[0:00] [Music]

[0:18] Uh, good morning. It is uh October 17th,

[0:21] 2025 uh 9:00 a.m. This is a meeting of

[0:24] the Shoreborn Zoning Board of Appeals.

[0:26] Um,

[0:28] attendance by role. Mr. Fitch

[0:33] here.

[0:33] » Hi.

[0:34] » Uh, Mr. Hammond

[0:37] here.

[0:37] » Here.

[0:38] » Uh, Mr. Labby

[0:40] » Present.

[0:41] » President Mr. McBride present. We have a

[0:42] quorum. Um I move to reopen the

[0:46] deliberations for the uh Washington

[0:48] Street 40B project by Phoenix Partners.

[0:52] Um do I have a second for that?

[0:55] » I second that.

[0:57] » Great. I assume it's a unanimous vote.

[0:59] We all just say I.

[1:00] » I.

[1:02] » I.

[1:03] » I.

[1:03] » So reopening the hearing. Um I apologize

[1:06] to the board. I did not uh put together

[1:08] a draft agreement. It's been a bit of a

[1:10] it's been a bit of a two weeks for sure.

[1:12] Um I did um look deeply last night into

[1:19] um the uh board of health's uh comments,

[1:23] the um Stantech report uh all related to

[1:27] the septic. Uh I've also looked at I

[1:30] looked at um our Brush Hill opinion that

[1:33] we've uh recently um finalized a few

[1:35] months back which is a I would say a

[1:37] comparable size project relatively small

[1:41] um and this is all you know I think the

[1:43] last remaining issue just for context is

[1:45] we were we were discussing last time

[1:48] um the board of health recommendations

[1:50] to uh raise this condition the septic to

[1:52] be raised to 5T by adding sewer gravel

[1:56] um and uh versus the applicant's

[1:59] position it would cause more uh his

[2:01] position is it would cause more impact

[2:03] to the wetlands and cause more grading.

[2:05] Um I think I was questioning whether we

[2:10] you how strong of a legal basis we had

[2:13] um to

[2:16] to enforce that condition. Um so just

[2:21] going to so at least for Brush Hill um

[2:24] it looks like we we did approve and I I

[2:28] we did approve um just the four feet the

[2:31] title five uh standard um and um it was

[2:37] also from a design standpoint title five

[2:40] uh capacity it wasn't it wasn't meeting

[2:42] you know we'd waved the Sherborn um sort

[2:46] of size requirements on the tank and

[2:47] other things. So, um,

[2:50] you know, at this point, I I don't think

[2:53] that I, you know, personally, you know,

[2:55] I'm open to hear the other board members

[2:57] perspectives.

[2:59] Um, I understand our board of health

[3:01] regulations.

[3:03] Um, I don't know that I heard anything

[3:05] that was so compelling that I feel that

[3:08] it would survive appeal from hack in

[3:11] terms of the justification for the five

[3:13] feet. But that that that was me and um I

[3:16] don't want to speak for the other board

[3:17] members and so um I want to ask you all

[3:20] to sort of provide feedback sort of

[3:22] there and then you know any other

[3:24] comments you have and or perspectives on

[3:27] on this um uh subject question. So um

[3:34] anyone want to jump in?

[3:36] » Okay. Well,

[3:39] Zach, I will. Thanks for uh reviewing

[3:42] the Brush Hill decision. That's a

[3:45] sensible thing to do. Although we're not

[3:47] bound by what we did in that case in

[3:50] this case, but

[3:53] uh

[3:55] we we did approve the 4,000 ft

[4:00] four

[4:01] » Four feet

[4:03] and that 4,000 feet would Yeah, it' be

[4:05] fine

[4:07] » In that instance. And um

[4:12] I don't recall there being any

[4:13] discussion about whether or not it

[4:15] should be five feet. Um

[4:18] » No.

[4:19] » So

[4:20] I I think I mentioned last time I'm

[4:25] personally persuaded that the we're not

[4:30] dealing with a significant

[4:33] public health or safety issue in

[4:36] deciding between four and five feet.

[4:40] So I um

[4:44] » Or adding anything more than title five,

[4:46] right? I mean,

[4:47] » Right.

