632. Um I have Gordon Brewster >> here. Fry >> here. Morton >> here. >> Sandy >> here. Sarah present here >> and Mark Res planner. Great. The land use coordinate.
>> Yes. >> Both. >> Both. >> Um okay. I see somebody with the name of P. Blaze Bell. Can you just tell me if you could hear us?
>> Yes, I can. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Technology works. >> Um, so um the first uh first we have public comment on any matters that are not on the agenda. Um even though it's not public comment I
have one not on the agenda but it's very quick and because I was reading some some fascinating and um I discovered that there's a section on common driveways which is in uh
six common drives 8.4 for and it doesn't explicitly say that the planning board has authority over the pl over the um common driveways. But elsewhere in section 5.1
it says that the opinion of the planning board that a common drive must be outlet blah blah blah. So um I knew it was there somewhere but it's not in the common driveway section. So just keep that in mind if we have
comments request and so um I don't see any public any public comment on matters not on the agenda. Okay. Not uh first uh order of business
tonight is um discussion with Skip Crocker about the boatyard at the T National Mall. Yes. We have the plans electronically those up. >> That's easy on you guys. It's actually a
bullyard name address is 59. This is the property at 3032 Bridge Street which is actually owned by Penroy Corporation. Um which Brockers Byard
I own both properties. I I rent it for myself. The storm told me we use some service there. Um what we're proposing is about a 14,000 square foot. Uh primarily storage building would do some
service work in there. Um similar to what we're doing now. We have a about a 4,500 foot building, steel building which I think we put up or my father put up in roughly 1998 maybe.
There's also like about a 3,500 foot fabric structure there which we'd be tearing taking both those buildings in a significant larger building have water.
>> Yeah, perfect. >> Yeah. Um >> we have water sewer and sprinkler system going into that. Okay. Do you have a site plan? >> Taken down,
>> right? >> Yeah. I'm trying to scroll between the documents. >> Oh gosh. There you go. Yeah. So, this is that's a steel building that would come down. That's a
fabric structure that would come down. That's actually an office trailer that would go away. So your purpose in coming today is just to let us know get some feedback. Um I met with Mr. Resnik. Everything is
allowable under the current bylaw. Um if there's anything I need to cover. Not really. We kind of looked at the site and it was covered in snow and bugs. Great.
>> The snow's gone. The boats will be gone. Um, >> in the summer, >> no dance, >> weddings, or maybe a barbecue. >> We have
We occasionally have the party in September. So it's a general it's the general it's in the general and yard storage construction services and related use are a allowed use in the general bylaw in the general district.
>> So um and then the other thing is that the um harbor management plan identified supporting marine base nuance as one of a priority area. >> Is this an district? No, I don't
>> not sure. I know. I think it's not on the website. >> Yeah. pull up that paint some >> we are going to make every effort to not
make it look like a giant metal building. >> Good luck. I think 26 ft. >> Okay. >> I think that's 27. >> It has to be less. >> It's going to be it's going to be significantly under 35.
It appears not to be on the mattress service. >> We're going to use a uh insulated foam for sighting to try to make it
intend to use radium floor storage. >> Did you say when you intend to start building it? >> I did not. Um trying to figure out what it's all going to cost. >> Yeah. >> Then figure out how to pay for it and
then trying to figure out what my what I need to permit. Um what the town's going to require. Um I think we pretty much nailed it. And that was sort of the purpose of this meeting was to see if there's anything we may have missed that
we need to include in our design plan. U you guys come up with anything that we may have missed. I feel like you've gone through the bylaws a relief. >> You put up the site plan here.
>> I can cover this. >> Uh I can put up to I think by right 16,000 something in this pool. >> The lot itself is pretty big. It's just
under just under an acre. It's like thousand. So for like screening and buffering along the uh east side, >> we've already got abberites down this.
There's the neighbors barns there. We will put uh some sort of probably abberites or something along the after construction along the back. There's a pretty good row of abberies along the back of this building, which I don't know if they'll survive the
demolition of that building, but if they don't, we'll put them back. Trust me, I want I wanted to blend in as much as anybody else. Uh, I got two big buildings in high and we've done everything we can over there to make those.
>> Parking area will remain gravel. >> Yeah. So there won't be any additional um impervious site from the building itself. >> No. >> And approximately how far off of brick street will that be?
>> I honestly don't know. >> Yeah, >> it's pretty far back though, right? Yeah. >> About the length of >> Yeah. We need to maintain fair amount of uh as you as you know
66 slips on the water and have to maintain parking for all those customers employees. We're doing a bunch of post sales now. So we have to and in the winter time I have to uh we still do outside storage. Um we'll
have to move we're not maximizing outside storage in the lower yard. We'll move more chastics for outside storage. >> So currently when you bring boats in and out, you bring them out each break
right away. >> Well, we've over the years we've sort of changed our business model. We're um really focusing on 40 foot boats and under. Most of those boats we can safely maneuver through my I have an easement
through my dad's property at number 7 Ashen Avenue. So, the majority of boats will still come through there. Some of the bigger boats maybe in the 35 ft class and up um we will bring uh in through brick street. This if you
go back to the other picture with the that shows the doors. >> So you will still be able to go down by your father. Yeah. Quick. I wasn't sure whether >> Yeah. Some of the longer boats we need to hit that door. That's where the
bigger boats will go in cuz that'll be more in the center of the yard. We'll have a straighter shot. 30. >> Yeah, we got uh 12. >> That's what the elevation
>> 25 27 at the eve. So 27 33. Yeah. Oh, >> so it is closer to 35 than I thought. Yeah. Yeah. 33 formal submission to us. >> Yes. Have to file for a site plan review of
the planning board. >> And why is that? What triggers >> this application files? >> Yeah. But what And it triggers it because it's a >> Well, it's a new structure. So in your structures over I think. >> Oh over certain size.
>> Yes. Certain size. Yes. Remember we rewrote the umility section. >> Okay. >> Ch. >> Yeah. We have to be my neighbor. He's
pretty on top of me with like lightning and uh yard new freshs. So one of the things you could do is there a bunch of performance criteria in the zone by so you should probably just make sure you address those the
application. I spent 10 years on the S6 or nine and a half. >> So the trigger is in addition to an existing structure occupied by commercial resulting in a floor area of over 400 ft for disturbance
coverage of over 1500 ft. Any new development expansion change more parking spaces. So okay. Yeah. So it's like it seems like you know I'm not going to get any
concerns right >> thank you I'll be very interested to see how we make this look like something other than a big >> well I mean at the end of the day I mean it is what it is maybe
>> thank you folks enjoying Great. Thank you. Um at seven we have the citizen petition. Um but why don't we jump ahead and if we can talk about driveway regulations
in 15 minutes that will keep us focused on driveway regulations. Um, so, um, Mark, you want to tell us why we're talking about driveway regulations that you recommend everybody?
Uh so you have a a a funeral bylaw which at one point has pling every amendment for the allows you the planning board to adopt regulations
that the standard could be. So a year would be a little over two years ago you adopted by I think the board. So uh what we noticed is is that um so for the past two years it's
worked reasonably really well. Um but the in looking at the bylaw general bylaws there are some things in there that are more standards that should be in the regulations that are not standards.
There's a few things that are a little bit conflicting. So in our previous discussions last summer when we made we didn't adopt the changes but we worked on those um we moved all the
standard um to the regulations and then we made u some additional changes to the u the general bylaw to give more review authority.
of public work and only under very unusual circumstances would a special permit with the planning board be necessary. So, um, that's kind of a quick, >> uh, comments or questions on the draft
regulations. I have a couple warning things, but not one of the um things that we had debated at length a while ago was the issue of having.
Um I know Laura Tammy felt very softly that in order to use impervious surface and traffic conflicts on they made the roads that one driveway entrance should be um allowed and that
was one of the things that sometimes that seemed not the right things >> and sometimes not what the owners want. Those might or might not be the same thing. And the existing uh bylaw makes zero provision for an
exemption or uh on that topic or some of the other topics, but that one has is the one that has come up several times. Um so um there's uh that was that's an issue. So, this
does allow for DPW to make a determination that two a loop driveway is okay or two driveways, two two entrances. Um, so it's per because there in the neighborhood where
I live, there are plenty of driveways where there are two entrances, but one is for one house, one is for another. They're smush together. So, we denied a driveway permit for an ADU in exactly that circumstances and it was appealed
to the CBA and the CBA granted it. >> Yeah. So, that's a good example >> because that's that's throughout. >> Yes, that's a good example of why two driveways um for a lot may make sense. Mhm.
>> Um so the one thing that I sort of in reading through this uh felt is that I want to make sure that DP really that we that they really do refer certain um
driveways to us because thinking of one that is not a 90 degree and does not have the is not does not follow this design standards that didn't end that come to us. So, you know, that's that's just sort of the
the formal pro the formal process, >> but other than that, I thought I had a couple of edits and the only other substantive thing I had was would we want to specify lighting as dark compliant? know any post lanking or
>> but that is already covered by by your bylaw. It's only covered in we don't have life. It's only covered in the special permit pieces of life as
>> so I have that in my notes. I have some we could add something that >> wouldn't have to just be driveway entrance entrance. >> Yeah. Not all along the driveway. >> I mean nice but I'm not sure.
>> Yes. We recommend >> yes, right? >> Um, yeah. And then the rest are just kind of re rewarding things. One place you say we shall conduct a site visit, another place you say we may they may. So I can
the last thing should just be deleted. Yeah. >> Chief, >> but this also went through the fire chief, right? >> Yes. >> Right. So we can post this on the website as the draft and the point is
when we change the general bylaw we can say we've reviewed regulations they're on our website and as soon as the general bylaw passes we would that was why we wanted to >> so procedurally we test them
>> we pass correct right so probably need a different title on this document that says well I don't explain planning board regularly and to Tiffany. Okay. Any other comments or questions?
This is Clarence. Great. Let's just take up the minutes. Um have minutes of um March 17th, 2025.
