[Speaker 12] (0:27 - 2:08)
. .

[Speaker 11] (2:56 - 4:15)
. .

[Speaker 2] (4:44 - 4:47)
Yes, okay. All right.

[Speaker 1] (4:48 - 5:18)
We will call the March 10th meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7 p.m. I'm joined by Bill Quinn and Joe Sheridan. And we will start with application 24 sub-02 by Darius Gregory for a preliminary subdivision control law review. Can hand it over to the applicant.

It is just the three of us for this evening.

[Speaker 4] (5:21 - 7:15)
Well, virtually, I believe, as well as with us tonight is Chris Baragas from Williamson's Baragas Middleton to discuss in detail the plans that we submitted to develop a site for one residence by creating Manson Road. And our understanding, when we were here late last year, was that the only way that we could do this under the town bylaws was by using the subdivision control law. With that in mind, we filed a Form B application and modified plans.

And there were plans before you. And hopefully, what we'll be able to do tonight is come to an understanding so that we'd be ready to file a definitive plan. We are recognizing the waivers that we're going to need in concert with talking to you, your board.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Chris Baragas. Hopefully, he is in fact to walk you through the plan. I think the biggest issue that we dealt with when we were talking about this in the fall was the methodology for the public safety vehicles that get access and discussing exactly what waivers we're going to need.

So with that, Chris, you're on. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (7:21 - 7:22)
Sound issue.

[Speaker 1] (7:23 - 7:26)
Hold on one second. We're having some sound issues on our side.

[Speaker 2] (7:28 - 7:32)
Try again, Chris. No.

[Speaker 1] (7:37 - 7:38)
Hold on one more minute. I can hear you, Chris.

[Speaker 8] (7:39 - 7:40)
Perfect.

[Speaker 1] (7:40 - 7:42)
We're going to go down. All right, you can try again.

[Speaker 3] (7:43 - 7:44)
OK, let's try again.

[Speaker 1] (7:45 - 7:46)
Perfect, thank you.

[Speaker 3] (7:46 - 8:43)
OK, great. Thank you, Attorney Drogas and members of the planning board. For the record, my name is Chris Baragas, and I'm a registered professional engineer here in the Commonwealth with offices at Williams and Sparagis in Middleton, Massachusetts.

And as Attorney Drogas just mentioned, we're here to present this preliminary plan, which will serve as essentially a roadway improvement plan to improve a section of Manson Road to create enough improved frontage to support one additional building lot and residence. Now, is it OK for me to share my screen? Absolutely.

OK, let's see here. Give me just a second here, and I'll just pull up this. I just threw a little bit of color on our plan.

And let me know when that comes up on the screen.

[Speaker 1] (8:44 - 8:45)
We can see it, thank you.

[Speaker 3] (8:45 - 11:39)
OK, great. So we've colored up the proposed conditions plan, but I'll take a few minutes just to explain the existing conditions. And so we're tucked away here in the northwest corner of Swampstead, right near the Lynn city boundary.

And the plans that I'm going to be presenting tonight, the north arrow is up here, and north is up the plan, if you will. And so Manson Road is in its existing condition, unconstructed. It lies here in this east-west direction.

It's off of Manson Avenue. And the lot that we're going to be talking about tonight, where we're improving the frontage, is this land court lot that's identified as lot 824. And it's got just about 20,100 square feet of land area, and it's shaped as like a trapezoid, if you will.

Topographically, the subject property is relatively flat. We only have about six to eight feet of grade across the lot in this direction. And a little bit zoomed out, if you will, topographically speaking, the land is higher than us to the north.

So this land sits up higher, and so this storm water and land slopes downhill in this direction. And then Manson Road, the land in front of Manson Road, slopes downhill from a high point at the intersection of Manson Avenue and Manson Road down towards the end where our subject property is. Just off to the southeast is a bordering vegetative wetland.

It's an inland wetland, and it has a buffer zone associated with it. A 100-foot buffer zone extends onto the subject property here. We're not proposing any work for the roadway within 100 feet.

That being said, I'd like to just let the planning board know that this plan to improve the right-of-way was submitted as part of a notice of intent to the Conservation Commission back in 2024. This was a notice of intent that was filed in February, and the commission issued a favorable order of conditions allowing this project to move forward in April. As part of our preparations for this preliminary plan submittal, we also went out and located all the trees within the area of disturbance that were greater than 12 inches in diameter breast height to give the planning board an idea of just how many trees we were going to have to remove in order to do this improvement.

And we submitted that plan along with our application. Would the members like to see that plan before we move on to the existing condition, to the proposed conditions?

[Speaker 1] (11:40 - 11:41)
Yes, please. I think that would be helpful.

[Speaker 3] (11:42 - 11:42)
OK.

[Speaker 1] (11:43 - 11:45)
All right. So let me just stop sharing for a moment.

[Speaker 3] (11:58 - 12:02)
So I'll bring up the tree clearing exhibit. Let me know when you can see that.

[Speaker 11] (12:08 - 12:09)
We can see that.

[Speaker 3] (12:09 - 13:19)
Can you, folks? You can see that now? OK, thank you.

All right, so just to keep it simple, we have a list, if you will, of the trees. And they're mostly black and red oak. And we've circled the tree locations on this plan to give you an idea of where they're located.

And clearly, what we did, what I showed at the beginning of my presentation is tell you that this is not my project. I'm filling in for Rich Williams, who happens to be away with his family for a week. They're watching their three boys play baseball in Florida.

So I am prepared to talk about all the things, but maybe not all of the details. So forgive me if I don't know everything about the project. But in order to accomplish the proposed grading scheme that we have here, these are the trees that will have to be removed.

And we've identified all of them. And we started over here on the right-hand side of the plan at number one. And you can see we're up at 50 trees that we will have to remove that are greater than 12 inches diameter breast height.

And these were surveyed back in October.

[Speaker 1] (13:22 - 13:26)
And you said the total number is 50? That's correct.

[Speaker 3] (13:29 - 13:49)
You can see where they sort of plot along the right-of-way, obviously, and then along our stormwater management improvement areas, which include a swale-like feature here and a detention basin here, which I'll go into a little bit more detail as I describe the proposed conditions.

[Speaker 8] (13:50 - 14:04)
Just one point of information. So it's my understanding as well, Darius Gregory, one of the applicants, but it's my understanding that those are 12 inches and less than 12 inches, correct? Or is it greater than 12 inches?

[Speaker 3] (14:06 - 14:13)
So I believe that, let me pull up the inventory list. Hold on just a second here.

[Speaker 8] (14:16 - 14:18)
And I do see it say greater than 12.

[Speaker 3] (14:19 - 15:12)
Yeah, hold on a second. Let me just see if the list itself can bring up the tree inventory list. So yeah, greater than or equal to 12 inches in diameter.

OK. Yep. Some planning board rules and regulations in various cities and towns that we work in require that you locate every tree six inches in diameter at breast height.

And some cities and towns require that you only identify trees that are 24 inches in diameter. So it kind of varies from town to town. So it's not unusual to sort of only identify larger trees, for example.

[Speaker 1] (15:14 - 15:24)
I think our subdivision control regs require inventory of any tree eight inches or larger, but that's what I'm showing as part of the submission packet as well. OK.

[Speaker 3] (15:27 - 15:43)
As I go through the proposed conditions plan, the one thing that I don't have access to, and I apologize, Mr. Chair, I believe Attorney Drugas must have the list of requested waivers. And I'll ask Attorney Drugas, after my presentation, to go over that list if you'd like.

[Speaker 1] (15:44 - 15:45)
That'd be great. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (15:46 - 16:05)
OK. All right, so let me move on to the proposed conditions here. And I'm going to stop sharing and then share the colored screen again one more time.

That screen should come up momentarily.

[Speaker 1] (16:10 - 16:10)
We can see it.

[Speaker 3] (16:11 - 22:20)
OK, great. Thank you so much. OK, so our proposal is to improve Manson Road, an existing unconstructed right of way to a length of approximately 368 feet.

So that would be measured from the sideline of Manson Avenue to the end of the proposed improvement here. So that's approximately 368 feet. You're looking at the sort of the cream tan color is the proposed paved width of 20 feet.

And at the end, this is a recent change to the plan. One of the last things that we worked on, we worked together with the local fire department to determine an appropriate turnaround for emergency vehicles. And so you can see this T-type turnaround at the end here, which will accommodate the fire department's vehicle.

My understanding is that this configuration was reviewed and OKed by the fire department. From the edge of the pavement on the main road, this extends out into the lot approximately 43 feet, just to kind of give you an idea of how much this sticks out into the lot here. One of the biggest features of this proposal and one of the most important aspects of our filing with the Conservation Commission involves stormwater improvements.

And so I mentioned to you sort of the lay of the land and the way the land slopes in the existing condition. And we have a similar, we're trying to keep it similar in nature in the proposed condition. But because we're adding impervious services, the DP stormwater management standards require that we do certain things in order to comply with the stormwater management regulations.

And so what we've done, we analyzed the existing conditions watershed and then the proposed conditions watershed and try to balance those things so that we can prove to the approving authority that we're controlling the rate of runoff and also proving out that we're treating the runoff off of paved surfaces and then infiltrating some of that water back into the ground. And so on this project, what we've done, we recognize that at this abutting property at number one, there's an existing house here. We have an abutting property at number one of Manson Avenue.

The front portion of their property slopes towards Manson Road and downhill. And so we had to make sure that we collect that existing runoff and not create a dam, if you will, on the downhill side. And so that's being accomplished by a 12 inch pipe.

The pipe here is shown in blue. So any water that runs along the property of number one comes down a hill to this location here, not just a pipe. Into our stormwater infrastructure and then the paved surface of the improvements here on Manson Road would be collected using a curb on one side of the road.

