this uh meeting is uh available with video recording and all meetings are televised and available on Demand by Chums for tele media the uh public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to any issues with the within the jurisdiction of the Chels and Zoning Board of Appeals that are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing before the zoning Board of Appeals public comment may be on anying pending public hearing shall only be heard during such public hearings and be shall be limited to three minutes in time anyone like to have public input at this point seeing none we have no administrative reviews we have a new public hearing two Indian Drive David caprino requesting a modification to a previously approved variant and or new variants under zoning bylaw section 1958 non-conformity for construction of a new enclosed porch along the back of the house which will be keeping with the previously approved variants allowing an 18t side setback and any other relief deemed necessary this property is located in the residential RB District someone here on behalf of two Indian drive you want to go to the podium uh give us your name and address please my name is David caprino I live in two Indian drive and as was stated we're looking to have a variance modification so we can put an enclosed porch off the back of the house um we have presented um building plans which I told I wasn't need but not in that necessity of um Grandeur but you guys should have a copy of those um I drop those off as far as what we want to do on the property and if not I have a copy if anybody wants to look at him I think we're going to get him up on the screen do have [Music] yes let me grab that for you application where to go oh okay hold on just a moment I just realized I downloaded twice the architectur not the actual plot okay I have a copy of the plot plans if you e them or um i' I'd like to get on the screen we can look at that if you have it though that'd be fun let Becky get sorted out sorry about that I can get that give me minut so this is the is the actual as on the previous varas and this is the zoomed proposed in red grab that on here so the corner of the new would be uh 18 ft as well as the existing correct I guess in line see let you take a look at that the red is super proposed should come up in a second I oh I apologize hold on let me see if I can get this going not on any of them corre no I don't think any this is HDMI 4 that helps right is the anticip okay will it help if I try emailing it to you now or no actually my my laptop isn't yeah it's on your laptop it's not they W by the house going on there yeah so they works too I don't know why it's not working today oh so this corner y right there now you have it thank you from so Brian from a procedural point of view does this count as the it says modification and or new what does this come under a modification or new check with Paul and he said either was acceptable okay I thought the modification was more practical one of the other I mean it just it's not increasing the non-conformity at all what we granted I deliberately kept it in that because of they thought it would make it easier because if we could have a bigger it would have been ideal but we try to stay within that 18t variance that we had yeah I thought the modification was more appropriate but I advertised as both just in case um since it is the same relief that was given before it's funny it's almost the same thing I asked that is a theoretical continual line it is yeah I just want to make sure they all get a chance to see it sorry it's not coming up on the screen I'm going to go back to the other computer and get the other forms on [Music] hopefully that one comes on now does anyone have any questions or the applicant at this time straight forward so oh you already have okay uh do we have letters yes [Music] that's a duplicate oh from Sheila Joyce project engineer dear members this offic has reviewed the project application plans and documents sub submitted to the DPW on May 9th 2024 for the following public hearing to Indian Drive is requesting a modification of previously approved variance Andor a new variants under the zoning bylaw section 1958 non-conformity for construction of a new and enclosed porch along the back of the house as a result of the review the US the following comments the propos proposed addition will be over the existing Sewer Service care should be taken when Excavating the foundation should the sewer need to be moved it must be done by a licensed contractor and both sewer and trench permits are required through the BPW erosion control devices must retain the sediment on site there must be installed prior to any work demolition or Earth disturbance consideration should be made to install roof drain drywalls on the new two season porch as the property is located well within the zone 2 wellhe head aquifier protection area if you have any questions please call Sheila Joyce I have no concerns from the Board of Health I have no concerns from fire prevention have no concerns from the Chelson water district the assessor has no comments or concerns that's a new one for us and that's just a letter from the attorney so those are the extent of my letters David I printed out a copy of the DPW letter okay it was that um Susan Joyce is that what that Joy Sher Joyce thank you she's saying that there is a septic tank underneath there uh no she's saying your existing sewer line it's well south of it I'm just reading the letter I don't know but care should be taken yep definitely I'm going to open this up to public comment if anyone has uh like to speak in favor or an opposition to this now is the time seeing none can I get a motion to I'll make a motion to close the public hearing for two indan Drive second second by Peter motion by Charlie all in favor I opposed closing the public hear Do you have more questions that was to close the the hearing so close the public yeah but you're asking if we're opposed to closing the I never thought you asked that before uh Becky sent me a a form on how to do it correctly so was I doing that right maybe threw me off okay U before we vote I just had one little question for the applicant um it says two season Port do you mean three season no we're not going to insulate it or finish it just existing where the garage was where we went to the variance there was an an enclosed porch that was there um and it's seen its days but we preferred the garage but now we miss the enclosed porch because we want to be able to go out there and sit out there in rainy days bug nights or whatever um so it's just it's basically just an enclosed porch all right good I'm good just what's the size of the porch what's the size of the porch 16 is one way I think 12 by 16 I had a little trouble finding theot 12 12T coming off the house and then 16 ft wide and it will start 16 ft off the corner of the garage so it puts us with than that so he runs parallel to the property line at 18 ft which is what we allowed with our original variance right and the property is on an angle so it's not a square back property so the corner catches the 18 what was the now I just want to mention that with the garage and with the porch it's a total of 836 Square ft just want to mention that so the two addition the addition of the garage which was previously approved and the porch the total is 836 Square ft 644 and 192 I believe that sounds pretty right to me just wanted to note that okay you so based on the list here I wasn't at this original when it went through the first time what was the hardships for does anyone I can pull that out for you I would imagine it was Lot shaped but I don't shap believe yeah it was Lot shape it was Lot shape and everybody said why didn't I put it down the other end of the house and the cost was going to double just to get the garage down that end the house and it was we're trying to create a single floor living for the future basically couple steps up and we're in the living area do do you want to look it up I mean lot shape is definitely a good argument lot shape to topography and sewer location thank you existing basement stairs to not allow for smaller garage Dimensions that was a note too okay thank you did you finish the garage already the garage is finished yet the house is all complete with exception of some finished painting any further questions yes sir one question so what's the hardship for this one because the first one the first prong is the the shape Factor the second is the hardship so what's the hardship for this so they're coming back to request a modification to the previously approved um in that they're proposing to put the addition of the um porch at the same when we Grant a variance it's it's like I say Perpetual it continues the whole length so they're not increasing the non-conformity at all yeah I just wasn't sure because it says new or modifications so I wasn't sure is if there that way at the time um just to make sure that the legal notice covered both bases before asking Town Council if it should be one versus the other so it is the modification okay he he neither and the modification seems an easier rout MH um I don't know if we need a second hardship well if it it was change the doesn't change if yeah I meant like in the sense I thought it was a new one that's why if so modification I think I'm comfortable with yeah yeah no I I agree not requiring a specific new hardship I think any further questions it was Lot shape topography and location of sewer location existing basement stairs to not allow for smaller garage dimensions in an existing lower level garage on the opposite side of the house so so basically the hardship what he was talking about on the other side of the house so that's how we worded it there does that apply for not a garage cuz we're not doing the sewer like where where the sewer line was going stopping the garage from going on the other side of the house this isn't going on that side of the house so that's that's my question yeah and but do we have a concern where we've agreed that this 18.2 or 18 actually is is acceptable that continues doesn't you you've granted that yeah I'm just this line now we've granted we didn't Grant it here we granted it here okay so is it no it does there's no more non non-conformity shown with the second edition I I don't know I knew to me but I mean I'm I guess I want to make sure that the the expectation is that if he was going to put a pool in the backyard and it was going to be 18t away from the the lot line um and the pool was on the opposite side from wherever the if he had like topography issues on the right and he's now putting the pool on the left and we're saying