[Speaker 1] (8:38 - 8:52) Welcome to the September 18th meeting of the Swamp Stunt Zoning Board of Appeals. Can we continue Petition 23-6 and 23-5 before we—do we have time for those? [Speaker 9] (8:53 - 8:54) We do, yep. I have two of them on record. [Speaker 1] (8:55 - 9:11) So I can do that as one motion. I'm going to move to continue Petition 23-06 and 23-05 to the next meeting, which is October 24th. 24th. Do I have a second? [Speaker 2] (9:11 - 9:12) Second. [Speaker 1] (9:12 - 9:13) All in favor? [Speaker 2] (9:13 - 9:13) Aye. [Speaker 1] (9:14 - 9:31) Aye. Aye. All right. So we're going to move on to Petition 23-12, which is brought to us by CVS Pharmacy, requesting for a conversion of 4,500 square feet of existing retail space into a health and wellness area. [Speaker 9] (9:31 - 9:35) Heather, I'm sorry, there should be an administrative extension on that. [Speaker 3] (9:35 - 9:37) Oh. 2107. Do you have that? [Speaker 9] (9:39 - 9:43) What's that? 2107. Just they're looking for an extension. [Speaker 1] (9:43 - 9:43) Oh, okay. [Speaker 9] (9:44 - 9:48) It was previously granted last September, September 20th. [Speaker 1] (9:48 - 9:48) Oh, yes. [Speaker 9] (9:48 - 9:50) And they're looking to extend it. [Speaker 1] (9:50 - 9:51) To extend it. Yep. Thank you. [Speaker 9] (9:51 - 9:58) I have back here from Pittman and Bordley Architects. They have some questions, but otherwise. [Speaker 1] (9:58 - 10:16) Okay. Sorry. Sorry about that. We're going to start with Petition 2107, which is an extension for a special permit that was previously granted September 20th, 22. I apologize. I did not review that one. So did any... [Speaker 19] (10:16 - 10:18) If you have the... Sorry? [Speaker 1] (10:18 - 10:22) I'm not sure if other members of the board did. I didn't have that on my screen. I didn't have that on my agenda, and I wasn't... [Speaker 2] (10:22 - 10:29) I mean, it's an extension. So it seems... There's some reason why it wouldn't be... Does anyone... Yeah. [Speaker 1] (10:36 - 10:40) Okay. We good? [Speaker 9] (10:47 - 10:51) I'm getting all this background noise. I don't know... [Speaker 17] (10:51 - 10:55) Okay. We're good. Okay. [Speaker 9] (10:56 - 10:58) The only mic on is head producer. [Speaker 1] (11:04 - 11:14) Thank you. Okay. So I guess the question is... So who... So someone is here for... Yeah. [Speaker 9] (11:15 - 11:24) Yeah. Yeah. I have Zach from Pittman and Bordley. If, Zach, you just want to chime in and say anything, we handle extensions administratively, right? [Speaker 21] (11:24 - 11:28) All the time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 9] (11:28 - 11:31) Zach, are you there? [Speaker 14] (11:32 - 11:54) Yeah, I'm here. Can you guys hear me? Yep. Yeah. Yeah. So it's just... We're just asking for the extension because, you know, last time we went through this, it was sort of mid-COVID, and now that we have everyone's attention back on it, we just, you know, we're kind of ready to wrap it up and get going. So... [Speaker 1] (11:54 - 12:15) Yeah. Okay. Is there anybody here who has any concerns about this petition? Has any questions about this extension, I should say? Seeing none. I'm going to move to approve the extension for petition 2107. How long is that extension usually for? [Speaker 9] (12:15 - 12:17) A year, right? For one year? That's what we did last time. [Speaker 1] (12:18 - 12:48) Okay. So we're gonna extend that out one year. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? [Speaker 2] (12:52 - 12:56) All in favor? All in favor? Chris, sorry. [Speaker 9] (12:56 - 12:59) Can I have you move to the... Or grab that... I'll grab it. Yes. [Speaker 10] (13:00 - 13:04) I didn't know that. That was an extension of the... No. [Speaker 1] (13:05 - 13:08) No, that was an extension of this project. This is the pharmacy. [Speaker 7] (13:08 - 13:11) Chris Ruckus, attorney for CVS Health. Oh, I'm sorry. Opposed? [Speaker 1] (13:11 - 13:13) 81 Washington Street in Salem. [Speaker 7] (13:13 - 16:13) Yes. Yes. For the CVS Pharmacy and retail store at 419 Paradise Road. Yeah. With me tonight is Chris Ruckus, attorney for CVS Health. And with me tonight is Ryan Keough, vice president of... Yeah. And if you guys would identify yourselves. Vice president for CVS Health. I think Mary Simbor is on... She might be on TV. And she's a senior medical director for CVS Health. Jeff Kern. Hi. Over there. A stock architect. And Nick Veloza. I don't know if Nick's here. Kevin Nelson, senior project manager. And Kevin's on. And Pat Danforth from VHS with me tonight. And I don't know if there's anybody else that's on. I know that those are the individuals I was told was going to be here with us tonight to help with the presentation. I believe you're well aware of this CVS location. It's been over 20 years at this location. I'm sure all of us have frequented it at one time or another. There's clearly been changes in the industry over the years. They have approximately 11, just under 11,000 square feet of space that's shown on the filing. They're going to turn about $3,000 to $4,000 worth of that space into this use, this proposed use for a health and wellness area. And they're going to maintain this. It will be the health and wellness center will come out of the retail space. There'll be no changes to the exterior of the building, therefore, there's no need for a site plan, special permit. And there is signage, I think, coming, but I think that's being worked out through the building department. And if there's a problem with that, you'll be hearing about it later, I guess. This is a B-2 district, as you know. The accessory use requires the grant of a use special permit in reference to 2.2.3.0 subsection C-7 and compliance under 2.2.5.0 non-residential accessory uses. You'll have to make the necessary findings on the 5.3.2.0 subsections 1 through 6. I'd just like to verify that the statutory requirements leading to publication and notice, I believe, were duly complied with and that with all of that being said by me, I'm going to turn this over to Jeff, who will walk you through the plans as to exactly what they have in mind for this location. [Speaker 8] (16:21 - 18:52) Hi. Good evening, everybody. I'm Jeff Kern from Stock Architects. We're the architect of CVS on this project, and