[Speaker 1] (0:05 - 1:35)
Okay, so good evening, everyone, welcome to our September 12 planning board meeting tonight we have a couple of petitions on the, our agenda of them being petition that was continued from July, which is site plan review, site plan approval actually for for petition 2211 by Hanover court. Quest dimensional special permit and a site plan special permit. It's a construction of an addition.

So right on the Hanover core, which is the Denison eight Denison Avenue petition. This petition does require mention a relief from the board of appeals as well so this is just a site plan review from the planning board. I know we sent this back.

Last time with several questions for the petitioner in the meantime, we did get quite a few updates and responses we also got some significant comments from neighborhood. So, I would like to open up by allowing I don't know, is it Derek, he's going to be. Hi.

[Speaker 2] (1:36 - 1:38)
Yeah, it will be presenting today.

[Speaker 1] (1:38 - 1:55)
How are you, if you could just pick up. Let's just, I'm going to have you start over with the new presentation with the updated plans. And if you would kindly point out, as you go through what has been updated since last time.

[Speaker 2] (1:56 - 3:44)
Sure, absolutely. I'm Derek bloom bloom architecture with me here is Paul Lynch, the attorney representing the client and Julia so called the client. Also, James Emanuel is here to talk about landscape which is a new new design where we've added to the package for this presentation.

So let me share and take you through it. So I'm assuming some, some things I can skip through fairly quickly, as we were as we covered it last time but I'll highlight the changes so the comments have been there been a desire to talk more about the paper road sterns, and whether there was work in the right of way, we reached out to Gina Costa to discuss it. He had the package shared with him, and had the same understanding that we did, which was that the paper, excuse me, the paved area is currently paved past the property where we'll need the driveway.

So he had no concerns about that, and felt that there was no work in the actual right of way being proposed so he was. He saw no issue with the proposal from a right of way standpoint. As you see here the payment in our survey shows it here, and the new driveway enters this area here.

So we clarified that one. I don't know whether he presents a letter at some point or not, but he okayed me to CC the board sent Marissa an email summarizing that conversation.

[Speaker 4] (3:45 - 3:50)
I do have email confirmation from him that I'm happy to share. I didn't submit it I did send it to the board.

[Speaker 2] (3:50 - 7:34)
So, okay. So hopefully the confusion about the work that may or may not be on the street is settled there. In the last presentation we had, we made the assumption that we had two fronts, Stearns and Denison.

I believe it was the water department would determine that we have one front, Denison, so we were asked to go back and show it, with that being the case. So you'll see that reflected in the site plan that we have now two sides. And one rear, we've updated our chart to reflect that the main difference being.

This is how we had originally designed it so we'd sort of flip flop but the garage. With the other scenario had been in the setback and now it's no longer in the setback on this side of the other metrics stay the same. In terms of conformity.

So, when you see this chart there really won't be any difference, other than the side yard here. It should now complies. The board had asked for a justification backup for the open area calc so we added that to the sheet to show how we arrived at 47%, which is here.

On the, on the open area. Design wise, we'll show you the planting plan momentarily which has been asked for it also a lighting plan. Lighting wise, there are really, there's really only one light that one would see in the plan so I'll just kind of mark this up live but we have recessed lighting exterior doors here in here.

The Syria entry points and then at the garage entry point we'll have a wall Scott so that's the one visible light. There are no landscape lights or like posts or anything of that nature in the project so really for the public way there won't other than seeing recessed cans in these overhang roofs, that will be visible lighting the light fixtures I should say they'll be visible light. It's all dark sky and down, downward facing the other piece for the roof was contentious so we took a look at a pitch roof, which seemed to be the consensus was that the roof would fit in better with the neighborhood if it were pitched and we didn't take issue with that so we went ahead and made a gable roof kind of somewhat know the orientation of the existing roof, it's a little bit higher.

It's more or less, you know, the form you see today gable roof perpendicular to the street. So I'll just kind of flip through these elevations to show you know that form steeper than the current but well within the height limit 10 feet under the height limit. So this is the right side is the left side.

This is the rear garage scene beyond which still has a flat roof, and the rear elevation which maintains the roof deck feature here. And this is kind of a pitch shed roof over on this side, and this is the gable beyond. So those are the major changes in terms of, you know, providing, providing the more information and also kind of the reforms that we changed.

James is James here. James is a presenter. But this is our planting plan.

[Speaker 12] (7:35 - 7:36)
Yes, I'm here. Great.

[Speaker 2] (7:37 - 7:40)
Yeah, if you wouldn't mind just jumping in on the plantings that would be great.

[Speaker 12] (7:41 - 10:00)
Okay, so we have submitted a planting plan with the plant list. There's not a whole lot of planting so James and I know by the way for the record landscape architect on the project. Not a whole lot of plantings on the side it's a lot of sort of grassy spaces.

You'll see off site, a lot of Norway maples in the back, and there are a few that are kind of straddling the property lines those are all to remain. And then on the right hand side of the page and Stearns is a lot of tall canopy black locust trees on Stern Street and that tree in the corner there is a black cherry native tree which will remain as well. If you go down a little bit where the garages, because we're doing the garage construction there's currently a row of our bodies there those will need to come out, and in their place will be the garage structure.

And we're going to add plantings primarily along Denison Ave. Along the frontage, and those are a combination of native plants kind of neat well manicured shrubs. Some hollies, a few boxwood shrubs, some native grasses, small weeping cherry tree on the corner of the building there so these are all again low profile or kind of controlled plants that I think will will compliment the architecture nicely with a grass strip in front of them, which will lead up to the sidewalk and that's kind of in keeping with the neighborhood as well. Most of the houses there have that same kind of profile with the house plantings and then grass or lawn area.

We're adding a few evergreens in the side yard to provide an additional buffer between that side property and the proposed additional as you see on the plan there. And that's basically at the balance of it will be grass is a paper impervious patio in the back, which connects to the garage and the driveway. So that'll be part of the paved area, but everything you see there that kind of reads as dots and the plan is more of just a just a continuous grassy area as well, which will be now a manicured more manicured looking lawn space.

And that's the plan. Generally, we're not sure.

[Speaker 2] (10:06 - 11:36)
Thanks, James. The only other board requests have been made was the storm drainage approach. We have a civil engineer we work with, and he kind of thought that that was the type of design that we might do in detail once we had an approved form footprint roof plan to kind of do some of the calcs for roof runoff.

But he did provide a letter describing the approach, which of course will follow and would even accept that as a condition where you to approve the project to submit that prior to submitting the building permit. So, the letter, we submitted the letter but it kind of describes the process for recharge and that it would be to maintain stormwater on site release it at rates which do not exceed the present rates. So if that's okay with the board we would design that once we had sort of more of a certainty about the house size because I know there's additions and things that are still being discussed.

And then Tony Stella would would do the design and submit that for the board's approval. That's it in terms of new information and changes.

[Speaker 19] (11:41 - 11:44)
Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1] (11:49 - 11:53)
Oh, that wasn't. I don't know.

[Speaker 2] (11:53 - 11:55)
Cross cross talk.

[Speaker 1] (11:56 - 11:58)
Yeah, I think so.

[Speaker 2] (11:58 - 11:58)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (12:00 - 12:16)
Okay, so, um, yeah let's take a look at the site plan. And you know just speaking of stormwater and utilities, so there is nothing coming in from Stern Street, is that correct, it's all coming in from Denison.

[Speaker 2] (12:18 - 12:20)
That's right. Yeah, I think all the utilities are coming from Denison.

[Speaker 1] (12:21 - 12:26)
Okay, we just, I'd like to just confirm that. I'm sure we can do.

[Speaker 2] (12:28 - 12:30)
Julius do you know that to be the case.

[Speaker 15] (12:30 - 12:34)
That's, that's my understanding. Yes.

[Speaker 2] (12:39 - 12:51)
Okay. Speaking with Gino the, the pavement on Sterns is somewhat recent two or three years old he thought. So, likely there wouldn't have been utilities there.

This house was built.

[Speaker 1] (12:54 - 13:03)
Right, that that seems to make sense. Is there a berm or a curb that extends the length of the pavement on Sterns.

[Speaker 2] (13:04 - 13:13)
On the other side yes but on our side. No. So, this side only.

[Speaker 1] (13:19 - 13:54)
Okay. So let's take a look at some other issues besides the house itself so have you in, you know, redesign the house. You know, so the front of it looks a little different it's a change from what you had before and with the pitch group and all.

Let's just go through the sizing of it so we have in terms of the expansion of the house and how the additions, is there any increase in size or decrease, is there any change at all on the side.

[Speaker 2] (13:54 - 14:24)
Neither No we didn't, we didn't increase or decrease. The picture does not contain a high enough attic to count as gross footage so that the footage remains the same. And to reduce the footprint, briefly we talked about whether we should go higher because we have 1010 more feet but we felt that a lower design would be more in keeping with their surrounding structures and, you know, a third floor seems excessively tall for this area.

[Speaker 21] (14:25 - 14:25)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (14:25 - 14:31)
We have essentially the same floor plan with a different reform. As we submitted originally.

[Speaker 1] (14:31 - 14:36)
So what's the total gross square footage of the house.

[Speaker 2] (14:39 - 15:24)
Gross square footage. See if I have that handy I may have to look that up separately if you don't mind give me a second. The gross is now 4742.

And the existing was 3135.

[Speaker 19] (15:29 - 15:30)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (15:31 - 15:56)
Um, all right. So, looking at some looking at some issue, let's just see. So in terms of I know James when you were describing the landscaping.

And you said that, you know, basically what I'm understanding is the majority of anything coming down is just the row of our variety where the garage is going.

[Speaker 12] (15:57 - 16:09)
Yes, that's correct. That's pretty much the only thing that's coming down is that row of our body, everything else. That's really important plan will be remaining on the site.

[Speaker 1] (16:10 - 16:17)
Okay, so because it just mentioned some there's a few trees you point out on Stern Street and obviously you're not doing any work into the setback.

[Speaker 12] (16:17 - 16:18)
That's correct.

[Speaker 1] (16:18 - 16:41)
Okay. All right. Okay.

And you talked about the light already. About the groundwater. Okay, so what I'd like to do is see if any members of the board have questions that they'd like to ask.

[Speaker 6] (16:48 - 16:57)
I have one. Yes, go ahead. So, did you mention the trees in the back we're in Norway maples, maples.

[Speaker 12] (17:00 - 17:09)
Yes, that's correct the trees are Norway maples. There's kind of straddling the property line, and those are all kind of various sizes of Norway.

[Speaker 6] (17:10 - 17:16)
Okay, and those are staying. Yes, but there's no new Norway maples being planted.

[Speaker 12] (17:16 - 17:17)
That's correct.

[Speaker 6] (17:18 - 17:26)
Were those the species that were banned back I know there's a previous board member who was obsessed with Norway maples.

[Speaker 12] (17:27 - 17:43)
Well they're an invasive plant and you can't buy them now they're certainly not available but they're everywhere still, and they, they do see Dan and it's probably something that, you know, over time these trees just grew in, and, you know, they're not all on our property

[Speaker 6] (17:43 - 17:59)
they're all sort of sure half on half off but it just creates a decent canopy between the two properties and I was just I heard the word and my hair raised up from previous meetings that we've, we've heard a lot of bad things that we're not planting any new ones that's okay. Right.

[Speaker 12] (18:00 - 18:01)
You got it correct.

[Speaker 6] (18:01 - 18:08)
Okay. Did we get feedback from police fire and building inspector about the suitability of rebuild.

[Speaker 1] (18:12 - 18:18)
Marissa, was that any of that included in the. My knowledge, no.

[Speaker 4] (18:21 - 19:05)
I didn't realize that that was a comment needed. Needed seeking. I have this from the fire department, but this was back in July, so it wasn't anything.

I guess in response to the specific question that Bill just posed it was just more of a standard comments that the fire part fire department provides, and the police back in July, Captain cable, just said that they had no specific concerns with the project with the stipulation of the roadway or sidewalk obstruction be avoided unless specifically authorized by the DPW, and a police detail hired when appropriate. That was it.

[Speaker 1] (19:06 - 19:58)
And I know we had issues with the health health department, because of the fact that the building was, you know, all the utilities have been shut off and then they'll be back on. I believe we did have some updated comment a while back from the Board of Health, regarding that, just to kind of explaining why it had been given that designation. Simply because, you know, again, utilities have been on and off, I don't know whether there's been any examination about, you know, any kind of any kind of pollutants that might be in the house that need to, you know, in the cutting of the inside replacing all the AC elements if there's any kind of asbestos concerned that building is rather old.

[Speaker 6] (20:00 - 20:02)
Is the building inspector online tonight.

[Speaker 1] (20:03 - 20:07)
Not that I'm aware of the health inspector.

[Speaker 4] (20:08 - 20:33)
No. From what I remember, all I have in terms of a comment from department head Jeff Vaughn was that this property is under a condemnation order as the previous owner moved out after a basement flood reached the electrical box and cause other issues which would not allow for human habitation. He otherwise says he has no comment and appreciates that the structure will be revitalized.

[Speaker 1] (20:33 - 21:05)
So is that would be I mean is that would be understanding that everything that's in there is getting ripped out and then the, you know, the. Yes, know that whatever was had caused everything what caused everything to flood. I don't know what actually caused the flooding, I can ask him, but I'm wondering if I was a utility failure or something with the flooding in the area or I mean that's something we should actually know so all the utilities are going to be replaced.

[Speaker 15] (21:05 - 21:11)
So, what was there is irrelevant it's going to be demoed.

[Speaker 6] (21:14 - 21:30)
So I think the specific list we had last time, which was two meetings ago, was to have this, the health, the building inspector, go in and inspect for suitability of rebuild. Based on the condemnation.

