[Speaker 2] (0:05 - 0:24)
All right, so welcome to the October 24th meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item on our agenda is to approve the last meetings minutes. Can I get a motion?

[Speaker 6] (0:32 - 0:33)
I'll second it.

[Speaker 2] (0:34 - 0:34)
All in favor?

[Speaker 6] (0:35 - 0:35)
Aye.

[Speaker 2] (0:39 - 0:57)
We are going to move forward with petition 2315 which is a request for a dimensional special permit and a section 6 special permit for a non-conforming structure to construct an addition of a one-story sunroom and a pre-existing non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot.

[Speaker 3] (0:57 - 3:13)
This is 48 Norfolk Ave. I represent the M.L. Thompson Family Trust. The property as it's been identified is at 48 Norfolk Avenue in Swampscott. The applicant is desirous of having a prefab one-story sunroom slash screen porch on a extended pre-existing deck.

The structure is 20 by 12 feet for an additional 240 square feet. I have provided the board with the site plan with renderings and then there is a building specification sheet or sheets that are also included with the submission. I'm asking for relief under a section 6 special permit.

I think we can draw the inference that it is some relief is required under bill item because there will be an increase on the non-conforming nature of the structure and therefore under section 6 and the criteria under section 6 is that the board make a determination that the extension, alteration, reconstruction or change is not significantly more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. That in a nutshell is the is the sum and substance of the request. I'm here to answer any questions the board might have.

[Speaker 2] (3:21 - 3:33)
So I guess the one question I have the existing currently the distance between the garage and the deck when I'm looking at this plot plan the shaded area is an extension of the deck?

[Speaker 3] (3:34 - 3:37)
The the area is an extension of the deck.

[Speaker 2] (3:37 - 3:42)
Okay so previously it definitely had the full 10 feet and that's an open deck with no roof or anything?

[Speaker 3] (3:43 - 5:20)
No no it's it's just to allow egress from the sunroom. So it's you know it's an it's an interesting question because I was prepared for it and it falls under really one section in the zoning bylaw which is 2 3 3 1 and it talks about building or extending an accessory structure. That's not the case the accessory structure which the garage doesn't change.

So then I said well if it's if it's only relating to the to the principal structure is the principal structure increasing in size and the answer is not because that's the definition under that section it says principal building. The building itself is not getting any closer it's just the the stairs and it doesn't use the word structure it uses principal building and therefore I would respectfully suggest that that the provision under 2 3 3 1 does not apply in this case. But the deck expansion it's uncovered the area that falls within the purview of the 10 feet which is there a requirement for constructing or extending an accessory structure is not impacted because the area that's that actually makes the area narrower is just the stairs on the deck which is an unenclosed area just for purposes.

[Speaker 1] (5:20 - 5:24)
The stairs are 6.8 and the decks uncovered right?

[Speaker 3] (5:24 - 5:25)
Yes right.

[Speaker 1] (5:25 - 5:36)
No when I read the section Ken a detached accessory building which the garage is right should not be located nearer than 10 feet to the principal building.

[Speaker 3] (5:36 - 6:11)
Principal building it doesn't use the word structure and that's I that that's the distinction because I went through this entire bylaw and they use the word structure when they're referring to anything and I know you and I have defined the word structure when we had another case dealing with structures yeah it doesn't say that it says the principal building so so in this particular case it's on it's it's only the set of stairs and that does not that is not a principal structure for purposes of this definition or the intention or the intention of I think what why this was even included within the bylaw itself.

Okay.

[Speaker 2] (6:20 - 6:26)
Is anybody here to speak on this petition or online if you are?

[Speaker 3] (6:26 - 6:51)
My client by the way is somewhere in virtual reality if he can and he would be here except he's in Florida and is he didn't know when we were going to be able to schedule this and his plans didn't permit him to be here but he's he's somewhere somewhere on if we can is he available is he on?

[Speaker 13] (6:51 - 6:52)
His name is Keith right?

[Speaker 3] (6:52 - 6:52)
Yes.

[Speaker 13] (6:53 - 6:54)
I don't see Keith on here.

[Speaker 3] (6:55 - 6:56)
Well what about Mark?

[Speaker 13] (6:57 - 6:57)
I see a Mark.

[Speaker 3] (6:58 - 6:59)
Mark would you click on Mark?

[Speaker 13] (6:59 - 7:03)
Sure. Mark I'm gonna activate your microphone.

[Speaker 9] (7:08 - 7:10)
Hi everyone can you hear me?

[Speaker 13] (7:11 - 7:11)
Yes.