I'd just like to take this opportunity to just kind of go over what CVS is proposing to do here. The sheet you see on your screen is not in our set. We added that for a little clarity for everybody here tonight. The purple area is the proposed health and wellness area, and the yellow area is what will remain from the existing store, the majority of it being retail area with the pharmacy and stock room in the back. I'd like to walk everybody through the clinic, if you would like to do that. So when you first walk in the CVS door, there won't be a separate entrance into this. You'll come in through CVS, and I'll give the rest of the second to pull this up. When you come in on your left, there'll be an entrance into the clinic. Once into the clinic, there's a lobby waiting area and reception. And then, is it possible to move? Yeah, there we go. And then you begin with exam rooms. There's a patient of size exam room on the left-hand side, and then an urgent care room immediately below that in your plan view. Across the hall is the x-ray and phlebotomy room, followed by an exam room. And then there's a toilet, again, on the left-hand side. Once you wrap around, there's a staff hub right there on the bottom, another restroom, storage closet, a staff meeting area, and then on the top of that area, three more exam rooms. That's the extent of the health and wellness area. Melissa, could you put the rendering up? And we just included this rendering. So on the very far left of that would be the entrance from the CVS, and then that's the entrance into the clinic. Just finally, the clinic is expected to have four full-time employees on a regular basis, including, I believe, including a doctor, correct? Including a doctor, a medical assistant, an x-ray tech, and one support staff. The clinic would be open seven days a week from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., and there's a primary care function, which would be open nine to five Mondays and Fridays. [Speaker 2] (19:09 - 19:11) Did you say the hours are going to be the same? [Speaker 8] (19:11 - 19:19) The hours for the walk-in clinic is nine to seven, Monday through Friday. I think that might slightly differ from the score hours. [Speaker 6] (19:19 - 19:20) The store's probably open a little longer. [Speaker 2] (19:24 - 19:32) But there's never a point at which the clinic would be open, but the rest of CVS would be closed. Correct. [Speaker 8] (19:33 - 19:35) Would be the other way, actually, right? [Speaker 3] (19:45 - 19:50) Chris, isn't this B3? I'm looking at the zoning map. [Speaker 10] (20:01 - 20:35) I think it's B3. So wouldn't that mean that you'd only need, the only reason you'd be here is because medical is allowed on the B3, you just have to change because of last year's B3? Well, I would have said changing retail space into non-first floor retail space. You'd need a special permit. Right here? Yeah. But it's B3. [Speaker 2] (21:22 - 21:24) Would it not be what's online? [Speaker 3] (21:26 - 21:30) Business use, medical, professional office. [Speaker 7] (21:32 - 21:44) These are not medical, professional offices. This meets more the definition of a patient clinic, which is a special permit. [Speaker 2] (21:48 - 22:02) What line number is that? C7. Outpatient medical center or clinic. Special permit in B2 and B3. [Speaker 3] (22:03 - 22:12) There it is. Right, special permit. B3. Yeah, outpatient, that's what it sounds like to me. Okay. [Speaker 2] (22:39 - 22:42) I'm going to open that door. I guess that one's open. [Speaker 3] (22:57 - 23:00) I might have to look at that. I don't really have that section. [Speaker 1] (23:06 - 23:12) Is there anyone here who has questions or who wanted to speak on this petition, either in the room or online? [Speaker 3] (23:16 - 23:20) Mr. Schutzer? [Speaker 18] (23:21 - 23:23) Could you go to the microphone, please? [Speaker 3] (23:23 - 23:24) Oh, sure. [Speaker 13] (23:31 - 23:38) I'm not here on behalf of Family Doctors. Is this another urgent care facility? Is that what it is? [Speaker 6] (23:38 - 23:43) It's an urgent care clinic that can also deliver primary care as well. I see. [Speaker 13] (23:44 - 23:56) I just wasn't quite sure exactly what they did. So this will be very similar to the urgent care across the street because there's an urgent care facility there? Or is it different? [Speaker 6] (23:58 - 24:41) So there's an AFC urgent care clinic in Squamish today. Information that we have shows it's serving a population of roughly 26,000 people in the area for that clinic, ideally 15,000. So from a CVS perspective, as we looked at how we could best support the community, we felt strongly that there was demand there, including a broader primary care shortage as well. And I would also add we'd like to partner with primary care doctors in the area, so if someone sees us for an urgent care need, that we can refer them back to their primary care physician and make sure that all the medical records, et cetera, are transferred over appropriately. [Speaker 13] (24:43 - 24:44) All right. Thank you. [Speaker 9] (24:46 - 24:49) I'm trying to figure out if this is B3 or B4. [Speaker 3] (24:50 - 24:52) I think it's B3. I'm looking at the map. [Speaker 9] (24:52 - 24:54) It's B3. It's B3, yeah. [Speaker 3] (24:54 - 25:07) And I was just wondering, the changes that we had in Binning Square from last year after the bank, some of the bank issues, is there any impact on this request for relief? [Speaker 9] (25:08 - 25:16) If the request for a use special permit affects the relief? Was this a buy-write use that then changed to special permit? [Speaker 3] (25:17 - 25:22) I'm just trying to understand how that might have impacted this request for relief at all. [Speaker 1] (25:23 - 25:35) I think it would in the sense that if we feel that the market for this service is saturated, we could say such, and that's where I see how that impacts. [Speaker 10] (25:35 - 25:42) Okay. We need approval for that part of the zoning by-law plus the clinic special permit. [Speaker 3] (25:42 - 25:51) So we need to just make a finding for that, that we think that there's adequate use and need for it? That's what I would think. Yeah, okay. That makes sense to me. [Speaker 2] (25:52 - 25:58) Is the employee count going to change