[Speaker 1] (1:48 - 1:49)
Can you hear us, Andy?

[Speaker 14] (1:53 - 1:58)
So he's going to have to move down for the time being. This one?

[Speaker 20] (1:58 - 2:08)
This one, yeah. Okay. Which one is that?

Are you a full member now?

[Speaker 16] (2:09 - 2:10)
No. No, you're not?

[Speaker 6] (2:10 - 2:15)
I was officially voted in, but I still have to go now and swear in a second time, even though I've already sworn in.

[Speaker 16] (2:15 - 2:15)
Oh, you do?

[Speaker 6] (2:16 - 2:20)
I have to swear in again, because I swore in for... Oh, okay. It was like a...

[Speaker 16] (2:20 - 2:20)
Good.

[Speaker 13] (2:20 - 2:21)
Is our audio working?

[Speaker 1] (2:21 - 2:22)
When are you officially?

[Speaker 6] (2:23 - 2:27)
Tomorrow when I swear in. Okay, then you get it. I just finally got the letter in.

[Speaker 13] (2:27 - 2:28)
Is our audio working? Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:29 - 2:32)
And then when Mark becomes associate, is that what we're doing? Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (2:36 - 2:37)
Yeah, that's correct.

[Speaker 8] (2:39 - 2:39)
So...

[Speaker 5] (2:43 - 2:44)
Any recommendations?

[Speaker 14] (2:46 - 2:49)
No, this one didn't go through. Well, how could you not even do it?

[Speaker 16] (2:50 - 2:51)
That's what you think would happen.

[Speaker 1] (2:52 - 2:56)
Marissa, should we deal with that administrative matter that you mentioned in the email?

[Speaker 13] (2:56 - 2:57)
Yeah, we can do that.

[Speaker 1] (2:58 - 3:07)
Okay. I don't have any paperwork on that, but I did look at that. Yeah.

Has anyone seen that? It seemed to me that in the context of the email that you received from that attorney...

[Speaker 13] (3:07 - 3:11)
Yeah, she wasn't an attorney. She was an architect. Okay.

But Ms. Chandel Bacal is her name.

[Speaker 1] (3:11 - 3:16)
But it looked like she was signifying her intent that it be withdrawn.

[Speaker 13] (3:17 - 3:17)
Correct.

[Speaker 1] (3:17 - 3:19)
That was the impression I got. Correct.

[Speaker 13] (3:19 - 3:19)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (3:20 - 3:20)
Everyone agree with that?

[Speaker 13] (3:21 - 3:21)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (3:22 - 3:24)
Okay, so I'd make a motion that...

[Speaker 13] (3:24 - 3:27)
I just think Attorney Schutzer had a question.

[Speaker 3] (3:27 - 4:03)
It was brought to your attention, but it just had been languishing for a couple of years. I had represented Hugh Butter, and then there was Hugh Butter's son, and I represented his successor. And the concern was the purposes of selling the property was to this open matter that had never been closed up.

So I had asked Marissa if she would give us clearance to allow me to move this forward so the court could then take a vote. What occurred was that the matter never resolved itself. There was this suggestion made by the architect.

[Speaker 12] (4:03 - 4:15)
They wanted to come back with a different set of plans and a different approach to what they wanted to do. But that never occurred. So it kept on getting continued month after month after month.

[Speaker 3] (4:15 - 4:22)
Administratively, it continued. And then it stopped being continued. And then time went on.

This is a progressive foreclosure.

[Speaker 5] (4:24 - 4:28)
Ken, do you have an issue with it? Because I think we could just probably vote on it and move on.

[Speaker 12] (4:28 - 4:31)
Yeah, that's fine. I just wanted to give some context.

[Speaker 5] (4:31 - 4:33)
Yep, yep, we got it. All right.

[Speaker 7] (4:33 - 4:34)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (4:34 - 4:42)
Can I make a motion that that petition be deemed withdrawn? I'll second. All in favor?

[Speaker 18] (4:42 - 4:43)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (4:44 - 5:17)
Okay, thank you. Okay. So that brings us to our first item on the agenda, which is the second item on the agenda, actually, which is petition number 22-23 by Gregory McDonald, the chair of Kent-Schutza, seeking a dimensional special permit and a special permit for nonconforming use and or structures for construction of an addition connecting the principal dwelling with the carriage house at 135 Galoops Point Road.

[Speaker 2] (5:18 - 5:18)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (5:18 - 5:19)
Mr. Schutza.

[Speaker 3] (5:19 - 6:29)
For the record, thank you very much. For the record, Attorney Ken Schutza, I'm here with Gregory and Nora McDonald, the owners of 135 Galoops Point Road. Now, in your package, I provided both the application, which you've had an opportunity to take a look at, as well as the renderings and the site plan.

The renderings and the architectural plans were prepared by Bridget Fortin, who is sitting next to me to my right, to your left, who will be presenting information with regard to the architectural design that we wish to incorporate. I just sort of wanted to step back just a little bit and give you a little bit of history as to this property. Take a look.

If we can go to the site plan, it will give you a much better perspective. Probably somewhere at the end. We're getting there.

Oh, for the site plan. It might be a different document.

[Speaker 13] (6:29 - 6:30)
I think it's a different document, yeah.

[Speaker 3] (6:30 - 6:30)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 13] (6:30 - 6:33)
Hold on one second. I think it's this one.

[Speaker 3] (6:34 - 6:39)
Nope, nope. That's the assessor's plan. It's a site plan that was prepared by Gail Smith.

[Speaker 18] (6:39 - 6:40)
There we go.

[Speaker 3] (6:40 - 7:38)
There it is. Okay. And possibly if you can blow it up, I'll put my glasses on so I can see it.

Okay. What you see there is a rather large structure called the Carriage House. And above the Carriage House, there is a smaller residence, which was a caretaker's house.

And these were built probably prior to 1920. And there was another structure actually where Ellis Goldsmith's house is now, which was the main estate. And these two buildings serviced that.

That's why you see a garage that could accommodate probably ten cars and a very small caretaker's house. The caretaker obviously was there to assist in the needs of the larger house that was on I think it's 55 Galloops Point Road. Is that the right number, 55?

55.

[Speaker 1] (7:38 - 7:40)
What was it, 55, the main house?

[Speaker 3] (7:40 - 9:26)
Yes. But that house was torn down I believe around 1980-something, 89? 87.

87. But what was left was the Carriage House and the caretaker's house. The caretaker's house is a rather small house.

It was never really designed to do anything other than to supplement the main house. And what we're asking to do is to be able to utilize the Carriage House as part of the residence by incorporating the addition, which would then allow them to use the Carriage House. Now obviously nobody has ten cars, and there's really no need for it.

And arguably one could make the statement that by reducing the number of the size of the garage, you'll make it less nonconforming because there's a maximum number that you could use it for today, which would be three. But it could be considered to be a preexisting nonconforming ten-car garage. But what they're trying to do is use that.

So the purpose this evening is to put this proposed addition, which is the relief we're seeking. The lot itself is a conforming lot. It has adequate frontage.

It has adequate size. It's over 30,000 square feet. But because of the Carriage House being too close to the side in rear lot, we need the approval of the board for the relief that we're currently seeking.

At this point, I'd like to be able to have you see some of the architectural drawings that we have submitted, as well as some photographs, which will give you some additional perspective.

[Speaker 18] (9:27 - 9:27)
Sure.

[Speaker 3] (9:28 - 9:38)
Thank you. So that's the assessor's plan, and that shows you the lot, and it shows you the abutting lots. And then take it from here.

[Speaker 9] (9:39 - 13:35)
Yes, so on that first image, you can see that little blue dot was the addition that we're looking for. Basically, you get the existing house on the left, the Carriage House on the right. We were looking to add to a kitchen.

And maybe you can go to the floor plan to understand a little bit better what's going on. So keep going. So this is existing first floor of the house on the left, and then the Carriage House.

Right now is a wood shop on that. The big triangular piece is a wood shop. So not really finished inside, and then you get garage space after that.

So we were looking to add to the kitchen. The kitchen is pretty awkward in the house. So we had two options.

One was going toward the side property line, and that would bring us pretty close to the setback, or going between the house and the Carriage House. And that's the option that we're proposing here. It's the one that is less visible from anybody.

Nobody can see it, basically. So if you can keep going to the second floor. So this is the existing second floor.

There's nothing on the second floor of the Carriage House. So keep going. So existing elevation.

That's one of the things happening here. So that's the existing that you see the most. So you keep going to the proposed after that.

So this one here. So this is showing where that new kitchen is going to be. We're moving the front entry so it's more visible from the driveway area, and then creating a new entryway.

The old living room will become a dining room, and the kitchen is going to be the same large space between the two. And now we're moving the living room in the wood shop in the Carriage House. On the second floor, we're going to have a roof deck that links the two.

Nothing else is happening on the third floor. This is Bill Sessions. Keep going.

So this is looking at it from the rear neighbor, so the connector between the two. Nobody's really seeing this elevation. Nothing happening on that back wall.

And this is the main elevation where we're going to get a new more visible entrance and adding a big window on the Carriage House for that family room. That's where all the sun's coming from. Keep going.

Last one. Okay. That is pretty much it.

You can look at the photos that we had before. So this is that front entryway that's going to move just at a 45-degree angle to enter the new house. Not much is changing from there.

That will be just as is. No work. This is showing in the back.

There's a lot of ledge, so we could not go backwards either. The back is kind of added to that on the first floor. And this is that back elevation that nobody can see.

There's an existing deck there that's going to be enlarged a little bit. And that is that main entrance where you come in the driveway, you will see the new entryway in diagonal. But the rest is going to stay as is.

You'll have the big window is going to be visible on the right side of that blue door. But that's about it for the changes. That's it.

[Speaker 3] (13:36 - 14:25)
We went and spoke with the neighbors, and I also provided, maybe we can show that as well. This is a visual of a GIS map, and I took the liberty of, there it is. And we have the signatures of all of the abutters.

The one that I didn't have, and she's here this evening, is Alice Goldsmith. And that would be lot number 2621 and 2623. It's a double lot, and that was the one that wasn't colored in yellow.

So to the best of our knowledge, all of our abutters are favorably predisposed. And Ms. Goldsmith is here. She can speak for herself.

But the others wanted to indicate by the petition that they were in favor of this.

[Speaker 1] (14:25 - 14:29)
The area shaded in yellow, they signified those that were in favor?

[Speaker 3] (14:29 - 15:28)
What I did is I took the list of all the individuals, and then I matched them up with their lots, except for the one, and Ms. Goldsmith is here, and that was the one that was missing. The other thing I learned, and I wasn't aware of this, is back in 2000, I may have actually been on the board at the time, I don't even remember this, but the prior owner had proposed the same thing, the board approved it, and then it was never built. And that was in 2000, I'm told.

And there was actually a model of that particular approach of combining the two, and it's still in Mr. McDonald's home, which was what was originally apparently submitted back in 2000, but it was never built. So that is our proposal, and if there are any other questions. The only thing I did bring, I don't know if it's any value, I brought some plans.

One, and I can provide them. May I approach?

[Speaker 18] (15:29 - 15:29)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (15:34 - 16:45)
This is the subdivision plan, the first one, that was just recently done. The Telkoski property is next door, and the one underneath it was the original 1920 plan, which is referenced in the 1987 subdivision plan. Those are the only two plans of record I could find.

But that shows that that house in its current configuration was there since the 1920s. I must confess, I don't think I've ever run into a situation where the accessory structure was larger than the principal residence. But in this particular case, due to the sort of historical anomaly of what this property represents, is when it was carved up, what was left on this lot was this rather large carriage house, a rather small caretaker's house, and the main house itself is no longer there.

