[Speaker 1] (0:00 - 0:18)
It's from June, our June meeting, June 21st of 2021. I'm going to do a roll call. Do I have a second?

I have Tony for a second. Ron? Yes.

Paula?

[Speaker 20] (0:18 - 0:18)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (0:19 - 0:19)
Heather?

[Speaker 20] (0:19 - 0:20)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (0:21 - 1:02)
Okay, so those are approved. Next, we have petition 2110. Stephen Tapper requests a dimensional special permit for a deck at 16 Atlantic Crossing.

Mr. Tapper here. Okay, I see you're here remotely. Good evening.

Good morning. Okay, so can you tell us about your petition and how you got here? Yeah, can you hear me okay by the way?

We can.

[Speaker 18] (1:03 - 1:44)
All right, well, I'm actually traveling to work for the first time in two months. So, yeah, so back in fall of last year, I already did a double D construction to go along with that. Literally, it was to get my family a little small place to kind of sit out in the backyard, especially during the pandemic, so we could kind of not lose our minds.

So, all right, the double D really kind of gave an idea of what we were going to do. We came up with the plan.

[Speaker 1] (1:58 - 2:08)
And what was your understanding about the permitting? Who was responsible to get any permits that might be needed?

[Speaker 18] (2:09 - 2:39)
Um, from what I understood, um, again, I kind of was, I've never been to a construction, so I've never went off in the process of getting permits and building a house. So, I really assumed that it was all taken care of with the double D there along my building now, and I just assumed that that was already all taken care of. Um, so, that being said, um, I just assumed it was already all taken care of.

[Speaker 1] (2:40 - 2:53)
Okay, so, uh, Rich, um, can I ask you a question about that? So, what was your understanding about any of the permits on that building or otherwise?

[Speaker 7] (2:56 - 3:17)
Um, it, this came to me from a complaint from the neighborhood. So, my response was to investigate, reach out to who did the work. Um, I sent a letter to, uh, to Stephen at his address and asked him, you know, what's being built and you need to stop until you get a building permit.

[Speaker 1] (3:19 - 3:22)
So, is that a building permit issued on this?

[Speaker 7] (3:22 - 3:25)
There's no building, there's no building permit issued yet.

[Speaker 1] (3:26 - 3:29)
Okay. Has there been an application for one?

[Speaker 7] (3:29 - 3:30)
No. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:32 - 3:39)
Did you, um, talk to Doug Gubin or anyone from Double D about the work?

[Speaker 7] (3:39 - 3:59)
Yes, I reached out to Doug and he said he would secure a plot plan, which he did. And then, in the ensuing months, he didn't apply for a permit, but he worked on getting the application to the zoning prepared. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:59 - 4:12)
On the, on the application, I see it's eight, looked like it was 8.2 and on the plot plan, it looked like it was 8.5. Is that a .2 or a .5 for the setback approach?

[Speaker 7] (4:19 - 4:25)
So, I, I read, uh, Chuck Fay's, uh, survey as 8.5 and...

[Speaker 1] (4:25 - 4:35)
So, okay, that's how I read it. Uh, Mr. Taffer, so you asked for 8.2, but I think it's 8.5. I think it's a little less relief that you need. Hi, Andy.

[Speaker 18] (4:35 - 4:39)
Yeah, it may have been a typo, but I thought it was 100, so it'd be correct.

[Speaker 1] (4:40 - 4:58)
It was a little tough to read on the plan, so I can see how that happened. Okay, is there anyone here who, um, wanted to speak in opposition to this petition? If you're at home, do you use the raise your hand feature, right?

Yes.

[Speaker 12] (5:01 - 5:03)
Can I just clarify one thing?

[Speaker 1] (5:03 - 5:06)
What are we, um, he's looking for a dimensional special permit.

[Speaker 12] (5:07 - 5:12)
He's, he's, look, he's looking for the permit that will allow him to get the building permit. Correct. Okay.

[Speaker 19] (5:13 - 5:15)
Is this already built, or is this...

[Speaker 1] (5:15 - 5:30)
It's already built. So, he's within that, you know, 20% for a DSP. It meets 10, it's 8.5. It's, it's an uncovered deck, right? It's uncovered. It's uncovered.

[Speaker 19] (5:31 - 5:37)
It doesn't have following to the, past the foundation, as long as it's not five feet.

[Speaker 1] (5:37 - 5:41)
Right, right, right. So, I should look at that uncovered deck section.

[Speaker 12] (5:48 - 5:53)
For the neighbors that complained, what did they, what was their complaint? Is it too close to the house, or?

[Speaker 7] (5:54 - 6:08)
Yeah, basically too close. I, I actually couldn't see the deck, because there's a six foot fence. So, I just sent a letter blindly to say, if you construct a deck, a deck, please cease and desist.

[Speaker 12] (6:08 - 6:10)
So, the side yard isn't closed by a fence, right? Correct.

[Speaker 7] (6:11 - 6:24)
This is also a planned development district, so the requirement is reduced as a result of that. So, there's a requirement of 10 feet from the rear yard or side yard setback.

[Speaker 1] (6:24 - 6:35)
Right. So, what about it being an uncovered structure, Rich? I'm trying to remember our section for the deck.

[Speaker 19] (6:36 - 6:44)
Yeah, I think it's 2.3.8. 2.3, I'm in 2.3, I'm looking for it. I think it's 2.382, is that right?

[Speaker 1] (6:50 - 6:57)
Check, that's it. Which do not project more than five feet, but this is more than five.

[Speaker 19] (6:57 - 7:00)
But then it's unroofed porches and the like, which do not project more than 10 feet.

[Speaker 1] (7:00 - 7:02)
Oh, I can't hear you, sorry.

[Speaker 19] (7:02 - 7:07)
Sorry, it says, just below that, it says unroofed porches and the like, which do not project more than 10 feet beyond the line of the foundation.

[Speaker 1] (7:07 - 7:15)
Okay, yeah, all right, yeah, let's see. So, is that? Right, an unroofed porch.

[Speaker 19] (7:15 - 7:18)
Has that changed since it's in a planned development district?

[Speaker 1] (7:19 - 7:23)
That might be a question for Rich.

[Speaker 7] (7:24 - 7:35)
Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. I don't think the planned development district changes.

[Speaker 1] (7:36 - 7:37)
Those dimensions?

[Speaker 7] (7:37 - 7:38)
Those dimensions, no.

[Speaker 1] (7:41 - 7:59)
So, it might not be the relief if, all right, so it's uncovered. He's not more than, it's eight feet wide from the foundation. He's permitted to be up to 10 feet beyond the foundation.

[Speaker 19] (8:04 - 8:11)
And he's eight and a half from the property line and needs to be five? He's eight and a half feet from the property line and needs to be five?

[Speaker 1] (8:11 - 8:28)
He's eight and a half feet, but no, I think he, yeah, he has to just have to, a minimum of five. So long as it's not something in the planned development district that would alter that, and Rich doesn't believe that there is.

[Speaker 12] (8:28 - 8:29)
Is this not, is that on page 65?

[Speaker 1] (8:32 - 10:19)
It is. The temple, temple PVD is the one, yeah. So, here we are, got the dimensional stuff here.

And I see side yard setback 10 feet. But this wouldn't be subject to the side yard setback because it, because of 2.3.8.2. So, my opinion that we should just make a finding or in the alternative, we could grant a DSP if it were needed. But I really think it's a finding that it's conforming.

Is there anyone else that wanted to be heard on this petition? Please use the, raise your hand. Any comments from anyone on the board?

Okay, well, I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. I'm going to first constitute the board as everybody, but Andy is up here a couple minutes late. So, do I have a second for my motion to close the public hearing?

[Speaker 20] (10:19 - 10:20)
I second.

[Speaker 1] (10:21 - 10:33)
Caller is a second. I'm going to do a roll call. Just give me one second here.

20, 16. Ron?

[Speaker 12] (10:33 - 10:33)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (10:34 - 10:36)
Tony? Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 20] (10:37 - 10:38)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (10:39 - 12:35)
Okay, I'm going to make a motion to make a finding that the uncovered deck, which is eight and a half feet from the side yard setback, is permitted pursuant to section 2.3.8.2 because it is more than five feet from the setback and it does not project greater than 10 feet from the foundation. And in the alternative, if it did in its current as-built location be in violation of a 10-foot setback that as-built a dimensional special permit, well, if I give him that, then he's got to record the decision. I just make a finding.

Actually, what I'm going to do, Mr. Tapper, is I'm just going to do a finding that it's conforming and that way you won't need to record a decision. Okay? Save the expense and the trouble of that.

So, I'm going to look to make a finding that it is conforming with 2.3.8.2 and the planned development district. It is not closer than five feet from the side yard setback. It does not project more than 10 feet from the foundation.

I'm going to go in the same order I called before. Paula?

[Speaker 15] (12:35 - 12:36)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (12:37 - 12:40)
Ron? Yes. Tony?

Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 14] (12:40 - 12:41)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (12:42 - 13:36)
Okay. So, Mr. Tapper, so what's going to happen here is that we're going to approve minutes of the meeting. I'm going to write a decision that will not need to be recorded because it provides that it's conforming.

And you'll just want to keep a copy of that record for the future if it ever comes up again. Okay? All right.

So, have a great evening. Thank you. Okay.

Next matter is it now being 715.20-12, 461 to 463 Humphrey Street. Is...

[Speaker 17] (13:37 - 13:43)
Abdel is here. I'm promoting him to panelist right now. And then Rod Rivera is also representing him.

[Speaker 1] (13:44 - 14:05)
Okay. So, Mr. Rivera, are you going to speak on behalf of this petition? Is he muted, maybe?

[Speaker 17] (14:06 - 14:24)
It doesn't look like it. Mr. Rivera, can you hear us? How about Abdel?

Are you there?

[Speaker 6] (14:27 - 14:28)
Can you hear me?

[Speaker 17] (14:28 - 14:29)
Yes, we can hear you.

[Speaker 6] (14:31 - 14:31)
Okay.

[Speaker 17] (14:32 - 14:40)
We cannot hear Rod, though. I don't know if he was going to speak, but we can't hear him. But if you're able to give an introduction to the board, please go ahead.

[Speaker 6] (14:42 - 16:14)
Okay. I'm the owner of the property. And my intention is to change the existing...

This structure right now is two family plus storefront. I'm trying to change it to three family dwelling. And we convert the store to an apartment.

Because for the... We see like the commercial space right now. It's less demand for commercial space based on what happened in this pandemic.

And I prefer to have an apartment in place. What we need is to have relief from the parking. Currently, we have a garage as a parking.

The garage has 28 feet. Once 28 feet long and 10 feet not covered, which means like in front of the garage. What we need to do is to use...

We will have four parking spaces. Now, based on what we need is for three units, we need four and a half. We are asking the board to leave for a half parking spot.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (16:16 - 16:48)
So with respect to your request... I was just going to say about the parking. About anything to do with the changing the spots on Humphrey Street.

That doesn't... We don't have jurisdiction to entertain that. We can give you relief for the amount of parking that's required.

But we can't remove any restrictions. That's something that would need to be done by the select board.

[Speaker 6] (16:52 - 17:05)
Oh, that's okay. I just didn't know I put it there. But for perspective, I don't need it.

Like, you know, for half spots right now, we are just asking for relief for half spot.

[Speaker 1] (17:07 - 17:17)
Okay. All right. And you're not making any changes to the footprint of the structure?

[Speaker 6] (17:18 - 17:18)
No.

[Speaker 1] (17:19 - 17:23)
You're going to rehab the structure? Is that your plan?

[Speaker 6] (17:24 - 17:24)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (17:26 - 17:40)
Okay. Are you going to keep the garage doors on or off?

[Speaker 6] (17:41 - 18:19)
Off. They have to be off. Because if we keep them on, we will not have space.

Because based on the garage, it has 28. Which means we need 18 feet for one parking spot. And we have 10 feet between what's covered, what is not covered.

The solution is to remove the garage door and just use it like... We will have 38 feet long. Which is more than enough for two car parking.

One behind another one.

[Speaker 1] (18:23 - 18:25)
But the rendering show it with garage doors?

[Speaker 6] (18:27 - 18:29)
Well, it's existing right now.

[Speaker 1] (18:29 - 18:35)
Okay. Okay, so let it be removed. It'll be more like a carport.

It'll be open.

[Speaker 6] (18:35 - 18:51)
Yes. There is another option. But it could be moved to the inside to have only 18 feet as a garage and the rest.

But I prefer to use just like no door.

[Speaker 1] (18:52 - 18:53)
Okay.

[Speaker 12] (18:56 - 19:09)
Are there any questions from the board at this point? So for the tandem parking, are there any sidewalks or anything that are being... That are being blocked?

[Speaker 6] (19:10 - 19:17)
No. We still have... No, it was not using it.

We are in our property line.

[Speaker 1] (19:18 - 19:24)
You asked if he's got a curb cut there already? Is that what you're wondering? He's got a garage.

Yeah, he's got a garage. Well, I know he has a...

[Speaker 12] (19:24 - 19:34)
I know he's a curb cut, but don't you still... You still... The cars can't stick out in front of the sidewalks, right?

No, they'll be on his property. Yeah, they've got to be.

[Speaker 1] (19:34 - 19:39)
They can't stick out off of the sidewalk. If you were blocking it, I would expect...

[Speaker 3] (19:39 - 19:42)
It's not going to be based on the way he's driving. But have we allowed tandem parking?

[Speaker 1] (19:42 - 19:43)
Yeah.

[Speaker 14] (19:43 - 19:48)
That was my question about the tandem parking spaces. Is that counting as two or...

[Speaker 12] (19:48 - 19:50)
It does. Yeah. We've done it.

[Speaker 1] (19:51 - 19:58)
Okay. Any other questions from anyone on the board?

[Speaker 3] (20:02 - 20:09)
So... Really? They do count?

Count them? One, two, three, four. That's two.

Well, we have on the outside.

[Speaker 1] (20:09 - 20:12)
I don't recall us counting them inside the structure, but we counted them outside.

[Speaker 3] (20:12 - 20:21)
No, but from a practical standpoint, two apartments can use this, but three apartments has no... The third apartment has no parking. You're going to have to get in and get out.

[Speaker 1] (20:21 - 20:23)
Well, we require one and a half per unit, right?

[Speaker 3] (20:25 - 20:48)
So he's half a car short with that. But if we had one and a half... If it was half a car short and there were four...

If there were four non-tandem parking spaces, then I could see three different families using that. But when there are two tandem parking spaces, how does the third family use that? Which space is the third unit get?

[Speaker 1] (20:49 - 20:53)
Well, the third parking is... It has to be on street.

[Speaker 12] (20:53 - 20:54)
Oh, no, he says one, two...

[Speaker 6] (20:54 - 21:27)
In the street, in the street. Because first of all, the third parking, the third apartment is a very small apartment. It's 600 square feet of apartment.

Most likely a single person will live there and then he has to use street parking. Technically, even if we have a store, a storefront, he has to... One person works there or he has to use parking anyway.

It doesn't matter if it's an apartment or not. He still uses parking for the street.

[Speaker 1] (21:28 - 21:35)
What's a more intensive parking use? The commercial or the residential? Commercial.

[Speaker 6] (21:36 - 21:38)
Commercial is more easy.

[Speaker 1] (21:40 - 21:44)
What are you thinking, Andy? I'd love to hear you.

[Speaker 3] (21:48 - 22:14)
If I was on a planning side, I'd be thinking that you should just absorb this small amount of space in the first floor into the other apartments. It should be a two-family. We don't need to encourage a three-family.

I'm trying to think what we did in other places, but you're right. I mean, the parking at night, there won't be anybody using the space overnight. So they'll be able to find their space, that half a space.

[Speaker 1] (22:14 - 22:34)
It's a tight area on Hartford Street there. I'll go along either way. Yeah.

Yeah, I think I'm okay with that myself. So is there anyone that wanted to be heard about this petition?

[Speaker 20] (22:37 - 22:39)
I see Mary Ellen Fletcher.

[Speaker 17] (22:39 - 22:40)
Yes, Mary Ellen Fletcher.

[Speaker 15] (22:46 - 22:46)
Okay.

[Speaker 17] (22:46 - 22:48)
Mary Ellen, you should be allowed. Oh, yep. Go ahead.

