[Speaker 1] (0:00 - 1:01)
To now call to order the October 18th, 2022 meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals at now being after 7 p.m. We are here pursuant to an agenda that has been timely posted as Zoom only pursuant to the current law that permits us to have a Zoom meeting under the open meeting law. So the first item on the agenda is to approve past meeting minutes. So we received minutes of September 20th, 2022 meeting in our July 19th, 2022 meeting.

I'm gonna make a motion to approve those meetings unless there's any alterations or additions anyone had. Hearing none, so on that motion.

[Speaker 9] (1:01 - 1:02)
I'll second.

[Speaker 1] (1:03 - 1:06)
Okay, I am a yes. Andy? Yes.

Heather?

[Speaker 13] (1:07 - 1:07)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:08 - 1:08)
Dan?

[Speaker 9] (1:09 - 1:09)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:12 - 1:13)
Meeting minutes are approved.

[Speaker 3] (1:15 - 1:24)
Let me state for the record too, even though I did not send in that affidavit yet, Marissa. I can state for the record that I did listen to the entire recording.

[Speaker 6] (1:25 - 1:26)
Entire, front to back?

[Speaker 3] (1:28 - 1:32)
Entire recording, even the ones that didn't go forward, that were resolved or whatever.

[Speaker 8] (1:33 - 1:47)
I'm halfway there. I listened to 2218 and 2211 as I was required, didn't do any extra homework. But, you know, so I've done it.

I haven't filed whatever I need to file, but I've done it.

[Speaker 13] (1:48 - 1:49)
You guys are great, thank you.

[Speaker 8] (1:49 - 1:50)
So.

[Speaker 6] (1:51 - 1:54)
I'll think of an extra credit prize for you, Dan.

[Speaker 3] (1:54 - 1:57)
Well, very interesting, to say the least.

[Speaker 1] (1:59 - 2:12)
So the first item on our agenda is 2112, the 461, 463 Humphrey Street. Marissa, did you receive a request to withdraw on that?

[Speaker 6] (2:12 - 2:27)
I did. Abdel came in this morning. He told me that he is going to reconstruct the building to the plans that were approved back in July of 2021.

And he signed a request to withdraw without prejudice.

[Speaker 1] (2:27 - 2:35)
Okay, so I'm going to make a motion to approve the withdrawal without prejudice. Do I have a second?

[Speaker 8] (2:35 - 2:37)
I'll approve it with enthusiasm.

[Speaker 1] (2:38 - 2:41)
Yes, Andy? Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 9] (2:42 - 2:42)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:43 - 2:43)
Dan?

[Speaker 9] (2:43 - 2:44)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:45 - 3:14)
Okay, so the next matter on our agenda is petition 2218, Scott Thibodeau, continued from September for 8 Stern Street. I believe I saw Scott is here. All right, here we are.

Okay, the name wasn't on the screen there, so. Okay, so I see you sent us some revised plans.

[Speaker 6] (3:14 - 3:15)
I'll pull those up.

[Speaker 1] (3:17 - 3:22)
An updated survey. Yes.

[Speaker 6] (3:23 - 3:25)
Getting that up right now.

[Speaker 1] (3:32 - 3:36)
So basically it's the addition of the breezeway that we talked about?

[Speaker 4] (3:36 - 4:22)
Correct, at the last meeting, first I would like to say the board worked very hard to try and help me come to a solution to be able to build this addition for my mom. And it was suggested that I add a breezeway in to connect the proposed addition to the existing garage. So I went back to my architect, told him what I wanted, he drew in the breezeway, sent that over to the surveyor who put it on the plan, and I brought Marissa down the copies.

And she obviously has given them to you. So I think we're there, as long as you agree.

[Speaker 1] (4:23 - 4:54)
Okay, so let me ask if anyone on the board has any questions about the revised plans and survey. Hearing none, let me ask if any members of the public wanted to be heard or had any questions about this petition. I'd ask that you use the raise your hand feature on Zoom.

You can be recognized so Marissa can let you speak. Marissa, anybody?

[Speaker 6] (4:55 - 4:56)
No contenders.

[Speaker 1] (4:57 - 5:21)
Okay. All right. So on this petition, it looks to me that this libido is done exactly what we requested, that we give relief where no longer has the 10 foot, less than 10 foot gap between structures.

[Speaker 3] (5:25 - 8:32)
Yes, I do have some concerns with this. I just want to throw out there. I don't know, it just seems, I'm just concerned about the precedent here.

