[Speaker 15] (1:05 - 1:07)
You pay by card, you press ISP money.

[Speaker 20] (1:08 - 1:08)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:37 - 2:15)
Hey, good evening everyone. Welcome to the September 20th 2022 meeting of the zoning board of appeals. Now being up to 7pm we're going to begin our agenda.

Marissa, do we have any? And I should first note that we are in a hybrid format. We have three members here present and three members, two members currently who are joining us by Zoom.

So do we have any meeting minutes to approve?

[Speaker 15] (2:15 - 2:16)
I do not have meeting minutes.

[Speaker 1] (2:16 - 2:20)
And we're going to do, we're going to go right to item three, right?

[Speaker 15] (2:21 - 2:24)
I rearranged the agenda so it's now item one.

[Speaker 1] (2:24 - 2:49)
Oh, it is item one? Yes. Oh, well I have my agenda from earlier.

Okay, great, I see. Okay, so the first item we're going to get to now being up to 7pm is petition 2217 by Julie Gordon for 115 Greenwood Ave. For a new special permit for construction of a basement accessory dwelling unit. Okay, I understand they're going to be joining us by Zoom?

[Speaker 15] (2:50 - 2:53)
Yes, Scott and Julie are Zooming in from Iceland.

[Speaker 12] (2:54 - 2:55)
Okay.

[Speaker 15] (2:58 - 3:01)
Scott and Julie, can you hear us?

[Speaker 12] (3:02 - 3:04)
We can, can you hear us?

[Speaker 15] (3:04 - 3:13)
Yes. So you guys can just explain to the board, is your contractor on tonight as well?

[Speaker 20] (3:14 - 3:16)
No, just us.

[Speaker 15] (3:16 - 3:22)
Okay, so I will pull up the materials if you wouldn't mind just explaining to the board the gist of your application.

[Speaker 5] (3:25 - 3:37)
Yeah, our contractor is going to San Jose and we've got a partially finished basement that we are planning to turn into a parking slash dorm room for her.

[Speaker 11] (3:37 - 3:46)
But adding nothing structurally, just adding a kitchen, bathroom, shower.

[Speaker 8] (3:48 - 3:56)
And it's got a separate entrance already and we're going to add another egress in the bedroom to make up the code.

[Speaker 2] (3:58 - 4:00)
And that's our plan.

[Speaker 1] (4:03 - 4:19)
Okay, is there anyone who had any questions about this petition? First I'm going to ask if there's anyone present here. Hearing none, anyone on Zoom?

Mark, I have a question.

[Speaker 2] (4:20 - 4:40)
Oh, sure. Do you have architect stamped drawings or anything? Or is this just, I just, the plans look so rudimentary and I just didn't know, they weren't drawn to scale.

Are you planning on having an architect involved or a design professional, a builder that's going to create any kind of building plan?

[Speaker 15] (4:41 - 5:13)
We have a builder. We did not get an architect because there was nothing that was going to be changed structurally. It's just the addition of, is that basically the structure, there's three rooms.

So the structure is one of the rooms is going to be the bedroom, one is going to be the kitchen, and one is the living area. So there's nothing that's going to change structurally. So we were told because nothing was going to change structurally, we weren't expanding or changing the dimensions of it.

There wasn't any need to bring an architect.

[Speaker 2] (5:16 - 5:19)
Okay, thank you. What's the total square footage?

[Speaker 1] (5:20 - 5:43)
It's 480 square feet. How much? 480 square feet.

Okay. I'm trying to think, what's the limitation on it? 800.

800 is what? 800. That's well below.

So is there anyone that's on Zoom that had any questions? Please use the raise your hand feature.

[Speaker 15] (5:48 - 5:51)
Hearing none. Nope, no hands.

[Speaker 1] (5:52 - 6:28)
Okay. I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second on that?

I'll second. All in favor, I'm going to do a roll call because there are people by Zoom. So I am a yes.

Heather? Yes. Tony?

Yes. Andy? Yes.

Brad? Yes. And in terms of any debate amongst the board.

Oh, Paul is here too. I haven't consulted the board yet, so you're a yes. Yes.

I'm going to consult the board. I'm not sure when you jumped on, Paula.

[Speaker 16] (6:28 - 6:30)
At the beginning, sorry.

[Speaker 7] (6:30 - 6:33)
As soon as they started talking, I was about three minutes late.

[Speaker 1] (6:36 - 6:50)
So I don't have any issue with this petition. I'm not sure if anyone on the board has any issues with it. Wanted to talk about it at all.

Please stay forward. Is there anyone that wanted to make a motion on this petition?

[Speaker 2] (6:52 - 7:23)
I will. Thank you, Brad. Sure.

So I'll make a motion to approve petition 22-11 to add an accessory apartment under section 5.11.1.1, the bylaw, and just to make sure that it is designed and used consistent with that section and the limitations that are listed in that section. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (7:23 - 7:34)
I think it's 22-17. So I'm going to do a roll call. I'll second that.

Brad, you're a yes? Yes. I'm a yes.

Heather? Yes. Tony?

Yes. And Andy?

[Speaker 3] (7:35 - 7:35)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (7:36 - 8:05)
So we have 5-0. So you have your relief. Brad will write a decision.

He'll file it with the town clerk in the planning department, and you'll have to wait 20 days for the appeal period after that. And then you can go ahead and take that, record it, get your building permit, and comply with the provisions. So good luck with your project and enjoy the rest of your vacation.

Thank you very much.

[Speaker 10] (8:05 - 8:06)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (8:06 - 8:24)
You're welcome. The next matter that we have is petition 21-07, Daniel Dunbar from 6 Conley Ave. Do I have a request to extend the time frame for exercising a permit?

[Speaker 15] (8:26 - 8:43)
Yes. Zach Millay from Pittman and Wortley Architecture is here speaking to this petition. He is here through Zoom as well.

Okay. You might be muted, Zach. You're muted.

Yep.

[Speaker 11] (8:44 - 9:03)
All right. So hi, everyone. So I'm here today just to extend the special permit from July 2021, just for a new year.

It last expired, so the client is just looking to extend that further.

[Speaker 1] (9:05 - 9:09)
Okay. Is there anyone? So no work has begun yet?

[Speaker 11] (9:10 - 9:22)
No, nothing has been done. We went through all the zoning and planning. Everything was done.

It was mid-COVID and they were just kind of on pause a little bit. So now we're ready to kick back off again.

[Speaker 1] (9:23 - 9:46)
Okay. Is there anyone who wanted to be heard about this petition? Hearing none, just to raise your hand feature if you want to be heard about it online.

Hearing none, I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? Second.

I'm going to do a roll call. So on the yes. Andy.

[Speaker 20] (9:47 - 9:47)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (9:48 - 10:28)
Heather. Tony. Yes.

Brad. Yes. Paula.

Yes. On this one, I'm going to constitute the board. Is everyone except for Brad?

Are you going to write a decision? Is there anyone that wanted to make a motion on this one? Very simple.

Okay. Right. 12 months from today.

[Speaker 7] (10:29 - 10:33)
The expiration of the previous. What does he, what do we do?

[Speaker 1] (10:35 - 11:36)
It's whatever we, we grant them. I'd say just 12 months from today. I think this is fair.

I'll second that motion. I'm gonna do a roll call. So Heather.

Yes. Yes. Tony.

Yes. Andy. Yes.

Paula. Yes. Okay.

So you have your relief set. Oh, awesome. Thank you.

Okay. Have a great night. Okay.

Okay. I am going to. I think.

Actually, we're a little late on that tour. To stick with 7 PM. We're going to next do.

Item agenda. Item 4, 22, 12. 461 to 463.

Humphrey street. And. I believe the petitioner is on zoom.

Both.

[Speaker 15] (11:36 - 11:40)
Abdel is here in person. And his architect rod. Rivera is here on zoom.

[Speaker 1] (11:41 - 12:04)
Okay. All right. Great.

All right. So. You're back on this project.

I know it's under construction. Yes. So.

Why can you tell us. What. What.

You're requesting for relief. Tonight.

[Speaker 8] (12:06 - 13:50)
Well, the project started as a. Kind of like. It basically started as a.

It was going to be a commercial. And then. The two apartments involved was from the state.

Office apartments. Then the owner decided that he wanted to do. Three family.

Instead. We went in front of the board. And he had a proof.

Where there was a hiccup. Was that. We're going to put it back together.

How it was. Except. We were asking the variance to increase the height.

Before it used to be a foot and a half. From the floor. And then the pitch.

Up. But the second. And the main entrance would not work.

The way that. It was originally. And now.

The new design. The stairs. Is going to be at the center.

Of what we want to do is. Give or have. Enough headroom.

Which is six foot eight. And that'll give us the clearance for. The proper height.

And also. Give us. A headroom.

The. Idea. Space that we need.

Upstairs. With their floor. In terms of the design.

It's going to be back. To the same. Style of the roof.

With the headroom. With the dormers. And stuff like that.

So we're going to try to keep it. The same original. Except it's going to be a little higher.

The lowest. Part of the wall. Instead of one and a half foot.

It's going to be about five feet. Now.

[Speaker 1] (13:52 - 14:10)
Now I see. The. The part of the relief.

You're looking for. It looks like to me. Is for it to go from.

I see the existing. It says 28. Point nine feet.

And you're looking for it to go to. 37. Point two feet.

[Speaker 8] (14:11 - 14:49)
Well. The 29 feet. Where it does not.

A flat roof. That it was. Now that.

We can't have it. That high. In terms of.

Flat roof. And they. Steve has.

The building. Going to have. Back to his.

Original character. So we asked him. To work out.

Well. We won't be the better way. Of doing it.

And what he allowed was. That as long as. As long as the square footage.

Inside. Within seven feet. Is less than a half.

Of the second floor. That he will allow it. As long as the board.

Approves it.

[Speaker 1] (14:51 - 15:04)
So. I'm trying to. Trying to understand.

So when we approved it. Several months ago. It was.

For two and a half stories.

[Speaker 8] (15:05 - 15:38)
Correct. Leaving the building. The same footprint.

Not touching. The. Building.

Rather. Leaving them the same way. That it was.

But when I gave. The owner. A new set of plans.

With the. With the. Design that I proposed.

Originally. We had. He had the idea.

That we could just. Share the roof. And Steve.

The building. From that. Told us.

That we cannot. Do that. But we have to go.

From the board. Again. So this is why.

We ask him for that.

[Speaker 11] (15:41 - 15:42)
In my.

[Speaker 1] (15:42 - 15:43)
Yeah.

[Speaker 11] (15:45 - 15:48)
I know. Do we not have. I'm hearing.

[Speaker 8] (15:49 - 15:54)
You know. An equal. One five.

About five. Feet. By.

It's going to be.

[Speaker 11] (15:54 - 15:59)
So. Exactly. What we approve.

[Speaker 8] (16:01 - 16:03)
There are.

[Speaker 11] (16:03 - 16:04)
There is.

[Speaker 8] (16:04 - 16:05)
Hang on.

[Speaker 15] (16:05 - 16:07)
I'm sharing my screen. Sorry.

[Speaker 1] (16:08 - 16:09)
I was going to ask.

[Speaker 8] (16:10 - 16:19)
Steve. Yeah. So.

[Speaker 1] (16:21 - 16:22)
Steve.

[Speaker 10] (16:22 - 16:23)
You reviewed. This.

[Speaker 1] (16:23 - 16:24)
Could you.

[Speaker 10] (16:24 - 16:58)
Steve. Can you explain. Do you understand.

Real quick. Originally. The set of plans.

That was submitted. To the ZBA. Was not.

Touch the building. On the outside. At all.

Yeah. Somehow. Another set of plans.

Came up. Came in. A lot.

Long. A lot. Later.

With a full. Third story. Flat roof.

That's why. I stopped the project. And said.

You can't do it. Third story. You can put it.

Back. Exactly. The way it was.

Or. If you want to change it. From the way it was.

[Speaker 13] (16:58 - 16:58)
Yeah.

[Speaker 10] (16:58 - 17:16)
Two and a half stories. You would. If you want to change it at all.

Because the original. Decision set. It was based on.

It was approved. By the set of plans. That was submitted.

I said. If you want to change. That at all.

You need to go back. And I explained. The whole.

50%. Half story. Through them.

[Speaker 1] (17:16 - 17:32)
Right. So they're trying to. Put on.

Put back. On. The third.

Story. That half story. Make it a half story.

And make it. Try to be architecturally. Consistent.

But it's tall.

[Speaker 10] (17:33 - 17:33)
Correct.

[Speaker 8] (17:34 - 17:41)
Yeah. Because it's. Time for all.

The volume. That's on the. Veranda.

Inside the center. That's why. I need.

Time variance.

[Speaker 20] (17:42 - 17:42)
Mm hmm. Correct.

[Speaker 7] (17:47 - 18:04)
What's that? I'm happy. I'm in trouble.

Seeing this. As 50%. Yeah.

When you're. We're showing. Where the seven foot.

Mark is. And then there's all. These dormers.

I don't understand. How it could possibly be. How that's.

How. 50%. That's only 50%.

Of those seven feet.

[Speaker 1] (18:05 - 18:08)
So Steve. Did you look at that calculation. At all.

[Speaker 10] (18:08 - 18:14)
So they did it. Let me see. If I could find this.

Page. They did do a sketch.

[Speaker 8] (18:24 - 18:25)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (18:28 - 18:28)
Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (18:31 - 18:40)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (18:40 - 18:42)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (18:44 - 18:45)
Yeah.

[Speaker 10] (18:52 - 19:01)
Yeah. So the only. I think it's a.

Page. Eight a six. They did the calculations.

Oh, I would confirm them. When I.

[Speaker 1] (19:01 - 19:15)
Went out here. Saying of. The blake.

Right. So you see it in the note on the left side. The page.

1174. So it's going to be less than 50%.

[Speaker 8] (19:16 - 19:27)
586 and then 528 Andy, I can't hear you too well.

[Speaker 1] (19:31 - 19:31)
Andy.

[Speaker 8] (19:33 - 19:35)
No, that's what it is.

[Speaker 5] (19:35 - 19:38)
You're still getting it. You're still using the 100? Yes.

[Speaker 7] (19:40 - 19:41)
We can't hear you well.

[Speaker 1] (19:41 - 19:46)
Yeah, you're fading in and out, Andy. No.

[Speaker 20] (19:47 - 19:49)
Now we can. All right, then don't worry about what I'm saying.

[Speaker 1] (19:57 - 20:04)
And I'm trying this to the height. You're looking for a variance on height? Is that what I understand here?

[Speaker 15] (20:07 - 20:10)
I don't think of variance.

[Speaker 1] (20:10 - 20:12)
I just heard a variance earlier, so I was wondering if.

[Speaker 15] (20:13 - 20:15)
Yeah, over the 35 feet.

[Speaker 1] (20:16 - 20:16)
Right.

[Speaker 10] (20:17 - 20:29)
My question to you, Mark. Yeah. Well, it was when I looked up, and it's not real clear, but the building height in the definition.

[Speaker 1] (20:29 - 20:29)
Yeah.

[Speaker 10] (20:29 - 20:35)
On a sloped roof, I believe that calculation's actually taken halfway between.

[Speaker 1] (20:36 - 20:36)
It's correct.

[Speaker 10] (20:37 - 20:43)
And the top plate. Mm-hmm. I don't really think they're going over the height limit.

[Speaker 1] (20:44 - 20:44)
Right.

[Speaker 10] (20:44 - 20:56)
I think I just explained if they were going to change this in any way from it was originally proposed to you, it needs to go back to you because they're deviating from the original plan.

[Speaker 1] (20:56 - 21:08)
Right. So it's not 37.2 feet. It's a number less, and it's likely underneath, below the maximum height.

[Speaker 7] (21:08 - 21:11)
But even with all those numbers on there, how does that?

[Speaker 1] (21:11 - 21:22)
That's a problem. I don't like the definition we have for building height because I think you should call building height the absolute top of the structure, but our definition doesn't do that.

[Speaker 11] (21:25 - 21:32)
This is going to match the vertical building just a little less across the street than anybody needs.

[Speaker 1] (21:33 - 22:47)
Right. So building height, in the case of flat roofs, and it's not a flat roof, it would be the vertical distance from the highest point of the roof or top of parapet. If parapet is higher from the plane of the roof, this would not be a flat.

