i will call the meeting to order at 7:01 this is a meeting of the uh towny town town of Norton zoning board of appeals April 2 it's nice and warm outside all of 42 degrees uh but here we are having
fun uh we have a number of items on the agenda tonight i count five and six if you include the um minutes first one is the uh comprehensive permit application of
Islandbrook Zero East Main Street this has been uh before us uh for the last year and couple months um the applicant was awarded a comprehensive permit some years ago the matter went to litigation
on environmental issues um cleared that and then came back to us a year and two or 3 months ago beginning of 24 I guess it was with what amounted to a request for modification and with us tonight is uh
town council Amy Quessle is tuned in by Zoom yep um the public was given notice that they were welcome to appear here at town hall or by Zoom tonight um Mr is Mr itani present by Zoom no Mr
gallagher mr gallagher and uh Mr attorney of Chris Agusto chris is there to here um Mr itani is here mr 705 it's not 705 but anyways oh I see
mr itani is here he just walked in great and you're right this is on for 7:05 so technically we are supposed to wait another two minutes um Amy I know communicated with Chris
Council i don't know amy I think got the um draftision Monday night and I spoke with Amy today and understand that she has been in court and tied up i will let
Amy uh or Mr dagustino attorney uh Dagustinino speak for where we are at this point sure uh thank you Mr chairman um as you indicated uh these plans have been
before the board over the last year and a few months and the board has engaged in peer review uh that resulted in refinements to the plan and the one issue that we were working with the board and its consultants on was how to
phase the project and the board's uh big concern was that if uh only phase 1 was built would it qualify as a a standalone development and compliance with 40B and have uh sufficient number of affordable
units and sufficient storm water management facilities and the uh amenities that the board had bargained for in terms of that playground and dog park uh if for whatever reason the second phase wasn't built and certainly
that's not the applicant's intent but um it's it's the board's uh uh concern to make sure that if for whatever reason that happens that uh everything spoken for so uh I prepared u and I believe at
at over the last few hearings you received uh peer review from Graves Engineering that confirmed that all the engineering issues had been resolved and uh Mr gallagher had prepared a final uh set of plans revised through January
29th was the most recent revision date and that was presented to the board that was the the peer review set uh so what I had done was I prepared a decision or a draft decision for the board to adopt to
simply uh confirm that the final plan set is consistent with the original approval and that it does not constitute a substantial change relative to the plans that were originally before the
board and that the issue of phasing had been adequately addressed so the draft that was presented to Amy and I and I apologize that we were only able to get it to her on Monday and I know uh she has a busy schedule so you know I I can
understand uh uh if she wasn't able to to look at it right away but it in that it's uh it's concise enough that we were hoping that the board would see tonight that we're simply referencing the final plan set confirming uh the content of
the board's deliberations over the last one year which is essentially uh reached the conclusion at this point that those final plans are consistent and that the uh phasing element has been adequately addressed so uh we're before the board
tonight in in what is a continued hearing on this topic and we're asking the board to uh adopt the decision and confirm that they're ready to endorse the plan set that's enumerated uh in the draft decision thank you for
the uh for the uh update i one point i just saw this earlier this afternoon the draft i'm not sure if the other members have it or not yep you do okay um I think we determined at the
beginning of this process meaning a year ago in February or January February or March of 24 that we deemed this a substantial change and that was the basis for opening the public hearings that we've had
do you uh No Mr chairman uh my recollections was that we deferred that determination because had you made that determination it would have been a formal public hearing with notice in the
newspaper and um a butter notices uh and it would have been based on the uh criteria that are in the HAC's regs as to what is substantial and what isn't and we asked that the board defer that
and engage in peer review to determine that in fact based on the criteria uh which really only allow for limited circumstances where you're dealing with a substantial change um based on the criteria uh under the regulations the
the plans really would not constitute a substantial change so uh essentially we've deferred that what what you just described we deferred that determination uh for the entire 1-year 3month period
uh so that it could be determined in this decision uh tonight that it is insubstantial and that all of the conditions have been satisfied we went through that exercise early on uh we could we prepared a a comprehensive spreadsheet showing that all the
conditions were satisfied um and the board's concern was about the engineering attribute um if you can hear me you have frozen just hold on one minute wii went up it's coming right back on he's on
mine i guess the wife stand by please if you can hear me jesus he can't be hearing you because he keeps talking so Oh he is to finally endorse so oh boy um that's a procedural posture
hold on i'm sorry to but you know what sorry sorry to interrupt you you've been uh electronically muted for about uh one minute and I apologize for that uh we you froze your picture froze for us
um and your audio and the audio the last thing I heard was engineer uh something engineering for about a minute uh I don't need you to go back um unless you want to in in closing up but that's
something that I'm going to have to resolve in the record i thought we had vote i thought that was the purpose of the hearings that we had i understand what you're saying that you think we deferred on that and that now is the time to deem this either substantial
insubstantial and you're you're suggesting it's insubstantial um I understand the criteria you're referring to u Miss Quest uh can I bring you into the uh conversation
sure thank you um where are we in this application i know you haven't been with us every uh every meeting uh for the last year but um it seems to me well in addition to the issue of substantial or not
substantial u which we have in another matter tonight ironically same question um the decision here doesn't have a waiver list don't we need a waiver list and that
table that u council was referring to of of the waiverss i'm sorry the table of u specific portions of the town bylaws that we are deeming um taken care of
sure so Mr chairman um at the last hearing um you did note to Mr itani that you know that that the time between the last hearing and this hearing was limited um and he said that if his council couldn't get an a decision to me
with enough time we would continue this so again um on Monday afternoon or evening I received a draft decision i need to go through the previous filings i need to look I need to make sure that those conditions have been met i need to make sure that the waiverss are the same
and have not changed we've been told that they haven't but I still need to do that this decision and whether whether it's an insubstantial change or a substantial change um the decision in my opinion isn't sufficient it doesn't have any um preamble as to how many units are
going to be constructed how many units will be affordable um it doesn't have a procedural um history you know you you you've seen my decisions when it comes to 40bs they're you know quite quite lengthy however and this one won't be lengthy because it is a it is a
modification it won't be as lengthy but um this is not a decision a draft decision that I'm comfortable with this board with recommending that you sign um and and I think that the applicant acknowledged at the last hearing um that if we did not have enough time then um
he would continue this again and quite honestly even if I wasn't in court all day yesterday getting it on Monday afternoon or Monday evening is just not acceptable i I just didn't have enough time to look at it yeah and we're not putting that on applicants council we
understand that he had to put this together and our last meeting was three weeks ago tonight uh it wasn't the normal four weeks or or even longer and that was that was pointed out yep u but for the sake of clarifying a couple of
issues don't and yes we have done these in the past and they've been much more involved so when I saw this today I said I questioned myself and this is the first time we've addressed the applicant or council but don't these even modification
decisions normally uh refer to the original decision and the date and and then also also have a list of waiverss attached to this decision that's my memory and that's how we've done it in the past
so that's so it would either be a list of a list of waivers that would be required or there would be confirmation that the waivers that have already been granted have not changed and there's no additional waiverss necessary something like that um but you
know um it's very important when you have a modification decision that modification decision is going to get recorded uh but it's it's very important to note all of the ex all of the ch what the ex what the actual modification is
so when we go back and and go through this you know when somebody has to go back and see if there's another modification or something we have to have a clear a clean record um Mr mr atani knows this because we've done this in Lakeville um where he's had numerous modifications and we've made sure that
every modification refers to the prior modification refers to the original all stuff has to be done um it it's easier for the town it's easier for him it's easier for a subsequent buyer um it it just it's something that has to be
done in my opinion okay so what do we do do we ask you to work with uh council applicants council and and uh come back to it at the next meeting date is that enough time we haven't closed the
hearing and that's why I want to go back and see if we deemed it substantial a year ago because I didn't I thought we discussed and I don't mean to cut you off i thought we discussed it that I think Miss Wels deemed it
significant and I think after we talked I thought we said it wasn't that's my recollection i might be wrong cuz I want to see if we voted because that affects what we're going to put in this decision i mean I'm not arguing with the end point that we've arrived at i'm arguing
i'm just saying I think we have to be clear on what we did and whether these have been public hearings or or just continuations with applicants approval um again not arguing with the finished product except that this two pages
doesn't isn't enough to encompass it but is this something we can get done in the next couple of weeks few weeks and return um councel Amy or Chris to me Mr chairman sir when's your next um when's your next meeting
when's your next meeting stand by may 6th may 7th may 7th yep yep that's the first Wednesday of the month yeah that's not a problem sure not a problem okay um Mr agugustino
Mr itani can we uh can we proceed on that track mr chairman good evening u Muhammadani from Island Brook LLC uh Mr chairman I believe when we started the
hearings uh back in November of 2023 I believe it was uh the board determined that it is insubstantial well that's what I'm saying i don't I recall differently all we did we we we aligned the the roads uh at the back part phase
two we phase one did not change phase two well we added the the dock part and we moved them back and we lost four lots in the process consistent with the approval of the D for the order of conditions that was issued and I believe
the board determined that it is insubstantial there was actually a loss of four lots not an addition we just realigned the roads to meet the requirements of D so we really didn't do any any changes we're not asking for any
new waiverss we're not asking and and I don't know well the the record will reflect that but that's fine i'm not arguing the process here at all either i just want to be clear in the record and the decision of what you know how we approached it i mean the reason we've been having the meetings because the
board determined it's insubstantial otherwise we would have stopped advertised and opened up i understand so that's why we're here a year later we've already determined that it is insubstantial because there is no really change or anything there's there's very
little change there's reduction of units mr chairman and and uh Muhammad you know I'm listening to what you're describing uh so that we can accomplish something tonight um and and be you know efficient in our use of time because I know the board has
a lot on the agenda this evening is there any opportunity to just confirm and have that vote this evening because you know whether it was determined earlier or now um the plans have been before the board for some time and I think the board's