[4:49] » Um

[4:52] you know, I I'm not sure I I don't I'm

[4:54] not sure how much I should consider, you

[4:56] know, um the strength of that condition

[5:00] on appeal uh as part of our

[5:02] deliberations, but that does as a it

[5:05] does enter my mind. Um,

[5:08] and you know, I just um

[5:11] I don't know uh

[5:15] if uh if this is the

[5:22] instance that we would want to test

[5:23] that. Um if that makes sense, Jonathan.

[5:26] Uh

[5:27] » Yeah, it does.

[5:29] So anyway, again, this I'm I'm I'm

[5:32] open-minded and I know John Hammond, you

[5:34] had a different p you have, you know,

[5:35] you had a slightly different perspective

[5:36] last time. So if I don't I see you're in

[5:38] an office space. I don't know how much

[5:39] you can talk. Uh but if you're able to

[5:42] uh I'd like to hear your perspective.

[5:47] » Uh I'm actually in an airport, so uh

[5:50] hopefully background noise isn't uh

[5:51] terrible. Um

[5:55] you know, I guess I I'm still coming up

[5:57] to speed in how

[5:59] uh this process works and you know what

[6:02] um

[6:04] legal grounds we have to uh

[6:09] to justify the position that we want to

[6:10] take one way or the other. Um I think

[6:13] that

[6:16] I'm not sure that I was I heard enough

[6:18] one way or the other to say hey this is

[6:20] um

[6:22] a significant health risk or not. I I

[6:25] think that there is definitely

[6:27] multiple sides to the argument. My uh

[6:30] sorry, hang on one second.

[6:47] Sorry, the speaker's broken. So

[6:48] hopefully this isn't coming through too

[6:50] early, but um

[6:52] I guess I just don't don't know what

[6:55] recalls we have. Not necessarily to

[6:57] condition the five feet. Um

[7:01] but it's to me there was not outside of

[7:04] hey we haven't looked at it and um I

[7:06] just think that it would cause more

[7:08] issues with grading. not sure that there

[7:09] was a compelling reason why we can't

[7:12] why the project couldn't proceed while

[7:15] doing both or meeting the the local

[7:18] zoning laws. Um, and so I don't know if

[7:22] there's a process by which we can ask

[7:24] for more information or have that

[7:26] » Be considered in its impact, but I I

[7:28] think that was what I was looking for

[7:29] more than anything. But again, I'm I'm

[7:31] » New to the whole process and how this

[7:33] works.

[7:34] » No, appreciate it. I think um

[7:37] unfortunately our time for gathering

[7:38] information is over um and that we are

[7:40] we are stuck with the record that's that

[7:42] that has been created. Um

[7:47] I uh

[7:50] Todd Todd what are you what are your

[7:52] perspectives here?

[7:55] Yeah. So, you you'll recall at our

[7:57] previous meeting, I

[8:00] I too was un uncertain in terms of which

[8:03] way I was leaning um seeing the merits

[8:05] of both. Uh I also reviewed the Brush

[8:09] Hill decision and as Jonathan points

[8:12] out, we're not bound to um precedent in

[8:15] that regard as these projects are

[8:17] certainly unique and distinct and need

[8:19] to be uh vetted on a discrete basis. Um

[8:24] I I I do struggle with um the validity

[8:28] of an argument that local requirement of

[8:32] 5T would be mandated with our approval.

[8:36] Um

[8:38] I I worry that it won't hold up through

[8:42] through appeal if appealed and and if

[8:44] that's the case then you know the end

[8:47] result is we're simply you know delaying

[8:49] a project that um in my opinion uh is is

[8:54] quite fit for the land quite reasonable

[8:58] and and otherwise um you know not posing

[9:01] a health and safety risk. So, as a

[9:04] matter of, you know, common sense and

[9:06] pragmatism, I'm I'm inclined to to say

[9:09] that, you know, meeting Title Five

[9:11] requirement is is sufficient. And, you

[9:14] know, the rest of my my concerns are um

[9:17] not significant enough for me to say

[9:20] that we need to dictate otherwise. What

[9:23] I hear what I hear you saying is that

[9:25] you don't think that the compelling

[9:28] local interest outweighs the determined

[9:30] interest for the need for affordable

[9:32] housing town is what I hear you saying.

