Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'll start with uh agenda item number one. Roll call from my left. Ed Barrow here. Riley Berseron. Bob Hayes. Paul Jacques. Darren Finnegan. Tim D. Ro. Morin Hopkins. Uh in uh with Stacy's absence. I'll be chairing the meeting and I'm going to elevate Ed Bearer as a full voting member this evening. That should give us seven for voting. U Balal is absent as well. Item two on the agenda are the meeting minutes from June 18th. Uh again, David, you want to read a little bit about that?

Sure. Yeah. I'm not sure if everybody saw their email this afternoon, but I want to provide some clarification. I did talk with the city clerk uh about the discussion we had last time about whether or not um minutes could be approved even though you weren't at that meeting. And the answer is yes. And I guess this comes up sometimes with the council too. Um but just to put some more detail to that, our policies and procedures talks about how every member of the board who's in attendance when a question is put to vote shall unless excluded by interest give his or her vote unless a board unless the board for special reasons shall excuse himself. Um so you could certainly vote no, but you shouldn't necessarily be not uh voting on the minutes. um we talk about Robert's rules as reference to Robert's rules in the um in the policies and procedures which we've talked about before like let's not talk about Robert's rules right if we have our own policies were we're good with that um but from a Robert's rules perspective they uh Robert's rules says you can also vote on minutes if you weren't in attendance obviously that's u maybe awkward for some people because they didn't review the minutes or they weren't at the meeting you certainly have the ability ability to watch the YouTube video if you wanted to make yourself feel more comfortable. Um, so I I totally understand why people might not want to vote on them if they weren't there. Um, and then again, Robert's rules talks about, you know, we we as a board defer to those, but again, if the board adopts their own policies or agrees to go in a certain direction at a meeting, we're kind of on safe ground. So, the bottom line is you folks can vote to accept minutes if you didn't attend that. um you should be voting regardless. So, you know, if it fails for some reason, um I would probably suggest then that we continue the motion to another date because the minutes ultimately should get approved. They they should not not

pass unless you folks found that there was some blaring errors with them or something like that and then we would work to revise them. Um, so the controversy, whatever, or or our conflict is probably a better word, was that there were only three of us that are at the meeting now that were at the meeting before. Um, and the same thing with the second half of the meeting. There's three of us that are here now that weren't. So, um, the changes that I asked for were the voting on the first vote on the abstension part. It says 211 now. And that from my recollection is accurate. It was hard to see on the the video. You couldn't see how people voted. Um and we didn't state it directly. So uh but that's matches what I remember. That was the only change that I had. So I'm ready to pass them if uh we can. So I'd seek a motion to pass those

minutes unless we have any changes. Seconded. Okay. So Bob made the motion and Ed seconded it. Um any discussion? All those in favor? Motion carries 70. Um and on the same thing, we have the minutes from the August 19th meeting. Um I don't have any questions on that, but does anybody have any changes or anything? Okay. So, I'll seek another motion then. So, moved. Seconded.

Uh, any discussion? Nope. All those in favor.

Okay. So, just for the record, um Tim D. Ro made the motion and Bob Hayes seconded it and it passed 70. I I actually didn't raise my hand, but I'm in favor. Um that moves us on item three. There's three scheduled public hearings. Item the A, it has been withdrawn. Uh there's a that's the Fern Street uh public hearing uh and subdivision review. Um I have a letter from uh the person representing the developer, I guess. Um, after discussions with both Jim and Eric, uh, we hereby request to be removed from tonight's board agenda and be considered at a future meeting. This request is due to some recent, uh, negative public/nighborhood sentiment towards the project that we want to further consider so ultimately the project can be considered a positive development for all the city and all the stakeholders involved. Um, so I'm I'm glad that developers are listening to the community and um wanting to every all parties to be happy. So is that enough, David?

Yes. Thank you. And we'll move on to 3B. This is a public hearing for a site plan and subdivision review for 180 Danville Corner Road. And again, staff, could you tell us a little more about this?

