2026-09-14: Planning Board

I have what I need. The corpus (IDEAS.md lines 19/1067–1071/1452–1466/1591 and the PB committee file) already documents this exact meeting’s threads — the Glover 299 Salem third iteration, the 45 Pleasant St continuance, and the 40R fall-Town-Meeting package including the Oct 6 special meeting set tonight — with status notes dated 2026-09-17. Appending new IDEAS entries or snapshot edits would duplicate active maintenance, so I’ll keep my footprint to the minutes themselves, per output discipline.

Section 1: Agenda

Swampscott Planning Board — meeting called to order 0:01:03 by the Chair, conducted via Teams and recorded. No prior minutes were up for approval.

0:01:56 Public hearing — Petition 26-1145, 45 Pleasant Street (Kenneth Schutzer, Esq., care of Michael Snitzkowski). Site plan special permit to demolish an existing two-family dwelling and build a five-unit condominium (~1,850 sf/unit) with parking and site improvements in the A-4 district. Chair recused; Vice Chair presided.
0:03:19 Public hearing — Petition 26-12, 76 Barnstable Street (Matthew Baron). Requested amendment to a previously granted site plan special permit: (a) accept the as-built garage door (approved as a window) serving a planned handicap-access ramp, and (b) modify the year-round privacy-screening condition so it does not impede the ramp.
0:58:50 Public hearing — Application 26-13, 299 Salem Street (General Glover Farmhouse site) (Glover LLC; Attorneys Kenneth Schutzer and Gerry D’Ambrosio). Site plan review under the Glover Multifamily Overlay District for a 140-unit residential redevelopment (six buildings across the Swampscott/Marblehead line), underground + surface parking, 17 affordable units, and preservation of the Glover Farmhouse. Presentation, board comments, public comment.
[3:00:45 / 3:02:17] Board business — Draft Smart Growth (Chapter 40R) zoning district & 2026 zoning-amendment package. Scheduling of an October 6 special meeting; discussion of dwelling-units-per-acre parameters, design standards, and Town-Meeting framing; codification/KP Law updates.
3:25:09 Adjournment.

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Diarization caveat: the automated [Speaker N] tags are unstable — the same person is assigned different numbers across segments, and single numbers (esp. 1, 2, 3, 7) are reused for multiple people. The mapping below is by person, with the basis for each ID. Where I could not separate individuals, I say so.

Planning Board

Joe Sheridan — Chair. Opened and closed the meeting; recused himself from Item 1 and returned to chair Items 2–4. Directly addressed as “Joe” (2:38:36 “Joe, can I jump in”; 19:58 a colleague “I would agree with Joe”). Appears under Speakers 1, 2, 8, 10 (and briefly 3) at various points.
Angela Ippolito — Vice Chair. Presided over Item 1 (Chair turned it over “to Angela,” 0:01:36); landscape/screening lens throughout Item 2; raised the ingress/egress and underground-parking-excavation concerns on Item 3 (Chair later: “the issue that Angela brought up”). Left the meeting early during the zoning discussion (thanked by name, 3:00:17). Appears under Speakers 3, 8, 2, 7.
Jer Jurma — Member (architect). Identified as an architect on-tape when Attorney D’Ambrosio thanked “George Germer” for design suggestions (“that’s just the nature of what architects do,” [1:58:30–1:58:37]); corpus roster form is “Jer Jurma” (prior renderings “Jerry/Jared Germa”). Delivered the detailed materials/window/roof/HVAC critique on Item 3, the “we need a real plan / it would be malpractice to approve” process framing (colleague: “thanks, Jer,” 2:44:56), the “three things — door, ramp, privacy” framing on Item 2, and the “tough sell at Town Meeting / Elm Place density-fatigue” concern in the zoning discussion (later referenced as “Jared brought it up,” 3:20:16). Left early (3:08:18). Appears under many tags (1, 2, 4, 8, 10).
Bill Quinn — Member. Addressed as “Bill” (1:45:45 “Angela and Bill, do you guys have anything?”; 1:49:20 “Bill, did you have something else?”). Practical operations questions on Item 3 — delivery trucks, trash collection, snow storage, underground-garage access. Appears under Speakers 4 and 13.
A newer board member — likely Ariane Purdy; not certain. A member who said “since I’m new to the board” asked about the COVID-era traffic study (1:22:29) and read the ramp-exemption statute aloud on Item 2. Purdy is the newly seated (April 2026) member, so this is the best fit, but the transcript never states the name and it could be Quinn — flag as inferred.