[Speaker 9] (7:13 - 8:21)
Hey great yeah I'm here. He's here in Florida but he would I'm sure yeah actually yeah but yeah Mark Thompson my I'm here with my wife we're in Florida we'll be back in a couple of weeks but you know we've lived in at 48 Norfolk for what since 1985 I didn't do the math but a long time and we're just we've had a deck on the back of our house for many many years forever basically and we're gonna it's worn out we're gonna replace the deck and we're gonna put a 12 by 20 foot hopefully put a 12 by 20 foot screen house on top of the deck in the past we've had you know some of these screen house type things you buy at Home Depot and you know they haven't really worked out too well for us actually they've collapsed in some cases over time so we're just trying to put a little bit better screen house on the on the deck and you know we're near retirement and we're gonna continue to live there for a long time we hope if I

[Speaker 3] (8:21 - 9:09)
can answer any other questions I'm here I would add that I did not add earlier is that mr. Thompson had sent out a letter to each and every butter inquiring as to whether they wish to speak favorably or had any opposition we've received no response I have copies of all of the correspondence to each and every a butter I have it for you if you'd like it you can include it in the record the only other thing that I found on the on the site itself was that the planning department's staff review comment from the Health Department Jeff Vaughn was no comment so I don't believe that we received any comments from

[Speaker 8] (9:09 - 9:17)
anyone I did receive comment today from neighbor Tracy Harrington but she was she's in support oh well thank you very much

[Speaker 2] (9:17 - 9:44)
no thank you Tracy okay yeah I mean the only concern I had was that 10-foot distance I think that the extension along the 7-foot it falls under the Peralta case do you agree yeah and then the and then I do I do and I agree with your reading that it's the primary building not not the deck I think you

[Speaker 6] (9:44 - 9:51)
would need to be a condition that that extension not be enclosed yeah there is

[Speaker 3] (9:51 - 10:25)
no my reading the plans that are submitted the building plans that are submitted do not include in closing you know it's an open deck to get out of the screen porch to to ground level there's there's no intention I mean if you want to include it but the plans that are being submitted in the plans for which if the board were to be favorably predisposed to grant the relief that sought does not show that's being enclosed so if you want to stamp the plans and say as shown by the plans that are submitted with the application which is generally the way it's done that would be fine with me and you need

[Speaker 1] (10:25 - 10:30)
relief for the building coverage right as well as far as the building coverage

[Speaker 3] (10:30 - 10:53)
is concerned it also falls under Pilata oddly enough right because it's all it's already oh boy I noticed as well you know something I never appreciated the nonconformity as much as I did on this way and yes it does and therefore it's similarly under Pilata it is increasing the nonconforming nature I'm going to

[Speaker 1] (10:53 - 11:21)
criteria building coverage that's correct okay so that's the section 6 special permit but if the board determines that the change is not substantially a more detrimental 30.1 percent that it's over by 0.1 existing nonconformity to the neighborhood okay I also have if it

[Speaker 3] (11:21 - 11:40)
would be of interest I have a GIF set of plans which reflect the size of the other lots in the neighborhood in the size of the houses it clearly is probably a little as odd as it may sound it's a larger lot than some of them because this is his home was built in 1910 before they even had zoning so the

[Speaker 2] (11:40 - 12:22)
lots are very small okay anybody else have questions well I I think it does like I said I think it falls under the Balalta as far as you did have that 30.1 for the coverage I don't think that the yes it's increasing the nonconformity but not it's more detrimental and then you have the seven-foot side setback which is just continuing along the same plane yeah which I don't think is especially with a screened space that's not even a right

[Speaker 1] (12:22 - 13:03)
so I think we need a finding here yeah that it's just it's that it's not increasing the nonconforming nature the nonconformity for that side yard addition we need a we should do a finding that it's the deck isn't the protect the decks aren't enclosed and it's not violating 2.3 point 3.1 for the 10 feet and then for the lock coverage that it's the substantial that it is increasing the not that nonconforming nature for the max building coverage but it's not substantially more detrimental all right does anybody want to make a

[Speaker 4] (13:03 - 13:28)
motion you know you're always so gratuitous and deciding to make a motion to approve the petition 2315 by Ken Thompson Keith Thompson is presented by Ken should sir as requested in accordance with the requirements

[Speaker 3] (13:38 - 13:41)
it'll be it'll be based upon the plans I submitted

[Speaker 2] (13:49 - 13:52)
I should have constituted the board I'll just constitute the board as

[Speaker 3] (13:52 - 14:03)
everybody except for me so so who is not on this me okay Heather is not you say

[Speaker 2] (14:03 - 14:45)
all in favor all right thank you all right you have your relief all right the next petition is petition 2316 which is to request a section 6 special permit for a nonconforming structure to demolish and reconstruct pre-existing nonconforming detached garage within existing footprint and setback and this is 69 Cherry Street

