[Speaker 4] (1:55 - 2:07)
I would just say that I've watched a video of the last year and does anybody want to make a motion?

[Speaker 2] (2:11 - 2:14)
I can make a motion, do you want to write it? Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (2:15 - 2:47)
Okay, so I'll make a motion that we approve petition 2301 for special permit for non-conforming uses and structures of site plan and special permit for construction. construction of the second story in addition to 12 Sheppard Ave for the plans on the existing footprint.

[Speaker 2] (2:49 - 3:16)
Second. All in favor? Aye.

Okay, excellent. So next we have, next we have Santander Bay for a revision of their signs.

[Speaker 1] (3:33 - 6:53)
Okay, so I think from here, if that's okay. All right, great. So my name is Adam Braylard.

I'm an attorney with the, with a law firm called Prince Lamel Tye. We're in Boston, Massachusetts. And we're here, I'm here with Lauren Tolman.

Lauren's with Image One. Image One is the sign vendor for Santander. So we're here in connection with a special permit application in front of the board to really two requests for relief.

One is the relocation of an existing freestanding sign that's on the property. And then the second request is to the determination that we can add a sign to the rear of the bank. So this is an installation or a proposal to basically revise the existing exterior of the back or part of that, right?

So procedurally, Santander has gone through and obtained a building permit to revise the exterior of the building. And now we're moving forward and requesting sign approvals. And to do that, before we can get a sign permit, we have to get, we have to get the relief for specific signs.

Those two things, like I said, are the relocation of the, of the freestanding sign, which is number nine. Basically number nine, where the existing sign is number nine to number 10, where the new sign would be on the, on the screen right here. And then a, a new sign in the rear of the building or on the rear of the building.

Now, the question came up as to the rear of the building, because the bylaw section 3.2.0.0 is not specific to whether or not a sign can be located on the rear of the building. So Santander, they're requesting that, that they do that. In communications with the, with the building department and the community environment, community development department, they recommended that we take that second piece to this board, which is the installation of the sign on the rear of the building.

And so that's really it. It's just really two things that we're asking for. Everything else has been approved, either by, by the, by the planning, sorry, by the building department.

And the two outstanding issues were the, like I said, relocation of the exterior, sorry, the freestanding sign and then the rear, rear sign on the building. We, we think that the, the benefit to the, to this installation and the revitalization of the, of the bank branch and the building in the vicinity certainly outweighs, the benefits of that outweigh any, any adverse effect that this may have on the, on the property, which I don't think there is any. And so Laura and I are here to ask, or answer any questions that you have for the board or the public.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (6:54 - 7:28)
So the initial thing that stood out to me was that you have more than a 60 square foot of real sign on each side. And also that there's two, there seems to be two, two signs, not including the, you know, the directional sign. That's, that's all fine.

But the two buildings on where you're only allowed one per side and then the total square footage being over the 60 square feet. So those are the two things that I think.

[Speaker 1] (7:28 - 7:30)
So number one and number four.

[Speaker 2] (7:31 - 7:31)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (7:31 - 7:31)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (7:32 - 7:43)
I'm not concerned about five, which is, you know, where the door is or, you know, the directional sign to the right, but, but there's clear, you know, the bylaw says one side and a maximum of 60. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (7:43 - 9:08)
So it's a good question. And procedurally we filed a, we filed two permits, two building permits, one, the permit for the redesign of the exterior of the building, not including the signage, which was granted. The second permit, and that was, that was granted in December 2022.

So this past December and then January, we filed a sign permit with the understanding that the building department would come back to us and say, okay, here's, here are the signs that are fine. And here are the signs that we think may, may need relief or that require relief. We actually got the building, we got a sign permit back, which was approved.

And so we then went to the building department and said, we want to make sure that you're okay. That this sign, we don't want to go ahead and start redoing, revitalizing this building if there's a mistake. And they, and the building department said, okay, why don't we, why don't we take this to the, the, the development, the community development department.

And the community development departments came back and said that the two issues are the, that need additional relief are the freestanding sign and the sign in the rear. I asked about this and the response was that that was decorative and wouldn't be considered a sign. If that's, if that's, if this board thinks differently than they think, then we want to have that conversation, I guess.

[Speaker 4] (9:08 - 9:16)
Which one, the number one there? Number four, the flame. How many total signs do you have?

[Speaker 8] (9:18 - 9:31)
If you go back to the map on them, that should call all of them. But they're not really considered signs. Like you said, the logos aren't just the...

[Speaker 4] (9:31 - 9:45)
I'm talking about the big, the big signs. So you have the one on the building, right? Yes.

On the parking lot side. And then is there another one on the facade of Paradise Road?

[Speaker 1] (9:45 - 10:55)
Yeah, so I can, if I can show, point them out, I think that, so we'll have, this is the new, as proposed. We would have the existing freestanding sign would be relocated to here. And I'm not going to point out the directional signs, if that's okay.

Okay, then we'd have a sign, the Saint-Andre lettering on the second floor of the, if you're looking at the building on the right side of the building, if you're looking at it from Paradise, a Saint-Andre sign on the left side of the building, lettering, and then a Saint-Andre lettering on the front of the building facing Paradise. And then we're also proposing 17, which would be a Saint-Andre lettering on the rear of the building. Now those four comply with the 60 square feet per wall, per facade of the building.

The other two, I think that Madam Chair is referring to, are the flames, which are 13, so there's a flame on the left side and a flame on the right side, and she's going to move that.

[Speaker 2] (10:56 - 11:00)
Can you show the facades?

[Speaker 1] (11:00 - 11:07)
Yeah, so if we scroll down to the facades. Oh, we can do it? Oh.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (11:08 - 11:12)
So which is the...

[Speaker 1] (11:12 - 11:13)
Do you go up one?

[Speaker 2] (11:16 - 11:18)
Consider the back and the front, I guess.

[Speaker 1] (11:18 - 11:19)
Yeah, good question.

