Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 02/11/2015 Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 7 February 11,2015 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2015 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING ROOM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Stuart W. Ivimey, Chairman Clark H. Brewer,Vice Chairman Michael Dickey David Drinan Brian Frazier,Associate Member Board Members Absent: Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Planning Board Administrator Member Ivimey arrived at meeting at 7:30 PM. Member Brewer arrived at meeting at 9:00 PM. Meeting called to order at: 7:30 P.M. 7:30 P.M. 1-3 BROOK STREET VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: SHAWN RICHARD, EAMES CONSTRUCTION. In attendance to represent application: Attorney Richard Henderson. Member Drinan read Notice of Public Hearing. Members Samuelson and Brewer not in attendance for this hearing. Board and applicant agreed that the hearing should be continued so the special permit hearings begin with a full Board. MOTION: By Member Drinan to continue the public hearing to February 25,2015 at 9:15 PM SECOND: Member Dickey VOTE: 3-0 MOTION CARRIES 7:35 P.M. ADMINISTRATION - VOTE TO APPROVE JANUARY 21,2015 MEETING MINUTES MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve the January 21,2015 minutes SECOND: Member Dickey VOTE: 3-0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO APPROVE PAYROLL FOR PERIODS ENDING JANUARY 25 and FEBRUARY 8, 2015 MOTION: By Member Drinan to approve payroll for periods ending January 25 &February 8,2015. SECOND: Member Dickey VOTE: 3—0 MOTION CARRIES - VOTE TO RATIFY S.IVIMEY SIGNATURE ON INVOICES: no invoices - DISCUSSION—DRINAN DRAFT OF VBD AMENDMENTS: Board began some discussion of the VBD amendment article to fill time until 8:00 public hearing and then continued discussion to 10:10 PM. See 10:10 PM continued discussion for full summary. 8:10 P.M. 71, 83 AND 85 SO. MAIN ST., RED LION INN — VILLAGE BUSINESS DISTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. APPL: CARR, LYNCH& SANDELL In attendance to represent application: Attorney Charles Humphreys; Appl. Gerd Ordleheide; Jeff Hassett, Morse Engineering; Colleen Medeiros, Traffic Engineer with McMahon Assoc. Materials and documents submitted,utilized at this meeting (On file in Planning Board Office 0 Parking Impacts Report, prepared by McMahon Transportation Engineers &Planners, dated Dec. 18,2014. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 7 February 11,2015 • RLI — Environmental Sound Levels Evaluation and Recommendations, prepared by Cavanaugh Tocci Associates,Inc., dated: 01/23/15 • 12/31/14 memo re: 12/22/14 site visit • Acentech 02/09/15 review of applicant's sound evaluation • Spitz 02/09/15 Planner review and comments on filing. • Michael and Rowena Karp, 91 So. Main St., 12/30/14 memo re: Appeal of Zoning Enforcement prohibiting outdoor events. • Civil Designs 02/10/15 comment letter • Abutter Healey-Dippold 02/11/15 letter re: Noises issues relating to the Red Lion Inn • Abutter Healey-Dippold 02/11/15 letter re: Traffic issues relating to the Red Lion Inn Attorney Humphreys and his clients wanted to move forward and hold the hearing despite the fact that Members Samuelson and Brewer were not in attendance (Brewer arrived at 9:00 PM). PARKING: Medeiros: reviewed parking study (which see for full details). Observations on Friday night in Nov. —wedding with 140 guests was happening at Red Lion Inn (RLI) — observations were from 4:30-6:30 PM to see what downtown area looks like at 4:30 and then at 6:30 when wedding started — included parking spaces on RLI property and public lot—public lot peaked at 4:30 PM and steadily declined until 6:00 PM and then steady increase again until 6:30 PM as wedding guests arrived—at 6:00 PM there were 85 available spaces in public lot—generally there is an average of 1.5 people per vehicle so 140 guests were arrive in approx. 70 vehicles so at 6:00 PM there were 85 spaces available in the public lot which could accommodate the wedding -there was also available parking on the RLI property as well as 50+ spaces on Main St. — conclusion: there was ample room for an average sized wedding to be accommodated on the shared facility. RLI average wedding is 150-180 guests with max of 300 guests. Ivimey noted that their sample was significantly below the 150-180 guest average wedding. At max. of 300, there would be approx. 200 cars expected—there are 141 spaces in the public lot + 52 available for the RLI which includes 9 public spaces on So. Main St. in front of their property. There are 35 unlined, gravel spaces on the top of the lot where the proposed new buildings will be located, but the new buildings will provide 40 new spaces under for a gain of 4 spaces. Many weddings provide limo or bus shuddle to other area hotels which has decreased the number of vehicles driving to the site needing to park. The intention of the proposed suites is for RLI weddings—they currently have only 10 rooms in the RLI and they need the proposed suites to accommodate wedding guests to keep guests on the property rather than to be a separate attraction. Ivimey: what happens when worst case scenario happens - all the timeshare owners (Ordleheide noted that he is no longer considering a timeshare option—these will be 24 new condos in