[Speaker 5] (15:18 - 16:30)
we started a few months back approaching an accessory dwelling unit for them at their home after we put the application in we met with the building commissioner on-site about the project and made a determination that we did have setback violation pre-existing close to a one yard one foot setback on the side yard there it is also height we're looking to for non-conforming structure to demolish and reconstruct pre-existing non-conforming detached garage within the existing footprint and setback that's there now what else again Alex and his wife are here in case there's any questions for them when we get to that point about what we're doing career seeking relief and asking the board consider the request as demolishing it and reconstructing it on the exact footprint exact massing height setbacks

[Speaker 2] (16:31 - 16:41)
detrimental to the neighborhood so if that was my question was about massing is it it looks like the plans have dormers on the roof and does it

[Speaker 5] (16:41 - 17:10)
currently have dormers yes yes there is there is a dormer and there should be a has built demolish and reconstruction of it so if you're looking at so yeah

[Speaker 2] (17:10 - 17:14)
when I'm looking at elevation B and D they don't have the dormers on the

[Speaker 5] (17:14 - 19:02)
second story EX 200 you have it what's up yep 200 B and D yes yes that is the front part on elevation B side northeast looking at the dormer that we have mainly comes on to the stairway going up to the second floor again to clarify you would ask existing building is changing the footprint in

[Speaker 2] (19:02 - 19:10)
the height are not but the total volume is yeah and therefore the square footage probably on a second right now is there a second story at all

[Speaker 5] (19:10 - 19:42)
yeah there is an exact you know again long story short it's been burned out for what 80 years or something I think there's a newspaper article we can find from 80 years ago where some local kids got caught that watched it and it's sort of been that way ever since there's a chicken coop maybe 30 40 years ago and now it's more storage than anything but yeah there's two stories access to it about 18 feet 10 inches I think total so it does look like it's expanding the

[Speaker 6] (19:42 - 19:55)
footprint at least with respect to the second floor according to the elevation on the rear northwest elevation C elevation the second floor goes out on

[Speaker 5] (19:55 - 20:43)
the sides so and I think I believe is it a 201 elevation see that covered porch yeah yeah the second level I think that's just the overhang of the roof yeah that's the roof existing roof oh and to address this angle this elevation it's just on this one here you're not so currently there is no overhang on the

[Speaker 2] (20:43 - 20:51)
roof the drawings show no overhang on EX 200

[Speaker 10] (21:16 - 21:38)
but the first already has sort of like sloping would you see that as considered

[Speaker 1] (21:38 - 21:55)
changing the footprint which is an interesting height is not changing the

[Speaker 5] (21:55 - 22:51)
only thing that's changing on the on the description the building height and I feet 10 inches and existing as built should be the biggest changes that is this volume the dormers yeah I suppose that's probably the proper better way volume wise yeah the massing is as far as the actual footprint corner corner front sides exactly the same and again we originally approached just sort of trying to renovate if you will what was there but structurally you know the slab so safety wise and you know existing building wise the question would really

[Speaker 2] (22:51 - 22:57)
be is if we feel those dormers fall under Palo Alto that it's it's extending

[Speaker 1] (22:57 - 23:16)
a nonconformity vertically yeah is it increased well but to be safe then if the motion would be that it was yes and then it's not substantially more detrimental right so that you're not running a risk of the opening it up to

[Speaker 2] (23:16 - 23:21)
an appeal is there anybody else who has any questions who's here to speak about

[Speaker 8] (23:21 - 23:30)
this petition if there is anyone online there's a raise your hand function that you may use and I can activate your microphone if you would like to speak

[Speaker 2] (23:46 - 24:08)
so I could see this increases yeah falling under the Palo Alto again being sort of the same situation where you have an existing nonconformity you're slightly increasing that nonconformity by adding more massing on the second floor but is that nonconformity more detrimental than the existing structure that's already afoot from the property line and by adding a dormer on that side

[Speaker 5] (24:11 - 24:17)
yeah I guess one other quick thing I passed out but we did engage with the

[Speaker 10] (24:17 - 24:35)
direct neighbors I didn't speak with the neighbors that at some length I gave him a copy of the proposal they didn't seem to have any particular issue with it

[Speaker 2] (24:35 - 24:41)
and so yeah you communicated that's nice I'm sorry you communicated with them

[Speaker 10] (24:41 - 24:46)
which is good yeah we talked about it for a while yeah they didn't raise any objections I don't want to speak to them obviously

[Speaker 2] (25:09 - 25:36)
oh okay yeah I thought you were saying you thought that the change was and I was like I don't see it that way Ken sorry yeah I understand you're saying the bar is actually higher yes I understand what you're saying all right so this would be a finding not a special permit then I would I would say

