Heat up Yeah. Heat. [Music]
Thank you so much. make this a successful. Good evening and welcome to the uh March 8th meeting of the zoning board of appeals. Uh my name is Matt McNamera, chairman of the board. I'd like to introduce the board here at this time. To my right is Dennis Murphy, who's the vice chairman. Uh to his right is Ken
Foreman, who's a voting member of the board. Uh to his right is Patty Johnson who's an associate member of the board. To my left is uh Trisha Favulli who is the clerk of the board. To her uh left is um Scott Zalinsky who is a voting
member of the board and to his left David Hadad who is an associate member of the board. Far table is Sri Budro who is our zoning administrator. This evening we have just one hearing. It's a comprehensive hearing. uh and then the board following that hearing has uh a
small open meeting uh that we will conduct. Um given the fact that this is a comprehensive permit uh the rules are slightly different and where we do have some folks in the audience I just want to mention that uh one of the major difference with a comprehensive permit
which is subject to chapter 40B of the mass general laws uh the all it takes is three members uh to uh have a motion pass or uh to take action. Uh generally
under a 40A application, our general special permits, it requires four members for that vote. Um there are some minor differences as we go through. Uh I will try to make everyone aware of that. One of the other major differences to
remind the board as well is that in the case of a comprehensive permit under chapter 40B, this board is the sole local permit granting board. uh so that there may be other boards that typically have to give permits uh for local
bylaws. This is the only board under under a comprehensive permit. However, when it comes to state laws or state regulations, we do not have the ability to override those requirements. Uh so with that, I will ask that the clerk uh read into the record. Oh, and I
apologize. One other thing, if anyone does have a cell phone or electronic device, if they would uh silence it at this time and uh our goal is to gather as much uh testimony as we can to be able to determine uh whether or not the
comprehensive permit meets the uh local conditions uh and needs and we will make sure that there's an opportunity for those in the public to be heard. So with that, I'll ask the clerk to read into the record application 22-12, Habitat for Humanity.
Appeal number 22-12 being all persons deemed affected by the board of appeals under section 21 of chapter 40B of the general laws are hereby notified that Habitat for Humanities of Cape Card Inc. of Yarmouthport. Mass has applied to the zoning board of appeals for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass
General law chapter 40B 20 through 23 to construct two affordable units on property known as 55 Glenwood Amouth Mass. publication dates February 13th and February 20th 2012. Um, one of the differences with a comprehensive permit is I'll take care
of right now. One of the first things the board needs to do is to determine whether or not the application is complete. and uh Sri Badaroni administrator has reviewed the file has determined that the application is complete although we may be asking the
applicant to revise and refile that application but before we can move forward the board needs to make a motion uh for a finding that the application is complete second Mr. Murphy uh and Mrs. Favi. All those
in favor of finding that the application is complete say I. Opposed. Unanimous vote. All right. Um, next before we uh go into a presentation is a report from Siri regarding the
department technical meeting that was held on uh February 22nd. I have file. Okay. Sorry. Um, we just met. Uh, there are members present there. reviewed uh my question on the 5,000
square foot less than 5,000 foot lot that's being created. Um we reviewed the structure the setbacks went over the sewer. I did get the answers that I was supposed to. Um each unit has to have their own hook up each lot their own
line to the house. Uh the yard did get back with me on the height of the structure. Um, basement plans. I'm sorry. Basement plans. I'm sorry to get back with me on the basement plans. I've not heard anything back on the uh
5,000 foot lot except that uh attorney Burley had an email which is in the file. I think he meant 48, not 40 on that on his answer. Um, and you have a question on corrected site plan. I did just speak with Jack. I had sent
the referral and concerns to Midaro when Jack was on vacation which was 2 and 1/2 weeks ago and I mentioned it to him now. So maybe they'll show him that referral. I did call his office and found out he was on vacation spoke to somebody at his office and I
believe that was pretty much it. We reviewed besides those present were the board of health, human services, Warren and Leidara, uh, Chairman McNamera, myself, and did I say David Car?
Yes. Y All right. With that, Lidar, are you making the presentation or Warren? Okay. Come on, Warren. And just because you are televised, if you'd introduce yourself uh and uh then the floor is yours. Absolutely. Thank you. Uh, if I may, uh,
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, uh, my name is Warren Brody. I'm an attorney and also a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, Inc. With me tonight in order going down the row are Jack Landers Collie, our civil engineer,
Victoria Goldsmith, who is our executive director, and Lee Darzola, who is the director of land acquisition. Uh, Habitat for Humanity is a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and an affiliate of Habitat for Humanity
International. The town of Felmouth is presently the owner of a parcel of land located at 55 Glenwood Avenue that is the subject of this application. Uh, that parcel being actually adjacent to the parcel in which
this town hall sits. On April 6, 2010, at the annual town meeting by a twothirds majority vote, the town authorized the board of selectmen to sell or otherwise convey the parcel subject to an appropriate
restriction that the land be used for affordable housing, and upon such further terms and conditions as the board of selectment deemed appropriate. A request for proposals was thereafter issued by the town seeking proposals for the development of either a single
family home or one structure containing a three-bedroom home ownership unit and a one-bedroom home ownership unit. Under either option, the units would be sold to an income eligible household and would be eligible for inclusion in the
department, excuse me, the department of housing and community development subsidized housing inventory, DSHI. The RFP also states that the construction must be consistent with the architectural style of the neighborhood.
And the RFP also envisioned that the development would be pursuant to a comprehensive permit issued under Mass General Law Chapter 40B and the regulations of the Department of Housing and Community Development under its local initiative program.
On February 25th, 2011, Habitat submitted its proposal and elected the two option unit that is the development of a three-bedroom unit and a one-bedroom unit. Habitat's proposal was accepted by the
town on March 20th, 2011. On July 8th, 2011, the town and Habitat entered into a purchase and sale agreement that you will find at tab 4 in the comprehensive permit application.
The conveyance of the parcel is to be for a nominal consideration only after the satisfaction of all of the conditions that are found uh except for the paragraph 25 of the purchase and sale agreement including Habitat's
obtaining all necessary approvals and permits for the construction uh including a comprehensive permit. And that's why we're here tonight. and the conveyance will be subject to an affordable housing restriction that will render the units to be constructed
affordable housing units in perpetuity. After receiving letters of support from both the Felma affordable housing committee and the board of selectmen, Habitat submitted its lip application, that's the local initiative program application to DHC
and DHC issued its approval letter on December 14th, 2011. That approval letter you will find at tab two of the application. In addition to approval by the subsidizing agency,
Habitat is required to demonstrate that the development is consistent with local needs which is a function of the percentage of affordable housing units in the town. As of the June 301 inventory,
Felmouth had 962 units of affordable housing out of its 14,870 yearround units or 6.5%. The threshold for a 40B application is
10%. With town being below that, certain consequences flow from the statute. The application before you contains a site plan and a set of architectural plans, and I believe those are also on the easel to my left.
As for the site, it's approximately 10,500 square ft. It is in a resident C zoning district. Town water and sewer service is available to connect to the structures once they're constructed. parcel is also
relatively flat. The architectural plans prepared by Steven Hayes which are on sheets uh S1 and A1 through A3 show the two units of affordable housing
on the site within one structure that is a two family structure with a property line extending along a demising wall so as to allow each family each owner to own their own house and their own parcel
of And the one-bedroom unit will have 740 ft, also one bathroom. The 3-bedroom unit has 1,214 square ft. I believe it has two baths.
We contemplate the construction of a driveway on each side of the structure with the one-bedroom unit having one parking space and the three-bedroom unit having two parking spaces. We believe that the design is consistent
with the architectural character of the neighborhood as required by the request for proposals. The plans have been slightly modified since they were originally submitted with the application due to a potential uh groundwater table situation.
Whereas the original plans called for a full basement, we have now raised the structure and also reduced the height of the basement. So the basement is still functional as a place for a furnace and for washer and dryer, but may not be um what we set out to create in the first
instance, but that was the compromise that we decided on. Once the comprehensive permit is issued, Habitat will proceed to select purchasers for each unit in according in accordance with Habitat's established
procedures at a sale price that is consistent with the DOC DIP program and affirmative fair marketing requirements. Eligible purchasers will be selected on the basis of the following. First, their
need for decent affordable housing. Secondly, a maximum annual income equal to or less than 65% of the median income of Barnstable County. Thirdly, the ability to pay creditworthiness.
Families are required to make monthly payments on a long-term mortgage. They have to be able to do that. And the fourth requirement is the family's willingness to partner. Families are required to contribute 250 hours of sweat equity for a single adult
family and 500 hours for a two adult family and they participate in the construction of their own house. All Habitat housing units upon completion are sold to an income eligible family subject to a deed rider
that meets the requirements of the LIP program and which protects the units in perpetuity, including a foreclosure situation. So there's no way that these units will ever be anything other than affordable
housing units. We have applied for a comprehensive permit because this is a non-conforming lot. We are seeking relief from a number of zoning bylaw requirements,
including minimum lot area, which is 40,000 ft. In a residency district, we only have 10,500 or so. Uh minimum lot width requirement is 100 ft. If we cut the lot in half as we
proposed, we won't have anywhere near 100 ft. In fact, we don't have 100 feet to start with. Frontage is also a problem. We do not have 100 square ft of frontage for each lot. And the minimum lot width, I believe,
cannot be met. Also it may be we may be able to meet it with respect to one of the uh lots but we need relief from either one or both. Also with respect to setback
I indicated that we were seeking relief from the minimum street minimum setback from the street frontage of 50 ft. I don't think it's 50 ft. I believe it's 25 ft. But we need relief from that also because we're believe six feet from uh the front and that is consistent
architecturally with other structures on the street. We also seek relief from the requirement for parking spaces which would impose a requirement of one and a half spaces for a dwelling unit having fewer than two bedrooms. And we are proposing a one one
parking space for the one-bedroom unit. And just generally speaking, we would ask for relief from any other applicable provisions of the zoning bylaw, planning board rules and regulations, board of health rules, and other applicable bylaws, including subdivision regulations
because we are in fact creating a subdivision here. We've also been informed by the conservation commission that part or parts of the lot are within a 100 ft of a wetland. I had a discussion yesterday with Jennifer McCay, the conservation
administrator, to discuss what impact the wetlands protection act may have on the project. We have agreed to hire a wetland scientist to stake out the wetlands that have a bear bearing on the lot and to prepare a certified plot plan
and we will probably have to proceed with a notice of intent and take whatever steps are required by the conservation commission. However, we are not seeking any relief from the wetlands protection act. And because this is a 40B application,
the town's wetland regulations, I believe that's chapter 235, actually don't apply. But we uh intend to take whatever steps are necessary to meet the requirements of the wetlands protection act with uh the help of the conservation commission.
Um I had a quick question. Is this going to be a leads uh certified Excuse me. Excuse me. If you're going to speak because we're on live, you're going to have to get up,
introduce yourself, and then comment. Okay. Thank you. Would you address please the issue of the equality of the construction? We we uh based on our Oh, yes. Uh Victoria Goldmith, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Cape
Cod. Uh based on our experience doing a 13 home lead certified uh subdivision, we feel confident that we are building to the lead gold standard. Um we do not by any means intend to apply for certification which
is a expensive and both administratively rigorous standard but we feel that we'll be building to a good uh environmentally conscious and energy standard. and uh Energy Star, whatever.
We typically uh construct our housing so that they would qualify for an Energy Star home energy rating service rating of less than 60 points. And I believe Habitat has also applied
for and obtained a uh a grant from uh the community preservation committee in the amount of $80,000 for the construction of the house for which we are mightily grateful. Thank you. Okay. What we'll do is we're going to ask the uh clerk to review the
department referrals correspondence uh and then I'm going to go over the application uh before we then ask questions. Okay. Okay. This is from the engineering division who has reviewed the application. Um it appears that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two parcels um as shown on
site plan. Proposed interior lot line divides the parcel into two lots has an incorrect bearing label. We recommend that this line's geometry be reviewed and revised. If the single parcel is subdivided into two lots, the two dwelling units would share a common wall following the internal property line. We
recommend that applicant check state and local fire codes regarding calming walls between two separate buildings on separate lots. If the parcel is subdivided as shown, if the parcel is subdivided, we recommend that a copy of the stamp plan be sent to the engineering division to be reviewed
prior to recording at the registry. Glenwood AB is a public right of way. The applicant will have to file a driveway permit application with the engineering division before we sign off on the building permit. We will wave the $50 application fee. The applicant should be aware that there is a refundable performance bond associated
with the driveway permit application. We re we recommend that the contractor file the application and bond and not the applicant. [Music] Town council the office of town council has no comments. Please note we may be asked by other
departments to assist them with their response. Um fire and rescue Michael F. Small deputy chief regarding the proposed 40B building on Glenwood Avenue. no overriding concerns from the fire department. We've got um Department of Housing and
Community Development. Um they have sent us their referral. Uh Cape Cod Commission has also sent it. I'm not going to read it in. It's a number of pages um long, but they're endorsing the project. uh found with the planning board at its meeting on February 28th, 2012.
The planning board voted in support of Habitat for Humanities application for two units of affordable housing. The housing production plan voted by the planning board and board of selection and approved by the state calls for the use of town own property to underwrite the construction of affordable housing. This project does just that and can be a
model to be replicated elsewhere. This is from conservation. Proposed project falls within 100 ft of the PVW freshwater wetland coastal bank and is located within land subject to coastal storm floodage flood zone A in another wetland across the street.
