--------- Um so the first we have two hearings this evening everybody welcome to the um meeting of the board of appeals. Um we have two hearings this evening. Uh the first one is 109 Smith Road and um and the second one will be uh 17
Christopher Drive. Um and uh tonight on the uh panel we have myself as chair. Michael, you want to introduce yourself? Nick. >> Uh Michael Brown, associate member. >> Gray, associate member. >> Thank you, gentlemen. And we have our
clerk, um William Donnelly. um with us. And we also have on the uh on the panel on the hearing right now is Steven Gillings, I believe, the applicant for um 109 Smith Road. And so I'm just going to um briefly talk about what the
application is for and what we have um seen in the file um that has been related to this application. Um so uh Mr. Gillings is proposing to build an extension an addition um to his house on
109 Smith Road um 9 by 22nd story an 18 by 32 ft addition tearing off the roof of the existing house and adding a 1 and a half story addition um uh in replace of the existing attic.
Um and so he is unfortunately increasing the nonconformity of his existing building and uh received a denial letter from the building commissioner dated November 11th 2025. Um Mr. Rangel had submitted um building
plan sorry Mr. Gillings had submitted plans by Rangal planning and design um showing his intentions. He also proposed he has a plot plan that we were provided with um two of them. Uh one dated um let
me just have it right here. Uh September 22nd uh 2025 and a second one dated January 7, 2026. Um in addition to those materials, we
have photos of the um construction uh proposal in the attic area. There are support letters um from uh 115 Smith Road, which is the immediate AB butter um who has um indicated support provided
that the um addition doesn't exceed the existing sideyard setback. Um and uh and also a letter from the owner of 30 Beacon Street Circle. Um we have received an opposition from 102 Smith Road um stating that she believes that
the expansion is for additional units and um in violation of zoning. Um we also have the um um notice of hearing. Um this was originally um proposed to be heard by Virginia Donnu King, our zoning administrator. Um but given the um
discussion um she decided to um uh put this over to the threeperson panel instead. Um we also have additional design plans and as I said we have um this revised plot plan dated September the to January of 2026.
And um I believe that as I said with us we have the applicant Mr. Gillings. Um, is there anyone else with um somebody who's speaking um could just mute mute themselves until we ask
for um members of the public? No, Mr. Gillings, you should be talking, but not I there's other voices I can hear. >> Okay. Anybody? >> Um, so Mr. Gillings, why don't you explain to the board what you're proposing to do?
>> Good evening to the board. Good evening to each and everyone. And I thank you guys for taking your time to come and hear what I have to say. I appreciate it. So, uh, I purchased this home in September, the the beginning of September, I think the end of August as
a single family home. I would like to live there. I buy it with the intention to live there with my family, with my three sons and my mom and my wife. So once when I buy the house when I purchased this house I see the potential
of it. It was a little bit small because it was three bedrooms and the second floor, one bedroom in the basement and a bathroom which it wasn't up to code. The base basement bedroom wasn't up to code. >> Mhm.
>> Oh, I'm going to drag you guys memory back a little bit. If you look at um A-01, that's the existing footprint of the building. >> Mhm. >> You could see in the basement it have a
onecar garage, a bathroom, they put a bedroom down there, but on the plan it's not showing the bedroom because it was illegal. So I said first of all, okay, I'm going to keep the existing. I'm going to keep the the
layout, but I'm just going to push it back a little bit. So, my new proposal for the basement is the setback first of all was 9 ft 6 in.
>> Mhm. >> It should be 10 ft. >> Mhm. So the new addition that I did is I set back 1 ft from either side of the property. Make the addition a little bit
smaller than the existing house which was 9 ft 6 in 9 ft 6 in on either side. So I bring the addition which is 18 ft backwards 1 ft on either side to comply by the
zoning law which is >> 10 ft 6 in on either side. >> If you look at page A 03 that's the new proposal of the basement.
>> You would see I make it be a legal bedroom in the basement. I removed the bathroom from where it was in the basement and I put it on the other side of the basement because I want to have like a nice family room in the basement. This is a single family home. It's not
going to be multi-uses for my family. It's a single family home. I still maintain to have the garage in the basement >> and mechanical room in the basement. >> So, that's how I'm going to utilize the basement space. My son, my older son is
going to be in the basement. He's going to have his own bathroom in the basement. You don't have to come upstairs. So, that's the use of the basement. If you take back, if you go back to page
A1, you could see the first floor. The first floor is a big porch at the back. >> Mhm. >> The porch was 20 ft at the back. 20 ft pretty much close to the the whole distance of the house.
There's a small kitchen, a dining, a office, and a living room on the first floor. So what I'm trying to create is if you go to page A4,
you could see where I create the new footprint of the first floor. >> Mhm. >> It's a kitchen, dining, a small powder room, a living room. still keep the office, but on the first floor I have a
bedroom and a bathroom for my mom. >> Pretty much all open concept except the bedroom and the bathroom. Everything else is all wide open on the first floor. >> Mhm. >> Go back to page A1. On the second floor,
we have three bedrooms, one bathroom. >> Mhm. Those bedroom was a little bit small. The first floor have a bump out where you can see that little small roof right there. That roof just goes one story.
>> Mhm. >> The new proposal for the second floor. I have I still maintain the three bedrooms but three bathroom because I need my son each one of them to have their own bathroom. They can't complain. They
can't blame each other that you mess up my bathroom, you mess up the bathroom. Each of them is going to have their own bathroom. So when I go in there and I ask, "Hey, why your bathroom is like this? Why your room is like this?" They can't say, "Oh, it's Kamari fault."
Can't say is fault. This is a home that I'm trying I 20 years ago I tried to purchase a home in Milton and it didn't work out for me. >> Mhm. So I get this I purchased this home now hoping to have a dream home in in
the town of Milton. So as a builder myself I built plenty of home where now most home is like open concept each person have their own personal space. So that's what I was trying to
create to say that okay my three boys they could have their own bathroom their own bedroom if their friend come over they could spend time in the basement instead of spending time upstairs in the basement that open space we're going to have have
it like as a movie theater a movie room where >> Mhm. and Billy could go down in the basement and enjoy themsel can watch movie. We can hang out and it's quiet down there. We don't have to disturb any
neighbor, anyone. So, I'm just asking the board if you could just look at the set of drawing. The house is a single family. >> Mhm. At at the rear um I have plenty of
setback at the rear. At the front I have plenty of setback. It's just on the both sides where >> I didn't meet the requirement of the zoning board where I I have 9 ft 6 in. the addition I can't touch the existing
but the addition I I shrink it a little bit to make sure I'm I meet the requirement of this >> okay excellent um uh Nick or Michael do you have any
questions Mr. feelings. >> Um I just have a couple of questions about the timing of this. So the addition so you say you've um revised the plans so that
um you're now meeting the side setback requirements. Is that right? >> Yes. When I originally draw the the plan that was also I already did that the revive plan that I did in January they
the previous zoning u person asked me there was concern about the basement if the basement is like average grade and there was concern about the attic also because they said the attic they want to make sure the attic is not more than 2/3
of the second floor. That's the reason why I have to revise it. >> And so do these plans so the plans that were we were just looking at these are dated September 15th. >> Yes. >> Do these are these do you think in
compliance with >> Oh except the the because I don't have this setback on the sides. >> Okay. That's the only reason why I have to come in before you guys because on the side I don't have the 10 ft that's
required but on the new addition I I I build it smaller that's I meet that requirement. >> Okay. and the new. So, do we have are these plans for the addition the new
plans with the the smaller plans, the smaller edition? Do you know what I'm saying? Like, or am I just confusing everybody? >> No, actually, Michael, you're raising a very good question because I had the same one because I knew that there were new plans, but they all have the same
date, >> right? So there's there's like three sets that are in the files that we have. Um but they all are dated September. >> Okay. So the the the drawing that I submit in September, that's the original
drawing. I just do some amendment to it. That drawing is just it's not get get the building smaller. is just to be say specific like the basement is above it's average grade.
That's one of the um >> Oh, I see. >> That's one of the amendment I did because the there was saying that the basement is not average grade. So my survey guide rebided show exactly what
happened. It's about it's average grade because it's just right on the driveway side. That's a side that's go down. The rest of the >> the rest of the the house it's average grade. >> Yeah. That's on the um plot plan that
was submitted in January. >> Yes. >> Um the notation about the uh average grade >> is on the plot plan, not on the design plans. >> Oh, okay. So that was the concern about the
average grade for the basement. And the next concern was about the attic. If the attic was oh 2/3 or less than the second floor, those was the main those was the two concerns she have from
>> we have in November. Those was the two concerns. Everything else was okay. Those was it just the two concerns you talk about the average grade and the attic space. So those are what I >> And you have that affidavit from your architect. Yes.
>> That's in our files >> that talks about what the square footage is. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's because I couldn't figure out why that was there. >> Oh, you've answered that question. That's wonderful. Anything else, Mike?
>> Nope, that's it. >> How about Nick? >> There. If I have to find my cursor so I can unmute. Um, I don't think so. I mean, the is I'm trying to understand. I think you
explained it. I'm sorry I'm so dense. Okay. But um the denial letter was issued on a prior set of plans, right? >> No, this is is the same is the same set of plans. It's just because of the the setback, the 9 ft. I have 9 ft 6 in
instead of the 10 ft. >> When he issued the denial letter, it was it was nine >> 9 ft >> 9 ft 6 in. Right. >> Existing the existing house is 9 ft 6 in. >> And but what about the Okay. Was the addition?
>> All I'm trying to figure out is is is the is the are the plans that we're looking at >> were they reviewed by the building the code enforcement and is this denial letter relative to these plants? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um >> the reason why
>> the reason why they do the denial because I went down there I talked to them. They they explain it a lot to me. They said okay then Stefan the the reason why you I'm going to deny it is because of the existing house is not 10
is not meet the requirement everything else was okay but it's just the existing house that >> did not meet that requirement of the 10 ft >> okay all right I I don't I don't think I have any questions right now chairman
O'Donnell >> okay member Gray as I said you know we do have we do have this um um you know the the it's a non-conforming structure and the addition increases the nonconformity.
>> Um so you know that's sort of why these these um we get these applications denied um is because of the fact that most of the stuff that was built in Milton doesn't comply with the existing zoning. Um, and so, and I and I I
appreciate the fact that there was a question about the the basement, which hadn't been answered and now has. There was a question about the height and the attic space. That's now been answered. And as um the butter pointed out um on
uh his support letter was that, you know, the the addition actually is in compliance now with the sideyard setback, which is 10 ft. Um, so it's not as wide, the addition is not as wide as the existing house by, you know, like 10
inches, um, or whatever. So, um, so, so I I think that sort of addresses, um, why the denial was done. Um, and I know we have people that have signed in, I'm sure. Bill,
>> we do, but um, one of the people who seem to be in opposition is no longer on the Oh, we do have a hand from Glenn Pavichek. I'm going to allow him to speak now.
We see your hand, Mr. Pavle. >> I believe I'm unmuted. Yes, you are, Mr. Padlechek. >> Thank you. Um, I just wanted to point out that the the when uh Mr. Gillings was talking about building the addition on the house, we talked about the fact
that um it was non-conforming on the sides as all of them are and his uh addition on the back of the house was moved in a bit to make it conforming to the side sets. The other issue though was you know the the bumpout on the left side of the house which is currently a
one story is now going to be uh two and a half stories. >> Um so there is an there is an um a nonconformity that is being extended um because the the non-conforming wall of the house is now going to be much
higher. >> Um and I I was under the impression that was part of the reason for the denial back in the fall um because it was expanding the nonconformity. I just point out that the three houses there, 109, mine at 115, the next one at 121,
um, all have these sides set issues because they were sort of squeezed in between the existing 103, which was a a prior house, and Beacon Street Corner. >> One of the things the designs did was put these one floor additions on the
end. On the end of 109, that piece is one story. on my house at 115 both ends are one story with a colonial in the middle 121 the uh end of budding me is one story um also my worry is if you
start building up you know uh making those one-story additions two and a half stories you're looking at you know you know if some future owner of my house were to do it you're looking at you know 30 foot walls less than 20 feet apart because they're non-conforming on the
sidelines Mhm. >> So I had asked that in fact the second floor um also be set back a little bit above that at least to try to bring that into conformity. Um you know I recognize that if someone builds a house that wants buys a house and wants to do
something that's in conformity with uh zoning laws, I'm not going to object to that. I mean that's the build their right in my mind to to build anything that conforms to zoning. But I was worried about the addition to the second
floor of that one floor bumpout. So that was the purpose of my letter and that was nonconformity I was concerned about when I wrote the letter >> of of qualified support. >> Right. >> Yeah. I mean, I think you know that you've raised a good point is because we
did have Nick, did you Nick and Mike, did we sit on that one for Pleasant Street where there's a special permit for the for the construction? And then also um is there a variance for increasing the height of the existing
nonconformity? And in this application, I think all we've got is this special permit for the additions, not not um a request for variance for the uh second story
over the old house. >> Does that matter? I mean I it's not >> Yeah. >> I So I take Mr. Pavichek's point about I which which I think if I'm I again I'm it's been a long day and I may not I may
not have got it but if If the applicant I'm just thinking this through. If the applicant moved the side bump out two twotory edition the second story of that half a foot back so that
it was it complied with the 10 ft that that would rem would >> might literally comply with what the side setback is. But >> wouldn't it create a pretty weird looking house? >> Yeah. you know,
so I I don't know. Um, um, anyway, >> I don't I don't have any other questions. I was just >> Yeah. No. So, um, so thank you, Mr.
Powichek. Anything else that you want to add? >> You muted. >> No, no, that was my that was my point. Just wanted to clarify the, uh, the letter submitted. Got it. >> Okay. Um, Bill, is there somebody else that has a hand up?
>> I don't see any right now. >> Um, Mr. Gillings, did you have anything else that you wanted to add before we go into discussion on this? >> Yes, I would like to add Oh, when in September, I go to the building department and I pull a demo permit.
>> Mhm. And if you can look at most of the pictures that I sent to you guys, the house is pretty much demo because with the I have the speak to the architect and speak to the survey guy and then I went to the building department and I
was asking them if there should be any issues and everyone said, "Oh, it shouldn't be any major issues." So, I go ahead and I file the demo permit and I got the house with the intention that, okay, I'm going to
get the permit soon. I'm going to start the the addition and start the work. So, right now, the house is completely gut. >> Well, that's not good. >> That's what I That's what the building inspector told me after the fact. So,
yeah. M >> but when I was pulling the demo permit, no one reject, no one say nothing. >> Well, okay. Um so, anyone else um having a hand up, Bill? >> No. >> Okay.
Um all right. Um we will now uh close the hearing on this and then go into a discussion on the uh on the decision. Um, all in favor of closing the hearing, >> I >> I
>> Okay, gentlemen. Um, I mean, as I said, we've had this couple of times where so, you know, in the last few months where we've been looking at these denial letters because they're increasing the non-conform. Even if you are in fact bringing in the side so it does comply with the setback, you're still making a
non-conforming structure bigger. Um and so hence we have this um this matter before us. Um I you know I'm I'm kind of he's he's got way lots of room in the back. Um lots of room in the front. Um and as Mr. Halvich pointed out it's it's
the sides. You wonder why people just didn't stagger the houses instead of all lining them up in a row like that. But I suppose that requires a little bit more imagination. Um uh but um I mean I'm I'm sort of respectful of the fact that he's now brought the addition
in. So it's now in compliance with the setback. So it's really just a question of the addition on the uh on the existing house and that problem and then of course just the the major increase in the size. Um so what do you folks think?
Well, I think you want to go last. So, I'll I'll go out on a ledge. Okay. I hope there's not ledge where you're digging the foundation for this new addition should we decide to grant it because that's expensive. But, um I note that the that the size of this house
relative to the houses in this particular neighborhood is a lot smaller. >> Yes. So, the fact that the House is is in this in this and by the way, congratulations on providing us with a really detailed clear set of plans. I know we have three sets of plans and
that's confusing, but sometimes we get some pretty rudimentary kind of sketch-like stuff, and I appreciate the time and effort that you put into getting us a real set of architectural drawings and a site plan and all of that. That really helps the helps us figure out what the situation is. Okay,
enough of that. The house itself is is pretty small for the neighborhood, right? And I I'm sympathetic to the applicant's need for space. Okay. Um it it's a tight it's a tight it's a tight to the it's tight to the lot line, but
the the original structure is tight to the lot is is is doesn't comply. And to my eye, the addition itself is primarily extending into the backyard
where there's plenty of room. Right. So, and the the addition itself has been corrected, if you will, so that it's complying at 10 ft back. I appreciate the the nod there to the you know I I'll leave it to others to decide whether it
looks better being flush or better with a half foot cut on either side. But but in any event, it's a I'm fine. I think I'm fine with it is what I'm trying to say. I I recognize that the that the it's it is a little it's going to be
taller on the on the on both sides of the house, particularly on the Pavichek side, but if >> if there it's we've established that it's only one it's still a single family, right? There's no multiple units going in there. We've established that
the basement is usage and design is is going to be compliant with the otherwise compliant with the bylaws with the egress and all of that. So I I'm inclined subject to listening to what my esteemed >> you know me attorneys of the board who
have been charged with like >> figure looking at architectural plan. I'm I'm I'm curious what you think but I'm I'm kind of in favor of supporting the application right now. How about that? for a special permit. For a special permit,
>> thanks Nick. I I agree. You know, I think that and and again, I also thank you um for submitting these plans and and for doing a good presentation and explaining what all this is. Um I agree. I you know, the addition is going to to be in compliance with with the bylaw.
Um, and it's it's a tight lot, but um, I don't I don't really have any issues with it. >> Okay. Uh, I agree, you know, with you guys. I mean, as I said, the I appreciate the fact that it's sort of going to have this little tuck in so that it is in in fact compliance. I
appreciate the um input from Mr. Pavichek about the impact of the height on his side because it's now going up another story. Um but um I think all in all uh I I don't have any real reason
not to approve this. Um this there's certainly enough room on the site for um this addition and um and it certainly makes the house more usable for u multigeneration living um as they have
proposed. And so I'm in um I'm in favor of granting the requested relief. >> Thank you. >> We have I have a motion. >> I move we approve uh the special permit subject to the um the usual requirement that it be in substantial compliance
with the material submitted to the board. >> Any second? >> All in favor? >> I I Okay. Um, Mr. Gillings, congratulations.
>> Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you. >> So, we will we'll have to draft the decision. Um, it'll be submitted to um the uh the clerk. We all have to sign that. It gets signed over. It gets delivered to the town clerk. Um there's 20 days for people to file an appeal
after it's filed with the town clerk, at which point um if there's no appeal filed, you can record the special permit at the registry of deeds and uh and proceed to get your building permit. >> Thank you guys. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> And thank you um the members of the
public who signed in and for people that sent letters of support and letters of opposition. We appreciate your input onto this decision. >> Luck cleaning all those bathrooms. Yes, >> man. The water bill is going to be ridiculous. >> I can't say no to the poor guy with
needing bathroom for each kid. I mean, let's let's I mean, I could, but I it's a great I I understand your design. It's a worthy worthy goal. >> I don't know. My father was in the Navy. You got three minutes. That was it.
>> I know that that was not part of the record. So, >> okay. Thank you very much. >> Byebye. >> Bye-bye. I got it. >> Okay. Next, um we have up um Christopher Drive, 17 Christopher Drive.
Um the um application uh by Mr. Ryan um Yu Yen and Tracy Nen. We're probably mispronouncing that. I apologize. um who are represented by attorney Marian McTrech. Um
in this uh this application um is triggered by the fact that um there was an illegal construction of a carport um done without a building permit. Um, uh, the, uh, town issued an enforcement letter,
um, dated, uh, December 30, 20. Actually, that's for the main page. The enforcement letter from the town is November 12th, 2025. Um, and then town council has provided a letter dated December 30, 2025.
Um, we have a letter from, um, Ms. Metric um explaining the application by the client. Um we have a a conditions plan dated October 14, 2025 by AGH Engineering.
We have a carport design package um set of plans. We have an existing conditions with a sketch of where the parking for the um the RV um was previously located before the um carport was built.
