Oh, we're good. Okay. All right. We'll try that again. Uh, okay. We're going to start tonight's meeting and we will start with roll call. Angela, can you hear us? >> Yes, I can. Can you hear me? >> Oh, yeah. >> Loud and clear. >> Right. Sorry. Can you turn it up a
little bit now? It's a little too >> I'm here. >> I think there we go. Okay, Jerry, you want to just go down the line? >> Uh, Jar Jerma present. Joe Sheridan >> Arian Party present. >> Welcome, Arian, our newest member. >> Thank you.
>> Um, all right. So, should we wait for Bill or I >> Yeah, hold on one moment. >> Another minute maybe. He gets tied up in, you know, traffic a
lot this time of night. So, I wonder if I should text him. I can't imagine he was caught up in all that stuff in Cambridge. So, um >> yeah. >> Is it an issue, Christie, if we go out of order on
>> um you could start potentially with approval of past meeting minutes? >> Yeah, let's just let's do that. Would you unscrew that? >> Oh, yeah, sure. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, so we'll move to approval of the past meeting minutes. Um, I don't know if everybody had a
chance to look at them. They're a bit long. Uh, so I was thinking maybe, um, if folks did have a chance to look at them, then we could provide those comments. If not, maybe given the length of them, we uh, we just let everybody
know that they're there. They can send you comments, Christa, and then that the next meeting we can approve them all if that >> is that. Okay. >> Yeah. I >> Perfect. >> I think that would be better than us reading it, you know, live. Um
>> Okay. >> Are we going to are we going to um to email Christa that we've read them or I think we still need to take a vote to approve Yeah, we'll take a vote to approve, but if everybody could just uh review them and if you have any comments, >> send them in. If you don't send them in, we'll just assume no comments and then
>> sounds good. >> Krista can you can send us around track changes or something. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um >> well, what do you think? >> So, I I have not heard from Bill yet. Angela, I don't know if you've had a
chance to hear from him. >> Yeah, let me try let me try and text him again. >> Okay. >> I feel like we could at least probably move on to 80 Puritan since we've um >> you know heard that one before. Uh so
let's do that. Okay. So uh then uh we will open the hearing for uh petition 2521 80 Puritan Road by Scott B. Miller requesting a site plan special permit to construct a porch and a new gabled roof resulting in approximately 754 square
feet of additional living area within the top story of the existing structure in the A3 zoning district at 80 Puritan Road. Um and uh I know that you submitted the new plans uh so thank you for doing that. I don't know if you want to, you know,
add anything or you don't have to, but >> yeah, I submitted the new plans. Uh, we >> there was an issue on the square footage. Uh, so we got that at 748. >> So that and I don't know if there was an
issue on the height, but that's in the site plan as well. >> Yeah. Okay. Now, I think the issue on the height was simply the um the calculations that look different on various plans. Um which I I think look
okay on this one. Um go ahead. Sorry, Joe. I was just going to say um if with with that then I you know I was actually going to ask you and juror Angela um if you had any further comments because I feel like on this one
that was sort of what we were down to. Uh >> yeah, I mean I still I'm just going to look at this again because I I calculated again off the um the drawings that you just sent us on the 6th
and I got to say I'm still I'm still I'm still getting um a different number and you know I just don't know. Um I think I'm doing it the right way. I mean, I'm doing it the way I'd calculate anything else, but I'm still coming to a
total of 858 square ft, which is basically 104 feet over where you're, you know, where you're allowed to be. And you know, I've even been looking in the bylaw to see um you know, if we have any wiggle room on
this, and I just don't see it because it's actually in in the definitions and descriptions that, you know, it's not a number that we um it's not listed as a dimensional regulation that the zoning board can grant any relief on. Um
you know, I just uh I don't know. And uh Jar, I don't know if you've had a chance to take a look at it because I don't want to be the only one who knows. >> What is confusing here? >> I'm not seeing the change. Um because the 7 foot2 height
has the floor plan has the floor plan diminished? >> Yeah, he shrank it. Yeah. And then you got to take out the closets and you know any sloping areas. So once you once you do that, you know, that's that's when he got down
to 748. >> But you calculated and it's not 748, Angela, >> right? I got 858. Um, yeah, I got 858. And I used basically, so I'm going to tell you what I used just so that we're,
you know, you have a right to know exactly how I went about this. So, if you want to take a look at your um A10, the drawing A10 on your plans dated um 56. So, I'm looking at your third floor.
>> Let's let me know when you're there and then I can >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Angela. >> Okay. So, so as you're looking at it, I first calculated the transep area. Okay. So left to right, a bedroom, you know, hallway into the into the extension of
the room, not including the deck. And I was basically using 10 ft by uh what is that? 35t 8 and 1/2 in. And based on that count, I took that rectangular space, which is kind of the
cleanest space there. And based on that I got 358 um within you know an inch to half an inch or so square feet. Okay. Then I went box by box. I did the living area just the living area which would be 18t
3 and 1/2 in by 15t 1 and 1/2 in. And I did that calculation and I got >> Yes. >> There's an error in that though. It's actually an arrow or it's sort of a random thing on the drawing, but that 18 foot three and a half, if you look at
the arrows that are attached to it, that is landing in some random spot in the hall or in the in the eaves. >> Okay. So, how much am I looking at? probably more like >> well there's no there's no dimension
lines on it but if you did the 12 if if you did the 12 and a half >> on the other >> not 12 yeah it's 12 feet 8 and 1/2 in which is much narrower than the other one >> right but if you if you
>> let's even say 13 feet for argument sake just I understand where you're going >> yeah there's there's a lot of dimensions missing but um if you called that out at 14 F feet and then count it, you'd be getting closer. I don't know what those I think that's just a a measurement error.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I think you're right. And so, but I'm still looking at 15t one and a half inches on the the depth into the building. Correct. That looks like that. >> That 15 and a half is correct. And the back 17 foot one and a half is correct.
Um, some of this seems to be legacy because the section is still showing that 183 and a half being occupiable space on the on the building SO1. >> So that's probably where that 183 and a half is coming in. >> Yeah. And >> how it's got transposed on the plan.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. And this this section um >> I see. Yeah. >> I mean this is this has not been altered from the last the last time because it is showing that there's the 183 and a half. You're right. It's probably it just got >> transposed. And again, I think the
conversation we had is this is showing uh the top of the wall at 7 foot2, which isn't necessary. Um so you're it sort of has been over reduced. Um >> what is it 73 chair?
>> I'm sorry. What >> is is it 73 that we're looking at? >> Well, it's 7 foot2, but but you can slope a wall before that. I mean it doesn't that doesn't have to be the lowest point on a wall to to use >> in order for us to Right. But according
for us to measure it is that's right and that's all that matters is what I'm measuring. >> Yeah. But I think I think where like the way in which to maximize the the usable space was actually to
shorten the building. Um, and then bring the height of that knee. You've got a knee a quote unquote knee wall at seven foot two, which isn't necessary. And it's it's in, you know, especially the main living space in there. It's in a a room that has uh
studio ceilings. So that could be we are measuring where the 7 foot2 is, but that 7 foot.2 two could be on the ceiling plane, not on the wall plane in order to calculate that space. So, we wouldn't be calculating the space under 7 foot two, >> right? I know that.
>> So, you don't need to pull >> you don't need to pull the walls in. You need to pull the ceiling down and you're you're not going to perceive it because you still have the >> the the raised ceiling,
>> right? Um but as as this is the set isn't matching between section and plan. >> So what isn't matching? So if you if you look go to um so one. >> Yeah.
>> This is a section of the building and it's showing the walls here. >> Yeah. >> 18t >> at 18 foot. There's the 18 foot. Now, if you go over here, >> there's the dimension of the 18 foot, but it's measured between that line and arbitrary,
>> which is arbitrary. >> So, they so what they reduced the plan, but didn't match the dimension lines up with the reduced space, >> right? So, you know, therefore, what I'm
getting is is something that's 104t in excess of the 50%. And the issue here is that you know we the planning board doesn't have any we don't have any waiver capacity to >> sorry Angela say that again
>> we don't have the capacity to wave that um 50% and I'm just looking at if zoning can use it can wave it under dimensional relief and I don't see that in here either. So, um,
you know, I just don't see it anywhere where I the only thing I see is the regulation about what a half story is. And a half story is 50% of the floor beneath it. 50% or less of the floor beneath it. And it's in it's a
definition. It's in the bylaw. There's just there's no there's nothing in there that comes under um that allows us to create any kind of dimensional relief. Not that I could find. I mean, Christa, I you know, maybe you can look at this in a different light, but I just don't see it.
>> Well, I don't think but we don't need to create dimensional relief, right? Like, >> but I mean, I'm just saying that, you know, we keep coming back to those points. It's just >> the the you know, the issue is that the building really should be built at the
end of the day. Uh >> I don't I it doesn't I don't know how >> line up the uh >> with the space requirements. >> I do think it might be reduced though. It just is the dimensions are off. So like if you did a if we had the
dimensions correct might be come it might come out to the 748. >> Okay. So in other words, you thinking if they sort of reme-measured it and recalculated their measurements here that it would it would reflect >> I think Jar's right. If you look at that
128 and a half at the top and you just assume that that living now is supposed to be 128 and a half and we start to do the math that way, I think it's going to come out >> right. >> Yeah, I guess that's sort of that's right. And I think that's sort of my point too is that what you know I think
we can approve it probably conditioning it on the fact that these are cleaned up and that a building permit can't be pulled you know which it can't be pulled anyways >> uh unless >> the plans satisfied the intensity requirements.
What is the what of what is the intent of the halfstory square footage limitations? Because it appears to me that that is like the intent of that is to minimize building
height >> and it's more minimize the massing in the residential zones. It's like that everywhere in in all of the residential zones. So, I I guess the reason I'm I'm bringing that up is by pulling the walls
in without lowering the building, there's the it completely defeats the purpose of the intent of minimizing the massing because what we're doing >> Koopa on top too. So, that makes it look kind of, you know, very tall.
>> I'll be I'll be frank with you, the Koopa is balanced because it's in the center of the mass. These are the these are the pieces that come to the edges of of the mass. So by not lowering the roof
and just reducing what we carve out as living space inside of it, it's counter to why that that law is there, >> right? >> So regardless of why it is there, um,
you know, and I I hear you, Jar. I think I know in a perfect world we have a very logical explanation. I um I have no answer for you. I don't know if it's in mass building code. I can take a look there. >> Yeah. But I guess my my point there
though is that that's a little bit outside of our >> that's not really that's not within our scope tonight. Um >> Right. >> But is is are is everyone comfortable with the height? Well, I think that's something building department has to >> Well, I mean,
>> right. And the the building commissioner has reviewed these plans. >> Yeah. The I'm sorry, what? >> The building commissioner has reviewed these plans. >> So, the because the height calculation has to be based on the dormer. Um because of So, it's it's from the
top. So, it's the 34 foot five, which is the center line between the top and the bottom of the dormer because we had talked about trying to lower the house and bringing that down. So, the calculation would also bring us a lower height there. Uh, the Koopa is not going
to be counted in because it's it's uh a mechanical ventilation. So, I mean, we can do this, but I I'm I'm just going to state that, you know, it's it's more than just what the word of it is. It's what the intent
of it is. And if the intent is to keep the massing, and we're concerned about the massing next to the neighboring buildings, um just to like move this forward, I don't think it's it's great policy on our part. um because it is a
case where we have a number of concerns and we also have a set that is inconsistent. So if it's built off section it's going to be one thing. If it's built off plan it's going to be another thing. And you know this is from a professional
and it's it's it's just a I I do really have a problem saying to stamp it and move it forward. um we keep coming back to it, but the problems don't get solved. So, that's where my that's where my concerns
are on this. >> That's fair. Um I'm going to let's put a pin in this for a second. I'm just going to open it up to public comment. Um I'll start in the room. Is there anybody here on this?
No. Okay. Is anybody online uh here to speak about this petition? Okay. If not, then um >> I mean the other caveat here is that Chris and I talked and I since it's a continuation I shouldn't be voting on this.