The applicant must file a notice of intent. And this is there's one letter from one of Butter and I I'll just read it in. um they're unable to make the meeting because they are out of town. As the closest to Butter and owner of the
property at 55 Glennwood, we want to voice our opposition to the Habitat project as it is currently configured. Um their con their concern is the existing line that passes within 2 ft of our master bedroom wall. Since we brought bought 63 Glenwood, we would
like like the previous owners have exclusively used and maintained a small but adequate strip of the 55 Glenwood property closest to our house to ensure privacy and access. There was a proposal on the table to permanently address this problem, but Habitat retracted its offer and now refuses to discuss the issue
with us. We offer to pay to install and maintain a row a bites or other trees about 7 to 8 ft away from our house. We offer to pay Habitat's expenses to have council review a simple easement for the property line landscaping. Habitat's recent unwillingness to cooperate with neighbors really makes us apprehensive
about the project move invit. The 55 Glenwood AB property is in the residential sea zoning. It is it contains 10,500 ft and there was once a house on the lot the town voluntarily raised it. Since the lot is in common ownership of the join and property, we question the lot has if the lot has the
protection of any zoning bylaw grandfather provisions. But even if a single family house could be constructed on the lot today, the lot is 30% less than required to have an accessory apartment. Point is that the proposed development is its impact far exceed what residential development would be
permitted on the small law except under chapter 40. The board of appeals is to approve the project. The board can and should continue its approval to protect neighbors. Such conditions are perfectly appropriate. So as long as they will not make the project uneconomical property line protection that we have requested,
given us privacy and firming our rights to pass around our house will have no adverse economic impacts on habitat and will not interfere in any way with the project's affordability. We would appreciate this consideration, Eric and Linda Zeppel. And that's all there is.
Um, for the purposes of the board and the applicant, I just want to go over the application with you because I want to make sure that we have an in the file uh an application that actually represents everything that you're looking for. So, if we could just uh and and I know the board has copies of the
application as well. The first page was fine. On the second page, uh there is uh dimensions of the entire comprehensive permit project, but it didn't have the dimensions of each of the lot. uh the two lots and where you are going to be doing a subdivision, we'll need to have
uh those dimensions in the application. Um on I'll wait for you. Okay. Okay. On the same page, uh the date of the site approval letter from DHC is actually December 2011. And
that's important to you because you only have rights uh under a certain period after that letter has been written. Um just below that, the type of housing you're asking for is not multifamily. Uh the definition of multif family in our
bylar is three or more units. Uh, so I even though you described it as a two family structure, I think I think but it's it's your application that you're actually looking for two single family homes. They happen to be sharing a common wall.
We often call them single family attached. Yeah. Well, again, I don't want it to be represented as multif family because it doesn't it it is not what our bylaw defines. Okay. Um on page three,
uh the relief that you're seeking, the specific exemptions, just for your knowledge, this board never uh gives a uh blanket uh exemption from any other applicable provisions. So if there's any
that you specifically want, uh you need to put them in or you won't get them from this board. Okay. Um, page five, one, two, three, four, fifth line down.
Under the current zoning bylaw, how many units would be eligible to be built? Uh, and it's an interesting question because I think probably by right zero, but by special permit, not necessarily comprehensive permit, you would have been able to have got one. Um,
does any portion of the site contain wetlands? Uh based on what uh Jennifer McKay has indicated from uh the conservation commission, I I guess that would be a yes instead of a no. No, I believe within 100 ft. You're
right. Jurisdictional line. Okay. Uh conservation commission hearing required. Uh did she indicate that it's required or that they should apply for notice of intent? They have to wait until the sting is done.
All right. So, I guess we don't know the answer to that. Um, and on Meepa it says no. But has that have you actually confirmed that? I don't know the answer to that. Okay. Um, I think once you find out if
we could just make sure that part of the application is accurate. On page six, it actually will come up as a question later, but just while we're going over the application, it says the number of handicapped accessible units are zero. Uh, but there is a ramp shown
on one of the units. And so depending on whether how you answer that question, the application may need to be updated. If I may clarify, sure. We build our units to be visitable by handicapped people, but they're not necessarily
handicapped uh accessible unless the the selected family has a handicapped person and then we would build to a handicap accessibility standards. All right. So, that that was just it on the application so that we can make sure that we're all working off of uh an
accurate application. Okay. And uh with that, Warren, we're going to start with questions from Dennis Murphy. Thank you, Warren. Just to touch on um last thing Matt just mentioned there. What I believe he was talking about was
page two of the uh plans here has a proposed ramp for landing on it and page one doesn't have that. I just want to make sure that what we're looking at is accurate. the site. You're talking about the
architectural drawings. Um, it is the site. I'm happy to show you. One has a ramp, one saying one unit has a ramp and one doesn't. One one drawing has a ramp and one
doesn't. One drawing has a ramp and the other main drawing doesn't. And the elevations don't show it either. This is leader quickly can answer your question. Thank you, Warren. The ramp is there to shown as Vicki said, we do strive to
attain visitability standards which are basically to allow someone in a wheelchair to come visit someone. So, you want to be able to show that a portable ramp could be put into the site. So that was some of the thoughts and I think there were some sketches
that we're looking at if we needed a ramp and also to I think Warren mentioned we don't yet know what family is going to be our partner family and if that family needs accessibility we want to make sure our plans include that at
this point there is no ramp envisioned as a permanent structure. Did I get that? Okay. So the ramp is not part of the of the plan. Yes. Short answer. That's what I need to know. Okay. Thank you. [Music] And I am concerned it's a very very
small street um and very narrow too. I'm very concerned about the one parking spot uh for the one unit. Perhaps you can go over why you didn't uh try to work a second spot in there by however means possible. I'll maybe I should just stand here. Um,
and a little of this I have to say I came on board Habitat in the beginning of January. So I haven't been involved with this project through the extensive and very cooperative workings with the town and community preservation. And I also believe that there was quite a um
rigorous process with the neighborhood to make sure that our designs worked for them. Originally, we had proposed five parking spaces and the neighbors requested decreasing that amount and we
changed our plans accordingly. You read it in the notes. I read that in the notes. I don't have personal knowledge of that, but that's what I read. And I have to say that just reading the notes, I thought this is strange. You know, more parking is
always I shouldn't say always better, often times better. And when I visited the site, I understood that it's a small street and less parking can work in that situation. Well, my concern is that um if somebody there who lives there has a car, it's
physically impossible for anyone to come and visit her or him because there's no place to park. You can't park on that street unless you're blocking in the neighbor. So, it it does remain a concern. Um, speaking of neighbors, if there was a neighbor who has a letter in the file,
uh, talking about just how close their property line is here, um, I know that's more of a of a civil thing and not necessarily on us, but if you could just expound on conversations with that person and I have to say I can speak from obviously only Habitat's perspective of
how this conversation evolved. Our original understanding was that there was an interest in um because the butter is on both sides sort of uh making the lot lines more parallel to the street a more uniform presentation and as we we did some work
on that and then we were told no that wasn't so much an interest. What the neighbors were very interested in was the concern about being able to maintain the side of their home. And so they wanted some an easement over uh some
land, you know, as you're facing the house on the the left side. So we went to the and of course until the engineering is complete, we could not begin to prepare plans to um come for you. So we were dedicating some time and also some money to this. We had our
engineer draw a line that would represent I think it was up to a 7.7 foot um easement from their house. Um and the town informed us and um that according to some regulation or whatever
is that you have to do an even square footage swap with that kind of easement. You can't just move over lot lines. So we had uh drawn a plan that uh took a little triangle of their land in order to give them that maintenance easement
and uh sent that plan along and also did give a time element for approval with this. and we were meeting that request for maintenance uh maintenance on their side of the house at that time which is how the question was posed to us. Um
that was turned down. We were asked to speak with their attorney. Um and then uh proposals were made to us that they would have that easement but they would also have exclusive use of the triangle which didn't seem right that our homeowner would be giving up land. And
then there was another proposal that they would uh pay in order to have that easement. And then we didn't feel that we could um sell um a bit of land that the town had given for this purpose. And in conversation with their attorney um
he surfaced a Massachusetts I don't know if it's a statute or regulation or case law that essentially says that you can walk on your neighbor's property. you know, you're you're not considered to be trespassing if you need to go on that
property in order to maintain. Um, and so it it became apparent to us it was kind of a non-issue. He had the right if he needed to to go on, you know, the future homeowner's land in order to do whatever kind of maintenance he might
need to do routinely on his uh land. Uh so we put it to rest and said, you know, this has gone on, it's gone on longer than we said. we have to go before the zoning board of appeals. We need our we need to do our survey and our engineering to do that and we that's the
point where we close that discussion and then a new discussion opened about buffering. So that was not actually the original question. And the original question was over home maintenance and then buffering came up and um I'd have to say that is still under um discussion
within habitat and I think we're very concerned about uh the comfort of the homeowner who will live here in privacy and we understand um the settller's uh desire for privacy. That's we feel that's entirely reasonable but uh we feel it should be something that we
incorporate into the landscaping plan. will be happy uh probably to have some contribution. We don't oppose that. What we did oppose was giving an easement to the zettlers and permanently giving up some right to the control of the property to the neighbor. We just felt that was not right and we wanted to
address it uh through landscaping and good neighborliness. So that is the discussion changed over time and it it took quite a while and it um did delay our coming before you. We felt we made good effort and we did spend good money for engineering for nothing. Thank you.
I'd like to add one thing to that if I could. What the settlers were discussing with us was not an easement per se. It was a land swap. They were going to re re uh rejigger the the boundary lines of the property. And it's not our land. It's the town's land. So, it's an inappropriate discussion to have and
that's another reason why we didn't continue to engage in it. Uh next, let's see. You're taking an undersized lot and proposing to make two even more undersized lots. Uh any thought to a different setup, possibly
condo units? We our experience with condos right now is that it's impossible to to finance them. And we're not certain how these are going to be financed. To the extent they're financed with uh some kind of conventional affordable housing
mechanism, they won't condos just don't work anymore. Um as far as the lot lines, um uh you know, we responded to a proposal. It was either give us a three-bedroom
house or give us 3+ 1. we decided to try to get the maximum amount of of units out of the project. So, and then the I believe the tempered I think that was if I'm correct I apologize for interrupting but I think that the approach with the three bedroom and the
onebedroom was definitely in response to town preference. So, we were trying to satisfy the needs of the town and the town wanted to increase the subsidized housing inventory and provide as much community housing as they could with a
lot that's serviced by infrastructure that's, you know, very conveniently located that fits a lot of the sustainable development. The answer to the question about splitting the land was Oh, sorry. The financing. Okay. Yeah, it was mainly about financing. But what we do, we have a party wall
agreement that would address the rights of the neighbors and how the party wall is treated. And I believe a sample or specimen party wall agreement was provided to Miss Budro. Thank you. That's all I have right now. Trisha, the only question I have and Dennis
asked it, but I wasn't clear on the answer was your handicap visibility. If this is if you're going to try and make this handicap visibility, you need to have access and it's not real clear to me that
you're showing that and I might have missed part of your answer, but I didn't get clearly if I'm in if I'm in a wheelchair, how am I gain access to either one of these units? It's not going to happen without some type of ramping. Yes, but the ramp can be a portable ramp
rather than a permanent structure. Okay, I guess that that is the point. But otherwise the size of the entry doors, size of the bathrooms are visitable for someone to escape. Okay. So everything interior is set for that purpose on the first floor. On the first floor that would you
wouldn't want to spend the elevator money. Okay. So if in fact beyond that a need was there, it would be a portable ramp. Yes. Which would hook to the front of the building or the rear of the building? Um, it's shown in the uh on the right
hand side of the three-bedroom unit, right? Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have right now. Clarification is that plan that shows the ramp before the raising of the foundation that needs to be designed for that. I
believe this is this is the original. Yeah. So, is that consideration of the foundation being raised? Is your green six or seven steps? I'm told it does. And that ramp
goes up to those six or seven steps. Um, good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jack Landers Collie. Um, unfortunately, the the submission shows the site plan without all the details of the sewer, the electric, the water, and
the ramp. But this plan which I brought along shows the proposed elevation at 15, the raised elevation with the ramp and we designed it according to that elevation. So it's functional. So that ramp on the plan that they have in front of them is an accurate plan.
Yes. Jack don't have so with that that height is that going to meet ADA requirements? Yes. For ramp? Yeah. I wasn't sure it was. That's why I designed it. Originally, uh, Leora and I spoke about it and I had some
uncertainty, so I designed it. Okay. Thank you. That's okay. Yep. Um, I I I noticed there's a proposed uh 10 by 11 shed. Is that correct? In fact,
what's the purpose of that? Uh, and storage. And there's one for both, right? Yes. Okay. Um, yeah, we don't that's actually we don't provide the shed. It's there for permitting purposes. So, if the family
wants to have a shed, they can have a shed and that's where it would go just for permitting purposes. So, that and there is no garage. There is no garage. No. And so, and the basement as you according to your earlier descriptions
was is not a full basement. So the shed is perhaps therefore more important. Might be. Yeah. The basement I believe is 6' 6. So it's not terribly short, but it's not standard. Kevin Garnett is going to have trouble down there.
uh the to to go back to the issue of the of the abuter and the uh request for some screening. And the one thing I noticed is that the way you've configured the
lot, it's actually 2 ft closer on the side uh where the a butter has an issue to the lot line than it is on the other side.