It just seems just too cute. I don't know if we've done this before. We may have, I'm not sure.

Because once you connect them up, you create just one principle structure on the lot. And it's really, you're creating an addition to the principal dwelling. And the addition, once you connect them all up, the addition is not just the addition, the new addition, but it's also the breezeway and the garage.

So you run into that, the 15%, you've got more than 15% square footage there for which you would need a special permit. I don't think that that is impacted at all by the Bull Alta case. So you've got that.

And the garage, and I know that the garage looks like it's oversize and it's probably, not only is it non-conforming on the side and the rear setbacks, but probably also in terms of the percentage of the rear yard that it occupies. I think it's not supposed to be any more than 25%, which is probably driving the need for the, which makes the garage closer to the house, obviously, because it's an oversized garage. But when you connect it all up, isn't it, if it's, it just may, it eliminates the accessory structure and you just have one principal structure.

So technically, and I don't know if I'm being too technical or not, but technically, you go from a principal structure that is non-conforming on right side back, the right yard setback, and you create one structure that's not non-conforming on rear setback and left side setback. Technically, in other words, if a year from now, a couple of years from now, the petitioner wants to come back before the board, say he wants to put a front porch on here or something, that the zoning grid that he has up in the left-hand corner of the upper left-hand corner, that would have to show a much smaller rear yard setback, which would not conform me in the rear yard, which is, which complies now, and also non-conforming on the left side, which also complies. So it's hard for me to say that it's not creating new non-conformities. Like I said, I don't know if I'm just being overly technical about that.

And then the other thing, though, is even, is that I think that the reason for the distance, I think it has to do with fire access. And I just don't know if we should consult with the fire department as to whether they're okay with eliminating that entirely.

[Speaker 1] (8:33 - 8:50)
And the breezeway doesn't have walls, it's open. So if there were a fire, I would expect the fire department, they could still travel through it to the backyard, on foot at least, get a hose there.

[Speaker 3] (8:50 - 8:54)
All right, I didn't realize that. I thought it was enclosed.

[Speaker 4] (8:54 - 8:54)
Is that correct?

[Speaker 3] (8:54 - 8:57)
Did it look enclosed on the plan? I thought it did.

[Speaker 4] (8:58 - 9:04)
No, it's just the roof. We have no intentions of enclosing it at all.

[Speaker 3] (9:08 - 9:50)
So I don't know, those are just my, I don't know, just my concerns about it. And thinking about what the board was talking about, about the implications of the Lauta case. But that's really not implicated here because he's not going any closer on the right side.

But I don't know, I just wish there was a way, I know that Mark had suggested, for perhaps turning the addition so that it was lined up with the rear of the house. But I understand the petitioners, architects, they've looked at that and they, I guess that's not feasible for some reason. I don't know why.

Maybe because the bulkhead is there.

[Speaker 4] (9:52 - 9:59)
Yes, the bulkhead is there. And the rear entrance to the house is there, which we're preserving.

[Speaker 3] (10:03 - 10:05)
So I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (10:06 - 11:53)
Well, I guess the question is Dan, whether you can get to yes, because what I've actually explained to the petitioner, to everybody else here, we have four members of our board tonight. It's been our practice that when we only have four voting members, and if you need four votes for your relief, that we will, we would permit a continuous so that there could be a full five voting members for a petition rather than having the four and risk a negative determination when we don't have a full five member board. So, I mean, I guess I should first ask, I would get to, I would be a yes vote for this.

I understand and appreciate Dan's comments, but I think the keeping the, it is making it one structure, arguably, I don't know if we could make a finding that the garage will continue to be viewed as an accessory structure as part of this, where it's connected, but it's not connected by a enclosed, only this covered roof so that it preserves the dimensional limitations. Dan, what do you think about that? You know, if we made as part of our relief that the garage to be continued to be considered an accessory structure, despite the connection.

[Speaker 8] (11:54 - 11:58)
So that that never can be absorbed and they put a family room in there or something.

[Speaker 1] (11:58 - 12:03)
It's still subject to the, you know, doing our best to try and keep it as an accessory structure.

[Speaker 3] (12:06 - 12:10)
Yeah, I mean, if it could retain its character as an accessory structure, that would be better.

[Speaker 8] (12:11 - 12:22)
Why couldn't we grant this relief with that proviso? Because, you know, to protect us. I mean, they're looking for relief.

We can put conditions on it.

