Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

I left the offro at 4:30 to come here. It's crazy back to take vacation. Very nice. Very very for your own. So I set up a plan like seven eight day long weekend

especially you take they take like a 4 day week and Friday to Monday

it's like what's the point what's the point get to work off his straw Yeah.

Yeah. So, you know, things are getting continued. Yeah. I heard uh this one's off. This one's continued. Yeah. Yeah. So, Anthony, what's this is proposed language? Does it say what's the existing language compared to this? It seems like the same thing. So there should be the existing text in there that's crossed out and then oh yeah I look at this italic. They're going to look at this underlined. It look like the same thing. So the the actual draft has all the original was crossed off and then um

it's being crossed the under the underline is being added. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So they're not actually crossing off anything. So the only thing that exists is just Yeah. E1. All the all the text that isn't underlined exists and all the underlined is the proposed new language. Oh. Oh. So what's underlined is what's proposed. I gotcha. Okay. Yeah. But E1 E1 doesn't exist either. I think it does. Yeah, we have expansion in this. But that

that prevents them from expanding. So this would be like a special use permit to expand. probably does back in the day. Close door. What's Oh, that's what means to close. Oh, yeah. Back in the day. Is it recording? It's currently recording it. Sue is not gonna be here tonight. Okay. He's at the uh the night out.

Oh, that's that's what's happening tonight. Um

so we can uh we can start Hi, good evening. Welcome to uh the town of North Providence planning board hearing. Uh we're located at 2000 Smith Street, North Providence, Rhode Island. Will you please join me in saying our nation's pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. It is um 6:03 p.m. We'll begin by um uh taking attendance via roll call. We'll start with you Mark and Mark and Warren David Pari chair Gary Erasian Steve Patassi town planner Anthony Gone Town Solicitor

okay uh we do have um a quorum for tonight and um uh second on the agenda was uh 114 Bard Avenue. Um if you're here for that uh presentation, just uh um let you know that applicant has withdrawn. Um so again, if you're here specifically for 114 Beard Avenue, uh that that presentation project will not be heard tonight. The um applicant has chose to withdraw. Mr. Chair, do we have to vote to allow it to withdraw? I don't believe we do. Hello.

Um so for uh item number one um on our agenda will um is uh approval of the minutes taken from our planning board meeting July 9th 2025. Uh I trust that everybody here has been able to um read through the minutes. Um, and I'm just noticing um Mark and Gary, you were not present here at that meeting. Um, myself, Steve, and Warren were um can we only three of us were were can vote on that? We can we still vote on that?

Yeah, it's a majority vote. Okay, thank you. Um, does anybody have any corrections or comments? Um, regarding the meeting meeting minutes taken from July 9th, Lauren Steve, no, neither do I. Um, and do I hear a motion to approve the meeting minutes dated July 9th? So moved. Steve Patassi has made the motion. Do I hear a second? I'll second it.

Warren Richard has um second it. Uh, all in favor of approving the meeting minutes dated July 9th, say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Uh the motion passes to approve the meeting minutes dated July 9th 320. Okay. Uh item number two again was a withdrawn um proposal for uh 114 Beard Avenue. Um item number three, excuse me, would you mind just reading the um the withdrawal right letter into the record,

please? Oh, sure. And should the um should the letter obtained from Navigator to Bay Commission be read for the record as well? That's necessary since the application is no longer on the table,

right? Oh, this was this was given to you today. This is why it wasn't in our pockets. Okay. So, um uh the letter is dated August 13th, 2025. It is um prepared by Taff and Msali um LLP, Attorneys at Law, 21 Garden City Drive, Gransson, Rhode Island. It's addressed to the town of North Providence Planning Department. Brent Waggan, director of planning, 2000 Smith Street, North Providence, Rhode Island. It's regarding 114 Bear Avenue, North Providence, Rhode Island. The letter goes on and says, "Dear Mr. Wan. I represent Patriot Builders Incorporated in connection with the master plan application pending before the North Providence Planning Board and scheduled for a hearing on August 13th, 2025 at 6 p.m. My client asks that his application be withdrawn as he intends to submit new plans reducing the density initially requested. Sincerely, John V. McGreen. Okay. So the reason why I ask if we have to take a vote, he doesn't say my client withdraws his application. He writes my client asks that his application be withdrawn.

That's why I was think we need to take a vote, too. If you don't think so, that's fine. I just that's why I he officially that's sufficient enough. He's not proceeding with the application anymore. He's going to be submitting a new one.

Okay. So, I guess for the record, um, we can state that the North Providence Planning Department has has accepted this this letter um and the application has been withdrawn and no further action by this board is um recommended by our council. Okay, good question, Gary. Um, item number three, applicant is Connley Law and Associates, uh, 123 Dyer Street, Unit 3B, Providence, Rhode Island, 02903. The description is recommendation to the town council regarding a request for a zoning text amendment of section 409E expansion of buildings or structures non-conforming by dimension to allow expansion of non-conforming for multif family residential use with a with a special use permit. Do I have the applicant present?

Yes. Peter Friedri's Esquire on behalf of the applicant. Thank you very much, Peter.

Uh good evening, planning board members. I'm here on behalf of this application. Uh the long and short of it is that there may be locations uh in the town where uh there is underutilized land that is um part of a lot of a non-conforming multif family development and there could be opportunity for additional development in those locations um under certain circumstances. So what we propose to the town is this um narrow set of circumstances where additional development may be acceptable. Um there's not a specific site in this proposal. So abutterss have not been noticed, but under state statute and under this ordinance, any type of this development would have a special use permit with notice uh to a butters. So that's what's before you this evening. I'm happy to walk through it with you uh in further detail, but we're really uh looking to work with the town on this to try and um identify situations where it may be appropriate uh for limited uh additional development on long-standing uh multif family properties in the town.

Um did you say you from Connelly Law and Associates? Um and you're representing the applicant or is the applicant Connelly Law and Associates? So I'm of councel with Connie Law and Associates to the applicant uh on this in the So it's posted in the agenda. Connie Law is the entity that submitted the applica the zoning amendment request.

Okay. Um would you mind reading through the um uh proposed language?

Absolutely. So the new language is underlined. This is the section of the zoning ordinance that addresses buildings or structures that are non-conforming by dimension. There's a subsection E here that allows expansion under that section that currently is limited to unoccupied or unused portions of the building. We are proposing to make that subsection E a new subsection E1 and add a subsection E2. So E2 then goes in and has subsections A through E. And so the introductory part there number two identifies when this expansion of a non-conforming by dimension would be permitted and that is a for multif family uses and they are allow permitted a limited expansion in conjunction with a special use permit under the following conditions. A, the expansion is limited to single family attached, those are townhouse units with a maximum of two bedrooms per unit. B, existing and proposed development on the subject property as public water and sewer and frontage on a statemaintained road. The subject property is located in an RG zone. The subject property abut's existing multi-household dwelling use and the proposed development does not increase the total unit count by more than 50% above the pre-existing use. That's tied back to this type here which is non-conforming by dimension.

Uh, do any of my board members have um questions for the applicant at this time? Yes, I do. I do. Um, Steve, we'll start with you. Okay. Uh, Peter, you stated at the beginning and clarified this if I'm wrong that you don't this isn't because of any client Connley Law has or you know representing something in this town. Is that what you're saying? No, that is the case. We are representing someone who owns property in the town. Oh, you are representing some Okay. So that So if this ordinance were adopted, a special use permit application will be submitted. Correct. So, you're not disclosing who the client is, but you do represent some client, right?

