Are The police, but she's been Can I grab one? >> Yeah, it's a and it's close enough. >> Okay, why don't we get started here? We have a pretty full agenda tonight and we see a number of people here. So, um
want to first of all welcome you to our meeting of the Danvers Planning Board. It's 700 p.m. here uh on April the 6, 2026. We're here at the TUMI room at Danver's Town Hall. Uh my name is Lewis George. I'm the um I'm the chair of the planning board and we're uh first of all
before we begin, I did want to just make a just a reminder to folks if you can just um uh silence your cell phone so it doesn't go off during the course of the meeting. Um and we'll kind of go go from there. And I do have uh just wanted to uh introduce us today. We just uh in
addition to myself here today, I'm joined here today by uh Gene Hartnett who's our clerk, also by membershis uh and a our new member Dave Rodriguez and our new associate member John Sager.
Uh and we're also joined today assisted by uh Josh Mars, principal planner with the town of Danvers, as well as Brian Zakelli, who's our planning director. And so uh so why don't we uh why don't we begin. First of all, our first item uh on the agenda is introduction of new
planning board members. So as I mentioned just a moment ago um Dave Rodriguez is joining as a full member and John Sager is joining as an associate member. Uh now an associate member just as a bit of a you know clarification associate member um serves
and votes on uh when it comes to special permits when there is a vacancy when there's a when there's an absence otherwise from the full board. So they don't otherwise uh they would not otherwise vote or deliberate but they do have the ability to sit and ask
questions uh but not to not to deliberate or offer a offer an opinion on matters that they're not voting on. So, uh, but before though, I do want to just to take a moment and and and turn the floor over to, uh, to Dave and to John just to introduce themselves and
say a little bit about themselves. >> Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and thank you for the warm welcome. Thank you to Josh and Brian, uh, for getting me up to speed really, really quickly. Uh, my name is Dave Rodriguez, uh, of course, Dammer's resident. Excited to join the board. Um, I'm an attorney by practice, done a lot of land use work in the past,
worked for a number of municipalities, um, and looking and excited for a way to give back and kind of participate in a greater way in the community. So, it's great to be here and thank you very much for the warm welcome. >> Very good. >> Hi, John Sager, associate member. Moved to Danvers about a year ago. Uh,
normally work in affordable housing doing project management, looking to help town I'm raising my two kids in. >> Great. Thank you. Well, welcome. welcome you both. Okay, great. Great. Thank you very much. So, all right. Well, so now let's go on.
Let's move on to our uh next agenda item. Uh and this is a response to an open uh meeting law complaint against the Danvers Planning Board filed by Mark Zubric received on March the 23rd uh 2026.
And the members do have a uh do have a copy of the uh of the complaint. They has been uh distributed to the members. Uh and it relates to u the complaint related to the uh notification with respect to the agenda as well as with
respect to public uh participation. And so in terms of having uh reviewed the um you know having to review having reviewed the um the complaint um you know I would entertain a um a motion and
so my my take on and open to further discussion on it is a motion to authorize our town council um with assistance from staff uh to respond uh to the open meeting law complaint um against the planning board um that's
filed by Mr. Zubric. So u that's that was what I would be uh believe would be the most um uh prudent approach in terms of to uh ask to and we would need to the in order to do that the planning would would need to authorize town council to
um to respond. So, >> I make a motion to authorize town council to respond to the open meeting law complaint. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion's been made um and
seconded. Um uh any any discussion? Well, one one uh one question. It's more of a clarification. Do we need to include um any language with respect to assistance from town staff? It's a question of whether you want to
see the uh final response uh or your authorizing staff to to do that response >> or work to work with town council >> uh otherwise you would have to meet sometime on Thursday before the Friday
deadline to respond to this. Uh so that is an option. >> Okay. So, in terms of the motion to so it' be a motion to authorize town council um to respond to the open meeting law complaint though. Would it be would we want to include language with assistance from town staff?
>> Um we could get it over the goal line if you wanted to. Otherwise, you would you as a board you would have to decide to meet on on Thursday at some point. >> And so the motion is as currently So the motion is currently um stated would would authorize the >> would authorize town council to respond and finalize that. Yes.
>> Got it. Okay. All right. So, the motion's been made and has been seconded. Any further discussion on this? Um, turning like >> Yep. Okay. >> Very good. Okay. Hearing none. Um, all in favor of the clerk's motion,
>> please indicate by saying I >> I. >> Any opposed? Say nay. Nay. Okay. Motion passes. >> Okay. Very good. So, the town council is authorized to uh to respond to Mr. Zuberick's opening lock complaint.
>> Correct. And we are joined by uh town council right now. Um but it looks like we don't have any questions because you've already made the motion for her to respond. >> Town council, you've been so authorized. So, is there anything that you further would would add to that is terms of is
that um with respect to that? >> Uh that was perfect. I guess just yeah briefly introduce myself since I haven't haven't met you all. Uh Madison Harris Parks. I'm an attorney with Murphy Hessie, Tumian, Lehane, uh, who provides town council services to Danvers. So
happy to following this motion, uh, I will review the complaint and respond on your behalf. So, thank you. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. So, all right. I think we have nothing further there. Okay. So, this is not a public hearing, so we're not going to be
taking any public comments at this um at this time. So, but our next item is a um uh is a request uh is a public hearing. So, staff, is there anything further on that on that issue
before we move on? Okay. So, very good. So, that matter then has been um has been uh that motion has been made. So, town council will be preparing a response. So, our next item on the agenda is a public hearing with respect and it's a continuation of a public
hearing with respect to the zoning map amendment. It's a citizens petition submitted by Dana R. McName, manager of Bay State Real Estate Holdings LLC, site property owner, which proposes a zoning map amendment. The zoning map amendment consists of reszoning 249 Andover
Street, map 47, parcel 15A from residential 3 R3 to the highway corer zone HCZ don zoning district. So I know we began this at our last uh at our last meeting and this was
continued. So, do we have a um do we have the proponent would like to introduce themselves? And this is this will be a public hearing. So we'll ask for as before if you can give a brief presentation uh and then uh we'll be entertained questions from
members of the board and then we'll turn it over to members of the public um who you know make sure to direct any questions uh to the chair and then we'll come back to um uh to deliberate and I did want to make a point
just before you begin I'm sorry just before we begin on the both the zoning map amendment as well as the zoning bylaw amendment which will be coming up next. Uh since these are citizens petitions, just want to be clear in terms of our role as far as the planning board. So our role as the planning board
is to um is to offer a report to town meeting. Um and so we're not you know so in terms of the citizens petitions will be going to town meeting and so but it will what we do at the planning board is you know is we're not serving as a as a
gatekeeper but we are providing a recommendation or report or you really a report to the town meeting and so that town meeting that report could be either a favorable report it could be a negative report or it could be also a
negative report with a I know if we've seen before things have been referred back to planning board as well. So that's another option as well. So just in terms of the matter that you know so in terms of what we say based on our report then ultimately it does go to
select board it does go to finance committee but at the end of the day the uh it's the town meeting that ultimately does vote on the on the citizens petition. So in terms of any amendments or any changes that would have to be done at the at town meeting itself. So I
just wanted to sort of give a little bit of parameters in terms of where things stand because I know at the last at the last meeting wanted to just make sure that just sort of clear in terms of what our role what our role is. So anyway, with all that long introduction, I want to turn it over to you and if you can
just introduce yourself and uh and sort of just briefly explain the petition for those of you who have um you know who have not um who've not heard it before. And I do want to make a point as well that our um that members who were not present uh before Michael Dulis as well
as Dave um Rodriguez uh have reviewed the u I reviewed the uh the the video of the meeting and have signed the requisite Mullins forms so they're able to participate in the deliberation and voting this evening. >> Excellent. Okay. Well, thank you so
much. My name is Peter Vanco. I am architect and uh partner developer on the project and we are attempting to do a youth hockey rink that is going to um serve Danvers and it's certainly um an
amenity that the town does not currently have. Um we think there's a great site for it. It's local enough to major major uh highways and easy access on and off of um off Route One. Obviously with
Andover Street cutting east west going to be a great connector. We think would be an ideal location. So we are going for a single sheet of ice. If you're familiar with hockey at all, they they call the number of rinks. It's
essentially each rink is a sheet. We are doing a slightly smaller than NHL sized sheet of ice. That's what we'd like to propose here. Singlestory building as few peripheral elements as possible.
Uh meaning we're not doing big cafes. We're not doing a large um extended program that some of these other facilities do have. And uh I can walk through the plans here in just a moment on that. But just giving a big broad overview of the project.
>> So we essentially have the sheet device, we have the um the supporting locker rooms, things of that nature. Um bathrooms, very very little seating. There's not a lot of uh seating for
parents or visitors, observers, anything like that. This is primarily going to be a practice rank. So subject property and think of it in those terms. A single story building probably capped out around 35 ft at the highest point. This
is a wide span over the ice. So we we can have to be column free. So we do need a fair amount of height. But the subject property here is an interesting one. Um, if you are not familiar with it, it currently has a vet urinary
office that is located right after if you're heading westward on Andover. Essentially, it's right after the Home Depot. >> That property looks small and it looks like the frontage is not not that large
off of Andover Street, but it goes very deep and it has actually it opens up quite a bit toward the back. parallels the Home Depot lot line. Uh we share a lot line with Home Depot. A very small portion as and that is the
rightmost line in this plan. Home Depot is is that large white area under the north arrow just for orientation. Andover street is the bottom. Those yellow zones are our buildable areas.
The rest of the lot is wetlands and buffer zone and completely unbuildable. And our proposal is to essentially make a connection between those two yellow areas, pushing the majority of the
larger building into the back and and occupying that larger yellow yellow zone. To do that, we need to span from the smaller yellow zone up to the larger yellow zone. So, our thinking is that we will park in the lower yellow zone and
we will have to do a a small bridge that will get us into the larger yellow zone which has a little bit of elevational change there with Home Depot. If you're familiar with it, there's a large retaining wall there. And so that higher yellow zone will then house the rink toward the back. But in front of that,
we have to have also a fire turnaround. So the fire turnaround is a large circle that you are going to see in the next slide if we could advance. >> Sure. >> And I imagine you'll be touching upon it as well, but we want to um you know I I
would imagine you you know I appreciate the background, but I I believe also we're going to be the actual item that's the citizens petition is respect to the resoning. >> Yes. Okay. Yeah. Great point. So, um, didn't want to stop you and you missed, but I just wanted >> Thank you so much. Um, I'm I'm sitting
here thinking, okay, it's a R3. So, yes, I will get to that here in a moment for the, um, the change of, uh, the zoning, really the zoning extension of the the commercial corridor, which is big, >> it's really the big reason we're here. So, as you move plan north there, you
can see we have a turnaround zone. Then the building sits in the back. Right now in that drawing, we are rear yard compliant. And it's probably our intention to move the rightmost um wall as well and make that yard compliant.
That would be our one area of zoning relief. Well, we'd have we'd have a few zone areas, but in terms of yards, >> volumetrics, things like that, we really are just looking at a sideyard violation. >> We have F, we've got all those other things as well.
So just from a building perspective, we have about 52 parking spaces. We're about 31,000 square feet of of gross floor area inclusive of the ice. And to do this, we need an extension of the
commercial commercial zone because we are this is an R3. It was it was initially um a commercial lot. It went back to being an R3. I believe
it was converted to a residential lot. It was just pulled into residential zoning. However, it has an existing building that has a veterinary clinic. It's currently non-conforming. We cannot extend that non-conforming use. We can't we can't change that
easily. Hence, a an extension of the commercial corridor zone >> is is needed here. >> So effectively that's that's thank you for getting to the point. That's exactly what we need. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> The alternative uh is to >> if you anything further from your team. Yeah. >> Do an academy but yeah it it's just it poses a lot of issues and it's state. So >> that's the only other
>> Yeah. If the gentleman with you can identify yourself as well or just >> Yeah. You just want to say >> Yeah. Yeah. My name is Brian Depice. I'm with the Mega Group in Danvers. >> And I represent Dana McName the property owner and uh these folks here. I was just uh saying to him that
instead of res, you know, extending the zoning, the other alternative, my job as a broker is to offer all alternatives to the to the prospects. And the other alternative would be to um do an academy there and to utilize uh chapter 48 uh
section 3 the do amendment and do an educational facility there. And the problem with that is that is besides the costs uh you have to put a second level uh over the stands and put classroom space in elevators, bathrooms, the whole
nine yards. It raises the height of the facility, raises the costs. It just it makes it more difficult. >> Extending existing zoning where Home Depot is is the more friendly route. >> Sure. >> Because the do amendment goes to the state and this is going through the community.
>> Got it. >> So that's really it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Yeah. Um Peter Vanco coming back to the podium just to um we'd love to take any any questions. We have had a community meeting. We just had impromptu via via
teams. The neighbors were very kind. They did meet us on a Easter night and we did actually have a chance to talk to >> because I think that was something I we had raised at the last meeting about the the the the community in terms >> it was indeed. And did you happen to receive um an aerial view from my
associate Michael Vigno? No, >> it was also something that was requested by the board and it was prepared but I'm not I'm not seeing it. >> Yeah, >> he's on his way. He's just stuck in traffic. >> Okay. >> Yeah, unfortunately. Um, but that was another aspect I think of just looking
at this and zooming out. But nonetheless, let's see what we can do. >> Okay. >> And open to any questions. >> Sounds good. >> All right. >> Chair, one quick. I just want to make one point of clarification. >> Go ahead. Yeah. >> So, um, this is not a pre-existing non-conforming property. Um, this is
actually this was this became a vet through a variance process. So, it actually went through a process. That is the reason. So the only way to go from one non-conforming to another non-conforming, you can do that through a a finding like we were talking about. However, this is not a non-conforming property. This is a variant. This is a
property that went through a variance procedure in order to get that veterary clinic. >> This is like a use variance. >> A use variance. For some reason, 1972, we were giving use variances in residential zones, which we don't allow now. >> Um, so that's how it that's how that occurred. It was a use variance at the
time. I don't think we've done use variances in >> We do use variances in commercial zones. >> No, but I'm saying in residential zones. I don't think use varian >> I want to say over 30. Yeah. Since 40 years. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh so I just wanted to make that point. >> Brian, on that note, can you also confirm was this actually a commercial property at one point? That was
something that was mentioned by the applicant. Was that >> I I think they were trying to say that it's it's been operating as a commercial property since the 70s, >> but it never was an actual it's always been part of the res. So it was it was residential. They got a use variance from the home to turn the home,
>> but it's always been R3, >> I believe. So, I think he was trying to say for the past almost 40 years, it's it's been a commercial property. >> Although not zone, >> but not zone commercial, but it's been acting as a commercial property. Okay. >> It's been commercial for about 75 years. Since the 50s. >> Since the 50s. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> All right. All right. So, um, thanks for the presentation. We're going to turn over just to see if any members of the board have any um any further questions of the uh of the petitioners and um I'll
turn things over uh to Gene Hart. >> Hi, thank you for presenting. Um, I think one of our biggest concerns as we brought up last meeting was say the ice rink doesn't go through and then this space is a commercial
plot and anything could be built there. So, is there any guarantee that the ice rink is going to be built or how do we how do we know that? That's that's a tough one beyond beyond we have sought formal commitment from
lenders things of that nature that we we do have verbal commitments on being able to do the rink. Um that's one of the first things that we did was we looked at the finances and we certainly can do it from a financial perspective. We certainly can do it from a um
construction capability perspective. Um, I don't know how to, it's hard to define it, right, within the realms of zoning or even a use within the building code because it's so broad. Um, a facility
like this is an assembly usage. By the time you go that way, obviously I'm into building code, but if we're back in zoning, obviously the use category is very broad, right? the moment that it goes this way, I don't know the mechanism for how you would you
would work that. All I can say is that from a development perspective, we're prepared to do the ice rink. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, sure. >> Like to >> I guess a question Lou from you or maybe town staff is are any of our comments
about the site plan? Are we just commenting on because I have a lot of comments about one and less about another. So >> yeah, the f the focus should should not be on the on the site plan. >> Okay. >> The what's in front of town meeting and in essentially in front of
>> the citizens is the is the >> So just looking at it from a commercial versus an R3. >> Exactly. To go from an R >> and not so much the ice rink. >> I I think the ice rink provides I think the ice rink provides I think a a background in terms of the the sort of the why behind the request. But I think
to the extent that we in terms of questions that we have about the specifics of the site plan, I think that might be um >> sure. But to Jean's point, I mean, you could say you're building an ice drink and you could come in here and build whatever. So, >> well, just just to clarify, sorry, do
the chip. Um, it would I think a guide would be, you know, what are the uses in the use table under highway corridor, right? So it does provide some context like you know I guess the idea is oh what could be here and you just go through the use table and under highway
cor what are the by right uses and then what are the special permanent uses so just like give you a guide >> do we have a quick list of those or is it easy enough to share with the >> if we keep talking I could put the table up >> I just think it'd be helpful for everybody to understand like what table up I think that would be helpful >> while you're pulling that up I know you
guys said you met with the um community on I think you said yesterday on on Easter maybe Um, were there any concerns from the neighbors? And if so, what were those concerns? >> Yeah, there definitely were. There definitely were. And it was the neighbors were extraordinarily kind. They took a short notice meeting on
Easter evening. Uh, we did it remotely and so we're very gracious to them for doing that. Uh, yes. Um, pushing certainly toward the rear lot line and encroachment upon the sideyard was a large issue. sound um coming out coming
out of the facility, sound coming from mechanical units on the roof. Um the height of the structure in the back and how that was concealed because we are sitting up on a hill 35 ft as it faces those rear yards is definitely a concern.
Traffic study, which is is certainly coming down the line. We we'd want to know what that looks like fully um as well. And then um I think that was primarily the high those were the main four.
>> Yeah, I'd have similar concerns. I mean a veterary clinic obviously has a lot less cars coming in than a hockey rink in and out. Um and for the record, I'm a huge proponent of having a hockey rink in town. I think it's a great idea. I'm just a little hesitant about this specific location. Um so I think that the height obviously and then how close you are to neighbors property line would
be. I wouldn't want this building. What is it? Three or four feet off the property line right now. I think maybe >> you have one sideyard. Yes. Along that Home Depot line, but it does jog and so there isn't a direct abuter who whose lot line would be affected who's a residential abuter. >> Yeah. So,
>> we could work, we've looked at our plans, we could push the the outside wall in and we could be zoning compliant from a sideyard perspective. I think my biggest hesitation is that because that site because of the wetlands and it's so tight over there is that you can only put a building in so many places and
parking in so many places that you do have constraints being up against the property lines and and having those issues. So I think those are my biggest constraints. Like I said, I would love the idea of having a hockey rink for everyone in town that those are kind of just like where I stand. So the only other question I guess Josh is that the use table once you get a chance Oh, you
already have it. Thanks. >> So I'm gonna give a very >> Hope everyone can read that. >> Yeah. So I could verbally do like a sort of a bridge summary. >> Yeah, if you could Josh that'd be great. >> Um so residential um essentially almost any type of
residential whether it's multif family single other than single family. Um multif family would be a no not allowed um >> if it switches. Are you talking >> if it switches? So I'm talking highway corridor >> the scenario in which right it went from
the R3 to the highway corridor. If that was a 10 meeting, that's what happened. Uh, no multif family residential would be would be a prohibited use. Um, um, >> yeah, if you could tell us what the
approved uses are, that'd be great. So you could do so by right you could do an athletic and physical training facility. You could do a convenience store. You could do um you could do office. You could do um
personal everything that I'm saying is by right uses >> um all sorts of medical office, professional office. Um, you could do um you could do a restaurant. It looks
like you could do motor vehicle sales indoor. You could do the motor vehicle sales outdoor and repair by special permit with the planning board. >> So, like a car dealership or something like that. >> Correct. Um, you could do um what's
there right now? the kennel, the veterary kennel. You could do a personal kennel. You could do a commercial kennel commercial breeder by special permit with this group. >> You could do
couldn't hotel motel. You could do a hotel by right. >> Let me just keep going down some other like just to give give a like a flavor. I appreciate it. Yeah. Uh retail. Um, you could do retail by right. You could
do you could not do a movie theater. You could do a self- storage facility. Uh, you could do assembly processing facility indoor by right. You could do assembly processing facility under 30. Uh,
>> a manufacturing facility. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Uh, research and development special permit with the ZBA. um you could not do a warehouse a large or a small one. Um
>> but there would still be a need for example if they're looking at any sort of like I know some of the concerns from the from the abuter from the you know would be with respect to either you know um sideyards and that sort of thing. If if there is anything that gets too close
they would still need to get zoning relief. >> Correct. that right any type of dimensional >> and can you confirm the commercial height is higher than the R3 zoning height I would assume. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Can you >> just I'm looking up right now. Yep. >> Oh, okay. >> I think it goes from 30 to 40.
>> 30 to 40 by right. >> It might be a little It might be a little taller. >> All the residential districts are 30. >> Okay. >> And I believe depending upon the commercial district, it's either 40 or 45. >> Let me just look. Um, one of the things that you will find is
that this site is going to be tremendously hard to activate without without the right use. That is of of a big enough size and of a typology that it justifies first of all the land costs and the development cost because
>> the wetlands are are so restrictive. Got it. on on the use. So that's one of the nice things about this use is that it it it's not a 247 use. It would have a lot of limitations on it. It could could be a positive in that sense.
>> So okay Josh, anything further on that in terms need a minute or 30 seconds but sorry I should have No. So I guess what the petitioner is saying that is is that I think in terms of you know are you saying that that regardless of the of the use it still would re I don't want
to put words in your mouth would it still require a fair amount of you know a lot of issues with the property is that >> tremendously yeah there is there's certainly >> you said wetland particular >> a lot of wetland yeah that's the primary
prohibitor to anything and it's it's a financial one to get over the wetlands is is substantial amount of money. So the end use to justify that it really needs a a financial reason to make that happen. >> Okay,
got it. >> Wait, do you have any move? >> Well, he's looking the height. That was the only thing I had a question of. But >> um we're looking at so the height of high corridor. >> It's >> the microphone on. >> We can ask them to turn it up.
>> Yep. >> Move it closer and he'll turn it up. >> It looks pretty. >> He's gonna turn it up and move the mic closer to him. Thank you. It is uh sorry it's it might be user error on my end it uh it's 55 ft >> from 30 to 55 so almost twice as tall right okay
>> um I think I'm okay for now thanks >> okay >> thank you by the way appreciate it >> thank you okay >> Dave Rodriguez >> yeah thank you Mr. Chairman, I I think kind of looking at this um from two separate buckets from the zoning amendment change itself >> and the project kind of putting the
project to the side and what is the highest and best use for this particular parcel and kind of looking at the future if it wasn't something that was a commercial use and it stayed in R3. Could this site be activated in a meaningful way as R3? Looking at kind of the size, shape, topography, wetlands
conditions of this, it doesn't look like that's a feasible option moving forward in the future. So from a land use perspective looking out in the out kind of in the out years moving this independent of the project itself which I think there are significant challenges
>> moving forward on this. I think making a map change from R3 to the highway corridor itself could be the only meaningful pathway forward to activating the site and keeping it away from being residual land. um kind of saying that
just this this large swath of wetlands cutting right through the the parcel itself um it's really challenging. So I I think that that would be my kind of I'm of two brains of the particular the ask >> um the project itself is going to
especially from planning conservation commission zoning board find there's going to be significant ch that's a very uphill battle for this project >> but looking from a a purely land use perspective in the outy years uh this would move this shift would seem to make logical sense for me uh moving forward.
