good evening welcome to the south belmont zoning board of appeals meeting of april 4th two thousand and sixteen just by brief way of introduction we are still waiting for a couple of members who are expected to appear but we have a quorum and we can proceed with me as chairman john mcmanus associate member i'm eric smith jim sacartus and nick inesey i'll just give a brief introduction generally speaking what we do is we hear the applications we ask the applicants to make a brief presentation and i have a podium which will ask the applicants and anybody else who wishes to speak to speak from and we asked the applicant to make a brief presentation the members have read the written material submitted to the boards and you just need to hit the highlights mostly for the benefit of the audience the board may ask some questions at that point we'll ask the if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in support of the opposition excuse me support of the application we'd ask people to speak if they were in opposition to the application there may be some more questions from the board and then assuming that the all the materials have been presented and the record is finished we would take it under advisement if it is taken under advisement we attempt to vote on at the end of the evening tonight but we go through all the public hearings first with that i've received a request from diane miller the architect for the applicant to number case number one thousand six hundred and three to go first rather than second because she's got a a belmont high school building committee their kickoff meeting is tonight so if the board has any issues with proceeding that way that's what i would propose to do i note that this was initially presented at the last meeting on march 7th and craig white who was present is not here and ganja who was present is also not here tonight i you know i just know i was expecting them but both nick inesey and tino machaco have watched the tapes in the last last meeting presentation so they're all up to speed on matters and they filed the appropriate certifications with rr so that they will be participating on this decision tonight so with that miller i believe we have we have revised plans which made a number of changes and if you could just briefly summarize those shorts thank you very much for accommodating my schedule tonight i really appreciate it so i'm diane miller from miller designs with me here tonight our and george young the homeowners and just to recap from last month what we are proposing is a twostorey rear addition it is a second floor extension above an existing space and then it is a new one storey volume behind that so i have the model with me again so this is the front of the house this is goden street chenery terrace the second floor addition is this portion here that's just taking the gambrel roof and extending it back a little bit and then this one storey volume is the new proposed one storey addition so i can pass that around i think we've seen can you perhaps focus on the changes form the last application sure so it was three special permits storey height front yard setback and lot coverage we just to remind you guys we have the signatures from the twelve neighbors we have one neighbor who i believe is here again to speak in favor and then another immediate abutter that had submitted a letter storey height and front yard setback were both relative to the second floor addition real quickly we talked about those in in terms of storey height because it's three and a half stories existing mainly that's driven by the basement which is because of this steep slope the topography on goden street however a few things working in our favor are that the the slope is high at both of the streets so those are the high points in the site and the gambrel roof is actually it makes it feel much lower because the second floor space has low roof low ceiling and eave space with the gambrel so it kind of hunkers down the overall height of the house is in terms of the linear dimension is two hundred and forty one feet which is actually about twelve feet lower than what the height requirement would be and then in terms of the front yard setback it's a corner lot as i had mentioned and so it's a one thousand three hundred and twenty five front setback to chenery terrace which is the secondary street the house faces goden so if that worries side yard setback it would be you know three and a half feet more than what would be required so that brings us to the issue that you guys really were concerned about last time the first two were things that i think were largely acceptable but the concern was about the lot coverage and so after doing some soul searching what my clients agreed to do is to remove their existing garage structure and that will compensate for the added lot coverage of the proposed addition and so what we have in your packet here is basically a one other thing that they're doing in in agreeing to remove the garage they had some storage needs that they needed to address and so the one storey portion of the addition would get two feet bigger so that they would have a little bit more storage space in that back basement room but the net result of these changes is that the existing lot coverage right now is two hundred and fifty three we were previously proposing twenty nine we are now proposing going down to two hundred and fifty one so from two hundred and fifty three down to two hundred and fifty one so we're reducing the lot coverage with this sort of compromise with the garage i also just wanted to note that the open space is at about seventy five so that's significantly more than the fifty open space that's required and even with the rear of the ones who are rear addition once this proposed addition were built it would align pretty closely with their neighbors house that the folks that are here this evening so their house sticks out currently much more so than this existing structure so it's not really gonna block much and in fact getting rid of the garage structure which is right here is going to open things up a lot on chenery terrace in terms of the visibility so that's basically the change that we made so we're hoping that that will satisfy the board's concerns thank you any questions members where are the extra two feet of the addition the extra two feet are on the first floor only so on the plans that i submitted i have revision bubbles showing the dimensions it's basically taking that mudroom and playroom and making so on on this this roof here this hip roof would just extend out two more feet this this piece okay we are now looking for three special permits one for lot coverage which is now supposed to be at two hundred and fifty one the side setback is the same as the existing which is really it's the goden street not the goden street excuse me it's the chenery terrace front edge and then the the other side setback the zoning compliance checklist shows that as being the sites at bay being eighty five but that was actually to the garage so the principal dwelling was one hundred and one but with that again you're not proposing to change that so correct and the cover stores is three and a half but it was three and a half before right was there any more questions in that case we just ask if there's anybody who would like to speak in support of the application sir if you could come to the podium and identify yourself for the record please there's a sign up sheet they can sign too you don't have to do that right now there's a sign up sheet if you could also sign it oh okay hi i'm jack jurris i live at eighty two goden street with my wife we're the uphill up goden street neighbors the seventy four we have a similar house i spoke a month ago to support it and so i'll be brief but we still are in support of the revised plan we think it's a good plan it certainly a compatible with our house and we feel with with the neighborhood we think it's a good plan for that house it's conservative bit it adds what it needs so we we hope you look at that favorably thank you thank you anyone else is there anyone in opposition to the proposal okay that being said in that case we'll take it under advisement okay thank you very much okay the next applications is another continued case case number one thousand five hundred and forty four three hundred and thirty four pleasant street the applicant is michael columba seeking it was initially four special permits but the building height is compliant so it's actually three special permits to convert the existing twostorey retail office building at three hundred and thirty four pleasant street into a hotel it's located in local business three zoning district thank you mr chairman my name is robert levy an attorney for the applicant there was a submittal meet with the board over a week ago to address certain issues that were raised at the last meeting the first submittal deals with a delivery trash pickup and delivery which was which was an issue we discussed last time and you'll see here's a letter from belmont suites hotel signed by mr columba saying that they will be proposed as to have two trash pickups a week no earlier than one thousand am and no later than three hundred pm which i'm sure the pickups do not occur during high traffic areas times second there was an issue as to question as to deliveries as was noted and as stated in the letter and there will be an inhouse laundry service so there won't be laundry trucks delivering there will be some food products delivered which will happen from mr columba's commissary and waltham that will be seven several times a week and again those deliveries will be at off peak traffic times the next submittal we have is a lighting report from mea engineering associates dealing with the lighting there are light fixtures on the sides of the building that are compliant with the dark sky guidelines and will not radiate illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture shield that report is dated march twenty one and is part of your package insofar as any lightening on brighton street or pleasant street those lines will not exceed normal street line levels for public ways we also provided you with some product data for the air conditioning compressors