And so the road has a slope where it slopes from the north side to the south side. And then stormwater would run along a curb and then all the way down to the end to a catch basin. There's a deep sub catch basin proposed right at the end here.

And I'll zoom in here so we can see some of these improvements now in a little bit more detail. And so here we have a deep sub catch basin with a gas trap hood. And then we direct that to a manhole where we also pick up the water from the front of number one.

And then from there, it goes into a treatment chamber, in this case, an oil water separator. So it's a rectangular tank that's under the ground that allows us to have some more sediment fall out before we discharge into our detention basin. And this detention basin is designed to infiltrate some water and also hold back some water so that when we present our findings in the stormwater report, we can prove that through our engineering calculations, that the peak rate of runoff in each of the design storms is less than the peak rate of runoff in the existing condition.

Well, it's close to zero changes we can get. So that's how the paved surfaces and the water from the front of number one is being handled. And then you may remember that we also have some off site watersheds.

I'm going to zoom out again. The property next door to the north is uphill. And we also have a swale like feature between our stormwater management area here and the end of the paved surface here, where we're just allowing existing runoff to come down into the swale like feature and continue on to the wetland, which is just down to the southeast here.

This is the wetland area here. And although it's not part of the roadway improvement, a little bit of detail about the single family house that we're proposing to build here is shown in this brick red color. The proposed water supply will be via a private well located just off the side of the house here.

And then the proposed sewer is via a town sewer. We propose to connect a small pump chamber with a force main that will take the sewage through an easement through another property to the south and then out into the town's sewer collection system. So that's how we're handling water and sewer.

So that's the end of my technical presentation about the technical elements of the project, Mr. Chair. If you'd like to go through the list of waivers, I'm sure that Attorney Durgis has that handy. And he and I are here to answer any questions that you folks may have.

[Speaker 1] (22:20 - 22:31)
Thank you. Yeah, I think it'd be helpful to go through the list of waivers that you're you're going to be seeking. Then we can open up the board for questions, public comment and then pursue from there.

[Speaker 4] (22:31 - 22:47)
Sure. Just to add to the last comment, you're aware of the fact that the sewer is going through what is connecting to the wind, and I think we provided you with a letter from from the wind saying that they approved such a such an arrangement.

[Speaker 1] (22:48 - 22:52)
I'm not sure we did receive that. I know we got email communication that they were considering that.

[Speaker 4] (22:52 - 22:59)
But I believe that they've I believe that they've approved the concept, but their eyes would know.

[Speaker 8] (23:01 - 23:19)
Yes, in principle, we have an agreement, there was a letter that was shared, and I believe Marissa has that in the folder. So there's just some things that need to be ironed out. But yes, they are granting us the connection just as they did for the other three homes we built at 1115 and 19 Manson.

[Speaker 1] (23:20 - 23:26)
OK, I think for whatever when you come back for a definitive site plan, we just need to see that, you know, from the city of Linn directly.

[Speaker 4] (23:29 - 27:02)
The the the waivers that we're asking for are really a function of the fact that we have to use a subdivision control law to to build this one house. They basically just deal with relief from the requirements of building the the way and providing all of the. Amenities that attach to that in light of the area that town that we're in, none of these other ways up in that area would really meet any of the criteria or subdivision control.

And when we're asking to to be much consistent with all of the ways that are in the area and that is really from the 40 foot and 44 foot wide way making using the paper width of 40 feet and using granite curbs with a Cape Cod berm on on one side. There's no sidewalks up on any of the prop. The other ways that are there are going to be waving sidewalks.

The fact that this is a dead end to one house. We don't have the ability to create the hundred foot diameter circle, but have made arrangements that have been approved by the fire department. So it needs waiver on that.

The water runoff provisions, I think, have been handled appropriately and would have a waiver request directing stormwater runoff. I believe we we did file at one point the stormwater report that I believe the town has sidewalks, as I said, really from the requirements of sidewalks on both sides and not having sidewalk on either side and not having the grass strip and separating the six foot on each side. And that's basically the waivers that we see that we need in relationship to the the length of the roadway being less than 400 feet.

I think that we're we're OK on with having the we have adequate catch basins and curb inlets. So I believe we have the list there. And I think when we get to the definitive plan, there might be some other things that we might be looking to ask for, such as maybe a covenant rather than bond or bond and waiving an environmental impact statement for the nature of the project and what it is.

We're just leaving the last lot or a much bigger lot where they previously built the other three houses, all of which have wells.

[Speaker 1] (27:03 - 27:30)
Yeah, understood. Yeah. OK, thank you.

I think we can open up to the board for questions and and we'll go to public comment, come back to the board and go from there. So open it up to. Well, I just have a few questions.

How is electricity? Are there polls going to be delivering electricity to the house when it eventually goes in or has electrical service being completed there?

[Speaker 3] (27:32 - 27:48)
So that's a good. Yeah, go ahead. Attorney Drew, just go ahead.

No, no, go ahead. Yeah, that's OK. Sure.

So so the plans that I reviewed in preparation tonight didn't didn't show that particular utility. So I imagine it's going to be overhead.

[Speaker 8] (27:50 - 27:51)
That's correct.

[Speaker 3] (27:53 - 27:59)
I think that was Mr. Gregory, who confirmed that the plan is to bring in overhead power to this one one house lot.

[Speaker 8] (28:00 - 28:14)
Yes, because the butter that you referenced in the original site plan on the left, they they have electric, which is overhead. So if the run is longer, where it requires an additional pole, we'll work that out directly with the utility provider if it can't make the run.

[Speaker 1] (28:16 - 28:36)
Understood. OK, and then the. The Manson Avenue, which is coming off of that, that 90 degree, that's 40 feet wide.

I'm sure you measure that. So this is just continuation of what that you're going to be having. That's obviously one of the waivers you're seeking.

Yeah.

[Speaker 13] (28:36 - 28:37)
Yeah. OK.

[Speaker 1] (28:40 - 28:52)
In terms of the tree count, I know the inventory had 93 trees greater than eight inches and 50 of them were proposed to be removed.

[Speaker 3] (28:54 - 29:11)
Yes, according to the tree clearing exhibit, there are there are 50 trees identified that that we're requesting that are proposed to be anticipated to be removed. OK, basically, those are trees, trees greater than 12 inches diameter, breast height.

[Speaker 4] (29:13 - 29:15)
And they're basically in the way.

[Speaker 1] (29:16 - 29:19)
Yeah. And that's predominantly from the road construction. Right.

[Speaker 5] (29:19 - 29:31)
Right. That's correct. OK, so the other 43 are not going to be removed.

Or they just start on the tally because they're less than 12. Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (29:31 - 29:33)
Yeah. Gary, can you answer that question?

[Speaker 8] (29:35 - 30:04)
Yeah, from my understanding, everything that is on that, that inventory that needs to be removed is all we plan to remove. And it's anything that's in the roadway with existing house lot is where the building is going to both buildings going and where the drainage is going. We're not looking to clear cut everything.

It's only strictly what we need to. Um, so I believe 50 is what's required for us to to remove. But we can give you more definitive answer when we come back for the definitive.

[Speaker 5] (30:04 - 30:17)
So I mean, maybe rephrase the question a little bit. Does the list has 93 trees listed? If you're 50, are the other 43 standing or are there all 93 are being removed?

[Speaker 8] (30:18 - 31:01)
Yes. So I think we had to do this more than once. Originally, we had did the tree inventory and then it was requested that we go back and do it again to include eight inches or greater.

And that's how we got to the total of 93 on that plane. I believe we only have to remove what's been identified on the plane that Mr. Sparage shared. So that would then answer your question to say that 43 should still be remaining.

Or whatever the difference is. But again, I can give you a definitive answer when we come back for the definitive in four weeks, because I did not go out there and do the tree inventory that was led by Mr. Rich Williams.

[Speaker 5] (31:01 - 31:13)
Fair enough, but I think it's important that when you do come back, that we identify those that are going to be removed, whether between eight and 12 or not. That way, it'll be clear for everybody to see.

[Speaker 4] (31:13 - 31:18)
Certainly. I'm sure Rich could. I know Rich could answer that question here.

[Speaker 6] (31:23 - 32:47)
One thing I've still been wondering is I just want to make sure that, you know, the applicant, they were following the right process to, you know, lay out the road. So just like let me understand, right? Like Manson Road is a paper street, right?

And so the folks to the north own halfway into the street, right? And so I just want to make sure that whatever we're doing, like all of the proper rights have been, you know, obtained to do it, you know what I'm saying? I'm not.

I'm not. So when I look at the plans, like when I go on to the GIS website and that sort of thing, like the I assume that like the deed to the lot, I assume it's 823, maybe whatever the one is to the left of 824, that the property line only goes up to the edge of Manson Road. So it's a paper street.

The party to the north owns to the middle of the road and 823 owns to the middle of the road. And if we're cutting down a bunch of trees and we're putting in a proposed base, and I just want to make sure that that's something that it doesn't require the consent of the party to the north.

[Speaker 4] (32:48 - 33:09)
I don't believe it does. I believe that when you have you have rights in a way. Yeah.

To it, then you want to construct the way you have every right to do that, because whether they have rights in that way or not, you still have the right to pass and repass and have the ability to make improvements so that you can do that. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (33:10 - 33:14)
Marissa, if I recall, I think we have a town council on that.

[Speaker 2] (33:14 - 33:26)
We did. I'm trying to look for the email right now. It's in some it's my recollection that Attorney Stein from K.P. Law did tell me that anybody that has rights to the paper street also has the right to approve it.

[Speaker 1] (33:26 - 33:41)
But that was my recollection. But can you just maybe find that email and yeah, I'm I'm not putting on the spot. We can come back to that when you have a chance to.

Yeah, that was my recollection.

[Speaker 6] (33:41 - 33:58)
I thought that we checked with K.P. Law, but I wasn't sure where it ended up. And I wasn't so focused on the basin when we asked them. I just want to make sure that, you know, we're going to prove something that.