>> Yeah, exactly. So >> Bill here too >> for Bill needs to be here for an approval vote because it requires four voting members. No word from Bill. >> No, I didn't hear back. >> I didn't hear back. I'll check my email,
too, just to be >> sure. Uh, >> okay. Um, >> yeah, I didn't get anything from him. >> All right. So, at a minimum, I guess we'd have to
continue this. Anyways, I would like to try to get this petition done uh since it's been >> in front of us for quite some time. I mean, you know, as far as as far as I'm concerned, like I feel like, you know, we there's there's been a lot of improvement from where we started. Um, I
I hear what you're saying, juror, about the inconsistencies, but they don't seem uh so material to me given all the other site plan special permit conditions. Um, and even though it sort of goes without
saying, I'd be willing to approve this, uh, as it is just under the condition, which isn't even really necessary, that, you know, the building permit can't be issued until consistent plans are presented. And we could >> I I would say that it has to conform
with the exterior. you know, the there can't be any changes made to whatever we're showing here for the exterior because that really goes to what is in our jurisdiction in terms of making sure that um you know the project's appropriate for the neighborhood and its
character and that sort of thing. So, I would, you know, uh, if we were to do that, then I'd want to make a motion that said we could, um, we could, uh, you know, approve a site plan special permit under these set conditions. And
the set conditions determined by the planning board would be that um that, you know, we confirm that the height is um that the height me the height measurements from every plan set. So we, you know, the most recent plan sets
matching with the, you know, each floor matching to each floor on this cons on this, excuse me, May 6 set of plans have the identical locations of where the measurement was taken from. In other
words, the 34T 5 in of to the midline of the highest dormer is consistent on every single drawing whether I'm looking at the side, the back or the front. And um those in some drawings it's shown at a different
level. and that all of the other calculations, specifically the calculations that show the reduction in the um the livable floor space on the third floor are corrected and recalculated to show exactly how they
were calculated so that we have um we have clean numbers there because I I just you know I understand how that mistake could have happened but I don't want to approve a plan that looks like that. >> Can I can I make a quick comment? Yeah, sure.
>> We we have a survey plan. It says 29 ft from the average grade to the peak existing. >> We're going to rip off the entire roof. >> Yep. >> So, we have to go by the plans 345 to
that uh you know to the midpoint. >> Yeah. I think I think >> so. You know, you see what I'm saying? We're dealing with uh we have to do that. We have to have a survey at the end with those measurements. >> Yeah, I know. I think what they're saying though is that
they're not sure given the discrepancies between what's shown on the inside and the outside. >> Well, I think that's your biggest your biggest, you know, argument. >> That is the that is the issue, right? I mean, I think if those lined up, then I think what you're I mean, you know,
you're not hearing anything else. I'm not hearing anything else other than that right now, right? But, >> you know, I'm willing to accept that the that the numbers work on the third floor. Okay, I can understand that. I'm willing to accept it, but I want to see the proof. I want to see the the
drawings, you know, resubmitted not looking any different. I want to see these drawings with the correct measurements and the correct numbers on them and that it they all, you know, true out to the the 758 that you're that you're claiming is the size of the third
floor. And otherwise it's in, you know, I can't sign it because it's an indefensible plan for me. I mean, just I don't not comfortable doing that. And if somebody does ever contest it and say, "Well, this guy was able to do it. You know, why can't I? We just can't. We
can't. We have no way to defend that." >> So, you're saying you would not approve until there are new plans submitted? >> No. No. He can. I'm willing to to accept I want I don't want I'd like to have, you know, confirmation from Christa who
can speak with the building inspector and be sure that all of these corrections are made. >> Sure. >> So, you're saying, Angela, that you you'd be willing to approve, but on the condition that these third floor plans are presented before the permits pulled that line up.
>> That's right. And that those numbers are clear and that they true out that they show me the calculations that true out to the to the number. >> Yeah. >> And then I'm I'm fine. And then if you know if uh Bridge signs off on it and Christa can see it clearly then then I'm okay releasing that. I don't know if the
rest of the board is but that would be all right with me. >> Okay. Um unfortunately Bill's not here so we can't approve this tonight. Um >> okay so why don't we have them in that case? So where are we going now? Do we have another meeting in May? I know we
have town meeting on >> I don't think we have another >> next week for God's sake. Yeah, we have next week and then we don't have another meeting. Um oh gosh uh when's our we just got to we have to get these
plans right. I'm sorry it's been such a slog but I just you know we're really trying to just get this straight. It's the planning board's on June 8th. Is that Do I have the right date for that? That's correct.
>> Um >> Bill not here. And I mean so three of us, right? Because um Ari can't vote. >> Yeah. >> And um >> so I think you know we would have to continue this anyways. Um I think you've heard the position of everyone. I think
if in the interim it'd be possible to get plans that you know make everything tick and tie together that would be helpful. Um >> and now that if you have time just send them out to us again because then we can vote we can vote on a clean set just to
fix the fix your calculations on this plan and and we'll be okay. >> Um but >> don't change anything else on the plan. I would also be happy to and I would invite you if you wanted to if the architect wants to talk to us for just clarification on this.
>> Yes. Yeah. >> Um there's there's also windows that show in plan that don't show an elevation. There's a lot of stuff in here that um really need some attention because these are construction documents. Um so it's very hard when
things get built um if you say, "Oh, well it's there on page this. I I know it didn't show up over here, but it's just not typically how um it's really not typically what should be approved is when there's when there's,
you know, consistent inconsistenc and and >> I made I made them last time. >> Oh, that's right. >> That's why I'd be I'd be happy to talk through them with the architect, but we sat here last time and marked up drawings. Yes, >> I remember. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh with that, is there a motion to continue? So, >> yeah. Motion to continue to our uh June 8th meeting. >> All right. Is there a second? Second. All right. Uh all those in favor
>> Jarma Joe Sheridan I >> and I abstain. Arian peri. >> Okay. Great. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, okay. Uh, the next item that we have, uh, we'll open
up the hearing for petition 26. >> Do you want to go back to, um, voting for to elect new officer positions? >> I don't know. What do you think we should do? I feel like um, >> do you want to do you want to be acting chair for this meeting and we could save
it till the next meeting? >> Sure. Maybe we should. Okay. >> We can put it on the next agenda. >> Okay. Um and you'll remain um acting chair as vice chair. >> Okay. Um yeah, I mean I was thinking that maybe we could go to the end because at least we could wait. I mean it doesn't seem
like Bill's going to be here, but we can at least wait and at least we have people here. >> Yeah, we can move it to the end of the agenda. >> These other ones without there being an issue. >> Um okay. All right. Uh we'll now open up the hearing for petition 2607 by Cheryl
Baronbomb requesting a site plan special permit to construct an 828 square foot ADU addition and deck to the existing single family residents in the flood plane overlay district in the A1 zoning district at 3 Robin Lane. Um so I'll
>> thank you. >> Thanks for coming. I'll turn it over to you. >> Oh, can you hear me? Okay, perfect. Thank you, acting chair, members of the board. I'm attorney Matthew Wolverton. I'm here with the uh owner of the property, Cheryl Baron Bomb, and I I believe we have the architect on the
team's call as well. Um so, Three Robin Lane is a single family home. It's located in the A1 zoning district. The lot is a precon pre-existing non-conforming lot that contains 10,289 square feet of land with 80 ft of frontage. The existing structure on the
lot is dimensionally conforming and there is an existing shed on the lot that is located within the rear yard setback and that shed is to be removed as part of this proposal. Um so the owner proposes a dimensionally conforming addition to the home with a separate attached one-bedroom accessory
dwelling unit as shown on the plans. The proposed addition will be dimensionally conforming in all respects including height setbacks and open space requirements. The ADU will consist of 828 square ft of additional living space. Um, not that it's relevant, but
the but the the purpose behind this ADU for this particular homeowner is that her husband has suffered from a stroke and is currently residing in a assisted care facility. Um, so the idea is is that this would provide additional living space for her to bring her husband home. Um and that's why if you
note on the plans there's a proposed lift and uh some additional you know space included with the bathroom, the kitchen etc. Um to to make it as accessible to the extent that it can be uh for him given the current situation. Um and then with that if the board has
any questions we'd happy to answer those. >> Great. Thank you. Um I'll open it up the board. I was trying to understand where the I know you've got it on, you know, it's
it's split levels and so forth. So, um I'm just trying to make sure I'm I'm reading this correctly and understanding where the entrance of the ADU is. >> Okay. Okay. So, if you're uh facing the front of the home, >> there would be an entrance to the left
hand side that includes a concrete ramp coming up from the driveway. So, there'd be a parking space there for the ADU component. >> Oh, I see. Talking. All right. >> Yep. Yeah. >> It's on the left hand side, but toward toward the back of the existing structure. I think it's most visible on
the site plan. Um there where you can see that that would be the entrance. >> Okay. So, um, the end, so the property line that sort of abuts the park. Is that what we're talking about? That side of the house? >> Um, no. It would be the property line
that abuts five Robin Lane. So, if you're if you're standing Yeah. If you're standing on Robin Lane facing, it would be a separate entrance. >> I see it now. >> Yeah. To the left hand side. >> Okay. I see it now. Thank you. Yeah. I'm was looking at the wrong
drawing. Okay. And so the lift, you've got the lift going up from from there. Um I'm not kind of seeing that. Um
>> maybe it's just kind of I'm not looking at it correctly. I'm looking at A6. >> Okay, cool. And so if I'm driving in along that, I'm I'm sort of I'm looking at the the building sideways. Actually, the front of the house is on my left, >> correct?
>> And the rear of the yard to my right. And so that first turn in there is the where the driveway would be. And so I'm going along there. And um maybe I just don't see the entrance. I see the stairs going up the back.
>> Is it where the roof is? Yeah, it would be where it's identified on the top of A6. If you look on the top of the sheet where it says roof below, >> that's the entrance. >> That would be the entrance. >> I got it. I got it. Okay, perfect. Thank you.
I'm got my little laptop in front because the camera is not working on the big one and I'm trying to like look at the screen and back and not uh seeing anything too well, but I see it now. Thank you very much. What's the square footage of the house as it exists today?
Do you know? >> You know that. Do we have um >> I don't know if if Gary the architects on the call. >> Yeah, >> he could answer that question. >> I don't know. Gary can answer that. >> Oh, yeah. >> Hi, this is Gary here. Just bear with me
a second. Uh let me look it up. >> Yeah, sure. >> Hi all, I'm Gary Canon, the architect. Okay. Um, by the way, the entry is shown on A5. >> Yeah, that's where >> below and then A6. >> Yeah, A6 is a half level up and that's
the ADU level. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The existing house um is 30. Let's see. Existing house is 3571 gross square feet. Oh, the existing is 3571 and the
ADU is 828. >> Yeah. >> No, the ADU is 828 ft. >> Yeah. >> Um but but the total addition because we have to, you know, have the stairs that goes up from grade to the ADU level including the lift. That's 161 square
ft. >> Okay. >> So that's how we get to a total um >> square footage of 1127. Okay. >> But the ADU is under 900. So the the lift and and the exterior pertinances would be
uh I imagine not included in the gross square footage. Is that correct? >> For the >> square footage of the ADU >> for for the square foot the gross square footage of the ADU. Yes, that's correct.
Sorry. You said the existing square footage is what you said just because it's I see it stamped on here. >> Yeah. So he said uh >> 3098 >> 3571. >> Okay. It's showing here as 3098. It's it's just behind the not for price the pricing set thing.
I >> think it's 3098. It's showing 3098.8. You're saying 35. And I know you have the fence along the side. Um, is there any plan to put in anything else there just along the neighbors or
anything >> like >> like I don't know trees or plantings or anything. I don't know how tall the fence is. >> Oh, there's no plans for Yeah. I mean, I I don't have a >> money for that or anything right now. I mean, just want to build the thing for him to get him inside. There's no like
extra stuff or anything right now. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's nothing been working on this for a long time. Trying to get him home. >> Yeah. >> And that lift is just to negotiate the the the split level, right? Like it's okay. >> Yeah,
>> it looks that Well, it looks that way to me. I'm assuming that's I was assuming the same thing. Sorry, I shouldn't have answered. >> With Gary, the architect? Yes, that's correct. It's just servicing from the grade level halfway up to the ADU level. >> Okay.
>> And have you spoken to your neighbors? I assume. >> Yeah, you have good relationships. I mean, they all know Mark, my they all know him and Yeah, they want him to come home and >> Yeah, I'm sure. Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> now I know you're in a flood zone back there. So um I can see you've elevated,
you know, you've got this elevated up a bit and you've got the the deck elevated up and the other addition is elevated. So um is there any change in in drainage off your roof? Um anything like that since we now do we do have more um
imperous area just based upon that. So, I don't know whether you've had a chance to the architects had a chance to take a look at that and um also where the where the utilities are going to be like is there an additional AC unit or anything like that? >> Um I can speak to that if you want uh
Gary again the architect. Um yes, so we tried to keep the amount of imperous um material to a minimum. So the driveway is asphalt for 23 feet by 12 ft. That's because obviously a wheelchair so it can't be a gravel.
