[Speaker 3] (0:00 - 0:16)
Welcome you all to the September 11th meeting of the planning board. This meeting is held virtually via Microsoft Teams. We just get started with design review for petition 2313.

[Speaker 7] (0:20 - 0:39)
Yes, Casey is here from the Coastal Collective Foundation. I'm going to share my screen so you guys can see the rendering. It should be pretty straightforward.

Black awning with white lettering and design logo.

[Speaker 11] (0:42 - 1:02)
And Casey, if you want to jump in at any time, you are welcome. Is that the first thing on our agenda? Why do I have...

It is, yeah. Yeah. Okay.

I'm looking at the wrong one.

[Speaker 1] (1:03 - 1:06)
No, I thought we had a continuation, but okay.

[Speaker 7] (1:08 - 1:14)
We do have the 29 Essex Street, but I just I stuck this in first because it's pretty straightforward.

[Speaker 1] (1:15 - 1:21)
Yeah, that's, yeah. Mike, is that okay with you? Because that's really your call.

[Speaker 12] (1:22 - 1:24)
Oh yeah, no, I think we should get this one out of the way.

[Speaker 3] (1:24 - 1:26)
Okay, yeah, let's go ahead.

[Speaker 11] (1:28 - 1:47)
All right, all right, so this is the rendering. Zoom in a little bit. Okay.

Casey, do you have anything to add?

[Speaker 6] (1:51 - 2:02)
I don't think so. I think we did as much research as I possibly could of all the rules and we had a little back and forth. So I think that's where we got to hopefully just get it passed.

[Speaker 1] (2:05 - 2:13)
Okay, Casey, tell me a little bit about your business. What is it? These retail clients that are inside?

Is it?

[Speaker 6] (2:14 - 2:58)
Yeah, so it's retail. It's all retail. Okay.

Yep. Vendor space and art gallery is kind of how I'm explaining it to people. So we have 21, I think, vendors in here from all over the area, like Marblehead, Lynn, Salem, Swan, Scott, and Ahant.

We have artists, we have photographers, and basically I'm just kind of inviting people to come in here who don't, you know, maybe don't have a storefront of their own to sell their items. And then we are having a gallery section, which is super fun. And we'll be doing like four call for arts throughout the year.

So we'll have exhibits throughout the year for people to pop in and check that out too.

[Speaker 1] (2:59 - 3:08)
Great. Yeah. Okay, so it is then it's not like a performance space or anything like that.

You're renting out these spaces and it's retail, correct?

[Speaker 6] (3:09 - 3:10)
I am renting the space.

[Speaker 1] (3:10 - 3:21)
Correct. All right, that was important. So sorry, that was just a preamble.

So I go defer to the rest of the board to look at.

[Speaker 8] (3:24 - 3:39)
Just a follow-up question, I think, Angela, that you kind of had started here. So Casey, welcome to the planning board meeting. Is your primary like model here, you invite artists to come in and sell their stuff through your storefront, essentially?

[Speaker 6] (3:39 - 4:07)
Essentially, yeah. I mean, eventually my goal is to also like we'll get our resale certificate and I'll probably curate. I'd like to do that in the future.

But for now, I kind of realized I have so many friends who already have amazing jewelry and art and sculpture and pottery and stuff that they're already doing that I don't want to go curate outside of the area. So yeah, so that's kind of what the goal is.

[Speaker 1] (4:09 - 4:20)
Yeah. So are these individual sort of like small spaces that are being carved up inside or is it one large, you know, space with different areas in it?

[Speaker 6] (4:21 - 4:36)
It's one large space with different areas in it. Okay, and how much, what's your gross square footage in there? I have no idea.

You don't, okay. I don't know if Marissa has that info or I don't know where that is. I can probably check that, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (4:36 - 4:38)
That would be important to know, thanks.

[Speaker 6] (4:40 - 4:58)
Also, so like I said in my email, oh go ahead, sorry. No, I just, it's an interesting space too. I don't know if you are familiar with it, but there's actually a front of this, like a front of the house that's the actual main space.

Yeah. A back area that has a number of different offices and rooms in it as well.

[Speaker 1] (4:58 - 5:01)
Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Okay, got it.

[Speaker 6] (5:01 - 5:05)
So if they're, yeah, I didn't know for whatever reason you're asking that question.

[Speaker 1] (5:06 - 5:18)
I just wanted to know if there were like individual slots that would be rented out or if it's the whole space that gets rented out. I was trying to envision like what kind of a, you know, what it would be, what it would look like.

[Speaker 6] (5:18 - 5:29)
Yeah, so it's like multiple shelves basically, you know, like a retail shop, like a gift shop. And then each vendor individually on their location of where they want to be.

[Speaker 1] (5:30 - 5:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 7] (5:31 - 6:08)
So the gross square footage is 1200 square feet. And like I said in my email to you guys last week, because this was the former spa well, and so even if it is retail, the use is changing. So that requires a Humphrey Street site plan special permit.

So I think Casey's going to have to, and because that requires statutory noticing and everything, Casey's going to have to come back to us in October to have that actual hearing component of it. And much like last month with 410 Humphrey Street.

[Speaker 3] (6:09 - 6:11)
It's just for the signage tonight, right?

[Speaker 7] (6:12 - 6:18)
Yeah, tonight's just for the signage. And then she'll go to ZBA next week to get that sign special permit for the awning.

[Speaker 1] (6:18 - 6:38)
Yep. Okay, so taking a look at the awning. So I assume it's a Sunbrella fabric?

Yes. Okay, and is it collapsible? Because you're right across from the beach.

It should, you know, preferably it should be like a hand cranked type of awning.

[Speaker 6] (6:39 - 6:40)
It is not collapsible.

[Speaker 1] (6:41 - 7:14)
Okay. If it's fixed simply because you're right across, you know, you're in a flood zone, essentially, which isn't the problem for the building. It's more of an issue just for the wind and the awning.

I mean, it's, you know, in our guidelines, it says it's preferable that you do something that you're able to, you know, reel in simply because of the weather. I don't know if there's a little convenience store next door have an awning. They do have an awning, don't they?

[Speaker 7] (7:15 - 7:15)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (7:16 - 7:21)
Okay, I wonder what theirs is. Is it consistent with the size that you're proposing?

[Speaker 7] (7:22 - 7:22)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (7:23 - 7:24)
It is.

[Speaker 6] (7:26 - 7:27)
Fixed too.

[Speaker 1] (7:27 - 7:53)
I haven't seen. It's fixed. Yeah, these are like, you know, relatively newer.

Well, newer than what they had requirements. I mean, it's really something that's up to the board. It says preferable.

So it's not something that's mandated. I mean, I think it's got the, you know, steel frame attached to the building. It should probably be okay.

[Speaker 3] (7:54 - 8:00)
Yeah, I'm looking at the one next door and it's the fixed green awning in similar proportions.

[Speaker 1] (8:07 - 8:09)
Was black your color of choice on this awning?

[Speaker 6] (8:11 - 8:17)
No, I think after reviewing the rules, I realized that it has to be black with white lettering.

[Speaker 1] (8:18 - 8:21)
We're a little more flexible in the Humphrey Street Overlay District.

[Speaker 6] (8:21 - 8:30)
So my choice would absolutely be Navy. If that was an option, that would absolutely be my choice. But I didn't know.

[Speaker 5] (8:31 - 8:44)
So, Mike, just to clarify, the green one is two doors down. There's a third suite in the building that's shown here. That's Oceanside Dental, or at least is on Google Maps.

There's no awning on that.

[Speaker 3] (8:45 - 8:48)
Yeah, right. Sorry, that's what I was referring to, the building next door.

[Speaker 5] (8:48 - 8:53)
Yep. So this is only two thirds of the old Spowell building, correct?

[Speaker 6] (8:57 - 9:04)
Yeah, I believe so. It's only going up until where my windows end and then the other businesses start.

[Speaker 5] (9:04 - 9:13)
Yeah, what's what's shown on the drawing here? Yeah. And so we already checked the material.

What's the valance height measurement?

[Speaker 1] (9:16 - 9:18)
10 inches, it should be.

[Speaker 7] (9:19 - 9:21)
Yeah, that's what it says on the rendering. Yeah.

[Speaker 16] (9:21 - 9:22)
That's 10 feet.

[Speaker 7] (9:23 - 9:24)
Yeah, sorry, you're right.

[Speaker 16] (9:27 - 9:28)
So 10 inches?

[Speaker 6] (9:30 - 9:42)
Possibly. The 10 to me, I feel, was based on how high the where the awning starts off of the off of the ground. Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (9:43 - 9:47)
So what is the height of the vertical drop of the valance?

[Speaker 6] (9:50 - 9:58)
I do, I do not know that. I know that I think, again, there was rules in there about how long the like eight inches or something.

[Speaker 1] (9:59 - 10:08)
Yeah, the lettering has eight inches, I think, and the actual valance at 10. Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (10:09 - 10:13)
It's pretty tight within that wording of Coastal Collective. So I would say that would be about eight inches.

[Speaker 5] (10:16 - 10:21)
So eight inches, the lettering height is six inches or eight inches?

[Speaker 1] (10:23 - 10:27)
It's only six because there'd be two on either side. I mean, let me just check.

[Speaker 3] (10:28 - 10:30)
The version that I'm looking at says six inches.

[Speaker 1] (10:30 - 10:37)
Okay, so six inches and the valance is, is it valance 10 or eight? 10. 10, okay.

So then.

[Speaker 5] (10:38 - 10:44)
Is that in the drawing? No, no, I'm reading the bylaw. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (10:45 - 10:57)
If you have a 10 inch valance, that's, that makes sense. Okay, so.

[Speaker 5] (10:57 - 11:05)
The valance is 10 and the lettering is eight. Is that what I'm hearing? 10 and six is what it's supposed to be.

