Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Recording in progress. Recording stopped. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Thank you.

Heat. Heat. Can I have your attention, please? We'll be starting up shortly. Good evening and welcome to the lower planning board for February 2nd, 2026. The first matter on the agenda is the approval of the January 22nd, 2026 meeting. Any of the board members have any comments or corrections?

Mr. Chairman, I just and to to member Tenzar, um I I did notice on the Moody Street project, he did have something to say and I didn't see his comments here. I did. So, um I I probably would ask that we would have his comments added to the minutes, but it's all it's up to up to member Tenzar. Yeah, I can't remember what I said, but um Well, you turned a new leaf. You said things you liked about it and then you had issues with the parking. Yeah. No, I remember because then you had issues with the parking. Yeah. No, absolutely. And

yeah, you love the project, but you still the issue with the parking, but you thought it was a very good thing for the community and it was good for the people who needed the update. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's up to you. All right. No, that's fine. In that case, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Second. Motion made second. All favor say I. I. I.

Vote yes. And the minutes are approved. Okay, moving along. We have a site plan review on 558 GM Street. The little planning board will hold a public hearing. They are all interested persons relative to an application by NLX Homes LLC to construct one triplex and one duplex, a total of five units at the above address. The subject property is located in the urban mixeduse zoning district. The proposal requires site plan review per section 11.42 42 of the low zoning ordinance for development with more than three units. A special permanent approval per section 11.32 for four to six dwelling units on a single lot in the U zone. May we hear from the applicant, please?

Uh good evening. My name is Casey Ferrer with Howard St Hudson. I am representing the applicant. I am the applicant's engineer. Um if you'll recall at the last meeting uh we did discuss the project at uh moderate length. Uh it's very similar to the project that was approved uh before this one. Um it it came down to uh there was a couple questions regarding labeling on the plan. One of which was gross square footage versus square footage. Uh we've issued a revised layout materials plan that indicates uh that all of the square footages noted on the plan are gross square footages. Um and that the uh the next concern was related to uh the adequacy of parking within the uh garages that are at the bottom floor of the um duplex. Um so as requested we have submitted both an autoturn swept path analysis for um accessing the garages with vehicles. Um it was noted to please use SUV size vehicles uh to kind of represent almost a worst case scenario. So what we did was we utilized a 2019 Ford Expedition as well as a 2019 Ford Escape. Um one a large size SUV and one a midsize SUV. Um the auditor turn sweep path indicates that with a 16 ft garage door that both can access uh in and out of the uh garage without um without conflict. Um and additionally we were asked to provide an exhibit of the garage uh holding also not just the vehicles but also trash and recycling. Um, we did submit that that detail exhibit to show a trash and recycle bucket uh within the garage and behind the parked vehicles.

Anything further, sir? No. Okay. At this time, I'll turn it over to the public. Anybody here this evening like to speak in favor of this project? In favor? In favor. In favor. Hearing none. Anybody like to speak in opposition? In opposition. In opposition. Hearing none. This time we'll turn over to the board members. Mr. Chairman, if I uh if I may. Um, well, I want to thank the the the um you're not the applicant, but I want to uh thank the uh the engineer for um making the changes, but more specifically, what you did is it didn't work what you had submitted. Right. So, you made a change. It was 14 ft. Correct. Right.

And you move the uh the the doors so that the uh there's no longer a door where the garage doors are. You turn it put it around right around the the other side. made it 16 feet because we didn't think 14 was going to work. It wouldn't have worked. Um, and then you did provide the SW path swipe path analysis. What uh I will say and I'm going back to originally right what we were what this board was very pleased with is that you came back with a number of units and we expressed that you know probably trying to do too much with the site. He came back with a single detached and the three together. We approved that and you come back and it's not you, it's obviously there's a transaction come back wanting to um get another unit back. But I'm looking at the swift path analysis and I'm looking at, you know, um, access egress from the site um, with those two buildings facing each other. And if I'm saying to myself, if any car is parked in front of those garages, the that that first unit, cars coming out of that that second duplex, they're going to that's going to be a tough turn. And if somebody is parked in front of the garage from the first unit of that duplex uh unit um building, that's that's a difficult motion. Um I you know, we we issued an approval on this site. Um it's site plan review. I'd almost be looking at the condition would be reducing it to one a single unit. Um therefore I just see conflicts with the um access egress and access. Um this was important to see. I just think from a practical sense as we look at this. Um

you're you're really you're turning into this and you're you're going right right in front of the the unit across from you to get into that garage. If you're not into that garage, you're going to create some conflicts. So it was great the way I would just we applauded the uh the applicant for coming in your prior customer I guess right we applauded the for coming in being willing to reduce that and then here we going back and this is this is what I wanted to see because this was concerns I had about the site so I I can see what you did with the building. I didn't think what was originally submitted was going to work and clearly you made some modifications to the garage doors to widen them and uh and move those uh those side doors. But um I I I think it's a big ask. I just think it's uh part of site plan review is that uh safety for egress and um access to the site and and um I I have difficulty with what's being presented. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any questions? Could I respond to that real quick?

Sure, if you don't mind. So, um, if you recall at the, I guess we'll call it the first phase of this project, the original approval, one of our first plans indicated that when that side was also a duplex, uh, we wanted to have space in front of the garages for parallel parking. Um, so what we had sized at that time was two 10x 22 parking spaces to be in front of each garage uh, to add additional parking to the site. Um we were told by the engineering department that we were not allowed to utilize parking spaces um in front of the building or in front of the garages as they would block off the access to the garages. Now continuing with that um we have allowed or we have added additional space in front of the units um but that is not for parking that you know we were told that we are not allowed to use that as additional parking. Um but that extra 13 feet um is not allowed to be used for parking. So there should not be vehicles parked in front of those units. Um what we do have is the 22ft drive line between the two buildings which is what is required for adequate access uh per theu requirements. Um so we have 22 and then additionally in front of each of these units we have 13 feet. So, we have well in excess of the required drive aisles between the two units uh for 90° parking, which would be um the access into and out of the garages.