In the case of sloped roofs, the vertical distance from the midpoint of the slope between the highest ridge and the main plate of the average finished grade of the ground adjoining the building. In neither case shall the height of the building be measured from the top of the basement, cellar, garage, storage area, et cetera, which is counted as a story. If the existing grades in the site for new construction are raised one foot or more on average for new construction, the height of the building shall be calculated from the grades that existed prior to new construction.

So this is a sloped roof. So you would take the distance from the midpoint of the slope between the highest ridge and the plate. So it would be below.

So I'm sure we can see that number here on the plan. He hasn't advertised for a variance in any event.

[Speaker 8] (22:54 - 23:00)
How would he grant that? How would he grant that?

[Speaker 1] (23:01 - 23:27)
No, I think he wouldn't grant a variance, but I don't think he needs a variance. I think he needs a special permit to increase. It looks like what he's looking to do is increase the conforming height to also conforming height for a nonconforming structure.

[Speaker 2] (23:28 - 23:32)
And this is a multi-family house, right? This is not a one or two family.

[Speaker 8] (23:33 - 23:36)
Okay, right. So it's a family and it's on the sprinkler.

[Speaker 2] (23:36 - 23:36)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (23:36 - 23:43)
So the Bellotta case, the Bellotta case doesn't apply because that's only for one single and two families.

[Speaker 7] (23:46 - 24:25)
So the only place where the roof line is going to be or where the space inside is going to be below the seven feet are the four little corners. I don't understand how that can total 50% because there's four dormers on each side that would raise that height. So I guess I don't believe this calculation can be with what I'm, you know, on A6.

When you're looking at the only areas that where the roof isn't seven feet.

[Speaker 1] (24:26 - 24:31)
But he shows it on A7, doesn't he?

[Speaker 2] (24:33 - 24:35)
Yeah, it's a drop ceiling it looks like.

[Speaker 8] (24:36 - 25:21)
No, it's not a drop ceiling. It has a pitch. So when you take the flat part of, well actually the floor plan itself, and you come out, the knee was roughly about four feet or five feet, something like that.

That would give you seven foot height on that angle. So from that inside wall, if you measure out, that's the furthest point is about, I want to say four feet, and that would give you seven feet. So if you take that math for whatever's inside, that would give you the square footage that would be roughly about 528 square feet.

[Speaker 1] (25:22 - 25:25)
Right, so they're artificially lowering it below to get the number.

[Speaker 8] (25:25 - 25:43)
But the flat ceiling is going to be higher. Whatever it's allowed for the flat surface is going to be higher. It's going to be probably about, I think it was seven, seven, I'm sorry, eight feet higher.

[Speaker 7] (25:45 - 25:56)
I mean, because you can see where on this on A7 where you have this portion, you know, where that staircase is, obviously it can't be sloped on that side, because you're coming in a staircase that has to have full headroom.

[Speaker 8] (25:56 - 26:41)
That's the reason why we asked you for the five foot, because you need such a clearance headroom. And when it was lower in the design, we tried to tweak the stairs and one worked in the other way. That's the reason why we put it more in the center now, because before you couldn't even get up there to the third floor.

You was able to manage from the back that the stairs were so narrow. I believe it was 30 inches or 32 inches. So that has to be a problem.

And then we tried to take one of the stairs out, because no one's going to be sprinkling. We tried to take the stairs out, but it was no benefit to doing that. So we just want to keep both stairs, the front and the back.

[Speaker 1] (26:50 - 27:03)
Okay. While everyone's looking at this, I wanted to see if there was any public comment about the proposal. So anyone here that wanted to ask any questions about this petition?

Anyone on Zoom?

[Speaker 15] (27:04 - 27:05)
I have a.

[Speaker 1] (27:05 - 27:07)
I see Mary Ellen Fletcher has her hand raised.

[Speaker 15] (27:07 - 27:08)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (27:14 - 27:20)
I think you're on mute. She's off. Yeah.

Hi, Miss Fletcher.

[Speaker 16] (27:20 - 27:29)
Thank you for letting me speak. So I have some concerns here. One is, were we supposed to be notified as neighbors about tonight's meeting?

[Speaker 1] (27:31 - 27:39)
Yes, if you're within 300 feet. I'm not sure if you are. Were you noticed for the first petition?

[Speaker 16] (27:40 - 27:41)
Yes, I was.

[Speaker 1] (27:41 - 27:49)
Then if you were in that area, you should have received notice of this petition. Okay.

[Speaker 16] (27:49 - 29:13)
Well, I happened to just be on a meeting prior to, so I was able to see it. I just don't want my other neighbors to know about it. But my concern here is, I happened to attend the first meeting for this permit, and I did notice that there was no change in the height, no change in the walls.

Then all of a sudden, I saw a roof come down and construction go up for a full third floor. My understanding is this area is two and a half stories. So it's alarming to me that you receive a permit for one structure and then turn around and start doing something completely different.

And only because the building inspector happened to notice it did this even stop. So that's alarming to me on this individual or this company's ability to follow rules. Number two is, I just want to make sure that you're really looking at what the possibility is on the size of this structure here.

And how many – is this really a three-family or is it going to be more than three families? Is this going to be more apartments in there than just a three-family? So those are my concerns.

I just want to make sure the rules are being followed and the impact on this neighborhood is being considered.

[Speaker 1] (29:14 - 29:19)
Thank you. Yes?

[Speaker 10] (29:20 - 29:31)
I just did some quick math on page 8, A6. Yep. See the five feet one?

There's like a shadow drawn around the inside of that building.

[Speaker 1] (29:34 - 29:35)
On A6?

[Speaker 10] (29:35 - 29:55)
On A6, it's a dotted line. It goes right around the inside of the building and it says 5.1 inches. I did the quick math on the building, length times width, and then I did that calculation.

And if they follow that 5.1 with the seven feet, they are about half.

[Speaker 7] (29:55 - 29:57)
But then there's four dormers.

[Speaker 10] (29:57 - 30:04)
So that five feet only goes about – Right, it doesn't go all the way around the building. So they probably are a little over 50%.

[Speaker 7] (30:04 - 30:11)
It only goes 11 feet wide on the corners about, it looks like, 10, 11 feet wide on the corners.

[Speaker 10] (30:12 - 30:20)
So I'd say that they're definitely a little over the – a lot over the 50%. Yeah. Yeah.

For sure.

[Speaker 5] (30:22 - 30:25)
Plus the dorm is getting such mass.

[Speaker 8] (30:25 - 30:38)
Yeah, it's a lot of mass. It's just like the buildings on the left that everybody hates that do side-by-side duplex. With the garage underneath and the big stairs in front.

It's just like a sheer wall right on Halfway Street.

[Speaker 1] (30:39 - 30:39)
Yep.

[Speaker 7] (30:43 - 30:50)
So – I just see this as a third story – as a full third story. I mean, it's – It looks like it to me. The dormers are making the square footage.

[Speaker 1] (30:50 - 31:13)
Right. The other thing I don't follow is the – I don't know what was existing for gross floor area before, but on the petition having the existing and the proposed gross floor area the same at 2,876 feet. That doesn't seem correct to me.

Is that to you, Steve?

[Speaker 10] (31:13 - 31:28)
Do you think that the – I know there was a finished space up in that attic prior to. So it was – But it couldn't have had the headroom that this space has. No, definitely didn't have.

That's why they're changing the plan.

[Speaker 1] (31:28 - 31:28)
Right.

[Speaker 7] (31:28 - 31:40)
None of it may have counted as – But this is the original petition. The only thing that's changed is the addition of these. Right?

The numbers on the bottom.

[Speaker 10] (31:41 - 32:02)
Yeah. To be honest with you, if you look at A1 on the floor, they almost had what the – they almost kind of originally had what they're looking for now. They should have just left it alone.

There's pictures of the building on the front page of the plans. A1.

[Speaker 8] (32:02 - 32:03)
The cover page.

[Speaker 10] (32:04 - 32:10)
You know, I hate to say it, but they kind of – it looks like they were in better shape then.

[Speaker 1] (32:15 - 32:21)
That's what we approve. We approve. We're not talking about a minor change here.

[Speaker 7] (32:22 - 32:29)
I mean, when you look at – Where's the picture of the side-by-side elevations?

[Speaker 1] (32:29 - 32:36)
Didn't we have – Is there anyone else that wanted to be heard? Yes, could I have your name and address, please?

[Speaker 7] (32:37 - 32:38)
Sure. Albert Williams.

[Speaker 1] (32:41 - 32:48)
Albert what's your last name? Albert Williams. Williams.

I just wanted to say that – Mark, we can't hear.

[Speaker 18] (32:49 - 32:49)
I have good information.

[Speaker 1] (32:50 - 32:54)
Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Williams to start again.

[Speaker 18] (32:55 - 34:13)
I'd just like to say I've lived in town all my life. I grew up here. Fortunate enough, my father was a commercial fisherman, and I've always loved the water and loved the area.

And I'm opposed to this. I got the original documentation, and it was basically a petition for parking on Marshall Street, and I saw the plans, and they were going to keep it the same. And, you know, that was fine with me, and so I didn't bother going to that.

And then when I saw the third floor added and the roof ripped off, at first I thought, geez, maybe I missed something at that meeting. And I didn't. I stopped by the town hall like about two weeks ago just to ask to take over the plans.

And then they told me there was a cease and desist on the building. And basically, I'm against it. It's going to affect my view.

There's a tree behind it, but it will affect my view. And I'm just opposed to it. It's already, you know, started.

They put the roof down and put the third floor up, you know, the framing for it. And I've got nine signatures from people on Cedar Hill Terrace as well here to go along with what I've stated as far as, you know, being against it.

[Speaker 1] (34:14 - 34:21)
Okay, so if I could have that signature page that you have and let me petition that. Any other more thoughts that you have? Is that it?

[Speaker 18] (34:23 - 34:24)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 11] (34:24 - 34:27)
Just in general, just the environment.

[Speaker 1] (34:28 - 34:34)
Yes. More than, you know, a half of it. I have another question, and maybe we can help him too.

Yes.

[Speaker 11] (34:35 - 34:58)
In the new proposal, as I'm looking at the front of the existing, aren't they raising the new wall so, like, the whole ridge line is going up to get more height yet still be under the five? Is that happening? I don't have a plan.

So again, look at it.

[Speaker 1] (34:58 - 35:00)
Why don't we put the plans up on the screen?

[Speaker 8] (35:00 - 35:12)
In other words, it seems to me that building a bigger new wall on the second floor for their third floor for their dorm, which is giving them more height as well.

[Speaker 11] (35:13 - 35:16)
Is that true? The building inspector can answer that?

[Speaker 7] (35:17 - 35:24)
Oh, it's significantly taller because the original, the absolute max height of the original is, I think, 28?

[Speaker 20] (35:25 - 35:25)
28.

[Speaker 7] (35:25 - 35:28)
And now it's 37 too.

[Speaker 11] (35:31 - 35:45)
So in other words, so I guess my question is, is the gutter line, right, that, you know, the third floor, is it in the same, you know, above the windows on the first and the second?

[Speaker 8] (35:46 - 35:49)
It looks like they gained some height in there too.

[Speaker 7] (35:50 - 35:59)
That's where all the height is gained. That's where all the height is gained. It's almost as if they took the roof off and then raised it 10 feet and stuck it back on.

[Speaker 16] (36:00 - 36:00)
Yes.

[Speaker 11] (36:01 - 36:01)
Right.

[Speaker 10] (36:02 - 36:03)
That's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 11] (36:03 - 36:19)
So it's not only, it's the dorms don't look so bad when you just look at the roof and the old roof that they raised the new walls from being right on the second floor just above the windows. They gave themselves four feet.

[Speaker 8] (36:19 - 36:23)
They gave themselves some height on the perimeter. Yet still stay under the 17.

[Speaker 1] (36:23 - 36:25)
You have that same one? You have the original? Yes.

[Speaker 17] (36:25 - 36:27)
They all changed. All the floors changed.

[Speaker 1] (36:27 - 36:28)
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (36:28 - 36:35)
I mean, if you drive past it as it is, I mean, I haven't been there this week, but if you drive past it as it is, it's a solid third floor.

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

[Speaker 7] (36:37 - 36:41)
Oh, yeah. What's framed is just a floor. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (36:42 - 37:07)
Yeah. I can tell you already my thoughts on it are there's no way that I'm going to permit that what's proposed here for the 37.2 and going from what we approved the last time and have noncompliance and then have it massing increase so dramatically. That's the problem.

Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (37:07 - 37:08)
Can I ask a question as well?

[Speaker 16] (37:10 - 37:23)
I'm pretty sure when this came in front of us beforehand, we asked that the garage was demolished. Is that still happening? Yes.

Okay. Okay. Is it still there now?

I'm just wondering.

[Speaker 8] (37:23 - 37:28)
We have to keep supplies and equipment in there, so that's the reason why it's still there.

[Speaker 15] (37:29 - 37:29)
Okay.

[Speaker 16] (37:29 - 37:32)
It doesn't look like it could hold anything, but okay.

[Speaker 1] (37:34 - 37:38)
So is there anyone else on Zoom that wanted to be heard about this petition?

[Speaker 15] (37:38 - 37:41)
I think I did have another hand raised. Daryl Smith.

[Speaker 11] (37:44 - 38:05)
He's right next door. Right. And I think he knows.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes.

Yes. I watched the construction, and it's definitely, if they're going to build a roof on top of the existing new construction, it's definitely going to be significantly higher.

[Speaker 8] (38:06 - 38:18)
It's not going to be that high anymore. It's going to be cut down to what we asked, which is five feet from the floor to the double plate, and then we're going to start the roof.

[Speaker 16] (38:18 - 38:24)
But as you built it, the roof was to go on top, as it is now.

[Speaker 8] (38:24 - 38:35)
No. As it is now, it's going to be a flat roof. But because the building...

Yes. That's not what was permitted. That was not permitted.

[Speaker 16] (38:35 - 38:35)
Correct.

[Speaker 8] (38:35 - 38:38)
That was the mistake. That was the mistake.

[Speaker 11] (38:38 - 38:48)
How even, if you were building what you were supposed to build, how would you have gotten up to the third floor with your stairs? Yes. You didn't take that out before you came and asked for the money?

[Speaker 8] (38:50 - 39:30)
Well, this is what I'm saying. The owner had decided he wanted to change the stairs. The original plan was to change the configuration of inside to make more rooms.

And when I gave him that, he brought these other plans to the building department, thinking that that was the proper plans, but they weren't. The original plan was to keep the same structure how it was originally. The only one that was going to be touched was the first floor and the stairs.

So, in other words, under the original plans, you couldn't get up to the third floor. You just... The third floor isn't as big as he wants the third floor to be at the end of the day.

[Speaker 7] (39:31 - 39:34)
There was an exterior egress on that building.

[Speaker 8] (39:35 - 39:40)
No, that was just a porch, but not a set of stairs. Oh, it didn't go all the way up.

[Speaker 11] (39:41 - 41:41)
Well, I think originally, at the first Zoning Board meeting... This is Daryl Smith. I'm at 459 Humphrey Street.

And originally, there were stairs on that porch that went to the ground, and the requirement was for a second means of egress that those stairs had to be somehow supported on the outside of the building. And then the Zoning Board required that he tear down the garage. Right, because that had half a car in, half a car out of that building.

Right. We all have to quit the Zoning Board if we're going to improve that. So, I guess my only questions...

One of them was answered, and that is, apparently from these plans, he's added a second stairway inside, so he doesn't need the stairway outside. He still does need to get rid of the garage. And I would...

The height definitely bothers me. You know, it's not my decision to make. It's up to you guys to make the call.

But there's a tree that's overhanging his building and my building that's on his property, and I've asked him to cut that thing down several times and not gotten anywhere. It really overhangs my building right next door, and, you know, I think the building inspector could make that a condition of going forward that that tree get removed. It's damaging my foundation, and it's over-leaning my property, and his.

So, it's got to go. So, that's all.

[Speaker 1] (41:42 - 41:43)
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 11] (41:44 - 41:44)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (41:46 - 41:53)
So, I can tell you my feelings are that you can't give somebody...

[Speaker 8] (41:53 - 41:57)
You need a smaller third floor than you want.

[Speaker 1] (41:57 - 42:16)
Yeah, you need a smaller third floor, right, at the same height that we were at before. You know, it's got to be the same height where it was. We're not approving additional massing.

I mean, that's how I feel. I can pull the rest of the board, see if everyone feels the same way. Tony?

[Speaker 17] (42:17 - 42:18)
I'd agree with that, yep. Heather?

