e e e e e e e e e good to go all right whatever yeah okay perfect all
right we will call the March 10th meeting of the planning board to order at 71 p.m. um joined by Bill Quinn and Joe Sher and we will start with application
24-02 by Darius Gregory for a preliminary subdivision control law review can hand it over to the app it is just the three of us for this evening well you CHR he's here virtually I believe um as well
as uh with us tonight is Chris paragis um from Williamson's paragis Middleton uh to discuss in detail the plans that that we submitted uh to develop a site for one
residence by creating Manson Road uh and it our understanding when we were here in the last late last year was that uh the only way that we could do this under our the town bylaws was by using the subdivision control law um with that in
mind we filed a Form B application and uh modified plans and they the plans before you and um hopefully what we'll be able to do tonight is come to an understanding so
that we'd be ready to file a definitive plan uh recognizing the uh waivers that we're going to need uh in concert with talking to you uh your board and uh with
that I'm going to turn it over to Chris baragas hopefully he is in fact he's here yep yep uh to walk you through the plan I think the biggest issue that we dealt with when we were talking about this uh in the fall was
the U uh methodology for Public Safety vehicles to get access and And discussing exactly what waivers we're going to need so with that uh uh Chris you're on thank you sound issue hold on one second we're
having some sound issues on our side try again try again Chris no hold on one more minute I can he you Chris perfect we're good to go nowor all right you can try again okay let's try again um perfect thank you okay great uh
thank you attorney drus and members of the planning board for the record my name is Chris bares and I'm a registered professional engineer here in the Commonwealth with offices at Williams and sparages in Middleton Massachusetts and as attorney drus just mentioned we're here to present this preliminary
uh plan which will serve as essentially our roadway Improvement plan uh to uh to improve a section of Manson road to create enough improved Frontage to support one additional uh building lot in Residence now um is it okay for me to
share my screen or absolutely okay let's see here just give me just a second here and I'll just pull up this um I just threw a little bit of color on our
plan and let me know when that comes up on the screen we can see it thank you okay great so uh We've colored up the proposed conditions plan but I'll take a few minutes just to explain uh the existing conditions and so uh we're tucked away here in the northwest corner
of swampit right near the the Lyn uh City bound LA and on the plans that I'm going to be presenting tonight the north the north arrow is up here and North is up the plan if you will and so uh Manson road is in its existing condition
unconstructed it it lies here in this East West Direction it's off of Manson Avenue and the lot that we're going to be talking about tonight where we're improving the frontage is this uh lanc Court lot that's identified as lot 824
and it's got just about 20,100 Square F feet of land area and it's shaped as like a trapezoid if you will topographically uh the subject property is relatively flat uh we only have about 6 to8 feet of grade uh across
uh the lot in this direction uh and a little bit zoomed out if you will topographically speaking uh the land is higher uh than us to the north so this land sits up higher and so this this uh storm water and land slopes
downhill in this direction and then Manson Road the land in front of Manson Road slopes uh downhill from um a high point at the intersection of Manson Avenue and Manson road down towards the end where our subject property
is just off to the southeast is a bordering vegetative Wetland it's a an inland Wetland and it has a buffer zone associated with it uh 100 foot buffer zone extends onto the subject property uh here we're not proposing any work for
the roadway within 100 ft uh but that being said uh I'd like to just let the planning board know that this plan to improve the right of way was submitted as part of a notice of intent uh to the
Conservation Commission uh back uh let's see back in 2024 this was an notice of intent that was filed in February and the commission issued a favorable order of conditions um allowing this project to to move forward in uh in
April as part of our preparations for this preliminary plant sub midle we also uh went out and located all the trees uh within the area of disturbance that were greater than 12 in in diameter of breast height uh to give the planning board an
idea of just how many trees uh we were going to have to remove uh in order to do this Improvement and we submitted that that plan along with our application uh would the members like to see that plan before we move on to the existing condition uh to the proposed conditions yes please I think that would
be helpful okay all right so let me just stop sharing for a moment so I'll bring up the the tree clearing exhibit let me know when you can see that we can see that can you folks you can see that now okay thank you all
right so uh just to keep it uh simple we we have a a list if you will of the trees and they're mostly black and red oak uh and we've circled uh the the tree locations on this plant to give you an idea of where they're located and uh and
and clearly what we did uh what I should on the beginning of my presentation is tell you that this is not my project um I'm filling in for Rich Williams who happens to be away with his family for for a week uh they're watching their three boys play baseball in Florida uh
so um I am prepared to talk about all the things but um but maybe not all of the details so forgive me if I if I don't know everything about the project but uh but in order to accomplish the proposed grading scheme that we have here uh these are the trees that will have to be that will have to be removed
and we've we've identified all of them and uh we started over here on the right hand side of the planet number one and you can see we're we're up at 50 uh trees that we that we'll have to remove that are um uh greater than 12 in diameter breast height these were um
surveyed back in October and what did you you said the total number was 50 that's correct okay uh you can see where they sort of plot you know along along the right of way obviously and uh and then uh along our
storm water management Improvement areas uh which include a a sway like feature here and a A detention Basin here which I'll go into a little bit more detail as I describe the proposed conditions just one one point point of information so it's my standing as well
D Gregory uh one of the applicants but it's F to say that those are are 12 in is in less than 12 in correct or is it greater than 12 in uh so I uh I believe that let me uh pull up the uh the inventory list uh
hold on just a second here I mean I do see it say greater than 12 yeah uh hold on a second let me just see if the uh the list itself me bring up the tree inventory list so yeah greater than or equal to 12 in
in diameter okay yeah some uh some planning board rules and regulations in various cities and towns that we work in um require that you locate every tree six in six in in
diameter at breast height and so I in some some cities in towns require that you only identify trees that are 24 in in diameter um so it kind of varies from town to town um so it's not unusual uh to to sort of only identify larger trees
for example I I think our subdivision control Rags require inventory of any tree 8 in or larger but that's what I'm showing as part of the submission packet as well okay uh and as I as I go through the
proposed conditions plan the one thing that I don't have access to and I apologize Mr chair I believe attorney duus uh must have the list of requested wers and I'll have I'll ask attorney drus after my presentation to go over that list if you'd
like that'd be great thank you okay all right so let me um let me move on to the proposed conditions here and I'm going to stop sharing and then share the colored screen again one more time that screen should come up momentarily we can see it okay great
thank you so much okay so uh our proposal uh is to uh improve uh Manson Road an existing uh unconstructed RightWay uh to a length of approximately uh 368 ft so that be measured from the sideline of Manson Avenue uh to the end
of the proposed osed Improvement here so that's approximately 368 ft uh you're looking at uh the um sort of the cream cream tan color is the proposed paved width of 20 ft and at the end uh this is
a a recent uh change uh to the plan uh one of the last things that we worked on uh we worked together with the local fire department to determine an appropriate turnaround for emergency vehicles and so you can see this T type turnaround at the end here uh which will
accommodate um uh the uh the fire department's uh vehicle my understanding is that this uh configuration was reviewed and okayed by the fire department uh from the edge of the pavement in the on the main road this extends out into the into the lot
approximately 43 ft just to kind of uh give you an idea of how much this sticks out into the into the lot here okay one of the biggest uh features of this proposal and and uh one of the most important aspects of our filing
with the Conservation Commission uh involves storm water improvements and so um I mentioned to you sort of the lay of the land and the way um the land slopes in the existing condition and we have a similar we're trying to keep it uh similar in nature in the proposed condition but because
we're adding impervious Services uh the uh DP storm water management standards require that uh that we uh do certain things uh in order to uh comply uh with the storm water management regulations and so what we've done um we
analyzed uh the existing conditions Watershed and then uh the proposed conditions Watershed and try to balance those things uh so that we can prove uh to the approving Authority that we're controlling the rate of runoff and also
uh proving out uh that we're treating the runoff off of paved surfaces and then infiltrating some of that water back into the ground and so this project what we've done uh we recognize that uh at this uh AB buding property at number one there's an existing house here we
have an abing property at number one Manson Avenue the front portion of their property uh slopes uh towards Manson Road and and downhill and so we had to make sure that we uh collect that existing uh runoff and uh not create a
dam if you will on the downhill side and so that's being accomplished by a 12-in pipe uh the pipe here is uh shown in Blue uh so any water that that runs along the property of number one comes down hill to this location here and
enters a pipe uh into our storm water infrastructure and then uh the paid surface of the improvements here on Manson Road would be uh collected uh using a curb on one side of the road and so the the road has a slope where it
slopes from the north side to the south side and then it uh storm water would run along uh a curb and then all the way down to the end to a catch Basin uh there's a deep s catch Basin proposed right at the end here and I'll zoom in here so we can see some of these
