[Speaker 3] (1:48 - 2:16)
Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to Order. We have the first item on our agenda is to approve the minutes from last meeting. All in favor?

Aye. Excellent. All right, do we have to wait five minutes before we open?

[Speaker 11] (2:16 - 2:22)
Yeah, we do. But I think, is tweeting to come pre-advertised for 7 o'clock?

[Speaker 8] (2:23 - 2:25)
I don't have the agenda. I don't have the agenda.

[Speaker 1] (2:30 - 2:31)
You're 7-10.

[Speaker 3] (2:32 - 2:33)
Yeah, you're 7-10.

[Speaker 6] (2:37 - 2:59)
Well, if you want to continue, 2225 and, that's 53 Pierce Road, and 29 Essex Street, 2306. Can you guys see it on the screen yet for me?

[Speaker 3] (2:59 - 3:09)
Yep. Okay, great. So, we will continue both of those?

Is that what we're doing?

[Speaker 6] (3:10 - 3:41)
Yes. So, petition number, item number 2, petition 2303, that was a petitioner to see if he would be interested in receiving a withdrawal because he was petitioning them for negating accessory dwelling units that are not called our, as of right now, so it's no longer under jurisdiction of the EPA, or the use is no longer under jurisdiction of the EPA, so I guess until he would, you know, sign the withdrawal form, we'll continue.

[Speaker 3] (3:41 - 4:02)
We continue it? Yeah. Okay.

So, do I just make a motion to continue petition 2303? Yeah. So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. And then we'll also continue petition 230, oh, wait, 230, 2306 and 2225.

[Speaker 6] (4:03 - 4:08)
I have two signed continuances on record from Attorney Drukis and Attorney Ciccoletta.

[Speaker 3] (4:08 - 4:24)
Okay. All right, so, so moved to continue petition 2306? Second.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. And 2225? Second.

Aye. Aye. Excellent.

[Speaker 6] (4:25 - 4:30)
And then I think we can call 2304, and Mr. Schutzer, I think, will be able to speak to that one as well.

[Speaker 3] (4:30 - 4:47)
Okay. Yes, so we can call 2304, which is the Humphrey Street to, special permit to install an outdoor cooler unit at 286 Humphrey Street, and Mr. Schutzer, do you, would you like to withdraw?

[Speaker 1] (4:48 - 5:23)
Yes, I do. Mr. Injimi is going to withdraw the petition. I would request to be permitted to withdraw it without prejudice due to the time constraints in wanting to get the restaurant open.

The, all of the refrigeration units that we had addressed to be outside will be put in the basement. They were before the planning board yesterday with regard to the area that would have been utilized for that, for the tables and the lights and whatnot. So, at this juncture, we'll be asking leave to withdraw without prejudice.

[Speaker 3] (5:24 - 5:29)
Okay. So, move to withdraw petition, what number was that one?

[Speaker 1] (5:29 - 5:30)
It was 2304.

[Speaker 3] (5:30 - 5:36)
2304. I'll second it. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Okay. I've got three minutes.

[Speaker 6] (5:39 - 5:46)
Yeah, so, quick little beginning of the meeting recess for three minutes before we call 2305.

[Speaker 3] (5:59 - 8:06)
You can go watch your short film if you want. Just checking. Petition 2305, which is to build a home at Zero Lodge Road.

[Speaker 1] (8:09 - 8:55)
Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Attorney Kenneth Schutzer with offices at 152 Linway in Lynn, Mass. I'm here this evening with my clients, Ilya and Gene.

Ilya and Gene both live in Swampscott. Ilya is an MIT graduate. He graduated from their business school.

Gene is his brother-in-law and they work together and they've worked together for eight years. You may know them because they were before your board on the Blaney Street Project when they were converting, what was it, the rectory buildings? Convent.

Convent. And that's going on as we speak now. They've been in the renovation in the residential home building business now for how many years?

[Speaker 7] (8:55 - 8:56)
Nine.

[Speaker 1] (8:56 - 10:16)
Nine years. I was not their attorney last time they appeared before the board. It was Attorney Paul Lynch.

I am here because of an issue that arose, made it virtually impossible for Mr. Lynch to continue representing them. I'm going to give you a little bit of background if you'll indulge me. Back in, I think it was November of 2022, a petition was put in, it's not the petition you're looking at now, to put a two-family on that lot.

Prior to doing that, though, their counsel, when they purchased the property for a little over a quarter million dollars, engaged the services of Attorney Lynch to do a title opinion on the property in order for them to procure the necessary title insurance to purchase it, which was done. And in the process of doing so, Mr. Lynch provided the then building inspector, Richard Baldacci, with documents that were requested and I think as a result of that, and I'm going to be providing you with some information, Richard Baldacci then sent a letter back to Mr. Lynch and then to the counsel that the lot, in fact, was a buildable lot, and then they went and they purchased it. One of the issues that is...

[Speaker 8] (10:16 - 10:18)
People are having trouble hearing.

[Speaker 3] (10:19 - 10:21)
Can you hold your microphone closer?

[Speaker 1] (10:21 - 10:22)
Oh, sure.

[Speaker 3] (10:23 - 10:23)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (10:25 - 24:22)
Would you like me to repeat any of what was said? No, I think you're fine. All right.

Thank you. One of the issues that came up on that opinion, that title opinion, was the issue of the zoning map that was in effect at the time. Sort of now dialing back just a little bit, this lot was subdivided, and as a matter of fact, I think the Grasso's at 8 Lodge are living in slot A, the lot in question is lot B, and it was a much larger lot and it was subdivided in 1949.

Now, it was subdivided prior to the institution of the subdivision controller, which came into effect in 1952, so in theory, this subdivision would have been an approved subdivision, which would have then allowed the existing lot, which had the house on it, to continue to have its existence as a buildable lot. Unfortunately, if we look at it from a distance now, we realize that what was created theoretically would have been two non-conforming lots, and it wouldn't have been a pre-existing non-conforming lot, because in theory, the bylaw, which was in existence in 1948, said the following. It said that in, and there was a Warren article, and I'll be providing that as well, the Warren article in 1948 said the following.

It said, if the lots are either by plan and of record, or by deed of record, or separately assessed, then there would be no merger. And that was consistent, the nature of that Warren article that was adopted in September of 1948. The subdivision wasn't until 1949, and part of the problem that existed, and I think it may have been some of the conflict that may have occurred when Attorney Lynch was trying to provide that title opinion, was that he was relying on a zoning map that he obtained, which was dated March the 1st, 1948, which from the plan that he submitted, which was part of the original package, showed that that lot had been subdivided. In theory, it had been subdivided prior to the 1948 Warren article, which it would have been.

It would have been separately assessed, and we wouldn't be here. It was brought to our attention, and it was brought to the attention of this board through the assistance, I believe, of Attorney Dementor, who was assisting Mr. Longfellow, who had written a request that the board not take favorable action, which I believe was included in the prior package. I have it.

I'm sure his feelings may or may not have changed, but at the time, with the two family that was being suggested, he was in opposition. I have his letter, and I'll read the portions of the letter that I think are germane, and obviously he can respond to it as well. Now, we find ourselves in a situation where what would have been the criteria that one would have looked at when one was writing this title opinion?

The first was the map that I referred to. I believe that part of the problem was that it was dated March the 1st, but it had been revised multiple times, and what was submitted, and the revisions that were submitted on that plan that was revised, at least in the copy that I had, was so small, I didn't notice it until it was brought to my attention, and potentially, and I can't speak for Mr. Lynch, he most likely didn't see it when he submitted the application and submitted the memorandum, which indicated that, in fact, the lot had been subdivided earlier, and therefore, comported with, and therefore, was controlled by the 1948 zoning article that was in effect, and made that other lot, Lot B, the one that is a zero lodge road, a buildable lot. I don't think that's true. I think that there was an error.

