[Speaker 1] (0:41 - 2:02)
We have two agendas tonight. The first one is a matter that will be continued. It's for the Elm Place project.

I see Mr. Drukis is here for that, and now being after 6 p.m., which was the time it was noticed. Mr. Drukis, my understanding is we're going to continue to June 13th at 7 p.m. by Zoom. It will be the only item that we have on that agenda.

and the purpose of the continuance is because we had many comments including my own that were received very late at town council to take a look at the proposed decision and she requested some more time to review and the petitioner has agreed to the continuance to that date not extending the time for us to act which immediately follows that so everybody really needs to be on that zoom call all five of us to vote on this decision which I expect will be the final decision they've been some progress made in looks like reaching a resolution on the Eastman issues within the decision the for the parking and for the rail trail but there's just some more that needs to be vetted out so do I have

[Speaker 20] (2:02 - 3:36)
that right Chris you're okay with continuing yes right so I can tell you

[Speaker 1] (3:36 - 7:24)
that since the time of the letter I have heard back from town council I've got a call schedule with her on Thursday as well and she understands that date for our next hearing is June 13th so I think we're on the same page there I I talked to attorney Dukas earlier and suggested we agree that getting back from the petitioner a clean copy with accepted changes to things that aren't an issue for the petitioner with suggestions that were made either by board members or by Dan Hill and then showing which items they will not agree to for conditions so that we can get town council's opinion on that and then look to have a clean decision for review and vote on the 13th is is my plan so I am away for a fair amount of that period of time so I'm just thinking I've been the one that's been communicating on these issues I'm wondering I think perhaps Heather if they're unable to reach me if they could coordinate with you I think they'll send it to all the board members but I think we need somebody that is the point person so if I'm not available some different time zone seven hours off so I think that's what I'd look to do that if there was a an issue that need the liaison from the board I would say Heather would be the person for that okay so it's gonna be zoom it should be short because we should have the decision all done the easements done the waivers done and then it's just a matter of adopting the findings that are in that decision and having the formal vote on the decision and it would get approved that night assuming we don't have any conflict on any of these other issues and it's my goal to take care of any conflict before we get to that that point and then it'll just get signed thereafter and we'll have a roll call vote on that night for findings and conditions and waivers right okay so okay so I am going to make a motion to continue the petition to June 13th at 7 p.m. by zoom so I'm gonna do a roll call on that one second yes in a second I'll second okay do a roll call so Brad you're yes yes Heather and yes Paula yes so we'll see you on June 13th by zoom okay thank you very much I appreciate it okay so the next matter on our agenda would be 2204 93 Kensington Lane David Valcourt mr.

Valcourt here on let's see on the zoom

[Speaker 11] (7:24 - 9:49)
and this is Susan Coley I'm the architect for this project hi how are you good how are you good definitely yep okay hi everyone this is for David Ashley's out for my camera all right so 445 square foot half-story addition for finished attic at this house the floor below is 900 square feet so gross floor area for the finished interior on the third floor here but just under half of that with also an additional roof deck in the back that's 148 square feet the frontage on the house is 51.97 feet all the setbacks on the structure of the house are performing and the building height proposed is 21 and a half feet from grade 2 right here so the design is essentially removing the roof from the attic up and reframing that entire roof larger size for the attic floor as well utilizing you know space below the ease below the seven foot three head heights as well and utilizing these things there and then proposing a roof deck in the back here any questions or

[Speaker 1] (9:52 - 10:21)
so all of the changes when you consider them all performing changes yeah so because you have an undersized law and you're short on frontage and you have actually all your setbacks are okay right your front side and rear correct so it's frontage and lot area and we have a conforming change I would just like to

[Speaker 17] (10:21 - 10:37)
add to that I've spoken to all the neighbors as well as my butter to butters and everybody is okay with those changes as well okay well thank you I just have

[Speaker 7] (10:37 - 11:37)
a question regarding the square footage calculations I just went because I wasn't sure how you arrived at those is it I was just looking at the the floor plans yeah which are on a oh oh three no I'm sorry that's the existing a 100 I think it was I'm not sure if I added it correctly but I just added up the numbers for level 1 this is on proposed floor plans and I came up with 781 square feet just adding up the mud room the bath living room in the kitchen dining mm-hmm and I did the same thing with the level 2 and came up with 779 square feet

[Speaker 11] (11:38 - 12:35)
adding up those numbers it could have been incorrect about the so if I was grabbing the gross floor to the outside of the wall and so on the first floor I think this front area is not showing in the square footage I think some of the closet space and chase area it's possible that the stair might not be included or showing as a square footage number within side the room that was not going correct I don't have all of the interior square footage numbers listed but grabbing the exterior wall location around the first floor footprint was giving me 930 square feet on the first floor and then grabbing the exterior wall on the outside of the second floor was giving me well okay and then when I

[Speaker 7] (12:35 - 13:00)
added up the third level I came up with 491 square feet so I had the attic at 491 square feet and the second level at 779 so it was more than you know 50% of the second level so it looks like according to my calculations that the third level does not qualify as a half story full story correct according to

[Speaker 11] (13:00 - 13:53)
those calculations and I apologize that I didn't clean up these numbers on here so the dotted line it could be I use Revit as a software the dotted line here represents the line where the seven foot three kind of roof your ceiling change or the roof kind of cuts into the ceiling in the room the I think in Revit it's grabbing it to like five feet so the interior square footages that used to be listed here it's kind of a software graphic thing but they're they're calculating the area as if you're you know it's like a five foot datum for the square footage as opposed to where you are at seven foot three and you know that's something I think you know I realize that's not so those so we can't

[Speaker 7] (13:53 - 13:55)
rely so we can't rely on those numbers

[Speaker 1] (14:23 - 14:33)
we can make a finding in a condition that didn't meet that we thought we're not giving relief to vary that requirement that it be 50% no more than

[Speaker 7] (14:33 - 14:40)
50% of the floor below I suppose but how's that gonna how and who's gonna

[Speaker 1] (14:40 - 15:14)
make that building inspector would have to if the release said that we grant relief conditioned upon the actual square footage that is under the seven or above seven foot three being no more than 50% of the course floor area of the floor below and no relief is granted for that so they have to be certain in order to get their building permit that that they are no larger than that yes

[Speaker 7] (15:14 - 15:18)
yes conditions probably include that the building inspector make that

[Speaker 1] (15:18 - 16:19)
determination yeah so what we were saying Susan is we could have a condition if ultimately the board were to vote for the relief that's requested and I think it's I think the relief that you need actually is just a finding under the ballot a case and it's a 48 section 6 because you're not increasing any of the non-conformities but that the top floor meet the half story definition and be no more than 50% of the floor below or the area that is defined or as gross floor area on a half story so that you would need to have updated plans that go to the building inspector that show the actual gross floor area of the second floor and the third floor and it needs to be less than 50%

[Speaker 11] (16:20 - 16:36)
I think that makes perfect sense and I'm thinking moving forward rapidly to show this you know better so it's clear well things I was hoping that that dotted line would be helpful but it completely makes sense that these areas are showing something different at a

[Speaker 1] (16:37 - 16:55)
right right because not all of it counts yeah but it could be confusing to to us so is anyone on the board have any questions about the petition hearing none is there anyone first present that wanted to be heard about this petition

[Speaker 9] (16:56 - 17:20)
yes every name and address please the plans gonna stay the same but the

[Speaker 1] (17:20 - 18:38)
measurements that are on the plans what they did on this plan is they they included 100% of the area on the half story at the top but it doesn't all count as gross floor area for our definition of a half story it's only areas that have a height exceeding seven foot three so none of the other areas for that 50% calculation so we would put a condition that it has to be if it were if the board were to vote in favor of the relief that there needs to be a submission to the building inspector that shows that it's in fact meets that requirement we're not giving any we wouldn't give any relief to exceed that so it would have to be less than 50% of the gross floor area of the floor below it would be they're going to get a building permit our decision is going to say they have to show that you have any other questions about the project well this is your opportunity to tell us why

[Speaker 10] (18:41 - 18:52)
they're very good at this, I just hate to, I just feel cloaked in

[Speaker 1] (18:55 - 21:01)
the footprint of the structure itself isn't changing it's all interior and then that roof deck and the bump outs out front is there anyone else that wanted to be heard about this petition that's either present here or on zoom if you're in zoom please use the raise your hand feature or is there anybody nobody on zoom nope okay any discussion amongst the board before I close the public hearing and constitute the board okay so on this one I was going to constitute the board as everyone except for Paula and I'm gonna make a motion to close the public hearing a second on that second all in favor anyone want to make a motion so first before I guess before we get to a motion my opinion is this is another one of those ballata cases which is conforming changes to the non-conforming structure and I believe all we need to do is to make a finding of no substantial detriment to the neighborhood I think that's the only relief that's needed on this one if that was a finding the board could make so it's a 48 section 6 finding of no substantial detriment to the neighborhood so it doesn't need the additional findings on the 2270 I don't know that's what the part of that a lot of case I actually have a copy with me and like I just said he didn't also need

[Speaker 7] (21:01 - 21:08)
the variance in addition to a special permit no I think it's just how you need

[Speaker 1] (21:08 - 22:05)
a finding so ordinarily an extension structural change to a pre-existing non-conforming structure or use must comply with the applicable municipal bylaw under the second except clause of statute governing modification of non-conforming structures creating explicit protections for one and two family residential structures and allowing increases in the non-conforming nature of such structures upon finding of no substantial detriment to neighborhood permit granting authority must make an initial determination whether the proposed alteration or addition to a non-conforming structure would increase the non-conforming nature of said structure so it's not increasing the non-conforming nature because all the changes are conforming

[Speaker 5] (22:11 - 22:18)
I think we had this come up not too long ago yeah we had didn't we have a memo from

[Speaker 1] (22:18 - 23:47)
we did a town council on a lot and I've got the case right here I had it from that permitting authority determines that proposed alteration or addition would intensify the existing non-conformity as a result in additional ones authority must consider additional question of whether proposed modification would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood so it's very subtle the I really don't understand a hundred percent with the differences for the the finding of substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood first no substantial detriment to the neighborhood I guess it's the more language so I think it's just a it's a very very low threshold of no substantial detriment it's just to find it and in fact the balladic case was adding a dormer which would increase the pre-existing non-conforming floor area ratio so in that case they were already non-compliant for the for the floor area and they were they need a

[Speaker 5] (23:47 - 24:00)
relief for the for the ratios I mean we could we could make both findings you

[Speaker 1] (24:00 - 24:42)
can that's built in suspenders so anyone interested in making a motion on this one I'll give my copy of Pilata I thought you were the second except you got is that Borkman you have a lot of the other cases Borkman which one Borkman the other one you read all these cases I remember but it wasn't till we got that town council memo so you think it's just the finding of no substantial

[Speaker 7] (24:42 - 24:45)
detriment and we don't have to make the special climate findings even though the

[Speaker 1] (24:45 - 25:01)
bylaw we can make them both for belts and suspenders but I think it's just a finding and that's what we've been doing on these the past several months after we got that memo was just making a finding for conforming changes to a

[Speaker 7] (25:01 - 25:55)
non-conforming structure a lot all right so I'll make a motion to approve the petition 424 of David and Ashley Valcourt petition 22-04 to add a half story addition to a two-story structure at 93 Kensington Lane the specific condition that the building inspector determine that the proposed attic addition a third story addition conforming requirements of the by of the to the bylaws definition of a half-story

[Speaker 1] (26:03 - 27:24)
and we just there's a finding of no substantial detriment to neighborhood yeah in accordance with 48 640 a lot of a lot of decision okay is there a second on that motion a lot a lot of action I'll second a lot there isn't another I'm gonna do a roll call so Dan here yes yes Brad yes Heather yeah Andy yes and I'm a yes okay so you have your relief mr. Dorrio write the decision you'll file with the town clerk you'll find out when it's been filed and then you'll have to pick up a certified copy and record it and then you can provide your plans the building inspector showing the 50% issue is met and then you'll be able to get a building permit assuming there's no appeal okay all right look at the project thank you okay so the next matter that we have is 2205 for a bit in liquors you here on that one kid okay good evening I see she's here

[Speaker 2] (27:46 - 30:49)
thank you very much we had previously appeared before the planning board on the 9th of May and planning board opines with regard to the issue of the signage and the awning the time that we the submission was made it was done by way of two separate options option one which we are not going forward with today but option one for the purpose of giving the board some explanation and giving some an opportunity to understand the significance of the letter dated May the 10th from mr. Toledo was that the awning was going to be made of a somewhat metallic material it was the determination of the planning board that they felt that that was outside of the scope of an awning the reason for that and but we're not going forward was it would just give it more support it would strengthen the awning because this has been probably the third or fourth maybe more iteration of these awnings because they just take a beating and they have to be periodically replaced currently the awning that is there is a Sunbrella material it is black in color it has been damaged I have pictures if you wanted to see what the damage doing looks like and the request would be to replace that awning with a awning similarly made of a Sunbrella material fabric it would be a cocoa dark brown in color it would not be metallic but it would also provide for some signage on the bottom valence and there are pictures of what that looks like that were submitted I think you can see them oh you have on your screen I'm looking at the screen I would also indicate that prior to the scene the awning that's currently there there was a former awning that did have signage on the exterior of the valence so we're going back to that version technically I guess we would not need the approval of the board if it was like-for-like awnings but insofar as there's going to be something on the valence which provides some information with regard to what's being sold and in as much as that is consistent with the prior iteration prior to this black one it was the feeling of the planning board as well as under their criteria that the exterior signage met the requirements under a b3 district for those reasons we'd ask the board to approve the signage as provided to the board so what what's the

[Speaker 5] (30:49 - 30:53)
material now it's it's going to be some bro it's not going to be no metal I'm

[Speaker 1] (30:53 - 31:11)
sorry no metal no no there's there's metal underneath it supports it but awning itself is not this now it is is the one you're showing us on the screen is that the one that the planning board said is actually there's one if it says without my glasses and without being up close there was option one in option two

[Speaker 2] (31:11 - 32:12)
so you're going with and the only difference between those two options and it's very hard to determine is that option one had a metallic top of the same color it would match option two which is the one that we're asking the board to to vote on is entirely made of the the Sunbrella material which is the canvas material so with the lettering that's on the awning on the valence on what hang is hang down does that need any zoning relief or for that well according to the planning board and when this the application was submitted there was an initial determination by the then building inspector I believe I'm not sure under whose guidance they suggested that we appear before you and that's why we're here tonight and similarly the planning board ultimately felt that that's that was the Avenue that we had to follow so if we're if the board thinks

[Speaker 5] (32:13 - 32:29)
it's six inches for the valence or for the lettering and ten for the valence okay so awning lettering and signage shall be on a valence only in a maximum of six inches in height the valence on an awning shall not exceed ten inches in

[Speaker 2] (32:29 - 32:46)
height okay and the the planning would actually went through that in in their response it said is it the opinion of the planning board that the proposed lettering combined with the existing illuminated sign on the building would be within the allowable maximum area of exterior signage of this building in the

[Speaker 5] (32:46 - 32:59)
b3 district so they've made a finding that it does where is the illuminated sorry I missed that I think above that it's not even it's not even part of the

[Speaker 2] (32:59 - 33:09)
dialogue tonight but there is above that an existing sign it has nothing to

[Speaker 5] (33:09 - 33:21)
do with the awning yeah but this so if I'm looking at this okay let me see if I

[Speaker 2] (33:21 - 34:48)
can maybe I can help it's I believe and miss and sir can probably better this is this is the damage sign and this is the bar where it says the word liquors that's already there that's not that's not being touched that have been previously permitted the earlier version you'll see had some design on it that's the one with the red that's the one that got replaced with the black version got it and now we're we're putting some lettering on the valence so the lettering is not on the awning no it's it's only on the downhanging

