Public input. Public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to any issues with the jurisdiction of the Chelmswood zoning board of appeals that are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing before the zoning board of appeals. Public comment on any pending public
hearing shall only be heard during such public hearings and may be limited to three minutes. Is there any public comment this evening? Seeing none, go to our first hearing, which I think is a continuation
uh lot off Russell Road. The owner is Dylan Lee. He's requesting a variance under section 1959 conformity to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 14 ft due to wetlands to construct due to wetlands to construct a new dwelling
on a vacant lot. Any other relief deemed necessary. This property is located in the residential RC district. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. For the record, Douglas Hower representing the applicant, Bill is with me tonight. Um,
we originally submitted materials back in November. There was a question about having added some information or deleted some information from the plan. So, that was done and we've since put in a new plan. I would ask Becky if she could put
that up on the screen in case we have to make reference to it. >> So, back in November when I originally submitted everything, I pretty much gave you all the exhibits to which I would be referring during this hearing. Um, of which the most important in my view
actually is the huge amount of support from the abuters. Um, as far as I'm aware, everybody was supportive. We gave in signatures of about 10 or 12 neighbors that have all supportive of this uh application for the variance
with respect to the frontage. So let me address that because when it was continued last time it was without testimony. So this is really the initial public hearing >> just an overview. >> Uh let me see where we are here. >> The blue >> I think we have to move this up.
>> Y this one here. >> That's the lot. >> That's the lot. Okay. I'm sorry. There's one shaded in blue, >> right? So, this is 2.78 acres, not 2.75. That's on me. So, as you can see, it's pretty obvious. It's incredibly large. It is incredibly
unique compared to everything else within the entire district almost. I don't think there are any other residential homes with more than two acres of land. This almost has three. The shape is also unique in terms of all of its frontage and just the sheer
shape. itself versus all the rectangular type lots around it. So from a uniqueness viewpoint, which is one of the first three criteria, I think we hit that in spades. The picture is worth a thousand words. So I'll stop talking on that issue.
>> Looks like my lot. Second issue is is the proposed juice and if you grant the variance more substantially in derrogation of the intent of the bylaw that really deals with the use of the property and the use of the property is going to be a single family use which is
entirely consistent with the entire district. So there is no dergation from the intent of the bylaws to that. This lot and the proposed structure which is shown here meets every dimensional requirement in
the bylaw with the exception of this lot setback front on the frontage. U we have the frontage but we don't have the setback. This is an existing shed which would have met all the requirements. we wouldn't even have to appear before you
but for the fact that there are wetlands and the wetlands doing any work to this shed would involve going before conservation again and doing a substantial amount of work with wetlands and and having no buffer area etc. So the client instead went forward with
conservation over a period of two years, went through 12 different submittals of plans and and revisions and conservation gave them an order of conditions that approved of this type of a structure where it was located because the primary goal for them was to keep it out of the
wetlands and as out of the buffer area as much as possible, which this does. So you can see how that does that. And I believe this is the setback areas here >> for the wetlands you mean? >> Yeah,
>> I can pull that map out. The colored one is actually a lot easier to follow. 50 the 50 ft. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Becky. >> You're welcome. >> There we go. >> So, you can see how much of this is is
these are the setback requirements and cuts right through. So we're off by six feet. Six feet. Um and you can see how much of the wetlands are in this area. So let's now go back to the real question of is there a huge
variance request here with with uh dealing with the six foot versus it's 14 point I don't know if it's 140 or 148. I'm not sure. >> 140. >> 140. >> 140. So we're six feet short.
It's a 20 foot setback because it's an RC district and the RC district only requires 20,000 square feet. This, of course, has 2.78 acres. We meet that. Typically, it would be difficult to argue about a a setback like this, but
in this particular area, and as we showed you on the assessor's map, there are I cited three or four particular lots, but there are even more, which have literally no setback from the front. So, this is actually an
improvement compared to most of the homes on that road by far. Um, so it's this is not unique in the sense of that it's not being built right on the road like many of the other ones were. This is set back enough. And in fact, because
of the way the town laid out the road, actually paved it, it literally paved some of my clients land. All we're looking for is a very minor relief of a variance. Now, why is a variance proper in this particular case?
