Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right, I will open up this meeting of the main and planning board. Today's date is July 26th and the time is 7 0 PM. All members of planning board are present here in town hall. This meeting is being held in hybrid format, which means members of. Of the public, and in this case, members and applicants and staff can support. This discussion here in town hall are virtually through the zoom link. This meeting is being recorded. Any objection to skipping item one and moving to item two?

No.

Okay. All right. I will open up the public hearing for 16 Waltham Street. This is an application filed by Michael Rosen. Did I say that name correctly? Yes, you did. Okay, thank you. Michael Rosen, Roberto Israel, and Wiener PC. This is on behalf of owner Daniel D'Souza. Okay, thank you. This is for a property located at 16 Waltham Street. The subject property is located in the downtown overlay district and has an underlying zoning district for the business district. And the applicant is seeking a special permit and site plan approval for a four-unit multifamily residential use. No further changes to the site are proposed. Bill, do you want to give us some background, and then we'll turn it over to the applicants?

Certainly. And we also have our Building Commissioner, Rick Asman, is on, who can add a little additional information to this. This is a request for multifamily use in the DOD and UC existing projects. briefly aware of this project four or five years ago, I think, when it comes to the zoning board and we're going to try to work with the developer at the time to bring it to this board and put a multi-family unit there. It was originally approved by the planning board in, I think it was like 27 years ago, for a single family unit, mixed use, with mixed use office space. It was, there was, other units were constructed in there, and at one point the town became aware of it, and there's been several sales since then of the project up to this point. As of late, the applicant has been working with OMS and the building commissioner as to bring the project up to code, the building code. However, it still requires multi-family use from this board. Because there's a dimensional deficiency of roughly 600 square feet in the lot area, the applicant also required a variance from the zoning report of appeals, which was granted last night. At this point, I think I can turn it over to the applicant, to Mr. Rosen, or to the building commissioner, if you wish, if there's anything else. And I think that's pretty much everything on it. So the ask would be to amend the special permit, add it to the downtown overlay district at this point, which is didn't exist when this project was originally created and for the site plan. Rick, do you have anything that you'd add before we turn it over to the applicant?

Well, just I don't think it's necessary to rehash all the in-betweens. It's probably sufficient to say that the planning board in, I think it was 1987, granted a site plan approval for the building where it stands. And the approval was for one dwelling, one residential dwelling and four independent commercial units. be they trade shop spaces or business offices. Of course, it was business district at the time, so the restriction was 5,000 square feet per dwelling. So that's all the planning board could grant. And through some various elements, we've arrived to this point today where the applicant is simply seeking to make that into a four-unit multifamily building under our downtown overlay district zoning. Everything that happened in between probably isn't important.

Thanks, Rick. I'm happy to turn it over to the applicant.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Attorney Costa, nice to see you. I'll give you a little bit more background.

Sorry, may I interrupt? Can you introduce yourself?

Sure, I'm sorry. Yeah, thanks. Michael Rosen. I'm an attorney with the law firm Roberto Israel and Weiner. And with me this evening is Mr. Sousa, the owner of the property. So Mr. Sousa bought the property last fall and became aware this April that the property was nonconforming. When he purchased the property, he went through a customary mortgage process, went to a bank, had an appraisal done on the property, was told that he was buying a four-family residence, got a mortgage for a four-family residential property, and thought that he was buying a conforming, legally existing property. The tax records in the town of Maynard identify it as having four units, and it has been on the tax roll that way since 2010. It was only in April when your building inspector let him know that in fact the property was non-conforming. So Mr. Sousa contacted our office. We did not represent him at the time he bought it, but we started to dig and that's when we found out that this had been before the board in, I'm gonna say five years ago, four years ago. I think about two owners ago were looking to convert it to a six family. of the original building permits from whenever this was built. We believe that it took place somewhere between, the conversion took place somewhere between 1988 and 2009. The reason we say that the building permit was originally issued in 1987, the certificate of occupancy was issued in 1988, and the tax classification of it changed in 2009. So for 17 years, it's existed the way that it exists today. And so what we're doing is we're trying to help Mr. Souza clean it all up. There is no new construction contemplated. The only thing he's done since he bought the property is put on it to add solar. There's no change of use being contemplated. We are trying to just, I guess for lack of a better term, legalize the use that has been taking place for 17 years. obviously for 16 and a half of it during a period that my client didn't know that. That is, I mean, to all the criteria, it is now in the DOD. It meets all of the parking requirements. The building itself complies because it was built pursuant to a building's permit issued in 1987. And dimensionally, the structure is compliant. Again, it's one and a half parking spaces per unit. There are six parking spaces on the property. It is in the DOD. The only dimensional issue that the property had is that you need 1,500 square feet per unit. And this property fell slightly short of that. It has about 1,280 feet per unit. And so we did appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals last evening, and a variance was granted. Obviously, it won't be final until the written decision is issued and a 20-day appeal period expires. But your board did unanimously vote no opposition, nobody in attendance even questioning. All the abutters were notified. So it now has a variance for the dimensional and use nonconformity. And we're trying to clean up here as well. And we have done, we're working with your building commissioner We've brought in outside consultants to come and evaluate the property and to confirm that either work doesn't need to be done and that certificates of occupancy can be issued for every unit or to the extent that work does need to be done. We're reviewing sprinkler, fire, insulation, electricity, plumbing, all of the core code elements. We have written reports from all except for I think we're waiting for one more and then our next meeting after we're done here. is to meet with the building commissioner and take whatever steps are necessary to break the code compliance issues in order. Thank you. You're welcome.

Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify a few things? Certainly. The building is not compliant because it was built in conformance with the building permit. It became a protected nonconforming structure seven years after it was constructed because it was constructed with a building permit. But it never received a variance from any board for not having any setbacks. The building is conforming today because of the downtown overlay district and the absence of dimensional setback requirements in the downtown overlay district. Further, this building never This building and the issue of the multi-residents never came before this board. It only came before the Zoning Board of Appeals back when I did an enforcement action. And that was only an appeal of my enforcement action. So this is a new beginning for this building, which is why I tried to eliminate the in-betweens. And I encourage you to just look at the project as it's presented.

