[Speaker 1] (4:29 - 4:29) That's great. [Speaker 1] (4:30 - 4:32) Hi everyone and welcome to [Speaker 2] (4:32 - 4:33) Oh goody, how are you? [Speaker 3] (4:34 - 4:34) Sorry. [Speaker 1] (4:34 - 4:38) welcome to our June meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals. [Speaker 1] (4:39 - 4:44) The first item on our agenda is to approve the minutes from our past meeting. [Speaker 1] (4:44 - 4:45) Does anybody have a motion? [Speaker 2] (4:45 - 4:46) Motion. [Speaker 4] (4:47 - 4:47) Second. [Speaker 1] (4:47 - 4:47) Second. [Speaker 1] (4:47 - 4:49) Second. All in favor? [Speaker 3] (4:49 - 4:49) Aye. [Speaker 1] (4:49 - 4:49) All [Speaker 3] (4:49 - 4:50) Aye. [Speaker 1] (4:50 - 4:57) right. And then we have someone could make a motion the petition num num um [Speaker 1] (4:59 - 5:06) Section 2604 has been um has been what's the word um [Speaker 5] (5:06 - 5:06) Is withdrawn. [Speaker 1] (5:06 - 5:09) who has been withdrawn? If someone could make a motion [Speaker 5] (5:09 - 5:09) Sure, [Speaker 1] (5:09 - 5:09) for that. [Speaker 5] (5:09 - 5:17) I'll make I'll make a motion make a motion to um allow the motion to withdraw petition 2604 without prejudice. [Speaker 1] (5:18 - 5:19) Do I have a second? [Speaker 6] (5:19 - 5:19) Second. [Speaker 1] (5:19 - 5:20) All in favor? [Speaker 5] (5:21 - 5:21) Aye. [Speaker 1] (5:21 - 5:22) Aye. All right. [Speaker 1] (5:23 - 5:48) Um and then I'm gonna take these next two out of order. I'm gonna take um the item number four on our agenda first. And that's petition two six zero six by James Weber. Um that's a request for a special permit um to build a small dormer on their house that that is currently um non-conforming because of sits in the setback. And I believe um is it James? Is James online? [Speaker 1] (5:50 - 5:50) Oh, hi, [Speaker 5] (5:50 - 5:51) Hello. [Speaker 1] (5:51 - 5:51) James. [Speaker 7] (5:52 - 5:53) Hi there [Speaker 1] (5:55 - 5:56) Hi, so do you wanna just tell us a little bit about your petition? [Speaker 7] (5:58 - 5:59) Yes, [Speaker 7] (5:59 - 6:06) we wanted to build a dormer to gain access to the third floor where the attic is so we have more space and everything. [Speaker 7] (6:07 - 6:14) Well in the future we'd want to convert it to a more livable space but for now we just want to make sure we can get good access up there basically. [Speaker 1] (6:20 - 6:27) But on the plans, the square footage for that attic space is listed as 71 square feet. [Speaker 1] (6:27 - 6:37) Is that because even once you do this dormer, that's the maximum area that would be above 7.4? [Speaker 7] (6:39 - 6:42) I think it's the maximum area above seven foot. [Speaker 7] (6:42 - 6:43) Is that right, [Speaker 7] (6:43 - 6:43) Steve? [Speaker 8] (6:44 - 6:48) Yeah, it's actually anything over seven foot three. And I just included, [Speaker 8] (6:48 - 6:56) that's that strip down the middle. There is slope ceilings on either side. So we do have some more space there, [Speaker 8] (6:56 - 6:59) but basically the access is through the middle of the attic. [Speaker 1] (6:59 - 7:00) Okay, great. [Speaker 1] (7:00 - 7:01) Thank you. [Speaker 1] (7:02 - 7:09) So I don't think anybody has any questions in my mind. I see this as kind of a basic section six there. [Speaker 5] (7:10 - 7:12) Or I think it's in like a balada that [Speaker 1] (7:12 - 7:12) A ballada, [Speaker 5] (7:12 - 7:13) this right. [Speaker 1] (7:13 - 7:17) I mean, sorry, a ballada, because it's existing in the step back, [Speaker 1] (7:17 - 7:27) it's doesn't the new, doesn't create a new nonconformity and um is not not it's also not more detrimental than the existing encroachment. [Speaker 1] (7:30 - 7:31) Has anybody else [Speaker 7] (7:31 - 7:31) Great. [Speaker 1] (7:31 - 7:33) any questions on that? [Speaker 9] (7:33 - 7:33) No. [Speaker 5] (7:33 - 7:34) I don't think anybody have [Speaker 1] (7:34 - 7:34) Alright, [Speaker 5] (7:34 - 7:35) questions [Speaker 1] (7:35 - 7:35) is anybody [Speaker 5] (7:35 - 7:35) on that. [Speaker 1] (7:35 - 7:37) here to speak on this petition? [Speaker 1] (7:39 - 7:40) No, [Speaker 1] (7:40 - 7:42) we have two letters of support from neighbors, [Speaker 1] (7:42 - 7:43) which was really nice, [Speaker 1] (7:43 - 7:46) that are, you know, very nicely welcoming you to the neighborhood, so that's great. [Speaker 7] (7:47 - 7:50) Yeah, for sure, yeah, that was very helpful, [Speaker 7] (7:50 - 7:50) yeah. [Speaker 1] (7:50 - 7:51) Yeah, [Speaker 1] (7:51 - 7:52) that was nice. [Speaker 1] (7:52 - 7:54) All right, so do we have a motion for this? [Speaker 1] (7:58 - 7:59) Anybody like to do a motion? [Speaker 1] (8:00 - 8:01) Make a motion we're going to, we're [Speaker 10] (8:01 - 8:02) I can make a [Speaker 1] (8:02 - 8:02) going to call, [Speaker 10] (8:02 - 8:02) motion. [Speaker 1] (8:02 - 8:04) the board's going to be everyone except Tony for this one. [Speaker 10] (8:05 - 8:05) I can make [Speaker 1] (8:05 - 8:05) Okay, [Speaker 10] (8:05 - 8:06) a motion. [Speaker 1] (8:06 - 8:06) great. [Speaker 1] (8:06 - 8:07) Thank you. [Speaker 11] (8:09 - 8:10) Now we have to say something. [Speaker 1] (8:10 - 8:11) Yeah, you have to now you have to do it. [Speaker 11] (8:11 - 8:12) Oh, good, [Speaker 1] (8:12 - 8:12) You can do it. [Speaker 11] (8:12 - 8:13) you think? [Speaker 7] (8:13 - 8:14) You [Speaker 11] (8:15 - 8:16) Um, okay, [Speaker 1] (8:16 - 8:16) can [Speaker 11] (8:16 - 8:16) I'm [Speaker 1] (8:16 - 8:17) help too. [Speaker 11] (8:17 - 8:18) making a motion for [Speaker 5] (8:18 - 8:20) I'm happy to make, help you out with that if you like. [Speaker 11] (8:20 - 8:21) Thank you so much. [Speaker 5] (8:21 - 8:22) Oh sure. [Speaker 11] (8:24 - 8:25) Um shh. [Speaker 5] (8:25 - 8:34) So I'll make a motion to a, to make a finding on petition 2606. [Speaker 5] (8:35 - 9:03) that the proposed modifications with the addition to the attic space presents all conforming changes that are no more detrimental than the existing non-conformities and that under the Bolata case the relief is permitted as of essentially with a finding. [Speaker 5] (9:04 - 9:05) Um [Speaker 5] (9:06 - 9:13) and so to approve that with the work to be done in compliance with the plans that have been submitted. [Speaker 5] (9:14 - 9:15) I think that's it. [Speaker 11] (9:15 - 9:16) That's it. [Speaker 1] (9:16 - 9:16) You have a second? [Speaker 12] (9:17 - 9:17) Second. [Speaker 1] (9:18 - 9:18) All in favor? [Speaker 5] (9:19 - 9:19) Ay. [Speaker 11] (9:19 - 9:19) Aye. [Speaker 1] (9:21 - 9:24) Um and I can send you a bill out the I think I did one Did already. you do one? Okay, [Speaker 11] (9:24 - 9:25) I'll [Speaker 1] (9:25 - 9:25) awesome. [Speaker 11] (9:25 - 9:25) do it. [Speaker 1] (9:25 - 9:25) Yeah, awesome. [Speaker 1] (9:26 - 9:26) Thank you. [Speaker 11] (9:26 - 9:26) No problem. [Speaker 1] (9:27 - 9:27) All right. [Speaker 5] (9:27 - 9:27) Okay. [Speaker 1] (9:28 - 9:42) Um so we're going to um move on to the item number three on our agenda which is petition 2605 um by Charles Wilkinson um which is an appeal of the determination of the building commissioner um [Speaker 13] (9:47 - 9:50) Thank you to the board for hearing my appeal. [Speaker 13] (9:51 - 9:53) I do have a couple of documents to hand out to you. [Speaker 1] (9:55 - 9:57) Do you know what zoning is? [Speaker 1] (9:59 - 9:59) The number? [Speaker 2] (10:00 - 10:00) Oh yeah. [Speaker 3] (10:00 - 10:01) Sorry, that's a little more [Speaker 2] (10:01 - 10:01) I think [Speaker 3] (10:01 - 10:01) readable [Speaker 2] (10:01 - 10:02) it's this. [Speaker 3] (10:02 - 10:05) in addition to your view pictures of the property taken. [Speaker 4] (10:05 - 