Good evening. Uh welcome to the May 12th uh board meeting. Um a roll call. Um Mayor Foley here. Present. Uh here. Sue Silver here.
Great. And uh Laura and Peter are out tonight. Um the first um order of business is an approval not required from Kender and McDonald one spy rod kill.
Um the applicant here are you representing the applicant. Okay great um you know who you are. Why don't you introduce yourself? Okay go ahead. You want to tell us what you're Yeah. This is a very simple in our plan to carve
off the parcel a contained butter. So it's going to leave lot that is going to still have 180 on they weren't last time too. Hold
on. Except I can't. Can everybody mute themselves please? Thank you. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. So, we're just creating a revised body that's uh going to have a very small 230 square foot parcel. If you look
down, you can see close to uh at the bottom of the rock. It's not the just a butt switch property. If you look down, you'll see it's U. Can
you just show us 1423? Could you show us on a larger planet? You have the uh Do you have the my this small right here, the bottom of the rock where it comes down the little house that's on the railroad tracks.
So, this tiny little parcel So, where's the house? It's right here. Should we all move over there to see it? Yeah. Thank you. 30 square feet. Right. Correct. And the house is here. Right here. It's right on
the tracks. Right. I see the tracks. Right. House is like right here. It's tucked up right against in there or not? Yeah, it's right here. So, you're not removing any. Where's the I don't see a parcel? Yeah, I don't either. Parcel A. See this little parcel? Just a little
little tiny little tiny little right here. Right. The house is right here. Is that the one that's tucked right in? Yeah. Right. It's right on the side of the tracks. Correct. So, this is going to give them a little bit. It's going to give them a piece of rock.
And so, it's going to go to them. Yep. Okay. And it doesn't have any frontage on Nope. Nothing. It's just a non. It's going to add to their lot. If you if you drive by, you'll see the the rock the cliff kind of comes down and this will
give them a little piece of Where is their lot at? Where you call it up on GIS. It's But you can see this little It's really that little I'll show it to him. that little chunk right there. Unfortunately, uh I cannot
show this on the screen because I don't have an electronic copy in our packet. It's the wrong one. try to pull it up for people. You got to do Okay.
There's definitely electronic copy in there. Yeah. Okay. Hold on. [Music] So, can I ask another question, Sarah? Yeah, go ahead. Um, so Adam, on the actual application itself, where does it say that?
The division of the track of land shown and that's parcel A. Is that it? If you look on the screen, I'm showing personal A. Okay. So, it just didn't identify it, but it's parcel A.
Correct. Correct. You're having lot which is a lot and you have the parcel A just right. This would be great to have it out. Unfortunately, I mean the application
doesn't really let you check that box. So in terms of the notes, revised lot A has a total adding is we just go through the notes for a minute. Revised lot A it has a total
continuous frontage 281 ft on street. I see what it is. A little fine. Thank you. Haven't had a chance to discuss this fee internally. Um, so this application doesn't reflect what
we were just talking about. That little that little small parcel. So I have I have I'll wait my turn. I'm sorry to interrupt. Can anyone hear
me? There's no audio coming through. I I can hear you. Yeah, the there's something wrong with the audio coming from the room, it seems. Okay, I might have muted everybody. Did it just change?
Um, it was gone for like a minute or so. I'm to the US anytime soon. Hold on. First of all, um, thank you for letting us know what we can do. Um, I think
I Is that better? Yes, we can hear you now. Okay. I muted everybody by accident trying to avoid um um uh I now know where that button is. So that's good. Um okay. So um do you
want me to repeat that one? We're discussing the note. Mary was just making the point about the notes which I do want to go through one by one. And um so I Mark I believe asked this uh
Michelle Randazo today about our ability to make um notations on the myar concerning the notes. and she indicated that we can actually write on the myar or um and
also if you look under the date under the signature lines and date it says endorsement by the planning board is not a determination as to conformance with zoning. No official verification of any wetlands has been made or intended by planning or endorsement. And um I think
she indicated that we could add there's not a determination of conformance with driveway regulations, curb cut regulations, fire protection, frontage, um regulations, frontage. Um frontage would be a zone a zoning requirement.
What we do off? Yeah, because it does it's not applicable to She did not indicate that. She said we would add a notation. You can add a notation but not but not to alter.
Yeah. So um similarly um uh if we had a part a um I I was reading in the case law that you can note if something is not a building lot. In this case parcel A is noted as not a building lot.
Um so she we did ask her just this morning about that and um is that correct? That's correct. Actually we discussed that at previous meeting for a different different format. Okay that had a nonbuildable parcel.
Did you ask town council can we even review one spy rock as there's ongoing litigation on this property? I didn't ask her, but they're entitled to submit a lot of plans regardless of
um ongoing. I just find it confusing to look at all of this when really we're looking for some small specific portion of that. I think they have to show us the entirety of and also the write up the write up is
a bit confusing and notes are confusing too. The write up is a bit archaic with section two but that's the language that basically taking one part of the land and creating a one lot. Yeah. What applicants do is they put the
um they can put a descriptive on the map on the myar. They'll say, you know, define what lot a is. It does say it says parcel a not a buildable. It says that on the bottom of it. Um the
other thing goes into more detail. The other issue. So let's go through the notes. Revised lot 8 has a total frontage of 281 ft on Sea Street and total contiguous frontage of 154 ft on Spy Rock Hill and that's its current
frontage and it's not changing. Am I correct on that? Correct. Okay. The proposed approval Can we define what frontage is? Is it is it um you know for our purposes frontage means usually buildable frontage? Um I
think how are we defining is where zoning by I think a frontage is just along along a public way. That's a good question. Absolutely. Um and so the access to the revised lot
A is from Spyro Hill Road. Correct. Correct. And construction access on sea street. talking about lot A. I'm talking about lot eight. Lot eight because we have two parcels
here. It has access from the road. Right. Correct. And that's it. Well, there's also a construction entrance on sea street as we've seen. But so that's the third note. That's just a temporary um construction access.