>> Okay >> Lou quick question on that. So I I think that's a great point, Dave. I just Is the existing house outside of the wetland? Do we know if that is encroach on the wetlands or could you build a house where that house is and be outside the wetland? Does any do we know the answer to that? >> Uh I think there's a couple portion I think there's a couple portions in the
buffer zone, but the current vet veterary hospital is outside most of the buffer zones. It's it's on the site plan. >> Oh, is it? I'm sorry. >> Um it's really all the new stuff. So >> very close to the street. >> So that would be considered the conservation commission would consider that disturbed areas. So they could, you
know, you could build a house there. I think the issue that Mr. Rodriguez was trying to say was that, you know, someone's probably not going to build their dream home, >> correct? >> Um, you know, next, you know, right at this location for for for these reasons. >> Yeah. >> I would speak to somebody's dream home, but that's somebody could.
>> Can I respond on the record to Mr. Rodriguez? >> Is Mr. Depace? Yes. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Brian Deise again. Um, so, uh, he really kind of hit a home run there. I've been trying to market the property since February of last year. And I don't know a single person that would put a home that close to a Home Depot. Um
that's that's the problem. >> I've had a number of schools look at the site, churches mostly. Uh but churches and schools, we're close with another school, but they're not here tonight. >> These folks are here tonight. Sure.
>> So, but I can't uh I' I'd been speaking to the town for a long time on this. It's either a single family or it's two single families with a shared driveway with some permitting there. But again, we talk about the cost about the shared driveway. I think they quoted $600,000
to put a small bridge over some wetlands. It's just it's the numbers are not penciling out for a single family developer. The site is useless for residential. >> Okay. Thank you. >> My other thought, Mr. was the was the grade of this property
versus the adjacent properties and that this is this is on a slope kind of going down. So it's not flat per se. >> So would that would add even if they were to parcel together now I am talking about the project even if they were kind of to parcel together some of the adjacent properties it would still be significant challenges because of the
topography itself. So just viewing it independently I think it makes a lot of sense to have this shift especially it's an adjacency okay >> to the uh to the commercial zone. >> Got it. Okay. Um, thank you. Any um uh uh John Sager, any questions? Nope.
Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, and just in terms of myself, um, uh, yeah, I don't, um, I don't think I think, you know, any questions I had, I think have been have been answered. I was and I appreciate the concern and the question as well with respect to the um, and I appreciate
the the the comments from my fellow member um, Mr. Rodriguez as well as uh from uh from Mr. Deise in terms of sort of what's been you know sort of the challenges that this property would face under existing zoning as well. So um so
that's that's good you know uh background to have. So any other questions from members of the board before I go to the public? This is a public hearing. So if any members of the public have questions or uh comments they can raise their hand. I'll recognize them and they can come and
speak. Yep. Go ahead. and just make sure to direct any questions or comments uh to the to the chair and just make sure to identify yourself and and state your >> I know it's you like you said it's for zoning. >> Sure. >> But I think a lot of the concerns um Oh,
let me introduce myself. Uh >> you identify yourself. I'm sorry. >> Yes. Uh John Michael Peasy. Um and my wife Amanda, three Leblanc Drive. >> Great. >> Um I I think we definitely support Dan Youth Hockey in a hockey rink. But I
this is definitely not the place for it. Um I don't think if any anyone's brought up with the wetlands, the amount of chemicals in a hockey rink, you know, I I just had a pool built, you know, we went through the wetlands and and the
conservation commission and we were told we couldn't even store chlorine in our backyards. Now you're talking about, you know, large quantities, some of the most toxic, you know, refrigerant around.
And, you know, there's been documented instances where leaks have occurred. In Canada, there's been deaths. So, it's just in any rink around here, I've never seen, you know, so close to houses. we can go
through, you know, a lot most of the hockey rinks around here. Um, obviously traffic sound is a concern. I mean, you're going to have compressors, high pitch motors. Electrical is going to have to be upgraded. You know, how is that going to
be brought through the wetlands? You know, it's I don't think that building has three-phase power. Um, high pitch compressors again. um motors traffic obviously they promised a traffic report you know we haven't seen
we haven't seen many details until Friday night a letter getting dropped off for a Easter meeting on Easter Sunday um so it's just right off the bat it's kind of you know
I don't know uh word to use on that one but um obviously speed is an issue because the the state police and the Danvas police use it as a speed trap. That that parking lot is used as a speed trap. >> So you got people already, you know, the Great Rock Church has drastically gotten
bigger >> driving down the middle lane of 114. So again, and this is zoning. So I mean, you got to, you know, figure out the traffic because we're we only have one way in and out of our culdeac and it's
hot enough to pull out, you know, and um I think that's it. But I think uh a lot of people, you know, have a vested, you know, in our houses financially, emotionally, and it's uh we don't support it in any way. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yes. Go ahead. >> Hi, Susan Thompson, Six Leblanc Drive. I'm the oldest resident on that street. I was the first house moved into at that time. Once you got beyond Home Depot going west toward Market Basket, there was very little traffic after
dinnertime. It's a speedway now. Exactly where you people are looking to put an entrance into this property, which by the way is all ledge and no one has even addressed the blasting and the effect that that's going to have on everybody's pools on the street. Um, they come up over that rise and if
you're sitting in the middle lane to take a left onto the blank drive facing east, they come over that ledge. It's blind. You're sitting there. They come over at 40 or 50 miles an hour heading right for you to even before. These are people not just going into Great Rock, but going down to the light at Watson.
They're they they start in the middle lane there. They're using it as a travel lane. It is somebody's going to get killed out there. Either you need to put in a traffic light. Um but at the very least we need a traffic study. We respectfully ask the board for that and a sitewalk. They're not even that
right-hand border between um that property line and Home Depot is all edge and it's like a 15 foot drop. >> You know, are they going to blast that? How are you going to handle that? And what's what effect is that going to have on everybody's homes? You've actually kind of you're turning Leblanc Drive and
there's several houses on either side of it into a little island in the middle of a of a commercial forest. It it's just going to ruin our property values. Please consider that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> My name is Eugene.
>> Can you just just hold on again, sir? Just just just come up to the microphone. No, no, no. Go ahead. No, go ahead. I thought he said sit down. >> No, no, no, no, no. You started speaking before you went to the microphone. So, I just want to make sure people at home can hear you, sir. >> Getting old. >> No problem, sir. If you can just go and introduce yourself again, sir.
>> I'm Eugene Smith. I'm Susan's husband. She doesn't want to be known as Susie Smith. But anyway, I just have a practical question. I listen to this. There's a lot of expense. There's a lot of traffic problems. We had at one time
a considerable problem with people, particularly delivery trucks, coming out of Home Depot following their ways or whatever into the blank drive to make the turnaround and unable to make it because they're too big. But we still get a lot of that stuff. They turn
around and then they come out and they want to go left and they back up four, five, six cars at a time. And uh it's it's really difficult. And I have one other question. I found it funny that uh is Brian
>> mentioned that uh you have great access from Route One and the other gentleman said the gentleman who's supposed to be here is in traffic. They want a song, right? >> But but there's there's going to be a
question. If you if you put this in and you come out onto 114, if they all go right, we're all going to get bombed. If they go left, somebody's going to get killed trying to get around that median strip. >> What?
>> Okay. Can you uh can you just direct anything? >> It's not. If you >> can you direct any comments to the chair? Sorry. I'm sorry. All right. Traffic. >> It there's a little median strip that comes up right to the vets's door. >> If you come out there, I'm very much afraid you're going to find somebody
sitting crossways on 114 right at that point. >> Somebody's going to get killed. >> Thank you for listening to me. >> Absolutely, sir. And >> one other actually just a moment if you want to come up to the >> to the to the podium and just >> again state your name just for for the
person taking minutes. M >> the parking situation for 50 cars. So if there's an overflow, there's no sidewalk between Leblanc Drive and this property. So are they going to cut through everybody's backyards to get there? I mean, how's that going to work?
>> Okay, I'm going to go and pose just a question also for town staff. I know a lot of these questions now are are sort of focusing on traffic and sort of the the operation of the of the of a of the rink. And so I don't want to, you know,
we're talking about just to make it clear and I want staff to we're talking right now about the the zoning citizens petition on the zoning change from residents to higher and so what about these these concerns about the traffic
and such when is the appropriate? >> So that would be at the time when there's actually an application on file to build this on ter in terms of the permitting path that they would need. So whether you know I don't know which they would go through first but either they're touching all the boards most
likely meaning concom potentially planning and zoning. Um so during the course of that permitting path a traffic study would obviously be completely the norm but but but we're nowhere near there in terms of what's in front of town meeting. Um
right now the only thing that is that town meaning is inherently voting on uh is the zoning change. Um for a number of things of reasons members of the board have even said is like well we don't have a hockey rink on file as an application meaning that something else
could potentially happen. They're trying to be as open and transparent as possible and not saying well we don't know what we're going to do. They say this is what we want to do. But I think it is conflating things personally uh because that's not what's in front of town meeting. >> So what's in front of town meeting is the zoning change. >> Just the zoning change.
>> Lou, on that point, could we just could we just ask that um if their concerns are about the hockey rink or about commercial in general because I do think some of those things are different and some people have mentioned things that are hockey rink specific and if we are focusing on specifically the commercial reszoning, I do think it's important to understand if they're concerned about
commercial as a whole or hockey rink. I think that's a good point. >> If they could just confirm that moving forward if we do have any more people. Thank you. >> I do see a um a hand raised. Uh Miss Steves. >> Good evening. Lauren Steves Hood Terrace. Um I just think that there's a
lot to think about here. Uh there's been a lot of talk about the hockey rink, but going back to it, this is simply this is a zoning change from R3 to Highway Corridor. Correct. >> Yes. Am I am I looking at the the table use table correctly that it's it's
potentially you could build 11 stories or >> 55t? >> Yeah, 50 I mean 55 ft is not 11 stories. >> Okay. So, let me I guess Rosewood Drive, which is just down the street, is that also Highway Quarter? Is that >> It's always It's a whole kind of
different kind of situation from I think it was the 80s and it wasn't really it. I don't think it's not even in highway quarter, but it would be the byite height for this parcel if it reszone to highway quarter would be 55 ft. So, that would probably be approximately like
four like five five stories depending >> four or five stories. Okay. Um, I think you've already heard from neighbors that are are against this and I understand the the some people on the board saying, well, like the best use is commercial. I I don't think we can say that without a
shadow of a doubt. This has been R3 if its entirety, you know, without the variance, a variance that was given however many years ago for a small veterinary clinic. It's a it's a single story from what I've seen. Um, and I understand that anybody who goes
in and buys this property is going to come across the issues with Concom and every other board because no matter who builds there, they're going to come across these issues. But if we're going to think about building commercial or reszoning to commercial, I think it
would be um silly to think that there's not going to be a a big influx of traffic and all those other types of things that come along with commercial uses. Um, I I don't live anywhere near this site, so I don't have a a you know,
anything in this to gain or to lose, but listening to the people who live next door and potentially seeing a four or five story building go up in their backyard with condensers and loud this and loud that and uh the area that it sits on 114 where it's kind of a blind
drive. You can't take a left. There's one way in. Um there's a lot more to think about other than well maybe commercial is the best use to you know get tax revenue or or whatnot in this town to be able to sell the land. Um I
think you have to think very carefully about this. >> Thank you. And and one one one thing I was going to make a you know just a a clarification of also I mean what we're again what our role is there's a citizens petition that is on the that's been filed. it's going to be going to before town meeting and our role is to
um is to is to provide a report on that. So um I do see another I'm going to put my glasses back on. Make sure Yes. Yes, ma'am. If you want to go and go to the podium and if you're able Oh. Oh gosh. Okay.
Good evening. My name is Sandra King. I live at 188 Center Street. Uh my property uh is a on the side setback, which currently right now the way it shows in the other plan with the building, it's right on
the property line, maybe two or three feet. Um, my main concern with this changing from an R3 to a commercial is, you know, we had concerns coming in here. And when Josh went and went through this list of
things that could potentially go here, whether it be a rink or a short hotel or anything of in between, >> um, I realized that Home Depot was there and they've been there. They are on the low
end of that stretch of Andover Street. This lot here is on the upper rise of it. So therefore, tuckingway in the back, which looks like would only would be the only area to build on a commercial spot,
you know, it's going to sit in our backyards. um between myself and Bob here who has all of the building in his backyard. Between this, we pay $30,000 in property tax.
You know, I we we're in this area for the purpose of being surrounded by woods, conservation, wildlife. Um to think that it's going to be converted, you know, for the pocket. I mean, as far as this GLOP goes, there is
a lot of conservation and I think it should be preserved. Um, there's so much building going on and then the beauty of the R3 is that we all have sizable yards or sizable acreage
that we are, you know, maintaining the wildlife. for something commercial to go in. Even if they met all the different requirements, 55 ft is pretty high when you're used to looking at trees or even just in the
winter time when there's no leaves on the trees to see straight out and look at this monstrosity knowing you're writing a check for 15 grand every year for the property that you bought. Uh it's very unsettling because like you mentioned, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a
rink. could be any of the number of things that Josh mentioned. None of them are appealing to anybody living in R3. We're in R3 because of the space aotment around us for the serenity of the area.
And just this particular lot, um, you know, the gentleman mentioned, well, it's not good for a house. You can put a rink on it. You can certainly fit a house back there. I'm 700 feet off the road. I'm tucked way back. It's beautiful back where I live.
I foresee someone putting in a house back here. They may have to build something going over the conservation, but they would have the most beautiful piece of land back there with wildlife in front of them. Uh I don't see where that's a detriment to the property. And
I really don't see in the area of 114 where it should become highway quarter zone just due to the fact that the potential of what could go in there would be such a detriment to the neighbors. It would serve us all no purpose. I know you
didn't want to go into the rink situation, but I'm just going to mention because that's on the table. Rinks are open from 5:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. mostly. There's that noise. you put in some kind of a, you know, uh, gym facility,
they're open 24 hours most of the time. Uh, but in particular, you know, a small hotel, the rink, anything that requires a lot of mechanicals, all that sound being up as high as it is
is going to float right into our homes, right across our backyards. And we're going to wonder, you know, why it is we moved to this side of town, choking up those kind of taxes for the serenity that we're used to having over there, you know, and now worried about it being a highway
corridor where there are too many too many variables of what could go there that would disturb everybody on the blank drive and particularly myself and Bob on the end of center. I understand Home Depot doesn't really have a fight on this because they are already commercial and nobody lives there. You
know what I mean? We're living here. So, it's going to affect us directly if this R3 becomes a highway corridor zone. So, for those reasons, um I really I think it should remain what it is and what it's always been and let us
preserve the conservation because even if someone tucked Let's go back to the ice rink. I'm sorry. I know you don't want to do that. But you know, they're they're not meeting setbacks. Our three is 20 ft on either side. >> They got 13 and they got three. If they
come forward or to the left, now they're encroaching a conservation. So those things are not going to change if it becomes a highway corridor zone. The setbacks might be a little bit different, but there's still a good portion of conservation there that
should remain conservation. I I'm I'm just not for, you know, putting up a parking lot. You know, I think we should save the paradise that's back there. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
Any further? Um I see Mr. Bradreet and then the gentleman on Mr. Bradstreet. I saw your hand first. Bill Brad Street town meeting member precinct one I listen to everything that's being said one of the things the
town has a large pocket of money why don't they just the town buy this and turn it into green space adjacent to the conservation lands would make sense to me again I don't live there >> it's my tax money that would be spent
but I think it's a small amount to pay for it one of the things I would like perhaps in the future when one of these projects or any project is brought forward, especially boundaries and such, can you maybe ask them to do a Google
map and lay out the property lines? I look at that and I see black and lines that don't really mean that much to me, probably because of my age, but I'd like to see something that's shows a little more definitive uh picture of what's there.
Thank you. Okay, >> very good. This gentleman there. >> Good evening. Um, Robert Duncan. I'm at 192 R Center Street. My wife Tammy. Um, I think Sandra said it really well for everybody, but I just figured I need to at least voice my concern as well. Um,
my property does abut the the majority of the the back of where they're going to put the building. Um, I mean, that's our whole pool deck area. all we'd be looking at is a 35 to 55 foot building, which is not why we bought in Danverse and why you moved to Danverse. Um, so
we're we're totally against this. Um, we have a lot of deer and stuff that come in our backyard. We would lose all of that. Um, and and I just think, you know, it's important to have that area for the wildlife. Um, and that'll be gone as well. So just just our concern
is you know just taking up that that area blocking um all the wildlife, the woods um and the noise that's going to come from this place and the traffic um and just I mean we have kids that play sports and uh at hockey ranks there's 20
30 kids out in the parking lot hanging out um having a good time. I don't need to hear that at 9 10 o'clock at night. So yeah 5:00 in the morning. So that's all for me. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Come.
Oh, I'm sorry. I saw this gentleman raise his hand first. >> That one over there. >> Yes. Right here. >> Okay. Come on in. >> I am. >> And then you s next. Okay. >> Hi, Chris Connellic. I live in one the blank the corner 114 and the blank
drive. Um so my concern and I know you um with me the parallel to changing that to commercial and the traffic it goes hand in hand. So I know you had mentioned >> you know when it was going to be when that would be brought up appropriate
time but I think now is the appropriate time because you're considering to move from an R3 to commercial. um you know that and which no one actually has said when you come on to that right out of the blank the whole way down 114 if
you're going west when you're coming east is two lanes right when you get to the blank it merges into one lane and and it's only one lane for about 150 yards but it's one lane right up to the vet so so the traffic there is brutal people use the middle lane for turn you
guys repaved that area uh the the city and unfortunately you don't allow us to have a turning lane. So if you live on the blank and I know I'm getting off subject for 30 seconds. If you live on the blank and you're taking a left um you have to you're merging with the
other lane and you have to you have to stay in the lane. Stop and make a left across the turn lane because you didn't allow the turning lane. You removed our turning lane. So if you could put that back that would be great. It's dangerous. I have a 17-year-old. >> I didn't do it >> who has been chased by cars.
>> Sure. >> Into Leblanc because she's 17 and she like jumps out in front of people, you know, and and and that's what she does. But now she has to take a ride to get out. But so the other concern is if you go commercial, you're going commercial. I worked at a dealership on 114 25
years. I personally totaled two vehicles in the middle lane on 114. You folks have addressed that. As you can see, where was the number one area? It was in front of the sentry house. The old people put on their glasses in the middle of the day, they turned out and bam. Right? So what did you do? So
you're already addressing the issues with commercial is you're putting those you're putting the barriers up so no one will right. So no old man or old woman's going to take a left, you know, out of out of sentry house and be t-boned, right? What do you think's going to happen there? It's one lane. It goes down to one lane. there's going to be a
serious traffic issue and it's going to be, you know, someone's gonna die over it and that's gonna, you know, so there's no need for that commercial, especially what she mentioned. Um, the Home Depot was much lower, right? It raises way up, right? And, uh, to have
that, um, you know, whatever you put in there, I I would think, um, and I don't know how much the asking price is. If the deal is good enough, you might have a couple offers in here. So, I guess I got to look that up. Thank you.
>> Yes, sir. >> Yes. So, uh, Senator Butner from, uh, precinct 8. So, >> I'm sorry. Name again, sir. Sorry. >> Senator Butner from Precinct 8. Um, for me, it's a fairness issue. it. I'm not in a butter to that uh development idea
and I understand uh the value in in development, but I think it's a fairness issue for the property owners that have purchased specifically in that area with an understanding of where they sit relative to that highway corridor to change what the the playing field looks
like and now move in additional commercial to butt to their property does have a consequence on their original investment. and the original decision to build in that area or to live in that area. So just from a fairness standpoint, I I have an
objection to it. From the parcel standpoint, it was originally it was an R3. There is a house on it. And so the question that I object to or the statement I object to is the value proposition to say that the best use for
the land is the best economic use for the land versus the other nondirect economic uses. Right? So there is a pro there is a assessment value on that. There's a house on it and so there is a current revenue stream to the town for that. What is and this is a question for
the board. What is the negative consequence of not making that a viable sellable product as an R3 for the town? That's a question for the town. >> Sure. If that's
>> could you say it in a different way? >> So if it becomes a vacant lot >> and the building becomes derelict, right? That is the other outcome of an unsellable piece of real estate as a residential R3. Correct. Because what we've heard is that the realtor has put forward that
they have been trying to sell this property for a long period of time. >> If if this property does not have the value based on its wetlands and based on its location to afford somebody to put in a beautiful house in the back area, it
becomes an unbuildable lot for R3 economically >> potentially. potentially, >> but it is still it is still a tax. >> It still gets it will get taxed at R3 >> at R3 with with the house that exists on today. So So there's still a revenue
piece to it. So it's not purely a revenue. It so the best use may be as just a green space >> versus another economic income. Mhm. >> So fairness and definition of best use.
Green space is a fantastic use. Commercial is not the only good use for property. >> So those are my two points relative to this development. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any further
um any further public comments at all? >> May I speak again? Hotel. >> Yes, you may. I don't think anyone else is. So yes, you you can go ahead. >> Yep. Again, just for the minutes purposes, if you can identify yourself again. Sure. Thank you. >> Sandra Casting, 188 Center Street.
>> Uh, this gentleman brought up a very good point as far as the different options. You know, currently it's an R3. There was a vet there for many, many years. I think probably 35, 40 years ago. I think I took one of my dogs there.
Um that's that scenario and situation worked out I think pretty well for the surrounding area. >> Uh and they had a variance. >> Mhm. >> And so another use for this property in R3 maybe not someone may not want to put
a house in the back. Um but as it sits the current use is still a good use. R3 we we we maintain our privacy. We maintain fully the conservation area and the building
in the front whether maybe replace with kind of the same footprint renovations >> and that could go for their own variance. It could be something else. It could be you know a flower shop. It could be you know >> many little boutique. So this way you're still keeping it as an R3 but yet
allowing someone to have some other kind of use in the front. >> I want just to just take a moment and just to ask town staff for clarification purposes because this was a use variance which are no longer allowed in residential zones. So what could So
question for Brian Zelli or for Josh Mars what could go there currently >> only there's only there's only well I guess two things but it's really one thing. it's one single family home or they could go through a special permit process to get a shared driveway for two single family homes. So th
>> that is the those are the only options >> or or um a veterary clinic >> or sorry yes they could continue the veterary clinic because there's a variance there. Okay. >> So they could they could be shopping out for a veterary clinic but so yeah thank you >> from a use just from a youth perspect. Yeah.
>> Okay. That's what I want to know from a youth perspective. Okay. Then I guess I still feel it's better for as a you know a single family home lot be a beautiful spot in the back there. Okay. >> As opposed to the options for commercial. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any further um questions or comments from members of the public?
This is a public hearing. >> Yes. Go ahead, sir. >> Hi, Mark Sweet. I'm at 7 Lank Drive. I'm here with my wife, Linda. Um she made a good point. If you zone this for commercial and for some reason the deal falls through, you're going to have deep
pockets coming in looking for commercial. There's going to be so many different ideas going in there and now we're we're all burned because it's commercial. All these plots that you see, everybody is here right here tonight. We're all affected.
