Okay, welcome everybody. This is uh let's see, it's Thursday, October 23rd, 2025. It's 7:35. This is the Newberry Municipal Offices, 12 Kent Way, Biffield, Mass. This is the zoning board of appeals meeting public hearings. Uh
I'm Eric Span, the chair. We have Chrissy Bri, who is our excellent administrative assistant, and Mario Ali who is a member, Jack Kelly who is a member and we have Larry Murphy who is our liaison from the planning board. So
with that um away all right a little change in the agenda here. We're going to start with Michelle Lonzolo 25 way. Uh the applicant is requesting a special permit finding for relief from section 97-45Z01
increase in footprint and two increase in height of the Newberry zoning bylaws and any other permanently has been required under town of Newberry zoning bylaws to allow proposed use project for additions and renovations to the existing dwelling which consists of an
expanded deck, a screened in porch, enclosed entry uh stair with mud room and new exterior stair up to the roof deck on the property located at 25 map 0151's map 01 lot 154B
right the applicant here >> yeah good evening uh Sam Colbo with Millennium Engineering uh with me tonight also is Gene Allen with JMA Architects she's right here >> um I'll be relatively quick uh we really just covered a lot of the information in
the the narrative there. Um, however, again, I'll just reiterate the property is at 25 Harvard Way. Um, and our scope of work includes an expanded deck with a screened in porch, an enclosed entry stair with a mudroom, a new exterior stair providing access uh to a new roof
deck. Um, the proposed additions will result um in an increase to the building height, uh, the floor area ratio, um, and the lot coverage. However, uh all those will remain um in compliance with
the current zoning regulations. Um and furthermore, um there's an existing side setback that is out of compliance with the current zoning regulations and we are going to bring that into compliance. That's really all I have tonight. Um and
Michelle, I'm sorry, Gan and I will um hopefully answer any questions the board may have. All righty. Um, want me to start? I have I have a couple minor things. >> Uh, >> I'm sure you have one, but I did not see
a copy of the denial letter in the package. >> Um, that's my bad. I have that. Let me get that for you. >> Yeah. So, the denial letter >> square footage and height. >> So, it's 501 97450. You don't have to >> I have a copy here if you want just take
a look. No, I just wanted to make sure it was part of the documentation. >> Sure. >> I didn't. Um and and uh no changes to any other setbacks. We're fixing one set back and making it conforming. Um
the only other thing I had a question on, and I think this is more an issue that the zoning board has than you have, is the height. Um, I know that our standard goes to the middle of the roof from the mean elevation. Um, but the
deck is significantly above that and there's railings above that. Uh, so it almost makes it look like a fourstory building. Can you >> I met with the building inspector and we talked about the deck and he said that the town does not have any regulations
on roof decks. So, I've been talking to him since January, showing him the drawings. He said, "Submit them." >> Well, that's why I preface it by saying this was more an issue with us because we have brought up this issue several times before about >> true
>> ex exits onto roofs and stairwells and stuff. So, >> so the roof is to the the mean point of the highest roof, >> right? And so what is in question here is your roof deck is a flat area roof
and and your height is taken to the the me midpoint of the dormer uh of the dormer that is below that. And so you know we we don't have expanded definitions to
say that the um it says to the to the midpoint of the highest roof. And you know, one could argue that a flat roof is a flat roof and the height is to the flat roof. Uh or the line moves up a bit and it's to the I mean, there is roof
that is underneath the roof deck. >> So, it's a deck. It isn't a roof. >> It is a roof. It's flat. It's covering over the roof, right? It's solid and it's it's waterproofed and it's a roof. So you you
>> Well, no, we have a roof and we have a structure a deck on top of the roof. >> Yeah, >> we have an independent. So we could take away the deck and we would still have the roofs. >> So you Okay, so take away the siding and
the sloped shingles and and have have the roof up on stilts. Is the roof open and open open slatted to let water go below? The reason why we have those curved walls is to keep wind from going
underneath the deck and lifting it up. It's a structural. We did we can we can remove those walls, but it was we thought structurally it made more sense because it kept the wind from uplifting the deck. Well, one of our charges is to
not exacerbate the density and the massing of structures which block light and air. And so by adding siding around it and enclosing it and if if it is waterproof underneath the deck, I'm going to tell you it's a roof. It's not
it's not a deck. >> But we can take away the >> you can lower the deck >> the skirt. We can get rid of the curved walls. uh that's underneath the deck >> and then >> I think it's a much more coherent coaching explanation that the chairman
gave than I did. I wish I had said what he said which is that gee why aren't we starting from the flat roof as the highest point because there's a flat roof under deck. >> What is the dimension to the to the deck to the to the roof to the to the roof deck?
>> So um let me to the um it's 31 ft to the shed dorma that we've added in the back. That's the mean dimension. 31 and then
>> so it's another >> say no it's another you go from here. >> Yep. It's another 9 ft. It's a center point right there up to there. >> Yeah. >> I say 6 feet, 5T.
>> I'm I'm saying it's 9 ft to the roof is is the first thing I want to figure out is is what is the height of the deck and it's be 40 ft 4 in. And then if we did take
midpoint of that that's 12 13 that's 14. So you would take 7 ft up to that point. And if you took 31 4 + 7 you'd be at 384. So
right as we went to the to the took the half the distance from there to there and said that that was the now the mean height you're >> well the roof is measured to the mean height of the roof >> right so that okay
>> so I mean you're measuring it all the way to the roof deck >> yeah So, I just I'm just calling that out as what it is. I'm You're a foot You're probably a foot higher. So, now you're 32 feet for
>> to the mean point of of this. But, I'm still having a little bit of an issue trying to figure out that this flat roof of a um that's all the way enclosed and waterproofed over is not the highest roof.
Um, so I guess what we're we're working through is whether it's a it's another foot or so in terms of height to that to quote the skirt underneath the the deck or is it nine more feet to the actual surface of the roof?
>> I don't know where you're getting 9 ft. I mean, if you're going to the actual dimension right it's right here. So you you took that elevation and I measured it. There's nine more feet from the from what you're calling the midpoint here to here.
>> Does that is that quarter inch scale that scales to 9 ft? >> Does that scale to quarter inch? >> One, two, three, four feet. Four and a half. >> Four. Four. If we remove the skirt, would that affect your interpretation of this?
Would that clarify this as being more of a deck? >> If it were more transparent, it's still a deck with a flat roof under it. I don't know how you get around that. The deck
>> It's a deck, but there's it's over it's straddling over gable and roofs. There's no deck underneath the deck. There's a gable end roof and then there's a deck right on top of it with support posts.