[Speaker 1] (42:19 - 43:13)
Brad? Yep. Paula?

So, Rod, what I would say, I think you have two choices, really three choices. One is to go back to the drawing board and come back with what you want for plans for our next meeting. Number two, if you restored it the way it was, with the same height and the same dimensions on the exterior, I'm sure the building inspector would approve plans that we're going to restore it, so that it met the approval that you had the last time.

So, if you weren't looking for any relief from the ZBA. Or number three is, you could look for a vote for us tonight, and I'm sure your vote's going to be no, and then you'd be stuck with an appeal.

[Speaker 8] (43:15 - 43:35)
I'd rather just put it back, because this property's costing a lot of money, the financial hardship to the owners, and that's nice, but it's not, and we thought that doing it this way would help, but if it's not allowed, then it's not allowed. We have to do what we have to do.

[Speaker 1] (43:35 - 43:38)
I think your client would like to be heard. Yes.

[Speaker 12] (43:39 - 45:00)
I know this is, you know, just whatever it is, but just explain something. We never had bad intention to do anything bad, okay? Because what they see, I don't know, I'm not, like, an inspector or doing anything.

I sent those plans. I get the permit. I start working, okay?

It was some misunderstanding or something. My attention, when he came to the board the first time, it was for relief for the parking. I never show that the building will look like this or look like that.

I was here for the relief of the parking, nothing else. My approval, it was there. Okay, I approve you for this.

We never have attention that this is the building it look like because all we need is relief for the parking. That's in my head. I never had bad intention to do anything.

I spent a year and a half waiting for the permit to have it in my head to start working. Just to understand, when I have my permit, I went, I turned down the third floor based on what I see in my plan.

[Speaker 10] (45:02 - 45:03)
Right, so it was a mistake.

[Speaker 12] (45:03 - 45:38)
It's a mistake. What I'm asking everybody right now, it's just, like, to think about my side. It's not we did something, like, sneaky or something.

Right. And then we start working. When the building permit, when the building inspector call us, we stop working.

Did you tell me? Okay, we have one option. Put it back as it was, start working, or take chance, go to the board, and ask for this relief.

I'm asking you guys today. It's, like, it cost a lot of money.

[Speaker 1] (45:39 - 45:41)
Right, it's unfortunate.

[Speaker 12] (45:41 - 45:45)
I know, but it makes sense. We have opposition from neighbors.

[Speaker 1] (45:45 - 46:00)
It's increasing the mass quite a bit. And then it's also what happens for the next person whose intentions may not be as honorable as yours, that it wasn't just a mistake. And they come here, and they say, well, it was a mistake.

You did it for the last person.

[Speaker 12] (46:00 - 46:51)
So it's tough. No, the way I say this, just to clear air, we are not sneaking or doing something like this. It was a mistake.

It was an honest mistake. Nothing, like, really bad intention of doing something that not. My approval, when it came, I asked for the parking.

I never said, oh, we have to show the building how it was, because it's there. And it was with no attention to me that we approved the building, like, this height or this. We didn't know that.

And then when I get the permit, it took me six months to get an answer. I get the permit. I went and did the job.

Just like, oh, the reason I'm saying this, it happened what happened. Just to clear air to other neighbors or people that complain, I did nothing, like, sneaky or something.

[Speaker 1] (46:52 - 47:09)
Right. So we're not making any type of finding. No one's accusing you on this board of doing anything sneaky or untoward.

We're seeing you're looking for relief. We're looking at the relief you're looking for. And we can't give it, because it's too much relief.

[Speaker 12] (47:10 - 47:27)
What kind of too much of it? To add, essentially, all of this additional height to the structure. The height is fixed.

He just mentioned to you that the height, based on calculation, it was extended. That's what you would measure for the – but it's not just that.

[Speaker 1] (47:27 - 49:47)
That's what a half story is, but your calculation that you've provided appears to be incorrect. So the calculation shows that it's under 50%, but the building inspector has looked at it again here and determined that because it's not in accordance with the definition, because there are areas under those on each wall, on each dormer, that would not be included. So it looks like it's more than 50%.

And the ultimate height of the structure, the massing of the structure, changes significantly. If you look at the comparison, like Heather was showing me, from what it was, looking at this where the roof starts right above the second floor windows, you have massing. Now, when you look at it, you have the second floor windows here, and then you have all this additional massing above.

So it's a significant change in my mind, and I think also in the other members of the board. So I'm sorry we can't grant you the relief. If we could, I'm sure we would love to make everybody happy, but that's not our job here.

Unfortunately, we can't do that. You can see it there on the screen. The difference, what I'm talking about with massing, and the ultimate top of the structure.

So what I would suggest that you consider doing is you could continue this hearing to next month so that if you come up with a plan where you're looking for more modest relief, that isn't going to be as dramatic as what you're looking for here, something that would work with the architect. You can come back without having to file another petition, or you can just decide to build it the way that it was, restore it, and you don't need any relief from us to do that. So I have to ask you to agree to either continue it to next month or just withdraw your petition.

[Speaker 12] (49:47 - 49:51)
I would just put it back as it was, and then that's it. I don't have time for this.

[Speaker 1] (49:51 - 49:54)
Let me just check with your architect to see if he agrees with that. Rod?

[Speaker 8] (49:56 - 49:59)
I would do whatever the owner would like to do.

[Speaker 1] (49:59 - 50:09)
The only reason I'm suggesting continuing to next month is if you came up with something or if you did have any minor changes that you needed to make, you don't have to file another petition.

[Speaker 12] (50:09 - 50:10)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 8] (50:10 - 50:30)
What I was thinking now is just because you guys have concerns of the dormers, of the other areas, just put a new wall away from the perimeter, which would probably bring it back to the half percent.

[Speaker 1] (50:31 - 50:41)
But you still have – you're changing that half story. I'm trying to think if that change, if it's a half story to a half story.

[Speaker 10] (50:41 - 50:43)
He hasn't addressed the maximum.

[Speaker 1] (50:45 - 50:56)
Right, but I'm wondering if we have – yeah, because it's a non-conforming multifamily structure. He can't just modify it and raise it up so much.

[Speaker 11] (50:57 - 51:06)
You know, he got a parking relief because that's what he asked for. If he wanted to touch the building, he would have to come back and say, I want to take the building apart. Can you discuss that?

[Speaker 1] (51:08 - 51:10)
Steve, did you want to say something else?

[Speaker 10] (51:10 - 51:25)
The only thing, if we can soften the building up, but what I'm careful of is just by throwing up a new wall here or there, someone just comes in and pushes that new wall down the road, out, and, you know, now I have a compliance issue down the road.

[Speaker 2] (51:25 - 51:29)
Yeah, because it's a third story. I know, but I'm thinking about what we're doing.

[Speaker 1] (51:30 - 51:52)
So, Rod, the only thing I was thinking about with continuing is if there was – just so you preserve your rights to – if there was something minor that you needed to change configuration-wise from what was previously built, if there was something minor, then you could bring it up at the next meeting.

[Speaker 7] (51:52 - 51:53)
And could they withdraw in between?

[Speaker 1] (51:53 - 51:56)
And you could withdraw in between if you don't want to come back.

[Speaker 8] (51:59 - 52:01)
I wish the owner could make a decision.

[Speaker 12] (52:01 - 52:10)
Whatever he wants to do, I'm willing to allow. I didn't quite understand. What can, like – did you see anything can be done differently to make this work?

[Speaker 1] (52:11 - 52:49)
You're able – if you're going to restore it back to the original condition, you can start doing that as soon as the building commissioner releases the cease and desist. And I think if you make a representation to him that you're going to restore it, he'll remove that right away. Am I correct about that?

Correct. And you don't need any relief from us. You can restart the construction.

And I'm suggesting that if you left it open, if you continued your hearing, you'd have the ability – if there was something minor that came up that you needed relief to make some change to the outside, then you'd be able to come back at the next meeting.

[Speaker 12] (52:50 - 52:55)
Okay. We can leave it for the next meeting. We can have – You'll be able to represent to the building inspector.

[Speaker 1] (52:55 - 53:11)
You're going to make it the way – restore it the way it was, and then you'll be able to start. And if something comes up, then you can ask for relief to make a modification. But I'm going to need you to sign a continuance.

So you'll agree to sign that continuance form to our next meeting, which is what date?

[Speaker 15] (53:12 - 53:20)
October – I won't tell you right now. 18th, I think. October 18th.

[Speaker 12] (53:20 - 53:27)
Okay. So October 18th. But if he decides to go and then we have no changes, we don't have to come back.

You don't have to come.

[Speaker 1] (53:27 - 53:33)
You just tell Marissa or Steve that you're going to withdraw your petition and we'll withdraw it at the meeting.

[Speaker 20] (53:33 - 53:33)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (53:33 - 53:41)
No problem. All right. So I'm going to make a motion to continue this matter to October 18th.

Do I have a second?

[Speaker 15] (53:42 - 53:42)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (53:43 - 53:45)
Okay. Okay. So I'll make a yes.

Heather?

[Speaker 17] (53:45 - 53:45)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (53:46 - 53:46)
Tony?

[Speaker 17] (53:47 - 53:47)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (53:47 - 53:49)
Brad? Yes. Paula?

[Speaker 20] (53:50 - 53:51)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (53:51 - 53:51)
Andy?

[Speaker 20] (53:52 - 53:53)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (53:53 - 53:58)
Okay. Thank you. Okay.

[Speaker 11] (54:07 - 54:08)
All right.

[Speaker 17] (54:08 - 54:08)
Mark, I'm out.

[Speaker 1] (54:09 - 54:12)
Okay. All right. Andy has to leave our meeting now.

[Speaker 8] (54:13 - 54:14)
All right. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (54:14 - 54:43)
Okay. Okay. The next matter is 324 Essex Street petitioned by Robert Ginsburg to convert structure to residential use.

Attorney Schutz is here on that one. Good evening, Ken. Pleasure to see you all in person.

[Speaker 8] (54:44 - 54:44)
Yes.

[Speaker 9] (54:49 - 57:48)
Thank you. This evening I'm here with Robert Ginsburg. he is the manager of the 324 Essex Street LLC.

I'm also here with architect Robert Zarelli who's to my right to your left from Salem who will be providing the renderings. I just wanted to preliminarily go through what the application and the relief that's being sought and I just want to read into the record what was included in the description. The applicant seeks pursuant to 2272 non-conforming structures other than single and two-family structures to reconstruct presently pre-existing non-conforming commercial structure in a B1 zoning district by special permit to provide for a substantially different purpose i.e. the construction of a single-family unit pursuant to 2200 under section 2230 principal tables if you say single-family residence that's approximately 1,300 square feet representing a portion of the presently 5,112 square feet of the existing structure. The alteration from the use from a commercial which is currently a professional building to a single-family residence is permitted in a B1 zoning district in as much as the change in alteration shall not be significantly more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. The applicant suggests that the proposed use for residential purposes is consistent with the neighborhood in that the neighborhood is predominantly single and two-family structures.

Additionally there'll be no extension of the exterior walls or along the same non-conforming distances within the required yard. The criteria under 5320 which I'm using the necessary elements have been met in that the benefit to the town and the neighborhood outweigh any adverse effect of the proposed use taking into account the characteristics of the site and the proposal in relation to that site by the addition of the additional housing unit. So in essence what we're doing for those that are familiar with the property is that it is a professional building of one story and the building is currently 5,112 square feet.

Of that which is the side that is closest to the next structure which is in a A2 zoning district which is a residential district to take 1,300 square feet of that building and convert it for rental purposes. So that is that is the theory behind the use as the theory behind the request for the special permit. The board has the authority because multiple uses are permitted in a single family structure pursuant to 2200 and that the use itself is permissible by special permit in a B1 zoning district.

So Mr. Zarelli is here this evening. He would wish to provide you with copies of the plans or if you want to just inquire of Mr. Zarelli exactly what is being done he is here to answer those questions.

[Speaker 1] (57:49 - 57:59)
Okay maybe first good evening Mr. Zarelli. Could you tell us a bit about the petition and Ken does he have a microphone in front of him as well?

[Speaker 13] (57:59 - 1:00:18)
He does now. Thank you. The building itself the history of the building was that it was a soda plant at one time and it is built very strongly.

The metal posts and heavy timbers in it the posts interestingly enough are iron they're not steel but there's no deformation in the building at all. Now while it's been sheathed on the outside by one of the previous owners it is a masonry building hence it's it's very strong. As Ken mentioned we propose no extensions on the outside of the building however we there is currently an access ramp that we're proposing to move more centrally in the building and rather than at the one end we're proposing to provide a significant amount of planting at where the the current ramp is.

The current ramp by the way is pretty rickety so this is a good change. The there is a cupola that exists on the top of the building and it houses a bath that'll be used by the one bedroom that's underneath that. But the whole idea with this was to use as much of the assets of the building to create these apartments and in fact we were able to do that.

It'll have its own separate utilities and there's a very dry basement underneath there that's used for storage and utilities today. There is an arched opening between in the in a masonry party wall that separates the commercial aspects of it from what we're proposing on the housing and that will be we'll do a four-hour sheetrock petition with using light gauge metal and the sheetrock using a UL assembly there. So it's a we did provide also and it's kind of belt and suspenders but the egress there's a very short fire escape at the north end of the building rather than we could have used the windows as escape but the client insisted upon doing the making it easy to get out of the building if they had to.

Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:18 - 1:00:20)
Any any questions for Mr. Cerulli from the board?

[Speaker 13] (1:00:23 - 1:00:24)
Hearing none.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:26 - 1:00:29)
So can you have the one unit what's the rest of the building?

[Speaker 9] (1:00:30 - 1:01:58)
The rest of the building were made for professional use. Robert Ginsberg uses it as does his partner who is attorney Daniel Glossman they're using it currently. You may recall that was the headquarters for a while when Charlie Baker was first running and what we've learned because for those of you who are familiar with zoning and swamps but B1 was the historical businesses that were in existence prior to zoning coming into town.

So they're scattered all over the place but what's happened over the years is it's become far more residential and commercial and it's surrounded by homes and what I recall when we were last here when we were just confirming its use was that we were told at that time anyway that it was it was an A2 which because that unfortunately was the way it was assessed but the zoning map has clarified that now we learned it's it's a B1 but the building next door was A2 as well so it's consistent with the use we're adding to the housing stock. Granted we're not adding 190 units we're only adding one but it's a it's a little significant try to add housing for the town and clearly that's what the neighbors had wanted back a couple of years ago when we were last before the board.

So we think we've met that criteria. We think that it comports with the relief that you can grant because it permits the multiple uses and B1 permits a single family use. Okay thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:59 - 1:02:21)
Is there anyone that wanted to be heard about the petition who is present in person here? We do have someone here. Have your name and your address.

Can I have your name again?

[Speaker 3] (1:02:22 - 1:02:22)
Delaware Acono.

[Speaker 9] (1:02:27 - 1:02:45)
Okay tell me what would like to be. Well this was brought up many years ago as trying to do it into residential and they had no chance and it wasn't passed back then to where it's being now. Now he said it's only one apartment?

One.

[Speaker 13] (1:02:45 - 1:02:45)
Yep.

[Speaker 9] (1:02:47 - 1:02:54)
That's all we're being asked to approve is just a single apartment for a portion of the building. Does anybody have any idea on parking?

[Speaker 1] (1:02:54 - 1:03:01)
Yes. Can I speak to that? Yes we're gonna hear what the petitioner says about parking through Mr. Zarelli.

[Speaker 13] (1:03:02 - 1:03:22)
If you look at the site plan we had the site plan developed by Hayes Engineering and we have three parking places at the south end of the building that are on our property. They're continuous with the property. You look at that drawing up there you'll see them at the left.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:22 - 1:03:22)
Oh yeah.

[Speaker 13] (1:03:22 - 1:03:43)
The building there and I tried it myself and it works. So it's with an SUV. So they are usable and it gets the we don't have to rely on curb parking for the tenants.

Okay. Sir do you have anything else you wanted to ask about?

[Speaker 9] (1:03:44 - 1:03:53)
Right now not really. I mean it's just the only thing is is it gonna start here and it's gonna be chopped up into different apartments later on down the road?

[Speaker 1] (1:03:54 - 1:04:06)
They would have to come back to us for relief. We're just being asked for one apartment now but if they came back we'd consider at that time that there's been a change that we approved the one apartment.