I would concur with the opinion of Attorney Demento and the opinion of the abutter, Mr. Longfellow, who was the one who brought that to the board's attention back in November of 2022, but part of the problem was, and these are some of the unknowns, is that when you then went to the assessor's office to try to confirm or dispel these issues, those records don't exist in a form that I'm advised that is the basis of drawing a correct inference, whether correct or not, because those records are not accurate, and that's what I've been advised. I don't know, but in this package, you will see that it goes back to 1910, and I can't confirm or deny that it's valuable, but in 1910, it reflects a lot of .15 acres, which is exactly the size, if you convert that into feet, it's exactly the square footage of the lot, Lot B, in question, so you could look at that and draw that conclusion, but I'm advised that you can't even rely on that, so what else can you rely on?

Well, then you go back to the 1949 decision of the planning board when they permitted the subdivision of this lot into Lot A and Lot B. The easiest thing to do would be to look at their minutes to determine what their thinking was, because that's the one unknown for which it's virtually impossible to make any kind of conclusion that makes sense, because clearly one would not take a buildable lot and create two non-buildable lots, have it approved, this is before the subdivision control law, so therefore the planning board had that authority, and create two non-conforming lots, and they signed off on it. Now, one would have been able to have read their minutes to determine the legitimacy or the efficacy or their thinking process when they did this, but if you think about it logically, what may have occurred as a result of that, because Lot A, that's the grasshopper lot, has been sold multiple times, there have been multiple mortgages on that lot, and obviously those title examiners and those title insurance companies and those lenders should have seen the same information that we have, but they couldn't have interpreted it that way, because had they, they would have determined that they were insuring and they were giving a loan and collateralizing a non-buildable lot, because at the time it was created by that subdivision, it made it non-buildable. You couldn't tear it down today because it's been in existence, the building permits are there, but it's no longer a buildable lot. So how could we have done this?

What would have happened in 1949 that would have explained it? I don't have an answer for you. And the best we could do is we had a records request that was made, and this was done by Mr. Lynch, of the town clerk, and the town clerk reported back that all of those records have been destroyed. We have no records. We have no old assessor's records, we have no old planning board records. We can't give you an answer, and therefore it's left to your imagination.

That's the problem. Now, as a result of where we are now, I would unfortunately agree that we have a difficult hurdle, because we have a large lot, and by large I mean in terms of looking at the lots on Muriel, or the lots on Lodge, or the lots that surround it. It's one of the larger lots.

We also heard from, and I reviewed some of the information that occurred in November, we heard that the projection of what was anticipated to be built as a two-family was problematic. There are two families there in that neighborhood, but the overriding concern was that the house was too big, and we wanted something smaller. So what we did, or what was done before I became involved, is we looked at the letter, it was called Opposition to Petition for Variance, which was penned by Mr. Longfellow, and then signed off by Mr. and Mrs. Grasso of 8 Lodge, which is the other lot, Mr. Savino, Erica and Monica Lindquist, Longfellow, and Michael Walsh. I don't know who else might be here this evening. But the upshot of that letter, and I'm picking out the sections that I think are relevant, at least to our hearing, and it says, to be clear, we are not opposed to a reasonable structure on this presently unbuildable piece of land. Well, the two parts of that that need to be addressed is the fact that they suggest that they're not opposed to a reasonable structure.

I assume by reasonable they're referring to a single family, and one that is more likely to be commensurate in size with the other homes. But the other part of it is that it's an unbuildable piece of land, and that, I would indicate, is uncontroverted. There is this problem.

Now, what can be done? Well, there clearly is a mechanism to address this. And in there lies the chore that I'm asking this board to work with me, work with Ilya and Gene, to try to resolve.

Because otherwise, what we have is 6,543, whatever it is, square feet parcel of land, which has been vacant now for 75 years since it was subdivided in 1949, approximately 75 years, when housing is in demand, when property is at a premium, and there aren't any other than these orphan lots that are floating around. And the reason I bring that to your attention is because I'll be seeking and asking this board, as the application so suggests, a variance. Now, a variance is something that the board not necessarily is low to grant, but there are criteria that make it more difficult in order to provide the necessary indicia for the board to act favorably.

And to that end, one of the issues that are raised by way of the variance are really broken into a number of categories, and I'm going to go through them with you. The first is one that we're all familiar with, that it has to be owing to certain circumstances, either with the shape, the topography, or the soil conditions. For whatever reason, those are the magic words.

So I'm going to address that in just a moment, but the other ones are a little easier to address. It says, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. We're talking about one parcel, not the zoning district in which it's located, because it's not going to have any impact whatsoever on the zoning district.

The zoning district doesn't have other unbuildable lots like this. The zoning district isn't going to be affected by this board if the board were predisposed to grant that variance. The second part of that is a literal enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve substantial hardship.

And that I'm going to speak to as well, and I may have spoken to it already. And then the last part is, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public. Substantial detriment to the public good.

So I don't believe there's any detriment to the public good, and substantial, I would suggest, is a criteria which has not been met. And then it goes on to further add, in without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of such bylaw. Now I have to get back to the question of the day.

What are the factors that make this lot fall within that criteria of shape, topography, or soil conditions? I would suggest to you that this lot is nothing about it is different in its shape. The topography is relatively flat.

So that leaves me with the soil. And in that, interestingly enough, by reviewing the statements attributed to those that were present, either by Zoom or in person, was that the soil conditions in this area are problematic because of flooding conditions, which make this a low-level area where water is. And that was one of the primary concerns of the flooding, as I recall from what I heard, which precipitated a lot of the discussion.

So is there something unique about the soil? The answer is absolutely yes. This is an area that hasn't been built on because the soil conditions have been problematic.

But there are ways that one can build homes in areas such as this. And the way they do it, and the way they do it without affecting their neighbors, is they build them on stilts or on pillars. They have breakaway underneath.

We've done this on multiple times. I've been involved in discussions with property that have been by the beach. And you can do it that way.

The reason you want to do it that way is you don't want to displace additional water. You want to be concerned about whatever water flowage is created is not going to flow onto neighbors' property. And you don't want to exacerbate a situation that is already, at least as far as they're concerned, problematic.

So the conditions...

[Speaker 8] (24:22 - 24:32)
I'm sorry. We need to keep the door open. It has to be an open meeting.

I'm so sorry. I know it's really hard. Please move closer.

Sorry.

[Speaker 1] (24:34 - 26:07)
So insofar as the conditions of the soil were concerning to the neighbors, they also give us the opportunity to distinguish this lot for purposes of the required variance. I can say, at least somewhat with a straight face, and I think it's terribly important that I do this, is that this board, if it were to grant the relief that's requested, is not going to change or derogate from or cause any substantial hardship under the variance criteria. And there are times, and clearly there would not be this relief that's available in the bylaw if the relief was never to be granted.

But there are those unique circumstances. You couple that with the tortured history of what these gentlemen have gone through. You know, what they did, what they tried to do, was the due diligence that anybody who is familiar with real estate would do.

They hired a professional. The professional provided an opinion. The professional reached out to the then building inspector, Richard Baldacci.

The building inspector said he wanted some additional material. The additional materials were provided by Mr. Lynch to Mr. Baldacci, and Mr. Baldacci then wrote a letter. I can pass, I have tons of copies of all of this.

Would you like me to pass that out now, or do you? I have it all. I think it's all available.

[Speaker 3] (26:08 - 26:08)
We've all looked at everything.

[Speaker 1] (26:08 - 27:02)
Oh, you have? Because I just made hundreds of copies of all this, so you'd have it if you don't. But he then wrote this decision, and then after that decision was written and conveyed to their conveyancing attorney, they purchased the property.

So they did what they thought was the only, well, was not the only, but the legitimate way of validating their investment and having their lender and their title counsel affirm that what they were doing was not going to subject them to where they are right now. So sometimes what we find ourselves doing is jumping into things. That was never the case here.

They went through this as systematically as they could, but some of the information was either unobtainable, some of the information was incorrect.

[Speaker 3] (27:03 - 27:08)
Quick question, do you have the decision from 1949? Was that submitted?

