Saturday, September 26, 2026
Subscribe Advertise Donate Advertiser Log In
Support free local journalism for all of Wayland. Donate Now
Donate Subscribe
Try: Select Board School Committee Real Estate Town Meeting Budget

October 14, 2025 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Video & Transcript

play-sharp-fill

October 14, 2025 - Zoning Board of Appeals

 
LanguageEnglish
Good evening. This is the Tuesday, October 14th, 2025 meeting for the Board of Appeals. So I'll read the preamble. Fertility to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, the speech that we've conducted in person and via remote means, according to the law, the public meeting link can be found on the agenda and on the town website. This meeting may be recorded and made available to the public on WACAN soon after the meeting as is practical. Times are approximate and some items may not be discussed in order listed or specific time adjusted. All topics may be subject to deliberation in both. When required by law or allowed by the chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so by any person attending to the right access to the meeting remotely. We request that public comment be limited to two minutes per person. So with that, we'll start with public comments. And I always like to say this is public comment, not tied to the specific cases, but just general public comment. Doesn't look like we've got anyone here and guessing there's no one online. I've seen no one online. All right. Um, so then our next item on the agenda is review to approve the draft minutes of September 9th. Um, does everyone on the board have a chance to read those minutes? Yes. Any comments? No. Okay. Okay. Um, I think a motion, uh, to approve the minutes, uh, of September 9th, uh, 2025. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Then we milk, so we don't need to do the roll call. So that's done. All right. So, um, we'll move on to the first case of the evening. This is the continuation of CDH is 25-25 at 21 Hitcheret Road. This is the application of the Millbrook Group, LLC, Kristen Lipson, a property located at 21 Hitcheret Road. Uh, in the business aid zoning district, the applicant is seeking a property special permit to convert the property to a cafe and bistro, including outdoor patio seating. The structure is considered pre-existing non-conforming structure as it does not meet the density and setback requirements of the current zoning bylaw. Additionally, the property is located in the Aquifer Protection District and the National and Local Historic District. Additional zoning relief, such as variances or special requirements, may be required. Um, I would like to note that I will replace myself for this case. Okay. Um, which might be also on the board of library trustees. All right. So, since this is a continuation, just, uh, before we open it up, uh, just a kind of a brief summary of, of where we left off. Um, we sort of, we left the last presentation on this case, sort of, with kind of two takeaways. One, I was going to conduct some, uh, in-depth research on compliance path options with town council, and the applicant was going to confirm, sort of, their ratio parking calculations, um, and send some additional information along. And in fact, you actually, you did that on September 12th. You sent a very comprehensive package to the zoning board that we all reviewed and had a chance to, to go through. Um, so if you want, I can present the update, uh, of the conversation that I had with town council. Um, and then we can sort of hear some additional process. So, um, again, bear with me, uh, as I'm not an attorney, I will, I, I sort of summarized what town council has written, I think, in a pretty easy and, uh, comprehensive way. Um, so, uh, long and short of it is, sort of, borrowing the argument that your attorney made, you know, pointed us in a potentially interesting direction. I didn't ask the town council that particular question, but they sort of led us in a, in a similar result. So, I'll sort of walk you through the, the rationale that, that we had a conversation about. Um, we know it's a pre-existing non-conforming parcel, right? And we also know that it's a non-conforming parking, right? There is no provision for the parking. So, um, under the town bylaw article 5, um, off street parking has got to be provided as part of the original construction of the building. This is a key provision of, uh, 506.1. Uh, or, or in a case where you are increasing units, it doesn't specify what units, but it says units or dimension, right? So under this component of the bylaw, right, that language suggests that a new use that moves into a pre-existing non-conforming building, right, under that provision of the bylaw actually does not trigger a requirement to comply with section 5 of the parking bylaw. This is reasoning from, this is reasoning from town council. However, the bylaw also says under 506.2, that you've got to re-, that parking is required if a change of use increases the need by more than 20%. And we've heard from the applicant that, like, there's a path there because the, the change in use is going to increase the cost of parking requirements by less than 20%. But this is where it gets interesting. Town council is concerned that, like, the application of two sort of conflicting provisions of the bylaw can lead to a sort of more potentially more problematic kind of conflicting decision. So they, they pointed out that, um, kind of a third component of this, that, uh, it's clear that you can't modify this pre-existing non-conforming structure by, in some way, by adding parking, off-speed parking to it somehow, without actually increasing or adding an additional non-conformity where one doesn't exist at all. But there's sort of, there's no remedy to correct the fact that the core underlying structure with, that when it was first constructed did not provide off-speed parking. So that kind of, in a way, that cures that component of, of this project. Um, so that sort of led to kind of a three-part process of, um, of the zoning compliance path here. And the idea is that under, that the DBA would make a finding under section 401.1.2, which is the pre-existing non-conforming situation. This is a, because under 401.1.2, pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses can be modified. So that if we could make a finding that the underlying use, which has no long-speed parking, wouldn't be made more detrimental by swapping for another use that also has no long-speed parking, that would sort of allow us to create a special permit, straight-up special permit under 401.1.2, that will, would allow for a change of use as a non-conforming structure, non-conforming component, right? So that sort of, in a way, is a, is a path to kind of cure the, the use issue, the use change issue associated with the lack of triggering the off-speed parking requirements. The third leg of this process would be a straightforward restaurant-use special permit under 11.02.1.1, which is the same restaurant-use permit that we would be applying for anyways. So the only, the only sort of subtle difference in, in this distinction is that the town council believes that you would actually have to have two special permits here, one to sort of deal with the pre-existing non-conforming use, not having parking, and a new use not having parking, and then a special permit for restaurant use. Now, the criteria for the finding under 401.1.2, and the subsequent special use permit under 203, are fundamentally similar between the standard special permit under 203, and the restaurant special permit under section language. The language is similar, but it's not exactly the same. The recommendation there is that you would sort of consider, you know, two special permits there. So, before I go on further, and potentially sort of wander with an accidental legal error because of this, sort of, to the applicant, does that, does that sound like consistent with your, sort of, sort of, your understanding of, of some of the options here? Sure, yeah, sure. Yeah, just, you just have to give us your name. Good evening to the board, through the chair. My name is Jeff Eugino of Gellarman and Cabral LLC. We're based in Norwood, and I'm here with the setting. Yeah, I'm looking at tonight. Thanks, thank you to the chair for working with town council. You know, I, if, if the, if the board is of the opinion that those are valid means, I don't disagree with any, any of that town council has come forward with. I would, I would not say anything to upset that. I think that on the merits of, of either of the two special permit provisions, that the applicant has made a, made a case that she satisfies either, either or both of those standards. Um, I, I, I do know, you know, I, I think, I think that read of, um, of, of section, um, you know, a 506.1, you know, I, I, I do think, you know, that you don't see that often in many towns where it has the, you know, parking only is, is required for an original erection or increase, um, the units of buildings. I think that, I think that is, takes into account the situation here that the, that the structure is as old as it is, and didn't have parking at that time. Um, you