[9:36] » Yes. Yes. To say it quite succinctly,

[9:39] Mr. Chair. Yes. I I I would agree with

[9:41] that

[9:42] » From your perspective.

[9:44] » Um

[9:48] » Well, I don't think we we don't have to

[9:49] make any final decisions today. Um, I

[9:51] think that we were we were I have my

[9:54] notes from my last meeting. Um, I

[9:56] started to put the draft together, but

[9:57] it is a very rough draft. Um, I will

[9:59] work on it this weekend and try to get

[10:01] you all a draft. I think what I'm

[10:04] hearing is that we want to um provide

[10:08] waiverss

[10:09] uh on the local regulations on both the

[10:12] depth to uh groundwater from a natural

[10:15] soils perspective as well as the depth

[10:17] the final uh design. So there's two

[10:20] different five foot waiverss I'm hearing

[10:21] I think we're inclined to be providing

[10:23] here. Um and I think we discussed you

[10:26] know the the conservation conditions uh

[10:29] that were agreed upon uh in the last

[10:32] meeting in terms of the restoration um

[10:37] the restoration standard u being a local

[10:40] standard that would be applied to the

[10:41] majority uh of the you know disturbed

[10:44] area surrounding the homes but for the

[10:46] backyard. So, um I think those are the

[10:49] two big ones. Um

[10:51] » I will write as I will um with sort of

[10:55] soft endorsement I will begin to write

[10:57] an opinion um in that direction and we

[10:59] can all review it and discuss it and

[11:01] vote I guess make a final vote um in the

[11:04] next meeting. Um we've got a bunch of

[11:06] meetings coming up so we'll have to set

[11:08] another meeting for deliberations. I

[11:10] don't know if we want to do that now um

[11:12] or we can do it by email. Uh we have to

[11:15] wrap this up roughly by the end of the

[11:18] month. A few days, you know, maybe a few

[11:20] days into November. November 4th is my

[11:22] cushion day. So, um

[11:25] you want to talk about a meeting? Um

[11:34] you do you do have a meeting on Tuesday

[11:37] morning at 9 Whitney Farm. I don't know

[11:39] whether you want to add this to it or is

[11:41] that too much.

[11:42] » It's too it'll be too soon. and I won't

[11:44] have enough time to put the draft

[11:45] together.

[11:46] » Okay.

[11:46] » It might, but I I can't guarantee it. Um

[11:48] » Okay,

[11:50] » Let me just look.

[11:52] » Could we do the Friday the 31st,

[11:56] which gives us

[11:58] uh It's a little tight. Could we do

[12:00] something the week of the 27th at 9:00

[12:02] in the morning?

[12:08] Any bad days?

[12:12] Well, I can do that. Say the 30th.

[12:16] » Want to do the 30th?

[12:18] » That works for me.

[12:19] » Okay. That way we may we we had to

[12:21] reconnect on Friday morning. We could at

[12:23] or Friday at some point maybe we could

[12:25] squeeze it in. So, why don't we do the

[12:27] 30th at 9? So, uh, I would move to

[12:29] continue this hearing to October 30th at

[12:32] 9:00 am. I'm assuming the hearing the,

[12:34] um, the deliberations of, uh, this 40

[12:38] project to the 30th at 9:00 a.m. Do I

[12:40] have a second?

[12:41] » Second.

[12:43] » Um, vote, uh, by roll to move it to the

[12:48] uh, 30th. Mr. Fish,

[12:50] » I.

[12:51] » Mr. Hammond,

[12:53] » I.

[12:54] » Mr. Lavin

[12:56] » I

[12:57] » McBride I so we will move to the 30th to

[13:00] continue the deliberations and I move to

[13:03] uh adjourn the meeting second

[13:07] » I second that

[13:09] » Wonderful uh vote by role

[13:13] Mr. Fitch

[13:14] » Ir Hammond

[13:16] » I

[13:17] » Mr. Labia

[13:19] » I

[13:19] » Right. I meetings adjourned. We'll see

[13:21] you all on Tuesday. Thank you very much.

[13:23] Have a good week.

[13:27] [Music]

Sherborn Planning Board of Appeals Meeting October 17, 2025

Transcript