all it was topography before but we're not on that side of the property anymore it's just oh we had a variance with topography so Topography is a hardship even though it doesn't affect the new thing going in it affected the original you understand I'm I I do know I know what you're saying okay so just the hardship attached to this and it's just good you know moving forward because we have a variance it's got some hardships attached and they are perpetually attached to this variance is that right the idea is that he's not going any further though right we what we've granted is that 18t line right essentially along the entire that is just continuing on we're not creat anything you're not creating a larger caused for a new variance modifying the existing variance I think it would be acceptable I do I don't uh I wish Paul was here to clarify uh Jose you wrote the denial letter is this is it right to think that we are uh okay without a hardship for this yeah because they you already granted the variance so that's the entire property line idea just to modify that variance without encroaching into into setback right that's that's what I see being acceptable so how close is this to the property line it would be 18t that's what I'm looking for it's not on she uh that's the one you passed around no I don't have to see it I just need a number I'm 18 ft 18t all right sorry about that the original it's 18t that's what I was looking for and he has 18t again it's supposed to be is this 25 or standard I think that would be uh the side setback and it would be 25 it was 21 A2 with our old porch and then when we got the garage variants we got the 18 variants yeah are there any further questions for me I guess we'll put it to a vote and see what uh so we had a motion on table just to close the public hearing and it was seconded I don't believe we voted on that we paused to we did we did because then we were asking questions okay I think we also everyone voted for in favor and then when he asked about oppose that's when I Becky sent me a little note to correct the no just to mention the it's to mention the motion in the second I just want to make sure that once we close the public hearing we can't be asking more questions so do that right before the vote d right so we have a closed and Glenn is voting on this one because Jamie's not here okay would someone like to make a motion in the affirmative I'd like to make a motion in the affirmative uh make a motion to approve the modification to a previously approved variance for the construction of a new enclosed porch at two Indian Drive I Charlie do I have a second by Steve all in favor I four opposed one one motion passes I guess you can't say it good luck with it thank you okay do I see permanent I will I will be emailing you when the decision document is ready and then I'll I'll give you instructions as to how to follow that excellent thank you have a good evening every have a good evening do you mind just put a pause and I'm going to ask for technical help to get the screens back up and running it's now the main computer take a 5 minute break for technology sake thank you e e e e for the continued operation of electric substation and the construction of a new control house and variance per section 19512 B2 or inadequate front yard setback of 40 ft for the new control house any other relief deemed necessary this property is located in the residential RB district and this is not National Grid but Mass Electric uh National Grid is sort of the doing business as okay okay we all set Mr chair I believe so if I can get your name address for the record absolutely uh so for the record my name is Joshua Lee Smith I'm an attorney with the law firm of bage and Dewey uh here today representing Massachusetts electric company which does business as National Grid um we've got a a brief slide deck that we'd like to run through just so we can show you uh with some photographs and plans um what the company is proposing to do I see the slide deck so uh Becky if you could Advance yep a couple of [Music] slides great so the the next three slides here are just photographs of the existing site I'm sure the members are familiar with the site this substation has been uh in operation for decades uh it's about 65 years um that this substation has been in operation again it's right off of conquered Road 15 conquered Road um Becky if you could advance to the next slide please and this is the street view from conquered Road uh looking from towards the substation on the Northerly and southernly side uh the substation itself contains pretty typical uh substation related equipment Transformers circuit breakers switches uh all secured and Becky if you Advance on the next one all secured uh by a a security fence which is currently today it's it's 7 ft plus 1T of Barb Wire um this is a front-facing view um and as you can see here sorry in this particular photo you can see that truck there uh this is an unmanned substation uh which means that usually uh there are not uh Personnel that come to the site but from time to time uh Personnel does come for testing inspections maintenance repair uh Etc uh next slide please so this is a uh an aerial depiction environmental resources map that shows uh another view of the site and on the right there just to get your bearings is conquered Road and then on the left uh in the sort of square shaped area is the substation itself uh it may be a little bit difficult to see but this the substation as I said it's it's enclosed with security fencing today the red uh rectangle on the lower portion of the area that's it right there that depicts where this new control enclosure equipment building is going to be located uh this is essentially you could think of it as a a glorified equipment shed uh this will en enclose uh various control equipment that's necessary for the operation of the substation the expansion area which is the primary part of this project is again right in that area where the red uh rectangle is uh the expansion is uh of the existing fence line so it's in the southernly portion running flush the same distance along the front uh along conquered Road uh consistent with the existing fence line that exists today along conquered Road and that expansion area is going to be about 624 Square ft in size uh the going back to that uh enclosure the equipment enclosure that that building is going to be approximately 3 24 uh I'm sorry 336 Square ft in size and as part of this expansion this modest expansion um there there will be Crush Stone uh that will be added in order to uh expand the yard the security fencing will be improved up to National Grids current safety standards and security standards which is 8 ft plus 1 foot of bar wire uh and will have uh tightly woven mesh uh for security reasons can you advance to the next slide please so this is a depiction of existing conditions of the site as you can see there are a couple of uh access points uh in order to get into the substation yard itself um the existing equipment here you could see uh running along from front to back uh and uh again where the expansion area is going to be located is in the southernly or in the bottom portion of this drawing here next slide please and this is this the site layout uh the engineer drawing that we submitted uh and again the uh expansion area is on that lower portion of that drawing uh next slide please here you can see uh we we've provided a couple sample photos of uh what what a typical enclosure equipment enclosure uh how how another ones at other sites how these generally appear um and again Circle there in red is the general area where this equipment enclosure is proposed to be located so a couple views of a a typical enclosure on this screen next slide please I'm sorry why don't we why don't we land back on that photo so uh we could stay right there just for the time being so again a lot of the uh the equipment here as I mentioned in the beginning the substation itself has been here for decades uh over time there have been some Replacements of equipment but this uh at this point National Grid did an assessment and they uh determined that a lot of the equipment here does need to be replaced a lot of it's aging uh and it need it this Improvement will obviously provide uh overall Improvement to the reliability for electric service for the for the town um Mr chair you had mentioned uh at the outset that this property itself in from a zoning perspective uh is located within the within the single residence RB Zone um and uh the relief that we're seeking tonight are in two forms one uh is with with respect to a variance the the minimum front yard setback requirement for this particular district is 40 feet uh the the control equipment control uh structure that we're proposing will be be uh 22 5 in from the property line um the reason for that is really pertains to the the substation yard itself although there's a proposed expansion it is relatively small uh there's not much room um in order to provide additional equipment there are clearance requirements with respect to the equipment um and as uh was depicted on that environmental resources map there are uh constraints with respect to soil conditions uh and topography so surrounding the site much of this property again which is about um about 2 acres in size uh does consist of uh jurisdictional wetlands and so th this project also is before your concom right now as well so they're reviewing that in terms of uh the Wetland jurisdiction and Order of conditions so the site is constrained uh relatively small and does have challenges with respect to the soil types surrounding so there's really limited areas in which uh where this um control uh building can be located uh the other form of relief is is in the nature of a special permit uh essential services use is permitted by Grant of a special permit in this particular zoning District uh so we are seeking that uh as well tonight um I'm sorry I do I should have announced this in the beginning I they're Representatives the the folks sitting here in the front are representatives of the company they're here to uh answer any questions that that the board or the public uh may have the last thing I do want to say is that this project is somewhat time sensitive uh we have uh met with with Jose as well as Evan balansky and other Town officials over the years this project was at one point um slated to to commence a few years back but then Co happened there was a delay and then there was actually another DeLay So it's it's sort of began and then been put on hold uh at various points but at this point the company is ready to go uh they are looking to commence work in August of so of 2024 uh