sorry can you hear us meeting after sitewalk at once by rock hill um we've already opened the meeting and um at the sidewalk we've had Morton Chris Sarah Payton and Mary um come on
Annie Bra um thank you so uh the agenda is short today um why are we here on Thursday at lunchtime i'm not hungry um and I just want to clarify that because that's been a question I a lot of people have asked um the applicant um uh on one
by Rock Hill um filed an application for the division of their land at once by Rockville into two lots and the plan was stamped in at the town clerk on March 24th um the application requests approval not required and under state
law has 21 days to act on such plans or they become what's called constructively endorsed which means they're automatically approved so 21 days would fall on this coming Monday and since our regular meeting is on Monday night any decision made by uh the board will be
filed with need to be filed with the clerk on Monday and uh we generally meet the second and the fourth Mondays of the month and sometimes that means that there are 21 days or even more if there's a holiday between regular meetings if there's town hall town
meeting for example calls on the fourth Monday um it is our standard practice um when this happens that we reach out to the applicant to ask for an extension of two days or a week or whatever is required um and it and as there is their right they
declined so we had already planned a sitewalk for today based on the availability of our volunteer board members so we scheduled this meeting right now to follow the sitewalk it's our practice to always review ANR applications in public meetings even if
they are clearly entitled to ANR endorsement we believe that the town and the applicants expect this so what are we going to be discussing today um we are asking we are being asked to if the applicant is
entitled to an endorsement of their plan as approval not required or ANR um ANR approval not required means the division of land is entitled to exemptions to review under subdivision control so what is subdivision what's a
subdivision because we don't have a lot of those in Manchester so it's important for us to remember what they are i'm reading from the Manchester rules and subdivision rules and regs um subdivision rules and regs are enacted for the purpose of protecting the safety convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the town by regulating
the layout and construction of ways in subdivisions to provide proper access to several lots therein and it goes on and um the relevant portion I think is the powers of the board under the subdivision rules and regulations shall be exercised and there are a number of
reasons um or goals and the first of which is to provide adequate access to all lots in the subdivision by ways that are safe and convenient for travel so our goal here is to um discuss whether or not this plan is subject to
the exemptions um for review under the subdivision control or receive endorsement as approval not required and we get these all the time they're relatively routine um we are not going to discuss aesthetics noise traffic or
building permits that have been issued and we're also not going to discuss the merits of other ANR plans in town that have endor been enforced by this board um this is not a public hearing that has specific notice requirements and butter requirements but I am going to uh allow
some uh public comment particularly if it has to do with the adequacy of access or other issues related to the ANR endorsement um so with that I'll turn it over to the applicant sure thank you very much i'm Adam Zagger from
Challen Stewart in Boston um and I represent Tim and Liz in connection with the application um we've submitted a memo to the board uh dated April 4th which is in the meeting packet um which lays out the rationale for this um but
you know very simply uh the ANR analysis by the board is quite simple a lot is the plan is not a subdivision if it has every lot in the plan with adequate area and frontage and as we can see we have a division of the
property into two lots lot 8A which is going to be 26,125 square ft.6 acres and that lot has continuous frontage on Sea Street uh for 281.83 feet which easily exceeds 150
foot minimum requirement um and the lot also easily exceeds the 22,500 ft minimum area requirement so we've got a lot that complies with area and frontage and therefore it's not a subdivision because the other lot lot AP also contains frontage is exceeding the
the minimum requirement this is in the SRA district where the minimum lot frontage is 150 ft and we have lot 8B having 154.25 ft of frontage on Spyro Rockill Road while the lot also contains 1.18 acres so therefore it meets the area and
frontage requirements this plan does not show a subdivision and therefore it's entitled to approval endorsement uh by the planning board um now that being said we understand and we recognize that three years ago the applicant was before the board and the
the endorsement was denied and that was based upon the conditions that he created at the time at that time the existing conviction was essentially this so an entrance had been created onto the property and sort of a crude park in the
area but it was not what it is today and today the access as the board just saw at our site visit currently exists we all walked from streets some trees from sea street up the access point um we all saw that there's a there's a truck there um trucks have been using that access
