I'll call the meeting to order at 7 7:06 sorry about that took a little extra time coming up the road we have three items on the agenda tonight the first is the comprehensive
permit known as Island Brook LLC zero East Main Street Mr atani is here do we have others with you online okay Frank Gallagher you're there you're M
Frank could you unmute the mic Frank he oh he is muted okay there you go thank you all right and um do I see Town Council hello Mr chairman how are you
fine thank you uh good evening and um do we have a peer review representative with us no Mr Durk could not uh jeffre P okay so I'm gonna ask Mr itani or Mr Gallagher to bring us up to date uh we
met back in January on this on this hearing and U heard from peer review then um I know we heard from the fire department that they were okay with the uh Street plans that was soon after the meeting right around February 1st I
don't know I don't have the exact date in front of me Mr Gallagher have the street layouts changed since that time at all no okay so we are that was one question we had and wanted answered by the fire
department in fire um Mr Gallagher or Mr itani Frank where are we then for the rest of what had to be filled in if I can ask you well we're complete uh We've uh you know
made the uh revisions that Jeff Walch asked for in his review and uh he acknowledged that and then when we last met with the board um the only issue that came up was
since we've revised our roadway to now have um a culdesac at the at the very and um the board members asked that we get uh we have the fire department look at that culdesac and get some feedback
from them as to whether it was sufficient for um the turnaround of emergency vehicles and that we addressed shortly after the last time we met we spoke to the assistant chief um and uh I
sent him the plans and he and I discussed them and he finally sent back a um an email that said that as far as he was concerned they were more than sufficient for the turnaround of his emergency vehicles so and that's what I
was reing sorry that was the last issue that that we needed to address and thank you and that's what I was referring to a moment ago I think there was a follow-up email from the fire department to us uh sent to us or sent to you and us around
February 1st or so yes members do we have other issues that were on the table or was was that an accurate summary that was accurate as far as our did and I think it was um accurate as well so Mr
itani are we in your view done and I'm GNA he says this has been I won't say when it was first filed for uh but this has been back and forth in the in the court at D and all kinds of uh issues that have been dealt with
successfully and appreciate the applicants uh patient and the Public's patience on this but this has been going on for years you're going to need the hug no well maybe Brian uh Mr carmichel will do that but I'll do it oh
fine um may I ask Town Council uh where what we do next next procedurally if we are satisfied that the issues we had raised with peer review by through peer review uh engineering you know have been have been
dealt with so um you would close the hearing um on the substantial modification and then you have 40 days to issue a decision um Mr chairman if I may um
because I'm not sure I I'm not sure I think I might have missed a meeting but um I was just wondering um is the is the plan still to do this in two phases or will they be doing this in one phase it is still two
phases it's still two uh Mr Gallagher uh can address any specific questions we had gone through at our January meeting uh issues including phasing and the plans and uh Mr Gallagher just
summarized we think accurately that the last issue we had asked to check on was the C dis act resulting from the phasing and whether that was okay with the fire department and that's what we uh heard back from U between these two meetings
okay and is there any um is there any timing on the phasing meaning um does the board want to see phase two done a certain amount of time after phase one is done or is alternatively I guess I
should start start with is Mr itani um proposing that phase two start a certain time after phase one is is complete we brought that up and talked discussed where were we Mr itani on that if you can refresh our recollection yeah we're
going to start the infrastructure for phase one and get the roads going once that that's done we're going to continue to phase two so we're not going to stop at Phase One the plan is to finish phase one infrastructure and then continue to
phase two as we're building the houses in phase one so even before phase one is completed you're suggesting yes this way we would have continuity we didn't did we discuss dates though for construction completion
dates or phasing I don't recall we did not the I have phase two recommended within two years of compling of the infrastructure yeah that's fine that's exactly what I'm looking for okay within two years of the infrastructure completion of the infrastructure
infrastructure for both phases or phase one for phase one phase one okay and that would fall within what Mr artani said that would Encompass what he just U told us so it was phase two beginning construction within two years of phase
one infrastructure being completed um Town Council okay and so Mohamed are you um so as you know this is going to be one decision for both phases and
so right ofor we have somebody talking in here could I ask people to mute their microphones not you not you yeah um in favor just I just want to let you know
I'm juggling two separate meetings and I have two separate computers and we hear yeah that's what we hear so I'll mute I'll mute my and but I'll still listen you're
bothering some other zoning board not just [Music] us gu around um thank you uh we can still hear it Frank can you turn it down or mute it the other one oring to I
guess mute your mic if you're not uh speaking got it muted okay thank you thank you mic is muted so if we need Frank be sure to be sure to say so Amy with that phasing and timing
down um what is next procedurally to close the public hearing understood and then 40 days to come up with a written decision we haven't discussed Mr atani uh your Council Christopher austino austino Mr austino was was he going to
submit a a draft to us on a decision we can yeah absolutely Amy is that yeah so I need to draft I also need a waiver list um Mohammad I don't have I don't
have a waiver a list of um waivers for the substantial modification um if you could get me that and then I guess um since um since we don't have a draft um decision and we don't have a waiver list would it be
more um it might be more beneficial for everyone if we don't actually close the hearing but we we continue the hearing to next month and at next month we go through the draft decision and we vote on the waivers and in that if we don't
actually close the hearing that means that Mr atani and his councel can actually and his engineer could actually weigh in on any questions that we had yeah that's I think that's how we had done it before have we not discussed we have done that before Mr chairman yes
I it's just you know that would be up to the applicant that would be up to Mr atani if he's willing to do that do it that way um you know it it really wouldn't set you back at all Muhammad um but I did have another question for you are you going to be um will you be pulling SE you'll be pulling separate
building permits for each um for each dwelling correct that's correct yes he says yes so do you think that um would would you be pulling them um would you be pulling them in groups and I'm only wondering because as you
know once a building permit is um is issued you know the the the town gets credit for that unit on the Shi so would you be pulling them in groups or or I don't I don't suspect that you're going to build one house at a time right
usually every four or five together okay great okay um so okay so going back to timing um yes Mr chairman it would be great if um if we continued this Mr Diago got me a draft decision and a
waiver list that the next meeting we would then go over the draft decision and the draft conditions um with my input my comments on those draft um on the draft decision and the draft conditions we would then vote on the
waivers and then you would vote on the um the decision which is how we've done it in the past yeah keeping it open is for the applicant to be able to speak with us obviously because once it's closed it's closed to every Everybody
correct so uh is Mr dagostino on board with doing this yeah no that's fine we will be more than happy to continue with to the next meeting and I'll have Chris send that dra the to Amy and then they can perform work on it with a list of