Um, we have uh specifications for offense. We have a copy of their deed dated August 2nd, 2017. The existing uh subdivision plan for Christopher Drive in 1957. The assessor's plan, the property card,
and we have support letters from 11 35 and 29 Christopher Road, um, Christopher Drive. We also have an opposition letter from John Kenny, the owner of the property next door, 23 Christopher, um who has sent in a letter
and pictures. Uh I think that is the contents >> of the file with the uh board of appeals. Um and I see that we have um the
applicant uh Ryan Nuen here and the attorney Mary McKetric. I see uh the Kenny's are signed in and um is there anybody else? Bill,
is that everybody? >> Just an iPhone anonymous, but >> Okay. >> So, everybody. >> Okay. Um so, Ms. Mcketric, >> nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. I'm Mary McCetrick and
I'm here to represent the applicants here. So, you've heard a brief um description all yes the applicants did erect a carport without a building permit and as
a consequence in part of thinking they didn't need a building permit they erected the carport too close to the lot lines in the back and the side. So, that's the situation that has given rise to this hearing. Um, the reason we're before the board of appeals is to ask
the board whether they would consider approving some zoning relief to keep the carport in this general location but at a reduced size. So, the height of the carport would be reduced and the length of the carport would be reduced. Um this
this is an and a fence a commitment has been made by the owners of the property to put a fence up on the side closest to the neighbors who are objecting. So the purpose of this particular proposal is to try to mitigate the concerns that the neighbors have. They felt it was unattractive. They didn't like looking
at it too tall and non-conforming. So not in compliance with zoning. Um, the reason for the location is that it's the rear left corner of the property and putting the carport or some kind of garage structure as far back as possible
puts it as far away as possible from the neighbors neighboring residents, the residents of the neighbors who are objecting. It also puts it farther away from the applicant's house. the original um the the reduced size of the carport.
Um I'm I just want to make sure I have the numbers right here. So, first of all, we're still talking about a rear setback of 3.2 ft and we're talking about a left side setback of 1.5 ft. So, there's a clearly significant variation from what
the zoning bylaw requires. Um so I you know we're asking the board to consider whether it might make sense at this reduced size for this carport to leave it in place. Um it's placed on a cement um base that the nuance had to
construct. They obviously had to pay a company and it was their error but they had to pay a company to build this car. it it's a um structural um elements are put together on site uh which is why the company has told them they can reduce
the size of the carport as long as they're using a similar base um and they they they have a the reason this all moved forward fairly quickly um is because the applicants bought an RV. It
has a rubber roof and the roof needs protection and so that carport would be a great way to protect the roof. Um, the RV is larger than their regular automobiles and they they needed to make a little larger structure to protect it. They did they did have the RV parked
alongside their house before they constructed this carport. So, they I guess we're asking the board to consider various options. Um, all of which are within the limits of what's being requested at this hearing. First of all,
if the board does not want to entertain any zoning relief for the structure, then the noans are going to be have to relocate the RB back next to their house and they're going to have to construct a protective structure over the RV there.
That places the the the carport such as it is next to the neighbor's house. And so the Neoans felt that this location in the rear of the lot was better for everybody. better for the neighbors and better for them because they're not looking out of their house at a carport
in between their house and the nuance house. So that that was the fundamental reason they chose this location. The um the carport has to be big enough to protect the RV, but it doesn't have to be as high as it is. And I've looked at
the structure and it does look high sitting in the back of the lot. And I understand, we all do, why the neighbors were objecting to the way it looked. Um, but I gave you some calculations for uh the so just backing up a little, the
RV is 25 ft long, 10 ft wide, and 11 ft tall. So it requires a structure that can encompass those dimensions. The vehicle was purchased the Mrs. Neyen has been very ill. The purpose the the the purchase of the RV was, you know, a
special thing for the family. The idea was that they wanted to be able to take some family trips together, spend as much time together as possible. They've been through a very difficult period with their family. And so they, you know, they purchased the RV, they got the car port up quickly, and then all of this happened, and now they are having
to decide what exactly to do to to accommodate these concerns and to deal with the zoning issues. Um it uh at the revised side size the rear and side setbacks will still be non-conforming.
However, when a fence is installed at an effective height of 8 ft on the closest lot line, the visible height of the carport will be 4.6 ft and of that height 1.84 ft will be of the peaked roof and 2 feet of the wall. So that
does considerably reduce the view of the carport from the neighbors lot and it's the rear lot of their lot. Um the I think um well the proposal had support from other neighbors but those
aren't the neighbors who are closest to it but I think it's important to know that the neighborhood does generally support the nuance and I acknowledge that in the letter from the neighbors they also said you know they have sympathy for the medical issues and and problems that this family has had but
they didn't feel that that justified um erecting this this carport in violation of the zoning. Um, I I've talked to Ryan Neuyan um about some other options as well that are sort of uh would also
require zoning relief and would be included in the scope of this application. Um, and I'd be happy to if the board would like to allow him to speak, he can explain what those are. Um, I thought it might be fulf.
You have the plans from the company. They're they're detailed plans, but therefore um a modular structure essentially. So, a modular structure that can be redesigned in various ways. Um, the base for this carport was put in by Mr. himself with the help of a
contractor. He's probably spent more than $15,000 putting this together. Um he's basically trying to come up with a way to not waste all of that money and come out of this with some way to protect his um new RV.
So that's a summary. Um I'd have we'd be happy to answer questions and Ryan Neuan is here and he can speak as well if you'd like to hear from him. Um, I'm trying to think um whether Well, gentlemen, do you have questions for for
Mr. Nen or should we um uh speak to the Kenny's next? >> I really want to know what the how this comp how the relief obviously we know we're talking about a
a variance, right? which is a lot which is a really strict standard >> and we're talking about this is Nick's opinion a huge intrusion into the side setback right it's a foot and a half
from the property line and it you know >> the zoning bylaw stands for anything right it kind of stands for exactly not doing something like this so in order for Gray here to be able to grant
even consider a variance >> for a super nonconforming structure in my view. I I need a a super airtight. Yeah, this fall there's there really is it meets every requirement of
a of a variance. That's that's going to be I'm just telling you now probably not surprisingly that that's where I'm going to struggle, right? Because it's it's huge. It's dark. It's right. It's a foot and a half from the property line. So I
I'm going to need a lot of help getting to how this comply a variance could be granted in this situation. That's that's that's all I have to Yeah. from whoever is is going to help me with that. >> Mike,
>> I mean, if Mr. Nad is here and you like to speak, then I'm I'm happy to hear him. I I think this is a tough case. We might as well hear as much as we can. >> I agree with that 100%. >> Okay. So, one, Mr. Nun, we'd like to hear from you about the sort of
reasoning behind this and then we will um entertain um um the testimony from the other participants in the hearing. >> So, welcome Mr. Nan. >> Good evening, everyone. Uh my name is
Ryan WS and um I reside at uh 17 Christopher Drive. Um, so, um, like, um, our attorney was, um, was stating earlier that, um, I know that I'm supposed to be, um, pulling the permit
and doing the, um, basically like to go through the whole process. Um, before I put it up, I didn't I didn't know that I would need the um, I because it's not attached to the house. So I thought that I um I
don't need the to going through um like all the permit and everything. That's the reason why I put it up and and after I put it up then I um then I knew that it was um that was wrong and I even though it's not attached to the house I
still have to go through the whole process. And um so my intention at first is that you know when we when we uh when I bought the RV is that like um was staying in the um application as well as
our attorney that you know because my my wife is still recovering from cancer and we would like you know to take time um every time we have um every time we have so um to spend time with our two teenager and a family to
travel around and that's the reason why you know I put the carport up and um and um also I found out that you know after I bought the RV that you know the RV is a rubber roof is not like a metal roof like the other car so it need the
protections for the um for the RV. Um that's the reason why I you know go for the um the car port and um when I order the car port online you know they have a standard either a 10 um they have a a a
set um RV size which is you know the height is either 10 ft or 12 or 12 feet and um the 10 ft will not be able to fit um the RV. So that's why I ordered the the 12 feet. Um but when I put it when I
put it up it, you know, to be honest, it's it's still like it's way too high than I um than I expected. And that's why I I um you know I that's why I look before um you know the before the um the
tower mutants um you know mechanis they he um he uh came to um our house and talked to us you know I even looking around to see if there's another company they be able to come and customize it to be um to
make it like shorter as well uh um shorter and lower you know because it looked too high and um so and then I be able to found that they be able to do that but before I can do anything then um the tower mutant told me that you
know I cannot do anything until um until I um I going through the zoning boarding as well as um other um all the proper procedure to do that >> so that's why like everything is on hold
um even for the fans um you know I I have to put it on hold so because I can't um I can't do anything until um the hearings and then I also talked to um our neighbor a few time and as well
as our neighbor daughter to you know to propose all the things that I can change to make it you know um like suitable for for my family as well you know it's not going to um it's an eyesore for a neighbor. So um
so I you know I propose I say to and also in the application that it's going to be longer and shorter and with the fence I be able to put the fence up and um like I say I beble to like plant some um some bushes so that it's going to
cover it. So basically by the time we we reduce the height and the size basically is almost the height of our um our shed or the neighbor shed um next door. So it's it's not that um visible
like it is right now. And I think that you know is is going to be better that you know rather something that is you know that's completely cover it rather than you know talking the RV outside and then they look at the vehicle all day. Um so that's my intention for having the
RV and before like also in the application as well as in the the diagram that when I when I before when I where I parked the RV um which is um about uh 17 ft away from the neighbor
um house um which is where I parked before versus now where the RV uh where the RV park in the carport um it is >> approximately like 40 ft away. So by the time we by the time we reduce it to a smaller so it's going to be at least
like 50 ft away from the um the neighbor um the um sun room. So that's why that's the reason why like I push it that um all the way in the back. So it's is you know it's less visible to the neighbor as well as
um as well as you know um too close to them um to their house. So that's the um so that's what I was um looking for to do. So I think if I I really you know I
really need a vehicle for you know uh to travel with my my wife and the kids you know with all the time that we have. Um and um and I I I strongly felt that you know in the back will be will be less visible
for everybody and you know with the um rather than parking close to my house um closer to the house. Um, so that so I hope that you guys be able to, you know,
um, be able to, you know, see if it, you know, if when I park it close to the house is, um, it's going to be, you know, more more visible to them rather park in the back with, you know, with the gate or something that is covered. Um and that's
why I was proposing to see if you know if um we won't do we won't be able to get the variance and if we move over um and pop it closer to um our house then it's is I don't think they will um just based
on my opinion I don't think they going to like it either because it's going to be much closer to their house. It's still 30 ft away from the front of the property and it's still 17 ft. So, you know, it's not going to be any variance. Um, but um then I, you know, I spend a
lot of money, you know, to on the carport as well, you know, to the RV just to make my my wife happy and, you know, whatever the terms she have left. So, um, that's that's that's the the reason behind it. And I think if or you
know if they um if the you know if the board are okay if you know um if I can park the RV in the back you know I can be able to park it like close to my house as well but instead of wasting the money I can be
able to you know I can still use this um this the same um I've got the footing as well as lowering it the RV to like eight feet. That's another option that I can I was thinking to you know I can load it to a feature. I can just park all my car
in there and then I can be able to park the RV in the back of our house. So that's the two option that you know I went over with um with um our attorney and to be able to present
it to the board. >> Thank you Mr. Nan. Um, I see that the Kenny's are are Did anybody have any questions for uh Mr. the applicant? >> I I just have one question. Um, and so
uh we've got photos here and I think these come from your neighbors, Mr. Win. Um, but um I'm just looking at right now next to the carport there's a metal fence, right? >> Yes. Is that does that fence is that your
fence or the Kenny's fence? >> That's our fence. >> Okay. Um do you know looking at these pictures how are you able to tell how far the lot line is from the side of the carport
today? >> The lot line. So based on the the surveyor he told me that from the fence it's going to be like another foot in. That's >> on the plot plan it says it says one and a half ft. >> One and a half ft. >> Yes. >> One and a half feet. Yes.
>> Okay. No other questions at the moment. >> I just had a quick question. Mr. Wayne, did you speak to the Kenny's before you started this whole thing? >> Yes. So, I did talk to um to the the Kenny's and um I did talk to him before
I put it up and and then I talked to them after again. So it it is a misunderstanding. I asked him you see if it is okay for me to put um the cop up and he's saying is it's your land you can do whatever you want. So that you know I I so I thought that I it's going
to be you know okay and then and then afterward I um after talk to the commissioner as well as the um the code enforcer then I talked to him again and he say oh I thought you were asking me
to put the fence up. I say yes, I I did say that I and he saw me doing it and with the footing and as well as cleaning up and um so I did I did um propose that to him and then um so because um and
that's why when he said that I thought you know I thought it's it's not a it's not an issue at all because um like I I moved here in 2017 and I I know all the neighborly well and they know me really well too, you know. I I always you know
helping around the neighbor with you know so that's why they are supporting after um for the um after I talked to them they have no issue at all so that's why I did talk to him before and I did
talk to him afterward um and then um and then afterwards the um his daughter told me not to you know not to talk to him >> um anymore so that I would then I did talk to um Kathleen the daughter um you
know instead of instead of talking to him because you know we we still great neighbor you know I I still you know he's still um I say he's still making bread for my my kids and you know I still doing you know I'm still doing the
snow and leave everything that I used to to do with the every neighbor around so >> that so I I to be honest I was shocked that you know they they um you know they they brought it up to the
um to the to the town and I think is that you know I I'm not I'm not blaming anybody. that I know that I if I know that I I have to be 8 ft away and I have to pull the permit I have no problem of doing it that before and you know and um
it is what it is like you know I I already make a mistake and I'm here to correct it and make sure that you know um you know that everybody is okay it's going to be >> well thank you Mr. Um, I appreciate
that. Um, so, um, could the, uh, people have their hands up? I assume the Kenny's would like to speak. Um, maybe they have some questions and they probably have a statement they'd like to make. So, welcome. >> Hi, thank you. I'm Kathleen Jenkins. I am uh, a daughter. My brother Steven
Kenny is here and the anonymous um, is my sister who is also on the call. U my dad wasn't feeling well tonight so he wasn't able to um to take part. So I think um as we expressed in our letter this is in um very clear violation of
any zoning laws um and there was no um permit that was pulled and we feel like everything could have been avoided had there been a permit because the town would have very clearly told him you know what he could do and not do. Um, we
also feel like the structure is very ugly and I know that we all we were all surprised, including, you know, Ryan told me that he and Tracy were also surprised at how large it turned out. Um, one of the neighbors on the other side of us that he had signed a letter
saying that he would um was okay with it, but once it went up, he said he wished he hadn't signed that letter because he again didn't realize how how large it would be. Um, but we just feel like again this is, you know, my dad is 92. I think there's there's an emotional
part and another part. The emotional part is he sits out in his porch all day and so that's what he looks at all day as you can see from the pictures. Um, the other part is, you know, he was also a licensed real estate broker for 60 years and he realizes this is going to have a huge impact when he goes to sell
the house or when we sell the house. He is 92 years old. Um, these are his words, not mine. If I croak tomorrow, kids, and you go to sell the house, people won't even come in to look at it because they will drive right by. So, I realize that um $15,000 or whatever was
spent is quite a bit of money, but we we don't even feel like we would be able to get anywhere near what um the house is worth. So, we just feel like it is very very clear that, you know, whether there was ignorance of what the law was um
that we we think it should be taken down. And we also don't think an RV should be stored anywhere on the property at all. Um the the backyard is not really a grass backyard. Um Ryan's paved um quite a bit of it. So it goes
from one end to the complete back and then there's um another part that's all paved. So it's I'm not saying it's it's probably more grass than tar, but it's tred so it looks more like a parking lot. We don't think it's appropriate at all regardless of where it is. Um the
the the reduction in size seems minimal. Um you know, we have a neighbor who put a tiny shed up next to ours that we gave him permission for. It's it's also not a permanent structure. A big gust of wind could probably take it down, but it's just barely over the our fence line. Um
so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Um but we just think that you know that with proper process procedures the variance that there is absolutely no way aesthetically I you know we look through the bylaws that word comes up a lot in Milton in the
bylaws it should be aesthetically attractive if if possible maybe not specific to this accessory but um again it just doesn't seem to have any place in the neighborhood. So the the there was a proposal to put up a fence.
Um and you know so just wondering whether that um you know the you you already say that the reduction of the size isn't particularly meaningful as I understand. Um there's the offer of the fence and and other sorts of things. Um,
and the also the idea that perhaps um the RV gets parked someplace else that isn't maybe as pref preferable, but you did listen to the, you know, the testimony of other op other sort of compromises. Um, what was your sort of
feelings about all of that? >> Um, we think if you look at the photos and you if you put an 8oot fence and even if you shave a few feet off of that, it's still a giant dark metal structure. um you know that's been sitting there. It has not the RV has not
been used since it went up. Um again we are sympathetic but one of my suggestions was to Ryan was like can he just the money that he could be spending saving with a lawyer and all this other can you just go store it someplace like there are places that stores RVs and
boats. So that was my suggestion to Ryan earlier on. Um my father is is too upset to even to talk about it. Um, you know, he Ryan has been an excellent neighbor, but he said this is again this is personal, financial, and um, you know,
and again, it's it's a it's a variance. It's it's on the property line. Moving it over to put it, he's even saying that it'll just be in greater view. So, if it's allowed to be shrunken and moved, it's still in greater view of the back
of um, you know, of our property, of our home. So, I I wish I could say we're willing to compromise, but I feel like with this we we've been um we've been very open to the commercial vehicles that are parked
there for his safety automobile business, but this is, you know, this we feel like this is just too much. >> Thank you. Um gentlemen, do you have any questions for the Kenny's? >> No, I don't think so. No.
>> Uh, Marian. >> Um, no. I don't have any questions for the Kenny's. I did want to hear what they thought about the um >> other options proposed and I didn't I didn't see any feedback on that in their letter. So, but I understand that they're saying that they feel that
reducing the height of the um structure and putting up a fence will they it's not enough apparently or and um we all acknowledge that this is a big variance that we're very close to the lot lines here. Um one of the things that I
discussed with Ryan prior to this hearing was well we talked about all kinds of different ideas. Um, one was moving reducing the size of the structure as proposed, but moving it over so that it was eight feet away from the neighbor's
lot line. So, it still be able to use part of the base that's been created, wouldn't be completely wasted. Um, the base would, you know, the owners would have to extend it. However, doing that would still require a rear lot line variance. So, there would still be a
variance involved here. Um, and so that whatever problems you have with that issue would be there for the rear lot line variance. But that was one proposal we discussed. The other thing that I think Ryan alluded to already was what about if I just reduce the roof way down
to like 9 ft and I had the fence and I could just use it to park my car. That's an effort to to um you know make use I guess of the expenditure and the improvements that he's tried to make and not completely waste u all of that. Um
it wouldn't be however it would not be parking for the RV if it were reduced to that height. And then finally uh all efforts fail. The board doesn't want to support any zoning relief. then um he's looking for, you know, he he has had the
RV parked elsewhere on his property um at at a much greater distance from the lot lines um which is depending on the distance and the measurements. And you know, we're we're not in this hearing to discuss the presence of the RV on the
lot. There's been no enforcement. There's been no letter saying that the RV is in violation. the issue has the carport if there's some other issue there
the RI the annoyance of the RV if they don't get this zoning relief but I I do believe that um that discussion is is not before us tonight um so I don't have anything new to add um I would say that
if if it seems to be the preference of the board and they have and you haven't yet had a chance to discuss this before you close the hearing um we might if you are not inclined to approve this I would want to discuss with my client whether he wants
to request uh to withdraw it >> well you still have the enforcement issue though even if you withdraw the application >> that's right the of course then he has to take it Okay. >> All that does is is remove this
application and >> Right. >> I don't know if it's helpful really, but >> I see Mr. uh W has his hand up. >> That's >> Yes. So um so like um earlier I heard
that um Kathleen our neighbors um daughter was saying that you know if the people if the people drive by they going to see you know the the you know the ugly um you know the carport but they saying
when we reduce the size and um when I'm putting the fans up is not that um I also um on my driveway I also put the the gate up so when people drive by they would not be able to they only see the tips of the carport as proposed. Um so I
I did talk with the the um the commissioner as well as you know he's saying that when we can be able to put that and um and it's in um and is in compliant as long as uh you know I didn't go over the height of the fence
um and um I when so when I put the gate on the driveway when people there this there when people drive by there's no way they'd be able to see that you know I I even popped the RV in there and like saying cuz when the RV um at first, you
know, um I was um going to put kind of like the um how you call the pool the the hand pooling gate down to just close it so people not going to see it. But you know I cannot do anything now is covered with
the tops because now it's temporarily covered with the top. So the the tile told me you know I have to put everything on hold. So that's why even even with the a portion of channeling fence I cannot like you know I I cannot do uh I cannot you know fix the fans or
anything to make it you know um look nicer for the neighbor either and >> thank you. And then um and then on regarding of their concern about um you know the the pave driveway I did um when
when I first moved here before I do the driveway they extend the driveway all the way down um I did talk with the the town so it's still um so they okay with it and and it's still a lot of grass on you know on the back of my yard. So it's not that you know I paved the whole yard
or you know 40% or 50% of my uh my yard at all. Thank you gentlemen. I hear Nick's um you know comment about the fact that it's a request for variance and and while this town is
generous um in my experience with giving variances um I have a I have a real problem with it. Um it's uh it you know it's sitting right on the property. I drove by it. I'
I've seen the property. Um and so it's um it's it's big and it's right on the property line. Um and it's kind of like well that's why we have setbacks. Um I you know so I'm and I'm having a hard
time finding um justification for um on the grounds of a variance um that um it's it's not a deriggation of the bylaw. I think it is um it's um it's not an asset to the community particularly.