[Speaker 15] (21:34 - 21:44)
I didn't see that on the list. I don't think there's any really nobody has a basis that the house can't be rebuilt. I haven't seen that anywhere.

[Speaker 11] (21:45 - 22:02)
Excuse me, this is Paul Lynch, the attorney for the applicant. I think there's some confusion as far as a condemnation. It was from the Board of Health, it wasn't from the building inspector the building was not determined unsafe by the building department was just condemned by the Board of Health as being on not having.

[Speaker 1] (22:03 - 22:48)
That's because the water had reached the electrical. Yes. Okay.

Correct. And so as far as the health department is concerned, if that is all being gutted and rebuilt, then satisfied that he doesn't seem to have any issue with it so. Correct.

All right, so if that's the case, then we expect that, you know, should a permit be granted that that that that references all the utilities being replaced that that condemnation would be lifted. And I don't know how about the process is there, we haven't had I haven't come across this before.

[Speaker 11] (22:48 - 22:55)
Well what would happen Angela is that it had to be a new certificate of occupancy issued by the building inspector in the voice during the process.

[Speaker 1] (22:58 - 23:02)
Okay. I didn't want to make it out of that.

[Speaker 20] (23:05 - 23:05)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (23:10 - 23:22)
Yeah. So, this is a basic question. So is this a teardown or is this a renovation kind of within the existing footprint of the building.

[Speaker 2] (23:25 - 23:49)
I'll take that it's a renovation with the existing footprint. Let's see in the plan, this plan but also in all the floor plans that this original rectangle is still still the envelope so we're really adding on, you know, obviously reframing to change window apertures and probably sistering floor joists that are not to current codes but the rebuild.

[Speaker 1] (23:50 - 23:57)
What part of that was there on the ground now it's going to remain. I mean it sounds like it has to come down to the, to the foundation.

[Speaker 2] (23:59 - 24:23)
No, no, I think it's the foundation will stay the first floor will stay I mean even the exterior walls, largely can stay the roof of course is being replaced and raised, and the windows are so different that that's. Yeah. Yeah, the windows are changing so those are just new headers within existing walls.

[Speaker 5] (24:25 - 24:55)
The context for my question is I'm just trying I'm trying to understand the size here. And so that's why I asked if it was a teardown because it was a teardown the size wouldn't make any sense to me whatsoever. I guess the answer is that you're working within the confines of what was there previously.

But, I mean, this is, it's, it's big.

[Speaker 6] (24:55 - 25:00)
That's not a question that's just so it's it's in the confines plus plus the addition.

[Speaker 5] (25:00 - 25:04)
Right. Well right there's the the addition makes it bigger.

[Speaker 6] (25:04 - 25:26)
Right, so that's not not within the confines. The question about the building inspector and I know that we were very clear at the last end of last week to make sure that petitioners understood. One of the items was the building inspectors approval to remove the condemnation based on what we think the health inspector condemned it for.

So I'm not sure if that's in the record somewhere or if it's still pending.

[Speaker 2] (25:35 - 26:00)
Fix that one up I think what Paul had said was that to lift it, it would be the Board of Health, not the, not the building inspector is the only one who could lift it but that lifting would happen after we replace the utilities. Is there someone at the town level that should reiterate that in a letter or how do you suggest we get the. We satisfied that one.

[Speaker 4] (26:06 - 26:07)
Angela you're muted.

[Speaker 11] (26:10 - 27:01)
This is Paul and she can I think what happened initially when the property was acquired by the applicant, he met with rich body who was a building spread through at the time, and Richard's only comment was that the building lost its for family use, because it was abandoned for more than two years, but he made no comment that the building was not suitable for that it was structurally sound that there's no record in the building department that I have seen that condemned the building. It's only the Board of Health.

But that order. So the structure itself has not been determined to be unstable or unsafe. Derek Do you have any knowledge of that.

[Speaker 2] (27:02 - 27:06)
I've never heard anyone call it unsafe from a structural standpoint now.

[Speaker 6] (27:07 - 27:12)
That's he in the building or did he just do that based on the 2274 ruling in the zoning bylaw.

[Speaker 4] (27:14 - 27:31)
I think I actually don't think it was inspector about that I think it might have been inspector Casper I have a letter from him that stated that the property would lose its non conforming for family status but I believe that was just under the bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (27:32 - 27:34)
That's because it hadn't been inhabited. Correct.

[Speaker 6] (27:36 - 27:36)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (27:37 - 27:45)
So it's not because it was unsafe it was because it just know I had lived there, so it was 2274 so it lost its, its privilege.

[Speaker 6] (27:46 - 27:47)
That's under the use.

[Speaker 1] (27:47 - 27:48)
That's correct.

[Speaker 6] (27:48 - 28:02)
And my understanding is we talked about that last month or two months ago also, and we felt that was not the case because that would also require them to conform to all of the zoning, not just the you so we would have to have frontages and everything.

[Speaker 1] (28:02 - 28:16)
Well that's why they're going to the ZBA for dimensional really their pre existing non conforming.

[Speaker 6] (28:16 - 29:01)
So, but the 2274 would negate that opportunity though. If we're invoking 2274. And that's a whole different decision.

So, I'm sorry I'm not, you know, I have to I have to look at it and it's the use of it's the use of all of the zoning previous zoning grandfathered uses and variances and everything else in after it's abandoned for two years and if, if that's what either rich or Max or whoever it is, is was saying then that's a different thing that zoning needs.

[Speaker 1] (29:02 - 31:03)
Well, what they said, from my understanding is what was said was that, because it had not been occupied for two years, it lost. It lost. This is a four unit building.

So it has to, it had to vert to the a two zoning at now only allows it to be a single family. And also requires 820 feet of frontage and right and so thereby it's you know what they're looking for in this case is uses a pre existing non conforming lot. But now, as opposed to being the use being allowed for for family the use can only be a single family, but the building is the building and a lot is a lot so the application is for the existing non conforming, I'm going to look at the original application.

My understanding that that's what it is. National dimensional special permit and the 360 abandoned for family unit to convert to a single family dwelling with the existing non conforming setbacks remaining, and the addition, not conforming to certain to the current dimensional requirements, except for on yard setbacks, and greater than maximum building coverage by less than 10%. By the building inspector so and I don't know what is your, what would you like to see happen here building would you want to go back to the building commissioner and have him review.

Well, the application again they did stamp it and submit.

[Speaker 6] (31:03 - 31:12)
Yeah, I'm just, I, so I thought we got by the 274 surprised to hear that coming up again today. So I'm not sure why that's back in.

[Speaker 1] (31:12 - 31:20)
And that's why I was looking at 2274 I don't know if that's exactly what I don't see that referenced anywhere here.

[Speaker 6] (31:21 - 31:24)
So the petitioner just referenced it I didn't see it in any documentation.

[Speaker 1] (31:25 - 31:25)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (31:25 - 32:02)
And then the initial reason for the request two months ago to have the building inspector was because of exactly the question about the rebuild versus a non rebuild. If it's been condemned for over two years. I don't know how long it was flooded for I don't know if there's structural any damage, and it would seem like the health inspector from his desk wouldn't have the purview to make that judgment.

And given that we do have a building inspector that he would have had time, given the extra month and the extra two weeks from the last meeting to go and give us that recommendation.

[Speaker 1] (32:03 - 32:33)
So all 2274 says is abandonment of non use non conforming use or structure, just been abandoned or not use for a period of two years shall lose its protected status and be subject to all the provisions of this zoning bylaw, which is, and therefore, because it's a pre existing non conforming lot. And the buildings being rebuilt on it that they're, they're going to have to go back to the zoning sort of appeals for release.

[Speaker 6] (32:35 - 32:43)
So is it a release or variance. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (32:43 - 32:48)
Well, I'm just going to answer those question is the request is for a dimensional special permit.

[Speaker 6] (32:48 - 32:52)
Right, but if it goes back to zoning on the 2274 would that become then a variance.

[Speaker 4] (32:53 - 32:59)
I don't know, that's not. That's really. Why would it be a variance bill.

[Speaker 6] (33:00 - 33:09)
Well what's the what's the frontage requirement in that zone. 100. No, not frontage the setback front setback.

[Speaker 4] (33:12 - 33:16)
But then wouldn't it be would it not be treated as a pre existing nonconformity.

[Speaker 6] (33:17 - 33:21)
Well, my understanding was a 2274 negated all of that. So it would have to be.

[Speaker 11] (33:22 - 34:58)
If I may, this is Paul Lynch again, I think we're confusing that I think we're confusing the two inches, two issues. One is the use and what is the existence of the structure. Right.

They have determined that the use can no longer be used as a for family. Because of the zoning bylaw and in fact because of chapter 48 has the same wording that if something is abandoned for more than two years, it can no longer resurrect itself. You're right if we wanted to go back and attempt to have it become a for family again it would be a variance.

But we're not going to get that and that's not that's not going to happen. So what is happening is that because it lost is for family use the structure that sits there is now classified as a single family. Someone could go in, clean it up whatever they had to do without doing any other dimensional work to it and occupy it as a single family.

We are petitioning the zoning board is to get some relief to put an addition on to the existing now single family dwelling. And because of that, we need some dimensional relief according to the table for an a two district which includes the maximum lot coverage, going up to 32.930 is allowed in under the special permit provisions that we can add up to 10% over that. From the planning from the zoning.

[Speaker 6] (34:58 - 35:19)
Yep. So that again comes back to the question of a rebuild versus a demo. And that's where the building inspectors determination would have been helpful we don't have it so have to make some kind of guess as to whether or not the building is actually going to be a demo at down to start down to the foundation, and the rebuild.

[Speaker 11] (35:20 - 35:33)
Well, I think Derek has already said it's not going to be down to the foundation. The first floor is remaining foundations remaining in the second floor roof line is being replaced.

[Speaker 1] (35:41 - 37:18)
So I think you know these issues are, are, whether or not it's the, whether or not the building itself is, you know, can be you. Well, obviously, so the house, the house is there can't be used as a four family anymore. But it's there.

So the only thing can possibly be used for is a single family. So, now the issue is, it has to go back in order to have any work done on it, you know, there is, unless the house is demolished there's nothing you can do to bring it into compliance. So if that building is, you know, going to stand there, you know, and be reused as a single family home.

There is no other process to go by than to go and request a dimensional relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals, they may decide that that's something that, you know, they are, they are unable to do or, you know, or not. So, but that's whether or not they can seek relief. Is not something that I think we can discuss here since we have in front of us an application that's been, you know, that's been reviewed and sampled by the building commissioner and sent to us.

So, I don't know I mean what is the what other board members think is this. I just need to hear from.

[Speaker 5] (37:19 - 37:46)
Yeah. I think I agree with you that, like, if I'm understanding the conversation correctly. The.

We are looking. Our question isn't. We're not looking at use that's been determined.

We're looking at, you know, dimensional relief that they're seeking, and I don't know how this whole conversation changes that.

[Speaker 1] (37:50 - 38:35)
Right. So, from my from where I stand, looking at this application. One of the things that you know that we are reviewing is that that the building, you know, complies to all zoning regulations and it doesn't.

So, that's one piece of it that we that we can't, you know, we can reach a finding on but we can't make up affirmative recommendation on so therefore it has to go to zoning and we can we can make recommendations on every other aspect of the site plan. As far as that, you know, from, from where we stand it does not comply. And only zoning can speak to that.

[Speaker 5] (38:36 - 39:06)
Let me ask on the on the size, I know that you can seek a dimensional special permit on the max lot coverage nonconformity of up to 10% over the required. But I guess I'm just curious why, like, especially where you're adding structures to the existing building. Why are you proposing a project that is 3% over our bylaw for maximum law coverage.

[Speaker 2] (39:15 - 40:45)
I guess I can speak to that somewhat, I know it seems pretty close to complying, why not try to sneak under the number but I think the owner wanted to see her garage obviously it's lacking any form of parking the building right now so something typical, a house like this would have would have a two car garage so that that piece seemed to be necessary and then the other small addition of the to the left side on the, on the site plan was just to create sort of a home office type of space with a better above and I mean that was kind of the program they wanted to fit into to fit it.

It was either going to be, you know, third story configuration or an extension off to the side we felt that there was a big wide open yard. You know it's a seven foot setback and we're at 27 so we didn't feel density wise or crap crowding the neighbor wise we were anywhere. You know near these kind of minimum limits in terms of proximity to neighboring structure so it seemed reasonable to go to the left for that left edition and of course the rear is the only place when we put a garage so that was kind of the rationale behind doing those things and it just ended up slightly over.

But we felt that, you know, to get under the number and go higher seem seem like a worse potentially worse outcome. Overall, from a site planning standpoint than to go a little bit wider and keep it two stories.

[Speaker 5] (40:45 - 40:54)
What I guess something, why did you need. If it's the home office that said it over like what wasn't an option to not go higher and not go over the number.

[Speaker 15] (41:01 - 41:19)
Well in general, you know it's, there's a guideline to be able to go over this amount from a marketability standpoint, the house has to appeal to the modern family and there were just items that we had to hit, and the bylaws set out the path for us to do that.

[Speaker 5] (41:21 - 41:27)
So, I guess I just don't really understand because this is a five bedroom five bathroom house, that's the idea.

[Speaker 15] (41:28 - 41:28)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (41:31 - 41:43)
Yeah, I guess I'm just not understanding like what modern family it is that like is looking for someone with three, someone with three children, and maybe a parent or home office.

[Speaker 15] (41:50 - 41:56)
I can actually tell you, numerous people I know I'm sure plenty of people on this call no two people work from home.

[Speaker 23] (41:58 - 42:00)
Is there an accessory unit involved.