which will be located on the roof the compressors i have a standard rating of a seventy three dba they will be located on the roof as i said and insofar as the ptech units are concerned those should be located closer to the street lines this report by asking text dated march twenty two which concludes that both those units the ptech units will not exceed the the bylaw of fifty five dba's daytime and forty five dba's nighttime as a result of this analysis there are a couple of the units we will be putting an architectural barrier around to help damper the sound there will be a faux balcony around them which will block it and the engineer opines that they will be well below the forty five dba required by the noise ordinance i believe those are the there's also a new elevation which shows the screening that will be on the building for the ptech units so i see that sentec acoustic consulting recommendations include the architectural barriers those little balconies shown on elevations so you're proposing to comply with this recommendation yes that's correct yes and i believe that those are the outstanding issues that were left open at the last meeting members any questions there was one issue eric that i heard you raise on the tape having to do with the fact that the closest thing to this on the list is hotel is apartment house and there was not an sp in that column for this did that ever get resolved i didn't hear that well made a presentation with respect to the zoning bylaw you know whether we find it convincing is another question but if you wish to ask them to address that point feel free well under the schedule of use regulations there was no itemized item for hotels or motels we've conceded that the closest thing that we could fit into we believe under the business district there is an other retail sales and services and the hotel so we suggest this is allowed as an ancillary use in that district we've also believed that it was certainly contemplated when the bylaw was enacted that hotels would be allowed in the city by the reason that the general regulations including for off street parking include a category this is five hundred and twelve c which specifically regulates for parking purposes for hotels were there any columns in that zoning in the table that referred to hotels there was not i see so we suggest that falls into other why do you think you fall into into the other category more than you fit into the apartment category because i think the typically apartment use and hotel use are two separate uses other than the fact that that people are living there this is not an apartment complex and we believe that since typically most ordinances do have separate hotel uses i'll concede that since belmont does not whether that was intentionally or by omission you know our belief is that the only the closest square hole for the square peg is in other use can you elaborate on the differences you see between hotel use and apartment use well obviously a hotel use is more transitory and people are coming there for shorter periods of time than someone living there there is a greater turnover rate than you would see in an apartment house and you know other than the only similarity is that people are sleeping there at night between that of that in the hotels and apartments there are other amenities that we're having that you wouldn't typically find in an apartment house such as food service we don't believe they're that similar well it's similar to a hotel use but it apartment use so the two main defining factors you see are the transitory nature of a hotel and the presence of there's other amenities to it and it's also providing another service for the town than you would see in an apartment providing short term housing for guests of your residence and i'm sure if you listen to the last hearing we discussed about what would the typical guests that we receive we're going to have people coming in visiting residents coming in for graduations coming in to go to medical centers and the like you remember there was one speaker who pointed out that this did provide a service that was not present in case of an apartment namely the ability to not have to have a house guests an advantage to some of us what do you anticipate what is the longest stay someone could stay at the hotel all we can tell you comment maybe anecdotally mr columba has another had another facility in waltham it's similar to this that's the only comment i have to tell you with my experience at the crescent suites which was completely you know every unit was furnished with full kitchens only about five would be there more than a month ninety five would be a week or less two days a weekend that nature from time to time we would have somebody who was relocating here for a job that they would be here for a three month stay but that was rare even at the crescent suites and i expect it to be even less so here because i'm only going to have what three units i think only three units have a kitchen and one of them is handicapped i believe yeah one of them is handicap otherwise it's only a few units have a full kitchen everything else will not be suitable for a very extended stay you studied this area before you took the hotel and you realized there was a large roomed hotel going on arsenal street and water town as well yeah actually i tried to buy that years ago i'm familiar with it so what why did you think that this would be a good spot for you because this accommodates more the belmont community but i mean from me to i mean to water town's is what ten miles ten miles from me to water town from where that is yeah i think it's a little less than that it's in arsenal street across from the mall again i'm serving the belmont darlington lexington community and i'm going to be between cambridge and walton the center i know there's a few hotels in darlington but again it's a concentrated area of belmont darlington the route through traffic you know yeah see it more as a boutique type hotel it's not carrying the national flag yes it's only eighteen units you know what i'm saying i'm not really you know again a little bit of corporate a little bit of you know personal residents visitors all of the things that we mentioned last week i mean last month so i read somewhere that if you don't get the hotel you're going to have it go back to a convenience store again well obviously at some point i have to put the building to use i can't sit on it for you know forever you know i mean i would rent it as offices upstairs and rent the first floor i mean i have a lot of people that are waiting for decisions of what i you know they would rent it and put a convenience store back in there you know another question for you did you study the trip generations over there and that travel did you see how close the trip generations were to the other project that was developed across the street it was a timing thing yeah it was only for at rush at rush hour it was lower by four cars i don't think we need to read the date stance matters so there would be four units that could only be for thirty days stays four units we're allowed a full kitchen when i say full kitchen you know just as full size stove refrigerator a little bit of cabinetry again there's only one bed so it's only good for a single or couple and this is usually you know i would say are a lot of the longterm stays were people that had for example a snow storm that caused damage to their house so the insurance company would put them up in a hotel for a month six weeks until the house was repaired people relocating from other parts of the country for jobs you know parents receiving you know i would have a lot of parents come from the summer visiting the students you know their children from you know saudi arabia europe asia whatever you know i mean those would be the long extended stay people will come over and use this as a base while they were visiting with their kids people who moved to florida from belmont who come back and visit the children or just had a baby or new marriage you know a lot of personal use for having a place to stay temporarily yep just have one quick question about the is there any change in the rooftop hvac units from the earlier presentation to this one no i didn't think so and even though the sentec report says that the rooftop units on their own do not generate excessive decibels at the property line we're still putting them in an acoustic enclosure connected to the elevator penthouse so it will be much less than what the code allows yeah and also instead of using one big commercial unit which has a high decibel i went with three smaller residential units which would be a lot less noisy and with each timeout difference it would be a lot less noisy any other questions members the light fixture sidelighting i'm reading mea's report here is this fixture the same one that lines the streets in the town center belmont thought i heard that it's the same manufacturer the same basic fixture yes and the reflectors yes and it shielded this one that has the the fixture shield which you know for the dark skies initiative and also to prevent you know it cuts off so that it does not spill excessive is that different than what we have in the town center i think it's the same as what we have at the town center except that the ones in the town center have higher voltage lighting they're brighter more lumens coming in and more lumens coming out of those but the potential for direct glare is the same because the reflectors are the same i you know the lighting engineer did not find an issue with that i honestly can't comment i don't know it's the same reflector but it's supposed to be a nonglare reflector that's why it's got the refracted finish to them it's supposed to spread that out so i really why is there an issue with the one about belmont center i don't know if there's an issue with these folks here i have an issue but the shield can be controlled so after they're installed the shields can actually be redirected so that no glare would be going outside the property line do you want me to show those no glare from somebody driving down the street like like you do get glare on the fixture here well these have a shield on one side they can literally just shine on this