[Speaker 2] (11:19 - 11:26)
Sorry, because the front is, you know, one would think is Paradise Road, but the entrance is actually in that parking lot, so...

[Speaker 1] (11:26 - 11:32)
Right, so we consider Paradise Road as the front, and the rear is Sunbeam Lane.

[Speaker 10] (11:33 - 11:37)
Which is the one that you kind of moved up.

[Speaker 1] (11:37 - 12:04)
So this would be the front. This is the view looking at the building from Paradise Road. And then if you scroll down, that's the rear, looking at it from Sunbeam.

If you scroll up just a little bit, you can see the existence there, and then you can see the proposed. And just for the record, under the building permit, that dish will be removed.

[Speaker 4] (12:05 - 12:16)
That was brought up at some point. So, Jared, just bringing you back to the beginning. Sure.

So the two signs that we've been asked to consider, is it just the flame logo?

[Speaker 1] (12:17 - 12:18)
It's actually not the flame logo.

[Speaker 8] (12:19 - 12:19)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1] (12:19 - 12:23)
It's the rear sign, that sign. That one?

[Speaker 12] (12:23 - 12:23)
Right there.

[Speaker 1] (12:23 - 12:38)
Because it's considered on the rear of the building, and the bylaw doesn't state whether or not a sign can be located on the rear of a building. And then the relocation of the freestanding sign, which does require a special permit from this board.

[Speaker 4] (12:39 - 12:44)
And that, the dimensions, do the dimensions comply with the bylaw? They do. They comply with the bylaw.

[Speaker 2] (12:44 - 12:46)
And it's the same exact sign.

[Speaker 4] (12:46 - 12:47)
Right. I'm just relocating it.

[Speaker 2] (12:48 - 12:56)
That I'm fine with. I'm more concerned with going over the 60 feet and having two signs on every side, or on three sides of the building.

[Speaker 1] (12:56 - 12:57)
Sure.

[Speaker 2] (12:57 - 12:58)
As opposed to just one sign.

[Speaker 1] (12:58 - 13:02)
Okay. And then in the flame part of that, or either one?

[Speaker 2] (13:03 - 13:04)
The logo is a sign, yes.

[Speaker 1] (13:04 - 13:05)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (13:08 - 13:10)
Can we see that one again, the side?

[Speaker 2] (13:10 - 13:17)
And design-wise, I think it looks great. I think it's a huge improvement. Sure.

The building's fantastic. I think it's nice. It's just, I don't think it complies.

[Speaker 4] (13:19 - 13:41)
Is the town having to do anything with respect to the speed bumps there? Because I know that's a really popular cut through, right through your parking lot. And then there's the split median where no one knows if that's an exit or an entrance into that parking lot.

Is there any new signage there that's going to be a little more deliberate in terms of...

[Speaker 2] (13:41 - 13:49)
Yes, the problem is, is the entrance is on the left of the island. Right. The entrance to the bank is to the left of the...

[Speaker 1] (13:49 - 13:53)
Right. Off of Paradise, yeah, sure.

[Speaker 11] (13:53 - 14:00)
So when you're exiting that lot, people go out the entrance because that's staying on the right. And then they're going out the exit.

[Speaker 1] (14:00 - 14:15)
Yeah, and I drove by there today, and I went in, and I did go over the speed bump. I noticed the speed bump on the building permit approval from December. It was referenced there.

I don't know if it's being improved or not. I'm not sure of the answer there. All right, well, that's, I guess, not in our jurisdiction.

[Speaker 4] (14:17 - 14:24)
So can you show the picture again of the facade that has it... That, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (14:25 - 14:30)
That one and the two sides of the building. Yes, that's what we're talking about.

[Speaker 8] (14:30 - 14:31)
Exactly the same.

[Speaker 1] (14:32 - 14:34)
This is in the Walgreens parking lot facing...

[Speaker 8] (14:36 - 14:38)
And she's just concerned about this?

[Speaker 1] (14:38 - 14:56)
Yes. Yeah, I mean, part of the reason for the design, and I completely understand the question, the concern whether or not it does comply, is just to try to break up that wall. But if it's determined that it doesn't comply, and that's kind of the question because...

[Speaker 8] (14:58 - 15:01)
It is non-illuminated, too. So it's not going to light up.

[Speaker 2] (15:02 - 15:02)
Are there any other signs?

[Speaker 8] (15:04 - 15:11)
Any of the signs? Do any of the signs light up? The same here.

Just the signs alone? No, no, the red ones. No, it's just the white.

[Speaker 2] (15:11 - 15:14)
It's just the white that lights up, not the red.

[Speaker 1] (15:15 - 15:19)
That doesn't light up, does it? The lettering on the... Not on the front of the building.

[Speaker 2] (15:21 - 15:23)
I'm sorry, which ones are the ones that light up? I thought...

[Speaker 13] (15:33 - 15:40)
Like this one on the back of the building will light up. That will light up on the front of the building.

[Speaker 1] (15:41 - 15:44)
Illuminated channel lighting, yeah. Lettering, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 12] (15:45 - 15:46)
Is that it?

[Speaker 4] (15:53 - 16:06)
Let's go down a little bit to... Sorry. Where's the...

The single one? The single channel? Yeah, the loop, yeah.

[Speaker 8] (16:07 - 16:18)
Oh, okay, I thought it would have a single one. So yeah, this one will light up. This will not light up.

That's why they were considering it not really a sign. It's just an aluminum panel.

[Speaker 1] (16:29 - 17:13)
So yeah, it's interesting. The issue for this board are the two signs, but that board also has a question about the additional over... Potentially over the square footage of the loud because of the flame.

I completely get it. I'm wondering if we can figure out how to get the board to make a decision on the two issues contingent upon that being compliant with the bylaw subject to the building commissioner's review. I'm just kind of thinking out loud here.

I don't want to make any more work for the board.