Okay. I had a question for Anthony. So, how would this relate to section F um where it says provided that the such intensification is in conformance with the use in the lot per dwelling unit regulation?

That's yeah question. I mean, if you're allowing expansion, you're going to have multiple units. You're going to have multiple dwellings on one one lot. Yeah. So, this specifically mentions the the dwelling unit regulation per acre. So, if that that is specifically addressed in this, would we have to amend that one as well to allow it to allow the special use permit? No. You don't think so? No.

All right. That answers my question. I mean, the general law has always been the expansion of non-conforming uses as you know, prohibited. Yeah. So, um, on the section two, hold on, G. Steve, were you all set with your questions for the Yeah, I'm sorry. All right. Thank you. And thank you for clarifying that, by the way. All right. Gary, I know when Brent asked, I don't No, I just wanted to make sure we Thank you very much.

Thank you. So um just under section two just first question it says a multif family use which is non-conforming by lot area per dwelling unit shall not be required to comply with section 505. Can someone explain what section 505 is? So I believe section 505 is um it it's the standards for special use permits in the in the town. So standard So 505 Yeah. So 505 establishes what standards we are to be abided by when we when we grant special use permits.

Excellent. Okay. So, having said that then and what what evaluation criteria would be used to evaluate if this were to pass, what evaluation criteria would be used u to review a plan if we're saying that it's not required to comply with section 505 A through E of this section.

Okay. Well, those are all right. So, subt has a multif family use. So that's the premise. So right out of the gate, we've got a multif family use that's conforming in terms of land use, conforming in terms of dimensional requirements, be it setback, but it exceeds the density requirement. Correct. Right. The lot area per dwelling unit.

So then if you jump down to I got a few questions. So if you jump down to the A though expansion is limited to single family attached. So are you saying that in the first case you have to have a multif family dwelling and that you can only expand it to include what? One single family attached unit.

No, that's a it's a construction type. So it's it's one where the unit has it's a construction type. So it's one where the unit has an exterior door. There's no interior hallway between units. I don't understand. So all it says is expansion is limit to single family attached. So So if I have a So let me ask it this way. So I have a five unit multif family dwelling that's non-conforming because with the existing land area I should only have three but it's five. So it makes it non-conforming. What is two telling me? that you could add maybe two units that

not maybe how many can I add to it. So it's a single so I think under under letter E it's two units of the five because it's less than 50%. And they would have to both units would have to be constructed such that they have direct exterior doors. So if I have five I can only have three but I have five. So this qualifies under this provision. So you're saying I could put how many? Two more. So you'd go to seven.

Oh. So I guess can I jump in here? Of course. So what I'm hearing, Peter, is that A is because I understand Gary's um confusion because I had the same question. So, A is not limiting the expansion to one single family townhouse style unit. It's it's a and what a is saying is that the expansion is limited to single family units that are attached to the existing structure and that the construction of those units is limited to um maximum of two bedrooms and that there has to be an exterior um and that entrance and exit out of those units. is via exterior door. So, the single family because I think we're getting hung up on single family. So, single family really is is limited to um single family units.

Correct. They'd have to be It's not You're not limiting A is not limiting the expansion to one unit. Correct. It Okay. Right. Is that what is that where you were? I think so, Mike. That was my question, too. Okay. Now you go on. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Um, I want to jump down to D. Okay. So, it says subject property abuts a pre-existing multi- household dwelling use. So, again, are you saying that if I have a multif family use that's non-conforming, does D say that that lot has to abut another lot? Right. It couldn't be surrounded by single family homes.

What's the purpose of that? What difference does that make if it if the use if it's already non-conforming? What the It seems so narrow that you're saying that that structure the the the subject of an application conceivably that has five units that should be three but it's five. So it's pre-existing non-conforming multif family because of lot area that to have standing to write an application it also has to abut another non-conforming situation. What's the purpose of that? I think we were concerned that the planning board and the town council might be concerned that this ordinance would be used to added density in single family detached neighborhoods. So, we wanted to really focus it down to the parts of the town where there's already multif family housing.

Okay. And can I I understand that. Um, Gary, did he answer your question? Because I have one clarification that I want to make to your question because it because the way you read it, Gary, was that the the subject property needs to abut a pre-existing non-conforming multi- household dwelling unit, but that's not the case. It just what you're saying is it needs to abut a piece of property that has multif family on it, whether it's conforming or non-conforming. Correct. Okay. So the ab budding property criteria, Gary, is only multif family use, not non-conforming multif family use. But this is pre-existing.

Well, pre-existing pre pre-existing multif family use on the abuing property, not pre-existing non-conforming.

So then shouldn't that just say existing? So pre-existing to me means something that that existed either prior to the adoption of the zoning bylaw or any subsequent amendment. That's what pre-existing non-conforming could mean just it's illegal because it just doesn't conform. So if you put the prefix pre-existing non-conforming that means the nonconformity again either existed at prior to the adoption of the bylaw or any subsequent amendments. So, I'm just curious why in some instances you're using the word non-conforming and in other instances you're using the word pre-existing.

So, I think our intent in writing this was that when if this ordinance were to pass that would be a date and time and any multi- household dwelling would have to exist prior to the date of the adoption of this ordinance amendment. Oh, not at the time that the not at the time not at the time that the application is made. No. Oh, okay.

Um, question for Brent. So, let's say someone wants to do this now without this amendment, you one could always ask to do something. Even if it's not allowed, you could always still ask. So, in this case, if and as Anthony said, typically bylaws and ordinances say that if you've got a non-conforming situation, um the ordinance looks down upon and frowns upon an expansion of that. Right. Okay. So, but one can ask for that. And the reason I'm asking it says because it says not to comply with section 505. So, 505 affords evaluation criteria to actually review something like this. So if we have a situation where using my example where you have a five units on a piece of real estate that should be only three so it's pre-existing non-conforming what would one have to apply for would one have to apply for relief under the section 505 variance a land area variance.

So as of right now I don't accept applications for expansion of non-conforming because it's explicitly not allowed. Okay. And that that's what Kelly um you know that's the way she described the process of uh that situation. So if somebody wanted to ask for a variance of 50,000 square feet and a special permit, you would not entertain that application. No. Really? Yeah. Okay. So that's why we submitted this signing amendment is we were told we couldn't apply for relief. Okay. Uh Warren, do you have any qu questions?

Um I'm just looking at the infrastructure. Uh the subject property has public water and sewer and frontage on a state maintained road. Um and I would add into this that it have adequate off- streetet parking. That's fine. We'd be amendable to that. We would be amendable to that. That could be added. Adequate offer to what's at two and a half, right? Yep. Yeah. Standard is two and a half. Okay. I would put that in there. That's fine.

What can I ask a I'm going to um piggyback on yours. I have a curious question about why so so specific about frontage on a statemaintained road just to limit impact on town maintenance and would require the uh development go through the state's physical alteration permit process and be I'm sorry by it would require that Ry dot review the the development and approve the the traffic impacts. Okay, Warren, thank thank you for letting me expand on your your comment on B. Do you have any other comments or questions?

