good evening it's Wednesday April 16 2025 6 pm zoning Board of Appeals hybrid meeting agenda this meeting will be the of the air zoning board of appeals will be held in person at the location provided on
this notice members of the public are welcome to attend this in-person meeting please note that while an option for remote attendance and or participation via Zoom is being provided as a courtesy to the public the meeting/hering will not be suspended or terminated if
technological problems interrupt the virtual broadcast unless otherwise required by law members of the public with a particular interest in a specific item on the agenda should make plans for inperson versus virtual attendance accordingly this meeting will be live on
Zoom the public may access the proceedings by joining Zoom meeting ID798-772-8220 note the new Zoom number or by calling 9292056099 for additional information about remote participation please contact Samantha Benoy at
ZBAR us or 978-772-8220 extension 1114 prior to the meeting first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda uh I make a motion to approve the agenda of Wednesday April 16th 2025 second all in
favor say I i next item on the agenda public hearing administrative appeals Seal Harbors Company LLC arzba will be conducting a hybrid public hearing at 6 PM on
Wednesday April 16 2025 regarding the application submitted by Seal Harbor Companies LLC for the property located on 50 Jackson Street Air Mass aka Zero Pearl Street parcel
ID19-57 applicant is seeking an administrative appeal zoning bylaw section 3.2B 2.b.3 of the building commissioner decision to require site plan approval for the clearing and grading of more than 10,000 square feet for a single
family home for Zoom call-in information please contact ZBAR.us or 978-772-8220 uh extension 114 all right we have Seal Harbor's representative Mr chairman can I ask you a question
sure um my attorney is four minutes away he was caught in traffic on two there was an accident could I have I don't see a problem with that do you okay we We'll give him five minutes okay thank you sir everybody gets hi up on
that road unfortunately I don't think you Who is it uh Jonathan Silverstein okay oh it's right there sam where were we we have Marilyn on uh
Zoom I know she's may not contribute to the public hearing but we might want to take our uh votes in roll call just for good measure i have no problem can we do the minutes out of order sure
let's do the We can do that we're in the middle of the public hearing you opened it oh I did clarify marilyn's the voting member of this particular meeting no no she can't even no if one of us is not are not here
yeah she's an alter she can still contribute but just like any other person just when it comes time to vote we vote as five members um so if one of us had a conflict or wasn't here
she always sits okay haven't heard a thing you really are just looking for state funding not federal good luck with that with federal how long will they have to act on that
two yeah because if it gets to be two years then they'd have to apply again if they don't break ground right couldn't they get I don't I thought it was two years they could get an extension i said two years but that's for I know that's how we do it for variances if they don't i
don't know about 40b i don't either yeah oh I agree i can What was that 23 august to 23 that wrapped up they're coming up on it yeah on two years you know they've not even cleared the lights lots over there yet
right yeah i don't know if 40p is exempt from that or not i'm googling that was a blur you don't want them to apply again no no no
you checking that dress good job on it yes chapter 40B comprehensive permits in Massachusetts can require an extension beyond the initial two-year period yep but not all extensions are granted process involves submitting a request to
the select board or the ZBA um can I just clarify on that please so the uh governor uh signed into law two extension of all permits that were approved during so a certain during co
um so all permits so they she automatically pushed through a two-year extension site plan so that goes to 27 now 23 25 27 yeah from when their expiration date
August yeah so it would get extended additional two years yeah any any permit that was in effect during between January 1st 2023 and January 1st 2025 determined you can add two years two
years yeah that includes some permits that expired are actually revived okay let's get started gentlemen you have the floor sir thank you very much and my apologies for being late
my name is Jonathan Silverstein i'm here on behalf of the appellant in this matter uh which is Seal Harbor LLC um we're appealing two uh decisions of
the building commissioner one was a denial of a building permit which was predicated on the excuse me sorry which is the um uh cease and desist order that the building commissioner issued
um based on some site work that Seal Harbor was conducting on a property known as Zero Pearl Street the um basis for the order was that um site plan review was required because
of clearing over 10,000 square ft not clear how that determination was made that it was over 10,000 square ft but more fundamentally the problem is that site plan review is not required for construction of a single family home
never has been required i uh submitted a public records request to the building department for any records evidencing that any other single family home construction has ever been required to undergo sight fine review and the response was there were no such
records it's really as simple as that this is a single family home construction no other single family home has ever been required to undergo site plan review okay so you said that you're appealing two decisions and so the other
one is um the permit requirement for storm water what no no it there were two two separate letters from the building commissioner one was a cease and desist order right
the other was denial of a building permit application correct based upon the correct and are you are you appealing the denial of the building permit yes they were both that wasn't part of the application and it's it's it
