Listen was Yeah. So >> good to go. >> Yep. Good evening. Uh, tonight is Tuesday, July 14th, and we're here for the Town
of Danverse planning board meeting. Um, my name is Gene Hartnett. I'm the chair. I'm joined by Michael Dulis, the clerk, Jim Sears, Lou George, Dave Rodriguez, and John Sager, the associate member. We are at the Dan Danverse Senior Center
tonight and the first item on our agenda is a public hearing for 44 Maple Street request for signage waiver pursuant to section 37.3 waiverss and table 37.2.8C A point C
blade and projecting signs sign area of the zoning bylaw submitted by Michael Liry of Classic Science Incorporated for Winchester Savings Bank for property at 44 Maple Street, map 43, lot 355. Said property is in the Danver's Downtown
Center CPS DTCC zoning district. There is an existing wall sign of 18.9 ft and a new proposed blade projecting sign of 5.9 ft for a total sign area of 24.8 square ft where the maximum of 20 square
ft of sign area is allowed. Um Lou do you want to say something? >> Yeah, I just wanted to mention madam chair just for a moment um uh ju just in the interest of full uh transparency I just want to mention that I serve on the board of trustees of the Danvers Historical Society. um we do business
with Winchester um Savings Bank, but um uh just as an as an organization, I don't see any reason why I would not be able to uh decide this matter uh impartially, but I just wanted to make that note just for the full transparency. >> Thanks, Lou. >> Y
>> and it looks like we have Mike to represent the applicant online. Go ahead, Mike. >> You hear me? Um, Mike, could you speak a little louder potentially? >> Sure. Can you hear me now?
>> Let me um on our end. Let's just We're gonna increase the volume on our end. One moment. >> Um Mike, why don't we try now again to speak, please? >> Yeah. How does that sound?
>> Can you folks hear him? Can >> we try that? >> One sec. >> Could be better. Hello. Working on that. But I guess if you want, >> Mike, if you could just please speak um as loud as you can, that would be helpful. And we're going to at the same
time increase our volume. So the combination of those things would be helpful. Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> So, why don't you tell us a little bit, I guess, Mike, about the sign or
>> I have it. >> The sign itself is pretty straightforward. is a a flat flat printed sign on both sides. Uh projecting bracket off the building with um solar panel lights shining down on it. Um
it projected in swings. So I guess for the board forformational purposes um the sign waiver is in front of the board this evening um because the sign is in um the character bay zona
district or the downtown and um there's already in the waiver request is related to because the square footage of the sign area exceeds the maximum of
20 square f feet per tenant space. Um currently right now there's a wall sign um for Winchester saving spec actually which you can kind of see in this image that is 18.9 square ft and they are proposing to add this
additional square f this additional sign I believe you know to um alert patrons that you know there's another door in the rear. Um and then this sign is might correct me if I'm
wrong like approximately 5.9 square ft. Correct. >> So the way So they're allowed by right to do um TW 20 square ft of signage for this tenant
space and they're asking for 24.8 8 square ft in total between the two the two signs. Mike, is there anything else you have to to say about the signer? >> Um, no. That's that's pretty much it.
Straightforward. >> Are you able to hear me? >> Yes. >> Um, okay. So, we can go to questions from the board. Lou, do you have any? >> Yeah, just a question. And I'm a little I was a little confused when I did see the you know what I'm seeing now.
Entrance in rear. Is that is that denoting an I mean, this is more just in terms of where the sign's directing to because there's a there's a front entrance on Maple Street. So, I'm a little confused. So, is there is the front entrance closing and then you're just having a rear entrance? I'm a little confused.