>> It did extend from there to the street a gravel driveway. Um so it was as much previous material as possible. Um on site there was already existing area drain. You can see that on sheet let me
see here 85. There's already an area drain um about centered underneath the ADU. Um, and there's a whole piping uh distribution to collect water and bring it to that drain >> and a sump pump to pump it out. So, we
do have downspouts uh in some locations and we're going to be tying into that. >> Great. Great. And in terms of lighting, you um I doubt there'll be a necessity for, you know, u additional exterior lighting. We just ask that you uh respect the dark
skies lighting policy that the town has. In other words, um all all lighting is is um angled downward that your neighbor won't be having any lighting pitched in their direction um on the house. I'm I'm I'm um
Okay. >> Yeah, that's that's consistent with what we have. >> Great. Okay. And sorry, Gary, did you say are the are there going to be new utilities or and then if there are >> Yes, there's there's a new um heat pump that's uh sidewall mounted above the
flood plane level. >> Okay. >> And if you if you go to sheet A6, >> um you'll see it right above the lift. There's a note that says wall mounted condenser and it's a a light gray box
that's kind of shown. It's a little thin, but it's wall mounted above the flip plane. >> Okay. >> That's the only additional onsite equipment. >> What's the concrete slab on A5 for? Is that existing or No, that's
>> Oh, that's uh we have a stairs steps going down. >> Oh, for the deck. Got it. >> And you can see that on A6. >> Thank you. Okay. So, I just um I have to ask because this is it's you know being proposed as an ADU. So, there are
essentially you know supposed to be two um independent units that are you know it's not it's not an extension it's not an addition to your house it's an ADU. So, it could be it's like a separate house in itself. So I I just would like
to understand where the you know where the doors where the separation between your home and the ADU is. >> Okay. I I guess I'll continue on Gary again. Uh so if you go to sheet A6
um this is the same level as the um ADU. So you can see it says open to below. So by the kitchen of the ADU you'll see a swing door. It's number A10. That is the entry door into the ADU that
separates it from the stairs that goes down to the entry unit and separates it going into the existing house. >> Thank you. Are there any other access points into the existing home or is that it?
>> No, there's one more on sheet 85. Okay, >> you'll see door Z uh D04 that's also accessible off that stairwell. Again, has nothing to do with the ADU. ADU is a floor above. Uh but
you can get from the entry into the uh that into the house from from that level as well. >> Okay. But essentially if you know if it were not her husband living there per for example there is a way to completely
seal off that unit from the rest of the house. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. That's what I needed to know. >> And still maintain proper egress for safety reasons. Correct. >> Correct. >> I don't have any other questions. Any
other questions? Was going to open it up to public comment. >> I unless you had any uh comments from Butters or anything like that. I you know this I don't have any other >> and the roof line being taller. I mean this is me catching up to speed but that's okay. We as long as it's within the code. It's just taller than the
existing building. The peak >> it's still less than there have a 35 foot. >> Right. Okay. >> Um so >> okay. Um, with that I'll open it up to public comment. Are either of you here
for No. Okay. Uh, anyone online here to uh comment on this petition? Okay. Doesn't seem that way. Um, any other comments? No. No.
Um, all right. In that case, uh I'm just going to run through the uh special permit requirements. Okay. So, um the requirements for approval of a site plan special permit
are uh minimize the volume of cut and fill. Um there really isn't any cut and fill. The number of removed trees, there aren't any. Um, the area of wetland >> relocated tree, but relocated.
>> Okay, sure. Um, good point. Um, uh, the area of wetland vegetation displaced, the extent of storm water flow increased from the site, soil erosion, and threat of air and water pollution. I think we've addressed all of that with the drainage comments that we just went
over. uh maximize pedestrian vehicular safety both on-site and egressing from it. I think there's really a change in the um egress. So, not really applicable. Uh minimize obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations.
The height is within the um you know requirements and I don't think any neighbors have come up with any issues there. So, I don't think we have a problem there. Minimize visual intrusion by controlling the visibility of parking, storage or other outdoor service areas viewed from
public ways or premises residentially used or zoned. Um, again, not really an issue there and not much is changing on that front. Uh, minimize glare from headlights and lighting intrusion. I think the only thing we spoke about there was uh dark sky compliance. Um,
otherwise uh there's not much in the way of lighting intrusion. minimize unreasonable departure from the character materials and scale of the buildings in the vicinity as viewed from public ways and places. Um I don't think there is much of a variance and you've done a nice job making it consistent
with what's there. Uh minimize contamination of groundwater from on-site wastewater disposal systems. Uh I don't think that's applicable. Ensure compliance with the provisions of the zoning bylaw, including parking and landscaping. Um you've determined that
it is compliant. minimize adverse traffic impact of the proposed project. There really is no traffic impact and minimize the hazard of coastal flooding. Uh and I think we've spoken about that in terms of the measures you've taken to reduce uh any reduction in pvious area.
So with that does is there a motion? >> Um yeah I mean I have a I have a comment first of all I'd be happy to make a motion but I I have a a question. So, I am one of the um I am a nonarchitect,
so I have no um business asking you this, but I'm going to ask anyway. Um when I look at this house, and I you know, it's a split level. I live right nearby. We have a ton of split split levels in our neighborhood. So, you know, the roof line that was originally
there on top of your garage, um, and and you have like the new ADU roof line behind it, which kind of pops up in the back is, um, they're they're very different. And I'm wondering, was there any reason that you would wouldn't have wanted to sort of lower the roof a bit
on that part of the AGU and and and you know, have it angle outward so that it matched the existing roof line? it was a little more, you know, compatible with the existing roof line. Now, again, please, you know, forgive the stupid
question because I'm not a design expert. I just thought I'd ask. >> Sure. Sure. Um, a lot of it was driven by um getting as much um height in the cathedral ceilings open space as we could because the unit is small in square footage. So we wanted to increase
the height uh of the the volume of the interior as much as possible. Um so we worked with that. Also the mechanical fan cooler unit is located above the kitchen. Um in order to fit it in with enough uh clearance for headroom for
that fan cooler unit. We had to pop up a little bit above the other peak. Um, and there's most most likely going to be a gable vent as well to allow cross ventilation into that attic area if if we choose to to do that. >> So, what about Can I ask one more stupid
question? So, if I'm looking at A8, for example, and I'm looking at the rear view of this, right? Um, it seems like you can elevate the two take the two edges of the roof and like lift it up almost to to match the existing roof. Do
you know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The the roof line is, believe it or not, very complicated because if you look on sheet A8, >> um you see the extension that goes out over over the deck area. It actually has
to align well, it should align with the fascia of the existing. >> So that dictated a lot of the slopes. Um, so it was and then it on this on the other side it has to loop around to the front of the building and align there. So it was it was a little complicated to
get this to work. >> Thank you for indulging my question. I it was very very nice of you. Thanks. >> No problem. Thank you. >> Um Jared didn't hear anything from you. >> Savor it. Um >> I was going to but
I don't know. >> Yeah. No, no. I um I guess my I just want to say I'm really glad to see ADUs working in situations like this because it really is about people staying in their community and their community being micro. Um so that they have their
neighbors and they have that. So, I'm I'm really glad to see a policy like this working for your family, which is I I think that's that's >> he hasn't be able to come into the house since he had the stroke because of all this. He has never been back into the house. So, >> yeah. No. So, that's that's >> wonderful.
>> That's wonderful. So, that's >> that's what we'd like to see. I'm sorry that this is the reason you're doing it, >> but what a great way forward. So, you know, I'm very pleased with that. I had similar questions on the roof line, but your explanations um sort of answered
those for me. Uh but I feel that the the way that this is tucked all the way at the back of the house, the altering roof line is not going to be present in the front. Um it sort of it is in the in the illustrations, but generally we're not in a drone flying around looking at it,
right? >> Um so I think it will be much more minimized um from there. Um, but no, and I I really appreciate all the work going into dealing with the flood plane, and I noticed how many drains you have in your yard already. Um, so, you know, that
that piece of it, of course, that's great because, you know, this will be where you can all take refuge if we get a big storm. Um, you know, invite your neighbors. Um, but no, I'm I'm I'm happy to see that this is working um and
addressing addressing your needs. Thank you. >> Yeah, me too. Not a lot went into this. >> Yeah. And yeah, we wish you the best obviously. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Um, so if I don't No.
Um, I'd be happy to make a motion if that's where we are at. >> I think so. >> Okay. I'll make a motion that the planning board approve the site plan for five Robin Lane for a host addition that is Robin Lane. Free Robin.
>> Free Robin Lane. >> Oh, sorry. Free Robin Lane. Free Robin Lane >> for a site plan special permit for an accessory dwelling unit. >> Uh, is there a second? >> Second. All right. All those in favor.
>> Angela, yes. >> Jarma, yes. Uh, Joe Sheridan, yes. >> Arian Perty, yes. >> All right. So moved. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Good luck. Good luck. Thank you. >> Thank you all. All right. Um,
before we move on to the next one, I >> got it. >> Christa and I spoke about this a little bit, but there might be um I I think the permit was still required in this instance, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between the Massachusetts general statutes and what we have. And I
think we'll need at some point to have a zoning bylaw to make sure that everything uh aligns in terms of um >> Are we on the ADU still? >> Well, I I'm just saying I'm just saying separately like that's that's closed and >> No, but I mean are we talking about >> we're talking about Yeah. Right. Yeah.
Yeah. Um so I just you know we should just have that on our radar and >> Yeah. And that's probably something that we're going to address at this town meeting. But um >> that's something that um I can talk with the building commissioner and we can draft up
>> some language potentially to make it >> make more sense moving forward um since it's something that we've seen quite a bit this year um as we get more interest in ADUs. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So my quick question just for clarification. So basically because what
was passed by town meeting um the state permits more and therefore overrides it but we should clean it up >> maybe because it's not totally clear like uh you know what if you're doing an ADU and some other stuff like they were doing
>> here right so yeah we just need to clean it up so that it's clear like what are the thresholds for when an ADU is 100% by right and when is it not >> and ju just remind me in the ADU that we p the ADU policy we passed.
>> We had an ADU policy which was the attached ADU which this falls under but my understanding was the >> the one that we added >> was detached ADU. Correct. >> Yeah. You can have either. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Right. Okay. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Um I just wanted to make a note so that it was timely. Uh okay. All right. Uh, now we will open up the hearing for petition 2608 by Jeff Tucker requesting a site plan special permit to raise the roof ridge of the existing
single family residence to expand the attic space resulting in three stories and 92 ft of living space in the A1 zoning district at 11 ULO Street. Mr. Tucker, >> hello everyone. Thank you. Um, by the way, as an aside, Marble Hood just went through the effort that you just
described. So, we had an inconsistent ADU bylaw and they just cleaned it up at town meeting. So, just little bit of >> friendly neighborly advice. >> Um, so I'm here tonight. I believe uh Julie Callum has just landed from uh overseas. So, she's joining us tonight.
Um, our request here is to um put a or essentially to cut the existing roof off of the of an existing home uh and extend that ridge upward um and to create additional square footage in the attic. Uh the existing home is conforming and
it is on a non-conforming lot. All of the work would be happening on the existing footprint. Uh the addition would uh exceed the 500 ft which is why we're here for special permit. We're also going to be exceeding the uh requirement for the 50% uh rule for the
for a third story and we're going to the zoning board for that. We've spoken with the building commissioner about that. Um so we are on ZBA later this month for that effort. Um so this work here uh actually if you can go to the uh cover page please.