[Speaker 1] (25:39 - 26:57)
that the first question we do want me to make a motion for it I think I could do that if you want nobody wanted to be heard about it right no I'll constitute the board from fall it down okay I'm gonna make a motion for petition 2316 at 69 Cherry Street for the the work that's described in the petition for the accessory structure that last uses a garage that there first be a finding that the work is increasing the non-conforming nature of a non-conformity I think it's a close case but I think we should make that and my motion would further find that the increase in the non-conforming nature of the existing non-conformity is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformity to the neighborhood and that a section 6 special permit should

[Speaker 2] (26:57 - 28:02)
be granted for the relief we have a second second all in favor all right so all right the next petition is petition 2317 which is a request for a second six special permit for a non-conforming structure that is the one we just is that no it's very similar to demolish and reconstruct pre-existing non-conforming this is 12 eureka this is a little different though in my it's a little different because you are asking to go higher and there isn't it in attaching it to the primary structure correct okay so please just state your

[Speaker 7] (28:02 - 28:37)
name and demolish a pre-existing detached garage and rebuilding a new garage with a second floor living space on the same footprint we're also proposing to build a breezeway connecting the main house to the new garage thereby creating one principal structure we're seeking relief from the board I'm happy to answer any questions that you have the structure that we're proposing in our view would be non-conforming but we don't believe the proposed structure would be more detrimental or significantly more

[Speaker 2] (28:37 - 29:29)
detrimental to the neighborhood okay so this I'd love to hear what the board thinks because to me there isn't there is a difference in the sense that the height is changing from one story to two stories which that is a reason for attaching it is to make the garage now part of the primary structure which makes complete sense as far as getting the height the problem is now what you have rather than having an accessory structure that's non-conforming in the setbacks we have a primary structure that's non-conforming and in the setbacks and how does that work with the increasing of a non-conformity yes I'm curious to hear what the board has to say about that well my concern my

[Speaker 6] (29:29 - 31:35)
concern if I can chime in is that we've done this breezeway thing in the past for various reasons but this looks more like this is the first time that it really looks like we're creating two principal structures on the same lot and just doing it by this fiction of joining them up with the breezeway and that would be in derogation of the bylaw in my opinion because the bylaw says it specifically cannot have more than one principal structure on the lot and I'm reminded of the case that mr. Schutze had before us not too long ago over on where we did the breezeway not a breezeway but how the two structures were joined on over on gloops point one of the structures being a smaller house which I think historically had been like a carriage house of this other main house and then there was a like a carriage house and there was concern there I think I wrote the decision on that based on a draft that mr. Schutze provided and the concern was that that I believe my face of my memory I actually copied that I left it on my desk was that the concern was that the carriage house retain its character as a accessory structure and not be not be in that if there was any further desire to put a second floor on or something like that they'd have to come back before the board I think that's my memory but the board was very concerned that of that it retained its character as an accessory structure so it's not going so it's different was different from this this this looks like the what he wants to do is create another house on the lot is what it looks like to me so I could not support that I don't think that I don't think that's where the board should be going down that down that road what

[Speaker 1] (31:35 - 31:50)
about the gross floor area isn't that changing to what are the gross floor area and if you connect it I'll be part of the same structure it's one question

[Speaker 2] (31:50 - 32:00)
I am are you saying that you're increasing the size of the house is it

[Speaker 1] (32:00 - 32:10)
an accessory structure if you connect it and does it trigger a change in gross floor area for either the accessory structure or the principal residence I

[Speaker 2] (32:11 - 32:19)
would say it triggers a change for the primary rut for the primary structure because there's only one structure now if we are if we agree that the breezeway

[Speaker 6] (32:19 - 32:51)
makes it one structure right which I don't agree with that that's that's where I'm coming from I don't agree that it does or that or that it could but it's just a fiction that I think is is in derogation of the intent of the bylaw to prohibit two principal structures on a single-family lot right yeah I think it's just a connecting them up I think that they are

[Speaker 1] (32:51 - 33:45)
I also think there would be we have a it's it's I think everyone would agree that the garage and the principal residence are both pre-existing non-conforming structures one being a principal residence one being an accessory accessory structure and by connecting them I think it becomes part of the principal I think it adds to the size of the principal structure and then makes the principal structure therefore an increased non-conformity because the setback on the side yard on each side of the principal structure has then been reduced to 2.4 into 4.6 no that was my concern that now you know you're right

[Speaker 2] (33:46 - 34:02)
that's an additional issue there I mean you could say this is an interesting situation because well no I guess you got the 4.6 on the other side I was gonna say the 2.4 is up against Paper Road or right-of-way sorry well let me ask this

[Speaker 1] (34:02 - 34:06)
what if you did it without the connection how would the analysis be like

[Speaker 2] (34:06 - 34:12)
there you can't get the height you have to keep it it well then it would be like