was not in the notice we did not post that we would be addressing an appeal for the building permit that was part of the letter from March 11 was a letter from the attorney or from
uh that that you would be appealing it but I don't that it was part of it and it it was uh the original appeal letter also cited both the cease and desist and the building permit denial um so they were both part of it but it wasn't part
of the application it was the application only addressed I think at the end of the plan I I understand what you're saying i think and we supplemented within the 30-day appeal period to specify that we were
appealing this as well at the end of the day it's all the same issue the only reason the building permit was denied was because was because of the cease and desist so if the cease and desist goes away presumably we'll get the building
permit although frankly there's been a pattern of um prejuditial decisions by the building commissioner against Seal Harbor um and it goes back quite a way so there
might be another basis for denial in the future but at least the basis for the denial strong accusation well um and I don't I don't want to get into that fair enough we don't need to get into that my only point is the stated basis for this
denial is the cease and desist order and the only basis for the cease and desist order was that this single family home construction required site plan review okay but you you're you're saying I I can agree with that as far as
the site plan but as far as the the building permit I don't think that's wasn't part of this notice i don't think that we can vote on that or we can actually deliberate that because we're we're we're here to deliberate the
building commissioner's cease and desist order now his his decision to do the cease and desist we can debate on that but the the building permit is not even going to be on the table well technically the and I could be wrong
here but he's appealing both under the same section of the Bible it wasn't it wasn't part of the application and it wasn't on the public notice that's my issue okay the only thing we've got on the public notice is that the fact that there's a um site review a site plan
review and a cease and desist order correct wait a minute but if we overturn the requirement of the site plan review then the grounds for then the grounds of the building permit would theoretically also be right but
we're only going to vote on one object okay i that's the only point I'm making is we're going we're talking about the cease and desist order period correct okay we all on the same page okay um building commissioner legis site plan
review is required for declaring of of upgrading more than 10,000 square feet um Mr wallace you want to weigh in on this please sure i sit up next yeah please um did you issue it or did Charlie i did
okay so fair enough um yeah so the commissioner didn't issue it um so I don't know about that bias stuff anyway yeah Mike we're not getting into that you want to read that no that's from your town attorney today okay it says
Charlie has a problem with Seal Harbor we're not going down i'm not going to say it again please okay I'm fine but if he We're not here says he doesn't know about it they sit in the same office not here to discuss that okay that's fine if
you have a problem with that there's other means other than this bunch we are already in court that's entirely within your right thank you Mr wallace okay um so what what's your justification how
how did we how did we get to this point uh so it's a 15,000 foot lot anything more than 10,000 you have to go to planning board for site plan review so if you keep reading where it says 9.6 of this
um not exempt 9.6 that's why that bylaw was put in place for this purpose 9.6.2 [Applause] Page 101 yeah what 108
step is provided in subsection B section 9.6 Six shall apply to clearing or grading of more than 10,000 square ft of land or in increments of such that the total land area of a budding property within the control of any person graded
within 12 month period should not exceed 10,000 ft no person shall commence any grading or clearing as defined here and without first obtaining site plan approval by the plan under 3.5 that seems pretty straightforward to me
no no because site plan review explicit when you then go to the site plan review section it explicitly says single family homes do not require site plan review and I have a
letter that no other single family home has ever been required to go through site plan review so why is this s is it the building department's position that no other single family home has ever involved
site work of of 10,000 square ft before i find that hard to believe there is literally no other single family home in this town that's ever been required to get go through site plan review prior to Mike's joining the building
department we've worked in town for the last probably 12 to 15 years we have developed and constructed 35 single family homes yes here in town never once during
the prior building inspector's term or during the first part of Charlie's term has he ever required us all of our lots were greater than 10,000 square feet and we have never ever been held to go to site approval if you go past the
firehouse on the left hand side we did an infill lot there that was done probably two years ago um if you go further up um we did Cranes Crossing there's probably 22 23 houses in there
never once were we asked to uh be required to file for site plan approval we went to our engineering GPR that's here in town they've been here forever and they never required we're just looking at what's before us i
understand but so maybe we can look at the actual bylaw exceptions 3.5.1 B exceptions new construction or alteration of a detached single family
dwelling shall not be subject to this section shall not be subject you've never required any single family home to go through site plan review i'd like to understand why this is the only
one that's ever been required subjected to that requirement that's what we're looking at i don't I can't speak to it i don't know i've only been here two and a half years in that two and a half years have you ever required any other single family home to go to site plan review yeah I