So doing commercial, if they their plan falls through, we're we're at we open the door for everybody. >> Mhm. and we're going to have these meetings one after the other after the other and someone's going to eventually get in there. >> And you're disrupting nine families. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further
questions or comments from members of the public? >> Yes, please go ahead. Oh, yeah. I think you were >> you're with the petitioner, right? >> Yeah. Mike Veno, uh, Broadway Capital. Um, I just want to kind of address some
of the comments that we've heard and I know this is really just about the zoning change, but um, when we started this project really we wanted to solicit the feedback of the neighborhood, which we think is very important and a lot of good points have been
brought up about the aesthetics um, you know, how the building's going to look in the area and things like that and the height and traffic study and sound studies and I think again like Brian had mentioned, these things will all happen if if we decide to go forward, but we're not trying to like force something
um into this neighborhood that um that's going to really disturb everyone. We want to look at it and see, are there ways that we could mitigate the traffic, maybe improve the traffic in the area? Are there ways we could keep the height down on the building um to the 35 ft? Are there landscaping options that we
could do to sort of mitigate um how the how the project uh might look to certain neighbors? And some of the stuff we can do through renderings and try to figure this out. Again, that's for I know that's for a later date, but really the overall goal of this is is to get that feedback, but also to understand that
this is really for the community. I mean, we're trying to do a ice rink for Danver youth hockey who fully supports the project. We've also spoken with Danver's high school hockey coach. So this is for um really the youth of the community, something that could last
for, you know, generations potentially. And we don't want to again force this down anyone's throat and try to just ignore what the neighbors are saying. Every a butter here has brought up valid reasons why, you know, this could be not a good development. But I just wanted
to, you know, come on and say that we will do our best effort to mitigate this and we will see it through to the finish. Um we've done you know I've developed hundreds of unit residential units. This is a project that I've always wanted to do. It's not uh driven
strictly by money. Um there's also conservation here that we may get state grants involved to preserve the conservation land. In addition um you know we may go and try to get a grant from the one-stop program for underutilized properties. >> So there's options there where we could
potentially deed restrict some of the conservation land. um you know indefinitely uh as part of this project cuz as you know we can't build on the conservation land. We have to work around it. >> Can you stop click on the hat?
>> Oh sorry I'm sorry. Oh I'm sorry. I was >> so no I just wanted to add that and I think it's important that you know we I do apologize too. We did have the meeting on a a Sunday night and I really just wanted to make sure that we >> one notified everybody that there would
be a meeting tonight because I think the first planning board meeting caught some of the abuters by surprise that they didn't know about it. So it wasn't the best timing for the meeting, but I think it was good that we got the message out and that we delivered it clearly that, you know, we want to hear from the
abutters and we think there's ways that we could mitigate this some of their issues that they have specifically around the traffic, the sound and the aesthetics of the building. So I just I wanted to come up and say that and um I just want to thank everybody for for the feedback. And again, if the project
doesn't work out, that's okay, too. But we definitely want to put our best foot forward to try to make it work. >> So that's it. Thank >> you. >> Okay. I saw the gentleman there and then the woman who right there. So >> hi Anthony Colgan Blank Drive. Uh thanks
for the presentation today. Uh I had a question for the committee. Um when and I'm just getting up to speed on this the last week. When was the last meeting and when did you ask the developers to notify uh the residents about the project?
>> Our last meeting was just it was two weeks ago. >> Tuesday. So it was the 24th. >> Two Tuesdays ago. >> Mhm. Yeah. That was our >> two days ago. I think >> that was the opening of the >> I'm sure the day of the meeting minutes. Um so two weeks ago we were notified via
a letter dropped in my box maybe even by Brian I I think or by Mike. Okay. Yeah. So, um that process to notify residents I wouldn't say is the most transparent, honest or authentic way um after two weeks of having that opportunity to
reach out to us. If that's sort of the footing that we're starting out at, I already have skepticism about the uh transparency that's going to come after this stage. Um obviously, I think once we open up to commercial, that does open up the community for more exposure and
this might not work out. So, uh, I just wanted to voice that and just put that concern out there as you all deliberate around recommendations that you make to the larger community. Um, I think
just some back in the napkin math. >> There's a few things that I heard here too about what the project's going to be. So, if we've talked with Denver's high school hockey, Denver's youth hockey, but it's a practice facility mostly, um it's very confusing as
somebody who has a child in hockey at this point. Um 52 spots doesn't seem like enough for four teams, parents, grandparents, >> maybe blended households where you have multiple cars coming. Uh so, as Leblank Drive, I just hear my street's a parking
lot now because it's easy for everybody to come down. So again, think about that and um please consider all of what you're hearing cuz I think it's mixed messaging that this has been an eye openening for me. Um and I think it's mixed messaging that I've been hearing
from both of them over there. So I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm just going to I I'm going to >> What a response to >> Well, that's fine. I'm I'm gonna ask her to uh to ask her question then then you can respond. Okay.
>> Hi, I'm Lisa Butner and I live in precinct 8. I don't I'm not an abuter to this, but I travel up and down that road all the time. Um so I think that you've heard from the abuters and you've heard from the neighbors and everybody knows that Route 114 is considered one of the
most dangerous in the state. So, I think that um I feel like having this um petition to change the zoning right now is almost like out of step in in the process of which they're doing things.
Puts you guys in a bad spot because you're looking at certain factors and you say, "Okay, you know, let's let's change this." But you have no guarantees as to what uh happens in the future. And once you change it to commercial, you have now opened Pandora's box for who
knows what comes down. You already know it's a dangerous road. You know it's impractical uh frontage to do much of a change there in terms of coming in or out of that site if it's commercial. It's a state highway. So Danvers, I would think,
doesn't even have the authority to make those kinds of changes. Um the developer is saying that he wants to listen to and work with the neighbors. I think you've heard from the abutters and I don't think you've heard a single person who
is for a commercial. So I think to um this gentleman who happens to be my husband but to his point earlier I think what would be great is if the town would take the posture of how about let's work how about let's work with the people who
are living nearby and let's assume that it remains an R3 zone and let's make that work for the for uh the abutters the taxpayers the situation for the traffic let's make that work I think the
developer make it so that he can put uh two houses here >> or you know if I I'm I don't know if this is even possible but I would think that if you as opposed to uh changing it to commercial if you changed it to something that maybe is R2 instead of
R3. So now you have still a residential, but it makes it feasible financially for the developer to do something like if you really want to work with people, work with them on that, not on um changing it to something that makes it easy for somebody in the future to to
come in. So I feel like um it's it's uh it you've heard from people. I I would hope that you would protect the citizens of the town, not uh commercial developers coming in to do what you don't know what it is. And if there's a
way for you to pass on making this u change so that some of these other things like a traffic um study and all these other things have to happen and then if that all is, you know, kosher, well then maybe you come back to this. But it's it's like you're putting the
cart before the ho horse and you're opening Pandora's box if you do this. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Deise. I think you said you wanted to Thank you. >> Yes. I wanted to respond to the parking, but I wanted to first start with um >> changing the zoning to just a our cart. Let's select our two. Can't do that.
It's called spot zoning. It's against state law. All we're asking is to extend the existing hor one lot. >> Uh but you can't just pick a zoning and say let's do that instead. But regarding the parking, I'm in contact with uh Trey Conway. He's a senior vice president for
development for Home Depot. I worked with Trey for years. When I say years, I want to say the late 90s when I was a site located for Costco. And um his response is, "Let's, you know, get it resoneed first. Let's talk about something to talk about." Right now,
there's nothing to talk about. Kate even file an application for a rink on a on a site that's residential. So, we have to get through May before Home Depot can even talk to us, but that's an option. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Brad Street, I
sorry, >> extra parking. That was the question. >> Oh, yes. Yes. >> Mr. Bates, I'm sorry. Am I >> Then I see Miss Reguchi right after. >> Uh, Bill Bates, town meeting member, precinct 4. Um I I watched the last
meeting on the 24th uh and and and this tonight. Um please understand that this is a citizen's petition and this person that owns 249 Andover Street has a right to ask us as
his 144 town meeting members. We are elected to do this. This board is simply hearing this before it comes to us. That's why our butters were not notified. Everybody has the right as a
citizen to ask to change the zoning on their property. I have a couple of questions for the board. Um, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned you're going to do a report. Isn't it a recommendation to town meeting?
>> That's really I believe the language is it's a report. >> The word is report, but yes, it's a recommendation. >> It would be a recommendation. >> A recommendation from you folks to us at town meeting. Correct. And typically that recommendation can be a favorable recommendation. It can be an unfavorable recommendation or it also it could be an
unfavorable recommendation with a for >> refer back to >> referring back to for example referring back to the planning board. >> Thank you. And and I understand but I wanted to make the point that it's coming to town meeting. >> It is >> um not to the planning board for for decision.
>> Correct. I would like clarification because I was not going to vote for this at town meeting. Unless they because they we've always done this with um with nonconforming uses, you could go and ask for a variance. I think tonight I've
learned why that can't happen. Is that true? This homeowner cannot ask for another nonconforming a different non-conforming use. >> Correct. Because in the 70s you were allowed to apply you were allowed to apply for use variances in the
residential zones and now you're you know we haven't been able to do that for over 30 years. So you cannot in the R3 or any any residential zone you can't apply for a use variance. It's made solely for res >> and that's what we normally do at town meeting when people somebody asks can I
change my properties um at zoning and then they come to us and they tell us why they want to do it. Um >> this is not going anywhere. Nobody at at town meeting is going to support this. Uh because you're right, it's it's R3. Um it should probably stay R3, but we
have to work with the the land owner has rights too. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, M. Reguchi, I saw your your hand up before. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Joanne Maguchi, town meeting member, precinct 2. Um,
I just want to thank Mr. Bates for his wonderful segue he kind of gave me that I didn't have coming into this, but I think as a town meeting member, as it's going to come to us in May, is that I hope my fellow town meeting members do
not vote for this. Um, we talked about land uses. We talked about how marketable it is for a real estate broker who talked to us tonight.
But I think that's something the town really needs to put a hard line against is that I haven't heard from the actual property owner. I've heard from the developers. I've heard from a real estate broker, but I haven't heard from the property owner that Mr. Bates
mentioned who has the right of this citizen's petition. Who signed? And my one question to you, Mr. Chairman, is who signed this uh citizens petition? Who is the person who signed this? >> I can answer that. The the owner uh the trustee Dana Mcnammy did sign the
petition. >> Okay. Is he here this evening? Has he been speaking? >> I don't know. But has he has given authorization for um we we have we have documentation he's given okay >> uh authorization for them to act >> and finance committee is going to allow this where they where they haven't
signed on the citizens petition. >> No no the owner speak the owner the owner has signed the petition. >> The owner it's the own it's the property owner's petition. Yes. >> Okay. But we haven't heard but we haven't >> he was here. >> He was but not tonight. >> Right. But it does bear his signature
petition. Okay. That was my first question. Um, so I just hope that town meeting does not approve this because this is just not a plot on a map where yeah, the usage this looks great for yeah, why don't we make it commercial cuz hey, we
can't do anything else with it. I don't think that's something the town should be embracing. um residential property open space is very rare and we need to keep protecting it. If we keep letting well
it's next you know the reason well it's next to the highway corridor why not why not just make that commercial because then 5 10 years down the road you're going to be chipping into Leblanc Drive. Well they're next to a commercial property now. Their property values
aren't that great anymore. People have moved out. The houses are derelictked. you know, blah blah blah. I can go through all the scenarios and now you're going to say, "Let's take Leblanc Drive as as commercial." And that will happen. I can see it. And you
can see how the fight has gone along Route One for on Dayton Street that was fought off by neighbors. Um, we need a buffer, I think, between the residential zones and the highway corridor and business zones. We need to protect those buffers
because we are the property t taxpayers in this town. We are the backbone of this town. We have to live here. We have to deal with it. The developers go home at night. The real estate person goes home
at night, not in this town probably. And and their their their pockets are full, their bellies are full, they're happy, but the residents aren't. So, I really hope this board and I really hope the town meeting members in May protect our residents and protect our residents
interests. I will not be voting for this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Muchi. Okay, keep order. Please keep order. Okay, any other um any other uh members of the public who have any questions? Yes, Mr. McKenna. I saw you in the corner there.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. David McKenna precinct a Tom me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me I live about a half mile down the street right on 114 drive that damn road every day it's fun uh I just had a couple of questions a couple of comments just to clarify on
something that um Tommy member Bates asked yes I agree they cannot have a variance for a business use in a residential however can't they apply for a finding for an expansion of a non-conforming
Uh you can you just not your fault. You just missed it before, but this uh it's not a pre-existing non-conforming property. It was actually done through variance to get that veterary. >> Okay. All right. I apologize. I came in late. I may have missed some things. Um one other concern I have aside from what
the neighbors said that or but as as Bill Bradre said, it'd be nice to see an aerial photograph where those little squares actually show up as people's homes so you can see how close homes are to it. Um, I feel bad for the property owner. It is a tough piece of property
to sell, but I think there might be other options. Be nice place for a mansion up back there maybe with a long road going into a nice quiet spot. But anyway, one concern I do have is traffic. It's been raised several times. They have a curb cut permit because it
was a small business there, but they're going to have to apply to the state for a um modification of that curb cut. And I'm sure when the state looks at it, they're going to say there's too much traffic to allow left turns. And they will extend that island that blocks off
uh Home Depot's driveway a little further up the hill. So if the traffic will not be able to turn left, they get out of the clove leaf and turn around the cloaf or they'll go up through the residential neighborhood and go around onto Route One to get in there. So this is going to spill over into other
residentials as well. Um, again, I feel bad for the owner. It's a tough place to sell, but I think that it it's just it needs some more thought before we do something this drastic that this might be a nice project. It might not. There's different opinions, but if we reszone
it, anything that's allowed to highway Carter could go there and it could be something much more unappetizing. So, at this point, unless someone changes my mind, I won't be voting for it either. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
Any further questions or comments by members of the public? Just keeping an eye on. Okay. I'm going to come back then to the board. Um members of the board, any further any further questions or um at all and then we can come to
discussion and deliberation. >> I just have a quick clarification. There was some conversation about no left turn out of blank. Is that just because it's difficult? It's not illegal. Correct. >> No, it's legal. No one can hear. >> Hold on. >> Can you just go to the can? >> Sorry. >> Is there a sign?
>> Can the res again? Can you also identify yourself just No, I I shouldn't say it's not illegal. It's illegal to be in the middle lane. >> So, >> but to turn left crossing the middle lane is legal. >> There's no signage. There's no signage. You're not allowed to go in the middle
lane. The middle lane. So, so before that I have the aerial picture. It It had the two arrows. You Right. So, so it had the it had the lines >> with the uh with the dashes so you could take a left or a right. >> When they redid it right at at a lelank
is is a solid double on the on the right. >> So you can So it's only left turn, left turn, left turn all the way up to the light. It's nearly It's probably a quarter mile for someone. How many people turn into into the tower there?
Not too many. So, but they have a quarter of a mile of space of left turn only. So, all I was asking for is cut it back like you did and have have turning east way. We literally literally have to go there. There's a little break.
There's no lines at all up about from here to the desk. So, you can't you can't like drive and pull in there because you'd be sideways. >> Yeah. No, I understand it's difficult. I guess I'm asking those lues. Is it illegal? Cuz right now if you the existing property if you were leaving the veterary clinic or now potentially the hockey rink, you could turn left and
go to Route One legally. Correct. >> No, that's illegal. >> It's illegal. There's two double yellow lines that go right down. >> So Google Maps is showing one single yellow line with a turning lane. So I'm a little confused and that's what I'm trying to clarify. >> Well, you said Leblanc. So the blank's a whole different story.
>> It's it's from 2019 >> State Road. >> There's there's a different sense then >> there's a me there's a there's a barrier. Yeah, >> but the barrier ends at Home Depot now. >> No, >> no, no. It goes a little further, but it's not a barrier now from Google Maps. Double line and they merge and then go straight.
>> So, I guess what I'm asking is if there was a hockey rink here, anyone leaving this hockey rink would have to go right and then to get to Route One, they would have to turn around at a different location somewhere else, >> turn into Rosewood, which is what I did this this afternoon when I checked out the property. >> Okay, this is why we're just trying to
change >> that. I mean, that to me raises a very different point. You is playing constantly. >> No, I Yeah, >> okay. I That was just one point of clarification I want to make. So, if this site when it if it was voted to turn commercial, you would not be able to turn left out of this commercial drive to go to Route One. You would need
to turn right and turn around in the office park up ahead. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's all I wanted to clarify. >> Could we we actually don't we we we can't have this back and forth conversation. So, >> no that that's good. I need the questions. >> Thank you. Yep. Appreciate it. That's all.
>> Yep. Jean, any um any questions or we can also >> No, I'm all set. Thanks. >> Okay. >> I just had one clarifying question for for staff. Um so the existing use is the veterinarator clinic that was based at animal hospital that so they received a
variance to to operate that in an R3. So under I'm just and again I'm kind of getting up to speed on the zoning on the book. um under section 3 subsection 9 the discontinuence abandonment issue is that would that dissolve after the 24 months or would that carry beyond that 24 months?
>> So the my question is would they be allowed to continue to use that as a veterary clinic if somebody came today and said I want to open up a veterary clinic there. >> That is our position. Our position is that the a veterary clinic could still operate could could still come in and operate. >> Yeah. Beyond that 24-hour period that's
that's in section 3 subsection 9. So, so >> 24 months >> 24 months. So, so the dissolution of a variance um like after complete like nonoperation for 24 months, it it it can revert. >> Yeah. >> Um in this particular case, they're
they're they're trying to move forward with something else. It's very clear through through the process tonight >> that's not an option. Yeah. that it it um you know the further they go along this path the less opportunity they are able to you to do a veterary clinic. >> Yeah. I think my my question is centered upon what options are available for the
parcel. So if it's that's a continuing option for the parcel in out years that would that would factor into my kind of calculus >> and I think they also made a point as well. Well, I think they pointed out that there is a the other op option they could pursue is an educational purpose which would be >> but that that's true anywhere that
they're just quoting do saying that they could do an educational religious uh or a rel you know some type of use that's do that's >> what that does is >> so that well they they were talking about frankly saying well we'd build a larger building uh through an
educational facility is is what the posture was >> and that would shortcircuit zoning alto together >> correct Okay. >> Okay. Any questions? Uh, John. Okay. Okay. All right. So, now I guess we'll get to in terms of deliberation, in
terms of anything um uh in terms of in terms of your in terms of thoughts on this. And again, our re our our our our role is to make a a recommendation to town meeting. This is going to town meeting. So regardless of of what we say
tonight, it is going to town meeting, but it will have a uh it'll have a recommendation uh either an unfavorable recommendation or a favorable recommendation from the planning board or an unfavorable recommendation with a come back. So um I'll start with uh with
Mike. I I think that if we I'm I'm listening to the residents here and and Google Maps is obviously outdated, but if you cannot turn left out of that property and get to the highway, I'm extremely concerned about this being a commercial property. I mean, Home Depot right now
is that exact problem, and I'm concerned about that. So, I think that's where I'm I'm I don't know. That's one of my big concerns right now. That's new information. So, I'm just thinking through that. >> Jean, any What are you Where are you >> um Yeah, thanks. Uh just for clarification, what is the difference
between an unfavor favorable recommendation and an unfavorable recommendation with returning to planning? I think the um and it's my understanding that an unfavorable recommendation with a you know in essence with a with an ask for it to to
come back to you know to the planning board would be and town staff correct me if I'm wrong is that it would be is that we are you know we are against we would be against what is currently on the table but we would be open to looking at
the issue to to looking like as part of a reasonzoning or just It's really taking it on is really what is really what it is. It's it's it's we don't we don't like how it is currently, but we see merit enough merit in it that we're willing to work with it potentially. Maybe we could maybe it could go
somewhere. >> But what would those options be? Wouldn't they be the same options they are now? >> Well, in this particular case, yeah, but where he's just setting the rules for all the citizens petitions that these are the three options that we can >> But in this case, those are kind of the same thing. Is that a fair statement or
no? I would say that in this particular case, I don't know how you could modify it. >> That's what I guess I would black and white request. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. Um I'm really happy to see all of the abutters here tonight. I
think that we were missing that at our last meeting. Um but I do think that having the meeting with them all last night was a little bit too little too late. It seemed like it was kind of checking the box before tonight. Um, and I think that
honestly transitioning this parcel from residential to highway quarters corridor zone would be a detriment to all of the abutters. Um, and you know all the traffic issues that everybody raised. So I would be voting unfavorably for this.
>> Okay, very good. >> Dave, >> uh, I just have a process question. So, are we locked into those three particular options or is there so it's favorable, unfavorable, or is it possible for the for the board to make a neutral recommendation? So, we're taking a position that we're not taking when deferring to town meeting on this.
>> Uh, you could choose not to vote. >> The board could choose the board could have like have no vote or if it, you know, Yeah. But I don't I think the point here is to inform town meeting of >> your expertise and your opinion. Like that's that's the whole point of it.
>> Yeah. I think there's I think there's so many un there's so many known unknowns and quite a many unknown unknowns as it relates to this change that that's why I'm I could see like I said earlier I'm of two minds on it. >> Um but given the kind of the unfavor the
>> the tenor of the room and kind of those the the the volume of those known unknowns and unknown unknowns um I I would generally defer towards an unfavorable recommendation as well. >> Yeah. Okay. And just coming back to me and in terms of um uh my my take on and
I think that the neighbors and the abutters coming because you when I first came to you know planning board you know five something six years ago that always the question was well what do the abutters think and so that's something I'm glad that you all came today um
because that did uh you know you raised some legitimate concerns and I understand and this is this is not these are not easy um you know these are not easy decisions. We're all volunteers sitting up here. Um these are not easy decisions. And so u the things that sort
of came into my mind and I'm looking at this also as as I am feeling unfavorable um because and really what it comes down to I'm looking at also the what was the that indeed that there was a prior you know non-residential use but it was
through a use variance process. And so that's something that did um that really that's that stuck into my mind that this is even though it indeed has been not a operated as a residence for so many you know certain number of years it's a uh
you know it is a um it's been operating under a use variance which is not something that's been allowed in town for many many years and I remember back when we had use variances in towns you could have you could have a house and you're then pop up right next to you a commercial property And um and so I want
to be very in having grown up on in in such a neighborhood growing up in Danversport on Water Street where you had down the street from you had Crease and Cook Tannery, you had other you know restaurants, car wash, things like that. I want to be particularly um you know
air on the side of of of listening you know of in of of listening to the the resident. So I would be um so I would be voting uh voting no or rather not rather no but it would be an unfavorable recommendation and
ultimately it does go to it goes through select board it ultimately will go through um it goes through finance committee and then ultimately goes to the the full town meeting. So so that's sort of where we are. I think we do need to
>> one final one final point. I think viewing this as kind of a living process >> and saying that being willing to >> open it up, keep it R3 and allow the options to develop on their own organically to say if if it could develop as an R3 in that way, but also
open to revisiting this over time to see if there are additional options down the road if it does stay because because a vacant property, an abandoned property is not a good value ad either, right? Uh so being viewing this as kind of a living organic process over time is important. So, I'm fully willing to kind
of let this develop as an R3 and see what happens. You to to the earlier point, we could somebody could build their dream house there. This could be somebody's dream property. Um, and we'll see if we'll see if it happens, but I've come into it with open minds, with open options later on that it might necessitate a change later on.
>> Okay. Well, let's go and uh I think we need to um if nothing further, I think we do need to move to close the public hearing. So, I would entertain I do see gentleman has something. >> Yep. And could I say one thing, please? >> Yes, please. >> Like to thank you people for taking the
time and I'm sure speak on behalf of all of us. I know how much work goes into this behind the scenes because I spent 30 plus years on the board of health in puberty. So I know how much you work at it, but I'd just like to say thank you. >> Thank you.
There's no further um public comment or members of the board. entertain a motion to close the public hearing on the citizens petition. >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Motion's been made by uh Dave Rodriguez. Is there a second? Second uh
by Michael Dulis. Um all in any discussion on the motion >> hearing none. Uh all in favor of the motion to close the public hearing for the uh zoning map amendment. >> I >> I any opposed? None. Okay, let's move to
the main question in terms of um uh in terms of I'd entertain a motion with respect to the planning board's recommendation on the zoning map amendment. >> I make a motion that we provide an unfavorable
recommendation to is the town meeting to town meeting. >> All right. Motion's been made. Is there a second to Gene Hart's motion? >> Second. >> Okay. Second by Mike Duler. So, there's a motion on the floor for an unfavorable
recommendation on the zoning map amendment with respect to 249 Andover Street. Um, uh, any discussion on that on the motion? Hearing none. Um, all in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Any opposed? None abstensions. All right, we're at uh we're at 4 Z. Okay, thank you. >> All your town meeting members. >> Okay, >> I don't know. >> So, this will move on to this is going
to move on next to uh town staff. This is going to select board. >> There's a select board meeting tomorrow night. >> On the same item is a select board meeting tomorrow night on the same item. >> Same place. >> And then it go and and the select board is tasked with conversation,
>> same exact conversation. Um, they're going to just the same thing, the vote voting up or down as, you know, as proposed. >> And could you make them uh they will be made aware of our recommendation this evening? >> We will pass that on to uh the clerk and the manager. >> Does zoning do the same thing, Brian? >> Okay.
