[Speaker 1] (5:06 - 5:15)
The first thing on our agenda is to approve the minutes from last meeting. Did everybody get them? Yes.

I move to approve the minutes from last meeting.

[Speaker 3] (5:15 - 5:17)
I'll make a motion to approve.

[Speaker 1] (5:18 - 5:36)
Second. All in favor? Aye.

All right. And the first petition on our agenda is petition 2307 by Michael Wynn for a youth special permit at address 434 Humphrey Street to open a nail salon.

[Speaker 6] (5:37 - 5:41)
Hi. Thank you. Hello, ladies and gentlemen.

Hi. How are you?

[Speaker 1] (5:41 - 5:42)
Welcome. Thanks.

[Speaker 6] (5:43 - 5:43)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (5:43 - 5:57)
If you could bring that microphone a little closer just so that for the people watching I better recuse myself here because I'm going to be super careful and get you wrong. My best friend. Okay.

So I don't want anybody and everybody who knows.

[Speaker 1] (5:58 - 6:27)
Okay. I don't want to put them on camera. Okay.

So Andy is going to recuse himself from this. So that gives us just four voting members. Just to let you know what that means, you need four yeses.

If you have five voting members, you also need four yeses. So it just means that there can be no dissent on the platform. But you can make your presentation.

If you feel like you want to wait until we have another board member at another meeting next month, you can always choose to do that at the end.

[Speaker 6] (6:28 - 7:33)
No, I think that was great. Okay. So my name is Michael.

I'm from Winthrop. I am the owner of Star Nails in Winthrop. I had the business since I left college 25 years ago.

I started the business pretty successful. I had two in Winthrop. During COVID, I had to close one to keep up with the staff.

Now that I'm a little bit better, I'd like to franchise out to Swamp Squad to open up another business here on Humphrey Street. I found a location, which is great for us. I'm looking to employ maybe like 10, 12 people working.

We're doing just a nail salon service. We do eyebrows, waxing, fingernails for all ladies and gentlemen, children, anyone that would like to get services. It's pretty simple.

I'm licensed by the state. I had experience for 25 years. No complaints.

[Speaker 1] (7:37 - 8:30)
So the reason you're here before the board is there's a relatively recent by-law change that any service industry that's on the first floor of a commercial building, the use has to be approved, and it's in an effort to prevent too many of the same uses being on the first floor and not enough sort of retail, restaurant-type uses. Does anybody on the board have any questions? So there are two other nail salons on Humphrey Street, but there was a spa on this location previously that's gone out of business.

The other spa that was on the second floor is no longer there as well, so we definitely had two more spas previously. Is there anybody here to speak on this petition?

[Speaker 10] (8:36 - 8:38)
I know we received a letter.

[Speaker 1] (8:38 - 8:46)
Yeah, I know we received some e-mails from somebody who is also trying to rent this space. So have you come to an agreement with the landlord?

[Speaker 6] (8:46 - 9:56)
I didn't sign the lease because I know I have to go through this appeal right now before I sign the lease, but the landlord liked the idea to have something like a beauty salon or something there, but what we offer is immaculate. I've been in the business for so long. We know exactly what we're doing.

And the landlord, we talked about it, and I wanted to bring in some new type of designs. Actually, it's very good. You have to see it to believe it.

I own the business in Winthrop, and we are the biggest salon in Winthrop Center. Also, my parents have been in the business for years, and I took after the business. I told the landlord he liked the idea.

So I just wanted to see what you guys have to say before I can go on and move on to my next stage, sign the lease. I was hoping to do something here in Swampsville. I really like the town.

It was very nice here.

[Speaker 1] (9:56 - 10:16)
Any decision here, just because there was some conflict with There seemed to be somebody else that chose not to attend but had spoken out about also wanting the same space. Anything we decide here obviously has nothing to do with what agreement you make with your landlord. This is just strictly if we think that use is...

I totally respect that, yes.

[Speaker 6] (10:16 - 10:25)
I really do. I was just hoping to do something here in Swampsville. Something nice.

I think the residents here will love that.

[Speaker 1] (10:27 - 10:29)
Does anybody else on the board have any...

[Speaker 3] (10:31 - 10:33)
I don't have any further questions.

[Speaker 1] (10:33 - 10:53)
Any further questions, any concerns? I don't either. Does anybody want to make a motion?

So we move to approve this petition for this address for use.

[Speaker 8] (10:53 - 11:04)
Okay, so... We grant the permission for... I move to...

I move to grab...

[Speaker 1] (11:04 - 11:07)
To approve petition 23-7.

[Speaker 8] (11:07 - 11:26)
Yeah, I move to approve petition 23-7 to use of special permit section 2.2.00 at... Where does it go, the address? 434 Humphrey Street.

For the use of an household. Right, I second that motion.

[Speaker 3] (11:28 - 11:28)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (11:29 - 11:44)
All in favor? Aye. All right, awesome.

All right, so your motion's approved. Thank you so much. And we will write that up and...

It'll be submitted to the town hall in a few days.

[Speaker 6] (11:44 - 11:45)
Thank you so much.

[Speaker 10] (11:45 - 11:46)
Appreciate it.

[Speaker 1] (11:46 - 11:49)
Thanks. All right.