So what we're trying to do is utilize the carriage house as part of the primary structure.

[Speaker 1] (16:45 - 16:49)
So the carriage house is shown on the 1925 plan?

[Speaker 3] (16:50 - 17:32)
Yes, it is. You can't see it on that, it just goes further. If you look at the 1987 subdivision plan, it references on the right-hand side, under references it says Plan Book 48, Plan 3, and that's the other plan that I gave you.

So I would only instinctively suggest to you that that probably, if there's more to that plan, it references those structures as well. They're just not showing. When they created the subdivision plan in 1987, they were referencing the 1925 plan.

[Speaker 1] (17:35 - 17:44)
So what is in the carriage house now? I think there's three garage doors, are those garages? And then what's to the right of those garage doors?

[Speaker 3] (17:46 - 17:57)
Apparently four garage doors, and then they're utilizing some of that space, which I think was earlier permitted for like a, what do you call it?

[Speaker 20] (17:57 - 17:58)
It's like a little family room, like storage.

[Speaker 3] (17:58 - 18:00)
Storage area and stuff.

[Speaker 1] (18:00 - 19:08)
We had a petition last month that involved joining a principal dwelling to the garage, and the circumstances are certainly different from this, but it was an oversized garage, and the distance between the two was nonconforming. It was only like five feet or something. So they would join, but the board had concerns about the garage being in the future considered part of the main dwelling, so that our approval, we conditioned that on that the garage not be deemed still, even though it was being physically joined to the principal dwelling, would be deemed to still be an accessory building and would not be habitable in the future.

What would you say about that if we conditioned, made a similar condition here?

[Speaker 3] (19:08 - 19:28)
What we're trying to do is we're trying to be able to utilize that space, and obviously unless your last name is Jay Leno and you have ten cars, it really serves no purpose. I don't have any expectation that they're going to utilize the entire area for residential area.

[Speaker 1] (19:28 - 19:30)
I mean, I don't even know if I have a problem with that.

[Speaker 3] (19:30 - 20:19)
You know, it's an interesting question. When I said to you, candidly, I've never seen, you know, the accessory structure being three times the size of the principal residence. It's, you know, obviously it's being wasted.

And to be made part, or a portion of it to be made part of the house to reserve the remainder for the garage made perfect sense. The only way that they could accommodate that would be some way to get from the principal residence to the accessory structure. They needed a way to get there rather than walking outside and sort of living in their garage.

This made the, and then they could also build out the kitchen, and then the whole area would look more consistent. Because right now, you know, all you see is this enormous garage and a small house.

[Speaker 1] (20:20 - 20:22)
It definitely makes sense to join them, I think.

[Speaker 3] (20:24 - 20:33)
Actually, it looks very nice. I mean, you know, from an aesthetic perspective, and I suspect to some degree that's why most of the neighbors were in favor of it. They thought it looked good.

It made sense.

[Speaker 6] (20:34 - 20:50)
We're not seeing, quick question about the plans. We're not seeing, we're missing what's beyond just the first two bays, right? That's on the plans.

But then there's that whole L area with the other door. Now, is that residential space currently?

[Speaker 9] (20:51 - 21:01)
So you can see all the garage door there, and at the end there is one big room. It's like a storage room. I have a photo of it if you want to see it.

[Speaker 3] (21:02 - 21:05)
They've been using it for storage and gym equipment and things like that.

[Speaker 6] (21:07 - 21:16)
But there's no place where that's on the plans. Your concern with the other one was once you add the garage, have you gone, have you triggered a site plan review? Because now you're making an addition bigger than.

[Speaker 3] (21:17 - 21:19)
No, no, the addition is only 440 square feet.

[Speaker 6] (21:20 - 21:32)
No, we understand that. This was the concern on the previous one was once you add the accessory structure to the principal structure, are you creating a bigger addition then? Right, that was your concern.

[Speaker 1] (21:32 - 21:43)
Yeah, that was one of my concerns, and plus it created additional nonconformities where the house didn't have nonconformities on the side yard and the back. It created that because the garage did have, was too close.

[Speaker 6] (21:43 - 21:45)
Right, this does the same thing as well.

[Speaker 1] (21:45 - 21:46)
Yeah, this is kind of the same thing.

[Speaker 6] (21:46 - 21:59)
I mean, I'm okay with just counting the new building as the square footage of the addition as opposed to what's also added on, but I understood that concern on the other one.

[Speaker 1] (21:59 - 22:12)
I don't think that this necessarily requires the same approach as we did before. It's definitely different, too. Whereas the other one was clearly a garage.

[Speaker 5] (22:13 - 22:30)
So Heather, you're saying that the room to the right of the garage presently is not part of the primary structure, and that as a result of what they're intending to do here, that space is also being added to the primary living structure.

[Speaker 6] (22:30 - 22:35)
Yeah, and not just that part right that we don't have on our plans, but also that entire part that was a workshop.

[Speaker 5] (22:36 - 22:41)
So that, in essence, it would be an addition of greater than, how many square feet is that?

[Speaker 3] (22:43 - 24:12)
No, what we're doing is, my interpretation, and if I could just speak up, my interpretation was adding additional square footage that doesn't currently exist. The carriage house currently exists. The use of that carriage house may change, but that's not the trigger.

The trigger is new, and it would be, in this case, 800 square feet of new residential area. But the word new is in the word of creating a greater coverage. This exists.

The only thing that we're adding physically is the area between the two structures. That's the 440 square feet that we're talking about. The use will change.

It's currently an accessory structure as a garage. This garage is being used as a garage, and it's also being used for storage. What we're trying to do is incorporate it and make it part of the house, because it's just too big and it's unusable.

It's a vestige of the past where there was one large garage that accommodated many cars for the Gloops Point Mansion that was there at the time. So I never, you know, I'm looking at the bylaw under site plan, and it doesn't reference changing use and, therefore, by creating, it talks about actually adding on.

[Speaker 1] (24:12 - 24:45)
Yeah, and I think the concern on the other one, too, was of whether or not the homeowner would, at a later date, be able to put a second floor in that garage and put living space in there. That was really the concern. Well, at this point.

If it was deemed an accessory structure, you wouldn't be able to do that, you know, without a variance. But when it was connected, that was the concern. It was considered part of the principal dwelling by virtue of it being connected, then that was a concern.

That was one of the reasons for that condition.

[Speaker 5] (24:46 - 24:52)
So would you condition the relief that that added space can't be used as...

[Speaker 1] (24:52 - 24:55)
That's what I'm wondering. Is that appropriate, given these facts?

[Speaker 5] (24:56 - 25:01)
I'm still curious. How many square feet? Because if it's less than 400 square feet...

[Speaker 1] (25:01 - 25:02)
You mean that whole carriage house?

[Speaker 5] (25:02 - 25:04)
Then the whole thing's under 800, right.

[Speaker 1] (25:04 - 25:06)
No, I think the carriage house...

[Speaker 5] (25:06 - 25:12)
Well, it's not the entire carriage house, right? Isn't it just that L room that they're using for gym equipment? Is that right?

[Speaker 20] (25:12 - 25:27)
Yeah, in the back. It's symmetrical to this. The wood structure has the same space on the other side.

It's not on any of the drawings.

[Speaker 6] (25:30 - 25:32)
Just we're missing a section of the structure on all these drawings.

[Speaker 20] (25:33 - 25:37)
Yeah, it's exactly symmetrical. I didn't think that would be an issue.

[Speaker 1] (25:37 - 25:42)
I don't know if that is over there on the right. Yeah, I think you're right, Heather.

[Speaker 3] (25:43 - 27:05)
It talks about either changing or altering the footprint of a residential... of a residence that previously required safe plan. We're not, as far as I can tell, we're not altering the footprint of any of the pre-existing carriage house.

We're just changing a use. And if, in fact, the condition was that the use be for specific purpose only, that would not be an issue with us, because that's actually what we're looking to do. And, in essence, by doing that, we're making this clearly non-conforming use, because it's clearly a pre-existing non-conforming use to have a garage that could accommodate ten cars, where today the maximum is three, to lessening the number of cars, which would therefore make it more conforming.

Because there's no maximum amount of rooms one can have in a residence, but there clearly is a maximum number of garage bays that you can have in a garage. So we're making it less non-conforming by using it for residential purposes. And we're only adding 440 square feet, which would allow them to obviously access it from the primary residence.

[Speaker 1] (27:09 - 27:13)
Is there anyone else present who wishes to be heard in support?

[Speaker 3] (27:14 - 27:21)
I mentioned Ms. Alice Goldsmith is here, but if she wishes to speak, I don't know, but she said I could mention that she was here.

[Speaker 1] (27:22 - 27:24)
Where is she? I'm right here. Oh, yes, hi.

[Speaker 15] (27:25 - 28:15)
The only reason that I think that my little square wasn't colored in yellow is that that is an unbuildable lot, so I don't think people kind of realized that it was separate. So at any rate, I think this is a great project for the Point. I've lived on the Point for over 30 years.

There's a lot that has gone on construction-wise. Some of it's better than others. And I think this is a great project.

The carriage house has always been kind of an eyesore, and joining it to the main structure and, you know, allowing the McDonald's to enlarge their home and use it more effectively, I think is a positive.

[Speaker 1] (28:16 - 28:28)
Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you. Anyone in opposition to this project?

Anyone on Zoom, Marissa?

[Speaker 13] (28:30 - 28:33)
If anyone on Zoom would like to speak up.

[Speaker 1] (28:34 - 28:35)
Either for or against.

[Speaker 13] (28:36 - 28:38)
You may use the raise your hand function.

[Speaker 4] (28:40 - 28:43)
Hey, Don, Dan, sorry, Dan.

[Speaker 1] (28:43 - 28:45)
Yeah, go ahead, Andy.

[Speaker 4] (28:45 - 29:22)
I'm just going to, just to not find ourselves in a situation down the road, that we should just put that caveat that they can only expand the residential habitable use to the first wing of when the garages stop. So just, you know, even though it's not the same as last month's hearing, we can at least just be consistent so we don't get caught somewhere else. It doesn't really affect it.

I guess it is a relief, but, you know, you can't expand the habitable use any farther than this amount.

[Speaker 1] (29:24 - 29:29)
I'm not hearing Andy entirely clearly, but I think he's suggesting that we do something similar.

[Speaker 4] (29:30 - 29:58)
Yeah, he just said to condition it so that the, and Andy, correct me if I'm wrong, that everything on the other side of the garage essentially is to not be from the garages and down is still under the accessory use umbrella, so to speak, and can't just keep on bracket creeping their way through the garages to expand the habitable use without coming back to us.

[Speaker 5] (29:59 - 30:00)
Is that all right?

[Speaker 18] (30:00 - 30:03)
I think it's... So, there's this much...

[Speaker 6] (30:03 - 30:08)
I... Here. Right.

All of this here. She says mirror. It's all of this exists...

[Speaker 1] (30:08 - 30:09)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (30:09 - 30:09)
Here.

[Speaker 1] (30:09 - 30:11)
So, we've got the three garages and then...

[Speaker 6] (30:11 - 30:12)
Three garages and then...

[Speaker 1] (30:12 - 30:14)
That other structure that's similar to this...

[Speaker 18] (30:14 - 30:14)
That's similar to all this.

[Speaker 1] (30:14 - 30:17)
That they say they've got storage space in there. Yeah. But it's all connected.

Yeah.

[Speaker 18] (30:17 - 30:18)
Because it's like a flood.

[Speaker 3] (30:18 - 32:09)
Yeah. They're conceptually fine with that. My question is, what can that now be used for?