know, but I would, you know, and ask Ms. Lipson if she has any more to add, but I think that, um, in terms of both of those, those standards, um, for those, those special permit standards that those would be met, I don't disagree that, that both may be required. Um, Kirsten Lipson, 10 Millbrook Road, um, also the, uh, owner of the Millbrook group for the applicant. Um, the only additional thing that I would say is just the, um, one additional update since the last meeting is that I am prepared to offer three off-street parking, um, dedicated for employees of this operation on my personal residence, 10 Millbrook Road, which is just a hundred yards or so from the property. And with those taken into account, the average, um, weekday expected, uh, parking calculation is actually less than the current use. And then on the weekend, it's well within the 20% buffer. So I think that speaks to not being incrementally detrimental. I think the language is versus the current use. Thank you. Um, I did, I did see that email. Um, so the only, the only, and it's, it's, sorry, I should step back. The great piece of news that's exciting and I'm happy that you sort of have gone, I would say above and beyond in looking for a solution to like an attractable problem. The only thing we have to be extremely careful about is that, um, under the legal strategy that I outlined for basically coming up with a vehicle that resolves the change of use on a condition where there is preexisting, uh, lack of parking and providing parking would create additional non-conformity, right? There could be a potential conflict if we make a finding that that's permissible, but we simultaneously ask you to also look at providing additional parking. So I, I see a potential issue if we were to sort of incorporate in the decision a reference to that because I see intellectually that kind of undermines the first point of the argument, which is that, um, we would find that there is no, uh, substantial difference between uses that do not provide off-speed parking. That's kind of the core of the, that first part of that legal argument for the special permit. So that is good news, but I might not want to formalize that. And that may be something that there's another piece of this, which is kind of an operational one, which is where your research on parking options that, that patrons are going to want to avail themselves of is, is nonetheless interesting. So like, I wouldn't, I would encourage you to sort of keep an open mind with that, but I might not want to actually incorporate that into the legal, legal framework of the decision. The layperson, that makes sense. Yeah. It makes sense to me too. Yeah. Yeah, I don't, yeah, it just goes back to, yeah, I don't disagree with that either. Um, it's, it goes back to the core that, you know, parking, parking here was, was, um, previously, previously not performing and, and, and it was a commercial, it's commercial property today. So, yes, keeps the board focused on that. Yeah. I also think the key too, is that like, there is no, there is no parking relief that could be provided without creating additional issue, either non-conformities on this lot. If you were to say, we have to somehow find a way to put parking on this lot while that, and it's like you physically could do it, but it would create other problems, right? Thank you. Um, all right. So, before I open it up to questions from the board, um, and do you have any other, any other comments about this? Uh, the only concern I have is the members of the board that participated in the last hearing and are participating in this one, is, is there enough, is there, yeah, so that was, I know Ms. Paul, I think was here before, I don't see her here tonight, just so you have enough members. Yeah. So, so that's an interesting, that's an interesting point. And it's like, that was one of the things I was going to raise is that, um, Ms. Paul is not here tonight. So, um, and I'm trying to remember, um, Sean, were you here? No, I have to be part of this actually. Okay. So that does raise a, that does raise a problem in that we theoretically would not have a quorum this evening with, uh, Ms. Janis refusing herself. So, that was on my other list of things to raise. Is, is John table to moanize now? No, I have to lose a little bit. You would have to listen to the tape and, and moanize. Okay. Now, um, yeah, that would be, that potentially would be a problem. Uh, and, you know, I only heard that, uh, Ms. Paul wasn't able to make this meeting literally just yesterday. So, you know, I didn't have a chance to sort of make any, any additional action on that. Yeah. Um, so, you know, well, before, I guess, before we go further on this, um, since everyone is here, uh, were there any questions from the board now, either on the legal guidance we've received or any additional information from the applicant.
No, I, I mean, I had all my questions answered by the applicant last, last meeting and I've reviewed, uh, the notes from the, uh, that came in with, uh, that summary. I have some questions. I'm going to participate. I have to check, just catch up with the previous, uh, meeting thing, you know, this place is turning into a restaurant eventually. Yes. And, uh, the difference with, in my opinion, the difference is like shopping or restaurant is like, you know, shoppers can park for 10, 15 minutes somewhere. They can come and buy what they want. They leave by the restaurant. They stay there. One more to go. Pardon? There's, there's limited seating and there's going to be sort of, yeah, but people are going to sit there. And this is more of a cafe, I should say, just because I think the turnover is quicker than a restaurant. The, the other issue that, uh, looking at the, uh, the location of it is such a corner that, uh, you know, it might, in my opinion, uh, it might create a conflict with traffic, you know, as far as, you know, uh, and you're occupying the whole land as far as like the building. And, uh, so there will be no turning area or nothing on the property. No, but there are six parking spots on the street right in front of them currently. Yes. And so those don't compete. If those don't offer or, um, present a traffic problem, there's no change. How many tables do you have? Uh, the fire occupancy is, uh, 98 and not tables, but occupancy, the expected, uh, tables, the expected hourly occupancy, I believe is 45 per hour. That's occupants, not tables. Um, and, uh, during the week and, um, slightly more during the weekend. Yeah. We actually have all that information in the, in the drawings. Okay. And those numbers were used in the calculations, um, that for the, um, the formula for the required parking, that's what gets us to less than the current use as a retail business. Um, and within 20%, uh, for the weekends when all the other businesses nearby are mostly closed. Tom, can we get around molinization if she gives a presentation and can't get around it? Okay. Can I get around it? As much as I want to? No, we can't. So it, it does, it does, it does mean, unfortunately, information, that's what I was thinking. Yeah, no, we can't, we can't get around that. It does, it does mean, um, because we, we are missing, um, one member and we have a recusal that we would ultimately have to continue this. But before, I guess, before, before I do that, um, again, given, given, given, given what we've, what we've kind of laid out, um, you know, I think that in terms of the questions that, that we as a board had asked of the applicant, I think we got an enormous amount of kind of research in the implementation of that. And I think in terms of the, um, uh, the clarity now, I think of the legal path, you know, I still remain kind of incredibly excited about this opportunity here. I agree. Um, and I, I'm comfortable that in my mind, all of the kind of the issues we had with our sort of reticence on improving this quickly at the last meeting, or even bringing it to a vote without some additional legal clarity. In my mind, I think a lot of those questions have been resolved. I think overall, this is still a value add for the town. This is a value add as an overall for that space. And I think if we were able just to hash it out, I think we could close this up. I agree. I think the parking issue is obviously the biggest issue. And I think that that's more of a business decision that the business owner is well aware of than, uh, than it is, you know, a, that I think it would derogate from the, the actual neighborhood or the town. And not to mention the overwhelming support from, you know, citizens of the town is, you know, been tremendous. So I think we need to take that into account. Yep. No, I, I would agree. Um, so, uh, as much as it pains me because I'd love to, I'd love to move this process along, as I said, with, with the recusal and the absence, I think we would have to continue this, but I guess I would say that, um, I think we could continue this and I think we could probably move pretty quickly through the finding the special permit and the language for the restaurant. I don't, I, I don't need any additional information from you or from your attorney to sort of, to kind of, I think, move forward with this.