improvements now in a little bit more detail so here we have a deep sump catch Basin uh with a a gas trap Hood uh and then we direct that to a a manhole where we also pick up the water from the front
of number one and then from there it goes into a treatment chamber in this case an oil water separator so it's a rectangular tank that's under the ground uh that allows us to um have some more sediment uh fall out before we discharge into our
detention Basin and this detention Basin is designed to infiltrate some water and also hold back some water so that when we present our findings in the storm water report uh we can prove that through our engineering calculations that the peak rate of runoff in each of
the design storms is less than the peak rate of runoff in the existing condition it's close to zero change as we can get uh so that's how the paved surfaces and the water from the front of number one
is being handled and then you may remember that we also have some off-site uh watersheds I'm going to zoom out again um the property next door to the north is uphill and uh we also um have a uh a swail like feature uh between our
storm water management area here and the end of the pav surface here where we're just allowing um existing runoff to come down uh into this sik feature and continue on to the Wetland which is just down to the southeast here this is the uh the Wetland area
here uh and although it's not part of the roadway Improvement uh uh a little bit of detail about the uh the single family house that we're proposing to build here here is shown in this brick red color uh the uh proposed water supply will be uh via a private well uh
located just off the side of the house here uh and then the proposed sewer is uh via town uh sewer we propose uh to connect a small pump chamber uh with a force main that'll take uh the sewage uh
through an easement uh through another property to the South and then out into the town's um sewer collection system so that's how we're handling uh water and sewer uh so that's the end of my uh technical presentation about the technical elements of the project Mr
chair uh if you'd like to go through um the list of waivers I'm sure that attorney drugas has that handy and he and I are here to answer any questions that you folks may have thank you um yeah I think we'll be helpful to go through the list of waivers that you're
you're going to be seeking um then we can open up the the board for questions questions public comment and then pursue from there sure um just to uh add to the last comment you're you're aware of the fact that the sewer is going through ly is connecting through Lyn and I think we
provided you with a letter uh from from Lynn saying that they they approve such a such an arrangement I'm not sure we did receive that I know we got email communication that they were considering that but I believe that they've I believe that they've approved the the concept but
there but no yes uh in principle we have an agreement there was a letter that was uh shared and I believe Marissa has that uh in the folder so um there's just some things that need to be ironed out but yes they are granting us the connection
just as they did for the other three homes we built at 11:15 and 19 Manson okay I think for whatever when you come back for definitive site plan we just need to see that you know from the city of L directly um
the uh the the waivers that we're asking for are really a function of the fact that we have to use a subdivision control law uh to to build this one house uh they basically just deal with uh relief from uh the requirements of uh
building the uh the way uh and providing all of the um um uh amenities that uh attached to that in light of the area that of town that we're in uh none of
these uh other ways up in that area uh would really meet any of the criteria uh for uh subdivision control uh and when we're asking to to be much in consistent with all of the ways that
are in the area um and and that is really from the 40 foot 44 foot wide way uh making using uh the paper width of 40 ft and uh using Granite curbs with a
Cape Cod BM on on one side uh there's no sidewalks up on any of the prop the other ways that are there and again be waving sidewalks um the fact that uh this is a dead end to one house uh we don't have
the ability to create the 100 foot um diameter circle but have made arrangements that have been approved by the fire department um so we need waiver on that
um the uh water runoff um Provisions I we think have been handled appropriately and would have a waiver request uh directing storm water runoff I believe we we did file at one Point uh the storm
water report that I I believe um the town has uh sidewalks as I said uh relief from the requirements of sidewalks on both sides and not having sidewalk on either side um and not
having the um grass strip and uh um separating uh the the foot on each side um and that's basically the waivers that that we see
that we need in relationship to uh uh the the uh with the length of the roadway being less than 400 ft uh I think that we're we're okay on uh with having the we have adct with catch
basins and curb inlets so I believe we have the list there and uh uh I think when we get to the definitive plan there might be some other things that we might be looking to ask for such as maybe a covenant rather
than um Bond or yeah Bond um and waving an environmental impact statement uh for the the nature of the pro the project being what it is with this see the last
lot for a much bigger lot where they they previously built the other three houses all of which are have wells yep understood yep um okay thank you um I think we can open up to the board for questions and um we'll go to public
comment come back to the board and go from there so open it up to well I just have a few questions how is electricity are there poles going to be delivering electricity to the house when it eventually goes in or how electrical
service being completed there so that's a good yeah go ahead uh attorney dras go ahead no no go ahead yeah that's okay sure so uh so the plans that I reviewed in preparation tonight uh uh didn't um didn't show that
particular utility so I imagine it's going to be overhead that's correct I think that was um Mr Gregory uh who confirmed that the plan is to bring in O overhead power this one one house lot yes because the ab butter as
you referenced in the original site plan on the left they they have electric which is overhead so if the run is longer where it requires an additional pull we'll work that out directly with the uh utility provider um if it can't make the
Run understood okay um and then the the Manson Avenue which this is coming off of at that 90° that's 40 ft wide I'm sure you measured that so this is just continuation of width that you're going to be having that's obviously one of the waivers you're
seeking M yeah yep okay um in terms of the tree count I know the inventory had 93 trees greater than 8 in um and 50 of them were proposed to be
removed yes according to the tree clearing exhibit uh there are there are 50 trees identified that that uh that were requesting that are proposed to be anticipated to be removed okay basically and those are trees trees greater than 12 in diameter
breast height and they're basically in the in the way I yeah and that's promly from the road construction right right that's correct okay so the other 43 are not going to be removed or they're just not on the tally
because they're less said 12 Darius can you answer that question yeah from my understanding uh everything that is on that that uh inventory that needs to be removed is all we plan to remove and it's anything that's in the roadway with existing house lot is uh where the building is going to the
proposed building is going and where the drainage is going we're not looking to clearcut everything it's only strictly what we need to um so I believe 50 is what's required for us to to remove um but we can give you more definitive
answer uh when we come back for the definitive so may maybe rephrase the question a little bit does the the list has 93 uh trees listed if you're Mo 50 are the other 43 standing or they all 93 are being
removed yes so I think we had to do this more than once originally we had uh did the tree inventory and then it was requested that we go back and do it began to include 8 in or greater and that's how we got to the total of 93 on
that plan I believe we only have to remove what's been identified on the plan that Mr SP just shared um so that would then answer your question to say that 43 should still be remaining or whatever the difference is but again I can give you definitive
answer when we come back for the definitive in four weeks um because I did not go out there and do the tree inventory that was led by Mr uh Rich Williams fair enough but I think uh it's important that when you do come back that we identify those that are going to be removed whether they uh between 8 and
12 or not uh that way it'll be clear for everybody to see certainly I'm sure Rich could I Know Rich could answer that question if here okay one thing I've still been wondering is I just want to make sure
that you know the applicant they were following the right process to you know lay out the road um so just like help me understand right like Manson road is a paper street right and so the folks to
the north own halfway into the street right um and so I just want to make sure that whatever we're doing like all of the proper rights have been you know obtain to do it you know what I'm
saying I'm not I'm not so when I look at the plans like when I go onto the gis website and that sort of thing like the I I assume that like the deed to um lot uh I assume it's 823 maybe whatever the
one is to the left of 824 that the property line only goes up to the edge of Manson road so since it's a paper Street the party to the north owns to the middle of the road and 823 owns to the middle of the road um and if we're
cutting down a bunch of trees and we're putting in a proposed Basin I just want to make sure that that's something that that doesn't require the consent of the party to the north I I don't believe it does I believe that when you if you have if you
have rights in a way yeah uh to then you want to struck the way you have every right to do that because whether they have rights in that way or not you still have the right to pass and repass and and have the ability to make Improvement so that you can do that yeah Marissa if
I recall I think we checked with Town Council on that we did I'm trying to look for the email right now it's in some it's my recollection that attorney Stein from KP law did tell me that anybody that has rights to the paper Street also has the right to improve it right right okay that was my
recollection but um can you just maybe um find that email and I'm I'm not putting you on the spot um we can come back to that when you have a chance to um yeah that was my recollection from when we checked I thought that we checked with KP law but I wasn't sure
where it ended up um and I wasn't so focused on the um Basin when we asked them and I just want to make sure that you know we're going to approve something that you know we're not approving something that we need someone else's consent to to do yeah so as far as