We're not approving something that we hear has been said to you.

[Speaker 1] (33:58 - 34:20)
Yeah. So as far as. Well, I'm going to turn it over to public comments, if there's any comments from the public, we can come back to this and go from there.

Are there any members of the public here to speak tonight on this plan? Please feel free to come up to the microphone and introduce yourself.

[Speaker 10] (34:27 - 36:25)
Thank you. I'm Jennifer Honig, chair of the Swampscott Tree Committee. I'm also a lawyer, but I'm not here in that capacity.

So I know that we submitted a letter regarding the trees that would be cut down, and we appreciate the questions that you've been raising about the trees. It was our understanding. And so we appreciate your interest in determining the the details of it, but that it was ninety three trees of eight inches or more.

And then that would be removed and then whatever other trees that might be in the same path, but that were less than eight inches. So I understand maybe it's that there's 50 trees that are 12 inches or more. There's some number, you know, there's forty three that are between eight and twelve.

And then there's but there's also the trees that are lower than eight. That's my understanding. But again, I appreciate if your committee would would look into that as a committee.

We're very concerned because our entire planting project for the last year was about the same number of trees intends to be removed, also because these are very mature trees. They're oaks, which are a really important species for all sorts of animals. Also, I don't know if you're familiar with the tree canopy study, but between 2010 and 2016, swamps got lost over 110 acres of trees.

So I understand there's limited leeway in this project, but any efforts you could make to mitigate the number of trees that are coming down would greatly appreciate to the extent that there's waivers that are being sought that might reduce the amount of trees or other options that you have as a board to limit the number taken down. We'd appreciate it. You know, I realize the project is somewhat far along.

If you know, I don't know whether it's even possible, but if there was another route to get to the property, that would be terrific, too.

[Speaker 1] (36:28 - 36:49)
Thank you. Thanks. And thanks for your committee's letter.

Mr. Chair, may I speak? Why don't we get through public comment if there's any other members, then I'm happy to turn it back over to your team. Thank you, sir.

Yeah. Are there any other members of the public here? Anybody online, Marissa?

I don't think so.

[Speaker 2] (36:49 - 36:55)
Let's see. Anyone who's online that wants to say something, they can use the raise their hand function.

[Speaker 1] (36:58 - 37:03)
OK. Oh, so now we can hand it back over to you and your client, Chris.

[Speaker 8] (37:05 - 37:49)
OK. Yeah. So just I appreciate the comments from the previous speaker.

My my suggestion possibly, and this will be obviously another waiver, is if we shorten the width of the road, I think if we think about what we're building, it's a single family home. The need for a 20 foot wide driveway is definitely above and beyond the scope. Essentially, it's just a long driveway.

So if we was to shorten that to 12 feet and still have adequate room to turn around for the fire department, I'm sure you would save all those all those trees that are on each side of the road. So just something as thinking outside the box as possible solutions to mitigate the impact.

[Speaker 1] (37:51 - 38:43)
Thank you. I think I think we can get into the waiver conversation now as a board. I personally happen to agree and share that thought that 40 foot wide road there is obviously a continuation of the existing width, but we're really serving one, maybe two potential properties here at some point.

40 feet. I don't have a problem granting waivers in excess of, you know, to allow that road to be less wide than 40 feet if it helps prevent some of the tree loss of some of these. Yeah, big, big trees.

So I'm happy with that, but I'm not curious. Other members of the board and what your thoughts are on that?

[Speaker 3] (38:44 - 38:55)
As long as the chair, just a point of order, the paved width is 20 feet. The physical property line of the road obviously is 40. So we're proposing to pay for 20.

[Speaker 1] (38:56 - 39:02)
Yeah, again, still comfortable with that width being able to be further reduced given the volume of vehicles likely entering.

[Speaker 6] (39:03 - 39:08)
But OK, I was saying as long as the fire department's OK with it, that's fine with me. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (39:11 - 39:21)
And Angela, who is not able to be here tonight, but I know other she had mentioned to me that that was something she was comfortable with and had a similar thought on.

[Speaker 7] (39:21 - 39:24)
So Angela's always human spirit.

[Speaker 1] (39:26 - 39:27)
Bill, do you have any?

[Speaker 5] (39:28 - 40:00)
No, I think that's a good, good suggestion that the petitioner makes. I'm not sure exactly how many you could say, but I see a lot of big numbers across the north side and a few big numbers on the south side as well. So I'm not sure it was the difference, but maybe some sort of a rough estimate of what a 20 foot road would take out instead of a 40 foot road.

Well, I think they're doing a 20 foot road. So I mean, so we'd be narrowing the width to save the trees. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (40:01 - 40:15)
Yeah. So it's the Paper Street, as they've just corrected me on. The Paper Street is 40 feet wide.

The actual paved road is going to be 20 feet wide. Right. So as it goes to that, that means the circle is down as opposed to.

But what's that, Bill?

[Speaker 5] (40:15 - 40:25)
I mean, the circle trees on the bottom of the drawing stay. So if I think I think that was the proposal, it's a great night, right?

[Speaker 1] (40:27 - 40:31)
Oh, I see what you're saying, that 20 foot wide driveway. Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (40:31 - 40:33)
And again, just the driveway, not the road.

[Speaker 1] (40:34 - 41:05)
Well, I think that's what the applicant here had mentioned was not needing that driveway to also be 20 feet wide, given that it's just for that one house that would save some of those streets. I am also, as long as there's no public safety concern from town departments, fine with that roadway being if their applicant is interested in being, you know, as minimal as it needs to be for public safety access and DPW. If that if that furthers the goal of saving a few more trees.

[Speaker 5] (41:06 - 41:09)
Is it biased to one side? You could decide which is better.

[Speaker 1] (41:10 - 41:14)
You know, if that's something that the applicant is open to.

[Speaker 4] (41:14 - 41:20)
We can look, we can look into that. Maybe doing 15 or 16 feet, something like that.

[Speaker 5] (41:21 - 41:21)
Yeah. Sorry.

[Speaker 4] (41:22 - 41:26)
I don't think I think 12 feet would probably be too little. I don't think they would approve 12.

[Speaker 1] (41:26 - 41:34)
Yeah, that sounds. Yeah. But you know, 16 or 18 feet or something, you know.

[Speaker 5] (41:35 - 41:42)
We have any precedent anywhere for. What's that? We have any precedent anywhere for minimum road width?

Yes.

[Speaker 1] (41:43 - 41:50)
That is something I would probably turn to town and especially low traffic areas. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (41:51 - 41:52)
Say that one more time, Bill.

[Speaker 5] (41:52 - 42:12)
I just have any precedent for narrow, narrowing roadways in low traffic areas, specifically safe trees in this instance. But just in general, do we have any other places where roads have been waivers granted or something else so that we can get less road more tree?

[Speaker 2] (42:13 - 42:13)
OK.

[Speaker 5] (42:13 - 42:30)
I can definitely get that out there. Figure that out, because most driver in town specifically or just in town specifically, I think. But maybe an impossible answer, I just.

Be good if you had a reference.

[Speaker 1] (42:30 - 43:06)
Yeah, I know there's probably one acting town administrator that probably could answer that question very quickly. Yeah, we'll figure that out. In terms of other waivers that are being requested, you know, if we go from top to bottom, the right of way with we discuss that.

Cape Cod berm instead of the granite curbing. Any. I think that's completely reasonable.

[Speaker 5] (43:07 - 43:08)
Help me a little bit with the Cape Cod part.

[Speaker 1] (43:09 - 43:11)
It's like one of those curved slopes.

[Speaker 5] (43:11 - 43:12)
Just a small one or it's not the big.

[Speaker 1] (43:13 - 43:31)
No, it's just like a I'm not using a scientific term, but it's like that small slope you see on the side of a road. It's like, I don't know, I don't know the angle, but they're I don't know, being used all over the place now, I guess. And it's one where the mercy can pull up a picture because I have to.

[Speaker 5] (43:31 - 43:33)
That's what I was doing. I just didn't want to.

[Speaker 3] (43:34 - 43:42)
If there's a picture of it on sheet three of three of the plan set. And it's just it's just a low profile.

[Speaker 1] (43:43 - 43:48)
The second one, the second result, there is the one that I did 20 minutes before coming to the meeting.

[Speaker 5] (43:48 - 43:50)
OK, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (43:51 - 44:35)
Supposedly really good for wildlife. Supposed to be really good for wildlife. Something I learned.

Waiver from having sidewalks. I am comfortable with that, given the there's no sidewalks on Manson Avenue, so having sidewalks on this road would probably look a little out of place. I agree.

Yeah. The T-shaped turnaround instead of the hundred foot diameter cul-de-sac. Also makes sense.

We don't want to, in my opinion, make sense. We don't want to be removing more trees again than we need to.

[Speaker 7] (44:36 - 44:38)
OK, they weren't that way.

[Speaker 5] (44:40 - 44:43)
Yeah. So there's a lot of trees in that area.

[Speaker 1] (44:45 - 44:52)
Yeah. And I mean, if we did a hundred foot cul-de-sac there, I don't know. You get really probably get into the wetland buffer zone.

[Speaker 7] (44:52 - 44:54)
And right. That's the whole point. I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (44:54 - 46:42)
So I don't know if it makes sense for one or two houses to have a big cul-de-sac like that on top of the other reasons. We talked about the sidewalk, grass strips. The waiving of the sidewalk, waiving of the requirement for grass strips and then shade trees being constructed.

I'm fine with that as well. The surface water on both sides of the roadway. Yeah.

So having the surface water before the end of that 400 foot stretch. And again, I think the stormwater report showed a pretty significant improvement from existing conditions. So I think that makes that to me makes sense as well.

Are there any of these waivers that? Do you have a problem? No.