familiar with the changes that were made uh Gallagher Mr gallagher presented the changes to the board um the criteria for substantial or insubstantial is uh well known to everyone at this point and um
you know I my suggestion would be if we have the board uh vote to make that determination and then charge council with preparing a draft that's comprehensive and aligns with how Norton does their their amendment decisions
which every town is different but you know if if uh if council wants a more robust uh modification decision we can certainly work together and accomplish that but I would suggest that the board uh just confirm and and again you're familiar with the plans and we've spent
a lot of time with peer review if they could make that vote this evening and then ask council uh to put together a decision consistent with their deliberations and then adopt it at the next hearing let me let me ask uh Lucas and Jim do you recall a vote earlier on
in the process and Yes right so if we had a major we would have sent out notices and I recall we did not do that then no right but I had accidentally sent it out beginning not knowing what the 40 BS were so I would remember
sending it out twice so I believe we did vote for minor that it was insubstantial that's what I remember okay i remember that and then I think we were harping on the fact that is this going to be two separate projects basically or and then he said we're going to continue the
infrastructure y and then we'll build a second and we said okay then this is insubstantial okay well I'm going to go with that collective memory then that's if you're comfortable with that do you I'm not uncomfortable because I don't want to change anything now if that's what we did I I mean I remembered but I
I we're going to get to the same end result matter of expediting it right we get an affirmative vote that it is insubstantial this way this topic doesn't come up again yep let me hear from Amy and I'm not suggesting having to start with a public
hearing now that's not what I'm suggesting at all amy uh can you help us straighten this out sure don't vote tonight you're You're going to want to You're going to want to have the You're going to want to have my
analysis before you vote since you deferred it you deferred whether it's substantial or insubstantial that's what council represented that you deferred that vote it's most likely as as you all recall it's most likely insubstantial
but let me go through let me go through the prior decision let me go through the changes and I'll be back on May 7th and report back to you with a decision that you can vote and then you can vote on the decision and we can be done i don't think that Yeah I mean that
doesn't hurt you guys you're Yeah but the idea is you know we've been in front of the board multiple times and I believe uh two meetings ago the board was ready to adopt the plans and the changes and then the the the Mr uh
Graves Engineering suggested that we ask the fire department if they approve the final plan and we did that and they did and that was the only thing that was left and then the the other thing was the waiver list we we we didn't change
it's the same exact waiver list that we had in the original submission so we did not request any new changes to the waiver list okay so we asked for a written draft decision and we have that's correct you even asked for Can I
make a point on that yes Mr gallagher we started with was the settlement agreement that stated August 25th 2016 yeah and if if I
remember coming to the board in this most recent process that we're in and we went through all of the conditions that are spelled out in that settlement agreement and we submitted to the board
that the plans that you now have in front of you really met the conditions that were listed in that settlement agreement the only issue that really was kind of
hanging out there was the the issue of phasing we presented everything else to you and we showed you that the plans that you have met the conditions in that settlement
agreement August 25th 2016 so what the board asked of us was okay well if the phasing issue is still out there let's let's deal with that and that is what I worked through with
Graves Engineering they their you know their examination of this current plan set basically was restricted to the phasing and whether phase one could stand alone if phase 2 was never construed
all the other issues associated with this set of plans we said to the board were were meeting the conditions in our settlement agreement okay and so I think we went from there to say okay then this
really is not a substantial change since okay agrees with what's in that the board Mr gallagher the board's not disagreeing with anything you've said I think um so thank you for uh adding to you know the history of what we've gone
through here um I don't think there's disagreement with Mr chairman we're simply saying we're going to take time yes Miss Quest from from a procedural stamp from a procedural standpoint if you vote that this is insubstantial you're done tonight that's it so you're
not going to have a decision you're going to say it's insubstantial so whatever they submitted to you a year ago is the change because that's how when it's an insubstantial change it's essentially whatever they submitted it makes absolutely no sense to vote on this tonight if you if you if
they want you to vote on this tonight they're going to they're going to end up with a project they can't build so it this makes no sense at all particularly the time Excuse me ma'am i'm still speaking i'm sorry especially considering the time that
this board has put in the peer review has put in it doesn't make any sense at all i I I don't understand where this push came from at the last meeting Mr atani specifically stated if we did not have enough time we would continue this hearing yeah mr can I just say I'm not
pushing for any action tonight i only say you know what I what I just said hopefully to lend some clarity to to the discussion and and what I've been hearing thank you Mr gallagher mr itani
yeah Mr chairman we're not asking for the board to sign off on on the modification we're asking the the the letter that we sent we're asking the board if they can reaffirm that it is insubstantial this way we're not opening
that again no because it was already you know I I think u if I may Mr chairman I I know the board has a process that they want to adhere to and I you know I hear town council has a process that that she's accustomed to i
I don't think there would be any problem in conditioning a vote on a subsequent more comprehensive decision that is reviewed and approved later but I I see where the board's going with this uh you know I I I really don't think uh it would be harmful to just make that
decision tonight but if it's not in the board's uh uh you know realm of possibilities based on what town council is advising then I think we're happy to defer it but I think what I would just ask is if anything does come up in the
interim um if we could make sure that we hear from maybe Brian or from Amy in advance of the next hearing so that these questions are you know checked off before we get there and we're able to report that we've reviewed everything in
advance uh because I thought the procedural history was and again I haven't been to the hearing on this in a little bit but I thought the procedural history was pretty well uh documented at this point and I I thought this was teed up for a vote this evening but if that's
not the case if we could just do whatever we can to make sure that we're all on the same page that would be the best thing we can do tonight that's what we're that's what we're attempting to do and the fact that we got the draft two days ago and I'm not putting that as a
negative on council i'm simply saying that we needed to get that and then we need to digest it and talk about it so town council has said that she can get it done with you in the next four weeks and the decision reflects an
administrative uh endorsement essentially but this board sees it as more comprehensive than that i'm not inclined i'm not going to ask for any vote tonight we all think we know what the end result is going to be
so I'm not sure why again Amy said it well why this is being pushed all of a sudden we've been working for a year and maybe more than 3 months on this i'm not going to ask for a vote tonight i'm going to suggest that we continue till
May 7 and hopefully we wrap it up that night with a document that we can vote on and sign yes is that certainly don't mean to cut off the other board members from No we both agree no we Yeah I agree i agree i
don't I don't see I personally don't see the harm in waiting just let Amy do her part yeah let Amy do her part i think we've all come to the real fact that I I remember the discussion specifically about whether this was substantial or not i'm
99.999% sure maybe I I'm not 100% sure on whether we actually did a vote but I think we discussed it amy's right cuz if we had said insubstantial that's the end of the process correct we we deferred but I remember discussing it going it
wasn't a substantial right because it would have taken in a different direction right but we had more to find out and we've done that and we did that and and then the only thing that we had done left the only thing I wrote down last was the list of waiverss that we hadn't discussed yet and if Amy is
saying it's not in she wants in a certain way I think that would be that's fine i mean I'll be happy to if if the board wishes to continue the meeting till the May 7th I'm I'm fine with that but I just want to you know if the world is not ready to to make up to to reaffirm that they deemed it
insubstantial that's fine yeah but that's a technical a technicality because if we had said insubstantial we would have all gone home you would have gone and and done the phasing so we didn't from memory collective memory we didn't vote on substantial or
insubstantial i think your council put it correctly we deferred on that we said "Let's find out what is what's at stake here what's going on." And that's what that's how we played this out i I remember it incorrectly at the outset u
I think uh Jim and Lucas have refreshed my recollection along with Mr dagistino um refle refreshed my recollection as to how it played out so with that uh a lot of discussion uh but I think unnecessary
is there a motion to continue the matter of the Idland Brook 40B to May 7 at 700 p.m i'll make that motion second okay any further discussion no we've asked council to work with applicants council
to get this in shape we have all the historic documents the the old list of waiverss and if that's the case that they haven't changed then we'll just attach it to this or u somehow refer to it uh but a more robust uh document than
the uh the two-page draft that we have is what we've used in the past i'm gonna ask council to work uh toward that end uh with that Mr tenori how do you vote on the motion to uh continue yes mr wasak yes mr noel votes yes as well okay
thank you council thank you Mr appreciate it thank you thank you and Mr gallagher thank you thank you next everybody good night good night good night next on the agenda is Zero Hill Street um I just got into
communication with them because I didn't see them in Zoom or in person and they said that uh they're asking for a continuence oh Amy's here amy is here well but he said that he wasn't ready who the engineer Dan Campbell mr
campbell and how did he ask for a continuence was it a phone call an email or email i just sent him an email you want me to send it over to you guys and to Amy yeah amy's I just received it
amy I didn't know who was online and not online uh Miss Quest I I apologize we had uh a big deal i was here anyway for Island Brook it's not a big deal yeah for we just want to make sure that um we want to make sure that they're extending the 100 days to act along with their
requesting continuences can you read us the email uh Brian or and send it to us sent to Amy i just sent it um do you want me to read into the record if you can uh do you want me to read the whole thing of uh Yes
hi just a reminder ZBA meeting is tonight zoom link is 63892910 that's your What did Mr campbell Brian I expected to have conversations as we discussed at the last hearing before we came back i'm sorry I was not prepared to present again this evening please ask
the board to continue the project to allow us time to converse with the chair and town council so did you hear that Amy i I did however um I don't know if we would be having
conversations with them um unless we're in an open meeting um so that's a little concerning that he thinks that but I guess um I don't know what conversation he was
referring to there did he mean I think he on their side of the team i I think he wanted a paper copy of what uh you guys were going to talk about but like you guys I explained to him that you had a phone conversation this
morning and Yep i didn't hear anything back from him afterwards so I thought he was going to come to the meeting can we get So we need you need to send him um an email telling him that he
needs to extend the the 100 days to Well when has he ever extended the 100 days it would be over 100 days yeah because this was back October 15th I think is the date of the application at least in open in open gov so and he's Do you Did