Town staff

Christa “Krista” McGaha — Senior Planner. Ran the smart-growth/40R zoning discussion, the Oct 6 special-meeting scheduling, and the KP Law/codification updates; stated on Item 3 that plans “submitted this afternoon” left inadequate time for staff/board review. Transcript renders her “Krista/Crista.” Appears under Speakers 9, 17, 6, and 1/3 in the zoning segment.
“Chris” — A/V and packet/slide handler (possibly Chris Lucas). Named at the open (“that’s Chris Lucas,” 0:59) and operated the projected photos (“Can you go from below, Chris?,” 50:19); a staffer also noted the board’s printed packet was “as of like 2 p.m.” (1:23:08). Whether “Chris” the A/V operator and that staffer are the same person is unclear — flag.
A second planning staffer offered near the end to personally review the Glover submittals for completeness (2:58:04, Speaker 18); name not stated — possibly the Director of Community & Economic Development or an assistant planner. Flag as unidentified.

Item 1 (45 Pleasant Street)

Kenneth Schutzer, Esq. — applicant’s counsel; requested continuance to October (Speaker 5).

Item 2 (76 Barnstable Street)

Matthew Baron — applicant/homeowner, 76 Barnstable St; self-introduced (3:49). (Speakers 7, then 1.)
Emily Baron — applicant/homeowner; self-introduced as “Theo’s mother” ([2:38:36 / 38:36]). (Speakers 9/11.)
Jennifer McGaffigan — abutter, 48 Barnstable St; self-introduced (33:58). (Speaker 9.)
Ralph James — 81 Puritan Lane; self-introduced, spoke in support (also returns in Item 3 as Tedesco Country Club president). (Speaker 10.)

Item 3 (299 Salem Street / Glover) — applicant team

Kenneth Schutzer, Esq. — lead counsel; introduced the team and gave closing remarks (59:40, Speaker 3, later 1).
Attorney Gerry (Jerry) D’Ambrosio — 185 Devonshire St, Boston; “general, zoning, and finance counsel”; delivered the slideshow (1:00:52, Speaker 3→1→5). Transcript repeatedly garbles/blends “D’Ambrosio” with the applicant-manager’s name.
Lawrence DeMarino (“DiGiorgio Marino”) — applicant/manager of Glover LLC. Attorney; 14 Ida Road, Marblehead; former Marblehead School Committee chair; identified himself as “the manager” (2:54:41). (Speaker 9.) Note: the transcript conflates his name with D’Ambrosio’s at several points — attribution between the two is uncertain in the closing exchange.
Spencer Cassell — development team, DeMuro Construction (transcribed “DeNiro”). (Introduced 1:00:03; likely Speaker 5 in parts.)
Nancy O’Neill — D’Ambrosio’s office; ran the slides (“Nancy/dance”).
Josh Kleins — Stonefield Engineering & Design, Salem; civil engineer; addressed traffic-trip generation, drainage, and the underground garage (1:40:40, Speaker 6). Noted the project architect was not present.
Development-team member reciting the builder’s résumé (2:56:20, Speaker 13) — recounted DeMuro/Tom Moulton’s background; name not stated.

Item 3 — public commenters

Ken Moss — Tedesco Pond Place; abutter (wife Amy Maas). (Speaker 1.)
Attorney Chris Drukas (Drukis) — counsel for Tedesco Country Club and a member; argued the filing was incomplete. (Speaker 1.)
Michael Schafer — 5 Tedesco Pond Place, Salem; condo trustee (wife Barbara); asked about peer review, guest parking, and blasting/drainage. (Speaker 4.)
Joseph Doyle — Wall Street, Marblehead; self-described investigative journalist; agitated remarks on honoring John Glover and a “$600,000” question. (Speakers 4/5.)
Ralph James — 81 Puritan Lane; president of Tedesco Country Club (~800+ members). (Speakers 1/6.)
Joel Abramson — One Salem Street; Tedesco member; opposed. (Speaker 3.)
Mark Klayman — 50 Littles Point Rd; 50-year real-estate developer (cited Swampscott Mall, White Court); questioned the financing. (Speaker 5.)
Amy Maas — Tedesco Pond Place; senior-citizen condo association; construction-impact concerns. (Speakers 6/1.)
Named but not present: Dr. Nancy Schultz (preservation advocate credited by the applicant with saving the Glover House); John Lehman (Historical Commission).