[Speaker 1] (34:48 - 35:06)
valence okay and with the existing sign is this on the building there's nothing that triggers needing any other relief not according to the planning board and I don't say I didn't and I wasn't aware of it and I know when the applicant went

[Speaker 2] (35:06 - 35:15)
in to speak with the building inspector the determination was that the only relief that was needed was because of the sign of the lettering on the valence

[Speaker 5] (35:15 - 35:41)
yeah it's only where the lettering is on the awning does it start to count for the maximum area square footage so the actual it will look like it'll have the yellow liquors on the on the brick actually it's what's currently on the

[Speaker 2] (35:41 - 36:04)
brick remains on the on the awning it will be blacks umbrella which are dark brown and on the valence is the lettering that you see depicted on option two on the screen and that that's that's the criteria that we were required to meet in order to get the relief that we see okay

[Speaker 1] (36:13 - 36:19)
lettering or graphics on an awning that's you're saying because it's the

[Speaker 5] (36:19 - 36:28)
valence no it's not even on the awning it's on the valence well there's lettering on the valence and then there is the big liquor sign which is not on

[Speaker 1] (36:28 - 36:51)
the awning or the valence correct so it's six point two point two point six is it any lettering or graphics on an awning it's not it's on the valence should be counted for so it doesn't say valence there the valence on an awning you want to see ten inch in height on any lettering and sign sign it shall be on a

[Speaker 5] (36:51 - 37:56)
valence to keep people dry when they walk outside there's the current signage meet the bylaw requirements the currents the building was built in 1974 I can't speak to whether there was even a bylaw provision right but it would be protected I understand it's protected no no but when installing sorry it says in the event that you are replacing an awning then all of the signage has to be updated to comply with the bylaw I only could read that to mean on the awning itself no it says when installing awnings both signs and awnings shall be updated to comply with current signage bylaw I don't know if that is he's

[Speaker 1] (37:56 - 38:07)
replacing right destroyed I think he's got the protection for an awning and the signage for what's there if you so let's say he didn't have any awning on

[Speaker 5] (38:07 - 38:49)
this but it says mark with regard to all existing awnings a replacement of an awning or any change or alteration of lettering or graphics on an awning shall be considered a new awning and subject to the restriction set forth so I just I can't did you happen to look at that to see whether or not the existing Lickers sign complies with the current bylaw requirement I only I only dealt specifically with the issue of the awning not with any other signage on the exterior of the building I suppose we could make that a condition so but the there had obviously earlier been signage

[Speaker 1] (38:51 - 38:57)
oh of course right right but the question is if he's expanding the signage

[Speaker 2] (38:57 - 39:27)
that he has earlier there had been signage the latest version when it got to it when it came down they didn't now they're putting some signage back up on the valence no and which is no larger than no requiring more square footage than the earlier red version that you have which gave you some sort of background historically of the so the history here at this if I may the red

[Speaker 19] (39:27 - 39:56)
awning was there when we went to go replace it we that black fabric was a temporary fabric was not supposed to be there for five years and now that it's been damaged so many times we are now looking to just have the same footage of funny and the only difference is adding the print to the valence which in theory if I had the logos and back to the right on again that was something

[Speaker 1] (39:56 - 40:50)
that was approved you know yeah you could argue that the logos on the prior red awning were in terms of size were the same as the lettering that's proposed here a greater at the square foot the square footage of the lettering is substantially the same and therefore it's just a replacement in terms of the amount of signage so we wouldn't be permitting any we wouldn't be authorizing an increase in the dimensional signage making the finding that it appears to me I like it a lot better I'd rather have this signage go up then what was there with the red I think it looks much cleaner and nicer

[Speaker 5] (40:51 - 40:57)
yeah I mean I had no issue with how it looks you know yes trying to follow what

[Speaker 1] (40:57 - 41:23)
our bylaw says yeah so but I think it's a comparison of I think you can include the logo assignments you know the grape leaves but that's not there right there was there was there there was there then they were temporarily replaced it with the black so they could argue they still kept the sign it's not abandoned yeah

[Speaker 5] (41:23 - 41:46)
that's what I was looking we don't have I was just trying to find the size of a sign I don't think we have that anyone else the board have any questions

[Speaker 1] (41:49 - 42:10)
comments while you're looking at that Brad I'm just gonna see if anybody else said is there anyone that wanted to ask any questions or have any comments about this petition anyone who's here please raise your hand anyone that's on zoom please use the raise your hand feature

[Speaker 5] (42:13 - 42:56)
hearing none okay this is in b3 so there's lots about b1 and b2 here we go okay no sign for any commercial display area greater than 60 square feet in size provided however permitted commercial uses having an area of more

[Speaker 1] (42:56 - 43:03)
than 10,000 gross square feet how many gross square feet is the building I will

[Speaker 17] (43:03 - 43:16)
ask this it's our do we know how many square feet the building is it's about

[Speaker 5] (43:17 - 43:26)
do you know the size of the existing sign the exact dimensions of the sign

[Speaker 2] (43:26 - 43:30)
are you referring now to the one that says liquors yeah I do not have the

[Speaker 5] (43:30 - 43:43)
dimensions of that well it doesn't exceed four feet in height I'm looking at I can't imagine it's over three point two point four point two

[Speaker 2] (44:05 - 44:05)
yeah

[Speaker 1] (44:18 - 44:34)
sister feet for that against the building right so as long as that 60 square feet or less probably pretty close because it's probably four feet tall five feet tall those letters are not I don't think that they're not that

[Speaker 5] (44:34 - 45:22)
big no it's got to be understand there's certainly two feet yeah I would see two by if they're 30 feet wide right I don't think for that one thing right so that's how they would yeah so I think they're probably within that 60 feet that's three point two point four point two I just want to read that one more time

[Speaker 8] (45:33 - 45:59)
okay so this is 34 feet six inches no it's less than 30 feet 28 inches 28 feet long it's 28 feet long this right here right okay 20 so it's it but it's also like 27 and the height of this two inches

[Speaker 1] (46:04 - 46:18)
right I was looking at the section of the wrong district you got me to the right the d3 it's a little more very point two point four point two you know three point two point two point six three point two point four no it is

[Speaker 5] (46:18 - 46:31)
sorry three point two point four point two is b3 you know this is b3 right yes it is yeah this is the is this picture this is a photograph right you know I

[Speaker 2] (46:31 - 46:42)
can't see it from this it's our if you could if you could can you see what you're pointing at and she could probably so if we look at the last page

[Speaker 5] (46:42 - 47:00)
of the petition it's the the purple on it yes yes so we're the white on the bottom right yeah right there that one is that a photograph okay

[Speaker 13] (47:06 - 47:12)
Brad do you want me to bring up a Google map Street view would that produce a

[Speaker 2] (47:12 - 47:17)
clear image of the sign I think that sign is probably pretty accurate it's a

[Speaker 5] (47:17 - 47:32)
red sign I mean the lettering the red sign would would I mean if those letters are as tall as the awning and they look to be about the same yeah they look about the same the awning is 42 inches so if you took 42 inches by 28

[Speaker 10] (47:32 - 47:48)
feet the question is whether or not that area is less than 60 square feet so it

[Speaker 5] (47:52 - 48:08)
would seem like the existing sign if now you know maybe this isn't a replacement of the awning maybe this is a repair of the awning you know is there a distinction there that we'd be comfortable making you know mr.

cross

[Speaker 2] (48:08 - 48:25)
you're much more creative than I am and I think that's probably an excellent suggestion you know we are repairing it you know we're repair but you know the existing frame you bring up an excellent point the existing frame doesn't change it's just a material that's going over the frame which is which is the metal

[Speaker 5] (48:25 - 48:40)
place so we're just replacing the material I think the frame changes so the awning how important are the letters on the on the balance well it's it's well

[Speaker 2] (48:40 - 48:59)
we realized that it was preferable when we had them and then temporarily we didn't because we couldn't we need to put something up there that lasted longer than the in the short period of time turned out it was closer to five years but so we would like to put the lettering on the awning if at all

[Speaker 1] (48:59 - 49:15)
possible I mean that was the whole purpose there's two ways of doing it wants to give them the relief for what they're looking for the other is to condition it that it's better to meet the definition of the minute relief about the total signage that's well I don't know we even

[Speaker 5] (49:15 - 49:26)
have discretion on granting it doesn't suggest here that we would have the discretion to grant relief that doesn't comport with the requirement right but

[Speaker 1] (49:26 - 49:51)
if we wouldn't it wouldn't it wouldn't be approving the specific lettering on the plan we would say we'll approve so much lettering again leading into the building inspector to enforce that it's less than 60 square feet the building inspector originally reviewed this felt it supported I said the planning board I

[Speaker 2] (49:51 - 50:05)
don't know and I'm not suggesting they were right or wrong but it led us to the path to believe that the only relief we were seeking was a replacement or a repair of an existing awning that was damaged and we were adding lettering and

[Speaker 1] (50:05 - 50:19)
the lettering comported with yeah why don't you do the right thing sending in here but I think the question is whether or not the board feels that we have the jurisdiction to give more than 60 square feet I mean it specifically says

[Speaker 5] (50:19 - 50:41)
when installing awnings both signs and awnings shall be updated to comply with current signage bylaw requirements and if the current bylaw signage requirements restrict the size of that sign to 60 square feet and what this is is 90 then it doesn't comply with the current no I understand the premise and it's not it's

[Speaker 2] (50:41 - 50:57)
just it's it's it would be a situation that would theoretically require if you replacing an awning and you're you happen to have pre-existing grandfathered signage you'd have to tear the signage down to now narrow it down to 60 but

[Speaker 5] (50:57 - 51:16)
you're not just replacing an awning well you are putting the new sign around the awning and this is yeah right and so I I do think that that if it was just replacing the awning I mean in a repair that I think I could understand I could see how you would be able to make a grandfathering argument I don't what

[Speaker 1] (51:16 - 52:09)
about the grapes yeah logo I think I think that they're entitled to count that is what they have for protective use but that's not what they current they don't but they're so the question is whether they abandoned that did they go two years and abandon what was the previously the pre-existing protected use either by permit or it predated zoning and if we said we'll give you exactly as much square footage is on liquors then in and the three great logos however many square feet that is that's what you can have on the new that's what I would want to do you know the other interesting thing I don't think they've abandoned it I think that they've there's definitely the option

[Speaker 10] (52:09 - 52:54)
when you're when you have a corner when you have the end to have 60 square feet on each side and they have nothing on the other side I think the at the beginning of pay of 3.2 point 4.2 yeah it says we're not inside of the premises containing permitted use our compromise of exterior walls of the building may have one sign on each of the front and sides of the building no sign you know no single sign basically I'm say single but singular sign can exceed the 60 square feet but they can have a sign on each side so not to get it's a good

[Speaker 5] (52:54 - 53:18)
point do you think that what's the policy then I know it's not our purview to ask why but just to help is it that we don't want so much signage displayed in one I shot and that therefore if we have signage here on this side with the they could do a sign on the awning on the other side we you know based on

[Speaker 1] (53:18 - 53:48)
Heather's point if we gave the relief that I was suggesting that okay well whatever they have on this side they could as of right put signage on the other side side facing or it's land it's all food so I believe she has 8300

[Speaker 8] (53:48 - 54:09)
square feet plus she also has a mezzanine so I would say that that buildings over 10,000 square feet when she's 8300 square feet where it's an eight it's a retail space more area yeah you know plus the mesh got a mezzanine yeah more as well so that mezzanine's more square over 10,000 gives our 120

[Speaker 12] (54:09 - 54:16)
square foot sign right good point on each side on each side I think I have to

[Speaker 5] (54:16 - 54:28)
put you all in the payroll here great yeah right I remember from when they

[Speaker 1] (54:28 - 54:36)
were looking to do an addition before that's correct okay and then this sign

[Speaker 10] (54:36 - 54:49)
if it's what do we say yes it's well under 120 and this isn't gonna add it the second side is a whole new start of 120 right right they are over 10,000

[Speaker 1] (54:49 - 55:03)
make the finding that you could as long as it complies yeah condition whether being no second sign on the right side of the building what do you think of

[Speaker 5] (55:03 - 55:05)
that if we give you the relief mr.

[Speaker 2] (55:05 - 55:35)
Tara what they're what they're discussing and I'm not sure you're capable of hearing you know all of the discussion is that they wouldn't have a condition that we might use the other side for additional signage that we just did with the proposal and candidly that's what's before you now nothing else and I would imagine if we required anything else we would have to come back before you well we're gonna make that and obviously at that point you would you would look at it anew and we could then determine

[Speaker 19] (55:35 - 55:50)
whether no I'm looking to make things look better and and no one just putting a sign on the other side okay all right I wouldn't have a problem with that I

[Speaker 1] (55:50 - 55:54)
mean I don't want to make her come back here if she yes mrs.

[Speaker 5] (55:55 - 55:56)
Turner one more

[Speaker 19] (55:56 - 56:17)
thing if I may the structure of this bonding is not going to change they're simply gonna repair the corner and it already supports the balance so it's nothing like they're gonna take this whole awning off and put a new structure on it it's actually gonna remain the same because the structure underneath already supports the balance but now I'm just asking for the prints

[Speaker 1] (56:17 - 56:31)
on the box thank you all right so I'm gonna make a motion to close the public hearing drive a second on that hey all in favor so anyone interested in making a

[Speaker 5] (56:31 - 56:51)
motion I think I'll make a motion you so this is petition 2205 I'll move to approve it for a special permit for the sign as indicated in the submission on

[Speaker 1] (56:51 - 57:02)
option two yes yes and is this part of our option to part of the Russian who's part of the well you know make sure it's part of our decision detached yeah

[Speaker 5] (57:02 - 57:29)
the decision okay and make a finding I guess that it complies with the existing exterior sign bylaws in the b3 district and where do we come out on restricting there to the extent that the petitioner seeks to have an additional sign on the yeah yeah anywhere on the building they would be required to come back and seek

[Speaker 2] (57:29 - 57:37)
relief okay I think that's implicit but sure I have no problem okay all right so mr.