Thanks, Rick. Bill, do you have anything to add before I turn it over to the board for questions or comments?

No. I think the applicant has laid out its consistency with the fact that the building has been there for some time and that it does fit within the DOJ. And the staff report kind of emphasizes how the opposing staff believes the same criteria is met for property.

Actually, before I ask the board, Adam Costa, can I ask you a question? Of course. What is the planning board's ability to consider extraneous circumstances as we review the requirements of the special permit criteria?

So when you refer to outside or extraneous circumstances, can you be more specific or beyond the criteria, the special permit criteria that are recited in the bylaw?

Yes. Can we consider other elements, meaning what we've heard from staff or what we've heard from applicant in terms of the amount of effort that has taken place to bring a particular property towards compliance otherwise?

So the answer is sort of yes and no. So in acting on a special permit application or for that matter a site plan review application, you're bound by the parameters of state statute as it relates to special permits. There is currently no state statute that codifies site plan review. And then, of course, the often more detailed or more specific special permit criteria specified in your bylaw, and the same with respect to site plan review, the criteria that are enumerated in your bylaws. And so, Attorney Rosen, in the correspondence he submitted in early June to the board, has identified those criteria. He speaks about the special permit application by effectively dividing that application into three components. The first component are the sort of generic statutory criteria, which he enumerates and then gives his position on why those have been satisfied. The second part are the bylaws generic special permit criteria. There are six of them. And again, he addresses why he believes that his client has satisfied those criteria. And on the third point, he addresses the DoD standards and again explains why, from his perspective, those criteria have been satisfied. And he does the same thing with respect to the bylaws, six standards for site plan review. Now, some of those standards are quite comprehensive. or broad, use whatever terminology you wish, and some of the facts that you have made reference to could be relevant to those considerations. For example, one of the special permit criteria is the consideration of social, economic, or community needs which would be served by the proposal. and so attorney rosen has made his case for why he believes that the proposal will serve those needs but facts that you've gained whether you've gained them through the applicant's presentation through staff comments through comments from residents or other knowledge you happen to have as a board member to the extent that it's relevant to social economic or community needs of the town of maynard then certainly you can consider those things Same thing with respect to some of these other broad categories, neighborhood character and social structures, potential fiscal impact. So you are limited to the criteria in the bylaw. If you ask me, for example, can we consider And I'm not suggesting that this applies in this instance, but if you were to ever ask me, can we consider our distaste for the applicant or the fact that the applicant has done us wrong on other projects in the community, I would tell you that's not a proper consideration. the personality, the experiences with an applicant are not among the criteria that you're permitted by statute or pursuant to your bylaw to consider. But to the extent that you have other facts regarding the use of this property, the history of this property, anticipated future use of this property that is going to fall into one of the categories that you're permitted to consider as part of your special permit analysis, then yes, those are proper considerations.

Thanks, Adam. Sure. In fact, sorry to the board, one more sort of clarifying question to Bill. We're asked to review the site plan, but essentially the site plan is what was previously approved by the board, the planning board in 1987. Do I have that correct?

amending it for four units as opposed to the original one. So actually what you're doing is amending the special permit and, by reference, the site plan, which allows the multi-family use. The special permit allows multi-family use.

And I'm thinking specifically about site plan. There is not necessarily a site plan to review in the common sense. in the traditional sense.

What we're doing is just tidy it up and amend the existing site plan. And the difference is that there's going to be four in the residential rather than mixed use and one in the residential.

OK. I'll open it up to the board for questions or comments.

My first question. Is that OK? The underlying district is business.

Yeah, it is.

I know the covers it, so I'm just trying to double check what the. What the underlying zoning district is Bill.

Yeah, the other I'm sorry the underlying there is. Underlying is business. Okay. Business, but it was approved to rent another business.

Yep. And my other question is, the adjacent parcel, do you know if that is also business? The one heading out of downtown.

So here, I have the, as part of the assessor's, this should be in the package, but just so you have it.

Thank you.

So this is the parcel here? Yep. So we're a business that goes to GR down here.

It looks like the whole area is business.

This is the gas station. If you leave, there's a single family homes on these two lots.

Right. The question is, what zoning are those two single family homes?

I believe they're B. OK. Bill, if you can just confirm for me if the adjacent parcel is the business district, if that would be.

So here is the business district.

also is the one that's .

There you go. Which one, Natalie?

I just wanted to know if the one- This one right here? Yeah, the one- If that is also zoned business as the underlying district.

I'll check that real quick.

Thank you. That's my only question.

Other questions, comments while Bill works into that?

Do we have the 87 site plan? I'm still a little confused as to what we're supposed to be doing before giving up site plan approval. Don't we have, is there something that says they're still consistent with that or has, you know, it's been a million years.

So if we ask just for a general site plan approval, I don't know if you can just grant. I presume you can grant a site plan approval because it's a new request for a site plan approval. We do have a plan of what we have. We didn't go back and compare it to 1987. We just did a brand new plan. I can tell you, and I think the building commissioner can tell you, that the property was built pursuant to a permit in 1987, and it was built in 1988.

Yeah, now I'm just confused. I thought we were amending the 87.

So our request is for a special permit and not a land approval. I think, essentially, from a common perspective, You're looking at it and saying, well, nothing's changed. Why do we need to approve a new site plan? And what has changed is the use. I guess this is probably a question for Nemzer. I don't know if anything's changed. Certainly can tell you on the interior of the building something has changed, which is why we're here.

Somebody can pull the file. The site plan from 87 is in the file.

Um, Adam, can you can you can you add to this at all? Meaning specifically the question is, do we is the board being asked to approve us the site plan again? Or are we. Being asked to review and amend or, or just simply say that it's consistent. With consistent to our bylaws, anything you can add.