And I'm just wondering if there's any possibility of jigging it to to work the other way about this. Let me see if I can give a direct answer. One of the pieces in terms of
working with the neighborhood was intensity of use. It's not always just exact number of feet. So, we had the one-bedroom unit closest to the year round neighbor, thinking that the
one-bedroom unit has a lighter use, one car as opposed to two. We were trying to keep the lots of the same size. We also had the one-bedroom unit closer to the street to again trying to be as
considerate to our closest neighbor as possible. Did that get it? Yeah. Certainly explained your your reasoning and we are, you know, it's a benefit to all neighbors to have a little bit of
screening. I mean, that's that's a positive thing. And a landscaping plan will come a time. It's just premature right now to address exactly what's going to happen. I'm just wondering if there's
some protection that can be incorporated into, you know, short of an easement, maybe a no bill, you know, uh uh strip or or something so that uh the butters
on that side feel confident over time they're protected. I can say we'd be amendable to that. Maybe something that needs to be negotiated a bit further, but our feeling was that this wasn't the appropriate time to do that. We're not
against it. As far as a condition goes, I don't know. But again, we are willing and we as we've demonstrated, we're willing to work with the neighbors. Yeah. No, I think that's clear. Um,
so I I guess a last question that just it is there these are are are now sub under 5,000 at least one of them is under 5,000 square ft. Yes. these lots. Um,
are you aware of any uh state minimum lot size requirements in terms of width or area uh that would be applicable under this 40B approach? I am not um the only statute that I'm
aware of that has a 5,000 square ft minimum lot size requirement is in chapter 4A. I believe it's section six which talks about whether a lot is eligible to be grandfathered and in order to be eligible to be grandfathered
a lot must be 5,000 square ft. But just to be clear that's 40A. I believe 40B would trump 40A. You have the power to create a lot that is less than 5,000 ft as far as I know.
[Music] Okay. Scott, I have some questions for Jack if you don't mind. Hi, Jack. You guys uh considered fencing at all on this property?
Um it's been discussed when what detail? Um, it was just talked about when the process of the easement versus the land transfer, but it didn't get any further than that.
And that was between you and Habitat, not you and the brothers. I actually had the benefit of being at the site meeting with the neighbors to discuss many of those details with Don Dickinson. Um, Ludor took his position when he
retired and it was an extensive conversation as to what they could do and we were the ones that actually precipitated the different concepts of how we could perhaps help them uh resolve some of their problems.
Um, fencing uh was discussed but it didn't seem to I don't know why it didn't go anywhere to be honest with you. you if you know you agree that for we were 45 ft from the
back of the the rear unit, the one that you've got the pond back there. You've got the tower right back there, too. I think that um uh a fence, some kind of fencing discussion
um would help. I mean, my other concern is on the front of the property, actually in the public way, you've got you've got sewer connections. You've got two two sewer connections, two water connections, and gas connections in a 15
ft right away. A 15 foot. Do you guys anticipate having to restore that section of road completely or you going to have six patches through that road? I it hasn't been brought up, but if I were asked, I'd say yes. I would put a new
overlay in that section. Okay. Um, that's all I have for right now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Jack. Okay. I'm good. David,
um just to talk about the sheds again, is that um those proposed sheds, was that included in the lot coverage for this parcel? That's Yes. Yes, I totally was. All right. And um the landscape plan,
you said that's going to come sometime down the road. Yes, it has been done. Uh why is that? It just seems being that the neighbors wanted some sort of buffer and Scott mentioned fencing. I would think [Music]
it'd be a good time. The uh leadola again, the vegetated buffer idea just came up within I think the last two or 3 weeks. It's very recent in general habitat with our landscaping because we
do rely on volunteer efforts and volunteer materials. It is one of the elements that evolves and comes as a home is ready for landscaping. People who have landscaping available to donate donate at that time. So we want to
maintain the flexibility to accept whatever shrubs and trees or plantings are donated to us. A vegetated buffer is, you know, is a positive thing. Um the details of it are hard to figure out right now and we didn't have enough time
to work it all out with the neighbor. And just just one other thing um regarding starting and completing the project. When do you foresee that? Uh this I believe our plan was to construct the house in 2012.
Sometime this year hopefully uh and I would say yeah the the issue of uh this vegetative buffer I do want to say did come in after we submitted our plans to you. So it is quite recent. So that's why that
discussion hasn't concluded. Um it really depends somewhat on when uh we emerge from the zoning board of appeals with an approval and the um the appeal period expires. It's at that point that we open up uh family selection which is
a six-month process for us. Uh the state requires that applications are open for two months. Then there's um credit review and then there's interviews. um that puts us very likely to doing un unless we get very quick approval to
doing um site work and so forth in the fall and being ready to raise walls in the spring. Um if things go on an express lane, it's possible we could start construction this fall, but um that's our delay period to be realistic.
And one last thing we got in the basement both are just used for washer and dryer, the heating system, that sort of thing. The basement definitely for mechanicals, washerd dryer and storage. The concept
is you know the homes do need some storage. people have fishing rods, kayaks, bikes, and better to give people a place to store those so that the homes have, you know, look nice from outside and, you know, it's nice to have a
basement, [Music] Mr. Chair. All right. Thanks. Um, Warren, I'll go through you and uh we'll see where it goes. Uh, just following on a couple of things that other members have brought up. David just brought up
the sheds and the lot coverage. Um, and I understand that it's in you're looking for the permitting in case a family might want that, but there are no setbacks in terms of the sheds or the size of the sheds. Uh, and depending on setbacks and sizes, you may need to have
an exception uh or variance, I'm sorry, a waiver from regulation. So, we'll need to know the the size and the setbacks of those sheds. Um, I see one is marked at 10 ft by 11 ft. Okay.
And the setback would be U, I don't know. It's not not indicated. Um, when we showed the sheds, we got them to comply with zoning, so they're 10 ft. Okay. We can we can depict that though if it makes feel
certainly when you do finalize plans, if it's approved with that, we just need to have it jump in. Okay. Um following up on uh Mr. Foreman's question regarding uh 4A section 6 as you said Warren um
you indicated that uh it was your belief that 40B trumps 4A. Uh can you show us something uh regarding that? Is there something that I missed in 40b that says uh uh it overrides 4A because I'm not
aware of that. Right. We had a case in uh Bourne. Mhm. Involving the doctrine of merger, two lots of common ownership at the time the zoning was increased. Mhm. And the town of Bourne uh denied a
40B permit. We appealed to the housing appeals committee in Boston and the case settled. But it was the statement of Verer Lowey, the chair of housing appeals committee that 40B trumps 4A. forget about the doctrine of merger.
Mhm. Could you provide a copy of that portion of that decision for there? It was a a decision on a stipulation. So, not not really. I mean, that's how we were finally allowed to build. So, that was Warno's opinion at the time
that ultimately settled, but it's not really a happy. No, I wouldn't say it has presidential value. you have anything that there is out there that could be beneficial to this board in terms of that? Um, I'm I'm not aware of anything that would
that says exactly that, that 40B trumps 48. I give that as an example because it's a very clear one where where merger is something under 40A and was found not to be an issue whatsoever at the level of the housing appeals committee. Except that really wasn't a decision by
the housing appeals committee. It was a settlement that between the parties. Yeah, I I will I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of this the decision on stipulation. No, because I probably won't give us any uh any value. So, we're looking for something. Okay. Going down the same route, however, uh if you look at 4A
section 6, and it does have uh 5,000 ft uh one might argue a 5,000t minimum and also a 50 uh foot uh width. Given given the dimensions of the entire parcel that's being sold to Habitat for
Humanity, why can't you meet those requirements? Because the first of all, the lot is not 100 ft wide. Yeah, we thought it was I mean I think there's some indication in some map that
it is it is not 100 ft wide. So, okay. Um, it can't on average be 50 ft wide if you cut it in half. Mhm. Could we do the square footage? Uh, the square footage. We could actually move uh the structure uh over
to the north a bit and end up with a with a 5,000 each lot being 5,000 ft. We have Jack says we'd need to move it about a foot and we could accomplish that. the um because I I mean I'm not
sure we can we can wave a state statute. Uh and again since you haven't given us anything that would argue that or provide us documentation that 40B trumps 4A or that we do have that power that might be an interesting approach and uh this board does reserve the right to
itself to decide what's dimminimous. So two feet on this project in terms of width might be considered by the board to be dimminimous and it might resolve some issues without having to get into uh the legal concerns over 40b 40A and
any minimum requirements in 40 section 6 which I believe apply to grandfathering. It's not the situation before us. Well, again, it's going to be the applicant's burden to demonstrate that to this board because the concern's been raised. Okay.
Um, another question I have is uh regarding the uh lot coverage uh by buildings and parking uh paved etc. uh in tab 12 you provided that for the entire
parcel that's under consideration but you haven't provided it for the subdivided lots. Is that something that could be done? Certainly. Okay. Thank you. Um the lottery plan uh is there any
preference for Felmouth residents? Uh yes. I'm sorry I left that out in my presentation. um up to 70. We in effect it will be one um local preference. One of one of the units probably the three-bedroom unit
will be subject to a local preference to people who live in town, work in town, have family in town, or work for the town. Okay. And you said probably. Do you know yet or will you be able to tell us at some later point? It's my technical issue. Um, you know,
there's the D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DHCD, Department of Housing Community Development. Um, you their new standard is you do need to demonstrate that there is a need for housing for local people. We've never had a problem with that. To date, we use town affordable housing plans, etc. to
accomplish that you. So we do have to demonstrate need for it to DHCD and then we would be if if successful which we always have been um we would be able to offer preference for one unit according to their definition and with forgiveness
uh warn they revised that um about two years ago and it's uh lives in the town is employed in the town whether it's a local business or a municipal or school or attend school in the town. They no longer allow us to give preference
because you have family in town. So I I don't want to have you under a mis mis understanding. And if I can, which unit are you going to be requesting the preference for? Um I would say the threebedroom. It usually has the greater demand and we feel that the town would we feel that would be the town's desire and that that
is why we would do that. Great. Thank you. Um next question relates to uh the letter of support from the board of selectment. Uh in that letter uh it indicated and I think you all have as well that uh town official
held meetings uh with uh habitat and interested neighbors to modify the project design and to address some of the neighbors concerns. Can you summarize what the concerns were and how they have been addressed? I cannot that wasn't present. John Dickinson was pretty much in charge at
that point. I'm sure there must have been some notes or thoughts or I have no idea because I know this came before Tom meeting and there were a number of concerns that have been raised uh and uh it was I think based on the fact that they were
going to be these meetings and the concerns addressed uh that the vote uh passed as you said by twothirds vote. I think I can take some of this and maybe Jack you were at some of these meetings you can help as well. I believe parking was one of the concerns that we
addressed. Originally, the house the house design had, if you notice, they're offset. Originally, the house design had the front all equal. So, and the neighbors felt that that was a bit
of massing, I think, for the front and suggested the offset, which we complied with. Um, I believe there were some questions about saving some, you know, of the plantings that had been there and I believe that those were the big issues, but I may be leaving something
out. Okay, thank you. Um, the next issue I wanted to follow up on uh that Dennis Murphy had indicated was about the parking. That's my
understanding that uh Habitat has uh stated that there will not be any on street parking that came up in our technical review. Um I don't know how we can I mean we're
trying to provide adequate parking spaces. Um I don't it's impractical to park in the street as it is. Are we just trying to clarify? Are you
saying that you're not relying on on street parking for this project? I No, we believe the parking spaces are adequate. Okay. Um although less than code required, right? Uh, is there a financial problem
or other problem with adding an additional parking space for visitors as Mr. Murphy had mentioned? we could provide additional parking. I the I I guess the problem is when you try to take all the components of a project like this, that is the height of
the building, the location of the building, the fact that it fronts the same as the others, and you want you don't want to create any contrast to what's there. Now, this this really meets that goal. If we show an
additional parking space, I think we'd be the exception to the rule first of all on the on the whole road. And even if we were to provide it, I would suggest maybe in a hardened surface like a gravel or something that's less um you see less of and you know
implicitly they're not going to use as often. Is possibility reinforced turf. Yeah. Well, we're already using recycled concrete aggregate and um yeah, it's possible, but at the I'll say
in the in the same breath though that the more parking we put in, the less planting we'll have to in the front yard. So, I it's a trade-off. You a decision has to be made by by you in that regards. Thank you.
Um, what are the plans for trash? Um, I believe that would be by the town. Okay. I just wanted to make sure you were relying on that because I think something also came up at the technical meeting that uh the technical review that there were dumpsters already on the
street and I wasn't clear as to what the plans were. So, you're relying on the municipal pickup? Yes, I believe so. Okay. Um the portable ramp that you mentioned in terms of the visitability uh given the portable nature of it is if
I understand correctly and perhaps I need to have a better understanding is that something that's going to be stored somewhere for when and if somebody comes and if so where will it be stored? I I think it's the kind of a thing that
if there is a need for it, the homeowner would purchase it and it would then be there. It's not really in the basement. Could be stored in the basement. So, it's something that can be taken off
and wheeled or something else. Obviously, it'll have to meet building code. So, the idea is that it would be stored in the basement. Okay. Thank you. And it's also this is uh we put it on the plan to make sure it was possible is
my understanding. The hope is there may be an easier method off the back because the back the grade is going to be a little higher. It's not we're we're definitely we're not building this ramp then and there. We are going to strive
to make sure if it's at all practical that we can have visitability. Okay. I just want to make sure that by the time you want us to act on this application, we know what you're asking for because to say on one hand that we
will have visitable units and then to say we're not sure if it's practical is not a clear application to me. I agree with you and we will we will make this clear. I think uh an intention changed when we realized that we had to
elevate this building. And so I know what and I was a little taken by surprise tonight, which is not a good way to be. Um I know the concern of our director of construction was to look at this building and see if it needed to be ramped in the future, would that be able
to be done? And so that was an exercise that went we went through. So, I do not cannot say for sure tonight that we would do the portable ramp thing because in the instance where we have been able to do that. What we've built is one step entries and the homeowner does have
quite a simple ramp that they can bring if they do have a visitor. So, um just the higher elevation that we've had to go to because of the water table. I think there was not a complete circle of communication and I apologize for this. We should have been on one page to be here tonight, but
obviously something that's that's the reason for the confusion. Thank you very much. Um, and I I think the last question, Warren, is regarding the engineering referral. Uh, plans to address the requirement for
modification of the plans because of uh what was that point? The proposed interior lot line divides the parcel into two lots and it has an incorrect bearing label north 00. Okay. And obviously if you're going to be considering moving that lot line, it may
have a bearing on it. Anyways, all right. Let me just check and see. Um, do do you have a date for conservation yet or when you're planning to submit that uh request for notice of intent?
