[Speaker 1] (0:07 - 3:47) Meeting of the Swamps Flood Zoning Board of Appeals. And now being after 7 p.m., we're going to begin our agenda. So first, I should just let you know, procedurally, there are, we have a couple of issues. One, Andy, what time do you have to leave at? So we have Andy till 7.45 here, and we just have four members. Tonight. So, on the, a little while ago, when I thought I had five, until 7.45, I plan to start with the second petition on our agenda. What's that? Well, yeah, you can, I think that's fine. That's a good plan, what to do there. We're in a hurry. Well, but I plan to, but I wanted to, what I was thinking I'm gonna do is open the first item, because I just want to send it out to town council to get an opinion. We got an opinion before on that one, and I was gonna make a motion that we do the same here before we get to the substance of it all, because, once again, it's similar issues that are being raised. So, so on the, the first item I have is to approve the meeting minutes that were distributed. Everyone got a copy by email today, so I'm gonna make a motion to approve those minutes. Is there a second on that? All in favor? Okay, it's unanimous. Those are approved. So, I am going to open petition 2225. I said I'm gonna look to do it for, essentially, a limited purpose here for 53 Puritan Road. Attorney Cipolletta? Yes, sir. How are you this evening? Very well, thank you. So, I'm sure you're aware that, about the history we had with the principal structure on the lot. We sent that earlier for an opinion from town council on some of the issues that were presented, where we have limited time tonight on our agenda. It's my thought that we send it to town council again for an opinion. I would invite, if there's anything additional you wanna submit, and same thing for Attorney Schutzer, if there's anything additional you wanted to submit, I'd make sure that it got to town council to consider, and then we can start with a full board next month and an opinion from town council, which, as I did the last time, I shared it with everyone, and that's what I would look to do again here. So, I'm sure there might be people who are here on that petition, and I just want you to understand that we have a limited board time. We only have four members, and typically a petitioner, we always afford them the opportunity themselves to continue, so they can have five voting members when they need four votes. What's the date for our February meeting? [Speaker 10] (3:47 - 3:50) So, if we're following the third. [Speaker 1] (4:02 - 4:09) So, February? The 21st would be that week. Okay. [Speaker 10] (4:10 - 4:12) I'll leave the choice up to you guys. [Speaker 1] (4:18 - 4:34) I'd prefer that school vacation week date myself, actually. Yeah, we'll be hybrids. You'll be away, so you wouldn't be able to attend. I can be hybrid. You could do hybrid? What would you prefer? Would you want the? [Speaker 5] (4:35 - 4:37) Whatever the rest of it, whatever you want. [Speaker 1] (4:39 - 4:44) Well, you know, we had other people that have school-age kids, too, so. [Speaker 5] (4:45 - 4:46) Yeah, I'm guessing graduate. [Speaker 1] (4:52 - 9:59) So, the only thing, that 14th date, it's gonna be a little, I could do the 14th. Oh, actually, it's, can we do the 13th? Yeah, can we do the 13th on the Monday night? You won't be here the 13th? We could go the week after February school vacation, which would put us the 28th. That's better? So, why don't we do that February 28th for our next meeting? And that'll give a little more time for town council to have an opinion. So, with that, what I was going to do is to make a motion to send the petition and any supporting material that either party wants to submit, or for that matter, anyone else. Yes, Ken? Do you wanna, if I may? I was just gonna look for, right, usually I give an issue presented when I send. So, I would suggest that I would just look for the, yeah, no, I will do that. So, why don't I do this? I'll make a motion, I'll ask each side if you wanna communicate through Marissa, send Marissa an email, what you suggest the appropriate question would be, and I'll look to try and frame it, but I'm gonna invite you to submit your own memo. So, if you think it's something different that should be looked at, you're welcome to do that. But I'll look to submit an appropriate question about the petition in terms of, it's gonna relate to the factual history of what occurred here with the removal of the walls, the preexisting structure, the preexisting structure, if the protection is still afforded to it, accessory structure, and there's a lot of questions that I think I have about it. So, I think I'm gonna frame it broadly and ask for an opinion to help guide us through all of it. Anybody that wants to submit something going through Marissa for town council to consider as a part of our record, it'll be part of the record of the petition, it'll be included, it'll be a submittal to the board, and we're gonna give town council direction to take a look at everything that's been submitted to the board. So, with that, I'm gonna