No. OK. So I'm comfortable with the waivers that we discussed.

And again, I think we just need to consider the, you know, the applicant can consider roadway width and whatever kind of stuff you would like to try and save some of those trees. But I think the you know, you've heard the concern from the board about the number of trees. So whatever you can do to help work around those.

And if, you know, there's waivers that are you would consider needing to maybe save a few trees that are within reason, that's absolutely something we're open to.

[Speaker 5] (46:45 - 47:01)
Understood. Is there any consideration to replanting trees to take up some of the burden, like along the property lines or something, plant a new row of trees or is that already in the works or?

[Speaker 8] (47:02 - 47:52)
Yeah, I think any time you say consideration of, you know, you try to think about how can we, you know, put forth a project that has low impact, but also doesn't, you know, kill our bottom line. So there was going to be a landscape plan of that. It was going to be minimal.

And then we kind of wanted to leave it up to the homeowner as well to give them an allowance to plant what they wanted to on their property, on their 20,000 square foot lot. But if you're asking for us to do something in the right away, you know, I could take that offline and maybe bring that to the definitive. Again, we're not trying to be difficult, but I just don't, you know, we're not going to plant 93.

I mean, you know, that's just not realistic. So but again, we're amenable to be flexible and accommodate the boundaries.

[Speaker 5] (47:52 - 47:58)
Of course, there's just something to think about. It's not a requirement, obviously. Honestly.

[Speaker 1] (48:01 - 48:15)
If you are open to planting some trees on the right away, you know, again, not 93, whatever makes sense. Any single one, I guess, helps move down from the 50 that would be removed. So every single one helps and counts.

[Speaker 4] (48:16 - 48:18)
We'll take a real look at that.

[Speaker 1] (48:18 - 50:04)
Appreciate that. So any other questions or comments from the board on this application? No.

OK. This is not a vote, right? I believe we well within 60 days, the planning board may give such preliminary approval, a preliminary plan, its approval with or without modifications suggested by the board or agreed to by the person submitting the plan.

Such approval does not constitute endorsement of a subdivision. The board may also disapprove of any plan. In such case, the board shall do so in writing.

So we may give approval. We don't have to, but we may give approval, and I don't think we have to. With that being said, they can come back for a definitive plan with or without our approval.

So. And we have 60 days, we could table it to another meeting. I don't see the need to do that personally, as long as if there are any changes from the preliminary plan that we're seeing, I would suggest working through Marissa to before the definitive plan is filed to make sure that the Office of Community Development and Planning Office is comfortable with all of those changes.

And we don't make a road that public safety says is too narrow or something. I don't know. But before a definitive plan is filed, just making sure that planning is comfortable with it being filed as a definitive plan rather than having to drag you guys back here because the roadway is two feet more narrow.

And that's the only change.

[Speaker 5] (50:04 - 50:07)
So obviously, public safety will have to relook at it.

[Speaker 1] (50:07 - 50:14)
Yep. So I believe definitive plans are required to relook at. Everybody has to look at it again with a different set of approval criteria.

[Speaker 4] (50:15 - 50:17)
And the neighbors get notice of that, too.

[Speaker 1] (50:18 - 50:18)
Right.

[Speaker 4] (50:18 - 50:35)
That's public here. So I would simply say that we've heard you and we will investigate that, the basic two items. How narrow can we make the road and how many trees can we save and maybe even replace some?

[Speaker 1] (50:36 - 50:37)
Appreciate that.

[Speaker 6] (50:37 - 50:41)
Marissa, did that email say?

[Speaker 2] (50:42 - 51:28)
The one from KP? Yeah. Yeah.

So this is from attorney Klein of KP Law. I'll read directly from the email. In my opinion, assuming the owner of the parcel has easement rights to pass and repass on Manson Road, which writes out parentheses, which rights are outside the scope of this opinion, the owner would have the right to improve Manson Road.

She cites a case law post versus McHugh, where the court held that an owner had established the right to use certain roads then had further the further right to make reasonable repairs and improvement to those ways. See also Gillette versus Le Vernois, a lot of French. When an easement or other property right is created, every right necessary for its enjoyment is included by implication.

[Speaker 1] (51:29 - 51:37)
So OK, that was her second sentence, I think, was when a property is used as a right away or eased.

[Speaker 2] (51:38 - 51:47)
As such or something is where the easement is somewhere in where the owner of the parcel has easement rights to pass and repass.

[Speaker 1] (51:47 - 51:51)
Yes. OK, so assuming obviously you have those rights.

[Speaker 2] (51:52 - 51:52)
Correct.

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

[Speaker 2] (51:52 - 51:59)
So if they have problems, if those rights are established, then they have the further right to make reasonable repairs and improvements to those ways.

[Speaker 1] (52:01 - 52:43)
Got it. That's thanks. Yeah, I think that's OK.

OK, so as I mentioned, we may. Yeah, we may approve such plan or disapprove. I don't see any reason to disapprove, but whether we want to approve such a plan, I have to do we approve it with the.

Caveat that they're going to make some changes with I would I I would say we could make a motion to approve this with modifications granting. The waiver sought and with modifications.

[Speaker 4] (52:46 - 52:48)
On the width of the way and trees.

[Speaker 1] (52:49 - 53:03)
Yeah. Modifications to look at roadway width and proposed driveway width. Which will come back in a definitive plan in order to minimize the loss of trees.

[Speaker 6] (53:03 - 53:34)
OK, I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary plan for 24 SUV to show to buy various Gregory and to grant the waivers sought and just on the condition that they will come back to well in the definitive plan, they'll look into a reduction in the width of the right of way to accommodate, you know, more trees than currently.

[Speaker 1] (53:35 - 53:37)
Second, all those in favor.

[Speaker 5] (53:39 - 53:41)
Thank you again.

[Speaker 1] (53:41 - 53:56)
I would just encourage you to the definitive to make sure you have the letter from wind, water and sewer granting that and then the just file with it early, but it's actually submitted. So we can make sure everybody's comfortable with the final definitive plan.

[Speaker 5] (53:57 - 53:59)
That's a notified public hearing.

[Speaker 2] (54:00 - 54:03)
Yeah, I think the statutory deadline would be a week from today.

[Speaker 4] (54:04 - 54:05)
A week from today.

[Speaker 2] (54:05 - 54:09)
Yeah. 24th.

[Speaker 8] (54:12 - 54:19)
So you would need the revised definitive plan by the 24th along with the letter from land, water and sewer.

[Speaker 2] (54:19 - 54:25)
Correct. Yep. And that's a that's a mass general law statutory deadline.

So. OK.

[Speaker 1] (54:26 - 55:02)
OK. All right. We're on it.

Thank you. Thanks. Thank you.

All right. Up next, we have application 24 sub dash zero one by Center for Retail Properties for preliminary subdivision view as part of subdivision control law for 450 Paradise Road and 555 Essex Street. I turn it over to you.

I feel like I've seen you at every meeting for the last few months. All of you. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Speaker 7] (55:03 - 56:42)
Thank you all. Chairman, members of the planning board in your capacity for the approval of the application or the preliminary plan, you may recall. Actually, it was a month ago today, February the 10th.

We were before the board, both for the A&R, which was approved, and it gave us the opportunity to explore the the form, the application for the preliminary subdivision plan. We're here tonight to ask for the approval of the planning board in a. In a much simpler context, when you heard earlier, there's a sole purpose for this project.

This process was to create the subdivision for purposes of financing the project. There's not going to be anything done that's any different than what's already there. We're not asking for any type of relief to change anything as much as we're just trying to create the subdivision to permit the financing from different sources for this project because of the extent of the project itself.

With me this evening is Mr. Richard Newberg from Senecorp Retail Properties, as well as Garrett Horsfield, the engineer that you have heard from earlier from Kelley Engineering. I believe he presented a letter to the board. What's I have that?

What was the date of the letter, Mr. Horsfield?

[Speaker 6] (56:42 - 56:43)
September 11th.

[Speaker 7] (56:43 - 58:09)
September the 11th. I said no, February the 5th, which detailed the preliminary subdivision plan application, which I know that you had the night of the 10th of February. So we're really here to discuss that.

This is more of an academic exercise than anything that's going to require an awful lot of thought, but it's important that we accomplish this so we can then move on to the next stage. We can almost see the beginning of the finish line having appeared before you, having appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals. No, no, excuse me, before you and your capacity for the plan approval process that we underwent.

We put it before the Conservation Commission for their approval. And ultimately, after the preliminary is approved, we'll be coming back for the definitive. And at that point, I'm looking forward to being able to say to you at some point in the next couple of years, you're going to see a redesigned, vibrant Swanscote Mall.

So Mr. Horsfield is here to answer any questions. If you'd like, he can give you a presentation, which will be pretty much a recap of the February the 5th letter or any way that you think appropriate in order to vet any questions that need to be discussed prior to your vote.

[Speaker 1] (58:10 - 58:14)
Thank you. I think if you ran through the brief presentation, that would be helpful.

[Speaker 9] (58:21 - 59:38)
Thank you again. Garrett Horsfield with Kelly Engineering Group. So as Attorney Schutzer mentioned, obviously, the board has seen this site over the past few months many times.

And we've during the approval process indicated proposed lot lines, I believe, on the proposed plans. And then part of the decision referenced the need for the request for waivers associated with the package that you have before you for consideration tonight. Just really briefly, the plan on the screen right now was the overall parcel.

Last month, the A&R portion was reviewed and approved to create the two new A&R lots for the new residential lot and the stop and shop to stand alone. And then, you know, plan view east here. We now have four, three parcels controlled by CenterCorp in the Chinese restaurant on the way south of the plan as well.

But the two lots before you tonight are MAP 17, Lot 90 and Lot 9F. Those compromise about 8.8 acres today with frontage on Paradise Road. And Marissa, if you could just switch to the next one.