Or is there a limitation in what one can use a garage for? I don't know that there's a prohibition about living in one's garage. Not that they have any intention of doing that.

But just so, this won't be another portion of an orphaned piece of this without a definition of what it can be used for. Clearly they don't want to find themselves in conflict with the decision, but at the same time, obviously they have no intention of parking it, but I don't want it not to be able to be utilized and just stay there without a use that's been defined. So if we can sort of expand on what the thinking is, and I understand what the board's position is, but we've now created this isolated portion on the right-hand side which is still part of the carriage house.

Now carriage houses can be lived in, there's no prohibition about using it as a residence, but it can't be used as a second residence. I mean, obviously we have prohibitions about having two principal residences on a single lot, so we can't do that. It's clearly zoned A1, which means that it can only be a single family home.

But I don't know whether what we're prepared to do is limit its use by saying that at some future point somebody couldn't live there, unless there's some reason we don't want to be able to utilize that portion of the house at all, or the garage at all, because it's not being used for parking. And since it's not being used for parking, can't be used for parking, we sort of create – It's not going to be used for parking at all? At the end.

[Speaker 6] (32:09 - 32:10)
It's finished.

[Speaker 1] (32:10 - 32:11)
It's finished. You mean the end?

[Speaker 3] (32:11 - 32:14)
The end, yeah. Yeah, that's the part that we're talking about.

[Speaker 6] (32:14 - 32:15)
So what is it now? It's finished space?

[Speaker 3] (32:15 - 33:03)
It's just, it's kind of – So is it like a bedroom or an accessory? It's just a – Gym equipment. Gym equipment and stuff like that.

And I just didn't know by putting in this condition whether we have created a violation before we get started. And I'm just trying to avoid that. And I just think if we would leave it alone and put in language, and I see this done in Marblehead all the time, that if there's any further change to the structure, that you'd need to come back before the board for further relief.

That, I think, would make sense. Because that would not in any way hamstring its use. But if there was any change in the exterior, then clearly it would.

But I don't think there's a use regulation that we wish to tie into this.

[Speaker 18] (33:22 - 33:23)
Hey Ken.

[Speaker 3] (33:24 - 33:28)
Yeah, is this Andy? It's like the Wizard of Oz here.

[Speaker 4] (33:28 - 33:34)
I'm trying. I'm like struggling with my phone. But if you can hear me?

[Speaker 3] (33:34 - 33:35)
I can hear you fine, Andy. Yep.

[Speaker 4] (33:36 - 34:16)
Okay. So what I'm saying is, I'm saying everything that you said to you in reverse. Whatever you can use as an accessory structure for, you can use it.

We haven't lost that. But we're essentially taking an accessory structure, and we're permitting you to have a portion of your accessory structure act like the main structure. But that's it.

And if you could, under the accessory structure, do something. In other words, right now. If you could do it now, then you could do it then.

But you can't do any more than that. Instead of asking us to tell you what you can do, you know, define that.

[Speaker 3] (34:17 - 34:33)
I was asking... Okay, I'm sorry. I was asking that you take no action whatsoever in trying to define use at all.

The only restriction would be that if there was any expansion of the structure beyond that which is permitted, then we would have to come back before the Board of Appeals.

[Speaker 6] (34:34 - 34:39)
You have to anyway, because now you've got an accessory... Now you've got a primary structure that's, you know...

[Speaker 3] (34:39 - 34:41)
I understand that. I'm just... I just want to make it clear.

[Speaker 4] (34:41 - 35:04)
So I think we're just trying to... We're trying to clearly say that we're not ever permitting you to have this be act as primary structure, the entire thing. We're bifurcating it and saying, okay, this piece can act as primary structure, but everything else is still an accessory structure with whatever rights it has and doesn't have.

[Speaker 3] (35:04 - 35:47)
Okay. I'll tell you... You have to come back.

Okay. I think the one issue I take with that is that when you combine an accessory structure with a primary structure, it's now one structure. An accessory structure, by the very nature or by the very definition of an accessory structure, is separate from the primary structure.

In other words, if you have a house that has a garage that's connected to it, it's not an accessory structure. Accessory structure, by definition, is a structure that is separate from and theoretically has to be 10 feet from the primary structure. The minute you combine them, you now have a single structure.

We're talking about accessory use.

[Speaker 1] (35:47 - 35:48)
That's exactly our concern.

[Speaker 3] (35:48 - 35:48)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (35:48 - 36:02)
That's why on the other one we did, we just magically said we're going to deem that still, even though we're connecting it up to the main structure, we're telling you that it's still going to be deemed an accessory structure for all zoning purposes.

[Speaker 3] (36:02 - 36:07)
I see what you're saying now. I didn't understand the distinction. But let me ask you this.

What would be the reservation...

[Speaker 1] (36:07 - 36:09)
And I just created like that legal fiction.

[Speaker 3] (36:09 - 36:25)
Right. I didn't get the nuance until just that second. But what would be the reticence of the board to grant it without there being this...

I don't know what happened on the other matter, so I don't have any history.

[Speaker 6] (36:25 - 36:30)
The concern is that now you have a primary structure that's too close to the property line. Whereas before you just had an accessory...

[Speaker 3] (36:30 - 36:34)
Well, you could... That's true. That's true.

But you can now... You can grant...

[Speaker 1] (36:34 - 36:40)
Maybe you could come in and maybe you want to put a second story on it, if you wanted to, who is connected up to the main dwelling.

[Speaker 3] (36:40 - 36:59)
No, but I'm saying if you want to change the exterior of that structure, that was what I was recommending as a condition. By going up a second story or doing anything to that structure from the exterior, you would require further relief from the board. I'm just saying that I...

I'm sorry, Andy.

[Speaker 4] (36:59 - 38:03)
We already defined it. We already did this last month. So I think to stay consistent, so we don't get trapped somewhere down the road, we should just continue to say, okay, if we're letting you attach it, it's bifurcated, this is part of the structure, this still prompted the purposes as accessory structures, so that you can't come and even think about putting a second story on it.

Because we haven't thought through whether you can, you can't, et cetera, and what's involved. I mean, I just only opened this can of worms up to say, I think it doesn't affect these people. We're happy to see this go forward.

We think it's a good project. But we're really only... We're trying to shoehorn them into, we'll give you what you want, and we want to make sure that what you're asked for is what you want.

It was nothing, you know, there's no greater ask that we kind of then permitted ourselves as a right entity.

[Speaker 3] (38:04 - 38:09)
Well, I'm not aware of any greater ask, number one, and number two, and that's fine.

[Speaker 1] (38:09 - 38:25)
What is the problem with that, Ken, that we just, it continues to, we allow you to connect it up, and you can use the connecting portion for what you want, but that the rest of it is still considered an accessory structure.

[Speaker 3] (38:26 - 38:30)
So it's a change in your thinking. Well, is there any portion...

[Speaker 1] (38:30 - 38:39)
Not all considered is the primary dwelling. It's still considered accessory. And then any other relief that you may want in the future, you'd still have to come back to us.

[Speaker 3] (38:39 - 38:53)
No, I'm not sure we're looking for any additional relief. I'm just, this fiction of accessory structure just has me confounded, and I was, I've never thought of a structure that is one. A portion of that is now referred to as accessory.

[Speaker 1] (38:54 - 38:57)
It is, it's separate now, and yet...

[Speaker 3] (38:57 - 39:02)
Oh, it is, it is, but once it's combined, if the board were predisposed to allow that...

[Speaker 1] (39:03 - 39:12)
So it's physically going to become one, but conceptually, it's going to remain, it's going to be considered to be deemed an accessory structure, as that is defined in the bylaw.

[Speaker 3] (39:12 - 39:13)
What's he saying?

[Speaker 4] (39:13 - 39:27)
We'll give you what you want, but we're not, you know, we're acknowledging that we're not letting you... It's an accessory structure. We're not, I don't know that we'd say, well, we're making this a whole house.

[Speaker 18] (39:27 - 39:28)
We're off to the races.

[Speaker 11] (39:29 - 39:33)
We wouldn't agree to that. Can I address the board for a minute?

[Speaker 1] (39:34 - 39:35)
Yeah, go ahead, Steve.

[Speaker 11] (39:37 - 40:25)
This is where it's going to get very confusing, because as a building official, an accessory structure is accessory to the building. So in the future, we've got to really think this through, because whether it's 10, 12 years down the road, we're just going to, if someone's going to come in, we're going to look at this and say, oh yeah, it's one structure. Go ahead, finish it off.

A lot of people aren't really necessarily, you know, I know because I'm sitting at the meeting, but they're not going to go pull the whole file and look at the past ZBA stuff. So by calling a connected structure an accessory structure, I think it's going to really cloud up the judgment of myself or future inspectors down the road. I think we really got to think that through.

[Speaker 3] (40:26 - 41:23)
If we can just have as a provision, if the board is favorably predisposed, that any further change in the exterior of that structure of any kind requires further relief from the board, I think that will meet the criteria of the board's concern about our ability to do anything without first submitting an application for the board. Because I could intuit from listening to some of the comments that there were concerns that things could be done to circumvent the intent of the decision. Clearly that's not the case, and language in the decision to the effect that any further change, physical change, in the exterior of that structure of any kind would require further zoning relief, I think meets that concern.

But I'm not sitting as a board member. I'm sitting as the applicant's voice.

[Speaker 5] (41:24 - 41:25)
Is there plumbing in that part?

[Speaker 3] (41:26 - 41:32)
I'm sure there is. Isn't there plumbing in there? Yeah, there's plumbing in there.

[Speaker 13] (41:33 - 41:56)
To his point, you all probably know this already, but to hypothetically make that an accessory use dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, a second means of egress would have to be added, and that would constitute an exterior modification to the structure, because it would be the addition of a second door. So that would warrant the petitioner coming back before the board.

[Speaker 3] (41:57 - 42:15)
So if that's the case, then obviously we'd never be able to get a building permit to do anything without having to come before the board. So that would be another safeguard, an assurance that nothing could be done other than what's being currently proposed. Thank you very much, Marissa.

[Speaker 13] (42:17 - 42:25)
Don't need to play devil advocate. And hopefully we'll have a bylaw in the near future that will...

[Speaker 21] (42:25 - 42:27)
There's enough bylaws already.

[Speaker 13] (42:28 - 42:29)
...absorb all of this.

[Speaker 21] (42:29 - 42:30)
A unique situation here.

[Speaker 1] (42:50 - 42:55)
Any discussion among the board before we close the public hearing?

[Speaker 6] (42:55 - 43:38)
Comfortable. The thing that is... We keep getting these things with the Malalta case where all of a sudden, well, it's right on the...

We are extending the nonconformity by putting a second story, but you're not getting any closer to the board. So now that we've... This is a preexisting, older building.

I think it loses its... How do we add it to the primary structure? And then someone says, okay, I want to add a second story to it.

And we're saying, well, are they increasing the nonconformity? Well, they're not getting any closer. So I think we have to...

We do have to put something on there that says that... Whether we say its use is an accessory structure when that other portion's already fully finished in the room doesn't make any sense. But if it's something that says more to the effect of you have to...

[Speaker 1] (43:39 - 43:44)
I mean, I'm comfortable with calling it an accessory structure.

[Speaker 6] (43:45 - 43:46)
I understand...

[Speaker 1] (43:46 - 43:48)
I mean, I understand the concerns of Steve, but...

[Speaker 6] (43:48 - 43:49)
Steve's concerns.

[Speaker 1] (43:50 - 43:54)
But, you know, it's incumbent on anyone to look at the file.

[Speaker 6] (43:54 - 43:59)
And the other one was very different in the sense that it was really a breezeway connecting.