We get and Brian and Sandy cannot votech >> March 17th. >> We've been trying to get everything caught up. >> Yeah. >> I didn't look at those. So I think it was just a
>> all that's in the folders. >> Oh >> yeah, there were like March just I think they might just be a working group. >> Yes, it was a a working group um that we discussed zoning changes to the animal town meeting and voted to submit the
accessory units and articles for the associate where we took a vote and then we jumped. So um that's all it says. So I'll take a motion to approve March 17th. So >> second
Chris for Peter. Okay. All in favor >> I abstain as Brian Sandy. Um I'll take a motion for September 15th. Brian was not present. >> Um actually I looked at my notes and Brian was there. >> Oh
>> but Sandy was not and I was there. >> Okay. But my notes could have been wrong. Well, they probably weren't. That was not there. >> It was so correcting September 15th attendance
was Brian and Sue was there but sandy was not. Right. Okay. I'll take a motion to to approve. >> So move second. All in favor of scenes. Um November 4th. I think Brian was definitely not there.
That was the baby. Um uh motion to approve November 4th. So move >> second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. And then I'll take um March November 8th, 2025 and March 9th, 202
edits. Get those together. Everybody can vote. Uh March 9th. Yes. >> Yeah. 2026. >> 2026. >> Yes. >> Okay. So March, let's take November 8th, 2025. >> Yeah, that is March 9th. >> Okay. Um
>> so all in favor? >> Okay. And then March 9th, um I actually have considerable edits. Um so um
the best way to do it is actually to send them back to Kendall. Um she doesn't reflect more of any comment >> or the letter and she also the most recent one. >> Yes, that was last meeting there was
significant um conversation about the drainage and the site uh the ADA. So, um I think the thing to get more detail on the public hearing. So, I think let's hold on. Great.
Okay. Great. Okay. Do you want to give us a um maybe just a quick update of where we are in the communication stuff with the meeting? Come back to that after we're here. Um, so I met with Tiffany on Thursday and we
worked on updating the downtown zoning section website. We put uh she was able to cut a clip of just the downtown zoning hearing from our last meeting that's on there. I mean, it's a little, you know, rough, but that's okay. You
know, we're not professionals. Um, and but it, you know, it covers it's still a half hour. Um, and she really feels like if we do a five minute thing, little walking tour, I have time to do
that. So do she. I'm happy to do it. If someone would like to do it with me, that'd be great. She wants to post it like two weeks before town meeting so that it's fresh. Um, it just helps with two people walking and talking to each other
helps capture people's attention. But I'm happy to do it by myself if no one else is following. >> When would you want to do this soon? >> It would probably be like around beginning of April so we have enough time, you know, maybe in like
>> it stops raining. >> Yeah. Um, good with her because of you're on the downtown. >> No, I would like to do it with you, too. >> Awesome. >> Right now. >> Yeah, >> I'm I'll be back in town. Well, good around about that time.
>> Yeah. Well, we can coordinate that. >> Yeah. Yeah, that would be fun. >> Yeah. Great. >> Um, and so then we're going to put on the one pager once it's finalized. >> One one piece of paper. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I um did a
uh one pager about the downtown. So everybody should proofread that. There was an a mistake on the harbor's edge resident on the first floor. It said special government changed it but the recent one but you know I'm sure that
there everybody should try to find one where is that >> it's on the it's in the packet this yeah I'll also put it in the communications folder for the projects that we have folder um
so it's it's got narrative on one side and a chart of the um uses in downtown So we don't have to try to do that in this meeting. But >> what's the date of it? I the one I looked at was 33. >> Yeah, that's the most recent one.
>> That's the most recent. >> Yeah. So the um got read 23 >> and that will go out to hand out and it'll be hand out. >> Oh, when you say it'll go out to residents. So it will be part of
>> is it going to be part of that book? >> No, it's not. >> Get that. >> Okay. >> It's also the senior housing board pager, right? which I sent to Tiffany and she said she >> Okay, >> we should probably put that up for
everybody to look at as a paid for. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Great. And then um why the way we usually work on doing who's going to speak um I we usually just decide I usually decide with consultation. So
we'll be in touch with with you about speaking um at town meeting on various things and it usually works well for us to take the frequently asked questions and think about who like we did for that first forum who's going to answer them.
Say you'll answer the one whatever height and you'll answer so that the um so that the public sees all of us. So, we'll wait that out. Um, we can come back to town meeting,
but it's done. Great. So, now we're going to turn to um the public hearing. Um this is uh I'm going to take a motion to open the public hearing regarding the citizens petition and the mission is to see if the town
revoked to amend the zoning map of the town of Manchester by changing zoning classifications of 116 School Street, 117 School Street, 119 School Street, 121 School Street from residential district A to residential
district B. Um and Peter uh Austin um is here to present um he's the opponent of this. So I'm going to let
him present the rationale for doing this. >> Take a motion to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> Uh Chris Gilbert. Yes. >> Peter. Yes. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Can I hand it out? Is that right? >> Yeah. >> You have a uh Did you send that to us? >> I did. >> Okay. No. >> I just since it's a public hearing, I want to
>> Yeah, it's the exact deck that I want. Okay. Great. I think it is one of the older
in the But what was after the proposed changes? >> Yeah, it was there and petition and stuff. >> Yeah, that's that's very useful to see the exist.
>> So that's one of my neighbor is watching and has it. ask them to share it on that's helpful. >> Sure. Chris. >> Yeah. Chris, you there?
>> Yeah. >> Sorry about that. Yes. >> Um, okay. Chris, I'm gonna um co-host and you can share the images. That would be great. >> Is there any way that email I sent you could pull up the deck, Chris?
>> Um, hang on a second. Give me a moment, Pete. I'm sorry I didn't have it directly in front of me. >> Well, should I get started or wait for? >> You can get started if if you want. I'll work on bringing it up.
>> So, again, I'm Peter Conine. I live at 25 Street which is actually just outside of the proposed ref location. I also recently purchased 115 School Street which is within the proposed grown area.
And as mentioned, I submitted a citizen's petition to reszone 115, 117, 119, 121 street from residential A to residential
B zone. Now this would be a continuation of the doning that is across street been here previously mentioning my aspirations to reposition
15 school street. Um what this zoning measure would allow is for the conformity of uh 117, 119, and 121 School Street, all of which do not have conforming frontage in the existing pay
zone. Um, it would also allow for a practical and modest repositioning slashdevelopment of the 115 school street property which is 1.3 acres in the village
and um it's pretty simple petition. I'm a resident who's trying to improve my property and the neighborhood and to prove a a longtime large bright lighted property and I am asking for the planning board support within this
measure for you. >> Absolutely. looking at the math of the people um the a district that is to the north of the district that you're proposing. Yes. Is all the county club. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. >> Yeah. So it's it's everything on this side of uh school street except the correct. >> Pete, can you see the screen now? >> Thank you. Yeah.
And so for those watching, it's it's going from the current zoning is is the pink. And if you could just scroll down one page, Chris. >> Yeah. >> Proposing is to bring those four properties to the the zoning across the street to the B zone, which
what that means is um actually I think it's important the next page is um everybody who has a check mark on them has agreed to support this petition. signed the petition. So,
it's everybody who's uh I I will mention that Sheila Goddard I I wasn't able to meet with her prior to submitting the petition. >> She is in support and she's happy to to um do what's needed, but I sat with her and she is in support. I just was
scrambling to get the paperwork and wasn't able to meet with her prior. Um this represents everybody I met with signed the petition. So, the only ones that I haven't uh that aren't checked off, nobody's resisted. I just haven't met with them yet.
>> So, too. >> Yes. Go ahead. All these properties are owned by separate people, correct? Correct. So, you you are the the larger of the four parcels. >> That's correct. Yeah. So, I live just so I live here and I purchased this
property. Oh, you did. Okay. >> Yeah. And so doing that now you go to a different different district and the zoning require significant looks somewhat different. I would say um >> the the largest changes are the minimum
lot area goes from a half acre 22 or just nearly a half acre 22,500 to 15,000 square ft. And the the minimum frontage goes from 150 to 75 and under
some uh obvious changes and setbacks the um covered areas. >> So would this change make all of those properties to school street informing?
>> Correct. >> In in old dimensions, not just frontage, but in old dimensions. So I I I believe they're all over 50,000. Yeah. >> Do you want me to go down, Pete? >> Yeah.
Really, that's I did add a set plan into the deck for 115 School Street, but obviously we're here just to talk about the donation today, so we know how pertinent that was, but I also didn't want to do um
that. >> Thank you, Chris. >> Yep. Ultima ultimately in doing this that would allow you then to as you said right here redevelop subdivide your parcel. It would allow a path and and and notably
it would allow a path that would um allow for the the house to remain >> the old house that's there because and we talked about this previously, but a a subdivision of that that large site in
the current zone. And the only way that my engineers can see doing that is by creating a right of way that's 40 ft wide which really necessitate coming down. >> Honestly, it seemed like an awful good idea. You wonder why
>> Yeah, >> I agree. Yeah, biased but especially for my for my neighbors a half acre requirement in the seems contrary to the goals and um having three out of four
me it's practical again I am biased. So for the other three properties, if they're now conforming to current zone, then they'll be able to make changes more easily without
so I'm not an expert, but I I I you know, I understand there are many houses in town that are non-conforming and and I didn't present it to them as a uh a big deal that they're in a non-conforming lot scenario, but you know, if I were them, I'd be um
comforted to be that conform now. >> So um two things. One is that zone A is not is more than just the Assy County Club, >> right? It goes all the way um to Mil Street. It goes all the way to 128.
But in terms of the age of the homes and the general notion of school street as really part of the whole kind of town center very different than the rest of the district. >> Oh seems to me.
>> Yeah. Perhaps the other um thing that I noticed when I looked at this, my mouse with me, sorry, is that um that the many of the parcels along
School Street have the um greater than the 75 ft. So, but not 100. Um, but in yellow is 15. So I'm saying that the um 75 ft while
the aphridge is um that is consistent with perhaps the existing houses the frontage of those houses in that area exceeds the 75 ft. So when you
divide what's 15 into two, you only have a 75T rather than be existing under this custom. >> This is also in the water by um the
script. So um that means that there's worse by allowing greater herb impervious surface moving from was it 25% to 35%.