[Speaker 2] (59:42 - 59:44)
This just had the one.

[Speaker 9] (59:44 - 1:01:41)
Oh, oh, yeah. Sorry. That that's fine.

Yeah, I can. So this is the proposed layout plan and the proposed lotting plan as well. So what we have done, as Attorney Schutzer mentioned, that the main purpose of what's before you tonight is for financing the project.

So all of the new out parcels have been created on their own lots. We do need some relief for a couple of these lots. Some of it's dimensional related and some of it is parking related.

But however, parking is under the entire umbrella of the permit. It's more dimensional for some some of them, a lot area. And I believe the only setback is the existing building that has the UPS store, the cleaners in Chipotle, where we're putting a front right away within the front setback over there.

We need relief as well. And the two two lots in the middle with the two out parcels, as well as the lot up in the front of a little bit below 40,000 square feet minimum lot area. So those are the three in terms of dimensional area of relief that would be requested, which was discussed as part of the previous permit relief or dimensional relief as part of the B4 permit process.

So we have included an additional list of waivers relative to the plans for you tonight. A lot of that is academic, honestly, just because the road is existing today and we're not changing profiles, we're not changing grades. And the stormwater is been approved by the by this board of the town as part of the previous project.

I can run through that list if you would like, or I'm glad to answer any of the questions as well. OK, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:45 - 1:01:47)
What any questions from the board?

[Speaker 7] (1:01:49 - 1:02:46)
In many ways, this is very duplicitous in the sense that the application for plan review process anticipated exactly where we are today. It just bifurcated into two different processes. And all of all of what you're seeing today was was part of that original application.

And intuitively, we included in that request for the plan review, the waivers. They're there. And the board indicated in its decision on the plan review, any waivers as required, because we were contemplating that it would require, as we went on, the the actual preliminary subdivision, the definitive subdivision for the financing that we're ultimately going to be seeking.

So it's really a different process with the same information, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:02:46 - 1:02:48)
Academic, as you put it.

[Speaker 7] (1:02:48 - 1:02:57)
Well, I, you know, in many ways, I didn't. It sounded as if I was trivializing the process, which I didn't mean to. But really what it is, is it's an exercise.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:58 - 1:04:01)
Right. We've received all this information and talked about it at length previously as part of the plan review process. So I hear you.

I think we can run through the list. Bill, I didn't mean to. Do you have any questions?

OK, I think we can run through the list of waivers here. And then, you know, when we get to the end here, obviously acknowledge the fact that, as I mentioned, and as the applicant put it, we've reviewed much of this data, including stormwater, sidewalks, materials, ad nauseum during a plan review process that was conducted in January and February. I believe so we've received much of this information in the past.

So if we run through waiver requests. Requesting to not show information within within 100 feet and 150 feet of the proposed subdivision and roads and to not stake out the roadways. It's already built.

Comfortable with that?

[Speaker 13] (1:04:02 - 1:04:02)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:03 - 1:08:41)
OK. Existing profiles on the exterior lines of the proposed profile of the center line of all proposed streets at scale. Except for the planning board, it's existing again.

All grades are approved as part of the previous site plan or site review process. Again, comfortable with that existing and proposed layout and design calculations for storm drainage, water supply, disposal systems and sewage registered through a professional engineer. That information we reviewed previously as the site approval process and review process.

Profiles of proposed ways on a horizontal scale. Footprints of all houses abutting on the way or structures, elevations, existing roadway grades will be for the plan approvals for the plaza redevelopment, which we reviewed as part of the plan review process. Cross section of proposed ways, since they're existing, we can wait that.

Statement describing conformance with the master plan, zoning bylaws, subdivision rules and regs and describing any and all conformities. Again, that was done as part of the plan review process. Environmental impact statement we received, we can waive that.

I mean, we got the narrative in a plan review process and. Got all of the CONCOM's notice of order conditions. Waiving the requirements, we had a 90 degree angle for the roadway since it's existing, we can waive that.

There's any. OK. Roadway width of no less than 44 feet and granite curbing and grass strips, we can.

Waive all that as it's existing and. You know, we reviewed sidewalk width as part of the plan review process for the redevelopment of the parcel. Dead end street being the cul-de-sac.

We can waive that. Suppose right away as long as 500 feet, whoever it connects to in a budding lot where the existing drive continues again, existing roadway. We're probably waiving that.

And request parks or recreation areas, but I think we. Reviewed as part of the plan review process, all the additional passive open space areas and new parklet kind of in the middle there. Granite curbing and gutters sold along the roadways, existing mall road, sorry, in existence, we can waive that.

No changes to the pavement of being proposed, so I think we have to go into suitability of of gravel since there's no changes there. Sidewalks of not less than six feet in width should be constructed on both sides of the street. So waiving that, no problem waiving that.

And again, I think we know that as part of the plan review process, the significant expansion of the size of the sidewalks on the opposite side of the road there that I think help address that waiver. No grass strips are being proposed. Comfortable waiving that monuments being proposed, comfortable waiving that given its.

Existing and utilities, water main services, storm subsurface drains, water pipes, sewer line extensions, fire alarm, police, civil overhead, underground cable work and electrical systems. The existing property already provides all those services and utilities. We reviewed the utility plans and the engineering plans sent over during the plan review process.

So I'm comfortable with all of these waivers. Just wanted to go through them line by line. Yes.

Be safe. Any issues with any of those waivers? No.

OK. Any questions for the applicant here? No.

And if there's any public comment, I don't believe anyone else is in here, but online. Online.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:42 - 1:08:45)
There's anyone online. Yeah. Raise your hand.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:47 - 1:09:27)
OK. Hearing none. OK.

You can close public comment. So again, like the previous subdivision approval, we can approve the plan approved with modification or deny or take no action which is kind of de facto it can continue on as a definitive but given the waivers that we all ran through I'm comfortable with in my opinion approving this I don't see any modifications needed yeah given the extensive review we did for the plan review process for the parcel entertain any motions

[Speaker 6] (1:09:36 - 1:09:44)
eliminate plan for subdivision and granting of the waivers requested a

[Speaker 11] (1:09:44 - 1:09:55)
second all right all those in favor all right thank you thank you I'm gonna miss you if I don't see you again but I'm sure we will I'm sure

[Speaker 7] (1:09:55 - 1:10:02)
we'll see you see you soon as far as far as the definitive I'm gonna say we'll

[Speaker 1] (1:10:02 - 1:10:21)
see you for the definitive yeah I think the only part of the definitive that would be different I mean there's obviously a few different like administrative narrative type stuff that you might need but if there's a

[Speaker 2] (1:10:21 - 1:10:27)
notice requirement notice requirement and then physical notice requirements I

[Speaker 1] (1:10:27 - 1:10:59)
think are required to put up a sign at the property that's outlined in the bylaws like what it has to say it's like it's in the subdivision rules and regs and you'll find it so no I'm sure it's like a five five four sign and it has a language that needs to be used but all right thank you all thanks thank you one

[Speaker 7] (1:10:59 - 1:11:10)
question was to do he has nothing to do with what we did the ADU zoning ordinance yeah is that been codified so we could get some you know on line so I can see

[Speaker 1] (1:11:10 - 1:12:27)
what it looks like it's um we're gonna go through a red line of it in a few minutes the final version we'll have the next before the next meeting okay but it won't look terribly different than what the what is there right now all right thank you thank you for my agenda okay proposed zoning bylaw amendments for annual town meeting ADU bylaw okay a red line going start with a to use

[Speaker 2] (1:12:31 - 1:12:35)
it's just us I don't I'm not gonna screen sharing unless you guys want me

[Speaker 5] (1:12:35 - 1:12:41)
no that's fine it's just this one red line yeah yeah really that's it you got

[Speaker 2] (1:12:41 - 1:13:22)
it yeah and then a couple of strike throughs the strikers in black and then the one red line the old the other one that I was so close to making was 511 3-1 only one ADU may be located on a lot I think at the last meeting we had discussed that a second ADU could be permitted by special permit but upon looking through the state regs again that is up to our choosing so we can choose to allow additional ADUs on a lot by special permit we don't have to we can cap it at one and I think given our physical makeup that probably is for the

[Speaker 1] (1:13:22 - 1:13:52)
best yeah yeah I agree I don't have a problem with you know if there is a certain lot a certain place that maybe it made sense and kind of sort of but it's like looking for a unicorn at some point it's not accessory well also like it's special permits pretty easy to get so yeah sure I don't say it's easy to get but it's not a variant yeah so it's there's a lower hurdle to get there for something that probably would need to have more hurdles so I'm fine with one

[Speaker 2] (1:13:52 - 1:14:14)
ADU per lot I think so I bet that was probably created for communities like Concord and Lincoln that have acres and acres yeah yeah exactly so accessory one

[Speaker 1] (1:14:14 - 1:14:22)
ADU per lot that's not limiting it to one accessory structure per lot so you could have a detached garage and then a separate ADU correct technically and we

[Speaker 2] (1:14:22 - 1:14:56)
already have it in our bylaw that you are allowed one accessory structure by right and one and any additional accessory structure by special permit if somebody already had a detached garage and they had a lot big enough to want to put in a detached ADU they would have to get that structure permitted as a special permit by the ZBA and possibly planning if it's if it triggers site plan but then the use of the ADU is protected okay so that would be by right I was

[Speaker 1] (1:14:56 - 1:15:36)
just going through that thought process yeah yeah okay that makes sense and then so going through kind of the local you know the executive offices guidance kind of that came out a couple weeks ago on this that you provided here you we discussed this earlier and I wish Jer was here to give his thoughts but I know he will in the future historic district stuff accessory dwelling units in the historic district are already subject to their restrictions in terms of like