[Speaker 3] (11:49 - 11:50)
So you want me to do the next one?

[Speaker 1] (11:51 - 11:53)
So yeah, you need to do the next one. No, I didn't close the public hearing.

[Speaker 3] (11:55 - 12:00)
To what to? I forget to close the public hearing. Oh, that's okay.

It'll be in the decision, right?

[Speaker 1] (12:00 - 12:06)
All right, so this next one, Mark, is going to chair because I am in a butter.

[Speaker 3] (12:07 - 12:29)
Okay, so our... Item 3 in our agenda is petition 23-08 by Ralph Perilous for 5 Tupelo Road, requesting a finding on a nonconforming lot and or structure for the construction of an addition. Now being after 7 p.m., could I have you introduce yourself, please? Sure.

[Speaker 11] (12:30 - 12:40)
My name is Ralph Perilous, longtime Swamp Scout resident, and I'm here tonight with Ernie DeMaio, who's the architect of the project.

[Speaker 3] (12:44 - 12:45)
Okay.

[Speaker 11] (12:47 - 13:48)
Could you tell us a little bit about the project and who you're requesting? Sure. I'm here tonight because I'm looking to renovate my house, and the house is located on a preexisting nonconforming lot.

The nonconformance is because of two things, lot area and frontage. The code-required frontage is 125 feet in current code, and the lot has about a little under 85 feet. The lot area per code is 30,000 square feet, and the lot actually has a little right around 20,000 square feet.

However, we're planning a renovation which does not exceed any other dimensional requirements. So, for instance, setbacks, height, lot coverage, open space are all in compliance. So, in other words, what we're proposing to do is not putting the property into further noncompliance.

[Speaker 3] (13:51 - 15:57)
Right, so you're not creating any new nonconformity? Correct. By the proposed work?

That's correct. Is there anyone that wishes to be heard about this petition? Hearing none.

Any questions from the board? Hearing none. So, it appears that it's a pretty straightforward petition that under the Bellotta case, it's a finding that you need for this board to make.

Right, so we need to find that the work is not increasing the nonconforming nature of any nonconformity. It's not changing anything with the lot area nonconformity or the frontage nonconformity. Those are remaining the same.

And that's basically all we need to do for this relief is to make that finding. So, I'll make a motion to approve the petition and make the findings. Yeah, that'd be great.

Want me to make a motion on it? Yeah. So, I'll make a motion.

Mr. Rose has offered to write the decision. It's to make the finding that the proposed work is not increasing any existing nonconformity and that all of the changes are conforming changes and the property is protected by 48 section 6 of the general laws. Do I have a second on that?

I second.

[Speaker 13] (15:58 - 15:58)
I second.

[Speaker 3] (15:59 - 16:00)
Okay, all in favor?

[Speaker 13] (16:01 - 16:01)
Aye.

[Speaker 3] (16:02 - 16:20)
Okay, so you have your relief to build in accordance with the plans and you'll write a decision or file it with the town clerk. After it's filed, there's a 30-day appeal period and then you can pick up a certified copy of that to record. Excellent.

Okay, good luck with your project. Thank you. Great, thank you very much.

Sure.

[Speaker 1] (16:29 - 16:43)
All right. Okay. All right, so now moving on to petition 2306.

Was this going to be continued or is this?

[Speaker 5] (16:45 - 16:46)
This is Essex Street.

[Speaker 1] (16:46 - 16:46)
Essex Street, yeah.

[Speaker 5] (16:47 - 16:53)
Yes, I have assigned continuous form on record from Attorney Drukis. Okay, so do we need to vote on that or is that all set? Vote on it to make it official.

[Speaker 1] (16:54 - 17:04)
So, we're going to, I'm going to move to continue petition 2306 until our next meeting, which we're not sure.

[Speaker 13] (17:04 - 17:04)
When are we talking about that?

[Speaker 1] (17:04 - 17:08)
It's going to be August or September. I'll second.

[Speaker 3] (17:08 - 17:12)
Why don't we, how should we do that for the continuance? I'm just trying to think with.

[Speaker 1] (17:13 - 17:14)
Do we want to discuss that now?

[Speaker 3] (17:14 - 17:15)
Yeah, why don't we discuss it now?

[Speaker 1] (17:15 - 17:39)
Okay, so we may need to have an August meeting for that and there's another person who is going through the planning process and if we don't have an August meeting, it puts their project off a month as well because of the, you know, having to do both meetings now. So, I am available for August.

[Speaker 5] (17:40 - 17:43)
The hypothetical date is the 22nd.

[Speaker 1] (17:44 - 17:44)
22nd.

[Speaker 3] (17:45 - 17:46)
I'm available.

[Speaker 1] (17:50 - 17:52)
You're not, right?

[Speaker 3] (17:52 - 17:54)
I'm around for that.

[Speaker 1] (17:55 - 17:59)
So, the 22nd. 22nd. Can it be virtually?

[Speaker 8] (17:59 - 18:02)
Yeah, you can join virtually, yeah. Then I can do it, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (18:03 - 18:07)
22nd? 22nd. Okay, so that's the four of us and then we just need one of either.

[Speaker 5] (18:08 - 18:09)
Dan or Brad or Tony.