[Speaker 9] (1:04:06 - 1:04:14)
We didn't give any relief for anything further. Okay because the thing is is if it starts out as one it might be the whole building.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:14 - 1:05:33)
I can't tell you what the petition is going to apply for later and ask for later but in terms of the criteria that were asked about to convert a portion of this building for one unit and how it would affect the neighborhood and the criteria that we are to consider which is 5.3.2.0 single one floor or is it two stories? Yes so it's we have criteria that we're required to consider and that's part of their presentation. That is their presentation that they've provided evidence that there's no detriment.

There's a lot of different uses that could go in there as of right and the question is is the residential use which is conducted throughout the area and that in the neighborhood if it's not more detrimental than what is presently there. So is there anyone else that wanted to be heard about this petition on zoom?

[Speaker 15] (1:05:35 - 1:05:44)
You may use the raise your hand function if you have. I do not see anyone.

[Speaker 17] (1:05:52 - 1:05:58)
Is there occupiable space in the cupola?

[Speaker 13] (1:05:59 - 1:06:09)
There's a staircase on the plans. There's a toilet room up there. Yeah there's a I'm sorry there's a bathroom up there.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:11 - 1:08:28)
Okay so I was gonna make a motion to close the public hearing. Have a second on that? So I am a yes.

Heather? Yes. Tony?

Yes. Brad? Yes.

Paula? Yes. Did the board want to have any discussion before I made a motion on this?

So I'm gonna make a motion to approve petition 2216 and to make findings that the application and presentation by the petitioner meets the criteria 5.3.2.0 that the social economic community needs are served by the proposal to add a housing unit that the traffic flow and safety including parking and loading has been adequately addressed with the three parking spaces shown on the site plan that there's the adequacy of utilities and other public services is not a relevant factor to consider the neighborhood character and social structures is consistent as there are many residences in the neighborhood that the impacts of the natural environment are improved by the the plantings that are shown on the application and the potential physical impacts including impact on town services tax based employment are a neutral factor so based on that I believe the application the applicant has met his burden to get the special permit and subject to compliance with the application and the plans that have been presented including the maintenance of those parking spaces for the residential use I would grant the special permit that's requested to convert to the apartment for residential you convert this to an apartment for residential use.

Do I have a second on that motion?

[Speaker 7] (1:08:29 - 1:08:30)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:30 - 1:08:32)
Do a roll call so I'm a yes Heather?

[Speaker 7] (1:08:32 - 1:08:33)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:33 - 1:08:37)
Tony? Yes. Brad?

Yes. Paula?

[Speaker 7] (1:08:37 - 1:08:38)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:38 - 1:08:41)
Okay thank you. Ken would you be able to draft a brief?

[Speaker 9] (1:08:42 - 1:08:46)
It would be my pleasure. Thank you. It will also be subject to the plans that were submitted by Mr. Zerota. Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:46 - 1:09:43)
Great. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay so our next petition is 2218 Scott Thibodeau 8 Stern Street. Okay so is Mr. Thibodeau here? How are you?

Good.

[Speaker 6] (1:09:54 - 1:11:09)
I'm here with my wife Kathy. We are requesting some relief to build a 274 square foot addition onto the rear of our house and the reason for this addition is about a year and a half ago my mother moved in with us. She just turned 91 the other day.

She is a registered voter here in town so she's a real townie now but it's really hard on her to get up the stairs to get upstairs to go to bed and it's almost impossible for her to get up over the top to get in to take a shot so we would like to put her down on the first floor in her own little corner so she doesn't have to navigate the stairs and maybe fall down so that's basically why we're here.

I went around and I spoke to as many abutters and as abutters to the abutters as I could and I have here signatures in favor of the project. Would you like copies of them?

[Speaker 18] (1:11:10 - 1:11:11)
Sure, that'd be great.

[Speaker 6] (1:11:21 - 1:11:26)
Everybody that signed on here is pretty much in favor of it.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:28 - 1:11:56)
Well I can I can read what it says on the it says that visited with people listed below who about the prop with the drawing of our planned addition explain to them what we are planning to do. Those that have signed below have no issue with our building the addition and I see that you have yeah many of your abutters okay. Marissa, did you get a copy of that?

[Speaker 15] (1:11:56 - 1:11:57)
I did get a copy this afternoon, yep.

[Speaker 6] (1:11:59 - 1:12:51)
All right so the relief that I am requesting is if you look at the main plan, I'm requesting a sideline relief. All right, so I'm at 6'3 and 6'1 from the back of my house to the side of the addition down to 6'1 to the end of the addition, so I'm requesting that side relief. Yep.

And then I am 5'1, thank you, I am 5'1 from the rear corner of the proposed addition to my garage, so I'm looking for that relief.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:52 - 1:12:55)
Oh, because you don't have the distance between buildings. Correct.

[Speaker 6] (1:12:56 - 1:13:41)
So that is, it's going to be a single story addition, a regular old roof, just a crawl space under it, no addition on to the basement. I'm not going to put a full basement down there. I've got a big enough basement.

And the rear of the house, if you look at example one, well actually you can see it on the big plan. I've got the bulkhead, I've got the back door, the other structure is a closet. That's going to go, so it's busy back there.

I don't have a lot of different ways to turn it, to build it. So that's basically what I'm looking to do.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:47 - 1:14:40)
Trying to recall our section for the distance between buildings, 2.3, 3.1. 2.3, 3.1, yeah, accessory buildings and structures. An accessory building which is detached and not part of the main building, may be built in the rear yard area provided that not more than 25% of the rear yard is occupied by the accessory building. A detached accessory building shall not be located nearer than 10 feet the principal building, no nearer to the rear side plot line than greater than 5 feet or 50% of the relevant prescribed minimum setback.

So it's the 10 feet. So what happens if he connects it to the garage?

[Speaker 10] (1:14:40 - 1:14:42)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking for a brief moment.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:44 - 1:14:47)
Steve, is there any issue that you see if he connected it to the garage, the 10 foot?

[Speaker 10] (1:14:48 - 1:14:57)
If he connected it to the garage, he's going to need relief on the garage because it's now one structure. It means more rear setback on the garage and more side setback on the garage.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:58 - 1:15:07)
Right, because it's no longer an accessory structure. It becomes part of the main principal structure. That's the problem there.

[Speaker 6] (1:15:07 - 1:15:09)
And if I attach it to the garage?

[Speaker 1] (1:15:09 - 1:15:16)
Well, but if you see if you attach it to the garage, then behold, you're making it now part of the principal structure.

[Speaker 6] (1:15:16 - 1:15:25)
It's no longer an accessory structure. And then you wipe all the backyard. Yeah, well, attach it as just like attach it to the garage so now that's attached.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:30 - 1:15:55)
Well, why couldn't it be built so that it hugs the back of the? If you took that shape and just turned it so that it abuts the back of the house, so now it's more horizontal, would you then have distance from the garage or would it be the driveway?

[Speaker 6] (1:15:55 - 1:16:24)
No, I would not. We, the architect that I use, Craig Bosworth, he and I, we did all kinds of different scenarios. We could make it long and skinny and crooked and it would look like something out of Hansel and Gretel.

I mean, this is the neatest, cleanest way that's going to look the nicest for the people that live on the side of my house. So I just wanted to run inside you guys and see if there's anything we could do.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:27 - 1:18:37)
So that's been a problem before that we've had that 10 foot between the buildings. The other thing I'm thinking about, if we were just looking, so we had a petition last month and we've had some other petitions. We've been talking to town council about one of the things in our bylaw that impacts, here you have a non-conforming law.

So you've got a non-conforming structure and a non-conforming law. When you have that, Massachusetts law basically says that you can build, we can give relief for a, I'll give you the exact language, so the first thing we're supposed to ask is, is the work increasing the non-conforming nature of any non-conformity? So if you kept it at 5.3, which is what your current setback is on the side, so if you went no closer than 5.3, it would not be in addition that would require anything more than a finding by us that no relief is necessary. If it did increase the non-conforming nature of the existing non-conformity, then we could grant a section six special permit upon a determination that change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformity to the neighborhood. So we could give relief where you're already non-conforming. It gives you a bit of a benefit here based on that interpretation by town council that you could look for more relief even than the existing 5.3. You could square it off, essentially. That's how I see it. That's how I understand it.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:37 - 1:19:03)
Mark, wouldn't the change itself, though, would, mind you, it still has to, so the extended non-conforming would still have to comply with the bylaw regarding the distance between the accessory structure. So that 5.1, you know, I'm with you on the side, said that.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:03 - 1:19:58)
So, right. So that's the change. That's the change from my prior understanding of the law.

And what I get from Robin at KP is that when you have what you have here, a single or two-family, and what we have at the petition that's coming up, and you have an existing non-conformity, which is triggered by that 5.3 feet, if you read the decision or the opinion and then also the Balata case, we can grant a Section 6 special permit if we determine that the change that they're asking for, which is introducing a new non, that's increasing the non-conforming nature. So it's going further into that non-conforming setback, so long as it's not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformity to the neighborhood.

[Speaker 2] (1:19:58 - 1:20:00)
Right, but there's another non-conforming now.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:01 - 1:20:03)
No, it's still side yard setback. It'd be different.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:04 - 1:20:10)
No, I'm not talking about the side yard setback. I'm talking about the distance between the accessory building, the principal structure.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:10 - 1:20:13)
Right, I'm saying square it off and make it so that it's at least 10 feet.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:14 - 1:20:23)
Oh, yes, okay, I'm with you. Yeah, I thought you meant, you know, we can now also say, okay, well, 5.1, you know, that's not more than that.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:23 - 1:20:43)
No, that's different. I see the 5.1. So is there any way to get that? Arguably, if he was within 10 feet already on the structure from the garage, then we could even let it be closer, but because he's not, we can't.

He's not protected on that 10 feet.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:43 - 1:20:44)
Right, exactly.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:44 - 1:21:02)
So what I'm telling you is you can make it wider, closer to your house, square it off, keep it 10 feet from the garage, and we'll be able to give you, we'll be able to consider that relief so long as it's not substantially more detrimental.

[Speaker 6] (1:21:06 - 1:21:24)
So the side setback is 6.3. I'm saying you can make it 5.3 or closer even. If you keep it at 5.3, and I was led to believe that you can't, that you couldn't grant any relief if it was less than 6 feet.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:25 - 1:21:29)
You, and up till tonight, that was what this board did.

[Speaker 10] (1:21:29 - 1:21:30)
Boy, am I lucky.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:30 - 1:22:31)
But we were, you're very lucky because we've been told by town council that our bylaw in that, in the way we've been treating pre-existing, non-conforming structures, that our bylaw goes too far, and that we need to consider different criteria under Massachusetts law. So there's a case called the Bellotta case that I, is just the one that we first were introduced to in a different scenario, and it's had a wider application than when we first started to apply it. Because before we would look at this and we'd be talking about giving you a dimensional special permit because you're looking for less than 20% relief, or you weren't increasing it.

So, but now we're going to be looking at it differently in my view. I'm just one vote on the board, that's the way I interpret it. But if you wanted to.

[Speaker 7] (1:22:31 - 1:22:39)
I guess the question I have is when do you determine that it's become more detrimental? Like how close to that setback do you get before you say.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:39 - 1:22:42)
It's a subjective standard. That's where it gets subjective.

[Speaker 7] (1:22:42 - 1:22:42)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:42 - 1:23:04)
So our board, so in this case, if you look at it, there's no, you know, the distance it's going to go back would be less. I don't know that it's going to be any more detrimental to the immediate abutter at 30 Denison if it went closer to the lot line.

[Speaker 17] (1:23:04 - 1:23:08)
Are you saying he can go closer than five foot three though, or is five foot three.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:08 - 1:23:33)
I'm saying that our board has jurisdiction to give him relief for closer. I don't know that our board would, but that's with the Bellotta case. So, you know, that, to put it right on the property line would be extraordinary relief.

So, you know, I think it's probably safe if you kept it at five three. Right. And then made it bigger to keep it ten, bigger at the.

[Speaker 6] (1:23:37 - 1:23:50)
Okay, so just another question, do you know why you have to be ten feet away from the garage? Is there a reason for it or is it just a rule or.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:50 - 1:23:57)
I think it likely was put in so that. Fires don't jump. Right, so for fire safety.

[Speaker 6] (1:23:57 - 1:24:03)
So if I, Steve, if I put cementation of siding on the outside of my addition.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:03 - 1:24:05)
We don't have authority to vary it.

[Speaker 6] (1:24:05 - 1:24:06)
Okay, just ask him.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:07 - 1:24:16)
We'd have to give you a variance, which we don't give. I don't think that it's, that's an issue for our planning department and for town meeting to consider.

[Speaker 6] (1:24:17 - 1:24:18)
All right. I'm just asking the question.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:18 - 1:24:20)
Yeah. No, it's a great question.

[Speaker 6] (1:24:20 - 1:24:26)
So I can move this building back to five three off the sideline.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:26 - 1:24:30)
Off the sideline. So you can pick up a little bit more. You can try to square it off just a bit.

[Speaker 6] (1:24:30 - 1:24:32)
Right. And could I.

[Speaker 7] (1:24:33 - 1:24:44)
One question. If you, can that at all be applied to this pre-existing garage if it becomes, if he does attach it? Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:45 - 1:24:50)
I would say, yeah, because that's part of the non, it's a non-conforming structure on the lot. The same thing applies.

[Speaker 7] (1:24:50 - 1:24:50)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:51 - 1:24:56)
So you're saying, could we vary, could we similarly make a finding that it's not, not more detrimental.

[Speaker 7] (1:24:58 - 1:24:59)
To, to connect. Because I would say.

[Speaker 9] (1:24:59 - 1:25:00)
That's a great.

[Speaker 7] (1:25:00 - 1:25:07)
Less detrimental option would be to create a breezeway between the addition of the garage then to push the addition even closer to the butter. Right. I would say that would be a less step.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:08 - 1:25:31)
Well, so, but, so the, so if we said, okay, the garage, the garage itself is, it is non conforming structure because it's got three foot on the side and it's supposed to be at least five, I think. So that's a pre-existing non-conforming structure, but the, it's not on that side that he's asking for relief. It's on the other side and he's creating a new non-conforming.

[Speaker 7] (1:25:31 - 1:25:51)
That's relief we can give regardless of a section six finding. That's relief. Because if he, if he keeps what he has and simply adds a breezeway, I guess that's my point.

I feel like that is a less detrimental way to solve the problem and you're not getting, you're not encroaching more on the setback and the garage is there. The garage is there.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:51 - 1:25:57)
We're not increasing any of the non-conforming nature of the garage if we connected it with the breezeway. That's a great idea.

[Speaker 17] (1:25:57 - 1:26:04)
Just to play that out there. Not saying that this is what he would do, but what if then they come back later on and want to put a second story on that garage? You can't do that.

[Speaker 10] (1:26:04 - 1:26:05)
What is that?

[Speaker 1] (1:26:06 - 1:26:48)
So we've been talking about this with Robin from a phone call we had as well, so it's the same analysis. Then at that point it's substantially more detrimental. It's still a pre-existing non-conforming, but it's the same analysis under a ballata, so it's up to the board at that time.

But I think the breezeway is a very good idea. If you connected it with a breezeway, under the ballata case, you're not increasing any of the non-conforming nature and it takes away from the 10 foot and it's still an accessory structure. Right, Steve?

If it had a breezeway, would you consider it an accessory structure?

[Speaker 10] (1:26:50 - 1:27:12)
No, I mean, I hate to say it, but I don't like to call it out of town, but some say if you connect it with a foundation, it's a connection. I don't really like that. I prefer it with a roof or a breezeway myself.

But if you guys are willing to... Yeah, that was my whole hang-up was the...

[Speaker 1] (1:27:12 - 1:27:12)
The 10 feet.

[Speaker 10] (1:27:13 - 1:27:18)
Not even the 10 feet, but connecting it with the rear setback and the side setback.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:19 - 1:27:19)
Right.

[Speaker 10] (1:27:19 - 1:27:20)
You guys are good with that.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:21 - 1:27:24)
Right. You follow what Robin was saying on that call we had. Right.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:25 - 1:27:48)
Does that change the maximum building coverage? Because right now, they're at 30%, and with the proposed addition, it brings them right up to 30%. And would that breezeway put them over the 30%?

And if that's the case, then that creates an additional nonconformity.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:49 - 1:28:10)
Right. Right. If they were nonconforming with it, we could grant the relief, but they're not.