[Speaker 2] (1:15:36 - 1:16:03)
appearance and such correct any any structure period would be subject to the purview to the design standards of the historic district okay so does that mean to say it here though that's not in our zoning bylaws that's in our general bylaws okay they have they have the design standards in the general bylaws they have rules and regs so covered somewhere it's absolutely and we're

[Speaker 1] (1:16:03 - 1:16:26)
allowed to do that so that's why I brought that up it was got rid of on our occupancy requirements right yeah okay that we can no longer regulate the permeable area we got rid of that right yeah that that's a strikethrough because

[Speaker 2] (1:16:27 - 1:16:34)
we cannot unreasonably regulate anything that we wouldn't already do for a single

[Speaker 5] (1:16:34 - 1:16:39)
family not regulate for a single family right so sorry the last one was that

[Speaker 2] (1:16:39 - 1:16:48)
that came from the state guidance correct yeah so that's more of the general language came from the state guidelines it is basically we can't

[Speaker 1] (1:16:48 - 1:16:51)
regulate a to use differently than we regulate building a single owner the

[Speaker 5] (1:16:51 - 1:17:03)
owner occupants oh yeah yeah from state I get the I get the pervious thing but the owner occupancy right not being required to reside there or right

[Speaker 2] (1:17:03 - 1:17:45)
residents there correct yeah came out of here yes yeah page 3 section 71.03 item 2 prohibited regulation a municipality shall not subject the use of land or structures on a lot for a protected use ADU to any of the following a owner occupancy requirements a requirement that either the protected use ADU or the principal dwelling be owner occupied yeah and so that's where we probably want to think about establishing short-term rental regulations does it also prohibit

[Speaker 1] (1:17:45 - 1:18:15)
the parking it does if you're within half a mile of a transit station which they define as a bus stop anywhere a bus stops or subway stop or commuter rail stop so Marissa gonna just handy-dandy map here I get it with like the 12 places in town that you have to have a parking spot but I mean which is

[Speaker 5] (1:18:15 - 1:18:27)
impressive yeah Wow except Manson Road yeah yeah upper Foster Road there and

[Speaker 2] (1:18:27 - 1:18:55)
then attachment to is the list actually of the streets yeah they're like five streets yeah and then on the other side on the coastal side of town there's like two or three properties like one property I think it's Littles Point Road yeah that's it everybody else is within a half mile well there's nothing we can

[Speaker 1] (1:18:55 - 1:19:32)
do about that that's gonna cause a lot of talk at town meeting I know because it caused a lot of talk two years ago when we added in there but so it goes the short-term rental restriction I mean obviously you can have the design restriction for historic districts we kind of already have that so we don't need to touch that was there anything in our existing ADU bylaw that like required entryways to be on the side of the yes 511 32 yeah one entrance shall

[Speaker 2] (1:19:32 - 1:19:35)
appear to be the principal entrance and the other entrances shall appear to be

[Speaker 1] (1:19:35 - 1:19:49)
secondary right that's you don't think that's I know the language who's here is like unreasonably restrictive I don't I don't think that is but I just wanted to

[Speaker 2] (1:19:51 - 1:19:58)
if the AG if the AG office flags it so be it but they would be I think they would be at the ones to determine whether or not it's unreasonable I don't

[Speaker 1] (1:19:58 - 1:20:25)
necessarily I don't think it is yeah okay so really the only other control lever that we have is short-term rental I saw part of the meeting that you guys had last month I guess was it what was the differentiation on the board of the discussion like for prohibiting short-term rental for this I know there

[Speaker 6] (1:20:25 - 1:20:40)
are different general consensus was that there should be something but I think you know and I don't want to put words in Angela's mouth I think Angela was for a much longer period of restriction I don't remember where juror ended up I

[Speaker 1] (1:20:40 - 1:20:44)
don't remember the recording him saying something like two two weeks or something

[Speaker 6] (1:20:44 - 1:21:00)
and that's where I was too with like two weeks cuz I I you know so I'll just be for myself I I didn't want it to be a thing where like someone can't go away in the summer and like maybe rent at their house for a couple weeks but it certainly don't want it to be something where there's a hotel right in a

[Speaker 1] (1:21:00 - 1:21:07)
residential neighborhood right the Airbnb at the granny shed right so it

[Speaker 6] (1:21:07 - 1:21:18)
sounded like it was more just the length of time okay when that's coming to a you know agreement there I know what you thought though so didn't we have that in

[Speaker 5] (1:21:18 - 1:21:26)
our hotels and by bed breakfast bylaw there's something like less than 30

[Speaker 1] (1:21:26 - 1:21:37)
days or something I was gonna say I don't know if it's in our I believe the state defines short-term rental as less than 30 consecutive days I'm sure we had

[Speaker 5] (1:21:37 - 1:21:54)
in the hotel bylaw hotel motel and in that in that section of the bylaw that short-term rental is defined I thought so we'll call the transient transient

[Speaker 1] (1:22:01 - 1:23:20)
something yeah yeah for short-term transient or overnight occupancy defined as allowed staying in a lodging establishment no less than one night and no greater than 30 nights that seems like it just restricted it to lodging establishments which I think was also defined somewhere in here yeah lodging establishments shall not have independent in cooking facilities and prohibits them from being used for more than 30 day rentals and as apartments so I think it kind of narrowly fit into that bylaw that portion of the bylaws I mean I'm fine with I think it makes sense to not allow short-term rentals of these short-term rentals defined as similar to this 30 consecutive nights or less or something and that's what I've seen the state define it as I'm

[Speaker 5] (1:23:20 - 1:23:46)
comfortable with that yes I'm still just not understanding so we have a hotel and B&B so now we have a short-term rental or proposing a short-term rental restriction on accessory dwelling units right on accessory dwelling units but we we also have I think it's by right that people can have a B&B no what is the

[Speaker 2] (1:23:46 - 1:24:24)
where's the wait B&Bs I think are by special permit and only in certain districts in business districts like I don't think you could have one in a residential district by 13-6 oh table of uses that should be way down in the end I don't even know in my like the three last ones I think our tavern lounge

[Speaker 5] (1:24:26 - 1:24:35)
at their motel hotel in and there should be one for B&B this does the B&B section

[Speaker 1] (1:24:35 - 1:25:03)
513 60 does define bed-and-breakfast pretty narrowly that would make it irrelevant to 80 years in that they must be owner occupancy private no more than four bedrooms so this is specific to 80 years then yes just specific to 80 years I think we probably should have another conversation about short-term rental but that's irrelevant to this conversation okay or this topic I should say yeah so

[Speaker 5] (1:25:03 - 1:25:21)
do we restrict that for an apartment yeah not yet what short-term rentals like short-term rental for general my house sir yeah if you have an apartment in your house so I can you rent it right yeah yes is there a restriction there

[Speaker 1] (1:25:21 - 1:25:57)
not yet it will be it's up to the board if we want to have that right and that's I think when we started this that's one of the priorities that I wanted to have is at the outset was let's have a conversation about short-term rental bylaws including 80 years and including everything else but I think of the last few months it was not deemed feasible to create something like that especially with the building commissioner turning over and all sorts of stuff so that conversation I think is better for another thing it happens often I just

[Speaker 5] (1:25:57 - 1:26:06)
yeah it's the same thing as the driveway right the pervious thing if we don't restrict it for somebody else and we can't restrict it for this right

[Speaker 2] (1:26:07 - 1:26:29)
there is there in mass general law in the regulations there is a section that does say we can we can regulate short-term rentals municipalities may establish restrictions and prohibitions on the short-term rental of protected use a to use pursuant to MGL chapter 64 G so yes that's why I think we started

[Speaker 1] (1:26:29 - 1:26:40)
with the conversation that if that's the one level of local control do we want to pull it I'm in favor of it for a to use at least but that's up to the whole

[Speaker 6] (1:26:40 - 1:27:18)
board I'm in favor of it for a to use I think that's generally like the context that we've been discussing it in you haven't been talking about it really in another context so much and I feel like most of what we do is you know lots of stepping stones and I think that's something that people can get by and I don't think people want people just dropping these on their front yards and then renting them out and that's not the intent of the law anyways it's to you know increase the half it's to you know reduce the housing shortage so right increase housing stock yeah right to a degree expand housing choice really yes

[Speaker 1] (1:27:18 - 1:28:03)
yeah yeah so I think that's all consistent with those goals and I can imagine them thinking like oh we don't want some landowner on the Cape to put me to you and then rent it out like a you know weekly rental like you're renting out their main house in the summer right right which makes sense I don't think we would have that problem with that being said I think this is to your point it helps keep what this is being used for with the intent of the law use the control we were given and given our unique nature of a built-out community I think it ensures if they are going to be built which is a good thing they're being used for what the law was intended to be used for yeah I agree 100% I'm

[Speaker 5] (1:28:03 - 1:28:09)
concerned about the enforcement of that that would be yeah I think share your

[Speaker 2] (1:28:09 - 1:28:29)
concern I think regulating them is as simple as just including another line item in the bylaws saying you know short-term rentals shall not be permitted in accessory dwelling units but then right how do we so yeah is there a when

[Speaker 1] (1:28:29 - 1:28:38)
somebody would go for a building permit to build an ADU I mean it's not gonna prevent them but I assume there's a way we can just ensure that it's reminded to

[Speaker 2] (1:28:38 - 1:29:53)
them the short-term rentals are prohibited correct yep and I think well we also now there's also required or mandated data collection to assist eohl see in the administration of ADUs and so municipality shall keep a record of each ADU permit applied for approved denied and issued a certificate of occupancy so the building department does have to issue a CEO mm-hmm I don't know if there's a way to like establish contingencies on CEOs like saying that this is not you know but as long as it's in the bylaw you know then we have a strict gives us something to stand on right but can you impose a fine that we have zoning violation fines yeah so it would be whenever zoning violation is occur whenever a zoning violation occurs the building department the commissioner sends out a letter to the property owner and says you are in violation of bylaw pursuant to section blah blah blah you have 30 days to rectify the situation and if not you will begin incurring fines at $300 a day for every day that you continue to remain in violation okay is that what

