September 9, 2025 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Video & Transcript

September 9, 2025 - Zoning Board of Appeals

Autoscroll:

Thomas White: Alright. Good evening. This is the September 9, 2025 meeting with the Wayland zone Board of Appeals. I'll read the preamble here, pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025 the meeting will be conducted in in person, conducted in person and via remote means, in accordance with applicable law. The public meeting link can be found on the mail in town calendar site. This meeting may be recorded, made available to the public on WayCAM as soon after the meeting as is practicable. Times are approximate, and some items may not be discussed in the order listed or at the specific time estimated. All topics may be subject to deliberation vote we're required by law or allowed by the chair. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so by in person attendance or by accessing the meeting remotely. We request that public comments be limited to two minutes per person, so before we get started with the full agenda, is there any public comment tonight that's not related to the specific cases, right? Hearing, none. Moving on to the second item, which is to review and approve the draft minutes. This is to highlight a quick typo here. The agenda says the draft minutes are from 813, 2025 but they're actually from 812, 2025 is there? On the board had a chance to review the minutes? No, you've not. Do you would you be able to take a quick read through the minutes now? Yes, okay, perfect, because I want to avoid challenge with challenges with
Justine Paul: i Can I comment on one quick thing for the minutes, the minutes state that I was on Zoom and arrived at 720 And I was in person and I was on time. Thomas White: Oh, okay.
Justine Paul: I think that was the July meeting that those bands were correct. Thomas White: Oh, oh, yeah, yeah, it's that's what's bad. Looked at July 8, 2025 are the ones that appear to be on the Share points Justine Paul: I saw the Oh, so that's maybe, that was, maybe that's Thomas White: probably is. I think that's why. Okay, the meeting, yeah, the meeting notes we have here are from July 8, Adam Hirsh: so not August, Thomas White: no, so it looks like the draft minutes for August. August 12, they're not here. Adam Hirsh: Okay, so I've checked, I've I've reviewed July,
Thomas White: yeah, so then, so Justine, your, your, your comment is for the July notes, or your comment was for August, but you misread these as July.
Justine Paul: So my comment was for August, but I thought that that was what August had said. And now I need to go back, because I thought that that was what it said for August Thomas White: as well. Yeah, I'm not seeing a copy of the August meeting notes on the Share file.
Justine Paul: just misread. Miss opened up the wrong one. Then hold on, Unknown: August Justine Paul: minutes. Hold on, what Minutes did I read? Is okay, Thomas White: all right, Justine Paul: hite Thomas White: the August one. I've got the August ones here. Now is everyone so you, you had read the August ones, so, but in your comment was still stands. Hunter Perry: that my comment still stands that I was on Zoom,
wait, yeah, yes, Thomas White: sorry. All right. So, um, I guess we're going to have to modify these minutes to reflect the fact that Mr. Perry was attending via zoom, not in person.
Do you have the same comment? Ms Paul
Justine Paul: for August. Yes, I was in person for August.
Thomas White: Okay, Adam Hirsh: no i still. Thomas White: What else All right, so it looks like we're it looks like we're editing these right now live, so. Nathan Maltinsky: I understand. I understand.
Adam Hirsh: I don't need to vote on eight minutes this August. Thomas White: No, you weren't. It's your, yeah. You weren't here hirsh: July. Yes, Thomas White: yep. All right, just breezing through these right now. So if we just, if we just correct that Justine Paul was in person, not by zoom,
Adam Hirsh: and that she was not there, Thomas White: and she was on time very Important subject. This is the 7pm hearing. This is the zba case 25 minutes as amended during the hearing on September 9 dash 24 this is the 40 D classification of amendment. This is the application of the Wayland Municipal Affordable Housing Trust for amendments the original 40 D special permit. This is case number 21 dash 29 which was for 40 B special permit request for 12 Hammond road parcel ID 51B-034. This Before we get started on this, I had a meeting with the building request is for an amendment involving a change to the Commissioner, myself and town counsel, and we discussed this. We don't need to vote on this. This is literally this can be a discussion on the board, if we are in agreement that the well, a discussion about whether the change to the footprint would be considered insubstantial. We reviewed, on the call, the kind of criteria that we would look through to make that determination. And it was noted that what's happening with this particular project is the footprint of the houses changing slightly from a very rectangular shape to a slightly more square shape. The setback, as a result, does change, but it's still greater than the setback allowed in this district. So I think it's very clear that that would be indicative of substantial footprints of the proposed home. change. There's no chamy. It's a single family structure. It's the massing of it has slightly been modified, but the program hasn't changed. The interior configuration has minimally changed, but that room count, the components that make up the bulk of the project are exactly the same as they were. It's literally just a kind of a slight modification to the footprint. So I don't know how to respond. I think it would be considered insubstantial, yeah. So according to town counsel, this is not something that we need to vote on. This is more or less a discussion, and town counsel would be happy to to draft an amendment to the decision. And we also have some cleaned up copies that were given to us tonight that explain the two different versions of the you know, the one that we approved and the new version that we have. So what, what does the board think? Adam Hirsh: I don't have any problems I, data is this is definitely something extremely minor, and in some cases, actually makes it more compliance of. I'm fine. I'm fine with that. Hunter Perry: I didn't see any floor plans. And do you see the floor plans or not? Thomas White: They didn't. They didn't submit a set of floor plans, but, but we were assured that it's, it's a, the proposed three bedroom dwelling is still the proposed three bedroom dwellings. And if you look at the if you look at the footprint, the change would be very minimal inside, Nathan Maltinsky: if I may chair. The only thing that changed was the setbacks on the left side, from 24 feet one inch to 15 feet, three inch. So still is in the 15 foot setback. And this is full. To be yourselves, permitted anyway, but that's the biggest change.