for construction purposes for months now even to build the uh foundation or the slab that's there the garage um and so we have public engineer showing truck access u so importantly since this project
started um we have been able to determine that and it was I think it would be a surprise to the board that um a driveway entrance can be constructed here um in October of 2024 in response to
some uh neighbor inquiries we understand the planning board had looked into this project dpw had looked into this project u Tim and Liz buttoned down on their design to determine you know what exactly the dimensions would be for a driveway access point on Sea Street
and you'll see in the materials that we submitted um that we included a surveyor certificate because as it turns out this driveway design here that can be constructed and and it's largely been constructed to date it meets every
single dimensional criteria in section 46 of the bylaw i'm not sure if if board has had a chance to review our certific certificate but I can run through it the the minimum distance to the nearest intersection 20 feet and we provide 44.1
ft the minimum distance to the nearest driveway or fire hydrant 10 ft here we have 11 ft 10 in uh the minimum distance to the side lot line trees utility poles or street light fixtures 5T here we have 8.9 ft uh visibility we've showed a
visibility range there have been additional plans that that Tim has submitted to the DPW and the building department because we do anticipate filing for a driveway entrance permit at some point in this project depending upon whether things change or whether the ANR is is granted but um there's a
lot of material out there that that the DPW and the planning and and and Paul Orlando have reviewed in anticipation of that potential permit to go on um drainage we're going to have we're going to meet beat meet the drainage requirements um by having a 12 foot wide drain trough running through the all
curb captures all water runoff at the street entrance um the maximum curb cut allowed is one we're going to have one maximum driveways for residential use again right now it's just one residential use so there's only one driveway um the driveway width approach
at the entrance of the driveway 8 to 12 feet we're compliant 12 feet the maximum combined driveway flare 3 ft we're compliant 3 feet maximum curb cover return 3T again compliant 3 feet um sidewalk and roadway construction it's going to be all per the MAB and ADA DPW
standards and we're going to use um pvious materials so really as this project evolves we were able to determine that this is feasible it is a driveway entrance that complies with every single uh criteria in the bylaw
and more importantly because that's not even relevant to the ANR analysis which is just is it a losery and I think as we all saw today it's it's the opposite of a loser it's real it exists on the ground it provides access it's been used for construction um you know and
therefore it it meets the standard under the bylaw we think pretty easily um and I know the board chair said that you didn't want to talk about other cases but we think this is an exact parallel to Georgia Lane not gonna discuss that's each case is different so I'm not gonna we're not even going to spend any time on that well I would I would point out
that it's actual and it's existing and in for road there is no access to the existing we're not going to talk about Forester Road that's fine um or any other ANR for that matter okay um I I have a couple questions that um any other a couple procedural points i just
wanted to be sure I I um and as part of our memorandum we submitted um we submitted the town a town council memo from April of 2022 um we saw in the meeting packet there's a new uh memo
from town council April 4th 25 we would appreciate if the we noted this was dated April 4th and our submitt was dated April 2nd it appears to us that this memo from town council that we've reviewed didn't have the benefit of seeing our submitt um I mean all the
only it said that the analysis is property spec specific but it didn't mention any details other than things that were apparent from the ANR plan so we think it's important that the record be updated to include the request by the planning board to town council that that resulted
because I think it's so like yeah know we did ask doesn't look like they've reviewed any of the submitts that we provided um we also noted that the meeting packet didn't include any kind of memo from the town planner uh our
understanding is that the town planner has issued an opinion uh that this plan is entitled to endorsement um he's not here today and he he advised us he wouldn't be here today but in light of that we thought that should be part of the we don't have a memo from the town but he's indicated verbally to to me as
yesterday i don't have it we don't have any memo from the town he is not a memo but he didn't issue an opinion a verbal opinion at all not to the board so that's contrary to what he represented to me yesterday and what I emailed to you yesterday um but I would just ask
that that be noted in the record but we're happy to answer any questions that you have um I do have one uh two questions sure if this is the access why would you build the common driveway it's it's really standards and we're