That's correct. But based on how they're situated on the lot, whether I think it's presenting a conflict and I'll see what my my colleagues now, was this engineering was this based on the approved plan? because it would have been nice to get comments from them on the project if that was an issue is I'm sorry I missed that last question. Was this based on what approved plan? Yeah. So would you say engineering said what was approved was not? No no no that was an original iteration. Okay. All right. Cuz I I that's been a bone of contention a little bit. So I just want to make sure that that's clear. No, that was that was an item that we had addressed prior. Yeah. So that's not what we approved. Correct. I'm just

So what I'm saying is I liked what we approved. Yep. And then so I just think this is just again I I I I I think based on the placement and the where that entrance is based on the proximity to the road uh there's just not a lot of room to to turn and and and get into that into that uh into that garage. So anyway, that's that's that's my thoughts on it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Kayla. Um, thank you, chairman. Uh, I I think I have similar concerns. Um,

some I I I notice like um for one, I I do want to before I get back to what um member Fet is um discussing I I I was looking at the existing construction and then find like it's actually pretty close to the fence line on the back. And I know um as I look back into um the site plan is plus or minus six feet, but it looks very tight. And I um I was looking at the rendering for the free triplex and the back seems to have stairway stairways and I wondering if that's still the plan or

So those have been revised as part of the building uh permit issuance. So, the building permit issuance for that um for that triplex has been uh or the building that was submitted has a door at the bottom instead of the the stairwells coming down because originally what we were told was that the stairwells could act as a quote unquote fire escape and not a deck and not a um I guess a a living area. Um when they went for the building permit, they considered them not just fire escape. So, we were the the building was revised to include just a fire escape door at the back rather than the the deck coming down. I see. Is that true for the duplex as well?

Um I we have not gotten to the building permit issuance of the duplex obviously. Um I don't believe that's going to be a problem on this side as those stairs do not go beyond the uh side setback. I see. Um so so the rendering is not fully accurate in that in that regard. So the the rendering is accurate to what we were presenting as a permit issue but not to the building permit issue what they move forward with.

Um and is the site plan reflective of that now that you have a door that will uh open just to the setback or almost to a fence line? I mean I I know I I was just driving. I mean there's a lot of house snow in front but how how close is it? So our what we were trying to do with the triplex on our permit plans here was leave it exactly as it was approved in the first place because we don't want to make any modifications to the approvals of the triplex because they are continuing the building of that right now. So I have not modified the permit plans to the building permit plans because I did not want any changes between the triplex approval and this one because they're at um actively constructing it.

I see. Um, so which back the question and look back looking back to the duplex right now. Uh, I mean you do have 11 ft behind and I know we have some, you know, I was looking at it is tight and and I'm also noticing that uh, you know, the um, sweep path analysis um, showing the two cars parking side by side in the garage. I mean, yeah, they fit, but how do I how do I get out of the car? I mean, that that's one thing I asked. I know they are um sizable SUVs and so people might have smaller depending on what they can fit. Um but I'm I I'm still wondering like is if you can explain you know exact dimensions and width and depth that um is suggest on the site plan whether there are any flexibility on on you know making this less of an issues for you know for us to consider. So unfortunately what we have on the site plan for being able to solve that would be making wider units right and with this odd rear property line that kind of juts in around an existing house that creates a 15t setback that we are just pretty much maximized on the width that we have from the front to the back. So as far as making the units any wider to accommodate it um we just can't do that. We would love to um but we can't. Um, so what we do have is inside inside the 20 um inside the duplex units which are uh 20 ft wide, we have a 4ft stairwell. So there is going to be about 16 ft um between wallto- wall for the for the cars to park. Um if we use the oversiz SUV and the midsize SUV, we have about 6 and 1/2 ft and 6 feet uh in width. So that's about 12 1/2. So that leaves you about three to three and a half ft um excess between walls to cars. Um so

while yes it's going to be tight um it is functional for ingress and eress of the cars. I see. Um yeah uh I understand where you come from. Thank you for explanation. Um I mean there is also the um the parking space next to um the jugged lot line in the rear is is is how are we doing on parking space in in regards to parking requirements and and we have one extra if we that's one extra if we consider both of these twocar garages we would have one extra if we if we were to consider them onecar garages then we would be one short

I hear um so what we're looking at here um going back to the site plan and duplex so that space if you take it away you can at most move length. I see the the um rear lot line the setback being 15. You say there's 1 ft and 2 1.2 ft that you can steal, but but no longer like beyond that. Even if you take out the parking space, am I reading that correctly?

Yes. So, if if we were to remove that parking space, we could utilize an extra let's say 1.2 feet on the building width. Um ultimately, that would give you six inches extra on both units. I don't you know I don't know what the the way is on that. They'll be removing one of the I guess let's call it an extra parking space to gain six inches in each garage. I see. Have there been consideration of going to a zoning board to get that few feet to get a regular size house in uh to to reduce the rear setback. Correct. Well, um, well, more precisely, uh, just a chunk of that because of the jug. I mean, I know we we discuss a lot.

I have not considered that. I generally try to stay out of ZBA if possible, but, um, it could be a consideration if we move forward, but um, I have not considered that today. Yeah. Because I mean, I know we talk a little bit about hardship, but I mean, this is partly the size of the lot. I mean, you know, the shape of the lot. I mean I'm not saying that that work or not work but I mean that that can resolve

it's one way to resolve um one of my concern being that you know you just have parking spaces that can barely feed so are people really going to use it and so what's the util you know what's the does it really count as one is is you know I don't know what concerns me and other members on the board so um so uh I'll leave at that but um in terms of um what member for is saying how about moving the house back like given that you have 11 ft there what what's the possibility do that does that like reduce open space area or other constraints that you might

I want to say that it reduces open space but I believe that the combined setbacks from left side and right side need to sum 17 ft I see um so I believe that building is placed to be beyond the minimum setback but also achieve the 17 ft sum.

Got it. So um considering that I I I agree with member for that is a tight fit for extra unit. Uh I mean the lot have some obviously constraint when you when you try to fit this more you know one more unit in um and uh yeah I think that that summarized my concern uh even though it fits. So I I do want to just acknowledge that you so that the car can fit but um whether it's convenient the owner that's a different issue.

Right. So I I will note that additionally I I think I had mentioned last time that I believe that internal parking spaces were governed by building code

and I don't believe that to be true. I don't think there is any um any governing minimum requirement for uh widths of a garage per parking space internal. Um so I I had read it's basically based on adequacy. So if it's deemed adequate, you know, their city of Boston uses tandem spaces or you know uh reduced size spaces if they're using um you know valet type parking where it's all coordinated and known. Um, so I I did not find what could be um essentially a minimum. However, just based on adequacy, and I believed what I had shown you could could show that two cars could fit within each of those um even at a let's call it a plus-size vehicle, um to show that, you know, with the coordination, both vehicles being, you know, either the same owner or owners within the same household, you know, coordinated efforts could be made to have two vehicles parked inside. Thank you. Um, that's all I have for now.

Thank you, Caleb. Tony,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I mean, realistically, you're trying to do too much as I see it. Um, you're trying to put too many units on too small of a lot. It's all crammed together. Um, you're going to have like 10 barrels from what you're describing out on Gorum Street. I don't get that. Um that should be private trash pickup to make it safe. Uh my reading of the zoning laws looks like in the mu zone it needs to be 9 by8 which is precisely the size of that interestingly the the outside parking space. Um I applaud you for your efforts. Um but I can't vote for it. Um, I look at this and it's it's it's safety. It's, you know, basically you're trying to jam too much into um this lot. And I think I think the um the owner should look at this and say um the last plan was was maximizing everything. So that's my say, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Lucia, any question comment?