Sure. Uh, Terodine Consultants on behalf of Timothy Miller has submitted an application to convert the existing structure at 180 Danville Road into a 4-unit multif family dwelling. This property is located in the general business district. Consists of approximately eight acres developed with a two-story woodframe building, paved driveway, 10 parking spaces, underground power, city uh city water, and an 8 bed septic system. It was formally formerly uh Burwink School 8 bed care unit has been vacant since 2022. Um with this conversion, they're going to convert it into four one and twobedroom apartments. The project in involves only interior renovations. There's no exterior renovations planned. As I mentioned, it's in the general business district um where we allow multifamilies. Uh this property meets the density requirements by a long shot out there. Um it seems kind of maybe um odd that this is coming to you because we're taking an existing building and we're just putting four units in it, but technically that is a subdivision. um when you're taking an existing structure previously used for commercial purposes and you're putting three or more dwelling units, it's a subdivision. You guys have to approve that. So that's why we're here. It's a subdivision and if it's a subdivision, it's subject to our site plan review standards as well. Um so the applicant has addressed both those criteria of the site plan review and subdivision standards. Uh, one thing to note, the applicant had a site eval site evaluator look at the original septic design uh, versus the proposed use and it was termed determined that an additional 1,250 gallon septic tank is necessary. The leech field is fine, but they need another tank out there given the number of bedrooms and the change of use from

commercial to residential. So, um, they're going to be installing a 1500galon septic tank out there in line with the existing system. That's it. Um, staff recommends approval of this application and there's representatives from Pterodine Consultants here for any questions. Yeah, come on up.

Hi, good evening. I'm Jim Corbin with Terodine Consultants here to represent the applicant. Um, Tim Millet. Uh, I'm also the surveyor for the project for stamping this subdivision plan, which is essentially just a survey of the property. Um, as David said, there are no, this is just a formality. However, we're still excited about this project. So, we're adding um four units to uh to Auburn here, four residential units inside the existing structure. Um, as David said, no no no improvements are uh proposed beyond the existing structure renovation, interior renovation for the units. Um, the site will be served by the existing uh private septic system. Um, and uh it currently has public water as well. Uh, you'll see there's a drilled well on site right here. I believe that's abandoned and they're using city water right now or they will be um 10 parking spots exist. Uh to bring the septic system up to standards for the four units. Uh we will be installing an additional 1500galon septic septic tank. Uh but the field itself is uh of adequate size for that. I I think that's it.

Okay. Are there any questions for staff or the developer from the board? Go ahead. I'm I'm just curious um where this project is in relation to the other applications for the one that you've seen before. Yes. Uh this is just to the east of uh southeast to it. Um seen in the past for proposed development.

Any other questions? No. Okay. With that then I'll seek a motion to open public comment. So moved second. So motion made by Darren and seconded by Bob. Uh all those in favor? Darren, do you want it? Yeah, I'm just kidding. Um so motion carries 70. Oh, was there Oh, I thought you were done, right? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, we're having public comment. So, okay.

If you want to speak, you can. But so, any members of the public wish to come up and speak, you have five minutes. State your name and where you reside.

Steven Beiel, 575 Johnson Road. I want to continue to the logical end of Mr. Ber's question which is does the applicant for the conversion of this parcel have any statement for the public and the planning board whether this parcel uh is to be conjoined with the abuing parcel to the southwest closer to Washington Street in any form of common ownership or common development activity. [Music] Is there anyone else? Okay, seeing no more members of the public wanting to speak, I seek a motion to close public comment.

So, move. Second. So, uh motion made by Bob Hayes and Darren. Did you do the second? Okay. Seconded. And all those in favor? Motion carries 70. Um, so I I had the same question that Mr. Beal had for the developer. I don't know if you can come up. Do you want to answer that if you can? Yeah. Yeah. Uh, quick answer is potentially. Um uh if if that were to be the case, um the the existing structure would be part of that greater uh um concept.

Mr. Chairman, I just Yeah, I guess I I need a little more clarification then. Is the land that we see depicted on this plan um was that part of the total acreage for Mr. uh Millet's earlier proposal or was his 40 No, that was not uh this only recently became came under purchase and sale agreement. Would it be helpful if we pulled that up on the map? I guess that it would be. I think if I understood your answer, your answer is that none of this land was under consideration before for the 40. Correct.

Are you able to do that, David? should be a tax map within the uh application. Maybe section might help image in the memo. I understand correct. This is the property being considered tonight. And I believe Jim, this is the property that the other Danville project. That's correct. Yes.

