jacob is from Associates plan very funny that's a name I grew up with multiple i haven't heard it for years i was just thinking thank you guys all right we'll call the April 14th
meeting of the planning board to order um starting with petition 25 ANR-02 by town of Swamps Scott Care of Hancock and Associates for a approval not required submission
um Marzy are you leading this or someone else yeah it'll be my pleasure excuse me it'll be my pleasure to uh to be here good evening everybody uh we also have Jacob Lemure our consultant from Hancock Associates who is here this evening uh
to maybe talk about the the technical aspect of the ANR uh what I wanted to uh bring to your attention maybe is just to to maybe share some um historical maybe just site information um as you know the
reason for the ANR is um to uh pave the way for creating a parcel of land that will become the veterans housing 41 units of veterans housing uh that will be a comprehensive permit bernay Brid Housing is the developer who will be uh
seeking a comprehensive permit through our uh zoning board of appeals um and uh we are here to create the separate lot a while back you probably recall um or the town has purchased um the parcel 1224
Pine Street and we are combining that lot with portion of the 810 um Pine Street um uh lot and the reason for the configuration is that the town also has
a um an a lease with the local cannabis that really uh defines the parcel uh for that for that area um so maybe if Jacob you can walk us through the technical aspect in regards to the uh the zoning
compliance the lot lines and the boundaries yep uh this is a pretty straightforward one in terms of uh compliance where Basically we're complying with the regulations and uh and meet the requirements for an ANR we are combining
uh two existing parcels one is here this corner lot uh at Pine and Erie Street uh which also is adjacent to this lot that has the uh cannabis store and the VFW building now we'll be removing the
existing lot lines uh creating one new lot line to encompass that cannabis dispensary parcel um and then one new lot to uh to for the comprehensive permit project and we're also there's a
small section uh of the parcel that sort of extends this way uh up into Lynn this is actually contains a a culbert called the Stacy Brook Culbert um and that follows
along this easement line comes up here into Lynn and then cuts across into Eerie Street um this parcel is being proposed as a non-buildable lot um and we're removing that so that we don't have to continue uh so that this parcel
is not included in the comprehensive permit uh plan set other than that we've already gone to the Lynn planning board who've uh approved to sign the plan uh they still have the physical myar uh
they're waiting for some board members to come in and give signatures and as soon as that's done I will bring the myar down to uh the swampskit and uh work with Marissa and Marzy to get the figures on that if uh the planning board
decides to approve today and just to let you know prior to this meeting I did have a conversation with uh the city of Lynn um the assistant to their planning board and she stated that most likely the miler will be signed tomorrow they
need two signatures on it great thanks Marzy so it is the ultimate if this is approved going to be um one two three lots one with cannabis shop one with the comprehensive permit where the VFW was
in the pine one and then a third kind of sliver of a lot along the Stacy Brook culvert that goes into land yep correct got it okay and Ted the obviously the sliver will be uh marked as a non-buildable parcel a non-buildable lot yep okay can you um
give me a little information there's an a red line on here that it says existing property line to be eliminated what is that yes if I can just let me
see if I can swap this over here so if you can see here this is Erie Street Pine Street and New Ocean Street um this parcel here actually it might be a little better if I turn on some uh
footage in the There we go so you've got the VFW building right here uh this is the cannabis facility um this building here has been demolished and it's basically just a slab at this point um so the lot configuration right now is you've got
this large parcel here that contains the sliver that has the culvert on it and also this other sliver oh I see so that that is part of that is part of that parcel that the VFW is on i see yes yep
correct and we'll be we'll be taking a portion of this sliver here into this lot and basically moving this lot line down to where this separation and parking is down here so you'll have two separate parking areas yeah okay thank
you i appreciate that i I have a question um can you hear me all right yes okay so um that uh about 10 foot wide sliver that's behind the Pine Street lot that we were talking about um
what is underneath that it was my understanding that another portion of the culvert was underneath that yes there's a po so the there's a covert that uh if I could draw in here comes down like
this splits to the south splits up to the north along this finger right and then also comes out towards Eerie Street so and what you want to do then is to eliminate that that the lot line on the you know
between the Eerie Street property and the Pine Street property so that there's one lot line so in other words the Pine Street property will now encompass that piece that sits over the culvert yes yes yeah i I have to say I oppose that i
really have a problem with bu building over the culvert and I think it's a we're going to impact well why are we including it in the lot line then it's I mean we do have setback
requirements that we can utilize from that lot line we are we know where the covert is and we will be going out I believe next week to do some subsurface evaluation to actually get a good location on that covert um and we'll
ensure we're going to ensure obviously that that covert is well enough away from the building u to not have any structural impact in the building right i'm really concerned about liability from anyone's standpoint it was my understanding that there shouldn't even
be heavy equipment sitting on top of it and I'm concerned about future access like you know we're aware of it right now but 15 years from now is anybody going to you know remember if something goes wrong and we've got like sort of you know mission creep and and whatever
is going on at that property is now in a place where we can't access a culvert anymore i mean I just have concerns about that kind of thing um I think it's it's the flood zone it's really important so Angela right now and Jacob please uh confirm or or you can let me
know the initial drawings that I have seen the architectural drawings for the new structure from the back of the building to the property line it looks like there's at least 18 ft um distance in and um like sort of that that would
allow for u safe access and um to address any impacts onto the culvert okay i think what you know I have to be comfortable if we had to sign off from the town engineering staff first of all you know I fully support doing this i don't I've never had a problem with it i
think so basically we're going to right now the cannabis shop and the the BFW are one huge lot because there is no property line there so we're putting a property line in to make the cannabis shop its own lot and then we're getting rid of the lot the property line between
the VFW parcel and the Pine Street parcel so now we get one big lot which makes a lot of sense um you know the unbuildable portion of um of the you know that little piece going into Lynn is one thing i just feel
like you know I understand that we want to use it for setbacks i'm just really concerned about it it looks to me like that building is just feet from that culvert and I I'm just worried about it and why is that building completely on
the Pine Street lot i thought we were talking about moving that building into the center more i'm not understanding this drawing at all so the design has not been completed this was the latest um architectural
drawings that the developer had used to submit their um project eligibility application to the state uh but I think as as Jacob pointed out I think that the other culvert that crosses the parcel I think that sighting the building this
way would not impact that um cross cover culvert that crosses the parcel where where does that crossing happen so if this crossing into this parcel we
will be needing to look at relocating a portion of that and that's basically right here dead center between the two sites so irregardless of where the building was placed or how far we slid it this way we would I think
irregardless of that we're going to be dealing with the impacts to that section of the culbert so that that that dashed line with the squares on it that is marking the actual culvert no that's that's um a fence line so the culvert's showing approximately it's not
on this plan so we haven't you know we're still in uh uh design phase so we haven't completed this the storm water design but essentially the culvert comes down
right here on this dash line mhm beneath oh the dash line is to the right of the fence line yeah yep okay and this has been all signed off on by our engineering staff as if this is a
good idea right that's correct i'm sorry did Did you say that the town engineer has looked at this and given a approval from his perspective marzy yes Gino has and I'm just trying to see if I can get him to join us on this meeting so and you know I guess I'm I'm really
thrown by seeing this building sitting on this Pine Street lot with a parking lot on top of the VFW this being a latest submission which I I I personally will not sign anything that looks like this i don't care if it's a ANR or
whatever it is because this is exactly what we said we did not want to do um so I'm you know I'm sorry it just I This is kind of shocking to me Marzy from a shocking from a process perspective what
um what's where are we in the process of this longer term project and what does the ANR play into that for instance if we needed to table this for a month does that how does that impact what you guys are working on if at all so um so it
will impact um the the project or at least impact the land disposition agreement um as part of the LDA uh we are required to to do the parcel um uh sort of um uh combine the parcels by
April 18th okay but you know but why is this building all on one parcel i mean I just I I can't believe what I'm looking at i didn't you know personally I didn't vote at town meeting to spend $1.7 million a bar for funds after we just you know had
a you know had to give variances on a 21 unit project to put this massive building all on one lot which has been part of an ongoing argument for a long time um you know between the select board members um you know point of
debate I should say and you know I'm just uh I'm just a little horrified seeing this building sitting there at at the edge of um all by itself there it's basically on just on the Pine Street lot yeah i
um um I mean in in regards to the the final design Angela it's there's a um there is a process that similar that that we have done with with the Michon in regards to the town be able to review the schematic plans um so and again
these are the plans that were submitted to the state right now with the application um ultimately I'm not sure if you can you know can we move the building over towards you know closer towards New Ocean Street and then create parking on closer to Eerie Street and
then surrounding um is that something that that you're proposing or um you know you have other other ideas for the for the redevelopment site i'm not I'm going to tell you what my understanding was is that the building is going to be cited sort of you know
more midsight and that the parking would be underneath and some around it and that the building would only end up being three and a half stories and not whatever this is here with um you know I'm guessing that there's going to be some spots underneath and a five you
know a four or five story building once we have to clear the flood plane so this this building or the current proposal does not account or does not um show or render any parking spaces under the building it's all only on surface
parking on on um on on the lot that's as shown so is this the the new answer to not having such a you know only having a four-story building there when we that's not what we promised the neighbors i mean this is just going back and forth
this is like an insane thing the the plan um Jacob can you show the the rendering to Angela so we can see because it's really three stories Angela i think she have to Do you have the the rendering that you can uh I don't have the architectural renderings handy with
Why wouldn't we just push it over on the the VFW lot where you're you're halfway out of the flood zone and you're not right on top of all these neighbors it's it's not so egregious a building
i'm I'm sorry yeah no no no i mean listen i I think I think what my concern is Marzy is that we're going to sign an ANR and that's going to be de facto oh the planning board saw that they saw it they signed the ANR and then it's we're not going to hear about it again because
it's a 40B and it's going to go directly to the zoning board of appeals so I'm not comfortable with it because I don't think there's any stop gap anywhere i was going to ask that there's there's two different maybe I I um I'm seeing it
as as two different um issues right the first one is really establishing the the new lot lines or removing the existing lots line lot lines and the other one is the placement of the design of the building in regards to the to the design
of the building the LBA um uh uh governs or allows the town to go back and negotiate with the developer on the design of the structure and the the arch the the architectural drawings um and the all the schematic drawings um so so
there's still an opportunity to talk about that um I understand your point i I hear your concern um you know I just did receive a text from Gino he stated that uh he is supportive of the project he is on at the finance committee meeting today so he's not able to to
join you to join um the planning board okay thanks and this is going to be ultimately done through a friendly 40B permit I'm assuming that's correct yes i don't know who it's friendly to but
I'm trying to see if I can This is like a complete nightmare for these poor neighbors and it's not at all what we've been going the process we've been going through um so I'm just um I'm just really alarmed to see it i have to say
you know as far as the ANR goes I don't have a problem with it i have a problem with this and therefore I'm not comfortable putting my name on something that just can be misconstrued as I'm okay with it um is it would it be helpful if I if I
look for the um for a copy of the rendering so you can see what the structure looks like i don't think that would Yeah I could take a look stop so while while you're looking for that um I I don't quite understand the
slivers and what their purpose is or why they were left there and where they're going after this whole thing happens so it was clear that the Pine Street lot let's call it Pine Street Lot that's people are referring to that was left out of that
for some reason the Culver was left on the I think that was for the town to remain owner so it would have access my question dovtailing from that though why are we not having the other
culvert that runs from Eerie Street down uh street south I should say why isn't that being included in that right connect municipal parcel what's the reason for not connecting was where is ending up with that