[Speaker 15] (22:49 - 23:45)
Okay. Hello, and thank you for letting me be heard. We have, which I have two questions.

One is the height of the building. Will that be remaining the same? And my comment is, there is no parking on Marshall Street because of to get the fire trucks in here.

The only way to get the fire trucks in here is by having no parking on Marshall itself. On Humphrey Street in the evening, there is parking available, which would help. During the day, that's a different story.

But after six, seven o'clock at night, there's a lot of parking available. So if you could just note that, and if you could just let me know what the height is. I mean, three families seems like a lot, but that's for you to decide.

[Speaker 6] (23:45 - 23:54)
No, we are not changing anything in the building. Building is just changing the size. We are not changing any floor, any height.

[Speaker 3] (23:54 - 24:06)
This is 25 feet, so it's a little light. Squeeze it to be kind of tight. Okay, all right.

[Speaker 1] (24:06 - 24:08)
So Ms. Fletcher, your question's answered sufficiently.

[Speaker 15] (24:09 - 24:10)
Oh, yes, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (24:12 - 24:14)
Is there anyone else that wanted to be heard on this petition?

[Speaker 17] (24:15 - 24:18)
Anyone else via Zoom, you may use the raise your hand function.

[Speaker 3] (24:19 - 24:21)
Okay, hold on.

[Speaker 17] (24:21 - 24:24)
Is there anyone else here in person that would like to voice a comment?

[Speaker 3] (24:24 - 24:28)
So if there was no garage, you can have two damage stations.

[Speaker 17] (24:29 - 24:31)
Oh, Mariella, did you wanna say something else?

[Speaker 3] (24:32 - 24:33)
Yes, I have one more question.

[Speaker 15] (24:34 - 24:44)
When new construction is going on, is there any rodent mitigation going on? I am concerned about rats.

[Speaker 3] (24:44 - 24:48)
Take the garage down. And then you got one, two, one, two.

[Speaker 6] (24:49 - 24:52)
What's your question? I didn't understand. Can you repeat again?

[Speaker 15] (24:54 - 25:12)
So my question is to the zoning board. And my question is, when new construction is underway, is there any mitigation about rats? When new construction happens, a lot of times rats start getting shuffled around.

And I just wanna know if that's controlled.

[Speaker 1] (25:16 - 25:32)
I'll let you bring it up if you wanna bring up the second deck. So the petition was circulated to the board of health. And I don't believe we received any comments about concerns that they had.

And there's construction all over town.

[Speaker 15] (25:33 - 25:45)
Right, and that's why I'm asking the question because I own another property over on Middlesex. And we're having a horrible problem over in that area with construction. And the board of health is involved.

[Speaker 1] (25:47 - 26:07)
Well, there's, I get asked, Rich, what compliance is necessary for someone constructing, doing work like this? Is there anything special that's under the code, the building code or?

[Speaker 7] (26:07 - 26:47)
So the building code under chapter 34 addresses public safety. And when they first applied for a permit, Rod Rivera and I talked about how we would isolate that sidewalk because there's some big picture windows there. I don't think I have the authority to require them to do mitigation.

But I mean, I'm sure Rod would be willing to agree to that as part of the permit. Hire somebody to do some rat mitigation or rodent.

[Speaker 1] (26:48 - 27:24)
Okay, all right. Well, it sounds like the jurisdiction is with the code, the building code and with the building inspector. And if there's any violation of the code, it's not something that is part of our jurisdiction per se.

We can just say comply with the code. Are there any other questions? Hearing none, I believe Andy Rose has a question.

[Speaker 3] (27:24 - 28:02)
I'm very uncomfortable with this because it's just, I mean, tandem parking spaces, half in a garage and half out of the garage. You're gonna solve that by taking doors off. But someone have a garage with no doors.

No, I mean, my suggestion would be either to totally remove the garage or cut the garage back to halfway. So it goes back to where the jog is in the building and put the doors back on. So you have a legitimate garage for two spaces.

And then you can have three spaces across the front because you got 31 feet of width.

[Speaker 1] (28:03 - 28:04)
Right, they could be a little bit angled.

[Speaker 3] (28:05 - 28:28)
Well, they're only gonna be nine feet each and you got 31 feet, so you're good to go. I mean, that would be my, I just, how can, we're gonna let you build a house, but you're only gonna put up like half the windows and doors because you need to have some stuff sticking out of it. And you need relief for all this.

It just doesn't seem like we're doing our job.

[Speaker 1] (28:31 - 28:39)
So let me ask the petitioner about Mr. Rose's comment. Could you hear his comment about cutting off?

[Speaker 6] (28:39 - 29:36)
Yeah, but it is like, it was like a cement. When we touch the structure, it would be a big problem for us to cut half. It's not wood, it's cement.

And for me, like, we can build, we can add built. If he's concerned, we can add more addition to build the 10 feet that are missing and leave it like, you know, leave it like that. Or if he's concerned, I can have 18 feet and put a garage door and then the garage door just to move 18 feet and leave the 18 feet not covered.

This is the only way you can do, because if it's wood, it's easy, but if it's cement, it's hard to do that.

[Speaker 1] (29:36 - 29:40)
So you're saying recessing the garage doors halfway?

[Speaker 6] (29:41 - 29:43)
Yeah, you still have the garage door halfway.

[Speaker 1] (29:44 - 29:47)
Then you'd have... Okay, but I'm not getting my... Then you'd have two...

[Speaker 3] (29:49 - 30:18)
I'm trying to accomplish not... I'm trying to accomplish having five spaces. Yeah, and three that are access without having to move cars, right?

Right, right. Then you'd have, and that's a good point, you'd have three that would be access, don't have to move cars. So each family would be able to, you know, get in and get out.

One car. And then the extra two, it makes sense with the 600 units. It's like, you got to spend money to make money here.

I'm sorry, that's...

[Speaker 6] (30:18 - 30:34)
No, but let me ask you a question. I don't agree with you on term of having... Because the maximum you can fit over there is four cars.

Even if you can't, you will not fit more than four family, because how are you going to do that?

[Speaker 3] (30:34 - 30:37)
I got 31 feet. According to the plan, I have 31 feet of frontage.

[Speaker 6] (30:38 - 30:44)
But still, you cannot block another one. You cannot block it.

[Speaker 1] (30:44 - 30:59)
If you look at the plan, the existing, what Andy's suggesting is you can capture that area between the garage and the residential structure to make it 31 feet.

[Speaker 3] (31:00 - 31:17)
Where? You got 25 feet and six, it's 31 feet. You need nine feet for each car, that's 27.

So three cars can line up across if you didn't have the walls of the front half of the garage. That's why I said cut it back halfway or take it down all the way.

[Speaker 1] (31:19 - 31:21)
You see what he's talking about?

[Speaker 3] (31:23 - 31:24)
I mean, yeah.

[Speaker 6] (31:24 - 31:37)
I understand. But there is a dick there. There is like a structure.

And what he's talking about, there is a structure. And the dick, the dick.

[Speaker 3] (31:38 - 31:41)
But the deck's above. Above, the deck?

[Speaker 1] (31:42 - 31:48)
Is above. And then also, there is like. You'd be parking below the deck.

Right. What's supporting the deck?

[Speaker 3] (31:50 - 32:06)
But you're not putting, you're only putting two spaces there. So the deck isn't blocking that. Look, how do you permit a guy to build, have a garage and leave the garage doors off?

I mean, I just, who's running the zoning show here?

[Speaker 6] (32:06 - 32:44)
We can do something. We can make a little bit structure to make it nice. To be like, you know, the front.

Not to be like, just open like that. To make a little bit, you know, nice design in front. To be covered in the top.

I don't know how I can explain it. But we can make it design a little bit nice. Look, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just one vote.

Not to show that the cigar is without a hole. We can make it a little bit nice. I'm just one vote.

[Speaker 3] (32:44 - 32:45)
So.

[Speaker 1] (32:45 - 32:56)
Yeah, I agree with your point, Andy. I think you've, the whole thing. Aesthetically and curing.

If he doesn't need relief.

[Speaker 3] (32:56 - 33:05)
It's on a corner. It's not in some, in the backyard. It just, just, you know, if you've got to reshape the decks.

You've got to reshape, you know.

[Speaker 1] (33:05 - 33:08)
So the deck sits on top of that garage structure.

[Speaker 3] (33:08 - 33:22)
So then you're going to have to work a little bit harder. Look, you can take down the masonry, Rich. You might weigh off on the structure.

I haven't seen it, you know, gone and looked at it. But that's just my feeling. But like I said, I'm one vote.

You only need four. So.

[Speaker 6] (33:24 - 33:38)
I agree with you. I like to have a perfect, perfect things over there. But my other option, it just, if I don't get what I'm looking for.

I can leave it as is and then work and then fix it. It's not like I don't have.

[Speaker 1] (33:38 - 33:40)
That's absolutely fine. That's absolutely fine.

[Speaker 6] (33:40 - 33:58)
I'd rather, I'd rather, I'd rather like. And I'm over there. I want to live there.

I want to be part of the community. And I'd rather have nice, nice building, nice apartment. Then having a store with sign for lease forever.

[Speaker 3] (33:58 - 34:07)
Look, you know, and I'm just thinking about what this does in terms of the next person that comes and the precedent that we're setting.

[Speaker 1] (34:08 - 34:08)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (34:08 - 34:12)
It just is way off the rails for me. So like I said, it's one vote.

[Speaker 1] (34:12 - 35:04)
Here's what I'm thinking you could do. We could continue this till next month. And if you want to redesign it, as Andy has described, to modify the garage structure so you can put three cars in front and come back for the use, I think that you're likely to get your relief.

Alternatively, if you investigate that and it doesn't make sense for you and you want to just use it for its existing use, for commercial use, you won't need any relief from us and you don't need to come back here. So that's what I would propose that you, we continue it till next month and you decide what you want to do. And you just let Melissa know if you want to be on our agenda for next month.

[Speaker 17] (35:04 - 35:05)
Next month, meaning September.

[Speaker 1] (35:06 - 35:09)
Well, actually, it would be September. We're not going to have an August meeting.

[Speaker 14] (35:10 - 35:12)
Can I ask one thing, Mark?

[Speaker 1] (35:12 - 35:13)
Yes, please, Heather.

[Speaker 14] (35:13 - 35:32)
Hi, so it's weird not being there. So there's also the option of extending the garage and still only having four spaces, getting the relief for the half a space, but not creating a situation where you have an open garage all the time. Is that something that's on the table?

[Speaker 1] (35:34 - 35:45)
Well, that's a good point. Andy, what do you think about that? You're the one that seems to have leading a charge on keeping that garage closed and coming up with the five spaces.

What are your setbacks at that point?

[Speaker 3] (35:45 - 36:01)
Right, what about, yeah, we're not. Oh, because how far are you? He's on a side street, so he's got to be back, I don't know, what is it?

Well, actually, in this district, maybe he's got zero setback. You know, it's got to go all the way back to his property.

[Speaker 1] (36:01 - 36:03)
Let me see if it's on his application.

[Speaker 3] (36:05 - 36:43)
Right, but he can come out to here. I mean, I would. He's got zero setback.

Right, yeah. Well, that's what he says in his application, is zero. What do you think of that idea?

If he can do it without a variance and build forward, and he gave us a garage look clean, and if you say we've done it before for the four spaces, I can't do this. You can't do the open garage doors. Right, I mean, it's just as ridiculous.

Okay.

[Speaker 6] (36:44 - 36:51)
Okay, we can work with this way. Well, that's the third choice.

[Speaker 1] (36:52 - 37:09)
That's the third choice. So I gave you two before. One was decide to use it for commercial, and you don't need to come back here.

Number two, if you want to use it for residential, modify the garage to take it back to allow three spots in front. And then the third choice is when you come back in September.

[Speaker 3] (37:10 - 37:10)
Yeah, lay it out.

[Speaker 1] (37:10 - 37:37)
Lay it out with what the setback is that's required, and modify your structure, and ask to the extent that you need relief for zoning with a setback. You need it for the parking space, and you could look for some dimensional relief, if necessary, to bring that garage forward so that you can enclose at least four cars. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (37:40 - 37:46)
Aarón, did you hear? Aarón, Aarón? Yes, I'm here.

Can you guys hear me?

[Speaker 1] (37:46 - 37:47)
Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 6] (37:47 - 38:25)
Yes. I had a hard time at first with the audio, but I managed to fix this. I do apologize.

So I believe that increasing the garage might be a bigger problem, just because once you if you have the garage open, I think it's going to be right in the neighbor's, you know, upper borderline. So I think one idea is either, I want to say it'd probably be cheaper just to demo the garage, and leave out of the yard as a full parking space.

[Speaker 3] (38:27 - 38:34)
And that'll give you five spaces. Yeah, if you demo the garage, we think you can get five there. Two in the back, and three across the front.

[Speaker 1] (38:34 - 38:36)
And you just got to figure out how to support that deck.

[Speaker 6] (38:37 - 38:52)
Well, yeah. Those drawings are more like an idea of what we want to do. But yes, we will put a six by six post on the ground, or probably a steel post on the ground.

[Speaker 1] (38:53 - 38:55)
Doesn't he really, if he doesn't? He demos the garage?

[Speaker 6] (38:55 - 38:59)
We may end up strictly with a deck that doesn't have a six foot deck.

[Speaker 1] (39:00 - 39:23)
If he demos the garage, right. So we could give the, we could potentially provide relief for the residential use, if five spaces are provided for off street by demolishing the garage. So we could do that.

[Speaker 6] (39:24 - 39:49)
Can we ask, can we ask, can we ask for relief? Instead of having, can we leave as is? We can just ask for like a three parking space, three parking space.

Can we just ask for three parking space? We just leave the structure as is, and we ask for three parking space.

[Speaker 1] (39:49 - 39:53)
But you still have the garage door issue, if it's going to be a tent.

[Speaker 6] (39:53 - 40:10)
He wants relief. No, the garage will stay as is. Just like we can ask your board to give us a three.

It's set for half parking space, you know. We are willing to provide three spaces. Yeah, but where are the three spaces?

He wants relief for three spaces.

[Speaker 1] (40:11 - 40:13)
Oh, you want, he wants to have.

[Speaker 6] (40:13 - 40:15)
I want the relief. I want the relief for three spaces.

[Speaker 1] (40:15 - 40:26)
He wants everybody on street. No, no. I don't expect that you're going to get that relief from this board.

It's a disaster. So.

[Speaker 19] (40:27 - 40:36)
Just one other thing to add. I'd entertain the relief if you could come back with three side-by-side parking spaces so that each unit could pull in without.

[Speaker 1] (40:36 - 40:38)
Yeah, each unit having one spot.

[Speaker 19] (40:38 - 40:40)
Would you be okay with reducing the half in that circumstance?

[Speaker 1] (40:40 - 40:40)
Yeah.

[Speaker 19] (40:41 - 40:49)
I think that aligns with Andy's first suggestion about cutting the garage back. So you don't necessarily need to cram five spaces on there, in my opinion. If you can get four, but get three in a row in the front.

[Speaker 1] (40:50 - 41:05)
Yeah, three in a row in the front. Right, so that each unit has a spot. So do you want to continue this to September and think about the different choices and come back with revised plans?

Or if you decide to just, it doesn't make sense and you want to continue to use it for commercial?

[Speaker 6] (41:06 - 41:23)
Well, we have no other option. We can just like continue until September. We may have more time.

I'll be back to country. I'm talking to you from Morocco right now. And then, please, if you have anything you want to do.

[Speaker 1] (41:24 - 41:26)
Does he have a quote there?

[Speaker 7] (41:27 - 41:28)
Oh, right.

[Speaker 3] (41:29 - 41:30)
That's what it looks like right now.

[Speaker 1] (41:30 - 41:40)
Yeah. Yeah, they need to get some work ahead of them. Right, it's going to be some work.

[Speaker 13] (41:41 - 41:41)
Oh.

[Speaker 1] (41:52 - 42:26)
So the other thing is, if you're coming back in September, I really think you should have a plan that's stamped by a surveyor for the site plan. If you're looking for any more relief showing where that property line is precisely. We don't want to, if you're looking to, for instance, make the garage larger, coming closer, you got to have a plan that's stamped by a surveyor.

Okay?