[Speaker 1] (27:08 - 27:29)
That's what I don't have. That's the planning board. I have a copy of that plan, which is the plan that shows the existing house on lot A, which is the grass house, and it also shows lot B, and it shows that it was signed by the planning board in 1949.

There would have been minutes that would have accompanied that decision, which would have explained to us.

[Speaker 3] (27:29 - 27:33)
But we don't even have the written decision. All that you have is the map.

[Speaker 1] (27:34 - 27:49)
And we put out a records request to the town, and let me just, I must give you all this stuff since I spent all the time photocopying it. Can I approach?

[Speaker 9] (27:49 - 27:50)
Yeah, go ahead.

[Speaker 10] (27:59 - 28:02)
Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (28:52 - 28:52)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (28:56 - 29:50)
What they did in order to try to, is the work that was done by Woods Hole Group, dealing with the sea level rise and the storm surge protection and things such as that, because that was obviously came up at the November hearing about the concern, and then there was this report that was done. I suspect that the statements of the others about the issues with the water are probably more to the point in this letter.

[Speaker 8] (29:50 - 29:51)
Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (30:00 - 30:08)
So that's where we are. We have a situation where efforts were made in order to determine whether the lot was built.

[Speaker 1] (30:09 - 33:28)
Those efforts were somewhat plagued by the lack of information and somewhat plagued by the fact that the town of Swanscourt didn't even have within its possession a 1948 zoning map, that the zoning map that we then discovered was provided by Mr. Dementor, who happened to have a copy somehow of a 1948 map, which reflected differently from the map that was provided, which Mr. Lynch got from Town Hall, which showed that there was a division of those two lots.

I think what we've now learned is that there were revisions that were made to the 1948 map, but the map still was titled March 1, 1948, so if one were to have looked at it and they saw the subdivision between those two lots, they would not have been able to have determined when that occurred without more information. That's where we are today. So we find ourselves in the unbendable position of owning this lot, a lot that could provide housing, which is not the criteria, mind you, for your granting the relief that we're seeking, but I do think that if you wish, there is a vehicle, there is a mechanism for you to obtain, for them to obtain with your authorization the necessary relief, which would be to determine that this was a buildable lot. The second part of this would be, if the Board were to grant the variance, is that it would, in whatever conditions, which is another part of this, whatever conditions the Board wanted to set, because whatever relief that you would grant, you can grant them with whatever conditions you want. It could be, because it is zoned in A4, so it could theoretically be a two-family, but they're not looking for a two-family now.

They wanted to run into as few obstructions with the neighbors as possible. They wanted to be good neighbors, they wanted to be able to address the concerns that were raised in this letter of opposition, and by doing that, the house is half the size it was. It's now a one-family.

It is dimensionally within, there's no dimensional requirements that are being made. There would be no further relief that would be required. The house would be completely comporting with all the dimensional aspects.

That would be lot coverage, that would be gross square footage, that would be all of the factors that this Board normally has to tackle when people are asking for that relief. We just need to determine what, in 1949, they must have thought they had already done, but in today's way of looking at things, I think either it was something that was done to legitimize it that we don't have, and so 75 years after that date, without that information, we're asking you, this Board, to do just that, and within your authority, you can grant the variance which would accomplish the relief that we're seeking.

I'm here to answer any questions as best I can. Obviously, no one is throwing anyone under the bus, but there has been a tortured history of what's occurred, and we're looking for resolution, and we're hoping this Board can afford that.

[Speaker 3] (33:28 - 33:39)
I'm going to ask you a question that I asked you right before, and you answered it, but just so you can answer it for everybody, was that had you been to planning for a site plan review, since this is for a house over 3,000 square feet.

[Speaker 1] (33:39 - 34:24)
The house that's going to be built, and obviously, the next step, if this Board were to grant the relief, as I said, they could do it with conditions, whatever conditions they wanted, but clearly, if it required, and at this point, I am advised that the house and the plans that ultimately will be submitted have been pared down from this earlier iteration, which was done by Mr. Lynch, in order to have as few additional public dialogues, and by making it under 3,000 square feet, it would require no additional relief from the Planning Board.

So, the ultimate plans, because the plans that you have are right now not necessarily the final plans.

[Speaker 3] (34:41 - 35:18)
If the house is over 3,000 square feet, they are required to get a site plan review from the Planning Board, which they have not done. That would be a requirement before any special permit could be granted from this Board. But since they haven't done that, and because they're trying to kind of work with everybody, they're telling us that although these plans are for a house that is 3,400 square feet, in reality, their intention is to build a house that is under 3,000 square feet, so they will not have to go to the Planning Board.

In case anybody missed that.

[Speaker 7] (35:18 - 35:29)
We already went to the Planning Board. With the larger... Right, and even they just told us we have to go to the Zoning Board first to determine if it's a buildable lot.

[Speaker 3] (35:29 - 35:30)
Okay, so they were concerned about...

[Speaker 7] (35:30 - 35:37)
Yeah, we're just trying to see if the Zoning Board can grant it, and that we're more than happy to work with the size, or, you know...

[Speaker 3] (35:37 - 35:46)
Okay, so you're really looking for a determination as to whether or not this is a buildable lot... That's exactly right. ...versus actual approval of these plans, or this petition.

[Speaker 1] (35:46 - 35:49)
I suppose at this point, it would be academic if the lot itself is not buildable.

[Speaker 3] (35:49 - 35:53)
Yeah. All right, what was my other question?

[Speaker 5] (35:53 - 35:57)
So, if it's not a buildable lot, then you're not going to need a variance on this?

[Speaker 1] (35:57 - 36:16)
No, the variance authority you have, by granting that, would allow this to be a buildable lot, and then, if it was a buildable lot, depending on what was built, and it's our expectation that it's going to be less than 3,000 square feet, that's our intention, but that would be a one-fam... Pardon me, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 5] (36:16 - 36:40)
The criteria would still be the same for a variance, meaning you started off by talking about, you said you're not going to focus on topography, you're not going to focus on shape, so you focused on soil. Did you provide any... Is there any kind of report, or geotech, or anything that goes to the soil condition of that property?

Is it just what you presented?

[Speaker 1] (36:40 - 37:17)
Well, it's what is presented, and what the neighbors, I'm sure, not only will tell you, but from what I've read, and what I've heard in my discussion with, not necessarily Council Demento, but Friend Demento, as he was referred to in the letter of opposition, was that the thrust of the neighborhood concern was the fact that this is an area that was prone to flooding, and because the soil was not absorbent, and because of its being in a flood zone. So, I mean, if in fact, that geotechnical information...

[Speaker 3] (37:17 - 37:25)
My question for you is, how is that soil problem causing the hardship, when the hardship is that the lot is undersized?

[Speaker 2] (37:26 - 37:26)
What's that?

[Speaker 3] (37:29 - 37:32)
Yeah, whereas the soil isn't creating that condition.

[Speaker 1] (37:32 - 37:59)
In order for the board, if the board were to grant a variance, they could do that. If they granted a variance, they could grant a variance to make it a billable lot. That, you have the authority to do.

In order for me to convince the board that you have that authority, I have to speak to the criteria that is defined within the bylaw regarding variances, and one of the criteria has to be shape, topography, or soil conditions.

[Speaker 3] (38:00 - 38:04)
I understand that. But I guess what I'm asking you to do is to explain to me how the soil conditions are causing the hardship.

[Speaker 1] (38:05 - 38:37)
Well, the soil conditions are not causing the hardship. The soil conditions are our criteria that has to be met in order for me to provide sufficient information for you to grant the variance. The whole concept of a variance isn't just hardship.

It's a very convoluted concept of criteria, and that's why I went through. One of the criteria is the property itself, and then it goes on to talk about not generally affecting the zoning district. It then goes on to talk about...

[Speaker 5] (38:37 - 38:41)
But you're not looking for a variance with respect to the soil conditions.

[Speaker 1] (38:42 - 38:42)
No, no.