so the town will still own the the property so the property over the culvert will still be town owned right also be but specifically the sliver over the over the culvert and it appears as though when they broke off Pine Street lot then that was the attempt right to
keep that under town control so that'll still be there um but then the sliver that goes off into Lynn I just don't understand why that's dis discontinuous from that why wouldn't that also stay in the under the control
of the same lot so this is um the town will always this is going to be a um a 99-year lease so the town will own the the land under underneath we'll have a a long-term lease with the um with Benbridge housing
right then what is the reason why we're d uh creating a new lot with that little dovetail that goes into Lynn i understand below it but basically just having this secondary
parcel here going into Lynn as part of the primary parcel um complicates the 40b filing and uh I believe also the um the insurers documents so it's there's
legal reasons and you know practical reasons for cutting that thing off of there um okay and the reason Yeah but the reason to to to absorb the other one the one that goes between the building and the neighbors at Eerie Street the
reason to absorb that one is strictly to give the building the setback dimensional stuff that it needs is that correct yes okay yeah i I don't I don't want to do that personally the rest of the board can you I'm only one member so
I I think that those those um those particular strips of land were left uh not built upon for a reason and its access to the culvert we're you know currently under a multi-million dollar consent decree for you know water coming
out of Stacy's Brook and why we're messing with stuff like that just it blows my mind but I also don't understand why they wouldn't even take that exact building like why is this building pushed all the way out to the corner why wouldn't it be drawn down
more and and take some of the burden off those properties um the neighboring properties i I just don't understand it so So um Marissa or Jacob can I just share I just want to show you the image uh can are you able to see this i can
see it just fine yeah thanks okay so this is um so Angela so this is what the proposed building the new building would look like so you can see the the threetory structure and um you know so you're you're basically standing on New
Ocean um and Pine and you're looking down towards um towards Eerie Street right so this is the the image of of this of the So you've got and now so we're looking at a building that's okay so you got five feet that's bringing it up from the the baseline plus you've got
about 11 feet per floor so that's 33 and then you've got another you know 10 feet on top just for the utilities and so forth so 43 so you've got about a 48 foot building roughly as my calculations are correct
maybe it's even taller um I I think your calculations are slightly over because you've got 11 per or just looking at the number of steps in this now Bren this is a rendering so there's sometimes inaccuracies
but if those are seven inch steps it's about 20 well it's it's it's under three feet up on this left end but you'll notice that there's a slope upward right so you're looking at the three floors themselves are taking to to about
33 feet on the far That would be against and then Oh don't push it okay um Oh there we go i was turning off my mic um right so so that that end that's you know on the left closest as though the one that's elevated slightly that's
where you have a 10 to 11 foot baseline so you're under the flood zone you have to be at a 14 okay minimally so the free board has to clear 14 feet so you know I think it's you know it's I think it's minimized a bit here unless they're
building a some kind of a ply underneath it that's going to elevate the whole thing so I mean I'm just throwing it out there because that's what it it looks like it's going to end up being to me um so can we go back to the the previous drawing because I just wanted to see if
we can address your concern with the um Jac can you bring up the other the other um rendering that shows the parcel u yes it's this one you're talking about yes so just bring it up so Angela on this if
we were to um to you can see the the red lines that J mentioned that are shown in here so if we were to to create the new parcel line that would begin with the with the red line sort of as is existing
and then keep the remaining land sort of out of this parcel but I just but but I still just kind of my thought process is that although it's a different parcel the town is still the owner of the land
but you're but you're suggest right i understand what you mean but um I mean essentially I get it it just lets that building be that much closer which would would not be such an issue if the building were pushed down into the other lot like I'm not understanding
the placement of this structure i just don't get it it's in the worst possible place on this entire lot where it's pinch you get a pinch point with the culvert you you you're going to go over that one portion of it
no matter what you do but you've got you know you've got this huge parking lot sitting there you know why why are we putting in this huge impermeable surface it just is crazy in a flood zone it's I don't get
it um at any rate I understand that you know so in terms of setback so you know because it abuts it's a commercial building regardless of the fact that it's residential because it's so big it's commercial it's a commercial building and it's abuing a residential
zone so it you have to have a 10-ft buffer there's no I don't think that the zoning board of appeals has the authority to give relief on that part of it i could be wrong i just don't think
that they can because they're literally be in variance territory maybe they can um I don't know question i'm sorry i just So right now I think the the buffer is about 18 is it 18 Jacob can you please confirm yeah it's
18 right now from what to what to the property edge or to the property line okay if we're doing this through 40B permit what's the necessity of being compliant on the setback if this is ultimately going to go through the ZBA
with 40B yeah good question i mean I I thought that they had to have um a certain amount of distance from that property line with a residential zone well they they can seek a waiver right
uh but nobody can really explain why the building's on like crammed onto one lot i guess that's my I'm just scrashing my head over that i mean if it was moved So your suggestion Angela is to move it further
south like why bother combining the lots just say one lot's parking one lot's a building i mean it's just I guess I have to never mind i get it you have to do it for the the comprehensive permit i I get it so but the building the way that it's it's it's um cited right now with the
size of the size of the building would not fit on either one of the lots right so would it would have to be like in the center of between the two lots or you know what's wrong with that being in the center of the two lots have parking surrounding it i mean you're taking a
tremendous burden off the corner there i think that's the motivation for combining the lots right so you can center exactly i mean we didn't we didn't like you know otherwise why bother right i mean it just So if you were to look at this drawing there's really no
motivation other than parking to tear down the existing lodge right you could it's it's untouched in this drawing the building is completely separate from that lot um I know we're not here to talk about the building or the lots uh we're only here to talk about the lots but it does seem that you could reduce
the height on the Pine Street side by adding underground parking on the left side with the second floor that comes off the top of the third floor there be a little bit more creative with the use of the space that would kind of be a win-win for both neighbors and developer
i'm happy to take that back to take your your your recommendations or suggestions back um and again there will still be a timeline and opportunity um to you know to comment and provide feedback on the renderings once they're finalized i'm
I'm going to ask a a couple quick questions and I my fear in here is the fact that without the architect present um I don't know if there's anyone that can answer this in just looking on my phone at the streetscape the placement of this building does not appear to also
take into account the distance from the street of the adjacent buildings that are on Erie so the sort of the yards come down and then this building juts out um and I think it would be really helpful to see if the the movement of
this building at least could address so that that we maintained a steady all the all the houses that are on the same side of Erie Street as this proposal um they are aligned the front facades align the whole way down and I think that though
there's a turn there it would be very obvious for the the upper right hand corner of this building to be in alignment with those buildings um just so that it felt like it was part of the neighborhood um and that would not I don't think it would be moving the
building more than 10 or 10 or 15 feet uh towards the cannabis dispensary um and I think that alone as a gesture would make more sense um as to how this is reflecting the
fabric of the neighborhood but if you were to move the the building 10 ft would you be able to create any parking spaces on that end because parking is is a concern to the neighbors and and for this project so if we were
to shift the building what does that mean for parking i think it might mean losing in looking how this building is placed it might mean losing one or two spots total um and I think but I think at the same time that balance um it
would allow their street like when this was built um it would allow it to actually feel contextual and or losing one or two spaces it might be something worth um worth feedback from the community
what's the How many spaces are proposed here and it's 40 units residential units in the building 42 spaces okay and why don't they go underneath
um cost of construction and just the the height of the building right and then we're in the flood zone you know if we're going to go down uh that creates issues with having a pit in the flood zone and if we wanted to have parking raised above the flood zone
obviously that would leave that would at least be one additional story of height it would be one story over the lefthand lot that has no stories on it now and then you could remove some of the bulk and the mass from the right hand side of the lot and have the same interior
square footage i think I I don't have a solution here and again we're not here to talk about the buildings but I do see Angela's point in looking at this drawing it is a little surprising again we're happy to take the uh these comments back to the design team maybe
it would be helpful to have a written letter of comments that could be brought up during the uh 40B process i I mean I would I obvious we're we're still at this point in the design we're not in
final design stages and there are still a lot of decisions that haven't been made yet i don't know if you know I'm prepared or this is the appropriate place to go too deeply into sort of the site design
i think it's important irregardless of where we're going to place this building that we get that we we need the the space on the site either for parking or for structure to make the site work either way irregardless of where we place this
building closer or further away from the street you know we're going to need to take up as much space as available here to provide adequate parking and you know landscaping and trying to make the building fit in with the neighborhood so
you know we're going to be submitting much more complete documents once we get in past the uh project eligibility filing and into the 40B definitive sub I mean definitive permit filing um so there will be updated plans above and
beyond these plans that can certainly again I can consider or we'll consider the planning board's comments and and uh again it'd be great if I could get maybe a written uh list of comments from the planning board or just
the planning board members individually if that's what they prefer but um I think that would be the best way for me to be able to give these comments an impact on the project and I'm also happy to schedule a a meeting with the architect and with the
uh with the development team even maybe before we advance before they they advanced a design i think that would be great you know this is this is such a a grotesque departure of what we were led to believe even over this last past town meeting
where there was vigorous debate about you know I mean why bother moving the you know I mean the the the the you basically just taking down the the BFW just you know for parking spaces now i mean and and here we're going
through all this trouble and tremendous expense to rebuild a VFW just to have this you know after all this after all you know the years of like 21 units that were going to be on that exact same spot that you know
basically only squeaked by with two and a half stories with a variance and you know the neighbors are very upset and it turns out these guys couldn't finance it anyways and they went ahead and sold it and the town was you know my estimation you know I don't know
well anyway the town bought it and um and now to put twice as many units on the same spot it looks like there's how many feet between the that the corner of that building and and the and the sidewalk it looks like there's barely
like two feet or something it's crazy looking five you know four feet and I'd like to see something where you know the where this these this poor woman who lives next door who's been to every single meeting over the past four years five years maybe since we've been
talking about this lot it's just crazy that people just get um pushed aside I guess i I just can't get over it it's um just driving an agenda that doesn't work so whatever i mean I
understand you know the I think the veterans housing is an excellent idea i just don't understand why we have this monstrosity of a lot and we have to jam that building over there if it wasn't central and there could be parking on both sides of it wouldn't that be easier for people that live way over on the
right hand side the eerie corner and they have to park way over by the the you know dispensary i mean I don't know it seems like it would be a better looking building and um I would I would be concerned about it
being pushed too far in that other direction i mean as a residential building it's nice for it to be away from the through traffic of 1A um and the other thing is building I'm not positive that a parking
lot is a gifted gesture to you know an active parking lot i don't I don't necessarily think I think if the building were moved slightly and we found a way for the parking to remain down away from the other houses there's far less disruption with cars coming and going and headlights coming in and out
of people's houses uh where this is currently suggested um so I do see some logic in it i do think it's too far toward Erie Street and not following uh one of the problems that we have in Swampskit is that there is
not there is not zoning that is logical when it comes to setbacks um so we sort of have these numbers but they don't relate to the built structures um in sight by sight so I think that being analyzed and this building I think if
this building was sensitively placed um it could go a long way and I think it's an adjustment from the plan that we're seeing right now tying this back to the ANR I I understand we have the town has until the 18th right to get this ANR signed off on from Swampscott now since