[Speaker 1] (18:09 - 18:09)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (18:10 - 18:10)
So.

[Speaker 1] (18:11 - 18:16)
Okay, so it looks like we'll continue it until August. Okay, August 22nd? August 22nd.

Okay.

[Speaker 3] (18:18 - 18:19)
I'll second that motion.

[Speaker 1] (18:19 - 18:50)
All right, all in favor? Aye. Aye.

All right. So. Next, we have petition 2305, which is Zero Lodge Road, continued from June.

And this is for a dimensional special permit, site plan special permit, dimensional variance for the construction of a single family home on a vacant lot. And I saw Ken. Is this continuing?

[Speaker 2] (18:50 - 19:35)
I would respectfully ask that we continue this for another month. With the owners of the property council, a private attorney who's representing them, and speaking to them. I'd be glad to speak louder, but would you like a mic or would that amplify my voice?

I'm just asking that the matter be continued while the owners of the property seek advice of council in regards to what they wish to do.

[Speaker 1] (19:35 - 19:36)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (19:36 - 19:37)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (19:38 - 19:47)
All right. So, I'm going to move to continue petition 2305. Do they need until September?

[Speaker 2] (19:47 - 20:02)
At this point, I will let you know as soon as I know. In fact, you can let any of the neighbors know if you're not prepared on August 22nd. But they asked me for it.

This is written in the public council.

[Speaker 1] (20:03 - 20:05)
Okay. So you want to continue until the August meeting? Yes, please.

[Speaker 3] (20:07 - 20:10)
I would suggest, do you know who the neighbors are?

[Speaker 2] (20:10 - 20:12)
I think they're...

[Speaker 3] (20:12 - 20:29)
Well, because I would suggest if you might continue it again, if maybe they could give you contact info. Just not to leave the onus on everybody to be calling Marissa if she doesn't know. So as soon as you know, maybe you could see someone designated as the group leader for the neighbors.

[Speaker 2] (20:30 - 20:34)
Whatever would be easiest for everyone, I would be more than glad to. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (20:37 - 20:45)
All right. Sounds good. So, yes.

So I am moving to continue petition 2305 to our August 22nd meeting.

[Speaker 3] (20:45 - 20:46)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (20:47 - 20:47)
All in favor?

[Speaker 13] (20:48 - 20:50)
Aye. All right. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (20:55 - 21:00)
And that brings us very speedily 10 minutes early to our petition 2225.

[Speaker 3] (21:01 - 21:02)
So we've got to wait.

[Speaker 1] (21:02 - 21:03)
So we have to wait. Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (21:04 - 21:07)
To start that. Any administrative stuff we need to hear?

[Speaker 5] (21:07 - 21:15)
I guess the August meeting covered it. Oh, I was...

[Speaker 3] (21:15 - 21:16)
The joint meeting?

[Speaker 5] (21:16 - 21:28)
The joint meeting. So it looks like August 1st might be the date. That was the only date that I could get a quorum from the planning board.

Heather, unfortunately, won't be available, but you might be able to...

[Speaker 1] (21:28 - 21:30)
I'll be driving, so I might be able to get it on Zoom.

[Speaker 5] (21:31 - 21:33)
But I do have a quorum with both boards.

[Speaker 10] (21:34 - 21:49)
You're authentic? Well, no. I'm out because I don't want to be sitting here and trying to influence, you know, whatever you guys decide at the planning board.

It's all about that district. Right.

[Speaker 3] (21:49 - 21:50)
Okay.

[Speaker 10] (21:50 - 21:52)
I don't want to be involved. Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (21:55 - 22:30)
So I'll send out an email tomorrow, August 1st, virtually. Shouldn't take any longer than a half hour, 40 minutes. The purpose of having both boards together is just to jointly vote to adopt the updated procedures.

You know, I went through, apart from the actual bylaw, we have a procedural guidebook that I went through and I updated based on the changes that were voted in May. So I'll distribute those materials, and then they're pretty easy to read. Bring them to the beach.

[Speaker 1] (22:33 - 22:39)
If we don't have a quorum of ZBA members, we can just vote it at our next meeting.

[Speaker 5] (22:39 - 22:55)
You can vote it in at your next meeting. Yeah. Do we know what time?

7 o'clock. Thank you. 7 o'clock, yep, virtually.

And so I'll send out a calendar invite with the link and everything. Oh, yeah. That was what the email was about.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (22:56 - 23:06)
Madam Chair, if I could just answer this. 7 o'clock. On a virtual?

Once they're voted in, yep.

[Speaker 5] (23:10 - 23:33)
The current procedures are posted on the town website. Yeah, they have been. Yeah, yeah.

I think they're under the Flaming Boards page, not the Zoning Boards. I mean, it was just a pretty quick update just going through and changing Flaming Board to being the sole permanent granting authority, so.

[Speaker 1] (23:33 - 23:39)
Yeah. Will we get a new, will we get new printed myelos?

[Speaker 5] (23:39 - 23:47)
Yeah, I'm just, I'm gonna go through and print the actual sections that need updating rather than like printing out, and then maybe the cover page, that way, paper friendly.

[Speaker 1] (23:48 - 23:51)
Yes, I agree, although mine is bound like this, so it's not like.