[Speaker 5] (38:42 - 39:06)
I'm looking for... Let me finish my question. So, in the variance, the only way that we could grant a variance would be to find that owing to circumstances related to the soil conditions.

So, what are the circumstances related to the soil conditions on which we would need to grant a variance here?

[Speaker 1] (39:06 - 39:46)
Well, the soil conditions, as I understand it, based upon hearing the video from November, because I can't tell you that I have any direct familiarity with that Zero Lodge, is that the lot itself in the area is prone to flooding because of the soil. The other factor is that there is an issue regarding this area. It's one of the reasons I suspect that it wasn't previously built on, and I can't imagine, but for the fact that it's got to this point where someone has found this earlier map, it probably would have been built on.

[Speaker 5] (39:46 - 39:51)
Let me ask it a different way. You're not saying that you would need a variance because of the soil conditions?

[Speaker 1] (39:51 - 40:06)
Oh, no, no. But in order for me to reply for the variance, I have to identify what about this lot, be it topography, or shape, or soil conditions, allows me to seek the requested relief.

[Speaker 5] (40:07 - 40:12)
But you understand what it says, owing to circumstances related to the soil conditions.

[Speaker 1] (40:12 - 40:12)
Right, right.

[Speaker 5] (40:12 - 40:27)
So, it's not just you come here and you say something about soil conditions and that somehow allows us to go ahead and grant a variance. It's completely unrelated to soil conditions. There has to be a nexus between the soil conditions and a reason why a variance would be wanted.

[Speaker 2] (40:27 - 40:36)
To clear him up, so if you said to me it's got an irregular shape, I mean the fact that those sides are not parallel on both sides, that's irregular.

[Speaker 10] (40:36 - 40:36)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (40:37 - 41:29)
If, so facto, I'm short on my frontage, that's a more plausible hardship than the fact that because the soils are not good, I'm going to make this lot with less frontage and not give you enough land to have a buildable lot. But isn't the overriding question here, you guys hit the jackpot that's not the jackpot, the opposite of the jackpot. You bought title insurance, so your lot was insured.

Paul Lynch made a mistake. I mean, he has errors and omissions. Why isn't your title company just paying you and this thing just goes away and you get your money back as opposed to you come here and you get your money and then you make money when you shouldn't be making money.

You're lucky enough to maybe get your money. Why aren't we just cashing the title insurance policy and that's the end of it?

[Speaker 1] (41:29 - 41:37)
Because I suspect, number one, they've engaged me not to. But isn't that the real issue?

[Speaker 2] (41:37 - 41:47)
The litigation attorney. It was a mistake through no fault of its own and it's confusing, et cetera.

[Speaker 7] (41:47 - 42:13)
I'm not disagreeing with you. If this was a strictly business decision, I want to see something built in because like I said, I live in town. My kids go to school.

This is an empty lot. That's a bigger lot than lot A. It needs housing.

I really feel like this is a really good thing for the town. Yes, we can go that route.

[Speaker 2] (42:13 - 42:47)
We can't make, and I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm sure that you could come up with a plan where you make a house that the neighbors might like and then instead of you guys making any money, they just let you come back even and you put like a sump pump and drain the whole neighborhood. In other words, it's not a money making thing you just said that. It's just trying to get yourself whole and provide some housing, much needed housing for the town.

But that's not what we can, we can't. That's like judge and jury. That's not our policy.

[Speaker 1] (42:47 - 43:10)
I thought, and I know I'm interrupting you, but I did think that the board had that authority. I thought if the board felt that it was a compelling argument to be made, everything that was done could have been done, but that's not necessarily the criteria for variance. You brought up an interesting issue with regard to the shape of the lot.

I thought the soil conditions were probably more.

[Speaker 2] (43:10 - 43:24)
What do you say to the next guy who comes in with the same thing and you say, well, we can build another house here and then we can build another house here. Yeah, I understand there's a housing shortage here. I understand that that's a good thing.

[Speaker 3] (43:24 - 43:27)
One 3,000 square foot house is not going to help our house.

[Speaker 2] (43:27 - 43:33)
No, but I mean, it's just like, where do we, and then we turn the next guy down, the next guy out.

[Speaker 3] (43:33 - 43:46)
Those were quite large as well, but I guess my point is, this isn't, I understand that we have a housing crisis, but I don't, I mean, I'm not moved by that in this scenario of a one house.

[Speaker 2] (43:46 - 44:01)
I mean, I think this house looks nice on, you know, situated nicely. If there was no water problem whatsoever, still doesn't change the fact that we're not on this board to make up our own rules to facilitate.

[Speaker 1] (44:01 - 44:05)
I'm not sure you're making up your own rules. I think what I'm asking you to do, though.

[Speaker 2] (44:05 - 44:07)
I'm the non-lawyer. Those guys.

[Speaker 1] (44:07 - 44:16)
I think what I'm asking you to do, though, is favorably interpret with the authority that you have that's vested in your granting of a variance.

[Speaker 2] (44:16 - 44:17)
What do we say to the next guy?

[Speaker 1] (44:18 - 44:50)
Well, that's an interesting question. You know, this was raised earlier, and I really would like to answer that. In all the years, and I've been doing this now for over 40 years, I've never run into this before.

This is the very first time. There aren't a lot of orphan lots floating around like this one. This is unique.

Now, it may not be unique in the sense of the shape or the topography or the soil conditions in your estimation, but it's clearly a unique parcel, and you can grant that relief without affecting the zoning district. No, but it can be. It's the concept.

[Speaker 2] (44:51 - 44:53)
If we do it here, we do it for the next guy.

[Speaker 1] (44:53 - 44:54)
But there isn't.

[Speaker 2] (44:54 - 45:40)
I see there being no next guy. Not the next guy in a single-family lot, but the next guy who comes in for something different and says it's a two-family lot. We blew the lots, you know, on the old golf course, you know, behind the football fields, when we would have loved to give a variance and make it multiple lots, but we couldn't, and it was like we just couldn't do it, you know, even though that was 100% clearly the best plan, clearly the right thing to do from an intellectual standpoint, and it's like how do you say no?

It doesn't have to be the same circumstances, but when you say no to the next guy who's got a variance question that's saying, yeah, but I'm providing housing for the town.

[Speaker 1] (45:40 - 46:37)
I would not ask you to make your determination solely on that. I would ask you to look at this lot as unique. I would ask you to be able to look beyond the concern that you have that if you were to grant this variance that forevermore you will be required to grant variances because of this, and I would tell you this.

This is a different situation. This is one where in 1949, and this is so important, and the important part is I don't have an answer because the town hasn't afforded me the opportunity to explain it because the records are not here. Is that a criteria?

Probably not, but that's the problem that we have, and that's why this lot is different, and maybe because of the fact that it is, in fact, narrower in the front and wider in the back, as you suggest, and maybe I wasn't clever enough to have seized on that, but that makes it different too.

[Speaker 4] (46:38 - 48:32)
Ken, it's not even close really to satisfying the criteria for a variance. It's not even close. It's not the shape.

The hardship has to arise from that soil condition, but also going on the hardship, it's a personal hardship, and that letter from that Attorney Lynch received from Baldacci, Baldacci's letter, and Attorney Lynch is a smart lawyer, and Baldacci's letter was clearly based on assuming that everything that, it was clear that Rich Baldacci did not make an independent, he did not make an independent determination, and Paul Lynch saw that because he's a smart lawyer, because in that letter from Baldacci, I'm in receipt of your title history, that's how he starts off, of the vacant lot, based on your research, the lot has not been held in common ownership, but it's my determination that having proved the status of the Green Fund, you know, he's clearly telling the lawyer that, you know, I'm giving you the letter, but I'm not doing any independent thing, I'm assuming that everything you say is true, so, and Paul Lynch, let me just finish, take your time, just settle down, and so Paul Lynch is a smart lawyer, and he knew that, and I don't know what conversations he had with his clients, but Paul Lynch knew that, you know, that Rich Baldacci's not really given me the, you know, independent letter there, so we're at some risk here, and if we buy this property, you know, you're buying it at your peril, okay, I think that's clear from reading Baldacci, that's how I, that's my take on Baldacci's letter, okay, I mean, I mean, I mean, how much, you know, I wouldn't put out a lot of money based on that.