Is that what the specification is on the drawing here?

[Speaker 11] (11:06 - 11:06)
Oh, I don't know.

[Speaker 6] (11:12 - 11:24)
Yeah, if that's what it is, it's definitely. I know that Gabriel, the awning designer, spoke with Stephen when he redid the drawing. So he, he knew what he was supposed to be doing, I guess.

[Speaker 11] (11:25 - 11:36)
Stephen, the building inspector? Yes. Okay, so.

[Speaker 1] (11:42 - 11:52)
So that, that's, I mean, I don't have any issues with it. We have a Sunbrella fabric if, you know, essentially it looks like. Is that the only signage you're going to have?

Are you going to use other lettering or?

[Speaker 6] (11:52 - 12:03)
Nope, it's just that on the front and then on the sides like it shows in the diagram. And then if you see the, our window decals already on. That was a rendering on there, but that's already up in the middle.

[Speaker 11] (12:04 - 12:07)
Okay, so.

[Speaker 1] (12:10 - 12:13)
And it's just on the middle window there?

[Speaker 6] (12:13 - 12:18)
Yep. And then I'll most likely have an open flag on the column to the left of the awning.

[Speaker 1] (12:19 - 12:56)
Okay, and you know, there'll, there'll be some flag restrictions in terms of height and that kind of thing, but I'm sure you can find that easily enough. Yes. I think that, you know, the building is what, like a light gray?

I mean, I think the dark navy awning with white lettering would be, you know, I personally wouldn't have an objection. I'd defer to the other board members. We certainly have that ability to make a judgment call within Humphrey Street overlay.

So that's up for discussion.

[Speaker 8] (12:58 - 13:13)
So Casey, since we do have some flexibility in that district under the permit that you're seeking, if you were to come back with that in hand, let's say, you know, this would be navy blue or this would be some blue. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (13:13 - 13:19)
I mean, I guess, to be completely honest, I'd like to just get it done. So I'm doing it black if that's just what needs to be done.

[Speaker 8] (13:19 - 13:29)
I'm not guessing you have to come back. I'm just asking if like, if you could do magic here and it's navy blue, you know, what was your preference with the revised understanding of what you could do?

[Speaker 6] (13:29 - 13:44)
Yeah, definitely. It would be navy blue. Just obviously we're right across from the ocean and it just, that makes more sense to me.

The black didn't make sense to me. But if, you know, again, I'm up for following all the rules. So whatever you do.

[Speaker 5] (13:44 - 14:00)
Black doesn't make sense to me either. But this is just the auditing review. We're doing separate reviews for other things, the uses and stuff later.

Is that us or ZBA? Through planning or ZBA?

[Speaker 7] (14:00 - 14:01)
Through planning.

[Speaker 5] (14:02 - 14:14)
Okay. And the lettering on the side there, it's in two lines. Is it still within the eight inch spec or six inch, whatever Mike said it was?

[Speaker 6] (14:16 - 14:22)
That's a great question. I'm not sure. Because again, Gabriel doesn't have that on here.

I can be sure to make sure that that's the case.

[Speaker 15] (14:24 - 14:24)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (14:29 - 14:43)
I was reminded of a previous application. I'm looking for it now. Isn't there a maximum square footage of like total signage and decals in our bylaw?

I can't seem to find it.

[Speaker 11] (14:43 - 14:47)
There is. I think it's like 30%. 25%.

Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (14:47 - 14:48)
Is it? Okay, you're right.

[Speaker 5] (14:48 - 14:50)
You're right. I don't think that concludes the whole awning though.

[Speaker 7] (14:52 - 14:53)
Yeah, I think like the lettering.

[Speaker 5] (14:54 - 14:54)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (14:54 - 14:58)
Yeah. 25% of the total gross square footage of the glass.

[Speaker 5] (15:00 - 15:16)
Out of glass. Yeah, we're good. Number two is.

Yeah, I know what you're talking about, Mike. It's different for every zone, right? So.

Yeah. I don't know what it is. Is this a B1?

This is Humphrey overlay. So it doesn't really matter what's underneath, right?

[Speaker 1] (15:16 - 15:24)
That's right. Okay. We have a lot more flexibility in terms of some of the exterior design elements.

[Speaker 3] (15:27 - 15:46)
Well, I'm not going to make a motion. But things I would include in such a motion might be just, you know. That it is either black or navy blue.

That the lettering is six inches and that the valence is 10 inches. And I have no other comments unless anyone else does.

[Speaker 8] (15:47 - 16:12)
I have a question. For fellow board members. I was reviewing our awning bylaws.

And I saw four, seven, five, five awnings and canopies. Awning should project at least three feet from the building. Should project at least three feet from the building.

Do we have flexibility on that given the should?

[Speaker 1] (16:14 - 16:18)
Michael, is that in Humphrey Street? Overload? No.

[Speaker 6] (16:19 - 16:28)
The issue with that here is that I have a street light right pretty much in front. So it can't go that far.

[Speaker 1] (16:28 - 16:33)
Oh, you have like a right out. You have a directional like a signal signal. Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (16:33 - 16:34)
Traffic light. Yeah.

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

[Speaker 5] (16:35 - 16:41)
I don't recall the three foot rule. It's in there. But it just says should.

[Speaker 8] (16:42 - 16:47)
Right. My question was it does just say should. So we do.

I'm assuming we have flexibility given that.

[Speaker 14] (16:47 - 16:48)
Yeah, we do.

[Speaker 8] (16:49 - 16:51)
I just wanted to confirm that before we.

[Speaker 1] (16:52 - 16:57)
Yeah. We have a lot of work to do on this signage bylaw. That's for sure.

[Speaker 8] (16:58 - 17:02)
Good catch there, Ted. Deja vu. I feel like we just did a lot of work on the signage bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (17:03 - 17:06)
Yeah. And not nearly enough. That's for sure.

[Speaker 8] (17:09 - 17:14)
Otherwise, I'm good with this. That's as good a reason as any not to be three feet. So yeah.

[Speaker 1] (17:15 - 18:13)
Okay. And I would make a motion to. To.

I guess are we recommending favorable action? We are because it has to go to zoning. So we'll recommend favorable action on the petition.

The application for an awning at Coastal Collective. At whatever number Humphrey Street it is. And it can be either black or navy blue.

Sunbrella fabric fixed. Awning with a with white lettering. The lettering would be the valence has to be 10 inches.

Lettering is six inches. And the reduction in the extension from the building is allowed. And recommended because there happens to be a traffic light in the way.

And I think that's it. We need a second.

[Speaker 12] (18:13 - 18:14)
I'll second that.

[Speaker 3] (18:15 - 18:20)
All in favor? Aye. Aye, aye, aye.

All aye.

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

[Speaker 3] (18:22 - 18:25)
All right. You got your first step done, Casey.

[Speaker 6] (18:25 - 18:26)
Yay.

[Speaker 3] (18:26 - 18:28)
Thank you. Good luck to you.

[Speaker 6] (18:28 - 18:31)
Thank you. Thanks. So I don't I don't stay, right?

I can go.

[Speaker 11] (18:31 - 18:35)
No, you don't need to stay. You're all set. We can hold you here.

All right.

[Speaker 6] (18:37 - 18:38)
Bye.

[Speaker 5] (18:41 - 18:47)
I have a procedural question before we go on to the next petition. So this has to go to both ZBA and planning.

[Speaker 7] (18:48 - 18:55)
The awning does? Yeah. Yeah.

So you guys did the design review and the ZBA will.

[Speaker 1] (18:56 - 19:00)
Yes. Because it's a new awning and not a replacement and so forth.

[Speaker 5] (19:01 - 19:07)
Yeah, but I thought that would change so that the planning board would be all of the all the one stop shop here for awnings.

[Speaker 7] (19:09 - 19:10)
That was just site plan.

[Speaker 9] (19:13 - 19:19)
OK, good question. Isn't the issue, Marissa, that there's like going to be the change in use as well? Isn't that?

[Speaker 7] (19:19 - 19:33)
Correct. And that's separate. So when Casey came to apply, she was already past the deadline for a legal public hearing for the legal noticing for public hearing.

So that's why the hearing regarding the change of use is getting deferred to October.

[Speaker 5] (19:34 - 19:40)
Right. But that still comes to us. I'm not sure how ZBA gets involved at all in this new setup.

[Speaker 7] (19:40 - 20:00)
ZBA is issuing the awning permit. We'll hear ZBA is issuing the awning permit, assumedly next Tuesday. I mean, they will hear the agenda item and then they will vote to issue the special permit for the awning.

That's their only jurisdiction. They have no because this is Humphrey overlay. They have no jurisdiction over the use right now.

That's all under you guys.

[Speaker 3] (20:02 - 20:10)
Oh, yeah. Look, I found this little chart. It says new awning with lettering and graphics.

Yeah, so.

[Speaker 7] (20:11 - 20:17)
If this was a brand new awning with no lettering or graphics, then it would not need a special permit. But yeah, those graphics.

[Speaker 5] (20:19 - 20:26)
Yeah, but we were the special permit granting authority in this case because there's it's coming to us for the use permit.

[Speaker 1] (20:27 - 20:30)
So no, we don't do we don't do use permits.

[Speaker 5] (20:30 - 20:35)
It's combination plus the new setup with the the way the board works, right?

[Speaker 7] (20:36 - 20:37)
I don't want to tell you right now.

[Speaker 5] (20:39 - 20:47)
OK, I just wanted to ask the question, so I'm ready to move on. All right, thank you.

[Speaker 3] (20:48 - 21:11)
No, it's buried in a completely different section of the bylaw. So I'm glad you guys are following it. All right, so.