[Speaker 2] (17:14 - 17:40)
Well, I think... I mean, this is just my opinion. I'm fine with moving the sign.

I do think the bylaw is clear that you can only have a sign on the front and the two sides. It doesn't mention you cannot have one on the back, but it clearly says where you can have it. In the back, it's not one of those places.

But I'm more concerned that it definitely also clearly says one sign.

[Speaker 4] (17:41 - 17:51)
Per side. Per side, yeah. What if...

I mean, this is somewhat uniquely situated because Sunbeam Lane is directly in back of it, right? So from Sunbeam Lane...

[Speaker 2] (17:51 - 17:54)
Yeah, I feel like I could get there on that.

[Speaker 4] (17:54 - 18:03)
I mean, Walgreens has a sign on that side. And I know that's the side of Walgreens, but it just is happenstance in terms of how it's situated on that lot.

[Speaker 2] (18:03 - 18:12)
Yeah. That's not as big a concern, I think, as having two signs per side and also having it over the 60 square feet.

[Speaker 12] (18:14 - 18:16)
Just that we don't have any...

[Speaker 2] (18:16 - 18:24)
I mean, there's nowhere where it says we can allow... Yeah, you don't have the jurisdiction to vary that or to...

[Speaker 1] (18:24 - 18:26)
Right, substitute variance, right, right.

[Speaker 2] (18:26 - 18:28)
Yeah. We don't have any sort of...

[Speaker 1] (18:28 - 18:30)
Yeah, and we're not in front of you with a variance. Right.

[Speaker 2] (18:30 - 18:34)
Or even to give a special permit that allows a second sign.

[Speaker 1] (18:34 - 18:36)
Right, right, right. We don't have that. We don't have any variance, understood.

[Speaker 2] (18:36 - 18:36)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (18:37 - 19:03)
I think that part of the reason for the... Just backing off the flames for one second. We can get back to those.

Part of the reason for the new sign on the rear, I think part of it is to somewhat take the place of the freestanding sign that's been back there. So that still provides some direction to customers that you can get back from that side. That's part of the reason for the rear sign on the building.

[Speaker 4] (19:11 - 19:26)
Okay. I'm not troubled by it personally, but because it doesn't feel like the rear of the building.

[Speaker 2] (19:27 - 19:36)
That's the same. That's why that doesn't bother me as much because I feel like you could argue that this building doesn't have a true rear of a building, like the way Marshall's has a rear. No one goes behind there.

[Speaker 4] (19:37 - 19:48)
Yeah, which is also kind of an odd... I know we're not in the business of asking why, but who cares if there's a sign on the back of a building? It is what our bylaw says, so...

[Speaker 2] (19:48 - 20:00)
But I think it could be argued that this building doesn't have a true back in the sense that the front is not... The front, although it's on Paradise, you enter from a parking lot that's, I think, to the side.

[Speaker 8] (20:02 - 20:07)
Yeah, because this wall that you can see has their sign facing this way, I believe.

[Speaker 2] (20:16 - 20:29)
Does anybody else on the board want to have an opinion on it? I could be the only one, but that's a problem. People might say that's not a sign, but I...

[Speaker 4] (20:29 - 20:36)
It feels like a sign. The flame thing feels like a sign to me. I like the idea of breaking up that.

Yeah, aesthetically, I like it.

[Speaker 2] (20:36 - 20:53)
I don't have a problem with it. But, I mean, I think I could approve the sign moving. I could get to the back of this...

You know, the sign that's on the back if the additional second logo sign was eliminated.

[Speaker 1] (20:53 - 20:55)
OK, on both the sides, right?

[Speaker 2] (20:55 - 20:58)
On all three sides, yes. It's just on the two, right?

[Speaker 1] (20:58 - 21:48)
I think we could do that. I do have the authority to make that adjustment. And then I think we would discuss internally, possibly coming back to this board, what variants, if that was, you know...

Which we probably wouldn't get. But I do have the authority to... I have a concern with the flames as well.

Because it's a little bit in that grey area, so it's a little bit up to interpretation. Clearly, the building department addressed it differently than this board, but I understand where you're coming from. So we could eliminate the flames on either side of the building.

[Speaker 4] (21:49 - 21:54)
Or you could eliminate the suntan there. I think it's one or the other, right?

[Speaker 2] (21:54 - 21:56)
Right, but they're not going to eliminate this.

[Speaker 1] (21:56 - 22:01)
No, I know. Right, I can eliminate the minor flames, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (22:03 - 22:12)
And then I feel like... I mean, does anybody want this sign to not be illuminated? As far as, like, what is it?

Just reflect on it. I think it's fine.

[Speaker 4] (22:13 - 22:18)
In fact, I think it improves that sunbeam thing, so you're not just staring at a blank wall.

[Speaker 2] (22:19 - 22:39)
Yeah, all the backs and things, and actually getting rid of this stuff on the roof. I mean, it's a nice improvement. Does anybody...

Anybody else have anything to say? Public comment. Public comment.

I guess if you have to check online.

[Speaker 5] (22:39 - 22:46)
Yeah, if there's anyone online who has a public comment, or anyone in the peanut gallery who has a public comment?

[Speaker 6] (22:46 - 23:38)
I may be the peanut gallery. My sense of listing is that the board is favorably predisposed, but feels they don't have the authority to grant the relief that's being sought. Is there a way that you...

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just misreading it. I'm just wondering whether there's a sense of the board to go back to this applicant, whether it makes any sense to seek a variance, because I'm just curious myself, because I think it looks good.

I know that there's some reticence because it's not explicit with regard to relief that needs to be sought, but at the same time, I don't sense that anyone's saying they don't like the way it looks because they've broken up those larger areas with that flame. So I'm just wondering whether the board wishes to, as a sense, give back to the applicant's attorney whether it makes any sense to come back or not.