um well why don't we I'm going to turn it over to public comment if there's any comments from the public then we can come back to this and go from go from there are there any members of the public here to speak tonight on this um plan please feel free to come up to the microphone and introduce
yourself thank you I'm Jennifer honig um chair of the swamp Scott tree committee I'm also a lawyer but I'm not here in that capacity um so I know that um we submitted a letter um regarding the trees um that would be cut down and we appreciate the questions that you've been raising about the trees it was our
understanding and so we appreciate your interest in determining the um the details of it but that it was 93 trees of 8 in or more and then that would be removed and then whatever other trees
that might be in the same path but that were less than um 8 in so um I understand maybe it's that there's 50 trees that are 12 inches or more there's some number you know there's 43 that are between eight and 12 and then there's but there's also the trees that are
lower than eight that that's my understanding but again I appreciate if your committee would would look into that um as a committee we're very concerned because um our entire planting um project for the last year was about the
same number of trees as intends to be removed also because these are very mature trees they're Oaks which um are a really important um species for um all sorts of animals um also I don't know if you're familiar with the tree canopy
study but between 2010 and 2016 swamps got lost um over 110 acres of trees so um I understand there's limited leeway in this project but um any efforts you can make to mitigate the number of trees that are coming down we greatly appreciate to the extent that there's
waivers that um are being sought that might reduce the amount of trees or other um options that you have as a board to um limit the number taken down we appreciate it um you know I I realize the project is somewhat far along if you
know I don't know whether it's even possible but if there was another route to get to the property that would be terrific too thank you thanks and thanks for your committee's letter M Mr chair may I uh may I speak
uh why don't we get through public comment if there's any other members then I'm happy to turn it back over to your team um thank you sir yep are there any other members of the public here anybody online M I don't think so let's see anyone who's online that um
wants to say something they can use the raise their hand function okay oh so now we can hand it back over to you and your client Chris okay um yeah so uh just uh I appreciate the comments from um the
previous speaker uh my my suggestion possibly and this would be obviously another waiver is if we shorten the width of the road I think if we think about what we're building it's a single family home the need for a 20 foot wide driveway is definitely above and beyond
the scope um essentially it's just a a long driveway so if we was a short NE 12 ft uh and still have adequate room to turn around for um the fire department I'm sure you would save uh all those all those trees that are on each side of the
road um so just something as thinking outside the box as possible solutions to mitigate the impact thank you I think um I think we can get into the waiver conversation now as a board I
personally happen to agree and share that thought that um 40 foot wide there uh Road there is obviously continuation of the existing width but we're really serving one maybe two potential
properties here at some point uh 40 feet I I don't have a problem granting waivers in Access you know to allow that road to be um less wide than 40 feet if it helps prevent some of the tree loss
of some of these um yeah big big trees so um I'm happy with that but I'm not you curious other members of the board and what your thoughts are on that Mr chair just a point of order the the paved width is 20
feet the the physical property line of the road obviously is 40 so we're we're proposing to pave 20 yeah again still comfortable with that width being able to be further reduced given the volume of vehicles likely entering but okay I was saying as
long as the fire department's okay with it it's fine with me yeah and Angela who is not able to be here tonight but I know um other me you know she had mentioned to me that that was something she was comfortable with and had a similar
thought on so Angel is always here in spirit do you have any no I think that's a a good good suggestion U that the petitioner makes I'm not sure exactly how many could say I see a lot of big numbers ac across the
north side M and a few big numbers on the South Side as well so I'm not sure was the difference but maybe some sort of a rough estimate at what a 20 foot Road would take out instead of a 40 foot Road
we're doing a 20 foot road so I I I mean the so narrowing the width to save the trees yeah yeah so it's the paper Street as they just corrected me on the paper street is 40t wide the actual paved road is going to be 20 ft wide um so then we
goes to the that means the C right what's that bill it means the circle trees on the bottom of the the drawing stay so if I think I think that was The Proposal that Mr Greg made
right oh I see what you're saying that 20 20 foot wide driveway yeah and again oh just the driveway not the road well I think that's what the applicant here had mentioned was not needing that driveway to also be 20 ft wide given that it's just for that one house that would save
some of those treats I am also as long as there's no Public Safety concern from town departments fine with that roadway being if their applicant is interested even being you know as minimal as needs
to be for Public Safety access and DPW that F if that furthers the goal of saving a few more trees as you bias it to one side you could decide which is better um and if that's something that the applicant is open to we can look we
can look into that maybe doing 15 or 16 feet something like that yeah sorry I I think 12 would probably be too little I don't think they would approve 12 yeah that sounds a yeah but um you know 16 or 18
feet or something you know we have any precedent anywhere for what's that we have any precedent anywhere for minimum Road widths that is something I would probably turn to town engineer low low
traffic areas yeah say that one more time Bill I I just found precedent for um narrow narrowing Road roadways in low traffic areas specifically safe trees in this instance but just in general do we
have any other places where roads have been waivers granted or something else so that we can get less Road more tree okay I don't figure that out cuz unless we drive around in in town specifically
or just in town specifically I think okay but and maybe an impossible yeah answer I just be good if we had a reference yeah I know there's probably one acting Town Administrator that probably could answer that question very
quickly um yeah we'll figure that out um in terms of other waivers that are being requested um you know if we go from top
to bottom the right of way with we discussed that cape burm instead of the Granite curbing um any issues there I think that's completely reasonable just help me a
little bit with the Cape Cod part um it's like one of those curved slopes just a small one or it's not the big no it's just like a I'm not using a scientific term but it's like that small slope you see on the side of a road that's like a I don't know I don't know the angle but
they're uh I don't know being used all over the place now I guess and and it's one with Marissa can pull up a picture because I had to that's what I was assuming but I just didn't want to yeah there's a picture of it on sheet three of three of the plan set and it's just a guy it's just a low
low profile the second one the second result there is the one that I yeah did 20 minutes before coming to the meeting today okay thank you and then it's supposedly really good for wildlife supposed toly really good for wildlife
something I learned so um waiver from having sidewalks I am comfortable with that given the there's no sidewalks on Manon Avenue so having sidewalks on this road
would probably look a little out of place I agree yeah um where the t-shaped turnaround instead of the um 100 foot diameter hold a sack also makes sense we don't want to my
opinion makes sense we don't want to be removing more trees again than we need to okay um they run that L yeah so there's a lot of trees in that area right yeah and I mean if we did a 100
foot culdesac there I don't know you get really you probably get into the wetlands buffer zone and right it doesn't that's the whole point I don't know S I don't know if it makes sense for one or two houses have a big hold a sack like that um on top of the other
reasons except um talked about the sidewalk grass strips um so waving of the sidewalk waving of the um requirement grass strips and then shade trees be
constructed uh I'm fine with that as well and then the surface water um on both sides of the roadway yep so having the surface water before the end of that 400t stretch and again I
think the storm water report showed a pretty significant improvement from existing conditions so I think that makes that to me makes sense as well there any of these waivers that you have a problem no bill okay
um so I'm comfortable with the waivers that we discussed um and again I think we just need to consider the you know the applicant config consider roadway width and whatever kind of stuff you would like to do to try and save some of those trees
but I think the you know you've heard the concern from the board about the number of trees so whatever you can do to help work around those and um if you know there's waivers that are you would consider needing um to maybe save a few trees that are within reason that's
absolutely something we open to certainly understood is there any consideration to replanting trees to take up some of the burden like along the property lines or something plant
the new rad trees or is that already in the works or yeah I think um uh anytime you say consideration of you know we try to think about how can we uh you know put forth a project that has low impact but
also doesn't you know kill our bottom line so um there was going to be a landscape plan of that it was going to be minimal um and then we kind of wanted to leave it up to the homeowner as well to give them an allowance to plant what they wanted to on their property on their 20,000 square foot lot um but if
you're asking for us to do something in the RightWay um you know I can take that offline and maybe bring that to the definitive um again we're not trying to uh be difficult but I just don't you know we're not going to plant 93 I mean
you know that's just not realistic so um but again we're amendable to be flexible and accommodate for D reason of course there just a something to think about it's not a requirement obviously understood if you are open to planting
some trees on the right of way you know again not 93 whatever makes sense um any single one I guess helps move down from the 50 that would be removed so every single one helps and counts we'll take a
real look at that appreciate that um so any other questions or comments from um the board on this application no okay um this is not a vote right I believe we
