Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-10 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes 0 °� cy RECEIVED � `� TOw� Of R20ding ByTownClerkGPaf10:16am,Ju116,3030 � }:` }'�� Meeting Minutes ,�l Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2024-6-10 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Town Hall Loca[ion: Hyhrid Meeting - Zoom and Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell 5[reet Session: Open Session Purpose: Hybrid Meeting Version: Final Attendees: Members In person: Tony D'Arezm, Vice Chair; Hea[her Clish Members Remote: ]ohn Weston, Chair, Hillary Mateev Members Not Present: Tom Armstrong, Mark Wetzal Others Present in person: Community Development Director Andrew MacNichol, Senior Planner Olivia Knightly, Aram Boornazian, Frank Lanzillo, Khanh Nguyen, Susan Coram, Karen Herrick Remote Participants: Chris Alphen, Bradford Fortin, David Conti, Tim J., Giovanni Fodera, Town Manager Matt Kraunelis Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Olivia Knightly Topics of Diswssion: ANR Plan Endorsemen[, 1310 Main Street; Definitive Subdivision AppliCa[ion, 0 Harold Ave (a.k.a. 0 Van Norden Road); Grandview Road ExtenSion; 246 Walnu[ Stree[ Subdivision Plan Endorsemen[; MBTA Communities 3A Discussion. MEETING HELD IN THE SELECT BOARD ROOM AND REMOTELV VIA ZOOM Mr. Weston called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Mr. MaWichol 9ave an overview of [he hybrid meeting procedures. Mr. D'Arezm requested to take an item out of order - inviting the Assistant Town Manager Jayne Wellman [o speak. Ms. Wellman introduced herself to those present and provided an overview of her role and ability to provide support to [he CPDC. Mr. MacNichol requested to take another agenda item out of order, this request was granted by Mr. D'Arezzo. Aouroval Not Reauired Plan Endorsement. 1310 Main Street Mr. MacNichol introduced the Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan at 1310 Main Street. He described an ANR plan as the division of a[tractive land fronting an existing public way, wi[h all lots proposed on the plan meeting [he minimum fron[age and mning area requirements for the district it is located in. He stated tha[ the subdivision application does not require a puhlic hearing process because the right of way for frontage access ezists. Mr. MacNichol said the ANR applica[ion proposes the division of property loca[ed a[ 1310 Main Street into 3 single lo[s that front Main Street, and lot 3 will have additional frontage on Franklin Street Mr. MacNichol advised that wetlands and vernal pools are presen[ on the 1 �y ��w,, � ° Town of Reading 1 � k��� } � Meeting Minutes \\�' 7 � \��� si[e, but for [he purposes of the ANR review process the primary mncem involves the proposed subdivision. Mr. Sullivan, the project engineer, spoke in person and provided a description of the subdivision and the work rompleted to date. The project a[torney, Mr. Brad Fortin, was in attendance online. Mr. Sullivan sta[ed that all 31otr exceed the minimum zoning requirements for the 520 zoning disVicL He said that 1310 Main Street contains the existing home on the property. Mr. Sullivan said that extensive wetland delineation has been mmpleted induding work with the wnserva[ion commission, but currently the review is for development is for ANR, Mr. D'Arezzo requested darification on [he loca[ion of Lot 3 and access to the existing house that is located on Lot 2 fron[ing Main StreeL Mr. Sullivan confirmed that the existing house is located on Lot 2 while Lo[ 3 is a large undeveloped parcel that is buildable. He added that the applicant will 6e looking to propose a suhdivision or development plan for Lot 3 in the future. Mr. Sullivan said [hat he left in access and utility easemen[s so residents can access . the ezisting house through Lo[ 3. He added that there is an ezisting driveway there now with utilities, which he formalized into an easement. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the ANR for 1310 Main Street. Ms. Mateev seconded the motion, and it was approved 3-1-0. Mr. Weston abstained. (D'Arezzo, Mateev, Clish — Weston) Continued Public Hearina, Definitive Subdivision Aoolication. O Harold Ave (a.k.a. O Van Norden Roadl. Zero Harold AVenue. LLC Mr. ]ack Sullivan presented on behalf of the project applicant, providing an overview of the site. Mr. Sullivan addressed mncems regarding the requirement for a cul-de-sac [o meet the needs of fire and safe[y and the alternatives that have been considered [o create access [o [he proposed single-family lot. The proposed altemative to the cul-de-sac is a 14' wide paved Oriveway which would require a waiver from the CPDC. Mc Sullivan stated tha[ to meet the required proof the plan would need to demonstrate a 60' right of way with a 60' radius cul-de-sac, however, the site lacks the adequate frontage to create the required geometry to meet proof. Mr. Sullivan stated