[Speaker 1] (12:22 - 12:45)
Yeah, that it be considered and deemed by our board to remain as an accessory structure. That, you know, the connection itself, the breezeway eliminates the 10 feet to remain open underneath just to be covered so that it permits better access to the backyard in the event of an emergency.

[Speaker 8] (12:46 - 12:49)
And the garage can't be habitable, you know.

[Speaker 1] (12:49 - 12:51)
Can't be habitable, right.

[Speaker 3] (12:52 - 13:00)
Does the breezeway have any kind of, is it going to have any kind of a, like a foundation or anything to it?

[Speaker 9] (13:02 - 13:02)
No.

[Speaker 3] (13:03 - 13:05)
So it's all that's going in there is just the roof?

[Speaker 9] (13:06 - 13:07)
Just the roof, yeah.

[Speaker 4] (13:11 - 13:21)
And I'm fine with the garage remaining the garage. We don't have an ulterior motive to do anything with the garage except to put stuff in it.

[Speaker 3] (13:22 - 13:34)
Yeah, oh yeah. No, we understand that. No one's suggesting that, if there's any ulterior motive.

We're just concerned with the technicalities here.

[Speaker 4] (13:34 - 13:35)
Okay, I understand.

[Speaker 1] (13:40 - 13:49)
That satisfy you, Dan? I think so. Everybody else okay with that?

Yes, I am.

[Speaker 9] (13:50 - 13:51)
I am as well.

[Speaker 1] (13:52 - 13:55)
Okay, anyone interested in making a motion on this?

[Speaker 3] (14:04 - 14:05)
All right, I'll make a motion on it.

[Speaker 1] (14:06 - 14:07)
All right, thanks Dan.

[Speaker 3] (14:07 - 14:09)
I don't have my paperwork though, let me.

[Speaker 1] (14:09 - 15:45)
Why don't I, I'll make a motion if you like. All right. If you want to write the decision, it would be great.

So I'll make a motion to approve petition 2218 with the survey plan and plans that were, the survey plan that's revised as a 10-11-22 by Gail Smith and the updated architectural plans that have been filed. We don't know, it was 9-22 on the dates. That were filed in advance of this hearing this evening with specific finding that the garage is to remain as a non-habitable space and as with the finding that it will be considered an accessory structure that the breezeway that is connecting it will not have walls and that the work be in accordance with the plans as filed.

Do I have a second on that motion?

[Speaker 8] (15:46 - 15:47)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (15:48 - 15:51)
Okay, so I'm a yes. Andy? Yes.

Heather?

[Speaker 13] (15:52 - 15:52)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (15:53 - 16:18)
And Dan? Yes. Okay, so you have your relief on a four to zero vote and Dan's gonna write that as soon as he is well enough to.

Okay. And then you'll be able to pick it up after it's filed with the town clerk and there's a 20 day, well, after the 20 day appeal period and then you need to record a copy of that at the registry of deeds.

[Speaker 4] (16:19 - 16:20)
Just a quick question.

[Speaker 1] (16:21 - 16:21)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (16:21 - 16:32)
Does the 20 days start from today or from when the decision is written? Filing of the decision with the town clerk. Okay, and once that happens, I can go get a permit.

[Speaker 1] (16:32 - 16:45)
Once that happens, you can record and you can apply for your building permit and it'll be reviewed and issued in the normal course of that procedure.

[Speaker 4] (16:45 - 16:58)
Well, thank you very much. I appreciate you guys working really hard to help me with this. You guys really helped me out and I appreciate it.

All right, good luck, mom.

[Speaker 1] (16:59 - 17:37)
She's in the next room. All right. Excellent, thanks so much.

Okay, so I am now going to call the next, which is 71 Aspen Road, Brian Burke. Requesting a special permit and other relief advertised also for a dimensional variance for a one-story addition, 71 Aspen Road. Okay, so is Mr. Burke here?

Anyone on Mr. Burke's behalf? Yes, how are you?

[Speaker 12] (17:38 - 17:42)
Yes, I'm here with my wife and then our architect, Ernie DeMeo is on as well.

[Speaker 1] (17:42 - 17:43)
Okay.

[Speaker 12] (17:43 - 17:44)
Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 1] (17:44 - 18:11)
Sure, so I'm sure you've paid attention to the last petition. I know you had a conversation with Marissa before tonight as well. And I know it was a question about that.

It doesn't show the distance between the garage and the addition on your survey. Okay. Distance, I know it's pretty close to 10 feet.

[Speaker 12] (18:13 - 18:19)
Ernie, I think when we measured, it was over, it was at least 12 feet, right?

