:30 we'll um call the meeting make sure they're recording. We are recording. Um evening everybody. We're going to call the um meeting of the Manchester Planning Board uh to order. Um I'll take a roll call vote. Um Mary Foley here.
Peter Morton here. Sue Filber here. Uh Chris here. Gordon Brewster here. Uh Sarah Catton is here. And um we're expecting uh Laura um and Mark um the first order of
business which is not on the agenda is uh correspondents. We had a couple of um notices from abuing towns and we also did have um an email that I just realized didn't go to the whole board um from Gary Gilbert and sort of added on
to by Axel Magnus and Chuck Wisner about um the approval not required bylaw. So we can talk about that once it um uh once we get to that part of the agenda. any other correspondence that we had there might be
correspondence and Laura. Hello. Um, while we have a number of people here, I wanted to um just acknowledge that this is actually we have two board members retiring um from the board and since Laura is actually not going to be here next
meeting, we wanted to acknowledge both of them. uh come on in Mark uh tonight and thank you both for your contributions. Um I'll start with our more junior member Laura Tenny. Um had
served on the board since July of 2021 when she was appointed and then she ran. Um and before that she was on the she was an alternate for the ZBA from 2017 to 2018. So Laura we want to thank you for your very thoughtful comments. so
often and your vast knowledge of landscape design. Um your advocacy for safe streets and and sidewalks, pedestrian access um and uh um higher density um and uh all of those issues.
So, we'll miss you and uh please come back and see us. Um well thank you um something for you. Oh how nice. Thank you. Just a bag. Thank you. Um and Mary Foley will be
here I hope next week uh two weeks from now. But um we also wanted to acknowledge um we're doing this tonight. Mary's contributions. She has been on the board since um 2020. And Mary, you have um always been very thorough and
prepared, always willing to ask tough questions and raise issues that may not always be in the majority. And that takes courage and preparation and thoroughess. And um I think we all respect you for uh for that. And um you
really are willing to sometimes take the um you stick with your your convictions and um raise the issues that you really feel are important. and that takes a lot of uh a lot of work and a lot of courage. I think you also have brought a really um careful eye to so many of our
zoning changes, very thorough um and we appreciate that. Thank you for your time and your commitment to the board and to the team and we look forward to seeing you in two weeks after town meeting. actually at
town meeting and after town meeting. So, um thank you everybody for um please uh join us and thanking Laura and Mary when you see them. Um ling board takes a lot of work. It's always um a lot a lot behind the scenes that goes
on. So, thank you both. Um okay, with that um we're going to jump into the approval not required um for 22 Union Street. If you recall, the applicant uh was very um gracious to give us a week
or two uh extension on the deadline. Um the plan uh the the plan divides the lot into a small portion in the back as well as a um client um portion in the front.
Um I think we all have the plan. We also did talk with council who advised us that um this was in fact an ANR. Um I did a little research about how does this happen? Why would somebody want to do it? And um I found an article about
it's called the developers loophole um which is um means that by dividing the land um you actually lock in the zoning use. And that may or may not be why they're doing it. I don't know. it's not
our hunt. Um but um that is one way that people one reason. I also spoke to the building inspector and asked the question that I had asked which is now that uh the building is right up against the setback. Does that um constitute a
setback violation? and he echoed what I believe the applicants council said is that the um that the violation does not and I think Mark said this as well does not occur until the um one of the par the part parcels are transferred into
separate ownership at which point there would be a violation and they would be either required to go to the ZBA or asked to remedy the the violation um even though it's an existing building. So that answers uh that question um at least from the building's
perspect building inspector's perspective. So that's just sort of background work that we did um between last meeting and this meeting. Um do we not want to do we want to hear from the applicant um any new information or people have questions um about the plan?
Uh do you have anything to add? Let me just ask do you guys does the applicant have anything to add or any new changes since we last saw it? There's been no changes whatsoever and there's no intention at this time to do any conveyance of either property. Okay. Thank you. Uh go ahead, Mary. Um so I
had some concerns with the application. Um I believe our applications are legal documents. And on page two, our item two was taken out and a new item two was taken in was
put in that we do not have as a criteria. Um, so I think that's illegal. um our application, although town council says you can create a non-buildable lot,
um we don't actually have that as one of our core criteria to pick as a selection. So, my two concerns are changing a legal document and inserting language that we don't have on ours. And then the second is we actually don't
have criteria on our own application to say we can they can create non-buildable lots. So I want to understand where we are in the process. 2.3 in your own subdivision. Um that article talks about the fact that
you can have a lot that does not fully comply with zoning and that's as long as it's denoted as same. So it would be a non-buildable lot. I'm just referring to our application. I'm just saying I'm kind of go back to your rags. So, personally, I think that your application should have a fit, but I
went with the closest category to refine the language to state what was factually correct and is allowed under both the state statute and your own bylaw. That was what I was trying to accomplish. But you did edit our application 100%. But your whole application has like
literally like lines to be edited to be filled in. So, that's all that I did with respect to that section. So, I could have with, you know, and I I should have done this then with what I'm hearing from the board. Um, is I could have stricken out the language and inserted my language so it was entirely
clear. It was not meant to be at all fraudulent or trying to not be um transparent to the board. That was not the intent whatsoever. I hope that's appreciated. Okay. And then Mark um can you advise regarding um whether that's uh grounds
for pushing us off or you know not really I mean have to evaluate the plan based on what was submitted the application fees was were submitted. Um I think she was trying to explain
why and you know altered it as opposed to just adding it as if there was no other selection. I mean, yeah, I think I think we would have appreciated like a letter or some thing that re that's and I did provide that in the interim. So, in response to, you
know, post meeting, we had both Adam Zagger and I as co-consel had submitted additional information to the board and it was in that I can I don't know if that's been shared with the entire board. That was the email on March 27th. Um, I sent it at 9:03 to both the chairperson
and to the town pattern, but it was specifically talking about your point. Um, you can slowly I don't I don't It wasn't in our meeting packet for tonight, so I don't I can read it into the record if you'd like.
Okay, why don't you do that? Oh, I thought you said you were going to do that. I You can go ahead and do that. Um, so Miss Cretton, um, on behalf of 22 Union Street LLC, I'm following up on the below email exchange with co-consel, Adam Zagger, Challen Stewart, we appreciate your quick attention to this
matter thus far and are hoping based on the following response, the planning board will be able to administratively handle and endorse the myar at its next meeting. To confirm, the 22 Union Street application is indeed on the MBTS form. The language in section two and only that language was revised to simply
indicate the facts that the plan shows a division of the two parcels only one of which is a buildable quote lot with the requisite frontage in accordance with MGL chapter 41 section 81P in ANR endorsement shall not be withheld unless
such plan shows a subdivision for purposes of the subdivision control law. A subdivision is a division of a tract of land into two or more lots. A lot is defined in 81L as an area of land in one ownership with definite boundaries used or available for use as the site of one
or more buildings because parcel B shown on the plan will not be available for use as the site of one or more buildings. Parenthetical unless combined with lot one or another property, it is not a lot as defined in subdivision control law. If the planning board finds
that a plan of land does not require approval under the subdivision control law, section 81 directs that it shall endorse thereon with the words approval under the subdivision control not required. Goes on to talk about the um under MPTs subdivision rules and rights section 421. If a majority of the board
of the opinion of the plans do not show a subdivision, it shall so endorse without a public hearing. Rule section 4.2.3 2.3 explicitly contemplate that a lot or parcel may not comply with zoning and that the board may require that myar to be annotated to indicate such
compliance providing a series of examples how to do so. The myo we submitted for the planning board's ANR endorsement for 22 Union Street LLC specifically states in note one that parcel B shall not be considered a buildable lot unless combined with a
directly abiding lot. Law A on the planes returned and site lot area requirements. This is all that's required for an A and owner enforcement under both the subdivision control law and the NBTS subdivision rules. There
does not need to be a proposed conveyance at the time of the A&R application as the NBTS application form seems to contemplate. Because parcel B will not be available for use as the site of one or more buildings unless combined with lot one or another
property. It is not a lot as defined in the subdivision control law. If you want to talk about case lawnot and if you want to hear um so one I would just appreciate that planning board members would get correspondent so we can all know what's
going on. Um we're Unfortunately, a lot of board members are left in the dark. A lot of times we don't get forwarded emails. Um I I now understand the reason, but you can't change a legal
document. Um, and I think it also highlights what I've brought up prior is that the applications in our um, subdivision document are dated and
the board should be doing a full review of them. Um, obviously it doesn't sync up with our own bylaws and the ANR requirements. So,
um I think that's a project for future planning board that um I know has been mentioned for years. Um so those were my concerns. I think um maybe we can ask Mark to look
at the ANR application and date. Um other questions for the applicant or for discussion. Yes. Go ahead. Question just on terminology if I may. parcel B versus lot A. Is there a reason you're calling one a parcel and one a lot? My
question, yes, because a lot capital L is deemed a buildable lot compliant with that whereas the parcel was purposely used to delineate it further as land buildable. Okay. Adam Zer also for the if you look in our zoning bylaw, you'll see that we have a separate definition
of lot which is a land for available for building and then a parcel which is another piece of land that's not available. There are actually already those separate questions. Thank you. Okay. Other
discussion? Um I think in uh there any um public comment? We don't um this is not a public hearing, but if there's if somebody has any uh specific comment, if you could raise your hand.