They're creating a new nonconformity for max... So we would need to give a dimensional special permit for that max building coverage. It has to be less than...

Right.

[Speaker 7] (1:28:10 - 1:28:18)
I mean, there may be a way to configure, now that you know that you can attach to the garage, to configure this to keep it within the 30%.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:19 - 1:28:19)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (1:28:20 - 1:28:24)
So you can't grant... You cannot grant over 30%?

[Speaker 1] (1:28:25 - 1:28:32)
On the... I think we can on a dimensional special permit. Right?

Can we or not? I'm trying to think if we...

[Speaker 7] (1:28:32 - 1:28:33)
10%, yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (1:28:35 - 1:28:49)
So I'm totally willing to build a breezeway over my garage. Okay? This is, you know, this is for my mother and if I have to build a breezeway, so be it.

I have no problem with that. So I guess, and I'm willing to withdraw.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:50 - 1:28:52)
Well, you don't have to withdraw. You're going to continue to the next meeting.

[Speaker 6] (1:28:52 - 1:28:54)
Right. Sorry. Continue to the next meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:54 - 1:29:13)
You can come in and amend the plan to show a breezeway, show it to Steve before. Yeah. And then we'll have you here on October 18th and we can consider the plan at that time.

[Speaker 6] (1:29:13 - 1:29:17)
So keep the side at 60, don't go to 53?

[Speaker 1] (1:29:18 - 1:29:27)
I'd say keep it at 63, what we have, if that works. Yeah. Connect it with the breeze.

I think that's the best solution for what you're looking to do.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:27 - 1:29:33)
But now we have to get a special permit, right? For that? Go 10% over?

[Speaker 1] (1:29:35 - 1:29:38)
If the building coverage goes over, he needs relief for that.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:39 - 1:29:41)
So does he have to now re-advertise?

[Speaker 1] (1:29:42 - 1:29:46)
No, because he's advertised for a special permit. Let's see what he has on his application here.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:48 - 1:29:50)
National special permit? National special permit.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:51 - 1:29:58)
Yeah, so he did a good job. An excellent job. So you checked off the right relief so we don't have to re-advertise it.

[Speaker 16] (1:29:58 - 1:29:59)
I was going to check them all off.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:00 - 1:30:03)
That's the better choice.

[Speaker 7] (1:30:03 - 1:30:09)
So just have the architect recalculate the proposed building coverage.

[Speaker 6] (1:30:10 - 1:30:13)
So could I poll the board? Is that allowed?

[Speaker 1] (1:30:14 - 1:30:19)
It's another great question. You sure you haven't been doing this before? You're pretty good at it.

[Speaker 6] (1:30:19 - 1:30:22)
No, I do a lot of all the historic stuff.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:26 - 1:31:04)
It's up to members of the board. I can tell you that I would be... Well, first I should ask if there's anyone from the public that wanted to be heard about this.

Is anyone here that wanted to be heard? Is anyone on Zoom that wanted to be heard? Use the raise your hand feature.

Just want to see if there's any input that anyone has before we continue. So I can tell you that I am likely to grant the relief. And I invite if any of the other members of the board, if they want to share any of their thoughts about it, this would be a fine time to do so.

[Speaker 7] (1:31:06 - 1:31:07)
I agree.

[Speaker 6] (1:31:07 - 1:31:24)
Okay, well, why don't we make it a surprise? I'll get this redrawn. We'll add on a ridge light.

Does it have to be huge? No, it just needs to connect it. Okay, so we'll figure out...

Steve, can you give me a hand with figuring out a ridge light?

[Speaker 10] (1:31:24 - 1:31:27)
You propose something to me, and I'll show it to you.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:27 - 1:31:36)
Okay, so I'm going to make a motion to continue the petition to October 18th. Do I have a second on that?

[Speaker 20] (1:31:37 - 1:31:37)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:38 - 1:31:40)
Somebody do a roll call so I'll be yes. Paula?

[Speaker 20] (1:31:41 - 1:31:41)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:42 - 1:31:50)
Brad? Yes. Heather?

Yes. Tony? Yes.

So I'm going to ask that you sign a continuance with Marissa, and we'll see you on October 18th.

[Speaker 6] (1:31:50 - 1:31:52)
Thank you very much for your help.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:52 - 1:32:27)
Oh, sure. Okay, the next petition is 2219 for 100 Caloops Point Road. Yes, how are you?

Good. So you're looking to start to shed?

[Speaker 19] (1:32:28 - 1:33:45)
No, actually, the agenda says to shed, but the relief I want is there's already a shed there, a very small shed, 6 by 9, which I put on the application. It's probably been there for 50 years. It could even be longer.

And I just recently built a new pool and a pool house. So when I took down the old pool house to put up a new one, I was told that now I have two accessory structures on the lot, and there's only supposed to be one. And what I'm asking for is relief to leave a little shed, which is you can't even see it.

My yard is like four levels. It goes down into the back. And on one of the levels is this little shed, which basically the only thing it's used for is a couple of lawnmowers.

So when the landscapers come, they don't have to carry the lawnmowers down two flights of steps to get to the bottom level to cut the grass. They just leave one of their lawnmowers there and cut the grass. Okay.

That's basically it.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:48 - 1:34:32)
Okay, so our bylaw provides that no more than one accessory building may be located on a lot without first obtaining a special permit from the Board of Appeals. And, of course, the standards with Section 5.3.0.0, which we just went over in another petition. Is there anyone that wanted to be heard about this petition?

Anyone on Zoom? Hearing none. Is there any debate amongst the board?

Any questions? No. Okay.

Anyone want to make a motion?

[Speaker 2] (1:34:35 - 1:34:37)
I'll make a motion.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:38 - 1:34:38)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:40 - 1:35:09)
So I'll move to, with respect to application or petition 2219, to grant the special permit pursuant to 5.3.0.0 to permit the applicant to have the additional structure as supported in the petition.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:10 - 1:35:17)
Okay. I'll second that. I'm going to do a roll call.

Brad? Yes. Miami, yes.

Paula?

[Speaker 7] (1:35:17 - 1:35:18)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:18 - 1:35:18)
Heather?

[Speaker 7] (1:35:18 - 1:35:19)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:19 - 1:35:51)
Tony? Yes. Okay, so you have your relief.

Brad will write a brief decision on that. And it will be filed with the town clerk. Thank you very much.

Enjoy the pool. All right. Okay.

All right, the next petition, and now being after 8 p.m., is 2206 of Jennifer Simon, 80 Middlesex Ave. Continued from July. Want to come forward? Yes, please.

[Speaker 14] (1:36:12 - 1:36:18)
Hi. Hi. Good evening.

I'm actually going to stand here.

[Speaker 7] (1:36:19 - 1:36:22)
I didn't announce it in advance, but I have counsel with me.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:22 - 1:36:24)
I knew you did. Yeah.

[Speaker 14] (1:36:24 - 1:36:25)
Okay, good.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:25 - 1:36:26)
Sorry, you've been talking to Robin?

[Speaker 14] (1:36:27 - 1:39:10)
Yeah, I had a couple conversations with her. My name's Josh McGuire. I'm here this evening as an attorney to the homeowners, Jennifer Simon and Steven Lento.

Yes, I had a conversation with, a couple conversations with Robin, and, you know, I sort of feel as if my thunder has been stolen, having had the Bellotta case already trotted out and discussed at length in the meeting already. But be that as it may, I want to thank the chairman, who I, as I understand it, was the one who first identified the Bellotta decision as being one that might be relevant and, in fact, inform the decision-making process for this, I gather, at the last meeting, and recognize the need to get input from town council, which I gather that you've done at this point, she gave me, you know, just the bare bones of what the guidance was that she had provided. I've read the Bellotta decision myself.

You know, this is obviously a matter that has been before this board now for, I believe, over a year and a half, and that the analysis that was being performed up until this last July, you know, might have been a different one than we now all think is the correct decision under the guidance of the Bellotta decision. As I understand it, there's basically two questions that need to be asked in order to determine whether or not the relief is appropriate here. The first one of whether the proposed alteration or addition intensifies the existing nonconformity.

I think, actually, that the answer to that one is yes, and I think the Bellotta decision even says that that's yes as a matter of law, that the SJC said at that decision that something as routine as this, that we've previously observed a certain small-scale extensions, such as the addition of a dormer, a porch, a sunroom, or even a two-car garage, would not, as a matter of law, constitute an intensification of the nonconforming nature of a structure, and I think that is supposed to end the inquiry.

But even if we went on to the second question posed by Bellotta, whether or not the nonconforming structure creates a substantial detriment to the neighborhood, we came prepared to address that issue as well. I think we submitted some photographs of other houses up and down the street that also have roofed porches, some of them have wraparound porches and things like that. I don't think that, given those two questions, that there should be very much doubt anymore, and that my hope is that that means that the homeowners can move forward at long last and reconstruct the porch with the roof.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:11 - 1:42:38)
Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate it.

I appreciate you following up with Town Council and helping me get the decision quicker. It's too much for the opinion. So first, I'm wondering, is there anyone that wanted to be heard about this petition that's either present here or on Zoom?

Or we had a discussion amongst the board on this? Okay, hearing none. So with respect to the opinion we received from Robin Stein, which I think kind of took the Bellotta case, which we talked about in some other applications, and extended the theory even beyond the earlier application we were using it for.

And I had the benefit of a conversation with Robin, and it was really interesting to play it out with the way a protected, nonconforming structure could actually receive more relief than a conforming structure looking to create a new nonconformity. If that's what Bellotta says and that our bylaw goes too far in looking to regulate a change to a nonconforming structure. So I agree that the inquiry should be, with respect here, that the first step is to ask is the work increasing the nonconforming nature of any nonconformity.

If the answer to that is no, then no relief is necessary in just defining that it's not increasing the nonconforming nature of any nonconformity. If we find yes, i.e. that there is an increase in the nonconforming nature of an existing nonconformity, then we may grant a section 6 special permit upon a determination that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity to the neighborhood. And that's what I'll make a motion to do, which based on the application, the extensive debate about the application at the prior hearing, and with the analysis from Bellotta, I would find that, yes, it is an increase in the nonconforming nature of the existing nonconformity, but also finding that the petitioner has met the requirements of proving that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity to the neighborhood, which is composed of many structures very similar, covered porches in the setback.

So do I have a second on that motion? Or do we want to have any discussion first? Oh, we haven't closed the public hearing yet.

I should first ask... So hold my motion while we have any discussion that anyone would like to have about it. No?

No discussion?

[Speaker 2] (1:42:39 - 1:42:39)
Sorry?

[Speaker 1] (1:42:40 - 1:42:42)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:42 - 1:43:39)
The discussion I had, or the point that was raised, but counsels, whether or not, and it sounded like in the Bellotta case, this was an example of the type of change which the SJC said doesn't increase a nonconforming. So adding a porch. But Mark, I know you're taking the safer approach, which is even assuming it is, or it does, you go to the second prong.

Yeah, I figure that's the safer way to do it. Yeah, okay. In doing that, I'm not sure we want to set a precedent that this type of change actually does increase a nonconformity.

But assuming it did, or even if it did, then you can get to the second prong either way.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:40 - 1:44:20)
Right. Well, my thought is where you're covering the porch, I think the safer approach is to say, the way our bylaw treats it, that if it were, that counts. In terms of setback and things like that, once it's covered, so I would say it should be interpreted as increasing the nonconforming nature.

So it triggers the Section 6 Special Permit Analysis. That's how I look at it. Okay.

Okay. So with that, why don't I motion to close the public hearing on a yes. Do I have a second?

[Speaker 7] (1:44:20 - 1:44:21)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:22 - 1:44:25)
So do a roll call, so I'm a yes. Heather?

[Speaker 7] (1:44:25 - 1:44:25)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:26 - 1:44:27)
Tony? Yes. Paula?

[Speaker 7] (1:44:28 - 1:44:28)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:29 - 1:44:51)
Brad? Yes. And now I am going to renew my motion for the finding that it increases the nonconforming nature of the existing nonconformity and that the application has met the Section 6 Special Permit criteria and that it is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity of the neighborhood.

Do I have a second on that?

[Speaker 7] (1:44:51 - 1:44:51)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:52 - 1:44:53)
Okay, so I'm a yes. Heather?

[Speaker 7] (1:44:54 - 1:44:54)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:54 - 1:45:17)
Tony? Yes. Brad?

Yes. Paula? Yes.

Okay, so you have your relief. I will, if you feel like putting together a brief proposed decision for me on that or it would be done a little quicker then I don't know how quick you ought to do the work it might take me a week or two to get the decision done.

[Speaker 14] (1:45:17 - 1:45:18)
We will absolutely get a pre-proposed decision.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:18 - 1:45:43)
Okay, does it need to be, I can even, if you email me I can send you a proposed decision so you have a form that we'd like to use. That would be great. And I have a couple that I've already kind of done with analysis of the case so that might be a good one to use.

Okay, so good luck with your project.

[Speaker 20] (1:45:43 - 1:45:45)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:45 - 1:47:34)
Okay, you're welcome. Thank you. Okay, so let's get this together.

So the next, the next petition is 2211 also continued from July for 8th Edison Ave. Okay, let's get this stuff together here. Okay. Alright, so who's here for the petitioner on this one?

Mr. Lynch, I think you're on mute. Still muted. Does Mr., does Paul have, he's not muted by us, right?

[Speaker 15] (1:47:34 - 1:47:37)
No, no, he's, he should be able to unmute himself.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:37 - 1:47:42)
So you should be able to unmute yourself, Paul. There we go. Great.

Good evening.

[Speaker 5] (1:47:43 - 1:51:50)
Technology sometimes catches us. Okay, so we are here for a dimensional special permit. This property, 8th Edison, was a four-family unit.

It has lost its use as a four-family unit because it was abandoned for that use for over a two-year period. So the building inspector at that time, Richard Otagi, wrote an opinion to the owner that it could no longer be used as a two-family, as a four-family and we have now filed a dimensional special permit to remove a number of things to change it to a single-family home. The, we were added more than 800 square feet and we needed to go for a review to the planning board, which we did on two separate occasions on July 11th and again on September 12th.

There was much discussion surrounding about the design of the building and the size of the building and they have filed recently as, I guess today, has received a letter from Angela, guiding their unfavorable action on the petition. We have addressed in front of anyone and also since some of those issues that the planning board brought up including the question of underground utilities. The utilities are presently there underground servicing, servicing the house and they will remain the same.

The curb cut at the end of Stern Street, we have had conversations with the director of public works. He has no issue with us accessing the premises and the garage area from Stern Street. There is no curb on that side of Stern Street.

So there is nothing that needs to be done there except to put the driveway on site and not interrupt any part of Stern Street. So what we are seeking now is relief for maximum lot coverage. We are at 32.9. The allowed lot coverage is 30% but the zoning by-law permits a 10% increase by a special permit. So we are seeking that. There is also, along the right side of the property in the rear of the structure where the garage is going to be located a sidewalk and setback of 9.6 that is not closer to the setback than presently exists. I believe that relief for two reasons.

It is not needed for that and also, if one looks at the site plan that portion of Stern Street is not developed, not constructed. It is basically trees and rocks. The new Director of Public Works says there is no intent to ever make that through the street.

So we believe that hey, we are not getting any closer to being, it can be treated certainly as this idea is set. Other than that, the height of the building will only be 26.4 feet high and it will remain a two-story building. I think Derrick Bloom can go through the plans and then I will come back with any questions that the board may have.

Derrick, do you want to take over and share the screen? Sure. Is that ok to take over and share?

[Speaker 15] (1:51:50 - 1:51:51)
Yes, please go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:51 - 1:52:31)
Great. So I'm Derrick Bloom, Bloom Architecture. As Paul mentioned, we have been developing this scheme over a few iterations.

I'll take you through it from scratch. It is our first appearance here. Here is an existing facade if anyone is familiar with it.

It is a four family, so eight bedrooms, four kitchens, that kind of thing. A central stair, but very low ceilings inside and essentially no basement. There is a very small section that is mechanical that is maybe 200 square feet of crawl space.

[Speaker 20] (1:52:38 - 1:52:39)
Two more existing pictures.

[Speaker 3] (1:52:40 - 2:00:43)
The paper road is kind of here. It is the first half of this block and the basement starts somewhere here and extends all the way back to where you see Sturm Street. We'll see that in a second.

This is a view from Denison of the unpaved section which has someone's cars on in this picture. The trees and fencing and things that are along the opposite side of that section. This is just the rear of the house.