and the total duration time approximate time for construction and energization of the improvements is about a year so we'll start in August uh in terms of commencing work and then uh hopefully uh get this energized up and running uh in about August of 2025 so with that we're happy to answer any questions the board or public may have thank you goad did you say that the fence is going to stay where it is in front of it uh the the location of the fence in relation to the front lot line which is basically the street right will remain in along that same plane so be closer to the street it will not be closer to the street it will be so the fence that exists today that runs parallel to the street the expansion portion of the fence will be that same distance to the street will this bring more power to the area available power I want to diff yeah come on Curtis Richards 905 Main Street dille Massachusetts the answer to that is it's more poers a tough term but uh more reliable power I think is what we're we're going for in this project again uh Josh mentioned that the the substation itself is a few decades old as things age they need repair replacement uh it was on one of the earlier slide decks but there is a a shed labeled that is what is the existing control house so with a larger space we can add more protection schemes more uh uh fail safes for the substation to provide or the reason one of the reasons I bring that up is more people are using home electric charges for their vehicles and so need power also I used to live very close to that on the back of my side of my property was on the power lines I was very close to that and if any place in chsw is going to lose power in a storm it was that section of town uh but I think it had more to do with all the trees running through all the power lines down there so um thank you you're welcome you you you said you're going to heighten the fence though I mean area wise it stays pretty much where it is but you're going to add a fo you're going to put up a new fence that's more effective uh about 280 linear feet of new fencing the height you're correct so the the existing fence height is 7 ft plus 1T of Barb Wire so a total of 8 ft in height uh National Grid standard as well as eversource and a lot of other public utility standards with respect to security fencing height is uh 8 ft plus 1 foot of Barb Wire so a total of nine ft okay thank you is there any choice as to the color of the building you showed two examples of buildings one I think was more white one was gray is there know any reason you choose one of the other the specified color I believe is coined uh Ash Gray is the color so I think it is on the lighter side of gray is what we've speced uh for the control house through our vendor I want rustic red we have the pm here she can jum with maroon would be okay too any further questions at this time I think uh none of us are really up to uh speed on what's required we're going to have to take you at at your word that this is the ideal place for it on the site I can see the restraints that you have uh it looks like you're you're minimally expanding the fence area to accommodate it uh obviously power is a is Public Safety uh as far as the variance goes maybe Jose can look and see uh as far as the three tenant go we can also approve a variance for safety is that correct in regards to the fence in regards to the project but if you know we want to have uh topography soil conditions lot shape but we can also approve it for safety would this fall under that category is public good or I mean you really can't not have electricity and you suddenly want it as reliable as possible so I'm just looking for uh a reason to approve it other than so the entire fence to is being replaced yeah correct okay I'm just curious and I don't think this would affect how I would decide something like this but you'd said this is primarily you know to replace aging equipment and it's going to be more reliable power um is it uh built in so that when if and when the time comes more power can I mean could can more equipment create more power then you don't have to replace this again is is it I guess designed for expansion is what I'm ask exact yeah absolutely uh most of the equipment that we're ordering these days is at a higher amperage rating just to handle that increased Lo down the future it's hard to say you know I'm sure there are others at National Guard looking into this but we're I mean that's the idea you mentioned earlier uh electric vehicles uh we're we're trying to get to that place as a company that we can provide enough uh demand or enough Supply to keep up with the demand that we're seeing so I I I can I can imagine you know if things weren't quite like that three-ish now you come back and say we need a bigger place because we didn't expect everybody was going to buy an elect car you know this kind of thing yeah so I would imagine you guys have looked at you know the projections are comfortable with I think the Chairman's right we have to trust to your your expertise on most of this if you're familiar with chelsford 9 I don't know the exact address but it's across from the one0 grill we just removed that because of some liab reliability issues uh and then it did a a distribution conversion just to get that just it all together yeah I did see that coming will the uh heavy duty part of the installation impinge traffic on conquered Road at all uh no we'll have plans in place uh this is a slated for in-house construction they'll put together uh uh health and safety traffic plans uh they'll work with local PD as needed just to make sure that we're not impeding that uh most there will be a crane that has to take uh to the control house is a prefab uh building gets shipped in on a truck Tru and they just pick it and set it on the foundation so I imagine during that activity we may have to take up at least one lane but we'll have you know local P giving us a hand with traffic control at that time and the area is such that a reroot would not be uh for a day if that was the case or two would not be you know too much of a problem they go Harvey Road or surround it all together quite easily I would think any further question from the board at this time you mentioned safety what is is that in the yeah it's it is um I don't uh have it do you are you familiar with the safety aspect of the uh variants I don't recall at this moment but we can look into it we we uh used it before and it made sense we can also take into account the wetlands being a constraint on the property size the lot size isn't going to change the wetlands aren't going to move the lot size is what it is and they have to fit as much equipment in there as possible so exactly yeah yeah if I if I may Mr chair the um as was discussed the uh significant constraint pertains to the sensitive environmental uh soils conditions uh that surround the property uh with respect to safety we did include a footnote to um a case that raises safety in connection with the grant of a variance and uh we indicated that where a variance diminishes risk of existing harm or prevents greater risk of harm that would result from compliance with the with the zoning ordinance such hardship May Merit a variance so I is what I think I was referring to I'm trying to find it but I don't have it any long a 2016 case thank you so you're correct Mr chair hang AE on we have some letters from the uh Chums and fire department dear members of the board regard to the pros renovation of the electrical substation at 15 ConEd Road the fire prevention office provides the following comments this office has no objection to this project the mass electric company and the National Grid us have been valued Partners in the Chelson fire department Chelson fire department has found their employees to be competent throughout the many and regular interactions with members of the National Grid staff fire prevention office requests the applicant provide a NFPA 241 construction site safety plan as part of the building permit process we also request a pre-project safety meeting to be held on site so that the fire prevention person can familiarize themselves with the project the applicant can reach out directly to the fire prevention office to schedule this meeting the fire prevention office would recommend approval of this proposal with these conditions and would respectfully request that this letter be made part of the perming and approval process respectfully Danielle caus Captain Chelson fire department I have a letter from Sheila Joyce project engineer this offic has reviewed the project application as plans and documents submitted to the DPW on May 9th 2024 for the following public hearing on May 16th 2024 15 ConEd Road massachus electric company requesting a special permit under the zoning bylaw section 1955 use regulations for essential Services the continued operation of electric substation and the construction of a new control house and variance per section 19512 B2 for inadequate front yard set book of 40 ft for the new control house and any other relief deemed necessary this property is located in the RB District after review of this house the following comments the dpaw has no comments residing the zba filing a lot of letter for a little again um this is from Jose Negron he already been denied so we know that town engineer has no concerns the police Department have no concerns the water district has no concerns and that's just a cover letter those are the extent of the letters I have tonight I'm going to open it up to public comment if someone likees to speak in favor or opposition to this application now is the time seeing none are we ready to close the public hearing I'll make a motion to close the public hearing Peter made a motion second by Glenn all in favor opposed none I guess my opinion is it's probably something we need I know we don't have the technical support to uh make an independent decision but I want to turn my lights on so I I just I know I I can understand that you guys have put a good amount of work and time into seeing that it goes in the best place practical uh the fence itself is not going to change that's really been the demarcation of the property for 65 years apparently so we have my support anyone care to make an Motion in the affirmative find it questions from anybody or or if there are more questions feel free that's the question um so we just have we have to make two separate motions one for the variance and one for the special permit that is correct and the hardship is lot size uh I think it would be safety safety soils Andy or soils Wetlands oh okay it is Wetlands yeah it's the Wetland so you have soils on there as being a major