I have a question more for Brent. So, if someone has a conforming multi-unit and wanted to expand it and therefore become non-conforming, you don't look at that application either. No. Okay. Yeah. The town just doesn't allow So whether it's non-conforming but it's been allowed or it's conforming and they want to make it non-conforming, we don't look you can't create a non-conformance. Okay. Yeah. But if you have something non-conforming, you could make it conforming. Correct. But I'm just saying like if I had go the other way, right? You could go the other way, but most people would not go the other way. But you know,

um I I just didn't want to make sure because I don't know how this would affect that in any way, but it just seems like if we have a nonconforming And then we want to add to it. We're making it even more non-conforming. Correct. Is that what this is? I mean, that's the way I Yes. Yes. In a nutshell, that's what it's trying to do, right? Make it more non-conforming.

Bas Yes. They are making it more nonconforming with a specific set of criteria that would allow for that um exaggeration of non-conforming to to exist. So you asked, Mr. Chair, any questions or concerns? So no questions, but just two concerns I have. A, as I agree with Brent, it's contrary to what we do as planners to make something that's non-conforming to make it more non-conforming. And secondly, this is so narrow.

It's very, very narrow. I mean, if we're going to do something, and I can understand that, you know, just because we've always been doing something one way, we can always as reasonable people change our mind and go in another direction. But when you do, you kind of want it so that um it could be available to the community, not just a very spec. This seems very sight specific or a couple of sites, you know, whether it's statemaintained, it should just be on an existing pave street, whether it's state maintained or municipally maintained. Um it just again it's contrary to a very uh uh standard platform that you don't make something more non-conforming and and I respect your opinion so it's not a criticism of the of the thought again we should always contemplate change um but between it being you know contrary to a very hard principle of not making something more non-conforming and the fact that it's narrow I've just got some concerns about that.

Yes. Thank you for letting me speak.

Yeah, no, no worries, Gary. Um, I share your concerns. I also um on the flip side of things understand how how narrow it is. I actually um appreciate uh the um the applicant's representative here to um I guess be cognizant of um what conditions uh um something like this if it were to pass could could present. and they are um it seems like the special um criteria here is limiting it so that impacts um are less uh strenuous or exasperated on the on the town. So um on the flip side, so I agree I agree and I also kind of see

both sides both both sides of it. Um, do you Peter, do you have any other part of your presentation or does the board have any other um questions for the for the applicant right now before we go into discussion because I think we can go into discussion? None. All right. Thank you. Oh, actually we should recommendation. We we have a um public public no public comment on no public comment on the recommendation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Um, I mean, you can take public comment, but it's not required by law, so up to you.

Oh, well, since we have a small amount of public in the in the room, is is any of the public here uh wishing to speak um regarding this proposal. All right, great. Thank you. Seeing none. All right. Uh I'll um open up to discussion. Um Gary, I think you said your your piece already. Um, just wanted to give the other fellow board members a chance to discuss and bat something bat this around the table. Um, so if anybody does have any comments or Well, that's why I asked further questions.

That's why I asked Brent a question. I'm kind of in agreement with Gary. We're we're making something that's already non-conforming more non-conforming and it's kind of goes against what we're kind of doing. I mean, obviously anything can, like Gary said, anything can change and you can look at different things in different ways, but find it hard to make something that's non-conforming more non-conforming.

Um, just a reminder that this is a a recommendation that the planning board is going to um uh respond to or it's a recommendation that we would have to make in either in favor or against. Um but the um inevitable um decision Bren stop me if from if I'm wrong lies at the council correct the town council. Um so if there is any um uh chance to amend or requests recommendations for the applicant to amend what they are currently proposing. Now would now would be the time um in the event that we would like to improve upon this if we if if if improve upon is the the right way. But if we want to edit it, now would be the the time to edit for our council's um uh um review. Oh, Warren, you you had a um an edit regarding item B. and that edit was

that it have off streetet parking that complies with the zoning ordinance. Correct. Okay. And the applicant accepted that. Okay. And that is for um off streetet parking complying. That would be for the expansion or just limited to the expansion or the entire structure. Entire project. The entire structure. Entire structure.

Okay. See, I don't know if you could do that. I don't know if you could make something. Let's say that the the five units Anthony you jump in. Let's say that in this instance again the example I gave where you got five units where only three are allowed. I don't think you could retroactively make something that's not conforming complying. Right. Right. You can't do that. So the new piece would have to comply. Correct. But we can't do a reach back or a clawback and say halting us to comply. Right. So I I'd agree with first of all I think it's implied that they would have to comply with parking but that's fine. We could put the language in

but I don't think we could make it such that whatever applies now applies to the existing the pre-existing condition. It could only apply to the new the the expansion if you may. So, if they wanted to add two more parking spaces, I mean, I'm sorry, two more units, the two new two new units would have to comply. Whatever is already existing with the the five units, we can't make them increase that because the grandfather, that's the whole point of it. So, okay. The appropriate parking spaces for the additional units, right? Okay.

Yeah, definitely. Yep. I'm good with that. Yeah. Okay. Uh, does the board have any other uh modifications that they would like seen in the in the language? I

a couple of months ago, I know there was a discussion um from the council that they wanted to do away with a lot of the variances. Uh they wanted they they've been getting bombarded with too many bearings requests. Um is this adding to it? I mean this is this is like a one time we're writing the gospel over here for probably something that'll never be used again.

Well, yeah. I disagree because the councils worked the opposite of what he's trying to do here. Brent put it, you know, they've passed many zoning ordinance to decrease the density of the residential general zones from 14 to seven units per acre in order to ma match the comprehensive plan. So yeah, I agree Steve going back.

Yeah, I I agree with Brent's opinion. On the other side though, we had a we had a recommendation to the council not to imp not to uh accept a um uh a change in the ordinance for um what was it when if they if there was a a structure that was had already previously been on um on the lot. Um I I can't remember the exact wording, but we we had a neg we had a negative recommendation to the council regarding regarding that zone amendment. Um which in the spirit would help densify North Providence and the council chose to

that was the special use permit to subdivide lots into non-conforming sizes that they were lots of record. Is that the one you're referring to? Yes. and and and we had added, you know, only if there was an existing structure or a pre-existing structure on that on that lot, which they chose not to not to accept. But um in any event um I I think I think you know variances are just part of the council's um purview and um and I don't know if we can alleviate that or or alleviating that should be part of our um our decision- making process here. Um

I got to say we're only having like two or three zoning board meetings a year. So they're really they aren't inundated with various applications. Yeah. As far as the council is concerned, any zone change amendment is a legislative it's a legislative decision of the town council. So it's in their discretion whether or not to accept you know or reject the planning board's recommendation. Yes. Right. Warren, are are you saying um they were inundated with zone change requests or variance requests? Varian. So that goes to the zoning board and well if this if this passed any variance would have to come before us anyway. Yes. Okay. And then our recommendation would go to the council to the zoning board

to zoning and obviously to the council. The town council doesn't see um variance requests council's only zone change zoning zoning. That's the zoning change. Yeah. But they may have been referring to the amount of zone change requests which there have been you know several recently. now. Sure.

So, uh my my general stance on this is it's it is it is retroactive. Um it would be taking a a gigantic step backwards from um uh from from just kind of rope procedure in in land development process. Um and then specifically to North Providence, it would be taking a another huge step back um backwards in in our efforts to um codify and um have our zoning ordinance and um comprehensive plan uh speak the same language or utilize the same language at least when it comes to density. Um that's my that's my general um thought on on this. Um so if if does anybody else have any discussion they would like to set forth? If not, a um a motion should be made on the um on recommendation to on a positive recommendation or a negative recommendation um including the uh edits that um we had requested um be made to uh item B. So David, just for procedure, do we typically always make the motion in the affirmative or you could even make it in the negative?