[Speaker 15] (42:03 - 42:03)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 23] (42:04 - 42:05)
Is there an accessory unit included.

[Speaker 19] (42:05 - 42:06)
No.

[Speaker 2] (42:10 - 42:21)
This project. The question is this project now.

[Speaker 6] (42:22 - 42:25)
Yeah, of course. Is there, how many, how many of the total bedrooms.

[Speaker 12] (42:26 - 42:27)
Five beds.

[Speaker 6] (42:29 - 42:30)
Plus two offices.

[Speaker 2] (42:31 - 42:39)
Yes. So the four bedrooms upstairs and one sort of guests downstairs.

[Speaker 1] (42:53 - 42:58)
Okay, so is there any other, any other comments from the planning board.

[Speaker 13] (42:59 - 43:11)
Yeah, I just have a question. Have you, have you looked at or internally had any designs that were compliant with without having to seek a dimensional special permit to keep it at 30% law coverage.

[Speaker 19] (43:14 - 43:17)
And is that a question you'd be willing to answer.

[Speaker 2] (43:19 - 43:36)
We talked about internally what, what it would be and we didn't actually go so far as to draw it, but yeah, we considered to go as we mentioned, consider going up, which we kind of rejected as an approach so no we didn't we didn't draw any alternatives to this.

[Speaker 15] (43:37 - 43:41)
I just think it's three story house will look much worse here.

[Speaker 1] (43:42 - 43:50)
You can't do three stories it's you know two and a half if that's what you want to call it, but three stories are not allowed.

[Speaker 15] (43:51 - 43:56)
Well, stories are allowed within that within the allotment but yeah, two and a half.

[Speaker 1] (43:56 - 44:36)
Right. Yeah. So, you know, I think that the feeling is that that five bedrooms, with an extension for two offices and very little living space for all those bedrooms, seems, seems out of.

It's a little out of whack, and is kind of, you know, asking for an addition that seems just out of proportion with other houses in the neighborhood and what's really necessary for that lot. And I'm not trying to put words in other people's mouths but that's what I'm, that's what I'm hearing.

[Speaker 5] (44:38 - 44:41)
Angela, I think you said it well. Yeah, I agree.

[Speaker 19] (44:43 - 44:45)
So, I agree also.

[Speaker 1] (44:48 - 45:22)
All right, so any other things you want to discuss before we open it up because there I know there are there are people from the public here and I do want to accept public comment on this project. So I just want to make sure we have one other question I had just kind of jumping away from this is in terms of the HVAC utilities, where are they on the exterior of the house and just the buffering. I didn't notice one the landscape plan unless I missed it.

[Speaker 2] (45:27 - 45:46)
So in terms of condensers and the like, we have some concealed flat roof on the rear, where we can sit in this is a, this is a new wall railing not an open rail so we thought this would be a good place to conceal that.

[Speaker 1] (45:48 - 46:03)
Is that where they're going or was that just kind of an idea. I mean, I'd like to have them identified on the plan, because it's important that it's buffered, especially, I know things are quieter these days but still like to make sure.

[Speaker 2] (46:03 - 46:15)
So then, if they're not on the site show it show them on the building. So, put them on. Yeah, I mean, we can clarify where they are exactly.

Okay.

[Speaker 15] (46:18 - 46:55)
In general, I'd like to just add one thing regarding the five bedrooms. The house has virtually no storage outside of the actual living space. The only basement is in a portion of the existing house, the rest of the houses on slab.

There's no attic space. So, there might be houses on the street that have less area, however, they without going into them I'm sure a good portion have basements, maybe finish. And that's additional use that people are using, even though it might not be factored into their actual measure.

[Speaker 1] (46:57 - 47:06)
And that, but it almost brings up a point of you know five bedrooms, you know, if they were all being used you know where are you going to put all your stuff.

[Speaker 15] (47:07 - 47:13)
They don't all have to be used. That's, that's my point. They can be used for other uses.

Right.

[Speaker 1] (47:15 - 47:16)
Okay.

[Speaker 15] (47:16 - 47:20)
Well you don't have a basement destroy what you're saying, I hear what you're saying.

[Speaker 1] (47:20 - 48:13)
All right. Any other planning board comments before we open it up to public comment. Okay.

That being said, then we will have minutes of eight so we'll do like 10 minutes of public comment. Marissa if you want to see if anyone has their hands raised I know we know we did get a document, very thorough document from a group of others that voice many concerns. And I don't know whether anyone here would like to speak, but if you do you're welcome to.

Again, I'm going to limit it to about 10 minutes of public comment. So, if you would like to speak, please raise your hand and Marissa will call on you. So I have been locked with his hand raised.

[Speaker 21] (48:13 - 48:13)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (48:14 - 48:16)
Can unmute yourself then.

[Speaker 3] (48:20 - 48:29)
There you go. Okay. Hi.

Can you hear me. Yes. Can you see me.

No, you can't. Okay. Okay.

I put on my best clothes for you guys.

[Speaker 1] (48:31 - 48:35)
Video on your. Go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (48:35 - 51:00)
Well, that's okay. Um, so anyway, I prepared a statement tonight so since we only have 10 minutes, I will try to paraphrase. I live.

Again, my name is Ben lock LLC ke I live at 15 Denison app with my wife, Judy. We've been here for over 40 years and we've seen a lot of comings and goings. And, you know, I might just mentioned to folks, you know, the end of Denison now with this building is actually narrows, you know, if you go to the higher numbers on Dennis and have the street is wider, you know, just keep that in mind for traffic.

But, um, I, um, basically, I'm not here to represent myself, I'm here to represent the 17 people that wanted the planning board of the town to know what their concerns were. And these folks live on Denison Avenue, Stern Street Harrison Avenue and Humphrey Street. So my goal quickly is to just try to summarize so we all hear what the concerns were.

And I'd like to thank the owners the architect the landscape architect I think you guys addressed some, some of the concerns. But anyway, we would like to congratulate the new owners on the purchase of their house of this property. We're really very happy that you're taking steps to improve a Denison Avenue.

I mean, honestly, you know you can imagine living here and we just see an abandoned building, you know, for quite a long time. But to address one thing you were talking about, I have the letter in my hand from Richard Balducci dated February 12021. It was sent to Chris Kauhig and Lynn Mass in the Hanover Court LLC.

And you're absolutely right, it says according to Swampscott Zoning Bylaw 2274 abandonment or non-use, you know, a non-conforming use of structure which is abandoned and not used for a period of two years shall lose its protected status, and therefore Rich, Rich Balducci, or I'm not sure how to say it.

[Speaker 1] (51:00 - 51:01)
Balducci, yeah.

[Speaker 3] (51:01 - 53:32)
Thank you, stated that the multifamily use expired, and that this home would now be a single family in zoning A2. And that this letter was included as part of the documentation we submitted on August 2. That's, I think you've got that maybe uploaded on the neighborhood statement that's on your website, so you can find the letter there.

So moving on. The neighborhood feels that 8 Denison Avenue just stands out as a very large green building. It is, it has, it's rectangular, it has an extremely small front yard setback of eight feet five inches to the foundation.

And I think it's only five feet four inches to the front of the steps according to the diagrams, but we, we did an analysis of the building footprints to lot size. And we found that the building footprint to lot size the average ratio is 21.6%. And in our, in our area that ratio range from 12.2% to 28%. And where we found 8 Denison that that ratio of building footprint to lot size was about 22.6%. And we see on the diagram that the proposed lot coverage is 32.9%. So the proposed percentage would would be an increase of 10.3%. So, we know you're not the zoning board but we just want to say that, you know, we're not experts in this area, but the people are just concerned that the building is so big, and we assume the planning board will take the information and the town's regulations into consideration.

As you make your final determination of the owners request and architectural plans. So, next point involves the left side yard setback requirement. I'm representing a neighbor across the street from me.

And the budding neighbor at six Denison have six Denison have by the way used to be the blacksmith's house and eight Denison have used to be the barn.

[Speaker 21] (53:33 - 53:33)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (53:33 - 1:01:03)
So, so six Denison have is concerned about the proposed addition on the left side of the building. We understand that the proposed family room addition would bump the building out by 13 feet four inches. That family room addition would also have a master bedroom on the second floor on top of it.

So the left side of the building would be much larger and closer, closer to the buddy neighbor. So that would change the side setback from 27 feet, five inches to 14 feet, one inch. And, you know, I'm just speaking on behalf of the resident that the resident is concerned that the new neighbors renovations at a Denison would encroach on our space.

And again, we're not saying what you should do. We just want you to know that there is a concern and we all respect what the town will allow and what the regulations are in that regard. Our next concern presented by the neighborhood again 17 people represented here.

The style of the home not consistent with the neighborhood. So, as so noted, the town's regulation section 2.3 point 6.0, which is the zoning regulation states that the proposed structure is consistent with the architectural scale and style of those in the immediate area. The.

And we want to thank you because initially, the building was presented as a more of a contemporary modern with with a flat roof. And we see in the updated plans that they'll now be a slanted roof. And we just want to confirm that there will be a slanted roof, which is definitely more in style with the architecture, you know, around it.

And the other thing is, you know, we do say that the scale of the project is very large. We do recognize that we can have our opinions as neighbors, but the bottom line is that the proposed construction must be approved by the planning board in accordance with the town regs. So we hope that the style of this home will end up blending into our neighborhood.

And we thank you for considering our August 2 thoughts which were written up and and you folks tonight hit on a very major concern about the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. The folks in the neighborhood are concerned about the fact that there are five bedrooms and five bathrooms in the plans and you folks did discuss that. You know, we also further acknowledge that the property was purchased for rental income, but now it is known to send single family property.

We would like, you know, basically, the neighbors are trying to understand why we need five bedrooms and five bathrooms, and I'll be very honest. The main thing that we've heard is that the neighbors are very concerned about traffic in the area and are wondering if the intention is to rent out rooms on 8 Denison Ave as an Airbnb or something similar. The five bedroom five bathroom configuration did bring the possibility of an Airbnb to everyone's mind.

So people just want to know, does the town have regulations as to what is acceptable. And I think the owner did comment a little bit about the plans of the property and I did hear about the issue from Mr circle about the lack of a basement and an attic. So, but Airbnb is is a major theme that has come up.

The other thing, height of the building. People understand that the building is going up from 23 feet to 26.25 feet. So it's an increase of 3.25 feet, which is about 12%. So, you know, that was noted just as to the largeness of the building. Moving on to Stern Street. The Stern Street residents have a couple of concerns.

They are concerned about increased traffic on Stern Street. There's a concern about the possibility of five cars associated with the home, and also with the traffic that may occur during the construction. And it was noted by folks on Stern Street, there are a lot of children in the area so they're a little worried about all the activity and the possibility of five cars associated with that home.

Another point was about garage use. If a two car garage is not used for cars but instead is used for storage, a resident wants to know where the possible five cars associated with this resident will park. Will they be on Stern Street or someplace else?

So the bottom line is people are wondering has the traffic been evaluated and how might that impact Stern Street and Denison Ave. And I'm sorry to speak so fast, but I want you folks to be able to go home. The paper ends of Stern Street, that was a major concern. The Stern Street is currently a dead end street.

The end of Stern Street is separated from the paper end of Stern Street by a boulder and some bushes and trees. The building at 8 Denison only has a right side yard setback of about one feet, eight inches from the building. So right now, this is kind of a nature concern.

The paper end of Stern Street looks like a dirt road and acts as a walkway for people. And this is located directly to the right of the 8 Denison property and to some people it looks like a driveway. And that the unused paper end of Stern Street measures approximately 56 feet long and about 22 feet wide.

And people want to know what's going to happen to this piece of land. No one wants to see it paved if possible, and people don't want it to be a cut through street. So the ask of the neighborhood is whether this project's approval process to formally address what will happen to the land which is lying to the right of the building.

You know, people would like it to stay as a walkway and very important for the people in Stern Street, they want the dead end status of their street to stay as it is.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:03 - 1:01:26)
Understood. Okay. I don't want to cut you off, but I just do need to wrap this up.

So we do have all these comments as well. Thank you very much for reviewing them for us. The other things you were concerned about was the stormwater, the outside deck, chemicals used during construction and so forth.

Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:26 - 1:01:30)
All right. The chemicals, just people have pets in the area.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:31 - 1:01:31)
I understand.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:32 - 1:01:35)
I understand. So anyway, thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:35 - 1:01:46)
Thanks for speaking and thank you to all the neighbors who took the time to submit their comments because it's very meaningful to us. Appreciate that.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:46 - 1:01:49)
Thank you all for your time. We really appreciate it.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:50 - 1:02:20)
Okay, so moving back to our recommendation then. But I'm assuming that Mr. Locke spoke for both the neighbors. I do see one other hand raised.

I would say that I'm happy to take this other comment. But as long as it doesn't repeat anything that's just been said, we covered quite a bit. So if it's something different, you're welcome to bring it up.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:20 - 1:02:38)
And I do also just want to remind any neighbors or anybody who's generally has questions or comments about the project that you will have another opportunity to say everything again before the zoning board. So do bear that in mind. But with that said, I will call on Kathy and Scott.

[Speaker 19] (1:02:44 - 1:02:45)
Yep, there you go.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:46 - 1:02:47)
Okay, go ahead.

[Speaker 16] (1:02:49 - 1:02:53)
So Ben did touch upon a lot of things that I would like to speak to.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:54 - 1:02:56)
As long as we don't repeat everything.

[Speaker 16] (1:02:56 - 1:03:19)
I won't repeat everything, I promise. So seeing as Ben said what he said, I'll say this. It's nice that they decided they were going to put a hip roof on the top of the building, but when I sit on my front porch, I'm looking at flat roofs.