>> 30 to 35. >> Yes. 30 to 35. I'm gonna ask a student. >> Yeah. You want me to go? >> I see you guys. >> We're sitting here first. I'm looking at the logistics plan here.
>> Yeah, but the access to the the larger property in the back is off school streets. And then this one will be that would be reconfigured as part of my this would be an expansion of my property. >> Expansion of your property. If this
property right here stay the big old beautiful house on it. That's right. And then this is nothing is back here. You you plan on the house back. I am not planning on developing anything. I'm planning on selling um house and possibly having my brother
live here or or I would sell it to a third party and in so doing by the 75 ft resoning a 75 foot front along school street would give you it would give you a half obviously would
need to come out to you and the z once the z changed but it would give you a more this property just become a larger larger land area or are you going to develop this part? >> It it would just be land. I wouldn't I wouldn't I wouldn't develop it further.
>> So, one of the things we that's just one pass. If you were to sell it to somebody else tomorrow, they might see a different path. They take the house down. So, it's not a guarantee that the house is going to stay. It's not a guarant nor is it our
view. Yeah. um whether he takes a piece and joins it with his land is >> Yeah. We're just really talking about Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you for being so >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, and I agree that there there
are avenues this could take, but this is very much my plan if the zoning is to go through. Mark, when um what's the usual uh process worth looking at zoning parcels?
>> What do you mean? I mean, don't call every board do a site visit. Is that what you mean? Um but but the normal process is for whether the by
the board itself like if we're looking at redistricting area we hold a public hearing which is what we're doing now at the close of the hearing the board needs to vote a recommendation to town meeting um and then that recommendation then
meeting along with the article voted the process. >> Um, any other comments from before questions? So that effect of this could be maybe one more unit because the other properties of schools
are non conforming but they don't they're not going to be exception. >> Well no that's not true because the um district B is 15,000 square feet. So
some of them have more than a half acre. one of them. 6. >> It's true. I mean it's kind of consistent in some ways with what we say we're trying to do in the town central which is to make it
simplified to not overly burden property owners and also to um make things that the zoning has made transforming legitimate do you think because
>> well kind of I mean yeah >> that Right. >> Yeah. I mean, if you look at this building now, right? >> I mean, this whole area is kind of >> sweet. Yeah.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, let's see. Are there any comments from the public? >> I mean, I'm here. Uh, I obviously share my screen. Um, so Chris Day, owner of
117 School Street, and you know, just I would say as Pete noted, um, I'm completely comfortable, um, in fact, supportive of the plan. Um, it would be nice to be in a conforming lot. Um, all things equal and, you know, definitely
supportive of kind of, um, the the plan he has for moving forward with the property broadly. So, um I would just say, you know, as far as a neighbor goes and the one who directly abuts 115, um I would be very supportive of this.
>> Okay. Any other Thank you, Chris. Um any other from our perview of this today is really just whether we >> supported attempt change. to change fire. This is this is the aspirational view of what you hope to do with it.
Would you come back for something? >> Absolutely. And it may still need variances. It's it's um it's still a conceptual plan, but it's geared towards the Bound. >> It's just we're not granting this. We're just recommending not recommending for
town meeting. Town meeting needs twothirds vote to do this change. The only other thing I would say in its favor, I do live in the neighborhood and what's across school street from it is a neighborhood very like this and it's
owned and Pleasant Street is D which is >> Yes. >> is 115 117 are they on sort? >> Yes. Okay. So, the next step is we need to close the public hearing for no more
comments. So, uh I hear a motion to close the public hearing. Second. >> Second. >> Um all in favor. Um, so we do I did uh check with Mark and with um Eli um moderator and we
actually do need to take a position to recommend or not recommend that's our job. Um so I'll take uh any discussion on that or a motion. I I would move to uh recommend this
consistent with the area with the general things we're trying to do that improves. >> I was second that >> right any discussion? >> Yeah, I'd like to discuss this a little bit. I have two concerns but they're
important to make. one is uh this is going to benefit one person essentially and uh I mean that's his right but I'm a little uncomfortable with the board supporting the single property
although I do recognize that the other properties become four people and that's a good thing my other issue is that there probably a lot of places like this int And you know, I'm not saying we should study them all and then come up with a
recommendation, but it would be nice to have a more general context for doing this than just the single development of two. Those are thoughts and not the position one way the other
but I just wanted you elaborate on your first concern. Well, you know what? He has every right to bring the petition to town meeting. Tom meeting is going to vote on it. It's their their decision, not ours really.
And they'll probably I don't know where they go. They're not yet. I've never seen this happen in this town before. Know what happens in other towns all the time. It'll be cur I'll be curious to see what happens. And I don't think our
recommendation is going to make too much of a difference one way the other either. And in fact, I think we could certainly say this is not going to have a big change in the character of this part of town. It's going to speed in this phase of the
>> um I think we're close to participating to the first point is that it's the word um I don't think that's necessarily bad then if you come across things that don't work in a town this age. Why not
address them? >> Because there are lots of them is my impression from my reading. >> And I and I do think Chris too, you said it benefits one person agree with that because you see that petition signed by all the owners of the lots that are
going to be impacted by this. So clearly it's more than one. >> Yeah, I recognize that. Yes. Yeah. >> And it's always going to bring properties in for >> I think the other thing that I just want to make uh one point I want to make I I
I agree with Chris's first point. I just I um I feel like when you buy something is the way it is and then but it is your right to try to change it. the um fact that it is currently at right um that's
the minimum lot is 22,000 and the budget is 150. Um there are ways to draw a subdivision to divide this into two lots. Um you know you you put in a a a subdivision road and put your frontage
on the culdeac and have um it happens all the time. So, uh, this could, uh, whether or not you would, uh, do that with around the house or not around the house, I I can't say I'm not
sure, but it happens all the time. So, there's enough acreage here to do a two lot subdivision, and a subdivision process is a pain that for all involved. Um but
um what it probably is not enough land to do is the plan that is contemplated which is carving off the the pool and joining that because you need so much lamp for this um for the subdivision
road um which is arduous but so I'm not sure where that puts me on the where I feel like to vote but except that you know 1.3 acres you could make two lots
two house lots >> is it bad to make two lots we try to >> No my point is the outcome is kind of the same so it if we think we're trying in my own mind I was thinking it's a single house lot
115 >> but as I kind of thought through it a creative engineer could make it to house levels because there's an acre left 1.3 acres. Um, so I guess that kind of brings me to
thinking that we could resone. There's not the outcomes are largely the same way potential outcomes. I mean the house aside the but I I still I'm not comfortable with the process but
any other comments just a general question like is there any arguments be made keep it in a because we we haven't really heard another side of this which I I realize you know we have a lot of support around
you know I'm comfortable that the neighborhood is in support of this. I think that's key here. Um but you know for the public hearing you haven't really heard me any of the other kind of side about pay >> I think the water supply protection
district where you have less imperous >> Okay. Any other comments? All right. Uh we have motion to recommend uh this um this is petition at town meeting. Um all in favor
>> okay great thank you. Okay. Uh, next up, she >> on. Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. 7:30. Mark, uh, want to introduce Karen?
>> Karen is on Zoom here. She is uh >> hi everybody. >> Hi Karen. Um she is plan consultant who has written we passed two. She did the original and amendment five years ago of
the um housing production plan and um we have engaged her to continue on to update the latest uh the plan as it's required to be done every five years. Um, so I I was not here. I've never
worked with Karen before, but um I think some of you on the board were here. Chris was here. I remember Karen. >> Hi there. >> So, um, so
take it away. Um, >> uh, sure. Um yeah, I worked on the housing plans both 2015 and the latest one 20 uh 2021. Um so I'm delighted to be back uh
working on your housing agenda again um for Manchester. So thank you. And um uh you know uh my proposal the first thing is a meeting and this is what we're we're at tonight just to kind of kick
off the project and uh go over I I thought I'd go over briefly the scope of services and then um maybe you folks could fill me in on any kind of important uh activities that have happened since the last uh plan was
prepared. Um, and we can talk a little bit about um maybe some people that I need to touch base with uh over the next couple months. Um, so what I'm going to be doing is pulling together a lot of data um and distilling
that information into a housing needs assessment. And I figure I'll be able to get that done um based on the proposal within the next several months. Um, and then we need to talk about a little bit about the public process. Um, uh, when I
get the, um, draft plan, uh, housing needs assessment completed, we'll meet again, um, to, uh, go over, get your comments, and then be prepared to do some kind of public meeting. whether you
want to do the workshop format that we did a number of years ago or do something a little bit more simpler. Um you know really follow your lead on how you want to proceed and you don't have to make decisions tonight but just
ponder how you see the public pro process playing out. Um, and then with that information, uh, from you folks and from the community, I'll prepare the next sections of the housing plan, which
focuses on the housing production goals as well as specific housing strategies to address the needs that we identified in the updated housing needs assessment. And then we'll do another public forum to present the draft and get additional
comments. We need both planning board and select board approvals before we can submit it to the state. The state is moving pretty quickly on um reviewing the uh the plans and uh coming up with their approvals. So that's always a good
thing. Um my proposal suggests that we can do all of this within the next 10 months. Um so that's kind of a nutshell of what the um what the process is per the proposal. U if you have suggested
changes I'm very you know open to those. Um I really kind of want to go with the flow on what you think is most important. Um and in certainly involve uh you uh you know very deeply in the process. Um,
so is that do you have any questions just on that piece? >> Can you explain why the housing production plan is important? >> Yeah, let's see it's >> Well, you know, there's a number of reasons to do a housing plan. You know,
fundamentally, it's good planning to have some kind of a an agenda for the town in the next few years to focus on local needs and priorities. So, just good planning. Uh second is that housing
production is a subset of the chapter 40B regulations that were meant to give greater local control over housing um obviously to communities such that if a community has uh has a plan
uh that meets all the requirements under housing production and approved by the state. It then produces actual housing of uh the equivalent of one half of 1% of your year- round housing stock. And for you folks, that's 11 units. Then it
gets what some people refer to as safe harbor or it's technically called certification where you have a key uh you know 12 months in which you have the ability to deny
um chapter 40b comprehensive permit applications uh without the developers ability to appeal that decision. If you produce 1% of your urine housing stock, then you get a two-year safe harbor. So, a lot of
communities look at this as some protection. Um, and then it's great for grant making. It's good to have updated information um on you know demographics on uh a lot
of economic information and particularly housing information where you get you know I truly try to splice and dice the information and provide uh uh data um from multiple sources. Um, so you know,
I there are a numbers of reasons, but I I think fundamentally it's good to have a plan to help uh address community needs. And we all know that the housing market in uh Manchester is
very robust for those who can afford to live in Manchester. You know, I also think these plans because they go to the state represent an opportunity to highlight efforts that
the community has undertaken in a proactive way. Um, and I also think these planning this planning process can be instrumental in providing um community education and outreach on the whole issue.