It is a small essentially stair entryway. It is a second stair aligning with the center of the building like the front stairs. There is a lot of concrete pads here.

This one, as Paul mentioned, all the new proposed addition, the garage and the family room conform to setbacks. The new new note conformity is a lot of coverage. We have a chart with some of the conventional backs of the proposal.

The other side is a lot. The same with frontage. Stories are existing too and we're keeping to.

Height is getting a couple of feet taller. Steeper roof and slightly higher second floor ceiling height as well. Open area, we're well that metric.

There is some funny wording on it. The front yard is not conforming to a change and the side and rear are complying. I should say the new construction.

The side is one existing non-conforming one. And then a lot of coverage. This is going from 21.8 to 32.9 which exceeds 30 allowable. This is just a table where we justify the open area. Architectural site plan, the existing concrete paths off the back. There's a landscape plan which isn't in the package.

We're removing some plantings here. There's a row here that are going to be displaced by a garage and we're moving back out of the house. So that will be replaced by a bigger addition which is a garage but that's coming up.

The rest of the footprint foundations, first floor walls, second floor framing, first floor framing will stay in place but they're going to pop through and go steeper and higher pitched roof there. The proposed plans this is kind of site plan so I'll flip to the architecturals but effectively we're coming up with a big portion of Stearns Street. So there were two items in the letter that we thought we had resolved and I don't think the letter caught up but one was we spoke with Genocrats about the driveway location or any notion that we're in the right of way so that's kind of a non-issue as far as we know.

So as you can see there's a connection to a rear door there's a connection to the garage to the mudroom, front foyer and then the main dining and kitchen in this part of the plan and then the guest suite here in this end of the plan. This is the other addition there's the garage and then there's this L-shaped addition which is a family room which we're showing kind of set up as a home office given the zeitgeist of the moment but we're calling it a family room and then a dining room that pops out to the rear. So this is just the first floor again repeating what I just showed you with the school bar so you can see it's kind of the apartment layouts are left right off the center stair that goes up and then back down this being Denison out here new plans as we discussed moments ago second floor plan same thing kind of identical left and right apartments the third and fourth units here and the new proposal has the four bedrooms upstairs the center stair hall and over the garage, half of the garage we have a playroom, kind of a flexible family space on the second floor roof plan the primary gable of the existing house is being kept as I mentioned it will be steeper the central form of this main body of the house and then the additions are going to have a lower flat roof appearance that will be lower than the main body of the house so from Denison existing front proposed obviously retraining windows and effectively filling up this footprint keeping the Garrison Colonial overhangs existing and then this is the family room addition seen in the rear of the house on the left just kind of some of the other views so from the sterns this is the right side of the house before after this being the garage this being the playroom and then from the opposite side the main house family room garage and from the rear main house beyond this is the garage half of the footprint garage is a small upper roof deck on the main part of the garage and this is the bedroom addition above this family room addition so that kind of takes us through the house I don't know how much you want to talk about landscape but there's essentially a lot of remaining distant trees to remain here and it's going to be kind of street defined planting added along the front and also to kind of define the edge property here and the rest will be lawn existing vegetation so for the stormwater design we were asked to produce one and we spoke with our civil engineer that we work with and we were a matter of the approach that we would take knowing that there's a approval that still needs to happen for how big a condition might be approved, what kind of roof area that has factor in the calculations he thought this might suffice for this stage, also knowing that we have to produce a compliant stormwater system so he kind of mentioned his design approach and the nuance in the bulk of it is the storage volume of tanks and paving systems will create runoff that does not exceed the present rates of stormwater volume so that's kind of the package so far so we can go back to whatever pages folks may want to see

[Speaker 1] (2:00:47 - 2:00:51)
okay, thank you, Mr. Bloom

[Speaker 5] (2:00:52 - 2:01:07)
it should be noted in the letter from the planning board also that the petitioner and the architect had made changes to the initial plans to soften up the appearance of the building, you may want to address that a little bit, Darren

[Speaker 10] (2:01:07 - 2:01:09)
yes, we came originally

[Speaker 3] (2:01:09 - 2:02:45)
with a flat roof building entirely feeling that it would have a lower overall appearance kind of more of a low slung building and they encouraged us to do a pitch roof partially based on character and context and what many of the other buildings are on half so that was not not a big problem, I think we can maintain the spirit of the house with the pitched roof in fact in the most recent hearing about half the members said maybe I'll use a better flat because it was lower but in the end it seemed to as a group prefer the pitch based on the character of the neighborhood context so that's how we got to that one I mean if you want to go through some of these points I can, so there were questions about the extent of demolition which we didn't fully understand and we have a very clear footprint of foundation first floor and even several of the windows we've changed the windows but several of them already have changed, so this was very clear that this is a renovation of the house with additions, expensive renovation but still a renovation and they were questioning whether that was okay it's definitely feasible and that's our intention to do that recover, the industry recover, I guess that's it those are the issues that they raised

[Speaker 1] (2:02:48 - 2:02:50)
How many meetings were you at the planning board?

[Speaker 5] (2:02:50 - 2:03:52)
We're in there for two hearings and they're pretty extensive hearings from the planning board there was some with all due respect there was some conflict I think with the planning board understanding the role of zoning versus planning review and what relief we need and how that affected their role so I think that there was a discussion whether to have a favorable action with conditions, recommendations or to have an unfavorable action with comments that we did make progress by making some significant changes and the majority of the board determined that they would make an unfavorable action with those comments so as an advisory

[Speaker 1] (2:03:53 - 2:05:23)
Right, so what triggered you having to go there was the increase in gross floor area, is that the only thing?

Yeah, because we're over 850 Okay So under the site plan special permit criteria you had to go there but with the permit granting authority Correct Okay So I think because I see there are extensive comments that appear to be from the neighbors and concerns the statement date on the letter, I assume that you received this this fall did you receive a copy? So that it was dated July 27th 2022 and it looks like you were you looked to address several other concerns but I'm going to open up for some public comment to see what concerns there still are in addition to the concerns that are addressed by the planning board So why don't I see who would like to be heard about this Yes Well for the record we should have here Scott Thibodeau, 8 Stern Street

[Speaker 6] (2:05:25 - 2:05:39)
My wife and I live at the last house on the left of Stern Street So I'd like to back up a little bit about this project that they want to do I don't think Is anybody here?

[Speaker 2] (2:05:41 - 2:05:47)
Sorry to interrupt I can't hear Hello? Can you hear me now?

[Speaker 1] (2:05:50 - 2:06:19)
Mr. Thibodeau, why don't I have you come up to the microphone here Can you hear me now?

[Speaker 2] (2:06:19 - 2:06:20)
Yes, thank you very much

[Speaker 6] (2:06:20 - 2:08:50)
So I just want to go back in time a little bit When they bought the house they've been housekeeping has been horrible You get on there now, the grass is 3 feet tall, there's an abandoned truck that's been sitting in the back of the house for a year Someone has storage in it and every now and then they come down and they take stuff out Okay At the planning board meeting there were more things brought up than were just mentioned by the architect What was brought up was where are the air conditioning compressors going to go It was brought up that on the right hand side of the building, if you're looking at it from the street there's 1 foot 11 inches from that side of the building to the property line The planning board was looking for some kind of a fence or something to go along there to say this is where the house ends Alright, and if I remember correctly the theme amongst the planning board members was it's so big, it's so big it's so big So my thought is to put it in the vernacular it's trying to put 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound bag The addition on the left side is 2 stories The garage on the back is a story and a half There's a roof deck on top of the garage Alright, there's no basement in the house So where would you store stuff Maybe in the garage So there are 2 cars drawn in on the plan in the garage and 2 cars out in the backyard on that property out there If there's stuff in the garage, maybe there will be maybe there won't So then there's 4 cars out in the backyard and yes, they did go to a not a flat roof for the main structure but out back, they have flat roofs not in keeping with the neighborhood Are you still doing the tongue and groove plywood for siding That's not in keeping with the neighborhood

[Speaker 3] (2:08:50 - 2:08:54)
It was never met It's painted wood siding

[Speaker 6] (2:08:56 - 2:08:58)
So the lines in it are just lines

[Speaker 3] (2:08:59 - 2:09:04)
on the drawing Ok It's not a plywood product

[Speaker 6] (2:09:04 - 2:09:13)
It's not a plywood product What kind of windows Are they going to be 6 over 6's Or are they going to be Crank outs

[Speaker 5] (2:09:15 - 2:09:18)
Blankets Mr. Chairman, I think we should address these through the chair

[Speaker 1] (2:09:18 - 2:09:30)
I think that's a good idea I do agree If you give a list of what concerns you have we can ask Mr. Bloom to address them after

[Speaker 6] (2:09:30 - 2:10:09)
My concerns are the way it looks from the rear of the building My concerns are That Stern Street is a small street There are a lot of young children that play out in the street We don't need the added traffic from a house that's going to have 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms in it You know the cars driving up and down the street I'm not against something going on with the house It needs to be fixed But it's just huge The whole thing overall is big, big, big So that's my comment Thank you

[Speaker 1] (2:10:09 - 2:10:15)
Thank you Mr. Bloom, did you want to address any of those concerns

[Speaker 3] (2:10:18 - 2:13:49)
Sure The cars were mentioned in the hearing There were a lot of things said in the hearing that we had to sort of clarify Someone even said there will be 5 bedrooms and 5 cars I mean, this is just a family home So it will have the number of cars any house has and whether there's a garage or not there will still be a driveway So I think the traffic is somewhat of a I don't know It's not a leak that what we're building affects the traffic I guess I'll just say that I don't see why there would be more cars here than in another property The siding It's traditional It's vertical and horizontal wood siding painted So these are well within residential scale and vernacular materials They're not quite board but they're fairly common in our work I'm not sure what else came up The AC unit It's a good point that was discussed Sorry, I just covered what was in the letter I didn't mean to omit discussion points In the hearing This is just the same type of drawings we had at the hearing We didn't want to show off anything new There's a flat roof here so we planned to put it in here so it wouldn't be visible off the back So this is the usable part of the roof and this would be the utility part of the roof outside of the laundry room The fence idea That didn't get much traction in the discussion I would say it's a little bit I don't think a fence here makes a ton of sense for any non-storage use of this end of the house It is too close It's not a condition created by us I don't see a fence being required as a benefit The house feels in my opinion somewhat spacious given the amount of clear space If you were to put this one foot and a half from this wall it would clearly feel jammed in and that's an existing condition So I prefer it to be fenced from the back certainly in that direction but not in front of the house itself I can see that as a possible recommendation I think there's a section of the house where you could really support a fence here So yeah we're most likely willing to put some fencing where it doesn't create that condition I think that's it The size is subjective I think the number of bedrooms people did think 5 was a lot I'm not clear where a limit to bedrooms exists whether that's something that's regulated or not 5 bedrooms is too many A client would like to do 5 with 3 children and a family and a guest room It's not hard to get to 5 Mr. Tibbett himself in a multi-generational household either upwards or downwards we can end up with extra people so it didn't seem egregious to have 5 to us but many in the community raised that point

[Speaker 2] (2:13:50 - 2:15:04)
Can I ask a question Mr. Bloom on the existing structure when it was a 4 family house where was the parking? There was no formal parking I don't know the history of the house or whether people used the paper street like it was truck lanes for example but there's no formal parking on this property Does the current paper street so if you were to turn into that from Denison Avenue where those cars were parked in that photo Could you continue to drive onto Stern Street from there?

With some landscaping you can't physically do it today It's totally impassable You can't drive through here now Ok, understood I'm just trying to understand the view from Mr. Tibbett's standpoint looking at the back of the house how visible is it? So there's no street

[Speaker 3] (2:15:04 - 2:15:20)
in the back I'm trying to find some rearward facing view I'm not sure I got as far as Mr. Tibbett's house or even if I know Here's the view from where the paving ends It's kind of where the driveway would be

[Speaker 5] (2:15:21 - 2:15:28)
And that's coming down Stern This would be the intersection at Stern So there's that road

[Speaker 2] (2:15:31 - 2:15:54)
Nobody's going to be driving down so this would be the last place one would be able to drive down on Stern's Road Correct It's not a through street I guess if you were walking down the road you could look and see the back of this house but otherwise it's really mostly visible from the Denison side I would say so There's a pretty good size road

[Speaker 3] (2:15:54 - 2:15:59)
Maples on both sides of the fence across the rear

[Speaker 2] (2:16:00 - 2:17:23)
On the zoning analysis did you do the zoning analysis? The chart?

Yes I did that one So it appears like the minimal lot is an existing nonconformity the frontage existing nonconformity the number of stories complies with the current zoning the maximum height complies the minimum open area complies the minimum front yard is an existing nonconformity there's no change there minimum side yard, minimum rear yard those comply so the only really issue here is the increase in less than 10% of the maximum lot coverage Is that correct?

That's correct So really that from a zoning perspective that's really the only relief you need so if in fact this had been less than 30% if it had been 30% or less you wouldn't need that relief, right? That's correct But because you're adding over 800 feet to this it has to go to plan which it did, right? But that comes back to us for our zoning approval That's correct Okay

[Speaker 1] (2:17:25 - 2:17:26)
That planning gets

[Speaker 5] (2:17:26 - 2:17:28)
in conflict with the zoning issues

[Speaker 2] (2:17:28 - 2:17:29)
Understood

[Speaker 1] (2:17:29 - 2:17:43)
Right, it's an existing nonconforming structure on the side yard, the front yard and they're looking to alter it with conforming changes except for the lot coverage Which is

[Speaker 2] (2:17:43 - 2:17:49)
within that 10% threshold But even

[Speaker 1] (2:17:49 - 2:18:16)
if they complied if the addition wasn't triggering the max lot coverage and they didn't need relief for that I believe they would at least need a finding for the alteration to the pre-existing nonconforming structure with the well actually with all the conforming changes, I don't think they would need any relief

[Speaker 2] (2:18:16 - 2:18:39)
It was under the analysis that we just went through One other question I had in terms of abandonment because we've heard this before There's a distinction in abandonment between the abandoned use which had been a four family and is now a single family and the abandonment of a nonconforming structure Right, Attorney Lynch?

[Speaker 1] (2:18:39 - 2:19:10)
Yes, well the only abandonment we had was the abandonment of the use structure Right, okay Okay, those are just some of my questions, thanks So let me open it up to see if there is any other public comment Anyone present here that wanted to comment? Yes, I have somebody over here I don't know if your microphone is working, let's check it out first Hello Can you hear? Sounds good Could I have your name and your address please?