And I'd argue that there is substantial hardship relating to the soils and the topography. This is one of the classic cases for a variance because two plus acre two plus acres of land are our wetland soils that are preventing us
from literally building where we could have used the shed property and made it into a single family home. Could easily have done that. But to keep it away from the wetlands, we're pushing it down further. That's what's creating the need for the variance. And I hope common
sense would prevail upon all of you that on that issue we could hit we hit the hardship issue. We show that it's not substantially interrogation of the intent of the bylaw and we show that it's unique. Hopefully to make your life a little easier, I banged out a four-page letter
today to address those specific requests for findings so that if you make a decision that's favorable, you have the data before you um with the proper references with the case law and with uh the supporting data that I had
previously submitted on November 5th or 8th. Um, so that lays out that whole issue. Since we filed all this back in November, now a second issue came up that also is addressed in my letter today. This has
only come up within the last two to three weeks, Jose roughly. >> I'm sorry about the >> grandfather's status. >> Yes. Uh, >> in the last couple of weeks. >> Yes. Yes. So
Jose interpreted the bylaw to require that and correctly that 80% of the land has to be upland, has to be dry, >> which in a 20,000 square foot lot would mean we'd have to have 16,000 contiguous dry land.
>> That is true as a bylaw. However, this lot was created before that requirement ever came into being. This lot was created at at least the last one I saw was when it was created was 1970. The the requirement for 80% of Upland came
out in I believe 197 >> 1978 the first one 80 80%. >> Uh thank you. So this predates that requirement. So therefore it's grandfathered as to that issue is our argument. Now,
that led to a series of requests for determinations and interpretations by Jose, which left him in a position he had to ask town council for some advice about that issue. And town council gave me that advice on Monday of this week or Tuesday, which was sent to me, and I
appreciate that very much. Um, but I did a research of my own based on that. And what the town council was saying and partly true is that if a lot isn't vacant, you might lose some grandfathered
status. >> If it is not vacant, >> if it if it if it it had structures on it and >> which is the shed we're referring to. >> He's referring to the shed. He referred to three things, but let's all address those. They're in the letter, but I'll address them. Two are real easy. He
claimed that because there was a sewer betterment There was an improvement to the lot. My client didn't put the line in. It was a It's a sewer betterment in the street. It's a stub. It's not onto the lot yet. It can connect. He has rights to
connect. So, I find that interesting because that shouldn't disqualify the lot for being buildable or not. He didn't do anything to affect his lot. Just because the town is building the sewer stubs doesn't mean that it it takes away a protected status. If he did something like
subdivided the property or added things to the property, I could understand that argument, but not over a sewer stub that's put in by the sewer commission when it's doing the entire roadway. That that's absurd, quite frankly. Second argument that he raised is that there
was um an a pre-existing shed on the property. Well, he was led to believe that the shed was built in 1987. That's not true. We have aerial photography that shows that this shed was created between somewhere between
1970 and 1973. We have the aerial photography from GIS mapping from years ago that supports this shed didn't exist. It was a shed that was similar to a lot of other properties back then when these are all like beach huts almost.
You know, people came up to use the lake >> summer. >> But that shed was done in 1970. So that predates this 80% contiguity issue of public land. So that doesn't apply as well. Now his third argument and that was the last one he had was that there
was electricity. A line was run from the street into the shed. So that's where I had to stop and think about this a little bit because first two were easy. The third one I was trying to understand what council was trying to get at through the argument of the statute. He's relying on
chapter 48, section six, about grandfathered status. The way he's interpreting the word vacant is different than I would ever interpret it. To me, vacant means it's uninhabited.
It's not being used as a residence or as a business. It it's vacant. His interpretation apparently is if you make any sort of an improvement, anything of any kind, it loses its status as vacant land.