[Speaker 4] (23:38 - 24:45)
I mean, I can just speak for myself. I mean, there's lots of things, lots of things that we see that look good that we're not able to approve, and it doesn't meet the standard that perhaps would need to be applied in order to grant a variance. I think the board is very reluctant in usual case to grant variances.

I've only been on them four years or six years, and I've been on them for much longer than others, so I've seen one, I think, in my tenure. So whether or not I'm predisposed to, like, liking the image is one thing. Our bylaw is what constricts us, and, you know, we have to follow what the bylaw says, and I don't see a way to harmonize what our bylaw says with what I've seen there.

And, I mean, you know, whether you need it or don't need it, I'm not going to weigh in on that, but like Heather said, I think it's going to look very good without that, and it's going to convey, I think, the messaging that the bank wants it to, but that's not where my decision is.

[Speaker 8] (24:47 - 24:50)
Yeah, but I agree as well on the variance issue. Just possibly if it's smaller?

[Speaker 2] (24:51 - 25:11)
Do you think it would matter? Well, I mean, the one sign is clear, too. There's two things.

There's the one sign and over the 60 feet, so it's kind of breaking two of the restrictions. So as soon as you've got it down to size, it's still a separate sign. And you already have a lot of signage as far as that's directional or that's...

[Speaker 11] (25:11 - 25:14)
So I think if you go any further, it's worth the time.

[Speaker 4] (25:14 - 25:32)
At least from the image, I mean, I hear what you're saying about wanting to break it up, but I don't think it's like an overwhelming mass. In fact, you know, it kind of disappears without any image on that part of the building one way, and it draws the focus to the red Santander sign, I think, but, you know.

[Speaker 2] (25:36 - 25:41)
So does anybody want to make a motion? I don't want to make a motion.

[Speaker 8] (25:42 - 25:45)
I don't want to make it like a change or anything like that.

[Speaker 1] (25:45 - 26:20)
Just a quick, I guess, recap. What's in front of the board is the request for the special permit approval on the freestanding sign in the rear or the sign on the fourth side of the building. I guess you could make the condition that you're trying to figure out how the board's going to conclude the elimination of the flames on the sides as part of that approval.

I just want to make sure we do that right procedurally.

[Speaker 2] (26:20 - 26:26)
Well, I mean, the way it's written, it's the additional exterior signage on the building that's also before us.

[Speaker 1] (26:26 - 26:26)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (26:27 - 26:28)
Yeah. It's not just the sign.

[Speaker 1] (26:28 - 26:46)
Okay. Even though that was... Okay.

It's all before us. You include that, and even though it was approved by the building permit, but then these two issues came back. But if the board wants to take it that way, I think that's probably the catch-all.

[Speaker 2] (26:48 - 27:06)
Marissa, do you have anything to... Do you agree that it's all before us? Yeah.

All right. So... Can I make a motion for you?

[Speaker 12] (27:07 - 27:07)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (27:07 - 27:43)
So the motion is to approve petition 2302 for Santa Ana Bank for a request to sign special permit for the relocation of a pre-existing free-standing sign as shown in the plans, as well as installation of additional exterior signage on the building, with the exception that they will not do the flames on the gray portion. So all other signage is approved with that exception. Do I have a second?

[Speaker 11] (27:43 - 27:45)
Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 12] (27:47 - 27:47)
Aye.

[Speaker 11] (27:47 - 27:48)
We have five now.

[Speaker 12] (27:49 - 27:50)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (27:50 - 27:50)
Aye.

[Speaker 12] (27:52 - 27:53)
Great. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (27:54 - 27:58)
Thank you. All right.

[Speaker 15] (28:17 - 28:18)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (28:18 - 28:19)
The decision?

[Speaker 15] (28:19 - 28:19)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (28:19 - 28:20)
Yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 12] (28:20 - 28:20)
Brilliant.

[Speaker 1] (28:20 - 28:21)
Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (28:27 - 28:37)
Last petition of the evening. And then we have...

[Speaker 2] (28:37 - 28:56)
Mr. Hamilton is online. Okay. So we're going to open petition 2303.

Tim Hamilton. Request for new special permit for construction of a separate apartment in a third-floor attic space. The property's at 29 Andrew Road.

And is that Tim that's online?

[Speaker 5] (28:56 - 28:59)
Yes. Tim, can you hear us?

[Speaker 10] (29:00 - 29:02)
I can hear you, yeah.

[Speaker 5] (29:02 - 29:02)
Awesome.

[Speaker 2] (29:03 - 29:05)
Is there a building inspector online as well?

[Speaker 5] (29:05 - 29:30)
He is not. But he did, we looked at the plans together, and he had no issues. His only question, Tim, was if you could just, looking at the drawing.

So accessory dwelling units are allowed a maximum of two bedrooms. So if you could just go through, walk us through the rooms and call them out because they're not labeled. So we just want to make sure that there are no more than two bedrooms.

[Speaker 3] (29:33 - 29:34)
Yeah, no, there's two bedrooms.

[Speaker 5] (29:35 - 29:36)
I'm sorry?

[Speaker 10] (29:38 - 29:39)
Yeah, there's two bedrooms.

[Speaker 2] (29:40 - 29:51)
Two bedrooms. Which are the bedrooms? Which rooms?

We can't, the problem with this plan for me was that I really couldn't tell what was going on. So I can't tell, yeah, where the bedrooms are, where the kitchen is, and where the stairs.

[Speaker 3] (29:53 - 31:16)
Don't forget about the stairs. When you come up the stairs, all the way to the right is one bedroom. And then when you go through the middle of the apartment, which is the living area, then there's the kitchen area, and then to the right of that is, it's not really a bedroom, but I'm going to have them put a closet in there so that it's actually considered a second bedroom.

Right now, it was my virtual office for working from home. It's not an attic. It's an actual third floor.

I have a three-floor Victorian on Andrew Road and the whole third floor. I think the people that were here years ago had it be maybe like an in-law apartment, but I don't think it was legally an in-law apartment. So it's kind of had a kitchen up there already.