Thomas White: Any other discussion,
Hunter Perry: pretty straightforward. Thomas White: So I think, I think the board is in agreement that we could consider this an insubstantial change, and we can direct town counsel to Adam Hirsh: trust agreement Justine Paul: And I think that I was in agreement previously as well, so I Hunter Perry: I didn't have an explanation, really, do you like that? And all I really had was the original, like copy of the plans. Thomas White: And it was very it was a little, it was presented in a way. It was a little bit confusing for the board to understand. Unknown: This seems pretty straightforward. Thomas White: I think it's straightforward, alright, so, so I'll, I'll connect back with Town Counsel, and I'll direct them to make an amendment, or, I guess it's process, a request for the amendment to the change that footprint house, Adam Hirsh: great. Thank you. Nathan Maltinsky: Thank you. Thomas White: All right, so, all right, it's 717 so we can move on to the 710 hearing. This is a discussion and review of compliant with a special permit, 22 dash, 21 for the school bus parking at the 41 Cochituate road. This is a special permit granted in August 2022 for the continued parking, temporary parking of up to 16 school busses at the rear lot, 4124 road. The permit is valid through August, 31 31st 2027, and includes conditions prohibiting fueling or fluid top offs on the site and requiring the installation of physical barriers to protect against vegetated areas. So do we have is someone making a presentation to us this evening for this Nathan Maltinsky: I thought my Mike Faia was gonna be,
Michael Faia: yeah, I'm on guys. I'm on the phone. I Thomas White: Oh, perfect. All right. So good evening. Good evening. Mike, do you want to it's a little informal, right? I mean, this is really a check in. And, you know, we had requested a checking period after a few years to assess how the special permit was going. So we were looking for you to give us an update on the status of this, and the board has received some other communication from, I think, from a conservation commission that we can go through separately. But okay, yeah, if you could give us an overview, that'd be great. Unknown: Yes, from what I know, this was done long before I started, but as it stands right now, everything has been going fine there. There isn't any fueling going on. We were asked to do some protective measures along the border of the parking lot where it meets the conservation land and the children's play area, and we were asked to rework some of the signage so that it explained the parking a little better, and we added a crosswalk off the main crosswalk, so that it was there's some accessible, people could could use the accessible ramp a little bit easier from the parking lot. Other than that, I don't have much more to report.
Thomas White: Okay, I guess I ask you probably have not seen the email from the Conservation Commission that was sent to zoning board. Michael Faia: I probably I have not no
Thomas White: so well, let me. Let me read. Let me read this email that the zoning board received today, September 9. This is from Linda Hansen, conservation, Conservation Director for Wayland, yes, so that to the board, she writes, in compliance with the ZBA permit and conservation, the conservation order of conditions, the bus parking was historically not allowed in the rear parking area. It was my understanding that the ZBA allowed busses, bus parking in this parking as a temporary solution. If that is true, I believe that that is what was discussed. She goes on to say that the parking spaces in the front of the building were striped without permission from the ZBA and are not legal. I'm not sure, but. Is referring to, but we can discuss that. she indicated, indicates that that's unsafe for drivers exiting their cars in the travel lane. Also, it has concerns about the number of cars entering the parking lot and cutting through to Pelham Island Road, noting that there are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings. She also notes that the proximity of the riverfront doesn't allow anyone to construct sidewalks or pedestrian crossings, um, the busses, she says, In addition, the bustles, busses are not allowed to idle in the back parking lot or be maintained, but both of those activities happen on frequent basis. The land directly behind the busses is a priority habitat for Rare and Threatened species. And if these conditions for the permit cannot be followed, the busses need to move. So this is, this is a little difficult because that's, you know, we did agree to a temporary special permit. You know, that is valid only through August 2027 but as part of that permit, we did ask for a check in to sort of understand the status of what was happening. I'm concerned because I think we're going to need to do some investigation, because the assertions from this email contradict what we just heard, and I think contradict the permit that we approved. So I don't know that we're going to be able to get to an answer to this tonight. I was a little surprised at the email, but I think this is potentially a problem.
Adam Hirsh: would it be value add for them to to get together, Thomas White: and yeah, I think it would be important. I don't think we can. We can't. We can't take any action on on this tonight. I'm not planning on that. But I think at a minimum, we need to have, I think we need to facilitate some communication between Mr. Faia and Hansen so we can understand the difference of interpret. Interpretation, or the concerns about the execution of the special permit.
Hunter Perry: I guess looking at the conditions of the special permit, I'm trying to kind of cross examine what is not being adhered to.
Adam Hirsh: There sounds like idling is what it sounded like, and Michael Faia: which is kind of confusing, because you have diesel busses that need to start and run. I don't know how I, once again, wasn't here for the original. So I you know, other than it's, it's, it's, it's something that a diesel engine has to do. It's not idling, it's just warming up, which you could Adam Hirsh: Why don't we give them the opportunity to have a conversation and then have them come back next month to give an update based off of conversations, and is that something that you can be amenable to? Thomas White: Is that? I think, I think that makes sense. I Adam Hirsh: I don't think you're going to be able to get any think I
answers this evening without having any conversations or having them do follow up before you know? Thomas White: No, I think yes, Adam Hirsh: something more concrete. Thomas White: I think Mr. Perry makes a good point. If you listen to the 10, if you read the 10 conditions we've outlined, they don't. re they don't mention anything that is contained in the conservation email from the Conservation Director. So it may be, it may be a situation where those things may be occurring, and they may, they may be problematic, but they aren't necessarily things we conditioned in line items one through 10 in the special permit that we granted. You know, permit number 22 dash 21 but in the interest of kind of moving things forward, I think at a minimum, we need to see if we can have some internal coordination between the Conservation Commission and and Mr. Faia, at least, to understand in the context of the decision and the request that we have to review this, you know, how do we, how do we, kind of, I guess, bridge these concerns. Nathan Maltinsky: I do have some information. I was on peripheral when this whole thing went down, so I will hold comment until I speak to both parties and okay, and then we can discuss all this next month. Michael Faia: It would be helpful if I could see the email from Linda. That would be, Thomas White: yeah, we just got it today, so we can absolutely forward that to you Michael Faia: all right, that'd be helpful so I know what, so I know what I'm addressing. Thomas White: I. Uh, understandable, Michael Faia: perfect. Thomas White: All right, Adam Hirsh: do we have to do a specific time for next month? I Thomas White: don't think so, because this is not, this isn't to hear this is a we're not, it's not an application for new permit. This is just a check in discussion. So I think we can just have a meeting. Well, we do. So I think we should agree that we'll sort of continue again. We don't have to vote on this. This is just a note that we want to add this to the to the next zoning meeting, which is Hang on. So we want to add this to the agenda for October 14 or the 10th. All right, so it being 726 we can move on to the 720 hearing. This is uh, page number 25 dash 23 for 10 chestnut roads. This is the application of Joseph Dorr, the owner of the property at 10 Chestnut Road, parcel ID 46b, 044, located in the R 20 zoning district. The applicant is seeking a variant special permit or other zoning relief as necessary to address adjust previously approved architectural plans from decision 24 dash 35 the proposed changes include repositioning Joe Dorr: right here. I'm Joe. the building and adding a stoop to the rear of the house. Do we Thomas White: Come up and introduce yourself and give us have anyone here to present that?
an overview of what you're looking to do. Unknown: I'm Joe Dorr and well, the septic system that was designed for the original plan was installed some time ago and hooked up to the old house, and with a current survey, is a problem with the set, the set, side set to the septic system. So we're asking to amend the variance to let us shift the house a little bit. And you know, really, there was always going to be a bulk head in the back and some sort of landing, and this wasn't drawn on the original footprint. Thomas White: So I'm just looking back at the original design. So the original special permit was to demolish an existing house right attached garage and construct a new two bedroom home with a one car garage. Yep, you're still doing the exact same, Joe Dorr: same Yep, same footprint. Just needs to shift a little bit. It's a small lot, and the septic system has encroached on the set back of the building. It was really Unknown: just got one foot. Yeah. Thomas White: Oh, that is the only change, right? The pretty much nine foot two goes to eight foot nine and eight foot five goes to seven foot five, Joe Dorr: correct.