So, so the next day would be November 11th.
That is correct, right? November 11th is a holiday. November 11th is a holiday.
No, it's Veterans Day. Oh. Does that mean it's the 18th? Yes, uh, I updated, I, I uploaded an updated, uh, CBA meeting. Yeah, November 11th is Veterans Day. Okay. Okay. All right. So, um, I would, we have to vote on this. So I would, this is interesting. We don't have a panel. Can we have Justine, um, what do you mean to continue? Well, obviously we don't have a panel vote. We obviously can vote. We obviously have to be able to vote to continue this because you continue something because you have, don't have a member. Obviously we can make a vote. So, um, I would make a motion that we continue this to 7 p.m. on, uh, the next meeting, next available meeting, which is November 18th. 7 o'clock. Uh, these are all listed at 7. They're all listed at 7? Yeah. Second. All right. Um, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, none. All right. So, do we have a continuation form? That, I think we should just make sure Justine Molinizes. Yes. Well, I want to have Justine and Sean both. Can you, can, can you print that Molinization form? So, and the link to the, so I can send you one in. Fantastic. If you could send it to Justine as well. Yeah. Please. That would be great. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you for your patience with this. I apologize that, you know, that's staffing issues, but, um, again, I'm grateful for the additional research you did, and I'm pleased that we have, like, a vehicle that, I think, allow for this, um, and that unanticipated project and kind of unanticipated zoning challenge to sort of be resolved. And I want to thank all of you for the, the time and thought that you've given it both here and since the last meeting. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Yes. Um, uh, all right. We can move on to the next case, which is case 25-26. This is for 7 East Road. This is the application of Charlie Mezok, owner of the property located at 7 East Road, situated in the Arpogia zoning district in Wayland. They're submitting an application seeking a variance, special permit, or other zoning relief as applicable to demolish and reconstruct a single-family dwelling on a pre-existing, non-conforming lot. So do we have anyone here to present that? And, uh, give us your name and address. Before we do that, can I just mention for the record that I'm acquainted with Charlie, and Charlie has in the past done work for us at our house, but I don't see that as an impediment to hearing the case and act on it, and as long as Charlie doesn't like it. No, not at all. Thank you.
My name is Charlie Mezokopas. I'm pretty much a lifelong, I've lived in the town pretty much my entire life. Raised my family here.
And I'm trying, I've purchased a house, I'm a general contractor here in town. I'm not a builder, I'm not a developer. Um, I renovated homes, and I purchased this house from a family friend, um, knowing that it was going to need a lot of work, um, come to find out it needed more than I initially thought. Um, so, um, I'm proposing to tear down the house and construct a new home. Um, found that the foundation, um, was subpar. Um, I have a, I had an engineer come out and do a finding on it. And, um, he didn't, it's not enough to condemn the house, but, um, the house was built in 1927. It was one of the first early poured foundations. There's a lot of, um, cold joints in it, and it's, um, starting to crack, and it's starting to list in on two sides of the home, on top of which there's a lot of water in the basement. Um, big problem was a tree had fallen in the house and destroyed the whole upper level of the home, um, which shifted the whole roof as well. I, I purchased the home knowing that that had occurred, um, but, uh, I didn't realize some of the other structural issues, um, that it came with. Um, so the house I'm proposing, uh, is virtually the same footprint footprint is what's there currently. It's just the house to be turned, um, lengthwise to make it more conforming on three sides. Um, the only part would be the front that is, uh, not as conforming. I currently have separate approval for the house. Um, talked to most of my neighbors, um, on East road, we talked to all of them on East East road. Um, they seem to be on board with it. I know one neighbor across the street appears not to be. He's worried about the height.
The house is only, it's going to be 33, 33, 33, yeah. Or it's in the back of the existing structure. Uh, anything else you can tell us about the application? Um, it's a three bedroom, uh, 2400 and change square foot house. Um, two car garage and a small basement below. It finished with a half bath in there. Um, master's above the garage, two bedrooms next to it. And, um, it's downstairs main room. It's just that kitchen, family room, half bath down there. And then the basement has an office right layer with a half bath. When did they choose the houses building? 1927, I believe. Yeah, it's old.
So the, all the structure, you know, the main beams are not sufficient to support another story to be good if I was to maintain it and try and build on it. And then the failing foundation, it just doesn't make sense to try and build on, uh, what's existing. I guess before we open it up to, uh, any additional questions for you, is there anyone else in the public, um, that wants to be heard on this case? We all do, yeah. A lot of us here to support. Yeah, we're all here to support the bill. Okay, um, if you all, you're all welcome to speak, or if one of you wants to speak on behalf of everyone, um, I don't want to keep everyone here longer than they need to be, but we, it's a public process. We do, if there are people here, we do have to actually hear from them. Let me sit back. Yeah, you can. Okay. So as I said, not everyone, everyone doesn't, not everyone has to. Thank you. If you all are going to say something similar, that's, it's, it's fine. If one person wants to, you know, step up and, and speak, that would be great.
Why don't you, uh, if you come on up and just give us your name and address. If you come up, I'm Debra Neumeier, one holiday road. I just wanted to be sure that the house was, um, the new house would be built, um, exactly the footprint and not exceed it in any way because it's an undersized law to begin with. So I feel very strongly about that. Okay. Sure. It's probably 11 holiday road. And I, I, I talked to him about it. We're in support of, like, just a beautiful home. Uh, we didn't hit that one against our neighborhood. Uh, right now, it's really bad. Uh, and I, I understand that the problem is that we have to try to get approved, but we really just want a beautiful house there. There's been several neighbors in the neighborhood that have gotten very high. It doesn't bother me. Uh, we, we would like a beautiful house in that location and hopefully a nice young family. We'll get to live there and, uh, go to, you know, be a member of our community to pay taxes and hopefully be a nice addition. So I think that, um, it is, I think, a difficult problem to develop information.
Um, there's some challenges there. It's, but, you know, I think that leaving it in its current state is not very desirable. I think it was either the lady or the town or the neighbors or the neighbors or theater. So I think that, uh, I am a supporter of doing something to the side. I just think that the concern that I have raised around the property and some of its relevant positions in my house, uh, you'll see that. So, uh, did you, I think the thing that, like, did you pronounce it? Yes, yes, we received your letter with time and difference. I think we've seen this over a while ago. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, just briefly, I mean, the two main things I'm concerned about is that the house is too big for its positioning, where it is from the front. Now, while the floor area is not increasing as significantly, the front surface of the property, of course, in my calculations, it's increasing by about 300 percent. So, when we look at it from the streetscape and my house is directly opposite, what I'm worried about is the potential for that to then create more of a much more sort of mass effect.