No. Mr. S, any question? I I I concur with Mr. uh Denza. Uh you're trying to do too much. The space is so you know crowded and and and where it is as well. And so you know it's it's it's I guess you know all of us uh Mr. Tenza, Mr. Hang and uh uh Mr. uh fresh described you know a very very uh tough you know trying to squeeze so much for the space and where it is as well. Thank you Yeah, I agree basically with the other board members. I think even with the sweet path analysis, it does look awful tight. Um, and I mean, one way or another, there's going to be snow in front of either one of those units like we have outside today. And you're even coming in closer to the units to the left. And if that's not cleaned up properly, then that sweet path is not going to even work. Um, look how narrow all the streets and everything are right now after we had this one storm. Um, but I think if they're coming in of the sweep paths, they're very very close to the units on the left and if that's not cleared out well enough, um, they're not going to be able to make that turn. Um, so those are some of the concerns I have as well. I know you're not just looking for the site plan, but you're also looking for a special permit, which is a little more stricter criteria.

Well, so may I request um I don't the applicant is not here with me tonight, but may I request I believe I can just looking at these I can probably get an additional surface space, one that maybe we had shown prior in different iterations. Um, so I would like an opportunity to maybe go back. Uh, we can consider both of those maybe onecar garages on the on the duplex units and see if I can get an additional surface space to achieve the two spaces per unit. Um, so I'd like an opportunity to continue this, go back, uh, hit the drawing board and and maybe be able to submit something new, uh, that might be more reasonable to this board.

Yeah, I have no problem on you coming back. I mean, um I have no problem with that. Um how much time would you need to um I'd say we'd probably want to go out just like we did last time another month, whatever you have for maybe the first meeting in March. Yeah, we have a space on the March 2nd meeting. Okay. Would my second work for you? That would work for me. Um, I'll make a motion that we continue to my second. I want to add one more comment. Okay, go ahead, Caleb. I'm sorry.

Yeah, I think I think if you if you heard um do you want to see if you can address Mrs. Tan's uh concern about trash as well and see, you know, just just take a look and and where there are any way to make it easy

like I guess to to that comment. Um, could you you made a mention to you believe it should be private trash pickup. Are you referring to having a a dumpster on site or because I believe the current intention is that it would be uh the HOA would handle trash pickup separately within within the facility here um not public. One of the previous conditions of approval was that it would be private trash pickup. So, I don't know if you're referring to just having a consolidated dumpster or

I don't know of any other way to do it, but um maybe if you can present something when you come back um that indicates that there's some other way to do it other than a dumpster. I I I don't know of any other way. I I believe what we were uh intending to do would be having each trash bin outside each unit and having one trash vehicle come up and take care of each individual trash bin so they're not lined up along Gorum. And there are private contractors that'll pick up one trash bucket per unit. Yeah. Per unit. Absolutely. Okay. I'd like to see it. You convince me.

But that So, all right. I just wanted to clarify that that comment was not related to dumpster specifically. Okay, thank you. Great. So, we have the motion on the floor to continue to mod second. Do we have a second? I second that. Motion made in second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposition? Hearing no. The motion carries. The matter continue to second. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

Thank you. Moving along, we have a site plan review with 75 Chapel Street. The L planning board and LOL zoning board of appeals will hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by iguad panat to convert the existing 4-unit residential building to a sixunit residential building. The subject property is located in the urban neighborhood multifamily zoning district. The proposal requires site plan review approval from the planning board for the expansion of a residential development with more than three residential units. The proposal also requires variance relief from the zoning board of appeals under section 6.111 number five for having stock stack parking spaces and for any other relief required from the low zoning ordinance. And we hear from the applicant. Do we have anybody on Zoom? We did last time or is somebody present?

Nobody on Zoom. Anybody present? Nobody present at this time for Chapel Street. Going once, going twice. Okay, I'm going to move on to the next matter on the agenda. Okay, the next matter on the agenda is a special permit for 202 Baker Avenue. The LOL Planning Board and LOL's zoning board of appeals to hold a public hearing to hear all interested persons relative to an application by Danny Rivera to split the existing lot at the above address and construct a single family home on the new lot. The subject property is located in the traditional single family zoning district. The proposal requires special permit approval from the planning board under section 5.1.17 to reduce the frontage requirement. The existing lot requires various relief from the zoning board of appeal under section 5.1 for minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum floor area ratio, and any other relief from the low zoning ordinance. The newly created lot requires variance relief from the zoning board of appeals under section 5.1 authenticated minimum lot minimum area for dwelling and any other further relief. May we hear from the applicant please?

Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good evening to all. For the record my name is John Gary of Gary and Gary LLP 32 Church Street Mass. Here tonight representing the applicant and owner of uh 202 Baka Avenue, Danny Rivera. Danny's with us this evening. We also have Matt Hammer from Landplex. Uh in advance of tonight's hearing, we have provided the board with the typical application materials, the supplements, the main application, the narrative. We've provided the site plan and then we have revised the site plan and provided that that that uh that reflects some of the comments or concerns that came out uh by way of the comments uh the DPD staff comments. We've also provided a neighborhood exhibit plan uh with our materials. So the subject property at 202 Baka Avenue um consists of six of 11,68 ft of land located in the traditional single family zoning district. The existing home is a three-bedroom, one and a half bath home. Uh the lot also has uh two garage structures uh along the by street um side of the lot. It's a corner lot. the corner of Barker Avenue and By Street. Mr. Ribera uses the garages now to store some of his contractor uh equipment. Uh the idea would be to demolish the garages uh if approved to make way for the new single family home on the proposed newly created lot. Uh, as the chairman mentioned though, we have before you tonight um in order to uh propose splitting the existing lot into two lots uh and allowing for the uh special permit pursuant to section 5.1.17 of the city zoning ordinance which allows uh a special permit to issue in uh to reduce frontage from in this case up to 15 ft. So in the traditional single family zoning district, you're required to have 70 ft of frontage. We

are proposing that lot two have 55 ft of frontage. Lot one has sufficient frontage. Um the site plan that you should all have in front of you also identifies um the lots. Lot one as I said is the will be the newly created lot. Lot two is the lot with the existing home on it. Lot two will contain 4,226 square feet of land and lot one will contain 8 uh 6,842 square ft of land. Uh Mr. Rivera is uh is proposing to construct a three-bedroom, two bath home consisting of approximately 2200 square ft of living space on the newly created lot. Um as I mentioned, one of the uh exhibits we provided was the neighborhood exhibit plan. The intent clearly the intent of that exhibit plan is is to show the board that what we are proposing in terms of frontage and lot area is uh very much in character and consistent with what exists within the neighborhood. Um so that that's the intent of the neighborhood exhibit plan. Uh we've also had a we've received and had a chance to review the uh DPD staff comments. So the project review comments conclude that the lots that we are proposing are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Uh the comments also reference the planning uh planning and project management team comments. Those comments request that we provide plan showing the existing and the proposed conditions. Matt has distinguished that on the plan and he will go over that with the board uh soon. Uh the other revisions to the plan really centered around identifying the trees that are on the lot, the size of the trees are on the lot and particularly the trees that are within the right of way. Uh we also note on the revised plan um the amount of imperous uh materials currently on the lot and