I I think you can make it either or you can send a positive or negative recommendation. No, no, no. What I mean, no. So to bring it up for a vote, should it be in the affirmative and if you don't agree with it, you just don't vote in or does it? Oh, you should. So, uh, you can either whatever motion you all can agree or you can Yeah, but I was just saying is it for example, no, you you don't have to make a motion in the positive. Okay. You don't you can make a motion in the negative. Then we can vote on Yeah, I guess that Yeah. And you'd have to incorporate any findings or reasoning if you want. So the council has Yeah, of course. Yeah. with the certification.

All right. So, uh, I'll make a motion that the planning board, um, vote to deny, um, the zoning text amendment on the section 409E expansion of a non-conforming use as presented, um, in the July 9th, 2025 report from the town planner. Motion has been made. Do I hear a second? Second.

Okay. Gary has made a motion uh not to uh made a motion to um for a negative recommendation on the um on the proposal and um Steve has second it. Um I don't think we will take a role. I think we'll just say uh all in favor I and all in opposed to to the motion uh nay. So, all in favor of I just have a question. Do we have to put in reasoning now in the motion or can you do that after the vote?

Um, like in other words, if we were going to say because of do we need findings of fact and a recommendation? Yeah. So, I don't I don't No, but you have what are your reasons? This advisory opinion is going to the town council. I want to know the reasons for any positive or negative recommendation. Sure. And and and I think the motion that was made referenced a staff report that the town planner correct made that okay has some findings that will be incorporated in the U. I just want to make sure.

Yeah. So your question though after you make the motion you just vote it then how we support that with the with the in this case a dissenting opinion. Let me just leave that up to Brent to encourage. I did site his report. I just wanted to make sure before we voted based on the recommendation. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. That's all right. No, it was a good question. So, all in favor of the motion say I.

I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes. Um five to zero. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. All right. Next on the agenda is item number four. The address is 12 and 14 Mayanella Street assessors plat lot plat 2 lots 370 and 371. The zone is residential general. The applicant is Jake Diamo, Esquire, 51 Jefferson Boulevard, Sweet 400, Warick, Rhode Island. The description is recommendation to the zoning board regarding a request for a special use permit under section 203B4 district use regulations for a multifamily use as well as a 28 foot lot width variance to construct a third unit on the existing duplex.

Can I just confirm before we start um the merger was recorded already, correct? No, it wasn't. All right. So, it's still two separate lots, but there's a plan to merge them. Yes. Okay. So, the lots 370 and 371 are still separate from each other. They are. They're under the same ownership, and it's our plan to merge them together. Okay. 370 and 372 or 371? What did I say? 370 and 372. Okay. I'm sorry. No, just making sure.

So, good evening again. Uh, attorney Jake Deiko here on behalf of the applicant for 1214 Manila Street. Um, as the chairman said, we're here tonight for a positive recommendation for a special use permit under section 203B4 to allow for a third residential unit. Um, and as well as some limited dimensional relief. So, the property currently contains a two family dwelling, which when combined will be sitting on a a lot approximately the size of 20,283 ft, which exceeds the land area required for a three family use in a RG zone. Uh, the proposal is to add that third unit uh to convert the existing structure to a single unit and to do an addition for a total of three units on the 20,000 foot lot. Um, in addition to the special use permit, we will be needing uh some uh zoning relief for front yard setback for existing conditions with the the current the current uh single family unit or excuse me, two family that we're converting to a one for front yard setback which has an existing 17.8 ft where 25 ft is required. sideyard setback. We have 3.3 feet existing where 10 feet is required and lot frontage on an improved road. Um we have 72 feet existing where 100 ft is required for the three units. Um these are pre-existing conditions. They are the result of the lot's historic configuration in the existing structure. Uh not any action by the applicant. Um the variants are modest and technical in nature. uh they don't involve increasing nonconformity. Our addition will respect the existing setbacks and site layout. Uh the lot has more than sufficient overall width. Uh it's just that the in

area for the proposed density, but only a portion is fronted on a improved road. We only have that 72 feet of improved road for frontage. I think the total width of the the property itself when combined is over or is nearly 300 feet. Um, the existing building predates current zoning requirements as I mentioned before and relocating or altering it to meet current setback requirements would just be unreasonable and detrimental to the structure. Um, the proposed third unit is consistent with the RG district's intent to encourage highdensity residential uses. Uh, the neighborhood already contains a mix of single and multifamily units. Uh and the the project will preserve we think the uh the upgrade of the existing housing stock without creating any adverse impact on traffic uh infrastru infrastructure or public health safety. Um we believe the proposal is fully in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance as well as the town's comprehensive plan. Um, for these reasons, we're here tonight respectfully requesting a positive recommendation for the special use permit, uh, as well as the zoning relief needed. If the board has any questions, I'm here. We can talk through it. I'd like to uh point out that there is a wetland preventing the applicant from meeting the standard of bringing the road to the opposite end of the property. Um so there is some kind of hardship there due to the unique characteristics of the land.

So Bren, I got a question. It says the wetland area. It's to the north of the existing pavement. Correct. Yes. Yes. But that's pretty far away. That's got to be or 150 ft away. Am I correct? Am I reading this correctly? So the there's the end of Mayelli Street. Then if you go continue north, it's got to be about 100 feet before you get to the wetland buffer. Correct? Yeah, I would say that roughly. That's not even the wetlands. That's the buffer. Yeah, I would say that's that's accurate.

Okay. So, but that wouldn't interfere with extending the road, would it? So, the standard is they have to bring the road to the edge of the property. So, it would prevent them from doing that, but I don't think it would prevent them from getting the 100 foot frontage. Right. But so a couple of thoughts. So I don't So in the report it says they need a 28 foot lot width variance. Did you mean lot frontage or lot width?

So in this town it's essentially the same thing. We don't differentiate. It was it was a little hard to understand because when you look at it, it's a lot width requirement, which we clearly have the lot width, but I guess the way that they measure it, it's not spelled out in the actual code, but it's been standard that that is by on an improved road. There's no actual specific language to that effect, but I think that's how the the board has been uh yeah, looked at it. We essentially equate them to be the same thing. So, it's all right. Um so me go on Mr. Chair.

So to comply let me just ask one question here. So to comply the current lot width is 70 uh the current frontage is about 72. What what is the dimensional what would be the dimensional criteria to con to conform? Yeah. Yeah. What's the 100 ft for three family is the furniture requirement and the subdivision regulations require

go all the way to the end of the property. So the lot with variance would allow them not to touch the road essentially. But we're talking about we're really what we're the um relief requested is for 30 extra feet. 28 exactly. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank Thank you. You can continue, Gary. Okay. So, is the two family occupied? It is not. So, it's not occupied. No. And the dimensions of the proposed one unit. That looks massive. Is it correct? Oh, excuse me. Go ahead. So, the dimensions of the proposed two stories 56x 26.

Yes. So the existing structure what we were hoping to do is just convert that into one unit and then so it would be two units that are into the addition. So you're going to convert the existing what is considered a pre-existing two family. You're going to convert that you're going to make that a one. Well the the whole project would be converting the two to a three. But at least within the footprint that exists that would be converted into technically one unit. I don't understand. You got to be clear about that. So, so, so right now it's an existing

elevation shows two doors on the proposed building. So, but your application says you're proposing one additional unit, but your elevation plan shows two doors. Yes, there's already there's already two units existing. No, let's let's take these one at a time. I'm looking at your elevation A4.1, right? I'll I'll wait till you get there, Rob.