ask for the authority for me to write that email with Marissa to town council. So, I am a yes, Heather, Andy, Paula, okay. And I'm gonna make a motion to close the public hearing. I'm a yes, Andy, Paula, Heather, okay. So, it's continued until February 28th, okay? And we'll have this as our first petition on the 28th of February. Okay, so I'm gonna next call petition 2226, Pacific Dental Services. All right, do you wanna come forward? That would be great. The front row is good. Grab a seat there. Garrett, a microphone would be great. Okay, so first, Andy, you wanna go ahead? [Speaker 2] (9:59 - 10:02) I have what would appear to be a conflict. [Speaker 1] (10:11 - 10:13) You wanna have, so here's how it. [Speaker 6] (10:13 - 10:18) I'm perfectly comfortable. Andy, I'm Ben Starr, I know you're full of family. I don't have an issue. [Speaker 1] (10:19 - 10:49) Okay, I would, if things look like they were going in the wrong direction for your petition, I would take the opportunity to withdraw it without prejudice. Of course, I, without, Andy has disclosed his conflict. He's stated he can be impartial. And I think that we should go forward with your petition. It's the first one that we've had under this revised bylaw section. So, I understand you wanna operate at 429 Paradise Road. [Speaker 6] (10:50 - 11:23) Yeah, just to be clear, my name is Ben Starr. I work for a company, Atlantic Retail Properties. Pacific Dental's a client of mine. They're based out west in L.A. They tend to partner with, the dentist who operates the clinic is their partner. Amy Daniels, who's alongside, works for Kimco, who's the owner of the shopping center. So, I'm here on behalf of the tenant. Amy is in support as the owner of the shopping center. Okay. [Speaker 9] (11:23 - 11:23) Okay. [Speaker 6] (11:24 - 11:41) All right, so we understand that this is a new code from last spring. I met with the team at Town Hall maybe a month ago when I submitted. I was lucky enough to run into them there and understand some of the logic behind it. [Speaker 1] (11:43 - 11:56) Right, so you're here because it's gonna be on the ground floor, commercial space, and we need to grant a special permit for the applicant. And it's just gonna be a dental office. [Speaker 6] (11:58 - 12:38) It is, the patients, they would like to be open seven days. It depends on staffing. That's been the biggest challenge across retail and over the past, since the pandemic. But Kimco and the tenant believe that in today's world, appropriate merchandising that's in a shopping center includes restaurants, fitness, traditional retail, haircuts, nail salons, medical, seeing patients medical, not back office medical. And that's, you look around at the shopping centers on the Salem side and the Swampscott side and you see that mix. [Speaker 1] (12:39 - 12:46) And you understand that it would be meeting a community need by having dental services there seven days a week? [Speaker 6] (12:48 - 12:54) We believe that to be the case. It's among the few uses today that you can't get on the internet. [Speaker 1] (12:55 - 13:17) Okay. Is there anyone that had any questions about this petition? Anyone's online? I'd ask you to just use the raise your hand feature. Hearing none. Anyone feel like making a motion on this? [Speaker 8] (13:21 - 13:27) If you say it all, I'll do all the paperwork. What's that? If you say it all, I'll do all the paperwork. I've just got nothing in front of me. [Speaker 1] (13:27 - 14:08) I'm sure I can. So I'm gonna make a motion to approve petition 2226 at 429 Paradise Road by Pacific Dental Services for use special permit, the operation of a dentist office in a ground floor commercial space that the petitioner has met the special permit criteria and the proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental than typical or other retail use and consistent with our hours at the mall operates. Do I have a second on that motion? [Speaker 8] (14:09 - 14:11) I'll second it. [Speaker 1] (14:11 - 14:13) Great. I'll do a roll call. Paula? [Speaker 8] (14:13 - 14:14) Yes. [Speaker 1] (14:14 - 14:44) Andy? Yes. Yes. Heather? Yes. So you have the relief four to zero. Paul's gonna write the decision, file it with the town clerk. You can touch with Marissa and she'll let you know when it's been filed with the town clerk. And then you have a 20 day appeal period. And I'm not sure what the process is. If you needed to work in the space, if you're permitted to do it at risk, waiting for your permit there. [Speaker 6] (14:44 - 14:45) No, wait. [Speaker 1] (14:45 - 14:46) You're okay on it. [Speaker 6] (14:46 - 14:48) Yeah, the existing tenant has some lease term. [Speaker 1] (14:49 - 14:55) Oh, okay. All right. So you have no problem then with that. So thank you very much. [Speaker 6] (14:56 - 14:58) Thanks very much. Thank you. All right. [Speaker 1] (14:58 - 14:59) What's there now? [Speaker 6] (14:59 - 15:00) It's everybody's store. [Speaker 1] (15:01 - 15:01) Oh, okay. [Speaker 6] (15:02 - 15:04) Yes, COVID just did a job on me. [Speaker 1] (15:05 - 15:25) COVID did a job on a lot of people. Not dentists though. Okay, so