Town) are using the condos and have filled the parking spaces under the buildings and there is a 300 guest wedding without limo or bus shuttles — you are intensifying the use without creating more parking — Medeiros responded that they are creating 5 new spaces and the intention of the suites is for the wedding and that standard practice does not design for worst case scenario but looks at efficient use shared parking so you don't lose the rural character of the village. Ivimey: Board is going to design the downtown parking for the reality of the worst case scenario. Modzelewski corrected that proposal only adds 4 spaces, not 5. Drinan: still does not understand what the plan is if all 24 units and 40 propose parking under spaces are occupied by owners and there is a 300 guest wedding—does not feel that questions has been answered. Medeiros: for an average sized wedding, their conclusion is that there is ample parking but for the 300 guest,worst case scenario (300 guests,no limo or shuttle and all condo owners filling the 40 under spaces), the guests would fill the town lot and there may not be an appropriate amount of parking. Ivimey: questions if that is fair to the towns people. Ordelheide: there is a max. of two 300 guest weddings a year, with a 150 car max and 80% of them live out of town and because they cannot stay at the RLI, they come and drink and travel in buses. Dickey: wonders if the number of 300 guest weddings will increase after the proposed buildings are built. Humphrey there are approx.. 200 aggregate spaces and 300 guests will arrive in approx. 200 cars but that is an exaggeration of the actual number of cars —the more important thing is that they provided pictures of actual weddings which showed many open spaces in the parking lot and,the RLI has the right, on those few occasions,to use whatever is available in the public lot, Main St. etc.just as other groups like churches on Sunday morning do— that is not something the Planning Board should say they cannot do — the bylaw says they are entitled to use that public parking - there ar also about 36 spaces in the municipal lot on the other side of the MBTA tracks. There has not been a history of complaints about parking because of these weddings - it is a non-issue. Hassett: property is already approved for wedding functions up to 300 guests — that is not being changed and they rarely have 300 guest weddings — Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 7 February 11,2015 applicant is proposing 2 new buildings in the rear portion where there currently is a non-striped gravel lot for about 35 car parking — they have done studies where they have closed off this rear portion to see if there were enough other spaces and there were — they are replacing the rear gravel lot spaces with 2 buildings that will provide 40 parking spaces. Modzelewski: based on his review of the parking report(which see for full detail): • Medeiros study refers to 2 people per car,not the 1.5 cited at the presentation so,with 300 guests there would be 150 cars—Medeiros agreed to her error and stands by that number • Regarding the number of cars that are currently parking on the site — nothing in the existing conditions plans shows where those cars park. Humphreys—the pre-existing is really an undefined gravel parking area which the engineers looked at and did a calculation of the number of cars that could park there if the area was properly marked. Modzelewski —there are 8 spaces that he cannot find on the plan. Medeiros pointed out where they were. Modzelewski noted that these were are legal spaces according to Town requirements but the Board still needs a starting point so they have a comparison to determine how much use of the municipal parking lot will be needed at the time of the weddings — and it is necessary to see that parking on the existing conditions plan. Hassett will submit something. • Observation sample size of 1 event is small—his consultant expressed the same sentiments • Were observation pictures submitted? Administrator to check files • Have to tie down the exact number of spaces in the municipal lot—there has to be agreement on the number - Board has to have a sense of the % of resource that will be used by the RLI and whether it will be deleterious to other businesses and public health, safety, welfare and convenience of the community (Planning Board has to come up with a determination about this as a special permit finding). Also, should see a count when there are no weddings to see what the demand is during non-wedding event times. Humphreys: spaces on the municipal lot side of Dr. Pompeo's office are available to the public after hours. • Wants traffic counts on James Lane and the differential to be expected with the new buildings. • Width of James Lane and intersection at So.Main and new access road are all areas that effect safety. Whether the street needs to be modified or can be modified to accept more traffic going up to the top of the hill is necessary information to vet. Hassett: southerly side of James Lane is paved right the property line so there is not room to widen — they will survey the northerly side but suspects it is paved right to the property line so there really is not room to improve this. They are not increasing the demand on James Lane—there are already weddings up to 300 people. There is no room to meander the