Does that give it? >> Go ahead, Sue. >> Yeah. Um, could you um I I didn't quite understand what you were saying about safe harbor. It appeared that there were two levels. One sort of was a two-year safe harbor and what was the other?
>> Yes. >> Yes. So, if you produce 1/ half of 1% of your year- round housing stock as units that are eligible to be included in that subsidized housing inventory, units that meet a number of state requirements
towards getting to that 10% affordability threshold. You have the ability, you can document that, submit it at state. You have the ability to deny what the town considers an inappropriate
chapter 40B comprehensive permanent application without the developer's ability to uh you know uh appeal that decision to the state. If you produce 1% of your year- round housing stock, which
is like 22 23 units, then you get a 2-year period where you have the ability potentially to deny uh what you consider uh comprehensive permanent applications that don't address local needs. So, it's
one uh you know a half percent or 1% one year, two years. >> Okay? And that is regardless of whether we currently have a 10% which we do not. >> No, it's it's it's part of the whole
planning um housing production plan. It's having, you know, a plan that's approved by the state and then demonstrating production to get to this period where you can deny uh inappropriate applications. Um,
>> okay. I'm still a little >> Sandy. So, Sandy, if we have 10% affordable, >> right, >> we meet the SHI, we're done. >> But we're not there, >> right? If we're not there%, >> right? >> And I can tell you >> there do 11 units,
>> then we get >> a one year. Okay. >> But they have >> affordable, not just any units. >> Right. Right. But, you know, I've been I've worked on housing production plans for communities who have more than surpassed the 10%
goal. Uh not because they want safe harbor, it's because they want a plan in place and they want the state to approve the plan and see what they're doing. So, uh, you know, clearly most communities are looking at the safe harbor, you
know, meeting that 1% or 2%, uh, goal, but, um, you know, others still have opted to do them. >> Question comment. So, I'm looking at the last goround of the HPP that's on the website and
um, just looking at the titles of the various sections. It's a 105page document. So I just, you know, >> I know that. >> Yeah. Glancing at it. But I can't imagine there's going to be any change whatsoever in five years. And and I also
think that Kathy provided a lot of this demographic information and that comprehensive exercise that we did that. So my my question is kind of twofold. So it seems like these are uh recommended
to do in fiveyear increments and my question is do is that what we want to do considering that it's unlikely that there's going to be much change five years ago >> actually can I >> yeah please >> well actually there have been a couple
of big changes huge changes one of them is the MBTA communities >> right compliance and another is uh the ADU bylaw that we so there are all kinds of things that are going to change when the housing
production plan says >> we've been in this report though >> I mean how many ads have been built and stuff >> so that's a question how do how many should we build do we encourage them do we try to make them go away what do we
do >> is that a good way to get to it make them affordable >> right >> so Yeah. >> So, a couple things. First off, the uh new census data has come out since the last housing production plan. So, all of
that data needs to be updated, put into this new plan. May not change dramatically, but it's it needs to be updated. Um and the other thing is there's other things that affect housing such as our approval in the construction
of uh ongoing construction of CST50 jobs in the first phase another 250 potentially in the second phase that's going to have an impact on housing. you know, our downtown zoning, you know,
need to be brought into the discussion of this plan. So, there's there's been quite a few things that have happened in the last five years. Will it ultimately change the goal and the the need that we have for housing across
a variety of types of housings? probably not. But it'll kind of bring it a little more up to date and a little more in focus. And it may, you know, give us, you know, something to hang our hat on the next
time we try and do some zoning changes to allow more housing. Um, you know, if if the results this plan say, you know, not we need a lot more housing. I guess what we've been doing, but what we've
been doing the last couple years is fairly significant. Even though it hasn't produced a lot yet, over time, it probably will. >> So, this is all data there. No recommendations in here. It's just pure data. >> Recommendations. >> There are recommendations.
>> Everyone should read that. >> Yeah. 110 pages. I can Yeah. >> A lot of it's in the appendices, but still >> you're prolific. >> So, one of the big recommendations on
the last book was we need senior house. That's why we are. >> Chris deserves his own page. >> No, I'm very interested and curious about this. that you just you know five years just
you are you maybe suggesting that we don't do >> no I'm just I'm just querying >> whether father a fiveyear uh sequence is appropriate >> so can I ask that question a little bit differently on that first of all is the
state required every five years is it require >> state required you don't have to do it at all >> okay >> so in other >> they expire ire after 5 years. >> So that means your advantage expires after years.
>> The benefit of yeah of dealing with safe harbor expires with the plan. >> Okay. So my other question my my other way of sort of stating your question is um
how do we take how do we make it you know we're a small community. We don't have a um we have the housing affordable housing trust. It well two questions. Is it an affordable housing production plan
or is it a housing production? >> Two different >> because those are because I would argue we've got we've added we've added a fair amount of housing. Yeah. I mean I don't know. I'll be happy to address that because a a lot of plans, you know, well, the safe
harbor relies on units that are eligible for the subsidized housing inventory and that would include some rental units that are part of 40Bs because all units count in 40b rental u developments even though maybe only 25% are actually
affordable. But a lot of communities realize, and I think this is probably an issue with you guys, is that even those who are earning above the 80% of area median income well into
uh 120% even beyond are still not competitive in the current housing market. so that their suggestions um strategies include other income tiers
beyond just those below 80% of AMIs. So you have the opportunity to if you wish to provide you know a wider range of incomes to help diversify the housing stock and make it more affordable. And also if you are interested in some
longer term goals, we can integrate those into the plan although the state will approve it for only those five years. >> Okay. >> Um and then my second question was sort of
to Peter's question. instead of doing 104 pages of >> data >> data which is I I've looked at the data I mean it's pretty interesting data and it's >> not as it's so I think it's quite surprising when you if you haven't looked at it
>> but um >> are we better off to do like a deeper dive on the action plan um how do we get if we take it at face value that this plan is largely going to be similar. All
the numbers will change and we've done MBTA and senior housing we hope and others but the still the action of how do you operationalize the zoning ch the built around those zoning changes. Um we
don't have a development department or a housing department here that builds things. So we don't have a public housing not that it's not affordable. And then we're also many of our units. That's one problem I
don't know how to solve. Um you know we keep saying zoning won't necessarily make it get built. And then the other thing that we hear over and over, you know, if garden works for sitting here gates yell it is that it is very difficult to have these um
uh one or two units uh registered and the pro the process for getting a affordable unit in these small developments which are the the kinds of developments that we actually want and are trying to incentivize.
um is so difficult that it's virtually impossible and is almost a deterrent to having it happen. Um how do we get at those kinds of issues? Because we hear that over and over and we've made zoning changes that say if you have five units, you have to have one of them affordable.
You have 10 units, you have two. Um but what we hear is it's too complicated. is to so how do we get at those kinds of solutions that um those kinds of problems that maybe um
but how do we get at those kinds to those solving those kinds of problems? Well, first of all, I mean, I really um try in the housing production plans under each strategy to put like, you
know, what's the current status of this, what are next steps for implementation. So, there's a sense of, you know, what you need, what resources you need, what approvals you need um in order to get it done. Um, and some time frames as well.
Um, so when you think that we should beef up on that, I'm happy to do so. On the issue of including affordable units, it is it is a rigorous process, you know, as far as all meeting all the requirements.
Um, but communities are doing it. the communities that have some staff support that are you know targeted to do that kind of work or you know reach out to a nonprofit with for a fee to do that work
that makes life a lot easier for inclusion. um it's hard to, you know, rely on volunteers to pull all that documentation together, but it's also important the developers know what the requirements are. And as much as you can
shove on the developers, the better. And um you know, we'll really try to make that clear in the housing plan. But I think that's part of the point is that the more you shove on the
developers, the less likely they're going to take on additional burdens to make a project like that, small project like that u come to fruition. >> Yeah.
Is there any function at the state level at many years before I worked for the state and there was an to get a certain sort of facility energy facility built and uh there were people at the state level who
were charged with basically streamlining the permitting and the process for getting the projects into the ground. Um is there any you know comparable function like that in the housing group that state?
The state has a number of functions related to affordable housing um and they monitor you know for example the affordability uh requirements etc. But um there's
the localities have their responsibilities too to make sure that the units are complying and you know eligible for inclusion in the SHI. >> Well, there's one thing of being the police and there's another thing of
being a facilitator. >> Well, you know, you have a housing trust, right? >> Yes. >> How involved are they in all of this? They're trying to be involved as much as they can. >> Yeah. You know, maybe there is a way
that they can bring on some part-time support, professional support to deal with some of these issues. um you you know you have CPA money and um you know maybe there's a there's a
way of actually >> um you know paying for some services related to this and making sure everything is done appropriately and working with the developers and um working with you and working with Mark.
>> Okay. So, our action tonight is to kick this off um and get an introduction from Karen, but I think we've done that. Um what are the next steps that we need to do? We we've already voted I think to accept the proposal.