So if if there were posts then then the shape of this roof this would be the roof carrying all the way through and back. If you lowered the height of the deck six inches, you you would be under the 35 ft. It would be kind of hard to
argue otherwise whether we called the highest roof the slope of the roof or we called the roof the the deck the highest point. Um >> yeah, we can lower it. We can certainly lower it. >> Yeah. If we lower it 6 in and then remove the the enclosure below it,
>> then that then >> get us there. >> Yeah. because then you're then it's a deck and it's not a roof and nobody can come at us otherwise and argue at a later date about enclosed sides and what a roof is or isn't. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Understood. Yeah.
>> So trying to be tough here, but we're trying to be consistent and get it. >> Um >> Okay. So that I had the question on the height. So if I think if you just lower it 6 in or 5 in and show that it's
lowered 5 in then you're at the 35 ft to the actual deck level. >> Make it six then make it six. So they're on their 35 >> right? >> Yeah. >> Is the site actually flat with the topos? >> Relatively flat.
>> It's awfully flat. You can from the site plan you can see there's a six contour that basically wraps around the base of the building. Um, so we got the height, the yard set back. You're improving the yard setback from non-compliant to being 11 something
which is compliant. >> Yep. >> Um, you don't have the lot size. You don't have the frontage. You can't do anything about that. You have three bedrooms and you're staying with three bedrooms. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Yep. Um, >> we had two bedrooms. We're adding a bed bathroom. We had two bathrooms. We're
adding another bathroom. So half >> count bedrooms, not bathrooms. But in the argument something's too much bigger. Someone might argue that I'm not going to we're good there. The um
where's this? Where's the rest of the application? Sorry. So if we just go to The lock coverage checklist in quickly looking at it. I'm just thinking that uh I'm just trying to
figure out the math in terms of the existing footprint is 1,376 You are proposing adding some square footage to the primary dwelling and some square footage
to the deck. So you're saying it's 1676 is the proposed footprint and then we get to second page and you you're including the covered deck. So
the the lot area seems to calculate out anybody. So I think if I just add the one more stair then I'm just about at the at the number and so the lot coverage checks out.
Now for the F if the so there's actually a reduction just go over that point that just help Go that way. >> Yep. So, it seems like there's added
>> Is there added square footage >> to the uh >> the whole structure? You mean? >> Right. So, you've added the stair on the front here. The rest of the footprint is pretty much the same. >> This >> Yeah. So, this would be removed as well as this back piece. So, this is getting
a bit smaller. We are there's a net increase in um the square footage of the structure including the decks and staircases. Wait about >> I think it's exactly 500 square ft >> in terms of the
>> well we're talking we're looking at the site plan. So first we're talking about the site plan then we'll talk about the F. that it's it's like uh 320 square ft plus or minus added which I think makes sense in terms
of of the footprint. So then we get to the F and if um I'm just making sure because as the application then says we're right at we're at 24 right? Yeah, it's close. >> So, I added up all your I mean, did you
do the did you do the math forward, reverse? You understood what the 25% F was and and in terms of adding sizes. >> Mhm. >> That Yeah. >> Okay. Um, those are my questions tomorrow. Do you
think questions? Nope. Jack, any other questions? >> Nope. Nope. All right. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this project? Nobody. Is there anybody in this audience that would like to speak
against the project? Nobody. Okay. Is there any more discussion amongst the board? >> You guys motion? >> Okay. Um um I'll make a motion to draft
an approval letter for the special permit uh to expand deck to screen in portion and closed entry stairway with the mudroom and a new exterior stair up to the roof deck with the conditions of lowering the deck 6 in and um I think
that was the only condition. >> Removing the skirt. >> Removing the skirt. >> Removing the skirt. >> Thank you. >> Is there a second? >> I second. >> All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? Anything to add? >> Nope. Next one project. >> Thank you.
>> All right. All those uh the vote, all those in favor? >> I all those opposed? None. >> All right. >> Thank you. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you for the discussion. >> All right. Do you want some drawings back?
you guys. >> Hey, do you want to keep your drawings or you want to give them >> Would you like the drawings back at all? >> Okay. >> All right. All right.
>> All right. Next up on the docket here is uh Mark Prairie Rinkco Tie Realy LLC represented by Jeff attorney Jeffrey Rols Chief Long Island Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a special permit finding for relief from section 97-4D4.
Change of non-conforming use in 97-4D2 allowed use. B, single family dwelling dimensional regulations. uh 03 max core area ratio and 04 lock coverage of the Newbury zoning bylaws and any other permanent relief as may be required
under the town of Newbury zoning bylaws to allow the proposed use project in order to redevelop the property, the raising of existing structures, removal of existing pavements and equipment and the construction of one building with two residential town homes with parking underneath from the property located at
Tupelum Island Boulevard, Newberry Mass 0151. 1 CS map 02 lot 132 project was approved at 9825 hearing approval decision drafted intended to be reviewed tonight 10:23
is here >> yes all right so uh we have a draft of a finding the draft of the finding was sent out uh when the draft came I had one section where I just added more of the actual
text from the bylaw. >> I added your comments >> and so that's in here. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Your comments and Lisa means comments and Jeff's comments are all incorporated. >> Okay. >> But I left you posted on a couple questions. >> So, >> and James reviewed it from DPW and his
comment was that any and all walkways be asphalt, not wood, for ease of maintenance in the future just in case the town takes over responsibility for that. >> Yep. Okay. So, did
so the edits I made, did those go back out th the >> No, but they're incorporated in this copy we have. >> Okay. So, >> I should have brought a markup of what you changed, but it wasn't much, >> right? >> So,
did I change? >> I have that. Do you guys have a copy of this in your hand? >> Um, >> yes. >> For the record, Nick Rnell, uh, with Mark, uh, we received a copy when we got here. I just want to clarify. Are there
edits that you've made that we have not seen till we got this tonight? >> That's what I'm getting at. >> Okay. So, can you just highlight those? >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> So, I think it's on page [Music] Thank you. >> It would be under three findings and
determination. It would be uh one general finding of facts. >> Yep. And it would be I >> I Okay. >> Pursuant to chapter 97 of the code of the town of Newbury zoning, article 4,
regulations of overlay districts, section 97-4D. That was up to that point was original. >> Okay. >> Okay. Then I I took the language directly from the bylaw and put it back
in here instead of paraphrasing it. So I didn't I didn't change the intent. I just clarified by saying >> I think we have that version. >> Okay. >> Yep. I think what I received is something from Jeff >> and it appears to be exactly what you're
saying under I that it's right out of the ordinance >> noring non-conforming uses and structures excluding single family homes. It's that whole text and then B I you know I skipped A because A doesn't apply we feel. B change of a pre-existing non-conforming use to
another less detrimental non-conforming use. um skip C added D the alteration of a non-conforming structure to provide for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner. Eric just I I'm
probably lost here, but on the top of page six of what I think you're reading, which is what was handed out to us tonight, there's an A and a B. I don't see a C or a D. >> I think that's what we're missing. >> Uh >> okay. Is that so? So
>> yes. >> So A should actually be B because it is it is B and uh B should be D. >> Got it. >> Okay, >> makes sense. >> So again, it was just really a cut and paste job >> from the bylaws for the sections that
>> he's just adding the law. >> Right. So it wasn't paraphrase. That's all. >> So B and D. >> Yep. Okay. And then um All right. So, do you want this back? Your >> copy.