One of the things as an architect that I like about the existing building you'll see it in the photograph on the bottom is it has existing uh rafter tails uh on that lower pitched roof. Our plan is to actually preserve that and then install a uh a higher pitched roof to be able to accommodate the dormers that are facing
um Yulo Street. The existing house has a very flat roofed uh shed dormer. I wouldn't even call it a shed, more like a box on the back of the house. Uh that would get extended uh and actually have a a decent pitch uh to it along the
rear. And then again, there's uh the hip dormers and the shed roof on the front. Uh this would create two bedrooms and some living space up on that uh that third floor. Um Julie has two kids uh that are grown now. And so this is to be able to accommodate a kid that wanted to
come home and stay for a little bit longer uh by giving them an independent space. But this is not an ADU. This is purely additional living space within the attic of the home. Um we've provided uh the site plan where you can see that the uh entire addition uh stays within
the uh the setbacks uh um and does not extend out over the uh the um existing footprint either. Uh really the only relevant piece to the in terms of floor plans we provided you with basement first and second floor plans. Uh there's no real changes there. It's it's
primarily the the attic uh level that we'd be changing. Uh can I answer any questions? Well, you answered one question for me, which is why how you can go to the zoning board of appeals for the size of a third of third story, which is
interesting because the your house it's a beautiful home and it it almost begs to to want that extra extra space on top. I I see um you know it certainly uh
doesn't look excessive or anything like that but um that's very interesting. So I wasn't aware of I didn't see that anywhere in the zoning bylaw but that's a whole other issue. Um I was going to ask you oh about um did
you contact the historical commission? >> Uh we have not. We do plan to uh contact contact them due to the roof removal. >> Yeah. >> So the historical commission was actually notified. This was the first permit that was submitted in the online portal. Um so they were actually
notified as a reviewer. Um and they had the comment that um the demolition permit would trigger historical review for this application >> that it would. So this house is on the it's on our historic register. Um
because of the way that the process goes, they were just the comment was to let the applicant know that this will be reviewed when they apply for the demolition permit because that's the way the process is. >> I just I was just curious. It was on the
um it was in the the inventory. Um Okay. >> I don't believe it's actually in the inventory. I think it just is because of the age of the house, I believe. >> Yes. Yeah. Over 75 years. It it could be they'll do their review. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> And actually to kind of further on the uh the question that you had about the 50%, we actually did do a study of of staying below that. We're going to exceed the 50% by 200 square ft. The second floor is 1,400 ft² and our attic uh square footage will will be around
900 ft². Uh we did do a study to try and stay within it, but it did not fit the need for the owner. Uh so we did need you know again we did do a study but uh we need to exceed that. >> Okay. >> But they but the building commissioner
told you that you could go to zoning for that then that's um that's what I wasn't aware of. Not that you know >> he did. Yeah. That was an early conversation with him. So yes. >> Yes. So, this is on the agenda for the um May 26th zoning board meeting, and
they're requesting relief um to go from 2.5 stories to three stories, even though it doesn't exceed the maximum height. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I don't have any questions to be honest. I mean, you're not I mean, it's
clearly within the footprint of the existing building. Um, >> how does how does this work? If he's going to ZBA after, like if we were to approve this and ZBA were to deny it, then what happens? >> Do we know, Christa?
>> So, they could either revise the plans and come back, but it wouldn't be able to move forward without the ZBA approval. >> They'd have to come back to us, too. Like, >> uh, they would have to revise the plans and come back here with new plans. >> Okay. >> Right. What happens is um Ari that the
the our plans after we approve let's let's say we approve the site plan special permit with condition you know condition that it has to go to ZBA that goes to the clerk's office and that remains at the clerk's office nothing is getting processed or certified until
they get the decision from ZBA if those decisions don't match then it has to you know then it has to go back to both boards if the decisions do match then it gets filed at that time together. So there's one filing with um the the
registry. >> Yeah. Right down the street from this there was a very similar project done on Bradley almost identical. So I just wondered what the outcome >> it's it's within the last five years I think but >> it's at the intersection of Bradley and
whatever that dog leg youo goes into. >> Yeah. Uh Bradley >> it's right the it's right at the bike path. The house that's right at the bike path. Oh, right, right, right. Yeah, I remember that house. Right. Okay. >> They put the two dormers and then I think there's even a cricket in the middle, too. >> They raised the roof.
>> My only question, uh, is, um, it looks like the the generator and the AC units are moving, right? >> They are. >> Um, is anything going to be done to screen those with the neighbor? >> Yes. Uh, if you'll notice that they're actually in a planting bed. The plan is to, uh, change those plantings. So, we have some evergreen plantings uh,
screening those from the street and from the neighbor. Great. >> Okay. And did you have any comments from your neighbors? Any >> uh Julia has reached out to her neighbors, but she has been away. So, she's had uh brief conversations with them, but we certainly plan to have a more engaged conversation prior to ZBA.
>> Okay. >> Christa, we didn't receive anything, right? >> Um so, I did receive Sorry, hold on one second. um a question about this um 20 minutes
before the meeting um and asking where to look at the plans from some neighbors that said they would not be able to be here today. Um they they'll also be notified of the the ZBA meeting. >> Yeah. Um, I did receive some phone calls um, just asking about for me to explain
the height difference in the plans that I walked through with them. >> Um, once they learned that the height of the house isn't actually going up that much, um, >> it, you know, it's not going up a whole story, it's only going up a few inches. Um, they didn't seem to have any
comments. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Jeff. I have a quick drawing question. >> Yes. >> And it's just because my I'm having a hard time >> because you teach architecture. >> I have a nightmare. Um the the uh roof plan. >> Yes.
>> Which is the the roof plan is is is this diagrammatic because it doesn't match the elevations. >> Um how the existing lower sloped roof is meeting the higher roof. Um
in the elevations. It's it's extending there's a there's an eve under the new roof and it's extending out beyond the diagonal line. So, if you look at page six, you'll see that the the original roof is
coming right to the corner and on the actual um elevations, the roof is pulled out so that there's >> Yes, I see that. Yeah. essentially we we pushed out the rake further than that. You're you're correct. And it's also
>> um it this in in the in on page six it looks like we have a bastard hip there and we don't. In other words, a hip that the the angles are not the same. >> Um we'll certainly fix that. It should be 45 coming into there and that would >> show that the the gable actually sticks out past. Okay.
>> Yeah. Good. >> That's just a uh an error in drafting it. >> We've actually seen >> it's it's a really complex intersection. It is >> visualize. >> Yeah. >> So, it's it's one of those things that I think in in this plan, it's very straightforward, but then you have no
absolutely no overhang on >> those gable ends. So, good. >> We've actually since switched to a BIM software where the the errors should be less, but yeah, that's just it's purely a drafted uh roof plan. >> Yeah, it was mostly a it was mostly a curiosity um because I was trying to get
my head around it. But I think the the the scale is looking great. Um, it does not I mean the the the variance of the dormers I think helps minimize the the scale of it. And I'm very glad
that you're hanging on to um to that original roof line um >> because that is referencing uh lots of things that were being done um with roofs >> on houses back in the 1910 to 1930
range. So it's a it's a nice detail in there. Well, it helps make it helps keep it addic looking like an attic as opposed to a threetory wedding cake, you know, >> right? >> But that beautiful shadow. Sad to lose
that. >> Okay, with that, um, I'm just going to open it up to public comment quickly. Um, or longer if people have things to add. You guys aren't here for public comment on this. Yeah, the neighbor
to see the drawings. >> Okay. >> Understand what's going on in the house. >> Okay. Sure. Um, anyone online here to comment? Doesn't seem that way. Um, okay. Then I think this is probably a good
time to just run through the uh requirements. So um oh yeah uh so starting with uh 5481 of the bylaw um so the project needs to
minimize the volume of cut and fill the number of removed trees uh 6 in caliper or larger the length of removed stone walls the area of wetland vegetation displaced the extent of storm water flow increase from the site soil erosion threat of air and water pollution this is all within the envelope of the house
so I don't think any of this is applicable. Maximize pedestrian vehicular safety. There's no uh impact. Um minimize obstruction of scenic views like we've discussed. You know, if anyone has anything to say, feel free to
chime in uh on the board, but um uh we're not going above the existing height, so there really is no uh uh intrusion beyond what's already there. >> Can can I ask a really quick question of Jeff? Um, are the chimneys being extended? >> It looks like. >> Oh, okay.
>> Yes, we are going above the existing height. We are not exceeding the maximum height. >> Okay. We're >> That's a good point there. Um, okay. So, there is some potential obstruction, but I think uh it's minimal and um >> and you're not really use.
>> Yeah. >> And chimneys are we don't include the committed height. So, >> uh No, but that was a good call. >> Good call. >> Uh minimize glare from headlights. there's no impact on headlights because there's no traffic impacts. Um, minimize
unreasonable departure from the character materials and scale of the buildings in the vicinity. I think we've all said that this looks great and is in line with the character. So, no issue there. >> Minimize contamination of groundwater. Um, there's there is nothing there other
than the you know outside the envelope other than the relocation of the utilities that we discussed. um ensure compliance with uh the provisions of this zoning bylaw, including parking and landscaping. We determined that it complies. Again, minimiz
that that one does not comply. >> Oh, sure. But we're going to go to the ZBA. >> Conditioned upon Right. It'd be conditioned upon ZBA, right? >> Right. Uh minimize adverse traffic impact. There is no traffic impact. And minimize coastal flooding. Um again,
it's all in the envelope of the house. There really is no impact there. So, >> okay, >> with that, any other comments or a motion? >> Um, I don't have any other comments. I'm happy to make a motion unless somebody else wants to do it.
>> Let it rip. >> Okay. I move that um that the planning board grant site plan special permit for 11 ULO street swamps um conditioned upon um the applicant obtaining zoning relief
from the zoning board of appeals and with the recommendation that the applicant um work with the planning board, excuse me, with the historical commission to, you know, resolve any of their questions um and also to be
tuned in to any comments from the neighbors and just be, you know, willing to answer questions and so forth as you've done already, but in case anyone else pops up. And that's it. I'll second the motion.
>> All right. Um, all in favor? Angela, you want to start? >> Angela, Angela, I. >> Jerma, yes. Uh, Joe Sheridan, yes. >> Arianne Perty, yes. >> Okay, so moved. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Beautiful. Okay.
Um, with that, we will move on to uh hearing for proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw prepared by Kleinfelder and the Department of Public Works to support MS4 permit compliance through reducing imperous surface area and
promoting green infrastructure. >> Yeah, good evening. Uh, my name is Mark Non. I'm the assistant engineer with the DPW. And uh we have online here we have a lease Thompson from uh Kleinfelder. Um the town has an MS4 permit uh
municipal separate storm sewer system. Um that permit basically allows us to discharge our water to the Nant Bay and other receiving water bodies around town. Every year there's uh requirements of the permit that we have to meet. There's all sorts of um things we have
to do and we're in year eight of the permit right now and one of those requirements is to take a good hard look at our own bylaws and regulations as they relate to uh storm water management and green
infrastructure. So Alisa has been working with um employees at town hall to get ideas and incorporate proposed red lines into um the subdivision rules and regs and the
um the the zoning bylaw. So I I'm going to hand it over to Elise um for her presentation. I'll see if I can grab bills. >> Hi, thanks everyone. I'm gonna uh share my screen. Sorry, >> there's only two. I only shared
>> thought you just left me out for >> Is it going to be on the screen? >> Yeah, it'll be on the screen. >> Yeah. >> All right. Are you able to see it? >> Yeah. Yes. Thanks. >> Okay. So, as Mark said, hi, I'm El Thompson with Kleinfelder and we're
working with the town on um proposed revisions for the ordinances for the Swampscott MS4 permit. Uh so the 2016 Massachusetts small municipal separate storm sewer permit um or the MS4 permit
is issued under the clean water act nifty's program and this permit requires the town to assess the current street design and parking lot guidelines that affect the creation of imperous cover um and assess local regulations to
determine feasibility of allowing green infrastructure. Um and also updating regulations with the recommendations made to minimize imperous cover and incorporate green infrastructure in the town bylaws. Um so um I think in permit year five we
reviewed the following uh the swamp Scott zoning bylaw, the subdivision rules and regulations um and the storm water management and erosion control rules and regulations. Um and we um reviewed and found some changes for the
zoning bylaw and subdivision rules and regulations that could be incorporated um to increase use of green infrastructure and low impact development. Um, so the last two years, town departments that provided comments
on the red lines included the Department of Public Works, Community and Economic Development, Department of Facilities Management, and select members of the planning board um, a couple of months ago. Um, KP Law also performed a legal review of these red lines and the red
lines presented in the PowerPoint um, incorporate these changes from the town and the legal review. Uh we presented the proposed zoning bylaw revisions to the zoning board in April. Um and now we are presenting the zoning bylaw and
subdivision rules and regulation revisions to the planning board. Um, so basically the goals of these revisions are to identify areas within the bylaws and regulations that allow
for excessive uh creation of imperous areas and impede the implementation of green infrastructure. Uh, so we looked at EPA guidance documents and other Massachusetts municipalities. And we also prioritized revisions um based on
feedback from DPW and the goals outlined in the master plan from swamps 2025. Um and um the main items are minimizing imperous areas and removing barriers for implementation of green infrastructure.
Um so going into the red lines or the revisions of the subdivision rules and regulations. Um the first item is adding language to limit area of impact grading and road links while maintaining safety and
usability. Um this is in the design uh section 4 design standards under streets uh for location and alignment. Um then regarding road width, this is
specifying that um the street width of 28 ft um which is um specified in section 4 design standards streets. Um the 28 feet is a maximum for residential
subdivisions and um allowing for reduced roadway width square appropriate um including for low density residential areas or streets with high pedestrian areas. Um and also permitting or requiring
additional space for roadside low impact development infrastructure such as rain gardens, bio swailes um or for bike lanes um regarding curbing um under the design standards for streets and the section
five for the required approvements for approved subdivision street and roadways. Um this is allowing curb cuts, notching or perforated curving for low impact development alongside roadways and allowing decreased curve distances
for low trafficked areas and allowing pinch points which is reductions in road whiffs. Um, regarding the design standards for dead-end streets, um, this is adding a provision to allow for oneway loop
streets in lie of culde-sacs to minimize impervious area creation. Um, so it would just be a one-way loop street instead of a culde-sac that could have a um a vegetated island within the middle.