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Call to order

0:01:03 The Chair (Sheridan) called the meeting to order at ~7:00 p.m., noting it was on Teams and recorded, and that there were no minutes to approve. He announced he would recuse himself from Item 1 and turned the gavel to Vice Chair Ippolito (0:01:36).

Item 1 — 45 Pleasant Street (Petition 26-1145), continued

0:01:56 Ippolito read the petition: a site plan special permit to demolish an existing two-family and build a five-unit condominium (~1,850 sf each) with parking and site improvements in the A-4 district. Attorney Schutzer stated the applicant had asked to put the matter over to October, and that the application was not yet filled in in the necessary detail; Ippolito agreed. 0:03:00 A motion to continue to the October meeting was made (Sheridan, “so moved”) and seconded; the board approved on a voice vote. Sheridan then resumed the chair.

Item 2 — 76 Barnstable Street (Petition 26-12): ramp / screening amendment

0:03:49 Applicant presentation. Matthew Baron introduced himself and his wife Emily, owners of 76 Barnstable St, and explained the request. Their six-year-old son, Theo, has cerebral palsy affecting mobility (crutches, walker, or wheelchair). They sought two modifications to the site plan special permit the board granted ~two years earlier:

Accept the as-built garage door — a door was built where the approved plans showed a window; the door will serve a planned handicap-access ramp from the main level down to the basement and backyard, which the Barons described as the shortest and safest route for Theo (0:09:36).
Modify the privacy-screening condition (the decision required a year-round Arborvitae-type buffer for the abutter) so it does not impede the ramp.

Baron asserted the family has a statutory right to build a handicap-access ramp exempt from local zoning (setbacks, open space), citing “Massachusetts General Law chapter 48, section 3” (0:07:03). Note: the handicap-ramp zoning exemption is in the Zoning Act, MGL c. 40A §3; the “chapter 48” citation appears to be a mis-statement or transcription error. He argued the “retaining wall” described in the hearing notice is actually the stone base of the ramp (built from stone excavated on-site), not an earth-retaining wall, and asked the board to treat the ramp right as the priority and privacy as secondary (13:25). He noted an opposition letter was in the record. He proposed plantings covering ~75 of the ~87 feet of shared boundary, leaving ~12 feet (a narrow ~10–30-inch strip beside the ramp, under the abutter’s high window) where a full tree could not fit ([12:04–12:49]).

Board discussion. The board was uniformly sympathetic to the accommodation and did not dispute the ramp right (13:54). Members drew a clear distinction among three separate items — the door, the ramp, and the privacy screening ([28:46, 46:25]) — and reached rough consensus that:

The door-for-window swap is minor and largely a building-commissioner matter, but because it deviated from the approved plan (and was never brought back to the board) it must be formally reflected in an amended decision ([42:51, 43:56]).
The board has little purview over the ramp itself given the statutory exemption, though a member cautioned that the exemption does not mean a ramp “can go anywhere” and that no plan showed topography or whether an alternate location was feasible ([29:13–29:48]).
The screening is the real issue, given the abutter’s benefit of the bargain from the original decision (15:07).

Members repeatedly noted the absence of a proper site/landscape plan. Ippolito explained the board had originally written the plantings into the decision as a condition (rather than requiring a landscape plan) specifically to expedite the project two years ago, and that the applicant’s architect should now produce a landscape/grading plan showing the ramp, elevations, and plantings ([26:28–27:25]). The architect (Jurma) stressed that photographs are “not documentation that can be submitted to the town” and detailed what a plan must show: house/stair/ramp locations, the neighbor’s house footprint, ramp width/angle/landings, handrails (required for public safety above the ~2-ft/40-inch drop), and how soil grading follows the wall and then the abutting stairs ([47:14–55:01]). A member also flagged that the door, as drawn, swings out and would block the ramp (52:04); Matthew Baron noted the door has been taped shut since inspection (52:18).