at all from the existing CVS operation? [Speaker 6] (25:59 - 26:11) No. Today we have a front store and pharmacy, typical CVS, so those employees will all remain employed, and then we'll be adding four additional jobs to support the clinic itself. [Speaker 2] (26:11 - 26:13) Okay, so there's just four additional staff members? [Speaker 6] (26:13 - 26:19) Correct, and that could increase over time if the clinic continues to grow, but four to start. [Speaker 2] (26:20 - 26:24) I don't know if there's any impact on parking, but it doesn't sound like there is. [Speaker 6] (26:25 - 26:46) No, I mean that pharmacy is a busy one, as you know. At scale, we anticipate potentially 40 visits per day compared to the pharmacies filling hundreds of prescriptions a day. I saw any impact of parking or traffic. It should be nominal. We have a traffic parking study as well that we can provide. [Speaker 1] (26:57 - 27:00) Could you just pass the microphone, please? Thank you so much. [Speaker 7] (27:01 - 27:11) We did receive a traffic study that just came in on the 15th, so I have that here. If you'd like. [Speaker 17] (27:12 - 27:12) Yes, please. [Speaker 20] (27:13 - 27:15) The impact is pretty much negative. [Speaker 7] (27:43 - 27:45) Thank you. [Speaker 3] (27:58 - 28:05) So it's actually a little bit – this study says 3,105 square feet. I thought I heard it was over 4,000. [Speaker 8] (28:13 - 28:19) I also heard 4,000, but 3,100 is a more accurate number on the square footage for the clinic. [Speaker 3] (28:19 - 28:19) Okay. [Speaker 1] (28:34 - 29:24) Can you tell us about some other CVSs that have already done this project that are in our area? [Speaker 6] (29:29 - 31:20) So this specific arrangement that we have as a CVS clinic in this branding will be one of our first. So we're planning for four in total in Massachusetts. But as you know or may know, CVS also operates Minute Clinic with 1,000 locations nationally. So we have experience in the area. We want to pursue this specific arrangement due to a partnership that we have with Carbon Health. So Carbon is a provider organization that has 130 locations nationally across 14 states. They have a really great sort of digital customer experience as a whole as well as a really great clinic experience. And so they'll be our operating partner in this specific experience within the store. So it is our first specific foray with this arrangement itself. But again, very experienced with kind of the construction and management, et cetera, of launching a clinic nationally and also here within the state. That's helpful. So the primary difference between this and the Minute Clinic is for vaccinations and Yeah, mainly cough, cold, upper respiratory, although Minute Clinic does a little bit more chronic condition support today. This will be much more comprehensive. X-ray, phlebotomy will be available. So more convenient from a patient standpoint where you don't have to go to multiple locations to get both. And then the option to use that provider as a primary care physician if you want to do that as well. Those are the main differences. And sorry, lastly, Carbon has four existing locations in Massachusetts today, including in Framingham where I live. But there are plans for seven in total in the state. [Speaker 1] (31:22 - 31:22) Including this one? [Speaker 6] (31:22 - 31:22) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (31:27 - 31:28) Does anybody else have any questions? [Speaker 13] (31:30 - 31:30) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (31:32 - 31:32) No. [Speaker 15] (31:32 - 31:40) The proposing that 425 less people are going to be coming in because there's less square footage, right? [Speaker 1] (31:40 - 31:46) Correct. Yeah. There will be less retail. Right. I assume you're eliminating sections of. [Speaker 6] (31:47 - 31:53) Yeah. We'll consolidate kind of general merchandise, right? And make sure that health and wellness products that people. [Speaker 15] (31:53 - 31:56) So you're eliminating products. Yeah. [Speaker 6] (31:56 - 32:12) Yeah. We'll consolidate existing products and then, you know, arrange the products that makes the most sense and make sure people can get what they need. And then no impact to the pharmacy. I think that was said before, but just so folks are aware. [Speaker 1] (32:13 - 32:24) The pharmacy hours won't change. Right. Yep. So I know you were debating over there what relief is needed. Where did you come up? [Speaker 3] (32:25 - 32:38) Well, I think you had it right. I think it's B3. I think they need a special permit for the accessory use of the clinic. And a finding that there's need and that's it. [Speaker 1] (32:38 - 32:41) Yeah. I mean, we do have one other urgent care. [Speaker 12] (32:42 - 32:44) Do we have two? What's the other one halfway down? [Speaker 1] (32:44 - 32:54) Yeah. The other one is a primary care. I guess they sometimes offer urgent care at the, but they're not primarily urgent care. Family doctors. [Speaker 15] (32:55 - 32:56) Oh. Oh, Paradise Road? [Speaker 1] (32:56 - 32:57) Yeah. [Speaker 15] (32:57 - 33:00) That's an actual, yeah. That's more of a doctor's office. Yeah. [Speaker 3] (33:01 - 33:07) But I'm sure if it didn't work out for them, they would convert it back to a pharmacy. So I think it's worth them seeing if the need's there. [Speaker 17] (33:07 - 33:07) Yeah. [Speaker 3] (33:08 - 33:11) Fine with me. They're going to have their pharmacy. [Speaker 1] (33:13 - 33:25) Yeah. I mean, it's fine with me as well. Does anybody want to? Well, let's see. Let's constitute the board. Andy's out. So we'll do Tony, Mark, Brad, me, and Paula. [Speaker 17] (33:27 - 33:28) Okay. [Speaker 1] (33:28 - 33:36) Does anybody want to make a motion on this one? Knowing that Mr. Drukis will probably have to write it for you. [Speaker 2] (33:40 - 34:21) I could do it if you'd like. No. Come on, Mark. You do too many of these. I'll do it. I'll make a motion on to allow petition. Let me see it. 23-12 for a use special permit pursuant to 2.2.0.0 for an accessory use under section 2.2.5.0. As well as a finding. Oh, yeah. As well as. [Speaker 1] (34:21 - 34:22) I don't know the. [Speaker 2] (34:22 - 34:22) Yeah. [Speaker 3] (34:23 - 34:27) I don't know the exact language, but I think that there's adequate need. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (34:27 - 34:43) Finding that there's been adequate need for these, for this use in this, in this area. That sounds good. All right. I'll second that. [Speaker 1] (34:43 - 34:48) Okay. All in favor. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. [Speaker 10] (34:50 - 34:52) There's another agency for me. [Speaker 1] (35:15 - 35:24) All right. Moving on. Moving on to petition 23-13 for 434 Humphrey Street brought by Casey John. [Speaker 17] (35:24 - 35:27) Is now exiting. Okay. Okay. [Speaker 1] (35:28 - 35:45) Requesting a signed special permit for installation of a new awning with business name and logo. I know this was originally advertised as a use special permit as well, but that portion of the request has been withdrawn. Is Casey here? [Speaker 9] (35:45 - 35:49) Casey is here. She is joining us through Teams. [Speaker 1] (35:52 - 35:59) There she is. Hi, Casey. Hi. If you could just tell us a little bit about your petition. [Speaker 11] (36:02 - 36:10) Yeah. I think what we can say is that it's just a time to take the special approvement. [Speaker 1] (36:13 - 36:39) All right. And I think we've all had... Oh, there we go. We have a picture. We've all had a chance to look at this. I think this is a pretty straightforward one, but I'm going to... Does the board have any questions about this one? Everyone had a chance to think about this? All right. Is there anybody here who would like... Who has a question or would like to speak about this awning? Yes. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address. [Speaker 16] (36:46 - 36:53) I'm Mary DiCello. I think there's a bylaw that says that it has to be black and gold, that the lettering has to be gold. [Speaker 1] (36:54 - 36:59) Are we technically... Is this building in the Humphrey overlay district? I thought this was just outside of it. [Speaker 9] (37:00 - 37:23) No, this is in the Humphrey overlay district. I think that black and gold is for signage only, not awning. But this did go through a design review with the planning board, and the board did also approve the option for Casey to use a navy blue fabric. It doesn't actually have to be black as well, and they were fine with the white lettering. They didn't say that it had to be gold. [Speaker 11] (37:24 - 37:30) I think the bylaw says that the awning has to have... [Speaker 9] (37:30 - 37:32) Casey, I'm sorry. You're coming in kind of sporadic. [Speaker 19] (37:33 - 37:34) Oh, sorry. [Speaker 11] (37:36 - 37:41) What we reviewed from the bylaw is that the awning has to be black. [Speaker 9] (37:42 - 37:43) It does have to be black? [Speaker 11] (37:45 - 37:51) That was the bylaw. But that's in the planning board, right? [Speaker 1] (37:52 - 38:02) Well, the awning is black, correct? That's what we have to review. It's black and white, correct? [Speaker 11] (38:05 - 38:05) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (38:18 - 38:21) Is there a way to turn the volume down a little bit? [Speaker 1] (38:21 - 38:24) Yeah. I don't know. Is there a way to turn the volume down a little bit? Turn it down? [Speaker 2] (38:24 - 38:27) Thank you. She was able to do it. [Speaker 1] (38:27 - 38:27) Okay. [Speaker 9] (38:27 - 38:37) Thank you. Yeah. It's just your voice is coming in kind of... We can only hear bits and pieces of what you're saying. I'm not sure if it's your connectivity or... [Speaker 1] (38:38 - 38:45) My understanding is that you presented the black and white, and then when you went to the planning board, they said if you wanted to switch it to blue, you could. [Speaker 17] (38:47 - 38:47) Yes. [Speaker 1] (38:47 - 38:53) Okay. So, are we approving... What are we approving? Are we approving black or are we approving blue? [Speaker 9] (38:56 - 39:19) I think you could... I think you could approve an either-or, right? Could you approve the option, or is that within your authority? For reference, the awning at the Richdale Convenience Store, two doors down, is navy blue as well. Yeah. It's shown as green in Google Maps, but they have since changed it to navy blue. [Speaker 2] (39:19 - 39:21) What does the petitioner want? [Speaker 1] (39:21 - 39:26) Navy blue. Navy blue. Okay. I think that's fine. [Speaker 2] (39:26 - 39:27) If the planning board... [Speaker 1] (39:27 - 39:28) If the planning board approved it. [Speaker 3] (39:28 - 39:32) Yeah. Design review through that, right? [Speaker 1] (39:32 - 39:32) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (39:35 - 39:37) Is it right next to the other navy? [Speaker 1] (39:39 - 39:40) There's a space. [Speaker 2] (39:41 - 39:59) But, I mean, navy is kind of a general... You don't want to have one type of navy right next to another type of navy. I mean, as long... Can we set as a condition that it be identical to the navy next to it? Or as close there to, maybe, or something like that? [Speaker 1] (40:00 - 40:02) Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that... [Speaker 2] (40:02 - 40:02) It's faded. [Speaker 1] (40:02 - 40:03) It's faded. [Speaker 17] (40:04 - 40:05) I'm sure that... [Speaker 1] (40:05 - 40:18) I'm guessing that the vendor offers a navy, and that's what you're going to get. That there's not multiple... [Speaker 10] (40:18 - 40:21) But you're not going to be able to match it anyway, because it's going to have... [Speaker 1] (40:21 - 40:49) They're all going to pay differently. I'm okay with navy, as long as the planning board approved. And they're not touching. I mean, they don't look like they're the same building or anything. All right. Does anybody else have any questions about this petition? Mm-mm. All right. I'm going to constitute the board as... Let's see. Dan, Susan, Paula, me, and Brad. Go down this way. [Speaker 12] (40:51 - 41:08) And make a motion. All right. Paula, make a motion. Okay. I move to approve petition 2313, assign special permit for the installation of a new awning with business name and logo navy blue background to be complete according to design submitted. Everyone okay with that? [Speaker 1] (41:08 - 41:13) Anyone? Good job. Second? Second. All in favor? [Speaker 12] (41:14 - 41:14) Aye. [Speaker 1] (41:15 - 41:17) Excellent. All right. So you have your relief. Thank you. [Speaker 11] (41:18 - 41:21) Thank you. I hope you