The um the second note is the proposed approved pavement on both lots meets or exceeds all common drive design standard contained in section 8.5. Right. That's the that's the common drive. But there are it does certainly the common drive
does not access there are two lots in question here. Lot 8 and lot A. So the proposed the common driveway doesn't access lot A. It would access the the existing house and the accessory
structure. What he's saying, but they're all one parcel, right? But what he's saying is that it meets that it what he's saying is that it meets the technical criteria if it were to serve as the driveway, but it says on both lots. And right in this parcel, we have
lot A and lot eight. And the pavement that is the common driveway does not access one of those parcels. Is probably the parcel in the lot. But that's okay. Um you're not passing on all these notes
to me. You're not when you endorse a plan, you're not passing on the surveyor's notes. You're just saying the plan doesn't show something. I think the planning board can decide what we're doing and what we're not doing. Well, as a matter of law, when you endorse a plan, you're not certifying us to zoning. You're not certifying us to the
SE for multiple reasons. I'm sure we're going go through this with a fine tooth comb. That's fine. That's a fair that might be a fair point. I think that what it meant to say is on the entire property that pavement would comply with the common drive. That's what the surveyor is trying to
indicate there. Um the third note is the construction access path to sea street meets 15% slope requirements of the Manchester Fire Department's new driveway requirements for fire truck and emergency vehicles. So um again I don't
think this plan allows us to make that determination. No. Yeah. I don't I think what the surveyor and the design team are trying to do on the site is try to demonstrate that what has built on the ground needs
to require I think we in order for us to determine that we would need a engineer to go out and look at that but remember again when you're endorsing a plan you're not making but why is it on there's notification yeah it's irrelevant to I
think we can you said we can't strike certain items I mean it's still relevant to the ANR in front of us point. The reason I think the reason to answer your question, the reason why I think the design team put it on there is because again there's a lot of focus and attention on the site.
They're concerned and they want to make sure that they're doing the right thing and building something that complies with our laws. And so I think that they've done the calculations and the measurements and they just want to reflect that on the plan. I think that's so I think the the board without uh
discussing pending litigation is a matter of public record that there's pending litigation and so this plan doesn't want we don't want we are being careful that we're noting% the town's case I discussed this with Friday Austin no we do not
applicants do not think at all that you're certifying or affirming or making any kind of determination about zoning that that's in I mean that that language that we with the certification that comes verbatim from the application and then as I was discussing with Mark we any other laws regulations driveway
entrances we're not asking to confirm anything about that but you're not representing the applicant in the subsequent yeah could we talk amongst the board first and then ask the applicant um absolutely and then um I do have one
other question for the applicant just that's relevant to the application and that is uh and maybe so the applicant has not filed a complete application um and I um now this complete we're kind
of in we we need to get a handle on this um with town clerk because the town clerk it says right in the application 10 prints of the plan 10 executed copies of the form a check of $250 per lot so looks like $500 was received on March
24th. Um, but we don't have 10 prints of the plan. I don't think we can deny an ANR for that. But going forward, Mark, we're gonna we have to figure out how we get before the plan is stamped for an ANR, it has to go to you first to get me
make sure it's complete. part of the complete at this part. Yeah. I mean, and it seems to me that at this point the applicant didn't know this the process. If I had known Yeah. No, but the whoever you represent
the applicant, so it's just a little frustrating and I'm conveying my frustration. I think part of the application is the checklist and we used to get the checklist checked off or not checked off. So, I think that'll help in the review process. But it's my opinion that we
can't deny the ANR based on that. But for sure this has to be something we do a little better on. Um so that said, okay, Mary, let's um I think you appropriately asked that we discuss
among ourselves. So do you have suggestions? Well, I think um I mean I don't know what town council said as far as what we can change with notes. Um if the notes are
here, you know, we can say um beside each one um irrelevant to this ANR application or we can strike out certain sentences and words. um you know to me this appears to be
some sort of um selling point on something that is again totally irrelevant to the ANR in front of us. Um so I don't want to see any board
decision then coming back that oh these words were on it and you approved this ANR with this map. Um, so we need some guidance on what we can take off with the notes. Um, so if we can get a better understanding of what the discussion
with town council was, that would be helpful. Um, asking you that question. Uh she basically replied to an email where she said you can add a note saying that the driveway is
um you're not making the board's not I believe I wrote down over there the board's not making a determination as to the compliance with the driveway regulations or curbcut regulations. um which is essentially the same thing
as the current note which talks about the zoning and um you can add that um because you're not making a determination. The the surveyor who surveyed the thing has made a determination based on his calculations
that it meets uh certain slope and width requirements or certain pavement requirements. But yes, you have not reviewed that. So you can add that note saying that you're not endorsing um it for those purposes. And
just to answer your specific question, I did ask Mark asked her and I said, "Can we simply strike the notes on the myar in the same way boards are allowed to indicate on a myar that a lot is not a building lot?" And she did not answer that. I'm catching up here. She said,
"If the planning board has these concerns, you could add an additional, more specific reference to the plan where it says the planning board is not making zoning determinations, including reference to the driveways or to fire access or any other thing." I would presume, but she was silent on whether
we can strike something. So Mark's professional opinion is we can't strike and that we survey was making a representation signed it. So, I would be advised against altering the plan, but adding a note saying that you're not
making a determination. Are there any notes that we agree with? I think we agree with the frontage note. So we could say that endorsing this plan we accept the note about frontage and
make no determination as to the elements. But you wouldn't you wouldn't say that by endorsing it you are noting it on the on the Yeah. It's more about you're it's the two things you're concerned about.
It's three things. Yeah. Um just a procedural question. Um, the applicant previously in April asked for an ANR for what is now a different law 8 how
does how does that spin out if uh if that were um to be uh found that that they were entitled to
that ANR Like now you got a different lot 8. This this modifies lot 8. I'm just curious. I guess it's a why lawyers are here. But um we'd have to actually come back and they'd have to bring the ANR back to us.
Um right. Not not nec. It depends if they make the conveyance of of an unbuildable parcel between now and the settlement of the other ANR and if they
um yeah I I don't know if they would then subsequently have to they have to come back bring it back So yeah, but it was it was filed prior to and if they don't make the conveyance then I don't think that they have to do
it. Okay. Just out of I can answer if you want to be different deeds. You have a lot become lot 8 minus para. It's not registered land. So you just change the descriptions.