[Speaker 6] (42:27 - 42:28)
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (42:28 - 42:46)
So hang on a second. What we're going to do is we're going to, I'm going to ask you to sign a continuance and tomorrow, and you can just scan it back to Melissa. And what I'm going to do is take a motion to continue the public hearing until, what's our date in September?

[Speaker 17] (42:46 - 42:47)
20th.

[Speaker 1] (42:48 - 42:54)
So hang on one second. Excuse me, 21st. September 20.

Hold on, let me just look at that.

[Speaker 17] (42:54 - 42:55)
21st, I think.

[Speaker 1] (42:56 - 42:56)
So.

[Speaker 17] (42:58 - 42:59)
21st, yep.

[Speaker 1] (42:59 - 43:12)
Yep. All right, so I'm here. Okay.

So I'm going to make a motion to continue to September 21st. One second. And I had to do a roll call on that.

Paula?

[Speaker 17] (43:13 - 43:14)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (43:14 - 43:30)
Ron? Yes. Andy?

Yes. Tony? Yes.

Heather? Yes. Okay, so we'll see you on September and keep in touch with Rich, Baldacci, and with Melissa.

Do you have a question?

[Speaker 17] (43:30 - 43:38)
I'll send you, I'll send you the continuance form via email tomorrow. All right, thank you. You can sign it and scan it back to me.

[Speaker 6] (43:39 - 43:39)
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (43:40 - 44:24)
Okay, I'm next going to call petition 2108, 970 Paradise Road. Being after 7 20 p.m. Okay, they're just going to do a quick, just going to give a quick overview. They're not going to look at the whole tonight.

I know you've got it. Okay. You can take a break.

Yeah. Mr. Drukis, how are you? Doing fine.

So, I just want to make sure everyone can hear today. Here, Chris. Okay.

Oh, there we are. Great. All right.

Look at that. She's quick. There was a band.

Yeah.

[Speaker 16] (44:24 - 45:43)
As you know, Chris Drukis, a lawyer from Salem, here representing JPMorgan Chase on this proposal. Along with me tonight via Zoom, I believe, is Matt McCool, who's the regional director of the for them and citing new locations. And with me also tonight is Kai Burke, who is a professional engineer and regional director of core states who's overseeing the project.

We wanted to come before you tonight simply to give you a little presentation as to what we're thinking moving forward. As you know, I think that we did do, my client did do a site plan review with the planning board and did not fare really well there. And we're interested in going back and seeing if we can ameliorate some of their concerns.

But before we meet with you again in September on this issue, I think we'd like to at least show you some of the things that we're proposing and give you a better idea as to exactly what we're looking to do on the site.

[Speaker 8] (45:44 - 47:49)
Okay. Marissa, would you mind pulling up the site plan? Yes.

So as Mr. Drukis mentioned, my name is Kai Burke. I'm with Core States Group. We are looking at the existing Uno's restaurant on 970 Paradise Road in Benning Square.

The existing site is about a little over an acre. The existing building is about 6,000 square feet. It's an older site.

It's pretty much fully developed, minimal landscaping, almost completely paved. We're looking to demolish the existing building and come back with a freestanding Chase Bank. We'll also have a drive-thru ATM there.

The proposed bank would be a little less than 3,500 square feet. So we would have a reduction in square footage of 2,500 square feet. Also would reduce the impervious area about 13,000 square feet.

Your trips would be about a 40% reduction in traffic based on the change in use and the square footage. And your water and sewer demand would be a reduction of about 95%. So, you know, really, I think we're kind of hitting some of the goals from the master plan of environmental benefits from reduced stormwater, additional landscaping, additional green space for the property, reduced demand on town infrastructure through utilities, traffic, stormwater runoff.

You know, it's a commercial corridor. We feel it fits with the commercial character of Vinton Square. We're also providing some increased pedestrian circulation.

The existing site is isolated from the sidewalk. We would be providing a pedestrian pathway from the right-of-way to the proposed building. So, you know, we're certainly interested in your feedback and your comments as we look to move forward with the site.

[Speaker 1] (47:50 - 48:28)
So, one question I have, just because I've been on the board so long, I recall when we approved UNOS, and I recall with the Dunkin' Donuts next door, there being some type of cross-license agreement with respect to parking. I'm just curious if that has come up and has been addressed in your petition. I know, Chris, you're brand new to it, so I don't want to put you on the spot, but that's just something I'll ask about at the next hearing.

But that's something I'm curious about. Yeah, Andy.

[Speaker 3] (48:28 - 48:46)
There has not been a 970 parking, not an underlying parking agreement.

[Speaker 1] (48:46 - 48:48)
That's my memory. It's a license.

[Speaker 3] (48:48 - 49:35)
However, as I looked at the plans, there is an easement across the front for cross-access, which they've included a piece of it. But I think I'd have to go back and look at the deeds. I've shortened it down because the curb cut was in the center.

So it's, you know, because we had it equidistant, those curb cuts equidistant from each other. Now they're moving it closer to 980. And the idea was that, you know, they're turning right out of Dunkin' Donuts.

They want to pull you away from the entrance to get out. So, I mean, there might need to be a little massaging of their front parking lot. But there is no legal ability for 980 to have parking with them.

[Speaker 1] (49:36 - 49:38)
Okay. Now, my memory was it was a license agreement.

[Speaker 3] (49:38 - 49:41)
Yeah, it was a license agreement, but it was with UNOS.

[Speaker 1] (49:41 - 49:41)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (49:41 - 49:43)
The landowner wouldn't grant it.

[Speaker 19] (49:44 - 49:46)
Yeah, I remember that.

[Speaker 8] (49:48 - 50:23)
Marissa, would you go up to the, that's the existing site plan there. I think the next, there's the site plan. So we are, as Mr. Rose said, we are shifting the driveway a little bit closer to the Dunkin' just to kind of keep the pedestrian circulation for our chase customers away from that cross traffic from the Dunkin' drive-through. We're also adding a speed bump to there so that folks, when they're in a hurry with their morning coffee, aren't flying through that intersection and causing issues.

[Speaker 1] (50:25 - 50:26)
So where's your proposed speed bump?

[Speaker 8] (50:26 - 50:33)
Based on the feedback we got from the planning board, it would be just behind the stop bar in the southeast corner right there.

[Speaker 1] (50:38 - 50:38)
Okay.

[Speaker 17] (50:39 - 50:40)
Should I move on?

[Speaker 8] (50:41 - 51:01)
I think that's, I mean, I think that's good unless y'all have specific questions or comments. We really, at this point, you know, obviously we want to go back to the planning board and see what we can do to address their concerns. But we're certainly interested, as y'all are, the final action board on what your comments and concerns might be.

[Speaker 1] (51:01 - 51:34)
I just saw the letter from the planning board acting chair about the master plan and trying to work within some, I understand there are some limitations. Your use isn't necessarily one that fits the master plan, but it's permitted for zoning. So I would just encourage you to work with the planning board and try, they've got to realize, too, the limitations that we have zoning-wise and hopefully everyone can work together and come up with the best plan.

[Speaker 16] (51:35 - 51:50)
I mean, we're talking about a tremendous amount of increased green space, but we can't, with the banks, you're not in a position where you want to be creating a space where people go and hang out, particularly behind it.

[Speaker 1] (51:50 - 51:59)
Right, I think the, where you said you're, some banks that are coffee, that are coffee shops and banks do that. You get Dunks right next door, right?

[Speaker 16] (51:59 - 52:04)
Starbucks behind it. So you go hang out, hang out inside, and then when you're done.

[Speaker 12] (52:05 - 52:06)
Capital One has cafes, you know.

[Speaker 8] (52:07 - 52:39)
And, you know, the interior of the Chase Banks are certainly designed to be more of a community space at this point, and they make them available for, you know, community use during off hours. I think our biggest concern was, I mean, really with this site plan, the only place we had to put it, any sort of community feature would be back there by the ATM, and you certainly don't want, you know, people hanging out, staring at the people trying to use the ATM. Get into some security concerns there.

[Speaker 11] (52:41 - 52:43)
And can you guys hear me?

[Speaker 8] (52:44 - 52:44)
Yes.

[Speaker 11] (52:45 - 54:06)
This is Matt McCool, the Regional Director for Chase, and those, I guess the comment on the easement came up on our meeting last week, and then the comment about the outdoor seating came up last week, and just want to address it to the folks on this board of what our position was. I think we were very, us as the applicant, are supportive of an easement between the two parcels, but we are just the leasee for this. And in terms of, like, time frame of getting it done within the, of our application and trying to get it in our bank branch open, I think would be something we'd want to separate out and have our landlord initiate those conversations on, but we'd be fully supportive of something down the line and coming back in front of this board in the future.

And then from the outdoor seating space, we looked at it internally from a corporate and risk management and liability perspective, and it's something that we just, we don't entertain. We offered to, and I think Kai brought it up, but we offered inside the four walls as an access point for the town to work with us all hours. But just from like an outdoor, like, programming space, it's just, it's not something that we can provide from a risk management perspective then.

[Speaker 1] (54:09 - 54:10)
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 14] (54:12 - 54:23)
When you were reading the planning, was there ever any discussion about pushing the building closer to the street rather than it kind of just be sitting there floating in a sea of parking?

[Speaker 11] (54:24 - 54:35)
That was brought up. What we ran into was the 100 foot setback for B3 and conforming to that.

[Speaker 8] (54:36 - 55:00)
So we're really right up on the building setback, the required building setback. So, you know, we could, I think we're at 102 feet, 103 feet, so there's really no room without a variance to come closer. And obviously from a parking standpoint, we're kind of where we need to be with the parking right there in front of the door.

[Speaker 14] (55:05 - 55:26)
I see that as a huge problem in our bylaw, the 100 foot setback. When we're trying to, you know, to keep the feeling of a walkable community, you know, we want these buildings closer to the road so that, you know, people could walk from the Dunkin Donuts to the bank to the different things. Is that something we're looking at changing?

[Speaker 1] (55:26 - 55:33)
Well, I know that was something that was up for consideration before. Andy had a comment on this. I'm sure he's familiar with it.

[Speaker 3] (55:34 - 56:36)
I mean, the 100 foot setback doesn't work mathematically for the parking. I mean, you need a double loaded parking aisle, which is 60 feet, your sidewalk, and then you have a 20 foot green space according to the front. And you kind of have this floating 20 feet.

So if you look at the OBGYN across the street, you see a big, massive wide aisle that is actually added parking spaces in it. When we tore down the gas station and built 980, the board granted us. It's not a variance.

It's a dimensional special permit and gave us the relief because up to 20 percent, I think we're set back at like 82 because Summit wanted the building farther away from them. And they didn't want us to take down as much ledge in the back. So I don't know, you know, you can give that.

We grant the dimensional special permit for front yard setback all the time.

[Speaker 1] (56:36 - 56:37)
We do it all the time.

[Speaker 3] (56:37 - 56:44)
And so if it made for a better plan, so there's not as much, you know, it's the same plan for Chase to just close it to the street.

[Speaker 1] (56:46 - 56:52)
I don't know if that works with your programming to consider the planning board, consider the DSP and putting some more parking out back.

[Speaker 3] (56:53 - 57:01)
Well, it's not going to affect their parking at all. And they can add more green space, pull some of the backyard away from Summit.

[Speaker 11] (57:06 - 57:18)
In a hypothetical, what's, am I hearing correctly that it's like a 20 foot buffer that we could potentially look at for requesting?

[Speaker 1] (57:19 - 57:45)
So we have in our bylaw, we have jurisdiction to grant a dimensional special permit, which gives relief for any setback for up to 20 percent of the of the dimensional limitation. So it's like you could when you're looking at this plan and what you might be able to do, you should consider that our board has jurisdiction to give that 20 percent relief for the front yard setback.

[Speaker 3] (57:46 - 57:49)
And it's the same permit that you're getting now?

[Speaker 1] (57:49 - 57:55)
Yeah, same. Right. The same relief you're asking for DSP, right?

[Speaker 17] (57:56 - 57:57)
No, they're not.

[Speaker 1] (57:57 - 58:45)
No, they're asking for site plans, special permit. So we would just. So that's one thing, though, if you were going to, we want to advertise it for that September meeting.

I mean, good idea to do it anyway, just in case it comes up to file an amended petition. There'll be no filing fee for that amended petition. And look for a DSP as well.

I just wonder if it's counterproductive to a plan. You could ask them, you know, that's one thing that zoning suggested might give some flexibility to make it a better plan. And I mean, if I were the tenant, I think if I had the ability to move 20 feet closer to the street for visibility, it might be something that works for both the town and for the user.

[Speaker 11] (58:46 - 59:05)
I will add that at our planning board meeting last week that that question did come up in terms of additional density on the parcel. And our comment was regarding the 100 foot setback. So we will take that front relief into consideration.

[Speaker 1] (59:07 - 59:23)
Right. I know the planning board was interested in seeing if there could be some companion use that you could have some other use on the space. And I don't know if that's something that works with your programming.

But if the 20 feet.

[Speaker 11] (59:24 - 1:00:05)
I will add to the same comment as the easement to the parcel plan west of us in the midterm or driven by our landlord. If there is another opportunity that comes up and it works for our programming, we'd be happy to work again through this board. But just from the application for our branch and our drive up and what's in front of you now is what we're planning to engage in.

That's not to say sometime down the road we'd be coming back for easement or for a companion use attached to it then.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:07 - 1:00:47)
OK. So right. We just encourage you to work with planning.

And we're going to vote on the petition that you provide to us. So your choice. But hopefully come up with a plan that they're in support of as well.

And that's not always fatal to a petitioner that they don't get support from planning board. But of course, you'd like to have their support. So is there anyone else before we close the public hearing or continue the public hearing to September that the questions or comments.

[Speaker 12] (1:00:47 - 1:01:34)
I said so that just so we're clear on in terms of what they're asking for today, if they don't change anything, it's they're asking for a special permit to allow the ATM to drive to an ATM. And a site plan. And so so if it's a drive, I mean, I seem to recall that there's always been a lot of issues as it relates to fast food drive throughs.

Maybe this is different. This is a different thing. But I'm just curious as to why, though, if you are going to do a drive through, it seems to be that you put it like closest to whatever residents residential areas are.

[Speaker 8] (1:01:34 - 1:02:15)
And from a from a circulation standpoint, that's kind of what drove the location. It works best back there. If you've been out to the site, the residential behind us is probably 30 feet higher than our site.

And it's it's all ledge behind us and and really woods before the ledge. So, you know, from a residential impact standpoint, I don't think there really is any there's not a this is not a pneumatic to drive up window. This is an ATM.

So the the noise impact is minimal. And it's really we don't anticipate any impact on the on the residential behind us.

[Speaker 12] (1:02:15 - 1:02:20)
And you're not going to have a teller drive through. That is correct. It's just an ATM.

Yes, sir.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:24 - 1:03:21)
OK, all right. So I'm going to make a motion to continue 2108 to September 20th, 20th, 21st, 21st. And we're going to have a roll call, follow you a second on that.

Yes, Ron. Yes, Tony. Yes, Heather.

Yeah. OK, so continue to September 21st. Look forward to seeing you then.

OK, thank you. Thank you. OK.

The the next petition on our agenda is petition 21 dash 11. Calix Pete at 1416 New Ocean Street. Hold on.

[Speaker 17] (1:03:25 - 1:03:42)
I've got the Michael Dryden, Bob Zarelli, Pete D'Agostino, Aaron Caracullo, and am I missing anyone?

[Speaker 10] (1:03:46 - 1:03:55)
OK, you should have Aaron there. She's the CEO of. Yeah, Aaron is here.

[Speaker 17] (1:03:55 - 1:03:56)
And then is there anyone else I'm missing?

[Speaker 10] (1:03:59 - 1:04:00)
Dan Cato.

[Speaker 17] (1:04:00 - 1:04:02)
Dan Cato I got.

[Speaker 10] (1:04:04 - 1:04:05)
I think that's everything.

[Speaker 17] (1:04:06 - 1:04:06)
Great.

[Speaker 20] (1:04:34 - 1:04:35)
All right.

[Speaker 17] (1:04:38 - 1:04:40)
You're good to take it away, Pete, whenever.

[Speaker 10] (1:04:41 - 1:04:54)
Great. Thank you. Good evening.