All right. Seeing none, um, do I have a motion to endorse the, uh, Yeah, I'll make that motion to endorse the plan. I don't have the details of the plan, but here. Yeah. Great.
Um, let's see. It's a plan dated March 5th, 2025 undertaken by Meridian Associates for um the subdivision of land at 22 Union
Street, which um which specifies that the parcel land will not be a buildable lot. Okay, great. Um do I have a second? Second. Second, Peter. Um any other
discussion? Um all in favor? I see unanimous. Thank you. Um thank you for giving us the extra time. That was helpful. Um and um you can endorse the you need it tonight or I was going to record it tomorrow, but um if you want
me to pick it up at town hall tomorrow, I can do that as well. So I'm come back later tonight. In fact, I'm going to make my co-consel handle that. Okay. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your patience and put a good word. Great. Thank you. Um, okay. The next, um, item is approval not required, uh,
form A for nine Ashland AB by Quay LLC. And I'm going to turn this over to Sue Hill. Um, so this we have denied uh this ANR.
Um, and Was anything filed with the clerk on the No, I was unaware that she actually denied it, right? You had continued it until tonight. Okay. So, nothing was filed in the clerks, but it is a plan
that is entitled to endorse it. So, can you explain that to us? Well, it does have frontage and access across the frontage to Ashland app which is assuming the board feels that it's
suitable for another house lot um is a suitable grades and widths for an additional parcel so additional lot. I think one of the things the main
reason why we denied it was because the application itself did not indicate any reason that they were falling under to request the ANR. Um but looking at the
law a little bit further, it turns out that if they have set forth that reason on the actual plan, which I think they did um in the first note, um it may have satisfied the requirement
even though they were really sloppy um in filing this by not throwing in any of the reasons on our actual application. I think John Harden is here. Yeah. Um John Harden, uh 54 School
Street, but also the uh the architect for for the client. Um I have to say I I was not involved in the application. Um so I don't I haven't even seen it to be honest. Um but apologies if it wasn't
adequate. I do know that the reason for the applications is actually very simple. So from Dian Ashen, the client had um had done work on the building five or six years ago, five I think
maybe years ago. It's a beautiful old building. Um it was kind of a large house and they decided to make it a two two family. So it's a it it looks exactly the same as it always did. It's actually quite a fine historic building
in town. And as part of the work, they renovated the the building, made it look beautiful, but added sort of an L-shaped piece at the back. They added a unit within the existing structure of of the building. Um the the lot though is a
large lot. Um it's about 20,000 square feet. Um, and so they were interested in the possibility in the future of doing something with the uh with the essentially uh open space adjacent to the existing house up on the screen. Oh,
thank you. Yes. So, uh you see the the entirety of the of the footprint or sorry of the lot that exists. Uh nine Ashland that screen is so touchy. Yeah.
Um, so the existing lot is that perimeter there. Uh, nine Ashland is this footprint here that also has a cute little carriage house piece in the back. So the back piece here was made into a unit and the front is actually quite
quite a nice large unit as well. So that is now a two family. Um but as you can see there's this adjacent um piece of the property here which is essentially grass and a few trees in it. Um and you can see that the size of the lot that is
proposed here is uh 6,281 square ft which is above the 6,000 required in the general district. It has 62 feet where 60 feet is required for frontage. And uh to be honest, our client hasn't decided if or what exactly
to do there, but we know that um he they could build a single family, they could build a two family. Um it's unfortunately not in the 3A, so that's probably the the extent of of the options, but it is what they're uh thinking about doing.
Great. Thank you. Can I ask a process question? Yes. So, we denied. Is this a new application? It's not a new application. Was Mark's interpretation that it was continued until today. Um, we denied without
prejudice. Yes. So, that's not a continue. No, I understand that. I wasn't at your meeting. I thought it had been continued. That's why a denial was not filed. Um, however, so it's beyond the 21 days. However, it is a plan that
should be endorsed regardless. You've discussed it now. So, I think you basically should vote to endorse the plan. There's a small process that they would have to go through if you don't vote to endorse the plan, but eventually because it's beyond 21 days, it would be
endorsed. It wouldn't be endorsed if we denied it. Well, if and if that So that needs to get a denial needs to get filed with the town clerk within 21 days.
Okay. But that didn't happen. Okay. So So the planning board made a decision and then nobody filed it. Is that what you're saying? Yes, that's what I'm saying. And now is this a new application but the town will be reconsidering the the uh previous plan.
You don't have to you don't have to reconsider it, but I would recommend that you reconsider it and um you know the applicant can uh request I don't remember exactly what the process is because it done but the applicant can
request I believe the town clerk to say that the decision wasn't filed with timely manner and then it can um not sure whether the town clerk endorses it But uh eventually it gets endorsed and
uh the applicant can report. So I'm just recommending that the board reconsider it tonight. And uh if you feel it's you made an error in deciding uh not to endorse it at the last meeting that you
vote to endorse it now. And so I have a comment. I think one of the reasons we didn't really endorse it was no one was here representing the the applicant which made it kind of difficult to know what was going on. But
given this new situation and knowing now what's happening, I think it's a reasonable idea and I'd like to move that the planning board reconsider its uh decision not to endorse. Yeah, good. I'll second that.
Any discussion? I I have a point too. You you may mention it. I think that's the reason why we didn't talk about it because there's nothing on here asking us to do anything. Exactly. And there was no one here. Um no one here. But form still is the same. I would have
thought they would have updated it by now. Right. But which one is it? But under the notes, it does indicate the purpose. You're talking about that note on the the right side of the Right. And
apparently, although we like to have our application filled out, um, as long as they have stated it on the plan itself, which was properly filed, could we make it I don't disagree with you. Could we make it contingent on the form is
updated and filed appropriately? That's a great idea. John shaking his head. Yes. Okay. And I I think just for clarity, uh this is the even though the owner has done a lot of work in town, this is the first time they've ever engaged in an ANR to
to buy a property like this. I think probably the approval not required may have been a misnomer that they thought, "Oh, I can just have this done and submit it and it's, you know, right, it's done." And I I was never asked about it, I'm afraid. And I I didn't
even know that this was before you in in the last meeting, otherwise I I would have definitely been here talk about it. Um, so I apologize for that and and for the lack of clarity in the application. If we can amend that and submit it, be
more than happy to do that. Who's reviewing applications? I think if we can talk about process after we it's a valid question, but let's talk about the process after we deal with
this specific one. What what how we're going to address this one. Any other discussion from the board? I have questions on the actual thing, but I don't know if we've decided yet. I think we have to vote on your motion to
reconsider. So, any other discussion about revise it though to include I think that happens at the Any other discussion about reconsidering? Okay. All in favor of reconsider.
to abstain. Okay. Right. Okay. Um now any other discussion about the merits of the application itself may
question you lot X. So if you go to Salem deeds it says something such as it's um somebody paid a dog. So Manchester Marine paid a
dollar to the owner of lots, the original lot. Yes. For a construction and ma maintenance, easement, excav excavation, fill,
construct, blah blah blah. Um, so it looks like lot X was created as a lot. when and how was that created? Because it never came from the planning board.
Um, and so if Manchester Marine owns it, how is this property using it in ANR? So I can answer that uh just before the meeting because your question I had looked up at the registry um and that
lot X was created and endorsed by the planning board and recorded at the registry in 2014 and it's a separate lot obviously a non-buildable parcel that um uh said it
was to be conveyed to the uh to the house in the easement vintage just for access um to that strip um uh which is shown. I have a little blow up of that. You want to pass a few of these around.
Do you have the Salem deeds? Because my Salem deeds in 2021. Well, that's when the deed was, but the plan was recorded in 2014. I wait this one. So, who owns a lot? Do you have the sale of deed?
Lease date from 2021. So the planning board did it in 2014. It was recorded in 2014. I think it was endorsed 13 November of 13.
So, but in ANR you don't pay a dollar. You don't pay something for the conveyance. What's that? In order to have a contract, you have to receive
something. So, so typically it's a nominal conveyance. They put a dollar down. Okay. And then the lot this this lot then paid Manchester Marine back. No, they convey the property.
Maybe maybe Yeah, there's a there is a hand up. Yeah, I I don't I don't hear. Yeah, I don't know if you want to take it. I don't know if it's relevant. It might be the client. Yeah, sure. Um, did someone want to address
the board? Yeah. Hi, how are you? Good evening. Uh, my name is Edward John Flameia. I'm the owner of Nashville Avenue. I don't know if you're discussing I was trying to follow uh and I don't know if you're still the subject is still uh an open nine Ashlin.
No. Uh the question I think I think someone raised a question on the board. May I address that or absolutely. Okay. So we we purchased the house a few years back and we uh did a historical upgrade there. We brought it back to the original 1847. I think Mary
Foley, if I'm correct, she's asking a question. There was um when we purchased the house, there was a situation with the deed, a slice of land probably I I don't know the exact measurements, but I'd say probably 4t wide or and it went
down to a triangle and that was what the previous owner had to clear up the deed. And that's what she's I think that's what you're bringing to attention. I just want to kind of clarify that. So again, when we purchased the property, there was a slice of land that they didn't know
whose it was, and that's what came about uh for a maintenance. I believe it was for a maintenance that they have to create in the future if they need to do maintenance on that piece of property, they have the uh the right to access that. So it was a a sliver of land.