waivers and did the first time I think we did this 10 years the list of waiv Amy did not change but would be to send you to send you the one that that's what I was going to say I remember discussing at the very beginning the list of waivers did not change so that's great if you if you
just send it to me so I have the most recent version perfect okay I can do that okay thank you Frank um now one issue that I know of is that we don't have another meeting date because of what happened last month um so can we
talk about that right now y uh we're talking about April uh what is the calendar for the um that's no I don't want the no I don't want that I was pretty busy lately I lost my phone
today okay what's the uh date in April that we are looking at sorry I didn't look before would be the ninth if I'm correct ninth would be uh good and early uh and not right at tax
day or Patriots Day is the night available Lucas um I know I can oh wait a minute that's a that's Wednesday the 9th yeah actually I'm supposed to be
away sorry I my problem is I'm gone from the tent for the whole month and W oh away away yeah not uh not uh Zoom available either I can probably I mean I'll
good plus or minus before is the night before yeah yeah to sleep 29 okay I yeah the second I can do do we
have faith that Mr um attorney austino could have that by before the second we should be fine are you good the second I am okay the second now I wasn't um a day ago but I am now but that next
week I'm supposed to be uh traveling actually I could do the 16th but that's not good for Lucas so why don't we do the second and uh see see where we can get I mean that's only a in worst case I can zoom in but well but let's uh second
I can be here yeah let's uh let's do the second if we think Amy is that available for you I am Mr yep then let's um let's mark it down for the second and I know that's just a couple of weeks away but you know we
this has been going on a long time we'll see if Mr austino austino can't get it done we'll know we ask for a continu if we can yeah yeah and I understand that's you know do you want to set a May date just to be yeah oh yeah let's talk about may
as well sure what is four weeks away from that or approximately four man oh sorry your computer your that's your computer too right yeah what happened to our uh Nifty uh they haven't come in yet okay all
right I'm 7th 14th yeah I can do me too so okay why don't we say the 7th May 7th for the next scheduled meeting um regardless of whether Island Brook is is
still on it yeah is that okay y um we can talk about June after we've kind of advanced the weeks a little bit but let's let's just get this done for now did you say May the May the 16th 7 7th
no second no 7th oh May 7 I'm sorry that was April May 7th the next after the April yeah thir WR month okay um that's that's was the name you
yeah sorry if it's not good hopefully when we get a screen in back of us they'll have a speaker too so we can everyone can hear everybody else one would take one with yes technology is out there somewhere um okay um right now I'm GNA ask if
there's any member of the public who has any questions or comments on the island Brook 40b development there are a number of U residents here and uh there may or may not be people online is there any
question or comment on the island Brook pending 40b application seeing none in the room and none online none online these are all people involved in the other hearings tonight so um we're not going to close
it anyway to the public but I just wanted to ask in case somebody was here uh tuning in so is there a motion then to continue this to me know April 2 April 7 let's say 7:05 just in case there's a brief matter that comes in in the
meantime ran can tell us that in a few minutes I'll make that motion seconds um any discussion all those in favor of continuing the island Brook uh matter to April 2 at 7:05 Mr Tori yes Mr wak and
Mr Noel votes yes as well thank you very much have uh Mr agustino and Mr Gallagher communicate with us as soon as they can if that's a problem with the timing let us know absolutely yeah thanks we're all working on the same uh
page soate it you good night thank you thank you and thank you uh Amy uh Island Brook has continue to April 2 um I will see you in in a couple weeks thanks okay thank you bye Amy bye
guys thank you thanks all right on the click next item on the agenda is listed as zero Hill Street um Mr Campbell the owner is Anthony laruso who is here to speak Dan
oh sorry right I'm I'm here Mr Campbell is online I am thank you I'm gonna ask you to keep your voice up because you're on a laptop right now unfortunately I I am I I do appreciate your uh your in the hearing
and uh my name is Dan Campbell for the applicant and U I'm going to ask you well actually this has been uh before us U for a few months as well I don't remember when we last had you on the
agenda it was in the late fall I think unfortunately it was the late fall and uh through one continuance and and one unfortunate that uh the board didn't have a quorum here we are in March I thought in January we did not hear from
them okay there might have been two continuous is that I think it was two I have one for okay so new in the file since we last
discussed this was the letter from Mr Campbell level Design Group of January 14 2025 and also we have a letter from an abutter correct yes is that for this matter I think
yes got the email yeah well there was an email today well that was the next one this one haven't seen yet I might have the wrong one thinking the wrong patter yeah you're right that's what I'm thinking about a letter
from I just went in the Open Garden I got one in the last hour oh then we'll have to look at that online for this matter for this matter and then yesterday we could had one for right that's the one
I well I'm gonna ask Mr Campbell first but if you can keep that handy um okay Mr Campbell can you take us through where we are on this matter sure thank you Mr chairman
um I I appreciate it how this might have changed in the last three four months sure um we made the preliminary presentation uh there were a bunch of questions that were related to the project and we wanted to make sure that um we answered all of the questions and
reiterated our position based upon the zoning regulations so my letter as of January 14th detailed how we got to where we were um with the expectation that there are four existing Lots on this property and the application before
you is basically to um add land to those pre-existing non-conforming 192,000 foot Lots um we're not taking land away um from pre-existing non-conforming Lots we're we're adding land in this case um I went back to the
start of the zoning based upon the regulations uh 1974 1974 zoning specifically uh exempt Lots such as this from um having to come into compliance and deemed them compliant Lots at the time of zoning um
that uh was based upon the the um definition in zoning which said any Lots which were previously approved by the planning board at that time um so we did submit the planning board approved and indorsed plan associated with those lots
creating four Lots um for for the property as a whole so um those lots were deemed conforming in 1974 which follows through on those lots um to today uh Unfortunately they remain
pre-existing non-conforming as 19 20,000 foot Lots what we're attempting to do is add approximately 20,000 square feet to each one of those lots giving them simply more land area to make them more conforming with the General zoning in
the area so your plans have not changed what's changed a little bit is you've explained it more uh fully in your January 14 letter right we explained our position more fully um why copied the
original zoning which unfortunately was uh the delay twice um we did file a Freedom of Information Act request to be able to get an original copy of the zoning between Town Hall moving and and you having a new town clerk um it was a
little difficult to get the original um certified copy of the zoning to be able to produce the document for you totally not holding that delay against um against the applicant um I was surprised to see if you had to go
through Boya to get it but U but you got it and um thank you for supplying that as well absolutely well I have I I have questions about this I don't need to go first if um
other members have questions but when you say that they were deemed to be in compliance I think you're trying to equate that with conforming to zoning but zoning hadn't started
yet until the implementation of zoning so that's the that's the problem that I'm having um I'm not sure how they could be conforming if zoning had not been instituted I I understand what you're saying the planning board had