So on page 11, special conditions one, off-site on-site public improvements um is basically our our our typical condition that says that if there are any changes by anybody after uh a
decision is made or any changes to this decision just because you're I you're tweaking the design as you're getting ready to build then they need to come back before the the ZBA and so in this case because there's several other
entities in town we just expanded the language just to to make it clear that if there are upon issuing of a building permit, there needs to be um a check by
the board of selectmen um the com and the um um DPW. They're all people you've talked to. They're all people that have had but we I feel don't want to be responsible
for their decisions. Um, I think you guys have gone above and beyond in terms of presenting a design and a pathway and the documentation to prove out what you're doing, but we're we're again being for the record. Just stating that clearly here.
>> We're good with that. We have that in the version Jeff gave us. >> Okay. Yep. Um and I did take um this condition in a slightly uh
hopefully simplified language and sent it sent it to Chrissy. Chrissy sent it out to the the boards and commissions to say here's the decision. Here's here's how we're doing it. everyone's got their final say at the time of of the building
uh permit and if there's any changes for for some reason then it has to come back before us. Um, again, I think that's in there because sometimes we get um we get applications like the one before us where we're
making changes and people aren't done with design and things look a lot different and we just want to keep the checks and balances so that everybody's aware we're all on the same page and anybody that um is taking special interest in the property because of the change of use
then it's extremely clear, Right. >> Okay. So then I have a couple comments from Christie and I think the DPW um and I don't think this is anything new but wanted the decks not to be the boardwalks to be asphalt for use of
maintenance. Right. >> Um where's that going to go? It's in here. Are you going to edit this? >> I am. Um I just have to find everywhere where it says asphalt and change it to wood because you just mentioned that yesterday. Yeah.
>> Sorry. Would ask. >> Yep. >> Let's just note that. Uh, >> so are we saying that the >> they would anyway? >> Yeah. >> The square footage or the acreage isn't quite aligned in terms of stating one
for the other. >> I have a conversion on my computer. >> Yep. >> I came up with 119 uh 11979 and Jeff came up with 11961. So, I changed it to Jeff's 11961, but it says 2.0.275
acres on page five. And then on page 10, >> yeah, I think that Jeff's getting that from Millennium State Engineering. So, >> I'll yell at TJ. the silver drawing right here
says 11,961. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, if it says 11,961, um you could just put a plus minus after the acreage and >> Yeah. The 11,961 is the exacting number.
>> Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Um, >> oh, the other one was page seven. So if we're doing um the farm >> stage seven increases change.275 275 to 0
415 415 is to >> I guess I'm sorry I lost my postet >> so it's stating the F increases from 0.275 to 0.415 >> okay
>> okay so that that's made a statement is on page seven for decision Um, >> is there a question about the one of the either of the numbers? Is that why? >> I'm sorry, Eric. I don't remember what that
>> why asked that. >> So, the the I think it's got coincidence that the number is the same as the uh um last number you were working on. >> It's a coincidence. So,
um, the civil drawing says existing is 2.74. >> Yeah. >> So, let's change the five to a four. And again, it matches the civil. >> Awesome. >> You guys on page seven of 13.
>> Yeah. >> For that 2.75 goes to >> 274. Okay. All right. So that's number three, two, seven. It's a good catch. the the last set of drawings submitted.
Do we have the date uh correct on that? The final plans of record shall be I'm on page 10 of 13 under each house design. Number one, final plans of record shall be as follows. That should be the right one. We close
the hearing the 8th. >> We approve the project. >> So September 3rd should be right because it was due the week prior. >> Okay. >> But I'll definitely check that.
>> Can you You're going to make the edits. >> Yes. >> You're you're like if you make the edits, you send us this. You send us PDFs of these three files. >> I will. Yes. >> Here. >> And then it's then it's complete. And
then that could be checked. And let's just list that as an edit. >> Since we're talking about it, then we need to list the exhibits twice because we listed on page 10 of 13. Final points of record shall be as follows. And then on page 11, we have exhibits to be recorded with decision. >> That's fine. It's exhibits to be
recorded just as long as they're exactly the same >> for this purpose. >> So, let's just check that because we want the right >> Absolutely. >> We want to know that we approve the right here. >> Sorry, I needed those. >> That's right.
Okay. So, we did close the public hearing previously, so we're not accepting any more documents or um discuss or public input on this. Um and so with that, is there discussion
with the board? Um the only thing I was going to ask about we talked a little bit about special conditions about um future update maintenance and things like that to we it's nothing that is in here. >> Um we talked about who be maintaining
the town property going forward. There's nothing in here about it. We talked about improvements and modifications. That was it. That'll be good. >> Go ahead. >> I just have a suggestion on that if it's
helpful. Yep. >> Given the uncertainty for all of us as to exactly what the board of selectmen, the public works director, and everybody else is going to want specifically for those public improvements that if if they want if they want to impose a
maintenance requirement on any particular component of what we end up doing, it might make the most sense to defer that and have it imply that it's part of securing these other permits. Just one concern on my part that was never talked about exceeding more than
two years. Just I don't want the property to be responsible for maintaining the walkway forever. >> Well, I don't I don't recall being a time limit. Maybe I missed it. >> Two years is what this is. >> Um >> was it talked about with us or with the
building inspected or >> we I don't think we had that conversation here. >> Yeah. Okay. out here. >> Okay. I think my >> James brought it up. >> Maybe that's why James brought it up
because he said in the future I don't know. Maybe it was discussed with >> correct. And so again, I think the path forward for me is to say that in in order and I guess um did I not put can I
see that list changes I made again? Are you ready? >> Yes. This will be my It has been dressed. Right. So I think in Maybe we probably could have done we I could have done a better job of of
rallying the teams, but the the part in here that says prior to implementation of public improvements, the applicant, property owner, and such assessors are assigned shall secure all necessary required approvals from such for such work, conservation commission, order
condition, street opening permit, port selectment approval. So, at that time when you have the building permit and you're going to submit for a building permit or whoever may submit for a building permit, it's it's at that time that they're they're they're going
to have their final say. I don't to you, you know, we're not trying to leave that open, but again, it's not ours to >> to bless. And so, we have it in here. I know you've talked to everybody. Um, and so I think that's that's the vehicle
which which gets the approval from from other people. I don't know if DPW changes their mind and wants wants it bricked at the time of building permit, they'll say something and you'll have a discussion with them and you'll remind them of the past discussions and then you'll have a letter and you'll be able to submit that
letter that says we have approval from conservation and conservation will say, "Yeah, we we heard you guys. We're done. We're good." Uh, and I think that's that's how I think it's going to go. But it's in here should something happen. >> You get this entitled, you sell it, they
have a slightly different idea, they still have to go back and get the approval. We're all good. We're all We're all with the same understanding of a process that will unfold. That's how I see it. >> Okay. >> So, I'm good with it. >> Yep. >> Agreed. Good path.