Forgive me. I have a 4.1. Here we are. Yeah. Lower right here. A4.1. Yeah. So, I see two front doors on the on the proposed addition. Your application says one family. So, why do you have two front doors on the proposed structure on the front? The you have an existing you have an existing structure that has two units in it. Yes. And the application says that the addition is going to add one additional unit and we we see the existing structure on the elevation. And so in our minds, well that existing structure

currently accommodates two units. And we see the the new structure being added and it's an ex it's um proportionally a lot larger than the existing structure and the elevations for the new structure have two doors on it which is implying to us that there's more units than just one unit going into the addition.

I completely understand that makes perfect sense to me. I was when we filled out the application, I was the way it was filled out, we had two existing units that were already there and we were proposing an additional unit. But I could see how that would be confusing because we're taking the we're taking the existing two unit and we're we're reconfiguring it to a way where that structure is going to be just one unit and we're going to do two additional units. But it's not it's only the addition of one one unit because there's there's two there. There's two there currently. So they're adding one unit total to the property and they're moving one of the existing units from the existing structure into the new addition.

Do you have any floor plans? We do have floor plans. I believe we submitted them. So I only got floor plans for the existing structure. Oh, I got a architectural running of the the whole exterior, but as far as floor plans, it's only the uh the existing reconfiguration.

I thought we had submitted the the floor plans as well for the whole structure. I mean, I have I have them here, which is a copy of I thought what I had submitted to you guys. Um, I have a couple here. So, if you'd like to see pass or just

I I just don't think Yeah, I have uh this looks like it's the floor plan, the second floor framing plan. I can find something. The existing multif family is that a top and bottom or a side by side?

It is top and bottom. Okay. Do do you have another floor plan? Do you have the um second second floor floor plan? This is the second floor plans, but it was for the electrical and the fire, but I you can see the layout. Should have something else in here for us. Yeah, sure. question. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

So, can we talk about the parking? I'm going to come back to the site planning a second. Can we talk about the parking then? Um, the three spaces or the three stalls in front of the on the lower left on the left hand side of the plan. Are those existing or proposed? Those are proposed. Okay. So, I'm reading. Correct me if I'm wrong. At least from the back of the parking space to the property line says 12.8 ft. So, no, those are existing if I'm not mistaken. They're labeled existing on the plan. I believe they're there currently.

I'm sorry. To you said to the right of the proposed structure. I said the ones that are in front of the existing two star. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, those are those are existing. Oh, forgive me. I thought you were talking about the right side. So those are non-conforming. We um under the current regulations, we don't allow backing into the street. Yeah. Okay. So those are allowed to remain as is. Yep. I agree. So let's talk about the proposed parking to the right of the proposed structure. I can't read this. This is really really small. What are the the dimensions of the parking spaces? 18 by9. They're 18 by9.

18 by9 which is standard. So I'm just curious. So why can't you ex So if the frontage requirement is 100 and I get it the the subdivision right say I don't understand why but you have to take the the pavement to the end of the property line but to satisfy the frontage requirement or the lot with it seems like the synonymous um why can't you just extend the road 28 ft. So when you touch the road at all, you have to bring it to standard, which requires a culdeac, which would take up a large portion of the propertist layout. It requires a turnaround. If you touch it, you have to bring it to standard. Yeah.

Then nothing should get. Who could put turnaround in in an existing layout? So that lot was previously undevelopable and uh that the gentleman was actually going to offer it to the land trust for free because it wasn't able to be built on until this applicant purchased the property and then they merged it with to create a more conforming lot essentially.

All right, thank you Brent. Um speaking about Mayanella Street on the um in our packet Brent the um aerial photograph um it does appear that Mayanella Street continues to the north and then um turns to the east. On paper it's a through street but it will never be developed because there's a wetland preventing it. So the wetland prevents Mayanella Street to continue to take a right and to end up on Dodge Street. Yes. Okay. Okay.

And getting back to the if you touch the road, you have to bring it up to standard. Um, is there a uh um is there a a variance process for that? If you touch the road and you don't bring it up to standard, so that would be a subdivision waiver. I'm sorry. That would be a subdivision waiver. So, there is a process to that the applicant could seek. Yes. And go down that that road, so to speak. Yes. Okay. Just for the sub for the uh culde-sac. For the culde-sac. Yeah.

So when you say the culde-sac, so he couldn't well in any generic condition. So if we said to extend the road just so it meets the minimum frontage, but you said that we they could ask for a waiver so that when you say the culde-sac, you mean the turnaround? Yeah. Yeah. So there's a requirement for a 80 foot diameter culdeac at the end of what would they be requesting away from from not to have to extend the road all the way or not to have to put in a turn on because be from the design standards for streets. Yeah. Because how could you possibly put a an 80 foot circular turnaround when it wouldn't fit inside the rightway? It'd be going everyone's property. Correct. Who who would you mind me asking? Who's the um the authority that would grant that waiver?

You. It would be us. Mhm. All right. Okay. I would think I would think then, you know, if we're going if we're looking at all this relief um that they extend the road and then, you know, if they don't appeal this, then we should just grant a waiver on the uh the road extension. At least that way they comply with the frontage requirement. You get a little more roadway. You have the fire department have a little more access there. and I'd be willing to grant a waiver on the uh on the road extension so it doesn't have to go all the way with the turnaround. I mean, that's only reasonable. So, it was the staff's opinion that um since the road isn't able to continue any further

that would be undue. It would it would be nonnecessary impervious surface that you're adding to a area with wetland. Not necessary. You need it to meet your frontage requirement, right? But there's there's no opportunity to continue it. So, you know, is that 30 feet going to substantially change the access to the property? That's up to you, but I just want to bring that up.

Sure. I mean, it it could it it very may it may well could because going back to the parking um just looking quick looking at that parking layout for the new one. Um it it looks like there's there'll be difficulty maneuvering in and out of that those parking spaces. So, I mean, theoretically, I'm I'm not drawing right now, but um it seems like if you do extend that road, it could open up another uh means to getting into the parking area, which would

um alleviate the first of all the the tight uh turning radius that you need to make a the left and a quick right, and then hopefully your neighbors not backing out at the same time, and you're creating a log jam. So I I do see some benefit in developing the site from the parking access standpoint by um extending the road. Um and I also do see the point of at least contemplating what um at least being cognizant of the fact of trying not to add um impervious material as well. So I see merits in in both both circumstances. Um

I have a couple of questions here. Is it about the street

last year or the year before we had a development on this street put three houses up remember? Um, we did have um we we did refer this to the fire department for Culac waiver and they were concerned about uh access going in on one block Sullivan Street and then on Minnella Street. Um, and they let it they let it go. They said that there was enough turnaround space at at Sullivan for them to uh uh exit when when they completed their operations. But my concern is what is the separation between number 10 and number 11? It looks like on my drawing it says three and a half feet between the two buildings now. Okay. and and that says two two stories, two families. We did the same things with Mr. Cordlesa, but if I remember right, we made them one-bedroom apartments. So now onebedroom units. I'm not exactly sure on it, but I'm pretty sure that's what we end up doing. Um to to put in more bedrooms at the end of this street that has limited access. I I I I have my consideration that it it shouldn't be done. I'd like to hear from the fire department on it. I don't think there's enough parking for the amount of cars that are there and using our formulas that we two and a half cars. Uh you got two now. You want to put in a twotory with how many units total?