And this would be with the the television studio across the street. Correct. I think what you're saying, Jim, is this property is was purchased after the the parcel next door. Correct. Yes. I believe that parcel to the north was purchased in 2024. Uh, and this parcel just south of it, uh, that we're speaking of tonight, uh, was recently purchased. That handle it. Okay.

Any more questions? Okay. We can if if anybody wants to discuss it or no nothing. Okay, then I guess I'll open it up to a motion to um approve or whatever deny I make a motion that the proposal meets the requirements of sections 60-1277 and 60-1359 and approve the application and site plan submitted by Terodine Consultants LLC on behalf of Timothy Millet to convert the existing structure at 180 Danville Corner Road PI122-00005 into a 4-unit multif family dwelling. The proposed project has met the standards pursuant to chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review and division 4 subdivision.

Second.

Okay. So motion by Riley Berseron and second by Ed Barer. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Motion carries 70. And item 3C then is uh your time's up. Um uh item 3C then is uh it was a subpublic hearing in site plan review on 530 and 538 Poland Road. It's been requested to postpone it. Um, do you need do you you did you want to talk about that, David?

Um, I guess I can kick it off and then uh what they're looking to do and then turn it over to the consultant. Um, initially uh Terodine Consultants again on behalf of Jonah Chappelle and Kai Romik initially submitted an application for a four lot subdivision in the construction of two multif family structures with four units each at 530 and 538 Poland Road. the property split zone between the T42B and industrial district. Um access was going to be provided by a new private road, although development was going to be limited to the residential district. Um after staff uh discussions with staff, the applicant is interested in revising the layout to potentially add a third building to it. Um they think that'll be more cost effective and align better with the form-based code requirements as well. So after talking with them, we decided should we withdraw this or postpone it? And they thought given that we did the public notice um and they are well into their design, they thought it would be a good opportunity to get some input from you folks and potentially any neighbors. So they asked that we continue with the hearing tonight um asking you folks to open it up for um discussion both amongst yourselves and the board. Um you'll see in your application both the initial project in there. It had two lots with a kind of a straight road going in there and then uh a schematic um that it's going to need some more design work and whatnot and staff really hasn't reviewed it at this point because we don't have a full application but something with a more curve linear road and um three structures out there. So again um at the applicant's request the board's asking to postpone this item until further notice. uh when the applicant submits a revised plan and application we will do a public notice and notify all the abutters again. So um the process will kind of start over at that point. So again I think the action would be to postpone the hearing but also open it up for discussion amongst

you folks and any comments from the public and uh Terodine is here to explain a little more about what they're thinking about doing. Does anybody have any questions for staff before terodine comes up? I'm I'm unclear as to where this is based upon the scant information we have. So, do we have some sort of a location map that would give me a better idea of what the abuing properties are?

But if you give me a minute, I can pull up the city's So it's between Rodman Road and Hotel Road, right? That's correct. Um up towards the like the main waste to energy area. It's not next to it, but

Washington Rodman over. There you go. Poland Road and then there we go. A little bit from there. So right there, zoom back out. Y Robman Road, Poland Road, Midwaste Energy, back down here type thing. Zoom in. These three properties right here. One, two, three.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, good evening. My name is Jeff Amos. I'm an engineer with Terodine Consultants and I'm here on behalf of the applicants um to introduce the project um and to hopefully get your input and input from uh the abutters if possible. We always like to get um input as early as possible. Um so just one less thing. Um so as David mentioned, we had um a different layout that was really predicated upon maximization of the entire property, even the industrial zone. uh you know the applicants one of their first projects they imagined um a quick and easy reszoning process um back there and um anyhow after much discussion they've they've understood that that this first phase really needs to be maximized for itself and as a standalone project uh and you can't you know anyway so so this new layout um that we have uh features features three four unit buildings uh there'll be a um a new private way that that provides access to all three new buildings as well as um lot one right here. This house that has a driveway right now that goes on to Poland Road that will reroute the driveway to the new private way. Um so all all uh properties on this will access the new private way. Um the so one of the reasons why we want to be here uh is that that the the formbbased code um is uh was discretionary um and and even this layout this layout I think is much improved. The the the front of the buildings face the new private way. Um they'll be raised up so there's a front stoop on each. We have street trees. um you know the buildings are are right up front of of the lots really meeting most of of the criteria. One of the criteria that it does not uh

