[Speaker 1] (0:00 - 1:48)
Dismiss those things. So good evening everyone, Angela Ippolito. It's our June 12th meeting of the planning board.

You'd think my head would be a little more clear by this point, but so welcome everyone. It seems like just yesterday we were all meeting outside at our June meeting. If you recall, we were out in the town hall lawn.

Joe, you wouldn't remember, but that's okay. Dave was there. At any rate, yeah, the year is, you know, seems like it, when you look back at a year ago, it seems like it went by fast, but then not so much.

But at any rate, so tonight's meeting is, we have a couple of petitions to review, but they should be sort of more on the administrative end. We're just going to be reviewing, but we'll start by the first item on the agenda is design review. It's petition 23 DSR1, which was our Humphrey Street design review that we did for Dockside Pub.

So Andrew and Jemmy is here. They're asking us to amend and approve design for the exterior of the building, the changes that were made. He'd like to add some decorative elements.

Property, of course, is at 286 Humphrey Street, and it falls under the Humphrey Street Overlay District. So Andrew, or I guess Marissa is going to pull it up and we'll take a look at what the changes are. Andrew, if you wanted to kind of talk us through what your intent was, then please feel free.

[Speaker 3] (1:49 - 1:52)
Sure. Is there an outside view?

[Speaker 2] (1:54 - 1:57)
You want like a Google Street view or an rendering?

[Speaker 3] (1:57 - 2:02)
I think there should be a little outside view of the plan. Like this? Yeah.

Okay.

[Speaker 8] (2:02 - 2:09)
So there's two elevations here.

[Speaker 2] (2:09 - 2:10)
Just let me know which one.

[Speaker 3] (2:10 - 2:27)
So that's one side. Right. So that's basically, yeah.

So the side that is going to have the takeout window along where those buoys are on the side of the building is going to be seating. So we just want to decorate that area and make it nautical.

[Speaker 1] (2:28 - 2:32)
So it's going to be, the seating's going to, I'm sorry, go ahead. Go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (2:32 - 2:46)
Oh, I was going to flip over to the other side. If you scroll down, probably it's the other side of the building. And then, right.

Okay. So then on the parking end of it, we just want to have some decorative paddles along the wall.

[Speaker 1] (2:48 - 2:52)
Oh, paddles. Okay. So like oars going around the wall.

Oars, yes. I'm sorry, yes.

[Speaker 3] (2:52 - 3:02)
And then I think the only other thing was some festoon lighting in that, yeah, exactly. Right where you are.

[Speaker 2] (3:04 - 3:06)
It's shown on the plan right here, this like sort of zigzag.

[Speaker 3] (3:06 - 3:09)
Yep, there we go. Yep, just some little light festoon lighting.

[Speaker 1] (3:10 - 3:33)
So I have a question. So initially where the takeout window is, just to the right of that, so if you were standing in front of the takeout window, you would immediately turn to your right and have the sign there. And in the back of that, there was going to be storage and so forth.

So I did not think that the tables extended to the rear of the building like that.

[Speaker 3] (3:34 - 3:47)
Well, we weren't allowed to put our outdoor walk-in cooler there. So we had to engineer it into the basement.

[Speaker 1] (3:48 - 3:54)
So you want to put tables out the side there?

[Speaker 3] (3:55 - 4:13)
It's a really great view of the ocean from there. Actually, there's like a little, like exactly where that alley is, is in between where you can see the ocean. So I think it's a great little area.

And then you don't have to be next to the street while you're eating dinner or your lunch.

[Speaker 1] (4:14 - 4:24)
Okay, so again, you know, my only concern there would be, okay, so a couple things. So you've got the buoys on one side and the oars on the other.

[Speaker 3] (4:25 - 4:25)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (4:26 - 4:28)
What about the street facing side?

[Speaker 3] (4:29 - 4:31)
I think there's just a awning.

[Speaker 1] (4:32 - 4:48)
Okay, so and the additional lighting along the side there, which we had not discussed before, is that, so you're suggesting those are like string lights or?

[Speaker 3] (4:49 - 4:58)
Yeah, it's just string lights. I think actually Zest Friends had them there when they were open. So same sort of just string lighting.

[Speaker 9] (5:00 - 5:07)
Okay, and yeah, I don't think their tables went down that far.

[Speaker 1] (5:07 - 5:45)
That was because they did have that, you know, that fence there that had the storage area in the back. So I don't recall them having much lighting all the way down the side. So look, my only concern there would be, you know, are the neighbors aware that the tables are going to be, as opposed to being on the sidewalk and maybe right at the corner there, you know, going down the side of the building.

I guess that's, you know, just something I, you know, I don't know if it's going to be. I just haven't thought that through, I guess. Any comments about that from anyone?

[Speaker 10] (5:49 - 6:05)
I had the same thought, Angela. I don't see an issue with the buoys or the oars or the lighting in and of themselves. I just don't know if the neighbors would have an issue with folks further back, but I'm not sure if that's exactly what we're taking up right now either.

[Speaker 1] (6:05 - 6:06)
Right, right.

[Speaker 4] (6:06 - 6:10)
How far back to the table are you proposing the tables go?

[Speaker 8] (6:11 - 6:20)
If you go to, is there a view of the top down?

[Speaker 3] (6:22 - 6:35)
Okay, yeah. So basically that area where it says existing pavement is the flat area where we can put some nice seating.

[Speaker 1] (6:37 - 6:39)
Okay, I'm sorry, go ahead.

[Speaker 4] (6:39 - 6:44)
What are the hours you're proposing for outdoor dining? I know we had discussed it at the previous meeting.

[Speaker 3] (6:45 - 6:56)
I think it was, what, was it nine? I think we decided that already last time we were here. I think it was nine o'clock, Ted.

Got it, okay.

[Speaker 1] (6:56 - 8:45)
Okay, so I don't know whether this would, you know, go before, in terms of, you know, outdoor dining. It's something that is, you know, kind of regulated through the select board and we do have it, you know, we do have a provision for it in our zoning in terms of where, you know, tables can be and so forth. That's, you know, that's been, that's been essentially, you know, thought to be right kind of on the street facing sidewalk.

So look, you know, first of all, I'd like to start out by saying I'm thrilled that you've figured out how to get the cooler underground. We're really, you know, we really support you and we want you to open your business. I think it's going to be a great spot.

So, you know, I'm not trying to, I'm certainly not trying to give you a hard time. I'm just concerned that we're now, you know, once again pushing back into this area that's supposed to be a buffer zone, which was the reason we couldn't do the outdoor structure in the first place. So I'm just concerned about how many tables go back there.

You know, if it's curly around the corners or the way we're looking at it right now, you know, a couple right in front on the sidewalk and a couple curling around the corner, you know, that's sort of what we were anticipating. I didn't anticipate it going all the way down and, you know, the little outdoor string lights, I mean, I think a good example of where that is, you know, kind of done nicely and it's very soft is down at, what's the name of that place, Pomona on the other end. They just have, you know, little light bulbs that are strong.

[Speaker 3] (8:45 - 8:47)
It's very similar to that.

[Speaker 1] (8:47 - 9:13)
Okay, so they don't zigzag, they're just kind of one string going down the edge of the, and you know, but I, yeah, I see because you don't have any other lighting over there. So, so it just kind of, it's throwing me off because it's just putting lighting where we weren't anticipating it, albeit very minimal. I get it, string lights, they're nice, they're decorative, they look pretty, you know, usually people really like them.

[Speaker 3] (9:13 - 9:33)
They're also going to be behind the fence. It's not like it's an open area with poles, it's going to be attached to the fence with the highest part of the way behind the fence. I mean, if that's a concern.

[Speaker 1] (9:34 - 10:37)
So I guess I'd have to think about, you know, what is allowed in the buffer area. That's kind of what, that's the piece of it that I'm grappling with. I mean, we were saying, you know, we can't, there's no building within the buffer area, but, you know, I can honestly say I'm not sure about, I'm not sure about tables going all the way back there.

I'm just, and I don't want to, you know, have set an expectation that, you know, is going to end up falling apart and we're not going to be able to deliver on. So I'm just a little concerned about that. Obviously, if you had another commercial building, that actually wouldn't make any difference at all.

It's simply because of, you know, being surrounded by residential that it's an issue at, you know, in any event. Ted, do you have any thoughts?

[Speaker 3] (10:37 - 10:45)
I mean, the latest we're serving food is nine o'clock and it's just going to be like, obviously in the summertime.

[Speaker 8] (10:45 - 10:45)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (10:47 - 11:05)
So it's not like, dare your word, I'm proposing a dance floor out there at a nightclub. They have some fried clams and then leave. I'm not proposing any music, I'm not proposing anything, just people sitting down eating.

I don't know, I don't think they'll be yelling.

[Speaker 8] (11:06 - 11:06)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (11:06 - 11:11)
Angela, from what I know about. Sorry, Andrew, what did you say?

[Speaker 3] (11:12 - 11:23)
No, I was just saying the importance of being out there having conversation, having some food and then going home. I mean, right. It's like I said, it's not going to be like a live band out there.

Right.

[Speaker 2] (11:23 - 11:52)
No, I understood. From what I know about the tables going back there and that triggering sort of the need to set up the buffer or put up the buffer, that only came into play when the dimensional, when the dimensions of the building itself were being changed. Whereas outdoor dining is a by right use in the bylaw.

Okay. They can have it on their property.

[Speaker 1] (11:53 - 11:53)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (11:54 - 11:56)
That was going to be my question.

[Speaker 2] (11:56 - 11:56)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (11:57 - 11:59)
Thank you for getting me to it.

[Speaker 9] (12:00 - 12:00)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (12:03 - 12:23)
That was how I understand it. And I believe that came up at the last CBA meeting and, you know, the board said that they couldn't offer relief for the cooler because that triggered the right. But otherwise, outdoor dining was, you know, still by right.

[Speaker 1] (12:25 - 12:34)
Right. Okay. So that's helpful.

I can see that Bill is on. Bill, do you, I don't know, can you, your mic's off, but do you have any comments?

[Speaker 6] (12:36 - 12:47)
Just the only question I have is you just mentioned the lights are above the fence or behind the fence. Correct, sir. You talking about the abutters fence or is there another fence going across the property?

[Speaker 3] (12:48 - 13:03)
We have our own fence that surrounds that outdoor dining area. So where you see the string lighting ending, that's our fence. So that fence goes all the way around the property.

[Speaker 6] (13:05 - 13:07)
The lights are below that fence, you said?