[Speaker 1] (43:59 - 43:59)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (44:00 - 44:05)
It was just a roof. I mean, this is... They're using a large portion of this accessory structure as primary structure.

[Speaker 18] (44:05 - 44:05)
Right.

[Speaker 6] (44:06 - 44:12)
And so it's very different than that other case where it was literally just a breezeway kind of to connect it to avoid that 10-foot.

[Speaker 1] (44:12 - 44:14)
Right. No, it is different.

[Speaker 6] (44:15 - 44:26)
What's happening here that is a problem for us is we're taking a primary structure and we're putting it right on the property line, which met its setbacks before this connection. Now, all of a sudden, the primary structure doesn't...

[Speaker 3] (44:26 - 45:21)
Back in 1920, unfortunately, nobody could think this through. It's there now. It'll be used properly.

Obviously, the neighbors think it's the best use of the property. In order to increase the living space, without doing that, would be increasing the caretaker's house and making it bigger. We're trying not to do that.

We're just trying to use what we have now, use that space wisely, and do it in a way that does not create this fiction of an accessory structure when it's actually part of... It's only a single structure now. It's clearly not...

When you combine something, it's clearly not a construction. I was just reading over the site plan. It says construction exterior or alteration, but we're not altering that portion at all.

That stays the same. That building is not...

[Speaker 1] (45:21 - 45:23)
We understand that, Ken. That's not the concern.

[Speaker 3] (45:24 - 45:25)
But that's...

[Speaker 1] (45:25 - 45:26)
That's not helpful.

[Speaker 3] (45:26 - 45:36)
Okay. I'm doing whatever I can to try to convince the board that I'd rather stay away from this fiction of an accessory structure.

[Speaker 14] (45:36 - 45:52)
I can't vote on this one, but I think we are making a nightmare for the building inspectors if we're calling it an... I just think it's just going to confuse everybody. We're either saying yes or no, and then...

[Speaker 1] (45:52 - 45:56)
It's not like there's a lot of properties in town. This is really an anomaly.

[Speaker 6] (45:56 - 46:00)
It's so unique. It's already there. It's a very smart project.

I mean, it makes sense.

[Speaker 1] (46:00 - 46:06)
It makes total sense to do it, yes. We're in favor of doing it. We're going to give you the relief.

We're just trying to figure out how to do it.

[Speaker 6] (46:06 - 46:12)
I mean, I would just say... I mean, I agree. I'm going to agree with Ken and say...

[Speaker 3] (46:12 - 46:15)
Every once in a while, it's okay. It's okay. It's not a bad thing.

[Speaker 6] (46:15 - 46:29)
It's okay. And say that you can condition it on any change to that. I mean, I would think that you could deny any change to that building that goes up on the property line that close.

[Speaker 19] (46:32 - 46:33)
I'd agree with that.

[Speaker 6] (46:34 - 46:36)
Just condition it that...

[Speaker 1] (46:37 - 46:42)
So just condition it on any change. And any change would have to come back to...

[Speaker 6] (46:42 - 46:51)
And any change would, because now, all of a sudden, we have a primary structure right on the property line. They can't do anything that will come before it. I just wouldn't want them to get caught up in the...

[Speaker 14] (46:52 - 46:58)
I also think the neighbors would be really mad if suddenly it was going up higher. So I think we'd have... You know, we'd be...

It would come back to us.

[Speaker 1] (47:00 - 47:04)
Okay. All right. I'll make a motion and a...

[Speaker 19] (47:04 - 47:20)
Can I ask just one more thing? Is your concern that they're going to take the garage space and convert that to living space? Is there something that you want to put in there about a condition of any change to the use of this as a...

That the garage would also require review and a special...

[Speaker 1] (47:20 - 47:31)
Yeah, I was just thinking about what we did in the other one. We actually had a condition not only that it be deemed... The garage still be deemed accessory, but also that it not be habitable.

Right. That the garage not be habitable. This...

[Speaker 3] (47:31 - 47:37)
Well, this garage is so large as it is. The problem is we don't need the space for a garage anymore.

[Speaker 1] (47:38 - 47:44)
But this, I don't know if it makes sense to say, you know, to put a condition on that it not be habitable because it's bigger than the... It's twice as...

[Speaker 3] (47:44 - 47:45)
It's bigger than the main structure. It's three times bigger than the house.

[Speaker 1] (47:45 - 47:52)
It's kind of a waste of space then. I don't know if that makes sense either to just say it can't be habitable.

[Speaker 5] (47:52 - 48:01)
Well, I think to Marissa's point, if you made that habitable, you would have to have a second means of egress.

[Speaker 1] (48:01 - 48:06)
Are you talking about the garage base? I'm looking at it all as just one structure.

[Speaker 19] (48:07 - 48:10)
I was talking specifically about the garage base, but I know people are concerned about the whole thing.

[Speaker 1] (48:10 - 48:12)
Yeah, I'm concerned about the whole thing.

[Speaker 19] (48:12 - 48:14)
If the concern is that they're going to close off the garage...

[Speaker 1] (48:14 - 48:34)
Because they can just go in there and cut the whole thing and turn it into... They can go in there and just take those garage doors out and make a house out of it, right? Just as tall as the other one, yeah.

So do we want to allow them to do that? Because they'll have the ability to do that if we allow them to connect it up and say it's all part of the primary structure.

[Speaker 5] (48:34 - 48:51)
I wouldn't want to foreclose their opportunity to come before the board and seek that. So maybe what we do now is we limit it to the relief they're looking for and we condition it on any further changes would be subject to a further special permit.

[Speaker 6] (48:52 - 48:56)
You didn't say any further changes of use or structure. Use or structure.

[Speaker 1] (48:57 - 49:10)
That's fine. Okay. All right.

All right. All right, good. We'll make the motion.

Yeah. I make a motion to close the public hearing, first of all. Second.

All right, all in favor?

[Speaker 18] (49:10 - 49:11)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (49:12 - 50:24)
The board will be the regular board plus Heather. Anyone want to make a motion? I'm sure Ken will provide a draft decision for us.

It would be my pleasure. All right. I'll make a motion then.

Can I just see the petition again? Oh, yeah. I'll make a motion that the board approve petition 2223 by Gregory, Gregory McDonald for a dimensional special permit, special permit for non-conforming use instructions, instruction of an addition connecting the principal dwelling with the carriage house at 135 Bruce Point Road.

Relief to be conditioned upon any change in either the structure or use to be subject to further special permit relief by the board. Anything else? Cover it.

I have a second.

[Speaker 6] (50:25 - 50:25)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (50:26 - 50:31)
All in favor. Aye. You need to do it.

In favor, Andy.

[Speaker 4] (50:33 - 50:44)
I can talk. Just like the microphone, I have to repeat myself in the next one and chase back, but yes, I'm in favor. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (50:44 - 51:05)
Thanks, Andy. Thank you all. Okay.

Next, 2224. Case Bank.

[Speaker 3] (51:05 - 51:07)
You don't have there. If you want to agree with me another time.

[Speaker 6] (51:09 - 51:09)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (51:09 - 51:21)
On the calendar requesting a sign special permit for the installation of a free standing business sign at the entrance to the property at 970 Paradise Road.

[Speaker 3] (51:31 - 51:36)
Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 18] (51:41 - 51:42)
Very good.

[Speaker 1] (51:42 - 51:44)
You can hang around.

[Speaker 10] (51:48 - 51:48)
Hi.

[Speaker 1] (51:49 - 51:49)
Okay.

[Speaker 18] (51:49 - 51:49)
Good evening.

[Speaker 10] (51:50 - 53:45)
Good. How are you? Yeah.

For the record. My name is Heather Dudco. 27 Old Meeting House Road in Auburn, Mass.

And I work with Philadelphia sign. Who's the sign installer for chase? So the petition before the board is to install a freestanding sign.

As you may know, this is a new branch being built on Paradise Road and for the installation of a ground sign, we need to seek a special permit. So they are requesting a 58 square foot freestanding sign. 17 foot overall height, 23 foot setback, and it would be internally illuminated.

Uno sign, I believe on the lower left corner was the sign that was on the property before. But the site's being all reworked. It's a fully operational branch open Monday through Friday.

9 to 5, Saturday 9 to 1, and they will have 24 hour lobby ATM access and a 24 hour drive up ATM. And I did print out if I can approach the board. This is just a rendering of how the sign will look at night.

It's not fully lit. The background is aluminum and the letters are lit in the sign. The side of the sign will be illuminated.

So it's not a fully facelit sign. I think we did have an installation drawing that showed the... These are just some signs in the area.

The site sketch shows the setback on Paradise Road. It will be on a little bit of an island with some landscaping. And that's on the right the rendering of the sign.

We have permitted the wall signage already by right. There will be three sets of channel letters on the building.

[Speaker 1] (53:50 - 53:53)
So the sign is going to be located where exactly on the property?

[Speaker 10] (53:53 - 54:21)
It's on Paradise Road. You can kind of see it where it says... And that's really about it.

[Speaker 1] (54:22 - 54:30)
Where's the sign? The little black rectangle that the red line is pointing to.

[Speaker 5] (54:32 - 54:36)
And the driveway is to the right of that? Correct.

[Speaker 10] (54:38 - 54:45)
So the sign will be a 23-foot setback located on that little landscaped island.

[Speaker 5] (54:48 - 55:14)
So there's no visual obstruction for cars entering or exiting? No. That's one of the most dangerous crossings and exits and enterings of parking in the town.

That's important. How high was the UNO sign? I do not know.

I don't know. This sign is 17 feet?

[Speaker 1] (55:15 - 55:17)
Do you know where the UNO sign was? I'm sorry.

[Speaker 5] (55:17 - 55:25)
I just wanted to know, 17 feet in the abstract is one thing, but how does it relate? I know you gave us photos of some of the other signs.

[Speaker 10] (55:27 - 55:28)
Honestly, I'm not quite sure.

[Speaker 5] (55:37 - 55:41)
The photo is hard to...

[Speaker 1] (55:44 - 55:49)
Do you know where the UNO sign was in relation to where the 17 feet sign is going to be?

[Speaker 10] (55:49 - 56:28)
I think it's on the opposite side. So see how there's another little landscaped area to the right? It appears it was on that side.

Oh, no. Actually, no. I can see it in the background.

No, it looks like it was on the other side. I'm sorry. I would think about maybe 18 feet, the UNO sign.

[Speaker 5] (56:35 - 56:38)
And this one is 17.

[Speaker 10] (56:41 - 56:43)
I just don't think I have any notes about that.

[Speaker 5] (56:47 - 57:08)
It struck me when I saw the measurements as being very, very tall. 17 foot? Yeah.

There are other businesses there, obviously, and I don't want to overwhelm the optics as you're in that area. Does it need to be that tall?

[Speaker 10] (57:10 - 57:22)
No, I would think they could lower it, especially if there's concerns about congestion and the traffic, of course. I just drove down there. It's very, very busy down there.

[Speaker 5] (57:24 - 57:39)
I don't know what others think in terms of how tall is it. Just feel it. 17 feet.

And it's illuminated on both sides.

[Speaker 10] (57:40 - 57:49)
And unfortunately, since they're doing construction there, they weren't able to get a real good picture to superimpose since that.

[Speaker 4] (57:49 - 57:51)
Can I make a suggestion?

[Speaker 10] (57:52 - 57:52)
Sure.

[Speaker 4] (57:53 - 58:33)
You have a sign to the left of it, which is the citizen's bag. The sign that you showed earlier is the area sign. It's not citizen change.

You have a five-gauge pylon sign. Why don't you just say that the height should be no greater than the tallest one in the median between the average of the three of them? So the three of them are kind of all equal.

