[Speaker 8] (1:00 - 1:35)
In this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid a fluid system. So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid system. So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid system.

So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid system.

[Speaker 2] (2:01 - 2:58)
So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for fluid system. So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for fluid system. So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid system.

So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid system.

[Speaker 4] (2:58 - 4:13)
So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid system.

[Speaker 3] (4:15 - 4:31)
So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid system. a fluid system. So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for So, in this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid system.

a transistor will result in a domastic liquid force or domastic energy. This is an important answer to the question why it can be probability that the transmission warning signal for the transfer is provable, and where the ergmore technology input can Margz, Margirl, do you agree that planning determines the outcome of planms?

[Speaker 5] (4:31 - 6:04)
you very much my pleasure, excuse me, my pleasure to be here, good evening everybody We also have Jacob Lemur, our consultant from Hancock Associates who was here this evening to maybe talk about the technical aspect of the ANR. What I wanted to bring to your attention maybe is just to cut to maybe share some historical maybe just site information. As you know the reason for the ANR is to pave the way for creating a parcel of land that will become the veterans housing, 41 units of veterans housing.

That will be a comprehensive permit. Brene Brith Housing is the developer who will be seeking a comprehensive permit through our Zoning Board of Appeals. And we are here to create the separate lot.

A while back you probably recall the town has purchased the parcel 1224 Pine Street and we are combining that lot with portion of the 810 Pine Street lot. And the reason for the configuration is that the town also has a lease with the local cannabis that really defines the parcel for that area. So maybe if Jacob you can walk us through the technical aspect in regards to the zoning compliance, the lot lines, and the boundaries.

[Speaker 6] (6:06 - 8:04)
This is a pretty straightforward one in terms of compliance where basically we're complying with the regulations and meet the requirements for an ANR. We are combining two existing parcels. One is here this corner lot at Pine and Erie Street which also is adjacent to this lot that has the cannabis store and the FW building now.

We'll be removing the existing lot lines, creating one new lot line to encompass that cannabis dispensary parcel, and then one new lot for the comprehensive permit project. And we're also, there's a small section of the parcel that sort of extends this way up into Lynn. This is actually contains a culvert called the Stacy Brook culvert and that follows along this easement line, comes up here into Lynn, and then cuts across into Erie Street.

This parcel is being proposed as a non-buildable lot and we're removing that so that we don't have to continue, so that this parcel is not included in the comprehensive permit plan set. Other than that we've already gone to the Lynn planning board who've approved to sign the plan. They still have the physical mylar.

They're waiting for some board members to come in and give signatures and as soon as that's done I will bring the mylar down to the Swampskate and work with Marissa and Margie to get the signatures on that if the planning board decides to approve today.

[Speaker 5] (8:05 - 8:22)
And just to let you know prior to this meeting I did have a conversation with the city of Lynn, the assistant to their planning board, and she stated that most likely the mylar will be signed tomorrow. They need two signatures on it. Great.

[Speaker 3] (8:23 - 8:45)
Thanks Margie. So is the ultimate, if this is approved, going to be one, two, three lots? One with the cannabis shop, one with the comprehensive permit where the VFW was, and the Pine Street one, and then a third kind of sliver of a lot along the Stacy Brook culvert that goes into Lynn?

Yep, correct. Got it, okay.

[Speaker 5] (8:46 - 8:52)
And Chad, obviously the sliver will be marked as a non-buildable parcel, a non-buildable lot.

[Speaker 3] (8:52 - 8:53)
Yep, okay.

[Speaker 2] (8:53 - 9:04)
Can you give me a little information? There's a red line on here that it says existing property line to be eliminated.

[Speaker 9] (9:05 - 9:06)
What is that?

[Speaker 6] (9:07 - 9:56)
Yeah, if I can just, let me see if I can swap this over here. So if you can see here, this is Erie Street, Pine Street, and New Ocean Street. This parcel here, actually it might be a little better if I turn on some of that footage.

There we go. So you've got the VFW building right here. This is the cannabis facility.

This building here has been demolished and it's basically just a slab at this point. So the lot configuration right now is you've got this large parcel here that contains the sliver that has the culvert on it and also the other sliver.

[Speaker 2] (9:57 - 10:04)
Oh, I see. So that that is part of that parcel that VFW is on. I see.

[Speaker 6] (10:04 - 10:23)
Yes, yep, correct. It will be, we'll be taking a portion of this sliver here into this lot and basically moving this lot line down to where this separation and parking is down here. So you'll have two separate parking areas.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.

[Speaker 1] (10:23 - 10:44)
I have a question. Can you hear me all right? Yes.

Okay, so that about 10 foot wide sliver that's behind the Pine Street lot that we were talking about, what is underneath that? It was my understanding that another portion of the culvert was underneath that.

[Speaker 6] (10:45 - 11:00)
Yes, there's a, so the, there's a culvert that, if I could draw on here, comes down like this, splits to the south, splits up to the north along this finger.

[Speaker 1] (11:00 - 11:01)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (11:01 - 11:03)
And then also comes out towards Erie Street.

[Speaker 1] (11:04 - 11:21)
And what you want to do then is to eliminate that, that the lot line on the, you know, between the Erie Street property and the Pine Street property, so that there's one lot line. So in other words, the Pine Street property will now encompass that piece that sits over the culvert.

[Speaker 6] (11:22 - 11:23)
Yes, yes.

[Speaker 1] (11:23 - 11:38)
Yeah, I have to say I oppose that. I really have a problem with building over the culvert and I think it's a, you know, how is that going to impact, well why are we including it in the lot line then?

[Speaker 6] (11:41 - 12:08)
It's, I mean, we do have setback requirements that we can utilize from that lot line. We are, we know where the culvert is and we will be going out, I believe, next week to do some subsurface evaluation to actually get a good location on that culvert. And we'll ensure, we're gonna ensure, obviously, that that culvert is well enough away from the building to not have any structural impact of the building.

[Speaker 1] (12:09 - 12:41)
Right, I'm really concerned about liability from anyone's standpoint. It was my understanding that there shouldn't even be heavy equipment sitting on top of it. And I'm concerned about future access, like, you know, we're aware of it right now, but 15 years from now, is anybody gonna, you know, remember if something goes wrong and we've got, like, sort of, you know, mission creep and whatever is going on at that property is now in a place that we can't access a culvert anymore.

I mean, I just have concerns about that kind of thing. I think it's just a flood zone. It's really important.

[Speaker 5] (12:42 - 13:08)
So, Angela, right now, and Jacob, please confirm or let me know, the initial drawings that I have seen, the architectural drawings for the new structure, from the back of the building to the property line, it looks like there's at least 18 feet distance, like, sort of, that would allow for safe access and to address any impacts onto the culvert.

[Speaker 1] (13:09 - 14:18)
Okay, I think, well, you know, I'd to be comfortable if we had to sign off from the town engineering staff. First of all, you know, I fully support doing this. I don't, I've never had a problem with it, I think.

So, basically, we're gonna, right now, the cannabis shop and the VFW are one huge lot, because there is no property line there. So, we're putting a property line in to make the cannabis shop its own lot, and then we're getting rid of the lot, the property line between the VFW parcel and the Pine Street parcel. So, now we get one big lot, which makes a lot of sense.

You know, the unbuildable portion of the, you know, that little piece going into Lynn is one thing. I just feel like, you know, I understand that we want to use it for setbacks. I'm just really concerned about it.

It looks to me like that building is just feet from that culvert, and I'm just worried about it. And why is that building completely on the Pine Street lot? I thought we were talking about moving that building into the center more.

I'm not understanding this drawing at all.

[Speaker 5] (14:19 - 14:49)
So, the design has not been completed. This was the latest architectural drawings that the developer had used to submit their project eligibility application to the state. But I think, as Jacob pointed out, I think that the other culvert that crosses the parcel, I think that siting the building this way would not impact that cross culvert that crosses the parcel.

[Speaker 9] (14:51 - 14:53)
Where does that crossing happen?

[Speaker 6] (14:55 - 15:20)
So, if this crossing into this parcel, we will be needed to look at relocating a portion of that, and that's basically right here, dead center between the two sites. So, regardless of where the building was placed or how far we slid it this way, I think regardless of that, we're going to be dealing with the impacts to that section of the culvert.

[Speaker 2] (15:20 - 15:26)
So, that dashed line with the squares on it, that is marking the actual culvert?

[Speaker 6] (15:27 - 15:56)
No, that's a fence line. So, the culverts show an approximate. It's not on this plan.

So, we haven't, you know, we're still in this design phase. So, we haven't completed the stormwater design, but essentially the culvert comes down right here on this dashed line beneath.

[Speaker 9] (15:57 - 16:03)
Oh, the dashed line is to the right of the fence line? Yeah. Yep.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (16:07 - 16:15)
And this has been all signed off on by our engineering staff as if this is a good idea, right? That's correct. Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (16:18 - 16:24)
I'm sorry, did you say that the town engineer has looked at this and given a approval from his perspective, Margie?

[Speaker 5] (16:25 - 16:29)
Yes, Gino has, and I'm just trying to see if I can get him to join us on this meeting.

[Speaker 1] (16:30 - 16:59)
So, and you know, I guess I'm really thrown by seeing this building sitting on this Pine Street lot with a parking lot on top of the VFW, this being a latest submission, which I personally will not sign anything that looks like this. I don't care if it's a A&R or whatever it is, because this is exactly what we said we did not want to do. So, I'm, you know, I'm sorry.

It just, this is kind of shocking to me.

[Speaker 3] (17:00 - 17:17)
Margie, from a process perspective, what's, where are we in the process of this longer-term project, and what does the A&R play into that? For instance, if we needed to table this for a month, does that, how does that impact what you guys are working on?

[Speaker 5] (17:18 - 17:40)
So, it will impact the project, or at least impact the land acquisition agreement. As part of the LDA, we are required to do the parcel, sort of, combine the parcels by April 18th.

[Speaker 3] (17:40 - 17:41)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (17:42 - 18:27)
But, you know, but why is this building all on one parcel? I mean, I just, I can't believe what I'm looking at. I didn't, you know, personally, I didn't vote at town meeting to spend 1.7 million dollars of ARPA funds after we just, you know, had a, you know, had to give variances on a 21-unit project to put this massive building all on one lot, which has been part of an ongoing argument for a long time, you know, between the select board members, you know, a point of debate, I would say, and, you know, I'm just, I'm just a little horrified seeing this building sitting there at the edge of, all by itself there.

It's basically on, just on the Pine Street lot.

[Speaker 5] (18:31 - 19:14)
Yeah, I am, I mean, in regards to the final design, Angela, it's, there's a, there is a process that's similar that we have done with, with the Michonne in regards to the town being able to review the schematic plans. So, and again, these are the plans that were submitted to the state right now with the application. Ultimately, I'm not sure if you can, you know, can we move the building over towards, you know, closer towards New Ocean Street and then create parking on closer to Erie Street and then surrounding.

Is that something that, that you're proposing or, you know, you have other, other ideas for the, for the redevelopment site?

[Speaker 1] (19:16 - 19:43)
I'm not, I'm going to tell you what my understanding was, is that the building is going to be sited sort of, you know, more mid-site and that the parking would be underneath and some around it and that the building would only end up being three and a half stories and not whatever this is here with, you know, I'm guessing that there's going to be some spots underneath and by, you know, a four or five story building once we have to clear the floodplain.

[Speaker 5] (19:45 - 19:59)
So, this, this building or the current proposal does not account or does not show or render any parking spaces under the building. It's all only on surface parking on, on, on, on the lot that's as shown.

[Speaker 1] (20:00 - 20:14)
So, is this the new answer to not having such a, you know, only having a four-story building there when we, that's not what we promised the neighbors and this is just going back and forth. This is like an insane thing.

[Speaker 3] (20:14 - 20:14)
The plan.

[Speaker 5] (20:15 - 20:23)
Jacob, can you show the rendering to Angela so we can see because it's really three stories, Angela, I think. Do you have the, do you have the rendering that you can...

[Speaker 6] (20:23 - 20:27)
I don't have the architectural renderings handy with...

[Speaker 1] (20:27 - 21:09)
Why wouldn't we just push it over on the VFW lot where you're, you're halfway out of the flood zone and you're not right on top of all these neighbors. It's, it's not so egregious, a building. I'm, I'm sorry to...

No, no, no, I mean, listen, I, I think... I think my concern is, Margie, is that we're gonna sign an ANR and that's gonna be de facto. Oh, the planning board saw that.

They saw it. They signed the ANR and then it's, we're not gonna hear about it again because it's a 40B and it's gonna go directly to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So, I'm not comfortable with it because I don't think there's any stopgap anywhere.

[Speaker 3] (21:10 - 21:11)
I was gonna ask...

[Speaker 5] (21:11 - 22:09)
There's two different, maybe, I, I'm seeing it as two different issues, right? The first one is really establishing the, the new lot lines or removing the existing lot sign, lot lines, and the other one is the placement of the design of the building. In regards to the, to the design of the building, the LDA governs or allows the town to go back and negotiate with the developer on the design of the structure and the, the, the, the architectural drawings and the, all the schematic drawings.

So, so there's still an opportunity to talk about that. I understand your point. I, I hear your concern.

You know, I just did receive a text from Geno. He stated that he is supportive of the project. He is at the Finance Committee meeting today, so he's not able to, to join, to join the Planning Board.

Okay, thanks.

[Speaker 3] (22:10 - 22:15)
And this is going to be ultimately done through a friendly 40B permit, I'm assuming?

[Speaker 5] (22:16 - 22:17)
That's correct, yes.

[Speaker 1] (22:18 - 22:53)
I don't know who it's friendly to, but... This is a nightmare. This is a complete nightmare for these poor neighbors and it's not at all what we've been going, the process we've been going through.

So I'm just, I'm just really alarmed to see it, I have to say. You know, as far as the ANR goes, I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with this.

And therefore, I'm not comfortable putting my name on something that just can be misconstrued as I'm okay with it.

[Speaker 5] (22:59 - 23:07)
Is it, would it be helpful if I, if I look for the, for a copy of the rendering so you can see what the structure looks like?

[Speaker 6] (23:10 - 23:11)
I don't think that would work.

[Speaker 1] (23:11 - 23:13)
I'd want it...

[Speaker 6] (23:13 - 23:19)
Yeah, I could take a look. Stop to it.

[Speaker 7] (23:20 - 23:43)
So while you're looking for that, I don't quite understand the slivers and what their purpose is and why they were left there and where they're going after this whole thing happens. So it was clear that the Pine Street lot, let's call it Pine Street lot, that's what people are referring to, that was left out of that for some reason. The culvert was left on the property.

[Speaker 3] (23:43 - 24:07)
I think that was for the town to remain owner so it would have access. My question dovetailing from that though, why are we not having the other culvert that runs from Erie Street down, Erie Street South, I should say. Why isn't that being included in that municipal parcel?

[Speaker 7] (24:07 - 24:08)
What's the reason for not connecting?

[Speaker 3] (24:08 - 24:09)
Right.

[Speaker 7] (24:11 - 24:48)
So the town will still own the property, so the property over the culvert will still be town-owned. But specifically the sliver over the culvert, and it appears as though when they broke off the Pine Street lot, then that was the attempt to keep that under town control. So that'll still be there.

But then the sliver that goes off into Lynn, I just don't understand why that's discontinuous from that. Why wouldn't that also stay under the control of the same lot?