[Speaker 3] (13:08 - 13:12)
Yes. And that's where it's going to be attached to. So yeah, so it's going to be.

[Speaker 6] (13:13 - 13:24)
Okay. One of the plans I saw, it looked like a menu board going across the opening to that area. Is that to block it off or is that a planter with a menu board or something?

[Speaker 3] (13:24 - 13:40)
No, I mean, it's going to be like a couple feet so you can walk back there. And yeah, it's just not going to be, it's not nearly covering any, it's going to be like a foot or two menu board. Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (13:41 - 13:41)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (13:42 - 13:47)
So while you're at the window, you can turn your head, there's a menu there, make your order, keep it easy.

[Speaker 6] (13:49 - 14:09)
Sure. I just wasn't sure if it was meant to segregate that area. Okay.

I think they also concur that I don't know who permits the number of seats. So I'm not sure if we need to even make a decision.

[Speaker 1] (14:09 - 14:12)
I don't know that we did, I don't know that there was anything like that.

[Speaker 6] (14:12 - 14:22)
Yeah, I don't think there's a limit or a minimum so I guess I'm not sure what we need to do with this.

[Speaker 1] (14:23 - 15:02)
Okay. I just wanted to be clear on what, you know, I just wanted to review the whole notion of putting seats down there and the fact that, you know, I just want to make sure it's not disruptive and that, yeah, you're right, it's not, we're not building into that buffer. So as long as that buffer is there from a dimensional standpoint, that makes sense.

The string lighting, I really don't, I don't have any objection to, but I think that, you know, it should be as, you know, very soft and it needs to go off when the, you know, when there's, after people have left that area.

[Speaker 3] (15:02 - 15:05)
Naturally, yes. I agree with you.

[Speaker 1] (15:08 - 15:53)
You know, as far as the decorative things on the building, I mean, I think, you know, I think it's very cute. I mean, my feeling is that like some of the pictures have that aren't, I'm not talking about your actual plans, I'm talking about some of the wars. Some of that can get a little kitschy if there's too much.

It's almost like less is more and the building, you did such a, I mean, the building's going to be so pretty and, you know, so attractive. I just would, I guess on a personal, my personal opinion would be, you know, a couple pieces here and there, but, but, you know, just to kind of less is more kind of thing because the building is really, it's very good looking.

[Speaker 3] (15:54 - 15:58)
Let me just tell you, it's going to be so tasteful. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (15:58 - 16:08)
I believe you. I believe you. And that's, that's, thank you.

That's great to hear. Okay. Anyone else have any comments?

[Speaker 4] (16:09 - 16:17)
So the string lighting that's along the side of building, that is going to be at a height that will shield it from illuminating onto adjacent properties?

[Speaker 3] (16:18 - 16:29)
Yes, it's going to be attached to the, the front. So naturally be, you know, it's going to attach to the top of the front. It's going to attach here, but we'll be here, we'll be behind it all the way through.

[Speaker 4] (16:30 - 16:44)
Awesome. And that's on both the, obviously I see it's attached to the property next to you, but the fence height at the rear of the property have the same effect? Yes, sir.

Got it. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (16:47 - 16:55)
Any other comments from the board members right now? Because I noticed we have someone with their hand up and I want to make sure we take a public comment.

[Speaker 10] (16:57 - 17:00)
I have nothing else. Nothing here.

[Speaker 1] (17:00 - 17:06)
Okay. So Marissa, I'm not sure who had their hand up first, but if you want to. Sure.

[Speaker 2] (17:09 - 17:15)
So this is Moira. She is the resident to the rear of the property at Blaney Terrace.

[Speaker 1] (17:16 - 17:29)
Okay. Hi Moira. You can take, unmute yourself and I think you're still muted.

There you go. Hi. Can you, can you hear me okay?

Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 5] (17:30 - 19:49)
Yeah. I live on 16 Blaney Circle directly behind the restaurant. Right.

And I'm very concerned about my trespassing. I am concerned about some of the ZBA laws that I've looked up and I've pointed out in the comments in the chat comments and wonder if they apply here. I'm sorry, I'm not reading the chat.

Can you tell me which ones you're talking about? The ZBA law 3.2.2.9 regarding lighting source shall be shielded from view from adjacent properties. Right.

It's also addressed in 3.4.20 and 5.10.6.0. Right. So, and I'll also say that when the restaurant was being prepared to for sale, that's when they started putting tables on the side and strung out the lights on, onto their property there. I am concerned about the precedent that this leads to.

Should this restaurant not be successful and how it could be referenced in future restaurant development. Again, are you talking about just the lighting? Is that right, Moira?

That's right. Right now, that is my biggest objection. I will also agree with you about being in kitsch.

That's a lot of ores and that's a lot of, but that's not really, you know, as long as I don't have to look at it, I already have to smell it. I already have to hear it. Every oven, every air conditioner, every customer who slams your door in their parking lot.

And frankly, you know, this is just another assault on my privacy and that illuminates, you know, my whole kitchen and backyard. And, you know, I object to it. Again, I am citing the ZBA laws for backup.

I understand.

[Speaker 1] (19:50 - 20:24)
So, those laws also, they refer to, not that I'm not disputing or dismissing at all what you said. Those laws refer to permanent lighting on structures. And this particular type of lighting would be considered, you know, it's temporary.

Like someone's putting out lights at holiday time. It's temporary and it has to go off at a certain time. And if it starts, if it is deemed to be that much of a nuisance, then the building commissioner would get involved.

[Speaker 5] (20:26 - 20:37)
Which is really problematic for, you know, because who is the person that has to, you know, call and talk to that person? You know, it would be me.

[Speaker 1] (20:39 - 21:04)
Yeah. So, again, it's, you know, it's hard to, I share, you know, I share that concern too. I would ask that it, you know, the lighting be as minimal as possible.

Just for, you know, the ambiance type of thing, very dim little lighting. It's not, it's certainly not to brighten up anything. In fact, I wouldn't even want to think of it as being as bright as holiday lights or anything like that.

[Speaker 5] (21:04 - 21:27)
But I'm concerned also about lingering customers in that area for late at night. And, you know, I know this is a pub and there's a lot of drinking and things going on. And I'm concerned about that kind of activity.

You know, what is like four feet, three feet behind him?

[Speaker 1] (21:28 - 21:41)
So, I think what we could, you know, what, you know, the answer to that would be to, you know, what the service stops out there at nine o'clock. And when you mentioned lingering.

[Speaker 5] (21:41 - 21:41)
And is that in writing?

[Speaker 1] (21:43 - 22:13)
I believe that's part of the liquor license. And is that when the lights go out? It would be, yes.

If there was anyone still there, I would assume that they could be asked to move to the front or move indoors. I know it's a tough balance trying to figure out how to let each of you co-exist. And it's, I hear you.

[Speaker 3] (22:14 - 22:48)
Not for nothing, but it's Andrew again. There's, you know, I have my fence at the end on the far left of that sort of says existing pavement. And then there's a retaining wall.

And then Moira has another fence on above that. So, I mean, I just, the fact that string lights are going to flood her house is, I don't know, I just don't think it's possible.

[Speaker 5] (22:50 - 23:14)
That chain link fence was put up by the bank that used to be there, a nine to five business. It is not my fence. That stretch of land between the chain link fence and that white fence belongs to the restaurant.

And that vacant, you know, strip of land is, I think, where all the rabbits and rats are living.

[Speaker 1] (23:17 - 23:46)
Well, that will be an issue for, you know, health department will come out and take a look at that and make a note. I assume that you have spoken with the Board of Health in terms of issues with, you know, garbage road and control, all that. Did that come up at CBA, Andrew?

[Speaker 3] (23:47 - 23:56)
It didn't, but we're, by law, not having to have an exterminator. So, traps everywhere by law. So, we have the same thing.

[Speaker 1] (23:57 - 23:59)
Okay, I'll follow up with that as well.

[Speaker 3] (23:59 - 24:12)
That's fine. You have to. I mean, this is part of, like, the health inspection that they asked.

We'll actually have an exterminator that comes out regularly.

[Speaker 2] (24:14 - 24:22)
Mara and I have spoken with the health director together as well. So, you know, he is aware of, you know, the concerns surrounding the property.

[Speaker 1] (24:23 - 24:29)
And did he make any recommendations? Did he make any recommendations that have been added to the record?

[Speaker 2] (24:32 - 24:44)
What Andrew said about having a licensed pest control operator on the premises. And there are some dumpster regulations as well that are issued by the board.

[Speaker 1] (24:45 - 24:55)
So, that's what I'm going to request, is that we get the actual, the full recommendation from the board of health, and that it becomes part of the record, okay? Sure.

[Speaker 4] (24:58 - 25:19)
And Angela, it may just be worth noting the way the lights are proposed now, at least the way Andrew explained it, do connect to the fences, I guess, which would shield the light. I believe those bylaws mentioned that the lights just need to be shielded from the adjacent property owners. So, if it does that by the way they're engineered, I think that is worth putting in a decision or a note.

[Speaker 1] (25:19 - 25:38)
Okay. It's also temporary lighting, which we'll also put in, right? Okay.

So, was there anyone else that had their hand up? I see you, Mr. Grimes. I'm sorry, Moyer, before I cut you off, I want to make sure, did we, did you have any other comments before, I don't mean to.

[Speaker 5] (25:40 - 25:44)
Just that I appreciate your time and hearing me out. Of course.

[Speaker 1] (25:45 - 25:47)
Thank you for, thank you for being here.

[Speaker 8] (25:49 - 25:51)
Thank you, Moyer. Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (25:51 - 25:56)
And Mr. Grimes, could you? Let me turn on his mic.

[Speaker 1] (25:59 - 26:01)
Okay, thank you. Hi, good. How are you?

[Speaker 7] (26:01 - 26:44)
Doing great. Thank you very much for letting me take a couple minutes. And I'm the owner of 292 Humphrey Street, so I'm right next to the proposed restaurant.

And again, I will tell Andrew that I think he's doing a wonderful job and we're looking forward to actually dining in the restaurant. So, I'm very happy with what he's doing. The, my concern is, is that on our last meeting about the liquor license you had mentioned a few minutes ago, the liquor license goes to 1 a.m. So, Andrew has spoken that he would shut this down at 9, which is fine by me, 9 o'clock is fine. I just want to see it somewhere in his permit that the lights get shut down at 9, the outdoor lighting.

[Speaker 1] (26:45 - 26:50)
Okay. Yes, we're talking about those string lights along the side. Is that right?

[Speaker 7] (26:50 - 26:59)
The string lights along the side and the board that's going to be lit for the menu. And is there any other lighting in the takeout window?