>> So, she's going to have come in and have a working session or begin her data collection. What's the what is that? What are the next things we >> So, she needs to know who to get in touch with. Okay. >> So, I'm going to say right away the affordable housing The affordable housing >> I'm sorry I'm having a hard time hearing
you. What? >> The affordable housing trust is should be on your list right away. >> Yes. And yeah, I I'll uh I'll be in contact uh with them and um and also if there are other, you know, particular people that you think I should
interview, I typically interview, you know, someone from the Council on Aging and Housing Authority and um etc. If you if you give me a list, I can get you the names when they're
get on the agendas trust who meets remotely. So you >> That's great. That's great. And >> I'll be your primary contact. >> Perfect. Yeah, we should have a chat. You know, one of the things I really uh
would be really useful for me is to get a sense of what things have happened since the last plan um was uh completed uh just to bring me up to date. Uh that would be very helpful. >> Other than that, I'm just going to start
working. I am listening to you. I mean, is do you really want me to do a slimmer version of the housing needs assessment? Is it, you know, is it too ownorous, you think, or I I don't want to I I tend to
do more than most consultants because I think it's important um to have understanding of the underlying community context. Um but I I can be I can try to be uh I
mean I do a lot of analysis that's not you know that's that a lot of plants don't have because I think it provides useful information on the market etc. But uh I can try to be cognizant that you think there's too much debt.
>> I'm going to suggest is that you start your normal process of talking to people and that we we tend to be a quite a a thinking board. So we'll put as our homework to review the plan and think a little bit about what goals
uh we want to get out of it. I think um you know spending your time helping us really think through how do we implement things and >> um uh is is probably at least on my list. Um >> so if we all take a look at the plan and
particularly the action section and we'll put some time on our next maybe not our next >> that's right. >> Yeah. And yeah, think about >> meeting to to think with you about to answer that question about how how much emphasis should it be on the the numbers
and how much where else should we put our emphasis? Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. I that would you know any input from you folks is valuable to me. Um so that that would be helpful when you're
looking at the housing strategies. It's helpful to look to have a thoughts about, you know, what needs to be tweaked, what we don't need, what items should be considered as part of this
kind of five-year housing plan strategies. Um, and uh, so give that some thought, too. >> Well, I also think you have a wealth of knowledge about affordable housing. It
might be good to have an in-person session with you here where we'd come up to speed on the affordable housing requirements where we are with it um and brainstorm collectively how the planning board for specifically can um can uh
take actions. So um we'll put that on the agenda for maybe early May. >> May I ask a question? >> Yeah, of course. >> So Karen, I'm looking at your proposal right now. Are you effectively going to start task two? All the background data. Is that what you were going to do?
>> Yep. >> Yeah. Is it all this stuff seems very relevant to what we did? No matter what we decide, I think it's worthwhile gathering that information. >> A lot of this information the state will want to see. Uh for sure. Um and um uh
yeah, no, I'm going to be updating that data. Okay. >> And talking to >> I think you asked what we want out of it. I guess I'm I would like to become more well-versed in where we are and what the requirements are and how we get
how we move make progress toward >> I agree. I agree. We have too. So >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Great. Well, thank you. Nice to meet you virtually and we will look forward to here at a meeting um after probably
after a meeting which just April. >> Okay. All right everybody take care. Mark we'll be in touch. Okay. >> All right. Bye >> bye. >> Okay. Next is John here's
here. >> Oh no. Adam's here next. Sorry. Adam's next. Sorry, I didn't mean to skip over you. I know you like to listen from Um, >> okay, Adam. Um, let's see. Mark, why
don't you explain what we're doing here? Um so Adam um after um we voted last week we had the final version and we just before I had it signed and
submitted to the clerk he let me know that there's a couple of uh conditions specifically number 15 and number 17 that he um felt that could have some adjustment to to um to clarify a few
items and these are the ones related to the drainage and the one related to the sidewalk. So I'll let Adam explain what he's proposed. >> Yes, the team the team seems to be working with DPW on both these issues.
Um in number 15, which is with regards to the storm sewer connection, we're going have to comply with the general bylaw for that anyway. Um, but there's a condition that I think the the board wanted to insert a determination
language with regards to the DPW in that one and that was okay with us. We just wanted to make clear here that um we're talking about if PPEs will be done u without the use of a pump because we're not going to be pumping groundwater up um to try to get it to a drain pipe. You
don't want to have to rely on that have a generator at the bail. um it's not good engineering practice and our understanding is that DPW um is fine with that language in 15 um then 17 concerns the side >> it does say that correctly is that
actually the language that you're looking at I was going to say I was going to lead off by saying I'm not sure we have much to talk about because the meeting packet um document that's uploaded I think is everybody's uh everybody's screen we're fine with that that is just great with us and that's been the result of the back and forth
with Van Martin um this week and and client booking shut down uh as well. So 17 relates to the sidewalk u at meeting last week on that one. >> Um let's just talk about them individually. First of all, it should be
if elevations conditions in Union Street, >> right? Not Beach Street. >> Oh yes. Okay. Yep. I think that that well no I think that's because we're referring to the manhole that's >> the man is upgradient from the site and
so when I think that if it say you don't even need at the second the last sentence I just say if elevation conditions prevent this danger So, um I asked Chuck Dan to weigh in on
this. It's um and he said I want to um he said this type of project is under is under meaning less than the threshold for storm water rules or is under I
don't know if it means less than storm water rules by so clear. It's under 20,000 square ft and it requires a special permit. Our thought when we wrote it is that most projects will require special permit require approval.
We wouldn't make them do a special storm water permit. I think we would need to adhere to the mass storm water handbook because it's four or four for fewer units. Um that's not really applicable either. So
it's a little bit um unclear what he's saying to me there. That said, I've talked to him a few times and I do want to see more due diligence on the roof leader discharge. I do not want to go down the street. That's preferred compared to the sewer, which is what I
suspect is the existing condition or on the sidewalk. So, that answers the question of potentially where the existing water is going to the sewer. I said I would want to see some additional inverts and elevation on the existing
storm water system and see if they could make it via gravity. No problem. There may also be utility conflicts which would be part of the due diligence. I would expect I'm comfortable doing this submittal and approval during a building permit phase. I assume that's where the
DPW approval would be. If they could do the connection to the existing storm water, then I would have them do a road opening permit and have all the conditions for restoration of the street there. We would still own the road or right away. They don't meet our requirements, don't do a good job. We
wouldn't close out the permit or Paul could pull the occupancy permit. So, I guess he's saying he's comfortable um uh he said he's comfortable with the language as proposed in number 15. I'm fine with the language proposed.
uncomfortable of and able to review and comment on this during the building permit phase protect the town's interests >> because it does seem to be an advocate of gravity gravity to existing storm water >> right but he also says that we don't know where those
>> don't know how to do it >> we don't well we don't do it so we don't know where to >> it's upgrading right so when it's higher but what >> the inverts are he wants to know what the invert If it's this way this way,
>> it's going to be a pretty manhole >> and so uh it it maybe again without knowing that they and so uh I talked to Chuck as well. Chuck said he had a
meeting a while back that the engineers that we were supposed to bring him information on the manhole itself the depth is both y utilities and the street whether it's feasible. So
when they get all that information, they'll be able to determine whether it's feasible there's enough depth for them place to pour the manhole so on and so forth. So I think this condition basically says
that's what they do unless there's some sort of condition that doesn't let them do. >> Yeah. I just want to clarify. We did. Let me just back up and Maggie said because we voted on the special permit conditions, we had to bring it back to
the board because these are amendments to those special conditions. >> Okay. Anything else on the storm water? >> No. If if the proponent is agreeable that they would they can connect to
>> that's that's what we'll do. Absolutely. >> All right. Great. Um now sidewalk um >> right uh it's similar issue um when it was discussed last last two weeks ago on the sidewalks um there was a request be that make the sidewalks ADA compliant u
sidewalks will be ADA compliant in the sense that the ADA requires maximum peaceful compliance uh but right after the meeting we met with our engineers the day after and determined that it's because of the existing grade it's going to be infeasible to have a compliant you
a spec ADA sidewalk at the bottom of the driveway. The sidewalk will be ADA compliant all throughout the building in front of the building, but in front of the driveway, you need to have a 1% grade at maximum and which just it just can't be done. Um so we wanted to say
again here and we understand agree with this as well that again will comply to the maximum extent feasible as determined by the DPW in accordance with their requirements which I think is the language in the meeting packet which is fine with us but we didn't want to misrepresent or somehow promise to the
town that we could um do an upgrade to that extent. Uh we're going to do what we can and it'll be smooth. Um you want to have bumps it would be a much better condition than it is now. Uh but there's electric manhole that's right in the drop rate and has to be dealt with as well. So we just we're going to be able to achieve compliance to the maximum extent we can a lot of that was
determined in the fields you know once we see what's there for a subbase ledge things like that. Um but we wanted to make sure that was clear in the decision and weren't uh going to have a problem later then folks looked at it and said wait a sec this doesn't quite meet what
require something new. >> Thanks good question. So when you say it can't be done, does it mean that it's too expensive? What does it mean it can't be done? >> Well, in order to create the ADA U
sidewalk, you have to have a flat 1% pitch. So you'd have to have a ramp that would go up, go for like 3 and 1/2 ft, that would go up again even steeper. So you'd have cars that would be bottoming out at the bottom of that ramp. Um, so you really it wouldn't be possible to do
it because of the grade of the existing drive of that pre-existing condition slope which has come straight down street. You can't just even it out and kind of >> Did they figure out what that cross slope might be? >> They haven't we don't know what it's going to be because I mean if we did
construction documents we'd be kind of taking this shot in the dark because we haven't done excavation. We haven't looked at the demand hole. So it hasn't been uh you know finally determined exactly what it's going to be. Um, it's going to essentially track existing condition and we might be able to improve it somewhat, but we wouldn't
want to give folks the impression it was going to be a flat sidewalk because that there wouldn't be cars driving up. So I I guess what is troubling is it seems like the person who made the uh
presentation should have known all that and and there was there was no statement that there that it can't be done. >> We immediately the day after the hearing, >> right? But I'm talking about during the
hearing when we voted on the conditions and voted to grant the special. >> But you couldn't first of all this is an upgrade. This is not within our this is an upgrade in sidewalk that's being requested. Um and I special permit have
three units not two. So it really I I viewed this as far as site plan approval. Uh so we immediately the next day I mean you couldn't locally have a condition that is not feasible to comply with it have it has to be reasonable to satisfy. So you know you can't change
the geometrics. We can't raise the level of the whole site or um you know lower the level of the whole site. We've got a lot of less to deal with. Um so we're just being upfront and saying we're going to comply to the maximum extent we can which is complying with the ADA. We can't guarantee a fully lined
sidewalk just at the bottom of that driveway location and we're willing to improve the whole sidewalk with pavers or whatever the sound standard may be at the time. Uh but there's a limit to what we can do. It's just not easy. >> Why can't the slope of the sidewalk just
the driveway be moved back into the site? >> U you know if the engineer Peter I think Peter Blazell is on the line he might be able to speak to some of the details in um more succinctly if Peter's there. Hi everybody.
>> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. Um to answer I'm I'm sorry. One of one of the members has asked why didn't we know that at the meeting? Um those comments were I I think emailed to me um a short time before that meeting last
time uh from from somebody that asked for a condition that was put in, but um I did not know about that condition prior to that. So, I was not able to determine if it was able to be done or not until I took a look at it the next day. Uh, to answer your question as far
as can that slope be pushed back. Um, so as it is right now, when you get to the uh back edge of the sidewalk, the the driveway at that point starts to go up the slope at about uh about 20% slope. Um if you were to uh do an ADA
compliant um ramp and crosswalk there, you would have to flatten it out so that that was about a 1% across and you would actually have to drop where the trench train is almost 12 in vertically. You would then have to Yes, exactly. You would have to push that back into the slope a little bit, but then you would
have to meet the existing slope going up the hill. you would change that slope from a 20% slope almost up to about a 27 or 28% slope, which is very very steep. Um, so remember, you you'd be coming from the street, which you'd have a a
very steep section. I'm sure you've all seen new uh parking lots uh and entrances these days where as you go up the ramp from the street, you literally bump up in the air, then it flattens and then you would instantly be going up at almost a 3:1 slope um right from the
flat slope. So, uh the other thing is there's an electric manhole there. Uh there's a trench drain there. And then there's um if you look at Google Street View, if you all have your um if you all have your uh laptop in front of you, take a look take a look at it. Looks like there's an electric service that
runs uh right across the driveway from the electric manhole, runs up that wall, and then we're not sure if that goes to the house in the back or where that goes. Um you'll also notice there's ledge all of the all along the side of that driveway.
So, um I I don't think it's a good design. I do understand the intent of that, but as you probably all know, um you cannot you cannot take some of these roads uh and sidewalks that have been here uh quite a long time and then um
all of a sudden just force them into, you know, current standards that you would be doing for a a modern road. Um it's it's just not it's not going to work. It's not compliant with, you know, if this were a brand new site, we could we could probably work with it. But I
looked at it a bunch of different ways and I I don't think it's it's possible to do it. >> Okay. Um so I did ask Chuck about this and he said that uh Chris is not here.
Um uh understands that Chuck is going to be looking for so he said I Chuck would be looking for existing and proposed plans on the ADA issue issue of the driveway and looking to see notes on what is feasible. Um
um so um the other thing I did is I went back and I looked at the tape from last time and I assume is correct and at 38 um there was a assurance that this would
be able to be ADA compliant. Um so that's background. Um my proposal on this issue is that we leave the language as it was which is um
uh and and here's my thinking. Um by being here tonight we are indicate we are proving that site that special permit conditions can be modified and that there's we haven't this is still a
project that is got a lot of work and engineering to be done. Um, and once you've found out where that electric service is, found out about that, uh, manhole, found out about the ledge, um, you know, you said your, uh, you know,
what the actual slopes are going to be, then, um, get together with Chuck and at his recommendation, we modify that condition. But that would be my suggestion is that we leave it as is. removing the language to the maximum effect feasible in
accordance with the requirements of the DDW and to the maximum extent that's twice the narrow >> and they leave it as is >> so it as is from the March 11th draft correct that would be my suggestion >> number seven >> number seven
>> um and I listened to the tape and um the uh granite curbing the the u plans showed batumous curving and the uh applicant represented and we require that the um that the side that the
curving be granite that should be in here somewhere >> Sarah if I may >> um that that's going to be a significant problem to that if that ADA language is there and you just heard from an engineer that irrespective of what was said two weeks ago you just heard from
an engineer that that's not feasible I don't think anybody has I mean we that condition requiring an upgrade of the sidewalk to be compliant with current ADA standards. And you're asking for an improvement from from the applicant to we're willing to make whatever improvements we can, but we cannot
promise or meet that condition. That condition cannot be met feasibly. It's just it's an impossibility and it will stop the project um over an improvement that you're asking for. We're willing to do the quote to the maximum extent feasible, which is what the ADA
requires. you're essentially requiring something more than what the ADA would impose um over what really is you know DPW's jurisdiction. We're happy to work with them. We will comply with the ADA to the maximum extent feasible as they determine. Um but you know if you leave
the condition as it is unfortunately and that's that's not going to be a condition that can be satisfied. Well, you see the problem though when we rely on experts during a hearing, we make a decision. You know, we've all spent a
lot of time reviewing it. We make a decision based on what is um presented at the hearing. Um and then you come back and say we can't do it. But respectfully, >> it just >> No, but respectfully that what I the
remember the timeline that I think those comments came from Lara Tenny on the Friday before the hearing. So by the time they filtered through to us, it was already really the day of the hearing that Kendall Kendall sent them to our office to review. So we look at things
as fast as we can. >> Could have could have most to continue the hearing. There shouldn't need to be a reason to continue the hearing for something like this because the ADA requires that you comply to the maximum extent feasible. It doesn't require perfect compliance with the new
standards. It recognizes that there are existing conditions that exist and also this is this is in the public right away. This is not within our project site. This is squarely under the DPW's jurisdiction to make that determination in accordance with the threats. So if the ADA says to a maximum extent
feasible are conditioned you would be compliant with it if you are doing it to the maximum extent feasible. >> It's like saying is to say that we're going to construct a sidewalk that complies with ADA
standards. There's a difference in the language and I think without I'm very confused. Help Adam and Sarah help me out. My understanding is what Sarah is saying Adam is that in the March 11th draft which you earlier said
item number 17 was fine with you. It has the maximum sent feasible language in it. No, no, >> this this whole document was produced a I mean I forget the the drafting but this condition I think was after after the hearing mark you know this to me
>> correct what it says and what it says here is it says the cross shall meet the ADA excuse me it says the sidewalk shall meet the ADA cross slope requirement >> to the maximum extent >> fear
is proposing to take out to the maximum extent we need that to make it work because this is not saying you're going to comply with the ADA. This says you're going to meet the cross slope requirement and we technically have determined that can't be done. >> So technically this does have to comply
with ADA standards in a general sense. Correct. >> Correct. Correct. This will this will comply with the ADA if the ADA allows compliance to the maximum. >> Seems like this is hair. >> Um John, can you help us out? >> May I? >> Yeah.
So there there's a process >> very easy well relatively easy process that one goes through with the MAB by the way I don't think this is an ADA issue this is a Massachusetts port >> okay >> issue um and there are guidelines that
we try and um abide by and if you can't there's a variance process by which you apply and you have to show the impractability of a solution And if it's truly impractical, they grant a variance.
We're talking about the National It just simply says that the sidewalk and driveway entrance must comply with all state regulations. >> The ADA is a federal >> state and federal regulations >> because this is the Southwalk is a
public facility under the ADA. So then the BPW is responsible for maintaining this dragway entry just like >> the things that you're doing modifying >> only to the we're not our plan is to be constructed as close as possible wasn't but the sidewalk has
there's a there's an in there's a trench dra it's being >> it will probably be replaced in in place the incentives to make whatever if we can improve the conditions the slope from where it is now the incentives do
that which is again why we're talking about the compliance to the maximum extent that's easil essentially all we can do. Um >> so so this was the issue is that this is not fully designed right now and you're seeking approval for
>> but almost no project that you're seeking a special permit for is fully designed and the Friday the Friday before our our second meeting we had one meeting then we had this not we sort a month and the Friday before that second meeting this comment came up about an
upgrade that the town is asking the applicant for >> and we're saying yes. Yeah, >> that's true. I asked you for a cross-section. >> I asked you for a cross-section showing that >> and it showed compliance. Your crosssection
on page A.2 shows driveway coming down and then it wasn't a conception. No, but that's the point that we're you represented in the public hearing that that it would be
client and with both a drawing and your engineer. So I I know I know like public works often but in the previous I've been at um for example
uh like offsite improvement connected subdivision to the street in front of half a dozen homes but there's no guideline not fully designed when we approve the subdivision but the applicant brings back the drawings for this uh to the planning board for final
review and approval at some future date. Um, you know, with the input from public works that they get involved, >> I think we can >> and so if we
use this language, but if that um Yeah. And shall we turn and present the drawing of the planning board. >> The problem with that is that's continuing jurisdiction. So it doesn't move. >> Well, but it's kind of a a condition.
You need to do something to the sidewalk in the driveway as part of this project. So that that's directly related to your proof. So, I think having that come back at least for a a review with the
planning board and a presentation of this is how we're going to fix it and this is was Chuck's comments and this is how we got to here is perhaps one of >> I think we can present to you but I don't think it can be a subsequent
condition because then we're paying jurisdiction. It's I think it's the same project, the same issue that the CBA ran into with so you use a board can't issue an approval and then have a condition that retains your jurisdiction because then it's it's not an approval. Uh unfortunately,
but we certainly are are looking to reconstruct that sidewalk to whatever standard the town has. If you if you're requiring pavers, whatever you want, granite curving, I think we'd already be about that. um that's fine, but we just can't guarantee that that cross slope at
that driveway is going to meet the ADA standards. It's what we learned from Peter. Not what we do. We're going to do it to the maximum extent we can. We're going to improve it from the existing condition, but we just can't promise that it's going to be with that
cross-section requirement. >> So, my suggestion is that we leave the condition as it was change. Um, we had at the intersection of the driveway at Union Street and sideway sidewalk shall meet ADA cross slope requirements. So, we'll just say re ADA requirements
because if Adam's assertion is correct, ADA requirements have a feasibility provision. >> You're saying with the ADA? Yeah, I guess that and just get rid of cross
slope requirements and say um uh you know and um then in in accordance with the requirement and the requirements of the DPW um because
>> take out well take out max possible but if ABA has maximum extent possible as part of that that's the law or the um requirements. MAB is the authority.