believe so so that's what I was going to speak on that was actually right right before you guys so um this actually has been used uh before this was uh initially put in when Mr aaho put in the Shaker Mill Road um ANR lots those nine
okay at that point after that was put in the town meeting this nine section 9.6 was put into the bylaw specifically for that reason and we actually just used this bylaw um on 33rd Street that is
those were duplexes mhm they were originally proposed as as as singles uh or duplexes they now they're all singles that is the exact same project single family houses they had to apply for uh under 9.6
subdivision or one single family lot three ANR lots but a development of three ANR so then so so under under So then why did I get a Can I just finish this so under site plan uh 3.5 the applicability clearing
of or grading uh more than 10,000 square feet unless specifically exempt under 320 9.6 of this bylaw so that has its own separate exemptions that's why it's written within the bylaw it as like that I So then what about exceptions
exceptions are for the others so 9.6 6 does not exempt single family or it's specifically for single family and duplexes lots that's why we put that in i'm confused yeah and so why did I get a response to a public records request that it's never
been required of anyone else i I don't know i didn't I didn't get anything so So I could have easily said three uh 33rd Street i could have given you the plans for that so let me see if I got it straight according to there's two
different paragraphs in in our bylaws yep both of them address site planning review for 10,000 square feet regardless of whether it's a single or a dual family house is that correct that is correct and the fact of the matter is it's never
been enforced before or it's never came up before no it has been enforced we enforced it on 33rd Street just last year that's the houses where originally so originally um there were duplexes proposed there um they came before the
ZBA the permits were denied they came back to the planning board which one this was back in like 2022 the fall maybe 22 no i was here in 20 beginning of 23 so it was the end of 23 they came
back to us at last year um to the planning board with three single family lots okay but I don't know why we're discussing all these other properties what we need to discuss is 9.6 and 3.5 and and forget all that
other stuff because what we're trying to figure out is why 3.5.2 says it does not apply does it specifically say 9.6 6 does not apply no so 9.6 has its own specific exemptions
that's what it says under number three clearing and grading of more than 10,000 ft of land unless specifically exempt under section 320 9.6 of this bylaw those are the for that one line has its own separate exemptions that's written within the
bylaw under 9.6 and then it says and under 9.6 six it says that the only exemptions that are are allowed under that and let me just pull that portion up 9.6.2 well it says you have to do it yeah so
question though is if it's a 15,000 plus square foot lot was the whole lot was cleared out the whole lot the whole lot was cleared okay so if they were under the 10 it wouldn't apply correct
okay but it says that you have to get site plan review in accordance with 3203.5 and 3.5 explicitly says that you're exempt if you're a single family home and nothing in 9.6
says that it's intended to apply only to single and two family lots 9.6 specifically says there are certain exemptions for this category under site plan review when you go to the exemptions single family houses and
duplexes are not in there there's a reason we put that in there 3.5 point other people have complied with it says that if single or or two family homes are exempt yes but number number three
where it talks about 10,000 square feet that says specifically exempt it doesn't say anything about 10,000 ft number three it does under site plan review 3.5.1 A A3 yes okay i'm looking at B okay the exemption A yeah a3 it says
unless specifically exempt under 9.6 so you look at the exemptions on 9.6 yep and it's not exempt we did that on purpose because we didn't want lots just to get clearcut so you said that you have enforced this
you've been here two years yeah in the last two years you've enforced Yeah 33rd Street mr aaho did it for his subdivision it wasn't a subdivision it was against the golf course that's the same no no no that's
why we put it in no the 33rd 33rd Street no it was the one on the right hand side going in is on uh Third Street no no no it's over by Fletcher Street it's off East Main Street east Main Street it's a small It was like a just over an acre of a lot um they were originally going to
do two duplexes they came back to us with three single family lots because they were over the 10,000 square feet so they they came back approval they did an ANR approval they did site plan they did storm water because they had a lot more work not an existing law
of record which has been grandfathered which we went through the the office the building department for exhaustively in order to get this approved but it it's the 10,000 square feet trigger that's that's where it falls no
matter what so I know you can't answer this question but before we acquired the lot there was a question that the lot was a lot of record and was protected charlie specifically asked that we do the research in providing it in writing
with a legal opinion indicating that it was a legal lot of record and it was grandfathered and could be constructed upon yeah we grandfather we told you that day i think we got back to you yeah you're right and that's fine but you can't just clear cut it yeah but you still can't clear cut
i don't know how you gel the clear exemption from site plan review for single family homes because of the specific reason why we put it in and other people have done it so like if