We really learned of the requirement yesterday and they're in the process of engaging a scientist now. So, the first step is doing uh the staking of the wetlands and preparing a certified plot plan and then seeing what that means. Okay, sounds good. I know there are a couple follow-up questions, Trisha.
Yeah, this is for Jack if you would please. Um Jack, what are you doing on your road runoff in water? Because on sheet um A2, the gutter is just hanging in the open air and it's not going into any dry
wells. Um so I kind of have a concern that All right. [Music] especially if you're going to go to conservation, they're going to question that anyway.
I know they'll question that. And just sort of as a um an added sidebar, the site plan we have uh is probably 90 95% sufficient for the conservation commission. I'll have to
add a few details to it. As for the uh road runoff, we're not going to do anything because that's the same. As for the house drainage, we'll put in dry wells is what we'll do. We'll just modify the short because that water is going to go into the road otherwise eventually, right?
Especially where it's so close to the street. Um, and the other thing, everybody's looking at the plan saying you need to move the house to to split the lot equally. Why would you, this is not that I'm trying to redesign your plan, but why don't you just jockey the the rear of the lot line a little bit? And
Well, that's a good question. I asked Don Dickinson the same thing. He says, "Well, a lot of people can't visualize an an angle in their lot line when they look out the back of their house. They want to know the lines parallel." So, it makes sense in that I guess that reasoning. So, I
think it would be easier to clarify. We'll get it. So, it's 5,000. Thank you. Uh Jack, before you sit down, if you don't mind, um you anticipate any issues with parking for construction down there on my site visit. I had to I had to turn
around in someone's driveway to even just get my pickup out of there once you get excavators and dump trucks and the whole thing down there. Where are they going to stage all that? Have you guys made any reservations for that without knowing that the neighbors you sometimes you get
to park on the neighbors property but if the neighbors aren't any it's a it's a good question quite frankly they you know this whole area where they could stage their their construction and they can also stage it back here right now this is all grass right in this area it overlooks town
hall town hall's right right here right so Um, as you know better than any 45 of the foundation up. It's a lot easier to work. It's that that first stage and this is all of course sands and gravels in this area.
So, we should be in pretty good shape in that sense. And I'm just following up on my original question about fencing. I don't I'm not sure that I got an answer, but I think they have to try to resolve it with their neighbor. If you're talking about fencing in the back,
I'm talking about showing the town's property some privacy. And the two neighbors who are clearly not in favor of this, I would like to see some kind of uh fig leaf, you know what I mean? Going
forward, we'll leave it at questions right now and then we'll have a little I'm asking for the the question about the fencing. Would you would you enter into some dialogue with the butters if it if it made a difference? Answered by him. Thank you.
We we certainly will. Although the butters indicated a preference for a buffer rather than fencing. And I have one more for you, sir. Please. Always never rented. Always. Oh, never rented. Own a rocket. Always own it.
Oh, absolutely. So if no rooms to rent either, God forbid there was a someone lost that house, there wouldn't be a rental in between sales of that property. No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Any other questions? Just just a small one.
It's on town sewage. Won't be any garbage disposals, will there? Um, we don't we don't do any we're on TV. Yes, we don't include disposers or
dishwashers. Thanks. Um, just one more. Can you just go over the thought process on uh I know the neighborhood the neighboring houses are close to the street, but is that the only reason you put this one so close to the street? Uh, my understanding is it was intended
to, you know, to to carry the line of the existing structures. uh so that it would blend in with the neighborhood. Originally, we had proposed it and it was further back and we moved it closer to the street at the request of the
neighbors as part of that discussion to really make a home that was in keeping with the neighborhood better backyard and then move the the three-bedroom unit back to uh to to handle the architectural issue of Massing.
Okay. Yes, sir. Before I turn to the public, there's just one thing I forgot to mention so that we have it on the record uh that we did get a letter from, uh the planning board uh signed by the chairman of the
planning board. Just want to acknowledge publicly that uh Mr. Herps is also a member of the CPC that voted funding for this project. So, I just wanted to make sure that was fully disclosed. All right. All right. With that, we're going to turn to comments from the public. Uh,
is and what I'm going to ask for is those who are opposed to the project, those who are in favor of the project, or those that might have any questions or general comments. Okay. So, is there anyone in the public that is opposed to this application?
Anyone in favor of this? Are you opposed to the application, sir? I count at this point. No, I'm asking for people to be recognized by the chair to come up. If you're opposed in favor or questions and comments, do I need to commit to one of those three?
You do. So, I'm starting out with those that are opposed. Well, um I I'll come back later and you can Okay. Anyone in favor? All right. Yeah. You a favor, sir? Yes. Then come on and please identify yourself. And
does this does this mean I can't have a question? No. Uh my name is Steven Malcus. I live at 50 Glenwood, which is right across the street from the proposed uh Habitat for Humanity. I'm very psyched. This is the greatest thing that's happened in Glenwood since my neighbor Dan uh moved
in. Uh this is terrific. we're very excited about, at least I am. Uh, but I can understand what the Zetler's issue is and I just in passing I want to give a little history on that. Uh, we go way back to when this property was first being considered for a parking lot. And
so we've had a lot of issues with the town about this. And I think Eric and Linda fell off the tracks when uh um I guess Marlene of the of the planning um indicated that a proposal for uh request
for proposals was going to go out for a single family unit with an accessory. And we were told that we would uh um be informed if that wasn't working out. And the street was never informed until we then found out this present plan. And I
think that since then a number of people got a little antsy because they they realized that the town had expressed a preference which was said even today for having uh two units. So there was a little funniness going on. I still understand Eric's problem with this and
I I again it must be the town that's responsible for not being able to do the land swap which he originally was requesting. There were complications. The front line has to stay the same. And I don't see how much they would have I remember you were there. There's not
much to be bought by just shifting the backline I guess which is one of the things that was discussed at that time. So anyway, that's where that stands and um we have sympathy for them. there our neighbors. But uh this is going to go on. The only question I have, as I said,
I'm psyched. I think this is great. I'm all for it. I want to participate in it. However, I did notice in the plans that um we requested in these meetings. I've been to every single one of them that were available and announced to us uh from the start. I'm not Julia Butterfly.
I'm not going to go and build a treehouse in those trees, but they we were told that the large cedars were going to be kept. And now I don't know if that's possible. Somebody technical would have to say we're going to try to keep them, but if they start putting heavy equipment in, digging up
foundations, the roots might go and they might die. But I do notice that in this plan, it doesn't say original cedars. It says cedar bushes. So I'm a little disturbed by that because these are 100y old trees, white cedars. They're a little over 50 ft tall. They're
beautiful. I've been looking at them for 12 years now and I'm hoping you can we'll ask for clarification on that for but otherwise thumbs up. I'm in there. I'm with you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else in favor? If not, we'll get to question.
Oh, sorry. You wanted to come up and speak a favor? Come on up. Thank you. Uh Fred Dodge Walker Street um is one of the uh neighbors that's followed the Glenwood uh lot 10 uh controversy over the years.
Um I think uh my first impression when your questions are all resolved is my comment is that I am want to commend the habitat for humanity for
their care and the architects for their design to make the building look in conformity with the rest of the the uh historic Glenwood Avenue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. George. Anyone else in favor?
Okay. Questions and comments and um my name is Dan Seline. Um I live at 61 Walker Street. My property also has the address of 58 Glenwood Avenue as it goes from, you know, spans the the block. Um, so and I own the the uh
rather dilapidated old house across the street from from this property which we hope to renovate soon. Um, so I guess the reason I'm I'm uh I've been sort of confused here is that you know honestly
my opinions are a little confused and uh that's nobody's fault but my own I guess. Um you I've lived in the lot for 20 years. Um, you know, I've I have u observed uh I guess the stabilization of the neighborhood over the years. When I
moved in, it was a troubled, you know, street. Um and um and home ownership has been a stabilizing influence, you know, on on the street. I started with Dan Repa and his wife Marica who previously
owned Steve's house. And then I followed and then the Zlers moved in and the Zlers bought the property flanking both sides of and on the north side of of this lot number 10 I guess we know it as. And so, um, you know, our little
cluster of of resident owners, you know, has has been, I think, a really good effect on a neighborhood that when I moved in, you know, was very troubled by alcohol, you know, consumption open on the street, drug sales, you know, lot lots of things. And I know the police
our police records would attest to this history. Um, but it's a fairly quiet, you know, neighborhood now. Um although it's dense, you know, there are 18 there are 18 dwelling units uh that front on walk on on Glenwood Avenue. Okay. Uh
some of the the units or buildings down the street have as many as five or six units that have been carved up, you know, in these old houses. Um so so the uh and the and those of course are not home ownership and the rental and you
know generally they're quiet and sometimes they aren't and we you know we we've just learned to to sort of enjoy the urban you know nature of the of the place and and all the things that the people who live in this house will enjoy about living downtown and and having all
of the access uh to services and such that they'll have. Um so the uh you know we've enjoyed the use of the lot as a vacant lot. I mean, given the density of the of the neighborhood, um, you know, it's it's probably close to 15 units per acre, you
know, down on that street. And, um, so it's been nice to have vacant lot there. Quite honestly, it's been a great to be able to walk through it on the over over to to the open space behind town hall, but, you know, um, you know, we understand that, you know, the processes
have been worked here for a long time. You know, as Steve said, we fended off, you know, parking lot uses over the years. you know, it's just real struggle and we really thank Tom meeting for, you know, really coming to our support on that matter more than more than once because uh we were literally fighting
city hall uh on that in that process and and that's a very uh uncomfortable uh situation to you know to be in. Uh so you know we have urged the development of the property for for housing um and
uh and Toming you know came to our support in that and and you know we we appreci we appreciate that um you know it's a it's got a lot going for it sewer the services nearby um the
very developable lot being flat and such and I think Habitat is is about as good organization you know, to lead this process as as there could there could be, you know, so in a lot of ways, you know, it makes sense. My concerns are
related to uh the the street and the size of the lot. Um the street is about 12 or 13 ft wide. Okay. As I said, there there are 18 dwelling units, you know, along the street, not not including these additional two. This will be 19
and 20, you know. Now, um, you know, there I mean, I know I'm a landscape architect, professional slave planner. Um, you can't build houses on 12t wide streets. I mean, it's just not it's not
allowed. You know, I don't and I don't think that in most cases you can even build uh houses within a a development on a 12t wide street, especially if that street was two-way. it wouldn't be allowed by the planning board and wouldn't be allow allowed by by you. Um,
but such as it is, that's that's what history provided us, you know, in this case. And and so so we deal with it. But the way you deal with it is you you know, you have to, you know, hope that nobody's trying to come while you're going. Okay? You need to pull into
somebody's driveway when to let somebody go by. Um if if a if a guest comes uh they have to park on Chancery Lane, you know, on the parking, you know, by the taxi stand or or over here at town hall, uh because there is no parking on the
street, that would be dysfunctional. um when the snow flies and if it's a heavy snowfall uh you know no offense to the DPW but avenue is an afterthought you know when it comes to when it comes to plowing and and when you shove the snow aside the
12t wide street is seven okay so so if I'm confused about my feelings here it's not that I don't that I'm not a supporter of housing or or people who who have needs or opposed to the habitat
is I have practical concerns about how this is really going to work. Um you know given now you might ask well gee if there's 18 houses on the street already what's another two. Okay. Well the fact of the matter is that that the that the
reason it works now is that the people who live close to Chancere Lane they don't come down the street they park in Chancere Lane. Okay. And then the and then the northern half of the street is essentially I'm guessing special needs housing, you know, you know, for the
most part. And they don't own cars. Okay. So So those of us that own cars probably represent maybe less than half of the street. Okay. And I don't I don't come down the street because of I live on Walker Street. So So I have some concerns about what you know, two cars,
three cars, you know, that seems to cancel it. I mean, who would do a traffic study for three cars, you know, but I mean, this is a situation where it would almost make sense to do a traffic study to see I mean, does do three cars create an issue here? I mean, um, they,
uh, you know, it's a funny thing, you know, it's a small scale impact in some ways, but where there's like this little bitty neighborhood that with underscale streets that that small changes, you know, make a big difference, you
know, and and, you know, so I'm I guess I'm hoping that as you discuss, you know, this this project that you really consider you know, the physical context of of this of this project, the um
emergency access, you know, I'm a little I find it almost unfathomable that the fire department would look at this situation and and have no comment. I mean, come on. I mean, it's not a it's not a a condition that you could create
under the bylaws under the zoning, you know, rules of and regulations for subdivisions or or for and there's a reason for that. There health, safety, and welfare reasons why you can't have 12 foot wide streets with two-way traffic. Uh so, so,
you know, it's that just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, there at least ought to be some questions or some or some discussion raised by the fire department or any of our other emergency providers um out here. Um I mean if somebody
when I bring projects before plan war there's always sort of the mythical you know if there's a trees or a car stalled in the road you know what do you do how is a fire well I mean this is a literal situation where if a car is stuck in the road you can't you couldn't get past you
know to start to rescue somebody or or to stop a fire. So, so the um I guess beyond beyond that I have uh I guess I have some questions. Um and they
are and the maintenance of these units. Okay. We've got essentially one building owned by two people or two two different families. Um are there covenants or something that that to guide the maintenance so that one doesn't paint it
pink and one green? um or you know when there's a roof to repair, they know who who repairs what roof. And I I mean I'd like to know if if uh you know we can anticipate that what we see here is
going to remain a cohesive you know piece of architecture long term and you know and how that responsibility shakes out. Um I presume it's too small. They're not condominium so there's no conominium fee. So I I I find that a little bit uh uneasy, you know, not
knowing, you know, how these two people are going. What if they don't get along, you know, um you know, which you know, you live in a house next to somebody, that's not such a rare thing. Um so I don't know how that gets sorted out. Um,
trash. I I really wish that the the board of appeals somebody would come to a rescue on the trash matter because I I bet you don't have three dumpsters along your street on the that you'll pass on the way home. I mean, why do we have three dumpsters that are open to view without any screening um on the lots
along along Walker Street or along Glow Avenue? And but that's the way it's been historically and we've we can't get that changed. Um, and then, uh, the Zetler issue, uh, you know, I understand. I mean, I think
there's been some good, uh, feelings or good intentions, I guess, to work this out, but I think it needs to be worked out somehow because I mean, uh, this gentleman raised the question about fencing. Well, I mean, I think that there's only about a foot of distance between this corner of the Zler house
and the lot line. if there was a fence there, it would be an impossibility to reside their house or or whatever. And and so, um, I think there needs to be some understanding of some sort. And I I it was comforting to hear that there there may be state law that applies that
enables someone to go on another person's property. I mean, this makes sense to me because in Boston where you have lots of row houses and triple, you know, those kinds of things, triple deckers and all, you have to just do that. But, so there probably is a law that enables that. And uh so that's
good, but as long as there's not, you know, structures put in the way that would impede that, you know, like like a 6' high board fence that's a foot from your house. Um I I guess so. I mean, to truth be told, you know, I love Habitat. You know, I'm all for
affordable housing. This was once a house flooded. You know, it's fine. It's another house. Truth be told, I wish it was a single family house and not a duplex because a single family house would eliminate virtually all the issues that we're talking about. You know, it wouldn't those wouldn't have concerns.