Okay. Other discussion? I find it challenging that we're talking about this tiny little parcel here, but nowhere could I find on this or this that it says that you want to take that tiny little parcel and make it make convey it to that next door. I didn't I
just didn't see it anywhere. That's what number two in the application says. It's confusing because Well, I mean, I I agree with that. Your your application doesn't have like a little blank. story in like a different story. You kind have well then then maybe maybe on the
drawing it should have been clear more clearly identified that it's this tiny little portion of Ace going to the neighbor next door. Yeah. You you never write that it's going to be a conveyance on the plan itself because that's that's you would do separately. Yeah. Well,
just something that indicates applicants usually do it to be conveyed. It does. We see it on the all the time. Yeah, but it's not required. So if someone is dividing has a lot of frontage and is dividing off
five lots that they and some pieces in the back which may or may not get conveyed. That's not unusual or bigger for a that you probably don't see here. So I I don't disagree with any of that. Matter of fact, I don't see anything
wrong with actually that little parcel they go to the next. I just can't find it in the drawing. I can't find it in the form that that's what we're approving. It's usually on the front page under where they describe that they're saying lot and the applicant
usually sends a vein to a budding property blah blah blah blah blah or just something it gives us little because right now I can't tell because it makes it we have no idea if this is staying in the ownership of lot eight or going to
somebody else. But I think that is as we talked about with Union Street um it's irrelevant but yeah um okay other discussion
um as is our practice uh if people have um if the public has any brief comments be happy to hear them hand up. Are we going through the other points? Oh the other what the other notes? Oh I thought we just did. Sorry. Oh, aren't we gonna
I mean, what note are we putting next to construction access? I don't think we've decided that yet. I thought we'd hear from people and then we'll resolve. Oh, I got you. Okay. Uh Sandy Rogers. Any I assume that's Sandy Rogers.
Oops. Sorry. I might I just might have muted you again. Go ahead. Yeah. Sandy Rogers, 82 Old Essex Road. I just sort of have a question more than a comment is I just
want to understand what's transpiring here. Is there a request to split up a lot even though it's not buildable and it would be a future determination of a different legal
form to state that access is just through spyrock. Is there some type of easements that get determined afterwards? I guess I'm just trying to understand the purpose of this ANR.
Yeah, the purpose of this ANR is to um see my is to divide lot a lot eight which is on Spy Rock Hill and Sea Street. Sea Street and Spy Rock Hill and
divide off this very small 230 square feet parcel which is not a building buildable lot and because so now we have two lots lot A which is this tiny thing and lot eight and there is no access
required for parcel A because it is not a building lot and all of the discussion of the prior form A which divides divided lot 8 into two lots or proposed two is not what we're talking about here.
So it's simply the division of this very small parcel a 230 square ft um not a buildable lot. Thus it does not need to have frontage. It does not need to have access. It does not need to have uh meet the zoning the requirements of zoning.
Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to have that clarified. Thank you very much. Okay, go ahead. Anybody else? Um, Sarah Pierce. Ah, yes. Thank you. Sarah Pierce, 9 Front Street. I guess I'm just wondering how does this benefit the
owners of Spy Rock andor I'm assuming this is at the small house at the left of the train tracks. Like what is the purpose in doing this? I don't think that we can not
it's it's not our business to know that. Well, okay. So, I'm guess I'm just saying like if I wanted to give 34 ft of my land to my next door neighbor, that's all you would need to do is come in front of the board and get an approval for that. and
that I'm just trying to understand the process of what like how and why this not a buildable lot and I can't we certainly can't speak to your particular parcel but um right that um you can carve if you can carve off something that is not a buildable lot
and where is the um construction access driveway in relation to this little lot? Well, I call it a utility access path and it's here. C. Okay. It's hard. This is really
difficult to read with all of the different little jets and you know I can't I can't see where what is what. So, it's not clearly labeled to me, but okay. Thank you. I was just trying to understand. Okay. Any other comments? I
see. Um Okay, seeing none. Um, I'm going to uh come back to the board. Um, so it seems like we would uh our our senses we would like to add
uh some sort of statement that says endorsement by the planning board is not a determination as to conformance with zoning regulations. So maybe say we could add in driveway regulations, fire access regulations, emergency vehicle reg uh access
um and zoning regulations which I would say I would go um sorry I would use the exact language of the notes and say that we make no determination
that the proposed approved payment on both lots meet seats all common drive blah blah blah or the construction I would just write say the exact language of each one so that it's very clear okay so
basically under the notes just repeat the second third and fourth the fourth one is already included in the wetland uh up under the no the con construction access driveway entrance on revised. Oh, yeah. There one, two, three. Yeah. Okay.
Like the middle three. Is that a motion? So, not yet. I'm I'm just trying to add to the discussion on what we should write on to write really small. I know. Well, I I think you should just
keep it simple to say that um you're not endorsing as as I wrote there uh making a determination as to compliance with conformance with driveway regulations and curb cut regulations and and common
driveway regulations. Fire. Okay. Common driveway. I actually think that's I would just list those three actually I would list the fourth one would be the fire access fire and emergency I would just list the
the four things of common driveway driveways I would agree you said because I think it's leaving us a little vulnerable um is saying we're not making a
determination, but it's saying what is written on here could be true. And um well, the surveyor is representing that it is true. So you haven't you haven't reviewed it, right, to know whether it's true or not. So you can't say it's not
true. Can't strike it. You can just say you're not making a determination. But I think we have to be what Sue was saying clear because one, you know, there has been no driveway entrance um approved. So the surveyor would not
know that or know that, right? Like there is a construction access point. Um so if I think if we go through the two three and four how Sue had worded it I think we're
um closing the tighter loop than saying so is that a motion to uh endorse the ANR with addition of the notes that the endorsement by the planning board is not a determination as
to the the conformance with and then specifically say that that the proposed approved plan pavement on both lots meets or exceeds the common driveway standards contained in section 8.4 for the Manchester zoning or the
construction access path to sea street meets the 15% slope requirement of the Manchester Fire Department new driveway requirements for fire trucks and emergency vehicle or construction access driveway entrance or that the construction driveway
access construction access driveway entrance on the revised lot 8 completed the adequacy of or nothing adequacy of that a motion that kind of yeah I guess be
added that those notes be added to the plan. Um, and I guess I would like I you know, personally I would like to add that we are even reviewing this property per the instruction of town council that we can do that during the litigation process because I
don't think we can but I just wanted to know that town council gave their she's obviously aware she was aware of this and she's aware of the location. So I think she would have advised us. Yeah. I mean, she didn't she
would have said, "No, you can't if this was submitted." But yes, the applicants are entitled to continue to submit applications for this property. Okay. So, a motion to endorse with those notes
added and a note that um uh and a note for the record that um that we can do this given pending appeal of the prior. I hate to hate to keep pushing this issue. We have to make some
note on here of what this ANR is for. It's all it is is for that parcel a to join someone where where is that written that describes what this is. So someone has read this cold after the fact. They would not know what this is about. I
think they would know that lot A is um where's the mention lot A anywhere other than the plan is what gets recorded. So the plan speaks for it. So this is we're going to say this is this is going to tell me that that's going to that parcel. Well, it doesn't it that's not
we can't make that. All we're doing is creating that parcel so it can so it can be No, I agree I agree with you Chris. I just I have trouble finding the thread that tells me that that's all we're talking about right there. I think and I
I think you had to spell out what two lots you're approving. Yeah, I you're looking a little too far into this. An ANR is really meant to be a simple plan that divides the parcel into
one or more pieces. And the plans should be should show um what is intended to do. And so uh transfer of ownership is is irrelevant. It's just the division.