them was the planning board decision what was the date of that we have that uh it was 1969 if I remember correctly but I can can very easily answer that go ahead um so at the start of zoning 1974 when zoning was put into place zoning
had a similar section to section 6.3 today um section 6.3 at the time had four sections not three sections um and what it said was um if a lot uh land subject land
shown on plan submitted for planning board endorsement or approval prior to the effective date of this bylaw shall be exempt from it as provided in section 7A chapter 4A of the general laws so this lot had been submitted for planning
board endorsement and had been endorsed prior to the approval of the effective date of the bylaw thus exempting it from the bylaw or the changes that were enacted thereof by the definition of zoning which was
commenced in 1974 correct correct okay so questions from the board I have I'm trying just to make sure I understand it yep and I'm not too sure I do so didn't we go back to
questioning the Deeds and that this was recorded as one lot but it wasn't for individual Lots yes yeah that was part of our issue now they were going to go back and do more research on the Deeds the deed was you presented the deed correct we did present the deed um it
was a separate document from this document but the deed does call out four individual lots and it references the plan of those four Lots though it was in single ownership which if it had not been in endorsed plan today's zoning bylaw
actually goes back and says if it was in single ownership it's now in single ownership and it was one it it doesn't actually say it was one lot it said it had to be conforming at the time of the enactment of zoning which is a different thing that I put in my letter but the
deed itself um has four individual Lots on it it just happens to have one deed yeah the question and I think we asked this the outset do you plan obviously to go to the uh planning board to redraw
these lines so that is entirely up to how this board acts so if the board allows us as a pre-existing non-conforming to add space which is not technically allowed
in your zoning bylaw um if you allow us to add space to them we would intend to redraw the lots to add that room to them if the zoning board determines that they're pre-existing non-conforming Lots but doesn't allow us to add the space to
them we supplied at the outset um three plans which allowed and had plenty of room to build the houses but it was less conducive to the other houses in the neighborhood so there's definitely two Pathways forward for construction of the
individual house Lots um we would love to go back to the planning board to add the space to them as as we originally presented um the other option of course is uh subdividing the rear lot and simply having three Parcels that that
end up being owned by the other people you just couldn't cross the line with a house or a structure or things of that nature but that's that's not our first choice but to redraw lot lines you do have to go to the planning board right
is do we understand we ultimately we have to go to the planning board as long as you permit us to add space to the lines it's not actually an anr because it involves a zoning
variance then we have to go through the entire subdivision process it becomes a definitive subdivision rather than an anr I'm not I'm not um conversing in that process anr I'm just commenting to the other
members of the board sure I need I need [Music] to involve Town Council on this because I'm not sure I know we've never seen this before at the board level I
understand what Mr Campbell is presenting as far as his argument can we explain that just again I so I'm clear like maybe he can explain so yep can sorry to take up your time again but I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're trying to trying to
absolutely I'm I'm happy to so the the real determination is that the lots are pre-existing non-conforming um actually theoretically they're conforming but in the 1974 zoning bylaw the zoning
required um under Section 6.3 there's exemptions that are laid out to the parcels there's exemption a a parcel that was only 50 ft of Frontage and 5,000 ft of area lawfully laid out could be constructed within five years with no further
action section B is the section that we're looking at the land shown on plan submitted to the planning door for endorsement or approval prior to the effective date of this bylaw shall be exempt from this bylaw as provided in section 7A 4A of the general laws so
these plots were in fact submitted and endorsed by the planning board prior to the enactment of the bylaw therefore they are hold on and this is before the implementation of actual zoning right correct
yeah therefore the Lots at that time were deemed to be conforming with the bylaw so 19,000 20,000 ft Watts they are now pre-existing well they're pre-existing conforming as of
1974 they be pre-existing non-conforming today because the lot sizes are much larger okay so our original request was to allow land to be added to those pre-existing non-conforming
lots a secondary determination could be simply that the lots are pre-existing non-conforming and the developer would go and develop them as they are today we're just looking to make them more conforming than they are today not conforming but more conforming 1986
though gets the deed is 1986 but the plan is 1969 the Lots themselves were created according to the bylaw in accordance with the bylaw back
to the checker board there yeah in part go ahead because it's the same owner of all the Lots right what he's referencing doesn't apply because it's the same owner but what he's saying is the first iteration of
zoning says and he quotes it in his letter page top of page four part B land shown and this is yellow yeah the top I think you're looking at the same page land shown on plans submitted for
planning board endorsement or approval prior to the effective data Zing shall be exempt from it yeah and he is saying that that the way they subdivided these because it
pre-existed zoning exempts it from what happened after with zoning that's what Mr Campbell was saying right correct that is absolutely correct um Mr chair
and not to muddy the waters but I I made a second argument in the letter yeah let say that it was not pre-existing non-conforming the letter of the law in 1974 did not require the lots to be
combined it required any change in boundary lines to make them conforming as possible at the time so the secondary analysis of this is could you have made
these Lots conforming with the 1974 Zone bylaw you absolutely could have it wasn't required at the time simply because they didn't develop it doesn't matter but they could have been for conforming lot based upon the zoning
at that time we submitted that plan as well as the argument and how to walk through it so we're we're going on exactly what I read to you but if you determined that they had to be conforming at the time of the BW it's not today day that they had to be
conforming to it's at the time of the bylaw the bylaw would have had to make them conforming which is 30,000 square feet per lot not 80,000 square feet per lot the 30,000 square feet per lot would have easily been met okay but you don't
dispute I don't think that the owner at the time didn't take those steps under 1970 version of zoning it actually doesn't say he had to well it says that zoning it says that the zoning had to
make those lots conforming but see zoning then changed at some point after this and I yes the other requirements saying okay at this point whatever point
that is if there are lots held in common ownership they're combined so it doesn't say that it says if lots are held in common ownership that were non-conforming as of 1974 yep at the implementation of zoning
right correct so there's two arguments the first is in 1974 by section B they were made conforming all by themselves the second argument is if you determined that section B didn't apply for some reason the 30,000 square ft
would have been the conformance that was required it didn't require him to do that it asked it it would have done it by itself and that was an easily met requirement it doesn't require him to go do a subdivision that's not what the
zoning says same as if you didn't do all of this that today's bylaw doesn't require you to perform a subdivision it says that they're combined it's the same thing only by
operation of law is what you're correct okay so my problem with this is that that the law changed in 1974 but the owner did not take action and I understand Mr Campbell says didn't