Sure, so I mean I can't I can't and I won't speak for the applicant, but I think I heard the applicant say that what has been applied for and certainly the way that I ran the app that I read the application package. Was a new site plan approval, and I think that that point was was just confirmed by attorney Rosen stating that he hadn't provided any sort sort of comparison to the 1987 plan. because you're not being asked to amend that plan. And when amendment applications are submitted, typically the plan itself will show before and after conditions, the change that's being proposed, The presentation that's made would explain the changes that are being proposed from what was originally approved and what the board would be asked to do is to grant an amendment. That's not what has been presented here. What's been presented here is, you know, a site plan showing what exists on the site. It's not maybe what the board is used to seeing in most instances. If you had an entirely new site or a site that was being newly developed, a vacant site, a site that had maybe existing structures that were to be raised with a full redevelopment, you would expect to see maybe a very detailed proposed site plan showing everything from drainage structures to landscaping. When applications are made that are of this nature, sort of a cleanup, an existing structure, especially given the history, as I understand it, of this property where there were some uses that were allowed decades ago, those uses transformed to some other uses, maybe with or without permissions. And there's now an effort to sort of clean this up and the relief is being sought in the form of of variance and special permits to do that. It's not unusual in these circumstances, maybe it is in Maynard, because maybe you don't see many of these, but it's not unusual for an applicant to present effectively an existing conditions plan and kind of pitch that to the board as the site plan that you're being asked to approve. you can query whether that requires you to waive some of the otherwise applicable requirements, whether it be things that would be shown on a plan or substantive standards that would be met, or maybe there aren't waivers required. But we do see this in other communities with some frequency.

It's also, yes, the whole block, the rest of that block on that side of the office. Thank you.

And thank you for your patience, Mr. Rosen. So the request is for the planning board to approve what you've submitted as the existing conditions as the new site plan? As the site plan, correct. Okay, understood. That is more clear than that. Does that help?

Can you bring that up, Bill? Which one? The old one? The site plan submittal? No, the new one. The one we're being asked to approve?

Yeah.

I actually have coffee syrup. That's all right. Bring it on the screen.

I actually would love a coffee if you have one.

Is this the site plan being submitted as a site plan? Yes.

This is the June 3rd, like a June 3rd day boundaries. Yeah, this would be like what we use for the typically zoning board approvals. OK.

But we're not zoning board.

No, no, no. I said typically.

So how do we assess criteria like, you know, I don't know, vehicle loading and pedestrian movements and, I don't know, I mean, it's like, where's parking spaces and where's the traffic, for one?

I mean, I don't... Well, again, I think the difference is, on this case, it's not being presented as a new... No, but it is. We just had that discussion.

It's a new use. No, we just had that discussion with, Adam, and it is being presented as a new site plan. It's not an amendment to the old one. It's a new one.

It is represented as it is on here to... I mean, we have lighting. It's on here. But like Adam says, it's not.

It seems like it's hard to evaluate the site plan if there's no information on it.

I guess our theory is we are not making any modifications to what exists on the ground today. And therefore, we are not creating any condition that would cause potential harm or risk to the community. We are bringing you a plan that shows what has been in existence since 1988 and the use that's been in existence since at least 2009. And so when you evaluate the criteria and you look at a project, you look at is it going to create X, or is it going to create Y? And our theory is we're not creating anything. It's something that's existed for 20 years, or 40 years, depending on how you look at it.

We still have a hard time figuring out how to move a site plan without information, especially So I also have a question about change of use. We keep saying that there's no change of use, or it's only a change of use three to four, or something like that. I didn't say that.

I said that it's a change of use from single family with mixed use to four family residential. That's exactly the situation with that.

So the official change of use is from one dwelling unit and four commercials to four dwelling units. Is that the official interviews? That is correct. And that's what this board is doing. And the tax assessment has your 40 residential units, but it also has commercial space. Is that going away? The tax assessment was changed in 2009.

If you pull the tax assessor's cards, the last year it was listed as commercial was 2009. And in 2010, it got changed to... That's not quite what I'm saying.

You are correct. Prior to 2009 or whatever it was, it was mixed use. Correct. But now, it's multi-residential and warehouse commercial. So I'm psyched. Why is there still warehouse commercial, and is that going to stay, or is that part of the change as well? So are you talking about the property record card, or are you talking about the tax assessment? I'm talking about the taxes. You pop up the tax assessment. If you go to the year-on-year history. I know, and if you read both lines, that property is being taxed both as a multi-residential and warehouse commercial space. So this property will no longer be used as warehouse space. OK. So that's being corrected in the assessor's office? That stuff's all being taken care of?

I would presume that when we correct everything with the building inspector and the building inspector certifies that all that work has been done, I presume those records get delivered to the tax assessor who updates it, just like when you would build a new house. When you get your tax record, you have raw land. And then when the building inspector gets the permits and issues the certificate of occupancy, those records go down to the tax department. And the tax department updates its database and changes that it's taxing the parcel.

So what's happening to that commercial space? What I'm guessing is the basement?

There is no commercial space. It's residential units. It was converted to residential units sometime prior to 2009.

And they know it was not that was not a complete statement, it was converted to residential and warehouse space, I think we might be talking about two different. items here we're not i'm just wondering what's going on with the basement digital is there a warehouse in there no storage talents been taxed 2010 pictures of my business and i'll be the basement. part of the residential?

I mean, why is there a weird driveway going down there and all that stuff? Because that's what was there when they built the building. It's a residential property.

There's not going to be any more commercial at all? No home business stuff and using that basement anymore? No trucks coming in and out?