I'd like to continue. It's not continue, but from last time the public hearing for petition 2306 by Realty Investors care of Chris Lucas Esquire for.

[Speaker 1] (21:12 - 21:29)
Eight dwelling units at 29 Essex St. Can we stop sharing the screen for collective collective? And pull up the 29 assets.

[Speaker 3] (21:31 - 22:20)
This was a petition that was continued from August. And I believe the public hearing is still open for that. We continued it last time because we were lacking comments.

The fire department comments came in just before the meeting and not everyone. We really have time to sink our teeth into him. And then the DPW comments were missing and we have reviewed those.

Thank you for getting those from Gino. So. I hand it over to Chris or do we have any Chris?

Do you have anything else or Peter to add? From last time, is there anything else different?

[Speaker 4] (22:21 - 22:45)
No, I would. I would say that we made the inquiries were made. And I know that I've spoken with Gino and I've also spoken with Deputy Chief Potts.

And I know at this point with the recommendations that they put in writing. That they are both satisfied with what we've proposed so far.

[Speaker 1] (22:46 - 23:07)
So they did say, however, that you cannot store any snow on site. So one of your waivers is requesting. Relief from section 3151, which is no storage, which we cannot.

We cannot do. So I just want to make sure we kind of acknowledge that as one of those comments up front.

[Speaker 12] (23:10 - 23:11)
That's a good one.

[Speaker 3] (23:14 - 23:47)
Let's open these letters. Actually, it's a great, great thing to do. So if we look at the fire, I think we kind of looked at this last time a little bit.

Is there anything that sticks out that is not sort of an architectural. Engineering team comment that they can pick up? See.

Yep, snow must be removed from the site to aid ladder truck access to roof. That's the big one at the bottom there. The rest of them seem to be stuff you can pick up on your drawings, right, Peter?

[Speaker 2] (23:47 - 24:43)
Hey, team. These are rookie building owners or managers. And I would put forward that the ownership team here would be very willing and capable of removing all snow from the site.

And that was in our original presentation that the civil engineer recognized early on. We recognized early on that there was no snow storage on site. Or no substantial snow storage on site.

And that the ownership team was more than willing and actually very capable of removing all snow from the site as a regular routine operational business element. Barbara, I think that's quite accurate.

[Speaker 1] (24:44 - 25:02)
Well, that's fine, Peter. It's just that that's one of their waivers you're requesting. It's in the application.

And I'm just pointing it out that it hasn't been withdrawn yet. And it's one of the waivers that's been requested. So it just needs to be withdrawn.

[Speaker 4] (25:07 - 25:19)
Sure, Chris. Yeah, either way, whether we withdraw it or we say that we'll comply with all the requirements of the fire department and results the same.

[Speaker 2] (25:19 - 25:36)
So that's right. That's right. We're going to comply with it from a practical application one way or the other.

Otherwise, you know, we're not going to have happy tenants. So it's going to be complied with, with or without any required city.

[Speaker 4] (25:37 - 25:40)
But it is being required. So we have to live with that.

[Speaker 2] (25:40 - 25:46)
Yeah. Where do you put it in that case? We put it in dump trucks and take it away.

[Speaker 5] (25:48 - 25:51)
To the beach? To stop and shop?

[Speaker 10] (25:52 - 26:09)
It depends on where we're storing snow. It can be the dumps sometimes take it. Sometimes the old building 19 used to be a site on the Linway where they used to dump snow.

It's different every year where you can go and you pay to have it removed and you can dump it there.

[Speaker 15] (26:10 - 26:10)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (26:14 - 26:16)
I always wondered how that works. Thanks.

[Speaker 10] (26:17 - 26:29)
Yeah, sometimes like the shopping malls, like square one mall is huge for the town of Saugus because they actually dump all the snow in the back of square one mall. Because there's no stores that they have mall anymore.

[Speaker 3] (26:32 - 26:40)
Dead mall is good for something. You fill up the DPW one, Marissa? Yeah.

So we can look at those two.

[Speaker 12] (26:46 - 26:47)
Let's just take a look at these.

[Speaker 7] (26:52 - 26:58)
That first comment is IIB. That's inflow and infiltration or infiltration and well.

[Speaker 3] (26:59 - 27:02)
Right. The fee that we assess for projects like this. Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (27:02 - 27:05)
We discussed that last time, I believe.

[Speaker 3] (27:06 - 27:17)
Yep. Just some comments about tie-ins, videoing sewer lines, and I assume the petitioner has no issues with any of these.

[Speaker 4] (27:18 - 27:26)
No, none whatsoever. All right. It's all stuff that we'd have to do to get a building permit anyway.

[Speaker 3] (27:27 - 27:33)
That's kind of what I figured. Yeah. Are there any other comment letters?

Health or safety?

[Speaker 7] (27:34 - 27:36)
That was it. I think you guys saw health and safety. Last time.

[Speaker 3] (27:37 - 27:49)
Yeah, we did. Okay. Okay.

Are there any new questions from the board based on any of these comments or having thought about this petition for the last month?

[Speaker 1] (27:50 - 27:57)
So I just want to. I mean, the thoughts are here. I'm happy to jump in and share my thoughts.

[Speaker 15] (27:58 - 27:58)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (27:59 - 30:27)
I happen to really like this project. I think it's. I think it's.

I think it's great. I think it's a good use of space and all that. My concern is that there's not enough space and that we're bumping up against, you know, variances all over the place.

So the parking, you know, we know we don't have enough parking. And I know you mentioned something about, you know, being able to maybe park some cars across the street, but what happens when you decide to sell or develop that property? And then those spots are gone.

Um, so that's, you know, that's an issue. The tandem spots, we can't count them as regular parking spots. So that's just, you know, we can, we can say, yeah, they're there, but that just kind of serves as extra space.

So it's just kind of, you know, that's kind of a sticking point. And the, there's no things that we're going to, we'll deal with that. The dimension requirements.

I, the building height, I don't have any issue with the street frontage. Clearly, there's no issue with the, um, your property line setback. You know, you need a variance in the rear.

And, um, and the other thing, and then the screening, I even don't have such an issue with the screening. The, the, the issue is your, your variance from the rear property line and, and the, and the width of the one-way traffic, which we can't, you know, according to the bylaw, we can't waive it because it says shall not be less than. It doesn't say, you know, that that's, you know, something we can waive.

It says shall not. So that's, you know, again, we'd have to, we'd have to defer that to zoning. So I'm just putting it out there that there's, um, again, I like the project.

I think you're just super tight on space. That's not, I'm not telling you anything you don't know. Um, and I'm concerned that it, you know, it can, it might be a problem for you, you know, going to zoning and asking for a lot of variances.

Um, and I don't know really what I'm asking. I mean, other than isn't, you know, I can say to you, oh, if you think about putting six units in, you know, I'm sure you thought about that. But I just, I feel like because of this, you know, is it something that's worth going back and discussing or are you just, you're willing to take your chances, just go into zoning and see if you get the multiple variances that you need.

[Speaker 2] (30:28 - 30:44)
Angela, I'll take that on, um, because part of that is my fault. Um, I'm, I'm, I'm pushing the agenda of workforce housing, which fills the gap between, you know, affordable housing and high market, uh, retail housing.

[Speaker 1] (30:44 - 30:51)
And you don't need to even sell that point, Peter, because I think we all agree with that. Yeah, so that's not, that's not a point.

[Speaker 2] (30:51 - 31:43)
So the only way to achieve that, uh, the, the client would love to have two less kitchens and two less bathrooms and reduce their construction costs, you know, so the only way I'm going to push that agenda forward is with this asking for these types of reliefs. So if I don't have the opportunity to push for these reliefs, I'm not going to be able to expedite that agenda. If you want to undermine that agenda, fine, then, then make a clear cut statement that we don't support that agenda.

But if I'm going to go after this agenda aggressively and teach and train my clients to, to support that, that social agenda, then, then I need to be supported by it. Otherwise I'm getting my legs cut out from under me.

[Speaker 11] (31:45 - 31:45)
I concur.

[Speaker 1] (31:49 - 32:03)
So I guess I'm confused. So are you saying, I mean, in terms of not supporting the agenda, so I think we're pretty clear that we like the, you know, that the project looks great, that you're tied on space. That's not not supporting your agenda.

[Speaker 2] (32:04 - 33:37)
Well, we're tied on space, but every project's tied on space. I haven't had a project in 10, 20 years that isn't tied on space. Otherwise, Chris and I'd be out of a job.

And we can't have that. Yeah, so, so it's whether I'm dealing in Beverly, Marblehead, Salem, Swampscott, or, or it's every, every project's tied on space. Got it.

The question is really that I think this project needs to be supported, moved forward, and allow me to roll in the mud with the zoning board. You know, if they don't want these units, then, then Phil and Barbara will be happy to cut down to two or cut two or three units out of this, cut out two or three kitchens. But then the market price for those units goes up exponentially.

And my kids won't be able to afford those units. And my staff won't be able to afford those units. But they will sell one way or the other.

There's enough demand signal, signal in that area for those, for those units one way or the other. So the question comes down to, what do you want? Do you want, you know, one less unit, just to have a half a parking space be more flexible?

Or do you really want to support workforce housing?

[Speaker 1] (33:37 - 35:05)
We are supporting, we are supporting workforce housing, and we've done it very consistently townwide. So to say that we are, that we, that any kind of, any kind of concerns we bring up would under, is intentionally undermining the project, I don't think is a fair statement. Because I think for as a whole, you know, and routinely we do support this type of project.

I mean, you can look at our record and see that. So I'm just being honest about what the concerns are here. It's worth mentioning.

I think we can either discuss it or we can move ahead with, you know, each board member can take a look and, and, you know, we can decide what kind of recommendation we're going to make. I wasn't, I actually wasn't suggesting that we were not going to recommend a favorable action, just that it is, it's loaded with conditions. And that's just the, it's my, it's going to be tough for you.