So they're all proportionate to each other as opposed to one wild weed growing up between them.

[Speaker 5] (58:33 - 58:37)
Yeah, I think that's a great suggestion.

[Speaker 4] (58:50 - 58:55)
I like that idea.

[Speaker 1] (58:56 - 59:03)
We can't exceed the median of the other two signs? Is that what we're saying? Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (59:07 - 59:16)
So whatever the average is of those other two signs would be the maximum height. And no eventually be higher than 17 feet.

[Speaker 10] (59:17 - 59:23)
What if they're all 25? Well, no more than 17.

[Speaker 5] (59:25 - 59:28)
The existing signs are offensively high.

[Speaker 1] (59:28 - 59:30)
I don't think that's an issue.

[Speaker 4] (59:34 - 59:42)
So it's the five guys and the citizens, because the UNO's is gone. You guys are the middle one.

[Speaker 10] (59:46 - 59:48)
I'm sure that we have no problem with that.

[Speaker 5] (59:49 - 1:00:24)
Where is the, I'm just curious, the sight line on the citizens and the five guys? Are they also set back around that same distance, 23 feet? I don't know.

Did you have a picture there? They look like they're, because I like that idea that Andy has is, you know, just so that no one, it doesn't stick out. It's not, you know, and there's some uniformity there.

Yeah, it looks like citizens is further in.

[Speaker 6] (1:00:33 - 1:00:42)
Well, I think also we just want one. If the sign did grow, we don't want it to grow proportionally because that font would be huge.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:42 - 1:00:43)
I've guys once pretty close to the road.

[Speaker 6] (1:00:44 - 1:00:45)
Yeah, the five guys ones almost on the road.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:45 - 1:00:46)
Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (1:00:53 - 1:01:15)
Whereas this is a three foot wide blade. So I would say you wouldn't want it to get any bigger than the three feet that is or three feet four inches. That is it is right.

[Speaker 10] (1:01:16 - 1:01:20)
Well, it wouldn't be wider than that.

[Speaker 5] (1:01:21 - 1:01:38)
And remind me, is that lot? I know with citizens you can pull in and cut through to the rest of that. Vinan Plaza there.

Swamp's got Plaza. Sorry. Small things.

Sorry. I knew I'd get corrected.

[Speaker 4] (1:01:41 - 1:01:51)
What is Oh, that's right.

[Speaker 5] (1:01:51 - 1:02:00)
Okay. Well, that's all right. But it doesn't connect into the mall parking lot.

Right. Got it. Okay.

[Speaker 10] (1:02:01 - 1:02:03)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:04 - 1:02:15)
All right. Anyone else? I wish to be heard.

Either for or against this petition. Anyone out there, Marissa?

[Speaker 13] (1:02:16 - 1:02:28)
Anyone here joining us on Zoom? You may use the raise your hand function. You'd like to speak on behalf of this petition.

I think we're okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:29 - 1:02:44)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. All in favor. Any further discussion.

We could anyone want to make a motion.

[Speaker 5] (1:02:47 - 1:03:48)
I will. Can you throw that back up? I think I have it here.

Actually. 3.2. So I'll make a motion to approve petition 22 24 for a special permit pursuant to bylaws section 3.2. And we are going to condition it on the The height of that sign shall not exceed the median height of the currently existing signs on either of the directly abutting properties. That being the citizens sign and the five guys Dunkin Donuts sign and that the in all other respects that the sign be Constructed and located consistent with the plans that have been submitted.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:54 - 1:03:57)
I'll second that. All in favor.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:00 - 1:04:03)
We didn't constitute the border. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:04 - 1:04:15)
Because Andy can't be on the regular board except for Andy and Paula. Paula's on it. Everybody here.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:15 - 1:04:16)
Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:16 - 1:05:18)
Everybody voted. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Next petition.

Petition 22 21. I G investments and care of Paul Lynch Esquire requesting a dimensional special permit and or dimensional variance for the construction of a two family home on a vacant lot With insufficient frontage at zero large road. All right, Mr Lynch.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:18 - 1:13:05)
Okay. Thank you for the record. My name is Paul Lynch representing the petitioner Mr Chairman.

What I think what's happening here is there are two issues One is the dimensional special permit. Then one is the site plan special permit Give you a little history here. The applicant went before the planning board Back in September for a site plan special permit to construct a two family dwelling on this Lot in the a four district, which is allowed in the a four district single and two family Dwellings are allowed.

I did not. I was not present at that hearing nor did I represent The applicants at that time There came an issue before the planning board As to whether this lot was in fact grandfathered. So the planning board Felt that it was I don't want to say this in a bad way, but it's on their pay grade to determine The zoning issues.

So they asked for it to be continued or taken over By the zoning board of appeals. And that is why we're here. So now we are here for two different Issues.

One is that now that the planning board has made it has turned it over to the zoning board The zoning board has control over the site plan special permit for the building itself And the zoning board also has the jurisdiction now over the dimensional relief I presented a memo last week with respect to this, but I'd like to Give it a little overview because some of the issues may not be as clear. What happened is In June of 1949 A subdivision plan was created And it was endorsed by the planning board on August 4th Of 1949. The town of Swampskate changed the zoning bylaw In 1948 and it was an A3 district at that time And the lot size was 60 feet and the 6,000 feet, excuse me And the frontage was 60 feet.

So they created a lot A Which was less than the required lot area and less than the required frontage Which had a house on it and still does. And they created lot B Which had the excessive lot area but less than the required frontage at 52 square feet Swampskate adopted subdivision control in 1952 So prior to 1952 someone could record a plan, any plan they wanted to do And that is going to be one of the arguments I'm sure that if anyone is in opposition However it should be noted that in this particular plan the planning board Signed off on it. So there's a disconnect somewhere In that if the planning board signed off on it one must assume that there was some relief granted By the zoning board to allow for one lot to have less than the required frontage and less than the required area And the other lot to have less than the required frontage.

Else why would the planning board sign off? They would have just said go file your plan. I have spent more time Than I care to mention at the town hall researching this And requested documents from the selectmen's office Who were in control at that time of the zoning board minutes and the selectmen's minutes They have none.

I am told by an email from the town clerk That it was apparent that there was a flood some time ago and most of the records were destroyed So we have no proof positive or negative That there was some relief granted but we must assume that there was some relief granted Because when the plan was recorded on September 1st of 1949 Lot A was deeded out at the same time which had the house on it And there was a mortgage put on it. So I am sure at that point Someone did their due diligence and realized that it was at that point a conforming lot With grants from the planning board and from the zoning board I assume that I believe that there was a zoning board in effect at that time I know in Marblehead it was a board of selectmen for up until the 60s So then lot A got conveyed a couple more times With mortgages. Lot B remained vacant From all this period of time Separate and assessed as a building lot for some $200,000 for a number of years which I provided that information So now my clients bought the lot And prior to that they did their due diligence They went, well I went, they had an initial conference With Rich Bodacci at the time who was the building commissioner Then I went and had a few meetings with Rich Bodacci And with Bob Ives who was the assistant building commissioner And is the zoning enforcement officer in Marblehead. He splits his time We reviewed the plans, we reviewed the deeds And Bob Ives reviewed the zoning map Back in 1948 and it was their opinion that it showed That there were separate lots on Dodge Road. As a result of that Rich Bodacci issued a verbal to me by email that he would write a letter And subsequent to that he did in fact write a letter that in his opinion The lot was buildable and he would issue a building permit for a one or two family dwelling Provided it met all the dimensional requirements under the present bylaw such as setbacks, open area Lot coverage, etc.

As a result of that My clients purchased the property Then they went and had plans done And no need on their part to request a building permit until They went and got a site plan special permit for the structure they wanted to do Which was over 3,000 square feet which triggered the necessity to have a site plan Special permit for the planning board And so that's where we are today and that we have to determine Whether A, this lot is in fact grandfathered because of the history B, whether the frontage relief is appropriate Before we move ahead with respect to the site plan special permit Of the structure they propose.

So Mr. Chairman, I don't know how you want to do this You want to bifurcate the two separate issues?

[Speaker 1] (1:13:07 - 1:13:11)
I think so, yeah, I think that the issue we have to focus on Is whether the lot's buildable or not.

[Speaker 2] (1:13:11 - 1:13:12)
I don't disagree.

[Speaker 6] (1:13:14 - 1:13:18)
Do we have to go back to planning to get this site plan approved?

[Speaker 1] (1:13:20 - 1:14:16)
No, we can do it here. So starting with the letter that's With Rich Baldacci's letter, it looks like that the map That he was relying on was a later map That was a map that shows the separate lots That's a map, that's the one that's attached in your packet And the thing is there's all kinds of dates on the map Even though there is the March 148. I'm not really sure what that signifies But I think the operative date on this map is the date in the upper left corner of May 14th of 59 When it was approved by the Attorney General That seems a little bit strange, Mr. Chairman.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:17 - 1:14:23)
I don't know what intervened Why, were there some other changes to that?

[Speaker 1] (1:14:23 - 1:15:17)
I'm not sure how that works, right, because the other map The map that has the 1949 is another map I know that Is at the town hall, which has a 1949 date on it Which shows just a couple of big lots on large road Doesn't show the separate lots. So I think that's the operative one So I don't think that it has any protection as a result of Having been assessed as a separate parcel as of August 4th of 48 I don't think it was. I don't think there's evidence that it was assessed separately Prior to August 4th of 48

[Speaker 2] (1:15:17 - 1:15:22)
Regretfully, the assessor's office has no records either going back that far

[Speaker 1] (1:15:25 - 1:16:04)
Because the map shows a single lot As of that date So then it looks like And then the other thing is that, of course, whatever approval the planning board gave it On August 5th of 49 As a site plan approval today, that doesn't affect zoning really The planning board's just saying that the lots have frontage on a way They're not speaking to zoning at all

[Speaker 2] (1:16:04 - 1:16:10)
I understand that, but with all due respect, they didn't even need that endorsement from the planning board

[Speaker 1] (1:16:13 - 1:17:37)
So what's peculiar here is that It looks like, so in August 5th of 49 When the planning board creates these two lots They essentially at that point are creating two non-conforming lots On August 5th of 49 they create those two lots Even though the zoning As you provided us with the zoning bylaw for that time Which specifically says you can't do that And on page 9, section 2 there So it's article 5, section 2 There's no lot shall be changed in size or shape So that the height area or yard provisions prescribed are no longer satisfied So the zoning bylaw itself says you can't do it Without a variance, there's no indication of any variance They just created these two lots, rendering them both Non-conforming to the new bylaw The law with the house on it is protected I guess

[Speaker 2] (1:17:39 - 1:17:41)
It's not protected at all

[Speaker 1] (1:17:45 - 1:17:57)
It's not, well one's vacant and one has a house on it That's the difference, and they're treated differently in the zoning bylaw I mean in chapter 48

[Speaker 2] (1:17:57 - 1:18:36)
Only if it had 5,000 square feet Lot A has the same issues as lot B if you're saying that They were not subdivided correctly They're both from the same tree And they bear the same fruit You cannot create a non-conforming lot that has a house on it And just because it has a house on it, it becomes conforming

[Speaker 6] (1:18:36 - 1:18:47)
No, it'll still be non-conforming It's not pre-existing non-conforming, that's the issue

[Speaker 2] (1:18:50 - 1:18:51)
If it was

[Speaker 19] (1:18:57 - 1:18:58)
Excuse me?

[Speaker 14] (1:18:58 - 1:19:11)
I'm sorry, if we don't treat them differently, if we put something on a property that is non-conforming The plot is non-conforming, if we put a structure on it, it adds to the non-conformity And isn't that something we don't do?