[Speaker 1] (34:12 - 34:25)
previous petition yeah but well the 15s allowed right and it's 13 if he was over 15 so it would be increasing oh yeah so it doesn't trigger a ball on the

[Speaker 4] (34:25 - 34:31)
house of 8 foot 6 doesn't have to be 10 feet away yeah it doesn't trigger it he

[Speaker 1] (34:31 - 34:56)
would have been better off right if it were 15 feet 1 inch he's looking to go to the second story to have a better chance that's 13 feet currently so it can go to 15 go to 15 on the on the height yeah so that's what makes it tough for that relief is the fact that it's conforming as to height is non-conforming

[Speaker 4] (34:56 - 36:02)
as to side yard setback hypothetical hypothetical of he didn't want to put it there he just attached it right to the side of the house he attached it just you know he just built a rate attached to it there's no breezeway I mean would you feel differently and you know it's still be you know have some non-conformities etc you know since it's being demo just build it closer to the existing house I'm just saying you know in other words he could build a two-car garage and a second story attached as like he put an addition on his house as a separate building that wasn't connected right but in reality isn't that the same thing I mean he's still working off a non-conformity I don't know where the non-conformities would be but it's gonna have non-conformities that

[Speaker 1] (36:02 - 36:40)
would be huge well what I think he could do yeah I think he could build a structure that connects to the house within the building envelope that you have for setback rear yard side yard and make a decent argument that because the house is non-conforming on the side yard setback at the right-of-way and for frontage the front yard setback all those things that he's not under Balta he's not making he's not increasing the non-conforming nature of any

[Speaker 4] (36:40 - 37:04)
non-conformity I guess what I was what I was going at is okay now that you realize he can glue the garage in the second story attached to the house and he doesn't have to worry about height etc right bigger and higher doesn't have to worry about 18 he can be 25 feet that's what I think he could but so then does that is that better than if he just builds this thing over here and he has a

[Speaker 7] (37:04 - 37:15)
way connecting I understand that but I think I'm not advocating I'm just he's

[Speaker 2] (37:15 - 37:36)
just hypothesizing also but also in that theoretical scenario you're fixing the two-and-a-half foot setback because you're pulling the property you're pulling the my concern is that we used to have a garage in a setback and now we have a primary residence two feet from the no no no no but if he doesn't build

[Speaker 1] (37:37 - 38:02)
I'm not saying keep where he has the proposed garage for structure I think what Andy's saying too if you move the whole thing to where you have building envelope where you comply with setbacks next to the existing structure it's where you could so you you wouldn't have a two-point you'd have a conforming for the addition you'd have a conforming rear yard setback and conforming side

[Speaker 4] (38:02 - 38:13)
yard setback you know we attached to the principle sides right away well he's

[Speaker 1] (38:13 - 38:21)
calling that a side yard I don't know if that's just I think that's considered side yard he's got a rear yard setback all the way for that oh yeah okay sorry

[Speaker 4] (38:21 - 38:45)
I didn't see the back of the lot yeah but he's he'd be far away from that if he slid it up and slid it over he'd be out of the two and a half and be back at least to eighth you know he back to what he is conforming make it more conforming right but it but in any but I was kind of going I wasn't advocating I was just saying then he could build a monstrous bigger structure that we

[Speaker 2] (38:45 - 39:03)
really I understand what you're saying your point is do we really want to encourage something that would obviously be larger and it would have a more more obtrusive or whatever to the existing plan well he's got an odd

[Speaker 1] (39:03 - 39:26)
shaped lot he didn't advertise for a variance on this one but if he had or he did if he if we re-advertise it for a variance because of the shape of this lot and what the alternative would could be what he could and that it would be less detrimental perhaps to have in the location that it's what's the hardship

[Speaker 6] (39:26 - 39:41)
though what would the hardship be the shape of a lot look at the shape of the lot now what is it that he can't do it well what uses he not being allowed to make he has a single-family house with a garage on the lot the accessory

[Speaker 2] (39:41 - 40:07)
structure I mean the accessory dwelling unit you can make full use of the lot alrighty is the right-of-way so that's their property the right-of-way and you have access to get to your driveway oh so I'm sorry I missed that what's what's

[Speaker 1] (40:07 - 40:09)
going on with the right-of-way the right-of-way is owned by the property

[Speaker 2] (40:09 - 40:14)
here and he has access to enter this driveway so you also have a right-of-way

[Speaker 1] (40:14 - 40:34)
over that where it says right-of-way it benefits your your lot as well so that you are right away over there over their property right over their property up I got it

[Speaker 8] (40:38 - 40:58)
what would make this different than a stone street we saw that petition last summer and the board allowed the homeowner he put on an addition at the rear of his house but then that made the distance to the detached garage not complying because it brought it within 10 feet and so he was allowed to construct a breezeway between the new addition of the detached garage so what