I don't understand that for the life of me. I don't think that's the intent of the statute. the intent of the statute and I've put in my letter from tonight. I did a little research on this and I was trying to get across what is the kind of the
statutory purpose of chapter 48 section six and the courts generally support the a basic philosophy that you you they don't like to interpret statutes that take a
once buildable lot and make it non-buildable. And that is most recently proven by the new grandfathered status and the um merger of lots and the issue of having um uh accessory use apartments and
limited accessory uh apartments. All that that's changed. The purpose of the statute is to create affordable housing or to create housing. It's not to take away what was once buildable, which was an expectation that was reasonably relied upon by a client when he bought the
property. How could it be buildable one year and then because an electric line gets installed, it suddenly becomes unbuildable? Doesn't make sense. And I think we got to use some common sense here. So the term vacant to me as interpreted under the statute would be
it was uninhabited. It still is to this day uninhabited. This is going to be a substantial improvement. Right now, there are kids that go behind the shed and have their parties when they can, when the weather's more conducive to them. It's an eyesore right now to the neighborhood
versus a brand new single family house lot that quite frankly meets every possible dimensional thing you can imagine in terms of area and it's not going to overwhelm with the size of the house. It's entirely consistent with the zoning district.
And I think I've already established, you know, the six foot requirement for variance here is more than justified based on the wetlands and the unique shape. So I I really don't see the sixoot area being the difficult decision whatsoever on this. And as as hard as
some people wanted to make it to make this non-buildable, which I I really don't understand where this is coming from, I respectfully submit to you that it's not the intent of the by of the zoning bylaws, nor the statute of Massachusetts general law, chapter 48 to make this a
non-buildable lot when it was buildable all the way through. And if we use the town council's argument, it would have been buildable up in 2007 when this electric line was brought in from the street to the shed. How could
something be buildable to through 2007 and not change any dimensions and now suddenly become non-buildable because an electric line went in? It doesn't make sense. So, I want you to use your common sense on this. I don't think anybody's going to challenge your
decisions if in fact you vote to approve them. I do believe I've support given you ample support factually and legally why the variances here would be appropriate. There's a third argument to this whole thing.
It it comes across like well we could do it anyway but I don't mean it that way. All right. I don't let my presentation affect the realities of what you could be facing. >> Not you. So, right now, my client could come to the board,
go to Jose and say, "We'd like to pull a building permit to improve the shed." >> I don't know if you could show the shed here or not, Beth. >> Go to the other plan. >> Thank you. It's on the top right. >> Just to see it more clearly.
>> Yep. Great. Thank you. >> Yep. So we could go in and ask Jose we want to we want to modify an existing structure under 1958 or nine and say we'd like to modify it and it's a non-conforming
pre-existing non-conforming structure. It would meet the setback requirement. There's no question it would. The negative effect of all that is it it would impact the wetlands substantially. What my client agreed to do with the uh conservation commission has some
tremendous benefits for concom. One of which is the introduction of 12 new stations. >> Uh Dylan >> Dylan Lee. >> So it's removing 12 invasive species and doing 4 and a half thousand square feet
of wetland restoration area. and compare that to the 468 square footprint of the new house. We basically, you know, you know, 5x in restoration area versus actual footprint. So, if you
compare the footprint of the existing shed to the footprint of the house we're building, it's only about I think >> it's less than 500 ft difference. >> Uh, yeah, it's about 112 square foot difference between actual horizontal foot. So you can basically look at the
project is I'm taking that shed and moving it forward and I'm putting one and a half stories on that >> all to avoid impacting any wetlands which is you know a goal for everybody here. No question. I don't think the
idea of a six-foot variance being weighed on one side versus impact on wetlands I don't think it's even measurable. One doesn't compare to the other. the wetland statute should take more precedence over a six-foot setback requirement that came into being much
later. The other issue that my client could also have done and didn't is we could actually replicate some of this by we could we could perhaps make it 20 ft and we could
replicate things because the land in the way back in the far corner of this lot which is on the big plan has a large amount of dry land tucked away on the eastern side northeastern side. I don't know if that >> How big is that contiguous?