And these are things that we can't, I can't, I can't grant you a variance. I can't, you know, we don't have that ability to waive something that says shall not. So that's something, that's why you're going to zoning.

So I'm just, you know, just discussing the obvious here. So at any rate, I think the rest of the board should talk about it and then we can come to a recommendation or a decision on how to vote on a site plan.

[Speaker 3] (35:07 - 35:17)
Thank you. Let's go through the rest of the board. Bill, you weren't here last month, so maybe you can weigh in.

We haven't heard anything.

[Speaker 5] (35:17 - 35:18)
Is that like a punishment?

[Speaker 3] (35:20 - 35:21)
Yes, absolutely.

[Speaker 5] (35:23 - 36:18)
I keep that in mind. So, you know, I'm all for, you know, workforce housing. I'm all for affordable housing.

I don't remember the last variance that the zoning board approved. So, you know, Peter, as well as I do, that's something that's not easily given. Even in, you know, as much as humanitarian, we support that.

And there's nothing we can do about that. That's a bylaw that they abide by. That variances are not given unless there's significant hardship.

And I don't believe there's a precedent for space being a hardship or cost or profitability. Or I don't know what the hardship argument would be in this case. Yeah, I like the project.

I'm all for maximizing it, but I think you're going to struggle at ZBA.

[Speaker 1] (36:20 - 37:36)
That being said, I'll jump back in and say that being said, I think that I'm probably not alone when I say that we can say in general, we would support this type of a project. I think I don't mean to speak for other members, but my feeling is that we all believe in this kind of project. I actually think it's, you know, really nice looking.

I wish I could, you know, throw an extra housing lot in there for you to make it much easier. So, you know, that's not the issue. I mean, I'd certainly be willing to add.

And I'm, again, just making a suggestion to the board that in general, we support this kind of project. Here, we just, we note that it is out of compliance with, you know, with zoning. I mean, that's, you know, and there are, you know, again, you know, as I mentioned, I mean, there are some waivers you're requesting in here that I just, I really have no problem with.

But there's some that we don't, where we, as a site plan permanent granting authority, don't have the wiggle room with that they have to deal with. And that's, those are basically my only comments. So, go on, whoever's next can talk.

[Speaker 7] (37:37 - 37:44)
I just have a quick question since I wasn't here last month. Can someone clarify what the variance on the rear is?

[Speaker 5] (37:44 - 37:52)
I'm sure you get away from me not being here last month. I get punished. I see how this is going to work.

[Speaker 4] (37:55 - 38:00)
The small shed in the rear on the drawing.

[Speaker 1] (38:01 - 38:07)
Oh, okay. Well, also, they don't, the setback once the new building is in there.

[Speaker 4] (38:09 - 38:16)
No, we comply with it. Once a new building, yeah. The rear had setback.

It's a little, it's a little structure in the back there.

[Speaker 2] (38:17 - 38:20)
And really, that's just a fence to hide the trash.

[Speaker 7] (38:22 - 38:27)
That the dumpster fence is what is encroaching in the setback?

[Speaker 15] (38:29 - 38:30)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (38:30 - 38:33)
Right, it's up against the property line, basically.

[Speaker 7] (38:34 - 38:37)
Okay, and the board would consider that an accessory structure?

[Speaker 4] (38:38 - 38:40)
Fences, yes, I'm sure they would.

[Speaker 2] (38:43 - 38:46)
And we're pursuing it out of an abundance of caution.

[Speaker 1] (38:47 - 38:50)
Yeah, I think that's reasonable. You know, I think that's reasonable.

[Speaker 2] (38:51 - 40:21)
You know, look, it's my town for five generations. I'm not doing anything here that I wouldn't do. This is a great project with a great client.

I mean, I've rarely had a client that actually let me do the right thing. The way this client has enabled me to do. And yes, I understand we're reaching on a couple of zoning issues.

That's why we've hired Chris, because he's the best in the business. But we're not asking anything that if I wasn't a neighbor, I wouldn't support. And that's one of the great things about this project.

I don't always get, or let me rephrase it. I rarely get such a great client with such a great attitude that lets the attorney, the architect, the civil engineer balance out all the right answers. And they have never said no to anything the town has requested.

So from an engineering perspective, from a zoning perspective, you know, if the town cuts us back, fine, they'll save the money. But this is what I personally believe is the highest and best use for the town, for the client, and forget the attorney.

[Speaker 9] (40:26 - 40:44)
I agree. You know, I like the project. I think it's great.

My only question is, you know, the neighbors last time raised some questions about HVAC screening and that sort of thing. Were you able to get us some, you know, renderings or some dimensions? I think they were asking for something that was going to block their views.

[Speaker 2] (40:44 - 41:50)
Right. So, I mean, again, the typical solution is ground source, placing the HVAC systems on the ground. This client has actually allowed me to spend a lot of money to put the HVAC systems into inverted dormers up at the roof.

Right. So, you know, this has been the most concealed, shrouded. Now, granted, I get that some of those homes are two stories from their second bedrooms.

As they go up, they'll look down on it. But they'd look down on it at grade level. So, you know, I'd rather have the door, the HVAC units encompassed in the roof structure better than taking up a whole bunch of and adding to the impervious surface at the grade level.

So there was a lot of thought about that.

[Speaker 1] (41:51 - 42:07)
I think what Joe's referring to, Peter, was a last meeting. I and I don't just you can tell me if I'm right or wrong. I thought we had talked about adding some screening on one side of the building where it might help a little bit.

Is that wasn't that it?

[Speaker 2] (42:08 - 42:12)
That well, we've already got 42 inches, Angela, of parapet.

[Speaker 1] (42:13 - 42:16)
So, Joe, was that the issue that that person had?

[Speaker 9] (42:16 - 42:20)
I'm trying to find the plans right here.

[Speaker 1] (42:21 - 42:22)
I thought that's what it was.

[Speaker 9] (42:22 - 42:24)
The rendering that showed it from this side.

[Speaker 2] (42:24 - 43:32)
Yeah, I mean, I've already got 42 inches of physical parapet, which will there's no better sound retarder than, you know, basically two foot of roof. You know, we're normally dealing with a little bit of lattice on the grade level. Um, this client has allowed me or enabled me to to do, you know, a parapet around.

You're not getting any better than that. I mean, it's just there's there's no better sound deadening. There's no better visual deadening.

And yes, I get it that from that certain second floor windows on a hill looking down. But if they were on the first floor basement, they would have seen them. With this option, at least from those two floors, I'm minimizing it.

And, you know, there's there's there's no way to eliminate them. So how much more effort could I possibly make?

[Speaker 9] (43:33 - 43:38)
At the last meeting, I just know that you said that you were going to get some proposals.

[Speaker 2] (43:38 - 44:09)
So, you know, that's the only the only thing I could get you is the the decibel levels. But we're well within the decibel levels for for an AC unit. We're so far away from the property fund.

But if you want that, we would certainly provide that. And I think that's Chris, correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's what we agreed to last time was to give them the catalog cuts on the decibel levels of the HVAC units.

[Speaker 9] (44:10 - 44:34)
Yeah, it wasn't it wasn't that I can't find the rendering. I'm looking through the site plan, but I think we were just looking for the dimensions for the side that's going to have the HVAC units. You know, you said, remember that you can put up a fence, which we can get you that.

But there's going to be some sort of like screening or something like that.

[Speaker 2] (44:35 - 45:01)
Yeah, I mean, again, we'll get you those drawings. They're part of our regular permit set of plans. But we will submit those to you individually, separate from our permit set of plans.

I just I'm shocked that this is an issue because I've never had the opportunity or a client allow me to spend so much money to prevent sound from transmission.

[Speaker 1] (45:02 - 45:09)
So, yeah, I think we're missing the point here. That wasn't that was never the point. OK, maybe we should move on.

[Speaker 5] (45:09 - 45:18)
So, as we all know, I wasn't here last month. So, I have a quick question. Was that a neighbor complaint, a butter complaint that triggered?

[Speaker 3] (45:19 - 45:22)
Yeah, that's right. It was a question they had.

[Speaker 4] (45:22 - 45:24)
It was it was a question. It wasn't it wasn't a complaint.

[Speaker 2] (45:24 - 45:25)
It wasn't a concern.

[Speaker 11] (45:27 - 45:33)
OK, and I go ahead. Barbara, go.

[Speaker 10] (45:33 - 46:08)
Oh, OK. No, sorry. I was just going to say so.

The parapets 42 inches roughly is what we drew it in a standard height of those units outside is less than 30 inches for outside AC units. So it mainly you're just maybe seeing the tops of some. But we when we put them in, depending upon what unit size you use outside on the roof, we could always, you know, put up a screen if they don't like it per se.

But thank you. We're already about 12 inches below the parapet wall.

[Speaker 9] (46:08 - 46:21)
I see. So when you look at the the I think that answers the question then, because when you look at the rendering, you kind of see the roof go up. You're saying that like that roof level, there might be a few inches of HVAC above it, but otherwise most of it is below.

[Speaker 10] (46:22 - 46:23)
Most of it is below it.

[Speaker 2] (46:23 - 47:12)
OK, so I think that you'll never see it from Essex Street. What we were concerned about with the neighbors. And excuse me if I forget the name of the street.

There is a neighbor street that goes uphill and Beach Beach, and they were concerned. In all fairness, they were concerned and they should be. I mean, we're not hiding anything.

We're not doing any smoke and mirrors. They should be concerned. What are my position is, is we've done everything we could reasonably physically possibly do to screen these units.

And more than I've ever been allowed to do on any other project by any other developer.

[Speaker 3] (47:18 - 47:19)
OK, anything else, Joe?