meet basically is is about the the building the the the lot with and as it relates to the frontage build out. So, um, the the code requests 60% minimum of that the building front is 60% of the front of the the lot width. Uh, and that the lot width be 120 ft maximum. So, that's really the only ones that we're not meeting. So, so we have here parking lot parking area that's between and behind u those buildings. you know, we could certainly um do some unorthodox lot lines and have open space uh on there, but really that just amounts to lines on a page. You know, in in essence, it's going to be the same development regardless of how we draw the lot lines. So, that that that is the the one piece that we would have to ask for a waiver um of those standards when when we come back for for our our official submitt. Uh let me just talk about the project just in general. So, um the site up front, uh as David mentioned, is um we're we're in the the um the rural zone. Here's the zone line right here behind it. And so, as you see, all all units are are in the residential zone. The the site right now is is very flat uh in the residential zone. It's it's you know, there's a you see your plans, a 249 contour that runs to the whole thing. it's it's perfectly flat. So, what we will do for storm water is we're going to take the all the the runoff to the rear of the property um beyond those wetland areas that starts to drop off.

Uh and and in our previous iteration of this, we had um uh a storm water pipe that that that took the entirety of almost the entirety of the development area and took it out back. So, we'll be following that same protocol for this. Um the site will be served by um there's a there's a sewer line that runs right by it. We're going to tap right into the sewer line and these three buildings will be hooked on gravity sewer. Um water um obviously will will be extended to the site. There'll be a fire hydrant uh on the site per request of the fire department. Um and then uh uh electric will will be dropped from the poles in Poland road to underground power to transformers feeding each building. Uh and um as you see, we have street trees, proposed street trees on here. Um one of the things that we're proposing on this, the applicant is proposing a highly after on this side.

Um, but that I guess that that's the the the high level view of the project. Um, we certainly want your input and and anything that we can uh get from the public. Thank you. Does anybody have any qu I'm still formulating mine, but I I do.

I have a few questions, but given the unorthodox review that we're sort of not doing tonight, could we hear from the public first and then maybe have our questions informed by their comments rather than I just had a quick question about the existing home. I think Ed has a good point, too. Yeah. So, I'll go forward with that. Uh, could you talk to me a little bit more about the existing home that's on the site, please? Uh, sure. Um, it's um it's currently under renovations. Um, I think it's a a twostory home. Um there's a there's a

So that home is not part of your project. Correct. It's it well it it's part of it was part of of on the properties that were purchased by the applicant. The lot line um will be modified and the drive will be rerouted. So it's certainly not part of it won't look like the other three buildings and the building will stay pretty much as it is. But we will incorporate the the driveway onto the new road. Is it currently occupied? I don't believe so. No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we're we we're ready for public comment then, right? So, I'll seek a motion to open public comment. So, moved. Second.

So, motion made by Tim and seconded by Darren. All those in favor? 70. Public comment is open. So, if anybody from the public wishes to speak, you have five minutes. Just state your name and uh where you live.

My name is Kelly Lec and I live at 5 Rockill Avenue. Um I'll show you on the map. Now, coming into this meeting, I had no idea that there was going to be a unit put right behind my house. I have no idea how they're going to fit a road and a big unit in between that little piece of land. Um, I do have a picture of how wet our backyard gets. So, drainage was a big concern of mine. Does anybody want to see it? Very wet.

Okay. Um, so that was one concern over there. I knew they were going to put a road in, so I was worried about the snow removal. Where's all that water going to go? Um, so, and I was concerned about, um, a fence put all the way behind her house, which they said that they would do. Originally, um, I was told it was going to be an 8ft fence. Now it's a 6ft fence. I would prefer an 8ft fence. Um, I was worried about the lights. So, apparently they're going to do some kind of light study for that parking lot. I want to make sure that gets done. And there was concern about where they were going to put the dumpster. And they said they were going to move that as well. So, as long as they do move it, that's fine. But, um, yeah, I'm not happy about that unit right behind my house. I don't know how they're going to fit that in there. Tiny home, maybe. Those are my concerns.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else from the public wishing to speak?

Can you uh identify yourself for the record and everything?

Name nine Rock Hill Avenue. So, right in the middle of her and this property here. water marked off marked off the wetlands. So you'd be destroying the wetlands. Um now when the water table when the snow melts in the spring, water table rises and so it's almost like a constant flood through my basement where the water gets pumped down through there and then it goes to down the stream. I'm concerned where the water's going to go because I'm sure I'm not going to pump that water into that parking lot. And so guess I guess I'm concerned about that water weight.