Thomas White: And it was a bulkhead on the back that was not on the original one Unknown: There was a door opening there in the footprint, but they didn't draw the bulkhead Nathan Maltinsky: bulkheads are exempt from zoning. Thomas White: Yeah, no, that's true. Yeah. Um, all right, before we ask any questions, is there anyone else here tonight to talk about this case? Anyone online? Robbie Bullard: I'm seeing no online. Thomas White: Okay. I think this is completely reasonable. In my mind. I think the difference, the difference in one foot, I don't think is, is consequential. And I'm moving back through the previous decision. It it doesn't appear that we had any neighbors, uh, that expressed concerns at that time for the project. Yeah, any concerns further?
Unknown: You actually had a neighbor in favor that. for the project,
Joe Dorr: I think all the neighbors would still be in favor.
Thomas White: Any other questions from the board? I guess I have a question for the commissioner. Would we amend this permit, or do we need to create an entirely new decision? Nathan Maltinsky: I think we can amend this permit just because of the change in the footprint and just amend it for the setback on this site, okay? Because it'll be cleaner than I think, writing a new decision to make an amendment in the eight foot five to the 75 and the eight nine to the nine to nine of eight. Nine, yes, all right, very sorry.
Thomas White: I guess I would make a motion that the zoning board approves an amendment to decision 24 dash 35 that makes a slight modification to the footprint originally proposed, and reduces the east side yard setback from the approved nine foot two inches to eight foot Nine inches from the originally approved two foot five to the new dimension of seven foot five. Second, Adam Hirsh: Second.
Thomas White: Discussion.
I haven't named a panel. The panel is going to be the four of us, which does mean that this does need to be a unanimous decision. The panel is Justine Paul, Hunter Perry, Adam Hirsch and myself, Thomas White,
so all this to do a roll call vote. Ms Paul Justine Paul: aye. Thomas White: Mr. Mr. Perry Hunter Perry: aye, Thomas White: Mr. Hirsh Adam Hirsh: aye, Thomas White: Mr. White aye. So we've approved the amendment permit. So Anina, I can work with you on how to address this, because we're going to want to use this document, so we'll have to get a copy of this. Thank Mr. Perry, you wrote this so you might have the original document. You just we just need to probably send that to Anina. Unknown: So great. I have a question, sure, are we going to have to refile this for the Registry of Deeds? For this change, Thomas White: I think the amended permit would have to be filed with the Registry of Deeds. Joe Dorr: Okay, answered the question, Thomas White: yeah. I think that would be the appropriate thing to do. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you for coming in. Good luck with this. Joe Dorr: Thank you, good night Thomas White: All right, so it is 734 so we can move on to the Kirstyn Lipson: Hi, good evening. My name is Kirstyn 730 hearing. This is a ZBA case. 25 dash, 2521 sorry, 25 dash, 25 for 21 Cochituate road. This is the application of the Millbrook Group LLC, Kirstyn Lipson, for property located at 21 Cochituate Road, parcel ID 23 dash 47 and Wayland MA in the business A zoning district. The applicant is seeking a restaurant. Each special permit property to convert to Cafe and Bistro, including outdoor patio seating. The structure is considered pre existing, non conforming structure as does not meet the setback requirements zoning by law. Additionally, the Lipson. Don't know if any address. I've seen other people property is located in the aquifer protection district and the National and Local Historic District. Additional zoning relief, such as variance variances or special permits may be required. So good evening. Why don't you introduce yourself and tell us what's what's being proposed here?
do it, Thomas White: but technically you're supposed to Unknown: Okay 10 Millbrook Road in Wayland, and I'm joined tonight by Alex. Oh, sorry. One side, Alex Sipes, he's with Avison and Young they're our project management firm as well. At Lake with Joe, the architect of our architecture firm, and then virtually Jeff Ugino, who is my lawyer, and I am the CEO and founder of the Millbrook group, and I'm coming to the committee tonight requesting a special use permit to operated cafe and Bistro at 21 Cochituate Road, also known as the Old Collins market building here in town, I'm in the process of purchasing the building from Senne Real Estate. It's currently zoned as a commercial, commercial property, but with my intent to turn it into a bistro and cafe, it'll need the special use. my intent is to call it Town House, which is really to honor the legacy of this building, which was the first public town hall, which we used to call town houses back in the 1800s. it will be really community and neighborhood focused. My goal is to preserve the legacy and the heritage and the historical nature of the building really breathe fresh new life and use into what is currently and somewhat neglected building, and certainly under under utilized in terms of kind of that, the tactics, tactical aspects It will operate from Tuesday to Friday, 7:30am to 3:30pm offering coffee, light, light bites of very grab and go kind of, kind of environment. Saturday and Sunday, it'll operate from eight to eight. We'll also be offering some afternoon tea as well as brunch and then in the evening kind of a wine bar, Bistro, type, type of atmosphere. There'll be a small dining room upstairs that will be library themed, also to honor the its role as the first public library back back in the day. And this area will serve as flex dining area for regular customers, or it can be rented out for intimate events such as bridal showers, as well as board meetings for local businesses, bridal showers, all of those kind of kind of opportunities. Kirstyn Lipson: the menu will offer really local, forward, sustainable, sustainable food, looking to partner with as many local farms and providers as possible. Again, really reinforcing that community aspect. If du plan to add a small patio in the back, it'll be modest, somewhere between eight to 10 seats. We'll have a natural screening to shield with the resident of abutter, who I've spoken with, and we've discussed the plans, and I've gained her support, and we will keep her apprised as we continue to move forward, especially given the hours only going to 8pm we don't expect noise or lights to be to be concerned there. I will say that as part of my application, I did request for setback relief. However, upon further examination by my legal team, we don't believe that this actually meets a structure definition, because it's just a patio. It's not covered, it's not attached to the property. So I would, I would request that we don't need relief on that element. One of the reasons that I really believe wholeheartedly in this project, and not only has it been a passion of mine that I've been looking to bring to life for the past two decades, actually, but this really fills a community lead. the Economic Development Committee did a survey over this last winter, and the number one most requested new business was a coffee shop. Wayland has no such offering, especially a local coffee shop offering artisan coffee. It's locally owned, owned and sourced that also offers opportunities for local business people to have meetings, social gatherings. Right now, they have to go to other neighboring towns, so this is an opportunity for Wayland to capture that business. 86% also requested more businesses next to the rail trail. This is within 300 feet of the rail trail, and 99% were concerned about empty storefronts, and this is definitely an underutilized historic building that has been a part of the town since 1841 so my intent is really to honor, honor this historic pillar of the community and bring it back to be a cornerstone that that can really serve, serve the area. My other relief request was on the parking situation, since this is a non conforming tlot can built in the 1840s before the car. it's, whenI first filed, and even when we spec with spoke with the town manager last week, we were using the full fire capacity, looking for the parking relief. in its current use as an office building, it is 13.5 spots. Is what it's relief. the brief relief it's been granted because there is no on site parking. There are six street parking spots right in front of it, and an additional six right around the corner on Pelham Island Road. However, the fire capacity is hardly, it's that's more of a theoretical capacity for this type of business. As I went through and looked at my projections hour by hour for the weekday and the weekend, the expected capacity is 45 patrons per hour during the week and 55 per hour during the weekend, and most of those will the average time is about 15 to 20 minutes stay. based on that, and including the the employee calculations, as well as the upstairs right hand side will continue to be leased by Sunne real estate for at least four to eight years. So including that consideration as well, that gets us to 15.8 spots during the week and 18.3 spots during the weekend. And according to the bylaw section five oh, 6.2 within 20% of the current use for parking, which, given the 13.5 spots, the weekday increase is within that 20% and the weekend is just over by two spots. So looking to request the release of those those two spots. So that is my spiel. I welcome any questions or comments
Unknown: or I'll type sorry Travis or Val thing that I missed that you want to add Nathan Maltinsky: up front support. Unknown: Yes, yes. Thank you that not only do only does this fulfill a need, a theoretical need, but there has been an outpouring of community support when I started mentioning it, just on the Wayland Facebook moms group, within 36 hours, I got over 50 letters, many of which I included in the application. I believe some have also been emailed directly to you. They include letters from the residential abutters, businesses nearby. One of them is also here tonight. And so I think that there is it really represents not only a theoretical community need, but an actual community need that I believe wholeheartedly, Town House that fulfill.