10:08) Excuse me, but has the Weber matter been approved? [Speaker 2] (10:09 - 10:10) Yes. [Speaker 5] (10:10 - 10:12) Uh I believe so, yes. Uh [Speaker 2] (10:12 - 10:13) Yes, yep, you're all set. [Speaker 2] (10:13 - 10:14) Thank you. You have your relief. Sorry, [Speaker 2] (10:14 - 10:20) it's all been voted on and that'll be submitted within the next couple weeks. [Speaker 1] (10:21 - 10:21) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 4] (10:21 - 10:22) Okay. [Speaker 5] (10:22 - 10:23) Okay. [Speaker 5] (10:23 - 10:24) Yep. Thank you very much. Thank you. [Speaker 2] (10:24 - 10:25) Thank you. [Speaker 5] (10:26 - 10:27) Bye-bye. See you. [Speaker 2] (10:27 - 10:27) See ya. [Speaker 4] (10:27 - 10:28) Bye-bye. [Speaker 3] (10:29 - 10:35) What I've handed to the board is just a brief that is in line with the original appeal, [Speaker 3] (10:35 - 10:41) but it's a little shorter, more readable in addition to some pictures taken from the property boundaries of my property. [Speaker 3] (10:42 - 10:46) They can be made available to the public at a later date. I don't have digital copies with me. [Speaker 3] (10:48 - 10:49) Again, thank you for hearing this appeal. [Speaker 3] (10:50 - 10:57) I am asking for a determination regarding the previous determination by the building inspector. [Speaker 3] (11:00 - 11:04) Primary concerns are classification of the storage sheds on my property, [Speaker 3] (11:04 - 11:10) a clarification regarding the factual basis of the conclusions contained in the determination, [Speaker 3] (11:10 - 11:20) and some clarifications regarding the property boundaries and the treatment of the multiple legally distinct parcels as one parcel as they had been treated in the determination. [Speaker 3] (11:22 - 11:24) In there you'll also see... [Speaker 3] (11:25 - 11:32) a compilation of the zoning plats of the three parcels highlighted in different colors so you can see the three distinct properties. [Speaker 3] (11:33 - 11:36) Each of them is taxed separately and are separate entities. [Speaker 3] (11:39 - 11:44) My initial question is in the determination by Mr. [Speaker 3] (11:44 - 11:44) Balducci. [Speaker 3] (11:46 - 11:54) On September the 3rd of 2025 he said that he did not see any dumpsters on my property, [Speaker 3] (11:54 - 11:56) which was part of an earlier complaint, [Speaker 3] (11:56 - 11:57) but that he did see two sheds. [Speaker 3] (11:57 - 12:04) If they are being determined as sheds, I want to know why they are being applied the rules for storage containers. [Speaker 3] (12:04 - 12:06) I do see under... [Speaker 3] (12:07 - 12:16) Town Bylaws 2.2.3.0 that temporary storage containers are for temporary storage use. They are non-permanent and have no form of a foundation. [Speaker 3] (12:17 - 12:34) The storage containers on my property are anchored to the ground by helical ground anchors and rest on compacted gravel or earth foundations respectively and are in permanent accessory use to my building. They are storage sheds and tool sheds, not temporary storage containers. [Speaker 3] (12:34 - 12:35) Rsss. [Speaker 3] (12:36 - 12:52) Um I also would like to bring to attention of the board that the uh um uh it asks for a determination regarding how the evidence for these determinations was made and just get procedural feedback on how that was originally determined. [Speaker 3] (12:52 - 13:01) Um and would like to bring to attention the board that um I made a clarifications request as of September sixteenth after the initial [Speaker 3] (13:01 - 13:04) on-site inspection with Mr. [Speaker 3] (13:04 - 13:12) Balducci that was not responded to, meaning that these fines were issued based on unresolved classifications that hadn't been determined as of yet. [Speaker 3] (13:14 - 13:17) So I have a question about that, if you ask a question about [Speaker 2] (13:17 - 13:17) Yeah. [Speaker 3] (13:17 - 13:24) so I have a kind of a threshold question about some of the relief that's requested on the appeal. [Speaker 3] (13:29 - 13:42) The concern I have is about ZBA jurisdiction for items that were essentially determined in the September 2025 letter of the building inspector. [Speaker 3] (13:43 - 13:50) So to the extent you didn't timely appeal those determinations, [Speaker 3] (13:51 - 13:54) it's my understanding, [Speaker 3] (13:54 - 13:57) and I've been on this board a long time, and [Speaker 3] (13:58 - 14:17) been through appellate process from here with building inspector appeals going to the land court or the superior court and the time limitation of 30 days to appeal a determination takes that jurisdiction away from the ZBA. [Speaker 3] (14:17 - 14:26) I don't think you've timely appealed any determination that was made in the April letter which had the fines. [Speaker 3] (14:27 - 14:35) But in terms of some of the like the classifications, the determinations that the building inspector made in a September letter, [Speaker 3] (14:35 - 14:46) I think you're time barred to appeal those. I think it's more an analysis just of the factual findings and determination that was made on in the April letter. [Speaker 3] (14:47 - 14:59) I hear what you're saying, but I would counter that the determination made in September did identify those as storage sheds, not containers, which leads to some ambiguity as to expectations. [Speaker 3] (14:59 - 15:07) And that ambiguity was followed up with directly by the, you know, from me to the building inspector and I received no formal clarification on that. [Speaker 3] (15:08 - 15:14) So from my perspective, the determination read storage shed and the applicable [Speaker 3] (15:15 - 15:19) Bylaws that are being applied are not in line with that original determination. [Speaker 6] (15:23 - 15:37) But he did conclude that the structures were prohibited I thought he concluded in the September determination that the structures were prohibited storage containers and the vehicle violated the bylaw the [Speaker 6] (15:40 - 15:42) And that the parcels were separate lots. [Speaker 6] (15:42 - 15:50) I had another just a general question about the parcels. How many acres do you have there combined if all three parcels were? [Speaker 3] (15:50 - 15:52) Greater than six and a half, approaching seven acres. [Speaker 6] (15:52 - 15:54) Okay, I just wanted to make sure if it was over five acres. [Speaker 3] (15:54 - 15:55) It is, yes. [Speaker 6] (15:55 - 15:56) Okay. [Speaker 3] (15:57 - 15:59) So in my reading, [Speaker 3] (15:59 - 16:00) and since this is... [Speaker 3] (16:01 - 16:06) by the letter and you're going on procedural concerns. [Speaker 3] (16:06 - 16:12) It says, at the time of my inspection I did not see any dumpsters on the property, but I counted two storage sheds, period. According to [Speaker 6] (16:12 - 16:12) Okay. [Speaker 3] (16:12 - 16:16) the table of principal uses of the zoning bylaw, one storage container [Speaker 3] (16:17 - 16:18) For the storage of personal property, [Speaker 3] (16:18 - 16:25) provided such storage container does not exceed cubic feet and not maintained more than 90 days in any consecutive period. [Speaker 3] (16:25 - 16:26) Therefore, [Speaker 3] (16:26 - 16:32) one storage shed measuring is allowed on the premises until November 12th. The second container must be removed upon the receipt of this letter. [Speaker 3] (16:32 - 16:36) But I think that this is ambiguous. It cites the... [Speaker 3] (16:37 - 16:49) the bylaw, but it also references it as a storage shed. So in my mind this didn't apply clearly, and that's why I asked for a clarification, one that I did not receive. Um [Speaker 2] (16:50 - 16:55) I think I think one of the problems