No residential units.

rick can you confirm that the way this goes is that the currently wrong or miscare miscategorized tax assessment categorization of residential and warehouse will be changed once the building is properly permitted as residential only um if you ever hire us an assessor yes okay sure just so just to clarify bill the the

As you and I know, the assessors send their people out occasionally to properties, and then they see what's there. And that's how they change their assessor's card by what they find on the property. It doesn't mean that it's legal. It means it's what they found to be existing on the property. And that building was legally one residential unit. That's what the certificate of occupancy was issued for, was one residential unit. and a number of business units. And the person that built that, I can't remember his name, but he ran Fred's Aluminum. And he ran his business out of that building. And he stockpiled all of his aluminum siding and then vinyl. He went into the vinyl business in the basement there. And until his death about five years ago, that's how the building was being used, only he had discovered that he couldn't rent out these other office spaces. And so he decided that he would convert them to residential units. And he did this without any building permits or plumbing permits or electrical permits. But he was somebody who was very well vested in the trade. So I guess nobody noticed or cared. And so when the building, just before the building went up for sale, I noticed the use and what it had been approved for we started an enforcement action against the property to eliminate the residential use and that's about the time that tony lisa moved in after their appeal of my decision was unsuccessful the developer tony lisa purchased the property and started to work with bill and i in turning into a legal six unit and uh he He disappeared from conversation and turned around legal terms of the state building code. It is still residents in the rest commercial. And as soon as we complete this whole process, it will simply be a multifamily building. Okay, thank you.

I guess my last question for the applicant is how do you plan on meeting the criteria 946, criteria C?

And to elaborate, that is 946 is of the zone bylaws. That is the special permit criteria for the downtown overlay district. And section C is the says clearly the proposed development will improve the functioning of the downtown by at least one of the following means, and it provides six different options.

I can read it. I have it.

OK.

So if you imagine that the building doesn't exist, because as a matter of law, it does not legally exist, by putting in a structure with six parking spaces and adding residential housing, it is adding parking by legalizing that parking within the downtown overlay district. So it's adding six parking spaces.

I'm going to say that's not correct, because right now it's commercial and a little bit of residential, which has its own parking requirement.

Bill, can we let the applicant finish?

OK.

Thanks. Can you say that again?

By correcting these prior issues, we believe that it is adding to many of these criteria. It's improving the usage. Again, if you envision that it's not there, because what's there is a four-family residential property that is not legally entitled to be there. Yes, it was permitted as a commercial business. It is not being operated as a commercial business. So there's a use on that property. And if we came in here with a brand new site plan that were a vacant lot of land, we would be adding usage for residential units we would be adding six parking spaces. We would make the parking affected downtown because we are allowing parking on site to allow the residential occupants of that property to park on site as opposed to taking parking in the streets and you get walking distance to all of the things that are accessible in downtown Maynard.

So can we ask Adam if that's the correct interpretation because it seems to me that what we have is four commercial units and one dwelling unit.

You can ask Adam.

So are we starting from nothing or are we starting from the original permit and we're changing that?

Well, sure. So through the chair, I appreciate your question and I appreciate Attorney Rosen's answer. And I think that there may be two sides of the same coin. I think it's fair to say something existed legally on this site at a point in the past. We know that because the history has been described and you've got a permit that issued in, what, the 1980s? And so you're correct, Bill, in that sense. But at the same time, the applicant's counsel is correct in saying that legally what exists on the property now is legal. not necessarily anything that's lawful. At best, it's pre-existing non-conforming, not in the usual sense of that term, but as a consequence of the six-year statute of limitations having passed. having expired and therefore, particularly under the 2016 amendments to the State Zoning Act, properties, structures, uses, the uses to a lesser extent, properties and structures that existed unlawfully but were built pursuant to a validly issued building permit, after the period of enforcement passes, the statute of limitations passes on enforcement, they gain non-conforming status, even though that's somewhat of a misnomer. And so in that sense, the site is protected and arguably has that status, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's lawful because it hasn't been used for a number of years in a manner consistent with the original permitting that occurred for the site. So it is difficult to sort of reconcile what existed there historically legitimately with what existed after the fact and has existed for a number of years with what is now being proposed as a new use of the site. um i defer to the board as to the weight you want to give the argument that's being made by attorney rosen that you ought to view this as if nothing lawful exists there today and so the creation of parking is the creation of parking it's as if we were starting fresh with the new site and creating parking where none existed before to do that you have to look and assign a fair amount of weight to the legal argument that legally what has existed there for many years now has not been lawful But again, I appreciate the point that's being made that, yeah, but there is something that exists on site, and there was something that was legitimately permitted on site back in the 1980s, and we can't entirely ignore that. But again, how much weight you give to that versus how it's been used for these past couple of decades, that's up to you.

Other questions, comments from the board?

To clarify, I want to make this good, but I have never stretched back to 1987 to think about a site plan. So sorry that we're asking so many questions. It's just that this is, you know, I was three when this was approved.

It is unique to us as well. This is not your customer. Normally I come into a zoning hearing, I've got a binder this thick, I got the law, I got the pictures, I got the photos, I got a meeting with the neighbors, you go through all of those different things, that's not this. This is coming to the board, we're trying to fix an issue. I guess the best thing I could point to in the six criteria are, are we improving the functioning of the downtown area? Are we making it better? We're adding needed housing, we're bringing it into code compliance, and we're bringing it into zoning and special permit compliance. So I would say we are improving the functioning of the downtown area. There is a building in your downtown. It never properly functioned to begin with. I believe Fred, who owned it, could never get tenants for that building. So it became unfunctional, and Fred whether it's because he knew people or because he was a nice guy or whatever, made it functional but didn't do it the right way. We're trying to significantly improve the functionality of this by coming in before even, and again, for lack of a better term, throwing ourselves at your mercy. We're just trying to fix a problem that someone else created 20-something years ago.

I think it's also important looking at the overall special permit criteria under the statute. In the end, you know, what boils down to is the good outweigh the bad in this. And so far as the site plan, you know, looking at the site plan criteria, I'm not even sure, and I'd have to ask Rick, I'm not even sure this actually requires site plan review. We kind of, we went to the You know what triggers site plan review and we're only because this is old and we're falling back on well It doesn't use use create the new five or more parking spaces and the fact is there's already five parking spaces there and I could probably I don't know if Rick would agree with me or not on this but the previous site plan did address a drainage, we have it here, and the ingress, egress, and the basics. It's not, but if you think of this, it's, you know, what's for the best interest of the community than this, in my opinion.