Lynn's already signed off on it it's Friday that's Friday right i have no problem with the ANR itself with that being said you've and Margie you always do this so I I know I don't
have to say it again i think there's a lot of very uh critical response to what we've seen tonight for the plan and the uneasiness since this is going to go through the 40b process of us pretty much never seeing this project again
um whereas if it were not a 40B project we would be much more thoroughly consulted um if it were a private you know applicant um is really unnerving especially for a project that's gotten this much scrutiny um over the last three years I would say um and even the
year before that when we approved the 21 units by a 3 to2 vote um so I have no problem with the ANR I just and I want to keep on timeline I don't want to push anything back that we don't need to do but with that being said I really would
want to find a way to have representatives of this board or this board involve olved in some way to help address some of the concerns that Angela and Jer brought up because I I agree with both of their comments and I I really don't think we're doing our jobs
as as the planning board whether we're supposed to be involved in the 40B project or not i don't think we're doing our jobs well if we don't provide that critique and try and get the best of this project like we would any other project
so I'm fine with approving the ANR tonight me personally um but I really want to think critically about how we can be most involved moving forward uh in order to make the best project on behalf of the town and whoever ultimately lives there and especially with the neighbors who've gone through a lot right i mean the we don't have to we
can't we don't approve an ANR anyways we just endorse it it's um that's the whole point it's approval not required right right because they're making lots that they can you know legitimately make um because their frontage exists blah blah
blah but um you know this is um so yeah I agree what I don't what I don't agree with is including that strip um of that little you know culvert passageway including that in the lot um so I would
you know I I would not choose to endorse it but I wouldn't um you you know and I'm happy to put my own comments on why um but it doesn't mean that you know the rest of the board can do whatever they'd like i mean and again we're just voting
to endorse the plan and then we sign the I sort of feel um from the standpoint of if we are including the culvert that runs from Eerie Street um for the point of meeting setbacks I
can see the reasoning behind that um one of the things that I'm hopeful for in all of this is you know we do have documentation in front of us that's showing culverts in both of these situations i know that uh Mr lemieux had mentioned the fact that they will be
looking at relocation of um where Stacy Brooke comes through the building um and I just think that with this being a 99-year lease that it's remaining town owned um and I would hope is thoroughly
documented um so as we move over the next century that the the culverts are attended to and I think because they're rem they would remain either way on town property
um I don't fully see um a major conflict in including that that piece because of the fact that it's not something that could be sold off or or built upon um based on it being within the
setback were the legal reasons well you had mentioned there were legal reasons why we wanted to that uh portion of the parcel that goes into Lynn removed legal and financial reasons and I I get that was that more because it went into a separate uh an additional
municipality or were there other as a part of it was filing a 40B in a dual municipality parcel when such a small portion of that parcel was you know obviously not even a functional portion of the parcels in Lynn so if if that
parcel ended right at the municipal line the city line with Lynn and it was entirely in Swampscott this would probably all be on one parcel is that right yeah probably yes okay i mean I'd be comfortable with taking that you know that strip that's in Lynn combining it with that strip behind the building and
saying that that's the separate lot um that it's a non an unbuildable lot that's separate and combining then the Pine Street lot and the ocean um a lot but um I feel like you know we say this now we're all like "Oh yeah you know it
was going to be 18 feet." And I think you know it's it's fine until you decide when the building's going up and you're like "God you know we need some of this room we need to push this building back or something happens and you need it needs and it it moves back and you can
because you're still kind of safe in this setback and you don't need permission from anybody." So I just and I don't think it's this stuff just happens because it's a big it's a big for this area it's a big commercial building and and stuff happens i mean we all know
it it's not like anyone's you know planning it and trying to be sneaky about it or has evil intent but stuff happens and I just don't think it's a good idea to combine what what overlays the culvert
with this lot i just don't um so you know I've already been clear about my opposition to it so I'm sorry i I really didn't want to be difficult about it is amending that even still possible at this point or is that something
that is not feasible on our current timeline well you know if Len already looked at it that's the problem well of course correct lynn approved it and they reviewed it um on the 8th so we'd have to go back whatever the amendments that we make here we'd have
to go back to them again yeah unless we just unless we don't and we're just saying it's the portion of that lot that's in Swampscott that we're you know combining with the other little sliver i mean we're not affecting you but I I
suppose it's the whole lot that's well if the point is I'm sorry to be the monkey wrench here i just you know it's Well no to Angela to your point if if the point is just to create separate lots with the culverts entirely on them you could create an additional
lot that bisects the one that Lynn already approved and that's shown here right then this would not have to go back to Lynn because there's no portion of the project that would be impacted at that point just thinking out loud for process-wise right
i think what we're saying um is is Jacob is that we're opposed to adding the culvert strip to the uh Pine Street lot that you know it's 40B they're going to get you know if they're going to get relief for that i mean look at where the look where the property line is
especially on the Eerie Street side if they're going to get relief they're going to get relief you know what I mean so I I just don't think it's I I Yeah i just don't think it's a good idea to make that part of the lot it was never part of the lot for a
reason i would defer to the engineering department on I mean I would say if I understand your concerns and again I agree with Barzy and my thought on it is you know it's a DPW structure
if the DPW wants to deal with it a certain way we're happy to do that i don't know that modifying the ANR is feasible at this point in the timeline that we're at um but we could certainly look into
maybe I mean there's not we can't do an easement right because it's owned by the town already so access I I just don't see the practical reason for separating it in that
way it would just be detrimental to the setbacks and require additional relief no I don't think so i don't think it's going to honestly you should see you know the other 40ps like this that have been put up i
mean no let me ask a quick question just to make sure that I do understand what we're talking about before the town bought the property that piece of land that is where the culvert is running from Eerie
Street and then the other that is the Stacy Brook that runs over to the Lin line that was townowned property correct yes so we're we're basically we have bought private property that's adjacent to town owned property right that's
correct so what we're looking at is if we were to combine those into this makes it a bigger lot it makes it a bigger lot but it's all owned together
um and we are not selling this it's a leased property that's a 100redy year or 99year lease is there risk if we combine these that the town might sell and then
sell like if they went to sell the property that this housing unit is on for some reason is there any reason that that would create a problem well it the culvert is going to be under the building or going around the building
through the lot anyway which would be an easement of sorts if they had to give it if it became privately owned and not to interrupt but I just wanted to point out that with the Culbert we've also got going through
portion of the lot here at Call's lot as well so I don't know if uh I'm sorry going through what lot so this this red line here the culbert also comes from uh this direction with Curry Circle runs under
the Call lot which is the dispensary oh okay and under under this portion of the lot and sort of splits off into three separate branches here so yes we if we were to cut that these two parcels out then we would just kind of be separating
these two portions of the culvert from the remaining portions of the culvert but we'd still have the same um sort of same sort of issue i don't I don't know that that would Yeah
you know it's it's curious to me how like we I mean again you know as you point out and rightly so we're not talking about the building right now but we are talking about dividing up the lots and what that means to some you know major infrastructure in the town so
my feeling is like what's going to happen like if with so so who's who's responsible for moving culverts underneath this property who's taking on that risk so it will be the developer and with
with the town together and so we're we're willing to take on that kind of risk i guess we are i don't know you know if the people are you know are aware of that um well I think that that not the financial
um aspect of it Angel i think that if we can secure some uh some grant funding or other funds to be able to relocate the coverage then yes the town is is um is a partner with the developer uh but other
than that it would be all on the developer to to relocate the the culprit geez and if anything happened well I guess it Yeah if anything ever happened to it in the future like you know I don't know what kind of access there is but that's
another issue you know it it I guess it's disturbing that there's never been a building on top of it since it was built which goes way back and it's just you know and all these other really old houses around it going into towards Lynn
have been there you know and nobody ever built over it and or tried to it's always been kind of set aside and I just um I just don't um I just don't understand these kind of decisions but So is it all is it all
covered or is it open pardon me it's covered covered overflow covered mhm it's covered yep but it's never really been an issue because there nothing sat on top of it right well it's going to be 14 cars on
top of it in this left photo right which isn't the same as as like you know as a as a four-story building and all kinds of heavy construction equipment you know in and out in and out and staging and all that kind of thing which you know it's it's you know of course that's what they need to do i mean it's a big
building um anyway that's we're not talking about the building i'm I'm really just concerned about what this you know does to the to the underground so um and I'm not an engineer
um it's just an uncomfortable feeling that I have about it and from what I know about the problems that the town is having with the culvert it's you know um Sorry oh no go ahead Angela what were
you saying no no no i'm I'm done marissa go ahead i I This might be a silly question but isn't it the case that when contiguous lots are held in common ownership then they're all viewed as one giant lot before when it comes the
merger doctrine sorry I said I think you're talking about the merger doctrine correct so if there are two non-compliant lots held in common ownership I'm not sure that uh that applies to municipally owned parcels
okay just privately owned right and they're not non-compliant actually they're both compliant which is why they can do an ANR got it well actually not necessarily but they all they both they all have adequate frontage on a you know
on a street so that's all really all they need um okay so I'm gonna just you know I think I've made myself very obvious you know I've said everything I have to say so I'm just going to step out of it
now and um um I'm looking at the GIS and according to the GIS the building that was demolished was on top of the culvert i don't think Yeah we've um we've gone
out and located that the GIS is just uh Is it wrong it's not yeah it's it's just a little bit off okay yeah if if you go out there Jerry you can see because the the sort of the padding and the footprint is kind of there at least I that's the angle they took the picture
at yeah so yeah probably i I don't think it was sitting on top of it very good no so process-wise this is I think my only my second ANR we don't need to vote on this we all just need to go sign a myar for those of
us who are Well you all we do is we um you make a motion to to endorse the plan and then we vote on the endorsement because they don't need an approval because the the lots already can stand on their own so everything that they're
doing is you know they're all lawful lots you know they have the correct frontage and and so forth so um if we did nothing this thing would automatically approve itself in I forget how many days right so that just that's how it happens
um my issue is is you know as it's just kind of it's a real fundamental one i don't have a problem with doing ANR i have a problem with what's going to happen with you know the issue with these culverts and what you know and I
get what you know it makes perfect sense to someone who wants to put a building there it doesn't um it just doesn't make sense to me so um does the LDA require or say that the the ANR will be endorsed by the planning
board or is to Angela's point it does automatically go through regardless of our endorsement or not well days what was that Mar i'm sorry marcy what did you say no I was just going to say the that the LDA um tells that we need
to sort of address the the parcel um lines by April 18th but it doesn't give reference that you know like the doesn't separate the town versus the um u the planning board okay
okay forget how many days it is but um April 18th is Friday no I know i meant um like when it just kind of you know uh by default it just is granted um or
it you know I'm saying it just becomes a lot i forget when that is i'm not going to look it up right now it doesn't matter um just to take a poll of other members of the board how are Before we do that Ted is there anything
in our planning board rules and uh I guess I'll call it charter but not town charter planning board charter that requires us to a checklist or are there any other things that we need to be attentive to that might uh impact the decision
with ANRS i don't believe so no correct me if I'm wrong Angela right area Well I think I think you're correct Marissa i don't think that there's anything other than the fact that the lot exists with adequate frontage on a street right
so so no there's nothing else there's nothing else wrong with this ANR there nothing except for my my objection is is to the is you know I you know obviously where the building is but it's all also con including that strip of culvert into
