include a neighborhood amenity on the first floor so that it would be in effect a mixed-use building that they felt was more likely to be an amenity to the neighborhood than an all-residential building so there's talk about a liquor store bakery you know that kind of stuff what liquor store they which used to be down the street right or a bakery or something like that coffee shop so that was the concept and that's why it's there I think if we just curious what

[Speaker 4] (1:23:18 - 1:23:37)
the neighborhood would say notwithstanding the planning board it's like conceptually you see in Salem you look like Flint and where they have retail you look at Jefferson Park that the retails hasn't been rented in 20 years who you know it's not a it's not a great amenity if it's big that's

[Speaker 2] (1:23:37 - 1:23:41)
certainly your experience talking I know so I wonder if the neighborhood

[Speaker 4] (1:23:41 - 1:23:52)
finds that 1300 foot bakery in the middle of nowhere I don't know if they think that's an amenity with the traffic that it brings versus oh I mean raise

[Speaker 2] (1:23:52 - 1:24:02)
the question how many extra spaces could we get into that if we included it in the first floor I mean it is the first floor so it's adjacent to parking but I

[Speaker 4] (1:24:02 - 1:24:12)
don't know from a designer you get six you know you get six spaces for that 1,300 square feet if it was one extra apartment yeah which would be mathematically is as much money as you're going to get yeah renting this

[Speaker 10] (1:24:12 - 1:24:58)
bakery out I mean let us go bill bill this is Mike the petitioner Broadway Capital I just want to kind of step in here so the is that okay yes that's fine all right yeah so so I think you did a good job presenting the project and the requirements the liquor store that was in the spot adjacent to the building has expressed an interest to you know to potentially relocate back to the area you know provided obviously that the that this building gets approved and you know the retail spaces I just wanted to add that that they have expressed an interest to move back the location okay thank you very much

[Speaker 4] (1:24:58 - 1:25:21)
I guess I'll just reiterate I'm not business decision but I guess I'd be asking the petitioner like honor raise your hand truth you know would you rather have it be an apartment versus a retail use again we wouldn't put an

[Speaker 2] (1:25:21 - 1:25:43)
apartment on the first floor I think what but it would allow us is extra parking for the number of units so we've requested in maybe right you were parking and eliminate the retail require all right well that's something we'll be discussing tomorrow but also the

[Speaker 10] (1:25:43 - 1:25:56)
planning board the planning board did push to have that retail they were adamant I think a number of the members that that that retail stay on the first floor I think Angela being one of them that the retail remain

[Speaker 7] (1:26:10 - 1:26:21)
yeah but I think we first got to figure out this whole issue at the half story no of course but I'm just I just I'm just planning a seat you know as we

[Speaker 1] (1:26:21 - 1:27:33)
know right so with what I think we should do is I think we should continue the petition I know this people that have come tonight yeah well I assume are largely in opposition to the project but there may be a thresh or maybe I'm being presumptuous maybe there are people who support it but either way I think that it we should first get an opinion as to whether or not that third story if that we whether we have jurisdiction to permit it by either special permit or variance and then come back and go further and analyze the project and get everyone their opportunity to be heard the public hearing will be continued to that further date and I'm going to give everybody that wants to speak the opportunity to speak before any decision is made so with that I am going to make a motion to continue the hearing to April 27 that date good for you bill what day of the week is that that is a

[Speaker 8] (1:27:33 - 1:27:37)
Wednesday Wednesday night we have town election on Tuesday the 26th so we

[Speaker 2] (1:27:43 - 1:27:48)
I think I have a Salem Board of Appeals meeting the same night I'm sorry to say

[Speaker 1] (1:27:48 - 1:28:00)
I'm wondering if if you need more time to because if when we get that decision from town council I'm going to share it with everyone I'm gonna share it we're gonna post it on our website yeah so that might if we put it to our main

[Speaker 2] (1:28:00 - 1:28:06)
meeting yeah then they should be time let's put it to the 27th and if it's we

[Speaker 1] (1:28:06 - 1:28:34)
can always continue so what we'll do for members the public if the petitioner is asking to continue on April 27th we'll post that on our agenda and you can check in before that night so you don't come and find out it's continued okay so it's going to continue 27th of April but oftentimes like our first agenda item tonight a matter may be continued to a later date for various reasons and

[Speaker 8] (1:28:34 - 1:28:46)
anyone is welcome to reach out to me directly if they just want to double check and then I want to make it clear also that we won't be sending out mail notices to a butter so right on them to check the agenda actually we may be

[Speaker 1] (1:28:46 - 1:29:17)
sending out notices because it's going to be an amended variance so we will have to send notice so I'm gonna make a motion to continue April 27th I have a second do a roll call so me yes Andy yes Ron yes Heather Tony yes Paula yes okay so we're continued to April 27 thank you for your time tonight okay sure thank you thank you everyone

[Speaker 14] (1:29:34 - 1:29:51)
you will get we're not going to talk about our you're gonna get the

[Speaker 7] (1:29:51 - 1:29:57)
opportunity of the 27th a a you can be you can also submit email or letter in writing

[Speaker 1] (1:30:13 - 1:30:16)
about three three out of five we're not going to talk about the substance

[Speaker 14] (1:30:16 - 1:30:28)
because I didn't say you had to I'm saying you have the opportunity

[Speaker 1] (1:30:28 - 1:30:39)
to submit something if you'd like you could do it yourself do we have any

[Speaker 8] (1:30:39 - 1:30:43)
decisions to sign no no I'm just waiting for an official adjournment

[Speaker 7] (1:30:43 - 1:30:45)
before I motion to adjourn