That's what we're talking about. But and just to come back again, we had filed something and yes, we did not make the meeting and I I was under the stinging that we didn't make the meeting. So it was just postponed to this evening and that's the reason why uh we're here this evening. Again, I apologize we didn't
make the first one. It just uh I guess with the rush of the day, we overlooked it and that's why this evening John Harden's there to represent us. But uh again, I'm Edward Flamy. I'm the owner of N Ashlin. uh we don't know what we're going to do with the piece of property, but we just wanted to keep our uh
options open and that's the reason why the application this evening and I thank glad both you and John are here to answer questions. Thank you. Um so you own the low slice which is lot X, correct?
Yes, that's correct. Yep. Okay. Do you have other questions Mary? Um I think that's it for now. Thank you. Does anyone else on the board have any questions? I just have a general question about the layout, but you go for it. I I do have a
question about when you taken this parcel out here. You now have the access the driveway access to the rear of the site is now gone. It's now part of the other parcel that's to be sold off and developed. Is is there going to be
another way, another parking area, another access or drive access? Yeah. So, I think the intention was um that this carriage house uh which is as old as this house, it's it's quite nice. Um would always remain part of
this property. So, the and as you may know, there there's a new drive put in on on this side. Um so, is a new drive put on the outside? Correct. on on this side of of Nashville back to some parking back
here. Okay. So, uh the intent I believe because it was all built at one time, it's all maintaining character in detail even though this has not been renovated. um it it would remain part of this and in in this zone um of course since this
is already a two family um I suppose as an ADU sure you could do you could do but any case that has not come up as a topic or as an intention of the client it was always that this would be part of this
property so the driveway is being conveyed as part of the other property that you're separating out correct in fact you you know, um there might be reason for a small easement back here like parking were required or something, but that at the
moment because they really haven't figured out what to do with this property, we haven't gotten the far yet. Well, yeah, this the edge of a new um there there is an existing driveway here which would become a part of this.
This driveway here kind of allows that to happen. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Does anyone want to make a motion? Sure. I'll move that we endorse the plan. I don't have any of the
information on the plan, but I think it we can copy it over. um on the condition that a revised application be submitted as soon as possible to uh in accordance with the plan that we're
proving we're endorsing. So 9. Yeah, the plan is 9 Ashland Avenue. Um don't see the filing date prepared by Meridian Associates
January of 2025. Thank you. March 10 second. I'll second it. Any discussion? All those in favor? Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very
much. Okay. Sorry about all the confusion. We're we're sorry that we weren't here the first time, but thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, too. Um I've actually made a note uh Mary read that um the
question about an ANR sort of checklist is so we get a complete application before we view it. But let's take that up at the other matters um come back to that. Um great. Now we're gonna uh thank you for your patience, Tim. Um do we have the
continued public hearing uh for 208 Summer Street uh by 206 Summer Street LLC. I'll take a motion to open the public hearing. Continue public hearing. Second Peter seconds. Um roll call Mary
Fully. Yes, Peter. Yes, Chris. Yes, and Laura. Thank you. Um, okay. Uh, Tim, you want to bring us up to speed on Tom? Tom, sorry. My name is Tom Saxs. I'm an
engineer with Hancock Associates. With me tonight is our project attorney, Joel Vasa. uh online we should have James Emanuel our landscape architect and also Tim Curt Curtis the building architect and also tonight uh the owner uh Tim
offices tonight. So, um, if I could share my screen, um, yeah, you get that. Perfect. Um so last at our last meeting we had some comments regarding the uh erosion control. What steps measures we
take to uh to wrap that up. Um we also had comments on the landscape plan and um we were going to put together conditions that we discussed later tonight. Um so uh I sent to Mark on Thursday. This is our updated erosion control plan. Um, as you can see in red
here, we're proposing straw bottle along the base of the hillside. Collect any runoff coming down the hill. Um, it's all along the 100 foot buffer. And then for slopes steeper than 2 to one, we're proposing you can kind they look like h bails, but it's going to be a silk
fence. So any slopes greater than 2 to one, propose silk fence so the waddles don't fall over. Um, and then lastly, we're proposing a construction entrance at the base of the driveway just to remove any debris. Um, I believe in your
packets, you received a report um, just on the maintenance during the construction phase. Um, so that'd be any type of maintenance like reviewing conditions of the system in this on summer street. Um, also observing the waddles, making sure that those are up
to spec. Any questions on this erosion control plan? Can you just give us the highlights of the um the four sections in the motion control plan? If you don't have it, I can I should
have I can share if you want. Yeah, if you don't mind. Yeah, that's all right. So, this just breaks up the erosion control and uh the maintenance into phases. So, we do have our pre-construction phase basically issuance of erosion control along these uh barriers that we were showing on our
plan. Um so basically the base of the hillside uh straw metal sil fence 2 to1 slopes. Um pre-construction is just kind of laying everything out before work is done or in this case adding more to what after work has been started. Um for
preliminary site work um we're looking at any type of stored materials um seating just reducing any type of runoff from if you have a lot of material on site. Um if you scroll down and then the landscaping section is
just kind of highlighting uh disturbed areas uh making sure that things are taken care of when you have certain uh like storms any type of critical rainfall. Um you scroll down even more should at the bottom there should be a
um so then this is just your construction maintenance phase. uh you just basically over the course after any storm or over a period they'll just inspect the erosion control for waddles it's just build up along the sides of the waddle I think it's about half the waddle then you'd have to uh attend to
it vegetated areas um so just inspect anything after major storms um silk uh stock piles we covered that just seed in areas where you're not going to be doing any work so just kind of prevent any type of silt going down
the hillside side and then the silk fences are going to be supporting the straw models and the two to1 slopes. Any questions? Question. Sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. Um, thanks. Good. Uh, couple of questions. So, has this been has there
been a storm water permit then formally submitted? So, no, this so typically this is a part of the storm water per this is actually section eight of the mass storm water hammer standard. Yeah. Um, so we are going to be applying for the storm water permit with the DPW.
Okay. We're looking for June 1st. I believe that was in our draft of conditions. Okay. Um, so yeah. Yeah, that this will be actually included in that permit. So cover that, too. So my second question was going to be has the DPW reviewed, but it sounds like you haven't submitted it. So they haven't reviewed yet. No, we haven't submitted
anything with them. Um, now that we're going to the full extent of uh the 100redyear storm, yeah, we have to look into our drainage options, which we probably looking into doing another test pit. Yes. Um, but right now we're trying to do site work. So, we can't really do the test pit until we get the okay to do
site work, right? Okay. So, but yeah, no, that will that will be addressed. Okay. And then last, just a clarification, you were saying you will inspect, you will monitor. Who is the you in the who's? So, usually these are issued to the site contractor. um is
basically, you know, it's their discretion. If there's a rainfall event, usually that's a time like, oh, we had two inches of rain over the weekend. Block the perimeter, observe it, and then if everything checks out, no walls are still staked, silk fence doesn't have anything built up against it.