factor of limitation they within River Front zones you only need one right yeah you you need the one it's an essential service and safety I'll make a motion to approve the special permit under zoning bylaw section 1955-5 uh for the 15 conquered Road uh electric substation construction of a new control house um at the electric substation second second by Char all in favor I special permit passes okay I look for a motion for the variance you're so good at it Steve i' like to make a motion to approve the the variance per section to B2 for an adequate front yard setback of actually the no I'm sorry yes variance sorry head it backward inadequate front yard setback of 40 ft for the new control house um any other relief deemed necessary with respect to the letters read into the record which right that first one for 15 conquered road for the new control house the power substation second that second by all in favor I unanimous thank you very much bring on the power I'll follow up with an email once the decision's filed with the town clerk excellent thank you you're welcome thank you members thank [Music] you got best so just as a is Contin we opened and continue with no discussion last month so it is continued it right it was open because it was posted for last month right we opened it without uh discussion without testimony of testimony so we have a continued public hearing 43 Bartlet Street Elizabeth grel trustee requesting a variance on the zoning bylaw section 195 561 to allow the continuation of a pre-existing detached limited accessory apartment I'm just rereading this because we opened it last month but took no testimony the detached main dwelling and any other relief deemed necessary this property is located in the residential RB District good evening good evening for your record Douglas hler of Lampert hler and robman with offices at 10 North Road in chelsford um we have just sent because there was some confusion between the applicant and myself about getting some information over to Becky there was a uh certified plot plan that we just sent over by email to Becky and I don't know if she can bring that up or not couple minutes I do have um what the what we consider the hard a hard copy of of what that is um I'll I'll see if she can bring that up but I'll describe it in the interim you asked for some type of a certification about um the dimensions of the property and there was a concern about the garage being an encroachment onto the Private Road King King Road or King Street excuse me it's a paper street so this is what you'll see up on the screen hopefully is a 1991 plot plan for this property that was uh certified by a registered land surveyor and it lists all of the dimensions of the property which is what your requirements are uh that's not the one we sent over I just have the locus up oh I'm sorry Becky that's okay I just need another minute yeah that no that's fine and then as that's going on I just wanted to remind you so that your your issues were you needed something to be as a survey so we've now provided that um I'll note that the survey itself specifically identifies that the garage was an encroachment onto the paper street so it's no secret to anyone including anybody who would have a right to claim a right title or interest in the paper Street the our my client has used this property exclusively host and as a hostile meaning to itself uh no other person's challenged it it's clearly out there it's notorious it's been open and it's been continuous um for more than now 30 three years I think it goes even beyond that but we hit adverse possession and then some so I I don't think we have an issue with respect to uh the fact that the garage is there um I will also note that when the sewer lines were being put in and and the town has been aware of all of this all along but one of the pieces of documents that we found in the town Records Was an ASB built drawing by the DPW sewer division uh in May 18th of 09 so 15 years ago almost to the day um that was built and accepted by the dpd DPW sewer Division and it specifically identifies the garage as an in-law apartment so the town has been aware of the use of this property the latest is 09 and there were things even earlier than that I think with the sewer department when they were putting in the main line along that road and there were other documents from other departments that were clearly aware of the fact that this garage this exact location this exact structure was being used as an in-law apartment so I I respectfully suggest that while the building inspector said there was no permit ever taken out that is true for the use of the building but the fact is the town has known about it for at least 15 years and more and I think it would it would qualify status for grandfathering under that because we would be able to show that in fact the town was clearly aware of it most importantly I know that all of the town was aware of it because it was assessed separately as an in-law apartment and the town's been collecting taxes on that property for 30 plus years as a separate property almost so there's no argument the town knew what the use was there's no argument about where it was located there's no question about the encroachment issue because it's it's going to be adverse possession to the extent anybody wants to challenge and I might add now we've been before your board on this hearing several times and there hasn't been to my knowledge other than one person a single of butter complaining about any of this much less the structure so they certainly were given uh certified mail notices so someone felt that this was their property and that we were encroaching they would come in they'd oppose it there is there is not going to be that we we've talked to the neighbors with the exception of one neighbor that we aware of who's appeared before you before we are otherwise everybody's satisfied in the prior hearings I described why this does not affect anybody's uh property in that in that I'll call District or that that portion of the town is because it's so well hidden the Landscaping is there um was completely mature and surrounding it we've also provided you with the soil testing that was done uh and witnessed by a professional engineer uh Katie Enright and she identified the fact that they hit ledge very early on and that there is was no other likely place to construct some new structure um to serve as an in-law apartment so they took advantage of the extra sized garage and converted that so for all those reasons I think you can grant the variance we've identified the hardships you had one concern and I understand it very clearly is it's not attached um that's true no arguments somebody raised the question about well this could become a precedent setting thing that's not true there is no basis for this to be applied as a precedent to any other application that comes before you this was because first of all the facts would be completely different we have 30 plus years of the town now taxing it as a separate in-law apartment I don't think you're going to find that this was an ASB built apartment for 30 years so we're coming on in under a variant standard on a bylaw that in effect doesn't really apply to this situation because the bylaw implies a new structure so I understand your criteria but they're just not applicable and I think you have the right we've met all the other criteria to make a decision that uh this allows the board to vote in the use and allow them to continue using this as an in-law apartment and I uh think I'm going to quote the chairman Loosely because he just said with you know Mass Electric you got to kind of be practical about this that's exactly what this is It's a practicality we're not looking for anything we're not sneaking around doing something improper it's 30 years of well-known use so I ask you to use your discretion and and I'll Grant the variance I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have there was discussion one time about putting a uh a covered walkway that's gone that's gone doesn't make sense it would be a 40 plus foot long walkway right that's not going to happen that would look like to be honest with you like the the area going from the the White House to The West Wing yeah doesn't make sense no one's going to see it it's so hidden it's so far back no I was just no I thought I thought you were going forward with that and I didn't see it any no we looked at we said it's just the distance it's it has no practical effect other than compliance with the strict language of the bylaw which in this case really doesn't apply gotcha that's but otherwise I would I would say if it was a new structure I would agree with you Jose do you feel that there's some uh Merit to the grandfathering of a 30-year-old in law well I have no power enforce uh I'm sorry enforcement power for any structure that is uh uh 10 years in uh without build without building permit in N uh zoning enforcement power uh after uh six years so the question here is really the use not the structure itself the use but with respect may I follow up with that Mr chairman certainly I I think Jose is correct about another thing implied there what we've been talking about is the structure that's been the big hangup for most of the people is it's not physically connected that's a structural issue it's not a use issue and as he's saying structure isn't what's before you it's use only makes it a little easier for you to Grant the variant good Ahad you know I um I want to congratulate attorney Hower he seems to have taken a lot of the issues off the T table and presented logical agreements for it but the one that's still remains is that it's not attached and the town bylaws clearly state that adus must be attached you know I was at a town meeting recently and I was talking to someone who was there who's moving out of town because they would stay in town if they if they could build an Adu that was detached and they're moving out because of that reason because it has to be attached and they they needed it detached for whatever reason so so that's really the correct of the problem do I agree that for all practical purposes and being a um reasonable person that it seems to be warranted to be acceptable the rules are the rules period someone can make an argument against why we should ignore the rule I can I think I did with respect uh the other person that whoever you spoke with at town meeting this board can consider a variance if they were warranted so I don't know if they've ever investigated it but that's up to that person my client has asked for the variance my client as confirmed by the building inspector it the structure which would is what is