My name is Peter D'Agostino with 10x Strategy. You can represent Calix Pete. Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 17] (1:04:55 - 1:04:59)
Hold on one second. I'm going to mute anybody who's not actively presenting right now.

[Speaker 10] (1:05:02 - 1:05:39)
As you know, we're before the ZBA for a adult use marijuana retail facility at 1416 New Ocean Street. We were before the planning board last week, where we received unanimous recommended favorable recommendation. We've been working on this location, additionally, with the board of selectors for quite some time.

And so if it is OK with you, Mr. Chairman, I can turn it over to Mike Drayton, our civil engineer, and kind of take the board through the plan and what we have. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:41 - 1:05:43)
Thank you, Peter. Can everyone hear me OK?

[Speaker 17] (1:05:44 - 1:05:47)
Uh, maybe a little bit louder, Michael, if you don't mind.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:48 - 1:05:49)
How about now?

[Speaker 5] (1:05:49 - 1:05:49)
Can you hear me now?

[Speaker 17] (1:05:50 - 1:05:51)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (1:05:51 - 1:06:07)
Excellent. Again, my name is Michael Drayton. I'm the senior project manager with Allen Engineering.

We are the civil engineer and landscape architect for the project. And I want to ask, is everybody generally familiar with the project?

[Speaker 1] (1:06:09 - 1:06:10)
I think so.

[Speaker 5] (1:06:11 - 1:07:24)
OK. So I'm going to limit my discussion on the existing conditions to just a couple of sort of refreshers, some quick stats and facts, if you will. Marissa, if you wouldn't mind going to sheet two, I believe it is.

Yeah, this is the existing conditions plan. And note the north arrow in the upper right of the page. And just for orientation, we have New Ocean Street along the site frontage.

We also have frontage on Pine Street and Curry Circle. The site is located entirely within the business one zoning district. And it's about 0.8 acres in size. Excuse me. And as you well know, there are two existing uses on this site today. C&L Package Store on the south end of the site.

And the Veterans Center on the north end of the site. So in terms of access and parking, I just want to touch on that quickly, because it's relevant as we move into the proposed site plan. On the C&L Package Store side, again, we have a lot of frontage.

And we have essentially what I would call a free-for-all in terms of curb cuts and vehicular access to the site. There are some remnants of vertical grant curb, but it's at very low.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:27 - 1:07:31)
Mr. Dryden, we seem to have lost your audio a bit.

[Speaker 18] (1:07:33 - 1:07:37)
Can you hear me now?

[Speaker 17] (1:07:38 - 1:07:47)
Faintly. I wonder if it has something to do with how close you're sitting to your computer. If you move in a little bit closer to your desktop or whatever machine.

[Speaker 5] (1:07:47 - 1:07:51)
I'm as close as I can get. I apologize. I don't normally have any trouble.

[Speaker 17] (1:07:51 - 1:07:53)
Now you're good. Yes.

[Speaker 5] (1:07:53 - 1:09:07)
I will speak as loud as I possibly can. Sorry about that. So access to the Veterans Center, there's a single curb cut.

And you'll note the location of that curb cut is right at the intersection of Pine Street and New Ocean Street. That's certainly not an ideal location for an existing curb cut. So the last thing I want to tell you is the site is located within the Coastal Flood Area Overlay District, which is the subject of one of the special permit requests that is before the board this evening.

Actually, let me just touch on existing parking numbers quickly. On the C&L Package Store side, there are approximately nine spaces. Again, it's not very well striped or organized.

And on the VFW, the Veterans Center side, there are currently about 16 parking spaces. Again, not striped or well organized. So moving on to proposed conditions.

Marissa, if you could pan down to sheet C4. This is the demolition sheet here. Probably don't need to spend much time on that.

Can you hear me okay?

[Speaker 20] (1:09:07 - 1:09:07)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (1:09:08 - 1:10:50)
Okay. I hope I'm not screaming at you. So under proposed conditions, I would categorize the work in essentially three components.

The first of which would be to raise the C&L Package Store building and construct in its place the new 3,100-square-foot, two-story building that would be retail on the first floor and a mezzanine space containing office and essentially staff space within that mezzanine. The second component would be curb cut consolidation. You'll note here, and by the way, on this plan, all of the dark shaded area represents new pavement.

So what we're proposing to do is to remove the existing curb cut at the VFW, the Veterans Center facility, and consolidate into one curb cut, one safer curb cut. I mentioned that existing curb cut is located at the intersection of Pine Street and New Ocean. That certainly creates some safety concerns and is not good planning practice.

So this plan would consolidate and create a new two-way, 24-foot-wide curb cut, which would easily provide access, maneuverability, and circulation to both uses on the site. And finally, the third component is the off-site improvements. Again, I mentioned the dark shaded area is new pavement.

Marissa, if you could just go to the next sheet, C5. The off-site improvements include modifications to Pine Street. Actually, at the top of the page would be fine.

If you could just go back up.

[Speaker 17] (1:10:50 - 1:10:51)
I'm going to zoom out for one.

[Speaker 5] (1:10:52 - 1:18:35)
Great, thank you. So again, you'll notice the angle of Pine Street as it intersects with New Ocean Street. Typically, we like to have intersections as close to 90 degrees as possible.

You can clearly see under existing condition, we have significantly less than 90 degrees. So what we're planning to do with that little space we have to work with is to just sort of put some curvature in the Pine Street alignment and create a 90-degree tee-up to New Ocean Street. And that will vastly improve safety.

You can imagine entering or heading south on Pine Street toward New Ocean Street and having to look over your left shoulder to see oncoming traffic from the north. This new configuration with new stop controls, stop sign, and again, a 90-degree configuration will vastly improve the safety at that intersection. We're also proposing all new granite curving, vertical granite curving, along the section of Pine Street and New Ocean Street.

You see that sort of dashed line, that represents the new vertical curving. You see the dark shaded area, all new sidewalk. And then finally, that sort of new bump out that is created at the intersection, we propose to install landscape plantings there, very low landscape plantings, so that we don't interfere with site distance.

So back onto the site, we have parking. Again, the new pavement, shaded in gray. We are proposing a total of 18 parking spaces for the new retail facility.

That would be 12 within the shaded area. And then there are three additional spaces that would essentially be leased. They're sort of at the lower left of the shaded area.

You see where it says three K-Liq spaces, and then three K-Liq spaces. So again, and a total of six there. So again, 18 spaces dedicated to the retail facility, and that leaves 18 spaces for the Veterans Center.

And it's actually two more parking spaces than they have under existing conditions. And again, you'll note that we're removing the existing curb cut, organizing their parking field, and restriping the lot to maximize the efficiency. I want to talk quickly about, excuse me, site elevations.

Melissa, if you could please advance to sheet C-6. So under existing condition, the C&L package store first floor elevation is approximately elevation 11.2. And the FEMA flood elevation for the entire site is elevation 14. So we're over two feet below the FEMA elevation under existing conditions.

What we propose to do with the proposed building is difficult to see, but it's FFE elevation 15. So that's a full one foot above the FEMA flood elevation, and well over three feet above the elevation of the existing building. So that presents a few challenges for us, because typically what you try to do is relate the surrounding site grades to the first floor elevation so that you can avoid things like stairs and ramping.

We clearly don't have the ability to do that here. The site's fully developed now. The building is in close proximity to two roadways.

So there's no opportunity to sort of ramp the site up, if you will, to relate to that new first floor elevation. And mind you, we don't really want to do that, because within the flood zone, we want to have a net zero increase in fill. So what does all that mean?

Again, the proposed building is at elevation 15. You'll note that there are stairs at the main entry, as well as a ramp, an accessibility ramp. That allows us to keep all of the site grades as low as possible, even lower than existing conditions, and raise the building up.

We still have access via stairs to the front door and accessibility via a ramp system. So all that being said, we are about 600 cubic feet less or more volumetric storage within the flood zone. Just quickly, I'll talk about drainage.

Under existing conditions, there's very little in terms of formal stormwater management, collection, treatment, infiltration, things of that nature. There's one existing catch basin that is just west of the Veterans Center building. You can see it there.

Other than that, all of the water essentially runs off overland, makes its way into New Ocean Street, Curry Circle, where it's collected in a set of catch basins at the intersection of Curry Circle and New Ocean Street. What we propose to do under existing conditions is significantly reduce, number one, the amount of impervious area. The area just to the right of the proposed building would be entirely landscaped, where today it's entirely impervious.

So we have about roughly 3,200 square foot reduction in impervious, which gives us an equal amount of pervious surface to have infiltration, which is definitely an improvement. We're proposing a single new catch basin in the center of the Calix parking area. It would connect to a water quality unit to provide TSS removal and water quality prior to its connection to the existing subsurface culvert that exists, formerly known as Stacey's Brook.

So we're vastly improving stormwater conditions. We're introducing landscaping. And Marissa, if you could just go to sheet C7, I believe it is.

This plan is the landscaping and lighting plan, and I'll start with the landscaping. You can see that we're adding, again, significant lawn areas, significant plantings where very little exists today. So that's obviously a vast improvement.

Then I just wanted to touch quickly on lighting. We do not want to have tall sort of cobra head lighting here. The idea is to have very low-level, just minimal safety lighting for pedestrian movement.

So we're proposing a total of four fixtures. There are two that sort of flank the entryway, and you can see those dashed lines. Those represent foot candles.

These are decorative light fixtures at a mounting height of only 10 feet. So again, they provide minimal safety lighting for pedestrians and eliminate off-site glare and any impact to abutting properties. We also have some fencing here.

I think it's noteworthy to see, but we're proposing along the Curry Circle side, where the parking terminates, we're proposing a six-foot-high solid barrier fence that would essentially connect to the existing fence along the western boundary. That fence ties into the corner of the building. And the reason for that fence, it's really twofold.

It's to mitigate the visual impact from the abutting residential properties. It's also to prevent people from trying to enter the site from the Curry Circle side. We're trying to force all of the parking, all of the pedestrian access to the New Ocean Street side.

Let's see. I think I've given you sort of a high-level overview. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:37 - 1:18:45)
How is it going to be for cars heading from Linta Swamps by taking a left into this lot?

[Speaker 5] (1:18:47 - 1:19:08)
Actually, it's an improved situation because, as I mentioned previously, the C&L Package Store essentially has a wide-open curb cut. So this curb cut is well-defined. It's on the outside of the curb, so there's good sight distance as you approach.

So, again, I would represent this as an improved condition.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:09 - 1:19:31)
Okay. Anyone on the board have any questions about the civil engineering and site plan? Heather, do you have any questions?

Hearing none. Any questions, Heather?

[Speaker 14] (1:19:34 - 1:19:35)
No, thanks.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:35 - 1:19:46)
Okay. Okay. I am going to...

Well, so, Mr. D'Agostino, is there anyone else you wanted us to hear from for your petition? I know, Mr. Chairman.

[Speaker 10] (1:19:46 - 1:19:49)
We're just here to answer any questions you may have. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:49 - 1:20:12)
What I'm going to do is I'm going to open it up to questions from the public, and I'm going to give you an opportunity or the appropriate person on your team to respond, okay? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure.

So is there anyone that wanted to be heard first in opposition to this petition? You used the raise your hand feature if you're online.

[Speaker 17] (1:20:14 - 1:20:18)
Or if there's anyone here in the room, simply raise your hand.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:19 - 1:20:43)
Yes, Mr. Kessler, how are you? Good. So just so we have people listening on Zoom, we've got to get you a microphone.

Thank you. This isn't necessary. First, just for the record, Mr. Kessler, if you could identify yourself. Sure.

[Speaker 7] (1:20:44 - 1:20:45)
My name is Glenn Kessler, Precinct 5.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:47 - 1:21:24)
This isn't necessarily an opposition, but more or less a question, two questions, actually. Has there been any community outreach to the residents of Curry Circle and the surrounding areas, specifically, you mentioned a six-foot fence. Is that something that might be something that they might want to have some input about?

And secondly, has there been any outreach to the veterans to see what their position is about the proposed parking? That's it. Mr. Agostino, wherever you think it's appropriate to answer that.

[Speaker 10] (1:21:25 - 1:24:04)
Yeah, I can take that question, Mr. Chairman, if I could. This project has had extensive community outreach. We did a specifically community outreach to the abutters in accordance with the Cannabis Control Commission regulations, which requires similar to a DBA hearing, a 300-foot notice sent directly to the abutters, as well as newspaper postings and postings at Town Hall.

That meeting was probably two and a half, three hours long. At least a lot of the feedback that we received from the neighbors has been incorporated into this plan. So we had extensive community outreach in that way.

Subsequent to that, we have been before the board of selectors, the select board rather, I hate to guess, I'm going to feel confident saying three or four times, during which the public was allowed to weigh in. We continue to respond directly. We believe at this point we've covered just about every comment we've heard.

So yes, very much, very public process with lots of engagement with not just Curry Circle, but all of our abutters. The Pine Street intersection reconfiguration really was the genesis of that outreach in which, you know, that concern as to how people transition from Lynn to the MBTA and back and using Pine Street and the streets beyond it as a cutthroat, that entire offsite improvement was a direct result of that community engagement. So yes, we've done that.

So in addition to that and the select board, we also had the opportunity to hear from some neighbors, two neighbors at the planning board. And again, everything within our control, we believe we've addressed. So it's been a great process.

We've had a lot of good feedback. The neighbors have really driven the plan to have what's before you tonight. So definitely.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:05 - 1:24:13)
The second part of Mr. Kessler's question was just about engagement for the VFW for parking. So is that part of that community engagement process?

[Speaker 10] (1:24:14 - 1:25:33)
So that was separate in this state, Mr. Chairman. We have had lots of conversations with the Veterans Center. They spoke favorably on this project at the last select board meeting, which I believe was two weeks.

I met with all of the representatives from the Veterans Center, VFWDA being the American Legion. I hope I'm not leaving anybody off. I met with them last night for about two, two and a half hours.

There's some final elements that we are working on placing, which include the power surge that is currently located on the property, as well as the flags. Great relationship with the Veterans Center. We've met with them all along on this.

We've done site visits with them. So I think that's going very, very well. And we are down to really three open items, placement of their dumpster, the howitzer and the flag poles, all of which we discussed extensively with them last night.

We collectively agreed on potential locations. We met with the civil engineers, Mr. Drayton, today to have him evaluate of the options they prefer. What we do until we're working through those final details.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:33 - 1:25:55)
So again, lots of engagement there. OK, thank you, Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you very much.

Sure. Is there any other questions or comments? Please use the raise your hand feature if you're on Zoom.

Anybody?

[Speaker 17] (1:25:56 - 1:25:57)
Doesn't look like it.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:57 - 1:26:50)
OK, hearing none. Well, you've certainly had extensive community engagement for us to not get any more questions. Is there any further questions from the board before I close the public hearing?

Hearing none. OK, well, I am going to close the public hearing. I'm going to close the public hearing.

I'm going to constitute the board as everyone except for Paula. And so on the motion to close the public hearing, I have to do it by a roll call. So Ron?

Yes. Andy? Yes.

Tony? Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 20] (1:26:50 - 1:26:51)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:53 - 1:26:57)
OK. Does anyone want to make a motion on this?

[Speaker 4] (1:27:04 - 1:27:05)
Ron, I'll help you. OK.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:12 - 1:27:23)
It's pretty straightforward, though. It's just a use special permit, the coastal flood overlay district relief, and a site plan special permit. What's that?

[Speaker 20] (1:27:23 - 1:27:30)
Oh, yeah, thanks very much. I'm not on this one. I know that's why I said let her do it.

[Speaker 12] (1:27:31 - 1:27:36)
No, I can't. Tony?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:39 - 1:27:47)
No, I can't. What's that? Heather, are you interested in doing this one?

I'd be glad to help if you ran into any issues.

[Speaker 14] (1:27:49 - 1:27:50)
Sure, why not?

[Speaker 1] (1:27:50 - 1:27:51)
You're the best.

[Speaker 14] (1:27:51 - 1:28:05)
Why can't no one else do it? All right. I got to get my language for how I want to.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:06 - 1:30:01)
I can make the motion if you, it's fine with me, if you want to write the decision. And sure, I'm going to do that or yeah, if you don't mind, that'd be great. I don't mind.