well within 60 days the planning board may give such preliminary approval a prelim preliminary plan its approval with or without modification suggested by the board or agreed to by the person submitting the plan such approval does not constitute endorsement of a
subdivision the board may also disapprove of any plan in such case the board shall do so in writing so um we may give approval we don't have to but we may give approval and I don't think we have
to um with that being said they can come back for a definitive plan with or without our approval so and we have 60 days we could table it to another meeting I don't see the need to do that personally um as long
as if there are any changes from the preliminary plan um that we're seeing I would suggest working through Marissa to before the definitive plan is filed um to make sure that the office of
Community Development the planning office is uh comfortable with all of those changes and we don't you know make a road that Public Safety says is too narrow or something I don't know um but before a def a definitive plan is filed just making sure that planning is comfortable with it being filed as a
definitive plan rather than having to drag you guys back here because the roadway is two feet more narrow and that's the only change so obviously Public Safety will have to relook at it right yep so and I believe definitive plans are required to relook it everybody has to look at it again with a different set of approval criteria and
the Nabors get notice of that too right that's Public public here so I I would simply say that we we've heard you and we will investigate that the the basic two items how narrow can we make the road and how many trees can we save and
and maybe even replace some appreciate thata oh sorry Mera did did that email say yes the one from KP yeah yeah so um this is from attorney
kleene uh of KP law I'll read directly from the email uh in my opinion assuming the owner of the parcel has easement rights to pass and repass on man road which rights are parenthesis which rights are outside the scope of this opinion the owner would have the right to improve Manson Road uh she sites a
case law post versus McHugh where the Court held that an owner had established a right to use certain roads then had further the further right to make reasonable repairs and Improvement to those ways see also guet Gillette versus Lis a lot of French uh when an easement
or other property right is created every right necessary for its enjoyment is included by implication so okay that was her the the second sentence I think was when a property is used as a RightWay or
eased as such or something there's a word easement used somewhere there where uh the owner of the parcel has easement rights to pass and repass yes okay so assuming obviously have those rights correct yeah so if they have problems yeah if those rights are
established then they have the further right to make reasonable repairs and improvements to those ways got it that thanks yeah I think that question okay um so as I mentioned we
may yeah we may approve um such plan or disapprove I don't see any reason to disapprove but um whether we want to approve such plan I have to do we approve it with the caveat that they're going to make
some changes with I would I I would say we could make um a motion to approve this with modifications um granting um the waiver sought and with
modifications um on the width of the way and trees yeah modifications to look at roadway width and proposed driveway width um which will come back in a definitive
plan um in order to minimize the loss of uh trees okay I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary F plan for 24 su-2 by Darius Gregory um uh and to
Grant the waivers sought and just on the condition that um they will you know come back uh to well in the definitive plan they'll look into a reduction in the width of the right of we to accommodate um you know more trees than
currently should second all right all those in favor thank you again I would just encourage you for the definitive to make sure you have the letter from lyw water and sewer um granting that and then the
um just file with it early when it's actually submitted so we can make sure everybody's comfortable with the final definitive plan that's a notified public hearing yeah CH I think the statutory deadline would be a week from today week from today
yeah uh 24th uh so you would need the revised definitive plan by the 24th along with the letter from uh ly water and seart correct yep and that's a that's a Mass General law statutory deadline so okay
okay all right we're on it thank you thank you very much members thank you all right up next we have uh application 24 sub-1 by Center Court
retail properties for preliminary subdivision review uh as part of subdivision control law for 450 Paradise Road and 555 Essex Street turn it over to you I feel like I've seen you at every meeting for the last few months all of you I wouldn't
have it any other way thank you all chairman uh members of the uh planning board uh in Your Capacity uh for the approval of the application for the preliminary plan you you may recall uh actually it was a
month ago today February the 10th we were before the board uh both for the anr which was approved and it gave us the opportunity to explore the um the formb application for the preliminary subdivision plan um we're here tonight
uh to ask for the approval of the planning board um in in a in a much simpler context than the one you heard earlier um there's a sole
purpose for this project or this process was to create the subdivision for purposes of financing the project uh there's not going to be anything done that's any different than what's already there uh we're not asking for any type of relief to change anything as much as
we're just trying to create the subdivision to permit the financing the in from different sources for this project because of the extent of the project itself um with me this evening uh is Mr
Richard Newberg from centac Corp retail properties as well as Garrett horfield uh the engineer that you have heard from earlier from Kelly engineering uh I believe he presented a letter uh to the board
um what's I have that what was the date of the letter Mr horfield September 11th September the 11th I no February the 5th um which which detailed the preliminary subdivision plan application um which I know that you
were had the night of the of the 10th of of February so we're really here um to discuss that this is more of an academic exercise than than anything that's going to um require an awful lot of of of
thought but it's important that we accomplish this so we can then move on to the to the next stage we can almost see the beginning of the Finish Line uh having appeared before you having appeared before the zoning board of appeals no no excuse me before you and
and and your capacity for the plan approval process that we underwent we been before the Conservation Commission for their approval and um ultimately after the preliminary is approved we'll be coming back for the definitive and at that point I I'm I'm looking forward to
being able to say to you at some point in the next couple of years you're going to see a redesigned uh vibrant uh swans Scot mall so Mr horel is here to answer any questions if you'd like he can give you a a presentation which will be pretty
much a recap of the February the 5th uh letter um or any way that you think appropriate in order to vet any questions that need to be discussed prior to your vote thank you I think if you ran through the a brief presentation
that would be helpful uh thank you again uh Garrett horsefall with Kelly Engineering Group so as attorney should mentioned obviously the um board has seen this site over the past few months many times and we've um during the approval process
um indicated proposed lot lines I believe on the um proposed plans um and then in and part of the decision um referenced the need for the request for waivers um Associated um with the package that you have um before you for
consideration tonight um just really briefly the um the plan on the screen right now was the overall parcel um last month the anr portion was um reviewed and approved um to create the two new anr Lots uh for the new residential lot
and the Stop and Shop to Standalone and then um you know plan view East here we now have um four three Parcels that are controlled by Center Corp in the Chinese restaurant on the way south of the plan as well but the two lots before you
tonight are uht 17 lot 9e and not lot 9f those compromise about 8.8 Acres um today um with Frontage on uh Paradise Road and verus if you could just switch to the next one or this this just had the one there
multi oh yeah multip sorry yes that that that's fine yeah I can so this is the proposed um layout plan and the proposed lotting plan um as well so what we have done um as attorney schutzer had mentioned that the main purpose of uh
what's before you tonight is for fin financing the project um so all of the new out Parcels um have been created um on their own Lots um we do need some relief um for a couple of these Lots um some of it's dimensional related um and
some of it is um parking related but however parking is under the entire umbrella of the permit um it's more dimensional um for some some of them a lot area um and believe the only um setback is the existing building that has the UPS Store
the cleaners in the Chipotle where we're putting a front right away um within the you know so the front setb over there we need relief as well um and then the two two lots in the middle um with the two out Parcels um as well as the uh lot up
in the front of a little bit below 40,000 ft minimum lot area um so those are the three in terms of dimensional um area of Leaf that um would be requested um which was um discussed as part of the previous permit um relief or dimensional relief as part
of the B4 permit process um so we have included um an additional list of waivers relative to the uh plans before you tonight A lot of that is um academic honestly um just because the road is existing today and um we're not Chang
changing profiles we're not changing grades we not and the storm water is been approved by the by this board in the town as part of the previous project I can I can run through that list if you would like or um we're glad to answer any of the questions as well okay thank
you um what any questions from the board in many ways this is very duplicative in the sense that the application for play and review process anticipated exactly where we are today
it just bifurcated into two different processes and uh all of all of what you're seeing today was was part of that original application and intuitively we included in that request for the uh plan
review the the waivers they're there and uh the board indicated in its decision on the plan review uh any waivers as required and because we were contemplating um that it would it would require as we went on the the actual
preliminary subdivision the definitive subdivision for the financing that we're ultimately going to be seeking so it it's really a different process with the same information right academic as you put it well I I you know