I'm 100% on you, Mark. I just can't I can't find that thread anywhere reading this at all. So if if if that is what's signed, that is what needs clarity. Period. It is um one other note is that I believe the
zoning district is district A, not district FR- A. I think you pointed out um but since you think we're we're pushing too hard on the on the Yes. I'm trying to keep
usable from additional litigation should be approved. I just don't know what I'm ask one more question on the map. So under the um above or below the seal below the seal. Um it
says plan date, petition date. Prior ANR that we received are survey date and application date. What does plan date and what does petition date mean? I guess we the
original the other one. Exactly. Mary, where are you? So, it's right above county land surveys at the bottom. Land date, petition date. Oh, yeah. I see. plan is the survey and position the
application that terminology. So it wasn't on the first one. So we're changing wording I think the the the math is what's filed in court, right? For an
ANR registered register of deeds. So I think we have to be very clear. Um, I'm not worried about that. Maybe I should. Yeah, because really it's the application. Yeah.
Okay. So, um, we have a good catch though. I would um um I do I have a um do you mind reading those back? Okay. So, endorse the plan of
land for um Elizabeth Kinder and Timothy McDonald. Plan date April 14th, 2025. Uh scale 1 in equals 40 ft as completed and add to the
myar the following. uh endorsement by the plan is not a determination as to conformance with with or can I say agreement with yeah
why don't we say that it makes more sense agreement with the following one the proposed approved pavement on both lots meets or exceeds all common driveway standards contained in section 8.4 of the
Manchester zoning bylaw. Two, construction access path to sea street meet the 15% slope requirements of the Manchester Fire Department's new driveway requirements for firet trucks and emergency vehicles. and three construction a access driveway entrance
on revised lot 8 uh completed August of 2022 meets driveway or curb cut standards yeah otherwise it's right
are you saying when you say agreement what don't agree that we could say agreement with the notes that state that state and then Well, we don't we can't agree or disagree. We just haven't made a determination.
Well, what would you like to say? Yeah, it's the issue is actually we we're not determining as to the conformance with with zoning. That's why I kind of think Mark's Yeah, I think suggestions it's better. Yeah. with with driveway regulations, fire
emergency access, curve cut regulations that we don't we're not saying that it's conforming with those. When we try to restate the notes, it's kind of right convoluted. You're right. You're right. Okay. I'm just nervous. Yeah. going to determinate we is not a
determination as the conformance with driveway regulations, curbcut regulations, uh fire and emergency vehicle access requirements,
um or common driveway requirements. Yeah, that's good. I'll second that. That's a motion. It's a motion. Uh, cut and fire and access.
Yeah. Okay. Not a not termination to conformance with. All right. So, Chris has moved. No, I I'll move it. Do I have a second?
I'll second it. Any other discussion? Um, okay. I will say for the record that I think we are not doing the right thing. I think we because we even have the next one coming up in front of us, which we always have on these in the notes. It
describes what's being split, describes which one is not buildable. You're referring to that. Yes. Can we add a note to um an additional note? this uh plan. It would it would be the clarity of this
note. I read this. I saw the drawing. I reviewed it. I read that note. I knew exactly what they wanted to do. Okay. Let's add a note. Purpose of this plan is to divide lot A from lot 8. Yeah. And lot A is not available.
A parcel. Thank you. All right. Amend. I amend. Okay. Do I have a second? I second. Okay. Article art a
um Okay. Um any other discussion? I just want to make a comment. Um and I won't make it direct. I'll make it Yeah. to the chair that um I just think this is filed disingenuously is that's my view
of it. It's for you know it was soon after we made a decision um that went against the applicants on another ANR. Um, and I also, and so to me, I question
why the notes are there on this ANR and why this one was filed. Um, and my final comment is that our form may not be perfect. Um, but there's it's no reason to not fill it out and give us the
information that we're requesting in some and the number of copies that we need. Yes. and the number of copies. Okay, thank you Sue. Um any other discussion? Um I'll take um all in favor abstain Mary. So we have four four
one abstension um and no nos. Okay, thank you. Um the next um item of business is approval not required for um uh
329 Summer Street. Okay. As far as the way I feel now, um, we have an applicant here. Thanks, Scott. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Um, can I I don't see the in our file. Yeah, it is. I see the
application but I don't see the plan it up. The plan is not okay. Unfortunately, plan is not file. Work from paper. Go ahead. Um, explain to us what you're doing. I'm sorry. Introduce yourself. I'm
sorry. I'm at Scott 323 and 329 Summer Street. they're continuous even though the numbers are not which I've never understood that my whole life but um what what I years ago someone told me
if I was smart that my property at 323 um the existing lot is something like 4600 square ft which is basically useless um and they said since you have all this land next door that it would
make sense to just add end to 323 from 329 um just to make it a more usable lot. And then we did go to the zoning. Is that effectively it yellow line? Yeah, actually I've got it enlarged
here. Careful there. That's not good. That's not going to be worse. been working with a very small hand. And this is the existing lot here.