[Speaker 1] (27:00 - 27:05)
I think it's just interior lighting. Is that right? From what I remember, there wasn't any additional lighting there.

[Speaker 7] (27:06 - 27:12)
Okay, yeah. So, if you could write that in at 9 o'clock, then I'm very happy.

[Speaker 3] (27:27 - 27:33)
Um, can we give people a half an hour to finish their meals? Is that, is that okay?

[Speaker 9] (27:33 - 27:35)
I think that's, I think that's reasonable.

[Speaker 3] (27:36 - 27:52)
So, like service ends at 9 o'clock, lights out at 9 30? I'm, uh, I'm fine with that. Thank you.

I'd feel bad to order, having someone order something, having them sit down and shut the I, I agree.

[Speaker 1] (27:52 - 28:42)
I think that's, um, I think, you know, there's a point at which, you know, obviously you want someone to be able to sit there and finish their dinner. And then, um, also, you know, then Moira brings up the point of what if they are kind of having their drinks and loitering all night? Well, they can't keep ordering more drinks and they have to, you know, they have to move inside to order another drink.

So that's kind of how that would go anyway. Okay. So, yep.

You're welcome. Thanks. Okay.

Anyone else comment? Okay. So, um, seeing none, we're going to come back to the board and, um, um, if there are no more comments from the board, I think we could make a motion then.

Um, first of all, are there any more comments from the board before I just jump right ahead?

[Speaker 3] (28:45 - 28:45)
I have a question.

[Speaker 8] (28:46 - 28:46)
Sure.

[Speaker 3] (28:48 - 28:57)
Um, what time does little G and G Bar have, uh, to serve their customers outside?

[Speaker 9] (28:57 - 28:59)
I don't know. I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (28:59 - 29:17)
And, um, you know, I think, uh, I think that the, um, I don't know what time they, they close outside. It seems like the service outside probably goes till, I don't know what time they close. Does anyone know what time they close?

[Speaker 4] (29:18 - 29:39)
I vaguely remember voting. Was that, was the hours of this part of what we voted on at town meeting for outdoor dining and liquor service a few years ago? Because I know we had to vote on that because it's the sidewalk area is public property.

Which if there is an hour limit there, I would be in favor of making it consistent between the two.

[Speaker 9] (29:40 - 29:42)
I think you're right about that.

[Speaker 4] (29:44 - 29:50)
Um, looking through the general, I don't, you know what, I don't know what they are.

[Speaker 1] (29:51 - 29:55)
So, you know what, I think that, that that's, I don't, I don't,

[Speaker 3] (29:56 - 30:37)
I don't want to push anything, but I just, I think it's a reasonable request and, and, I just wanted to be fair for everybody because if people are enjoying their time out there, you know, like for example, um, sure there's no people around, uh, you know, there's, the outdoor dining is not necessarily next to anybody where, uh, G-Bar, anybody lives there. However, there are people across the street and, uh, you know, in David Grimes's instance, there's a, quite a large driveway in between the, what people will be eating and where people are living. So, it's basically the size of the street, which is replicating the G-Bar incident.

[Speaker 1] (30:41 - 31:25)
So, um, yeah, I think that's, you know, so I think that's a fair request and, and yeah, the difference is that there is the, there is the residential surrounding you. However, um, I think, I think, I think what's important is that it's not something that we can, you know, enforce to any, um, degree because it's not, if it's not part of the bylaw, then it's not, it's not going to be enforceable. But, um, but I think there's a concern from the neighbors that there is just, that there is some consideration for the fact that, that there is a residence behind you and next to you.

I think that's their concern.

[Speaker 3] (31:26 - 32:31)
I think, I think, I, I absolutely agree with that and, um, I sympathize with that. And I can absolutely put, you know, some signs up on the fence area that says, you know, keep voices at a talking level, um, who's concerned to our neighbors. I've seen that in other restaurants, um, and it just reminds people and we can remind people.

I just don't think it's going to be anything that people think it's going to be because, first of all, everything is surrounded by a fence. It's not open area. So, voices to travel, um, people are across, you know, there's other fences behind us and then there's like a large, I mean, basically a very large driveway on the other side of that, on the other side of the fence until you get to the house.

So, I, I think people talking is not, I don't even need to hear them. So, I just, I think it's a little more, maybe more elevated concern than it needs to be, but I will absolutely put signs out there that says, please be courteous to our neighbors, keep the voices down.

[Speaker 9] (32:33 - 32:39)
Yeah, I'm just looking at, um, rates and sidewalks.

[Speaker 1] (32:39 - 32:57)
I'm not sure where that, where did we put that, um, I know we have, um, the ability to, you know, outdoor dining is in the zoning, but I think like for the, what's, what actually controls the hours, and I don't know whether that's in general or not.

[Speaker 4] (32:59 - 33:05)
I feel like we did this at 2021 town, 2022 town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (33:07 - 33:22)
Get something quickly. I, I know we had in terms of the use was the, um, we added that, but I'm just scrolling through right now. So, just give me a second and want to see if I can find it.

[Speaker 8] (33:23 - 33:34)
We, um, put that. No, this isn't it. This is, this is different.

[Speaker 9] (33:37 - 33:40)
No, it's like driving on a cycle or this and that.

[Speaker 1] (33:40 - 34:33)
So, so we don't have, it's not on, no, it's not in the general bylaws, so then it's going to be just in the zoning. Whatever it is, I, I agree that we have to, I agree that we have to be consistent with the, with the zoning bylaw for, for every business. So, that's only fair.

So, the requests that, that get made, you know, they, they have to, part of it's just going to have to be, you know, agreeing that there are, you know, that there are neighbors on either side and that, you know, as we've just discussed that, that you, Andrew, and the owners and whoever's managing or working that night is, um, will be considerate of people who live there. And in, let me go see the restaurants, 18. So, I have it under use.

[Speaker 8] (34:34 - 34:45)
Let me just go there and take a peek at them because it's not under the overlay specifically.

[Speaker 9] (34:46 - 34:46)
It's just in.

[Speaker 6] (34:49 - 34:51)
So, what exactly were you voting today?

[Speaker 1] (34:52 - 34:55)
Just to approve, to amend the, um, to amend the site plan.

[Speaker 6] (34:56 - 34:57)
And I'm just checking.

[Speaker 1] (34:57 - 35:35)
I just want to make sure that we're in terms of, um, and it had, it really had to do with, with the design of the, the outside of the, of the, of the building, the, um, design review. Yeah. Um, but we talked about it because we hadn't looked at tables going that far back simply because, um, they weren't there before.

So, I think to, you know, to be, um, just, uh, in due diligence to, you know, looking at something that we haven't looked at before, uh, we just want to make sure that we're, we're touching, you know, covering all our bases here.

[Speaker 6] (35:36 - 35:40)
I don't think either hours of operation or number of seats are in our jurisdiction.

[Speaker 1] (35:40 - 35:50)
And they're not. I'm just curious to see what the zoning says, uh, Bill. Okay.

Because I couldn't, I couldn't recall if there was something in there, but.

[Speaker 2] (35:50 - 35:52)
There's nothing in there. It's about hours for outdoor.

[Speaker 1] (35:53 - 35:58)
So, it's got to go with the liquor licenses, you know, that's, um. I would think so. Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (35:58 - 36:03)
What we left it off last was the freezer, which I understand has been resolved.

[Speaker 1] (36:04 - 36:04)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (36:04 - 36:06)
The signage requirements.

[Speaker 8] (36:06 - 36:06)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (36:07 - 36:10)
That's been addressed. So, those are the two things that fall under our jurisdiction.

[Speaker 8] (36:10 - 36:11)
Right. No, we did review.

[Speaker 6] (36:11 - 36:20)
No, we, we appreciate your opportunity to work with the neighbors. We appreciate the neighbors willing to work backwards. Um, but it's not our board that makes that decision.

[Speaker 1] (36:20 - 37:00)
Yeah, Bill's right. I'm just trying to be, I'm, I'm just trying to, uh, show consideration for the people that do live there that have shown up and then also want to speak. So, um, but you're right, but, you know, Bill's right.

And, um, so at this point, I think that we do, we do need to, um, we do need to just take a vote on amending the, the design review to include the, uh, the decorative outdoor, um, oars and, and, and buoys as, as depicted on the, on the site plan. So, if we have, if we are in agreement on that, then someone can make that motion and we can get a second and.

[Speaker 6] (37:01 - 37:05)
So, again, I'm not sure that needs a vote either. So, um.

[Speaker 1] (37:05 - 37:07)
To amend the site, to amend the design review?

[Speaker 6] (37:08 - 37:23)
Yeah. So, the design review is going to be amended for signage and things like that, that we haven't seen yet. So, I don't think we have enough information to vote on that.

Um, we could vote again. Last time we took a 4-0, that's fine. Um, but we don't have the full package yet with signage.

[Speaker 1] (37:23 - 37:26)
I thought we did look at signage. Yeah, Bill, we voted on the signage.

[Speaker 4] (37:26 - 37:28)
We voted on the sign, I think. We did.

[Speaker 2] (37:29 - 37:32)
Yeah. Were you not here, maybe? We voted on the signage in April.

[Speaker 1] (37:34 - 37:35)
One of them was April.

[Speaker 2] (37:36 - 37:37)
No, it was May 1st. It was following the first meeting.

[Speaker 1] (37:37 - 37:43)
Yeah, yeah. Oh, that's what it was. That was, that's what it was.

It was right before town meeting, right?

[Speaker 9] (37:45 - 37:47)
Um, yeah, we did. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (37:47 - 38:01)
Okay, so. Well, I would have, we don't, then if you don't feel it's necessary to take a vote, I'd like, you know, then we don't have to take a vote on design review. I mean, I don't.

[Speaker 6] (38:02 - 38:07)
You tell me, I don't know if it requires a vote. Like, I'm, I see a couple different, you know.

[Speaker 1] (38:07 - 38:07)
I think we should.

[Speaker 6] (38:08 - 38:20)
Designs, like, there's nothing there that, in the designs, that would violate the bylaws. So, if we're voting that the new buoys and the oars don't violate the signage, then sure, we can vote that.

[Speaker 8] (38:21 - 38:23)
I think that we should, because it's a change.

[Speaker 2] (38:24 - 38:25)
I'm sorry, Angela.

[Speaker 1] (38:25 - 38:26)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 2] (38:26 - 38:30)
I was going to say, um, um, I have a couple hands raised again. I don't know if you want to.