>> Okay. Larry, you got any words of wisdom for us here? Well, you always have good words to that's what you like to hear. >> All right. Um, so with that, I don't have any more discussion. Mario, >> I'm good. I'm fine.
>> All right. So, is there a motion to be had on or I'll just I'll make motion. So, >> go ahead. >> I'll make a motion to accept the decision as it's written with four edits. Um, or three edits, one condition.
uh that wood gets changed to asphalt for the deck in the public rightway that you put a plus minus after acres and you and you don't change the 11,961
square feet. >> On page three, oh sorry, page seven, you change the the F from to 0.27 274. And then when you send us the final
final um you just include the three PDFs for the exhibits to be filed with this >> and check the dates. >> Yeah. >> Question. Do you want to say deck or
sidewalk on the wood versus asphalt? Asphalt >> walkway. >> Walkway. >> Walkway. >> Thank you. So, if you can make those edits and do you guys have any issue in terms
of of having a hard signature versus if Chrissy sends it to us and we will each we will each respond back individually to Chrissy with approval, Chrissy can use our electronic signatures and and and then you can file it then >> we'll do >> that will speed speed it up a little
bit. So sounds good. That motion in hand is to accept as drafted three edits and the process that we will we will see the we will each see the final copy. We will see the exhibit that gets attached. So
we have the whole and we each need to respond back to to to Chrissy with our approval for electric electronic signature in order to move it forward. Is there a second? >> Second. All those in favor? I
>> I So, thank you for one of the bigger files that we've gone through, but a necessary process because it's atypical and a little different. So, good luck with the project. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Eric. I just want to say
thanks for your input, your patience, uh, and ultimately your support on the project. And this obviously took us a fair bit of time to work through the the process, but I I think it's a testimony that that the process worked. This is a really good I think it's going to be a great building and a great site. Again,
appreciate it. Wouldn't have happened without everybody collaborating on this. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. On the first one, we need to tell them to go back and review the drawings. >> No. Okay.
Because >> when initial them or something or just make sure that you are changing was going to change the height, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> ask same for revised site plans >> or do you just want to change them there and they're showing whatever just so
that when they're completed they're completed they're not the same ones that >> so they should make the edits the decision will be drafted and when we get the decision when we get the updated drawings it will be one. That's why I said we don't I don't think we asked them for updated drawings.
>> I guess we assumed that it was part of the course that that's what we needed. >> So Chrissy will talk to >> Okay. Yeah, that's all cuz >> Right. So you're right and we should have just asked them for that to make sure it happens so that when we get >> we get the decision and we get the drawings and we know it's all set.
>> Yeah. >> All right. One more. >> All right. Um 280 Old Point Road, Sunset Club. Discussion on minor changes, modifications to ZBA previously approved pavilion structure site plan submitted
to planning board. Applicant has submitted photos of proposed pavilion for review. >> All right. >> So I gave you a copy of the pictures that been submitted and then Eric had asked Vince for clarification and then I
added Vince's reply right here. As we're talking about color in the original meeting, we talked about roof color. I don't know if if any of that has been discussed or changed. >> Changed, but um
changed. No, I mean to you guys talked about making it gray versus the whatever color it was. Um a lighter color. That's what we talked about. >> The um the gable lines would be like a light gray. >> The color I believe is like a dark.
>> Okay. So, as this is before us and we um took it under general business and requirements for um not a public
hearing. There are people in the audience here, but it's not a it's not a public hearing and we're not asking for opinions. But you're here representing the project. >> Yeah, I'm here if you have any questions I can address. >> And you're here >> opposing the project.
>> You're opposing the project. Um, so we did get your you are here. So it's not like I'm going to ignore you, but this it's not really a public hearing that we're accepting documentations or comments, but you did make a comment.
Um so in in your opinion is of our decision in terms of whether this is a minimum or a major decision and what what needs to be done. >> I don't think that's the only issue but that is one of the issues that were
that's raised. Um if you don't mind >> may I speak? >> Yeah. Yeah. I'll hear you. I mean we're not >> Yeah, you're here. barely identify myself just so I can speak to the issue. >> Um, I'm Rob Scorano. I'm going to fire
12 point. I did submit my thoughts about this process to the board. I believe this is the final action on a special permit.
This review of this pavilion is a final action taken by the ZBA. Whether you have it as a public hearing or not, it appeals cert it it triggers certain rights that can be brought forward as
the final action. And that was the point of my letter. Um, this seems to have emanated from 2021. There was no pavilion, wasn't shown, wasn't part of the special permit
process. And I explained that in my letter, but what has happened since is that there was a determination by the ZBA and the planning board that this was a minor modification.
That's going to be determined at another level and that level is an appeal of the building permit. That's what happens. That's how this gets reviewed administratively. The building permit will be issued or
not issued depending on the determination of the building inspector and an appeal will ensue and every action that's been taken since 2021 will be reviewed denovo. That's how this works. So my feeling is that this is a
final action of the ZBA and it triggers certain rights, time frames, etc., etc. I know it's not part of the public hearing process and that may be something that also has to be looked at from a standpoint of the
appeal um on the building permit. Um, but my feeling is no matter what, this pavilion is a substantial change and it's awful. The pictures are awful. Can I just take
a quick look cuz I couldn't really see. >> So, the original Sunset Club was came before us. >> Yeah. and presented a site plan and it was reviewed and it was looked at and a
decision was made and Sunset Club would vote. They came back and they said we'd like to add a pavilion and here's here's our argument and we heard that and we looked at it and we had public meetings
and we debated it and we gave them approval for that. the planning board. And I'm not sure what triggered the planning board, but usually the planning board doesn't we're not we're both not hearing the same thing, but I'm not sure
how the planning board triggered. And I think someone might have spoken up and said, I think there's a few more changes on the site plan of a cargo box or something. And so then the the planning board looked at it and went through their process.
I I agree. That's what happened. >> Okay. >> It was considered a major modification. That's what triggered the planning board. We went through every step >> the pavilion to do. Yes. >> Okay. So, the pavilion then triggered and so the planning board wanted to do site plan review.
