Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Evening everyone. Going to call the meeting  to order. And we have a few members   absent tonight. So Mr. Perry, will you sit for  Ryan Wolf? Yes. And uh Logan, will you sit for   Joe? Yes. We have several items um from the  council that we may not get to all of them,   but the first one 5A relates to an HTC related  request and we have a member of the HDC including   her small friend. Um so I'd consider a motion  to take that out of order. So moved. Second.   Any discussion? All those in favor? I I Who has  that phone too close to their microphone? So,   it's a a request to remove um 109 Dennis  Street from the historic district. I'm   sure you folks saw that in the packet. Uh if  you would like to you can both approach. You   don't have to come up one at a time. I don't  know if Katie Katie can give us her name. chair of HDC. I'm really just  here to answer any questions that   um the committee might have regarding  the matter. I think we sent a a memo   with our recommendation, which is  that it remain inside the district. So, the chair of the HTC called me the other day  to ask that uh we give the vice chair a chance to   speak and answer any questions we may have. Uh  it's a referral. It's not a public hearing. So,   that's why I thought we could address it. Um,  I did notice after the packet had first been  

sent out, we did find that um, back in I think  2010, there was an issue with this owner on this   property noting that this property was then in the  historic district. So, it's not a it's not a new   surprise issue. Um, but if the board wants to ask  questions or just discuss it among ourselves. I   just have one question. Hey, Andrew. Has this ever  been um a precedent issue? Has this ever happened   before? Or has there ever been cases where the HCC  has used discretion on uh a scenario like this?   Are you asking have we uh allowed other types of  materials like vinyl or something like that or   are you asking about removal from the district? um  both conveniently. Okay. Uh in the time that I've   been on the HTC, we have not had a situation where  someone requested being removed from the district.   We do have the current um reworking of the map  along Middle Street, which you all are aware of,   which is more a matter of just defining the  edges as opposed to deciding um to remove a   property because of the property itself. Uh  with regard to alternative materials, we do   have situations where we consider alternative  materials. Um we had a situation on Marcy   Street where two houses were so close together  that the water shed from one house was landing   on the wall of the other and it was just causing  so much damage that they really needed something   um more impervious. So usually there's a very  specific reason that we would be allowing some   other type of material. Um and in this particular  case we don't have uh any reason to consider an   alternative material such as vinyl. There are  other materials that we have put in the district   boral and ASAC and so on. Each one considered  on its individual basis. Perfect. Thank you.

Yes, Bill. I'd just like to clarify some things  in my mind to be sure that I understand the   proposition. Uh the this is this this is the only  house on that side of the block that is in the   historic district. Am I correct in that? Are you  referring to the block uh I believe it's Walker   Street that goes up the hill? No, you're referring  to Denn on Dennut. Um so it depends on what you   define as a block. So it run the district runs  on both sides of Dennut Street, right? uh until   it hits Walker and then it hits the house on the  corner of Walker and the property across the way.   But the rest of the houses on that side of Dennut  Street going to the west are not in the historic   district. That's correct. So it's the only one on  the block. And the house up is it Walker Street   that is above this house uh is in that's in the  historic district. Correct. And so my naivee here,   uh, what would make that house be of historic  significance? The architecture doesn't seem   to be. And so I'm I'm I'm a little conf I I  just don't understand what the criteria is   that would cause one to be in and one to be  out. Okay. Um, the houses further along Denn   Street to the west. Yeah. would absolutely  in our minds be part of it of the district   if we didn't have to draw the line somewhere.  So all of the houses, not all of the houses,   but at least for three or four blocks beyond uh  109 Dennit Street are all historic. They're 1800s   and so on. So the people who drew the district  over 20 years ago had to decide somewhere. And   normally they try to have both sides of the  street. So to have the um houses on the east  

side of Walker Street in the district and the  ones on the other side not in the district,   it's not what we normally do. And so that's why  this house on the corner was was put into the   district. And the house behind are you referring  to up the hill or the hill? Yeah. Yeah. Um those   are in the district. It's not. There's a very  There's a very small The map is up. I'm sorry. Okay. So, the house uh down the screen, which  is west, is not in the district. The house on   the corner is. The house to the left up the  hill of Walker Street is. There's a little   block in or sliver in between. And that sliver  belongs to the house that's being highlighted   right now. And the property, whatever property  belongs to that lot goes with that property.   So So what would what would make the houses  up the street which don't the ones on Dennut   Street really are are charming and and of of  a right age, but up the street? Not it doesn't   strike me as so. Uh up the street there's  a little bit of a hodge podge up there,   but there are definitely houses that fall  into the same category of the 18 mid 1800s. Okay. And a different line of question, we're  we're also being asked to look at a total redo   of the boundaries of the historic district.  Uh these are two totally unrelated activities.   You're referring to the boundaries along Middle  Street uh and and elsewhere right throughout.   Right. So that corridor when it was designed uh  for some reason instead of choosing the lots and  

the buildings that front on the street, it  was strictly done by a number of feet from   the center line of the road. And that resulted in  people who literally had a tiny corner of land on   in within that boundary to have to come to the  district, right? And it didn't seem fair over   time that if you had this little teeny piece of  land that you were not seen from Middle Street,   you were behind something else. Um it it was just  not considered reasonable. And so Reagan Rutig   um for quite some time had been trying to get  that changed so that the houses that front middle   street and some of these other corridors would  be in and ones that were just caught by this   measurement would be removed. So So that item if  I understand right is a is a different agenda. It   is. It is and and I intended to talk about that  later. So this this is just about the 109 den so   far. Um because and Reagan, the chair of the HDC  and I spoke about this because looking at this   map, I think there's a rationale that would cause  an adjustment to include more land into the in   the HD in the historic district. So, but that's  a discussion I think we we can have later. Um is there anything else anybody wishes? Um I  I would just like to say that I think that   in some ways this is a matter of fairness.  There are a lot of people inside the district   who do their very best to maintain their  buildings. Um, and to have one person excused   um for uh reasons that anybody else could could  claim um just it just doesn't strike me as um what   you expect from your government. you expect your  government to apply the rules equally to everybody  

um doing the best to accommodate individual  circumstances which we would be happy to do   if the applicant came back and asked for you know  us to consider different alternative materials.   We just made it very clear that vinyl is not one  of them. So, we the HDC stands ready to work with   this applicant if they have other ideas and and  we'd be happy to throw out ideas as well. Um,   but this was brought to us as administrative  approval and so we had to either approve it   or or disprove it. That sounds logical. Tony,  you have Yeah. Um, very sensitive there. Um,   is it correct to say that the historic district  will sometimes capture properties um that may not   be what someone today would consider an historic  building, but they're adjacent to or across from   historic properties. And so the historic district  commission is trying to make sure that whatever   is done on that property though not by you know  traditional definition being historic doesn't have   negative consequences on utters or are or is it  that every property has some historic stuff and   maybe maybe there was a time where they weren't  in the in the red district and they may have done   something to make it a little bit you know not  pristine or not original but there's an effort to   kind of preserve what's there or get back what's  in the past. Do you understand my distinction the   question? Um I believe so. Um when the district  was created Yeah. there was a survey done and the   properties were surveyed and graded based on how  historic they were contributing non-contributing   and so on. And instead of having a district that  was that looked pockmarked where this property   because it was built in the 1950s is not, but  the properties around it are. It just covers  

the blanket. Um, but as our town has gotten older  and older and older, even the buildings from 1940,   1950 are now considered historic. And we're very  lucky that the creation of the district has saved   those houses from being torn down. with regard to,  you know, something new sitting next to something   old, we run into that all the time with new  construction, infill, and so on. And it's a matter   of balancing the sensitivity of the architectural  design with the properties around it. Um,   so a little bit further down Dennis Street, there  is a house that was built in 2002, I believe.   It's not in the district. Um, and because it's  not, we had no purview over it. But up the hill,   um, there right along uh, Maplewood, uh, there was  one built about three years ago, and that one came   in front of the district. Thank you. Yes. Andrew,  um, this is a two-part question. Is the rest of   the home, does the rest of the home conform  to HCC standard today? You mean the parts that   haven't been ripped off of the siding? Yes. Siding  excluded. Okay. So, um, in the survey that I did   and that I heard from David Adams, there are a few  replacement windows in the back that were put in   probably sometime in the 80s. Um but the rest of  the house um the roof lines, the fascia board, the   Yes, it it definitely is a example of a building  that u has a lot of historic features still left   to it and it is a unique building in that it's not  it's not ultra fancy, you know, it is somebody's   cottage that they built. Um you know, maybe it  was somebody who used to work at the shipyard.   He was a was a ship builder. um what we call  carpenter Gothic, although it's not Gothic.

And the second part of the question is I believe  permits are needed to do siding. Were permits   pulled for this project? No. No. No. No. Okay.  No. And I think it's important that we recognize   that this this owner on this property was told  some years ago it was in a historic district. So,   this was not a surprise. Yeah. I'm just really  making sure the rest of the process is there   too irrespective of HGC. Yes, Bill. Am I also  right that the my understanding that that you   deal with the architecture of the building, you  don't deal with the landscaping? That is correct.   Unless it is some kind of permanent hardscape  like if somebody was going to redo a driveway   and they wanted to put in pavers, uh if they  wanted stone steps um in front of the building.   So there are some features because they're  so permanent that do fall into our purview. Thank you Marggo. Welcome. Does the board want to talk about this now? That'd  be probably appropriate. Do you need another   motion to move it up the or is this it's it's it's  in front of us. So I think I mean personally I   would like to see it stay in the H in historic  district. Oh okay. But I don't make motions. It's a recommendation anyway. It's not our  decision. So if somebody wishes to make a   recommendation, motion to recommend to council  that 109 Pennet Street remain in the historic   district as per the recommendation from  the historic district commission. Second   discussion. Yes, Bill. Does council feel  the city has any liability relative to the  

uh statement that was apparently made to the woman  that it was outside of the district? I haven't   heard that from staff. I I'm I I don't know. We  haven't asked our attorney that. So, we would   have to check with the city attorney. And just to  clarify, the statement did come from the city that   it wasn't in the historic district. It it did, but  then I think later was um the applicant I mean the   owner was called and said, "You're actually in  in it." And then that's when they went to the   historic district to request um the vinyl sighting  and it was denied. Okay. So, they were told by the   city it wasn't the owner corrected us and we they  came to us. No, the owner didn't correct us. The   city called the owner back. Okay. But she had been  told previously. She had been told previously and   also had a building permit been pulled that  would have triggered it. Right. Right. I take   pretty good comfort in that that alone. It's uh  it's a pretty standard operation whether you're   doing HCC work or anything else in the city and  that's why we have them and it takes it out of   like a city's liability hands and it puts it  into the the procedural aspect of it and for   me that's totally fine. Just just a recognition of  um you know this is these are probably the least   enjoyable applications we get where this you  know was a potential neighborhood conflict and   um you know I don't I don't enjoy making it  difficult for a homeowner. Um but we balance that   with the the the neighbors and the the work that  city staff and volunteers have done over the years   of you know preserving the historic district. So  I will support the motion. I just like, you know,   I do, you know, that the there's a bit of empathy  for me for for a homeowner that has to, you know,   the burden of doing this expensive thing, but  it's part of the compact we make of being in  

the city and living in the historic district.  So, I'll support the motion. Yeah. I mean,   I'm sure that Paul would agree. It's not meant  to be punitive or like, you know, and you know,   the can go back to HTC and work with the HTC to  see if they can come up with some other solutions.   I think that was a good suggestion. So, any other  discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed?   Have a recommendation. Thank you, Marggo.  And thank you, Katie. Uh, we need approval   of September 18th minutes. Some move second. Any  discussion. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?   You have determinations of completeness  of request of Walter Dehat trust as owner   for property at zero vanfield road requesting  preliminary and final subdivision approval to   subdivide one lot into five new residential  lots with associated site improvements. both determined that item A is complete  according to subdivision review regulations   contingent upon granting any required waiverss  under section six of the agenda and to accept   the application for consideration. Second. Any  discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed?   Can I have a motion to continue both hustlage  matters to November? And then I'll read them. Do you want to hear them together? Motion   to postpone until November. The  item 2B and site plan C. Right. and site plan change the page C. Yes. So these  are two two matters. I'll just read them now. Um   request of Martin Hustlage's owner for property  at 4850 Langden Street. Requesting preliminary  

and final subdivision review for approval for  subdivision of one lot to two lots with a single   family dwelling and accessory dwelling proposed  in each lot with associated site improvements. and   also a request for site plan review approval  for the same property uh and associated site   improvements properties on assessor's map 13847  lies in the general residency district have a   motion a second to continue to November any  discussion did you get a second I didn't get   a second I didn't hear a second I'm recusing  so I can't second okay I will second the motion   now we have a second thank you any discussion all  those in favor I I any opposed recused one recusal we have public hearings in the public hearing  our procedure is the uh presentation by the   proponent questions then questions by planning  board members public comment with comment   limited to top two for or against the application  proposal give your name and address for the record   uh you if you wish to speak in there up to three  rounds wish to speak in the second or third round   you have to speak in the preceding rounds. Direct  your comments to the chair. First round is three   minutes. Second round is five minutes. Second  round you can make a presentation. First round   is oral only. Third round if if needed is  up to five minutes oral presentation only. I'm getting I'm getting all excited. You're  getting ahead of yourself. My dog was I wonder   what I was doing wrong. What did I Well, those  those procedures will still pertain, but we have   uh we have two more site plan review matters  of completion. Again, Walter Hat Walter Dehat   trust his owner for property zero Bfield Road.  He's also requesting site plan review approval   sub one line into five new residential  losses associated site improvements.