[Speaker 5] (24:53 - 25:09)
So this is going to be a 99-year lease. So the town will own the land underneath. We'll have a long-term lease with the, with B'nai B'rith housing.

[Speaker 3] (25:10 - 25:22)
Right. Then what is the reason why we're creating a new lot with that little dovetail that goes into Lynn? I understand the culvert runs below it, but...

[Speaker 6] (25:23 - 25:47)
Basically just having this secondary parcel here going into Lynn as part of the primary parcel complicates the 40B filing, and I believe also the insurer's documents. So there's legal reasons and, you know, practical reasons for cutting that thing off of there.

[Speaker 1] (25:48 - 26:55)
Okay. Yeah, but the reason to absorb the other one, the one that goes between the building and the neighbors at Erie Street, the reason to absorb that one is strictly to give the building the setback dimensional stuff that it needs. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay. Yeah, I don't want to do that personally.

The rest of the board can, you know, I'm only one member, so I think that those particular strips of land were left not built upon for a reason, and it's to the culvert. We're, you know, currently under a multi-million dollar consent decree for, you know, water coming out of Stacy's Brook, and why we're messing with stuff like that just, it blows my mind. But I also don't understand why they wouldn't even take that exact building.

Why is this building pushed all the way out to the corner? Why wouldn't it be drawn down more and take some of the burden off those properties, the neighboring properties? I just don't understand it, so.

[Speaker 5] (26:56 - 27:03)
So, Marissa or Jacob, can I just share, I just want to show you the image. Are you able to see this?

[Speaker 1] (27:04 - 27:06)
I can see it just fine, yeah, thanks.

[Speaker 5] (27:06 - 27:28)
Okay, so this is, so you know, Angela, so this is what the proposed building, the new building, would look like. So you can see that the three-story structure, and you know, so you're basically standing on New Ocean and Pine, and you're looking down towards Erie Street. Right.

So this is the image of this.

[Speaker 1] (27:29 - 27:52)
So we're looking at a building that's, because you got five feet that's bringing it up from the baseline, plus you've got about 11 feet per floor, so that's 33, and then you've got another, you know, 10 feet on top just for the utilities and so forth. So 43, so you've got about a 48-foot building, roughly, if my calculations are correct. Maybe it's even taller.

[Speaker 2] (27:55 - 28:20)
I think your calculations are slightly over, because you've got 11 per floor, just looking at the number of steps in this. Now, Brian, this is a rendering, so there's sometimes inaccuracies, but if those are seven-inch steps, it's about, it's under three feet up on this left end, but you'll notice that there's a slope upward.

[Speaker 11] (28:21 - 28:21)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (28:21 - 28:37)
So you're looking at, the three floors themselves are taking you to about 33 feet on the far end, that would be against Erie, and then... Oh, don't push it. Okay.

Oh, there we go. I was turning off my mic.

[Speaker 1] (28:39 - 29:12)
So that end that's, you know, on the left closest, the one that's elevated slightly, that's where you have a 10- to 11-foot baseline. So you're under the flood zone. You have to be at 14, okay, minimally.

So the freeboard has to clear 14 feet. So, you know, I think it's minimized a bit here, unless they're building some kind of a cliff underneath it, that's going to elevate the whole thing. So, I mean, I'm just throwing it out there, because that's what it looks like it's going to end up being to me.

[Speaker 5] (29:15 - 29:29)
So can we go back to the previous drawing, because I just wanted to see if we can address your concern with the... Jacob, can you bring up the other rendering that shows the parcel? Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (29:36 - 29:38)
Is this one you're talking about?

[Speaker 5] (29:38 - 30:15)
Yeah, so you can just bring up... So, Angela, on this, if we were to... You can see the red lines that Jerr mentioned that are shown in here.

So if we were to create the new parcel line that would begin with the red line sort of as is existing, and then keep the remaining land sort of out of this parcel. But I still just kind of... My thought process is that although it's a different parcel, the town is still the owner of the land.

[Speaker 1] (30:18 - 31:46)
But your suggestion... Right, I understand what you mean. But, I mean, essentially, I get it.

It just lets that building be that much closer, which would not be such an issue if the building were pushed down into the other lot. Like, I'm not understanding the placement of this structure. I just don't get it.

It's in the worst possible place on this entire lot. Where it's pinchy, you get a pinch point with the culvert. You're going to go over that one portion of it no matter what you do.

But you've got this huge parking lot sitting there. Why are they putting in this huge impermeable surface? It's just crazy.

In a flood zone. I don't get it. At any rate, I understand that...

So, in terms of setback, because it abuts, it's a commercial building, regardless of the fact that it's residential. Because it's so big, it's commercial. It's a commercial building, and it's abutting a residential zone, so you have to have a 10-foot buffer.

I don't think that the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to give relief on that part of it. I could be wrong. I just don't think that they can, because they're literally being variance territory.

Maybe they can. I don't know.

[Speaker 3] (31:46 - 31:47)
Questions?

[Speaker 5] (31:48 - 31:54)
I'm sorry. So, right now, I think the buffer is about 18. Is it 18, Jacob?

Can you please confirm?

[Speaker 6] (31:54 - 31:55)
Yeah, it's 18.

[Speaker 1] (31:56 - 31:58)
From what to what? To the property edge?

[Speaker 6] (31:59 - 32:00)
To the property line.

[Speaker 1] (32:01 - 32:01)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (32:01 - 32:12)
If we're doing this with a 40B permit, what's the necessity of being compliant on the setback? If this is ultimately going to go through the ZBA with 40B?

[Speaker 1] (32:14 - 32:23)
Yeah, good question. I mean, I thought that they had to have a certain amount of distance from that property line with the residential zone.

[Speaker 5] (32:24 - 32:26)
Well, they can seek a waiver.

[Speaker 1] (32:29 - 32:37)
But nobody can really explain why the building's, like, cramped onto one lot. I guess that's my, I'm just scratching my head over that.

[Speaker 3] (32:39 - 32:45)
I mean, if it was moved, so you're suggesting, Angela, is to move it further south?

[Speaker 1] (32:45 - 32:56)
Why bother combining the lots? Just say one lot's parking and one lot's a building. I mean, it's just, I guess, never mind.

I get it. You'd have to do it for the comprehensive permit. I get it.

[Speaker 5] (32:57 - 33:11)
But the building, the way that it's sited right now, the size of the building, would not fit on either one of the lots, right? So it would have to be, like, in the center between the two lots? Right.

[Speaker 1] (33:12 - 33:19)
What's wrong with that? Being in the center of the two lots, have parking surrounding it? I mean, you're taking a tremendous burden off the corner there.

[Speaker 7] (33:20 - 33:24)
I think that's the motivation for combining the lots, right? So you can center it.

[Speaker 1] (33:25 - 33:32)
Exactly. I mean, we didn't, like, you know, otherwise, why bother? Right.

I mean, it's just...

[Speaker 7] (33:32 - 34:06)
So if you look at this drawing, there's really no motivation other than parking to tear down the existing lodge, right? It's untouched in this drawing. The building is completely separate from that lot.

I know we're not here to talk about the building or the lots. We're only here to talk about the lots, but it does seem that you could reduce the height on the Pine Street side by adding underground parking on the left side with the second floor that comes off the top of the third floor there and be a little bit more creative with the use of the space. That would kind of be a win-win for both neighbors and developer.

[Speaker 5] (34:08 - 34:24)
I'm happy to take that back, to take your recommendations or suggestions back. And again, there will still be a time or an opportunity to comment and provide feedback on the renderings once they're finalized.

[Speaker 2] (34:25 - 35:51)
I'm going to ask a couple quick questions, and my fear in here is the fact that without the architect present, I don't know if there's anyone that can answer this. In just looking on my phone at the streetscape, the placement of this building does not appear to also take into account the distance from the street of the adjacent buildings that are on Erie. So the yards come down, and then this building juts out.

And I think it would be really helpful to see if the movement of this building at least could address so that we maintained a steady, all the houses that are on the same side of Erie Street as this proposal, they are aligned, the front facades align the whole way down. And I think that though there's a turn there, it would be very obvious for the upper right-hand corner of this building to be in alignment with those buildings, just so that it felt like it was part of the neighborhood. And that would not, I don't think it would be moving the building more than 10 or 15 feet towards the cannabis dispensary.

And I think that alone as a gesture would make more sense as to how this is reflecting the fabric of the neighborhood.

[Speaker 5] (35:52 - 36:07)
But if you were to move the building 10 feet, would you be able to create any parking spaces on that end? Because parking is a concern to the neighbors and for this project. So if we were to shift the building, what does that mean for parking?

[Speaker 2] (36:07 - 36:38)
I think it might mean losing, in looking how this building is placed, it might mean losing one or two spots total. But I think at the same time that balance, it would allow their street, like when this was built, it would allow it to actually feel contextual. And for losing one or two spaces, it might be something worth feedback from the community.

[Speaker 3] (36:39 - 36:47)
What's the, how many spaces are proposed here? And it's 40 units, residential units in the building?

[Speaker 6] (36:47 - 36:48)
42 spaces.

[Speaker 3] (36:50 - 36:50)
Okay.

[Speaker 7] (36:51 - 36:54)
And why don't they go underneath?

[Speaker 5] (36:59 - 37:03)
Cost of construction and just the height of the building.

[Speaker 6] (37:03 - 37:20)
Right, and then we're in the flood zone. You know, if we're going to go down, that creates issues with having a pit in the flood zone. And if we wanted to have parking raised above the flood zone, obviously that would at least be one additional story of height.

[Speaker 7] (37:21 - 37:43)
It would be one story over the left-hand lot that has no stories on it now. And then you could remove some of the bulk and the mass from the right-hand side of the lot and have the same interior square footage. I think I don't have a solution here.

And again, we're not here to talk about the buildings, but I do see Angela's point in looking at this drawing. It is a little surprising.

[Speaker 6] (37:50 - 39:41)
I'm happy to take these comments back to the design team. Maybe it would be helpful to have a written letter of comments that could be brought up during the 40B process. I mean, we're still at this point in the design.

We're not in final design stages, and there are still a lot of decisions that haven't been made yet. I don't know if I'm prepared or this is the appropriate place to go too deeply into sort of the site design. I think it's important, irregardless of where we're going to place this building, that we need the space on the site either for parking or for structure to make the site work either way.

Irregardless of where we place this building, closer or further away from the street, we're going to need to take up as much space available here to provide adequate parking and landscaping and try to make the building fit in with the neighborhood. We're going to be submitting much more complete documents once we get past the project eligibility filing and into the 40B definitive permit filing. There will be updated plans above and beyond these plans that can certainly, again, I can consider the planning board's comments.

Again, it'd be great if I could get maybe a written list of comments from the planning board or just the planning board members individually if that's what they prefer. But I think that would be the best way for me to be able to give these comments an impact on the project.

[Speaker 5] (39:42 - 39:53)
And I'm also happy to schedule a meeting with the architect and with the development team even maybe before they advance the design.

[Speaker 9] (39:55 - 39:56)
I think that would be great.

[Speaker 1] (39:56 - 42:15)
You know, this is such a grotesque departure of what we were led to believe. Even over this last past town meeting where there was vigorous debate about, you know, why bother moving the, you know, you're basically just taking down the BFW just for parking spaces now. I mean, and here we're going through all this trouble and tremendous expense to rebuild the BFW just to have this, you know, after all this, after all the years of like 21 units that were going to be on that exact same spot that, you know, basically only squeaked by with two and a half stories with a variance.

And, you know, neighbors are very upset. And it turns out these guys couldn't finance it anyways. And they went ahead and sold it.

And the town was, you know, my estimation, you know, I don't know. Well, anyway, the town bought it. And and now to put twice as many units on the same spot.

It looks like there's how many feet between the corner of that building and the sidewalk. It looks like there's barely like two feet or something. It's crazy looking.

But I, you know, four feet. And I'd like to see something where, you know, with this. He's this poor woman who lives next door who's been to every single meeting over the past four years, five years, maybe since we've been talking about this lot.

It's just crazy that people just get pushed aside. I guess I just can't get over it. It's just driving an agenda that doesn't work.

So whatever. I mean, I understand. You know, I think the veterans housing is an excellent idea.

I just don't understand why we have this monstrosity of a lot. And we have to jam that building over there. It wasn't central.

There could be parking on both sides of it. Wouldn't that be easier for people that live way over on the right hand side, the eerie corner, and they have to park way over by the dispensary. I mean, I don't know.

It seems like it would be a better looking building.

[Speaker 2] (42:18 - 43:31)
I would be concerned about it being pushed too far in that other direction. I mean, as a residential building, it's nice for it to be away from the through traffic of 1A. And the other thing is, I'm not positive that a parking lot is a gifted gesture to an active parking lot.

I don't necessarily think. I think if the building were moved slightly and we found a way for the parking to remain down away from the other houses, there's far less disruption with cars coming and going and headlights coming in and out of people's houses where this is currently suggested. So I do see some logic in it.

I do think it's too far toward Erie Street and not following. One of the problems that we have in Swampskid is that there is not zoning that is logical when it comes to setbacks. So we sort of have these numbers, but they don't relate to the built structures site by site.

So I think that being analyzed in this building, I think if this building is sensitively placed, it could go a long way. And I think it's an adjustment from the plan that we're seeing right now.

[Speaker 3] (43:32 - 43:43)
Tying this back to the A&R, I understand we have the town has until the 18th, right, to get this A&R signed off on from Swampscot now since Lynn's already signed off on it.

[Speaker 7] (43:43 - 43:43)
That's Friday.

[Speaker 3] (43:44 - 45:31)
That's Friday. Right. I have no problem with the A&R itself.

With that being said, you've, and Margie, you always do this, so I know I don't have to say it again. I think there's a lot of very critical response to what we've seen tonight for the plan and the uneasiness since this is going to go through the 40B process of us pretty much never seeing this project again. Whereas if it were not a 40B project, we would be much more thoroughly consulted.

If it were a private applicant, it's really unnerving, especially for a project that's gotten this much scrutiny over the last three years, I would say. And even the year before that when we approved the 21 units by a three to two vote. So I have no problem with the A&R.

I just, and I want to keep on timeline. I don't want to push anything back that we don't need to do. But with that being said, I really would want to find a way to have representatives of this board or this board involved in some way to help address some of the concerns that Angela and Jerr brought up.

I agree with both of their comments, and I really don't think we're doing our jobs as the planning board, whether we're supposed to be involved in the 40B project or not. I don't think we're doing our jobs well if we don't provide that critique and try and get the best of this project like we would any other project. So I'm fine with approving the A&R tonight, me personally.

But I really want to think critically about how we can be most involved moving forward in order to make the best project on behalf of the town and whoever ultimately lives there, and especially with the neighbors who've gone through a lot.

[Speaker 1] (45:32 - 46:24)
Right. I mean, we don't have to, we can't, we don't approve an A&R anyways, we just endorse it. At the whole point, it's approval not required, right?

Right. Because they're making lots that they can legitimately make because the frontage exists, blah, blah, blah. But, you know, this is, so yeah, I agree.

What I don't, what I don't agree with is including that strip of that little, you know, culvert passageway, including that in the lot. So I would, you know, I would not choose to endorse it, but I wouldn't, you know, and I'm happy to put my own comments on why. But it doesn't mean that, you know, the rest of the board can do whatever they'd like.

I mean, and again, we're just voting to endorse the plan, and then we sign the.