entitled to do both the um that driveway is there it it's available um if the board were to I mean really it provides better access why would the board be uh why would the board not want to have a property that could be accessed from two directions as opposed to just one okay
for who um okay the second question I have is your driveway that you've shown here is is based on a it sort of appears to be a flat site so it require again significant ledge removal correct because clearly the street level to it's
already done no no that's not what's there now you don't have to twoft grade from the street to 12 ft up the up the I think that's been filled it's been brought in this can this You definitely do not have two feet to construct this
require no further you could apply for a permit so it's okay um but what I think the the real question it's not the question but the permitting matters are not subject to not part of an ANR analysis and town
council made that very clear in its 2022 memo you do not need to have a driveway entrance permit in order to apply for an ANR there's just it's just not part of the analysis that the ANR analysis doesn't consider building it doesn't consider zoning it doesn't consider code it doesn't consider intentions doesn't
consider future projects current projects anything other than just area and frontage so it's a very limited analysis i mean the board may have a number of questions about this project um that may or may not come back for your jurisdiction and right here today it's a very simple question does it have
the area does it have the frontage and you know is access somehow elucory and I think as we all saw today it's clearly not it's there it exists on the ground it's been created pursuant to valid building permits um there's no notice of violation of any kind uh and the
applicant has been working directly with DPW and and the planning uh and the planning building department um there's a very long string of emails that we're happy to share and go to that show that this has been under constant review by Chuck Dan by Paul Orlando and uh and
it's full compliance that if we've been submitted a driveway entrance permit um you know we're very likely to have it approved so it's really that you know this is so close to you know finished product it's not even anywhere near what you know case law would indicate would
be illusion illusion is something that's fake it doesn't exist it's not it's here we're able to use it to build a you know a foundation pad so it's you know there may be lots of questions that you have but they're they're just not relevant to an ANR plan other questions from the
board so I do have questions that are not related to ANR so we'll have to address that at a different time um I my personal opinion is this is no different than what was brought to us in 2022 um you have temporary access to do the
utility trench um it seems like one town department um okay that and another town department said you could use that for construction access i still see sea street frontage as elucery um there's no way safety wise
fire truck excuse me safety wise um it could be accessible by fire trucks police um delivery trucks um I do not see the frontage on Sea Street um so that's kind of where I'm at right now
any questions or comments um I do want to correct uh at least our our council has advised that the board must determine whether there is adequate present threshold access to the lot from its frontage on sea street um reliant on the specific geography of the lot in
question at issue additional considerations include whether emergency service can access the lot and whether the main portions of the lot are practically practicably accessible um and uh um so I just I'll I'll put that out
put state that right now that's that's the test that our council has advised um Peter or Sue any questions or comments okay um I will take some any brief comments from uh the public
particularly as they relate to the adequacy of access or uh frontage or area that you have um observed in the plan just one question introduce yourself alan Wilson five Spyro Hill thank you um
I believe the the board has received a letter from Scott Susco of Six Spyro Hill i just want to be sure that's in the record we have received a letter from Scott Cesco thank you any other comments um so
um so I I'm going to just read also quote again from the um elsewhere in the uh council's um memo that it's about threshold access and um delineate that it the provisions um access the main
portions of the lot and I think um I guess I should also report out that we did take a sitewalk out there we walked on the common driveway from Spy Rock Hill and we walked up the utility trench path stairway uh construction access
um steep gravel um construction access um so I'll take add any other discussion can I I I mentioned it on our walk so but now that we're here just want to clear Can you introduce yourself for the record please rice 17 Washington Street
the concern as I expressed at site is that having a driveway there it's an extremely dangerous situation we see it daily i cross there a couple of times a day very least i mentioned earlier I have a 10-year-old grandson who I cross with sometimes my wife crosses we watch
other people cross it's a very dangerous intersection to allow a driveway to come down in that intersection as I said is an accident waiting to happen i got enough there i don't understand why another driveway is even necessary i'll even accept the fact that it can be used