Anyone else from the public wishing to speak? Steve, can you wait till you get to the microphone? Yes. Steve Lebec, five rocket lab. Thank you.

Probably roaming up four road, not an apartment building. How's that going to happen? I don't get it. Because at first they were talking about two buildings, now there's three. that I'm not okay with that. Two was fine, but three that's that's right in my backyard. I'm not happy with that.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, seeing none, I'll seek a motion to close public comment. So moved. Second. So motion made by Tim and seconded by Bob. All those in any all those in favor? Motion carries 70. Um so you want to just start over here with Ed's side and just go around and say with questions. Um thank you. Um, I'll ask one question of staff and you can hold your response if you wanted until we've heard everybody else's comments. But, um, since I've been on the board, I've reviewed, I think, at least a couple of these, uh, uh, formbbased code, uh, projects. Um, this is the first time. Tonight I heard it from the representative engineer and it was also stated in the application for Fern Avenue that was pulled that somehow this is a discretionary review. So I'm going to want some training on what exactly it means that is discretionary review because it seems to contain standards that say shall do this and shall do that. So I'm not sure what is discretionary and what isn't. Um, and if we have discretion, why isn't that a variance from the standards as opposed to a mere waiver of a submission requirement? You can answer now or you can wait. It doesn't matter.

Um, I can answer now if you'd like. Um, there is and I don't have I could pull it up actually maybe from the I brought the Fern one with me. Um there's specific language in the form-based code section that talks about waiverss of the formbbased code provisions that the board can actually grant. So when we're doing our review, ideally we're going to identify these or the applicant's going to identify that they need some type of relief from this. So in this case they are looking for um I guess it was lot with ratio that 60% that they're talking about. So again, staff hasn't really spent much time with this, but you that ability does exist in the um form based code provision. It speaks specifically to you folks having that ability to do that.

Can I can I add on to that? just since we started this T42B and put it into existing lots that have been around for a long time. It's it's has created issues like this with trying to fit um developments into a a area that was designed for a house on, you know, 25 ft off the street generally speaking. Um and nothing behind it. uh in a lot of the neighborhoods and things like that. So, um regardless of what the waiverss would be or something on this, but that kind of stuff always has to be considered just because of how we've fit this zone into spaces that were designed for, you know, other thoughts in mind back with other common. I think that's I think that's why the discretion was written into the zone because we were going to face some of these

non not non-conforming but potentially like that that's I think that's why it was written into T42B that we had discretionary waiverss. Yeah. Come across this more often when there's new developments in that zone.

Yeah. And usually the building design takes care of the setbacks and frontage things or or the layout of the lot, the roadway in through and stuff and that seems to be challenged on this one. Um, so we'll have a lot to discuss when you come back. So, the horse may be out of the barn, but I guess I just have some question about why we can exercise such waiver authority under this particular provision of a zoning ordinance when we don't have any authority to wave the lot size requirements or road frontage requirements in other zones. I'm just not sure that. It's a great question.

I don't grounded that, but perhaps we do. Um, as for this particular project, I am a little concerned about um, stockade fences in general um, and maintenance of those types of uh, improvements. Uh, once an approval has been granted, it seems that in a few years, especially in what I gather is kind of a wet area, um, stockade fences start to lean and heave and rot and they become an eyesore very quickly, I think. So, I I would like to see something other than a stockade fence. Um, I really don't have an opinion on the height of the fence. Uh that's just an observation and um I am mindful of the Abutter's comments about the wetlands and I would want to be assured that uh any wetland disturbance that's occurring is explained to us and uh um that the developer be prepared to um demonstrate that there isn't going to be uh any uh unintended consequence for the the abutters who apparently have drainage issues already. I I completely agree with Ed with the uh water runoff issue that uh if that compounds the problem for this people who already spoke, I uh need to be convinced that if the development is presented again that there's drainage issues that will not negatively impact the people who have spoken who already um experienced those seasonal problems. And on Ed's note with the buffer uh with in this case a fence um it I think if it can be the natural screening I think is a more long-term answer. I know it takes several years for those things to grow unless you put in taller ones but uh I think that might be something to consider um in instead of a fence.