Did we lose each other?

[Speaker 1] (1:03:19 - 1:03:21)
Nope, you're still there.

[Speaker 16] (1:03:21 - 1:04:01)
Okay, so I'm from the Stern Street end, I'm looking at some flat roofs, and I'm looking at tongue and groove siding that nobody has in the neighborhood there. So that's mainly my comment on it, seeing as Ben also commented on everything else that's on my mind. Well, that's very important too, so thank you.

And the drawing, oh, the abovites, the drawing that shows the abovites and the four bushes that goes into Stern Street. There's also a giant boulder there, that got left out of the drawing.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:03 - 1:04:07)
Well, it wouldn't be in their drawing simply because that's not their land.

[Speaker 16] (1:04:08 - 1:04:13)
Well, the abovites that are not on their property are in the drawing.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:14 - 1:04:35)
Well, the ones that are on Stern Street, anything that's on Stern Street has to stay on Stern Street. It's not owned by the owner of 8 Denison. There can be no construction, no trees removed, no nothing removed from Stern Street, unless it's requested by the Department of Public Works.

[Speaker 16] (1:04:35 - 1:04:37)
Well, thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:37 - 1:04:38)
You're welcome.

[Speaker 16] (1:04:40 - 1:04:41)
I'm done.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:41 - 1:09:58)
Okay, so very good, Ben. I think what we'll do is we're not going to have any more public comments right now. I'm going to turn it back to the planning board so that we can go through our site plan considerations and make a recommendation.

Before we do that, does any planning board member have any other questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, we're going to go through our review here. I don't know who has their, somebody's got a speaker on somewhere, but that's okay.

Our first review item. So obviously, under the site plan, we're looking at social, economic, community needs, traffic flow and safety, adequacy of utilities, neighborhood character and social structures, impacts on natural environments, potential fiscal impacts. And what we focus on is new building construction or other site alterations shall be designed as to.

So the first item we're looking at is to minimize the volume of cut and fill the number of removed trees, length of removed stone walls, the area of wetland vegetation displaced, the extent of storm water flow increase from the site, soil erosion and threat of air and water pollution. What I would say to that is that it does seem that any kind of elimination of trees in the backyard was simply to enable a garage to be built. Other than that, there is some improved, much improved landscaping in front of a lot.

And any other comments from the planning board on that? I don't know, I'm looking at someone who has a phone line open that seems to be on, not muted, so that I keep getting a lot of feedback from that. Okay, any planning board member have any comments to the first item I just mentioned?

Okay, seeing none, maximize pedestrian and vehicular safety, both on site and for access and egress. I think that would mainly be important in terms of construction, obviously. But it does bring up the prospect of the five bedrooms and the number of cars, so we can get to that.

Otherwise, I don't see anything that stands out too much there. Minimize obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations. Minimize visual intrusion by controlling the visibility of parking storage or other outdoor service areas viewed from the public way.

Or premises residentially used or located in residential zoning districts. So, that would mean that any excessive parking of cars in back of the house and buffling of the HVAC units. Minimize glare from headlights and lighting intrusion.

We talked about the dark skies, principles of the building lighting. Minimize unreasonable departure from the character materials and scale of buildings in the vicinity as viewed from public ways. So, this is probably one of the biggest concerns that the board has.

It's simply the size of the building and the fact that there are five bedrooms. And as I noted before, five bedrooms each with their own bathroom, really minimal living space for that many bedrooms. And concern that, you know, where there is only garage parking for two cars.

And then the way I can see it based on the site plan and the turning radius getting into that driveway, maybe more than in the driveway. So, concern about that. And lack of storage area.

You know, concern about having to be, besides the garage, which seems to make some sense, the additional space added onto the building for the sake of an extra bedroom. And unnecessary. I'm going to ask if anyone on the board wants to make a comment on this, to add to or contest anything I'm saying, please jump in.

[Speaker 5] (1:10:00 - 1:10:04)
I echo what you said. I agree.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:05 - 1:10:49)
Okay, so I'll just keep moving on. Minimize contamination of groundwater from onsite wastewater disposal systems operations on the premise. So, we already discussed this in terms of, you showed us the letter from the, I believe it was an engineering firm or a firm that deals with stormwater.

Saying that they did not feel that there was going to be any additional runoff on the site. I mean, there is more, there is more roof area so would seem like there would be some increase off the site but.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:51 - 1:11:16)
Sorry, can I answer that one. No, the letter didn't say this project has no impact, the letter said that we will design drainage structures such that the project has no impact in the end so the design will follow from outside, essentially there will be a basin drywall type of structure in the back, the sizing of it depends on the roof area and things like that.

[Speaker 21] (1:11:16 - 1:11:16)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:17 - 1:11:19)
Yeah, the project does have impact.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:21 - 1:16:29)
Will be designed based upon what actually gets done so. Would you know you'd be compelled though however to have a drainage plan in place that could be approved by the zoning board of appeals. That's something that we didn't recommend to them.

And so compliance with the provisions of the zoning bylaw including parking and landscaping, so we'll leave the landscaping part out of it for the moment, because of other comments I'd like to make but in terms of compliance with the zoning bylaw and and we, but we have already discussed in terms of setbacks and, and the, and the size of the structure. We feeling or does not comply. Minimize adverse traffic impact of the proposed project again I'd like to get back to the size of the, of the project and the number of units, which I have to agree from my, my opinion is that the number of units is excessive and for building with no storage and, you know, parking for four cars at best.

We just don't see anything coming across like this with, you know, this many bedrooms, and kind of the, you know, minimal amenities. It's just it's highly unusual, and it, you know, necessarily raises concerns in a residential neighborhood. So, as I go through these recommendations that I would make.

And, you know, I look I would agree with the neighbors that are happy that something's being done to improve this property. I know it's going to argue that it certainly needs to be, you know, it needs a lot of it needs a real facelift inside and out. So it looks like that's the, the goal of the project.

My. I have a couple of main concerns that I'd bring up underside plan and then I'm going to turn it over to the other planning board members to see what they think I would be inclined to recommend favorable action, however, with specific conditions. And those would be as follows.

In terms of and I'll start with kind of the easier stuff in terms of the driveway entrance off of Stern Street. I'd like to require that a curb be extended from wherever I'd have to take a look at it I'm you know I'd want you know to go out there and take a look but the driveway need some kind of a berm or curve on either side. I know you're not just going to turn and just kind of go from the road over the grass to there needs to be some kind of finished off yard area regarding Stern Street, and the proximity of the right side of the property the right side of the house being a foot and a half from the public way.

It's, I would have under any other circumstance, you know, requested that there be some type of our variety or, you know, green buffering put there. But I would consider asking for some kind of. And I'm not the landscape architect here and Mr manual I'm sure you have much greater ideas and I ever could but something is that as basic as a good looking fence to some ingenious kind of little, you know, wall or plantings or something that that keeps the building and the property distinct and separate from Stern Street.

I it's my understanding in speaking with Gino Cresta that they have a town has no intention of opening that end of Stern Street, and it will remain a paper street in perpetuity. That is my understanding I will. And we've been very clear about that.

They want to keep it open and accessible because of a variety of reasons but underground uses and so forth in terms of drainage and all that. So, that being said, you know, I would also. I'll speak to him about what he may want to request any improvement that they may want to request from you in terms of offering for the paper street area.

[Speaker 8] (1:16:34 - 1:16:34)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:34 - 1:16:35)
Yes.

[Speaker 8] (1:16:36 - 1:16:43)
I was looking at the street view for Stern Street. And I noticed there's two cars parked there.

[Speaker 21] (1:16:43 - 1:16:43)
That's right.

[Speaker 8] (1:16:44 - 1:16:46)
On the unimproved portion of it.

[Speaker 21] (1:16:46 - 1:16:46)
That's right.

[Speaker 8] (1:16:47 - 1:17:03)
So I'm wondering, would we request a curb on that end I know it's the town's part of the street. But, you know, if neighbors are thinking, people are going to be over parked on the rear, there's nothing stopping them from parking on the front.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:03 - 1:17:59)
You know, we had kind of discussed, you know, there's everything from good looking boulders to bollards. Well, you know, you know, minimal but you know kind of green, small, not like some major commercial mega bright yellow bollards but something that's very low but essentially just prevents any kind of ridiculous movement in there. So that he wanted to take a look at in terms of whether or not he would need any truck access there which he didn't think he did.

But, so that's something that we will, it's my understanding that that the intention is to prevent that from happening. Got it. Good.

Not just for random people parking there but for any kind of cut through.

[Speaker 8] (1:18:01 - 1:18:07)
Right. And I was thinking more specifically. Anyone from this property.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:08 - 1:18:10)
Let's just have it in the past.

[Speaker 8] (1:18:10 - 1:18:11)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:11 - 1:18:12)
Yeah. Right.

[Speaker 21] (1:18:13 - 1:18:13)
Yep, yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:14 - 1:20:04)
So that would be something we would definitely want to see. Okay, so when it comes to, let's see, when it comes to the building itself. You know, I, my opinion is that, you know, I, I think we've made definitely made a big attempt to move from what you started with to something that was, you know, somewhat more traditional.

I think, you know, it's still really sticks out. Could it be, you know, kind of tone down a bit more seeing as this is, I understand it's a, you know, it's a spec house is something you want to put on the market, it's not someone's personal taste right now it's kind of, you know, I, you know, I understand the basis for where you started with this however in deference to the existing neighborhood and the fact that it does not lend in any effort to use materials that are going to traditionalize the look would be very helpful and above and beyond I would like to see the. I don't have any objection to the garage but I do have an objection to, to the two story garage, and the addition hanging off the left side of the building I just I don't see the need for it. I think, you know, this size lot in this neighborhood, you know, four bedrooms four baths is is perfectly adequate, and, you know, it just, it doesn't, it doesn't make any sense and it, it creates a lot of concern about about short term rentals.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:06 - 1:21:46)
When this is the part we can address things are you just, are we done with discussion because I don't think we got a chance to robot or take up some of those concerns. Just really quickly. So, to the notion of like lots of bedrooms and no living space, therefore Airbnb.

That's not necessarily what I mean, I mean I would not at all but just to kind of point out the public space that we do have my PDF to work here. So, we have, you know, the living space, great room dining living like most houses have these are pretty good sized rooms, and this is 22 feet across like existing house is. And then this is a family room which you know during a pandemic we show it like as a possible place for homework or for home office but it's more living space you have very very generous living space.

And that's only, you know, on this floor so more more than enough to accommodate five. I have a family of six, we have less space than this and we're, we're fine. I also don't quite see the equation between five beds and five cars.

I think if you trust that a family will live here. I don't see 65 and six drivers as being a likely demographic in a, in a household like this so I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say where are we going to put the five cars I would think there's to be the average number of cars here. So anyway, just wanted the Airbnb doesn't make sense to me as a comment and we're not clearly designing for that purpose.

[Speaker 15] (1:21:46 - 1:22:01)
We're happy to warrant no Airbnb. That's how serious we are about that. I'm sorry I missed what you just said, you're happy what we're happy to warrant that there won't be an Airbnb.

That's how serious we are about that aspect.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:05 - 1:22:08)
Okay. Okay. Thank you for your comment.

[Speaker 8] (1:22:12 - 1:23:22)
And say, Angela, I just want to get my, my slightly counter opinion on here I echo your comments I guess about, you know, the second floor on a garage or maybe the home office suite off to the side appendage there. The, I know I know we live in a traditional town, but the roof thing here has always bugged me, and technically both roofs comply with our bylaw, but I just want to throw it out there to everybody that the appearance of the pitched roof makes for a taller building, even though not necessarily by the bylaw. So I know we asked for a taller roof, but it just makes the building even bigger looking right like if you look, I'm literally going side by side between this and the previous version.

The previous version looks shorter, and it is shorter. And I don't know, we don't have to be afraid of flat roofs, and I'll get off my soapbox. Sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:23 - 1:23:25)
That's okay. No worries, no worries.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:26 - 1:23:37)
We have that same discussion going on in the Cape right now to it is true I mean in terms of pure height from the ground to the highest thing where, you know, we just added six feet or something like that to do the pitch.

[Speaker 8] (1:23:38 - 1:23:40)
Yeah. Even though you're still compliant.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:40 - 1:23:50)
So, I know, by nine feet I mean, you know, if someone were to max the site out we'd be looking at something much different than this. Maximizing in any way.

[Speaker 5] (1:23:52 - 1:24:28)
Like I do appreciate that comment because I kind of had a similar thought we're looking at the picture from being like what is this design is the flat, you know, like, there are a lot of trade offs here. And I don't know that. I don't know we have to come out, you know, either way on that specifically, but I do.

Having been vocally opposed to the idea of the flat roof. I see, I see its benefit potentially in seeing the, the look of the picture here as well.

[Speaker 8] (1:24:31 - 1:24:32)
To see the actions. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:33 - 1:24:36)
Any other planning board comments, Bill.

[Speaker 6] (1:24:39 - 1:25:18)
I think, I think I agreed to that, you know, the massing is a little bit big and maybe the picture does make it bigger. I still think that, you know, it doesn't, it doesn't conform, and there's lots of reasons why it doesn't conform. And this question to me is more about whether it actually is a rebuild or a demo intentionally and I know the intent on the application is that it's a rebuild.

But in practice, sometimes that always doesn't happen and that was why the concern for the building inspection. So, I'm not sure favorable action would be the right way to go but willing to discuss with the other board members.

[Speaker 5] (1:25:19 - 1:25:58)
I was going to ask that question Angela that you were selling it as favorable action with the recommendation that the second floor of the garage, come off, and the, you know, the addition of the bedroom, come out. Is that. Is that favorable because I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't want to, if that were not going to happen I don't know that I would want to.