[Speaker 1] (1:19:15 - 1:20:29)
I just don't see how we get around the fact that You have a vacant lot that was made unbuildable When they divided the lots, they created an unbuildable lot That's what they did. They created two non-conforming lots, but one was already developed One had a house on it, the other one does not, it's vacant land And I don't see how we get around that Nothing's changed since then to make it buildable It was created after there was a zoning change that said you have to have 66,000 square feet And then after that was passed, they made the lots non-conforming, and it's vacant Now the other one, also they made it non-conforming and became non-conforming in terms of both area And frontage.

I'm not sure if it had the frontage But it had a house on it And lots with houses on it, they have special protection over it, they're treated differently than houses

[Speaker 2] (1:20:29 - 1:20:49)
Well, I'm not here protecting lot A, first of all I don't agree, it's not pre-existing non-conforming So the issue then comes to the point, is it appropriate for relief for the frontage Of 8 feet

[Speaker 5] (1:20:50 - 1:20:55)
These are always owned by the same owners?

[Speaker 2] (1:20:57 - 1:21:19)
No, they were only owned by the same owner back in 1949 Since 1949, they've been under separate ownership And are they currently under separate ownership? Yes They've never been under, I've done the title and I'll swear

[Speaker 5] (1:21:19 - 1:21:22)
I was thinking if there had been a merger

[Speaker 2] (1:21:22 - 1:21:28)
No, there's been no subsequent merger to correct either non-conformity since 1949

[Speaker 1] (1:21:28 - 1:22:09)
Well, they were held in common ownership when the zoning by-law was passed They were in common ownership as of August 4th of 1948, when the zoning by-law was adopted Establishing the 6,000 square feet and 63 feet of frontage So I think they would have merged then But then, so I think they would have merged legally But then after they merged, a year later For whatever reason, the planning board approved a plan dividing them After they were held in common ownership and after they had merged

[Speaker 5] (1:22:09 - 1:22:13)
And after the subdivision by-law went into effect?

[Speaker 2] (1:22:13 - 1:22:31)
No, before the subdivision by-law went into effect. The subdivision by-law went into effect in 1952 in Swansket And this happened in 1949 So therefore, we don't know why the planning board was involved, except there must have been some relief given somewhere

[Speaker 5] (1:22:31 - 1:22:33)
But we don't have any copies because of the flood

[Speaker 2] (1:22:33 - 1:22:43)
We don't have any copies because of the flood And back then, it was very rare that someone would record a special permit back then

[Speaker 5] (1:22:44 - 1:22:51)
So then what's your best argument as to why the relief you're seeking should be granted?

[Speaker 2] (1:22:53 - 1:24:07)
My best argument by the relief I should be seeking Is that it's been held in separate ownership since 1949 There is no other use for the lot. It is not something that my client created themselves It's not something that they did haphazardly without doing some due diligence And getting some assurance from the town of Swansket From the building commissioner It was given without any caveats It was just said, I would issue a building permit. Come in tomorrow, I'll issue a building permit And again, they bought it in good faith They didn't create the issue And they have clean hands And the only thing that we would need relief for at this point is the frontage requirement Going from 52 square feet to 60 square feet Which would make it conforming at this point May I approach?

[Speaker 18] (1:24:29 - 1:24:51)
They need to go out of order I think it's every time I've been here So what's the specific relief he's looking for?

[Speaker 14] (1:24:53 - 1:24:56)
Yeah Can I ask a question?

[Speaker 4] (1:24:59 - 1:25:16)
So if we were willing to entertain the relief Which is not intended for frontage How would we be able to grant that relief? We can't give them a special permit, so we'd have to give them a variance

[Speaker 1] (1:25:16 - 1:25:19)
Exactly, exactly, that's the problem

[Speaker 4] (1:25:20 - 1:25:49)
We're giving you a variance because they want to legally weigh that way Even if you wanted to give it, it certainly is challengeable But it's like, I don't know how you'd write a variance It's here because they didn't give me the 10 feet or the 8 feet They shouldn't have given me it back then

[Speaker 2] (1:25:53 - 1:26:09)
The problem is, Andy, we don't know whether they gave us the relief back then Because why would the planning board sign off on the plan? But wouldn't they have given us a variance for that relief?

They must have

[Speaker 1] (1:26:09 - 1:26:20)
You can also say that the fact that it was never built on is indicative that it did not get relief The fact that it was never built on since then remained vacant

[Speaker 2] (1:26:20 - 1:26:23)
No, we don't know that, we can't understand that

[Speaker 1] (1:26:23 - 1:26:38)
We don't know why any relief was given either, it's just a big unknown But Andy's right, even if we wanted to give you the relief, we can't give you a variance I don't think we could, no

[Speaker 4] (1:26:38 - 1:26:42)
That would be so out of character for this board

[Speaker 2] (1:26:42 - 1:28:17)
I may understand, but we have a situation here where there is hardship And the hardship is not a result of Anything that the petitioner did, it is not self-created by the petitioner If it was self-created, we cannot argue with hardship And without a variance, there is no permitted use of the property, either by the petitioner or by anyone else And I think that the case law will hold that that is enough To give relief, especially since the desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good And without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intended purpose of the by-law A lot is the only developed lot in the area and is relative in size to the surrounding developed lots So I know that this board And other boards are reluctant to grant variances Well, that's all well and said, but the fact that chapter 40A Allows for section 10, allows for the grant of variances Since this board is in charge with Deciding what is reasonable with respect to the zoning by-law And they cannot cop blanchly say we are never going to give a variance

[Speaker 5] (1:28:18 - 1:28:35)
But Paul, is the, it's solely the fact that it has insufficient frontage Correct. So the by-law says that a lot lacking sufficient frontage is not eligible for a variance Based solely on the fact that it has insufficient frontage

[Speaker 2] (1:28:35 - 1:29:33)
Well, I'll tell you how we get around that Because it's not just the frontage If one looks at the by-law and the case law, in our by-law We don't define lot, we define lot area We define lot frontage, lot width, lot sideline And the question was whether the building commissioner was correct in his decision And with respect to the variance, one could grant a variance if the current shape of the lot does not conform to the zoning requirements Of the A4 zoning district. And the shape of the lot does not conform To the zoning.

It's not the frontage, the shape of the lot does not conform Because if one looks at the lot, the shape of the lot is such that the dimensions Do not conform to the current zoning by-law.

[Speaker 5] (1:29:33 - 1:30:05)
So relief can be granted to correct that Deficiency in the shape of the lot The dimension of the lot In this district, you're saying is Apart from frontage, you're saying that the shape Of the lot doesn't conform to the lot requirements In this district?

[Speaker 2] (1:30:06 - 1:30:11)
At the time, the shape of the lot As a result of the...

[Speaker 5] (1:30:11 - 1:30:59)
It's almost a rectangular lot, right? As a result of the frontage, in the real lot line, the shape of the lot does not conform If the lot had 60 feet of frontage, the shape of the lot would conform I think that's a creative argument to say that frontage Is directly proportional to or related to shape But we can't excise the word frontage out of our by-law and just deem it dimension Can we? Yes, because your by-law, if I may Look at 5.5.2 Can I ask another question?

[Speaker 4] (1:31:00 - 1:32:29)
Sure, Andy Off the screen, it's not really germane to the area's question, but just Kind of the whole picture here. What's the lot of the owner Say about the lot of the owner building a two-family house here? Because clearly, if the lot of the owner doesn't want the lot of the owner to build this house You have a variance that loses in court, because you really don't have hardship I mean, you don't have to divide it in A or C You don't have hardship.

I mean, we've got a bunch of them We've got all the stories, and then the same thing on the right, neither of those guys want to fight The guy across the street, anybody that wants to fight this, you totally have to lose What's lot A say? Because I look at lot A and say, what happens if you If the B donor went to lot A and straightened out their, you know, just moved Straightened the lot right out to make his lot conforming, yet his wouldn't be any more Conforming necessarily than it is. You know, I don't know.

I'm not sure where I'm going But I just see that if we grant the variance that we don't want to grant because the guy's in a bind Which is no reason for us to grant a variance, and the lot A guy appeals it I've gone on record of coming up with a fabricated variance

[Speaker 2] (1:32:29 - 1:33:27)
I think, and that, you're missing the point, because by granting the relief we're seeking For lot D, it doesn't give us the right to put anything on it Except a structure under 3,000 square feet If a structure wants it, so we're not talking about the grant of the Either special permit or variance for the frontage Does not give them a right to build a 4,600 duplex All it gives them the right is to say we now have a buildable lot Whether it's for a single family of under 3,000 square feet or whatever. That's all it gives them the right to at this point Then we would have to come back to this board and seek relief For a site plan special permit.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:28 - 1:34:03)
So it is two separate issues Okay, Paul, I know I'm not the lawyer anymore, and I'm going to follow my lawyer's Opinion, but I wonder if they find any way to grant this variance If it's not like a two for one that, okay, we bail the guy out But it's a much restricted building, so everybody's happy Well, that's right.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:03 - 1:34:05)
That's going to be an issue for another day

[Speaker 4] (1:34:06 - 1:34:39)
But I'm saying that I don't know that I could address the second issue after I legitimized the lot And then I've lost my right to really control what it might be It might be under legal, liberal, you know, pushing fodder that I would want To allow now under the circumstances But that's more of a business approach than a legal approach I defer to my attorney for that one

[Speaker 2] (1:34:39 - 1:34:52)
So I guess what you're saying is that If you knew what was going on a lot You may have a different opinion with respect to the relief we're seeking

[Speaker 4] (1:34:53 - 1:35:22)
I think I'm so far, Paul, I think I'm over my nose So I'm not saying I'm going to, but Just on the face of it, I would be saying We don't bring in therapists for this hardship There really isn't a hardship there, is my feeling, and that's just layman's terms. I'm not a lawyer So I'll leave it to the other guys

[Speaker 2] (1:35:23 - 1:36:47)
I think, you know, if in fact What your bylaw says is that A lot lacking sufficient frontage is not eligible for a variance based solely on the fact that it has insufficient frontage It's not solely that it has insufficient frontage In this situation, it has insufficient frontage coupled with the fact That there is no way to create sufficient frontage And it is not something that they created themselves And it's not personal or specific to this applicant Anybody now is going to have the same issue with this lot If it's just going to sit there with no use, there certainly is a financial hardship And usually a variance is, okay, there's another way to fix it, go out and fix it Here, in this particular situation, because the lot is between two developed lots There is no way to correct the deficiency So it's just not the frontage, it's the hardship coupled with

[Speaker 4] (1:36:47 - 1:37:40)
Well, that financial hardship is not supposed to be in our It's a piece of land that doesn't appear to be a two-family house That may not be even a single-family house And so it's value isn't zero, it's value is some kind of moving space to the lot The right to that across the street, or who knows, you just make less money Sometimes you make money, sometimes you lose money I'm leaving it to my lawyers to go a little farther or help me along here I'm just talking practical business, I guess I'll sit down

[Speaker 1] (1:37:44 - 1:38:27)
I don't see how I'm only one vote, I just do not see how we can grant the relief Even if we want to, and we probably do want to, because it is the lot How the lots are developed, and this empty lot sticks out like a sore thumb It does not qualify for a variance under any stretch of the imagination In fact, as Brad pointed that language out, this really is because it has insufficient frontage That's the only reason The bylaw tells us that we can't grant relief for that

[Speaker 5] (1:38:29 - 1:38:39)
I would be curious to know if there are other people here who Have thoughts on this, to Andy's point