what is proposed. So the there's going to be a reduction of about 1,500 ft uh square feet which is about 29% reduction. um taking a few minutes just to run through the criteria uh relevant to the special permit that we're requesting this evening. So in terms of the application to the low forward plan, this proposal achieves one of the main object objectives of the low forward plan which is to create additional housing within the city. We are proposing to uh to create a a new u market rate modestly priced energy efficient home on the proposed uh newly created lot. Uh the ultimately the idea here is for uh Mr. Ria to construct the new home, build it, uh sell it and then uh rehab the existing home and sell that eventually. So ultimately when when it's all said and done, this lot is going to be in my view drastically improved from what its current condition is. Um in terms of uh so so that all goes to neighborhood character as does the exhibit plan that we that we had uh that I had previously mentioned. It it shows that what we are proposing is consistent and in character with what exists in the neighborhood. In terms of environmental impacts, there are no adverse environmental impacts associated with this proposal. Uh we are adding a shade tree or two. There may be the need to remove one tree on the lot, but ultimately we think we'll have a net gain of trees. Uh the property will be serviced by municipal water, municipal sewer. Matt has designed a roof recharge system so that none of the roof runoff will go into the city's storm water system. Uh, and as I mentioned, there's less impervious surface uh, on the lots when we're all said and done with this project. In terms of traffic access and safety, both lots will be accessed by a

driveway with sufficient off- streetet parking. Uh, there's no issues with access for uh, fire, police, or other first responders to the site. And in terms of additional impacts of the proposal, so any any other additional impacts I would suggest would be positive impacts uh to the city. For example, the buildout of the lot will u local contractors will be used for that purpose. Uh there will be at the end of the day there will be substantial revenue uh in terms of real estate tax dollars to the city uh from this parcel if once it's split. Um, and in terms of other other city services, because we're dealing with a single family lot here, there's really no substantial impact to city services or to the city school system. Um, before I turn the project over, the presentation over to Matt to review the plans, we were uh intended or on the agenda to be before the zoning board of appeals last Monday, but due to the snowstorm, city hall was closed, that meeting was cancelled. we were pushed to a week from tonight. So, we will be presenting uh for relief before the zoning board of appeals on Monday, February 9th. So, with that, I'll turn the presentation over to Matt and he can run through the plan plans with the board. Thank you. Uh, for the record, my name is Matt Hammer with Landlex Engineering, 60 Fletcher Street. Um, if I cough, I have a a little chest cold that I've been fighting off for the last week, so I apologize. I I do. Thank you. I do have uh throat longages. So, thank you, Ma, for chat. So this is the existing parcel uh adjacent to Baker in B Street.

This is the existing dwelling here and on the site is an existing gravel drive walkways and two garages on the property. The proposal is to create this lot line in order to subdivide the parcel into two parcels. The larger lot here being lot one which will consist of 6,842 ft and lot two which will be 4,226 ft. The existing home will have these amenities uh outside the property which will remain as well as a proposed curb cut to accommodate two parking spaces. With that, there'll be uh infiltration drainage alongside the driveway. Lot one will have this proposed building, a new driveway consisting of two spaces, a walkway, and infiltration uh for the impervious space on that lot. We're also proposing a new uh shade 2-in diameter shade tree. There were some comments from engineering specific to water and sewer. We've added more detail to the water and sewer that was requested as well as the saw cut line. And I also wanted to note that the existing drive that was here, that'll all be reveated. So that driveway will be removed, reveated, and the curb cut will also be closed as well. And we would work with the Department of Public Works on the work that's done here within the right of way.

As attorney Gary previously mentioned, we did a a neighborhood analysis. Uh the subject parcels are located here and here. In green are lots that are more than 7,000 square ft, which would be a compliant lot. Those are shown here. of which there are 24. And then lots with less than 7,000 square feet, which ours our our lots are are shown in red. You can see there are significant amount of undersized lots which is 48. And then lots with less than 70 ft of frontage are also noted with cross-hatching within those lots which is uh uh identified which is 40 lots. And then there's also lots with um less than 70 feet of frontage and less than 7,000 square ft of area and those are shown as well in red cross-hatching. So, it's essentially um an analysis showing that there's 72 lots that would be non-compliant to current zoning in the general area. There's a um a question to show existing conditions related to proposed conditions which we do show on the plan. is just not as clear as if you were to color the plan

which essentially in blue is showing all the um impervious areas with the walkway drive in the garages of which that would be removed. I think that was one of the comments was trying to get a relational um view of what that is compared to the proposed conditions which sometimes is not as easy to show on the design plans because there's overlapping and that blue is what is existing today on this then I can turn turn over to Mr. you're here.

Thank you, Matt. So, the proposal to split the uh existing lot into two lots is compatible with the city zoning goals to create additional housing. It's uh it's compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Any beneficial the beneficial impacts of this uh proposal will certainly outweigh any negative potential negative impact uh adverse effects. We believe that we meet the criteria for issuance of the requested special permit and we would respectfully request approval this evening, but we're here to answer any questions or try to address any concerns that the board members may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all we have for now.

Thank you. At this point in time, is anybody here like to speak in favor of this project? Anybody in favor? In favor? In favor? Hearing none. Anybody in opposition? In opposition. In opposition. Hearing none. At this time, I'll turn it over to the board members. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Sure. Mr. Fisher. um council and I you've been before us many times for uh similar requests and uh

um I think overall this board looks at the reasonleness of the request and the ask and how it relates to the the neighborhood. Um and typically many times on these reduced frontages um we we've we've had many of them that the square footage is there. It's just the big the shape of the lot

they don't meet it. Uh in some instances uh the lot is undersized but then you know we look at um the surrounding lots and you could provide again you you're one of the better counselors that come before us and know what we're looking for. Um but then there's you know how much does it deviate from the zoning? Um and then that's where I start to have some difficulty um in reconciling this u you know every single housing unit that come before us achieves the master plan goal right every single application that comes to us. So that's that's a check off right it's housing so I can appreciate that. Um but when I look at you know the in the in the um TSR uh F zone traditional single family it's a 7,000 square foot lot requirement. Okay. So lot one is 6800 square ft. You show me what's there. I think there's some lots that obviously fall within there. Um, but then we get to the the next dense zoning which is TTF and it's 6,000 square ft for a single family home and lot two is still below that. So then we go to the next dense zone which would be traditional multif family zoning and the minimum lot size for single family dwelling is 4500 ft. You're still below that threshold. So, we're actually dropping and even the TMU uh maintains the same 4500 square ft. Um, and so it isn't until you get into the urban zoning districts that this would uh even comply at that point. Um, I just

think it's such a big deviation. And by allowing this, it's the this the other aspect to this, it does create then the request for the variance for the floor area ratio because that's a pretty large home that's sitting on that lot. So, it really does encompass a good portion of of lot two as well. So, I I've got a real hard time reconciling that ask. It's it's a little bit more than what we've uh honestly I've sat here looking at these for years now and it's a little bit more than what we're used to seeing. So I have concern with that and I'll wait to hear what the my colleagues have to say. Thank you.