[Speaker 6] (1:29:53 - 1:30:04)
the amount is yep $300 a day as I was gonna say could be tired to do that up of the rental but I want to see that I want to see the ADU where that's

[Speaker 2] (1:30:04 - 1:30:37)
resting for more than that so yeah yeah and that that would be the the path forward yeah yeah unfortunately I think enforcement typically comes not necessarily enforcement comes from the building department but usually it's the neighbors that are the ones who recognize zoning violations when they happen and then they report them to the building department because it's not like we have somebody going out and just like we don't really have a compliance officer that just spends their entire day driving around checking for

[Speaker 1] (1:30:37 - 1:31:29)
violations you know that's okay right as long as there's some mechanism if we do impose this that people aren't saying well they're imposing but they can't do anything about it so they do it anyway right so no matter how it gets reported or found out as long as we have some mechanism to incur fines to ensure you know it's preventing that action that we don't want I think that's fine we're all in agreement that we should think it's a good thing to include and it sounds like Angela at the last meeting was yeah I'm sure was to some some extent I think we should put it in here but I agree with your comment of you know that's why I wanted to kind of put a pause on the longer-term short-term rental conversation because we have to figure out the mechanisms of regulating something from like an operational perspective before we just say we're

[Speaker 5] (1:31:29 - 1:31:39)
gonna you know change things overnight so last meeting was opposed no I supported

[Speaker 1] (1:31:39 - 1:32:01)
this and I think Jer did to his thought process was something like is it 30 nights what was the trigger of what is banning yeah I agree yeah so you know I don't know if there's if there's like general language or maybe it's even just

[Speaker 2] (1:32:01 - 1:32:24)
a provision here I think if we could just it would be twofold I think just putting a simple sentence in this section of the bylaw but then we would have to add short-term rental as a definition in our definition section yeah yeah yeah it is in the lodging section I believe I don't know if it's a

[Speaker 1] (1:32:24 - 1:33:49)
definition but it says short-term comma transient comma overnight lodging is defined as not more than more than one night not more than 30 consecutive nights so I would just copy and paste that definition all right great so I don't think there's any other changes here that that would make that we would need to do but so if we can maybe just redline that into this version add that to definition section I think we can at the next meeting vote to approve that and get on to the public hearing process next we have next the flood area overlay I think those lost my next was the site plans footage okay so on that obviously we I know you guys had conversation about new build and renovations there were some differentiating opinions on how to adapt this whether it's getting rid of 3,000 entirely for any new build or reducing the 800 down to a smaller square footage what were the how did things land I guess coming out of that meeting just to revisit the conversation

[Speaker 6] (1:33:49 - 1:34:01)
at a future date I think we should revisit it because Angela and juror felt pretty strongly about some things and I felt a little bit differently and I don't want to speak you know yeah I felt like I was more in line with them on this

[Speaker 1] (1:34:01 - 1:34:24)
last one on that one sure were there any other aspects other than those two changes that the board wanted to revisit I know you had brought up the fee schedule and we have that conversation independent of this I think though is it strictly limited to the 3,000 and the 800 changing those numbers in some yeah

[Speaker 2] (1:34:24 - 1:35:06)
changing those numbers I think at one point I mentioned with respect to structural additions maybe rather than establishing a hard threshold looking at it as a percentage given that we have lots that are much larger town lots that are much smaller 500 square feet on a 20,000 square foot lot looks a lot different than it does on a 5,000 square foot a lot I think and then I think to that Angela said that Marblehead has a percentage requirement that triggers a site plan special permit for structural additions I'd also be in favor of requiring it for any addition in the coastal flood overlay area as well or not

[Speaker 1] (1:35:06 - 1:35:35)
even put the flood area overlay sure and so would that be what does the new regulations which we'll get to in a minute say about that like if it's an addition that changes the footprint wouldn't it have to go through some approval process anyway if it's in the flood overlay district or would that be it has to just at that point that it doesn't impact flood characteristics on

[Speaker 2] (1:35:35 - 1:36:25)
abutting lots or something provided that it met all the standards that are outlined in this section it would just be something that's allowed by right if any but if if us variance to the building code floodplain standards is required and I think this is new language this is 4 2 8 0 sorry I didn't mean to no that's okay I'm the only sort of the only instance of having to go before an approval board in this case would be the state building code oh the

[Speaker 1] (1:36:25 - 1:36:37)
state okay got it or yep right so your suggestion is either move it to a for the additions move it to a percentage of buildings of the footprint building

[Speaker 5] (1:36:37 - 1:36:47)
footprint or lot size or do one of the whichever is less or greater things so

[Speaker 1] (1:36:49 - 1:37:37)
if you were to implement that like let's say it's no more than 15% you know you need a special permit of some of the 50% 15% increase in your first floor gross square footage area 15 would be really small for that but maybe 20% or something so you have a 1200 square foot outline of your house and it's you know 20% of that is whatever 20% of that would be in 240 square feet right so if you want for more than 240 square feet you have to have a site plan so if some if we wanted to implement that like right now it's easy oh it's 801 square feet go to site plan how would we do that from a practical perspective the applicant would have to put like as part of their as is or their as built they would have that gross square footage do the calculation and yeah I would give

[Speaker 2] (1:37:37 - 1:37:45)
up which is a standard metric that we would require on a survey anyway yeah okay so because it would also get that something like that would get factored

[Speaker 1] (1:37:45 - 1:38:06)
into lot coverage oh right okay so you have to look at that we'd be doing that anyway pretty much so no okay no logistical issues with that no no I'm conflicted on it and I don't I will have a conversation again when Angela and Jerry here but the new build I no-brainer for me yeah the addition

[Speaker 6] (1:38:08 - 1:39:23)
or not yeah I agree I think that's sort of where I've ended up and I don't I know that there have been some you know we talked a little bit about how different some properties that maybe didn't do one thing right or should have been something differently and there might be other ways to ensure that you know people are building homes the way they're supposed to and I don't want a few bad actors to like what could you know be a significant limitation on people's ability to modify their homes yeah new builds you know I don't have a problem with people coming to the board to build a completely new structure but you know I don't want people you were talking about it a little bit like you know that I mean maybe it's different if there's a percentage based you know formula but I don't think people in a smaller home should necessarily be kind of penalized they might be the ones that need the most space but then on the other hand if you have a big house then what does it matter maybe if you're adding so much I really would prefer to I think just keep that part the way it is I don't really see any I haven't heard of any real issues with people adding on to their homes other than neighbors and I was not always liking the way the addition works but if so if it's within the intensity regulations right so that's that's what it is I don't think we're here to regulate taste

[Speaker 2] (1:39:23 - 1:40:02)
you know so I agree with that too I I thought I'm part of the quorum but either way I don't have a I don't have a strong of an opinion about structural additions as I do with new builds I think to one of the other elements that we discussed with that when it comes to new builds I can't remember the last time somebody did a new build that was actually the property owner or the whole or the intended homeowner yeah that's a good point it's usually a flipper or a developer and and they you know they have the time they have the investment capital I think they have the they clearly they have the resources to come before a planning board for site plan review and I think they should the one

[Speaker 1] (1:40:02 - 1:41:00)
thing that I remember from the recording that's that I think Jer had said was um 800 square feet is a lot like you know it's for swamp spot 800 square feet is it that's a high number that's almost the size my entire the first home that I bought in town so I I've more thinking of like maybe there's still a good number but not quite as big of a number as 800 that makes more sense but I'm conflicted on it but I understood he had mentioned something yeah 800 square feet on on some houses that's that's you know maybe 40% of the size of the home to begin with so an 800 square foot addition is really large but I don't know we'll have a conversation when they're when they're here because that's probably more productive yeah anyway any other thoughts on that before we move on to the coastal flood? Marissa I'll turn it over to you for the coastal flood expert or sorry our flood planning expert so a

[Speaker 2] (1:41:00 - 1:45:59)
couple of things right now so we have two sections in the bylaw that regulate I'll call them wetlands floodplains and coastal flooding areas so section 4 1 0 0 is the wetlands and floodplain protection area overlay district it's very wordy and 4 2 0 0 is currently what we call the coastal flood area overlay district the model bylaw that was co-released by Mass DCR and FEMA well I should say it was the model bylaw was issued by Mass DCR in accordance with the FEMA maps that are still forthcoming to be issued July 8th of this year they're calling this the floodplain overlay district and I think it probably makes the most sense to just call our district that because we also have and will have more areas in town that are going to be subject to flooding that are not coastal so I think eliminating the word coastal is probably to our benefit and then in those areas in town will be reflected on the maps when they are issued as well so that also involves I think changing the name of section 4 1 0 0 which I don't have printed out over here I think the section we can leave all the regulations in the section we can leave as is it's just really changing the title and eliminating the word floodplain from it and calling it the wetlands protection overlay district and that bylaw really was created just for Palmer Pond over off of Palmer Road and all those regulations too are further regulated or further enforced by the Wetlands Protection Act which is whose jurisdiction is under the Conservation Commission so I think possibly maybe further down the line we could look to limit eliminating that section entirely since it is entirely regulated by the Conservation Commission but so as not to conflate one district with the other it probably makes the most sense to eliminate floodplain from 4 1 0 0 and just call 4 2 0 0 the floodplain overlay district the major not major the changes that are going to be happening otherwise from the title 4 2 2 1 they are calling on us to have a designated community floodplain administrator which I believe is also a certification and it's something that Gino Cresta already has so I think it makes the most sense to have him be the floodplain administrator or he also he suggested that he would like to have an appointed designee as well so we have our town engineer Mark Noonan who would be just as fit to do that as well a lot of towns have the building commissioner do it too but maybe we stick with them the DPW director 4 2 2 3 this isn't read it should be but these are all definitions that we are required to incorporate in the section that we don't currently have already and then the location of the district just changing the dates and the titles of the maps that are going to be released this year and then Eric from Mass DCR with whom I've been working on updating these bylaws also had me include zone a which is one of the FEMA designated flood zones the maps that we have right now only show us as having zones AE and VE VE is high velocity and AE forget where it actually stands for but I wonder if zone a just because it's standard language or if it's because per the new maps that will be released this year we will have a zone a as to as shown or to be shown and then just more like explicit language about permit requirements I think stuff that was already implied before but is more explicit now and then this is 4 2 4 2 is something where you know we would have the discretion to also maybe further regulate construction in a floodplain overlay district it says the permit review process for the town of Swampskate includes the requirement that the proponent obtain all local state and federal permits that will be necessary in order to carry out the development in the FA it's going to be the FOD and one of those local permits could be a site plan special permit if we decided that a site plan special permit might be necessary for any structural changes in the floodplain overlay district

[Speaker 5] (1:45:59 - 1:46:03)
what's the difference between FOD and F-A-O-D?