[Speaker 9] (48:32 - 48:34)
I agree with you, you want to know this, I agree with you.

[Speaker 4] (48:34 - 49:03)
So it's, the hardship's personal, and it can't be, you know, under the criteria, that's number one, the hardship's personal, and the hardship does not arise, whatever hardship there is, does not arise from either soil or shape of the lot, which it must, in order to, so we have to, like, so ignore the criteria of the, you know, to give you a variance, and I agree with you, the lot is unique, but it's not uniqueness is not the criteria.

[Speaker 1] (49:03 - 52:15)
Well, you know, I'll leave it at this, if the board were predisposed to want to take this sort of a global approach, and say, you know, there's so little harm and so much gain, that we are going to interpret it in a more liberal way than the board has up to this point reviewed these, they could do that. I mean, there are zoning boards of appeal all over the state, I don't appear in front of all of them, but I've appeared through many, that when they want to get there because they believe that that's the right way, and they think they are not traumatizing the concept of what these variances are, grant them, but I'm not telling you to do what others do, I'm telling you to do what you feel comfortable doing, what you feel right, and I thought that there was enough information that you could do that. I would not have wasted anybody's time in going through this process if I didn't think you had that innate authority. If you wish not to exercise it, that's the prerogative of the board, and every board has a different personality depending on its interpretation, our strict interpretation, it's like the constitution, you know, is this a living document, do you read it for what it says, and you can't read outside of those, that's your right, and I can't take it away from you, and I can't tell you what you can and cannot do, I'm asking, I'm asking because I thought in the long run, there was enough information with regard to the history, the law itself, what I thought the neighbors were looking for, and they can speak for themselves, they're all here, I'm sure they're not all here to support me, but I'm sure they're here because they have something worthy, they think, and I also suspect, like everything else, you know, nobody wants anything else that's not currently there, and that's understood, but in a town that is screaming for and granting things like accessory dwellings, this is great, this would be another home that we could provide without asking, I believe, too much of your board, and that's why I'm here.

I don't want to make a mockery of what you think is the variance criteria, I don't ask you to expand it if you don't feel comfortable doing that, I thought that there was enough history of what occurred, and the fact, and this is where I'm going to leave it, the fact that the town couldn't even help us to understand what was done in 1949 that created this mess, because they destroyed, their records were destroyed, probably through no fault of their own, they just stored them in the pumping station, which is where most of those records were destroyed, and are no longer capable of trying to explain. But the only thing that you have to understand is in 1949 when they did that, they must have been doing this with a principle that provided them the authority to do it, because otherwise what they've done is they've destroyed two lots. They took one lot and they made two non-buildable lots out of that, there was an existing structure, but if one lot is not a buildable lot, then you couldn't do anything with the other lot because it has the same issues.

You can't tear that house down, but if anyone, like the Grasses, wanted to come before this board for any relief.

[Speaker 4] (52:15 - 52:28)
They didn't destroy that lot with a house on it, that lot that had a house on it was going to be grandfathered forever, they knew that. They might have wanted that house on this lot, and we want this land over here to be vacant for whatever reason.

[Speaker 9] (52:29 - 52:30)
That could have been the reason.

[Speaker 4] (52:30 - 52:44)
That could have been the missing decision that got lost in the flood, could have been exactly what they did. We want that lot that can never be built on, next to this lot with the house on it. That's why we're going to do it.

[Speaker 1] (52:44 - 52:55)
That lot had been sold, the consideration in the past was there, I can't imagine that it was sold in order to destroy value. Can I say something?

[Speaker 8] (52:55 - 53:04)
When you look at the MLS listing for this house, it very clearly says that it's in a flood zone, and it needs a variance. It says that in the listing.

[Speaker 1] (53:06 - 53:09)
I wasn't their attorney, but I trust them.

[Speaker 8] (53:09 - 53:12)
It's in the listing, so you must have had some sort of idea.

[Speaker 7] (53:13 - 53:14)
That's why we hired a zoning attorney.

[Speaker 8] (53:14 - 53:17)
Yeah, and then you didn't get the right information.

[Speaker 7] (53:17 - 53:19)
I'm not a zoning attorney, I'm sure the agent is not a zoning attorney.

[Speaker 8] (53:19 - 53:25)
But also, the idea of a variance, we don't often get that information.

[Speaker 3] (53:26 - 53:30)
The criteria for a variance as opposed to a special permit is very good.

[Speaker 7] (53:30 - 53:40)
We've been through a lot of zoning boards before in Boston and Everett, and obviously those boards are a little bit more lenient on variances for other reasons. I completely understand.

[Speaker 8] (53:40 - 53:44)
That's what I was doing on my phone. It's there in the MLS listing.

[Speaker 7] (53:44 - 53:51)
They're not attorneys, and she, whoever the agent was, probably went to the building department and said, is this buildable lot?

[Speaker 3] (53:52 - 53:55)
No one knew. No one wanted to commit that it was.

[Speaker 7] (53:55 - 53:55)
Exactly.

[Speaker 3] (53:56 - 54:01)
Do you have anything new to add? Because we have a lot of people here who might have some things that they want to say.

[Speaker 1] (54:02 - 54:05)
I'm not sure, based on what I've heard, that they need to say anything unless they're here in support.

[Speaker 4] (54:06 - 54:13)
We've already heard a lot. We heard it the last meeting. We don't want any repetition of what we heard already.

We already heard from the other people.

[Speaker 3] (54:13 - 54:42)
My question, that's kind of for the lawyers on the board as well, is, assuming we are not comfortable giving a variance, because these plans aren't really relevant because they're 500 square feet larger than what you, are we, I guess the question is, can we make a finding that's different from this petition?

[Speaker 1] (54:42 - 54:58)
The only thing in this petition that I'm going forward on was a request for a variance for a buildable lot. You can put into petition things that you don't. In other words, you can ask for everything, but the only thing that you're addressing, and the only thing I'm addressing with this board now, is whether it is a lot buildable or not.

[Speaker 5] (54:58 - 55:07)
So it doesn't matter what the size of the structure is. It could be a hundred square foot, anything. It's buildable or it's not buildable.

[Speaker 3] (55:07 - 55:23)
I guess my question is, if your intention was to appeal, would it be appealing, this is just from my own education really, the entire special permit here that is a 3,500 square foot house, or just the fact that is it buildable or not buildable?

[Speaker 1] (55:23 - 55:41)
Well, I guess to some degree it's the result of whatever decision this board renders. That's the only thing I can appeal. So if the board's decision was predicated upon the fact that the board could not grant relief to make it a buildable lot, any appeal would just be focused on that alone.

[Speaker 5] (55:44 - 56:50)
My view would be, this isn't a legal opinion, but if we deny the petition based upon a finding that it's not a buildable lot, or that the petitioner has not convinced us that it's a buildable lot, then that would be the decision. They could appeal that decision, and if the land court or the Superior Court decides to remand it, saying for some reason that that exceeded our authority, then we would have to then determine, okay, it is a buildable lot, and then there would be the second question as to whether or not the structure that they have indicated they intend to build. So, in my opinion, we're locked into this petition, because this is the petition that was noticed publicly, and I know that there's been some discussion, I think, about changing the size of the house.

That's correct. But I'm, at least in my view, it's really a simple kind of gating question as to whether or not it's a buildable lot.

[Speaker 3] (56:50 - 57:01)
Okay, so that it wouldn't somehow override any sort of special permit requirement that would come later because it's an undersized lot and doesn't have enough frontage.

[Speaker 2] (57:01 - 57:10)
It still would require a special permit to build on it, if it was determined buildable by— Two buildings on one lot in the A4 district? Is that what this is?

[Speaker 1] (57:10 - 57:12)
Yeah, it could be a two-family in that district.