Um, under design standards, uh, streets and protection of natural features, uh, adding language to preserve native soils and avoiding excessive grading. Um and then under section five for the required improvements of an approved
subdivision for the grass strips um adding language allowing use of native vegetation and different soil or gravel mixes um that can be used for rain garden swailes or other low impact development features uh within those
grass strips alongside streets. Um and then regarding alternative storm water conveyance in the street right away, um adding language to allow for vegetated open channels instead of the traditional curb and gutter systems to convey and treat storm water runoff um
in low and medium density residential developments. And under section five for the required improvements regarding the storm and subsurface drains, water pipe and sewer line extensions, um adding language encouraging use of green infrastructure
and low impact development to convey and treat storm water as streets and parking lots are replaced, repaved, or installed. Um moving to the zoning bylaw proposed revisions. Um there's only a few
proposed revisions for this bylaw. Um one is regarding uh off- streetet commercial parking. So this is allowing a decrease in parking requirements if there's proximity to general parking lots or structures nearby on street parking or access to mo multimodal
transportation including bus routes, bike lanes or community paths. Um and this can be reduced with issuance. So a special permit by the board of appeals. Um the second one is regarding low impact development in parking lots. So
allowing landscaped islands in parking lots with six or more spaces um to be dry soil in gardens or by retention areas to infiltrate storm water runoff. And then um regarding off- streetet
commercial parking uh for both the smart growth zoning overlay district and the Glover multifamily overlay district. Um, this is uh would allow decreased stall size lengths to 18 ft to match the
general stall dimensions of 9 ft width by 18 foot foot length in the zoning bylaw and allowing up to 30% of the required parking to be designated for compact cars. Um, and those stalls shall be at least 8 foot wide by 16 foot long.
Um, and then also allowing permeable pavers given they do not present significant maintenance or accessibility concerns within the commercial parking lots. >> Can I ask a quick question on that last statement? >> Yes. >> Can you go back one slide? Um,
>> y >> to allow or to encourage. >> Um, I believe the language is allow. Um, I can go. We have um
>> the only reason I ask is like allowing something as long as it doesn't cause a >> right a disruption for the developer which it's always going to do. >> Yes. So, uh, the language that we have,
um, in the revisions have say permeable pavers or paving materials may be permitted providing they do not present significant maintenance concerns and comply with all applicable disability requirements. >> Okay.
>> Um, so stating that it it may be permitted. >> Yep. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Yes. Um, so I guess for all of these proposed revisions, um, it's just
removing obstacles to allow for green infrastructure, low impact development, and, um, reduced reduce imperous areas. uh they're not necessarily all requirements, but if um any proposals
come along that want to use low impact development or green infrastructure, this removes barriers um that would be present within the zoning bylaws or the subdivision rules and regulations. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't think we have any barriers
to permeable favors in those in the bylaws. In fact, we routinely encourage um developments to use as much pvious materials where as possible and even in big projects like we're doing in Vinn
Square to have um green areas where we can, you know, provide better drainage and and so forth. But at any rate, my concern with saying allow is, you know, that assumes that we have a developer coming along that really wants to use this stuff and we're going to say no,
you got to pay it with black talk. you know, it's always the other way around. Um, so my concern is that we need some language that has I'd like to consider using some language that has some more teeth. um that we can we find a way to
enforce it or um you know I'm always looking at planning as a way to get to yes like how do we make this like if they use permeable pavers we'll give them xyz you know so trying to figure out some trades to get to our goals like
these should be our goals not the goals of the developer basically >> and I think that's that's where my question was based because the allow seems as if the standard is to disallow um and therefore, you know, we would consider this if you fought for it
instead of saying we would this was our uh desire. >> Like it's okay if you want to use your paper, we're going to we'll we'll let you do it. I mean, we're not not letting them do it now. So, I yeah, you understand what I mean? I'd like to find
a way to make it um make it a little stronger. In fact, um we did this back in when we did the whole we did a Kleinfelder study. Gosh, I think it was like it was a really long time ago. Um that we used for the beach entryways and we also updated our um
>> coastal resiliency study, >> right? Our coastal flood area overlay district, which is what it was called at the time, right? And we put a lot of the language in there. And we actually over time tried to strengthen that a little bit, you know, working with the um the
swanskut uh the conservation commission and and trying to get those that language a little stronger which and then the new FEMA regulations help that because there there's a lot of um new regulation around building and flood areas. So um that's given us a boost as
well. But yeah, I mean these obviously these make so much sense especially in our community. Um we have you know we have definitely have flooding problems and you know it's just it's not going to let up. So um yeah I think I I like this
very much and I'd love to find ways to strengthen the language would be my comment. is the smart um growth overlay zoning that's the Vinnen square area that whole zone >> there are two there well the smart growth overlay zoning district was the
original 40R district that is now now has the Glover multif family overlay district sitting on top of it okay so it's you know it's two overlay districts on top of the existing underlying zoning I know it's crazy but the Glover multif
family overlay district is the one that regulates that property right now, >> right? >> And so, um, you know, because we have a petitioner who's, you know, supposedly in the process of creating plans, um, you know, we'd have
to I don't know whether we can go back and and change, um, some requirements. But that's why I'm saying sort of tradeoff type of things are what I would be, you know, where I'd try to go with that. I bet I guess what my question's lead leading to is this 30% of required
parking allowed to be compact because >> I think they're already doing compact >> are they that so that's what I was wondering. >> Yeah. They're trying to jam in as many parking spots as possible just you know. >> Yeah. It's good. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Um so
um I guess looking at um for this off street commercial parking um I guess the the re revisions to this section doesn't state allow um it has
that it may be permitted given that they do do not present significant maintenance and accessibility concerns. Um yeah, I guess as I said previously, the proposed revisions were more so as
guidelines and to um minimize or reduce um any um language within the bylaws or revisions that could prevent green infrastructure uh or low impact development.
um and keeping it more so um that it may be permitted and that u you know up to 30% of required parking may be designated for compact cars. >> Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, the the the recommendations, in my opinion, are
spot on and um, you know, I'd be happy to even go over the, you know, review some of the language with the chair and other people on the board just to kind of, you know, jot down where I think we could just, you know, word smith it a bit to to make it a little stronger if
we wanted to. um you might have a little it might be a little tricky for us to to um to edit zoning that's currently being or amend the zoning that's currently you know in use or that's currently being applied under. So um but there's other
things that we can do and I and I do think that you know we're definitely on the right track and this gives us a lot of good ideas. I think the subdivision recommendations are great. Um, typically we don't even get streets that are that wide, 28 ft, because we just don't have the room period. So,
>> yeah. >> Um, yeah. And, uh, there's always, um, but the recommendations are excellent and very helpful. >> And I think narrowing those, I mean, since I've been on the board, we were looking at, uh, a paper street becoming a street and a lot of the regulations
were excessive for the area. So, to have that flexibility in there, I think, is a great addition. Yeah, agreed. >> And I also like the I've always liked the um the circle as opposed to the culde-sac. I think it's uh culde-sacs
are are you know our our fire department has routinely said yeah you know we'll we'll try to manage you know give us a hammerhead at least we can turn around. I mean, and it it really puts our, you know, the fire the fire department at risk. It, you know, it's they're bad.
And we've done it because, you know, people claim hardship and they can't build something like that. And, you know, I I that's something I think we really have to, you know, we just don't have that many developments that it's going to, you know, that we shouldn't be
doing this. And, you know, I'm I'm I'd be fully in support of that. >> I'm also curious. There's a couple of areas that I can think of in the Mstead District where there are enormous culde-sacs that um by actually getting
in some water management um would not only deal with some of the runoff, but it would also in a really powerful way uh impact getting some green into an area that's a heat well. And you know,
so it'd be interesting to see if we can figure out ways to maybe address this and look at at uh DPW plans to reduce paving um when they're doing repair projects >> and even some of those little islands,
you know, that are that are really in, you know, they're they're integral to the Mstead design, okay? Those little triangular things that are within the district. So, I wouldn't I'm not suggesting that any of those get modified or deleted, but within those islands, I mean, maybe there's
opportunities for rain garden space and um improved drainage, that type of thing. Yeah, I think any opportunity to use any of the space and to turn impervious cover into green infrastructure to infiltrate rainwater versus sending it
to the storm water system is what the goals of these revisions are. >> So, if you want to send us the the red lines then I mean I'm assuming like Joe we could um you know first we would we could meet with Christa we could spend some time reviewing them. Um, for
December 2026, we're going to need a timeline for, you know, how far back we have to start working, which is probably like, you know, in July to try to get the language right and get to town council and then, you know, just submit it in time to suggest to the select
board and so on and so forth. Um, so we should Why don't we put together like a timeline or something and try to figure that out? Yes, we have a uh a memo with the um with the revisions in the zoning bylaw
and subdivision rules and regulations that I can send to Christa and she can distribute. >> Yeah, really appreciate you guys doing that work. >> I think it's um it's you know it's really important for all of us and I
don't personally see anything you know objectionable. I don't know what how the other members feel. Um but yeah, >> no, I think that was very positive and uh it'll be great to, you know, look at it and then yeah, we can find some time,
Angela, to review and see what the timeline looks like, you know, to line everything up over December, >> right? Um Alisa, if it's the memo that you had sent earlier, I will resend that to Angela and we can get comments to you sooner rather than later. >> Um yeah, on the language, >> it's the same. Okay.
>> Yep. It's the same memo. >> Okay, great. >> We'll send that and so that we can look at it sooner and then we'll get any specific comments to you. >> Yeah, >> that sounds good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, thanks. >> Thanks everyone. >> Byebye. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Good night. Thanks. Uh the next thing on our list is discussion of potential zoning amendment to the Humphrey Street Overlay District to preserve existing groundf flooror commercial space within mixeduse
buildings. Um >> so this is me. So hold on one second. Let me share my screen. >> Yeah. I wonder if our earlier architect knows he left this. >> I was wondering. >> At least it's muted. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, I put together a brief presentation just for discussion with the board um about the Humphrey Street Overlay District and potentially trying to figure out if we want to take some measures to preserve ground flooror commercial in the
Humphrey Overlay district. Um I'll get started by saying that we have had um quite a few recent inquiries over the past year or so. Um, basically
the way that the Humphrey Street Overlay District zoning is written, um, there's nothing preserving or there are no protections for existing ground flooror commercial. So, if like the um requests
we've been seeing, it would only require planning board approval for site plan, special permit, and design review to convert an existing commercial building to all residential under six units. So
right now there's no provision in the Humphre Overlay district that is protecting that existing ground flooror commercial and that existing ground flooror retail from being converted to residential. Um and the intent of the Humphrey Street
Overlay District is to promote mixeduse development. So support a walkable vibrant downtown and encourage economic activity in small businesses. So the the bylaw allowing um for the conversion of existing ground flooror commercial to
completely residential um doesn't align with the purpose of the Humphrey Street Overlay district. Um so we have had multiple requests and um plans that have been approved, plans that are in process and um
pre-application requests to do this. um develop developers will say there's no you know there's no market demand for office or commercial or brickandmortar nowadays but really for and that is a
trend in in certain markets but really for the Humphrey Street overlay we're trying to preserve those neighborhood scale type uses so that will always be in demand for a walkable corridor um that's in line with the purpose of the Humphrey Street Overlay District so it's it's a little different than the trend
and we're seeing away from office uses or just general commercial type stores. Um, it it really is something we want to preserve in this district. >> I mean, I I we haven't discussed this yet, but I
completely agree. I think one of the things that >> that Humphrey Street has suffered from for years is its inability to have a critical mass of retail and restaurant and it um you know I've only been here
21 years but um most of that has been a real struggle and it's not until the last few years that the the the dynamic nature of Humphrey Street has started emerging. And I think the loss of
>> storefronts um to create residential really plays against this. Um so I I think it would be a great thing to to introduce. The question that I have is how do we introduce
>> right and that's what um we'll get into. So what we're seeing right now is a trend that would allow for incremental loss of ground or commercial over time. So like it's slowly going away and converting to residential. Um which isn't visible, you know, overnight, but
it's something that um definitely impacts uh the mixed use um land use of the corridor. Um so here is just a general map of the underlying zoning for the Humphrey
Overlay district. The specific trend that we've been seeing is in the B1 um underlying zoning is what allows for um residential uses by right. So in
these B1 areas is where people could potentially come in and convert commercial properties to residential under six units and not have to go through any sort of use permit process. They would
have to go through special permit for design review but they would not have to go through to the zoning board regarding the use and that's in the B1. Yeah, even more importantly that to to build on to what Chris is saying when these kind of
infield developments are happening and people say, "Oh, but that's what Swanskip really needs." You know, we need these kind of market rate uh what do they call them? A workforce, that's the new that's the new term developments and but but not one of them has been anything other than market rate and
which they're extremely expensive apartments. Well, that's why that's why they do it because they can it's more lucrative for them, >> right? Exactly. So, it's just and then they can flip the building and walk away. Nobody wants to deal with trying to, you know, or partner with anyone
that has a creative outlook on a space or that wants to work with the town to create kind of an a little energetic center where there could be, you know, the restaurant. We've done really well with restaurants along Humphrey Street. Um
and um yeah, so I I 100% agree. It's also been an issue for us at other properties um that we are we have requests in on that are not necessarily in Humphrey Street that are also, you know, down by the railroad on, you know,
Pine Street was that same situation. Pine Street started off with u um the first plans we had had commercial space on the bottom because it was a commercial property for years and years and it had residential on top and we went through many iterations of that.