then we are at our last petition of the evening, which is 2221 for 6 Burpee Terrace. Come forward, please. [Speaker 3] (15:33 - 15:33) Good. [Speaker 1] (15:33 - 15:34) How are you? [Speaker 3] (15:36 - 15:36) Hi. [Speaker 1] (15:37 - 16:41) So on this one, as you may have heard earlier, we have four members. Yes. And for your petition, you would need all four members that are present to agree with your request for relief to give you that relief. So sometimes we handle it one of two ways. One is we continue to the next meeting when there will be five members and you can present to the full board, or you could begin this evening with your presentation and see how it goes. And we would give you the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice. It's been our custom during the time that I've been on this board. So that would be your choice. I do understand that there is at least one abutter who submitted a letter in opposition. And so I guess I would leave it to you if you prefer to proceed or if you want to wait till the next meeting. [Speaker 3] (16:41 - 16:53) Well, I have no experience with this process. So I would probably defer to what the best course of action may be. I'm not totally sure. [Speaker 1] (16:53 - 17:35) Well, so one of the limitation we have is we have just 25 minutes. So I think it's likely that it's going to be continued no matter what to the next meeting. We could open the public hearing. You can hear what some of the, you can hear your presentation about what you're looking for for relief. We can open it up to the abutters if there's any one that wanted to speak in favor or against your petition. And then at least you would know what types of things you might need to address with a plan that we're likely going to continue it to the next meeting. [Speaker 3] (17:36 - 17:41) Is there a way I can find out what concerns there are at this time or ask them right now? [Speaker 1] (17:42 - 20:01) Well, did you get a copy of the letter that was submitted on? No. January 12th from Kevin and Karen Donahuer, 28 Burpee Road. So they submitted a letter in which they have expressed their concerns regarding the petition and to convert the single family structure on a non-conforming lot to a two-family structure and describing Burpee as having an abundance of two-family homes and their recently completed Michon School and the Elm Street project across the way that's going to be constructed with another 114 units and talking about the constructed, the congested section of town. That's understandable. And goes on to say that, in their opinion, that allowing this permit by the ZBA would defeat the purpose of the Town Zoning Bylaw created to ensure and regulate the proper legal use of land. Says that notifications to neighbors were never sent out by the Swanscot Building Department or the ZBA when the initial single family structure was approved in 2007 at 6 Burpee Terrace despite it being built on a non-conforming lot with adequate frontage and or space requirements for a single family. So that's one issue that they're raising that may require, if you haven't seen this letter before, it requires some investigation and due diligence to confirm that the permitting process for the single family structure that exists was done in compliance with our bylaw and the Massachusetts Statute 40A. Yeah, so you've got not only this permit, but you're getting questions about the 2007 permit. So that's Wannabutter who raised questions and concerns that I don't know they're gonna be able to address tonight without having benefit of being aware of them before tonight. [Speaker 2] (20:01 - 20:18) Have you talked to any of your neighbors about this? Because what we encourage is generally where you might go out in the past, so to speak, see if there is a meeting of the mind. [Speaker 3] (20:18 - 20:18) And that's understandable. [Speaker 2] (20:19 - 20:32) And then you come in with like your plan and it would be signed, I've read the assignment support and you could do whatever, but here there are issues and some might be intractable, so it's not the same thing. [Speaker 1] (20:32 - 20:38) Yeah, so maybe what I could do for you is to see if there, is there anyone here? Any of you here on this one? [Speaker 9] (20:38 - 20:41) No, I'm just listening to see if I can pick up some business. [Speaker 1] (20:42 - 21:05) Yeah, great. So is there anyone that is present who is in opposition to this petition? You used the raise your hand feature. I just wanna kind of do a roll call and see how many people are here that wanted to express some opposition or if they needed more information. [Speaker 2] (21:09 - 21:09) Cricket. [Speaker 1] (21:13 - 21:17) Right, so it looks like it may just be neighbor. [Speaker 3] (21:17 - 21:24) Okay, so the neighbor in question, which I know Mr. Donahue, are the Donahues. They're not direct abutters to our property. [Speaker 1] (21:25 - 22:14) Right, but I'd suggest just, you still look, make an attempt to reach out and at least first I would perhaps reach out to our building department, get a copy of what was done and filed by