this lot because I think like we all just talked about 25 years from now you know something else could happen or you know they could come back and need to I who knows it just some it just I just don't you know I I don't think it's a
good move i also don't think that it's fair to the neighbors i mean you know you they can't expand their lot they can't move their their houses like right up to as close as it can get and this thing's going to sit on you know it's going to be just looming right on
top of it um so Angela if the design was different if the if the developer is able to shift the building as Jur suggested by 10 ft away from Eerie Street um you know it'll be interesting to see how that might
impact the parking is that something that would be you would find a little bit more acceptable acceptable at all yeah I I would if it if it didn't look like it was again what we did not vote on at town meeting which is to jam this
twice the size of a building that shouldn't have been there in the first place onto one lot and um which is you know it look it's a nicely designed you know it's whatever i'm not commenting on the building at all but I'd feel better
about that and just you know having something that was some kind of a uh you know I'm very uncomfortable in including the culvert in the lot um even though it's owned by the town it's no longer
sort of protected it's no and now it's part of the lot anything I mean they could plant trees on top of it they could do anything um but a fact I mean you know anything could happen over the next many years so I just um
uh you know maybe I maybe I'd feel better if I had a you know thorough discussion with uh an engineer you know from the town who can you know who who has some kind of a guarantee or we have you know we're holding some sort of a bond that protects us i can't even
imagine what that would be i'm happy to arrange a meeting kind of as a followup with with Gino unfortunately he was not able to be here today but he is in full support of the plan as as provided in regards to the design of the building I am happy to
arrange if if the planning board would choose to maybe designate you know two board members that we can meet with the architect team for or the architects for the developer to maybe discuss the placement of the building that would be something that I'm happy to to arrange
and see how we can um in you know impact the design of the sighting of the building on this lodge yeah I I think that's a that's a that's um you know thank you i think that's a very um good idea and a generous idea at the same time I don't I can't speak for
the rest of the board i mean I've you know I've been very vocal about it but I'm you know by myself my opinion doesn't matter so everyone else you know needs to do what they think is important in terms of you know again there's nothing wrong with the with the ANR in
my mind except for the fact that I I wish it didn't include that piece of the culvert otherwise I have no problem with it you know what's going to happen with the building is going to happen with the building regardless of what happens with this ANR i don't know what we have i mean I know that you know the people
that are building this do not care if it sits in a pond of water they don't care about flood zones they don't I mean they've made it very clear they don't care so you know if we don't care then you know um you know we just create
a a bad situation but at any rate um that's again a separate issue so so I'm going to make a motion in a minute well I'm not gonna make a motion but I would entertain a motion in a moment if someone would like to make one but um I
do think you know I do echo Angela's concerns about the building placement entirely um as I mentioned before so I think it's uh I think it would be helpful Marzy to and Angela if you'd like to do this or Jur I'm happy to if
there's any subgroup of the planning board that would be willing to sit down with you Marzy and the architects or the project team or whomever to express some of that um constructive criticism i think that'll only result hopefully in a better project um like I mentioned
before that I think we can Yeah here's something that I don't know and and I I I know that I've never read it in the ANR bylaw so I'd need some kind of a I need some sort of an expert you know maybe from the state to tell me i mean
is it is it possible to to grant an ANR for example and say or you know endorse an ANR essentially that says with the you know like giving it a condition and I I No you can't condition an ANR you can't condition an ANR right okay i'm
sure that's I I'm quite sure you are 100% right about that one of one of the things that I in analyzing this I might feel opposed to attaching that section
that has the culvert from Eerie Street if it wasn't strictly a culvert from Erie Street and it was Stacy Brookke um because this is basically a sewer line um this does not cause me the kind type
of alarm because I can think of a number of places including you know my own home the sewer lines run through a private lot that's owned by the neighbors um it does not run down the easement that our driveway
comes back because there are two houses behind a a house where where we have no street frontage um and I sort of feel with this all being maintained as town land um and that this is a culvert it is
not Stacy Brookke um the amount of the what it is trafficking in fluid and and so forth i really feel that this is not where I would be alarmed i might have a very different attitude if this
was actually Stacy Brookke running through there but this is this is a covert that's coming up from I'm assuming from draining Eerie Street um at that corner so I I I'm I'm just thinking of of multiple locations that yeah we have
these culverts in town that are are going through properties um so I I I am not as alarmed by that also in looking at the street views um this entire
section that is townowned um according to the street views also looks like it is sort of occupied by the neighboring lot um that it's not something that's sitting on what's visibly um that it looks like it has been like the neighbor's lot has
expanded into it so I mean there is I think when this this building is built it may look like that it's being built a lot closer to the lot because of where the fence lines are running currently
but the fence lines appear to be soundly on um town property that's correct so I think there's going to be a visual a visual impact that's pretty negative but realistically
um it's it's where the land is any final thoughts Bill so I guess where I'm struggling is the same thing the ANR is probably not the place to enforce what the building looks like or impacts how it impacts the neighborhood
i too am very uncomfortable seeing the drawing and thank you Angela for bringing it up first of all and then being so um passionate about it the ANR probably is okay u because regardless of what sits on top
of it they have the right to do this regardless of whether we say it's okay or not and I feel uncomfortable holding it back because it's not the tool to do that u fortunately because the 40B and sounds
like the ball is already well rolling um that the plans have already been submitted to somebody um either the state or whoever needs to to get them first for prior approval um and it seems like that the ability of the planning
board whose sole function is to watch out for the the town as far as development and property uh placements and planning of the the communities have very little impact beyond signing off this let's call it a
I don't mean useless in a bad way but it has no impact right so you know it's a little disingenuous for us to sit here and say oh yeah this is great go ahead do the ANR We're I I haven't heard anybody on the board say "Oh that's a great looking building perfect placement." Yet it's by
the boards on us right it's going to go directly to zoning and it's going to be kind of a done deal i see a lot of opportunity here for both the developer and the town to repair or rebuild some of the trust in the community here rebuild some of the trust in the town
where um you know this has been very very u conflicted for years and it doesn't have to be like there are ways to make solutions and maybe it's a maybe it's cost driven um but it seems like there's opportunities for both sides to
come out ahead of where we are Now despite ANR or no ANR I hope so i think that was well said so when we did it when we did Elm Street weren't there public uh meetings about the
design of the building and was that just a goodwill on the developer part or planning board did have a site plan review we did we had a site plan review and I imagine that the board would be able to have one this time around as well right but there's no but there's no
special permit correct right it was a non-binding and if I recall from that meeting it was a limited amount of suggestions um but because this um if I may may sorry Ted um but because of the LDA is
specific in regards to reviewing the schematic plans and I will share that with you that you can see it that the town um through well it's actually through the select board but I would I would encourage the select board to really work with the planning board in regards to the the review of the
schematic drawings um I mean the planning board it's it's it's your sort of jurisdiction to oversee the the planning and design of structures within the town um that I would highly encourage the planning board to you know request comments from the planning board
on the schematic drawings and that's included the review of the of the drawings u is part of the LDA and that's something that's done outside of the uh of the comprehensive permit thanks Marzy that's helpful and as long
as that review is sort of not a closed review so in other words we just have to go in and yep look at it there it is if we have some actual input that we could provide and you know make some positive suggestions and work you know collaborate with the developers we want this to be successful as everybody else
does and I know there's a lot going on with every board in town right now leading up to town meeting um but I think it would be helpful if we can get a small working group from the planning board to maybe sit down with you Marzy and whomever from the project team to convey um have a working session idea
session and convey some some uh some input um and then at the right time I mean I it's a municipal project so I think we have a little bit more uh involvement than a traditional 40B project um but I think it would be
helpful if you know to your point we could request from the select board when they do review a project like this potentially having a joint meeting with them something where we can do this publicly and have our our um I'll say our say but it's what our our statutory goal and our responsibility is to the
town this is just being done in a way that kind of works around that but uh through no mis you know bad intention so I think that would be something that would be helpful at the right time to have this done maybe in a joint meeting with them um because you know they're they have their roles and their their
duties but this is what we do every meeting um of the month every month of the year so this is what we see in and work on every you know with every project in town so bringing the expertise and the experience that we have I think is only additive to a good project i think that's requirement yeah
yeah absolutely so and to Bill's point I think that would be I would verily very heavily suggest that um and I'm happy to communicate that as well to our our friends and colleagues on the uh on the select board and just please let me know who the um
who the subgroup members might be and I will reach out to the developers tomorrow and see if we can schedule a uh a working session or at least a um you know start the discussion and to see where they are in in terms of their schematic plans before they advanced
them any further i'd love for them to to have the feedback so then you know it'll be cost you know advantageous for them to understand the concerns that the town has and to see if they can address them thank you that'd be great anybody want
to be on that working group i'd be happy to angela are you interested sure perfect angela thank you jur all right thank you i will reach out to you both tomorrow thank you okay um and Marzy if you I'm
going to pass my that part of our conversation on to our colleagues on the select board but if you could pass it along um to Gino as well I think that would be helpful i certainly will thank you what's the project timeline so you have until the 18th for these ANRS what's the what's the next steps i'm
just trying to get context as to where the process goes from here absolutely so uh what happens now is that uh the Department of Housing and Livable Communities had forwarded um to the town a 30-day comment letter uh so what that
means is just really the state uh or the developer is seeking tax credit and financing uh from the state for this project and the town of Swamskut has an opportunity has 30 days to submit any comments on the project um so there is a
um you saw the rendering that I shared with you and there's a a full package uh that goes along as as part of that that outlines the project the number of units how many parking spaces um the eligibility for the residents in regards
to the uh the uh the subsidized unit and the income levels of the of the residents and uh the town has an opportunity to to comment on it uh those comments are due at the state by May 2nd that's Friday May 2nd um and then once
that goes in um and the developer will begin to design the project and wait for their project elig eligibility letter from the state meaning that they will receive the funding u depending obviously on the comments and what the
process is and um from that point we have some uh trigger timelines such as this the the review of the schematic plans uh securing of financing and um um there are other trigger points that are required i can send to you the entire
list in regards to uh the timeline and um the um uh the um the variety of different um milestones that developer has to reach so dur where they are with the project in terms of the executive office of housing livable communities
reviewing the application right the initial preliminary filing if there are changes after that date to things that we had discussed tonight any change or anything outside of that is that done before that or can that be done after that May 2nd or whatnot that can be done
after that because right now it's just about the the number of units and the project and right now it's just Clearly what was shared with the state is a rendering and they were not shared the schematic plans they were they were shared the the number of units and you
know the the the basic kind of like the envelope of the structure got it okay that's helpful yep it's helpful with that being said are there any motions anyone interested in making a motion on this
so what would the motion be to I think we just endorse endorse the ANR and there's no liability for us in any way we didn't doesn't have to be approved it's just right so it goes through with or without our
endorsement i think I just um that's true okay i would I would second that motion okay i'll make it you make the motion bill makes a motion to endorse seconded by jur all those in favor i I I all those I'm going to abstain okay so
three in favor and one abstension that doesn't mean that doesn't mean um it doesn't mean that I disapprove it's just Yeah i have concerns absolutely i hope that this can end up being uh very productive for us all
thanks for I mean I've you know fully in you know this is not you know me trying to stop anything obviously so um okay thank you for and thanks everyone for for listening i appreciate it yeah thanks for presenting on that Marz appreciate it and uh yes thank you
