[Speaker 8] (1:58 - 2:02) Tony, can you hear us? I see you online. I just want to make sure that you're there. [Speaker 5] (2:03 - 2:04) I can now. [Speaker 8] (2:05 - 2:08) Okay, cool. Are you sticking online for the night? [Speaker 5] (2:08 - 2:15) I should be. No, no, no. I'm sticking online until I get there. I should be there in about five or so. [Speaker 8] (2:15 - 2:17) Okay. Sounds good. [Speaker 1] (2:17 - 2:22) If you could participate over the phone, though, I suppose we could get our... [Speaker 8] (2:22 - 2:28) Yeah, I think so. And at any rate, I think the first petition, the first matter can be handled without... [Speaker 1] (2:28 - 2:30) Yeah. So I think that's fine to start. [Speaker 8] (2:30 - 2:30) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (2:32 - 2:46) Okay. So good evening, everyone. Welcome to the March 11th, 2025 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to begin with our agenda. Do we have any past meeting minutes that... [Speaker 8] (2:46 - 2:47) We do not. [Speaker 1] (2:47 - 3:02) Okay. So we'll move on to agenda item two. And now being after 7 p.m., petition 2417 for 25 Beach Bluff Avenue. Mr. Drukas, how are you? [Speaker 2] (3:02 - 3:06) Good. How are you? I'm fine. [Speaker 1] (3:12 - 3:23) Okay. Okay. So I'll make a motion to approve the petitioner's request to withdraw their petition without prejudice. [Speaker 11] (3:24 - 3:24) So second. [Speaker 1] (3:25 - 4:04) All in favor? Aye. I'm just going to do a roll call. I actually think I'm okay with that roll call on that. So we can move on. I just want to make sure, Tony, we are remote. You're voting yes on the... Yeah. Okay. All right. So that matter is withdrawn without prejudice. And I think we should wait until Tony gets here so he can see everything with respect to the remaining petitions. Are you about 10 minutes away, Tony? Probably less than that. [Speaker 8] (4:04 - 4:10) But if we can hold for 10, that should be... Sounds reasonable. [Speaker 1] (4:10 - 4:11) I couldn't hear what he said. [Speaker 8] (4:11 - 4:14) He said if we don't mind holding for 10. He thinks it's less than that. [Speaker 1] (4:14 - 4:24) But... Yeah. I think we should just so we see the presentation for the other two. Okay. So we'll pick it up as soon as Tony gets here. [Speaker 8] (4:25 - 4:25) Perfect. [Speaker 1] (4:39 - 4:39) Good. [Speaker 10] (4:40 - 4:43) Yeah. I've been home visiting family. I just got back last night. [Speaker 1] (4:43 - 4:45) Oh, you just got back. Yeah. [Speaker 10] (4:45 - 4:46) I want to go to bed. [Speaker 1] (4:46 - 4:47) How was the flight back? [Speaker 13] (9:34 - 9:34) No. [Speaker 8] (9:36 - 9:38) Sorry. I didn't see that. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (9:44 - 9:45) He needs that. [Speaker 8] (9:47 - 9:49) Oh. Yes, he did. [Speaker 1] (9:57 - 10:19) Okay. So now being after 7 p.m., we'll call the next matter, which is petition 2501 of Rodrigo Paz for 44 New Ocean Street. We're here on that petition. Do you want to come forward and tell us about your petition? Hi. [Speaker 13] (10:19 - 10:20) Hi. [Speaker 3] (10:20 - 11:35) So I had a pretty cool, pretty light apartment with some existing building on it for the idea of a public kitchen. And before I start doing the modeling, I asked for a permit to extend that existing area so I can make like a mudroom and change the layout of the kitchen. Then we find out that it doesn't comply with the clearance that has to be done. That's why we come to ask for you guys to take a look because the lot is in odd shape. And I was trying just to extend it, what was already in place. If it was something that I knew before we started, I just changed the plans. But right now it's already done. So I'm asking you guys to take a look and see how the plan looks like. It's more like for the kitchen entrance right now, as it was before. I just extended it. And the clearance, because it's odd shaped, like an angle, it doesn't comply in the beginning. But in the half forward, it does. And keep it going up and up. [Speaker 1] (11:38 - 11:46) I'm just trying to understand what was... I know that the portion that was right up against the lot line is existing. [Speaker 3] (11:47 - 11:48) It exists on O&M. [Speaker 1] (11:48 - 11:54) And I'm just wondering where the prior structure stopped as it moved towards New Ocean. [Speaker 3] (11:55 - 12:13) The full length right now is 14. It's 14 total right now. The existing was 6. And the new one, let me see if it's there. [Speaker 1] (12:14 - 12:17) Is it the portion? So it was the red all added. [Speaker 3] (12:18 - 12:27) Yeah, the red is all added. The 6.5 was existing. And the 7 feet and a half is the new one. [Speaker 1] (12:29 - 12:33) So the prior structure was 6.5 by 4 feet? [Speaker 3] (12:34 - 12:35) Yeah, it's right on the property line. [Speaker 1] (12:35 - 12:43) And you've added 7.5? Or is it, I see the 7 foot section, and then there's a 2.5 foot section? [Speaker 8] (12:45 - 12:48) 7 is the width right here. Oh, 7 the width, yes. [Speaker 1] (12:48 - 12:49) 7.5 is the clearance. [Speaker 8] (12:49 - 12:51) This number is 7.5 right here. [Speaker 1] (12:51 - 12:55) And 2.5 is the distance off the front, off the side yard line? [Speaker 8] (12:56 - 12:57) That's a 7. I don't know if it looks like a 2. [Speaker 1] (12:57 - 13:06) Yeah, I know that. I see the 7. Oh, that one. Yeah, it's 7.5. But what about the one that's closer to the side yard? Is that a 2.5 or is that a 7.5 as well? [Speaker 8] (13:07 - 13:09) That's 7.5 right there, and that's 5. [Speaker 1] (13:09 - 13:14) That's 5. Okay, so it's 7.5 feet off the side yard setback, 5 feet off the side yard setback. [Speaker 3] (13:15 - 13:22) Yeah, the setback asked for 7.5 because the angle is odd. It begins with 5 and 2 feet over. [Speaker 1] (13:22 - 13:23) Okay. [Speaker 3] (13:23 - 13:25) So it's 7.5. So I see. [Speaker 1] (13:25 - 13:32) So where it's 5 feet, you need relief for 2.5 feet on it because that's nonconforming. [Speaker 3] (13:33 - 13:33) Yes. [Speaker 1] (13:33 - 14:18) So you're adding. So you have a preexisting nonconforming structure that you're looking to add some conforming, dimensionally, side yard setback, and some that's nonconforming. So for the portion that is conforming, I believe you just need a finding. For the portion that is nonconforming, I believe you need a special permit, a dimensional