[Speaker 1] (1:38:39 - 1:38:47)
I don't think we get there, but we can certainly Everybody's here though, so why don't we

[Speaker 4] (1:38:52 - 1:39:45)
It's almost like I'd feel better if I was given The 542 square feet for the lot A owner So that he was 6,000 feet and the lot B owner was 6,000 feet We've cleaned up some of the missed We could at least say that we're doing this because we're making that more conforming So one's undersized for frontage, one's undersized for frontage in one area If we let this guy build and give some land to the other guy And the other guy now is conforming for one area, he's only undersized for frontage It's less knocking before we load in I don't know

[Speaker 1] (1:39:46 - 1:39:53)
Those are all creative, equitable ideas, but I don't think

[Speaker 5] (1:39:53 - 1:40:37)
They all have a variance as the jumping off point I'm trying to understand how we can avoid, because I agree, I don't like the idea of an empty lot there I'm not 100% comfortable with the fact that what you said Your assumption that at some point there was relief granted for this didn't happen And I think it's unfortunate that we don't have that evidence before us, it really is Trust me, we tried to find it Knowing you, I'm sure you looked under everything, but we don't have it Let's hear from some of the

[Speaker 11] (1:40:37 - 1:41:23)
Can I make a quick comment? I just want to mention why this came about And I just want to refer back to the letter that was written The letter that was written mentions 5,000 square feet to 50 feet And that wasn't even, that wasn't a requirement back then So that's what kind of made me take that letter and say wait a minute That was never, at that time, we never had 5,000 to 50 foot frontage in the house But I know we keep referring to a letter that was written from a building perspective But I really think it was written in error, and that's why we're here And I just want to make that clear to you guys

[Speaker 1] (1:41:23 - 1:41:26)
Okay, alright, thank you Steve

[Speaker 4] (1:41:28 - 1:42:10)
Hey Ben, I was just going to say, I feel better In other words, if you could circle with A, either A's for it or not for it And change the law, even if you diminished A's frontage by 8500 square feet of land In return for it, you could eradicate the non-uniformity on lot B And then lot A would be less non-uniform than it was previously Because it got up to 6,000 feet and now only has a deficiency for frontage And then you wouldn't have to be giving such a great deal of variance Did anybody follow that?

[Speaker 5] (1:42:10 - 1:42:19)
I followed it I didn't really follow that Andy I followed it, but I don't think we're going to get that done tonight He was saying you would borrow square footage, right? There would have to be a conveyance?

[Speaker 4] (1:42:21 - 1:42:44)
Yeah, in other words, B goes to A and says, look, let's make a deal here I'll give you a bigger lot, you'll give me 8 feet of frontage And then we will reduce the non-uniformity on A, but it is still non-uniform But lot B became conformity back then, 6,000 feet and 60 feet of frontage And therefore, you know, now you can build on it

[Speaker 5] (1:42:48 - 1:42:52)
Yeah, it's still non-conforming though, because of the frontage

[Speaker 2] (1:42:52 - 1:43:00)
No, if I may, Brad, what Andy is saying is, if I may approach Yeah, of course

[Speaker 5] (1:43:16 - 1:43:20)
So then, they no longer have, okay

[Speaker 2] (1:43:20 - 1:43:29)
So, there may be Is that you? Don't worry, don't worry

[Speaker 14] (1:43:36 - 1:43:39)
I'm sorry, the people are confused

[Speaker 6] (1:43:39 - 1:43:41)
Understandably

[Speaker 2] (1:43:41 - 1:44:15)
I'm not trying to make any decisions, I'm just trying to explain what Andy said Because it's going to benefit Andy also Okay, but once it's understood So what we do is we take that area and give them Required to make that for 6,000 feet And they will give us just a little sliver here A little pie shape To give us the 75 square feet that they need to make the 60 foot frontage

[Speaker 5] (1:44:15 - 1:44:17)
What happens to their frontage?

[Speaker 4] (1:44:18 - 1:44:21)
It's changed by AC Yeah, but what is it?

[Speaker 2] (1:44:22 - 1:44:27)
Well, their frontage is already non-conforming And what Andy is saying is we're taking a lot

[Speaker 1] (1:44:27 - 1:44:30)
Yeah, maybe if they had the frontage to give, but they don't

[Speaker 2] (1:44:30 - 1:45:02)
Well, what Andy is saying is we're creating Correct me if I'm misspeaking, Andy But what Andy is saying is we're creating a We're taking a non-conforming lot with respect to area And conforming it to area And then we are taking a non-conforming Something that already doesn't have enough frontage And reducing that non-conformity But because of that, we're making the other lot conforming Right Did I do that okay?

[Speaker 4] (1:45:03 - 1:45:16)
Yeah, except we're missing one square foot So some of you have to round it off But, seriously I think I can do the math and figure that out Can I ask specifically you a question?

[Speaker 2] (1:45:16 - 1:45:22)
Maybe Brad as well And this was a plan that was done And this was a plan that was done in 1949

[Speaker 6] (1:45:27 - 1:45:55)
When we talk about non-developed lots in our bylaw Non-conforming undeveloped lots It says that you have to refer to general bylaw Section 6 And that's where they talk a lot about 50 and 5,000 And I'm looking for you guys to interpret How that's applied to this scenario It talks a lot about If it had the 50 and the 5,000 Prior to a certain date

[Speaker 1] (1:45:55 - 1:45:59)
Are you looking at the first paragraph of paragraph 6?

[Speaker 6] (1:45:59 - 1:46:20)
It's section 6, but it's further down It's not the first paragraph It's the first paragraph of paragraph 6 Which I know deals with vacant lands That's where I think the 50 and the 5,000 came from I'm just saying that's where that came from Did you put that in your packet?

[Speaker 4] (1:46:20 - 1:46:48)
No, I didn't put the bylaw in I thought I saw that I think it was paragraph 6, right? The 50 and the 5,000 lots were much older And the vacant lots came in at this time Is it MGL or general bylaw? Does that answer your question?

[Speaker 6] (1:46:49 - 1:47:01)
Yeah, MGL Okay, so it's 48, section 6 That's general bylaw And do we know where it is in section 6?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:02 - 1:47:38)
Yeah, it's this one here, right? Any increase in area frontage Yeah, it's the debt requirements It's not a bylaw I looked at that today, actually But it was held in common ownership, though, at the time That's the thing, it was held in common ownership At the time So the division happened after this would be applicable?

[Speaker 6] (1:47:39 - 1:47:54)
Yeah I mean, people can divide a lot Because they don't want to pay taxes on that portion of the lot they weren't using They could have divided a lot So it was not held in common ownership?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:54 - 1:48:00)
But I know that Rich Baldacci was not referenced in that section, though He wasn't?

[Speaker 6] (1:48:00 - 1:48:02)
I just think that's the only place where it says 5050

[Speaker 1] (1:48:02 - 1:48:05)
Yeah, because he didn't mention that He didn't mention the statute

[Speaker 5] (1:48:12 - 1:48:15)
We're looking at 48, section 6

[Speaker 18] (1:48:15 - 1:48:16)
Paragraph 6

[Speaker 1] (1:48:18 - 1:48:32)
Which the case law says applies to vacant land I was just looking at that today in Bobrowski, at that section I didn't think that saved them, though

[Speaker 6] (1:48:34 - 1:48:50)
Well, I mean, it seems like that time has long since lapsed Right That would have had to have been within five years of 1976 From what I'm reading It would have had to have developed within five years of 1976 Is that what that's saying?

[Speaker 5] (1:48:50 - 1:49:42)
It says 48, section 6 Our zoning by-law doesn't speak to this It only refers you to this So what was the time of recording or endorsement that we're talking about? Right, that's a good question 1949? Correct Was it held at that time in 1949?

Was it held in common ownership? Were these lots held in common ownership in 1949?

[Speaker 2] (1:49:44 - 1:50:01)
They were in common ownership then, yeah 1949, they were held in common ownership until September 1 September 1, 1949 When was it recorded? September 1 of 1949

[Speaker 5] (1:50:01 - 1:50:03)
So up to that, okay

[Speaker 1] (1:50:04 - 1:50:15)
They were in common ownership until then They were in common ownership when the by-law was passed

[Speaker 2] (1:50:16 - 1:50:45)
Of course, you also have to remember that chapter 48 wasn't adopted until 1976 So we have to go back and see what the zoning by-law was back then If there was one But we know there was one So

[Speaker 19] (1:50:52 - 1:50:54)
To Heather's point, isn't there a five year

[Speaker 5] (1:50:54 - 1:51:11)
This is any increase in area, frontage, width, yard, or depth requirement of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall not apply for a period of five years from its effective date or for five years after January 1, 1976 whichever is later

[Speaker 19] (1:51:12 - 1:51:14)
So that's the grace period, but you're out of that Right

[Speaker 6] (1:51:15 - 1:51:18)
Yeah, I think the issue is they're long out of the grace period Yeah

[Speaker 1] (1:51:20 - 1:51:21)
I don't think that helps

[Speaker 6] (1:51:21 - 1:51:31)
That's our only That's the only reference we have to a non-conforming, undeveloped lot Right In our own by-law We don't deal with it at all

[Speaker 2] (1:51:31 - 1:52:17)
Right But if you go back to the 1948 by-law under section 3, subsection 5 A lot area and lot width regulation shall not apply to lots of less than the required lot Required, excuse me, area or width for the district in which they are located provided such lots have been duly recorded by plan or deed with the registry of deeds or assessed as a separate parcel before the date of the passage of this ordinance So we have two missing links here We don't know what the assessments were back then because the town has no records and we don't know whether there was relief granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow this plan to be endorsed by the Planning Board

[Speaker 1] (1:52:19 - 1:52:21)
See, that's the problem, is that

[Speaker 2] (1:52:23 - 1:52:24)
So I think we have to

[Speaker 1] (1:52:24 - 1:52:34)
It's incumbent on the petitioner to prove that the, you meet all the requirements, all the elements of the variance

[Speaker 2] (1:52:34 - 1:52:38)
But you can't You know, you can't prove that it goes

[Speaker 1] (1:52:38 - 1:52:49)
The fact that there's difficulties in proof But those difficulties That's That's You know, that's your burden

[Speaker 2] (1:52:49 - 1:53:09)
Well, and we assume that burden But we can't, you know, we can't create We can't create people out of ghosts And the fact that the records were not there You know, we did not cause those records not to be Not to be there And

[Speaker 1] (1:53:10 - 1:53:36)
Anyway, let's hear from some of the people who are here Anyone wish to be heard with respect to this? You have to Well All right, well, let's let somebody talk But, you know, first state your name and your address All right So where are you in relation to this lot, Mrs. Savino?