I absolutely agree with that. Part of my concern is the way I have always read for other DOD special permits, We've, improving public parking, we've never said providing private parking checks that box, you know? So, you know what I'm saying? Like, providing private parking for the tenants is a public benefit for parking.

That's true, but we often, in the downtown overlay district, we do, as we're supposed to do, rely on shared parking and different uses as a mixed use.

Yes.

I mean, I'm not saying, you know, it would. But this is self-contained as it exists.

For sure.

It is not affecting our public parking.

So it's not negatively affecting our public parking. Not negatively affecting. Believe me, I agree with that. And I want this, I'm just trying to check the boxes in the way that I have always done previously.

Good question. But again, I think criteria number six. We have to meet one of those six. Improvement to the functioning of the downtown area.

Other board comments, questions?

No, I'm good.

I have two thoughts. One, it's difficult for me to approve the site plan in its current condition, because as I agree with what Mr. Crenshaw says, that there's not really details for us to approve necessarily here. So I struggle with that. And you don't have to answer this question, but is there some particular reason why you need think site plan approval is necessary.

No, he got a phone call from public officials, and they asked us to do certain things. Okay. We did everything we were.

Okay. So, so, so Bill and Rick, this came from Bill and Rick, which is fine. Um, I'm just trying to understand the, the, the, the, the, the origin of this.

So, quite honestly, if you approved our special permit tonight, and not our site plan approval. Noting that there was a 1987 approved site plan approval. Unless the building commissioner tells you this evening that he would not accept that. I don't have a problem with that.

So Bill and Rick, is there a need to approve this whole plan? What the application was, it was for an approval of a new site plan. Can you help me understand why that's needed? Or perhaps it was maybe the application was not instituted correctly and maybe a new site plan is not required for approval? Yeah, to be clear on that front... Because, like I said, the application is for a new site plan. There are two applications in front of you.

Yes.

One for a special permit, one for a central one. Sure. Thank you. Right. In this case, we would always defer on the... to over-request rather than under-request, just as we will do if... We'll sometimes advertise and we'll say for special permit site plan and any permitting necessary to construct this.

So in abundance of caution in a sense?

Yeah, exactly. Okay. And if this... Rick, do you have an opinion on what I said earlier about the site plan?

I will. Give me about 60 seconds.

Okay, Rick. And well, just to be clear, I'm looking at why do we need a site plan looking under the bylaws. This project was site planned to have, at the time, seven, it looks like seven parking. I don't know what's changed here exonically, but now we were required to have five spaces. So I'm like six, one and a half per unit. Six, one and a half per unit.

Six spaces.

Yeah.

How many parking spaces are provided?

This is the ramp into the garage. Is that one? No. It's indoors. It's a garage. I guess somebody could park there. You can park in front of that and make sure they're sharing something they can see. If you consider that, then 7. Well, then they have 1, 2, 3, 4, then they have 5, 6, 7 over here, and then a driveway in and out. So if you consider it in front of the garage, might we even have 8? You haven't changed the page surface, is my question. There's nothing that's been done there? Nope. Okay. So the surface is still exactly the same? You could fit 8 cars comfortably. Okay.

To answer your question, yes, I do believe that it requires site planning. Just for, because it is in the business district as opposed to the central business district, and it does require more than five parking spaces to meet the four-unit requirement. Further, if you accept attorney Rosen's argument that you're looking at something where there's nothing on the site existing, And you also have their creation of the structure. That's going in kind of a far-fetched direction. I would say to the board that it does require site plan review, but not to a great extent. The drainage for the site has already been developed. You're looking more to whether it meets the parking requirements. if it has a suitable dumpster located, if there's a snow removal policy for the lot. And I'd say that's about it.

Thanks, Rick. I do find it difficult to be able to move on the site plan with what's presented, considering even the comments made from the building commissioner. I think a plan that shows parking, of course, because I see that here, but also shows waste removal or waste storage, snow storage, if any, and lighting that is on it. I think would be sufficient for at least me as one member to be able to consider it complete to review. I find the current, what's currently presented to be incomplete, if that makes sense. Bill Nemzer, is there a way to move forward on considering special permit and then considering site plan review later or is it imperative to consider them at the same time?

That's a good question. I'd have to ask Rick, because this is an enforcement case. I'm just wanting to make sure that what I want to see what was already listed on the existing site plan that may address snow or garbage, but I don't see any there. But is the lighting external lighting is external external lighting is noted. I don't see. So Would the board be satisfied with an update of this site plan that depicted the snow removal and the dumpster waste removal?

I think that's what I heard tonight. And I'll allow the board to add any color to that.

So I would have no objection if you could get through the special permit even if it had a condition that it was subject to submitting an updated site plan that shows snow storage, dumpster, six parking spaces, and exterior lighting as a condition of the special permit approval. If attorney Costa would concur that that might be an appropriate way to do it, I think at least it would send the right message that we're doing the right things and that it's Again, and I think the building commissioner will tell you, we have been spending time and money fixing everything that we need to fix.

Understood. First, let's go to the board if the list of categories would be sufficient to be considered complete application for a site plan.

Seems reasonable to me.

Lighting, snow, waste, storage, parking.

I think so. It's just my only hang up is they don't park the way it's shown there. So is there a different layout that's going to be presented?

Whatever the layout is, we'll present it. We'll make sure that there's six. I mean, we may need to go back. I'm not sure. Susan and I have discussed making sure there's room for snow storage. So if we have to stripe it and have it laid out differently, we know that we have to have at least six spaces because we have to have one and a half. for each unit.

It sounds like if you have eight then there should be space.

Exactly and looking at it on this plan you know Mr. Souza is a resident in the building so he could potentially take the space in front of the garage door we could make use of that particular space or maybe that's where we put the rubbish but all of those things we can have somebody take a look at we can get an engineer to look at that.