Thank you Caleb. Um I I recognize the same observations as well. Um but at the same time I mean there there seems to be from the GIS exhibit I want to point out that seems to be two lots that I I can I you know I from just measure by eye that seems to be smaller than um um this lot but at the same time I mean those will be the outliers right are we adding to the outliers um will be will be part of the decision today or or you know for this case Um, so well I I will I will wait to hear from other members as well, but I I think I understand the existing house kind of like occupied um where the lot is right now and and really like unless you you change some of the footprint otherwise you're kind of stuck with that layout because I can see some other layout that might that might resolve some of that issue. So it just happened that the house is on it. So so I recognize that fact as well. Um besides the uh lot dimensions um I wish to uh ask about the fencing is there any are there any proposed I mean um just the way it is uh being subdivided now seems like uh it won't be easy to differentiate which lot you're on. So I would think that you know having fencing might help minimize future dispute between owners. So

yeah, we could certainly add fencing between the the two lots, you know, without any pro. We could make any landscape plan subject to DPD approval. Okay. Yeah, because I mean the jog there like you're right behind this new home. It's like well that would be a conflict point if if I mean might not be full fence and you can put some type of like you know um symbolic monument there or something so that you Yeah, it's not shown but it does make s perfect sense. Yeah, maybe a fence line end there so you kind of can eye it out. Things like that,

right? Um, I like the idea you're adding trees and um trying to save as many as possible and uh that you address uh storm water with the trench line. Um I have a comment on the um architectural I mean from the rendering um normally we don't have much to say but I mean if you're requesting for the 15 ft um um relief uh we have some say to it. Uh I just find it um the blank upper um floor u the end wall kind of stand out. Um so if if it comes to me I would prefer a window on top of the

sure the the door. I mean I know it's the end of a hallway so I I would just not sure where the the builder wants to hang a painting or something but I I would think that the hallway can use sunlight too. So that would be my suggestion. And I mean that's as of the board have um uh reviewed other uh architectural design before. Usually we we try to refrain from having just a blank wall um if possible. So um that's all my comments. Thank you chairman. Thank you attorney.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh very much appreciate u Mr. Hammer and Attorney Giri uh giving us the um GIS exhibit. I think it's extremely helpful. Um I do hear what member Fchetted is saying. Um I do look at it like there are a lot of tiny lots in that area and it would seemed like it fits into that area. Um I do understand what M member Fchett is saying. Um and I don't have his history on this board. Um but I do understand his concerns. Certainly um uh certainly the idea of a fence makes a lot of sense. I I didn't think of it. Um and uh I like the idea of uh and I never get involved in it is the shape of the house or the design of the house. Um I generally let member Fchett deal with that. Um but I think um I think I would like to hear what um member Fchett thinks of of the what do you call it? the outside envelope of of the House. Um but um I think and I'm usually one that says no to a lot of things. I kind of like this proposal. So um those are my thoughts. I like the fence. Um and possibly uh do something with the exterior. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I just make a couple comments if you don't mind?

Sure. Dan, do you have any questions? No. No. Go ahead.

So, um, so appreciate all the concerns and and member Fchett, you're absolutely correct. We're before the board a lot and we generally know what what's, uh, what's acceptable to the board and what's not. Um, when Mr. Rivera came in to see me, you know, one of the things we discussed was the possibility of an ADU on the lot. He has the right to do that 900 foot ADU. But you know when you look at the at you know the the proposal in its totality really in our view constructing a more robust home a single family home on the lot made more sense to us. It it defines the two lots. It gets rid of sort of the scrappy look of the lot that exists right now. You'll have two at the end of the day, you're going to have two two home two single family homes on this corner that are professionally landscaped. You know, nice clean driveways with the fence is a great idea and that will show the separation of the lots. The existing home is going to be rehabbed. Um, you know, when all said and done. So, you know, that's that's why we brought this forward. it made a lot of sense to us as opposed to trying to put an ADU where you just, you know, you rent it out. Um, so that that's where we're coming from. I understand that, you know, we are the the lot 4,200 square ft is a small lot. No question about it. But we, you know, as I say, we do that exhibit plan, that neighborhood exhibit plan for a reason. It really does show that what we are proposing is within the character of the neighborhood. Um, you know, I've seen other other small other homes built on small lots, you know, in and around the city, and at the end of the day, they fit in. They they fit into these neighborhoods. So, I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Lucia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I heard you say they'll be landscaped, but in my head when I hear the amount of space that the new house will take up, I hear hardscape, whereas right now that that space is open space essentially. Um, and then I also I'm having a hard time taking a conforming lot and subdividing it into two nonconforming lots. Um, I just I feel like it's not a good precedent to set um because over time the footprint of neighborhoods as we know them will change.

That's all. Thank you, Mr. S. Any questions, comments? Uh well I I I uh it's in the side of the house uh uh it's a concern you know giving the neighborhood where there's my my view. Thanks. The size of the home meaning the uh the proposed home. Yes. Yes. The proposed home.

Okay. Well I mean Mr. Um, Rivera would consider a smaller home. Uh, we did something not too long ago on Willard Street, I believe. This the lot was bigger obviously, but it was a small it was a small home

intended to um, you know, to fit that lot. Um, so we could take another look at the at the architecturalss and and see if we could come up with something that's more compatible if that if that makes any sense to the board. In terms of land, you know, I know the board's not complete. So I I'll wait to um address any further comments if you want, Mr. Chairman. Well, looking at the lot when when I was up there, it's basically a pretty busy lot. I mean, with all the stuff on the lot, I think what you're trying to do would actually make the lot more pleasing.

Yeah.