Um then it seems to me that that what we're saying that's but um >> I mean so what what is what is exactly going to say? It's going to say >> we're going to delete your edits. >> Okay. I'm going to delete the cross uh
we're going to delete the words cross slope >> as it says shall meet the ADA requirements >> and then get rid of to the maximum. >> So your edits were both the addition of to the maximum extent feasible in
accordance with DW strike those and it will simply say at the intersection of the driveway and Union Street the sidewalk shall meet the AVA requirements. Well, okay. And that requirements that implies it's going to meet the technical requirements and it's
not going to comply with the law. So, I think it needs to say it's sh Can you say shall you say the sidewalk shall comply with the ADA? >> Can we say AA or MAB? Whichever is appropriate. >> That's fine.
That works. >> As as uh recited by the chair, >> I get I haven't signed it yet. So make sure. Okay. Do I have a second? Oh, >> changes to 15 and 17. Are there any other changes that we need to take up? Hold on.
>> There I have another problem with the document as written because it says >> one public comment was received from Garland or the project that expressed concern. There's no mention of the discussion
during the hearing of the issue we were just describing. There should be at least a sentence that the board discussed and >> correspondence reporting, >> right? Because Sarah read the chair read portions of the letter during the
hearing and asked for input from the applicant on that issue. I think you leave a sentence in there with your flag. My motion. >> Okay. Uh any other um discussion? Um I'm going to assume that the granite
curbing is within the DPW requirements. So okay. Um all in favor? >> I post. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um next up, Don. You guys want to come out? >> 36 do something like street d a big hole. Well, what she did approve for me was a
four lots of three box. One of which contains the hat, right? That has recently been sold. They've done some improvements to the inside. We don't want to risk two days. What John's head talk to you
about tonight is the fat which has been given me the press of one place like what he asked for but I thank you for listen um so we did share um our plan and a
sheet of vendance pre-wing actually because I think we maybe Mark and I'm not wouldn't be surprised if you all had an assumption that the new 3A zoning like most zoning was inclusive of
typically uh single family homes and then certain other uses would be added to a zone like the general district if multif family were allowed so on and so on. So we were focused on for the most part the total number of units which we
talked a lot about during the put 3A process. >> As you know in that area of lower Pine Street there's a table very carefully laid out as to how you determine the density of those lots and so on. When Tom divided that property into the three
in the front, one in the back, that essentially made three lots in the front that were single family or whatever the underlying zoning would be for that, which is actually single or two. And then a rear lot of much of a larger
square footage. Uh, and no lot can have more than five. That's the limit in the the lower Pine Street. So when Tom and I were chatting and Tom expressed his interest in in the project that he wanted to do, a few things were were very clear. One, he wanted really to do
not maximize the site but do something that he felt was reasonable. And in his mind looking at that site because of the context of the neighborhood, the single family homes was something that he wanted to do. And in fact, I know I I don't want to
divulge too much, but Thomas mentioned he might actually live there one day. So, this is something that he might build and occupy at some point. Um, so in our minds, we're thinking, okay, five are allowed. Uh, Tom wants to do four.
Great. We seem to be in good shape. Wasn't until I sat down very recently with Mark when we realized that the way the phrase zoning is written agreed the allowed uses single family is not included in the
allowed uses. So we're at a weird moment right now because I think probably all all the room would say, "Oh, of course a little cute little assortment of of buildings would be perfect in that spot. The neighbors would love it. It's not high
impact on on that area, but in fact, the way that the three is zoning, it actually wants you to to to do something denser, wants you to do something perhaps bigger at a minimum to two families. Um, again, Tom has a very
specific desire to do single family homes. That's what he's always done in in his work and it fits into what he wants to do and he believes it's the right thing for this site. But we're at a weird moment where what seems to be the right thing to do
potentially is actually a lie. >> Not to bring up old arguments, but I was always worried during the 3A zoning process that we were creating zones in u
areas that would be difficult to do any reasonable size. That was on purpose. I totally understand, right? That the town wanted to be careful with how the 3A was defined so that certain size things
might be avoided and smaller developments might. So, it's almost doing exactly what we wanted, but there's a little snafu perhaps in there which doesn't allow what might be the most appropriate in some cases.
Um, so unfortunately our definition had to be approved by EOHLC >> and their definition in their regulation, I'm sure you've read it,
>> is um more than one residential unit in each building. So there's no ability for us to change our because then our definition won't comply with EOHLC.
I mean recall all the approvals we had to go through a G um which is I don't see I don't see a way around the space regulation.
Except >> I was just reading it. >> Okay. Except Except if we don't remove definition multifamily housing. We don't remove the the ability to do multifamily
housing, but we add the ability to do a single or two singles or a double and you know two in one. We had always talked about someone wanted to do four units, but we weren't going to say you had to do four in one building, but you
could do a three unit building and a single building. Someone might have single family home and want to add three units. Um, so what we've kind of discovered is that the the bylaw doesn't actually allow
that. It says it all has to be in a multif family building which is two or more units. So, >> but the definition wouldn't allow that. >> Well, but so we can we can add things to the bylaw to allow single units,
multiple single units on a lot. It doesn't take away from the uh the option of doing multi-unit building yet giving additional flexibility. So you're not removing the
compliance. So Tom, if you could do seven units, I believe actually can do seven units on that parcel. >> No. >> Yes. >> Before divided, it could have 10. So he could have theoretically seven units in
the back. It'd be small, but he could do some some building. So we're not removing the fact that he could do seven units. We're adding the allowance of fostering individual
detached buildings on par. Um and so um so I did discuss this um I got email back from town council because her her opinion is is kind of similar is the
same thing that as long as you don't require them to do something different. You're just allowing another option. So >> I don't see how it works. So you're proposing a zoning change. Is that what's happening?
>> That's that's what would be needed to >> So that's that's going to be a year away. >> It would be whatever the next calc. >> Yeah. >> How large is the back lot? >> Just square feet
about >> Yeah. the same point. >> Um, so >> they do it under the D1 D2. Anyway, you wouldn't have to do it under 3A. >> That's the frontage.
>> Oh, I see. So, you could do it under a multifamily dwelling with more than four dwelling units if um but the problem is they have to be attached. That's that. Um that might be an easier variance than
u a use variance, right? >> Um well, is that a single lot in the back? It's one lot for buildings. and how large. >> That's okay.
>> Yeah. You know, Tom could proceed under the underlying zoning and build his first house. That would be perfectly fine. >> Yeah. while some zoning nuances occurred.
If Tom felt comfortable enough with that list, not sure if Tom would from my point of view and having talked to a couple of my neighbors, it's a single family detached neighborhood both on Pine Street and on De Hill with your
Butson behind. So I've always represented that I wanted to do single family with cash housing. That's what I know and I I didn't get push back for any from anybody on that. The reality is if if it
wants to be a quad and a three or something, I don't have to do that. I'm going to flip up to somebody else and I can try that. But I think contextually for the neighborhood and for the neighborhood that exists out behind so we're failing to judge meets our
objectives and it also meets the neighbor's objective right. I think for the town it's an interesting issue because >> this might come up a lot where people would have an assumption that they could do something small and infill like we've described many many times in our
meetings. So >> I think we would have to get an opinion from EO and Chelsea. Um because to go through that again, I mean, you know, we put
ourselves out there to go back meeting and say, "Oh, you know, we're already changing it first." Well, I just Well, the thing I mean, the thing that's
difficult is that there were two houses on that property and now there will be seven. So, you know, in terms of overall objective of increasing housing, it's the right idea, but it's Yeah, it what what does
it say that here? It says the the multif family housing a building with three or more residential units or two or more buildings on the same lot with more than one residential dwelling in each building. >> Right. Yeah.
>> Um the other thing that um 8 acres 32,000 >> square feet of roughly 32,000 3,000 ft in the line. >> So you come >> I do
>> which has a planning board processing >> right? But um if the subdivision solves the problem of >> for the frontage >> you create a a lot a lot a road.
Um and um yeah, we have to be >> Yeah, there'll be two two families connected by garage be somebody with a >> Yeah, I think as long as they're connected by roo. I think that those
options are um the the third option that I thought about was um having one of these um these small um smaller
if this town meeting passes you could have 1200 square foot ABU with a two family and a You'd have to think through how that would work, but >> we could probably do a big one and small. >> Yeah,
>> it changes your whole program. >> Yeah, it changes the program. >> I mean, the ADU is a possibility. I don't know what the I can't think of the details right now, but um I mean, this to me looks like subdivision. >> Can I can I ask for a clarification on
that? The underlying zoning is not the 6,000 square foot that exists on Pine Street. It's >> first step is to see to see if we can't allow
multiple, you know, single growing buildings on a lot. I don't I just don't see how they'll say yes to that. I mean, it just goes against the whole object and their
consultant never gave us that option. >> You don't ask. >> I mean, we're not we're not changing the density at all. And so, you're not changing the uh
how many units we built. And I guess it's that's kind of a neat thing that they were looking at doing. So, >> well, it's like I heard you ask so >> right. Exactly. >> Yeah. You're changing the spirit of what
the intent >> by doing. >> Well, that's that's the thing. The states to create multif family housing more than one unit. That was the state school, you know, 3 unit, 4 unit,
20 unit building. That would that's their tool. However, working within the state framework, we may be able to modify our law to be more flexible than what but still comply.