have to but then the law changed the bylaw changed thereafter and the owner again didn't take action within any five years Mr Kell is saying well he didn't have to because they were all ready I I can't
sit here and assume that the owner had this ARG ment in either 1974 or in 1980 whatever it was when the next iteration of the bylaws came online um and said oh you know we don't have to do it now we can do this in
2024 um because the way the the bylaw changed over time I don't believe that happened um that's one observation my second observation is I'm not prepared to do anything before the input of town
Council has Have you communicated with Miss qule about this yet I I I submitted the letter and prior to last month's meeting I had asked Brian whether or not we had any correspondents from any other departments or Council um and and at
that time we hadn't I don't know that anybody actually contacted Council for the request as you know I can't do that well you can bring it you could have brought it to her attention but not again I'm not holding that against the applicant I'm just asking if in fact she
had been involved with this at any point because there are a number of these uh in the last year where she had been involved but I don't recall any input from Miss qule who's no longer here at the meeting um she was on I was really hoping she was GNA stay
in all honesty um I think she has to review this letter I think he has to review all this and and advise us so I'm going to suggest I mean please ask other questions that you think of I understand his point I my question I guess would be
to Amy is when the information of zoning comes in does that he's my understanding would be five years I think that's where we always going on they got five years to to Dev develop it under the under the
prior right requirements right and and and I I agree there is a subsection that specifically requires that for an undersized 5,000 foot 50ft front edge lot section B however specifically
Exempted these lots and deems them conforming at the time of zoning so they would be pre-existing non-conforming in perpetuity I I I understand exactly what you're looking for which is why I wanted to trace it all the way back to the
original zoning and got the meeting minutes associated with the town meeting that approved the zoning bylaw which I also attached to that letter you've assembled a very Nifty argument I mean I give you honest credit for that uh we've
never seen this before and um I'm just not willing or able to make a decision without consulting Town counsel I I fully understand and wouldn't expect it as to whether she has seen this in this town or any other Town U that she's
worked for so I ask yeah go ahead Mr wak has a question so these three lots are not separated in the registry of each and there's no approved subdivision prior to 1974 by the count there is an approved subdivision I did include that
in the package it's signed by the planning board well yeah and I don't I didn't print that out we we saw it at one point but but here is the map that's actually dated 66 I think or 67 and Mr might be 67 Mr Campbell saying this is
what the planning board approved now we have the planning board approval somewhere I didn't I didn't print that out and my computer's dead right now but we have that I know we we have that and we can we can go back to that and Supply it to council and talk to Mr Campbell
about it but my um are there any other basic questions before I asked Mr Campbell if we can with with applicants agreement you know put this off till hopefully April to but no that's I mean I still have a little bit of issues when
Theiss do some more research because it's a it's it's a Nifty argument that Mr Campbell is maybe the law works that way that the second iteration of zoning didn't take care of buttoning up this loophole
I kind of thought otherwise but I see where Mr Campell was saying the first iteration says this is not nonconforming sorry for the double negatives but that's what he's saying correct and that's a
question that I'm not able to satisfy even with his uh very good explanation in his January 14 letter which I I've read multiple times believe me um so our next meeting is April
too um I don't know if Um this can be looked at before then I have to ask Town manager obviously too first um but I'm going to I can pitch that very soon and ask U Town Council
to be present for the next hearing if she can't do that by the next hearing then we've we've just scheduled another one in in May so I'm going to ask for a motion to continue this the question is
um may I have the permission of the applicant to continue it to either April 2 or May 7 7 uh Mr chairman we would be glad to allow a continuance to April 2nd um it is definitely a day I can attend
in person rather than um you know from a car in Connecticut um I would ask that if Town Council is is apt to review this that um she and I are able to talk together prior to the next public hearing yes um
that it's not just a a surprise at the hearing her determination no I agree and that's the way we that's the way we've always done it um you know the communication is essential because I'll try to dig out what you're referring to as the planning board decision but you know if I don't get it right you need to
so Absolut absolutely but the first step is to ask um Town manager and then town councel and so with that I'm going to ask uh for a motion to continue this to give the chair opportunity to uh get
Town Council involved and and give permission obviously to talk to Mr Campbell uh who presents the argument um very well is there such a motion I make that
motion it's been seconded no further discussion at this time nope Mr Tori how do you vote Yes Mr wak and Mr Noel votes yes as well this matter then is continued at least till April 2nd with the hope that we can uh take it up that
night but um with the understanding that we'll be in touch through uh Mr carmichel you know before then to discuss that scheduling with you Mr Campell greatly appreciate your time thank you thank you and I'm sorry to hear you're in a parking lot in
Connecticut you have good is it sorry that I'm in a parking lot or that I'm in Connecticut I like Connecticut all right thank you very much have a good evening everybody one second one second please yeah yeah yeah the public do we have to we already
continued it so I'm sorry I I could have and probably should have asked for any comment on what they've heard so far but we just continued it so we will have to take it up the next time um thank you Mr Campbell thank you have a good evening I've got you before
that yeah Y and I apologize uh for that but we will take it up again on April 2 are you all here for that for this hearing well I don't mean to put anybody on the spot okay I I could have and should have but
now that we've continued it we can't get back into it so I apologize for that there was no decision no you know we're really at the exploration stage um yeah so we have the January letter um
you should have access to that um well interestingly enough that's it's that's not on the drop the public Dropbox folder but we were able to actually find that by searching for the application through some weird believe it or
not I don't know you're welcome to uh it's actually very well yeah we can get you a copy of okay are you sure it's same thing with the original bylaw attached okay um thank you for your understanding
and we'll we'll talk you again April too ask you like a question though like so let's just say this was appr appr the next step is planning board like I I don't understand like that well we we can't talk about the substance but that would be the next Mr Campbell just
answered that I asked the question of him and he said if we decide one way they wouldn't have to if we decide if we approved a different way he would then have to go to planning board to redraw the actual lines to make the Lots bigger yeah with more space added okay but I'm
just repeating what he said not is from an outside perspective trying to understand the flow it's complicated because we don't get involved we don't get involved with the lot lines that's exactly why I was asking him and those type of applications Butters wouldn't really be notified because it's their
own lot so if you did want to know when you would probably want to contact me to to find out yeah when it would be but you'll know yeah it'll be publicly advertised anyway yeah well no it would be on the Dropbox but because it's just their lot lines they wouldn't be
advertised they wouldn't have a bu's notice they wouldn't get notice in the mail right right but it'll be on the public it' be on the agenda planning board agenda that's thank you that's what I was trying to go okay okay thank you thanks for the