Let me back up when we make recommendation, but they don't need to be followed in any way. So if we recommend favorable action, assuming that this is going to happen. There's no.

It doesn't have to happen.

[Speaker 23] (1:26:03 - 1:26:05)
So, I read it.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:05 - 1:27:21)
So first of all, I wasn't making a motion. I was just kind of putting out some opinions and, you know, thinking about like which way do we want to go on this I know there are concerns about the size of the building, and the setbacks and the treatment of of Stearns Road and the design which I happen to think is, you know, greatly improved. I understand the concern about you know having the fifth bedroom and is it necessary to, you know, kind of speak over the, you know, what's allowed in terms of an increase and face I mean maybe maybe not.

So, let's I'd like to have that discussion and see where does the board want to go with this, is it, you know, where, where do you like to go with it, what do you think is a reasonable approach to take to voice our, our concerns and to what what exactly I think we want to say that the zoning voice if we, if we, if we, if we do not recommend favorable action. We'd have to give our reasons as xyz now it doesn't mean that zoning board of appeals can't go ahead and grant the permit, nonetheless.

[Speaker 6] (1:27:24 - 1:27:42)
I think, I think you just stated the reasons why we. So your original opinion and I know it was an emotion was favorable action with the following conditions and those conditions would be the reason why we unfair action. So the same motion could be generated to say something like that's very true.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:42 - 1:27:43)
That's very true.

[Speaker 5] (1:27:43 - 1:27:45)
I think that makes more sense to me.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:45 - 1:27:46)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:27:46 - 1:28:20)
It would be. It would be a recommendation of unfair unfavorable action wherever the terminology is based on the plan in front of us. If it were slightly different in the ways that we've been talking about.

Maybe we'd feel differently. But it doesn't need to come back to us because we recommend action and do we still get to. Yeah, we missed our reasons so that would be a what we would want to see in order for them to approve it.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:20 - 1:29:53)
And I could also in our, in our recommendation, certainly highlight what we felt the improvements are. But then the reason for the unfavorable action would be the following reasons in terms of concerns over concerns over that the scale of the scale and appearance of the building. Is that more the direction you'd like to go.

I think that I actually think that makes sense. And to the petitioner this doesn't mean that that that zoning that you won't that you wouldn't get that you know as Dave said doesn't mean it comes back to us and it doesn't mean that zoning won't grant the relief that you're requesting. It's just a way of us being able to communicate the concerns, more meaningful and useful way.

And so what I could do then is we could have a motion to recommend or to not recommend terrible action. What I recommend unfavorable. I have that word.

Essentially because of the say they don't want to do it. Why do they not want it.

[Speaker 5] (1:29:56 - 1:29:59)
7817279330 you're on live.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:59 - 1:32:07)
If you mute yourself on 78172789330. Not sure if they Marissa Can you mute that line. No, if you can.

Sorry, what was that. Sorry. There's just a line that's not muted Oh I think they may have just connected I'm not sure.

Okay. Anyway, um, so if we recommended unfavorable action, it would be because of the essentially the, the neighborhood character and social structures, the alteration design to to be less than well to minimize the unreasonable departure from the character materials and scale of the buildings in the vicinity, as you from public ways and places. And then we could list our concerns about the sizing of the drainage system being needing to be need to be outlined for any building design is final.

And that the zoning Board of Appeals, you know, the building does not comply with the zoning Board of Appeals, with the season with the zoning bylaw at the moment. And concerns over the, you know, the size of the building. Essentially, that's those are essentially the points we would mention that the certainly will would mention the that the petitioner made efforts to modify the exterior appearance of the building, and that you also presented a nice update to the landscape plan for the front of the building but I have some concerns about some buffering around the back and the side of the protection of sterns street. Anything else.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:09 - 1:32:33)
Asking about the material comment. The house painted wood siding painted. It seems very residential to me, versus the realm of materials that could be on a modern or contemporary house like metal.

I can take the word material that it's very much a house with windows and wood painted with setting so that really out of character and the board's opinion.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:34 - 1:33:23)
I could take the word, not necessarily. So, yeah, necessarily. Okay.

I think we can take the word materials out, and I can leave in the character and the scale. Just more anything. Any other comments from board.

Okay. In that case, can someone make a motion. Based upon what I just said, either feed off the.

If you need me to reiterate that the reasons I can do that as well. I still think I'm supposed to make the motion, not that I think it makes an issue or not.

[Speaker 5] (1:33:23 - 1:33:43)
So I can make a motion to not recommend favorable action. I can make a motion. On the basis that the project does not minimize unreasonable departure from the character and scale of buildings in the vicinity is viewed from public ways and places.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:46 - 1:33:49)
Was there anything I needed to add to that doesn't comply with the zoning bylaw.

[Speaker 5] (1:33:49 - 1:33:52)
Oh right, doesn't comply with the provisions of the zoning bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:52 - 1:34:14)
Yeah. And I would mention concerns about the contamination of groundwater until right also doesn't minimize we're concerned that doesn't minimize contamination of groundwater from onsite wastewater disposal systems until we have such a plan. I mean, I'm sure it can be done but we don't have those plans in front of us.

So, right.

[Speaker 5] (1:34:16 - 1:34:22)
So, yeah, on those three grounds, I would make a motion to not recommend favorable action.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:22 - 1:34:24)
I have a second.

[Speaker 5] (1:34:24 - 1:34:25)
A second.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:26 - 1:34:29)
All in favor. Aye. Bill.

[Speaker 23] (1:34:30 - 1:34:30)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:31 - 1:34:40)
Ted. You are muted. I can see that you put your.

Okay, thanks Mike.

[Speaker 19] (1:34:41 - 1:34:42)
Hi.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:43 - 1:35:25)
And Dave. Hi. Okay, so it is unanimous I'll put the letter together.

And I'll be sure to emphasize you know not only our reasons but the, as I mentioned before, yeah, the attempts that the petitioner has made to improve this property, so that it's a fair assessment. But it communicates our concerns. Okay, so good luck with everything and we're going to do this and move on to our next item on the agenda.

Thank you all very much.

[Speaker 22] (1:35:25 - 1:35:26)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:33 - 1:36:51)
Oh. Okay, thanks. Next item on our agenda is, is a public hearing for site plan SPR 22 dash zero to zero large road.

This is by IG investment, LLC, and request a site plan special permit for the construction of to. They're not adjacent for townhomes in that are in one building on a lot that's currently vacant. And I will note that this is this petition for site plan special permit only so the plan board is the permit granting authority on this petition.

Okay, and the petitioner Ilya. I'm not going to mess up your name's been been a borrow rods. I get it.

I get that all the time. So, welcome, and please, please tell us about your project.

[Speaker 9] (1:36:51 - 1:38:18)
Yes, I have my partner gene Bernstein here as well. Our project is basically we're proposing to build to town homes that are going to be about 2300 square feet each. And we are asking for relief to build in a flood zone.

We've done our study around the law a lot and it's a lot that was subdivided before 1948. And we have a letter from the commissioners stating that is buildable lot, based on the requirements for meeting all the setbacks for the building in the, your proposals will find the plans for the, for the units as well as the planting plan that As part of this review we were asked to do a 50 year elevation of water, how the water will rise, and our mitigation for it is all the utilities, all the mechanicals and the first floor area will start at 100 at 15 feet.

And the 50 year flood levels of water increasing it goes up to 13 feet on to on that. So we are mitigating that impermanently, and we will not be finishing the base.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:21 - 1:38:29)
Okay. So, who's going to share the screen for us. I am.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:30 - 1:38:33)
Yeah, I'm working on it. I'm getting the stuff pulled up as we speak.

[Speaker 19] (1:38:39 - 1:38:40)
Here's the site plan.

[Speaker 9] (1:38:49 - 1:38:59)
Just tell me where you want me to navigate to and from, I think the best is probably just to show how the building fits on the site plan.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:01 - 1:39:21)
Okay, let's talk about the lot first and where why it's never been built on and who owns it and so we understand a little bit of that history since that seems to be. That seems to have been historically kind of a sticking point here so it's best if we all understand that to get go.

[Speaker 9] (1:39:21 - 1:40:24)
So, we're not sure why the lot was never built, I believe it might have been held by previous owner, and they were just either planning to develop it themselves or whatnot. But when we purchased that we actually worked with Paul Lynch to do the study and rich before he left they reviewed it, and they both confirmed that this is a buildable lot we have a letter stating that. And then when Steve common joined the building department he reviewed the note, and he confirmed that he agrees that the statement made that it is a buildable lot, although it's not 10,000 square feet like it's supposed to be, but it was divided at the time when it only needed to be 5000 square foot lot 50 foot frontage.

And here we have over six, I believe 6500 square foot lot that almost 80 feet frontage.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:30 - 1:40:40)
Okay, so the total size of the lot. You're showing here is 6000 square feet.

[Speaker 22] (1:40:41 - 1:40:42)
It's over 6000 square feet.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:43 - 1:40:43)
Okay.

[Speaker 9] (1:40:45 - 1:40:48)
It's 6500 square feet.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:48 - 1:40:52)
And you're saying that a lot was created when exactly.

[Speaker 9] (1:40:52 - 1:41:35)
So the letter that we have states that was dated. Based on the research, the lot has not been held on common ownership that any other adjacent properties, and according to the zoning map dated, March 1 1948 has shown a separate out shown as a separate parcels lot a and b, which allowed the planning board to approve the plan. And then it goes to the letter goes on to say that in a determination, having provided status as a grandfather lot about building permit in accordance that 780 CMR can be can issue for construction of a single or two family dwelling, provided that the structure is built in compliance with current sponsored zoning dimensions.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:35 - 1:41:42)
And you're in the building.

[Speaker 9] (1:41:43 - 1:42:07)
Basically we're building by. According to the bylaws, and we found all the setbacks that have been designed. So the only reason why we were asked to go to the planning board is because this lot falls into the a flood zone.

And we're requesting this special permit to build in.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:08 - 1:42:15)
Well, it's not the only reason the building is over 3000 square feet. So you need a site plan permit.

[Speaker 22] (1:42:17 - 1:42:19)
Can you repeat it please.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:19 - 1:42:44)
Yeah, I said that's not the only reason the other reason you need site plan special permit is because you're building a new new construction that is over 3000 square feet. For a square foot area. And that would that need site plan special permit as well.

And we also oversee the coastal flood area overlay district and the flood zone so that's, that is true.

[Speaker 5] (1:42:47 - 1:43:23)
Okay, so, before we move on from this just, I think I'm not entirely understanding it. I don't know the history of it that so. Typically this lot that is under 10,000 square feet would make it non conforming pre existing non conforming and would not be something that we would need a dimensional special permit from the zoning board.

There is some reason that is tied to the history of the subdivision here that grandfathers it is that understanding.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:24 - 1:43:26)
Hold on a second. Let's see.

[Speaker 4] (1:43:30 - 1:43:34)
I think, hold on one second I might have a letter from rich.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:35 - 1:45:23)
Yeah, I have it here. So, okay, so, rich ball dodgy wrote the owner wrote to the attorney Paul Lynch. He is the attorney for the petitioner wrote to them in February of this year.

Regarding this property. He said he's in receipt of your title history for the vacant lot located on large road and shown on the assessor's map parcel 24 slash 73. The subject lot has at least 5000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage and is zoned for singular to family use.

Based on your research the lot has not been held in common ownership. Any of the adjacent properties, and according to the zoning map in March 1 1948 is shown as separate parcels lot A and B, which allowed the planning board to approve the plan. It is my determination that, having proved the status as a grandfathered lot above the building permit in accordance with 780 CMR, and can issue can be issued for the construction of a single or two family dwelling provided that the structure is built in compliance with current swan Scott zoning dimensions.

So, if you look at. And I did, you'd have to go into the building code in Massachusetts, and look at was mentioned 780 CMR. And you do that.

[Speaker 19] (1:45:25 - 1:45:36)
You say, and we are able to.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:40 - 1:45:44)
This was very confusing to me as well.

[Speaker 5] (1:45:47 - 1:46:07)
Yeah, right, which I don't think is what 780 CMR addresses I, I've never heard of any property being grandfathered I thought they understood the history to be that town changed it for every, every, every property in town is now non conforming, because of.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:07 - 1:46:08)
No, no, it's because.

[Speaker 19] (1:46:09 - 1:46:18)
Okay, so let's say, hold on a second.

[Speaker 5] (1:46:20 - 1:46:25)
Like I think what I'm reading into this is that did the requirement used to be 5000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:27 - 1:46:29)
Oh, I believe so.

[Speaker 5] (1:46:30 - 1:46:52)
And so it used to complied before that lot size was changed. But I don't. I don't understand the grandfather.

It's the second paragraph I think that's supposed to be explaining it, but I don't understand what it says.

[Speaker 9] (1:46:52 - 1:47:09)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and I both connected this to you as well when you commissioner, and he reviewed this and said that he is in the line and that this is a build a lot.

[Speaker 5] (1:47:10 - 1:47:21)
It's not a question of being buildable, it's a question of whether it is. Whether it needs a dimensional special permit because it is a non conforming.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:22 - 1:47:45)
It doesn't have to do with it. It all comes back to that 1948 it that subdivision date, and the provision in the state code that that what the word I'm looking for is but that makes it eligible for receiving a special that does that requires it from not seeking a dimensional special permit.

[Speaker 22] (1:47:46 - 1:47:49)
I think it had to do with the data to which it was done.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:52 - 1:47:58)
I can try and find that language. Okay, so let's see.