Move to approve that's complete. Second  discussion. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?   Request of PWED2 LLC as owner for property at  921 is Lincoln Street requesting site planner   approval for the reconstruction of the existing  building for restaurant use and associated site   improvements and a conditional use permit from  section 100440 use number 1950 for an accessory   outdoor dining and drinking area. That property is  on assessor's map 172 lot 10 and in the character   district 4 CD4W district. Move to approve complete  second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any   opposed? Public hearing rules still pertain. We  now we'll start with the public hearings. Um first   item is request of Walter Dehat trust as owner for  property at zero Bfield road requesting primary   and final subdivision approval and site plan  review approval to subdivide one lot into five   residential lots with associated site improvements  properties on assess map 255 lot 2 and is in the   single residence a district who is here to present  this application. Good evening Alex Monosa with   Chimberg Builders. I'm also joined by uh John  Whitten of Haley Ward Engineering and Shauna   Samus with Jimberg Builders as well. So, Chimberg  Builders is a local family-owned company based in   New Market, New Hampshire. We're building a  number of approved projects in the city. So,   hopefully you've seen some of our work uh around  town. We're here tonight to present a five lot   single family home subdvision with frontage on  bothfield and road. These are five conventional   lots that completely conform with the dimensional  requirements of the city of Portsmouth zoning.   They will be served by city water and city sewer.  We've been through the TAC process on this project   and have had a few meetings with the conservation  commission as well and you'll see a number of the   recommendations from both of those groups in  this plan set tonight. I wanted to highlight  

some of the major changes that you might see from  the last time that we were here. The first is we   moved to shared driveways. This is primarily  governed by a wetland that is across Banfield   Road. The buffer extends over Banfield Road and  onto our property, the 100 foot buffer. And so   though that wetland is bisected by the existing  road on Banfield, we made some accommodations   to reduce our impact to the buffer on this site.  And so you'll see we have a shared driveway curb   cut for the three lots that take access off of  Banfield Road and a shared driveway curb cut for   the two lots that take access off of Beverly. This  allowed us to reduce our wetland buffer impact on   Banfield Road down to only 3,393 ft. Additionally,  moving to the shared driveway curb cut allowed   us to only have to take two mature trees down  along Banfield Road. So this was um with some   conversation with the conservation commission.  They had preference that we reduce that impact   there and so we've made that accommodation. We  are also proposing overhead power to limit the   disturbance to that existing wetland buffer.  And so you'll see that waiver request in your   package for tonight. Based on the feedback from  the conservation commission, we also agreed   to place wetland buffer placards every 50 feet  along the buffer. There are two wetland systems.   one across Banfield Road and then one in the rear  of the parcel uh with associated wetland setbacks.   And so we're going to place those placards along  there and that's marked on the plans. We also   agreed with the commission that we would provide  some educational materials to buyers in that   neighborhood. Uh the city of Portsouth has a great  overview page on wetlands and buffers and how to   uh interact with them. And so we'll make sure that  buyers get those as part of the package. Jimberg   is the developer. We're here for the approvals,  but we also build all the homes so we can control  

um the information that gets shared from this plan  tonight to the buyers at the end of the process.   So, that's the basic overview of the project.  I'm happy to answer any general questions and of   course, John can answer any technical questions  that you all have. Questions of the applicant? Yes, Bill. I'd just like to ask about  the overhead electrical. Is that is   that a marginal question or is that a gosh  that's the only way to do it question? Yeah,   it's primarily to protect the wetland buffer  there. So the reason is we don't have to you   know impact any buffer in that area to bring  the electric on site underground. Instead if   we run the the power overhead then we  don't have any impact to the buffer.   And so that was a preference to minimize any  buffer impacts on the site to the wetlands. Um I really like the idea of going the two  separate driveways. The one on Beverly Hill   Road is it's going to be like right across the  driveway from the YMCA I think is what's there?   That's correct. Um, do you see any problems with  people trying to get in and out at the same time?   I just know sometimes people that's sort of a hill  and it's the I'm worried about the sightelines and   how that's going to interact with the two cars.  So, I just want to make sure you guys have taken   a look at that and it'll be safe for everyone.  Absolutely. Yeah, we took that into consideration   in the design of the plan and in the placement of  the driveway. And it's it's best when they can be   as aligned as possible so that everybody can  see each other. Sometimes when they're offset,   it creates more of a problem. And so, that  was definitely considered in the design of   the project. Thank you. Andrew, did you have a  question? Uh, yeah. If you could just momentarily   speak to the utility easements and any sort of  background on that. Do you mean the easement along   Banfield Road uh in Beverly? No, that bisects  it. Oh, yeah. That was an existing overhead wire  

uh easement that that came with the property.  That's not something that's new and proposed.   It's something that exists with the property. But  any sort of influence or future consideration,   we literally just last month, and the reason I'm  bringing it up, not to scrutinize you, last month,   we had this big clash. Anyway, the utility  easement became an issue um for their maintenance   and their um replacement of those utility  lines. And so to get ahead of that issue again,   we hopefully have some background on it. Yeah,  that I mean the only background that I can share   is that it was an easement that was granted  to the power company um you know way before   we had anything to do with the property and it  has been marked you know on these plans. It'll   definitely be shown to the homeowners here. There  isn't any building uh or impervious materials   proposed within that. It's all you know in wetland  areas as well. So we aren't proposing any um new   infrastructure in the area of that easement.  And so I don't think that there will be any   uh future mitigation needed between homeowners  here for this bylot subdivision and the and the   power company. Have you spoken to them about how  they plan to access th those lines when they do   need to maintance maintain them rather? They have  an easement there. Then they can take access from it extends all the way to the street. They have  an existing access and we are not altering it. Sorry, I have one more question. Sure. Um, the  maintenance of permeable surfaces. I know you're   going to give all new owners a packet, which is  great, and they might read it. Um, my my concern   is future owners and how to continue that. So,  is there a way that you could incorporate in the   deed the fact that there is certain maintenance  requirements based off of the wetland buffers   that are very near these properties or and I  and I I should be able to think of the language   off the top of my head, but I'm a little tired.  So, um some sort of language or just noting to  

it so that people know that it is subject to that  kind of additional maintenance. Absolutely. Yeah,   we will make sure that the deeds reference the  recorded plan which will have that information   as well as the protective covenants and  those sort of documents that will have that   information listed out for sure. Perfect. Thank  you. You're welcome. So, without any or excuse me,   I just just recognized Tony. Go ahead.  I'll come back to you. No worries. Um,   can you help? I'm trying to understand the the  shading which looks like you're replacing the   asphalt um at the entry to the the units on the  on the left on Bfield and then a couple hundred   feet or 100 feet up the road on Banfield  is another shaded area. What is that about? You can see it on this map here. Yeah, that  one. Yeah, that one. You can if you want   to more than welcome. Is that a request  from the city or something? Uh yeah. So,   uh John Whitten uh with Haley Ward. Um that is  where the underground utilities will connect to   existing utilities within the public roadway. And  Banfield uh was paved less than uh five years ago.   So there's a you have to do a full width um patch  patch um on Bfield. So that's showing what impact   we will have on Banfield um with the new utility  connections, but the the force main going down   that cut street. I don't know what the this if  it's Paverly Bfield or some other thing. And   then going up Paverly, you'll just do a trench  and pavement there. Yes. Okay. And um where I   know that a lot of work is being done on perily  or about to be done. Where does that um land in   time? What do you expected timing of this project?  Is this going to be done before that you think or  

uh the the hope is yes. They they they want  to um get going on construction. Uh the   multi-use trail construction uh will happen  at least into the spring if not later. And   uh if they if Jim waits until that is done then  they won't be able to do it uh because of the   moratorum of new construction on the road. So  um it is imperative that they get that done   um as the per either before or as that pervoly  uh construction is going on. You answer my next   question. Thank you. That is what would happen  if you didn't get it done in time. Thank you. Andrew, did you have a question? Um yeah,   on the first sheet of the plan set,  I'm trying to find the actual number. It's the first one I don't page 142 out of  318. I'm on just the application itself. Says subdivision plan on  the bottom right. Um anyhow,   it has the wetland buffer  impact table in the top left. There are two wetland areas, wetland  area tables shown. One of them says   6600. The other one says 3,400ish.  Just trying to get clarity on that. Yeah. Hold on. I'm just um So, yeah. So, the lot three, right?  It says 726 feet. Are we looking at  

the same thing? This table? Yeah. No.  Yeah. And then lot 4 2643 ft. Lot 5   24 ft for a total of 3,393 ft which is I  believe what I said in the presentation.   Is that the question? Yes. And then  the following page of the plan set that one says 6700. So, just trying to  clarify if that's temporary impact or whatever. That could be a carryover issue, but  I'll Yeah, I think the table wasn't updated.   Table wasn't updated. Old table. We'll make sure  to get that updated. Just massively different   numbers. So, clarity is good. Yeah, I think  when we went from, you know, this multiple   driveway curb cuts to the single. I'm sorry about  that oversight. What did TAC have to say about   the sightelines for this driveway on Banfield  itself? I know Beth asked about Beverly Hill,   but for Banfield residents turning left to go  towards the signaled intersection. Did TAC think   that that was enough distance for that sighteline?  Yeah, and we we had multiple conversations with um   different departments and the TAC about where  to place it along Vanfield Road. At one point   there was a conversation about moving it closer  to the intersection um because there' be less of   a wetland buffer impact. But um through review and  comment from all of those different departments,   we decided on this location as the as the best  location for the driveway. Related to that,   do you know what the site distance is  at that location? And do you have to cut   any of those trees that you're showing?  I'm going to defer to John on that one. I don't sorry I don't remember the exact numbers  but they are over the minimums for the speed  

limits that are um on Bfield and Paville for  both um driveways and um no we don't expect   that more vegetation would have to be cleared  than what is shown on the plan for those two   u mature trees. If I may help, uh, in my packet  on page 146 of 318, if you're using the um,   or the utility site plan 255, lot 2, um, there  is, it says sight line going south 290 ft,   sight line going north or, you know, left  290, right 305. Yep. Question. Thank you. I guess the only other question I  had, you're putting the water line   down the new driveway. You couldn't  put the power through there as well. Uh we would have had to um clear vegetation along Banfield  Road to be able to do that.   um because the uh transformer  would be in the the middle pole   um of uh basically right in front of lot four  would be where that would come from. So um we looked at both scenarios and decided that the  overhead would be the the least impactful to the   um to the buffer area. Plus, we have uh  separation between the water and sewer,   and the power would have to go outside of that,  right? Um so, it likely would not be able to fit   within that um that driveway cut and would  would make that impact um wider along the uh  

perpendicular part of that driveway. But the fire  department did require a pretty wide driveway,   right? Yeah, they they did uh push it up to  20 feet. Correct. Very wide driveway. Yeah.   Okay. I mean, looks like he could could have  done it, but I'm I'm not I'm just looking for   an explanation, not necessarily criticism. Any  other Yes. Was there a I'm trying to read the   memo and talk, but was there a management plan  given from the concom for the HOA? Yeah. So,   these are um standard lots. There isn't any uh  open space to speak of. So there will just be,   you know, protective covenants and  a storm water maintenance plan. But,   uh, we had conversations with the conservation  commission and ultimately the guidance that   we decided on to give to homeowners is from a  existing resource that the city of Portsmouth has   on wetlands and wetland buffers. It says that  there's a homeowners association maintenance   agreement that shall be required for lots 3,  four, and five for maintenance of driveways   and private common water service and sewer force  main service. That's right. There'll be a shared   driveway maintenance agreement. Yeah. Okay. So,  does that include the drainage as well? Yes,   the drainage will be maintained as well in I  guess I clarify that as a management plan, but   in other past HOAs like that or shared driveway  scenarios like that, we've had stipulations where   it has to be inspected annually. Do we know if  that's a stipulation that would be applied here? The driveway has to be inspected. the storm water  management and drainage that is attached to it.   I'm thinking of like the bluster cluster  is this similar. Yeah. Yes. I mean the um   in the planning board memo under the it's one  of the conditions under the conditions that is   one of them that there's yearly inspections  of the storm water maintenance facilities.