you get his email Amy can you Can we email him agree to continuences in the past yes he they have asked for continuences in the past including at the last meeting where he said he knew that we had we had just talked about his
January letter which we all found to be a little confusing and he said "Right I didn't expect you to vote on this tonight i know you want to run it by town council." That was the representation at the last meeting i don't think we have anything in writing from the last meeting although we have
the record of the meeting itself so should we ask him to email that waiver as well um
um yeah well I mean his we could his continuences are um yeah it's ted you know so I he's he's asked for the extension he's asked for the extension um so I guess um my my
um you know my my problem with um what's been submitted is there are statements in the submitts that make um that you know there there's there's broad statements and I don't know where these statements are coming from for example there's um it's been stated over and
over again that um these lots as they exist in their smaller form are are legal lots and buildable lots i don't know where that's coming from um if if that's coming from the new change to 48 section 6 which allows for lots that
have 75 ft of frontage 10,000 square ft um of area that would be true that perhaps these would be buildable but they're buildable only for a single family house that's um 1,850 ft and maximum so though there's a
lot of there's a lot of things I need to know why they're making these these broad statements the other broad statement that they made was because there was an ANR plan that ANR plan indicates that the lots are are buildable and that that's not the that's not true um legally an ANR plan does not
determine the buildability of a lot and in fact ANR plans have a caveat on them that says this plan does not mean that these lots are buildable so so that's another um question I had um and then um you know I can I can just tell the board
I can give you a preview um I I don't um I don't understand their argument um it appears to me that if these lots were buildable in the 1967 when they were created by ANR then they needed to be built upon because now bylaws change that well
that's and lot size that's what we pointed out to uh Mr it's Mr campbell right correct mr campbell if the last you know you're saying the the bylaw changed but it wasn't acted on while the old bylaw was in effect then the new
bylaw said something different so you had a period of time then are but council are you suggesting that you need we need to interact with him and you at a meeting is what you're saying right yeah that that was what I was
anticipating i was anticipating getting some answers to these questions um you know seeing if my opinion was going to change um okay and it it was I I figured it was either going to be a situation where I I was going to be able to just give you my my opinion right you know verbally after hearing the answers to
their questions or perhaps asking for you know a continuum and I could write something up in the meantime I don't mind writing something up between now and May 7th um my memo to you might have a few questions in it for them but I don't
mind doing an analysis based on um what I you know what I think obviously my my answers would be couched with the fact that I don't have all of the information but I can still do that if that would be helpful yes I think that is u something that would be helpful do you agree uh Mr
I think I think her I think your analysis is kind of why we brought you on board because we were thinking the same thing we we asked the same kinds of questions that you just echoed well you didn't echo you raised them
from your own uh read of this we had the same questions I think at the last meeting uh as to well we had an opinion that we thought that these were not buildable at one point and then he continues to bring new evidence and then he's now bringing us old bylaw
paragraphs and then he's talking about the ANR plan and it's kind of in between for us it's we're interpreting in between the lines so then we said you know what we should bring Amy in and kind of Yeah yeah I didn't know if legally he could sustain that kind of argument that but if we can get a memo
and then get that in front of him before the next meeting i think that would be helpful cuz he spent a lot of time on this and I think there was a lot of effort put into it but we need a proper response yeah I wrote a question about before zoning which is what we talked that's what we discussed openly yeah
okay mr campbell has asked for continuence to May 7th you're going to be here on May 7th i am forbrook and we we'd ask you to be present for Zero Hill Street as well um I'll ask Mr carmichael to communicate
back that we um we accept the uh request the late request for continuence uh we expect it to go forward but we will honor the request um and also deem it to be a waiver of
the 100 day rule um on variance requests generally and um ask you to send that to him uh tonight if you can i can after the meeting or Yes sure and
that Amy uh town council will u attempt to uh put something together with some questions and some analysis um that may be incomplete based on the answers to the questions that the board
and town council has i can help with that email after as well but we'll send that off tonight um okay is that uh is that good for you yes is there a motion to continue this matter Z Hill Street to
May 7 let's say 705 so we don't have to wait i'll make that motion second no further discussion mr tenori how do you vote yes mr wazak yes mr noel votes yes as well amy thank you very much uh
did we and so Mr chairman I do um on May 7th I will need to be here by uh by Zoom because I I have a trial well I'm in a trial that day so I wouldn't be able to get to Norton in time if that's okay uh yes it is of course thank you great thank you for Thanks everyone have a
nice night you too Amy nice to see you all yeah you too okay now the third item on the agenda public hearing as to 15 Patton Road and um I
see the applicant is here and I see interested are here as well um at the last hearing uh three weeks ago we had closed the public uh comment section public question section but then
we asked the applicant the applicant I think mentioned a different plan set and we said we didn't have it uh the applicant uh got it to us i uh it's in the file i am going to suggest that we o
reopen public comment because there's a new plan sheet that's been submitted now I will say that the only difference I think is the lot area coverage on the new plan sheet yeah we
requested the schedule to be on here because it it wasn't anywhere right recorded i think you made that request and it is here yep and I think the applicant said "Oh it's on the sheet." And we said "No it isn't." and that's when it came out that there was a new plan set the plan set is the same as the
December revised plan set with the addition of the square footage however because we are uh we're allowing this new evidence in I think it only
fair to um reopen the public hearing um to ask Abuers if this changes their perspective at all and I can tell you that the U coverage
is 16 was it 16.9% 23.09 23% okay thank you the house living space 23.09 yep living space 23.09 and that's what the um building code
goes by I believe living space living space when they're when we've had past applications with um where they're doing additions the it was always triggered by living space but is that in 6.2 two table
uh yeah I thought it was coverage of No the house we've had that issue before maximum percentage of lot covered by building 16% that's what I'm looking at that two
there's two of them but I think under 25% we're okay on the living space there's something in our code on the living space as well that's for a pre-existing non-conforming that it can't be 25% greater increase but what I'm looking at
for terms of variance request is percentage of lot cover by building and that's what I thought you were asking for i was last time so the uh in an R60 zone which this is it's 16%
um the house is 19.2% how is living space higher second floor second floor oh thank you obvious that's pretty obvious isn't it so the lot coverage is
19.2% agreed yes and that's a variance that would be required for this as well as the other variance features the sideyard setbacks in both uh both cases is that correct
and front yard as well I believe front yard 40 ft normally yeah it's at 20 and this is at 29 no uh yeah 29 28 28 28 yeah one is 28 one's 29 no the porch the porch comes out we go by the porch we go by the
closest 28 28 yep i see it this is a better drawing than last time so Yep yeah it's 14 on either side I think yep well on the front yard set back though one says 28 one says 29 both do the same
line no they're not if you look see I do see the little right there i blew it up the porch is one foot further up oh that point yes just that one that that little jog is one foot closer to the front oh I can't see it on this
small yeah I see it's not the same it's not to the same line right no it's a Yeah I got you all right in any event the front yard set back we could note both distances uh 28 to the porch 29 to the corner of the
house the house itself right and 14 ft on each side correct y and then the lot u percentage coverage where the bylaw allows 16% of this is proposed at 19.2% and u sir is this the plan that
you were referring to last time that you thought was in the file like the one the one I just uploaded is the same plan other than the lot coverage was added that was it yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so and that revision date is March 19 yeah
yep yep certified by Mr trobridge right and based on the last hearing um during the public hearing it was a suggestion made to drive by the property to take a look and I did take a video that I can show tonight of the abunding houses and their size you did yes i can show that
to you do you want to see that i I drove by as well but I mean if you want to take a look okay uh we can show this we can play this for others but let's take a look uh closely first that's the property yep and you saw the
first house that's the next house and that's the next house okay all that construction apparently mhm and then and then there are other houses within the neighborhood of similar size as well yeah okay well you can can you turn that around to let
others let their Butters uh see as well and Mr campbell those just that side of the street that I took okay so last time we heard from a number of of others who were not happy with the
proposed proposed house um I I will open up the meeting for further comments um does this affect or does Mr campbell's um I'm
sorry the applicants the applicant's u statement that you would u add some trees along the property line which you offered to do last time talk to us who would like
to be heard please be mindful just address the board yes just identify yourself and your address sure i'm Jackie Dodson i live at 21 so I'm the director of butter to the property you uh sent a letter i did which we had last time go right ahead um and I was part of
the meeting last time i still believe that the 14 foot sideyard is just too close privacy-wise i think that the 25 ft bylaw or the sideyard setback exists for a reason for privacy purposes and not making it feel overcrowded i know the
other two that are under construction are of that 14 ft but they didn't have existing houses on those properties before it was all woods before so I'm assuming that's why they're closer together if I'm not mistaken well you're telling us those were vacant lots before they were yeah okay and this
is to replace the house that was correct the one that's currently there okay got it noting that the house currently there is actually closer than 14 ft on the um easternly side
right now this would center it so that it's 14 feet on each side yes tiana Plum 9 Mayflower Road um I I stand by the um my opinion that there is no great need to
have to give waiverss that the house can be a smaller house mr freeman built a smaller house two years ago on a corner of Reservoir and Evergreen um with no garage at all in fact a driveway only for one
car there u he can build something that's smaller and abides by what the what the bylaws are and they were made for a reason and we it nothing has to balloon out to within for well the one side because of that little house but
the other side doesn't have to balloon out to within 14 ft of the next person's property there's no imperative to have to do this this way okay sir yes dave what your name dave
Constantino five Mayflower Road go right ahead excuse me frog so I'm confused as to why this is even a variance and not a new construction permit so typically when there's a house that's on a lot and it gets knocked down it's new
construction and has to meet current codes current ordinances it's not just a house that's being built on a vacant lot i'm a little bit confused as to why this is even a variance well he's requesting a
variance he's requesting That's why he's here he's requesting a variance this is not buildable as as designed right now so there's been four houses in the past 10 years or so that have been knocked down and
rebuilt all had to stay within the bylaws at the time 25 ft from the street maybe that kind of thing maybe had to stay within the footprint of the old house is that stay within the footprint and stay within the the bylaws do you