you, your plans for the single family that exists and if you can get a copy for any notice, I don't know that notice was required to be sent out for that structure, but if you look at your file at the building department, it'll likely give you that information and then you could share that with your abutter to hopefully answer those questions and what's that? They're probably within 300 feet even if they're not next door. I don't know that they're. [Speaker 2] (22:16 - 22:25) You don't think they're in 300 feet? Yeah, butters to abutters, but we don't know what. They seem to be commenting on the density. They might be, I'm just reading. [Speaker 1] (22:25 - 22:27) Well, they're at 28. [Speaker 3] (22:30 - 22:32) They're on Burpee Road, we're on Burpee Terrace. [Speaker 8] (22:34 - 22:35) Do they back on to you? [Speaker 3] (22:35 - 22:36) No. [Speaker 2] (22:36 - 22:38) How far away from them do you think they are? [Speaker 3] (22:40 - 22:49) We have the adjacent property which is 71 feet from our house, so probably about 90 feet or so. Oh no, they're still in the circle. [Speaker 1] (22:49 - 24:40) Yeah. So, I think Andy's idea about, you know, considering engaging a lawyer to represent you in the petition would make sense because they could guide you through the process with looking to communicate with your neighbors, answer their questions, checking out things at the building department about the earlier work that was done and there's some legal issues that you have here with this petition about a second unit on, a second dwelling unit on the lot. It is an A3 district, but, you know, the question is, you've also, you got the addition over the garage in June 2020, so understanding it didn't require zoning approval, that now looking to convert it to a dwelling unit on the lot, it's just a little bit more complicated analysis, so I think you would benefit, but you didn't have anybody else that was raising opposition besides the neighbor who wrote a letter, but I do think you have some more complex issues. I'm sorry, I can't hear you again. That's a good point. You could look to get letters from other neighbors who may be in support of your petition as well during your process, this process. [Speaker 2] (24:40 - 24:57) I mean, it's clearly a density issue. Press it beyond that, you know, if the budget's gonna press it beyond that, you wanna make sure that previous notices and building were all, you know, adequate. [Speaker 1] (24:58 - 25:04) Just wanted to take another peek, though, before I, yeah, to close. [Speaker 3] (25:05 - 25:06) They add parking when they add parking. [Speaker 1] (25:06 - 25:08) Yeah, that's what I'm wondering about for parking. [Speaker 3] (25:08 - 25:49) What do you have? We have accessible parking for three vehicles, two for the primary, one for this so-called addition. The whole idea with this was supposed to be in the spirit of the Massachusetts Smart Growth Project, where eventually as we get older, we would probably be in the accessory unit or even the primary residence, but in order to have, say, a caregiver in that other apartment, we thought two-family would be the best option to go rather than having to sell our residence, move someplace else, and start all over again. So we're just trying to focus on flexibility for the future. When you're that old, you'll be sick of the town. [Speaker 9] (25:50 - 25:57) No, but, I mean, it's cool and all. [Speaker 2] (26:02 - 26:26) Look, you just, you have some legal questions that you should get answered so that you put them behind or you know you have a problem, and then just because someone opposes you doesn't mean that, okay, that's it, you know, the gig's up, it's jigs up, it's, you know, you'll present your case, we'll evaluate. [Speaker 3] (26:26 - 26:46) I agree it's a dense neighborhood, which most of Swanscot is, and just speaking originally with Max Casper before my whole process of this began, I had him out and we discussed my plans and ideas, and seeing how we were zoned for that area, he didn't seem there were to be any roadblocks, so I was able to see him. [Speaker 2] (26:46 - 27:04) You just want to be sure that she raises, they raise some questions about noticing in building beforehand, and you don't want to get tripped up where they've got you, and I don't, I wouldn't even know how to do it, you'd have to hire, you know, I'd be hiring a lawyer to give me the legal points. [Speaker 1] (27:05 - 27:13) What was on the lot, if anything, before the single family home went up? Was there another structure? It was a vacant lot. [Speaker 5] (27:13 - 27:14) Before 2007? [Speaker 3] (27:16 - 27:16) Yes. [Speaker 5] (27:17 - 27:20) And then two years ago, you just put in the addition of a garage? [Speaker 3] (27:20 - 27:25) Yeah, because we had an existing garage, it's a 10 by 40 garage, it's an abandoned garage. [Speaker 5] (27:25 - 27:28) And that did not require a special apartment? [Speaker 3] (27:28 - 27:33) We didn't expand the footprint in any way, we just went up, we just added a second story on top of the garage, it's 400 square feet. [Speaker 2] (27:34 - 27:36) And that's