Got it. So again trying to read and talk  at the same time. I apologize. Is that an   annual thing? Yes. Great. It's all that's all  I was looking for. Great. Any other questions? Thank you. Open the public  hearing. Is there anybody   here on Zoom wishes to speak  to against this application? Anybody on Zoom? No one has raised their  hand. raise your hand if you're on Zoom   and you wish to speak to the floor against  this application. And if you're in the room,   please approach. And if not, I'm  going to close the public hearing. Chair, the the U staff memo is in different  order than the agenda. Would you would you   be okay if we address the wetland  conditional use permit first? Sure. All right. I'll make a motion to find that  the conditional use permit application meets   the requirements set forth in section  101017.50 of the ordinance and adopt   the finding effects as present presented.  Second, discussion. All those in favor?   I. Any opposed? Vote to grant the condition  use permit with the following conditions. Um,   can I just say 2.1 2.2 as in the memo? 2.3 as in  the me as in the memo. Second. Keep it brief. Any   discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed?  Opposed? One, one opposed. Motion carries. You like to keep going? Yeah. I just um there was  an opposition. I I think I worried that we missed  

an opportunity to have a conversation. I thought  we were proceeding on but Okay. You want me to   continue? I mean, I can certainly explain. I just  didn't know if you want to address the site plan.   Well, I didn't want to just jump right in. Um  I am thinking that the density and the nature   of the development is just inherently too close  to a very prime wetland. And I know that's in the   wetland cup and things of that nature, but at the  same time it's uh it's a lot of people in a very   small space on a very highly trafficked area.  Um, while I understand that a lot of measures   have been done to improve it and improve the  site plan, like conforming the driveways to   one and one shared element, um, I can just see it  being a little bit of a a cluster there. And like   one less house would have done wonders for me,  but there wasn't one. I just want to apologize.   I didn't mean to bully right into a vote. We  didn't talk much after the public hearing. So,   um, if there's no more discussion, I'll continue  with a motion on the subdivision waiver. Um,   vote to grant the requested waiver from the  section 7 general requirements subsection 9A   to allow overhead electrical service to each  lot. Um, I think the um, we need a second. Oh,   but there's no, he has to continue. He hasn't  finished the motion yet. Oh, he has to choose A or   B. And I was thinking B. Yeah, I think the special  specific circumstances related to this subdivision   or conditions of land in such subdivision indicate  that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit   intent of the regulations. Second discussion. I'd  like to ask what our general view is of overhead   versus underground utilities. It seemed a little  out of character to put this o have this overhead.  

Well, just to be clear, I think the unusual nature  about this is the overhead across the wetland,   right? Not not that it's overhead. It's just going  across the wetland. Yeah. So, normally you would   go from a pole right to a house, but here we  are going. So, what do I with clarification   or maybe not clarification, maybe something  you already knew. What's your question? No,   I I I pass. I pass. I I can't articulate it.  Okay. I'm doing so well. No, I think I think   your point though is there has to be a valid  reason like a benefit to allowing overhead wires.   And in this case, I think a lot of us feel that  avoiding further wetland buffer impact, you know,   is a good trade-off, but that is a decision to  make. Yeah, it could be done. But I think uh they   made a rational explanation for it. Any other  discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Um motion to vote to find that the subdivision  application meets the requirements set forth   in the subdivision regulations and adopt  the findings of fact as presented. Second.   Discussion. All in favor? I. Any opposed?  Um, vote to grant preliminary and final   subdivision approval with the following  stipulations outlined in the memo 2.1,   2.2, and 2.3. Second, any discussion?  All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Keep going. Keep going. Vote to find that the  site plan application meets the requirements set   forth in site plan regulations section 2.9  evaluation criteria and adopt the findings   effects as presented. Second discussion. Um  yeah. Okay. Sorry. Go ahead if you wanted to  

explain. Did you want to explain? No, I was  thinking that the Never Never mind. We're   good. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I  Any opposed? vote to grant site plan approval   with the following conditions outlined in  the department memos. Um conditions to be   satisfied subsequent to final approval of  site plan but prior to the issuance of a   building permit or the commencement of any  site work or construction activity. Um I'm   copying the department memos items 2.1 2.2  2.3 2.4 turn the page 2.5 and 2.6 second   have to read those if requested. No. No. Any  discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. That was postponed, right? The request of  Riel family revocable trust as owner for   property of 15 Marjgery Street requesting wetland  conditional use permit from section 10101750 of   the zoning ordinance for construction of a sun  room and covered porch. The home addition and   new driveway landscape areas and installation of  retaining wall to support native landscaping and   improve sight grading with the addition of fill to  level out the existing elevation in the rear yard.   Total proposed new impervious air surface is  964 square feet with an increased building   footprint of 1,020 ft on the lot. This property  is on assessor's map 232 lot 41 and lies in the   single residence B or SRB district. Who is here to  present this application? My name is Timothy Heron   Brothers Construction. I am the Riel's general  contractor. Um so yeah, I'm here to discuss our  

proposed project over at 15 Marjgery Street. Uh  we are proposing a roughly 20 by 32 foot two-story   addition off of the front of the building which  would be if you hold that top button Tim it'll there you go 20x 32 foot twotory edition would  be right here along the front of the building.   In addition to that, we are proposing a 18 by8  sunroom right here. And then this 18 by18 deck   is existing and we would be replacing that  as well. Um in addition through guidance   uh from the conservation commission  and meeting with planning board staff   uh we had initially proposed a retaining wall  running relatively close to this wetland here. And   uh through guidance from them, we then  decided to pull that back significantly   to a retaining wall right here that is just  supporting this small patio and stairs that   lead down to the drive proposed driveway. Uh  as mentioned before, we had multiple meetings   with planning board staff as well as a work  session with the conservation commission.   um through recommendations from them, we are going  to be installing a concrete dry well right here to   catch all of the water runoff from the proposed  structure. Additionally, they had asked us to use   a wetland grass seed mix which we have included  in the packet. Um, and additionally to that,   all of the proposed plantings are native to  the area and suitable for wetland conditions.

Questions of the applicant? Um, so how much intrusion into the  wetlands buffer are you proposing?   So we this property is quite unique. Uh it is  almost 95% within the 100 foot wetland buffer   zone. Uh so that wetland does originate from this  point right here and extend all the way up to I   believe this delineation line right here. So that  being said, we would be proposing to permanently   impact I think it was the 900 square f feet that  was stated at the beginning and regrading of the   terrain as well. So yes, we are proposing a very  minimal regrading that original regrading was   when we were proposing this retaining wall that  was closer to the wetlands. In that situation,   we were anticipating needing to bring that grade  up, but since we are taking into consideration   the Conservation Commission's recommendations,  we are pulling that retaining wall back and   maintaining this original grade here. And so,  the only structure, only grade that we would   be raising is this area here where the patio is  retained by the retaining wall. Here's Tony. The   this the seed mix that they're using, is that a  grass that's like permanent or is it is it a mode   grass? What is it? Uh it would be a grass that  can be mowed. Um one of the other stipulations   that conservation commission asked us to include  would be permanent two permanent wetland markers   uh stating a no zone within 25 ft of the wetland.  Is that the trying to understand the line work  

where is is that the the red line that kind  of looks like it's copying the the green line   below? Uh yes. So the green line down here would  be the 25. Oh the green line is the mo buffer.   Oh no sorry I'm sorry. And then the red line  that runs parallel to that green line would be Oh, I red line that runs through the green line.  Yeah, I accidentally moved it. That's why Okay,   I didn't It wasn't locked down. I'm like, why  is this way up near the house? Sorry, me. Um,   that's that's a pretty steep slope, isn't it?   Uh it would be difficult for me to convey  the steepness without having you see it in   person. Well, if you there's a picture and um  you know a few pages in the packet. Mhm. Um the the third photo south elevation,  correct? Because you can see the deck. So it's the front of the house on the east  elevation, rear on the north, but I believe   Yep. So that Yeah, it's about a 14% grade. It is.  It is partially the perspective of the picture.   Um but our proposed retaining wall would be up  right here that you're not doing. I'm sorry. No,   we would be doing that retaining wall patio. So is  that slope my I'm going to I get to the point. Is   that slope getting any steeper because you're in  in my opinion you're running into difficult to mow   angles? Oh, it is. Uh, no. We are not. The whole  purpose of moving that retaining vault back is so  

that we are not bringing in more fill making  that steeper or raised. Okay. All right. So,   worried if you my thought process was so I can  complete it. If you're mowing and you're and   you're constantly sliding, tearing up the dirt  and you're just creating y silt runoff. Um,   as you can see, there is no dirt patches  or anything else. This picture was taken   in the middle of the summer and we are  not proposing to bring the grade up or   steepen any slope. Okay, great.  Thank you. Any other questions? No other questions? Thank you very much.  Thank you, sir. Open the public hearing.   Is there anybody here on Zoom wishes  to speak to against this application on Zoom? Last call. I'm going  to close public hearing. Who would like to proceed?   I make a motion we vote to find the conditional  use permit application meets the requirements set   forth in section 10.10 1750 of the ordinance and  adopt the findings of facts as presented. Second   discussion all those in favor. Any opposed? vote  to grant the conditional the wetland conditional   use permit with the following conditions as  outlined in the staff memo. Second discussion.   Yes, Bill. So, this was approved seven to nothing  by the conservation commission. That's what it   says. I I'm there's a disconnect here for me.  This is uh this is significant impact on the  

wetlands area. Uh and it it does drain down uh  fairly directly uh into a wet area creek area.   Um, I'm I'm just surprised that that that  it meets the criteria for an exception. You bring up a point that I've raised before and  may come up during our workshop shortly to talk   about zoning amendments because I think that the  the spirit of what the conservation commission did   here is consistent with what has been happening.  doesn't exactly fit the wording of the regulation,   right? Which the strict strict interpretation  of the wording of the regulation is almost   impossible to comply with. So I think that's why  it's being treated the way it's being treated. a somewhat related comment is I I do hope we  have a work session with the the conservation   commission sometime because I um I I feel your  your concerns while I support the application   um I'm often guessing at what they you know  discussed you know like you know so this it   would be helpful I think if we had a meeting where  we we will we will have another one and uh it's a   recommendation you know it's not binding But it's  certainly something we we need to pay attention   to and I think we do. Any other discussion?  Yes. I Yeah, I definitely see the points by   Phil and Tony and you chairman um in terms of  strict accordance with it. At the same time,   um, this is a single family homeowner who has  added a pretty substantial amount of drainage  

and and filtration to these retaining walls.  Like there's a PVC pipe that's stay exposed and   allows for better permeability. There's several  different iterations of stone and permeable stone.   Um, you know, this area over here, if you  look at it, there was once a paper street,   and I know that Sylvester Street has a paper  street component to it. I know that there's like   a 99% chance that there's going to be no future  development over there. So, allowing a single   family owner to better steward their property  through virtue of some of these improvements,   I'm okay with. Um, you know, I don't think that  the addition is grandiose either. I think that   it's probably a modern-day re reality of of  trying to make a home bigger. Um, and yeah,   you know, they're they are in a bind where they  came forward and said 95% of this lot is in the   the wetland buffer that is 100 ft away from  whatever that wetland is. So without really   knowing to the extent of how sensitive that  wetland is, um you I think they did a pretty   good job of of explaining why they were doing what  they were doing and how they were getting there. Thank you. Any other discussion? All those in favor? I I Any oppose?  Abstain. One abstension. Motion carries. Thank you. We have the quest request of PWED2  LLC as owner for property is Lincoln Street   requesting site plan review approval and for  the reconstruction of existing building for   restaurant use with associated site improvements  and a conditional use permit from section 100440  

use number 1950 for an accessory outdoor dining  and drinking area. This property is on assessor's   map 172 lot 10 and lies in the character district  4 CD4W. Who is here to present this application? Good evening. I'm Megan Boland, a senior  project manager with Chinberg Builders and   um we do have John Shagnen here to speak via  Zoom. I hope he's on. She's really hoping John, can you hear us or can you microphone muted? He's He's there. But hey,  John Shagnan, can you speak? There you are. We could see  him. There you were briefly. John, can you hear us? Your microphone. He's  having technical difficulties, it looks. Would you like to explain the project while we're  trying to figure John out or do we need him? Um,   sure. Let me just grab my paper  here. Does John have anybody in   high school with him? I can see him.  See his mouth moving? He just said   one of his one of his associates  was just here. He's traveling.