know what those were where were they the ones on the corner of um Alder and Woodbine tom Higgins tom and Barbara he couldn't be here tonight his wife is ill
actually your your house the tree went through Deb's house she had to rebuild in the same spot same footprint um Luke Grant built a little house on Mayflower Road i'm not sure what number next to 31 I believe oh um I
think it's 21 21 they made him leave up a wall and stay within the same footprint so why shouldn't Mr agreement have to abide by the same when there's a pre-existing nonconforming use the the
section of the bylaw is different that applies this house is the same was there pre-existing was it vacant no no it's not dilapitated either by not dilapitated not on the outside it's been
vacant since August just there's somebody living there now is there there was up until up until August up until he took over the neighborhood it has a new roof within the last four years it's been vitals it's not a lot to So allowing him
to build outside of the intended bylaws just hurts the value of the property is this is this the current construction yes that's the shaded line how thin is that house oh it's very small it's very small oh it's got to be
which is great because it means less people it's got to be 8 ft no I think it's about 10 10 by 20 or something i mean it's looks like it's cut yeah yeah okay so isn't this a
pre-existing non-conforming use analysis i would think so as well i had well because it's within I hadn't looked at it that way neither have I actually but that complicates it
anyway it's not a change in use though residential [Applause] 1.5e 175 1.5e non-conforming use may be changed extended or altered upon finding by the
permit granting authority that such change extension or alteration is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use and is subject to conditions and limits as the board might
impose it's the intent that such change of use be permitted by the board whenever the proposed use is of the same general class as the existing non-conforming use it is single family residents and won't would not significantly significantly increase
traffic noise bright lights or other undesirable impacts on the surrounding environment the other lots that came before us from this applicant were vacant lots right they small lot the
small and they were a small lot exemption small lot exemption right well we we noted the small lot exemption right and the um the limitations there are narrower mhm but here isn't this
under controlled by 175 1.5E applicant applied for variance but this is an existing nonconforming use that's being changed or altered am I looking at that right i
believe it's I thought that's what the application was in front of us the actual application said setback variance and a section six finding uhhuh
so the section six finding is is the 1.5e yeah that's what Yeah so the applicant would need both of those things mhm well let's see because the house is actually being
moved he wouldn't need a variance on that side let it go here the house is being pushed over the present construction this way right so you still need
variance this is pushing it further i'm unclear on whether variance would be required because see he's pushing the house further back and in that direction in the western direction
but he's certainly not just rebuilding that that has to come under 1.5e yes so the lot of coverage is under 1.5e because it's only allowed 16% and he's requesting 19.2% so wouldn't that be
yeah 1.5 and variance mhm both because he's increasing the non-conforming nature for lot coverage and for the position and size of the construction so we'd have to in order to grant we
would have to decide that this is not substantially more detrimental under 1.5 1.6 that's where the 25% that's where the 25% comes in which with most additions in this
neighborhood in the past hit that hit that trigger that and then that's why they have to come in front of us and then we typically grant the variance to say "Hey you're doing an addition." I think everyone that's done down there is we've hit that
well but here 1.6 says "Well the difficulty in that neighborhood and in any of those areas we've said before is there's a small exemption for most of them which allows you 13 ft side
setbacks right 25 ft front setbacks which in our opinion this property kind of sort of fits into that model but it doesn't meet that criteria right it should have never really been zoned as an R60 in our opinion but it is and that's why he's in front of us for the
variance then we said then we've the public hearing we had a lot of complaints about the height and the structure and blocking but what he's doing is allowed by the table the 35 ft or 30 ft whatever the number is so the height's not we're not there's no variance for the height for height right
but that was the biggest complaint was the structure and the height of this building mhm um took a ride by the neighborhood and there's a dozen houses of similar size to what he's proposing to build
how do we know the size size of those constructions well I'm just taking Yeah of course but from proportion and size and what he's building it's not like he's building a castle in the middle of you know a small village what he's
proposing is what I would consider a standard home in today's economy and not for this neighborhood does this $800,000 house and a $300,000 house well it just looks out of the bylaw doesn't speak in terms of value or
dollars it just looks very silly in our neighborhood the board's discussing what's been presented so okay I'm just asking for that respect while we discuss what's in front of us
um I think we have to come under 175e and the variance um parameters can we say that this is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use
well lot coverage impact is we're talking about 3% not 20% so I believe that it is not more detrimental in terms of lot coverage three over three over the 16 over the 16 yep
so typically with these small lot areas that's the number one thing we discuss is the lot coverage and then typically setbacks afterwards that's what we've done historically but the size of the structure the change is that not
substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure i mean that's a that's a big that's a big change when you're looking at it under 1.5 million yep it's really three three and a half
times the width of the existing structure but what's currently there is not normal no but the bylaw 175E talks about then the existing non-conforming
use and the existing non-conforming use which still exists is is is there I hadn't considered it under 1.5E until until I I looked at it as a variance request
um and comparing it with other local nearby i'm not sure under 175E that I could say this is not substantially more detrimental my only and I'm not saying I'm for against it right now but I'm only saying
if you do drive by it that I can I mean he hasn't given us you know he's given us the Mhm the foreplay like we don't have the height and anything like that but I it
would my assumption and maybe that's not right but my assumption it would be it would look almost exactly like the 217 oh yeah are the heights of those I guess maybe I can ask you straight up is the is is the
house you're proposing in generally cuz I don't I only exact same as number seven same size as on each side number seven the one the white one the white one in this video so to the right yeah to Yeah yeah
stand in front of her yeah it would look I would assume it would look right around the same height same Yeah and then her house is about the same size is height of record on the town records i don't think it is what is it the height of a structure i don't think it is is
that in the town records in other words the tax records or the U it's not on the map no it would be square footage existing one no no like if you went the town records I think it just shows square footage correct yeah well why do we need height for comparing what's
there what's in there well our 60 allows X amount of height yeah 35 he's under that threshold but I think almost every residential is under that under that number I guess yeah because we never get height variances
that are usual to want to put up a No I'm I'm not suggesting we give a height variance i'm just I'm saying when you drive down that street cuz I did it and he obviously has a video you can look at again you have you have a two-le I guess I call it a colonial mhm right and then you have this property which is you know
a single family you know rectangle and then you have another colonial right next to it so I would envision in my mind if if if what he's proposing to be built would look almost like a colonial like the two on the right and left do you have again I don't
have a height or anything i'm just Do we have elevation designs for this i have a set of plans this isn't the exact set I just brought to you to show you but obviously I got to stick to the footprint correct but I can Yeah but is there is there an elevation plan for
that footprint uh elevation drawing that no i I I I guess to best answer your question let's just say not that I'm going to decided to add 5T onto what we're talking about tonight which I'm not going to know so when I sent it to builder department he
would have to send send me back for for height variance so So no I'm not No I'm not I'm not disputing your the the height of the building i'm just asking if you have a representation of what what style of construction they have
this this is what the house is going to look like that's what I'm asking yeah okay yeah i'm just trying to in my mind picture what is going to go there same thing okay yeah
is that the same same thing this footprint this this footprint is on that plan i didn't get an actual 15 this is those the two houses the two other houses that constructed there right when I go to to the next step hopefully I'm
obviously going to set submit an official set for 15 but this for all intents and purposes this is that would be what it would look like exactly okay yeah that's what I was kind of asking like I I'm not holding you to that I'm not saying we're at that point anybody I'm just asking what in my mind what the
house no so Google maps Google street view does not go down any of these roads right yeah right but what it does do I've seen that is it goes down the main road mhm the inside road so if we I see so there's that those
houses but this is this is the road where all these little streets come from mhm so if you go down this road you know heightwise you already have similar houses within Y and then this road not
this road this is fine so on Mayflower Road right on the corner that house same do they have garages this is the house I'm showing him right on the corner that's your house Dave august of 2023 so what he's proposing is
very similar to this house smaller it's about story it's about a story much bigger than that very very much but again there's no height i know you guys have a big issue with height but my road doesn't look like my road anymore the the square foot i can't even like it it
can't even look that way anymore i can't it makes me sick to my stomach and then this is the start of the neighborhood and he better not take that lot down the other end but again if you go So I went to the GIS map yeah and if you look at the setbacks between the most of these
lots most of these lots are within 14 15 20 ft on the setbacks on the side setbacks cuz that's how this neighborhood is just built yeah yeah thousands are tiny though mr hold on hold on i think I I need to look at that GIS map
to look at the other other homes in the vicinity on the sideyard setbacks yeah I see that look at that those are the other houses he constructed did you do both all three houses on that road or just the the
white one the white no the white and the blue one the two next to each other yes and then the one to the left is this proposed one is the small one is 15 but there's another one to the left of that one that's our house got it and that law was
created by variance the other two are Yeah is height determined from grade level or is it determined from the top of the top of the lawn where's the height of a structure right his structure let
me finish the height of the structure it's the height of the structure at the structure i'm not sure what you're asking well if if if it's on a grade and the driveway goes up and then the house starts up from the ground where the house is okay so he built it up to the
highest point well and that's and that and I'm not speaking for him but I'm pretty sure that's because of the flood plane is why those houses are going up as high as they are and and that's happening on on uh on Pine Street as well if you go down Pine Street towards Crane Yeah the
houses on the left are way out it's the flood point they don't belong in our neighborhood simplicity okay so are you comfortable that it passes muster under 175e and and under the variance by law
changed extended or altered only upon finding that the change extension or alteration not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use this neighbor says it is a detriment 14
ft is not enough yeah I I understand each other's bedrooms okay really this is We're getting nowhere is there a motion to close the public hearing because I think that's what we have to do i understand that you are frustrated and you're angry that the developer is here and that we get to make this