The other concern I have is the bedroom windows on the house and the new house, one of the bedrooms, and the bedroom on my house, I don't have to go to the position directly opposite of each other, particularly to the united site, the other, which I'm not sure I'm thrilled about.
So, do you know what I think? I want to emphasize again, I think that something needs to be done to the property. I'm just not sure this particular plan configuration is the right one for the size property and the challenges that it has been coming. So, I just want to consider my concern as part of your job. What number are you living in?
What numbers do you have?
Yeah, directly across the street. Thank you. Oh, okay. Yeah, if you can, if you can call there so she can speak. Yeah. Hi, I'm Shano Mendler de Suarez, I'm at 56 Orchard Lane, so I actually can see this property through my neighbor's property across the street. And I think I share with, you know, some of the other neighbors, looking forward to having something nice take the place of a house which has been damaged and empty for quite some time now, and make it habitable again in some way or other. But I also share concerns about the scale of a new house on that particular lot. And in the larger scheme of things, our neighborhoods still have some what, by Wayland standards, people might consider to be modest-sized housing. And I feel very strongly that it's important that we not lose modest-sized houses in the town of Wayland. So, I would be concerned with increasing the size of a home on that very small lot, primarily for that reason, that I would like to still live in a town I grew up here, in which, for example, people who work for the town could find homes to live in. And I realize, you know, that for builders and developers, it's very, very difficult to, you know, to make the costs work. But I don't think that that should drive building the largest possible home on a lot. There are, other considerations in our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Any other? Not a comment, but a question. If you could give us your name and address. And any idea on 90s Road. So, I'm like, two weeks left.
Pierce, I wasn't sure about the height of the property. Is the property going to be almost the same height as yours? Uh, looks like it's going to be taller than his house. Oh, okay. It's 43.3 feet.
Yeah, it's taller. Can we follow? Yes. Does it compare, how does it compare to the house to the right when you're facing the um, seven weeks? So, that's my house. So, I'm only one level. There's, I don't know. No, no, no. That's a two and a half story colonial. So, it's approximately, probably similar.
And that house is much bigger, much bigger than what, as far as a footprint than what I'm proposing. So, I actually had several questions for the applicant. Um, so, not necessarily in any order. I noticed on the application, you're requesting a variance. It's actually not the right application for this. This would not be a variance, because we wouldn't be able to grant a variance for this. Why? So, you're actually looking for a special permit. So, I think the actual application does, the legal application does need to be corrected. So, like, based on that, I don't think we can take action on this tonight, either approve or not approve, um, because we need that corrected. Um, a second question I had is that, um, you're proposing to completely demolish the house. So, the interesting thing that happens when you do that is the pre-existing non-conformity of the front yard setback goes away. So, I don't actually think if you demolish the house, you can construct this back with a non-conforming front yard setback. Like, I know you've positioned it sideways so that you can conform with the side setbacks, but by demolishing the house, you, you remove the pre-existing non-conformity. So, I'm not, I'm not comfortable that you can actually, you know, proceed that way. Um, third, there, I, this lot's only 22% of the required size in the neighborhood. And the challenge I see with this is that this is a, that's 78% smaller than the lot size for the house of this massing. So, I mean, I, I, the lot coverage is still below the required amount. No, I understand, I understand that, but the, the, the, the massing of the house relative to the size of the lot is, I mean, I think it is extreme. I think we've heard from two, two people that they really be concerned about that. Um, so I don't know if I can necessarily, so I guess if I were to phrase those, those questions, I think you, you, you have to sort of update the application. Um, and I guess I would, I would question the ability to sort of to completely demolish the house and not comply with the front. Like, why would you, why comply with the sides, but not the front setback? Well, we're limited where the separate system goes in the back. We're trying to, and we're trying to, I think we're on all three sides. We're conforming except for the front. Um, we push the house back. I think the only thing in the front that, um, created some of the nonconformity is the, the, um, the front stoop for the front landing. I mean, if we take that out of the consideration, that's, I think five or six feet right there, that would increase the setback. Um, I think the front here is 30, if I have it, it's 30 foot setback, but this is only. That would push close. And it's, it's 20, 22, I think. 21 into the front landing. Yeah. So it's not the actual house, it's the front, the front stoop. So that brings it to the front. That brings it to 27.7. In, in, in the count. But the stups and steps are not included in the ledgering field. Yeah, I don't think the stups are included. So you just look to the house. They're exempt. They're exempt. So, you know, if we could find a way to get the, front of the house at 30 feet, um, perhaps. But I don't want, I don't want to monopolize the questions. I don't know if anyone else on the board has questions for the applicant. Well, one of my, my question, you mentioned that the, um, applications asking for a variance does on the application. The legal description suggests a variance special permit or other zoning limit, which has allowed us in the past to, um, to use what is in the legal description. Right. And if, if I'm just trying to be, I'm trying to make sure we are, Yeah. We are being more rigorous in the application of these things. Yeah. So, no, no, if there's, if there's going to be, um, changes to the application, then making a change on the, I mean, we could probably could conceivably make a change here in the meeting and, you know, vote to accept that. But, um, but so then it sounds as though, um, there was the front yard setback wasn't calculated correctly because you do not calculate the distance of the stoop. Okay. Or the front stairs. It goes from there. I always thought it was part of, but okay. I'll let the engineers readjust that. Yeah. They can adjust that. It doesn't look like it's going to the stoop though. From 21.9, it's going to the corner of the house. The front stoop is in the middle. The one I'm looking at doesn't have any dimension on it.
I see 20.3 on the left, 25.5 on the right, 21.7 to the stoop. But I don't see a dimension to the, um, the landing. I don't see a dimension on the landing. I'm just saying I see it to the corner of the corner of the corner of the corner. So three feet, we just have them probably. Yeah. I mean, I see the site plan that I have says the front of the house is 21.9 from the front. Yeah, 21.9. Yeah. Yeah. Is there anything in that? I missed building 21.9. You got my boss in that one.
Are there any other houses in this area similar to a smaller, larger than the potential?
Not that I don't know specifically.