[Speaker 4] (2:19:10 - 2:29:30)
Good evening, my name is Ben Locke and I live at 15 Dennison Avenue This is my wife Judy We've been there for about 40 years and basically I've been kind of watching this process for a while Obviously as neighbors we live right across the street and kind of been in touch with the town and way back in July we were encouraged by the town to put together a statement to help make your job easier because as it turned out there were about 17 neighbors that had concern about this property I want to thank Scott for his comments, I'm going to try not to replicate but I think it's important that you hear what people thought and I'll try to paraphrase it the best I can So we did submit the statement on August 2nd to Marissa and on August 12th we attended the planning board hearing and we listened to Angela Impolito and the rest of the board We understand that it was an unfavorable action at that time with various conditions cited and also so noted I think by Attorney Lynch that the property is indeed now a single family residence in zone A2 which is great and the neighbors collectively through conversations, emails had basically 11 concerns and I'll just state them briefly again, people just feel that the house is this very large green building already it's on Denison Avenue and the thing I just want to just for mathematics here, the building footprint to lot size the ratios were determined so again the ratio of building footprint to lot size the average on Denison Ave is about 21.6% and it ranges right now from 12.2 to 28% We looked at 8 Denison Avenue and the current ratio right now is 22.59% and as the petitioner mentioned they said that the would like to go up to 32.9% and that's an increase of 10.3% in coverage and we're not experts in zoning and we only want to give you this information just so you can consider it in making your decision and by the way I apologize we are very delighted that the new owners did purchase this building and we are very much looking forward to seeing it improved so we just want everybody's feelings to be aired so that you guys can make the best decision you can The second concern after the largeness is the left side yard setback of the house the abutting neighbor at 6 Denison Avenue has expressed a concern a serious concern just about the size of the building that you'd be looking at the addition the family room addition with the master bedroom on top would bump that side of the building out by 13.4 inches 13 feet 4 inches and it would change the setback from 27 feet 5 inches to 14 feet 1 inch so just wanted to pass this message to you just so you know I don't believe our neighbor is here tonight but she has that concern just about the addition and also as the petitioner mentioned we did discuss at the planning board hearing that the style of the home isn't consistent with the neighborhood you know we thank the owners and the architect for changing the front of the building from a flat to a slanted roof which helps a lot but the main concern is we would appreciate it if the scale of the proposed building and the style could be consistent with the neighborhood and the zoning regulation 2.3.6.0 requires or states that the proposed structure is consistent with the architectural scale and style of those in the immediate area and that was expressed in our August 2nd document folks tonight have talked point number 4 is about number of bedrooms and bathrooms the main concern that people have about 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms was yes 1 related to potential traffic and the other side is they were wondering and this was brought up at the planning board meeting they were wondering if this was going to be turned into an Airbnb so the owners at the last planning board said that was not their intention to rent this as an Airbnb but again this wouldn't prevent anybody in the future from doing that but we just wanted to make sure you were aware that that had been discussed the last time point number 5 is traffic on Stern Street I think that was mentioned I think by Derek and it was just yes somebody had mentioned the possibility of 5 cars associated with this home but it was discussed tonight that hopefully it will just be a regular family single home another point number 6 was about garage use the fact that it's going to be a 2 car garage and people were wondering if there were limited storage in the home would the garage actually be used for storage and that would mean there would be more cars around a potential street or on the property a larger concern however I think is again the paper end of Stern Street as you saw in the pictures I also have if you want to see it on my cell phone I do have a picture of the dead end Stern Street's a dead end and the end is separated by some boulders and some bushes and we talked about the side of the building is only 1 foot 8 inches but the point is aesthetically that acts as a dirt road right now and it acts as a walkway for people so people would appreciate it as part of this hearing process if the paper ends of Stern Street could be formally addressed for your information that paper end we just measured it to see but it's about 56 feet long and 22 feet wide so we know that our neighbors on Stern Street would like it to remain as a dead end and they would appreciate it if that could be addressed in the approval I believe the architect or Mr. Lynch addressed the storm water issue and that was addressed in a letter dated August 14th I believe and that was from the site engineering consultants from Sharon Mass and they stated that the storm water management plan will require an assessment of the existing conditions versus the post developed conditions so that was discussed at the last meeting number 9 was landscaping Derek showed everybody the bushes and plantings that hopefully will be added that was just a concern of the neighbors that the home really hasn't been attended to and we would like to thank the owners for sharing that information publicly with everyone point 10 was just about an outside deck in the back of the house and abutting neighbors concerned about privacy with that it would overlook the person's backyard and the last point is chemicals during construction, we talked about this the last time, it just has to do with potential rodents which could leave the building and neighbors were hoping because people have pets and at their homes they just hope that some kind of safe measure is taken in getting rid of any rodents so that's what the neighbors wanted the zoning board to know and we thank you very much for giving me this time to express their concerns

[Speaker 1] (2:29:30 - 2:29:42)
thank you thank you Mr. Lynch would you like to respond to any of those specific comments there's already been a response

[Speaker 5] (2:29:42 - 2:30:39)
you know I think there's been a response to most of them but I just want to reiterate that Mr. Crosthead and VP Debrian voiced the opinion or his comment to the planning board that that tender will never be open it will remain in the state that it is today with the mature trees and live holders as far as the setback on the left side that is almost twice what it needs to be seven and a half foot setback with 14 feet back and that's another 19 feet to the buddy house so I haven't heard any direct comments from that person I think it's more for the scope of being of far distance to not encroach on any of the grass

[Speaker 1] (2:30:41 - 2:30:52)
ok is there anyone else that wanted to be heard on this petition who's present or on zoom use the raise your hand feature if you're on zoom

[Speaker 15] (2:31:01 - 2:31:02)
not seeing anyone on zoom

[Speaker 1] (2:31:02 - 2:31:10)
ok alright any questions from the board any discussion from the board

[Speaker 2] (2:31:12 - 2:31:26)
I just want to make sure procedurally I understand where we are so right now we're looking at the application for site plan special permit is that right

[Speaker 1] (2:31:26 - 2:31:38)
we have the site plan special permit and then the special permit for for going over on the lot coverage

[Speaker 2] (2:31:38 - 2:31:50)
so if the lot coverage was less than 30% or less then the only thing that they'd be seeking would be the site plan special permit

[Speaker 1] (2:31:50 - 2:31:54)
actually it wouldn't be here the planning board would be the permit

[Speaker 2] (2:31:54 - 2:32:07)
granting authority so because it is a 2.9% that's really the only reason why we are the permit granting authority

[Speaker 1] (2:32:07 - 2:32:08)
that's correct

[Speaker 15] (2:32:12 - 2:32:18)
I could be wrong sorry Brad isn't the addition of more than 15% of the gross floor area

[Speaker 10] (2:32:18 - 2:32:22)
trigger a special permit a dimensional special permit

[Speaker 1] (2:32:24 - 2:32:26)
Steve do you know if there's another

[Speaker 10] (2:32:26 - 2:32:29)
I think there is also a height if it's right

[Speaker 1] (2:32:29 - 2:32:33)
well they're compliant with the height they're compliant with the height

[Speaker 10] (2:32:33 - 2:32:36)
yeah but if it's more than

[Speaker 15] (2:32:39 - 2:32:50)
I think 7th 3 how much am I embarrassing myself

[Speaker 10] (2:32:50 - 2:32:56)
if it increases more than 15% in height and if it increases more than 15% in floor area

[Speaker 15] (2:32:56 - 2:33:00)
in gross floor area right it triggers the 2273 I think

[Speaker 10] (2:33:00 - 2:33:01)
but it has to be both

[Speaker 15] (2:33:02 - 2:33:03)
no no no one or the other

[Speaker 10] (2:33:03 - 2:33:06)
yeah it could both be looped into one

[Speaker 1] (2:33:08 - 2:35:49)
ok so not conforming so 2273 for a single so that says that it can be extended or altered if it does not increase the non-conforming nature of said structure which determines if the shell will be made by the building inspector if one or both the following two circumstances are met in the case of a lot that does not comply with the existing minimum lot area the minimum lot frontage requirements which is here there has been no alteration within the past five years and the existing structure complies with all current setback it doesn't so that doesn't apply in the case number 2 in the case where the existing structure presently encroaches or otherwise does not comply with one or more setback ok it doesn't there has been no alteration extension within the last five years and the proposed alteration reconstruction or structural change will comply with all current setback open space so that doesn't apply then you get to b in the event does not meet the determination such extension alteration reconstruction or change may only be permitted by a special permit a so called section 6 special permit upon the determination that such alteration reconstruction or change is not substantially more detrimental and shall only permit conforming changes to non-conforming structures and or conforming changes to non-conforming lots and I think that that provision is where we have a problem with Pallalta that it goes beyond what the law provides for because we have a non-conforming structure here on a non-conforming lot and they're permitted to make changes and we have to do the same analysis that the first one is is the work increasing the non-conforming nature of any non-conformity and I would say no because it's all these conforming changes that they're proposing although no that's of any non-conformity it is it's just the maximum lot coverage so it is

[Speaker 7] (2:35:49 - 2:35:52)
I would say the front landing area

[Speaker 1] (2:35:53 - 2:35:56)
because they're making changes to the front landing

[Speaker 7] (2:35:56 - 2:36:01)
well it's which is in the setback it's non-conforming

[Speaker 1] (2:36:02 - 2:36:06)
and then so if it's increasing the non-conforming nature

[Speaker 3] (2:36:06 - 2:36:11)
have you guys finished my thought

[Speaker 1] (2:36:11 - 2:36:41)
Derek? then it would be a section 6 special permit we would have to find that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming to the neighborhood so that I think that's the analysis it's the same as that Middlesex Avalon whether or not the proposed change is substantially more detrimental

[Speaker 2] (2:36:42 - 2:36:54)
I don't think I heard anybody comment in all the comments that we've heard from planning and neighbors and everyone else unless I missed it I didn't hear anybody complaining about that

[Speaker 1] (2:36:54 - 2:37:25)
well but I think that when you say substantially more detrimental I think the evidence it has to be substantially I would view the comments that we heard about detriment would be the massing, the size arguably the view from the public way the roof deck people have decks I don't know that any of it is substantial but none of those

[Speaker 4] (2:37:25 - 2:37:28)
dealt with the non-conformities

[Speaker 15] (2:37:29 - 2:37:30)
can I go back to my

[Speaker 1] (2:37:30 - 2:37:39)
well I think the change is the alteration but could you argue the block coverage because it's

[Speaker 7] (2:37:39 - 2:37:43)
but that's a whole new non-conformity that's a new non-conformity

[Speaker 1] (2:37:43 - 2:38:18)
yeah so the question i.e. there is an increase in the non-conforming nature of an existing non-conformity so it's not because it's a new non-conformity so they need relief for the new non-conformity into section 6 because it's a non-conforming structure for the change and then for the new non-conformity they need a dimensional special permit because they're increasing it and they're permitted to give relief but it's the same analysis

[Speaker 15] (2:38:19 - 2:38:24)
substantially more detrimental Heather I apologize for interrupting you there

[Speaker 7] (2:38:24 - 2:38:26)
no it's good

[Speaker 15] (2:38:26 - 2:38:31)
it might have been me I found the section that I was referring to the 15%

[Speaker 1] (2:38:32 - 2:38:35)
2.2, 2.7, 2.3

[Speaker 15] (2:38:35 - 2:38:37)
yeah number 1 and then

[Speaker 1] (2:38:37 - 2:38:40)
I don't think we get there because so then

[Speaker 5] (2:38:42 - 2:38:46)
that's if we got a special permit and we want to move forward in the future

[Speaker 1] (2:38:47 - 2:38:58)
right I don't think that is the 15% but and I think we have problems with that overall with when you're dealing with a non-conforming structure as we are here

[Speaker 2] (2:39:00 - 2:39:09)
Mark if they got the maximum lot coverage to 30% then I'm not sure that any relief would be necessary

[Speaker 1] (2:39:11 - 2:39:18)
if they got up to 30% they just need a site plan special permit they'd be back at Planning Board for their relief

[Speaker 2] (2:39:19 - 2:39:25)
oh because it's 800 square feet we don't have we wouldn't have jurisdiction

[Speaker 5] (2:39:26 - 2:39:38)
and really where we shouldn't be here legally speaking is the zoning they certainly have all the experience to understand the relief we need right the question

[Speaker 2] (2:39:39 - 2:39:52)
is whether or not that 2.9% it you know would be the same analysis that we undertake in any kind of a dimensional special permit

[Speaker 5] (2:39:53 - 2:40:05)
yeah I think it's there for a reason you know they're saying you can get relief up to 10% of the allowed dimension you can get relief right

[Speaker 1] (2:40:06 - 2:40:07)
right so

[Speaker 5] (2:40:07 - 2:40:09)
as a special permit

[Speaker 1] (2:40:12 - 2:40:58)
yeah I mean I think with the you know with the massing question a lot of it is because of the perception of this house is right on Denison it's so close on the setback it's closer than all the other houses well not all the other houses a lot of them are closed but it has this flat two story front and so it appears that even existing that it's large and then you're building off to the side maybe it'll give it a little bit more dimension and changing the roof line to soften it but you know the five bedroom there's plenty of homes in Swanstown with more than five bedrooms

[Speaker 7] (2:40:58 - 2:41:00)
well there's eight bedrooms in the existing home

[Speaker 1] (2:41:00 - 2:41:06)
right that's a great point they could keep the existing and use all eight bedrooms

[Speaker 2] (2:41:06 - 2:41:17)
and all eight of those each one of those families could have you know two cars in case you have eight cars with no garage but they've lost

[Speaker 1] (2:41:17 - 2:41:19)
they've abandoned that use

[Speaker 2] (2:41:19 - 2:41:24)
no I know but I'm just saying in terms of the existing versus the proposed

[Speaker 7] (2:41:25 - 2:41:30)
yeah I was just thinking in terms of plumbing I mean there were some questions about that

[Speaker 1] (2:41:39 - 2:41:44)
I would love to hear what our board member architect thinks about it all

[Speaker 17] (2:41:45 - 2:42:25)
I'm kind of hung up on the 2.9% extra size that we're looking for relief on because the only comment we've heard is it's too big and to grant relief for something that makes it even if it's arbitrary 2.9% makes it feel a little bigger I feel like that's not the direction we should head in I mean design wise the building is right on the street it's imposing in relation to the character on the street I was looking at the aerial it doesn't look like there's any other houses on that street that really have that same massing that presents which obviously if you don't change it keeps that same imposing presence

[Speaker 7] (2:42:25 - 2:42:38)
well I kind of like the original design with the flat roof but I know that the neighbors didn't but I mean that did bring the height much lower in the front and then it had a little bit of that bump up height that was set back

[Speaker 17] (2:42:38 - 2:42:40)
it still is a wall but it's a little softer

[Speaker 7] (2:42:40 - 2:42:47)
I kind of like that design better but I know that wasn't where planning board got you

[Speaker 1] (2:42:52 - 2:43:22)
so at this point I think we ought to have some discussion maybe poll the board a bit thinking about this petition to see if it looks like there would be four votes in favor of the petition or not so that the petitioner could consider making changes before we have a vote does that seem fair Mr. Lynch?

[Speaker 5] (2:43:23 - 2:43:24)
yes

[Speaker 1] (2:43:26 - 2:43:35)
so maybe I should start with Tony because you're bringing up the 2.9% you think that I don't want to put words in your mouth

[Speaker 17] (2:43:35 - 2:43:50)
I think again on the 2.9% I'm not really in favor of offering relief for that over the size because again the size is a bit of a contentious issue so I'd like to see that come down to the required and not look to give additional relief on that

[Speaker 1] (2:43:52 - 2:44:52)
I would agree I think that the 2.9% asking for that relief for us to find that it's not substantially more detrimental when you can comply on the lot coverage I think that would be a fair compromise to if you're worried Paul about who will have jurisdiction I think the analysis this board's done of our bylaw with town council recently and the ability of an applicant under the Balalta case to request a finding or a section 6 special permit for a pre-existing non-conforming structure I think that triggers us to have jurisdiction for this if you're at that 30% or under

[Speaker 2] (2:44:53 - 2:44:55)
Mark did you repeat that?