[Speaker 1] (38:30 - 38:34)
Oh, sure, we can. Sure. Well, of course.

Okay.

[Speaker 2] (38:35 - 38:38)
Um, go ahead, Myra. You should be able to.

[Speaker 1] (38:39 - 38:43)
Sorry, I didn't, I didn't have my screen up. I didn't, uh, I didn't even notice. Sorry about that.

[Speaker 5] (38:44 - 38:51)
Could you let Dan go first, please? Sure. Um, go ahead, Dan.

[Speaker 7] (38:53 - 39:37)
So, uh, I did. Thank you very much. So, I did a little research, um, in G's on, uh, Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, closed at 9 p.m. outdoors, and 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday. And, uh, they're not open on Sunday. Um, so those are the hours that they're open. Uh, secondly, I'm not asking about the number of tables or the number of seats there, because that is under your jurisdiction of the restaurant.

I'm asking about the lighting to be shut down. I don't care. The tables can stay there.

It doesn't matter to me, but the lighting and the sign luggage is my concern. And that's what I'm asking to be shut down. I think we all agreed upon at 9 30.

And I'd like that to be written in the permit.

[Speaker 1] (39:37 - 40:15)
Oh, we can't, we can't put anything like that in a permit because we don't control time on that. The planning board doesn't control time. You know, it's one thing to discuss it at the meeting and to, and to have, you know, essentially the public agreement by, you know, to have the owner here who understands the concern and have it become a topic.

I can put in our, in a letter that we discussed it, but we can't vote on that because that's not under our, that's not under our jurisdiction to say what time you can open or close in any event. For anything, it wouldn't be up to us to say what time you open or close.

[Speaker 7] (40:15 - 40:25)
So what you're saying then is because the liquor license says at one o'clock in the morning that they can have those people back there until one o'clock in the morning and the lights on.

[Speaker 2] (40:27 - 40:45)
Well, yes, but it seems like Andrew is, you know, being, wants to be accommodating, wants to be respectful of the immediate neighbors of the property and is willing to see outdoor dining at 9 p.m. I totally understand that and I do appreciate Andrew and I'm not talking about Andrew.

[Speaker 7] (40:45 - 41:20)
I'm talking about the next person that comes down. If there wasn't, we have a very unique situation here. You have a restaurant up against a residential house.

The bedrooms are on that side and you really don't have any place else in the town that I know of that has this specific problem. So asking the board to be mindful of that and write a memo in the section that, you know, it was agreed upon the restaurant owner that because of this unique situation that we have to be mindful of the time and they suggested to close the lights down at 9 30 10 o'clock.

[Speaker 1] (41:20 - 41:54)
I understand and I agree with you and I can write that in. I can write that in a letter but what I can tell you is that we can't, we do not regulate that. For example, if, you know, I could say that that was discussed and, you know, record it as if it were, you know, minutes of a meeting and say that this was what was discussed and, you know, this was what was, you know, generally agreed upon but I, but all I'm saying to you is we can't vote to codify that time in our letter because we don't have the power to do so.

[Speaker 7] (41:55 - 41:56)
Who, who does?

[Speaker 2] (41:57 - 42:08)
I don't think anybody does. If it's part of the general bylaw then it would be enforced by the police department. If it was part of the zoning bylaw it would be enforced by the building department but it's neither written in either bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (42:09 - 42:12)
And actually, actually it's part of the, isn't it part of the liquor license?

[Speaker 2] (42:13 - 42:15)
If it's part of the liquor license then it's the police department.

[Speaker 1] (42:16 - 42:25)
I thought, okay, so the, it's the police department so who, who grants a liquor license that, that goes till one o'clock in the morning? Who is that?

[Speaker 7] (42:25 - 42:28)
I wasn't asking a question. I was like who, who allows?

[Speaker 1] (42:28 - 42:33)
I'm asking, I'm actually asking. I believe it's the select board that grants that permit.

[Speaker 7] (42:34 - 42:34)
Is that right?

[Speaker 1] (42:34 - 42:37)
Right. And the time that goes with it.

[Speaker 2] (42:37 - 42:42)
Right. And I believe, I believe the liquor license was granted until one in the morning.

[Speaker 1] (42:43 - 42:50)
Okay, so we're talking about outdoor dining. Right. We don't have any additional regulations on that.

[Speaker 2] (42:50 - 42:56)
Right. It would be enforced by the building department. If it was in the general bylaw it would be enforced by the police.

[Speaker 1] (42:57 - 42:59)
But it's an issue. Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (43:00 - 43:03)
So is there a common victualized license as well as a liquor license?

[Speaker 2] (43:04 - 43:13)
There is a common victualized license and it usually goes, it usually runs with the, the hours of operation listed on the common victualized license run in accordance with the liquor license.

[Speaker 6] (43:14 - 43:21)
So the liquor license dictates it or is it the other way around? Sorry. Like which one prevails?

Because I think that's what Dan's question is, right?

[Speaker 2] (43:21 - 43:31)
Well you wouldn't have one contradicting the other. You, when the liquor license is issued you, the, the establishment applies for a common victualized license that's going to set the hours of operation that are listed on the liquor license.

[Speaker 6] (43:32 - 43:42)
So both the victualized license and the select, and the liquor license are given by the select board. So I think, Dan, I think that's your, what you're looking for.

[Speaker 7] (43:43 - 43:44)
Yes, thank you, Bill.

[Speaker 1] (43:49 - 43:52)
Okay, Moira, did you have a comment as well?

[Speaker 5] (43:54 - 44:30)
Just to echo Dan's comments of the close proximity, we also, the prevailing wind, especially in the summertime, unfortunately is southwest, which is what we're, the building faces. So not only smells, but noise, you know, you know, comes this way. And again, just subject to, you know, further creep of my invasion of privacy and quality of life and having quiet time in my own home without hearing a restaurant.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (44:30 - 44:40)
So the only, the only option, I guess the, you know, the only solution there would be for there not to be a business there or not to be a restaurant there. That's kind of.

[Speaker 5] (44:40 - 45:01)
Well, there's the rub right there because, you know, the Beatrice's and the banks, you know, I've been here 27 years, you know, I've paid a quarter million dollars plus in taxes. You know, I contribute to this town, the services that I require. I have no children, you know, no schools.

I do the roads and beaches.

[Speaker 1] (45:01 - 45:32)
I'm just saying that we don't, the fact is that it is, it is a business, you know, it is a business district. And certainly at this, you know, there's it, unless there would be a reason for the town to feel as if they need to, you know, they need to forbid, you know, to kind of out, you know, to, to, to change the use there, then that would be the only option at this point. I can be honest with you.

It's very unlikely to happen.

[Speaker 5] (45:33 - 46:45)
I understand that, but I also don't really understand how this got changed from the 1.5 parking and then, you know, the restaurant couldn't be here and then it could be here and there's no parking for customers. There's no parking for deliveries. There's all this, you know, congestion.

And I'll just throw in this. I know this is a separate, but maybe it needs to be heard. Getting out of Blaney Street with all the parked delivery trucks and the expanded sidewalks, getting, taking a left in and a right-hand turn is extremely dangerous.

I think that this, this little curve in the road here is at maximum capacity and then some, and, you know, nevermind the smells and the noise in our neighborhood. It's extremely dangerous. And I also remind people of the three people that were killed, you know, within a block of this area.

I know that's not what we're talking about, but I think it's worth, you know, your decisions impact, you know, people for years. And I'm one of them. Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

[Speaker 1] (46:46 - 47:10)
Okay. I think that we need to move ahead then. And I do want to, I do want to take a, even albeit informal, I want to take a vote to approve the exterior changes to the building.

And that way I'll make a few notes in the letter, but otherwise that will be the only thing that we're voting on tonight. So can I have a motion to approve the exterior changes to the building?

[Speaker 4] (47:11 - 47:12)
So moved.

[Speaker 1] (47:12 - 47:14)
All, second.

[Speaker 4] (47:15 - 47:15)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (47:16 - 47:25)
Great. And all in favor. Angela, I'm an aye.

And I see everybody else. Very good. Okay.

Thanks very much, everyone.

[Speaker 4] (47:26 - 47:31)
Out of curiosity, Angela, why was that an informal or unofficial vote?

[Speaker 1] (47:31 - 48:22)
Because it's not, it's, it's, we've already voted for, for this design review, but because we did vote for design review and because we are, we are changing that we, we voted and wrote in a letter, you know, being very specific about what the exterior looked like. And are we voting on something that changes, you know, that, that changes a site plan per se? No, but it changes every design review.

So I think it's, I think it's, I think it makes sense that we, that we record that, you know, that Andrew came back to see us and we looked at these, you know, looked at the exterior change to the building, which he intends to be, to have been permanent. And that we, then we agree to that. So that's why I said informal because, I mean, it is formal.

But what I mean is we're not approving something for the first time.

[Speaker 4] (48:23 - 48:24)
Got it. Understood.

[Speaker 1] (48:25 - 48:36)
Okay. So that being said, we're going to move on to our next topic. So thank you, Andrew, and everyone that, that came to talk about this and good luck with everything.

Hope it goes well.

[Speaker 3] (48:36 - 48:41)
Yes. Thank you so much for your time. And you're very welcome.

I appreciate it very much.

[Speaker 1] (48:42 - 48:43)
I'm looking forward to seeing you open soon. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (48:44 - 48:45)
Mid-August, we're hoping.

[Speaker 1] (48:46 - 48:47)
Okay, great.

[Speaker 8] (48:47 - 48:47)
Bye-bye.

[Speaker 1] (48:48 - 49:25)
Bye. So next I'm going to go right to the Covenant, Marissa. Sure.

Which we are going to be, I don't know where it is on the agenda because I printed mine out before you modified it. So I don't, is it number two anyway? Okay.

Yeah. So this is to, this is just a, another vote that we're going to take to, to agree to amend a covenant that we adopted with a subdivision at 81 to 85 Puritan Lane, which when did we do that back in 2021 or 2020 or something?

[Speaker 2] (49:26 - 49:30)
The Covenant is dated 2019. The subdivision was from 2019.

[Speaker 1] (49:30 - 49:32)
All right. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (49:32 - 49:34)
And the site plans were from 2020.

[Speaker 1] (49:35 - 51:16)
Okay. So I'll just do a quick explanation of what this is all about. So we, a resident of Puritan Lane who lives at 79 Puritan Lane, bought a large lot next to him and subdivided it into two separate lots.

He sold off one of them and he's building himself a new house on the other one. So that was a subdivision. We created two new lots.