side and not in the backside you know or they can be controlled at least that's what i heard from the engineer when i met with them they can control visibly with the dark sky laws you know so when they install it you know they'll come out at night and they'll fix it and aim the lights so that it doesn't spill outside the property they can actually you know mitigate that with you know wattage you know less lumens you know so that they can achieve the desired design criteria that that they work on and i think last time one of the concerns was what are the foot candle readings what do they mean on the photo metric plan at the property line i think the engineer specifically deals with that which you said basically it's zero it's zero at the property line right and that's what i think we should all be after i i can't i don't know what zero means to the lighting engineer here that means that it's less than one lumens foot counts less than one foot candles and it's less than that so just like this so this is aiming on this side you don't see this you get very little glare on that side you know that can be mitigated like i said after it's installed you know they can come in at night and they can mitigate all that by aiming or closing you know the the shields any other questions all right let me ask if there's anybody and obviously the plan is essentially the same as last time but be with the changes that have been described does anybody have any any anguishes or support and by the way just so you know we obviously we've we were here last time so if you've already expressed general support or something you don't need to do it again it's just that i'm focusing on the changes to the plan okay sir if you could i'm donald mercy i'm a towny and i was living this precinct and i've been a resident of belmont for many years and i've seen different changes and different projects and i'm concerned about this project here if this hotel does not generate and do things they'd like to see done you've got to be very careful on what they might do on what decision that you give them and the suggestions i'm making is you have a maximum stay of thirty days if you start going over or use that concept but if you go over that you might have residence in there that's going to cost the town money to service them and i don't think that we want to put any more heavy load on the town and i think there should be no cooking at all on these premises because particularly in the rooms and this will make sure that we don't have these the ability to convert this into a longterm use so i don't think there should be any cooking or the equipment if you say oh you're not going to have equipment but they put a stove and they don't cook okay they were abiding by one law but you know make sure there's no equipment in there and as a suggestion i would also propose a fine for any violations of these things i'm throwing out a number here a three hundred a day penalty and adjusted for inflation because if you put a number on it now ten years down the line there's a violation we need an inflation adjustment on any i think the the town the bylaws cover whatever it can be covered with respective fines well i'll go through it and whatever you can use fine what you can't use that's fine also i'm only going from my own experiences as a property manager commercial property some of the things that i deal with and i shouldn't make sure that any of those fines are paid that the legal and collection fees are paid by the property owner can you move on to your next point please well i'm going down my notes and i'm just asking if you can move on to your next point and any fees to be paid should be paid by the property owner not the operator the property will have equity can you please move on to your next point we've discussed fines that's that's my main thing i don't want put any economic load on the town and i think is there anyone else who wishes to express to support and then we will turn to opposition my name is brian kemmer i live at two hundred and eighty three fitzmaurice circle which is the house immediately behind the proposed hotel from brighton street i've come to an agreement with the developer to provide shielding in the way of five shrubs between the landing and my property and i'd like that to be reflected in any special permit that is issued i have given some thought to the noise from the air conditioner on the roof i don't think it will be a problem at all the furnace is currently in the basement i do however have a concern that at some time in the future an hvac unit that could create noise could be put on the roof and the side setback to the building could be twenty feet but it's only two feet so i would request the permanent restriction be placed on any heating unit on the roof now the developer doesn't propose one at all there will be an hvac there at three hvac and i thought about those those will be as quiet as the two that i have at least ten feet from my bedroom window i'm not concerned about that and i don't think they'll cause any noise problems i would also request that construction not start until seven hundred and thirty am in the morning mr kemmer you realize you want to get anything i'm not giving you legal advice here but you might want to get anything in writing considering your property recorded at the registry of deeds or some sort of something on the deed of the restriction on the property i mean this really doesn't hold much weight can a permanent restriction be placed on the special permit for the building i would suggest talking to an attorney before you enter into some agreement i have and they thought that this might i don't know just a thought well i don't think it's a serious problem because there's no proposal to put a furnace on the roof no i'm talking about the trees that was definitely suggested by my attorney and i'm satisfied with it okay the restriction was only on a heating unit on the roof that's correct not a general hvac just heating that creates more noise and as i said that just won't be a problem is there anyone else wants to speak in support is there anyone who wants to speak in opposition okay thank you chairman smith my name is scott harper i'm not in a butter or a nearby neighbor of this development my interest arises out of my acquaintance with the athena mcginnis who's a close friend and church member of mine at congregational church who lives only four doors in a historic house i don't know the exact address i didn't come here tonight anticipating to speak to those but she has urged me over several weeks to come tomorrow night she was under the impression that the hearing on this was tomorrow night and support her opposition to what i'm my direct interest acknowledges from providing her rides to and from church on occasions where i utilize the that street for the traffic issues involved that's an extremely busy street it's always been a concern of myself and others at my church who provide ms mcginnis rides to and from church and assist or otherwise getting in and out of her driveway she currently does not drive herself although i think she is continues to be licensed but backing out of her driveway onto brighton street is extremely hazardous when i take her to and from i go slow pause in traffic and back into her driveway so i can pull out with good visibility of the north and south traffic on that street i suggested to her that perhaps this would actually be less of a bur the hotel would be less of a traffic burden than a convenience store because much of the traffic might be going right back to pleasant street and onto route two i don't know it sounds like you've already assessed some of those traffic impacts but i would just say that my concern directly would be concerning any traffic effects on the streets so thank you hi my name is diane mabardy i'm a long time long term resident of belmont diane mabardy i'm here my father is eighty four years old and unable to come out in the snow but and i was unable to come to the last meeting our issue with the property that's in question is that in belmont for this particular piece of property there is no special use allowed for an overnight stay so when you're talking about the business use and how you can think of this property being able to be used for an overnight stay you can't use it for a hospital you can't use it for an apartment building you can't use it for first senior center you can't use it for senior senior living you can't use it for a recreational facility you can't have an exercise facility and a restaurant needs a special permit so i'm trying to figure out how this property could even come up to be a hotel there is a problem with the transient business coming in there is no twenty four hour forprofit business in belmont so that is opening up belmont to a new avenue i mean if one hotel goes in it's if it's allowable in that area i don't believe that this is allowable he's in the business of construction in development he's in the business of building a hotel and selling it where here just we're just talking about project as proposed no i understand that sure so anyway so the problem is with that we'd find is that not as the project stands because we still do not believe that this hotel use is something that should be permitted this was first permitted back in the eighties when the manfredi's owned the property as a mixed use office retail that's what it was i was here i know the manfredi's and we went through that same process when they were building it because i lived in the house on the street behind it on fitzmaurice circle so our issue is the transient they don't even have enough parking for their employees and their visitors that means that the parking is now going to be the overflow is going to be on the residential streets i mean they have nineteen rooms they have eighteen parking spots they have staff they have maids they have cleaning people they have service people where are those people gonna park so we're just we're opposed to this project my name is antoine hayes i live on thirty eight plimith i'm a town meeting member precinct eight i have this delivered to you from athena mcginnis she asked me to deliver this to you okay thank you very much we'll pass it around i don't know if