Than what than what it is today. Um I'm just looking at some of the pictures I had when I was up there. Um, I mean, the fact where you're doing the, you know, where the driveway is, it just comes in, it feels like it's just wide open to everything. Um, it goes way back with where the barn is. Um Um, I do like the fact with what Caleb mentioned about the fence. Um, I do like the fact what Kayla mentioned about at least the window. We've discussed that in the pat Matt knows that um by looking at the the GIS, it is consistent with the neighborhood. Um but I do know the lot it it is a small lot, but it basically still fits with the neighborhood. Um and usually I'm not too big on that size of a small lot. Um especially where you know lot one is the existing lot which is going to 68 down to cut in half. You think of it I mean from 68 to 422 is it?

Yes. Yeah. So but I mean if you look at the numbers what do what what's the total like 11,000 for the total lot? 11,68 both. Yeah. Right now.

Yeah. So even if you came down on one and up on the other um it's still um so you know we're we're before the zoning board as I said a week from tonight. Um they they'll weigh in on the lot size. I don't know if that's going to make any difference to the members that have a concern about the lot size. Um but we would be happy to continue this, take a take another look at the architectural plan, see if we can come up with a um a different architectural plan that's more, you know, aesthetically pleasing to the to this lot, to the neighborhood um and go from there. in terms of landscaping, you know, the um so member Walker, um I'm I'm sure you've been by the property now. It's not, you know, it's not very well landscaped. I would suggest um as it is, and it's it's not really a well- definfined yard either. Um I would suggest that with the proposed new home, you you know, it's going to be clearly landscaped. that whole area that's um a a gravel driveway which is fairly large is going to be reveated to to grass basically. So the you know at the end of the day I think the landscaping on both lots looks you know will look a lot better than it currently does. Um so those are my thoughts.

Mr. assume if I again and I'm going to give my thoughts on on the fence. The fence is going to accentuate how small that lot is. Right. So that's really going to really matter of fact by not having a fence it would give it a greater sense of space um you know and and actually because you went the way to the left where the end of the line I mean the landscape

greater sense yeah at that corner I think it would look more pleasing than they have a you know a a fence there I think maybe with landscaping I mean this is it's the challenge I mean it's you know, density by design. I mean, you can cram things in, but I mean, it's just how do you and that's part of why we look at this and we have the special perimeters. Yes, we do look at the how the house sits on the lot, how it's designed on the lot, and um actually we should have a design review committee that was going to be part of this years ago, but it never happened that way. But, um but it really is to to to make sure from a density perspective, density by design does it work, right? Mhm.

So part of the challenge you have is you have an existing structure that's just very large that's going to be sitting on that small lot that's going to take up most of that lot. So again, like by putting a fence that really now it'll accent accentuate the fact that that's a real small lot uh with a very large structure on it

and quite frankly that to me does not look in character with the with the neighborhood. Then so I mean we we can I would have much rather have seen um you show how many um are under 7,000 that would support the 6800 ft lot and then how many are under 5,000 that would support the 40 two thou 4200 foot lot. But, um, quite frankly, the the the the the baseline of 7,000 doesn't tell me that that really fits into the neighbor. And I can see a couple smaller lots. Absolutely.

But, um, I'd actually go I want to go back to see if there's houses on those or if some of those are double lots that people own. I just don't know. Um, but I I just uh perhaps if that home, you know, the if the floor area ratio was a was I I just, you know, and and it and I agree taking removing some of that impervious surface, you know, that's that curb cut doesn't fit for that that's not even a legal curb cut on that driveway. So, it's existing. Yeah,

I Yeah, understood. Um, but you know, I saw I mean there's some opportunities obviously to make that look nicer, but that could have been made nicer years ago. I mean, that's but this is an opportunity to do it. Um, but I I just um I mean I just think it's incumbent upon us to try to make sure that it's it's and it's a it's a corner. It's a corner lot. So, I mean, it's you know, people from the neighborhood are going to be going through there. So, um I just have some difficulty with that. I um um yeah I I just and I and and you know we could not require a fence and then an owner go in there and buy go put put up a fence, right? Somebody buys it and they'll they'll put up a fence and it's just it's just going to crowd that in. Look that make that look even smaller.

Um do you disagree that the at the end of the day that I mean you've you've been out to the lot. I know you go out to I got my pictures here,

right? So, at the end of the day, what we're proposing, I mean, to me, it seems it it it just seems obvious that what we're proposing is going to look better than what exists, even despite the fact that we have a 4,200 foot lot and a larger home on that lot, which is not not out of character with the neighborhood. Well, I think when you get further in down, uh, if you, you know, if you follow this towards like Aken going down further, then you start to really fit in. But then the zone changes as well, right? And and it's even smaller than what's in this the more denser zones. Yeah,

it's even smaller than that. I guess that's when I started to look at it. Okay, so what does it drop down into? Well, gez, it's even smaller than that zone. Okay, what does it drop down into this? Well, gez, it's even smaller than that zone. So that's where I kind of started looking at and say, "Wow, this is really a leap from from where we are." Um, and I and quite frankly, I couldn't really get a sense from these. And there are there there are a couple of really smaller with this slice of the pie here from uh from there. But I just um for myself I have some some difficulty with that and and the fact that we allow it then that means that really triggers you've got to go for a bunch of variances that the reason you you're requiring the variances because of what you're trying to do and it's such a deviation uh from what the zoning requires. Um, it's just we typically don't see this big of a

yeah, you know, I just, you know, I've been sitting here a long time. I just typically don't see that big of a and usually they're lots like existing lots that already are sitting there um that have been there for some time. Separate tax IDs. Exactly. Right. So, this is just it's a different beast and uh and and it'll be a beast that we create. Yeah. I mean, you know, if we if we approve it, then we own it and we created it. Yeah, that's fine.

But, you know, at the end of the day, I think I think what you'll see there is something that is beneficial to the neighborhood that that looks a lot better than what currently exists on the site. Um, or or would exist or or would be created by adding an ADU to that corner lot. It's a you know, it's it is a corner lot where it gets, you know, it's not a heavily traveled area because of of where it is. I think there is a one way and one direction there. But um well, I'll tell you councelor and this will surprise you because it's law now and it's legal. A very well-built design ADU there might not be a bad thing. Right. Seriously.

Right. No, I know. But I but in my view is a more robust single family home that that fits a family and it would be better for the city than that. That's that's that was our discussion. I mean, the ADU could be 900 square feet. You can actually landscape it so that it's it's it looks accessory to that main large building and it can actually look like a little community almost like a cottage cottage setup. And uh it it it might actually visually be more pleasing. Yeah. And less less Yeah. You know,

right. Um you know, Right. It just I think it would just be a more crowded lot, right? you have you have three structures there already and you add a potential fourth with the you take the other structures down. I mean if if you really want to make it look you know it's well I you know that you know theoretically we've been through this with a with a couple of the you know other garages that people have owned and it's like well if I get this I'll improve it. Well you could have improved that a while ago. Um, the other thing I'll fall back on is the, you know, as I said, the square footage that the two garages takes up is more square footage than what would be taken up by the proposed foundation of the the foundation of the proposed home.