[Speaker 2] (46:25 - 47:51)
I sort of feel, from the standpoint of if we are including the culvert that runs from Erie Street, for the point of meeting setbacks, I can see the reasoning behind that. One of the things that I'm hopeful for in all of this is, you know, we do have documentation in front of us that's showing culverts in both of these situations. I know that Mr. Lemieux had mentioned the fact that they will be looking at relocation of where Stacey Brooke comes through the building. And I just think that with this being a 99-year lease, that it's remaining town-owned, and I would hope is thoroughly documented, so as we move over the next century, that the culverts are attended to. And I think because they would remain either way on town property, I don't fully see a major conflict in including that piece, because of the fact that it's not something that could be sold off or built upon, based on it being within the setback.

[Speaker 3] (47:52 - 48:04)
Were the legal reasons—you had mentioned there were legal reasons why we wanted that portion of the parcel that goes into Lynn removed, legal and financial reasons, and I get that.

[Speaker 6] (48:04 - 48:22)
Was that more because it went into an additional municipality, or were there other— Part of it was filing a 40B in a dual municipality parcel, when such a small portion of that parcel was, you know, obviously not even a functional portion of the parcels in Lynn.

[Speaker 3] (48:23 - 48:34)
So if that parcel ended right at the municipal line, the city line with Lynn, and it was entirely in Swampscott, this would probably all be on one parcel, is that right? Yeah, probably, yes.

[Speaker 1] (48:34 - 49:56)
I mean, I'd be comfortable with taking that, you know, that strip that's in Lynn, combining it with that strip behind the building, and saying that that's the separate lot, that it's an unbuildable lot that's separate, and combining then the Pine Street lot and the Ocean Ave lot. But I feel like, you know, we say this now, and we're all like, oh, yeah, it was going to be 18 feet, and I think, you know, it's fine until you decide when the building's going up, and you're like, God, you know, we need some of this room. We need to push this building back, or something happens, and it moves back, and you can because you're still kind of safe in this setback, and you don't need permission from anybody.

So I just, and I don't think it's, this stuff just happens, because it's a big, it's a big, for this area, it's a big commercial building, and stuff happens, I mean, we all know it, it's not like anyone's, you know, planning it and trying to be sneaky about it, or has evil intent, but stuff happens, and I just don't think it's a good idea to combine what overlays the culvert with this lot. I just don't. So, you know, I've already been clear about my opposition to it, so I'm sorry.

I really didn't want to be difficult about it.

[Speaker 3] (49:59 - 50:07)
He's amending that even as still possible at this point, or is that something that is not feasible on our current timeline?

[Speaker 1] (50:07 - 50:10)
Well, you know, if Lynn already looked at it, that's the problem.

[Speaker 5] (50:12 - 50:22)
Well, of course, Lynn approved it, and they reviewed it on the 8th, so we'd have to go back, whatever the amendments that we make here, we'd have to go back to them again.

[Speaker 1] (50:24 - 50:45)
Unless we just, unless we don't, and we're just saying it's the portion of that lot that's in Swabscot that we're, you know, combining with the other little sliver, I mean, we're not affecting, I suppose it's the whole lot that's, I don't know. I'm sorry to be the monkey wrench here, I just, you know.

[Speaker 3] (50:45 - 51:02)
Well, no, Angela, your point, if the point is just to create separate lots with the culverts entirely on them, you could create an additional lot that bisects the one that Lynn already approved, and it's shown here.

[Speaker 1] (51:02 - 51:02)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (51:03 - 51:10)
Then this would not have to go back to Lynn, because there's no portion of the project that would be impacted at that point. Just thinking out loud for process-wise.

[Speaker 1] (51:11 - 51:49)
Right. I think what we're saying is, Jacob, is that we're opposed to adding the culvert strip to the Pine Street lot. It's 40B.

If they're going to get relief for that, I mean, look where the property line is, especially on the Erie Street side. If they're going to get relief, they're going to get relief. You know what I mean?

So I just don't think it's, yeah, I just don't think it's a good idea to make that part of the lot. It was never part of the lot for a reason.

[Speaker 6] (51:50 - 52:45)
I would defer to the engineering department. I mean, I would say if I understand your concerns, and again, I agree with Margie, and my thought on it is, you know, it's a DPW structure. If the DPW wants to deal with it a certain way, we're happy to do that.

I don't know that modifying the A&R is feasible at this point in the timeline that we're at. But we could certainly look into maybe, I mean, we can't do an easement, right, because it's owned by the town already. So access, I just don't see the practical reason for separating it in that way.

It would just be detrimental to the setbacks and require additional relief.

[Speaker 1] (52:45 - 52:55)
Yeah, I don't think so. I don't think it's going to, honestly, you should see, you know, the other 40 views like this that have been put up. I mean, no.

[Speaker 2] (52:56 - 53:17)
Let me ask a quick question just to make sure that I do understand what we're talking about. Before the town bought the property, that piece of land that is where the culvert is running from Erie Street, and then the other that is the Stacy Brook that runs over to the Lynn line, that was town-owned property, correct?

[Speaker 5] (53:18 - 53:18)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (53:19 - 53:24)
So we're basically, we have bought private property that's adjacent to town-owned property.

[Speaker 5] (53:25 - 53:26)
Right. That's correct.

[Speaker 2] (53:26 - 53:32)
So what we're looking at is if we were to combine those into this.

[Speaker 1] (53:33 - 53:35)
Makes it a bigger lot.

[Speaker 2] (53:35 - 54:21)
It makes it a bigger lot, but it's all owned together. And we are not selling this, it's a leased property that's 100-year or 99-year lease. Is there risk if we combine these that the town might sell and then sell, like if they went to sell the property that this housing unit is on for some reason, is there any reason that that would create a problem?

The culvert is going to be under the building or going around the building through the lot anyway, which would be an easement of sorts if they had to give it, if it became privately owned.

[Speaker 6] (54:23 - 54:48)
Not to interrupt, but I just wanted to point out that with the culvert, we've also got going through a portion of the lot here, a Calix lot as well. So I don't know if... I'm sorry, going through what lot?

So this red line here, the culvert also comes from this direction with Curry Circle runs under the Calix lot, which is the dispensary.

[Speaker 2] (54:48 - 54:49)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 6] (54:49 - 55:17)
And under this portion of the lot, it sort of splits off into three separate branches here. If we were to cut these two parcels out, then we would just kind of be separating these two portions of the culvert from the remaining portions of the culvert, but we'd still have the same sort of issue. I don't know if that would...

[Speaker 1] (55:19 - 55:46)
It's curious to me how, again, as you point out, and rightly so, we're not talking about the building right now, but we are talking about dividing up the lots and what that means to some major infrastructure in the town. So my feeling is like, what's going to happen? So who's responsible for moving culverts underneath this property?

Who's taking on that risk?

[Speaker 5] (55:47 - 55:51)
So it would be the developer and with the town together.

[Speaker 1] (55:52 - 56:03)
And so we're willing to take on that kind of risk? I guess we are. I don't know if the people are aware of that.

[Speaker 5] (56:06 - 56:29)
Well, I think that's not the financial aspect of it, Angela. I think that if we can secure some grant funding or other funds to be able to relocate the culvert, then yes, the town is a partner with the developer. But other than that, it would be all on the developer to relocate the culvert.

[Speaker 1] (56:29 - 57:16)
And if anything ever happened to it in the future, I don't know what kind of access there is, but that's another issue. I guess it's disturbing that there's never been a building on top of it since it was built, which goes way back. And all of these other really old houses around it going towards Lynn have been there, and nobody ever built over it or tried to.

It's always been kind of set aside, and I just don't understand these kind of decisions.

[Speaker 7] (57:16 - 57:23)
So is it all covered, or is it open? Pardon me? Is it covered over?

Covered.

[Speaker 1] (57:24 - 57:29)
It's covered, yep. But it's never really been an issue because nothing's set on top of it.

[Speaker 7] (57:30 - 57:34)
Right. Well, it's going to be 14 cars on top of it, and it's left to photo.

[Speaker 1] (57:34 - 58:16)
Right, which isn't the same as a four-story building and all kinds of heavy construction equipment, in and out and staging and all that kind of thing. Of course, that's what they need to do. I mean, it's a big building.

Anyway, we're not talking about the building. I'm really just concerned about what this does to the underground, and I'm not an engineer. It's just an uncomfortable feeling that I have about it, and from what I know about the problems that the town is having with the culvert, it's, you know.

[Speaker 4] (58:19 - 58:20)
I have a silly question.

[Speaker 1] (58:21 - 58:21)
Sorry.

[Speaker 4] (58:21 - 58:40)
Oh, no, go ahead, Angela. What were you saying? No, no, no.

I'm done, Marissa. Go ahead. This might be a silly question, but isn't it the case that when contiguous lots are held in common ownership, then they're all viewed as one giant lot when it comes to— I'm talking about the merger doctrine.

Sorry?

[Speaker 6] (58:40 - 58:43)
I said I think you're talking about the merger doctrine.

[Speaker 4] (58:44 - 58:44)
Correct.

[Speaker 6] (58:44 - 58:54)
If there are two noncompliant lots held in common ownership, I'm not sure that that applies to municipally owned parcels.

[Speaker 4] (58:54 - 58:56)
Okay, just privately owned.

[Speaker 1] (58:56 - 59:23)
And they're not noncompliant, actually. They're both compliant lots, which is why they can do an A&R. Got it.

Well, actually, not necessarily, but they all have adequate frontage on a street, so that's all really all they need. Okay, so I'm going to just—I think I've made myself very obvious. I've said everything I have to say, so I'm just going to step out of it now.

[Speaker 2] (59:31 - 59:41)
I'm looking at the GIS, and according to the GIS, the building that was demolished was on top of the culvert.

[Speaker 6] (59:44 - 59:53)
Yeah, we've gone out and located that. The GIS is just a— Is it wrong? Yeah, it's just a little bit off.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (59:53 - 1:00:00)
Yeah. If you go out there, Jerry, you can see, because sort of the padding and the footprint is kind of there.

[Speaker 6] (1:00:00 - 1:00:02)
At least that was the angle they took the picture at.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:03 - 1:00:07)
Yeah, so yeah, probably. I don't think it was sitting on top of it.

[Speaker 9] (1:00:09 - 1:00:09)
Very good. No.

[Speaker 3] (1:00:17 - 1:00:24)
So process-wise, this is, I think, my second A&R. We don't need to vote on it.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:24 - 1:01:20)
We all just need to go sign a MILR for those of us who are— Well, all we do is we make a motion to endorse the plan, and then we vote on the endorsement because they don't need an approval because the lots already can stand on their own. So everything that they're doing, they're all lawful lots. They have the correct frontage and so forth.

So if we did nothing, this thing would automatically approve itself in I forget how many days. So that's how it happens. My issue is it's a real fundamental one.

I don't have a problem with doing A&R. I don't have a problem with what's going to happen with the issue with these culverts. I get what—it makes perfect sense to someone who wants to put a building there.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:24 - 1:01:36)
Does the LDA require or say that the A&R will be endorsed by the planning board? To Angela's point, it does automatically go through regardless of our endorsement or not.

[Speaker 11] (1:01:37 - 1:01:39)
I forget how many days.

[Speaker 3] (1:01:41 - 1:01:42)
Is that Marcy?

[Speaker 1] (1:01:42 - 1:01:43)
I'm sorry, Marcy. What did you say?

[Speaker 5] (1:01:43 - 1:02:02)
I was just going to say that the LDA tells that we need to sort of address the parcel lines by April 18th, but it doesn't give reference that—it doesn't separate the town versus the planning board. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:10 - 1:02:12)
I forget how many days it is.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:14 - 1:02:15)
April 18th is Friday.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:16 - 1:02:33)
No, I know. I meant like when it just kind of—by default, it just is granted. You know what I'm saying.

It just becomes a lot—I forget when that is. I'm not going to look it up right now. It doesn't matter.

[Speaker 7] (1:02:38 - 1:03:03)
Just to take a poll of other members of the board, how are— Before we do that, Ted, is there anything in our planning board rules that— I guess I'll call it charter, but not town charter—planning board charter that requires us to do a checklist, or are there any other things that we need to be attentive to that might impact the decision?

[Speaker 4] (1:03:04 - 1:03:07)
With ANRs, I don't believe so. No.

[Speaker 7] (1:03:07 - 1:03:08)
Correct me if I'm wrong, Angela, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:03:09 - 1:04:13)
No, I think you're correct, Marissa. I don't think that there's anything other than the fact that the lot exists with adequate frontage on a street. Right.

So, no, there's nothing else. There's nothing else wrong with this ANR. Nothing, except for my objection is to the—is, you know, obviously where the building is, but it's also including that strip of culvert into this lot, because I think, like we all just talked about, 25 years from now, you know, something else could happen, or, you know, they could come back and need to— I don't—who knows?

It just—I just don't—you know, I don't think it's a good move. I also don't think that it's fair to the neighbors. I mean, you know, they can't expand their lot.

They can't move their houses, like, right up to as close as it can get, and this thing's going to sit on—you know, it's going to be just looming right on top of it.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:16 - 1:04:37)
So, Angela, if the design was different, if the developer is able to shift the building, as Jira suggested, by 10 feet away from Erie Street, you know, it would be interesting to see how that might impact the parking. Is that something that would be—you would find a little bit more acceptable, acceptable at all?

[Speaker 1] (1:04:39 - 1:05:54)
Yeah, I would. If it didn't look like it was, again, what we did not vote on at town meeting, which is to jam this twice the size of a building that shouldn't have been there in the first place onto one lot, and—which is, you know, look, it's a nicely designed—you know, it's whatever. I'm not commenting on the building at all, but I'd feel better about that, and just, you know, having something that was some kind of a—you know, I'm very uncomfortable including the culvert in the lot.

Even though it's owned by the town, it's no longer sort of protected. It's no—now it's part of the lot. Anything—I mean, they could plant trees on top of it.

They could do anything. But, I mean, you know, anything could happen over the next many years. So I just—you know, maybe I'd feel better if I had a thorough discussion with an engineer, you know, from the town who can—you know, who has some kind of a guarantee, or we have—you know, we're holding some sort of a bond that protects us.

I can't even imagine what that would be.

[Speaker 5] (1:05:58 - 1:06:35)
I'm happy to arrange a meeting kind of as a follow-up with Gino. Unfortunately, he was not able to be here today, but he is in full support of the plan as provided. In regards to the design of the building, I am happy to arrange, if the planning board would choose to maybe designate, you know, two board members that we can meet with the architect team for—or the architects for the developer to maybe discuss the placement of the building.

That would be something that I'm happy to arrange and see how we can, you know, impact the design or the siting of the building on this lot.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:36 - 1:07:43)
Yeah, I mean, I think that's a—you know, thank you. I think that's a very good idea and a generous idea. At the same time, I don't—I can't speak for the rest of the board.

I mean, you know, I've been very vocal about it, but I'm—you know, by myself, my opinion doesn't matter. So everyone else, you know, needs to do what they think is important in terms of, you know— again, there's nothing wrong with the A&R in my mind, except for the fact that I wish it didn't include that piece of the culvert. Otherwise, I'd have no problem with it.

You know, what's going to happen with the building is going to happen with the building, regardless of what happens with this A&R. I don't know what we have. I mean, I know that, you know, the people that are building this do not care if it sits in a pond of water.

They don't care about flood zones. They don't—I mean, they've made it very clear. They don't care.