Um, so I'm having some trouble with um I'm interested in the idea of of saying, well, you know, we'd give one for the rear um but you'd have to move it away from the side. I don't not so sure that
addresses the Kenny's uh concern about the fact that it's huge um and um and not particularly attractive. Um but at least it wouldn't be as sitting right on the property line next to the fence. Um, so I'm interested in your thoughts,
gentlemen. >> Are we discussing this now? Um, >> yeah, we're not closing the hearing because Mary might want to throw something in. So, >> so I I agree. Um, you know, my thoughts are if you move it, you know, 8 feet in.
I mean, the only way I can think of that would satisfy um the Kenny's from an aesthetic point of view is, you know, to move it move it in 8 feet, put up the vinyl fence, and then maybe do some plantings between the fence and and the carport, which would
really shield the view from the Kenny's um Kenny's property. Um that's a thought and it's really not germanine to this hearing but um I I tend to agree with Kathleen. I mean the variance standards are very difficult to meet. Um you know
this is obviously presenting a financial hardship to Mr. Win but it's a financial hardship unfortunately of his own creation and we can't really allow that because it would just encourage people to ask for forgiveness instead of permission. Um and that would be
problematic for the town. Um, I think it's a it is a substantial deriggation from the bylaw's intent because it's such a, you know, aggressive violation of the side setbacks. Um, and there's, you know, possibly a detriment to the
public good as well, just from a neighborhood aesthetic perspective. Um, I'm really sympathetic to Mr. Wyn. Um, and but I'm also sympathetic to the Kenny's. Um, and so I, you know, I think we need to decide this based on the
letter of the law and by the letter of the bylaw, I just, I just don't see this getting a variance. >> Thanks, Nick. >> Oh, whenever we're granting these variances, I I tend to go back to the 4A
section 10, right? The statute, like what's the standard? And so um before we even get in again as I read the statute right before we get even into a discussion of the aesthetics of it or could we do it we have to make a
finding that the there are circumst owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions shape or topography of the land and we haven't heard any evidence that there is a reason due to the shape
topography or soil conditions that this structure had to be built where it was, right? So, say and I'm very sympathetic and and yeah, we are pretty free in in in Milton relative to other towns and granting the variance, but but we've got a neighbor who's objecting who's
directly affected. It's it's a foot and a half off the property line. I've heard no evidence of soil conditions or the things I just recited, right, as as those circumstances. So, say we granted the variance and it's appealed.
>> Yeah. We're in the black room. No, it's not getting upheld. So, I I I'm I'm extremely sympathetic and I and we've had a situation like this similar before where an out of town or whatever. I think it was a shed company in that
case, but a shed down >> it I don't know in a similar manner, right? you know, shame on the company that put this in, in my view, for not, you know, advising the homeowner before they spent all the money that, oh, by the way, this thing's going to violate
your zoning bylaw. But be that as I I I I just don't think we have the basis to do it. And when we have to go back to the what the our statutory authority is a board of appeals is in granting these things, we didn't write the statute. We're just charged with enforcing it. I'm sympathetic, but I I can't find a
way to support it without without, you know, that meets the statute. That's all I'm saying in a long-winded sort of way. >> No, it was it was a very good good explanation and that and sort of I think I think we're all in the same place. I mean, we we're very sympathetic to the
needs for this, but um I I would be having as a person that sometimes drafts the decisions, I would have a hard time kind of coming up with a reason for it. >> Yeah. Um, >> so we haven't closed the hearing. So Marian, if you wanted to withdraw the
application before we take a vote, >> I'm I'm a little puzzled about what the any what advantage there would be to doing that. Um, there's not going to be a return with the exact same application and and that would only be possible if you allowed withdrawal without pre
prejudice. Um, I I just want to say though, uh, in conclusion that the reason we're here before the board of appeals was that the applicant and his family worked on some changes to their proposed
they had erected and their hope was that those changes would be enough that the candidates the Kenny's would not be upset anymore and would not feel that this was a blight on their their property. And obviously that hasn't come to be true. So I'm sorry if you feel
like we've wasted your time, but the main purpose of this was to >> Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I I I would just say that that the changes that that are that were made to the plan do reduce the size of the building, but they don't
move it from farther away from the line, which was the kind of chief thing that the the the chief thing that we're we were worried about. So, um that but I I appreciate that there was changes. And no, you're not wasting our time by coming in and talking about it. We we
live on the zoning board of appeals to be of service where we possibly can to the town of Milton. I think John Leonard would say that if he were here. So >> yes, >> indeed that. Yes, that is absolutely true. And thank you. >> And it's true. He's right. He's not here, but I I would
>> You're channeling him. >> Well, he's very much alive, so maybe not channeling, but but I feel that he would be saying that if he were here. So, we're grateful. And I not I I guess what I'm saying is I don't want any of my comments to be interpreted as I thought you were wasting our time
because I not at all. >> No, I I don't think so. >> 100%. No. >> Yeah. I just wanted you to know there's been good intentions all the way here. At least, you know, once the owners found out >> I don't think Nobody Yeah. Nobody's questioned the intentions. Absolutely not.
>> Okay. Thank you. All set. Um Ryan, um you understand what I'm saying? If you do you want to talk to me before about this idea of withdrawing or do you understand why I think it probably makes more sense to just go if if we want to take a very brief break we could talk on the phone. Do you feel that you need to
talk to me off the uh hearing out of the hearing? or >> like um so based up basically what I'm what I'm understanding is that but if if I withdraw so so basically the different is that if I withdraw then um you know
just saying down the road just just saying down the road I you know I can be able to apply for another variance but if I apply for the like my thought is just either way that you know I be able to
I think if if it's not if you know if it's not approved then I still be able to go through the tower and pull the permit and you know be able to to build a car port that um based on what I know is like as long
as 8 ft from the the left my probably as well as 8t to the back and um based on what I know from the tow is like as long It's not 20 ft, but you know that's excessive basically. So, um, so either
way, if I'm if I decided to move it over to pop my RV, then it really doesn't matter to to >> you won't be back before us if it's inside the setbacks. >> Yes. >> This would be up to the building
department to review any future proposal first um and determine for you. But your objective, I think what you're saying is to to if you do something else or something different is to be in compliance with zoning.
>> Correct. Yeah. >> Yeah. So going to be so avail. >> Okay. Um, anything else? Does anybody have anything else they want to add before we um vote to close the hearing?
The miss the Kenny's Jenkins, do you any other hands raised? Bill, >> I do not see any. >> Okay, I'll take just raised their hand again. >> No, they took it down. >> They took it down.
>> They said I think they're saying they're okay. They saw a signal. Um so um I'd take a vote um to close the hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. All in favor? >> Second.
>> I >> um we've had our discussion. Does anybody want to add anything to the discussion that we've had or do you feel like we are in a position to take a vote? >> I have nothing to add. >> Yeah. Um so um before us of course is this
application for variance um for the um u for the carport at 17 Christopher Drive. Um I I um am I have to vote no on this. I don't think we have justification for the grant of a variance. Um as uh other
people have pointed out in this discussion. I'm very sympathetic to the need for this and I'm also very sympathetic to the cost that has been incurred by this property owner unbeknownst to um him that he was building something that required zoning
relief. Um and um and I I feel pretty terrible about that. But as I said, I also looking at the law can't find um can't find any support for the grant. Um other people have anything they want to add?
No, I >> I agree with that. I'm sympathetic both to the applicant and to the neighbors. >> Yeah, >> it it's it puts them both in a in a in a in a sad position. I'm sure they seem like they get along very very well. And I it it's it's very unfortunate. But I
agree. I I have nothing further to add than I than I said previously. >> Yeah, I I agree. And I mean even even without the um the difficulty to each of the parties here, I just think by the letter of the law, it's just not a
grantable variance. Um and so um also very sympathetic and sorry it u is this way. >> So may I have a motion? >> I move that we deny the application because it doesn't meet the standard for a variance under section chapter 48
section 10. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> thank you very much um for everybody that participated in this. It's a difficult situation as um as Michael
pointed out. um you know it's a small neighborhood, tight neighborhood and um uh you know these these sort of things are unfortunate but I hope you can appreciate the fact that you know we are sort of stuck with what the law says um and really didn't um couldn't find in
the materials that had been submitted um sort of sufficient support for the grant of a variance which according to statute or case law are supposed to be sparingly granted um uh So >> yeah.
>> Um but um but thank you very much and um we look forward to what happens next. >> Thank you very much. >> Since you just said we look forward to what happens next, what does happen next? Like with the structure, like is there a certain amount of time
before it has to come down or is there >> that's up to file a decision? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. >> We have to file a decision. >> Okay. with the town clerk and then the building department will take it from there. >> Okay, great. Thank you.
>> That won't be our um our action. >> Okay, great. Thanks. >> Then um and and please thank your father for participating. >> Um so a motion to adjurnn bill. >> Anything else we have to I don't think
we have anything else but then the motion. >> Oh yeah. Oh wait a Who's going to draft the decision? So, we have two decisions to draft. Um, anybody volunteering for Smith Road? >> Okay,
>> I'll do this one. I'll do >> Take a look at the one we did for Pleasant Street. It's pretty similar to that. So, >> Okay. >> And then and I'll draft uh Nick, do you want to draft this one or should I draft it? >> You don't ask that question. >> I know you should ask it. Yeah. Mhm.
>> Um I'll I'll draft it if you want me to. >> That would be great. >> Okay. >> I'd appreciate >> Which one do I have? >> You have um Smith the the addition and Nick has this one. >> I have this one. Oh, okay. Fine. Either whatever whichever one you assign to me, I will write.
>> Yeah, this one. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. And >> thank you. Thanks, Marian. >> You're welcome. >> Thanks, Marian. Uh may I have a motion to adjurnn? moved. >> Seconded.
>> All right. All in favor with my thanks. >> I I >> thanks all. >> Good night. >> Night. Part: 2
Okay, good evening and welcome to the 13th meeting of fiscal year 2026 uh for the Milton Planning Board. At this time, I would like to uh call the meeting to order and begin by introducing the members of the planning board and our staff. Um if you like to
begin >> Sure. Cheryl Tagaya, secretary Yfield, member >> Jim member. >> Yes. And Meredith Hall serving as chair. Um Sean Bey will not be uh joining us this evening. Um, but we do have our
staff here. Bonte >> Avante Grady, assistant director >> and Liz Manning, planning director. >> Great. Thank you and thank you all for joining us. We can begin with our um administrative items. Um, we don't have any minutes currently.
>> We have one set. >> Oh, we have one set. I'm sorry. We do. Um, and that was I don't have that date >> and it was December 11. >> Yep. And I'll just say that um
I spent time trying to whittle them down because I felt as if we don't need to capture quite everything that's said. Just kind of it's good to capture some of the gist of the dialogue, I think, but not everything that's said because I
feel as if it's going to be difficult for people to want to read really lengthy minutes. So that's I've kind of taken the approach I've been the secretary for a few years now.
>> Yeah. Just to summarize I think um you know the approach u that for the years that I've been on the board was to try not try to be um check that balance between capturing everything and not being too long. So
and you've been doing a great job and I think you've been you know going with probably more detail which covers everything. So that's great. >> Yeah. And I'm not uh and I want I was hoping to get it out sooner so maybe we wouldn't have to have as many longer,
but I'm happy to go through the ones for January. Um I I will say it did take me longer to go through them when they're longer like that. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I definitely hear you, Cheryl. Um yeah, I definitely don't want
to make it so that it's you know extremely time consuming to like go through them and you know review them you know because of the length. So yeah um I think I did air on the side of being more detailed >> which kind of at the beginning but yeah
um I'm I'm definitely going to work on making those more succinct >> going moving forward. So >> okay well thank you thanks for your work on them appreciate it. >> Of course. >> Great. So, I did review them and I was >> Yeah, I only found one typo on page
seven. >> Spell peers. >> Pair. >> Oh, vote pier. >> So, with that amendment, um, if I could have a motion to approve the minutes from December 11th >> as as
>> as amended. I'll make that motion >> and I'll second. We'll have to do a roll call because we're not all in person. Um, Cheryl, >> yes. Maggie, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> And myself, yes.
>> December 11th, are approved. Um then our next um meeting dates we have uh our next meeting scheduled is February 26th and then we are in March which actually
falls on the 12th again. So followed by the 26th again. Those are the next three dates up and um staff update. So, I've just got a couple of quick things tonight. I'm gonna I'm gonna
bring up to date on the um the Boston to Blue Hills project. I know Cheryl had I appreciate very much, Cheryl, you you following up on this because this is kind of moving faster than I than I realized. Um so now, so so it's good.
So, so we've got everyone's attention and and what have you. I'm gonna um share my screen to show the um alternate that's that's basically the um the preferred option at
this point. Yeah. So this is this alternative for center running shared use path will have 11 conflict points with intersecting roads. So it's it is um the single lane on the northbound
Right. >> I think it's single lane now on both sides. >> The single lane on both. Okay. >> So, which I drove the pike drove the parkway yesterday. >> What it looks like they're doing is they're taking the second lane and they're putting another row of planting
and putting the bike path on there, which is actually >> a gain of of green space, which I was every all of us were >> another row of trees. and another row of trees. Right. >> Why was I thinking that this was two they were maintaining two lanes on on
one side. Okay. So, >> one of the options you did have that >> not this one. >> One of the options. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. I thank you. Yes. Um so, so I had a quick meeting this morning, a quick huddle this morning with the new town engineer. He provided
some comments on, you know, what the town might be looking for moving forward. had a conversation as well with the project manager at MAPC um to you know to get a better handle on where they were in the process and then I shared some of that information out with um with Cheryl and Meredith and I'd
be more than happy to share it out with the rest of the board in terms of what has been reported up to the DCR. So um the folks at um MAPC basically it's had offered to they offered a couple of things. They said the uh project
manager's email can be used directly for uh public comments. So that was sort of that was one item that was asked to be followed up on. Um they offered to come and do a meeting with us if if folks are interested if if they'd like a a if the
board would like a presentation on this before, you know, things are are fully finalized. This feasibility study is fully finalized. Um, I know our town engineer and our DPW director are interested in things like kind of like next steps like you know where what what happens after this feasibility study is
finalized. You know, sort of like who's involved, what needs to get checked off, what what are the funding sources. So, those are some of the things that they that they wrote in their in their um comment here today. Um, also understanding some traffic count information that might be a little bit
fresher based on the Randolph A road diet. Um, so these are some of the different things that were have been are kind of in the in the mix as part of the discussion. So I'm available to have them come back in to talk to you folks directly if you'd like. Um, I'm available to help draft a comment letter
if that would be useful. Just what what you know, let me let me know how you want to how you want to proceed. >> Um, I was wondering did the neighbors know about this along the Parkway? because they do have I think um like a
neighborhood association. Have they in maybe it's not a true association they definitely have um like they communicate via email so they're fairly active. Right. So have they had an opportunity to weigh in?
>> So I know that that they reported that they had about 75 people in attendance at that meeting on January 15th. My my guess would be that there was attempts to do outreach for sure to to the to the neighbors and and the direct the people
that are directly impacted. I one of the possibilities if folks wanted to maybe if we did some kind of a Facebook post or something that said there's still opportunity to get comments in. Here's the here's the contact information for the project manager. um there could be
an opportunity to try to get that to the right person in that association and make sure that they just blast it out to their network. >> But but based on the participation at that meeting, it seemed pretty it seemed pretty full. Um yeah.
>> Okay. And we could Yeah. I mean, I think it would be nice to maybe have them come in. Um and I don't know if the 26 How soon do they think they're going to have They're finalizing pretty soon. So, I
think we would need to have them at the next meeting. >> The next meeting we could have them come just to let people know if they have any comments that they could. >> Absolutely. >> And I think it would be nice to to submit a letter. Um and part of it would be that the planning department, the
engineer town engineer engineering department and planning board would like and perhaps others you know would like we do have um I don't know how active it is but we do have a bicycle advisory committee um and I they have were very
interested in the pedest the bicycle pedestrian master plan that was completed a couple of years ago. So, um I think uh showing support from the town for this effort would help because this is kind of uh would my understanding
from looking at it is an effort led by MAPC and uh NEPRA the Panza River Wershed Association and then encouraging DCR to you know move in this on this I think showing that we would be
supportive I think would be helpful. Now, did you I haven't compared the um the bike master plan to this plan. Do they match up? Because I think the the bike plan, >> you know, outlined their thoughts for I
think Blue Hill Parkway. >> That was MAPC also. So, I would think it matches up, but >> I don't I don't know. I don't know. Were there were there sort of like um were there renderings for like different areas and sort of what they what they
wanted for like a typical it wasn't this uh detail of what the roadway might look like but it was pathways like roadways that would >> uh make connections and part of that was this understanding that they were working on more initiatives in adjacent
communities so that these connections were part of what they were interested in. So, I'd be surprised if it's not in there, but it it's definitely worth um >> so consistency with that plan. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. And maybe it's something that needs to be revisited if the if
>> I don't How old is the plan? Is it >> It's not that old. Um but I definitely think it should be revisited because you know, part of the plan affects my my neighborhood and my neighborhood association uh wrote in a letter and attached it to the plan. um the plan
wasn't changed to um >> so one of the things that the plan does is the um it was a a grant and the um Tim Zwinsky
the original coordinator you know through the planning department but so it was a matching grant too. to the master plan implementation committee was the match and so their touch points were to uh to our committee. >> Okay. But the bicycle advisory committee
was also participant you know in it and there was you know a survey and public meetings and um but one of the things that was identified is that um you know some things are kind of lowhanging fruit and some things would require more study right
>> and so I think um like the area that Maggie's talking about would have pretty significant changes to things which would require more study but other other areas uh for seemed to be something that could be um done
relatively easier. Now, I will also say that um Nick Milano applied on behalf of the town to the CPC for some funding which would I think um was targeted for this connection from I guess it would be
like on on central um no not central Brook. Oh, what's the street that um if you could kind of connect East Milton on the other side of Milton Academy from
Canton Aav's own >> center street? Yeah, maybe it was center street. >> Some um so and he cited the bike ped master plan in that application. >> Okay. So the implementation of that plan >> a very narrow road if that
>> the implementation of that plan um >> I don't know who it lies with >> okay >> if it lies with select board you know DPW planning and I don't know if there's been much action on it >> which is similar to unfortunately to other planning efforts they the
ownership >> so this is one of the things that we put in our the master plan implementation committee report was ownership of a lot of these things once the committees completed their work. Yeah. >> Um is not always clear and therefore followup
>> after you know after a lot of good work has gone in some followup um isn't as strong as people would hope. >> Yeah. I mean, in this plan in particular, I would think there'd be less push back because it is decreasing
um herous surfaces and increasing um um green spaces and trees and that will help slow down traffic, which is a problem there. I lived on the Parkway uh for a number of years and um so >> I can hear speed like a speedway from my
house on that at night when people race or whatever they do. This would be an improvement. >> Yeah, it definitely would be an improvement. >> So question. >> Yes. >> Yes, Jim. >> Just wondering um with regards to CPC money, who's paying for this? Wouldn't
the state be paying for this? Why would we be giving our CPC money to >> Sorry, the CPC was not this. This the CPC was a is a component of the bicycle pedestrian master plan, but not this not this. >> Excellent. Okay. I thought you said some
kind of a connector or something. I must have misheard you. Sorry about that. Yeah, >> January 15th meeting. Liz, is there a link to that? Was that recorded that MAPC presentation or >> January? >> So, I have um I have notes. I I don't
believe it was recorded, but I do have notes from that meeting, so I can share those out with you folks. >> Okay, >> that's all right. Yeah, it would have been nice to watch if it was recorded. That's okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, I don't I don't believe so. She she I asked her for a recording and she sent me she sent me the notes from the
meeting, so I can I can follow up again, but I didn't see any cameras. It was in the library at the high school. >> Okay. >> So, I don't friends on the um who live on that street. It would be nice to just tell them, hey, this is what's going on. in case they don't know. >> Yeah, for sure.
>> That's good. >> All right. Thank you. >> Anything else, Liz? So, did we agree that we're going to invite them for that? >> We should. >> And should we ask Liz to draft a letter on our behalf?
>> I don't think it has to be highly Yeah, a comment letter. I don't think it has to be um highly detailed but just you know expressing support or want interest in involvement as it moves forward like that.