I think there's one of the smaller blocks in the neighborhood. Questions or? Yeah, it seems like the, uh, um, the height of the building is one of the bigger concerns for neighbors. Oh, actually, if we're, are there any alternatives to, or any kind of ideas that you've had with these drawings to maybe modify the attic? Yeah, we could, we could change potentially the pitch of the roof. Mm-hmm. Um, in 12, we could lower the pitch a little bit, but I, I, you know, originally I was trying to stay within the guidelines at 35 feet or less. Right. Um, and, and that's, that's why we came up with that. Um, aesthetically, I think it worked. Um, and we were within the guidelines. That's, that's why we, we drove it that way, the potential, I guess. If you bring the pitch from above to down or whatever you could, would it make it, uh, less than 30 feet high? Um, we want to go less than a 6-6. Um, that might. You mean 6 over 12? 6 over 12. Yeah, 6 pitch. Yeah. Um, ideally it wanted somewhere around 7, 7 to 8. We've had a similar case like this in the past where we've had a smaller lot, larger face. The builder reduced down to the gambrel style, which still allowed for plenty of square footage for a second story for the bedrooms, for the accountability of HVAC and stuff like that. Um, I wonder if it's something like that might be, but how was that neighborhood compared to like one single, it was similar. It was similar, it was similar. Most of the houses were modest. And, um, it was, it was a similar, I wouldn't say exactly the same size lot, but it was a similar size lot. With a similar house. With a similar size house. And the, the, and unlike here, there was a very limited neighbor support. That was, that was another big thing. I, I was going to bring that up, but which I think it's fantastic that the neighbors are getting involved here and being willing to add support for the applicant, which is fantastic. And I always love to see that. Um, but I do want to take some of these requests into kind of some of the thought process and, and the design. So that way it is non detrimental to that neighborhood from, from the neighbor's perspectives, if possible. Um, but it was just a thought. But even if the pitch is lower, uh, but it could be still have a same size massing. Yes. And the front front yards are invading the front yard. Yeah. I mean, it's a challenging, it's a challenging proposition. I mean, uh, it's a very challenging lot. Yes. I think that, um, and the other thing was, was that we have stairs going up to the attic. One thing that we've not done in the past is we've done pull downs and not have proper stairs because it was potentially could be used as a third story. So I, I saw that and I was thinking back to another case that we had that we recommended today is switch over of styling to not include stairs for that as it was. Due to the massing of available space in that area.
Well, I think you have to look at the stand. I mean, this is a, this would be the application of a, to be a special permit. It's definitely a special language. The language of this would be that, you know, what's being proposed is not more, you know, detrimental or out of character with, or detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Um, in my opinion, I think the house has proposed, although I, I, I think the design is nice and I appreciate that getting rid of the abandoned house is an important goal. Um, I, I do think it's going to be challenging to say that the house that is proposed right now is not
wholly sympathetic to the character of the neighborhood. I mean, I think if you look at several, there's several one-story houses in the neighborhood and this is one of the smaller lots in the neighborhood. And this would be like kind of the tallest structure in the neighborhood. So, but the other advantage is like, you know, the existing house is 1921, which is the ISO as opposed to, I, I, I, I don't disagree. I think we're in a, we're in a very difficult, I think we're in a difficult situation with this. Just because of the age of the house. I just want to make sure we're not, this isn't a historical house, right? Well, no damage. So the direct to butter number three, well, the height of that house looks, I mean, it's two and a half stories. I know it's a wall, I understand that. I'm just saying when you're talking about, you know, the attributes of the neighborhood, it's not like it's the only house on the street that has. No, no, I was actually, um, if you look at the, if you look at the letter that the, um, the neighbor at number eight, uh, sent us. That also gives you some, uh, photographs of, uh, the construction. And let's see this, this particular one right there. I mean, this one story house is on both sides. Well, it's not on the right hand side. Yeah, just to the right of it. To the right of that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right directly to the right of my property. There's one house there again. Yeah, it's not shown. Okay, hold on. I understand. Yeah, relax. Not shown in this picture. I'm talking about this picture though. This picture provides context. Like there's, there's a clear. Yes, I understand that there is a house to the other side of the street right there. Right? But there's a large distance between that house and this house. Right? Yeah. There's not a large distance between this house and, you know, the next house, or this house on the front edge of the street. The one-story houses, I believe, are on Holiday Road. And the ones, is that correct? And the ones on East Street are two-story, basically? Yeah, they're split. So, yeah. Or contemporary style. On Holiday Road. On Holiday Road. Which is around the corner from this. But there was a comment also. I know that we're, yeah. But I, can we reopen it up for people? Uh, we, I guess you, people can ask questions, I guess. But yeah, is there a question?
Question? Okay. Thank you. Well, yeah. Just clarify the one-story houses you're talking about. The other issue is that, you know, even if the whole neighborhood is one-story house, if they come renovate or do something, they're not going to go underground. They're not going to go out. Oh, I'm not saying that that's a problem. So, um, 9 East Road appears to be a one-story house. That's it. That's. Correct? Yes. That's the only one. One-story. Okay.
I think it's important to note that East Road and Holiday, where they intersect, the homes on East, vary in structure. And Holiday is mostly, or all, mid-centering, modern homes. So, um, there is quite a difference in homes on just that East alone. Yeah. But I mean, if I look at 72 Concord Road, that's a, probably a two-story house with a one-story massing. 8 East Street is a two-story house with a one-story massing. Like 68 Concord Road is a two-story house with a one-story massing. 75 Concord Road is a one-story house. 9 East is a one-story house. So like, like this house, the proposed project reads like a three-story house. It's just a fact of the design. Now, I would agree that I think the design could be modified so it doesn't have that appearance. Much like if you look at the house at, uh, 8 East, you, it is a two-story house, but it creates the appearance of a one-story house. If you look at where the eave line intersects the, the front facade and you have a dormer. So, um, just by the architectural style. Yes. The architectural style. Um, also the error that that goes in building. I mean, that's that family. That's how they, they designed those. Yep. But I'm also, I mean, this, I could imagine three or four different designs of this current iteration of a house that sort of could have obtained the same, the same interior square footage just out of a different roof line. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's a little too serious. Can I add in a comment? Uh, sure. So, Charlie's correct. The house at number 8, they used to sort of the error in the house. But then, the second floor, there is a recent addition that was done in 2014-2015. Prior to that it was a one-story bungalow with much shadow of blue. And part of the knitting process, I mean, for this in April at that time, was to ensure that things had a large massive effect on the surrounding property. So, that's why we ended up with a design that it closes the second floor within the lower views and giving it a sort of one-story mass and it's a half and not having a full two-story tradition on the second floor because of the concerns at the time, of that approval, was that it would otherwise zero the description. And so, I think the principle that applied to when the board gave air proof for that construction, they should also apply the same beta principle to this proposed development and also impose the same restrictions on not having number 7 zeroes in the mode. Thank you. I mean, I will say that we've had a couple of projects recently of similar, different neighborhoods, but similar strategy. And, you know, one of the things that I think is important to consider is that, you know, in the current, the current iteration of the massing of this house is that, like, we're taking a house that is perpendicular to the street, making it parallel with the street, so it's getting closer to the side lot lines. And on both, especially on the right side of the house, it's 