They they will get taller than a fence too because other than having a 35 foot fence, it's not going to screen um the buildings very much. Any other

you going Bob? I guess I do have a question and maybe a comment too. U in the same light recognizing maybe now how 4.2B has superseded something before I think it would be interesting to see what was allowed before. What was the previous zone? The other question would be how has LD 2003 uh affected uh this 4.2 2B or would affected the the previous zone. The other uh maybe concern is that as we get into formbbased uh codes, they're much more restrictive and demanding than previous types of land use zoning. And with respect to the fencing issue, you know, if we're looking for something durable and more longlasting, unfortunately, one of the restrictions for fencing is no chain link, no vinyl, no split rail or barb wires allowed. So, especially in this day and age, I think there's always been a question of the use even for siding. I know some codes don't allow vinyl siding, but that is a material uh that is frequently used and also has a longer life than many other types of. So I think that it I think as we and I think that's the reason as Riley suggested is that's why we're coming back with some of these developments and required a little more look at so that we as well as the public become more aware of how different code changes have changed things and even

from the state level with LD 2003 what impacts that is having on discussions and actually use

I um the one thing I I guess I could speak to on that with respect to LD 2003 in in a nutshell what they're proposing out here um is not the result of LD203 it would have been allowed anyway LD203 is more about um accessory dwelling units and allowing some additional development in that session. Um, so what what whatever was passed through that legislation wouldn't wouldn't necessarily be tied to this. Interestingly, the most recent housing bill that becomes effective in September that we have to make changes for by next July would potentially remove this um I need to double check this, but potentially remove this from subdivision review. um talks about the creation of three lots and I believe that's going to bump up to to four lots or more than four lots. So, there's going to be um you're giving me a five. So, I'm thinking it's five. So, um if this is a four lot subdivision when we make that ordinance change um this would not actually be subject to subdivision review. It may still come forward to you folks for some other provision of our ordinance, but it wouldn't be a subdivision at that point. We can check the zoning though and see what the zoning was out there previously just as a comparison. Any more questions? None on my right. Okay. So, we just vote to postpone then.

Yeah, you should make a motion to to postpone. Um I know they're anxious, but I don't know whether we'll see them in October or or sometime after. So, uh simple motion to postpone would be appropriate. Okay. Well, I it I hope we can make something happen here um that everybody can live with uh on there. So with that, I'll seek a motion to postpone item 3 C. I

I'll make the motion motion to postpone item 3C. I would prefer that we be able to postpone it in such a fashion that the public notice doesn't have to be published again at at expense to the to the developer provided the abuters get notice. Is that feasible? Um, while I like that idea, um, honestly I don't have a problem doing the notice again. Um, and um, in part because of while why while in ideal world if anybody had a concern, they would have received notice this evening about this hearing and they would have learned about the changes. Um, at the same time it was advertised as something different at that point. So

that's fair enough. I That's right. It's a different project than what was advertised. So, I'll simply make a motion to postpone further review.

Seconded. Okay. Uh motion made by Ed Bearer and seconded by Bob Hayes. Any discussion? All those in favor? Motion carries. 70. Next up is public comment. Right. So with that, I will open the general public comment if anybody from the public wishes to speak on matters that aren't on the agenda.

Five minutes. Mr. Seer. Well, may I ask a question before my time begins? You've you've earned that privilege, I think. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, the withdrawn proposal is no longer an agenda item. Not that I wish to discuss it in length, but it serves as an example for my comment. I asked the board. So, I I I'm okay with it, but go ahead. Um, so first I want to uh speak to something that Mr. Bearer just said. Who are you by the way? I apologize. I'm just kidding. Well, you called me by name, so Evans 122 Granite Street. Thank you.

Um, while it is true that there are plans referred to as discretionary plans in the formbbased code. Those refer to plans that are required to go in front of the board. I.e. they are not projects by right. they require the discretionary overview with the planning board. So I absolutely um appreciated that comment and the waiverss that are described there are not necessarily dissimilar from other waivers that are allowed within the ordinance and they do require that the applicant demonstrate that the the waiver itself also meets the intent of the formbbased code. So it's not like discretionary like well it would just be really nice if our building didn't have to cover 60% of the frontage. Okay. So it's not quite that discretionary. Um having said that so um I will use the withdrawn proposal as an example um only because it it uh utilized land that was purchased from the city and oftent times when this land is purchased from the city it comes with purchase and sales agreements along with continuing um agreements of obligations and that's fairly standard but I would ask the board to consider um developing a policy that when such a property does come before the board that you are also provided with the purchase and sales agreement and any other documents like a continuing um obligation document. Uh I say that only because the withdrawn proposal was withdrawn. I'm not going to discuss the merits of it um because it no longer exists. However, there was interplay between the application itself, the purchase of sales agreement and some