Public comment. Jennifer McGaffigan (48 Barnstable St) stated she supports the accommodation and does not dispute Theo’s need, but asked the board to require: a professional assessment of whether a less-impactful ramp configuration (e.g., the other, more open side of the house) is feasible before reducing the screening; a construction/engineering plan for the ramp base (which she said comes within ~11 inches of her stone stairs/wall on the property line); and a professional landscaping plan with specific species ([33:58–37:01]). Ralph James (81 Puritan Lane), a parent of a child with mobility issues, spoke in support of doing “whatever we need to do… within the rules” (37:29). Emily Baron responded that routing the ramp the long way around the house reflects “a fundamental misunderstanding of Theo’s disability,” since the extra distance is physically taxing ([38:36–39:44]). Ippolito clarified her alternate-route suggestion referred to an existing porch/door on the other side, not circling the whole house, and was only a request that it be evaluated (40:02).

57:21 Motion & vote. Jurma moved to continue the hearing to the next meeting, with the understanding that the applicant will return with a revised site plan reviewed without prejudice (no new application fee) showing: the as-built door to exact specifications (drawn swinging in), the ramp platform/angles/landings down to the basement door, railing specifications, and landscaping — all combinable on one plan. Seconded; approved on a voice vote (58:35).

Item 3 — 299 Salem Street / Glover Farmhouse (Application 26-13): 140-unit redevelopment, Glover Multifamily Overlay District

58:50 The Chair opened the public hearing (item numbered “four” on the agenda) and allotted ~10 minutes for the initial presentation, later extended.

59:40 Applicant team & presentation. Attorney Schutzer introduced the team: Spencer Cassell (DeMuro Construction), applicant-manager/attorney Lawrence DeMarino (manager of Glover LLC), presenting attorney Gerry D’Ambrosio, and Nancy O’Neill. D’Ambrosio (185 Devonshire St, Boston; general/zoning/finance counsel) delivered a slideshow. Key claims:

The site is a ~4–5-acre “business parcel” spanning the Swampscott/Marblehead line, filed under the Glover Multifamily Overlay District as a matter of right subject to Planning Board site plan approval; the current structures are severely dilapidated and a safety hazard, and the Glover House itself is deteriorating ([1:01:47–1:04:31]).
140 residential units in ~six buildings (Marblehead buildings 1–3; Swampscott buildings 4–6), none taller than 50 feet; interior courtyard with clubhouse and pool; a facilities/maintenance building; and preservation of the Glover Farmhouse — a departure from the 2023 Leggett McCall plan, which had been approved and envisioned tearing the Glover House down ([1:09:25–1:10:39]).
17 affordable units (“20% affordable”), mostly one- and two-bedrooms (only three three-bedroom units), ~600–800 sf, “geared to folks under 35”; 1.5 parking spaces/unit with parking placed underground; the design is a “vintage/historic” articulated style intended to fit the community, and is “significantly more expensive to build” than the 2023 plan ([1:06:32–1:15:13]).
The Historical Commission approved the plans the prior week, with the Glover House the only structure not slated for teardown (1:17:47).
On traffic: a transit-oriented development near two MBTA lines; D’Ambrosio argued “as a matter of science” the project would generate less traffic than the by-right retail/bank/restaurant uses otherwise allowed, and that younger renters rely on transit and rideshare ([1:20:01–1:21:54]).

Board comments. The board was broadly positive on the concept — Glover preservation, sub-50-ft height, roughly doubled open space, underground parking, and improved architecture were each praised ([1:43:12–1:43:38]) — but pressed hard on completeness and specifics:

Ingress/egress & site circulation (Ippolito’s lead concern): police and fire want a second vehicular egress; the plan proposes a single combined entrance/exit on Salem Street for both the surface lot and the underground garage, plus one emergency access point between buildings 1–2 on Vernon Street. Members repeatedly urged an entrance/exit on the Marblehead side and a full (not amended) post-COVID traffic study with peer review ([1:23:56–1:26:09, 1:44:04–1:44:54, 1:46:46]).
Underground parking / excavation: the town had never reviewed a full underground garage here; prior sewage/drainage/peer-review work assumed surface conditions. Members wanted to understand excavation depth, ledge/water table, blasting, footings, and drainage impacts on Tedesco Pond ([1:24:56–1:26:09]).
Architectural detail (Jurma): renderings lacked a materials list (are shutters vinyl or composite; are window muntins simulated/true-divided-light or applied?), a roof plan, and a plan for concealing HVAC/mechanicals (Josh Kleins, engineer, said the architect wasn’t present and HVAC locations weren’t finalized). Jurma also flagged the service building sitting ~15 ft from the historic Glover House and suggested incorporating another on-site historic structure (the “little”/Ingalls house) as the clubhouse ([1:29:03–1:44:07]).
Parking counts: clarified as 62 surface + 170 underground spaces; “assigned” allocations (26 surface + 62 underground to Marblehead; 36 surface + 108 underground to Swampscott) reflect meeting the zoning parking requirement, not one-to-one unit assignment, with a transportation management plan to follow ([1:53:10–1:54:57]).