>> Oh, just um just noting that there is an entrance in the rear. I do not believe the front is closing at all. >> Oh, okay. Okay. I just found it confusing because I'd be if I saw the sign, I would I mean, it's not dealing with the size of it, but it's more just in terms of the content because I'd be looking at the sign, I'd be looking for
a back entrance without knowing that the you know that there's a front entrance. So, >> I understand. >> Okay, that's my I guess people will figure that out. >> Mike, do you have anything? I >> I had the same comment. And I found it very confusing that it says entrance and
rear. I would see the sign and think I needed to go to the back of the building. And anyone who's familiar with this area knows to get to the back of the building, you kind of have to walk all the way around the corner and or down the alleyway there. So I again, not a size comment, I guess, but I think that maybe that should be re-evaluated
just for clarity for folks. Um, and then sorry, I guess my second question is do you know how far this mount is off the original sign? Like if you were looking in elevation at the building >> off the sidewalk, you mean? >> No, I'm sorry. Off of to the two two
questions. Off the sidewalk and then also off the main sign. Like how far to the right is this sign from the >> Right. Right. Do you know? >> Um it's kind of centered on NX window set. I guess there was no other picture included in there. >> Yeah. >> Um
it's it's probably 6 ft would be. And then what about the bottom of the sign from the sidewalk? >> The bottom of the sign from the sidewalk I believe is around eight. >> Eight. >> Okay. Yeah. No, no further comments. I think just the entrance in the rear to
follow up on lose point. I I find pretty confusing, but other than that, I think I'm all set. >> Additional entrance or something like that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Jim, do you have any questions? >> I'm okay with this the size difference. I don't think it's overly uh
encompassing. Uh I just have a question on the on this depiction. You've got a uh a window sign. Josh, don't we have restrictions on window signs? Um I'm sure that we do. Um I could look
into that further, but I'm sure that yes, we do have language related to window signs for sure. cuz I thought we >> right prohibit them or there's a percentage of the window that could be covered and that type of thing. Yeah. >> Yeah, >> I can look into that and you know make
sure that uh what's currently there is compliant and if not >> end up with three signs >> if you count the window signs >> um >> or advertising. Yeah, I don't um >> I'd have to look into that, but I I
don't think that that would count to be honest, but I obviously if it it's not meeting our regulations, um they'll have to, you know, you know, modify the sign or, you know, come back to you folks. >> Josh, wasn't there something about it being temporary in a certain period of time? You could have it up before you
had to take it down cuz didn't we deal with that on the Maple Street building with the leasing signs? Yeah, there there's definitely signage uh you know 180. It's usually around like 180 days type thing, >> but obviously this business has been there more than 180. >> Yeah. Like CVS would always put in stuff
for daily or weekly ads and stuff. I think it's just overly o overdoing it. I don't think those are allowed, >> right? >> You're getting more free advertising or whatever they're doing, >> right? We could certainly look into that.
Thank you, >> Dave. Do you have any comments or questions? >> Yeah, I think my my my question just focused on the 20 square ft issue. Um whether that was an aggregate number for any signs, I think that's kind of in the in vain with the conversation that we're
having about whether the temporary signs are or whatnot. So, if it's if it's an aggregate number for regardless of how many signs are located on the business, I think this is a fine. I think this is fine regardless. Okay, John, did you have anything you wanted
to say? No. Okay, thanks. Um, and yeah, my concerns are basically what everyone else said with the confusion about the entrance and rear. Um, so I'm just curious how come now after
how long has this bank been open? maybe like a year or more and they just want to add this sign now. >> Um they're they're adding these to multiple locations. >> Okay. >> UN is another one that we're working on
right now. >> Okay. I don't have a problem with the sign. Just the language might be confusing to people. Um as we had mentioned. Um, >> yeah, I'll I'll go back to them for clarity on their end as far as how this
is put in here. Um, I I can understand, you know, being on the front, you know, maybe um maybe they could reward that section if they're trying to let people know there is a rear entrance, >> like additional entrance in rear. >> I would that's that's what I would have
proposed also. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Cuz there there's more parking in the rear, correct? >> No. >> Public park. That's why I guess I'm confused. I don't know why someone who'd be out front would want to know there's an entrance in the rear. I guess that's why I'm a little >> driving by. >> Yeah. Did they pull the sign from Uber
or something? Or is that >> I The only other thing I can think is if you were parking maybe on Cherry Street cuz you couldn't find a spot on Maple Street. So then you could walk around through the alley and walk through the back. But I don't I don't I'm stretch I'm reaching right now. I don't know. >> Maybe if you have bags of money and you want to be discreet.
>> I Lou might be right. They might have pulled the sign image from like Wuburn location. I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm going to look at Wuburn right now while we're talking. Maybe I can get some clarity. >> I think Mike, what the board is saying,
and I would agree, is that um yeah, that it's just that language on the bottom of the sign, entrance and rear seems to not be very applicable or like lack of a better term, like functional. Um, but you know, Lou G.
>> Yeah, go ahead, Lou. >> Yeah, cuz I I'd also be a little concerned too about, you know, frankly, about sending people into the alley to to go to the back, you know, that could be, you know, even like we're getting into like a safety concern as well.