special permit, which we can give you because it's less than a percentage. We have to give 2.5. Is it 20%? Or is there a 20% that we can give them? [Speaker 8] (14:18 - 14:19) Dimensional special permit? [Speaker 1] (14:19 - 14:19) Yeah. [Speaker 8] (14:19 - 14:20) 20%, yeah. [Speaker 1] (14:21 - 14:42) 20%, okay. So if it's, well, actually, it's existing. You're not going any closer than the existing nonconformity. [Speaker 3] (14:43 - 15:21) In fact, it's arguably less because it's 2.5. The only issue I have right now with the layout is because I did wait for the permit. Citadel gave me. I didn't know. So I built that close. Then I changed the kitchen exit closer to the exit. So right now, if I have to open for some reason, everything is going to be, like, exposed in the open. I have to demo whatever I have built. And the exit door is going to be, like, it's going to be in the open area. And the existing is going to be closed. So it's going to be a really odd shape. [Speaker 1] (15:21 - 16:02) Right. Okay. I was just trying to first understand the relief that was required for the project. Anyone on the board have any questions about this petition? Let's see if we have anyone that had any questions or comments. Is there anyone that's present tonight on this petition? Could I ask for your name and address? Yeah. Oh, making a comment. [Speaker 13] (16:16 - 16:17) Hello? [Speaker 6] (16:24 - 16:55) Okay. How are you doing? My name is Steve Gadman. I live at 11 Pine Street. My house is directly behind where the porch extension went. And the existing, the six-and-a-half feet there, that butts right up against my fence. And I don't know if you have some pictures down here. [Speaker 8] (16:55 - 17:13) Yep. I can pull those up and have them ready. Hold on. Let me just make sure I share them with anybody online. That's what it looks like from your backyard. [Speaker 6] (17:15 - 18:15) Yes. And when you come into the yard, it just hits you right in the face. It closes us in. The six-and-a-half feet, if you see the new pressure-treated post down there, the six-and-a-half feet is actually measured to there, where that's not where the, according to the print, the six-and-a-half feet is the distance of the existing piece. I know it's only a few inches difference, but bringing it that much closer to the yard and coming, if I come off of that post there, seven-and-a-half feet, it comes way into my yard. And the biggest thing is it's just, it hits you in the face, and everybody that comes over just says, oh, my God, I can't. You're closed in back here. Yeah. [Speaker 5] (18:16 - 18:19) Yeah, I think it was old. Do you have it? [Speaker 8] (18:19 - 18:21) I might just have to scroll through for a second. [Speaker 5] (18:22 - 18:23) No, yeah, I think we had to. [Speaker 8] (18:35 - 18:38) That's it from sort of a street perspective, right? [Speaker 13] (18:39 - 18:39) Yes. [Speaker 8] (18:40 - 18:48) Is this the one you're talking about? Yes. Let's see. This one? [Speaker 6] (18:51 - 19:05) Yeah, that one they can see. I don't think I sent you that one. No. So this one here you can see, that's the existing. [Speaker 3] (19:11 - 19:13) So that's the existing, yeah. [Speaker 6] (19:14 - 19:16) That was the existing one. [Speaker 1] (19:17 - 19:21) Did the stairs come off on the side that you can't see? [Speaker 11] (19:22 - 19:22) No. [Speaker 1] (19:23 - 19:39) On the prior structure? Yes. Yes. Was that a door that was there, and then the stairs came down towards your backyard? [Speaker 6] (19:40 - 19:47) Yes. Well, that door right there was put in afterwards. There was a door on the other side. [Speaker 1] (19:48 - 19:50) On this bump out there was a door on the side we can't see. [Speaker 6] (19:50 - 19:52) Yes, you have that picture there, the street view? [Speaker 1] (19:52 - 20:09) Yeah, it faces the street. Right there. Okay, and the stairs come down in that direction? That's how it looked? Yes. Okay, I understand now. And was there a slight covering of that door? Is that what I saw? [Speaker 6] (20:09 - 20:24) That's a metal awning. And then the roof got raised up, I don't know the distance, two and a half feet, maybe three feet. Added on top of that. [Speaker 1] (20:27 - 20:31) Bruce, could you go through the pictures a little bit more so I can just get my bearings? [Speaker 5] (20:34 - 20:40) So the rear of that is pushed in further. It's almost to where the front of that old addition was? [Speaker 6] (20:43 - 21:09) Yes, just a little bit. So on the drawing it says six and a half feet is from the left side of the piece that was there to the end of the existing piece. But six and a half feet is actually from the end on the left side to that post. And like I said, I know it's only a few inches, but it brings it just that much closer. [Speaker 3] (21:09 - 22:35) I guess I'm confused about... On my side, the only reason that I'm doing the petition is because to be compliant I have to be open deck. So I can have an exit for the kitchen because right now the exit door goes way further than it was before. On my point of view, when I did this one, that's when I spoke with everyone about it. My intention was to make it more private because the way it was before, I can just build the stair going down. Everyone who's coming down from the kitchen is going to see his backyard. And pushing that way further, nobody's going to see anybody. So we can come out of the kitchen, go straight to the driveway, and get in the car. We don't have to look at anybody's backyard. If we had to comply with the seven feet clearance, we have to demo half, and I still have to do an open deck because that's the only way I can access my driveway from the kitchen. So for me, it's way more private the way it is right now. I know he's complaining about the size of the building, but it was already existing. I understand that it's right on the property line. But if I open, it's going to be less private because as soon as he steps in and out of the kitchen, we're going to look direct to his backyard. [Speaker 5] (22:36 - 23:02) I understand that, but I guess just to clarify the drawing you've given us, because what I had envisioned previously was that you had an addition, and you're moving it down. But in actuality, the area that's not shaded in red is the existing portion, and then you're adding on to that existing portion. Yes. Okay. So