prompt but sorry sorry I got to you late no I I I did for the first one I didn't if we want to have a time or de oh yeah well we can 7 710 710 oh well yeah we'll see we'll see
but um okay and um now uh for you folks the third item on the agenda 15 patent Road the applicant Mr Freeman are you are a Paul yes okay the
other Freeman is John John thank you thank you thank you wasn't recently yeah past two months or so so sorry oh I wasn't aware of that either okay there are condolences on on that um
all right can can I ask the applicant to remind us again like I did the last one because we've been picking these month a month uh for a summary of Where the applicant believes the board is at this point this is different one
this we had patent before us in the fall and there was a decision right and that involved other lws right I understood that decision [Music]
um just for the record that was uh September 18 that was the hearing that f that was these remember this was these three lots but this is a different lot
in the same area it's not one of those it's not one of those that we discussed oh okay oh my bad sorry I thought it was small next go ahead so there's a plan and then did I see there yeah there's an amended plan
so sorry for the record the plan the first plan is October 23 20 2024 and then there's a revision dated December 17 I flip the garage around I don't have an actual house plan
for that this is just a visual I prob with me connected and when I apply for the bilding I'm going to get the correct plans plan is okay so Paul just to confirm is the the garage on the pre-existing house or
is that uh new house okay here's the first plan we had and we looked at there's no Garage on this is there yes there is this plan right here so this is the December 17 plan the garage would be on
the right so the here where's the garage right there garage Oh I thought I thought it in car as in a driveway Mr chair this is you just look at this that it would just show a foundation
of yeah they're a little tricky to that's the garage I didn't see that as a garage I thought thought that was a driveway and already applied I was told it wasn't a big deal to uhon okay on the left on the
right right December plan is the December it's the December plan going because the neighbor who sent the letter was actually miss godson who is yes on the left she's in the she's in a
15y old coloni next to her and he sent a letter apparently today spoke with her and she wants some trees essentially I mean she's kind I think I saw her name on the on the screen I'm zooming she had some concerns yes and she is present by
Zoom um and we'll ask for her input in in just a minute basically you're looking for a variance down to it's still 14 feet right on the souly or South Westerly
um side yard yes side on the garage side right I don't think I had ask for re at the front to I believe these are r60 you know that's r60 so you setbacks
are pretty big when you have a small you know small R so you need well we need to know what you're asking for does this implicate the frontage I mean the front yard setback is should have been on the application that I F the front and sides and then a
six and six finding and also the building inspector asked me uh to requested a uh variance for the amount of lots that's coming yeah lot cover yeah so how far is the new from the
front oh it is here it's 28 ft from the front of from the road it is here I was looking again I can't meize the building has the existing house is messing me up I keep going to the dotted have
so the proposed new house is 28 ft at the closest point from the uh Road and 14 ft at the closest point on the garage side and 14 yes and 14 feet on the other side as
well right so those variances um would be uh would all be required the the rear yard does that present a variance no okay and the existing house is that
vacant yes and that of course is closer than 14 ft show yeah I my bad no it's could see it on the plane so um all right so it's an application for
variance relief there is a house on the property now um questions from the board members first before I ask for questions or comments from interested of others this is a standard size house yes
is that a two-car garage yes and the lot is 8,245 square ft um is the percentage shown here on the plan or application Lucas you you indicated you
would need that did you do some math yourself just the proportion of new house on top for the L 82 and yeah big house I mean for the lot for the lot right list this but I can
you with a plan that has a note on it what I have plan a little note on it percentage on it if you want to get email to that was we need to we need to have the plan submitted with the uh um the numbers on it that's so if you've
got a different plan well we have a plan that tells us how big the lot is but we don't have a plan of how big the coverages house got yeah go right is it a certified engineer yes what is the percentages you have on
the plan 31.7 so that's again exceeding yeah I don't know what it is exactly but it in the team isn't it maximum that
coverage okay um so I know there is comment from abs and from interested neighbors not even direct bus one is a letter from Jacqueline Dodson uh dated March 10 Zing board you
all have that okay it's in the F he are 20 what the patents are I'm sorry the Dodson are 21 patent road which is the property on the garage side
that's the property directly and they're concerned about the uh 14 foot distance into the side yard boundary as impacting their family
privacy is his garage coming in yeah it's coming in straight off P right straight here yeah alternative bson asks that we um if it's approved direct that a tree line be U part of the U part of the order part of
the approval um want um the table says 16% L coverage is that it for this 16 16 so it's double almost double the size
um sir have you considered a tree line there I have absolutely no objection requests okay now there are people here who are here to speak either in favor of or in opposition to hold on hold on hold
on I need to call on you one at a time whoever whoever wants to speak can speak but I need you to state your name and address um and then ask a question or make a comment my question is to him
okay so my name is Debbie Churchill I live at for Road Debbie Churchill diagonally across from the houses okay which totally obliterated my view of anything look out my kitchen window I used to see a beautiful sunset I used to see pine
trees I'm sorry Paul but you took away something very very sorry to I'm sorry wait the com come to theard come to the board you have to talk to us directly and then we'll ask the applicant or we'll ask the
applicant if he can amarate the concern or something like that but what are you saying the houses obliterated because this hasn't been built yet obliterates my view of the sunset that I through the Pines I my kitchen window
and the previous house that's what I'm asking which houses are you talking about the two he built already and if he's going to build a third one like that this road is going to be BL oh hold on let's could you tell us the lots that the other houses are on are they across
the street the some um whatever house is he built I don't next to the one hold on I know we know you're angry I get I get your angry right and I get and and Mr Freeman is I don't know I don't have my reading glasses on so I don't know the
two lots that think number seven and number nine are they to the right of parcel in question tonight when you're facing it yes when you're facing the parcel they're to the right thank you to the right so those were part of the decision in the fall right okay and so houses were
constructed there they're huge they don't belong in our neighborhood okay and you're saying that they have already impacted your sight negative okay now we just needed to know what you referring to I also have another thing if I could
sure say it is he is going to be putting other or whatever along the dodson's property line I think it would be the decent thing for you to do to do the same thing to 18 ballon road because you rate to their privacy hold on you rate
to their privacy this isn't for insults or anger I'm just he's gonna take more stuff down yeah please uh the board please though we're going to get Jack Jackie I'm still tun she she I knocked on her door and we
have conversation and I agree to do also want you know I'm going to do it's not done yet the other two houses aren't done yet I'm going to do a nice job that's all I can say okay now I want to go back M Churchill please ask us or direct comment to us okay I just want to know why he has to make him so goddamn