So, I mean, can we just, you know, Yeah, I mean, I would recommend that even that either there's something that says additional entrance or or even just omit it entirely. Yes. >> Mike, I don't know if you know this. Um, do many people use the rear entrance at
this location? >> I honestly I have no idea. >> Okay. Um Okay. Well, it sounds >> Yeah. The Wurn sign is entrance and parking in the rear. >> Okay. >> That's makes more sense. >> That note,
>> it sounds like we're all okay with the size of the sign. just maybe go back to the bank and figure out what the sign should actually say >> now. Why they're why they're putting it on there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um
uh is there anybody online? >> No. >> No, there's nobody here. Um so if anybody from the public can hear me, >> there's uh no one online. >> Okay. or yeah.
>> So I guess close make a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Well, could could someone make maybe >> Yeah. I can't make the motion. >> Yeah. Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Yeah. >> Do we have a second? Okay. Second.
>> Motion made by Mike and seconded by Jim. Um all in favor say I. >> I. Hi. >> Uh, now we can vote to approve the signage waiver for
Do you have the decision? >> Okay. Do I make a motion to Yes, >> you have to read it, right? That is the motion. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Uh, it's the whole thing, Josh, right? Correct. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. This is to certify that at a meeting of the dammers planning board
held on July 14, 2026, having been requested under section 37.3 waiverss in table 37.28 C blade and projecting signs sign area of the zoning bylaw for property located at 44 Maple Street, Cesor's map 43, lot 355. It was voted to approve the request submitted by Michael
Liri of Classic Signs Incorporated for Winchester Savings Bank for a signage waiver to allow signage as shown in the following plans. Winchester Savings Bank 44 Maple Street, Damverse, Mass 01923, prepared by Classic Science Incorporated, dated May 13, 2026, consisting of one sheet. The planning board grants the following signage
waiver for student to section 37.3 waivers in table 37.2A. C blade and projecting sign area of the zoning bylaw and finds the following criteria have been satisfied. No substantial detriment shall result. The variations from the signage requirement specifications stated in table 37.2AC 2AC blade and
projecting signs sign area are as follows. One, table 37.2AC sign area maximum 20 ft for each business unit. The applicant is proposing a total signage sign area of 24.8 ft, existing wall sign 18.9 ft and a new proposed blade projecting sign of
5.9 ft. Conditions of approval. The project is subject to the following conditions. One, the proposed blade and projecting sign overhangs the public way. Therefore, it must be approved by the select board and the sign must be covered by an insurance policy naming the town of Dammers as a co as co-insured evidence which must be
provided upon application for a signed permit from the department of inspectional services. Any approval of the signage waiver shall lapse within 3 years from the grant thereof if construction is not begun by such date. Gene Hartin chair. >> Uh do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Motion made by Mike, seconded by Jim. All in favor say I. I. I. You're all set. Okay. The second item on the agenda is a public hearing for 6 Hobart Street. Request for site plan review submitted by AAM Danvers Residences LLC
Incorporated for property at 6 Hobart Street, map 43, lot 405, pursuant to section 4, site plan review of the zoning bylaw. said property is in the Maple Street Traditional Development Neighborhood Overlay District MSTND Hobart and Locust Street Limited
Mixeduse Subdist. The underlying zoning for the property is Danver Town Center Core DTCC. The applicant is proposing modifications to the previously approved site plan for the reuse of the Freight House property which is associated with the adjacent
Maple Square project. and the applicant requests to continue to August 11th, 2026. Is there anybody here for the applicant? >> No. >> No. Okay. So,
does anyone want to make a motion to continue 6 Hobart Street to August 11th? >> Move to continue six Hobart Street to August or meet next uh playing board meeting of August 11th. >> Second. Motion made by Mike and seconded
by Dave. All in favor? >> Excuse me. Yes. Just just as a um uh just a note just that there's a possibility that I may not be able to be in attendance on the August 11th meeting. That's that's all. Okay. Okay. Yeah. >> Just a point of clarification. Doesn't someone have to be here to seek a
continuence? >> No. Not technically. No. But it's you know when they're here they can speak to it but they don't have to be here in person or >> we have a request in the file isn't that >> yeah they have something in writing saying I mean obviously everything being
equal it's beneficial you know sometimes but >> okay >> they could they it's not required but it's as I mentioned sometimes it's beneficial. Do you want me to read the letter >> if
>> No, I I I just normally I I don't think I've ever approved something where someone is not here. >> Well, >> no. You know, I don't know if it's what's in our rules on that, but I'm not trying to be difficult. >> Yeah. No. Um they did have we do have something in um if I didn't have something in writing, I I wouldn't feel