My second comment is that the DOD special permit criteria, I do find it hard to meet Section C regarding the improvements of the functioning of the downtown, which has been part of the conversation tonight. Bill Nemzer, we've received applications in the past that has provided donations to a DOD downtown overlay district fund to help contribute to item C, particularly significant improvements to the pedestrian experience in the downtown.

That's correct.

Do you happen to have a tree fund? We used to have a tree fund. I believe it has morphed into a downtown overlay district enhancement fund. We got the trees. That has met the criteria in the past, and I'm happy, just as one board member, to consider that as meeting the criteria. Like adding a bicycle rock somewhere or something? It has been monetary donations in the past.

Yeah.

So it would be a monetary donation that then the Department of Public Works and others will then use those to enhance DOD under the specific criteria. Would that be acceptable?

Yeah.

I don't know how to come up with a number. There was an application next to the sanctuary for, I think, two.

That was a change of use as well. For what?

Two units? There was a donation there for that project. We can scale it up.

It was 81 River Street?

Or Main Street, was it?

I think the address is technically on River Street.

It's the red building next to Sanctuary.

That was a change of use that was going from one commercial... It went from commercial to residential. It went from commercial to residential.

Just for equity, I'm trying to match equity here.

That's pretty close, isn't it?

So we could look at that and scale it appropriately. So I don't recall what that was. If that was two units, we could scale that number up to four.

Are you sure it was 81? No. 78, 80 maybe. Yeah, that's probably it. There's five parking spots, DOD, use of DOD.

And actually, well, I mean... It would probably be in the conditions.

We had, in this one, $500 to the tree fund.

Yeah, okay.

And... And there was some landscaping on the edge.

And they were doing walkway lighting. currently under lit and hazardous area. I can't remember what that was.

It's the steps from the River Street, you know, the lot back there. It was step by steps.

Yeah. Bill, how many units was this for? This was for three, I believe.

Yeah. I can't remember. That was going from one residential and one commercial to

three three three units two units three units with no change to building footprint so that's like I would just add we are not adding units we technically have five units we're going down to four units we're just changing the use from commercial to residential so yes just noting the amount of money we're spending on someone to fix someone else's 500 would be phenomenal. Again, because all we're doing is changing. We're not adding anything. I would be appreciative. And I do think it would give you reasonable logic, because that is a change and this is a change.

What do you think, Bill? Is that a reasonable comparison?

Yeah, I think it's pretty accurate.

It's a win-win tomorrow.

OK. Where did we settle on? Site plan review?

Making a condition for an updated site plan review.

Yeah. Right. That would be if the board is comfortable with what we've done in the past, in this case, where we have specifically for the site plan with additional marking and denotation for snow storage, waste removal, dumpster placement. The parking is going to be revised to reflect what's there. We know there are six spots required overall. So that basically everything else from the existing site plan is carried forward and that's what it would be, the changes would be limited to that. Which is, I think, looking back at the other Comparable unit, I don't even know, I think it's basically what we did there. We had kind of a, just a very, some minor changes to the plan there, I believe. And then it would be $500 to the downtown enhancement fund if that's what the board wants.

I'm thinking scaling it. To me it's 750, I see two units to three units. So that's my number in terms of scale. Just looking at the math. But that's, the applicant would have to agree to that number.

But then the question would be, I'm sorry. The question would be, could we endorse this tonight and with a site plan, if you could leave it to the building commissioner and myself to review and check it for you and then bring it back or make sure it was. How would the board feel comfortable?

We have 30 days to review site plans that are submitted when it's a complete submission, right? I'm sorry? We have 30 days to review site plans when they're submitted? By the book?

Yeah.

Right.

If a new application

Right, so to me, I see this as the site plan I've submitted was incomplete, and so once it's submitted, we would have 30 days to review it. We do not need to hold a hearing, though, for it, do we?

Yes, I know.

So we could approve it without a second hearing and let them... We could have a condition on the special permit that site plan needs to be resubmitted, and then we have 30 days to review it, and it comes to Planning Board, it's not a hearing, right? It's a site plan review.

Well, our site plan reviews are hearings, so it's going to go back to the board.

Why don't we just keep this hearing going? I don't want to call a new hearing for a site plan.

The only reason, I'll defer to whatever the board wants and let the council and Mr. Rosen.

I would agree with Mr. Crenshaw. You'd prefer to continue? You don't need to re-notice the error. So I think that would be fine. And then I would obviously also ask, we obviously wanted to be here this evening. If we do get through the special permit and it's just those changes on the site plan, if it would please the board, if we could do that by Zoom to save Mr. Sousa the cost and expense of having counsel.

Yes, you can join virtually. You just have to make sure you can participate and have no technology issues.

That would be fine to be made procedurally. If Rick, I don't know how it impacts Rick.

That's fine. We're going to do one more round of this. So my proposal is continuation, updated site plan in the meantime, and then just a redrafting of how it meets the special permit criteria, including a DOD donation for the enhancement fund and have that presented. And then we'll just go around the room. Rick, do you have any heartburn about any of that?

No. No, I'm fine with all of that. You can continue the entire thing. I think it's probably best if it was only advertised as a site plan review as opposed to the special permit they require for the multifamily. If you're containing it all within the same hearing, I think continuation is fine. Okay, thanks Rick.

Adam, do you have any advice from your perspective?

No, I wasn't. I was having some difficulty following along with the timeframes that you had referenced, the 30 days and the completeness issue. I'm looking. I've got your bylaw. I've got your planning board rules and regulations as they relate to site plan.

It's irrelevant at this point. The proposal is to continue the hearing.

then that's fine plan and have an updated um special how updated statement about the how it meets the special permit criteria sure and i reference it only because i i don't know i'm not sure i have the date of submittal you are from my perspective on a 90-day clock from the date of submittal of the application so as long as your continuance will still fall within that 90-day time frame i don't have any concerns great clearly i'm thinking about another type of parent you're thinking of approval not required

Is that what I'm thinking of?