tall so that you they're like skyscrapers over everybody else okay we he it alow just so you know because I'm looking at the zoning table was allowed three story for our 60 I was not doing anything okay well I just thought maybe he might have a heart what's the foot
measure why can't he do this in his own build up to three stories high so I'm sure it's impactful there but he is not doing any you know I understand that we're here for a different matter but I'm just letting you know that on that specific comment he does have the right to
build okay have the right Tove all right thank you okay thank you um I'm I actually am going to turn to miss Dodson can you hear us miss Dodson I can yeah there you are okay just switch position on the Jeopardy board s
um M Johson um the applicant uh spoke with you today or yesterday about the trees um yes yep goe is that sufficient for your concerns you know obviously 14 feet is incredibly close uh it's closer
than we would prefer um I think that the setbacks are for a reason obviously and I have concerns that you're saying it's 32% lot coverage when the standard is 16 I believe you said so that's almost double so it's just a really large house
on a lot that is and already on top of a number of other houses you know um so at a bare minimum planting some I mean that whole seven nine and 15 were well 15 exist had an existing house but seven
and nine were all trees you know it was a neighborhood that was very quiet full of trees smaller houses and now it's turning into these massive houses on small lots and it's really changing the flavor of the neighborhood and it's getting uncomfortable in a way okay
thank you y um questions from any board members or response okay now ma'am what is your name and address um Jan palom D Mayflower Road okay thank you yes um I
uh reiterate some of what's already them said um all said that this is a a standard house but it's not standard for our neighborhood the our neighborhood is one and I'm sure you know the Grove neighborhood the um I would say the
collective medium price of of a house if you you know averaged all together4 $450,000 which is really cheap in this part of the state it's affordable housing the whole neighborhood's
affordable housing people are living on the edge here and Paul's putting in houses that he's asking almost $900,000 for it totally is changing in scope they're huge they look over everybody else on Tiny
lot and they also are um turning a neighborhood into this whole into something that's not going to be affordable one by one by one these houses are coming in and we're very
concerned about that I'm aware of the initiative that Norton is is is embarking on now along with um other towns about having enough affordable housing if you're living near a train station um this is going in it's taking
us in the opposite direction it's not it's so out of character in our neighborhood they're beautiful houses but they look ridiculous are they three stories the ones that have been constructed they look like they're five yeah they're about I mean they're up on
up on a grade and then they have yeah counting the lower level which is a walkout level I see right it is story and most of our houses are one stor they don't even have a basement most of our houses and this is just um to
to um encourage a variance on yet another lot so that he can put a house in that big is so contrary to where we live why we live there and what the state is at with affordable housing
that new in i i on all levels it doesn't make sense okay thank you thank you other questions um for the speaker okay so and gentleman has just asked to handed a picture which we'll put in the file is
this what is that on do you know the address Mr it's number seven wait is that one of the houses it's not even the roof line been higher than that it's much higher it just doesn't work it this house is comperable the
house is under really number 21 larger or smaller than proposing same same just something you guys appr it is not you guys back on the B no we did not we didn't give variances we approved the
well let me look at the decision let me ask you which you should have not Z yeah the not conform they Lots but you didn't get variances for the construction you didn't need variances we didn't need variances I
don't remember this one coming up no we we agree to the three because of the ownership of the LLC in that but we specifically said if it exceeds lot it requ this met all the
right requirement they really did not they do vacance of their grandfather from a lot of us set back requirement vacance of their grandfather from setx it did not meet the r60 requirements
within them 133 okay well that's different 25 13 13 put the small lot of 253 13 right okay that's that's that's that's what you're talking about they don't get the 253 and 13 to existence in the law it's like a like a
loophole not a loophole yeah almost like should keep it for the houses that are still there my opinion I you know you know what I'm saying yeah yes exactly I'm sorry those built under small that's correct yes
ultimately they should not have been great what we said was buildability of either lot is dependent on consideration of full and proper plans presented to the Building Commissioner which shall be subject to all bylaws including F the consideration
by the board if necessary that's what we said so went to the building inspector and the inspector PTY approved whatever FL we presented got remember that we specifically wanted that's I'm that's yeah knowing if the variance was given
to the lot coverage so that should be added to the file um and yes sir yeah Dave Constantino 5 fler thank you um directly across from that next street over so I've been here 30 years and kind
of tired of coming to these meetings to defend our neighborhood from all these guys coming in trying to make a quick puck just kind of come in and uplo the whole place and piss people off for lack of a better word they're not going to live there it's all just for
grief you know it's they find a loophole in the system because nobody can understand the bylaws the way they're written and come in here and just build what they want make their money and ride off into the sunset with so it's your
feeling that the addition this house in addition to what was constructed would Dev value the it's a detriment to the neighborhood Miss dson I have to ask you to remain quiet or we'll we'll block you it's it's not me speaking I'm sorry it's
J's iPhone who's this the one called iPhone can you please muted I'm Sorry Miss Dodson I'm sorry you're the only name I can read on the screen so that's I see it's another
person who is not appearing it just the voice appeared and I thought it was coming from you so apologies I've had it happen next door to me guys come in try to build a house 14ot house to build inspector say oh wait a minute shuts him down then gives him the permit again and
we go back and forth I fin I to buy the land across the street the town tried to put a a Habitat for Humanity on two non-conforming lots Town Council finally stepped in and said they're not buildable because they weren't owned by the same people at the time of the
bylaws and that kind of thing and and just tired of it like okay thank you he's built a house on corner of Reservoir nevergreen Street supposed to have 25 foot setbacks from both streets it's only 25 from Reservoir Street so we
kind of got a buy on that well I don't know it could have been a variance we can't speak to that was there a variance granted I don't know okay we're not going to solve that no I appreciate your com he made his money and made his point in our neighborhood and it's time to to take a
hike and go somewhere else to me understood understood we don't need any more houses we don't need any more people in the neighborhood just it's way too conest um ma'am I we had called in you already but you haven't another
comment clarification yes if if as as in the two lots that were that were built on in um the end of last well being built on now nights whatever those two are on Pat roers if if if something goes to the
building inspector and there's variances that are needed why the building Spector can decide on the moment to grant that and not bring it back to I mean we were not called for any to approve any variances on those two
buildings no that apparently those went to the building inspector and the building inspector apparently said they are they conform because of the small lot exemption when are they going to get rid of that no there's an exemption on
6.3 that's specifically says that a um 170 section 6. small locks nonconforming watch and it lays out what he's allowed to do okay the same idea of how tall these buildings are he's allowed to do it and that's in the bylaw the side the