[Speaker 5] (1:47:59 - 1:48:07)
I mean it's just it's it's. I don't know how we act on this without being clear on this because that's why we're looking at it.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:07 - 1:48:30)
I agree with you, it's been it's very It's not clear and it's definitely showed it to you in that book Angela right that Steve left out for me in the state code. And now I have it up online because I didn't know. I did not know.

I didn't know anything about it. Open administration.

[Speaker 8] (1:48:40 - 1:48:48)
Can I ask the lot was subdivided from from which lot, like an adjacent lot warehouse was built. Is that what's happening here.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:49 - 1:49:54)
Yeah, there it was one larger lot. It was. I think with the one next to us if you're looking at the lot I think the lot on the left.

And this lot used to be one lot. But then it was. It was divided.

Like, you know, probably by, you know, split into two lots and then prior to. Right, but the zoning map of 1948 goes it is two parcels. Let's take a peek at that.

I know I looked this up once and I got exactly what I was looking for. Of course, now I can't find it at all, but I'm going to try to find it. Because there is a lot of confusion about whether or not you can even look at this so you'll have to have patience with us.

I apologize for the. Well, we can look at it either way.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:55 - 1:50:03)
Right. It's just a question of whether we can be the permit granting authority, or if we are making a recommendation to the ZBA on a dimensional special permit.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:04 - 1:50:10)
Yeah, this doesn't go to ZBA though because it's not, it wouldn't you wouldn't even be able to build on it at this point.

[Speaker 19] (1:50:13 - 1:50:13)
Wait, why?

[Speaker 1] (1:50:14 - 1:50:21)
Steve and I agreed to that. Well, I suppose you could, you know, oh it's so small.

[Speaker 5] (1:50:21 - 1:50:24)
It's so small that it wouldn't be buildable. Got it.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:24 - 1:51:16)
I think Steve and I agreed that the wording Rich used in the last sentence, as long as it's built in compliance with current swamp zone zoning dimensions. Using the word dimensions makes it seem that if it's not dimensionally compliant, like if it doesn't have adequate frontage or if it doesn't have an adequate or sufficient lot size, it makes it seem like then it would need a special permit on top of that or that it wouldn't be a buildable lot. But dimensions, like, if we find that the state code, it makes more sense, but dimensions was probably the wrong choice of words to use here.

It should be quote, maybe regulations was the better word to choose, but dimensions, not so much, because even if it is still a nonconforming lot, it can still, the idea is I can still be built upon in accordance with the state code.

[Speaker 20] (1:51:18 - 1:51:19)
I'm trying to find it too.

[Speaker 9] (1:51:31 - 1:51:33)
Didn't Steve send you a letter?

[Speaker 1] (1:51:33 - 1:51:38)
We have it but it's still not clear to the rest of us sort of why.

[Speaker 20] (1:51:41 - 1:51:44)
Let's see if I can find anything from Steve specifically.

[Speaker 5] (1:52:22 - 1:52:26)
You have a copy of the zoning map that is referenced in the letter.

[Speaker 19] (1:52:31 - 1:52:31)
No.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:32 - 1:52:40)
Someone dropped something off in my house. Earlier tonight. I don't know who it was.

[Speaker 19] (1:52:45 - 1:52:51)
Looks like it's a zoning map from 1948, but I don't have any.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:10 - 1:53:15)
I'm just not clear how we're gonna be able to get to the bottom of this ourselves in this meeting.

[Speaker 8] (1:53:24 - 1:53:40)
I kind of agree with you, Dave, I was just looking at our zoning bylaw. And it says on unimproved lots. It defers to MGL 4864.

And now I'm looking at what that is, but without any.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:41 - 1:53:43)
Okay, I think I think this is it.

[Speaker 20] (1:53:44 - 1:53:48)
Let me just read it before I read it out loud and then have it not be applicable.

[Speaker 4] (1:54:15 - 1:55:41)
Okay, chapter 48, section six, I think this is it, Angela, you might probably probably know better than I do. Any increase in area frontage with yard or depth, you know, I'll just share my screen. Is it still showing the letter from Rich on my screen?

Okay, let me switch my share. So this is what I'm looking at here. Any increase in area frontage with yard or depth requirements of a zoning ordinance for bylaws shall not apply for a period of five years from its effective date, or for five years after January 1st, 1976, whichever is later.

To a lot for single or two family residential use provided the plan for such a lot was recorded or endorsed and such a lot was held in common common ownership with any adjoining land and conforms the existing zoning requirements as of January 1st, 1976. And had less area frontage with yard or depth requirements than the newly effective zoning requirements but contain at least 7500 square feet of area and 75 feet of frontage and provided that said five year period does not commence prior to January 1st, 1976, and provided that and provided further that the provisions of this sentence shall not apply to more than three of such adjoining lots held in common ownership.

I believe this is the provision.

[Speaker 5] (1:55:46 - 1:55:50)
This raises more questions for me than answers questions.

[Speaker 8] (1:55:53 - 1:55:56)
It's a complicated paragraph to understand.

[Speaker 4] (1:55:57 - 1:55:57)
It is, it's very.

[Speaker 8] (1:55:59 - 1:56:02)
But I think you're right, that's the paragraph but it's like what was it saying?

[Speaker 4] (1:56:02 - 1:56:38)
Yeah, so the idea was that when this lot, going back to the letter that parcels, so the lots A and B were held in common ownership and were in conformance with the zoning requirements at that time. And then, because it had. Hold on.

This has at least 5000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage. Right. I believe this is it.

Steve can obviously explain it better than I can.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:39 - 1:56:45)
Well, that's kind of the issue that we're facing here. Yeah. Yeah.

Steve's not here.

[Speaker 8] (1:56:46 - 1:56:54)
Yeah, I think I'd want. Is it presumptuous of me to say we should not be trying to figure this out in this meeting, and just kick it back.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:54 - 1:56:58)
I'm with you Mike we're like kind of blinding the blind a little bit here.

[Speaker 8] (1:56:58 - 1:57:00)
Yeah, we're not going to figure this out right now.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:00 - 1:58:28)
Well, my concern is that, you know, we can go through site plan but if it's if we shouldn't even be doing this then it doesn't, you know, we just need to be sure. And I can't find. I actually did find something that, you know, earlier that seemed to make sense but I don't, I don't see it now.

So, I, you know, I think we may have to look at it. Next month. I'm just, you know, I too just am not.

I'm not comfortable understanding what this is and I, I'll be honest I've heard from. I've heard from several people recently that they. There are, there's a lot of concern this understanding.

You know, I have no problem putting you know building a, you know, two family house in a, you know, a three district as permitted by law as long as we're, you know, we're actually allowed to do it. No, I otherwise I must be can truly understand what's happening here. And I think we're going to have to continue this till until our October meeting.

Sorry.

[Speaker 5] (1:58:29 - 1:58:41)
Totally in agreement with that I want to make sure that our October meeting. We have the right person who can set this all straight, is that is Steve that we're talking about is he the building commissioner now.

[Speaker 19] (1:58:41 - 1:58:54)
Yes, yes. Is he. Is he the right person.

Yes. So, can it be done so that if.

[Speaker 9] (1:58:55 - 1:59:00)
Can he provide a letter, or do we have to go until the next meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:01 - 1:59:03)
Well, that we even if we did provide a letter.

[Speaker 9] (1:59:06 - 1:59:07)
Sorry.

[Speaker 4] (1:59:09 - 1:59:16)
Sorry. I was gonna say even if Steve did provide a letter it's still no action could be taken until the board we can use again.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:18 - 1:59:52)
Our next meeting is October 11 and we can put you on our. In the meantime we need to get a full understanding and I can tell you that once we've received that. And I'm sure the other members of the board will be agreeable to making sure that we have a don't have any other concerns about the application that you, you know, couldn't correct ahead of time assuming that we're going to be able to review everything in October.

[Speaker 6] (1:59:56 - 2:00:01)
So, in difference to those that showed up a public comment should we take public comments anyway or.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:02 - 2:00:09)
Yes, it makes sense so anyone who would like to speak, please do. Marissa you can open it up.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:11 - 2:00:12)
Sure.

[Speaker 20] (2:00:16 - 2:00:18)
Build a mental. Okay.

[Speaker 7] (2:00:20 - 2:00:21)
Good evening.

[Speaker 20] (2:00:21 - 2:00:22)
Good evening.

[Speaker 7] (2:00:23 - 2:02:49)
Good evening, members of the board, build a mental, I am a friend of a person rule that lives at on Muriel road, and he, I am a broken down old retired zoning lawyer. I've been retired for a couple of years but I know a little bit about this. And just a little bit.

And it's difficult, because I've had my hand raised for a while to point out that you really don't have any jurisdiction whatsoever in this case. And the reason is the most elementary reason is the letter from Paul Lynch says that this has been held in common ownership. Since 1949.

The new swamps get zoning law passed on March 1 1948 certified by the Attorney General in July of 1948. And it had to comply. The new zoning, the zoning bylaw in 1948 requires 60 foot frontage.

These lots don't have 60 foot frontage so they automatically don't comply. Automatically, they don't comply. How can you claim in the building inspectors last letter, which is an embarrassment.

I have it in front of me now. For any building inspector to say that shown on the March 1 1948 zoning map when it's not. It absolutely is not.

And that's what rule Longfellow dropped off to Angela's house tonight. All you have to do is look at the 1927 plan the 1948 plan and see the plan is there. How could it be there.

It wasn't drawn to a year later. So it couldn't have been there. Just simple basic logic tells you it's impossible for this to be a pre existing non conforming law.

I don't care what ball that she said he must have been getting out of town, because this is ridiculous letter for him to say it's grandfathered when it didn't exist. And Paul Lynch says it in in his loyalty letter that it was pre existing, it was held in private ownership and separate ownership since 1949. Well, that's wonderful.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:49 - 2:02:59)
Well, in his letter he says at no time since 1949 have lots a and b been in joint ownership.

[Speaker 7] (2:02:59 - 2:03:16)
Well, what is the difference. That's the same thing. It hasn't been a joint ownership.

I don't care about what 1949 tonight to 2022 is I care about what the law was on March 23 1948 when it was passed and I see what you're saying.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:16 - 2:03:16)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (2:03:18 - 2:05:04)
Who cares what it says now now it's a, it's much more than that. But there's been a series of laws and, and the zoning history and swamps that begins in 1923, and I have every zoning law ever passed in this town. And that 1948, it had this been an impressive meeting.

And this shows the weakness of virtual meetings rule Longfellow would have shown you a copy of the 1948 bylaw, and I think he showed you one page, showing the 60 foot requirements. This lot doesn't require dimensional special permit this lot requires a variance from the Board of Appeals, and that takes you out of the site plan in my reading of the law, but I just think that's so elementary How can anyone read a letter that says it hasn't been held in common ownership. Since 1949 when the law passed in 48.

Yeah, here's what happens in 1949 I don't These neighbors are very concerned about the size of this, this lot of this, these structures and what they're doing on large road. Haven't even gotten to whether it's a floodplain ask the people that lost all their cars five years ago to the floods in this area we know well the floods in this area I don't care what their, their flood report says at this point but reality tells us in anyone that's lived in this town more than six months knows that area floods. And that that's a completely different argument.

My basic point for my friend rule Longfellow. When I looked at this and said this is ridiculous. This shouldn't be before the planning board.

This needs to go and get a variance from the, from the Board of Appeals.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:05 - 2:05:05)
Another word.

[Speaker 7] (2:05:08 - 2:05:09)
I'm having trouble hearing you.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:10 - 2:05:25)
Oh, these lots would have had to have been not in common ownership prior to 1948. Is that correct, that's correct. March 23 not not 48 not 49 and after.

[Speaker 7] (2:05:25 - 2:05:32)
Yeah, 49. That was the truth. He tells the truth.

But who cares about by 1949.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:35 - 2:05:49)
We need to go over this in detail with the building commissioner and. And I just I didn't even have a chance to go through all this stuff that was out there.

[Speaker 7] (2:05:49 - 2:07:02)
The law that Marissa read was completely inapplicable. That's not that's not the section. We have a section of the swamps that's only by law that applies to that.

But it has to conform, if it doesn't conform and March 23 1948, which is the date of approval of the town meeting. Can you have a lot that requires Board of Appeals approval to do it, I'm not saying don't build on a 6000 foot lot. I'm saying follow the process correctly.

Yeah, and the petitioners should be going to the zoning Board of Appeals and say we got this 6000 foot lot 50 foot front is we want to build something, rather than the 6000 square foot house or whatever it is that they're trying to build the two townhouses. If it's buildable because of the floodplain. The neighbors are concerned about it's unreasonable.

It's totally out of character with the neighborhood but my issues are jurisdictional, and I tell you that is, I've been away from this law for three or four years but I'm not that far away that I can't read Lynch's letter that says 1949, and the law is 1948.

[Speaker 21] (2:07:03 - 2:07:11)
We really appreciate the letter does say March 1 1948.

[Speaker 9] (2:07:11 - 2:07:15)
No, it doesn't.

[Speaker 7] (2:07:15 - 2:07:35)
No, it does not. That's what that's what all dodgy's letter says but Lynch doesn't even go that far. Well dodgy's letter says March 1 1948.

And he's also wrong about that. If you take a look at them of the zoning map in 1948. There's no division of that lot Angela has it in front of it.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:35 - 2:07:39)
Right, so I, you'd have to, we need to go through I do have in front of me.

[Speaker 7] (2:07:39 - 2:07:49)
And to the petitioner How could you divide it, it was a year later when, when the, the plan was prepared. What are they got a time machine. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:51 - 2:08:25)
So, first of all, Bill we'd like to, I want to thank you for, for your comments, and for the edification on the issue. Because this is something that I'll be very honest, and you know, I had had no experience with this has not come up for me before, and has not come up for this planning board before. And as you can see by the comments from each of us at the beginning we've been kind of scratching.