[Speaker 1] (57:38 - 57:56)
crowd could I ask you what section that you ultimately decided that this it's three point two point four point two three point two point four point two okay can you offering to write a draft decision if I can remember all the insight that you've given me I'll do my best with 120 square feet was that in

[Speaker 5] (57:56 - 57:58)
that that's because it's what we're making a finding that the building is

[Speaker 1] (57:58 - 58:55)
over 10,000 square feet right oh that's that section yeah okay okay so I'm gonna second that motion Brad you're yes yes Heather yes and yes Paula nobby yes you have your relief good luck which one of the members did not and you okay the petition is in a butter thank you thank you very much welcome thank you okay so the next matter I have is 2206 80 middle six out anyone here on

[Speaker 20] (58:55 - 59:00)
that petition yes I am hey how are you good

[Speaker 15] (59:00 - 59:33)
so we have replaced the front masonry stoop with a wooden deck and we are looking over that structure so what I was trying to figure out on this is to

[Speaker 1] (59:33 - 59:42)
understand what was pre-existing there on the street where it says stoop on the

[Speaker 15] (59:42 - 1:00:05)
plan it was 9 feet 6 inches is that all pre-existing right so you come out the

[Speaker 1] (1:00:05 - 1:00:46)
front door there's a porch there and then there's a landing it steps down to your right right yes yeah towards the driveway yes and that that is pre-existed for quite some time that same area yes so what I'm trying to understand though is where the you say you're looking to cover it what it's how much of it are looking to cover to go right to the 9 foot 6 yes and there a sketch that shows what that cover is going to look like and what the structure looks like no I

[Speaker 15] (1:00:46 - 1:00:56)
don't have one available at the moment okay and night six right we're gonna

[Speaker 8] (1:00:56 - 1:01:04)
follow the steps there it's a structure structure right we've had this this

[Speaker 1] (1:01:04 - 1:03:45)
issue before with covering our bylaw has a section about covered decks and so right now it's the the way it's looked at for setbacks dimensionally try to remember what section might be in here 2.3 point six right we can only give you relief dimensionally for when it has the cover it's a 16 feet from the front property line to give you a dimensional special permit varying the minimum by 20% so we're 20 feet is the minimum we would only be able to give you relief which we regularly do for petitioners here we give the maximum dimensional relief in just about all cases but all we have jurisdiction to permit to be covered is up to 16 feet from the front yard set back so what I'd suggest we haven't given this type of relief it may sound minor a minor relief because it's already has a structure built there but it requires a dimensional special permit which you've asked for in the maximum we can give a dimensional special permit for is 20% of the applicable setback so what you could do and I can see where it shows 16 7 to the front corner of the house so it would basically be covering just that small portion that's 16 feet from the house we would need to see a plan that shows the front of the house and the proposed overhang okay so do you want to come back to our next meeting and take a look at it and see if that might work for you but you want a design to

[Speaker 7] (1:03:45 - 1:03:52)
see what it's going to cover yeah we need to see what it's going to look like okay

[Speaker 15] (1:03:56 - 1:04:23)
every neighborhood every person on the street has a cover already over there student yeah and I spoke we spoke with the building department pretty much in length and they were okay with all of us I mean I even have the post already in place like they told me this was a from the stand well I'm sorry I've been I've

[Speaker 1] (1:04:23 - 1:05:20)
been here a long time Dan's been here all of us been here a long time most of us at least and we just don't have the jurisdiction to give the relief what's it's covered for the dimensional special permit it's a 16 feet that's as far as we have the ability to give so I don't know what your neighbors dimensions are I don't know if they pre-existed zoning or or the current bylaw that has that restriction but the relief that you're asking us for here would be a variance and variance is extraordinary relief we'd have to show that because of the shape of topography soil conditions of your property that you were entitled to argue that it requires you no other choice that you could make you don't

[Speaker 8] (1:05:20 - 1:05:35)
have variance criteria right so how long has that been though still all

[Speaker 1] (1:05:35 - 1:06:22)
these neighbors I'm sure they may have done it then you know right it may have been on the prior iteration of the bylaw you know that's a question you know we we're not we interpret the bylaw and we enforce the bylaw give relief but we don't make the bylaw so an earlier iteration of the bylaw permitted more relief on the dimensional special permit and what happened was it changed so that it's this 20% that people would get it was looking for some consistency as my understanding that people would get the 20% of the applicable setback relief but we don't have jurisdiction outside of the variance to award to award the

[Speaker 7] (1:06:22 - 1:06:46)
relief your house is you your house is unique you're really just looking at Google Maps and you're right all the houses like every house has a front porch that's covered except yours except yours so there's really no no we don't know how long those front porches may have existed could have predated the zoning chain changes that you are that you have to deal with now

[Speaker 15] (1:06:49 - 1:07:04)
so we're limited we're limited plans you want plans for the roof and what it's going to look like is there anything else that you would just need to show the

[Speaker 7] (1:07:05 - 1:07:22)
and the dimensions the dimensions from the front lot line to that portion of the covered porch so we can it can't be any any any further into the front set

[Speaker 13] (1:07:22 - 1:07:29)
back then what 16 feet 16 feet no no we can give a dimensional special permit

[Speaker 1] (1:07:29 - 1:07:33)
for 16 feet so we can cover some portion of it is not much of the student's not

[Speaker 8] (1:07:33 - 1:07:50)
like eight eight inches from the left and it jogs back just you go eight inches from the left side of the building go straight across half 40% of your deck's going to be covered 40% isn't but you're still going to get like a little when you stand at the front door you're going to get you'll be covered

[Speaker 1] (1:07:51 - 1:08:02)
rainwise right it would cover just the front door a bit but it's not going to cover that whole stoop so you're trying to say there's no permit that would let

[Speaker 15] (1:08:04 - 1:08:19)
yeah there isn't that's unbelievable you know why I'm talking about this I'm telling you months in months and months and to hear that now is honestly it's

[Speaker 1] (1:08:19 - 1:08:58)
insanity that that's not gonna have a sympathetic I'm sorry but we don't have the authority to do it we grant dimensional special permits all the time we only have authority to the 20% so you know the remedy you might have is to talk to planning department and the planning board to see if they were interested in changing the bylaw it would be a long process and it would but it's that's the only way that it's going to happen is a change to the bylaw the

[Speaker 5] (1:08:58 - 1:09:18)
bylaw does say specifically that it encourages covered porches in the design and architecture section so it's something that is recognized as you know looked upon favorably but with the dimension of your particular house you know it doesn't afford you that that right

[Speaker 13] (1:09:23 - 1:09:32)
okay so first we have a date for our next meeting June 21st unless we also

[Speaker 1] (1:09:32 - 1:11:18)
have the 13th I wasn't gonna put anything else on for the 13th but do we have anything else yet for the June 21st we do have a few filings yeah so I'm gonna put the matter over to June 21st sir with your agreement to continue okay okay and if you have questions about the plans that we're looking for I would say keep in touch with Marissa at the building department at the planning department okay thank you okay thank you he's recused from the next two so the next matter is 2128 Cheryl Miller 17 cross for now mr. jerk is your hair on that one yes okay welcome back as you

[Speaker 3] (1:11:18 - 1:19:38)
know I provided to the board some updated plans that were filed in the last couple of weeks with an updated site plan as well as updated architectural plans and I believe the architect is on zoom his name is Stephen Miller no relation and my client is seeking both a dimensional special permit or non-conforming lot and a special permit for adding to a non-conforming structure we are proposing to make the in addition to the rear of her home and building a smaller rear deck further into her gray yard we seeking relief from the side yard setback of seven and a half feet on the left side of her property as you face the property from Crossman Avenue this addition will expand the relatively small house consisting of gross floor area of seventeen hundred thirty square feet twenty one hundred and sixty-eight square feet increase of growth will gross easy for me to say floor area by four hundred and thirty eight square feet there's a first floor addition only and it is in the area where there's an existing deck which is basically taking that the that deck area over and adding it to her kitchen and creating a mud room the new debt there would be a new deck added behind the addition into the same direction into the rear yard with a ray I'd set back up 20 feet this will reduce our existing rear yard setback from a hundred and three feet eight inches to 93 feet eight inches as it moves into the rear yard and as it is within the side yard setback this lot is a lot that was created in 1912 along the lines of all of the homes there's a subdivision a 25 lot subdivision it was filed in 1912 homes all had roughly 60 feet of frontage and on the right side of Crossman as you go down they were hundred and fifty feet deep so they're approximately 90,000 9,000 square feet we are seeking special permit relief under bylaw provision 2.3 point 6.0 for the dimensional special permit and under 2.2 point 7.0 for adding to the non-conforming structure the primary issue involves the side yard setback of 7.5 feet is presently on that via that left side of the house the setback is only 4 feet 8 inches the petitioner proposes to extend within that same side yard setback maintaining the 4 feet 8 inches for distance of an additional 10 feet this will be encroaching on the side yard setback approximately 27 square feet we've reduced the size of the deck in the rear of the property which was 10 feet 7 inches by 30 feet to this deck that's 8 feet by 12 feet the addition is basically being proposed in the same area as the existing deck and creates almost the same area as a deck there's approximately 35 by 11 as shown on the site plan as well as the architects rendering this just proposed by my client is being necessary it will allow her to maintain her residence in Swampscott at the location as she needs a more modern up-to-date kitchen and mudroom area as the existing kitchen is totally inadequate in this day and age according to we ask that relief be granted pursuant to sections 2.3 point six point zero subsections one through five and two point two point seven point eight special permit keeping with the provisions of five point three point two point zero subsections one through six the need for a dimensional special permit arises out of the fact that the lot was graded as I said and the house being built back in 1922 the present requirement for frontage is a hundred hundred feet and the law was created with 60 to 60 square feet as as I advised with a depth of a hundred and fifty feet wouldn't we believe that we meet the dimensional special permit requirements for the relief being requested as contained in section five point three point two point zero and subsections one through six such that the benefits of the town and neighborhood outweigh any adverse impacts of the proposed use taking into account the characteristics of the site and the proposal and considering also the social economic and community needs which are preserved by the proposal traffic flow and safety including packing and loading the adequacy of utilities and other public services neighborhood character and social structures are maintained impact on the natural environment is negative minimal excuse me potential for fiscal impact including impact on town services tax base and employment is not effective with such findings we ask that you approve a special permit for adding to the non-conforming structure we also believe we meet the requirements defining for a dimensional special permanent at two point three point six zero subsections one through five that there is no practical option which appraises achieves the same or is more consistent with the architectural scale and style of structures in the immediate area such reduction is accomplished without substantial detriment to the neighborhood the proposed structure is in keeping with the style and scale of architecture in the immediate area the benefit to the town outweigh any adverse effect considering the site the proposal relative to the site there are no there is no greater increase into the side yard setback than it presently exists we will enter any questions that you have the architect is as I say on I believe is on loom and that we have we have received support from 12 of butters and neighbors which I believe have sent letters in and I provided I believe to you in addition to the plans the pictures showing the neighborhood and showing the nature of the lots all being as I said 60 by 150 along that side of Crossman have and revealing that my client structure is one of the smaller structures on that on that side of the street all of them have pretty much the same configuration the driveway on one side and a small side yard most of the side you had setbacks on one side of the house I'm not I'm not up to the present code of 7.5 so you've got any questions we wouldn't happy to answer them as best we can and I know that we have one neighbor you're gonna be hearing from Kent representing a neighbor who's immediately was not in favor we did have some conversation to see if we could potentially get that neighbor on board we're not able to accomplish what

[Speaker 1] (1:19:38 - 1:20:47)
I think that neighbor would like to see so my question on the I talked a lot earlier petition about Beralta and when I looked at this petition months ago I was thinking that it had some of the similarities but in the change on the side yard it's not a conforming change it's a non-conforming change on a I know it's not a section 6 but my question is if if the dimensions first just as we told the last petition our dimensional special permit lets us give us the 20% your your argument is that well no it lets you give to what your existing side yard set you're looking for the 4.8 instead of 6 so it's an issue of a foot 1.2 so right so but we're not we're not we're not decreasing we're

[Speaker 8] (1:20:47 - 1:21:05)
not encroaching any any any further into it as long as the first thing I said I said oh it's got to be six but then because it's 4.8 now you know those extensions this is not I mean usually they let

[Speaker 10] (1:21:05 - 1:21:13)
people do it along the whole entire plane yeah and they're not going up they're just in one story so if anything that's less in this case this is exactly

[Speaker 7] (1:21:13 - 1:21:31)
like the case that we had a few months ago in the past year on Norfolk Avenue exact same exact same case yeah I remember I felt bad about that one too we approved it and I felt bad in this case so there's an entire driveway

[Speaker 10] (1:21:31 - 1:21:36)
between you know the houses as well I just think it's very typical of what we

[Speaker 7] (1:21:36 - 1:21:53)
approve right and it's it's walls within the that both below the case there's a lot of business it's an extension of an I can for me right but it's a lot of it but that talks about creating a new nonconforming just extending an existing one

[Speaker 1] (1:21:55 - 1:21:57)
yeah right we've gone to that age

[Speaker 7] (1:22:05 - 1:22:23)
right we have all the letters I've read all the letters in email right I just want to

[Speaker 1] (1:22:23 - 1:22:26)
focus first on the legal issue

[Speaker 2] (1:23:01 - 1:28:55)
the subdivision is correctly described maybe if I can bring this up it'll make it a little easier for all of you to see it so on the front you can pass it out is is the lot it's lot number 10 to determine under the criteria which is the criteria under 2360 it's not the criteria under 227 at all in that criteria and as as mr.

Rose indicated permit under certain circumstances the extension of this nonconformity but it's under different standards and one of the standards it's actually the very first the other is one that indicates no practical alternative and then it goes on to say capable of complying so so we're in a situation now with somebody is asking for leave and not entitled to anything but if they meet certain minimum requirements you can entertain their request so what makes this law interesting what makes it interesting is you have all the room in the world to go back without creating any new nonconformity because the lot is 150 feet long now two of the other homes in that street built additions that it go back I'll give you those those addresses and maybe those people are here tonight but what is important is I'd ask you to focus in on it's not these sections that don't apply but the sections that do and I would ask you to look specifically at that particular life now my client had sent early I think on March the 1st a letter to the board which I believe has been incorporated in the materials she's also prepared to speak and she's prepared a memorandum of law which she'll be sharing with you because it also brings up some very other interesting aspects of our zoning law which candidly I didn't see until it was pointed out to me and it's interesting how you can read something a hundred times when someone else reads it to you for the first time you see it differently and what was interesting I'll bring this to your attention this is a section dealing with site plan special permit now site plan special permit is only triggered when we have an 800 foot extension or as our bylaws says if it's been aggregated over the last five years now there was an earlier decision and that decision was approved by this board and that decision was rather interesting because that decision indicated and I quote from that decision under 19-20 it said the current property is non-conforming with respect to the lot size frontage and side yard setback now goes on to say upon construction per submitted plans the side yard non-conformity will be eliminated and there will be no other substantial change that's what that decision said and that was the finding in that decision and if for some reason the applicant didn't agree with the decision the applicant could have appealed now interestingly also is that it was exactly at this time that Miss Georgeson was purchasing her home so she never was noticed of this hearing she wasn't living there then the prior owner who was selling it to her at the time would have been would have been preferable had he informed her of this hearing so she could have attended but she wasn't here and she had no notice but if you read that section it says and I quote from that section I'll be with you in one second when I find myself somebody has their mic on on appreciate keeping that on mute okay under section 5 4 0 0 and then I go to 5 4 2 0 talks about applicability I said for purposes of computing the total gross floor area of a site plan all extensions are additions to projects slash developments approved within a five-year previous calendar years shall be aggregated and this was in fact approved within five years so in theory this says that it insofar as it's more the other one was more than 800 and this is this similarly will be aggregated to that it would require a site plan special permit that was never requested so it's our position that the application itself is deficient because of its failure to have been pointed with

[Speaker 10] (1:28:55 - 1:29:02)
the requirements of 5 4 2 0 yes are you talking about the special permit that

[Speaker 2] (1:29:02 - 1:29:14)
was never built yes okay because it says approved ironically it doesn't say built and I'm reading and I don't have the ability to consider what I'm sorry

[Speaker 10] (1:29:14 - 1:29:18)
are you suggesting we add the non built addition to this new addition no I'm not

[Speaker 2] (1:29:18 - 1:30:01)
I'm not suggesting you do anything I'm suggesting that the bylaws specifically it's been approved within the last five years whether it's been built on or not is of no consequence and you are obligated to add it to an aggregated to the existing required or requested relief and if that were the case and since the early one was over 800 this clearly is and therefore it requires a site plan I don't think there's really any you know as much as as much as you will have a look of disbelief I similarly no I similarly never saw it that way but it reads clearly and if it's inappropriate in terms of an

[Speaker 8] (1:30:01 - 1:30:07)
oversight it was a bird it was approved 35 years ago no no no no but it wasn't

[Speaker 2] (1:30:07 - 1:30:31)
this arose it says five years I understand it but that permit lapsed that special permit that release would have left I agree with you I'm not disagreeing with any of the rational thought that I'm hearing from the board what I am saying is that our bylaw for better or worse has a provision in there that says unequivocally that you add to anything that's been approved within the

[Speaker 10] (1:30:31 - 1:30:39)
last five years that's what it says the majority of this addition is where that addition is you would be adding I mean I think you need to go another route I'm

[Speaker 2] (1:30:39 - 1:31:08)
sorry but logic of your argument I am I am just pointing out the specificity in the inability to vary what your bylaw says you know if your bylaw in many regards can be changed as amended goes before planning board I think this is an error I really do but it doesn't give me the authority nor you I would suggest to vary your own bylaw because you believe that it was never intended to be the guy