the applicant has seen this its just a potentially an expression of opposition we'll pass around and then we also received a letter this afternoon from miss claire stone expressing opposition and she noted that there was an earlier variant application i looked at the earlier variants decision from one thousand nine hundred and eighty three and i must admit it doesn't seem to me to bear on the issues here okay well if there's nobody else then just a quick comment first off we have we have not seen any of the opposition though any of the letters that are presented to you so we can't comment on those just a couple quick comments first of all as far as the overnight use regulations do permit it as an accessory use lodging and boarding for daily weekly or longer periods and that's allowed as a matter of right without a special permit insofar as the length of the stay under the mass law any stay over ninety days will trigger the cessation of any room tax being paid so the better way of saying it for the first ninety days and room taxes is due for it so i assume that it's contemplated that a ninety day stay is not a excessive length of stay under a hotel use we don't anticipate that in any event as mr columba said thirty is usually the maximum that they want to put a condition that says it can't be more than ninety days and any single tenant we wouldn't object to that so far as putting any other utilities on the roof i would suggest if we had to come back and alter the plan we'd have to come back before this board and for modification if we're going to put some other you know utilities or heating equipment and at that time it would be open to a public hearing for people to comment on it's not anticipated other than the three air conditioning units that there's going to be any other facilities you know on the roof but i've been doing this long enough to say never say never things change it but we would certainly want to come back before the board for last if any changes would you be willing to have a condition on that point subject to further board review in the event you wish to you you don't want an so what you're saying is i think you don't want an absolute prohibition on putting additional units it would be okay with coming having to come back here sorry just one other question before you wrap up with mr kemmer his agreement with respect to the you know request for screening i take it you don't have any problem with our making of condition i haven't seen that what was it it's reflected in the landscape plan already the landscape plan that we submitted for last meeting has those trees on it and we're fully committed to provide those and those on our property correct can i just can i just summarize what i heard and let me know if it's correct we heard opposition that said we should deny it because belmont has no overnight business kinds of models your rebuttal it sounds like is that people have as of right without a special permit the ability to rent anyway so clearly it's contemplated there and secondly there's that section five or something in the zoning ordinance that talks about parking for hotels which the implication of which is well must've been contemplated is that that's correct were there any rebuttal other rebuttal points besides those two on that issue no okay thank you thank you very much mr mercer i've got one more quick question real quick i want to make sure we lean heavily on the duration of an occupant if this hotel is not successful i don't want them to have permissions to go through some other type of occupancy without a permit if we put up thirty days or whatever you see the maximum occupancy of that it's going to tighten it down so if in fact the hotel is not successful with the rooms that are there then you've come back to your people to decide what you want to do with the building i don't want that to be cut off they'll be converting it into something else if there's a use permit which is specific to this use well when i think i think you could restrict it to the number of days of occupancy of anybody going in there so your position is we're on a slippery slope and past thirty days it starts to become with the fact that its an apartment building it could be in fact an apartment and particularly because it has kitchen facilities in to get other people coming in here living here permanently because they have no other place to live their rent to be adjusted accordingly we see a building now that is deteriorating because it was not successful for what it was built for i don't want to see that again particularly and allowing somebody to convert it into another use because they've already got these permits going through here so if they're going to change the use it needs to come back this would be specific to this year's but then but then you'll tighten the number of days now if we have a bad authority we can talk about it how many people are here in connection with this matter may i just ask that obviously a lot of other how many people are here for other matters i think we need to keep going okay the next matter is case number one thousand six hundred and four the application of randira ajar for a special permit under section thirty three of the zoning bylaw to operate a childcare large family at one hundred and twenty lewis road located in the general residence zoning district is the applicant here good evening chairman everybody i am shashira ajar randira is my wife and the daycare is named after her she is here presented we have this large daycare that is up to ten is the capacity operating on that side from two thousand and nine onwards so it's six years plus and we have been doing it nobody has gone so far to say that we had made a lot of noise or they have any kind of trouble this traffic issues commuter issues sometimes in the winter like last year was an exceptionally brutal winter a lot of snow we worked with a neighbor who expressed this thing that the bus should be allowed to come so we say we went everybody is went happy after that so there has been no concern about that in general terms so we have a good deal of space and plenty of light we have an excellent park in the back so we go to the park as often as we can and that also relieves the pressure on the backyard and some possible stress on the neighbors by way of noise because children are there they will play there so we use that park to the maximum extent and we live in the backyard in the fall we are required for one hour out outdoor time out of that we use no more than thirty minutes in the backyard and we do more than one hour in the park so we are taking every care to take care of the neighbors concern's needs on their position and any other thing that you will say that i should do we'll be happy to try it just a few a few questions first of all so do you and your wife live at one hundred and eighteen it's a two family home we live on both floors we keep one like more like a guest room also so there are two bedrooms there are not that many rooms on either floor so we live on board yes i just i just want to understand is i mean i understand it's one hundred and twenty is the proposed space for the childcare and is there anybody actually living in one hundred and twenty right now yes we live we have a kitchen we have office we live there sometimes sometimes we live upstairs when family comes do you have a license yeah we have license we have a license running from two thousand and six and at that time we were renting on concorde avenue so after three years from two thousand and nine to twelve we got licensed for this space this side and then again two thousand and twelve to two thousand and fifteen that was the period of license and the current license is from two thousand and fifteen to two thousand and eighteen it is at my place it is suppose to be displayed at the place and that is in the daycare why don't we have a copy of it i can send a copy but nobody said that we are supposed to do it that nobody said that i can do it i can send it tomorrow if there's a number there's a number of conditions that we assuming we were to grant it and we typically obviously to be granted a special permit the applicant which would be your wife needs to have the occ license and you are now as you're asking for an application for ten a large family daycare which means that you need to have an assistant is there anything yeah that is there last daycare is from two thousand and nine the only one my question is just right now when you understand that to have if you were to be granted a special permit so that you could keep operating you need to have not only one licensed person but you need to have an assistant and who you have who are your assistants you have them currently yeah we have one assistant where is the assistant assistant works eight to five who is she or he she is renulammy shanice she lives in water town about a mile from a mile and a half from our place and she works there does she have experience she has lots she's a grandmother she has worked for nepal she is a green card holder we have checked all those things diligently and she's a very good worker why is this case before us tonight we don't have the license we don't have any of the information that we need how can we make a decision on this tonight yeah well one thing we've been talking about doing is you're going to get make those lists of things that should be submitted because each of the ones that are before us tonight none of them have submitted the licenses which is an issue obviously so i think we just me and nick we were talking about this we're kind of wasting our time here because it doesn't have the license you know so we don't have a copy of the license we don't we couldn't grant the license if we wanted to there's no i don't think there's a floor plan we have presented pictures we had presented what salaries are paid that plan and yeah i mean we have in the past granted subject to the filing of licenses so that would be if we were to grant this one it would be a condition here so we should go back to the questions so you were looking you were looking for nine to five when did what is the first person dropped off and the last person picked up it is always about eight hundred and five to say five hundred