I tried to have the plan where you could kind of see, you see the bedroom to the right, then you go through the living area, and then you have the kitchen area. And then again, to the right of that is the office, but that's going to turn into a bedroom, you don't have to have the closet.

[Speaker 2] (31:19 - 31:27)
So the room that's labeled with the two windows that's like 11 by 14, what is that room? All the way to the left.

[Speaker 10] (31:27 - 31:32)
All the way to the left is that's probably the office.

[Speaker 2] (31:32 - 31:34)
So that's the office that will become a bedroom?

[Speaker 10] (31:35 - 31:36)
Hang on a second, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3] (31:37 - 31:53)
So looking at it, if you're looking at it and you're looking to the left, that would be the actual bedroom that is there now that actually has two closets and it has two windows.

[Speaker 2] (31:56 - 31:58)
Okay, so that's bedroom one.

[Speaker 3] (31:59 - 32:00)
Is it showing two windows?

[Speaker 2] (32:00 - 32:01)
Yep, yep.

[Speaker 3] (32:03 - 32:03)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (32:04 - 32:05)
There's a middle space.

[Speaker 3] (32:05 - 32:08)
I'm trying to find the drawing myself. I didn't have it on me.

[Speaker 5] (32:09 - 32:11)
Tim, can you not see the screen share?

[Speaker 3] (32:16 - 32:19)
No, let me see here. I'm on my phone.

[Speaker 5] (32:19 - 32:19)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 3] (32:20 - 33:07)
Let me just see here. If I go to... So I know I emailed it to you, Marissa, right?

Yep. Okay, so just see here. Marissa.

Okay, I'm looking for the attachment here. Okay. So when you're looking at it, you should be looking at the bedroom to the left.

Okay, so yeah. So we're just kind of... I can't share it, but...

You can see it.

[Speaker 5] (33:08 - 33:09)
It's on the screen for the board.

[Speaker 3] (33:09 - 33:37)
The board can see it. Yeah, so basically where you see to the left and it says first stairs, okay, so those are the stairs that come up from the second floor and is the second egress, and that's kind of like a little mini hallway there. And to the right of it, so I guess it would be when you're looking at the picture, all the way to the left, you see where it says window, window, and it says it's 11 by 14?

[Speaker 12] (33:39 - 33:39)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (33:41 - 34:39)
Okay, that is the main bedroom. That's a real bedroom right now, and if you take those arrows, so at the end of each of those arrows to basically those, there's closets on each side of that. So that is a bedroom, and then the reason why when you go towards the area where it's 11 by 18 that has the one window and then it shows the bathroom like kind of a U-shape because the bathroom is kind of cut from dormer, from basically the roof.

So it's a very, very, very small bathroom, but what Zalek Design, who's doing my gazebo, that you guys approved about three months ago, which he's in the middle of a work now, he's going to be doing, he's going to be doing, I'm sorry?

[Speaker 5] (34:39 - 34:42)
That was the historic district commission that approved that, not the zoning board.

[Speaker 3] (34:43 - 35:17)
Yeah, so he'll be doing the third floor, and then what you're looking at because it's not, when you see it's not connected from the bathroom to the hallway or it's kind of open, that's because he's going to open up that wall a little bit, and then when you go past the 11 through 18 room, which again is the living room, the room that is, I think it's bigger, the room that is, I think it's nine feet by 15?

[Speaker 5] (35:18 - 35:18)
Yep.

[Speaker 3] (35:19 - 35:40)
And it has one window, that's the kitchen area. So that would be the kitchen area, and then the room that you see that's like nine feet three by 12 with the one window there, again, that's the office, but that's going to be converted. Well, I mean, it's going to be a bedroom just because he's going to put a little closet in the corner.

[Speaker 2] (35:40 - 35:41)
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 5] (35:42 - 35:49)
That's clear. And then you have the second means of egress that I'm assuming is a higher exit.

[Speaker 3] (35:50 - 36:29)
Yeah, that's actually a private entrance. I guess years ago this house was almost like a horse farm. That's why I have like a carriage house where they used to have like the egg and all that.

But I guess many, many years ago, like 1905, I guess he had outwards with the house, you know, people that kind of, I guess, almost like this higher health or whatever it was, it was a private entrance that went up to the third floor. So that's what that second staircase represents. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (36:38 - 36:54)
So you will be living in the main house, correct? Yes. Yep.

And then the other question that I've asked about accessory apartments is the parking. How many parking spaces do you have?

[Speaker 3] (36:55 - 37:19)
Oh God. I have a huge, huge, huge driveway. I actually just got it all repaved so that I could do the, the historical gazebo and everything in the front.

Cause I'm bringing the porch back to 1905. You probably could put one, two, three, four, five, I would say maybe six cars. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (37:20 - 37:33)
That's great. Does anybody from the board have any questions? Any questions?

[Speaker 9] (37:35 - 37:37)
I'm not a question to statement.

[Speaker 2] (37:37 - 37:39)
Okay. Just say your name and address.

[Speaker 9] (37:39 - 38:11)
Ralph soup. Pay 36 Andrew road right across the street from this. Hey, Jim.

I'm supportive of what Tim's doing. I've been around the street for a long time. I remember him, them having some relatives and things up top there.

There's certainly plenty of parking. That's not an issue. Tim's driveway is very big and there's lots of area.

He's also going to be yard there. So we don't see that. My wife and I don't see that as an issue.

It's as big or bigger than most families in our lives.

[Speaker 4] (38:12 - 38:16)
Thank you. Is the bathroom on the third floor? Is that a full bathroom?

[Speaker 3] (38:18 - 38:35)
Yeah, it has, it definitely has a full job shower. I mean, you definitely can't be a six too. So I can't certainly use it that well, but I just, I don't think I can have someone tall rent this apartment.