As part of that subdivision, we carved off a little piece of that bid lot that the, that 81 to 85 lot that got subdivided. We carved off a little piece of that that was known as, I think it was a non-buildable lot and it was called non-buildable lot A. And that was just kind of set aside.

We did an A and R basically just to create that little non-buildable lot. With the idea that once Mr. James had finished his house on the adjoining lot, that that little non-buildable lot would now be added to 79 Puritan Lane. And so, the covenant says that that is right now, it's a separate lot and it has, it's a non-buildable separate lot.

What is going to happen is this is, we're going to remove that from the covenant so that it can, so that the next step would be, it can be combined with lot 79 when that lot gets sold, which apparently he's looking to sell it. So, all we're doing is, there's two parts, sorry?

[Speaker 2] (51:17 - 51:18)
I was going to say, I think that's sold already 79.

[Speaker 1] (51:19 - 52:27)
Okay, so that was probably part of the, you know, I think that that was the intent that he would sell it with that little lot attached to it, which just makes the 79 Puritan Lane a bigger lot. Right now, 79 Puritan Lane is, it's only like 2200 square feet or something. The unbuildable lot A was about 7700 square feet, so they're going to get combined.

So, that was, there was two parts to the covenant. One was that, that we, that a little lot was separate, and the other is like a, I think it's like $50,000 bond that runs with this subdivision until the subdivision, both houses are complete, and then the DPW has to go there and confirm that all of the, all the engineering, all the plumbing, and the electrical, and the sewer, that everything is connected properly, then they release them from the rest of the covenant.

Right now, since we granted the ANR, we are releasing them from that portion of the covenant only, and that's what this says. So, are there any questions about that?

[Speaker 9] (52:31 - 52:35)
It's pretty straightforward, but we do have to vote on Yep.

[Speaker 6] (52:35 - 52:36)
We do have to vote?

[Speaker 1] (52:37 - 52:37)
Yes.

[Speaker 6] (52:38 - 52:39)
When was it added to the agenda?

[Speaker 1] (52:40 - 52:43)
We added it to the agenda. When was it added, Marissa?

[Speaker 8] (52:44 - 52:44)
Today.

[Speaker 9] (52:51 - 52:54)
So, this hasn't, this wasn't on, we didn't get it on on Thursday.

[Speaker 6] (52:57 - 53:01)
Correct. So, can we take a vote on it with less than 24 hours posted?

[Speaker 2] (53:02 - 53:09)
It's up to you guys. I don't think that Attorney Drucas would have a problem if it was continued.

[Speaker 4] (53:11 - 53:12)
I would be in favor of continuing it.

[Speaker 1] (53:12 - 53:35)
I think we have to, if we, it wasn't on there by Thursday. Okay, so why don't we just, we'll continue this to, I don't think we need to vote to continue it, do we? We just are, maybe we do.

Make a motion to, make a motion to continue it till, sorry?

[Speaker 6] (53:36 - 53:39)
I don't think we can vote to continue it because it's not technically on the agenda.

[Speaker 1] (53:40 - 53:46)
Right, okay. So, let's just, we're not going to talk about tonight. We can, we'll, we'll do it in July.

That's fine.

[Speaker 6] (53:47 - 53:52)
I had a similar question. Is there any other of the 11 agenda items that went on today?

[Speaker 9] (53:53 - 53:54)
No.

[Speaker 8] (53:54 - 53:54)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (53:57 - 54:47)
Okay, so next on the agenda then is the election of officers and committee liaisons. So, Mike, Mike is not here tonight and so I'm going to recommend that we, that we postpone the officer election, the actual election until our July meeting. I will say that it's my intention to step down as chair and I was hoping that we would be nominating someone to take my place, but we can discuss that now, but we shouldn't, but we're going to have to postpone the actual election until Mike is, Mike is here.

So, if there's anything that anybody wants to bring up or question or discuss, please feel free to do so.

[Speaker 6] (54:49 - 54:52)
You say we move it to July. Yeah, I agree.

[Speaker 9] (54:53 - 55:03)
Okay, great. So, that's going to get moved to July. And we'll move the liaison appointments at the same time.

[Speaker 1] (55:05 - 55:07)
So, we're just going to do a quick read.

[Speaker 6] (55:08 - 55:14)
In preparation for July, could we have a list of the liaison appointments we have now and what's open and what's going to be?

[Speaker 1] (55:14 - 55:18)
Yeah, I was going to, I was going to review that. Yes, I will do that.

[Speaker 6] (55:18 - 55:18)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (55:19 - 55:21)
We'll just, we'll send it out with the, with the agenda.

[Speaker 4] (55:22 - 55:44)
I do, just on that subject, and I'm, I can bring it up at the item number 11. There was an update from the Earth Removal Advisory Committee, the committee that I am the liaison to, that I would like to share with the planning board for their consideration before I bring it back to the ERAC for our next meeting.

[Speaker 1] (55:45 - 55:45)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (55:47 - 55:48)
So, I can bring that up now or at the.

[Speaker 1] (55:48 - 55:51)
Yeah, I think you might as well. Why not?

[Speaker 4] (55:51 - 56:37)
Understood. So, at town meeting this year, we approved a new earth removal bylaw that said something to the effect of any project that was excavating more than 400 cubic yards of earth was subject to a earth removal permit by ERAC and ultimately the select board. Their questions were how best that can be incorporated with the planning board process and applications and such.

So, they were asking me what, from the planning board perspective, when we're reviewing projects, what is the best way for us to ask a developer to provide some of that information in a way that is streamlined with the other things that we ask for when we do things like a site plan review.

[Speaker 9] (56:43 - 56:44)
I think we can bring it up.

[Speaker 1] (56:45 - 57:30)
I mean, especially when it comes to site preparation. You know, we talk about, you know, if anything has to be excavated or blasted or if there's any kind of site work like that. I mean, I think that's obvious in a site plan.

So, if it's indicated in a site plan that there will be, you know, demolition or excavation of any kind and we can actually put this into our guidelines. It's evident from a site plan. You know, sometimes we're going to get a house that wants to add on a second floor and that's clearly not going to have any earth removal impacts.

Okay, so that's one thing. You know, Marisa, you could take down that. I think it's still up on the screen.

[Speaker 4] (57:31 - 57:42)
I believe the ERAC bylaw only applies for multi-family or commercial properties. So, like a single family home wouldn't necessarily have the ERAC bylaw apply to it.

[Speaker 1] (57:42 - 57:43)
Really? Why is that?

[Speaker 4] (57:45 - 57:53)
I believe that's how it was originally written when it was enacted years ago and however long ago. But the amendment just switched it from 600 cubic yards to 400.

[Speaker 1] (57:53 - 57:59)
No, I know it went from 600 to 400. What I wasn't aware of was that it didn't apply to a single family home.

[Speaker 4] (58:00 - 58:03)
That is my understanding.

[Speaker 6] (58:04 - 58:05)
That seems weird.

[Speaker 8] (58:05 - 58:06)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (58:07 - 58:09)
Yeah, that is my understanding.

[Speaker 6] (58:10 - 58:13)
Probably unlikely that there would be that much removal for a single family home.

[Speaker 1] (58:13 - 59:13)
But if it's new construction or something being demolished and rebuilt, I mean, it's not that, you know. Anyway, we can address it. But what I would put, what I would do is in our processes, and I'm going to be adding something for, not similar, but along those lines for the Affordable Housing Trust.

So, we're going to say for any, when we're looking at a site plan, if it is evident from the submission, from the application, that there will be any kind of excavation or demolition, we should be, you know, we should ask the petitioner to be prepared to estimate how much, you know, how much is going to be removed. All right, and then all we can do is, what?

[Speaker 6] (59:13 - 59:15)
Is it on our site review checklist?

[Speaker 1] (59:16 - 1:00:19)
No, it's not. And what the ERAC is asking us to do this, and what we can do is we're not going to add it to the checklist. We're going to add it to the, we're going to add it to our procedures.

And just as we're going to ask that, for example, and then we can just, we can, you know, we'll have an opportunity to bring it up. I mean, there is, I've often thought that this is something that should be, you know, at what point does someone apply for a permit unless, I mean, sometimes, you know, in fact, I can think of one instance recently when the building commissioner literally had to go over to the site and say, it really looks like you're removing a lot of stuff here. How much is it altogether?

And, you know, they never kind of went to apply for the permit ahead of time. So, I mean, I don't, it's like either we try to address something on the front end, or we try to scramble and address it on the back end. So, it's just, if we can, you know, call it out in a process, why wouldn't we?

[Speaker 4] (1:00:21 - 1:00:46)
Would it be as simple as asking when they apply for, like, a site plan review or something with the, you know, the planning department to just include a letter from a certified engineer or something that's working on the project to testify how many cubic yards of earth they were planning to be removed from the site, and then it's either less than 400 or more than 400, and we know we got to do something.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:47 - 1:01:54)
Okay, we can, we can, but usually we won't see anything like that unless it's a really big project, like a blubber project, for example, and they have, like, all that stuff done up front, which is probably, that could be enough right there. I think a lot of that, they do have a lot of engineering information there. They'll have, like, a kind of a demolition thing.

It's usually pretty boilerplate, and I've yet to see one that estimates how much stuff is ever going to be removed. So, I think it's whether or not we just flag it to, you know, whether or not we kind of look at it, and if we recognize that there's something in the plans that appear, you know, that appears that there's going to be a substantial, in our opinion, a substantial amount of removal, we, you know, bring it to the attention of ERAC, and maybe they can, you know, they can contact the petitioner. I mean, I don't think that it's going to fall into site plan to, you know, to kind of regulate that in any way.

Are they just asking to, that we, that we try to determine how much there is, or how?

[Speaker 4] (1:01:54 - 1:02:22)
I think they are looking to create their own process for it, but they were looking to figure out how it can be best incorporated with kind of the application process that we review. So, it's more of a seamless inclusion, I guess, because they, I believe, once this comes up, they have to do their own approval of the project, from my understanding, which I've been the liaison for two years, and we've never had a project that's come before ERAC, I don't believe, to my recollection.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:23 - 1:02:31)
Well, I mean, other than putting, you know, some kind of mention in the processes, I'm not sure, I'd have to give it some thought, but does anyone else have any thoughts on that?

[Speaker 6] (1:02:37 - 1:02:55)
I mean, it seems like we would probably ask that if it were to come up, but it hasn't. It could be maybe right on the application for development. I don't know how we, I don't know how that's controlled, or who controls that.