Just three units total. Three units total. Three units total. Yes, sir. One existing and two units on the side. That's not there's there's there's two there's some confusion. There's two units. It's a two unit existing building. Right. And we're going to add one additional unit. It's going to be restructured. So, the unit's going to move, but there's going to be a total of two units in the new structure. Mhm. Yes. Two units per floor. Two two units in the new structure and one unit in the existing structure. Okay. So, a total of the size that your actual drawing is showing. I'm sorry.

It would be about half the size that the drawing is showing. No, no, what what he's showing in on the drawing is the size of the building. He's taking the the two units that are in here. He's making that existing structure into a one unit warrant. This will be a one unitit and then this new structure is going to be a two unit. One on the first floor, one on the second floor. Okay. And the other am I correct, sir? The other one split. Okay. So, you No, this this What do you mean by split? This is going to be a one unit. One one unit. Yep. The bedrooms on upper and below.

You can we can refer to the floor plan. I'm not exactly sure the layout, but um yeah. So, you'll have uh three units, eight parking spaces, a little more than two spaces per unit. Yes. I'm sorry. What' you say? Well, you would not. I thought you So, you said you we had eight units units and eight parking spaces. Yes, sir. So, you're going to have a little more than two parking spaces per unit. Yes.

Okay. And the back side of the property would have a walk out basement. I'm I'm just worried about for fire protection on the back of the building because I know it tapers down to the river. Yes. So there the existing building has a walk out basement and that we would put uh walkouts on the other two units too. it. Would there be enough room in the back for the fire department to fight a fire in that building? I would think so. Yeah. Yeah. Am I my

Again, I'd like to see the fire department on this. Yeah. On other things on this street, we've had the fire department input on that and we'd like to see what they say. I would like to see that. Yeah, that's So, you're saying you want to see that before we make a decision, Warren? Okay.

On the elevation, the rear elevation, um the the lower level does extend, you know, the full width of the proposed structure. um with a fair amount of of windows um suggesting possible living spaces on the on the in the basement. What's the proposed use um for the basement in the new structure? I'm referencing A4.2

A I have A2.1. I have an unfinished basement shown on the lower level. It's an unfinished basement. Um, what was the number? I'm sorry, that you were referring to. The drawing is A4.2.

I see a deck. What I'm seeing, we have it has an unfinished basement, but that doesn't I might have given my copy away earlier, unfortunately. Um,

do you need those copies back? I can give you back. I I don't know if uh that the one that we're specifically looking at. It might be one of the ones I handed out, but no, the 4.2 is in the packet. It is. Yes, it is in the packet. You want my copy? Sure. Just at least to see what How many bedrooms are in each unit? Yeah, you can have that. There's another one from the district. I know that it's showing the back wall, but it's basement. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. There's windows and a door underneath the From the the plans that we have shown, it's just it's an unfinished basement. It's unfinished basement.

Yeah. And will um each who will be using the the basement? Is it um accessible for all each of the units within that? So, yeah. So, um or it may be divided off. Um I'll have to look through these again. But, um I mean, if we got to that point, we could we could, you know, distinguish, you know, between units. Yeah.

Um I I think I think floor plans would have definitely helped your your presentation. um specifically, you know, the board's questions when it came to um where the units were and how they're going to get reshuffled around. Um I think we we work through that. At least I I understand how the units are going to get shuffled around. Um but that that exterior elevation um of of the rear does This is what you received this packet. Yes, we I submitted floor plans, elevation plans.

So, we we have a floor plan of the exist we have an existing floor plan of the existing structure A1.1 everything. Okay. Unfortunately, I didn't make a copy for myself, but I have certainly had them. Um I believe I them I emailed them PDFs as well. Yeah.

So if let's just if the um applicant met the frontage or the lot width, right? no relief was being requested, then this project would meet uh uh this is a question I'm having for you. Um then would this project meet the special criteria for a special use for this for the special use permit?

Yes. Okay. Okay. And if that project met the criteria for a special use permit, would the applicant have to come before this board to sub? They would have to come before this board for subdivision waiverss for the culde-sac.

Well, let's just say they they let's just say they they met it. They met there was no dimensional relief requested because dimensional relief the special use permit specific criteria says no dimensional relief needs needs to be met needs to be asked for. So if if they weren't asking for dimensional relief and they then therefore met the special the design criteria for the special use permit. What is the process that the applicant has to go through to get the special use permit if they if they they meet all the dimensional criteria? Two, three. So, two.

Yeah. So, for the three family use, the special use permit is required. Um, and if they got rid of because it's an RG because it's an RG. Yes, it still is. Yeah. And all zones. Yeah. I'm not saying it's not required. I'm just saying how would the applicant receive Sorry. So they would still need the special use permit, but they would no longer need the variance. Sorry, that's what I thought you meant earlier. Yep. Um, so they would still have to come before this board for recommendation and go to zoning for the variance. Got it. Or the special use permit, I'm sorry.

Right. Special use permit. they they would they would meet all the criteria and therefore it the board has then an opportunity to improve upon um a project if we saw fit and if after if the applicant was amendable to it um and then we would make a recommendation and then therefore the and then it moves on to the zoning board and the zoning board has the inevitable decision to grant the special use permit. Yes. Yeah. So the the two criteria for multif family special use per crime is that there's no dimensional relief being sought and that the any multif family and non-residential zones are treated as RG zones as far as density is concerned. It's not when it's in commercial but that one that that doesn't really apply to this.

It doesn't. Yeah. So there's only one that applies. Okay. Does everybody does everybody understand that? Yes. Okay. I just want to clarify the existing unit will be changed from a duplex or from two units to one unit with three bedrooms. Yes. And both the additions the the first floor and the second floor they are separate units and each one of them are going to be three bedrooms. I'm pretty certain. Yes. I had I don't like it. Well, I've submitted floor plans that show the numbers of bedrooms. Unfortunately, we don't.

Yeah, but I can't seem like they were included in the How many bedrooms are in the existing structure now in each duplex? So, you have a floor plan for that one. We do. That is true. That's the last page. The last page. Yes. And I I gave those copies of the floor plans that I had that showed the numbers of bedrooms just a moment ago as well. I don't Oh, yeah. Where those? And you also have that as well. So I think Mark, do you have plans that you So the just gave the board. So the existing structure right now, if we're just counting bedrooms, has four total bedrooms according to this plan. Two and two. Two and two. Two and two. So each unit has only has two bedrooms. Each unit only has two bedrooms. So they're looking to increase

a bedroom per each unit. Per each unit. And add a and add a unit with three. Yes. But I I'm not sure if um there's no restrictions on number of bedrooms bedrooms in in a year. If there were on septic there would be but there's no correct. Yeah. The lane uses and question right I'm just concerned about if it's a safety issue is fire at the end of a dead end street that's hard to get to. I think it's an accurate or um a valid concern.

So, Warren, are you asking that we obtain a uh some insight from the fire department? Okay. I would ask that the fire department. We asking for the the other stuff. And uh I mean, we got six bedrooms at the end of a dead end street that's hard to get to. and the back. They're going to need every ladder that they can get to get to the top of the building. And it and and and it's sloping downward. It's it's a it's a difficult place to uh to fight a fire, I believe.

And Dave, to your point, if you know, if they did extend the road with 28 ft, then you'd have much better access to the parking lot. You you would. And it it could also provide better access. I'm just speculating here, but it could also improve the access to the building for the fire department. And it would and and it would also require less relief on that the applicant is is seeking at least a variance, right? Yeah. Agree. Absolutely.