That's when you can say, "All right, can you go back to work?" It's something that if you know people are if someone comes by, you you can't have those uh erosion control measures a mess. So, it's just something that the contractor will have to keep up with. Yeah. And
does that uh record being get filed with the town or with the DFW or um I'm not too sure about that. We've already asked what's that mean? I think if it's requested, you know. Okay. It could be something that Yeah. After a
rainfall event, just check all the boxes and maybe take a picture. Yeah. Thank you. So, my my question is kind of follow on what Laura said. This is a very formal checklist dates what happened. Yep. On which day. Is this
what you were just talking about? Yes. Yeah. So, it's just basically like an an inspection schedule. It's something that Oh, we had rainfall. All right. I'll fill this out. Looks good. All right. It's something that you do or is it submitted to the It's not something that Hancock would do personally, but it's
something that's submitted for the contractor to use as a tool that they would keep the records themselves. Keep a record for the for who? Um, typically it's a conservation commission. Um, so when they come out, block the sites, they can ask for, oh, for your notice of
intent, you guys included this table showing all these inspections of when after storms, have you been keeping up with that? Usually on larger projects, it's kind of like it's like a it's like a residential swip kind of. It's not really a full SWIP, but it's kind of a way
of making sure that the maintenance is done. So, this would be kept in the in the construction trailer, assuming they have a trailer. Yeah. Yeah. As a record to show whoever comes out and that this work has been done. Exactly. Yeah. I I just have one more question. It doesn't
necessarily I was wondering with the new grading plan that you guys did a couple weeks ago, have your numbers changed, your excavation backfill borrowed numbers have changed? Not too drastically. No. So you actually have recalculated based on the new No,
I' I've worked with the numbers because we did have some grading in some areas, but it where the grading has changed has been kind of more finessing my grading previously. So we don't we didn't see anything too drastic that it's not like we're going to be having, you know, less of a cut in certain areas. It's just
going to be more finessed. They did seem to the new grading plan did seem to temper some of the grading that you originally had. Yeah. I was wondering if it actually went down. Yeah, they were the numbers you had pretty high. Yes. Yep. But no, no change. You haven't
recalled. I haven't done the full count. Just wondering if it may be worth doing it just to for your own status. Well, if I may, those numbers also think it's important are based on the the net sum total, right? And that appears to be a much larger number than the overall
disturbance because, you know, you're adding the the cut plus the fill as Exactly. It's not the net number is different than the totals that we show. The totals that we show is total disturbance. So you have a net here, a cut here. Those two together is that is
that total. But when realistically a cut and fill cancel each other out. Does that kind of make sense? Ideally. Yeah. I'm going to share um two other things that just came up in discussion previously for people who are may not
have seen it online. This is a oops this is a um uh image of the oops of the fall proposed fall protection. So we had asked about that. Um and then the other this is the
fall protection can be mounted on top of the wall the retaining wall and this is the proposed stone veneer which I'm personally think looks a lot nicer than the hopeful um other comments from questions from
the board question so it's it's in here if if further blasting of ledge is is required. Where would that be? So, right now, we haven't completed the excavating, so we're not 100% sure, obviously, but I that location to us is
probably going to be the basement for the house. Um, that's going to be really the only area that we see that there's going to be a significant cut in that area. Um, but it's something that's going to depend on, you know, what we see when we dig. It could be boulders. It could be there could be nothing
there. So um we will take the steps or our client is willing to take the steps going to you know if we need blasting we'll apply for it properly. So I guess my question to the board and the town planner is if if we're looking at the current state
now for the earth removal bylaw and say you do enough boulder moving blasting etc that triggers another level of earth removal. How is that ensured that it
comes back to the board? because it seems to be an unknown right now. Well, I think if I understand it correctly, they know how much they're going to remove. Yes, we just are they going to be able to dig it with a backhoe or are they going to hit some
ledge that they're going to have to blast open some out and that would require a permit from the fire department. But the actual excavation still going to be the same because the house is the same. They've already figured out what they they need to
excavate for the the base. Oh, so like a 3,000 something yards is is that that's going to be steady? Yes, that's our proposed grading. So that's that's our best estimate based on the grading we have existing conditions. Okay. So you
wouldn't go above and beyond that? No. Okay. Thank you. That was my question. Okay. Any other questions or comments? I was just asking about the storm water plan now. Is there more coming in the presentation or storm water? We just talked about storm water. Are you
presenting the revised landscape plans or anything else tonight or ask the revised landscape plan? I do see James is on the chat to discuss his changes in the U. Could you walk through those? Go
ahead James if you want to. um share anything. Okay, I can uh share my screen with the the landscape plan. Hold on just a moment. Okay. So, um we have the revised
landscape plan and this was done uh based on the comments and the feedback that we had from the last meeting and the major changes are really um having to do with the plant list and the plantings themselves. So, uh, we
listened to your comments and added plants and trees in this area and near near the drive and it's going to kind of create a little bit more of a filtered view of the house from Summer Street. So, so now we've got trees not only along the property line, but along the
inside edge and these will be evergreens as well too as well, as as well as some deciduous. And then we've got trees on the edge of the existing trees to remain as well here. So, so these two areas are the locations where we've added trees. We've also
um put the plant list together to indicate what the specific trees are going to be. And I know there was a question about that because we had a pallet before, but just to zoom in now, we've got balsom fur, white pine, and white spruces that are evergreens. We get a total of 28 evergreens we're
proposing for this project and 10 deciduous trees that we're proposing. 38 new trees to go on the site um as part of the landscape plan. That's really the the big change. We we also submitted the uh the photos that you had shared that
uh showed the the the stone retaining wall veneer treatment and the fall protection which is kind of a transparent iron um fence look to it which would just be in this location over here. Um and the grading is still kind of what it was in the previous
plan. we saw from the grading from the original uh version that you had before, but I think that we just want to understand that we're looking at pines, spruce, burr. So, so no, I think the comment was, you know, no little pointy trees like arborites and things like
that. We don't have that in this plan. We've got real um evergreen trees in the plan. Wherever you see this symbol, that represents either a pine, a spruce, or a fur going in place. oak trees along the edge here and some birch trees uh in these locations as well too. So those
are the highlights of the changes um the plant list, the added plants, the locations, the veneers and the character of the wall and so forth. And I can uh take any questions if you have any any on the landscape plan as we have this still up on the screen. comment. I think the um the change that
we've seen has this evolve from the original plan that came in is a definite improvement significant uh in the density and quantity of trees planted and the filtering of the views from the public way and from the um native
species planting more of a New England forest and less of a you know a hedge of arborite. So, um, and the grading is much much better. Again, Tom, no, no disrespect, but the plan has really, um, is a much stronger plan, site plan, than it was in the beginning. U thanks to you
bringing on your associate your landscape architecture. So, uh, I I'm pleased to see the improvements. Other comments, questions? Um, all right. Any other comments or questions on the on this application
from the board? Um, any comments from the public? Sandy. Hi. Um, Sandy Rogers, 82 Oliss Road. This may have been covered in an earlier uh meeting about
the review of the building itself and any aspects such as lighting. Now that the drive has changed, I'm not sure what lighting is going to happen on such a long drive and being able to keep dark sky within
Manchester and especially because it's an exposed hillside. Was that covered? Um, we have talked about having dark sky compliant lighting and I it it's proposed in the our draft conditions. We have it as a draft. Okay. Thank you.
Yep. Any other comments? I don't see any online. Um then uh I think Go ahead. You saw me looking. So I had I had Shannon developed the whole package and he sent it to me today like that. Much of the
original submission drawing, many of the original submission drawings are still there. Is that correct? Showing the different grading plan, different landscaping, different everything. So have the have these drawings been now part of the application? Yeah. A formal part of the
application? Yeah. And and the other ones are now deleted or noted as such. Yeah. So we revised the grading to the latest site plan to uh show that rating change and then we'll just we could basically just note that C landscape plan for plantings. That's okay. I was
going to say I mean I understand it. I think we all understand it. If you if you picked up the document from scratch, you would see the old plans and you would be lost as to yeah which one is relevant, which one is applicable and which one actually got approved. The decision will reference the the rev the
revision dates. Yeah, we have revision dates on the plan. So just grab that one. It's like March 10th, not on the landscape though. Yeah, I landscape plan has a revision
date of March 25th. Yes, March 21st. It's always a bug about making sure that the dates on the drawing so someone could follow the the thread. I just asked you to do the same. Yeah. No, I understand. Okay. Um Mark, I think what we do is
close the public hearing and then discuss potential um uh conditions outside of the um once we close the public hearing. Correct. That's right. So, if we have no other um comments uh or questions for the applicant, uh I'll
take a motion to uh close the public hearing. So, moved. Second. Second. All in favor? I. All All voted in favor. Great. Thank you. Um now, Mark has given us a uh draft um list of conditions.
they will be put into a context that references the hearing the plans um you know into into an actual decision but the um the proposed conditions are those that have here I can put them on screen
if that's helpful um I think the first one is that we just sort of talked about is a revised um landscape plan so I drafted the okay Yeah. Okay. That's just the
conditions, but I drafted the entire approval. Oh, is that in there? Yeah. I did want to voice my concern of submitting the an approval document to the applicant before the planning
board votes. Um, Mark in your email today said that's what you usually do. The planning board in my experience has never done that. Um, as a planning board member, I find that disconcerting because it's it's
giving the applicant the impression that we are going to vote a certain way. I think that's inappropriate. I've been doing it for about 20 years like that because often times there this is just a single family home on a much
more complicated u commercial site plan a subdivision. oftentimes there's a long list of conditions that um the applicants um may want to discuss with the board um and they get and if they come in here totally unprepared for that
discussion then it just continues the meeting another month and then another month and so on and so forth. So, uh, this is a way of trying to move things forward. Um, complete applications in a
timely manner and there's no downside. I mean, you don't have to vote this if you didn't want to. You can still add conditions, modify them. Um, this does not lock anything in. I'm fine with sending conditions, not a
letter that clearly states this is being approved. I I just I just find that inappropriate. So I have often times so it's common courtesy to the applicant oftentimes in a contentious hearing perhaps there applicants attorneys concerned that certain things may not be
in a draft approval that I may put together and they may want ask for certain things be highlighted or or included uh in the discussion that I have been forgotten. So why don't we take that any other further discussion on that up with the at the end with um
other process issues and and talk about the the draft that we have in our file and put it on the screen. So um for examp uh the landscape plan dated March 21st is referenced. Yeah. And it'll be
as amended as amended. So it needs to be um with the date. Yes. So that'll be added in. Is that what's the correct date? 21st. Yeah, that was the original date, but um Okay, that's the revision.
So, that needs to be um Okay, mayor, I think you had some questions about the sections um section of the bylaw. Oh, so just again in the past and we used to put it also on the agenda so
residents could know that they're applying for 6.4 which which is an earth removal but as a board we're also reviewing 6.3 which is the performance and site plan and then also 12.5 which is special permit. So
all of those um should be on the agenda when we list it for a public hearing. But then I would think in the first paragraph of the letter that those are the bylaws that we needed to review for this
application. So those are the performance standards that um the board needs to make a finding that the application is in compliance with which is at the bottom of page two. But that's not what the application is. the application is for a special permit for
earth removal. So that's why it says that at the beginning and that's what it references. Um the other things are uh items that you need to make a finding on and make sure that they comply with the special permit criteria. So that's why
um I've changed how it's done in the past. Okay. We've been doing it this way for a several applications now. Um okay, let's uh talk specifically
about the um conditions. Um so we find the the um proposed language is consistent with 6.4.1 and in complance with 6.4 four and the 12.5 special permit
criteria. And then um board votes to approve with the following conditions revised landscape plan submitted to the board prior to May 1st. Perhaps we've met that condition at this point um with the
um yeah, I've removed that from yeah the latest version. So um that is still there. So we can reference the photo. Um stereo lighting should be dark sky
compliant. This number four is really the um sort of outstanding issue which is an application for storm water permit should be submitted to the department of public works by May 1st. I think the request from the applicant is June 1st.