This is all prior to the veterans building going in there but that was kind of you know led up to that but at any event it's happening in that area as well. Um, if I could just jump in and say one more thing. Um, Christa, and it's all in
support of what Christa has put together here. Um, you know, when we did the Venon Square zoning, uh, the reasoning there, what was really important is that, um, we didn't lose um, we didn't
lose critical uh, commercial space in Vinnon Square. So we did, you know, when that mall was built, there was a whole, you know, I don't know, probably you're all too young to remember how um how the Swans Mall looked, but they were sort of, it was a really ugly mall. No
offense to Andy if he's listening, but it was very ugly. It was double stores. You'd walk in an aisle down the center, so it was sort of double deep for stores. So the the retail stores that are there are extremely deep. So we were like, well, somebody wants to make it a little smaller, they can. But the point
is we wrote the when we rewrote the zoning any existing building had to maintain depending on the building at least 50% up to 75% of the commercial space that was in existence if it was going to be modified in any way. And as
it turns out we are actually increasing commercial space in that area and building one um residential building that has parking underneath. So it hasn't happened and I think that's a that's been a really successful policy is something that if we want to amend
the Humphrey Street overlay we certainly could. >> So my misunderstanding by being B1 is it zoned B1 like if I'm looking through this it doesn't it says it needs a special permit for residential. So under six units, so in the Humphrey Street Overlay
>> district standards, there's a table. Um so basically these mixed existing mixeduse buildings would be converted into a sixunit residential building and that wouldn't require um any sort of review regarding the use of the building. That would just be allowed
specific. >> It would only be design review um and Humphrey Street site plan special review, permit review by the board. But the board wouldn't be reviewing the use. It wouldn't even be going to the zoning board of appeals for use. >> Um, which is kind of where
this lies that there are no protections for those. >> Yeah. It doesn't seem like it was the intent of the overlay district. >> Exactly. So the >> by doing B1, it seems like they were probably trying to discourage residential development, >> right? Um, the purpose of the district
is to promote, you know, vibrant, walkable, mixed uses. Um, and and the way it's written >> was the thought probably that the six units would >> that would sort of not exist within but what we're seeing is expansion of these
buildings. They grab the six units. >> They grab the Yep. and to convert the existing commercial space, take out the glass storefronts and just make it into a residential building, which there's nothing currently as this is written to stop that
um in the design standards or um in the regulations. These dots on the map are current recent conversations we've had or recent approvals. So, you can kind of see where the district itself isn't very big. So over time in this area, losing the the
ground floor commercial space would be um something that ideally we're not hoping to have happen. >> Do you know which buildings those are? >> Uh I do specifically. I'm not going to call them call them call them out specifically only because they're conversations that are mid-process.
They're allow as it's written right now. They're allowed to to do it. Yeah. um we have in conversations I've encouraged them to ideally that's not what we would support although it says that that's something
that you can do right now. Um so this is this map is looking at the current land use. Um and it's kind of hard to see the mixed uses um on the screen as it's shown but it's kind of these dots. Um,
and the fabric of the Humphre Shoot Overlay district, all of these blue parcels are taxexempt, so you can't even consider them. Um, there aren't a lot of mixed uses, but there
are a lot in this area and sprinkled throughout. Um, and so when you're thinking of even losing a few properties, um, losing that ground floor commercial, every property makes a big difference, um, in this corridor. And that's kind of
what this the point that this map is trying to get across. >> And we've had some some loss of mixed use um, through fire and so forth. Mhm. >> The the building next to Hadley School went from mixed use to straight
commercial, which is actually fine in in many ways, but um but it does erode the concept of mixed use. >> It also >> pulls functional apartmentsized unit, small units out of our housing
stock. Um the >> there also subtle differences between like the the inn that was there and now the apartments that like on the ocean side, right? That >> Oh yeah. >> So that was activated as an inn with people coming and going and it's much more closed down now. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So this is kind of Oh, I think I've already gone over this. Why is this happening? Um mixed use is allowed but it's not required. Um the B1 areas is where this is happening. Um
the ground floor design standards are written for commercial uses um and almost assume commercial uses, but they're not required. So when there are these conversions to residential, it it doesn't always make sense um the way
that the design standards are written. Um and so basically converting commercial to residential, there's no regulation on that. And um that's kind of where we want to go with this. Um so how should we respond? Um so
you could require ground floor commercial use. um that you know could potentially having it as a requirement would be you know something that would definitely be enforceable. Um but there
are a lot of existing older uses in the area. Um, you know, that's something to weigh whether you would want it to be a requirement or there could be the simplest way to go about this and to
start protecting things right now would be to just regulate the conversion of existing commercial space. So, trying to protect what we have um rather than requiring I we we can have this conversation. Do we want to require mixed use um or do we at least want to
regulate the conversion of existing commercial space to residential so it's not incrementally lost over time >> right >> um >> right so I have a slide on conversion control I also have a slide on required
mixed use um I didn't it's hidden right now we can pull it back up if we want to talk about it but at the very least I think that the board should consider thinking about conversion control um which would be something along the lines of requiring a special permit to convert
from commercial to residential in the Humphrey Street Overlay district. It would get review. They would have to have some criteria they would meet whether it's demonstrated vacancy for over 12 months. Um if if their argument is this specific space, you know, they
would have to prove that and then the board would have to weigh that. um that would provide case by case flexibility um as well as pres preserving existing commercial uses um but it would rely on
the board review. Um so that's something we can start by talking about that. Um and then we can also talk about potentially requiring ground flooror commercial in certain areas. Um I can pull that slide up or
you know there's a version of this where it could be a little bit of both. >> Could you show us the other slide so we could >> see it both? Then maybe we can talk about it. >> I mean, I think the concern with requiring it is this idea of vacancy, right? We don't want a bunch of vacant
storefronts if >> economic times dictate that we can't keep a commercial base in these fronts. But >> but that's also a that's a controllable phenomenable space
>> through a condition and b rent you know. >> Yeah. >> Well, right. They could get it and just say, "Okay, well, I'm going to wait 12 months and that's my fee for building the building is the loss of the rent." >> Or or you know, they can market something, it's sitting vacant. But, you
know, one of the things around here is that our our perceived rent value is out of line. I I once had a a merchant from actually he was in Venon Square and before he closed he moved to Marblehead, but he we used to have Trader Joe's.
The reason we don't have Trader Joe's anymore is the the the retail >> the retail equation is in concentric circles. And when you place a place like that against the ocean,
a huge section of that concentric circle has no resonance at all. So that it doesn't match up to performances. So you you sort of lose the big the big businesses like Trader Joe's that they're able to draw those concentric circles in other locations. That's why
since August now, >> right, >> is they just didn't they couldn't draw from this this region and that's how they did their map. >> Well, they didn't have this according to them to this the space was not like was not ideal to expand or do anything with it like they they >> and it was their lowest revenue. >> Their lowest revenue
>> but that's because that's because they couldn't sell beer and wine. >> Yeah. and they couldn't sell beer and wine because they didn't have the space. >> Yeah. >> And and we ended up creating new uh uh you know liquor permits or permits for beer beer and wine permits. But the fact
was that they couldn't expand their space. It wasn't big enough for that. >> But that's the the thing >> the thing with Marble Head and Swamps is we have this huge turnover because >> we do have a limited draw >> but right >> that but that compared with our rental
prices. So it's it's something that's controlled within the market. >> Well, the commercial tax base is a concern here, too. Like we have Yeah. They have to pay twice as much as they do in Marblehead, >> right? >> But Marblehead has as much of a if you watch the turnover in Marblehead >> Oh, they have a lot of turnover. Yeah. >> Huge turnover.
>> Yeah. So Christa, you were saying um that one of the concerns with this option just requiring ground floor use is that there's certain uses, >> right? So we can we can talk a little bit about this. So, this would be requiring non-residential
uses on the ground floor. It could be in certain locations on Humphrey Street. It could be, you know, the entirety of the overlay. Um, that would definitely be the strongest option. Um, the consideration would be that it reduces flexibility for existing property owners
and it would require relief to not meet that. you know, it would be people would have to get a special permit to opt out rather than um a special permit to change something that's existing to something less desirable like commercial
ground floor to all residential. So, it's >> I think yeah, >> go ahead. It's completely reasonable to to to require that or or at least a portion to do you know what we did at Venom to say that anything that's existing there that is a commercial
space that any existing commercial space that is in B1 an underlying B1 district we can say which includes any underlying B1 in within the Humphrey Street Overlay district because I think that's the you know >> that was the original intent and I think that was the original intent of of
marking it as a B1 on. Yeah. >> Right. >> Can you put the map is to, you know, maintain the um is to maintain the the uh the residential portion of it on the ground floor and that the the relief can be maybe the percentage of that that has
to be that has to remain commercial like can it you know but that the you know the the ground floors of many of those buildings are just not that big. So it's perfect for you know um the kind of res the kind of commercial uses that
are actually doing well here. Um so >> and couldn't and couldn't you also so to not penalize the existing owners right couldn't you say >> okay well for the existing owners now you know we can there could be some
consideration for relief or special permit but at any transfer when the property transfers then these stricter requirements fall in like it's a require requirement to make you know >> so so that you're not selling to someone who's going to convert it to all residential
Can they do that? Like >> they they could they'd be gr if we changed it, they'd be grandfathered in >> anyway, right? No, they'd be grandfathered in anyway. Yeah. >> Um >> if if they're if they're currently using the building, if it's, you know, if they haven't applied for anything or it's just, you know, >> in ownership somewhere and it's not
being used, then >> like any other >> What would the What would the special permit requirements look like going the other way? If we said the base is that you have to have commercial, but you can apply for a special permit to is it still like the same test that
>> I mean that's something that if we're if we're drafting this into the bylaw, we would come up with those provisions and the board could review them that way. >> Um something to note with these maps. So if we were to require ground flooror commercial in B1, there
are a few properties, you know, that are just >> multifamily residential properties. And the thought for why off the bat allowing for the conversion would be
the simplest option is it's not, you know, the people who have existing property on Humphrey Street. We don't want to cause alarm by, you know, changing the the requirement for their use. Um, so you know, there there are things to weigh um when
considering what we want this to see when when we get it passed. But do you think there are concerns even if we're talking about existing uses and not something that I mean we're not going to try to go back and and claw back something that's that's been you
know 100% residential for you know it's permitted it's built you know we're not you know I certainly think that that would be unfair but um and you know I can think of a couple of those right along that stretch but um but I don't
think if if it you know I think anything that's existing we should be trying to, you know, trying to preserve. We're talking about existing, you know. >> So, this would be a bylaw change that needed to go in front of town meeting for it to happen. >> Yes.
>> So, I think one of the questions here is what what is palatable? what does not feel like it is um targeting property owners.
Um and and what seems that something that we can defend as we have we have a strong desire to have Humphrey Street as a a mixeduse commercial corridor.