if if I had never enforced it I'd understand but I'm telling you that we just Well I'm at a disadvantage because I filed a public records request and clearly someone violated the public records law by not bothering to actually look for the records that were requested
and simply sending back a reply that there are no such records responsive to your request asking if anyone's gone to the ZBA to rule to go to the planning board no but what was the request i I didn't The request was for any other single family lot that's been required to uh go through site no one on this
board participated in the fulfillment i understand this is a matter of due process and notice and a clearly a continuence so you can try to absolve that it might be something we consider but we didn't
we don't have the the responsibility or the power to fulfill it it wasn't submitted to this board it was submitted but I your point is taken that being said to my mind this is a matter of due process and this board sits in the
position of the building inspector on an appeal clearly my client did not intentionally violate this bylaw no one put him on notice of it he had extensive conversations with the building
department about this he's never had to do it before in all his years doing work in this town and now he's got a cease and desist order and he's being told that he can't get a building permit he can't put the trees
back you have equitable authority you have discretion to determine what's fair here and the mere fact that this is so awkwardly worded
that the board which administers this bylaw is having difficulty understanding how the requirements work together and the fact that my
client had extensive conversations with the building department about his intent to build to build a a single family home was never told "Hey by the way new rules you got to get site plan approval which
he's never had to do on lots where he's cleared more than 10,000 square feet." This was not an intentional violation and to get a cease and desist and be denied a building permit under an ambiguous at best bylaw I would request that the board exercise
its discretion and overturn the cease and desist order so that he can move forward he's always done a good job on his projects he'll continue to do a good job he's happy to talk to the planning department about
doing a nice landscaping job but he can't he can't put the trees back and he didn't violate anything with any intent are you shaking your head Mike all we ask is that they go to the planning board and just ask what what
they need to do that's it that was the cease and desist when was that assistance given um because not once did anyone ever come reach out to me since the since the cease and desist
that they talked about been on a you don't reach you don't want to reach out to the person who's who's part of this as well i feel like I could have spoken with you guys we could try to talk someone could have reached out to him without before dropping a cease desist on him i mean it goes both ways
he's he's always tried to cooperate with this town he's always been transparent and tried to communicate with people i mean I I mean I don't think we if I I don't think it's helpful to
point fingers no that's we're not going to get into that exercise i agree nope um just it boils down to whether we agree or disagree with the CES plain and simple that's that's what we're talking
about right based on on what we're being told what we're reading so that's what we have to make our determination based on regardless of whether he did a good job or didn't do a good job who he's fighting with or who he's not fighting with that's really for all intent and purposes it's irrelevant
to this board what's important to this board is we interpret the the zoning bylaws as they apply to this lot plain and simple and you also have the same authority that the building department would have to make a determination about
what is the appropriate and fair outcome building inspector doesn't drop a cease and desist order on every violation just like a an a law enforcement officer doesn't ticket every
car that drives one mile over the speed limit there's prosecutorial discretion under the statute you step into that same role and I'm just asking you to consider fairness we I understand your your argument i don't I get it
michael what do you think so Danny I just have one last question when did this 10,000 square foot piece come into play about a year ago it was It was before I got here that's it that's all I know thanks
thank you so here's my thoughts on it when I first read through it the the the thing that stuck out to me was the 10,000 square feet the lots over 10,000 knowing nothing else other than what was
in the application that that was I saw 10,000 I went to 9.6 the exemption wasn't there I don't see 10,000 in 3.5.1b that that was the trigger for me was the 10,000 square feet again I can't
speak to anything else about any other application that's when I reviewed it that's to me I read it i see 10,000 i go to the back it's not
there i tend to agree with the the building department but that's that's just how I feel about it yes um I think we're just if our if our scope is narrow and just looking to the
application of the bylaws that's it then I'm I'm with Mike john can't see that page I gave you back because because I'm really I'm really hung up on this because it says here in 3.5 one
a any use it says clearing of 10,000 square feet unless specifically exempt under 9.6 six but then it goes on to the next uh bullet four says any any use requiring special permit except that
where single family or two family dwelling requires a special permit site plan shall not apply they're not looking for a special permit there's no special permit involved new construction or alteration or
detached single single family dwelling of two family dwelling shall not be subject to section 3.5 that's what it says in uh 3.512 i mean that's why that's why I highlighted
that and it comes right out because it's not it's not sub subject to that comes right after that same requirement maybe I'm reading that wrong i don't know so I don't know when I'm looking at this
and it says uh 3.5.1 that they need 10,000 uh 10,000 needs so I guess I guess what that says is that it doesn't apply [Applause]