Thomas White: there's probably going to be some, I guess, questions from the board, but I guess before we go on is we need to hear if there's anyone else that wants to speak about this project. Here, you come up and introduce yourself. Kirstyn Lipson: Should I step aside? Thomas White: Yes, good, yes.
Win Treese: Thank you. My name is Win Treese, 11, Irwin Road and member of the Board of Library Trustees. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the board at the trustees meeting on August 20, the board voted to authorize the chair and director to send you the letter of support that is you have in your packet. We are very excited about the project, as noted in the letter, the board unanimously supports creative use of the former Collins market. However, one of the options that has been discussed for parking relief is the library parking lot, and the library cannot provide any parking spaces for this use. The library is very limited parking as it is. a Town, a Town meeting gave the library board jurisdiction the full parcel at one Concord road containing the upper parking lot, including the unpaved built area behind the Freight House for expanded library parking that was under Article 32 of the 1986 town meeting, when Town meeting unanimously voted the land to be acquired from the MBTA its our understanding that another board cannot grant parking access, access to a lot under the authority of another board, even if done, however, any commitment to other uses would severely constrain the library's ability to plan for its future needs, and further complicated its abilities to provide adequate parking for the public coming to the library. Although the library cannot assist the outcome of parking, we think it would be reasonable to continue this matter the next zba meeting to explore other parking options if necessary. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thomas White: Okay, thank you. Anybody else ? so thank you for that. oh, sorry, I didn't see you. Unknown: That's alright. My name is Gretchen Schuler, 126 Old Connecticut Path, and I, although I serve on the Historic District Commission, I'm speaking myself. Uh, we've not had a meeting or had any discussion on the historic district commission. I think this is really exciting application. I've read through it, and there are lots of wonderful parts of it. I am concerned about the parking. and years ago, we had meeting of all of the boards that would I used to serve on the Plannng Board for really long time, and the Historic District Commission, the Historical Commission, and the Library and the Historical Society trying to figure out, what could we do? And I think it's going to take some action on the part of the town to the to get over this problem. Kirstyn Lipson: I mean, we've got the Depot, we've got the library area, which we've just talked about at that time, when we were talking about it was when the library was trying to decide, are they staying or they're going? And we kept talking about a two story structure in the parking lot of the parking of the library in order to accommodate parking. And I don't know if that's the the answer, but I think we have to think outside of the box for this. And you you're in a really tough position here to have to figure out how to accommodate parking and to allow them to go forward, but I'd hate to see it go down because of the parking, and I think we all need to get together and think about it. And the other part, I mean, because all the parking we're talking about is public parking. And the other thing, little, tiny thing that has come to my thoughts is that we have a really important property as a abutting this property as well. It's an 1820s Federal House, and the people have been there for a really long time. And so what will happen? I think the hours are great for them. But what about exhaust? And what about all of those, you know, the fans and all that kind of stuff, is that noisy? I don't know the answer to that. And I just think we want to make sure we think through those things and protect the properties around it. It's a residential property, if it were commercial, be another, another issue. But thank you. Thomas White: Thank you very much. Robbie Bullard: Michael McCall is online, sure, Michael, he's on. Thomas White: Okay, so you wanted to, do you have something to add Mr. McCall? Michael McCall: yes, good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the ZBA, I just wanted to follow up. I did meet with Miss Lipson the other week, and I did indicate I would follow up. She did follow up with me today, and I did send her an email. And similar to what the representative of the board of library trustees had indicated, I had followed up with the library trustees, our town counsel and through my staff, our insurer and I informed Miss Lipson that as the manager, that I could not endorse the the her request for relief. There was some issues that we felt with regard to setting a precedence of using these parking spaces, which are not a general municipal lot, as well as potential liability. It was recommended if we were going to entertain doing something like this, if, let's say the library trustees were inclined to do so, then I would need a lease agreement with indemnification language as well as appropriate insurance coverage. And in most cases, we would have to follow public procurement laws, and depending upon the value of the spaces, it may require a public bid process if we were going to do something like that. So first, the reasons that were stated by the library trustees, as well as some concerns we have about that intersection, pedestrian traffic that would be crossing to utilize the Bistro. We would not be in favor of allowing the use of those spaces. in your relief that you're looking at but notwithstanding that I really did enjoy the proposal, like other folks, I do think it's a well thought out business plan, but I just don't see how we could include town spaces for the parking relief as that it would open up the door to me having to offer that to other folks, and that would become problematic.
Thomas White: Okay Thank you. We have another, another question. If you could name, name and address with
Margery Baston: Margery Baston, 11 Cochituate Road right next to 21 Cochituate Road, I have. The same concerns about the parking. I love the idea, and lot of people are very enthusiastic about it, very well thought out. One of the small suggestions sounds to me that could help, maybe a teeny little bit if the town will be willing to do it. The town currently has four signs on Pelham Island Island road for two hour, parking back.