[Speaker 9] (47:21 - 47:24)
No, no, that's it. I think that answers it.

[Speaker 5] (47:24 - 47:27)
How many air conditioning units were there, are there, or will there be?

[Speaker 2] (47:30 - 47:34)
There'll be six to eight with the ERV unit.

[Speaker 5] (47:35 - 47:41)
One for each unit. And then you've got that many places to hide them and there's a parapet.

[Speaker 3] (47:44 - 47:48)
Oh, there's an ERV, Peter, but that's going to be a little taller than the four that you mentioned, probably.

[Speaker 15] (47:48 - 47:48)
Right?

[Speaker 3] (47:49 - 47:49)
Yes.

[Speaker 15] (47:50 - 47:50)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (47:51 - 47:55)
Yeah. The individual condensers will be there. There'll be one.

[Speaker 2] (47:55 - 48:12)
And again, we're schematics. So until I hire an engineer, but you know, I'm going to do my best. And the ERV doesn't have the sound transmission that regular units have.

[Speaker 9] (48:12 - 48:21)
Yeah. I think it was more than just not wanting to look at it there. And that was our concern, Josh.

[Speaker 2] (48:22 - 48:30)
I mean, that was exactly our concern is that. But if we put them all as ground mount units, whether you were two units, four units.

[Speaker 1] (48:30 - 48:32)
We don't want ground mount.

[Speaker 2] (48:32 - 48:39)
So we've spent a ton of money to put these inside an inverted dormer.

[Speaker 4] (48:42 - 49:45)
Joe, the question I think was, they were, some of them were concerned with their, the ground, the basic ground level of their unit on Beach Street. I think there were basically two houses. I think there were potentially an issue in looking at the site.

That in their second floor bedrooms that have windows to the rear, that they would actually be looking down on this structure. And the question was, how much potentially would they see of these units that are behind the parapet? And I think that the answer is they might be, they might unfortunately see some.

And if there's something more that we can do once we get underway and actually get a visual on it, that I know that Barbara has said that she's willing to do a little bit more if she can.

[Speaker 12] (49:51 - 49:52)
Thank you, Chris.

[Speaker 3] (49:55 - 50:00)
Ted, I'm going to move up to you. What do you got? Any other open items on your brain?

[Speaker 8] (50:02 - 50:19)
No, and I think we did address this last time. I think Peter or Chris, one of you spoke through this, but I know the Board of Health had the comment about the recycling. Um, what was, where did you guys end up coming down on what's going to be done with the recycling for the building?

[Speaker 4] (50:22 - 50:24)
We are using the same.

[Speaker 8] (50:25 - 50:26)
The same containment area?

[Speaker 4] (50:26 - 50:27)
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 8] (50:27 - 50:34)
Understood, okay. And then, was there any desired plans to make this solar capable?

[Speaker 2] (50:37 - 50:55)
Absolutely. We're going to comply with all of the most recent stretch energy code. And if you look at our site plan, we actually planned on a charging station for each parking space.

[Speaker 8] (50:57 - 50:59)
Right, so those would be capable for a charging station at one point?

[Speaker 2] (51:00 - 51:18)
No, I think they were planning on installing it up front. The only thing that we were not doing is we weren't installing solar panels, but we will be going to be solar panel capable as dictated by the latest stretch energy code.

[Speaker 8] (51:19 - 51:51)
Got it, all right. Thank you, that's helpful. Thanks for installing the chargers at the get-go.

That's all I had. I think Angela already voiced some of the concerns that I know I mentioned last time, but I don't need to go into those again. I appreciate you guys coming before us.

And I think the last thing I'll say is this is like the missing middle housing that we all talk about. This is kind of right there. And you did a very good job of making it look really nice, which not everyone does.

So good job on the aesthetics. That looks nice.

[Speaker 2] (51:52 - 51:53)
Thanks, Ted.

[Speaker 3] (51:53 - 52:12)
I appreciate that. Okay, I think it's back up to me. Everyone's said everything that I need to say, I think here.

One thing I do want to say though is, is there any members of the public here that want to comment on this public hearing is open?

[Speaker 7] (52:16 - 52:19)
I believe we do not have anybody online.

[Speaker 12] (52:20 - 52:26)
Yeah, I'm looking at the list. I think you're right. Is it noticed properly?

[Speaker 7] (52:29 - 52:38)
Well, it was noticed for the July, sorry, the August. That's the only time that has to comply with the notice of the first hearing. And when it's continued, it does not have to be.

[Speaker 3] (52:42 - 52:51)
All right, seeing none. Could I at least entertain a motion to close the public hearing?

[Speaker 4] (52:51 - 54:41)
Well, before you do that, I would like to be heard. Oh, please go ahead. And just briefly, I'm not clear as to whether or not I had the opportunity to say to you that I think the necessary findings that can be made under the bylaw for issuing the site plan special permit, applicable sections 5.3.0.0 and subsections 1 through 6 and 5.4.8.0 and subsections 1 through 9. I believe that this project, that these findings can in fact be made the benefit to the town. We believe in the neighborhood far away the adverse effects taking into account the characteristics of the site and the proposal in relation to that site, such that we're viewing the social and community needs, the traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading, adequacy of utilities, neighborhood character and impacts on the natural environment, including the fiscal impact on town services. I'm not going to be negatively impacted by this proposed project. And I also believe that you could make the necessary findings that there's no additional stormwater flow off site, that pedestrian vehicular safety is not going to be negatively impacted, that there are no negative impacts on scenic views, that there is minimal visual intrusion with reference to parking and storage, no glare from headlights or any lighting intrusion, the plans minimize any departure from the character.

I want to make sure I get these right. Because when I have to write them, I haven't.

[Speaker 3] (54:42 - 54:44)
I think you're nailing it so far.

[Speaker 4] (54:45 - 55:40)
And the scale of the buildings, the vicinity, that all the other provisions of zoning bylaw concerning parking and landscaping have been met with minimal adverse traffic impact. We're asking you to grant the site plan special permit. And obviously, with the conditions that have been proposed through the fire department, health department, and through Gino, and any other conditions that you fellows feel that the ladies feel are appropriate for this permit.

And that I understand the run can not to be filed until there's a decision that's going to be contingent upon a favorable decision of the zoning board that they would both be filed together. So the appeal periods would run concurrently. And that's all I have to say.

Thank you for listening to us. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (55:41 - 55:46)
So with that, I entertain a motion to close the public hearings.

[Speaker 14] (55:46 - 55:47)
So moved.

[Speaker 3] (55:47 - 55:54)
All right, I don't think we have to vote on that, right? Or do we?

[Speaker 1] (55:54 - 55:56)
Well, you know, I'll just say.

[Speaker 3] (55:58 - 56:24)
Thank you. Okay, all right. Public hearing is closed.

So Chris was so kind to run through each of the items in 5.4.8. And I was going to do that as well. So do we have any, I know we have some concerns regarding namely the amount of parking and the width of the traffic circulation.

[Speaker 13] (56:26 - 56:37)
I have the way the site plan is laid out that we're set back less. Anyway, that's for ZVA to look at.

[Speaker 5] (56:39 - 56:46)
So I'm sorry. So we're going to wear this site plan special permit.

[Speaker 15] (56:46 - 56:47)
Right.

[Speaker 5] (56:47 - 56:55)
Have to go to ZVA for the reliefs. Is that right? So we don't really even weigh in on the variances, right?

We just.

[Speaker 1] (56:56 - 58:36)
No, but one of the criteria that we're attesting to when we say we're, you know, the findings that we make is that the project is in compliance with the zoning bylaw. And if it's not in compliance with the zoning bylaw, then in certain sections, it's not in compliance. But the petitioner is seeking relief with, you know, through a waiver from the zoning board of appeals.

So our recommendation or our decision to approve or disapprove. I think where we're going with this is that we are leaning, you know, not to speak for other people, but I think we're leaning towards approval of the site plan with conditions. So I think where we go with this is that we would begin by, you know, findings that, you know, whatever's out of compliance is out of compliance and that the condition would be whatever the condition is going to be, which is essentially that the zoning board of appeals grants the relief, whether it be in terms of waiving the compliance or granting a variance, I mean, or granting dimensional relief, as it were. The only thing that I mentioned at the very beginning of the meeting that you can't get relief on is the snow, but you've agreed to withdraw that waiver request. And therefore, you don't have to, you know, you have to comply with what the fire department said.

So that would be part of it. You comply with the recommendations from DPW fire, and that you get the zoning relief that you need from the zoning board. I mean, that's essentially where we're going with this.

Am I right? Planning board members?

[Speaker 5] (58:37 - 58:39)
So is it just reliefs then? No variances?

[Speaker 1] (58:40 - 58:42)
No, there are variances. Yes.

[Speaker 5] (58:42 - 58:51)
So can you tell the difference between, I guess, variance and waiver? And then which ones are still there?

[Speaker 1] (58:51 - 1:00:31)
Essentially, I think the variances is the property line setback, and then they know that already. So, and the waivers essentially is, you know, we can't, you know, the zoning board of Fitfields can tell you whether or not they can, they are going to give you a waiver on the width of the roadway. You know, when it comes to 24 feet for the two-way street, 28 feet for the two-way street, they've been known to say, okay, for a narrower street.

But when it's a one-way street and it's less than 20, and it says shall not, that's been more of a sticking point. That's something that I think is a sticking point. Again, I would say that, you know, the petitioner is going to have to seek relief from zoning that, you know, I certainly would prefer to see it wider, but do I think it should tank the whole project?

I mean, that's not up to me. I mean, I would hope not, but I think that's the level of relief that's going to have to be sought. So, I just think it's contingent, incumbent upon us to make sure that we're really clear on what we're saying here.