>> No, just >> Okay. Could you please be just silent? We I do see a we're moving on to our next agenda item. Are these >> point of clarification, Mr. Chairman? Would it go through the vote of selectman as a citizen petition? I don't think they voted up or down if I recall. I think they they just vote to pass it
on. >> I think there was a question a clarification question with respect to what the select board >> I I think it's I yeah I don't meaning that they are not a gatekeeper just like you. They they they vote with with the positive or negative. Okay. >> Yeah. They can but yes they can
>> they but they can't they can't say no it doesn't go off. will be on it will be on the town meeting board. >> Okay. Very good. All right. This matter is um this matter is closed. We're moving on to the next item. Ma'am, unless you have a clarification question, >> I do. >> Please, you can go ahead.
>> I'll entertain a clarification question. >> Oh, could you could you speak? >> I'm sorry, ma'am. I don't mean to make you have a >> I just want to clarify Sandra Casting again. You mentioned tomorrow is a select board meeting and this would be brought in front of them as well. >> Very similar. Now, was that something
that would be public commenting or is this not not a >> I believe it's a hearing. >> It's up it's up to them and the chair of the select board, but it's a similar conversation that we just had this evening. >> It's a similar conversation in terms of as a citizens petition. It does go through select board and then it goes to
the finance committee as well. At the end of the day, as I mentioned before, it does all of the citizens petitions end up at uh town meeting for a vote. >> I see. Okay. So the petitioners would be at tomorrow's select board and so on and so forth. >> That's my understanding. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you for clarifying. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We'll move on to the next agenda item. >> All right. So they've already looked at the agenda. So uh we just have a we sorry quick thing. U Yes. Turns out it's we've just heard we'll take we'll take a look at the agenda. It does not look like it's a public hearing which means
the select board may choose to have public comment or not. >> Okay. So that's a clarification in terms of just for those of you who are here for this. The select board uh is not listed as a public hearing. So the select board may or may not entertain public comment. >> Do we want to give one minute for these
petitioners to >> you want to take like a >> two minutes literally a motion to recess? >> Why don't we take about a two-minute break just >> do they need to make a vote? >> No. two minute break so people can but we are we are still in an active meeting so Oh, yeah. No, it's not normal.
>> I definitely need to bring the computer. I have so many things I wanted to look up. >> Okay, everybody, if we can uh looking to see that if we can get back in order here. >> Okay, we're back in order. Thank you very much for the >> and again if you're uh if you're not
here for the next agenda items if you could just step outside and we just want to make sure we people can hear okay including myself. Um so our next item here this is um uh item number four. It's a public hearing of our zoning uh zoning bylaw amendment and again this is
also a citizens petition submitted by Melissa Nardone which proposes to amend table one table of allowable uses of the Danver zoning bylaw. The zoning amendment is to proposing to amend the kennel commercial boarding/training
use in table one from a prohibited use in a residential 1, R1, residential 2, R2, and residential 3, R3 zoning districts to a use allowed by special permit from the zoning board of appeals, ZBA in residential 1, R1, residential 2,
R2, and residential three zoning districts. So, this is also a continued item that we had at our last um uh that we had at our last uh at our last meeting. And I do see we have um uh Miss Nardone here. And so, we wanted to um if
just like before, if you can introduce yourself and give a you know a brief summary, a brief summary of the citizens petition and as I mentioned sort of as as the at the outset uh previously I guess I don't have to speak as loud now. Um as I me doing my projection voice.
Um, as I mentioned at the outset before, what we're looking to do is um, you know what what our role is? Yes. >> Our role is to provide feedback. Uh, please keep the door open. Okay. Is to our role is to provide feedback to town meeting. And so, uh, we'll be um, you
know, so we'll be providing a recommendation be it a um, a favorable or unfavor unfavorable or unfavorable with sort of a of a caveat of of coming back. >> Okay. So, so it and so we're not serving as a a gatekeeper in terms of we're
making, you know, ultimately we're making a recommendation to the town meeting. Ultimately, the town meeting will be the the body that's going to be voting on the citizens petition. And it's my understanding as well that the citizens petition may not be amended
until you get to even, you know, maybe unless unless and until you're a town meeting floor. >> Uh, yeah. Yeah, correct. So, it would have to be done on the floor, but I'm uh the moderator is in charge of the meeting and whether or not the the amendment is in order or not, you know, can't can't say that. But, um but yes,
>> make sure I stay out of my lane. >> Okay, sounds good. So, with all that preface, Miss Ms. Nardone, um and please again, if people have their cell phones, if they can make sure they silence their cell phones, that would be great. Uh and Miss Nardone. >> Hello, my name is Melissa Nardon. I live
at 184 Center Street in Danver. I can't see. Um, thank you for letting me speak again tonight. Following the last meeting, I took the board and community feedback and revised this proposal to address the concerns that were raised.
This is a narrower and more targeted request. I am proposing that small owner occupied inhome dog daycare operations be allowed by special permit in residential three only under the
existing classification of a commercial kennel with a cap of up to eight dogs total including any personal dogs with the understanding that the zoning board of appeals and board of health may
require a lower number based on the specific property and conditions. Sorry, my asthma is killing me. Okay, >> this approach relies entirely on the established special permit process where
conditions, limitations, and compatibility are evaluated before any approval is granted. As reflected in the zoning table, other uses are already eligible for special permit consideration in residential
districts, including personal kennels, veterinarian kennels, animal hospitals, neighborhood stores, and funeral homes. This proposal applies that same standard. And I want to emphasize inhome
doggy daycare already exists in residential neighborhoods today. I also want to address a major concern that was raised. There seems to be a belief that if this is allowed, suddenly everyone will want
to open a doggy daycare in their home. Respectfully, that is not realistic. This type of work requires experience, structure, resources, and the ability to safely manage multiple
dogs. It is not something most homeowners, excuse me, homeowners are willing or able to take on. This proposal creates a structured and enforcable way to review and regulate something that is already
occurring. Without this, there is no clear or consistent pathway for oversight. Choosing not to address something that already exists isn't protection, it's avoidance. This proposal gives the town a way to
take responsibility and do it right. This revised proposal is intentionally limited in scope and designed to work within the town's existing framework and maintaining appropriate safeguards. Thank you.
>> Okay. Take a moment. >> Sorry. >> Okay. >> Been a rough couple days. >> It's okay. Are you okay? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Um All right. Are you Have you completed your presentation? >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. All right. So, um thank
you for that. Thank you for addressing some of the the concerns that were um that were raised. And I guess the just sort of turning over just a question for to town staff with respect to uh you know Miss Nardone is now is coming
forward with a really sort of an you know an amended sort of petition and so given sort of our role in terms of the what we're what we're looking at is the is the I'm just asking for clarification in terms of the the what is before us um
in terms of the citizens petition before us. How do we you know how do we address this? >> Sure. Yeah. This is a little bit different because citizens petitions can only be modified on the floor. >> Mhm. >> So technically be because they can't modify it now. It's not like you can have a vote on like like a real vote
that goes to town meeting based upon something that doesn't exist yet. So currently you still have to have like you've said several times it's essentially an up or a down or down but but we're willing to take this on >> vote. uh in terms of any amendments that
they are potentially putting forward, you could you could potentially talk about it this evening and whether you know you could discuss it and see whether or not um you know if they do end up putting forth a motion that is accepted by the moderator and that new motion is in front of town meeting you
know they the town meeting may want to know what you think about it. Um but I don't know if it's going to change. Maybe they go to select board and fincom and maybe they'll have comments. Yeah. >> Right. Which is actually most likely they might. >> Um but I think >> that put us in a position of making in
essence like an advisory opinion of sorts. I'm trying to >> I still think we tonight we still need a a vote on the main motion. So that that's for sure. We need a we need a vote on the main motion. Outside of outside of that, you you have the
ability to discuss this potential amended motion, but there's really like there's no voting going on because there they haven't changed the motion yet. There's nothing there's nothing to vote on. >> Mhm. >> If that makes a little bit of sense. >> Okay. Got it. Okay. I think so. Okay.
Well, let me go and um uh let's go and turn things over to uh the board with any uh with any questions that they might have. have and I know that um why don't I start with uh uh with Michael Dulis. >> So just to confirm Brian we're just
talking about what happened at last meetings not what she just proposed. >> Well I would say you you have to you have to have a vote on the main motion which is R123 changing from not allowed to special permit. So that that's what's
in front of town that's what's going to be in front of town meeting. Yeah. >> They need that recommendation for you. In addition, um she has said that we heard we were here in the last meeting and we heard some things. We're willing to do this amendment on the floor. Do you have any opinion? So that it's not
really like a vote. She's she's asking for do you have any thoughts on this potential amended motion? >> I guess I'm still digesting I guess the potential amended motion, but I do appreciate that you did that. So thank you. Um >> can I just just more of a clarification? Could I just just ask you again just to
restate? So it's so I I took some notes here. So it's small owner occupied um dog uh >> inh home doggy daycare which would also be considered a commercial kennel. >> Okay
to eight >> um eight dogs including the your including a personal dog >> or four four personal dogs. Correct. >> Exactly. >> Yes. So that would be four if you four if someone had four personal dogs and
had the inhome doggy daycare and they were allowed to have the eight dogs then they would only really be allowed to have four dogs for business. >> Okay. >> And then they have four personal dogs. >> Okay. >> Or less. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you.
>> I think I'm okay for now, but I might come back. Thanks. >> Got it. Gan Hartnet, any um questions or >> No, I don't have any questions. I I just think that we might be a little bit limited on our options. So, I would like
to hear a little bit more discussion and maybe input from staff on what we can actually do as far as voting. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think so. This is this is proposed. So the amended citizens petition would be proposing
kind of a hybrid use between p kennel personal which allows four plus with special permit but you cannot take any money. >> Mhm. >> Correct. >> But also put a limited so kind of create a hybrid between the commercial which does not have a cap.
>> Commercial does not have a cap. It's and not allowed. So, we're kind of we're kind of splitting we're splitting the baby a little bit and we're saying you can have up to eight for a commercial purpose essentially under a like it's a it's almost like a p hybrid personal >> as your own pets >> and your own pets. So, it's so it's kind
of a amalgamation of those two things. >> Yes. If you had your own pets and you wanted to have the business as well. Yes. >> But it has it's kind of a supplementary a supplementary a commercial use on top of a personal use that you're allowing in an inhome in an R3. >> Yes. Because they call it commercial. Yeah.
>> And it would be owner occupied. So it would then be where because I I know at the last meeting there's concerns about a large commercial, you know, could be a you know, Doctopia or whatever the commercial >> people thought they were I was asking for businesses to be built in
residential zones, right? Which I was not asking. >> Well, I don't think I don't I don't think the question was in terms of being asked. I think the the questions that came up were it was it was often times because it's the you know like with any because the citizens petition would do you know would change things in terms of
what's in terms of allowed uses pe you know um people you know always you know they want to look to I think you know what is what could happen so what could happen sort of the you know what could happen given what's on the table with respect to the citizens petition I think
that was raised as a as a concern in that regard >> Lou as it stands currently a company could come in and opened a daycare in a residential property based on the original citizens petition. Is that correct? >> No. >> Yes. Based on the original citizens
petition, it was there was no cap on the number. So what we're basically voting on, not vote, not not voting on, but favorable recommendation or unfavorable is based on the fact that someone could come in who does not own the property and they could open a kennel on >> which is the which is the main motion
which is a a commercial breeder or sorry a a a commercial uh kennel uh which include which includes boarding and pet daycare in all of the R1 2 and three zones. that is what is before the board this evening that they need to make a a
a vote on and then again we could have a discussion on >> on top of that but that that's the main motion. >> Okay Dave you're still further questions or >> uh I'm good for now Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Okay very good.
Uh John Sager any questions you have for the >> No, sir. >> For the petitioner. Okay. Very good. Yeah. in terms of my um in terms of my questions, you know, in in terms of I think the um
I don't think I have any, you know, again, some of the concerns I think that were raised involved the, you know, that I know I was concerned with was was with respect to the um a non-owner occupied facility as well as a concern about
smaller, you know, looking outside of R3 three, R2, R1. Although there's still and we'll get into this when it comes to more deliberation. I still have some concerns with respect to the you know even within R3 itself too just because
of you know um it is you know this is a change this is a change in what's and I understand what you've said in terms of that it's taking place but this is still providing the legal sort of you know stamp of approval on it. I understand subject to special permit procedures but
um but yes so but I'm interested in hearing to see members of the public um uh what they have to say as well since this is a public hearing. I do want to just make a note for the record. We did receive um we did receive several uh uh
email correspondents uh which has been which which has been reviewed and is part of the record. So, we reviewed an email dated March the 27th from Ann Callahan. Um, and in staff, should I sort of give the
>> I don't think you need to give a summary, but if you wanted to maybe list >> Sure, let me the public >> Sure. Let me list the public comments that we have received and they are in the record. Um, we received a note from an email from Anne Callahan dated March the 27th. Uh we also received a an email
from Kathleen and Wayne Jalbert um uh dated March the 20th. Uh we also did receive a um uh a me an email. It looks like an email, but it's it's on dated March 24th from Laura St. Sver uh 168R
Center Street in Danvers. And we did um receive an email from uh Nancy Cuchio on March the 24th. And we did receive an email from u from uh from Natalie Fiori uh that was um uh
that I received and has been part of our packet. Uh that was received on March the 25th. Okay. So, just wanted to get that out there. So, that we did receive some um uh some public public comments which we which is in our packet and we've reviewed. So, I do um uh I do uh
this is a public hearing so any members of the public want to go and ask questions or provide comments. Yeah. >> And again, direct any questions um you know to the chair and um and again identify yourself and and what your address is. >> I'm just going to give my story. Um,
Maria Cunningham, Five Crest Line Circle. Sure. Um, Melissa provides dog daycare for my dog. She res provides a very responsible business, a safe business. Um, and I think that people should be allowed to have businesses and to encourage small business in our town
to support people who are willing to have small businesses. There are plenty of small businesses that are already allowed in this town. How is this any different? So, it's being monitored. You're asking for a permit. It's the place was inspected. The Department of Health goes out. You're checking for fences. You're checking for safety.
You're checking for dog shots. Whatever. But, you know, I want my dog to be safe. So, I want my dog in a good environment. I personally, my dog isn't going to go to one of those jumbo doggy daycarees. It's not right for my dog. And second, a
30 minute dog walk in the middle of the day is also not right for my dog. This is the perfect business um model for my needs as a citizen of Danvers and as someone who supports small business. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any further? Yes, Miss
Reaguchi. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I just wanted to point out >> I just said your name. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. >> I greeted you, but if you could say your name and placing for the record, please. Uh, Joanne Muchi, town meeting member, precinct 2. Sorry about that. >> Oh, no worries. >> Um,
got my glasses. Um, I wanted to point out that I think this is an a great opportunity for Danvers to get ahead of these businesses that are already existing in our community and surrounding communities to be able to
inspect, to regulate. um especially with the um um to adhere these businesses to uh the state standards under Ali's law. Um one community that is already doing this in
Massachusetts is the town of NAT. NATIC is doing this. So this isn't something that is doesn't exist. And I think you're going to see it more and more in the future um that people want to choose
smaller, quieter, more trustworthy, personalized dog care. Um so I'm just going to read off a little bit if you'll um bear with me. >> Before you do that, can I just ask briefly just in terms of NATIC? What was the um how did NATIC u do it? Was it
through a citizens petition? Do you know? >> You know, I don't know that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't research that. I was just curious. >> Yeah, I can get that. I should have that answer, but I I don't. >> Sure. >> Um, but I'll just kind of go through what their licensing and regulations
are. >> Okay. >> If that's okay. Just a quick little highlight. They do have >> um as here in Danvers, you'll have to have a kennel license requirement. Um, so it's any household
offering dog sitting, boarding, or daycare services for compensation must obtain a commercial kennel license. Um, under Ali's law, um, which was signed in 2024,
um, this law mandates stricter stricter safety standards and gives the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture authority to set regulations for boarding and training kennels, including dog daycarees. So, this is a protection for our beautiful little furry friends.
Um, inspections. Before a license is issued or renewed, uh, the local animal control officer must inspect the home to ensure sanitary and humane conditions. Right now, the town doesn't know that. If we have, I think Melissa mentioned at
the last meeting, 15 to 20 of these businesses may be happening in Danvers. >> You know, are they up to all these law standards? Are they sanitary? We don't know. So, I'm sure they are because As a dog owner myself,
I I would, you know, you want your dog to be at the best possible place for them. Um and on and on and and the kennels are licensed annually. So, this is a little fee um income. This will be a revenue
income for the town as well. Small, but it is a it's a new stream of revenue for the town. um and failure to do so will be fines in addition to the license being revoked. Um they also
have zoning and operation restrictions. So this might quell um some concerns. There's capacity uh limits for per thousand square feet. Uh it's a capacity of a total of six dogs.
Um, outdoor exercise is restricted to a maximum of two hours per day per facility, permitted between 9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m. only. Um, noise and odor operations must not create, you know,
um, detectable noise, vibrations, fumes, odors, or dust that would disturb the residential neighborhood. So, and I think the town the town of Danvers would be taking on similar things that would protect the sanctity of our
neighborhoods. Um, and um, they do allow signage, but it would only be one small little illuminated sign to advertise it. So, that's sort of a highlight of what their regulations are. And I think our amendment that is going
to be um brought to the floor kind of reflect what the town of NIC is already doing. And I think you're going to see towns um in the surrounding area starting to do this as well. And I think it's great that Danvers can get ahead of
this and recognize that this is a um a a a great little business model for uh residents and um I hope we can consider it at town meeting as a positive and approve it. Thank you very much. Okay.
>> Thank you. Any other um members of the public? I saw you first. Yeah. And then I saw Miss Steves there. So right after Hi. Uh, my name again is Lisa Butner and I live in Precinct 8. Um, and as a dog
owner myself, I've had a dog for 18 years. Um, but I'm also uh somebody who was attacked by a dog on a walk um just six months ago and uh required a trip to the hospital and stitches and um guess
it was more traumatic than I thought. >> Sorry. Um, I'm not in favor of this in a residential neighborhood. The dog that attacked me was in a fenced in yard, got out of the fenced in yard, ran down the road, and attacked me. Um, at at the
same time, that that's a concern for me. But the bigger concern for me in in a residential neighborhood is sound, is the is the noise. And um, you said in in their case in NATO that they only allowed them to be out for two hours. Um, we also have a situation in our
neighborhood in Damvers where there is a house that has one single dog that is a menace and the town apparently cannot do anything about it even though they've had all the neighbors have called because of the noise of this one dog. So, um, allowing now up to eight dogs in
a residential neighborhood in my mind is completely um, overdoing it. And so, uh, I would encourage you to reconsider allowing this in a residential neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Miss Steves. Thank you. >> Um, Lauren Steves, Hood Terrace. Um, I think this is another one that a lot of thought has to be put into it. The way the current petition is written, there are quite literally zero regulations governing it. While I understand it
requires a special permit and they have to go in front of the ZABA to get such a permit, the ZBA doesn't even have guidelines to follow of, you know, in order to have a kennel, you need to have at least ABCDEF and then explain what you're looking for. And if you've met
those and and whatever your your ask is of them, they think is within the realm of issuing a special permit, then fine. But they don't even have a basis to go off of. And to touch on that, Ali's law, which for anybody unfamiliar with it, was adopted after a dog was mauled to
death at a kennel. It was adopted in December of 2024. However, the regulations, which fall under the Mass Department of Agriculture, have not been adopted. They are not expected to be submitted until June of 2026. So, if we're going to have
a mass state law governing kennels, uh potential staff to dog ratios, a whole host of other things, I think it would be wise as a town to wait until we have mass state regulations that are governing kennels and then we can pair
our regulations further if we if we think there needs to be uh more regulations past the the regulations that department of a is going to enforce. Additionally, we're talking about the board of health and the acco. We don't even have a
full-time acco. So, I I'm not sure how we're expecting um these tenor these 10 or 12 kennels that are already existing. And the argument, well, 10 or 12 people are already doing it. It still doesn't make it legal. It's 10 or 12 people operating illegal businesses, no matter how you
slice it. Um so, and I know people don't want to hear that, but that that's just a fact. Um, I I just think that we need to adopt a lot of laws governing this before we just say, "Okay,
everybody can go in front of the ZBA and and apply for a special permit." And then the ZBA is making an exception for one kennel and another kennel is asking for another ask and and it's not uniformed and they're giving out special permits that that allows seven things for one person allows 10 things for
another person and then this person says well this person got that. Why am I why aren't you giving me that? It's we need a lot more regulations governing this than what the petition has and I don't think that you're going to be able to pair it down with an amendment on town meeting floor in order to to do that in my opinion.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Miss Samadai, Nova Sam, I saw your hand, Miss Reaguchi. So, yeah. >> Uh, Nova Sam, town meeting member, precinct one. I just wanted to sort of reiterate right now that um, everyone in
every residential area, every citizen, resident can have up to four dogs with no permit. Like so every one of your neighbors can have four dogs and that is by right. So saying that this is going
to add a whole bunch of dogs to neighborhoods, it it's already allowed by people that already live there. So I don't think you're going to have a a bunch of people opening up um doggy daycare businesses that's going to make
it even more out of control than what the residents can already do. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, M. Reguchi, that's how you said. Yeah. >> Thank you. Uh Joan Vaguchi, town meeting member, precinct 2. I just wanted to um
kind of comment on something Miss Steves mentioned is that there would be a you know, restrictions on this. There would be a limited number of dogs as Melissa said. Um she's proposing eight.
um that includes whatever um dogs are owned by the household. So there's that restriction. Um there's also um you know with this there's noise laws there's we can put in
I I think I hear the other residents concerns about adding a lot of dogs to the neighborhood. Um, I I I can agree with that. But I think the benefit of an inhome dog daycare is
that it has to be a quiet environment for a lot of these animals. Um, they don't like being in noisy large commercial kennels. Some of them have health con health concerns, illnesses where they need a
quiet environment. um they're elderly. Um Melissa I know personally has taken care of a lot of dogs in that situation where they're just in her house all day on the couch and she has to give them whatever medication they need and sort
of that's the service that people are looking for. So they're not going to be walking on the street with eight dogs on, you know, a couple of uh harnesses and and things like that. It's going to be very well managed. Um, you know, we
talked about the animal control officer. Again, it's not going to be 15 to 20 kennels. It's going to be up to the ZBA to approve this based on um a site inspection on if the property is fenced or whatever. We have gone over
this um at meetings. So, I just kind of wanted to reiterate that that there is some standards that are going to come down the line with this Um, so thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes, Miss McKenzie. Yep. Saw you.