So, you know, if we don't care, then, you know, we just create a bad situation. But at any rate, that's, again, a separate issue.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:47 - 1:08:29)
So— I would entertain a motion in a moment if someone would like to make one. But I do think—you know, I do echo Angela's concerns about the building placement entirely, as I mentioned before. So I think it's—I think it would be helpful, Margie, to—and Angela, if you'd like to do this, I'm happy to—if there's any subgroup of the planning board that would be willing to sit down with you, Margie, and the architects of the project team or whomever to express some of that constructive criticism.

I think that will only result, hopefully, in a better project. Like I mentioned before, that I think we can— Yeah, here's something that I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:30 - 1:08:51)
And I know that I've never read it in the A&R bylaws, so I'd need some kind of a— I'd need some sort of an expert, you know, maybe from the state to tell me. I mean, is it—is it possible to grant an A&R, for example, and say—or, you know, endorse an A&R, essentially, that says with the—you know, like giving it a condition?

[Speaker 6] (1:08:51 - 1:08:53)
And I— No, you can't condition an A&R.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:54 - 1:09:02)
You can't condition an A&R, right. Okay. I'm sure that's—I'm quite sure you are 100 percent right about that.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:02 - 1:11:53)
One of the things that I—in analyzing this, I might feel opposed to attaching that section that has the culvert from Erie Street if it wasn't strictly a culvert from Erie Street and it was Stacy Brook. Because this is basically a sewer line, this does not cause me the type of alarm because I can think of a number of places, including, you know, my own home. The sewer lines run through a private lot that's owned by the neighbors.

It does not run down the easement that our driveway comes back because there are two houses behind a house where we have no street frontage. And I sort of feel with this all being maintained as town land and that this is a culvert, it is not Stacy Brook, the amount of—what it is trafficking in fluid and so forth, I really feel that this is not where I would be alarmed. I might have a very different attitude if this was actually Stacy Brook running through there.

But this is a culvert that's coming up from, I'm assuming, from draining Erie Street at that corner. So I'm just thinking of multiple locations that we have these culverts in town that are going through properties. So I am not as alarmed by that.

Also, in looking at the street views, this entire section that is town-owned, according to the street views, also looks like it is sort of occupied by the neighboring lot, that it's not something that's sitting on what's visibly on that. It looks like it has been—like the neighbor's lot has expanded into it. So, I mean, there is—I think when this building is built, it may look like that it's being built a lot closer to the lot because of where the fence lines are running currently.

But the fence lines appear to be soundly on town property. That's correct. So I think there's going to be a visual impact that's pretty negative, but realistically, it's where the land is.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:00 - 1:12:01)
Any final thoughts, Bill?

[Speaker 7] (1:12:02 - 1:14:18)
So I guess where I'm struggling is the same thing. The A&R is probably not the place to enforce what the building looks like or how it impacts the neighborhood. Right.

I, too, am very uncomfortable seeing the drawing, and thank you, Angela, for bringing it up, first of all, and then being so passionate about it. The A&R probably is okay because regardless of what sits on top of it, they have the right to do this, regardless of whether we say it's okay or not. And I feel uncomfortable holding it back because it's not the tool to do that.

Fortunately, because it's a 40B and it sounds like the ball is already well rolling, that the plans have already been submitted to somebody, either the state or whoever needs to get them first for prior approval, and it seems like that the ability of the Planning Board, whose sole function is to watch out for the town as far as development and property placements and planning of the communities, have very little impact beyond signing off this, let's call it a, I don't mean useless in a bad way, but it has no impact. So it's a little disingenuous for us to sit here and say, oh, yeah, this is great, go ahead and do the A&R. I haven't heard anybody on the board say, oh, that's a great looking building, perfect placement, yet it's by the boards on us.

It's going to go directly to zoning and it's going to be kind of a done deal. I see a lot of opportunity here for both the developer and the town to repair or rebuild some of the trust in the community here, rebuild some of the trust in the town where this has been very conflicted for years and it doesn't have to be. There are ways to make solutions and maybe it's cost driven, but it seems like there's opportunities for both sides to come out ahead of where we are now despite A&R or no A&R.

I hope so.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:20 - 1:14:22)
I think that was well said.

[Speaker 7] (1:14:22 - 1:14:32)
So when we did Elm Street, weren't there public meetings about the design of the building and was that just a goodwill on the developer's part?

[Speaker 4] (1:14:32 - 1:14:34)
The Planning Board did have a site plan review.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:35 - 1:14:37)
We did. We had a site plan review.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:38 - 1:14:42)
And I imagine that the board would be able to have one this time around as well.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:43 - 1:14:43)
Right.

[Speaker 4] (1:14:44 - 1:14:46)
But there's no special permit.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:46 - 1:14:46)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:46 - 1:14:52)
Right. It was a non-binding and if I recall from that meeting, it was a limited amount of suggestions.

[Speaker 5] (1:14:55 - 1:15:46)
But because this, if I may, sorry, but because of the LDA is specific in regards to reviewing the schematic plans, and I will share that with you that you can see it, that the town through, well, it's actually through the Select Board, but I would encourage the Select Board to really work with the Planning Board in regards to the review of the schematic drawings. I mean, the Planning Board, it's your sort of jurisdiction to oversee the planning and design of structures within the town that I would highly encourage the Planning Board to, you know, request comments from the Planning Board on the schematic drawings. And that's included the review of the, of the drawings is part of the LDA.

And that's something that's done outside of the, of the comprehensive permit.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:48 - 1:15:49)
Thanks Margie.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:49 - 1:15:49)
That's helpful.

[Speaker 7] (1:15:51 - 1:16:08)
And as long as that review is sort of not a closed review. So in other words, we just have to go in and look at it. There it is.

If we have some actual input that we could provide and, you know, make some positive suggestions at work, you know, collaborate with the developers. We want this to be successful as everybody else does.

[Speaker 3] (1:16:08 - 1:17:28)
And I know there's a lot going on with every board in town right now, leading up to town meeting. But I think it would be helpful if we can get a small working group from the Planning Board to maybe sit down with you, Margie and whomever from the project team to convey, have a working session idea session to convey some, some, some input. And then at the right time, I mean, it's a municipal project.

So I think we have a little bit more involvement than a traditional 40 B project. But I think it would be helpful if, you know, to your point, we could request from the select board when they do review project like this, but potentially having a joint meeting with them, something where we can do this publicly and have our, our I'll say our say, but it's what our, our statutory goal and our responsibility is to the town. This is just being done in a way that kind of works around that, but through no miss, you know, that intention.

So I think that would be something that would be helpful at the right time to have this done maybe in a joint meeting with them. Cause you know, they're, they have their roles and their, their duties, but this is what we do every meeting of the month, every month of the year. So this is what we see in work on every, you know, with every project in town.

So bringing the expertise and the experience that we have, I think is only additive to a good project.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:28 - 1:17:31)
I think that's absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:31 - 1:17:42)
So, and to Bill's point, I think that would be, I would verily, very heavily suggest that. And I'm happy to communicate that as well to our, our friends and colleagues on the on the select board.

[Speaker 5] (1:17:44 - 1:18:14)
And just please let me know who the, who the subgroup members might be. And I will reach out to the developers tomorrow and see if we can schedule a, a working session or at least a. You know, start the discussion and to see where they are in terms of their schematic plans before they advanced on any further.

I'd love for them to, to have the feedback. So then, you know, it'll be. Cost, you know, advantageous for them to understand the concerns that the town has and to see if they can address them.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:15 - 1:18:18)
Thank you. That'd be great. Anybody want to be on that working group?

[Speaker 9] (1:18:18 - 1:18:19)
I'd be happy to.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:20 - 1:18:21)
Angela, are you interested?

[Speaker 5] (1:18:22 - 1:18:23)
Sure.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:23 - 1:18:23)
Perfect.

[Speaker 5] (1:18:23 - 1:18:24)
Angela. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:24 - 1:18:26)
All right.

[Speaker 5] (1:18:26 - 1:18:28)
Thank you. I will reach out to you both tomorrow.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:29 - 1:18:30)
Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (1:18:30 - 1:18:31)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:31 - 1:18:40)
And Marcie, if you, I'm going to pass my, that part of our conversation onto our colleagues on the select board, but if you could pass it along to Gino as well, I think that would be helpful.

[Speaker 5] (1:18:41 - 1:18:42)
I certainly will. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:42 - 1:18:51)
What's the project timeline. So you have until the 18th for these and ours. What's the, what's the next steps.

I'm just trying to get context as to where the process goes from here.

[Speaker 5] (1:18:51 - 1:20:38)
Absolutely. So what happens now is that the department of housing and livable communities had forwarded to the town, a 30 day comment letter. So what that means is just really the state or the developer is seeking tax credit and financing from the state for this project.

And the town of Swanson has an opportunity has 30 days to submit any comments on the project. So there is a, you saw the rendering that I shared with you and there's a full package that goes along as, as part of that, that outlines the project, the number of units, how many parking spaces, the eligibility for the residents in regards to the, the the subsidized unit and the income levels of their, of the residents and the town has an opportunity to pop, to comment on it. Those comments are due at the state by may 2nd.

That's Friday, may 2nd. And then once that goes in and the developer will begin to design a project and wait for their project eligibility letter from the state, meaning that they will receive the funding. Depending obviously on the comment and what the process is.

And from that point, we have some trigger timelines such as the review of the schematic plans, securing or financing. And there are other trigger points that are required. I can send to you the entire list in regards to the timeline and the, the, the variety of different milestones that developer has to reach.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:38 - 1:20:59)
So where they are with the project in terms of the executive office of housing, livable communities, reviewing the application, right? The initial preliminary filing. If there are changes after that date to things that we had discussed tonight, any change or anything outside of that, is that done before that or can that be done after that may second or not?

[Speaker 5] (1:21:00 - 1:21:20)
That can be done after that because right now it's just about the, the number of units and the project. And right now it's just really what was shared with the state is a rendering and they were not shared the schematic plans. They were, they were shared the number of units and you know, the, the, the basic kind of like the envelope of the structure.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:20 - 1:21:22)
Got it. Okay. That's helpful.

[Speaker 11] (1:21:24 - 1:21:25)
Yep. It's helpful.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:26 - 1:21:32)
With that being said, are there any motions anyone interested in making a motion on this?

[Speaker 7] (1:21:33 - 1:21:45)
So what would the motion be to, we just endorse the ANR and there's no liability for us in any way. It doesn't have to be approved. Right.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:47 - 1:21:51)
It goes through with or without our endorsement. I think I just, that's true.

[Speaker 9] (1:21:51 - 1:21:53)
Okay. I would, I would second that motion.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:54 - 1:22:00)
Okay. You make the motion. Bill makes a motion to endorse seconded by jerk.

All those in favor. Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:01 - 1:22:02)
All those I'm going to abstain.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:03 - 1:22:05)
Okay. So three in favor and one abstention.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:06 - 1:22:11)
That doesn't mean, that doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that I disapprove. It's just.

[Speaker 7] (1:22:12 - 1:22:12)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:12 - 1:22:13)
I have concerns.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:16 - 1:22:16)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 6] (1:22:17 - 1:22:20)
This can end up being a very productive for us at all.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:21 - 1:22:28)
Yeah. Thanks for, I mean, I, you know, fully. This is not me trying to stop anything, obviously.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:30 - 1:22:31)
So, okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:31 - 1:22:35)
Thank you for, and thanks everyone for, for listening. I appreciate it.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:35 - 1:22:38)
Yeah. Thanks for presenting on that Margie. Appreciate it.

And.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:39 - 1:22:41)
Yes. Thank you, Margie. Thank you, Jacob.

[Speaker 5] (1:22:42 - 1:22:48)
I'll reach out to the developer team tomorrow and I'll struggle back with you, Angela. Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:49 - 1:22:49)
Thanks Margie.

[Speaker 7] (1:22:49 - 1:22:57)
So related unrelated question. What is, why, why is this a requirement? Is this a state requirement that we do in ours?

Yes.

[Speaker 4] (1:22:58 - 1:22:58)
Correct.

[Speaker 7] (1:22:59 - 1:23:01)
Yeah. And that's not negotiable.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:01 - 1:23:01)
Yes.

[Speaker 7] (1:23:01 - 1:23:04)
It's written into the bylaws.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:04 - 1:23:04)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:05 - 1:23:05)
Applied to every plan.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:05 - 1:23:07)
Every plan on board across the state.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:09 - 1:23:36)
It falls under the subdivision control act. Essentially. A&R is like the first thing you kind of look at where it doesn't need.

It doesn't need to be a subdivision to, to move the lots around the change lot lines. Providing that each lot. You know, that you want to include in there, in your A&R.

Has frontage has adequate frontage. On. On a existing street.

[Speaker 7] (1:23:37 - 1:23:56)
So part of it is we sat here for. An hour and a half. To do something we didn't have to do.

Right. But the other part of me says that it forced us to understand something. We didn't know that would have gone right by the boards.

So I. Again, conflicted on whether or not. We can do it, but we have to do it anyway.

There's no point in debate. I just want to see where.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:57 - 1:24:44)
Right. And it is going to happen. Again.

You know, My, my point is a concern, which I'm, you know, I'll do, go through the process. I can put it in a letter. I can voice my concern.

That's that. I think, you know, this is it's town on property. Like, you know, and as I said before, if we did absolutely nothing.

It's going to happen anyway. So. Because it, because it can, it's a, they don't need our approval.

I don't know. I don't know why it's part of the subdivision control act that they, we have to be endorsed it. But that's, you know, it makes it, you know, they, everyone would prefer to have that as it makes it sort of official.

That we created these new lots and it gets registered and, and all of that. And then the lot line officially changes.

[Speaker 3] (1:24:49 - 1:25:03)
Next up on our agenda is discussion of the proposed zoning bylaws. Discussion and hopeful vote to codify the language here. So Marissa, do you want to take us through the red lines?

If you have that.

[Speaker 4] (1:25:03 - 1:27:16)
Yeah, I'll start with. The easy one, which ironically is, I guess, the coastal flood overlay and that's just because it's, it's model language that we were given by mass DCR. And like we've mentioned and spoken about before, this is just language that's bringing us into compliance with the new regulations that were established by mass DCR.

And then also in compliance with the new flood insurance rates, flood insurance rate maps that will be issued by FEMA sometime this summer. So one thing that I mentioned in my email to you guys last week was that section four one zero zero of the zoning bylaw is currently entitled the floodplain wetlands overlay protection district. And it also references a map.

And when I found that map upstairs in public works, that map literally just applies to Palmer pond. Assuming that it's been since expanded to maybe other wetlands in town, you know, we have like muskrat pond. We have a vernal pool out by the elementary school.

Those are other wetlands. Those are very different topographic areas in town that don't necessarily compare to the flood plain areas in town. So it's probably makes sense that we remove the term floodplain from that from section four one zero zero.

So as not to conflate the two and then subsequently entitle our what is now currently known as the coastal flood area overlay district to the floodplain overlay district, which matches the model bylaw language. And then four one zero zero will become the wetlands protection overlay district. So those are regulations specifically pertaining to wetlands.

And then, you know, also keep in mind that the conservation commission also has jurisdiction over the wetlands through the wetlands protection act. But just wanted to go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:17 - 1:27:51)
No, that's fine. I'm just I don't mean to interrupt. So the four one one zero is what seems like a dangling participle.