it's still on the lot line, but it's that new portion is? [Speaker 3] (23:02 - 23:14) Yes. The existing is still on the property line. We just extended, and the same direction was the stairs. We're just blocking the view. Instead of going down the stairs and seeing everybody, we're just blocking the view and going to the driveway. [Speaker 10] (23:14 - 23:17) And what happened to the permit? Sorry, I got confused. [Speaker 3] (23:18 - 23:38) With the permit? When I request the permit for the city, we did look on the clearance. So they gave me the permit, so I wait until I get the clearance for the permit. Once they say, yes, you can go and do it, I did. And then after we start building, we brought it up that we have to have that compliance. [Speaker 10] (23:38 - 23:38) Thank you, the permit. [Speaker 3] (23:39 - 23:51) That's why I need a special permit to keep it or to comply. But I wait like two or three months to get the permit before I start doing the remodeling. [Speaker 6] (23:55 - 25:11) So from my understanding, because I started dealing with Mr. Cummings a while ago with this, is that it was on the permit, but plans were supposed to be sent to him, because I know that it would be too close. And I knew we would have had a meeting even before this got built, just because I knew it was too close. And I waited and waited for a meeting, and nothing ever happened. And if we had a meeting, we would have been here anyways, but wouldn't have been dealing with this here. We would have been dealing what to do and what is able to be built. And as far as the porch goes, I don't mind if the porch, it's going to open my yard up. I'm friendly with neighbors. I don't mind talking to neighbors, hey, how you doing, if I'm sitting out in my yard. But it just closes my yard. And those windows were taken out. Those windows aren't there anymore. Mr. Cummings said it was a state law because of a fire hazard. And they had to be boarded up. [Speaker 1] (25:14 - 25:20) Yeah, this reminds me a bit of the analysis from 80 Middlesex. [Speaker 8] (25:21 - 25:22) The overhang? [Speaker 1] (25:23 - 27:57) Yeah, that was the one. I'm just looking at Robin's analysis on that. And that one, everything was nonconforming. It had more setback than we have here. That was to construct a roof over the existing front stairs and stoop. And the existing uncovered stairs and stoop did not have to comply with the minimum yard setback. The construction of the proposed roof will cause the minimum yard setback to apply to the stairs and stoop, thus increasing the existing front yard and side yard setback nonconformities. And she looked to Belalta. And her opinion was it required the property owner to obtain a dimensional special permit or variance. So she went to 48-6. Oh, not with seeing on its face that it appears, that our bylaw appears to. She continued what it is. The issue is the alteration or extension of an existing nonconformity. By further opinion, it all is required, if anything, is a section 6 special permit. She laid out the test for section 6 special permit from Belalta. Therefore, the test laid out, in my opinion, the board should first evaluate the relevant work to determine if there is an increase in the nonconforming nature of any existing nonconformity. If the board finds the negative, no relief is necessary. If the board finds that there is an increase in the nonconforming nature of any existing nonconformity, then the board may grant a section 6 special permit upon its determination that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconformity to the neighborhood. One thing that I'm wondering about here is the pitch on the roof changed, right, from the prior. Was the prior roof flat? No, small pitch. [Speaker 3] (27:58 - 28:03) I'm sorry? It was a small pitch. It wasn't flat, but it has a pitch on it. [Speaker 1] (28:03 - 28:29) So you're not coming any closer than the existing nonconformity, and then you have the nonconforming piece that I think needs a section, that needs a dimensional special permit, and then a portion that would need just to find it. Right, that's how you see it, Marissa, too? [Speaker 8] (28:29 - 28:31) That's how I see it, yeah. [Speaker 1] (28:31 - 28:39) Okay, I agree with you on that. So, sir, anything else that you wanted to add? [Speaker 6] (28:39 - 28:40) No, I didn't know if you... [Speaker 1] (28:40 - 28:44) Is there anyone else that had any comments about this petition? [Speaker 8] (28:45 - 29:01) Anyone online, too? You can use the raise your hand function. Doesn't look like anyone online. It's not worth it. [Speaker 1] (29:01 - 30:02) So one thing I can tell you, sir, is for the relief that you need, you need two forms of relief, and I don't know how the other board members are thinking. Quite frankly, I'm not sure. I haven't made up my mind about this petition, but you need four votes in favor. We have only four members tonight. We don't have the benefit of a fifth member to hear this request for relief. So what has been longstanding practice of this board in this situation has been if it appears that you are not going to get the relief that you request, that we give you the opportunity to continue and then have a fifth member to have a full complement of the board at the next meeting. So I would continue with that policy if that situation presents itself. Do you understand? [Speaker 3] (30:02 - 30:54) Yeah, I do. So... As for me, as I said before, either way, at this point it doesn't make a lot of change. The only thing that I'm trying to keep it the way I did, I was trying to make better for whoever is going to live in the house, neighborhood, and everyone around. Open deck or closing deck, either way we get. It works for me. It's just going to take me more work. It's already pretty much done, and I hold until now to get an answer. But I want to at least hear from the board what the guy is thinking about it. And if I have to tear down an open deck, I'll do it. That's no big deal. I'm not going to pursue that further. I just want to expose it before I continue. [Speaker 1] (30:57 - 31:52) Okay. I appreciate that. So we should discuss this with the board. I'm not going to close the public hearing yet. But I'm curious if board members have any thoughts about it. I'm really curious what Tony has to say from his view as an architect. We're hearing testimony