[Speaker 2] (1:46:03 - 1:46:09)
I didn't it's I didn't I missed those ones and going through my strikes but it's going to be FOD.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:10 - 1:46:11)
Floodplain overlay district

[Speaker 2] (1:46:11 - 1:46:19)
rather than floodplain area overlay yeah so eliminating area yeah the FOD for

[Speaker 1] (1:46:19 - 1:46:32)
short so the permit requirements is where we could put in a requirement meeting site plan review for any new construction or addition in the FOD

[Speaker 5] (1:46:32 - 1:46:47)
district yes okay I know the new maps aren't out yet but how much is it gonna change from now the FOD versus what we had the new FOD with respect to the maps

[Speaker 2] (1:46:47 - 1:47:00)
you said? I have no idea I don't even think they like released like preliminary or draft maps I I was I wasn't sent anything I tried looking I couldn't find anything I would imagine that it expanded pretty significantly

[Speaker 1] (1:47:00 - 1:47:26)
yeah existing maps are already pretty expansive yeah so it's like the whole town it's not quite the whole town but it's like every Humphrey Street to the water and then in some parts of town it's you know all the way yeah like by Cindy's for example that's in the overlay district yeah so for like base understanding it's anything Humphrey Street closer to the water throughout the

[Speaker 5] (1:47:26 - 1:47:37)
entire length of the road and Atlantic some of the places down around the Paradise Road are in the low elevation too are they on the floodplain they're

[Speaker 2] (1:47:37 - 1:49:35)
not currently on our floodplain maps but I bet that stuff like that probably will be on the next maps exactly yeah and I mean there are some new regulations about subdivisions a lot of this stuff I don't think necessarily will ever come up but and you know like four two five seven for example in a zones in the absence of FEMA BFE BFE is base flood elevation which right now in the AE zone is 15 for example in the absence of FEMA BFE data and floodway data the building department will obtain review and reasonably utilize base flood elevation floodway data available from the federal state or other source as a criteria for requiring new construction substantial improvements or other development in Zone A and as the basis for elevating residential structures to or above base flood level which is you know that's a practice that we already follow in the AE zone where the base flood elevation is 15 feet the structure must be elevated to at least 16 feet one foot above that base flood elevation so has to be a raised foundation and and then that language that I had mentioned just briefly ago about obtaining variances to the building code floodplain standards you have to request an appeal from the state appeals board and so in doing that it eliminates the we have language in here variation by special permit that gave jurisdiction to the Board of Appeals so this takes our local zoning this takes jurisdiction away from our local zoning Board of Appeals and as for

[Speaker 1] (1:49:35 - 1:49:40)
any project that would want a variance for any reason inside this correct yep

[Speaker 2] (1:49:42 - 1:49:59)
that our local ZBA no longer will have the jurisdiction to issue such a variance anybody that wants to vary this bylaw will have to go straight to the state because these at the end of the day this is a this is a statewide bylaw modeled off of building code and it's just asking that each municipality

[Speaker 1] (1:49:59 - 1:50:10)
adopted just for variances for section 4200 correct okay so like dimensional a variance for anything dimensional or something we're not okay right right

[Speaker 2] (1:50:10 - 1:50:30)
would not apply that that would be subject to our local ZBA got it okay but any other variance specifically looking to change these standards would have to get appealed at the state level and and so and you said you think that

[Speaker 1] (1:50:30 - 1:51:16)
by them adding in the flood zone a it could just be doing it statewide or it could be an indication that more municipalities are gonna have a zones and currently do yeah that is um that remains to be seen I mean so the long and short of this is this is you know we get this from the state it's in line with the state flood insurance map program and all of the changes here are really just streamlining the two flood area districts aligning them with the the updated federal maps that are coming out in July and ensuring our language is in line with state and federal language on flood area districts

[Speaker 2] (1:51:16 - 1:51:32)
okay yep yep this bylaw will pretty much look identical in every community across the state so yeah that's pretty much it that's an easy one we don't

[Speaker 1] (1:51:32 - 1:51:36)
really have any yeah nothing to control there yeah right

[Speaker 2] (1:51:46 - 1:51:56)
minutes I think you said yes I think we can only approve one of them oh so we

[Speaker 1] (1:51:56 - 1:52:42)
can't approve either bill wasn't that January February I have January and February you were there you weren't there I wasn't there either okay yeah you guys we can do January then okay yeah I think we had a full board in January well one together no you yeah it looks like you were yeah cuz January is when we did the decision for swamp them all then it's quick yeah I definitely remember you being there

[Speaker 11] (1:52:54 - 1:53:03)
can you scroll down but I think this is it for the first page okay

[Speaker 1] (1:53:21 - 1:55:51)
you know his comment was really interesting I never realized how big of a land area the wetlands are over been in until it was brought up tonight on the subdivision yeah that's a lot big area so solar energy the build the residential building is certifiable legal look good to me yep with that minor change yes okay is that it yeah are there any any other minutes on that page that we're not seeing motion to approve second only just had a question for you Marissa my only question for you Marissa timeline for zoning bylaws we approve all of our we approve these all at the April meeting mm-hmm does that give it enough time to get in front of select

[Speaker 2] (1:55:51 - 1:56:12)
board to include in the warrant yes so at our April meeting it would just be like that's when we would just review all the red lines and sort of come to a consensus about how we want them presented at the public hearing so April won't be a pop it'll be a public hearing for the subdivisions but it won't be a public hearing for the zoning bylaws right so looking at the calendar so we

[Speaker 1] (1:56:12 - 1:56:28)
have our regular meeting on April 14th timing wise though we have to get that like we have to have that meeting vote on those bylaws to then start the public hearing process and kick it to the select board for inclusion in the warrant is

[Speaker 2] (1:56:28 - 1:57:17)
that right yes if I remember correctly last year we had our I can tell you when it was actually but I believe the public hearing was the end of April and I want to say the warrant let's come our regular April meeting we we vote to approve the language in the bylaws we should have everything squared away really by next meeting so that way okay we they'll be good to for the select board to vote on when they a week later or whatever in April right and then come end of April because I believe that's when we did our public hearing last year that is when the planning board votes to sponsor or vote to recommend the articles for approval at right got it yeah okay so the next meeting we should

[Speaker 1] (1:57:17 - 1:57:24)
be prepared to send it to the select board yeah the public hearing after the public hearing we send it to the we endorse it exactly

[Speaker 2] (1:57:24 - 1:58:05)
yeah not endorse it whatever the yeah vote to have to look at the language from the last one I forget if it's recommending recommend that's it recommend favorable action yeah I think we'd be looking at April 28th okay if town meeting is the 19th and 20th definitely the 19th and 20th possibly the 21st depending on how it goes the third week of May so I would say yeah that last week of April the 28th no it's Monday 27 this is Sunday you're

[Speaker 1] (1:58:05 - 1:58:13)
right cuz 21st is Easter so 28 right the 20th is Easter oh my calendar is all

[Speaker 2] (1:58:13 - 1:58:40)
messed up 18th is good Friday 18th is good Friday yep so 21st is Monday got it okay yeah so I would say keep April 28th open for a separate public hearing for the for the zoning bylaws and I'll look to do like a community forum probably like we did last year I think was very good

[Speaker 1] (1:58:40 - 1:58:43)
with the MBTA communities thing yeah because there was like 30 people here

[Speaker 2] (1:58:43 - 1:59:32)
yeah that was great hopefully you know it won't be as there will be as involved this year as it was last year you know it's probably for the better yeah okay and then they'll probably be it would be good because there might be some questions regarding maybe you and the new state regulations and how we need to comply with them so I'll look to do a community forum probably the week of April 7th okay and and that way people can air out their questions comments and concerns in advance of the public hearing mm-hmm and look to just answer any burning questions there so that it doesn't maybe you and I can can kind of

[Speaker 1] (1:59:32 - 1:59:52)
finalize these red lines mm-hmm coastal flood area that's that's just done the ADU I think with just the minor new language addition that we talked about for short-term rentals yep and then the so send those off right to the next meeting and then we'll just have to finalize how we want to address the three different kind of scenarios we could have yeah or site plan special

[Speaker 2] (1:59:52 - 2:00:13)
permit I can create like a few different red line versions it's really just that it's five four zero zero is a section yeah in the bylaw and then once we amended in the bylaw we just have to go into our rules and regulations separate but yeah now we can be in a meeting ourselves post town meeting but I'll just pull that one page out of the bylaw and create like three different

[Speaker 1] (2:00:13 - 2:00:35)
iterations of it maybe perfect that'd be great just so when we are in that meeting we've got whatever it's gonna be and some variation of it you're ready to go all right cool sweet I think that's all we got on us some of the motion adjourned second all right all those in favor thank you