[Speaker 8] (1:31:08 - 1:31:21)
before me gets a permit to build a house and then I decide by the law he never built a house the permit laughs because it wasn't acted on in two years and now I want to come and build a house I got a count the house that that guy was going

[Speaker 2] (1:31:21 - 1:32:26)
to build force you would you would be required to be required to go and seek a site plan special permit now for the house that that guy was going to build now whether in fact it became an obstacle is a different issue but it just is it's an additional step that is required it says this for the same reason there's an additional step that you have to go before the planning board for them to opine on certain site plan special permit requirements that's what it says and that's what we do and it's it's clear in this it says the word approved and because it was previously required I see nowhere in there that it says it has to be built I only see the word approved the permits lapsed right but but that why would it possibly give you the five-year look-back period for the word approval if it in fact meant something else I understand no no no I understand that you can you can say that it was never from the approval date as

[Speaker 10] (1:32:26 - 1:32:29)
opposed to the finished construction date that's why they don't want you they

[Speaker 8] (1:32:29 - 1:32:35)
obviously don't want you to build in pieces and in well you know see the

[Speaker 2] (1:32:35 - 1:32:46)
amount I just am telling you that that's not what it says we had we had

[Speaker 7] (1:32:46 - 1:33:07)
the situation with the aggregation in that Puritan Puritan Puritan that road yeah you're in heaven here's how you go okay and but in all those everything that was aggregated there wasn't that built and and I'm a strict constructionist

[Speaker 2] (1:33:07 - 1:33:12)
if you probably know can I see that it says approved you're right I do see that

[Speaker 7] (1:33:12 - 1:33:43)
it says approved and I see and I understand your argument but but I think we also have to you know apply common sense to it and I just think that's an oversight in the bylaw well I believe it's a notice I do and I think that in that circumstances but we're not bound to it and we should we should read it so that it makes sense I mean I think I think Andy makes it makes it makes a good point I mean it just doesn't make sense to me to count to count something

[Speaker 10] (1:33:43 - 1:33:49)
that was not built I mean this is being built where that addition

[Speaker 2] (1:33:58 - 1:34:11)
the footprint is different but I'm not going to belabor the point that I thought for the purpose of establishing a record tonight that my failure to address it would be an adoption of the position that was not required what

[Speaker 7] (1:34:11 - 1:34:19)
about that second part that you highlighted on four five four two two five four two two says I have a residence they've really quite say it

[Speaker 2] (1:34:19 - 1:34:53)
said construction if it uses the word construction exterior alteration but what I'm saying is five two five four two zero just says approved so the previously required site plan special permit changes changes number one changes or alters the footprint of a residence that previously required site plan approval a special permit which it did so I mean I have no trouble making this argument and I can do it with a straight face I'm not saying that I

[Speaker 7] (1:34:55 - 1:35:00)
require previously require site plan approval a site plan special permit the

[Speaker 2] (1:35:00 - 1:35:04)
early one did the one that was the one that wasn't built the one that was not

[Speaker 10] (1:35:04 - 1:35:13)
larger yeah the one that wasn't built it was approved and not built it was two stories had a master suite it you know it was a significantly larger addition

[Speaker 2] (1:35:13 - 1:37:13)
you know once again we're fighting against logic versus versus pros that's it says if the board wishes to dismiss that that's the prerogative of the board but it doesn't negate my ability a to make the argument be to establish a record the other factor and there are a few others is that the earlier decision similarly because that earlier decision was incorporated by reference into this application indicates that they did not conformity and I read it to you and let me read it to you again it said that the current property is non-conforming and with respect to the sideline frontage and side yard setback upon construction per submitted plans the side yard non-conforming will be eliminated it'll be no other substantial change that was authored by mr. Rose it says what it says and if you disagree or if the party who formally put forth this application disagree they could have appealed it it didn't so right now this is a recorded decision whether they built on it or not the board clearly was mindful of the fact that they wanted to eliminate that non-conformity and they in fact incorporated that in their decision I don't see anything in this new plan which does in fact eliminate the non-conformity it's an extension of four feet eight inches where the best this board should be doing is six but the requirement is seven and a half now who is looking at this out their window it's miss Georgian she is the one who sees this this wall you know there was some discussion then you're absolutely right mr.

Dukas was correct the last time we were here probably close to six months ago when I brought up the issue of the jurisdictional inability to go forward because there was a publication error I left it with maybe we can we can talk about this I don't want to hear about

[Speaker 1] (1:37:13 - 1:37:22)
settlement discussion that's just the point I don't want to hear whether there were there weren't because that paints this I don't wish to taint anything but

[Speaker 2] (1:37:22 - 1:37:26)
I know that the board is always interested to know we just encourage

[Speaker 1] (1:37:26 - 1:37:30)
people to talk and try to settle their issues that they don't we have a reason

[Speaker 2] (1:37:30 - 1:38:31)
why we don't listen to settlement when we had that issue in cutting road and so so I don't see that happening either so so now the board is left with the big one the one that the one that seems to be the proverbial elephant in the room one which is no practical alternative capable of compliance now the other section that talks about substantially more detrimental that's not our criteria well it gives you this relief under two three six five only section that addresses that the only one because if you go back to the two to seven oh one you're talking about the 20% max right so what our council has

[Speaker 1] (1:38:31 - 1:38:56)
told us in that Puritan Road but that was different I believe that's a different what she said was she pointed us to that all the decision which basically said which basically said the local bylaw can't trump 48 section 6 I am 48 section 6 controls so that's but this is not this does not fall into that

[Speaker 2] (1:38:56 - 1:39:30)
category it does not why not because you are creating a new nonconformity you are now going in four feet eight inches from the sideline where we are seven and a half feet is required if in fact this is where I may disagree if we were going we have a nonconforming law in this case we do we have a frontage issue we have a size issue but say we're just going back and go back up we have 150 feet to go back that case would apply but this case that would be a

[Speaker 1] (1:39:30 - 1:39:34)
conforming change to the non-conforming structure that but Belalta talks about

[Speaker 2] (1:39:34 - 1:39:45)
both I don't believe that it talks about this because you know something if in fact you were to take that perspective your job would be a lot easier because all cases I think pretty much fall under that

[Speaker 1] (1:39:46 - 1:40:05)
Oh well it but it Belalta talks about conforming changes when it's not that sure and it also talks about non-conforming talks about whether you

[Speaker 2] (1:40:05 - 1:41:16)
needed a variance it so the argument was that if they were required by that board for a variance we have we have a methodology in swampside that doesn't require a variance for a dimensional issue we we have that prerogative under two three six five if we find certain criteria the least of which is there's no practical alternative so what is the practical alternative because we've never and I want this board to understand this we've never taken the position that we are against an addition we've never taken the position that our next-door neighbor can't add to her kitchen what we're suggesting is we would like that not to be four and a half feet maybe we can move it in a little bit and the little bit is the difference between 4.8 feet and 6 feet which you have the authority to grant under 2270 which I believe is the criteria which gives you that flexibility why would we like that because it would push the house in a little away from my client the other issue which I want to

[Speaker 1] (1:41:16 - 1:42:03)
address is this but before you get there okay I'm going to read from the behold the case upon the second except clause of statute governing modification of non-conforming structures creating explicit protections for one and two family residential structures and allowing increases in non-conforming nature of such structures upon the finding of no substantial detriment to the neighborhood so in that case we would have to make that finding if permitting authority determines that proposed alteration or addition would intensify the existing non-conformities or result in additional ones authority must consider additional question of whether proposed modification would be substantially more detrimental to neighborhood so it talks about it in the

[Speaker 2] (1:42:03 - 1:42:23)
board I'm reading from the head it may but that's why that's why that's why the

[Speaker 1] (1:42:23 - 1:42:29)
SJC came out with the decision because bylaws were going too far that's what it appears to me that's what they say here.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:29 - 1:43:30)
I believe, I believe Mr. Kudnitsky that that case was written in regard to a variance request not a special permit request and I may be incorrect because I haven't no you're right it was but but the so that's the point the point is they thought the variance request because they didn't have a special permit exceeded the authority and therefore this case came into being we've addressed that and we have addressed it in a way that I think tries to take into consideration a neighbor who's impacted because otherwise neighbors would have literally no rights and anybody who wants just about anything they want can make that argument and I don't think that was the intent. While you pondered that thought I just don't want to take up all of your time tonight.

I want you to take a look at a picture. Would you mind showing me the picture first?

[Speaker 3] (1:43:30 - 1:43:33)
Well thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:44 - 1:43:48)
Are they the ones we had them in the file there?

[Speaker 2] (1:43:53 - 1:44:07)
I want you to look at, excuse me, some pictures and I also this is a memory is this is a memorandum of law it was done by my client who's an attorney.

[Speaker 3] (1:44:09 - 1:44:11)
Funny you didn't share that with me Ken.

[Speaker 7] (1:44:12 - 1:44:15)
When did you get this?

[Speaker 2] (1:44:18 - 1:44:20)
It's a memorandum.

[Speaker 7] (1:44:20 - 1:44:21)
Oh yeah I wish you'd given this to me.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:22 - 1:44:22)
Yeah I did.

[Speaker 7] (1:44:23 - 1:44:27)
I'm not going to read this. This is complicated stuff you know.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:27 - 1:44:29)
A lot of times the board asks for a memorandum.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:31 - 1:44:34)
So I appreciate a memorandum just like that when it's time.

[Speaker 7] (1:44:34 - 1:44:39)
And I appreciate that. Yeah they have it but it doesn't do us any good right now.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:39 - 1:45:21)
I think that the memorandum is just a recitation of what I've said. There's nothing in that memorandum that I haven't addressed. There's nothing in there that would be surprising.

What I wanted to continue on with those pictures is that you were given a plot plan. This actually Mr. Drukis was kind enough to give me this plot plan. And the plot plan it shows where the trees are.

If you have a chance can you look at your plot plan just for a moment please. And that would be just meaning if we can just put that plot plan up for just a second.

[Speaker 13] (1:45:28 - 1:45:29)
The most recent?

[Speaker 2] (1:45:29 - 1:49:49)
Yes the certified plot plan that was just recently prepared. Yes okay great. You will see on the left hand side bordering Ms. Georgeson's home which is on the left a number of very large mature trees. Those are the ones that are depicted in the picture. The applicant states in the application quote no trees will be removed. And yet the trees are depicted in a portion of the foundation.

It is our position that if the board was even considering that there is no practical alternative that at least it would in fact incorporate the request in the statement of the petitioner that no trees will be removed. Because that is what she is saying. And if you want to accept the petitioner and what she is stating and the relief she is looking for predicated upon no trees being removed I would ask this board as a condition if the board were predisposed to grant the relief and make a determination that there is no practical alternative which is to go back that no trees be taken down.

Because that gives her a limited amount of privacy. Because right now that house is 4 feet 8 inches from the sidewalk. It is an issue.

It is an issue because you know something? Our planning board, our town meeting determined what they now believe is an appropriate distance between homes. They gave you certain liberties to go to 20% and you in fact made certain findings.

But this is even closer. And the only reason that that house is 4 feet 8 inches is because that house is built prior to zoning at all. So the extension of that wall is an extension of pre-zoning.

It is grandfathering in a sense what you could never do. And it is my belief and hopefully some of you may adopt that thought that this is extraordinary relief because of its impact on the abutter. And the abutter's concern should be in fact adopted or at least considered.

And what can we do? We can do a couple of things. We can accomplish what the applicant is seeking which is to extend her kitchen which has been there since 19, I don't know when it was built, maybe sometime since 1924.

It's apparently served the house well for that time. And sure, everybody would like a new modern kitchen. And she can have that.

But she doesn't have to do it at the expense of her neighbor. You know, you're taking away rights of neighbors. In our belief that we are in fact providing certain relief to applicants, we have to take into consideration the impact on the abutter.

And to suggest there is no impact, it flies in the face of zoning in its entirety. It creates additional density. That's what the cases say.

That's what the Gallo case is. As a matter of fact, the case that's cited, I'm not necessarily going to bring it up, but in the Dicta, the Gallo case, it talked about trees. It talked about the importance and it talked about density.

It talked about all of the aspects of zoning that should be taken into consideration. Regardless of this case, it seems to fly in the face of all the logic that I've ever learned about zoning to say that you can disregard it all. Fine.

Disregard it all, but at the same time, be mindful of the neighbor. Try to work with the neighbor. Try to understand that this could happen to anybody who knows anybody has certain rights, certain expectations when they move into that house as to what the abutter has the ability to do.

I mean, I think that's a reasonable expectation. And I think that expectation is not being considered. And I would ask the board to consider it.

And I would ask the board to entertain whatever concept that they can possibly come up with to provide some level of screening. And I think the trees do a great job, at least as a start. I think a better job would be to...

[Speaker 1] (1:49:49 - 1:49:54)
I want to get to here where you've used a lot of time. I've given you a lot of time to make your arguments.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:55 - 1:49:57)
I think the argument is worthy of discussion.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:58 - 1:50:27)
I get it. I get the argument. I think I'm likely to send this to town council for an opinion, my opinion, my thought.

Because although we've given relief on that vertical plane for years, and although I think that the case law suggests you can do it, I'd like to get some confirmation about that is what I think. What do you guys think about that? But I don't know if we were right or not.

[Speaker 7] (1:50:29 - 1:51:06)
We've done it. I think that on Norfolk Avenue, I'm trying to remember if the... I don't think the setback was this narrow.

I think it may have complied with the 20%. I'm not sure. I can't remember.

What was the relief? What was the Norfolk one? I'm trying to remember what the...

It was the same thing. They were putting an addition off the deck, and we allowed it along. It was an extension of the sideline nonconformity.

And the neighbor on the left side opposed it. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:06 - 1:51:09)
Was that the one with the jacuzzi that they were putting on the deck? No.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:09 - 1:51:09)
No.

[Speaker 23] (1:51:09 - 1:51:10)
No.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:11 - 1:51:13)
I think it was a two-story addition.

[Speaker 23] (1:51:13 - 1:51:14)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:14 - 1:51:23)
Right? But I can't remember what the sideline... It was as small as 4.8. Right. It may have been within the 20%. But we let it go along the parallel line.

[Speaker 10] (1:51:23 - 1:51:23)
We did.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:23 - 1:51:24)
And that was the other one.

[Speaker 10] (1:51:24 - 1:51:26)
We think that we would just continue in the north.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:26 - 1:51:35)
My concern is whether this Bell Alticate case eviscerates the dimensional special pyramid section of the bylaw.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:36 - 1:51:38)
Yeah. Right? But it says right in the case.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:38 - 1:51:39)
But then I see section...

[Speaker 1] (1:51:39 - 1:51:40)
That means the bylaw can only go so far.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:42 - 1:51:55)
But there is a footnote, 11, which I'm not really sure what it means, which is on the text. If the answer to that question is in the negative, and that question being...

[Speaker 1] (1:51:55 - 1:51:56)
Substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.

[Speaker 7] (1:51:57 - 1:52:54)
This initial determination requires a permanent authority to identify the particular respect or respects in which existing structure does not conform to the requirements of the present bylaw and then determine whether there's an intensification or new nonconformity. If the answer to that is no, then the applicant will be entitled to a permit, meaning a building permit, to proceed with the alteration of the building permit. And then there's a footnote, 11.

It says... Earlier cases loosely used the term special permit to describe the process. And then a reference to the permitting procedure and the permit-granting authority encompasses any designated process by which municipalities allow their residents to proceed with home building renovations in the ordinary course.

I'm wondering if that means, okay, we can still apply the conventional permit regulation. Is that what they're saying there? I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:00 - 1:53:05)
So, is there anyone that wanted to speak in favor of this petition? Yes, go ahead. Your name and your address, please.

[Speaker 10] (1:53:10 - 1:53:13)
Oh, sorry, they're asking can you go to the mic.