things that the applicant had agreed to in um an ongoing uh and I forget the exact name here, but a legal document. And I think it would have been pertinent for the the planning board to have that information. I think um without that information, it's possible for the planning board to make a decision unknowingly allowing something to happen that maybe wasn't allowed due to some kind of deed restriction. And again, those really only occur mostly with uh those city purchased properties because the city is selling them at often at discount for the purpose of promoting specific type of development. Um I also think it's important that um applications be complete. Uh I've gone through several cycles on the planning board where there were times when we would get applications that were like te's crossed, eyes dotted uh to the max and sometimes when periods of time we were asked to grant lots of conditions and a condition around screening when an applicant provided trees but the planning board believes there weren't enough trees and are willing to tell staff what trees should be there and making that a condition. for instance, would be different than an application that has inadequate water or soore um outlined in their plan. U that's those are like apples and oranges. And the way that you that you that you avoid that is just by working with staff to make sure that um while the applicant wants to get in front of you, I know you want to see it. I know staff wants to see things move forward and not just to move them forward, to move good projects forward. um it does avoid headache and um having a special meeting or even waiting an extra month um can sometimes avoid uh some of that conflict that you see um some of those issues that could really

cause a project to get tabled in the first place or postponed. So, um I do have copies of my original public comment if anyone's interested. However, I'm not going to again say it right now because it's not necessarily uh pertinent to the current agenda. Thanks.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Good evening. My name is Lin Ciel from Ten Fern Street. Um can you get Yeah. Is this better? That'd be great. Yeah.

Okay. Uh I'm Lin CVL from 10 Fern Street. Uh I live there with my son. Um and I only have a short comment tonight. Um but it it was also about uh the item A tonight. Um I was quite shocked to see the direction um this project was taking. Um and kind of echoing my neighbor's comment that we didn't have a lot of information in between. it was a complete switch uh with a full plan for something completely different. Um and that's concerning um because I would change the complete atmosphere of the neighborhood. Um whatever they built on that land is what I will see directly from my living room. Um and what was on this plan was a complete wall. Um so that that is scary. Uh, and I I thank you for your time for listening and I hope you consider that um as the project progresses. Um, and one last thing, I am also concerned with how long it is taking for the the playground to reopen for the children of my neighborhood. Um, it's not been two summers that my my son cannot play with his friends on the street because um, this is all block for construction. Um, and and I wonder how many more years, especially if we're heading another project like that, um, before the kids can play on the street again together. Um, and that is all for me. Thank you.

You bet. Yeah, go ahead.

Uh, my name is William Baxter from 27 Holly Street. I regret to inform you that I am also here about um 3A which we were not discussing today. Um I want to reinforce some of the things that were said uh by the previous um citizens. Um I agree with all them. The property abuts mine directly from the back. Um, I was part of the original citizens committee that was uh called in to uh overlook or look over, shall I say, um some of the original plans which involved a child care center, uh concerns about a basketball hoop, um upgrades to the public uh playground, upgrades to the community garden, none of which has really materialized. I don't blame the developer for that. These things happen, gets in the way. But the idea that they would then be considering breaking ground on another five unit construction there is kind of feels like a rugpull uh to the community um in terms of what was approved of, what we agreed to, what we all expecting and then what is now being planned. Um there was discussions about providing public good. I understand from a legal standpoint housing is a public good. from economic theory standpoint of something that is free and available to everybody, something that is non-exclusionary and non-rivalous, housing does not fulfill that obligation in the way that I think we all were kind of hoping whatever was happening on that land would do. So yeah, you know, some some things to consider as presumably it will make its way back here or perhaps it will wait until July of next year and then no longer be subject to this review if I heard correctly about someone talking about that.