There wouldn't be parking issues. You know, there'd be less traffic on the street. Um, you know, we wouldn't be concerned about who's going to maintain which part of the house. Um, you know, it's I I I guess I love you guys, but I but
but I wish it was a single family house and I think all the issues would go away. Okay, we're going to try to get some answers to that, but I'll give you one answer uh Dan right away. In terms of the trash dumpsters, this board has nothing to do with uh uh zoning commissioner uh
building commissioner, you can file a complaint with them and they can look into it. Okay, can I ask Dan? One question. Yeah, please. Dan, we got a question here for you. Sure. So, you you alluded to the fact that that uh the street's very narrow, and one of the issues that was brought up
was could the house be pushed back maybe a little bit uh creating maybe some more room for parking, which is something Dennis feels strongly about. You're you're in this business and I'm just wondering if you have a constructive recommendation in terms of well, uh improving that situation. I
mean, it's, you know, I I I look at the issue a little bit differently. Um, you know, I fought off a 50 car parking lot, you know, more than once, you know, down there because because the more spaces at the end of the street, the more traffic, right? you know, so so if there are are
fewer, you know, spaces at the house, you know, maybe there'll be less, maybe the people who live there will work work something else out and say tell their friend, "Hey, park on Chancery Lane, walk down the street." That's what a lot of people do that live here. Um, park at
Town Hall, you know, come through the backyard or come down. I mean, for from now on, I guess for me to get to the park behind town hall to for the dog to run or whatever, I'll have to go around, you know, the block and go through cuz I can't go through this lot anymore. So, I
I really wish that you keep the spaces as they are and uh you know, and expect for the residents to just work it out because the more the the more spaces there will be more cars and then there's more traffic and and congestion. the same in terms of the house set back and
so forth. I you know I I'm one who's who's favored uh you know the uh consistency of setback is because if you look down the street they all line up like a like they've been you know aligned with a string. Um and yeah it's the
neighborhood we live in and we and we like so I hope I like what you know what we're asking for. I I think the house is handsome house. You know, again, I think it's uh I wish there was only one handsome house rather than two handsome houses. But um you know, whatever they
decide if you need a landscape architect to volunteer to volunteer. This is not a marketing. It's not, you know, www. um you know, I'm happy to to help you.
I'm happy to design it. We're happy to, you know, pitch in on purchasing. So, um, I'd really love to do it with a single family house. All right, we're going to see if we can get a couple of answers. Uh, and the the questions that I came on the list, uh, were, uh, regarding the cedar trees, the
maintenance of the buildings, whether or not there's a covenant or not, and I'm going to change Dan's comment into more of a question on the single family house. Uh, if you went to just one rather than two units, does it become unaffordable or what's the impact on it?
So, three questions that I see that I'll leave the cedar to someone else. Um, on the question of one or two homes, uh, no, it was never uneconsu. It was never an uneconomical,
uh, project. um the town actually in the RFPs um there was a onehouse proposal and a two-house proposal and I don't want to misspeak but I think we even gave them a choice in our proposals we gave them a one- ended two and they
awarded the two and made it clear that they wanted to so we felt we were left with a unresolved discussion we didn't feel that that was a change we could make in a discussion with neighbors we felt that two houses were awarded And so that was our responsibility to go
forward with but it never had to it always had to do with what the town accepted not with um the economics of the project and similarly with driveways and so forth. Economics did not play into it. It it had to do with this discussion. Um, in terms of we hadn't uh
really discussed um permanent uh issues relative to paint colors, although that there could be a range or something that uh was set out from the start that would not be a big issue. But in terms of long-term maintenance, um this board uh previously approved Sam Turner Road
where we have two um there's actually four single family homes, but they're done in the similar configuration of these attached single family homes. And what we have is a two- wall party agreement um where we es we do escrow funds and we
consider that the um essentially the um the roof and the foundation system are shared systems and from the beginning the homeowners escrow a certain amount of money um towards those systems so that when we get to 20 years and the
roof needs replacement we don't have to worry about um whether one has the money and one doesn't. And there is even language in there. And Warren, do you remember if it requires arbitration or mediation, but it's quite specific. It's one of those systems or the other um for
a resolution if they cannot meet a resolution. Were those I think two of the questions. And then on the cedar trees, you sure? Um, go ahead. I would only say on the issue of fencing, we've always we don't feel that our homes are nuisances and we never
object. If if a neighbor doesn't want to look at it and they wish to put up fencing on the line, that's okay for us to put up fencing and allow for maintenance of the side house means giving up, you know, 7 ft of of a
homeowner's lot permanently. So, for that reason, we do prefer a green buffer zone. and then if the zettlers want to further fence, but we're we're happy trying to get some kind of green um buffering for both. But that's that's our reasoning behind fencing.
I think there's a question for I'm just I was just curious if you if you thought that there was any concern that from from the the back of that rearmost house, you're not that far from a working parking lot. And if you've got a
threebedroom unit, yeah, you've got a three-bedroom unit that'll probably have children in it. Okay. They're going to play in the backyard. Okay. That was And my question about the fence wasn't as much about the sideline as it
was about protecting the family, the children, are there any pets, whatever, from getting into that parking lot or into the pond. That's where I was coming. That's a That's a really good point, Scott. And it's going to be addressed. We hadn't thought about it. We I was thinking more of a noise or just a
buffer from the physical aspects of all but the people coming in and out of that parking lot all day long. Yeah, I understand. Although they don't drive too fast down there. Um, as for the cedar trees, we're going to locate those we think are specimen and we'll show them on the plan. And
then by doing that, we'll also make recommendations. Maybe move this shed over here. maybe try to just mitigate any alteration of uh the landscape from some point back, try to preserve those
specimen uh plants. Um the other item I wanted to comment um and Dan was right. This this is a tough tough road to go up and down, but I think the board has to also remember it's a dead end right here. The only
people on this road are the ones that are going to park in their driveway. And of those, probably half are at the the top half of the road. So, the amount of conflict, I can't imagine that it's going to be
much. In terms of ambulatory care and or fire prevention, I think I I can just refresh the board's memory. I think the police uh the fire chief said that 96% of our our calls are ambulatory. They're
not fire. So, we just don't see those incidents of a fire truck having to extinguish a fire here. Dan, did you have a an additional comment? Um, well, I did I just wanted to uh respond to Jack's comment. You know, it
is dead end street, okay? But there's no turning situation at the end of that dead end street. It's not like there's a culde-sac or even a boot. You know, it's you you you pull onto the settller's lot property to turn around or you pull
onto my property or some somebody else. I probably did both. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Um, so, so I I wanted to say that, you know, the trees that we're concerned about, I mean, these are pines back here, white pines that, um, you know,
they're beautiful, but uh, you know, to and worth saving if we can. These are the trees that that we're most concerned about is the cedars right up here on the street that, you know, we're all very fond of because they're they're just sentinels in the landscape. And you
know, for my own selfish reasons, um, you know, my, you know, kitchen windows here and there, and they sit between me and the tower, you know, over here, and so they kind of, you know, buffer that that tower from our view. And, you know, we would greatly appreciate their
preservation. And, you know, again, as somebody who builds a lot of big houses and landscape work, um, I don't think there's any reason why they can't be saved. Um and um I just wanted to say one more thing about you know the permitting you know background here or
what led to two unit house versus single I I'm not sure but I don't think that the Tom meetings said that this needed to be we're going to follow up and try to get some of that information so we can be sure of it ourselves. Okay. And then and then I think that c certainly um it has been the preference
of of the town manager and our and our and our board of selectman as as they as we've been at meetings you know to where this has been discussed to have more than one unit but but I just want to say you are the first group that has given
this project this concept technical review. you know, that was all sort of wishful thinking and broadbrush thinking. Uh, now we're really looking at the nuts and bolts, you know, of this. And I really appreciate all the questions you're asking and and things,
but but this is the one and the last time that anybody's ever going to look at this and ask themselves what's what is what's suitable, you know, for for this lot in this situation. And u you know if you decide
that it's suitable for a two family house I mean I'll you know we'll we'll all accept that. Um but I want you to please consider you know all the issues that relate to the scale of the development. Okay. Great. Thanks. Any other comments?
Board members. All right. Board members want to have a little discussion. share your concerns, thoughts right at this point so that we can uh it appears that we're going to have to continue this to another time and we'll have to look at the date, but we might as well share with the applicant any of our thoughts
so that you'll hear them uh and maybe address them. Do you want to start? Yeah. My my one concern is u something we keep talking about is the parking right now. I I just don't think it's adequate uh for the onebedroom.
Okay. Well, you know, I sort of I I think that uh Salem brings up some interesting points about trying to shoehorn. I know it's 40B, but it's going to be affordable, whether it's one units or two units. You know, there's not we're not trying to put market rates on it and
what might really work on this site. You know, he has some good points. I thought I I think I need to go back. I've been walked all around the property, but and driven in Glennwood, but I walked today.
Yeah. I think I I'll have to we can't solve all the problems, but I think we can look at it as far as can it really can we really have two there that are going to work. All right.
Trisha, um I agree with Dennis on the parking on the one unit. There's there's no way one parking spot works for that because you can't have a guest unless you tell them to go to public parking, which the reverse side is there's more than ample
public parking just steps away. And um I think that's doable. We had something similar last week that didn't have enough parking. And we said, gee, there's no public parking. We could utilize it. This is a perfect example of utilizing public parking, which is right around the corner for the whole project.
Um, so the parking, um, I could I'm concerned there's only one spot, but the flip side is the fact there's plenty of public parking. Um, I'm not concerned with the traffic because if you look at the town GIS, and I did when I was over there the other day, I made note of it.
There's not there's really only about nine driveways that are actually fronting on Glenwood. So, for that purpose, the people that are going there are going to those properties. Um, what else? Um, I'm not concerned with so much with a
fence in the back because my desk actually overlooks the back parking lot of town hall and this backyard here. And it's amazing the people that walk from that direction over here to utilize the park every single day. Um, and I would
hate to see that stopped for the owners here or if the owners allowed the neighbors to continue that put traffic through there. Um, so I don't have a problem with that. I think I would just like to see some drainage there so that there's not a drainage problem on onto
the road. Um I think that's all I have right now. Stop. No, thank you. I think I've voiced my concerns. Um I I agree with the parking also. I I think um that one-bedroom unit needs an additional spot. I understand it'll
bring another vehicle down that road, but I got to believe he's going to have a visitor there at some point. Um, also with the landscape plan, uh, Dan brought up a good point, preserving those cedars. You know, the
neighbor offered some buffering. I It'd be nice to see that at least before maybe a building permits issued type thing. Sorry. Okay. Um, just a couple of things and I I think sort of a followup as well. Um, I think it might be really valuable for
this board to see the minutes of the town meeting on this uh matter. Uh, if there's an RFP that you had, it's probably easier for you to get us a copy of that than somebody else. I think we need to become more knowledgeable about that. Uh, as you you know, the board's
going to be discussing that. So, you might want to think about and I me I know you mentioned that it wasn't necessarily uh a financial matter, but if the board chose one unit for versus two units, you may have to go back and reapply to DHCP, etc. So, you may want
to consider that and comment on that to the board the next time we get together because that may set you back. It may cost you more money, a variety of things just to consider. Okay. um in term and I think depending on what happens with
that one unit versus two units might resolve some of the parking issues etc. I I I think that there were good comments made in terms of if you build more parking they will come. Uh and uh but at the same time and I am not a
landscape architect. I have no ability to design projects. I have good idea of reviewing them but I'm not good at designing them. But in looking at the one-bedroom unit, the concept I keep thinking of is the staged parking, one parking space in front of the other. And
if it were done on reinforced turf, it wouldn't look that way. And you could actually then if somebody had a guest coming over, the owner could pull their car to the south side of that building on the reinforced turf and leave the space available for somebody else. I'm
not a design person, but a thought if that becomes a stumbling point for this board in terms of needing to have some kind of parking that may be a way of solving. I don't know. Uh just a thought. Um we've heard the cedar trees
uh the the agreement I know on Sam Turner. Do we have a copy of that uh draft agreement on the shared wall? Uh is that in our file? I don't think so. I think Yeah.