[Speaker 2] (38:40 - 38:50)
So that actually brings up another question. When asking for an accessory apartment that you, that's for not as a two family rental property.

[Speaker 10] (38:53 - 38:55)
No, it's not a two family.

[Speaker 4] (38:55 - 38:59)
No. Are you looking to rent the apartment out? Is that the plan?

[Speaker 3] (39:01 - 39:09)
Yeah. Yeah. I would, I would like to eventually when it's all finished, I would like to have it as a, as an accessory department.

Yes.

[Speaker 4] (39:10 - 39:11)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (39:11 - 39:23)
So that's not, yeah, so that's not allowed. An accessory apartment is not allowed to be rented out as a, hopefully that will change at town meeting, but cause technically the zoning board really can't.

[Speaker 5] (39:24 - 39:34)
Yeah. Regulate. What's that?

Technically like the regulation of like rentals shouldn't be under the jurisdiction of the zoning board, but it is in this bylaw as it exists right now.

[Speaker 3] (39:34 - 40:13)
So it's something that you have to enforce, but hopefully when I went to the, I forgot the name of the building inspector a couple of years ago who, who came up and looked at these great footage and saw the second address and, and, you know, said I shouldn't have a problem with it. And the day that I was there, there was a woman that was saying that she was approved for an accessory apartment and you know, in law apartment and she rented it out and she had to go through this same process and everything. So I don't understand why mine would not be approved.

[Speaker 2] (40:14 - 41:19)
So it's not that, I mean, everything is fine with with adding an accessory apartment to your home. The problem is that the use for an accessory apartment is not to turn your house into a two family. It's to house family members or and it's, and it's something that then becomes registered with the building inspector and it's inspected yearly as, as to ensure that it's still, the use is still in compliance.

This is how the zoning bylaw is currently written. Like Marissa said, there are some changes coming down the line to how accessory apartments or there could be changes as to how accessory apartments are viewed, whether or not they're viewed as separate units, but right now they are not. And it's, it's very clear the inclusion of an AA with a single family dwelling does not create a two family dwelling.

It's not to turn your house into a two family. It's to house a relative or a caretaker. Yeah, something like that.

So that is an issue. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (41:19 - 41:29)
So when I, when I read about the accessory apartment, it did say that you could have someone who's not a, a relative rented.

[Speaker 5] (41:29 - 41:46)
So that's, that's something that that's a change that we're bringing to town meeting next month. And provided we get a vote, a majority vote on it, a simple one for that matter that, you know, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to turn this into a two family.

[Speaker 3] (41:46 - 41:51)
I mean, I know, I know it's not deeded or ever will be deeded as a two family.

[Speaker 5] (41:52 - 42:17)
Right. Accessory apartments will always remain accessory in nature. They'll never be considered to family.

They'll never, you know, change the status of the dwelling from a single to a two family. And it's just that the way that the bylaws currently written right now, it technique, it regulates who can occupy that space, even though I shouldn't, but, but again, that's something that will hopefully change in the next month or so. Hopefully provided.

[Speaker 2] (42:18 - 42:39)
So, I mean, I, I guess the, I don't know how everybody else feels, but like you've stated, your intention is to rent it out. We would only be able to approve this with that. And you'd have to, we wouldn't even have to put a restriction on it because it's written in the bylaw, what an accessory apartment is, and you can't just rent it out.

[Speaker 7] (42:39 - 43:10)
I think we have been specific on the restriction. And I know when I written this up, I've been specific about it, about, including, about what it could be for. But usually when these come before us, I think this is the only time.

And usually it's for someone specific, right? It's my, you know, mother-in-law or my adult child. Yeah.

We, this is the first time I can recall. We just had, we just, just want to create another apartment. Yeah.

Great. Another space that we can rent out. I know this board has been clear.

I know, you know, this board has not been asking me anything.

[Speaker 10] (43:12 - 43:13)
It's been expressed concern.

[Speaker 7] (43:13 - 43:15)
Hang on, hang on.

[Speaker 2] (43:18 - 43:19)
Hang on.

[Speaker 7] (43:19 - 43:46)
Hang on, I'm speaking. So I know that it's been expressed by this board that, you know, if we, if we allow that, and I don't know what was before, what's before town meeting, whether that's going to be a good thing or not, but I know there was concern by, by members of this board that, that if it's still a, just wide open and you can just rent some part of your house out and create accessory apartments. Everybody's going to do that.

Is that a desirable thing for the town? I don't know.

[Speaker 4] (43:47 - 44:07)
That's the town meeting, I guess you could say. But you're right, Dan. The intent and purpose of what we are, you know, looking at tonight specifically says, among the other things, to provide housing options for extended family.

And that's how we've always interpreted this. We've always interpreted it that way, yeah. Do we even know, what's the total square footage of that?

[Speaker 5] (44:07 - 44:08)
695.

[Speaker 10] (44:09 - 44:11)
It's a little bit under 700 square feet.

[Speaker 4] (44:15 - 44:20)
And did you say there is a kitchen up there?

[Speaker 11] (44:21 - 44:21)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (44:28 - 45:02)
And the plans are not adequate, in my opinion. There's no photographs. There's a handwritten plan.

I think we should take these accessory apartments a little bit more seriously and hold the applicants to a higher standard of what kind of material they're going to put before us for these. I mean, I just don't think that is an adequate plan. There's no photographs.

They're not professionally done. But I just don't think there's enough information for me to vote on that.

[Speaker 3] (45:03 - 45:14)
But it's also inside, it's inside the house. I mean, I thought everything was supposed to be about what it looks like from the outside. I mean, it's inside my actual house.

[Speaker 4] (45:14 - 45:39)
But even inside your house, if I look at this drawing, and I start to add, is your house a rectangle? Yeah, I guess, yeah. So how is it that on the left side it looks like it's a 14-foot dimension from the front to back, and on the right side it looks like it's an 18-foot dimension?