and ten something like we closed the door at five hundred and twenty definitely not five hundred and fifty that's how late okay is the backyard fenced yes backyard is fenced and obviously there's a number of conditions that are usually imposed well first of all it's not a condition set the special permits personal to the applicant can't be transferred and it also we want to make sure that you've got in addition to the fencing and the backyard fire alarms smoke alarms this time it was renewed for a fourth time in august and department of early education and care people came and saw that so it it is there and we have a log we make a periodic check of the smoke and fire things we do a drill once a month we do those things and are there any children living at one hundred and eighteen or one hundred and twenty at this point any children living there under the ages of seven no okay any more questions board members is there anyone here to express support for this application is there anyone here to express opposition or concerns about this application my name is robert croix i live on stoltz road which is i'm not in a butter but in the direct neighborhood and so i'm concerned about what large means in terms of large daycare it means up to ten and including ten so it can't go over ten no that's the definition that's my concern is that could happen and get up to twenty cause there is traffic in the area and there was concerns about that thank you chairman my name is scott harper i live at ninety six lewis road which is about four houses down from one hundred and twenty from the applicant i so i'm not an immediate of butter i haven't i will note that during their current operation i'm not sure what the size of the operation is at present is it up to ten right now can anybody inform me of that i don't know you'll have to ask the applicant yes up to ten okay so this is for a renewal of the same level of existing use the addition here is that they had the state as i understand that they've had the state licenses for it they have not had a special permit which is why we are here tonight i think generally my yes right and i don't think my my own opinion and i have some familiarity with the larger daycare operation at plymouth congregational church i generally favor small neighborhood daycare so i think if they're well run it's more personal care it's a preferred alternative to transporting children longer distances to larger institutions my only and i think this one has been generally well run i have not experienced any noise issues i think it's a great location because it's only about a block and a half from an underutilized park and i think they do utilize that park for recreation of the children i haven't heard complaints from my neighbors about noise of the children disturbing them my only concern which i share with my wife and another neighbor at eighty eight lewis road kathy nelson and bill wilson or kathy johnson and bill wilson is is the issue of traffic i don't know if there's a way to restrict the number of cars there at any one time i know people's work schedules generally require that there'd be a flurry of dropoffs my wife who's a teacher at belmont in the belmont public schools is often leaving for work at about fivetoeight she has commented on a number of occasions about how when people drop off at this daycare they come up heading north on lewis road pull over to the left side facing oncoming traffic and unload children in the street and she has expressed some concern about that being a safety issue there are two on this property there are two spaces that are indented from the street a parking area i think if a restriction were passed that required that those not be utilized during the times by permanent parkers at the residence during the times of dropoff and pickup pickup and those two spaces would be available for people to pull in and discharge their children in a much safer manner additionally just an emphasis that people should be driving in the proper direction to pull over to that curb if there were three cars in front of that space dropping off at once that would be a total of five cars dropping off at once if the sidewalk and easement were maintained free of the leaves and snow people could drop off safely without extending into the street side lewis road is one block off of school street it is a frequent high speed cutthrough for people trying to avoid the light at school street that are going right at school street and belmont street so many people come up and if they see the light is red they'll take a left on lewis and go racing down several blocks down lewis is your suggestion that the essentially be required to drop off children only on the on the side of the sidewalk on the sidewalk side which is the side where the building or in the indented permanent parking space on the property and i think if that concern were addressed i think ten is a reasonable number of children and with that concern and maybe some staggered pickup times where they address their clientele's dropoff needs to restrict the number of cars that were there at any one time where you're i'd be supportive of the application thank you anyone else hi i'm yolanda lu and i own the two family house that is diagonal across from this daycare that's been operating without the special permit from the town for the last five or six years so i'd like to talk about two things number one the parking and traffic situation that is caused by the size of the operation and number two some real consequences of that that we've experienced in the last few years as well due to the traffic and parking situations so first of all i'm a working mother we know there are lots of you know dual working families in the neighborhood and so i've also investigated large family daycare centers most of them had more parking than what's available at this particular residence or this particular house yes they have an indentation there but most of the time it's parked by people who are operating the daycare maybe there's one slot for a car but when you think about how congested it is in the morning with the pickup and the dropoff you know there are cars on both sides it makes it very hard to back out when there's car's also driving through in commuting so most people choose not to park in the parking one parking space available that's not occupied by the operators of the daycare we're talking about a block between fairview and elm which are both high traffic roads completely occupied on both sides by two family houses so you're talking about most of those houses are also in tandem parking situations as well so you're talking about sixteen two family houses on an average size high density residential block okay and with you know people who are also leaving out from work coming in and out during the day during high traffic times so the situation here is you know we talk to some of the neighbors some of who weren't able to make it my mother who when she was living down the street had the situation where her car was actually backed into and hit by one of the customers of the daycare the neighbor right across from us right across from the daycare and next door to us also had his car hit the neighbors at one hundred and twelve and one hundred and fourteen told us that they've had their driveway blocked they've also had issues during the snow season that was mentioned by the operators where you know after shoveling out then they couldn't use the own space and then that created a situation for you know all the different cars having to you know do the shuffle you know back and forth you know in the driveways and so you know we feel that this is a problem that is not a future problem but one that's already experienced by the daycare that's operating for you know a good number of years and has not been solved yet and we don't see that they are making any attempt to solve that as well thank you thanks my other comment is that i think the fair way to assess the proper use of the one hundred and eighteen units is to ask from a tax perspective how much they claim as a business expense and how much they claim as a residential expense thank you any questions members okay we'll take it under advisement okay the next is a case number one thousand six hundred and five this is the application of byko akukwe for a special permit under section thirty three of the zoning bylaw to operate a family daycare home at one hundred and thirty seven sycamore street located in a general residence district hello hi i'm shaun i'm with byko her english isn't that well she speaks japanese mainly so we had to request a special permit for a daycare a license of ten this is an application for a family daycare home which is up to six secondly including six not ten six is fine let's see do you have a license that's good i'm going to explain about the license if i may we have asked the ec not to issue or renew any licenses unless they have proof that they do have a special permit from us so if we're going to ask for a license to be attached to that application that means we're going to ask them first to get their license there which is what we told them not to so i wanna know how we're going to proceed going forward i mean these two we're not trying to create a catch twenty two here and that seems to be the definition of it the thing i mean we're one of three municipalities i believe that do not require special permits and we asked eec to make an order tomorrow not to renew any any licenses before they clear with us that you know they have it so i don't know which way to go should i ask them for the license or not in this case i was told it's going to be just a home daycare not a large family i'm sure that's what the application is for that's what i prepared but maybe i misunderstood what they needed but usually i explain those things normally we got for these applications what the day looked like you know an agenda or an agenda of the day for you know what was going to go on during the day the times the dropoffs and pickups a picture of the layout itself or the layout what the backyard looked like excuse me yeah but normally what we got was all of that and usually before this got a copy of the license as well now we don't get a copy of the license i'm