So perhaps I'm sorry. I thought we we emailed a copy of the Sam Turner Road party wall agreement. No. So if if that's what you're intending to use, that might be helpful uh for uh the
board. Uh in terms of some of the follow-up items and and I may not remember them all, so I'm relying on you as well. We talked about the portable ramp, the whole ramp issue. We talked about the uh application being uh corrected, the percentage of lot
coverage uh on each of the subdivided lots. The issue of whether or not you want to look at modifying the subdivide subdivision so that we have 5,000 square ft or providing us some legal uh uh
documentation that we could rely upon. Uh, and if you go the route of modifying it, uh, you may want to make a request of, uh, for the considering dimminimus the, uh, the frontage piece. I think it's it's a twoft matter. Um,
again, there may have been other things that that may not come right to me at the moment, but I there are certainly things that we've shared with you. So, um I think you got a feeling for the board where we're at. Uh anything that
you want to clarify before you leave and think about this and come back to us. Okay. Please, because we want to make sure you walk away clear as to what our thoughts are and Sure. and and the one versus two what I what I meant was that it would not have
been and it you know in theory it's not an uneconomical project to do as a onehouse project it's not that we need a certain density I did not mean to say that it would not cost time and it would not have been a waste of a certain amount of money at this point so we can look at regulatory the RFP and you'll be
looking at those but how do we proceed at this point uh is am I hearing that there's a possibility that you may wish to ask us to do one house and then how far do we go with design at this point if I certainly got the impression from the board and the board can correct me if
I'm wrong but that is something that they want to entertain but they may entertain that no I think it was just the explanation of how you got to the two that's what I I I got the impression at
least from Ken and Patty that the idea of having one threebedroom unit may be preferable. I mean, I thought the reason for them getting the RFP and the town managing was to verify that there's nothing there.
Well, just Well, my thinking is that if the town turned around and said, "We want more than one unit." To the board. I'm I misunderstood. Exactly. And if the RFP went out saying preference is more than one unit. What I just want to clarify that because this
is a lip application. We already we already have the board of selection that's approved. We also need to clarify that they may lose some of their CPA funding if they go from two years to one. So there's more than just what I'm saying is that we need you need to think about we need to know what the
town really asked for. you need to consider which the way you want to go and why you want to go that in light of the information that we will be reviewing. So if you still prefer the two units and here are the reasons why
and what it does to you and be prepared to share that with us. Let me clarify if I can. The RFP was for either one right single family house or two. Okay. Habitat proposed both, right?
And the town awarded for the two-unit development. When you can can you just maybe when we see the RFP, it will be valuable. Who sent out the RFP and who awarded it? Don't know. Um I think
I'm assuming maybe again we'll review that. So if you give us that information, we can take that. Yeah. Yeah. I I don't want to imply that uh at this point that's right it's critical for Habitat to come back with a single house plan.
I think what we're looking for is an assessment of what are the costs and benefits of going in one direction or the other and how strong was the mandate for two. And that's why we want the background information is we want to see you know we're just the permitting authority. We
weren't the ones that sent out the RFP or awarded whatever was awarded. Okay. Just for the boards, the duplex 4 unit is right around the corner from my house and I was a little
concerned about the density on that small piece of property. Granted, there's woods behind it. It's not in the center of town. It's absolutely amazing how that has turned into a little village for those units. And it just it it's so cohesive and they have yard
cleaning parties and landscaping and it it just is its own community and I I don't want them to think that I am looking at a one unit. No, no. I just think you heard the board discuss that we've heard about the 12T wide.
Exactly. So I mean this is we have to weigh all of the concerns and we'll So anything else that you need clarification from us? Certainly, you can follow up with Siri to make sure that she has anything. Siri, you all set with what we need? I've got everything down in case.
Okay, sounds good. Track. So, the next thing we need to do is select a date for you to come back and s I did not bring my list with me, but we need to give you enough time to I mean, we've looked at you have to look at whether or not you're going to modify uh the plot plan in terms of the
subdivision. Uh there's some updates to the plan. So, the notice of Oh, we also have the conservation commission. So, that's a that's a big and important uh piece of it. Yes, we do, but it's it touches state.
So, we will need the finalization of conservation unless they say something after it's state that it doesn't uh touch state regul state regulations. I just want to address I'm sorry. Are are you asking more
parking of us or not asking more parking of us? Not asking. We did not ask that. We asked you to consider the idea. That's right. I mean, I've given you a suggestion. There's been comments. The board was not unanimous on any of these comments. You're just hearing where
we're going. Okay. And obviously, if it comes down to one unit, you may have no parking issues. If it still remains two units, you heard some diversity on the board. That's the beauty of seven members. It's going to come down to three that actually voted. Okay.
So, what are you looking at, Jeff, for conservation hearings? Well, tomorrow it would be 3 weeks for the hearing and another 3 weeks for the decision. And it doesn'tffect
affectation. No, no, no. We made the most of money you could come to because it falls under the rules and regulations of the combo of Massachusetts violence protection. It's my belief that this
Jack if you if you wouldn't mind we got to capture this on TV. Thanks. Yeah, I want to hear it. Um it's my strong belief because um the review process is by only the state regulations and not the local bylaw, this should be approved as it's presented today. So any
any alteration of it I believe would be approvable too. Um having said that, it's usually a 42-day process from the time of submission to the time the decision's written. And how does the board want to entertain
that since we already know it does affect the state? Do you want to This is a 4B project and they have to weigh in on state regulations. Do you want to wait for the final decision? I think that makes sense. I think we always have.
Okay. Well, that just helps me knowing, right? So, we're looking into May. May, right? May 17th. Is that one of our regular meeting days or Yes. Okay. Did you want to make it? No.
I haven't scheduled anything for that. Not necessarily, but we do try to do our 40bs by themselves. I realize that with our opening, do you want to do this the followup by itself as well? It's up to the board. No, I think we should try to do it on
May 17th. Yeah, but your question is, do you want it to be the only one on May 17th? We can answer that down the road, right? Let's wait and see how critical maybe it was. Well, if nothing is scheduled yet, she can fill in to make it to make it doable. It is a regular night that I have set
aside. Do you want to do May 10th at 5:00? Do you like these 5:00 ones? Just so Just so you like them either, we have tried to separate our comprehensive permits because it's shifting gears all the time from a 40A application to a 40V application. I'm going to make a motion. Okay.
I'm going to make a motion that we continue it to May 10th at 5. May 10th. May 10th. I second that. Thank you. No, he said. All right. We have a motion to continue this till I'm sorry. Excuse. I was just going to ask, did you
say five? Yeah. And David seconded, correct? Uh, all right. Is that a date that everyone anticipates being able to participate in?
Okay, folks. Okay, with that? Thank you very much. All right. Uh, all those in favor of continuing this hearing until May 10th at 5:00 p.m. say I opposed. Unanimously. Thank you very much for your assistance and participation. We look forward to seeing you again.
All right. All right. We are going to continue with the rest of our meeting. Uh, and I'm going to ask the board uh that we take a quick two-minut break and then we're going to take Jerry first
because he dance. [Music]
I miss kid. I'm not that far away. I like everything. That was a shot at me. That's all right. We'll get back to him a little bit later when we're back on. We'll talk about his silver screen days
and movie rights. And I do, [Music] but I but I I I [Music]
What was the movie? [Music] It wasn't a movie. It was a video. It was actually a um a podcast. We know what you're looking at. was [Music]
made up of movie Jackson. [Music] They were looking for military expert weapons experience people to do stuff. [Music]
Don't do that because I don't want to catch up. church. [Music] [Music]
[Applause] There's no insurance for us here. So, be careful. No. No. But you know, I don't want to be worried by not asking. [Music]
I saw that on the town. Yeah, he's got a town car. I was going to say, who is the town car? All right. Um, thank you, Frank. Uh, and we are back. Uh, we have a few
additional items on our agenda. We wanted to talk about our upcoming, uh, discussion with the board of selectment on Monday. Uh, additional agenda items. But, um, one of the things that we were going to talk about for possible discussion with the board of selectman was the nutrient management bylaw. Siri
sent that out to all of you which was the latest uh reiteration. Uh Jerry was good enough to uh volunteer to come this evening. I'm sorry that I kept you an hour after what I thought might happen. So Jerry's going to just give us a little bit update on that. Uh we can
have some discussion. I've got a recommendation but uh at least to give Jerry the opportunity. He's been very uh Jerry Thomas Town uh wastewater superintendent. As some of you may know, the nutrient management bylaw came about because 0% financing for wastewater
project was uh is uh predicated upon meaning the old area bill was a statutory uh paragraph that no regulations on. We John Waterberry worked hard at it. He's been working hard at it probably since
New Silva Beach to try to merge uh wastewater issues with nutrient management, public health and growth. Uh and uh that's always controversial. uh about a a year ago, Brian Curry in another building on John's work and
working with John, I forget now, came up with a revised bylaw that was in some respects in my mind simpler from the previous one. Uh I think it achieved the same goals and it in my mind it almost
exactly meets the statutory requirements of the statutory requirements are after you put sewers in. You cannot have any more growth than you could have had before. Now that doesn't mean no growth. It just means you have to manage your
vacant lot redevelopment and things like that to accommodate zoning, land use and wastewater regulations. And then after that it gets very very confusing uh for a variety of reasons. The state
came out with their final set of SRF regulations. Uh and I just circulated this amongst uh I asked Brian to recirculate it uh to the folks and back to Matt and I also circulated to the water quality management advisory
committee. Uh they're postponing decision on that for a while. one because it has just come out. Uh two, I think they they do want to see if the county wants to step forward and come up
with a model bylaw so that each town doesn't have to go through the same discussions on what this means and what that means. Not that you couldn't change it for the town, the town character, but at least some of the basic definitions and the arguments
wouldn't be rehashed in every town. Uh, so that's essentially where we're at. if you if you forgot about whether or not you needed to get 0% zoning financing uh 0% financing
uh and I'm a little bit too close to it but you know everybody would say sewers cause growth I will say sewers can facilitate growth but unplanned growth in my mind has always been poor planning
in we government so that I think it's essential children even if we didn't have the 0% of people decide not to go after the 0% but to maintain whatever community character is to maintain what
are the sense of u growth management not unbridled growth but growth management you need to consider that you know the planning board of course the border health of course the ZBA of course and I think DPW in there because we manage the
source system Not that we regulate how big a house can be. We just if it gets through the other boards and we have capacity that home can tie in. And it's the same way outside a sewer district area where there's no sewers. And you
could say, well, usually the board of health is is the controlling entity for how large a home you can have because of septic tanks. But if you think ahead and say well gee whiz with some these new ideas let's say there's a magic bullet
compost toilets all of a sudden maybe density now can be increased in those areas. So it gets back to the idea of we should have a comprehensive discussion amongst everybody and you know I would clearly recommend that uh the board support in front of the
selectman reconstituting um or reinvigorating the need for water quality management committee the planning board the board of health and zoning board of appeals and DPW to get together as a working group to work
forward. Uh, I know I might show up, I might not show up. I also think it's been on the uh back burner for a while, but uh I go back to the wind turbine hearings and what the consultant told you told I think it was a zoning board
of appeals about I could read these regulations any way you want me to. I think it it is very important and maybe this is me probably speaking more as a town manager or u a government geek. uh good governance that this is a time
where we're not impacted by a lot of growth that we look at our zoning regulations how they impact with planning board and and I don't think it's going to be all that expensive I think myself it comes down to a desire of
whatever people don't want to do it someone doesn't want anybody else to do it but I think the time has come that we slowly look at all these regulations as we try to plan for comprehensive the future. Sorry if I spoke too long. Sure. Thank you. I I just want to try to
bring the board up to date to remind everyone where we are. This actually came to us well over a year ago uh initially with a presentation by John Waterberry. Uh I'm not sure that that draft was ever approved by the board of health, but certainly he was a
representative of the board of health. This board had several concerns. it the concerns were regarding uh what was written as a variance procedure. that was concerned regarding a board of health regulation actually driving uh
density control. And the other uh that the board spoke strongly about was actually trying to bring in a consultant to try to bridge all of these issues to have somebody look at uh making sure that there weren't contradictions in the zoning bylaw that would be contradicted
by a board of health nutrient management bylaw. Uh I had gone to a number of those meetings. We reported back. Uh I also attended as did Jerry a number of the what we'll call working group uh which included uh Jerry myself uh John
Waterbury uh I think Bob Amed as an outsider came uh Brian Curry uh came I think on occasions Marlene McCollum had also come. Uh the last time this board discussed the draft nutrient management
bylaw is very similar to the one that you have that I sent out uh earlier this week. Uh we did it on May 19th. Uh this version is July uh of 2011 and I would have to say they're just minor changes
to it. But now since the and and interestingly enough, the comprehensive wastewater quality management committee had not addressed it to our knowledge or they did. We never became aware of it. But now the wastewater quality
management the wastewater quality advisory committee has at least two individuals on that committee have taken a strict interest in it. So my suggestion to the board and certainly we need to discuss it is very similar to
Jerry's probably because we talked about it but that we ask and I think the last convenor of that working group was Brian Curry. I think we need to have some subcommittee or working group attention
to this again. uh Ken had volunteered to participate with me from this board, but I think now in particular that we have uh the water quality management advisory committee uh
entering into it. It's a new dimension that hadn't been brought up before and I think it would be valuable if we tried to vet all of these issues and Jerry did a great job in summarizing them. uh and part that we're closer to is the interpretation of the zoning bylaw and
how that can be valuable in terms of uh the issues and what pieces could be potentially modified within the zoning bylaw that could also work in conjunction with what this is being discussed. So those are my thoughts. I
I think Jerry made a very good point. While there is a proverbial lull in the action with the way the economy, I I I I see that we're feeling some momentum coming back and this will be the time to address it while we have the time if there was was a building boom to come
back or whatever and this wasn't cleared up or addressed. I think it would be um it would behoove us to try to do that as soon as we can in the event that the economy comes back like we all hope it will and building starts back up and people start to loosen their wallets on
additions and and and um and some restorations. I think it was a it's the perfect time to for us to get together and address that. Questions or thoughts? I like it. I like what he said about
the, you know, looking at the whole zoning bylaw, all our regulations and just clean them up. I think in the work at the time it wasn't overly expensive, but there were concerns. I thought there was some
estimates and Barb sort of said was probably right. It could be less than a week's worth of work, a couple thousand dollars maybe. I mean, you have to have an appropriate person, uh, you know, that knows it, but I think it's one of these things that the thought scares people rather than just go out and do
it. Uh, you know, it's, uh, finding money is always an issue, but, you know, if it's important, we find money, but alternative is expensive. Alternative is poor, you know, bad growth, poor planning, and, you know,
unbridled message, unclear his voting bylaw books is in trouble all the time. We're going to bring that one up next. So again, my proposal is and I think Jerry has sort of uh you know agreed
with that is that we asked to have the working group reconvened. This board previously had agreed to both Ken and I participating in that. Uh, and that uh we bring back the recommendation of possibly having somebody look at a
variety of the I mean it could be the subdivision control regulations, the zoning bylaw, board of health, uh, wastewater uh, regulations, etc. to see to make sure that they're all supporting one another in terms of what we're trying to do before we bring this to town meeting. Because in many ways what
Jerry has asked is what's the zoning board's recommendation on this particular document and I don't I think it's premature at this point for us to do but it's the the other thing in this is I'm not quite sure not quite an expert on uh
town government. I'm not sure anybody is but they think they are. What happens when you get uh one or two people from your board, one or two people from another board? Uh that's really not an open meeting because It's not, and I don't mean to skirt the open meeting,
but I don't want to be hamstrung by it. I mean, if they're subcommittees, I think that constitutes open meeting. If it's a subcommittee of two, you have to post it. So, I don't know what the proper terminology would be for a a working group.