[Speaker 2] (57:12 - 57:14)
But you can put two buildings on one lot?

[Speaker 1] (57:15 - 57:18)
No, you can put one building on the lot that's a two-family.

[Speaker 2] (57:19 - 57:24)
Okay, but you can't build— And we have enough lot sizes. No, no, no, but you can't build two buildings.

[Speaker 1] (57:24 - 57:35)
No, you cannot have two principal residents. Well, I'm not sure now with this accessory dwelling unit concept of which you could turn your garage into an accessory dwelling.

[Speaker 2] (57:35 - 57:47)
No, I'm only asking in the theory that if you own the neighbor's house next door and merged a lot and then built a second single-family home, you had a two-family— That you could do.

[Speaker 1] (57:48 - 58:14)
No, because one would have to— No, no, I think what Andrew was saying, and I would agree with him, if we were to—this is so hypothetical— Right, acquire one of the neighbors. If we were to purchase a Grasso's home and we then had this conforming lot once again, we could put a two-family there because it's zoned in an A4 or two-family. Correct.

I guess that's what you were saying. That's exactly what I said.

[Speaker 7] (58:14 - 58:21)
We only need like a little bit of funding. I know, but you don't have it on your end. Well, you need lot size too.

[Speaker 3] (58:21 - 58:23)
You need lot size as well.

[Speaker 7] (58:23 - 58:25)
No, because I think we're—isn't it 6,000?

[Speaker 1] (58:25 - 58:27)
Well, it was 6,000 back in 1948.

[Speaker 7] (58:27 - 58:28)
It's now 10,000.

[Speaker 4] (58:28 - 58:36)
It's now 10,000. You're 80 feet in front of that. I'm supposed to be Matt D'Aquino.

I'm sorry. I guess that's good.

[Speaker 3] (58:36 - 58:41)
That clarifies for me. Our decision would be very specific.

[Speaker 5] (58:42 - 58:44)
Right, and that's also the decision you're asking for.

[Speaker 3] (58:44 - 58:53)
That's what you're after. As opposed to any of these—because we're basically not looking at plans. We're not talking about the building.

It's not even the building you want to build anyway.

[Speaker 1] (58:53 - 59:40)
I'm going to make it easier for you. We will withdraw that portion of our request for a— because a special permit just doesn't even apply. It's not a dimensional special permit request.

It's much more fundamental. It's a variance request for a buildable lot. I guess if you were to have granted the variance and then we were similarly asking for relief for some dimensional aspect, then all of it would come into play.

But now the fundamental question is, is the lot that was created in 1949 a buildable lot? Right. At this point, the building inspector is not providing us with a building permit and therefore— I have a question.

[Speaker 2] (59:40 - 1:00:01)
Yes. Okay, so for better or for worse, you're denied here. What can your clients do with this lot?

Can they make it boat storage? Can they drop a boat in a crib and maybe leave a dump truck on the site? I mean, what— I think— Can they build anything?

[Speaker 1] (1:00:02 - 1:00:15)
It's not a structure, so I guess what you're saying is—and you're right. I mean, what can you do? They can do anything that's not a structure because they own the lot.

They could park some cars there. They could—whatever doesn't require a building permit.

[Speaker 3] (1:00:16 - 1:00:26)
Rules about parking unregistered cars. I mean, there's lots of— No, you can park registered cars. All registered.

I mean, there's lots of things in the file. There's a lot of things you can do. And I don't think they have any intention to be bad neighbors and to drunk up the lot.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:27 - 1:00:29)
We don't want to do anything like that.

[Speaker 3] (1:00:30 - 1:00:32)
But look, I mean, they said that that's not their intention.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:32 - 1:00:50)
No, it's not. Obviously, we're not trying to incite any kind of ill will. But you're right.

You have this piece of property that they purchased in good faith based upon the opinions that were given, based upon the information that was available, and they find themselves in this pickle.

[Speaker 2] (1:00:50 - 1:00:56)
Because you can't even donate it because it's not a buildable lot to be able to recover through a tax loss.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:57 - 1:01:58)
Well, I'm sure you could donate it to the town. They could put something here. But, you know, they're not in a position— these are young men with kids that aren't just donating half a million dollars because of an error.

And, you know, just getting back to the point that was raised earlier, you know, their purpose in being here isn't to get even in the sense that they were retrieving the money. Sure, they can file a claim under their policy. They could bring an errors and omissions claim against their title counsel.

They could do anything they want. That's not what they wanted to do. They wanted to build a house.

And they thought that here was a lot that was vacant for 75 years that they could do in such a way that would not antagonize a neighbor, to some degree mitigate the water issue because of putting either some underground vault in to help distribute the water, not put a basement in which would displace water, and we would be doing—everybody would benefit from it. But I can't get there unless this board was willing to grant the relief that we're seeking.

[Speaker 2] (1:01:58 - 1:02:03)
And I understand it. It's like even if you got there, I'm just curious if— Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:03 - 1:02:06)
I think we are. I think we are into— What?

[Speaker 4] (1:02:06 - 1:02:08)
We moved into beating a dead horse.

[Speaker 3] (1:02:09 - 1:02:17)
I think you understand what the feeling of the board is. So your intention is to withdraw the request for a special permit.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:19 - 1:02:37)
Well, let me say this. We may—and I've got to speak to my client. We may withdraw the application in its entirety and not go through any determination from this board which would impact the future viability of that lot.

That's right. That's what we're going to ask the board to do.

[Speaker 9] (1:02:38 - 1:02:38)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:38 - 1:02:48)
The board would just do one of two ways. If you continue this and give me some time, or if you want to give me a few minutes, I'll speak to my clients, and then I can maybe respond. I don't know.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:48 - 1:03:06)
Can you not enlist town council and perfect 1948 and 1949 in some way that works for you? I mean, in other words, now you've got a problem. Can you go about it that way to try and— We've honestly exhausted everything.

[Speaker 7] (1:03:07 - 1:03:13)
I just—we're, like, stuck. And, like, I don't want to—I've never sued anyone in my life. I don't want to go now.

[Speaker 5] (1:03:13 - 1:03:24)
Is there enough frontage from the abutting processors that there isn't— You've got assistance.

[Speaker 3] (1:03:25 - 1:03:25)
Oh.

[Speaker 5] (1:03:25 - 1:03:50)
They would not come out— They need more than just frontage, though, because they need 3,000 square feet. You're right, but they could, if they— 3,500 square feet. Again, I don't know the size of the abutting lots, but if there was an agreement to purchase just a certain part of, you know, 10 feet on both sides or whatever, and then enter into an agreement with the neighbors that they won't build on that problem.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:50 - 1:03:55)
You know, Brad, you can't do that only because you can't make a nonconforming lot when nonconforming units are all nonconforming.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:55 - 1:04:15)
You can turn around and say, look, this is an irregular-shaped lot. It's not a perfect rectangle. It's an irregular-shaped lot.

And so, therefore, you could see a way to the frontage thing, or maybe you could, you know, so that you could get a frontage variance, but I don't know how you say it's less than the required frontage.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:15 - 1:04:40)
I don't know what— You could get a—I'll tell you how you do the frontage. You could do a radius. I've done this on other properties.

You take this line, and by making it a curved line, you can create a larger frontage. But, you know, it's— I wouldn't go through that unless the board was saying that that was something that would— Okay, so do you want to take five and discuss, or do you want to postpone?

[Speaker 3] (1:04:40 - 1:04:44)
I mean— I'm going to take—if you'll give me five. Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (1:04:44 - 1:04:45)
Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:46 - 1:04:51)
Did you want to hear from— I think we'll see what you decide, and then see if you have any questions based on what you decide.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:51 - 1:04:57)
The frontage, she needs 80. She's got 51. So, theoretically, you could go like this.

[Speaker 10] (1:05:00 - 1:05:01)
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:02 - 1:05:17)
Well, you could. You'd have to change the house a little bit. You'd have to make the house smaller.

That's not the issue. This is the issue. You need 10,000 feet.