[Speaker 8] (1:53:36 - 1:53:37)
Right next door

[Speaker 1] (1:53:37 - 1:53:39)
Right next door, number 20 OK

[Speaker 8] (1:53:39 - 1:53:47)
If you put the picture of that That lot up, which you had just a minute ago If you look at that picture, I'm right there

[Speaker 1] (1:53:47 - 1:53:48)
Oh, yeah, OK

[Speaker 8] (1:53:48 - 1:57:34)
I'm right there And where the house is on the left Yup, that's the guy right here, Mr. Grasso That's his house I've lived I've lived at 20 Lodge Road since 1970 And I've worked for the town I was a supervisor for 40 years And more than once That we have to send a crew down there In that lot To pump out the water into the park Because my house had about 3 feet of water in it In the cellar Mario's house had 2 or 3 feet of water He lost his furnace I lost my hot water And damaged my mower and my furnace And The water in that lot I'd say was at least 2 1⁄2 feet There's a little catch basin on Lodge Road That they have to pump it into So they have to pump it into the park I had to get a crew down there To do all the pumping And clear it out And We finally got another drain Pulled into Muriel Road To try to alleviate the problem When it rains hard And it helped a little bit But if it rains The water table down there is You don't have to get down maybe 3 1⁄2 feet You're in the water table And Oh Lodge Road In the back of his lot and my lot It goes down 3 feet Lodge Road is 3 feet high In the back of his lot and my lot And the person that owned that lot Had a house on Lodge Road Her name was Adele Ruthman And I talked to her all the time She was an old woman I used to help her shovel the soil in her yard And She told me She told me She said Billy I would never want to do anything with that lot Because And she had nieces and nephews Because of the water table in that lot Now We're all concerned because We've all got water And And If something goes in there And they dig into the ground It's going to change the water table So We're very concerned about that situation And not only that Like they've been talking all night The frontage is very narrow It's only like 46, 47 feet wide On the sidewalk And And They want to build what we've seen as a picture Each side of his house would be maybe seven feet From both sides of Grasso and Cimino And Bob only knows what it would look like If we had three or four inches of steady rain So I can see why the woman never wanted to do anything with it And when she died The realtor that sold her house I believe ended up selling that lot of land To these people down there Whether they told him She told him anything I have no idea But We're not really excited about having anything built in there To be honest with you Because I think it's going to affect him and me When we have bought that And We've got

[Speaker 20] (1:57:37 - 1:57:41)
And I live across the street And we got flooded as well

[Speaker 8] (1:57:41 - 1:58:08)
So that's a problem That's the lowest area in town Roger Road is like Phillips Park When it rains it floods That's the lowest area in town I I buy flood insurance Even though I don't have to Because I've got flooded five or six times And I didn't have the insurance But I have it now And We're very concerned

[Speaker 1] (1:58:08 - 1:58:14)
Thank you sir Does anyone else wish to Anyone else wish to add anything?

[Speaker 12] (1:58:14 - 1:58:38)
Yeah I'm John Spagnoli From Gates Road We In my basement The water table The water is Probably a foot and a half Below the fifth slab of the floor All year Pumps run all year long On Gates I'm not saying anything about anywhere else

[Speaker 8] (1:58:39 - 1:58:45)
The area can't handle The water, it's so low Even though there's three or four basins on Gates Road

[Speaker 18] (1:58:45 - 1:58:48)
It can't handle it

[Speaker 8] (1:58:48 - 1:58:55)
If it's high tide The water doesn't run out through the drains It's blocked by the tide It's just a bad area You know

[Speaker 16] (1:58:57 - 1:59:42)
My name's I bought the property as well I'm on Muriel Road, 21 Muriel Road And I'm directly in back Of this piece of land And to talk about what John said and Billy said as far as water I lost a car And the only reason I didn't lose my truck is because It was back in the driveway when we had three feet Of water, okay And to, you know Add to what he said This is a real problem Okay, and The reason Adele didn't sell the land Is because it wasn't a buildable Adele, I'm sorry Is the woman that owned it before On Lodge Road, okay And I'm not the only one, my next door neighbor Also abuts the property, they're not here I think they're on the Zoom call

[Speaker 8] (1:59:42 - 2:00:06)
We don't know what the realtor told These people, you know Because she sold both Both the house and the lot to them So I don't know what she told Them or Or what Bill, I actually own the house I actually own the house It's She didn't sell it Adele's house Muriel Lodge Road

[Speaker 16] (2:00:07 - 2:00:08)
Okay

[Speaker 1] (2:00:10 - 2:00:12)
Where was that house? Adele's house?

[Speaker 16] (2:00:12 - 2:00:15)
What number is that?

[Speaker 1] (2:00:15 - 2:00:30)
Twenty Twenty-one? Twenty-nine Oh yeah, twenty-nine Okay, all right, thank you

[Speaker 12] (2:00:31 - 2:00:55)
I have one more question, I'm sorry Yes, go ahead I think they have them, but I can't But You have to move Okay The frontage You have to move it to the left By eight feet To get the frontage

[Speaker 2] (2:00:55 - 2:00:58)
I don't know the exact number, but what we'd have to do is just cut a little pie

[Speaker 12] (2:00:59 - 2:01:05)
Right, the pie in the In the front, not in the back So how would they get in the driveway

[Speaker 18] (2:01:07 - 2:01:11)
She's absolutely not Not in the neighborhood

[Speaker 12] (2:01:11 - 2:01:28)
It's a silly conversation It would be one way to get it done Obviously I wouldn't expect the neighbor to do it either Believe me That wasn't, we weren't gonna No one's gonna take that It was just kind of like a solution

[Speaker 18] (2:01:30 - 2:01:30)
Yeah

[Speaker 1] (2:01:34 - 2:01:54)
I think we do I think Attorney Lynch gave us That's good That's good that you have that We'd like to have that anyway We'd probably like to have it Not that we always need it But it's good to have your bylaw You never know All right, thank you sir

[Speaker 13] (2:01:54 - 2:01:57)
Dan, I have a hand raised from Bill Demento

[Speaker 1] (2:01:58 - 2:01:59)
Sure, okay, thank you

[Speaker 13] (2:02:01 - 2:02:03)
Mr. Bill Demento is raising his hand on Zoom

[Speaker 1] (2:02:03 - 2:02:06)
Mr. Demento Oh, sure

[Speaker 7] (2:02:11 - 2:02:13)
Mr. Demento Good evening folks, Bill Demento

[Speaker 1] (2:02:13 - 2:02:16)
Good evening Mr. Demento How are you sir

[Speaker 7] (2:02:16 - 2:02:18)
I'm well, how are you

[Speaker 1] (2:02:18 - 2:02:19)
Very well, thank you

[Speaker 7] (2:02:19 - 2:07:50)
I'm that guy that's the friend of Rudy Longfellow That helped him Write the opposition To the experience With you And And I look at this And I just Reread this opposition To Myles Woodview And I'm profoundly Disappointed in Rich Baldacci For being able to see Two lots that didn't exist From a 1948 map Because he couldn't have seen them Because they didn't exist Until 1949 So there's no way on earth They could be there And everything that Andy and the rest of you have said Is absolutely And my friend Paul Lynch Has given an impossible task To try to Rectify His situation with this lot Because it is Absolutely An illegal lot The difference is You're not asking He's not asking you for a couple of feet You have to give a variance If you give it from the existing bylaw You don't give variances from a 1948 bylaw This is now 80 feet And 10,000 square foot That's the size of the variance That you'd be giving if you gave it One thing is for sure In a neighborhood Of 2,024 Square foot houses It's absolutely irresponsible To come in with a 5,000 foot 37 foot high Structure on this lot Thinking because Two families are allowed in the use If you have a variance The zoning board Has the absolute right To To put conditions On that variance saying What the use can be And what the dimensions can be It seems to me This is a petition It's not something that Determined the buildability of the lot That's not even the volume They didn't even file under that They filed for a variance This needs In my opinion for the developer To withdraw Meet with the neighbors And find out if there's any Common ground before you can do anything Before you can do anything Because it's simply As Andy said There's absolutely no Hardship As contemplated under the four conditions Of hardship by chapter 48 Section 10 There are no Provisions under the statute Or under the local Bylaw that reach back Once the law Has been broken And that was broken on March 23rd The day of the passage of the zoning bylaw In which There was no supposition They missed it By 14 or 15 Months And what it was done It was done There's one other thing For my A few years that I spent in that town This myth of every record That anyone's ever looking for Being lost in the flood Is a myth Most of the stuff for zoning bylaws Was held in the Building inspector's office Then shipped to the building inspector's office And then shipped downstairs to the town hall Where there's still A lot of things But we can't use that Business about the flood The flood costs everything Any file that anyone's ever looking for That they can't find The flood destroyed it And there was a flood in that Sewage treatment plant But there's no indication What's where the zoning bylaws Were a part of it They were mostly selected By the Department of Public Works But the point being You're in an absolute economy The only way out of it As I see it Is variance But you're never going to Get around the fact That Ruhle Longfellow And Mercedes Longfellow Are never going to tolerate A 5,000 square foot monstrosity Behind them That's going to dump all that water On them It's not going to do it And they shouldn't have to go to court To fight a made up variance Because a guy has lost money That just doesn't work out Under the law And I think the zoning board Just has to bite the bullet And fight the law And if the developer wants to go with the decision Go to it That's his decision He can always withdraw Or come back and try to find Another way around it Maybe he'll find that Which doesn't exist This isn't the first time I've seen a planning board doing plans And after a long time It's lost it So that's just the way it is But certainly If it goes to a vote It's got to go to a vote That's what the developer wants I think he's just got to get to it Thank you for your time

[Speaker 1] (2:07:50 - 2:07:54)
Thank you Mr. Demento Do we have any other hands raised?

[Speaker 13] (2:07:55 - 2:07:59)
I do have a couple, yes Michael Walsh

[Speaker 17] (2:08:03 - 2:08:46)
Hi This is Michael Walsh I share my neighbor's concerns About the funding and about the Scope of the proposed structure But just in terms of listening To and hearing tonight And hearing the idea that It wasn't these guys' fault That they bought something And they thought they'd be able to build on it But frankly to me That sounds like it's a failure of diligence Which is, you know It's unfortunate But it's not necessarily something where You would look to the zoning board For relief in that Whoever failed to catch it It wasn't buildable in the first place It's sort of the responsibility here For any financial loss that happened That's all I have, thanks

[Speaker 1] (2:08:46 - 2:08:48)
Alright, thank you

[Speaker 13] (2:08:56 - 2:09:06)
Is there anyone else? You may use the Raise your hand function on Zoom Is that it?

[Speaker 18] (2:09:06 - 2:09:07)
Okay

[Speaker 1] (2:09:07 - 2:09:08)
Okay

[Speaker 6] (2:09:19 - 2:09:57)
So I know that They missed the You know that they were Less than a year late Doing the subdivision after the zoning Changed Does this Section 6 provide them a Five year grace period From when that zoning law changes To when they were Forced to record the Separate lot Is that why they would be able to record That separate lot

[Speaker 1] (2:09:57 - 2:10:11)
I don't know, he has not made that argument He has not built his argument on that Section at all It's incumbent upon him I don't know, it's complicated That gets complicated, you know I didn't do an analysis under that

[Speaker 6] (2:10:11 - 2:10:25)
I do think It's usually placed here I don't know where he came up with that

[Speaker 1] (2:10:25 - 2:10:39)
Could have been referring to that, but I don't know Mr. Chairman Do you have anything you want to add Yeah

[Speaker 2] (2:10:41 - 2:11:29)
I've heard I've heard from everybody and I've heard from Some of the ideas that Andy has And I have some Knowledge Of the variants and Issues that I think I can Maybe overcome, maybe not But I think I can overcome some of those Reluctance on the part of the board And with respect To the neighbors I'm more than happy to sit down with them And see if we can't come to some common ground here It is nothing that's going to be solved in a month So to ask for a continuance It would be just the It would just be kicking Kicking it down the road And kicking it down the road So I think at this point we'd ask to withdraw without prejudice Try and regroup And when it's appropriate To come back

[Speaker 1] (2:11:30 - 2:12:07)
Okay, all right, I think that makes sense Okay, so I'll make a motion That the board approve The petitioner's request to Withdraw the petition Without prejudice I'll second it All in favor?

Aye Okay, thank you Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch, for your presentation Thank you for your time, I appreciate your time Thank you folks for coming in and being so patient Just a motion to adjourn We're closed I think that's it, right?

[Speaker 14] (2:12:08 - 2:12:17)
Motion to adjourn Motion to adjourn Aye Just wait Good job everyone