the apartment that you want to build, 400 square feet? [Speaker 3] (27:36 - 27:39) Well, it is built, it's complete. Okay. [Speaker 8] (27:39 - 27:42) So would it just be an excess, like an accessory building? [Speaker 3] (27:42 - 27:43) Yeah, but you can't. [Speaker 5] (27:43 - 27:48) Because they want a designated two family, so if they wanted to rent it, they could rent it, they could do whatever they wanted. [Speaker 3] (27:48 - 27:55) You know, that's the way I was proceeding, because it makes the most flexibility for the future, but if there's... [Speaker 2] (27:55 - 27:58) But are you planning to rent it out now if you got a permit for a two family? [Speaker 3] (27:58 - 28:01) No, we have a family member in it, my daughter. [Speaker 2] (28:02 - 28:10) Okay, so your fallback position is to get an accessory use apartment? You know, apartment. [Speaker 3] (28:11 - 28:13) Yeah, we have a temporary occupancy permit for it. [Speaker 2] (28:13 - 28:16) Because you're under the thing and you have to register it every year and blah, blah, blah. [Speaker 3] (28:16 - 28:32) Yeah, right, right. I was just looking to avoid all that extra work and just do a two family, but use it as what we're, our intended purpose is to have our daughter, then eventually a son living there. It's basically just an additional bedroom. Right. Theoretically. So. [Speaker 2] (28:33 - 28:34) Is there a kitchen in it now? [Speaker 3] (28:34 - 28:35) There is. [Speaker 2] (28:35 - 28:35) Okay. [Speaker 3] (28:35 - 28:44) It just baffles me that, to go back to my original approval process for building the house to begin with in 2007. [Speaker 2] (28:44 - 28:52) Well, that's just a technicality that anybody, if someone can catch you on and trip you up, you know. [Speaker 5] (28:52 - 29:04) Sometimes, like for example, we have a vacant lot that someone wants to build on now and sometimes there's, yes you can, but the decision might have restrictions. You can build your... [Speaker 8] (29:04 - 29:05) Single family. [Speaker 5] (29:05 - 29:08) Your single family home, and there could be a restriction built into that decision. [Speaker 8] (29:08 - 29:08) Right. [Speaker 5] (29:09 - 29:23) To get the first, the initial approval. So that would be why I don't, but I mean, my guess is you just go, I mean, I know getting a lawyer would be helpful too, but you can probably just go to the, to a building inspector and pull that, you know, and read it for yourself and read that decision, and see if there's any restrictions. [Speaker 11] (29:23 - 29:24) Yeah, feel if that. [Speaker 5] (29:25 - 29:37) So if there's no restrictions and everything was done and you can build a two family as of right, and there was no restrictions put on that 2020 or the 2007 permit, you know, that we should be fine. [Speaker 10] (29:37 - 29:38) I think. [Speaker 3] (29:38 - 29:41) To my knowledge, I don't think there was, and that's just the purpose of why we're here. [Speaker 8] (29:41 - 29:57) I think what happened, because it's a non-conforming lot, and if the lot was determined to be buildable, as long as he built the structure dimensionally conforming, and it's under 35, under 3,000 square feet, so that exempts from the site, that exempts the structure from the site plan special permit. [Speaker 1] (29:58 - 29:58) Right. [Speaker 8] (29:58 - 30:02) It wouldn't, it would have been fine under just a building permit and no other relief needed. [Speaker 1] (30:02 - 30:05) Right, I've got a similar issue in another town, and. [Speaker 2] (30:05 - 30:10) So all we're looking for is to get it to be a designated two family, right? [Speaker 1] (30:10 - 30:14) Yeah, designated two family. No construction. It's an A3 district. [Speaker 5] (30:15 - 30:18) It's not, I don't, I mean, as far as hiring a lawyer, I don't know. [Speaker 3] (30:18 - 30:25) Yeah. I think that if- We have a two family directly across the street from us. Well, it's an A3 district, which permits. [Speaker 2] (30:25 - 30:28) I think if you see all those other- As of right? What's that? [Speaker 5] (30:29 - 30:29) Can you come back? [Speaker 2] (30:29 - 30:30) Is it as of right? [Speaker 5] (30:30 - 30:35) What? It's allowed by right. It is allowed by right in the district, but it's- It's a special permit. [Speaker 6] (30:35 - 30:36) So why are we here? [Speaker 4] (30:36 - 30:44) It's a building permit, because it would be something in your building permit. [Speaker 5] (30:44 - 30:49) I think because of the piecemeal build, maybe. Was that, well, we've read her. [Speaker 4] (30:49 - 31:03) I think it was because it was, to me, it was expanding a use that was, it was already a non-conforming lot to begin with, and now you're expanding that use to be a little bigger on that non-conforming lot. [Speaker 1] (31:04 - 32:18) Right, but if the original, if the determination was made that it was a buildable lot in 2006, and that it had sufficient frontage, even though it was not conforming frontage, well, under the stat, under the, I've got the same issue, and I've got it at the land court right now, and the, if you build, in that case, it wasn't a conforming