Um, and therefore, you know, it it sounds it sounds sort of kooky, but we were able not kooky because I'm pointing to you because you said this and now I'm saying it was cookie, but but realistically the Concordia went from public use to
private use >> and it was a big swath of our main street. >> Hold on. It was always private use. >> Yeah, but the people were coming. I guess for me it was activated. It was more active. >> But I could walk I could walk into I
could walk into a space and now I cannot walk into that space. I mean that's what you walk in to go to a desk to rent a room but you couldn't just walk in and hang out. >> No. No. But but at the same time that is that there is a significant difference there. >> Um
>> but I think that that that is now someone's used to the Concordia there >> and most people don't remember the the way that the street felt. Um, yeah. >> But I guess the other the other piece is when we look at
>> this corridor, >> one of the things that I always when I'm thinking of Humphrey Street, um, and this of course gets into another whole conversation around the redevelopment of the Hawthorne site, but one of the problems that we have is we have a
convex curve that holds our retail, which means there is never a sight line. So, you don't have a consistent concept of space. And one of the few places that you could have a double-sided corridor of of publicly activated commercial
space is that zone that's that's up toward well that is the Hawthorne >> site. So, thinking about how how something how do we talk about buildings that aren't built yet needing
this plus maintaining our commercial core um so that people don't don't perceive it as a over. >> Yeah, framing will be really important um whichever way that we go about it um
and that the public outreach and engagement um and the way that this is presented will be um need to be well thought out. Chris, so if you go back to the your original kind of thought on the recommendation, if we don't do it by requiring it and it becomes more of a um
regulate it. So they apply for special permit, we there's no teeth to say you can't do this. >> That's right. It goes to zoning and zoning >> and they zoning says there's nothing that says you can't do a residential thing. So >> that's how zoning is going to look at it. They don't look at it from the same
perspective. It's just going to be a leg. It's a legal argument. I'm allowed to do this and they're going to say sure. >> Exactly. Yeah, >> you're exactly right that you're exactly right. >> So, we can, you know, I think those are really good points. Um, we could do a combination of
the two. >> Um, where we require ground floor commercial use, but also I think it'll be very important to make sure there are no more conversions of existing commercial to residential. So, um, having that
protection in place is something that at the very least is necessary, um, to protect any other commercial uses from being converted. >> Well, and to also to prohibit there being some precedent set for whatever happens on the Hawthorne. >> Yep. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Would we consider like redrawing the map at all? Does that make sense? >> Redrawing what map? the B1 >> the overlay map or or yeah or maybe the underlying I know that that's like a whole other can of words >> this was kind of a big deal when it
first got I remember this kind of these districts >> but to make people you know because obviously you know Humphrey Street is weird too because you have these these stretches of residential >> if we're thinking well maybe we don't want to freak those people out and you know I guess it would be kind of I'm I'm
in my initial reaction was oh my goodness I haven't thought of this for and we should require that there be ground floor. Yeah. >> Uh commercial because this is such an important like you know gateway for the town. >> And I was also thinking as we're talking about it more like
>> I don't know it seems odd to if we had that be blanketed because it wouldn't even make sense anymore for some of these strips >> who are grandfathered. Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. And it wouldn't necessarily be redrawing anything. We could select certain areas within the Humphrey Street
Overly District to be like a subdist where we designate um ground floor commercial would be required. >> Um that wouldn't change, you know, the overall boundaries of the district. It would just be creating a subdistin that
has additional standards. >> Well, is the subdist not really claimed by the B1, A4, A2ations? >> What do you mean the subdist? What do you What do you mean the underlying zoning? >> Yeah. Right now the way it's written is
um the underlying zoning designates how it goes through the Humphrey Street Overlay district permitting process. So it would >> be um overriding that in some potential way. >> Yeah. I you know the underlying zoning
is just it's basically was patterned on the patterns of the original patterns of development when zoning was first adopted by the town which is back in like 1952 or something. So whatever was in use then is how it got zoned. There was no rhyme or reason. It was like the
wandering cows theory, you know, it was in terms of playing out the the zoning. That's why it's so spotty and funny. you know, goes B1, A1, A4, this, you know, >> and we did change some of the A districts just to allow more
multifamily, but um obviously with the really small ones along Pieran stayed. Um so anyway, >> I'm I'm sort of confused how the like the fish house and the parking lot are A4.
The fish house is its own historic district. So that's just not showing up the right way. >> But it is underlying A4 underneath that >> underlying A4. >> Well, that's just because who knows, you know, because there used to be little fishing shacks along there. >> You know, the fish but the fish house
was built pretty early on. So I don't know why it was A4 to be honest with you. >> Right. >> Then the A2 I'm curious about on the edge of Greenwood. >> Yeah. What's the small >> is that that's is that the yacht club the the >> No.
>> So I believe the A2 kind of travels up. Um I can pull up the act, you know, the full zoning, but I believe A2 kind of travels in here. >> Like when I look at this, we've got B1.
There is mixed use in A4 >> um in the sense of dental office. Is there any other one along that strip? Because right against the fisherman's beach is a dental office. It's also named for
>> um >> yeah um the dental office was a home before and it had a dental practice on the ground floor which was allowed at the time you know to hang a shingle outside your home. That whole stretch of Humphrey Street down there was all residential
and the only commercial space was one of actually they one of the commercial spaces was the original Captain Jack's building that was an inn so it was zoned commercial and then when Captain Jack bought the other two properties they were A1 or whatever they were
>> and the former owner he com the former owner combined those three lots and he created an enormous commercial lot. It was one lot when he solicited the developer, which is exactly what happened. He solicited the developer to
buy it and build condos there. Um, and he had already combined the lots and you know, what can I tell you? That's how that's how that whole thing went down. Mhm. So, I guess when I when I look at this, if we're talking about
if we're talking about the overlay district, we could talk in existing use and new construction. >> That's what I think we I was thinking about that too. So, like if if there's a res if there's a residential property there, yes, they by, you know, they can
keep it residential, but if it were ever raised and we required business on the ground floor, they'd have to comply. >> That's right. You would have to convert back to the B1. And in the B1, we'd we'd have to require that there was residential on the ground floor. >> Correct. Yeah, >> that's right.
But I'm thinking with the with the condos that are in the B1 section across from um >> they're they would be >> they would be fine as is. But if they were ever to replace those contract when it would be introduced as as that and
then I think there would be a reasonable argument >> for special permit. >> Yeah. Half half of that lot half of that lot is um half of that lot that is just condos, but the other half and it almost goes right down the middle is um you
know that little strip mall with the the 7-Eleven, whatever it is. And then next to it is the A1 Motors. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah. So, only half of that has that those three condo buildings. >> When you're you didn't mean lot, you meant that B1 zoning right through there. >> Yeah. The B1 right across from the fish
house. >> Yeah. And then if if the current properties are residential and they're conveyed to somebody else and they're not demoed, they stay residential. They don't they don't have >> the whole property was I think the whole property was a commercial property because the surf theater was there and
then there were there were little restaurants right along the street where the antique shop and the hair place and and Nord Haven is now. And there's a realtor there too along the street. Then there's the four condo building stuck in
there and then you've got the little hen and that whole strip mall and you've got the A1 motors next to it. >> So is that the direction that we should try to explore where >> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Construction requires a ground floor commercial and um >> I that's what I think >> for the existing uses >> you know if you sell it nothing happens but if you raise it then The the one thing that I would say on that is it all makes sense except in
this district is Blaney Street >> and that could be sort of that would be sort of a crazy situation that you needed >> actually um Blaney Street's A4. >> No, but it's in the it's in the it's in the Overlay district, >> right?
>> Be like car dealerships on there's like a mechanic >> shop on you know we can we can talk about We could >> we can talk about that that that line that align Humphrey Street. I mean, we can say that are in that are directly adjacent to the Humphrey Street
corridor. >> Yeah, >> we can make that distinction if we want to. >> It could be a provision that says for properties directly adjacent to Humphrey Street. You know, this applies. >> I think that makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
you know, new new construction would require ground flooror commercial. >> Yeah. The trouble is that we are constantly being like the second something comes up and it's available for change, we're constantly being pushed. We're being, you know, with the Humphre with even the Hawthorne um
property now, there's just because of pressure that we're facing, you know, we're in a very different spot as a town financially um than we were when we bought that property. So there was there are a lot of different considerations to um to talk about. You
know I I I served on that committee um that Hawthorne committee and uh I can tell you that there are you know um there's a whole school of thought that thinks there should be some residential development on there. Um and I'm not
going to I don't think it's right that I comment one way or the other on that. could be right Angela as long as they put some >> but if it was retail on the ground floor. >> Yeah. If it was truly mixed use where the upstairs was residential and the downstairs was commercial. I think it's in the spirit of the
>> district. >> Right. And I agree. I think that what was um concerning well to me and that's no reason not to that is that there was a sense when the when the town meeting voted to buy the property that this was
something that you know at least a a portion of it was the towns like this belonged to the town it was going to be some public space there was going to be commercial but it' be sort of you know there would be some there might be a little commercial I shouldn't say you know what it should be but there there
might be a little commercial along the street to knit together the fabric of Humphrey Street down that end perhaps. But you know it was very there's a very strong sentiment in all the research that we did that showed that people feel
strongly that there needs to be this ownership sense. So >> my point is that there was this feeling that if there was residential there would it would create conflict with my space my private you know yard my
private driveway my private you know little yard piece of green uh versus what is open space for the town. So there's just those are things that can of course be um you know designed correctly that could be dealt with in certain ways. Those were just the the sentiments that
came up. >> But I think that that's that definitely sits within how something is planned and designed because uh there's a lot of very vibrant public spaces that on the second stories and third stories.
There's private homes, there's, you know, apartments, condominiums, and you know, I if you wander around Newbury Port or um Portsmith or A lot of these environments that have coastal fronts,
that existence happens and you just don't even notice the residential aspect of it. >> No, I think the difference here is we we become landlords again, which is like what's been happening, you know, more and more is like we're landlords to a pot shop and we're landlords, you know.
So that's where I think that's where the public the public gets um a little, you know, the hackles are up for that. But I think at the same time >> there's the whole notion of do we sell off part of it and then you know that really people crazy because we went through a lot to buy it. >> But um yeah. So chair um remind me why
you weren't on that committee. I just don't remember. >> Just kidding. >> Don't you remember why I wasn't on that committee. >> Yes, I remember very well. I'm being I'm making a wise crack. >> We have time though, right? Because we're not getting this in front of town meeting next week. >> No, that's right. Exactly. But we don't
have as much time as we think because I'll start by doing some work um based off of the comments from tonight's meeting um to get a general idea of potentially something that based off this conversation that the board might
be interested in looking at. Um I do think that the conversation around um the Hawthorne property is really important. I too was present for a lot of those meetings and I think that there is a lot of passion um from the
community on how that property is going to be used um whether it's you know no commercial at all just a park um mixed uses whatever it is um I think if that property is going to be included in what
we propose we have to be very very intentional about how we state that to the community who just went through this process to come up with a recommendation for that property. >> I want to make sure that it doesn't feel or seem like they went through that
process, but we're just going to recommend this. Um that it kind of feels like whatever this is feels as though it's at least come out of that recommendation >> um and aligns with that whole process that um the community just went through.
Where are we in the timeline to actually do a community update from the planning board at this town meeting? Because would this be an intelligent time to talk about the fact that we're looking at the Humphrey Street corridor,
>> set the stage, comment on the fa fact that we're excited about about the vibrancy of Humphrey Street because I think anyone that's lived here any time realizes it's vibrant right now. You know, you you I'm always amazed when I'm looking at my kid and driving home. I'm like,
>> a lot of people >> look at this. There's a lot of people and >> yeah, >> you know, and talking about how to keep this moving forward in a very general way to sort of set the stage for maybe in the could we have something for the fall?