And sorry this isn't as big but still shows this. This is the existing lot at 323 and this is all 329. Okay. This this whole thing. Okay. Yeah. Can you show it
to please? Sure. Great. Let's guess the the small blocks that I'm trying to it's just if if you ever wanted to do anything, there's just no place to do anything now. So, all we've
done is just add this land to 323 and taken it away from 329. It makes it 17,000 and change here. And this is stays at 41,000. square foot. You literally are just pretty much drawing a straight line. The way I did the way I did that way you
showed that property line is what you're doing. Yeah. So you're literally taking the just we did get um relief from the uh zoning board. It's been approved by the zoning board. This is along the
building that it's it's a the existing is 4T. So, we just asked for relief for the extent of the building for the fourpoint setback just so it didn't halfway across the backyard.
So, this is all of this is parcel A. Is that correct? That's that's good. This will all be one parcel. This it shows it right here. This is This is the new parcel. That's the new parcel. So this was parcel A and this was parcel they're dividing parcel
A from lot one. Yeah. Right. Interesting how that little piece that that little sliver goes back years. This little tal my father bought a small piece from our neighbors. No when I was
a kid. uh to to make the driveway going down back. There wasn't enough space for the drive. Talk a little shift. [Music] So you want to create this. You want to create this. You want to create that
from this just literally. And the pink the pink parcel is still a standalone parcel. Am I right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, the house is still the house. You're just conveying all of this to this guy over here. Conveying this to this guy. This to this
guy. Yeah. This This will become like 17,000 square feet. All right. So, it look like the pink you guys. Okay. And then so the garage was on lot one. Yeah. But it's the garage for it's now
going to go to 323. Where's Yeah, this driveway here. This a drive. This is not This is a driveway as well, correct? Yes. Through here. Yeah. Any other
discussion? Very well filled out. It has a little arrow. Exactly. Exactly. Thank you. Give credit to Joe. Um, any other comments from the board? I'm gonna see if any public
comment. Any public comment on uh 329 Summer Street? Okay, seeing none. Um, so I want to move that the planning board endorse the uh application to subdivide property at 323
and 329 Summer Street as shown on the plan dated August 21st 2025 and a scale of one. It's just at 329, not
323 any second. Any other discussion? Um, all in favor? I um I in favor none opposed. Uh great. Thank you.
Um it's so easy. If you want, you can endorse that miler right now or you can pick it up at, you know, pick it up at the planner's office. Well, I'll endorse it tonight. Okay, great. Thank you.
That's easy. Um, okay. The next um topic is um discussion concerning the downtown visioning and work plan project. Um as we discussed last time, um I believe uh
Kathy McCabe has that uh has started work um right uh approved for contract I believe and um given that we're trying to uh this money is
FY 25 money and um the downtown uh issues seem pressing. The um thought that Mark suggested is that have her go and talk to some of the boards who only meet once a month like the historic
commission and the um maybe the DIP. Um and then she will be meeting with us on the 28th. Um the other piece is the thought was potentially to have a public forum um where we get um input but I
think we can hold on setting a final date for that till 28th. The proposed you had proposed a date of June June 9th 9th right which is our regular uh meeting regular meeting
um um which we could do um except that it's the you're way on the 19th. Oh, you're here. Okay. On 27 not here, but I'm here on the 28th. Um my only concern is that if we have
regular business and we have a public forum um that's sometimes reg sometimes an ANR could take an hour. Hopefully they won't. Hopefully not. Do we know if there's as much regular business in the next? We don't know. Not
at this time. Yeah. But you never know. I don't know what's going to happen. But why don't we tenatively use our uh Jul June 9th uh meeting to uh have a forum sort of a engagement with the public about downtown issues. Um it's possible
we might need to have a second conversation with Kathy ourselves subsequent. Yeah. Um oh certainly we will have a many conversations with her subsequently. Um but I think we kind of know what the
issues are. we can convey them to her on the 28th. Um, or at least what the big issues are, what the solutions are. We don't have to, the purpose of this exercise is to begin to think about solutions, think about scoping and so forth, right? And so, she's going to
want to get your individual feedback about what you envision should happen to the downtown on the 27th. So just like she's meeting with a couple other boards to get their feedback, she wants to get your feedback
as well. And then the ninth would be the big public feedback and also to try and bring out, you know, ideas for solutions to what she hears and what people bring up and what's been brought up before. So
um and then you know she'll work on trying to put together a um what do you call it? a work plan, a work plan, an outline of tasks, short-term, long-term, you know, things that can be
done that we can then study in a bigger project later. So, so Mark, when when when do you see the downtown improvement actually being presented? When when would they be presentation to them?
So the Kathy is going to go meet with them to get their feedback. Just as when's their next meeting? She's got a it's it varies a little bit, but it's generally like the third Wednesday of the month. Yeah, she's already been in touch with uh Steve
about their next meeting. So uh I don't recall what when it what what the date is. So it it may be next week. He's on vacation now for a bit. Okay. So, but it's certainly down to an improvement is going to be involved along the way. This
isn't a one and done. Highly, you've been on those meetings. I highly recommend there a rebel rousing group. Yeah. Are there minutes from there? Yes. I keep them. You keep them. All right. So, it' be good to get her the minutes from the that group I think in
particular. And she I know she's already read the message. It's a revolving secretary. I took it for the first three months of this year. And then did it then I then I'm doing this next one too. So but all discussion is in there talking about the downtown and
issues and ways to it's all it's all in there. Happy to forward all those meeting minutes to her. Well they should all be on the they should be but I don't believe they are. They go to Steve and I'm not sure Steve actually posts them. So he may Okay. You may maybe you guys
can let me talk and figure that out. Yeah. Great. Um actually I'll forward it right to you and you can do with it whatever. Um okay. So more more to come on on that. But I want we wanted to kind of let you know that that this is
starting a little bit out of sequence, but given the urgency of conversations about what's going on downtown and um um seems to be on everybody's mind. So we wanted to get going.