Marzy thank you Jacob thank you i'll reach out to the developer team tomorrow and I'll struggle back with you Angela and Madura thank you thank you thank you thanks Marcy so related unrelated question uh what is why is this a requirement is this a state requirement
that we do ANRS or like correct and that's not negotiable yes it's written into the bylaws or Yeah it's applied to every plan every board across the state it falls under the subdivision control
act essentially and ANR is like the first thing you kind of look at where it doesn't need it doesn't need to be a subdivision to to move the lots around to change lot lines providing that each lot you know that you want to include in
your in your ANR has frontage has adequate frontage on a on a existing street so part of me thinks we sat here for an hour and a half uh to do something we didn't have to do right but the other part of me says that it forced
us to understand something we didn't know that would have gone right by the boards so I I'm kind of again conflicted on whether or not we can do it but we have to do it anyway there's no point in debate i just want to see where No I mean and I think right and it is going
to happen um again you know um my my point is a concern which I'm you know I'll do go through the process i can put it in a letter i can voice my concern that's that i think you know this is it's town-owned property like you you know and as I said before if we did
absolutely nothing um it's going to happen anyway so because it because it can it's a they don't need our approval i don't know i don't know why it's part of the subdivision control act that they we have to be endorse it but that's you
know it makes it uh you know they everyone would prefer to have that is it makes it sort of official that we created these new lots and it gets registered and and all of that and then the lot line officially changes okay next up on our agenda is discussion
of the proposed zoning bylaws um discussion and hopeful vote to codify the language here um so Marissa do you want to take us through the red lines if we have that yeah I I'll start with um the easy one which ironically is I
guess the the coastal flood overlay and that's just because it's it's model language that we were given by Mass DCR and like we've mentioned and spoken about before this is just language that's bringing us into compliance with the new regulations that were established by Mass DCR and then also uh
in compliance with the new flood insurance rates flood insurance rate maps that will be issued by FEMA um sometime this summer so one thing that I mentioned in my email to you guys last week was that section 410 of the zoning
bylaw is currently entitled the floodplane wetlands overlay protection district and it also references a map and when I found that map upstairs in public works that map literally just applies to Palmer Pond
um assuming that it's been expanded to maybe other wetlands in town you know we have like Muskrat Pond um we have a vernal pool out by the elementary school those are other wetlands um those are very different topographic
um areas uh in town um that don't necessarily compare to the flood plane areas in town so it's probably makes sense that we remove the term flood plane from that uh from section 41000 so
as not to conflate the two and um and then subsequently entitle our what is now currently known as the coastal flood area overlay district district to the flood plane overlay district which matches the the model bylaw language and
then 41000 will become the wetlands protection overlay district so it'll spec those are regulations specifically pertaining to wetlands um and and then you know also keep in mind that the conservation commission also has jurisdiction over the wetlands through
the wetlands protection act um but just wanted to Oh go ahead no no no that's fine i'm just I don't mean to interrupt so the 4110 is what seems like a dangling participle i mean it's like
it's kind of hanging out there without you know so so where should it go are there specific um you know is it you know when it comes to building I'm not talking about concom stuff when it comes to building anything um anything in
wetlands would have to you know go through um notice of intent anyway right it would have to go to concom so it's a different procedure alto together however doesn't it make sense in terms of building that the same requirements
would be would apply ly to anything in wetland area or is currently there even as our bylaw stands right now there's absolutely no building allowed in the wetlands like in the actual wetlands themselves like no building can happen whatsoever building can happen within
the buffer zone but our by our zoning bylaw doesn't actually regulate that our wetlands protection act regulates that and so that's where so perhaps yeah perhaps that language then whatever used to be there um but that langage to be
you know complies with the conditions um imposed by the conservation commission or something that that's in there already oh okay it looks like Yeah we we just don't have it in front of us yeah that's that's because this was just purely for the sake of like
administrative almost yeah exactly so I get it now so this little piece the 4100 is just there to show the the that's where the change is being made correct got it got it okay thank you yeah just simply rename it was just hanging yeah no just simply looking to rename that um
it's nice that we can correct the spelling of flood flood plane too right and so then um 42000 will be the flood plane overlay district and um and again haven't been any changes since we last went through the uh redline version
anything there's nothing um very minimal like striking of language uh most of it is just all new language that is being added and that's all updated regulations from DCR great so okay no that if all everything else looked fine that was all concerned i'm
like wait a second it's like a whole bunch of information's missing here okay now just to clarify since Swampscott participates in the Prism program or whatever the firm program the the federal flood insurance program yep this language is stuff that we have to adopt
as part of that right in adopting the maps correct got it yes that was my And I think now also you know Massachusetts calls it a flood plane overlay district you know we we had we called it a flood you know an overlay flood district a
wetlands uh district we called it a flood hazard district and we had so many different terminologies right bounce it around that that it was like when something was being built they didn't even know you know uh they went to zoning for relief for example they they
weren't even sure like you know what rules applied the thing is because the names the names are all different right right the thing is is that they technically don't I've never actually seen somebody come to the zoning board for relief and actually one thing that
our bylaw that is changing with this language in the bylaw is um you know really what it is is that the zoning board just the both the building commissioner and the zoning board of appeals review whatever project whatever construction is being proposed in
accordance with the the bylaws that we have for the coastal flood area overlay district i've never actually seen somebody really need relief um but per these new regulations if somebody is going to seek a variance
from the regulations set forth in this section they have to appeal to the state they cannot appeal to our local board our local board does not have no longer has the jurisdiction to wave any of the regulations set forth in this bylaw
because this bylaw is tied mostly to state building code and so if they want to seek relief or any kind of waiver they have to go to the state board of appeals so the swamps local board of appeals automatically gets bypassed so I I have a quick question it's I'm
sort of jumping ahead but under 4230 um the is it that this um Essex County flood insurance rate map is not coming into effect until July 8th
2025 it's just interesting to see something dated further out yeah so that's just because that's when it comes into effect that correct perfect yep i just Yeah i think right now they did they release draft ones yet or is that what we're I keep
looking i haven't seen a draft there are drafts i haven't seen anything i thought there was one Marissa i mean when I um there was one but you can't download it like it was they're so heavy like the like digitally like the right i I
thought I saw one and I saw they were I thought they were releasing a draft in February but um I can't remember i'll have to go back and see if I can find it but regardless I mean so this is um this is good and I
and I do think that you know um in terms of permitting so if somebody came to us next week you know once well let's just say once we once this gets on the warrant basically and and you know we know we're going to vote on it
um or once we vote on it town meeting you even before it gets approved by the state and so forth it's basically law so um if someone was going to put a you know bring some kind of a permit before
us even if it were prior to July to that particular date um I think we can still enforce it based upon um based upon the fact that it's in the bylaw that as of that date unless Yeah
totally okay and for that matter too I mean um I don't know if it makes sense to talk about it right now but one way that one so with respect to the site plan special permit language there were you know that was one thing that we
hadn't comprehensively decided on so one thing I included in there in iteration number three was adding another subsection to include any construction in the flood area overlay should be subject to site plan review whether it's
a 100 foot addition or a brand new home subjected the site plane review bring it before you guys the developer whoever is filing that application has to present a flood plane memo like the previous applications have had to do talk about any short-term long-term effects any
necessary mitigation strategies that kind of thing that way there's oversight on your part because it might not necessarily coastal flood or flood overlay construction might not necessarily come before the zoning board of appeals and so that gives you guys a little extra
um oversight as well right because they're they're really not going to be if something's you know unless they they're just looking they're looking at relief so they're just going to look at something oh yeah it's in the flood plane i don't know that that zoning is even going to go through it to see right
you know what what's allowed and I think that's something that will be important for us to you know kind of connect with zoning on that after town meeting just to make sure that everyone understands right because this is it is a big shift from what we've been doing for sure yeah but I think you did a great job just
updating this and and aside from my my my lapse in understanding the beginning I don't have any other questions about Okay are there any other questions from the board on this particular segment
nope okay no it looks great cool i think at this point we'll just need to vote to um assume this as the final language and the select board on Wednesday will be using the language from our vote tonight and closing the warrant correct so we got in just under the water um and I
think it still needs to go to town council does it not and they they'll look at it before we print it in there or something marissa yeah I can send it to them this one I worked with Eric Carlson directly from DCR oh on the language to do the back and forth so I'll certainly send it to town council as like the final seal of approval but
this one should be like Yeah already tied neatly with a bow so okay so is there a motion to adopt this as um so moved second right all those in favor say I i all right awesome perfect
next we can head to ADUs yes okay so adus um again the big changes are
um excuse me in to maintain compliance with the newly issued state regulations one of the main changes is that no municipality can unreasonably impose design restrictions
on an ADU that they would not impose on a single or two family structure so in our current iteration of the bylaw 51134 and 5136 we talk about um oh no sorry 5134 is different um
the pvious area correct yeah just 51136 there shall not be a reduction in the amount of pvious area or removal of trees on the property for the sake of constructing an ADU that's not necessarily a restriction that we would impose on anybody looking to just build a single family home or in addition you
know as long as they maintain that open space requirement of 25% you know then then they're allowed to go forth with the construction as shown in the plans and same thing with removal of trees um and it so it would
it would probably be it might be unreasonably considered to have that restriction imposed on an accessory dwelling unit on the construction of an accessory dwelling unit yeah no I think that's a no-brainer for us to remove they're going to that would 100% right
not fly given the the guidance that they've put out um the really the only things in here that are optional so to say is 51136 as proposed um eliminating short-term rental for the ADU and then adding the definition of what a
short-term rental is where the specific language for short-term rental was that suggested by KP law or is that from building code that came directly from the state regulations for ADUs yeah I'm very much in favor of that so let me just ask a question if this is
to come up in town meeting this is the only one that I have any concerns with the short-term rental yeah um I am just wondering if there is a way if this becomes
controversial to state that no ADU shall be offered as a shortterm rental without owner occupancy of the main structure because I think that there there could be people that were doing this well
where it wasn't like an isolated party house in the middle of a neighborhood mhm um but it it was I just I don't I don't like restricting viable financial gain um for
people but I do think it would be reasonable to state that that owner occupancy was was necessary um so I don't I don't know how the rest of you feel about that um
I think it says that doesn't it in the definition of short-term rental like that it has to be owner occupied don't uh No it can also be a non non-owner occupied property oh okay um
um I I think that it flies in the face of the purpose of the core purpose of the bylaw so I'm totally um against eliminating that langage i think it has to be in there the purpose of it is to create affordable housing
situation for someone not like a place to stay for the summer while they're looking for another house or while they're waiting i mean it just that's not the purpose than it more what I'm thinking about is people I mean this
this adventure is a very costly thing and there are families that need to plan and establish something like this and a short-term rental might be the most viable way for them to fund building
this um for a family that is going to be moving in in two or three years um in the sense of maximizing ing their ability to cover that cost um because this is a case where we have a town with
a wide swing in what income and um disposable income looks like um so I'm always hesitant i I think the ADU as a concept is fabulous but I also
recognize it's fabulous for people that have finances to be able to afford these are not inexpensive solutions they're expensive solutions so I don't like the idea of hamstring stringing people