>> So prior to them coming to them coming >> just having a draft because we the comment period ends so soon after the next meeting. >> That's I think that's great. And one thing I'd like to know is um how many parking spaces um are are they reducing
the number of parking spaces along the parkway? Because the parkway is a DCR road, you can park overnight on it. Um and so I know I lived on the Parkway and I lived on West Street a little further down and um living down there we relied
on um parking on the Parkway um and you don't need to get a hardship permit. So I would hate to see um any parking spaces get reduced um because there are two families. because I lived in a two
family down there and so um you kind of need that extra parking out on on the street. >> It's showing the parking. >> Yeah. So I was just wondering just to get a parking count because I know when they redid East Milton Square I think they lost like 11 parking spots which
they didn't really anticipate until after it was completed. Um so I would hate to see any um parking spaces lost. So, one thing that I think I saw in the notes, which I think it's a comment I would like to um include, you're talking about the person who fell. There's very
few places to cross the parkway and high schoolers do cross there to, you know, to get to Gal Road. Um, and I walk that and I ride my bike and, you know, there's very few places you can cross and it's a very long way far between. So
those would those are I think why they lost spaces in East Milton is to have safer pedestrian way. So there may be where they add crosswalks that may impact but if they're adding them at the streets I probably won't >> right. >> Yeah.
>> But there's a long stretch where there's not a street that's from Cantonav down toward to >> Gile. Yeah. >> And that's where people cross I think. Also, there's no I take the path that's along Pine Tree Brook and cross over to
get to Pope's Pope's Pond and there's no crosswalk there either. >> And so there's paths on both sides of the of the roadway and no way to connect two paths which is crazy. >> Yeah. especially with there is CPC
funding to make improvements to those pathways around Pope's Pond >> and eventually probably um the Pine Tree Brook because that studies for that have been funded as well >> which will be great. It'll increase the
use so having safe travel to get there. >> Okay. So that's another that's another that's another thing to to loop in here too is the um is the CPC funded design work for for PATs sort of
>> there's um >> it may have already been captured by by the design team but I I I just want to make sure that they that they've they've got that >> I'm pretty sure I read in there about crosswalks. I'm sure that would come because this is just a little slice
here. Okay. All right. Good. >> Yeah, it does see it does seem like the consensus the public consensus and and what I'm hearing, you know, kind of very initially out of the engineering and DPW
is that they also they're also supportive of this alternative for. So that's good. >> Yes, we're if we're generating consensus, that's a good thing. Okay. Thank you for following up on that, Liz.
>> Yeah, that's great. Um, and is that it? Anything else, Liz? >> So, Lante had um update on um I think Maggie's question from the last meeting. >> Yeah, I just wanted to look into I know there was some questions regarding the
Sha Tree Advisory Committee and kind of information related to how are trees funded, who chooses where to put them and and stuff like that. So I reached out to Cassandra who is the environmental coordinator and um yeah
she replied back with a few comments um which I wanted to share. So um she says the DPW collaborates with um shade tree advisory committee uh on the DPW shade tree program um where residents can
request a shade tree that will be planted in the right of way in front of their homes for free. Um the property owner is responsible for maintaining the tree that is requested. Um they submit a request via an online form. The DPW
forestry staff review the request. Um and if the location is suitable, they will plant a tree. Um the she tree advisory committee, they um provide DPW with a recommended tree species list. Um I believe they update every year. Um and
that helps kind of choose what trees the DPW purchases and um they the shade tree advisory committee also works with ever Eversource um on tree removals and replacements. Um in terms of budget uh the DPW um I guess
they've historically have had a line item where um in their annual DPW budget um $10,000 for planting shade trees. Um, apparently DPW is trying to get approval to add a line item in their FY27 capital
budget for $20,000 for trees in addition to the annual DPW budget of 10,000. Um, Cassandra, she meets with the Shade Tree Advisory Committee once a month and um, yeah, I know kind of looking at like
past minutes from the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, I know they've expressed interest in having a higher budget for, you know, trees, they've expressed u 40,000 in the past. So, I think there's been some like negotiations between the two terms of um
funding trees, but that was sort of the information I found and received from Cassandra which I wanted to share. So, >> so at the 350th there was about $40,000 raised for shade trees and do and I you don't have to answer it right now but um
I think the question is where where is that money being held and is it I mean it doesn't sound like the shade tree committee has it and it doesn't sound like the DPW has it. So >> there was a considerable amount and it was from residents in the town to
celebrate the 350th. Um that would be one further question and then the other would be when the conservation commission gets you know a project like the memory care we know that there are about I I think the the amount that's
being paid is about $300,000 for med you know mitigation. Um, obviously we would like those to be on the Highland Street, you know, around some of this those neighbors, but that's a lot of money and that should go to um shade trees for the town as well if they
can't be planted on the site. >> Yeah. And I think when there was um a violation of a scenic road application where there were trees taken down from the public way where Maggie is, I think they couldn't put an back there. Do we ask for that some of
that to go to the shade um to the shade? >> So they replanted they replanted the strip. Yeah. I don't I don't think that they made a financial contribution. I think it was all um planted. >> So I think what we found on Highland
with the memory care was that there's not enough space for the numbers of trees so that they needed to go elsewhere. you need to make a contribution >> and in which I understand that but there are maybe some people on the latter
streets like Spafford or Buckingham where they have larger front yards >> um and so perhaps the trees can't be planted along Highland but the first priority should be planted >> along on the ladder streets um to help
um mitigate any cut through traffic. So there were also some direct abutters who um to me anyway are pretty or more impact in some ways right some of those they had an interest in them but did
they have to be in the public way not when they were being replaced for the memory care right >> a good question >> for how we wrote that permit how the concom wrote the >> decision
>> yeah and concom doesn't have a a budget. So, that's where I'm kind of looking for that piece of information is where does the money go to? >> Yeah. That's supposed to be set aside for >> charge of the money.
>> Yeah. Because also we have a great program in town too that a homeowner can purchase a tree and they can buy a tree uh in case they want a different tree or a larger tree, they can purchase it um
at any local nursery and then the DPW will come and pick it up and plant it for free. So um >> so that's another great program that's offered. That's great. I think coming back to that concom question I think avant
when the a tree is removed and conservation commission approves it there's a replacement that's what three trees to to one >> three to one >> and is there um
if they don't have a an account >> and if the trees aren't all able to be placed on site what happens happens. >> Yeah. And I think it is a dollar value. >> Um I think pretty much it's a dollar
value. And um and that's the other thing. I know Con was reviewing what that dollar value should be. And I know recently one Concom member was advocating for a higher dollar value
um just um because she had gotten information from other landscapers on what the value is of planting one tree. So, she was advocating that it would be a higher replacement value, but I don't
think con the majority of the conccom didn't support her um her endeavor, which I think was a little bit of a shame. Jim, you had your hand up. >> Yeah, Merida, thank you. I was just going to say that on on capital, we
approved an extra 15,000 for trees, so that 10 is going to become 25. Um, but once again, I'm not sure exactly where that money goes. I think it goes to the DPW um for the tree initiative, but not 100%
sure. I am sure about the 15,000. >> And it maybe, you know, I wonder because I've always thought maybe staffing related like what is the capacity of how many trees that they have time to plant. I don't know if the DPW would ever consider outsourcing that to the nurseries who have all the equipment,
have the capabilities. it almost, you know, might be something that they could outsource. I know like snow plowing, you know, gets outsourced sometimes. Um, it's more efficient to maybe have somebody in the nursery business to do
the planting. But, um, >> great idea. >> Just a thought. Then it is guaranteed, >> you know, guaranteed. >> Yeah. >> And it could be a number of nurseries that that you know that could be on the list and depending on who has what trees
and you know so um Okay. Um good. All right. Thank you for that. Of course. >> Okay. Is anything else from staff? Thank you for that those reports. Um and
we can now move to our public um comment if there's anyone here for citizens speak who would like to speak. Um see any hands up. >> No hands up. >> Actually able to promote fun.
>> Okay. Right. >> All right. Uh so the next item on our agenda is the MBTA community zoning the economic feasibility analysis by MAPC. And are they with us this evening?
>> They are. They're both tuning in as we speak. >> Okay. >> Hello. No. Hello. Welcome. >> Hi. >> Hi there. Thanks for joining us. You would like to introduce yourself and
then um possibly you can present your findings. Sure. Um my name is Adam Platz. I'm the housing manager at MAPC and I will hand it over to Avanti to do introductions and then she can uh take it away.
>> Um hi, hello. Uh my name is Avanti. I'm a senior regional land use planner here at MAPC. Um, my understanding was actually that we were here kind of more just to answer any lingering questions there might be
on the analysis, but if it'd be helpful, I'm uh happy to kind of maybe walk through some of the scenarios. I don't like have any presentation prepared, but if there were any questions you guys had as you were reviewing the materials, Adam and I are happy to answer them.
>> Um, yeah, that's absolutely fine. And I just thought for the public we could tell sort of explain um what the purposes of of doing this exercise and what was required by EOHLC on affordability.
Just sort of an overview. I think you're and I think your um I think your your introduction on this memo of is is pretty is pretty succinct. So >> yeah. Yeah. I can um I can just
So yeah, for the purpose of the public, we're working on the economic feasibility analysis for Milton. Um, and the goal with this economic fe feasibility analysis is to assess different development scenarios in
Milton's MBTA districts and make sure that whatever inclusionary or affordability requirements are um in the zoning for those 3A districts are feasible and won't necessarily hinder development uh coming into specifically in this case
a 3A multif family overlay district. Um so we ran five different scenarios of different scales and we spent a lot of time uh thinking about the assumptions around those scenarios. Um thinking about you know what could could realistically come into the district and
our analysis showed that all five scenarios were feasible under um the affordability requirements that are there for Milton zoning. that is um 15% of units at 80% AMI. Um, there were also
some other affordability inclusionary requirements that we were considering and that's what we contemplated in December, the last time Adam and I were here. And after that meeting, my understanding is that we proceeded at least for this for the purposes of this
EFA specifically to use that 80% or that 15% at 80% AMI. um that's already written into the current zoning bylaw. And so that's what we went with. Um we have the memo which is in your hands. Uh we also produced a
little memo summarizing that presentation from December that should also uh be with you guys. And we have the actual Excel sheet with the analysis. Um and yeah, that's a quick overview. again, happy to answer any
questions or uh concerns you might have having read over that. >> Thank you. And if you could just sort of explain what our next steps would be, obviously our our zoning does have the 15% 15% affordable with the 80 80% AMI.
Um should we decide to, you know, I think move forward with that at this time, not that we wouldn't consider the other options in the future. Um what how would that how would does that happen? Do you just do you draft a letter? Do you are you sending this to EOHLC?
Um and is that something that they need to accept then and let us know that they've accepted that? What is that process from your experience with other communities? >> Do you want to I see you kind of >> sure. Yeah. Um
we submit that to EOHLC for approval for review. Um, and then they review it and we'll very very most likely approve it and you will get rec uh acknowledgement of that. I'm not sure how quick the
turnaround is on that. It's I know we just did one of these. One of these is a little further ahead than you. I the turnaround for that one was not was not slow. Um, so it is it is pretty they they do their due diligence, but the
reality is is um this is a fairly standard this what we're what the what we are proposing and you're kind of looking at is a is is well within the the normal bounds of what EOHLC has looked at in
respect to 3A EFAS. Um, so they they know what they're looking at and they they 100% know our work. I think this is like the 20th of these we've done in MAPC's region. So, we've done a lot of these and they they know they know what
our model is. They respect it and they know exactly what to look for when we submit. >> Great. >> Thank you. So, and and I would probably just add just based on a really quick conversation with the town administrator today that once the planning board makes
their recommendation then um it would be it would be either the town administrator or potentially a vote of the board of selectment. I'm not 100% on that to to have MAPC submit the the um the documentation to EOHLC.
So, that'll be the that'll be the that'll be the path. a path is the town will need to officially, you know, say this is let's let's go ahead and submit it. >> So, I want to thank you for the followup memo. I I think that was something that
I I thought would be nice to have in memo format rather than address in the presentation. And one of the things um I just recently um finished a detailed review of our December meeting minutes. And we had um I I guess instead of we
had asked whether there's been any um tracking at MAPC of uh what the percentages of something uh projects that are getting built as compared to permitted and you weren't sure if that was something MAPC was tracking but you
thought you could ask within your organization. I was just curious if you had an opportunity to to check into that. you can you the question was related to zones and what is being permitted or was
it actually being built? Was that the question? Permitted versus built. Yeah, because I I had expressed that I'd seen in Boston at the uh BPDA board meetings in November and December. And in fact, it happened again
in January where applicants came in and asked for relief on their inclusionary zoning requirements that were for approved projects because the projects weren't moving forward. and they were looking for some change in their
affordability requirements. And so, uh, I was just, um, concerned that, you know, we're we're as current as we we can be on, uh, the economic conditions and and this idea of
what tips something to be unaffordable. >> Yeah. Um we do not track we're definitely not tracking at that that fine grain. Um we we have begun conversations about about tracking I
policies in the region just to get a sense of the different scope in respect to 15% at 80 like the actual bylaw language. Um because no one's looking at that. Um the last time anyone's kind of looked at that is at least five years
ago. Um, and that was done at a national level. Um, that's something we we want to look at, but that is not that's not what you're asking. I can I can say from our conversations regarding kind of trying to track just I policies alone
that's labor intensive and certainly kind of the challenge of tracking the challenge of tracking kind of individual projects through um individual planning board hearings is would be I'm not saying it's impossible
but it would be difficult. I I have heard I've had conversations with people in Boston about this issue. So I I definitely hearing that I mean obviously there's been um you know there's there's a lot of conversations out there about
policy um been in the been in the news over the past 45 60 days. Um I think you know I we we stand by our feasibility analysises in relation to um whether or
not these projects would pence out. Um and with the caveat that you know they I think I probably said this the last time we were here. Um this is an iterative process. These things are not set in
stone. Uh, and you need to be willing to uh crack these things open and tweak them if need be. Um, and that's that would kind of be what I would say about this and any policy.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Any other questions from members? >> I just have a quick one regarding um appreciation and I don't know if you guys can answer it. I was just wondering with the um with the subsidized units,
have you uh observed do they appreciate at the same rate as the non-subsidized units? >> Market market market appreciation. >> So in respect to their to their overall value, right? That's what you're like
you're not asking like whether or not you can charge increased rents year-over-year, which you >> which you can. I mean those are dictated by HUD rent standards. Um it it's we're doing another project similar. It's a little more it's a little more indepth
and technical than than this work, but we've looked at we've kind of looked at appreciation um from the perspective of property taxes and how like you know assessor how the assessment rate on a subsidized unit versus a market rate unit. The
assessment rate is going to be lower o always. Um I don't think that entirely answers your question, but you know, I think assessor's data is a tell on on appreciation um overall. So, I think they do appreciate, but they're not going to
appreciate certainly as quick or as fast as a market rate unit. I feel like I mean developers understand that and they're also getting, you know, they're getting that's coming. they're getting the
benefit of that on the property tax side. >> All right. Yeah. I was thinking of it more if I was um buying one of these subsidized units >> if if saving I don't know 20% or whatever whatever the savings is and
then they the the unit appreciates less. >> Yeah. That >> really making out over five or 10 years because you're not gaining. I mean, Boston appreciation is insane. So, it would be a shame to leave that on the table. Now, if it gets you unit and you actually can't afford a house, then you
forgo a little appreciation. I get it. But I thought I was just wondering from >> I can speak to that a little bit. I think the vast majority of projects that are triggered by an I policy are going to be rental are going to that's
generally the case throughout the United States. Um there are examples of homeowner I home ownership units. Um some communities kind of approach those differently. Um set different standards for um I units
that would be home ownership. Gen, generally speaking, a a deedrestricted home ownership unit is part of you are you're going into that understanding that the the amount of
mark you are not going to get the same amount as you would if you were in a in a market rate unit. It's kind of the trade-off, right? Like you're getting you're getting assistance, you're qualifying as your income qualifying for that. The understanding is when you sell
that that is going to remain a deed restricted unit that's going to be sold to another income eligible person. The amount of appreciation you get is not going to be equal to a market rate property um or unit whatever whatever typology we're talking about. But that
is any anyone buying this is going to understand that upfront. It is a tradeoff. Um and it's a trade-off that I mean honestly people in the affordable housing community kind of struggle with. Um, and it's it's not
it's not an easy answer, you know. >> Well, I wasn't the only guy thinking about that. >> No, you're not. >> Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. I'm good. >> All right. Thank you. So, Liz, would you suggest that we um
that we have a vote to send it to um in supporting what is in the zoning at the 15% 80% AMI um at this point to that to EOHLC? >> I Yep. I think I think if the >> forward it to the select board and
request that they send it to EOHLC. >> Yep. I just have a question. Was the affordable housing trust um I know that you you sent it to them. Did they have any comments back? >> So, I I did not receive any comments from from um that group. I I reached out
a couple of different times to the chair. Um, I did get an email today from from Nick saying that he has not had a chance to have it on the select board for agenda for discussion, but his view is that um that that it you should submit to EFA to increase affordability
requirements in line with what town meeting voted and um and that um if other policy options are preferred, we can work to come up with new language to amend zoning and submit for a subsequent town meeting discussion.
So, I think that um would this fall into a discussion in an updated housing production plan? >> You think I'm just going to think >> Yeah. >> Who takes it next to think about whether the stud other options should be
studied? Is it the affordable housing trust? Is it the housing production plan? Is it us? Is it the select board? I it's just like one of those things where this just goes and it's gone and then who's who picks it up? >> I don't know. >> Maybe maybe someone from MAPC can jump
in on this one. Does the housing production plan would it necessarily um include like an strategy? >> I I can chime in on this. >> Could it? >> Um >> should it? >> It it it think I think it depends. I mean I think let me give you an I'll
give you an example. We just completed a housing production plan on the Northshore. One of the recommendations out of that housing production plan was to create an I policy. >> Um they didn't have one. The housing production plan identified it as an
issue as something that should probably be uh included in the overall kind of housing policy kind of portfolio that this community has. I think so. I think that's one way to look at it. I think on its more basic level, you you can
absolutely scope out an I review in a housing production plan. Um, and you could you don't necessarily have to do the you don't necessarily have to develop a new a new bylaw, but it's something that could be done. Part of
that work could be some of the stuff that like some of the upfront research um if you had an existing I policy um you know looking at different scenarios and options that might be um worthwhile pursuing. I mean that's certainly that's
certainly within the scope that could certainly be put in a scope of an of a housing production plan in my eyes. >> Good. Okay. And I I also think, you know, um you know, we're going to enter into
another kind of housing action plan because it's not a production plan, but the the affordable housing trust is the client in that in that project. So, I mean, it's the relationship between and AHTS I think are important. Um, and
I think it does not doesn't you should not be looking at that in a vacuum in respect to like ignoring like the affordable housing trust I think provides really good insight on can provide really good insight on how these things can work.
Um, and yeah, certainly certainly all those things could be on the table. >> Awesome. Right. So, um I guess I'd like to to make a motion
to submit or to recommend submitting um the the report, the final report. um make that recommendation to the select board and then also include a recommendation
that the memo for other inclusionary zoning options be part of the consideration in the development of the housing production plan. So it's a twofold um motion if that's okay or two
>> or one big one. Well, I guess it it depends if every if people want to vote separately, but I initially thought I would make it as as one motion, but if you prefer it split, I can do that, too. >> One one's okay.
>> I'm fine with one. I'm fine with one. >> Question when you're done. >> So, we have a second. All right. Let's do roll call. Um Jim, >> yes. >> Maggie, >> yes. >> Cheryl, >> yes. >> And myself, yes. Um
would the would the board be comfortable with me um soliciting maybe like additional pricing for that from the from the consultant that we're because I think that >> that might be that might be a bit of a bit of a >> I can imagine that that might be in addition to what's already been scoped.
So I'll is that shall I go ahead and solicit a price and then we can come back and see if that changes or if that's something >> because it has been included in our past one. >> Okay. it might not be that difficult to you know to sort of re >> okay and we'll then further study what
it would would need to be done which would be a whole separate >> yeah I would think at the very minimum they're going to um identify where we do have inclusionary zoning we've included it since that report was done um you know Milton Village uh East Milton
Square the MBTA communities um even some in the memory care although it's not quite inclusionary zoning right But >> they um >> uh so there would be definitely a lot of update to even the the number of units
the pipeline on the shi with the 40B. So >> um >> yeah so that would be great if you could just see if >> what it would what additional if it would be an additional cost and so >> yeah yeah absolutely and >> and okay just can I ask a question about
the housing production plan? Did the select board vote their share of the funds for that? >> I believe it was on their agenda Tuesday night. >> So, I haven't heard otherwise. >> And who's leading the effort in the Is that is it good? Did you say the last
time we talked about this that it would be a small committee? >> Yeah, I think I think it was settling around like two two and two. >> Two two and two. Okay. >> So, so yeah. So, so that'll that falls in line too with what with what with what Adam was just saying of having, you know, having the football housing trust,
you know, the table and part of the conversation. So, so two I don't know if it's two planning board members or if it's two planning board design. I'm not really sure. I don't know that that's necessarily been been finalized yet. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you. And thank you um for joining us tonight. Um, >> thank you for your work on this. >> We appreciate you joining us >> and your work at MAPC. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. No problem. Thank you. >> Thank you for hanging in there with us.