comfortable doing that. But since we do have something in writing, um I feel like it's okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Sounds like it's so that the project engineer will be able to attend. >> Um, okay. So, all in favor of continuing
say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. Continued. And the third item is public hearing for 156 and 158 Maple Street. Request for special permits, waiverss, and site plan review submitted by Peter M. Ziggorski,
Trustee PMZ Realy Trust for properties at 156 Maple Street, map 43, lot 543 and 158 Maple Street, map 43, lot 544, request of special permits pursuant to section 18.5D.4
Four parking requirements table excess parking section 18.13 design special permits build to zone facade buildout town houses parking setback town houses street facing entrance town houses street facing wall width without offset
mixeduse building street facing transparency ground floor upper floor mixeduse building of the zoning bylaw request of waiverss pursuant to section 18.5D.9D III circulation individual parking spaces. Section 18.5D10B
parking screening. Section 18.5.D.10 C multiple curb cuts. 18.6F.3 transitional buffer zone building buffer. Section 18.11.D transportation mitigation fee. And section section 18.8.B table 18-9
outdoor amenity space types one neighborhood park preserve. Request of site plan review person to section 4 site plan review of the zoning bylaw. Z said properties are in the Maple Street Traditional Neighborhood Development Overlay District, MSTND,
Maple Street Limited Mixeduse Subdist. The underlying zoning for 156 Maple Street, map 43, lot 543, is industrial 1 I1. The underlining underlying zoning for 158 Maple Street, map 43, lot 544,
is residential 1, R1. The applicant is proposing a mixeduse redevelopment which would include a mixeduse building, 18 residential units, town houses, 12 residential units, and an existing sing single family house and associated site modifications. The applicant requests to
continue to August 11th, 2026. And don't think there's anyone here for >> correct >> that either. Um but we do have another request in writing.
Um, dear board members, the applicant's technical design team met with the peer reviewer, the town engineering staff and planning staff this week to discuss final comments and storm water responses to allow sufficient time for the engineering staff and peer reviewer to
review the final revisions and additional technical information requested. The applicant hereby requests that this matter be continued without discussion from July 14th to the planning board's meeting of August 11th, 2026, at which time we anticipate technical reviews will be completed.
Thank you for your consideration, Nancy McCann. So, would anyone like to make a motion to continue 156 and 158 Maple Street to our August 11th meeting? Just >> a question. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Just just a question first and I
guess this is directed maybe to Josh. Uh is there anything that we have in terms of obviously they you know what what what the applicant wrote down there but are we you know sort of getting towards the end of things or at least in terms of technical review or
>> and Josh on that question can you also talk about their past have they extended continued in the past and if so was it because of our peer review can you add that into your answer as well >> yeah no so we're just going through the process um our peer reviewer, third
party peer reviewer, um sent them like a memo, a technical memo about 3 weeks ago plus. Um they responded to it and now we're just waiting for the peer reviewer
to then respond to their response. Um it is ongoing and it seems like the communication has been happening. It's just um you know there's just a decent amount um there's you know it's not a small
project it's like a moderate you know like um so um I guess where I sit there's been good communication and communication is going back and forth between the development team and the third party peer reviewer
we had and um it just it's just kind of running its core um running its course. Um in terms of I guess Lou, your question was are we at the end or at the be we're certainly not at the beginning. Um I think all parties involved are trying to
get to that end. It just um seems like there's just a kind of a back and forth. um that seems appropriate and um no nothing like major has you know it's I don't want to
do adjectives like but it's just um you know it's appropriate I guess is the process and um both parties have been you know it's not like a situation where someone's not responding or vice versa um we're just going back and forth so >> okay >> um
>> and Jean just so you're aware as well just as as I mentioned for the the earlier everyone. There's a possibility I won't I will not be able to participate on on the 11th. I'm just not sure yet. >> Sure. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thanks. >> Did I answer your question, Mike? Also, >> yeah, my I guess the only other part of
my question was was did they continue from the last meeting because of the peerreview response? Is that this one or am I mixing up my >> um Yeah, at this point it's it's at this point all of the continuences are are are peer-review/engineering
comment review like technical >> technical comments. Yes. The last two andor three have been um kind of technical comments related to >> Sure. >> engineering drainage utility stuff. >> And we had the site visit as well about