>> Hi, Lois McKenzie. Precinct 3. I'm also a town meeting member. Um, first thing just to remind people what you're looking at. You are looking at the original amendment, not what she's proposed tonight to put before town meeting.
just comments from other people that have heard about this, other town meeting members. They are concerned. They bought in a residential neighborhood. They bought in a quiet, good-sized
lot and they enjoy their peace and quiet when they want it. These people I've talked to, my daughter included, has a dog, but that quiet comes when they want. They don't let their dogs out and bark
and whatever. If they want their house to be quiet, that's what they expect, not to have a neighbor that has a yard full of dogs that they're taking care of. Um, I just think at times we need to think
about the human a little bit more than what's the convenience of the dogs. I know everybody loves their dog and I get it, but they are dogs. And you
putting a kennel in some neighborhood where people have R3, they're 30,000 square foot lots, R2, they're 20,000. That doesn't mean you can't hear anything. You know, where I live, I still hear 128 from my bedroom.
>> Sure. >> In the summer, yes, it's a little quieter because we have greenery, >> but I still hear it. >> I hear it some days myself, >> right, >> on Park Street. >> So, you're going to hear the dogs >> and I know everybody's saying we're
going to put regulations on it. And there are regulations right now. in speaking saying that we have 15 or 20 in town that already do it. Well, how come they're not being enforced? How come
they have not been enforced by the town? >> That's all. >> I think I saw Miss Fury had a >> Natalie Fiori precinct 2. So, um, you have my letter and, you know, I stand by everything I said a couple of weeks ago. While I understand that the petitioner,
um, has a certain clientele of dogs, a lot of people are not. They're going to have the big barking dogs. They're going to have, um, the disruption. and without having a full-time
compliance officer in this town having these daycarees. And actually, it's not daycare because it's going to be some overnight, so you can't even call it daycare. Um, without having a full-time compliance officer, we are going to be taxing our
police department, who I'm sure have not signed off on this. Um, there'll be noise complaints. you're going to need someone to go out and do these inspections. Our health department probably is not really, you know, signing on for that either. Um,
a full-time animal control officer at this point is is would be a must. As far as Ali's law, it would behoove the town to wait until it is done and then see what their recommendations are going to
be because most cities and towns are going to probably change their bylaws wrapped around Ali's the recommendations attached to Ali's law. Um, again, my volunteer at the shelter, I work with
two full-time animal control officers in Ipsswitch who do regional. So, I have a little bit more insight as to the compliance and the legal aspect of this, which would have to be a must. And again, not for nothing, maybe not
everybody's going to pop up and do this, but sometimes it can be an income that is not always reported. So I do think that there would be a lot more people if you could end up doing it. So I'm just worried about the legality, the aspect, the compliance. Wait until all these law
is done, see what the recommendations are and then let Danvers perhaps adopt the into the bylaws and then decide around that. But it's way too open at this point and it's way too serious
um without putting a lot of thought into the compliance part. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other members of the public? Any questions or or comments? Mr. Bates, >> I called him Mr. Bates this time, not
Mr. Bradstreet. >> Just starts with a B, you know, >> for dinner. Bill Bates, town meeting member, precinct 4. Um I, you know, I want to thank the petitioner for doing this. Um there's no question in my mind
that we have these um daycare doggy kennels being run in town. Um and I would recommend that, you know, I would ask that town staff uh help us out here. um and for the planning board to ask we
need your help to talk with the select board um the town manager even and let's find out if this is a problem if we if we've got the let's not put blinders on it's it's happening um so let's address it this is not the I could not vote for
this at town meeting um and I don't even think you could amend it to get to to my vote anyway um but let's this is this is something that we have to deal with. And it's also a good thing. I mean, small business for somebody to be able to do something like this in their home is not
necessarily a bad idea, but as other speakers have said, it needs a lot of controls. Um, but let's not bury our head in the sand. Let's let's get some help. Let's let's have somebody from the board of health and from the uh the land use department tell us what they think
is going on in our town and then we can make an more informed decision. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or comments by members of the public? Okay. Okay. Why don't we come back then to the
board? And again, sort of our um uh you know, our our charge here is to is to make a recommendation either a um one that is favorable, unfavorable, or it can be an unfavorable with a you know, sort of a a comeback uh refer back to
the planning board. So any further questions at all? >> I guess just a question if we refer back to the planning board that would be after town meeting just to continue the conversation >> essentially from that from this from the May town meeting to some other you know
most likely it'll be February of 27. >> Um yeah that that vote would be that you'd be working with staff to bring this bylaw >> continue the conversation. >> Yep. continue the conversation and and try to get something, you know, in front of town meeting.
>> But ultimately the this mo this this citizens petition is going to be on the on the floor as it currently written at town meeting. >> Correct. >> And if there it can be based on what you know I mean finance committee ultimately makes a recommendation >> and so then ultimately that can be there
can be you know again don't want to get out of my lane in terms of the moderator. It can be >> right. It's unclear what could happen on the floor, but I I think that we can we can say that it's it's unclear what will happen on the floor, but right now the charge is is the main motion from the board. >> Any further questions, Mike?
>> No. Thank you, >> Jean. Any questions at all? >> Yeah, I have a couple questions. Thanks. Um, so if we if it is returned to the board, it we the original citizens petition still cannot be changed. Is
that correct? So, it's unclear what what could happen on the floor. All I know is that the only way to change a petition is on the floor. So, so it would have that that's you know that's the only way to to do that petition. >> So, it it will go in front of the town
meeting. It could be changed on the floor and then it could return to the planning board. >> Well, it could it could get changed on the floor and then voted in and you know an amended motion on the floor. So, sometimes that happens. >> Mhm. Um but um yeah that that's the
answer to that question but >> I think it could be a number of it could be a number of things. A motion an amendment on the floor could be the amendment that you know that Ms. Nardonus has has proposed an amendment on the floor could be like the the um
the lighting bylaw that was on uh that was on that was amended on town meeting floor to be referred back to the planning board. >> Okay. So I think that could be that could be a a a result as well. >> Okay. Thanks. Um and then I have one
other question not related but also maybe would be useful as background like how do I inhome daycarees for children get permitted? >> So that's back to our actually previous conversation about what the do amendment
is. So the do the do amendment is basically allows certain uses anywhere on any parcel in the entire commonwealth. One of those is daycare, child daycare. So it's child day daycare, education, religious. So um
they they don't have to get permitted. They are exempt uses and are allowed anywhere. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions? >> No further questions. >> Okay, Dave, any further questions? >> Uh no further questions. Um, but I will share kind of my thoughts on it. I think it's a I think it's
>> extremely well-intentioned um as a as a as an item, but I think it's a little bit underdeveloped. Uh, so and I'm not sure that I think that >> based upon the conversation that we've heard thus far this evening, this is not something that lives squarely in the bucket of the planning board. I think
it's something that exists kind of in in the whole of town government and that this may require an additional general bylaw change to create some of these these requirements and restrictions that may exist outside of a land use perspective. Um, that's why I probably defer towards a towards that we do not
recommend this >> uh and kind of keep it away from us without having it being referred back to us so that we don't own the whole of the problem or we don't own the whole of the issue and and it's it's behooves us to find a solution to it. I think it's a larger issue than just a planning board
issue. So I probably go with with a without making a favorable recommendation at this time. >> Okay. And um uh John, any questions at all? >> No sir. >> Okay, very good. Uh so we're getting so I know you you sort of gave your thoughts on things and just turning over
into the deliberation side. And um Mike, did you have any what are your thoughts in terms of >> So I feel like we've beat this a little bit, but I apologize. But to Jean's question, if it gets changed on the floor and we and we've unfavorable but recommended to
come back basically, would we be reviewing exactly what this was or what the what the new on the floor change was? >> I apologize if you already answered this. it referred back to the planning board then it's essential that that's essentially town meeting saying we think
this has some merit planning board you should go work on this >> so whether it's that specific mo you know it's not that specific bylaw it's more of like we don't like it as written planning board go work on it >> and when you say work on you saying this team would physically work on it or would the petitioner be adjusting it to
work and we'd be willing to work with them to try to make it work or are we doing the research ourselves to like find the answers for them >> I think that's that that's somewhat of the board's discretion. >> Do you want to take this on? >> And I guess a question just in terms of a clarifying question picking up from
what David had mentioned about the sort of that this may involve multiple other you know parties as well in terms of not just you know because there might be implications beyond what we what you know we do in terms of you know um allowing >> for the certainly for the border of
health and the acco. So how would we then is that something that we would as part of if we if let's say it was referred back to us as part of the process would we then engage with those >> those? So we haven't gotten involved in this process because it's a citizens
petition but if we are essentially charged with that then staff will be activated and we'll get all the information you need to get whatever you want. >> Okay. So get whatever you want. So if that's >> meaning any type of information, data or or you know essentially what we would do
is we would write a bylaw for you. >> Yeah. Got it. >> Okay. >> So let's um any further um questions we can get into, you know, what your thought sort of thoughts are on it. >> Um >> I just think I need a lot more I'm not
opposed to the idea of this. I think I just need a lot more information and understanding and regulations and and like there needs to be more for me to to kind of move forward and currently where this stands. >> Okay, got Jean, what are your thoughts in terms of where >> uh my thoughts are? I think there's
definitely a need for this. So, thank you for the citizens petition. Um I am all for small business and supporting the residents of Danvers. Um, I just think that it's too unrestricted as written and I would love for the
planning board to take this on and create a bylaw around it. Um, and you know do a deep dive and figure out what restrictions are the best so that this can happen and um I just think right now
that like there are too many unknowns. >> Okay. Yeah. in coming to in terms of my um my take on I'm in agreement with with Jean in terms of I think that there's you know a lot of you know and again I'm looking at voting you know in terms of
our recommendation is on what's currently on you know on the table the original citizens petition as written and the original citizens petition I'm concerned about the um you know about the you know about the breadth of it but even with the
even with the sort of amended language. I have some concerns in terms of because it does seem to touch upon a lot of different things. It seems like there is some, you know, as I know as some of the, you know, people who have spoken and what I've seen in correspondence, I think there are a lot of other, you
know, this touches upon a lot of different things. This touches upon a lot of other areas and so making sort of and be and given a fact that this does you know this does potentially affect you know individuals who are you know living in residential neighborhoods. I
want to be, you know, respectful of that and making sure that if that means we do, you know, we have to do a little more of a deep dive and and review it and look at what other communities are doing and and getting feedback from, you know, from other, you know, stakeholders
as well as other bodies within the town. I think we probably want to do that. So, I would be in favor of a um of an unfavorable uh recommendation with a referral back to the planning board. So that would be my um that's sort of
where I'm I'm I'm standing. So I'm not sure if others are, you know, feel uh similarly. >> So I mean that seems similar to in terms of what Jean was saying. Mike, are you what is >> from what I'm understanding, from what
Brian is explaining, I'm in favor of that. I'm just still a little confused on exactly what we need to be doing versus what the petitioner needs to be doing. But I think all in all I agree with where you and Gene are standing. >> Okay. Is there anything that PL that town staff can add? Is there, you know,
in terms of how that sort of goes through? Well, I mean, I guess the only thing I can say is that, you know, if you if if you want to if you if you think that the something that is a like a a version of
this bylaw, if there's a version of this bylaw that you are that you think has merit, meaning not this exact one, but something like it, um, and that you feel that you would want to take it on, then you would say no, but refer back to the planning board. If you say that there's no version of this bylaw, I don't want
any doggy daycare in any residential zones whatsoever, then you should be open about that and say, I I don't want to do like I don't think this is something that the planning board should take on. >> Um that would give information to town
meeting that they would want for their vote. >> Yeah. >> So, okay. Does that help? >> Yeah. >> Okay. You have anything further? I mean, based upon Brian's Brian's explanation of that, I I support kind of the board with the unfavorable recommendation with
the referral back to the planning board. >> Um, in kind of contrast to what I said earlier >> um with kind of the caveat that yes, this is a larger problem than the planning board can tackle on its own. Yeah. >> And that it's has to be worked worked I want to engage with other with other entities on that. >> Yeah. And I think that's sort of what's
going I mean that's sort of part of I think even my view of of of why I think it needs to come back to us because I think I think we would want to look at it sort of systemically and I'm not and and I'm I'm I'm not of a view of like absolutely no there's no I don't see
this ever happening because I you know because I think that we want to you know I think we want to look at it closely. So okay. All right. Right. So then um uh if there's nothing further on this, I don't see any other uh members of the public. I'd like to make a uh entertain
a motion to close the public hearing on the zoning um bylaw amendment. >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. There's a motion that's been uh been made by Dave Rodriguez. Is there a second on that? >> Second. >> Okay. Second uh by Jean Hartnett. Okay.
Uh any discussion on the motion to close the public hearing hearing? None. All in favor of the motion, please say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? None. Okay, so we're 4 Z. Okay, so let's move back to the main um
uh to the main uh zoning bylaw amendment. So, do we um do we have a would someone like to make a motion? I make a motion that we provide an unfavorable
recommendation with uh return to planning board for the zoning bylaw amendment in front of town meeting. >> Okay, very good with the um the return is that very good. Is that sufficiently okay?
>> Is there a second to that motion? Hygiene >> second. >> Okay, second by Michael Dulis. Okay, motion's been made and seconded uh for an unfavorable recommendation with a referral back to the planning board. Um all in favor any further discussion
hearing? None. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? None. Okay. 4. So it is going to be so um so that is our so we make an unfavorable we've made an unfavorable recommendation though with the with the sort of the caveat of a of
a referral back to the planning board. So that will be our recommendation to town meeting. Okay, that is our recommendation to town meeting. So thank you for coming and thank you for everybody who did speak on this. So okay and so the next it uh so the next this
this is next going to be heard at at tomorrow at the select board and we're not sure again if the >> apparently it is not a hearing. So they may choose to take public comment or they may not. >> Okay, very good. So that's going to be tomorrow um here at 6:30. Is that right?
5:30 tomorrow. They moved it up an hour, I think. >> Oh, 5:30, >> I believe. So, for I >> check 6:30 on the agenda. >> Yeah. >> Please double check the If you're watching from home, please check the town's website. >> Okay,
>> there we go. Are we good? Do you want to take a break or you >> want two minute break just to clear out Let the room reset. >> Why don't we uh Why don't we return? It's 9:40. Let's return at 9:45. Okay. So, let's
All right. Slipping. >> You're losing it. >> All right. >> Okay. We had our break. >> No, we're good. >> All right. We are back. Uh, so we are back. We're back for agenda item five, which is a public hearing for 156 and
158 Maple Street. I'm just going to re read it read it out here. It's a request for special permits, waiverss, and site plan review submitted by Peter M. Zagorski, trustee, PMZ Realy Trust for properties at 156 Maple Street, map 43,
lot 543 and 158 Maple Street, map 43, lot 544. Request for special permits pursuant to section 18.5. D4 parking requirements table excess parking section 18.13 design special permit
build to zone facade buildout town houses parking setback townhouses street facing entrances 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 18.5 D9 9 D Roman 2 small Roman 2 circulation individual parking spaces section 18.5D10B parking screening section 18.5D10
C multiple curb cuts 18.6 F3 transitional buffer zone building buffer section 18.11D transportation mitigation fee and section 18.8B 8B table 189 outdoor amenity space types one neighborhood
park preserve requests of site plane review pursuant to section 4 site plane review of the zoning bylaw said properties are in the Maple Street traditional neighborhood development overlay district MSTND Maple Street Limited Mixeduse Subdist
underlying zoning for 156 Maple Street map 43 lot 543 is industrial 1 I1 the 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 single family home and associated site modifications. All right, the applicant is here. If you can uh identify yourself, and you may
begin. >> Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, the PMZ Reality Trust, the owner of the properties located at 156 and 158 Maple Street. Peter Zagorski is
the trustee of uh the uh the properties. With me tonight uh is our technical team, Bob uh Griffin with Griffin Engineering. He is the project engineer for this property. Also with me tonight is John Williams, the project architect
with DMZ Design LLC. Uh the again the project architect Matt Olrich is our landscape uh architect. He uh could not be here this evening but his presentation will be made uh for you tonight by Bob Griffin. Um we are uh
here tonight to discuss a redevelopment of the properties located at 156 and 158 Maple Street which is a combined uh property with a total development area of 1.77 acres with frontage on Maple Street as
well as frontage on Maple A. the existing conditions of the site 156 Maple Street uh is the applicant's tech air uh industrial commercial building uh with that business to remain on the lower level of the mixeduse building and
158 Maple Street which is a single family home which will remain that uh was built circa 1865 and again we're proposing to keep that single family home and no um renovations really are proposed to it but that will be part of
this uh entire development. Um what I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is do an overview of the project, then have Bob Griffin, our project architect, take you through the plans, sorry, our project engineer, and then have uh John Williams, our project architect, take
you through the architectural plans. Then I'll go through the zoning relief as as you've mentioned in the legal ad with a bit more detail. Um this is the initial meeting on on this matter and what I anticipate will happen at the end
is that this project will be going out for technical peer review and we would continue to a later meeting uh in May uh to allow that to happen. So this is the initial uh initial meeting to get uh get the project rolling along. Got it. So
this proper these properties both um development area are located in the overlay district the 40R overlay district voted by town meeting the Maple Street traditional neighborhood district
and that is um is an overlay under the Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40R which the purpose of which is to provide high quality housing with a higher density. to provide a variety of uh housing for
different ages and household types, income ranges uh and and to allow for a mixed use within that development. So 40R is intended to bring a higher density, allow some mixed use um to to
the development area. And it's important to point out that this is an overlay district. The uh larger portion of this property uh at 156 Maple Street is located in the Industrial One zoning district. It is still in the Industrial
One zoning district and uses permitted in the Industrial District are still permitted. This is not um a a zone change that was done that's similar to what was done on Maple Street and High Street. That was a total change uh in in
districts. What this is is an overlay. So we have the industrial district still permitted here, but then town meeting with a lot of planning through the planning department um adopted an overlay to allow residential use of a
higher density in an area that was otherwise and continues to be zoned industrial. So we have the industrial use that can continue. Uh but the overlay allows residential use to be made on the property. Um the town is
incentivized to do that. Um and again higher density mixed use um is uh is incentivized as well as affordability. Uh a 40yard development such as this requires 20% of the units to be
affordable. a general project overview through the the design team efforts and uh meetings over the last really two years uh with uh planning staff and the design team. Uh we're very pleased to present this project to you tonight as a a
wellthoughtout well-designed mixeduse project. Um the project is made up of three basic components. The first uh component is a mixeduse development where we have the existing um industrial uh trade shop
commercial use will be located on the ground floor of the existing techair building within that same footprint. Um and then three upper floors will be constructed on that building for a total of 18 residential units. And you see
that in the foreground of the uh of the existing slide up there. Of the 18 units, there will be six units per floor, four two-bedroom units and two one-bedroom units. The second uh component of this project
are new town houses proposed further down Maple A. Um there will be 12 of those townhouse units. Uh there are three buildings with four units each uh in those town houses for a total of 12
townhouse units. Those have three bedrooms each. The third component is retaining the existing historic home that's located at 158 um Maple Street.
The project provides therefore a total of 30 new residential units plus one retained um single family dwelling. It provides a mixture of unit types with the condo style uh within the uh
the mixeduse building town houses and the single family. There's a mixed use uh a mixture of bedrooms. One, two, three, and four bedroomedroom units are part of this uh are part of this project.
And obviously when we go through the plans, you'll get a lot more detail on that, but I just want to give you an overview. Um density, the density calculation is provided in in a good deal of uh a detail within the application. The density proposed for
this project is by right density. It is not density by special permit. The density that's proposed is by right. We do not need a special permit for that density. Um, to put it in perspective, this
zoning district, the 40R district, permits 28 units by right, 28 units per acre, I should say by right, and 36 units per acre by special permit. That's what the bylaw permits.
By that density, doing the calculation, this development site could support 50 units by right or 64 units by special permit. This project proposes just 30 units. So
we we are significantly below even the byite density for a mixeduse development. So that's important to keep in mind because density is always um a concern and this development has been designed to be of a byite density and in
fact lower than a byite density. You have uh been submitted a a complete um submission package and that consists of the application form for uh for the various design special permits and the
special permits that we're seeking are design special permits. Um the application form for the uh plan approval, the filing fee of course, um project narrative, the exhibit A which is the um the zoning relief outline.
You've received a storm water and technical report. You've received the project plans consisting of the civil uh engineering plans uh which includes a phasing sheet. Um the architectural plan set with building elevations, floor
plans, and some really um attractive renderings to uh give you a good idea what the finished um project will look like as well as a very detailed uh landscaping plan. The dimensional and design compliance chart has been
provided under sheet C3 of the civil plan set. A couple other points before I turn it over to Bob. Uh this zoning district requires uh open amenity space of 15%
and we are providing 15% open amenity space in the form of a neighborhood park/preserve category under the bylaws. uh such a neighborhood parkpreserve has to have uh a minimum of 8,000 square
feet. We have over 11,000 square feet in our open amenity space. We also have uh unit decks and balconies and patios and those all are included in open amenity space as well. Uh under the bylaw,
the parking that's been provided is compliant uh with the parking requirements under the bylaw. We're proposing um 60 parking spaces. 50 parking spaces are required and we'll show those to you as we go through the
plan. And again uh affordable housing requirement is 20%. That means six units out of this development will be affordable and they will be um as they are required to be proportionately uh laid out. So, there will be two
townhouse units, two two-bedroom units, two one-bedroom units will make up the affordable um housing section of this development. So, as um as the density um calculations that I've gone through um
demonstrate, um this project doesn't push the envelope on uh on development. rather it's uh a project that does provide a variety of housing options. It provides an improved streetscape as you'll certainly see on the plans and
six new affordable housing units. Um it's a thoughtful um thoughtful design with the purpose and intent of the 40R district um and the character-based zoning districts under the bylaw uh taken into consideration so that we meet
those purposes those intents as well as uh the design requirements uh to the greatest extent possible for this project. Um, and it's a we have a very competent development design team as you'll see. And again, we've worked with
uh with planning staff in putting together this this application. So, at this point, uh, I'd like to turn it over to Bob uh Griffin to walk you through um what I think are pretty exciting plans. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sounds good. Thank you.
>> Good evening. >> Thank you, Nancy. And good evening. Uh let's uh Josh, if you could go to the next, >> you could just identify yourself again for the record. >> So it's Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering in Beverly, Mass. >> Great. Thank you. >> Um the next slide, please. >> Um so I'm going to try my pointer.