I don't mean to put you on the spot.  No, that's okay. Um, so as I said,   I'm Megan with Chinberg Builders. Um, I believe  we're here for the site plan review portion of   the approval process. Um, this project  is transforming the vacant long-standing   um, gas station at 921 Islington Street into a  restaurant um, a small neighborhood restaurant   that complements the West End community. We've  been working with Port One Architects, uh the   technical advisory committee, and um believe that  we've created a design that honors the building's   history and haven't met the current zoning, storm  water, and streetscape standards. I don't know if   there are specific questions about the site  plan that I need to run through or the board   may have questions. This is if you would like to  explain anything about the application. Sure. So,   I think the the previous approvals we've  received, we've received a variance for   the dumpster location. Um, it's a it's a big  site plan package. So, do you have questions   about like the exterior facade or parking?  Just looking for a general overview. Well,   is it correct you're expanding the parking?  You did get a variance for the dumpster. Any   correct? Anything else like that? Yep. Okay. Well,  questions from the board. Yes, Paul. Um, looking   at the the outdoor dining area. Um, what is the  what's the emergency egress from that area? Um,   the plan is to like it looks like there's a  there's a a doorway from inside out into that   area. C3. If the building is if the build if the  kitchen's on fire, everyone runs out that door,  

how do they get away from the building? Yep. So,  it looks like there's the um employees only gate   that would get you behind that accessory portion  of the building there. And then there's another   um if you can see the door there where that  one right there. Cursor is correct. Okay. And it looks like we have backup from  Haley Ward now with us. Uh yeah. So sorry,   John Whitten with Haley Ward. Uh John Chagnon is  texting me and says that he can communicate. He is   hearing us and can answer questions. I could call  him if we if we need to. So he can communicate   through me somewhat. Great. That sounds we'll get  through this. I think we'll get through it. Yes.   Great. Tony, I have a question. Um the signage um  out front with the um the former Ampet gas sign   um is that being removed permanently? Is there  a sign going back in its place? What's your plan   there? The and John can correct me if I'm  wrong via text. Um but I believe the the   gas station sign will be removed. the existing  gas station sign. We kind of have gone through   several versions of this. Um, and there on the  site plan there is a I can't see it from here,   but I think in the um there's a sign location on  the Can I walk up here? Um, is there a handheld   mic or no thing? We won't be able to hear you if  you Okay. I don't have a site plan in front of   me unfortunately um because I didn't think that I  would be speaking. But here comes a handheld mic. Um John Shagman says that the if it  sign is going to be removed. I don't  

know if that helps. And no sign that that  poll will be removed and not reused. Is   that correct? Correct. Um so I can walk up  here and just don't touch the screen. Okay. There's proposed um signage right  here on the lower left hand corner. Okay, thank you. Oh, I see it. That might that  might just be a traffic sign. Is that Is that a   That's not a building sign for the youth, right?  That might just be a traffic sign. Or is it?   It's the entrance. Okay, great. Hi. Sorry. I'm  ready to be Sam the perspective restaurant tour.   I was involved in the design process. Uh so the  proposal is to remove the the pole sign that for   AMP because it will conflict with the new parking.  Um there's going to be a monument style sign here   which is another project which also references  the 909 property directly behind it. It's going   to exist on the 921 lot which was I think is in  the variance process or has already been approved.   It's going it's going this month for So there  will be so so those signs will combine that   will show the businesses that are behind  directly behind this as well as what this   is. There will be additional signage on the  um upper part of facade of the building which   coincides with how that gas station was  originally built to look kind of above the   um the window line. There's a raised uh like  a kind of parapet now that will come down and   will become a flat facade and that will also have  the restaurant name on it to have clear signage   um for emergency as well as marketing without  um needing the poll sign in the parking lot.   to continue down the same path. Um at  the front right corner of the property,   um the there is a property boundary that continues  past which is I'm assuming the travel way um to  

get back behind. Is is that in the plan in front  of us right now? It says 172 over 7 um 909 West   End LLC 3 Pentock Way. You see what I'm talking  about? Yes. That is is that that's a separate   property or is that is that part of this property  with a with an easement? Uh separate property. Uh   this is the property there or this the bound  the as far as I understand the property line   biseects the driveway between the two properties  but it uh there's an easement and then this is   just the the curb cut and the sidewalk that are  shown are on this property as I understand it but   they are accessing 909 behind it as well as this  property. Does that answer the question? there.   It It looks like there's a property line just to  the left of the painted sidewalk crosswalk and   then That's correct. And then to the right of that  20 ft or so, there's another property line. So,   this the driveway is a separate property that goes  to the property in the back. same property owner   but with different lot but there's a there's  an easement in place or license in place to to   grant access to there's access easements in place  okay if you look at plan C1 existing conditions   it shows the different owners that's 909 West End  LLC that owns the hashed area it also if you look   at the landscape plan it shows the sign I think  you were talking about actually located Right. Right at that right there. Thank you. Are we being corrected by text or we  good? Uh I think everything agrees.  

Okay. That strip it belongs  to the back property. Yeah. Any other questions? Yes. Um, just more of a  comment really for I think the city more so   than the applicant. Um, I think this is really  cool. Um, we have a one renovated gas station   in town which is seemingly doing well. This  one reminds me a lot of Tasty Burger in Boston   in the Fenway neighborhood. Um, it's a really  cool spot, renovated gas station as well. Um,   with the change in use and the change in traffic  style and traffic patterns, my two comments are   one for delivery trucks, you have a loading zone,  but just to ensure that there is no blockage of   Islington Street or the easement toward the rear  of 921 Islington, so to the back of the building   there. two is with the change in the um curb cut  and the added landscaping which will be very nice.   It may be wise to add a um blinking intersection  light there because if people are more apt to walk   across the street now to go to this restaurant or  to the rear restaurants um as a runner who runs   down that area often it gets very dark very quick  or the sunset gets very bright. Um so potentially   having the city just look into adding a blinky  stoplight there. So the people turning out of this   restaurant leaving can see that. And then also  people approaching the intersection are aware.   You mean the pedestrian activated flashers that?  Thank you. At the crosswalk. Yes. There's a high   viz sign there right now, but maybe a pedestrian  activated one. I think we just did one. Yeah.   Yeah. John, we heard you. He speaks. Ah, I think  your IT people changed the change the parameters   here. Thank you. So, the the plan was reviewed  at traffic by the technical advisory committee,  

the city's traffic engineer, and he he didn't make  that recommendation. Andrew, he did not I didn't   say that again, John. So the project went through  the technical advisory committee and that that   recommendation although it might be important it  wasn't made this project didn't put the um draft   the technical advisory committee into a position  where they would make such a recommendation.   There's a crosswalk that was installed right in  front of this property as a part of the insuling   the street uh reconstruction project. I don't  know that the traffic, the foot traffic is at   the level where you'd want to have a cautionary  light activated crosswalk sign. I understood the   recommendation to be to the city, not Yeah. Not  it's not to your project specifically. Uh it was   more of a general suggestion. Um Okay. Yeah. I  think the high viz sign is is doing part of the   job. It may just be something we look at to uh  postdevelopment. We can certainly ask parking   traffic and safety to take a look at it and study  it once it's done. Yeah, good suggestion. Yes,   Tony John. Um, there's brick inlay in the front of  the project. Is that existing or is that proposed?   So the trap the the patterning of the closing  of the curb cut is to mimic the patterns that   are there in the Islington street redo project. So  if you looked at the existing conditions, there's   concrete sidewalk behind brick that's next to the  tree plantings. And so we've extended that brick   along the front as part of the project review. The  DPW went over the off-site improvement there and  

and agreed with that pattern. If you look at C1  again, it's you can see there just a little bit   of it. Yeah, I'm looking at the Google Street  View. It's very odd right now. This is probably   an improvement. It is an improvement because  it's going to narrow the c curb cut or narrow   the entrance where there is no curb there now.  Close it. Oh yeah, there we go. S1 has a picture.   You can see in S1 they've got the aerial of the  existing just weird splotches of brick. Um I wish   I knew why. I I wish I knew why the brick. If you  look on the south side of Islington, Tony, you can   see a a larger section of brick. It's just that  the the openings limited that brick section. So   that's why it looks so odd. But when we're closing  it in now, we can extend the brick section. Yeah.   I just I question the the reasoning behind this  design aesthetic. Um is all but we don't own the   city street. It's what the DPW wants, I guess. I  don't know. It was actually part of the redesign   of Islington Street way back when. It's all the  way down. There's brick inlay along the street.   That's the that decision is what I question,  but it's outside the realm of this project. Yes,   I agree. But anyways, so now we Yes, Bill. So, do  I understand that the that there are about 50 uh   occupancies in the building and staff, whatever,  and 14 parking places that are designated or   designated for this property. uh and that there's  not an intent for common use of the parking area   behind uh which is for uh Louis and DAO and loaded  question and a bunch of other businesses but  

that the that the 14 spaces uh carries the total  requirement for this property. Uh yes uh Bill the   parking requirement is based on the square footage  of the building restaurant space. So it's one per   100 and the 15 meets it's just under uh 1,500  square ft. So that meets it. So all the parking   is provided on site and no off-site parking is  needed to meet the ordinance requirements. So, one   twist on that though, that's that's for the inside  of the building and the 30 30% of the seating is   outside. Uh, for those those folks, the Yeah,  the building uh is 50. It's a 50 seat project   and as stated in the memo, the exterior dining  does not add to the parking requirement. just I   I'm not knowledgeable enough on the regulation.  I'm just kind of thinking common sense. Uh the   people that are going to sit outside are going  to get there somehow. And uh I guess this is   a developing positive area neighborhood pocket.  Uh great concept. Uh but so most pe many people   will walk to get there as opposed to driving and  parking. But um the people that are going to be   sitting outside are going to have to get there.  Yeah. A lot of times the people that are sitting   outside due to the nice weather or people that  would have been sitting inside other times of   the year. There was a question earlier about the  uh access from that patio area and to the left of  

the building is the secondary access. I don't know  if that I don't think that question got answered. The gate on the privacy fence. Yep. Yes. And  there's a sidewalk next to that parking space. So,   there's sidewalk access along the building. The  outdoor seating is a conditional use permit which   gives the board discretion to consider things  if the board wish to, but there is no additional   requirement for parking for outdoor seating as I  remember. That's correct. So, could we uh I could   do a presentation now if it's appropriate. I think  Yeah, I don't think I think you're too late, John. The public hearing. Yes. Um, John, could  you just, and maybe you know this and   maybe you don't, I'm sort of imagining,  especially with the two ways in and out,   that most deliveries would happen on off  hours when there actually weren't um,   guests there and therefore it'll be easier for  the trucks to come and go with the two, you know,   one way in and then they can go out the other  way, so to speak. Yeah, like most restaurants,   there'll be deliveries in the off hours for  sure. But I'd like to speak to the conditional   use permit at some point. Okay. Go ahead.  Fine. Is it the public hearing is closed?   The public hearing hasn't started. We're still  This is still applicant presentation. Okay. So,   I wanted to just be sure we get into the record  on the conditional use permit. If that's uh being   taken up coincident with the site plan application  that the section 10.2 243 criteria for granting   this outdoor dining conditional use permit are we  believe met in this application. We believe this  

will complement the surrounding site this west  end. It's a significantly improved addition to the   west uh this part of the city as opposed to a gas  station. And the criteria are met because uh the   scale of the project is appropriate to the area.  Uh the infrastructure is available, the service,   the outdoor dining, both utility and access,  health, safety and welfare will be served. This   project went through the city department reviews.  U there's no natural resource that uh is impacted   by this. It's a a heavily urbanized area and we  would submit if you look through the package at   the architecturals that it's it's a rebirth of  the uh gas station architecture from the past.   So going to provide some scenic enhancements and  there won't be an impact on property values. In   fact, property values would be increased over  the existing former use of a gas station. Thank you. Any questions of John now  that he's with us or anybody else? What I was saying 10 24323 the site and  surrounding streets have adequate vehicular   and pedestrian infrastructure that could  include parking if if we were so inclined.   I'm not but that's how that would come in  for discussion if we wanted to discuss it.   So there no other questions of the applicant can  open the public hearing. There's anybody here or   on Zoom who wishes to speak to four against this  application which can include the applicant if you  

feel you've missed something. Anybody on Zoom?  Our ratings must be plummeting. John is raising   his hand. John's raising his hand. Okay, John,  go ahead. Uh thank you. Just wanted to say that   the project did receive the ZBA approval on the  22nd of July and the technical advisory committee   on September 2nd subject to five conditions.  The technical advisory commissions have all   been addressed and the staff memo conditions  are acceptable to the applicant. Thank you.   Thank you. Any other folks either here or on Zoom  wish to speak too far against this application? If not, I'm going to close the public  hearing. Last call. Hearing is closed. I'll make a motion that we vote to find the  conditional use permit application meets   the criteria set forth in section 10.243.20  and adopt the findings of fact as presented.   Second. Discussion. All those in favor? I. Any  opposed? I make a motion we vote to approve the   conditional use permit as presented. Second  discussion. I'm having uh I'm having a little   hard time with the fact that the the parking the  parking for the conditional use is not factored.   It doesn't factor in the applicant doesn't have  to consider that. But it's still a reality that   the the conditional use is going to require  more parking spaces than are being provided. Well, that's that's a judgment call. Um, you  know, our regulation requires it for the building,   doesn't require it for the outdoor seating. Um,  but as I said, it's a conditional use permit,   so it's something that the board can legitimately  discuss if it want wants to. Um I think Beth and  