structure. We had a merger issue. This is a little different, but this one, if you have, if the determination was made to give a building permit because it was a lot that preexisted before we adopted the subdivision control law, and it had suitable frontage, it's on this street, so that house, which is built, and you're looking to convert it now to another unit, which is allowed, as of right, in that A3 district, I don't know that it is so complex. [Speaker 2] (32:18 - 32:23) I don't think it is either. And couldn't they have built it originally, a two-family, if they wanted? [Speaker 1] (32:23 - 32:29) Yeah, they could have built a three-family originally, as of right, if that, if it. [Speaker 2] (32:29 - 32:30) Well, you can't build a three-family. [Speaker 1] (32:30 - 32:31) No, you can't build a three-family. [Speaker 2] (32:31 - 32:34) Oh, two-family. You can build a two-family, as of right. [Speaker 1] (32:34 - 32:37) Right, so they could have built a two-family, as of right. [Speaker 3] (32:37 - 32:47) I think the distinction between the use is not determined by the law. Right. It's determined by the district, because the law is working. [Speaker 1] (32:48 - 32:56) Yeah, yeah, so it's permitted, as of right, in the district. So, the question would be, does it have adequate, you know, regress, you know, to the actual building? [Speaker 9] (32:56 - 32:58) Those are building questions, right? [Speaker 1] (32:58 - 33:03) Yeah, exactly, that's exactly my point. So, have you taken a look at this to see if it meets the requirement? [Speaker 4] (33:03 - 33:28) I haven't. I did get an opinion from KP Law, and it was kind of like, you know, should the board give a determination, or can you make it by right, and the whole what area did come into question, which was a little confusing to KP, whether, I guess it was, it was up to me to decide whether you guys should weigh in on. [Speaker 1] (33:31 - 33:41) Well, now you have, well, they're not making any, they made a change dimensionally when they did the space over the garage. [Speaker 5] (33:41 - 33:44) And they probably should have applied for the accessory then. [Speaker 4] (33:44 - 34:13) Well, and that's, right, I mean, because that, that was also a little confusing, that building permit was issued for an accessory dwelling unit prior to a special permit for the accessory dwelling unit, and I just guess I, what is more or less detrimental, they need a special permit for an accessory dwelling unit, but not to make it a two-family. It makes, it was very, like, am I doing the right thing here? [Speaker 1] (34:13 - 34:25) Right, so you're looking for belts and suspenders to make sure. I just didn't want it to come back on that one. Because if it was just gonna be an ADU, they gotta come here. If they're looking to make it a full-blown additional unit. If they want to make it a two-family, good luck to them. [Speaker 5] (34:26 - 34:32) I mean, I think you, could we make a decision, kind of a, what is it? I'm sorry, what is it? [Speaker 2] (34:32 - 34:32) Finding. [Speaker 5] (34:32 - 34:36) Finding, yeah. Finding that brings it, sends it back to the building's owner. [Speaker 2] (34:42 - 34:45) Right. See, if we make a finding, then someone can appeal, right? [Speaker 5] (34:45 - 34:47) They don't even need our permission, so. [Speaker 2] (34:47 - 34:52) Right. So you're almost inviting, you go to the judge and inviting them to. [Speaker 1] (34:52 - 35:03) Right, but then you leave yourself, if you're gonna, if you're the, if you're the petitioner, you leave yourself open to a challenge to the building permit. That would be different. And it's a longer window. [Speaker 2] (35:03 - 35:09) But don't you, but don't you always have the ability, building permits can be challenged no matter what? [Speaker 5] (35:09 - 35:15) No, but we are, but I mean, this is, they have more information. They know they have an angry neighbor already. Like, it's different than. [Speaker 9] (35:16 - 35:18) Well, you know, every neighbor's different, we have to step in. [Speaker 2] (35:18 - 35:19) Exactly. [Speaker 3] (35:20 - 35:37) Well, we do have a neighbor who lives around the corner, in opposite street. And I can't do anything about the congestion in the neighborhood. It's congested to begin with. If anything, we're talking about one additional person who's my daughter, and an additional car that is our car. [Speaker 5] (35:39 - 35:40) I don't know, I think we could. [Speaker 1] (35:41 - 36:02) Make a finding. My thought is to make a finding that it's permitted as of right, that the structure is not being changed. Right, there's no other new egress that's going on. It's all the same as it was. It's permitted by the. [Speaker 3] (36:02 - 36:04) We just went up, the footprint does not change. [Speaker 2] (36:04 - 36:06) I know, but do you have a second means of egress? [Speaker 3] (36:06 - 36:15) Oh yes, yeah. Oh, the building inspector's been through. We have a temporary occupancy permit, which we would not get if we didn't have. So if we make a finding. Meet all the needs of that. [Speaker 1] (36:15 - 36:30) We make a finding