OK. Great. You don't have an A&R, can I see you?

No, we do not have an A&R.

Great. Should I have an A&R? Please, no. OK. Any final thoughts from the board?

I have a technical question for Bill. The parking requirements considered 1 and 1 half per unit. Now, we modified the DOD. Is this the modified number or is this the old number that we're working with? I don't think the current zoning that you get off the web is the most recent change. Let's see. Current zoning is... Because we made it consistent with the rest of the... Yeah.

That hasn't been approved yet, has it?

Did we... That was a long time ago.

Really?

I mean, maybe they haven't approved it.

Did we do that in the last round?

I think it was the time before the last round.

I don't know how fast the AG works, but we haven't gotten back. We haven't gotten back to spring. So why are you trying to get less parking?

I think it is less parking. I think we changed five.

No, I know we changed it, but I'm just saying we definitely changed it.

It's one and a half per building. Yeah.

Well, let's have this figured out. So something to look into.

We're going to have spaces per dwelling.

I agree with your building commissioner. If you did update it, it's not on your posted zoning bylaws. That's what I'm saying.

I'm going to blame the AGA for that.

Right, it could be at the AGA.

Well, all I'm saying is that maybe you just have way more snow storage than you even knew.

I haven't seen any comments back on anything.

I was older than that. It feels like a long time ago. A couple rounds ago.

Yeah, was it? I thought it wasn't as bad.

I mean, maybe they're wicked slow on approval. 90 days is their target, although they take longer with cell towers and solar and things like that. This was a while ago. And accessory drilling units. If you had some other, like if you had solar or cannabis or cell tower in that same warrant, it would generally take longer. If it was a simple warrant that just dealt with some dimensional and parking type issues, I would think you would see it back within 90 days. But again, you could have passed something else at the time that is one of the things that they spent more time reviewing.

Here's what we did. Bill, we're going to move on. Yeah, I'm moving on. OK, so I will make a motion to continue this hearing. Second. All in favor to continue? Hold on, we need a date.

What do you think, Mr. Rosen, what would be a real estate date having revisions?

Our first meeting in August is the 11th, and then the next meeting is the 25th. Right.

Those are the two options. As of right now, we have pretty light agendas on both of those. They're going to be zoning bylaw amendments. It's very minor.

Okay. So I'm going to say I will be available on either of those dates. I guess I would ask the board just so we don't have to have somebody mullings in or continue to a later date if anybody on the board doesn't believe that they'll be here on either of those dates.

We don't have any information about that right now. okay so we're good it's your it's your choice we can always if we continue to the 11th and you're not ready we can always continue to the 25th if you can why don't we we'll do it to the 11th and then that way if somebody's going to be absent from the board we can also continue it to the 25th and that would give us two bites of the apple yeah do you have another birthday mark yeah we've got mark here so all right i'll make a motion to continue to august 11th 2026 at 7 00 pm second All in favor of the motion to continue, please raise your hand. That's 5-0 to continue. Thanks for your time. Thanks for your presentation. Thank you. You should.

I think you got it.

OK. Yeah. So again, you do want me to take my written memorandum and just change, add something in as an enhancement state? Because I understand the request does have to come from us. Yep. For completion. Yep. or do you want me to just add a one paragraph in addition to the materials already presented? Please also consider.

Whatever is easiest for you. I trust whatever you put, Bill will give a thumbs up that that's sufficient, right? I'm not trying to make extra work here.

And the site plan, we're going to go over the parking, snow storage, and rubbish. Right. And lighting, right?

And lighting.

Lighting was already on the plane. Is it?

It is.

Well, we don't need to rehash this.

Well, as I said, it's still the same.

You know an electrician, don't you? You have this copy, right? I don't.

Oh, you don't? No, can you send me that?

Yeah. So here's the lighting information here and here. Now, weather is still the same.

The lighting up here, I will leave it to you guys to define. So we'll either give you an affidavit that says that the lighting comports with what's on that plan, or if it's different, we'll provide you a new lighting plan. Okay, so I'm going to copy that. Okay.

All right, thanks, guys. All right, thank you very much.

We appreciate it. I'll mail this to you. Adam, thank you very much for your time.

I'm not sure where I'm waiting. I'm waiting for you guys. Adam, I think we're good. You're welcome to sign off. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you all. Good to see you. Thanks.

Thanks, Adam. Thank you both.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thanks. Okay. We can turn to item one. of chair and vice chair.

I nominate Chris Arsenault as chair of the planning board for the next 100 years.

I second that. He did such a phenomenal job tonight that it was absurd. I'm going to amend to 1,000 years.

I amend to whenever we have to do this again.

Yeah, you got to talk to my wife about that. What's that?

I nominate Chris as chair. Do we have to do this every year? Yeah, it's every fiscal year. For fiscal year 2027. Is there a second?

Second. Second. All in favor of the proposal for chair, please raise your hand.

It's 5-0.

6-0. 6-0, yep. I'll nominate Natalie for vice chair.

I'll stick to that.

All in favor, please raise your hand. Is that understanding? Yeah. I got 5-0 anyways.

Congratulations. We can change the letterhead.

OK. Meeting minutes?

Oh, yeah.

I got a little comment and a big comment. I've got a comment. Yeah, don't pay anything.

Second paragraph, the middle of the paragraph, it says the original building footprint and covered parking area will not change. though the building itself will be slightly smaller. That feels like too.

The building is changing. It won't change, but it'll be smaller.

Yeah. I feel like we should just, I don't know, change that somehow.

Or delete it?

Yeah, delete it. Or just say the original building footprint and covered parking area will change, period.

Yeah, it calls. Oh, right.

Because it's changing, even though it's only a little bit.

Or does it actually change? I don't even know. It will change just a little bit. Well, the building changes. The footprint covered by structure is not because they're covering the garage.

That's confusing.