that the design preserves natural features and requested feedback from the CPDC abou[ how the design can meet prwf or receive a waiver. Mr. Weston provided his thoughts on the purpose of ineeting proof requirements. Mr. Weston s[a[ed [hat the property owner does not have the right to build on the si[e because of the geometric challenges identified and the applicanYs inability to meet the required proof. Mr. MacNichol reiterated the purpose and intent of proof plan requiremen[s. He stated that the CPDC could waive with the in[en[ and finding [hat the plan design is not inconsistent wi[h the intention and purpose of the regulations. Mr, Sullivan asked the CPDC if it would be justified to reques[ a waiver for [he 30' curve roundings. Mr. D'Arezzo inquired abw[ why the applicant has not applied for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Board members feel tha[ the proof plan is not working. Mc Sullivan stated that he anticipates it will be difficWt [o rereive a variance withwt the required frontage and that the CPDC would be the best avenue to get [he plan approved. Mr. D'Arezzo reinstated that the applicant must be able to show proof. Ms. Clish reitera[ed [ha[ an ezcep[ion to [he prwf requirements does not seem justified a[ this [ime. Ms. Mateev and Mr. Weston agree that the si[e plan would have to go in front of the ZBA to 2 � :� o` ¢�'.,� Town of Reading ;^ _ � Meeting Minutes .�V�; request a variance before the CPDC review the plan again. Mr. Sullivan agreed to review the plan and see if o[her alterna[ives could be considered. Mr. Weston opened it up far public discussion. Mr. Aram Boornazian, 9 Harold Ave, spoke in person and referenced the Reading Subdivision Regulations paragraph 3.3.2 statinq that the proposed dwelling does not appear to be 6 feet above wetlands present on the si[e, and tha[ the site should be deemed unsuitable to build. Mr. Boornazian raised a 2016 determination by the CPDC that deemed [he �o[ as nomhuildable lot and presented an Order of Conditions for 116 Van Norden Road citing a tree removal condition. Mr. Sullivan advised the CPDC that the Order of Conditions presented by Mr. 800rnazian is for a different lot than the Harold Ave property under review. Mr. Sullivan further darified that the Order of Condi[ions states [hat the rear portion of the lot was deemed non- buildable due to the lack of frontage, however this does not mean that the property could not be buildable in the future. Mr. Weston agreed that there are several constraints on the property. He stated that other issues identified with the site would be discussed in the future should [he applican[ re[urn with a proof plan. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision Application for O Harold Ave to Plan to ]uly 15, 2024. Ms. Clish seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-0-0 (Weston, Clish, Mateev, D'Arezzo). Public Hearina. Maior Modification to a Definitive Subdivision Grandview Road Extension. Michael Salamone Mr. D'Arezzo read the Legal Notice into record. Mr. Giovanni Fodera attended the mee[ing virtually to present on behalf of the applicant. He provided an overview of the proposed subdivision and the history of site work. Mr. Fodera stated that the plan was approved in 2021 and site work began in 2023. The approved underground stormwater collec[ion sys[em was installed according to plan. The ownership team determined that the 2021 approved drainage plan was the preferred, The plan proposed keeping the roadway from the 2023 plan and reincorpora[ing the s[ormwater system from the previously approved 2021 plan. Lo[ 2 will remain for future developmenL Mr. Fodera said that the drainage sys[em installed works properly. Mr. Weston asked Mr. MacNichol if there was feedback from Town Engineering Staff, who stated that no major comments or concerns were provided at this [ime. Mr. D'Arezzo asked Mr. Fodera for dariFlcation about the increase in impervious surtace and removal of fewer trees. Mr. Fodera mnfirmed that this was only represen[ed on the plans and not done on the site. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the necessary permissions and easements required to complete grading onto Town Property. Mr. Fodera mnfirmed that a 30' wide grading easement was granted. Mr. D'Arezm asked about the shed loca[ed on Lo[ 2 and whether [his has been removed yet. Mr. Fodero said that it will be moved onm Lot 1. Mr. D'Arezm asked for confirma[ion about whether a future developer on Lot 2 will be responsible for their own stormwater management. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the reach Rl 100-year s[orm increase. Mr. Fodera said that there are [wo discharge points located on the site and when viewed together on the overall site there is an observed decreased peak rate runoff. Mr. D'Arezzo asked whether Reach 1 and 3 O orq b � -� � �.. Town of Reading ;,� }, ,. ��;! Meeting Minutes '�,; Reach 2 are mnnected to one another. Mr. Fodera confirmed [ha[ they are not mnnected. Mr. D'Arezzo ezpressed concem for neighbors and any potential increase in runoff that could impac[ abutters. Mr. Fodera said he can discuss drainage further with engineering. Additional darifying questions were asked about the engineering software used by Mr. Fodera. Ms. Clish asked Mr. Fodera what prompted the change in the stormwater system [o go back to the initial design. Mr. Fodera stated that the ownerehip [eam felt that it was the right [hing to do. Ms. Clish asked if there is anything about the roadway that is differen[ from [he first approved version and how it may interact with the prior drainage design. Mr. Fodera said the roadway design has mostly remained the same except the cul-de-sac has been lowered by about two feet Previously in 2021 there were catch basins scat[ered around [he cul-de-sac at low points but the 2023 design has the s[ormwa[er flowing naturalty toward the stormwater collection system. Ms. Clish s[ated tha[ she would appreciate a review of the plans by the Town Engineer. Mr. Fodera agreed that it would be helpful to have the Town Engineer review the plans and stormwater design. Mr. Weston opened it up for public comment. Susan Coram, 31 Ridge Road, asked for darification about the proposed stormwater recharge system that extends into Lot 2 and the assumption that lot 2 would need to manage their own stormwater runoff. She inquired where drainage for Lo[ 2 is proposed to be located and whether more tree removal would occur in the future to acmmmodate future drainage on Lot 2. Mr. Fodera pointed out the proposed location for Lo[ 2 drainage which would not extend off[he drainage easement or [he shared recharge system. Ms. Coram pointed out that the proposed drainage area on Lot 2 is currently higher than [he proposed building area and asked whether fhe proposed building would need to be raised. Mr. Fodera responded that the roof runoff will have downspouts that will lead to the recharge system which wili have gravity conveyance to a dry well. Ms. Coram asked if any complaints have been received from abutters about floodinq. Mr. Fodera s[ated that no romplaints have been rereived to his knowledge. Ms. Coram asked why the land needed for recharge system be taken from the wooded area instead of decreasinq the footprints of the buildings. Mr. Fodera responded that the lawns were extended on Lots 3 and 4 upgradient oi the recharge system and further form the wetlands to provide a larger lawn to future homeowners. Ms. Coram sta[ed that the newly created roadway has caused water to colleR and expressed mncem for children in the neighborhood. She asked about the requirement for guardrail or fencing along [he new roadway due to the increase in standing water present. She also inquired abwt the proposed sugar maples that are to be planted in [he same area and whether these trees will be affected by the standing water, citing that she believes there has been a negative impact on the Town Land. Ms. Coram provided observations about the amount of fill removed from the site in mmparison to [he amount of fill [hat was brought into the site. She requested that earthwork and elevations are double checked in respect to the drainage solu[ions. Mr. Weston confirmed wi[h Mr. MacNichol [hat the Conservation Commission approved the plans. Mr. MacNichol said that [he Maple trees [o the west are out of the Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. D'Arezzo advised that the [rees should 6e reviewed the 6y Tree Warden. 4 �,:� o` �° Town of Reading � ¢ ;� MeetingMinutes �"��� Kyung Yu, representing the Church of[he Nazarene, 900 Main Street, stated tha[ the Church sent an official letter to the CPDC last year because the church ezperienced flooding. He asked about the impact of the plan change to the church and their neighbors. Mc Fodera responded that the proper fill was not used to install the basin and that this material will be removed and replaced wi[h a new fill which will allow for better infiltration. Mr. Fodera continued to say that once the new drainage system is complete it will be a lawn and not an open basin and that all s[ormwater will be going into the underground sys[em with a better infil[ra[ion ra[e. Mr. MacNichol recommended a continuance of review on the ]uly 15, 2024 CPDC agenda. Ms. Clish made a motion to continue the public hearing tor the Major Modification of a Definitive Subdivision Applicaiion for the Grandview Raad EMension ta ]uly 15, 2024. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-0-0 (D'Arezzo, Clish, Mateev, Weston). 3-lot Definitive Su6division. 246 Walnut Street, Plan Endorsement Mr. MacNichol proposed the endorsement of the 246 Walnut Stree[ Plan [hat induded the addition of granite curhing and retaining wall detail as previously conditioned. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to endorse the plan for Walnut Street as amended with granite curbing. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0 (D'Arezzo, Clish, Mateev, Westan). MBTA f3A1 Communities Discussion Mr. MacNichol announced the upcoming forum on Wednesday]une 12, 2024. He discussed the work that has been mmpleted sinre the dosure of[he public hearing in January to produce a set of compliaM zoning models tha[ will be reviewed at the upcoming public forum. Mr. MacNichol said [hat Town staff have confidence recommending several models ranging from Mixed-Residential, a non-Commercial Corridor, Down[own Zoning, and a mmbination of areas including indus[rial mne. The Town will be looking to receive feedback from [he community on four to five poten[ial models to help to improve the draft concepts and determine the best alternative for the Town moving forward. Mr. Weston sta[ed [hat the alternatives produced are dear in [heir bcation and in[enL He con[inued to say that past CPDC discussions included looking for a sVategy to fit all new mWti-family residential within ezisting mmmercial distric[s, another mnversation looked to include the creation of affordable housing. Mr. Weston said that if the town were to add affordable housing as a consideration of 3A zoning then density would need to increase to acmmmodate this. Mr. MacNichol responded tha[ Ihe exercise was in[ended to review form and location and the mnsWtant can provide an analysis on affordability when [he models are narrowed down more. Mr. Weston added that affordability was an important consideration that resWted from the public engagement process and was not directly identified in [he consultant's report. Mr. Weston stated tha[ [he final area considered should include either[he downtown business distric[ or the area surrounding the downtown business district to meet the requirements. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the indusion of 40R in the zone and whether including this area would allow the Town to decrease the to[al 40R area outside of the zone that would have to be induded. Mr. MacNichol confirmed this is true. Ms. Clish further asked if this would be true for induding any of the options outside of the Transitional Residential Town Center. Mr. MacNichol resolved that when a different area outside of[he Town Cen[er mncept is 5 � r �,:� � 4\ Town of Reading } �' '� Meeting Minutes ��� ���=� '�:=_i induded in the zoning, then this reduces the overall amount of single-famity zoning in the Town Center Area that is needed. The CPDC discussed the format and logistics of the public forum scheduled for Wednesday June 12 and how planning staff are going to collect public feedback. Mr. MacNichol said that Planning staff are looking to have a mnversation-based forum and gather feedback that would help push the process to the next level. Ms. Clish emphasized that the questions asked during [he forum will be important Mr. MaMichol provided examples of feedback that would be helpful to receive from the publiq induding determining what is supported and not supported by the mmmunity. Ms. Clish said that consensus is not likely, but determining pros and mns could be helpful to generate feedback that we can do something with. Ms. Clish advised that staff should reduce the amount of information presented in the slides by summarizing. Mr. D'Arezm said that the analysis should be [he main focus of[he presen[ation and emphasized discussing the models that do not comply and then presenting the models that remain as viable op[ions for the Town. Clarifying questions were asked to Mr. MaW ichol a6out the rontrols used for the models to achieve compliance. Mr. Weston asked Mr. MacNichol what the desired outcome of the public meeting is. Mr. MacNichol responded [ha[ the need is to dearly establish [he immedia[e next steps and determine where the Town can go from here. If necessary, s[aff can run new models and make changes to the geography, or[he wntrols used. Mr. Weston echoed public feedback received over the pas[ few months and at [own meeting, that the response to [he proposed mmmercial area mning model is generally positive and that residents want to keep any new mning area away from any residen[ial district Mr. Weston said [hat he is personally not in support of this because the Town has made decisions historically that have created mnsequences and have nof addressed the current issues. Mr. Weston added that if the Town allows more housing downtown [hen there won't be a downtown anymore and further inquired about how the public forum will address this concern and others that may arise. He asked Mr. MacNichol abou[ potential discussions that may arise about requests for the Town to pursue a concept that has minimal impact on neighbors. Mr. MacNichol stated tha[ there has been consideration abou[ various community perspec[ives and his perspec[ive of providing a professional recommendation that tries to address the issue at its mre. Mr. MacNichol stated [hat