I mean, it's like it's kind of hanging out there. You know, so. So where should it go?

Are there specific, you know, is it, you know, when it comes to building, I'm not talking about concom stuff when it comes to building anything, anything in wetlands would have to, you know, go through notice of intent anyway, right. It would have to go to concom. So it's a different procedure altogether.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:51 - 1:28:21)
However, doesn't it make sense in terms of building that the same requirements would be would apply to anything in wetland area or is currently there even as our bylaws stands right now, there's absolutely no building allowed in the wetlands, like in the actual wetlands themselves, like no building can happen whatsoever building can happen within the buffer zone. But our by our zoning bylaw doesn't actually regulate that. Our wetlands protection act regulates that.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:21 - 1:28:37)
And so that's where perhaps. Yeah. Perhaps that language then whatever used to be there, but that language should be, you know, complies with the conditions imposed by the conservation commission or something.

That's in there already.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:37 - 1:28:38)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:38 - 1:28:40)
We just don't have it in front of us.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:40 - 1:28:46)
Yeah. That's because this was just purely for the sake of like administrative almost.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:46 - 1:28:57)
Yeah, exactly. So I get it now. Yeah.

So this little piece, the 4,100 is just there to show the, that's where the change is being made. Got it. Got it.

Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:57 - 1:28:57)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:59 - 1:29:01)
No, just simply looking to rename that.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:02 - 1:29:05)
I said we can correct the spelling of flood floodplain. Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:29:05 - 1:29:33)
Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

And so then 4,200 will be the floodplain overlay district. And, and again, haven't been any changes since we last went through the red line version, anything, there's nothing. Very minimal, like striking of language.

Most of it is just all new language that is being added and that's all updated regulations from DCR. So, okay. No, that was all everything else at the time.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:34 - 1:29:38)
I'm like, wait a second. It's like a whole bunch of information is missing here. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:29:39 - 1:29:52)
Just to clarify, since swamp Scott participates in the prison program or the firm program, the federal flood insurance program, this language is stuff that we have to adopt as part of that. In adopting the maps.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:52 - 1:29:53)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (1:29:53 - 1:29:54)
Got it. Right. That was my understanding.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:55 - 1:30:25)
Also, you know, Massachusetts calls it a floodplain overlay district. Right. We have, we called it a flood, you know, an overlay flood district, a wetlands district.

We called it a flood hazard district. And we had so many different terminologies. Right.

Bouncing around it. I was just going to say that it was like when something was being built, I didn't even know, you know, they went to zoning for relief. For example, they weren't even sure, like, you know, what rules apply.

The thing is.

[Speaker 4] (1:30:25 - 1:31:36)
The names are all different. Right. The thing is, is that they technically don't.

I've never actually seen somebody come to the zoning board for relief. And actually one thing that our bylaw that is changing with this language in the bylaw is. is, really what it is is that the zoning board just, both the building commissioner and the zoning board of appeals review whatever project, whatever construction is being proposed in accordance with the bylaws that we have for the coastal flood area overlay district.

I've never actually seen somebody really need relief, but per these new regulations, if somebody is going to seek a variance from the regulation set forth in this section, they have to appeal to the state. They cannot appeal to our local board. Our local board does not have, no longer has the jurisdiction to waive any of the regulations set forth in this bylaw because this bylaw is tied mostly to state building code.

And so if they want to seek relief or any kind of waiver, they have to go to the state board of appeals. So the Swamp Scub Local Board of Appeals automatically gets bypassed.

[Speaker 2] (1:31:36 - 1:32:04)
So I have a quick question, I'm sort of jumping ahead, but under 4230, is it that this Essex County flood insurance rate map is not coming into effect until July 8th, 2025? It's just interesting to see something dated further out. Yeah, so that's just because that's when it comes into effect.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:04 - 1:32:04)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:05 - 1:32:10)
Perfect. I think right now, did they release draft ones yet, or is that what we're...

[Speaker 4] (1:32:10 - 1:32:11)
I keep looking.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:11 - 1:32:22)
We do have a draft. There are drafts? I haven't seen anything.

I thought there was one, Marissa. I mean, when I... I thought we...

I thought there was one, but you can't download it. Like it was...

[Speaker 4] (1:32:22 - 1:32:27)
They're so heavy, like digitally, like the map.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:27 - 1:32:40)
I thought I saw one, and I thought they were releasing a draft in February, but I can't remember. I'll have to go back and see if I can find it.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:40 - 1:33:32)
But regardless, I mean... So this is good, and I do think that in terms of permitting, so if somebody came to us next week... Well, let's just say, once this gets on the warrant, basically, and we know we're going to vote on it, or once we vote on it at the town meeting, even before it gets approved by the state and so forth, it's basically law.

So if someone was going to bring some kind of a permit before us, even if it were prior to July, to that particular date, I think we can still enforce it based upon the fact that it's in the bylaw that as of that date, unless... Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:32 - 1:33:33)
Totally.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:33 - 1:33:33)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:34 - 1:34:39)
And for that matter, too, I mean, I don't know if it makes sense to talk about it right now, but one way that... So with respect to the site plan special permit language, that was one thing that we hadn't comprehensively decided on, so one thing I included in there, in iteration number three, was adding another subsection to include any construction in the flood area overlay should be subject to site plan review, whether it's a 100-square-foot addition or a brand new home, subject it to site plan review, bring it before you guys, the developer, whoever is filing that application has to present a floodplain memo, like the previous applications have had to do, talk about any short-term, long-term effects, any necessary mitigation strategies, that kind of thing.

That way there's oversight on your part, because it might not necessarily... Coastal flood or flood overlay construction might not necessarily come before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and so that gives you guys a little extra oversight as well.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:40 - 1:35:01)
Right. Because they're really not going to be... I mean, if something's...

Unless they're just looking... They're looking at relief, so they're just going to look at something, oh, yeah, it's in the floodplain. I don't know that zoning is even going to go through it to see what's allowed, and I think that's something that will be important for us to connect with zoning on that after town meeting, just to make sure that everyone understands.

[Speaker 11] (1:35:02 - 1:35:02)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:02 - 1:35:18)
Because it is a big shift from what we've been doing. For sure. But I think you did a great job just updating this, and aside from my lapse in understanding the beginning...

Right. I don't have any other questions about it.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:18 - 1:35:22)
Okay. Are there any other questions from the board on this particular...

[Speaker 7] (1:35:23 - 1:35:23)
On the floodplain?

[Speaker 3] (1:35:24 - 1:35:25)
No. Okay. That looks great.

[Speaker 7] (1:35:26 - 1:35:26)
Cool.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:26 - 1:35:36)
I think at this point we'll just need to vote to assume this as the final language, and the select board on Wednesday will be using the language from our vote tonight in closing the warrant.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:36 - 1:35:37)
Correct.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:37 - 1:35:38)
So we got it just under the water.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:39 - 1:35:46)
And I think it still needs to go to town council, does it not? And they'll look at it before we print it in there or something, Marissa?

[Speaker 4] (1:35:46 - 1:36:01)
Yeah, I can send it to them. This one I worked with Eric Carlson directly from DCR on the language to do the back and forth, so I'll certainly send it to town council as the final seal of approval, but this one should be already tied with a bow. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:36:02 - 1:36:04)
So is there a motion to adopt this as the...

[Speaker 1] (1:36:05 - 1:36:06)
So moved.

[Speaker 3] (1:36:07 - 1:36:10)
Second. All those in favor say aye.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:10 - 1:36:12)
Aye. All right. Awesome.

[Speaker 3] (1:36:13 - 1:36:17)
Perfect. Next we can head to ADUs.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:18 - 1:36:19)
Yes. Yep.

[Speaker 3] (1:36:20 - 1:36:20)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:21 - 1:37:03)
So, ADUs. Again, the big changes are, excuse me, to maintain compliance with the newly issued state regulations. One of the main changes is that no municipality can unreasonably impose design restrictions on an ADU that they would not impose on a single or two-family structure.

So in our current iteration of the bylaw, 511.34 and 511.36, we talk about... Oh, no, sorry, 511.34 is different.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:05 - 1:37:06)
The pervious area.

[Speaker 4] (1:37:07 - 1:37:48)
Correct, yeah. Just 511.36, there shall not be a reduction in the amount of pervious area or removal of trees on the property for the sake of constructing an ADU. That's not necessarily a restriction that we would impose on anybody looking to just build a single-family home or an addition.

As long as they maintain that open space requirement of 25%, then they're allowed to go forth with the construction as shown in the plans. And same thing with removal of trees. And so it would probably be...

It might be unreasonably considered to have that restriction imposed on an accessory dwelling unit, on the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:49 - 1:38:16)
Yeah, no, I think that's a no-brainer for us to remove. That would 100% not fly, given the guidance that they've put out. Really, the only things in here that are optional, so to say, is 511.36 as proposed, eliminating a short-term rental for the ADU, and then adding the definition of what a short-term rental is. Where the specific language for short-term rental, is that suggested by KPLR, or is that from the building code?

[Speaker 4] (1:38:16 - 1:38:22)
That came directly from the state regulations for ADUs. Yeah, I'm very much in favor of that.

[Speaker 2] (1:38:24 - 1:38:36)
So, let me just ask a question. If this is to come up in town meeting... This is the only one that I have any concerns with.

[Speaker 4] (1:38:36 - 1:38:37)
The short-term rental?

[Speaker 2] (1:38:37 - 1:39:32)
Yeah. I am just wondering if there is a way, if this becomes controversial, to state that no ADU shall be offered as a short-term rental without owner occupancy of the main structure. Because, I think that there could be people that were doing this well, where it wasn't like an isolated party house in the middle of the neighborhood.

But, I don't like restricting viable financial gain for people, but I do think it would be reasonable to state that that owner occupancy was necessary. So, I don't know how the rest of you feel about that.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:35 - 1:39:41)
I think it says that, doesn't it? In the definition of short-term rental, that it has to be owner-occupied?

[Speaker 4] (1:39:43 - 1:39:49)
No, it can also be a non-owner-occupied property.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:51 - 1:40:19)
I think that it flies in the face of the core purpose of the bylaw. So, I'm totally against eliminating that language. I think it has to be in there.

The purpose of it is to create affordable housing situation for someone, not like a place to stay for the summer while they're looking for another house or while they're waiting. That's not the purpose, and it creates a transient environment.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:19 - 1:41:39)
It's more what I'm thinking about. This adventure is a very costly thing, and there are families that need to plan and establish something like this. A short-term rental might be the most viable way for them to fund building this for a family that is going to be moving in in two or three years, in the sense of maximizing their ability to cover that cost.

This is a case where we have a town with a wide swing in what income and disposable income looks like. So, I'm always hesitant. I think the ADU as a concept is fabulous, but I also recognize it's fabulous for people that have finances to be able to afford.

These are not inexpensive solutions. They're expensive solutions. So, I don't like the idea of hamstringing people that there might be a way for them to do this, but if we set up the rules so only the people that are wealthy enough to build them to move a family member into it, I don't know.

I think that it is a way.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:39 - 1:42:21)
Hold on a second. So, in other words, you're saying that if I wanted to move into that in three years, and my sister, for example, is going to take on the responsibility. She set out, we'll build an ADU, and when you're done, for whatever reason, I would move in there in a few years.

And to help her recoup some costs on that before I move in means she could rent it out for a year or two or three years. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with week to week or a month at a time or the summer and then gone and then two weeks and then gone.

That's not the same thing.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:22 - 1:42:50)
I feel if there's someone that is living on the property and if they are running this like an Airbnb, like some people do currently in Swampskate, it really isn't, in my opinion, I don't think it's a good idea to overly limit the financial approach to being able to afford to build something like this.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:51 - 1:42:58)
So, you're saying that if somebody builds it just to pay itself off and then as a source of income for themselves?

[Speaker 2] (1:42:59 - 1:43:53)
I'm saying that it could be something that was a source of income for themselves. It's a case where I don't really like us sort of creating worst case scenarios and trying to stop them from happening. I think that I'm not crazy about a non-owner occupied building being able to create an ADU and rent it out so all of a sudden there's like extra activity happening without people overseeing it.

I personally think that people being able to rent parts of their homes in a short term fashion when they are there being responsible in the moment, I think that's a different scenario.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:54 - 1:45:06)
I think that's a lot to control. That's all I can say. It sounds good.

I understand what you're saying, Chair, and I really do understand what you're saying. And I think that theoretically it sounds reasonable, but we can't control all those things. We can't control, we can't be supervising who's living there or if they have somebody, if they have a house down on Elmwood Road somewhere, I'm not talking about you, and they have a nice carriage house they picked up in the back who doesn't have it rented out every other week in the summertime for the people.

I just don't think that is, I think it is completely contrary to the intent of the bylaw. And I don't think that it's a problem if you had someone that wasn't prepared to move in right away and you rented it out to somebody for a year. I think that's completely reasonable to do that.

And I think it's, you know, it respects everybody else around you and it allows you the flexibility of having, you know, being able to rent it out in that nature.

[Speaker 2] (1:45:07 - 1:45:21)
But I just think short term is, you know, I guess I sort of feel that if short term were such an issue, it would have been built into the state bylaw. I don't know. It just really does feel restrictive.

[Speaker 3] (1:45:21 - 1:45:45)
They did call it out as one of the very few places that municipalities can't control. So it's one of the few places that they did make a note to a lot of times. My question here is the definition of short term rental, to me, reads as anybody renting any place for any period of time, not just short term, for anything, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:45:45 - 1:45:49)
So we could put, you know, why don't we put a timeline in it then?

[Speaker 3] (1:45:50 - 1:46:31)
Yeah, I would suggest I've seen other communities that are reviewing this or have short term rental defined in their zoning bylaws. They define it as a period of nights. I thought the state had language, and I may have misread, but I thought the state had language that said it was shorter than 30 days, which I would, it would make sense to me if someone wants to do month to month, that's not 30 days.

But, you know, really they just want weekend or week to week rentals on the Cape or wherever at some vacation place. And I think that makes sense here to add language for 30 days or whatever that trigger that this board feel comfortable with. I think we need to add that in the definition.

[Speaker 7] (1:46:32 - 1:46:59)
So I think the definition is a little bit, well, it's a mouthful, right? So it's basically this, this, this, and this, and not this, but this also and that. And that seems to contradict 511.36. So 511.36, we're adding no ADU shall be offered as short term rental. And then basically like Ted mentioned, short term rental is anything. So I'm not sure how we are complementing each other.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:59 - 1:47:04)
I think it's all in how we want to define a short term rental.

[Speaker 7] (1:47:05 - 1:47:13)
How do you want to define? I know we've talked about this, but I'm positive we had a bed and breakfast bylaw that defines a short term rental.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:16 - 1:47:49)
I don't know that they define short, I can double check on that. I don't know that they define short term rentals, but I think the distinguishing factor too between bed and breakfast and what is defined here as a short term rental is that bed and breakfast is considered a business use. And that would involve going to the town clerk, getting a business certificate, establishing yourself as a business and operating as such.

Whereas this is just, I want to rent out my room next door because I'm an empty nester and I don't mind vacationers coming into my house every couple of weeks or that kind of thing.

[Speaker 3] (1:47:50 - 1:48:05)
To Bill's point, it does 513.22 allow the length of stay and lodging establishments is no less than one night and no greater than 30 nights. So that's the definition it gets to.