So um exciting stuff. Yeah. Go ahead. Thank Yeah. So um I won't be here. So, but I think it's No, thank you. I think it's um I think it's a good idea um for the planning board to
be doing this. Obviously, I um I would hope to see the planning board also doing what is the function of the planning board, which is doing studies for all of the resources and
needs of the town. Um, I hear a lot of discussions at other board meetings, uh, select board of land use for DPW or police and fire. Um,
and that type of thing really should be, if not highly involved with the planning board, coming from the planning board. That is our um what we're here to do is to do the studies and and um it's right on our you
know web page. Consider all land use and the layout and functioning of of the public ways and how they affect public health and safety. So land use being how we're using town land. So, I would hope that the planning board expands upon
what really is one of the main reasons we're here. Great. Thank you. Um, also on the downtown, did you have any update on the onetop uh grant or any um uh information you want to share with
us other than what you've already talked about? Um, not really. I mean, we're in the process of putting the application together. It's submitted early June and um be again for more comprehensive look at the
entire general district. Um kind of building on the vision for the core area of downtown and trying to expand that to the entire general district. And then based on what we hear, parcel, you know, change certain
zoning, you know, some zoning lines, create, you know, one or two districts. Um and uh what that would include and actually the whole point of this would be to actually just like the
MBTA is get an actual document that we can bring to town here as as well as streetscape plan for downtown work with a team engineering firm and architecture firm to bring in a revised
updated streetcape plan for the downtown and whatever else becomes identified whether it's changes to local sign bylaws, historic regulations, that's why we're trying to
incorporate everybody into to these meetings as well as the future. So can you have an outline of what you're sort of in proposing when you for the next for the 28th to be part of that discussion you think you may
want to try to prioritize certain aspects of that and um whether onetop pays for all of it or if there's a town match or how that actually does that work or if you can also send us all the link to the
onetop that I think that would be. Great. Um, any other discussion on downtown? I just I just have one question for Mark that that broader view for the whole downtown area beyond this scoping ex how long do you see that duration from visioning plan
to work plan to actually implementing anything. So I I think this little visioning project we're doing and coming up with a work plan is is kind of the basis for the next thing. And there may be some things we identify during this
process that we can work on as planning board or as other committees of boards for um upcoming town meetings. But the bigger project would um would begin probably the first of
next year, carry on for six or eight months for most of it. At least the zoning portion could be completed by so for for submittal to perhaps fall town meeting
um at the latest the 26. Yeah. If at the latest would be the annual town meeting afterwards. But you know again it depends what we hear. You know, if we hear a very kind of compreh, you know, the same
thing from a lot of people that we have a clear direction of what people want, then it's a little easier to put together a work plan and move forward with zoning changes and the like. So, um, so again, it's you can't really
predict exactly, but, um, that's that's kind of the timing. And then that would allow us to same thing with like seeking streetscape funding. We would be able to perhaps follow that
up into you know the next grant cycle to try to get funding. Okay, great. Um the next item is the um appointments of associate members. We're not going to appoint anybody tonight,
but um uh ask around Mary Foley. Um uh and Laura Tenny. Um uh start asking around for people who might be uh interested in being associate members. Um, if you can have
Greg include that in his uh um tide tide. Um, and I think it would be good to try to appoint somebody maybe in our first meeting in July. So maybe if we can get an applications, letters of interest by
uh July 1st as a Well, we have to meet with probably another we we we should wait before anyone gets appointed till we hear back from the attorney general. Okay. That's typically 90 days unless we
hear early. Take all 89 and a half of them generally. Yeah. So I mean I wouldn't I wouldn't try and appoint anyone until the end of July but maybe advertise July 15th then. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. So certainly start mentioning it to folks. Um it's
important. Um the other the next thing I think we'll uh also just want to bring to your attention. It does seem that the driveway regulations need uh a little bit of additional tweaking as does
potentially the general bylaw. Um, so just for the benefit of Gordon and Sue and um Ryan if he's if he were to be elected um the um driveway uh curb cut
basically the driveway entrance used to be the domain entirely of the planning board and we went to we had a public sitewalk every time there was a driveway application and uh you know Ron felt very strongly that the engineering
aspects of the driveway should be um evaluated by the DPW's engineers. And so we moved the responsibility to the um DPW unless the and we made a very narrow
set of rules around driveway entrances. A single per lot must be at 90 degrees so forth. And if they end um and if they um do not comply with that then they need to come to us.
Um so uh subsequently the fire chief has issue these safety regulations for driveways which is a little bit different than driveway entrances and um our regulations are seem to be a little cumbersome and uh
lack clarity little bit of clarity. So um we need to put that on our work plan and just and my suggestion is that we have two people uh go Mary and Ron worked on it now I
think two people at the next so think a little bit about if you want to uh jump in and do a small group that goes and makes recommendations back to us. So, um that's really vision. We do that
after the visioning session that we kind of Yeah. Um I think I think that's working on it. It's separate. It's it's related to downtown, but it that's so for example, driveways might have different rules depending on
different districts, too. you know, um that might be one thing that as we think about downtown, we may not want to have two entrances per per lot, but in district D, that might be fine. For example, so I think um Well, you
addressing are you addressing the general bylaw or are you addressing the rules and regulations? I think they both need to be tweaked a little bit. That's what that's I think they need to be evaluated with. Clearly, the general bylaw exists until it's modified at town meeting, right? So, the general bylaw
exists until it's modified, but um the regulations can be modified by us and if we want to make any changes, I think the feeling of the building inspector and chuck dam at least is that we should make some modifications to the general bylaw. So, who is
enforcing driveway entrances current? I think um that's that's one of the issues one of the issues that there's no clarity if you look at the general bylaw many of the sections are identified as
who is responsible for enforcing them and this section does not specify yeah so that's one of the things as well as like the submittal procedures and what needs to get done
and um then looking at regulations. Some of it's just a little too rigid, let's say. And so, well, so well, I guess I would argue back in that because, and I was not for this article town meeting,
but residents voted that in. So, they voted in what you're saying, rigid, right? So, so, you know, I and again, I wasn't a fan of what was proposed. I didn't I thought it should stay with the planning board for all the reasons you're
probably going to come up with when you review the driveway regulations. But um I guess and and we brought this up when we were proposing the change is what's the enforcement arm and you know told that we shouldn't be discussing
that that's not planning but the town as an entity needed to have something in place and they never did. So my question now, because I know of violations all through town and I know our board has been made aware of some, who's enforcing
it now and what's the process or is it just a a dead zone right now? Um, we can send out letters to people. Um and uh but you know again most people do go to public works and discuss their
driveways with Chuck and or Nate and they do go out and look at them. Um so I mean the process is happening the way it's supposed to. So what about the people that don't? I'm only aware of one. So So where is
that process? And that's and that's that one. Um I need to we need to kind of have some further discussions about that one which is on the school street because
um it appears that you know there may have been a driveway there before and that this was an improvement to an existing second driveway. And so they're they're trying to look into that right now.