[Speaker 1] (40:59 - 41:04)
I think the difference is he's looking to get the second story here yeah I not

[Speaker 2] (41:04 - 41:38)
only the second story but I mean the issue is not so much that distance or attaching it the issue is that two and a half foot setback that all of a sudden becomes the primary structure the principal structure is now rather than an accessory that can only be 15 foot 15 feet high since you are demoing that structure have you looked into moving it to a different location are you just

[Speaker 7] (41:38 - 42:13)
trying to maximize yard space in the back or we're trying to basically like get second we're trying to increase the square footage of our house right so we've got two small kids like it's just it's a tight space right so what we're proposing to do is build that second floor living space so that we can have an office for me guest space for when our family comes to visit and then because I'm working in the basement right now and just like blowing out the basement and making it like a playroom yeah so but is the reason for wanting to

[Speaker 2] (42:13 - 42:22)
keep it in the same place because you're gonna reuse to do but you're not like because you're gonna reuse this lab or talk to the guy next door did you say

[Speaker 4] (42:22 - 42:29)
Newton sorry did you talk to the guy next door Newton Nelson Newton Nelson

[Speaker 7] (42:29 - 42:39)
yeah I've spoken to him I mean he's I ran this past him and he was you know I don't want to speak on his behalf but he was supportive I mean in other words the

[Speaker 4] (42:39 - 42:43)
guy's he's got a right away so in reality he's well it's not it's not

[Speaker 7] (42:43 - 42:52)
right away it's actually there's a neighbor in the back it's thought it was your way my right of way but the driveway belongs to eight Eureka which

[Speaker 1] (42:52 - 43:01)
is right the thick black line is the is the property line right I mean it's like

[Speaker 4] (43:01 - 43:14)
he can use that the tour so I'm like shutting my eyes and saying that two and a half is really wider than that you know like that the easement you can't

[Speaker 1] (43:14 - 43:18)
count the easement can't come the right of way is yeah I was at first thinking

[Speaker 2] (43:18 - 43:30)
it was like a paper road or something in which case oftentimes we've sort of gone from the center of it or we've we've thought of that line differently the guy

[Speaker 4] (43:30 - 43:34)
that's the guy in the back driveway he uses that yeah that's right

[Speaker 1] (44:00 - 44:35)
you've moved to the only way for to get the building height in that area is connecting and making part of the principal structure substantially more detrimental you know what could happen is you've got all these nonconformities under Balalta you could look to come back and add fill up the whole lot with

[Speaker 2] (44:37 - 44:43)
structure are we triggering how much square footage is is are we adding

[Speaker 4] (44:48 - 45:25)
see mark I would feel if I know I'm trying to I feel differently if he didn't have a right away and you know so you allocated that that guy it's not that guy's yard he's going over it this guy can go over it as well so in reality I understand that legally the lot lines there but he really has the rights it's almost like if you went to his neighbor and said to the neighbor you give me that piece of land to eviscerate my nonconformity or conformity and I'll give you all your rights back then you'd be able to do it right no he doesn't own

[Speaker 1] (45:25 - 45:37)
the land no no he's saying he acquired it and then made it so that was part of his lot so he had more area you'd still have the 4.6 on the back he'd still have

[Speaker 2] (45:37 - 46:07)
the 4.6 or is that the side that's a side yeah I'm just saying I'm less concerned about the I'm less concerned about the breezeway kind of creating the appearance of two principal structures as I am about moving the

[Speaker 1] (46:07 - 47:20)
principal structure into that setback yeah well I mean I think under the question would be so if you if it were combined is the work increasing the nonconforming nature of any nonconformity it would be yes because of building height and because it's becoming one if you if it were found to be one principal structure and then if it's yes the board may grant a section 6 special permit upon a determination that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity to the neighborhood it's a nonconforming change because of building height that's what I'm saying but I think because he has because it's already nonconforming we can still grant relief for a nonconforming change so long as it's not substantially more

[Speaker 4] (47:20 - 47:52)
detrimental so that's what I'm saying he could move the thing closer to glom it onto the house and house and build a much bigger structure then we're talking about I think this looks good the only thing that I would put as a caveat in this is if we give you the that relief is that you can't then next week turn around into an ADA period no cuz that you know if it was attached to the house you'd never be able to do that if it's separate in its own breezeway next week you're coming back and saying I got myself in it you know an accessory I

[Speaker 2] (47:52 - 47:56)
just I disagree because we have no say over that that's yeah that's a right

[Speaker 1] (47:56 - 48:19)
I think I think he'll be able to do that I would be in favor if there were relief to restricting there being any additional footprint for building in the future because of the relief that was granted I just think it's bad president

