Okay. >> Start the meeting. >> Welcome to the planning board meeting uh January 27th, 2026. Uh we'll take roll call. Mr. Abrams >> present. >> Here. Mr. Cassanza
absent. >> Miss Hoffman >> present. >> Mr. Rivera >> here. >> Here. >> Miss Simmons Hurling >> present. >> Present. And Mr. Sampopoulos absent. And Mr. Sullivan
>> present. >> Present. >> Okay. First order of business is a public hearing. Uh this is respect to a request to a repetition to the zoning board of appeals by attorney Joe Koggio for
variances necessary to petition the city council for a 28 28 unit plan unit development at 1822 green street within the teed zoning district. Members of the planning board, Joseph
Ktogio won street review representing the applicant Churchill Development uh in their request for the planning board to approve a repetition to the zoning board of appeals. My apologies for dragging you out tonight. I didn't realize we would be the only item on the
agenda. Um I can also say that um uh my client Joseph Trillo could not be here tonight because of a death in the family. Um, but I'm hoping that I can make the presentation sufficient enough and answer any questions you have. Uh, the application overall is for a
apartment complex on Green Street, 18-22 Green Street. There are two houses, house lots that are being purchased um that will be removed and this project uh is intended to go forward there. Um the variances that were initially sought
were for uh total square footage uh parking and for open use the percentage for open use. Um we were denied at our uh initial application uh for the the zoning board despite um the ward
counselor, the previous ward counselor and the current ward counselor um speaking in favor. um we took a step back and addressed what we could uh based on the concerns of the ZBA. Now, we couldn't do anything about the total
square footage of the lot. That's fixed. Um but we did uh address uh and made a material change on the uh open air uh the open space uh by adding a 1,000 square foot roof deck onto the plan. Uh
we also addressed the uh parking situation by lowering the number of units. We initially had a 40 unit application to site plan review that was reduced uh to 29 units to the ZBA and we've reduced it further to 28 units
coming uh and seeking the repetition. Uh we've repositioned the uh total uh building off further off of Green Street because there was a concern that Green Street is a very thin street. We uh gave
as much uh open space as we could to the front of the building. We also shaved an area in the back uh to make it more attractive to those who are facing us in the rear. Um, another change we made is to stagger the floors um, so that not
all five stories are faced straight up and down. Um, and that led to the roof deck uh, as well. Now, the application that went forward uh had a number of concessions that were given uh to the city um that we negotiated with the ward
counselors which included uh improvements to the immediate area, water, sewer, uh fire hydrant, uh flow tests, uh but also to ward one in general. Um there were a number of large amount of trees that were going to be contributing that will be distributed um
to the uh uh throughout the ward as the ward counselor sees fit. Um so we believe we've made uh material a number of material changes. We hope that the the planning board sees that and that we can uh repetition um the ZBA. Uh we
believe we've addressed their concerns uh and hope that uh we can go forward with this tonight. I'll just state that um the state zoning act chapter 48 is pretty specific in terms of allowing repetitions to the
zoning board of appeals. Uh it needs to gain um unanimous consent from the planning board that there has been a specific material change in the plan. Um so it's up to the planning board to make the determination. Was there a significant
material change? And as attorney Katogio stated, there have been changes including uh repositioning the B building, setting it back uh more from the street line, uh reducing the number of units to 28 units from 29. Um so it
it's it's simple. I think we've it's been before the pl before a number of repetitions where they just had a show of change and gives them attempt to go back to the ZBA and uh have another public hearing and it's
up to the ZBA to make a final determination. So that's where it is. Any questions? >> I have a question. >> Yes. So, I know that the plan also
initially spoke of three affordable housing units. >> I'm I'm glad you said that because I did that will absolutely remain as a a condition. We would expect that to be a condition issued at the ZBA when the site plan uh sets forth um its
recommendations and also from the city council. Uh we made that representation and we would we'll stay with that temp uh three units um will be affordable. Yes. Was it any changes on parking? >> Uh we we couldn't uh change the number
of parking, but the ratio is is more favorable because of the reduction in the amount of units. >> Um I have another question. >> Yes. >> Are these one-bedroom units or or >> one bedroom? >> One bedroom. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. We're looking to take advantage of public transportation, which is pretty much the direction of the city. Um, and we wanted to be in line with that. >> Just a point of clarification. >> Go. No, no, I was going to say I I know that uh approvals of these types also
come with restrictions on city parking availability and we would expect that as well. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, I just wanted to clarify. Was it reduced from 40 to 28 from the last time or 29 to 28? >> The the initial application that we
brought to site plan review had 40 units proposed. When we went to the zoning board after we had met a number of times with the couple with the ward counselor. Ward one had an old and a new and council McKenna is is still council but
now at large. We met with both of them a number of times. Um and through their uh recommendations we reduced it to 29. We have since since the denial reduced it again. >> Okay. >> So that was that's the the process of that. >> Has the green street overlay change
impacted this at all? >> So because it's been a little while since you've come in front of the planning board since the green street overlay has has taken effect. It wasn't it wasn't a factor back before when it initially when this the plan
initially came up. >> I I don't I don't have an answer for that. I don't know. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> Right. But it the green overlay wasn't a thing then when the plan initially came up. >> Yeah. Yes. That that's my question also.