with the act the request for clarification is [Speaker 2] (16:55 - 17:15) Um it's worded in a way that says a formal request is coming. It's sort of like a heads up email, the way it's written, it the wording does not request um a it says what I will be asking for as opposed to what I'm asking you to answer right now. And I I think that's probably why it didn't get answered. Um [Speaker 2] (17:17 - 17:24) Uh that's that's my underst analysis of that letter. It mi it kind of was sort of a I'm working on my formal [Speaker 2] (17:26 - 17:29) my formal request, but that formal request never came. [Speaker 3] (17:30 - 17:30) I see. [Speaker 2] (17:31 - 17:32) I don't know if anybody else [Speaker 3] (17:32 - 17:32) Oh, [Speaker 2] (17:32 - 17:32) read that. [Speaker 3] (17:32 - 17:38) my intention was to get a clarification um from Mr Baldacci Ducey at that time. Um [Speaker 6] (17:43 - 17:45) But that's that's that's one thing that I think I think that [Speaker 3] (17:45 - 17:46) Getting [Speaker 6] (17:46 - 17:50) jurisdictionally we [Speaker 6] (17:50 - 17:54) We can only address a limited amount of items, [Speaker 6] (17:55 - 17:59) because I think the storage container determination was made September 3, [Speaker 6] (17:59 - 18:02) and [Speaker 6] (18:03 - 18:12) I think that the appeal was untimely as the storage container classification. [Speaker 6] (18:19 - 18:24) But I do believe we have partial jurisdiction on the unregistered vehicle. [Speaker 6] (18:26 - 18:28) At that, in the September letter, [Speaker 6] (18:28 - 18:32) the Commissioner observed one unregistered black Suburban, [Speaker 6] (18:32 - 18:37) and the owner represented would be sold a garage before six months. [Speaker 6] (18:38 - 18:46) So no immediate violation was imposed beyond restating the bylaw. And then in the April 26 letter. [Speaker 6] (18:46 - 18:58) That's when it was reinspected and the unregistered vehicle was subject to fines because it was more than six months. So I think he's got a timely appeal on the unregistered vehicles. [Speaker 2] (19:07 - 19:12) What is what is what do you feel is incorrect about the decision of [Speaker 3] (19:12 - 19:12) Well, [Speaker 2] (19:12 - 19:15) the building sector on that unrated is it an unregistered vehicle? [Speaker 3] (19:15 - 19:17) with regards to the unregistered vehicle, [Speaker 3] (19:17 - 19:20) I would ask what the factual basis for that determination was. [Speaker 3] (19:21 - 19:27) It says it was inspected at that time, but I inspected in person. Was there pictures taken? [Speaker 3] (19:27 - 19:29) Was that independently verified with the registry? [Speaker 2] (19:30 - 19:31) Is it registered? [Speaker 3] (19:31 - 19:32) It is currently, [Speaker 2] (19:32 - 19:32) It [Speaker 3] (19:32 - 19:33) yes. [Speaker 2] (19:33 - 19:34) is currently registered. [Speaker 3] (19:34 - 19:34) Yes. [Speaker 2] (19:35 - 19:36) So it wasn't registered. [Speaker 3] (19:36 - 19:54) It I at the date of the inspection I was not present so I don't know the exact time or date of that inspection or where that inspection took place from so that that is why the inquiry regarding the factual basis I don't know how it was observed or confirmed that the vehicle was under [Speaker 2] (19:54 - 19:54) So [Speaker 1] (19:54 - 19:54) was unregistered. [Speaker 2] (19:54 - 19:58) it was unregistered on the first when you were there, when you were there together. [Speaker 1] (19:58 - 20:00) The initial visit where Mr. [Speaker 1] (20:00 - 20:02) Padachi and I watched the property together, [Speaker 1] (20:02 - 20:04) that vehicle was unregistered, yes. [Speaker 2] (20:04 - 20:05) And then what, do you know what date you registered it? [Speaker 1] (20:06 - 20:07) It was registered recently, [Speaker 1] (20:07 - 20:11) so it may have been unregistered at the time of his inspection, [Speaker 1] (20:11 - 20:15) but I am not asking for that. I am asking for the factual basis by which [Speaker 1] (20:15 - 20:17) by which it was determined that it was unregistered. [Speaker 3] (20:17 - 20:20) So I'm a little concerned that you're asking, [Speaker 3] (20:20 - 20:22) so our role here, [Speaker 3] (20:23 - 20:24) it's not a de novo hearing. [Speaker 3] (20:25 - 20:30) It's not that we're hearing everything and making a record of all of the evidence of the case. [Speaker 3] (20:30 - 20:36) We have a very narrow jurisdiction for things that we have the ability to hear. [Speaker 3] (20:37 - 20:40) We need to determine whether or not [Speaker 3] (20:41 - 20:46) the building inspector exceeded his authority or made some error that [Speaker 1] (20:46 - 20:47) That is indeed my question. [Speaker 3] (20:47 - 20:48) we should overturn. [Speaker 3] (20:49 - 21:00) So I think, so you know in terms of you know asking questions I think it's more we need to ask you questions as to what evidence you have. [Speaker 3] (21:01 - 21:14) to show that you presented information to the building inspector that he ignored or he did not properly consider so that we can, if you're successful, [Speaker 3] (21:15 - 21:23) we need to find that there was an error that was made by the building inspector in making his determination. [Speaker 1] (21:24 - 21:25) Uh that [Speaker 2] (21:25 - 21:28) W so you say it was registered recently, do you know what date you registered it? [Speaker 1] (21:28 - 21:30) Y it was officially registered today. [Speaker 2] (21:30 - 21:32) Today, okay. So it's registered currently. [Speaker 1] (21:32 - 21:32) Yes. [Speaker 2] (21:32 - 21:36) But on um it on April thirteenth it was not registered. [Speaker 1] (21:36 - 21:38) It would not have been registered at that time. [Speaker 3] (21:39 - 21:49) So I see that as pretty clear cut. If the billing inspector didn't have evidence of the vehicle being registered, I don't know what the billing inspector did wrong in making his [Speaker 3] (21:49 - 21:50) determination. [Speaker 1] (21:51 - 21:59) My question solely relies on the factual basis of the determinations, and I still have concerns regarding the earlier determination, [Speaker 1] (21:59 - 22:03) but you have told me you are not able to hear that, [Speaker 1] (22:03 - 22:03) so I would need [Speaker 3] (22:03 - 22:04) I'm only [Speaker 1] (22:04 - 22:04) to know. [Speaker 3] (22:04 - 22:04) one vote [Speaker 1] (22:04 - 22:05) Yeah. [Speaker 3] (22:05 - 22:06) here. [Speaker 3] (22:06 - 22:06) I don't know. Again, [Speaker 3] (22:06 - 22:12) we would need to have a vote as to the jurisdiction to determine if everyone agree with me or disagree. [Speaker 3] (22:13 - 22:16) So I can't presume everyone's going to agree with me on the jurisdiction. [Speaker 3] (22:17 - 22:21) the on the issue of the vehicle so [Speaker 1] (22:21 - 22:25) Yes. The registration is not observable unless you are on my property. [Speaker 1] (22:26 - 22:36) So that is why the inquiry as to how it was determined whether it's registered or not. Was that independently verified through the RMV or was somebody on my property without notifying me? [Speaker 3] (22:38 - 22:40) on the [Speaker 2] (22:43 - 23:04) I think that that might be something you want that's not something for us to decide or determine here it that that's we're basically trying to determine did you there request was that the car was unregistered and it needed to either be you know there were options garaged registered sold you know all the all the things and those things didn't happen in length of time and then on [Speaker 2] (23:06 - 23:12) April 13th, when you were notified that it still w wasn't done, it still wasn't done. So there's really [Speaker 3] (23:12 - 23:12) Well, [Speaker 2] (23:12 - 23:12) beyond [Speaker 3] (23:12 - 23:18) one thing that I think we have jurisdiction, because he timely appealed when the April letter went out on the vehicle, [Speaker 3] (23:18 - 23:33) I think that we would have the ability so now if if in fact he's got the vehicle registered, perhaps a what we could do is remand that question to the building inspector to consider [Speaker 3] (23:34 - 23:45) the fines that were imposed now that it's been registered. Um that's one thing that I think we would have jurisdiction to do. Now the building inspector would make his own determination whether to [Speaker 2] (23:45 - 23:45) waive Yep. [Speaker 3] (23:45 - 24:02) those fines or not waive the fines, but it's his determination not not ours is the way I see it. So he could consider it that he's got compliance now on that issue and um if he chose to fine for that period of time, that's totally within his [Speaker 3] (24:03 - 24:04) his purview not ours [Speaker 1] (24:04 - 24:12) There is one additional concern regarding that, which is that that vehicle is housed and garaged at 27 Littles Point Road, [Speaker 1] (24:13 - 24:15) which is not the address to which the determination was issued. [Speaker 1] (24:17 - 24:21) This is why it's relevant that there are three separate residential parcels [Speaker 3] (24:21 - 24:21) But you were [Speaker 1] (24:21 - 24:21) involved [Speaker 3] (24:21 - 24:24) on notice of the alleged violation, [Speaker 3] (24:24 - 24:25) right? [Speaker 3] (24:25 - 24:25) You [Speaker 1] (24:25 - 24:25) But [Speaker 3] (24:25 - 24:26) got a... [Speaker 1] (24:26 - 24:34) asserting that the violation is towards a particular property that is not actually the property in violation does raise concerns about procedural basis. [Speaker 3] (24:34 - 24:43) So I see that as an argument that there was a mistake that was made and therefore you should not be subject to... [Speaker 3] (24:45 - 24:56) You have if if it was a different property that you didn't own, it was parked on that property, I could see it. But if you own all these control all these properties, I don't think that's the uh my thought on what your best [Speaker 3] (24:56 - 24:59) hope for on this issue on the vehicles [Speaker 1] (24:59 - 24:59) That's it's [Speaker 3] (24:59 - 24:59) would [Speaker 1] (24:59 - 25:00) right. [Speaker 3] (25:00 - 25:11) be to look for the remand and look for now that you have it registered and you show that to the building inspector and and ask him to waive the fines now that it's I [Speaker 1] (25:11 - 25:11) Absolutely. [Speaker 3] (25:11 - 25:17) mean that's what I would see as a a fair resolution it's been a long time that you know over the six months [Speaker 4] (25:18 - 25:18) Mm. [Speaker 3] (25:18 - 25:23) And he's been trying to get the compliance and he had a lot of effort that he had to take here and [Speaker 1] (25:23 - 25:25) I don't mean to diminish Mr. [Speaker 1] (25:25 - 25:26) Bodaci's efforts, [Speaker 3] (25:26 - 25:26) I'm [Speaker 1] (25:26 - 25:26) but [Speaker 3] (25:26 - 25:27) sorry I can't I he [Speaker 1] (25:27 - 25:30) don't mean to diminish any of the efforts put forth by the building inspector, [Speaker 1] (25:30 - 25:30) Mr. [Speaker 1] (25:30 - 25:41) Bodaci, but I think that the lack of return communication indicates that the amount of effort put forth was not in fact an extreme amount. I did seek clarifications previously [Speaker 3] (25:41 - 25:41) But but [Speaker 1] (25:41 - 25:42) and received no feedback, [Speaker 1] (25:42 - 25:43) which [Speaker 3] (25:43 - 25:43) but he also [Speaker 1] (25:43 - 25:45) is not the first time. I also requested [Speaker 1] (25:45 - 25:50) requested clarification and feedback on how to approach this process, and I did not receive a reply from Mr. [Speaker 1] (25:50 - 25:59) Bodachi or Marcy Galaski, who both were included on the email chain. And I said, hey, I would like to know what steps I need to take to remedy this issue, and I got [Speaker 1] (25:59 - 26:00) no feedback from the town. [Speaker 3] (26:00 - 26:00) Well [Speaker 1] (26:00 - 26:01) So [Speaker 3] (26:01 - 26:01) the [Speaker 1] (26:01 - 26:01) I'm [Speaker 3] (26:01 - 26:01) letter [Speaker 1] (26:01 - 26:01) finding [Speaker 3] (26:01 - 26:05) provided, the letter provided both letters provided [Speaker 3] (26:07 - 26:13) notice of what he alleged the violations were at that time and informed you of your appellate rights to come to this board. [Speaker 3] (26:14 - 26:19) So he can't give you legal advice, but he gave you the information [Speaker 1] (26:19 - 26:19) But [Speaker 3] (26:19 - 26:19) that [Speaker 1] (26:19 - 26:24) procedural advice on how to approach the board and how to submit an appeal was what I requested. [Speaker 3] (26:24 - 26:30) Yeah and I I don't think that's something that the town necessarily has a an affirmative obligation. [Speaker 3] (26:31 - 26:32) Fair enough to do. [Speaker 1] (26:32 - 26:32) Okay. [Speaker 3] (26:32 - 26:34) It's very tricky. [Speaker 3] (26:34 - 26:35) We don't get these very often, [Speaker 1] (26:35 - 26:35) Yep. [Speaker 3] (26:35 - 26:38) appeals of building inspector determinations. [Speaker 1] (26:38 - 26:39) I [Speaker 3] (26:39 - 26:43) Years ago we had a bunch of them. That's why I knew about the jurisdiction issue, [Speaker 1] (26:43 - 26:43) think [Speaker 3] (26:43 - 26:44) but it's been [Speaker 1] (26:44 - 26:44) that brings [Speaker 3] (26:44 - 26:45) a while. [Speaker 1] (26:45 - 26:48) me to the third and final point, [Speaker 1] (26:48 - 26:50) which is regarding the fines assessed. [Speaker 1] (26:50 - 26:56) There is a determination of fines based on two separate storage containers, [Speaker 1] (26:56 - 26:58) as they're described now. [Speaker 1] (26:58 - 27:14) now, but storage sheds as are referred to them, um I think that those are being misclassified as two different um violations. There in fact one violation based on classification and they've you know the determination of how much fines should be applied, it would be reduced in that case. [Speaker 3] (27:15 - 27:20) And my thought on the sheds are that you're untimely as to the classification question. [Speaker 3] (27:21 - 27:24) But you are timely as to the the fine [Speaker 1] (27:24 - 27:24) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 3] (27:24 - 27:30) question. So perhaps this board could decide so are the sheds they're still there, right? [Speaker 1] (27:30 - 27:34) They are. They're anchored to the ground. They're relatively permanent. So I don't know how [Speaker 3] (27:34 - 27:34) But [Speaker 1] (27:34 - 27:34) to see [Speaker 3] (27:34 - 27:35) they're not on further. foundations? [Speaker 1] (27:36 - 27:37) It's on compacted gravel, [Speaker 1] (27:37 - 27:40) which is a form of foundation. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (27:42 - 27:45) Uh, I mean, we do have the, our bylaw does [Speaker 2] (27:46 - 27:49) address what is a storage container. [Speaker 1] (27:49 - 27:58) Yes, and it specifies no foundation and that they are, and for temporary storage use. [Speaker 1] (27:58 - 28:01) Since these are not and for temporary storage use, [Speaker 1] (28:01 - 28:03) I don't believe that they fall under that classification. [Speaker 1] (28:03 - 28:06) But if the board's not willing to make a determination on that classification issue, [Speaker 1] (28:06 - 28:14) I would request how to take further issue with that matter up with the town. I don't know what other board or body I would. [Speaker 1] (28:14 - 28:15) I would approach. [Speaker 2] (28:15 - 28:22) Well it does say that storage container shall include but not limited to the following and then it lists multiple things including storage container box, [Speaker 2] (28:22 - 28:25) portable warehouse, [Speaker 2] (28:25 - 28:25) box trailer, [Speaker 2] (28:26 - 28:29) which is definitely a storage container box. [Speaker 1] (28:29 - 28:34) But it does also specify and must be used for temporary storage purposes. [Speaker 1] (28:35 - 28:40) That is an and, which is legally deterministic in my opinion. [Speaker 1] (28:43 - 28:49) They're not for temporary storage use. They are permanent accessory structures utilized by my property for maintenance. [Speaker 2] (28:50 - 28:57) Well, just, it it I mean this is a completely different sentence, the one that says storage container shall include but not be limited to the following, and then it lists what they are. [Speaker 2] (28:58 - 28:58) Um [Speaker 2] (29:00 - 29:01) but whether jurisdiction [Speaker 2] (29:03 - 29:04) has passed [Speaker 2] (29:06 - 29:11) for us to make that determination, um I w I agree with Mark that [Speaker 2] (29:13 - 29:20) But but I understand, because there was that email in the middle, but that email was very to me it was sort of like a the way it was worded was very much [Speaker 1] (29:20 - 29:20) And [Speaker 2] (29:20 - 29:28) I'm I'm going to formally um you know I'm going to formally request evaluation of this, but it but then you never did. [Speaker 1] (29:28 - 29:35) I I hear that concern and I the only thing I can ask is how I would proceed on getting clarification for the future, because I [Speaker 1] (29:36 - 29:44) The what body or board or member of the town can make that determination if the ZBA has no authority over it. [Speaker 2] (29:46 - 29:49) So if you are assuming that time has [Speaker 2] (29:51 - 29:57) Yep. So I would, I'm prepared to make a motion on that. [Speaker 2] (29:57 - 29:58) I don't know if any. [Speaker 1] (29:59 - 30:07) Uh his question is what recourse would he have, um if if any, if the if it is expired as far as a um the Zoning Board jurisdiction? [Speaker 1] (30:08 - 30:10) Does it default to the [Speaker 2] (30:10 - 30:10) Well, [Speaker 1] (30:10 - 30:10) land specs [Speaker 2] (30:10 - 30:11) I it's [Speaker 1] (30:11 - 30:13) jurisdiction or is there uh is there some [Speaker 2] (30:13 - 30:18) just on the classification issue out that I think there's no jurisdiction on the storage containers. [Speaker 3] (30:18 - 30:18) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 2] (30:18 - 30:23) Um I think that his appeal is timely as to the fines. [Speaker 2] (30:24 - 30:28) Because the fines didn't start until the April letter. [Speaker 1] (30:28 - 30:29) Right. [Speaker 2] (30:29 - 30:30) So I think he's timely. [Speaker 1] (30:30 - 30:34) But he's saying if he wants to further question of the classification [Speaker 2] (30:34 - 30:37) I don't I don't think we have I don't think we have jurisdiction if if if we [Speaker 2] (30:38 - 30:44) If the decision was made by the building inspector that these, you know, what they are, [Speaker 2] (30:45 - 30:51) there was notice of appellant rights, if he was aggrieved, he failed to timely, [Speaker 2] (30:51 - 30:58) in looking at the email in between, he recognized, you know, he argued that they were accessory structures. [Speaker 2] (30:58 - 31:05) So I think he recognized that there was a disagreement between his opinion and the building inspector's determination. [Speaker 2] (31:05 - 31:10) and uh the appeal would have been right. So [Speaker 2] (31:11 - 31:20) the appeal from here on the classification, so if we were to find there was no jurisdiction on that part, there's a right to appeal to a court. [Speaker 2] (31:21 - 31:27) um to challenge the decision of this board and therefore the building inspector, [Speaker 1] (31:27 - 31:32) but is he but he only be challenging um the decision that we were making about jurisdiction or would he be able to challenge [Speaker 2] (31:32 - 31:33) He could challenge he could challenge everything. [Speaker 1] (31:33 - 31:34) classification okay [Speaker 2] (31:34 - 31:34) He could challenge [Speaker 1] (31:34 - 31:34) alright so [Speaker 2] (31:34 - 31:34) everything. [Speaker 1] (31:34 - 31:36) that would that that's what he was that's the question I think [Speaker 2] (31:36 - 31:36) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (31:36 - 31:39) was um how he would [Speaker 2] (31:39 - 31:49) You could challenge whether we're correct on the uh on the jurisdiction issue, on the storage container, the foundation, you could challenge that all in court, but it's [Speaker 2] (31:50 - 31:58) That review on the building inspector appeal, I think, is a de novo review, different than this here, [Speaker 2] (31:58 - 32:00) but I'm not positive about that, [Speaker 2] (32:00 - 32:06) whether or not there's evidence that's received on all of the the issues. [Speaker 2] (32:09 - 32:13) But I'm I'm ready at least to make a motion, partial motion on the type [Speaker 2] (32:13 - 32:14) Timeliness of the jurisdiction. [Speaker 4] (32:15 - 32:17) I do have one other procedural related question then. [Speaker 4] (32:18 - 32:21) What I have from Mr. [Speaker 4] (32:21 - 32:28) Vodace on September 3rd is regards to response to complaints 29 Littles Point Road. [Speaker 4] (32:30 - 32:32) Inspector Property accompanied me at the time of my inspection. [Speaker 4] (32:33 - 32:40) I saw nowhere in here does it say that this is a determination by the building inspector as opposed to the letter issued [Speaker 4] (32:41 - 32:46) Um in April which is a clear term determination. I inspected the property [Speaker 4] (32:48 - 32:51) your failure to remove the unregistered vehicles, you are hereby notified of fines [Speaker 2] (32:51 - 32:52) Well, he says [Speaker 4] (32:52 - 32:53) if you're aggrieved at this determination. [Speaker 2] (32:54 - 32:54) he says that [Speaker 4] (32:54 - 32:54) Oh wait. [Speaker 2] (32:54 - 32:55) the penultimate [Speaker 4] (32:55 - 32:55) Oh. [Speaker 2] (32:55 - 33:00) sentence of the letter, if you are aggrieved by my determination [Speaker 4] (33:00 - 33:02) Determinations yeah yeah yeah. [Speaker 2] (33:02 - 33:05) of this action, you have the right to appeal as this appeal here. [Speaker 2] (33:07 - 33:08) Um, so I think [Speaker 4] (33:08 - 33:08) he I [Speaker 2] (33:08 - 33:08) took the [Speaker 4] (33:08 - 33:09) was I [Speaker 2] (33:09 - 33:09) day. [Speaker 4] (33:09 - 33:15) was treating these as one matter, but I can see from your perspective they're not it's not a continuation of the same matter [Speaker 2] (33:15 - 33:15) It [Speaker 4] (33:15 - 33:15) but [Speaker 2] (33:15 - 33:15) it [Speaker 4] (33:15 - 33:15) rather [Speaker 2] (33:15 - 33:15) he [Speaker 4] (33:15 - 33:15) a [Speaker 2] (33:15 - 33:16) made [Speaker 4] (33:16 - 33:16) new matter. [Speaker 2] (33:16 - 33:20) he made new determinations, and I think he did in the April letter on the fines. [Speaker 4] (33:20 - 33:21) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (33:21 - 33:31) But not on his underlying determination of what those items were, you know, the the storage containers. [Speaker 2] (33:32 - 33:39) I think he made his determination on that and I think you're untimely as to that determination. [Speaker 2] (33:40 - 33:41) But I think you're timely on [Speaker 2] (33:43 - 33:49) on on your appeal of the fines. That was something that changed in [Speaker 4] (33:49 - 33:50) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 2] (33:50 - 33:50) the April letter. [Speaker 4] (33:50 - 33:51) Thank you for clarifying. [Speaker 1] (34:12 - 34:14) So do you want to make a motion as far as following [Speaker 2] (34:14 - 34:15) I'd like I'd [Speaker 1] (34:15 - 34:15) the [Speaker 2] (34:15 - 34:15) like to to make [Speaker 1] (34:15 - 34:18) this as two kinds this is a two separate motions [Speaker 2] (34:18 - 34:18) I think [Speaker 1] (34:18 - 34:18) in a [Speaker 2] (34:18 - 34:22) we sense should bifurcate it as so we can determine what we have jurisdiction for [Speaker 2] (34:23 - 34:27) so oh I would make a motion on the jurisdictional issue [Speaker 1] (34:28 - 34:30) Does anybody on the board have any questions about that? [Speaker 5] (34:30 - 34:32) No, this jurisdiction makes sense to me. [Speaker 2] (34:32 - 34:36) And then we can hear the appeal of the fines [Speaker 2] (34:37 - 34:47) To the extent we have um we have new information that we think should be considered about the fines. [Speaker 2] (34:47 - 34:48) That's how I see it. [Speaker 1] (34:49 - 34:50) Okay. Yeah. [Speaker 5] (34:50 - 34:55) So to clarify, the public comment will be just on the appeal for the fines. [Speaker 2] (34:55 - 34:57) If we don't have jurisdiction, [Speaker 5] (34:57 - 34:57) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (34:57 - 34:59) I don't think we need public comment [Speaker 5] (34:59 - 34:59) Okay. [Speaker 2] (34:59 - 35:02) um unless someone had a specific [Speaker 2] (35:04 - 35:05) You know basically a legal [Speaker 2] (35:08 - 35:12) comment about the issue, the limited issue of the sports jurisdiction. [Speaker 5] (35:13 - 35:13) Okay. [Speaker 1] (35:33 - 35:34) We [Speaker 2] (35:34 - 35:34) I [Speaker 1] (35:34 - 35:47) weren't, we didn't make any sort of determination. So right now we're just going to um we're going to make a motion about jurisdiction. Whether or not this board, whether or not the um appeals period lapsed for the initial letter from the building inspector. [Speaker 1] (35:48 - 35:58) Um and if that appeals period lapsed then we do not have jurisdiction. So that's the motion that um so if you have any if you have any questions about [Speaker 1] (35:59 - 36:01) jurisdiction for [Speaker 1] (36:03 - 36:05) anything that relates to that motion. [Speaker 1] (36:06 - 36:07) Feel free to. [Speaker 2] (36:12 - 36:24) Okay, so I'll make a motion for the following. First to bifurcate our ruling so that we can address the jurisdictional issue and remaining issues separately. [Speaker 2] (36:25 - 36:40) and to make on the jurisdictional issue a finding that the Building Commissioner September 3, 2025 letter constituted the operative determination classifying the subject structures as storage containers and directing their removal. [Speaker 2] (36:40 - 36:45) The property owner had actual notice of that determination as evidenced by the September 16, [Speaker 2] (36:45 - 36:47) 2025 response to dispute the classifications. [Speaker 2] (36:48 - 36:49) The April 13, [Speaker 2] (36:49 - 36:51) 2026 letter. [Speaker 2] (36:51 - 37:02) Do not material alter the legal interpretation or impose new container violations but instead enforced the prior determination and assess penalties for continuing noncompliance. [Speaker 2] (37:02 - 37:17) Accordingly the appeal filed on May 11, 2026 is untimely as to the storage container determination under Mass General Law Chapter 48 Section 15. And [Speaker 2] (37:18 - 37:37) Um that the board has jurisdiction to hear whether the the vehicle violation and the um container fines present issues that arose in the later April thirteenth twenty twenty six letter. [Speaker 1] (37:40 - 37:40) Do we have a second? [Speaker 5] (37:40 - 37:42) If I fall all that, I second it. [Speaker 1] (37:44 - 37:45) All in favour? [Speaker 5] (37:45 - 37:45) Alright. [Speaker 2] (37:45 - 37:46) Right. [Speaker 1] (37:46 - 37:46) Okay. [Speaker 2] (37:48 - 37:48) Okay. [Speaker 1] (37:50 - 37:53) So now the conversation is about the fines. [Speaker 2] (38:02 - 38:07) And with respect to the vehicles, hearing that it's now registered on that piece of it, [Speaker 2] (38:07 - 38:09) my recommendation [Speaker 2] (38:10 - 38:18) would be to remand it for the building inspector to confirm it's registered and determine whether or not the fines are appropriate. [Speaker 2] (38:22 - 38:23) Anybody have thoughts about that? [Speaker 1] (38:24 - 38:24) I think that's honest. [Speaker 5] (38:24 - 38:24) But [Speaker 2] (38:24 - 38:26) Just as to the vehicle. [Speaker 1] (38:26 - 38:28) At the time that the fines were given, [Speaker 1] (38:28 - 38:30) it was unregistered. [Speaker 2] (38:31 - 38:34) It's it's up to the building inspector. We're just giving [Speaker 4] (38:34 - 38:34) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (38:34 - 38:35) him the opportunity that [Speaker 2] (38:36 - 38:44) If he was just looking for compliance that God is compliance, is he still looking is the town still looking to enforce the fines. [Speaker 2] (38:45 - 38:59) They were validly issued and if we remand it and the landowner is still aggrieved of that determination, [Speaker 2] (38:59 - 39:00) if there's no change. [Speaker 2] (39:01 - 39:03) he would then have, in my view, [Speaker 2] (39:04 - 39:18) a further appellate right to come back here to challenge um the fine. So we could have to hear it again, but um you know that's I see this all the time back back in my career. [Speaker 2] (39:20 - 39:31) Twenty five, thirty years ago when I did criminal law work and there were unregistered vehicles and the judge would say okay, is the vehicle registered now and then it is and it [Speaker 6] (39:31 - 39:31) It just [Speaker 2] (39:31 - 39:31) would dismiss [Speaker 6] (39:31 - 39:31) sounds to [Speaker 2] (39:31 - 39:31) the me case. [Speaker 6] (39:31 - 39:36) like you get a ticket for your car 'cause you're parked around, but if you go move your car, you park somewhere else, now the tickets [Speaker 2] (39:37 - 39:37) It and it's [Speaker 6] (39:37 - 39:39) it's the same thing. [Speaker 2] (39:39 - 39:44) I I'm not in the best position to judge whether the [Speaker 1] (39:53 - 39:54) Yes, I do. [Speaker 1] (39:54 - 39:55) But I [Speaker 2] (39:55 - 39:56) It's our [Speaker 1] (39:56 - 39:56) was just, [Speaker 2] (39:56 - 39:56) determination. [Speaker 1] (39:56 - 40:01) I mean, it might be a waste of time. I could ask, why don't I ask Rich what he, [Speaker 1] (40:01 - 40:05) if he's interested, if we remanded it on the fine issue, [Speaker 1] (40:05 - 40:07) if he thinks that might be something productive or not. [Speaker 3] (40:08 - 40:09) Yes, I do. [Speaker 1] (40:10 - 40:11) Okay. [Speaker 4] (40:12 - 40:22) There's also um although the fines are very clear in the bylaw there in the letter it is a little unclear as to the fines per per [Speaker 4] (40:24 - 40:29) violation versus the the [Speaker 4] (40:31 - 40:43) The original letter mentions a fine of up to three hundred dollars per day. And it doesn't distinguish, it doesn't s say that her violation. Um although I know that is [Speaker 4] (40:44 - 40:46) um found in our by-law. [Speaker 4] (40:46 - 40:47) And [Speaker 5] (40:47 - 40:47) Oh. [Speaker 4] (40:47 - 40:57) then the actual fine was per violation meaning that nine hundred dollars a day. I think it's fair to send that back for review um considering there's [Speaker 4] (40:58 - 41:00) There is a discrepancy there in the in the wording. [Speaker 6] (41:01 - 41:14) And regarding that, I'm not seeking that um it uh the the question that I brought on that third point was that there are two containers, but I suspect that that constitutes a single violation, [Speaker 6] (41:15 - 41:16) not each separate violation. [Speaker 4] (41:16 - 41:22) Oh, because if you had twenty cars, that would be twenty violations. Yeah, the violation is per it's per v it's [Speaker 4] (41:23 - 