[Speaker 5] (18:20 - 18:50)
Opening a file just to see if I can give you that answer. So the closest dimension from the uppermost right-hand corner of the addition to the lower left-hand corner of the garage is 11 foot six inches. Okay, perfect, okay.

According to my highly accurate CAD files.

[Speaker 1] (18:52 - 18:56)
Okay, so you're looking, do you want to tell us a little bit about your project?

[Speaker 5] (18:58 - 21:00)
Brian, would you like me to do that? Yeah, I think so. You're a little better speaker than I am, thanks.

Okay, well, good evening, everyone. Nice to be back to correspond to that again. The area shown in red is a one story proposed mudroom addition to an existing probably century old home.

The proposed addition complies with the current zoning regulations in terms of front yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard setback, open space. The relief that we're seeking is for lot coverage. The existing lot is an undersized lot.

It's a 50 by 90 lot of which we're permitted by zoning a 30 foot, 30% lot coverage. The existing home and garage combined have a present lot coverage of nearly 36%, 35.91%. We're proposing to add an additional 116 square feet, which would bring the total lot coverage from the present 1,616 square feet to a proposed lot coverage of 1,732 square feet, which is a 38.48% lot coverage. So about two and a half percent increase in lot coverage.

As I said, the addition complies to the current zoning ordinance in every other way. The existing home is two and a half stories. We're proposing a one story structure and our setbacks are further from the lot lines than the existing facades currently are.

[Speaker 9] (21:04 - 21:07)
Okay. All right.

[Speaker 1] (21:07 - 21:56)
So the way I see it under the, for all the case where first analysis is the work increased the nonconforming nature of any nonconformity, the answer is yes. So there's an increase in nonconforming nature of an existing nonconformity. So what we can grant is a section six special permit upon a determination that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity to the new road.

Is there anyone that wanted to be heard about this petition in public?

[Speaker 9] (21:56 - 22:16)
Use the raise your hand feature on Zoom. Doesn't look like it. Okay.

Anyone on the board have any questions? Hearing none. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (22:17 - 23:09)
So anyone that wanted to make a motion on this one? Okay. I guess this one's mine then.

Okay. So I'm going to make a motion for petition 22-20 for the grant to section six special permit based upon a determination that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity to the neighborhood. And that because there is an increase of the nonconforming nature in terms of lot coverage, which is an existing nonconformity that the section six special permit is required.

[Speaker 8] (23:13 - 23:20)
Hey Mark, what's the section six section of the bylaw?

[Speaker 1] (23:22 - 23:53)
So our bylaw for a section six special permit for a single and two family, our bylaw is a little bit inconsistent with 40A section six.

[Speaker 8] (23:56 - 24:07)
The only reason I'm asking is because I'll take you off the hook and write this. If you give me the section, you know, as opposed to it's not dimensional, you know, 2.7 threes.

[Speaker 1] (24:09 - 24:53)
So our bylaw addresses it to two, seven, three, four. Well, let me just make sure. Nonconforming single or two family structures.

See our bylaw goes too far. It needs to be addressed. I don't know that you need to reference our bylaw.

I think you can just reference 40A section six as I described.

[Speaker 9] (24:54 - 24:55)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (24:55 - 25:02)
In the Beralta case. I think I did a couple of decisions that do just that and I could send you.

[Speaker 8] (25:03 - 25:09)
Fine, send me a decision and I'll tailor this one and I'll do it for you.

[Speaker 1] (25:09 - 25:18)
All right, great. So on my motion, so I am a yes. Andy?

Yes.

[Speaker 9] (25:19 - 25:28)
Dan, are you, I think you're on mute. I was muted, yes.

[Speaker 1] (25:29 - 25:30)
And Heather?

[Speaker 9] (25:30 - 25:31)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (25:32 - 25:48)
Okay, you have your release. One to zero. Andy's going to write that decision, get that to you in a short period of time, I'm sure.

And we'll get filed and you'll have that 20 day waiting period as well. So good luck with your project. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 9] (25:48 - 25:51)
Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck.

Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (26:05 - 26:29)
Okay, the next, actually, yeah, so it's not quite 7.30 yet. The next matter we have is 22.11 for Hanover Court for 8 Denison Ave, continued from September. I believe we have Paul Finches on that one, right?

[Speaker 2] (26:29 - 26:30)
Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.

[Speaker 1] (26:32 - 26:33)
Okay, good evening, Paul. How are you?