Uh, I believe in the former Le trailer park, uh, we just changed some zoning there for battery storage and I'm looking at the lot lines here. It appears, and I could be wrong, you you know buffers better than I do,
Frank. Is there a buffer in the back or is the garage right next to this battery storage place? >> I'm not sure about that. the battery storage facility. Uh there's there's a requirement that we
have in the ordinance that we prepared for that of uh a 20 foot buffer zone >> for the from the battery uh parcel or from the neighboring POS new parcel >> from the lot line
of of the battery parcel. >> 20 ft of of landscape buffer. They're going to have a 20 foot. But what about >> new projects abuing the battery? >> Does he have a setback on the back? >> Well, he doesn't have one. That's why
he's going for uh >> So, he's on the lot line >> basically. Yeah. >> On I believe in the in the rear we did uh shave a a a small area off. So, we are not directly on the lot line, but
it's not a large setback. I'm looking at the page you gave me, which is a 101, and there is a black line in the back of the garage. Even though you show a
buffer on the sides, you do not have a buffer in the back. The red dash line I believe is the uh >> yes >> is is the property line. >> I have one that was submitted to the
members and one that passed out here. So and when you go to A102 that's that's the apartment. So, the garage bumps out. I I I can't see how many feet, but it appears to be another
five or 10 feet. It bumps out from the second and third and fourth and that's a fifth story. >> You are correct. >> Yeah. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> It's basically the garage is basically on the property line. And
[clears throat] I if I do work in some other cities, not to be critical of reve I I look up the address gives the address whatever it is massav or and you can find out what permits or
what was submitted and I may be wrong and that's why I'm asking the council if if I am wrong just point me out in order for me to to look up whatever was presented by you such as the 40 units.
>> Yes. >> I need a parcel number. You know, I I've lived in Riviera all my life. I still don't know what my parcel number is, but you need a parcel number before you look up an address. And then you have so it's it's a little difficult but I do have
something here from October 16th 2025 and then December 31st 2025 but I don't see 40 units. Where is this 40 unit you're talking about? >> There there was an initial application
to site plan review that was made. >> But in order to have site plan review excuse me I'm sorry. In order to have site plan review, don't you have to submit per uh plans to the building department? >> No, just site plan review committee. >> Yes, just to the site plan.
>> Could be preliminary plans. >> So, what happened to those 40 unit plans? Where were they? >> Did the building department see them or >> No, they were did the council see the >> If they were submitted, I would have them on on citizen serve as part of the site plan review submission. I don't
have them. I I couldn't find them. >> You You wouldn't be have access to that. >> That's what I'm saying. So, where do you have the 40 units? >> I'll have to go. >> I can when we initially the the process that we had to follow, everybody has to
follow is an initial online application to site plan review. That's where those plans were submitted. Um from that meeting uh there were uh obviously we were denied and we were uh
gave you know direction to go to the the zoning board. When we made applications to the zoning board um we did so after meetings with the ward counselor and and the counselors um and we reduced it because of their concerns. So we didn't
want to lose time. We submitted um to the to the ZBA the 29 unit application. >> What date was the 40 units counselor? >> I I don't have that. It was the very first um if there's a denial letter in there, but it's it would all be on the
the portal application that we make. I don't know if I have a copy of them, but they're again they're not uh they're not relevant now because we're not looking for 40 units in any at any means.
>> I believe that has to do with the significant change and why you're back to the board. If it's if you if you apply for something and you say, "Well, I'm going to add take off one unit." I don't think that's a significant change in my view, and I could be wrong, but if
you go from 40 units to now you're down to 28, that could be a significant change. But I I'm looking >> I'm looking at how did you get 40 units in here? That's what I'm trying to figure out. We would suggest that the
significant significant change is the cumulative uh of all of the changes that we've proposed, not just the the one unit reduction that we would be hopeful at that. >> How many stories was the 40 unit council?