Right? 9 by 9.

[Speaker 3] (45:40 - 46:00)
Well, there's a small little attic behind that first bedroom to the left. There's a door that you have like an attic back there that I never use. But I mean, I took the measurements, and these are accurate measurements.

[Speaker 4] (46:00 - 46:18)
Yeah, so I can tell you, I don't feel like it, I don't think we, if we apply the bylaw, I don't see how we can approve it if it doesn't fit within the intent and the purpose of what this provision is designed to do.

[Speaker 3] (46:18 - 46:27)
So does it have to be a relative? Could it be a good friend? Yeah.

Who is going to, of the family?

[Speaker 2] (46:28 - 46:34)
It says extended family, and it is not our job to determine what makes a family.

[Speaker 4] (46:35 - 47:50)
Fair. But it's also, if you think about the policy behind this, this was designed, I believe, to create an exception so that people could have more flexibility with respect to their living arrangements when the parents maybe needed to move back in or if there was a special needs, we did one over on, was it Dale Road, or was it Stanley Street, over in that area where there was, I believe, a special needs adult child who wanted to move back home and so they created an accessory apartment. That's what I think this provision was intended to accomplish and accommodate.

I don't think it was intended to accomplish and accommodate. Maybe the new one will, you know, creating a separate apartment in your existing house that you would be able to rent out. So, unfortunately, that's the reading of the bylaw that I come to.

And I also agree with Dan. I think this plan, I don't want to set a precedent that people can write up back-of-the-napkin plans and that that's what we are bound to then make a decision on.

[Speaker 5] (47:53 - 47:59)
I will say that in my tenure, the plan that I see for an accessory apartment for the board to all be moved on.

[Speaker 8] (48:03 - 48:06)
So, I've never seen... Yeah, we agreed on the basement.

[Speaker 4] (48:06 - 48:07)
The basement one.

[Speaker 2] (48:08 - 48:15)
I remember, that's the only one I remember being hand-drawn and that was a little bit, that was definitely more clear than this. I mean, I do agree that this is...

[Speaker 7] (48:15 - 48:17)
This is the worst hand-drawn one I've seen.

[Speaker 2] (48:18 - 48:18)
Yeah.

[Speaker 7] (48:18 - 48:22)
Yeah, they had another hand-drawn, but, you know, it was different quality hand-drawn.

[Speaker 2] (48:23 - 48:27)
You know, it's nice to have a total of the...

[Speaker 4] (48:31 - 48:36)
So, would the applicant have an opportunity to withdraw until this town meeting?

[Speaker 2] (48:36 - 48:38)
I mean, that might be the best...

[Speaker 4] (48:40 - 48:49)
Could we continue this? Just ask for continuing to see it? Well, if the by-law changes, then we need to reconsider.

[Speaker 5] (48:49 - 48:58)
If it's approved at town meeting, it would become a by-right process and it would not come before the zoning board. It would not come before the zoning board. It would just be applied for a building permit.

[Speaker 4] (48:59 - 49:01)
And so you wouldn't have to re-notice.

[Speaker 6] (49:02 - 49:16)
I just... You know, I just had a couple of quick questions. I always thought that, under our rules and regulations, it had to be done by a certified, either architect or...

Because otherwise, you know, it's open to interpretation of what the script is.

[Speaker 2] (49:17 - 49:19)
That's my concern, as well, that we don't have...

[Speaker 6] (49:19 - 49:44)
It allows for a self-fulfilling number to be placed there without... Thank you, Mr. Schultz. I totally agree with that.

It's only because I thought that was the rules. Because I... The only other question we had...

What zoning district is this in? A2. So there is no leverage here in the third unit in that district?

The second unit? Right.

[Speaker 11] (49:46 - 49:47)
Single-family zoning.

[Speaker 2] (49:51 - 51:15)
So I guess that gives you some options. The option number one would be to have a vote, which it doesn't seem like you're going to get the result you want. The other option would be to withdraw without prejudice and wait for town meeting to happen and hope that the new zoning by-law passes and you can move out to the right and then you would not come back to this board.

And then I guess a third option would be to continue and come back with a more detailed plan that... And I understand that this is existing space, but something where it's a little easier to calculate the square footage and come back with that. The only issue you're going to have is that it would be something that you would be building for extended family.

And if the zoning by-law changes in time, in years, if it fails to pass at this upcoming town meeting but passes in the future, you have the space that you've delineated for family, but then it could eventually have something changed in the future. But I would say those are your three options. I can say what I would do or what I would recommend doing, which would be I would recommend withdraw and see how town meeting goes.

[Speaker 3] (51:16 - 52:35)
So when I read about the ADU units and this is right from the town of Swanstock that were basically saying the reason why I was looking at doing this also because it was talking in the midst of an ongoing housing crisis especially in Swanstock where you don't have really too much liftings you're talking about they're looking to expand the ADU by-law which allows homeowners the option of creating internal ADUs and attached ADUs with no special permit required from the Zoning Board of Appeals only a building permit would be necessary and additionally they hope to establish a by-law that permits the use of detached ADUs following the granting of a special permit to the homeowner by the Zoning Board of Appeals that's kind of what you guys are saying is coming in the next couple months is that what that's going to be about?