side the side different for the small so that didn't come to us that's why so how come they calling us r60 but then they just still go back to the same non-conforming small lot exemption why are we in r60 should have its own the
small lot exemption speaks to certain conditions and I mean it's not an issue here on this one so on which one this that us tonight application right no that's not but so variances isn't that more for like a
homeowner someone who owns the property has a hardship there's no hardship here well that's what well that's our decision that's what we have to decide my point there's no hardship yeah who who's the current owner of the property it is a this where me
see the owner of the abandoned house yeah right no a lady Liv in geot or something like that chy Michelle chy she lives in she hired me to yeah there was a there was a letter
that's oh the authorization thank you Michelle right okay December 4th understood all right so are there any other questions by the
board of of the applicant or of the uh abutters who have spoken it's pretty clear there's a lot of opposition but we're not we're not here to count votes for or against
but we have to apply the the bylaw variance bylaw which says and one of the uh just pointed out action um it's our it's our judgment it comes
down to our judgment as to whether we find that this lot in particular is in line for variance relief due to things that affect this lot not
others in the area and hardship among other things and it sounds like this is typical in the area so I'm not sure that we can satisfy either the hardship prong
or the prong of this being particular to this lot and not others in the area that's my observation um but let me first ask is there anybody else to speak in favor of
or in opposition to the application anybody I know no I but you're on record already I mean anybody else who hasn't spoken okay Mark you haven't spoken get on record would you like to speak do what
are you doing okay what what's your name and address P Road okay it's the same thing seei in front just takes away from the character so you're in opposition to the
application Yes again visual Sidelines um being interrupted uh thank you so if there's nobody else to speak in favor of or an opposition is there a motion to close the public hearing portion I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing portion um all those in favor of that motion Mr Tori yes Mr wak Mr Noel fors yes as well so now it is up to us to
um process what we've heard and make it decision under the 16% yeah we've heard of wat size of relative construction size versus the bylaw which says
16% um it would need U two side yard variances and it would need front yard variance did we say that as well yeah so it is trying to put a lot on a small lot pardon the pardon
the excuse of the term um discussion so I literally just went through this with the house behind my house I I get what they're saying um know literally someone just
put one in my backyard so um I'm my only and that by all means that weighs heavily on my decision don't get um however I also look at I think about if you were to develop a lot
someone come Norton is usually going to want a two-c car garage so my first thought was well maybe we can make this one car garage or maybe we can lesson take the garage away take the garage away but no one's going to I mean very rarely people are going to buy house garage these
days that's plent of houses without garage okay we got no more public input under the r that my feeling if I was looking for a house right now and you know even if I'm a young guy look for I'd at least
want a two guard garage because I'd ask maybe we drop down to one then I was like uh you know if we can load we can cut the house down the problem is it's only 28 by 36 it's not a terribly big house I feel although it's big for the
lot I I know the existing structure is closer to the right property line the easterly property line than what the intended construction was yes there you go right that's what
I'm talking oops sorry so like I kind of in my head just kind of went okay this was ear that's what I did already yeah yeah it's half it's did he's doubling the size of the house with with a garage with a garage [Music] mhm of the existing
house correct yeah with the existing house he's basically the with is I mean it's not on there but I just did it in you know my eye visual looks like it's he's doubling the size of the house now what's the U the the the new plan that was submitted though we've got to see
that um with the that went to Brian right do you have that can you call it up the new plan that the one I email that you yeah I mean that that itself we could put this to the next meeting so we can look at
that plan because when you planning talk about the one I just got emailed you have new right oh no no no I not at this not just half 20 minutes ago I emailed Brian or three four weeks ago well not
actually probably six weeks ago I swap the garage around so he should have that we have that draw but we don't have the cover that's an email from my engineer that he wrote on the plan that he had stamped what what the percentage is then
I want to I want to get that in front of us printed out I don't yeah I know one the application requirements I thought was to have all the calculations and requirements right on the point so we can request that but I think the discussion can still be had
like y That's a formality yeah the only problem I have with that in no disrespect is that's handwritten I don't know no that doesn't matter going to forward you guys I I know of the I missed it everybody missed it he sent he uploaded something he made a commment need a variance for law
coverage emailed that wasn't newly stamped by Mr TR he had a he must have had a stamp copy of his office and wrote that email I request for a resubmission with I can do that like a table a table
showing absolutely you know the requ yeah I agree so that if we approve it it it's on the plan of record of the exact dimensional requirement my dadiz well it's it's you know Mr trobridge
probably could have done that before so um do we do we agree then that we should have that plan and look at that plan first that means putting this to April 2nd as well I assume Mr trobridge can do that
EAS notes on it um if you have an actual AB but you should say no if they say no I'm sorry um the public comment section is closed we gave opportunity to be heard before so we're just going
under the the rules Robert's rules of how to conduct a meeting I don't know who said that number one and and so we're going to continue on is there a motion to continue this to April 2 with the provisor that the applicant submit
an updated plan showing what was square footage of the intended construction [Music] um the square footage of the intended construction uh what else coverage calculation well that's I'm sorry that's
what I getting yes the lot coverage calculation but ALS newly stamped by Mr trobridge newly stamped as this is the plan being submitted so that we can have that um you know and and black and white and see that I assume that the other you
know Dimensions haven't changed but it's supposed to be on the plan in the application I don't know I mean that's pretty much what I had to say I don't know if you guys have any other comments other before we well I don't know I'm moing over because I don't know I don't know what's out there I almost
want to go by and take a look yes please do but um you know the neighbors feel that these homes are oversized I don't know if they are it's not on paper it's not a huge construction but on a lot
like this it may be and so um I I go back to one of the comments regarding this being an r60 zoned area and then you have a small OD exemption which the whole neighborhood should have fell under
thatly um and I see as an improvement to the area because the existing hous is dilapitated dilapitated so it's not um and tor's comments this is a normal standard
marketable type house being constructed um see we have take those considerations right but the small you know I look at small lot and I ask for 13 ft this doesn't fall underneath that but realistically this neighborhood Falls underneath that where
it says 13 ft5 front it just if it was an undeveloped lot right you know it's within what the bylaw set for undeveloped Lots so it's
not what being as for is not a huge deviation from that except that there's there's a construction there already and the neighbors comments about the house being X mile large you know Mr Freeman could redesign this to still be 35 ft