41:31) It's not you're violating it and then once you violate it you can just violate it indefinitely for $300 a day. Um it it's a cumulative yeah. [Speaker 4] (41:35 - 41:49) But I do think it's fair to go back um because I think the goal of a lot of these bylaws and the goal the goal the fine is compliance the goal the fine is not punitive it's not to punish people it's to encourage compliance so I think it is fair to [Speaker 4] (41:49 - 41:50) to go back. [Speaker 1] (41:51 - 41:56) Let me ask you, on the issue of remand, [Speaker 1] (41:56 - 42:02) are you, do you plan to keep the storage containers, [Speaker 1] (42:02 - 42:11) go forward if it were remanded and you had the opportunity during the remand period to remove them? [Speaker 1] (42:13 - 42:19) and perhaps in consideration of that if the building inspector were to waive the fines to date is that something you would be interested in you [Speaker 6] (42:19 - 42:25) It's something I would strongly consider with the note that I would have to replace them with another suitable structure. [Speaker 6] (42:25 - 42:26) I do need the [Speaker 1] (42:26 - 42:26) you you [Speaker 6] (42:26 - 42:27) storage [Speaker 1] (42:27 - 42:29) get if those compliant structure i don't think there's an issue [Speaker 4] (42:29 - 42:29) Yeah, [Speaker 1] (42:29 - 42:29) we don't [Speaker 4] (42:29 - 42:29) there'll [Speaker 1] (42:29 - 42:29) have [Speaker 4] (42:29 - 42:30) be no issues, [Speaker 4] (42:30 - 42:30) yeah. [Speaker 6] (42:30 - 42:38) I and I hear that I just I'm still a little hung on the fact that I think that the structure is technically compliant. [Speaker 6] (42:39 - 42:45) So I would have to do some research as to what constitutes a compliance structure and why these are considered non-compliant. [Speaker 4] (42:48 - 42:53) Maybe you were able to, I don't Hang on a second. We haven't opened up public comment yet. [Speaker 6] (42:54 - 42:54) Yeah. [Speaker 6] (42:54 - 43:07) But I would seek alternative options and I would be happy to do that research and consider whether I needed to, you know, make further inquiries into getting them compliant or finding a compliant alternative. [Speaker 1] (43:09 - 43:12) There's one thing we could do is we could remand it, come back in a month [Speaker 1] (43:13 - 43:25) to see if there is still um that then we can make our determination on everything after there's been an opportunity to get the compliance and see where things are at. [Speaker 7] (43:25 - 43:26) But can we [Speaker 4] (43:26 - 43:28) Or we could also, we make we could re but we could also [Speaker 1] (43:29 - 43:30) remand it and close it. [Speaker 4] (43:30 - 43:30) remand it and close it. [Speaker 1] (43:30 - 43:30) Yep, [Speaker 4] (43:30 - 43:31) I think that [Speaker 1] (43:31 - 43:31) we could. [Speaker 4] (43:31 - 43:35) would be the better thing 'cause then if it is done it's done and then um if [Speaker 4] (43:35 - 43:37) um if there's a new appeal that came in [Speaker 1] (43:37 - 43:37) Okay. [Speaker 4] (43:37 - 43:38) I think that that [Speaker 1] (43:38 - 43:39) I think [Speaker 4] (43:39 - 43:39) is [Speaker 1] (43:39 - 43:39) we could [Speaker 4] (43:39 - 43:39) fine [Speaker 1] (43:39 - 43:40) do either option. [Speaker 1] (43:40 - 43:41) I'll defer to you on that. [Speaker 8] (43:42 - 43:50) Yeah, I think that's a better option. Because I agree with Susan, but hearing from the building inspector, we might not need to come back here [Speaker 4] (43:50 - 43:50) Yeah. [Speaker 8] (43:50 - 43:51) on this issue. [Speaker 4] (43:51 - 43:51) Yep. [Speaker 8] (43:51 - 43:52) So I think that makes sense. [Speaker 4] (43:53 - 43:54) Okay. [Speaker 4] (43:54 - 44:18) Um and so typically we do open these things up to public comment um but it's really important that the public comment is um is only about what we're discussing um right now and the only thing we're discussing right now is um fines for um a an unregistered vehicle and for two sheds. We are not discussing whether or not they're sheds that did not that that we um [Speaker 1] (44:18 - 44:19) Out of jurisdiction. [Speaker 4] (44:19 - 44:21) that we don't have jurisdiction on that. So it's just [Speaker 4] (44:21 - 44:39) just we're only talking about the fines for the and and so if you have any questions about that for the board please raise your hand but specifically about fines for these and remanding it back to the building inspector [Speaker 9] (44:42 - 44:44) Thank you. Thank you. I'm Pat Sullivan. [Speaker 9] (44:44 - 44:48) I'm the president of our board of wake court. [Speaker 9] (44:48 - 44:54) And everyone here tonight is residents of White Court. So is that working? [Speaker 9] (44:55 - 44:56) Can you hear that? [Speaker 9] (44:57 - 44:57) Can you hear that? [Speaker 4] (44:58 - 44:58) Oh, that's [Speaker 9] (44:58 - 45:02) Got it. Okay, I'll take a closer. Let me start over again so you can hear that. So Pat Sullivan, [Speaker 9] (45:02 - 45:04) I'm the president of the Condo Association. [Speaker 9] (45:05 - 45:07) I have two of my fellow trustees here, [Speaker 9] (45:07 - 45:11) Kathy Healy and Janet Godheb. And these are residents of White Court. [Speaker 9] (45:12 - 45:16) We've had concerns about just these storage containers. [Speaker 9] (45:17 - 45:25) unregistered vehicles, you know, all which affect the value of our property um with substantial, you know, taxpayers of of of the town. [Speaker 9] (45:26 - 45:43) And I understand just, you know, having been, you know, a bank president for my whole life, so I understand the legalese and have going before zoning board appeals, they understand that the jurisdiction here and the various things. I just think when when they we just want to kind of voice our concern about the fact that, you know, we do have unregistered vehicles. [Speaker 9] (45:43 - 45:46) Yes. There have been others in the past. I'm not making accusations, [Speaker 9] (45:46 - 45:51) I'm just saying there are. And if it comes down to what time it is factor, [Speaker 9] (45:51 - 46:07) we would hope that was raised earlier that it would be appropriately addressed relative to that unregistered violation. Because to us, you know, that's kind of bleeding our property because as we drive into our property we have unregistered vehicles sitting while on C.P. [Speaker 9] (46:07 - 46:10) Wilkinson's property. It does affect as you enter our property because the [Speaker 9] (46:10 - 46:14) because the properties coexist with the easement. So that's kind of our concern. [Speaker 9] (46:14 - 46:15) Number one, [Speaker 6] (46:15 - 46:15) Point [Speaker 9] (46:15 - 46:16) you [Speaker 6] (46:16 - 46:17) of order here. [Speaker 6] (46:18 - 46:23) The properties share a property boundary, [Speaker 6] (46:23 - 46:34) but there is no specific easement from Blythwood to White Court or vice versa. The easements in question are from the respective properties to the town. I just want to clarify on that point. [Speaker 9] (46:34 - 46:34) well, [Speaker 9] (46:35 - 46:36) I don't want to debate. [Speaker 9] (46:37 - 46:45) the easement legality with you other than the fact that it's been a two hundred year easement and is in fact a legal easement. [Speaker 9] (46:46 - 46:49) for the benefit of the Zoning Board of Appeals here. So [Speaker 6] (46:49 - 46:49) Oh, [Speaker 9] (46:49 - 47:01) so we may agree to disagree. But that's not for you to hear our disagreement other than it's a valid legal agree uh uh easement because in order to enter our property, which is a hundred million dollar property and a substantial taxpayer to [Speaker 6] (47:01 - 47:01) I'm [Speaker 9] (47:01 - 47:02) the town, [Speaker 6] (47:02 - 