have a great time at the store, too. [Speaker 9] (41:21 - 41:23) We will. Bye. Thanks, Casey. [Speaker 16] (41:25 - 41:26) All right. [Speaker 1] (41:34 - 41:53) Next we have petition 2314 by Lewis Colton requesting a dimensional special permit for a first and second floor addition to a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot at 27 Curry Circle. And is Mr. Colton here? Yeah. Sure. [Speaker 18] (42:24 - 42:26) Okay. You can walk us through this project. [Speaker 4] (42:26 - 42:27) What's that? [Speaker 18] (42:27 - 42:29) Can you please walk us through this project? Certainly. [Speaker 4] (42:30 - 47:09) Thank you for meeting with us, and I give you all thanks for serving the community, as you do. I know what the effort is, and so I'm glad you're all doing it. This is a project on at, 27 Curry Circle. The building, it's an existing single-family residence. We're requesting a special permit, and you hopefully have a drawing in front of you. We're increasing the building with an addition on the side. Now, what I want to be able to point out here, and we had a little bit of confusion about this, as you'll note, it's a triangular site, and the building, if you've got photographs, the side of the building that faces Curry Street obviously looks as though it's the side of the building. However, the front of the building is actually that because that's where the street is. The building has been designed as originally, and which we are moving forward and replicating and picking up on the design concepts, which is actually the side lot, which is facing towards the long area of the site. So we're needing to do this. It's an extended family. The family includes parents, children, and grandparents, and there is a real need to expand the size of the building. It needed another bedroom. We were very frugal and careful in creating this addition. We wanted to maintain the requirements of being under 800 square feet as an addition, and what you also note is that in pre-existing conditions, several portions of the building are already over the setback. We've done our best to keep, not to impact that, and that's pretty much what we're doing. So we are adding a much-needed bedroom, and that bedroom includes, again, because of the size of the building and because of the amount of people who were in here, the kitchen was a very small kitchen, and so that was expanded, and that's on the first floor. So expanding the need to enlarge that kitchen also imposed on the dining room, and once again, all of that created the need to move forward for that addition on the first floor. So what we've done is basically taken the first floor and second floor, utilized them for the needs that are necessary and provided the building as we're showing it. One thing I'd like to point out, too, as we get into any further discussions, is that we were very concerned that this building fits the neighborhood, that the neighbors are in agreement with what we're doing. We do have, if we could pass that to you. We have a petition that was signed by the members of the block of the neighbors. Quite a few of them have signed it, and what the petition reads in short is that they are a resident of the neighborhood and the family and the owners, and they are very familiar with the family and owners of 27 Perry Street. Noted I have made, I would have been made aware of the family's desire to improve the residence with renovations and the addition, and they have no objection to the alteration proposed. The changes proposed will improve the present residence and be a benefit to our neighborhood. So that's in short what the neighbor's comment is. So I'm open to any questions. [Speaker 2] (47:17 - 47:29) So the only increasing nonconformity is the rear yard setback? The only increased nonconformity is the rear yard setback? Is that right? [Speaker 4] (47:30 - 47:31) Rear yard, this would be, yes. [Speaker 2] (47:32 - 47:41) And it's 2 feet. Right now it's 17 and a half. [Speaker 4] (47:42 - 47:43) Oh, correct, correct. [Speaker 2] (47:44 - 47:48) Otherwise all of the other current dimensions are the same. [Speaker 4] (47:48 - 47:48) Yes. [Speaker 10] (47:49 - 47:51) There's some conflicts in the plan. [Speaker 4] (47:51 - 47:51) Yeah, I know. [Speaker 10] (47:52 - 48:03) One says it's 16-6. The other one says it's 15-6. The 16-6 is okay, but the 15-6 isn't because you can only have 20%. [Speaker 7] (48:03 - 48:07) But it's actually the 13-8, isn't it? But that deck's open. [Speaker 10] (48:09 - 48:11) No, it does have an overhang. [Speaker 4] (48:16 - 48:21) This may or may not be helpful. I'm not sure if it's in your packet. Well, the 13-8 is showing as to the deck. [Speaker 10] (48:21 - 48:31) No, but the deck has an overhang. See, the second floor overhangs on both sides of the deck. So right there it's 13-6. [Speaker 3] (48:31 - 48:32) Where it's covered. [Speaker 10] (48:33 - 48:40) Right. Well, it's a covered deck, so the deck can't be there. It's the second floor, which is on top of the deck. [Speaker 3] (48:40 - 48:50) The covered deck can't be there. It can't be there as a covered deck. Not within that setback. Correct. [Speaker 10] (48:50 - 48:54) But don't we need 20% of 20-16? [Speaker 3] (48:54 - 49:40) Well, that's how we treated it forever. But, you know, what Robin had told us about the Appalachia case is, I have my notes here, that if you have a nonconforming single or two-family, which we do, it's nonconforming because area and rear yard setback. But the first question we ask is, is the work increasing the nonconforming nature of any nonconformity, which it is. So if the answer was no, it would be that no relief was necessary just to finding. If yes, i.e. there is an increase in the nonconforming nature of an existing nonconformity and the board may grant a section six special permit upon a determination that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity to the neighborhood. [Speaker 2] (49:41 - 49:50) So it's, and can we consider that in the back of this, the rear of this is the VFW, right? Yes. [Speaker 1] (49:51 - 49:56) The VFW and then the dispensary. [Speaker 3] (50:00 - 50:08) So, you know, in the past, we would treat this just on that dimensional special permit relief, which was inconsistent with. [Speaker 10] (50:09 - 50:12) Right. But that would be a no based on, we would be at a no. [Speaker 3] (50:13 - 50:55) It would have been a no under the dimensional special permit, how we used to treat it. Right. But looking at it, how we've treated it since we've discovered the Pilata case has been that we have discretion to decide whether or not it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current nonconformity, which is adding to the nonconformity. If the rear yard setback additional building, the covered deck, and there's a town of swamps by VFWs next to it. [Speaker 1] (50:57 - 50:59) That's the shape of the lot. The shape of the lot. [Speaker 3] (50:59 - 51:05) Right. You could argue that there should be a variance relief that you could get here. [Speaker 2] (51:05 - 51:07) Is there anyone here in opposition in the neighborhood? [Speaker 1] (51:08 - 51:13) Yeah. Is anybody here like to speak on this petition either online or in the audience room? [Speaker 3] (51:15 - 51:18) Right. This is experienced one-on-one for shape. Right. [Speaker 9] (51:19 - 51:27) Yeah. I did just get one email from Irene Pepperberg who lives at 30 Curry circle and says she was in full support. Has no objections. [Speaker 1] (51:27 - 51:34) Okay. Yeah. And I think with the, a butter being the VFW and the dispensary. [Speaker 3] (51:36 - 51:37) Right. [Speaker 1] (51:37 - 51:44) And with this really being a very unique situation where the, the rear of the house is retreating the side. [Speaker 3] (51:45 - 51:46) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (51:46 - 51:50) Of the house as the rear setback because of the way the house sits on the lot. It's very unique. [Speaker 3] (51:51 - 51:57) Yeah. I can tell you, I would be in favor of granting a special permit under Bellata for this one that it's not substantially more detrimental. [Speaker 1] (51:59 - 52:22) I agree. All right. So we're going to constitute the board as we'll go. Paula. To Paula to Tony. Paula to Andy. For this one. Would anybody like to make a motion? [Speaker 3] (52:25 - 52:26) I think it's probably going to be me. [Speaker 1] (52:27 - 52:28) Is it going to be you? Because it's the Bellata case. [Speaker 3] (52:28 - 52:29) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (52:30 - 52:32) Everyone feels like you understand that. [Speaker 21] (52:32 - 52:32) I like signs. [Speaker 3] (52:35 - 53:29) So I'll make a motion on petition 2314. To. First. Make. A finding that the proposed work would increase the non-conforming nature of any non-con of the existing. Rare setback or rare setback nonconformity. It would increase it. And that. The increase in the non-conforming. Nature is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformity to the neighborhood. And grant the. Special permit to permit. The relief has shown on the plans that are dated a 2123. I have a second on that motion. [Speaker 1] (53:29 - 53:31) Second. All in favor. [Speaker 4] (53:31 - 53:32) Aye. [Speaker 1] (53:32 - 53:35) Aye. You have your early. Thank you so much. [Speaker 4] (53:35 - 53:38) Do you want to have any of this paperwork included in your path? [Speaker 1] (53:38 - 53:40) Yeah, that would be great. If you could give that to Marissa. [Speaker 4] (53:41 - 53:43) Thank you very much. Appreciate that. [Speaker 13] (53:58 - 53:58) Project. [Speaker 16] (54:22 - 54:26) Okay. All right. [Speaker 1] (54:32 - 54:59) That brings us to the continued petition from last week. Which is petition 2311 brought by the swamps. Got affordable trust requesting a dimensional special permit. A special permit or finding for nonconforming use of structure. And if necessary, a variance to determine if historically significant home structure located at 35 Pittman Road will be relocated to the. Existing vacant lot at seven Hillside. And. [Speaker 3] (54:59 - 55:06) Heather. I'm just thinking first. Maybe you might consider. I know Dan watched the tape, making sure whoever. [Speaker 1] (55:06 - 55:08) Oh, yeah. I'm out. Okay. Yep. [Speaker 3] (55:09 - 55:11) All right. See you. [Speaker 1] (55:11 - 55:13) And Dan, you watched the video and do you sign the. [Speaker 5] (55:13 - 55:14) Yeah. You did. [Speaker 3] (55:17 - 55:20) And that's where everybody else was. Was there. Right. Last week. [Speaker 1] (55:21 - 55:21) Yeah. [Speaker 3] (55:21 - 55:21) Okay. [Speaker 1] (55:22 - 57:01) So. All right. I also, I just kind of wanted to briefly address last meeting's chaos. It was. I'm relatively new to being, to being the chair, but I've been on the board for a while and I have. Never seen. I don't think so much interrupting so much crosstalk, so much muttering under the breath. I was. I felt very, I just left that meeting. So frustrated. So I'm hoping that the setup of this room can lead to more professional behavior from the petitioner or the people representing the petitioner. And I hope that we can move forward like that. All right. So I just want to briefly recap where we left. I think Mark walked us through a very thorough analysis that concluded that the variance for area from 1955 was still in effect and had not expired, but that the property would require a variance for frontage. And then we continue that hearing until this week so that the board had a chance to look over the case law that was presented by Mr. Vitalik. I just wanted to ask the board, does anybody have any questions about that case law? Did everybody have a chance to look at it? Okay. I think I had a chance to look at it. I also had a chance to talk to town council about it. So that being said, there's nothing, there's really what we need to do is I think the board needs to discuss the case law, discuss how it applies. So I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? [Speaker 2] (57:02 - 57:02) Second. [Speaker 1] (57:03 - 57:03) All in favor? [Speaker 3] (57:04 - 57:04) Aye. [Speaker 1] (57:06 - 57:06) All right. [Speaker 3] (57:07 - 57:10) So what about, I wonder if you should constitute. [Speaker 1] (57:11 - 57:14) I think I will constitute the board now before we have a discussion. I think that's only fair. [Speaker 3] (57:14 - 57:15) Right. [Speaker 1] (57:15 - 57:16) So I'm going to. [Speaker 3] (57:16 - 57:22) I'm not offended if there's an alternate. I think that you should first give preference to the