in many ways I didn't it sounded as if I was trivializing the process which I didn't mean to but really what it is is it's an exercise right we've received all of this information and talked about it at length previously as part of the plan review process so I I I hear you
um I think we can run through the list um bill I didn't mean to do you have any questions okay I think we can run through the list of waivers here um and then I'm you know when we get to the end here obviously acknowledge the fact that as I mentioned and as uh the opin put it
um we've reviewed much of this data including storm water uh sidewalks materials ad nauseum during the plan review process uh that was conducted in January and February I believe um so we've received much of
this information in the past um so if we run through waiver requests um requesting to not show information within within 100 ft and 150 ft of the proposed subdivision in roads and to not stake out um the roadways it's already
built comfortable with that yep okay uh existing profiles on the exterior lines of the proposed profile of the center line of all proposed streets at scale acceptable to planning board it's existing again all grades are um at
approved as part of the previous site plan or site review process again comfortable with that existing and proposed layout and design calculations for storm drainage water supply Disposal Systems and sewage um registered through a
professional engineer I think that information we reviewed previously as the site approval process plan review process profiles of proposed ways on a horizontal scale Footprints of all houses a buding
on the way uh or structures elevations uh existing roadway grades will be per the plan approvals for the plaza Redevelopment which will be reviewed as part of the plan review process cross-section of proposed ways since they're existing we can wave
that statement describing conformance with master plan zoning bylaw subdivision rules and regs and describing any non-conformities again I think that was done as part of the plan review process by Al impact statement we received we can wave that I mean we got
the narrative um during the plan review process and got all of the concom notice of of uh ordered conditions waving the requirements to be at a 90 Dee angle for the roadway since
it's existing I think we can wave that any okay uh roadway width of no less than 44 feet in Granite curbing in Grass strips I think we can wave all that as it's
existing and I know we reviewed sidewalk width as part of the plan review process for the uh Redevelopment of the parcel Dead End Street being the culdesac uh we can wave that
propos right away as longer than 500 feet however it connects to an AB buding lot where the existing Drive continues again existing roadway no problem waving that we can request Parks or Recreation areas but I think we um reviewed as part of the plan
review process all the additional passive open space areas and new parklet kind of in the middle there Granite Curbing and gutters it's all along the roadways uh existing Mall Road is already in existence we can wave
that no changes to the pavement of being proposed so I don't think we have to go into uh suitability of of gravel since there's no changes there uh sidewalks of not less than six feet in width should be construct on both sides of the street um so waving
that no problem waving that and again I think we noted as part of the plan review process the significant expansion of the size of the sidewalks on the opposite side of the road there um that I think help address that waiver no grass stps are being
proposed um comfortable waving that no monuments being proposed comfortable waving that given it's uh existing and utilities water main Services storm subsurface drains water pipes sewer line
extensions fire alarm police civil overhead underground cable work and electrical systems uh the existing property already provides all those Services um and utilities we reviewed the utility plans from the engineering plan sent over during the plan review process so I'm comfortable with all of
these waivers um just wanted to go through them line by line yes to be be safe any issues with any of those waivers no okay um any questions for the applicant
here no and I'm if there's any public comment I don't believe anyone else is in here but online online there's anyone online yeah raise your hand okay hearing on okay we can close
public comment um so again like the previous um subdivision approval we can approve approve with modification or deny um or take no action which is kind of
deao they can continue on as a definitive but given the waivers that we all were through I'm comfortable with in my opinion approving this um I don't see any modifications needed yeah um given the extensive review we did for the plan review process for the parcel I agree
okay well ENT any motions uh motion to approve uh 25 su-1 by Senate Corp retail Properties Inc requesting approval of the preliminary plan for subdivision um and um granting
of the waivers requested a second all right all those in favor I thank you thank you I'm going to miss you if I don't see you again but I'm sure we will I'm sure we see you see you
soon as far as far as the definitive going to say we'll see you for the definitive yeah be back for that but it's sort of sort of the same thing yeah resubmitting a lot of the same sheets yeah I think the only part of the definitive that would be
different I mean there's obviously a few different like administrative narrative type stuff that you might need but um I think there's a notice requirement notice requirement and then um could physical notice requirements I think are required to put up a a sign at the
property as that's outlined in the bylaws like what it has to say you know where we put this I you could put it right it's like a it's in the subdivision rules in regs can you'll find it so no I'm sure I'm curious where we're going to stick 5x4 sign and it has
a language that needs to be used but all right thank you thank you all thanks thank you okay one question Mr douly has nothing to do with what we just sure the the Adu zoning ordinance yeah has that been
codified so we could some you know on line so I can see what looks like at some um we're going to go through a red line of it in a few minutes um the final version we'll have in the next before the next meeting okay thank but it won't look terribly different than what what
is there right now all right thank you thank you where are we now adus adus yes moving on to adus just looking for my agenda um [Music]
okay proposed zoning bylaw amendments for annual town meeting oh Adu bylaw okay um I think Marissa has a red line going that you guys should all have copies of it too somewhere in there y
Perfect Pull up start they use start with ad to use yeah um I mean it's just us I don't I'm not going to bother screen sharing unless you guys want me to that's fine no that's fine it's just this one red line
yeah yeah really that's I you got to share that yeah and then a couple of strikethroughs the strikethroughs in black and then the one yep Red Line the the other one that I was so close to making was um 51131
only one Adu may be located on a lot um I think at the last meeting we had discussed that a second Adu could be permitted by special permit but upon looking through the state regs again that is up to our choosing so we can choose to allow
additional adus on a lot by special permit we don't have to we can cap it at one and I think given our physical makeup that probably is for the best yeah yeah I agree um I don't have a problem with
you know if there was a certain lot a certain place that maybe it made sense and kind of sort of but it's like looking for a unicorn um at some point it's not accessory right well also like a special permit's pretty easy to get so sure I don't say it's easy to get but
it's not a variant yeah so it's there's a lower hurdle to get there for something that probably would need to have more hurdles so MH I'm fine with 180 per lot I think so I I bet that was probably cre for communities like conquer and right Lincoln that have
acres and Acres type yeah yeah exactly um so accessory one Adu per lot but that's not limiting it to one accessory structure per lot so you could have a detach garage and then a separate Adu correct technically and we already have
it in our bylaw that you are allowed one accessory structure by right okay and one and any additional accessory structure by special permit got it if somebody already had a detached garage and they had a lot big
enough to want to put in a detached Adu they would have to get that structure permitted as a special permit by the zba and possibly planning if it's if it triggers cyan but then the use of the Adu is protected
okay so that would be by right I was just going through that thought process motion yeah yeah okay that makes sense and then um so going through kind of the local um you know
the Executive offices guidance kind of that came out a couple weeks ago on this that you provided here um you we discussed this earlier um and I I wish Jer was here to give his thoughts but I I know he will in the future um the historic district stuff
accessory dwelling units in the historic district are already subject to their restrictions in terms of like appearance and such correct any any structure period would be subject to the perview to the design standards of the historic district okay so does that need to say
it here though that's not in our zoning bylaws that's in our general bylaws okay they have um they have the design standards in the general bylaws they have rules and Rags so um as long as it's covered somewhere that's it's yep
absolutely and we're allowed to do that so that's why I brought that up um it was so we got rid of owner occupancy requirements right yeah okay that we can no longer regulate the permeable area we
got rid of that right um yeah that that that's a strike through because um we cannot unreasonably regulate anything that we wouldn't already do for a single family not regulate for a single family
right so so sorry the the uh the last one though was that that came from the state guidance correct yeah so that's um more of the general language came from the state guidelines it is basically we can't regulate adus differently then we regulate building a single the owner the
owner occupancy oh yeah that from State I get the I get the prvious thing but the owner occupancy right not being required to reside there or you know have principal residence there correct yeah that came out of here yes yeah page
uh three SE uh Section 71.0 3 item two prohibited regulation a municipality shall not subject the use of land or structures on a lot for a protected use Adu to any of the following a owner occupancy requirements a requirement
that either the protected use Adu or the principal dwelling be owner occupied yeah and so that's where we probably want to think about establishing short-term rental regulations but does it also prohibit the parking as well it
does if you're within half a mile of a transit station which they Define as a bus stop anywhere of bus stops or subway stop or commuter rail stop so Marissa printed this handy dandy map here I got it with like the 12 places in town that
you have to have a parking spot but um just about everybody in town is within a half mile from some kind of stop so which is impressive is it here somewhere in there