What the heck was going on.

[Speaker 7] (2:08:25 - 2:08:34)
I appreciate your good intentions and I appreciate the honest questions from all the board members. And that's why I had my hand raised because I think it could have been straightened out fast.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:35 - 2:08:42)
Okay, well, I'm just going through the process so thank you very much for raising your hand and speaking up. We appreciate it.

[Speaker 7] (2:08:43 - 2:08:45)
And now it's time for me to go to bed. I'm old.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:46 - 2:08:49)
All right. All right, well good night.

[Speaker 7] (2:08:49 - 2:08:50)
Good night.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:52 - 2:09:00)
So, you can either up to the board whether you want to take any more comments or we just want to come to the board.

[Speaker 13] (2:09:01 - 2:09:06)
I think it would be helpful, especially if you want to try and get all comments back before the next meeting so they can prepare.

[Speaker 6] (2:09:08 - 2:09:12)
I would, I would run through them. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:13 - 2:09:21)
That's good. So why don't we go ahead and Marissa and call on the next person with your hand up. Okay.

Monica longer quest. Hi Monica.

[Speaker 4] (2:09:22 - 2:09:23)
Hi Monica.

[Speaker 14] (2:09:24 - 2:09:25)
Hi guys, can you hear me.

[Speaker 4] (2:09:25 - 2:09:26)
Yes.

[Speaker 14] (2:09:26 - 2:11:52)
Okay, so I'm one of the concerned neighbors. My house, but I'm on Miriam. So, I bought the lot, like, um, so like, I'm concerned, as Bill stated with the height, I think, for our little neighborhood with capes, mostly the height of a four story townhouse does seem extravagant.

But I'm not opposed to building it, so I'm not trying to be like, not my backyard. The other issue is, there's definitely flooding in that lot, like, it floods, we haven't had rain lately but that lot floods, and we've all in that neighborhood in our neighborhood have had. We've had flooding I have a sump pump in that helps but if there was massive flooding I don't think the sump pump would keep up.

Another thing is and I don't know if this is something. The neighbors that about the lots I'm, I'm also trying to speak for them. They're 92 and 84 and they actually did go to bed.

So, they're very concerned with their view, being blocked, and the flooding. And my only other last issue would be. And I know if this is the jurisdiction of you guys.

The, the trees, like, I, I don't know if the trees are going to be cut down or if they're going to stay. So, I guess that's my issues and I'm, I, if this is continued I'm hopeful that the other neighbors will hopefully send an email to Marissa or somebody so they can be heard to since like I said, they don't have computers. Some of them don't have cell phones.

So, they really want to be heard but I feel like, you know, unless you guys did hybrid or they sent in an email which they don't. I'd have to send in the email for them if that's okay. Of course.

Okay. So you might see an email from me on behalf of some of the neighbors, but so I guess that's my only comments and thanks for listening. Very much.

Okay, thanks guys.

[Speaker 4] (2:11:53 - 2:13:02)
Thanks, Monica. To that point, actually I did receive. Since this is a public hearing maybe I can read it into the record.

I did or we're treating it as a public hearing I suppose. I received a call from one of the other neighbors today who followed up via email and reiterating some of Monica's comments that she just made his name is Thomas ball and he recently purchased the property at 21 large road. He's writing because he is concerned that both the direct abutters to this vacant lot will not be able to attend the virtual meeting.

Both abutters are elderly and they do not have access to zoom but still want their voices to be heard. Their names are William Savino and Mario Grasso. They both spoke with Mr ball today asking him to send this email to me in hopes that the meeting might get might get postponed to an in person meeting next month.

He said he will be attending virtually Mr ball I see him here in the attendees list. So maybe the board could take that into consideration that if we do continue this, we might want to consider having a hybrid component in October to accommodate some of those neighbors who would like to come.

[Speaker 21] (2:13:03 - 2:13:03)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (2:13:04 - 2:13:15)
So, and then with that, I'll call on the next person. That's Jen. Sorry.

No go right ahead. Thank you. Okay.

Jen Chavez.

[Speaker 17] (2:13:17 - 2:13:26)
Hi Jen. Hi, I'm Jen Chavez I'm here with my mother Carol Pagano Wilson we live directly across from the lot at 17 large.

[Speaker 21] (2:13:27 - 2:13:27)
Yeah.

[Speaker 17] (2:13:27 - 2:14:25)
Next to our new neighbor Mr ball, and the grasses are across the street from us as well. We have the same concerns as as the other neighbors so I'm not going to repeat you know those same concerns. We have a major concern with with traffic, this is, it's a dead end street, as you're aware, it's also a lot of.

There's not that much parking on street parking. And there's also a lot of traffic for sports, you know kids coming down the street using the, you know, the entrance to the park to the field. We're just concerned we are concerned with the flooding as well as Monica explained you know this is a flood area where we do pay flood insurance.

And this is actually my grandparents this is actually the house my mother grew up in. It was built in 1955, and I haven't been there since 1955 not that old. My mother's a little older she'd like to speak.

[Speaker 10] (2:14:26 - 2:18:30)
Hi, I'm Carol Pagano Wilson. The Pagano's owned this land here, and my cousin, Diane Pagano who lives on five Bates Road, this was all like one big lot, and what have you. In 1955, my grandmother gave this lot to my father and his brother got five Bates Road, if you want to call it that.

We have always played in that lot across the street. The Mrs. Sarika who lived down the end of the street. And like I say I'm 74 years old, own that lot.

And then she left it to Adele, who recently passed away, who left that house and the lot to her nieces and nephews, and the traffic here alone is ridiculous for a street that has eight homes on it. The poor grasshows across the street, they're in their 80s. Willie is elderly, we've all lived here for a gazillion years.

Mr. Ball who you just talked about he just purchased that house. The lot is directly across from his house. We can't even get in and out of our driveways, easily.

The way it is right now, let alone, should there be another building, another home there or what have you. I just can't stress enough how, let alone the flooding. We had a 60 foot pine tree out in front of our house here at 17 large row which is the first house on the right.

It's a ranch house. Fall. Totally fall down what about eight, 10 years ago.

Was nothing wrong with the tree. It was because the ground was so saturated with water that the whole tree fell in when the police came they said divine intervention. I mean because the tree was perfectly healthy.

And it was just, we're concerned about the water we're concerned about the kids going to and from the park going to their sports were concerned about going in and out of our driveways, it's, it's a small street, it's just, I don't, I don't know I don't know what to say, we have to have somebody has to be an advocate for us because there's too many elderly people, and, you know, it's, it's, it's a lot. We understand, we'll have to let you people figure out the numbers on the footage and what have you and what property lines and we're just talking about as a neighborhood, you know standpoint, it's just, I don't know.

I'm sorry. I just, it breaks my heart, it really does to see a nice little neighborhood, nice quiet that everybody gets along and, and have a mass yet to have a structure there yeah to have a structure there and, and, you know, I mean, even just to even try to visualize the structure there where would a driveway go how would they get in and out, we can't even get in and out now, as it is we're hoping that we could make one side of the street a month on one way street, we can, you know, parking on one side I'm sorry, because it's a dead end street. So there are a lot a lot of concerns that this little street has and the same on Muriel road it's it's the same thing. It really is, you know, they have their problems with the flooding.

A lot worse I think than we did at one time so there are a lot of issues, Jen you can whatever.

[Speaker 19] (2:18:30 - 2:18:31)
No, I think.

[Speaker 10] (2:18:31 - 2:18:31)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:33 - 2:18:53)
Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Okay, um, I see there's one more person Marissa. Yes, rule. Okay, go unmute yourself and roll.

[Speaker 18] (2:18:53 - 2:18:54)
Okay, how's that.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:54 - 2:18:55)
That's fine.

[Speaker 18] (2:18:55 - 2:20:01)
As they say in French more better. Yeah, Angela. First of all, I want to thank you very much.

I did drop all these papers off at your house I know. And I had everything lined up and highlighted etc etc. I don't think we have to go through that right now but one comment I did want to make is, and several people have made it.

We are definitely in a flood zone. And as Monica said, we get flooded, big time. I lost one car in a flood, and we would have lost a second one but it was backed in.

So the motor was able to the trunk filled up, and the, and the motor survived. And being in a flood zone. Anybody buys a house around here everybody knows when you go to the bank to get a mortgage.

Guess what, you're going to have flood insurance, otherwise you don't, you know you don't get it right. So, anyhow, that's all I had to say I think everybody covered everything great. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:01 - 2:20:50)
Thank you. Thanks very much. I will scan the file of documents that role dropped at my house and I'll make sure the other members all have the same materials in hand.

All right, at that point I think we don't have any more comments are we, we should, we should make a motion to continue this petition this petition until October 11 meeting which is a Tuesday night because of this day. So, motion to continue petition 22 dash oh two. Yep, that's right 22 dash oh two to October 11, and I have a second.

[Speaker 21] (2:20:50 - 2:20:51)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:51 - 2:20:55)
And all in favor. Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 21] (2:20:56 - 2:20:57)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:57 - 2:21:26)
Right, I can see you. Hey, and Ted. Hi.

Okay, so it's unanimous so thank you everyone. We will. We'll get all the ducks in a row, and we'll be communicating to everyone to everybody.

Actually, we'll let you know what we will be find out. So, thank you very much, and we'll probably see you next month.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:27 - 2:21:29)
Thank you very much for everyone's time.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:31 - 2:21:52)
Okay, so the next item on our menu menu. Doesn't look like a menu, but our agenda is a new planning board liaison to the Earth. Advisory Committee, and I'm going to toss it over to Ted, and you.

[Speaker 13] (2:21:53 - 2:22:42)
Thanks Angela. Yeah, thanks Angela. It's been a great year on the earth room committee Mike thanks for tossing that over to me.

Last year. So, it was a great year especially with the new school, it a lot of meetings around the new school and a few other things. However, hoping to be able to hand that off to another member of the board.

Having. I had a new commitment come up so it's a little bit more difficult for me to make their meetings, which are relatively impromptu. So it's kind of hard to schedule them in advance.

So, I was hoping to be able to hand it off to someone else on the board if they would want to be our representative to Iraq. Within, I guess I should say that they're currently kind of going through the AI stuff so that's their big thing that they're working through.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:43 - 2:23:09)
AI aggregate. Oh, aggregate. Pardon me.

I'm thinking artificial intelligence. Okay. Okay, so any takers.

Anyone that is interested in taking this on. All jumping at once. So I wonder if, how often are the meetings.

[Speaker 13] (2:23:12 - 2:23:30)
Um, they're impromptu so when there's something that comes up, they meet. And so since I've been on the board. I joined Iraq.

Let's see, after my first planning board meeting so in May of 2021 we've probably met five to six times.

[Speaker 21] (2:23:30 - 2:23:31)
Okay.

[Speaker 13] (2:23:31 - 2:23:36)
Two of them were about the school project alone.

[Speaker 8] (2:23:37 - 2:23:45)
And I would say the year that I was on it. They were doing the AI bylaw, and we probably met 765 times.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:47 - 2:24:26)
Sounds awful. No one seems too excited to do it I'm wondering. I mean, I, you know, I don't know how to how to deal with that, and it's, you know, an extra commitment for a lot of people and know how other boards have dealt with this kind of thing.

And it's just tough to, you know, you don't know whether, like you said Mike you don't know whether you're going to be, you know, meetings all the time or just have a few to go to. Bill, I don't think that I don't know.

[Speaker 6] (2:24:28 - 2:24:46)
If we take the average of Ted and Mike is still in the 350 range. So, I'll be quite honest I for the erratic meetings, and the potential large number of meetings I. I really don't have the time to commit to that, and do it justice.

[Speaker 5] (2:24:47 - 2:25:00)
So I'm not sure that I have the same issue I, I can tell I'm just not going to go to the meetings, like, meetings like I did not describe my life in any way.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:00 - 2:25:44)
You know, being on multiple committees myself I know it's, it's, it's tough, and it just gets overwhelming so let me do this, let me, let me talk to Marissa and Margie, and just kind of maybe a couple of the other committee chairs, and see if we can't come up with some kind of a better solution I mean everybody is just committed out. It's tough and you're just serving on multiple committees and then, you know, I just, you know, some, just like you guys when you look and you've got, you know, three things to do one week and it's just, it's nuts. So I understand how that commitment can be tough I really do.

[Speaker 6] (2:25:46 - 2:25:49)
Is it a statutory requirement that somebody from planning.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:50 - 2:26:07)
I think I don't even know, to be honest, I mean I know there's been that request I know it's, you know, we have liaisons to our committees that, you know, for example, like when liaison, I can be honest I'm not even sure who are select for liaison is.

[Speaker 8] (2:26:08 - 2:26:18)
I can interrupt. I'm fairly certain, it's in the Iraq. They're like bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:18 - 2:26:21)
Oh, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 8] (2:26:21 - 2:26:30)
How many people are on this committee and who are they from. And one of those positions is the planning board liaison.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:31 - 2:26:31)
Okay.

[Speaker 8] (2:26:32 - 2:26:32)
As far as I remember.

[Speaker 6] (2:26:34 - 2:27:02)
So, other committees with liaisons, like, so you brought up this like board. The way we look at our liaison at least the way I picture our liaison is then we have a question, and we need to go to the select board we will go to our liaison. This case, if the liaison were somebody here and Iraq for some reason had to come to the planning board, they would have a name to attach to it but not necessarily someone who would have to attend all 765.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:03 - 2:27:04)
Right, right.

[Speaker 13] (2:27:07 - 2:27:11)
It's a voting member. Mike was it that way when you were.

[Speaker 8] (2:27:12 - 2:27:26)
I just pulled up the document, so the committee shall consist of five voting members. One shall be chosen by the Board of Health. One shall be chosen annually by the planning board for what is it.