You guys are great. >> No problem. It was a pleasure. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um so now we can move to our final agenda item which is the um just finalizing um the last tweaks of the
signed bylaw um zoning amendment and just um because most likely people haven't really had a chance to read it since just um it was sent out this afternoon. I just wanted to point out what what changes
>> one thing before I forget. Um I saw some places where it said sign review board and then it says sign. Okay. >> I know that >> some things. So, so there were a couple of things that um that had just popped
out to me when I was reading which um related to some things that the sign review committee um currently does and I think that they would like to keep doing. Um I didn't I had no issues and we can go through or I had no questions on anything up through page eight. I
thought everything looked good. Um but on the top of page nine um number I Roman numeral three you have to you have to go like this guys sorry it's the way >> I thought I printed it this way it's the
way you print it out >> um what I just wanted to make sure because John had said that he still wanted that the applicant to to come before them even though they they would have to go to the ZBA He had asked that they typically would have the
presentation. So in order for them to be able to make a recommendation, they would need to see what they what what they were making a recommendation on. >> Sorry, what page you go on? >> So So it was um top of page nine. Okay.
And let's see. So number three, the the last version did not have anything stating that the applicant should still come to the side review committee. So I just wanted to make sure that although the sign review committee doesn't have to do a public hearing.
>> Yeah. that they should >> that they should still come to the sign review committee >> so that there'll be time to review all the materials, make sure everything, you know, if the if the if the sign review committee is making a recommendation
that a special permit is granted, they need to know what they're, you know, um and have be able to meet with the applicant. So, I just wanted to make sure that that was documented that they still would need to come through. So, that was um one of the changes that was
made and I'm now looking at the language. >> Didn't Weren't there some questions for us though before that? >> Do you Yeah. Do you do you would that be useful to kind of to kind of just sort of do you want to just kind of quickly go through like all of Carolyn's like comment boxes maybe?
>> Yes. >> Make sure people are comfortable that that that those questions have been have been answered. I've been over this so many times that I'm comfortable now. >> Okay. Yeah. we should make sure that um there is something that someone isn't comfortable. Um so on page one there's a
there's a note on so essentially the the the yellow highlight is are places where she incorporated the last round of comments >> and then what I did today was I tried in this email to to summarize the four specific sections that had been updated
as late as today by Carolyn. one of those we just talked about which was that 5G3. Um so so when you're looking at these edits the yellow is the again is the is what she collected at our last
meeting and um and then there those four minor things or smaller things that that Meredith and I had talked to Carolyn directly about today. So we can we can make sure we get >> Yeah. >> follow those bullets and then and then make sure we cover those four items, you know, clearly because I know Carolyn's
going to be wanting from us a response, you know, to that it's finalized or what have you. Um, so do you want to do that? Do you want to look at the different comment boxes like page by page or >> Sure. because I thought some of those were old, but I that's why I'm um but yeah, let's go through page by page and
um so the the first page the comment about the >> free speech I think though that was fine. I don't have any questions about that. >> Yep. Same. >> Um >> interesting guys. We're on the one that was sent nine hours ago, right? The
email the last email >> Liz that there were two on that. All right, good. Yes, >> just to be make sure I'm on the right one. >> Yep. >> Following Cheryl's advice and opening up the last email. Thank you, Cheryl. >> That's good. >> Smart.
>> So, page one where everyone's good with that. So, yeah. And I think she added commercial and non-commercial there, right? For for free speech purposes, >> right? Yeah. >> Crystal, right? Okay.
>> Page three. She wanted to highlight the sign review committee sooner, >> which makes sense. That's good. >> Some highlight highlight on four about non-commercial speech and infringement on first amendment right.
>> Yeah, >> we talked about the um center of the the business window, the transparent door. >> I thought that was good. Back to the on page five, back to the freedom of speech. Um, little bit of a question mark on the
adopted island. Yeah, I think there was the the the minutes were sort of a little our recollection of the conversation on that was she had she she had it pretty clearly at three square feet, but there was some indication that it might have been six.
So, I don't know if there's a if there's a desire to to revisit that or if three square feet is is what people are comfortable with for that adoption island. I do have I do have a um >> Does that seem small? Seems small to me.
>> So, I think it's small. Um and and then I don't think the DPW has a clear um >> I think it should be the same as the real estate office sign. >> Yeah, I think consistency. >> You agreed, Jim? Okay. So, let's just say six feet for both.
>> And and they can make it smaller if they want because some depending on the the width of the you know, some on Central Avenue or smaller. So yeah, it's the max. So yeah, I think the six square feet is good. Great. Great.
All right. And then number um 17 was added, right? Didn't have that before. >> 19 >> on page five under the exemption still. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We talked about that. That was that was that whole conversation about
you know what this is this is the one thing you can do >> you know. >> Agreed. Yeah that's fine. >> Um so on page six that was that first change from the conversation today. Um that got moved back to the prohibited
uses. Right. So so prohibited signs start on page five and then we continue on to page six. So that item number 13 was moved back to um prohibited uses and
then you wanted to summarize that conversation because you probably remember it better than I do. >> Yeah, because I I think we clearly wanted that this section to be prohibited use except for I think what we did talk about was in the case of the gas, you know, using the gas stations
that right now we have four gas stations in town. One gas station has the LED price signs and they've already been approved to have a second gas station with LED price signs. So, it seems
reasonable to say that an LED price sign at that third gas station in East Milton Square, it would be unfair to tell him no when the other two they may never apply for it. But this gives a pathway to allow for um but I'm a little unclear
is this we talked about having an option to have signs by special permit if they had an exposed um light source that for example we we use the example of the
the lights on the Baker Chocolate headquarters where they're on mounted on in a building and you have an exposed light source. I thought we all agreed that those should be allowed by special permit. Is that different than this? >> We go later. So would I and this is what
I clarified with Caroline and we'll talk about the rooftop signs too because >> these are two different things. >> They're two different things that both would be allowed by special permit. I thought the last name I was using trillium or a brew pub as an example on
like on a brick building and builtin village maybe it would be appropriate to have that kind of a sign and I thought we all agreed to that. I don't think I I because it sort of opens a can of worms when you put when you start putting everything saying you know we don't
really want it but there will be times that we could give you a special permit for it. I think we have to be careful if somebody if somebody wanted to have that a bright lit light like Walter Baker Chocolate, which I don't I think that's in Boston. I think that it's there's a
difference when you come into Milton um on what type of bright lights that we would like to have. But if somebody feels strongly enough any of this, they can they can still go to the ZVA and appeal it. >> Well, we we did speak at about this at
length at the last meeting. So I >> you've made changes. I thought you've made changes to what I thought we all agreed to last time. >> So >> I'm follow Meredith on this one. If there are two gas stations that already have this approved,
um it is going to be tough to tell the third guy he can't do it. >> Yeah. No, Jim, I'm what I was referring to here is combining that concept with the concept of an exposed light source. So we we spoke at the last meeting about
a a sign let's say channel letters which might have a light source that's visible like the kind of theater light like you know lights within a channel letter and how we said that that might be appropriate for something like a brew
pub or like something like the scale of an extra space storage and it wouldn't be every everywhere that it's appropriate but I thought we all agreed that that we shouldn't prohibit it completely. >> Um, >> is that different than what Meredith is
saying in this >> the way I combines both of them. >> So, we've never allowed that. We've never allowed those in Milton. >> I understand. >> And it opens up then it's somebody it's it's sort of a sliding I it just felt like a slippery slope. Then you're like,
okay, well, they have that. Well, why can't I have a neon light? You know, it becomes if you've got neon, >> it's kind of a historic sign. that kind of a sign. Um I >> Well, I I'd like us to come back and
revisit this because these need to get split apart at the very minimum. They shouldn't be lumped together in the same paragraph. This gas station sign is one thing. This other kind of sign with a visible light source
is another. So I can even think of like color you know like if you have an LED that provides a color um you know there can be let's just say it's an arts at the art center wanted to do something you know there would be
limited places that that might be appropriate but it um >> but once you start doing it then the then once you make that ex you know an exception what I was was discussing with Caroline I think there are rare except like I
wouldn't disagree that there are rare at times but the bar is higher. It's a higher bar for the ZVA and I would much rather see it prohibited but then if they wanted to go to the ZVA that the sign review committee could say you know
what this is a rare special occasion that I think it would be appropriate where it doesn't seem that one business wants once you one business has something another business is going to want it so you could have all lower mills all wanting to have
>> I thought that she said that a variance doesn't apply to a sign. So you're >> to the to the to the use to the use. So you can you could you could get you could get a use variance. But that's actually interesting because
I didn't think that we would be able to do as much in here with the sign review committee in terms of like what they could couldn't sort of like vary like I I I wasn't aware that that would would be okay. So, so and I'm clearly Carolyn
clearly is the expert on this and I think it's great because it gives that flexibility on the design side right now. I don't know whether or not a positive recommendation out of the sign review committee would sway the zoning board to give a variance. I don't know.
But the way this is structured, it really does give that sort of like more juice to the to the >> to the to the sign. You know what I mean? like like I'm just I'm just thinking out loud that I can see how that could could work. Um but um but
clearly yes. Yes, a special a variance is is going to be a higher is a higher bar. It's going to be a higher bar. So if it's prohibited then then it's it's going to be a tough it's going to be a higher bar for somebody to try to do one of those signs. >> At a minimum I disagree. We spent a lot
of time talking about this last time. I don't think it should be prohibited. I'd like to get John's on opinion about it, but at a at a bare minimum, I don't think you should >> I've never seen I've never seen a sign like that in the >> So, I like agree with Cheryl. I do like
the Walter Baker sign and I do think that um that the instances I think would be rare. you know, it might even be appropriate even at like the paper mill site, you know, if that ever gets developed because
that's on Boston the Boston side and if it's a brick building or whatever. Um, so because it's rare um like it's not going to happen frequently, shouldn't we sort of prohibit it
>> and give it the option? >> But why is somebody going to spend a lot of time designing something that's prohibited there? It's just not going to happen. >> And you know, we already are have a reputation of being a very difficult town to work in and to work get your permits in. And so if something's in
your zoning as prohibited, you think people are going to say, "Yeah, I'm going to just try and slug my way through it." I don't think so. And so, you know, you stifle kind of the the business identity for a potential business. Um, you know, people were talked about exciting things that could
come to um the property, you know, that JD Wild owns and he has some nice ideas for it. Um, it just doesn't seem just because Milton doesn't hasn't had a sign like that. We haven't had very
vibrant areas, you know, >> and I think this is gonna be great. But I think what they're doing, you know, across the street, they're doing some gooseeneck lighting, you know, their plans with their light. They're doing gas lights. I think I, you know, if you have gas, real lit gas lanterns. I don't
think that's the vibe that we're going for. And I think this is this is we have to think sort of long term. And you know I I >> so I think that I think we >> we shouldn't be dictating 19th century
technology of gas lights for all new businesses. >> I'm not I'm not dictating that for all No. We had said you know this wouldn't it be great if this is the gaslight district if this becomes a gaslight district and JD liked the idea. So they they are implementing that. So that's
sort of the vibe and the feel that I I think our business districts we want them to be more charming. We don't want them to feel more urban. >> But we haven't asked the residents and the business community that question. When you say we don't want that, who's the we? Who's decided that? What public
me doing that at his thoughts. >> John, sorry. >> All right. Uh yeah, I was looking that's your illumin illumination section is different from what we discussed last week or a couple weeks ago cuz back then
we had a section that was permitted by right which I still see in there. We had permitted by special permit where we had uh reverse lit lights and then internally illuminated lights. Now
it says C-section 5H2 and there's no 5H2. >> And then it talks about 5H3 under variances, but I don't see those sections in here. >> 5H2 is on 5H2 is on page nine. Picks up
on page nine. Signs >> not under section. >> Oh, I see them. >> Yep. Signs allowed by >> two is on nine. >> Yep. Picks up on page nine. signs allowed by special permit from the zoning board of appeals. >> And yes, that and that would be the section. You're correct, John. That
would be the section that was amended by moving that those those illuminated signs out of the special firming category and into back into the prohibited category. Yes. >> Which is where it had been originally. >> Uh
reverse. Okay. reverse lit signs illuminated by white light only and internally illuminated signs. Okay, that's where they got put. Okay, thank you. >> So I have in my notes from the last meeting that by special permit we were adding three things. Internally lit
signs, fabricated letters with the visible light source and roof mounted signs. So now outside of that discussion, there's been a total change in that approach. No, it was still the first two because
that last >> So there's still the the roof roof signs are there. The reverse lit illuminated by white light only and eternally illuminated signs are all still under special permit. The the the but yes
>> that section under three was amended and and the moved back to prohibited. Yes, you're correct. So part of what was discussed for special permit was was um moved back to under prohibited. >> It was originally in prohibit.
>> So I think I'm going to need time to compare these drafts because it's just enough difference from what I thought we agreed to at the last meeting. So I'm fine going through what's in here. But I would like an opportunity after the meeting to go through Sure.
>> these. And I because I think what because I didn't hear what you were talking about having the digital signs like up on the top of the roof. I heard that you were thinking a rooftop sign which that's another thing that and maybe we can you can we can think about
this or if we want to discuss tonight. I'm I'm more concerned now like after our conversation thinking about again having this in the by special permit that you can have an above the you know on the
roof a sign up above and thinking again if we're ever going to get rid of the sleepy sign on top of that I think the ZVA will have a really hard time in not in not reapproving that every time and I think that's the goal. is that we we
don't we did not let want you know that's not the look that we wanted in Milton. So I would even suggest taking um and and when I talked to Carolyn again if somebody wants a sign up on top of the roof they can go to the ZVA
still. So I would like from Carolyn the the rationale on being able to get a variance for signs for these kind of signs when you have a special permit process is different than the kind of variance they get now. This is going to the zoning board of appeal and it's
I thought that she raised some question about that last meeting about getting variances for this type of sign. >> Yeah, I think she was pretty clear that it would be a really high bar. It's >> but you can you can get a special permit
for it. So it's not prohibited. >> No, she's saying at least should be prohibited and the the bar is super high and so it's a it's totally No, it's it's super high. >> It was because it's almost I think >> I do kind of like this this sign review
committee thing though. I think we might be able to finagle a bagel there a little bit. John, um what's we spoke about this last week and did did you um what's what's your feeling about an idea of a special
permit versus a prohibition when the the bar is really high on being able to get a variance on internally lit roof mounted or fabricated letter signs with a visible light source? Yeah, we could we could review it and
then make a recommendation to the ZBA and then it could go to them for approval. >> I think that's a good path. >> Do you want to make it extremely hard to have that happen because of the bar that's necessary for a variance or do
you want to have it be something where there's a public hearing um and there's consideration given so the bar is not quite as high? I think the special permit bar is high enough. I don't think they should have to go for variance.
Does variance guy show hardship? It it's a it's a much higher level. I think if it went to special permit, we reviewed it and then went to the ZBA. I think then you have two two boards reviewing it.
>> That's my feeling. So would it give it I thought one of the things was that our bylaw doesn't give enough teeth to um to prohibit. So
if it's in the prohibit list and then it can be reviewed as opposed to being reviewed and then prohibited. So, if I was an applicant, I would want to go in saying, "Oh, this
sign that I wanted is a really it's it's going to be a tough hurdle for me to clear, but maybe I can do it as opposed to if it's by a So, I wouldn't be disappointed. If it was the other way around is, oh, you can get it
by a special permit, then I'd be really disappointed that I couldn't get it." >> Right. It seems they would have to meet they would the criteria spelled out in the bylaw. If you if you meet the if the applicant meets the criteria spelled out in the bylaw that's not to say that the
permag granting authority can't be arbitrary or capriccious but if they do meet those requirements ultimately they should prevail. So it's there it's it's all there like the the the you know the criteria the spe so >> so so that's why maybe it should be in
the prohibited and then with the the pathway to get a special permit for it >> but so two two different two different things >> it would it would end up being two different things because because
prohibited means it's not allowed >> you can't even it's just not >> so it's kind of like billboards like you guys definitely don't want billboards, right? I mean, that that to me was sort of like front and center, right? You definitely don't want billboards. Billboards are going to get prohibited. Somebody could try to maybe come and get a variance for a billboard
>> if not going to get the sign review committee to to say they want the billboard. I'm guessing I don't know why I don't know why the sign review committee would want to want to, you know, help somebody get a billboard. >> Um maybe I don't know. Maybe there could be some fantastic billboard. I don't know. I mean, sometimes there's all
these creative things that happen, but but um so yeah, so it's it's it's not it's not both. It's it's either going to be prohibited immediate variance or it's going to be a special permit use. It's one of it's one or the other.
>> And then if you got a variance by use, then it really can just be with that current business and it would not be transferable to the next owner. >> No, it would be transfer transfer. That was what we said last meeting >> because that's the problem with the
sleepy sign. It is transferable and we're trying to opt out to stop it so it's not transferable. >> No signs are not transferable from one from an old business to a new business. >> But the sleepy the former sleepy sign
because that was granted they keep getting to new businesses keep getting to be able to put a sign there at that size place. It was never it was never granted by the sign committee. It keeps getting granted by I assume either the ZBA or the select board, one or the
other. >> Right. >> Right. But that I think um I mean this is an area that we're looking at being a local historic district like one of the areas that you're talking about where the brew pub the only place that really would be where JD Wild's property is.
And I just I don't I don't drive around other communities that I think of Milton being similar and and see signs on top of buildings and you know >> they're limited and that's why there would be special permits and I mean John
uh we spoke about this last week as a a roof mounted sign in a limited u in limited areas or limited applications. It's the same for the fabricated letters with a visible light source. Um, do you do you still think
that those should be allowed in in limited uh applications? I mean, because Meredith is really talking about banning them completely. >> Yeah. I mean, we we talked last time about halo lit reverse lit signs like you have on um
>> extra space storage, >> you know. So, >> and those are special permit. Those are and those are fine. >> There's a special permit, right? >> And internally internally illuminated signs. Is that what you're talking about, Cheryl? >> Internally illuminated. >> Well, the internally illuminated are
going to be allowed by special permit in this. So the um the question was what you know my understanding is that there was agreement at our last meeting that we would also by special permit allow fabricated letters that have a visible
light source. So you know like if you have like the theater kind of sign uh light >> oh like with little bulbs on it or something >> bulbs on it. Yeah. Um I mean if we were ever to have a theater let's say or you
know u a use I used brew pub last time as an example but you know there could be >> um it could be yeah >> some application where that would tie to the use and then a roof planted sign you know in in industrial buildings those
were were common in extra space storage baker chocolate was industrial um that whole building complex was industrial at one time and the paper mill would be industrial as you said. Um, Maggie.
>> Yeah, those buildings did tend to have rooftop in the olden days, rooftop mounted signs. Correct. >> And and it's I think it's different. I have a rooftop mounted sign, but it's not lit. >> Although this these are separate. >> Yeah. >> You don't have to be necessarily lit.
So, under on the page 10 where it says um >> they're only allowed upon the grant of a special permit. Yep, I understand that. Oh, we're talking about on page six the right the addition of number eight the
>> yeah number eight is really combining the visible light source and then it combines the price signs and uh digital displays
um and neon um related to gas stations. So, those are really two different kinds of >> I mean, this seems like it would actually not even pass our light trespass bylaw that we just passed.
>> Good point. >> This would be this is this is dark sky compliant. You know, we worked really hard on that light trespass and now we're saying, okay, >> light trespassing. We were going to tell developers that we want, you know, >> this kind of lighting is not going to
trespass onto other people's property. Um if it's on a >> light pollution that's the next light pollution. >> Yeah. >> And there are there's Milton Hill neighbor. I mean there's just I'm just thinking because we're talking about these Baker Chocolate. There's people
who live you know on that who this that would be what they would be looking at. >> I mean this is a a much tighter level of regulation. I think people would be supportive of not having billboards, but this level of >> we're his every sign has to be historic.
Um I think no I >> and and this was originally prohibited. Correct. So So it's not a Yeah, >> I think it wasn't a prior draft. It was >> Yeah. So originally in our old >> up until up until Monday up until Monday.
>> So all these years it's always been prohibited. No, it's just in the >> in this in in this in this new version in our in our handbook in our regulations. It has always been prohibited. If you look at our handbook, >> it's not in the zone. It's not in zoning that way. It's in the
>> that's why we're doing this. >> That's why we're doing this because >> what's been in our regulations, which has always been what has been used by the sign review committee, what is in the regulations was not in the zoning. And so that's part of what we're doing
is we're putting what has always been the practice into our zoning. We're not we're not >> we're not the goal is not to expand. >> No, this is this is all prohibited currently. >> So John is >> when I trying to trying to look that up.
>> Yeah, I Yeah, I I'd want to look that up too. Is it guidelines or by Sorry, Jim. I didn't mean to speak over you. Oh, >> that's okay. So, I just remember when I owned Benz from 2008 to 2013, I tried to
do the neon open sign in my window and the building inspector came in. He was a customer and he just said, "Look, you can't have that sign. There's no neon allowed in this town." And I was surprised at that, but I took it down. So, I don't think we're doing anything new here um by by getting rid of neon.