access road to get more horizontal length out of it so it is a 15% slope over 140 ft. —main concern is for emergency vehicles—met with fire dept. and drove truck up and back down without any problems — it is going to have to be repaved as part of this project so they are going to show contours which will improve the grading but not substantially change the slope —there is room for improvement in the width to 20 ft. wide, with a 5 ft. sidewalk on the side—fire dept. asked that a curb not be added to the side so the fire trucks could drive over it if necessary—there are a handful of roads in town that are over 15% slope—the maximum slope for a subdivision road is 6% and Board has approved waivers up to 9.5% however,this is not a subdivision road so those regulations do not apply to it. It is safely used now to get to the top of the property and they intend to improve it. Ivimey—just because there are streets that are worse in Town does not make this slope OK. In Hassett's professional opinion, 15% slope is safe —the fire dept. drove up it although there is room to improve it (pinch points and paving). Humphreys believes the Town bought an easement from the gas station owner to the guardrail but that was not the gas stations legal limit—the legal limit was further towards the RLI so James Lane was not totally on the Town layout — Humphreys does not think there is room to widen James Lane and does not think the traffic of people living in 24 units would have any material effect the Town's level of service at that intersection and is probably diminimus to the traffic uses that are currently there. Modzelewski—it would be good to have these things quantified—some things he would look at—is it a good idea for it to be a two-way? Is it even safe now? It would be comforting to know that we have the best circulation possible given the economics and the business district flavor etc. He is also concerned about more than the fire truck making it up and down the access road —he is concerned about the wedding guest driving down the access road and trying to get onto James Lane with other traffic exiting the municipal parking lot and with pedestrians walking down the access road and then heading to So.Main St. This proposal is to build a large development that could impact James Lane—should James Lane be improved to deal with the more intense use by the condo owners as well — he thinks it is worth looking at—ultimately,the Board has to decide on safety, convenience and numerous other issues and,if Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 7 February 11,2015 the Board is at a point where they are going to find it hard to make that leap, obviously the Board should ask for all this information — the starting point would be to get a count of traffic entering and exiting James Lane and the Parkingway and then Board could go further — right now, Modzelewski has no handle whatsoever on the traffic on James Lane. Modzelewski's traffic engineer to talk to traffic engineer Mederios. Ivimey: still worried about the parking—everything he has heard so far refers to off-peak parking— what about the large luncheon or wedding at noon—where are they all going to park? Humphreys—there are a lot of natural processes which turn this into a non-problem—village does not have set opening and closing hrs. like So. Shore Plaza etc. — he does not like the idea of maxing everything out and then designing to that. Ordelheide—nothing changes—only adding 24 units—nothing changes—have been doing the same think for 15 years—why are we talking about traffic? COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC: Jeanne Healey- Dippold, (currently resides in D.C. but owns 93 So. Main and will be returning to that residence): reviewed letters she submitted to the Board(which see for full detail). • Timeshare vs Condo has to be locked down — under State law, there are very strict regime for timeshares in terms of how they need to be managed—if unclear,there is already a problem • With respect to the study— as pointed out by Modzelewski, the study really looked a non-peak hours future study needs to be done during peak times including during the summer • How many spaces are available right now?—encourages Board to look at exhibits B and C attached to her letter —special permit decision which is currently in force states that before the future lodge that they are proposing is set forth, they need to prove the adequacy of the parking as a pre-condition for this current application — the Board is absolutely entitled to determine if the parking is adequate — the special permit decision sets out what needs to happen before this future lodge can be built. • Board should look at 7.2.1 and 7.2.14—can't eliminate past parking spaces as they are attempting to do • With respect to the 15% slope—when did they go up with the firetruck?