to it does not apply to a single family in the event of a special permit but it does not exempt it from the 10,000 square feet that's not the way I read it well then how do how do you read that
i read it that if it was a project that needed a special permit or a variance but in this case a special permit then if it needed a special permit there's no special permit no so we're not even looking at uh number four
well that's what I said right so that rep that that that refers to special permit requirements that are driving the site plan so That's if it uses a special permit you don't have a site plan
correct yes okay so then then we're stuck with 9.6 yes okay plus the use of a a special permit i think those are now through the planning board right yeah they are i think so that they both we both uh both boards
have some but there is some board review yeah for those but yeah what do you think Rod 9.6 that's immediately goes to
that compar all the other things so that's probably something for a court of law sure as far as records as far as your um request for public records you might want to take it up with somebody else we
can't do anything about that one and I have no control over that whatsoever i understand um could I say just a couple more quick things or I think we pretty much put it to bed tell you truth
[Applause] want to make a motion hold on just one [Applause] second just one of the things I'd like I'd like to do is just follow along
yeah you get the list comments deliberation we have we have Yeah so then what you know this one's been unique in that we've had rebuttals from both town staff and the applicant
um if you want to hear any more rebuttal you can otherwise I would just close the comments and then we'll discuss among the board amongst ourselves only and then Do you have something different to add or you want to reiterate what you've already said i'm not just going to repeat myself i just wanted to follow on
on part of your conversation um so first of all I just wanted to read you a short se sentence from the statute in terms of what your powers are in exercising the powers granted by
this section the court appeals may make orders or decisions reverse or affirm in whole or in part modify any order or decision and shall have all of the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken so again the reason I
say that is you're not limited to interpreting the bylaw you have the same authority that the building commissioner would have to make a case by case determination about what a fair application of the bylaw is
i'll leave that at that the other thing I wanted to just point out is the reason that in 3.5 A4 the language that you were
talking about the exemption for single and two family dwellings if they get a special permit that's in the applicability section that would not be necessary that would be
irrelevant if the interpretation offered by the building department was the correct interpretation and you have to read it in conjunction with the exceptions that come right
afterwards which explicitly accept new construction of single and two family homes period you can't just pick and choose oh well 10,000 square feet here and then go and look at 96 you have to look at it's
applicability why did they bother to include clearing of more than 10,000 square feet and yet there's an absol in a applicability and yet there's a blanket exemption in B right after that exact same requirement the 10,000 square
ft unless specifically exempted under 96 that's an applicability A B exceptions any single family home nothing in 96 explicitly says it's it's limited to
single family homes you have to read it all in conjunction and the reading being profered would render that exemption completely nullified and it doesn't make sense and it's not fair
thank you thank you want to close it to comments closed comments what public input or Marilyn marilyn you want to throw anything in the hat where is she there she is she is i'm here
okay public input um is it public input or board input public i'll go either way sure [Music] um initially when I saw this it seemed like a obvious that was exemption but on
closer reading especially of the 3.5 section the clearing of the grading does specifically state the exemptions that they want considered for this when you scroll down to the section B line item
two about the new construction my under my reading of this my take on this is that that was left in there because of the fact that if an alteration was associated with any use other than a family
dwelling it would come under purview for some of the other items above i don't think that I think it's it's a little I can understand how it could be misinterpreted but I think that the
um the specific stating of what is exempt under that um I think is is fairly clear that the intent of this this bylaw was that anything 10,000 square foot that was cleared needs a
site plan review um that's my reading of it I think thank you can we get anybody else in there nope all right all right want to close it to comments from the applicants we'll
close to close the comments mr rolls you're all set proceed thank you all right so my thoughts I think remain the same um I understand the applicant's
uh opinion of it but you know I keep going back to that the 10,000 square feet is it it's it's written there we've had cases before us in the past that and I'm not saying this
is necessarily one but it it's reminiscent of to me almost like a permission by omission mhm right where the 10,000 ft isn't specifically in 3.5.1b but
well my interpretation is that zoning regulations don't carry permission by omission that that's my point right my interpretation here is that the 10,000 square feet triggers us to go to 9.6 it's not exempt under
there that's that's where I stand on it all right um I'm pretty much of the same mind okay make a motion uh let's see i make a motion to deny the administrative appeal for 50 Jackson Street Air Mass aka Zero Pearl Street
Parcel ID 19-57 uh under Air Zoning bylaw section 3.2 b3 of the building commissioner's decision to require site plan approval for the clearing and grading of more than 10,000 square feet for a single family home