[Speaker 20] (1:53:13 - 1:53:13)
Oh, sure.

[Speaker 14] (1:53:13 - 1:53:15)
Well, I'll tell you what, the mic can go to you.

[Speaker 12] (1:53:15 - 1:53:25)
Oh, there we go. Rick and Leslie Dexter, 33 Crosman. We're two doors down from Jorgensen.

[Speaker 19] (1:53:26 - 1:53:27)
Same side of the street?

[Speaker 12] (1:53:27 - 1:57:39)
Same side of the street. And we were one of the guinea pigs in the neighborhood who went through this process twice. In 2000, we built a 1,500-multi-floor addition on our house, invested heavily in the neighborhood.

And then in 2012, and let me go back, on the addition, we did go back, as Mr. Schuster said, we went into 7 1⁄2 feet because we did have, it was a big addition. It wasn't 10 feet, it was 18 or 19 feet. So it was the right thing to do in that case.

In 2012, we added on to our garage, which was nonconforming to start and is still nonconforming, but we granted a special permit for somewhere around 4 foot 10 inches to extend the garage down to the fence line. So this, to me, is a precedent set. There's also a precedent set that the Sings who lived in the house prior were ready to do their addition when they found another property, and I think went and suited their needs better.

We've been there 35 years. We've seen dozens and dozens of family turnover. I got to say that the neighborhood right now is, we have the best neighbors.

Everybody's very tight. A lot of them are on the phone. There's a lot in the audience here.

We're all doing, we're all, every house, almost every house on the street has had significant work done, whether it's additions, upgrades, windows, you name it. There's three houses that have done significant additions, and there's another one that's on the same area that's going to consider an addition also. So given all that, the way, you know, Leslie and I look at this is that 438 square feet, we did 1,500.

Sings did, I think it was 1,200. So roughly one-third of the size of the Sings addition is being proposed, and whether it's at 4'8 or 5'7 1⁄2 off the sideline, it's still a structure that's sitting there, and the difference, to us at least, in that drawing, the addition is on the maximum distance between the two houses. Apparently, Gail's sunroom is the closest.

The addition is not. The addition is going to be much further away from the view. So from that perspective, to me it's, to us, it's a very tasteful addition.

It's small, and the amount of time and energy put into this and the amount of money, of course, with inflation right now and the contractors not getting a contractor and the inflation on appliances and building materials, even in the last six months, has put a very unfair burden on Cheryl Miller, in our opinion, and the additional surveys, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm not sure what the real goal here is of Gail, of whether it's 4'8, 5'7 1⁄2. The tree issue is easy.

We plant trees all the time. The town's been planting trees. Trees can be replanted if they have to be removed.

And from that perspective, we, the Dexters, thoroughly support this addition and any other additions that will meet special permit requirements on our street. We all are heavily invested in Crosman Ave. It's one of the best streets in the town, and we feel that this should not be delayed any further and, with all the points brought up, it's more self-serving than it is for the neighborhood. It's very...

It's not detrimental to the neighborhood because the investment and the quality of life for Cheryl will be much improved. And I appreciate you giving me the time.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:39 - 1:58:08)
Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak? Yeah.

Still standing in favor, right? I'm sorry? Still standing in favor.

Still speaking in favor. Normally, that's where I would go first. I wanted to talk about the legal issue.

I gave you 45 minutes or so. I've got another petition. This could take us two hours to hear.

So I'm going to hear from somebody else, some of the people that have been sitting here, and I'll go back to you. Thank you. Sure.

[Speaker 15] (1:58:10 - 1:58:49)
We were hoping for that rubber stamp that the other guy mentioned, and that wasn't to be. But my name is Jamie Owens, and my wife is Adriana. We are represented there as the abutters to the east, just to the right on the diagram.

And I think Rick said most of it. We want to express our full-throated support for the addition. Cheryl has just been a model neighbor, a friend, a fast friend.

And we don't see any issue with it. We actually think it would be an improvement to our neighborhood. So as the abutters to the east, we just wanted to share that with the group here and show our support.

Appreciate that.

[Speaker 14] (1:58:50 - 2:01:55)
OK. Yes. Hi.

I'm Leslie Dexter, as my husband has previously introduced me. I'm not sure when I look at this picture, and I live in the neighborhood, and I am there, the addition, the very tiny addition that Cheryl is doing compared to the much larger addition that we did and that was approved for the previous owners of that property is, I've heard Gail and her lawyer talk about things like they don't want to look at a wall. They don't want to have the trees taken down because of the privacy and that you're infringing.

And yet, when you look at the plot plan, and if you look at it in real life, the addition is beyond her house. So she's not looking at a wall. She's not looking at additional footage there.

She is not being crouched in. It is as far away from her house, her living house, as could be. Several people in the neighborhood have put additions like that, including ourselves, that have gone along the line, including Gail's house herself.

Gail's house has had a kitchen addition very similar to what Cheryl is asking for added to Gail's house, where it was nonconforming, continuing down, and if you will, using the terms, a wall being put up to the neighbors on the other side of Gail. And once again, it was approved because it's not next to the house. It's along the garage of the houses.

The houses are forward of these additions. And doing an addition, Gail's, I mean, Cheryl's present kitchen is so tiny that it's only 9 feet by 20, I think, is the present footprint of her kitchen. And Gail's house had the opportunity to extend her kitchen quite a bit and make it long and narrow, where Cheryl doesn't have that capability of doing that.

And she has a very small kitchen. Doing any inset in the size of the addition that Cheryl is suggesting would cut her addition substantially. She doesn't have the room to do a small addition and bring it in.

And it sounds like Gail is saying even one foot would be acceptable to her. Is one foot worth the expense and the aggravation that you put Cheryl in the home?

[Speaker 1] (2:01:55 - 2:01:57)
I'm going to ask you to address your comments.

[Speaker 14] (2:01:57 - 2:02:00)
All right. I'm going to move on and ask for some more comments.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:00 - 2:02:02)
I know you're clearly in favor of this addition.

[Speaker 14] (2:02:02 - 2:02:02)
I am in favor.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:03 - 2:02:11)
So is there anyone else, anyone that's on the Zoom call that wanted to be heard about this? Just to raise your hand feature.

[Speaker 13] (2:02:12 - 2:02:16)
I do have a couple of hands raised. Mike and Sarah Hakeem are first.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:20 - 2:02:26)
Hi. Thank you. Go ahead.

Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes.

Can I give your name and address?

[Speaker 4] (2:02:26 - 2:03:16)
Yeah. Michael Hakeem, 27 Crossman Ave. OK. We live two houses down from Cheryl, on the same side of the street.

Like everyone else so far, we are in full support. Cheryl's been a great neighbor since she moved in. She's only been in the neighborhood about a year and a half, but she's been a great neighbor.

And like Rick had said, our street is a very tight-bonded street. And I think Cheryl fits in very well with us. And I think we're all in support of her doing what we all agree is probably a pretty small addition relative to the one that was previously approved by the city.

So we are in 100% support. And I think it's a great investment in the neighborhood. Anything we can do to keep Cheryl to stay living here, I think is a positive.

So if this makes it safe for her and gives her a working kitchen and something that works for her, we're all for it.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:17 - 2:03:37)
OK. I should just follow up. I'm going to only permit 10 more minutes on this petition.

Then we're going to need to continue it, because we still have another petition to go tonight, one that's been on the agenda for a long time. And I'm thinking, what does the board think about that issue on getting an opinion from town council?

[Speaker 7] (2:03:37 - 2:03:38)
I think that's a good idea.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:39 - 2:03:40)
We're going to continue it. We might as well do that.

[Speaker 10] (2:03:41 - 2:03:45)
You're going to continue it, but I'm ready to vote now. I'm ready. That's what I'm going to do.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:47 - 2:03:48)
OK. All right.

[Speaker 9] (2:03:49 - 2:03:53)
Could I ask that I have an opportunity to be heard before you close it out?

[Speaker 1] (2:03:53 - 2:04:02)
I told you I'd give you an opportunity to be heard. I'm not going to close the public hearing yet. So I'm just going to ask people to keep their comments brief, because I think there may be a vote tonight.

[Speaker 7] (2:04:05 - 2:04:11)
And I remind anybody who wants to speak in support, who's out there on Zoom, that we have the letters.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:11 - 2:04:15)
We have all the letters. And we've read them. We know there's a lot of people that are in support of the petition.

[Speaker 7] (2:04:16 - 2:04:18)
So we're aware of the support.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:21 - 2:04:35)
Yes, sir. Hi. I'm Jeff Wilson.

I'm on Crossman Avenue. I'm number 55. I'm on the same side as Gail and Cheryl, but further down towards the golf course side.

[Speaker 21] (2:04:36 - 2:04:51)
Very briefly, I think you'll find that Cheryl has a lot of support from most of the folks here and on Zoom and through the letters. I would just encourage the board to vote tonight so we don't have to push this any further down the road.

[Speaker 4] (2:04:52 - 2:05:04)
I think Cheryl's made many attempts to get in front of you all. And I would just encourage the board to make a choice tonight as opposed to taking further action.

[Speaker 21] (2:05:04 - 2:05:06)
So thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:06 - 2:05:21)
Thank you very much. Hang on. I was going to see if anyone on Zoom, anyone else wanted to be heard, knowing that we have comments in writing from people that have already been submitted and that we're getting close.

[Speaker 13] (2:05:21 - 2:05:26)
Sorry, excuse me. I do have two more hands raised on Zoom. I have Thomas Driscoll.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:27 - 2:05:30)
OK. Mr. Driscoll.

[Speaker 17] (2:05:32 - 2:07:04)
Mr. Chair and members of the board, Tom Driscoll, 28 Crossman Ave. Speaking to you from quarantine, or I would have been there. One thing that I'm not getting specific measurements, but Tara and I were there several years back. I believe Andy and Mark, you were both on the board at that time.

We have the exact same scenario, or had. And I don't know the measurements, but anyone in the neighborhood will tell you it's a pretty big addition, two floors and a basement. And we were allowed a special permit, and we built it exactly down the non-conforming line.

And there was never an issue. I assume the bylaws have not changed since then. They may have, but I don't think this little quirky question that's being brought up by the opposition wasn't in place when we were there.

So I'm just, you know, there's a precedent set for me. You've done it for me, and I believe the Dexters have had it done for them. And I think if a lot of these new neighbors, the young kids, would look at their, a lot of them have an addition on, they had the same scenario.

So getting hung up on something that you didn't get hung up on before, and everyone has done it the exact same way, you know, we're really in favor of this. And for the goodness sakes, I just think a vote should be taken tonight. I don't think there's any need to have this review to continue.

I think the time has come for the board, and I urge you all please to vote tonight in favor of Sheryl. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:04 - 2:07:11)
Thank you, Mr. Fisker. We made a mistake, too. So there's one more hand up on Zoom.

[Speaker 13] (2:07:12 - 2:07:13)
Yes, Christopher LeBlanc.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:14 - 2:07:15)
Okay, thank you. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:07:18 - 2:07:36)
Good evening. My name is Christopher LeBlanc, and I am the contractor that submitted the application. I do apologize when I said no trees were going to be taken down.

I interpreted those as shrubs and half dead at the time.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:39 - 2:07:53)
Okay, thank you. I'm going to give you the last comment before I close the public hearing. Okay, is that fair?

And I'm going to let Chris, if you have something else, and you raise your hand a few times here.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:54 - 2:08:00)
Yeah, I think I'm entitled to at least respond in part to some of the things that Ken said.

[Speaker 12] (2:08:00 - 2:08:01)
Can you use the microphone, please?

[Speaker 3] (2:08:02 - 2:10:24)
I have the microphone here. I would like to respond to some of the things that Ken said. I think in spite of what his position is about aggregating, I think when something elapses, it becomes void.

And if it becomes void and it can be recognized at law that something has elapsed is void. And to make the argument that he's making, I think, is absurd. As Heather pointed out, we're going to be building in the same place.

That's not adding on. As far as the removal of trees, we considered those bushes. The abovites are not considered trees.

And the second point is when he starts talking about reconfigure the addition so that it goes back further, you have to look at the topography that's shown on the plan. And you have to look at your pictures that show the deck is basically that it will be added on is going on stilts because the land slopes down towards the back, which the more that you build towards the back, the more that you're adding to your cost of construction. And that gets to the issue of whether or not it's appropriate for us to build in this particular location.

I don't want to take a lot more time in responding to the long speech that Ken went through, but I think it's very, very clear that if the other addition wasn't built, then you can't possibly count it because it isn't built. And with reference to his pointing out in that decision that there were the side yard nonconformity will be eliminated, if you look at the plans from the other one, that's clearly a mistake in what was written. And the fact that it wasn't appealed is fine.

The petition, again, it lapsed. And once it lapsed, that language doesn't mean anything anymore anywhere. And I would like to show you one last picture.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:24 - 2:10:25)
Here's two.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:27 - 2:10:31)
What the Arborvitaes look like on the other side of the fence.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:31 - 2:10:33)
Yeah, I've got a picture of the Arborvitaes looking.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:34 - 2:10:39)
Yeah, you don't have it from Cheryl's side of the fence.

[Speaker 2] (2:10:39 - 2:10:41)
Can you show it to me, too, please?

[Speaker 3] (2:10:41 - 2:10:42)
Yes, I will.

[Speaker 20] (2:10:44 - 2:10:45)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:48 - 2:10:49)
Half of them are dead.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:12 - 2:11:13)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:11:14 - 2:11:16)
I don't want to take too much time.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:17 - 2:11:21)
All right, so I'm going to give you the opportunity to show them one.

[Speaker 9] (2:11:21 - 2:14:40)
Thank you. I just want to address a couple points that have been made, you know, people saying this is only affecting my deck or it's farther from my home and whatnot. As I put in the memorandum, one of my objections is a new window in the existing home.

That's one of my objections. That increases crowding and decreases my privacy. And I don't understand why a big, large new window has to go facing my office, which is the furthest point out, the closest point to Cheryl's home.

She wants to put a new window, not in the addition, in the existing home. And that is at the point where our homes are the closest to each other. So that does affect my privacy.

And that's a valid concern. In spite of the fact of many neighbors poo-pooing it, it is. And it's in the case law, too.

Anything that decreases privacy, you know, is a valid effect and a butter. And I don't know why that window has to be there. As far as the Arborvitae, they're not dying.

I don't know what Mr. Drukis is saying. They're very healthy, and they're quite a wonderful privacy screen. And for people who don't live in my home, you have no idea what I'm looking at.

And that's why I gave you the photos to the board. And you can see that I'm looking at trees. My view will change from trees to building quite close to my home.

And that is also a criteria that has been addressed in Massachusetts case law, is increasing density and crowding. It's the experience of what you have. It's very nice.

Mr. Driscoll had his addition put on, and Mr. Dexter. That was years ago. I have no idea what the circumstances were as far as the side yard setbacks in those circumstances.

And they certainly cannot attest to the fact that it's in any way, shape, or form a similar circumstance. So they're not really applicable. I do empathize with Cheryl.

I've never opposed her building addition. I've only asked that she consider that where she is placing it is going to have an effect on her closest abutter. And I am the only abutter who is agreed as far as having their setback encroached on.

No other neighbor, no other abutter, including Mr. Owens, is having his side yard setback encroached upon. I'm the only one. And I know that makes me the outlier.

I'm the outlier is what I've been called. I've also been threatened that I'm not going to live in harmony in my neighborhood if I don't fire Ken Schutzer and drop my opposition to the petition. It's been, you know, someone kicked over my planter in my front yard and broke it the day after the last hearing.

And I'm sorry, go ahead. Do you want to make a big, you know, make me the pariah of the neighborhood? Go right ahead.

You're not in my position.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:40 - 2:14:52)
We're going to address the comments to the board. And as I just as I told them, so please address them to the board. And let's stick to the substance of the petition.