— when are these things being studied- during favorable conditions or during winter? She is confident that she will have an expert who will testify that a 15% slope is not safe. • Only 1-way in and 1-way out - not really accessible in emergency situations • Limitations on uses: she understands that applicant wants to make as much money as possible—but as it relates to how many people can be jammed in there with respect to these proposed new party complexes t—what about double weddings (one in morning and one at night)? She encourages a full traffic study in terms of uses at all times -particularly if Board and applicant are not considering limiting the use. • When RLI function hall was being constructed, a lot of fill was added to back area—there is now a steep slope of dirt,trees are dying because of the fill,the trees the land use planner referred to are her trees,not the RLI trees — this is not the natural grade or topography of the land with all this fill — suggests measuring height from natural grade not built up grade to determine true height of proposed buildings — the back area is unnatural grade because of the fill. What is the real height of the building in relation to her home? Are we dealing with a variance right now in respect to what is proposed? Ivimey noted that proposal plans to excavate some of the fill for the foundation. Humphreys — disagrees — height should be measured from existing grade prior to construction and, this is the existing grade. Hassett —test pits show there is fill but there is also very shallow ledge. Town Counsel to look at what is existing grade when measuring height when grade was changed during a prior project and, what is impact of current special permit on the Board's decision making (in relation to reference to future Lodge for example). • There is a bigger fundamental question than the issue of who is the overseer of the special permit — the applicant has not complied with the special permit — her question is, in other towns, you cannot be out of compliance with an existing special permit and ask to do a new permit on top of it — and specifically, this existing special permit has pre-conditions regarding the current special permit application. Town Counsel to review this issue and question —if an applicant is out of compliance with an existing special permit can they file for a new special permit? Town Counsel - this is something that should be looked at carefully because the previous special permit was on an expansion of a non-conforming use - this special permit application is under the bylaw so it is a different animal- how they interact with one another is a good question. Mick Carlyle, Manager of Dooley's: is in favor of the units if they are year round revenue— parking is up to the Board to sort out—whatever law states about sound is what must be followed—Dooley's gets a lot of foot traffic from all around — he cannot comment on the amount of customer traffic he gets from parking lot. — business Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 7 February 11,2015 owners depend on business coming in from out of town - he gets foot traffic from RLI events—he does see a lot of parry buses. Lisa Lynch, owner of Ports & Co. on So. Main St.: she parks in municipal lot 7 days/wk. (has for 15 yrs.)to run her business - RLI events have never caused a problem for her or her customers' ability to park—the weddings are usually evening events—she has more of a problem during the day—events increase her business—when there are events, she has never seen cars parked beyond Dr. Tufts building — a lot of event guests do not have cars and are frequently asking what there is to do in Town because they do not have cars. Rena Karp, 91 So. Main St.: these events can happen at anytime —there is actually an event there tonight — the employees are also supposed to park off-street,not in the municipal lot—they also have rehearsals during the day— party buses park in municipal lot and take up quite a few spaces —also looks like the lot line is well over onto the town property— how can they widen the driveway and add sidewalk if they already over the line? Hassett: their surveys, done in 2007 and field verified last year are more accurate than muni-maps and these plans were also stamped by a professional land surveyor. Ivimey: would be surprised that a professional engineer would put his stamp on something as important as that if it were fudged. Dave Page, 35 No. Main: frequently walks his dog downtown— sees a lot of business at 5 So. Main or Dooley's and other businesses as a result of RLI events taking place primarily on weekends which he thinks are a huge driver of the economy in Cohasset which he favors—he sees a lot of buses heading out of Town,probably to hotels in other Towns which has to have an impact on lowering the number of vehicles for weddings —he sees favorable impact on the businesses in Town from foot traffic — also, there is a sidewalk that leads to stairs to So. Main St. from the upper part of the RLI property that could be used to access So. Main St. so people would not have to walk down the access road that leads to the gravel lot. Sean Cunning: the more vibrancy that can be brought to the downtown the better — noted vibrancy of Scituate Harbor area - Board's decision has an impact on what the downtown will look like in 10 yrs. —will it be all real estate offices and insurance offices? He is on the parking committee and they are looking at things like 20 more spaces can be gained by putting all the spaces on a diagonal —also looking at more 2 hour spots — so there is a lot going on with that internally. Administrator to look into status of MAPC parking study. Asst. Chief John Dockrav: James Lane is a horror show for fire dept. — it is narrow—maybe conversion to one direction should be considered—during events, buses are parked in the Lane—during the day, deliveries create an