[Speaker 2] (26:33 - 29:09)
I'm fine. The architect, Derrick Bloom, may be on, but he has laryngitis and won't be able to participate vocally in this. I found out about an hour ago.

So let me just refresh the board while we're here and what has happened. We appeared before the board back in September and discussed the proposal and the concerns of the planning board. If you recall, we had to go to the planning board for site plan review because we're over 800 square feet.

And there were some issues with the planning board as far as where utilities are and the curb cut on Stern Street and some way of defining where the border is on Stern Street. At that time, we advised the board, this board, that all utilities were already serving the property and that there would be no new curb cut on Stern Street and access to the property from Stern Street was approved by the DPW director. During the hearing, the voice, what we're asking for dimensionally was only lot coverage.

We're exceeding the maximum lot coverage within the special permit tolerance, but we're still over the 30%. The board votes concerns about that. And it was agreed that the hearing would be continued until tonight to give the applicant the opportunity to see if they could revise the plans to come to conformity with the bylaw.

Our new plans have been filed, which reduced the gross floor area by 384 square feet down to a maximum gross floor area of 4350. How that has happened is that the garage has been reduced and moved a foot further away from the undeveloped portion of Stern Street. The expansion of the dining room has been eliminated as well as reducing the width of the family room by two feet which also reduced the size of the master bedroom on the second level above the family room.

The result of the various reductions brought the maximum building coverage into compliance at 29.8 feet. Also by moving the garage, we were able to add plantings along the Stern Street buffer to define the edge of the property and to provide some screening in a landscape plan was presented to the board. Okay, I guess Derek is now getting into.

[Speaker 1] (29:10 - 29:15)
I'm not sure if that's Derek or Marissa that's doing the- That is Derek.

[Speaker 6] (29:16 - 29:22)
And then, so he, it looks like he's gonna be commanding the screen and then his colleague Cody Pratt is going to be doing the talking.

[Speaker 2] (29:23 - 30:56)
Okay. So what we have there, you can see that screening up on Denison Avenue where Derek is now showing it. That's what we plan on doing.

And it was some concern along that way even though that Stern Street portion is undeveloped and is never intended to be developed that has been secured by the DPW director also and the neighbors certainly want it to stay that way. But there was some concern about defining that area. So by moving the garage, we were able to do that.

The air condensers, which was mentioned by some of the neighbors are now to be located at the lower rear roof above the garage where the playroom doesn't exist. Only a portion of the above the garage is the playroom. So we have made some strides and I think we've worked hard at doing that to get it under the maximum.

All other, if you recall the under the application the only relief we were thinking as far as dimensional was the maximum lot coverage. And then the bullet asked us to come back and hopefully we'll make a finding that adding to the non-conforming structure is appropriate.

[Speaker 1] (30:58 - 31:58)
Okay, thank you. The questions from the board about the changes or the petition? Okay, why don't I open it up for some comment from the public?

I know we had many people that wanted to be heard about this the last time. So two things I'd ask that you use the raise your hand feature. And I'd ask that anyone who's on Zoom to not use the comment feature because it won't be part of our record.

And we want everyone to be recognized, identify themselves and then speak as opposed to submitting a comment using that feature. So if you wanted to be heard, please use the raise your hand and Marissa could look to recognize you.

[Speaker 6] (31:59 - 32:04)
All right, I've got Sylvia Chen online.

[Speaker 11] (32:06 - 32:22)
Hi, hi, this is Sylvia Chen from the Daily Idol. And I just wanna know if I can have more background information about this whole issue. What does it mean by exceeding 30%?

What is the issue all about?

[Speaker 1] (32:23 - 32:30)
So Sylvia, you're here as a reporter, not as a butter.

[Speaker 11] (32:32 - 32:39)
Correct, but also as a public to ask some questions.

[Speaker 1] (32:46 - 33:01)
Okay, so I don't know, haven't had that before Mr. Lynch, but I'd invite you if you'd like to provide any comment to answer the question about 30%.

[Speaker 2] (33:01 - 33:54)
I'm happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning By-law gives several dimensional requirements with respect to one and two family houses and other dimensional requirements and other districts within the town of Swansea. One of those requirements is that maximum lot coverage not exceed 30%.

However, it further provides that one could apply for a special permit to increase maximum lot coverage by not more than 10% of the 30%. So someone could then come in and ask for maximum lot coverage of 33%. In this case, we are not doing that.

We have been able to comply with the 30% rule. And I hope that answers your question.