And I honestly I can't think of a place where you would actually want a neon sign besides a gas station. The only place I've ever seen neon look good is up in Newbury Port and it's a restaurant called the Black Cow. It's an old industrial building. It used to be
ironically Davis Auto Electric, an auto repair shop. I'm sorry, Auto Parts Shop. And on the outside of the building, it says carburetor repairs in neon. It's a really old, really neat retro sign. It's got nothing to do with the Blackout restaurant. It's just a cool sign, almost like a trademark of of that area
of Newbury Port and the owner left it there. I mean, if that guy didn't have that sign there, his business would not suffer. Um, and I I I kind of agree with Meredith where I I I don't think neon's appropriate for Milton. And there might
like the Walter Baker Chocolate Factory, that gigantic Walter Baker sign up there is there, but you would never build that building and and want to put that sign up top. And you know what? I like that in Boston. I don't like that in Milton. Um, so yeah, that's where I
am on that. >> So So I guess I like this the way it's written. I'd like it a little bit I'd like to get um get rid of the neon somehow so you can't have it unless it's grandfathered. And
that's the way I read this but not allowing it by special permit would would completely omit it. >> So the question of >> very high makes the the question of whether special permit or prohibited And
the question really is if it's prohibited and you can how open is really a variance option and my understanding from our meeting that with that with Carolyn that it's
it's a super high bar which leads me to think it's not likely and if you think about zoning or variances typically you have to show um some kind of hardship and what would be the hardship
on a sign. So, I I I just don't I don't think it's right to say, well, you could still get it by variance because I I really don't think that that's going to be a a possibility. So, it's either a question of whether you you allow it by special permit or you just ban it. I think that's really the two options.
Well, I feel like even it's a little off topic, but getting variances even to build a an addition on your house, it seems to not be a high bar these days. You're if it's a hardship, if it's a topography, and there's one other thing,
um, soil composition or something, >> those are supposed to be the only reasons you're supposed to be able to get a variance. And if you watch the ZDA, they hand out variances left and right. And um as long as a neighbor doesn't complain about it, then um it's
granted. So um variance to me seems like it's easy to get in this town. >> Not if you have someone who is opposed if your next door neighbor is opposed to it, you're not getting the variance. And also you can have an appeal
um of those, right? So an appeal an appeal on a variance is is >> rare. >> Well, and it's it's pretty much guaranteed to prevail unless unless unless there's a Yeah. Unless there's a really
>> most people just don't have the wherewithal to follow through on an appeal. the the appeal I mean the like you said they they grant them but if somebody appealed it then the grounds for which they've granted that come under scrutiny
and I know that there I've heard of people in Milton where their neighbors have appealed as EBA decision and they didn't and you know it got overturned because so the problem we have and there's a reason so many are given out is zoning was added after much of it was
already built built and the zoning didn't match what was built so everything's non-compliant and otherwise you would restrict >> anybody yeah and I understand all that but it's just um to say that getting a variance is a high bar I don't think it
necessarily is >> I think it would be for the signs versus the what it is for the houses for the reasons I >> just probably >> and I think I think if it had the recommendation of the signed review
committee if it if it was you know they were going to the ZVA for it. If it was a situation where the sign review committee could say you know what this is a this is a situation where this would be good you know this would be recommended it was supported by residents you know I I think I think it
would be granted and I do think it's yeah they're more a little more lenient with variances um and and I don't think I I just I think this is not something
that we want to to encourage. And I think I do feel like if they saw it in a special permit, they're like, "Oh, that might be cool." Like they might not have even thought about doing one, but if they saw it in here, they would be like, "Oh, maybe that could be sort of neat and we could do that." Which they would
have otherwise done something um completely different. >> And plus, this can be tweaked in the future. I mean, we're going to put the zoning into effect. if it's if if there are things that come up, it it can be a town meeting. So, at some point, we're
gonna have to put this out there and >> I know. >> Okay. So, I don't have a problem with um changing this to a variance and making and and kind of getting rid of neon except where the existing gas stations have it and and the other two gas
stations in in the name of equity have the option to do it. Um, I I don't think anybody I don't think most builders or developers or restaurant tours are going to not open a business in Milton because they can't get a neon sign.
>> It's not just neon though. Um, >> it would be >> there's a lot of things listed here. >> Yeah, like you well you said like like a theater like a theater type of sign with the balls. >> I'm not so sure I'd want you know my name and lights in the middle of East
Milton Square, you know, like like >> like an old theater sign. Well, >> it's going to fit. We just don't have that giant commercial area that that warrants. >> It does. You're you're conflating like rooftop sign with the fabricated letter sign, which they don't necessarily have
to be rooftop mounted. >> I'm just I'm justing the situation. I'm not talking >> like everybody's had change of heart since the last meeting. >> I think I misunderstood. So maybe that's that's my fault because I had always that was one of the impetus in doing this was because we did
it did get appealed and we didn't have enough teeth to really keep a neon sign from being put up. >> So what I would say is you're taking a you say that you want to make it less like more teeth. So but we're still giving oh if the sign review committee says it's
okay then it's still okay. So there's still a lot of subjectivity in it. So >> prohibitive. Let's just say it's prohibitive. >> Way I understood that was the sign review committee writes a recommendation and then and the ZBA would make the determination. >> Correct.
>> Correct. >> And prohibited signs aren't coming to the sign review committee. They're prohibited. >> No, they still No, they they still would, John. We made sure that they would still come to you >> if there's an >> prohibited signs.
>> If if there's an application in front of the zoning board >> for a variance, then yes, then you your committee. >> Okay. Then they would ask us to to weigh in on it. Okay. >> That's I I wanted to make sure that that they would always any lit sign would come to the sign review committee.
>> Okay. prohibited. Sorry. >> So, so that was the one piece, but how do people feel about the rooftop signs? It does I I >> Well, before you get to that, I think you still need to split these two kind
types of signs. You're you're combining a lot of different types of signs in in number eight. Signs fabricated with letters, numbers, designs, or images consisting of an exposed or visible light source emitted from the face of the sign,
including but not limited to incandescent and fluorescent bulbs, light emmitting diode diodes, or LED price signs, LED digital display signs, neon tubes, and neon LED signs. Provided, however, that LED price signs
at fuel stations in the business may be permitted by special permit. So that would get back added back under special permit uses. LED price signs and fuel service stations in the business districts. That would get added back under special permit uses.
Okay, that's pretty much where it was before. >> So it end at neon LED signs period >> under prohibited. And then the last sentence would go under >> LED price signs at fuel service stations
in the business districts. will be a special will be a special permit use for fairness to the to the gas stations because that seems re we don't want to be unreasonable >> and that's something I didn't realize
the fairness part of it last meeting >> and then you guys need to decide sounds like you want to keep the the balance of the paragraph under prohibited because it's really not going to happen all that often. I can't
really one thing I heard during all of our, you know, whether it's MBTA or anything that we've been working on is we want Milton to stay a town and not start looking like a city. I've heard that. I can't tell you how many times. Everyone's like,
"Please, we do not we want to keep this a a town." You know, we have terms on our website, you know, say a bucolic treeline community with stone walls and green space. It just I think um we want great businesses. We want to encourage
them, but I don't think this is necessary to get to achieve that. Um and it just opens some just I think fights that we don't need to have, you know, unnecessarily. um from the community. You know, I know how upset East Milton was when that one
gas station went in. It was front page, you know, Milton Times, everybody neighbors were coming out. It was neighbors get upset about so much these days. The light trespass all of, you know, the issue at Turner's Pond like if we had those regulations in place, that
would have never happened. And this is just to pro to make it clear to make it simplified and and to not >> there's such a thing as overregulation which inhibits business and we get very little business tax revenue and we have very underperforming business district
in Milton Village in particular. >> Well, it's we have a lot of things in the pipeline that are coming which are exciting. So, >> and I'm the prime example of overregulation. So, I am sympathetic to overregulation 100%. Um, but I'm also sympathetic to
everything that Meredith said about keeping us a town. We do above Boston and that really, you know, when people come into my business, I can literally see them taking a deep breath, you know, and that's what it is. you leave the
city to come to a suburb and it's like the green spaces and the trees and um >> the space and the parking. I mean, your spot is awesome. You get out of you get out of your car, you walk around, you go
to the barn, but you get to park. It's it's relaxing. So, I understand being overly regulated, but I think a new business coming into town. Um, I I to Jim's point, I don't think having
a sign is going to make or break that business. And I do love the look of a brew pub sign. And I love the the um Pepsi sign up by me. I love it. But I think I just love it from a historical perspective.
um not from a new business perspective. >> So I think I'm okay keeping it in prohibited and then moving the last sentence to that to special. >> Okay. I think that was that was the biggest thing for that page. Um
>> do you want me to do you want to pick back up with just these these these bubbles? >> Um so just to just to confirm John John um that the both faces of the of the freestanding signs do not count. It's just the single face. So she made that
correction there on page seven. >> Um yes. >> Yep. She included that crosssection as we discussed at the last meeting. Um yes, >> page nine number three, second paragraph. If the application proposes any type of
illumination, the applicant shall meet with the sign review committee prior to said committee issuing a recommendation to the building commissioner or zoning board of appeals as applicable. >> Okay. >> Okay. Just just a question. Why does it go to the building commissioner, not the
ZBA? Uh, so if it was something that is um as of right as opposed to >> Okay, go to the building commissioner. >> Yep. Okay. >> Okay, >> gotcha. Thank you. >> Y um and then this next section I I there's no comments on it. I'm comfortable with it. I don't think I
really need to read through it unless anybody has any questions on it, but it it's that specific to um and again, this is where I this is where I'm kind of positing that the sign review committee's role is is enhanced here
where you can issue a denial that the that the building commissioner needs to uphold. So um I thought you guys were more of an advisory recom recommendation sort of role and this is giving you that power of denial. So um the s review
committee kind of has more teeth in this I think and it's it's really this is really reflective of the way it's been working anyway with >> with the denial of something. >> So that was so that I think that that's why that was highlighted. Just want to
make triple triple sure we're okay with that. Um, so moving on to page 10. This is what we were just talking about. The special permit section signs located on the roof. Reverse lit signs illuminated by white light only.
Eternal internally illuminated signs. And now we've just added back LED price signs at f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f fuel stations located in the business districts. So um and her comment here was just to be very clear about direct signs that
are have direct lighting are are as of right. So we allow direct illumination by right in section 6F. So I think this should be signs illuminated by means other than direct lighting. So, so if you look on page, if you look
on page um 12 under illumination, that's where that reference is is to externally illuminated signs. Signs may be externally externally illuminated by white steady stationary light. Um or upward is ground mounted and
directed solely at the sign. That's permitted by right. Okay. I just want to make sure everybody's comfortable with that. that that that comports with everyone's understanding of of what you what you can and can't do by right. So, if anything in the special permit
section is confusing about lit signs, we just want to make sure we we're all kind of on the same page. And so if um when a sign is lit um do we when does it get shut off? Is it
allowed all night long to be? >> No, there's still hours. >> There's still hours of operation. Yeah. Okay. It's the same 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. >> So that >> I think that's coming. >> Yeah, that's so that applies to um >> Yep.
>> Yep. >> applicable to all sides. >> Okay. >> So the question is under at the top of page 10 the grant that can be granted by special permit. Cheryl, your
number I Roman numeral one um signs located on the roof. >> I had said okay with that last time, but I don't >> I sort of rethought it and I think I I think that that we don't want to include
that in there. >> I've said my piece about these. >> So wait, so that would go repeat myself. So, so located on the roof of a building. I mean, I have one of those signs, so I would want that to be special permanent.
>> Maybe it doesn't Maybe it doesn't extend above the building's roof line. >> Um, >> well, does yours >> Yeah. >> So, where is it then? >> Um, it's between two dormers. >> Oh, >> so that's not above the roof line.
>> It doesn't extend above the roof line, but it's still a roof mountain. And it's not lit, right, Maggie? >> And it's not lit. >> No, >> I think that's the real deal breaker. >> I think it's a the the lighting I think is the biggest thing.
>> And then if you did it so it extended above the roof line, then you're just increasing the overall height. >> So, but mine doesn't go above my roof line. >> No. So, this could allow for an internally lit
sign on top of a building >> only if special permit a >> special permit >> if they recommend it. >> Yep. >> A special permit. Right. >> And the imple and the and the sign review committee I don't know if the sign review committee has the power to
deny an application that's in front of the zoning board, but they could definitely issue a negative recommendation. >> Correct. Yeah. It'd be either a positive or a negative recommendation to the ZBA. >> Right.
>> And John, at your meetings, how um how often do you listen? Not this is going to sound this is how often do the neighbors come and air their grievances and how much weight do you do you give that? >> Uh typically it's around lit signs. >> Okay. >> Is when they show up.
>> All right. >> If it's not a lit sign, not too often. >> Okay. So, you do take into consideration their their I >> Oh, absolutely. >> thoughts and feelings. >> I just don't see our the sleepy sign
ever ever being denied by ZBA if if it says they're they're going to look at this and say you can do it by special permit and we've already allowed it. I I just don't I don't see them I don't see us ever being able to get
rid of that sign with if this is unless this isn't prohibited. >> Huh. >> Can't get rid of it. It sounds like >> No, I mean unless they make a complete change to the sign. >> Yeah. But we're just trying to avoid another sleepy sign, >> right?
>> Correct. And I think this I I think this allows another new another sleepy sign to go into special permit unless unless it's prohibited.
>> Is that is that sign internally illuminated or reverse lit? >> It's like LED. >> It's like LE it's digital. >> It's it's it's a message board. >> So okay. So they so they wouldn't necessarily be able to do that type of sign, but they could put it in the same
location potentially by special permit, >> right? >> True. >> But is that a billboard? >> Yeah. Right. I know. >> True. So it could be denied on a billboard. And >> I think a billboard was Didn't you guys settle on billboard was very specific
that it was not on at the location of the of the business. >> So you >> Well, it's not advertising the business. It's advertising something other than the business that's located at the >> Oh, okay. Okay, that's fair. Yeah. Yeah. So, I guess you could Yeah. But I think you also have you you've also got um
dimensional dimensional guard rails on that one, right? >> 50 square feet. So, it would have to be smaller than what exists. >> Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. Somebody probably Yeah, you could you could put something up and be advertising whatever the heck.
>> Would have to prohibit rooftop illuminated signs to avoid the sleepy side situation in the future. >> You prohibit Maggie sign. >> No, I'm not illuminating. >> She's But it's rooftop. >> So it have to be rooftop.
>> Rooftop. >> Oh, rooftop and so what's rooftop and >> and So you be okay with sleepies if it wasn't illuminated. >> So you would need if you wanted to change your sign and it's on it's considered a roof sign you would need a
special permit if this go if this gets adopted as it's written even if it's not illuminated or anything. >> Oh my need special >> and if and if it's prohibited you would need a variance. >> Correct.
That's I think we should put in the prohibited sign in the prohibited section. But number one, number one, >> can you say a rooftop sign that is
illuminated? You say a nonilluminated sign located on the roof of a building or that descends above the building's roof line could be a special permit. >> I would the ones that are lit.
>> I would be fine with that. >> So non non illuminated signs located on the roof of the building. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then what about ones that extend above the roof line? >> Okay. So you could extend above the roof
line. I mean I'm not an engineer, but to me that's more of um you know I'd be afraid that the wind could get behind it and um create like a sail of it. That's I think one of the reasons why we put ours where we put it
so the wind wasn't coming from behind it. >> Do we need a building permit? >> Yeah. >> Have to demonstrate that it met the >> requirements. Then the only reason why I wouldn't want to prohibit it above the roof line is is
if there's a flat roof building. That guy gets no sign at all. >> Yeah. Right. >> I was thinking of that, too. >> Sometimes you have those faux those sort of like what are they called that in the storefronts? It's like a faux kind of >> pit wall.
>> Yeah. Like a Yeah. Yeah. And that's above the roof line. It's just that's just going to be nice, too. >> So, okay. So what are we what are we >> so this is so this is so so so far we've
got non non-illuminated signs located on the roof of the building where they extend above the roof line reverse lit signs illuminated by white light only and internally illuminated signs and then the LED for the gas stations. Those are the four special permit uses that I'
that I've got. Are they all staying? What you would have to do then is put Would are we covered already for non for illuminated roof mounted signs under prohibited? Is that covered
>> already or does he does that added >> illuminated signs above the roof line? >> Yeah, because we're saying here not illuminated. >> So >> yeah, that's a good point. >> Say >> so that would be number eight. Yeah.
So it will be what? 14. Yeah. Okay. So 14. Is it X I I I I I or is it I I before the other one? No, it's X I I I I. Right. >> No, I think it's X I V. >> IV. Yeah.
>> X I V. Isn't that 16? Oh, that's 14. I see. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, >> it's been a while. >> How often are we using Roman numerals? >> Okay. So, so illuminated signs located
on the roof. That's what's going there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Prohibitions. 14th prohibition. Before you get to the waivers, this next paragraph, I'm looking
up the general law, chapter 48, subchapter 9, and it says special permits. It doesn't say so that's so that's what's governing it governing it. I don't see anything related to signs under
in chapter nine. So I guess I still would like to have Carolyn talk about >> Yeah, we did talk about this a little bit today actually on on the phone. So So yeah, absolutely. Yeah, this was this was definitely a my question was whether or not you know we would be specifying
like a finding versus the special permit criteria and she made a distinction between a special permit capital S capital P and a special permit >> lowerase lowerase P. So it's pretty much it pretty much comes down to you know the
basis upon which you're making you're making your your finding. Um but yes we can definitely we can definitely clarify that more and and and I and I also want to clarify as well with Carolyn um the process. She walked me through the process for pre-existing
non-conforming signs, but I just want to make sure I'm crystal clear on something new that comes through in a residential zone because I'm still not 100% clear how that's going to work. >> Yeah. >> And then there is no section 5 H4 below
in that same paragraph. >> If you go to section five, there's no H. Yeah, I think I think there's a numbering issue with this because you have on page four you have section five sign permit which runs through the top
of page 10 and then it goes to three >> four or five again. >> Yeah, she may she may she may have moved that section, John. That's good. That's a good catch. >> Um >> I think because that was what throw me off too. I went to five variances and
Yep. more than one place that that references section 5H4. >> Yep. Absolutely. Yep. Yep. Section 5H4. Yep. Yeah. We'll fix that. And I And there and there was another section, too, where some of the lettering there was a there was a there was a repeat of
one of the letters. So, we'll we'll we'll get we'll get that we'll get that stuff we'll get that stuff cleaned up for sure. >> You got two sections fives right now. So the >> two threes, two fours. Fine. John, do you have the most current version that
she sent today, nine hours ago? >> I have the Oh, she sent it to me at 4:18. So >> probably the same one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's I know it's it's kind of a moving target, guys. I apologize. >> Oh, yeah. She sent it to you, Jim, at
137. Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm not seeing it, but So the so how do you so next steps on that section then? So you want to have a we want to have another conversation with Carolyn
about that specific the specific language there. Cheryl >> well I just would >> be >> I'd just like to understand it. You know it's it's referencing the general law which I'm looking at. I just would like to understand myself
what in here applies. >> Or how it applies maybe. >> Yeah. >> Because somebody may ask us at like a town meeting or something. I just we've never talked about these references and >> I'd like to understand them >> especially because we're talking about
special permit versus variance versus as of right >> and I think people might want to understand the three. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> And so the same would apply for the variant wherever that language is you
know making sure we understand it. I'm sure there's a reference somewhere. >> There is. Well, yeah. >> In terms of general law. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I have no I have no concerns that she can she can walk that down.
>> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Um All right. So, so the next section is the waiverss by the sign review committee. 25% waiver on dimension. 25% increase on pullout sign area. 25% reduction in the required setback. Um
did you want to circle on that with John that 25 reduction? >> John Yeah, because we had we had talked about putting language in um saying that you know there's a 15 foot setback and we had said unless otherwise uh
determined by the sign review committee. The way Carolyn wrote it is was a percentage that you that the sign review committee could have. And I thought you might want we might want to increase the granting of a waiver to to reduce
the setback of a sign not to exceed 25%. You might want to move that closer to the street than 25%. Right. >> You might. Yeah. >> I was going to suggest >> Yeah. If it's a like it's a parking lot entrance sign, you probably want it up
very close to the street so they can so they can see it. >> So at least a 50% you could make a waiver of moving it up. >> Can I ask where the 15 ft came from? Just curious.
>> That was in the I think the um article that Tim had presented us that was language that was pulled from there. >> I just don't know if that's problematic. So, I I um asked Liz about Fuller Village today and
she sent me um what had been applied for in 24. And I saw on this drawing in that application that the signs are set back 17 ft from Blue Hill A. So maybe it's a sight line on a road like, you know, Blue Hill. I don't know if you can see
that here, but >> Yeah. >> Did you send Did you send that to me? Do you want me to try to share screen or do we need to? >> You sent this um you sent this to me in a sent that was in the folder. Gotcha. Gotcha. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'd like to I'd like to give more
discretion to the sign review committee to >> but yeah to I'm fine with the discretion. But Liz asked where the 15 came from. I don't know where it came from exactly, but I thought this was interesting relative to that discussion that it's 17 here
>> and maybe that's where it came from. But I can see where it again it's it depends on the application. >> It it does come down a sideline. I maybe that's what the 15 comes in because of the length of the car.