Um and uh I think we can talk about process later. If significant alteration of the law is required to return to a modification of the permit, um I have a question about that one. Yes, go ahead. Um can we make this
conditional upon DPW's approval of the storm water permit? Yeah, I think we talked about having the the building permit conditional. building permit conditional. Okay. Right. Because you need to do site you're trying to do site work now. So we make the building
permit. Okay. Can we put that condition in then? Can we condition a building permit? I think we can condition the application for the building permit. Yeah. I think the site plan um the site the special permit is a
condition of the building permit. Thus the condition of the storm water would be they can't get a building permit in this case because of the earth removal until they have a special permit. So
presumably they could we could hold that portion. Okay. Um if blasting a ledge is required then a blasting permit should be obtained from the fire department. Summer street should be kept free of mud and dirt and sight out site construction hours to
comply with the town by law. Um Sarah I had another comment. Yes, go ahead. Um I believe we had in our packet a email from the fire department chief. Yes. That he had reviewed. So, I don't know that that's a condition, but it might be a finding in the in the letter.
I think this is more that blasting the the condition is that if there's blasting, right? I wasn't suggesting that we add it as a condition since it's already been met, but that we all the bindings. I don't think we um I have u I don't know what version you have up
there, but I have something here that the u sacks the new driveway has been designed to comply with the fire department's requirements with great and wits. The fire department responded in the email that the driveway is okay. And we said okay. Yeah.
All right. Great. Thank you. Um, so I think the the applicant is asking that we have the storm water permit by June 1st. Given that it's April 15th, I I think that's reasonable. Um, what was the the picture of the
fence? That's the the fall protection. Fall protection. Um, do we need to put that in as a condition that wouldn't we reference it as a plan? It would be referenced as photos of I think
that's um retaining walls. So shall be shown wall and wall protection fence. So Mark, are we referencing that specific wall? both stone face and so I just said we'll
show the cap on it. So if we just show the president photo I'm sorry. So I suggested fall protection that we reference the photo submitted. Yeah. All right. Um go ahead. Uh, so I would
expect there'd be an affidavit filed at the end of the construction when the civil engineer is um certifying that there's conformance for the drawings. I'm just wondering how we're going to get um is that your method to to certify
that the storm water plan has been completed in the planting plans and so forth through those affidavits and final substantial construction orction drawings. I'm sorry, chair. Um I would imagine that prior to this corre
mark that the the building essentially require as built at the end and the as built will show um to the degree that you want the storm water as built that sort of thing. Yeah. Um then you know planning necessary can go out there although planning be a little more self-evident for an inspector to go
through and say you know I count 26 trees here they all are that sort of thing. Yeah I would thank you. I think um it's sufficient with I don't know that we we don't need a peer inspector. This is just a single family house. But if the civil engineering plans and the landscape plans are affidavit with the
stamp by the landscape architect and the civil engineer or um they need to do that for this facility. Would you not typically do that? I mean you're looking for the contractor civil engineering. We can stamp them. You are you stamping
them? Oh, I'm not me personally. you personally, but your firm? Yes. Yeah. All the drawings. And do you file an affidavit at the end? Do you have a pre-construction affidavit as well as a post construction affidavit? I don't normally used on larger projects. I don't believe we have
it's that's more typical have something like that. This is more the client's going to take this and build off of it and help him work his way through the pering process. It's not it's not really a followup at the end. Yeah. Okay. Well, you're looking
you're suggesting we have asurances that it was done in accordance with Yeah. that the 38 trees are planted according to the species and but you know whatever is equivalent with the level of the project. which I don't think we're asking. We don't want to ask for something that creates extra expense and
so we can put we can put down that planning department shall conduct a final inspection of the site to ensure compliance with great and keep it simple like that and I've inspected it. I also added a note that we should reference
the construction site erosion control plan. So um so as built so I'm not I'm gonna get rid of asbuilts. So, okay. It's hard enough getting as on a large project. Yes, it is.
I'd be surprised you did not res. My notes here are rough. Then okay. Any other issu any other um conditions? All right. I'll take a motion to uh
approve the um Can I I just Yeah, go ahead. Question on a sentence in the Okay. So the first paragraph on page two, I don't understand the sentence. Says this required additional modification of the site which required they not file for a special permit with
the community. should be double negative one. Yeah. Which which paragraph number paragraph? So you're so this one Thomas Sachs of Hancock. So the last second to last sentence required additional
modification of the site substituted that they file for a special permit with the planning board. Oh, which is I think we No, this is this says not. I think you need to take rid of the knot. Oh, it's already out. Yeah,
I don't see. Yeah. Oh, okay. It's not already. Why we have two versions there? Yeah, there are two versions of a few comments. Okay, thank you. All right, great. Good catch.
Um uh I'll take a motion to approve the uh the um special permit with the conditions um described in the uh draft letter for 208 Summer Street.
Second. Any other discussion? All in favor? I post carries unanimously. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much for your working with us and um we uh look forward to having you uh I need all the luck. Appreciate it. Thank you very
much. Yeah, look forward to having you in town. Thank you. I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Um, right. So I um asked to just put the
um ADU um on the agenda if there are any changes that we want to make based on the um after people have had a chance to think about the input from the public um
meeting um public hearing. Um, I had one. Um, pull that up or did you do any Did you write that up, Mark? Uh, no. There was one very simple language
change that I think was a good suggestion. It changed the meaning. I think you might have brought that up. I'm looking to which was that? Yeah, it's a good question. It's the additions. It's number
I can so on the standard ADUs it's uh number seven under the submittal and design requirements. So you have um so number seven under submittal and design requirements it says all additions to standard accessory
dwelling should be all additions for accessory dwelling because two is assuming it's already there and four it's not info right there. Can I tell you something on eight?
Sure. It says all additions or structures containing a standard accessory dwelling units. I would just do unit. I'm not sure that's worthy. I think we can um we can make that make that it's a spurred nurse change. Yeah, I don't think we need to
do an amendment for that. Something that changes the meaning like like this needs to so I put that up on the screen in case it's um all addition. This is actually right in the warrant. It's right my my cursor is all
additions for and this is in both the standard and the large. So, um I'm going to take a motion to make that uh change. We can make that from the floor as part of the main motion in
in the large. It's a uh it's number eight in the large. So, it's a number seven in the standard and number eight in the to change two to four. Um go ahead, Laura. Would it be even clearer to just strike
all additions too? because four or two. Yeah, that's that's probably a good suggestion. Then you would just say standard accessory dwelling units shall comply. I think that's a really good suggestion.
Okay. And I think that is much clearer. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Great. Or two. It's a little unclear. Yeah. So the same thing in Okay. Okay. So, I'm going to take a motion to strike all additions two in number seven of standard and number
eight of the large um to clarify the meeting. So, let's just make sure it's eight in the large. Sandy was giving me a I think seven also. It's seven as well. It is. Yes, it is.
Yes, it's seven as well. Okay. So, that's the standard. It's seven. Oh yes. All additions to Thank you, Laura. Okay. Do I have a motion? So move.
Second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Okay. Any other changes that we need to uh contemplate? I have one which is number nine of the same design standards.
And rather than saying you have to utilize an existing driveway entrance, it may be that with a somebody might want to move their driveway. So I think it should simply say that there be shall be a single driveway entrance and not restricted to the
existing one. The property already has two And also the I think that the language there gets it I think we're what we're saying is that the dwelling unit and the primary shell will use the same
same as in a shared a shared driveway a shared driveway. Oh, we could say so we would have say that existing shared shared and it doesn't comment on whether it's in right same place now or later. Well,
I think I think they for the purposes of obtaining the permit, they would use this and then they would subsequently file with the public works department for a new
driveway permit which would be allowed provided it meets the standards and they close up the old ones. So, I'm not sure it's worth confusing the meeting. Do you want to just say shall utilize primary driveway entry? We don't define
that anywhere though. I would make I would strongly suggest that we not try to muck with that on the town meeting floor and that people can we could we can there's a variety of people now beginning to come forward
with ideas, changes and this and that. What I've tried to discuss with them is let's try and get this passed without changes and then we can get a little group together to work with the planning board to put
together a list for a year from now to modify this. But I think um in order to get this passed this is stupid. Yes, there some things that are restated. there are some things that
could be tweaked and wording but I think the intent is clear of like what's being required. Um I mentioned at the beginning that we do that I received a correspondence and it went uh didn't go to the full board but um from Gary Gilbert and then he copied Axel Magnuson
and Chuck um Weisner who all sort of chimed in that they thought it was a good idea and he simply echoed the comments he made at the public hearing which is to not reiterate the um requirements that we meet other zoning and historic and watershed. So I think
we've already discussed that unless somebody want but he did uh again make that case. Okay. Any other changes that I have a question. So on number two, how come we never added um so it says
exterior elevation shall be submitted for any application required in addition to any building for habitable space. Why didn't we include for and detached and or a new structure? I'm looking at the warrant right now.