So I'm going to make a motion to approve petition 21-11 for 1460 New Ocean Street for the following relief for a use special permit for a site plan special permit for the construction of a retail marijuana dispensary pursuant to the bylaw and relief as proposed and as may be required for section 4.2.0.0 for the coastal flood overlay district. And according to the plans or pursuant to plans as provided that our date stamp June 21, 2021 and the application that is filed on at the same time. There's one other thing that and and one other thing that was from planning board and with a condition that concrete sidewalks not bituminous subject to the DPW review and approval of the substitution of concrete and also including a location for a bike rack as may be approved for location by the planning department and or the DPW and or at the building inspector any of those can approve the location of the bike rack.

[Speaker 14] (1:30:03 - 1:30:14)
Do I have to include the finalization of those last two things that are they're working with the final items? Was it the flagpole and the dumpster?

[Speaker 1] (1:30:14 - 1:30:54)
Yeah I'm going to leave that how about we leave that for the planning the planning department to coordinate and approve or should I do a building what do you think? I'll do those things that were outlined as the remaining described as the remaining items for location of the applicant is working with the the VFW for location subject to approval by the planning department. Anything else Heather you want me to add to that motion?

[Speaker 14] (1:30:55 - 1:30:56)
No that sounds good.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:56 - 1:31:04)
Okay so I'm going to do a roll call on that so it's Heather's motion I am a yes. Ron?

[Speaker 12] (1:31:04 - 1:31:05)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:05 - 1:31:07)
Andy? Yes. Tony?

[Speaker 12] (1:31:07 - 1:31:07)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:09 - 1:31:49)
And me I'm a yes. Okay so you have your relief and good luck with your project. Thank you Mr. Chairman we appreciate everything this evening. Okay great thank you did a great job with your your plans. Thanks again. Before I get to the next petition I just wanted to just a procedural matter we have to continue items 9 through 13 to September 21st 2001.

So I'm going to make a motion to continue agenda items 9 through 13. Do I have a second on that?

[Speaker 20] (1:31:50 - 1:31:50)
Second.

[Speaker 4] (1:31:52 - 1:31:54)
A number 11.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:54 - 1:32:31)
Yes. Okay we'll do that as part of the motion. Thank you Mr. Schutzer. So I we're going to continue items 9, 10, 12, and 13 and approve the withdrawal without prejudice for 1931 agenda item number 11. So I am moving on that motion. Paula?

Yes. Ron? Yes.

Andy? Yes. Tony?

Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 20] (1:32:32 - 1:32:32)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:33 - 1:33:10)
Okay all right so next I have petition 2104 we have a 2a and 2b we have an amended petition Mr. Sheehan is here on that one great to see you. Good to see you. So you'd like to tell us about I understand I reviewed your your documents but if you could go over it and indulge us with a review of the buried relief that you're requesting.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:11 - 1:49:17)
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman honorable members my name is Bill Sheehan. I practice law in Peabody, Massachusetts and I'm representing tonight Gerald and Carol Sneerson 53 Puritan Road in Swampstead. The relief that we seek tonight is in two parts one of which pertains to construction activity which has occurred and the second of which pertains to proposed construction.

The Sneerson seek a dimensional special permit under section 2360 of your bylaw so as to permit the following work which was performed in or above the end of 2019. The construction of a second floor storage room consisting of about 100 square feet over which had been a roofed but unenclosed porch located at the northeast corner of their single family dwelling that would be the front left corner if looking at the dwelling from the street. The Sneerson's also seek tonight a section six special permit and a site plan special permit under sections 2273 and 5400 of the ordinance of the bylaw respectively to permit the proposed construction of a second story master bedroom and master bath over the existing first floor at the southerly side of the rear of the dwelling.

Now what we have filed are two amended applications the Sneerson's filed their first application by themselves it was not exactly correct at the suggestion of the chair we have amended that application we've amended in the two parts so that we can talk about those two forms of relief separately. You will see that amended application 2104-2a which seeks the dimensional special permit that is accompanied by plans which are labeled existing phase two and the amended application for 2121-b which seeks the special permit and site plan special permit is accompanied by plans labeled proposed phase three. The little bit about the dwelling itself the dwelling was constructed some 150 years or so ago according to the Swampskate assessor records the dwelling sits on over 23,000 square feet as far as the deeded lot but above high mean high water mark there's only 7,536 square feet less than the requisite 10,000 square feet and so we are dealing with a dwelling which is a prior lawful non-conforming structure because it sits on a prior lawful non-conforming lot. At the time that the Snersons purchased the property it was a two-story dwelling it had a footprint of 1,272 square feet gross floor area of 1,948 square feet other improvements on the premises included a garage which then had a footprint of 1,893 square feet a shed of 50 square feet and a viewing deck of 150 square feet. The construction and the proposed construction of the Snersons I think is best understood if we talk about it in three phases the first phase was construction of a first floor addition at the rear of the property that was done in 2019.

The Snersons added 310 square feet of gross floor area to the rear with a 180 square foot deck south of the first floor addition that improvement was as of right and at the same time the Snersons reduced the size of the footprint of the garage located at the southeast corner of the upper portion of the lot by 642 square feet. What I have done is attached to the two applications is a memorandum and also a table some photographs and some assessor records. The table which I've labeled as exhibit number one is I hope a hopeful a helpful summary of the gross floor area footprint the total gross floor area the total footprint of all structures and calculations and of open space and building coverage as all of those terms are defined by your bylaw at the four stages that I think are important here that is at the time the Snersons purchased the property on August 22, 2018 following the completion of what I just described as phase one following completion of what I'm going to talk about as phase two and following completion of proposed phase three which we'll be talking about. I think it's important to note that although the size of the dwelling increased as a result of the phase one construction building coverage of the lot decreased and open space increased by reason of the substantial reduction of the size of the garage. There was no new zoning non-conformity created by phase one.

Phase two is construction of a second floor storage area of about 100 square feet. That storage area was built over what was a porch. A porch that had a roof but a porch that did not have and there were no walls on the porch.

That construction of that area over the porch resulted in an increase in one non-conformity. It resulted in an increase in a non-conformity as to building coverage and it went from building coverage went from 38.2 percent to 39.6 percent. The reason for that is more definitional than real.

The area that was the porch is not considered because it had no walls was not considered a building and since it was not considered a building that portion did not count as to building coverage. However, as a practical matter the construction of that 100 square feet on top of the porch did not result in a change in any way to the footprint of the building but it did result in a change in the calculation of building coverage and as a result of that there was an increase in one of the non-conformities and that relief that we seek has to be done by way of dimensional special permit. Phase three is the construction that we hope to accomplish.

This has not been done. What they hope to do is to add on to the rear of their house on the second story adding a master bedroom and a master bath. All of that work will be done within the footprint of the first floor below and so there is no need for any kind of dimensional special permit but zoning relief is triggered because the dwelling is a non-conforming structure as I mentioned early on so that requires a so-called section six special permit and in addition because the first construction first phase added 310 square feet the second phase added 100 square feet and the third phase proposes to add 500 square feet. That total is over the 800 square feet that you're allowed to add to a non-conforming building as of right.

That triggers a requirement that we obtain a site plan special permit and the reason that we're before this board on the site plan special permit is because we also need the section six special permit. If we needed only site plan special permit we'd be before the planning board for that relief but under your bylaw because we need a section six special permit in addition you take care of issuing if you do choose to do so both special permits. So that's the nature of what we're looking to do and what we have done.

I can now talk about the standards which you folks know better than I for the various special permits that we're looking for but first with respect to the dimensional special permit the dimensional special permit says that extensions alterations reconstruction or changes that will not comply with current setback open space lot coverage or building height requirements shall only be permitted if at all by dimensional special permit. As I indicated that's the permit that we need for the phase two construction because of the increase in the non-conformity as to building coverage.

The standard for the issuance of a dimensional special permit is found at section 2.3.60 in your bylaw. In light of the snareson's interest in trying to create a second story storage area the allocation of that was really the best practical alternative from a lot coverage point of view and that's because the construction of that second floor storage area did not result in any portion of the building coming any closer to the street because it was built directly on top of where of the porch. So we're not any closer to the street and we are no closer to the neighbor that we have I think it's at number 55 the neighbor to the east.

We have photographs of the of the snareson's dwelling and we also have some neighbor dwellings neighborhood dwellings all to show that the property fits if you will it fits in the neighborhood. I've already talked about why because of definitional terms really in your bylaw why the the trigger for the building coverage having gone up even though I think it is important to note that as I indicated that structure got no closer got no more non-conforming if you will as to front or side. In addition even if you didn't consider 1.4 percent to be the minimus certainly there was no detriment to the neighborhood caused by the replacement if you will of the porch with the 100 square foot storage area. Your standard also talks about whether or not what was done is consistent with architectural scale and style of your houses in the area. As you know I'm sure the it's really quite a mix of different styles architectural styles in that particular area. I would say that I couldn't find any consistency of any sort with respect to architectural style but the size I think is certainly according to scale.

This is not a situation where we are greatly enlarging a house surrounded by houses which are much smaller and what I've indicated by way of the assessor's records as to the houses on both sides of 53 Puritan Road you will see that the gross floor area as we have it and even as we propose to add to it is quite a bit smaller than the houses on both sides. I would suggest there were no adverse effects to the town or neighborhood as a result of that addition and as I indicated the increase was at 1.4 percent. Your bylaw allows an increase of up to three percent that is 10 percent of the 30 percent maximum lot coverage and so we fall within all of the criteria for the issuance of a dimensional special permit.

The section six special permit different standard as I indicated the reason we need the section six special permit is that we're dealing with a non-conforming structure. The standard for a special permit here is that familiar one that the extension is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. Now we're talking about the addition of the proposed master bedroom and master bath.

All of that is at the rear of the property. It will not even be visible from the street. We wouldn't impair the views of any of the neighborhood homes.

In fact the addition actually gives the dwelling in my view a bit more of a balanced look. It's not so top-heavy to the front with only a single story at the rear and you'll be able to see that at the in the elevations the proposed elevations that accompany the plan that accompanies that portion of the plan of the application. Again I would suggest that the dwelling as proposed to be extended fits into the neighborhood nicely for all the reasons we indicated in connection with the dimension of special permit.

And finally the third special permit that we see is a site plan special permit because we've added or will be adding a total of 910 square feet of gross floor area within a five-year period. The standards for the issuance of the site plan special permit are section 5.3.20 and 5.480. Again there is nothing that we're proposing to do that would create any issues that are the concerns of those criteria. The proposed construction will not result in any problems or issues pertaining to access or fire safety, utilities, stormwater drainage, soil erosion, pedestrian or vehicular safety, obstruction of views from publicly accessible locations, groundwater contamination, traffic, landscaping, coastal flooding.

None of those are implicated by simply adding on a second story over what now is an existing first floor. Similarly phase three meets the criteria I would suggest of section 5.3.20. The property remains a single family dwelling wholly consistent with your bylaw. The addition will allow the property owners to enjoy the views from their dwelling without interfering with the views of others.

Again traffic flow, demand for utility services, those things remain unchanged. Neighborhood character does not change. Natural environment will not be impacted because there's not even going to be any disturbance of earth with respect to constructing the second story.

And there's no negative financial impact to the town. So for all of those reasons I would suggest respectfully that the Snarson's applications meet the standards for the three special permits. If you have any questions about how we got here, I can address those.

I thought it was best to spend my time, at least initially, explaining what it is we're looking to do and what we have done and do need permission to maintain.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:18 - 1:49:22)
Thank you Mr. Shand. First are there any questions from the board? I have a question.

[Speaker 3] (1:49:23 - 1:49:46)
Go ahead. I'm confused, but before I'll precede that by saying I think you did an excellent job of quantifying and putting all the, but I'm still confused on two issues. One issue I'm confused on, one issue I just have a question.

How did we get to have a hundred square feet built? It was built without a permit?

[Speaker 2] (1:49:47 - 1:49:54)
It was built, it's a question that takes a while to answer, but.

[Speaker 3] (1:49:54 - 1:49:56)
Okay, then I'll go on to my second question.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:56 - 1:49:57)
I'm happy to answer. We'll go back.

[Speaker 3] (1:49:58 - 1:50:08)
I'm just trying to get the point of how we got to how you got, like it's, I think I'm hearing that somebody built without a permit and.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:09 - 1:50:17)
Somebody built with a permit which does not specify all of the work that the Snarson's accomplished.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:17 - 1:50:28)
Oh, we're going to, we're working to try to talk, but they didn't get the, okay, it wasn't shown on the building permit application to close on that porch. And they wouldn't have been able to do that.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:28 - 1:50:33)
They didn't have, they didn't have a permit to do it for that part. They would have had to come to the board to get.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:33 - 1:50:43)
There is no question that what we should have received was the dimensional special permit that we're seeking now.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:43 - 1:51:42)
Okay, and that leads me to this question, and maybe I'm wrong. I'll head it for the board. You can alter the maximum lot coverage by 10 percent for a dimensional special permit.

Usually it's 20 percent for the other things, but 10 percent for lot coverage. But I don't believe that that lot coverage, in other words, if you're at 70 percent lot coverage, I don't think you then get to spring off the 70 percent. I think you spring off the 30 percent, so it's 33 percent is the maximum lot coverage.

You already started at 38, so therefore your 1.4 just compounds something that's, so I don't think you can get a dimensional special permit for this. You'd need a variance, or it wouldn't even be a section six finding because you're increasing it. So I think you need a variance.

You can't get a dimensional special permit. Am I right or wrong? That's a great question.

I see him. You did a great job.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:44 - 1:51:47)
I represent the butters, so I'm going to give you a chance.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:48 - 1:51:59)
Why he's nodding his head, I think I'm saying it, that you can, it's 10 percent on 30 percent. It's not 10 percent over the amount that you're already over.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:00 - 1:52:42)
With all due respect, I'm going to suggest that that is not the, I don't think that's the way you would interpret this portion of the bylaw, and the reason I say that is the bylaw, this bylaw piece anticipates taking a non-conformity and making it more non-conforming. So if we were, and therefore because we're dealing with an existing non-conformity, I would suggest that the reading of this portion of the bylaw would be your starting point is as you are non-conforming. Now you're going to become more non-conforming.

How much more non-conforming can you become?

[Speaker 3] (1:52:42 - 1:53:00)
So let's translate it into the more familiar, let's say dimensional side yard setback. So I have a 10-foot side yard setback, and we would turn around and say, oh you can actually build your, you know, you can build it down to eight feet because you're going to get 20 percent.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:00 - 1:53:38)
Right, but it has the language of 2.3.6.5 is interesting. We always deal with that dimensional side yard setback all the time. Right.

And it says the resulting structure will not exceed a dimensional requirement by up to 20 percent of the underlying minimum yard setback requirements. That's clear, we're saying what the minimum is, but then it goes on, comma, up to 10 percent of the underlying lot coverage. It doesn't say minimum, it says underlying lot coverage or height requirement, and up to 50 percent of the underlying minimum open space requirement.

[Speaker 3] (1:53:39 - 1:53:54)
Okay. And then it gives examples. I'm, okay, I, so I, there's my conundrum.

I would read it the same all the way across the board. I can see your position saying, you know, what you're trying to say.

[Speaker 12] (1:53:54 - 1:54:05)
Language is just a little bit different when it comes to lot coverage. Well, but a height requirement, you wouldn't suggest that, you wouldn't suggest that it starts from the non-performing part.

[Speaker 3] (1:54:05 - 1:54:39)
It just wouldn't seem to me, I'm already out of formula, and now I can go even more out of formula, as opposed to we tried to get to the point where in the old bylaw before we changed, you know, it was like you come in and you give them, you know, relief. We said, no, no, no, you can only get it up to 20 percent. And in my own mind, I would, I would interpret that you could only get it up to 10 percent of the underlying stuff, then you have to go to a dimensional variance.

I see that it's not consistently carried through, and you can make the argument that you're making, so.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:40 - 1:54:45)
Right, there's three different areas that are addressed in that section.

[Speaker 3] (1:54:45 - 1:54:45)
So what do you see?

[Speaker 1] (1:54:45 - 1:55:00)
Dimensional, lot coverage, and open space. Dimensional uses the word minimum. Open space uses minimum.

But lot coverage does not. It just says underlying lot coverage.