Okay, right now down the problem in front of the old Collins market is that you have people parking there all day, and your people parking in a depot, parking lot all day. It shouldn't happen. should it? so if the signs that you have on Pelham Island Road, the two hour parking were put on those six spaces in front of 21 Cochituate Road and used in the Depot Parking lot, I think you could bless the businesses there, including the Wayland Depot that wants to have people come and go and freely, you know, park for a short time, and it would, I hope, encourage employees or people who want to park there all day to find another place to park. Just a thought, Thomas White: thank you. Margery Baston: Oh, maybe I should sign Yes. Oops. Adam Hirsh: So we have the right to be able to do that. Unknown: There's a host of issues here. You will need some legal advice on but the short answer to that is, I don't. I have suspicions, but I'm not sure. Adam Hirsh: Yeah, suspicions. I
Thomas White: Any other public comment? it looks like so you want to go back up? Thomas White: okay, could you, I guess, give us a little more Kirstyn Lipson: Yes, that's okay. A couple additional points and clarifications. One, I know Mr. McCall when, when I spoke with him last week, that was when we were looking at the full fire capacity and using that for the parking relief. So just wanted to reiterate the reduced number looking at the expected actual capacity. Additionally, we expect a lot of the traffic to come from current rail trail users as well as municipal employees, the public and safety employees, other local businesses. So a lot of the traffic will be foot traffic, as well as bike traffic, or just already there, not net new traffic. We do plan on putting in bike racks to help accommodate the bike traffic. We've also met with Greg Dale from the Historic Commission, District, District commission, clarity on the parking space calculations and sort of looking and he has, we've talked about our plans about maintaining the historical nature. And you know, the really only front facing modification be making it ADA accessible with a ramp. And he's on board with that, so I'm definitely looking to collaborate closely with him. Also, I should say, given the extensive renovations required inside, we aren't looking to open until next June, so there is time to find a solution if we if we work collaboratively and creatively. And on the note about the pedestrian crosswalk, there is, for those who aren't familiar with that intersection, there is a not only crosswalk, but a light as well for the pedestrians. Yes, I think those were my my additional comments,
through
Kirstyn Lipson: Yes, okay, let me pull up my specific notes. They have it broken down by employees, patrons and the the real estate. Commercial, the office space for upstairs. Okay, so, correctly, okay, for we'll start with the the easy, the easiest part, the second floor office space will be 900 square feet per the code five 06.12 for office or professional space on the second floor, it's one spot per each 400 square feet of floor area. So 900 square feet divided by 400, 2.25 spaces for that quarter the building. Okay for the full time employee portion, the full time equivalent is seven FTEs, so no more than seven employees at any given time. And for that, it's for the code five0, 6.13 it's three, one space for every three employees. So that is 2.33 and then for the patrons, it is one spot for every four seats. And so initially, with our fire code capacity, it's 91 seats. However, as as I mentioned, looking at the expected capacity, it's 45 seats per hour. Again, many of those will be a quick turn during the week, and 55 per hour during the weekend. And so that that netted out to on the 40 the 45 it came to. Unknown: All in was 15.8 spots, and on the weekend, 18.3 spots. And I apologize that includes the employees and the office space. I don't have the specific patron number there, and the current relief, based on the use as a commercial office space, is 13.5 spots, and the 400, 1 spot for 400 square feet on the second floor, it's one spot for for 200 square feet on the first floor, and so it's 1,800 square feet on the top and 1,800 on The bottom. That's how it got to the current early calculation. Thomas White: Okay? And then you indicated that there was another provision in the bylaw that's within 20% Kirstyn Lipson: yes, 506.2 and that's in change of ownership for a change of use that necessitates more than the 20% change in the current relief for use. And so the current release being 13.5, 20% would be 16.2. so the weekday increase of expected 15.8 is within that 20% and the weekend of 18.3 is just two spots above the 16.2 so also, another note, I'm fully in favor of Margery's suggestion of the two hour parking in front. some of the employees that park there all day their businesses do have on site parking. so that could potentially help create more more short term parking options. I
Thomas White: other questions from the board, Hunter Perry: yes, so on the second floor, for the plan for the second floor, can you tell us a little bit more about kind of the plan for how many seats will be up there at a given time? Probably different during the week than on the weekend,
Kirstyn Lipson: yes, and on plan, we include kind of the, again, fire code, the theoretical set backs. But I'll give you a little little overview based on the actual layout. So there'll be that private dining room there that I mentioned that'll be available for small, small, intimate events. And then there'll be a couple, mix of two, two and four top tables, as well as a couch, more lounge seating areas. During the day that will not be table service, it'll be counter service. And then during the the evening, weekend dinner hours, it'll just be regular dinner service. So I believe on the plan right now it's set at 45 but again, with the expected, it would be probably even to downstairs, since it is half half the floor and downstairs about. About a quarter of the space will be support kitchen, so it'll be about equally dispersed.
Hunter Perry: Great, thanks. Adam Hirsh: So potentially you could have another 50 people up there ish, Kirstyn Lipson: oh no, that the total capacity is included that will. That will, that will, largely, we anticipate, be used for events, and again, by events, small scale, their parties.
Thomas White: Other questions.
Adam Hirsh: The patio area. I know you're not seeking relief on it now, but how, what is your dimensions on that? Just out of curiosity, how close are you coming to the boundary lines and stuff? Just Nathan Maltinsky: so we can look on page 12, there's some dimensions. I think it looks at them. Momentum Unknown: studies, page 12 of which Friday Kirstyn Lipson: and that rear lot line is the pediatrician parking lot and I checked with the Department of Conservation, and it does not trigger any kind of storm water concerns this proposed size I
Adam Hirsh: does that impact set backs and stuff like that? Thomas White: I don't believe a patio does is, I think it doesn't pass it down that backs or anything. It's going to be exempt. Unknown: I believe it is Adam Hirsh: one I'd rather ask and on patio, just from your protection wise, Kirstyn Lipson: thank you for explicitly asking.
Jeffery Ugino: I could share the plan on the screen, if it would help the audience for The chair? Thomas White: Sure.
Jeffery Ugino: Thanks, Mr. Chair, oops, there you go, and Thomas White: that's completely that patio is going to be flush with the grave, right? Yes,
Kirstyn Lipson: and to orient everyone looking at the screen, to the right is the road, I'm sorry, left is the road to the right is that old back abutter is the pediatrician's parking lot, and then below the screen is the residential abtter, and behind is the Silk Veterinary.