Sometimes it works on these screens and sometimes it doesn't. It's a little too dim. So um >> No, I thought it worked, >> Bob. I thought it was pretty helpful, actually. >> Oh, okay. All right. So um the uh the square is our site. It's about 1.75 acres, as Nancy mentioned. And it's got
uh about 195 ft of frontage on Maple Street. So geez, I don't know. I'm having trouble there. Well, I'm sorry. I can't keep track of it. So, but uh so the the the narrow
part of the rectangle abuts to Maple Street and then the long side of the rectangle butts to Maple Avenue, which is the culde-sac just below the the uh the 1.75 acre parcel. And you can sort of see uh that looks like Popular Street
coming into Maple. Uh the Maple Street redevelopment is a couple blocks to the southeast of our site. And uh so anyways, that's our site. Let's go to the next slide, please. So this is an aerial. Um you can see the
industrial building has the 156 on it. The single family house uh to to the side of it is number 158 uh Maple Street. Actually, let's just say Maple Street on the top and Maple A on the culde-sac below the uh below the parcel. And you can see that the uh back half of
the parcel is pretty green. It's pretty open there. Um there's about a 10-ft grade change from Maple Street down to the back of the building where the grass begins and then the grassy area is fairly level. Uh about, you know, two two or three feet grade change across
the grassy area. Uh, Tech Air currently occupies the upper level of the industrial building. Uh, there's a landscaper and a mechanical contractor on the bottom floor. As Nancy mentioned, uh, Mr. Zagorski will move his Techare
operation, which primarily involves sheet metal fabrication and installation of HVAC systems. That equipment will be moved down into the lower level uh, into a smaller space um, as part of this project. And we'll show you that floor plan uh when John shows you shows you the building pictures later. The uh
industrial building has a footprint of about 100 ft along Maple Avenue and about 75 75 ft approximately along Maple Street. Let's go to the next slide, please. So, here's a picture of uh 156 on the
left. That's the view right along Maple Street there. Uh you can see there's a driveway just to the right of the building going down to the back. Uh there's a couple of very wide curb cuts if you've driven along this area. There's a uh 75 foot curb cut sort of in the foreground of the picture and then
there's a small piece of curbing and then there's another 50 foot wide curb cut in front of the uh in front of the building and obviously parking happens in front of the building. So, right along Maple Street there, along Maple Avenue, you can see the concrete uh
first floor construction. That's uh uh sort of wood and vinyl uh siding on the second floor. Uh that's a door going into a sprinkler room there on the first floor along Maple Avenue. Um next slide, please. This is uh on Maple Street looking in
the opposite direction. That vibrant blue building is the uh is the historic building at 158 Maple Street that we're not going to do much to. Uh you can see there's a hydrant in front of that building. And then uh looking from Maple Avenue up towards uh Maple Street,
there's the back of the uh industrial building, that tan building on the lefthand side, just to the left of the roadway. And you can just see the little piece of the uh 158 Maple Street to the left of the the tan building. The grassy area of course noticeable as well. Um let's look at the existing condition
survey next. Um so here's uh the the black line is our 1.75 acre parcel. U couple things I want to point out. There's uh there's some sort of rectangular dots in the middle of the of the site. Those are our test pits. We've done a a number of test
bits uh and we have found some urban fill uh in that back area. Uh we've also found some very good grally soils beneath that urban fill. Uh and we'll be taking advantage of that as uh as part of our storm water management which I'll be talking about in a few minutes. That
blue highlighted line through the property going from Maple Street on the right to the uh to off the property on the left is a drainage easement that was um >> taken uh by the town in approximately I think 2005 or 2007. There's a 15-inch
drain line that uh runs through that uh runs through that easement. And so uh and that that will stay. We're not going to move that pipe as part of this project. We're going to work around that. Uh in Maple Avenue, there's a uh uh 6-in water line and 8 in sewer line.
In Maple Street, there's some large public utilities as well. So, we'll be tapping into those. There's plenty of public utilities available for the uh for the project. Uh we'll go to the next plan, which would be the site layout, please. Okay. And I'm going to zoom in on this in one second just uh uh because
this is hard to see, but um uh in the upper right you can still see the the uh historic building at 158 Maple Street. There sort of footprints a little hard to see there. Well, thank you Josh. Um and on the left hand side are the u 12 town houses. So we have three buildings
with four townhouse units in each. Uh the footprint of the industrial buildings stays pretty much the same. There's actually some little bumpouts which are these little small rectangles on the four sides of the building which will give it a little bit more architectural relief and make it look a
lot prettier. Um uh that circular feature that is behind the town houses is the neighborhood preserve park sort of function and that would be uh you know just a nice grassy area for recreation by the uh by the the
residents. Um, again, there's 18 units uh in the industrial building and so we've got parking around there. We'll show that in a little bit more detail in a minute. Each townhouse unit has two parking spaces. So, one parking space in the garage inside the building and one uh parking space right outside uh the
garage. Um the uh tech air uh in uh on the first floor will move into that uh space where I showed you the the uh door in uh along Maple Avenue in an earlier picture. And that's uh the the bottom part of the industrial building as we're looking at the picture here. And there's
six parking spaces associated with the with that operation. So uh those six spaces on the bottom of the industrial building will be marked and dedicated towards the techair operation. Let's go to the next slide, please. So this is this will be the western uh
portion of the site. Um the uh you you can see that um drainage easement sort of running around the circular park. That's where that pipe is that I mentioned a few minutes ago. And you can I think in a little bit more
detail see the parking spaces and the units. There's a little small rectangle on the on the top of some of these units and that's an egress window. Uh we need that to provide um u egress from the from the lower level of the town houses out into so they'll have access out the
front of the building and this will also provide safe egress out the back of the building as well. Uh from the circular park going back towards the main portion of the building or the the mixeduse building. You can see there's a handicap ramp and some steps. Couple of handicap parking spaces there as well that will
provide uh egress from the rear of the townhouse units and from the park into the main parking area. Uh each townhouse unit has a 12 foot x 12 foot deck with some stairs going down to the the grassy grade and uh as you'll see later there's a nice landscaping plan that accompanies
all this. Um let's go to the uh next slide please. Should be the right side to be the eastern portion of our site layout. Um so at the very top of the page is a is an enclosed area for trash and
recyclable storage. Um, that's that little highlighted area up there at the top. And that would be used by both the townhouse owners and the use the residents in the uh uh in the mixed use building and uh possibly by the 158
single family house as well. Um we've got um let's see I think about 28 parking spaces which are set aside for the uh um mixeduse building. um that's about four more spaces than is than are required
for that particular use. So, you know, the one-bedroom um units require one parking space, the two-bedroom units require one and a half parking spaces, and we've got a few extra spaces as well. In addition to exceeding slightly the parking space requirements on the parcel, we also are
creating on Maple Street, you can see three new public uh parking spaces in front of the building. Um and just as a as a means of fitting um the sidewalk and the parking spaces in to the front of the building, we actually are going to construct that
park that the sidewalk on our private property. So there'll be an easement to provide the sidewalk use on our property. Then as we as the sidewalk progresses up towards 158 Maple Street, you see it gets back onto the public way as is as is the normal installation of a
sidewalk. Uh we're working around a hydrant. We're going to save that hydrant that's up there as well. But there'll be nice uh handicapped access ramps and and good access to the public parking spaces from the front of the building uh there directly on Maple Street. Inside the building, of course,
there'll be an elevator. The elevator uh starts at the lower level in the back of the building um and uh you know provides access from those handicapped parking spaces that I pointed out a few minutes ago. There's also one handicap parking space inside the building. um the uh the
traffic pattern in and out of the parking uh aisles uh on Maple Avenue. You can see there's two-way traffic. So, we're going in and out of Maple Avenue to the parking spaces into those four rear town houses. And then we have a one-way driveway going up towards uh
Maple Street. Again, there's about a 10-ft grade change between the back of the building and the front of the building. Um, so we've got some angled parking spaces and I think that this will make for smooth traffic movement out onto Maple Street. Uh, and obviously
creates a little bit of a loop for most of the traffic that will be using the uh site. We have six parking spaces inside the building. Those will be dedicated to some of the two-bedroom units. Uh, and they sort of require a valet parking kind of setup. So, uh, for at least
three of the two-bedroom units, they'll be assigned two parking spaces, uh, for their dedicated use. Uh, we've got a little bit of space on the lower floor for storage as well. Each unit will have a storage room for, you know, their their accessory, luggage or heavy, you know, objects, things like that,
bicycles, uh, can be stored down there as well. And the larger space in the lower right is the tech air, uh, space. The smaller space in the lower right is the sprinkler room. Um, I think that pretty much covers this.
I'm sorry. Okay, let's go to the next slide, please, which uh we'll talk about drainage a little bit. Um, the drainage on on this project has uh an interesting complication. The uh blue line that runs through the the site again is an ex is an existing 15-inch
drain line. Uh it it's somewhat undersized and um even though it's only 20 years old, it receives flow from uh Popular Street coming from the top of the page coming down towards the site and from the Maple Square redeveloped area coming from the bottom of the page
up to our site. Um and so that water all wants to go down to the back and uh uh it's I think it's intended to go through that 15-inch pipe that is highlighted in blue. There's another pipe that was going to be abandoned very close to the building and it's also got a blue color
to it and it's got a little kink and then it joins into a manhole that goes into that particular easement. And what happens in particularly heavy rainstorms is that these uh the manholes in the vicinity of the site and on the site overflow. So the there's more water than the pipes can carry. It comes up through
the tops of the manhole covers. It runs across the site. It runs out to Maple Avenue. And so uh we certainly don't want that type of behavior in our uh amongst our development. And so we've got some drainage improvements that will uh uh I think both address exceed the
requirements of the mass storm water management standards as far as the new work is go is concerned but will also improve the situation as it relates to those to those overflowing pipes and will reduce both the frequency and the volume of overflowing pipe overflowing water. The yellow manholes uh uh that
are indicated on the right side of the plan along Maple Street are manholes where overflowing occurs. So, let's go to the next slide, please. Um first, what we're going to do is we're going to um we're going to take
our roof runoff from the mixeduse building and we're going to put it uh along with the parking lot flow into that larger rectangle, which is a subsurface infiltration field. It's actually been sized for a 100-year storm, which is larger than necessary under the storm water management rags.
That large field is about 31 feet tall and about 53 feet wide. And you know, it basically handles up to 100ear storm. So there'll be no discharge uh uh into such a large storm at 6 and a half inches of rainfall in 24 hours. Um and we do have
an overflow pipe. I don't think it's going to get activated except I guess if a 200-year storm comes along or something like that. But uh by taking the roof area and the parking lot and put it into this infiltration bed, we significantly reduce the amount of runoff from the site uh as a first step.
Now we also have another infiltration bed uh along the walkway to the recreational area that also is sized for the 100red-year storm in the uh in in a larger storm. It would just come out over the pavement and run down Maple Avenue, which is where water runs today.
Uh we also are running a new 18-inch line from you can see it just runs above the indust the mixeduse building and it runs from the Maple Street out to an to where the uh existing drainage easement um takes a 90 degree bend and goes off the site and the purpose of that is to
provide more capacity uh through the flat area of the site which is where we have the most significant drainage deficiencies. Um, there's a there's a whole storm water report and a bunch of calculations and I think I I I guess we can get into questions and answers about
that if you want, but I I would just basically tell you that we're going to reduce overflowing water by 45 to 15% depending on the storm. So 45% in the one-year, two-year storm and 15% in the 100year storm just by constructing those additional pipes. um we're going to
reduce by uh anywhere from 80 to 50% the amount of storm water runoff from this site and as a result of the two infiltration beds that I pointed out. And I also want to point out that those are also separate systems. So we're not adding any water into the existing municipal drainage easement. All of our
water is being handled separately. And so I think by doing all of these things, we're making significant storm water improvements both for the neighborhood as well as on-site. Uh we'll go to the next slide, please. Uh utilities. Um maybe we'll just do
this in question and answers, but basically there's plenty of electricity, there's plenty of sewer capacity, there's plenty of water capacity to serve all of our buildings. Uh let's move on to the lighting. Next slide, please. Um this, uh impossible to see,
but basically this is a lighting lumen calculations that show uh the lumens at the ground surface for the uh lighting fixtures that are chosen. Now along the town houses we have set lights near the front doors and we have a small lantern that hangs out in front of the uh a wall
sconce kind of thing in front of the doors. Uh in the parking lot we've got I think three or four uh uh light standards. These are you know 15 foot tall poles that have a a flat surface and point downward. And uh along the building itself we have wall packs
around the perimeter. Um, and what the, uh, lumen calculations show is that as we get to the property lines, we really don't have any light getting off into the property or getting off the property. The downwardfacing lights also prevent uh, sky or night sky pollution
uh, as you I'm sure you've heard about in some of these development projects. Um, so we'll uh, and we have details of the light fixtures on our plans as well. Uh, next slide, please. We'll talk about phasing.
Um the idea on the phasing is to uh uh first of all the uh separating the single family from the rest of the project can happen sort of at any time and that's sort of our phase a up in the in the upper right portion of the project. There's a storm water uh
infiltration basin constructed just to the left of the of the uh single family house. So we've sort of left that area for uh to be disturbed at a at a point when the parking lot is constructed. Uh in the lower left is we're calling that phase B. That's the eight townhouse
units and that would probably be uh the beginning of the project. Um and when those town houses are being built, we'll be using the area behind those town houses for construction staging. And so we're going to leave that area where the circle is, where the
park is, and that those last four uh phase D, you know, townhouse units for the last part of the project was we'll also use that area for construction staging as the multi-family building is constructed. Uh in the multif family uh
building, we have two phases. phase C1, which is moving tech air downstairs into their space. And then phase two would be the construction of the residential units uh and the uh uh of course above the tech air space and the construction of the parking lot that goes along with
it. So that's sort of how we anticipate the site being built out. It won't be all at once, but it would be in these uh somewhat discreet phases. Uh let's see, next is landscaping. Again, Matt Olrich, I think, has done prepared a very nice plan. Um,
generally, he's got some screening behind the neighborhood park, which is a sort of a hedge row of arbor vites. Um, the large green dots of course are trees, and with Maple Avenue and Maple Street next to our site, you can probably guess what kind of trees he's
picked out. But, uh, he's got a number of sugar maples and a number of red maples along Maple Avenue and Maple Street. He also has some smaller trees uh along the townhouse units which are which are dog woods. Um there's also some avalanche
or service berries are some of the smaller trees that you see in some of the other townhouse areas. Uh lots of uh uh your favorite shrubs, you know, rodendrums, uh bay berry, ink berry, winter berry, all that kind of stuff uh that grows well in our part of the world
and uh provides color throughout the year included in his plan. Uh, I'd be happy to go over landscape questions a little bit more in the questions and answers, but I want to move along and get to the uh get to the architecture. That's Matt's uh landscape schedule. Uh,
and uh, with that, I'll turn it over to John Williams, our architect. >> Sure. >> Thank you. Again, if you can just introduce yourself for the for the record, please. >> Sure. >> My name is John Williams. I'm an architect at DMS Design. Um, so what we're looking at right here, this is a
rendering taken from standing basically in the middle of Maple Street and also looking down Maple A. And we're looking um right at the mixeduse building. Um, for this building, we are saving as much as the the ground floor and the first floor structure as we can so that we can
uh reuse as much of that as possible. Um, and then on top of those two floors, um, we'll be constructing two new floors woodframed on top of that. Um for the overall design um we're starting with traditional colonial elements um and
then um modernizing them to meet today's uh typical standards insulation. We all know we build buildings a little bit differently than we used to. Um so along with those uh traditional colonial elements um and strategies to reduce the massing and a neutral uh color palette
um the design is intended to kind of fit in with its surroundings. Uh for the mixeduse building, um we do push and pull the facade design to give a lot of depth. Um we kind of create bays, use a lot of symmetry. Um we want to try and while it the building is
essentially a rectangle and a box, we're trying to break that up a little bit. >> Um so on the town houses, we'll see this in some other renderings when we get down the street. Um but the town houses, um we use a dorm strategy to bring down the roof line and reduce the overall
massing on that. Um >> you you can go to the the next plan. We'll just start there. >> So >> the floor plan or >> floor plans floor plan after that first slide that we were on right there. There you go. Okay. So this is So Bob went over this, but I'll just say the
programming once again. So this is the the ground level of the mixeduse building. >> Um and we've got the parking spaces with the residential entry in the rear. Um the tech airspace would be in the bottom right. And then you've got some building amenities which would be bike storage and then resident storage up above that.
Uh next slide please. So this comes up to the first floor of the mixeduse building. Um on the right is Maple Street with a primary residential entry. Um comes into a common corridor down the middle and then to the elevator in the back. On the four
corners are the two bed units. um those vary anywhere from about 1,000 to to 1,200 square f feet and then between them you have two um single-bedroom units and those are typically around 750 square ft and then as you'll see once we go you can go to the next slide as we go
up a floor this is our standard floor plate the the the units essentially don't change so you can go to the next slide too and one more so this is the Maple street elevation. Um, and so you can see the symmetry that
we were that we were working towards um in the the center. Um, typically the the materials that we're using are um our clabards, but at the main entry, we're going to switch that and do a more of a vertical. So, maybe it's a board and batten, but we'll do something to give it a little bit of difference and
prominence at the entry. Um, >> what sort of materials are you using for the u for the cloudboards? >> Uh, fiber cement. >> Got it. Thank you. Um so all the windows for both the mixeduse building and the town houses will be double hung. That's another ode
to that the the colonial elements. Um and next slide please. So now this goes down Maple A. You can see the entry to the tech airspace on the right and they also have a rollup door there. Um, and so to try and get a little more glazing
on this lowest level, um, we do have, um, a piece of storefront glazing that does go into that commercial space. And I should say, so could you go back one slide, please? So, I want to talk about the transparency on the first floor from
Maple Street. Um, and so this is mixed use. On the ground floor of mixed use, you're supposed to have that 60% transparency. But since our use on this front facade behind these windows on the first floor is residential, it's very difficult to hit that 60%. Because that would that's that's just not the right
amount of glazing for a residential use. Um we can go to the next slide. Um so then continuing on. So once again the concepts of the double hung windows, the symmetry, um the upper floors here. I do believe we're still a little under the um the transparency percentage that
we want, but we do if we look at this elevation, we feel like it's it's an appropriate amount of glazing. Uh next slide, please. And then this is the rear of the site. You can see the three garage doors on the ground level. That is for the the
parking. And then we have some more glazing up above. Uh next slide. So, this is the ground floor plan of the of one townhouse building. So, you can see there's four units. Each of them is about 2100 square feet. Um, you've got
the entry at the front that is caddy corner around the side. So, it doesn't enter directly from street level or from the street facade. Um, and then you have a garage. So, there's two ways to enter. And then once you come in, there's a little mud room mud room nook um bedroom in the back. And then we can go
upstairs. Next slide, please. Um, coming up the stairs, you enter into the living area. It's open space living, so it's almost clear all the way through. You've got a kitchen peninsula kitchen in the back that opens onto a deck. And every unit is essentially the same, although some are mirrored. Uh,
next slide, please. And then going up to the upper floor, you've got two bedrooms up here, a primary bedroom and another secondary bedroom. We did bring the the washer and dryer up here. figured that's a great amenity to have on the primary um bedroom floor. And there's two bed uh
bathrooms up here as well. Uh next slide, please. So, the upper elevation is the maple a front elevation. Um once again, we're working with that symmetry. We uh use some of the we have some gable ends that protrude out the front and that's going
to create some depth for us. And then to reduce the massing, the upper floors were the living space is is mostly utilized through dormers. So that really brings our our front eve our highest eve line down. So the ridge line here is
going to be at a very similar height as the single family homes across the street. So that should help it fit into the neighborhood in this aspect. And then the lower elevation, you can see so the grade does rise up behind the buildings. And then you can see where we have our our decks in the back.
Next slide. And then we have a few renderings to look at. So this is the one that we've already looked at. Um so we can just go to the next slide. Yep. And then this is continuing down Maple Street. The historic single family home is on the right. And in the background you can see one of the the four unit townhouse
buildings. Next slide. And then so this is down Maple Avenue looking back towards uh Maple Street. And you can see that gable end that protrudes a little bit on the town houses and how we bring that roof line down to reduce the massing um by making
this a 2 and 1/2 story structure. Um and I think actually next slide. Yeah, we have one more. This is from inside the neighborhood park. With that, I think Nancy, were you going to say a few more words? All right.
>> It's been a long evening for you. I know that. >> Y >> um >> but I'd just like to go through for the record the um zoning relief that we're looking for. Uh again, we have a couple of special permits that we're seeking and they are design special permits.
again, height, density, uh those are usually the the trigger points, I'll call them for for difficulty uh in zoning relief for projects. Uh and we are fully compliant with our with our byite density as well as our height. Uh
so we have just some um some design special permits with a with a lower u criteria for for relief. So the the first is a special permit regards the parking associated with the townhouse
units. We're proposing for the two townhouse buildings, eight units for each along Maple A. Those units will have their garage in the front and they will drive in as you would normally see
for a townhouse uh style building. This is nothing unusual. It's just driving in off of Maple A. you drive into your driveway and into your into your garage. So that design uh which is again typical
for a townhouse does require a design special permit um with regard to parking in the front of the building and some of the parking screening that goes along with that as well as backing out onto
Maple A um and the parking within uh within the setback. Again, it all rolls into the fact that we're proposing that for those two townhouse style buildings, the parking, the garage is in the front and the entrance is in the front uh to the the building.
>> Um we are requesting a special permit to provide more parking >> than required under the bylaw. The bylaw requires 50 parking spaces. We're proposing 60 parking spaces. Part of that additional parking number of parking spaces has to do with the fact
that the townhouse units because they're three-bedroom units require one and a half parking spaces. Well, for a townhouse with a garage, you really can't have one and a half parking spaces. So, we really don't have 10 extra spaces. We have a few extra spaces
as Bob pointed out, but there it's really not 10 extra spaces. It's only 10 extra spaces on paper when you do the math. That requires a special permit. We're looking for a special permit with regard to the um street facing
transparency on uh the upper floor uh on the upper floors which um again uh John mentioned the street facing transparency on uh Maple Street it's 17% on Maple A it's 10.5%.
um mixeduse building street facing wall width without offset on Maple A to allow the maximum street facing wall width without offset. Um we're proposing 100 uh 100 ft where 60 feet is required.
That's one of those um uh categories that people don't really understand what the heck that means, but we it's just the the wall offset to give um to give some dimension to the building. And as John said, he was able
to accomplish that through uh through the architectural features. um the uh special permit for the town houses build to zone facade buildout allowing that to be 65.8%
buildout where 80% buildout is required. And what that boils down to is that the townhouse buildings are not big enough under the bylaw, which is is interesting. We're proposing smaller buildings what than what the bylaw actually requires. The bylaw wants those
townhouse buildings to building facade along the street to be 80% of the facade and we're at 65.8% of the facade. Again, technical design uh special permit. We think what we've designed fits in better with with the
neighborhood. The last special permit um is related again to the town houses. As John pointed out, the front door is kind of jutted in. You can see that. So, the front door um is designed so as you come out the front door, you're actually
looking at the the driveway uh for the unit. So, the door faces the side. It's just a jut in. Again, it's an architectural feature um rather than facing the street. >> It's on the street facing side, but it
just doesn't directly face the street. It's jutted in. And it's uh again something that we think is an attractive design point and builds in that articulation that the bylaw looks for. But that requires a design special permit. So those are the special
permits. Again, they're minor in nature and they are related to design. Um then we have a few waiverss we are requesting. Um the transitional buffer zone. We've had a had a lot of discussion with staff uh regarding the transitional buffer zone and whether
this uh the transitional buffer zone is even applicable to um this district. Um it is not mentioned in section 22 the um the Maple Street neighborhood traditional neighborhood district the
the 40R district it's not mentioned but um to the extent that it is applicable uh there is a 50-foot setback um and we are uh are proposing a um a 20 foot
setback roughly and uh the bylaw is is interesting with regard to the front setback of those townhouse buildings in different sections of the bylaw. The um there are sections where
the building is required or or the uh the setback is zero for this style building. There's a section where this style building is uh 5- foot minimum 15 foot maximum setback and then there's uh
this transitional zone which is 50 foot setback. It's they're competing and there really is a question as to whether the transitional zone uh even applies to this district. Uh because if you look at the transitional zone section of the
bylaw, it says that um a a a larger setback, meaning the 50-foot setback is uh may be required to make the design compatible to make the project compatible with the
neighborhood. How we've design how we've designed this development is making the development compatible with the intent of the transitional zone. And what I mean by that is we have the higher density larger building on
Maple Street. And then as you progress down Maple A, we've lowered the density, lowered the building size, lower the design as you proceed down with the townhouse style
units. So, um we think that we have met the intent um of the uh of the transitional um zoning uh section if if in fact that district is even is even applicable. We think we have met the the
intent of it. Um another waiver we're requesting is with regard to the neighborhood park. Um, we are proposing 22 trees in the neighborhood park. By sheer math, which is the number of
trees per square foot in the neighborhood park, we're proposing a large neighborhood park over 11,000 square feet. As I said, the bylaw would require 33 trees. We've done a very nice landscaping plan. We have a landscape architect who has
designed it and we feel that 22 trees is a good number of trees in that in that park that allows for shade but also allows for some sun and it also allows for some recreation area that that you're going to lose if you you've got
33 trees planted there. It should be noted the entire project we are proposing more than 50 trees in this development um and over 33 new sorry over 300 new shrubs. So this is a a
pretty robust landscaping plan. Um and the final waiver we have requested is a waiver of the transportation uh mitigation fee. The I've discussed this with the board on other projects. the transportation mitigation fee. Under the bylaw,
um the fee is based on uh square footage of new construction. >> Uh the town houses are new. The uh two levels on the mixed juice building are new. >> So, we have a fair amount of new square
footage. >> The transportation mitigation fee is $3 per new square foot. That comes out to $122,781 for a transportation uh mitigation fee. The transportation
mitigation fee is supposed to uh be in line with the impact on transportation that the project will have. And we feel that $122,700 far exceeds any impact that this uh this
project would have on on transportation. And I've provided to you just as a note of reference a very similar project with 24 units. We're proposing 30. a 24 unit development that was approved by this
board for the Danvers hardware site >> required a $30,000 uh transportation mitigation fee and I would suggest that the um impact on transportation is not much different
between those two projects. the Damber's hardware project had less new square footage and therefore uh it was a a significantly less u transportation mitigation fee. So we are uh requesting
a waiver of that. Um part of this the whole project any project in the 4DR is plan approval. uh we have requested uh plan approval. You think of it as site plan approval, but it's a plan approval under section 22 um
for the development and you've received all of the information, all of the plans, uh all of the specifications that you need for uh for that approval. Um given the special permits in the waiverss uh that we've requested, they are design
in in nature rather than density or dimensional and therefore public realm improvements are not required. However, we're providing some and I've listed those in the application. The first, as Bob had mentioned, we're are providing a
public sidewalk. A new public sidewalk is proposed along 156 Maple Street. uh frontage that will provide improved uh public pedestrian safety. That public sidewalk uh is going to be located on private property and there will be an
easement given to the town uh for that sidewalk. We're proposing four new street trees along Maple Street um to beautify the streetscape. Uh we have seven new street trees are provided along Maple A. Um, we have the
three new public parking spaces along Maple Street that Bob had pointed out. Um, existing curb cuts will be closed along Maple Street and Maple Lab to provide new definition and new defined curb cuts which will certainly improve
vehicular and pedestrian safety. And uh there are improvements uh to the municipal storm water system that Bob had mentioned and specifically uh 30 ft of new municipal drain pipe will be
installed in Maple Street. affordable housing. Uh again, as I mentioned previously, 20% um is required for this development and we are proposing of the 30 new housing units, six new um new affordable housing units,
two town houses, two two-bedroom units, two one-bedroom units. Uh which gives a very nice mix as this whole project does. Gives a nice mix of bedroom types, unit types. Um that's really a a a plus
for this uh development which uh provides six affordable units. Um that is uh that's our presentation. I appreciate the time you've given us tonight. The um project will obtain third party peer review.