Yeah. And I guess I so that the new structure I'm not as although I I Caleb had a point. And I think I' I' I'd want to, you know, the windows, I'm not quite sure why that was submitted that way, but certainly I'd want to see that, you know, the iteration of those windows, the rhythm of the windows look a little bit better.

Um um so I I you know, I I get that. I just um again, it's the creation of that lot too with the with the the lodge home. It's just it's it's I'm just even if they were actually you you found a way of um having a little bit more square footage to that that existing structure and a little bit away from the the new structure which is going to be smaller. Yeah. I mean we were you know in in terms of cutting up the lot differently it was you know we didn't want to create an oddly shaped lot. Um, understood, you know. So, yeah, I couldn't figure out how you could do it. That made the most sense.

Yeah. No, I understand. I mean, those I'm I'm one person. Yeah. No, I know.

I'm one person. So, um just um you know, I'm usually pretty receptive to these. just I I I just again when I started to look at um you know I went down to the next zoning requirement and the next owner next zone I was like oh gee where is you know and I and I didn't see in the material anything that showed me okay how about lots that are under 5,000 square feet with the with the with the with uh less frontage that that would support that lot. I I and I I'm looking at this I I you know visually I I you know I I don't know it certainly would be the outlier as I believe Caleb had pointed out. It wouldn't be the norm. It's you could point to maybe four of them and say oh yeah look it see out of the 40 lots around here there's a half a dozen. We just did one on 110 Billings which is right around the corner which I believe was a 4200 square foot lot. Um it was a separate as you said a separate tax ID lot that had been sitting

you know um basically a vacant lot. Um but but right around the corner from here, the abuing property had the had the same exact same layout of the lot and I think the frontage was 45 ft. Um so the house is constructed and sold and it it it looks good. Yeah. I believe it went under agreement for over $600,000 which is a scary thing. It is. Yeah. That's another story. Um, I again it's just I'm one person on the board. I am one person on the board. Mr. Chairman,

would it be helpful for all of the members as well as council to give this a few weeks, let them come back with some other proposal or some proposal? Um, uh, I throw that out. I have no problem voting it tonight either way. Uh but it uh would it up

would it be helpful to the members to see them? They've they've heard our our concerns um to come back and um try to convince us then. I mean I'm not maybe I can't count councel but I don't I I mean I have no problem if you want to vote on it this evening. I just I I don't I'm not necessarily sure what what can be done unless you know an analysis can show me but even as I look at the visual I don't I see it more as the outlier and I and I just um like I said the C and then I I just when I heard the idea of a fence and then anybody could put a fence that is really going to look small and then as you approach that corner that's just not gonna

we would be happy to continue and and um you know see if we can come back with a a different design of the home if that you know helps at all. We'll see what we come up with. May I add a little bit? Sure. Go ahead Caleb.

Yeah I think my understanding of the provision you seek uh the relief right is mainly pertain to frontage. And also we look at assessment or whe it fits that's why we have a rendering but I was just looking that and I mean typically I call a more question if like you you're requesting more than 15 what is allowable and which should really be a zoning board like territory but in this case I mean the you're just seeking relief on lot two whereas lot one you have an entire street of frontage right so so I think I see like you know that is a different perspective as well um um a unique perspective in this case. Um so so that's maybe I'm looking a little differently than member Fchette does. Um and and for the F um lot area requirement those will be zoning board decision too. So, um, so just wanted to put that out. And, um, I think in regard to the, um, the footprint of the proposed house, actually, I don't think I think it fits within the footage. I mean, the, um, the setback. So, I I have not as big of an issue with it. Um, lot to understanding that this existing house. I mean, unless the developer typically won't cut down the size of existing house, then there's only so much you can do about it. Um, but it's on the smaller lot. So, um, so that that's, um, that's part of the plan,

right? Um, yeah, that's all I have. Thank you. So, one question I would have would be if even if you came back, I have no problem if you ever want to come back. The question is if lot two still remains, you know, um 4,000 226 square ft. Uh are some board members going to say that it's too small to begin with regardless what else you do? You know what I'm saying, right? So I'm just saying is that going to change anybody's mind if you come back with anything else or the fact that it's just too small of a lot and some board members going to say

if that lot's not going to get any bigger. If it does, then it subtracts from the other lot. So, they're both still under seven. So, that's why I'm saying you have a total of 11. But how much more can you add to one and take from the other? Yeah. And still make the lots look right. So, I'm saying even if you I'm not too concerned about what the design of new house is going to be. I know Matt can take care of that no problem. You know, we tell him we like to do something there. He changes the design. That's easy. I mean, so I'm not worried about that. Um, you know, you know, for for the design, the windows, usually whatever we ask for the architectural, Matt has no problem doing it, right? I mean, that's the easiest thing to fix my right. I mean, it hasn't, you know, you're not building anything there yet, anything you do. So, the question is,

is the board willing to give you the relief, as Jeffy said, so so much of a small lot and the board members aren't going to willing to do that, is it worth your time to come back if the issue is still a sticking point? Yeah. Yeah. Um I'm just throwing that out there. I see what you're saying.

You know, I could ask the board members what their feelings are on it, you know, cuz go ahead and add up like to just add uh one thing here. So, um you know, we go before the zoning board of appeals to request for variances related to the more important zoning ordinance um non-conformities of what's proposed. And then we come to the planning board typically as a definitive subdivision to determine do we have suitable utilities. Are there potentially grading issues? Is there proper drainage? Is there proper access off of the streets and so on and so forth related to what is needed to support the two dwellings. Um, I can say that, you know, where you have your existing driveway close to the intersection, moving the driveway down from that intersection is going to improve the current access to the lot itself. But the definitive subdivision plan is my understanding that we're just making sure that the two homes can be

supported by the utilities and the access and obviously grading. Yeah, I think it's because of the This is a special permit, right? Yeah, we had a special permit. This is a special permit. No, special permit. No, this is and and for the special permit. This for special permit. Well, excuse me. I thought part of this was a definitive process for that. So, I apologize for that. Okay. And that's where we would take in account the design of the house, how it sits on the lot. we always do and that's written in the zoning code by the way.

Uh and so we take that into consideration and we take that's where neighborhood, you know, fitting into the kind of the the neighborhood character and that's why we look to have um have a map and council, you do a good job providing that. I just I just even in your your legend here, you don't say how many lots are under 5,000 square feet. It's under seven and this is well below. Yeah.

Yeah. And so I I'm just um uh and especially in that section actually as you turn down the street because there's a lot of apartments when you first turn down, but it really opens up and you've got vacant lots across the street um both areas and if you got that power plant or whatever that is, but it it really has a it has a sense of being open. Um and even this corner here as well. Um, so, uh, you know, it just, um, it's it's just such a big deviation from deviation from the code. No question about that. I can't argue with that. But deviation from the neighborhood, I would disagree. Well, I I guess I'd like to see then I don't want to waste your time.