for construction but to allow it to be used as a driveway that that will be allowed to have UPS truck FedEx trucks constantly up that driveway instead of going up Spy Rock Hill and going into their property there's enough access as it is to that property i don't think they need another one that's all thank
you thank you we u I acknowledge that the letter from Scott Susco has been entered into the record and that being the case we'd like to enter into the record our um we have a two-page uh fact sheet where we try to
uh we reviewed that letter yesterday and we were disappointed to see it we we don't uh we understand that construction is disruptive to neighbors and this has been a a uh it's been a long project and uh we we understand that and recognize that u but we think that there have been a lot of misconceptions about this
project um and the planning board may have some of these misconceptions and we think it's really important to dispel some of them u the most important one is from the letter is that the letter said that access to sea street has been denied two time multiple times previously and that's just that's not
the case what happened was that the applicants applied for an ANR plan and and the board declined to give the endorsement because they found that at the time the access was elucory this is not a situation where Tim has applied to get access to street sea street they were rejected and now they're coming
back everybody is entitled if they don't get an ANR plan to lawfully change the physical conditions on their property and try to go back to the board at such time when they feel that the access is no longer elucory and that's exactly what they've done here trying to listen to some of the guidance that the board
provided at the 2022 hearing including which is why don't you have a common driveway coming from Spy Rock Hill um and so that's part of the reason why the new plan that we wanted to present included that common driveway because it was part of the record i think it was you Chris that had mentioned that in
2022 um and then the second misconception is you know that it was stated in in Scott's letter that this project was a charade and that some sort of attempt to mislead the the town and that's just absolutely not the truth that the one spiral project isn't
changing uh the Carly approved project is an accessory building that is going to be used for Liz's office to do her pottery and Tim's office they need space um if you've ever seen Liz's pottery you know she does great work you need to spread out for a pottery operation you need kils you need wheels um so nothing
is changing that with this project they're simply you know it's part of the pro the process they've inherited the property um trying to think long term what's the long-term plan how do we want to hold this asset and they've decided you know because they have the requisite area in frontage that they wanted to
subdivide it and that's their right to do but there's there's nothing that there's no hidden games here there's nothing planned to build multiple houses or even ADUs that was mentioned um this is this is nothing about that the project is absolutely just exactly what
it is they're building an addition to their house with a garage and they're building an accessory building that's going to be a pottery studio um the next misconception I think this goes to to Mary to some of the questions that you had asked us at the site visit you know don't we need a driveway entrance permit
and and the answer to that is actually no our bylaw requires a driveway entrance permit to be issued before a building permit only if that structure is going to need a a new driveway but this doesn't because it has access from
Spyro Rock Hill so that's the reason why no driveway entrance permit was needed to for a building permit for this project um I think that's a big misconception that that people have around town is somehow like how did this happen why don't they have a a driveway entrance permit and the short answer is you just don't need it that additional
access down the spirrock road is you know it's it's it's going to be it's going to provide access but you've got belt and suspenders where you have a perfectly adequate driveway coming from the other direction um the other misconception and I I saw this a lot um
there a bunch of social media comments was that somehow this is like bad this is this is an inappropriate project and it's when you take a step back it really isn't it's actually the the site contains 1.78 acres and you only need
22,500 for a residential lot so this site and I think that also was referenced in Scott's letter about how many years ago they originally wanted to do three houses here um that's no longer the case but it's it has enough area if it had the frontage to do three houses so in an environment where we're talking
about a housing crisis and we're trying to create opportunities for more housing any place we can downtown it's it's perfectly appropriate for have housing on this lot to create a separate additional residential lot single family residential lot here because you've got All right so can we just focus on the
the the access question because that really is the question not the Sure whether or not this should be divided or we have a housing crisis sure the other you know that highly inflammatory letter is on the record now so we really feel a need to to respond to it but I I will try to limit this and hopefully you can