decision we understand that but we've got to have an orderly discussion you repeating the same concerns and complaints by yelling them out does not help anything i'm sorry you don't have to apologize i' I've asked you before not to just speak up
and now is there a motion to close the public hearing i'll make the motion well hold on do you want to ask if anybody else want this in the Does anybody else have something to say about this plan as shown in the record
either for or against the uh the application there's no online i do not see nobody online nope just me okay I'll make a motion to close the public second okay no further discussion mr tari how do you vote yes mr waziaak mr noel votes
yes as well so the public input and the applicant's input is concluded at this point now it's open for discussion by the board i So I'm torn right so I've always I understand uh flat out right now I'm 50/50
um I have to I take the the the public's input pretty seriously because like this just happened to me someone built a house behind me and they're looking right at my pool so I understand what they're going through um on the other end when I did
drive down that house and what I envisioned and what he just showed us is pretty much in line with the with the four houses right there on that left side of the street um I personally don't think this is just my opinion I think building a house
right now with a twocar garage is feudal in this in this without a two-car garage you need a two-car garage i think that the days of not having a two-car garage and trying to sell a house is is um is
not you know that no one's going to buy it so that's a minimal house you believe that's on the plan that's on the plan um Lucas I've always said that this area ignoring
all the law should be under small lot exemption cuz it's congested we the zoning bylaw has a an R60,000 ft and no lot there can even meets that square footage um I would say over 75% of lots don't
meet that square footage i drove to the neighborhood because I care about the neighbors and all the input and I want to make sure we're making the right decision but I believe he's within 3% of the variance required for the 16% the height we have absolutely no jurisdiction on the height the right
side setback is further than what it is currently the left side setback I think he's addressing with bushes with the neighbor which is a driveway and then there's a house so I believe that what he's proposing is not more detrimental and okay I agree
with it okay so is there a motion under 1.5e that the plan of record and this is the revision of dated 31925 um the proposed single family dwelling
and garage there um under 1.5e is not substantially would not be st substantially more detrimental to the existing non-conforming use subject to conditions of the tree line um as what
is there now I will is there such a motion I'll make the motion okay second Second Mr tanoi how do you vote under
1.5e uh to permit the replacement of the non-conforming use with that as shown on the plan of record as has been amended twice now um is not substantially more detrimental than the existing
non-conforming use i will vote yes i vote yes mr noel votes yes as well um under variance relief there is a need for a variance for
frontage of 28 ft to the porch that not be closer than 28 ft to the roadway and for the rest of the structure the house portion 29 ft
not closer than 29 ft to the road um Mr tenori yes is that a motion i'll make that motion second mr tenori how do you vote yes mr quazian yes mr noel votes yes as well
the sideyard setbacks are both at 14 ft as shown on the plan of record um the easterly sideyard setback is actually further than that of the existing structure the existing structure appears
to be something like seven or eight feet away um is there a motion to permit the variance for both sideyard setbacks to be not closer than 14 ft from the property lines i'll make that motion
uh Mr tori um how do you vote on the variance relief for the sideyard setback yes and Mr wazak yes mr no votes yes as well and finally for the building coverage the bylaw says no more than
16% um the applicant has submitted a plan showing is it 19.3 2 thank you 19.2% um that's certainly within range of what we have voted before is there a
motion for approval of that variance request i'll make that motion second okay the motion's been made and seconded mr tori how do you vote yes mr wak yes mr noel votes yes as well for the record okay um thank you we did condition that
on you putting in some vegetation some trees on the southwesterly order that's understood absolutely that will be part of our decision as well um with that good luck good luck to the
abunders and the neighbors i'm sorry that you're not pleased with the decision we made the decision based on what we feel is appropriate under the neighborhood and u other decisions that have been made thank you for taking part
we will draft a decision and have it within two weeks thanks for your time there is an appeal period uh after that by which anybody or person agreved can file an appeal of the decision is that 21 days or 20 20 yeah I think it's 20 20
okay thank you good luck to all is there anything yeah there is what else is on the agenda two other items so did we get a revised agenda yeah there is
yeah sure forgot to send it y I was going to say we never got a revised agenda there is a revised agenda um I just didn't email it to you guys cuz I I saw it and I have it i'm just not prepared for anything no it's fine
one is a presentation by Paul and then which and another is a the 40B at 195 a request for modification we just had that for Island Brook i think this will not be um as meaningful
or as controversial hope so we hope not less significant i was going to say we approved this a long time ago i know the address the last time you guys came back we it was the sign yeah for the record for the record the chair is allowed to move agenda items around they are on
last but Paul is still here paul has pizza in his car for all of us so I haven't eaten yet so come on so uh with all due respect thank you for waiting for us yeah if you want to wait for the pizza you have to sit through his presentation
mhm um we got a letter um was it March 20 i have it here i clicked out of course i thought we were done i thought I was done too well then I'm
looking like Yeah yeah why are there so many people why are they so still here i actually thought they were here for the last uh agenda item i was forgetting about this and I didn't recognize them i had the papers here um for the record when there's an
existing 40B application and the request for any change comes in within 20 days the board has to meet and decide whether it's okay substantial or insubstantial if we decide tonight that it's
insubstantial as Amy pointed out that's it if we say it's insubstantial by vote of course uh we issue that by letter but the applicant gets to do what they want to modify the 40B okay but to Mr
carmichael it it's a 20-day shot clock so just be aware of that because it came up just last week and Brian said "So do do I put this on the agenda?" And I said "Yeah that's the what was going back and forth for why." Okay yeah now I understand what it is the first decision
is whether this is a substantial modification or insubstantial thanks buddy yeah and there's a whole list of things that um the state regulations say make it substantial and that's what Mr itani was
saying they didn't come under any of those things i just couldn't remember i thought we had voted at the beginning but that's not right because Yeah no I know we never took a formal vote but I remember discussing it extensively because Amy was against it yeah so but but we didn't actually vote because that
would have been the end of it and we never would have gotten into the plans and the phasing so here um do you have this on your systems i have a copy right here i printed it out just going to ask the applicant identify yourselves and
just quickly walk us through what these modifications are there's a letter dated March 20 on their behalf no Paul's later paul's after but I'm here to answer because I was here when this was originally so and that's
helpful too no okay u just to summarize briefly and I don't need to cut you off at all applicant proposing the addition of new amenities this is for 195 this is the building that's there called is it Norton Apartments
thank you right across from the TPC appropriately named one relocation of previously proposed pool area i don't remember a pool area i don't remember a pool yet let's go from the southern to the eastern side of the building new
location of pool will add approximately 1250 square ft of impervious cover addition of a dog park and a pickle ball court with plantings in lie of previously proposed 18 parking spaces pickle ball court and pedestrian access
consist of approximately 2350 of impervious cover addition of 20 by 18 maintenance garage with assorted associated driveway access to the
garage approximately 520 square ft of imperous cover added to accommodate the location access path for storm water pond has been shifted north that's what's in the letter there is a there
are there is I think one plan sheet although I got it a couple of times I think it shows the same thing can you just explain what this sheet shows and then of course there's the elevation drawing as I'll call it for the new storage shed workshed yes so uh Brandon
Carr with the pre- engineering Jason Kimbits with AR building here um so you know we're here for 195 you know it was approved back in January of 2021 we've since completed construction they have occupancy about 80% rented wow um all
the affordable units are rented um so all 100 units count against your your inventory um what we're looking to do is um the three items you just mentioned so there was a pool if you look at the building on the the bottom side kind of
where the angle point is i know where it is now interior in that right below the label that says existing apartment building was this an was this an indoor pool no it was an outdoor pool and it was a small little I just don't remember it i don't remember it my wife actually brought it up she's like they have a
pool oh my no they didn't i remember looking at there's a little like bean of a pool right that's the plan up there this was the original plan it didn't It didn't register and then while you're looking at the old plan sounds like that this This was shadowed
out parking spaces yep so I remember that shadowed out parking spaces cuz we wanted you to reduce the It's an over It's like an overflow parking in case we need it yep i remember it's grass and so you know our our
concept here is if we do need it we will put it in but in the meantime we wanted to put in a dog park a pickle ball court and in order to make the pool work better from where it was originally supposed to be located we wanted to move it to the other side there it's a much
bigger spot it's a really tight area once you put the fencing in um and then of course we wanted to add the maintenance garage for any tools or anything that we had there so the down here we kind of viewed it whether you view it as as uh significant or
insignificant we kind of viewed them as you know much better use the that site uh than what we're doing now with the ability to still park there in the future what do you all parking now like all the parking spaces now are we're we have a bunch of extra
parking really i was up there i mean I was so I was up there last week and I was talking to Jason and Emily last week and they said that I was 80% rented and I had been I had driven through the parking lot the day before and I it didn't compute for me because there was there were like no I drive by every day i would agree that I actually think I
was like "Oh they're only 50% full parking lots wide open." So yeah i mean the only thing I don't like by the way just that nothing we can do about it but I got stuck behind the bus school bus kids had to cross 140 to get to the bus we talked about that i did not like that
they literally had 140 stop there i wish the bus would come the other way yeah i mean we put that in there for that reason so I don't No they crossed all 140 damn we talked about this the bus should almost pull in and loop around and just load the kids in we don't control the bus we don't control that
i'm just saying I remember talking about that yeah yeah I remember that too that's why we put the shelter in yeah not even a bridge while we're doing this right now elevated or underground it's It's insubstantial that's insubstantial yeah and yes and to get to the
insubstantial substantial I mean if if you've read the the requirements it's basically you know to be considered a substantial change it's 10% increase in height or size of the building 10% in number of units it's it's really to the mixture of the mass of the building so that's why we
feel this falls under the insignificant attributes amenities as you call them in your letter and it's a net kind of wash with the impervious because if you you know we factored in that additional parking for the storm water system so we left that all size for that additional parking that's not going to get built
this is less impervious than the parking would be so it's it's a wash that way so we you know think it's a pretty benign change and I remember talking about the seepth through material that's available now and so there's grass there now yeah it's a grass island now and half is still going