[Speaker 12] (1:55:00 - 1:55:02)
But doesn't the parenthetical answer your question?

[Speaker 1] (1:55:03 - 1:55:07)
That's, well, give me your argument about it. I haven't gone through it all.

[Speaker 12] (1:55:07 - 1:55:19)
Well, we start with, for example, without limitation, where the underlying dimensional requirement allows a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent, a dimensional special permit may only be issued to allow up to 27 and one-half percent maximum lot coverage.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:22 - 1:55:27)
Underlying dimensional requirement, a maximum, yeah, let's deal with the maximum.

[Speaker 3] (1:55:29 - 1:55:44)
Yeah. So it's 30, 33, not 39, 38, 4, up to 40, 42, 42. It's using, in that case, it's a maximum versus a minimum.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:45 - 1:55:47)
Reducing the minimum versus increasing the maximum.

[Speaker 3] (1:55:49 - 1:55:58)
But it's, I agree, you know, it's. I don't know how you'd answer that question without getting a decision on that.

[Speaker 12] (1:55:59 - 1:56:12)
I mean, it doesn't specifically give the example of where you're already out of bounds, but it would seem to imply that there's the maximum and then there's the absolute maximum.

[Speaker 3] (1:56:13 - 1:56:32)
Because it would be intellectually incorrect, I would think, that if you happen to be on a site that was 85 percent lot coverage in a 30 percent lot cover the area, they'd say, oh, sure, you can go up to 93.5. Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:56:32 - 1:56:47)
Right. Well, I think it, I think Ken's got a comment about this, so why don't we. Rich, you had a comment.

I'm going to give you a chance to address anything else, but why don't we just try to first keep it to this issue, Ken, what do you think? Oh, I have a lot more than just this.

[Speaker 3] (1:56:47 - 1:56:51)
I'm sure you do, but I think we want to just first debate this. I'm not sure if we can go, keep on going.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:51 - 1:57:23)
This may be dispositive on the, so that's why I'm asking. Just on a procedural note, there are two very different situations that you're dealing with, and they've been bifurcated into 042A and 042B. 042B is what hasn't yet happened.

It's a request. In the letter that you had received, Mr. Kornisky, from the planning board, which I think is incredibly helpful for all of you. Have you all had a chance to read that?

The letter was addressed.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:23 - 1:57:25)
Certainly, it was in our package.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:25 - 1:57:27)
Have you all had a chance to read that?

[Speaker 1] (1:57:27 - 1:57:28)
I can't speak for everyone.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:28 - 2:03:15)
I don't know. Well, I was, just broadly. It indicates in the last paragraph of that letter that before we address, because it's never come before the planning board, the site plan special permit that would be requested under the second application, because they couldn't get beyond the first portion, which was the already as built.

So theoretically, tonight, the only issue that we should be addressing will be the application for the work that's been done. Because the planning board has yet to opine, because they haven't heard it on the work that has not yet been done, because they wouldn't, they refuse to hear it, because they were so concerned about the anomalies that were created by the work that's already been done. As much as I appreciate the information that Attorney Sheehan provided, because it's clearly accurate, what isn't being told or what isn't being addressed is the history.

And I think better than anyone could have written it, Ms. Ippolito did. And I'd rather come out of her mouth than mine, because I'm much more jaundiced. You know, I'm representing Mr. Bethel. We're six inches away. We have multiple concerns. But I didn't want you to dismiss my thoughts predicated upon my representation.

So I can go through the letter that she had written. And the reason she had written the letter is because, initially, they heard this matter. And they couldn't understand the history of how any of this occurred, because, ultimately, all of the applications for the permits resulted in work which was distinctively different than the application.

Secondly, there's no application for Historical Commission. It never went before them. We were advised that this building was built 1850, 1860.

It was before the Historical Commission on the garage. It's clear in that letter, which is part of the information that is resident with Marissa, from the Historical Commission, that they wanted to hear from the applicant. I took the liberty, because last month, early this month, I guess, I saw on the board at town hall the Historical Commission's agenda.

And it was on there. And then, all of a sudden, it went off. So I reached out to the chairperson of the Historical Commission, who indicated to me, and it's anecdotal, but I'll repeat it.

She said to me, well, we're going to hear this. We just haven't put it on our agenda yet. All the work that was done on that building was done without the benefit of appearance before the Historical Commission.

That is, in fact, something that is a prerequisite before we go any further. There's no question in the letter that they had sent with regard to the garage that the building is historically significant. The other aspect that is deficient, which challenges the concept of anything by right, is there's nothing in the application which deals with the Coastal Flood Area Overlay District.

In Ms. Ippolito's letter, she specifically identifies saying the property is currently located within the Coastal Flood Area Overlay District. In fact, it lies half in the VE zone and half in the AE zone. The residence itself is currently within the Coastal Bank.

There is nothing in the application that addresses that. I don't know how we can even move forward on this. I think we're in a position now where the applicant is asking for something that I've never seen asked before in the close to 40 years I've ever been involved with the board, both as a petitioner as well as a member, which is work has been done, applications have been submitted, work has been done that doesn't even comport with the application.

This is what the building used to look like. Looked like this. The building now looks like this.

The building was defaced. There's nothing that can be done to return this building to its original condition. I guess there could be, but that's something that I think is well beyond the authority of this board.

They have the audacity to suggest that this board should cleanse themselves of the history of this and look solely upon the bylaw, because he's right. The bylaw does give you authority, but it doesn't give you authority to rectify that which was done without the benefit of a permit, because nothing was done with a permit. The other thing that's sadly mistaken is there is a third aspect that they don't even address, and that Mr. Baldacci is here and he can speak for himself. In his letter, which is dated February the 16th, he said the relief request should also include the proposed roof deck. Now the proposed roof deck is on the other side, not on the eastern side, which will be constructed above the existing first floor bathroom bump-out. The construction will also be within the side yard setback.

There's no request for that at all. So I'm not sure where we stand. The applicant may decide that he wishes to withdraw, or he can ask this board to vote on the one issue that technically isn't for it, which is the issue for the work that's already been done without the benefit of a permit.

But there are no permits right now, other than permits that were not acted on according to the applications themselves. Yes, Mr. Cuniz.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:15 - 2:03:33)
What about the work that was done with the change to the facade and the front? Was there a building permit pulled at that time? My understanding was there was a building permit that didn't include all of the work, it includes some of the work.

Is that incorrect, my understanding?

[Speaker 4] (2:03:34 - 2:03:37)
Maybe you can better answer that than I.

[Speaker 7] (2:03:39 - 2:03:55)
The former building commissioner, Max Casper, issued a building permit for the interior gut-out, remodeled kitchen, baths, exterior shingles, windows, and miscellaneous. So that was the permit that was issued.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:58 - 2:04:13)
So is your opinion, looking at it now, that the work that was done when we looked at that facade, that it exceeded the scope of the permit that Mr. Casper issued?

[Speaker 7] (2:04:14 - 2:04:16)
Yeah, that would be my determination.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:17 - 2:04:25)
Has there been any request for enforcement that was made to you on that? There was, yes. And did you make a determination?

[Speaker 7] (2:04:27 - 2:04:51)
I made a determination that they would need zoning approval to build in the front yard setback, which is above the flat existing porch roof, and for the deck that they're proposing to put above the bathroom bump-out.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:52 - 2:04:59)
But what about the work that's been done thus far, pursuant to a permit? Has there been any means of enforcement?

[Speaker 3] (2:04:59 - 2:05:12)
That's the addition that he said was as of right in the back. So there was... And it was to the roofline in the front, but you're saying...

It sounds like it exceeded the scope, is what... Again, saying, though, that we had no historical input...

[Speaker 1] (2:05:12 - 2:05:29)
Well, I have other questions about that. I have a memory of this property. A long memory, 2013, 2000...

With Sherman Rogan, then went to the... I have a long memory. Do you remember, this was Hammond.

Was that with the side garage?

[Speaker 4] (2:05:30 - 2:05:30)
That was Rogan.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:30 - 2:05:35)
That was before, with the guy who made all the modifications to it himself, Sherman.

[Speaker 4] (2:05:36 - 2:05:39)
Right. What was his name? Sherman Rogan.

Right. Sherman Rogan.

[Speaker 20] (2:05:40 - 2:05:41)
Yes. But I mean, but also...

[Speaker 4] (2:05:43 - 2:05:45)
No, no, no.

[Speaker 2] (2:05:45 - 2:05:45)
Please finish.

[Speaker 3] (2:05:45 - 2:05:46)
Oh, no, no.

[Speaker 2] (2:05:47 - 2:05:57)
I have the history of all of the building permits in the final issue to the senior citizens, and I'd like to hand those up to you. Absolutely.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:57 - 2:05:58)
That would be helpful.

[Speaker 4] (2:05:59 - 2:06:18)
And because I had a freedom of information request, and the only permits that were provided to me were permits that I've already addressed. So if there were others that are well beyond that, the scope of those, they were outside of the... Unless you want to give me a copy as well, and I can see if I have any others.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:21 - 2:06:28)
It was troublesome to hear the suggestion that there were no permits for this year. No, no.

[Speaker 4] (2:06:29 - 2:06:32)
Permits were... No, no, no, no, no, no. I was...

I had the floor.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:32 - 2:07:05)
I gave Mr. Sheehan the ability to hand out the permits, and then I'm going to return those. So let me conduct the meeting, please. Yes.

And I'm going to give everybody a chance to speak. I promise everyone that. And so the...

I'll turn it back over to you, Ken, if you're opportunity.

[Speaker 4] (2:07:06 - 2:09:00)
Go ahead. Some of these in here, by the way, is the application for the permit or the addition in the back. I'm only referring now the work that has been done.

I will show you, because it makes it a lot easier for it to identify these. There is one that is dated 6-1-2019, and that's the addition which reflects on the front of it this picture. Okay.

The second application reflects this picture. None of that... None of that is the work that was done.

When the work was done, I'm showing you that picture right now. You can look at it. It looks like this.

If you can suggest to me that either one of these two permits that deal with that building structure permits what has been done, it hasn't. He just acted on his own volition. He didn't act under the authority.

And you know something? Ms. Ippolito picked up on that, and she was so distressed. She was so distressed, she wrote that letter to you.

And she pointed out that she couldn't go any further on this because nothing made any sense, because the representations, according to her, didn't square. And then she went so far to even suggest that Mr. Snierson was suggesting that Mr. Casper issued a permit without there being a permit. He did it by email.

Now, clearly, we know that's not the case. That can't be the case. One could never appeal an email permit.

But that's how he claimed it was done. Mr. Panizzi, I held my tongue.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:00 - 2:09:09)
I'm going to come right back to you, OK? I just want to see. I see there's another handout, it looks like.

I just want to hand out the plans that accompany.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:09 - 2:09:24)
This is a point that Ms. Ippolito, with all due respect, is not right on. The plans that accompany the applications for the building permit that is number 19-588.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:25 - 2:10:06)
So which one is that in? So that is, I think that's tab two. OK, yep, it says 19-588.

Right, so tab two talks of extensive work to the house. And you'll see the date on that. And these are where the plans which accompany the request to build.

Now, did you obtain these from the building department? No, these did not come from the building department.

[Speaker 9] (2:10:06 - 2:10:07)
Not there.

[Speaker 4] (2:10:08 - 2:10:17)
That's, I guess, the reason why, when I made a request, I didn't receive them. Because they don't exist at the... Well, they should be, because they had to be stamped in.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:20 - 2:10:24)
But they're not there.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:24 - 2:10:36)
They go to the store to go from this to this, and then to what they have now. How do we get this, like, bunched up so we can put it in a box? You know, just tabled and over here.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:36 - 2:10:46)
But there was, in 2019, Mr. Sheen, there was no appearance before the historic commission?

[Speaker 2] (2:10:46 - 2:10:46)
You're aware of?

[Speaker 1] (2:10:47 - 2:10:48)
No, there was not.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:49 - 2:11:13)
As I understand it, if I've read your general ordinance properly, what happens is the person seeking a building permit submits his application for building permit to the building inspector, who then makes a determination initially whether or not the historical commission is to get involved.

[Speaker 7] (2:11:14 - 2:11:16)
It's like a demolition, it's like a sheet.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:16 - 2:11:22)
That's exactly right. But we don't have any record of this plan being...

[Speaker 2] (2:11:22 - 2:13:40)
I can certainly tell you that the historical commission never reviewed the work that was done in what I have described as phase two. And I have received communications from the historical commission. The historical commission is going to want to hear from my clients and me as to that issue as well.

The question is, in part, where do we start? Because there are a number of things that were done that shouldn't have been done the way they were done. I think it's, however, a little bit unfair to the Sneersons to throw all of that blame at them.

I think that there was confusion. I have looked at building permit number 19-588. It describes some of the work that's shown on that plan and then ends with miscellaneous.

I don't know what miscellaneous means. I don't know what the building inspector meant when he said miscellaneous. There is no question that the work, for example, to the roof that was done in conjunction with phase two.

When you look at building permit 19-588, you're not going to see the word roof, but you are going to see all of the interior work that was, in fact, done in conjunction with that building permit. And you couldn't do the interior work on that building permit without changing the roof as shown on the plan, which my client tells me accompanied the building permit. And it makes perfect sense to me that this plan must have been presented to the building inspector.

Otherwise, the building inspector would have issued a building permit for all of that work without any plans. That doesn't make any sense to me. But I readily acknowledge that when I did my review of the building inspection jacket, that these plans aren't there.

I can't tell you why those plans aren't there.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:40 - 2:13:45)
Rich, you asked Max about, have you seen these plans before today?

[Speaker 7] (2:13:45 - 2:14:36)
I did. And he didn't remember seeing them. He remembers talking to Jerry Snerson about it.

I'm looking on the software program. There's a building permit application, B20-382, that actually has this set of plans uploaded. And in Max's determination, he says that after discussion with the homeowner and the architect, they would be submitting a new permit and plan set indicating compliance with FEMA regulations.

And he denied the permit on August 21st, 2020. That has to do with the garage.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:37 - 2:14:39)
It does show the garage.

[Speaker 7] (2:14:39 - 2:14:44)
That has nothing to do with the house. The application states...

[Speaker 1] (2:14:45 - 2:14:47)
I still think we're stuck on the garage.

[Speaker 7] (2:14:47 - 2:14:49)
Yeah, that is for the garage.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:50 - 2:14:52)
Mr. Sheehan, that's for the garage.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:53 - 2:16:03)
The building permits that are before you, the first one, B19-29, that is for the house. That describes the work that was done in what I call phase one. The second building permit, number 19-588, is what I have described as the work in phase two.

The building permits number three and four both clearly apply to the garage. Permit number five recites that it pertains to an accessory building. So I take it that it applies to the garage.

The only question mark I have in my mind is that it appears to be duplicative of the work that was permitted in applications numbers three and four. But I take it that what you have before you as permits three, four, and five, that they all apply to the garage and one and two apply to the house.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:05 - 2:16:42)
The thing that, in addition to Andy's point about the dimensional issue and the relief on the 10%, and having had Max Casper as the building inspector for many years here, it's been my experience that if he had the slightest doubt it was coming here to the ZBA. I don't know if the other board members felt that way. So I just can't seem to get my mind around.

If you'd let the slide. What? Yeah, how this would get through.

[Speaker 2] (2:16:42 - 2:17:48)
Well, let me tell you one reason that it may have. The only reason that phase two triggered any request for zoning relief at all was that conversion, footprint of the building of the house stayed the same. Footprint's the same.

But there's a conversion of space that had not been building, therefore not part of lot coverage, which becomes part of lot coverage, because it's now got four walls and a roof instead of no walls and a roof. That's a very, very fine point. I don't know Mr., is it Casper?

I don't know him at all, but that would be, and that's the only reason that any zoning relief is sought in phase two.

[Speaker 3] (2:17:48 - 2:17:59)
But I still say, Mark, that I couldn't vote on two because we have to determine if it's 10% of 30 or 10% of whatever the coverage is.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:59 - 2:18:00)
Oh, I agree.