second signify by saying I state your name jessica Gino i Mike Gibbons i Sam Goodwin i Randy Philippo i Sorry sir all right thanks for having time this evening thank you guys thank you
all right i make a motion we close the public hearing for 50 Jackson Street Air Mass second all in favor signify by saying I i next item on the
agenda minutes for December 18th 2024 did anybody read them yes I did anybody have any What what anybody have any issues with the minutes did you Jess what you went through them
no you didn't i can make that correction excuse me uh was there a correction John i make a motion we accept the corrected minutes of meeting for December can you stick around for just one second great
december 18th 2020 24 second all in favor signify by saying I i i board discussion ron can you sign me yes i just want to get an update from Danny about that ADU
piece that came into play in February adu yeah so the governor as part of I think the acts of 24 passed this sweeping like statewide blanket coverage that allows by right ADUs
and I don't know how cities and towns they they did this kind of seem like willy I just want to see where where we're at because I you know it's literally by right so yes
it's there's some restrictions but I No the whole I want to know if we've seen any applications yeah you know not yet no lots of asking they want to get rid of local rule they want central authority and that's what that's how I'm
reading it well what we need to know is does it affect how our zoning bylaws are currently written do we need to make any changes to the bylaws we don't i think so i mean I've I've looked through it and I've read all the stuff they had on
it and whatever she did didn't affect what we do so because ours was more I think ours was more liberal from a square footage perspective so by right they can do 900 or
half 900 or half of the primary dwelling but is the primary dwelling the existing house is it where so if your house is 2,000 ft² you can have a 1,000T ADU and a 1,000 foot primary dwelling i'm sorry
1,800 it would be 9 and 9 it's um whichever is smaller okay so you can't you can go up to a half or 900 whichever is smaller okay right or bigger so in that like literally in that example if
you're if the house is 1,800 square feet is it n because half is 900 can they just split the house in half and Yeah i don't know it's I'm just interested we've been have that's what we mostly get this question so what if I do this
i did read was looking at that it's like if you wanted uh no Mike wanted me to stay fairus yes i just you know I sympathize with you guys trying to figure this all out
so number one have has anybody Nobody Sam was saying nobody's pulled the trigger on it and No no one has pulled a trigger yet but we have had some rumblings as to someone wants to do something um but nothing has been actually submitted to us okay
so I guess I don't understand how how is this going to work for air are we going to see a lot of these things like so what I think you will see is maybe over the next year year and a half you
will probably see an uptick in these maybe you know 10 15 at most okay because when you think about it you still need to have that extra you know money to be able to do either you know build above a garage or um you know
finish a basement and create new entry points separate entry points that you know uh go along with the requirements so I don't know if we're going to see anything really right right away it's something that you'll see over time build up um
but we won't really know until like about maybe 2 years in to see how it's actually going okay and do we have to change the bylaws to address that yeah so I'm that's actually pro uh part of the um town meeting on um next Monday or the following on the 28th yeah we've
already uh we have a modification to amend in 5.2 where it talks about the accessory dwelling units we kind of had to remove all of that basically and just put in just show what the state regulations were just referred to 760
CMR71 and kind of just yeah it's not yeah everything had to get removed we had to also update the uh table of use regulations because currently it's shown as a special permit and it's not a special so you had to do permitted by right now was ours was what we had in
place more liberal than what the state has put into place and that like we could allow for more things like that so this had been something that we had been discussing at our working group about possibly amending it to because I the 25% maximum
that we had in there of your gross square footage it's it's too difficult because you have that also the minimum 750 that we have in our bylaw which just made it really difficult for people to be able Yeah it's a really difficult so with
with removing that it allows more room it's just a maximum of 900 square f feet or um I believe half of the maximum whichever is smaller okay so it kind of just it alleviates
some of those issues there's also some other issues that the state's kind of working through which is like parking along on like the state website and they're not like requesting comments comments are closed here's our presentation like two days later I'm like you didn't review me yeah it's it's
I know Charlie and Mike have been doing a lot of these um building commissioner ones and it's just a lot of people are still you know lost um I know like for us you know for planners right now one of the big things is people are bringing
up can you condo it can you not right from what so far we've kind of figured out is no you can't because it's that then becomes a separate ownership on the same parcel so you can't condo it you can only have it for rental not for
sale so it it there's still a lot of issues that we're trying to figure out i mean luckily right now it has not popped up in air yet i'm sure it will within the next year but yeah and we've had some rumblings and some people asking
and and stuff like that and then as stuff comes out Mike and I have been working on like a cheat sheet for when we have Yeah like a vague something so that when people come and go "Hey I want to do this." We can at least give them well here's the first 10 things you should know right and