[Speaker 7] (1:48:05 - 1:48:23)
And we did that for, I believe for hotels and inns and bed and breakfast. We did not allow motels. So I don't see what the difference between a B&B and an Airbnb and an ADU is as far as what the owner can do with them.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:26 - 1:49:52)
It's kind of like the, it's sort of like that analogy like all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs. You know, like an ADU could be, I guess, well, you know, like a house or a structure. A structure could be a bed and breakfast.

You know, it could be an ADU and it could be a short-term rental. But conversely, not any one of those doesn't necessarily fit the other. So if somebody has a 900 square foot accessory dwelling unit in the back of their home, you know, that could be the accessory dwelling unit and maybe their in-laws are living there, right?

And by virtue of being 900 square feet, you know, smaller than the principal structure, sharing utilities with that principal structure, everything is held in common ownership, so to speak. It's the definition, the mold of what is an accessory dwelling unit. And then if, you know, the in-laws move out and the homeowner says, okay, well, maybe I want to try this vacation rental thing and I'm going to start leasing it out wherever, right near the beach.

What if beachgoers want to come and enjoy Swampskate and they start renting it out for a week period at a time? Then it becomes a short-term rental. And rather than being a bed and breakfast because they're just, the homeowner is operating it as an individual rather than as an established business, which is what a bed and breakfast would be.

[Speaker 3] (1:49:53 - 1:49:58)
And the zoning language does define bed and breakfast as requiring owner occupancy?

[Speaker 7] (1:49:59 - 1:50:03)
It does now, but I thought we were talking about, this says it doesn't have to be owner.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:05 - 1:50:22)
Because that's short-term rental. When they say bed and breakfast establishment in the definition, and we can always strike that, you know, but I think they might, I wonder if they're just, if it's sort of like a non-branded reference to Airbnb. Like vacation homes.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:23 - 1:50:45)
I don't think so because bed and breakfast predated, I mean that would have been on the books before, I mean there was a, that was something that sort of disappeared and then reappeared in the late 70s and 80s where people were very much, there were organizations that you could do this where you brought people and they stayed in your spare bedroom and you made the breakfast.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:45 - 1:50:46)
Right, right.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:47 - 1:50:51)
Airbnb was strictly the digital or the, you know, online.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:51 - 1:50:52)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:53 - 1:51:19)
I think the definition that is currently here, it's 51322, the current travel and tourist lodging establishment section of the zoning bylaw. Allow the length of stay for lodging establishments is no less than one night, no greater than 30 nights. I think that's what we could do.

I would just point that as a definition of short-term rental. I mean, use that, those timelines there.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:19 - 1:51:20)
Right. I think we called it transient.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:21 - 1:51:21)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:21 - 1:51:35)
But I'm just not sure when there is a structure that is attached or detached from your house that if you're allowed to rent out as a bed and breakfast or as, what did you call it, a tourist and?

[Speaker 7] (1:51:35 - 1:51:36)
Transient lodging.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:37 - 1:51:41)
Tourist and transient lodging, it being connected to your house and it being disconnected from your house.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:41 - 1:51:43)
That doesn't necessarily matter.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:43 - 1:51:45)
I don't think it matters at all.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:45 - 1:51:54)
But you wouldn't be able to rent it out as an official bed and breakfast or as some kind of like tourist lodge because these are in residential zoning districts and those are just.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:54 - 1:51:54)
Those are.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:55 - 1:51:56)
Those are, yeah, not allowed.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:57 - 1:52:05)
Right. And also the language here on the current bylaw, the travel and tourist bylaw does require it to be in the primary building. So any ADU would not be compliant because of.

[Speaker 7] (1:52:06 - 1:52:08)
So it has to be in your primary building.

[Speaker 3] (1:52:08 - 1:52:09)
The bed and breakfast one.

[Speaker 7] (1:52:09 - 1:52:12)
I don't think so.

[Speaker 3] (1:52:12 - 1:52:25)
With overnight transient lodging accommodations within residential buildings offered to the general public. Yeah, within a residential building. So I guess.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:25 - 1:52:29)
But an ADU is a residential building. I don't know. I just.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:29 - 1:52:32)
But we also have a specific overlay district for that.

[Speaker 7] (1:52:32 - 1:52:34)
Not for B&Bs. I think they're across the board.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:36 - 1:52:37)
I. Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:37 - 1:52:45)
Air B&Bs are. Right. All residential districts, not in commercial districts.

You mean Air B&Bs?

[Speaker 2] (1:52:46 - 1:52:47)
No. No, I meant.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:48 - 1:52:50)
Excuse me. I meant ADUs. Oh, ADUs.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:50 - 1:52:51)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:51 - 1:52:55)
In every residential district, but not in commercial districts.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:55 - 1:52:57)
Right. But this is the.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:58 - 1:53:01)
But Bill, were you talking specifically about like bed and breakfast establishments?

[Speaker 7] (1:53:02 - 1:53:06)
So there's an overlay for the tourist zone, which.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:06 - 1:53:07)
Tourist lodging overlay district.

[Speaker 7] (1:53:07 - 1:53:08)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (1:53:08 - 1:53:17)
And where is that? It's over by Puritan Cove. And then doesn't it go over by Puritan, where the bend is, by Cassidy Beach and Lincoln House Point?

[Speaker 7] (1:53:17 - 1:53:22)
Yeah, it goes around that bend. I think at one point it took a break and then started again. But I think we made it continuous.

[Speaker 3] (1:53:23 - 1:53:23)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (1:53:23 - 1:53:27)
But it's only there. And it stops just at Avenue.

[Speaker 3] (1:53:29 - 1:53:39)
Yeah. The definition here does say guest rooms shall be located within the primary residential structure. 51363.

[Speaker 7] (1:53:40 - 1:53:47)
Okay. So what's that district based on? The planning board took a map and said this looks good.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:49 - 1:53:52)
Is that because that was where the hotel was that burned down over by Johnson Park?

[Speaker 1] (1:53:52 - 1:54:29)
Well, it was. And there were inns along there, you know, historically. But we also went to several public meetings and, you know, with neighbors and so forth to talk about that.

Do you recall that, Bill? Because we had people that were really upset about, you know, not having it here but having it there. So we kind of just, you know, worked our way down to what actually made sense in terms of, you know, historical patterns.

And what would, you know, kind of not be, you know, disturbing. You know, just in terms of a business, right?

[Speaker 7] (1:54:29 - 1:55:08)
Yeah. I underestimated, certainly. Angela, I apologize.

But we actually did quite an extensive process for that. We had a- Right. There was a subcommittee bylaw review committee, subcommittee- That's right.

At the time. And there was extensive research done in neighboring communities, Salem, Newburyport, down the south shore. We did some places.

And we came up with kind of the best eclectic mix of definitions and types of locations and types of business that would fit in Swampscott at the time. Right. And it was a very concerted effort between the planning board and the town because there were public hearings and- Multiple public hearings.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:08 - 1:55:21)
A lot of community engagement, which, Bill, you headed up all that stuff. It was extremely thorough. So, you know, that's- Just to answer your question because it's a good one, how did you come up with that zone?

That's basically how.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:22 - 1:56:00)
Excellent. I did have one question about 511.3.4. Pre-existing detached structures eligible for conversion to an ADU may be demolished and reconstructed in accordance- Oh, I need to look at 22.73. I'm just curious because are we at any risk with that statement where, you know, we have a number of historic carriage houses in the historic districts? Is that protected?

Like, is there- Do we need a note in there because- No.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:00 - 1:56:05)
No, I don't think so. We've had- This bylaw has already been put into practice a couple times this past year.

[Speaker 11] (1:56:06 - 1:56:06)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:08 - 1:56:30)
Where people have had just accessory buildings where they're not foundationally sound to then be converted into an ADU. So, 2273 is the subsection of our zoning bylaw that protects single and- Nonconforming single and two. Two family structures and their accessory structures.

So, it's part of the state's 40A Section 6.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:30 - 1:56:38)
So, let's say someone came and they wanted to knock down one of the historic carriage houses in the Olmstead district.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:38 - 1:56:41)
Then they would have to come before the district, the commission.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:42 - 1:56:53)
So, the district, that would still be a certificate of non-applicability or a certificate of appropriateness that they would need to get. And if the commission said, no, this is a contributing structure.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:53 - 1:56:54)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:54 - 1:56:54)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:54 - 1:57:03)
If you're on Farragut Road, you've got two sets of bylaws that you're working with. You've got this one if your structure is not conforming. And then you have to come to the commission and respect the other bylaws.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:03 - 1:57:07)
And the historic district, it's a zone.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:07 - 1:57:08)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:08 - 1:57:12)
I just want to make sure that that wouldn't at all- The underlying zoning applies.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:12 - 1:57:14)
Yeah. Because I want to definitely safeguard.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:16 - 1:57:16)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 3] (1:57:16 - 1:58:04)
I don't want to weaken the historic district. So, just to kind of close the loop on the short-term rental side of things. It sounds- I think I agree with your point, Angela, about- We know what the goal of the Governor's bill was that allowed this by right.

We know what the goal of our local bylaw was when we did this two or three years ago. And allowing short-term rental, I can understand where you're coming from. You're giving some people flexibility to do that.

I would get nervous about the adverse effects of that. I don't know. I don't feel strongly about it either way.

But I also- I don't know. I'm curious of your thoughts.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:04 - 1:58:27)
Plus, the people that have Airbnbs, most of them are registered. And they pay taxes on them and so forth. And if someone can just have that whole benefit without having to deal with any of it, that's not fair either.

I also feel like it's just so out of alignment with the spirit of the law.

[Speaker 2] (1:58:27 - 1:58:28)
So, wait a second.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:28 - 1:58:31)
From what you just said, though- I think you're really stretching it.

[Speaker 2] (1:58:32 - 1:58:51)
I didn't follow the argument you just made with if people- I don't think this would give people the ability to bypass any regulations on Airbnb. This is basically saying that space can't be used for Airbnb.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:52 - 1:59:01)
Correct. Which I think it shouldn't be. I don't think you should have people in there for shorter than 30 days.

I don't think it's right. That's not housing.

[Speaker 2] (1:59:02 - 1:59:46)
So, that would be something that- One thing here in the short-term rental, I think maybe it would make sense, though. Unfortunately, the idea of a year lease is not, in my opinion, for ADU the best situation. Totally agree.

So, maybe the short-term rental is this where we reiterate- Because one thing there, it says short-term rental and there's nothing in this about- It just says you can't rent it. It doesn't actually give any parameters. So, I think we do need to add language in that says- And where would it be inserted?

[Speaker 4] (1:59:47 - 1:59:55)
I think we would just- Just within this section itself or if there are additional regulations in other subsections.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:56 - 2:00:10)
The definition that was in that I read before that was in Tourists in Lodging- 513 or something. Yeah, that of short-term rentals can not be rented for less than one night and no more than 30 consecutive.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:11 - 2:00:18)
So, how do we send someone from here to there? I mean, that's the whole thing is I think the bylaws- Capitalize it.

[Speaker 4] (2:00:19 - 2:00:24)
Capitalize the word so that it implies the definition. Or we can put in parentheses to see definitions.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:24 - 2:00:49)
I think that because there's one that sends over here where already- Well, going back to the 511.3.4, we say conversions to an 80 may be divulged and reconstructed in accordance with- So, this would be- I think we'd have to re- We can't just point to this section because it's allowable length of stay in a lodging establishment.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:49 - 2:00:58)
This is distinctly not a lodging establishment. Right, right. And we can't, we shouldn't sign and pretend it is.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:58 - 2:01:00)
But I think we should slip in there.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:02 - 2:01:06)
In a lodging establishment or an ADU? I mean, you know.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:07 - 2:01:10)
Or we could even just say, I mean, we can just use the same language.

[Speaker 7] (2:01:10 - 2:01:11)
Just repeat the words.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:12 - 2:01:23)
Yeah. Allowable length of stay in an accessory dwelling unit is no less than 30 nights. Or something to that.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:23 - 2:01:27)
And I think it would be good to let town council pick that apart a little bit.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:29 - 2:01:43)
So, say that again. Allowable- So, kind of using the same language but reversing. Allowable length of stay in an accessory dwelling unit is no less than 30 consecutive nights.

[Speaker 7] (2:01:44 - 2:01:45)
Minimum 30 consecutive nights.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:45 - 2:01:47)
At a minimum. Right.

[Speaker 2] (2:01:49 - 2:01:57)
Because at least in practice- But you can't say it's a length of stay. It would have to say a rent. Rental or- Allowable length of rent.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:58 - 2:01:59)
Of rental.

[Speaker 7] (2:01:59 - 2:02:00)
Agreement.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:00 - 2:02:11)
In concept, though, we're all more in line with 30 days or more is fine for rental. 30 days or less. 29 days or less is not.

[Speaker 2] (2:02:12 - 2:02:23)
I think a month-to-month lease is incredibly reasonable. I don't really feel that's the same variation as running a tourist.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:23 - 2:02:26)
Yeah, I think that's a good- Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (2:02:26 - 2:03:01)
And that way, that does allow people to, you know, keep- It gives people options. It gives people more financial options. I'm just really concerned that we have things.

Like, I did not like our ADU version where if you were lucky enough to have an existing building, you got grandfathered in. And if you didn't have a detached project- You were the rest of us. I just want to see this thing so that it works all neighborhoods, all socioeconomic.

[Speaker 3] (2:03:02 - 2:03:33)
Totally agreed. So, for language, I think we just need to come to some finality of language before we leave here tonight because they're quoting the warrant Wednesday and obviously pending KP Law's review of it, which they will do. I don't know.

Marissa, are you able to- I'm trying to think if there's any other towns that have already enacted local control on short-term rental for ADUs that we could steal a bylaw from. It's so new. Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:33 - 2:03:48)
I mean, worst-case scenario, I mean, in the event that we get to tackle a blanket short-term rental law in this coming year, you know, this bylaw will only be 365 days.

[Speaker 11] (2:03:48 - 2:03:49)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:51 - 2:03:59)
What was the language that we allow the length of rental of an ADU shall not be less than 30 consecutive nights?

[Speaker 3] (2:04:00 - 2:04:10)
I think a minimum- I think we could- Bill made it a little easier. Maybe a minimum rental ADUs may be offered for rent for a minimum of 30 days, period.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:10 - 2:04:11)
Period. Consecutive. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:04:12 - 2:04:13)
So- Consecutive days. Consecutive days, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (2:04:13 - 2:04:22)
Not to be a calendar nerd, but we have one 28- and 29-day month. I know 30 days is used that way.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:24 - 2:04:53)
I wouldn't get too worried about that. We've been not seeing a 31-day month either, so I think that's a general acceptance. You can say by the month, you know, if you want to put it that way, but I think using 30 days is pretty average, you know, considering there are 31s and there are 28s or 29s, and I don't think it's problematic.

[Speaker 3] (2:04:53 - 2:04:58)
Everyone who rents an ADU will be breaking the bylaw for the month of February. Yeah. Right.

Just for a day, though.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:58 - 2:05:02)
Oh, because so many people want to stay here in February because it's such a large lot.

[Speaker 9] (2:05:02 - 2:05:04)
Exactly. It's where we all want to be.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:04 - 2:05:07)
Let's go to Swampscott for February break.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:09 - 2:05:23)
Cool. Does that definition that Bill, that we kind of just talked about, the minimum rental period for an accessory dwelling unit, shall be 30 days? Or greater.

30 days.