Well, you're kind of swapping, right? One variance for another. But um I just I don't see how extending the road out nearly 30 ft is going to change anything with the back of the building for for we have units a two unit there now that they would if god forbid something were to happen. I don't see how extending the road 20 ft is going to help them fight a fire in the back of that building.

I I can tell you how it would. Um right now the the road um ends before the end of your addition. Okay. If you extended that if you extended that road 30 more feet at least just scaling off my drawing in front of me then your road would extend past the end of your addition. The fire apparatus could have better access to the back of the building from two sides of your two sides of your structure. The side that's on the south and now the side on the north. As the plan as a site plan is designed right now without touching the length of Manela Street, the fire department has limited access to the back of the building only through the south. They don't have they don't really have good access from the north. If you did extend Mayanella Street, the fire department then can choose which way to go to the back of the building, either the south or past the north elevation. I I think it would it would help.

So, I'm sorry. I was just gonna I mean like are we um is the applicant amendable to extending the the street to um meet the frontage requirement of the zoning ordinance. Understanding that the the street itself wouldn't conform to the um the applicable standards for a street. Thus not having the 80 foot culde-sac,

not knowing the topography, would it be best to uh ask advice from DPW? Not yet. Okay.

Not yet. I The applicant should have topography done. I'll I'd probably have to go back and speak with my partner and consider maybe just keeping it as a two-unit and doing an addition just for two units, which wouldn't require a special use permit. But I would want to at least have that conversation beforehand. So maybe, you know, we could continue this discussion before I, you know, make any definitive, you know, decisions. she okay this is also um a recommendation so yep

um you can recommend anything you want to the zoning board and request anything in between to you know give the zoning board the information the hearing and advertise for zoning uh it has not so this okay so can you talk a little bit about the the runoff for the proposed parking lot um did an engineer design a snowwater management plan. We do have an engineer, yes, who's helping us. I don't know if he's prepared the plan yet, but

I'm just curious, is this going to just be sheet runoff um from the west easterly? Are you going to put any type of underground cult system for uh retention? Um what's the storm water decision? This is a multif family and the town has a requirement um during the building process if it's not going before the planning board. Um what? So if if a project isn't going before the planning board isn't okay.

So um we require a peer review of all the drainage engineering on all multif family and um so essentially this is just one addition but if it was three new additions they go before the planning board for a major land development and we do it then. But since this is just one addition, we're not requiring major land development and that would be done through the building department as part of the building permit process. So, okay. So, let's say the board approves this or recommendation recommendation. Recommendation. Yep.

So, this is where I get a little frustrated. It's like we make recommendations and it's like taking the can down for someone else to make the decision and like would I'd like to know how it would work. because it might affect how I decide. Yeah, I mean if you would like that then um you can we can continue it like yeah anyway it depends if the chair agrees but I think what I heard the applicant say is he doesn't know about the extension and he wants to talk to his partner to come back to us and maybe cost prohibitive we'd have to go to DEM to get approvals for the road would be significant delay

well you're going to go to dem regardless because you're I understand you're outside of a 50ft buffer zone from the river but you're definitely within in jurisdictional boundary of dem were you aware of that sir parking area is the building is I don't I don't believe it is but the building is we have a we have a buffer yeah so so DEM they have they have buffer zones

and they also have jurisdictional boundaries or jurisdictional review zones and if that river bank is is actually a river. You're you're definitely outside at least per the plan, you're outside of 50 foot buffer zone from the river, but on from the river, you also have a jurisdictional review zone, which you're definitely within. And that review zone is 200 feet,

100 up to 200 feet. So, um so I would um definitely advise you and the applicant to do some due diligence on what DEM is going to require of this. It would be it would be a different would be a different application if we were to extend the street is all I was with DEM, but if we're in their jurisdiction for we will we'll do our due diligence. We'll have the conversation.

So the question for Well, let me look at the the area. One second. So you've got houses right across the street

that your parking lot is facing those houses. Um if this is just sheet runoff and the intention is that water hits it. There's no storm water is going to go right across the street. I suspect you're not going to have the water going toward your your structures. So I'm not going to speculate and assume which way it's going to go. Conceivably, if it was to go, you know, west to east, I'd like to I think those residents across the street would appreciate that water coming off that impervious area onto their property. So, I'd like to see a storm water management plan. At least, let's see which way the water's going to flow.

I I understand. Unfortunately, I don't have it prepared. I would I would think that as part of the you know zoning application at that meeting you know we could we would have that presented. I know you would know I know you got to get past recommendation. I understand.

Uh just a general question. Are these going to be um apartments rented or condominium zoned?

Um I think that's still something that we need to discuss. Sure. Um uh does any other planning board member have any other comments or questions for the applicant? Okay. Um so you heard a lot from us today. Um to Warren's point, we did review um uh a project uh on this same road um not too long ago. Um we did have concerns related to fire department access. Um, and I think Warren's uh point here about having the fire department um give a general review of the project um regarding truck access to the site and also firefighting activities on the site would be would be beneficial. Um, I do think that your um general approach to the project could potentially um be simplified, at least from the town's approval process if you strongly considered extending the road to eliminate the dimensional relief that you are requesting. tonight and knowing that this board is the entity that would be reviewing a request to extend a road um that doesn't conform and we're

assuming that non-conformance Brent is limited to the to the culde-sac um it it it feels like you have a running chance. Okay. Um, I think that the parking lot um that's proposed here um would benefit from being massaged and could benefit by having opportunity to um connect to the potential extension of Mayanella Street. um the the parking area doesn't call it parking area from now, but we do have a zoning ordinance here for a parking lot and access to a parking lot. You do need clear width of 24 feet for access for two-way access. Um I'm not sure how to classify this parking area here and whether or not it's a it's considered a lot. Um Brent, do you have a minimum?

I did notice that I too had that same kind of differentiation question. Um there's a lot defined by a number of spaces or just a a separated area for there is no definition.

Okay. So, it would be up for the board's interpretation about whether or not this is considered a parking lot and you would thus then need a potentially another variance for access into the parking lot cuz right now it doesn't seem like the plan scales that you have a 24 foot wide uh two-way um two-way access. Um and uh thank you for our thank you for your patience for our um confusion. Um and thank you for clarifying um how the building is going to be reconfigured. Um that was very helpful to us and um thank you for providing those plans. Um we we did not receive them so I'm glad you brought you brought them here tonight. Um so um and Gary your point or questioning was whether was how drainage is working and topography.

Yeah. Just the design uh proposed design uh for the parking lot. Yeah. And and for the proposed one, Dave, not even for the existing because we couldn't impose it on that anyway. No. And are you are you refer So are you um is your what information what's the information that you would like to have? Sure.

See is it what level of information? So the first thing if you can put it on a on a reasonably sized scale plan even if it's a a 40 scale plant um I'd like to see one foot topography. Hold on let me get the sign. Yeah. So, I'm looking at sheet 101 and I'm just talking about the uh the proposed driveway parking. Um hopefully you're going to extend the road. So, if you do um you would incorporate the storm water with that. So, um, I'd be looking at topography at 1T contours. And so, I'd like to know if it's going to go northeast, west to south, northeast, west to south. I'd like to know if um you're going to put where your catch basins are and whether or not you're going to connect to the uh the municipal system or if you're going to propose uh groundwater infiltration or just merely sheet runoff. you can and then we figure out, you know, if that's a good idea or not. So, one foot conors on the proposed lot.