tall he can still he could move the house back left right right and still somehow gain what he's trying to ultimately build which is x amount of square footage right it's just going to look really bad get talk and it's just
so so we're going to put him in a box to build something he's going to still want to build something it's just going to look like a weird tower I think it's going to be even more detrimental to the neighborhood or lack of garage and so there'll be cars parked at the driveway doesn't in my opinion anyway serve any
purpose but let's get the plan the final updated plan stamped by Mr TRD with the new date you know with absolutely date Beyond this and we'll take this up on a motion to continue on the April 2 calendar say at 7 o'clock hey this is
our first one that is there a motion motion sorry is there a second okay so the motion pick this up to continue this till April 2nd but we asked that the
plan be submitted ahead of time so it's in the file and we all know what we're dealing with uh on paper y um Mr Tor how you vote I vote Yes Mr wak yes and Mr Noel votes yes again so we'll decide at
to expect to okay thank you for your participation to those participating uh by internet thank you for being here we're going to take this up on April 2 there is another plan showing some uh same dimensions and
placement we think but um showing the square footage of the place U as certified by the engineer we're going to take a look at that and and make that the plan of record um between now and the next U next meeeting on April 2 at 7:00 and I'm Sorry Miss dson for
accusing you of breaking in um that's okay no worries okay thank you for your assistance and your participation okay and this is continued now all right uh thank you are there
other um matters before us General two things yeah oh Mr a freeday yes one of the first things he's leaving Des of tomorrow he's done he I didn't know he did it's in
Brian's email to us few days ago I just saw it yesterday but got a race he texted me that he wants a new Bronco ex I said I hope it's something good for you and he he wrote back today saying West Bridge rer I didn't know that he
lived in the town but he said it's a close to where I live prob same town obviously and he said a much better deal much better package so happy for him but I just wanted to note I'm not happy I no
M Mr a FR has been uh utmost talent and assistance to us in my view and I think great I think the board members agree with me and thank you for saying so and uh we're going to miss Mr I Friday to that end do we do we have a new Brian
Brian why aren you why aren't you out there with a sandwich board recruiting we need a new building inspector I don't know who does the hiring process I know for example uh the planning director required The Building Commissioner and
the town manager to hire for a Building Commissioner I'm not sure who would be in charge I'm only joking but anything you can do to tomorrow his last day is tomorrow and then afterwards he's using vacation time until he goes to West
Bridgewater yeah he told me I asked when your last day he said tomorrow and sorry I can't be there tonight so we have to say uh farewell to him remotely though beer is not out of the question yeah we do that if two of us go we have to report it as a meeting so
that open meeting loss right yeah that's what council told me yeah yeah there is we used to guard all the time Charlie Valentine Days sorry to not I'm bringing this up on the record used to go out for beer after meetings a lot yeah and never
had a problem never talked about stuff just talked about other things going on but Council uh yeah you can't have more than what two whatever more than more than one no you can have two I think you can have two you can't have three you
guys worried about have you seen what USA's been doing with our money you're worried about meaning [Music] all right um is there any other oh yeah you said you had two things so do you want me to remind you guys about the minutes next time I I mean I went
through a bunch so but if you guys have it we can push it up to you no can you send us three or four at a time I only started coming back what January we we have a
problem no because we I mean we've I'm my experience with planning board you Tom and Jim would say yes and if Lucas wasn't there he'd just abstain yeah okay so did we did three the last time didn't we no I think we pushed it
again I went through a bunch and then I don't think you had done it so we pushed it and then we missed a meeting and thought we approved next meeting we were going to do all 24 correct I do have yeah I gotten through 24 okay can you
okay I can resend it to you guys and then you yes or if you want to have like three you know just we can do a bunch yeah do a bunch I I'm going have I mean but send them a few days or the week before so send with the
agenda you can sure yeah I mean yeah please review these yeah we'll go by your command ASAP because we do have to get them done and what I suggested Brian a while ago is even go for from the
decisions and take the need of the decision and put it that's what happened at the meeting if there's something extra that he remembers you know we can add that in but it's mostly reflected in the decisions so yeah was and that's what he had done yeah I looked I looked
at all of 24 it like it was fine with me so just take a look at it if you want to take I will do that next time let's let's do all of 24 next time okay April 2th great thanks for aable to oh yeah I do not see any
new applications in for zba we would be able toze the Bitcoin anyway because that's three weeks so some might come in for the next meeting but not April not April so good we'll get get these out of the way I
don't know that the 40b is going to be written up over the next three weeks that ISO didn't even know about and doing it that was kind I'm surprised we didn't mention it back in January but he did he but he did it that way last time he had whoever he had working with him
there grew up to dress there is one more thing but I do have to ask about the other one yes please no no that one is uh I get I what a great letter he put together with all
that heing yeah I agree but in my opinion you didn't act fast enough I'm on that hold off on yeah I might have another one upstairs but there are two okay uh
payments for graes yes oh uh if there isn't a second one I know I made it wait I was thinking Frank Galler Graves is our per view of course of course I get okay
so so it might just be three copies of one this is cop okay so upstairs I have a second one but we can do this it does also say the past to so if you guys want to review it you know the price but after the meeting I can come
down and just give you you can sign it real quick know you the other one we have to present it though you want get it now really so this is one great he's going to get a second I my names on it so work's been good
huh what what a difference the new Administration police force every CP and everyone I talk be the Happ they've ever been why are you getting more assignments getting more
respect I talked to I met him you always get respect for me it's literally this all day want yeah yeah it's this all day long but isn't it so I know a couple border guys and I know a couple stadies
uh which funny is the St can't help you guys but yeah can't because of our beautiful Governor we tried to brief at the BPD and go they BPD wouldn't even let us in yeah I know it's absolutely crazy terrible but I um I know a few guys and they're like you your face
would drop to the floor if you knew who we were arresting and what backgrounds they came over here with you're like the rapes that this the you can't even you can't even like so go people are living like in ROM Liv these people are like
like he goes your friend could be living next to this guy in a Triple Decker and this guy raped like five girls back in their home country like crazy stuff it's crazy so you are doing work with I said I thought last time you said no because he's not a Massachusetts employee yeah I
know yeah until next week so you go out with them oh that me yeah yeah all I don't think anybody can hear except website really
problem and the second one for6 okay here's another deal for graes engineering our Peru for $456 what do you need from us do you need a motion or signature or
something to sign yeah we'll approve so these are approved by consent I just need one signed that's one and then we looked at this one as
well you're working again no 321 yeah I put the wrong date that was the Friday I supposed to put on it's just i't it it's fine okay um meeting is adjourned you got to hire somebody Med
is adjourned at 843 thank you for your assistance