from an abutter who says it's much more detrimental to me. And he's very close to the project. I, as a layperson, look at it and I can see the argument by the petitioner that, well, I have it closed in so you're not looking into the backyard. What's your perspective on it, if any? [Speaker 5] (31:52 - 32:56) I think the big issue is that sloped roof. It's definitely you have more roof area, which means you have more surface area to then drain water out closer to the abutter's property. Not necessarily knowing what's going on with flooding in this area or anything like that. I think there's definitely some low-lying areas that trap water in some of the neighborhoods. But that would be my concern, like over time you have just water being shed, more water being shed in that general direction. I think beyond that, just the sight lines that were happening, I can see the argument where if you're in the abutter's backyard, you might have some issues with, well, actually no, you wouldn't have any issues with light. It just seems a little bit more claustrophobic, but that's just a personal feeling on that one, just with the images that were presented. I think the big issue is the water. [Speaker 1] (32:57 - 33:21) Right, and knowing that if it were all uncovered deck area, That would go straight through. I'm saying in terms of relief, wouldn't need relief from this board, it's the fact that it's enclosed and covered, that's what triggers the need for relief. [Speaker 3] (33:22 - 33:34) Yes. Even with gutter, because we are supposed to do a gutter in the house, we haven't done yet, waiting for the confirmation. Because the gutter is going to direct the water to another area. [Speaker 5] (33:35 - 34:13) Yeah, I understand that. I think I'm working off the information that has been provided, so if there's a gutter, then that's going to help, because it needs to then be away from the abutter's property. I still think that the actual quality of space, I think, is a little different, but that's subjective. If we want to talk about how far away we are from lot lines and things like that, my biggest issue is water, so if there's a gutter, then we can re-divert water elsewhere, but I think we need to confirm where that is. [Speaker 3] (34:14 - 34:20) The gutter, for sure, will be done. It hasn't been done because we've been waiting for this to finalize. [Speaker 1] (34:22 - 34:24) Paula, any thoughts about this petition? [Speaker 10] (34:25 - 34:27) I was confused about the window situation. [Speaker 1] (34:27 - 34:46) Well, it shows that there is a window that is facing the backyard. Yep, up there. It looks like at least a single window. I can't see on the other side of that vegetation if there's another. [Speaker 8] (34:50 - 34:53) I believe that's on the main portion of the house, not on the addition. [Speaker 3] (34:53 - 34:53) Oh, okay. [Speaker 10] (34:53 - 34:55) And then both of those windows have now been boarded up? [Speaker 3] (34:56 - 34:57) They are boarded already. [Speaker 10] (34:58 - 34:59) And the thinking of that was? [Speaker 6] (35:00 - 35:10) It was from Mr. Cummings. He said that it was a fire code for safety. Those windows were not allowed to be in there. [Speaker 5] (35:10 - 35:15) Yeah, the windows are too close to the lot line, so if there's a fire, it can jump over. [Speaker 3] (35:15 - 35:16) That should be set back, yeah. [Speaker 11] (35:17 - 35:18) Because there was one back there, too. [Speaker 6] (35:19 - 35:25) The one to the left of that right there was on the existing. [Speaker 10] (35:26 - 35:27) That was not there. [Speaker 6] (35:27 - 35:29) But it wasn't there before. There was no windows there before. There was no windows at all. [Speaker 10] (35:29 - 35:36) And you got a permit without any plans or anything like that? It's just that? [Speaker 3] (35:37 - 35:51) The description is just saying we're going to add, for the existing construction, we're going to add 8 feet of covered porch. Covered porch. That's what was in the permit. 8 feet of what? Covered porch. Covered porch. [Speaker 10] (35:52 - 35:59) So the permit was for a covered porch, not an enclosed space. That's the bit I'm confused about. [Speaker 3] (35:59 - 36:03) No, it was enclosed because we need to go out of the kitchen with the one. [Speaker 5] (36:06 - 36:13) And then do we? Is this what you submitted for the permit? No, no, no, no. [Speaker 3] (36:13 - 36:24) I didn't have the land survey until before we did the permit. I didn't have the land survey done. That was done after. [Speaker 5] (36:25 - 36:36) I would personally feel that it would be helpful to see that permit application and understand what was included on the first round, just so we have a full picture of what was approved. [Speaker 10] (36:36 - 36:40) It doesn't sound. If it's enclosed or not enclosed makes a big difference. [Speaker 5] (36:40 - 36:40) Okay. [Speaker 10] (36:41 - 36:42) It's so close. [Speaker 8] (36:45 - 36:47) Say that again. Tony, you want to see the permit application? [Speaker 5] (36:47 - 36:54) Yeah. I think the drawings or the description of that permit application should be included so that we can. [Speaker 1] (36:54 - 37:28) Yeah. To see the full picture of how it played out. Sure. What was in front of the building inspector. It's interesting because if that, if we're looking for the dimensional special permit for that two and a half feet in that area, if it, if essentially it was uncovered and open and that middle portion, it would not be too controversial. If it were just a finding for the remaining piece of it, but it's you need a higher standard. [Speaker 10] (37:28 - 37:28) Sorry. [Speaker 1] (37:28 - 38:02) I'd like to know if the roof changes and the roof changes also in, you know, I think when you look at that dimensional special permit, I think it opens the door to consider that as well. What, what I'm wondering, you know, what I think I'd like to have, I'd like to I think we should have the benefit of a fifth member to vote on this one. I did not get a chance to go out and look. [Speaker 3] (38:02 - 38:14) The permits say mud room. I'm sorry. And the permit when I did the applying was a mud room. Were there drawings that were attached to that? No, I don't think so. [Speaker 5] (38:15 - 38:15) Okay. [Speaker 11] (38:15 - 38:16) Is that required? [Speaker 10] (38:19 - 38:25) Sometimes it depends