just to a record this for the record but the other piece that I just wanted to say is that you know there's been this notion that somehow Tim and Liz are in violation um of our law and it's really important to them you know Tim is especially Tim as an architect uh and a
contractor that board understand that's not the case they have made a really diligent effort to comply to the letter of the law as soon as we heard from the town last year that people were having issues with this project that's when I became involved uh we were I think we met the day afterward with great Better
Steel and Chuck Dan tim has been emailing the Chuck and Paul for for months we have a timeline of all the emails i don't want to share this and this I don't think the board needs to get into this level of detail but there's been extensive discussion and
conversations between Tim Chuck and Paul to the point where I mean Chuck has basically told us and I can provide the email and I will that this design is is acceptable to him uh as but again we don't need to get there because this isn't a driveway entrance here isn't the
entire record that you would see for a driveway entrance isn't before you and at some point you know in the future it might be but we wanted to just make clear that this is we've been in really deep discussions with Paul and Chuck um every step of the way when safety concerns were raised about this project
Tim was on the phone like that moment to really get in there show engineering plans dispel all of those okay so let's just stick to whether or not we have access can I just clarify that the board there is a plan not what's on the ground That is not an asbelt that is that is not an asel thank you that's all I
wanted to know final point of that okay and again I just I guess just to wrap up I I I would also quote from the town's um prior memo where they advised that factors such as the quality of access lack of required permit on the limited
school pay allowed under the statute and it's not the planning board to anticipate the land of required permit would be improving or or might not occur but again this is just a question of is access there does it exist and I think as we all saw today it does so hopefully
Can I just say something to access uh because you you keep bringing that up as as a really important issue um we we have an approved built common driveway from Spyro Rock to what could
be the next property is that by itself adequate access to the property possibly we other projects have been approved with only a common drive but
How could there be any question of access from sea street when we're accessing the property from sea street to build the project that's my main question why is access a question so
there are guidelines you know the ANR process is unique to Massachusetts and it's kind of a silly thing that you have to go through we're basically saying that we don't have to approve it but there are there are guidelines that
we're supposed to follow in issuing this endorsement rule is not required one of the conditions is that there be adequate frontage and that complies with zoning first and second that there be adequate access to the lot from that
frontage so that's why we are so concerned about excuse me the sea street access no so my question is how is it not obvious that there is adequate access from the frontage on sea
street or maybe it is to you maybe it's maybe it's totally obvious i don't think it's obvious i um no it's it's the situation is well is this the time I can answer that for me whether or not can I just go back to the criteria
that this that the council has provided for us consider uh adequate present threshold access to the lot additional considerations whether emergency services can access the lot and whether the main portions of the lot are
practically accessible practically accessible presumably from the frontage Um so um so the um so for me yeah so the the question is that the attorney said if if there is
frontage frontage means that you have to be able to um access from a public way safely um to me that it's again the same criteria as
in 2022 very steep slope um it is elucery you have a temporary um kind of piece together access for construction access and a utility trench
and that happens all over town and then those need to get right back to how they were prior to construction no one would ever grant most of those as um acceptable driveway entrances um and in
this particular case with the topography of the site it is not a safely accessible frontage on a public way in my opinion can I respond to that because
it's very just like to enter into the record um an email that an email chain between Tim and Chuck Dan where Chuck has reviewed this plan as well as some other detailed drawings that Tim has provided um and
his uh reply the final reply and this is March 20th so this is just a few weeks ago hi Tim I'm saying you talk to the fire chief but as long as he is good i have nothing from a DPW perspective in the event you applied to the PB i can't say they won't ask me for some other
info but as of now I am satisfied and there's nothing more I require so I'd like to enter that into the record can you clarify satisfied with what yes I can yeah yeah I can I can do that and I think it's we need to see the email i mean I Yeah we've got all the emails
please send them but that is that is the end of a sevenmonth process and the process was this dpw came to us and said "We have a concern that you have uh a safety issue