[Speaker 7] (2:05:24 - 2:05:25)
Minimum of 30 days.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:25 - 2:05:37)
Minimum of 30 days, period. Minimum of 30 days, yeah. Yeah.

That being the only, and I think we want to replace all of that short-term rental language with just that simple statement.

[Speaker 11] (2:05:38 - 2:05:39)
Right. I think so.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:39 - 2:05:43)
I think we should. I have read this 10 times, and I still have no idea what it says.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:43 - 2:05:56)
What about leasing a short, but I think it's, I think having that short-term rental language in there is important because it's an idea, and I think it's where people want to.

[Speaker 2] (2:05:56 - 2:06:04)
All of a sudden we're talking about, we send them over to under an ADU section, and we're talking about hotels and motels and lodging houses.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:04 - 2:06:20)
Let's just put it in the bylaw. Write it on the part about, where we talk about the short-term rental in the bylaw. And just say, which is, in this circumstance, no fewer than 30 consecutive days.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:21 - 2:06:24)
I think that's a good idea. Strike the definition of short-term rental from here.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:24 - 2:06:28)
So don't reflect it to a section, just say in this bylaw.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:29 - 2:06:29)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:29 - 2:06:30)
Wait a second.

[Speaker 2] (2:06:31 - 2:06:48)
I think that's a good idea. So let me just see if I understand what you're saying. We're going to take the definition of short-term rental out, and over at 511.3.6, no ADU shall be offered for rent for less than 30 days. Right.

[Speaker 4] (2:06:48 - 2:06:49)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (2:06:49 - 2:06:54)
Okay. I think that is. That makes sense, because that other one doesn't.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:54 - 2:06:56)
That's a clean change.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:56 - 2:06:58)
I think that's good.

[Speaker 7] (2:06:58 - 2:06:59)
Yeah, I agree.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:59 - 2:07:08)
In the language that we said is, no ADU shall be offered for rent for less than 30 consecutive days.

[Speaker 7] (2:07:09 - 2:07:11)
Then we get rid of this whole.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:11 - 2:07:16)
And get rid of that whole definition. Short-term rental, clean, easy, I think that's great.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:17 - 2:07:17)
All right.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:18 - 2:07:22)
So with that small change. Less than 30 consecutive days. Consecutive days.

[Speaker 4] (2:07:23 - 2:07:23)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:23 - 2:07:25)
Marissa, do you have that language in?

[Speaker 4] (2:07:25 - 2:07:30)
No ADU shall be offered for rent for a period of less than 30 consecutive days.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:30 - 2:07:31)
Correct.

[Speaker 4] (2:07:31 - 2:07:31)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:33 - 2:07:39)
Perfect. Okay. Motion to approve that.

So moved. Administrator. Second.

All right. All those in favor.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:39 - 2:07:41)
I'll second. Aye.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:41 - 2:07:42)
Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 4] (2:07:43 - 2:07:49)
Aye. Good job. All right.

Site plan.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:50 - 2:07:52)
Site plan special permit.

[Speaker 4] (2:07:52 - 2:08:21)
Our favorite. All right. So every single page is the same but just a different version.

So version one is just simply striking the square footage requirement for residential new construction and the bylaw 5-4-2-3 will simply say any new construction of a single or two-family residence, period. Anything three or more is commercial and that follows under 5-4-2-1.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:23 - 2:08:26)
So version one just eliminates new construction?

[Speaker 1] (2:08:26 - 2:08:45)
Correct. Can I just put something out there instead of, unless you guys want to go through every version, can we just kind of, can I just kind of say what I, like, does it make sense instead of going by version just saying here's what, you know, ideally the final version would look like?

[Speaker 4] (2:08:46 - 2:08:49)
Yeah, that's what, well, that's sort of what version...

[Speaker 1] (2:08:50 - 2:08:51)
Essentially what you're doing, right.

[Speaker 4] (2:08:51 - 2:09:05)
Yeah, that's sort of what version four was. My only, I think the only iffy one was 5-4-2-2, which I don't know where we landed on the square footage for residential additions if we like, if we were okay with keeping the 800 for now. I'm not.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:05 - 2:09:07)
So let me... I think it's too...

[Speaker 4] (2:09:07 - 2:09:10)
Too big? Lower it to 500? That seemed to be the other...

[Speaker 1] (2:09:10 - 2:09:13)
I think 500 is very, very reasonable. Okay.

[Speaker 9] (2:09:14 - 2:09:15)
And I think it's too big.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:17 - 2:09:22)
You think it's too big? What do you think, Chair? What do you think would be reasonable?

[Speaker 2] (2:09:22 - 2:09:28)
500 is 25 by 25 and we're doing no site plan? Am I doing bad math? Unless it's...

[Speaker 1] (2:09:28 - 2:09:34)
I know. I'm okay with going smaller. I just want something that's going to, I want to make sure it's going to pass.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:34 - 2:10:15)
The problem that I have with this being... I think the thing that needs to be understood here is that when you shift lot sizes, you shift density of neighborhoods, in some neighborhoods, 800 square feet, people aren't going to notice it. Right.

And in some neighborhoods, it is going to be looming over you. Yep. So that's...

And then the other thing is the square feet of gross floor area, I think we should be talking in footprint too.

[Speaker 4] (2:10:15 - 2:10:30)
We say GFA and I feel like really, we really only mean GESF, gross square footage. I feel like... So let's say it.

Yeah. So let's say it. In definition, we say gross floor area, but I feel like in practice, we really only say gross square footage.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:31 - 2:10:32)
I know, but that's different.

[Speaker 4] (2:10:32 - 2:10:34)
Gross square footage... They're two completely different...

[Speaker 2] (2:10:34 - 2:10:37)
No, no, but I don't think floor area is open for misinterpretation.

[Speaker 4] (2:10:38 - 2:10:39)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:39 - 2:10:39)
It's footprint.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:40 - 2:10:41)
Right. That's right.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:41 - 2:10:42)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:42 - 2:11:54)
So how about this? Can I recommend something? Yeah.

But because I think there's something we could do. So under 5422, residential addition, we could say construction exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two-family residence, that, take the I out, changes or alters the footprint of a residence, period. Then you take the rest of it out.

And because how the hell are we supposed to know if like back in 1970, it required a site plan? I don't know. That's absurd.

Nobody knows. And plus, I think it just means nothing. It just makes it looser.

That changes the footprint of a residence or, which basically is, in other words, they can... So if they just want to build a second floor on top of a single floor and they're not going to change the square footage, that second floor can be, and there we can say more than 400 square feet or something like that. Or gross, whatever you're going to say.

What do you want to say? Gross square feet. Is that what you want?

I think so.

[Speaker 4] (2:11:54 - 2:11:55)
You want both.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:55 - 2:12:23)
Because I think the footprint and the gross square feet are really important. Yeah. Because we're talking about footprint, which I 100% agree with Jer.

And then we're talking about massing. Right. Which could be the same footprint, but the massing can just be, as we've seen in the past, can just be ridiculous.

And then they're putting a deck out back. And then before you know it, it's like, well, that's not a room. But there's a bedroom over the deck.

But the deck's...

[Speaker 2] (2:12:26 - 2:12:42)
So let me go back and just see if I understand. So you're saying residential addition, construction, exterior alteration, or exterior expansion of a single or two-family residence that changes or alters the footprint.

[Speaker 4] (2:12:43 - 2:12:46)
We could say by X amount of square feet.

[Speaker 2] (2:12:47 - 2:12:48)
Of a residence.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:48 - 2:13:05)
No, just not even. That changes or alters the footprint. So that's one piece of it.

I don't care if you altered the footprint by 10 feet on one side. You know, 10 by 10. I mean, it alters the footprint.

And to your point, Chair, something like that, like up by where your house is, huge.

[Speaker 2] (2:13:05 - 2:13:07)
That's a big deal. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:07 - 2:13:22)
Okay. So alters the square footprint, period, not period, but I mean, doesn't matter by how much, that alters the footprint or involves an addition of more than X number of square feet.

[Speaker 4] (2:13:22 - 2:13:29)
Well, then wouldn't one just encompass two? Wouldn't change or alter the footprint imply even an addition?

[Speaker 2] (2:13:30 - 2:13:32)
No, because you can go up.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:32 - 2:13:32)
Oh.

[Speaker 2] (2:13:32 - 2:13:33)
And so basically.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:35 - 2:13:39)
I didn't alter the footprint of my house, but I went up a half a story. Sure. Right.

Right.

[Speaker 2] (2:13:40 - 2:13:55)
So this would then say changes or alters the footprint of a residence or involves an addition of more than blank square feet of gross floor area.

[Speaker 3] (2:13:57 - 2:14:28)
I get uncomfortable with the any size change to a footprint. And I say that because somebody putting a six by six mudroom on the side of their house and having them have to come before planning board for a site plan special permit or site plan review to me seems excessive and prohibitive of doing what we should be encouraging people to do, which is investing in properties, getting their assessed values up and giving us more tax revenue, to be perfectly honest.

So that's a good point.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:28 - 2:14:30)
That is a good point, Ken.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:30 - 2:14:32)
But 25 by 25.

[Speaker 3] (2:14:33 - 2:14:35)
I do see the square footage.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:35 - 2:14:37)
I mean, that's bigger than most of our living rooms.

[Speaker 3] (2:14:37 - 2:14:48)
Yeah. I do see the square footage trigger. Just, you know, how many additions do we see a year that you're aware of that don't come before site plan, but our footprint changes?

[Speaker 4] (2:14:49 - 2:14:53)
Don't come before site plan. A few. A few.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:54 - 2:14:57)
Yeah. Yeah. Just run through the zoning permits.

[Speaker 4] (2:14:57 - 2:14:57)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:57 - 2:14:59)
That's it. Upwards of 10, maybe.

[Speaker 2] (2:15:00 - 2:15:11)
Yeah. And I would also say we catch them in historic district all the time. But we actually can.

[Speaker 3] (2:15:11 - 2:15:13)
You have enforcement authority.

[Speaker 2] (2:15:13 - 2:15:54)
Right. In a small portion of the town. But it is a case where we've had a couple of them that it would have been very helpful for them to be here because we're looking at the aesthetics of it.

Yeah. But I can look at it and say, okay, you've got a two-story addition that's moving over to Dallas Road. I don't remember which one.

No, no. Dallas Road. Yeah.

No. Not that one. But there was another one on, I forget where it was, Banks, I think, that it did really move it over.

[Speaker 11] (2:15:54 - 2:15:55)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (2:15:55 - 2:16:08)
So it's a case that 25 by 25 is, a two-story 25 by 25 is 500 square feet.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:10 - 2:16:51)
But in an area where that would be prohibitive, like the first house I moved in in Swampscott, I had lot lines. Yeah. I mean, yeah.

It was crazy. I understand, you know, any square footage is big. In a place where you have smaller lots and houses are kind of built up.

Exactly. Like, we're going to be operating on a lot of these properties where I think that would have a large impact. It's going to be either within the setback or have some other dimensional requirement that's going to cause it to either go before zoning or come before us.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:53 - 2:16:54)
That's true.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:54 - 2:17:25)
So I think we're kind of getting to a place where any of these projects where it's going to be booming, for the most part, would have to get relief anyway just because of our dimensional needs. I just get nervous about making it more difficult for people to try and do nominal things to their homes without causing them undue burden by having to do this. Having to come before a planning board, it's not the end of the world, but another month or two months on a project.

[Speaker 7] (2:17:26 - 2:17:29)
You've got to get an architect. You've got to get plans. You've got to get a lawyer.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:29 - 2:17:45)
I would say that in Marblehead, I think it's 500 for the site plan. And you look at what they have, that's everything from their little tiny houses in Old Town all the way out to the humongous things on the Neck, and it's 500.

[Speaker 3] (2:17:45 - 2:17:53)
I'm very open, personally, to revisiting the 800. I don't see a huge problem with it, but I hear all of your concerns, and I'm very open to revisiting that.

[Speaker 2] (2:17:53 - 2:18:35)
I think the 800 is insane. Yeah, I do too. I think I would be more apt to be comfortable.

I mean, 20 by 20. My living room is big. A 20 by 20 room is bigger than my living room.

These dimensions are huge. And I personally think that that is an impact. If you think about a 1,200-square-foot house, a 1,200-square-foot house could be a two-story house.

And then if you're doing this onto it, it goes from a 1,200-square-foot house. Right, 40% bigger.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:35 - 2:18:41)
But you do have, you know, you're going to have, like Ted said, you've got setbacks. You've got height restrictions and stuff like that.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:41 - 2:19:25)
But even though there are setbacks and height restrictions, I still think we are, we have such, we are not a uniform community to try to land this stuff. It's like we come up with these numbers, and they make me crazy. You know, I know you guys are sick of listening to me about setbacks, but, you know, we, there's not a magic number on setbacks.

Setbacks is a big... It's all conditional. It's all conditional.

And, you know, there's stuff that people aren't allowed to build that would make sense in the neighborhoods, and there's things that you're allowed to build that make no sense.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:25 - 2:19:28)
Maybe we should adopt a form-based code.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:28 - 2:19:36)
I was going to say, that's a great segue to something we're all very enthusiastic to probably talk about, which is form-based code. That's an undertaking for another time.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:36 - 2:19:41)
Yeah, that's a whole town. That's one big thing of town meeting all by itself.

[Speaker 2] (2:19:42 - 2:19:49)
But a 10 by 20 addition is 200 square feet, and that's still a huge addition on a house.

[Speaker 7] (2:19:49 - 2:19:52)
Would you be comfortable with it by zoning district?

[Speaker 4] (2:19:53 - 2:20:01)
We had tossed around a percent. I tossed the idea of a percentage. That doesn't seem fair, does it?

But... That doesn't seem fair, though.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:03 - 2:20:03)
Percentage?

[Speaker 4] (2:20:03 - 2:20:08)
Percentage of the existing gross square footage, because 10% of a house...

[Speaker 2] (2:20:08 - 2:20:31)
Well, I'll be frank with you. One of the things that I'm very pleased with the historic district is that there is not any cost to coming in front of it. And, like, one of the things that really bothers me here is that, you know, you trigger these costs, and there's people that aren't going to do things because they can't...

Right. You know, they won't add that addition on. They won't make their house more livable.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:31 - 2:20:43)
Well, I think that's an excellent point. And, you know, it's the zoning, when you're going for relief, where they should really be... And they are charging fees.

Or maybe their filing fees can be greatly reduced.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:43 - 2:20:46)
Well, I think if all of us pledged to...

[Speaker 4] (2:20:47 - 2:20:53)
It's about $450. $450 for a filing fee. It's fun.

I agree. It's a lot of money.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:53 - 2:20:58)
I mean, considering what we're paid. Yeah. The big bucks.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:59 - 2:20:59)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:59 - 2:21:01)
I would... I could half my salary...

[Speaker 1] (2:21:01 - 2:21:09)
We could all donate our stipend from working... What do you mean? You don't get paid for being on the platform?

Jeez. I thought everybody did.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:10 - 2:21:10)
No.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:11 - 2:21:12)
Just kidding.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:13 - 2:21:25)
Okay. So, coming back to this, where are we on this 5422?

[Speaker 1] (2:21:26 - 2:22:13)
I'm... Personally, I'm very comfortable with going to 500 because I think it's a big departure from where we were. And I think we should...

I think it gives us... You know, we're going to be looking at it. I mean, we're certainly going to be looking at it.