Bill Quinn asked about delivery trucks, trash, and snow storage: deliveries route to the clubhouse/amenity building (mailboxes), and a maintenance manager collects trash by pickup truck for private off-site disposal ([1:47:37–1:49:37]).

Applicant’s financing/feasibility framing (contested). DeMarino/D’Ambrosio argued the project is at “the brink” financially — inflation, tariffs on wood/steel, and ~7–9% interest (the 140-unit size being “unattractive to private equity”), such that restoring an additional historic structure “just won’t work financially,” and that a single garage entry was the transportation experts’ preferred design ([1:33:26–1:36:26, 1:55:59–1:58:16]). These feasibility and traffic assertions were presented as fact but were not independently documented at the hearing; the board expressly declined to adjudicate financial feasibility as outside its purview ([2:47:19–2:47:41]).

Public comment (all opposed or seeking completeness; no supporters spoke).

Ken Moss (Tedesco Pond Place, abutter): traffic on Vinnin/Tedesco Street has “been horrendous for years,” compounded by the Stop & Shop / ~160-unit development nearby; disputed that Uber/transit would solve it ([2:04:50–2:06:24]).
Attorney Chris Drukas (for Tedesco Country Club): the filing is incomplete — no landscape plan, no affordable-housing restriction document (required before a decision), no excavation/footing depth, no AC-equipment locations, and no verification the affordable units meet the federal/state calculation under §4.10.11.4. A new building was added along the club’s property line in “the most dangerous place” (farthest from the T). He urged the board to first establish that the filing is complete ([2:06:33–2:11:55]).
Michael Schafer (5 Tedesco Pond Place): asked whether the updated traffic study will be peer-reviewed; whether there is sufficient guest parking; and whether excavation/blasting could affect the water table and Tedesco Pond downstream ([2:12:26–2:14:46]).
Joseph Doyle (Marblehead; self-described investigative journalist): agitated remarks urging the town to honor General John Glover and questioning a “$600,000” escrow and years of unaddressed fines on the current owner; the Chair asked him twice to calm down ([2:15:44–2:17:37]).
Ralph James (Tedesco president): as steward for ~800+ members, he needs a complete plan (environmental, drainage, roof lines) to gather membership input ([2:17:51–2:19:06]).
Joel Abramson (One Salem Street; Tedesco member): “vehemently opposed”; 50 ft is a five-story building that will block light on Tedesco’s second tee/fairway and affect property values; disputed the “residents are leaving” premise; questioned unit value vs. the upscale Vinnin Square Mall units, pool/clubhouse liability and outside functions, added traffic (~200 cars → ~400 trips/day at the Vinnin/Tedesco light), and demanded a concrete Glover-maintenance plan ([2:19:18–2:24:51]).
Mark Klayman (50 Littles Point Rd; 50-year developer): skeptical the numbers “pencil”; the prior two developers “walked because the numbers don’t make [sense]”; asked for proof of funds and more on the development team’s background; said he had studied a layout keeping the building 50–100 ft (not ~20 ft) off Tedesco’s second fairway ([2:25:05–2:28:37]).
Amy Maas (Tedesco Pond Place; ~100% senior-citizen condo association): concerned about a 2–3-year construction period, blasting, noise, pond/sewer impacts, difficulty exiting their single driveway, and the red-brick architecture; said she knows no abutter who was actually consulted, contradicting the applicant’s claim of neighbor outreach ([2:28:46–2:31:18]).

Board’s disposition. After public comment, the Chair summarized the outstanding needs: a Glover-preservation mechanism (e.g., covenant/lease — the applicant said only a nominal-value lease and collaboration with the Historical Society, details TBD), missing plans (landscape, drainage, engineering/support-of-excavation, blasting), and reassurance on developer background/financing ([2:31:43–2:33:41]). Senior Planner McGaha stated the applicant had submitted numerous plans that afternoon (~1–2 p.m.), which staff and the board had not had adequate time to review; they could illustrate but not be relied on tonight ([2:32:22–2:32:52]).