um understand that splitting ownership would be problematic but if say somebody wanted to do an ADU in their house and then move into it and then rent the house they only have to occupy part of the prop oh wait no they don't have to no they don't have to yeah they don't
have to occupy anymore they don't have to legally be on the property and it can be to anybody yeah okay it was felt like so if you wanted to rent out the house and rent out the ADU you could wow it was creating two families as long as one of the units is kind of small
i mean you know and it's probably a good thing it will alleviate hopefully that the housing shortage but it just felt rushed by this yeah oh I I I think it I mean the they don't even have full you know regulations yet they're all they're only a draft so
it's still a little touch and go on that kind of stuff but I think it will alleviate you know some of the you know housing shortage because it's going to be a a lower rent than you would go to any other uh bigger buildings you know
it it provides for a little bit more of the lower uh income so it's it's it's gonna help that way my first apartment was an ADU for someone in I mean my apartment was 500 square feet but nobody wants that anymore because
Yeah you know like just a shoe box but Yeah okay a sink in the kitchen i Okay i had I don't know if that was But I had Yeah hey so question so like how do we how do
we uh when we get a public records request like the one for this previous thing do you get consulted on that so typically the the process is from my experience is it goes down to Carly first and then she sends it to everyone who it needs to go to i didn't receive
anything from Carly so I don't know what happened i know like just recently we got one for 77 Fsburg Road like she got it she sent it out to everybody and So I don't know when Carly and Carly and or Robert get them they get sent to the
department it's pertinent too right obviously there's a whole bunch that come to the clerk's office i never We never see those um I do remember that one coming in uh because I get CCed on most of them i talked to Charlie about it
um the way it was worded they were looking for letters we don't have Okay we don't have to discuss it y but that's that was the answer I consulted with Charlie i mean he gave our answer and had they come to me after the cease and desist and said has this ever been used i could have I don't even want to get
into it great that's it for me what's our next meeting uh the next meeting will be in May um again just sort of a we have anything at this point we do not so our meeting will
be a good night the deadline is the for the May meeting is April 28th somewhere in there um I will actually not be here for the May meeting um so I've already asked if you guys have a
hearing um Daniel will help you out and do this stuff um I I'm going on vacation good for you um welld deserved um as it is there are two or three rumblings of people who might have an application i
don't know if they'll be done in time one of them I thought I was going to get like two weeks ago has gone dead silent so I don't know if it's going to happen there's a chance we won't have a May meeting okay okay last I heard there's supposed to be on that same day May 21st a public hearing
upstairs from 6:00 to 8 on this on the potential uses 71 Sandy Pond oh okay that's good to know what is 71 S is that that across the street corner to town beach where the where the wood cutter used to be
okay that's all I knew the guy was so there's a chance we won't have the main meeting um I after doing the minutes um for December and I will say because I knew you guys weren't meeting I did not do them until last week um so I kind of
forgot what we discussed um I know there was some talks about special permits and ones that are coming up for renewal and how we want to handle that because there's a handful you gave deadlines to um so whether we meet May June or whatever um I think we should put that
on so we can have a rough discussion well listen let's that's a good idea let's not create a special meeting just for that yes but whenever we have something that we're going to that's coming forward to us then we can incorporate it in there that was my actually that's one of the things that
was on my agenda tonight is because I think we've already missed the boat on one yeah I think so too sugar Mas I believe is that the one over off uh Pingry oh yeah ben Crossing i That was Yeah that
one the two women that come in they're doing a bakery from their home oh yeah yeah yeah yeah well that one has that two two years has gone by and Oh that one's coming up it's It's the lawnmower guy over on Rosewood Avenue who we
specifically said we told him he'd have to come back so yeah so and and the last time we had this discussion we said "What do you do at the end of that two years and nobody knew?" And now we're at the point where
we need to do something for the guy on Rosewood so I started after I read the minutes I started looking into it um and I did talk with Danny to see what other towns do he's on the DBA you guys do um and I think what
we should come up with is sort of a a letter we send out to them two months before your expiration hey you should come before the board i would suggest we have a nominal fee amount of you know you got to come before us it doesn't have to be a full
public hearing and it's sort of just a check-in and then you can extend the deadline or just grant it in perpetuity or oh this business no longer exists okay could that be meeting was on December 21 22 and we
can we can probably still bring him in just to renew lawnmower guy so yeah but what is the process i mean does he have to file another whole application or just come in and talk to us and so what we were thinking is we should obviously send him a letter say
"Hey you should come in." Um maybe we make a one-page form for like special permit renewals just fill it out it doesn't have to be a full hearing so you don't have to notify our voters no we don't have to actually vote on it or we do vote on it you can you would vote on