33 feet straight façade all the way up, so it creates a wall-like appearance on the right side of the house if you're looking at the front. And this is some of the other projects where we've had houses that are two and a half stories on lots that are between 5,000 and 9,000 square feet. We've usually asked for modifications to the massing to sort of step back the straight façade along the kind of the side yards from being, like, literally a straight 33-foot corridor. I think in all of those situations, correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, but we, the applicant modified the plans to add dormers to, uh, to alter the height. Is that right? Yes. Reduce, but not lose any of the square foot or tree. Right, you're right, exactly. Correct. It was again, the gambrel with dormers. Right. Or gambrel or, like, you could modify, you could modify. I mean, much like this house has, uh, there's a shed roof portion. The garage is pulled forward from the second story, and there's a dormer added there. So there's already some kind of re-articulation of, uh, the massing on that side. You could also do a hip roof. You could sort of take the gable ends and you could fold them in, and you have an exclusive dormer on that. So there's, there's different architectural strategies that one could use to, to modify this. Um, I don't want to get, I don't want to get too far down the path of this, but, um, taking apart the, the questions, does the board feel like we can modify the application here in the hearing to just note the correct change to the, uh, special permit for the variance? Yes. So the legal ad went on with all three of the, uh, just, um, one. Yeah, just the application itself. Yes, the application itself. The legal ad is, uh, correct. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. We've had town council allow us to do that when the legal ad is correct. We can modify the application. So, um, all right. So if we can just modify that, I think that's fine. So we can, we can take care of that. Um, I guess my, my second concern, I guess, would be a question to the applicant. Like, would you be, would you be amenable to sort of looking at ways with your architect or designer to sort of kind of reconfigure the massing a little bit, maybe change the roof slope or sort of modify, maybe the right edge? Um, well, what I'm thinking is on the right side above the garage for the masters, we can reduce the pitch on that. That would reduce some of the massing that you see from the road and the edges that on the right side. And if we, if we could leave the facade of the main part of the house, the gable end, that the existing height. So if, if I turn that into an 8, 812 pitch above the garage, above the master, that would reduce that roof massing that you see. And on the right side, as you said, as you said, driving up, but maintain the height of the, either the 1212 on the main part of the house, would that, or would you want the entire roof line modified? Otherwise, how would it make a big difference? You don't think those modifications would be that? You don't think that, that, that other rig line coming across, that would lower that from the, from the, from the road process. Okay.
And on the right hand side, that, that's, that's a lot of room. I don't know if I can step up, if you understand where I'm. Yeah, no, I, I understand. Yeah. Just reducing all the way from this peak, this whole roof line would drop down. So that would reduce the, the size from the, the height from the right side and from the face. Yeah, I mean another. If you step down on an 812. I don't know that that would mean that. That would be different. Yeah, I, I, I do think that, I do think the main, I think the main, the main part of the house as well is what if it goes up to the 33 feet. I, I think we're, I think we're going to want to, if we could consider a change to that, um, again, given the fact that it's, it's pretty close, it's, it's close to the road and it's a flat, it's a flat base. So to reduce the pitch on that roof as well, because I, I don't want to alter the style of the house ideally. I mean, it's, I'm looking for, you know, if you start changing
the entire, like taking the whole roof off of that, it changes the whole dynamic of the house. So I have a, I have a quick question. Yeah. For, for the roof patch, if we were to change, if you were to do a change to that, what, what height would that open area be in the attic area? Would that drop that down underneath seven feet? I think so. Okay. So it would be guaranteed to be, and not be able to be used as, as a livable space if someone wanted to convert that later. Yeah. I don't have to scale on that. Because I know that we've dealt with that in the past as well.
I'm not sure that it was under, for the, huh? Five pavement. Five pavement. Yes, exactly. So that, that was another concern of mine. Currently to the collar ties, the main part is seven foot, what was that? Six. Five, seven, six? Yeah.
Yeah. So that would definitely reduce that. I mean, if we can get that in under seven, in which it can't be considered to be a usable space. Oh, yeah. I don't want, I don't want to reduce, I wouldn't want to reduce the ridge by, you can reduce the ridge by seven inches and you would get that. So I don't think that would make a meaningful, like massing distinction on the outside. But I, I appreciate the, the sentiment. But I'd like to find, I, you know, I'd like to find a path to, to, um, to resolve, uh, abandoned house that no one wants to stay. And I, I, I appreciate the economic, the economics of, quote, tearing that down and then rebuilding another 900 square foot house order. That's not, that's not feasible. So I under, I understand why we have this, this application. But I, I, I still think that, I think it's too much massing for the size of the block. I'd like to see if, I'd like to see if there's a way to sort of maintain the architectural style that you want, like somehow change the, change this massing so that it may be something steps back on the cable fronts and, you know, sort of the roof lowering. Um, I don't think you have to change the style of the house in order to do that. And I don't, I don't think the board is not interested in any particular architectural style. Like, I don't, I don't think we want to say it has to look a certain way at all. I, I think it's, I'm just wondering if there's a way to manipulate the massing to, to reduce this. And the location of the house is such because of the septic in the back. Yes. So your existing, so the proposal is that the front yard setback basically remains the same. It's just three tenths of a, um, it's closed. Yeah. Yeah. And side yards are closed. Well, one side's closed, the other is, um, it's reduced. Um, if I change the picture roof, even to a 10, 12 on the front, that, that would reduce the height by 28 inches over two feet, so it gives 31. I, I, you still have the sheer massing issue. I, I guess what I, what I, that doesn't take away that. Yeah. I guess what I'd like to say is like, can we, can, would you be able to come back with some, some modifications to this, um, that sort of try to tackle some of the questions we've raised? I, I, I can try. I mean, financially, you know, we're, we're adding more to it, but having to redraw, it's pretty much rebarrowing the whole thing, the whole part of the house. I understand, but that's the, this, this board can't, this board can't deal with like, you know, financial decisions. It's like in, in the application of the zoning bylaw. Um, so I guess with that, I, I, I'd recommend that we continue this. Well, is he agreeing with it? Well, yeah, I guess I'd have to ask, would you agree to, would you agree to continue this to, uh, the next hearing? Yes. Okay. So do we need to vote? Which would be November 18th. Yeah. November 18th. Yeah. So, okay. So, in the meantime, I would make a recommendation that we update the, uh, documentation for a special permit and remove the variance. Oh, in the application. Yeah. Just in the, yeah, we can, we can do that. We can do it in the cover shape. Yeah. We need to vote on a continuance. Yes, we do. We do. Okay. All right. Um, all right. So I'd make a motion that we continue this project case 25-26, uh, to November 17th. 18th. November 18th, uh, at 715. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So does he need to sign a continuation form? Yeah. Not for a special permit. No? Okay. Okay. But even the, the, the special permit has a deadline also. Are you sure? Like, I was positive. We've always, we've always done the, there is actually no, there's a deadline to open it, but then there's no deadline. Yeah. Yeah. You can't have any as much as we, for a special permit. But then once you close it, there is a deadline that's finally there. Right. To continue it, we vote it, and they sign a, um, an acknowledgement, but they're continuing the hearing. Right. We wouldn't do that. Okay. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you. We will see you, uh, next month. Great. Thank you. Have a good night. Thanks. Um, next item on the agenda, um, updates from the building. We did all night. I'm sure. You can't wait to give us the styling tonight. Yeah. I noticed, like, not, so you've been, you should, you stored all the updates for now.