[Speaker 9] (2:14:53 - 2:15:06)
No one's in the same position as I am. That's it. I'm the abutter.

I'm the agreed. You know, that's the way it is. I understand no one else feels the same way, but they're not in my position, and that's it.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:07 - 2:15:07)
Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (2:15:07 - 2:15:09)
Do you have a question? Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:09 - 2:15:09)
I do.

[Speaker 8] (2:15:09 - 2:15:30)
Because I'm here on both sides, and I could be sympathetic in some aspects of it. So if they were to not put the window in the old part of the house, swap some kitchen cabinets and move it down into the new addition, would you feel better about that?

[Speaker 9] (2:15:32 - 2:15:37)
If it's in the part of the addition that's further from my home, yeah.

[Speaker 8] (2:15:38 - 2:15:38)
Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (2:15:39 - 2:15:48)
Part of the addition will be, it looks like it sort of jogs. I think there's already another new window plan facing my home that's a little bit.

[Speaker 8] (2:15:48 - 2:16:07)
In other words, she's asking for a relief. They're asking for nine and a half feet of relief on that addition. That's the length of that addition.

But they're going to put a window, and they have kitchen cabinets running the entire length. They're going to put a window in the current section. Correct.

Maybe you could swap.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:07 - 2:16:08)
It's over the sink, though.

[Speaker 8] (2:16:12 - 2:16:12)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:13 - 2:16:13)
Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (2:16:14 - 2:16:20)
Okay. Since they have it. So then swap the sink.

I mean, it's not the end of the world.

[Speaker 10] (2:16:20 - 2:16:23)
No, the sink's over here. Well, from the plan, the sink's facing the backyard.

[Speaker 8] (2:16:23 - 2:16:44)
You know, you could swap the stove and the sink. You know, you're doing a new addition to be accommodating, you know, because it's in the five feet. If you want to be at six feet, put all the windows you want in there and make it all glass.

I'm just asking as maybe a compromise to get you out of, I don't know.

[Speaker 9] (2:16:45 - 2:16:56)
And what about the trees? I do know from planning other people that in other cases, if trees are destroyed, then new trees could be planted. Is that something?

[Speaker 1] (2:16:57 - 2:16:59)
It's something that we would have the ability to condition.

[Speaker 9] (2:16:59 - 2:17:24)
Okay. And I would ask that you do that. It doesn't sound as if anyone is particularly concerned that I'm losing 20-foot trees that provide me with privacy.

But I would ask that if you are inclined to approve it, that you might consider requiring. Now that they've admitted that they are removing some arborvitae, although the initial petition said no trees would be removed, I think what I'm hearing is that some trees will have to be removed.

[Speaker 8] (2:17:24 - 2:17:26)
Well, nine and a half feet of them will have to be removed.

[Speaker 9] (2:17:26 - 2:17:27)
Right.

[Speaker 8] (2:17:28 - 2:17:31)
Those look like the bushes. He's saying those are the worst.

[Speaker 9] (2:17:31 - 2:17:42)
They're 20-feet tall trees to me. And so I'm asking you if you do, you are inclined to approve it to condition it on planting nine and a half feet of new trees of a comparable kind?

[Speaker 8] (2:17:42 - 2:17:50)
You can't put the trees in that nine and a half feet because you're only getting four and a half. They won't grow. You know, so.

Right.

[Speaker 9] (2:17:50 - 2:17:57)
That's why I didn't ask for that initially. So I don't know how you solve that. My privacy is gone once the trees are gone.

[Speaker 10] (2:17:58 - 2:18:00)
There's no windows where the trees are.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:01 - 2:18:04)
Arborvitaes wouldn't survive in that narrow area.

[Speaker 10] (2:18:04 - 2:18:17)
I guess my point is the idea of losing privacy from that area because people are looking in, there's not a single window in the addition. Well, now there is because I want to move it down. Well, you're moving one up there, but right now there isn't.

[Speaker 9] (2:18:18 - 2:18:29)
Privacy, can I clarify, Heather? Is that when I look and when other people like Mr. Owen's windows look at me, they can't see into my home. They can't see into my windows with the trees there.

[Speaker 10] (2:18:30 - 2:18:35)
But they can't see because they can't look out. I guess my point is there's no windows where those trees are.

[Speaker 9] (2:18:36 - 2:18:46)
The point is I'm looking at trees now, and I think maybe I'm not stating it specifically enough to how you typically say it, but I'm looking at a wall instead of trees.

[Speaker 8] (2:18:46 - 2:18:47)
So that's it.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:47 - 2:18:48)
You're looking at a wall.

[Speaker 9] (2:18:48 - 2:18:51)
I don't know. You called that view, I guess.

[Speaker 2] (2:18:54 - 2:19:09)
I'm going to give you one minute. There's just a couple of unanswered questions. Mechanicals.

There's some suggestion that there are going to be mechanicals put here. I just don't know where they're going to be. They're on the plan.

Where?

[Speaker 3] (2:19:09 - 2:19:10)
Underneath the porch.

[Speaker 9] (2:19:11 - 2:19:14)
Is the radon pipe going up my side of the house?

[Speaker 3] (2:19:14 - 2:19:15)
Where it is now.

[Speaker 9] (2:19:16 - 2:19:20)
No, there's going to be an addition where it is now, so I'd like to know where the radon pipe is.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:20 - 2:19:22)
It's on the plan.

[Speaker 9] (2:19:25 - 2:19:26)
I'm trying to speed it along.

[Speaker 10] (2:19:26 - 2:19:28)
It's on the plan. It's on the back.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:28 - 2:19:44)
It's on the back side. Okay, so is the board inclined to close the public hearing and have a vote? Yes.

Seems that way. Okay, so I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second on that?

[Speaker 23] (2:19:45 - 2:19:45)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:46 - 2:19:52)
Okay, I'm going to do a roll call in case there's a feel on this one. So I'm a yes. Paula?

[Speaker 23] (2:19:53 - 2:19:53)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:53 - 2:20:12)
Dan? Yes. Andy?

Yes. Heather? Yes.

Okay, do we want to have any discussion amongst the board on this? Maybe have a – I think it's fair to have a – How close did they accept moving the window? Did we get that little swap of the changes in session?

Well, I could reopen it, or we can condition it.

[Speaker 10] (2:20:13 - 2:20:23)
It doesn't seem like that's going to intersect. It doesn't have to change. You can put a window in the house that you have now anytime you want.

I know what you're saying.

[Speaker 13] (2:20:23 - 2:20:24)
I'm just moving it down.

[Speaker 10] (2:20:24 - 2:20:24)
I know.

[Speaker 8] (2:20:27 - 2:20:33)
If that doesn't change, you know, if you're getting emphatic, yes, that's fine. I'm not going to appeal.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:37 - 2:20:38)
Heather, you had some comments?

[Speaker 10] (2:20:38 - 2:20:50)
I guess my only question for you was your desire to seek council. Was that to try to avoid an appeal for the condition?

[Speaker 1] (2:20:50 - 2:21:09)
My job is to make a record as the chair. I've given everybody an opportunity to speak, make their arguments. So I think I have – in my opinion, we got it in the Puritan Road case.

I've read that Malalta case.

[Speaker 10] (2:21:14 - 2:21:16)
Yeah, this is very cut and dry for me.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:16 - 2:22:03)
I mean I – so, yeah, I just wanted to know if that was – I just – I wanted to make sure everybody else was comfortable with the legal issue. So what typically we have done in the past is to have at least a strong pull so that in case the petitioner – give a petitioner the ability to withdraw a petition if it was going to be in the negative. So I would ask if – you know, I'm required to commit to it.

But I'd ask Curtis if anyone was a no vote to indicate that they would be a no vote on this petition. All right, hearing none, is there anyone that wanted to make a motion on this petition? I was going to say I don't know.

[Speaker 10] (2:22:03 - 2:22:03)
Anyone can make a motion.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:03 - 2:23:02)
All right, I'll make a motion on this one. I guess I'll ask Chris to write a draft. He writes a nice draft, I'll say.

How's this, Ken? Gee, thanks. So I am going to make a motion on Petition 2128 for 17 Crossman Ave for a couple things.

First for a finding that – several findings. One, that the lot is nonconforming. Number two, that it's nonconforming for the side yard setback, for lot area, and that the proposed changes for the plan would result in no further increase to the nonconforming nature of the nonconforming structure.

[Speaker 7] (2:23:03 - 2:23:03)
Well, I think it does.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:04 - 2:23:09)
If it's the parallel wall, that's the question. Oh, so you're saying conform – I'm sorry.

[Speaker 14] (2:23:10 - 2:23:13)
It's a nonconforming – it intensifies, you're right.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:13 - 2:24:44)
So it's the second part of the Lalta case. So the finding should be that there is a nonconforming change that's made to the nonconforming structure and that there is a finding of no substantial detriment to the neighborhood by this increase to the preexisting nonconforming nature of the structure. And to grant the relief subject to condition that as many of the existing arborvitaes that can remain outside of the building area remain to preserve that – those mature trees and privacy as much as can be preserved.

And anything else that needs to be reconditioned? That the project be built in accordance with the plans that have been substantially in compliance with the plans that have been provided and I'm going to take a roll call. So do I have a second on that motion?

Second. Is that Paula? Yes.

So I am a yes. Paula?

[Speaker 23] (2:24:44 - 2:24:44)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:45 - 2:24:48)
Dan? Yes. Andy?

Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 23] (2:24:48 - 2:24:48)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:48 - 2:24:53)
Okay. So you have your relief. I'll ask Chris to write the draft decision.

[Speaker 14] (2:24:55 - 2:25:04)
Thank you. Thank you. Yep.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:58 - 2:26:03)
Just a couple minutes if you want to come forward, Bill. Sorry for the late night.

[Speaker 18] (2:26:06 - 2:26:07)
Yes, of course.

[Speaker 6] (2:26:08 - 2:26:12)
How do you like the esoteric arguments about the building code going on?

[Speaker 13] (2:26:12 - 2:26:16)
If I'm going on a site that's on 6 Chula Road, I don't think I have to worry about my shoes.

[Speaker 23] (2:26:17 - 2:26:21)
I think it is. We'll talk to you about that. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 6] (2:26:22 - 2:26:23)
I've learned that a lot.

[Speaker 23] (2:26:24 - 2:26:26)
I think so. Take care, Ken.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:27 - 2:26:34)
Thank you so much. Well, because you're going to be assisting what it does. It's not a platform.

But those are good questions.

[Speaker 10] (2:26:43 - 2:26:44)
No, you took the time.

[Speaker 23] (2:26:44 - 2:26:48)
Nobody's going to be offended. Especially if you're quick.

[Speaker 20] (2:26:49 - 2:26:50)
Especially if you're quick.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:00 - 2:27:01)
There's been a lot of late ones.

[Speaker 20] (2:27:02 - 2:27:04)
Yeah, that's all going to stay on.

[Speaker 23] (2:27:04 - 2:27:17)
Oh, really? We've got the agenda.

[Speaker 20] (2:27:18 - 2:27:21)
Yeah. I can't imagine Salem.

[Speaker 10] (2:27:39 - 2:27:42)
You're going to fall asleep if you're too comfy in your home.

[Speaker 6] (2:27:42 - 2:27:43)
Was that tonight?

[Speaker 10] (2:27:43 - 2:27:50)
Was that tonight? Was the Salem one tonight? It's tomorrow night.

[Speaker 19] (2:27:50 - 2:27:51)
That's the one I want to watch.

[Speaker 10] (2:27:52 - 2:28:03)
What's going on in that one? Is they're trying to build that weird house at the back of the other house? I want to know if they get permission.

I may be watching that tomorrow night.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:08 - 2:28:12)
Where do they want to do it? Yeah.

[Speaker 23] (2:28:15 - 2:28:17)
That's a hard one. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:29 - 2:28:30)
Hi.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:47 - 2:29:02)
I did.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:05 - 2:29:29)
No, that was helpful. I think I have it right here. Hopefully.

No, I don't, but I have it.

[Speaker 10] (2:29:40 - 2:29:43)
No, it was the Honor Society.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:43 - 2:29:45)
The National Honor Society had a meeting.

[Speaker 10] (2:29:46 - 2:29:50)
A lot of smart kids here in Swarovski, I guess.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:52 - 2:29:53)
That must be it.

[Speaker 23] (2:29:53 - 2:30:04)
Why was my son? Yeah, I had the same thing.

[Speaker 22] (2:30:10 - 2:30:11)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:12 - 2:30:17)
We were supposed to start at 6. We had a second agenda tonight.

[Speaker 10] (2:30:37 - 2:30:38)
Don't promise.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:10 - 2:32:42)
What's that? Oh, no, I'm going to a wedding in Israel. This is the third time they've had this wedding.

This is the third time we've been booked to go. The bride and groom are there already. My wife's best friend.

We're going the second, the 11th. I didn't get to see my daughter in Spain because I was doing this trip. My wife went to Italy with the girls for 10 days and had a great time.

I had a great time. Okay. All right.

So now being after 730 p.m. We get to petition 2126 for pine street development LLC. 30 Quinn. How are you this evening?

All right. So some revisions to the petition. Since the last time.

[Speaker 6] (2:32:56 - 2:35:36)
project for this neighborhood, there were a lot of concerns expressed. Board members had a lot of input at the planning board and some here. And so we've tried to cut it back, cut it down, and make it look much more fitting for the neighborhood, which was one of the big take-backs I got from our last meeting with the zoning board, which was some people felt regardless of all the merits, they just couldn't meet the criteria of the special permit to recognize and complement the architecture and style of the neighborhood well.

So we unleashed Mr. Pittman and finally asked him to emphasize all his talents to meet those design concerns and at the same time do, of course, what the client would like to accomplish. And you know, Peter is on the Zoom here with us tonight. I really would like to let him do most of the talking, if possible, and to answer your questions, but I just would say I did submit to everybody who I submitted to you today a list that just quickly summarizes that the present project is now 20 dwelling units rather than 22 or 34, whatever we originally had.

We still have the 30 indoor parking spaces on the first floor. We still retain a little over 1,000 square feet of retail on the first floor, as we were urged to do with the planning board to provide amenity to the neighborhood. We're in the B1 district, and I've given you a list of what I believe at this point are the forms of relief we need.

But I would say, generally speaking, talking after our last meeting with you, with Peter and the developers, we had to make a decision. The decision was redesign to try and meet the design concerns or worry more than that about asking for a height variance. And we decided that we might need a height variance in any case, which I can discuss, but we weren't going to get approved by this board without making a major change in the design of the property.

So that's what we've done. And, you know, it was a lot of work for everybody involved, but we've got a good, interesting design to show you today and answer your questions and get your feedback. It's not final.

It's another iteration of what we now would like to do, and we hope it's what will be approved. But there's always room to talk about more things. So with that, if you don't mind, can I just either answer any immediate questions or ask that you recognize Mr. Pittman to describe the new project as it's designed?

[Speaker 1] (2:35:37 - 2:35:40)
Sure. Why don't we go right ahead to Peter, then?

[Speaker 4] (2:35:42 - 2:35:44)
Good evening, everyone. Can I share my screen?

[Speaker 13] (2:35:46 - 2:35:51)
Oh, yes. I started sharing it myself just by reflex, but go for it.

[Speaker 4] (2:36:14 - 2:41:17)
As Bill pointed out, we improved the massing on the third floor, and we brought a more residential scale and proportion in detailing to the property overall. We are still keeping the roof deck, but it's been reduced down behind the parapet and would not be visible from the public way at any point. It's only about two feet above the parapet.

We'll go into that in more detail further on. This is the landscape plan. I'm going to push back that.

That'll be updated as part of if we go on with the elevation. The unit now has come down to 20 units. The mix is 16 one-bedrooms and four two-bedrooms.