that the use is permitted as of right. We don't need to grant a special permit. Right. And that he has to maintain the three parking spots. [Speaker 2] (36:32 - 36:38) Well, that's the interesting thing. He wouldn't have to, if it was an accessory unit, he wouldn't have to maintain the three spots, right? [Speaker 5] (36:39 - 36:44) But that's gonna be part of the building permit. Because we're saying basically that you can do it as of right. [Speaker 1] (36:45 - 36:47) Right, you can do it as of right. Everything else is. We shouldn't be conditioning it. [Speaker 9] (36:47 - 36:52) Just better off rather than making any findings we've been through. [Speaker 1] (36:53 - 36:53) Right. [Speaker 2] (36:53 - 36:55) That's what I think. Let them. [Speaker 4] (36:56 - 37:02) And then if somebody takes a number of exceptions. Then come back to the board. They can appeal with the significance of it. [Speaker 1] (37:02 - 37:16) So if we let them withdraw without prejudice, will you issue based on our conversation today that we believe it's permitted as of right? Would you issue the permit? [Speaker 4] (37:17 - 37:17) Yeah, I just. [Speaker 1] (37:17 - 37:19) And if there's an appeal of that permit, you can come back here? [Speaker 4] (37:20 - 37:37) Yeah, my only question going back, and if you just reassure me, when they built the single family, it was allowed. But if there was nothing on that lot today, and they were building the two family, they'd need a bigger lot. And I just, I wanna make sure. [Speaker 1] (37:37 - 37:42) If there was nothing on the lot and they came in to permit a two family? Because I don't follow the question. [Speaker 4] (37:42 - 38:01) So if they, when there was nothing on the lot, they could have either built a one family or a two family at the time. Yeah. And now that there's a structure on the lot, like if the structure was taken down, they probably, wouldn't they need relief to put up a two family? Because. [Speaker 1] (38:01 - 38:13) I think it would be the same. If we went back to 2006, I think it's the same analysis. If they're dimensionally conforming, they were permitted to construct if the lot was a buildable lot, if you made that finding. [Speaker 5] (38:13 - 38:20) I guess the only thing we don't have is do we know if 2007 was a special permit or was just a building permit? [Speaker 4] (38:20 - 38:24) I didn't even know it was built that, I thought it was built a lot longer ago. [Speaker 1] (38:24 - 38:33) We don't. That was just a regular permit. We don't know, but if it was, I mean, that's something that you could review before issuing just to make sure there's nothing that is a problem there. [Speaker 8] (38:33 - 38:37) If it's a regular one, then don't come back. If it's not a regular one, then we can come back. [Speaker 1] (38:37 - 38:51) Well, so here's what I would recommend we do. We let him withdraw without prejudice. If he does have to come back here, we can waive the filing fee. You'd still have to pay another filing fee to come back. I'd have to pay the advertising fee if you had to. [Speaker 2] (38:51 - 39:04) I'd go to my neighbor and I'd ask them if they'd signed something. But they don't need to come back here? I know, I'm just saying. He's just pressing, so we won't be able to do that. Right, I mean, maybe this, you know, other than that. [Speaker 5] (39:05 - 39:05) Yeah, no. [Speaker 2] (39:06 - 39:11) No? No. Because I'd be, you know, it's really, it's, it's, they got, you know. [Speaker 5] (39:11 - 39:18) I mean, that's the thing, they're not, you could offer them something. Oh, we'll put hedges, but they're not even a director of butter, so you can't even offer them, like, a fence or hedges or something. [Speaker 2] (39:19 - 39:22) You can offer them, you can put a hedge up and have three doors down. [Speaker 1] (39:22 - 40:17) So, what I'm gonna do is, I'm gonna just look to permit, on your request to withdraw without prejudice, we're just gonna make sure it's clear in our minutes that this board reviewed the petition and the bylaw and concluded that zoning relief, in our opinion, was not necessary because the two-family use is permitted as of right in the A3 district, and the structure is not being modified and exists as of right from its, it appears from its prior building permit, which we haven't reviewed, but based on your representation, that it is existing. It is. [Speaker 2] (40:18 - 40:20) Right, it's after the 60th, right? [Speaker 1] (40:20 - 41:04) It is, but sometimes the only question, the backdoor is if you needed zoning relief at the time, is the question. So, do you wanna withdraw without prejudice, based on this? That's fine. Then you should just be able to go and look for your building permit or your certificate of, well, do you have to make any other changes in the unit? No, not at all. Okay, you know, our, I just wanna go make sure. Our opinion is based upon it being, meeting the state building code for everything that needs to be there for that second unit. Yes. So, okay, so you do wanna withdraw without prejudice. I'll go with that. Okay, and so I'm gonna make a motion to accept