Uh don't quote me on that entirely, but there are changes that are coming. Sure, that's terrifying. So I'm terrified about that. No, let's put that in the record. I don't I don't like that. Um I'd be happy to talk with you in more detail. Wonderful. Maybe we'll do that. Uh, thank you all very much. You bet.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak? Okay, with that, uh, seek a motion to close. Actually, I can just close public comment on this one. Mo public comment is now closed. And that leaves us whatever number it is. We're on miscellaneous now. My screen went blank. I have nothing for you. Okay. Does anybody else have any miscellaneous?

Um, just let you know that won't be here in October. Um, but we're not going to be getting the comprehensive plan for our review before then. No, certainly not. No. Okay. I guess that's what I had understood from. The wheels are turning very rapidly. You may be getting an update. Okay. But you're not a plan. No, I thought we had some involvement as of October. Um I didn't go to the last meeting, so I don't have any update from that. But Riley might

Yeah, we did uh uh we're working on the uh the main statement. And we had a visioning workshop where we all broke into groups and had a lot of the used the public input that we had gained gathered over most of the summer through the different open houses and uh surveys and the and the website and did a a series of in in different groups a series of prioritizing and grouping thoughts together that surprisingly the amongst the different groups we came to. A lot of the tables had a pretty similar or very similar um I I guess priorities or uh uh topics that that made the the list of uh things that are going to be worked towards our our final statement. But we're I believe next month or this month we're having another one of those workshops where we're going to be working on it. So we haven't actually had our vision statement finalized yet and we're still working on that. But I guess that's the update.

So most of that part of the meeting you were talking about was the part that wasn't televised, right? Yeah. And if it was televised, it wouldn't have been audit. There was a lot of everybody was talking, so it would have been hard to mic up uh

or be understandable. But it was it was I thought it was uh for as many different people with uh bringing different things to the table and also how how much different data we gathered for the certain things like um open space and community center and things like that. these these certain kind of uh topics all seem to surface from each group as a priority and it was I thought that was pretty uh deemed much more use or not useful but organized result I thought might come out of it. Yeah, I guess sorry Ed when when you said are we going to have the comprehensive plan I was taking that as are you going to have a draft document to be reviewing my if I jump to that my apologies the the intent is that um staff and the chair from the committee are going to provide an update just as to where we are in the process at this point

if it was important I would have canceled my trip to Italy just want you to know that's how much it means We could have just zoomed you in and you know uh do the PAL center opened last weekend. It did. Did you go to the opening or anything? I wasn't available but there was a ribbon cutting for it or I just we worked really hard on that whole area and I didn't I just was I couldn't go because it was during the workday kind of a thing. So, I really wanted to hear. No, folks are very excited about it. Oh, good. So, the street closing is okay. And

I haven't heard anything. That was the the biggest part of it. But David, I've had a few people ask me if uh and I can't say anything to them outside of public forum anyway, but I also don't know myself what's going on with Chick-fil-A, if anything. I reached out to them last week actually with the same curiosity just looking for an update from them. Um they emailed me back saying that they're making progress and they hope to have an update for me in the future. So um yeah, it's still in the works as I understand. Thank you. Anything else?

Oh, sorry Bob. I got to look for my left. Going back to our earlier subject, you know, I can understand why we haven't moved forward with staffing issues and so forth. And with the comprehensive plan effort going on, I was pleased to see one ConX box move off of Park Capital. Uh, I'm hoping it's not the one that I saw or a the same box being maneuvered off of uh hotel road and I think ended up on a back road parallel to uh hotel road. Uh it it just maneuvering that off of hotel road to go into one of the back roads uh looked very tricky. And so it just raised the question again that it is an issue that needs to be addressed and somehow uh u getting back to where and what type and so forth. So look forward to that discussion. Maybe it is part of what's going to come through comprehensive plan as well.

Yeah. Um we haven't forgotten that that discussion here and uh you're right. I mean, we're down staff right now, so it's kind of on the list as well as updating the policies and procedures for the planning board amongst a million other things that need to do, but ConX is towards the top of that list for sure. Thanks for bringing that up, Bob. That was a that was a rough time. We spent a lot of time on that and then it just kind of fizzled and went away. Um,

but it did get one obviously that was out of place and so I thank for the city for that because I think that took some effort. Uh, Bob's got trackers on all those little boxes, right? Well, I have to admit I was an abuser earlier. So, okay. I think we're done here, right? Make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor? Okay. Thank you, folks. Riley and then Tim on the motion.