[Speaker 11] (33:56 - 33:58)
Yes, thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (33:58 - 34:04)
You're welcome. Is there anyone else that wanted to ask any questions if you heard about this petition?

[Speaker 6] (34:04 - 34:10)
There are, yes. I have, oh, well, Scott and Kathy are here.

[Speaker 4] (34:16 - 34:17)
Can you hear me?

[Speaker 13] (34:17 - 34:17)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (34:18 - 35:43)
Okay. I've been watching this as it's been going on along with my wife and we had a lot of questions about it, but I think it's time that they've been to all the boards, they've come back, they've made improvements on what they wanted to do. The places and I saw right now, it needs to be repaired.

It needs, something needs to happen. And when I sit on my front porch, I look right at it. As long as we're going to keep the Stern Street is going to be a dead end.

They're not going to cut down any foliage that is in the street or the paper street that's not on their property other than some housekeeping issues about, I don't know if this is time to bring it up about when they can start work, finish work, not work on Sunday because we're in a tight neighborhood. I'm going to say that I think they've done a good job of trying to comply. So I'm going to say that I think we need to move forward and let them do something with it.

So is it time now to talk about starting and stopping times or is that not appropriate? I think it is appropriate.

[Speaker 1] (35:44 - 35:50)
If you had comments as you think board should include on this petition, if it's right.

[Speaker 2] (35:50 - 36:10)
So- If I may Mr. Chairman. Yes. With respect to that, I think that the town has bylaws with respect to what time contracts can start work in the morning, what time they have to end at the end of the day.

And as far as Sunday work, I believe it can only be inside the property if that.

[Speaker 4] (36:13 - 36:39)
That's my understanding as well. And that's, you know, thank you for the answer to that. I didn't know that.

So, and I know there's going to be some pain, you know, they're going to be pouring cement, you know, I'm going to be pouring cement. So that, that little bit of pain would just kind of have to deal with. But I'm going to say that I think they've worked hard to be good about this and I'm, I'm, I'm all for it.

You're welcome.

[Speaker 1] (36:39 - 36:46)
Okay. Well, thank you. Marissa, who wanted to be recognized next?

And I'd ask that you state your name and address.

[Speaker 6] (36:47 - 36:57)
I had one other hand raised, but it went down. So unless, unless that person, oh, Sonia Slick, excuse me, Sonia Slick.

[Speaker 7] (37:00 - 37:02)
Hi, can you hear me?

[Speaker 6] (37:02 - 37:02)
Yes.

[Speaker 7] (37:03 - 38:04)
Yes. So I live, I'm Sonia Slick. I'm the director of butter on 15 Stern Street.

And I just wanted to introduce myself. And I'm happy that this project is going on. And I wanted to thank you for leaving the Norway maple trees as a buffer between my house and the project and the cherry tree on the corner, because we do have nesting owls in the neighborhood and they utilize those trees.

So I just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention because it's important to me and the environment. And these owls will take care of the rodent problems. So there's no need to use any poison.

And you may think it's silly, but it's not. Anyway, and I was just wondering if there was a plan what the plan was for the fence between my property and the project. The fence that's falling down, that's on your property.

[Speaker 9] (38:13 - 38:14)
Paul, do you have a...

[Speaker 7] (38:14 - 38:15)
I'm not good.

[Speaker 1] (38:16 - 38:16)
Oh, the architect.

[Speaker 7] (38:18 - 38:22)
It's an old stockade fence that's falling apart.

[Speaker 9] (38:26 - 38:30)
I don't know, Derek, do you have some plan to repair or replace that fence?

[Speaker 6] (38:36 - 38:44)
I'm a Julia Sokol who I know is part of the applicant team. Raise his hand, he might have an answer. Derek, I don't think has the capacity to talk.

[Speaker 2] (38:47 - 38:48)
Sheila, Julia's in?

[Speaker 6] (38:49 - 38:50)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (38:51 - 38:54)
Yeah, yes, we plan to replace the fence.

[Speaker 9] (38:57 - 38:58)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (38:59 - 39:01)
Okay, so there's the fence, right?

[Speaker 7] (39:03 - 39:25)
Oh, and there is that wrought iron fence that's in the front of my yard that does extend past my property. It can certainly be cut off that was there long before I was there. So, I just appreciate a conversation when you guys are ready to do something.

[Speaker 3] (39:26 - 39:27)
Sure, absolutely.

[Speaker 1] (39:29 - 39:36)
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to be heard about this petition?

[Speaker 14] (39:38 - 39:47)
Anyone else, please feel free to raise your hand. Nope, I'm not seeing any.