[Speaker 5] (52:37 - 54:09)
May 16 so everything you said is correct that's the language that we are bringing to town meeting it's actually being debated before the select board tonight so to seek approval for the town meeting warrant so that's the language that's going to be brought to town meeting the by-law as it's written right now titles these accessory apartments we're looking to change that definition to title them accessory dwelling units we'll be adopting the state statutory definition of accessory dwelling units and we'll be extending the by-law to like you said allow the process to be by rights so it will be outside the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals we will be allowing them in detached pre-existing detached structures and we would not limit we would not specify who the occupants of that space may be so it could be it could in theory be used as a rental unit but the zoning board is charged with hearing the application as it pertains to the currently written by-law so like Heather was saying your best option probably if you want to be able to use this as a rental unit is to wait for town meeting which is going to be in about 6 weeks and hope that we get a vote if you're a town meeting member then that's something that you could vote for but and then it will become a by-right process

[Speaker 2] (54:11 - 54:21)
real quick what Brad just said was it actually might be better for you rather than withdraw you can continue and then if everything changes then withdraw which would be the better option okay

[Speaker 3] (54:21 - 55:24)
but look basically my plans were for the first couple years to have an extended family member up there but eventually yeah I wanted to rent it out as an apartment are you saying that I'm not approved for the extended family member you know for that unit I mean I had you know I had Zalek design that was gonna basically do a little bit of renovating up there for me so I mean just because of the way I drew this out and some of the people out here just don't agree with the measurements and things I have you know it's under 700 square feet am I not approved to have an extended family member use it

[Speaker 4] (55:25 - 57:23)
well you have said I would say a couple things number one I think that would be a fair question to ask after town meeting if the town meeting does not pass the new proposed by-law then I think that's a fair question that you would ask at the next hearing if there is one I heard you know I think we asked some questions tonight and what I heard and you said again was that your ultimate intention for the space is to rent it out the first I heard you mention anything about an extended family member was you know about a minute ago so I don't again I don't know how I feel about that I think I would want to hear more presentation on exactly what your intended uses are but again I don't think we even have to get to that this is wild good luck for you that there happens to be a town meeting about a month from now which very well might result in you getting exactly what you want with respect to this and not having to do anything further with this board now if you want again you know if you want to press forward tonight with a vote you're entitled to do that I think that would be from what I've heard it would be a poor choice because you would lose that and your options there I think would be to then have to appeal through the courts so you know again all we're doing is applying the bylaw that's written that's all we can do but that bylaw very well might change in a matter of weeks and I think that would be a great thing for you and for your project and for your intentions with respect to your home right that would be great yeah

[Speaker 3] (57:25 - 57:29)
I agree with that I'll delay it and we'll see what happens

[Speaker 2] (57:29 - 57:37)
so we're going to make a motion to continue does anybody else do we have anybody online who would like to comment on this

[Speaker 5] (57:37 - 57:52)
if there's anyone online in the room who would like to make a public comment ask a question raise your hand digitally or in person okay so we're gonna

[Speaker 4] (57:53 - 57:56)
we're going to have to continue past May 9th

[Speaker 5] (57:56 - 57:58)
because it probably makes sense to continue it straight to the June meeting

[Speaker 2] (57:58 - 58:24)
yeah so we'll continue to the June meeting because the May 9th meeting would be before it would make no sense for you because that would be before town meeting town meeting is on the 16th correct so we will move to continue I have the June date set at the 20th so we'll continue petition 2225 to June 20th I have a second I'll second

[Speaker 6] (58:26 - 58:44)
I just have one quick question is the zoning bylaw going to affect on the evening of the vote or is it after the Attorney General's office approves the zoning bylaw I think it may be the night of the hearing but I'm not sure I also don't know the answer

[Speaker 5] (58:44 - 59:02)
to that do you know Marcia it's my understanding that we have to wait for official approval from the AG's office but then the date of effect is retroactively postmarked to the date of the town meeting so it could take another few weeks to get that AG approval

[Speaker 12] (59:02 - 59:03)
is that where we're going

[Speaker 5] (59:05 - 59:06)
post town meeting

[Speaker 2] (59:06 - 59:14)
alright so you have been continued to the June meeting and obviously if something happens between now and then you can withdraw the prejudice

[Speaker 15] (59:15 - 59:16)
June 20th is that okay

[Speaker 2] (59:16 - 59:24)
yes thank you and motion to adjourn oh wait we have some

[Speaker 5] (59:24 - 59:49)
I just wanted to introduce the board we have Susan Sinrich here tonight she's a local realtor at Jack Conway and she has expressed interest in joining the board so I don't know if the board has any questions for Susan if Susan wants to introduce herself to the board so I believe I sent you all her resume and her application of interest so it's nice to meet you guys thanks for coming

[Speaker 9] (59:49 - 59:51)
the question is does she still want to do it

[Speaker 2] (59:55 - 1:00:01)
I know it's an hour it's always just an hour it never goes over

[Speaker 6] (1:00:01 - 1:00:10)
is there a vote on the continuous request and has the applicant filed a signing

[Speaker 5] (1:00:10 - 1:00:13)
yes Mr. Cipolletta signed it this afternoon

[Speaker 6] (1:00:13 - 1:00:26)
and last but not least is there a time frame for which this documentation which you promised will be provided to the board and ultimately to myself so we can then review it prior to the next meeting

[Speaker 5] (1:00:27 - 1:00:41)
the last I heard from him this afternoon when he sent the continuance was that he received the supplemental material and that he would get it to you today that didn't happen he said he would do it when he got back to the office maybe he got caught up in something so I'm hoping to get it by the end of the week

[Speaker 6] (1:00:41 - 1:00:42)
okay

[Speaker 5] (1:00:43 - 1:00:44)
so in due time

[Speaker 6] (1:00:44 - 1:00:48)
I just didn't want a 3-1 therapy of course

[Speaker 5] (1:00:50 - 1:01:07)
and so then with respect to Susan I think the next step would just be to have her attend a select board meeting because it's an appointed position does anyone have any questions for me and grill her grill it's not like I've heard you

[Speaker 12] (1:01:07 - 1:01:10)
are you crazy laughing

[Speaker 11] (1:01:12 - 1:01:15)
it's been a long time laughing

[Speaker 2] (1:01:15 - 1:01:18)
alright thank you

[Speaker 12] (1:01:19 - 1:01:20)
absolutely I'm excited

[Speaker 2] (1:01:21 - 1:01:25)
move to adjourn second yes

[Speaker 14] (1:01:25 - 1:01:28)
thanks everyone