issue — should look at what additional traffic will do to James Lane — will there be an increase in deliveries and longer deliveries? - will there be a decrease in the number of buses transporting event guests? —it would be great if the 15% grade could be reduced for safety reasons —test run was done around noontime on a normal Wednesday when there were no functions occurring, the largest piece of apparatus they have was driven up the access road to the gravel lot and, it was tight. Discussed making improvements with Sandell and Humphreys including: no more parking along access road up to proposed development; no parking in turnaround circle at top. But also need to look at congestion on James Lane. Change to one-way in and one-way out might help flow of traffic. Chokepoint on access road to proposed development is an issue — once they get apparatus up there, any vehicles up there are stuck up there and it would be evacuation by foot. They also have limited access to the building and are only able to get to them at the circle — accessing the far end units will be difficult as they cannot get in behind them. Had suggested adding self-evacuating balconies so they could evacuate the second floor. Modzelewski noted the fire lanes behind the buildings - Dockray said it would be very hard for them to access and exit from the circle—they have to stay on the pavement as much as possible. Hassett: also talked about exterior wall sprinklers and interior compartmentation and hookup for pump truck on So.Main St. Modzelewski: slope up to the buildings is a huge issue —the fact that a fire truck can make it up is nice but there is also the fact that we have residents trying to drive down, snow and ice, so its an issue that the Board has never confronted before because people have never really gone over 9% and one that impacts the whole drainage design.It would more fair to confront this sooner rather than later. Jeanne Healey-Dipplod can have here team ready to address the question of slope by April 8. NEXT MEETING: CONTINUE DIALOGUE ON PARKING & TRAFFIC AND MOVE ON TO SOUND AND SLOPE. MOTION: By Member Drinan to continue the public hearing to April 8, 2015 at 7:30 PM with all new documents to be submitted no later than March 25,2015. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6of 7 February 11,2015 10:10 PM- CONTINUED DISCUSSION FROM 7:35 PM — DRINAN DRAFT OF VBD AMENDMENTS: Ivimey summarized that the issue with this bylaw is whether Board wants to use the term "Residential Gross Floor Area(RGFA) " for calculating the 700-1500 sq.ft. or if the Board wants to generate a new term to reflect a more conservative calculation that would include everything from wall to wall in the 700-1500 sq.ft. Ivimey - the concept behind this when the bylaw was being written was to have a diversity of housing units that could service a theoretical population such as the person who just graduated college and wanted to return to Cohasset - by keeping these units small, we could encourage a lower price point. Brewer referred to these as "transitional units". Ivimey and Frazier: - should restrict the language to include attics, basements and garages. Drinan would like to see the language exclude attics, garages,basements etc. Dickey the word"apartment"appears now and for a regular apartment building, the mechanicals etc. are not going to be in the apartment and that a 1500 sq.ft. apartment is going to have more livable space than a 1500 sq.ft. condo unit that also has unlivable space for the heating, HVAC etc., but, as Frazier mentioned, that if a kind of "livable" space definition is used then it allows for the possibility that an unscrupulous developer might buildout unuseable space which is then quickly converted to livable space once the permit is issued—perhaps there could be some kind of cap on mechanical space or a qualifier that non-livable space cannot exceed a certain percentage of the area. Ivimey: the Board needs to come out of this with some kind of resolution about these competing concepts. Dickev: is less than concerned making sure college graduate is going to have some place to live in downtown Cohasset—he would probably prefer to live in the North End. But,he does not feel strongly one way or the other. Drinan: was not particularly paying attention to a history that he was unaware of and was not concerned that 1500 sq.ft. of livable space was excessive — he landed on notion that the range can still be 700-1500 sq. ft. and if the Board used RGFA, what could remain would be 1500 sq.ft. of livable space. He was of impression that there were already 1500 sq.ft.units approved in the VBD under a previous filing. Frazier: referring to Brewer's term"transitional units" was important to provide more shorter term apartment type living—which would be a good thing for the Village—the larger the units get,the longer term the living would be. Ivimey: Has heard the argument that transitional is not good because you get people who don't really care about the place and don't keep it up. Brewer- that might be true in single family residence neighborhoods, but in the Village, it would encourage diversity. Frazier—"Transition"being the young, newly married couple who cannot yet afford to buy home in Cohasset. That vibrancy in the Village is very important. Dickev: It really comes down to—does the Board think 1500 sq.ft. is a hard