>> Um >> it's what how long is the car? 10 ft. >> Maybe that's where I came from. >> Okay. So maybe increasing that to at least 50%. Um >> so that would allow you to go down as
low as like seven and a half ft. Does that sound Does that sound um reasonable, John? >> Yeah, I mean we look at it case by case and you know look check visibility, you know, cars approaching it, cars pulling out.
All right. So, we'll increase that to give more flexibility. So, you said you're asking 50%. Do a 50%. Yeah. Rather than 25 on that last one on these 25%s.
Um, I was looking at the the table that you provided. Thank you. looking at that um you know some the amount utilized in the current zoning for the most part they're not hit
but with this proposed change some of them would be now larger than what's allowed but maybe within the 25% but some of them would not even be within the 25% so I'm curious what did John get a copy of this by the Yes.
>> Yeah. So, I just am curious what your thoughts are about the 25%. Or maybe it's not the percentage, but maybe it's where we are with the uh the area allowed. So, I don't know. Maybe we want to table it until we come back to there. But it's a combination of
the two, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Sometimes we like to make adjustments on how the the building the sign sits on the building facade. So, I'm just wondering if that should be like 30% instead of 25 or
or whether we just need to go back to a little bit higher number which is a little different. This is a little different section here. 20 I mean the 25% probably gets a lot of these close. Yeah. >> Nails and spa at one central maybe not.
But I think they did a lot of window lettering. So, and and honestly, like if you're, you know, if you've got these if you've got these, you know, um mixed juice buildings with the with the retail on
the first floor and the apartments above like you probably might get that type of a design, >> you know, where you've got those big windows and >> and they can they can they can they can letter letter them up as long as it's within that,
>> right? So, keeping it smaller and having the percentage is what you're saying is still a good thing. >> Yeah, that probably is the only one that couldn't get all that lettering with the with the 25% waiver. Rest of them are pretty It looks like they're pretty close. Well, the Brush
Hill Center is not a good example because that's really sort of an outlier. Mhm. >> Most of the most of the um the sort of um >> and they uh >> typical ones they don't meet the they don't they don't even get close. Although this doesn't this doesn't
really this doesn't really capture a lot of the window stuff. I mean, you'd really have to go back and really look at the window stuff because the only reason I had the data on the nails and spa was because it was a recent approval and they dimensioned every single every single lettering that that they that
they put up on these put up in those windows. There's lots of businesses that there's this window signs and so it's not in here. But I think what this demonstrates is that reducing it is not going to be detrimental because even the ones that are allowed don't even meet
the amount that they're allowed. >> Right. Right. Yeah. Based on your analysis. >> No, I thought the analysis was really helpful. Right. And the pictures and photographs because it backs up whatever we you know are putting into this.
So, are we leaving the 25% good enough table that and >> sounds like we're leaving it? >> I think that Yeah, I think I think that's a good number. And if we ever find we need to adjust something, we >> can >> we can
Is that it for page 10? Yeah, sorry. Um, I'm still I'm down I'm down that rabbit hole trying to find that that section that was mis that was mislabeled. It's driving me nuts. Um, all right. So, so page 11
talked about adding that language about the brand or the logo, which I think is great for the sign review committee's work. Um, I don't think there's any question under that section on variances. Um, definitely need to double check those
section numbers though for sure. Uh, by special permit. That just refers back to that section we were talking about at length about the different special permit uses. I'm on page 12. So now this is where we get into some of
the questions about dimensions. Just to confirm these dimensions. >> Yeah. So the residential the Fuller sign is 5T wide
by let's see 3T 7. No 3T n. No. What is 3T 7? Sorry. um which uh is 18 square feet. That doesn't count
the granite posts. And the winter valley is 6' 6 by 3T, not counting the stone base and the vertical post. So that's 19 1/2 square ft. So 9
square feet seems like way too small. Just using those two as examples. these apartments, town houses. I I almost wonder do you want to do you want to separate out by the size of the the size of the
development maybe? I don't know because you are you trying to have it so that people can't put up sort of goddy like goddy signs in front of like you know six lot subdivisions. Well, there's nothing that um guides the signage in uh residential areas, >> even businesses in residential
districts, which are there's a lot of that um in East Milton Square, that big building where Rockland Trust is, that's in the residential district. So, if you think about all the signs in residential districts, you can take Milton Hospital.
Um so, it's not just residential uses. So, I think this would need >> a little >> this well it's small number one but I also think it's we need to consider signs that are in residential districts but they're not at
entrances to subdivisions or multifamilies or apartments they're also at like let's just say the 7-Eleven and the dental office at the corner of Reedsdale and Randolph that's in a residential district um that hospice on the corner is in a
residential district. >> Um the hospital is not zoned for >> so that so that would be so I think that gets captured under B which is the pre-existing non-con non-conforming commercial uses located in the
residential zones are subject to the same requirements as business districts. >> Okay. >> But but I totally hear you because that doesn't doesn't anticipate something new like the memory care >> or like >> childcare facilities, >> right? which which are
because they're on the do, right? >> So, I'm not sure how much it's a commercial use. >> I I don't know. >> I don't know. Signage >> is the the use is allowed, but the is the signage considered >> separate like a separate consideration >> regulated. >> It can be reasonably regulated, I think.
>> Okay. Well, that's good because because Avanche got a call on that. >> We should confirm that with Caroline, right? What's interesting I found, you know, that most of our multif family housing don't have signs. You know, the new Henry's building, 88 Wararf, they don't
they have engraved in their Walcott Woods just has it in their columns. You know, there a lot don't have signs, >> but but there are the do, you know, there are some and especially our senior living, our Fuller Village, our Winter Valley. Um, and these these new comp
permits, too. >> They're all going to need they're all going to need something. They'll all have something. >> And the thing is, it comes down to just the the size of the lot and the proportion. It's all based on proportion. And some lot sizes and
locations can tolerate a larger sign and others can't. Like imagine doing a big sign at the 714B. like you have all those little houses on either side. So having an oversized sign there would
be totally out of scale with the existing >> Well, I would say though that nine if you're thinking about where we have these signs, nine square feet is is too small. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So yeah, I don't know what the correct >> I was going to say 20 square feet
because that's what Fuller and Winter Valley are and they seem appropriate for That's what I was going to suggest too. >> Yeah. >> So, and then that's a maximum again so that the discretion come goes back to sign review committee.
>> Um, >> I'm good. I'm good with that. >> That seems >> that's exclusive of a base and post. So, I don't know how we want to say that if we do. >> Is it though? >> It is. Is it the dimensions are the dimensions calculated exclusive of the
base or post? So, John, when John, that's a good question for you. If we said that the the sign area can't be more than 20 square feet, do you understand that to exclude the posts and the base?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's the way we typically review it. >> Okay. >> And then the next piece of this 5t in height. The fuller sign is five feet. Um because it's elevated and the
I uh I didn't measure the stone. >> What did you get for Winter Valley? Because I got it closer to like seven or eight. >> Really? Because um the stone What did you get for the stone base then? >> Did I just I just I just scaled it off.
I mean I'm I'm 59 510. I'm basically six feet. and it was it was another two feet over my head. So, so I just kind of roughly said said eight feet tall. >> Um, when you're dealing when you're dealing with height though, like it is going to be it is going to be from the
ground level. Even if it is on like some kind of a base, it doesn't really matter because it's 10 it's 8 feet above the the sidewalk or the driveway or whatever. Oh, I see. Because it's a bit elevated, it's about eight feet. >> Yeah. Height will go from height will go from the grade. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I would say Okay. Because I'm
looking at the photo now. The sign is elevated above where they have the plantings cuz they had the plantings so that you wouldn't see the sign if it wasn't elevated. And then they have the granite uh or stone rather. I I'm guessing like the stone was like 18 in.
And then uh you you could be right then in terms of the overall height. If you add another it's elevated two feet. So, you're saying like seven or eight? So, >> yeah, was it? Yeah, it's about I'd say closer to eight, especially when you add
in the light and um Yeah. Yeah. About eight. >> There's a You're saying But the um >> Yeah, cuz it lifts. It doesn't look that large because it's up on a stone. >> Yeah. See how it's >> base? So, I wouldn't include that with the the
>> they measure it from grade >> from grade even though it has a stone island. It's sitting on a stone island. >> Pull it up so John can see. >> We would measure from the base of the stone. >> Yeah, I can. >> Um, did you send me a picture of it from
from the bottom up? >> You send it to me. I can send or I said pull it up. Okay. If not, I can um >> You can send it to me. I can send it to John. >> Just text it or email it. >> You can text it and I'll
see if this works, guys. Oh. Oh, you got it. All right. Never mind. Okay. Is that it? Did you send me something else besides that? >> That's a close photo. >> Very close. >> Second second photo. Here we go.
>> There we go. There's the stone base. >> There's the stone base. >> And I'm guessing it's like 18 to 24. I stepped up without >> Yeah. Yeah. 18 to 24. But it was a it was a good eight feet because I stood in front of it and it was it was it was a
good it was good foot or foot and a half two feet over my head. >> The actual design itself is probably if you're saying >> I was going to say maybe the posts are six feet. It's probably an eight foot post with two foot in the ground. So six
feet six foot post. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Yeah. The post on that fuller was five feet. So, 20 feet for the for the sign. And um and then I I found one that was easily 10.
>> Personal personal medicine, personalized medicine on the corner of um Brook and Central and you know that little doctor's office. >> Oh yeah. Easily 10 feet. >> 10 square feet. >> 10 feet high. >> Oh, 10 feet high.
>> Oh wow. >> Yeah. Easily. That might have been at that well that could have been a pre-existing non-complian but it also could be higher because that's a busy intersection. >> Um
I think maximum 8t I would agree in a residential neighborhood >> they can >> and they and they can give a variant. They can they can they can go they can increase that by 25%.
>> If they need to. >> But what was the height? >> 8 ft. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. It says measured from the natural grade to the top of the highest component of the sign. Right. >> So that would include that light in this case
>> for winter valley. Yeah, we could we would include the light on this, correct? >> Okay. >> 75. You guys settled on that? It seemed to align with what you the data that you provided for what is
existing. You see, like if I looked at it, what was approved compared to what was allowed before, you know, there's a few that went above 50% of the area, but there's a lot of them that were even a far less than
that. >> So, we we we're cutting this back by half, right? >> So, I think that's we can do that. And then they've got the other 25% to go >> more than half from two to 75. So more than half. >> Yeah, more than half. But even so, I
still think what given the 25% increase that's allowed. >> Yeah. I mean, half of these half of these will be will be non-conforming. >> But with the 25%, it won't be half. >> Yeah. But more regulation they have to go through to get that 25%. Are we
talking about making it easier for people? You'd have to make the case to the sign review committee to get the 25% extra extra square footage. >> Yeah, the sign review committee can >> allow a variation which they do do
because sometimes it doesn't look right on a building >> that they approve larger signs to make it look but even so they have in in the examples that we have they haven't done that on a lot of them. Yeah, it's not
many. >> So, John, what do you think about this at this 75 square feet in area? >> I was looking at this and I was thinking, why bother change it? I mean, if if if most of the 90% of these signs aren't
using the max that they need. The Starbucks is the only one that's really maxing it out right at 95%. I'm just thinking why even bother changing it if we want to be more regulationf free and make sure that we lose our reputation of being a tough
town to do business in. Well, if you go back to what Meredith said earlier about kind of the character of the residential district and not plastering buildings with more signs than necessary, this scales it back to something to at a
scale at which signs have been approved. So it's more consistent with signage that exists. So I mean >> isn't broken. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. You know, I don't think anybody's coming to us complaining about
having too big of a sign in their residentially zoned business that they live next door to. I I think it was the concern with the the large scale buildings that are now going to be redeveloped, the um the one Elliot Street that are just
massive. Um >> that's in the business. Now, we talking about in the business district or the residential district. >> These are this is in the business district >> business. Okay. All right. >> And and it and it also applies to any pre-existing non-conforming commercial
signs that are in the residential districts. And because the town has a lot of residential zoning, you got a lot of you get a lot of historic businesses in the residential districts. >> But yeah, I don't know. I I just I just
don't see an issue with it, but um if you guys want to regulate it, I'm not going to say no to it. I just I just don't see the need, I guess. I don't think it's been a problem, and I don't see it being a problem. So I I think it
maybe we could adjust it from 75 to one. >> Yeah. I was just say we should do one. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Make the math simple. >> Yeah, >> that's true. It's a good point. >> Okay. >> And there's still a 25%. >> I think what it does, Jim, is it sets
the >> tone or the standard for what you're trying to achieve, just the same as what you were talking about earlier, right? So, you know, the what the tone that's set by the current is we we like a lot of signs. We we'll be happy with a lot
of signs. So, this will say we're we're looking for more balance in the amount of signs. That's the way I see it. >> Okay. All right. Uh, so on page 14, >> can I just
on uh kind of back before we we touched on it, but I'm not sure this language is is uh clear. It says pre-existing non-conforming commercial uses. We should also say
those are pre-existing non-conforming in the residential zone. So is that what about a nonconforming in a residential zone? This is there any such thing as that that wouldn't be pre-existing? >> Well, so
you did you guys change the zoning for the memory care? >> We did. >> So that's in a new zone. >> It's an overlay zone. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so I don't know. >> So just maybe
Yeah, >> I think about that. I just want to make sure we're covered for the signs here. >> Yeah. Yeah. I Yeah, I had I had the same question about new new non-residential uses in the residential zones. Um
yeah, I'm sure she can add something there to make that clear because I think the hospital on that on the Highland Street side is very sensitive to being in a residential area. They have a very small sign on that side. It's larger on the Reedsdale side, but they were, you know, the entryway feels very
residential and it's small. >> So, the other thing is our MBTA zoning, we have mixed uses allowed um in areas that are currently only residential. >> Yep. >> And so, we would want those new signs to
have to follow for the commercial part of it to have to follow the business. And they're not necessarily in res residential zones. they're in this over these new overlay zones. >> So you so you want them to be in the more restrict you want them to have the
the the wider you want them to have the wider criteria of the businesses. >> Yeah. Because there's business uses there. >> Okay. And not to restrict them to this to these this 8 ft. >> Yeah. Because this is different, you
know, we're talking about like something about I'm thinking like smallish commercial like you would have at um 36 central for example that could come in one of those mixeduse buildings
and so that that's more similar to that business district >> and like the ice house is going to have a new retail retailer coming in there >> that's residential we don't know what
yet anxiously waiting here Okay. All right. >> I have a question on 8B under principal signs. >> Yes. >> I I I don't understand that. I still don't understand the sentence. No more
than two principal signs shall be allowed for each business establishment. This to me that means you could have you could put, you know, you have a a storefront and you could put two two signs on it. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think where where this was
coming from, I believe, is there's I think it's an insurance company in East Milton. >> Mhm. >> And they had a sign on their front facade and then they had a parking lot along the side of their building. So then they had a another sign facing the
parking lot. And I think they wanted to get a third sign and we let them have two. So, I think there could be two principal signs if you have two building elevations ex, you know, exposed to the public, but I wouldn't want to see two
principal signs on a storefront. >> So, no more than two principal signs. A principal sign may be a flat wall sign, a sign attached to a wall projecting out perpendicular or a freestanding sign. So, yeah. So I So so the scenario being
somebody wanted to do two flat wall signs, >> right? >> Right. >> So >> yeah, that would >> is that allowed? >> It looks like it would be. >> Yeah, it does. I mean, can you think of any scenarios where someone has had the
type of building where they where they would might want to do that? No, the only time is like I said it has two two building elevations that are you know can be seen by the public like right >> like this one building they had one along the main street and then they had a sign that was along the parking lot.
So they wanted to put a sign on the parking lot >> and on the front and then like um the I always forget the the restaurant across from Starbucks they have you know two building elevations >> so they could have >> Yeah.
>> Abby Park right. So they could in in theory they could have two principal two signs one on each elevation but I would not want them to have two flat signs on one elevation that >> so maybe we add language to this. >> Can we say that? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. provided no more than two signs provided >> like so so just repeat what you just said John which was basically that the the a single elevation a single elevation would not have two principal
signs something something along those lines >> yeah would be if if your building has two elevations that are I guess exposed to the public view something like that >> provided there are two elevations >> a That makes sense. >> Allowed per minute,
>> right? Then you could get two signs. >> So, provided there are two elevations. >> I mean, you can you can have two signs, but they're different kinds of signs. >> You can have a free standing and you can have Right. So, so but so that that the
ability to have the two signs remains, but you could only have two of the same kind of sign if you have two elevations that are exposed to the public view. like like a corner lot and just wall signs.
>> You don't want you you want to limit just to wall signs? >> I think so. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean, I've never had a business yet that wants to do a wall sign and a projecting sign, >> right? >> I mean, I guess they could and I I'm >> surprised,
>> you know, >> and we would want them come to us for So, a freestanding sign. You mean something on the sidewalk? Well, like the freestanding sign in front of in front of like the nail place. >> Oh, I see what you mean. >> They've got they've got two principal
signs. >> Okay. Right. Okay. Yep. I can see that. >> Yeah, it would be two. I guess we'd have to specify for the flat wall signs, you need two building elevations. >> Okay. Yep. Okay, that makes sense.
Thank you. >> Are we ready to move on? >> Okay, now we're back to height on >> page 14. >> Yeah. So this was a question um and Carolyn had put this in because she said in our current bylaw we don't have any
height um requirements. So we had in the um the residential we had the 5T which we've now increased to 8 ft. Um she had had 12 feet in there in for commercial but we said that for gas stations but I
thought do we want to rethink that for other freestanding signs? Do we want them to be a little bit smaller given that there's a 25% allowance? 12 feet just seemed really tall for We just did 10 feet, right? Or do we do eight feet?
Sorry. >> We just did eight. >> Should we do eight feet here? >> So, who has the tallest for eight was for the residential districts. >> So, the tallest sign is the Dunkin Donuts and the Citizens Bank.
And they both I drove by and like they are really big like they didn't they didn't need to be so big you know obviously >> that's why I'm my what effect on one of my points before is there can be such a thing as too much signage like and some business just think that bigger is
better more is better John you probably see that in applications >> oh yeah especially with you know a Dunkin Donuts or yeah banks they wanna they want to catch your eye as you're driving by. >> Yeah, it tends to be >> sign a low freestanding sign won't help
them. >> They want something up above the cars that you can see. >> So would 10 ft and then you could give an allowance. Would that be >> I don't know what the Duncan sign is. >> Didn't you Weren't you saying you were
kind of surprised? >> I went by it. It was taller than I >> Yeah. Yeah, it's it's got to be if you thought it was tall, it's got to be at least as tall as that that doctor's office. >> So, it seemed like they shouldn't be as tall as gas stations. If we're saying
gas stations are 12 feet. >> No. No. >> So, maybe 10 10 ft and then there's discretion for the sign review committee to adjust that. >> Well, I mean, an 8 foot sign you could easily see over a car. Well, yeah, 10
feet is probably better. You're right. I mean, >> but if you go up 25%. What's that? >> Maybe we should be consistent and just do eight feet. >> 25. >> Maybe it should be 8 ft and then they can add on too. >> If I think about like East Milton
Square, cars are going slowly there and you you're trying to promote a walking walkable district, right? >> Even in Milton Village where the streets wider and they're going too fast. you know, it would be nice to have even that get narrowed up at some point
>> so that it really does feel more pedestrian friendly. So, I do think if we're in encouraging signs that are big enough for faster moving cars, then we're going against what you said earlier about kind of setting up a a
standard for the kind of district we want to see. And it's it's not the district necessarily that we have today 100%. Right. So, >> if it's 8 feet, 8 feet 25% will give us a twoft leeway. So, that would get them up to 10 if they want to. So, I would
say let's do eight. >> Okay. >> I think we might have skipped the the the question at the top of the page has more to do with the clearance. >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Supporting devices or stands. Freestanding sign shall be erected upon
so boarding devices or stands shall not exceed feet in height and shall provide so many feet of clearance under the sign area. >> You know I I was thinking about that. Do we need to specify clearance because I sort of would trust the sign review committee.
>> I think we don't determine that. >> Yeah, I don't think we need to regulate that because that that depends also on the facade of the building. >> Yeah. If you got a taller building, it might look better up higher. Okay. >> So, just eliminate that paragraph
entirely. No, we would have Oh, well, I guess >> Well, it says freestanding stand. It's setting the height and then you just >> then you're repeating. >> You just freestanding shall not be part of an attached building erected on supports.