I guess that would be building department.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:55 - 1:03:16)
Yeah, it would be building. So, I mean, I think what we can do, will demolition be involved? Because they don't really have, well, they apply for site plan, they don't really have to apply for a demolition permit at the same time.

So, we can ask if demolition is going to be involved, or any kind of excavation. Will demolition or excavation be involved? And maybe at that point, it could trigger.

[Speaker 6] (1:03:17 - 1:03:20)
Yeah, so cut and fill, we asked about cut and fill.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:21 - 1:03:21)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (1:03:22 - 1:03:54)
But it would be similar to that, right? We would ask about, and typically, we ask about blasting if it looks like potential, and we could simply just ask, or we could add it to whatever prompts us to ask those questions, or straight up on the form, you know, are you doing more than a hundred square feet? Are you removing any material?

Are you building a second story? Are you, you know, that'll determine who it goes to. And then in that case, we'll go to not us.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:55 - 1:04:05)
Right. So, when we look at earth removal, Ted, they're just literally looking at sort of excavated earth. They're not looking at construction debris, correct?

[Speaker 4] (1:04:06 - 1:04:08)
Dirt you take off of the site and remove.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:08 - 1:04:09)
That's what I wanted to make sure.

[Speaker 6] (1:04:09 - 1:04:13)
Not plastic, any soil or anything, right? Whether there's plastic involved or not.

[Speaker 4] (1:04:14 - 1:04:23)
Any earth that's removed, so if you dig in a basement, or it wouldn't necessarily be a basement unless it's a huge project, but like a undergrade parking or something.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:25 - 1:09:58)
All right. Let me find a way to kind of put that into this kind of procedure thing that we're going to be looking at. I was going to send that out to you tonight, but I wanted to make a couple more edits.

So, that'll be something else that we can look at. Likewise, the other issue I was going to add into the site plan procedures was, in terms of the Affordable Housing Trust, when we distribute out copies of site plans in advance to various boards and so forth, I had already added the piece about historical commission of the building 75 years of age or older, because that hadn't been in there. I could say ERAC if there's any kind of earth removal involved.

I was also going to say, if the plan involves a multifamily, the development of multifamily structure of three or more units, that which is technically multifamily, right, then I would just notify the Affordable Housing Trust. Not that they need to do a damn thing, but it's always sort of after the fact that they find out that there's a multi-unit project. That's going to happen instead of being notified ahead of time.

And the developer may have no interest in doing anything, which is fine. I still think Affordable Housing Trust needs to be notified up front so that they know what's happening in terms of multifamily housing, so that they can be effective. So, I'm going to add that.

Anyway, I had to just, and other than that, it's just going to be sort of very administrative changes that, yeah, I've been requiring fewer copies because, you know, trying to reduce all the paperwork and so forth. But other than that, it really has to do with timing of our meetings so that appeals processes can be completed in time for zoning to go ahead with their next meeting. And it has more to do with that.

And so, once I get all those little drafts finished, I'll distribute it to everybody, and we can look at those drafts, make comments, mark it all up, and then in July we can discuss those. The only other zoning that I think, you know, might pop up before, you know, in the next few months is maybe an application for an ADU, which I think we're all pretty familiar with. I mean, Joe, I don't know if, you know, I think you have reviewed the zoning.

I don't know if we have any questions on the ADU process. I mean, it's a by right process. So, it's not something that would even really be coming to planning.

But, you know, just in the event there were any questions about that. And the Vennon Square zoning, as you know, all we did was change the some dimensional, we changed certain parcels in Vennon Square to B4 zone, which, and in that particular group of Vennon Square parcels, that would allow a certain, you know, different density for those parcels, should they be redeveloped, different height, different setbacks and so forth. So, that basically is not the, that's not the crux of the Vennon Square zoning.

The critical part is going to be the design guidelines. And to that end, Margie just signed a contract the other day with MAPC to begin work on our design guidelines for Vennon Square. I think it's July 1st.

That's the start date. It's going to be a public process. We can, again, we can discuss now, how many people we'd like to have, you know, if we can even rotate in depending on how we want to work it with the rest of the board.

But I'd like to be on there. And I think we can have easily have another member on there. In fact, I don't, since we won't be voting or deliberating anything, I have to check, but I don't know whether we can, since they'll all be public meetings anyway, and they'll be posted.

I don't see why multiple planning board members could not join if they so desired. There will be, so as I said, we're going to be working with this consultant. His name is Josh Fiala at MAPC.

You may have heard me list his credentials at town meetings, very qualified individual that has worked on this kind of thing before. And we plan to have a couple of public forums, and we hope to have the design guidelines by the fall. They should be completed.

So that will be, those are embedded in the zoning and anything that gets permitted under that square zoning, that particular district will have to comply with the design guidelines.

[Speaker 10] (1:09:59 - 1:10:10)
Angela, what was that process going to look like? Like in terms of, is it going to be a discussion and then he'll draft the first draft and then subsequent discussions?

[Speaker 1] (1:10:11 - 1:10:17)
You know what I'll do? I'm going to have, I'll ask you to, I don't know, you must have it too. The whole scope of work.

[Speaker 10] (1:10:18 - 1:10:18)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:18 - 1:11:59)
I just will share it with the whole board, please, so that everybody has that. Yeah. That describes exactly what we're going to do.

And it has a timeline and the whole thing. And then I'd like to discuss it with, you know, when you've each had a chance to look it over, you know, let me know how you feel about it. You know, if we should post each meeting as a, you know, planning board meeting and or joint meeting with the planning board so that we can, you don't have to go, but we can all go if we want to.

And we can certainly, you know, schedule it like that, which I think would be terrific. In any event, why don't you take a look at it and we can, you know, we can talk before, you know, we can talk, we can talk over the phone, whatever it might be. If anybody has questions and find a way to, you know, how, decide how we want to work that out.

So that's going to be happening. I think we're going to go through a similar process with the Hadley. We did the same thing with Hadley.

Basically the overlay district just changes the, changes, you know, puts in place an overlay that allows a hotel to go there, you know, certain heights, certain dimensions, but it doesn't, there's no design guide. We have some very kind of, you know, basic design guidelines that we think are inadequate. So, we will also be working on design guidelines for the Hadley Hotel.

And I get it. I don't really have a lot of information about RFPs going out or if and when that's going to happen. I couldn't tell you about that.

You know, Marissa, what, what that's going to?

[Speaker 2] (1:12:00 - 1:12:02)
For Hadley?

[Speaker 1] (1:12:02 - 1:12:02)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:03 - 1:12:13)
I think probably sometime in the winter, I would imagine like late 2023, early 2024. I think we still have to do a feasibility study.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:14 - 1:12:15)
Okay. All right.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:15 - 1:12:18)
The big process. Okay. We'll follow that.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:19 - 1:14:41)
So maybe we'll wait to go a little, you know, we won't be doing that so soon. We can wait and do it a little further down the road. But that, that's the idea that we will also be going through a very similar process for design guidelines for the hotel.

All right. So, as I said, I'm going to send you out of my draft of the special permit. The special permit, the procedural items that will be changing the process items.

And so we can, you know, all go over that. Then as Marissa, you probably got an email from Marissa today that asked us all to pick a time when we might be available to have a joint meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals. We would also at that meeting have Steve Cummings, Building Commissioner, and of course, Margie and Marissa.

And it's just to essentially this meeting is just going to be to review site plan special permit process. So we're all very clear on who's doing when it comes in, you know, how we're going to go about addressing it, how the special permit gets, you know, filed, how much time we need to wait for an appeal period. And then when it goes to zoning and how we can try to adjust our schedule so that, you know, if we have to continue something, we have to continue it.

But in, you know, in most cases, when we've done site plan review, we've been able to permit it. And, you know, essentially, I've been able to write a decision the next day and get it off to zoning. So assuming that in, you know, 90% of the cases, we'll be able to follow that same schedule for the most part.

We should be able to if we space our meetings instead of our meetings being a week apart, they're going to be a month apart. And that would give us in most cases, again, the appeal period to be able to move things smoothly from planning to zoning. Okay, so at any rate, that's what that meeting is all about.

It's for us all to get on the same page. So if you could take a peek at your calendars and see, and again, I don't anticipate that's going to have need to be a very long meeting. Well, I'm going to be again sending out the draft in advance so everybody can look at it.

[Speaker 9] (1:14:43 - 1:14:50)
It's just so that we make sure we're all on the same page. Okay, any other comments about that?

[Speaker 2] (1:14:51 - 1:14:55)
Seems right now like the overwhelming date is July 5th.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:56 - 1:15:06)
Well, that's why we want to get right. That's the overwhelming. That's the good date.

Yeah. Okay, so that's the only day that I can't meet till 730. I think I put that in my email.

[Speaker 8] (1:15:06 - 1:15:08)
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:08 - 1:18:17)
But it's good for me. It's fine. Yeah.

Okay. I don't anticipate some long drawn out thing. I mean, I said, if everybody has a chance to look at something ahead of time, then it's just, you know, everybody being able to be in the same virtual room at one time and just all nodding that we get it and we understand what the process is going to look like.

Okay. All right. So update on the master plan.

So Marissa and Marcie got all the grants submitted by June 1st. There is another, yeah, we're waiting for that last big grant and hopefully we'll know by October if we're fully funded. Based upon that, we should be starting work on the master plan update by, I guess, by the end of the year.

And again, we are planning to use MAPC, like as we did the first time for the 2025 update to the master plan. We'll again be, you know, looking for master plan steering committee, like we did the first time. And I'm not sure how, I can't remember quite frankly, how the steering committee was chosen in 2015-2014.

I know there were about 19 of us and I can't remember whether it was select board that chose them or whether we had a questionnaire or whether it was the town moderator. I honestly can't remember. So Marcie had put out an email to, you know, all of them to, you know, pull together some recall on how we went about setting up those committees so that we can be prepared when we are, when we do get going on it.

So more to come on that. I just wanted to tell you that the funding, it looks like it's going to be there. And we have engaged MAPC to run the master plan update and that that will be happening in the fall.

So that's really good news. As far as the 3A zoning, we just got some information back from Bowler Engineering today. They're the consultant that Marcie was able to hire with the, what was it, a mass housing, mass housing grant, something like that.

And anyway, they have submitted some preliminary zoning for us. I have not even had a chance to look at it. I'm going to ask Marcie how she wants to go about doing this, if she wants to distribute to everyone to look at.

And it's a lot of information to review. So let me, how does the board feel about looking at preliminary zoning for 3A? Do you want to, it's a, you know, do you want to review all those materials?