being talked about here the structure of the rule isn't what's at issue here the structure is grandfathered Jose has said that time and time again he's put it in writing so I understand your concern uh Glenn but I'm just saying that isn't the issue before you it's now the use and only the use not the structure seems to me the whole purpose of this board is to look at things like this that may not uh be coetic with the with the bylaws that's what a variance is you know that's the whole point that's why we're here I mean uh like you said this structure is he answered it you know it has been there unless you have any other questions I'll sit down I think we're good for the moment and you can see that I know this is cut off but if you if you oh you can see it over here it's been cut off but that is registered land surveyor stamp um and it clearly shows all the Dimensions including the fact that it's a the garage is wood and it's in the street and even says that so knowledge about this is this is as well known as where the town common is there's no secrets who had access to that road do you know does anyone know what that road is or what it was it's a paper Street a paper Street that's all it is so nobody owns it nobody has any I'm sure somebody owns it okay but it's never been used at least especially in that area I believe that a portion of it was used towards what's the main drag uh not High Street um maybe High Street oh curs out King Street actually exists on yes there are two houses that are like almost on the Frontage of of High Street that use that portion of King Street I have to imagine this loops around it loops around yeah I just need to swap computers again I can pull the for you in your drawing okay thank yeah let's go back to the agenda no it's just part okay all right thank you and and one of the questions that came up last time too is the fact that it encroaches does not have any that that's not within the jurisdiction of the board that would be a legal argument by the other land owner who would have a right to appeal it who was aware of this because we gave notice to everybody thank you very much though I appreciate it unless there are questions no further questions at this time guess we'll open this up to anyone who like to speak in favor or opposition to this application just a they might say something oh feel free no no no the letters might say something yeah yeah not me never know sorry you always have a lot of wisdom with regard to 43 Bartlett Street the fire prevention office finds the following request for house numbers must be submitted to the e911 committee through the town clerk's office in order to distinguish the two dwelling units for emergency responders the applicant must install additional mailbox or house numbers identifying the two separate residences the LA must meet code requirements for smoke carbon monoxide alarm placement based on the year of initial con construction or significant alterations this office would approve of this plan with these conditions and I asked the board to make this letter part of their approval process sincerely Ryan H Captain fire prevention office we have a letter from the town engineer citing no concerns have a cover letter have a letter from the water district some Center water district has no concerns with the proposed limited accessory apartment however if there's a change of use the property will be subject to initial Bond debt fee and infrastructure fee typically associated with two family dwellings Jose's denial letter which we have and the police have no concerns and that is the extent of the letters now I'll open it up to comment in favor or against seeing none could I get a motion to close the public hearing if there are no more questions of the applicant you think we've asked enough questions so we can close it Brian I don't have questions CH do you have some questions yeah wait I have one question for Jose um Jose like if we put a 40 foot walkway between the two buildings that really has nothing to do with the ledge does it say that again the ledge that's found yeah um that has nothing to do with a 40ft walkway correct well if it's not fible I mean how are you going to how is that going to be accomplished if the if the structure Camp I mean their their claim is that it's it's not feasible to do the walkway the corer to connect the two structures so but can you just pin the foundation onto the ledge again it's going to be if it's going to create a financial burden to the applicant okay it's still not it's not fible to accomplish that task that sounds kind of strange anything you build is going to create a financial burden to the applicant so but I think under the bylaw I think that's one of the uh conditions that any decision made is shouldn't create a a a a financial burden to the to the applicant so it should be taken into consideration would attaching it uh would that be accomplished by only a covered structure or just a deck of like a walkway H I mean I guess that would attach attach you know through a briway cover structure that's the most logical you can you would you would consider it to be uh acceptable it would be covered it's got to be it's got to be part of the structure yes to an open deck would not be suitable to follow the definition of the lla uh per the bylaws it's got to be attached with a cover roof okay all right that's so that's what we're considering I mean you're really considering lla and what we're requiring in that lla but I think that boils down to our decision is this La acceptable without being connected which obviously there's some concern about right I think that's really the the the the the question that we need to answer is uh is it acceptable as it is or not and then if it's not how can it be connected but that's not really Our concern that would be what it would need to be to be compliant okay the Varian as a reminder we have two open hearings for this one property um the variance which is how we just reopened it the variance voting and then the laa voting so you have to actually vote on both for the variance whether you approve the variance and whether you approve the special permit for the existing detached La what will be the basis for the variant uh according to what they submitted it was soils because of the Bedrock so so the special permit would be specifically that it's not attached we're waving non-attachment would that be correct no that's with all due respect that's not it's the use the variance is that it's it's not attached but as you've heard tonight and and it's still being confused and Jose said it exactly right it's a that's a structural issue and and and he just said the structure isn't what's at issue what's at issue is only the use so just to make this board satisfied what do you gain with the special permit if special permit is to allow the use absolutely that we can do we asked for the variance because this board wanted us to ask for a variance because it wasn't physically connected and I'm saying I don't think that was probably necessary but we've satisfied it anyway because the structure has been in existence number one the soils are number two we can go on I I wrote a you know five-page letter about this I think all that's I think it's all laid out there the standards for variant have been satisfied to make this simple for someone like me me too maybe you really don't need a variance at all what you need is the L laa that's my view of it but the board asked me to put in for variance remember no I remember that so I did I wasn't trying to pick a fight I'm not fighting with you but yeah it's the use you want to clarify that's what we we want the use clarify support yeah so if you vote the variance it's just because it isn't connected that's fine I mean that's it's kind of a fat play well it it seems that everything's been satisfied except for one issue that it's not attached and that specifically has to be mentioned as either variance or the special why we're saying that gets a special commit or why it gets a variance and that's the only reason we care about he seems to have presented that it meets everything else it does I I think what are you saying that the both of them need to be voted on because special permit is for the use and the variance is just for the reason that it's not attached correct according to the board yes so we need to vote on both of them you need to vote on both because the board wanted it separate but there's no there's no new construction involved here so why are we even talking about a VAR except that we requested it because I didn't want to have it if the board denies it the variance my argument in court I could tell you right away is going to be the variance application never needed to be filed we did it because the board asked us to mhm and I'll go through the same arguments with the judge and I think I'm going to my view is the law is going to say the variance can be granted under these circumstances and that we satisfied the criteria but if I have to argue in court I'm going to say this whole variance application was unnecessary I did it to accommodate questions from the board I was trying to be polite and answer questions and I don't want it to come back I don't want it to come back and bite me if if that's the case you don't want a a variance and we would only be doing a special permit and it always it would simply be based on waving the town's bylaw that it has to be attached detached attached rather but we can't wave a bylaw without a variance we can't wave it on the special parent so we still need two is that right if you if you grant it then it's a nonissue the last time Mr hler was here I if I recall correctly I think the boore asked Mr hler to apply for a variance to keep the no modification between the structure and the house to address that to address that which he did and to apply for a special permit for the use which we did both in front of us right now right um so at this time I think it's a matter of either approving the special permit because the structure is grandfathering there is you know it's nothing we can do about that uh so or deny the special permit one of the two do we do we need Paul to weigh in on this again I think when he weighed in is why we asked for the variance but I think again he's I mean that was his opinion when he come back and ask for the Vari we we can continue yet again we can't send these people man with respect if the board is inclined to Grant the variance if that's what the members are gearing towards then it becomes a non-issue you just you grant if you grant one you're going to Grant the other the variance was of the harder standard we've satisfied it so the special permit respectfully