[Speaker 3] (2:18:00 - 2:18:16)
That's a threshold issue for this board to determine. So I don't know if we're going forward on that like on an individual special requirement. The big thing here that my job is, is to make a record, make findings of fact.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:17 - 2:18:19)
There's a lot of facts that need to be found here.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:21 - 2:18:40)
And to Mr. Rose's point, again, at the suggestion of the chair, we did in our application with respect to phase two, we asked for a dimensional variance in the event and to the extent it is necessary. So it is before you.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:40 - 2:18:51)
Right, the authorities before us, I can tell you that my experience on the board, it's been extraordinarily rare that we granted a variance.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:52 - 2:19:14)
And I understand that. And I would suggest that because of the reason, you have no practical, no harm, no injury, no practical significance to the technical increase in building coverage.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:15 - 2:19:36)
I think it's more than just the technical increase in building coverage. I think Ken's illustration of looking at, it's changed the whole building. To the, we have this, to this.

That's, or to the current photo, that's the struggle that.

[Speaker 14] (2:19:39 - 2:19:41)
Is there any way to put these building permits on the screen?

[Speaker 1] (2:19:45 - 2:19:48)
I don't think this is going to get decided tonight, I can tell you.

[Speaker 14] (2:19:49 - 2:19:49)
I'm trying to think.

[Speaker 17] (2:19:51 - 2:19:53)
I can get into viewpoint, right?

[Speaker 14] (2:19:53 - 2:19:56)
And download the ones that were just, if we have them in the viewpoint.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:56 - 2:19:58)
It's a lot of information, Heather.

[Speaker 14] (2:19:58 - 2:20:00)
Let me see Heather.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:00 - 2:20:00)
There's five.

[Speaker 14] (2:20:01 - 2:20:05)
That's fine. If it's probably, I can read it in between now and the next meeting probably. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:20:05 - 2:20:26)
And Mr. Chairman, even though you're right, there is a tremendous change to the look of that building by way of phase two. But the only thing that triggered the need to come before this board is that one issue where we.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:26 - 2:20:28)
That's what it is. Everybody gets caught.

[Speaker 14] (2:20:28 - 2:20:30)
Can I ask a question? No, I understand, but.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:31 - 2:20:32)
Hang on one second, please. Yes, Paul.

[Speaker 14] (2:20:32 - 2:20:44)
Did phase one ever get signed off on? No. And did phase two ever get signed off on?

No. So I'm confused if they were, if the permits were never signed off, how are we?

[Speaker 12] (2:20:47 - 2:20:53)
That's what they're asking. Part of what they're asking is for us to cleanse the history and then.

[Speaker 14] (2:20:53 - 2:20:55)
But then. We're asking.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:56 - 2:21:34)
So the petitioner is giving us a roadmap as to how we can cleanse all of the changes that have been done, which is following his path on what we need, including potentially getting a dimensional variance. And Mr. Schutzer is arguing, no, you can't follow that path because you can't make those findings. I just want to give this gentleman in the race, raise his hand for the last 20 minutes.

I'm going to come back.

[Speaker 4] (2:21:34 - 2:21:36)
We're not going to finish tonight. I'm past this.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:36 - 2:21:36)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (2:21:36 - 2:21:37)
Okay. Fair enough.

[Speaker 9] (2:21:38 - 2:21:45)
My name is Jonathan Lee. I'm a recent six time union member. I'm also a sponsor of historical commission.

[Speaker 18] (2:21:50 - 2:21:55)
And I actually built 160 many years ago. It's known that we joined the.

[Speaker 9] (2:22:32 - 2:24:55)
And it's still here. But having gone by recently, the roof no longer exists. And it's now essentially a box with a hip roof and not a gable roof.

In fact, it doesn't even resemble this, where there are some clear soffits there. There were no soffits at all. So it doesn't look like this.

And it certainly doesn't look like the original structure, which, by the way, is on the Massachusetts historic cultural site. So it's a registered house. And typically before there's any demolition or partial demolition on a house, the historical commission would hear about the proposal.

And of course, as you correctly stated, we haven't yet. So I can only speak for myself. I can't speak for all the members of the historical commission.

But we would hear about a historic home. And certainly this house, given its age, is very significant. It's correct.

There's a mixture of houses in the neighborhood. But this one is particularly significant. Significant enough that it was registered.

So there is a meeting scheduled for the historic commission to talk about it. But of course, my concern is the changes that were made and how they've basically taken the very historic nature of the home. So personally, I'd like to see that restored to its prior condition.

That would be my recommendation. But again, I'm speaking for myself only and not for the entire historic commission. But just so you get an idea of the input that I would have at a later meeting, that would be my recommendation.

[Speaker 3] (2:24:56 - 2:25:37)
Thank you, sir. I mean, I think we have a conundrum that if you go for a building permit, then you get circulated to fire, health, historic, et cetera. But if you're not telling them that you're going to do any demolition or partial demolition of the outside of a building, then you're not going to.

If it's a demo permit, then you're have to go. I think the burden's on you to go to the store, not for the building inspector to tell you to go to the store. And so they wouldn't have known if they didn't.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:37 - 2:26:00)
But even if you're replacing the windows, it said windows on the request for relief, you think that would trigger it? And the windows is always. But we don't even have a record of these plans being in the file.

We don't have a stamped copy of it, which is quite unusual. In your experience, is that something that happens regularly or irregularly, Rich?

[Speaker 7] (2:26:00 - 2:26:06)
Normally, I require a full set of plans. And I'm sure Max would have too.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:07 - 2:26:14)
I mean, the time, the recent history sent all of these permits. We've been scanning everything in.

[Speaker 3] (2:26:15 - 2:26:17)
And it doesn't sound like Max.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:17 - 2:26:18)
No, no.

[Speaker 7] (2:26:19 - 2:26:23)
I mean, if I can address how we got here.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:23 - 2:26:24)
I would love that.

[Speaker 7] (2:26:25 - 2:26:27)
I mean, I don't think I can answer that.

[Speaker 2] (2:26:27 - 2:26:29)
You've been explaining it here for the rest of my years.

[Speaker 7] (2:26:31 - 2:27:09)
Once that permit had issued, on July 1st, Max became the facilities coordinator. And you can tell in a slump that he didn't have a building inspector until I was hired at the end of October. So that was almost four months.

And the first time, you know, I can drive around town and assume that everybody has a permit. But until somebody tells me what's going on over there, which the abutted did in this case, and I did some research, I made the determination that they didn't have a permit to build that second story.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:09 - 2:27:24)
So just so I'm clear, July 1 of 19 or 20? Of 20. So it's during all this COVID and July 1 until, what's the other day when you came on board?

[Speaker 7] (2:27:24 - 2:27:27)
I think it was July 1 of 19. The end of October?

[Speaker 3] (2:27:29 - 2:27:53)
What's that? No way anybody would take the building as it was and let it turn into what it is now. You know, in the context of filing permits, historic, et cetera.

This guy's saying it's the greatest house on that road. You know, and you can't even pretend that it's just like a minor change. This is like.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:53 - 2:28:25)
Well, I remember this structure when it was before us, when Hammond wanted to do a vestibule to connect the garage. And that was, she withdrew without prejudice in 2013, and a lot of it was the historic nature. We had zoning issues, and then I remember the garage, the mess that was created with Rogers continuing to do work without permits in there.

[Speaker 4] (2:28:25 - 2:28:30)
Rogan, Rogan, Rogan. Sherman Rogan.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:30 - 2:28:35)
Sherman, yeah. So what year was that?

[Speaker 4] (2:28:35 - 2:28:38)
At least over, you know, probably 13 years ago.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:39 - 2:28:43)
As I said, I've been here 16 years or so, and it was early on.

[Speaker 3] (2:28:43 - 2:28:46)
I remember him coming in and defending himself. Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:47 - 2:30:00)
He was pro se. We had to have a few state meetings on that one. So where do you go from here?

That's a great question. Go from here. What I think, my thought on this is that my, I look at it, my job is to make a record here.

And that we have to make very specific findings of fact, and I think it has to be about each, each piece of work that was done, according to what specific permit the petitioner is arguing entitled them to that relief, whether we agree or we disagree. And also not a finding of fact, but I would suggest a conclusion of law, or we should decide because we have jurisdiction on the 10%, whether that is the maximum amount or the as is.

[Speaker 3] (2:30:02 - 2:30:04)
Because that was just maximum amount.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:04 - 2:31:21)
Right. I want to give both sides the opportunity to address it in a very brief memo to us. And I would also ask for proposed findings of fact that you're asking this board to make.

And I will go through one by one and look to, look to see which ones we want to adopt, because I clearly see that we need to make a record here. Because if, for instance, we grant the relief to cleanse this project, I expect there's going to be an appeal by the abutter. If we similarly deny the relief based upon the 10% issue, the work, not meeting the work that was done without a permit or proposed work, not meeting the standards of our bylaw, the findings, I expect that there similarly will be an appeal.

So I think I've got to make a very good record of what our findings of fact are that support our conclusion. And I'd ask for each side to give us a brief list of findings of fact.

[Speaker 3] (2:31:21 - 2:31:24)
Do you not need, like, historic to be with me on this?

[Speaker 4] (2:31:24 - 2:31:27)
I think there's a lot of prerequisites before we get to this point.

[Speaker 3] (2:31:27 - 2:31:39)
You know, how do you even, like, just... Chairman. I think there might be, but I...

I'm just... I don't think we need to get to your point, but yes. Don't you need to be verified that you don't, that you didn't...

Well, well... What about the special... You know, before you...

[Speaker 1] (2:31:39 - 2:31:55)
They got a copy... When this, they should have gotten a copy of the petition for relief and had the opportunity to fill out the form. That form goes to everybody in town and they can comment.

You know, we got comments from others.

[Speaker 4] (2:31:56 - 2:32:00)
That's for a ZVA request, but this was for a building permit. Building permits don't get... No, no, no, no.

[Speaker 1] (2:32:00 - 2:32:20)
But I'm suggesting... Right. And they still have time to respond to any of the boards in town.

I'm not going to decline to accept during while the public hearing is open. So if either side goes to historic and said we'd like to have your thoughts and for you to send it to the ZVA...

[Speaker 4] (2:32:20 - 2:32:31)
Historic is going to... As I've spoken to them, they're going to schedule a hearing. Well, we're not meeting again until September.

Whatever they want to do.

[Speaker 1] (2:32:31 - 2:32:44)
I suggest perhaps taking up with Historic before you come back here in September. I'm going to ask Mr. Sheehan, would... Wanted to add something here at a period.

That... I think it was at your request.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:44 - 2:33:55)
It may have been at Marissa's request. We made sure that we sent a copy of what you have by way of application and memo sent to all the six or seven different entities that are identified in your bylaw as receiving them so that they could make comment. And I am sure that the Historic Commission will want to put this matter on its agenda and will appear before the Historic Commission.

Um, I... I respectfully disagree with Mr. Schutzer when he says that we shouldn't be here now. We should be here now.

We need relief from this board. We may need relief from others as well. I know that there is, for example, with respect to the Conservation Commission, there's an outstanding order of conditions.

We've met with the Conservation Commission. We need to get a certificate of compliance as to that. That doesn't mean this board doesn't undertake what its role is.

And similarly, with respect to the Historic Commission, the Historic Commission will weigh in. It will weigh in, uh, and it may see things the same way this board ultimately sees it, or it may see it differently.

[Speaker 3] (2:33:55 - 2:34:06)
They're a different... They're a different... I'm sorry, go ahead.

They don't weigh in after us. They weigh in before us, and then we take that criteria. I had to go to the White Court, I had to go to...

[Speaker 2] (2:34:06 - 2:34:55)
Well, we've given... They will now have that opportunity because if I don't miss my guess, this public hearing is going to be continued. There's no August meeting to September.

I dare say that the Historic District Commission will have a meeting before then. We certainly will be happy to appear before them and explain our situation with them. And I think that they can then...

There's no requirement that if they haven't weighed in yet, they can't weigh in at all. They will weigh in. I know that Mr. Baldacci weighed in and gave us his view of the interpretation of the Zoning By-law, which is this is the first time I have tackled your Zoning By-law, and I say that it is quite an intellectual challenge to tackle your Zoning By-law.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:55 - 2:34:57)
But you did a good job.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:57 - 2:37:22)
You did a lot of job. And so that there's room for disagreement. But what I...

I guess the way I would like to leave our presentation tonight is this. You did not hear me say, and you will not hear me say, that the Snessens did everything they should have done in order to maintain the house that they have now and ask this board for relief for what they're looking for with respect to Phase 3. They didn't.

That's why they engaged me, to try to figure out how to correct what they did. In my view, the suggestion that they did everything without any permits is most unfair, which is what I suspected I would hear tonight, why I brought the attachments with me in case I heard it. Doesn't mean, again, that everything ticks and ties because it doesn't.

As I say, I've spent a lot of time looking at the building permits that were issued, trying to tie them to plans, which I have seen. I know that Phase 1 was tied to a McCloskey plan, and I have, I didn't bring that, I didn't make copies and bring them with me, but I've got the McCloskey plan for Phase 1. Everything on that McCloskey plan was done according to a building permit, 310 square feet of gross floor area, adding to the first floor, plus a deck added on top, next to it, I should say.

That's on those plans. That's in the building permit application, the first one you have at tab one. You will not find those McCloskey plans in the building inspector's office.

It defies imagination that that building permit issued for exactly the same work as the McCloskey plan shows without the McCloskey plan ever having been in the Swampskate building inspector's possession. I suggest great respect that that plan was at one time in the building inspector's office.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:23 - 2:37:36)
I cannot tell you why it is not there now. Can you look to connect it with the fee that was paid for the building permit, the dollar value, if there was an estimate from McCloskey so that at least...

[Speaker 2] (2:37:37 - 2:39:14)
I can tie, I tie the assessor's, the assessor has a record, of course, as to improvements. And I tie, I can tie, and you'll see it with respect to the assessor's card that's part of Exhibit 3 attached to our application. I can tie the assessor's record to the building permit number 19-29 with the date thereof, with the date of the McCloskey plans.

Those all tie. But I don't, but you will not find, at least when we checked with the building inspector's office, the McCloskey plan is not there. Similarly, I can tie building permit 19-588 to the plan that I've just handed out to the assessor's record showing the second correction, second edition, I should say.

That was a $91,000 addition for the work that was done primarily to the interior, but also without question, changing the facade, second story facade, and changing the roof. As I said, I cannot imagine, and particularly with the way you've described the building inspector of many years here, there cannot be a way that he would have issued building permit 19-588 without ever seeing plans. That would be nonsensical.

And I would suggest respectfully that the plans that he saw are the plans that I handed out.

[Speaker 1] (2:39:15 - 2:39:21)
Now, who else gets those plans? That's what I'd like to know. Does anybody else get a copy of those plans when they're filed with you?

[Speaker 7] (2:39:21 - 2:39:27)
So electronically, at the time of the application, they're uploaded into the permit program.

[Speaker 1] (2:39:28 - 2:39:32)
Does a hard copy go to anyone that they might still have? FIRE or...

[Speaker 7] (2:39:32 - 2:39:35)
All the boards would receive a copy.

[Speaker 4] (2:39:35 - 2:39:37)
That's why we have to give out 14...

[Speaker 1] (2:39:37 - 2:39:40)
On just the building permit? No, of the application.

[Speaker 4] (2:39:41 - 2:39:45)
And the plans that go with the application. No, but this is just a building permit.

[Speaker 3] (2:39:46 - 2:39:54)
You need an application with plans to get the permit. You need the 14 sets to cover the ZBA. You don't need 14 sets to go to...

[Speaker 1] (2:39:54 - 2:40:07)
No, no, that's true. I'm looking for specifically the Moskoski plans. Do they wind up with another board?

Can we back them into the building department by them getting to another board from the building department?

[Speaker 2] (2:40:07 - 2:40:09)
I'll certainly make that inquiry between now and...

[Speaker 1] (2:40:09 - 2:40:15)
Well, we can ask Rich to take a look into that if any other board got those plans.

[Speaker 15] (2:40:16 - 2:40:21)
Do the owners have proof of payment? Proof of payment.

[Speaker 4] (2:40:21 - 2:40:24)
They may have proof of payment, but I'm not sure that they did what they paid for.

[Speaker 3] (2:40:24 - 2:40:25)
Oh, no, that as well.

[Speaker 20] (2:40:25 - 2:40:27)
I'm just asking right now.