just asking which way to go it sounds to me like this should be an offline discussion we need we certainly need to have a a summary of what is needed for each of these applications but here i think let me just so you've got if if we were to grant it we obviously would ask you and you'd have to file a copy of the license with the board let's see here i just want to ask some questions so you were looking for an application up to and including six you've got the license do you have any assistants not that you do do they have a license from the occ yes and the play area outside is it fenced i'm not quite the area down in the back okay and how do you get from the inside of the house to that fenced area in the back from the front entrance go around the driveway and we have a kids playing sign okay i noticed that there was a railing missing and the sign there was no fence oh you talking about wind just took that down on the far side the wind yeah that's what i was guessing okay so you got the fenced area so what hours are you looking would you plan on operating eight to six so that'd be the dropoffs would be within the eight to six right you're not having people drop pick up after six and you understand that we usually have a bunch of conditions which i've already mentioned so i'm not gonna go through them again but it'd be personal to you and condition smoke detectors things of that sort members any questions okay these two modes of ingress just ask him i don't know are there supposed to be two modes of ingress we have two points of ingress we do we actually had three but one right now the railing fell off the on the back steps so we're not using that one we're using the other one that comes out to the back you've got a front door and then what was the third we have one that goes straight out the back and then we have one that goes down then the stairs to the back the other back are there any other questions is there anyone here to speak in support this application is there anyone here to speak in opposition to express concern about the application thank you we'll take that under advisement okay the next case number is one thousand six hundred and six which is the application of a marybell coveragall did i get that right for a special permit under section thirty three of the zoning bylaw to operate a family daycare home at one hundred and fifty five beach street located in a general residence district is the applicant here if the applicant's not here it's a first i guess i would just suggest is there anybody here who wants to speak to in support of or in opposition to the center is there anyone else here for this application concerning one hundred and fifty five beach street in that case i'd suggest we just continue it to find out if they want to appear next time they can appear next time otherwise we'll just dismiss this a vote to continue this one to the next meeting second general notion seconded all in favor and i feel just notify the applicants yeah they need to be here on this case then you're recusing yourself we've only got four members we won't have a quorum on it you've got a quorum but i think you have to ask them whether they want to proceed or not i'm recusing myself with the next application so there's nothing special the next case in case number one thousand six hundred and seven the applicant is seeking a special permit at twenty one jason road the applicant is robert c ketchum and is seeking a special permit under section fifteen of the zoning bylaw to construct a onestorey rear addition minimum required rear setback is two thousand eight hundred and thirty six existing is two hundred and thirty eight and proposes one hundred and seventy five at twenty one jason road located in a single residency zoning district is mr ketchum here okay why don't you mr ketchum we only have four members eric had to recuse himself so that means that in order for you to prevail on the special permit you would have to have the votes of all of the members you have either the option of i think we prefer to come back if we can unless mr smith will recuse himself again normally we have three other board members at a minimum so you'd like to continue it to the next meeting yes okay do i have a motion do i have a second all those in favor thank you john second john all right does anyone want to get eric where is eric how'd i do as a chairman i was pretty good okay i did well eric very quick i made you proud so why don't we just take these in the order that we've heard them so the first will be case number one thousand six hundred and three seventy four goden street the concern that was expressed on the we're just going to sit on this one well there's five of us here and nick and tino both watched the tape so i guess it would the five of us who set okay so this was one where they the concern was expressed last time principally about the lot coverage which i think was they've adjusted that by removing the garage and therefore the lot coverage is now reducing and otherwise the application is more or less the same other than the kicking out the back two feet does anybody have any concerns over this one nope okay in that case i entertain a motion to approve make a motion anyone who wishes to approve james seconds all in favor jim seconded nick moved who would like to write this one john john mcmanus will write okay the next is case number one thousand five hundred and forty four and which is three hundred and thirty four pleasant street and on this one again the five of us are present nick and tino have filed the prerequisite of the certification having watched the videotapes and john has been here for all of them live i've been here for all the time and so as jim so it will be the five of us who vote it seems to me there's sort of two questions here the first is whether this is a something that can be granted at all and then if it is if it were to be granted should it be granted with certain conditions it just sort of seems to me those are worthwhile addressing separately so i'll just kick it off by saying that i i don't think this is a something that we can approve under the bylaw the context being that neither lodging nor hotel is a described use in section thirty three the closest that i can see in the schedule thirty three chosen analogous uses would be other apartment house which is defined as a dwelling containing no fewer than five dwelling units but that use is actually prohibited in lb3 districts and most other districts in the town lodging and boarding is permitted as a use in lb3 but it's permitted only as an accessory use which requires that to be a principal residential use so that doesn't apply here and even if they were applicable it concerns rental with not more than three rooms without separate cooking facilities so as the applicant said they're relying on section thirty two which is a use not classifiable under any listed category which could be allowed can be allowed only by special permit from the board of appeals upon the board's determination that the use is similar in its impact on the neighborhood the environments and the town to a use which is permitted to roll out on special permit and also that the sub section seventy three special permit criteria test is met i don't see any permitted use that similar in its impact to a hotel the notice suggests that the similar use might be other retail sales and services but lodging i think is different from sales renting rooms is not selling in the retail sales sense and here we've got it's an overnight use which is an activity which is not otherwise permitted in the town generally so i don't see anything analogous and i don't think that it falls within the bylaw and this is in my view a situation where if it's be permitted i think town meeting would need to decide it would be a permitted use it just needs to be a hotel is not something that was inadvertently admitted from the scheduled uses although i acknowledge that section five hundred and twelve does contain a sort of mysterious free floating mention of hotels in the context of discussing parking spaces does anybody else have any thoughts on that issue i mean that i would reason that way except for that straight piece of legislation that talks about hotel in the context of parking i mean it's very odd that that exists but there's nothing in the table in any of those columns in the table that talks about where these hotels are allowed so given that i would just classify them under other retail sales and services the reasoning being that well it is a service providing a room even i mean there's no sale of goods but there's that service so otherwise how do you reconcile that stray hotel you mentioned in the parking rule well it seems to me that section thirty three is where uses are allowed and i think that the the five hundred and twelve references are frankly speaking in error they were drafting and drafting and they were revising the parking permits and lifting it from some other channels bylaw but i just think it seems to me that i appreciate others using this but it just seems to me that thirty three is where you would put a use and a hotel is such a distinctive kind of use that if it were contemplating being permitted it would have been mentioned i agree with you eric yeah the airbnb i think if you push that to the back to the planning and i know it's on the agenda is something that we move in that direction yeah i mean it seems to me that if it were if belmont is going to have hotels i think town meetings should say that we can have hotels it just seems to me for us to provide a hotel allow a hotel as other retail sales and services is stretching the bylaw beyond it's and only because it's an overnight thing i mean in terms yes you know this is i would say that it's lodging it's overnight which is something different for anything else and i don't think lodging is a retail service and especially in the context of the most analogous use in my view which is the apartment use that have been here for longer periods of time being prohibited there's also the fundamental logical inconsistency with the fact that in the context of this hotel longterm you state tendency is bad whereas in the context of airbnbs and that sort of thing it's the opposite it's hard