yeah wow everywhere except Manson road yeah yeah right yeah upper Foster Road there and then attached to it to is the list actually of the streets yeah there are like five streets yeah and then on the other side on the coastal side of town
there's like two or three properties like one property I think it's Littles Point Road yeah but that's it everybody else is um within a half mile all right well there's nothing do about that
that's going to cause a lot of talk at town meeting I I know because it caused a lot of talk two years ago when we added in there MH um but so it goes um the short-term rental restriction I mean obviously we can have the design restriction for historic districts we
kind of already have that so we don't need to touch that um was there anything in our existing Adu bylaw that like required entry ways to be on the side of the yes uh
51132 yeah okay one entrance shall appear to be the Principal entrance and the other entrances shall appear to be secondary right that's you don't think that's I know the language here is like unreasonably
restrictive I don't I don't think that is but I just wanted to okay yeah um if the AG if the ag office Flags it so be it but would be I think they would be the ones to determine whether or not it's unreasonable I don't necessarily I don't think it is yeah okay um so really
the only other control lever that we have is short-term rental yeah um I saw part of the meeting that you guys had last month um I guess was it what was the
differentiation on the board of the discussion like for prohibiting short-term rental for this I know there General consensus was that there should be something but I think you know and I don't want to put words in Angela's mouth I think Angela was for uh a
much longer period of restriction I don't remember where jur ended up um I I remember they're recording him saying something like two two weeks or something like that and that's where I was too with like two weeks because I I you know so I'll just speak for myself I I didn't wanted to be a a thing where
like someone can't go away in the summer and like maybe rent at their house for a couple weeks but it we certainly don't want it to be something where there's a hotel operating in a residential neighborhood right the Airbnb of the granny shed right um so it sounded like
it was more just the length of time issue and us coming to a you know agreement there don't know what you thought bill so didn't we have that in our uh hotels and by uh bed breakfast bylaw it was something like
less than 30 days or something I was going to say I don't know if it's in our I believe the state defines short-term rental as less than 30 consecutive days I believe 100% sure we had it in the hotel bylaw hotel motel and in
bylaw that in that section of the bylaw that short-term rental is defined I thought so we'll call the transient uh trans something yeah loging yeah trans okay for short-term transient or
overnight occupancy defined as allowed staying in a lodging establishment no less than one night and no greater than 30 nights that seems like it just restricted it to lodging establishments which I think was also defined somewhere in
here yeah lodging establishments shall not have independent in cooking facilities there's a and prohibits them from being used for more than 30-day rentals and as Apartments so I think it kind of
narrowly fit into that bylaw that portion of the bylaws I mean I'm fine with I think it makes sense to not allow short-term rentals of of these short-term rentals to find as similar to
this 30 consecutive nights or less or something and that's what I've seen the state Define it as I'm comfortable with that um I guess I'm still just not understanding so we have a hotel and B&B bylaw mhm so now we have a short-term
rental we proposing a short-term rental restriction on Accessory dwelling units right on Accessory dwelling units but we we also have I think it's by right that people can have a B&B
no what is the what is the hold on bnbs I think are by special permit and only in certain districts in business districts like I don't think you could have one in a residential
district um 5 13 six oh table of uses that should be way down at the end I think all I don't even know in a might Restaurant catering business personal service animal grooming Bank bank should be like the three last ones
I think bar Tavern [Music] Lounge D through right there motel hotel in and there should be one for B&B this does the B&B section 51360 does Define bed and breakfast pretty narrowly
that would make it irrelevant to adus in that they must be owner occupancy private no more than four bedrooms so this is specific to adus then yes just specific to adus I think we probably should have another conversation about short term rental but that's irrelevant
to this conversation okay or this topic I should say yeah so do we restrict that for an apartment no not yet or what uh short-term rentals like short-term rental for in general my
house or if you have an apartment in your house like can you rent it right yeah yeah currently yes yeah is there a restriction there no not not yet it will be I know it's up to the board if we want to have that right and that's I
think when we started this that's one of the priorities that I wanted to have is at the outset was let's have a conversation about short-term rental bylaws including adus and including everything else but I think in the last few months it was not deemed feasible to
create something like that especially with Building Commissioner turning over and all sorts of stuff so um that conversation I think is better for another time I don't think it happens often I just yeah it's the same thing as the driveway right the perious thing if we don't restrict it for somebody else
then we can't restrict it for this right there is there in Mass General law in the regulations there is a section that does say we can um we can regulate short-term rentals municipalities May establish restrictions and prohibitions on the
short-term rental of protected use ad use pursuant to mgl chapter 64g okay so yeah so that's why I think we started with the conversation that if that's the one level of local control do we want to pull it I'm in favor of it
for adus at least um but that's up to the whole board I'm in favor of it for adus um I think that's generally like the context that we've been discussing it in we haven't been talking about it really in
another right context so much um and and I feel like most of what we do is you know lots of stepping stones and I think that's something that people can get by and I don't think people want people just dropping these on their front yards and then renting them out and that's not the intent of the law anyways it's to
you know increase the H it's to you know reduce the housing shortage so right increase housing stock yeah right to a degree expand housing Choice really yes yeah yeah so I think that's all consistent with those goals and I can imagine them thinking like oh we don't want some land owner on the cape to put
an U and then rent it out like a you know weekly rental like they renting out their main house in the summer right right which makes sense um I don't think we would have that problem with that being said I think this is to your point it helps keep what this is being used for
with the intent of the law uses the control we were given and given our unique nature of a built out Community I think it um ures if are going to be built which is a good thing they're being used
for what the law was intended to be used for yeah I agree 100% I'm just concerned about the enforcement of that because that would be yeah I think share your concern I think regulating them is as simple as just including another line
item in the bylaw saying you know short-term rentals shall not be permitted in accessory dwelling units but then right how do we so yeah is there a when somebody would go for a building
permit to build an Adu I mean it's not going to prevent them but I assume there's a way we can just ensure that it's reminded to them um the short-term rentals are prohibited correct yep and I think well we also now
there's also um required or mandated data collection um to assist eohc in the administration of adus and so um municipality shall keep a record of each Adu permit applied
for Approved denied and issued a certificate of occupancy so the building department does have to issue a CO MH I don't know if there's a way to like establish contingencies on cosos like saying that this is not you know short-term rental but as long as it's in the bylaw you know then we have a strict
gives us something to stand on right um but um can you impose a fine that we have zoning violation fines yeah so it would be whenever zoning violation is occurred whenever a zoning violation
occurs um the building department the commissioner sends out a letter to the property owner and says you are in violation of bylaw pursuant section blah blah blah you have 30 days to rectify the situation and if not you will begin incurring fines at $300 a day for every
day that you continue to remain in violation okay is that is that what the amount is that's what is y $300 a day because I was going to say could be TI to the of the rental but I want to see I'd want to see the Adu where that's rting for more than that so
yeah yeah and that that would be the the path forward yeah yeah unfortunately I think enforcement typically comes not necessarily enforcement comes from the building department but usually it's the
neighbors that are the ones who re recogize zoning violations when they happen and then they report them to the building department because it's not like we have somebody going out and just like we don't really have like a compliance officer that just spends their entire day driving around checking for
violations you know that's okay right as long as there's some mechanism if we do impose this that people aren't saying well they're imposing but they can't do anything about it so they do it anyway right so no matter how it gets reported or found out as long as we
have some mechanism to incur fines to Ure you know it's preventing that action that we don't want um I think that's fine we're all in agreement that we should think it's a good thing to include and it sounds like Angela at the last meeting was yeah and Jer was to
some some extent um I think we should put it in here but I I agree with your comment of uh you know that's why I wanted to kind of put a pause on the longer term short-term rental conversation because we have to figure out the mechanisms of regulating something from like an operational
perspective before we just say we're going to you know change things overnight right so last meeting was uh opposed by Angela or no I think she supported this supported definitely supported it locally and I think Jer did too his thought process was something
like is it 30 nights what was the trigger of what is Banning yeah that's rent 30 yeah I agree yeah um so you know I don't know if there's another if there's like General language or maybe
it's even just a provision here um I think if we could just it would be twofold I think just putting a simple sentence in this section of the bylaw but then we would have to add short-term rental as a definition in our definition section which is easy enough yeah we