then Tony. Um I just to respond to that it's  the idea is that if people are sitting outside   they're probably not sitting inside. So it's kind  of a swap versus adding people inside and outside   because when the weather's nice they want to be  outside and when the weather's not nice they all   want to be inside. So that's why the zoning kind  of looks at it that way. And I can tell you from,   you know, being in this area for a long time,  there's almost never a parking spot at like where   uh used to be the Chinese restaurant, right? It's  it's tight in areas, but people find a place to   park or they just walk because there are a lot of  people that live within walking distance of that.   So, I feel like that place could fill up without  a single car in the parking lot very easily with   that with the surrounding neighborhood and people  that live so nearby. So, it doesn't give me as   much heartache. They're going to ride their  bikes. They're going to walk. They're going to   ride scooters. They're going to, you know, there's  plenty of other different modes of transportation   when you live nearby. Tony, um I have no problem  with this. Um I do think we are marching towards   a problem, but I don't think we're there yet. Um  I, you know, I go down to this area a lot and I   agree with a lot of the statements that were made.  um you know the street um on rare occasions the   inside and the outside's full on a nice summer  night. They're not it's not just the inside   people. It's fine. But it usually happens in a  time period where the local businesses are closed   and you see people parking on other people's  property, which is not how we should have zoning,   but it seems to be working right now. That's why  I'm saying we're marching. we're going to get to   a point where it wouldn't surprise me in 10 years  the city's considering trying to find a garage in   this area to build because it's just the the  pressures in this area. Um so I'm okay with it   right now. I think it adds positivity to it, but  we should recognize as a planning board and as a   city council who receives our recommendations that  we've got to watch this area because we could, you  

know, those you know there's a um laundry store  right across the street. I mean, everybody's going   to use their parking lot until laundry store gets  upset that their tenants their their their users   can't get in and they're going to put up signage  and they're going to towing and then you're just   going to slowly get this conflict. I don't think  we're there. Again, I don't think we're there yet,   but it's we got to watch it. I think watching is  a good idea. Keep in mind if we build parking,   it's there all the time, too. So, that's another  factor. Don't Yeah. All things Tony said and   Uh I think I take a little bit of comfort in  the fact that it's owned by the same person   uh the front lot and the rear lot. So  there is some shared entity or shared   uh interest there to keep everything um tolerable  in the parking sense. There's also street parking   allowed on Thaxter which is not a great distance  away. Um there's also plenty of sidewalks. So,   I guess to the point of outdoor dining and the uh  seating capacity and parking capacity, if somebody   is going to sit outside for dinner, chances are  that somebody can walk to dinner. So, I think   those play hand in hand. Um otherwise, I love it.  Shut off your microphone, John. Please. Oh, no.   He Kevin says it's one of us. [Laughter] I think  he's coming out to tell us what we're doing wrong. If if other electronics get close to the  microphones, they get very irritated. Okay.   Yeah. Don't pour water out. That's for sure.  Don't pour water. Sorry, John. Wasn't you. Blame  

poor John. Okay. You ready to vote? All those  in favor? I I Any opposed? Uh I will make a   motion we vote to find the site plan application  meets requirements set forth in the site plan   uh regulation section 2.9 evaluation criteria  and adopt the findings effect as presented.   Second. Any discussion? All those in favor?  I. Any opposed? I'll make a motion to vote to   grant site plan of approval with the following  conditions 2.1 through 2.5 as in the staff memo.   second discussion. Um the only only comment I have  is um I'd love that they're reusing the building   and so this trumps it, but it there's um I hope  someday in the future this building gets put on   the street moved forward and put the parking  in the back and that you know it serves serves   a little bit more useful life but eventually  that there it gets moved forward but the the   overall reuse of the building um trumps that. So  appreciate that part of it. Agree and agree. Yeah. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you,  John. Thank you. You may be staying with us. Um,   next item is request John G LLC as owner for  property 14 market square requesting a conditional   use permit from section 100440 use number 1.71  co-l livingiving said properties on assess map   107 lot 29 and aliz character district 5 or CD5  downtown overlay and historic districts. Who is   here to present this application? Good evening  Mr. chairman, members of the planning board and   department, Tracy Kak with Arove Architects  here on behalf of the applicant. Uh this is  

a conversion of office to residential uh right in  Market Square. Uh this building 14 Market Square   is um I'm sure you all know it well. It's right  on the corner of Daniel and Pleasant Street. It's   above Napoleana Pizza. So we are looking at work  only at the second floor and third floor which um   have been offices for many decades. We'd like to  turn them into residential. Uh we did go through   uh and receive approval from HDC about a year  ago where we were at that time thinking of just   renovating the offices but since then uh the owner  would like to turn it into residential. So the   second floor would become four small apartments,  three onebedrooms and one studio. The third floor   would be a single co-l livingiving unit with eight  sleeping rooms. Um centered around a common space.   There is a small roof deck accessed only by  this co-living unit. Um we are here seeking a   conditional use permit. uh we believe we meet all  the requirements with the exception of the size   of the common space is less than specifically  um detailed in the ordinance. Uh however the   application and we'll go through this demonstrates  that we have more square footage in the overall   co-living suite than the minimum required. The  reason is that every sleeping unit has its own   private bathroom here. Um we took uh this is the  same applicant that is trying to do some other co-   livingiving in town McNav properties. We took the  comments from the previous feedback to heart that   um private bathrooms are probably a really good  idea. Uh so we've done that but in doing so it  

takes that um the it takes that square footage  away from common area and it puts it into a   sleeping unit. The way the zoning ordinance  is written, it seems to um be written with,   you know, 120 square feet for a sleeping unit.  That's obviously just a bed and a dresser,   not a a bathroom. So, it seems the ordinance  assumes that the bathrooms are part of common   space. In this design, they're not. They're all  private bathrooms. Um you can see on the submitted   data data that we actually have um 353 square  feet more than the minimum required if you add   in sleeping units and common space. So it's just  that we've reallocated the bathrooms privately   to the bedrooms. Um we believe there's no uh  parking required based on the analysis attached.   Uh we are um very close to the handover parking  garage for the co-l livingiving. The apartments   on the second floor each require one space which  is four but we're in the downtown overlay district   which has a credit of four so it nets out to zero.  Um if the the offices that were here previously   um before the DoD credit um required 15 spaces.  So the the parking usage is being diminished. Um   uh that's the summary. I'm happy to  answer any specific questions. Again,   the sizes of all the sleeping units and the  common spaces are detailed in the application   and I can go into any detail or questions  you wish. Questions of the applicant. Yes,   Tony. I'm embarrassed to ask this because  it's probably obvious to everyone else. What   does DoD stand for? Oh, um, downtown overlay  district. Oh, thank you. All right. Department  

of Defense. What's that? Department of  Defense. In another world. Yes. I was   thinking it was totally something else, but  it was so obvious. All right. It's too easy. Tracy, does does the applicant have any  underutilized parking in adjacent properties   to this underutilized in other properties? Um  there there are a lot of properties around this   owned by the applicant that have on-site parking,  underground parking. Um there's a whole variety. I   um some of those properties have been  permitted and occupied for decades. So   uh you I don't know if you would have if you  would apply the current standards to existing   buildings. I guess it gets complicated, but  there's many properties around the downtown   that have parking that are owned by  the same owner with potential for using those spaces. I I know you're net  zero on on your parking calculation,   but it seems like u I believe there is some  maybe potential for available parking. Um,   I believe some of the spaces are um available to  be rented out or let out to other properties. I   I'm not sure exactly how they manage um properties  that want more parking at one that's across the   street or whatever, but um as a whole entity,  I think the the company owns many properties,   dozens of properties, and a lot of them have  a lot of parking. That's all I can say. Oh,   that's that's that's enough. Yeah. Yes. Bill,  this is partly for you and partly for the planning  

department, I guess. Uh we had a long discussion  at the last meeting about the other property   uh on Congress. um and the fact that it was  uh about 50% over uh what the zoning proposal   uh that we had agreed on had said would be the  maximum. Um has there been any subsequent and we   had a long discussion about supervision and  on-site? My assumption here is that there's   no on-site supervision. the uh quantity of  uh people is small and there's no on-site   supervision. Uh cor correct the plan there's only  eight sleeping rooms. So um the the organization   as you recall from the last presentation they do  have 247 uh management crew across the street but   they're not right in that uh co living. So,  we're kind of jointly taking a a voyage out   on a ship here into the ocean without really  quite knowing what we're going to find. Um,   is there has there been an effort again with  with your people and with the city to identify   a set of criteria that would be tracked? uh in my  you know general experience when you do something   like this you agree ahead of time on what goals  are and you uh you develop performance measures   and critical success factors and periodically you  measure how you're doing against those factors.   So in the in your downtown co-l livingiving  venture in totality uh are we trying to are   we developing such a set of criteria that would  include safety uh noise public nuisance uh and   in your case you'll obviously be tracking your  commercial success and whether it makes economic  

sense I think the city would be interested in  knowing if some of the what portion of this is   affordable as opposed to to what would be a normal  market rate kind of thing which is the impetus   that's causing us all to be favorable toward this.  Uh so I guess my point is my question is is there   a structured set of parameters that we're going to  be measuring success against as this goes forward? That might be more of a planning board question  to Yeah, I was wondering is that a question of   the the management by the private land owner  or are you talking about future applications to   the planning board? Well, I'm I'm I'm thinking  of of the the total venture that we're jointly   embarking on here authorizing quantify how  it's doing. I I I think I understand what   you're trying to understand. Um because this is  such a small unit, there's eight bedrooms. The   the maximum number of people you could have  there are 16 people. Um that falls within a   um specific occupancy classification of the  building code, which is R3, which is congregate   living limited to 16 people. And that itself  lays in a whole bunch of safety restrictions   for living. and it's designed to accommodate  these exact situations. The life safety code   does the same thing. The ordinance has um the  same requirements for noise and and nuisance   um that would be required uh for any property.  And I I know that this property management   um they have um lot of rules about um treating the  building right and not being a nuisance to other   tenants. their whole business model of course  relies on um having tenants in the building and  

if they're you know obnoxious or disruptive or  or dangerous in any way of course that doesn't   work. So um it's part of the business model  of course and it's also part of the zoning   ordinance and the building codes. I think there's  three layers of safety there. As far as a formal   reporting and feedback to the city, there isn't  one. But um I'm sure if um we'd be happy to keep   the communication open if there if you want  to, you know, check in from time to time and   ask how things are going. And there is an annual  permit for co-l livingiving that'll be issued by   the city clerk and there's a reporting laid out  in the ordinance. And will you have a structured   set of criteria for helping the city clerk uh  know whether that should be uh done or not?   What's required for the ordinance? The criteria  are what we're talking about right now. So if we   come up with a condition or something like that  that that gets incorporated into the review,   right? Right. It would be a valid they they'd  have a copy of this conditional use permit   that goes along with the annual permit. And to  clarify, I think we have a disagreement. Um,   I think you need an on-site manager because  you need one up to 40. You'd need two for 41. And I remember the conversation about a year  ago, in fact, uh, the proposal from McNab   Properties was to have an on-site manager  for any site with more than 10 occupants.   We talked about it and it was reduced down  to starting at zero and going up to 40. So,   um, speaking for myself and having had a hand  in the crafting of this, I know that was the   intent to have at least one on site. Um, if  that is a requirement, the uh, owner has um,  

informed me that they would be willing to have  one in one of the apartments on the floor below   if Okay. and not part of that unit if that's  okay. A question on that matter too. Is this   technically combining two different uses in in  this building with co-l livingiving being one use,   one residential use or commercial use and  then apartments in the other? And does that   present an issue for what um the applicant  just said for having somebody on site? Um,   I guess my question being what is the delineation  if any in the ordinance and physically within the   building between the two different residential  uses? It says on site. So I would take that to   mean in that building satisfies that. In the last  one, they had apartments on the same floor as the   co-l livingiving and other floors that had just  apartments. So we've had other projects already   that we've approved with mixed apartment. I It's  all residential. It depends on what's within the   walls of that unit, right? Whether it's a whole  apartment or a pod, a co-l livingiving pod. But I don't see that as two different uses. Well,  there's they're different uses, but resite. Well,   I I guess I think he was getting there was  three uses. Commercial living, residential,   and apartments. For example, what came to mind  was really through Paul's point about parking,   but merely uh 238 Deer Street, we stipulated they  have a um off-site lease agreement for parking,   which ended up being condos. And so that was sort  of a change in the wave on that on that property.   And the same applies in my head to this where  in the event that the apartments are converted  