that there might be a way for them to do this but if we set up the rule so only the people that are wealthy enough to build build them to move a family member into it i don't know i just I think that it Well hold on a second so you're saying but so in other words you're
saying that so if I want to move into that in three years and my sister for example is going to take on the responsibility of you know she said I'll you know we'll build an ADU and you know when you're done you know whatever you'll you know for whatever
reason is I would move in there in a few years and to help her sort of you know kind of recoup some cost on that before I move in mean she could rent it out for a year or two or three years i don't have a problem with that i have a problem with week to week or a month at
a time uh or the summer and then gone and then you know two weeks and then gone and then that's not the same thing um I feel if there's someone that is living on the property and if they are
running this like an Airbnb um like some people do currently in Swampskit it really you know it really isn't in my opinion I don't think it's a good idea to overly
limit the financial approach to being able to afford to build something like this um so you're saying that if somebody builds it just for um to pay itself off and then as a source of income for themselves i I'm saying that it could be something
that was a source of income for themselves um it's it's a case where I don't I don't really like us sort of creating worst case scenarios and trying to stop them from
happening um I think that I I'm not crazy about a nonowner occupied building being able to create an ADU and I and and rent it out so all of a sudden there's like
extra extra activity happening um that isn't without people overseeing it i personally think that people being able to rent parts of their homes in uh a short-term fashion when they are there being responsible
um in the moment i think that's a different scenario um and I think but that's a lot to that's a lot to control that's all I can say it sounds good i understand what you're saying Chair and and I I really do understand what you're saying and I think that theoretically it
sounds reasonable but we can't control all those things we can't control you know we can't be you know supervising who's living there or if they have somebody if they have you know a house down on Elwood Road somewhere not I'm
not talking about you you know that and and they have you know nice carriage house they fix up in the back who doesn't have it rented out every other week in the summertime for you know the people i mean I just don't think that is I think it is completely contrary to the
to the intent of the bylaw and and I don't think that it's a problem to if you had you know somebody that wasn't prepared to move in right away and and you rented it out to somebody for a year i mean I think that's completely reasonable to do that
and I think it's you know it respects everybody else around you and it allows you the flexibility of having you know being able to rent it out um in that nature but I just think short term is you know I guess I sort of feel that if
short-term were such an issue it would have been built into the state bylaw i don't know i it just really does feel restrictive they did call it out as one of the very few places that m municipalities can control so it's one of the few places that they did make a
note to a lot of times do that my question here is the definition of short-term rental to me reads reads anybody renting any place for any period of time not just short for anything they want for anything right like we could put you know why don't we
why don't we put a timeline in it then so it's not Yeah I would suggest I've seen other communities that are reviewing this or have short-term rental defined in their zoning bylaws which shortterm they define it as this period of nights i thought the state had
language and I may have misread but I thought the state had language that said it was shorter than 30 days um which I would it would make sense to me if someone wants to do monthtomonth that's not 30 days but you know um really they just don't want weekend or week to week rentals on the Cape or wherever at some
vacation place um and I think that makes sense here to add language for 30 days or whatever that trigger that this board feel comfortable with but I think we need to add that in the definition so I think the definition is a little bit well it's a mouthful right so it's basically this this this and this and
not this but this also and that kind that seems to contradict 51136 so 51136 we're adding no ADU shall be offered as short-term rental and then basically like had mentioned short-term rental is is anything
um so I'm not sure are complementing each other i think it's I think it's all in how we want to define a short-term rental how do you want to define I know we've talked about this but I I'm positive we had a bed and breakfast bylaw that
defined short-term rental uh actually right I don't know that they define short I can double check on that i don't know that they define short-term rentals but I think the distinguishing factor too between bed and breakfast and what what is defined here as a short-term rental is that bed and breakfast is
considered a business use and that would that would involve going to the town clerk getting a business certificate establishing yourself as a business and then operating as such which whereas this is just I want to rent out my room next door because you know my I'm an
empty neester and you know I don't mind vacationers coming into my house every couple of weeks or that kind of thing to to Bill's point it does 51323 I'm sorry 51322 allowable length of stay and lodging establishments is no less than one night and no greater than
30 nights so that's the definition it gets to right and we did that for I believe for hotels and ins and bed and breakfast we did not allow motel right so I don't see what the difference
between a BNB and an Airbnb and an ADU is as far as what the owner can do with them so I get it's kind of like the it's sort of like that an like the that analogy like all thumbs are fingers
but not all fingers are thumbs you know like an ADU could be I guess well you know like like a house or a structure a structure could be a bed and breakfast you know it could be an ADU and it could be a short-term
rental but any conversely not one of the any one of those doesn't necessarily fit the other so if somebody has a 900 square foot accessory dwelling unit in the back
of their home you know that could be the accessory dwelling unit maybe they're rent their their in-laws are living there right and by virtue of being 900 square feet you know smaller than the principal structure sharing utilities with that principal structure everything is held in common ownership so to speak
it it fits the definition the mold of what is an accessory dwelling unit and then if you know the in-laws move out and the homeowner says "Okay well maybe I want to try this vacation rental thing and I'm going to start leasing it out
we're right near the beach what if beachgoers want to come and enjoy swamps?" and they start renting it out for week periods at a time then it becomes a short-term rental and it rather than being a bed and breakfast because they're just op the homeowner is operating it as an individual rather than as an established business right
which is what a bed and breakfast would be and the zoning language does define bed and breakfast as requiring owner occupancy it does now but I thought we were talking about this this says it doesn't have to be owner because that's that short-term rental
yeah when they say bed and breakfast establishment in the definition and we could always strike that you know but I think they might I wonder if they're just it's if it's sort of like a non-branded reference to Airbnb you know like home i don't think
so because Bed and Breakfast predated right i mean that would have been on the books right or I mean there was a that was something that sort of disappeared and then reappeared in the 19 late 70s and 80s where people were very much there were
organizations that you could do this where you brought people and they they stayed in your spare bedroom and you made them breakfast right um Airbnb was strictly the digital or the you know online of it right um I think the the definition that is
currently here it's uh 51322 or they the B the current travel and tourist lodging establishment section of the zoning bylaw mhm allowable length of stay for lodging establishments is no less than one night no greater than 30 nights i think that's what we could just I would
just point that as a definition of short-term rental i mean use that those timelines there right i think we called a transient yeah but I'm just I'm just not sure when there is a structure that is attached or detached from your house that if you're allowed to rent out as an
as a bed and breakfast or as what did you call it a tourist and transient lodging tour and transient lodging it being connected to your house and it being disconnected from your house that doesn't necessarily matter i don't think it matters at all but you wouldn't be able to rent it out as an official bed
and breakfast or as some kind of like tourist lodge because we're these are in residential zoning districts and those are just those are those are yeah not right and also the the language here on the current bylaw the travel and tourist bylaw does require to be in the primary
building so any ADU would not be compliant because of So it has to be in your primary building the bed and breakfast one i don't think so with overnight transient lodging accommodations within residential buildings offered to the general public
um yeah within a residential building so I guess it but an ADU is a residential building i don't know i I just Well we also have a specific overlay district for that air Forbes i think they're across the board i Right airbnbs are right and all
residential districts not in commercial districts you mean Airbnbs no I meant uh excuse me I meant ADUs oh ADUs right in every every residential district but not in commercial districts right but the this
is the but Bill were you refer you talking specifically about like bed and breakfast establishments okay so there's an overlay for the the tourist uh zone which tourist lodging overlay district i was just short and where is that it's over by Puritan Cove and then it doesn't
it go over by Puritan where the bend is by Cassidy Beach and Lincoln House Point yeah it goes around that bend i think at one point it took a break and then started again but I think we made it continuous yeah um but it's only there and it it stops just at
Hadley i don't know why yeah the definition here does say guest rooms shall be located within the primary residential structure 15 or 51363 okay so that what's that district based on
uh the planning board took a map and said this looks good is that because that was where the hotel was that burned down over by Johnson Park was and that there were there were ins along there you know historically but we also went to several public
meetings and you know with neighbors and so forth to talk about that isn't do you recall that bill because we had people that were some people that were really upset about you know not having it here but having it there and so we kind of just you know worked our way down to
what actually made sense in terms of you know historical patterns um and what would you know uh kind of not be you know you know disturbing or to a you know this was in terms of a business right yeah i I I underestimated
certainly Angela i apologize but we actually did quite an extensive uh uh process for that we had a there was a subcommittee bylaw review committee subcommittee right at the time and there was extensive research done in neighboring communities Salem Newbury
Port uh down the the Southshore we did some places and we came up with uh kind of the the best eclectic mix of definitions and types of locations and types of businesses that would fit in Swabskut at the time and um it was a very concerted effort between the
planning board and the town because there were public hearings and multiple public hearings lot of community engagement which Bill you headed up all of that stuff it was extremely thorough so you know that's just to answer your question because it's a good one how did
you come up with that zone that's basically how excellent um I did have one question about 5113.4 pre-existing detached structures eligible for conversion to an ADU may be demolished and reconstructed in
accordance Oh I need to look at 22.73 i'm just curious um because are we at any risk with that statement where you know we have a number of historic carriage houses in
the historic districts is that protected like is there do we need a note in there because No no I don't think so we've had this bylaw has already been put into practice a couple times this past year okay um where uh people have had just
accessory buildings where they're not foundationally sound to then be converted into into an ADU so 2273 is um the subsection of our zoning bylaw that protects single and non-conforming single and two two family structures and their accessory structures so it's part
of the state's 4DA section six so let's say um someone came and they wanted to knock down one of the historic carriage houses in the Mstead district then they would have to come before the district the commission so the district that would that would still be a certificate
of non-applicability or certificate of appropriateness that they would need to get and if the commission said no this is a contributing structure right okay if you're on Farragate Road you've got two sets of bylaws that you're working with you've got this one if your structure is not conforming and then you
have to come to the commission the other bylaws so and that the historic district is a it's a it's a zone you know and I just want to make sure that that wouldn't at all zoning applies yeah because I want to definitely safeguard
absolutely i don't want to weaken the historic district so uh just to kind of close the loop on the short-term rental side of things it sounds I think I agree
with your point Angela about um you know we know what the goal of the of the you know governor's bill was that that allowed this by right we know what the goal of our local bylaw was when we did this two or three years ago and
allowing short-term rental i can understand where you're coming from Jur giving some people flexibility to do that um I would get nervous about the adverse effects of that um I don't know i don't feel strongly about it either way but I also I don't know i'm curious your
thoughts plus the people that have Airbnbs I mean they they're you know most of them are registered and you know they they pay taxes on them and so forth and and you know and if someone can just have that whole benefit without having to deal with any of it you know that's
that's not fair either um I also feel like it's just so out of alignment with the spirit of So wait a second from what you just said though really stretching it i I didn't follow the argument you just made with if
people I don't think this would give people the ability to bypass any regulations on Airbnb this is this is basically saying that space can't be used for Airbnb right correct which I think it shouldn't
be i don't think you should have people in there for shorter than 30 days i don't think it's right i don't that we are not we're that's not housing so I so that would be that would be something that one thing here in the short-term rental
um I think maybe there would it would make sense though because unfortunately the idea of a year lease is not in my opinion for ADU the best situation totally agreed so maybe the short-term rental is this where we reiterate