So quiet voice. Uh, we met with, uh, Mr. Fea and, um, Ms. Hanson from conservation and then me and I last week over the school bus parking. Uh, excuse me. Could you please get your conversation outside? Thanks. We met over the concerns that we discussed at the last meeting about school bus parking, the continuation of that happening and reiterated that, um, the, there should be no topping off of fuel or maintenance be done on the, on the buses in the back and, um, what else do we have? Uh, we have the blocks for the wheels. Yeah. Let the blocking be put up a little bit closer and striking be put, uh, line painting be done for the buses. And, uh, there's going to be cameras, um, parking lots, so that there'll be, um, strict reinforcement of, like, topping off the fueling and also the contractor will be informed that this is, I know, in the future. Um, yeah. They don't, they don't really top off the fuels like maybe windshield washer fluid or maybe they need some brake fluid or stuff like that, but all the major, uh, maintenance is done in a garage for the leasing company. So, um, conservation was amenable to everything and we didn't really have any other restrictions, um, separately. And how many of us did that do? 18? 17. It depends what day you count. Because there was one over the limit, but I think they might have a spare there because of them broke down or they had that one available. So there was one over the limit. Yeah. They're 16 permitted and currently they're 17. Yeah. Okay. So one over the limit. So 16 were permitted? Yeah. Is that what it is? Is there, yeah, is that wrong? No, we're just, we're just asking, I'll clarify. Is that a problem though? I'm asking the rest of the question. We asked for an update because we received, I guess, some comments or some concerns from our local town. Always. For three years it's been like, you know, uh, I was unaware that there was even, there were even issues associated with it, so. Same, same issues, but they updated, you know, the situation that, like, no topping, no, even starting the buses. Is it part of the update that can they start the buses and just let it run? Yeah. So diesel needs to start and run. So, take a little ride there. You can't run them home, but they do have a minimum of 10 minutes, I believe, to idle. That was a major issue for the neighborhood or so that, uh, you know, running to pay, starting the diesel engine and running for like, I mean, the more it, the longer it runs, the better it runs. So, I guess, so it's not like a minimum 10 minutes is like, that's all. No, it's my goal. And how about the, what time do they start in the morning? How do we get that answer? Probably seven? Really? Before seven? It has to be before seven. Yeah, it has to be before seven. The buses passed my neighborhood just at seven, just after seven. Price, 640.
I mean, there were a lot of concerns about that also, starting time, you know, in the past that, you know, when we had this parking situation. Remember with this, uh, Charkis, Charkis Young? Yeah. But it was, there was such a big hassle to deal with this parking situation. So, there was a question. If 16 buses were permitted, how did 17 pop up?
I didn't ask that question. I don't know if you can talk, talk to the bus director. Yeah. I think that they would need one for backup, you know, because if they're down a bus, then they're going to have to have somebody do the route and then come back and then run that route. Yeah. Seems like it would be wiser to come and let the board know before just popping on there, because the controversy is in the first place. And when buses were being considered at, um, 195 Main Street, when we were looking at a new library there, um, there was such an uproar about buses being parked near the schools and being in constituent and all sorts of stuff. And then that just translated up here, you know. Yeah. Which, um, we had that discussion last week also, and I was, it caught me a little bit because that was a former DPW site. We had 10 wheelers and trucks and backhoes and all kinds of much more equipment. And I understood that there was pushback on keeping the buses there. Yeah. Nobody wanted the buses. It would have been much quieter than a DPW site. The only thing is you don't have, you need a trailer, you need toilet facilities for your drivers, all kinds of things. So it wasn't ideal, but, um. Yeah, but so it's a similar concern. It travels with the buses. Sure. So it's being sensitive to people who are. Oh, I understand. Yeah. And especially because it's a conservation landscape. Right. There have been no incidents, um, since they've been here, so. Yeah. That's the biggest thing. Yeah. I mean, I think if you step back and look at the reissue that precipitated this, the whole reason why the buses were here, you know, was the fact that well, is there a place that can be located that is not near neighbors? Right. Right. That is an already paved site. But theoretically, you would already consider like a degraded site. You weren't sort of creating a new problem somewhere where you're going to be adding, you know, pervious paving somewhere to accommodate, impervious paving to accommodate this. So like that was the backdrop against when this was brought to us, those were the questions raised about why, why this was, and kind of even then it was understood to be the least bad option of all the options you have to park the buses. There's nowhere to park the buses that like doesn't create a series of other issues associated with them. And this, this to us as the board, the case was made to us. This was the, you know, the least impactful of any solution. So prior to that, they had been parked at the high school. So there was issue of salt and oil and stuff like that. Well, they're at 290 Boston Plus Road. So they were parked there. Um, when I came to town. Well, we, we looked into parking out of the town, you know, where we, in fact, I got involved. Yeah. Can we outsource our parking somewhere? You didn't said Barry. Yeah. Yeah. Put him over there. We looked at the state number of training at Saxonville. That was vacant lot, you know, we approached that, you know, they didn't want, and a little further up, the, the mill building. Yeah, Saxonville. Yeah. And in the back that had nobody. So I'd like to ask about, I think we beat this one up pretty well. I'd like to ask about the, um, parallel parking. Wasn't that also something that was going to be updated? We'd asked to have along the entryway there. Um, I've remembered, right as you come off of, um, Pichichwit Road, turn left into the town building and the parallel parking that's along the, um, yeah, I, I guess I understood that that, that that was, that had been updated. Oh, I wasn't, I wasn't there. I missed whatever meeting that was at, that. No, but that was like, I want to say that was done, like, shortly after we approved the decision. Either that or it was done right before the decision. In the materials that Linda had about this parking also, there was mention of that, that parking, the parallel parking and how it wasn't an ideal location. Yes, but that had been already, yes, I do recall this. But however, that was, those concerns were stemmed from before the, uh, there had been a re-striping of that parking lot, which was done right, is part of this process, right before we approved this permit. We got a whole site plan from Tetra Tech that showed all of that. Right. So yeah, she was raising concerns. They've been valid that raising concerns, I think that that plan was intended to address. I think she was articulating that she would feel that that plan would be addressed. That's really not within our core view to sort of change that because that was, uh, that was presented to us as the approved site plan. Now you need to, we're going to approve the parking of the buses on it. We didn't, as part of that approval, we didn't require like a redesign of that parking site plan. Okay. That's my recollection of all that. Okay. I remembered it, that it would also be re-evaluated just to ensure that it actually was operating well and it was safe enough. Because one passenger, passengers get off on one side and drivers get off in the lane of traffic basically. Basically. But in order for us to evaluate that, we need to have Tetra Tech sort of conduct an assessment. Like, I don't know how we would be able to. No, no. I was wondering if this was updated when you got the update of the buses in the back. No, because the decision was only for the buses. Okay. And it didn't involve the parking, which was a contentious, uh, moment, you know, in town hall. Right. So. Okay. So that's the answer. If I may add, I think the six parking spots that were parallel, uh, they were not filled at the end. So she mentioned in her memo from 2021, but, um, I just struck that from the current, uh, conversations since it was not relevant anymore. Okay. Uh, I did summarize it in a memo. I'm going to upload it right now. So I'm going to see the points as well. And I also realized, um, because of the conversation, I think the first decision in 21 did allow for, uh, 17 parking spots and then it got minimized to 16, or I don't know what reason, but it is currently 17 buses on the premise. And another point in the discussion was also that, um, because it will be extended in 2027, right? And this will very likely not be temporary anymore. And so we did decide about like, or there was a discussion that this might be like, uh, just the solution for that. And I think, uh, uh, conservation did agree with that, that this is going to be the solution if that's going to happen. And, um, yeah, so I think that's a good one. I think that's a good question. Any other questions on the bus update?