into condos if they could be now there is no  on-site management or same similar ownership.   I get your point but if they converted to con to  condominium for sale or whatever um they'd still   have to have one of those acting as manager as  a part that's maintain they have to come back to   get a re revised approval. Right. where they're on  the third floor, right? Or you could sell three of   them and, you know, maintain one associated  with the upstairs co- livingiving. Yeah. So, you're you're you're agreeing to have  one on the second floor then, a manager,   full-time manager on the second floor. Yes.  Satisfies that for me. Any other I have more   of a and I don't know if we have perview over  this. Um there's one oven in the co-l livingiving   suite. Do we think that that is suitable for 16  people? We we haven't detailed the kitchens yet,   but it's it's designed to be one kitchen um that  is shared. We may have multiple fixtures. Um,   there's probably going to be two refrigerators  and a double sink basin, but we we really haven't   gotten into the details of the appliances  yet. But, um, if you have any suggestions,   we're happy to take that into consideration.  Have two ovens. You live over a restaurant. There's really big one down on the first  floor. Maybe like a dumb waiter. Tony. Um,   again, probably not totally in our pro in our  purview, but it it's such a historic building. Um,   a lot of new floor penetrations. Um, are you um  you know, the the framing of the building and all  

that's where my mind goes. Obviously, you know  my background, but the um I'm just, you know,   are you going to be peacemealing this building or  are you guys trying to lay out the the um all the   toilet drops and and shower drops that they're not  penetrating structure and you're having to reframe   this entire historic building? Um the floor, any  drops in the floor are between rafters and then   there are drop ceilings below. Um what we did  find though um when uh looking at the ceilings   and stuff the existing structure there was a fire  a bad fire in this building a couple of bad fires   in this building over time and there was a lot  of damage on the left side of that plan to the   left of the stairway where there were pieces I'm  not sure how that thing was standing up really   um one good storm could have taken it down so  that's been repaired those compromised beams some   had been as with many old buildings 's um plumbing  had taken a giant piece of beam away. It was still   standing by friction, I guess, but that's all been  repaired. Um there uh so the building may not be   as strong pristine as it as I might imagine.  It's it's been modified a lot. Okay. Well,   damaged it just over, you know, 300 years of  fires and damage. Um it survived the three great   fires of the early 1800. Well, the left side is  older. That's probably why it has more damage. Um,   it's being fixed. There's really not any um, this  isn't damaging the frame of the building at all.   It's just repairing some of the damage from past  events. Thank you. Yep. Any other Yes. Andrew,   are these ADA compliant? They're not.  There's no elevator in the building.

Any other questions? Last call. Thank you, Tracy. Thank you. Um going  to open up this public hearing. Anybody on Zoom   because there's nobody here unless Tracy wishes  to speak again. Unless Tracy just wants to keep   talking. We have um two on Zoom who've raised  their hands. Okay, you're on Zoom. Uh Aaron   first. Aaron first. Hey everyone, can you hear  me? Okay. This is actually Ryan Fruit. Oh, yes,   we can hear you. And Aaron will be joining us in  a second here as well. Can you hear me? Yes. Go   ahead. Okay. Thank All right. No, I just I I want  to ask um thank you for letting me speak tonight.   Um yeah, 118 Pleasant Street is where our office  is located. Uh Ryan Pru, like I said before,   um just curious, the research I've looked  at, um it says that there's usually a regular   professional cleaning and maintenance.  It's kind of standard with any type of   managed co-l livingiving situation. Um does  this proposal mandate a cleaning service for   shared spaces? And then I guess my question  beyond that too is because I know you know   Mark takes really good care of his properties and  I'm assuming he would with this property as well.   um if he were to sell this property, um you know,  we obviously just saw he just, you know, he's sold   off all of his restaurants. He's gotten out of  that space. if he were to to finish these co-l   livingiving projects and uh and sell them as soon  as they're finished, is there any anything that   ensures that they're um the properties are still  managed to the level that we know Mark would would   handle them and that things are kept sanitary and  clean so we don't end up in a situation like we've   seen with with past boarding houses? Um and I  don't want to compare it to a boarding house,   but I also don't want it to become that. Um my  second question is is more for the board. I'm  

just curious if um there's been any recent studies  or surveys to assess how many residents or workers   are seeking co-living options versus how many  downtown employees currently need parking access.   Um if one exists, I would I would definitely I'  I'd love to have it sent to me so I could take a   deeper look at it. Um the reason I ask, we have  11 uh staff for our office. We have six parking   places. So five people every day have to find  a spot to park. Um, and there's frustrations,   especially when it it gets cold and and they've  got a park, you know, blocks away because the   Paradav lot is full and and Paradav doesn't  have any more uh spots as well. Um, so I guess,   you know, my question is, you know, that's that's  11 people that don't live downtown that wouldn't   be taking advantage of co-l livingiving that do  rely on parking. And it seems like this is the   second co-l livingiving um development that we're  we're we're pushing forward with that doesn't   require parking and we're looking at upwards of  adding, you know, at this point another 130 140   people that ultimately will probably need a car.  Um and I'm just curious if if any type of survey   has been done so that that we're going into this  with our eyes wide open and we understand all the   data associated with it. I'll hand it over to  Aaron now. Hi Erin Pru uh 99 MN and then like   Ryan said our office at 118 Pleasant Street and  so thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.   I've been following the discussions around the  new co-l livingiving ordinance pretty closely and   from the meetings it was clear that life safety  and management oversight were key concerns and   um as as was mentioned previously for reasons  like what occurred at the Brewster Street   boarding house which again I know that this is  now um a a different type of um a different type   of residential use of co-l livingiving but it  does most closely resemble a boarding house. Um,  

and I know that through those discussions, one  of the safeguards built in was the annual permit   renewal so that the city could confirm that the  projects were operating safely. Um the first   co- livingiving project hasn't been built and you  know not occupied yet and and we don't have real   world data on how this model is going to perform  in Portsouth whether the management ratios are   realistic whether the fire and egress systems will  work effectively or whether the permit would even   be renewed after the first year. Um approving  a second downtown project now would bypass that   safeguard. Um, in my opinion, we also don't know  how, you know, the first 125 person building would   affect downtown services, things like uh fire  response, sanitation, emergency access, parking,   the cumulative impact of multiple no parking,  high occupancy buildings could be significant,   not only for infrastructure, but livability,  noise, and neighborhood balance downtown. Um,   so I guess just my, you know, another question to  the board is, has the city studied the cumulative   impact of multiple co-l livingiving projects on  downtown services and the overall livability for   existing residents and businesses that are  downtown? Now, um, I I respectfully urge the   board not to grant another conditional use permit  tonight until those answers and that first year   data are available and and we see what the impact  has been in our downtown. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Um, Peter Smith. Hi, this is Peter Smith. I live at 206 Court  Street. I live downtown. Um, a lot of you  

probably have children and likely know the book  If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. And the point is,   if you give a mouse a cookie, it's going to ask  for milk. And you gave the mouse a cookie in the   form of a 56% density increase over the ordinance,  going from 80 to 125 residents and reducing   on-site management by 75% going from four on-site  managers to one. That's pretty astounding. You   dramatically increased the size and dramatically  reduced management. I'm going to caution you to   stay try to stay with this application we have  this evening. That's what we're That's what it's   coming full circle here for an unproven ordinance  that's only five months old and you did that on   the first approval. So now they're coming back for  the milk asking for yet again another waiver. You   gave it to them the first time. Now they're  coming back for more. There is absolutely no   excuse for granting waiverss on an unproven  ordinance. And it undermines the belief that   new ordinances actually stand for anything in this  town because the moment they're approved, it only   takes 5 months for them to be wavered. And yet  again, we find ourselves asking for more waivers.   And in the diligence process of evaluating  whether these waivers should be granted,   we ask questions like, does the owner own a lot  of other parking? Your waiver applies to the land.  

The assets of the owner today means nothing  in terms of the assets of tomorrow's owner.   And as Ryan pointed out moments ago, this owner  is already divesting assets. There's no reason   to believe that these co-living projects are  not yet another one of them. So every waiver   you give must be anchored in constraints that  apply to the waiver that applies to the land.   So future owners who take ownership of these  co-l livingiving facilities are bound by the   same restrictions even if they don't have  as much resources as the current developer. So on-site management this is about domestic  issues. It's about relationships. It's about   people living together and sharing facilities and  the agitation and discomfort that that can bring   and having people embedded in the community who  are witnessing this and acting as a part of that   community to moderate the community. It's not  about phone calls to an anonymous number that   will dispatch people from it doesn't matter  if it's a half mile away or 20 minutes away.   they're not part of the community and they're  not monitor moderating those um interactions.   That's why presence of on-site management  in the living community is so important. So,   I would strongly encourage you to stick to the  ordinance that you just approved and stop giving   waivers for something that we still don't even  understand the impact. This second increase is  

going to raise the density of downtown, the  previous project in this project at nearly 7% without any consideration for actual parking or  the other consequences on downtown. And you I   really think you should think twice about granting  yet another waiver. The people of Portsouth are   watching. Thank you. Thank you. that that buzzer  was your time limit. So, thank thank you. Um,   we can have a second round if folks want to have  a second round. Any of the first round speakers? No, no other hands. Any second round speakers? Last call. Any second round speakers?  I'm going to close the public hearing. more discussion. Yes, Andrew. Um, I didn't ask this during the  presentation, but hoping someone can clarify   or maybe by nod. Um, on page 1.1 under floor  plans, I'm looking at sleeping unit 8, which is   uh facing the adjoined building. I'm wondering  if sleeping unit 8 has any windows in it. I   don't know what that You can't speak, but maybe  you can just nod ahead or someone can chime in.   It has a window right there, right? But I don't  think that that's a I don't know. I don't know   if that's a real window. On the plan set, it just  shows that it it looks like it has an access to  

a small room that has two windows in it, maybe  three windows. That room is I didn't know what   that pertinance to the building was. I This is  a genuine question. I have no idea. Yeah. Every   every sleeping area has to have a window. You have  to have two means of egress. So that appears to me   when I look at that unit layout that they can  go south, page south through what looks like a   probably an older window and there's a small room  with two windows and a wall and and then it looks   like there's two chases, one on each side of that  little anti- room, if you will. I I don't think   that little room goes up that high. I think it's  I think it does. If you we go to the elevations.   Yeah, that's that's also again this really just  clarification. I sorry I didn't ask for. So we   want the what elevation is that? That is going to  be the third floor. South elevation. You can see   the three windows. Yeah. Again, I just didn't  know what they went to. Really? All good. All   good. I read the plan the same way Tony does.  Okay. That's the worst. At the end of the day,   the building inspector is not going to allow  bedroom without a I wouldn't know. Yeah. I have   a I have a building department uh question. Um  the community has some interpretation that this   first project is going to get done sooner than  the the one last time than this one. We don't we   don't know which one's going to be done sooner.  This this is a existing building. It's probably   a smaller renovation. I would actually be very  expecting this one to be the first one implemented   in downtown. My question though is if a year  from now, a year after this gets occupied and  

it comes before the clerk and the the does the  clerk need cause to revoke the co-l livingiving   or can it be a um a zoning change? zoning change.  What do you mean? Can we as a planning board two   years from now we're like this co-l livingiving  is is is not working out the way we want. We're   going to eliminate the zoning. We're going to  remove it. Are they grandfathered in and that   the clerk has no right if there's no cause? If  if everything's happening in harmony, there's   no there's nothing to check to say, "Hey, this  is not working." Do they have to grant regrant   the the license after a year? Do you follow my  question? my I'm sorry if I'm being I think the   answer is yes. I felt yes. I think I mean if  it has a a valid approval I mean maybe if you   remove this whole section from the ordinance then  maybe they don't have to renew it. I don't know.   That's a good I'm asking if um so if there's cause  there's clearly you know the clerk has the ability   to say hey we're not going to do this anymore in  this property. you're you're not maintaining it.   You're we're having calls for service from  police and fire. No problem there. What I'm   saying is if we have it and you know that occurs  in building A, project A, but not in project B,   um we can't we can't just say blanketw why say  you know what co- livingiving is a failure.   We're going to shut this down downtown and even  though your project hasn't had quote a problem,   there's no cause for your project. we you know  or does the clerk have to reg give that unless   there's cause? I think it's a complicated  question. Um I think it would be legally   non-conforming then if it's if it's if the use  is removed from the ordinance but there's still  