[Speaker 1] (39:50 - 39:55)
Okay, all right. Anyone from the board have any questions before we close the public hearing?

[Speaker 10] (39:56 - 40:07)
I have one question. Is this going to be sort of a finding a fact as opposed to like, what relief are they asking for at this point?

[Speaker 1] (40:09 - 40:19)
So, they're looking for a site plan special permit, right? What other relief Paul, do you believe that you need for the project?

[Speaker 2] (40:19 - 40:34)
I think we discussed this, Mark, at the last hearing. I think we could just dovetail the site plan special permit into the zoning relief that we're seeking and just make a finding that accepted as an addition to a non-conforming structure.

[Speaker 1] (40:35 - 41:18)
Right, so it was a four family. Now it's a single family because it's lost that protection. So it is under the same case, the Malalta case.

And they're entitled to get a finding that all the changes that they're making are conforming changes and all they would need for a finding from zoning. And therefore we would then have the authority to grant the site plan special permit as part of the relief, right? That's my understanding.

So any other questions from the board? Heather, you have anything?

[Speaker 10] (41:20 - 41:30)
No, thank you, that's great. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. It's more of a finding that they are in compliance now.

They're not asking for additional relief other than the site plan.

[Speaker 1] (41:32 - 43:34)
Right, right. So under Malalta, is the work increasing the non-conforming nature of any non-conformity? The answer is no, then the no relief necessary.

So it's just you need to make that finding that the work is not increasing the non-conforming nature of any non-conformity. And then as part of making that finding, then we have jurisdiction to also grant the companion site plan special permit, which there's a question as to whether it goes to ZBA or planning boards. Whenever ZBA relief is needed, it goes to ZBA.

If it's no ZBA relief is needed, it would be a planning board. So I'm gonna first make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second on that?

Second. Okay, so a yes, Dan? Yes.

Yes. Andy? Yes.

So, and now I'm gonna make a motion to approve or rather to me first make a finding that the proposed work for this petition is not increasing the non-conforming nature of any existing non-conformity. And to grant a site plan special permit to perform the work consistent with the plans that have been filed as amended before this hearing this evening. And also that the work be in accordance with the August 14th, 2022 letter from Site Engineering Consultants, Inc.

with respect to stormwater management issues. And that's it.

[Speaker 2] (43:34 - 43:39)
I think you also wanna incorporate the landscape plan by James Emanuel.

[Speaker 1] (43:39 - 43:50)
And including all of the plans, the survey plan, the building plans from Bloom Architecture and the landscape plan from James Emanuel.

[Speaker 8] (43:56 - 43:58)
And obligation to replace the fence.

[Speaker 1] (44:00 - 44:14)
And that the fence, the stockade fence that was referenced by Sonia Silk be replaced as represented by the petitioner.

[Speaker 2] (44:14 - 44:16)
Or by- Be replaced in kind.

[Speaker 1] (44:17 - 44:37)
Replaced with something that is the equivalent or nicer than what is there. Correct, thank you. Sure.

So do I have a second on that motion? Second. Okay, so I'm gonna do a roll call.

So I am a yes, Dan? Yes. Andy?

[Speaker 13] (44:38 - 44:38)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (44:39 - 44:46)
Heather? Yes. Okay, so you have your relief.

Mr. Lynch, would you be interested in submitting a proposed decision?

[Speaker 2] (44:46 - 44:47)
I will.

[Speaker 1] (44:47 - 44:48)
That would be wonderful.

[Speaker 2] (44:49 - 44:51)
Thank you for your time and patience in this matter.

[Speaker 1] (44:51 - 45:24)
Thank you. Thank you for everyone on your team for doing a good job with this petition. Okay, so then the next item I have at 7.30 is petition 2221, IG Investments, LLC. And I believe, is, oh, Mr. Lynch is on that one as well, I believe. Or Paul, are you still there?

[Speaker 6] (45:24 - 45:28)
He just signed off. We just missed him. But I do have a signed continuance from him.

[Speaker 1] (45:28 - 46:25)
We've continued this matter to our, oh, and that was one of the things, the November meeting. I am away on that date that we have currently scheduled, the 15th. And I couldn't do it.

I have a conflict on the 22nd, the following Tuesday. I don't know if there's any interest in moving the meeting to the 21st of November. And I'm not sure how that plays out.

Marissa, I should have brought that up with Marcie about the new petition of 40B. I filed it at six, so 7, 14, 21, 28. Actually, we would have to schedule something sooner if we don't get a continuance on that.