is a is a no-brainer so if you approve both it's a nonissue that's all I'm saying may I make a motion clear as mud uh we going to open this up for public comment and we're good we're good okay we've taking a lot of testimony from Doug so thank you that was probably a stretch do do you want to treat the special permanent separate and close this to do you want to blend them and take public input for the special compon my motion was going to be to combine the two take separate votes you'd rather we need we need separate votes but in terms of public input gotcha you can opt to combine the two all right so let's focus on the variance for 43 Bartlet and we have not closed the public hearing for 43 Bartlet special permit that make sense mhm y okay did we open the special permit uh I only read in that continued public hearing is the variance okay we're technically not discussing okay the special permit with this testimony someone makes a phone call there's not a lot of people here to for public discussion so dealing with the variance now did you want to make a motion well my motion was going to be to combine the two but you'd say we can't I think I think the attorney is comfortable not so they are separate applications so we'll just we're dealing with the variance now and I would make a motion to uh Grant the variance uh for zoning bylaw to close first my my apologies okay yep what will be the basis of the variance well should we close it and then discuss it is that the board can discuss after closing we just can't take any more input no more testimony I make a motion to close public uh discussion Steve seconds all fav favor it's F I make a motion but I can't vote on it that's all right you can do that but you look good a motion now you can deliberate what would be the basis of the variance when it's written up what will we Grant the variance to allow them to allow it to proceed I guess the it would be written up as soil conditions the reason that they haven't connected or couldn't put it where it was next to the house was the soil conditions the existence of ledge so that would be still in effect I mean but was that ever looked at I mean it was a garage that was converted into right so it was there it was in existence on on the lot and then they converted that third Bay into an apartment correct so there were no soil conditions considered there because they just converted what was existing we don't we don't know well the soil conditions were s ified enough to install that Foundation there right is is the argument that farther down the ledge could have been removed in some way or fashion but we had an engineer ktie enrite speak to that and she said no it was ledge MH uh the idea of removing the ledge was um prohibitive to the existing Foundation was I think her testimony yeah part of the part of her part of her argument was they they wanted to attach it to the house but they couldn't yes so it's all there is to it yeah the you know I mean she's really testifying that the ledge is there she's whatever whatever is sort of whatever call building issues yeah one could say that they dug down 35 years ago and saw the ledge and said oh no we got to move this garage 40t to the left so that could have been the reason why they didn't attach it in the first place but yeah and as said it's been there a long time and it's been taxed as a residence so you know the is fully aware that it's there I think to go back to Glenn's question I think it's going to say the variance is allowing it not to be attached I think that's the that's what has to be there right right that's a tough one and in in your memory have we ever granted such a a variance before for non-attachment no I I don't believe so I don't think this has ever been before the board um but it I mean it's fairly unique in that it's existed for an an objective 35 years the building so it just hasn't you know it's a very unusual event yeah yeah set a precedent well it wouldn't really set a not held to precedence on on decisions like these cuz every law is considered individually I know but I can tell you that if I was the next door neighbor and I had the same thought you could come and you're going to say to the board well you did it for him and it's it's powerful well the next door neighbor I mean we don't know what can happen in the future and we can't speculate but if the next door neighbor said well you got your varant you know so I'm going to build something so many feet away from the house but that would be new construction it's a whole different story it's it's really almost impossible to replicate here because of 35 years of existence think I stepped on someone's conversation here sorry no and that was that was kind of what I was going to go into it's like the use the variance is giving is allowing that not to be attached and the big portion about this is that it's been there for 35 years it's it's a unique situation and that's where variances are really used for so we're not really setting a precedent I I agree and and to repeat myself we're not held to any variance because every law every decision is individual based on the specifics of that land so one does not necessarily apply to the other though it certainly has been approached that way when others said oh you got it so you know that's a common event so someone feel like making a motion in the affirmative if we are through discussing has everybody everybody that's here now has has heard all the different uh uh presentations for 43 Barlett does what does it matter so right now the vote is for the variance right only and so this is this is the first time we're hearing testimony for the variant so it opened last month but we took no testimony so the five that are here tonight can can vote on that I'm just checking yeah Glenn is the alternate voting member tonight yes he is Steve briyan Charlie Peter and Glen someone like to make a motion I would like to make a motion to approve the variance under zoning bylaw 1956. um to allow The Limited accessory apartment at 43 Bartlet Street to be detected matched from the main dwelling and any other relief deemed necessary with respect to any letters that were right into the record and this is just the variance oh second second second by Charlie all in favor have three we need a super majority Ryan Steven and Glenn Ryan Steven and Glenn so we we do not have uh call out the opposed not and the opposed would be opposed Peter and Peter and Char the motion does not pass um 43 Bartlett Street Elizabeth Gabrielle requesting an administrative appeal for the building commission's determination letter and a special permit under Section 195 6.1 for pre-existing detached limited accessory apartment lla and other relief deemed necessary this property is located in the residential RB district and this is the special permit which we can take testimony on but I think that the variance is uh can it making a move Mr Mr chairman why don't we uh withdraw that application for the time being the special permit the special permit um withraw a special permit I before you take any kind of votes or testimony um I have to say I'm a little more than surprised like shocked at the votes for against because I don't recall hearing any particular Reasons by the two members that voted against it of the reasons why they would vote against it or questions about why they would vote against it I I think that's a significant problem for the town and I if I Maybe I'm Wrong the record will speak for itself but if we're not aware there's a negative from either of them I can't address what their issues are I don't know I'm not Clairvoyant and the members that asked questions voted affirmatively I just suggest that it be there may be a need for a motion for reconsideration to avoid litigation that's my only suggestion sir I think the board stands behind its vote okay it wasn't uh rushed certainly we debated it well y so I would like to get a motion to withdraw 43 Bartlet Street for the special permit 195 6.1 I'll make a motion to withdraw the special permit under Section 19561 for pre-existing detached limited accessory apartment at 4 three bartler street without prejudice by Steven St second second by Charlie all in favor all all right unanimous thank you thank and we're going to have a little discussion of the Adu laa maybe Glenn has some uh new information it's been a busy month for it okay so I'm meeting with David hson Monday morning to get some history in some numbers concerning the town's stock of um senior housing you get some basis for where things are what kind of lead times there are it's expected to be in the years to get into senior housing we have um the town had voted at town meeting to go forward with the MBTA zoning uh they picked two locations uh for that however when they submitted initially to the state the state came back with some questions or some things they felt they didn't like about it and those things are in discussion but one predominantly was that the area if you decide that you want this area to be the MBTA housing there can be no age uh specification while the town is counting on the west campus there are I think 54 units that are supposed to be for seniors only that area is designated as an MBTA area and the state is saying there can be no age restrictions on the MBTA areas so it's up in the air as to what's going to happen over there so the stock of prescribed senior housing that's was supposed to be there is UN is unclear whether it's can be senior housing because now it's part of the MBTA it's going back to them officially the town voted on it but what comes back they may still say no this is not acceptable because you have in this area you have an age discrimination uh of uh these 54 units so zero age discrimination for any unit property for the NBTA areas that are selected for the MBTA nor is it uh I'm sorry GL go ahead nor is it U low income the the law implies low income because they're saying that needs to be close to uh MBTA for people that don't have transportation but that there's no requirement that it be low income so there's no age restriction there's no income restriction and the town when they made their presentation in terms of the uh uh planning board uh Mr Lal made the presentation for the planning board it was clearly stated that these areas were picked because no one basically no one in his right mind is going to try to build in there because it would be cost prohibitive to do so um and even if they did they if the MBTA goes forward and says there can be no age discrimination there is no housing for uh specific housing for seniors in that area no funding that come no nothing they cannot be done period so that's a a big question out there um the