That it's, you know, the things that we do support, in general, we support the project. We support the nature of the project. We support the notion of the workforce housing.

We recognize that the site plan is deficient in certain areas. This is what we'd be, you know, we're willing to say is, you know, it's in the best interest of the town. However, you know, because it doesn't comply with this kind of zoning, we would, you know, our conditions for approval of a site plan would be that the petitioner is able to get the required relief from zoning.

I mean, that makes perfect sense to me.

[Speaker 5] (1:00:32 - 1:00:36)
I guess I'm just still stuck on the difference between a waiver and a variance. I don't really understand.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:36 - 1:00:50)
A waiver is just saying that it doesn't, you don't have to deal with it. You want to waive that requirement. So in other words, you don't even have to comply.

You don't need to comply. That's something being waived. Otherwise, you're going to get relief.

[Speaker 7] (1:00:51 - 1:01:16)
Waivers are called out explicitly in the bylaw. Like in certain sections, like there will be a section that says the board has the authority to waive this requirement. But a variance is when there's an explicit, like something is written in the bylaw.

And like, there's no, there's no condition or if there's no language before they waive this requirement. If you have to, somehow. I get it.

Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:01:16 - 1:01:23)
Any of those seven requirements are actually waiverable and how many are variances. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

[Speaker 7] (1:01:25 - 1:01:34)
So that's what I was going to ask you, Angela, because you had called out in that meeting another potential variance with the distance between the multifamily structures. Was that discussed at the last meeting?

[Speaker 1] (1:01:36 - 1:01:50)
I thought that that was, that was not within the place, the distance that was able to be waived. But Chris, you're telling me it is? Because you're commercial, it's a commercial development, right?

[Speaker 4] (1:01:52 - 1:01:55)
Yes, no, it's zoned commercially.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:55 - 1:02:00)
Right. And it is a commercial development because it's more than five units. So that's how it's treated.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:00 - 1:02:18)
Right. And the requirement is that we can't have, we can't be, we have to be more than 40 feet from any other multifamily. The only build, only structure within 40 feet of us is a single family home.

It's not multi.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:19 - 1:02:19)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:20 - 1:02:22)
All the other ones, all the other ones.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:22 - 1:02:27)
Everything else you've got, you have adequate setbacks from all the other, all the other residential properties.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:28 - 1:02:28)
Right.

[Speaker 7] (1:02:29 - 1:02:34)
So that, what's the distance between that, that dumpster enclosure and the rear setback?

[Speaker 1] (1:02:34 - 1:02:40)
Only like two and a half feet or something. It's pretty small. And that's variance territory.

Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (1:02:41 - 1:02:47)
Or in place concrete, that's in the, in the right-hand corner there. Yeah. In the drawing.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:47 - 1:03:09)
The only other thing I had an issue with was the thing about the, you know, the width of the road, which is the 14 feet for a one-way, which is where it says in the bylaw, shall not. I don't know whether you can waive that. And that's something, you know, you have to go to zoning and see what they say.

You know, I can't, we're not going to comment on that. I would call it out as something that, you know.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:09 - 1:03:55)
Exactly, Angela. I mean, you're spot on as, as usual. The only way to comply is to tear down the original house.

So, you know, we have a choice. We can tear down the original house and comply, or we can maintain the original house and bring it back to a historic perspective. So the intent there was the gains that we were providing for aesthetically, economically, and morally for the town were more important than another four feet of driveway width.

So that was, that was my intent. And if I'm off, then I'm off.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:56 - 1:04:09)
Okay, so why don't we go through, Mike? I mean, if you would like to, thank you, Peter. Mike, if you want to go through the, all the considerations, and we can, we can make findings and make comments based upon that.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:10 - 1:05:10)
Yeah, sure. So, I mean, I was just going to run through 5.4.8, right? Sure.

All right. So, I'm just kind of reading through this. Any new building construction or site alterations shall provide adequate access for each structure for fire service and equipment.

I believe fire department's weighed in on that. Provision for utilities and stormwater drainage shall be weighed in on that. New building construction or other site alterations shall be designed, designated in the site plan after considering the qualities of location, land use, blah, blah, blah.

Okay, so 5.4.8.1, minimize the volume of cut and fill, number of removed trees, six-inch caliper or larger, length of stone walls, vegetation displaced, stormwater flow, soil erosion, and air and water pollution. I don't really have any comments on that.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:10 - 1:05:34)
No, and I think that the, was it ABS, that company that did the, whoever did that in that entire application piece for the, I can't forget the name of the company he used, but I thought that was very thorough and certainly, you know, explained exactly how, you know, that's going to be handled. I mean.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:35 - 1:05:37)
Were you going to, go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:37 - 1:05:40)
No, you go ahead, Mike, I interrupted you.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:40 - 1:05:47)
No, I mean, I actually was going to say, I thought Bill was going to say something, but. I was going to say something? I don't know, it looked like you were going to.

[Speaker 5] (1:05:50 - 1:06:06)
I guess so, I'm just looking at the Google Maps, that's the kind of the extent of the 14 foot is the original house, right? So once you get past that corner, it opens up again pretty quickly, right? Correct, yes, Bill.

Kind of like an existing situation, right?

[Speaker 2] (1:06:06 - 1:06:48)
Right. It's an existing condition, and as with any residential, it's completely different from a retail traffic flow. These are people who live there, they're used to the circulation pattern.

It's not like we were dealing in Bindon Square, where every time you turn, it's a different customer. This is, these are educated, informed and experienced drivers who go in and out of this every day. And that was part of our, you know, argument for justifying this, or the civil engineer's argument in justifying it.

[Speaker 5] (1:06:52 - 1:07:04)
Yeah, it seems like it works now. I know there's less traffic, but there's a bulldozer in there. So it must work somewhat, or I guess the bulldozer always wins, right?

[Speaker 2] (1:07:06 - 1:07:21)
There's a lot of commercial traffic in and out of that lot under our our favorite mechanic. So, you know, this will be, you know, a different volume.

[Speaker 15] (1:07:23 - 1:07:23)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:27 - 1:07:58)
All right. Any other comments on that first provision there? Hearing none, we'll move on to the second one.

5.4.8.2, maximize pedestrian and vehicular safety. So, you know, pedestrian safety, I haven't heard any comments, don't foresee any comments. Vehicular safety, we've been kind of talking about it a little bit about the driveway concern there, but Peter spoke into that tonight.

Are there any other comments on this one or findings?

[Speaker 5] (1:07:59 - 1:08:06)
How's the sightline on the turn toward wind side? Enough.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:07 - 1:09:04)
The traffic study indicated that it was. I'd have to go back and look at the actual, you know, diagram that was submitted. But I remember feeling, you know, when I just read that, that it was pretty well explained.

OK, let's take a look at this. Hold on a second. Here it is.

OK, so you had a project narrative from ASB Design Group, Civil Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Architecture, Landscape and Design. And it went through essentially operation, maintenance, plan, construction, post-construction, hydrology, soils and hydraulic soils, proposed conditions, existing conditions. It did.

I don't know if this is where we talked about some sightline. There's a lot of soil stuff, storm events.

[Speaker 5] (1:09:06 - 1:09:09)
There's a separate traffic study, right? It's probably in that one.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:10 - 1:09:15)
Yeah. And we have a fire truck turning movements.

[Speaker 5] (1:09:16 - 1:09:18)
This is a traffic report.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:21 - 1:10:47)
OK, so that is, again, the ASB traffic memorandum, fresh analysis to the site distance, right? Site triangles, site generated, site distance criteria. So, let's see, the parking generation adequacy, the calculated parking demand for an eight-unit.

Residential development is 19 spaces, which we don't have. Required parking demand in the town of Swampscote. Zoning ordinance for an eight-unit would be one and a half per spaces, a total of 12.

So, and then this, what we are showing us, has eight spaces plus three tandems, which we, you know, the town doesn't really recognize tandem spaces as parking spaces. You know, I understand they're going to be used like that, but. So, that would be a waiver that you'd have to get from zoning.

Obviously, we can't, you know, we can't condone that. And we have nothing to, you know, we don't comment on that. So, a site distance, intersections with stop control minus three, let's see.

Turns from stop control minus three. I'm sorry, go ahead, who was.

[Speaker 5] (1:10:47 - 1:10:49)
The site distance was five, I got it, it's 400.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:49 - 1:10:57)
OK, you got it? OK, good, OK. Yeah, I thought that was well laid out also, so.

OK.

[Speaker 3] (1:11:00 - 1:11:09)
OK. Any other comments on pedestrian or traffic?

[Speaker 1] (1:11:10 - 1:11:37)
So, that's where, you know, I mean, I think that we have to, you know, say that it does not comply with our regulations for parking. Parking. And, you know, the planning board would condition, would condition the site plan special permit on the decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant relief for parking.

[Speaker 3] (1:11:39 - 1:11:41)
OK, yeah, it makes sense to me.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:43 - 1:12:02)
Or, you know, I don't know how they're going to do it. They have to waive it or if it's parking variance, it might be. I don't, I don't know how much they can waive.

I actually really don't know. So, but that's, we'll just, we'll put it in there that we'll, based upon the relief that the Zoning Board of Appeals feels that they can grant.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:02 - 1:12:27)
Yeah, Angela, I concur completely. But all we're looking for is given the fact that we're so close to the train station and bus lines that we're just looking for your support on that waiver from the site plan from the planning board and not opposition to that.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:28 - 1:12:34)
But we're not opposing it. We're saying it's going to be conditioned upon whether or not the Zoning Board of Appeals grants.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:34 - 1:12:40)
Agreed, agreed, we're in agreement. All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:41 - 1:13:00)
OK, so that's, that would be B or maximize pedestrian vehicular safety on the site, access and egress, minimize obstruction of scenic views. I think we can, we can certainly, you know, make that finding. Minimize visual intrusion by, oh, sorry, Mike, you go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:01 - 1:13:02)
I'm so used to doing it.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:02 - 1:13:05)
It's like, I know, I apologize. I apologize.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:05 - 1:13:09)
No, no worries. I get it. I'm happy for you to do it.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:10 - 1:13:13)
But let her go. She's so good at it.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:13 - 1:13:18)
I know she's going to kick them all off, right? You know, watching me do it must be like watching a toddler learn to ride a bike.