given the deadline for mmpliance mnsensus is bemming [he priority and there needs to be buy in from the community ahout the concepts. Ms. Clish asked if planning staff have the capaci[y to receive informal written mmments or responses to rollect feedback. She added that if there are certain types of comments [hat will be most helpful, [hen we can ask people [o speak to specific questions. In response to Mr. Weston, Mc D'Arezzo provided an example from early in the planning process when [here was support for a larger district surrounding the downtown with higher density which would Wtimately help the down[own to survive. He stated his fear is [hat Alternative Cl muld receive the most support, where [he 40R dis[ric[ would ramp up in density and height. He stated it is easier to get people who don't like something to show up than it is [o get the people who do like something to show up. Mr. D'Arezzo advised that if we really want the option to have some sort of missing middle housing or potential real growth in town, opposed to big warehouse style housing, then Town Meeting will need two concept op[ions [o choose from. Ms. Clish said that she is skep[ical [hat residents will unders[and the implica[ions of converting [he 40R district to a MBTA Communities district, which opens the door for it [o be entirely residential and that the town may lose businesses. 6 �� �N � � Town of Reading i:✓ 3 � ��=� Meeting Minutes l:'� �: ��� She also posed the same mncem for the commercial district, asking whether people would support Stop and Shop turning into a massive residential area. Ms. Clish said [hat we need to be very dear about what the options look like. Mr. MacNichol stated that if the overarching mmmunity goal is to minimize the impact to single family zoning as much as possible then downtown concept will be the most popular op[ion. Ms. Clish responded that most people would not likely support [urning an area with [he poten[ial for future business development into residential use. Mr. Weston asked Mr. MacNichol if in the instance that the down[own concept is approved as a residential district muld locations such as 30 Haven daim the by-right use of 100% residen[ial and mnvert mized-use into residential use as businesses leave. Mr. MacNichol responded [hat [hey probably could, but parking requirements would need to be factored in. Mr. Weston restated that there is a possibility for mmersion of existing buildings. Mr, MacNichol said a bylaw Oroposal in the future for the MBTA District could find avenues to incentivize mixed use, but it is hard [o envision what incentives may look like right now. Ms. Mateev said tha[ parking issues currently exis[ down[own and inquired about how the 1.5 parking space per unit requirement would be incorporated. Mr. MaWichol agreed and sta[ed [ha[ [here are a lot of considerations at this rate with such a short period of time lek. Ms. Clish said that she people may envision tha[ the commercial and industrial area wuld be mixed-use and whe[her [his is a viable option for MBTA communities. She recognized that mixed use is only allowed when trying to preserve a village feel and asked if there a scenario where the 40R district could stay as mixed use and wmply with MBTA communi[ies. Mr. MacNichol responded that downtown 40R could meet [heir standard of downtown village rore bu[ that their metrics for mized use is limited in capaci[y and has other requirements that would have to be factored in, such as parking requirements. Mr. MacNichol raised the mncem that there is a discrepancy between the 5[ate's designated half-mile radius and the radius tha[ the Town has 6een using. The State has approved the Town's radius, however, the concepts do not yet reflect the Town's preferred radius. Ms. Clish asked about a scenario where we don'[ indude 100% wi[hin the half mile radius and asked why some of[he concepts don'[ comply, Mr. MacNichol responded that mos[ of what has been modeled are fully mmpliant concepts and that some sub-areas are in[ended to be outside of the half mile radius and could be pulled into other areas if needed. Mr. Wes[on asked abou[ [he Salem Street option and whether it was known [hat the area would be outside of the half-mile radius. Mr. MacNichol said [hat there are concepts that were intended to be outside of the half-mile radius and could be pulled into concepts within the half-mile radius. Mr. Weston darified whether the only reason for running [he sub-areas was to understand how they may work in conjunction wi[h the concept that already complies within the half-mile. Mr. MacNichol stated that part one of the process looked to identify what concept can fully comply, and if not part two identifies how these areas be partnered with other geographies to help reach mmpliance. Mr. Weston asked what parameters for the districts within the half mile radius could be altered in mmbina[ion with an area outside of the radius to increase the non-buildable percentage and lower Ihe potential density within the Town Center. Mr. MacNichol responded that some of the controls and allowances for the dis[ricts inside and outside of the half mile radius can be amended to reduce density in o[her districts. Mr. Weston darified that the analysis was in[ended to look a[ each district on its own to determine the characteristics of each. He continued to say that there is another step in the 7 w orx � � �� Town of Reading ' � ��� � Meeting Minutes ��� ; �.