>> Yeah. >> Town meeting >> potentially. >> Yeah. >> Well, it sounds like we need to it sounds like there are people who are starting to >> think about doing residential on the ground floor. So, we there's some urgency on that front. I think at the
very least we should have something for special permit for conversion of you know >> just a >> conversion of commercial to residential at the very least that should be going in the fall
>> you know if it takes some more time to do some visioning and exactly what we want >> um that's okay but I think at the very least to protect you know the existing uses I think that we should absolutely have at the very least that going to the
December town meeting >> and I would state my desire that we're >> yeah and we can >> something concrete >> um but I don't know if it's too late to get get a statement in front of town meeting the other thing that I've heard said that >> excuse me about what about what your
statement about what >> actually just a planning board sort of update celebrating what's happening over in Vinnon Square but one of the things that I had someone say to me the other day and I thought they were right? Um that a handout might be of appreciated
much more than a 15minute or 5 minute presentation. Um >> well I mean that you know that's possible but we also understand that a lot of people watch town meeting on TV and won't be getting a handout. So the having a little you know article two has
traditionally been reports of town of of committees. >> Yeah. Committee updates. We used to do it all the time. >> I know. But >> we just got rid of it. Everyone was freaked out about getting out of there the same night we we get in. So >> there's basketball, >> right? So I actually I had this
conversation with Marzy this morning because I was asking should I be preparing something for town meeting? Um and the conversation that we had was sometimes planning board members who are town meeting members like to go up and give
um an explanation of what's going on or an update. Um so that's something certainly that >> how are all of us town meeting members? >> I'm not >> I am not >> I am >> I'm not for specific reasons >> but the tide the tides are changing. I
can't go back. But >> no, but it it is a case that I think that that Angela, you and I can discuss, but we could definitely come up with some notes and just incredibly brief >> uh celebrate the the celebrate what's
happening in Vinnon Square that's visible that people are seeing it. Um, I I don't think right now we want to talk about Glover because there's really nothing to talk about, but then talk about sort of the vibrancy on that and
that we're looking at, you know, strengthening, you know, setting up making sure that our policies are aligned with that, continuing to grow and be a strong um, >> cultural center for the for the town. That's exactly
>> we also have a new master plan getting too much into this because you know >> um even amongst just this small group obviously it's like a big conversation and before we put anything like >> nothing nothing concrete >> yeah nothing yeah just like just
addressing >> just looking we're just looking at the overlay district and what's required and >> and making sure that we're preserving the cultural community that's growing that we're seeing the virus. >> That was the intent of the overlay. Anyway,
>> right. >> So, the other thing we may want to think about just mentioning, we could do it with some short bullet points, is the fact that I mean, assuming we get >> uh I don't know we're going to have be able to speak to select board before town meeting is the master plan update.
Um because it hasn't gone before them for adoption. I think we can adopt it first. June 17th is the joint meeting. Planning board select board. >> That's okay. Right. So, I wonder if we should we can mention that we're going to have a joint meeting. >> Mention that we're having a joint meeting. Yeah.
>> And that we can also say that the you know the draft has been online. I I think the the comment period is is closed. However, the draft version is online. And I think we could ask Carlos the the the the gentleman at MB um MAPC
to give us just you know give me just like the you know the the the you know uh cheat notes of of just give me a few bullet points of some good highlights of what we have changed or what are the big highlights of you know what's been updated and there are some new sections
alto together that if we're treated very differently as they should be um so anyway I'm just think wondering what you think about that >> I I can reach out to Carlos for a few bullet point highlights. Um, >> you think it's a good idea? I mean,
>> yeah, but that that's separate from the planning board, but that's definitely planning office. >> The planning board adopts, you know, votes to adopt the master plan. >> Yeah, the planning board, the master plan pretty much lives with the planning board. >> Okay.
>> Believe it or not. Um, yeah. And we did a new housing production plan underneath under that as well. >> So if planning board members wish to speak and give an update at town meeting, you are welcome to do so. I can
help if you want me to create any graphics or anything like that. Please let me know. >> Anything similar to something like this >> or something like this, um just let me know and I I can help. Um, >> so >> I'm not I'm not scheduled to give a
presentation, but I can help. >> Town meeting is next week. >> Yes, >> it's next Monday and Tuesday. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I would be happy to meet with you on Thursday morning if you had time. I believe >> uh the 14th. I could I have a little
time. I have to I have to put on a lunchon for my mother on Friday. >> I'm getting a new arm. >> No. Okay, I'll bring my walker and you can come here. I know half an hour. >> All right. Uh yeah, let me I just take a
look at that. So that that's fine. We can talk about that offline. >> I can do Thursday morning if >> Okay. >> If you would like that then I can maybe What time can you do Ka? >> Um anytime in the morning so before noon.
>> Jar, can you go at like nine? >> I'm trying to find the calendar. Oh, except I just hit the map with my clumsy thumb. >> If the two of you get up at town meeting with your walker and your your arm cap, we might get some sympathy votes here. >> Right. Right. If I get up with a walker
by then, I'm going to be very upset that this thing isn't like resolved. So, >> so are we You want to say nine? >> Sure. If that works for you. >> Let's say nine. I unfortunately forgot. I just put sick day on here and didn't
put the actual appointment, but I think it's at 1:00. >> Okay. >> If I find out differently, I'll reach out for >> we can schedule it for earlier. Um, I know that this conversation has lasted a while and um >> been a good conversation >> kind of evolved into another
conversation about town meeting. Um, did the board want to vote on electing new officer positions tonight? I thought we determined not to because we're not all present, but um I don't know if that is I I my sense if anyone
is um is that important to have us all here or I don't think Bill was >> Bill I know that Bill stated he was not interested in a leadership role. All right.
>> I know that I am not interested in a leadership role. I bet you on your first meeting are >> really wanting to take over. >> I could be secretary about it. >> Joe, you can tell talk about our discussion if you want to. >> Yeah, sure. Um yeah, Angela and I spoke.
Um and uh I mean, you know, following up on our discussion from the last meeting, uh I I would be willing to take on the chair position and our understanding was basically that like, you know, informally it would sort of be like a little bit of a co-chair situation. Um
uh I'm obviously going to like, you know, be available when I can, but I'm in Boston a lot. and Angela said that she'd be willing to step in for you know some of the more uh you know informal stuff outside of this setting and um I mean I think we all work together pretty
well anyways so we can uh make it work even I think this is a good example of you offering to meet on Thursday so um I'm I'm happy to do the >> and I think that we've already been doing things beyond the chair vice chair and do you work remote or hybrid?
>> I'm remote I'm here. >> You're remote? >> Yeah. I mean aside from site visits I'm here. >> Yeah. For so so for site visits I mean I'm volunteering you but I I am happy to as Christa knows I meet with people and and can review pre-review things and so forth.
>> I think we do a pretty good job of >> spreading it out. It doesn't have to be because you're chair and vice chair. So >> um um >> I agree. I think we can I think we can, you know, we could I can make a motion to nominate um to nominate Joe again as
chair and um and then someone can nominate me as vice chair with the understanding that we are >> I will second your nomination of Joe as chair to speed this up. >> Okay. And then >> in favor >> I Angela is an I.
>> Jared German is an I. >> Arianne Party is an I. >> Do I vote? I have an I. >> There we go. Unanimous. And I would I would make the motion to elect Angela Epilo as vice chair. >> I will second that. >> All those in favor?
>> I. Angela Epilo. >> Chair Germa. I >> I Joe Sheridan. >> I Arianne Party. >> Okay. So we know what we're doing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Then we don't have to >> save us 10 times in a month. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So we could, you know, if Joe's
not available, you know, first we go to Joe. If he's here, he's running the meetings. If if you know, whenever he's here and available, he's running things. If he is not available, if there's off time, offline stuff, you know, at off hours, different meetings that we that
we have, I and he's not available, I'll fill in for him. Um but um I just want to make it clear that you know he's the he's our lead person and I'm you know like I said I'm happy to to work with him to fill in and I think we're both comfortable with that.
>> Yeah. Thanks Angela and and we'll run you know I mean Chris you've been doing a great job anyways and like being that hub which I really appreciate making sure that we're all >> staying above board in terms of like communications and that sort of thing. So we'll communicate all those sorts of things through you. I was going to
nominate Gary Caner for his uh his desire to stay in this meeting >> because really and that is a diehard participant. >> He'd have to be elected first. >> We usually do that to people who don't who don't make it to the meetings.
>> That's right. >> If you're not there, you're on this board now. You're on that subcommittee. Okay. Um, >> I I had to walk the dog while you guys were >> Yeah, we saw you. >> Um, so we will have five sets of meeting
minutes to prove at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Will you all try your best to review them beforehand? >> Yeah, if everybody could please because otherwise we're going to spend half the meeting. >> I'll be I'll be here. I'm good. I'm on vacation for from the 21st to June 5th, but I will definitely be back for that
meeting. Did you say on medication or on vacation? >> Oh, both really. So, >> beautiful. I just want clarification. >> Um, all right. Thank you for that, Kristen. That was a really helpful presentation. >> Excellent. Thanks. And I appreciate the
conversation. >> Thank you for your proactivity. >> Yes. Like that. >> I guarantee it that people thought that was B1 means no residential. I really think it's good to see it's good that you have that nuance. standard zoning.
There is no residential in B1 like in other areas. Um so yeah, I think >> it's like an eagle. It's a good catch. >> It was written, you know, based off of that assuming that >> there is, you know, residential >> only. It's not allowed in B1.
>> Yeah. Yes. I I I chime in also. Thank you very much for doing that. I think it's great. >> Yep. So next meeting I'll hope to have more updates. Um Okay. and we can continue to work towards um some zoning changes for December
because all of our zoning changes will be going in December. Um I will also put together some language for the ADUs. >> Okay. >> Um with the 900 square feet hope hopefully that shouldn't be even too big of a change. Um but it is an inconsistency. >> Yeah. So
>> we've had a lot of inquiries on ADUs recently. So >> jump in with where the inconsistency is on the 900 ft. Um so the state um basically this the state statute allows for a 900 square foot ADU to be
permitted as of right um with no other permitting. But our site plan special permit regulations um require site plan special permit for anything over 500 square feet. So that's where the inconsistency lies. A lot of people will call the office assuming that they don't
need a permit to do an ADU as a right. that's under 900 square feet and we tell them it's over 500 so you have to go to planning board >> for site plan special permit which conflicts with what the state's regulation is. So um making sure that we have consistency there and we're not um
>> opening ourselves up for any other interpretations. So with that, would the would we look at moving the 500 ft because I know the 500 feet was on >> to 9004 ADUs >> to 900 480US. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Great. >> Y
>> So hopefully that won't be >> I'd like to >> too crazy of a change. >> 2900 or 50% of the >> of the um total square footage, >> the existing res. Yes, >> that's the that's actually whichever is more. Right. >> Wait. Or 50%.
>> It's a two-prong thing. It's it's you you can do it by right if up to the lesser of 900 square feet or 50% of the square footage of the existing. >> So if you have a 1,600 foot house, you're going to stop at 800. >> Stop at 800, >> right? That's right.
>> Uh >> if there were any of those left anymore? >> Yeah. The other um the other question that I have is in conversions, are you still held to the 900 ft? So if you've got a carriage house that's 1,000
square feet, are you only able to convert 900 of 900 square feet within that structure into ADU? >> I thought we I thought we talked about this and um you know if it was like an exist if you're in a carriage house like you're you know you live on Devon's Road
and you have a big old garage in the backyard and you want to convert that and it's uh 1100 square feet. I mean what do you do? blop off, you know, a corner of the building. That's ridiculous. >> Well, it might be how what we >> how it's usage. >> I'll have to check with the the state,
>> but if it's a specifisting building, I think that's where we're going with it because you're converting something that's pre-existing on the ground. >> Yeah, >> that's where I think the difference is. You can't build something that big. >> But if you're converting it,
>> you should check because there's, you know, there are like there's a building on Monument that is a barn that if it were to be converted would be about
3500 square feet. Um, so we should find out what that what that means. You could you can cut out an apartment in it or if if you're you know you just have a 3500 foot ADU, >> right? >> Well, if it's R1, it can't have an apartment anyway. Like, do we have R1
and multi like like one unit residential per property or do we have any >> Well, R1 can have an ADU. >> Yeah, but it can't have like an apartment in a barn, right? Like it wouldn't be like >> Well, but if it's an ADU, >> if it's an ADU, yes. If it's an ADU, that's what I mean. Yeah.
>> Cuz I I look out at this if it's an ADU. >> It's always like a question in my head. It's like, God, there there it is, you know? >> Right. Chances are it's already it's been it's been an apartment for a long time. We don't even know about it. >> No, trust me. The condition of this
>> it's a wreck. >> But they wouldn't be able to put multiple apartments or anything in there like that. That would be prohibited. Yeah. We've done a lot of weird illegal things. Yeah. That have been there forever. >> We'll see what comes in front of us. >> Yeah. >> Awesome. Okay.
>> Okay. Can I just say um I I really want to welcome um Arian to our board. I'm so excited that you're here and I'm just so grateful that you um wanted to be a writing candidate and and um and you're we have you on our board now and I'm
very very appreciate it. I'm happy to be here. >> Yeah. Great. Yeah. Thanks, Angela. Thank you. >> I am thrilled. >> I'm thrilled to have someone else that can >> read a plan. >> Read plans. >> Not nothing against you guys. I think
you're doing great, but these things get in front of you and they're >> quick. They're very hard to read. >> So, >> yeah, I hear you. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, >> thanks everybody. >> Yeah, I would make a motion to adjourn. Is there a second?
>> Moved. >> I second it. I made I made second. Yeah. >> All right. All in favor? >> I All right. >> Thank you everyone. Good night. >> Good night. >> Okay.