to extend okay but we can have that vote without telling people what and on the agenda but yeah okay so it's them and then u the sugar mamas the other one was in November of 23 so that one that's
sugar mamas that's coming up in November okay no those aren't I'm just curious those aren't affected by the governor's permit extension act that's a great question that is a good question i didn't even think of that i bet they are yes they are they are so okay we're off
the hook but because all special permits all permits so um and it gives us time to come up with a plan good catch Jess gives us time to come up it's not just a pretty face okay because in sort of in my digging
there was also a maybe we should look into changing our fee schedule um like we did last year with the the drafting of the procedures put together a list of what you think we should do this year and I'm all for it i was sort of thinking we should have one fee
amount for residential and one for commercial oh absolutely because at this point it's a flat fee for everybody do we have much commercial billing going on yeah commercial stuff really i I tend to disagree with that this we can have a
spirited discussion about it we enjoy the benefits of a split rate and I think a big part of that commercial the only thing I remember anybody doing commercially was the soya yeah i mean there's like a fire
suppression yep company West Main there's there's quite a few and I will say a lot of our suppression system are always or you know sprinklers and Oh yeah I know what you're talking about i Where's that we did Ford over here yeah
they the gas station a few years for Jarvis Ford they they got it over here on uh behind the courthouse there i'll gather I'll gather some data okay now that you guys are back on my radar
I make a motion we close the meeting i got I got two more two more what two more topics of conversation okay so another one was where I asked one time
about you don't have to vote at your meeting you can vote you got 30 days before you vote on you yeah you have time for deliberation you have you have 30 days for deliberation but my question is how can we deliberate unless
we post a notice and we're going to open something you can't good question so I think what you can do is you'd have to open the public hearing sort of do this bit where you all talk and if you want to hold off on deliberation you can continue it and deliberate at a
different meeting you still have to do it within a time frame though you you can't do that no no yeah because that's violation of the open but you can continue the public hearing you can continue public come right back here and come back okay yeah and then would be the next meeting you'd have to you could
do the whole presentation in one meeting and deliberate at the next that's true that's that's Yeah but you can't just say "Okay well we we we started the deliberation here we're going to do some more in two weeks." Yeah no no okay so you continue the meeting and you
deliberate at the next meeting you can't talk about it till then correct okay not that we talk about it outside this room anyway so but you can think a lot well and if say you were to request more information like while you're deliberating you go "Wait we need to
know this." Then you can do that so the other thing I had is after our December meeting we took a beating on the Facebook page
we did you saw that i saw this yeah they they they tore us up i really wanted to get in and complain because they didn't like they didn't like anything about we did with this daycare center they were really all upset and they're saying
they're going to go to Bill uh to Oh oh any one of Yes so after a decision's made anybody can appeal it they have 20 days No one appealed it the I know but they really they they were
going to go to the town manager they were going to go to Carly they were going to go to everybody it doesn't matter and I really wanted to respond to them no that's the wrong but then I said "No I'm not going to do that." No because first of all they're going to accuse me of speaking to the board and
I'm not doing that wisely very wise uh but yeah there was there was quite a bit of stuff and and when you come down to it they were quite wrong you know because they they said there's bylaws against
restricting daycarees in our bylaw it states you can't you can't put any restrictions on these daycarees but with those laws that they were referring
to mostly talks about a building where they're going to put a daycare not somebody's home you know it was all outside of But in the bylaw it does say or within someone's home so it it's
really So because this hearing's closed we're not you're not really supposed to discuss it even this kind of stuff should just not in case it opens up more issues
okay then we'll I'm just But the b the bottom line to the because I'm sure this happens every meeting there are going to be people who aren't happy with the decisions we make every day i imagine two of them went out the door tonight well but that's
that's our way through it it's the nature of it i can understand because when I read the bylaw John we're doing John you're doing it again please John we we can't discuss it the hearing is over can't discuss specific cases but I'm just saying the hearing is closed
every decision we've made I can honestly say even if I was opposing the vote that was made I'll stand behind every single one of them people are going to get mad at us some are going to be thrilled they're going to get what they want others won't it's just the nature of it we We have to eat that sandwich i don't
even bother i don't I don't think I've been on Facebook but it stinks i mean having I'm sure if our names are put there it's it's tough but Facebook is like a pure democracy which we decided we wouldn't have in this country yeah constitutional republic based on laws
but it it does interpretation so I guess make a motion to close on the table nobody seconded that's because I was still yaking but second now I can't y say I i i i