to sort of intellectually reconcile those two theories what would you call a retail service things like a dentist a well the definition do we have a definition for that yeah section fourteen it talks about butler retail sales and services as an establishment primarily engaged in the retail sale of goods services and or products including baked products ice cream and or candy for consumption offsite with no additional seating provided onsite such uses may include incidental food service i mean i think it sounds like many of the stores in downtown belmont but it doesn't sound like so it sounds like the service of providing food is an example they gave i thought it would be like hair salon manicure pedicure and massage therapy or those which is like a service right so if right my view is if we if this is where i'm hung up if this is what we this is our collective view then we don't need to reach the question of whether or not it should be allowed conditions to vote so the theory is that reference to parking in section five is just that it's so weird to have parking for a hotel and then in the place where the uses are dismiss it we entertained that warehouse and turned it down for the one on holt street the one with the lot shaped like a t so you can turn it down it was a grandfathered figure type of use of building whereas here it's a new use i hate to see that lot unimprove cause i consider it to be unimproved right now and the lot across the street from it as well and i really don't i mean i was in the neighborhood to see the crescent and i drove by there and i went back and parking i didn't see a car back there i'm not saying that nobody goes to your hotel i'm just suggesting that traffic is not what one might think it might be in that area so i would hope to believe that there would be some prac in this poorly put together document here and i would say yeah we can allow that to be an improvement which i think would benefit the neighbors what does that where is that parking is that fifty two or something five hundred and twelve and is it something that we approve and then kick to the planning board and say they'll fix it well what's the timeline for the turnout a year and on top of that if we do vote and it goes either way i mean if it goes the wrong way for the applicant does that mean they're it's two years out before they can do anything again well you know no i mean it seems to me that if we were to vote on this ground high and town meeting were to say the hotels permitted and the planning board to amend the bylaws then obviously that would not be you know kind of two year commitment the minute that bylaw became effective it would be right back here yeah i know i must say i think the applicant did a great deal of work on this application it shows and know obviously this if we were to grant it i would certainly propose a number of conditions but it seems to me that i just can't get to the point of reaching so should we have a vote on this preliminary issue and then if it if this preliminary issue is an obstacle then we end here and if it's not an obstacle then we proceed to decide the table's in thirty three what would be whether we should consider it the vote would be i guess to deny the ground that the hotel use is not contemplated by the bylaw and they would continue on with the case then that would be a denial and they would have if they wanted to go and ask and recommended change they put it in the case with if we were to go with it that way then the case would end there so i would allow the case and i would be allowed we then move on to consideration with the application i take that back the proposed motions this is one of those negative motions this would be a motion to deny so an aye is to deny and an ney is to proceed right and the ney is to proceed so do i hear a motion to deny the application as a hotel use is not contemplated by bylaw we've got a motion by john did i hear a second second nick seconds so with an aye is to deny so all in favor say aye so we've got one two three all opposed yeah it needs to go to the planning board okay so we have a vote of three in favor of denial two opposed so three in favor of denying yeah that's what i'm trying to figure out to grant a special permit requires affirmative relief of four john you made the motion to deny correct yup oh you voted against your motion just making sure i got this right obviously if there's three in favor of denial then that is that fails to meet because you're going to need four to get affirmative relief so in that case i think the vote of three in favor of denial carries the vote i really wanted a hotel i don't like having house guests can you reiterate the regulation here about how we vote on these statute says you granting you grant affirmative relief and you need affirmative relief to be granted a special permit you need a vote of four out of on a five person board it's four out of any number isn't it it's not like only well if only four were sitting there you'd still need four affirmative votes but if you have ten sitting four would be enough we only sit in five only five people vote on any application but it requires four four affirmative votes to get it it's in chapter forty eight section we voted to deny and didn't pass it and that would suggest denying it doesn't pass but either way even if we went the other way it still wouldn't be enough votes so if i make a motion to approve you and i are yes they're going to say no it's three to two right let's say it's to say it's the same thing there's too many attorneys sitting at this table tino were you yes or no on the motion to deny on the grounds that it's just not in the bylaws a yes reluctantly all right if no one else wants to write it i'll write it i'll write it sounds like a fun one to write okay so tino is going to write it thank you okay now we got to keep moving okay the first one is we're not moving onto case number one thousand six hundred and four which is the application for the large family daycare at one hundred and twenty lewis road they left they left okay now i understand why they don't have the license cause its too i have prepared the list i just hadn't send it off because i don't have all the cases covered i have four out of like six but i think that we still have a different list and this is one of them i go over the for the licenses i have always asked them for the floor plan for pictures for their hours everything has been asked they didn't provide it it is not for me i mean it's not my fault that i haven't mentioned it can we please get a copy of the licenses even if it was a previous before they applied so at least we have some references if they're an existing operation it would be helpful to have them we always had on an application well we had a license floor plan a picture of the backyard and then we had not the agenda but hours the curriculum like you know and it was always nice to see all of that and the assistant and i think the assistant doesn't the assistant have to be licensed yeah right yeah i'll check what i have before the end of the week for the review and remember one we had where an area wasn't didn't have trees i have to do that decision actually if the trees weren't we made her put trees in on the corner there up in belmont so you always look for a way that kids can escape from the backyard we don't want to do it that way so that's why we want the picture of the backyard so i'll send you what i have just add to it then we'll discuss it next time when it comes to that this one in terms of in terms of what they should be submitted yes this one is i think is somewhat different though because i mean obviously there was some some genuine concerns about drop off and traffic and now it seems to me that this was a situation where i've walked by it and looked at it and there are things they could do if one we can obviously stagger which is something we would want to condition and we could also say drop off only on the on the side of the street where they are on the righthand side you know so that there you don't have people dropping off on the far side of the street crossing and then we could also say that the the applicant i mean i heard the point about the applicant apparently parking in front of the house which is where people would want to drop off the reason for this is that the driveway is not really a usable driveway if you look at it there's a stairway that goes in so they can't actually drive up the driveway so one hundred and twenty lewis how close is it to the main road on the bottom that's where we're at what's that yes what is that's far it's between it's between fairview and elm so how close to fairview is it it's at the far end from fairview it's near it's near elm they're very narrow dropoffs and pickups must be very difficult what happens is they basically line up the block there are eight houses on both sides sixteen families they're all two family houses each family has two cars so there has to be people who live there usually one person is parking out front so there has to be usually one person so you staggered the sta they have to be on the same side as the traffic goes and then if its written we're not going to have the guys at seven hundred and thirty in the morning there just people live on that side of the road unfortunately review on this so if we hear from the neighbors of the numb leaving to the conditions a six month review it seems to it's i was definitely going it seems to me that we have to try to if we're going to grant it we impose those things you know staggering dropoffs drop off only on the side of the street adjacent to two hundred and eighteen one hundred and twenty and that if if you're living there the occupants shouldn't be parked in your front and of course i can't preclude other people's parking so we'll do a fix and then a review after six months or a year i'd say i'd say a year we need to know that would give us enough time and if we hear complaints then they know they've got a problem the whole office it's not going to have the time to go there every morning to see like if it complies or not what i will need from neighbors will keep the record cars being here you know driveways being blocked stuff like that do you want to do you want a shorter