You'd be giving up footage, frontage, to create a street, and then you'd be adding more water on that.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:19 - 1:05:24)
Is this different from the other one? Didn't the other one ask for the same rule? No, it didn't.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:24 - 1:05:27)
I know, but it's a totally different issue. Would anybody— Heather?

[Speaker 2] (1:05:28 - 1:05:42)
Yeah. If all the neighbors said, look, let the guy build a single-family home and spend $50,000, donate $50,000 to correct that water problem, would you let him do it? My problem is that—how do you say?

[Speaker 3] (1:05:43 - 1:05:46)
They don't—all this stuff, they don't know.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:46 - 1:05:51)
Period. There was no shift. What's that?

No, I'm just asking.

[Speaker 8] (1:05:51 - 1:05:55)
No, honestly, there was no shift. We made the most time out of it.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:56 - 1:06:12)
Okay. But am I asking something that you can't do? I just don't understand.

And I'm not saying it's like when we grant this variance, it's not the same idea. It's the next guy who comes up with a variance. It's got the same sob story, different circumstances.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:12 - 1:06:13)
Right, right.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:13 - 1:06:15)
And how do we say no to him, but yes to them?

[Speaker 3] (1:06:15 - 1:06:17)
The variance is— You have a question?

[Speaker 4] (1:06:18 - 1:06:20)
The variance criteria, I'm curious.

[Speaker 5] (1:06:20 - 1:06:22)
Sorry, we're still in the middle.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:23 - 1:06:25)
Oh, I thought you might have had a procedural question.

[Speaker 5] (1:06:25 - 1:06:27)
No, it's okay. But we're still in the middle.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:27 - 1:06:45)
We've got to— No, no, you're okay. We just have to wait. It's just like this.

Yeah, if you have like a procedural question about what's happening, and then afterwards we're going to have him say what he plans to do, and then if you have any questions about that, you can— No, no, it's okay. It just has to be— It's all right. It's all right.

Sorry.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:46 - 1:06:47)
I feel bad for the guys.

[Speaker 8] (1:06:48 - 1:06:50)
Because they don't direct.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:51 - 1:07:25)
What's that? But you're 100% right in all that. You said, yeah, all the facts you tell me are right.

Yeah, then— It's like George Santos. If he really went to college and he really was the basketball player and he really did this and he really did that, yeah, that's the guy we're voting for. But that's not the guy we voted for.

Isn't it the same thing as George Santos? If everything you said is who you are and it's true, then, yeah, that's the guy we elected. But we didn't elect you.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:25 - 1:07:26)
We didn't elect this person.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:26 - 1:07:26)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:36 - 1:07:51)
My concern was that if you denied this and they went on appeal, that it would be this 3,500-square-foot house that they would be able to build. Do you know what I mean? Like that it would appeal— So that's where I don't— Because I don't have experience with land court and what happens on an appeal.

[Speaker 4] (1:07:51 - 1:07:54)
But they could put it— It was built or they could put two families in it.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:54 - 1:08:05)
Well, if it's buildable, they'd have to go to build. That was over 4,000-square-feet. They'd need to go to planning.

I don't think the 400-square-feet— Barely over 2,000-square-feet.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:05 - 1:08:14)
Heather, I don't think the 400-square-feet is an issue. You know, that house, 3,400. They're only going to 29,999 just to avoid going there.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:14 - 1:08:24)
To avoid planning. I realize that, but they still would need a special permit. Even if it's determined, yes, this is a buildable lot, they still need a special permit to actually build on it.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:24 - 1:08:27)
I just wanted to make sure that was the process.

[Speaker 8] (1:08:28 - 1:08:33)
But they can appeal, right? Yeah, they can appeal Mansfield or whatever that place is.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:33 - 1:08:37)
He's not going to do that because he can't win an appeal. He'll never have it checked.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:37 - 1:08:40)
If we deny it, they can appeal. If they withdraw, then they can't.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:40 - 1:09:12)
Then it's done. That's throwing good money after bad. The appeal?

Yeah. You don't have the grounds for a variance. So, I mean, if you're not sympathetic at the oldest, the board would say, yeah, look, everybody likes the project.

We'll give it to you. If nobody appeals, great. If they appeal, there's nothing I can do.

Okay. What would Mike Bonitsky do, the liberal lawyer?

[Speaker 4] (1:09:15 - 1:09:19)
Yeah. Yes, I'm over here.

[Speaker 10] (1:09:19 - 1:09:20)
Oh, you are?

[Speaker 4] (1:09:20 - 1:09:22)
Yeah. Took some adjustment.

[Speaker 10] (1:09:23 - 1:09:24)
What goals? Adjusting to it now.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:24 - 1:09:32)
What goals? The old goals. Stay on fitness?

Yeah. Yeah, like a 25-year-old. Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:33 - 1:09:35)
A lot of people were. You mean based on? No.

Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (1:09:36 - 1:09:37)
I don't even need to. I should have.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:38 - 1:09:59)
But I can tell you why. I don't know if Jim liked that anymore. They were all based on other Jims.

Now, is that a planet fitness model? Yeah. That was old school.

You know, big, you know, big, you know, muscle heads and, you know, total opposite idea of planet fitness. And I love that. That's what I like that.

Yeah. I don't know.

[Speaker 10] (1:10:00 - 1:10:00)
I don't know.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:04 - 1:10:07)
But, you know, with the gown and all that, you know.

[Speaker 10] (1:10:07 - 1:10:07)
What's going on?

[Speaker 4] (1:10:08 - 1:10:19)
Are they doing anything with that space? No, not that I've heard. Everybody's hoping that somebody else will come in and do another Jim.

You're really big. Yeah. He kept on expanding.

[Speaker 10] (1:10:19 - 1:10:21)
I remember the guy who did it.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:24 - 1:10:36)
So many relationships with people over the years. Like a social thing. Totally.

And everybody went different ways. So, yeah, that was the toughest part. Was it just suddenly one day?

[Speaker 5] (1:10:36 - 1:10:37)
No, no.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:37 - 1:10:48)
It was the accident. It was just what didn't put any money into it at all. Then something broke.

It was broken. And that was going on for years.

[Speaker 8] (1:10:49 - 1:10:50)
But that was its turn.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:50 - 1:10:55)
He came in right before the pandemic. He had good intentions, you know.

[Speaker 8] (1:10:57 - 1:11:03)
How does it work with the title insurance? Who owns the building now? Who owns the land after you?

[Speaker 2] (1:11:03 - 1:11:14)
The title insurance company. I mean, isn't that what it's really about? I bought title insurance.

And you guys made a mistake and it goes through Paul Lynch. It's not about title. Of course it is.

[Speaker 4] (1:11:15 - 1:11:15)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (1:11:16 - 1:12:20)
No, but if I get a zoning appeal. I get my title insurance. I get a survey.

Survey exception. So they surveyed it. I got the land.

No title. No liens on it or some estate or whatever problem. That's clean.

And I get a zoning endorsement, you know, which is, yeah, you can build a single family home. Yeah, you can build a shopping center. Yeah, you know.

And that's what they insure. You pay for that. But you insure it.

You know, and so, okay. The zoning opinion is wrong. His opinion was wrong.

He said that. The building inspector couched his opinion. The circumstances were wrong.

So you can't, you know, in the old days, we used to like not talk to the building inspector and skulk around. Then I'd come right out and say, look, this is what I want to do. Can I do it or not do it?

But now I've learned you can't trust it. It doesn't make any difference what he says. It only makes a difference what your attorney says after he does all the, gets that plan and looks at this thing saying, well, Lynch should have pulled every one of those documents and reviewed every one of those documents to make sure the chronology was right, this was right.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:20 - 1:12:27)
I mean, it does make, you can see where the error happened with that map that was edited after the fact. You can see how the error happened. But that's why.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:27 - 1:12:28)
Yeah, I'm sure it's an error.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:28 - 1:12:30)
Oh, Lynch has errors and omissions insurance, right?