>> Okay. >> Um at the applicant's cost. >> Um and that uh a scope has gone out to uh >> that's with respect to engineering. Yes. Um that's gone out to um to a number that of peer reviewers selected by the
town. Um and and that will be um the decision on the peer reviewer will be made by the town planning staff. Um we anticipate that re review will be completed in time for your first meeting in May.
And um we did receive the um a comment letter from an abuter. We received that um on Friday of last week. We reviewing that and we'll be uh prepared to provide responses to that comment. Um some of
those items are going to also be flushed out during the peer review uh because a number of the comments related to storm water issues that will uh that will be done. But uh important issues were raised and we'll be providing responses. Um >> just for clarification, is this a comment from Maria and Patrick
McFersonson? >> That's correct. Yes. >> Got it. Uh that's and I believe that's the only comment letter that's >> it's in our packet. It's dated March the 22nd. >> Y and we received it on Friday. Um the uh we believe this is a very thoughtful um design with the intent uh
of meeting the purposes and intents of the uh of the 40R district with district with a variety of housing options, retention of the 1800's home, improved streetscape, compliant density, and uh
six new affordable housing units. Um and we would be happy to answer any questions. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. And I know that we um uh this is you know because we are still going to be anticipating some additional um you know engineering. So this is we are and as was mentioned earlier we're not
anticipating a vote tonight in terms of on the merits of of this but the um uh because also we do have another I think I mentioned I may have not mentioned at the outset of the meeting we do have um Jim Sears is not present today one of our regular members and I believe that he it's anticipated that he'll be here
at the next meeting and so he'll be able to vote um and weigh in on this assuming he does the Mullins uh requirements. So, um, so why don't I turn things over just in terms of questions for, um, uh, since the team is here, questions for members
of the board. So, Jean, did you want to start first? >> Sure. Um, so I wanted to start out by saying thank you for your presentation. It seems like this was well thought out. Um, and thank you for addressing the
existing drainage concerns. um and for providing the outdoor space. Um a couple of questions. So was 156 included basically just so that some of the land could be transferred to the
larger mixed use or like is there a re you mean 158 the single family home? >> Yeah. >> Um well they're owned by the same person. They're owned by the trust. >> I didn't realize that. Okay. >> Yes, they are owned by the trust. So, um it made sense to make it all part and
and it's also nice to have a single family home as part of the mix again when you're looking at a 40R having different uh different uh housing types. >> Okay. >> But they are owned currently and have been for many years by the trust. >> That makes sense. Thanks. Um and then a
question about you said that there was some testing done on or test pits and there was urban fill found. I was just wondering if was there any contamination found in that or was it clean for the most part? >> I'll let Bob speak to that. >> So, um
>> yeah, if you can just identify yourself just for a minute's purposes again. >> Thank you. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering. Um so, the the history on this property is that there was a um spill I think in the uh in the 1990s and
there was an LSP investigation. And there was some cleanup of some material was removed and it was closed the site was closed out and this was prior to PMZ realy trust purchasing the property. Um >> just for those at home you said LSP. >> There was an LSP involved in in the uh
in the removal in the early uh in the late 1990s. Um and >> did you say for people at home LSP acronym? could do you. >> So, an LSP is a licensed site professional, and those are the types of professionals that deal with uh environmental contamination at sites in Massachusetts.
In addition, we retained an LSP to do uh to uh inspect test pits at the property and also to do a a an updated phase one evaluation to determine if there were any likely sources of contamination. But what we found in the uh primarily in the
grassy area was some old engine parts, some gravel, some um uh trash. Um so this was the type of material that doesn't necessarily rise to being uh you know the type of contamination that you
need to report to DP, but nonetheless uh it is urban fill and stuff that we will have to deal with as we build these town houses. And uh the basic plan is to try to excavate out the area of the town houses and save that urban fill, put it
in the backyard and then put a clean soil cap over the over all of that urban fill uh to provide a safe area for future uh users of the of the site. So it doesn't require a new uh 21E sort of
a D investigation uh unless something unusual happens during the construction phase. But based on the test pits that we did construct uh in the last year, we did find again some urban fill is is the best way to characterize it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Um does that does that create any restriction? So like if say someone wanted to plant a new tree years down the road or would they not be able to dig >> down to the fill? >> I don't think we've we've necessarily gotten through that uh step with the LSP. It is possible that the LSP might
say, "Geez, you know, we want to uh we don't want people breaking through the clean soil cap in the future." So, there might be a restriction on the types of landscaping activities that can happen at the site. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, also, will any of
the mature trees be saved? It looks like there are quite a few by the single family home. >> Um, I I don't think that we can save a whole lot of trees in within the property. We've uh again because we're digging out near the single family home for our um storm water infiltration pit,
that's where we had the most favorable soils. There are some trees along the very perimeter of the property that we won't need to touch, but anything sort of within the middle area of the site does certainly need to be taken down. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so you mentioned the
doors not facing the street as part of your special permit. Um, is that a concern for uh like safety or emergency services not being able to see where the entrance is to the home? Like is does that ever come up? >> Well, I actually think it's the opposite
here because we have because the all the town houses have direct access to Maple Avenue. You know, when the emergency vehicles come down Maple Avenue, they're going to see the front door right there. That's the way in and out of these units. There is a back door to get out onto the the recreational area, but the main entrance on those eight town houses
on Maple Avenue will be facing the street. And then the four town houses that are uh at the northern part of the site will be facing their main doors will face the main parking lot where you would drive into as well. So I think the access and it will be very clear.
>> Okay. Y >> um and then do do you anticipate these like especially the town homes being owned or is are things to be rented or is it a mix? >> I don't think any final decisions have necessarily been made yet, but I think you know it's likely that the uh town
houses um will be owned uh by by the the homeowners essentially. So uh the mixeduse building I don't think is necessarily quite so clear at this point in time, but it could go either way. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, one question for Lou. Would it be possible for us to do a
site visit? >> You know, I think that is a that's one of the I think you you you stole my thunder because that was one of the that was one of the questions I would be interested in as well in terms of doing a site visit of the area. I think the answer is in with town staff. Yes.
>> You don't have to post those as public meetings uh because they aren't. You are deliberating. You're just doing a site visit with the property owner and the applicant. um asking any questions. >> So yeah, we can schedule that for you anytime you need.
>> Right. And it's not Yeah, it's not a public meeting. It's not a >> We wouldn't You don't post that, >> right? >> It would just be coordinating schedules. >> It's coordinating schedules and we would typically have a member of town town staff accompany us and then maybe the applicant could be Is that something you would be >> We'd be very interested in participating
in that. Yes. >> Okay. Good. >> We used to do them all the time. >> Right. Well, especially when it I'm looking at some some of the things I don't want to jump into your but in terms of even some of the areas like in Maple Avenue, some of the sort of the just the access issues, some of the the
sidewalk issues, I think I'd rather I I I think it'd benefit from that. >> Thanks. >> Okay. >> Uh, one more thing. I I don't know if this is the final color scheme or whatever, but it it's just my opinion, but it seems a little bit dark,
especially compared to the buildings surrounding. They're a lot lighter, >> it's a good point. Yeah, dark. >> Yeah, it did seem a little dark. Yeah, it seems. >> John Williams from DMS. And I I agree that's more of just how the renderings came out. The colors, we can bring samples that they are a bit lighter.
>> Thank you. That's all I have. >> All right. Um Mike Doulus. Yeah, >> thank you um again for your presentation. We appreciate it. Um there was some qu I had a few questions. I think there was a comment about um Tech Air doing like sheet metal fabrication and then I think you guys mentioned
there was a rollup door on along Maple A. Are they getting deliveries like off of that? It's like off of one of their parking spots I believe. So I'm just a little clarification on that. Yeah. Yeah. It is possible that they might might need to take in some large materials from time to time or something, you know, bigger than a
three-foot door would necessarily make it convenient to get in and out of their space. >> So, where's that truck parking to go through that rollup door? Cuz that's just a standard 18 or 20 foot spot, I believe, on the plans. >> I think we have a a little loading area
out in front of that uh rollup door. And uh >> I think this might be helpful. Um, sorry. >> If you can you see it, Mike? >> But that's just one of their parking spots, right? If you go to the site plan, >> it's a little bigger than a parking space, but if you go to C3, for example,
or uh you can see the >> I'm saying to get to that door, you need to occupy one of the parking spaces. Is that correct? >> Right. >> So, you're not you're not fitting a truck in there. Is that >> I I I actually think you could get a truck sort of pointing in the long direction. Normally the tech air uh
personnel are out on the job site, so they're probably not occupying those six spaces all the time anyways. He's got one or two people in the office. Um so I I think there's extra I think there's enough room to for him to operate his business very smoothly. uh most of his uh projects, you know, all the stuff is
delivered to the job site, but they do have some special uh sheet metal bending equipment so that they can create ducts that custom fit certain, you know, homes or or whatever they're working on. So, that's that's the need to be able to use that uh commercial space in the lower
levels to uh to house and operate the that sheet metal bending equipment. >> That's right. >> But that's not in front of the door, right? Or is it? Oh, it is. >> Oh, it is. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sorry, I misunderstood that. Um
Okay. And then, um I know you talked about the parking spaces at the town homes. I think the two spaces that you mentioned >> is three bedrooms. So, you could obviously potentially have more than two cars. Is there parking allowed along that Maple like would overflow parking end up on Maple A? It's just normal street parking.
>> No, I don't think so. And really, again, you know, we have extra spaces on site. So, I think that, you know, if somebody had, you know, a need for guests, they could put them in the main parking field, you know, with those extra spaces that we have. >> But I guess if you were living in one of those town homes and you were having
someone over, they're not going to go park in the lot. They're just going to park in front of your house along Maple A. Correct. >> I'm not sure about that. I I I um I think they might park in that lot. Um >> it's not restricted. No parking. I guess that's my question is they can park
along Maple Avenue in front of those town homes if and that could be someone who lives there as well. Correct. So someone if if they had three cars in their household or four cars in their household, they could park along Maple A in front of their town home. That's allowed, right? Is that what you're saying? >> I believe it is allowed. Yes. >> Just like any of the >> That's what I'm asking. Yeah. Okay. All
right. So that that was one point of clarification I just want to make. Um and then I didn't see snow storage on the plan. So it's just always something we talk about. I just I I know some of those the one way leading out onto um Maple Street like is that going to get plowed outward towards the street and
then where are they putting snow? So that was just a >> and we have diagonal parking spaces so there's space behind those parking spaces for snow. There's space >> along the fence of the p of the single family. Is that what you're talking about? Oh, I have a there
storage all along here and all along here, back here. We have room for snow storage here, here. >> Okay. >> Um, I think that's it for now. Lou, I appreciate it. >> Okay. Very good.
>> Dave, any uh any questions for the for the applicant? Yeah, I think my my initial question centers on pedestrian access and walkability. Um there seems to be a lack of sidewalks especially as adjacent to units one through eight on the Maple A side. Was that as a design
choice or was that a design limitation? >> So um >> it's a tough one. We >> So you're talking about this area down here? >> Yes. So, uh, we didn't really >> I hate to ask you hate to ask you that
you just because people are watching at home. We need you to Yeah. Sorry about that. We didn't have the other microphone today. >> Attorney, you want to pointer? Do you want to point while he talks? >> That would be great. >> Okay. So, so we did >> Thank you, Attorney. >> We had a meeting with the planning department not that long ago and we we
did talk about uh you know, was it feasible to add a sidewalk along Maple Avenue and there's a couple of reasons why it's not, but one say it was not feasible. >> It's not feasible. Okay. And one of the reasons is the uh because this is where the driveways are located. There would be a lot of up and down of trying to get
the the the sidewalk to interact or to to fit in the space available where those driveways are. You can see Maple Avenue the rightway is somewhat narrow. It's only a 22 foot wide rightway as compared to, you know, a typical street rightway is 40t wide or 50 feet wide.
Maple Street is 58 feet wide. Um and so we're we're constrained for space there. The other impact of putting a sidewalk on Maple Avenue would be it would push the town houses further away or further into the site and would then start to encroach onto the recreational space and
would also increase the amount of urban fill that would have to be relocated as part of the construction phase and that in turn raises the uh recreational space up as well. We did make a plan modification which is shown here which provides a handicapped access ramp
coming from the recreational space down into the the parking lot and then directly across there's a sidewalk that runs up towards Maple Street. That wasn't on the plan originally and that's intended to provide some better pedestrian uh you know movement through
the site. We do think that the pedestrian improvements along Maple Street are also pretty significant. Ask, especially when you cons compare them to the current situation out there. If you remember looking at those pictures, >> further questions, Dave, on that?
>> Uh, not on that one. I'll reserve. >> Okay. Very good. >> Lou, I have a quick question. So, you guys, you mentioned 22 foot was the rightway and we were talking about parking along Maple A. If there were people parked on both sides, you can't fit by there. So, is that a town issue that they need to restrict parking to one side or how would that work? >> Yeah, excuse me.
>> Yes. Currently, there's no parking restrictions on Maple A um after uh or depending upon what happens here. Yeah, there would probably have to be new signage that would park. Yeah, there's Yeah, obviously. Yeah.
>> But currently, yes, we you can make a recommendation for them to apply for that, but the select select board is the only one that can can actually bless that the what happens on the street. >> Okay. But that would be something the town would handle basically. >> Yeah. So, yeah, current currently there are no restrictions. We would have to put parking restrictions on there.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, John, did you have any questions at all? >> Uh, just two. >> Sure. Go ahead. for the different phases. You have phase D with most of the drainage coming off of it. What's the timeline between phases like A and
D? >> Um, so the drainage that runs through phase D would be built at the time that phase C is constructed. So phase C is the multi-use building. It's the parking lot associated with that. And all of the
pipes and utilities uh are sort of in that uh or that serve that parking area, you know, need to run through phase D. So they would be the utilities that run through phase D would actually be installed during phase C so that they
can be operating. >> Makes sense. Thank you. Uh, and then would you be able to go over the justification for the transportation mitigation fee again for the 30,000 you talked about the hardware store? Yes.
The uh transportation mitigation fee under the bylaw uh regulations are based on square footage of new construction, $3 per square foot. um which really has nothing to do with impacts on
transportation. It was simply a formula that was uh that was adopted as part of the bylaw because there had to be some I guess there had to be some formula. There probably didn't really need to be. Um the hard the Denver's hardware
development at uh 63 Maple Street proposed 24 units. Um, it was a redevelopment as this is, but there was less new construction, new square footage. So, you did the calculation at
$3 a square foot and it came up to about 30,000 square ft. With this development, we have uh new townhouse units and we have two stories of uh of the in the mixed juice building and it comes up
with a certain uh square footage. And that you multiply by three and you get to 122,700 square ft, which um under the bylaw and under the regulations, the transportation
mitigation fee is supposed to relate um to the impacts on transportation. And in this case, you see uh very starkly how a formula based on square
footage, not uneven number of units. Maybe that would have been a better formula. How many number of units that's going to start to give you impacts on pedestrians, impacts on um on trip generation, that sort of thing. But a
formula for transportation that's based on simply construction of new square footage really bears no relationship to transportation. And that's and it's supposed to the fee is supposed to be related in some way to
the impact. And what we're saying is that isn't happening here at 122,700 square feet. And we've had discussions with the the border. I certainly have on uh on other projects where there's been
some question as to what's being done with these funds. That's another matter. But um there's been transportation mitigation fees paid and and where does that go and and what happens to it? But
in this case, we feel that $122,781 is disproportionate to the impact on transportation and particularly when you look at other projects, similar number of units, but less new construction. So you you have a
very different figure. >> Thank you. Okay. I just have a couple of just a couple of questions and I know we have um some members of the public here as well. I know it's a late hour but uh I'm glad that we're also continuing this. We'll be planning to continue this as
well so we can have further um discussions about this but the um uh just a question with respect to the um I guess when it comes to transportation and all and again this is maybe this late hour but I'm trying to just to wrap my my head around it. Has there been any
um in terms of the the number of units and we're talking about transportation and we're talking about you know Maple Street and have um does I I know that this is still has to be peer review in terms of from engineering but has there
been a um uh a uh is there are you looking at traffic concerns as well with respect to Maple Street in terms of additional trips that are generated because that area of Maple Street can certainly be um it can be busy. especially as you're sort of going past the old, you know, past the old
firehouse going towards, you know, where that sort of the the the the intersection um with Popular Street. >> Yeah. Um we don't feel from an engineering standpoint that uh there's going to be any issues with traffic. We
think we're making actually some very significant improvements by closing down what is >> effectively uh an open frontage along Maple Street. We're narrowing that down. Exit only.
>> No exit, no entrance in off of Maple Street. >> Um we think those are two very significant impacts. We're also uh creating the three parking spaces. We're also creating the sidewalk on private property
>> um for pedestrian improvements. So, we think we're making some significant improvements, but we don't see that 30 units >> is going to have an impact on trip volume. Uh we have site distances are fine.
>> Um that that would warrant a traffic study or anything like that. And we've we've discussed this as again >> what would have triggered it. What would trigger doing a traffic study? >> Um it would typically be the volume and and it's the increase in volume over the
volume existing in the roadway corridor >> and the number of >> and you've looked at that. >> Um we have looked at whether we thought there was a need for it. >> Um and we don't think that that's that that's warranted. Um we've certainly had lots of meetings with planning staff.
We've never um indicated that there would be a need for that. >> Okay. >> Um now this is going out for peer review. We might hear something different. >> Um but that's that's our position on this. >> Okay. And I and I did have a question sort of picking up on the on the
question I had with respect to the that I mean rather that my colleague had with respect to the um uh I guess you know in terms of sidewalks just in terms of and this might be something where I think maybe the site review can be helpful because I'm because you know especially with additional
um you know you know with the with the with the nearby developments such as Maple Square you're going to be looking at having you know amenity space near where the freight house is some additional restaurants which are now on Maple Street in downtown Danvers. You can imagine people who would be, you
know, who would be walking to a uh to go to to, you know, to go to dinner at night and maybe they don't want to get in the car because they don't want to, you know, they, you know, they want to have that cocktail and don't want to get behind the wheel afterwards, for example. And so I'm a little bit, you know, so there's a part of me that is concerned about when you're adding
additional units of not and understanding that there's not a sidewalk currently there, but just on Maple Avenue, but not you know, that's a question I have is in terms of of the um you know, whether it is a and I understand you pointed out in terms of
what prompted sort of the not having a sidewalk, but I'm sort of wondering I have some concerns about that. >> Okay. Um the only units we're proposing 30 units. >> Sure. >> Only the eight townhouse units
>> don't have clear direct access to the sidewalk without going out on the street. >> Sure. And even those eight units, townhouse units, do have a way to get to the public sidewalk without going out
onto Maple A. Whether they choose to do that or not is another matter, but they can go out their back doors to this lovely uh walkway that we have. the uh which is handicapped accessible, the
ramp, and then the sidewalk along the uh western side of the mixeduse building out to the new sidewalk on Maple Street that we're uh proposing. >> And that internal sidewalk connection came about with our conversation with planning staff because they raised the
question that that you raised. What about having a sidewalk on Maple A? >> Sure. And the bottom line is that Maple A isn't wide enough. >> Most streets are 40 foot layout. Even
for a standard residential street, that's a minor street. Larger residential streets are 50 foot layout. And that's so that you can have sidewalks. >> Sure. >> This is 22 feet wide. >> I also live I live in a house built in 1928 which has sidewalks on the street, but it's they're narrow streets, but
it's that's just the way you know they're it's a >> Yes. But it's within the street layout. >> Yeah. It's a walkable neighborhood. >> We don't have a street layout here that permits it. >> Sure. >> So, we would have to >> propose
a taking essentially of land along Maple A that's on our private property to put a sidewalk along there. And what we're proposing instead is to do an internal sidewalk to get our residents out to the
the public sidewalk that we're constructing also on our property along Maple Street. We're able to do that there because we want to put in the parking spaces. >> So, it's a little bit of a balance. This is but it the the problem comes from the
fact that this is a public way >> that's only 22 feet wide. >> Okay. Well, I still have some I I do have that's a concern I do have in terms of this. Yeah, I again I'll be interested to to to take a a better look at the site visit, but I'm I I have some
concerns about the sidewalk pedestrian safety and it's the because also if you're thinking about townous, you know, I also it's a I'm I'm concerned of uh you know, not of pedestrian safety of the of the people who, you know, someone who's going to decide not to drive and is walking up the street into the into
the square or deciding or if it might be a you know, might be a child who wants to wants to to walk up to the store or something >> and They can >> get to the public sidewalk on Maple Street without going on Maple Le without walking down
>> everybody from every from every unit >> on on those town houses. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes, they they can. And obviously the the four town houses that are parallel uh can go along that new sidewalk that we're proposing and then everyone in the mixeduse building goes out the front
door and they're on a public sidewalk. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, that's sort of the question. That's that's one of the questions I have, but I and I'll, you know, again, I'll be interested in seeing the um the uh the site at the site visit as well. So, uh and I'll also be interested in
hearing what engineering has to say, too. But this is a public hearing, so um I do uh if there's any members of the public who have anything uh they would like to like to state or ask of the applicant. >> Sure. Go ahead. Yeah. >> I I will just add one final point on
that since you mentioned engineering. Uh when we had our meeting with planning staff um on this issue of the sidewalk, the engineering department was represented. Henry Clark was there and we discussed this new sidewalk proposal
>> uh that Bob talked about. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. All right. If you have members of the public, please come forward and thank you for your for your for your patience. And um just for members people who might be watching this on uh on on recorded they can go you know that this this will be
um uh this will be continued to another meeting. So we'll have additional um opportunity for public uh comment and um also people can uh as was noted as well if people have written public comment they can also forward it to um it would
be forwarding it to town planning staff. >> Okay but with all that sir introduce yourself and state. >> How you doing? My name is uh Patrick McFersonen. I'm here with my wife Maria tonight. Um I live at 17 Maple Lab. I'm a director to butter to the to the project. Um >> there's a lot of questions, a lot of you
know, a lot of different things. >> Sure. >> And that I guess we'll start with the uh changing grade elevations. Curious about we they did talk about that. I guess they >> And you authored the letter as well, sir, didn't you? >> Yes, we are the author of the letter. So I mean I don't I don't I guess I'll start with with the site
visit since we talked about that. We did re uh you know request that we have a Can the neighbors be involved in that as well? >> Well, in terms of >> it's actually up to the property owner. >> Mhm. >> So fully on whether or not they would
entertain that. Uh so it it is the property owner's decision or who's ever designated to represent the property owner in terms of if they would allow uh like neighborhood residents to go to the site visit. >> Okay. All right. So, that's what that's what staff
is advising me. So, it's it's it's ultimately up to the the applicant, I think, in terms of to >> Oh, I guess we could stand on the street when we see you guys outside there, right? >> Come out. >> Only 22 ft wide. >> And come out. Yeah. Since it's only 22 feet wide, which I guess we can go to that next because uh people will
definitely be parking on the street. >> Okay. >> And um there's snow removal is another thing. Backing out onto the street. The other thing that I didn't see was the parking spots up at the top. >> Um, right now there's a business, the rug cleaning business is on the right hand side and sometimes people will come
up, there's a no parking sign right there. People park there all the time. We've talked to them about it and they actually have people, you know, they've told people not to park there. But at the top of that street, I don't know how anyone's going to back out of that where that car is represented right there. You had it right.