Right there. Or a new structure. We did get it in there. What number? Okay. Yep. I'm just pulling what was in the meeting. Okay. Sorry. This is what's in the warrant because we did we made that change. Okay. Y's fine. This this
is the this is the warrant from the from the website from the town this is the town meeting warrant. Okay. I'm just going with our meeting packet. Um yes. Um I know this isn't a public hearing. So thank you for um taking
this. I actually looked up on the mapc.org or site. The definition of accessory dwelling units are small homes inside or attached to a single family home or in a
detached structure. I know that this has gone back and forth about allowing more than one ADU because you've split the small and the large. Um, so I highly recommend that that be eliminated and
that it focus on single family. Um, so MAPC is not where it's EOHLC that we need to go by, not MAPC. So that may be an older um definition. I don't know. I haven't seen that. That's the first thing. The second thing is
um we I I was thinking through this large um so large large up to,200 feet can be allow are allowed by special permit and one per lot one large per lot. It seems to me that a reasonable
provision in that special permit condition would be to restrict could be if you have a it would be up to the ZBA to restrict the ability to uh have future AD use there because
because you're getting it through a through a special permit. So it's a little bit uh unclear. I think that there will have to be um but the as far as we know the we the definition for the AVU in single
family districts is what is in the regulations. I don't disagree with you that looking at all these, you know, I mean, I agree with you that it it personally I agree with you that that it's about single
family homes, but that is not how the regulations for the standard or protected use are written. So, you're saying we should do that for the large? For the large I think that the large says that
Well, it says it says um it doesn't say just for single family. Yeah, it does. Where does it say? Number two. Number two and number three. Number two. Use requirement. Large accessory dwelling units are only
permitted on a lot containing a single family home. And then it says large accessory dwelling units are not permitted on a lot, which another accessory dwelling unit already exists. So if you already have a small one, you can't have a
large. Yeah. Was that added? I didn't. No, those are in our Here's the requirements. This is the 9.1. You enlarge that just one large. Can you see that? I can make it like 175. Sarah, so we adding wordings that
if you have a large already, it would preclude the small. We can't we can't we don't think you can add that on in this, but it could potentially be a condition of a special permit. Um, I was looking at that today and
right now the guidance though is that if you have a large, you are entitled to a small. If that that's what the guidance is in EOHLC on their website, but it's not contained in the language of the
regulations. So, I mean, the law is too new, but I don't think we can definitively say if someone asked that question that, oh, no, definitely not. I don't think we can answer it that way.
And I would like to ask the board why are we putting forth a large ADU at all if so one we want ADUs to be small and accessory right so why are we saying why are we doing another layer
when we don't need to because this would be the case you had a small ADU you could probably under the state guidance put another small ADU whether it's large or not is a no a second small is a limit. It's in the regulations. So
So my question is why? But but we're getting ourselves into a pickle in town because if somebody wants two ADUs, they can first just apply for a large and then do a small by right. So now they've got three. Um they're not guaranteed a large. They're not. Right.
So why are we doing it? So here's my answer. business and that is we have been since I have been on the board and before we have been hashing around ADUs and struggling to figure out how to uh
address uh the the fix the employee piece, fix the double lot piece in something that's reasonable. And we've had many people come here and tell
us the town wants the ability to have ADUs everywhere or the town wants no ADUs or whatever. And so we're going to put this before the town meeting and find out what the voters think about a
large ADU. That's my view is that we actually don't know what everyone thinks and let's give the town the opportunity to think it through and make a vote and whether they make a vote whether the town meeting votes for it or against it
will be interesting and then we will actually know how people feel that um I I agree with that and I think during the most recent hearing we had I I mean there were more people pressing us to go
larger to not have a rental limitation. There were more people who were arguing yeah have them everywhere that you know it was discriminatory some of our rules. So there were we have heard from a lot of people who want these. We've also heard
from a lot of people who don't want any of this. So, as Sarah said, I think it's our responsibility representing the entire town um as a planning board to put something forward that we think um is what people are asking for and we'll
see if it is or not. Laura, can I can I add to that too because I was originally against the large size and there was a point when we were talking about a 2,000 square foot large to use for my scratchy voice. It's allergy season. Um but um and I came around to it when
we reduced the number because I thought you know for me a 2,000 square foot house felt like another house. So um when I came around it was the discussions that we had and we heard some with the public. It wasn't a black or white thing like you know we want
them all or we don't want any. It was more like we have a lot of existing structures in town or garage or carriage house or you know with our older historic fabric we have a lot of buildings that are not they're going to be a little too large for an ADU and that's not going to give a standard will
not give you the flexibility to use that uh for you know an in-law apartment or whatever it might be. But if we give a little more room and a special permit process, then we might actually preserve some of those buildings and and allow people to use their properties and their
outuildings in a way that does accommodate more housing. And I thought that was pretty compelling so long as we limited it to what seemed to me like a reasonable size with 1,200 and not going, you know, bigger than that. And any number you pick is arbitrary, right? 1,200,500, 2,000. We argue them all. But
I felt like it that the 1,200 to 900 range was like definitely small and a little bit bigger, but let's see if that gives people the flexibility you're talking about. So I I felt like it was more of a spectrum of uses rather than like all or nothing on the barge.
Okay. And we have voted to to recommend them to town meeting at this point. So let's um any other change potential proposed changes for those? Okay. Um, and did did go ahead. Discuss why we didn't do the
um elevation as an accessory structure. That is in a large too. It's in the large number seven there large accessory building should remain accessory and not be talking about elevation drawings. So
we said the large uh if it's proposed an accessory structure after this town meeting the structure must comply with the primary dwelling setbacks. I guess we didn't um we don't have the height. So we have accessory structure bylaw
that limits the height to one and a half stories or 25 ft so that it's not a 35 foot high, you know, like a house. I just thought that that made sense to kind of they want to fit into neighborhoods
and things like that. So, I thought we were putting a limit on the height for I think that would limit people adding on to an existing house that was 35 ft high. Well, I think it number seven. I think
you could argue if I was to if I was give renting a special permit, which is all um dimensional, dimensional requirements. It says additions, but we don't forget it's a special permit. So, comply with lot coverage requirements, primary
building setbacks, and dimensional requirements. So, dimensional requirements and that says additions, but you know, if you have an accessory structure and this is by special permit, don't forget. So, I think a ZBA could certainly um look at the the law and make that determination, right? But if
an applicant, if it's not in the bylaw, the applicant will say it's not in the bylaw and they would have to grant it. So, this is the time to put those types of things in the bylaw. And and why I'm sorry why is um why are these large not in
G? We made a decision to I think your recommendation we uh said not in D and in G because the for a couple reasons. One is the the downtown is already quite dense. The G is already quite dense and D you already can have a single two
family. Um and our existing ADU 9.1 doesn't have them in D or G. So we were trying to sort of keep that same. So um I guess Mary's making a suggestion that we um modify this to
require uh accessory um structures maintain accessory height. I'm going to suggest that we allow ZBA to to make that determination. Yeah. Yeah. I I was just gonna say I remember we had some conversation about this at a meeting. We got some feedback from
architects and public. Again, I this isn't perfect, but I think it's a good step in the um I think it will uh fall or pass based on the larger context rather than the details than those kind of details. And
I think it's worth considering that in the future as a a potential uh improvement. Does anybody want to advance that? Okay. So, I I think that closes that out. Um, thank you for
um um so the next thing is um the discussion of the visioning project for downtown Manchester and the one-stop application work. If you want to speak to those, we have a um letter in our packets
from Kathy McCabe. Kathy Mur. Um, and as I said, um, Mark and I met with her and, uh, Mark, why don't you go ahead and So, um,
so this is, uh, this kind of stems, uh, a little bit from the followup on our MBTA u, uh, discussions last spring when we were putting the bylaw together. Uh and
those uh initial uh proposal included a large portion of the general district and um we kind of eventually steered uh the districts out of here. But we had a large discussion about um you know the
downtown and what it should look like and um you know what what we want to see in the future for business development, residential development. um how do we address many many issues uh related to
that? So um the downtown committee so besides attending your meetings and other one of the other boards I attend is the um downtown recruitment committee uh meetings and um so they've been
discussing the downtown and and a variety of u more specific elements. Um, so again, it kind of came up a little bit um in listening to to their meetings. Um, you know, and and I've
been here a little more than a year. There's also, you know, I hear lots of different things from people about what they want downtown to see. And I don't know if there's ever really been a true uh visioning session program for the town to to figure out what we want. I
always hear people say we ought to fill our storefronts, have a few more people, maybe some activity, you know, other types of things. But again, until we do a a true visioning session, including a survey and some public sessions in front
of some boards and get feedback from other boards, um you know, I I and and so this in my vision would be the first step in doing a overall bigger planning study for the entire general district.