regular members on one of these is my thought. [Speaker 1] (57:22 - 57:30) The regular members. I would say. Sure. Okay. We'll do the regular members. So Susan. You're new. [Speaker 3] (57:30 - 57:46) So Andy is a regular, he's a full member. So he's out. So then you pick one more, right? Right. So we have one, two, three, four. So one of the three alternates because I'm an alternate. [Speaker 1] (57:46 - 59:21) Okay. So then I'll have you be on the board. That'd be great. Okay. So Mark and I had a chance to talk to town council about this, which was really helpful. I think she kind of agreed with us on, on my interpretation of the case law and on, which was very helpful. So I guess the question, you know, we can go through the variance. The two questions we have, is there a hardship and is that hardship caused by soil shape or topography? And I think based on the case law prevent presented usability or lack of usability, reasonable usability of the lot can be considered a hardship. But the, the frontage is not caused by soil shape or topography. And to kind of reinforce that our bylaw, which we read last week, but it says very clearly in 5.5.2.1 that a lot lacking and sufficient frontage is not eligible for a variance based solely on the fact that it has insufficient, insufficient frontage. And I think the case law that was provided sort of repeats that, that same message that yes, a hardship is present when, when a landowner can not reasonably make use of the property, but lack of frontage does not constitute shape. And therefore does not, does not raise it to the level to grant a variance. [Speaker 2] (59:21 - 1:01:48) Does anybody else looking through that have, I did, I did some research as well on and found that the overwhelming law that, that I saw supported just what you said. There's cases that weren't cited as well as the ones that were cited in the proposed findings. The fact that we were provided the Sagronis versus where I am says insufficient. This is a SJC case from 1993. Insufficient frontage does not constitute a substantial hardship caused by circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land. Unless one of those circumstances causes the hardship, we cannot grant a variance, which is consistent with our bylaw and section 10 of the zoning act. There's Raya versus North Reading, which is an appeals court case, but certainly denied or FAR was denied that accordingly applying the well recognized rule of this Commonwealth that the division of a conforming tract of land into one or two nonconforming lots does not in and of itself amount to substantial hardship, especially affecting the nonconforming parcel. So the division of that property into two nonconforming lots did not create a substantial hardship, especially affecting the vacant lot even though the latter could not be built upon as it could have remained part of a conforming lot. So the notion that simply because a lot is going to remain vacant, that in and of itself requires a variance. Um, I, I do not believe is supported by Massachusetts law. Um, there's Warren versus Amherst, which specifically says if the legislature intended the mere fact of a deficiency in the required frontage of a lot to be sufficient without more to satisfy this particular requirement for a variance, it is difficult to believe that they would not have said so in this statute. They did not do so when we believe that they did not intend that result. And again, I could, I could go on, but, um, I'm in agreement with Heather, uh, that under these circumstances of variances is not warranted. There's been no evidence, no showing of any impact or any, uh, of the circumstances related to soil conditions, shape or topography that would warrant a variance. [Speaker 5] (1:01:51 - 1:03:54) So my take on it is a little bit different is I think that it does not qualify for a variance for the, for the first criteria in the statute that there's no evidence of any circumstances related to the soil conditions, shape or topography or the second requirement, especially affecting the land, but not affecting generally the zoning district. So that's why I can't get to a variance, a variance there. Um, and I read, you know, all the cases and, um, the, the substantive, that question as to whether or not the, uh, uh, the inability to use the land is a substantial hardship or not. The cases that seem to, that seem to apply that across the board seem to be cases that predate the passage of section 10, 48 section 10, but all the other cases after that, there's always something about the, the, something unique about the property, you know, like that pork chop that, uh, on Paulding, I think it was Paulding or one of those cases that had the, uh, not Paulding. Yeah, it was that had, yeah, Paulding had a very unique property with 15, only 15 feet of, uh, frontage. Um, you know, I think there's a 40 foot, uh, strip of land, but, um, but I really thought though that the, um, the 1955 variance, you know, was valid and that, and it just, uh, it's just, it doesn't really sit with me that, that, uh, because the, the only thing that changed was that the, the, uh, I mean, it's still good on area, I guess the area increased also from, from, uh, what's, uh, was it 6,000 to 10,000? Is that what it was? The, uh, the area went from 6,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. [Speaker 17] (1:03:55 - 1:03:55) Yeah. [Speaker 5] (1:03:55 - 1:04:01) Yeah. So we're, but we're still good on area, I guess, because they were, I think the variance is effective on area. Yeah. [Speaker 3] (1:04:01 - 1:04:03) So, but they didn't do frontage variance. [Speaker 5] (1:04:03 - 1:05:42) So I don't know that the, that, uh, that still doesn't, you know, trump the, uh, the frontage. I'm not convinced by that because, uh, obviously it was an intent to make that lot buildable by what the town did. Um, and, and, and that case, uh, that case out of Quincy is very close to being on point, that Quincy case, uh, that has been Mahogan against Hayes. It's very close there, except that it didn't look like there was any, it looked like Quincy still had the same area and the same dimensional, uh, the same dimensional, uh, requirements. Uh, they, it didn't change. But, um, but what struck me about that case, it was