>> Do you agree with that, Larry? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you guys had your determination. >> We Well, we haven't yet. Uh it's pending what you do here. Yeah, I mean there there are some other min uh other modifications to the site plan under
consideration, but when we put that on hold now for waiting for your determination as to whether or not enclosing the gable ends is approved as a minor modification to your special permit. >> Right. >> Yep. So in our discussions
and speak up guys, but the pavilion didn't change in size. It didn't change in location. And they did add cable ends. We did ask them in terms of what was presented to rotate it so it had more of a building face instead of a
roof face as as it's presented. Um we talked about, you know, lights. We talked about um not in uh having um >> closures >> not having closures as part of the conditions that the the sides couldn't
be enclosed. We asked for uh a a uh shade study of the pavilion to show the the deepest part of the of the shading during the year. and we've received that and and from that we approve the
pavilion and now they've come back and said well we we we're thinking about this we'd like to enclose the gabled ends and we've discussed it and we recently have changed our language to to state and be
similar to other boards and committees that we can decide on a minor or a major change to um to the previous decision and we also state and that goes after the the fact that saying that there are any changes
to anything that that needs to come back to the ZBA for approval. >> I agree. That's where we're at. >> I agree with your process. I followed it very closely. Listen, you guys do a great job at what you're doing. You're dealing with unfortunately
a statute in Massachusetts that ends up in the land court all the time because there's site plan involved with special permits and the right to appeal. This has been discussed in the land court over and
over and over again on how this should be approached and it's a minefield and it's a minefield for all the boards involved. Um, one of the things that I felt was was missed was the fact that
there's a condition in the original 2021 special permit that says when you do a modification, you start over again. You don't pick it up with, hi, this is a modification. We're going from here. Nope. That special permit says you start the
process all over again. >> That is not what happened. We did start over again. >> Well, that's that is certainly subject to interpretation, right? >> Yes. >> And lastly, and I don't want to take up your
time. I know you're busy. Um, I think really what this comes down to is whether or not the proper steps were followed. And the determining body is always at the end of a building
permit on these issues. It there is no 4A section 17 route of appeal for this site plan special permit. It's not in your bylaw. Doesn't exist. So you can't just make it up. I can't just make it up and run into a superior court or land
court and say, "Hey, I'm doing a section 17 appeal here." Yeah. Well, is it in the bylaw? No, it's not in the bylaw. Then I'm not getting in under that. So, this is where the permit comes in. And unfortunately, it's the last step
here that triggers the permit application, which triggers the appeal. And that's what I wanted to give a heads up with when I sent the letter in. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, with that, unless you have any
questions for me, I'm going to let you go. >> We appreciate We're all residents. We're all trying hard here. >> Oh, >> we we are recottifying the bylaws as we speak. It started like two years ago. I don't know. Did it
start before CO? I can't I can't remember. But there are there is an effort to look at things certainly things like we just discussed the roof height and maybe putting in some diagrams or maybe calling out what a flat roof really is and putting in a definition that isn't in there. Um so
there's always ongoing changes and and typically um there's only so many changes you can present at annual town meeting to the masses for them to understand and and control. If you really do have an issue with our process and thinks there needs to be something
else added to the bylaws, then the planning board is the place to to take it, >> no doubt about that, >> in order for them to suggest and propose that that the bylaws get changed. We just we just use what is written and sometimes yes, there are some gray errors. So
I think that's how we we got here and how we we tread carefully as best we can. And so we we may >> Yeah. appreciate people speaking up and even thank >> well no and I thank you for the time um
and I thank you for the consideration that's all I can ask for um I think this process is is uh again we ple with minefields um again um I think for the record I think this is a final action on
the ZBA um and I would use it um from the standpoint of triggering uh rights under the site plan special permit planning board and ZBA. But thank you very much for your time. >> I appreciate it. And thank um the
secretarial staff for for hearing me on several different occasions most excellent >> very very attentive and very responsive. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> She's going to ask for a reference and
Okay, >> that was it. >> Just for a place in the park. >> You're going to talk about a salary. >> All righty. >> Um, so with that, >> thank you. >> Thank you. Um
what's the date on on this was >> um I will look at the date of the original date since then the email >> is this new >> that was August 14th those >> okay So
you guys came before us. You said we've we hopefully have a minor change. We're asking you about that and we'd like to enclose the gable lines. Nothing else has changed. And from that
um from the approval of the pavilion, Larry triggered the planning board to do a site plan review >> among other things. There were a few other less significant changes. Yes. To answer your question.
>> Okay. So I mean the applicant had to initiate the process. We didn't initiate it on our own. True. And I'm really not talking to you. I'm just really talking amongst ourselves here to get it right. >> We um
we received this. We looked at it. There was a bunch of communication, understood that the planning board was looking at this. Um, we we're really focused not on on um site plan review as to what how how
the planning board goes about it, but certainly interested in in the planning board having their decision and process. And knowing that the planning board was reviewing it gave us some comfort of the decisions that we were looking at what we typically look at. What's the what's
the height? What's the what's the massing? what's the um lot coverage, you know, what's the F? This is a commercial use. It doesn't quite fit. Uh and so we
already approved the shed and when it comes back again, the shed didn't move. Um conditions weren't asked any conditions that we had opposed weren't asked to be changed. And
the one modification was to enclose the sides. And I don't know, to me, I actually think enclosing the ends, it gives a better visual for for the structure in that location. It probably is going to hide more light and less let
less light leak out, which is also a better thing for the neighborhood and and the adjacent neighbors. Um, and they've given us something to to look at in terms of what
was presented. So, what it would look like in closing it. And if if this is a minor change and we're going to review and approve a minor change and you want to just add without being specific because we don't
have paint chips in front of us, but you could just ask that we just define a little better the paint scheme so that it it looks like the rendering it at the end of the day. Then you I think you can add a little bit of
control if we're just really talking about the end. Are we convinced? I'm not I'm not sure I'm convinced that it's a minor as opposed to a major change. I know we've been talking about a lot, but last time I felt I personally got lost in the weeds with the discussion about whether
the gable end was part of the roof or not. And I I couldn't I couldn't agree with that at all. Um the gable end is part of the building and the roof is the roof. Uh but but I would say my personal opinion when we voted to approve it uh
the word pavilion to me conjures up tent like thing and I thought we were speaking about a tent that was going to be open to see through and and this is quite different than I'm not sure it's a major change. I think we might want to discuss that. >> I thought we did last time discuss it
was a minor change and that's that's why we're here now. If we had said it was a major change, then we would have told them to go resubmit and do a whole new application. That's the difference. >> Does it matter if it's major or minor or do you agree with it or disagree with it? >> Well, well, as far as whether it matters
that I think that's the only thing we're deciding on right now is whether it's major or minor. Is that correct or am I mistaken? I I thought we had approved that it was minor and that the fact is that it's it's here before us and the and the additional view and the paint color was
the final piece to say this is >> I think I'm with Jack that we hadn't really decided that in our original meeting on the 23rd December 23rd that we talked about this was supposed to be all open and then you know the sides
were open the gables were open as a see-through through more and much more continuous uh and not closing it in. And I thought that's what we were here last week or last month to decide whether or not the gable is part of the enclosure or not. >> That was my understanding.