because one thing there it says short-term rental and there's nothing in this about it just says you can't rent it right it doesn't actually give any parameters so I think we do need to add language in that says
um and where would it be inserted i think we would just I think just reference just within this section itself or there are additional regulations other subsections i would just the definition that was in that I read before that was in the tourists and lodging 513 something yeah
that of no short-term rentals can not be rented for less than one night and no more than 30 consecutive so how do we get from to how do we send someone from here to there i mean that's the whole thing is I think the bylaw capitalize it
capitalize capitalize the word so that it implies the definition or we can put in parentheses c definitions I think that because there's one that sends over here we're already um well going back to the 51134 we say conversions to may be deolled and
reconstructed in accordance with right so this would be I think we'd have to re We can't just point to this section because it's allowable length of stay in a lodging establishment and we're this is distinctly not a lodging establishment
right right and we can't we shouldn't pretend it is but I think we should slip in there in a lodging establishment or an ADU i mean you know or we could even just say I mean we can just use the same language
i mean just repeat the words yeah allowable length of stay in a accessory dwelling unit is no less than 30 nights or something to that and I think it'd be good to let town council pick that apart a little bit and
um so say say that again allowable so kind of using the same language but reversing allowable length of stay in an accessory dwelling unit is no less than 30 consecutive nights mean minimum 30
consecutive nights is at a minimum of Right right because at least in But that's but it can't say it's a length of stay it would have to say a rent rental or uh allowable length of rental of rental agreement
mhm in concept though we're all more in line with 30 days or more is fine for a rental 30 days or less 29 days or less is not right yeah i I think we I think a I think a month-to-month lease is incredibly reasonable i don't I don't
really feel that's the same variation as running a tourist yeah i I can I think that's a good Yeah and that way that does that does allow people to you know keep gives people options it gives people
more financial options i'm just I'm just really concerned that we have things like I I did not like our ADU version where if you were lucky enough to have an existing building you got grandfathered in and if you were didn't
have a detached project you didn't i I just um I just want to see this thing so that it works all all neighborhoods all socioeconomic totally agreed so for language um I think we just need to come to some
finality of language before we leave here tonight because they're closing the warrant Wednesday and obviously pending KP Law's review of it um which they will do um I don't know marissa are you able to Are there any I'm trying to think if there's any other towns that have
already enacted local control on short-term rentals for ADUs that we could steal so new steal a bylaw from i mean worst case scenario I mean hope in the event that we get to tackle short-term blanket short-term rental law
in this coming year you know this bylaw would only be right 365 days mhm um what was the language that we the allowable length of rental uh of an ADU
shall not be less than 30 consecutive nights i think a minimum I think we could Bill made it a little easier maybe a minimum rental ADUs may be offered for rent for a minimum of 30 days period consecutive consecutive consecutive days
consecutive days yeah not to be a calendar nerd but we have tw one 28 and 29 day month um I know 30 days is used that way um I wouldn't get too worried about that
we've been not saying a 31 day month either so I think it's that's a general accepted so you can say by the month you know if you want to put it that way but I think I think using 30 days is is pretty average you know considering
there are 31s and there are 28s or 29s and No I think it I I don't think it's a it's probably everyone who rents an ADU will be breaking the bylaw for the month of February right just because so many people want
to stay here in February because it's Yeah exactly it's it's where we all want to be let's go to Swampscott for February break um cool does does that definition that Bill that we kind of just talked about the minimum
rental period for an accessory dwelling unit shall be 30 days minimum greater 30 days minimum 30 days minimum of 30 days period 30 days um that being the only ch and I think we do
we want to replace all of that short-term rental language with just that simple statement i I think so i think we should I have read this 10 times and I still have no idea what about the short but I think it's I think having that short-term
rental language in there is important because it's the it's an idea and I think it's it's getting into all of a sudden we're talking about we send them over to it under an ADU section we're talking about hotels and motel and
lodging houses what if we just put it in the bylaw write it on the part about where we talk about the short-term rental in the bylaw and just say in which is in this in this cir in this circumstance no fewer than 30
consecutive days i think that's a good idea strike the definition of short-term rental from here so don't reflect it to a section just say in this bylaw oh wait wait a second let's I think that's a good idea so let me just see if I understand what you're saying we're
going to take the definition of short-term rental out and over at 5113.6 no ADU shall be offered for rent for less than 30 days right right okay right i think that is
that makes sense because that other one doesn't that's a clean change so I think that's that's good yeah I agree in the language that we said is no ADU shall be or no ADU shall be offered for rent for
less than 30 consecutive days and then we get rid of this whole and I get rid of that whole definition short-term rental clean easy i think that's great all right um so with that small change less than 30 consecutive days consecutive days
mercy do you have that language no ADU shall be offered for rent for a period of less than 30 consecutive days correct perfect okay motion to approve that so move administrative second all right all
those i'll second i perfect great good job okay and All right site plan site plan special permit our favorite all right so every single page is the same but just a
different version so version one is just simply striking the uh square footage requirement for residential new construction and the bylaw 5423 will simply say any new
construction of a single or two family residence period yeah anything three or more is commercial and that follows under 5421 um so version one just eliminates new construction correct correct can I just put something out there instead of
unless you guys want to go through every version can we just kind of Can I just kind of say what I like does it make sense instead of going by version just saying here's what you know ideally the the final version would look like
yeah that's what um well that's sort of what version that's essentially what you're doing right yeah that's sort of what version four was my only I think the only iffy one was 5422 which I don't know where we landed on the square footage for residential additions if we like if we were okay
with keeping the 800 for now i'm not so I think it's too too big lower it to 500 that seem to be the other I think 500 is very very reasonable okay and I think it's too big you think it's too big
what do you think chair what do you What do you think would be reasonable 500 is 25 by 25 and we're doing no sight plan am I doing bad math unless it I'm okay with going smaller i just want something that's going to I want to make sure it's going to pass um the the
problem that I have with this being um I think the thing that needs to be understood here is is that when you shift lot sizes you you shift density of neighborhoods in some neighborhoods 800 square feet people aren't going to
notice it right and in some neighborhoods it is going to be looming over you yep so um that's and then the other thing is the square feet of gross floor area i think we should be talking in
footprint too i we we say GFA and I feel like really we really only mean GSF gross square footage i feel like in so let's say it yeah in definition we say gross floor area but I feel like in practice we really only say gross square footage i know but that's different
gross square footage two completely different No no but I don't think floor area is open for misinterpretation right it's footprint right that's right um how about this can I can I recommend something but because I think that we there's
something we could do so under 5422 residential edition we could say construction exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two family residence that take the eye out changes or alters the footprint of a residence
period then you take the rest of it out and because how the hell are we supposed to know if like back in 1970 it required a site plan i don't know i mean that that's absurd nobody knows and plus it just I think it just it's means nothing
it it's like it it just makes it looser so um um that changes the footprint of a resident or which basically is you know in other words they can so if they just want to build a second floor on top of a single floor and they're not going to change a
square footage that second floor can be and there we can say any more than 400 square feet or something like that or you know gross whatever you're going to say um what do you want to say gross square feet isn't that what you want you
want both because I think the footprint and the gross square feet are really important because we're talking about footprint which I 100% agree with J and then we're talking about massing right which is you know could be the same footprint but the massing is is can just
be as we've seen in the past can just be ridiculous and then they're putting a deck out back and you know and then before you know it it's like well that's not a room and but there's a there's a bedroom over the deck but the deck I mean just you know
um so let me go back and just see if I understand so you're saying residential addition construction exterior exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two family residence that changes or alters the footprint
we could say by x amount of square feet of a residence just not even that changes or alters the square the the footprint so that's one piece of it i don't care if you alter the footprint by 10 feet on one side okay you know 10 by
10 i mean it's alters the footprint and to your point chair something like that like up by where your house is that's a big deal okay so alters the square footprint period not period but I mean doesn't matter by how much that alters
the footprint or involves an addition of more than x number of square feet well then wouldn't one just encompass two wouldn't change or alter the footprint imply even an addition no because you can you can go up oh can
basically my house I didn't alter the footprint of my house but I went up a half sure right right so this is this would then say changes or alters the footprint of a residence or involves an
addition of more than blank square feet of gross floor area i get uncomfortable with the any size change to a footprint and I say that because somebody putting a 6x6 mudroom on the side of their house and having them have to come before planning
board for a site plan special permit or site plan review to me seems excessive and uh prohibitive of doing what we should be encouraging people to do which is invest in their properties getting their assessed values up and giving us more tax revenue to be perfectly honest but I
that's good point that is a good point i I do see 25 by 25 i do see the the square foot bigger than most of our living rooms yeah I do see the square footage trigger um just you know how many additions do we see a year
that you're aware of that don't come before site plan but are footprint changes don't come before site plan a few um a few yeah go just run through the zoning permits yeah I'd say upwards of 10 maybe and I I would also say we
catch them in historic district all the time and and but we actually can you have enforcement authority right in a small portion of the town mhm um but it is it
is a case where we've had a couple of them that it would have been very helpful for them to be here because we're looking at the aesthetics of it but I can look I can look at it and say "Okay you've got a twotory edition
that's moving Ellis Road i don't remember which one." No no that that that um Ellis Road yeah no not that one but there was there was another one on forget where it was
banks I think that it really did it did really move it over um so it it's a case that you know 25 by 25 is you know a two a twotory 25 by 25 is
500 square feet mhm so um but in an area where that would be prohibitive like first house I moved in in Swampscott I had lot lines i could touch the lot lines from my the window of my house
every lot line and I mean you Yeah it's crazy um I understand you know any square footage is big and a place where you have smaller lots and houses are kind of built upon each other do it anyway because of the setbacks exactly like
we're going to be operating on a lot of these properties where I think that would have a large impact it's going to be either within the setback or have some other dimensional requirement that's going to cause it to either go before zoning or come before us so that's true i think we're kind of
getting to a place where any of these projects where it's going to be looming for the most part has to get would have to get relief anyway just because of our dimensional right needs um I just I just get nervous about making it more difficult for people to try and do
nominal things to their homes um without causing them undue burden by having to do this and you know having to come before a planning board is not the end of the world but another month or two months on a project you got architect you got to get plans you got
to get but you know lawyer I I would say that in Marblehead it's I think it's 500 for the um the site plan and And you look at what they that's everything from you know their little tiny houses in Oldtown all the way out to the humongo
things on the neck and it's 500 i'm very open personally to revisiting the 800 i don't see a huge problem with it but I hear all of your concerns and I'm I'm very open to revisiting that i think the 800 is insane myself i do too i think I would be more
I would be more apt to be comfortable i mean 20 by 20 I my living room is big a 20 by 20 room is bigger than my living room you know these are not these these dimensions are huge and I I personally
think that that is an impact if you think about a 12,200 square foot house a 1200 foot house could be a twostory house and then if you're doing this onto it it goes from a 12,200 foot house
right 40% bigger but you do have you know you're going to have like like Ted said you've got setbacks you've got height restrictions and stuff like that but but even even though there are setbacks and height restrictions I still think
we are we have such we are not a uniform community to try to land this stuff it's like we we come up with these numbers and they make me crazy you know I know you guys are sick of listening to me about about