[Speaker 15] (1:13:18 - 1:13:19)
Oh, no, no.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:19 - 1:13:37)
Which I have been doing and it's painful. All right. Minimize glare from headlights and lighting intrusion.

I think we're good there, but let's take a look at that.

[Speaker 14] (1:13:38 - 1:13:41)
There is a lighting plan and there was a photometric.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:43 - 1:13:56)
Yes, yes. I was thinking specifically about headlights and neighbors. I think there's a fence around most of this property, right?

The entire property. The entire property. So I think that's probably.

[Speaker 14] (1:13:57 - 1:14:00)
Yeah, I don't think we found that to be problematic.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:02 - 1:14:02)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:14:03 - 1:14:09)
So that doesn't affect sight lines. The fence will stop short of that, right? I haven't seen the fence picture.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:11 - 1:14:14)
I think it does. Yeah, it does. It stopped just a little short.

[Speaker 5] (1:14:14 - 1:14:17)
Sure, as I'm just mumbling.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:18 - 1:14:35)
No, no. I skipped over 5484, which is minimize visual intrusion, visibility of parking. We just talked about the fence storage.

There's a fence around the dumpsters and other outdoor service areas and public ways. Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:36 - 1:14:42)
Yeah, we can make that finding. We just talked about headlights. We can make that finding.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:43 - 1:14:49)
8.6 is the character material scale of buildings. I think everyone's in agreement.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:51 - 1:14:52)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:52 - 1:15:01)
8.7 contamination of groundwater, on-site wastewater disposal, storage handling. No comments.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:03 - 1:15:24)
I would say that I would make a condition here that the planning board, you know, conditions this, the finding on this particular, you know, preferential finding on this particular condition is conditioned upon compliance with the comments describing the public works engineering department comments.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:25 - 1:15:41)
Yeah, okay. Makes sense. 8.8, okay, so this is one, ensure compliance with provisions of zoning by-law. We would condition this on DBA granting any waivers or variances.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:43 - 1:16:15)
I would say, you know, that's where we could say that we support this project and, you know, in concept in terms of what it provides to the town and that, you know, our finding is that, you know, we, you know, it's clear that it's out of compliance with much of some of the criteria of the zoning by-law and that our, you know, site plan special permit granting of the site plan special permit with, is conditioned upon the petitioner acquiring all the relief necessary through the zoning board of appeals.

[Speaker 3] (1:16:17 - 1:16:38)
Agreed. 8.9, minimize adverse traffic impact of the proposed project. I think the traffic report is very inclusive on that and so we can make that finding.

And 5.4, 9.0, I don't think the coastal flooding really applies here.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:39 - 1:17:08)
It actually kind of does, believe it or not, just simply because of the slope, but I think the ASB report, again, did a very good job of describing sort of the existing situation and then, again, that was reviewed by the engineering department and comments were made through them as to the, you know, how to, I guess we had to do something with pipe connections and tying into whatever drainage it was and videotaping lines or something like that.

[Speaker 15] (1:17:08 - 1:17:09)
Sure.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:09 - 1:17:13)
So whatever they said, again, we'll refer back to those. All right. Those comments.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:16 - 1:17:21)
So I think that takes us through it, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:17:21 - 1:19:09)
Yep, I think the only piece was, did we talk about the water pollution? I mean, I know at the very beginning, the review considerations we talk about, you know, we certainly could make those findings which would support the project. So in the actual site plan review, you know, guidelines before we even get to the new building construction or other alterations shall be designed so as to, there are these one, two, three, four, five, seven review considerations.

And the first one is that the social economic community needs, which are served by the proposal, we can sort of articulate that and say that we support that. And we certainly can comment on the traffic flow and safety, which we address further down, the adequacy of utilities, which we've been told are adequate, the neighborhood character and social structures, which we feel it, you know, it fits in with the impacts on the natural environment. Essentially, you know, I know we talked about the pervious paving materials, a little bit of planting that you're putting in there, the improved drainage around the site.

And so that would certainly, you know, noting that that would be, that that is an improvement and that we can mention there that about, you know, snow removal off the site that you've agreed to do that. A fiscal impact, which we think is, you know, you know, a positive fiscal impact and will not adversely impact town services. But we can make those comments as well, which, you know, to your concerns about us supporting the project is what I think is the fairest way to support the project and be very, still be objective about, you know, what has to happen.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:14 - 1:19:23)
I have no objections to any of that. Any further comments from the board? I would entertain a motion here.

[Speaker 5] (1:19:24 - 1:19:59)
So I feel like I should vote present just because I wasn't there for the first half of the site plan review. And it's no offense to, you know, Mr. Drukas, Mr. Pitman or the petitioner. It's just there are a lot of questions that were answered that I just didn't participate in.

I apologize for that. I do support moving forward with it with the conditions that it basically comes down to the zoning board approval. I don't believe there's variances or reliefs.

However, they get defined on the system. Unless people feel strongly otherwise, I feel like I should just vote present.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:02 - 1:20:06)
A very respectable position, Bill. I think that makes sense.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:10 - 1:20:35)
So the motion then would have to be essentially, unless we want to reiterate all of those, that we would, it would be to vote to grant a site plan special permit with conditions. As outlined in the, in our letter, our decision letter, which would list all the findings and then list all of the conditions to follow.

[Speaker 4] (1:20:39 - 1:22:35)
If I might, Angela. Yeah. I think when you would, I'll use this as an example, talking about vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety.

The issue is, of course, we have to get approval from the zoning board to get certain relief, whether it's by special permit or variance. That's not the issue I think that you're voting on when you're considering the findings. When you're considering the findings, you can make a finding that the pedestrian and vehicular safety won't be negatively affected, irrespective of the fact that we're not necessarily in compliance with the existing permit.

I mean, the existing bylaw. That's the issue of the finding. The issue isn't, well, you know, if you guys say that it's okay to grant relief, then we're okay with it.

I think the impetus is for you to make a decision as to whether or not you think that, even though we're not in full compliance because of the nature of the project, and as Peter was talking, this isn't an open parking lot that people are going to be coming and going from to go to various stores. This is a parking area for a residence of eight units where the only people that are really going to be coming and going from there are the people that live there. So, you can make a finding that you don't think it's going to be negatively impacted, but you don't necessarily have to say the rest of it, and that you guys have, if you guys are, it's okay with you guys, and it's okay with us.

That's just the way I interpret the bylaw, and I just want to put out there, and you can ignore me. It's fine. That's what I think.

Thanks, Chris. You're welcome.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:38 - 1:22:44)
I think that may be a fair point, except there's the one section that does...

[Speaker 4] (1:22:45 - 1:22:47)
No, we still have to get that relief anyway. And you...

[Speaker 1] (1:22:47 - 1:24:41)
Yeah, yeah. And it says, you know, it is in compliance with the zoning bylaw. I mean, there's no way to soft pedal that under any circumstances.

I know what you're saying, Chris, and I think that in general, conceptually, as a project, and the site itself, you know, I think, you know, look, it's clear. I think it's a little too small. I wish we had more space.

However, overall, I think we all support this project. We all think it's a good project, and that it looks nice. It will provide a certain type of housing that's important.

We're not arguing that point. And we're willing to, you know, sort of intro the whole decision with that kind of a statement. At the same time, I mean, you know, I think that it's just...

Other than that, to me, it's very straightforward. And, you know, the findings are what the findings are. I don't find there's anything particularly negative with saying that, you know, this is conditioned upon, you know, granted, conditioned upon getting relief from zoning.

I don't have to comment whether we should or you shouldn't. And that's really not up to the planning board to say, tell zoning what our opinion is. I think we have to be...

Honestly, I think this is the best way to go about it, that we make a supporting statement based upon, conceptually, the beginning of our decision. And that other than that, it's kind of just the facts, you know. And I think that there's enough positive stuff there that it certainly...

It's clear that, you know, yeah, you're looking for relief here. But overall, it's generally considered to be a very good project.

[Speaker 3] (1:24:43 - 1:24:51)
So... And a very thorough site plan that ticks off all the... You know, we can find all these things, right?

With very minimal conditions or comments.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:54 - 1:25:07)
So, I have to attribute that to Angela's education of both myself and my staff. So, over years of, you know, being browbeaten. So, Angela, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:11 - 1:25:18)
Yeah, well, you know, I'm only one of five. So, don't need.

[Speaker 12] (1:25:19 - 1:25:22)
Does anyone want to make a motion? Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:24 - 1:25:36)
I mean, so I make that motion. I want to make sure that the other board members don't have other comments before I, you know, go steaming ahead to make a motion. Everybody else is okay?

[Speaker 8] (1:25:37 - 1:25:38)
Yeah, no, I don't have any further comments.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:39 - 1:25:40)
Joe?

[Speaker 9] (1:25:40 - 1:25:41)
Nope, I'm good.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:42 - 1:26:05)
And Phil, I know what your status is. So, in that case, I'll make a motion that the planning board... Vote to...

That we vote to grant a site plan special permit for whatever petition number this is. Petition number...

[Speaker 11] (1:26:06 - 1:26:07)
2309.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:08 - 1:26:24)
Thanks. And that we approve, I guess it is, that we would vote to approve the site plan for petition, whatever Chris just said. 2309, was that it?