� process, which is to get feedback from the public and then determine the concept areas outside of[he half mile radius, if that is identified as a desire during public feedback. Ms. Clish agreed [hat the full analysis and context of the district study is importan[ information to convey in the public forum presentation. She advised tha[ the presentation look at which zones muld mmply on their own and then state [hat what mmes next in the process is using community feedback to mnduct subsequent analysis to achieve compliance. Mr. Weston asked for visual ezamples about potential development examples that the mning district alternafives muld resW[ in. Ms. Clish asked it the second mee[ing will mver The bylaw or if i[ will be about the concept combinations. Mr. MacNichol said that the meeting will be a combina[ion abou[ what the concepts muld shape in[o and some of the controls that would be induded in a bylaw while the third mee[ing would look at [he bylaw elements, language, and wnsidera[ions. Mr. Wes[on opened ta public mmment. Select Board Member Karen Herrick inquired about the MBTA Communities study completed and draf[ slides [hat were discussed, requesting that the information discussed in a meeting be made publidy available before Wednesday's public forum. She asked if a revision of the PowerPoint will be posted before [he meeting. Mr. MacNichol said it may be posted betorehand bu[ will certainly be posted after the public forum. Mr. D'Arezzo raised the public mncern about [he merging of lots to accommodate future development Mr. MacNichol responded citing the legal hurdles associated with this and the diffcWty to model these types of scenarios. Mr. Weston raised interest in discussing the impact of zoning changes that would resWt from the alternatives. Mr. MacNichol reiterated that as [he models are narrowed down an analysis about [he propensi[y for bts to be developed, an affordability analysis and additional details will be analyzed to determine impacts of the zoning concep[ al[erna[ives. Adiournment Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjaurn at 9:13 PM. Ms. C/ish seconded, and it was approved 4-0-0 (D'Arezzo, Clish, Mateev, Weston). Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: • D Harold Ave Extension c Definitive Subdivision Plan, dated 11/4/2024 Drainage Analysis, da[ed 12/3/23 • Grandview Road Extension c Major Site Plan Modification Su6division, dated 5/10/24 c Application Narrative pravided by Fodera Engineering, dated 5/13/24 o Legal Notice, dated 5/15/24 . 131� Main Street , Approval Not Required Plan, dated 5/29/24 . 246 Walnut Street Mylar plans for endorsement . MBTA Communities (3A) 0 7une 10 Publit Meeting Drak Presentation provided by Andrew MatNichol o MBTA Communities Initial Compliance Analysis, completed by RKG Associates Inc., dated 6/5/24 8 r; cCEIvEU �a Town of Reading f?','V P1 C ' � R fi 16 Lowell 5[reet,Reading,MA 01867 � � p'i 1, � ,�� '�a` CommuniryPlanning&DevelopmentCommission � °a��„m Mullin Rule ' � Certification Pursuant to G. L. C. 39, Section 23d of Participation in a Session of an Adjudicatory Hearing Where the Undersigned Member Missed a Single Hearing Session [Note: Can only be used for missing one single hearing session; cannot be used for missing more than one hearing session. Inquiries concerning this form and your ability to participate in a matter where you missed a single hearing session should be addressed to Town Counsel.] / I, �yom(ts ��5�(�k name), hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury as follows: � o%+vni� 1. I am a�member of said board. 2. I missed a hearin session on the matter'of U/�a/����� �� ��""�`�'�'O �`Q� ,ni/.sco�-..v�c� Go-�t�nrw� <�< .Ylc-�e_ or the property located at � which was held on� <°� �, �-�`f 3. I reviewed all the evidence introduced at the hearing session I missed, which included a review of(initial which one�s) applicable�: a. audio rewrding of the missed hearing session; or b. video recording of the missed hearing session; or c. �"">'�'� a transcript of the missed hearing session. This certification shall hecome a part of the record of the proceedings in the above matter. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this �f � day of ��l` � Name: �y.e�,-r�..., �� 1L/�,-r�SNi�"k Received as part of the remrd of the above matter: Date: � ' � 2 � 'L,� BY� � //`�2�1 �/�/ I�. Position: `�� ;0 �. ,�` �_ ��� J Mullin Rule updated 11/15/2023