[Speaker 5] (23:51 - 23:55)
Oh, no, okay, all right. Maybe I won't get you, I.

[Speaker 1] (23:55 - 24:03)
Updateable. I'd vote for a new book. A brand new book.

A whole new book. Because I think there's changes that I don't have in this book as well that I just have to kind of process online even before.

[Speaker 3] (24:03 - 24:08)
I was just looking to see if the new bylaw with the new overlay district, is that in online in our.

[Speaker 5] (24:09 - 24:11)
Which, the Hadley overlay or the Glover overlay?

[Speaker 3] (24:11 - 24:14)
Are all of them online in the.

[Speaker 5] (24:15 - 24:27)
I have to check with Jared. I don't know if the latest version from May is online. Because I never know if we have to get official approval from the AG's office before they can go up online.

[Speaker 3] (24:27 - 24:29)
Well, they have to be approved by the AG's.

[Speaker 5] (24:29 - 24:31)
Yeah, and we haven't had that yet.

[Speaker 1] (24:31 - 24:34)
Oh, okay. When that's done, then it'll be updated and then we can get updated.

[Speaker 5] (24:35 - 24:52)
Yeah. They had 90 days from, I think we submitted them June 1st, so they have until September 1st, give or take, unless they request an extension, which I hope they don't. But we would love to know.

[Speaker 1] (24:53 - 24:54)
Would they go into effect before that?

[Speaker 5] (24:54 - 25:15)
Yeah, so when they do get, so I guess anybody that seeks relief under any of the new bylaws is doing so at risk. So for all intents and purposes, the site plan review process, as it stands right now, though we don't foresee any objections from the Attorney General's office, petitioners are proceeding at risk. But they also can operate under the former bylaw.

[Speaker 8] (25:15 - 25:16)
Yes, there's no other way.

[Speaker 2] (25:17 - 25:25)
I think it's effective. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thanks.

The first advertisement even before town meeting?

[Speaker 1] (25:26 - 26:05)
So when the warrant came out? Because obviously we weren't doing, we weren't proceeding that way before it was voted in. Right, right.

So then all those people that would be in between that time would not have had the shot. But I'm guessing, what I'm saying is we weren't doing it that way in between. Yeah, so then those people would technically not have an approved planning board site plan if they happened to fall in those weeks.

[Speaker 10] (26:09 - 26:36)
Yeah, yeah, he was happy. He was excited and said orientation. And he just, they just wanted him to lose the goalie and then prep the college team and just won the state championship.

So they had a great spring with that. Is he gonna play in college? He'll play club.

I want him, he didn't get to start until he was a senior at the prep. He had a great season. Right.

But if not, I'm just like, we're all starting to get started.

[Speaker 13] (26:36 - 26:39)
Hello, I'm just gonna have my coffee.

[Speaker 8] (26:41 - 26:43)
I'm still on holiday.

[Speaker 13] (26:43 - 26:43)
Yeah, I was like, yeah.

[Speaker 8] (26:44 - 26:48)
What? Oh, my mind was on it. I was fine, I don't care.

[Speaker 13] (26:49 - 26:49)
It was tough.

[Speaker 8] (26:49 - 26:54)
No, no, but I was like, well, sure. I can keep going. And then he did it, just kind of.

[Speaker 10] (26:54 - 26:58)
Oh, that's probably. I was doing self-instructed playoffs at my house. Like nobody was saying anything.

[Speaker 8] (27:00 - 27:03)
Oh, it was funny. I still have to talk to him.

[Speaker 10] (27:04 - 27:05)
Going into the fourth quarter.

[Speaker 8] (27:05 - 27:34)
No, he was still learning. I also need to know. I'm just, it was organized as well.

I was wondering whether you would introduce the record to your new members.

[Speaker 5] (27:35 - 27:41)
Oh, yes, please introduce yourself. Hi, I'm Susan Sinerich. I'm a new member.

[Speaker 1] (27:42 - 27:47)
Yay! Which is great, because we have a quorum. Yes, we do.

[Speaker 3] (27:47 - 27:52)
Right. You were here today. Your first meeting, right?

[Speaker 1] (27:53 - 27:57)
I've been to a few, but I was sitting over there. Yeah, we're putting you right to work. Good.

[Speaker 5] (28:11 - 28:12)
Andy, where are you at right now?

[Speaker 1] (28:12 - 28:29)
When it's posted, it's at 7.30. Where is it? It's called Catechist. Really?

Which is two and a half hours. If you had a question about it, and then you showed up on time, and you were already done, or you were 10 minutes in, and you didn't get your chance to speak.

[Speaker 7] (28:29 - 28:31)
And that's just, but it's just the...

[Speaker 1] (28:31 - 28:38)
Okay. And usually it's on purpose to, like, prevent people from having to speak and, like, relengthen things.

[Speaker 8] (28:39 - 28:42)
Did you ever go over 20 years?

[Speaker 2] (28:44 - 28:45)
Except for Cold Steve, where were you?

[Speaker 3] (28:45 - 28:48)
Good. I didn't notice there was a crowd of people behind you before.

[Speaker 1] (28:48 - 28:54)
I wasn't with them. Between you and me. Yeah, I'm sure.

Yeah, yeah. So it's like it was done ahead of time.