would just absorb that of the states too yeah I think might even be defined in here it is in the lodging section I believe I don't know if it's a definition but it says short-term comma transient comma overnight lodging is defined as not more than more than one night not more than 30 consecutive
nights right so I would just copy and paste that definition perfect um all right great so I don't think there's any other changes here that that would make that we would need to do but um so if we can
maybe just Redline that into this version um add that to definition section I think we can at the next meeting vote to approve that and get on to the public hearing process awesome um next we
have next the flood area overlay I seem to have lost my next was the site plan special footage okay um so on that obviously we I know you guys had conversation
about um new build and Renovations um there were some differentiating opinions on how to adapt this whether it's getting rid of 3,000 entirely for any new build or reducing the 800 down to a
smaller square footage um what were the how did things land I guess coming out of that meeting just to revisit the conversation at a future date I think we should revisit it because Angela and jur felt pretty strongly about some things and I
felt a little bit differently and I don't want to speak you know yeah I felt like I was more in line with them on this last one on that one sure um were there any other aspects other than those two changes that the board wanted to
revisit I know you had brought up the fee schedule and we can have that conversation independent of this I think um but was it strictly limited to the 3,000 and the 800 changing those numbers in some yeah changing those numbers um I think at one point I
mentioned with respect to structural additions um maybe rather than establishing a a hard threshold looking at it as a percentage given that we have lots that are much larger in town and lots that are much smaller 500 sare feet on a 20,000 foot lot looks a lot
different than it does on a 5,000 foot lot I think and then I think to that Angela said that Marble Head has a percentage requirement that triggers site plan special permit for structural additions um I'd also be in favor of um requiring it for any addition in
the coastal flood overlay area as well or not even Co the flood area overlay sure and so would that be um what does the new regulations which we'll get to an a
minute say about that like if it's an addition that changes the footprint wouldn't it have to go through some approval process anyway if it's in the flood overlay District or would that be it has to just at that point prove that it doesn't impact
flood uh characteristics on a budding Lots or something I think I think that's more what I don't think it regulated it um there was no language to my recollection about bringing it before an approval board um provided that it met
all the standards that are outlined in this section it would just be something that's allowed by right mhm if anybody if um the um if a variance to the building code flood plane standards is required and I
think this is new language this is 4280 MH um sorry I didn't mean to bounce this around no that's um the only sort of the only instance of having to go before an approval board in this case would be the State Building Code oh
the state okay got it Bo yep right um so your suggestion is either move it to a for the additions move it to a percentage of buildings of the footprint building footprint or lot size
than or do one of the whichever is lesser or greater things maybe that just got to figure out what the numbers are so if you were to implement that like let's say it's no more than 15% you know you need a special perimeter it's somewhere the 50% 15% increase in your
first floor gross square footage area mhm 15 would be really small for that but maybe 20% or something so you have a 1,200 foot outline of your house and it's you know 20% of that is you know whatever 20% of that would be 240 square
feet right so if you're going for more than 240 square feet um yeah to go to site plan so if some if we wanted to implement that like right now it's easy oh it's 81 squ ft go to site plan um how would we do that from a practical perspective the applicant would have to
like as part of their Asis or they as built they would have that grow square footage do the calculation and yeah that would give us which is a standard metric that we would require on a survey anyway yeah okay so um because it would also get that something like that would get factored into lot coverage oh right
right okay so you'd have to look at that we'd be doing that anyway pretty much so no okay no logistical issues with that no no I'm conflicted on it and I don't I will'll have the conversation again when Angela and Jer here but the new build I
I no brainer for me yeah the addition I'm I'm torn on yeah I agree I think that's sort of where I've ended up um and I don't I know that there have been some you know we talked a little bit about how there have been some properties that maybe didn't do one thing right or should have done something differently I think there
might be other ways to ensure that you know people are building homes the way they supposed to and I don't want a few bad actors to um like what could you know be a significant limitation on people's ability to modify their homes
um yeah new builds you know I don't have a problem with people coming to the board to build a completely new structure but you know I don't want people you we were talking about it a little bit like you know that I mean maybe it's different if there's a percentage based you know formula but I
don't think people in a smaller home should necessarily be kind of penalized they might be the ones that need the most space but then on the other hand if you have a big house then what does it matter maybe if you're adding so much I I really would prefer I think just keep that part the way it is I don't really
see any I haven't heard of any real issues with people adding on to their homes other than neighbors sometimes not always liking the way the addition works but if some if it's within the intensity regulations right so be it right that's that's what it is I don't think we're here to regulate taste you know um so I
agree to that too I I I not that I'm part of the Quorum but um either way I don't have a I don't have as strong of an opinion about structural additions as I do with new builds I think too one of the other elements that we discussed was that when it comes to new builds I can't remember the last time somebody did a
new build that was actually the property owner or the or the intended homeowner yeah a good point it's usually a flipper or a developer and uh and they you know they have the time they have the investment capital I think they have the they clearly they have the resources to
come before a planning board for S plan review mhm um and I think they should the one thing that I I remember from the recording that's that I think jar had said was um 800 square feet is a lot like you know in for swamp Scott 800 S feet is a
that's a high number um that's almost the size of my entire the first home that I bought in in town um so I I'm more thinking of like maybe there's still a good number but not quite as big of a number as 800 that makes more sense but I I I'm conflicted on it but I
understood he had mentioned something you know 800 feet on on some houses that's that's you know maybe 40% of the size of the home to begin with so an 800 foot addition is really large um but I don't know we'll have the conversation when they're when they're here because that's probably more
productive but um anyway any other thoughts on that before we move on to the coastal flight okay Marissa I'll turn it over to you for the coastal flood our Coastal flood expert or sorry our flood plane expert so a couple of things um right now so we have
two sections in the bylaw that regulate I'll call them Wetlands flood planes and coastal flooding areas so section 410 is the wetlands and flood plane protection area overlay District it's very wordy and 42000 is currently what
we call the coastal flood area overlay District the model bylaw that was co-released by mass DCR um and and FEMA um well I should say was the model bylaw was issued by mass DCR in accordance with the FEMA maps that are still forthcoming to be issued July 8th of
this year um they're calling this the flood plane overlay district and I think it probably makes the most sense to just call our district that uh because we also have and will have more areas in town that are going to be subject to flooding that are not Coastal so I think
eliminating the word coastal is probably to our benefit and then in those areas in town will be reflected on the maps when they are issued as well so that also involves I think changing the name of section 410 which I don't have printed out over here I think the
section we can leave all the regulations in the section we can leave as is is just really changing the title and eliminating the word flood plane from it and calling it The Wetlands protection overlay District MH um and that bylaw really was created just um for Palmer
Pond over off of Palmer Road um and all those regulations too are further regulated or further enforced by the wetlands protection act which is whose jurisdiction is under the Conservation Commission um so I think possibly maybe
further down the line we could look to eliminating that section entirely since it is entirely regulated by the Conservation Commission um but so as not to conflict one district with the other it probably makes the most sense to eliminate flood plane from
410 and just call for 2000 the flood plane overlay District um the major not major the changes that are going to be happening otherwise from the title um 4221 uh they're calling on us to have a
designated Community flood plane administrator excuse me um which I believe is also a certification and it's something that gin Cresta already has so I think it makes the most sense to um have him be the flood plane administrator or he also he suggested
that he would like to have an appointed design as well so um we have our town engineer Mark Nunan who would be um just as fit to do that as well a lot of towns have the Building Commissioner do it too but since retaining a Building
Commissioner seems to be an issue in town maybe we stick with um DPW the DPW director um 4223 this isn't red it should be but these are all definitions that um we are required to incorporate
in the section that we don't currently have already um and then the location of the district um just changing the dates and the titles of the maps that are going to be released this year and then uh Eric
from m CCR with whom I've been working on um updating these bylaws also had me include Zone a um which is one of the FEMA designated flood zones the maps that we have right now only show us as having zones AE and ve um V is high
velocity and AE forget what it actually stands for but um I wonder if he has include Zone a just because it's standard language or if it's because per the new maps that will be released this year we will have a Zone a a as to as
shown or to be shown um and then just more like explicit language about permit requirements um I think stuff that was already implied before um but is more