very close on the facts to this case. And, uh, so it just seemed to me, I don't know that, I'm not convinced that the change in the frontage, um, nullifies the effect of that 1955 variance. But I'm not, you know, I'm not, I'm not convinced. And, uh, in fact, I was convinced until the end of the, you know, after you guys put the town council on the spot and, uh, you know, and she mentioned that was, that was the highlight of the meeting for me. But, uh, when she met, when she alluded to that about that, well, what about the, you know, the 1955 variance went just to area and not to, um, frontage and now you need another variance. [Speaker 1] (1:05:42 - 1:05:45) Yeah. And I think Mark walked us through that. [Speaker 5] (1:05:45 - 1:05:46) Yeah. And that kind of killed it all of a sudden. [Speaker 1] (1:05:47 - 1:05:47) Yeah. [Speaker 5] (1:05:47 - 1:05:52) But I'm not convinced of that. I'm not convinced that town council is correct in that, but I don't know. [Speaker 2] (1:05:53 - 1:05:55) I think I saw a case, Dan, that dealt. [Speaker 5] (1:05:55 - 1:06:17) Especially with the other lot, the other lot, you know, had the benefit of that, the lot that already had the house on it. Cause there was a house and then there was the house on one lot, the garage and the other lot. And, and so the other, you know, that other lot always had the benefit of the, of the, uh, of the existing always has the benefit. Right. Right. I mean, I know that's a difference. This is vacant land. [Speaker 1] (1:06:18 - 1:06:19) It's treated differently. [Speaker 3] (1:06:19 - 1:06:46) I think that Hogan D. Hayes case supports the fact that the area variance not lapsing. Right. But the difference here I see is there was a change in the frontage that even though they exercise their variance, they didn't get relief. They didn't get variance relief because they didn't need it in 1955. So I don't think Hogan goes that far to protect. [Speaker 5] (1:06:46 - 1:06:50) They would have got it though if they needed it though. That's I guess, you know, they would have got it. [Speaker 3] (1:06:50 - 1:07:17) If they had, if they only had 40 feet of frontage, they got that variance at the time and 80 feet was allowed, they would be fine if they, if they got variance relief in 1955 for frontage. This is how, how I, I see it. I'm, could you make the argument? I think it can make the argument, but it sounds like there's two. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (1:07:17 - 1:08:01) I believe I saw a case. And again, I think that it's an important distinction that where a similar thing happened. And in fact, the bylaw had changed the frontage requirements changed and it required a new variance that it wasn't grandfathered. That that change required made it nonconforming, but it wasn't, it wasn't at that point pre-existing. So it had to, you know, you get a variant. So that's my take on it and my interpretation of it. And I, you know, that would be the only opportunity for this because again, I agree out of the gates that there's nothing about the soil shape topography. [Speaker 5] (1:08:02 - 1:08:13) So it kills it. Yeah. And it's too bad because, you know, I think it's a good, like what they were trying to do, trying to do here, putting that house over there. [Speaker 1] (1:08:18 - 1:08:35) I know. Do we want to, I know we closed. Well, it sounds like, it sounds like there's two no's which I know that they had discussed previously that if they believed that it was going that way, that they would, they would like the opportunity to withdraw. The petitioner is not here, but her representative is, should we offer, is that appropriate to offer? [Speaker 3] (1:08:35 - 1:08:38) That's been the practice of this board for a long time. [Speaker 1] (1:08:38 - 1:08:46) It's, I guess as the chair, you're so, I mean, we, rather than take a vote, we'd like to give you the opportunity to withdraw if that's what you prefer. [Speaker 10] (1:08:48 - 1:08:50) Mr. Dementor said that. [Speaker 17] (1:08:51 - 1:08:54) Oh, you are here. [Speaker 1] (1:08:54 - 1:08:54) Oh, I'm sorry. [Speaker 17] (1:08:56 - 1:08:57) Hi. [Speaker 1] (1:08:58 - 1:09:05) So I guess either you or attorney, your attorney could could answer that for us if you'd like the opportunity to withdraw. [Speaker 12] (1:09:07 - 1:09:13) As we discussed last week, I think, I think that's a great thing to do. [Speaker 1] (1:09:17 - 1:09:37) So I'm going to make a motion to withdraw petition. Numbers. All right. Petition 2311 to, sorry, make a motion to withdraw petition 2311 without prejudice. Do I have a second? [Speaker 3] (1:09:37 - 1:09:43) Yes. At the petitioner's request and we'll write a decision on that paragraph. I would second that. [Speaker 1] (1:09:45 - 1:09:45) All in favor. [Speaker 3] (1:09:46 - 1:09:46) All right. [Speaker 1] (1:09:49 - 1:10:00) That is to get some meeting minutes. I didn't get the meeting minutes. Did you send them? Yeah. This morning. Oh, I'm sorry. I did not read everybody else. We can defer them. [Speaker 2] (1:10:00 - 1:10:01) I read them. [Speaker 1] (1:10:01 - 1:10:07) If everybody, if enough people read them, it's fine. There's enough people read them. [Speaker 15] (1:10:08 - 1:10:09) All right. [Speaker 1] (1:10:09 - 1:10:10) So what's that? [Speaker 3] (1:10:11 - 1:10:11) Okay. [Speaker 1] (1:10:11 - 1:10:30) So I'm going to make a motion to approve them. The past. Someone likes to make a motion to approve the minute. The agenda. I actually can't make a motion because I did not read them. I'm sorry at the minute. [Speaker 2] (1:10:30 - 1:10:32) I'll make a motion. What are the dates? [Speaker 1] (1:10:33 - 1:10:34) We don't have the dates on the agenda. [Speaker 9] (1:10:37 - 1:10:41) What are the two dates for the last week, September 12th and August 22nd. [Speaker 2] (1:10:43 - 1:10:52) August 22nd. Yes. I'll make a motion that the, the minutes that have been submitted for the meetings held on August 22nd, 2023 and September 12th. [Speaker 9] (1:10:53 - 1:10:54) September 12th. Yes. [Speaker 2] (1:10:55 - 1:11:00) 2023. Be accepted. All right. All in favor. [Speaker 1] (1:11:01 - 1:11:08) Can we have a motion to adjourn? Yeah. How do you make it? [Speaker 12] (1:11:09 - 1:11:10) Make a motion to adjourn. [Speaker 1] (1:11:11 - 1:11:12) All in favor.