Thomas White: I have a question, and I don't know if it's going to be applicants, the applicants attorney or for the building Commissioner. So I I've read through the what I think is the applicable by law here, which is the restaurant use special permit, but looking at the question about parking relief, sort of I'm struck by exactly what provision of the bylaw this board would have to act specifically on that. And this kind of goes to a question that the applicant raised, and a question that Mr. Hirsh raised as well. And I should preface this by saying this is an incredibly exciting application. And I think, you know, I think you can see, based on, you know, the feedback that you can receive from the town neighbors, everyone is looking for a way to move this forward. I do see some. On potential sticky legal issues that I think we have to sort through just to be sure that if this board grants you a permit, there are no sort of legal impediments to sort of us acting this way. Because the question of parking relief is very, very tricky on this one, because the restaurant use special permit doesn't really specifically talk about that talks about vehicle access. It doesn't necessarily talk about the constraints of parking, and typically the parking requirements are really triggered by new construction. So I realized that was kind of along with the general question, but maybe starting with, I don't know if your attorney has looked at this and has any any, any thoughts on that, you can start there, and then we can, we can see if the commissioner has any comments. Kirstyn Lipson: Jeff, perhaps the special use threshold that we were talking about. Unknown: Yes, Mr. Chair again, Jeff Ugino of Gelerman Cabral, on behalf of the applicant, I would ask the Board to consider zoning by law section 4401, dash , dot 1.2, which allows pre existing, non conforming building structures or uses which this is may be changed, extended or altered by special permit pursuant to section 198 dash, 201, just continue on, provided no such changes extension alteration shall be permitted unless there's a finding that such change extension alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than existing, non conforming building structure or use to the neighborhood. And I'd say that that, I would ask that the board consider that this is the applicable section in the bylaw, that this is a, you know, a traditional Zoning Act, a Section six, finding of of of a change in use. That's it's not substantially more detrimental. Of course, that's a that's a double negative. I asked the board to consider this is a use which would be a positive, and a and a net plus to the neighborhood based on that standard.
Thomas White: Very interesting. I appreciate that. I would not have suspected that is an avenue, but I'm intrigued by that as an option. Thank you. You up next Chair, yeah, I wonder if the building commissioner has any thoughts on this. Nathan Maltinsky: A tangled web we weave here. Thomas White: It's very complicated. Unknown: It is because on 4112, it does say that a single or two family dwelling may be changed, extended. It does not say a business use, but in the beginning of the chapter does say non conforming building structures or uses, maybe change, extended or altered by a special permit by the ZBA. So yes, it is in there. But then we circle back to so it's in the purview of the of the board to make a decision on this, but our biggest fall back right now is the parking, which it clears that we don't have enough of, yeah, some, some sort of potential agreement to maybe possibly utilize the Depot parking as an offset may be viable, per our town manager's indication, but so Thomas White: you can see, so you think, but, but to kind of pick this apart, specifically, you're in agreement that 401. 1.2 provides the board with the discretion to consider waiving the parking requirement. I've read the bylaw. I know there's nothing in the bylaw that gives us a roadmap for this particular case. So we've already gone there. So I'm looking for, I'm looking again, with the idea that for this board to take action, I just want to be sure we have a solid legal footing for any of the decisions we have, because this is a perplexing one, because I think it's a fantastic use for that building. I just wonder if our bylaw has a particular provision that ensures, like a positive decision can be rendered in this case, Jeffery Ugino: if I could, if I could, Mr. Chair, just one more comment. I. You know, I would, I would agree that, you know, parking relief is certainly needed. I would just ask the Board to consider that that right now, the current use is not, is not in compliance in terms of parking. So it's currently non conforming as to parking, and will remain non conforming as to parking. And the question becomes, will a proposed use be more substantially detrimental than the existing use? So I just, I think this could be, it could be an avenue for the board.
Thomas White: I would agree. And that's why I was kind of, I was in essence asking that question about the parking relief itself. Because if, if you do look specifically at the leading sentence of 401, point 1.2 I, I somewhat agree with the applicants council that this could be very straightforward. The existing building doesn't comply. This changes it. We could, we could determine that this changes it minimally. Hunter Perry: The parking is more of a business decision than it is. Thomas White: I would agree. I mean, in I think in some cases, we could consider parking. I mean, the by law gives us the ability to sort of constrain parking. But, you know, parking requirements are part of a business decision on behalf of the applicant. I mean, would would she be as interested in this building if it had a parking lot behind it? I mean, it doesn't, and the applicants interested in this as an option, and so the relief that we could grant doesn't solve the potential fact that maybe she will have more customers than she has parking spaces for which could be a problem for the business, but not necessarily a problem for the town. So I'm looking at, I'm looking at the I'm looking at the options for parking relief and whether they actually have a substantially negative impact on, through the standard we have, right noise, vibration, smoke, other objectionable features. I suppose people could raise an objection to additional traffic, but, I mean, there's a lot of traffic at that intersection, I don't know. I don't know that this cafe is going to make traffic different than it necessarily is. So Kirstyn Lipson: can only hope.
Adam Hirsh: Yeah, the also, you have to consider the library lot itself, and that area is not very large to begin with, and you often see that lot being consumed up pretty quickly, especially by patrons on, you know, on the walkway and everything like that. So it's, it's tough, from, it is tough. I, I mean, I definitely see the, I think the value of, like, making those two hour parkings and being able to generate some extra, you know, income from, you know, for the town and stuff. But like, beyond that, like, I don't know how we're going to be able to grab spots from the library to be able to help a business. Thomas White: I don't think Adam Hirsh: I also can't. I also think that if people park there, so be it like you can't stop someone from parking over there. Thomas White: I also don't think the ZBA has the authority to require that DPW to change the signs, however good an idea that may be, yeah, we could. We could. Adam Hirsh: We don't have that. I mean, this is good, Thomas White: yeah, no, it's a great idea. I actually don't, don't know that we could even do that. We have, we might not have the authority to do that. We could suggest. Adam Hirsh: We can suggest, yeah, Thomas White: sorry, you had a you had a comment, yeah, David Lipson: okay with me. Two other points that I'd be saying, Adam Hirsh: Hold on. Please come up and David Lipson: uh? David Lipson 10 Millbrook Road, married to the applicant, obviously very supportive of the project. Just two additional points I thought might be salient to the conversation here. One is the increased expected occupancy in the restaurant occurs on the weekend when part utilization, utilization of the existing parking from employees of businesses that are moving Monday to Friday, so that that higher occupancy becoming at a time when there's naturally less less demand, less strain on the existing Parking that's there. And a second point is, I think there's a expectation that a lot of the community need that the cafe is serving would also be serving the residential areas in and around town center, which can access the property by protected sidewalk. So. So considering the amount of foot and bike traffic, both from the rail trail, from employees at the existing businesses and from patrons walking over from residential areas in town center, I think those could all be considerations in terms of understanding and appreciating what the patronage of the business might actually mean in terms of demand and strain on the existing parking and might impact the considerations for relief. Thank you. Unknown: Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I can I think that if, I mean, if we're okay with there, with people parking and like in residential areas, I think when I go out to eat, I'm okay with walking a little bit, and there are a decent amount of spaces to park along that area, if people are willing to walk just a little bit, there are residential streets over there, and there are a good amount of parking lots in that area, if you walk just a little bit that could be shared, especially at night, I think good point. The Town building is only a few minutes away.