I mean, it does bring every single... You know, I mean... And to your point, Ted, even if we left the original language in there, exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two-family residence that changes or alters the footprint of a residence that previously required site plan approval or site plan special permit, I mean, you know, that could be a...

That could be any house, really. Right? So...

[Speaker 3] (2:22:13 - 2:22:25)
But how would anyone know? It would really only be something if somebody... If it was on the resident card, right?

The property card. Which it's not. And that's only something that we've done very recently.

[Speaker 2] (2:22:25 - 2:22:26)
Those got lost.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:26 - 2:23:14)
And I think that's in there because of the aggregate additions to any particular property, right? So I think that's why that phrase is in there, because of that aggregate. But in any event, I still feel like that 500 is...

I think that because it's... Because it works well in a neighborhood like Marblehead, not to... I'd say the same thing about, you know, I don't know, Nahant or Winter.

You know, older, smaller towns where you have a lot of tightly... You have a lot of densely settled, smaller homes and areas that are more newly developed that have bigger lots. And, you know, you've got to have the same regulations for everybody.

[Speaker 3] (2:23:14 - 2:23:15)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:15 - 2:23:18)
And that for them, it seems to work pretty well.

[Speaker 3] (2:23:20 - 2:23:22)
I hear you. I think for me that...

[Speaker 1] (2:23:22 - 2:23:24)
That's basically where I'm going with it. I mean...

[Speaker 2] (2:23:26 - 2:23:40)
I still think that previously required a site plan approval is just... Marissa, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of houses you'd never know.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:41 - 2:23:42)
Yeah, you'd never know. And so it would be...

[Speaker 2] (2:23:42 - 2:24:16)
So I don't... I think having it in there to like... They'll go to town hall and they say, oh, well, have we had this?

How could this be answered accurately? So there's a part of me that maybe it says, like you were saying before, exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two-family residence that changes or alters the footprint of the residence by more than...

[Speaker 1] (2:24:16 - 2:24:25)
Well, not just the footprint. So it would be the footprint or massing of a residence by 500 square feet or more. I think I like that.

[Speaker 2] (2:24:25 - 2:24:26)
Or could it say...

[Speaker 1] (2:24:26 - 2:24:33)
Not just the footprint. It's the massing as well. So what if it doesn't change the footprint and it just changes the massing?

[Speaker 2] (2:24:35 - 2:24:46)
Well, could you say a mass... Could you give a footprint minimum or maximum and a massing maximum?

[Speaker 1] (2:24:48 - 2:25:09)
No, I mean, I don't... But that's where we were at before. So I just think it's...

I think it's all going to be relative and we're just going to have to figure it out. Because if it's really... If the footprint size, it's really going to be determined by setbacks.

[Speaker 4] (2:25:10 - 2:25:25)
Could we not just strike that the entire first section of that and just say involves an addition of more than 500 square feet? Because whether or not it's a second story addition or a lateral addition on the first story, as long as it's more than 500 square feet, it's getting added.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:26 - 2:25:28)
Oh, that makes a good point. Because if you lose the footprint...

[Speaker 4] (2:25:29 - 2:25:34)
Yeah. Right. Footprint, it makes it...

I think it... Yeah. That's too much...

[Speaker 1] (2:25:34 - 2:25:54)
I think it makes... I think that makes perfect sense. Just involves an addition.

So construction, exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a two-family residence that exceeds 500 square feet. Yeah. Gross square feet, however you want to put it.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:54 - 2:25:55)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:55 - 2:26:00)
We had square feet of gross floor area before, so...

[Speaker 4] (2:26:00 - 2:26:01)
I would say gross...

[Speaker 1] (2:26:01 - 2:26:09)
Whatever you guys... Whatever you guys feel is the best way to express that space, whether it's gross... Whatever we were saying before.

[Speaker 4] (2:26:10 - 2:26:17)
I would say... At least I know we define gross square feet in the definitions, so I would say that's probably a safe bet.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:18 - 2:26:24)
By more than... Yeah. By more than 500.

I think that's fair.

[Speaker 2] (2:26:24 - 2:26:38)
So that's basically... You could put a 20 by 20 foot room on your house without having a site plan or a 10 by 20 two-story addition. Or...

[Speaker 1] (2:26:40 - 2:26:52)
You can, but if you have to... If it's not... If you need relief, then you need relief.

Then you're going to have to go to zoning.

[Speaker 2] (2:26:53 - 2:26:59)
I just wish that... The thing that... So much is done...

[Speaker 1] (2:26:59 - 2:27:00)
I know what you're talking about.

[Speaker 2] (2:27:00 - 2:27:01)
Pardon me?

[Speaker 1] (2:27:03 - 2:27:05)
I totally get what you're going to say, but go ahead.

[Speaker 2] (2:27:05 - 2:27:11)
Well, I just wish that we were a community that had more design review. I mean, this is...

[Speaker 1] (2:27:11 - 2:27:12)
Yeah, I know.

[Speaker 2] (2:27:12 - 2:27:56)
There's so much that happens that you're like, oh, that's a shame that happened, and that's a shame that happened. I don't think that it makes the community better. I don't think it makes the community...

I don't think it helps people's property values. We worry about people being a homeowner, being inconvenienced for a month, and their neighbor gets... That altered the experience of living in their own house without anyone looking at it.

I don't think it's great.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:56 - 2:28:03)
A 44-unit building looming over your bedroom. So, I agree with you, but what are you going to do?

[Speaker 2] (2:28:04 - 2:28:38)
Well, communities do things. I mean, there's... I've worked in communities in California that...

If I wanted to alter the window on the back of a house that someone could see out their bathroom window and only them, I was doing it correctly. It was matching the house. It had to, and it did protect...

Granted, these communities, their property values are probably not what we would want here, because no one could live here. But everyone signed up to doing it, and they had...

[Speaker 3] (2:28:41 - 2:28:42)
So, does...

[Speaker 1] (2:28:42 - 2:28:43)
Let's say... Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:28:43 - 2:29:05)
Did those changes that we just talked about, the amendments to the language in the residential additions, the 500-square-foot trigger, the changes to the language about the footprint that Marissa had just read off, are we all in agreement about that? I would be at 400. You're going to keep saying that until you say, all right, 10 square feet.

[Speaker 2] (2:29:05 - 2:29:07)
No, I have 200 written down.

[Speaker 10] (2:29:08 - 2:29:14)
10 by 10 is a bedroom. It's not a mudroom. It's a bedroom.

[Speaker 3] (2:29:15 - 2:30:49)
At the end of the day, I want to be careful about how much... I hear what you're saying. We've all seen properties where things have happened that you're like, I would have done it differently if it came before planning board.

I would have had this input. Totally, completely agree. I think we do have to have a longer-term conversation about things like maybe looking into form-based code for some point in the future and looking at certain design guidelines and ways to do that that can be done without being an impediment.

Because I think a lot of the time, some of these things we talk about, it's easy for us because it's like they come back in a month. Okay, they'll make a change. You can do it at the end of the month.

But on the other side of the coin, if you're a homeowner, a month can be an inconvenience. It's probably generous to describe things as if you're trying to go through a project and you're trying to keep up with your financing and everything. But I think it's part of a longer-term conversation that I would like to have is figuring out how we can do both of those things at the same time.

Not inconvenience people, but also at the same time ensure that our review is backed by bylaws that allow us to be a little bit more thorough in review, allow us to review more projects, allow us to be more involved and thoughtful in design. I think form-based code will do that. There are some other things I think we can look into doing, like buy-right bills for certain types of projects and everything or designs.

But with that being said, I say that kind of independent of this. I don't think we're going to solve those problems in changing this.

[Speaker 2] (2:30:50 - 2:30:52)
So you're cool with $200,000 then?

[Speaker 3] (2:30:52 - 2:31:12)
I'm cool with $500,000, yeah. My recommendation is to stick with $500,000 to eliminate the $3,000 per foot trigger completely for any new construction. And I think $500,000 is reasonable for construction.

I think it is as well. If the board feels differently, I respect.

[Speaker 7] (2:31:13 - 2:31:15)
How do you feel, Bill? I'm good with $500,000.

[Speaker 2] (2:31:16 - 2:31:19)
I will stand strong at $100,000.

[Speaker 11] (2:31:22 - 2:31:23)
He's shrinking.

[Speaker 2] (2:31:24 - 2:31:27)
That's how I negotiate.

[Speaker 3] (2:31:27 - 2:31:28)
My tariff.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:28 - 2:31:30)
Incredible shrinking building.

[Speaker 3] (2:31:31 - 2:31:35)
The one part that we haven't really talked about is the flood area overlay in any construction in the floodplain.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:36 - 2:32:32)
So I think where Marissa tucked that in at 5-4-2-6 is good. I think it's important that that gets referred to. Because it should also go into zoning reviews as well in terms of dimensional special permits and stuff like that.

Because I don't know that it's always... They're looking at dimensional special permits. They're not looking at where that dimension is, per se, unless it's glaringly obvious.

So I think there's a piece there that needs to happen ultimately. But at any rate, I believe it belongs there. So that would also involve renumbering the rest of the section, which I know you just didn't do, Marissa, because that was just one of the versions.

[Speaker 4] (2:32:33 - 2:32:35)
No, I renumbered the rest of it.

[Speaker 3] (2:32:36 - 2:32:37)
You did. Version 4?

[Speaker 1] (2:32:37 - 2:32:40)
But it's not in redline.

[Speaker 3] (2:32:40 - 2:32:42)
Right. It's just not in redline.

[Speaker 1] (2:32:42 - 2:33:14)
Right. So we need to do that. And then also flip to page 109 under contents of the plan for commercial and residential.

And under the 5458, we have CFAOD. And then again in the residential under 5462, it's letter E, we have CFAOD. Oh, I see what you mean.

Yeah, just change it to FOD. That's all. Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 3] (2:33:15 - 2:33:17)
But we can just do that through an administrative update, right?

[Speaker 1] (2:33:17 - 2:33:23)
Exactly, yeah. Yeah, you can just stick it in there now. Just cross it out in redline.

[Speaker 4] (2:33:23 - 2:33:31)
Oh, totally, yeah. I only printed out the first page, so that's all we have before us, just the actual beginning version of 5400.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:31 - 2:33:33)
Oh, well, I have that folded out, yeah. It's on there.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:35 - 2:33:41)
This short-term rental description, is there one that says thorough for the adult uses?

[Speaker 1] (2:33:46 - 2:33:52)
You know, Jerry, he's getting punchy. All right, so let's get to that.

[Speaker 9] (2:33:52 - 2:33:54)
I just looked out ahead, and I was like, what is that?

[Speaker 1] (2:33:54 - 2:34:47)
That's funny. So then on site plan special permit, we're at 5422, residential addition, construction, exterior alteration, or exterior expansion of a single or two-family residence that in, let's see, the two-family residence in excess of 500 square feet. Yeah.

By more than, sorry. Yeah, expansion by more than, sorry. Okay, so we got that.

The next one is residential, is any new construction of a single or two-family residence, period. The next one is 5426, adding the flood area overlay. Yep.

Renumbering the rest of the section, just, you know, knocking that out and redlining. And then redlining the.

[Speaker 4] (2:34:48 - 2:34:49)
Oh, I'm sorry, keep going, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:50 - 2:34:56)
Oh, and just redlining the stuff you don't have, you know, the, you know, stuff I mentioned before.

[Speaker 4] (2:34:56 - 2:35:10)
Yes. 5458. Where I input flood area overlay, that should be already all set because adult uses was already 5426, so I put, so that should, that's already numbered accordingly.

[Speaker 3] (2:35:10 - 2:35:12)
I think it's just redlining the updates, the strikeouts.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:14 - 2:35:32)
Right. This is about the time, this is about contents of plan. Oh, I got you, I got you.

Okay. It's under contents of plan, commercial and residential. And in both those sections under contents of plan, it mentions discussion of CFAOD.

Got it. Do you just want to switch it?

[Speaker 4] (2:35:35 - 2:35:40)
Yes, to FOD, or F-A-O-D. Okay, just get rid of that and put FOD, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:41 - 2:35:43)
That's all. Gotcha, thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:35:45 - 2:35:48)
Do we have any motions that we want to make to reflect that final language?

[Speaker 1] (2:35:50 - 2:36:02)
I guess if everyone's good with it, I would make a motion to amend the site plan special permit section 5400 with the comments I just read to the board, which I'm happy to read again.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:04 - 2:36:06)
Could you? I think just the 5422 section.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:07 - 2:36:28)
Okay, 5422 section would read residential dash addition. Construction comma exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two family residence by more than 500 square, pro square feet, or square, whatever you're going to call it, pro square feet.

[Speaker 10] (2:36:31 - 2:36:33)
Okay, did you say 200?

[Speaker 1] (2:36:34 - 2:36:37)
I did not. I did not say two, I said five.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:38 - 2:36:38)
Respect to you.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:38 - 2:36:39)
And that's my motion.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:41 - 2:36:44)
Is there a second? Second. All those in favor?

[Speaker 1] (2:36:45 - 2:36:45)
Aye.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:46 - 2:36:52)
All right. We'll get the two. That's our final language to Diane, if you can just kick it over to Diane tomorrow.

[Speaker 4] (2:36:52 - 2:37:07)
Yes, absolutely, Diane. I know they'll be happy to get it. Our public hearing is set in here Monday, the 28th, so it's two weeks from today.

Same time, 7 p.m. That's for all three? What's that?

[Speaker 7] (2:37:07 - 2:37:09)
The public hearing is for all three? Yep.

[Speaker 4] (2:37:09 - 2:37:10)
For all three, yep.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:11 - 2:37:14)
And then you're doing a forum, right?

[Speaker 4] (2:37:14 - 2:37:17)
I'm doing a forum Wednesday night.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:17 - 2:37:17)
Great.

[Speaker 4] (2:37:18 - 2:37:18)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:19 - 2:37:21)
Is it this coming Wednesday?

[Speaker 4] (2:37:21 - 2:37:23)
Yes. This coming Wednesday, yep, in two days.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:23 - 2:37:27)
And who is doing it? Is it in person or just online?

[Speaker 4] (2:37:27 - 2:37:49)
It's going to be online. Okay. Because one, I don't have any space available.

And two, I think it's a lot easier to just screen share and talk online. I think these changes are a lot smaller than what we did last year. So hopefully it should just be a pretty quick thing.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:49 - 2:37:49)
That would be good to do.

[Speaker 4] (2:37:50 - 2:37:53)
Yeah. I think that's great. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:54 - 2:37:56)
Do we have minutes to approve?

[Speaker 4] (2:37:57 - 2:37:58)
No, I apologize. I don't have any minutes.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:59 - 2:38:09)
Okay. No, I thought I was going crazy. So, no, all good.

Any other business the board wants to visit? I think we kind of covered a lot during the handcuffs thing.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:09 - 2:38:14)
Yeah. And thank you again for indulging me on that.

[Speaker 3] (2:38:15 - 2:38:28)
Thanks for bringing the concerns up. I know that we wouldn't, out of no one's fault, but the process wouldn't have included us beyond tonight. So this was our chance to be a little bit more involved.

And that's the right thing.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:29 - 2:38:32)
So, thanks. Thank you again. So, yeah.

[Speaker 3] (2:38:33 - 2:38:40)
Any motions to adjourn? So moved. Second.

Okay. All those in favor. All right.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:40 - 2:38:49)
Thanks. Thank you guys. Thank you.