Yeah. No, I really don't. I'm I'm big on that. And I agree 100%. I agree with the chairman. I I don't think a lot is, you know, there's we can't change the lot. We're here for a reduction of the as member Chang said, a reduction of frontage uh for lot two, not you know, not not lot one. Um so, you know, we we feel it's a good application and we're ready to move forward. Any other board me have any further comments? Dian,

I'm ready to go. So, you requested a continuence. You want to No, we're we're uh we're requesting a vote.

Okay. Let's request it a board. Um chairman, I would like to make motion to uh approve the special permit with conditions that um other members have helped me remind me. Uh but uh I think mainly is with the window. Um that a window could be added to prevent a blank wall. Uh well uh not counting the door. um and also um conditions to um to have some type of I guess notable delination of long line particularly in a jog. Um maybe a fencing might not be the most uh you know best idea but I mean a monument or some type that you can uh help future owners to delineate the

so some type of landmark or something some type of landmark. I mean so would it be make sense to have the landscaping approved by DPD? Uh yes, because that that delineation could be landscaping uh with with with the with the lot line delineation being one consideration, right? Yeah. Yes, I can accept to that condition. Yeah. Great. Um so two conditions. Second. Motion's made by um Caleb, second by Tony Tenza. All in favor say I. I. Chair says I. Any opposition? Nay. Nay. Nay.

Well, let the vote. That covers the five. So, we have three four and two against in favor. That that's the approval, right? Because of the special permit that still owns clarification. Still a simple majority for uh the special permit. Special permit, I think. So, I think yes. Yeah. Because of the the housing law. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just want to make sure. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So, we have three in favor and two against. So, the motion carries.

Thank you. Good luck. Thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

You're welcome. Okay, moving along back on the agenda. Let's see. I'm going back to anybody here from Chapel Street. I read that earlier into the record. Anybody from on Chapel Street? So, this matter was before us um let me get my notes out here for a second. Um and was continued to tonight after being here for the last meeting. Um we had some questions in regards to the adequacy of the um access the safety of the pedestrian walkways coming out of a building going into the um access ways on both the right and left side of the building. Um we did ask how snow was going to be removed and we were informed same as it is but we didn't know how it was because that wasn't explained to us. Um, we asked the same thing about um the trash, how they were going to pick up the other trash. Um, and they said bas basically same as it is. So, we noticed at the time some of the trash that was there in the containers were overflowing in violation of the code. Um, since they didn't have the parking in the back with the garages, then they were going to park in front of those garages for the people in the unit. Um, there wasn't much of a concern from the board members at that time as long as those I mean they um were assigned to the same unit. Um, we don't see the

people here this evening. We did ask a lot of questions. I know. Um I had a main question on whether about the comments from the fire department, whether they were going to do the full fire alarm system and whether they were going to do the sprinkler system. And um I indicated I suggested they get a estimate to see what it cost to um sprinkle the whole fire system. It's not not just the fire alarm system, but the sprinkler system would be very costly. And um we continue it to tonight's meeting for the applicant to come forward give us new information and as a second call we received no information. Um no one present. So um I don't know if they intended to still go forward. They hadn't submitted new plans to DPD as far as I was concerned. I asked Mary last week if she said anything and she said if she did she obviously for forward it to us. We didn't have any requests for withdrawal. U so the matter still stands before us for the public hearing this evening. Um chairman I would like to note the last time I go by one only one of the access way is um clear of snow. The other one is pile with snow. So I do have a serious concern about snow removal from the site. Okay. Especially when uh the access is

um designed as one way. So yeah because what's it they have is it four units now and they want to go to six. Is that what it Yes. Right. So even with four you think you'd want that adequate access cuz there's no way two cars are going to fit down that one way. Attorney said he could barely open his car doors to get down that alley. Couldn't get out. He couldn't get out if he had to. Yeah. Yeah. So, um,

Mr. Chairman, what what is the usual course for the planning board in this type of situation where somebody doesn't show up? We've asked for certain things. What um I I don't think I've seen it. So, I'm just curious as to what your experience has been, you member, mang once in the past, um, there was confusion on whether they were coming or not. So, we continued to the next date and then they indicated um staff reached out to them and said they were going to withdraw. Um and that was confusion about the date. Um this I'm not too sure if there was any confusion since it was a public hearing. It was continued to that date. Um they heard all our concerns. So, we're justifiable on voting on it. Um I don't know how we continue it. Um we could continue it, but I mean they haven't asked for continuance. I think the issues that we raised last time might have made them rethink the whole process. Um so I we're in our right to vote either way this evening. Um

would that be a recommendation, Mr. Chair? Um yeah, I'm actually in a position to even make a motion to deny second. Well, let me back up a little bit here. That's it. So, backing up to stating though, I will make a motion to deny for the following reason. Okay.

Um, one, the access going into the site. Uh, at the last meeting, Mr. Fette mentioned that there's concern with that walkway stepping into the ongoing passageway as for pedestrian um, safety if they could. And all they really had to do was turn those steps facing those current barrels going down on the lefth hand side which wouldn't be too much um to do by a um average carpenter. Um and we haven't seen issue on that. When we did talk about this snow removal which was not on the plan we didn't have it and they they indicated they said it was the same as it is now which basically told us nothing. Um

and based on Caleb's picture the way it is now. And so now pathways is not even accessible.

And so now this evening we have footage from a board member who tells us that's a true and accurate representation of what is at the date where there was not a clear passageway going in and coming out for the four units that are there now. Um so for the safety of the public and the welfare the fact of they don't have the adequate access. Um they didn't confirm what um when I told them about the fire department, they said, "Yeah." Um but we don't see whether how they're going to comply with that. Um so I don't I mean I have concerns about u what the concerns of the fire department are. Um and like I say, um concern about people getting in and out of there. Now seeing that the entrance way I mean or the exit way per the arrow is blocked and the fact that on the plan it showed an arrow we asked for signage so we could see that it was going in and coming out and circular motion. Um we haven't seen that and for those reasons make a motion to deny.

Second motion made in second. All in favor? I I in the opposite position hearing none. The motion on Chapel Street is denied. And moving along on the agenda. Any any of the board members have any follow-ups? Any any board members have any follow-ups? Jerry, you all set? Okay, Mr. Chairman, we did see an article in the paper about the block bridge, but we already had that highlighted by Jerry at the last meeting. So, we had the preview to the article.

Yeah. Next, next hearing is the Jerry Forchet update. So, hearing nothing from the other board members at this time, we can entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Motion made in second. All in favor say I. I. I. We have J and good night and thank you everyone.