review period i mean i don't i'm concerned about it as well but i just well we could just deny the permit based on that and all those complaints i think that the fact that there wasn't police before is now they have a reason to pay a little bit more attention yeah so if after a year we have a lot of these complaints then then they're going to have a problem okay is that in addition to the consideration the fact that there might be a suspicion that one hundred and eighteen unit is and not actually a residence yeah i mean that is i i did think about that issue and it seems to me that i think the point of those residents obviously they don't want purely commercial properties but where you have people living in the same building i mean a lot of people i know people that had two families who've made it into one family i mean so on if they're living in the same building i think you might that would be acceptable obviously they could not you know move someplace else rent out the upper floor and then continue to use the lower floor as a that would be a problem what about the license so we're going to consider all of this without a license well just said that they don't require the license for application because they have to have the special permit the first thing i'll do tomorrow ask them to make sure they have it i'll copy nick if he's going to make the decision to have just a note to say that you know presented the following day or we can do we condition it on submission of the license in this case since this is a large family they have to submit license for the assistant as well so you've got two licenses and then they've you have the usual conditions in addition to the ones we just discussed and then the hours are eight to five those aren't normal hours though usually it's earlier usually it's earlier hours what about waking up at seven hundred and thirty but i think i think that i asked them that question actually and they said that the eight was fine but they said five hundred and twenty was quite awful they closed the door so it probably should be a five hundred and thirty yeah five hundred and thirty but normally it's the eight o'clock hours aren't what normally people do and as i recall when i was doing it was normally like the sevensfifteens and the 730's is like the eight o'clock is when you're hitting the school traffic yeah but that's that's what they ask don't want give them more so the space that's used as a daycare nobody lives there it's just the testimony was equivocal shall we say so he lives with he lives in a two family and the other floor is unclear if i may initially we send them the letter that you know they need a special permit they sent us back a letter saying that you know they live on one floor and the other floor was totally available for the daycare and we told them that's not what the bylaw says you need to live in the house otherwise it would be a daycare for which you need to have handicap accessibility ramp it's a it's the business which is allowed but they need to do the modeling for like a hundred thousand dollars to add bathrooms and everything else so they sent me another letter saying that no they do live in both units we have them all i mean that's why i included everything we have and well when they said like they live in both i couldn't say you can't apply anymore so they're applying as if they do live in the house that is what they said it just seems like quibbling that seems a little too family in my view because so long as they're living in the building it shouldn't be an issue and there's only one other space and that's dedicated to the daycare but if they were living someplace else that would be a different story that would not be right so this is a case where they're in the same building they're saying they're living in the unit otherwise we can't issue them this permit as a building code unless they're living in the house occupying the house it would be a daycare as a commercial use which needs handicap accessibility handicap bathrooms lifts elevators the whole nine yards this is because they're living in the houses why eec gives them the permit for a large family daycare because they live in the house that's how they're allowed to by the building code by the eec so this is a building code issue correct so the minute they said like you know we don't live in the house totally changes the character of the daycare into a commercial daycare which still they're allowed to by zoning it's the building code now you know forces them to take more measures like twenty four sycamore street is coming rather than not going to come in for parking now you're kind of on a slippery slope because what it puts a triple decker but he's saying that it's not maybe its not isn't a zoning issue he's saying it's a building code issue in other words if there's nobody living in the unit i mean we can still grant a special permit for it but they would have to do additional things to it well it is a zoning issue because i think if isn't there a definition of family daycare that says that it says in a residential property if i recall correctly so for a two family strictly for a single but for a two family strictly they're living there so if even the sleep down there like you know once a week or just cook something in that kitchen they're not living there we're not going to go monitor that keeping the back door open from upstairs and downstairs so no one bothered by this no so do i hear and we obviously just discussed a number of conditions don't hear a motion to approve subject to those conditions i make a motion to approve subject to the conditions that we discussed i'll second so nick moves subject conditions are approved all in favor you got the same name without okay okay i have a question may i ask a question sure this property where they have a business a daycare they pay the same amount of taxes i don't know they come from another town using the park using the roads they're not coming from another town they're living there they're just living upstairs i think he was talking about is that what you mean yeah okay i don't know i don't know the answer to your question all right so the next one so do i don't go down that road fair as long as you're registered with the town of belmont okay so then we've got a number one thousand six hundred and five which is one hundred and thirty seven sycamore street is this license going to be issued to this young lady the young lady yes the applicant it's personal to her and it's obviously i just need her to submit her occ license she says she has an assistant i just need the assistant's license as well they've got a fence the hours were eight to six requested other than that i'll give you conditions i'm going to write all the daycare ones i'm going to just blow em all up truly appreciate it i own three i'm going to do another three all right he has a template for these eric i do there is one with all conditions but we're going to have one for applications too so you're going to ask her for a license too yes yes and we'll have staggered drop offs because sycamore is as bad as any street very busy street even though it's at least a little wider and wider but there's about ten or fifteen there's at least ten maybe twenty daycares on sycamore and the surrounding streets no it does work staggered and also there was one person who had a circular driveway that we made them block off their circular driveway on sycamore so she couldn't use it so that it wouldn't be like the speedway over there on sycamore but if it works it works does anybody have any concerns about the one hundred and thirty seven sycamore application where there was just one the only thing i had was is is this going to be an all japanese school it wasn't a concern but everything's written in japanese it seems to be quite likely i don't know i'll sign up and let you know well sign up i just didn't know i was just curious i meant to ask because i was just wondering looking at this yeah no i understand that it doesn't matter to me when someone showed up in the past and it was called the montessori school i think it doesn't matter to me and this to me is not a floor plan for a daycare this is somebody took a pencil and wrote out a floor plan we need a regular floor plan no but something more than don't you agree because we'd have to have how to get in how to get out the fire situation or am i wrong are we i mean we didn't ask we agreed that it didn't have to be professionally drawn but how does fire how does the fire department look at it don't they have to present something to fire this is a single house up to six kids it's considered to be a safe like a family kind of i mean you won't question a family with six kids or like three kids five since the maximum occupancy is less than fifteen which is like even like with the large families anything less than fifteen is sufficient but if i go to the fire department what do i give the fire department to show them it as a single house they'll just take it as a single house we've asked them to inspect the smoke detectors i'll make a motion to approve the special permit i'll second all in favor that's all five0 that was five in favor so that one was a fifty that wasn't we didn't have a no no okay so what do we just continue with this one yeah and the other two were oh the person who didn't come didn't show up yet we've already continued that and then the other ones just write it anyway and then we've got the minutes that were circulated we probably should make some edits to them were there any issues on the minutes there were the minutes of correct the revision of the two was corrected i'll make a motion to approve the minutes of december 7th two thousand and fifteen february 1st two thousand and sixteen and march 7th two thousand and sixteen ill second with the changes of eric and craig we don't require a special engineer to do all this shaun you did changes didn't you mind one with john's changes so we followed the changes motion to approve i'll second a minor formal problem i can't really vote on the march 7th cause i wasn't here yes you can you've watched it oh yeah good point okay so all in favor opposed no the second was your john you were okay motion to be adjourned all in favor thank you all