uh boards have basically picked their offices uh for the coming year uh for the chairman Dedra was picked again to uh be at the planning board D con I'm sorry D con yes and so I'm reaching out to her to sit down and talk about it uh you have the Council of Aging that's the um Fred bro uh so you know I'm going out there but it really starts with David who's the one who really knows where we are because if we don't know where we are or how bad we are then there's really no argument for anything um and again I say everyone feels we're bad no one's saying we're in good shape as far as senior housing uh but Dave was the one who really knows and how difficult it is to put together any senior housing and I had pointed out I made a present I spoke at town meeting and I pointed out the fact that when the west campus was approved the thing that kind of put it over the top was when they talked about how in this whole project of roughly 450 uh Apartments uh the developer had given David hederson uh the rights to develop this one piece of it where there were 54 units to be built by him his group uh that would be senior housing and that pushed it over the top the fact that it was going to be senior housing so he senior housing has a big card play it's it's a heavy duty card when you're playing cards but it's still totally up in the air and I still feel and I'll be meeting with all these committees that we need to have a special committee to to talk about this whole thing it sounds like the certification by the mvta would be up in the air but the project itself is going to continue in the same manner but this age restriction nobody knows how the state the state could say you know you pick this area but you have age restriction in this area so we don't want this area they may say they don't they don't accept that area correct that could very well happen but that wouldn't affect the project per se mean the existing project so unless unless un well there's contract signed already you know to go forward but you know if this were If This Were any kind of discussion behind closed doors the MBTA may say you know if you give us this one we'll give you that one we'll approve your whole area which we really don't like it for a number of reasons but you got to get rid of this age restriction because we can't have an age restriction here and have no age restrictions anyone else because we're setting a precedent and now other towns are going to be looking for the same thing that that um they don't want to have that in there at all so it's all up in the air here but I think the mvta approval is up in the air and compliance with the law but the Project's moving ahead there's no there's no no no the project is the project is moving ahead um but they could say to the town you're not in compliance we don't like we don't like the area you pick for this reason so pick a different area and and that may be the burden the town has it just nobody knows correct correct the way was kind of left was that it's in discuss is for all and they're federally a lot federally funded so when there's no age restriction that's that's pretty critical but if they they come back to the town and say what you picked is unacceptable because of anything but because of the age restriction then the town has to scramble and find someplace else but there there are other opportunities you know there's there's things happening well not according to what was presented they picked these areas for specific reason that they could not be redeveloped I I understand that were somewhat clever about it I think but maybe that's you know something that needs to be addressed well we've done paper overlays before with this like like with the adult entertainment 25 years ago right right you know but um five I think that was 20 years ago that was a long time ago Sur somewhere up in the middle of nowhere that I think was finally decided I believe but the uh so anyway it's got a long it's got a long way to go still um but part of it is figuring out what we have uh getting an honest assessment of what we'll have and what we can expect over over the coming 10 years really and addressing issues like we had tonight it's detached it's not detached does it really have to be attached that's for well I mean you know uh majority thought it did not but we need a super majority to pass a variant so that's why we have a board I mean that's why there's a board of seven and rules change you know the by Town bylaws change over period of time and we have periodic reviews of them for things that come up that people didn't think about are changes in the world or whatever the case may be and um that's why you know we'll find out if there's support for a separate committee to St study all these things right so still got a ways to go what to discuss huh I think I think that's fine and you know what Jose I'll pop it in the morning Y no problem take care guys have a good night Jose good night Jose and just just a really just to kind of point out the fact that when I asked when I brought up the point before that it was uh 836 feet yes sir that was added onto this house that's basically the square footage of an AG you in the town and that's why I brought it up no one I think it would be hardpressed to find anyone against a neighbor who wanted to enlarge their house by 832 Square ft but if at the same time they said they wanted to build a Adu of 832 Square ft you might get a different argument right and that's the only reason I brought that up no it's good it's a good comparison I mean so I think if he had gotten the variance or he had applied for the variance a year or two later I don't think he would have gotten that one it doesn't seem that uh the board is is very you know willing to give up variances so but having it and saying I'm not going to further encroach right I thought it was a reasonable request um you know I I think if we could get David to sit down with us too at some point and attend a meeting and we could try to get a feel for what you know what he feels housing has got going how does this affect the zba other than just future knowledge background that kind of thing I'm just wondering how how this information that Glenn brings from the town meeting how it affects the uh the board of appeals other than background and and you know where the licensing Authority for uh in-law apartments I mean that's what one of the bigger things we do no I'm talking about how how the MBTA quarter for for board of appeals it does not yeah it does not so so the planning board decided where the zones are going where where they're going to be reson well not not the planning board town meeting decides town meeting tell me decides on everything yeah I came today you might want to just glance at it it uh it's pretty promising okay what is it an application for a 40b oh on riverneck road oh the one that they the one that was going to be the Amazon if you would distribution center and they're coming in of us that's not that house turn the porn on anyway watching I thought it was the house it's going to be no so that's another set this is 129 R oh was it that is it that big lot that's up on the right hand side as you're going up if you go actually down Apollo Drive yeah there's two large buildings at the very end of aollo drive before you turn oh yeah and a large parking lot with a road that runs out for the emergency access yeah yeah that property was purchased they attempted to put a warehouse there Mercury yeah you are you talking the Old Mercury computer Mercury yeah okay so uh that was their attempt to put it and there was a lot of and so now they've approached it from a 40b standpoint oh that's good maybe yeah we'll have to see what the plans show it's pretty big you can build a warehouse under 40b I don't think so be 40c the workers are going to fill it fill the packages they going to live there they're they're they they are doing a lot of work on the old um Mercury buildings there's workers down there all the time improving subti they're doing occupied at this time I don't know I they're going tenants are in there or how many people are part of the tenants but I don't if they're going to rent it out as Light Industry or or what but they're certainly not building a warehouse no they're not the town the pl will wi against that totally that would yeah that's not going to happen so the next approach is a 40b we'll see okay so that'll be coming before us and we'll we'll debate it as as the merits are those are always quick and easy yeah that's what I heard yeah uh we have minutes um can I give a slight update on um AI number two there just to give the board an update and actually this this love to ties into future longer zoning board of appeals meeting so uh one of the things that I just wanted to let the board know um that moving forward and you may start noticing when I submit draft uh minutes uh more recently I haven't had the need to to really use it for this board yet but as we move into longer uh meetings particularly knowing that there's a few 40 BS in the pipeline coming at us we now have um access to an AI software program artificial intelligence to help us take meeting minutes um this wasn't so much an issue with this board but I was very far behind with the planning board's meeting minutes since their meetings for the past year or so have averaged three to four and a half hours long and they've had up to four meetings a month wow so my backlog was significant and um the town manager agreed to um go ahead and and at some funding to purchase the software and see and really we were in the beta phase the company itself um the company has been working on the state level uh with the state house for many years but in terms of municipalities producing meeting minutes at the municipal level it's still in the beta phase so uh we've been a part of that and we've been using it in the last actually a few weeks ago um the last planning board um meeting I was able to submit five five um sets of minutes using that so it has significantly cut back on some of the time for me because it does give me it it's producing for me a transcript that I can actually go in and click at that moment in the in the transcript and bring me to that moment in the video um I still have to go in and watch it the Motions are not being picked up that's actually why I sent that that um email I wasn't it wasn't it wasn't oh my God I hope not everyone thought that um all right so won't Sidetrack but I'll get to the email so one of the things um is that the software doesn't pick up on everything so I'm still going in and I'm confirming every motion that's being made I'm confirming who's making statements if it's actually in the summary