Well, that's something we can always uh maybe you should post. Uh I mean my own thoughts are the more open these things are at the beginning the better off they will be all the way down the road. Uh I I think this board is not is not experienced in doing things outside of
an open meeting. So our our our our reaction is always you make it public you post it. If people come it's usually good reason. It just means there's an added dimension of admin administration and you know someone's going to have to take control of the meeting.
Ken has been acting clerk on this board for so many times that I'm sure he would volunteer to take the minutes. Yeah. No, I take minutes but posting I think what Jerry's saying is someone has to post it with adequate notice and then you constrain meeting
dates. That's all. But we'll we'll address that this again. We haven't actually uh voted a subcommittee. It's just been uh an understanding that this board would like to have two individuals go. It would be Ken and myself. But I agree with you, you know, you
about the openness. I mean, it should be open and people should be able to come. That's right. Absolutely. So, I think that's where our recommendation is. We will put that in writing, Jerry, and uh we'll send it to you. We'll send it to Brian as the last person who convened it. Uh and
maybe to the town manager. I mean that's a town manager of the board of selectman because uh every now and then I exceed my pay grade but it's well intentioned but if we upped your pay grade we wouldn't have a problem.
I have one question. What did you say that somebody just released? SRF, state revolving fund. That's just an acronym for loans. Uh I think 0% loans. Sure. State revolving fund.
Okay. Otherwise known as sewer revolving fund. could be something else revolving which and speaking of that you know you can get 0% you can get 2% but you know sometimes going for the 0% is is not necessarily the smartest thing if it's
going to totally close down growth right you know pass out to everyone I saw that you know Steve who's on the committee is extremely bright and he he makes a great statement you know yeah 2% you're saving but that doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a service
to Yeah, but he totally misinterpreted because Jerry said it very clearly. The bylaw doesn't say no growth. It says no more growth than you could do right now. And that was completely I mean, you know, I think he's very bright, too. And I've
extensively about things, but that's not what this bylaw says. So, I think we should be very clear about that. And I think that's the value of the discussion that needs to be had in understanding right out front. Cuz remember also
within that is you got 500 lb of sewer within the sewer district. It can all go to one development if that's what the town chooses and they lock out because there's a little bit of sort of obtuse legal ease in here in that it says I did not write it under section D
clarify this so we all understand determination of flow sewage flow shall be determined in accordance with provision set forth 310 CMR 15.203 203 title five, right? What sewage flow are they talking
about? 110 gallons per day per person. Is that Well, that that's one interpretation. If it's a vacant lot and it's a restaurant, you get so much flow per stool. But that is a title five regulation. That is not necessarily what professional engineers
would use to design sewers. That is why we added in there uh language or any other flow mechanism that's acceptable to the right. But basically then later on you're saying okay flows must you
know conform to these yes flows. So it that's where the limitation comes in right it's it's to meet that flow requirement it be yes but to be so you need a number you go ahead well I'm asking
well you have to first determine flow the best way to determine flow is water meter and we have a lot of water then what's allowable flow what's allowable flow if it's under title five we go to the board of health if it's under wastewater
if it does not exceed exceed the capacity within the treatment plant. Okay. Uh it's from my perspective it's acceptable. However, then you look at and you know you can't have a regulation that's unless it's a property not hooked up to
the sewers then it's then I it's title five right that that's why you have back and forth but the question is when you get into a onebedroom or twobedroom or threebedroom you know you're trying to hit a flag
with a machine gun it doesn't matter you have to look at the total picture and that's why wastewater flow capacity The law says flow. They meant nitrogen or they meant growth. They didn't put it in for political reasons and that's what
we're wrestling. They didn't want to have a translated mechanism. I'm sorry I get too passionate on this. So that Yeah. But I just I think it's important for us to understand the implications a little bit. So I and so what comes to mind is okay.
So until you get to the last house that exceeds the acceptable flow within any one project is there a limit of course that because the plan was approved based on
existing homes existing vacant lots there were allocations I'm talking about wastewater allocations that those lots would have certain flows based on the land use themselves. So you would look at the sewer area, you
would say there's this much potential for buildout, which gives you x gallon per lot. I we we don't get that fine x gallon per lot, but there have been differences along the way. At one point, uh the entire town was considered to be a nutrient uh
sensitive zone. That that was a more restrictive requirement. Okay. Because then he was like everything was going to be in a uh uh you know con area of concern you know like being
in a well exactly like a state too. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Uh and and Jerry proposed and we've discussed and this is why I think the working group needs to refine this before larger groups start to to take action on it. Uh about being able to
take capacity from one area of town, move it to another area within the wershed. within the waterershed that's acceptable to the regulatory bodies of the town. It's not up to me if there's let's say lot B which could have
had 12 gallons but hasn't been developed and now they want to take six of those gallons and allocate it to someone else. That's a planning and a legal question. and and and coming back to that the other the other piece of it and we've wrestled with this a lot is you know it
is the zoning bylaw supporting where ultimately the town wants to go. So if for some reason there's a change in density uh based on zoning requirements that everyone there's grandfathering opportunities etc and everyone gets to know what they are before they build.
That also gives the wastewater superintendent uh the ability to figure out how much capacity there is. So they they have to work in conjunction. I don't think you can segregate any one of these things out. Uh you can't do the buildout analysis unless you understand the zoning. That's
for sure. Exactly. Mr. Ch. Yes. Jerry is there's adjustment in flow too to to facilitate run and everything else though. Correct. I don't follow what you mean. Um what's what do you mean by Well, calculated flow. I'm trying to
That's a paper that's a paper term though, right? I mean calculated flow. Yeah, I'm talking about the working operations of the sewer itself. Is that determined? I mean is there variances in there? We work with average daily flow because
then you can get into max daily max monthly uh and they fluctuate and so that's the reason where flow measured water with use is always less than the title five allowance. So you can't get
that exact I mean I'm not on paper I you know exactly that's what I'm trying to on paper you can but in the working limits of the concrete it's it's going to be well I mean the
working if you run take a 2hour shower in your house every day right I I have no you know my son's But again, this is sim similar to the dialogue that did happen because on one hand, if you if you're measuring, you know, water meters and somebody has a
lawn sprinkling system, uh how much water are they using, how many people, etc. So, you know, that it's never going to be an absolute perfect situation. Right now, as we already talked about, title 5 uses 110. There are the calculations for commercial, restaurant,
etc. But why why don't we I think this been valuable. Why don't we sort of again make the recommendation that we go back to a working committee uh that uh Ken and I will be the ones that go from the zoning board of appeals. Our issues remain the same. the integration of all
of the various bylaws particularly our concern is the uh the zoning bylaws uh and we'll keep an eye open for you know that variance procedure we were concerned about and obviously we'd report back to this board and God for the water
collaborative is going to be talking to the water quality management committee next Thursday so you may want to if people are interested may want to sit in because I think he's going to touch on that the issue of these I think he's going to touch on that in regionalization. Uh, okay. Except that next Thursday, you
better be here. Well, their meeting is uh same time as ours. Yes. I I just let the general public know. Okay. Thank you. If if I don't see you here, I'll be looking for you somewhere else. Jerry, thank you very much for the time and for
uh spending the time with us as well. Okay. Um, back to our discussions for uh the meeting with the board of selectment. I had to make a decision earlier today because in order to post our agenda for
Monday and I did leave off the nutrient management bylaw discussion with the board of selectman and my feeling was with what I knew already in discussion with Jerry that it would be premature because to have uh to bring the board of selectman in at this time on something that we're not really sure of would be
premature. Um what I do want to say to you is that I was very pleased that the board of selection uh we are other than late executive session and some summary action items and minutes we are the sole agenda item uh for Monday and we've
given us an hour and a half um so that we can have a very full and thorough discussion uh with the board uh the items that we have uh put on posted on our agenda and uh the selectman I believe have today as well uh at least
before the end of the day they were to do that are the enforcement issues that I'm going to ask Scott to talk about streamlining the regulatory permitting process and the professional review of the zoning bylaws. So why don't we just briefly get out one by one uh get a sense of what we're talking about but I
want to encourage and I understand everyone will be able to attend on Monday so we will have this good hopefully free free flowing discussion with the board of appeals. So Scott, I I had asked you where you brought it up last week to uh jump in on we we had
kind of touched on on um enforcement kind of I'm not going to say prematurely and and there was some movement on the board in agreement and and we felt like it was an important issue. Um Ken I know had some concerns and he wanted some input in it and and and Trish on
occasion, everybody on the board. It we have to find or ask them to help us find a way that when decisions are written and and and and people spend money on plans and we take up our good
time as well. that when we drive by a project that we know is in violation, it seems like nobody does anything about it. There's got to be there's got to be a correction. And I'm just going to say it
out loud. There's got to be a correction for the asking for forgiveness instead of permission. These are the people that are coming to us for relief. When you do that, I feel like you should be set
to the conditions that is set by this board or you do not go forward with your project. I mean, it's it's disrespectful to everybody involved to have a decision, come here, nod your head, say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, pay a guy and go right back to what you're doing."
We have to find a way collectively to put some kind of limitations, some kind of further enforcement, I'm going to say it, fines, warnings, something to make people accountable when they come here. They make a
conscious choice of asking for relief. Now, I know I'm new, but I live in this town, too. I drive the roads. I see it. And now that I've been on this board, I see it even more. All right. Every one of us here, and I'm
not making it about us, but every one of us have other lives. We volunteer our time. We all know what's going on. Yeah. I just It's not I think you said it beautifully, but it's really not about us. It isn't. What we're here for, the way I look at
it, is certainly to grant relief to applicants, but also to protect the uh rest of the town. on the abutters that's an important function you know and uh that's really why it's important to enforce these things and that's why when people come here in
good faith to say I have an issue with this that or the other thing going on this project and we said we accept their input make a recommendation for a change or a condition for a change then they have a right to expect that that change is implemented and you know to marry those two ideas we
we grant really that's what we do under certain conditions And if the conditions weren't agreed to or met, we never would have given the relief. So it's the half a loaf. the other half a loaf isn't seemed to be there because in retrospect the relief would not have
been granted if we and you know if you look back and you know the and I I gave you a comment of the uh legal women the article legal women voters the report that was done and you know this board does a great job in terms of thinking through their findings
their conditions and they're there for a reason and it's very it's very difficult uh to I because we've all got the questions. Uh I got them from Ken when he was on the planning board. How could you have approved that? Well, we did with certain conditions, but those conditions aren't being met and there's
not much hope that we can do. What what I was thinking we might be able to do in terms of a little bit of a structure for the board of selectment though is perhaps to ask Siri to give just a brief because going to participate with us just as she always does in all of our
board meetings. uh a little summary of what the enforcement is today and set the framework of, you know, what we're allowed to do as a zoning board, what we're not allowed to do, who does what, etc. And again, I think as Scott, this isn't trying to, you know, say that
somebody isn't doing a job. What I think the discussion really needs to be framed as how can we do better with enforcement because I mean, we've heard many times that enforcement is done based on complaints. Is that a good enough system for this to
Well, keeping in mind that a portion of the people that come before us are already in violation. That's why they come to us. You know what I'm saying? So, they were going to have to be there was going to have to be some enforcement done anyway. whether it's just a matter of time whether a neighbor complains or
someone comes up and gives them that little ticket that they have to come and you know there may be systems that are already in place not being fully t not in this town but what what do other towns do you know there must be some precedents elsewhere in the
commonwealth where there's is active enforcement how does that work sometimes commissioner is the zoning enforcement in most towns and Fmouth is a little bit larger town and they they've had
part-time enforcement agent and then went to a full-time. Unfortunately, the second full-time, you know, one resigned, another one was hired and then he resigned. He got a great job offer, but he couldn't res. So they are interviewing
now for another enforcement, but also the job description for that individual was modified and it works for conservation as well as zoning. And if I'm not mistaken, most of the time since that change has gone to conservation.