on what the, if you need, if you need a special permit, I would imagine. [Speaker 1] (38:26 - 38:33) Yeah. You need you, especially where you're it was off of a structure that was right in the lot line. Yeah. [Speaker 5] (38:33 - 38:35) So yeah, there should have been drawings. Yeah. [Speaker 8] (38:35 - 38:56) In general, if anybody applies for a building permit that involves a structural addition, the building department will require that they submit a land survey. So that way they can verify if zoning relief is needed in some capacity because the building inspectors, the building inspector is a person that makes that initial determination as to whether or not zoning relief is needed. And if it is, then it gets bounced over here to the board. And a land survey is that, that tool. [Speaker 12] (38:57 - 39:04) Yeah. So was that not asked for here? Did you not give for the land survey? [Speaker 3] (39:05 - 39:28) Not when we went up, I wasn't me was the contractor who did. So I think he, he provided what they asked for. Maybe he lacked on more details on it, especially because it was so close to the property line. If it was me, I'll detail more, but that's how they did back then. So that's why we're just trying to get straight up. [Speaker 1] (39:30 - 40:53) So that, I don't know if you feel the same way, Michelle, I'm thinking about continuing it for a month. So we can get a chance to look at it and also we'll have a fifth member. Any objection to that? So that that's what I think we should do. I think we should continue it to our next hearing. The chair, I'm just the acting chair tonight. The chair will be back. So you'll have another, she'll listen to the, the tape, the video. And she'll be able to participate and vote at the next meeting. It'll give us each an opportunity to go out and take a look. I'd like to see it from both perspectives. I'd like to see it from your yard. I'd like to see it from the neighbor's yard. And I think it also gives you an opportunity to try and communicate with your neighbor. If you both choose to participate, if you don't, that's your choice. I don't want to get involved in any of that type of negotiation or meeting. I'm just suggesting you have that opportunity. But I don't think it's proper for anyone to say one side or the other isn't cooperating. That's not for us to decide. We decide the case on the facts that are presented to us. So would you consent to us continuing the meeting for another month and not voting on it tonight? [Speaker 3] (40:53 - 40:54) I don't. [Speaker 1] (40:54 - 41:10) So I'm going to ask you to sign a continuance form. And I'm going to make a motion to continue this to the April 15 meeting. And you think we're not sure of the location. It may be here. It may be at the Senior Center. [Speaker 7] (41:10 - 41:10) All right. [Speaker 8] (41:10 - 41:13) I'll aim for here. I like it here better. [Speaker 1] (41:14 - 41:23) So do I have a second on that motion? Second. All in favor? Aye. All right. Okay. So we'll see everybody back on April 15. [Speaker 3] (41:23 - 41:24) All right. Thank you very much. [Speaker 1] (41:40 - 41:51) The next agenda item is number 4, 2502 Mary Burke here of Chris Drukis, 21 Parsons Drive. I see Mr. Drukis is here. Good evening. [Speaker 2] (41:52 - 48:53) Good evening. And I know we only have four members, but I think we can proceed with at least a presentation. I don't think this is all that complicated. However, if it looks like, if you'll get a sense of the meeting for me when we get there. I will give you the same courtesy. I know you would, Mark. With me tonight are Tom and Mary Burke. And I'm representing them. I'm a lawyer from Salem. As you know, the property is owned in the Mary Jane Burke 2020 revocable trust. Mary's the trustee. She and her husband, Tom, have lived on that property for over 30 years. And in 2009, they built an addition to the structure where his parents moved in who were rather elderly at the time and having some health issues. The addition that was created back then consisted of two bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a living room, if you will, plus a separate entrance. However, it was not separated from the house by any door that could be locked. And there were two French doors that led into the dining room, the common dining room. And the configuration, as I think you can see, that's on Exhibit 1.1, had the bedrooms to the front of the house and the kitchen to the rear. That section of the house has only fairly recently become vacant as Tom's parents have deceased. The plan was developed as Tom and his wife have now gotten older, and Tom is semi-retired and spending a lot more time in Florida and was thinking about selling his house up here because he wasn't going to be here full-time and it's a significant property. And there are stayers involved, and he's pretty much gotten used to one floor living in Florida. And the property itself is a conforming lot. The structure is a conforming structure. And the plan was simply to rearrange the kitchen to the front of the house, one bedroom instead of two bedrooms, make it a master suite, and move it to the rear of the house. The kitchen would then be right next to the existing dining room, the main dining room or dining room of the house. And the idea occurred to them that where there had been multi-generational living in the property for many years, that maybe it was a good idea that he could have his cake and eat it too, in that they would still get the pleasure of the larger property. The benefit is a pool in the backyard and all the amenities. And have his daughter and her husband and three kids move in. They would take the bedrooms up on the second floor. He would, he and his wife, would move into the addition. There are no changes to the exterior. All of the changes are on the interior. So we filed for a building permit, and then when we did that, we ended up in several conversations with the acting building inspector, Max Casper, who took the position that this was an ADU, this section of the house that we were remodeling. We tried to explain to him that it was not an ADU, that it was a situation, it was not separated in that, yes, there was a separate entrance, but it could not be blocked off. And when you look at the building code for an ADU, What is an ADU? Accessory Dwelling Unit, that it has to