Is that something that you'd like to receive and review? I mean, I would love it if everybody did, but I don't, it's something I'd like to just kind of putting out there.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:20 - 1:18:24)
I would think, I would like to, I can only speak for myself, but I think that would be helpful.

[Speaker 10] (1:18:25 - 1:18:36)
Yeah, if they've put something together, I'd like to see it. But if it gets, you know, boiled down a little bit further before it's really in like a manageable condition, that's okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:36 - 1:18:50)
I think their mapping is pretty final. You know, it's whether or not we want the mapping to be exactly where they ended up putting it is another issue. And that's where we do have a little flexibility.

But I think.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:51 - 1:18:52)
Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, Angela.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:53 - 1:18:56)
It's okay. No, I see no reason why we can't, why we wouldn't distribute that.

[Speaker 4] (1:18:58 - 1:19:05)
Yeah. How did they come to the conclusion of where some of these zones were? What was their thought process?

[Speaker 1] (1:19:05 - 1:20:03)
Well, just using, well, it's what they're doing with every community. They're using the existing density in a certain location where we have the amenities. Okay.

And where we have the, you know, the ability to expand if necessary. They're looking at that and they're saying, okay, if it's here and we can, you know, we can put it in this, this, you know, we can overlay this particular area with that. And, and we can, you know, require the 15 units per acre density and it works.

So in our community, we're required to have 20 acres and 25% of that has to be around the rail station. So right, that would mean five acres, right? So right now, we have about six and a half around the train station and the rest of it's over at Vinton Square.

So you'll see where they put it and take a look and, and, you know, let's know.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:03 - 1:21:18)
Oh, sorry. I was going to say one of the first exercises that they had us do was a lot of metrics of sorts that had a sort of, I filled it out and sent it back to them. It was like a breakdown of all of our residential and like residential zoning, residential and business zoning districts.

And what I think they did was, you know, it was a spreadsheet and they asked, you know, is this zone for multifamily housing? If yes, up to how many units? Is a special permit required?

All these just like very basic questions that they asked. And what I think they did was they took that and they, you know, and then consulted further with Margie and Angela and myself, but they, you know, applied the 3A zoning to a district that we already have where multifamily housing is already allowed so as to not make it a super drastic change. You know, imagine taking multifamily and, you know, sticking it into a zone that's zoned for single family owning the single family only right now versus sticking it on top of a zone that's already zoned for multifamily.

So I think that matrix was sort of a baseline source of material that they used to then craft the zoning on top of that.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:19 - 1:29:06)
And, you know, critical to all that was the transportation piece of it. Of course, it is the MBTA communities zoning. So the idea was that it should be you know there a certain percentage but had to be right around the rail station and the rest of it could be in a, you know, bus area but where we had substantial bus service.

And so the only place that that really fit for us was within Square where we had kind of two, you know, Essex Street and Paradise Road substantial bus service. So that's kind of where it's sitting. Again, we can take a look at it and see.

It's not that's, you know, I think their numbers in terms of all the breakdown they do about the town and the density and everything that has all the numbers that they have crunched in terms of our data like the density of the town overall and how much in compliance are we already with 3A that type of thing. That's all done. So the mapping is the part where they recommended, they're recommending where this can go.

And then the zoning is essentially it's a standard zoning. When I put together the zoning for Vinn and Square, a lot of what's in there I took, a lot of what's in there I took from the 3A zoning. For example, the procedures and essentially dimensional use where certain lot lines should go, how the interconnectedness of buildings, the pedestrian-oriented nature of buildings, everything that has to do with access to transportation and all of those things that we had, you know, put into the Vinn and Square zoning came from this.

And then, of course, the guidelines will be a whole other piece of it. So it's really interesting. There are quite a few documents and they're really data-rich.

There's just a ton of information in there. So again, not final yet, but I'll be really curious to know what you think about the zoning. Now the state had already submitted or given or made available to cities and towns some sample 3A zoning.

However, now this goaler has taken it and sort of crafted it to to work for Swampscott. So we can look at that, see if we, you know, what we would change, what we might not want to change. Does it work for us?

Is it just right? Whatever. So that's what I want you to take.

Well, I want you to take a look at all of it. So, you know, Darren wants some of our feedback. And then, of course, we don't plan to bring this to town meeting until next May 2024.

So we'll be in good shape. You know, we're getting, we're already really, you know, we've got our data done and now we just have to hammer out the zoning part of it. And I think we're in good shape.

I say that now, but then all of a sudden you blink and it's like February. Yeah. So, okay.

So that's the update on that. So potential amendments. Okay.

The next thing down is the potential amendment to the site plan for the general water site regarding the building preservation of the building. So as some of you may be aware, and I know Joe, Jonathan Lehman is on this call and he may, I don't know whether Jonathan, you wanted to speak to this. You certainly, you know, you can if you'd like.

So essentially, as you know, we passed the, we approved the zoning for the Glover site. There was a lot of concern on our part and a lot of other people's parts about the fact that the original circa 1750 house that belonged to John Glover, where he spent the last years of his life, actually still exists on the property. Albeit, you know, quite deteriorated.

There is a substantial bit of the house there, and there has been tremendous interest with the 25th anniversary of the American revolution coming up and a lot of celebration nationwide, but especially in this area, there's a lot of interest in preserving the structure. So the Historical Commission's really taken the lead, and Nancy Schultz has been instrumental in reaching out to various parties. They actually had, they hired Structures North, which is an architectural engineering firm that specializes in historic preservation.

They did it, and they went to the site, they looked at it, they evaluated, you know, what the condition of the old building is, is it possible to restore it? And they're looking at, you know, various options, but let's consider the, you know, the best option would be to be able to preserve it on site. That would require us to, it would require Leggett McCall being willing to amend the site plan by either moving or redesigning some buildings, and if they were even amenable to that, it would require that we would have to then go back and amend the permit.

So I don't know what's happening. Everyone's been, you know, reached out to, everyone's been in communication. We have, there are a lot of historic preservation people that have been in the loop, or the townspeople from Marblehead, from Swampscott, from Essex Heritage, from, there are several preservation architects that have chimed in that, you know, we have quite a bit of interest locally in this project.

And of course, Leggett is very much aware of it. When the Historical Commission did their historical significance review, they determined that the building was historically significant, and once they did that, they put a nine-month delay on the demolition of the building. So that would push it off till the winter of next year.

Of course, that is not something that McCraw wants to deal with. They were hoping to begin demolition in August. And the goal here is not to be, is not to try to block the development.

That's not at all been the tone or the approach that the Historic Commission has taken. They have really taken the approach of, let's try to work together, you know, let's see if we can collaborate, if there's any kind of common ground we can find to work together, you know, so that's kind of where they're at. So we don't know what's going to happen right now.

All I can tell you is, I think it's been a really remarkable effort on the part of the Historical Commission and the various other people that have been involved to really try to get some support behind this. And so we'll see what happens. And I'm just alerting you because it might happen.

It might not, but it might happen. So we'll wait and see. Any questions on that?

John, I know you're there. Did you want to say anything? Again, you don't have to.

[Speaker 11] (1:29:09 - 1:29:27)
No, I wanted to thank you for bringing that up. And certainly, you know, for the support. And I Nancy has been pushing this very much.

It wouldn't have happened without her initiative. And we certainly appreciate your support.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:27 - 1:30:13)
Well, I appreciate all you do, too. So thanks. All right.

So that was just an update on that project. Let's see. Update Board on Planner.

I do not have an update on that. So the information I get is stay tuned. So maybe we'll have something to talk about in July, I hope.

So review and approve past meeting minutes. Marissa had sent out minutes for us. I don't know whether you guys have had a chance to review.

If you want, we can go through them quickly online, which is fine with me. Otherwise, let me know if you have reviewed them already.

[Speaker 9] (1:30:16 - 1:30:18)
Doesn't look like it. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:19 - 1:30:23)
We can just run through them. Is that with is that?

[Speaker 10] (1:30:23 - 1:30:25)
Yeah, let's run through them.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:26 - 1:30:36)
I think three sets. So the first set is April 10.

[Speaker 8] (1:30:45 - 1:30:45)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:49 - 1:32:04)
So the first order of business that evening was the presentation of the Climate Action Plan. Martha Schmidt, chair of the committee, presented the plan before the board, and the board offered some comments about where the climate action climate action, I can't remember the full name of their Climate Action Plan committee, it's written right there. The board explained where they can be of most help, you know, when it comes to changes in the zoning bylaw that promote, you know, climate friendly, climate change friendly policies and regulations.

Then there was a discussion regarding the accessory dwelling units. I'll just let you guys read through and then if there's anything that jumps out at me. And then let me know when I can go ahead and you can scroll up.

[Speaker 6] (1:32:04 - 1:32:18)
I mean, you just kind of gloss them, not gloss over them, but do a high level review and see if there's major missing things not worse. Oh, so accessory dwelling units was there twice.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:18 - 1:32:21)
Yeah, I'll just omit that third section.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:27 - 1:32:35)
I can make a motion to approve the minutes as amended by removing that third accessory dwelling unit headline.

[Speaker 8] (1:32:37 - 1:32:39)
Yeah, it's exactly the same.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:41 - 1:32:43)
What do you mean? It's exactly the same?

[Speaker 6] (1:32:43 - 1:32:45)
Are you just moving the headline so the paragraph stays?

[Speaker 2] (1:32:46 - 1:32:49)
No, no, no, there's two headlines that say accessory dwelling units.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:50 - 1:32:55)
So it's strictly eliminating the headline, the body paragraphs were. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:57 - 1:33:04)
Yeah, yeah, removing the headline. Okay, it looks good. Okay.

May 1st, this was the first of the public hearings.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:06 - 1:33:10)
I just made a motion as amended. Do we want to just go through them in case we have to make more amendments?

[Speaker 10] (1:33:12 - 1:33:19)
I was going to say that I'll probably just abstain from the April one since I wasn't here yet. So if you want to take them one at a time.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:20 - 1:33:22)
Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:23 - 1:33:30)
Okay. So why don't we go ahead and vote to approve the one that we just looked at the April?

[Speaker 6] (1:33:31 - 1:33:32)
I'll second Ted's motion.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:33 - 1:33:35)
Okay, all in favor. Aye.

[Speaker 11] (1:33:35 - 1:33:37)
I abstain.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:38 - 1:33:46)
Yep. And Ted didn't see you. Well, you obviously made the motion.

Okay. So we can go on to May then.

[Speaker 8] (1:33:46 - 1:33:57)
So this was the first of the two public hearings. Right. Was I at that one?