And I don't want I don't want to come at them or I don't and this is personally I don't want us as a board to come at them like we want to hand out spankings or we want to you know looking at people's backyards, but a lot of the decisions that that we we vote on are for public
good and public safety. I mean though you you listen to each other. I mean, most of what we talk about are to protect the public. Well, if we just say that and people just arbitrarily go about doing what they were doing before, how is that being
served? But what I what I'd like to do, and I think we do as well as a board, is to try to be as constructive as possible for the board of selectment. Uh, and you know, it it we're not going to answer it on Monday night, but I think it we have the time to start the
dialogue. It may require uh reviewing, you know, what procedures do we have. It may require looking at what alterations to the zoning bylaw or whatever we need to do that may conceptualize zoning
enforcement being part of this office, the zoning or some other office or some whatever. and you know could be the planning office could be Scott's idea for example of putting in place you know the possibility of fines you know we don't ever want somebody not
to come and correct a problem that they have but we really I think want people to you know I know that in the the various reiterations of this board that I've sat on there were times that this board said we're not going to grant
you the new special permit of the relief because you have been invited violation. That may be too extreme. But on the other hand, uh I think the analogy I think of is, you know, if you go speeding, you're going to get a ticket. You're going to get a fine. After four tickets, you're probably going to lose your license. Uh but you know, we don't
have that. Uh it's only three. Is it only three? See, I'm not You know that I think he's bringing his son back into this. But so I I think you know this has been in my annual report the issue of
enforcement to the board of selectmen for the past three years that I've been chairman and it probably will be in this fourth year as chairman. Um so I think it it's certainly a good topic. Uh it's one that we should try to be as constructive as possible to have
everyone be on the same page and that's why if Siri can do a little presentation in terms of uh where the enforcement is, what we're allowed to do, her knowledge of other communities uh would be helpful and uh it may require that we all have to do some homework when we walk away
from Monday's meeting in terms of okay, let's look at things. It may be requesting town council to look at what opportunities might be. But if we don't get the board of selectment on the same wavelength with us, we're not going to go anywhere with enforcement.
Okay. So, any other thoughts? Scott, I can hear Scott's frustration. You know, I think when we're all new on the board, we come and we know we sit here and we make these great decisions and we all, you know, hash out what Ken feels and what Dennis feels and we leave
here and say, "Wow, that was a great decision. We followed the zoning bylaw. It was fair to the town. It was fair to the applicant. And then as as Scott says, Sunday morning, he's in his car and he drives by XYZ's house and goes, "Oh my god, what the heck? That's not
what we approve." 6 weeks later, guess what? That's still not what we approve. That's not even close. And the people are living in the house and the project's done. And what do we go? We go to a lot of you and complain. That's kind of uh and and you know and there may be an opportunity that comes out of this for the staff to get together and come up
with suggestions. I know that the staff have got together in the past and uh attempted to approve things, but you know, I I was saying to Serena too longgo that we invested a lot of money in the municipality system in the town where everyone is supposed to share information and maybe there are
opportunities, cooperative opportunities that various departments may be able to weigh in and say, you know, even for example, the assesses, you go out and you know, do a visit at a house and do an assessment uh and you're looking at, you know, why is there an accessory structure here. Why? Where
and if and if people start to say we're being we're going overboard and they're still in violation, well then shame on them. You know, I mean, I'm I'm of the opinion that when you invite
me onto your law, it and something is in plain view in violation, it's hard for me personally to walk by that and not make that an issue and come here and we all pretend that it's not taking place because we can't talk about it.
Y and you know, I Ron Ericen is not here, but one of the things that Ron used to always say was look at the mission statement. And I would suggest that you do that before Monday's meeting because it does talk about giving relief but adhering to all of the bylaws, rules, and regulations of the town. And
I think the message that we want to give the selectman and to the town is that that is our role to give relief. But it is within the rules and regulations and if if that is if that part of it isn't upheld. Uh and we don't have the power
to do that. we've been told so many times and we we'd be as a board and and again I'm asking this rhetorically I would imagine more apt to grant to grant more relief if we knew that people that we were
granting relief to were going to be would abide by what we set forth because you'd have a better sense about what was going to happen going forward. I'm not sure that would happen, but I think we owe it to the town to say that we're giving you an assurance that the town
gives you back an assurance that when there's relief, there's also protection that goes along. I guess my question is, and I'll ask it to you, how many times, honestly, and you don't have to say which times it happened. But just since I've been here, someone's told us they were going to do something and everybody here thought to
themselves that's not going to happen or this sleeping arrangements, cooking, whatever. and we we say, "Okay, Bubba, everybody nods their head in and the meeting meeting's over and we walk away knowing." Well, maybe some of our bylaws are pretty stupid.
That's where we're headed with this though, Patty. Right. We I mean, I'm not saying they're stupid, but things need to be adjusted, right? Yeah. They just don't reflect reality. because I'm going to make a personal statement now when I get to the point when I get to the point on this board and it may be
tomorrow when I feel like my time is being wasted here or I'm not doing public good and I'm not trying to be golden boy. I'm just I got on this board for a reason. When I feel like I'm not being useful to this board or this town because that's just the way it's always
been, I'll step down. Okay, we're not going to do any of that. What what I think this this has been a lot I'm not making a I'm just saying this is this has been a lively and good discussion. I think we don't want to completely discuss what we're going to
do Monday night. Uh so this is valuable. I think the way we're going to structure this Monday is again we're going to look at a little bit of what's what we understand is happening right now and then we'll share our constructive thoughts uh with the board of uh the the
board of Thank you. All right. The next item was the stream of lining the regulatory permitting process and we have brought this up uh previously uh when we met with the board. It was October 18th of 2010 and there was an agreement from the board at
that time that they would actually convene and have a workshop of all of the regulatory boards in various boards and some of the things we talked about and again I think it's it's good because there's perhaps a new member on the board or two members or whatever but you
know such things as we're used to seeing for example on a commercial project uh site plan review that may take months before it ever gets here. Uh and when you string out the amount of time that it takes for somebody to go through the process, we've got uh design review.
We've got uh you know there are so many things and is there a way without and I mean I don't want to step on anyone else's turf but at least having a discussion. We have certain statutory things that we must conservation has certain statutory things they must do.
Board of health has certain statutory things that they must do. But some of the other things may be simply town regulatory issues and it it would be certainly worthwhile. I don't think there's any disadvantage and I think this is what the board felt before of
being at least able to streamline processes for an applicant. Doesn't mean they're going to get a yes at the end of the streamlined process but it might shave off there some months and time. Another side of that uh which is one of the frustrations I used
to have I recall especially when on the planning board was projects would come in and they would be marginally acceptable to you know and I think they craft them very carefully this way to conservation to zoning to planning but if you looked
at the overall project you might say it really taken all together it's not a good project. Mhm. And there is no way to turn something down, right? Because when you take it in aggregate, it's a lousy project and they just squeak by each board and do it peace
meal. I mean, there would even be cases in the planning board, they come to the planning board, they'd have such and such for site plan review, but we need to see what the zoning board says. And then they come to the zoning board and you guys would say, "Nah, it doesn't
matter. We can do it this way." or they'd come to the planning board say zoning says we have to do it this way so you can't make us do it that way. So they're playing boards against one another. Well, nobody wants to make the decision on a bad project. Well, I'm just saying that, you know,
the the whether they actually had or whether they were saying, you know, we're concerned that zoning will do this, therefore you you have to do that. But I think that's a good point that in the process of streamlining, we can also have somehow a better control or review. I asked at one of these, you know,
planning joint planning board selection meeting years ago, could we have sort of a cross board working group might, you know, be at the staff level? Maybe that's already happens. But where there,
you know, those kinds of projects that are large enough, significant enough that might be, you know, eating at the edges of acceptability could somehow get flagged and and we could all sort of look at them. I think they were I know the planning board was starting to do
that especially with these large projects try to get the engineers and like it was going to have to come before us the board of health and tried to get us kind of roundtling it to so that we could all review it and all you know
give suggestions I know that was started just recently I don't know the fact that we don't have any major yeah right now that was so that is something kind of like a 49 because we can all hear and it's not
hearsay from no offense to any contractors or attorneys or anything but we'll be there to phrase our own questions to the technical and and you know again I think Ken was right it's more at the staff level because we have to protect our ability to be judicial
uh but you know surre if participating in somewhat of a joint review could then have questioned a variety of things that provide us more information when it comes to our review. You could be saying look our board feels that the density is too high and then maybe conservation oh
yeah we have this you know and then you have sort of couple people coming together say let's reduce that density it's you know you might get by one board but taken an aggregate it should be the reason that we had wanted to invite all the various boards together is that you know and certainly I'm not picking
on them but an example of design review design review is simply uh recommending to the planning board not to us and yet we get referrals all the time from uh you know design review. Is that an extra step? I don't know. Is that something that could be done by the planning
board? I don't know. But these are the things that we need to discuss because no I think a shorter more succinct road path for athletes to go through is better for them and better for the town because
that's right because an instance is a a local department in town will get something from the planning board. Yeah. While they are under their site plan review of course they file with us. We don't have a hearing usually until after site plan review. They've got the
whole thing. But then we'll send out referrals and what they'll send us is what they sent to the planning board. Meanwhile, there's been revisions done that I never get, right? You know, until all of a sudden it's time and this happens a lot till it's time to come to the hearing and it's
like then I've got to rush and get what do you mean? You know, now all of a sudden you're giving me revised plans two days before the hearing time to the engineers. I got to do this and then it's Do you guys think that the applications are complete enough when you when you
read them in the files? The applications have to be complete. No, I mean whether or not there's enough information. I mean what what sparked me on that was when you read a 40B application, it answers a lot of the question. I mean, a
lot of what's going on in that whole I I actually felt more prepared sometimes when I read the tool that I've sat on than I do with a handwritten application personally, you know what I mean? And I'm just asking the question. Do you
feel like that if the application itself was more had more questions had had more information that less questions would have to be answered on overlap? Well, you can ask questions all you want because you can be as specific
as you want, but if the answers are so vague, well, that's what I'm saying. How many times have you asked questions and you still haven't got the answer? You got to wait till you get to bring it back. We have to have one hell of a form designed to to take into consideration all the different types of
of special find. So, there's still going to be things that always get slipped through then. Yeah. No, I'm not I'm not trying to discourage. I'm just There's only a lot at the last minute.
It's it's it's a butters as well. Letters bring in something that can change your view of the whole project and that's usually always done at the last minute. So then I got to rush it to you or I have you guys. Is there anything written though that that
disparages people from doing that? And and if they do do that, would just our website that says, "Please get everything in." Well, maybe that's something that needs to be addressed. That's something we could do is if you don't if we could be stricter about it. That would only happen a couple times.
Hear it if it wasn't here by exit. And you mean continue it, right? Yes. Right. But that night, we're not going to hate that night. They have to agree to continue. Right. Right. You don't want to get into a situation where uh there is a default
default because all right the the um just one other thing on terms of the application uh you know some of the thoughts I had is that you know everyone who applies to you know board of health uh you okay? Yeah I'm I haven't been right.
That's all right. we have that you'll remember together. Uh but everyone won't sleep tonight in many ways remembering the things puts together exactly the same information to every place they apply. Now some of it's very different but
there could be a portion of the like an omnibus application that just gets passed around to everyone with a different component to it. I mean, things that we can think of that would save money, help people out. Uh, and it doesn't have to be duplicated, but it's something we can think about. But
anyway, I I think we're on the same wavelength there about streamlining the regulatory permitting process. And I see that both sides of it that helps the town, helps the applicant. Let's see what we can do. Um, the next is the professional review of the zoning bylaws. And um one of the things that uh
Ser and I have to get to the selectmen for their packets for the weekend uh some information on this and Serena and I were talking a little bit earlier. And if you look at the back of our zoning bylaw, the latest uh is December of last
year. You'll see 1 2 3 four pages of the changes that have been made to the zone by law. And it's it's normally what happens. you you take a little piece here, you change a little piece here, and it doesn't flow together again. So,
I I think we had this request for a long time, and I think for budgetary reasons, we've backed off of it. Uh, but I think it's time again to do it. What I'd like to ask each of you to do is to think of some little examples so that we can show
the board of selectment where it's a good example of that this no longer applies. It doesn't fit in. It's not easy because I was saying to both Scott and David when I was doing an orientation with them when they came on board that you know after 9 years I'm
still learning about designing uh by law because it's not the easiest [Music] so all right so we got that one and I guess that's it and then we've asked for any
feedback but this looks like We will provide them a copy of the uh legal women voters report which I thought was uh something we should all be proud of. Yeah, that was a very nice report. Our next meeting is the 15th. Uh
well, not not that anything that's been brought to our attention. I somehow I inadvertently forgot to put minutes on our open meeting, but I would appreciate if the board would review these or maybe not. I didn't have to vote on there. Okay.
March 1st on I don't know how you did. Has anybody looked at them? There's only two initials. It's just March 1st, isn't it? Yes. I did not.
Do you want to look at them or do you trust the I wasn't here? Wasn't here. That's a recusal. Recusal. You wasn't I was not here so I did not initial it. Oh, okay. I don't know who that is. Oh, it's Scott. Uh I didn't glance at
We'll put it on 15. We've got drafts posted on the uh I think everyone knows that we uh post draft minutes to our website. So and and sorry sends them out but in case you know because we want to comply with the open
meeting law and uh so within 10 days we always post draft uh minutes. They don't have to be finalized and posted until after we uh vote them in. But so take a look at them for the next time we get together. Okay. All right. Anything else to come
before this port and I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much. I was thinking that Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music]