be separate. The building permits that deal with ADUs, you have to be able to lock it off and be separate. It's not open to the people who live in the other structure to just come and go. We pointed that out to him, that the present structure is not able to be blocked. There were French doors there, which if you look at the plan with the wall marked in red that we want removed, the opening into the dining room did have French doors, but those are going one way or the other. We tried to explain to him that this was multi-dimensional, multi-generational living, that the Constitution provides for it. Not only that, Massachusetts statutes also provide for it. Section 3 of Clause A. And that the Supreme Court has, in fact, determined that multi-generational life, living, is covered by single family living. [Speaker 1] (48:58 - 49:02) Do you have a site for that, for the SJC, for the name of the case? [Speaker 2] (49:02 - 49:38) Yeah, it's Moore v. East Cleveland. Could you repeat that for me? Moore v. East Cleveland. I have it here. Okay. 431 U.S., 494, 1977. So it's a U.S. Supreme Court case. [Speaker 13] (49:39 - 49:39) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (49:56 - 54:33) Bear with me. Yeah, MGL 40A Section 3 also provides for multi-family, multi-generational living. In any event, to go further, all we wanted, all we were requesting from him was that we remove the rest of that wall that you see marked in red, which, if anything, opens up the, if you will, separates, removes even greater any chance of separation. He stated repeatedly that it was his opinion, because blocks could be put on that door, that it was an ADU. And that's like saying, well, yeah, if we do something illegal, then you might be right, but we're not doing that. So why are you basing your decision on something we're not doing? He then said, well, by opening that up, if you take that wall out, then what you're doing is you're expanding an ADU, and you'll be over the 900 feet, square feet of living space. We said to him, that would be true if it was an ADU, but it's not an ADU. It's a living area with a kitchen. I believe you know that you can have as many kitchens in a house as you want. The Bach case established that a long time ago. And that because you might do something that would potentially make the situation illegal, doesn't mean that that's what you're doing. You presented plans, and if you change those plans, he would see, because he has the right to inspect as you're going through the process. So he said, as long as we did not remove that wall, he would give us a permit. Which, again, made no sense to us. But we said, okay, we'll take that permit, and we'll appeal to the zoning board, and ask them to allow us to take that wall down. So either way, the situation is going to, we have a building permit. We would like to have that more open. It would be open to the kitchen, to both kitchens the dining room would be. Better for bigger family gatherings, because I don't know if any of you know the Burks, but there's a bunch of them, and they party. And one last point, if you look at the house from the street, the garage, and where the cars are parked in front of the garage, is on the left side of the house. The door to get into the area, the separate door is way over on the far right. Nobody uses that door to go in and out of the house, because they park their cars in the driveway, all of them go in and out through the main door, which enters into the living room, and then you go through the dining room to get to the in-law suite. So all we're doing is we're asking to make some modifications to an existing in-door suite. And we don't understand the logic of the building inspector. And I think Marissa was in those meetings. I think, Marissa, have I properly represented the view of the building inspector? [Speaker 13] (54:33 - 54:33) Yep. [Speaker 1] (54:40 - 54:46) So Max isn't here, is he on Teams? [Speaker 8] (54:46 - 54:48) He's not, no. [Speaker 1] (54:52 - 57:43) So for everybody else on the board, I think this is the first building inspector appeal that you've heard. We haven't had one in quite a while, but I can recall there was a period of time where we had, I've been on the board close to 20 years, so there was a period of time during that where it seemed like every month we'd have one or two. So very few do we receive. So this, jurisdictionally, is the process to appeal a determination by a building inspector. The right of appeal is first to the CBA, and if the person, either side has agreed, be it the town or, in this case, this apartment, or the petitioner, they have a right to appeal to the Superior Court or the land court. So this is the first step in that process. So if we believe that the building inspector's decision was improper, arbitrary, and capricious, we have the authority to overturn the building inspector. So what we have for a record here is for a petitioner's application, their petition for review, the plans, we don't have a written determination. So sometimes when we get a, oftentimes when we get an appeal, there's a letter from the building inspector that describes the rationale for the decision they're making. It's often a request of the building inspector to enforce the bylaw, and the building inspector saying, no, I'm not going to enforce, I see it differently. And then there's an appeal. And sometimes you get an appeal like this, that don't agree with the determination in the building permit application on a bylaw zoning issue. So that's how it gets here. And we typically conduct this type of hearing the same way we do other public hearings with looking to see if anyone has something to say about the petition on either side, and then discussing it and voting. So that's what we'll look to do. So is there anyone who wanted to be heard in opposition to this petition? Yes, so could I have your name and address, sir? [Speaker 8] (57:44 - 57:52) Clayton Curtis. If you don't mind, Clayton, just using the microphone over there that way. Or, you know what, I can bring this one. Yeah. [Speaker 4] (58:00 - 1:02:10) Okay, what's your address, sir? Clayton Curtis. Your address? 