The Pine Street elevation is reduced to mass across the front with gables and shed dormers. The windows are what would be typically required by code and good design practice. We showed this roof deck, but it would be substantially smaller.

We're still having two large solar panel fields planned for the roof deck, so the actual area will be substantially smaller. The ramp configuration remains the same. It's now sheltered underneath this overhang.

This is the entrance into the building, as it was before, and the side entrance into the retail space on the first floor. Trash will be contained inside the building, and the roof deck, again, would not be visible from the public way. Here are the heights.

The lowest grade to the top of the roof plane, the flat roof, is 36 feet 2 inches. We would be looking for relief. We allow 2 feet of parquet above that.

Just as another point of reference, if we were to take a look at the roof from the average of the foundation, it would be about 29 feet 2. So very much in scale with proportions of a residential house. Zooming in, you would see that we've got board and batten on the first floor.

The windows would be black. Simulated divided lights, so there'd be mines on the outside, middle, inside. Parting planks in composite trim details.

There'd be some metal standing seam roofs on the sheds, and the rest of the roof would be architectural asphalt shingles. As we come around the corner, this is the Airy Street elevation. We'd have our glass garage door, our service door to the trash room, and then windows for the individual units.

Again, standing seam metal roof on the sheds, architectural shingles beyond. These features, this is elevator and staircase head houses. Again, those would be largely not visible from the public way.

If you do, it's just a little glimpse off the corner. This is what would be next to the BFW. The BFW would pretty much cover all of this area, at least back to here, and certainly from the public way.

This is the westerly lot line, which we have to keep open for natural ventilation. There would be a mesh screen across here, welded wire, powder-coated fabric, or something similar to that, so that we could maximize the ventilation for the parking garage. We have to have 50% of the parking garage open for air circulation.

So that's what we have for you tonight, and I'll turn it back over to the Council.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:17 - 2:41:26)
I think you did a great job with the changes from the last plan. What's that?

[Speaker 10] (2:41:26 - 2:41:29)
The biggest question, yeah, we had last thing was the third floor, right?

[Speaker 8] (2:41:30 - 2:41:30)
Two and a half stories.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:31 - 2:41:38)
Well, does that first – well, yeah, because – I mean, well, let's talk about that for a minute. Yeah, let's get to that issue.

[Speaker 6] (2:41:39 - 2:43:09)
This is more than two and a half stories. We're calling it three stories. The question has been a legal question as to whether or not you have authority in special permit provisions under dimension, not only grant the foot-and-a-half-a-weekly need in heat, but the third story.

And I took the opportunity after we met to review the zoning decisions that were discussed here that night for the Concordia. Yep. And I think it's the White Court, though I'm not sure what the name of it is.

Yep. And we're actually kind of surprised to read in the Concordia decision, the board took the position that it had the authority to grant the third story by special permit and did so. In the White Court decision, Attorney McCann had briefed that issue and decided to ask for alternative relief.

He asked for a third story by special permit and he asked for a third story by variance and argued grounds for both. And the board recited both of those grounds, all of those grounds, and granted the special permit, specifically not specifying and stating or not specifying the type of relief, whether it was a special permit or a variance. So he hedged the bets.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:10 - 2:43:12)
Yeah, I wrote that decision.

[Speaker 6] (2:43:12 - 2:43:12)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:12 - 2:43:14)
I think I wrote both of them, sorry.

[Speaker 6] (2:43:14 - 2:44:10)
So here's how I'm looking at it. We're going to do the same thing. I certainly think this in the Concordia decision and my argument before the language in the zoning commission was obvious that height includes stories, they're right together under that heading, that you have full authority under the special permit provision, legal authority if you want to exercise it to grant a third story by special permit.

But I believe we have grounds for variances that we may need in terms of soil conditions of the property primarily. And I'm going to submit a new statement of grounds now that we know, if you like this, closer to what we're going to actually do, and I will make that argument for a variance on that issue as well. And you and the chairman can decide which way you want to look at it, but we'll be asking for relief of both kinds to allow us a third story.

[Speaker 10] (2:44:10 - 2:44:14)
What about the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback?

[Speaker 21] (2:44:15 - 2:44:17)
There is no rear yard. It's two side yards.

[Speaker 10] (2:44:19 - 2:44:22)
I see a rear yard. I'm looking at it on the...

[Speaker 6] (2:44:23 - 2:44:35)
Well, I mean, I don't honestly know how you interpret that. Most cities in our ordinance, and I believe in your ordinance, you have two fronts here because you have to comply with the front on the area and you have to comply with the front on the...

[Speaker 10] (2:44:35 - 2:44:37)
You have a road on three sides.

[Speaker 6] (2:44:38 - 2:44:38)
Yeah.

[Speaker 10] (2:44:38 - 2:44:39)
And you have property on the back.

[Speaker 20] (2:44:40 - 2:44:40)
Two sides.

[Speaker 6] (2:44:41 - 2:44:43)
Two sides. We have the VFW on one side.

[Speaker 10] (2:44:43 - 2:44:43)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (2:44:43 - 2:45:08)
But we have Erie and obviously Pine on two sides. So those are two fronts for the purposes of calculating dimension. And in Salem, I don't mean for you to have to do what's done in Salem, but my experience is under those circumstances, they consider the other side's sides and they impose the side setback on them.

[Speaker 1] (2:45:09 - 2:45:10)
So...

[Speaker 10] (2:45:11 - 2:45:33)
I mean, I also think when you're having no setbacks or very minimal setbacks, that needs to be kind of factored in to whether or not you can get that third story because you're pushing to the outer limits of the law as well, and then you're going up to the outer limits. So both things are happening simultaneously.

[Speaker 4] (2:45:34 - 2:45:37)
Bill? Quick, can I speak to that?

[Speaker 1] (2:45:39 - 2:45:43)
It's Peter. I thought it was gone.

[Speaker 4] (2:45:46 - 2:46:52)
In this case, he is. Though the building inspector was in this case, before we drew our first line on any design drawings, we had a one-stop shop with the public works, building department, planning department, fire department, to make sure that all of the town departments were in agreement that we were dealing with two side yard setbacks and there was no rear setback in this case. So that was, again, before we drew our first line and invested all of the time and the money in this project, we got a clarification in that meeting with a concurrence from everyone in the meeting, and no one brought up that there was never any doubt that this was not two fronts and two sides and no rear setback.

Council?

[Speaker 6] (2:46:54 - 2:46:56)
Well, I was at that meeting, so I have to agree.

[Speaker 1] (2:46:57 - 2:46:59)
That's my memory, too, of how it's treated.

[Speaker 6] (2:47:00 - 2:47:13)
But, I mean, let's remember that in the B1, there is zero requirement for a front and zero requirement for a side. That's just recognition of what happens in the B1 and what's already there, like what we're replacing this year.

[Speaker 8] (2:47:14 - 2:47:15)
So move like that.

[Speaker 10] (2:47:18 - 2:47:34)
Yes, sir. What's happening on the side? I think we have to consider what's happening on the side.

Unfortunately, I don't know. I was kind of just looking at the map. Who are the abutters on that side?

Is it other people's backyards? What are the properties here?

[Speaker 6] (2:47:34 - 2:47:39)
VFW is on one side, and they have a big open parking lot adjacent to our property.

[Speaker 10] (2:47:39 - 2:47:39)
Yeah, I know the VFW.

[Speaker 6] (2:47:41 - 2:47:58)
On Erie is people across the street. Behind us is Stacey Brook, which is town property, and then 20 feet away is the property line for the abutters on Erie.

[Speaker 4] (2:48:04 - 2:49:00)
Terry's going to start with that yard. So here's Erie. This is our entrance into the parking garage.

This is our interior trash storage. This is coming around the corner onto Pine Street. This is our main entrance in the front of the building, our handicap ramp going up.

The entrance to the retail space here. And then the abutters. This is the town of Swampscott, which is actually the VFW.

And technically across the north side of the property here, this is actually Swampscott town land. So the city is the legal abutter on this side. There is a neighbor adjacent to that, but there is a town owned home.

[Speaker 8] (2:49:00 - 2:49:02)
How wide is that town owned strip?

[Speaker 6] (2:49:04 - 2:49:09)
I believe it's 15 feet or 20 feet. I'm sorry, I don't have something right in front of me.

[Speaker 8] (2:49:10 - 2:49:11)
It's 15 feet.

[Speaker 6] (2:49:15 - 2:49:18)
And the house isn't on the property line.

[Speaker 8] (2:49:18 - 2:49:22)
There's a backyard, then there's a backyard, then there's a house on the other street.

[Speaker 6] (2:49:22 - 2:49:37)
And I think it's worth just noting that on Erie, our building is set back about... That's a good look there. That's where we have some utilities, some landscaping, and that's sort of the ramp in and out of the parking garage.

[Speaker 1] (2:49:38 - 2:49:41)
Right, Marissa put it up on the board, a good view.

[Speaker 13] (2:49:42 - 2:49:44)
Peter did, but thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (2:49:45 - 2:49:46)
I'll give you all credit.

[Speaker 1] (2:49:47 - 2:50:01)
Oh, Peter did, he's got the screen. So one thing I wanted to ask about, because we talked about it a little bit at the last meeting, about that commercial space. Because I don't think the commercial space works here, I know Andy and I both do.

[Speaker 21] (2:50:02 - 2:50:13)
Yeah, the reason why we put in the commercial space, it was an erection that was provided by the planning board. We're not set in stone on the commercial space either, that's the only reason it's in there. You know, if we want to go back residential, you know, we don't...

[Speaker 1] (2:50:14 - 2:50:27)
So would you be able to put a residential unit there, or you would be able to? That's just one thing I'm thinking. If you're coming back the next time, that maybe you have a plan ready that shows that as residential as well.

[Speaker 6] (2:50:27 - 2:50:36)
Do you agree, Peter? I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? They're asking us if we can eliminate the retail and add a unit on the first floor.

[Speaker 1] (2:50:36 - 2:50:37)
As an alternative.

[Speaker 6] (2:50:37 - 2:50:38)
As an alternative.

[Speaker 4] (2:50:40 - 2:51:05)
Yes, it's a reasonable alternative. It challenges us, just as we got conforming on the residential parking with 20 units, it brings us back up to 21 units. But that would be...

I think the ownership team would be very willing to consider a dwelling unit there instead of a retail space. But Alec, don't let me put words in your mouth.

[Speaker 8] (2:51:06 - 2:51:28)
No, you are correct. I just read an article today that said that the retail space on these mixed-use buildings is going to sink the apartment buildings. Because Salem's doing...

Like, look at Jefferson Park, where Monopoly was. Parker Brothers. It's been 20 years since they've been renting that space.

[Speaker 6] (2:51:29 - 2:51:31)
That's right, on the first floor of all those buildings.

[Speaker 8] (2:51:31 - 2:51:52)
Yes, it's all been here. David Oxman kind of rented it for 10 or 15 years. The town's going to do it, you know.

There's no market here. And I would think the neighbors would rather see a non-commercial space than a commercial space that has no parking, no chance of being viable under any circumstances, etc., etc.

[Speaker 6] (2:51:52 - 2:51:57)
It helps us with the parking because the retail... We haven't provided parking for the retail.

[Speaker 8] (2:51:57 - 2:52:08)
I know, it's an interesting thing saying you don't need it. But in the reality of the use, that small apartment will have way less parking intensity than a commercial use.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:09 - 2:52:16)
I just think it's better for the neighborhood to not have the commercial space. It's a great concept, a great idea, and I give credit to the planning board.

[Speaker 10] (2:52:16 - 2:52:17)
I just think of that location.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:17 - 2:52:19)
That location, that's what they're on location for.

[Speaker 8] (2:52:20 - 2:52:22)
We can't even keep the businesses in Venice Square. We're going to keep the...

[Speaker 6] (2:52:22 - 2:52:33)
Like I said, it's been a work in progress, and let's make some more progress. We'll do that. So let's figure out.

Maybe it'll affect again a little bit the relief we're asking for, something that shouldn't be left.

[Speaker 8] (2:52:34 - 2:52:45)
Maybe as a quid pro quo and all the links in that, you have to have two low income, moderate income units.

[Speaker 10] (2:52:46 - 2:52:47)
How many do they have to have?

[Speaker 8] (2:52:48 - 2:53:11)
Two. One for every ten. One for every ten.

Maybe the quid pro quo is you make that commercial space a third housing unit. That generates a lot of good publicity, and you'll get more rent from the moderate income housing unit than you're ever going to collect over a period of time for the vacant store that you're going to pay commercial taxes on.

[Speaker 10] (2:53:12 - 2:53:15)
The percentages of before will go up dramatically.

[Speaker 8] (2:53:16 - 2:53:19)
Right. That's what we're looking to do, so I think that's it.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:19 - 2:53:24)
How's the line of communication been with the Butters, all the neighbors? It's going better.

[Speaker 21] (2:53:24 - 2:53:44)
We listen to what they have to say, and we revise our design, and one of them are here tonight, and they'll speak. We came out a little aggressive with our first couple designs, and we came back, and we listened to what they have to say. We added parking spots.

We reduced the number of units. We reduced the height. We changed the aesthetics, and I think we're pretty close.

We're getting closer.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:46 - 2:54:26)
So is there anything else that you wanted to share with us tonight? I think we're going in the right direction is what I think. I would like to hear from any of the Butters that had comments.

Make sure you're getting all the comments that they might have. If anyone felt like they needed to or wanted to share any comments with the petitioner at this public hearing, you're free to reach out to the petitioner outside of the public hearing, but if you wanted to make sure your views were expressed at this point in time, now's a good time to do that. So I see there are a couple of hands raised, three hands raised.

So, Marissa, can you?

[Speaker 13] (2:54:26 - 2:54:29)
Yes. Cindy Cavallaro.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:29 - 2:54:30)
Okay. Ms. Cavallaro.

[Speaker 18] (2:54:32 - 2:55:17)
Yes, Mr. Chairman and the board. It's been a very late night. I have to commend.

They're beautiful. They really are. But you cannot compare Marion Court, three stories, wanting a critical probe for affordable housing, low income, whatever, to go up higher.

It's two separate areas. Marion Court is wide open, accordion, whatever you want to call it, open space. This is a very dense, dense area.

So I think you asking to go any higher is going to cause a lot more problems in the long run. It looks beautiful.

[Speaker 14] (2:55:17 - 2:55:18)
It really does.

[Speaker 18] (2:55:18 - 2:56:05)
I'm really impressed with how well that you're working with the neighborhood. I live on Pine Street. I'm a town meeting member.

I was totally against this in the beginning, and I'm starting to lean a little more towards it. Just because of the way that you've been working with us and the abutters who've been contacting me to speak for some of them. But some of the concerns we still have is Staceybrook, the flooding, the demolition, the trucks.

Is there existing asbestos? All these things that we haven't heard anything about in terms of reports. And maybe I'm a little ahead of the game.

But going up any higher, no. I think that this looks good just the way that it is.

[Speaker 8] (2:56:06 - 2:56:39)
Can I interrupt you, please, and say they're not asking to go up in terms of it. They're just asking to cover more of the third floor. It's not going up.

That's the height that you see. What they've done is they've inserted dormers and reduced some of the square footage. So they don't have a full three floors.

They're using like 80% of it, or you can only use 50% of it. They're not going up. They're just spending the cost.

What you see is what you've been proposing right now. That's what you're getting.

[Speaker 18] (2:56:40 - 2:56:54)
Okay. Well, getting rid of the commercial is definitely a plus because of the parking. But putting in another residential, wouldn't you be able to have enough allotted parking for those people that are moving in?

[Speaker 1] (2:56:54 - 2:57:05)
So would it be a studio in that one unit? Most likely. It's only about 1,000 square feet.

Yeah. So it would be a studio unit, and they would have to work. Right.

One bedroom.

[Speaker 21] (2:57:07 - 2:57:14)
How many parking spots do you have? We have 30 parking spots. But the parking spots would become tandem if we were, you know, at.