>> I I believe it was one additional. I again I don't have those with me because we we've moved on from there. So, if you have 28 units now, you had 29, you took one off, and you're at one, two, three,
four, five stories right now. >> Yes. You're adding another 47%. And all on one story. >> I'm Where is the other 20 units? >> I again, I I don't have those here.
That's no. >> I mean, if you have 28 units, >> 12, >> excuse me, >> 12 >> 12 what? >> 12 more. >> It would have be 12 more. >> I'm sorry. Yeah. Uh, four. I'm sorry. 12. My That's why I make a mistake. Thank you. So, if you have How many
units per floor do you have on here? >> Now, there are I believe there are four sevens. Um, so I'm looking at this one, which is A102. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. So you need another two, maybe three
stories for 40 units. >> There are there uh uh >> So you had an eight-story building? >> No, we did not have an eight-story building. >> Did do you reduce the size uh of the units in order to >> I know that there was that there was a a
repositioning in order to account for the move in the building. There was also a a reduction to reduce the number of units um and to add the roof deck. Uh so the um yeah, but I I don't have those
plans. They they were abandoned a while ago. Um >> yeah, you can't count the 40 units in [clears throat] the request for uh a specific change because that's not what he submitted to the ZBA. It may have been a
He submitted a site plan that was denied. >> He's writing the letter and he cites the 40 units as a significant change. That's how I read his letter for in the petition. >> Yeah. Well, he can't do that. That's not >> That's what he wrote.
>> Yeah. No, they have to go by what was submitted. If 29 units were submitted and reducing it to 28, that's the change. the reduction of one unit, elimination of one unit, and setting the building back uh what is it? Five feet.
>> 5T from the property line in the front >> to to allow for the the concern over Green Street and the addition of the roof deck to address the open air uh ratio. Um and the reduction also
addresses it made the parking ratio uh more favorable to the city as well. >> But the original proposal was it 40 units in front of ZVA or >> No, the by the time it went to ZBA it was 29 units. Yes.
So, I know the street is very narrow. When it comes to the trash pickup, uh, are you planning on using regular size truck or or or um >> that I I don't I would imagine that those particulars would be worked out um
both at uh uh ZBA, but more primarily with the city council and the special permit, which will have specific conditions on not only trash pickup, but transponders and fire hydrants and water uh line and sewer line contributions and
improvements. All of that uh we would expect as conditions to come back not only from site plan review with their recommendations but also from the city council. The the ward council was very um uh uh involved with the um uh with
the naming of the conditions that we uh initially uh had agreed to. So, anything else we would be working with the ward counselor and and the building department and and everybody else right on down the line.
>> Was the staggered layout present in the 29 unit application as well or is that new to this? >> It it's it's more prevalent because of the roof deck now. So, we had talked about moving it um because there was a concern over the shadows. So we had
talked about that at the ZBA but is now uh more prominent because of the roof deck. >> Can you speak to how the shadow is different now? Well, because the the the the number of units are reduced, the the top
floor is uh it used to be from what you're looking at now. I can show this was like an earlier rendition. You can see it's straight up and down almost like a box.
So the shadows would be lessened by the the the degree of the change on the top floors. >> Excuse me, Frank. Uh just for a point of information is leash trailer park or or this area by
green and as you go as you go towards Suffach Downs is that a flood zone area or a uh tidal basin area? >> Well, the the FEMA made changes to the 100year flood
plane map. There were revisions that took a portion of that area out of it. So, the back end of this property is still in it. >> I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
>> FEMA made revisions this past year, which took a considerable amount of the that site out of the 100red-year flood plane, but still a portion of the back of that site is still within the 100red-year flood plane. Which site we talking about? His site. >> We're talking about the trailer park. >> The trailer park. Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't believe we're in a flood plane or in the >> flood. They're out of it. >> And is there a re We were just comparing notes. Is there a reason why they they didn't want to do any kind of garage underneath the ground or below grade?