setbacks but you know we there's not a magic number on setbacks right setback right is is is a big It's all conditional it's all conditional and you know there's stuff that people aren't allowed to build that would make sense in the neighborhoods and there's things
that you're allowed to build that make no sense um maybe we should adopt a formbbased code i was going to say that's a great segue to something we're all very enthusiastic to probably talk about which is War um that's an undertaking for another time but yeah that's a that that's a whole town that's
one big thing of town meeting all by itself but but like but a 10 by 20 addition is 200 square feet and that's still a huge addition on the house would you be comfortable with it by by zoning district we had tossed around a percent
i tossed the idea of a That doesn't seem fair does it but that doesn't seem fair though what% percentage of the existing gross square footage because 10% of a house Well I I'll be frank with you one of the things that I'm very pleased with
the historic district is that there is not any cost to coming in front of it and like one of the things that really bothers me here is that you know you trigger these costs and there's stuff there's people that aren't going to do things because they can't you know they
won't add that addition on they won't make their house more livable well I think that's an excellent point and you know it's the zoning when you're going for relief where they should really be you know and they are charging fees or maybe the filing fees can be greatly
reduced well I think if all of us pled to pardon it's about 450 450 for filing the average that's a lot i agree it's a lot considering what we're paid the big bucks I know i would I could half my salary we could all donate our
our stipen from uh working on What do you mean you don't get paid for being on the platform geez i thought everybody did no just kidding okay so so coming back to this where are we on this 5422
i'm personally I'm very comfortable with going to 500 because I think it's a it's a big departure from where we were and I think we should I think it gives us you know we're we're going to be looking at it i mean we're we're certainly going to be
looking at it i mean it does bring every single you know I mean and to your point Ted even if we left the the original language in there um exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two family residence that changes or alters
a footprint of a residence that previously required site plan approval or site plan special permit i mean you know that could be a that could be any house really right so I mean but how would anyone know it would really only
be something if it was on the resident card right the property card but and that's only something we've done very recently those got lost and I think that's I think that's in there because of the aggregate the aggregate additions
to a h to any particular property right so I think that's why that phrase is in there because of that aggregate but um in any event I I still feel like that that 500 is I I think that because it's
some because it works well in a neighborhood like Marblehead not to you know I'd say the same thing about you know I don't know Nant or Winter you know older smaller towns where you have a lot of you know tightly you know you have a lot of densely
settled smaller homes and areas that are more newly developed that have bigger lots and you know you've got to have the same regulations for everybody and that for them it seems to work pretty well um I hear you i think for me to that's
that's basically where I'm going with it i mean we've I I I still think that previously required a site plan approval is just I I I Marissa you can correct me if I'm wrong but the majority of houses you'd
never know yeah you'd never know and so it would So I don't I think having it in there to like they they'll go to town hall and they say "Oh well we have we had this how could this be answered right accurately?" So there's a part of me that maybe it says like you were
saying before exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two family residence that changes or alters the footprint of the residence by more than well not just the footprint so it' be the footprint or massing of a
residence by 500 square feet or more that I think I like that or could it say it's not just the footprint it it's the massing as well so what if it doesn't change the footprint and it just changes the massing
well could you say a mass uh could you give a footprint m minimum and a or maximum and a a massing maximum no I mean I don't I don't but that's where we were at before so I just think
it's I just I think it's all going to be relative and we're just going to have to figure it out because if it's really if the footprint you know size it's really going to be determined by setbacks mhm could it could we not just strike that
the the entire first section of that and just say involves an addition of more than 500 square feet because whether or not it's a second story edition or a lateral addition on the first story as long as it's more than 500 square feet it's getting added oh that makes a good point because if you lose the footprint
Yeah right footprint it be makes it I think it Yeah adds too much i think it makes I think that makes perfect sense just involves an addition so construction exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a new two family
residence that exceeds that that um exceeds 500 square feet gross square feet however you want to put it okay we had square feet of gross floor area be before so yeah I would say
whatever you guys um you know whatever you guys feel is the best way to express that space whether it's gross you know whatever we were saying before I would say at least I know we define gross square feet in the definitions so would
say that's probably a safe bet by more than yeah by more than 500 I think that's so that's basically you could put a 20 by 20 foot room on your house without having a sight plan
or a 10 by 20 twostory edition or you can and but if you have to but if it's not you know if it um if you need relief then you need relief you know
then you're going to have to go to zoning I just I just wish that you know the the thing that so much is done what are you talking about pardon me i I I I totally get what you're going to say but go ahead well I I just wish that we were a
community that had more design review i I mean this is I know there is so much that happens that you're like "Oh that's a shame that happened and that's a shame that happened." And you know I don't think that it it makes the community
better community better i don't think it makes the community I don't think it it helps people's property values um we worry about people being you know a homeowner being inconvenienced for a
month and their neighbor gets you know up until now they could get a 40x4 foot addition dropped in someone's yard that altered the experience of living in their own house without anyone looking at it i don't I just I don't think it's
great unit building you know looming over your looming over your bedroom so I agree with you but you know what are you going to do well communities do things i mean there's I've worked in communities in California that if I wanted to alter
the window on a back of a house that someone could see out their bathroom window and only them I was I was doing it correctly it was matching the house it had to um and it it did protect granted these communities property values are probably not what we
would want here because no one could live here yeah mhm but but everyone signed up to doing it and you know and they had so does so let's say okay did those changes that we just talked about the
the amendments to the language in the residential additions the 500 foot trigger the changes to the language about the footprint that Marissa had just read off are we all in agreement about that i would be at 400
you're going to keep saying that until you say "All right 10 feet." All right 10 square feet no I was I have 200 written down 10 by 10 is 10 by 10 is a bedroom mhm it's not a mud room it's a bedroom at the end of the day
you know I want to you to be careful about how much I hear what you're saying like we need we've all seen properties where things have happened that you're like I would have done it differently if it came before planning board i would have had this input totally completely agree
i think we do have to have a longer term conversation about things like maybe looking into formbbased code for some point in the future and looking at certain design guidelines and ways to do that that can be done without being an impediment because I think a lot of the
time some of these things we talk about it's easy for us because it's like they come back in a month okay they'll make a change they can do it again in a month but on the other side of the coin a month is you know if you're a homeowner a month can be an inconvenience is probably generous to describe things as
if you're trying to go through a project and you're trying to keep up with your financing in everything so but I think it's part of a longer term conversation that I would like to have is figuring out how we can do both of those things at the same time not inconvenience people but also at the same time ensure
that our review is backed by bylaws that allow us to be a little bit more thorough in review allow us to review more projects allow us to be more involved and thoughtful in design i think forbased code will do that and there's some other things I think we can look into doing like you know buy rate
uh builds for certain types of projects and everything or designs but with that being said I say that kind of independent of this I don't think we're going to solve those problems in this changing this I I I think if we So you're cool with 200 then I'm cool with 500 y
um my recommendation is to stick with 500 to do the eliminate the 3,000 complete uh eliminate the 3,000 foot trigger completely for any new construction and I think 500 is reasonable um I think it is as well if the board feels
differently I respect you how do you feel Bill good with 500 and the I will stand strong at 100 it's shrinking yeah that's how it's how I negotiate the
one my tariff incredible shrinking building a tariff that the one part that we haven't really talked about is the flood area overlay in any construction in a flood plane yep so I think that I think where Marissa tucked that in at 5426 is is is good
i think it's important that we you know that gets referred to because when you know and it should be it should also go into um uh you know I'd love to see it into uh you know zoning reviews as well
in terms of um dimensional special permits and stuff like that because I don't know that it's you know it's always um you know they're looking at dimensional special permit they're not looking at where that dimension is per se unless it's glaringly obvious so I
think there's a a piece that you know there that that needs to happen ultimately but at any rate I believe it belongs there but um so that would also involve reumbering the rest of the section which I know you just didn't do um Marissa because that was just one of
the versions no I um I reumbered the rest of it did version not but but it's not in red line right it's just not in red line knocked out right so we need to do that and then also flip
to flip to the um page 109 under contents of the plan for commercial and residential and under the 5458 we have CF AOD and then again in the residential under
5462 to letter E we have C F A O D oh so Oh I see what you mean they're not in They're not that's all yeah yeah but but we can just do that through an administrative office exactly yeah yep yeah we can just you know you can just stick it in there
now just cross it out and redline it oh totally yeah we the only I only printed out the first page so that's all we have before us like just the actual like the beginning section 54 fold it out yeah it's in it's on there this um this short-term rental description is there
one um that's as thorough for the adult uses oh you know chair okay he's getting punchy all right so let's get to I just looked at that i was like what is that that's funny so if we're So then on site
plan special permit we're at 5422 Residential addition construction exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two family residence that in let's see of a two family of
residence in excess of 500 square feet yeah by more than sorry or yeah expansion by more than sorry okay so we got that the next one is residential is any new construction
of a single or two family residence period the next one is 5426 adding the flood area overlay yep renumbering the rest of the section just you know knocking that out and redlining and then redlining the Oh I'm sorry keep going
i'm sorry oh and just redlining the stuff you don't have you know the um the what you know stuff I mentioned before yes 458 where I input flood area overlay that should be already all set because adult
uses was already 5426 so I put so that should that's already numbered accordingly I think it's just redlining the updates talking about right this is about um the time and this is about contents of plan oh I got you I got you
okay it's under contents of plan commercial and residential and in both those sections under contents of plan it mentions discussion of CF AOD got it you just want to switch it yes to FOD or FA
yeah just get rid of that and put FOD yeah that's all gotcha thank you so do we have any motions that we want to make to reflect that final language um is I guess if everyone's good with it I would make a motion to amend um the
site plan special permit section 5400 with the comments I just read to the board which I'm happy to read again could you I think just the 5422 section okay 5422 section would read residential-
edition construction exterior alteration or exterior expansion of a single or two family residence by more than 500 square gross square feet or square whatever you're going to call it gross square
feet okay did you say 200 i did not I did not say two i said five respect the That's my motion is there a second second all those in favor i I All right we'll get the two
that's our fate uh that's our final language so Diane if you can just kick that over to Diane tomorrow yes absolutely d they'll be happy to they'll be happy to get it our public hearing is set in here Monday the 28th says two weeks from today same time 7 p.m um
that's for all three what's that the public hearing is for all three yep for all three yep and then and then you're doing a forum right i'm doing a forum um Wednesday night great yep like is it this coming Wednesday yes this coming
Wednesday yep in two days and um doing it is it in person or just online it's going to be online um because I um one I I don't have any space available and two I think it's a lot
easier to just screen share and and talk online i think these are these changes are a lot smaller than what we did last year so hopefully it should just be a pretty um a pretty quick thing it'll be good to do I think that's great
okay do we have minutes to approve no I apologize i don't have minutes okay no I was thought I was going crazy so no all good any other business the board wants to visit i think we kind of covered a lot during our the hands thing so yeah
and thank you again for indulging me thanks for bringing the thanks for bringing the concerns up i um know that we wouldn't out of no one's fault but the process wouldn't have included us beyond tonight so this was our chance to be a little bit more
involved that's the right thing so okay thanks thank you again so yep any motions to adjurnn so moved second first second okay all those in favor
second all right thanks thank you guys