>> I had the meeting minutes from September's meeting. >> Oh, you don't memor. and we wanted to see a picture of what it would look like if it was enclosed because we never got a rendering of this enclosed. >> If I could make a comment
>> um that was that last meeting. Yeah. So the December meeting 2023 when the decision was made we had discussed originally it was supposed to be oriented 90° offset and when it was suggested that we
rotate it to the current condition we asked that's totally fine but we'd like to enclose the gable lens just to stop light from coming in getting in people's eyes and most recently we the only modification was somebody wanted to see what they would look like open it It was
originally submitted with the gable lines closed and somebody on the board said >> it was originally submitted with them >> open. >> My my artist just did it in August. He he opened it up. We asked him, "Hey, can you open this so they can see what it look like otherwise?" It was originally submitted closed.
>> How long? Not on the 23rd meeting. I don't think >> it certainly was. Yeah, >> because we actually I remember I I I saw the video tonight. I went back not at 24 minutes or whatever it was to the very beginning and the original kind of discussion was all about rain and moving people out of the rain if you had you
know an event that people had scheduled it and had many people there and what's going to happen if rains well then we can put them under here um and then it and then even at the very end Martha had mentioned we would like to see a rendering of it close >> because all we have was some builder spec sheets there was no actual pictures
drawings or or renderings or whatever you want to call it. >> I think the confusion was really um the sides the lower sides had to be open for egress and safety, but the intention was always to have the gable lines closed. I
know that for sure. >> I think under our impression it wasn't. >> Yeah, I don't think I would have voted to approve it if I told understood. In order to make our decision, we would like to make sure the documentation of the application is 100% complete.
Separate sets of renderings with the gable ends open to show the difference. Then uh an updated site plan clarification on shop drawings comes uh up with with details on materials uh backing it shiplap or whatever the
rendering shows whatever finished tomorrow uh makes a motion to continue the hearing until 10:16 to allow the applicant time to submit revised site plan and renderings to reflect both. Jack second all in favor. Okay.
So if if if an applicant has an approval and it's filed and they make a change and and the building inspector looks at it and says you guys made a change because that's what we asked in our conditions, then it
comes back before us. And our language now says that we get to decide whether it's minor or major. If it's minor, we say, "Okay, let's present it. Let's talk to us. tell us what it is. Oh, that looks great. Let's we'll approve that
and we'll keep going. That's major. You know, you added two houses to your property. You have to go refile and resubmit. And I think in part of that understanding is we were asking what Concom and what planning board does
in terms of of applicants that that have a process where things advance during the discussion and it's um and sometimes even after the discussion because it goes to Tomcom to planning board to MONCOM and then to us and we're all
trying to get to the same place yet it's slightly different and we all want to make sure we understand what we approve. Uh and sometimes changes by planning board and com really aren't big deals for us and we don't even think of it. Other times I think we
we have very sensitive and we do feel like we want to hear it and and what we're always trying to do is just perfect the process that we have and be consistent with that process. So the the issues before us if it's major
or minor is the first step and if it's if it's minor then we can proceed to to discuss it. Um, and typically I would think if it's a minor change and and we're discussing it, then we're understanding it. Maybe we put a couple conditions on it, but it's it's
basically moving forward. If if we think it's major, then we're not sure with what's been presented and we really want it to go back to the public because we want the public to be able to speak up and and know that they're they've had a chance at the at the process. again
because the change is so large, they can't come back to us and say, "You approve this and this is what ended up there. How did that all happen?" And we rely on the building inspector for when the building permit is
submitted to look at the decision and look at the filed drawings. And in some cases, we get almost exactly what's built. And other times we get design stuff that people are still, you know, they're only a third of the way through the design and it advances a lot by the
time it actually gets in the building. So, can I ask a question? If if the applicant goes ahead and gets a building permit, you know, tomorrow, he could build it as previously approved with the open gables. Is that correct? >> You know, assum he gets all from the other boards as well. But once he gets a
permit, >> Yeah. Yes. He he has a decision that's been filed and and is part of the deed now and and that's what the building inspector is going to weigh the the the building plan. >> But if but if we have another hearing uh
does that jeopardize his could we change his his original approval at all? Could we say I'm not liking this project now or can we just say we don't like this aspect of the project? In other words, I'm asking if he's putting himself in jeopardy by by submitting this application.
>> I I assume if you resubmit an application and it's a new application, then we we do look at the application with with new eyes. Um, one would assume that the past history is there and and statements and that the degree of
favorability that we had previously would would be presented as part of the record back to us that you guys have approved this and we're here and we think it's minor and you said it's major, but we're we're here because you told us we had to be and this is what we're doing. >> Okay, >> probably how they would make the
argument again in presenting the project to everybody. >> Let's not go crazy here everybody. We're just doing a little thing and and it's unfortunate that we feel like we we're here, but we are and so this is what we're doing. If I was presenting, it's the first thing I'd tell everyone to set the ground rules. >> Okay. Well, understanding that, I think
I'm still leading major, but >> Okay. So, Mario, what's your centise? you could advise. >> Um I I I I totally like the the
rendering of without the gables and I thought that was our original plan when we talked about it in 2023 that there were going to be was going to be totally open as Jack had mentioned a pavilion. That was my assumption. So when they came back with the gables myself and I
know Michelle had some concerns too about the gables how it closed it up. Um, and that's not kind of what we we decided on the 23rd. So, major, minor, that's just I mean I'm not
in favor of the gables. I I guess to me the gable doesn't doesn't really bother me as long as the the bottom remains open and people are moving back and forth on all four sides and there's no closure and there's no plastic
curtains like you would get on a tent that would you know if if if the wind is blowing and it's raining then the rain is still going to come in at the height of um you know and make the space underneath make this less
usable because the wind is coming and driving the rain sideways. I I do think that the end gables probably do help in the effort of of controlling the rain. I do think they they are there. Is there any is there any middle ground? Do you get to have or do you think
>> that's a good question? I I I could rephrase mine and say I don't not crazy about the cables either to be honest with you. So that's why I was saying it was a major change but but I think the point is the same. What would a middle ground look like? >> May I make a suggestion? >> Yeah. >> So once again originally the original
proposal the building was rotated 90° so the roof would block the sun the sunset in people's eyes. When you guys asked us could we rotate it? We said yes. Then we'd like to enclose the gable lens. Could the middle ground be rotated back the 90° we originally proposed?
I think it's more of an obstruction that way. >> I mean, you just you come over the bridge and you just see a wall of roof, >> which is kind of the same objection that we have to seeing the gable ends. It's one thing to look through. >> I agree. That's why we were so receptive. So, yeah, we'll rotate it, but we'd like to close it up.
>> We said that at the 2020 meeting. >> Yeah. Yeah. Not to make light out of our joke, but aren't you charging people for the sunset like you? The the idea is it's kind of a private area that you know if someone's giving a speech at a wedding or something they don't want to be all right.