Thomas White: Yeah, sorry, reminder, when I, when I lived in the, when I lived in the south end of Boston, I I, I would have to park by 20 minutes from my apartment. I'm comfortable with that. Hunter Perry: I guess one, one point about the library parking lot. You know, it's currently not being policed, for people that are walking on the Rail Trail or, you know, going to other places, why is it fair to not police those people? But, you know, to think that it's going to be an issue for this cafe that's going to that has absolute outcry of support, I just don't necessarily think that that's, you know, to turn to ultimately push away something that has this much over, over an issue like that, Thomas White: I would agree, I think that we heard from the Town Manager that there may be a legal issue tied to permission about using the library parking lot. What could it? Could raise an issue? Because I don't, Adam Hirsh: maybe the Mr. McCall team, yeah, Thomas White: if I did, I hear that, did I hear that concern correctly? Unknown: So I think the problem would lie in dedicated use, and we couldn't give it to dedicate spots to any one particular business without some type of formal agreement and indemnification language. And the other problem is whether or not this would be characterized as a general municipal parking lot. I mean, many of you know just the town building. People come in for the sports field. People are parking there. They come in for the EV chargers. I think it's understood that a lot of people can utilize that parking lot for a multitude of things. During my conversation with the library trustees recently, when it came up about the Tom meeting article and some of the prior votes of the trustees over time about the exclusive use of the library, the question came up whether or not they could post signage that that lot is for library patrons only during library hours, and that standard language, such as, you know, all others, may be removed at the owners expense. Could those type of signs be erected there? And I have forward that to counsel, and it looks like that could be possible. So while it may not have been police previously, it may this conversation may have opened it up to do we have to enforce that going forward if there is no parking for library employees and library patrons during library hours? So that that question was brought to me, so I'm still working on those answers. Hunter Perry: Does that go for the Depot as well? The same issue. Unknown: I looked today trying to find additional information. I didn't. We took the library lot by a taking, from I want to say the Boston and Maine railroad. And I understand there's some dedicated lease parking that may go to the Depot, but I think it's different where there was a town meeting vote to acquire the the additional land for parking across the street, and the plan of land says the intended library parking lot and the language was to be intended for library parking. so I think there's, there's a difference between those spaces. I don't have all the complete legal authority, but in history on it, but I think they are different. Different that the depot spaces there are not for any dedicated use except for those leased spaces to the depot, whereas the library lot, it was the intention of Town meeting to acquire it for the Library.
Hunter Perry: Thank you. Unknown: Just to reiterate, we are not seeking dedicated spot, and additionally that that lot beyond the freight house that is currently not used, but perhaps intended for the library parking is I live right at the road, and I hardly ever see a car and there so that could potentially offer some some relief for the the library's use that is not currently being utilized.
Adam Hirsh: I think, for me, the why I, while I do think the the usage is absolutely fantastic, I still am not sure whether or not we can put a business in a default type of lot, and I don't, I'm still up in the air about it, and whether or not, you know something like that could even be used and kind of based off of what Mr. McCall was saying. So Well, I do think the the idea, the premise of what you're trying to do, is fantastic. So, and there's obviously very high support and very high want, and I, you know, I think the amount of foot traffic you're going to get, and the amount of bicycles and everything is going to be off the chart, and it's going to be great. I just, I still see an issue with dedicating spots like that are not dedicated but allowing. I mean, you're here's the thing is that if someone were to park over there, there's nothing that's going to prevent them from parking over there and coming over at their own risk, right? So, you know, I don't know. It just, I don't know if we can make that a part of this piece. Unknown: Could I just interject, Mr. Chair? It one of my concerns. What Mr. Hirsh alluded to, if we were to do, say, include this as part of the parking relief for this particular business, if somebody else on this, that same area then said, well, they wanted to come back before the ZBA for some alteration or new business, and we've set this precedent now. Do we have to allow them to include and and then what point do you have saturation there that that was just part of the conversation I had with the library and in my own concerns. And again, I'm not it's not about the proposal, really before you. It's the precedent that you set when you start just using as part of the relief, where, does it end down the road? Thomas White: I would agree with you 100% and you know, I've been, while we've been having this discussion, I've sort of gone through the three provisions of the bylaw. And I don't have a conclusion, but I see a I see a problem in in the way the bylaw language like we have an option to consider a straightforward relief under 401.1 in which case I think I would need advice from town council, but I think we would have the latitude to waive parking. right. I am concerned, however, that in in the parking bylaw, specifically 506 1.1, there's a provision that allows a under a site plan review, to sort of for for the site plan review, granting authority to discuss any or all of the party that seems to apply, that seems to give us the latitude to waive parking requirements. However, this project doesn't require site plan review, so I think that avenue was closed. I think under the change of use provisions for the restaurant proposal, I think it's extremely straightforward, and I think we could easily approve that in that language. Yeah, so I guess the thing that I'm I'm coming back to is, I, I, I still think we need some kind of legal vehicle to address the, ultimately, a waiver of the parking requirements. Michael McCall: So if I may, Mr. Chair again, where I'm still in the process of gathering information, you know, it may be prudent that you continue to matter and seek some additional opinion from town council relative to the questions that you and the other board members have. You know. Just so that gives you that footing, that way you're working in the best interest both of the town and the applicant. Thomas White: I would agree. I'm actually going to make that, we're going to make that. I would make that request of you, because I need to run requests to speak with town counsel thorugh. I absolutely would, because I think it's important. I think there is a legal path here. I think we just need a little bit of guidance to make sure one that we address the applicants concerns the the application fairly and positively, but also make sure that we're not we're not establishing a precedent. Because as interesting as this sounds like, if we conceivably say we could come up with a vehicle to waive their parking requirements here. You know, we have to imagine that there could conceivably be a precedent set, that there could be another use that comes in that would look for that really, if we would absolutely not be interested in waiving those parking requirements, because it's not necessarily a compelling use case. So there is a challenge. There is a challenge to this relief strictly under the 401 point 1.2 section of this of the special permit language. So I'm just, I'm mindful of both of those things so, but I think to continue this, not, not to get too bogged down. If we look at the the narrative and the requested relief, I think the applicant indicated that we're not really concerned with the rear setback requirement. We need a special permit for the restaurant use. The signage will be handled separately. The outdoor dining would be handled separately. It just, it just really turns on the two issues of the restaurant special permit and the off street parking requirements. And I'm satisfied that 1102, point 1.1 is extremely straightforward, and there would be no impediment to