>> Oh, that it's up in here. >> Let me grab that. >> All if you go all the way to the plan that we had, there was a pretty good size >> lock by the the wetlands. Is that why you're not building over there? >> It's it's all this is all this is dry.
>> And I can chime in on that if you want. The reason I didn't want to build over there was because I'd have to remove somewhere in the realm of 40 trees >> and do a lot of digging and a lot of drainage work and it would affect every
single house on Russell Road. If I if I did that, if I removed that amount of trees versus the lot, the other side of a lot where I have no trees to remove, I don't even have shrubs to remove. It's an empty lot. Um, and I'm putting the house pylon. So, I'm not even digging a
foundation. I'm putting the house on on steel pylons. So, the when we did the isolated land subject to flooding calculation, essentially the additional water to the lot was the equivalent of a 5 gallon bucket. Um, so there's virtually no impact at all. Um, but and
then the other reason, even though there's no documented invasive species in the wetlands, we identified a vermal pool that was farther towards the back of the wetlands. And so by building houses on the side of the lot, we're
farther away from the vernal pool. I'm going to stop at this point because and answer questions of course, but I'm urging you to approve the proposal and the request for variances or findings as necessary to allow this house to be constructed. The benefits to
the town on this lot being approved versus having us come back for some other alternative approach of taking a non-conforming structure or cutting down trees to replicate and all that. It's a lot of wasted time, energy, and money when we can get the same result
practically speaking here without harm to anybody. And in fact, substantial improvement because we're not affecting soils and topography of all the neighbors or cutting down 40 plus trees or really amending anything within the
district. And I'd ask you to just use your common sense and go along with that approach. I'm happy to answer any questions with Dylan can join me in answering any of the questions you have. >> What's the width of that house from front to back?
>> You can consider it almost a tiny house. >> What's the overall square footage going to be when it's done? >> 1,15. >> It was 468 per floor. It's going to be two and a half stories. >> Two and a half.
>> That would make it the smallest house. >> It's frozen. >> Would that uh would that exceed the height required? >> Yeah, we have 35 ft. >> We're below 35 ft. >> We're below 35 ft. >> That's set forth on the plan that's before you, Brian, on the dimensions and
heights and floor area ratios, etc. So, so you mentioned the the power line was brought onto the property in 2007, correct? >> Yes. >> Who brought it on? >> Uh, two owners before me. >> Do we know why they brought it on?
>> No. >> And they added it to the shed. >> They connected it to the shed. >> It connects to a pole and then they dug a line to the shed. >> So, the shed is powered. >> Now, it is >> in 20 as of 2007. >> Correct.
Did you guys do any type of research to see if there was any records of utility bills or use to the shed between 2007 and now? >> No, that's a good question. Actually, the water service had been off for 20 years. Uh the sewer stuff's never been connected. So, it's going to cost me $15,000
in past dues because nobody ever paid the sewers. >> I'm just referring to the I'm I'm just >> taking solely of the why why all of this sudden? is obviously this grandfa this is not the first time that this board has dealt with this grandfather issue and I I distinctly remember the last
time it was specifically because an electric electric was that this was the the the pivotal point right so we know it was added in 2007 someone doesn't just randomly run and add electricity to a building if they're not using and
occupying or for some reason >> in this case it's really vacant it's never been occupied >> I mean if they're not If if this was what you said to be a summer cottage, which is appears to be may be what it was used for, they come in for a couple
of weeks in the summertime, a rotating, you know, foundation of groups of people came or family members, whatever would come for a week or so, use it, go to the water and leave. I mean, this sounds like it might have been a summer cottage and then some decided we're get electricity in here. Still going to
still got to use the woods for everything else and haul your water, but we're going to give you powered lights instead of candles. >> No bathroom, nothing. >> Yeah. Zero. >> No occupancy permit has ever been issued. Oh, okay. So, that >> we thought we had found one, but it was the wrong address. We had thought the
address for this Russ. >> Okay. >> So, >> just seems weird that >> it's incredibly weird. I agree with you, but I I've come before this board too too many times. I know, but if I've ever seen a variance request that should be
granted, this is the one because the uniqueness of the shape of the lot and the the the soils and all the benefits associated with the wetland protection substantially outweigh anything you could possibly conjure up. >> I don't think it's a matter of conjuring
up, but think it's a matter of just dotting eyes and crossing our tees. >> I gave you the reasons dotting your eyes and crossing your tees in my letter. Hopefully, >> I think In my in my experience, this situation would be more if we were making if you were trying to make the argument versus developed versus
undeveloped land vacant. When you hear that word, it's like someone is living there, someone is occupying that and there's and there's also a time frame that that person has to live there for it to be considered vac um you know occupied occupied. So
like in my experience, I would say an electrical line being brought to a shed would not change it from being vacant. >> So just just some historical background, we've had this similar situation before where we had electrical line and they go to the summer cottages.