So I guess the answer to that one is Chuck has has determined I think is that his opinion is that there was an existing unimproved curb cut where their now improved second driveway is. Is that correct? Yes. So I think we're waiting
for Chuck to So in that case I think Chuck asked the applicant they submitted some paper some to Chuck if I'm reading correctly and he's now going to make a determination whether or not there was
an existing second curb cut. um and therefore their curb that he's he's simply saying that um it's a improvement of the already existing curb cut. So
he's kind of looking at that with that new information. So um but enforcement is one of the deficiencies you are correct of in my opinion of the general bylaw. So um and you are also correct in my opinion that
the general bylaw exists until it's modified at um town meeting. Um so so I I my point is simply that um as a planning board I wouldn't put it off too much. Um, I think, you know, as
more and more building is going on, I I I think it's a black hole right now and we need to figure out who's enforcing and how. Um, it's why we put it on the agenda. So, to say this is coming. So,
um, I think we agree and I think I want to see it get fixed by November. That's when in in a November time meeting or whenever the next town meeting that makes sense. So I don't think it's that hard. I think it just needs somebody to really again sit down now with that
we've got the experience with the the regulations and you know go back and fix a little bit. So, um, another, uh, matter not anticipated by the chair because I didn't think about it is, um, I know Peter had and, um, we've talked
about it a number of times, um, now that we already have driveways and downtown on our list, but, um, Peter made the good suggestion, and I know Mary, you've made it before, um, but, uh, that we have a goal setting, um, discussion at one of our meetings. So, I'll put that
on um on an agenda for coming up. Make sure that we do agree that driveways and downtown and whatever other things um on our list are priorities because that whole town meeting comes up really fast
um as we know. But I I just thought of a question uh back to downtown. One second. So when is geography to be determined in in or did we have you
given the consultant direction as to what already constitutes downtown? Well, I I I think that's also kind of up for discussion. Where do people think it the if you because the general district
extends all the way from the boatyards of across the the harbor here around Central Street. It goes all the way up Summer Street to Lincoln, right? And it goes up into Norwood Street and you know up School Street. So it's a it's a
bigger district than just the downtown. So the idea here is to during this thing is to find out what people think of when they think of downtown and it's kind of the beginnings of the next step which would be the entire general district and look at that whole thing but here for a
kind of a quick and dirty visioning sessions um trying to put together you know get people to start thinking about it because it keeps coming up ever since I've started working here. So, um,
great. So, yeah. And it came up in both the select board and the planning board forums, so it's clearly on people's minds. Um, also, okay. Um, the other thing corresponds, we have something from the
Essex Planning Board, something from the longevity bench project. Did everybody get that? Send money now. Um there is a um location for the bench for in honor of Ron and a conversation
about uh maybe Memorial Day weekend of dedication. I'll keep you posted once that's um there. Also, I just got I just opened uh an email um from Ann Harrison forwarding at came to me at 538. Um but
I'll uh um and she's forwarding it from uh Christine Delisio. So, I'll just read it. Um I can forward the entirety of it to everyone. Um, I'm ready to alert you to a matter concerning public safety and
environmental compliance in our region. Paul Orlando, the building inspector for Manchester as well as Rockport and Essex, has clarified that his responsibilities do not include oversight or enforcement related to hazardous materials. This is important to note as it may result in gaps in local compliance efforts related to handling and disposal of hazardous
potentially hazardous construction materials. This concern is heightened by the city of Gloucester's current consideration of a permitting of a construction demolition uh debris transfer station on um Condolin Road in Gloucester. And we did receive a public notice of that. I
believe it was in our packets last time. While such or it came by email, I can't recall. Um while such facilities can be part of a regional solution to waste management waste management it remains unclear whether Cape an as a whole has adequate systems in place to regulate track and safely dispose of construction
debate particularly when it may include hazardous components such as lead asus or treated wood. Given the potential public health environmental implications I strongly urge your department to review your local and regional procedures for regulating construction debris. Clarify which agencies or
departments are responsible for houses materials compliance. Coordinate with neighboring communities to ensure consistent enforcement and public transparency. Monitor developments in Gloucester and participate in any public comment process regarding the proposed transfer station. Thank you for your
attention to this important issue. Collaboration across KBM will be critical to ensuring our communities are protected. Sincerely, Christine Delicia. Um I believe that there's a hearing tonight on that.