one that was approved and is still compliant. Does  that it could legally it's legally non-conforming   at that point? It's legally not conforming because  it because it then it's not allowed from then on   but it was approved legally. Yeah. But the lensure  doesn't kick doesn't um grant other powers. The clerk has to get a certificate from the  director of planning sustainability that the   or the designate certifying that the application  complies with the provisions of the ordinance   and the conditions if any of the cup. So that's  the planning board. Okay. And that has to happen   annually, right? Um, if you if the city adopted  a new ordinance, there are ways to adopt new   provisions of a new ordinance that could apply  to an approved project. But the fact that it   is an approved project would remain. It might  be subject to some new criteria and especially   if it was changed. But that's a basic tenant of  vesting. Um, if they sit on it for a certain time   period and don't do anything, they can lose it.  But assuming they proceed and vest the project,   then you you are vested. Yes, Bill. That's why I  uh feel so uncomfortable that we have not thought   clearly about what the success factors are and  what considerations might make us say no a year   from now. I think we need to just in equity  and we need to tell the uh the developer what   standard has to be met and and what will result  in failure. And if we don't tell them that now,   I I don't think you can tell them when they come  in looking for a for renewal that they haven't met   the requirement if we weren't explicit as to what  the requirements were. Well, I I expressed some   concerns a month ago. What we have in front of us  is an application that other than the common area  

conforms with the criteria of the ordinance. So,  if you have concerns with the common area, that's   really the only basis with which to not approve  this application. Looking at the floor plan,   I agree with the applicant personally, you know,  those private bathrooms are a big benefit. And if   they just switch some of that space to common  area, they could comply, but to the detriment   of the sleeping areas. So, I'm I'm less concerned  with that than I was with the on-site management,   but they've agreed to have on-site management. So,  um, you know, if the board has concerns, we could   make a recommendation about other applications,  but this one is validly before us. And I think we   have to take well, I know we have to take an  action. As a reminder, we we are required by   law. We have to approve, disapprove, or approve  with conditions. Those are our only choices. Yes, Andrew. I would tend to agree with you,  chairman, about uh the benefit, overall quality of   life benefit to having a private bathroom. Um, and  I'm reviewing this project uh on its face as if   it's not a common applicant in in conjunction with  a prior application that we've seen. So to that   end, I do find it that there is probably a way to  yield enough common area in this development and   not require a waiver. Uh if that means losing  a unit, then so be it. Um, part of me thinks  

that the common area space, the 1,200 square  feet is not a lot to begin with. And so having   uh a forfeite of private living area means that  I think the common area should be emphasized, not   reduced. And for me, the common area is a pretty  integral and focal point of co-l livingiving to to   uh really make these units desirable and  also appealing. Um, but market demand aside,   I think we approved an ordinance that had 1,200  square feet of common area pretty intentionally   because that makes lifestyle and quality of  life really kind of at the forefront. Um,   and so I guess I I'm a little less unwilling  to deviate from that set requirement,   but I think Tony probably has an answer to that.  Yes, Tony. Yeah, I guess I disagree in that,   you know, I in general was it's impossible for any  group to think of every possible permutation that   come before this when we write this ordinance.  It's impossible. That's why we give ourselves   some flexibility in the ordinance. We didn't  come and say this is the way it's going to   be. We give the board to conditional use process,  right? I think if if seeing what we've seen now,   we would make changes to the ordinance. I don't  think we would think this is a better project   if they were to come back and take all the  bathrooms out of the bedrooms and put them in   the common area. It would meet the letter of the  law. They wouldn't need any waiver. And that's   is that a better common space? No. No. And I and  I'm certainly in agreement with you on that. Um,

I also think that because we have discretion  and because this is a an instance where we have   a little bit a little taste of it and and we've  seen um how that co-l livingiving or excuse me   how the common space hasn't been incorporated  into the overall concept in in past projects   that it's vital to have a common space that that  is large up and um yeah, I'm I'm on board with   the the private bathrooms, but again, when you  have 193 square ft to live in on a daily basis,   you need an outlet and you need an another space.  And so 792 ft divided by 18 people or excuse me,   a maximum of 16 people, um it just doesn't seem  like a lot. And and I think about um when you're   planning office space, you generally plan for  300 square feet per person because that's enough   to move about and have a comfortable spot. And  that's only for office, mind you. So if these   are permanent residents of this building in 193t,  170 ft, 187 ft, my thought is to give them more   the benefit of the doubt and give them more than  they probably need in the common space than less. Yes. Yes. I disagree with you because some of  these are as big as micro units. You have 310   square feet, 362 feet. Some of these are big  enough to have their own kitchens in them.   There are they don't, but they doesn't mean they  can't cook their food and have a place to eat it   or hang out or a TV or a couch in some of  these rooms because of the size of them.   I mean, I was listening to the news today or  yesterday. They were talking about a building   down in Boston that been converted and they're  all like 200 square feet and people are have  

kitchenets and they're living in them. So, these  are all about that size, right? And some of them   are much bigger. So, you know, it's going to  depend on the the the person that's living   there. And if they want more privacy, they're  going to go for that larger sleeping unit so   that they can have their own table and chairs to  eat at. and maybe they have common areas to cook   and talk to people, but it doesn't mean that's  where they're going to spend all their time. So,   I feel like it's a trade-off, but I think it's a  it's a willing trade-off based off of the size of   all of these sleeping units. They're just much  bigger than even our ordinance has um stated. I mean, if I may, like your your disagreement  is is well heard. Absolutely. and and I respect   your opinion. I think that you could lose a  net of two units and add another micro unit   in here and market these as micro units rather  than co-l livingiving and solve all of that.   So I I mean if that's the logic then they could  have one more unit in here, one more micro unit   and only lose a net of two units and probably if  we're talking about economics do the same math.   you just but it's kind of an arbitrary drawing a  line like if you think of the of a you know of a   sweep of rent you know you're just you're creeping  up that line of rent and say so you know because   you're just taking the amount of square footage  cost per square foot divide it by fewer units your   rent goes up yeah and not building nine kitchens  you know and there might be a point where it's a   tipping point where it's like just put just put  high-end luxury condos in and and maximize the   square footage because I can't get this to work.  So, we're we're a little bit flying blind on that.   Like, we don't know what that proformer would look  like for this unit. And so, um I just caution us  

to to randomly in, you know, raise the bar and  assume we're still going to meet this demand.   I don't I don't know what it is. Yeah. And and  it's not my call to call on you. Sorry. Thank you,   Mr. Chair. Yeah, I was about to um I appreciate  all this this discussion. It's very helpful. Uh   to keep it simple, you know, that's it it's it's  a number. It's uh 1360 is is is what's required   and you know this is this is new frontier.  Um, so I mean I'm I'm I'm comfortable with   just if 1360 is what's required for for for the  project that that should be the number. There's   no hardship here. I don't see it's 1,200 if if  Well, okay. Sorry. Didn't want people listening   to get confused. Really, yeah. 17 792 where  1360 is required is the uh 1,200 is required.   Okay. I'm reading something different. I don't  know. I'm reading no 92,200 for common spaces,   right? That's per the ordinance. But the the the  calculation is and then an extra 20 square ft per   unit. 1360, you know, if they dropped a unit,  then it would go down to 1340. Um, you know,   I think there's different ways to configure  this. It might end up looking just like the   second floor, you know, without without the  approval of the conditional use permit. So, I mean, I'm I'm comfortable with saying that, you  know, we we we stick with what's in the ordinance and and not approve the conditional use permit.

I hear what you're saying and um as Beth said, it  is a trade-off. Looking at the at the floor plan,   if you change the doors on some of those bathrooms  to open to the common area and move the other   doors, you know, you could you can meet the square  footage requirement again by taking some bathrooms   away. I think you you probably lose a couple  of units as Andrew was saying in order to fully   comply with the 1300 as it comes down. As the  units go down, the number will go down. Um, but I   guess to what end, you know, we did our best with  those numbers terms of coming up with u square   footage per sleeping area and square footage per  common area, but it's not it's not arithmetic.   You know, we it's based on what what we could find  looking at other communities around the country.   And I don't feel strongly about it. You know, I  know you guys And if you do, stick to your guns.   But um it's just how it balances out. Yes. Right.  Mr. Chair, I would just say my my personal opinion   looking at this is basically I think like you said  there's a decision between uh strict conformance   with the ordinance and the additional bathrooms or  or whatever it might be. And just to me looking at   it holistically, the the trade-off is you could  strictly conform and have a worse setup for the   residents or you could grant a a w a waiver here  and make a better living situation. I know this   doesn't, for example, doesn't include the the roof  deck, which isn't technically considered common   space. So, in terms of or the restaurant right  downstairs. So, in terms of like if I was living   here in my mind and I don't know, maybe I have to  like rent one of these and figure it out in month   one. Maybe that'll solve all the questions, but  uh I would see myself having enough space, having  

enough space to live, have a bathroom facility,  common area, etc. Maybe, you know, providing extra   appliances would assuage some of the concerns  about what's going into that required 1360 ft.   It obviously isn't part of what we adjudicate  here, the number of stoves or whatever, but um   certainly being thoughtful that that would help.  But my my personal thought is that this is an   improvement as a holistic project even if it isn't  technically meeting those number requirements. I I'd like to get a motion on I was just going to  ask for one. Yeah. Just um gather my thoughts here   for a second unless someone wants to jump in and  do it. Um I'm I'm going to handle the finding of   fact one first. Vote to find that the conditional  use per permit application meets the criteria set   forth in section 10.243 and to adopt the findings  of fact as presented. Second discussion on the   findings. All those in favor I I any opposed?  Findings adopted. I I don't want to make the   next motion. I want someone else to make it. Well,  I'll move to grant the modification from section   10.815.29 to allow 792 square feet of common area  where 1,360 is required. Second discussion. Yes.   I'm not going to die on this hill. If if um  members of this board really want to stick to   the 1360, I'm fine with that. Um, just if I can  pontificate for a second, I we have a housing   crisis in this community. It is is dramatic.  Very, very dramatic. I don't think there's a way   of solving it without causing some sort of impact  with all of us through parking, through, you know,  

whatever is going to come. I want to be on the  side of the folks that try. And so, you know,   I'll support this any way this can go through.  And um I think it's really easy to find reasons   why not to do this. And I don't I don't fault  anybody for it, but you know when we have people   living in their cars or you know the the need of  people to you know be in front of an ambulance   driving it or you know serving us restaurants at  this this nice restaurant we approved earlier.   It we have a huge challenge in this city and so  I I'm not just sitting here like on a political   stump speech here. truly believe it and so I would  like to heir on the side of doing something for   housing. I care less about what they do with their  car. I think we I think we as a committee need to   send a letter to the the city council saying they  need to start acting not just because of the cold   living ordinance. We have a lot of problems in the  city with parking. They they need to act soon on a   new parking garage regardless of this application  or the one that came last month. That's a separate   item that um I don't obviously has some relation  to it, but I really want to do something for   this. So, I'm going to whatever way we can get  to five votes here, whatever number we need,   I'll I'll support with it. Thank you. I will ask  for a roll call vote. So if if this were the first   uh proposition coming to us and it were done a  proposition were done at this scale uh it would   be very tempting and logical to to say put the  bathrooms in a better place and don't put them   in the common area and we would have a project of  manageable scale uh that conformed other than that   with our goals in in in the ordinance that was  passed Uh so so my issue isn't really with this   project and I would be voting in favor of this  project. Uh my my concern is the bigger picture  

and whether we are prepared to manage the bigger  picture. Andrew. Um I think it goes without saying   I was pretty charged last month or whenever that  was with the last uh co-l livingiving application   and um you know I just feel very passionate about  it and I want to get it right much like Tony does   uh to be on the side of people that are being  creative finding solutions and and implementing   those solutions with their assets or their  properties uh and their own money, right?   like this is not a federally subsidized or state  subsidized project. So I absolutely respect that   and I am certainly moving toward yes on this. Um  this is the first time we've seen this property.   This is the first time that we're really going  through this again. And what I mean by that is   uh we still yet to have data or a thesis on  how the city feels about it. And as much as   I do want to help the residents that are going to  benefit from this housing, um I also have to think   about the opposite side of the barbell and the  general public or or the the public welfare of   downtown and the abutters here. So without data,  it's difficult to say um how that is is going to   impact those abutters. And also, you know, quality  of life in housing is really critical. And for me,   I look at how I live and and the spots that I live  or my space, so to speak. And my spaces are very   important. So to have enough space, not only as  a sleeping area in a safe sleeping area, but also   space to escape that, right? Like you're not going  to be eating in bed. So 16 people in 792 feet is   less than 50 square feet per person if they're,  you know, eating all at dinner hour or what have  