[Speaker 6] (48:19 - 48:48)
I think we start connecting these ways to connect garages that can be built to with no limit on the height just if they can be built to the same height as the principal structure so you think it's substantially more detrimental if it were the analysis I think I think it derogates from the pilot just my

[Speaker 1] (48:48 - 49:04)
thought is because he could build it next to the house and it would be that would clearly be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what he's proposing here that's the only way I could see getting there I mean

[Speaker 4] (49:04 - 49:09)
the balance physically between the two looks more attractive than that's what

[Speaker 1] (49:09 - 49:15)
I'm thinking there's already a garage there you're adding a second story to it

[Speaker 4] (49:15 - 49:29)
half story half story excuse me no I mean half story in the terms of it's got pitch roof and dormers full-on square so yeah I mean it's the full square

[Speaker 2] (49:29 - 49:38)
foot it I mean the square footage is the full square footage yeah I don't know did it is anybody here to speak on this petition does anybody have any questions or anyone on the line

[Speaker 11] (50:07 - 50:34)
hello can you hear me yes hi hi everybody this is Scott Howie I live at Eureka which is behind Kevin Martin's home there and we have spoken extensively about this project and we are in support of it as is so he has gone over just kind of what they were going to do and and the purposes of it

[Speaker 4] (50:34 - 50:48)
and we are in full support and then we have

[Speaker 12] (51:17 - 51:42)
this is Nelson Knutson yeah Kevin has told us about the project replacing the garage that's there and we've also spoken with Scott and Kristen behind and yeah we don't have any major issues the project that is thank you and then did

[Speaker 2] (51:42 - 51:56)
you speak at all to the property at 14 Eureka Avenue which one is that's behind the garage can I can I speak to it what do you mean yeah I was wondering

[Speaker 7] (51:56 - 52:31)
if you had spoken to that person oh yeah yes that's Todd and Steph Riccardi yep yep they're aware they're aware of the project and spoken to them they seem to be supportive so you think this could be considered a stretch you know but I

[Speaker 1] (52:31 - 52:42)
think it's a bit of a stretch to make the section 6 argument I mean I agree

[Speaker 2] (52:42 - 53:28)
that it's definitely more non-conforming I don't especially with the you know with their butters not raising any concerns about light or you know feeling closed in or anything like that that to say that it's significantly more detrimental I don't think I don't think it is so all right well I'm gonna constitute the board as everyone but Paula anybody feel comfortable making a motion I mean you've made all the motions oh I

[Speaker 1] (53:28 - 56:06)
make the motion maybe somebody else would help on writing a decision I can help if I don't I might be a bit presumptuous to carry the day but I will make a motion with respect to petition 23 17 and 12 Eureka Avenue that the proposed proposed work to replace the accessory structure at the rear of the lot with a new structure in the same footprint but adding a half-story and connecting it by a structure to the principal residence will increase the non-conforming nature of an existing non-conformity in that the former accessory structure now being connected to the principal structure would increase the side yard setbacks non-conforming on each side and further finding that as there is an increase the non-conforming nature of the existing non-conformity that a section 6 special permit should be granted because the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformity which is essentially the same setback with an accessory structure first the principal residence to the neighborhood so I look at it that it's adding a half story by connecting the residents I would further condition the on there being no further building in increasing the footprint of the existing principal residence the extent that we could do that under section 6 so do I

[Speaker 2] (56:06 - 57:11)
have a second on that all in favor no we have four yeses and one no so you have your relief the last thing on our agenda is petition 2305 which is a continued petition from September oh yeah is that all set to continue so we're going to continue petition 2306 until the next

[Speaker 1] (57:54 - 58:18)
so what about continuing it to December not having would who has that Chris has so what about conditionally continuing it to December provided the applicant agrees to the continuance to December and then we don't need to have a November meeting if what do you depending on what happens on the last

[Speaker 8] (58:18 - 58:50)
petition well I guess you know would they be I'm able to that I won't be here

[Speaker 2] (58:50 - 1:00:16)
will everybody else be here on the 5th of December I'll be here I will be you you won't be able to okay and then Brad might be here all right let's do that let's continue it to the to December 5th all right so I just need a motion to continue petition 2306 to our November 5th meeting December 2nd motion thank you thank you all in favor December 5th all right now we can move on to petition 2305 which is zero large road which is a continued petition that we reviewed and previously it looked like the decision was going to be no and then the petitioner want to do some more research and come back but I so mr.