[Speaker 18] (2:57:14 - 2:57:21)
And what about visitor parking? I mean, people want to have people over for holidays, for dinner parties, whatnot, you know.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:22 - 2:57:24)
We've got 30 spots for 20 units.

[Speaker 21] (2:57:25 - 2:57:26)
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:26 - 2:57:28)
We've got 30 spots for 20 units.

[Speaker 23] (2:57:28 - 2:57:31)
Right. They have a pretty good parking ratio.

[Speaker 21] (2:57:31 - 2:57:33)
And 16 of the units are one bedroom. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:34 - 2:57:36)
Right. And it's a transit-oriented.

[Speaker 18] (2:57:37 - 2:57:39)
Come a long way, they looked a lot better than they did.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:39 - 2:57:40)
That's for sure.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:40 - 2:57:41)
Thank you.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:41 - 2:57:42)
Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:42 - 2:57:46)
Well, thank you, Ms. Cavallaro. So there were a couple of other hands raised.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:47 - 2:57:49)
I have Betty Johnson.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:49 - 2:57:54)
Okay. If I could have an address, it would be great, too. Betty.

[Speaker 13] (2:57:56 - 2:59:06)
My address is 12 and 14 Erie Street. I know that they say that I don't abut the property, but they do abut between Stacy Brook and the building. I'm the only house that's next to this.

And there seems to be a discrepancy about the width of Stacy Brook because if we go with the dimensions they're using, my garage that's been there since 1925 is on city property. Now, I've been asking all along how many trees they're going to cut down. I've never got an answer.

I'm concerned about the garage vents all venting into my yard. I understand they need to have 50% vent, but they could have a mesh garage door. On their plans, they show a four-foot chain link fence between that garage and my yard.

I've been asking if they could put a six-foot privacy fence so we don't see the headlights, we don't get all the fumes. We're losing all our privacy. I laughed about the woman in the last one.

She said she's got one window she's complaining about. I'm going to have 40, 50 windows looking down into my yard.

[Speaker 10] (2:59:09 - 2:59:11)
Is the fence a possibility? Absolutely.

[Speaker 13] (2:59:11 - 2:59:26)
And then the one other thing that I'm concerned about is on the original drawings, the roof deck was 1,920 square feet. The new drawings show it as being 6,800 square feet. Now, he said that's not finalized.

What is the final going to be?

[Speaker 1] (2:59:28 - 2:59:31)
I'll ask the petitioner if they can answer any of those questions.

[Speaker 6] (2:59:32 - 2:59:34)
I'll have to ask the architect then.

[Speaker 4] (2:59:35 - 2:59:46)
So the chain link fence is an existing fence, and I don't think that – and I'll defer to Alec on this. Alec, are you willing to do a six-foot privacy fence along that line?

[Speaker 21] (2:59:47 - 2:59:51)
Yes, I think that would be good for everyone, the neighbors, the headlights. Correct.

[Speaker 4] (2:59:52 - 3:01:29)
So we get the chain link fence and get rid of the chain link, and we provide a six-foot privacy fence. That six-foot privacy fence would also allow for the required ventilation by phone but also provide a light screen and, again, the privacy for the neighbor. This is her garage as surveyed from tax maps.

You can actually go on that property and verify it, but based upon tax maps, I believe this is when the civil engineer was able to locate her garage. In terms of trees, all of the trees on our property will have to be removed. We'll be excavating.

We did talk to Gino Prestor in the public works department about managing and dealing with construction near Stacy Brook and all of the drainage issues. As the plans were developed thus far, they've been in compliance and coordination with the DPW. The civil engineer obviously has to comply with all of the engineering standards and practices, and there has been quite a bit of discussion in the planning board phase.

You can see right here that all of the drainage generated by our building is going to be contained on our site through this subsurface cul-de-sac system.

[Speaker 13] (3:01:30 - 3:01:52)
Yeah, I'm not questioning the drainage right now. I've been maintaining those trees for 26 years because there's been a battle back and forth that the city says they're not their trees. Now, all of a sudden, they are city trees, and I've been paying to maintain them.

I want to go back to the fence. When you say a fence, will you do a PVC fence and not a stockade fence?

[Speaker 4] (3:01:54 - 3:02:08)
I'm sure the ownership team would run whatever type of fence you would like to have. If you wanted a six-foot PVC, and that was good with zoning and planning, then I think that would be a perfectly reasonable request.

[Speaker 13] (3:02:09 - 3:02:23)
Okay, and another request I had was on the lights on the sidewalk on our side of the building. We've asked if there can be motion detectors so the LED lights aren't on all night, shining in our bedrooms. Is that something you'll do?

[Speaker 4] (3:02:23 - 3:03:09)
Yeah, so we'll – I don't know if motion detectors would be the best solution. What we'll do is we will have to work with the lighting design and code to comply with what's called dark sky standards, which means the building code requires that we have one or two foot candles along an egress path, which is fairly dim lighting. That's like dim parts of a parking lot.

So there would be dim lighting along there. It would be hooded, and we could even look at options of maybe the lighting being in the fence pose so they reflect back on the walkway and not on the building.

[Speaker 13] (3:03:10 - 3:04:00)
Well, if they're hooded, that's fine. It just has to – we don't want them shining in the house all night. Absolutely.

Now I have one more thing that has nothing to do with this building. As most of you are aware with planning meetings, we had a problem in the winter with the snow being plowed and dumped on the sidewalks. We were told the property managers would take care of it, but they didn't.

Every storm, they kept doing it. Now we're having a problem that someone's dumping trash on this lot. It was a whole bunch of trash that went away.

Now for at least three weeks, there's been chairs and sofa and all kinds of stuff tucked in the corner by my yard. Nobody's checking the property. Nobody's making sure.

I know there were security cameras in it when Charlie was there, but somebody's got to do something to stop this dumping.

[Speaker 6] (3:04:04 - 3:04:07)
We own the property. On the property.

[Speaker 13] (3:04:08 - 3:04:11)
In the corner by the garage door is on Erie Street.

[Speaker 10] (3:04:12 - 3:04:38)
Can I ask a tree question? The trees that you're concerned about, are they on the property or are they on that 15-foot space between your property and – I think most of them are on that strip between. So you're not touching those trees because those are town trees.

Right. The 15 feet between the two properties, none of those trees could be touched without permission from the town.

[Speaker 13] (3:04:39 - 3:04:46)
Okay. I mean, we're losing so much privacy. I would like to at least keep the trees.

Yeah, you can't touch them.

[Speaker 10] (3:04:46 - 3:04:49)
You can't touch them. They're not on his property. Unless they hang over.

Unless they hang over your property, right.

[Speaker 21] (3:04:50 - 3:04:50)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:04:51 - 3:04:55)
Okay, I thought there was one last thing.

[Speaker 13] (3:04:55 - 3:04:56)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (3:04:56 - 3:04:57)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 13] (3:04:59 - 3:05:03)
I do have a couple more hands, yeah. I have Cesar.

[Speaker 22] (3:05:08 - 3:06:07)
Hi, Cesar Medea, 27 Pine Street. Hi. I just want to reiterate a lot of the things that my other neighbors said that I'm concerned about, from parking, the increased noise levels.

But I also want to add the increased shade that it's going to possibly have on my house, especially in the evening and wintertime. That's a big concern for me because my house in the winter obviously doesn't get much sunlight at all. Another thing is traffic.

Seeing that another property is going to be built not too far from here. And I know that a lot of those cars are going to cut through Pine Street to get to that area. So that's going to be a huge impact with 30, I'm sorry, 20 units across the street now.

And also the construction noise. Our house, just having a large truck driving by shakes. So I can't imagine them digging what it's going to be like.

I want to see what their plan is to mitigate that.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:09 - 3:06:20)
I would expect there would be a complete construction management plan that would be a condition. Ideally, we'd like to see what their plan is. Maybe they could submit that to us in the next meeting.

[Speaker 8] (3:06:21 - 3:07:14)
I'd ask this question to the abutters. If this 20-unit apartment building was sitting here today and these petitioners were coming in here to tear the 20-unit apartment building down and build a concrete block industrial building that can be used by a myriad of users, would you think that, I mean, we had the same thing when we were talking about the middle school in condos where they're thinking, well, this is new, but you're not putting it in the context of what you have. We're not putting this, they're not petitioning to put this on 20 acres of virgin farmland.

We have an existing building that can be used. It's got traffic that's so incongruous for the neighborhood, it's unbelievable. This is bringing it much closer.

I'd like, you know, you should think about that in the context, especially the way these guys are doing it.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:14 - 3:07:20)
We had a lot of hearings about the prior use of the existing building.

[Speaker 10] (3:07:20 - 3:07:24)
Right, I've been here all the time because of all the noise from the car repair.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:24 - 3:07:26)
Right, I've done site visits there.

[Speaker 8] (3:07:27 - 3:07:31)
I mean, 20 apartments is a fraction of the traffic.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:31 - 3:07:37)
Right, with the cars that we hear, with the cars running, racing the engines, being towed in.

[Speaker 21] (3:07:38 - 3:07:41)
We also have a traffic study that we submitted that reflects what you're saying.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:44 - 3:07:46)
So, Marissa, was there another hand?

[Speaker 13] (3:07:46 - 3:07:49)
Yes, Marsha Dalton.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:49 - 3:07:50)
Okay.

[Speaker 19] (3:07:56 - 3:08:38)
Hi, my name is Marsha Dalton. I live at 37 Pine Street, which is kind of kitty-coated to where the proposed building is going to be. I just have a couple of questions.

It wasn't really made clear whether these are going to be condominiums or apartments, if the owner could answer that. And then the other concern I have is about the trash. I know it's contained inside, but it was mentioned that it would be taken out three times a week.

And is it just going to sit there, or is somebody in the private contractor going to come? And, of course, I agree with everyone about the traffic and the parking. And thank you for listening to me.

I know it's late. Good night.

[Speaker 1] (3:08:38 - 3:08:38)
Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (3:08:39 - 3:08:40)
I'll ask the petitioner.

[Speaker 8] (3:08:40 - 3:08:41)
It's private trash, right?

[Speaker 6] (3:08:41 - 3:09:48)
Correct. My understanding, as we've talked about this, the condo apartment decision hasn't been made. The final project hasn't even been designed yet for completion.

But whatever, there will be three affordable units for sale or three affordable units for rent. And what we're designing here with all these one-bedroom units is basically workplace-type housing, workforce housing. We've got an elevator and a three-story building, so it's going to be a great place and a great neighborhood for older people who want to settle and not have to move as they grow older.

We get you affordable, affordable. We get you a whiteboard, two, three, four million dollar condominiums that rich people are going to live in and it's not going to help in the housing in this community at all. And this is sort of the middle of the road.

It's workforce, working people type housing. So the prices and the rents and the design will reflect that. And we think it will fit a really good niche for needed housing in the community.

[Speaker 20] (3:09:49 - 3:09:50)
So that's the plan.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:50 - 3:09:53)
A lot of commuters on the commuter rail, I'm sure.

[Speaker 6] (3:09:56 - 3:10:00)
Trash. What's the story with the trash? It's not going to sit outside except the day it's picked up, right?

[Speaker 21] (3:10:00 - 3:10:01)
You have an indoor trash floor. Correct.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:01 - 3:10:05)
What, are they going to the building to pick it up or you're not sure of that yet? No, they'll pull it out.

[Speaker 21] (3:10:05 - 3:10:09)
They'll dump it right in the truck and then they'll put the barrels right back and then the truck will take off.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:10 - 3:10:10)
Okay.

[Speaker 21] (3:10:11 - 3:10:12)
All right, so.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:13 - 3:10:14)
Wind waste. I think, what was the question?

[Speaker 21] (3:10:14 - 3:10:18)
It's a private contract. Yeah, private contract. Wind waste.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:18 - 3:10:22)
So what I think we should do is look to continue to the June 21st meeting. Is that enough time?

[Speaker 23] (3:10:23 - 3:10:26)
Oh, I'm sorry. Absolutely, you've been sitting here patiently all night.

[Speaker 1] (3:10:27 - 3:10:28)
Poor people.

[Speaker 16] (3:10:29 - 3:12:18)
Hi, I'm Steve Yadman. I live on Pine Street. What I would like to see at this talk is not e-mail, but call the Sunlight.

I don't know if you've heard about Sunlight. I don't know about neighbors because that side of the street is where alcohol is getting into the sun. You know, and that's where you get the sun.

So there's no melting alcohol or anything like that. Is what you're doing at the Sun Study done yet? Not at this point.

[Speaker 1] (3:12:19 - 3:12:28)
Well, the Shadow Study could show what the existing is. Compared to what's here now because I know there's a big concrete block building there occupying much of the site.

[Speaker 6] (3:12:29 - 3:12:39)
We'll get down on that and do some studies. Both in terms of the visibility keeping from the roof deck. Can we build now to the size of the deck?

[Speaker 23] (3:12:39 - 3:12:42)
The roof deck, yeah. Remember, limit the size of the deck.

[Speaker 8] (3:12:43 - 3:12:52)
Then, ask Peter, the question is, if you're in the center of the roof deck, you know, so you're not at the edges, will you not even be able to look over or look up?

[Speaker 10] (3:12:56 - 3:13:02)
I think we agree that we need more clarification on where the deck is and that sort of stuff. So that's going to happen.

[Speaker 16] (3:13:02 - 3:13:15)
And we've mentioned that we haven't decided how many times a week.

[Speaker 21] (3:13:15 - 3:13:30)
Will we do less battles or more times a week? One or the other. So you can have a truck there for 10 minutes with two battles, and you can have a truck there for 30 minutes with 10 battles.

But it will be less times a week. You can have it one way or the other, but you have to get rid of the stuff.

[Speaker 2] (3:13:31 - 3:13:34)
But it's not going to sit on the sidewalk. No, no. The truck will be there.

[Speaker 15] (3:13:35 - 3:13:39)
We'll dump it. We'll put it back. We'll bring it back in.

It's not going to sit on the sidewalk.

[Speaker 12] (3:13:46 - 3:13:48)
Thank you very much. Do you think it would be more often?

[Speaker 8] (3:13:49 - 3:13:50)
Trash picker. Yeah.

[Speaker 12] (3:13:51 - 3:13:52)
Yeah, think about it.

[Speaker 15] (3:13:52 - 3:13:53)
It can be more often.

[Speaker 23] (3:13:56 - 3:13:56)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:56 - 3:14:15)
Thank you, everybody. Okay. So I'm going to ask you to agree to sign a continuous not tonight, but you can do it tomorrow for the 21st of June.

So we're going to come back here the 21st of June, 7 p.m. It'll be hybrid again. Hopefully hybrid rather than just all Zoom, but it'll be posted.

[Speaker 6] (3:14:16 - 3:14:19)
Yeah. Okay. I mean, our intention is to seek a decision that night.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:19 - 3:14:24)
But what's the other? Well, I'd say work real hard with the neighbors in the interim, would be what I would say.

[Speaker 10] (3:14:25 - 3:14:27)
Get us stuff early so we can think about it.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:30 - 3:14:34)
We voted on the one before this one. So that one's done.

[Speaker 6] (3:14:35 - 3:14:51)
I just want to make one comment. I walked in here and I saw my Salem assistant building. Steve here.

And I thought he was probably a neighbor, right? Maybe of one of these projects or something. So I asked him to talk to me and I found out he's a new building inspector.

Yes. You've got a good one.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:51 - 3:14:52)
Oh, great.

[Speaker 6] (3:14:52 - 3:14:52)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:54 - 3:14:56)
We're hoping he stays up.

[Speaker 6] (3:14:56 - 3:14:58)
He seems happy about the thing.

[Speaker 1] (3:15:01 - 3:15:04)
Okay. All right. Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 13] (3:15:04 - 3:15:08)
All in favor. Aye. Enthusiastic.