[Speaker 20] (2:44:55 - 2:44:57)
I didn't quite understand

[Speaker 1] (2:44:58 - 2:46:33)
So because you have a pre-existing non-conforming structure and you're looking to make changes to that since it's on a non-conforming lot and under Massachusetts law under 48.6 in the Balalta case that you can come to the Zoning Board of Appeals and request either a finding for us to determine if the work increasing the non-conforming is the work increasing the non-conforming nature of any non-conformity in which we would find no and then the only relief that's necessary would be a finding for you to do the work and I believe because we have that jurisdiction to make that finding then we can also give you your cyclone special permit if the decision is yes on the question i.e. there's an increase in the non-conforming nature which I don't see of any existing non-conformity then we'd have to consider a section 6 special permit but it sounds like if you have a completely conforming changes to the non-conforming structure that it's likely we would be required to just make the finding that you're not increasing any of the non-conforming nature of an existing non-conformity and that you have that protection under 486

[Speaker 5] (2:46:35 - 2:46:45)
so bear with me Mark I'm losing some of it if we did not if we stood at 30%

[Speaker 20] (2:46:46 - 2:46:47)
and

[Speaker 5] (2:46:51 - 2:46:54)
all the other setbacks were conformed

[Speaker 1] (2:46:54 - 2:47:11)
yeah and Heather brought up a point about the front steps so I don't know what changes precisely are being made there if any maybe I should ask Derek that before I go too far

[Speaker 5] (2:47:12 - 2:47:23)
any second I guess what I'm asking is what gets us to the zoning movement if all the changes are in line

[Speaker 1] (2:47:24 - 2:48:08)
because under 486 you can request us to make a finding that the work is done a finding that we don't need to grant you any relief no relief is necessary other than we have that site plan special permit which traditionally we've sent to the planning board but based on your need for a finding that you can come here and whenever the zoning board has to take any action it triggers jurisdiction on us for the site plan special permit wouldn't that

[Speaker 2] (2:48:08 - 2:48:50)
wouldn't that work as an interlude around the 5.4.212 I mean isn't that in every case in which somebody feels that the planning board is not going to issue a favorable come to the CDA and then bring down the non conformity back to a conformity I mean if it's 800 feet of an addition to a single family doesn't it go to planning board if they don't need relief they can go to the planning board

[Speaker 1] (2:48:50 - 2:49:48)
and request a site plan special permit for all the conforming changes they can do that, yes they can also come to us and ask for a finding for us to make a finding whether the non conforming nature of any non conformity is being increased you know I think that the building inspector can make that finding himself under the a lot of case but he felt he couldn't make that well actually no because they're increasing the non conformity so they need a finding because they're increasing it on the non conforming structure or the non conforming law so I don't think the planning board can make that determination under 48.6 under our bylaw

[Speaker 2] (2:49:48 - 2:49:59)
the finding wouldn't be that they don't need relief the finding would be they need relief but that the non conformity is not more detrimental

[Speaker 5] (2:50:01 - 2:50:04)
less detrimental to the front porch

[Speaker 1] (2:50:05 - 2:50:10)
well that's why I was asking Derek is the front porch changing at all

[Speaker 3] (2:50:12 - 2:50:32)
it's moving and it's staying the same size I think Gail's survey it's a slight angle between the house and the sidewalk so it's getting further I believe from the lot so it shows the proposed

[Speaker 1] (2:50:32 - 2:50:47)
roof landing so I would say that you are well it looks like it's a little bit bigger in area and it's now going to be roofed so

[Speaker 3] (2:50:49 - 2:50:52)
a little wider

[Speaker 1] (2:50:52 - 2:51:06)
so but you're not moving any closer so if you're not moving any closer it doesn't change the non conforming nature of the non conformity

[Speaker 7] (2:51:06 - 2:51:09)
even if it's let me throw this up

[Speaker 5] (2:51:09 - 2:51:22)
is there a number rather than the 32.9 30.5 to get us to get us

[Speaker 4] (2:51:22 - 2:51:24)
into that

[Speaker 5] (2:51:25 - 2:51:28)
forum that would be more acceptable

[Speaker 7] (2:51:28 - 2:51:31)
where would you appeal a decision by the planning board would it come to us

[Speaker 1] (2:51:31 - 2:52:08)
it's a cert appeal it goes to the land court and it's a whole different animal than the CBA appeal so so on your question Paul of is there a number that we're comfortable with it sounds like we'd be most comfortable with a request for it to be 30% which would be

[Speaker 2] (2:52:12 - 2:55:30)
yeah I mean if it's 30.5 then Paul your concern or the concern is that it's 30 that somehow there's no increase of a non conformity and therefore it would go back to planning as the permanent authority and you anticipate as you have seen it unfavorable well you know I don't want to give any kind of indication because you know we don't want to have a forum shopping or you know gamesmanship on you know which forum year before I don't you know I personally have only one member here I don't feel comfortable kind of you know facing any decisions on that either we have jurisdiction over it or we don't my as a board we strongly encourage the continuation of dialogue between them because listen if there's 17 neighbors who are opposed to this project that's something that we listen to and we pay attention to and we consider and you know whether we necessarily would sign on as a neighbor ourselves we don't you know we're not going to ignore the fact that there is that concern all of that being said you know we also can't ignore what section 6 provides you know a board in terms of a criteria that it must consider when working on an application like this and those 17 neighbors you know need to understand that you know our discretion here is somewhat limited in that regard so you know I would encourage you clients to work hard over you know the next little while to see if you're able to you know build a few more bridges here with the neighbors and get people comfortable and that would be in my opinion the path of least resistance because even if we make a decision here they may well appeal it and then you're going to wind up in a superior land court action you know and you know how those go and how long they take and how expensive they are. Right so you know I don't know if there is any appetite on your side to continue dialogue I can certainly say from again my experience on this board what I just heard from the neighbors when they presented their points they didn't sound like they were absolutely opposed and slamming any doors.

It certainly sounded like you know reasonable people that were looking to welcome new neighbors but just wanted to continue that dialogue and hopefully have some of their concerns addressed so you know I just feel like we're being very moderate in the procedural which we're going to have to eventually but I don't want to lose sight of the more practical which I think would be you know those sorts of discussions

[Speaker 1] (2:55:32 - 2:58:58)
Right so thinking it through in my mind about procedurally I think that's the most important thing here for us to make sure we have correct so I wouldn't so let's say you do reduce it to 30% and you don't need that relief and you go back to planning board and you ask them for your site plan special permit and they say they decline and you're continued here to our next hearing on October 18 and you come in with your 30% and you ask for a finding on the zoning portion everything except for the 800 square feet I think you're entitled to ask us if you are entitled to a finding under the case law that we talked about on 40A6 and have us give you ask us for that finding or section 6 special permit if we found that the nonconforming nature increased any nonconforming so you'd have arguably inconsistent relief if that were the case but it's something to point out to the planning board that you're making all these conforming changes and that they need to consider the case law as well.

They do have jurisdiction under those circumstances to make sure that you meet those site plan special permit criteria as we would and to make sure you've addressed all these things which you've looked to address since really since the last meeting you had with the planning board so I'd ask Paul, it doesn't sound like you're going to get a positive vote with your current application looking for the 2.9% more so my advice my thought would be to continue to the next meeting and perhaps revisit things with the planning board on your petition looking for if you decide to reduce it go back to them and look for a site plan special permit and if they decline you'd be on our agenda for the 18th and you could ask us for a finding and see if we granted that and the other thing I would encourage you to do in the interim is perhaps talk to Steve Cummings about the conversation we had, you might want to bring Angela into that, our conversation with town council about all of these conforming changes and non-conforming changes to existing non-conforming structures

[Speaker 7] (2:59:02 - 2:59:31)
back to 2.7.3 we determined that these two factors are not true they do not apply so therefore I guess it's the whole 15% again, I didn't quite understand why that doesn't apply in the sense that if the inspector can't make the if it's over 15% therefore the inspector can't can't make the determination it has to go special permit to the board of appeals

[Speaker 1] (2:59:32 - 2:59:40)
but the issue there is that that section of our bylaw goes too far that's what town council is telling us

[Speaker 7] (2:59:40 - 2:59:51)
I guess I get that, I get that you can't I get that then we have to make a finding but it says that it has to go to the board of appeals as opposed to going to the planning board

[Speaker 1] (2:59:51 - 3:00:04)
and that's what our bylaw says but the requirement of putting somebody on for that special permit exceeds the authority that town has

[Speaker 7] (3:00:04 - 3:00:15)
even if, this doesn't necessarily talk about pre-existing it talks about increasing by 15% increasing the area of the structure by more than 15%

[Speaker 1] (3:00:15 - 3:00:16)
let me take a look

[Speaker 7] (3:00:16 - 3:00:31)
under 1.5 such alteration extension reconstruction or structural change does not increase the gross floor area of the structure by more than 15% I think this is what you were talking about

[Speaker 15] (3:00:31 - 3:00:34)
I feel like that was the most common reason

[Speaker 5] (3:00:34 - 3:00:36)
yeah and I feel like that was the number

[Speaker 15] (3:00:36 - 3:00:49)
one reason why most petitions that came before the planning board for site plan review were then deferred to the ZBA for, there were some that needed dimensional relief but I feel like there were many that did fall under that I sent a few too but

[Speaker 10] (3:00:49 - 3:00:53)
as Mark said you guys go in too far

[Speaker 15] (3:00:53 - 3:00:55)
does that all change as of tonight

[Speaker 7] (3:00:55 - 3:01:01)
this isn't talking about a pre-existing non conformity I don't believe I mean it is specific to non conforming lots

[Speaker 1] (3:01:02 - 3:01:04)
but it's not a conforming change

[Speaker 7] (3:01:04 - 3:01:17)
it's not talking about an extension of a non conformity it's talking about any change greater than 15% of a non conforming which this is single family

[Speaker 15] (3:01:18 - 3:01:19)
it could be a non conforming change

[Speaker 7] (3:01:19 - 3:01:21)
they have to come to the board of appeals

[Speaker 15] (3:01:23 - 3:01:26)
it could be a non conforming change but it could also not be a non conforming

[Speaker 7] (3:01:26 - 3:01:43)
change yeah it doesn't mention whether the change is conforming it only mentions if the structure is non conforming and that the increase in either square footage or building height is more than 15% right and then if that if he finds no if he can't make that determination because it is more than 15% then it has to go to the board of appeals

[Speaker 2] (3:01:43 - 3:01:47)
well then if he does not make the determination

[Speaker 1] (3:01:47 - 3:01:49)
if he does not

[Speaker 7] (3:01:49 - 3:01:56)
well I guess if indeed it doesn't qualify because it's not under 15% therefore it's over 15%

[Speaker 10] (3:01:56 - 3:01:58)
correct if it was under 15%

[Speaker 7] (3:01:58 - 3:02:02)
then you could make a determination of your own or you would make a determination correct

[Speaker 2] (3:02:05 - 3:02:09)
Heather I'm sorry I didn't follow where were you saying about the 15%

[Speaker 7] (3:02:11 - 3:02:34)
under 2273 15 such alteration extension reconstruction or structural change does not increase the gross floor area of the structure by more than 15% which in this case that doesn't apply therefore you have to go to B which says it has to come before the board of appeals

[Speaker 1] (3:02:34 - 3:02:43)
but that's only for conforming changes they're not a conforming change because they're asking for the open space or lot coverage

[Speaker 7] (3:02:44 - 3:02:47)
well if they're not asking for lot coverage then these are all conforming changes

[Speaker 1] (3:02:47 - 3:02:49)
if they're correct

[Speaker 7] (3:02:50 - 3:02:53)
right but they still have to come to us not planning

[Speaker 1] (3:02:53 - 3:03:46)
right so I guess that's well it's a that's a section 6 special permit right right so that's a good point very good point that section B where the determination isn't made under section A that if the alteration can be permitted by section 6 special permit upon a determination that these are all conforming changes it goes further arguably than Massachusetts law because there's protection but our bylaw does require for the special permit so I think you could just come back here on October 18

[Speaker 17] (3:03:46 - 3:03:52)
is the existing building being reconstructed as part of this though or are we keeping the existing building and just modifying

[Speaker 1] (3:03:52 - 3:03:56)
the existing building it's being altered being altered we're keeping the existing building

[Speaker 7] (3:03:56 - 3:03:58)
it says altered extension

[Speaker 1] (3:03:58 - 3:04:00)
reconstruction or change

[Speaker 7] (3:04:00 - 3:04:03)
reconstruction or structural change it's been extended and altered

[Speaker 17] (3:04:09 - 3:04:14)
this just says we need a dimensional special permit for those portions that don't comply

[Speaker 7] (3:04:15 - 3:04:23)
in that 15% because people have come here because it's 15% tons of times right that was a common yeah it was

[Speaker 1] (3:04:23 - 3:04:26)
it was and that was

[Speaker 5] (3:04:26 - 3:04:42)
I'm concerned about that because we know we have to go to this one anyway so section 2.2.73 doesn't apply that's not going to allow the building inspector to make that determination right but if he doesn't

[Speaker 1] (3:04:42 - 3:04:49)
make the determination then section B says you can come here and look under section 6 for a dimensional special permit

[Speaker 7] (3:04:49 - 3:05:04)
I guess I think the 15% triggers you coming here not just the 800 square feet you know the 800 square feet is a special is the site plan it doesn't have to come here but the 15% all triggers you coming here no matter what

[Speaker 5] (3:05:05 - 3:05:05)
correct

[Speaker 1] (3:05:06 - 3:05:26)
when we put that in that went into the bylaw about 10 years ago the idea was to have fewer cases for for additions to have to come to the ZBA let the building inspector have jurisdiction for modest additions to go ahead that was

[Speaker 7] (3:05:26 - 3:05:29)
not a modest addition so that's B

[Speaker 1] (3:05:31 - 3:05:46)
so come here so I think that's your way to get here you can look for the relief under section B if you were conforming if everything was conforming and you came back

[Speaker 2] (3:05:48 - 3:06:09)
the building inspector couldn't make that determination it's not whether you can make the because it's over 800 square feet 15% for example if over 15% was only 400 extra square feet then it would seem to be the building inspector could make that determination

[Speaker 7] (3:06:10 - 3:06:14)
I disagree I think it was more than 15% so less than 800 would have to come here

[Speaker 5] (3:06:14 - 3:06:21)
there wasn't more than one third of the assessed value of the structure cost

[Speaker 1] (3:06:23 - 3:06:30)
yeah no I think you're coming here I think if you reduce it to the 30% and you need because you're

[Speaker 7] (3:06:30 - 3:06:38)
that's another one IV woman I think we're coming here

[Speaker 5] (3:06:38 - 3:06:48)
you gotta come here no matter what because of that as a permit you won't do it because of the 15% then we have to come here for section B

[Speaker 1] (3:06:48 - 3:06:54)
yep for section 6 and then we're also the site plan special permit granting authority

[Speaker 5] (3:06:55 - 3:07:03)
ok let's continue to the 18th I will keep an eye on the rest of your extension tomorrow morning

[Speaker 1] (3:07:03 - 3:07:04)
ok great

[Speaker 2] (3:07:04 - 3:07:07)
so Steve do you have any questions about anything about this

[Speaker 5] (3:07:07 - 3:07:08)
just could I

[Speaker 10] (3:07:09 - 3:07:10)
make one comment on the record

[Speaker 1] (3:07:10 - 3:07:15)
hang on one second Brad I just want to ask Steve if he had any comments or questions about it

[Speaker 10] (3:07:15 - 3:07:28)
the only thing that's always been a gray area as well is it's a being a non-conforming structure with a non-conforming setback if they're putting that roof up are they making that structure more non-conforming

[Speaker 1] (3:07:28 - 3:07:40)
they're conforming a building height already so they're making that's not their violation their violation is front yard setback side yard setback and they're not increasing either of those non-conformities

[Speaker 7] (3:07:41 - 3:07:41)
right

[Speaker 1] (3:07:41 - 3:07:43)
so the roof doesn't trigger

[Speaker 7] (3:07:43 - 3:07:52)
that has come up before too when someone has a single story that's too close and they put a second story have they I talked about that with Robin

[Speaker 1] (3:07:52 - 3:07:54)
she says no that's not extending it

[Speaker 7] (3:07:54 - 3:07:55)
ok

[Speaker 1] (3:07:56 - 3:07:59)
we go all the way right up to the we had that on Croston

[Speaker 7] (3:07:59 - 3:08:02)
it's come up a bunch of times ok

[Speaker 1] (3:08:02 - 3:08:03)
so Brad

[Speaker 2] (3:08:03 - 3:09:32)
I'm putting here on a claim unfortunately on the 18th during this meeting so I'm not going to be able to participate if it continues on after that we can watch the tapes but the only thing I wanted to say was that as I just had alluded to I think it's really important to consider all of the neighbors concerns and to address as much as you can it sounds like you're willing to at least continue to engage in that conversation at the end of the day comments about what style windows they have or how many bathrooms each bedroom has or how large a house might be you know every neighborhood has a house that's the biggest house on the block that's really not the concern in my opinion the concern is whether it does actually comply with zoning this zoning analysis has been very well done but that's not to say that the neighbors concerns shouldn't be considered and you know try as hard as you can to address but I personally again I'm a board member who might not be voting on this ultimately unfortunately but those issues that I heard, those concerns at the end of the day without saying they're not valid they would not persuade me not to vote in favor of the project as it's been designed

[Speaker 5] (3:09:33 - 3:09:40)
so Mark I think we have a quorum that's ready to be

[Speaker 1] (3:09:40 - 3:09:52)
I'll make sure between now and October 18th that other members watch the video and certify and then we'll have five

[Speaker 2] (3:09:54 - 3:09:55)
okay

[Speaker 1] (3:09:56 - 3:09:57)
if we get there

[Speaker 2] (3:09:57 - 3:09:59)
I'm sorry there's nothing I can do about that

[Speaker 1] (3:10:00 - 3:10:24)
it's up to you I mean who knows if we'd have the same five if we continue to November I would continue it to October make sure we have someone that's certified that they've watched it so you have five voting members and then we'll if we only have four I would give you the opportunity to further continue okay let's do that then

[Speaker 5] (3:10:24 - 3:10:25)
I will second

[Speaker 1] (3:10:25 - 3:11:00)
okay so I'm going to make a motion to continue to October 18th do I have a second? second okay so I'm a yes, Tony?

yes Heather? yes, Brad? yes Paula?

yes okay thank you and that's the last item we have right? yes thank you thank you everyone okay so I'll make a motion to adjourn all in favor? aye all right thank you