[Speaker 5] (28:54 - 28:55)
And then you can notify all the other.

[Speaker 10] (28:57 - 29:00)
Nice. Because they all show up. Yeah.

The last year, so we'll see.

[Speaker 5] (29:00 - 29:01)
Great.

[Speaker 10] (29:01 - 29:01)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (29:03 - 29:05)
Is it mountainous, or is it coastal?

[Speaker 4] (29:05 - 29:07)
Oh, it's on the ocean.

[Speaker 10] (29:07 - 29:12)
It's just a cool. How's your summer going? Pretty good.

Yeah. Good.

[Speaker 8] (29:12 - 29:14)
Did you just say you're so tired?

[Speaker 10] (29:14 - 29:15)
Years.

[Speaker 8] (29:15 - 29:16)
Oh, my.

[Speaker 10] (29:16 - 29:18)
Oh, yeah. Yeah. Good experiences.

[Speaker 13] (29:19 - 29:20)
One? One good one?

[Speaker 10] (29:20 - 29:21)
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 13] (29:21 - 29:22)
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 10] (29:23 - 29:23)
Yeah.

[Speaker 13] (29:25 - 29:26)
Sorry, he's not even started yet.

[Speaker 10] (29:26 - 29:28)
He's already changed his course for, like, three times. Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (29:29 - 29:30)
So is he going in the fall?

[Speaker 10] (29:31 - 29:32)
He's going to go in the fall, yeah.

[Speaker 8] (29:32 - 29:35)
He's got orientation. What's he doing? He doesn't know yet.

[Speaker 10] (29:36 - 29:43)
Computer science, he says. OK. I can't get him too late.

Like a calendar in Google, like a cool calendar.

[Speaker 5] (29:43 - 29:45)
Yeah, I have. Yeah, I have. Sorry, one second.

Yeah.

[Speaker 10] (29:45 - 29:47)
I have my notes.

[Speaker 3] (29:47 - 29:47)
He'll finish.

[Speaker 5] (29:49 - 29:54)
Yeah. I spend time mostly in the south, in Seville, then Chavis.

[Speaker 10] (29:55 - 30:04)
Really? Yeah. OK.

Thank you.

[Speaker 8] (30:04 - 30:05)
Thank you, God.

[Speaker 10] (30:09 - 30:19)
Oh, that's great. Yeah, I'm excited for him. Yeah, she is.

[Speaker 8] (30:20 - 30:22)
Oh. I love everything about Chavis.

[Speaker 10] (30:24 - 30:26)
He's a genius. Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (30:27 - 30:29)
I'm not too fond of him, but he's a genius.

[Speaker 10] (30:29 - 30:37)
I think he's a very good student. Yeah. OK.

Yeah, he's a great student. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (30:37 - 30:39)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

[Speaker 10] (30:39 - 30:42)
He's an interesting guy, which is they really need their words.

[Speaker 8] (30:45 - 30:54)
Yeah So we got to get him back within two days. Oh, that be nice with them, because he sometimes is there, I mean, it's going to be back in two days.

[Speaker 5] (30:57 - 31:02)
It would have been stuffed up, yeah. Yeah, it would have been stuffed. Yeah.

I love it down there. All right, I think we're good.

[Speaker 13] (31:02 - 31:02)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (31:02 - 31:06)
I went to Cotty, they didn't know much about Chavis.

[Speaker 13] (31:06 - 31:06)
Oh.

[Speaker 5] (31:08 - 31:09)
We had our Lisa.

[Speaker 1] (31:10 - 31:55)
All right, so it being after 730, we can continue with petition 2225, which is 53 Puritan Road, which is continued from February. I know we received a letter from the historical board, which went over a previous plan that was submitted by a previous owner, and they determined that the height of that garage was 17 feet, which is originally, and our understanding from that letter was that the owner has agreed to return the height to that 17 feet, is that correct?

[Speaker 9] (31:55 - 31:57)
We talked about it, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (31:58 - 32:00)
So is there anything else?

[Speaker 4] (32:05 - 32:06)
If I may.

[Speaker 1] (32:06 - 32:06)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (32:18 - 32:25)
Chairperson, members of the board, James Sipoletta on behalf of Mr. Snelson, he has answered in the affirmative, yes, he would.

[Speaker 1] (32:26 - 32:28)
To return it to the 17 feet?

[Speaker 4] (32:28 - 32:28)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (32:29 - 32:45)
Okay, and so this is looking for a dimensional variance. This petition is for a dimensional variance for the height of a pre-existing nonconforming accessory structure, in which case you would no longer need that variance because you are going back to the original height of the structure. Is that correct?

[Speaker 4] (32:45 - 34:12)
Yes, that's my understanding. I did read Attorney Stein's opinion to the board, and I concur, and I think we're looking at two scenarios, and I think one of them has just been taken off the table, that if the building had been destroyed or somehow compromised so that it was, it became uninhabitable and it was actually condemned by the building inspector, it could be rebuilt to its previous specs. So, so long as they didn't go higher or go outside the footprint, that's all they needed to do, and they had the right to do it.