to stay grass yeah it's going to be a dog park yeah that's what the the net impervious surface based on was presented i definitely agree okay that's under the the regulations are aimed at if you're increasing more units height
or number of units you know that's the type of thing that we have obvious concern with uh or reducing units I see although that's I think that's even in the regulations because that's why I remember talking about that for Island Brook actually a reduction in units is
considered an insignificant change ins too with you know because it affects everything but so u it's up to us to discuss and we can take a vote um tonight if we're ready to do so did we have a problem with the number of
parking spaces last time in other words to you would we said you needed a number and there was some in reserve that's exactly what you're telling us yeah yeah these are these are not registered against the parking spaces that were approved these are additional parking spaces that were never installed yeah
they were never installed and are just kind of in reserve if need be and will still be there in reserve it's just Can we have a better use of that if you have to rip up the dog park in 10 years and then we rip up the dog park in 10 years i bet that dog park it would it would it would be a it would
be a great amenity we you know we've had 80% um least I mean we've we've had great success already people really enjoy it are there animals in there if you don't mind yeah yeah i don't know i don't know to what percent but normally what we get um is about 30% of the units
have really of animals yeah yeah and dog parks are a huge deal for us you guys did a good job from when we from when we originally proposed this to where we are now the whole world of like dog parks and dogs and everything that's all really changed i mean this is uh uh it
was approved in 21 but the ball was rolling way before that um so what we find is that's a that's a big plus for people so any other questions from the board nope
okay would uh substantial vote yep yeah I can make a vote is there a motion to uh deem I guess we'll go Well let's talk about the shed just briefly plans are similar there's an elevation on that but it's it's really just a single story 10 by or
12 by 18 unit um just more storage for Yep and that's enclosed um that's not where they're piling up snow though right no no the snow storage is kind of around the perimeter more towards the left of that okay we don't have snow
anymore yeah I know right i like snow i don't like the cold you know i could do it with snow um and that plan is well a a pctoral plan are the dimensions actually on here yeah it's 20 by 18
okay so I would refer to the new plan sheet however it's titled and I would refer to the shed um in it decision um is there a motion to deem these uh proposed modifications to the chapter
40B existing um project uh not substantial or insubstantial within the meaning of u state regulations bylaw i'll make that motion any further discussion nope how do you
vote Mr tori yes insubstantial nonsubstantial Mr mr all folks as well sorry to make you wait around for 2 hours no it's fine no we appreciate it no problem at all have a great night guys that's great controversy
good luck good luck for you guys by the way so apartments are still in demand in this area oh yeah for Yeah i mean if we could add if we could build another building there we would i mean absolutely i'm actually shocked why they
haven't done the other one down in M Yeah remember that one wondering what's going with that as well he's not moving forward with that one but he may be coming in with something else next to Alberto maybe interesting thank you i was looking it
over you all it's actually the third largest multif family development in town so um we only have three large ones in town so we've been looking at this and um um you know especially under the
guise of what I'll be presenting to you all about the MBTA um it's interesting to hear because I would love to hear more about the units because you know we're in this world where here we're have a number of people who don't want to see us do this
new zoning district that's required and Yeah and we've been looking at our data and you know we've had no growth in this town no population growth for 15 years really we have been at 19,000 since like 2005 i thought I thought housing was
ballooning but not commerce and industry no housing's flat what's what's happened not to cut you off is that is that people built bigger houses more houses get built but less people are in them right and um there is a big demand for apartments you talk about the the zoning
regarding the transit lines you know we we're building one right now in Middleboro right next to the train station now we started that we bought that prior to when it was being built but planned to be built and we actually were outside of the zoning for that we had to do a 40B because all the land
within it you actually could there's 40R yeah the 40R there all all that was zoned you you actually can't build on any of it but um we did that and we're you know we're we're really excited for that to open up because that's going to be a a huge hit the train station right
there but we've looked at all these 40R uh zoning sites all down the rail line because they just make a ton of sense and then the new MBTA zoning I mean you you know there's towns embracing it there's towns really doing it just to check the box and I mean there's towns
that have zoned um you know brand new condos or brand new Amazon distribution facilities as their zone like somebody's going to buy a $200 million facility knock it down to build apartments like so it's it's it's it's a hit or miss and I've been tracking a lot of them and there's not a whole lot of them that I
think are going to lead to a lot of mass housing you know you you should stick around for this actually your project is potentially in one of the districts m okay so anyway I mean we have apartments
back n no well we're happy you guys like it and we we really do too it's been great and you guys were always great to work with so thank you good luck on everything you're doing we go all over the country and this is that's part of the course we're not used
to making I hate it too cuz right like I and I get it like I get it but it is what it is you know it's it's one of those things where um you know there was absolutely nothing there before right so when somebody builds a
house nobody wants a house built next door this is nothing new right but somebody didn't want their house being built at one point exactly we've had that come up at many places and we've had we've had boards say that it's like look when your house was built people weren't happy about it you know and that's just the reality of it and I
could see people change they've been there for years but you know if it's the same size and unfrankly every house it seems like in that district um doesn't meet the code anyways all of those they were zone commercial
and they were all non-conforming yeah so they're perfectly fine but when they were built they were Yeah in the 50s they were they were summer cottages they were selling cottages yeah reservoir anyway that's amazing thank you guys have a good night great nice to
see you okay I can go quick please good yeah give us a go what is this I'll take my pizza cold no no pizza go ahead Paul so MBTA I just wanted to give
you guys an update on this because we're we're we're steaming along to to town meeting with this and you know since I'm not asking for any action from the board but since you're all residents and you know if you're going to town meeting I wanted to give you a chance to ask questions or you know understand where
we're going with this but we're about a week away from the planning board making their recommendation and um so the MBTA communities uh act you know was created back in 2021 and what it's trying to do is try to address the housing prices and
the shortage in town yeah and this is not 40B we keep hearing you know misinformation about that this is tied to 40B it is not um this is a different act it doesn't require affordable housing although what the planning board is looking at is saying
if you do 10 units or more in a in a structure then 10% of the units would have to be affordable so one one unit yeah yep so but it's there to try to help people who are having problems finding a place to live you know we in
fact a a young woman spoke up last night 25 years old and mentioned you know still living with her parents and sure you all know somebody who's probably in that they may still be at home these guys these guys are charging like 2500 $3,000 for the unit for the market rate
for the market rate right well there's you know you're in it still below other communities it's nuts go up to go up to Brainree and you're paying a thousand more so it it's um you know Massachusetts we just have high cost so that's what the
purpose of this act was to try to do and and what we're so Norton was required to do it because we're adjacent to two cities that have commuter rail stations so that put us in what we call the adjacent district and
so that means we have to create a a a zoning district and in our case we're doing it as an overlay okay so your base zoning stays in effect but now we're going to have an overlay district sort of like the marijuana overlay district or the wetland protection what's the difference functionally though i mean
it's still a different district so great point i'll get there um this the state said you have to have a district that has a minimum 15 units an acre which is interesting for us because we don't have dwelling units per acre but they said here you have to set up your district so
that it's a minimum of 15 at least 15 units an acre for multif family so as you know multif family is three units or more um and you can't the zoning bylaw had to be suitable for families with children so we couldn't put any in any restrictions in like
um you know limiting to one bedroom two bedrooms anything like that and it's not age restricted the bylaw cannot be age restricted we can't say 55 and over um and the the big thing on all of this is nothing actually ever has to be built all we're doing is creating the
opportunity for it um and we don't have to make any environmental uh I mean uh uh infrastructure investments we don't you know if the pro proposal comes along we don't have to extend water or sewer um and we don't supersede environmental
regulations so wetland storm water those all stay in effect they still have to be met it's just we have to create a district where multifamilies allowed by right so no special permit and we have to write it in a way that no variances
what can be trigger i know can you believe that but no variances so they're just trying to make sure we have a small area at least 50 acres where multif family just has a much easier path for being approved can we use an example i'm going to get there oh you want one now
no I want to use that next to the church that lot to the right oh right in center that just got approved last night by the planning board what is that going to be uh threetory top of the shop housing although the historic district commission h it's in their district so
they're going to weigh in on it in fact they're meeting in a couple of weeks wait what is it going to be it's a commercial on the bottom and two stories of residential above it u 18 units wow 18 units are going to fit there so it's a lot where's their parking
they'll have parking under the building and uh they'll have parking in the back so they have about 45 units yeah they they'll they should be able to accommodate it wow but they still have to get through the historic district commission but that would be a type of thing we'd be looking for but they had
to go through they had to get a couple of special permits and a site plan approved okay yeah but if this was that's not one of the areas we're looking would this help them or not help them this MBTA act if it over not there if we had placed it there that had been in effect but that was built under
village center core yes yeah that's which basically has no rules that's right exactly it actually has much better design standards in it but we made it in over there though we did put standards in to try to encourage more
development so certain special permits that would have been triggered elsewhere didn't get triggered there so but here it's sort of the same idea except this in this case we we only could approve it by spe by site plan but again we also want to make sure we don't put
regulations in that trigger the need for a variance because then the state will look at that and go "Oh yeah." Yeah no they don't they want to make sure you get an easier process they can put it right up like That's crazy well it's like Brockton my
property in Brockton before I sold it when I wanted to expand my building they said up to the up to the property line whatever yeah but that's how we designed it and you're talking about in village center core the over there near the bank or no I'm saying these these regulations
like you could build you can build your house no variances is what he's saying yeah yeah touch it well it doesn't mean they wouldn't necessarily but we need to make sure we've put in standards that are essentially where it where it gets applied doesn't trigger a lot of the