the withdrawal without prejudice. [Speaker 9] (41:05 - 41:06) Second. Oh, sorry. [Speaker 1] (41:06 - 41:16) Indy, Paula, Heather, and I. Okay, so you have your relief. You have free legal advice. [Speaker 4] (41:16 - 41:20) You don't have relief from us, but you have your relief. But at least in the matter of practice, there's no 20 day appeal period on that. [Speaker 1] (41:21 - 41:34) Right. Right. But if there's a challenge, I might wanna back up here. We'll see. You might wanna just go talk to your neighbor and see if you can make peace. So, we have one more matter on our hands. [Speaker 2] (41:34 - 41:37) We're not here, so they can't be that mad, theoretically. [Speaker 1] (41:37 - 42:11) Before we adjourn for our board. Thank you for your time. Yeah, I appreciate that. Oh, you're welcome. Good luck with everything. And thank you very much. So, the last item is, my last meeting as chair. I've become an associate member of this board. Heather's become a full member, and she is going to a great job as the next chair of this board. So, I'm gonna move to appoint Heather as the chair. We've seconded it. All right, Paula. [Speaker 2] (42:11 - 42:12) Would you like to second it? [Speaker 1] (42:13 - 42:14) We'll both second it. [Speaker 9] (42:14 - 42:16) We will second it together. [Speaker 2] (42:17 - 42:18) I didn't hear a yes. I'll say yes. [Speaker 5] (42:19 - 42:19) All right. [Speaker 9] (42:19 - 42:20) I have a choice. [Speaker 2] (42:21 - 42:23) Yeah, conspicuously quiet now. [Speaker 5] (42:23 - 42:24) No, no. [Speaker 1] (42:24 - 42:25) I'm sorry? [Speaker 9] (42:25 - 42:29) All right. No? [Speaker 1] (42:29 - 42:30) Well, I'm still gonna be on the board. All right. [Speaker 9] (42:31 - 42:32) Yeah. [Speaker 8] (42:32 - 42:33) Now, slightly absent. Okay, okay. [Speaker 9] (42:34 - 42:41) No, but you may not be present today. Oh, we'll see. Yeah, yes, we're good. [Speaker 2] (42:41 - 42:45) Short of members always. Great, thanks. All right, that works out. I'll drop by. Yes, look at that. [Speaker 1] (42:45 - 42:49) Five minutes to go. Oh, you're right on time. Very nice. Do I just have an official adjournment? [Speaker 10] (42:49 - 42:52) Oh, my office can each adjourn officially. [Speaker 5] (42:52 - 42:54) Oh, adjourn. Adjourn. Adjourn, adjourn. [Speaker 1] (42:54 - 42:54) Yep. [Speaker 5] (42:55 - 42:55) Oh, wait. [Speaker 10] (42:55 - 43:02) Hold on, I have a hand raised. Can I take the hand before? Yes. This is from Jacob. [Speaker 7] (43:06 - 43:31) Hello? Hey, can you hear me? Yeah. Oh, hi. My name is Jacob Lemieux with Hancock Associates, representing wind development. I'm just checking in to make sure that the MILR is there with you guys to be endorsed tonight. And if you have any questions on that, I know it was added on the amended agenda. I don't know that it has to be an official agenda item, but if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. [Speaker 1] (43:31 - 43:36) So it doesn't go to planning? It goes to the ZBA and the comprehensive? Because we do everything? [Speaker 7] (43:36 - 43:45) Yep, that's her 40B law, and also that's one of the pre-construction requirements. [Speaker 1] (43:46 - 43:50) So we've got four members here tonight. Is that sufficient? You have four? [Speaker 7] (43:51 - 43:52) Does that have to be on the agenda? [Speaker 1] (43:56 - 44:22) And Andy was recused on it. Andy can't, I know it's an administrative part. So why don't we do, well, the other three members will sign this, and then Marissa, maybe you could get Dan or Brad. Yeah, to come by and sign it. So we'll get this for you, it won't be, I don't think it'll be by tomorrow, but it'll be soon. [Speaker 7] (44:22 - 44:27) Yeah, okay, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that if you had any questions, I was here to answer them. [Speaker 1] (44:28 - 44:38) Okay. Okay. Nope, so the mile hour is as we approved, right? So that's all we need to know. All right, great. [Speaker 7] (44:39 - 44:43) All right, thank you guys. You have a good night. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (44:46 - 44:50) Did anybody get on late? Not sure what happened with Jordan, did he continue? [Speaker 10] (44:51 - 44:53) I don't think so. [Speaker 5] (44:53 - 44:54) What are we signing here? [Speaker 1] (44:55 - 45:10) That's so typically, so this is the recordable plan that's gonna be recorded with the registry of deeds to make changes with a lot, and because they're combining lots. [Speaker 5] (45:11 - 45:13) So this is- It's combining these three lots. [Speaker 1] (45:13 - 45:53) So let's see how they label this, maybe call it a plan of land. The plan was approved under 40D. So it's like, if you ever see an A&R plan, it's a proven not required plan when you subdivide a lot, planning board signs off on that. I actually did one personally because I bought a piece of land for my neighbors. It's a longer, small lot, and planning board signed that for me. So on this project, it's showing the lot one, because they're combining lots, where they have the different parcels, the lot one and lot two. So it's creating these separate lots.