But you can still build that four unit building, six unit building, but we can still get the option. when I changed my dancing to give them the op option of doing detach
how that happens the intent of the entire 3A exercise was to increase that yeah to allow to allow to increase that right just because you're allowed to do uh what's
it 15 years per Right. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't mean a developer would choose. So if there were two existing houses on this property, we're increasing it to settle in the density a lot. So in some ways
full achieve, right? >> The nuance that we did as a town was to try and do it in very carefully selected areas that happen to be single family. almost every single one except big one
that's out. >> So question John will be will eventually you subdivide that whole area so there's more parcels with four independent hours. >> We can't do that. >> So you're building these for rent or >> no they're going to be single family own
but it' be like on a cont so they'll pay association. >> Okay. >> So you can't do a port. You can't I was wrong. Can't do a subdivision because it's not district. It's district A. So the
>> So that might be that might be again this is a this is an ordinance too. But you could make that modification in in our ordinance to allow that in the district. >> If I could give you one more thing to think about
this regard the parel and its totality. I've already subdivided the two lots along Fine Street. Look at this lot and its individuality. As it stands right now, it has the front engine area to be, you know, RA lot, a single lot. Yeah. You're bringing it up to four. I think
you're making the objective of a bylaw. >> Well, I think the first step is asking if they're going to allow this kind of thing. And if they do, I think it should be clear when you ask them that you're
not asking on behalf of the PL. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Because otherwise you get trouble. >> Okay. >> I I have a technical question. >> Um uh if you go down Pine Street in the
west side, there's a closer in the direction of the harbor. Um there's a development that almost looks a bit like this where things are more the buildings are actually more physically connected. >> So if in some way these four buildings
had porticos or something like that would that satisfy the multi multif family. >> Yeah. on Pleasant Street, too. That's a good example of exactly what you just said.
>> And across the street from Pine on the other side, there's tons of multifamily houses. I mean, it's just your side of the street. >> I'm going back to my sub. >> I think you could get >> maybe two lots, three lots. You don't
mind. And then one of the then one of those lots could not get you. >> No, I don't think they could. Where do I do? >> They have to create a subdivision road.
A subdivision road become and becomes >> if the district allowed subdivisions subdivisions. >> It a does not allow subdivisions, >> but the lotus could be a certain size
and all that. You have to the the lots the resulting lots have to comply with the underlying district >> in a subdivision. >> Yeah. So you so your total land has to be a certain size, >> right? You have to it has to be two time if you want two lots, it has to be two
times your minimum plus the space you're going to have for your road. And I mean, we used to do an enemy. It was like these two lot subdivisions. I can't get over that. We'd never do them here. >> This may be irrelevant to the planning
board, but the developers objective here. I'm trying to create such a small house, 2500 ft, first floor master, and some people who look an awful lot like John senior housing. >> Yeah. Well, maybe under the senior housing by
>> There you go. >> So, wait till wait till the town meeting and see what happens. >> So, the other thing is >> would this be allowed? >> Sure. >> Clustered clustered single family home. Yeah. We would limit your population to 55
>> which yeah >> just the curiosity not just just so you guys know there there you probably you've already heard this but some other stuff is being chatted about at the state level to um encourage smaller single family homes like like starter
homes >> the whole starter homes program they're getting going. It's just interesting. It's very interesting. >> So, the other thought here is that going back to the Oh, I was I was thinking this um Never mind.
I I have a question about the the square footage of the question. >> Yeah. about 2500 square feet a piece like a story and a half garage tuck
neatly behind the faces of the street >> and there's a landscape problem between the three single families on Pine Street and the four so I thought we had done a pretty I was expecting more of a
>> it's a new design and we rejected this thread the needle. >> Yeah. >> So, I think perhaps just to summarize maybe we're we think we're going in the right direction from what we want to do. We we realize there's a technical issue
that is not fitting within the bylaw at the moment. But maybe if working together with you guys and with Mark, we can see if it does fit. And if not, we'll we'll have to figure out what >> it may not just be the local state.
>> Of course. >> That's a reasonable plan. >> Oh, sure. Something about the options before you. It seems that that big picture the 3A was intended to allow for multif family housing.
It's not like the by line was do not allow single family housing, right? So, there seems to be some room there. There was kind of that in all the trainings we went to was >> Yeah. And as we know it was not perfect.
>> Yeah. >> And and of course being the first one that's before you. >> Yes. >> Might be some unknown, you know. >> Well, it's good that you came here to talk. >> Yeah. Good. >> So, the other thing that um I'd rather
see us rather than opening up MBTA can of worms, the other can of worms that we tal another can of worms that's, you know, on our list, way down on the list is to change our cluster bylaw to um instead
of having the five acres and I would suggest that um this might be a cluster in a good way. Uh and that if you change the cluster
bylaw which you which should be changed >> that um >> this so that's just another um approach to zoning changes um and we're not going to be able to change >> and that might be more palable to this
industry than bringing back >> more palable to the drafted that >> the senior housing is part of the April That would be >> and that by is already drafted. >> Oh yeah, on the warrant that would be
our quick. >> I'm glad to take a look at that on the website. >> You mean you still have to change your size? >> Yeah. >> Oh yeah, I meant to give you guys brief about that. Now it's not a good time.
>> So you mean >> we put in the garage so they had a common wall and they still the houses here. >> Yes. You have to change our driveway situations.
>> Yeah, you could do it. >> I'm so happy that you made the time for us in All right. Okay. Uh, what else? Um, anything more on articles? Uh,
I guess the only thing it's not put in our packet, but I think I'll just ask Mark to um, uh, draft it. Um, I'm not sure we need to vote it. Um, if the downtown does not pass, we would
not have a town center and a harbor's edge district. Harbor's Edge district and town center are referenced in ins and senior housing. So, we would need to amend those bylaws to remove the
uh those columns from the table and any reference to but Mark is going to figure out what that looks like and hopefully won't need to use it, but we do need to have it. >> So, that's the last
um the summary looks great. Okay. A couple other matters that were not on the agenda. Um, I I went to the MAPC legislative update which was
but what I heard is that there's new EOHLC or but no energy there's some energy bylaw we need to pass. >> I know about energy storage and energy. Can you look into that? >> Is it a planning board?
>> It's deadline is October. and they um I talked to the one of the representatives and said, "What the heck? We don't have an October town meeting." She said, "Yeah, it's ridiculous." But I don't think it's a a a critical but if we don't have this
bylaw for whatever this thing is that by the date, which we won't the they will be constructively approved because we met the bylaw. >> It's some sort of energy. >> Yeah. So,
>> we have to put that on our list. Um, >> it's just an environmental, >> it's a it's a it's a EOA think of energy storage. Um, >> the other thing is um where are we on our budgets then for
this year? >> We have I don't know every line. Yeah. >> But we're within our budget. >> Okay. Um, we should try to >> we should look at if there are any services that we need um in this fiscal
year. So, we spend it out if we need if we need it. We don't want to spend wildly, but >> then they'll cut then they'll cut our budget next year that finance committee. >> So, Karen's funding is is through
PPC. >> Okay. So um her price was within um our funding. Okay funding I would expect that our professional services we might do some of that to supplement um kind of
our next work on the down the general district and the um streetscape plan for this section. We might need some of that. So, I can't encumber any funds from this year unless I had a contract.
So, we're probably not going to be able to do that, but we do have professional services funds for next year. So, >> well, one thought I had was um you know, maybe uh training with um law or or
somebody else that um topics can also you know. >> Yeah. bring >> I mean people know we don't know what subdivision is and the other thing is um maybe subdivision by us
look at those or you can look we don't have a lot anyway it's just on my mind >> it would be something now we get >> we keep saying that we have been working
>> 25 you can only like one big project at a time. First year we did Yay. >> So we and we're covered. We paid 10,000 or something 50 toward the grant for the um general district.
>> So we probably should try to spend that piece this year. >> Yes. >> Oh, that's right. Yes. I >> Okay. >> Well, let's let's keep an eye on that. put that on the agenda of next meeting. >> And then you um I'm trying to get out
before 9, but I have one other question and that is you mentioned CST cell signaling. I I've been up I was up there. It doesn't look like anything's happening. >> We have a we were asking for regular updates and um do we have an update from
them? Um are they starting up again in the spring or >> Yes. Excellent idea. We got to go up there. I can't every day. There is zero activity. >> Yeah. They had they had said that when when we were when I was there last I don't know whether I was there with you
or I was there another time but they had said that they would be once they finished work in the fall then got it down for the winter and then they would start building and they have more designs and reviews
and everything else but they really begin after But but we had asked for regular updates. So it' be good to pro them to make sure we get those. And then also your storm water is done, right? We
think >> if it's done right now. >> So Weston Samson should go look at it in the spring and then we could release the money. >> We have we were holding 250,000 for that I believe in a performance. I think you
you want to hold that till the end of the job. >> Okay. >> You don't you don't release. >> You're not asking for it, but we might be able to release for but you you can decide you but it's just we should have West End. >> Speaking of accountability, I'm
forgetting the address on Summer Street on the Hill. >> Wasn't there a bunch of uh reporting that they were requested to provide at some point? And which one the one up? I'm just it just yeah I mean
>> conditions for catch were like basically >> landscaping things but >> you know they're not going to be getting to that for a little while a lot of work to do. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. It would be probably be useful for maybe Kendall to put together put our special permits all in one folder so that we can find them. So if we ever have one that looks like a prior one or if somebody asks we can say you know there's the doctor street one, there's
the rotunda, there's the I mean another one that has been out by the wayside is the transfer station. We asked for um vegetation. I think it's when you look at it, it's getting driven over all the
time, but we did ask for vegetation along the road. Um, and it would be good to have some accountability. Um, at least put them all in same place in a in
a place where we can come. So, work on that. I think >> Okay. Anything else? All right. Move to a second. >> All in favor?
>> I'm not quite done yet. City's only going to be around for so long. >> Don't forget there are five Mondays in March. >> Three weeks. >> Yes, because there's a fifth Monday in March.
>> 13. closer. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Down to the one paper. >> And I'm streamlining the FAQ. South together.
>> Yes, >> we made that state at some point. I know. I even heard >> I know he can do it but I just >> it's very hot. >> I think the browns are okay.
So he's staying away from >> side by side. >> Apparently found out not just Right. >> Once the and not
Microsoft.