Um, I would have to talk to the engineers, but I don't think that was really viable to to dig down um, further. I know the foundation there'd be, you know, um, but I I would I would think that the engineers took all of that into consideration when they they
devised the plan. >> I mean, the water table must be high there. >> That's what I was thinking. >> Yeah. >> Well, it's I I think there's something going on in Green Street. I I saw new curbings and I granted curbings. I >> Yeah. As a result of the the the project
across the street which was issued a a plan unit development special permit. Um >> that applies to both sides or one side? >> Just that side. >> His the development across the street. >> Yeah. They had their their parking at
the end of Green Street. >> Okay. >> But there were no sidewalks for pedestrians, residents of the building to get safely to the parking lot. So we require them to put in sidewalks on that side. >> Is he showing a sidewalk on A101? >> Only a a walkway. We were told um
because we discussed sidewalks and and we said that, you know, we would obviously be willing to do what we had to do, but the uh the the parties that reviewed it said it it it wasn't workable to have a sidewalk on both sides um because of the the width of the
street. So, they they did not require us to have a sidewalk. They instead had us contribute to water line improvements, sewer line improvements, um uh the placement of a fire hydrant, and uh to participate in uh assisting
the opposite the other project with their sidewalk, um installation. >> So, it says new street lamp, but there's a double line there. Is that a curb or I I don't know. It's not identified. I don't know what it is. I I know that
they did not want sidewalks on our side. >> Don't they park on your side? Don't they street? Don't they sidewalk park? >> I They may. The houses may now, but there wouldn't be, you know, when we're there. There won't be anybody to to park
there. >> Really? [laughter] >> Okay. All right. Um, that's most of my uh the only other thing I'm thinking about is the uh the battery proposal that was
>> Yeah, that's been um that's been uh mixed. They backed out of their >> They backed out. >> Yeah. >> So, it's still zoned for that. >> Yeah. >> Is anybody else looking at that or is
that The Dover amendment now protects these battery storage facilities. The Dover amendment which protects solar power. Now they've included these battery storage as protected under the do
amendment. So uh oh windmills in in that amendment also >> anything related to energy. Yeah. So [clears throat] so we still have to look at the Chelsea windmill. Yeah.
So, unfortunately, the owner of the property is looking for another use. Um, and there has been a proposal now that's going before the city council for a special permit for automobile storage, rental cars,
about 50 rental cars on that property. If they get the special permit from the city council, >> will that be? >> So, the residential development is off the table. The battery storage development is off the table. So, the owners are looking for alternative uses
for the property. >> I have one more question. Um, >> so there will not be any parking in front of the building, right? >> No. How many parking spaces u is in the proposal? >> I gave out all my plans.
>> 20. So it's 28 units but only 20 parking spaces. >> Yeah, that's correct. Yes. So, if they get as far as to city council, the city council does issue a special permit, there's a condition that
site plan review puts in um as well as the city council that um you can't you can only lease units to the number of parking spaces there are people who own automobiles.
So, um, if there are 20 spaces, there are nine units of residents that can't have any parking at all. >> There there would be lease restrictions. Yeah. >> That are implemented. >> Um, >> and under our uh
our parking uh resident parking sticker program, developments that receive either special permits or variances for parking are not eligible for stickers under the program. So, the residents would not be able to
park on city streets. >> They can't own a car, >> right? >> If you're going to rent here, you can't have a car. >> Just a point of clarification. I I think I know the answer, but there are continuous sidewalks from this property to the MBTA, Beachmont Station, as well
as Target, that shopping center. You can walk there without having to cross any uh major roads or anything like that. I I believe that's the case. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um this is supposed to be a dead end, right?
>> It is right now. Um it's my understanding that with the development eventually of Lee's trailer park, it would be it would open it would open up. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And have a a way to access all around and out as well. But but for now
the only ones going down would be our you know the the two developments would it's not like a through street for people to go anywhere else. So it would just be that the residents that are there that would be would be using that street until it opens up.
>> I'm I'm I can almost guarantee that the city would never allow that street to open up to that development at least trailer. uh would they would have to use an alternative exit entrance off Pratt Street onto the parkway >> because the street is so narrow. Green
Street is so narrow can't handle any >> traffic. The city plan show Grand Green Street as you know Frank going through Lee Trail Park and I think there's a double fence there if I'm not mistaken. A double opening fence.
>> Yeah, there is. It did go through. >> It did. >> So you think that's going to be become a some kind of culdeac? I mean, how you get once you get into Green Street, how do you get out of Green Street?