>> Speaking of middle grounds being an architect and throwing out wild ideas that I like to get tested. What what if the gable was on one end and not on the other and the gable was there? The wind does the weather typically comes from the
west and the wind is usually from the west to the east unless we all know there's a northeastern. If there's a northeastern people shouldn't be there >> hunkering down on does that do anything in terms of of you can have your say too but um you
know it it's Or, you know, I don't know how it would look, but you know, you could do there could be some screening instead of boards. There could be boards with with some gaps. Um, so there is some degree
of openness and and it it's again there I'm just asking if there's a middle ground. >> I'm not trying to redesign it on you, but I'm trying to have a conversation. >> So the the west side is the side bordering old point road. Is that what we're saying? >> We're looking at the west.
>> Yes. All right. I see it. >> I mean, I some some type of maybe um intermittent boards kind of like you're saying block. >> Would you guys think on that or I would imagine so? Yeah. Um we're open to
>> I mean it's because I think you know if you if you look at the picture coming from the ocean, you literally can see the sky, right? And so if it's the gables are there, it blocks off the whole sky. Um, and I think vice versa, if you're coming over the bridge, you can see through the gables and you can
see a little bit of corn. >> I think the it would be difficult to be in a position where that would really obstruct your view of anything. You'd have to be in the middle of the marsh looking east or you'd have to be 20 ft up in the air looking west for it really
to block. But in my opinion, >> well, if you're coming over the bridge, you're almost at the height. >> Sure. in the roof as you come up. Good point. Here they are. >> Yeah. I mean, if if you did I don't know if you guys looked at it
and did like 4 in gaps, there would be a sense of of of light and openness behind. And especially at night, you would you would see in and understand some kind of volume. Um, I I think that's my, you know, in in
saying so I guess I'm trying to find a path for a minor change that allows enclosure at some level that can can reduce light.
Um, and I don't I really don't find the enclosure uh architecturally or aesthetic, though that's not our opinion. Um, you know, I think it's it's in keeping with the shape and and the mass of of the
pavilion. If the the way it's done and the end truss is shown on the end and you you can stand there and then look up in it, then it it it seems to be a building that that says what it is. >> So slats on the west end and open on the
east end. Is that what we're talking about? >> That that it could be a middle ground. >> I think visually wouldn't be as appealing. So that side's different, but um >> so let's let's let's call that a middle
ground. >> Sure. >> Um let's call the next one that both sides have boards, but there's 4 in openings between the boards. That's option two. That's that's totally open ends is a
west end um enclosed east end open. And then the next one is uh board enclosure behind the truss but with 4in openings
to let some air and some light to give the presence that it's open. And in the rendering, we're expecting that the enclosure is behind the trust so that you see the trust and you understand that it's a pavilion and not some just simply building.
Those are and then the fourth option would be for the rendering just totally enclosed vertical boards behind. So in understanding that that those we're not trying to make the options but
we're just trying to discuss options and degree now we're back to talking about minor changes and major changes as to what might what we would constitute it for the direction that we're going to set and if we come to one determination we'll go one way and if we come to the other
determination go the other way. Yeah, it sounds a lot more minor when you've got one end open and partially enclosed on the other. I think they think you can >> whatever you think >> aesthetically. Yeah. So
might I propose uh so I think we got to make a decision of minor or major in order to give direction to the applicant what what what needs to happen next and then we can propose along the path. And so I I I
might propose that we ask the applicant to come back with uh a more detailed either shop drawing or a better rendering to show some uh some boards with some openness
that is defined in detail so that we all understand it more than just a 8 and 1 half by 11 rendering. Um, and then I would propose that that would be a minor change that we would be able to review here amongst ourselves and with the path of approving at some
point when we say yes, it's six six and a half inches. It's gray. That's a little darker gray. The roof is gray. We're all good. >> I'm board. Okay. So, we're at the moment I think we're we're going
in the direction to make a motion that we're going to say that this is a minor change, but some additional information is needed. And the minor change is that there needs to be some percentage of openness. if you could come back with either
either get them to do a shop drawing or if you could draft a little better or and have a rendering that I don't know maybe not rendering with some light this that comes through it if you can uh or if I mean do you have an architect do you have who's doing this?
>> Um we've got we've had many um artists take a crack at it. We have drawings done at the planning board. We had a graphic designer do some um Photoshop designs. Um >> but do you have anybody that's drafting something that's a little more hard that
can say, you know, if I actually run a quick calculation that that if I have a 12in board and a 4 inch gap that um every 16 inches and I take six and I do the height and I cut it in half, then I could tell you that, you know, this is 25% open.
>> I would imagine Millennium has somebody or knows somebody who can do that for us. I think they could put it on a piece of trace and do it. But if you came back to us and said, "Look, the spec is a 12-in board. It's a 6 inch gap. It's it that that actually comes out to 25%
openness, then we have criteria that we're all approving. Everybody will understand exactly what what we approve in the process. >> Is the 25 a target number to go for?" >> I just made that up. >> 12 Pro boards are hard to find. Don't go with those.
I guess my question is there a parameter we should be shooting for? >> Well, I mean, yeah, I would say 25 plus I mean 25 to 35% openness. You'd be surprised at 40% openness doesn't seem as much open when we do perforated metal
screens and we have 40% open. It still seems pretty solid in terms of the the screen with the poked holes in it. It it's uh yeah, I think somewhere between 25 and 35 is what I would shoot for. And to me that that is, you know, it's
not like 10% where it's kind of like that really is not doing anything. Um and >> um >> and I think that that creates a pavilion because you will be able to see through the cracks and especially more at night when you can see some a little bit of
light, but it's not going to be a total glowing um open space inside. And I guess if if sun really became an issue during the day, I would imagine like a retractable shade wouldn't be a
>> you put something behind it. As long as you're not changing the physical character of the of what we're looking at. >> Sure. >> And as long as you're not dropping that shade below uh this the eve height. >> Right. Correct. and and there's no
enclosures draped down between the columns to go from the eve to the to grade that I would say starts to infringe on that really starts to infringe on the intent of openness of pavilion. Um, and that that's the that's the thing
that we we I think we grasped on to as this is really is a pavilion and it's not an enclosed structure and we really would not be favorable to see this sort of slowly morph into something else. >> Understood. >> So I think that's where we are. So with
that, is there a motion that this is a minor change that the in the ends can be enclosed to some degree of of enclosure and some degree of openness that that will be
reviewed and represented to us by the applicant. Okay. So, um I'll I'll make a motion to continue the meeting as to allow the applicant to submit additional renderings of um more openness as it relates to the gables. >> Okay.
>> And um as a as a minor change, >> I second the motion. >> Great. All those in favor? >> I >> I got a a minor change. >> All right. That's good. >> You got a little work to do. >> That's all right. Um, and thank you for,
you know, we're we're working through the process here. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Appreciate it. >> I'll meet those a week before the next meeting, which will be November 20th. So, 7 days before that, >> but I'll be in touch. >> Thank you. >> I'll be home in five minutes here.