a month and a half ago too. Yep. Yeah. So that I guess if that's your that is sort of the bullet point that's remaining is this kind of just technical analysis. Um
>> okay. So, I make a motion to um continue 15658 Maple Street to our next meeting on August 11th. >> Second the motion. >> Thanks. Motion made by Mike and seconded by Dave. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. I. >> Okay. Now we have the meeting minutes. Um >> so we'll start with the first one. May 5th, I mean May 12th, 2026. Does anyone want to make motion to
approve the minutes from May 12th? >> I move to approve the minutes of May 12th, 2026. >> Second. >> Thanks, Lou. Motion made by Lou, seconded by Mike. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> And the next meeting is from May 26th,
2026. I'll move to approve the minutes of May 26, 2026. >> Second. >> Thanks. Motion made by Dave and seconded by Mike. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> And the final meeting minutes were from
June 9th, 2026. >> Move to approve. >> Thanks. Motion made by Jim. Do you have a second? Seconded by Mike. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. Uh >> that's right. And Josh, would we have to
look forward to besides the two continuances for August 11th? >> So, yep. Um, as you mentioned, the two continuences from this evening, the site plan review from 6 Hobart Street and the um the 158 156 158 Maple, the special
permits waiver and site plan for that address, those addresses. Um the third uh application that uh has not been opened yet that will open on August 11th is uh 51 Newbury Street. It's a site
plan review and that is the former residents in behind Costco and in 2022 they received a use variance from the ZBA sorry 2023 a use variance from the ZBA
to convert that hotel to residential um to 88 one family and studio apartments. So the use was approved but they have to come to us for a site plan approval
um the planning board because of um related to like the parking. >> So yes Lou sorry >> Jean I have a >> just a question. Didn't this come before us back in I mean for for site plan review it did not. >> No
>> I think it was talked about when we talked about the Costco like the Friday's lot. I think we talked about the entrance into that because there's an entrance from that residence in into the like that's the only entrance. >> Okay. Cuz I remember we had a discussion about about that and we knew, you know, so that that that was on the horizon. I
guess it was on the horizon. >> So Josh, to that point, it's the only entrance. So they now have to drive through Costco's property to get to their site or is there an easement on that road or does Costco own that whole? >> I'm not sure. And we're kind of getting into that. >> Those are
>> like public hearing. >> Sure. Yeah, we can >> but I will I will definitely know that information for that meeting for our meeting on August 11th. >> Thanks. >> Yep. >> Jean, can I have a just follow? >> Um this is more of a this is a question
I guess for um for you know I guess for staff. I I know we we had the land use summit. Yes. >> Um you know last month. Anything >> um you know anything new on that or anything that's sort of a followup with respect to that?
Um I think we're still just internally trying to bring all the information from that evening. Um I don't believe I don't think on that August meeting that we're going to probably talk too much about any of those kind of macrolevel items.
Um I think in that more September, early October, we'll probably start having um conversations about stuff for the February 10th, sorry, the February 2027 special town meeting. And I think at
that time we'll have a little bit more clearer understanding of the items that we um as staff from you know feedback from you folks and the select board and all the other commissions and boards in town um from land use summit um we'll
have a better understanding of the trajectory of the the zoning amendments that we um you know we'll push move forward like you know have a discussion and then October November We'll probably start to open some public hearings.
>> Do we have a date for the February town meeting as yet? >> No. No. >> Okay. Just February 2027 right now. >> I think I might February. Yeah. I just It's sort of like in pencil, but yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, Je.
>> That's it. Josh? Yes. >> Anything else? Okay. So, I guess actually I guess Lou mentioned that there's a decent possibility he potentially won't be here on August 11th. Just wanted to know if there are any other members who potentially might have some scheduling conflicts with that
evening at >> this time. >> Okay, very good. Thank you. And we could talk offline or as we get closer, we could talk. Um, >> yeah, that's fine. As as I said, I'm I'm going to be I would be away. So, if I participated, it would definitely be it would definitely be remotely, but I'm
just not sure yet just in terms of I'm I'm away for business that that that day, so I'm just not sure whether I'll or not I'll be able to participate. So, >> Sure. Very good. Thank you for y letting me know. >> Okay. Um, if that's everything, does anyone have anything else they want to
bring up? Nope. Okay. Um, I would entertain a motion to adjourn our meeting. >> So moved. >> Oh. Oh, someone has to make that motion. >> That's it.
>> Move to adjourn. >> Second. >> Motion made by Jim and seconded by Lou. All in favor say I. >> I. Meeting Egypt.