So, um this um uh so I reached out to um a planner I know who's done some of this work and uh she insisted on coming up and we walked around and she submitted this proposal
uh based on our discussion. So, so this proposal really is a first step of sort of a working session with the planning board to first scope out to that to to scope out the work plan for this work. You know, do we which do we want to do
first? How far do we want to go? Do we um you know what are our priorities? And um and then a subsequent work uh proposal would come in for the if we wanted to it's I thought it was a good way to test her out to help her help
have her help us um think through some things. Um I personally thought she had some really good ideas and some very specific uh experience around um how to
craft a visioning session. So I see I envision this as a working session with the planning board. Obviously it would be an open meeting but it would I mean a public meeting but I see it as real kind of a working session with with us and maybe she can we'll have some ideas about how to take public comment in that
that meeting and and so forth. But uh let her lead it and um she said a two-hour dedicated meeting that we would do. Um and my proposal, my suggestion is that we would target this for uh the first meeting with our new board. Um it
sort of makes sense and and certainly um might be useful to have you guys come to that to to listen or participate as as appropriate. But let uh Kathy uh kind of guide us on how to do that. She's done a
lot of these. So, the um proposal uh before us tonight is um to we do have still have 25,000 in this this year's um budget. So, um her proposal is for $7,000.
Um and uh I'd like to see us authorize Mark to enter into a contract for um scope of services provided by McCabe Enterprises for a um a visioning session and workshop with
the planning board to start looking at our downtown. I like the idea because I think we did have a lot of feedback that people are concerned about the downtown and they don't want it all to be turned into residential or concerned about having
you know vibrant businesses. Um my only concern is to make this limited as we begin. I don't I mean I just I don't want to see a long drawn
out very large process um with another year going by without us thinking about specific zoning changes that will help the issues that people are bringing to our attention
regarding the downtown. So my only request would be I like the idea of hearing from her and hearing what her suggestions are. Um we could sort of take it a step at a time. Well, I think her proposal is to make a work plan. So
I think the planning board will guide that work plan. The way I see it is what do we see as the first steps and how does this potentially um become part of I mean one other way the work plan might flow is that it
becomes a part of the master plan is that this that that larger work is part of the master plan potentially or um and I know that there's the one stop uh so I I envision this as kind of being a like
a precursor a little um a taste of what what we can do, what people think for the downtown while we apply for a one-stop grant. And they have a small town and rural development program or
small town planning grant uh which we would um apply for to do a master plan for the entire general district to really look at because our general district is more than just the downtown. So we would look at the general district
from a zoning perspective and the downtown specifically uh and as well as we would look at streetscape design for the downtown. The dip uh committee has uh has a
streetscape of which phase one was constructed like 15 years ago maybe more. Uh they have plans for phase two kind of. Yeah. But it's um you know it could be reworked a little bit. There's
some very good things about phase one and some things that probably should be reworked into phase two as well. So, so looking at the streetscape, looking at um you know, parking, street design, that all kind of
fits together as well as looking at zoning. And so, um we envision we would try and get an application into the onetop. And so, this would kind of give us preliminary kind of step into that.
When is the onetop grant? When are the one stop grant? due sometime in June for the exact date is. So, so having a workshop in May helps us to to uh prioritize the scope of work for a for a
grant application. So, uh I agree with Sue that we can't ignore short-term things have to be done. My other hope is that there are a lot of
stakeholders in the downtown and I think the planning board is the logical place to do this but we have to make sure that we incorporate Oh, absolutely. Uh the DIP and the property owners and the residents in the downtown and the
chamber of commerce, they all have a role to play as well. Of course, that's the Yes. So this has got to be a a wide net that we're going to cast here right away. So thereby the challenge though, how do you I like the
effort. I I've always liked this kind of effort, the brainstorming thinking about it. But it tends when you expand the range, it gets a bit diluted and the message starts to go all over the place different what you intended. So it
that's something we have to be aware. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it because I do think we should do it, but be aware that that that's a good chance that that will happen. Laura, um, if you're doing a visioning study with a fairly narrow budget and timeline and then you're doing one stop,
which maybe is more technical, I would advocate for making the vision study about thinking about what's what makes a vibrant downtown, what we want to see, not about problem solving in a technical sense. and definitely not about parking
because I think you need to remember that you've just done a parking study. We have that information. We're not going back to argue that one way or the other. Really, there are so many more things to talk about downtown than parking and whether you should be able to park outside a store. So, I would just and I know like I'm not going to be
here when this happens, but I'll be there in the public, but we'll channel you. I'll I'll be happy to come and and say again, but I think this is an opportunity, especially if it's kind of short and condensed. is like what do we want to see? Let's do some real visioning here. What's vibrant? That
it's not just fixing problems. And so we can come back and talk about parking in part two, but don't think about parking. Parking will become having been in all these. I know. I think you just need to set that right at the beginning. Parking and restrooms are basically all we talk about, right? I think the other question
for me is what's actionable and um uh what do you mean what's actionable meaning you know we don't this is the onetop is a planning grant that doesn't come with a $10 million implementation
grant um and so actionable to me are things that um can happen in the near term um and I know Mark you're very interested in the whole general district, but I'm I think we're hearing that most that the
downtown uh center is the main uh concern and there are pressures there are significant pressures for change that our current zoning could allow um
unintended consequences or my opinion unintended welcome un uh intended um outcomes and so how do we get consensus around um and the we are never going to pro improve we're not
going to you know please everyone but one of the things in speaking with Kathy I thought was very helpful is I said you know people want a vibrant downtown and they don't want more traffic and she said absolutely but what you do is you craft um questions
that recognize the complexity of a problem. When you give people options so that that they understand that a vibrant downtown may come with uh more people in the downtown particularly
at you know beach days or whatever it is you know however you frame the the complexity of the issue when and she got that immediately as opposed to saying do you want more do you want vibrant shops downtown? Yes.
Um but did the people of the parking away though? Question. So I'm not all that familiar with the master plan but what from what I do understand it did cover some of this how to make downtown more vibrant. Right. So is is the master
plan still an actionable document? Is it one that we reference? And how would a study like this influence? Well, I think we one of the homework assignments would be to review the master plan. At least think about it. But it is it hasn't
my opinion is that it has you know it's almost 10 years old I guess 2019 but it um you know many of the issues remain but we've also accomplished a number of many of the things that were in the master plan too. And that probably would make sense then as a homework
assignment. So we come to that discussion absolutely with a an idea as to what it is that we want to address that has already we know has residents interest and we can just layer this and maybe dig in a little with this. But I
think having some professional help from outside of town who's sort of a seasoned thought leader on this we and then it will also tell us whether um she's a good person to work with in the future or whether you know we're fairly short
money we can say I mean this is going to build right if if after an hour we all think this is nuts we can cut it off right then too it's so um so And a related question with a number
of new members coming in to the board. Are we going to um think about I mean like do we have goals for the upcoming year? I know we've talked about it but I don't really remember identifying any.
It might be a good time to revisit that and see if we can do that as new voices are coming in so that we can I agree have a have a game plan. Yeah. I also would like to see if we can get some training. Yeah, I'm up for that.
So, I have um some I need to step back for a minute and then some questions. Um so, as I recall, the last time we talked about this was part of what zoning we want to bring up to town meeting and then it stopped. So where
did it go from that to engaging with the consultants and getting this report? I missed that meeting. I think Mark suggest this is Mark's professional recommendation that we engage with somebody. I think it's a good um I I
thought it was a good idea to bring forward. If we don't want to do it, then we can vote no tonight. But I guess I my point being and and for members that come on These types of decisions used to be board decisions and it seems more and
more things are happening outside of the meetings, things are being decided and then it's brought to the meeting. So that has been an ongoing concern of mine and it sounded like you knew this person so you called her up and it's just not
really how supposed to work with getting consultants in for a planning board meeting. What's the harm in that? Yeah, I mean there are a number of other consultants we can call. We can get other proposals. I mean, this is
um this is somebody I knew who and um you know, we chatted with and I believe I worked with her before. So, um I also don't think this is happening outside of the meeting. We're we haven't
spent a nickel and I we mentioned it at the LA uh at the last meeting that we were um going to be uh t having this conversation. So, um I'm just saying as a board member, I don't remember that. And and if the question is what's the
harm, the harm is is that we're not following process. And um we're all equal board members and we should all be able to have equal access to information of what's going on. It might not bother some people. It's bothered me the whole
time I've been on the board, so I'm I'm bringing that up. Um, I guess the other thing I would say is with something like this that looks to be that it's going to kind of be a zoning bylaw change to protect
businesses downtown. Um, we've had a wayfinding grant, we've had parking studies, we've had um we have downtown improvement, we have a town, an employed town planner. I'm not sure why we need this other
layer to do the first step of brainstorming of what should happen downtown. Um I think we have all this expertise, some that the town pays for, some that's volunteer, and then we're going to put another layer on it. I just
I I think this is why we have a planning board for the planning board to do such um studies. Well, I um I appreciate your perspective, but I also appreciate Mark
sort of taking the initiative to get this moving because it seems like we've we constantly just have these things thrown at us and we have to react, but every time there's a change in state law and it seems to me here's a chance to
get ahead of this a little bit. I think Mark's idea of bringing in an independent person is actually could be helpful. Um, so I appreciate um the fact that you came forward with the plan and
it doesn't bother me that uh Mark did this with a chair. I think that is the job of a chair is to be working with the planner behind the scenes and um working through various things you know things like putting the agenda together just
everything so that doesn't bother me um but I I do understand your perspective just have a different one okay any other discussion um would anybody like make a motion to
uh ask Mark to enter into a um a short-term contract with M cave. So can I'm sorry before we do ask about the timing again of that. So the one goal grant is due in June early June. One
stop once I'm sorry one stop end of June. It's I believe it's like the middle of June and we intend to use whatever findings we get from this consultant as content for that. Yeah, it would be considered. Um No, that's great. I'm
just asking I think that's great. I mean I just the reason why I'm asking does that timeline allow for us to get and and and like as Sarah had mentioned there may be a variety of actionable items that will come out of this that we
may not want to wait until the complete once we're in the whole one-stop planning process because that won't happen until if we if we get funded first off it's a grant application so we may not get funded but if we do get
funded, we wouldn't be starting really until January of next year. You would enter into contracts in December and start working probably January. So, it's a it's a longer term process, but it's also a big study. It's it's looking at
like again at streetscapes, at the overall general district, at a variety of things. So, so there may be some items that might be identified here that we can work on in the in um whether whether they're like public
improvements to a park or you know parking or whether it's um uh you know a zoning changes or other types of things that come out of this. We might find everybody in town, 90% of the people want the zoning to change to allow
something that we currently don't allow. And if we find that out, then there's no harm in bringing that forward in the intro. So, so what might be really helpful is for the next meeting if you can put together just kind of an outline of um uh the the background on the
onetop program that you were going to apply for and then just an outline of the goals. Um I do think that there's we may have a little tension on um how broad that that study should be or whether we should be more focused and whether we should do so let's let's why
don't you put together your vision in an outline form not so that we can then have that to to Mary's point have the discussion about what we're going to do because it even if we get a fully funded study it takes a lot of our time and your time and downtown improvements
everybody's time and we want to make sure that it's going to get the outcome that we want that we agree on. Yep. Okay. Okay. Um, great. Thank you. Uh, would go ahead. But so in the meantime, you said uh a number of times that there's
some pretty fastm moving uh things that are happening downtown that may impact downtown. So I just want to make sure we don't take our eye off of that. That's partly why I really want to have somebody come. So then we need to work that into that through. Yeah.
