[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]