If the owner were to increase or extend a pre-existing nonconforming structure, then we would need a section six finding, but since Mr., if I understand the chair correctly, then if Mr. Snelson is willing to return it to 17 feet, I don't think we need anything from the board. We wouldn't need a finding under section six because we're not extending a pre-existing nonconforming structure. We're rebuilding it to its prior height in other dimensions.

That's the way I read KP's opinion, and I think it mirrors what I wrote in my memo that accompanied the application. So I just wanted to understand the board's thinking before we agreed to too much, but he did agree that 17 feet would be acceptable.

[Speaker 1] (34:13 - 34:22)
And did, can you also confirm that the footprint of the building has not changed and the height of the wall has not changed?

[Speaker 4] (34:22 - 34:23)
That's correct, yes.

[Speaker 1] (34:23 - 34:25)
So it's just the slope of the roof.

[Speaker 4] (34:27 - 34:45)
Yes, yes, because, and I'm not sure of what the ratio of the pitch is, but it's a different pitch which then caused increased height. It didn't create any more living space, habitable space or anything, but it did change the height.

[Speaker 1] (34:46 - 34:49)
Okay, so the existing wall is still 12 and a half feet.

[Speaker 4] (34:50 - 34:53)
That's correct. I think there's no disagreement about that. There's no disagreement about that.

[Speaker 8] (34:56 - 35:04)
Does anybody on the board have any questions? I just, so is it now attaching to the house somewhat? I'm just confused.

[Speaker 5] (35:04 - 35:06)
Those, sorry, those plans are old.

[Speaker 8] (35:06 - 35:08)
Oh, yeah. That was just for the sake of showing the measurement.

[Speaker 5] (35:09 - 35:22)
I'm sorry. Those were the plans that just showed the, those plans are from 2012 and those were the plans that John Lehman from the, Vice Chair of the Historical Commission used to get that measurement. I was like, I haven't seen these before.

[Speaker 1] (35:22 - 35:22)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (35:22 - 35:23)
I just wanted to show those.

[Speaker 1] (35:23 - 35:36)
Okay. So the one question about the original plans that were submitted for this project showed actually reducing the footprint of that garage, setting it, which original plan? The plans.

[Speaker 9] (35:36 - 35:36)
Did I put it?

[Speaker 1] (35:36 - 35:47)
Yeah. Yeah. So the garage was kind of, was pushed back a little bit and that increased the distance between the garage and.

And the main house. And the main house. Was that work done?

[Speaker 14] (35:49 - 35:51)
Yes. Yeah. That's all done.

[Speaker 1] (35:51 - 35:56)
So the distance between the garage and the main house has increased?

[Speaker 14] (35:56 - 35:57)
It has.

[Speaker 1] (35:57 - 35:58)
Okay.

[Speaker 14] (35:58 - 36:02)
I mean, that was done, God Almighty, 2018 and 19.

[Speaker 1] (36:03 - 36:03)
Okay.

[Speaker 14] (36:03 - 36:06)
That was the first pyramid we pulled and there wasn't any problem.

[Speaker 1] (36:06 - 36:27)
Okay. Just confirming that. Because I know that it's squared off.

And in these plans that we have from before, it wasn't squared off. It had a little nook in it. But we went, rather than squaring it off and filling it in, you went back.

Yep. Okay. Just wanted to confirm that.

All right. Is there anyone else here that wants to speak? Mr. Schutzer?

[Speaker 2] (36:29 - 38:29)
Mr. Schutzer, could you walk up to the microphone? Okay. My name is Attorney Ken Schutzer.

I appear on behalf of the Director of Butter, Lawrence Bethel. Mr. Bethel is not here this evening. Mr. Bethel is ill. He's receiving dialysis and he had broken his neck. So he's at home. I did speak with him today.

I informed him that we had been before the Historical Commission earlier this week. I don't see a set of plans that have been provided that reflect the relief that's being sought. Unless, of course, I misunderstood and what is happening is that the applicant is withdrawing the application because they're of the position that the building inspector would be predisposed to grant a building permit.

Now, you may all recall that the building permit was revoked and a non-timely appeal was taken and therefore the only thing that was currently before the board was either the dimensional special permit and the variance. Similarly, at the earlier meetings I had indicated and I think the letter from KP Lahr so suggests that there is additional relief that should be sought. One is for the floodplain overlay district and the other potentially, and I don't have the dimensions, is a site plan special permit because none of that information was ever included either in the application or with any of the filings.

So I think it's a little premature. If the applicant seeks to withdraw its application based upon a understanding that has been provided that they don't need relief, that's quite something else. I'm not sure that's the case at all.

[Speaker 1] (38:29 - 38:38)
Can I ask Marissa something about that? Did you find that that was extended? Sorry, what was the floodplain?

[Speaker 2] (38:38 - 38:40)
The floodplain overlay district.

[Speaker 1] (38:40 - 38:48)
Was it extended? Didn't they have a review of that but then they didn't finish it in a timely manner but they did file for the extension?

[Speaker 2] (38:48 - 38:51)
I think that you're talking about the conservation commission.

[Speaker 1] (38:51 - 38:52)
I'm sorry, you're right.

[Speaker 2] (38:52 - 39:06)
I think there is a separate provision within the zoning bylaw itself which reflects the flood zone overlay district and certain findings have to be made specifically if the building is of historic nature, which it is.