47:02) sorry. [Speaker 6] (47:02 - 47:02) I have to [Speaker 9] (47:02 - 47:02) we [Speaker 6] (47:02 - 47:03) point [Speaker 9] (47:03 - 47:03) would [Speaker 6] (47:03 - 47:03) of [Speaker 9] (47:03 - 47:03) not [Speaker 6] (47:03 - 47:03) order [Speaker 4] (47:03 - 47:03) Sorry. [Speaker 9] (47:03 - 47:03) have here we [Speaker 6] (47:03 - 47:03) again. [Speaker 9] (47:03 - 47:07) just that. we would not have purchased our units if it wasn't a legal easement. [Speaker 4] (47:07 - 47:09) Right. Just so you know that like [Speaker 4] (47:10 - 47:11) We're not discussing any of that right now. [Speaker 9] (47:11 - 47:11) Exactly. [Speaker 4] (47:11 - 47:12) This was focused [Speaker 9] (47:12 - 47:12) I got it. [Speaker 4] (47:12 - 47:13) on the fines. [Speaker 4] (47:14 - 47:22) If you have something specific about the possibility of remand back to the building inspector to look over the fines and to work on compliance a little further, [Speaker 4] (47:23 - 47:26) if you have specific questions about that, that [Speaker 9] (47:26 - 47:26) No, [Speaker 4] (47:26 - 47:26) would be great. [Speaker 9] (47:26 - 47:33) we have no further questions because we understand that has to be legally dealt with and appropriately meet your procedures. [Speaker 9] (47:33 - 47:35) Let me see. Any other trustees who have any other? [Speaker 9] (47:38 - 47:39) That that's that's what will stay tonight. [Speaker 9] (47:40 - 47:40) Thank you [Speaker 4] (47:40 - 47:42) Thank you. And is there anybody, if there's anybody online, [Speaker 4] (47:42 - 47:44) they can use the raise your hand function. [Speaker 10] (47:49 - 47:51) I have just one question. [Speaker 10] (47:51 - 48:08) In most states other than Massachusetts which have a registration requirement they also have an inspection requirement and they have therefore a determination whether the vehicles are operable. Is that applicable here? [Speaker 4] (48:09 - 48:11) We just mentioned registration. [Speaker 4] (48:11 - 48:14) We don't mention inspection that is at the state level, [Speaker 6] (48:14 - 48:14) I [Speaker 4] (48:14 - 48:17) but our bylaw just mentions registration, I believe. Is that correct? [Speaker 11] (48:17 - 48:21) Yeah, it's only for unregistered or registered vehicles. [Speaker 4] (48:21 - 48:22) That's the only enforcement. [Speaker 6] (48:22 - 48:24) One more point of order. [Speaker 4] (48:25 - 48:29) That's the only enforcement that you're issuing here is registration. [Speaker 6] (48:30 - 48:32) Could the speaker please identify himself? [Speaker 10] (48:32 - 48:35) These vehicles have been there for many, [Speaker 10] (48:35 - 48:36) many months, [Speaker 10] (48:36 - 48:42) and they appear to be inoperable and abandoned and in disrepair. [Speaker 10] (48:42 - 48:44) That creates an eyesore. [Speaker 10] (48:45 - 48:48) Just for informational purposes, I wanted to share that. [Speaker 1] (48:48 - 48:51) We don't have jurisdiction that we didn't let the [Speaker 4] (48:51 - 48:52) Yeah, can you say [Speaker 1] (48:52 - 48:52) landowner. [Speaker 4] (48:52 - 48:54) your name and address real quick? Real quick. [Speaker 10] (48:54 - 48:57) I live at thirty five Littles Point Road. [Speaker 4] (48:57 - 48:57) Okay. And [Speaker 10] (48:57 - 48:58) My name [Speaker 4] (48:58 - 48:58) your name is and your address? [Speaker 10] (48:58 - 48:59) Alpert. [Speaker 4] (48:59 - 49:00) Your last name? [Speaker 4] (49:01 - 49:02) What's your last name? [Speaker 10] (49:02 - 49:02) Full [Speaker 4] (49:02 - 49:02) Full name? [Speaker 10] (49:02 - 49:03) last name is Alpert. [Speaker 4] (49:04 - 49:05) Oh, your last name is Albert and your first name? [Speaker 10] (49:06 - 49:06) Robert. [Speaker 4] (49:06 - 49:07) Robert. Thank you. [Speaker 4] (49:07 - 49:07) Sorry, [Speaker 4] (49:08 - 49:09) we just want to make sure we have it. [Speaker 4] (49:11 - 49:20) So yeah, we don't that right now the only thing we have is the specific violations mentioned by the Building Inspector and um we're just discussing the fines. [Speaker 1] (49:26 - 49:29) So should we have our some discussion amongst the board here and [Speaker 4] (49:29 - 49:30) Yeah, [Speaker 1] (49:30 - 49:31) is that what we should want to do? [Speaker 4] (49:31 - 49:35) I think we're gonna let's close the public hearing. We have a motion to close the public [Speaker 1] (49:35 - 49:35) Make [Speaker 4] (49:35 - 49:35) hearing. [Speaker 1] (49:35 - 49:36) a motion to close the public hearing. [Speaker 8] (49:36 - 49:37) Second. [Speaker 4] (49:37 - 49:38) All in favour? [Speaker 1] (49:38 - 49:38) Aye. [Speaker 9] (49:38 - 49:39) Aye. [Speaker 8] (49:39 - 49:39) Aye. [Speaker 2] (49:38 - 49:38) I. [Speaker 1] (49:38 - 49:39) Aye. [Speaker 1] (49:41 - 50:03) So I I mean as far as the um just to see everybody. Um the I I agree that the um that I would like the building inspector to work on um enforcement and I think having that opportunity um to go back would help with that as opposed to just having this be kind of a punitive problem that then [Speaker 1] (50:04 - 50:10) just continues on and um and it seems like an opportunity to maybe have some resolution how everything else feels. [Speaker 2] (50:10 - 50:26) It my my thought is that we remand to permit the Building Inspector the opportunity to reconsider fines with uh there being potential compliance or actual compliance, but it's totally within the Building Inspector's discretion [Speaker 2] (50:27 - 50:30) whether to waive any fines, to keep all the fines, continue to fine. [Speaker 2] (50:32 - 50:35) uh all within his discretion that we're not overturning that. [Speaker 4] (50:35 - 50:52) No, definitely. Yeah. I think in light of the goals of the policy about it being enforcement instead of punitive and the building inspector's comment here tonight that he will consider the discussion we're having, I think it makes sense to amend on that issue. [Speaker 4] (50:54 - 50:54) Anybody else? [Speaker 1] (50:54 - 50:55) Yep. [Speaker 2] (50:55 - 50:56) Go for it. [Speaker 2] (50:56 - 50:58) So I'll finish my motion, [Speaker 1] (50:58 - 50:58) Yeah. [Speaker 5] (50:58 - 50:58) Okay. [Speaker 2] (50:58 - 50:59) motion part two. [Speaker 1] (50:59 - 51:00) Motion part two. [Speaker 2] (51:00 - 51:19) So I'll make a motion to remand the fine issue as presented in the April 2026 letter that was timely appealed to this board for the building inspector to consider whether to keep, to compromise, [Speaker 2] (51:20 - 51:21) to waive. [Speaker 2] (51:22 - 51:25) uh or to continue to fine for violations [Speaker 2] (51:27 - 51:31) um as provided in the April twenty twenty six letter. [Speaker 1] (51:32 - 51:34) Should we add anything that we are not um [Speaker 1] (51:35 - 51:37) we are not overturning any decision [Speaker 2] (51:37 - 51:37) Okay, [Speaker 1] (51:37 - 51:37) made by the [Speaker 2] (51:37 - 51:37) yep, [Speaker 1] (51:37 - 51:38) ABO [Speaker 2] (51:38 - 51:43) that's right. So and to make a finding that we uphold the determination of the building inspector. [Speaker 4] (51:45 - 51:45) Second. [Speaker 1] (51:46 - 51:47) All in favor? [Speaker 4] (51:47 - 51:47) Aye. [Speaker 6] (51:47 - 51:47) Aye. [Speaker 2] (51:47 - 51:47) Aye. [Speaker 1] (51:51 - 51:52) Alright. [Speaker 7] (51:54 - 51:55) Thank you very much for your time. [Speaker 1] (51:56 - 51:57) Do you have a motion to return? [Speaker 2] (51:58 - 51:59) Motion to adjourn. [Speaker 1] (51:59 - 51:59) Alright. [Speaker 1] (52:00 - 52:00) Alright, second, [Speaker 1] (52:00 - 52:00) second. [Speaker 1] (52:01 - 52:01) All in favor? [Speaker 2] (52:01 - 52:01) Aye. [Speaker 8] (52:01 - 52:02) Aye. [Speaker 2] (52:02 - 52:02) Aye.