[Speaker 2] (1:33:57 - 1:34:00)
No. Yes, you were at this one. You weren't at the second one.

[Speaker 8] (1:34:00 - 1:34:12)
Okay. Yes, I remember. Right.

Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:14 - 1:34:17)
So ADUs and then site plan procedure.

[Speaker 8] (1:34:19 - 1:34:20)
Yep.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:20 - 1:34:25)
So I think map changes obviously needs a three, not a four, but there.

[Speaker 8] (1:34:29 - 1:34:32)
Okay. Looks good. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:33 - 1:34:39)
And then May 8th. So Bill, this is the one you were not here for.

[Speaker 6] (1:34:39 - 1:34:44)
Okay. So you want to approve the last one? Because I, oh, how are we going to do this?

We have to have three people, right?

[Speaker 2] (1:34:45 - 1:34:48)
Oh, that's true. We should. Yeah.

Because Joe can at least go on. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:49 - 1:34:50)
Yep. We can approve that.

[Speaker 10] (1:34:50 - 1:34:52)
We can approve May 1st. Yeah, I was there for the first.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:53 - 1:35:03)
Okay. So motion to approve May 1st minutes as amended. Is that what we took out?

Did you take out a number? You just changed the number of the paragraph.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:03 - 1:35:03)
Yeah. That's all.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:03 - 1:35:06)
Page four to three. Not a big deal. Okay.

Can I have a second?

[Speaker 10] (1:35:08 - 1:35:08)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:08 - 1:35:16)
All in favor? Just raise your hand so I can see you all. Okay.

Great. That's unanimously approved. Now we're on to May 8th.

[Speaker 8] (1:35:36 - 1:35:37)
That was Hadley.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:40 - 1:35:46)
Wow. I, Venn and Square. The section is correct.

Site plan procedure needs to be changed to Venn and Square.

[Speaker 8] (1:35:47 - 1:36:28)
Okay. My brain was clearly. And then this is where we had the sign review for Dockside.

Yeah. So I didn't, okay. And that was it.

Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:36:31 - 1:36:33)
So I'll just amend the title that says site plan procedure.

[Speaker 9] (1:36:33 - 1:36:44)
And I think it's also, yeah. Site plan procedure is Venn. Venn and Square.

Yep. Okay. So with that.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:46 - 1:36:50)
I can motion to approve the minutes as amended with that brief amendment.

[Speaker 8] (1:36:52 - 1:36:53)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:53 - 1:36:59)
All in favor? Oh, Bill, you're not voting on this one. That's right.

[Speaker 6] (1:36:59 - 1:37:01)
I was there. I was not there. I was present.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:01 - 1:37:19)
Okay. So I get the three of you, Ted, your vote. Okay.

Great. It's unanimous. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Oh, thank you.

Okay. Is there any other business that anyone would like to bring up tonight?

[Speaker 4] (1:37:21 - 1:37:35)
I did just want to mention one quick thing. I was informed by a member of our audience tonight who happens to be a select board member that the RFP for the Hadley School Hotel is being brought up this summer and should be finalized before the end of the summer.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:36 - 1:37:38)
Oh, that's good to know. Okay.

[Speaker 9] (1:37:40 - 1:37:41)
Thank you.

[Speaker 8] (1:37:45 - 1:37:45)
That's all I got.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:45 - 1:37:48)
One is going out soon, I think in the next week or so.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:49 - 1:38:11)
Which one is that? The idea would be that they would be touring the property to show people to show people the property. Is that my understanding?

I think that's for Pine Street. No, no, no. For Hadley.

I actually don't know anything about Pine Street. Is there any update there?

[Speaker 2] (1:38:11 - 1:38:19)
The bid should be released, RFP, I guess, in the next week or so.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:20 - 1:38:31)
Okay. Did we combine those lots at town meeting? I don't remember.

I don't think we did. I think there's still two separate lots. Yeah.

Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:38:32 - 1:38:37)
The B&W lot and the 1224 lot. Right. Yeah.

Yeah, I think they're still separate.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:38 - 1:38:42)
Would town meeting have to vote to make them one lot, or is that a planning board?

[Speaker 2] (1:38:43 - 1:38:44)
Yeah, that would be an A&R.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:45 - 1:38:46)
Right. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:47 - 1:40:28)
But I mean, they devoted, what I meant was, did they say that, you know, to be combined or anything like that? In other words, was that part of the, I guess it wasn't. That's what I was thinking about.

I don't think it matters because that can be done after the fact. Okay. So just to recap then, what I'm going to be sending out to you is the draft of the processes and procedures for site plan.

Now that we have updated our process. And we're going to please look at your calendars and see when you can commit to, you know, half hour to an hour with the zoning board appeals. Okay.

We'll get that on the calendar, which will be really important. In the meantime, I'll be getting that draft out to you. I will have also available for you the committee liaisons that currently exist, as Bill had requested.

I think that's great to have, get all that information, have it all available up front. So we can look at, you know, what positions we need filled and who the current liaisons are to the planning board. But I'd like to have to get that information updated.

Let's see. And I think that was it. Anything else that comes up, we will put on our July agenda.

Otherwise, I think we pretty much covered everything we needed to tonight. Most of that was, it's just I wanted, you know, it was just an update on where we were on ongoing projects.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:29 - 1:40:43)
So we can expect 29 Essex for the July agenda. I know I had sent you guys that side plan, but yeah, they agreed to continue just pending the work that, you know, laying out of the procedures between you guys and the ZBA.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:43 - 1:40:56)
And also we want to, you know, we'll see if the, see what gets approved or not. So. Okay.

So sounds good. Any, is there anything else or should we have a motion to return?

[Speaker 4] (1:40:59 - 1:41:06)
Is there anything else expected to be on the July agenda, in addition to the Essex Street election of officers and committee liaisons at this point?

[Speaker 2] (1:41:07 - 1:41:09)
Just voting on that covenant that you guys continue tonight.

[Speaker 4] (1:41:10 - 1:41:10)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:11 - 1:41:28)
Nothing else in terms of, well, actually Humphrey Street review that just got filed with us today. There's a nail salon looking to take up residence in the Humphrey Plaza for 434 to 440 Humphrey Street.

[Speaker 4] (1:41:34 - 1:41:35)
That's the Fisherman's Watch.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:36 - 1:43:38)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. So per the bylaw changes last year, they now have to get a special permit, a special permit from the ZBA because they'll be, they'll be operating a personal service establishment in a ground floor space, a ground floor commercial space in the Humphrey Street overlay district. The space is currently vacant, but its last use was a personal service establishment, so there is no change in use.

So it's just a Humphrey Street, it's whatever an HISP is, not an HSSP. So it's just a review and not a special permit for the Humphrey Street overlay district, but they do have to, they do have to go to the ZBA for a use special permit. And so Margie and I are working with the business owner, his name is Michael Nguyen, and you know, to help make a really robust application, you know, we're making him provide all the information necessary, like how many jobs he's gonna create, how many chairs and tables he expects to have in his salon, how many, what other kinds of services beyond nails he will provide, how many parking spaces, hours of operation, that kind of thing. So you guys will meet him next month. And do we know how many nail salons we currently have in Swampstock?

Margie and I did the count this afternoon, I want to say about six or seven between, I think there's only two other in the Humphrey Street corridor, there's one further, I can't remember the name of it, there's the one just when you come over the Lynn line, it's a nail hair salon, and then there's one in the main drag of Humphrey Street corridor, I can't remember, then there's a couple in Bindon Square. I want to say we ended at about six or seven.

[Speaker 4] (1:43:39 - 1:43:55)
How long, if a property becomes vacant, does the use continue until, for a certain amount of years, would that use continue in perpetuity, or is there a MGL guideline that sets out when that sunset is?

[Speaker 2] (1:43:56 - 1:44:17)
Yeah, at some point it does lose its protected status, but I don't necessarily know if that's, well, it's not protected, it's whatever the underlying zoning is. Well, that's the thing, the thing is that whenever that last commercial property was a personal service establishment, it was by right, so it wasn't non-conforming, but then we changed the bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:20 - 1:44:32)
We're not trying to say someone, we can't restrict the business, we don't want to encourage more service businesses there in that location.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:33 - 1:45:14)
Right, so that use is effectively non-conforming now because it requires the issuance of a special permit by the ZEA. So, I know that at some point, a non-conforming use, when the property goes vacant, it does lose its protected status, but I have to check with Steve in the building to see when that lapse happens, because that's what happened. Yeah, I'm not aware of that at all, quite frankly, but with Denison Ave, for example, a Denison Ave, it used to be a family, and then it remained vacant, so it lost its non-conforming status.

If the property had just sold without that, without remaining vacant for however long it did, it could have operated, it could have continued operating as a four-family.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:14 - 1:45:45)
Well, the difference here is that it was a conforming use before, it has since become a non-conforming use. The property's vacant, it's now a non-conforming use. There is nothing protected there.

Right. So, we only protect something if it got grandfathered in, if it was non-conforming in the first place, and then we're saying, oh, well, but it's grandfathered in, you can still do that, but now we're saying it used to be conforming, and now it's not. Right.

Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:45 - 1:45:50)
So, it does need the special permit from zoning then to get it understood.

[Speaker 9] (1:45:51 - 1:45:55)
Yes. Okay. Anything else?

[Speaker 2] (1:45:56 - 1:46:08)
That's all I can think of coming down the pipeline. I think there's another week. No, the site plan deadline has passed, so it's just 29 Essex Street for site plan.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:13 - 1:46:34)
That's it. That's enough. All right, everyone.

Well, I look forward to seeing you all sometime between now and then to have our joint meeting with zoning, and of course, I'll be sending you out some drafts and so forth. If there are any questions in the meantime, call Marissa, and she'll call me.

[Speaker 2] (1:46:35 - 1:46:37)
Except not from Wednesday to next Tuesday, because I'm not here.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:38 - 1:46:45)
That's right. She's away. You're away.

Wait, I'm away next week, and you're away the week after. Is that how it goes?

[Speaker 2] (1:46:45 - 1:46:51)
No, I'm leaving Wednesday night and coming back the following Wednesday.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:51 - 1:46:54)
But I'm away next week. Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:46:55 - 1:46:58)
Enjoy your vacations. I'll make a motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:58 - 1:47:01)
Thanks. So, can we have a second?

[Speaker 4] (1:47:02 - 1:47:02)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:02 - 1:47:08)
Okay. All in favor. We are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you, guys.

[Speaker 8] (1:47:08 - 1:47:10)
Thanks. Have a great night, everyone.