Schutzer if you want to fill us in where

[Speaker 3] (1:00:16 - 1:00:16)
you're at

[Speaker 1] (1:00:31 - 1:00:37)
I got to say I haven't listened to so there's been how many public hearings on

[Speaker 2] (1:00:37 - 1:00:50)
it I missed that one and I haven't listened to the tape okay I looked at my

[Speaker 8] (1:00:50 - 1:00:58)
minutes and I have the Susan hadn't been appointed yet before you guys were the president and then so is Brad okay so there's just four of us then

[Speaker 3] (1:01:33 - 1:05:10)
thank you so it could be incorporated in the records I would indicate that I received a response to that from town clerk Jared Liberty which says good afternoon the town of Swanscote has searched through our records and do not have any records responsive to your request thank you have a great evening my request under national laws chapter 66 section 10 was anything relating to the zoning on lot a on zero large road from the years 1948 through 49 which were the years in question as it relates to the subdivision plan attached here to which I included in my request for public records which was an approval of a subdivision plan on August the 5th 1949 by the Swanscote Planning Board the purpose of that request was was based in part upon information that I gleaned in the interim which was that the decisions of the Board of Appeals at that time were not of record we were not aware of that at the time then became aware that that board zoning would appeals had been making decisions Heather but had not required that they be of record and therefore recorded we are with no further information than we had before other than to state the obvious that nobody's going to go before a planning board to subdivide a lot that at that point was a pre-existing not before him but buildable lot into into two questionable lots which is what occurred if the board were to take the position that there was no zoning relief that preceded the subdivision in 1949 now that's just my my opinion I guess it's based upon logic but it's still my opinion I do not have because the town does not have any records either reflecting applications records reflecting decisions in order to afford some opportunity to sort of glean what occurred that being the case and having sat through the the Pittman property issue which was identical in many regards to this the only difference I would suggest was this was done before the subdivision control law which came in in 52 that that subdivision was done in 55 but I still think under the circumstances relief would be required and that's why we originally I didn't originally file it was followed by another attorney but that's why we were going forward so that being the case in order to provide us the opportunity to go forward a request to withdraw without prejudice really doesn't provide any relief at all but a decision would and therefore I would ask that the board cognizant of what they heard at the first hearing the issues that we've been presented with which was that the town has not maintained the records that I think are required the issues that I raised with regard to the variance and the reason for that variance without repeating my entire spiel which I don't think it's necessary I would ask the board to to make a decision and then to record that decision so we can take the appropriate action thank you very much unless you have any questions at all

[Speaker 2] (1:05:10 - 1:05:15)
yeah so the only thing I wish I had had the I didn't realize that this was I

[Speaker 3] (1:05:15 - 1:06:27)
thought we were going to could be this was going to be so did I yeah I I will not be the attorney of record beyond the zoning David they've retained a firm called Schlossberg Laura out of Boston there are two other attorneys that are working on this there are a multitude of options that they have you know there's the action against the attorney who certified the title that it was a buildable lot is the issue about the attorney who failed to provide them with the ability to obtain coverage through their title insurance for zoning and then it's obviously the 40 B which is available under any circumstances but as far as the relief that we saw I think we've come to an end and obviously if they wish to appeal your decision that's their that's their prerogative I was waiting to hear from them and I didn't know until today and as soon as I heard if you feel uncomfortable with such short notice and wish to continue on your own that's your prerogative as well but I only found out myself today

[Speaker 2] (1:06:27 - 1:07:05)
okay so I guess the question is does is there anybody on the board that feels comfortable making a motion that they feel will cover I feel like after if I was gonna I mean I can't make a motion but if I was gonna make a motion it would be very much I would have to do a lot more reading and then make sure that you get the right finding especially knowing that this is something that that will most likely that the purpose of this of this decision is to appeal it I would want to make sure that the person making the motion was prepared we're

[Speaker 1] (1:07:05 - 1:07:09)
just going to make sure as well that can with it would your client agree to a

[Speaker 3] (1:07:09 - 1:07:29)
continuous to the next meeting if they I think is a courtesy to the board and understanding the board's reservations without in my short notice if that's what the board would request I would take the liberty even though I'm not sure I have the authority I would take the liberty to suggest that I would on their on their behalf I would sign that extension as far yeah just don't have a

[Speaker 2] (1:07:29 - 1:07:41)
constructive grant right so I guess that would be the motion would be to continue this to the December 5th just for the record it's not my motion it's

[Speaker 3] (1:07:41 - 1:07:45)
the motion the board for which we will consent correct and did you want to

[Speaker 1] (1:07:45 - 1:08:04)
submit what you want for findings on that and then the board could at this point I think it's I shouldn't know if it helped you at all I I'll leave that to you thank you decided you wanted to you could submit five proposed findings you

[Speaker 3] (1:08:05 - 1:08:20)
know in a positive sense would be something I would gladly favor the board with but proposed findings which are going to be found to be insufficient to meet the criteria that I need to get the required requested variance is just

[Speaker 2] (1:08:20 - 1:08:33)
doesn't make any sense okay so I make a motion to continue petition 23 5 to December the 5th to December the 5th yeah for Lodge Road