Thank you for the update. Yes. Thank you. Um, I am not aware of any other matters, not anticipated, but I always spot that phrasing. It's going to be 48 hours in advance this meeting. So because, um, I don't know if it's time to mention this, but recruiting for the zoning board, we haven't really talked about that since I started tonight was a case in point as to why we need some additional alternates. Absolutely. It's like, I feel really bad for this applicant because like she did so much work because because of this, you can't even proceed, even if you wanted to. Um, so yeah, if anyone knows anyone that is interested, what about, um, I know there's an email that goes out from the town. I've seen, I've gotten emails for, um, recruiting to the finance board, things like that. Can we request to the town? You know, you're right about that because I don't notice that the zoning board is included on those emails, which is odd because I don't know about any of you, but I have spoken to the, um, individuals who work in that office down here, uh, and five individuals in there. Um, there is a meeting at the library, not this week, but next week about coming. It's an open session, come in and learn about voluntary for town government. And I don't know how well that's being advertised and you know, this can be showing up, but there's no more even being discussed of that. I don't know. I just saw that the, I was looking at the library calendar. Yeah. I saw it there. I mean, we used to have three alternates. Yeah. But the irony is that though, you know, even if we had additional members and we had members, you know, it's like revolving door. I mean, that was, I mean, in the past, we knew each other for like so many years, you know, and then suddenly things changed. Like, you know, you'll see about six months and then another one, you know, on the zoning board or yes. We have some, we have some veteran board members, all, you know, almost all attorneys. Yeah. I'm still here before you, a little bit before you, right?
I was a little bit before you. Yeah. I mean, we used to go home at one o'clock in the morning sometimes. That's sad. We don't want to do that. Yeah. I don't want to, I don't want to bring those days back, but yes.
I would love to have another, you know, we, we can't have any more. We can only have five permanent members, but I think we can have up to three all. We have eight positions, three alternates, five. Okay. So we currently only have one alternate. Right. And the other advantage was at that time, I guess we were doing it wrong. We would rotate the board, the panel. Which was with it, all of that is within our, our bylaws. Our bylaws can be changed so that alternates can sit. That's why I got depressed. I mean, I'm sitting for hours and hours. I'm going home. That's because we received guidance from town council. At the time that like, if you have, if the five permanent members are there and you happen to have three alternates that night, you can't put the alternates on a panel. Well, I mean, that's our, that's our, we can change that. We can change that regulation if we want, but that's our current, our current regulations. And the concept is the alternates are there to learn so they can step up when a full member retires. That's how we can even change that regulation. That's how we can change that regulation. I'm already looking. I'm already looking for who's going to, who's going to take this over. Can I make it work? Oh, hold on. I have one more. I have one more, just a question.
Do we need to request specific approval to do say a, uh, a post on social media, uh, to be able to say that through the Wayland dads or something like that to say that we have positions open or some along those lines to be able to gain potential awareness because there is a big, the town now has a social media policy. Okay. And I'm not up to it yet because we just don't do a lot of that on the library side. Um, are you aware? So, so my position would be- It would be an unofficial post through, like, how does it actually happen? Do you happen to know, Anina? So, I think best is to ask Jalen. She will be soon the, um, communication at all of us. Yeah, so Jalen does the communications for the town, all the closings, all the publicity stuff. So, it has to go to her. But this is a private- So, whatever someone did on their own, like a group, a Wayland group that's not associated with town hall, you're more than welcome to that. Okay. Yeah, so he puts something out and says, hey, you know, you're interested. Yeah, okay. Yeah, everyone knows the Wayland dads community here, and it's a very large community. And being able to do a post or have the Wayland dads to a- Yeah, we're in the new, uh, newspaper. That would be a great spot for it. We used to meet twice a month before. We don't have to do that either. No, no, no, I'm not- Why are you bringing this up, Sean?
Easy, easy.
I am not suggesting that, but I'm saying that, you know what, people with this relaxed situation that we're having problems that, you know, having members, you know. Yeah, it would be good to get some land use attorneys. We were almost all attorneys for the longest time. I mean, I remember I was, I was the odd man out for a while because, you know, I wasn't any of that. But I, but I oddly knew weird things for being able to come here. We were going back to hospitals. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course, right? I heard Aida's paying for it, so I don't know. We've always had an article for an engineer, like a civil engineer, and somebody who can really talk to structure and site and such. We even had somebody who had a lot, well, he worked for a large international company and he was citing plants in different locations. But he was aware of everything that was needed, including the septic. And we were reviewing septic kinds at that time. And, you know, it's, so having different skills on the board is really important. And that allows us to be more thoughtful about, and needing less to call in for help. That is very true. All right. Well, that's good to know. I just wanted to get clarification because I didn't want to step out of bounds if I had made a posting or requested. So you can do that? So I'm allowed to do that because it is a private. Yeah, because you're not, you're not posting it as the zoning board. I'm not posting as the zoning board. I'm posting as, well, I wouldn't even be posting. It'd be going through the Wayland Dads as an email. Yeah, I think it'd be great because we know we need, we know we need members. And it's just like, if people are interested, it would be great. It goes out to a very large community. It's just people take a look at some of our past hearings. That gives them an idea of what happens, just the cadence of the news. Yeah. That'd be good. Yeah. A lot of people don't know or don't have that understanding. It used to be suggesting to come and sit in. And now we have these amazing name points, too. Yeah. You had a motion? Yes. I make a motion, please do it. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. I would have been disappointed if you didn't do this. Yeah, that was good. That was good.