accessing your property from where you're accessing property." I said "Fine let's walk through the process what does it mean for us to have a safe access from the street to the buildable portion of our lot that started in um a in uh
August of 2024 but prior to that um in April of 2022 and I have the emails to prove it before we went for our ANR our last ANR
I went to DPW to make sure that if you remember as part of our ANR process we actually provided a compliant giant driveway uh engineered driveway from Sea
Street to the property it was engineered completely worked out as evidence that we could access our property from Sea Street to the buildable portion of the lot dpw with their email of April 11th
2022 said "I don't mind if you let the planning board know that we met and I didn't have any DPW issues with the curb cut." Okay that was in 2022 but again two September two two August i
don't think we need to go through a whole year the point is no the point is though that that there's this the DPW and the building department have been intimately involved and if this was a case that that access was elucory and this would
just be impossible then what have what have they been wasting their time for for the last year well so unfortunately um the DPW and planning and uh building inspector don't rule on approval not required plans so um that what we have
before us is an approval not required plan that the planning board has to act on uh Sue or Peter any comments oh you have to unmute good now um so part of the problem here
is that the original agreement was to return this area back to its more or less original state and now all of a sudden forget that now we want to build a driveway there's no agreement that's
not accurate absolutely not sure now there's a site plan from um 20 uh I have a site plan that was submitted by you folks um that says exactly you know that's been superseded though by additional violence i'm sorry can you
tell me where I'm going to ask Greg to clarify you have a clarification on that i think I do yes uh you know preface it by saying what has been there's been no official approval for any driveway and specifically
um agree to in writing that there is not a driveway the current country is not a driveway the um condition as part of the existing building permit is to reestablish the existing conditions that's part of the building permit that
was a condition that Chuck put in and it was confirmed by Muslim mad So that that is a condition existing plan and I think um we have a site plan that has notes to that effect and um and
I will say that uh not a civil civil engineer but I'm not a practicing civil engineer and I think that there are some uh fairly distinct chain sidewalk uh issues there that that
don't comply with this site plan so that's another that's not for today but that's another um but that's a permitting absolutely it's not that doesn't have anything to do with whether access is elucory tim has every right to file a driveway entrance permit
application that shows this plan and and to construct it as long as the required permit is issued so I just want to make sure that you that that the board at least my opinion is that the board um that this is a plan we saw a plan in 2022 and made a determination that that
was a uh as if it was a flat site at least in my mind and I I see that the grade again it seems to me that uh a 4ft grade change 20t or 30 feet up the road is certainly not what's out there today
um from uh so okay I think um Sue or Peter any other um I think we've kind of um got the facts any new fact any new considerations yes I have well I have a consideration
um I think it's very important that we all uh take a step back and ask yourselves whether you think we have access to the buildable portion
of our lot currently from sea street the idea that the board could possibly suggest that we don't have actual access to our building lot from
sea street is very very hard for me to understand here if this is what we are talking about I I think I I think we should take a minute it's one thing if a board member believes that something
should be should have been it's another thing to know and it's a whole another issue as to whether you think it's quote steep or not but after a seven-month process working with DPW asking all of
those questions the steepness of the of the access the ability to turn around on top the ability how safe it was arriving at the street all of that stuff if you're ignoring that but most importantly ignoring what is actually
there this would be I'd like to just speak to that for a minute um actually that's my biggest biggest issue is that it goes to the main portions of the site and what I see out there is an excavated um basement so I have to ignore what you
have put in as a building uh site because it's as if it doesn't exist and the main portions of the site from the grade where that bottom of the foundation is today up to where we stood on the top of the common driveway is probably a 20 foot difference still
ledge so that main portions of the site are still which are still um up a steep slope and ledge that's you're saying that I have to get to the other side of the lot because you pull up the the
access that's current and pull into a garage inside the building so we're actually inside the building and that's not considered the main part of the of the lot the existing construction access to me is different and its steepness is