>> Families would come in for a week. They only used them during the summertime. they weren't used the rest of the year >> and it was it was a at what 900 square foot building or whatever and they'd go and they'd use the lake and and and that was considered being occupied.
>> So that is the only purpose of that property was it and that was off of heart pond. So >> that that right that would lose their grandfather's status. >> Yeah. >> So >> in that situation Yeah. >> Right. So if this sounded like something similar, that's why I was just I was
trying to a ascertain and ask some certain >> has some good information to address that point which is >> Yeah, you were saying out loud you just reminded me uh which is something my wife and I joke about with our house. >> I'm sorry. Could you just speak to the microphone just to make sure it's on the record? >> Our house are, you know, is quite small
that we live in, but the prior owner of my property was a retired electrical engineer. So he went nuts. I've got electrical everywhere. I've got like 54 outlets in my house. That's it's literally 900 ft. And I can run my washer and dryer, my electric stove, a
toaster oven, and a coffee machine at the same time. And it doesn't trip breakers because he just like >> blanket. >> I've got three sub panels in my house. It's It's only 900 ft. >> Suban in mine, too. >> He was absolutely nuts. And I have a shed behind my house that has full power
and everything else. So, I think that might be the explanation is he was retired and he just loved to go crazy with projects, >> but he never sought a building permit or >> used it in any way as a occupied property.
>> Are there any questions that the members >> This is the way. >> It's actually really nice. >> It's it's it's nice. It's clean, but it's I just store I've got a couple classic cars, so I just have car parts in there. And uh and
basically the only thing in the shed is it's just open framing. That's all. And then some Christmas lights you put on a couple paddles. >> He tries to keep it clean to keep the kids away because it's not occupied. >> The kids in the neighborhood, I guess, don't go down to the lake anymore. They
go over to this empty lot which is protected from by some trees and water and they can have their quiet, private, fun area on his lot. This will eliminate that. >> If any of your kids, if you're wondering if any of your kids have been at that lot, their names might be on the back of the shed. Everybody likes
>> I know none of mine have been over there. >> I've got every kid's name carved on the back of that shed. It's pretty funny. >> So, what is the dotted line that runs along Russell Road that uh all but is
that the easement granted for the sewer? The dotted line >> you're talking about this? That's a sewer easement. >> That's a sewer easement. So, no, right next to the >> underneath the word road. >> Yeah. Right here. >> Yeah. S that one. >> Yeah. >> So, that's one side of it. There's also
another side of that that goes directly next to the building >> right there. >> The proposed two-story dwelling. It looks to be a foot away. What is that? >> That's easement, right? Is that what you're saying? >> That's a sewer ement. >> So, you can you can build up to the easement. >> Yes.
>> But that's not considered the roadway. >> That's correct. And there was some question about that. >> This is the roadway. This thin line right here. >> And this this >> is the pavement, but the roadway right ofway is the boldage. >> They didn't pave the road in the right spot. Brian, >> this thin line right here closer to the
pond or the lake >> and put it on property. You can see it on the color. >> Keep it away from the lake. >> Let me I'll pull up the um the color really gives you a visual. >> Yeah, it's approximately. >> There we go. So the the bold line is the road right of way.