this board issuing, issuing that permit for the restaurant itself. I think the question about, the question about parking is, is an important one. I think it's an important one to the applicant. I don't think any of us want to know, you know, create an approval process and then, you know, basically not allow the applicant to succeed because there isn't enough parking. But I think the applicant study the neighborhood, knows what the parking limits are. Unknown: So I would also note that the all the other businesses in the area do have onsite permit. Thomas White: Yes, this one, this building, seems to be the only one Unknown: yes. So just in terms of precedent setting, you know, from the historical district, and no onsite parking. Adam Hirsh: So in my mind, there are kind of two avenues that you could potentially go down. First avenue, is we could potentially put to a vote and approval for the restaurant use without the parking part of it, in which you know, patrons will have to figure figure it out right. Or the other option is potentially doing a continuance, getting more understanding of potential expectations. And you know what, what is allowed and stuff, and then, you know, doing, doing that continuance. Thomas White: So, yeah, I have concerns about bifurcating the permit in two. I think it exposes the applicant in the town Adam Hirsh: I was saying, drop it, yeah, parking provision completely at that point. If it was to go through tonight, Thomas White: I don't think we do that. I think I would suggest we can. I would suggest we continue this, because I think that all out will allow me to seek some additional legal counsel to sort of confirm that we're on solid footing. Proceeding with a split. It's a slightly different form of relief. Under 401, point 1.2 and under 1111, or 2.1 point Adam Hirsh: one which is the avenue that I was actually recommending, yeah, but there is the other avenue, and I just want to make sure the applicant is aware. You could technically amend it to remove that part. Yeah. Thomas White: The other challenge, of course, is that we've only got four people tonight, so although we have a quorum, we have a year yes vote yes. Sorry about that, but Adam Hirsh: I just wanted to, I wanted to make sure everything was laid out. So that way interesting. Yeah. Thomas White: So I guess would you be, notwithstanding the fact that just obviously, a lot of people here, and not everyone is here has spoken, given that it's such a compelling proposal to pointed out the fact that our bylaw doesn't really contemplate a lot of things in this area. So you know, would you be amenable to continuing this to next month so we could come up with a hopefully a clean decision and a legally sound way of proceeding here, Unknown: Jeff, I might check with you to see if you have any. I know we do have a provision in the purchase and sale for an additional 30 day extension. Any other considerations that need to come to mind? Jeffery Ugino: I think it's a great idea to continue, as long as you're fine with a Kirsten, Unknown: yeah, yeah, Kirstyn Lipson: great. Then, yes, I'm amenable Thomas White: Great. So Kirstyn Lipson: I guess my follow up question, is there anything that you need from me in preparation for that, or is it more Adam Hirsh: I think its plainly on us Thomas White: And I think, unfortunately, it's mainly on us and meaning me. So there'd be a lawyer can help me there? All right, yeah, as I said, I don't. I don't have any other questions on the restaurant use and the change of use of this for restaurant that's extremely straightforward. And as I said, I'm comfortable that the outdoor seating panel as a separate application and signage handled separately is also very straightforward. We've dealt with that on numerous restaurant projects before, where the signage is done as a separate application. So that's easy. That's easy to do, I guess before we ask you to sign a continuance, given that there's a number of people here, are there any other people here that had anything that they, you know, concern or comment that they wanted to make about this?
Hunter Perry: I guess one other piece on how she may be able to help. If there's any creative ideas that you have for the parking piece, any conversations that you can have with you know, library and depot prior to that meeting that would only be helpful. Kirstyn Lipson: I did share with with Mr. McCall on the depot specifically, because I think that seems like the more open one, changing from it's currently single, pull in and parallel, perpendicular, parked on one side. But based on the footprint of the lot, you could change it to pull in and angled on both sides, and that would add about eight spots. Gretchen Schuler: It used to be that like it was. Hunter Perry: There you go. And for what it's worth, it seems like there's enough excitement to pursue something like that. Yeah. Thomas White: And the only thing I'm the only thing I would ask is, is there any I'm trying to think about the calculation we did to determine the parking required for the 45 seats an hour and the 55 seats an hour, is there any? Is there anything in the methodology of that calculation that would allow you to always keep this within 20%
Kirstyn Lipson: I could we talked about being open to doing like a max capacity. We would be amenable to that. David Lipson: And I think what, or what it's worth to the layout that we put forward, we just want to be consistent when we went to DPW for the Wastewater, so we wanted to show it at its absolute building max capacity. So it's not necessarily that what you guys saw is not necessarily the layout it's going to be it was just, we just want to show, based on the square footage, the max capacity. Thomas White: So I would agree. I think that's extremely important. I think as you talked about fire as well, typically there's like multiple classifications of the occupancy. There's like the the egress capacity, the fire capacity, wastewater capacity, parking capacity, and an actual usage of the number of people that you can reasonably fit in the building. Kirstyn Lipson: So, and we have aired on the conservative side with DPW. So the Thomas White: Yeah, no, but I'm saying I also, I think it's appropriate that you have different numbers. I don't think the number you give to the DPW has to be the same as the number you give for parking, nor is it the number you use on your egos calculations. I think they're all supposed to be different. That's totally acceptable. So was that, I guess the only thing other item was, do we have a continuance form that the applicant can sign? Unknown: She wouldn't need to for a special permit. Let's just continue. Thomas White: Alright, perfect. Alright. So do we have to pick a do we have to vote on a continuance for a date and time certain, I believe we do. Yes, yeah, to Adam Hirsh: we want make sure that she actually agrees with it. Thomas White: Yeah, we have an official, officially done it yet. Yeah, ask her, and then yes. So you, you right? So great. All right, so let me just check the calendar again, October 14, yeah, um, so I'd make a motion that we continue application. 2525 2525 to was the date again, October or 14. October 14, at, I guess, seven, 7:10pm, Adam Hirsh: second, Thomas White: second, alright, by roll call. Ms. Paul Justine Paul: aye Thomas White: Perry Hunter Perry: aye Thomas White: Hirsh Adam Hirsh: aye Thomas White: White aye alright. So we are officially extended to next month, and then hopefully we will be able to have some positive news for you. And then obviously, in the interim, you have any additional information on sort of the metrics for that hourly parking calculation that you could email, that would be great. I think there's some opportunity there, because that is a that is not necessarily a prescribed calculation in the bylaw. So I think there's some opportunity to understand how that gets determined. So thank you for the application, and I'm excited about what the opportunities it disposes. I think we heard from a lot of people that there's, there's an enormous amount of enthusiasm for this. See if we can find a way here. Unknown: Thank you for your consideration, collaboration. Thank you, pleasure. Thank Hunter Perry: you. Thank you. Alright.
Thomas White: We have any updates from the building Commissioner.
Nathan Maltinsky: Has everyone looked at the annual report prepared by ZBA? Thomas White: I know that I have because Anita did a wonderful job writing it. any other comments.
Nathan Maltinsky: No, not really this status quo. Yep, nothing, nothing. Really new report on it
Thomas White: any board comments or concerns? Alright, anyone
have a motion move to adjourn second? Alright, Miss Paul, hi, Mr. Perry. Hi, white, aye. All right, we're adjourned. Thank you.