different than uh fire and Amazon truck access up a steep look so we've reviewed this i've reviewed this with DPW and DPW doesn't weigh in on ANRS okay we're going to stop and are we I want to make this note that because it sounds like you're saying that access that there's
illusory access to the the concrete pad that's going to serve as the garage like you can drive from Sea Street up the up the up the the access way and pull in to the garage you saw a truck there today i can't drive my car up there i don't
think we can drive a ladder truck up there um that's my opinion um I don't think an Amazon truck it meets the requirements of the fire I just got the I just got the requirements of the fire uh of fire trucks and it meets the current grade meets those requirements
so so the fire department and the DPW and the building inspector don't weigh in on ENRS so um the board what do we what do we uh what do do we have a um a sense of the board of how we want to act here oh can I just I have a couple of
comments on this it's very difficult to to try to [Music] um you know single out the process that we've gone through and the substance of what the plan they they're kind of
connected and it makes it difficult to figure out what the heck is going on here there are two things that trouble me frankly one is the original plan showed a utility trench going along where this driveway now is and that was what the building inspector approved and
suddenly it's become a construction access and maybe he approved it but it seems um not clear as to how this all happened the second thing which my real question
is why do you need to subdivide this property at all if this is a an accessory structure that's going to be um an architect's office and a pottery shed why do you need to separate these
properties and uh so it just that seems illusory to me also I guess it's their it's their right to do so of course they're right but given the history of how this is you know we do ANRS quite frequently we've never had one quite so controversial as this can I add a third
concern that I should have is if you really have access to the accessory building that you're proposing why would you build a common driveway to serve it um and not have come in and I also don't understand why you didn't come in with a subdivision plan it would have been a lot less
expensive than building the um because the subdivision plan is three units or more you can also have a two unit sub it's also a lot more engineering and work to do i mean and more oversight for the town which is the sort of the purpose also related to it's easier to
bring the utilities back through and having a separate you know potential access from that point will be convenient for the uh the new building if you know if the gravel permit is and I guess the the most important thing Chris I I understand that there is
controversy I understand that there's there are things you you're not sure why we did this or whether it makes sense for us to have our office and our pottery transform into a house for her
uh father and my aging mother i understand that you wouldn't necessarily know those answers but I think they're so irrelevant to the issue because the issue is so cut and dried here we if we
have access to the buildable portion of our lot threshold access is about crossing the threshold and getting access to the buildable portion of the lot it has nothing to do with slope nothing all of these questions that
we're talking about about permitting I mean they're all valid questions but they're just beyond the scope of an ANR i agree with you on that okay so we can expect we expect that that you know we expect to potentially be here again talking about a lot of these issues but
it's just not part of this will be the first time if this ANR isn't endorsed I think it will be the first time I've ever seen an ANR endorsed in M not not not endorsed in Massachusetts where you have access that's actually existing and been used to build a foundation okay thank you um so are Peter further
comments uh just one more on the access issue um it's the reason why you think you have access is because you're not following the original agreement to put
the utility trench and construction access back to the original state okay um does anybody want to make a motion i'll make a motion great thank you sir okay um I move that the planning board
deny the application and withhold endorsement of the plan as not requiring approval under the subdivision control law on the basis that as shown on the plan and the documentation submitted to the planning board and based on the
board's observations at site visit and subsequent discussion access to lot 8A from sea street is elusory uh due to the topography and steep grade of lot A as
well as the other factors that were discussed and observed thank you do I have a second second Mary a second any other discussion um okay i'll take a roll call vote um
hopefully the chair votes yes mary yes sue yes peter yes chris yes okay um that uh ends that procedure um thank you
everybody for taking time today i know it's a out of order um and uh challenging um Thank you um I'll take a motion to adjourn second all in favor
i thank you uh Shannon also for helping us today okay thank you there is request that these get scanned into the record thank you [Music]
so get on a Zoom yeah I'll take a and um I will send you the um decision to record with the template figured out earlier is like waking it