Um does anybody know there was a um it was in our last meetings packet? No, but there's no hazardous waste material sites in Massachusetts. They have to be cross
state lines to dispose of. So I that would be an interesting question. who oversees it for Manchester andor this street link or something like that. Um whatever the one in Gloucester is is
you know to make sure that there's somebody on site monitoring what gets dumped there. I believe that the um that the uh DP has approved given their
approval their technical review the hearing it was in our May 7th at 5:30 board of Paul and Gloucester was taking D has has issued a site
suitability report determining the site is suitable for the proposed facility. I believe it's an enclosed facility. We'll build a building. They're building a new building, a new solid waste handling facility um or
waste demolition CD waste um transfer station at 24 Condolin Road. There's actually a um transfer station there now. I'm pretty sure it is. Yeah. It's right
behind um the section in Manchester that's Magnolia Avenue when you come out of the woods just behind those houses between the tracks and yeah 127. If you come out
of if you come out of on Manolia out of Manolia and you go straight across 127 you go down that road it's a left. It's a big industrial area. It's Gloucester and we are notified because mansion trees. I think the town has no but those homes
are right below it. We do have homes that are we have home manage the residents, right? Yeah. Well, if the building inspector, back to the email, if the building inspector does not certify that, you
know, a building because I think if you have um you need certain letters of compliance for asbestous and lead paint and I don't think our board of health gets it. Who gets it in town? Who who makes sure that building sites are
letter compliant? I don't I don't think there is a town department. I think the contractors are supposed to follow certain rules. To follow up on that, Mark, you're exactly right. There are statemandated rules as to what waste goes where. So, it's it's
very rigid. Any job I ever worked on, it was one of the mandatory things. Every project meeting ever had every week talked about waste disposal, where it's going, certification. Do you have all the letters? Do all the contractors agree with this? Are they abiding by it? So that but for residential I think it
might be a little looser. Residential is probably looser than ones I worked on. Yeah. Yeah. But but again it's still responsibility of the contractor. Yeah. Ultimately, yes. Actually, so to Mary's question, one of the things that I would
like us to do is just this comes up all the time. who enforces this. It's to make a list of the various um issu various issues and a table that says hazardous waste, you know, like who
enforces driveway, who enforces the uh zoning, who enforces building code, who enforces so that we and residents um can uh know and there's a lot of confusion um for sure. So, I think that would be
very helpful and to have that out on the town website. I'd like to see us make that. I don't think it should. I think it shouldn't be hard for the big things, but there may be gray areas. And then where there are gray areas, let's solve let's plug the whole So, okay. Um,
uh, minutes. Just one one more thing before we go to minutes here. We did get comments back on the uh we did get the the 90% drawings back for the rotunda and and uh I know DPW is asking us to look at the
drawings to see if our comments have been included in them. I know Mark got a set I got a set of the drawings too. He sent them to me directly. Okay. So, and I'm holding I actually communicate with Mark. I know we made comments back to him. All I all I really
need Marcus I'll do all the I'll do all the red line if we read red lines. I just need to know what comments we made and formally sent back to them to see if they were incorporated. Yeah. Yeah. It's in site the site plan review
approval. So I'll forward that to you. Okay. Can you forward it to all of us just have it? That'd be great. Yeah. Actually Nate has asked me asked me to not send it to everybody because he didn't want it. He wanted to make comments first. He wanted to take a couple weeks. So, I took a look at the drawings and I understand what's going
on, but I I would like to know if they address the specific comments that we made. Okay. I'd be happy to do a red line markup if I have to. Good question, Mark. Where do site plan approvals or ANR approvals, right, that where can people find that on SharePoint? Um, and
not really. They're filed with the clerk. So they can get copies at the clerk's office if they want or in our office, but they're not able to track those that people can reference.
Um okay. And then before I take go to minutes, is there any public comment? Okay, seeing none, let's take minutes. Um, I'll start with um March 24th. Um, March 24th. Have people reviewed
March 24th? I think so. Okay. Um I'm just looking pulling up to see who was present. Sarah, Chris, Sue, Gordon, Laura, Mary. Um like we were mostly talking about. Do I have a motion to
approve? Um second. Um any discussion? All in favor? I so the minutes of the March 24th mark do say that we did not approve the minutes of March 12th. So those are not
on our list. So those would still be outstanding. So just make note that we need to still do on March 12th. Yep. Um, okay. April 7th. That was the um
hearing. That was fine. Uh, one, two, three, four, five. Mary was not present. This says Sarah, Chris, Peter, Gordon, you were present at that. Yeah. So, that needs to
be adjusted to include Gordon, I think. Um, Shannon, I don't know if Shannon's on, but uh you pick today. Okay. Um, he often makes errors on who is attending.
So that's that's like um so um which which this is April um 7th word attended Mary was absent. This was the public
hearing. Okay. Um uh do I have a motion to approve uh April 7th? So move second. All in favor? Mary's abstaining. Thank you. Um and April 10th, these are important
ones. I made some comments earlier that it got incorporated. Um Sue is now shown. Um I want people to um I think that looked okay. I noticed that it
mentioned Adam Wilson instead of Alan Wilson. Oh yeah, Alan Wilson on page two. Public comment should be Alan Wilson. I was I was not in attendance that meeting. Correct. You're not listed. Sarah,
Chris, Mary, and Sue. Oh, and Peter was there, too. Peter was present. Gordon and Laura were not. Um, people had a chance to review those. Great. I'll take a motion to approve the minutes of April 10th with the
amendment. Gordon Bruce, uh, sorry, Peter Morton was present. Alan Wilson and Alan Wilson should be Alan Wilson. Let's not get that wrong. Um, okay. Uh, I need the three of us to
vote. Oh, no. You were there, too. Um, I'll move it be approved. Okay. Um, second. Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor? Mary? I staying for Mary and three.
Okay. And uh, April 14th, not in the packet. Oh yeah, they are. Sorry. Um that was our regular meeting. Mary, Sarah, Chris, Peter. Okay. Everybody was present. Um
that was our last meeting. Okay. Um any uh take a motion to approve April 14th. So moved. Second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Okay. Abstaining. Okay. Mayor's
abstaining. Thanks. Um, right. Our next meeting is going to be May 27th. That's a Tuesday, I believe. Um, yes, it's a t it's the Tuesday after
Memorial Day. Um, and following that is June 9th. But as always, stay tuned for whatever adventure awaits. Um, and I will be there on the
uh looking to see if the Essics pass the word. Um, okay. And with that, um, I'll say Mary, um, thank you very much for six years of hard work. And was longer than
come back and see us. I know you will. Um, um, in person or virtually or um, and address her phone numbers. Yes. Um, we can get her to prove appointments and
things, right? Um, well, we do listen. We do look forward to hearing from you again and um, thank you. Be sure to pick your name tag because mine is 30 is like 28 years old from many years ago. I held on to it and I recycled it. So,
you never know. Don't say never. Um, but, uh, thank you. Thank you. Good luck with everything. Thanks. Um, I'll take a motion to uh, second. All in favor? He's done. I'm done. All right. Make
your name tag. Like I said, you never know. Thank you, everybody.