you. So, I just I know that 1360 may be somewhat  arbitrary to something that we didn't have much   finding on, but I want to see that increase. Um,  if and it did increase, I I would be happy to   support this project. Um, my last question was to  the motion. I think you had included um about the   on-site management and I don't know if that was We  haven't gotten to that boat yet. No, I think this   is that was that's a part of the application now  because the applicant made it a representation.   So that's you can add it as a condition. We can  but it's not it's the next vote. Oh, apologies that too. Anyway, appreciate. So, we have a motion on the waiver. Any other  discussion? No, but I did ask for a roll call.   I know you did. So, that's I just think it would  be easier for everyone. Ready? Ready? Okay. Go.   All right. Superior. Present. Yes. Yes. Present.  Yes or no? Oh. Uh, we know you're here. Roll call.   I thought that meant we're not here for some  reason. Further modification. Yes. Mr. Simonus,   no. Mr. Juliano, no. Councelor Maro, yes. Mr.  Logan, I mean Mr. Roy, sorry. Yes. Mr. Bowen,   yes. Mr. Kovella, yes. Chair, yes. Okay.  Motion passes six to two. Next one more.   I move to grant the conditional use permit for  co-l livingiving with the following conditions.   condition 3.1 as shown in the uh packet and I  will second and request that we add maintaining  

one on-site manager for the co-l livingiving  unit I agree with that uh addition discussion   is that open-ended to be in the apartments or  the co-l livingiving in building on site on   site is what I said so it's 9:22 yes all those  in favor I I Any oppose? They motion carries. Thank you. Good luck. We are not going to go through everything on this  agenda this evening. I know you're heartbroken to   hear that, but we have to go through the request  of council not item F 5F, the MAC Maplewood Avenue   drain line project. We need a recommendation.  Right. Right. Say now as you're scrolling to that,   I'll explain why. Um there are a number of zoning  amendment topics here. When I spoke with the HTC   chair, I suggested to having conversation with  them. As Mr. Kov Koviello said, conservation   commission, we really need to talk with them  about some zoning amendments. We need a workshop   and even though it's only almost 9:30, zoning  really needs to be dealt with fresh minds and   um I'd rather have a workshop that started at 6:00  if everybody wanted to do that and so we could get   through it and maybe meet with these other people.  But so that's my suggestion and request actually   we postpone action on the zoning amendments  to a workshop. Are you talking about B, C,  

D, and E? I am. I I concur. The other reason for  that, I think in order for the board to properly   consider them, it's going to require staff to  give a a memo of explanation, and I'll I'll help   with that if they want me to. Um, and it's it's  obviously not something that was in the packet.   Can I just give you a quick two seconds? So  C, D, and E all came from housing committee   in case anyone's wondering if you want some  more background. So housing committee actually   recommended those go to city council and then come  back to planning board for recommendations. So I   just wanted to put that out there so everyone  knew where they came from. Yeah, I think I   mentioned that last month actually from co-chair  Taber, but thank you. That that's helpful, Beth. So, back to the drain line project. Um, Mr.  Chair, that question. So, I want I wanted to   just ask about the historic district item B. Uh,  we have a requirement for 10day notification to   abutters when we talk about uh site plans that  are going to affect their neighbors. uh if I   don't know if we do legally, but procedurally we  should uh have a 10-day notification to anybody   who was going to be changed uh have their uh  value of their property impacted by putting   them in or out of historic district. That's  something we can bring up to the workshop,   but I agree with you. Um there's separate separate  notice requirements for zoning amendments, but   as a courtesy, I think that makes sense. So, so  before we would address that at the next meeting,   we would expect that there would be it'd  be a recommendation to include it as the   adoption procedure with the council because  it would be public. Definitely be for the  

council second reading, but it's not a  notice to land owners necessarily. Well,   we would notice to land owners. There needs to  be criteria. You do that normally. We we would   sent to the map amendments. We would Okay.  before the council voted but not before we   had our deliberation. So we would not have the  benefit of hearing from neighbors or whatever   who were affected. No, you did get an email  from one property owner today that I forwarded. So we can talk about that after the workshop.  Andrew. Yeah, just in on that topic. Um,   when we do talk about the properties to be  included or removed, is it possible to get like   either a hyperlink to their GIS or like a photo  of the property? When I was trying to search them   today by the map number, there was like there's  no MVLU on it. It was just map and then lot lot.   Maybe I was doing it wrong. Um, can you Right.  You'd have to add some zeros. Were you? Yeah.   So every map in lot is like four or six digits and  so each number you need to add the zeros preceding   zeros. That's how you It would have been a lot to  add those on the I mean it would have been a lot   of because the map's so smart. Yeah, it was just  challenging. I don't I don't know if we can get it   like hyperl so you can just go right to it at the  request. Yeah, I know it's okay. So, um, mainline   deputy city attorney's got this. Do you want to  explain this, Peter? No, this is part of the, um,   Fleet Street Vonm, um, sewer separation project,  and I think last year or maybe the spring,   the outfall was before you. Um what's needed  now is a recommendation to city council um for  

permanent easement and license on the property of  the railroad property and then the property at 90   Maplewood Avenue. Um so that's what this request  is. Um and it would just be a recommendation   to the uh city council to accept those the  easement and licenses on those properties.   Um, would you like me to make a motion? Uh, vote  to recommend the city council accept a license   from CSX, Inc. and an easement from 90 Maplewood  LLC in support of the North Mill Pond storm water   outfall improvements. Second, discussion.  All those in favor? I. Any opposed? So,   what's the board's pleasure on a workshop?  And I guess this ties a little bit in the   Peter schedule. So we have, you know, we typically  have the following Thursday reserved. Um there are   there is an extra Thursday this month.  Um if you if the 30th would be better,   that would be two weeks from tonight or  30th is trick-or- treat night. All right.   Right. So the I mean the 23rd. How does that  I like to give out candy to little children. come here next Thursday. Next Thursday we have  reserved uh we could start at 6. Um uh you think   we could get get together before my preference is  before the next planning board meeting the regular   schedule one but I I just it's going to be hard  for me but but don't do it just for me. So, just   remember in November we'll have joint meetings  with the council on the CIP. What date? Um 17th  

and 20th. 20th is our regular meeting. Um wait, I  have to check. 20th is our regular meeting. Yes,   the 20th is our regular. Yeah, I've got CIP vote  on the 20th and then council meeting on the 17th.   Yep. You have council on 17th. Yep. We are meeting  with the council on the 17th. Yeah. which um it   must be before our city council meeting. I think  it's at the beginning of the meeting. I I'll think   and I brought up the parking garage last year and  I intend to bring it up again this year. Does it   have to be a Thursday item? It doesn't have to be  a Thursday, but I just I I can't confirm without   checking the calendar, right, and schedule? I I  know we have next Thursday reserved. Um meaning   we have this chamber. Yes, we have this chamber,  but doesn't mean we can't meet in conference room   A for a work session. also true if conference room  or the school boardroom would be right another   place we could meet for a work session doesn't  have to be in here questions really the date we   yeah I just can't do next Thursday okay well I I I  can you know look for some uh dates and times and   what about the six does the six work for people  let's give them some dates to look at that would   work for me six works for me That would work.  Would the 29ths work for folks? No, it's not the   29th. It's the 30th. Doesn't have to be. Oh, no.  I Yeah, I already rescheduled something for that   day. Yeah, I can't. I have a reminder to buy new  tires on the Probably not. I had to move my RPC. Is there is there a reason why we don't want to  do concern? My concern was next week. Oh, you mean   do it right before the everything. It's a lot for  Peter to I'm saying the 20th of November. He says  

to do it right 6:00 to 7 before our planning board  meeting on the 20th. I don't think we can get We   don't have time to get through all this stuff.  I don't think we can. That's how much time do we   need? And I'm actually Well, we don't have to do  them all in one night either. You know, we could   do what we could do. And then our planning board  at 7:30. We can put our planning board meeting   whenever we want it. I mean, we could start have  an event right before that planning board meeting.   You always have. I I'm a very busy person.  I'm sorry. Someone said the six. That works.   I don't know. Six would work for me. If you want  me there, fine. Yeah. Do it. Start early and end   early. I've got a meeting in Amherst. So, you  can't do the sixth. On the 6th. Motion to do   it the 20th. We try to make it work on the 20th.  Yeah. If even if we have to break it up, that's   fine. How about the 27th? That's Thanksgiving,  right? We could have That's why I said I am not   coming here on Thanksgiving. It's not even going  to be open. Trick-or-treating Thanksgiving. That's   how I have my priorities. I don't like Halloween  other than to give out candy to little children. It's fun. Supposed to vote on the capital  improvement plan on the 20th. Right. But   that's So, right. We already have that big  presentation as well, which takes a lot of time,   right? Do you want me to look at some dates and  times and send out an email? I think we're going   to have to do a between now and the 20th. I'd  say Monday the 3rd, but no, I think you're going   to end up with the 20th, but go ahead and send  out your email. Just don't send the 19th. Just   don't send Do the night before. That's fine. I  could do that Wednesday. the 19th conservation   commission is meeting. Let me see if they'll but  they don't won't be in conference for May. No,  

they'll be in here, right? How about meeting  day meeting? Is that possible for me? Yeah.   Is that possible to have substantially more  helpful? I don't know how many of us can make   a day meeting. I can. I probably can. Yeah.  I was going to say some have I mean I have   closing so it would depend on the day but Joe  and Karen probably could. They're healthy. Yeah. Well, you couldn't do a day, right? Which  day? You couldn't do a day meeting. Couldn't   do a day meeting. Probably enough notice.  I could just take PTO and do this instead. That'd be a big sacrifice, but All right.  I'll just send I'll just look at see what   see what we got for possibility.  Send out like a doodle poll. Sure. And unless there's something else. Yeah. Yeah. I  have one item. Um I've been trying to bring this   up for like three successive meetings, but if we  go so late that I'm like I'm had time tonight. I'd   like to modify our rules for the public comment  session. My suggestion is somebody that knows   they're going to speak longer than three minutes  can just say, "Hey, I'm going to put their hand up   and say, "I'd like to speak for longer than three  minutes. I'll wait your second or third round."   Because what I notice is they're it's interruptive  to them and they often end up repeating what they   said before because they weren't able to get it  in. I think it would be they would have a better   experience. We would have a better experience if  they were allowed to speak for that longer time.   Just be willing to wait for a second reading.  You're uh I don't think they could do that if   they just said, "Hey, I don't think they know they  can do that, right?" At what point do you cut them   off? Well, it would follow our rules. It just I  could explain it to allow that. If you if you need   more than three minutes, just say in the first  round, I'm going to need more than three minutes  

to save your spot. To save your spot. Well,  as long as they say something that saves Yeah.   because then that would still be within our rules.  Like, just tell us that at that point. I wouldn't   have known I could do that, so that's fair. Yeah,  I just think it would make it it better for all   of us, but I think people are frustrated with not  getting questions answered, right? And we can't   do that. Well, we could some many planning  boards do. Oh, we can't under our rules,   but I was going to say not under our rules. They  go back to the applicant after the public comment.   Is that the reason? We No, we would have to answer  their questions, but we're not allowed under our   rules to do that. I mean, if anyone's curious  as to why we have the three minutes, it's back   in the day when we had hundred people in the room  and people would talk for 20 minutes and then the   people behind would get frustrated because they  wouldn't get their chance to talk. So, the three   minutes was to get so everyone at least had a  first say and then you could come back if you had   more to say. Here's a here's a more controversial  one um for us. When there's a large crowd,   I would like to give the chair the authority to  say if there's no one standing behind the person   speaking, we're going to shut this down because  we often wait for the person to walk up. Happens   at city council all the time. They look at each  other like, are you I I would say I would have no   problem with the chair taking the authority of  saying, "Hey, I'm going to speed things up and   make this a requirement." It's actually happened.  If we need to make a rule about it, that's fine.   But um it it has happened that the chair has said  if there's a lot of people that want to talk speak   form a line and you'll get to speak if you form  a line. We'll close the hearing if there's no   one behind the speaker because that's it just  can't we can't be sitting here waiting for it's   painful and this is Yeah, I could do that. I mean  if you want me to. Thank you. This is the kind of   clean very happy waiting. I mean tonight was not  really a night to talk about. No because we didn't   have anyone really. I think he and the chair can  use his discretion. I mean, obviously, you know,  

somebody's handicapped or it's a quiet night,  that's fine. But when there's a hundred people,   it just frustrates everyone else in the crowd  to wait for that time period. But anyways,   frustrates the people sitting up here watching.  Motion to adjourn. Frank has Well, that's just   clarifying like cleaning up the everyone walking  to and fro, right? What you were talking about.   Yeah. Sometimes you can sit here and they're like,  "Does anybody else want to speak?" and they they   decide and they well they look amongst themselves  and and come on let's go. Let's all stand in line   and wait. You don't have to move move. I'm just  going to call it. All right. Ajourned. Yes.