>> Oops. Wow, that's very small. >> Looking at the rendering. There's no way cars are going to be able to back out onto that street there. The way >> they be backing out >> from Maple Street, >> the picture that shows it from Maple Street looking down the >> the rendering the render.
>> Mapier, are you saying like backing out onto like Maple Avenue? Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. If if you get there it is. Oh, that was it. That's the one there. See the where the white car with the show and the white car coming out? >> Yes. There's like a wall. There's a wall there right now, like a retaining wall,
and it's just barely wide enough for a car to fit in. So, I don't understand how they're going to back out. And showing the car on the right hand side. Well, if you're coming up the street on the right hand side, it's a lefth hand side for us. That's where the no parking sign is. And sometimes cars do park there and you can't get past. Sometimes
they take deliveries there and there's a truck there and you know, you got to it's all it basically shuts it down to one lane. >> So, if there's people come whipping around the corner, Okay. >> Actually, if you're going to make any comments at all, we let >> I thought >> you have to actually say it to the
chair. So, okay. >> There was parking spaces on the building next to the building where that wall is. Correct. Is that >> I think >> I think there's a question for the for the applicant about the parking spaces like where they currently are. If you can come up and answer the question, that would be great. >> No, that's okay. Just just want to make
sure to just to direct it through the chair. >> Do you see that white car? I see the white car and on our plan we show parking spaces that are below the retaining wall, >> right? >> Um and actually, yeah, the picture that shows the uh side of the building along
Maple Avenue, I think shows where that, you know, shows that you can get a car. >> Yeah, those parking spaces right there. That's it'll be >> I think those parking spaces work. I'm not sure that the one on the rendering works. >> Mhm. >> Right. But that's when they're parked when they're backing out. They're going to be backing out into the
>> they can back out onto Maple Avenue >> onto Maple Avenue. It's just barely barely just enough room to get to make that work. >> Well, 22 ft wide, you know, >> right parking lot as far as the sidewalks go, >> but there's enough room to do it. >> What about the rest of the residents on the street walking up the street,
>> not just the residents of the >> Well, obvious excuse me, >> let's go and and and have things go through this through the chair. I'm sorry. >> I'm just saying you're only concerned about the people in the building. What about the rest of the people on the street? >> Mhm.
>> Okay, let's go to Yep. As proposed, two separate approximately 81 foot long and 36 foot tall structures are proposed along Maple Lab. No other structures of this size are on the street. Um the mostly modest single family, two single a couple of duplexes,
>> couple single families across from me and mine's a two family. >> Um it's has nothing. It's completely out of context with the rest of the neighborhood. I mean, it's they're giant compared to what's already there. And they're way out on the street as well. >> The setback um you know, the setback the
set box. >> We the two buildings be set back in a manner more consistent with our home approximately 30 ft from the property line, creating a larger separation from Maple A, soften the transition, you know, the development in the remainder of the neighborhood.
Um, where else we got? Um, Maple Lab also was in, you know, pretty poor condition until it was re repaved last year. You know, there's a lot of digging and going. We hope that the street's going to get back to, you know, repave the whole street again. So, it is back to
the way it was now. Um, what else we got? >> Yeah, if you can come up and introduce yourself as well, please. >> Maria McFerson. >> Maria McFerson. Okay. >> Of Patrick. >> Sure. >> Um, one of my biggest things is coming down Maple A where if you could show that picture again, Josh,
>> the original >> looking down the street. So with our blue car is there is not a quote unquote parking spot. There is a sign that says no parking. >> Does that happen? No. Right there.
There's many a times there's an 18-wheeler there. >> Mhm. >> Bringing deliveries to Margarian Rug. >> So when you're coming off Maple Street taking your left onto Maple A, the only way you can go is where that white car is parked. M >> so when those
parking spaces are there, there won't be enough room for someone to get down the street when someone's getting a delivery. I don't know. I've never seen honestly a delivery at Tech Air, so I don't know how big their trucks are. So I don't know how that would work on their side. >> Um that was a big thing. And the other thing about >> they usually have vans, don't they? I've
seen them like on their >> Yeah, they have vans, but I don't know what their delivery trucks. >> I see. Okay, got >> you know. So if even if a van was parked there and an 18 wheel was there, you're not getting down >> the street. Um my other thing is I my biggest other thing is the parking along
Maple A. Why can't it be in the back? So that there can be a sidewalk there. >> They're putting a sidewalk on Maple Street on their private property and but they won't do it on Maple A. >> Yeah. >> Um and you can put up no parking signs
all you want. they're going to park in the street. Also, when you come down past where those town houses are, the street does widen a little bit. >> So, if someone is parked in front of those um town houses, I mean, everyone has people over,
>> family parties, holidays, whatever, they'll have their two spots if they're using them and then people parked out front. >> Sure. >> I mean, it it's inevitable. I It is what it is. Um, and then if there's only parking on one side, then nobody else on the street's going to
park have area to park if they have anything going on. Do you know what I mean? Like it has to be doable for the whole neighborhood, not just this project. >> We'd like for the park to be, you know, kept for the proposed development, not be relying on Maple Lab at all.
>> Right. Because there's no way to put it on Maple Lab. >> Because if you did, it'd be a one-way street. >> Okay. or wouldn't be wide enough, I should say. >> And where where the street does widen out, it's only because the residents that there made it themselves. You can see where the paving is where the where
they came down and did the new paving, there's paving, you know, there's more pavement to the left of that in front of those residences that the residences they did themselves over the over the course of the Mr. Boise, Elmer Boiseine, and uh >> Wow. Okay. >> Yeah. So, when you do your site visit,
you'll be able to see where Maple A is. >> Sure. Sure. >> Because that's where the new road is. The new pavement is there still old pavement from where? >> Okay. >> Um, one other thing is I don't understand if everything is all said and good on the soil, why do they have to put a clean le level of soil
>> a clean cap, you know, a soil cap to keep the >> Okay. >> What was the term that they used for it? Was it resident >> urban fill? Thank you. Sorry about that. >> Okay. which sounds like a >> will that gets borne out during just a question just for staff in terms of fill
issues and such. Is that something that engineering should be? >> So for well they don't it doesn't seem like they're going to be trucking infill which is when the board of health gets involved when they're trucking infill. >> But when they're using the when they're
using uh the fill on site um it doesn't I don't believe it does trigger a permit with the board of health. >> Right. But engineering would still be would engineer. >> They're going to be they're going to be very interested in what the the drainage and grading. So that's where they would get involved. >> I see. Okay. Got it. Okay. >> And this doesn't really pertain to me
because my kids are older, but there are a lot of little kids on the street >> and it's a dead end street. They're riding their bikes. They're out there. Well, they used to play in the field, play soccer, whatever, but now maybe they're playing in the street, baseball, soccer, whatever. Um, is that okay?
>> My kids did it. They made it. They're doing okay. But add more kids to that if there's more kids in the town houses. So there's no that you can call that a neighborhood park, but it's really just for them. These kids aren't going to play over there. >> And again, I'm not I don't have the
kids, but still I see there's a lot of little kids down there right now. >> And I think that was really it. >> Okay. >> My biggest thing is the parking. >> Sure. >> And then and then not enough room on the road. Honestly, this is going to happen. Do I want it 15t from my house? AB. That was the other thing. the trees, they
have like 30 less trees. We're asking that maybe those 30 trees could go along the property line. So maybe we could have a little bit of privacy along the project. >> Okay. And nobody wants to see uh you know a swale area >> 10 ft from their house which is you know
which was what they show next to our house too is the drainage in the swale area that is uh I think it says it's like a foot deep 3 ft wide or something like that and 15 ft long something like that along the side there nobody wants to see that but to conclude we understand the change of this property is inevitable through the latter and
opportition the pro participation in the process we seek to engage dialogue to improve the design and lessen the impacts of the development on our property and our overall whole neighborhood and I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Okay.
>> Sure, you can. Yeah. And I do see Mr. Bradstreet has a has a question, so we'll >> Of course he does. >> Uh I just wanted to make clear our parking calculations. We are providing all of the required parking. >> Yes. >> On our site.
>> We are not relying on Maple A >> for parking. Um, if there's a restriction that there's no parking, at least on this section of Maple Lab, it's fine with us. Okay? You know, we're we have all the parking we need on our own site. And I just wanted to make sure
that that was understood. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Okay. Sounds good. Mr. Bradstreet, >> Bill Brad Street, town meeting member, precinct one. presentation was good and informative. >> Thank you.
>> Uh I heard a term used earlier in the uh description. Pretty much the same. Could you state dimensions and feet or lines? Pretty much the same is very vague to me. Just a request in the future.
some because some you said that earlier some in some of the dealings with town's bylaws or they're very ambiguous because they aren't white is white, black is black >> and just leave it at that. We don't need
uh twothirds of this picture gray. I just like a little more information than that. >> That was just a general more of a general comment. >> Okay. >> I'm I'm asking you just >> All right. a general comment, but I'd like to see it perhaps acted on.
>> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I'd also like uh I know we they showed us a rendering. I I'd prefer a picture showing a picture showing the actual because the renderings are
good for some people. We had a rendering of the popup park in the square that showed 40-year-old maple trees. not anywhere's near accurate. I'd ra rather see a picture rather than a drawn rendering.
And last, if if this is accepted, >> are we going to look forward to the old firehouse being turned into apartment buildings? Just a question. I don't expect an answer, but I'm just asking the question so it's out there. Thank you.
>> Okay. Right. Any further? Yes. Uh, Andrew Andrew High Town Medium precinct 4. Uh, I'm glad >> I'm sorry again. Can you say your name again? >> Uh, Andrew Height precinct 4 town member. I'm glad you brought the the thing about the color up because it looked very dark.
>> It was going to be one of my things. Uh, it it I know it meets the bolar and stuff, but it just seems almost too big for this site. I know it meets all the bylaws in the overlay. I was elected after the zone zoning overlay came in.
Uh the other thing is on um the the exit onto Maple Street. Is there any way you can make that like um right turn only cuz that inter that when you make a left and you go up to Hobbot Street and Maple Street, that intersection is really
horrible because I know that the the the other building, the Maple Square project, that parking lot I think is right only out of that parking lot. Is it right only? >> Sure. It's >> I don't believe that's restricted. I don't think that's restricted, but >> Oh, I thought there I thought there was
a mound or something in the middle there. I don't believe so, but I we maybe on our site visit we could walk by. >> Yeah, I think on our >> Oh, I thought that was restricted. Okay. >> 25. >> Yeah. >> I I don't know. I thought it was, but again, I I would like to see a traffic study. I know it doesn't call for it.
>> Yeah. >> Again, I know they don't have a say over the timing of the lights. I brought up to the town before, but the timing of those lights at that intersection there is right in front of Maple Square is kind of horrible. I drive that way every morning and it's like you get like three cars through and
>> when you're coming from Maple Street, >> it you get three cars through and that's it. >> Yeah. >> Or most mornings. Other than that, uh and I know you're using like clabboards and fiber boards. Is there any way you could maybe working some like red brick or something in some aspects of it along
Maple Street, maybe try to blend it into the old firehouse >> that's across the street or >> the new the new Maple Square building right down the street just to add some >> I guess New England or old feeling to
the building. Yeah, I think I'd be I'd be interested in seeing a little more like as was mentioned earlier, I think it'd be interested to see a little more just more accurate rendering. Not saying it's not accurate, but I know that you said it was darker and that you'd see some different color renderings. And I think sort of addressing some of the concerns
I know that were raised about sort of the the lightness as well as even maybe some concerns about, you know, questions about sort of contrasting materials and such to maybe blend with. >> Yeah, I think that would be helpful. Just something to make it uh contrast, not >> blend in, make it
>> not blend in, but make it more complimentary to what's out there right now. >> Yeah, I understand what you're saying. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any further um comments or questions for members of the public? >> It's coming back to here. Any other
questions for the um for the applicant at all? >> Yeah, I have a question. Um, so I noticed, this is probably on the survey that it looks like the right driveway from
17 Maple Lab is over the property line for this project. Is that true? >> Yes, it is. >> And I assume you guys are okay with it because it looks like you're designing to still keep accommodating that driveway. >> It's shown on the plan.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. >> So, I'm just a little Jean. What was your I just want to >> I was I was just >> clarification. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> so does the property owner for 17 Maple A know that their driveway is on your
property or the applicant's property? >> Um I believe there's been discussions in the past, not recently on that. I was not privy to them, so I don't know definitively, but it is shown that there
is an encroachment of 17 Maple AS driveway onto this property. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It looks like it's the entirety of the end of the driveway pretty much. Is that accurate? >> I rely on Bob's plans.
>> Any other questions from >> Mike? I'm I'm all set right now. Thank you for the presentation. I appreciate it. >> Yep. Other questions from Dave? >> No further question. All reserve. Thank you, Mr. >> John. Any further? Okay. All right. I don't have any further Oh, I'm sorry. I saw another Yes. No, please go ahead. Yeah, I was We're still in public
hearing. >> Thanks. Uh my name is uh Tom Cox. I'm Maria's uh brother. Um so, uh >> you provide your address just for the record. >> Sure. I live at 163 in city of Boston. >> Okay. Um, so we've talked a about a lot of different things here and and you've
heard Maria and Rick say that they're not opposed to the project and they recognize that something's going to happen there. There's a lot of special permits that are being asked for them and there a lot of waiverss, you know, and I and I get it that no project uh, you know, has full compliance uh, to the bylaws or the you know uh, other rules
and regulations and etc. But we've heard a lot of vague answers tonight kind of about LSP and you know that the clean fill cap. I heard I thought I heard Phil. Now there's no Phil. Um you know there was a discussion about whether or not penetration of the ground uh would
be acceptable into the future. I just kind of add a little bit of caution there to really look at that and look at the uh what the LSP is providing and why uh why the design is the way that it is and why that a cover needs to be there um you know etc. So that's just
something you know uh from uh from the environmental perspective that you really should take a lot of uh uh thought to may not be anything that'd be great if it's not nobody wants anything there but uh I just saw a little bit of caution to there with uh with a little bit more analysis there we heard today
we heard a lot about the setback as well and the transition zone and and maybe Tom meeting uh didn't get it right on the 50-oot setback. I think if there's a if there's a waiver for the 50- foot setback, that's Tom meeting issue, maybe not a planning board issue or maybe it's considered as part of the waiverss that
are being asked and the special permits that are being asked, the requests that are being asked by the abutters to push back the building away from it so not to have a crowded uh appearance on Maple A. You know, we heard conveniently, we'll grant you an easement on Maple Street, but not Maple A, you know, etc. I'm not
sure exactly what the difference is there. Again, not opposed to the project. Want to be clear on that, you know, asking for the uh applicant to really listen to the abutter uh and uh you know, and uh to come up with a design that, you know, takes into consideration, you know, what they've
been there. They recognize, you know, say it. The driveway was on there. They bought the house 30 years ago. They didn't do it. We apologize for that. Making no claim either to it as well. Want to be clear. Making no claim to it. We've got a driveway in our parking lot. But at the end, um, you know, really
hoping to have a real collaborative process with the town, with the neighborhood, with the applicant, with the applicants, uh, you know, consultants to come up with something that, uh, is a little bit better, uh, than what we have today. And that it may not be a lot. Pushing the site and the
buildings back, adding maybe more driveway space, heard concerns about, uh, um, uh, you know, uh, parking along the street, heard concerns about the roadway only being 22 ft wide. That's the layout. That's not the pave width, right? The pave width is very narrow.
Uh, you know, take that into consideration with the carpet place. The uh the loading of the building. Take a look at those parking spots that are uh by the loading. Uh do they meet dimensional requirements from the town's perspective? You know, they don't look like they're very, you know, kind of uh narrow there, too. Even if they do
comply from the dimensional requirements and on the length and the width, you still have to back out into an area where carpet is doing loading, etc. You'll see that when there's when there's a site visit and maybe you can can reconsider and or the applicant can re consider and allow uh you know neighbors uh to participate in that you
know as well. >> Maria and Rick made a request uh uh to have stakes be put on the ground where the building's going to be located just so you can really get that sense when you're out there and you're seeing the narrow roadway, you're seeing the density in the existing neighborhood and etc. to have that true appearance and
what the proposed built environment would be. Last but not least, and I'm sorry to be long-winded, is uh when you look at the site, uh it you're raising it up six feet in some locations. And I thought I heard uh today that that's because they're going to be moving Phil around on site, but still it's going to
be changing the grading. And I heard that the peer review will look at that. That's great. Was part of the comment letter as well. Um but while we're out there, maybe you can put a stake in the ground. You know, put a little platform to show six feet. I wish I was six feet. I'm just shy. Just But just think about me. you know, the the gray is going to
be coming up just as tall as me. That's going to change the uh the contours and and the and the runoff on the building as well, you know, etc. So, take that into consideration. I said last but not least, but I'm going to say it again. Drainage as well. We heard the existing drainage line is search charging on site
and overflowing. You clearly the PR engineer will look at that as well. Um and etc. But we're probably adding a lot more impervious area. I heard that we're going to try to recharge it. I get it, you know, but um but we we've got to make sure that as the existing drainage
is searchcharging, I'm assuming that it's coming off of other other roadways that are contributing into it to make it sarging and not necessarily the site. So, a lot to consider there. So, sorry to be long-winded, but absolutely appreciate the opportunity uh to comment in behalf of uh Rick and Maria.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any further questions or comments from members of the the public? Okay. All right. So, it looks like we are um does the applicant have anything further to add because I think we need need to
move to um continue this public hearing to it was so I would anticipate not our next meeting. >> Right. I would request a continuence to your first meeting in May, please. >> Yes. May 12th. >> May the 12th be with you. May the 12th
be with too late. Okay. So, I'd like to entertain. >> I know she had further comment before I made the motion. >> Did you have a further comment, Attorney McKim? >> No, I don't. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, I make a motion to continue this meeting to uh May. >> May I just suggest continue the public
hearing? >> Continue the public hearing. Yeah. Thank you. To continue the public hearing of >> There's There's two of them. You could do like the special permit >> 156 and 158 Maple Street. >> Public hearing and special permit. >> Special public hearings. public hearings for the special permits and site plan
review for 1568 Maple Street. >> Yeah, >> it's both the special permits and the plan. >> They're two separate. >> Make a motion to continue the public hearing and the special permit of 156 and 158 Maple Street to the meeting on May 12th, 2026.
>> You can use plural for hearings >> hearings. >> Yeah, >> you need more, Brian. That's a public hearing. >> We're and I would point out item number five of our um of our agenda. >> Item number five of our agenda from our
April 6 meeting. >> Sure. >> That's I think we covered it. >> I think we got it all. >> Did we say that or no? >> We're good. >> We're good. >> Yeah. >> All right. Wow. That was a >> But we need a second on the on the >> second. Third.
>> Okay. Any discussion on the motion? >> Okay. Hearing none. All in favor of continuing the public hearings on the what was said um to our next meeting of May uh not next meeting to the meeting the planning board meeting of May 12th
2026. >> Yes. >> All right. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? None. So we are continuing it. >> Um >> thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> We appreciate your time. >> Meeting minutes. >> The last item on the agenda is meeting minutes. However, I did want to make a
note. Um, I have not had a chance to fully review them and I do believe I do need to make a um, so I wanted to see if we can just >> Can we just punt it to the next meeting say anything? >> I just I need further further opportunity to review.
>> Okay. So, we don't need a motion. Okay. >> We didn't get to it. It'll be >> Yep. Um, so our next next meeting is April >> 28th. >> 28th. Um if any of you could is I guess is there any scheduling issues with any of you for that?
>> Sorry, we're actually still having we're still holding the meeting. >> So we're still holding the meeting. >> So if gentle people can not be conversing >> um if there's any folks if any folks are not available on the 28th I guess that
would be helpful to know andor if it's question mark >> available. >> I'm free. >> Okay. there's a possibility that I may not be available on that meeting. So, if that if that does indeed happen, I'll know further, but if it does indeed happen, I may need to um ask uh Gene
Hard to step in as acting chair and uh and Mike Doula to step in as acting clerk if that happens. >> Gene, I think, would only do that if the next meeting is a little bit not as like a little bit shorter. >> Oh, because that's under my control. >> Um yeah, it it should be I'm hoping. anything further that we need to be
mindful of with respect to um in terms of >> in terms of our next meeting? Um, so it would the application. So I we're going to discuss the I believe the housing production plan and potential likely vote on it.
>> Uh, site plan review application for 54 Cherry Hill Drive. >> And I believe that there will likely be an ANR submitted between now and then that will likely be on that meeting. So >> stay tuned for our um, and stay tuned also with respect to arranging a site visit as well. >> Yes. So, I will work with the
development team on dates and then I will circle back with you folks. >> I have some weird travel schedules coming up. So, I'll make sure to coordinate with >> We'll try to do a two week a look a look a look for two week like Yeah. >> Just need it before May 12th. >> Oh, defin No, I'm saying from now until
two weeks from now, we'll try to get any and all possibilities in the next two weeks. Get, you know, an hour on site. >> I'll get more than one date. So, we'll just whatever the date that most people could come, we'll pick. >> It sounds good. And um the only other thing I would say is uh um you know,
thank you to Dave and to uh and to John for uh >> quite the first meeting between the meetings. This was a this was a long first meeting. They typically are not, but we cover >> always. Yeah, I quit. >> So, all right. Well, we do need to I I I
I would like to entertain a motion. Um, I would like to entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All right. Motion's been made by Jean, seconded by Mike. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. >> I. Any opposed? None. Our planning board
meeting is adjourned. Have a good night, everybody.