An extended, at-times adversarial exchange followed between DeMarino/D’Ambrosio and Vice Chair Ippolito. The applicant pressed that many requested items are construction-stage matters they cannot perform until they own the property (their P&S bars intrusive testing), that the current plan is “as of right,” and pointedly asked whether, after two prior developers walked, “the issue [is] with the developers or… with the process” ([2:51:57–2:52:35]). Ippolito responded that the board’s responsibility is to the town and neighboring towns, that it “would be malpractice to approve drawings that haven’t been studied,” that late submittals (as late as ~4:30 p.m.) left the board “flying blind,” and that the board is not holding up the project — it lacks the information required to act ([2:43:22–2:44:20, 2:53:57–2:54:36]). The Chair repeatedly redirected away from a debate over financing (out of the board’s purview) and the status of the 2023 Leggett McCall approval (which the applicant claimed was still active; a member disputed this, [2:52:56–2:53:03]). A member also noted that if the garage proved infeasible, the applicant would have to return anyway (2:38:36).

DeMarino (14 Ida Road, Marblehead; former Marblehead School Committee chair) and a development-team member gave the DeMuro Construction / Tom Moulton background (40+ years, 1M+ sf, New Hampshire-based) and said Attorney Drukas had already been sent the firm’s bio ([2:54:41–2:57:00]). The applicant emphasized a desire to break ground before the ground freezes, citing a just-finalized P&S and the current owner’s demolition-delay expiring July 20 (i.e., the Glover House could theoretically have been razed July 21). D’Ambrosio credited Dr. Nancy Schultz with single-handedly keeping the Glover House standing and invoked General Glover’s Revolutionary War significance ([1:59:47–2:01:13]).

2:59:29 Motion & vote. After the Chair closed public comment, a member moved to continue the hearing to a future meeting once the application is complete; seconded; approved on a voice vote. Staff (McGaha) committed to routing the submittals to all departments and emailing the board and applicant an outstanding-items list.

Board business — Smart Growth (40R) district & 2026 zoning-amendment package

3:00:45 Before Vice Chair Ippolito departed early, McGaha scheduled a special meeting for Tuesday, October 6 on the pending zoning-bylaw amendments (October 5 conflicted with the first Monday/other bodies). Ippolito and Jurma then left the meeting.

3:02:17 Draft Smart Growth (Chapter 40R) district. McGaha reported MAPC’s build-out analysis and framed the dwelling-units-per-acre question: the district’s existing Housing Authority garden-apartment properties (Dunkin Terrace ~28 du/acre; Doherty Circle ~38.6 du/acre; ~33 average) already exceed the 30 du/acre used for the existing Vinnin Square 40R, so keeping 30 could preclude redeveloping those properties at current density. She urged the board to consider a higher figure, explained that height/story caps and the district’s many small lots (much of the ~8 acres is right-of-way and MBTA-owned) would constrain actual unit counts, and offered to prepare graphics/massing studies and precedent examples (Reading, a 0.2-acre/89-du-per-acre small-lot example) so the density numbers “aren’t so scary” at Town Meeting ([3:02:29–3:12:00]).

Members worried openly about political timing: Jurma argued it will be a “tough sell” to bring a density-increase article amid resident fatigue over Elm Place, the ~160-unit Vernon/Vinnin Square project, the Pine Street project, and Glover — “people are already freaking out” ([3:06:37–3:08:22]). The Chair and members agreed the pitch must pair the concept with the reality of existing/approved projects and clear massing examples, and that Columbia Street is the parcel most likely to redevelop. A member (the Chair) pressed for design-standard oversight (stepbacks, review) so approvals aren’t purely box-checking; McGaha confirmed MAPC is drafting 40R design standards ([3:13:25–3:15:03]). McGaha also shared MAPC site photos showing far denser development directly across the Lynn line abutting the Housing Authority parcels.

3:22:10 KP Law / codification updates. McGaha reported KP Law has reviewed language for all proposed amendments (to be provided for the Oct 6 meeting), and the Town Clerk is moving to codify the zoning bylaw online, which may renumber sections — the changes would be adopted under the old numbering and renumbered afterward by the Clerk. On Town-Meeting framing, she said the amendments will be separate warrant articles (grouped by topic) so an objection to one doesn’t sink the others; she is meeting with “Marcy” on the warrant breakdown ([3:23:17–3:24:52]).

Adjournment

3:25:09 With no further business, a motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved on a voice vote.