>> Thought you're just striking and shall provide. >> Okay, got it. You shall not exceed That part shall not exceed so many feet in height and show divide >> the clear the part clearance >> keeping the eight feet plug. >> Oh, I see. Yeah, that's that I was thinking of something different. I was
thinking of a sign projecting out from a building. >> Oh, I see. Yeah, this is this is freestanding standing, >> right? And it's and this is the height of the support supporting devices or stands as opposed to as opposed to the the height of the the sign overall which
we which I think we've addressed under D for 8 ft in height. So yes, we could probably just strike that whole. >> I don't think we need the whole >> Yeah, but that one but the other one's under principal sign >> and this one's under sign or no.
>> Do we have the height for the gas stations in a separate area? Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, page 14 at the top that bullet point is underneath print the >> Oh, yeah. Secondary sign. So, we should have both. We should keep both.
>> So, >> D is a separate item. So, you could strike it from B and leave it as D to address it. I I think we can I think we can keep the part a freestanding sign shall not be
part of or attached to any building. Period. It may be located elsewhere on a lot where it does not obstruct vehicular traffic, sight lines or pedestrian traffic. A freestanding sign may contain signage for any or all of the businesses on a lot. A freestanding sign shall not have more than two faces. So I think we
probably want to keep all of that because that's not related to height >> and just take >> but we probably just want to strike out the part about the clearance. >> Yeah. >> And shall provide blank feet of clearance. Just cross that all off and end with a period after height.
>> So that >> shall be erected by Okay. Got it. Got it. >> So all right. Since >> but but then you're repeating yourself under G. So, >> right, that's my point. >> Shouldn't you? >> Yeah, why don't we just leave the height under D and then like I I think it was
Liz that was just saying a freestanding sign shall be you you take out the height and the clearance part under that bullet point. >> Yes. Yep. >> I see why you're doing that now. >> Yep. Okay. >> And then you put the height under D. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay.
Even though the one's a primary and one's a secondary because secondary is C and height is D. >> Separate. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. >> Yeah. Because it really it only comes up with a freestanding sign. Right.
>> Right. Yeah. Thank you, John, for sticking with us with this. >> Oh my gosh. This is He's got he's got to be into this for at least 10 to 12 hours at this point. >> I know, for sure. >> But he's the most experienced of anyone with all of this. So, it's important to
have him. I agree. Get rid of the word fabric. Doesn't really add anything. It's fine. Y recommendation. >> Yeah, because it doesn't have to be fabric, >> right? Uh, and then just triple confirm we're sign review is not reviewing
sandwich board signs. Correct. >> Correct. >> Good. Um, and then I'm I'm comfortable. I think we already talked about this about moving all of this additional language to the guidelines, the sign review guidelines, >> but she kept some because we said some
should belong here. Is that right or not? Some of these could be moved. I know she's got I know she's got a section >> the very end. >> Yeah. Right. On p starting on page 17.
Yes. Right. So, not for inclusion in the zoning amendment. Put these in the design guidelines. So, um sign shall only be displayed place of business. >> Yeah. So, so yeah. So, there are there are um
Yeah, I'd have to go back and look and see. Maybe just this one that's highlighted is is what she Yeah. Well, that was what we talked about with the ADA stuff. Um she probably wants to keep the ADA stuff in.
>> That's that's not that's not repeated. >> That's not repeated on page 17. >> Uh the first bullet is repeated on page 17. The second bullet is repeated on page 17. >> I see. Yeah. >> Third bullet is not about the width and
the height. That is not. So yeah. So so we can we can do a better job and make that more clear. But are people comfortable with her suggestion that certain of these items can be in the guidelines? Is there anything that you feel absolutely should
be in the zoning bylaw to make sure that it doesn't get moved to the guidelines? >> I'm okay with their suggestions. >> So then these would be reviewed by the building commissioner, correct? >> Yes. >> The design guidelines. >> Yeah. So in this scenario, the building
commissioner would be using that handbook probably more than maybe in the past, which is probably a good thing. >> Yeah. >> I just say the third bullet and then the one where it references the police department, the last bullet might want
to stay. >> I think director that can go to the design guidelines. >> Okay. >> I think you're saying the sign shall advertise the business goods and services. That one. No, the the 24 by 48 just the size the
overall size of the thing just so people thinking huge >> I'm I'm on the wrong page. Sorry. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. And then you know just when I see police department I think it should stay but um >> Yep. And and the one so three bullet points. Is that what
we're saying? >> Yep. >> Stay in the Those will stay in the bylaw. >> ADA. This is not the KDA one. >> Okay, good. >> I think there's only one tough one left. Meredith
service stations. And just under it says the sign must be constructed with a cross brace for stability. Some of the sandwich signs don't have a cross brace, but they have an area that you can fill with sand. So, um, so it doesn't have a
cross brace. So, I don't know if that matters. >> I think we could say on that one, I think we could say must be constructed with a cross brace for stability or the sign must have sufficient strength to stand by itself without the use of other
materials to stabilize it. >> Just put it all in there and then that gets reviewed by the building commissioner. All right. Oh, so this was to do with like the conversation around how there's a service bay,
there's a there's a kino, there's gas, there's Dunkin' Donuts. I don't know. I I think that's the that was the that was the gist of Carolyn's question was was like how much of this signage
counts. >> Yeah. I I thought the last time when we discussed this we just focusing on the big freestanding sign and and regulating that and then the other signs would be reviewed by the sign committee because you know buildings are different sizes.
Some signs look better a little larger. Some signs look better, a little smaller. So, I'm not sure how you can regulate just pick pick a square foot number and have it be applicable everywhere >> for fuel stations only
>> cuz all the gas pumps need signage on them. You know, there might be a sign over the service bay. >> So, is the number of principal signs still only one for a service station?
because I remember I think other service stations like you'll see soco in three places at least big snowco things or whatever it is I don't know the brand but >> it's one thing to identify service bay and pump and whatever it's another thing
to have the name of the company on the building on a freestanding >> on the um that hood thing whatever it's called they they want >> I don't think those would be considered a principal sign though I don't think those I think those would be okay well I
don't know what that's considered but it seems to me there should be a limit to number of those and that you know identifying the other functions should be allowed >> right I mean these sizes seem appropriate on
the non non um principal signs but Maybe you're I think what John's saying is it's hard to put a number on >> three square feet seems kind of small for a sign that says let's just say it's a re service bay
you know 1 ft by 3 ft >> I thought that would be the nine square feet >> product identification signs for guests >> no one no single sign to exceed three square feet in area >> yeah maybe that is small if it's a total >> yeah that's really small you ever get a
service bay sign that size? >> No. Yeah. >> Yeah. I was thinking that was more sort of like, you know, state inspection stickers here, like that kind of thing. >> Um >> I think those are regulated by the state the size of those.
>> Yeah, probably. >> I think that's a standard sign that you get from the state and you just put it up on the wall. >> Yeah. Yeah. So when I was looking at the sign examples that Liz sent around the letters above this pond building above
the door are 2 feet by I think it was 16 feet which I which sounded awfully big to me but then when I saw it in the picture it did not seem that big. >> Two by 16 is what 32
>> correct? >> That's big. Uh, >> but it looked right on the building. >> It did. It did. So, I'm thinking above a service bay, you know, with the sign that says, you know, service bay, it would >> Right. That's why I think you've got to kind of look at it per building.
>> Yeah. >> And not not regulated by size, but regulated by the building itself. >> So, 24 square feet sign area seems small when we looked at these residential like full or winter valley being 20.
Remember that was uh I think we we look at a sign. I I marked it up to 25. Yeah. 25. >> So you think that's >> Now that's the that's the freestanding sign.
>> No, that's just the the that's just the top of the freestanding sign. >> Top of the freestanding sign. Right. Okay. Got it. >> Got it. So not incl not including the the gas pump prices. >> Correct.
So, do we take out the nine square feet and the three square feet and do something to the, you know, put wordage in that says, you know, up to the discretion of the sign review, >> John, do they do they come to you for
non principal signs? Do they come to you for all of those? with the whole package. Oh, yeah. Everything they they come to us. Anything that goes on the building, they come to us. >> Oh, good. >> That goes on the pumps. Yeah. Everything. >> So, you do have the discretion to Yeah. >> Mhm.
>> Right. Cuz cuz um like for Cheryl's question before on the I think it was the Shell station, they we didn't have them put the name over the pumps, but we let them put a non-elilluminated logo over the pump.
>> Yeah. like on the the canopy over the pump. We didn't let him write shell again. We just let them put the little shell logo up on there that was non-illuminated. So, yeah, we we they come to us with a full package on those things. >> So, it sounds like this first one is
really the freestanding sign it's highlighted. >> Yeah, it's that freestanding sign that we looked at the last time. >> Yeah. that has, you know, >> uh, it probably should, >> but are we requiring it to be freestanding? What if they want it?
>> I think I think that's what I'm principal. >> It just refers to it as principal sign >> and poor in this case. >> I think you have in this case we're talking about 12 foot height limits. I think you're talking about the standing one, >> but then then it goes on to talk about
the total number of signage >> for the services, but that there's still you would be that freestanding sign then you would still probably be allowed a principal sign because the freestanding sign is putting
pricing and other stuff on it, right? And then >> No, but that has a princip that has the principal sign on it that has the name of the gas station. Okay. >> I can see if I can find that one we looked at the last time. >> Yeah. >> So, should we say product identification
signs for gasoline service stations maybe um may be maintained? >> Is it really maintained? Because >> yeah, it's not really that >> maybe deter maybe >> allowed >> allowed.
I like I like giving I like giving the discretion to the >> giving the discretion. Yeah. Allowed. >> Yeah. Because how come that only fuel service stations are allowed to have product identification signs
and like 7-Eleven can? >> I mean my sense is it would be connected to sort of the nature of the business. But you just >> right in terms of in terms of like in terms of safety >> I mean I'm I'm sure I'm sure it's I'm
sure it's it's it's maxed out as well as much as they can get away with but it's probably got to do with the nature of the business. It's kind of gas stations are kind of like a utility in a sense. I mean they're they're a necessary like
they're a necessary sort of right. I think I think I think you can make that up. I didn't know if it was safety. I don't know. >> So, here on the on the box on the side, it says, "I noticed that we did not set any
height limits for signs in the residential or business district. So, I've inserted proposed height for the board's consideration. If the board agrees with my suggested changes under business districts above, we do not need to limit gas station signs to 12 ft in height. And if a gas station is limited
to 50 square feet in total sign area, this special provision may not be necessary. So does this mean that this whole paragraph may not be necessary? I don't know. I'm not really sure where where do we limit 50 square feet in
total sign area. Is that does that circle back on like our billboard? Is that the billboard thing? Yeah, but that's for a single sign, right? Yeah, that's for a single sign.
I I'm imagining there could be scenarios where somebody could have more than 50 square feet, right? >> So, there's also this question about treating gas stations differently than other businesses in that same box.
Yeah, I actually don't have a problem with that treating them differently because there's just so much going on at a gas station. >> Yeah, I agree, Jim. >> Fuel, you have the service base. Sometimes you have a convenience store, you have the little place where you go get air for your tires.
>> Sometimes they have towing. I mean, there's there's a lot. I mean, hopefully ours won't, but there's a lot going on. So, they should be treated differently. I think we can justify that. Yeah. So, so I would interpret this that if you are going to treat it differently, you're going to have to
you're going to have to you can't be more restrictive than what other businesses can do. >> You know what I mean? >> With all the >> Yeah. So, if so, if if a if a if a regular business can do, you know, whatever based on a multiplier for max
dimensions, if they you know what I mean? Like I think I think that's the the nut of her concern is that she's concerned that we're treating them differently and that um you can treat them differently. It's just got to be more generous.
>> I think we're doing that with a 12oot sign >> and that we are and that we put something in the product identification signs um will be at the discretion of the sign review committee. Is that what we're
>> we're not wanting? >> We're offering more the product identification signs. We just need it on a case-by case basis for gas stations. I I don't think we would be discriminating against the gas stations. I think this this sort of shows that
we're favoring them in my opinion. >> Yes, that's you correct. We are favoring gas stations. And I don't know, 20 n square feet doesn't seem adequate for those additional signs. >> Well, that's going to be the discretion
of the sign. >> That discretion the the sign that says, you know, the air, you know, this the air gun is over here. You don't need a 9 foot sign for that. >> No, but three feet.
>> I was just thinking cumulative. They all add up to a lot more. >> Oh, right. Yeah. Okay. >> Total. >> Oh yeah. Okay. Total. Okay. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. And you are limiting them to the one side, the one principal side. Other
other businesses can have two. >> Only only if they have two principal facades, right? >> No. >> Changed that. I thought >> No, it was it was >> you can't put the same type of sign. So like the male salon on granite granite a
has two signs. They have a wall sign and a freestanding sign. >> Those are both considered principal signs. >> I see. >> Well then I think they should be allowed two principal signs. >> Yeah. I don't know how you can limit them to one.
>> Yeah. And one might be this the freestanding and one might be on the building or on the canopy. >> Yeah. They probably would have one on the kid that we wouldn't want them both to be 12 feet tall. >> No, >> no, but that would just be the freestanding one.
>> So, >> one freestanding. So, we want one freestanding. >> But one freestanding. You don't want You don't want to allow two You don't want to >> two principal but only one freestanding. >> I think that's >> all right. So, okay. So fuel service stations of the business districts are
allowed one freestanding sign identifying the business not to exceed 24 square feet in sign area and up to 12 12 feet in height. That's the freestanding sign. There probably should be a line about the second second primary like second primary second
principal sign is regulated by whatever whatever whatever is in is required in the business district. I know that's really not very glib but it's I think that's what you need
something like that. >> Okay. Um because you want them to be able to ch two two signs. You don't want to limit them to just one sign, I don't think. And then you should >> they'll have something on the building too, right? On the front of the building. >> You still need to allow I think for the
services that they provide. I don't think I say products necessarily like that way you don't get all the other stuff, but you could the services. >> Yeah, it's for services. So, and then those could be uh total area as
determined by the sign review committee. >> So, do you want to say instead of product identification signs, do you want to say service identification signs? >> Yes, >> I think that would make more sense. Yes. That's it >> for tonight.
>> Yeah. And I I think just that last thing is the wayfairing sign. I agree Caroline had said on that that I don't know if you saw that just that last comment undirectional. I don't know of any town or state regulation
that would require these signs. Would it be easier to all these wayfairing signs by right without cutting without counting towards the total sign area? >> I'm sorry Meredith, where are you? Did
you say weight bearing something >> under D for comments >> about how total sign area provided no individual sign exceeds one and a half or two square feet. So sometimes it's these little signs
that get overly placed and then it becomes just looking. Yeah. even like citizens like people in whatever the signs were provided. There was just too many citizens. I mean, can't you tell where
the drive up is? >> Well, and they they could they're using them as additional signs. >> Right. Right. >> If they put their logo on everything. >> Yeah. >> Or their name. >> These sites driven by by lawsuits and people making mistakes and and coming in
coming in the outdoor or driving the entrance way. I think sometimes sometimes vehicular circulation you want to go in a one-way direction. So if you don't mark what's what's in and what's out, >> you have people coming in and crashing into each other, >> right? And then they sue the business
because no one told the entrance, >> right? >> Stay to the right. >> Yeah. So I kind of like her comment. I think it's pertinent easier to allow all these wering signs by right without counting towards the total sign area provided when individual sign
exceeds 1.5. So it's just like how big are we going to allow these signs, >> right? >> That makes sense. >> So I mean, >> okay, so >> two square feet is probably good where she has >> two square feet. >> Um >> because I feel like they're standard. You can just go online and order them.
>> Yeah. >> Great. So we want Caroline to make that change and do what she's suggesting here. Okay. Then I think that was everything >> is the
>> the goal is for this to be in the annual town meeting warrant, right? >> Yeah. So, it's due to the select board. You know, we have >> they know and they have it on their they have it included on their items to be in
the warrant. Um, we I was just talking about what is what is our timeline with getting the warrant committee is going to want to review it. Um, we want to send it to the select board obviously. Um, so can we get a a revised
draft like at least the weekend before our next meeting like Friday? Um, just so that we can try and just go through it, >> you know, go through it. I think there's enough changes that we need to spend time on it,
>> but I would like to be able to read it in advance because I think it's >> it's easier that way. >> Um, >> what is our next meeting is the 26th. 26. Yep. >> She's been able to turn around things
pretty quickly. She had a big 40B case which it took her a little longer to get the revisions to us um earlier this week because if she could get it to us by the 26 and then it gives um select board and
warrant committee. So, doesn't it go to print? Like, >> well, she could get because you remember like the warrant the warrant committee may have some things that they want to suggest changes to and you would we
would need time for that before going to print to your point. So I think if we can sort of say that the at the next meeting that hopefully we don't have significant changes then we could at least submit a
draft. >> Is there is there any scenario where if it gets circulated and folks are able to get back individually is there any scenario where that can get kind of wrapped up faster? That's if we
get it in advance, I think. Yes. And if John If John can get it in advance and get us any comments he has before our meeting also. >> Yeah. >> Just um >> so she could get it to us on Friday the 20th.
>> Yeah. By the end of next week. >> Yeah. >> A week from tomorrow. >> We would have the weekend and then we send any comments to Liz. All of us. >> Yeah. Like by Monday. Yeah. >> And that way if there's some edits that
need to be done for Thursday. >> Yeah. Okay. >> But you definitely want to talk about it again on on the 26th. Right now you're thinking you want it you want it you don't want to finalize it before the 26th. Is that is that the sense?
>> I I think as many changes as we discussed, I'd like to see it again >> on the 26th. Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, we'll we'll get the >> We need to vote it otherwise we're voting >> just so we can vote. Yeah. So, we'll we'll be able to take the vote at least on that and if it >> Do you need to vote? Do you need to vote
to send it because it's already been Do we need to because we still need to do a public hearing. >> We usually vote to submit it and then we do the public hearing. >> Okay. All right. Okay. That's fine. I just I just wasn't sure. I I'm still trying to get my head back into town.
>> Do we have to do it or not? I guess is a question. We usually do. usually do vote. Yeah. >> Okay, that's fine. >> I'm going to say good night. >> Oh, thank you. Good night. >> I I want to head home. >> Appreciate your input. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Thanks. Byebye.
>> We have We have two applications. So, we left two two sign two sign applications are coming this way. Um so, yeah, I think that makes I think that makes sense. we can, you know,
have any comments we can send over any questions. You know, if something arises that we have questions, Liz can get the answer from Carolyn. Do we feel like we need Carolyn to come? Did you want her to address some? >> As long as she if she can send in an email or I mean, if everyone else
doesn't need it, then maybe she can just call me, but if everyone else would like the same. >> I think we should be able to explain. Yeah. which >> I think everybody might want to just have it in their email at least so if someone asks about it >> that would be great >> it's clear >> yeah absolutely no absolutely I do and
and I like I said Charlotte I had the same I had the same question around the you know the basis for the the basis for the variance the basis for the special permits like yeah >> I think if I'm thinking of like if I were you Meredith this at town meeting
you know you want to make it clear that there's a process that that allows signs as of right signs by special permit and there are signs that are prohibited and the um and what the process is you know for a typical application just because
it you know for somebody to read through this and figure out like what's your you know one page much better >> it's really it's so much better I would no trouble like defending this because
it's so much more clear and it it it accomplishes a lot. It accomp it gets rid of all those silences. You know what I mean? >> It just it just it it's it's it's a big improvement. I mean I know it's like 15 16 pages but it's but it's a big improvement. And the other thing that's
was helpful I know with this like the site plan review and when and the ADU when we were presenting those is we did do a PowerPoint presentation which just takes the bullet points and maybe we that's something um either Avante or you
know we can work on together. Um but putting together and not long but just a few slides you know six or seven slides just to say this is what we're doing you know these are the the gist of it >> the purpose for doing this you know just
sort of the breakout of some of those items >> sounds good but yeah this is yeah I think it's much more helpful to >> just so I'm clear we'll give this back to our She'll she'll make the changes
and she'll add new highlights where she made changes so we can see. >> I think she's cleaning up where the highlights she's already made. But maybe she'll >> Yeah, honestly, Jim, I I I probably was going to talk to her a little bit about that because I I needed to I needed to
break out very specifically like the latest round of changes. So, this is going to be yet another round. So maybe we'll use a different highlight color or something, but I think I think we probably need to differentiate a little bit or or drop or
drop some of this highlight where we've already talked about it already come start fresh. >> Yep. Yep. Drop drop some >> because it's a good process. I mean, I like the high the highlight and then her comments on the side. >> Yeah, >> I love the comments. They're super
helpful. The whole thing is great. But if just if we could just clean it up. So going forward from today on >> looking at new changes and that's it. >> Great. >> That'd be great help helpful for me. >> Yeah. Same. >> So with that um I would entertain a
motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call. Jim. >> No. I want to keep going. >> Yes. >> Cheryl. >> Yes. Maggie. Yes. And myself. Yes.
>> Well done, guys. Good night. >> Night.