[Speaker 1] (39:07 - 39:09)
So we don't have any of that before us?

[Speaker 2] (39:10 - 39:10)
No.

[Speaker 1] (39:10 - 39:13)
We only have the variance for the height.

[Speaker 2] (39:13 - 39:30)
Understood. But what I'm suggesting is that the board has deficient information and the applicant hasn't applied for all the relief that's necessary in order to go forward. It's even alluded to in the KP letter.

The other is site plan.

[Speaker 3] (39:31 - 39:37)
Let's talk about that issue first. But isn't that an issue for the building inspector first?

[Speaker 2] (39:38 - 40:57)
If he hasn't asked for relief from us. It would be except I'm not sure procedurally where we are at this point. It appears that there was an understanding whether it's correct or incorrect that the building inspector would be predisposed to grant a new building permit if in fact based upon the historical commission's recommendation but not vote because they never voted on it.

They were waiting to hear what the zoning board of appeals position was vis-a-vis the application before this board and then was going to go back and make a determination what they were ultimately seeking. So currently the historical commission has not voted anything in. This was and I was present.

I think Mr. Lehman is here tonight from the historical commission and he can speak to that directly. So if the applicant is based its decision potentially withdraw or the board of appeals position is that there's no relief that's currently sought, that's a different dynamic. My position is that we're here before this board tonight on the relief that's being sought and the relief that's being sought is either a dimensional special permit or a variance and the relief that's being sought.

It sounded like he's looking to withdraw without prejudice. If that's the case. Let me ask the question.

[Speaker 3] (40:57 - 41:05)
If that's the case then really my. So are you looking to withdraw without prejudice? Are you looking to continue to apply for a building permit and see if you get one?

[Speaker 4] (41:05 - 42:15)
Well, thank you. The building inspector actually issued the building permit and took into account all of those things that with regard to the flood plain. The building's built.

The building hasn't been substantially altered. What the building inspector's problem with the construction was the height and he issued the cease and desist based on his belief that the building was being built higher than it was before the roof trouble occurred and so he told Mr. Sneerson to stop. The building is too high.

He didn't say that it was a flood plain violation. He didn't say that it was an unlawful extension of a non-conforming structure and so we appealed the cease and desist based on the building inspector's conclusion that the height of the building was untimely for us to get relief in the February meeting in terms of the appeal of the cease and desist.

[Speaker 3] (42:15 - 42:33)
Right. But can I ask, so just hold that thought for one second. That's the way I read your letter.

It was cease and desist because it was 20 feet and it appeared that it was 15 feet. That is correct.

[Speaker 7] (42:34 - 43:25)
Moving forward to give another permit. Was it another one? What happened to the first permit, the original permit?

There were some discrepancies in the application. Is it historic? The answer was no.

Not unknown, but it was no. Is it in a flood plain? No.

And it's in a VE zone. So I have to go back and look at the applications because they weren't filled out properly. So I would say it's going to need, one of the things on the application was to create living space in the garage and that's not allowed in the VE zone.

So it really doesn't have anything to do with the structure. The height is what I believe we're here for, but to continue, especially with the living space, he is going to have to reapply for a building permit.

[Speaker 3] (43:27 - 43:30)
So it's your opinion that he needs to apply for an amended or a new building permit?

[Speaker 7] (43:31 - 43:34)
With the application filled out properly.

[Speaker 3] (43:34 - 43:35)
Right.

[Speaker 7] (43:35 - 43:38)
So I can send them to the proper boards if needed.

[Speaker 3] (43:38 - 43:52)
But if, I guess the narrow question I have, if the building height contained in the application shows that it's 17 feet, you're not going to deny the building permit based on that basis?

[Speaker 7] (43:53 - 44:14)
No, if we can, if it was never, it was never determined that it was 17 feet initially or in plans, but if historic and everybody, I do believe it was higher than 15 feet. So if everybody agrees on that 17 feet, then, you know, I'm okay with that.

[Speaker 3] (44:14 - 44:17)
Well, I think you're the important person for who needs to agree.

[Speaker 7] (44:17 - 44:40)
Well, typically, you know, before you tear down a building, he can rely on whatever he chooses to rely on. Yeah, typically, the safest way to do it before you tear something down is to have me come out and document it. Yep.

So we're really going off bricks and siding and getting as close as we can. And I believe we are at 17 feet was pretty close to where it was.

[Speaker 1] (44:40 - 44:55)
And then we have this existing plan from a previous owner that clearly shows 17 feet that has a key and everything. Did you have a question?

[Speaker 2] (44:55 - 45:00)
No, I was still speaking. Oh, go ahead, Mr. Lehman. I'll defer to Mr. Lehman.

[Speaker 12] (45:11 - 46:28)
Sure. Jonathan Lehman from the – I'm Vice Chair of the Historical Commission. The letter that was sent to you – and I don't – do you need me to read it into the record or does it suffice?

No, we have it. Okay, great. The last part of that letter alludes to a second thing.

One issue was the height that the building inspector just talked about. But the other issue is that there was no – the application for the building permit said that there would be no demolition. And in fact, the entire building was demolished except for one wall, the left-side brick wall.