[Speaker 6] (46:25 - 46:29)
Unless, yeah, unless you wanna ask them to consent with the late opening.

[Speaker 1] (46:31 - 46:37)
Yeah, okay. So that's one question. So I won't be here on the 15th.

[Speaker 8] (46:38 - 46:47)
I won't either, but I can do a Zoom meeting. I'll make myself available to do it.

[Speaker 6] (46:47 - 46:52)
Thank you. Yeah, it'll at the very least be hybrid, or at the very most be hybrid.

[Speaker 1] (46:53 - 47:02)
Okay. Why don't I do this? Why don't I keep us on for the 15th?

If necessary, if we don't have five, I can look to log in on the 15th. Okay.

[Speaker 13] (47:03 - 47:04)
Hopefully we should.

[Speaker 1] (47:06 - 47:24)
But if we have five, I'm probably gonna look to defer to everybody else on that one. So, and just so everyone knows, we have a 40B petition that was filed about that Archer Street project, I think for 44 units.

[Speaker 13] (47:26 - 47:27)
And- Heather's face.

[Speaker 1] (47:28 - 47:29)
What's that?

[Speaker 13] (47:29 - 47:30)
Heather's face.

[Speaker 1] (47:31 - 47:32)
Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (47:32 - 47:35)
I thought we were buying that land. I thought the town was buying that land.

[Speaker 1] (47:35 - 47:58)
We really shouldn't be discussing. It hasn't been noticed or anything. Just procedurally, we may need to schedule another meeting just to open and look to continue maybe doing engaged consultants.

But I think that there is still companion action that's being taken by the town with respect to that property.

[Speaker 6] (47:59 - 48:06)
The select board did notice an executive session for tomorrow night to talk about purchasing that land.

[Speaker 1] (48:07 - 48:30)
Right. So I'm working on trying to make sure we're doing what we need to do, working with town council and Marissa and Marcie to make sure we're not going to, that we don't drop the ball on anything we need to do. So I'll keep everyone informed.

We'll keep everyone informed on that. So the last item that we had, oh, so I have to continue.

[Speaker 8] (48:31 - 48:32)
So we're going to- We're going to do a continuance.

[Speaker 1] (48:33 - 48:45)
To 21 through the November 15th meeting. So I am a yes. Dan?

Yes. Heather, you're a yes to continue?

[Speaker 13] (48:45 - 48:46)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (48:46 - 49:20)
And Andy? Yes. Yes, that matter's continued.

So the last item that we had on our agenda is the election of a new chair for the ZBA. But I understand the select board has not yet acted on moving me to an associate member and elevating Heather to a full member, which as we have right now, we have five members, four members. So I've offered to become an associate member.

So they're probably going to act on that soon.

[Speaker 10] (49:20 - 49:26)
I did get a letter saying they did. And I went to town hall and re-pledged as an active member. I mean, as a full member.

[Speaker 1] (49:27 - 49:31)
Oh, you did. So I don't know. Congratulations.

[Speaker 6] (49:34 - 50:20)
I spoke with Robin at KP yesterday. And so when the select board did vote you in as a full-time, a full voting member, it was not, I guess it technically wasn't done properly because it wasn't listed on the agenda. And then in order for them to do that, there has to be an opening, an open position amongst the full-time members.

So they would have had to acknowledge Mark's agreement to move to an alternate position in order for there to be a vacated full-time position that you would be moved into. So I think they need to properly put that on the agenda and then probably switch the roles and you might have to swear it again.

[Speaker 1] (50:21 - 50:48)
Number 15th, I think we'll be able to take care of that. So we'll defer that. We'll put that on our agenda for next month too.

But then Heather will have the agenda from there on out. So I think that's it. So I think it's just a motion to adjourn.

All in favor?

[Speaker 8] (50:49 - 50:50)
I'll second it. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (50:50 - 50:51)
Aye.

[Speaker 9] (50:51 - 50:51)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (50:52 - 50:52)
All right.

[Speaker 8] (50:52 - 50:54)
All right, great. I hope you feel better, Dan.

[Speaker 9] (50:54 - 50:57)
Feel better, Dan. Oh yeah, thanks Andy.

[Speaker 1] (50:57 - 51:08)
I got to send my notice. I already indicated it to Neil. But I hope it's going to follow up, make sure, see if I need to have a letter for emails sufficient.

[Speaker 6] (51:11 - 51:15)
I was just corresponding with him and Diane, Sean.