[Speaker 5] (2:27:26 - 2:27:27)
Oh, we can choose anybody in town.

[Speaker 8] (2:27:32 - 2:27:33)
Yeah, doesn't say it has to be.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:33 - 2:28:01)
Well, the thing is that it's like, you know, that's, I think it's. I think it's, you know, based on, you know, the number I mean, I think that's a tough thing. Because it's one thing to have a committee, and then have liaisons, but to have a committee that's so you're saying that the planning board member of Iraq is a voting number.

[Speaker 5] (2:28:02 - 2:28:04)
The person that the planning board chooses.

[Speaker 8] (2:28:05 - 2:28:14)
No, I misread that I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer, so it says chosen annually by comma, and from the plan from.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:15 - 2:28:32)
Yeah, okay, but what is that a liaison that also has to be a voting member but they have to show up to every meeting. That's kind of like a. Yeah, that's hard to, I mean, I would be like us saying we have to have someone from Iraq at every one of our meetings because they have to vote.

That's presumptuous.

[Speaker 4] (2:28:34 - 2:28:39)
It's very presumptuous it just kind of assumes that somebody on the plane. Yeah, to commit.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:39 - 2:28:53)
Yeah, that's not. And I'll tell you something what, what it should be is we should have a planner. Who's at every meeting but we don't have a, we don't have a full time planner so that's, you know, do you want me to describe to you the other members on this thing for it so you know.

[Speaker 8] (2:28:54 - 2:29:21)
So there's five, at least this version, and this was edited at my time so I might be reading the wrong, wrong one. Right, but five voting members. One chosen by the Board of Health.

One chosen by and from the planning board. One chosen by and from the Conservation Commission, and three appointed by the board for different by what board.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:24 - 2:29:42)
Hold on a second. So, Iraq is an advisory committee. Is that what you're saying.

And then they appoint to other people. I'm still confused as to what this is. I believe it's the select board that appoints them.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 19] (2:29:42 - 2:29:43)
Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (2:29:43 - 2:29:43)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:43 - 2:29:52)
And then, and then there's also, because this doesn't it doesn't work for any of us.

[Speaker 8] (2:29:52 - 2:29:53)
Yeah.

[Speaker 13] (2:29:54 - 2:30:17)
Yeah. It's, it's. The reason why it's coming up now is normally if there's meaning that I miss, you know, whatever, and I only missed one meeting, just for the record.

But now they've had resignation so I don't believe the board can convene without every member attending. So it's just, it just adds that wrinkle to this fold.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:17 - 2:31:27)
But Angela I agree with you maybe we defer this to October and figure out, put our brains together maybe we can think of a way to make some, make some inquiries around town because the way this is the, the, the, you know, the dictate of, you know, putting you know someone who is on the planning board on another committee as a voting member, and having that the obligation to do so is not in my mind fair it doesn't mean that somebody wouldn't really want to do it from you know there might be some, you know, somebody who, whom this is a, you know, really an important issue and really wants to be on Iraq, I think you're at a really important committee and I think they know.

But do I think we need a, you know, one of our members being a full time voting Iraq member. I don't know. I don't know I need to find out more and ask more questions I mean you guys have been on the committee.

I mean, I don't know what do you think do you think there's value there do you think, you know, you have anything that you'd recommend.

[Speaker 8] (2:31:28 - 2:32:04)
Well, Ted, it sounds like you actually reviewed a project. You know, on my time we just talked about the bylaw. One, I'm not a lawyer to, I don't know anything about blow up rocks.

So like, you know, I was at all these meetings. I barely said anything I had maybe three total comments that were worthwhile. I'm just really I'm just airing it all out here right now honestly right, it was a waste of my time.

Sorry, sorry john. They don't even need bike racks. I can't even blow up the bike racks with their quarry stuff.

It's no fun.

[Speaker 1] (2:32:08 - 2:32:13)
All right, so, and, and, you know, okay.

[Speaker 13] (2:32:13 - 2:33:00)
Let me, and Ted Did you find anything of, I mean it sounds like you actually had, you know, a little different focus but yeah with the review of the school I think they're important stuff especially because the school project there a lot of the blasting was going to take place and it was, you know, talking about the right decibel levels and everything that that was. Right, totally valuable AI permit. I think is valuable.

I am not sure. Everything is valuable. I'm not sure what the planning board liaison brings to the aggregate industries permit conversation that's relevant to kind of our statutory oversight here in the swaps with bylaws, that doesn't mean there isn't one but I don't.

It doesn't come to mind.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:01 - 2:34:18)
What about if there is something like, for example, you know when we're doing a site plan, and we're supposed to get, you know, comments from, you know, all the different boards and they're supposed to be submitted and so forth. I mean, that's something that we need to crack down on but that's another issue but what if that were something that came to us so if there was a specific project that, you know, let's say they had drafted a whole bylaw and then they asked for your review and something you could have shared with before you know what I mean like and everybody kind of participate, or there was a particular something you were going to vote on and then before they were going to vote on it.

They sent around the scope of the project for us to review and comment on. I mean, I don't know having not been on the board and, you know, I'm not trying to be disrespectful to them I'm just trying to throw out things that maybe could work. You know where they be able to participate but there wouldn't have to be.

It could be more of a shared thing and we wouldn't all have to, you know, somebody doesn't have to devote all this meeting time so why don't we, let me just talk to. I could talk to john and yeah there's a couple other people have in mind I could just speak to. We're not the only ones that have this issue.

[Speaker 13] (2:34:18 - 2:34:21)
No, right. And Iraq.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:21 - 2:35:05)
I don't want to, I don't want to, you know, diminish it and I don't want to, you know, just, you know, don't make make. I don't want to appear as if it's not an important issue because it is I'm just really have to do some time management so I think that I think it's valid. So, let me ask some questions and get some more information and you can revisit this in October, or if you know or sooner if I can this isn't something I can have Margie send out emails where you don't have to deliberate about it, you can just kind of have a, you can just share information when it's available so, you know, sort of that you can talk about it again in October.

[Speaker 8] (2:35:05 - 2:35:16)
For the record. Angela Ted much more nuanced way to say that, and I said, obviously, very important, but I think that makes sense.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:17 - 2:35:30)
Okay. I really appreciate your comments though, as you know, it's reality. And I get it.

Okay. Anything else.

[Speaker 4] (2:35:32 - 2:35:36)
I have some very old minutes for review.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:37 - 2:36:03)
If you want to read them quickly for them up for them, or I can, I didn't have a chance to send them out beforehand, but why don't you send them to us, let us read them because to just go through them I think is, I don't know, what do you guys think I'd rather just have a chance to read them and mark them up unless you want to just go through stuff and approve of I mean it doesn't. But what do you guys think I'll go either way.

[Speaker 13] (2:36:03 - 2:36:06)
Send them. Yeah, if you could send them or so I think that'd be best.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:07 - 2:36:48)
We can review and then we can make it a quicker thing in October. Thank you. And then, just a quick update on the Oh, Margie was asking about the doodle poll for the site visit at the lover.

So I don't think she's concerned that a lot of you didn't see that you're supposed to keep scrolling over because there were a whole bunch of dates. If you didn't keep scrolling you weren't going to be able to see so when you first opened that doodle poll. It just you saw like September 12 or 13 or something, you were, you had to keep going, you know, wiping left.

[Speaker 22] (2:36:49 - 2:36:51)
I saw the dates. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:36:52 - 2:36:54)
Was it from Margie I didn't see any of us.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:55 - 2:37:01)
It was from Mars, he was a doodle poll request site visit and what times you might be available.

[Speaker 21] (2:37:01 - 2:37:02)
Hello.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:04 - 2:37:05)
Just Thursday.

[Speaker 19] (2:37:06 - 2:37:06)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:09 - 2:37:38)
Anyway, she asked me she said she didn't get much response. She asked me if I would please mention it again. And ask you to go in there and you know if you can't make it or don't want to make it, just let her know that too, because then she's not going to keep scrambling to try to find a time.

So that's the other thing. She doesn't expect everybody to be available all the time so it's just kind of an open invitation.

[Speaker 13] (2:37:40 - 2:37:44)
Worded to you because I'm looking and I think there may be a different Bill Quinn on this email chain then.

[Speaker 6] (2:37:45 - 2:37:46)
Yeah, I'm not seeing.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:47 - 2:37:51)
Oh, she wasn't there like a lawyer Bill Quinn she was in Marblehead.

[Speaker 6] (2:37:51 - 2:37:58)
Yeah. I'll be happy to forward you mine, mine, and maybe the other guys available maybe he could do the Iraq.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:59 - 2:38:04)
Maybe he responded. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:38:05 - 2:38:06)
Even better and I get some his emails.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:09 - 2:39:41)
Alright, so I think that we're still waiting for traffic studies from from lover and we're also when Marcy sent out that I and I and the, they call it the scope of work thing from one of the traffic study people she sent it out to each of us to see if we had any comments. She asked me, and I can send that email out to all of you again to there are two attachments. She just wanted to make sure that you all had a chance to look at it and if you had any comments this is all relating to studies on the lover to send it back to her any questions or this looks weird or how can you not including that you know that kind of thing.

Give it a quick look and it's okay to say I have any comments and if you have them, please send to Marcy. She was just, she just wanted to make sure that everybody had a chance to get that need to move ahead on getting those studies done. And tomorrow night Marblehead meeting with the lover.

I haven't another public meeting so I can get the I don't know if anyone's interested but I'll, I'm going to try to attend part of their planning board meeting just curious you know I like to see what their process looks like so I have another meeting to so I'm might be juggling screen, but I'll be happy to share that link with you for Marblehead's planning meeting for tonight. If you're interested.

[Speaker 8] (2:39:44 - 2:39:53)
I'm they did it. Sorry. Last time they did it.

I asked for the link afterwards, because it was recorded. So if you can't make it that works too.

[Speaker 1] (2:39:54 - 2:41:11)
They do, she will send you the recording. So that's fine. Because we're not like on there to comment.

Yeah, we do have time. Not to our. I mean we'll see if their study, I'm assuming they might have something ready by October, but, you know, we need time to review it ahead of time.

Anyway, so that's where that stands. And I think that you know that they state came back with the updated guidelines for three a. There is a summary that they put together that's online.

It's easy enough to find by just kind of, you know, Googling the MBTA communities, three a zoning updated but if for any reason you have a hard time finding it and you're looking for it. Just give me a, you know, ping me or email and I'll send you a copy of their little deck their presentation that they did. So we're going to be hiring a consultant to help us with that that's on the road.

I can think about right now.

[Speaker 6] (2:41:14 - 2:41:27)
So, oddly enough, Bill Quinn did reply is available on the 20th 21st and 22nd. December the 20th. Tuesday the 20th.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:27 - 2:41:30)
That's hysterical. You see, I forget who he's a lawyer for.

[Speaker 6] (2:41:31 - 2:41:34)
He was the pine tree. I believe, I'm straight.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:34 - 2:41:38)
Yeah, that he's going to the glory. Wow.

[Speaker 6] (2:41:39 - 2:41:40)
21st is Wednesday.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:41 - 2:41:53)
I have to. That's really funny. I'll tell Marcy that that is really funny.

funny slash not funny so we need to look at that straightened up.

[Speaker 8] (2:41:55 - 2:41:59)
Make sure you're the real Bill Quinn on there. Yeah, I'm not sure.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:00 - 2:42:07)
I didn't do how do they do that when it's like the genuine thing you have like that trademark thing next to your name.

[Speaker 6] (2:42:08 - 2:42:11)
Okay, so full signature or something.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:11 - 2:42:22)
Right. Anything else guys, any other business that may properly come before the board. Nothing.

Okay, then motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 4] (2:42:23 - 2:42:48)
Oh, actually, sorry. Going back to that October 11 meeting. I'm sorry, don't kill me.

Would you guys be okay doing a hybrid. Maybe we can, like, consider once we get all of the zoning situations stuff sorted out for a large road and then it's determined that it is going to come before you guys as a public hearing.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:48 - 2:42:51)
So when you're saying in person and online. That what you're saying.

[Speaker 4] (2:42:53 - 2:42:59)
Yeah, just like we did last month with the, with the Glover initial application meeting.

[Speaker 6] (2:43:01 - 2:43:06)
So, in person with a zoom option for attendees.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:06 - 2:43:27)
Yeah. And why is that preferable. I mean I'm okay with doing there were a number of.

I'm sorry. People using their people that don't have computers and that can't attend it was that the issue. I see.

Yeah. Okay, correct. I mean, I, you know, I don't know how you guys feel you can certainly do it.

[Speaker 23] (2:43:29 - 2:43:30)
That's fine.

[Speaker 4] (2:43:30 - 2:44:05)
I can't commit to myself being there in person doesn't mean I won't be but it seems to make sense to have that option for the people that you are available you could, you know, I think as long as we have I believe the rules for attending for board members is that we have the chair in person. I don't know that we, I think we can establish a quorum with a mixed amount of members in person on an online to the preference for board members is that they attend in person. And I think I believe the chair has to be in person as well.

[Speaker 20] (2:44:07 - 2:44:12)
But if that is something you guys are okay with.

[Speaker 1] (2:44:14 - 2:44:46)
I'm happy to reserve the space. Okay, why don't you reserve it and we'll just at least we'll have it and, you know, yeah, better to do and then we can always cancel. Right.

Okay. Okay. No more surprises.

No other issues. Okay, then motion to adjourn. Okay.

Okay. That's all we need is a wave of the hand for the adjournment and we're all good. So we'll see you next month if we don't see you before then.

[Speaker 13] (2:44:47 - 2:44:47)
Thank you.