>> There's only two things on my three things. Okay. So, I got two other things to bring up. one, there was just I got an email from Tracy that said that the town had reviewed the public meeting notice and had removed the check boxes as to
whether this was a public meeting or uh a public hearing. >> Well, it's both. It's public meeting and a public hearing, right? >> Are you using the new cover sheet? >> No, I don't like that. I will begin using it. I received an
email today. I will make sure that I comply with the >> okay >> proper agenda. >> Are you using this, Larry? I haven't seen that in the bill that you're referring to. >> Joy just sent it out today. >> I remove some of the information just to
make it basically zoning. So, I take out all those other options so it's less confusing. So, instead of having all the options of all the rooms on it, I just clip those and it speaks second floor meeting room. >> I'm asking whether This puts a burden on us to clarify
whether this is a public meeting or a public hearing because there's different um scenarios for public input depending on what it is. >> Well, that applies to which projects come before us, right? Because it is a
public meeting to hear public. It's a public meeting to hear public hearings, >> right? But but during the hearing, if we have a hearing, I have to let everybody speak and someone could fill a bus to us for a week if they're wrong. During a a
public meeting, I and if it is a contentious issue, I could say, "Look, we're going to spend an hour and I'm going to give everybody tops two minutes. Let's go and and control the information
as I understand it." So defining what it is >> and now that it's not defined for the actual agenda. I don't know what >> I I'm I'm not sure I'm I'm understanding your confusion. I mean you in your agenda you clearly labeled public hearing
>> and we all understand that there's a difference between a public meeting and a public hearing. >> I'm just trying to understand the change and why some legal person thought like the check box needed to be removed from the sheet. And I I don't quite understand looking at that sheet what it meant. And I want
to just I'm going to leave it up to Chrissy to figure it out because you'll figure it out. >> Tonight is a year. Is that what you were doing? >> I I got I was running late. I hit print. I grabbed it. I said, "I I don't quite
understand this." Um All right. We're good. >> I just assumed it was both. I don't mean to push the subject. No, but we're we're again we're trying to improve. So, we're having a little bit of a discussion and I think we're all we're all good.
>> The next is I also got the budget instructions and materials. This is when we get to sign Chrissy up for 60 million for 5 years. >> Um, any more paper clips, Chrissy?
>> I only like the big ones. There you go. >> So, there's what um since this came to me. >> Yes. >> What do I need to do? >> I can send you what I submitted 3 years ago for it and then you actually submitted that to Tracy in the last two
years. >> So, I can send you what was submitted to her. >> Okay. >> From you. >> I email you. >> Excellent. >> Okay. >> Um that's what I need then. Okay, >> I can call Tracy and then I can just follow and I can sign and and resubmit
and >> Okay, >> we'd be all good. >> Are we covering our expenses? >> Um, yes. So, zoning gets a budget of 2500 a fiscal year. Uh, I did use some funds uh this past fiscal year for the
new violent cabinet for the project. And now that we have to do our own butter notifications, I have depleted my supplies like envelopes and labels for the butter notifications. Uh so we will have to use some monies towards that. But we
>> charge them more for the fees. >> One envelope is now up to 1014 1044. So, we request that money from the applicant up front when they make the sale and give us the 125 fee for the zoning fee. I make them give us a postage check fee
that we give back to finance. >> So, we make them pay for it. >> Okay. >> But I do overwork. >> Do any of you guys feel like you have any expenses? >> Just time. >> Okay. I don't think I don't think we're
getting a sip on anytime soon. So, you just lose yourself. >> So, in that case, no. Okay. Um but if if they're like um Marramac Valley Planning Association sometimes has classes, sometimes they're like a $35
fee or something like that. If we do get them sent around to everybody, right? I get them. >> I do get that email. >> Do do you distribute to everybody? >> You know what? I don't. then I can start doing that. Most of it's related to planning, but >> we're, you know, it's all
>> if you had a wild technicality and you called them up and just said, "I'm from Newberry. I'm on ZBA." And I had a question, like how much is an acre? I don't, you know, they're there to support us. We do have a membership to them. >> They do provide some guidance. They do
help with certain tasks. We then hire them to help with, I don't know, we want a design of Plum Island Boulevard because we want to improve the entry to Plum Island. And so they're they're we would either get a grant or we would just pay them to and then they would help facilitate a study like that.
>> You you're talking about the Marat Valley Planning Commission, >> right? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Kristen's a commissioner, so if you you know, you might want to go through her if you have any questions. >> That's why we're having this discussion. >> So there's resources there. They do have classes. I had attended some in the
past. Uh I do have one about there was one about writing good decisions and of course it was like at 1:00 and like 2 seconds before one of my client called I missed it but I got the >> pieces. Did I send that because they they did send a PDF.
>> So I should send the PDF to Chrissy. Chrissy send it to you. you now have some support like can't we're learning on the job which is good and kind of problematic and so if you feel like there's something about like I don't know easements or they have they have
certain things that come up >> if I see something come through I will send it out to the team >> and if you feel like you're not willing to pay $35 but it would be really really good then speak up and let's let's ask Tracy and we'll see what can happen that's all you just going to
So, I paid for it and haven't got it back. You know, I do sometimes do a fair amount of printing. I don't get reverse for that either. But that's just what we're >> So, thank you for your good work. >> Okay. But if there's a class and and you find it interesting, do do
>> Yeah. >> Figure it out, please. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I'm good. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. That's it. Just one question of the gentleman's disagreement or what was it just the process that he was disagreeing with or something else? I kind of >> he
was challenging our authority to decide a minimum or major change. >> Okay. >> In in and in process and and truthfully the hearing is open. The hearing was continued. He's a little
late to the game in terms of making his argument for the pavilion which was heard >> over a year ago and has been going through planning board and the zoning board and and so you showed up and that's why I recognized him because I didn't want to say like I'm not going to hear you and then >> just curious
>> caused more I think I did check the last filing and he was on the list he did receive an abutter notification and no comments were received at the original hearing from him >> so having him here allowing him to speak. >> It's fine.
>> It was good that you recognized both of them. It was a, you know, an informal we're an open board. It was a good good way to do it, I thought. >> Yep. But and then he understood that we weren't really going to take action on him and he blasted and so he he knew his part as well, but he made his piece
and if he wants to appeal, he can appeal. >> Anything you can appeal. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. I have meeting minutes uh June through September which catches us up and then next month I will present uh
21 through 23 and there it's all almost final drafts and we'll be all caught up and >> so are you going to email those to us for homework? >> Y >> and we will be prepared and it will be on the agenda that we need to review meeting minutes and approve the meeting.
>> Thanks. >> Great. >> Make a motion to close the meeting. second. >> Thank you.