cap because we want a certain type of unit or, do we want to provide a little leeway to be appealing to something like an empty nest couple, something that is more transient or less transient? The larger unit would result in something less transient. He thinks this is a subjective,personal decision—so really, it is what the majority of the Board wants. Brewer: adding"residential" makes a big difference in terms of clarifying what is and what is not inside the unit. The assumption being made is that it is what is inside the walls and he does not think that is the case. Ivimey & Frazier: would leave "residential" out. Frazier would also cap unit size - perhaps come up with a new defmition to clarify what is included. Dicke: Humphreys (attorney for current applicant) felt the definition was ambiguous in terms of what is included. Applicant for 8 James Lane disagreed and wanted to speak to this — Town Counsel advised that, to maintain procedural integrity of this application, there not be a comment or word of discussion with current applicant or any interaction with what is being done now and the 8 James Lane application — if warrant article is submitted to the warrant,there will be a public hearing. Ivimey: Do we want to keep current concept that measures everything inside the walls, which will require a new definition? Drinan: still thinks the RGFA is a fare clearer definition of space by its use - if the Board is concerned about the over large end of it,make it smaller than 1500 sq.ft.,but the definition is clear. Brewer: echos what Drinan is saying but likes adding "residential" in front of gross floor area. He believes the intent of the square footage is the unit size not necessarily storage that might be remote, parking etc. He is for introducing some clarity into the bylaw. Ivimey&Frazier: not in favor of letting footprint get any bigger&would not exclude anything from calculation. Drinan,Brewer&Dickey: would carve some things out of the calculation. Dicke: would be in favor of having a cap on the amount of unusable space to avoid someone trying to beat the system by claiming that a huge attic is not living space and then quickly putting up plasterboard and throwing a room in. Clearly,the intent of the bylaw is to try to keep the units small. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7of 7 February 11,2015 Frazier: If the units are sold as condos and have big basements, the owner could finish basement off into a rental apartment for income — then we have an illegal apartment. Also thinks it should be apartment, not this whole connected house concept. Brewer: the townhouse as a multivariant was not anticipated by the bylaw — the intent was really mixed use — retail downstairs and residential upstairs and,really small in size. Ivimev: thinks limiting it to a simple length x width x height calculation is the clearest and most direct thing to do or limiting it to length x width x height with only a certain amount of that space being allowed for unusable space of some definition. The original idea was a good one and the best way to get there with the most predictability is just to say— "the box that is the dwelling unit will be between 700 and 1500 sq.ft.". Drinan: that is way too limiting a definition if you are going to have a building that has a utility room or an attic or a garage. Ivimey—but you want it to be limiting. Brewer: thinks it is limiting by adding"residential". Drinan — maybe the best thing to do is to shave some size off of the RGFA then. Ivimey—then question is —how much do you shave off—do we go to 1400 or 1350 sq.ft.? Brewer—can get a handle on that by way of what a 1 bedroom or 2 bedroom square footage would be — "transitional" aren't really 3 bedrooms — maybe for smaller units we are talking about studios, I bedroom and 2 bedroom and, there is a square footage range for those — 1500 sq.ft. for a transitional is more like a 3-bedroom. Ivimey— can we resolve that question tonight or do we need experts in the field to go back and consider that? Drinan: if you were to shave off to a number that the Board thinks is a better size,what would it be— 1300 sq.ft.? Frazier: thinks 1500 sq.ft. is a 3-bedroom. Dickev: does not think 1500 sq.ft. is all that much room if including furnace,water heater etc. Ivimev is Board saying they do not have wording for the public hearing on the 25t`? Brewer: suggested talking to Angus Jennings. Town Counsel: advised that there can be some change between what is submitted and what is heard at the public hearing as long as it is not too different. And, we can submit either Drinan or Dickey's drafts to the Town Clerk with the notice of public hearing. Ivimev: suggested the Board vote on which version -Drinan's or Dickey's - to submit and advertise for now and Ivimey and Town Counsel will wordsmith some of the wording. Those in favor of Drinan's version: 1 Those in favor of Dickey's version: 4 MOTION: By Member Brewer to submit Dickey's version to Town Clerk with Notice of Public Hearing. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES TOPICS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY CHAIR 48 HRS.IN ADVANCE OF MTG. -none PUBLIC COMMENT (5 MINUTES MAXIMUM) -none MOTION: By Member Dickey to adjourn at 10:50 P.M. SECOND: Member Drinan VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: STUART A.IVIMEY, CHAIRMAN DATE: FEBRUARY 25,2015