[Speaker 2] (1:12:30 - 1:12:35)
Exactly. That's, so that's, that's the answer. I think he told me.

[Speaker 4] (1:12:36 - 1:12:46)
Wow, really? I really don't.

[Speaker 8] (1:12:47 - 1:12:51)
But you do use that in the listing. Yeah. But it's not.

It says it in the listing.

[Speaker 5] (1:12:52 - 1:12:53)
Oh, yeah, that it's buildable?

[Speaker 8] (1:12:54 - 1:12:55)
No, it's not. It's very much not.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:55 - 1:12:57)
Or that it's, it requires it anyway.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:58 - 1:13:02)
Well, that's how it must have been. That's the case.

[Speaker 10] (1:13:02 - 1:13:03)
What? That's a whole different story.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:06 - 1:13:07)
What's this, an MLS?

[Speaker 10] (1:13:07 - 1:13:09)
Yeah, it's a listing. It's a listing.

[Speaker 2] (1:13:11 - 1:13:23)
Reminds me of Charlie Panfield's, the way he built on Humphrey Street. That one makes absolutely no sense. He wanted, right, he wanted to make, he wanted to put three buildings where he put the two buildings.

[Speaker 10] (1:13:24 - 1:13:24)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:13:24 - 1:13:55)
And I'm looking at him. I do your own due diligence. Seriously?

Yeah. So you're going to just walk in here. Yeah, that's pretty good.

We're going to say, okay, you need 100 feet of frontage, but we'll give you a variance and give you 350. And then you walk out with a million dollars and like nobody else thought of that. You're just going to waltz in here and say, okay, give me a variance for my frontage, and now I'll build three buildings on Humphrey Street, and I'll make a million dollars.

We're just pushing some paper around. You know. Doesn't work that way.

You know, you got to do a little bit of work.

[Speaker 3] (1:13:58 - 1:13:59)
All right, should we call it again?

[Speaker 8] (1:13:59 - 1:14:02)
Do you want me to go? Yeah, go ahead. Which way do I go?

[Speaker 3] (1:14:08 - 1:14:14)
I mean, he can always continue and continue. He can continue this and continue that conversation and then next month withdraw.

[Speaker 5] (1:14:15 - 1:14:17)
I'm not going to vote in favor of a continuing sentence.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:18 - 1:14:19)
You just got to withdraw it.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:19 - 1:14:20)
You got to withdraw it. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:22 - 1:14:23)
And then he can just.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:23 - 1:14:28)
He's asking for two more minutes. All right. I'll give him two more minutes.

All in five minutes? Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (1:14:30 - 1:14:34)
She sent you. She sent you.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:35 - 1:14:36)
Should I take a nap?

[Speaker 3] (1:14:36 - 1:14:38)
Yeah, take a nap.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:38 - 1:14:39)
Do we have another petition?

[Speaker 3] (1:14:40 - 1:14:40)
No, this is it.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:41 - 1:15:12)
Okay, so let's call the meeting over. Let's just leave out this till he comes back and everybody be gone. Talk too long, Ken.

Yeah, so do I. But if they said, you know, if they were like telling you, look, you can't be building there. You know, you need something.

And then you still went ahead and did it. Fool me once. What's that?

Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:13 - 1:15:20)
The thing is, is that then after that, they did their. They did what they thought was their due diligence. Right.

And it happens.

[Speaker 10] (1:15:20 - 1:15:21)
I mean, that's just the way it is.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:22 - 1:15:22)
Exactly.

[Speaker 3] (1:15:23 - 1:15:30)
It wasn't a big loss when you think of what a buildable lot in Swarmsville costs. What do they pay? $250.

$250.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:31 - 1:15:34)
Oh, yeah. So that's why you paid $250.

[Speaker 9] (1:15:56 - 1:16:00)
Maybe there's something about the sort of conditions that you can find.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:02 - 1:16:30)
But I don't want to not explore every possible issue that might be presentable. And if there is any, we'll just be coming back and either asking for a decision or asking to withdraw without prejudice. It's going to be up to their counsel.

To make that decision. And I can't make it for them. So if you will provide us with an additional month, we would ask for that relief.

Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:16:30 - 1:16:33)
So what they're asking for is to continue to next month.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:33 - 1:16:34)
That's right.

[Speaker 3] (1:16:34 - 1:17:02)
And at that point, they will either withdraw the petition or ask for a decision. But we won't be. Unless there's new information to present.

Right. We won't be hearing new information. Unless they realize something different.

I just wanted to see if anybody has questions specifically procedural about what's going on. We have written statements, so we understand the neighbors' concerns. And we heard them at the last, for the last petition.

But if you have any kind of procedural questions about what's happening, feel free to raise your hand.

[Speaker 10] (1:17:06 - 1:17:11)
My concern is the water table.

[Speaker 2] (1:17:13 - 1:17:15)
She's concerned about the water table.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:15 - 1:17:27)
Oh, the water table. Okay, so we're not addressing it. Or addressing anything with the water table.

But if you have any kind of procedural questions as to the process.

[Speaker 9] (1:17:30 - 1:17:33)
Well, how about the concerns of the people?

[Speaker 3] (1:17:33 - 1:17:52)
So we have a written statement from everyone. And then we also had public comment at the last meeting. So I think we have a lot.

If there's something that wasn't said at the last meeting or isn't part of the written statement. Something new that's happened recently that is a concern. But I think we have heard a lot of the neighbors' concerns.

[Speaker 6] (1:17:59 - 1:18:12)
That goes for anyone online too. If anyone online has a question specifically related to procedure. About anything else.

Or has a new concern to address. Correct.

[Speaker 3] (1:18:14 - 1:18:20)
Are we seeing none?

[Speaker 1] (1:18:22 - 1:18:25)
Would you like me to sign a continuance form while I'm here?

[Speaker 3] (1:18:25 - 1:18:32)
So, first we, yeah. So we need to make a motion to continue until our July meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:33 - 1:18:34)
Do we have a date for that?

[Speaker 3] (1:18:34 - 1:18:55)
Do we have a date? Yeah, 18th. July 18th.

So I'm going to make a motion to continue to our July 18th meeting. Do we have a second? All in favor?

Aye. All opposed? All right.

So you have your continuance. And we can sign that with Marissa.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:56 - 1:18:59)
All right. So then I'll email that to you. The continuance form.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:01 - 1:19:14)
If I do receive anything in addition, which I am on submitting. I will get that into the board well before the July 18th. If there's any kind of geotechnical information that makes this soil specifically unique.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:14 - 1:19:27)
So just so you don't waste time and money. I think we've kind of come to the conclusion that what you need to do is not convince us that the soil is unique. But convince us that the soil uniqueness is causing the hardship.

That's where the discipline is.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:28 - 1:19:28)
I hear what you're saying.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:28 - 1:19:32)
So, I mean, you don't want to spend a lot of time on that.

[Speaker 5] (1:19:32 - 1:19:53)
And I would also ask if you don't have that information. And, you know, you alert us as well. So whether you have it or you don't.

You inform the board before the hearing, preferably. So that if you're going to withdraw the petition at that point. You don't want to go forward with a formal vote.

That we can avoid, you know, having another hearing on this one.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:53 - 1:20:07)
Well, if there is another hearing. It's going to be more perfunctory than anything else. So, without any additional information.

And if I don't have it, I'm not going to be burdening this board with any further comments.

[Speaker 4] (1:20:08 - 1:20:09)
You never do that.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:10 - 1:20:11)
Well, there's always a first time, Mr. Tory.

[Speaker 5] (1:20:12 - 1:20:13)
What's the date of the next hearing?

[Speaker 1] (1:20:13 - 1:20:15)
July 18th. 18th.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:16 - 1:20:20)
All right. So, I'm going to move to adjourn. Second.

[Speaker 6] (1:20:20 - 1:20:21)
Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 3] (1:20:21 - 1:20:22)
Aye.

[Speaker 6] (1:20:22 - 1:20:23)
Thanks, everyone.