properties having to go forward with so we're still next week we're we're finalizing this because next week they've got to they've got to make their recommendation uh because then by Thursday we have to have the final warrant language done
right well the go to town meeting yeah so um we're still looking at some of the uh dimensional requirements but you know we have to be more permissive by that requirement
um so do we have an area in mind yeah you want to see some out yeah so we have four so what's going to happen is we're going to probably we're going to have the the planning board and FINCOM and select board all make a recommendation
on the areas so you have to get to 50 acres so we have four areas we're looking at three of them are about 25 acres each so you could combine any of any three of those and then one area itself should be big
enough to or would be big enough to accommodate it itself so um so we went through a pretty uh extensive public process and u we had an event a couple months ago where uh people came over to
the crane room and we asked them to put dots on the map where they would like to see this district you know where do you think if we're going to allow multif family where would be some good areas for it the number one vote getter was uh over here at Norton Glenn which um this is right up at the this is Eastston
right here this is an old uh uh section 8 housing development it's 150 units this is actually zoned R80 so this is actually non-conforming now it It's not because the these are all sixunit apartment complexes here not allowed in
R80 and these are all oneacre lots which you know R80 as you know allowed requires 80,000 square feet so that's not where the current one is right that's exactly it these are all individual lots that's not yeah I didn't
know they were individual lots really is it all owned by somebody or is it PRI okay but it's all owned by one by one so this is about 25 acres it's on sewer it's it's already you know this is already built
out and it'd be unlikely even if this redeveloped that you'd get much more than what's already there so you could use a zone that's occupied yes be completely built we're not looking at We're not looking at vacant land now and none of one of the areas we're looking
at has a lot of empty land on it but all the others are kind of like this it's they're built this one um was built in the 70s it's it's getting aged yeah it's it's um in 20 I think the
affordability requirement is up for renewal in 2033 so it's subsidized but it is uh according to the subsidized housing inventory I think 2033 is when it's up for renewal so but you know it would help if this were to
be com conforming uh if we applied it because we would have to make sure the zoning uh the dimensional requirements fit this and um but it should be a good area for multif family it's already we've had it there for multif family now
for quite frankly so the zone means if this is ever taken down replaced yeah yeah how does that happen though that the the owner decides it's not profitable i can replace it now could be let's just say a big wildfire takes it
all out you can then go ahead and Well there could be any number of ways but this could happen anyway i mean you know I mean it's a little different here because it's zoned R80 they wouldn't be able to get I mean if they had a fire that's different because then you could
rebuild that but if they decided to could they decide to say we're oh we're in this we'll do something different they could they could build something like across the street or they could always come in and ask to be reszoned uh you know there's they're not stuck with
it so uh the number two area was Mansfield A so right on the town line and then um their project is the is the end point yeah um actually they could scale some of this back because this is this is about
32 acres all told a lot of you know a lot of residential in here these are the all those old quads that were built in the '60s this is all zone commercial through here so um and in fact up here these two properties were recently bought by the U international
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers if you go by there now you'll see yeah what is that job site trailer doing they are building a training center for uh I view um so they're knocking out that house now yeah they are yeah they bought it and they're going to build it over those two lots so it's a training school a
training center for electrical workers gotcha isn't that what the building does now it's like the hall where they just Yeah this is They don't do training they uh So this is where they'll do it it was about a 12,000 foot building that the uh planning board approved not too long ago is that in Norton or is that in Mfield
it's right in Norton so they own right on they own property on both sides of the line so they're going to build on ours so that's new so again that's a new development that's not going anywhere uh but but again these are all non-conforming uses right
here but they they when they were built they were conforming they were fine these are all quads right here so um if we applied it here they could be rebuilt and as you go by some of those they're looking a little old now mhm um but those are individual condos I think
right those buildings uh no wait no they're owned um don't I think those are rentals because each of these have individual property each each lot is owned by a different person or
entity so it's not I didn't see any of them as a as any LLC it's typically a person so each of those buildings are quads there's four of the units in them there's four units multi family but Jamie the plumber owns like 14 of them but you're saying each building is owned
separately it's not a one development no and that's that's a to me that's a benefit because for people who are concerned you might see large scale development well other than Yeah james james he owns a couple next to each other he
owns three but the other one's not contiguous and then um the property right next to uh where Alberto's is and then the one after that's owned by the same person um Alberto of course that one next to
Alberto's is vacant that's the one vacant lot now that this plan could help yeah so again could be this would could be a great area why we already were going to knock down that commercial building you suddenly you give the
variances do whatever you want basically oh the one here the one next to Right this was the 40B what's going He is he it doesn't look like he's going to go forward with that 40B and he may be trying to do something else but
you know he hasn't he hasn't provided anything so I can't talk about that but that was in front of us yeah you approved it we approved it at the same time as this one well we just got a continuence for it like a cuz they were going to expire so yeah
and we gave him a continuence oh for Oh for 250 extension sorry for 253 yeah yep yeah so that put us those two the old Roach Brothers we didn't go into Roach Brothers um Well the concern was we didn't want to see that property
potentially just become residential it's better than what it is the the other thing lot well that was the other thing one thing we certainly heard from when we were at Falltown meeting which got punted was people didn't want to see a large amount of land that's vacant and
that was that's 13 14 acres a lot of what we're doing here is a big numerical exercise for each of these it's really about numbers it's not about reality but if people see well 13 acres times 15 that's vacant that could be big
number of units here you know even if you took down that quad it wouldn't be a lot it'd be two more units you could add exactly small you take down the shopping center that's a big number i would love to get rid of that shopping center dump
i I'd love to see it i have my plan dream of what that could become yeah I'd like to see it shopping yeah I would like a grocery store in our town i'd love to see it as mixed use with top of the shop housing and I mean it was multiple buildings that'd be nice get Robert Craft exactly we need to get them
here the the uh the third area that came along and this was the number four vote getter at this event we did was um the old mill right down on Barrows at 138 Barrows um there's an an old vacant mill
i was supposed to buy that yeah you were i was like what is it lucas had something really yeah but the mass military support foundation's been looking at this site for a few years and um it's a dump it's a it's a money pit it burned it burned it burned what's in
there now anything in the building no it's empty but it's 25 acres and as you can see a lot of this is this is one lot a lot of it's vacant um that's a great Yes this if if for people who would like to see a lot of potential
for multif family this would be the place to go if you're afraid of it this would not be the place to go traffic would be an issue again we're just doing the zoning so Barrow Street is so heavily trafficked now yeah as is uh Southwestern yep y I
can't believe the cars i go down every morning they all make that left right there at 123 yep it's crazy yeah i go down Dean Street into Rahobitth every morning to go to Providence there is Oh we go 40 okay yeah that makes sense
where you work then down to 44 and into East Providence traffic coming up there's nobody on my side going down 78 in the morning 7 usually in the morning coming up steady stream of traffic a lot of that's 195 because of 195 too is it
because of the bridge oh yeah when I was working in Fairaven suburbs to go to 5 or 495 i did when when the bridge when they shut it down that's how I started going home when I was working in Fair Haven it's steady that's one of the reasons I came back here i'm like "This
bridge isn't going to be fixed for decades." Ever i know ever they put it up to contract and no one bids on it cuz they're like I don't want to touch this yeah i wouldn't want the best of the money that's one of the only projects they approved so this is one of the other ones so these are all This is 25 acres as well so it could be combined
with Mansfield A or uh or uh Norton Glenn this is considered close to the train station it doesn't matter no we're not because we're adjacent we don't have a requirement where we put it other than
best practice where would it be and again I would just put out what I've been asking the public is where would you want to see it and if we don't do this we get fined yeah yeah we don't do it we We get We get sued and we lose money didn't town already reject it once
tabled it it got Tabled and And And it got Tabled because when we did it before we actually wanted to reszone this parcel this was a a vacant 60 acre site right at the uh entryway into TPC yeah
um you know we we got we got every impression that the this is now owned by uh Campanelli sold this donated it a few years ago to PGA Charities and PGA Charities has what we're hearing is they don't want to do anything i've tried
I've sent developers down to them to reach out to them and they're like "Yeah they they told us they don't want to do anything with it." So and that was our point was well it's vacant if you do it it could be a great site but anyway that's not on the table that is off the table not on it these I should say all
of these highlighted areas are what we've noticed too so we can't even add things back in but we noticed uh but everything you're proposing makes sense yeah and then the last one I think people get the impression when they hear this from 10,000 ft they're like "Oh
they're going to rip all these houses down they're going to build these skyscrapers right?" Like no that's not happen and the state I've been meeting with a lot of people and the state's not coming in and building it they're not forcing anybody it's I mean you guys live village um there's a story to that
so as the planning board's had a lot of engagement with the public um there's certainly a handful of people out there or a number of people out there who a first didn't want to comply but then when the Milton case was resolved uh we
they realized they had to do it um at first when we had our our event over with the dot voting the number three vote getter was Wheaten College and that was the we don't want anything anywhere uh but the state you know has
regulations that say you can't you can't put it on a college right it makes sense but then they said well if we're not we don't want it if we can't get it there let's put it where else wouldn't will nothing ever happen well it's Redm Mill right it's a beautiful project
relatively new y this alone would would exceed 50 acres uh so um I can tell you there's we were at our meeting last night uh there were about 40 residents from Redm Mill uh not too happy about
being considered um understood i mean again nothing has to happen anywhere um again obviously it's it's a great area for residential because it's been that way for many years um but again this was picked by
you know the board wanted to acknowledge the folks that have been attending who didn't want to see uh this result in any multif family being built so so next week they are going to be making a decision if it's red mill or the
combination planning board the planning board yeah so next week the planning board will decide or recommend to town meeting you know whether it's going to be two of those other three areas or this one are you going to get all this through town