stating because it times it's actually picking up on the wrong individuals so I'm I'm going through and just confirming that at least the motions and the content looks okay um planning board meetings tend to be very lengthy and Technical and so my minutes were also very lengthy and so it would take days sometimes to produce a set um they may not be as technical moving forward but the summary itself so far what we've been getting is is on point so we're using that so as we move into our lengthier meetings in the future you may see that some of the meeting minutes may look a little bit different but I don't think you'll really notice a difference I think the summaries we've been getting recently uh now that they've tweaked their software programming a bit are actually really good and um so it's a time saer for me but I just want to let you know that that's happening because you may have heard it be brought up at planning board meetings if you're listening in because they've mentioned it already at their meetings um so I just wanted to give everyone the heads up I know that those kinds of um things are Niche products and but they do work my wife has a recorder that she brings to meetings and brings it home attaches to the computer it takes converts that discussion into typed pages and also will recap in a more simple form what everybody had to say you have to watch it but it's very very good and saves enormous amount of time yes it does as well as on the select board we would be three or four meetings behind it it because you have a lot of me long meetings and it's not a easy process by the historic way doing it mhm Y no more yellow pants right I object I need all my meetings to be handwritten they're not they're not I mean I take small notes but I would still even for these meetings I tend to go back and just review the video coverage at times to get details such as today was a perfect example so I had technical problems and I was trying to get the computer to work I didn't hear a word of what the first applicant was saying I can't summarize that I didn't hear a word of it but now I can go to the video coverage which is what I always do and I'll just relisten and I I mean I have I know the summary cuz I've accepted the application I've reviewed it I can give a summary of what the applicant was proposing obviously but if there were particular questions that I want to highlight things that need to be highlighted are being put into the actual decision document which is particularly the case not just with the special permits but with variances I really write to the te which is why I've said before too um and attorney H touched upon that a little bit if there are any reasons why someone is is lean opposed to something it's really important to you're not mandated to but it's important to because I write that into the decision and that gives our decisions legal make your obje formulate them so that we have in a way that say I cannot approve waving this requirement so that we actually have legal findings for why something was voted the way it was well isn't that go right back to the president what our bylaws say though I mean that's how I you know I know I can't discuss anything tonight the response in general right I mean so if your bylaws written a certain way and a board member votes so I'll be writing it with the findings of what was discussed and what the motion was based on right but within within um the decision document I'll forward a few I I should forward a few of them um because not all the board members see the final decision I can forward you a few so you get an idea of of what it is what I'm doing behind the scenes when I'm typing them up and drafting them up um because we we state the facts are we State what the findings are during the hearing right um and then in terms of the motion the motion is detailed if there are conditions to whatever motion you've made those are all detailed right so um so those are the important things that I still have to go in and and get detailed even with the AI helping me AI is not picking up on all of that so it's still you know mull request where if you missed a meeting you go in and see that same tape y get off at what best you can um and then kind of as a Sidetrack to that um I did send out an email to both boards today and it it was not a finger shaking at all I didn't mean it for it to be such it was just a reminder so she says it was a reminder and and more so um and because of the lengthier meetings um more so with the planning board there are times where just the camera zoom I can't tell who's raising their hand I can't tell a voice usually I can recognize the voices but sometimes the audio is lower person's mic didn't pick up because someone else was talking over them and so I'm hearing the sidebar conversation but I can't hear some of the actual that was a mention to try to yeah so that was over speak Brian I I no your mic is about as far away from you as you can get it so it was just it was just to put it out there so everyone's more aware of that um just because that is a challenge sometimes in getting things on the minutes so um for what it's worth it was not I didn't it wasn't like Bringing Down the Hatch it on on everyone it wasn't um but part of the reason why I mentioned the motions and uh making sure that it's also well heard by everyone is that both for the public and and for the minutes but also apparently I found out during this this whole process of going through the uh meeting minutes and how we're changing them that it actually is protocol that all chairs should be actually stating who made a motion and for those reasons make that Happ so that's why I brought it up okay but it will be helpful for me I I very much like it I think Glenn has started the yeah could just just hold up your hand or catch my eye and we'll let the person that's speaking finish and then go to the next one so that we don't uh we don't find ourselves too much over speaking Yeah that you used to go into the and it's usually not an issue I will say I'm learing I got that whole side over there now I'm ganging up too so I got to got to pay attention I apologize if it's sounded harsh I didn't mean for it to sound harsh no AR a few of the words you call me well they heard but no they they were not I'm just can I go underneath other we have other there yeah I always put that in there in case someone well the other is like um you just mentioned a good thing like when when a motion is is said that you you know reiterate the motion so therefore in my mind I don't think the chair should make a motion so the chair is allowed to make a motion I have that right uh it was in the town code of conduct book it wasn't a town code con it absolutely was I'll bring it in and show it to you I did read that oh so that's where I glean that information from and I because I have never made a motion as chair until I understood I could in that but I believe that that it's more important to run the meeting that make the motion and you know it's it's not it's not critical that I'm making the motion so I do defer and ask for a motion that that issue came up one time in that u a board was trying to pick its offices um for the next coming year and someone nominated themselves and they said oh they can't do that and they came back and said yes a officer can initiate a motion yes the chair can uh absolutely I I was actually under the impression you couldn't but learning that I said okay I have that ability but I don't think I've utilized it and I don't see the need to if it was you know something was chaotic I probably would do it but otherwise it would be just let let the motion speak from the board I mean we we are a board of seven uh going on eight I think and five voting members five voting members but we have a board of right now seven so I say the Motions were pretty smooth tonight I don't know who was putting them all in there all came off the tongue really well from what I was hearing that was nominating themselves for a position I'll make my first motion to approve Steve being the motion guy sure second out okay okay so now if there's not other things to speak of we'll go to the minutes of April 4th 2024 have a chance to review them and have many these are wrong Becky did I post the wrong ones no no no no the only thing that's wrong is the schedule it says a motion by me to schedule a July meeting for April 11th sorry where um number two on number two new business discussed items okay schedule a followup executive okay so that was not you didn't make the motion to reschedule the meeting that time I did but not till April 11th so we did have an EXE session April 11th at 7 I July is am I am I looking at it wrong I'm oh July okay yes that's all that's the only correction it's July right yes so that should say yeah that's what was that supposed to be it's got to be the April meeting April meeting because it was it was April okay that was the one we went back and forth and couldn't pick a time sorry about that okay so on April 4th you scheduled a meeting to April 11th is that what we're saying happen yes so what happened was we had the April 4th um meeting and Town Council came and he thought that we were having executive session that evening but no one he he didn't reach out to me to put it on the agenda on time so we couldn't actually have executive session at the end of the meeting so the board voted to have one um the following week April 11 yep a good so that was a special meeting just for executive session posted yep so me missing the April meeting got me out of two meetings yeah but Brian was texting you I think on that one wasn't he did I come to that yeah oh oh yeah the one in that room over there I did go to that yeah I was going to say you were that one yeah yeah I thought I locked out everybody was I missed two for one you just wait for August Mr you'll be missing us okay so I will thank you Charlie pointed that out I'll make that correction I thought you were there was like oh boy I'm getting old across the table for me yeah any any other Corrections motion to approve the minutes I move to approve the minutes as is with the correct indicated run second by Peter all in favor y unanimous confus no it wasn't unanimous I didn't see all opposed to the minutes so um hold on who was here that day so um Sten and Glenn weren't here so they can't vote on this one right so just abstain so Brian Charlie Jamie's not here today Peter Ronnie and Danny so we have we have five I get vote hand UPS it's my first vote group need all right in a year he we're TI motion to adjourn Rod we do not need a second we do not all in favor thank you no unanimous thank you thank you again Becky thank you e