[Speaker 3] (2:40:27 - 2:41:05)
But I have a question back to the... And we're trying to unravel what's okay and what's not okay. The first permit that you said was as of right, and I would understand it would be as of right dimensionally, didn't change anything, change archive, et cetera.

Does it still need the coastal flood because of the location on the edge, which then would have meant that it had to come to the board? Look, but if the guy... The applicant might have gone to the building inspection, what do I have to do?

And the guy said, yeah, it has a right game of permit. He walks out and didn't do anything nefarious. That doesn't legitimize the permit though.

It's good.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:06 - 2:42:14)
That's certainly what happened with respect to phase one. Right. It was never any suggestion that I'm aware of that everything that was done by way of phase one was not done properly, was not done in accordance with plans or anything else.

With respect to the coastal flood, I don't know. You answered your question. But I can tell you that everything ties with respect to phase one.

I don't want to suggest because you've made a point. I don't want to suggest that the Snaresons have built everything as shown in this plan. They did not.

All I'm saying is the notion that these plans were not part of the pulling of the building permit, 19-588, makes no sense to me because what you're saying, if you say that, is that the building inspector issued a building permit, 19-588, without any plans.

[Speaker 12] (2:42:16 - 2:42:19)
Or with different plans. All with different plans.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:19 - 2:42:24)
But the only... I'm sorry, I gave you the last chance, Councilor. Thank you, I'm just...

[Speaker 2] (2:42:24 - 2:42:42)
The only plans which tie by date with the phase two work are the plans that I have handed out tonight. Because you'll see that those plans I dated, I believe, October 29, we're talking about a building permit that issued on November 1.

[Speaker 3] (2:42:43 - 2:42:56)
So we need historic input. We need historic input. We need to get a decision whether it's 30% and three.

Well, that's us to make that. I don't know, we have to ask.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:57 - 2:42:59)
You can ask town council if you want.

[Speaker 3] (2:42:59 - 2:43:17)
We can ask town council or if we felt that we couldn't interpret it. I mean, I just say I think it's the way I'm thinking it, which is detrimental to Mr. Sheehan. And I could be wrong as well, so just tell me the bylaw.

I can read if someone tells me the bylaw.

[Speaker 2] (2:43:17 - 2:43:40)
And Mr. Rose, I'll make that inquiry even more complicated because there is a factual component to it. And you asked Mr. Baldacci what our lot coverage is. He doesn't calculate it at 38%.

He calculates it at 31.4%, which would be within the 3%, even if my interpretation is wrong.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:40 - 2:43:42)
Well, that's a factual inquiry.

[Speaker 2] (2:43:42 - 2:44:12)
That's a factual inquiry. I don't want to leave tonight without making that point because I wasn't concerned about, frankly, about Mr. Baldacci's calculation of lot coverage because of the way I've interpreted it, interpreted the 10%, meaning 10% of 30%, 3% on top of what we have. But to the extent I'm wrong on that, then Mr. Baldacci and I will get together again on the lot.

[Speaker 1] (2:44:13 - 2:44:59)
I'd ask Rich to give us an opinion on that, your opinion on that, for the next meeting or before for you to review it and to make your finding on what the lot coverage is at each phase, whether it's changed or not. So I think that's a very important opinion, factual finding. So before I continue for the September meeting with your approval, an agreement to sign a continuance form for September, I'm going to let Mr. Shipps, I promised him I'd give him another opportunity to address anything else that he needed to, knowing that we're going to have another meeting on it.

[Speaker 4] (2:44:59 - 2:49:31)
I was sort of in the middle of my thoughts and Mr. Sheen decided to pass out copies of the permits and then everything sort of stopped and I was not permitted to complete what I was saying. You know, a question was asked and the answer is in the Ippolito letter and the Ippolito letter is the result of a hearing before the planning board that I attended virtually. Mr. Sheen was not there. Mr. Sheen's client was there. Mr. Sheen's client made certain statements, one of which is incorporated in this letter, which said the petitioner states that he was informed verbally by then building inspector Max Casper that he was able to move forward with the plans. That's what he said and he was challenged and it stopped there.

He said, I was told by Mr. Casper, I'm all set. But we know that can't happen because we know we can't challenge an email or a verbal statement on a permit. There are so many inconsistencies in the recitation of the facts as he recalls them, which is consistent with this entire procedure because there are so many anomalies we can't seem to understand.

One of which may be and I'll do deference to Mr. Sheen's client, Ms. Nielsen's is maybe he's not being completely forthright and he did certain things without permits because there are so many issues in here that just don't add up other than he did what he wished to do. Now, granted, that's like Mr. Sheen making certain suppositions with regard to the way he wishes to interpret things. Well, I interpret them very differently and all I see are inconsistencies which are being explained by concepts of what makes sense to Mr. Sheen. What I know to be true is that none of the people that work for the task force, the historical commission, be it yourself, be it the building department have any answers for these things. They don't understand them. They don't understand them because they didn't happen the way it's being explained.

And then you top it all off with missing sets of plans and then it just gets even more so. I don't think at this point the board has any authority with regard to the issuance of the new request for the building permit for the addition in the rear, which hasn't been yet built because that hasn't gone before the planning board. The planning board refused to even hear that until they got some explanation for what occurred on those other supposed building permits or the building permit that was issued, but was built entirely different from the schematic and from the picture of what the proposal would look like in its renderings.

Because those renderings don't look like what it looks like. There is not a single rendering that exists anywhere today that looks like this. You can't build things without a rendering of your proposal.

And I would defy Mr. Sheehan to show me a permit with a rendering that looks like this because I couldn't find one. Now, maybe it doesn't mean anything anymore if I can't find it. Maybe it just means that it was lost.

I don't know. But at this point, I would ask the board to reconsider whether it even wishes to continue this until there's something, some very concrete information, which this board doesn't have. The board can continue to opine about things it doesn't know in the hopes of trying to move this thing along.

But you just don't have that information before you. And there's no indication you will. You know, I think that the Historical Commission may take the position that I can't speak for them.

I could hear one gentleman say, this is one of the most historic homes that's been decimated. We want to put it back to the way it was. Maybe that's where we should be going.

Because right now, I don't think that this house should ever have an occupancy permit because that would be putting the stamp of approval on somebody who has defied the town ordinance, who's acted on his own volition, who blatantly said, I can do whatever I want. Because that's not the message you want to go out to everybody else. Because that would sort of vacate the importance of all these administrative boards if you can do whatever you want and then come back and plead ignorance, mea culpa.

It doesn't work that way. It's never worked before and it shouldn't start now. Thank you very much for your time.

[Speaker 1] (2:49:31 - 2:49:53)
Ken, one thing I would say is, when I say my job as the chair is to make a record, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and set this up if there's an appeal. What I don't want to do, although your arguments may be very compelling, is to rule on something that may be looked at by a court that we just ruled arbitrarily. I didn't look at all the evidence.

[Speaker 4] (2:49:53 - 2:50:11)
There's got to be some evidence to look at. If there was something concrete to look at, I would be in a position to either agree or disagree. I don't have it.

He's making the suggestion that it exists, but there's nothing before us. There's no building permit that squares with what was built.

[Speaker 1] (2:50:14 - 2:50:33)
I believe my job is to make sure we give the petitioner an opportunity to present the evidence, to meet their burden, and to listen to the abutter who is in opposition and can challenge that. If I can assure you...

[Speaker 4] (2:50:33 - 2:51:02)
Mr. Sheehan has known for a long time I was going to be here tonight. For a long time, he understood the issues that he was confronted with. In all candor, I'm glad I'm representing Mr. Buffalo and not Mr. Schneerson. My job is a lot easier. I don't know how you can create a record on quicksand because there's nothing concrete here to work with. And to give him the benefit of the doubt because we don't have anything to work with defies...

[Speaker 1] (2:51:02 - 2:51:06)
How am I given the benefit of the doubt? I told you to submit... No, no, I'm not saying you have.

[Speaker 4] (2:51:06 - 2:51:11)
I'm not saying you have all the proof. I'm not saying that he's asking you to do that.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:11 - 2:51:28)
I'm not saying you have anything. Okay, well, and like I said, I'm giving you the opportunity to present because you want to have the right record on appeal no matter what side it is. I've litigated many cases with Mr. Sheehan. I can assure you he's a brilliant litigator.

[Speaker 4] (2:51:28 - 2:51:32)
Oh, he's very good. He did a better job than I could have representing Mr. Sheehan.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:32 - 2:51:42)
And I know my job is to make a record one way or the other, and that's what I intend to do. So the last comment I made, again, from Mr. Pearson.

[Speaker 9] (2:51:47 - 2:52:52)
Jonathan Lehman. Again, when the historic commission is presented, we do see plans, and I'm looking at something here that says no changes to second floor. I'm looking at the same roof line and the same porch.

When we look at partial demolitions, first, we determine whether a home is historically significant. And of course, this one is. It's listed in the MACRS database.

And whether there are substantial changes. Obviously, in this permit application, there aren't. And we, like every board in Swampscott, would rely on the diagrams.

But what's there now, obviously, is significantly different. And I'm quite certain that the historic commission would not approve the structure that's there now, because it's essentially been obliterated. So I just wanted to be sure that there's no ambiguity here about that.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:53 - 2:52:54)
Thank you.

[Speaker 14] (2:52:55 - 2:52:57)
When were those plans that you have dated?

[Speaker 9] (2:53:01 - 2:53:04)
January 29th, 2019.

[Speaker 14] (2:53:04 - 2:53:13)
And those are in conjunction with the building permit that we... Are these the plans that we've been looking for that are now tied specifically to a building permit?

[Speaker 2] (2:53:14 - 2:54:08)
Those plans pertain to the garage. There's a change in the garage. There was a request to make alterations to the garage.

The matter went to the historic commission. The historic commission determined that the garage was of historical significance, because it may have held a plane that was in existence back in 1915. And there was a grant to the Snaresons of a demolition permit as to portions of that garage.

And so what you have... So the plans that Mr. Pearson is referencing, I believe, are to that garage. And all of the work that was done to the garage was done in accordance with the historic commission's okay.

In contrast to the house.

[Speaker 9] (2:54:08 - 2:54:37)
I'm looking at rear addition. There's no garage in this at all. This has to do with the addition on the rear.

And it's the section we just were handed section 1A3. And this relates to a rear addition. And it shows the front of the building as well, along with the existing porch.

[Speaker 2] (2:54:39 - 2:54:54)
Mr. Chair, may I ask a question of Mr. Pearson? May I ask a question of Mr. Pearson? Yes, you may.

Mr. Pearson is... Lehman is... Lehman.

Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. I apologize.

I had it wrong. I was misled by the chair. Yes, you were.

Okay.

[Speaker 4] (2:54:54 - 2:54:56)
He was doing real well up until this issue.

[Speaker 2] (2:54:57 - 2:55:06)
Mr. Lehman, are you looking at McCloskey plans dated in January of 2019?

[Speaker 9] (2:55:07 - 2:55:18)
They're dated 1-29-19. It's in section 1 of the building permits. And it says Snerson Residence 53 Puritan Road.

[Speaker 2] (2:55:19 - 2:55:46)
Okay. Building permit number one that applies to the addition to the house. And I believe that the plans that accompanied that work are the plans that I've been referring to as the McCloskey plans that are dated in January of 2019.

I don't know if that's the same...

[Speaker 9] (2:55:47 - 2:56:02)
Yes, and I'm looking at that. I'm looking at front elevation, left rear. And they're in each of these elevations.

The original roofline is still there.

[Speaker 2] (2:56:09 - 2:56:12)
The McCloskey plan was designed...

[Speaker 9] (2:56:12 - 2:56:17)
And these are McCloskey plans, yes. The architect's name is in the upper right.

[Speaker 2] (2:56:18 - 2:56:19)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:19 - 2:56:20)
McCloskey plan...

[Speaker 13] (2:56:20 - 2:56:21)
Can I ask a follow-up question?

[Speaker 1] (2:56:21 - 2:56:23)
Sure, if I could just have your name, please.

[Speaker 13] (2:56:23 - 2:57:29)
Sure, Susie Davis. I live at 53 Puritan Road. It's directly across.

I've been here for 13 years. I was there for a little bit, touched the progress. A little lack thereof.

I'm going into the facility October 5th. I don't know if I'll make it to the sick box. I don't understand the bylaws and all of that.

I've been a homeowner. I understand how things should and should not go. I'd like to have my say, and I would like the board to tell me how you would like me to address you and the public of my feelings of what I've seen all over since these people have purchased property.

I, like I said, I've been missing Logan. I've been there with the people who bought it from them. Their lives used to be called the boat shed.

It now has a cement foundation in it. I've watched the Sundays. I've watched it all.

So I don't want to tell you everything that I feel because I know it's 10 o'clock and I've sat here.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:29 - 2:57:35)
I'll give you a couple of choices. One is you could give us your statement in writing.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:36 - 2:57:37)
And have Ken present it?

[Speaker 1] (2:57:38 - 2:57:39)
You could submit it to.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:39 - 2:57:40)
I'll submit it to you.

[Speaker 12] (2:57:40 - 2:57:43)
Yes. And I can maybe do it.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:43 - 2:57:45)
Will it be Zoom as well?

[Speaker 12] (2:57:45 - 2:57:46)
Oh, yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:47 - 2:57:49)
But I'd like you to know what my thoughts are.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:50 - 2:57:59)
You could give us your written statement. Do you have additional comments you want to make on that hearing day? And what was the date again?

September 21st.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:59 - 2:58:00)
Yeah, it's close to the 5th.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:00 - 2:58:17)
So you could submit your thoughts in writing. If you're able to attend the hearing by Zoom or in person, you're welcome to attend. But just make sure that you are able to give us all your thoughts in writing in the event you're not able to attend.

[Speaker 13] (2:58:17 - 2:58:20)
I'll probably do both. Thanks for the time.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:20 - 2:58:24)
Thank you. And I don't know that we'll conclude on September 25th.

[Speaker 13] (2:58:24 - 2:58:26)
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:26 - 2:58:27)
I don't know.

[Speaker 13] (2:58:28 - 2:58:36)
It's just a shame that it is at this point that so much time is being spent on something.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:38 - 2:58:40)
This is my third go-around with this property.

[Speaker 13] (2:58:41 - 2:58:43)
Mine too. So no, excuse me.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:45 - 2:58:50)
In 16 years, it's really probably...

[Speaker 13] (2:58:50 - 2:59:02)
Just the word nonconformity and phase one keeps getting to me. I don't know how you go forward with nonconformity. And as brilliant as this man, attorney, presented himself today.

[Speaker 1] (2:59:03 - 2:59:17)
We may not, but I think we've got to think about that question of the lot coverage. That may be a fatal argument, Petitioner, and we may not get beyond that after our next meeting.

[Speaker 13] (2:59:18 - 2:59:32)
A lot was said tonight. And that word miscellaneous in that missing permit might have been just taken to the ends of the earth. And if you say miscellaneous to people, they fill in that gap mightily.

Just a thought.

[Speaker 1] (2:59:35 - 2:59:52)
Okay, so with that, I'm going to make a motion to community hearing September 21st. And we're going to have a roll call with that. Paula?

Yes. Ron? Yes.

Andy? Yes. Tony?

Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 20] (2:59:53 - 2:59:53)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:59:54 - 3:00:27)
Okay, so we are continuing to September 21st. I'll ask that you sign a continuance. I would invite you, if you want to present something in writing on the issue of that 10% for the dimensional special permit.

And if you feel... I think I'll hold on to it. All right.

I'll be glad to do it. Your choice. I'm not going to make anybody do anything they don't want to do.

It's your choice. So with that, I'll see everyone on September 21st.

[Speaker 2] (3:00:28 - 3:00:29)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (3:00:29 - 3:00:45)
Okay, thank you. I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. We're going to do that by roll call again.

Paula? Yes. Ron?

Yes. Andy? Yes.

Tony?

[Speaker 6] (3:00:46 - 3:00:46)
Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 1] (3:00:47 - 3:00:49)
Yes. Okay.

[Speaker 13] (3:00:50 - 3:01:04)
Ken, what I'd like to do is I'd like to write what I'm going to write and give it to you first. Okay, it's nice to see you. Good to see you.

Ken was with me with Rogan. I was with Larry Webb. That's okay.

Oh, God, no. Well, it was hard to forget.