explicit now um and then this is 4242 is something where you know we would have the discretion to also maybe further regulate um Construction in a flood plane overlay District um it says the permit review process for the
town of swampit includes the requirement that the proponent obtain all local state and federal permits that will be necessary in order to carry out the proposed development in the fa it's going to be the fod not the faod M um and one of those local permits could be
a site plan special permit if we decided that a site plan special permit might be necessary for any structural changes in the flood plane overway District what there three fod and F aod it's I didn't CH it's I didn't I missed those ones in
going through my strikes but it's going to be fod flood plane overlay District rather than flood plane area overlay District so eliminating area so yeah the fod for short um so the permit requirements is
where we could put in a requirement needing site plan review for any new construction or addition in the fod district yes okay um I know the new maps aren't out yet but how
much is it going to change from now the fod versus what we had the new fod with respect to the maps you said I have no idea um I don't even think they like released like preliminary or draft map m i i was I wasn't sent anything I tried looking I couldn't find anything I would
imagine that it expanded pretty significantly yeah um the existing maps are already pretty expansive yeah so it was like the whole town it's not quite the whole town but it's like every Humphrey Street to the water and then in
some parts of town it's you know all the way yeah like by cindies for example that's in the overlay District yep um so for like base understanding it's anything Humphrey Street um closer to the water throughout the entire length of the road I know and Atlantic some of
the places down around the The Paradise Road uh are in the low elevations too are they on the flood plane they're not currently on our flood plane Maps but I bet that stuff like that probably will be on the Next Generation these map school and around there somewhere exactly yeah
[Music] um and I mean there are some new regulations about subdivisions um a lot of this stuff I don't think necessarily will ever come up but
um and you know um like 4257 for example in a zones in the absence of FEMA BFE BFE is base flood elevation which right now in the AE zone is 15 for example um in the
absence of FEMA BF data and floodway data the building department will obtain review and recently utilize base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal state or other source as criteria for requiring new construction substantial improvements or other development in zone
a um and as the basis for elevating residential structures to or above base blood level which is you know that's a practice that we already follow in the AE Zone where the base blood elevation is 15 ft the structure must be elevated to at least 16 ft one foot above that
base flood elevation so it has to be a raised Foundation um and uh and then that language that I mentioned um just briefly ago about obtaining variances um to the
building code flood plane standards you have to request an appeal from the state appeals board um and so in doing that it eliminates the um we had language in here variation by special permit that gave jurisdiction to
the board of appeals so this takes our local zoning this takes jurisdiction away from our local zoning board board of appeals and that's for any project that would want a variance for any reason inside this correct yep that our local zba no longer will
have the jurisdiction to issue such a variant anybody that wants to vary this bylaw will have to go straight to the state CU these at the end of the day this is a this is a Statewide bylaw modeled off of building code and it's just asking that each municipality adopt
it just for variances for Section 420 correct okay so like dimensional a variance for anything dimensional or something would not okay right right would not apply that that would be subject to our local zba got it okay but any other
variance um specifically looking to change these standards would have to get appealed at the state level got it and and so and you said you think that by them adding in the flood zone
a it could just be doing it Statewide or it could be an indication that more municipalities are going to have a zones and currently do as exist yeah and that is um that remains to be seen got it yep
um I mean so the long and short of this is this is you know we get this from the state it's in line with the state flood insurance map program and all of the changes here are really just streamlining the two flood area districts aligning them with
Federal the updated Federal maps that are coming out in July and ensuring our language is in line with state and federal language on flood area districts okay yep yep this bylaw will pretty much look identical in every community across
the state so um yeah okay that's pretty much it that's an easy one we don't really have any yeah nothing to control there yeah right
um okay any other thoughts on that question um minutes I think you sent yes I think we can only approve one of them because that's right that wasn't at the last meeting yeah won't have a quum for
the second set was not at the last meeting oh so we can't approve either of them can we approve Bill wasn't at January oh all right then well January was it February or January no you were at January were you not you said last meeting was you weren't at were you at last meeting last meeting is February
febrary I have January and February you were there you weren't there I wasn't there either okay yeah you guys we can do January then we can do January that's I thought I think I was in January yeah I think we had a full board in January they all went together um say January
13th I know maybe I wasn't no you yeah it looks like you were yeah because January is when we did the decision for swamp Mall b square yeah I definitely remember you being there okay
can you scroll down just a little bit that I think this is it for the first page okay try and balance I remember George p s
yeah former planning board member you know his comment was really interesting I never realized how big of a land area the wetlands are over Ven and until it was brought up tonight on the subdivision plan that's a that's a lot big area so solar energy the build the
residential building is certifiable lead gold I think I make it I'll just make a note of it so we don't where the heck did it go I making not of that okay thanks for
looks good is there anything else Marissa H did we see oh there we go does look good to me y with that minor change yes okay is that it y yeah one are there any any other minutes on
that page that we're not seeing I believe I think that's that is it motion to approve second all right in favor I um only just had a question for you Marissa my only question for you Marissa
timeline for zoning bylaws we approve all of our we approve these all at the April meeting does that give it enough time to get in front of the select board to include in the warrant yes so at our April meeting it would just be like
that's when we would just review all the red lines and sort of come to a a consensus about how we want them presented at the public hearing so April won't be a it'll be a public hearing for the subdivisions but it won't be a public hearing for the zoning bylaws right so looking at the calendar so we
have our regular meeting on April 14th timing wise though we have to get that like we have to have that meeting vote on those by laws to then start the public hearing process and kick it to the select board for inclusion in the warrant is that right
yes if I remember correctly last year we had our well I can tell you when it was actually but I believe the public hearing was the end of April and I want to say the warrant let's come our regular April meeting we we vote to approve the
language in the bylaws we should have everything squared away really by next meeting so that way okay we they'll they'll be good to for the select board to vote on when they a week later or whatever in April right got it and then come end of April because I believe
that's when we did our public hearing last year that is when the planning board votes to sponsor or vote to recommend the articles for approval at town meeting meeting got it yeah okay so next meeting we should be prepared to send it to the select board do the
public hearing and after the public hearing we send it to the we endorse it exactly or not endorse it whatever the board is vote to I have to look at the language from the last one I forget if it's recommending favorable recommend that's it recommend favorable action
yeah and so I think we'd be looking at April 28th okay if um town meeting is the 19th and 20th definitely the 19th and 20th um possibly the 21st depending on how it
goes um the Third week of May so I would say yeah that last week of April the 28th okay 28th is a subay is no it's Monday 27th is a Sunday you're right
because 21st is Easter so 28 wait the 20th is Easter oh okay my calendar is all messed up 18th is Good Friday okay 18th is Good Friday yep oh so 21st is Monday 2 got it okay so yeah so I would
say keep April 28th open MH for a separate public hearing um for the for the zoning bylaws and I'll look to do like a a community Forum that be great probably yeah like we did
last year I think was very good with the MBTA communities thing because there was like 30 people here yeah I think that was great hopefully you know it won't be as doubt it'll be as involved this year as it was last year you know it's probably for the better
yeah um okay and uh there they'll probably be it would be good because there might be some questions regarding Adu and the new state regulations and how we need to comply with them so I'll look to do a community Forum probably the week of April 7th okay um and and
that way um people can air up their questions comments and concerns in advance of the public hearing MH and look to just answer there any burning questions there so that it doesn't consume all of our time at the
public maybe you and I can can kind of finalize these red lines Coast a flood area that's that's just done um the Adu I think with just the the minor new language Edition that we talked about for short-term rentals Y and then the um so send those off right to the next
meeting and then we'll just have to finalize how we want to address the three different kind of scenarios we could have for site plan special permits can create like a few different Redline versions it's really just that it's 5400 is a section in the bylaw and then once
we amended in the bylaw we just have to go into our rules and regulations separate doent yeah and that we can do in a meeting ourselves post town meeting but I'll just pull that one page out of the bylaw and create like three different iterations of it maybe perfect that'd be great just so when we or in
that meeting we've got whatever it's going to be and some variation of it cool you're ready to go that all right cool sweet I think that's all we got on us all right someone can motion to
adjourn second all right all those in favor thank you cool