So because it's an historic building, it's the John McDonough House, it would have required them to come back to the Historical Commission prior to applying for the building permit or as part of that process. And that hasn't happened. So the last part of the letter mentions that we're going to be taking that up at a future meeting, and I wanted to be sure that folks are aware of that.

[Speaker 13] (46:28 - 46:29)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (46:32 - 46:50)
Yeah, so I guess that's the bottom line here. The only thing that's before us right now is the height. You've agreed to go back to the original height.

So are you asking to withdraw without prejudice?

[Speaker 9] (46:56 - 47:10)
I just want to finish the house or the garage or whatever you want to call it and get on with my life. And this thing has been going on for a long time. And I did fill out those applications.

I didn't put down no, I put down I'm sure. I really did.

[Speaker 7] (47:10 - 47:14)
I will review them. I don't have them with me. I will review everything.

[Speaker 9] (47:16 - 48:10)
I was back and forth with the Historical Commission, and I assumed, I misunderstood when they agreed that all they wanted was a plaque there. And I said, fine, whatever you want. And we pulled a permit to put a new roof on the building, because the existing roof was collapsing.

It was being held, the walls were being held up by a steel rope, I'm not sure what it's called, but by a steel rope going both ways. And we did that to hold it. We went to replace the roof.

The roof collapsed. We wanted to save the brick wall because there's a court case in the 1970s. I might be repeating myself, saying that that building is zoned residential, signed by this Thomas Wanscott, signed by the fellow Bithells.

[Speaker 3] (48:11 - 48:16)
Yeah, I don't know if any of that has anything to do with us tonight. If you're withdrawing your application.

[Speaker 1] (48:16 - 48:20)
Well, no. The thing is, we can't authorize anything.

[Speaker 9] (48:20 - 48:28)
If you let Mr. Schultz go on and on and on, which he always does, I would like to say a few words. I'm only asking for five minutes.

[Speaker 1] (48:28 - 48:31)
So no, but I guess we understand everything you're saying.

[Speaker 9] (48:31 - 48:38)
So now we can come to some sort of agreement. We'll take down the roof. It's costly to take it down.

And I put in the permits exactly what it was.

[Speaker 1] (48:38 - 49:25)
I just want to make it clear what our authority is. Our authority is to vote on the petition that is before us, which is about the height of the garage. And if you say that you no longer want to increase the height of the garage and you're no longer asking for that variance, then you can withdraw that request.

But that we do not have any authority to then say, and we guarantee you're going to get a building permit and everything's going to move smoothly from here on out. That's not under our jurisdiction to do. So what we can do is we can say you can withdraw this petition because you don't need a variance for the height anymore, which we would not have authorized most likely anyway.

If you'd like to withdraw that petition, that is fine. But we can't, you know, we can't, we don't have jurisdiction to authorize anything more than that, than what is in front of us, which is the height.

[Speaker 9] (49:25 - 49:32)
I guess I understand that, but this particular permit that was approved twice, once by Steve and once before.

[Speaker 3] (49:33 - 49:45)
So if you keep talking about this stuff, then Ken's going to keep talking about this. And we're going to go on for something we have no jurisdiction. So I think we ought to just ask if you make your request.

[Speaker 2] (49:45 - 49:47)
We don't know if you have to.

[Speaker 3] (49:47 - 49:48)
It's for other boards.

[Speaker 1] (49:49 - 50:01)
That's not for us to decide at all. We're only deciding is are we going to authorize a variance for this height. And the fact is you don't need that authorization because you're going back to the original height.

[Speaker 3] (50:11 - 50:18)
If he's withdrawing his request for relief, he's not going to get it, Ken. I don't know if they need to say anything else. So we're going to keep going back and forth.

You look like you want us to.

[Speaker 13] (50:18 - 50:23)
You always look like you want us to. Even if you don't, you look like you want us to.

[Speaker 2] (50:28 - 50:37)
Since I'm the one who put the question, there's nothing for me to add to the applicant that withdraws. If he doesn't, then I have a lot to say.

[Speaker 3] (50:37 - 50:40)
All right, we're going to give you that chance if he doesn't withdraw. We'll see if he withdraws.

[Speaker 2] (50:40 - 50:46)
What's he doing? If he doesn't withdraw, what's he doing? He's going to ask us for relief.

[Speaker 4] (50:49 - 51:08)
Then we respectfully ask Reeve to withdraw without prejudice. We will return to the building inspector with a new application and plans. And I suspect we might be coming back here again from what I'm hearing.

But it will not be on a height request.

[Speaker 1] (51:10 - 51:33)
Okay, great. So I'm going to make a motion to approve the withdrawal of First, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'll second that.

All in favor? Aye. So I'm going to make a motion to approve the withdrawal of petition 2225 for 53 Puritan Road.

Without prejudice.

[Speaker 3] (51:35 - 51:36)
I'll second that.

[Speaker 1] (51:37 - 51:41)
All in favor? Aye. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

[Speaker 10] (51:43 - 51:46)
All right. In an hour you can hold off.

[Speaker 5] (51:46 - 51:48)
We just need an official motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 1] (51:49 - 51:50)
Oh, sorry. And I'm going to move to adjourn.

[Speaker 3] (51:51 - 51:51)
Second that.

[Speaker 5] (51:51 - 51:54)
All in favor? Aye. Awesome.