19 Parsons Drive. I'm the direct, about a, my yard is the one to the right next door to the plan there. My house. What would you like to say about this petition? Okay, first, this is beside the point, but the Berks have not lived there 30 years. The Berks have lived there less than 25. So, but again, I say it's beside the point. What I have encountered the past three months is waking up to a huge construction site every morning right next door to me here, and it started right after Christmas, and there's been nothing but trucks, electricians, plumbers, junk trucks, dumpsters the size of a trailway bus, and noise all day long of pieces of everything coming out, going into a dumpster. Now they're finishing up with plumbing and things like that. And to me, I didn't know or I haven't heard from anyone as to what went on or what's going on. And my concern was, said, with all that, with all the activity coming from that area, what is happening? And somebody said, well, then I heard from somebody up there, oh, he's doing inside there. And I said, inside, okay, fine. You don't have to have a permit or anything. But I said, how much, how can you do an inside like that and be just doing a little inside job with all that's going on? What else is going on and why? Why do we have all of this, all of the time like that? To me, it doesn't seem like just a little simple operation. What is going to go on? And I didn't know until the other day I got my card. And then when I had a chance, I went down and tried to find out the fact that it was, the determination was being appealed by a building inspector. And when it's appealed like that, that concerned me. Why is it turned down? I said, that meant it was turned down. Why? And here I am finding out and looking at the thing, which all seems fine. I've known the Burks for years since they moved up there. And I knew the mother that lived in the apartment that lived up there. I could see them maybe renovating the apartment because it was very small and needed some, you know, probably new appliances and things like that. But my main reason I'm here is that's, as I said, I've had three months and I have not seen the Burks once in probably three and a half months. They've been, I don't know, maybe they're in Florida or something, but well, that's... [Speaker 1] (1:02:10 - 1:02:22) But do you understand the narrow area that's in dispute? It's just one interior wall, whether it can come down or not? That... That's what the appeal's about, just an interior wall. [Speaker 4] (1:02:22 - 1:02:23) Yeah, that one interior wall. [Speaker 1] (1:02:24 - 1:02:25) They leave the interior wall up. [Speaker 4] (1:02:25 - 1:02:36) Yeah, and I found that out recently, just recently. But again, I'm saying, why all the spaces and... [Speaker 1] (1:02:36 - 1:02:40) Well, they're reconfiguring the entire, that wing of the house. [Speaker 4] (1:02:40 - 1:02:40) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (1:02:41 - 1:03:14) So it sounds like they demoed the whole thing and there's a lot of work to be done. Yeah. And the plans show that, that they're moving the different spaces. They're putting the bedroom in one area, so they gutted it. And, you know, that's what happens. I know it's inconvenient. I just had a knockdown in a two-and-a-half-story house built right next to me over the past ten months. I appreciate that it's disruptive, but, you know, it can happen, it can happen anywhere in town. [Speaker 4] (1:03:14 - 1:03:38) Yeah. Well, I've done a lot of work myself, and I understand what you're saying. And I wish when I did the work, any work now, I wish I could have that dumpster. But at any rate, I didn't know until recently the, this is going to be Marion in Tom's apartment. [Speaker 13] (1:03:41 - 1:03:41) Yep. [Speaker 4] (1:03:42 - 1:03:44) So that's, okay. Yeah. [Speaker 1] (1:03:45 - 1:03:51) So they've answered your questions through this hearing? You've gotten some information that you were wondering? [Speaker 4] (1:03:52 - 1:03:54) The what? Excuse me. [Speaker 1] (1:03:54 - 1:04:01) So do you have any questions about anything that is happening now, like with this wall going, staying up or going down? [Speaker 4] (1:04:02 - 1:04:07) If it goes down, no, I don't have any here. [Speaker 1] (1:04:07 - 1:04:13) Okay. Except... All right. Well, thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? Could I have your name and address, please? [Speaker 2] (1:04:20 - 1:04:21) I didn't get that. [Speaker 7] (1:04:22 - 1:06:25) Anton Antonov, 18 Parsons Drive. I live two houses removed from Tom and Mary. So yes, that's all true. Nobody used the side door. I lived there for 12 years and never seen anybody. I never even knew that Tom has his parents in the house. Truly. But yes, they busy with the guests, but never bother no one. And the way I see it, I'm biased opinion. I mean, I come here just because, you know, I got the card in appeal and appeal is just like Mr. Curtis saying it's something wrong. I was thinking, you know, like a zoning bad or they put in second floor or whatever. Not I'm concerned if they if this is with by law, it's totally fine with me. What I see by removing that wall, they're making their house more one house family than rather than separate. Just I never knew what they do what they're planning to do. But on the surface, you know, we removing the wall in the middle of the house to me enjoying kitchen and dining room. That's make less that what that fancy what you whatever the separation unit it's going to be. So what so they're not validating any zoning. You know, they're not trying to make it two family houses house out of it, you know, living course. I have my mother before she died live with me for eight months, you know, you know, downstairs. I never cross my mind and I'm, you know, I'm building that that unit that separates me from my mom. Right. So I'm just saying that they are within their rights, you know, and in the building inspection on the power trip, you know, if I own the gun, it doesn't mean I'm a criminal. Right. So if you're building something that, you know, make the family get together. This is on surface, you know, it doesn't have a brainer, you know, to see, you know, this is not the day within their rights to do whatever they want. You know, so this is my humble opinion. I hope you take into consideration when you're making decisions. Okay. Thank you, sir. [Speaker 1] (1:06:27 - 1:06:31) Anyone else who's online that wanted to speak about or ask questions about this petition? [Speaker 9] (1:06:34 - 1:07:50) Hey, guys, can you guys hear me? Okay. This is Tom. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yes. Yes. Yeah. So, so of course, thank you for hearing this and, you know, the last thing we want to be is disruptive. And I guess, first off, I didn't realize that the neighbors were going to be there. you know, I guess that's, that in itself, you know, reflects back on me. I probably should have, you know, probably should have had some conversation with Curtis and certainly, you know, I'm really appreciative, you know, of the support that I get from the neighborhood too because I didn't expect either person there. And honestly, I didn't think this was going to be that hard or that disruptive. The goal was, was really simple, which is we were trying to make one bedroom instead of two and try to reorganize it so Mary and I could have good, you know, good quality of life for the next four years. And of course, along the way, honestly, helped my daughter, right? My daughter and her family needed the help and honestly, it's a, it was, it was us actually making a pretty big sacrifice to move over there and out of the big house and, you know, and allow Jen and Robin, those kids back in there. And so anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself, appreciate the time and, and to my neighbors, you know, a lot of communication should have been better on that itself. I apologize for that. [Speaker 1] (1:07:51 - 1:08:31) Okay. Thank you, sir. So anyone else that wanted to be heard about this petition? It's on teams. Use the raise your hand feature if you want it. Okay. Hearing none. We'll close the public hearing yet. So I get a sense of the board. If you, in my opinion, if you'd like, I see it as a multi-generational house. I don't see it as an ADU. I don't see that there's any detriment to the wall coming down and I would support the petition and overturn the decision of the building inspector. [Speaker 5] (1:08:34 - 1:08:51) I think what I'm, I'm looking at the plan, the existing and the proposed, and I'm, I think you said there's a French door on that wall currently, which isn't shown. And then there is a, It's already gone. Okay. But in the, in the existing plans, it's not there. [Speaker 2] (1:08:51 - 1:09:01) I understand. But it was, when the, when the architect went in to do that because originally we didn't have architectural drawings like that. So when he went in, it was already gone. [Speaker 5] (1:09:02 - 1:09:05) Okay. And then, but then in the proposed plan, that wall is still there. [Speaker 2] (1:09:06 - 1:09:08) Yeah, but that it's marked, marked in red. [Speaker 5] (1:09:08 - 1:09:15) I understand. I understand that. I was showing, but that red is, is a, is after the fact, right? [Speaker 2] (1:09:15 - 1:09:23) Like, so you have, I guess I was showing you what was approved and then the red is what we want taken out. [Speaker 5] (1:09:24 - 1:09:33) So normally in proposed plans, you wouldn't have that wall there. So you don't have to mark it out in red because you have the existing, right? And you have that wall there and then you have, this would be gone. So you'd see that it's, it's gone. [Speaker 2] (1:09:33 - 1:09:35) Send me the plans and do it the way he said it. [Speaker 5] (1:09:35 - 1:10:03) Okay. I'm, I'm, I guess that's the, there, there's just some irregularities with how this is documented, but I think beyond that fact, if that wall is coming out, I, I don't necessarily see an issue with it. If anything, it was an ADU in the beginning. If you look at what the definition of an ADU is, are there, are the utilities separate in that, that wing? Like, is there like a separate meter or? [Speaker 4] (1:10:03 - 1:10:03) they're not. [Speaker 13] (1:10:04 - 1:10:04) No. [Speaker 5] (1:10:04 - 1:10:30) Okay. No. So I think that the biggest thing is that it is completely closed off. There are multiple entrances. We're hearing from the neighbors that that other entrance wasn't used. So if anything, we're actually getting away from that. And it is now becoming a larger space for multi-generational living when, before it was an ADU. I think if you looked at what the definitions were, I don't think you're expanding an ADU because it's all going to be one space. And as long as you're not like it's already built. [Speaker 1] (1:10:30 - 1:10:33) So it's, that's how I see it. [Speaker 5] (1:10:33 - 1:10:33) Okay. [Speaker 1] (1:10:34 - 1:10:35) How about you, Paul? [Speaker 5] (1:10:35 - 1:10:36) Same. How about you? [Speaker 11] (1:10:37 - 1:10:42) Same. I mean, I'm not the architect. It's not a load-bearing wall. It's not a problem with structural integrity, right? [Speaker 5] (1:10:42 - 1:10:47) Well, if they're going to open it, they'll just, they'll fix it. They'll put steel in it if they need to. [Speaker 11] (1:10:48 - 1:10:49) I have no issue. [Speaker 1] (1:10:49 - 1:11:45) Okay. Knowing that Mr. Drukis will write an exceptional opinion for me, I'll gladly make a motion. You think? So, first, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. All in favor? Aye. Aye. I'll make a motion to approve petition 2502 to overturn the determination of the building inspector in issuing permit B2524 to allow the removal of the interior wall as shown on the plans and to make a finding that this is not an accessory dwelling unit. It's used for multi-family, multi-generational living space and that, I think that's all we need. So, do I have a second on that motion? [Speaker 5] (1:11:45 - 1:11:52) Well, before we second, could we add a note to update the proposed plan so we have it on file that it is accurate? [Speaker 1] (1:11:53 - 1:12:02) And that the plans be updated to reflect the actual condition and there's no change to any of the exterior dimensions. [Speaker 11] (1:12:03 - 1:12:04) Okay. [Speaker 1] (1:12:04 - 1:12:06) Do I have a second on that motion? [Speaker 11] (1:12:06 - 1:12:06) Second. [Speaker 1] (1:12:07 - 1:12:08) All in favor? [Speaker 11] (1:12:08 - 1:12:08) Aye. [Speaker 1] (1:12:09 - 1:12:19) Aye. Aye. Okay, so you have to relieve. Thank you. Thank you. And then I'll make a motion to adjourn our public hearing. Second. All in favor? [Speaker 8] (1:12:19 - 1:12:20) Aye. [Speaker 13] (1:12:20 - 1:12:21) Okay. [Speaker 9] (1:12:21 - 1:12:22) Aye. [Speaker 8] (1:12:22 - 1:12:24) All right. Thanks, guys. Thank you, Chris. [Speaker 9] (1:12:25 - 1:12:26) Thank you. Thank you.