Um, again, if you do extend the street, I think if you straighten out the uh the driveway entrance, so it's actually um a better design so that cars can flow into it easier. Um, where your catch basin, I suspect you're only going to have one catch basin. I don't know if there's any drainage in my street. So may you may not be able to connect to a municipal system but just overall what's the proposal connect to a municipal system runwater infiltration sheet runoff and what direction is it going to go?

Understood. And and I believe the these will all be um this is all information that DEM is going to require from you. Um whe whether the whether you choose to move forward with this design or if you choose to um take our board's re um our board's comments to heart. David, question for you. Oh, yes. Gary, we going to follow up on what was request to follow with the fire department or Yeah, I I stated that in the beginning. Yeah, I was reading the plans when you said

that's okay. That's okay. Um so G given the the discussion that we've had in and in in the presentation here um what are your um what are your thoughts? Would you like for the the board to disc further discuss um the application as it as it is presented to us tonight? or would you like to um uh request a continuance to discuss some of these things with your partner?

No, I think you I would prefer you guys to continue your discussion and make your your motion tonight or your recommendation. Excuse me. Sorry. Go ahead. Your recommendation. I'm sorry. I said motion. He's asking for a vote. Uh, you're asking for a recommendation tonight not to continue. I mean, if if you were to give us your recommendation, I would assume that you'd make it you'd add some conditions to it and what you would expect. Uh, if you were to deny it, no. Give us a negative recommendation.

In that case, the zoning board still votes separately. So, you know, they could either vote, you know, to affirm the planning board recommendation or they could do otherwise. So, so can there be a motion to recommend or not recommend and adding um additional um uh comments that we had that we had requested. So, you could recommend that the zoning board approves it with specific conditions that the zoning board would consider or you could recommend denial. I don't think you'd put conditions on the on the negative, right?

You're recommending denial. Yeah. But I think should we also tell them just like in the previous case why we would be voting? Yeah. Yeah. It wouldn't be conditions but a reason. Yeah. And at the same time, if you were to give a positive recommendation, correct me if I'm wrong, you could condition it upon A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Yeah, you could fire access improvements, uh, parking, address the parking concern Warren had, drainage, the contours, the fire department memo.

Yeah, we just don't know what the outcome of all that would be, you know. So, it's really, really difficult. Um okay. All right. Well, thank you for deciding and um if nobody has anybody if nobody has any other questions for the for the applicant, we can enter into um actually there's one person and two people in the public. Um it's not re it's not a requirement for a public comment. It's a recommendation but uh we have limited number of public here. Well, one of them is my daughter, so she doesn't count.

All right. And the other the other one's my father. So [Laughter] making a fair tonight. Yeah. All right. Uh we can enter into discussion. So um thank you very much for your presentation and answering our questions. uh start on um my right. Mark, do you have any um comments or um topics for discussion for the board?

Um couple of things. When Warren brought up the last project of Manella and we reduce the amount of bedrooms from the original plan, would res wouldn't reducing the amount of bedrooms in this one make the building smaller, therefore less dimensions are needed or no? That's the first thing I have. And the second thing is it's hard to make a recommendation based on some of the questions that we have. Um. Mhm.

Uh, you know, I I get we don't know the outcome of them, but you know, it's you want to be, you know, fully informed about, you know, what we're what we're saying is a good recommendation or a negative one. We want to be able to say that with, you know, as much information as we possibly can. So, those are just some of my thoughts. Um, yep. about, you know, we told, you know, one person that a two-bedroom was thing and then we're going to allow three one, you know, I don't remember how that went on. I mean, my memory doesn't go back that far, but maybe does.

Yeah. Know, the recommendation that the board would have to um decide upon tonight would would would solely be based on the information that we're we're presented with today. Um and so if uh so that that's that's how the recommendation would would need to be would need to be made and um I don't understand your the first the first question if if number of bedrooms was reduced wouldn't the building size go down and would therefore would the dimension relief be be needed? So the de the question for Brent. Yes. But I but go ahead. Possibly the build the building size could get reduced but a bedroom could could the square footage of a bedroom could also be something else. Yeah. All right.

And I think that the dimensional relief requested is strictly because smaller. No, is specifically because um the change of a two-story two family dwelling unit is being made to a three three-unit building, right? Yeah. So, the dimensional relief is a result not of the size of the building but the number of units. Okay.

Yeah. I'm looking at uh six items here and uh number one uh topography and I think that is key to the other ones which is uh looking at the topography the road extension the driveway storm water runoff uh the fire department's okay and they they all play off the topography and we have nothing to go by as far as far as concerned, right?

Okay. Yep. So, I'm hearing from you, Warren, is that that information that information would put you in a better position to make a recommendation. Okay, Gary.

Um, so I have four points. First, I agree with Warren about getting the information from the fire department. And without that information, I'm very uncomfortable voting in the affirmative. I think the uh the parking lot is uh poorly configured which kind of segus into my next comment which is I don't think there's any basis for the lot frontage variance other than just mere convenience that you know I don't want to extend it because of the cost. I think it did expend extend the uh the roadway. I think it's a win-win in this regard. It's one less form of relief which I don't think there's any basis for it. And then secondly, it would contribute to a a better designed parking lot. And my fourth point is um nothing on snow system. There's there's no drainage system. It's just there. So I'm going to have to assume that it's sheet runoff. Correct.

I'm going to assume it's worst case scenario that's going to go across the street onto the property of the abutas without I we have I have to assume worst case scenario. I can't assume best case scenario. So on that those are my four points. Great. Thank you, Gary. Steve,

uh I agree with uh Gary and I agree with Warren. I think fire department is at the top of my list uh because they are three bedrooms and you have to be concerned with people's lives and I think we'd have to hear from I'd have to hear anyway from the fire department. But I also agree on the topography, the parking lot, the uh looks like a sheet runoff to me and I agree with uh Gary and then uh DM. So I I don't know how I could support it uh with all those items outstanding. Okay, good discussion. I agree with them all those points. Um I don't think I have to repeat any of them. So um I'll entertain a motion. Um, and again, I'll just state that what the summary is is a recommendation to the zoning board regarding a request for a special use permit under section 203B4 district use regulations for multif family use as well as 21 I'm sorry, 28T lot width variance to construct a third unit on the existing duplex at the above referenced property 12 and 14 million street. Um, since I agree with all those points, I will definitely entertain a a motion um or a negative recommendation uh to the zoning board based on um the number of

items that this board has um uh listed in our in our discussion. Is that um substantial enough in in just referencing our discussion? Incorporating the comments that were made amongst the board. Yes. Second. So, okay. So, Gary so moved. Second. Mark seconded. Um all in favor of the negative recommendation I I.

Any opposed? I'm hearing none. Eyes have it. Negative recommendation to the zoning board. Thank you. Uh nothing left on the agenda except item number 50 Victoria Avenue which has been continued. Continued. Continued. Uh do we have to vote on that continuence? No, you didn't even open up the public hearing. Yeah, it's only a recommendation anyway. Okay. Uh, so any administrative reports? Not this month. All right. So, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Second. Make the say move.

So move. Second. All in favor? I I. Any oppose? Good night. Thank you. Good job, guys. Well, I guess I I was a short I mean, we would have been as short as I would have thought. I think it was two or three hours less than what it would have been. That's right. You think it's going to be a long It's interesting. You know, uh predictions are always that good. Well, yeah, it's always subject.

Yes. Oh, shoot. Awesome. Good. Yeah, thanks for coming. Thank you. Um, thank you. Nice meeting you. Yeah, I'll look to your