[Speaker 5] (1:26:24 - 1:26:31)
It says 2306 on one draft. It does say 2306 in the...

[Speaker 1] (1:26:31 - 1:27:08)
2306, okay. 2306. Per the findings in the planning board's decision letter as discussed and with conditions described, set forth in the decision based upon the public works engineering department, the Swampscott fire department, and the board of health and conditions set forth by the planning board.

And essentially, it would be exactly what we just described.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:12 - 1:27:17)
Second. Thank you. All right, all in favor.

I'll do a roll call. Angela?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:17 - 1:27:18)
Aye.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:18 - 1:27:32)
Joe? Aye. And Tim?

Aye. Bill, you're present. Present.

And I am an aye. So, four and one present. Time again.

That's unanimous though, right? Yeah, I think so.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:32 - 1:27:34)
Yes, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:34 - 1:27:38)
Thank you, everyone. That was great guidance and we appreciate your support.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:38 - 1:27:48)
Sure, and good luck with this whole thing. Again, I think it's a great project. And I hope it all goes well.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:49 - 1:28:23)
Can I just ask one thing? I know the last month when we got the site plan approval from your board when we were doing 410 Humphrey, they had asked at the zoning board meeting if there had been a letter or something letting them know from the planning board that it had passed. When there wasn't, they took my word for it.

But I know that they want to hear at least something from you, even if you don't have the decision by then.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:25 - 1:28:31)
Okay, so yeah. So, that needs to happen. So, we need to have an internal discussion about how that stuff's going to happen.

[Speaker 3] (1:28:31 - 1:28:36)
Yeah. Sure, yeah. We can talk about it.

I thought I signed something. Was that not what I signed?

[Speaker 4] (1:28:36 - 1:28:47)
You know, it is. But I'm talking about what I'm... You signed a decision.

But what I'm saying is... I know that feeling. Last month when we went for you, the gentleman on 410 Humphrey.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:47 - 1:28:53)
I know. I understand. You're absolutely right.

And again, yeah, that's something that we need to...

[Speaker 15] (1:28:54 - 1:28:54)
Work out.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:55 - 1:28:59)
As a department, we need to regroup and decide how this stuff is happening.

[Speaker 7] (1:28:59 - 1:29:23)
Is that something that, like, you know, in the case where the applicant is represented by an attorney, like, is that something that you would want, like, basically, essentially have Chris draft the decision and then not sign it, but present it to the ZBA as your sort of statement and then sign it once the ZBA issues their relief? Or, you know, like, for the sake of having... Yeah, you know, unless you would say the same thing.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:23 - 1:29:27)
I've never been big on that. That's his, Mike's decision, but...

[Speaker 4] (1:29:28 - 1:29:43)
I think, Marissa, I think they were just looking for some communication saying that, you know, they've been hearing that there had been an approval. And they just needed, they wanted something that had come from the planning board.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:44 - 1:29:45)
Just a quick statement.

[Speaker 4] (1:29:45 - 1:29:45)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:46 - 1:29:54)
I mean, you know, I can... We'll have an internal discussion about it and then we'll get you what you need. OK?

[Speaker 15] (1:29:55 - 1:29:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:55 - 1:30:02)
And likewise with this, we need to get this over to... When are you seeing zoning?

[Speaker 4] (1:30:02 - 1:30:03)
Next week.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:03 - 1:30:09)
Next Tuesday. OK. OK.

So, yeah, that's kind of, you know, we need to get that, like, too sweet.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:10 - 1:30:37)
So, yeah. Sometimes, Marissa, don't let good get in the way of perfect. Sometimes it might be an informal email and follow up with the letterhead and signatures to follow.

So long as everyone's in agreement with the comms and everyone's cc'd, I have to run into that a lot with the military. So let's keep in mind, you know, good enough.

[Speaker 3] (1:30:39 - 1:30:50)
Marissa, Angela and I, let's talk, I think. And Ted, too, I think. Good idea.

Thanks for bringing that up, Chris. OK, thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:50 - 1:30:51)
Thank you, everyone.

[Speaker 3] (1:30:57 - 1:31:17)
All right, let's keep it moving. So, next on our agenda, we've got a couple things we could discuss. Benin Square, design guidelines, 3A map, Adley RFP and minutes and other business.

Let's start with Benin Square, I think.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:18 - 1:32:51)
OK, I can jump in there. So we got, as you guys know, we had the meeting, public forum last... Jeez, when was it, the 29th?

Was that just now? It was, oh yeah, two, it was, well, almost two weeks ago. OK, at the high school, we had about 40 some odd participants that night on site.

And then, Josh, we did like, it was kind of a live, you know, real time, use your phone, put in your answers to these survey questions. It was kind of cool because it kind of pulls out people's results right away. So meantime, you know, we wanted to make sure that we had something.

We also offered a paper version there, which I don't think anyone, I'm not sure, but I don't think anybody took. In the meantime, Josh had made the survey available online and Margie had posted it all over the place. And I did get an email from someone today saying, jeez, I, you know, never got that, never saw it.

It's like, oh, OK, because it was, the survey was closing today, but I did send him the information. All in all, we got the, I got the report back from Josh today. And to date, we've had over 200 responses all together, which is great.

It's really great. That was, you know, in addition to people we saw and then online. I don't know, Marissa, you must have the same documents I have from Josh that have the.

[Speaker 11] (1:32:51 - 1:32:52)
The email today.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:53 - 1:33:15)
Yeah, because I think we can run through that and just kind of show everybody and give you an idea of where we're at with the survey and what, you know, it won't take long, but just to kind of give you an idea of what the response was. I can share mine if you can't. Although I can't say I know how the heck to do that.

I can probably figure it out.

[Speaker 11] (1:33:18 - 1:33:21)
I have the handle, so I'm happy to do it. OK, great. OK, great.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:28 - 1:34:54)
We did post this. We told people in the meeting that tonight, you know, we'd have, it would be, we'd be talking about this again and that people would have an opportunity if they wanted to, to, you know, come online to this meeting tonight and, you know, hear some more and talk some more. But apparently, it's based on the amount of feedback we've gotten, which I think is excellent.

Like I said, over 200 responses so far. I would say that most people who want to make their comments known probably did this online. So essentially, OK, where do you live relative to Finnan?

Well, on a budding property, which would be like, you know, the apartments all around there within a short walk or within a short drive. So most people are going to be driving there. These were some of the original questions.

Go ahead, Marissa. You can move on. And these we did in live, live time.

So it was kind of interesting. So, you know, resident 20%. I wondered if people got a little confused about whether they were a town resident or they lived in Summit.

But maybe those are people that live in Summit and Crown Point. I don't know. Anyway, patron.

So most people are, in terms of their relationship with Finnan, are, you know, shoppers. OK, we can go to the next one. Most people drive.

Big shocker there. OK, next one.

[Speaker 12] (1:34:55 - 1:34:56)
I can't ask the question, though.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:57 - 1:34:57)
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 12] (1:34:58 - 1:34:59)
Like, does anyone walk? You know, two people.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:00 - 1:35:22)
At least once a day, at least once a week. I mean, you know, people go there pretty often. So that's a pretty high frequency.

OK, you can. OK. Are there strip mall transformations that you feel are good examples?

I guess people put this in because I don't think that he made those recommendations. I'll guess he said, yeah, choose one.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:24 - 1:35:29)
So yeah, let's see when the survey. I didn't do the survey online unless he like gave these as.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:30 - 1:38:35)
Yeah, sounds like it because it says choose one. So everybody likes Linfield, but unfortunately we don't have an empty lot. We can bulldoze and build all brand new.

But, you know, it's the concept that I think people like. So. OK, keep going.

What's your vision for Finnan Square? This is where it's missing a page. And the page was the division of forbidden square.

There was articulated in the master plan, which I think is in the next set of documents. We can. We'll see when we do that next feedback set.

So essentially, you know, it's so 60% of people are saying they strongly agree with that. You know, description and, you know, 36% say that they. So that's pretty high percentage.

Almost everybody who said they agree with the vision. OK, next was how close is it to your ideal vision? I can't believe we had people that said to be close, but OK, or close even.

So OK, it was 33, not close. 47 and really not close was 27. So yeah, so I would say that great majority of people.

Think we're nowhere near we could be OK. And priorities. OK, so increased mix of uses to find blocks and flexible circulation.

Enhanced sense of place that came up a lot in the discussion. Reconfigured buildings defining outdoor space 25%. Reduced visual impact of parking, which would probably happen anyway.

OK. And OK, then we start talking about the design guidelines and, you know, standards versus guidelines. Standards being like you must do this and kind of.

And the guidelines are this is what you should be doing, right? So something that's a little more flexible. So I was surprised that I mean, I just based upon the.

In-person meeting that more people weren't like standards only, but I think it makes sense that we have standards and some guidelines in a balance of standards and guidelines. So, you know, and then you'll go to the next one. Go ahead, Marissa.

You know, everybody wants to control like, you know, parking and circulation. I mean, I think we could have a lot of control about landscape. The sustainability, affordability, the building.

I mean, meaning that I guess the type of buildings and so forth, you know, on the site, that's important. But circulation, I think people are mostly concerned with traffic volume. If that's kind of what I got.

But we also talked a lot about circulation within the site. Like how do people and cars move within the site? So that was that was a really important topic that came up too.

And I don't know if that's the end of that particular thing. Is that the end of that one?

[Speaker 15] (1:38:35 - 1:38:35)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:36 - 1:39:05)
Oh, go ahead. Should be included. All right.

So, include is a priority. Include more, include less, don't include. So you can kind of see where that's going.

The site itself, connections to buildings. Yeah, it's super important. Landscape, you know, people are very concerned about landscape and what the buildings look like.

And the circulation, which I, you know, I also think is.