>> The way same way you do now. >> How was that? If you live there, do you have to you do a three-point turn or you You have a driveway that you pull in and out of. >> I as far as our development goes, the only ones driving that would be
obviously car owners that have parking spaces in the the garage. They would be pulling into the garage and pulling out of the garage. They won't be turning around on Green Street. Are there any other proponents that
would like to speak to this tonight? Are you here to speak? Is it proponent or opponent? Uh proponent. Okay, go right ahead. Uh do I need to do any intro? Okay. My name is Amanda McGordy. Uh I live at 18 Green Street. Um, really
the only thing I want to put out there is that uh I would have gone to the ZBA meeting. I honestly thought this was not going to be a big deal because there was no problem with the building across the street um with no concessions and being
built right up to the road line being taller in the shadows and myself and my husband came to the ZBA and the city council meetings and nobody had a single problem. Uh the even side of Green Street is part of the smart growth overlay district which is meant for
more, you know, packed housing. Um and the building across the street tore down a single family home, provided less proportional parking. Um does not have affordable housing in it as they're proposing here. Um and so I think the addition of that affordable housing is
something that I think is a notable consideration. Um, I also think that if the ZBA was concerned about this, they should not have approved the what was going to be at least trailer park, the building across the street. The space
now is really more for multif family housing and that also seems appropriate given that's what the zoning is for on the even side of Green Street. That is not the zoning for the opposite side of Green Street where that other building was approved. So, I just would say it seems like the intention if you're going to create a smart growth overlay
district would be to actually have more dense housing there. Um, and I say this as someone who did a very significant renovation at our house. Um, and so I'm not like, you know, I I dislike it or anything there, but I really think the
the the idea that the concerns that were expressed somehow weren't relevant a year ago when they approved this other building seems like something's a little problematic about that. If it is a problem, um, I don't know really that it is a problem and it sounds like there's
a lot of concessions that relatively speaking were not asked to be made for the other building there. So, I would just put that information out there, but you all Opponents opponents should close the hearing. Close the hearing.
>> Okay. [clears throat] [cough] So, uh, consider this project still has two major hurdles to go. They have to go back to the ZBA, hold another public hearing, and get another vote from the ZBA to allow them to go forward to the
city council where there'll be another public hearing for a special permit, what they're calling a plan unit development. [clears throat] So I I believe under the the state statute for a planning board with five
or more members, you need all but one vote approval. You don't need unanimous. If it's a planning board with under five, then you need unanimous. So, uh, it's like they need four out of the five votes
here to go the next step to ZBA. >> I I I'm looking just another question. So I I would believe as as the the counselor said and he reverted this to his letter about 40
units and I believe it's the planning board's I mean this is how I I interpret what it's supposed to be a material change and whether or not one unit is a material change
in a 28 unit proposal and looking at setbacks and some of the other things that I really don't think that it's ready. >> If if I may, it's not just the one unit. It's the one unit plus the roof deck
plus the repositioning plus the uh change in the uh flooring. So, it is accumulation of the changes that were made um that create the material changes. >> I understand that. >> Yeah.
Okay. So, I I'm just referencing your your letter, counselor. I mean, if it doesn't if it's not significant, why mention 40 units? I think that's what you're you're you're trying to point us that the 40 unit is the to a 28 is the
material change. But what it is is that you have an application on 1016 2025 and 1231 2005 from 29 to 28. I don't believe that's a material change. So I'd make a
motion that the petition be denied. Can you clarify if the three affordable units were part of the initial proposal? >> The affordable, is that what you're asking? >> The three affordable units, I >> I don't believe they were initially in
the U site plan review. >> Okay. >> To be honest, they were uh agreed to at the ZBA. >> Okay. So they they said this was our the counselors who were there speaking in favor said we generally as a city
council request the 10% um affordable and we agreed to that at that point. >> Okay. >> And we maintain that. >> Thank you. >> Frank, how many units are on the building across the street?
>> I believe 29. >> And how many parking spaces? uh 13. >> So there's a motion on the table to deny the request to repetition the ZBA. Take a roll call
on the motion to deny. Mr. Abrams. >> Yes. Yes, Mr. Castanzer is absent. Miss Hoffman, >> um I I do not support the motion to deny. I'm okay with moving this forward to continue on to the zoning board of
appeals. >> No denial. Uh Mr. Rivera, >> I'll just will say that uh if you come back and clarify the situation with the 40 units, um I think I will support it.
if if you come back and clarify the 40 units rather than the 29 in writing because I think that's that's where the confusion is. >> I I can I can submit a a a detailed chronology of the events that represent
where it initially started at site plan review to where we are now. >> Right. >> I'd be happy to do that. >> Okay. Well, that's correct because if the planning board is going to allow you to give you consent to repetition, they have to state the number of units that you were you submitted for. So, it would
be 29, not the 40 that would be on the record. I will say that case law on this is really vague as far as defining what's a material change.