That's confusing, too. Yeah, they could reference reduced units, but this is just meeting units. It's not a decision, so... I know, but I'm just saying. No, I'm...

I like what you're saying. We'll change. Forget all the details, then you can't argue about details.

Yeah. What do you have?

The next little paragraph. Thank you. Having parking in front of the building is not optimal. Technically, it's a standalone parking along the Walton Street.

What?

There was only parking. Under the new one, it was only parking along Waltham Street. There was no building along Waltham Street. We're doing that. I can live with the existing language if you want. So just cut out like you did?

And it will change. It will change. It says it won't change, and then it references a change.

OK, so just change what you have here?

Yeah, you can take that if you want.

Sure. The standard eight letters are all over again.

I don't know what Bill's talking about.

All right, never mind. So my really important comment is on the second page. Is it barrels and vines? It's plural, right? We don't want to diss the guys.

Yes, it is barrels and vines. It's plural. Oh, yeah. Outrageous.

You can't just have one barrel and one vine. How come nobody corrected the Planners Association?

That's absurd.

Who the hell am I? Priority here. A-P-A-M-A.

Oh, yeah. It's not just one planter. That's right.

That one hurt. Well, that's why there's only one barrel. Local planters, local vines.

Which was a nice event. Who's this guy, planter? He was his associate. He drinks a lot. Why not by himself?

And I whipped out some of my Fattergy energy storage solution situation what was the last one I I broke out that knowledge in a yeah in a casual conversation the other day I'm pretty great that's I that's on video if anybody really does want to see it was pretty good it was because you made it through all thing I would watch it two times mostly they did I saw you sleep I saw you curled up like a cat

I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes on June 23rd as amended.

I'll second that.

All in favor to approve the meeting minutes, please raise your hand. It's 5-0 to approve the meeting minutes. Okay. Announce planning update.

Bill. Planning update I kind of gave you ahead of time. We're having a housing production plan meeting tomorrow night. Don't have to come, but it's always good to hear it. I'm going to record it, and I'll post it. They will be before us, the consultants, at one point with a joint meeting, if you remember how we did this before. It's kind of, this plan is, we're doing our best to address two big parts despite the water. First of all, we're trying to figure out how to get more of the 60% AMI strategy ingrained in a better, in a, a way that works for everybody in our bylaws. 60% AMI is critical. And then the second thing is we're emphasizing a lot of programs that recognize our limitations of water for the next five years, and that's a challenge. It'll be interesting to see. Tomorrow night, the goal is there's a nice presentation that the consultant put together that we went over with them today. We tweaked some stuff, and I think it's pretty good. And there will be an interactive part for the public, so that would be good. Powder Mill Overlay District, all the contracts are signed. We're going to have a meeting scheduled next week with the consultants so I can't remember who I've got on that list but whoever's on there I will let you know when we're gonna meet and it'll be interesting to see the kickoff. ADA, we're about three quarters complete with that. Nothing exciting to report on that other than that we'll have it done and that I've incorporated, I don't know if you're aware of, if all you're aware of it, but there's a What do you call it? What is it, Bill, your work with us at iMario, the task force, the pedestrian task force, I think, or? Roadway station. Roadway station task force. What I've asked them to do is help work a little closer with us regarding grants on the work that they uncover. And specifically at this point, I asked them for any ADA compliant deficiencies we have so I can put them in our current, I have a grant currently for ADA construction. I have $250,000 I applied for it and I need a project to bond in there. So I'm hoping that that works there. And what's the other plan I have going? I think that's it. I'll look it up. No, you got them all. That's it. That's what I got.

Great. You got zoning? We got a zoning meeting you said in August?

Is that the joint meeting from the housing production plan people? On your planning update, it says ZBL.

Oh, that's the... No, zoning by-law.

That's the proposed zoning by-law. Yeah, I want to tell you that we're going to wait on the Powder Mill overlay district. I spoke with a couple of you, but we need to... workshop that a little more so that we're going to we're going to wait till spring um but i want to i want to really work going to that last couple of bits that we want to do in and we can make an overlay district there that plugs in and makes sense for everybody um the rest of the stuff on the zoning bylaw is all very minor stuff um i think you've seen it all before so that's been advertised and that'll be next week anyway or next meeting all right so i'll be in the lineup Yeah.

When's the housing meeting? Is that tomorrow? I know, but you said they were going to come here at some point.

Oh, yeah. That's in December. It's a joint meeting. We're going to have a joint meeting. Remember how we did last? December? December. The schedule is... You'll see it tomorrow on the presentation. And that's a meeting with the Select Board, because it has to be adopted by Select Board and Planning Board, so we'll do that at a joint meeting. Oh, it's an adoption meeting. It's not a discussion meeting, it's just an adoption.

So we don't see it until the... No, you see it whenever you want, yeah.

You sure? Yeah. Tomorrow, well, we haven't started. Tomorrow. After tomorrow, yeah. And Mark is our liaison with it, so... Yeah, you'll have it in all stages.

In the past, I recall that it came to planning board for presentation prior to the sort of acceptance meeting. Are we going to do that as well? I think so. I think it's in there. If that's what you want, I'll make sure we get it. I just don't want any surprises.

presented like I can read it but it's also nice to have it presented so like I understand the origin nexus well it may be I think what may happen is they there's a number of meetings scheduled in the end you'll see in the PowerPoint tomorrow night um and I think there's ones that would be a public meeting that we would probably be inclined to put in a planning board meeting so but I understand what you want yeah This is our third one, you know, so we've... That's it? Yeah. We did the one in 2015, 2020, and then this one. We've only done three.

It wasn't a thing.

Before Bell, what's the point?

That's fair, yeah. We got it. It's in. Cool. Good meeting. I'll make a motion to close the meeting.

Second.

All in favor to close the meeting, please raise your hand. It's 5-0 to close.

Thanks, everybody. Thank you, everybody. That was 20 minutes, wasn't it?

Not bad.

Would have been 20 minutes if I wasn't here.

No kidding.