Somebody who's had um has some she's working across lots of communities, too. So it's a great way to bring in current knowledge of other Massachusetts. She works largely in Massachusetts, so she knows the ins and
outs of ADUs and commercial. And she had some she had some really good observations, I thought. Right. So for one example, she said when uh Styles we walked around Styles Scoops was Style
Scoops is next to Mari and is next to the stock. She said by that moving there you now create kind of a retail clothing logical. It so happens and she said that you know
what it's like the auto mile, right? Yeah. um 100 feet and then um you know there's really kind of a couple of chunks of the downtown and Harbor Point to me is like a very uh
vulnerable um or you know what there's a lot there there's a lot what a lot of potential lot of potential for change. What change do we want there? And yet um they own parking. And so could you know
on one side of it do they does that property create opportunity for for um commercial vibrance that then affects the whole town or is it you know should it be housing? I mean I'm I'm not saying
it should. I'm just saying could be a parking garage. I mean whatever. So I think this study will help help us focus. Let's it's also we also have the flooding issues. Okay. So would anybody like to make up a motion to ask Mark to enter? I'll make
that motion to enter into a contract with Mabe Enterprises for a limited study as proposed for approximately uh just under $8,000. 77 70 I was say
$8,000 up to $8,000. Um second. Um any other discussion? Um all in favor? I opposed abstain. Abstain. One. One abstension. Thank you. Um one thing Mark, we have
not had a contract um with any consultants since you've been here. I don't think and we should get clear. We don't have to do it right now, but when we had um uh We don't have to talk about it tonight, but let's when we get this
about who approves the bills for the the the the work the scope of work is it done. I think we ran into problems with the Mark Babrowski contract where the scope was paid out but not completed and so we really want to make sure that that
doesn't happen. Thank you. Well, they're supposed to come to the planning. Yeah, it needs to be approval. So, um let's let's keep our eye on that ball. Okay. Um, thank you. Um, I mentioned correspondence already.
We have minutes of March 12th. I was not here. Okay. I move that be approved. Okay.
Second. Um. Any other discussion? Um, all in favor? Not Mary or Sue? Okay. Members present. We're missing Peter on that list. I believe Peter was on Were you on
Zoom with that on March 12th? Yeah. Is that the night you were in the ER? It was the um zoning Yeah. form. Zoom only. Yes, you were on you were in the ER. Oh, I was on there then. Yes, you were there. So, Peter
Mort should be changed. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, any public comment, Sandy? I've got two. Okay. Okay. Ron, I want to reiterate um Sarah what Sarah just said
about this contract that you're going into um being that all monies are coming from sort of town ultimately the citizens that there should be more clarity in the outcome of what you're expecting and that was not really clear
to me. there were lots of there was a two-hour session or then there was a whole like plan potentially coming from it. So um my advice is that there needs to be clarity at the what the deliverables you want just like any I'm
a consultant so um make that very crystal clear the expectation the scope um even like sort of the scope of that deliverable not just that it's going to be a plan a plan could be two paragraphs
so the proposal does have five point um okay the main thing I wanted to bring up is um I tried to look up the flood plane map to go with the flood plane
article. In the article, it says dated July 8th, 2025, which is a future date. Um that's the those are the dates that the state has asked us to use. So, I know that's
presuming that that's approved and then it just may have been when I looked, but FEMO started pulling maps off the website um because of what's going on nationally. So
there to to me I saw a j I only saw a map that was delayed that was dated in July not this exact um date of July um of 2023. So I think Chris you were talking
about showing a map. Yeah. I couldn't find a 2025 map. Okay. Could you just check with Eric on that? So, the maps are filed. The the maps are filed with the town clerk. The 2025 maps are filed with
the town clerk. They're on the town planning board website as well. Yes. And they are were sent to us from FEMA. So, they are the FEMA approved maps that we are to use. I don't know what else to say, but maybe
you can just double confirm with um because I think that is a question that we are going to get and um if the here's the the link um national flood plane layer um so if you can just check with Eric and see if
they have been if there have been changing so people can Yeah, we're going to put them on a board. Yeah, I think it might be out for um comment. So what's there might change. Um and in the future, just something to consider is
that if an updated map becomes approved, are you going to have to always update this article or maybe within the article in the future add something or within the bylaw in the
future add something about maintaining updates. Yeah. So if approved FEMA maps, so from a zoning perspective, if a map needs is updated, regardless of what kind of map it is that reflect that
refers to a zoning thing, it needs to get readopted by town meeting. It does. So whether it's a flood plane map or we change some overlay district or something else somewhere else. So it does need to go back to town meeting.
Um, I believe I received a letter recently from FEMA that says there were no changes to Manchester's maps, but they issue new maps with new dates and so we should probably just make sure that
I will make sure. Y Okay. Um, any other comment? Anybody else online comment? Um, okay. Other matters. Um, we just just to circle back to earlier in the meeting. Um, Mark's going to look at
the ANR application and um, come back to us with an updated uh, ANR application. So, I think Mary's correct. It hasn't been updated in a long time. And I know I talked with Shannon about he's put a um, ANR
checklist when an ANR comes in, but can we make sure that they're is there a way that we can get to that before the town clerk stamps it. So to make sure it's it's complete because if the town clerk stamps
something and it's incomplete or the fine or the then it then we're kind of stuck. Um so ticking. Yeah. The talk is ticking. So can we ask is there a process by which we can ask that we sit
that you see it before and and go through the checklist that I know is now in each file. I'll find out I'll find out or that we can give her that checklist at least and she's going to she's not able really to look through those. Yeah. In most other
community well in the other communities I worked in we never had a checklist and you uh look at the the plans to make sure they're sufficient for the for ANR purposes. So um
primarily what I look at is the plan to see whether it's entitled to endorsement or not. So um but have they paid the fee? Yes. Right. Is the you know and even the plan so often we do get a plan that doesn't that needs changes. It's
the process not the substance. Okay. So, if we can check with the Well, one of those four things has to be checked in the application. In the application. Yeah. So, we can know what basis we are, right? But we probably have to add
number five. And I think the um three years ago, we were going to review all of the applications and take them out of the subdivision control laws. because that's not a good place for
them. Um, but they all kind of need review and update because they're all very We'll start with the ANR plans. Great. Okay. Any other um comment? Any other business? Great. I'll take a motion to
adjourn. Oh, wait. Uh, we did skip over uh that we're having a public forum on Thursday night, right? Um, and meant to be informal. Um, and so that people have a chance to have more informal discussions about
what will be on the warrant from the planning board and it's posted on Zoom as well as and we'll be here. Yes. At 6:30. Great. Thank you, Sue. And um, anybody uh uh hopefully all of us can come. Um, the other thing is the next
upcoming meetings is the public forum town meeting. Um, we are going to post for 5:30 because we've learned our lesson that every once in a while something comes out of the blue and if we haven't posted, we can't address it. Um, and then our next meeting after that
is May 12th. So, we will miss Laura at that. Um, Mary will be still be here. That will be good. Um, and um, okay. Now, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. So, moved. Second. All in
favor? All right. Thank you, Laura. Thank you. Thank you all. Think of us while you're in France. I will. You should be thinking a lot about Does anyone have a key to seaside one?