would not. It could be as little as moving a doorway. Um, and that's all the pling board really has to make a determination on. Is there a material change? That's
there there's no way to um under this under the law that describes what a material change is. So, it's it's a difficult position. The planning board Now they go on further to say that the
change has to be in um response to the reason for denial. For instance, if they were denial denied because there too many units and they reduced number of units, then they respond they made a material change
responding to the denial. I just leave that out there. Okay. Uh let me go let me So I have uh Mr. Rivera is a um no to the denial with as long as
they clarify that not 40 units of 28. It's 29 to 28. >> I I I don't I don't know where the motion's going. It seems it's either a yes, no, or if you want to make a substitute motion to put it on hold to see where the material
change is. >> That's right. >> You can make a substitute motion, but you can't Yes. No. Do we have one or the other, I think. But you can make a substitute motion. >> Yeah. So, that's a substitute motion. So
I'll put a motion for the letter to be u changed. >> Okay. >> He's making a substitute motion. >> We have a substitute motion by Mr. Rivera that uh vote in favor
to grant consent to repetition the ZBA um that the letter upon the letter being revised that states instead of the does not state the 40 units but states the 29
units and 28 units is the material change. So he's asking for he's asking is as I say it correct me if I'm mistaken. He's asked for a substitute motion
for the uh petitioner to show the significant change from 40 to 28 and then to come back to the board with that. So if he comes up with a letter, we don't automatically approve. There has to be a vote. C can I just
clarify again that the number of units is not the only material change. If there is a single material change, the planning board can vote in favor. We believe we presented at least three very
substantial changes. Moving the entire building 5t away because of the concern of Green Street was a material change on its own. Adding the roof deck of a,000 ft on top to give a,000 ft additional open space is a material change.
reducing the number of units even by one unit is still a material change and if you put them all together I think it's undeniable that we've made material changes and should be allowed to go forward back to the ZBA. So it is not
just the one unit that is the only material change as long as there is a single material change we believe we've given you at least three. >> Well correct me if I'm wrong but I think Mr. Rivera's motion is to
uh said favorable consent to repetition the ZBA based on the material change being that it's from 29 to 28 units rather than 40 to 28 units. Is that correct? >> Is that right? >> Yeah. you're asking
>> which would be in the all right which would be in the uh in the planning board's recommendation to the ZBA or or letter of of approval to grant consent based on that that they're not
making a determination that that that changes from 40 to 28 but from 29 to 28. Is that correct? >> Okay. Uh, Miss Simmons Herling based on
>> revised motion. No, there's been a new there's been a new uh substitute motion. So, a yes is a yes is in favor of >> So, it's got to start over again, >> Mr. Abrams. On the substitute motion, >> yes. >> Yes or no?
>> Oh, sorry. >> Thank you. >> So, a yes is yes to grant them consent to repetition. >> Yes. >> So, we have a yes. Uh Mr. Castanzer is absent. Miss Hoffman,
>> I I'm very sorry to make you rehash this, but I'm so sorry. What am I >> You're voting on a yes means to vote to grant them consent to repetition the ZBA. >> Oh, yes. >> Based on the substitute motion. >> Yes. >> So, we have a yes. Mr. Rivera, who made the motion?
>> Yes. >> Yes. Miss Simmons. >> Yes. >> Yes. And Mr. Tamopoulos is absent. Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Yes. uh unanimous voted so audited. You uh
given a letter uh uh granting consent to repetition the ZBA and you move on to the public hearing with the ZBA. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Go into the regular meeting now. Um
let's have a vote. Uh we just did that. We're going to have nominations for chair, vice chair, and secretary of the pling board for the calendar year 2026. You can make changes or you can keep the same slate of offices, which is Miss
Simmons Hurling is chair. Um, is it Mr. uh Mr. Abrams, your vice chair? >> No, John Stanopoulos is vice chair. >> Oh, Stanopoulos is vice chair. and Mr. Ramirez is the secretary.
>> Swap it up. >> I'll make a motion to keep cities if everybody's okay with it. >> Slate of offices 2026. >> All right. On the motion, all in favor? >> I. >> All oppose. Hearing none.
Keep the slate the same. And the final item is the approval of the previous meeting minutes which were attached. Motion to approve. >> Yes. >> All in favor? Opposed? Hearing? None. Minutes have been approved. Mr. Rivera, I need your
signature on these minutes. >> Congratulations. >> Planning board meeting is now closed.