meeting there's a lot to vote on in town meeting oh I know there is and we got recottification too yeah like you're going to you're going to blow people's minds yeah i I honestly I I my my complaint to
the state was if you wanted to do this why you know you had all this authority why didn't you just give the planning board the right to approve it because the this is this is a challenge and my concern is is that there's so much information floating out there
every time I meet people it's just something wrong it's like "Oh I heard the state's coming in i heard it's I heard recently I heard it's 15 stories." Like it's three so so the answer is they vote it down
if the town If the town votes it down if the town votes it down Yeah then we will be not compliant there will be grant funds that we will not be eligible to get and plus other discretionary funds and we will probably it's there's a
there's a likelihood that the attorney general would sue us they've made it very clear that they they want compliance with this and some of the towns you know there are a few towns now that are still duking it out middleboro
decided to you know um decided to comply that they're going to expand that 40R district is what I read in the paper um why would I as a homeowner oppose this overlay over me theoretically well what
we were hearing from Redmill last night was because of the nature of their condominium association they they were concerned that that might cause confusion with sales p you know sales the sale of
it again I I again it's an overlay district it it doesn't have to mean anything right you know and in that case you're a condominium association so there's a whole lot of of hoops that you have to go through but people just felt I mean it
was I think it was a combination of that they were concerned about how it might affect the sailability and there were some other people going you're right but why would you're right nothing will get built here why would we want to do that why not put it in an area where something could happen right
so the the the planning board select board and finance committee are going to have a you know I mean that's saying if you live at Red Mill why don't you say go to East Hodgees there's there's 500 acres there just pick a piece of land over there why why are you doing it over there that came up and and again we you
know at at a certain point in the process we we noticed we were more assert aggressive in noticing or at least for now noticing these four areas and that's aboutund about a 100 acres but the
intent was let's let's be more let's be you know cast a wider net and then as we make our way to now pick the 50 acres or 50 plus acres So um that's why so the I I look at this
as a range of you know Redm Mill is probably nothing will happen u Norton Glenn and Mansfield AB could be a small limited amount of change and then um I think Twee I would look at as the potential for the most
amount of new development happening there so I've always told people vote based on what your preference is but don't vote no vote on what your you know where do you think it should be strategy is it going to be conveyed that
if it's shut down what the implications are going to be yeah we we we've had a lot of that and we'll continue to do that yeah yeah because I personally I would rather vote
I'd like to see maybe a mix right glenn and Tweed dumb right well no like yeah like a mix like Yeah let's do something on a plot that has nothing that is just vacant twee needs to something should happen something happen has to happen right and then have a spot
where one thing about Tweed as well it's actually zoned uh our 60 60 so right next to this is Village commercial yeah i've been telling folks reszone that get it get it to v get it to village
commercial um but you know until until the ownership is resolved on that but um you know that mill has been closed more than two years so as you know you can't you know it's no longer has an industrial
use on it um what about the what about the spot on uh well uh that wasn't selected the public wasn't you know it it just didn't come up in our public process wow it was only a couple dots that were put on it
one or two and then through the let's say throw it on they're not going to do anything with that that place is But something needs to be done with that uh yeah that's going back to town meeting too they're going to have a special to try to correct is it a special or is it
going back with us special it's a It'll be a special Yeah may 19th i hope we do Pattern Road and Mayflower Road yeah all right so anyway the other aspect of this is you know this is we just went through the four areas but
there's also the by the bylaw itself so um again it has to be by right not by special permit um so we we are we've identified several uses that we would like to have by right which would be
multif family top of the shop housing um and duplex and then you know the board has to resolve some of the use and dimensional aspects um that you know they have to really decide what area they're or areas
they're going to pick to figure out the dimensional requirements because two of the areas are pretty similar the others are different and you know I I you know like for example if you look at Mansfield Avenue you know
the lot sizes are pretty small you could get you know we we could have like what we did uh the during the fall was we were trying to promote small lot sizes to try to get smaller multif family in so there's still they're going to hash that out they have to finalize it next
week so again this stuff could could come back uh it's unlikely you guys will see anything in this area uh that certainly the intent is to not have to they these you know the state wants these things significant especially if you pick those two areas it's just all
right state you're happy bye everyone like it's not even we've complied we don't get Yeah i would say three of these areas the most you're going to get out of three of them is the potential for a small amount of units you know but there's also there's the
reality of a 40B or or you know in other parts of town we have residential projects at at Planning Board based on being in village commercial or the one that's in the village center you know uh you know it's not like you can hold off
multif family it's just those well in village commercial the hurdle is a bit higher because it's a special permit right VCC uh village center core um we said if you're doing top of the shop that's by right
and uh any other exciting projects in in town center or how about the library so that's a wedding venue now so yeah in fact the same person owns who owns the library is building i didn't know that's what was going to be there wedding venue
an event venue wedding venue just had a grand opening last week balloons limousines the balloons are still there i didn't see it but he's the he is the uh the St chris Perno u he he owns the the library the old library site and
he's building at the old bank site so he just got his approval 400 grand he also he also owns a little bit down there some of the uh old Butch Rich property so I don't know what he wants to do with that um same person who owns the uh 253
Mansfield has recently purchased the um Honeydew site so um that's also in Village Center Core so I didn't know Honeydew was even for sale walgreens is about to close their doors
yep well they closed it they closed it what's going to be no idea but I I sent a letter to them found the dollar i I sent a letter to them i haven't heard from the restaurant family Dollar a good restaurant yeah i I you know well we're
trying to just send u I I sent a letter to you know to the property owner which is Walgreens out in Illinois I think but just let them know if you want to talk about the site let us know but they're closing down hundreds of stores so it's like 3,000
oh it's a couple hundred in New England that's 3500 countrywide get my downtown up and running would you we're trying we're trying i mean well all those properties were for sale ice Hardware was for sale cvs was for sale all those properties were recently so
hopefully realtors are reaching out to Walgreens to try to do something with that site because it it has sewer you know um uh and it's got our our most you know permissive zoning district so there's a lot they could do if they if they didn't
want to keep the building we just need restaurants well hopefully hopefully with u you know with you know hopefully you know we we get that uh development built at at uh 10 West Main
you know hopefully we'll see what the historic district commission does but if they do hopefully they could get a restaurant there that would be a great spot for what you know downtown is reopening or maybe it's reopened downtown opening that in April April it looks pretty close that's what I was
wondering he owns a restaurant in Renthon uh the G the Gav so I talked to Marcus and the guy Marcus is like "This guy's going all out like he's doing such a nice job." What kind of I hope he kept Did he keep the bar it's like a pub whatever keep the old bar oh I don't know that's what I want to know what's frustrating is the spot is not opening
yeah what's up with that uh the guy who owned um Parker's Pub backed out on Patrick Chung and Oh did he really chong is basically sleeping there now well then the board is meeting next week to make their recommendations um and then
you know that'll be sent to FinCom and and select board who will shortly thereafter make their recommendations for town meeting at May 19th yeah all right is there a lot to vote on May 19th a lot a lot and you got recotification yeah there's a lot like I
don't know people are going to wait out anything significant we're going to bring back the sewer and just and just do the force main to the site so that's a big I mean so three projects
I'm in involved with in one way or another but yeah on a budget too and there's no action on that India market/ro brothers nothing i haven't heard anything but once that fresh market in Mansfield now to go shopping once this stuff
between recontification and and the MBTA I I have not had for the year I've been back very little time to do any of my economic development work it's just been tied up since I It's all the same is I've been working on the same three
projects for a year this is economic development though what you're talking about it's all one animal isn't it well MBTA is just putting a band-aid on it giving them the state it could be it could be it depends where we put it but you know there's a lot of other
things we need to do but we're going to be working on I'm going to try to get grant money to do an economic development study which part of that would result in a a type of will could result in a type of uh funding for
infrastructure that you know doesn't raise taxes or anything like that but could help direct u new growth taxes to back into an area to you know for infrastructure and things like that so new playground We could we could use it for a
playground but I want to do something that really or or fix the freaking town center because now when I go home we're all the way back to 495 sometimes on a Wednesday i have to go through Crane Street every time just to go home it is so frustrating i don't even go through a center town no me either i just go
street now all the time terrible that's why they put the wagon way down there because everyone's going that way now good place for a post office all right so well there's the the traffic safety committee has been looking at uh that intersection um
there's a consultant that's been helping and there there's a recommendation to do a roundabout there which um it it got it got approved on like a 5 to4 boat personally I think that would be the worst thing to do for the village center
when we were looking at rotary yeah because if you're trying to promote how in the hell is a tractor trailer going to go down that road how's a person going to cross the street with a rotary there's no way that's going to happen and you got to have and you're going to take out they're going to take out a lot of land in the process yeah the town of
Green you can't just have a pass through you know you have to have a place to stop to get to the green yeah I think there's still a ways away from it but we have to you know whatever we go with we just have to No that's like the number one issue in this town is that freaking town yeah the intersection's huge but
anyway all right well that's fun sounds like I'd like to get home before midnight thank you all very much is there anything else oh it's not to close it jesus just the minutes that you mentioned all right well I'm in nice
seeing you okay the last time we were last meeting what did we do with the minutes did we approve no no i thought we approved the 2024s no you guys said to remind me next meeting in next meeting yeah okay no I'm
saying next meeting now okay i I don't bandwidth you got to send them out yeah you they want you were you did say you were going to remind us and send out what we wanted to vote and you didn't it's your fault which is okay next meeting let's just do that for next meeting because I am starving i have not
been home yet today i agree i fed the cat i went home to feed the cats but I didn't i didn't i went right to baseball oh and they came here speaking of baseball how do the Red Sox do speaking of see I bring this okay then is there a motion to adjurnn
motion to adjurnn motion to adjurnn yes yes we 17 that's a