>> Oh. >> And then the gray >> line is what you're 20t away from or you want to be 14 ft away from. >> We're going your goal is to get 14 ft away from >> That's correct. Okay. >> The gray shading is the p the current
pavement >> the town the town paved. figure, >> although it is a private way, which >> Hey, Brian, I'd like to make a like a a commitment or something to go see the
land and see what we think about it. I think this is a perfect example of something we should look at. >> I uh I I did peek at it, but I didn't have any of this and I would find very >> and I just want to board thinks that's a good idea. I think we can head in that direction and do a
sitewalk. Yeah, if we could stake out the building. They said like 16 16 pins you were gonna do or something. >> Sure. >> That will be helpful. Share a Google Maps picture of it. >> Yeah. >> Well, it's a tricky because from this angle I can't go down Russell Road. It doesn't let me go.
>> I went by and didn't know what I was looking >> because it's a private way. So, hold on a second. Let me Whoops. Just went the wrong way. >> So, this is it right here. Yeah, you can. >> That's the shed. >> That's the shed. >> That's the shed. That's the neighbor's house to the side.
>> Oops. Sorry. Hold on a moment. >> This is the shed. >> He works magic with these things. That's >> Yeah. >> And then you can see the telephone pole right here. >> Yep. >> Oh, where the power comes in >> or the electrical pole. >> So, he didn't put the pole in as you can
imagine. >> Oh, yeah. >> Or predecessor and owner didn't put it in. That's a electric company again. >> Yeah. That's where I'm getting the issue of vacant and improvements. This isn't a
an owner improving the property. This is utility companies in town improving, >> right? But but that's why I asked. There is a line run from the pole to the shed though. >> Yes. >> That's why I was asking. >> Great question. >> No. No. I get utility easements and they
just plot things wherever the heck they think because they're special. Yeah. I'm dealing with that my own. I'm just curious, does the board have any qualms about what we're asking about or because we'd like to present any information to convince you if there's a doubt in your mind. We'd like to be able
to present something, but I hope there isn't. >> Well, I have a little problem with the uh with the dry area, but you say that we don't have to do the dry area because the because the shed was there before the law. >> It's maintaining the grandfather cloth.
>> It was definitely grandfather Charlie. What what is your opinion on that? >> Well, well, Jose says it's norfully >> uh members of the board, good evening, Mr. Chairman and Mr. uh Houseler. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Hler uh
in the interpretation of a what is a bacon lot. I do agree that the lot was created back in between 1970 and 1971 and the lot was protected until 1987. Um I agree with town council in his
interpretation. I think uh you have on record two cases, two case laws in which one of them is very interesting. I don't know if I'm allowed to mention the the cases, but um >> uh the one with uh the town of
Wilmington, uh Nelson versus the town of Wilmington, that one is very specific and very similar to this situation. uh 40 uh chapter 48 section 6 paragraph 4 which is in this case I'm not a legal
uh expert uh that would be town council but that is a legal interpretation of that law in which it's been into you know they have they have come into case laws to determine situation like this one and uh what it has been determined
is that I met with uh Mr. Lee because I wanted to get more information from him and town council responded to that email after I talked to Mr. Lee. So I got the information and then I said you know and
I I did tell him that I might have to deem that as a requirement the 80% contiguous um and based on the check being placed
there. So the Mr. Lee said back in 1987 the sewer line went in back in 1991 the p the power went in in 92. My conversation with town council that deems the lot as as an improved lot you
did something especi specifically the the power >> uh it was being >> a little in my opinion >> the sewer is questionable. I do agree with town with uh Mr. were. >> Yeah. >> But based on the case law and I I did
read uh I spend a lot of time reading that one uh Nelson versus Wilmington >> is very similar to this one and I have to agree with town council that uh this lot is required to meet today's current
bylaw for 80% contiguous uh lot area requirement >> because the power was running from the pole to the shed. If they had left if they had left the slot by itself without let's say let's say that it comes down to that pole
>> let's say that it come down let's say that the let's say that the pole was put there by a third party but now the power was connected to the shed that that in itself >> consider an improvement >> that that's an improvement because now
there is an intent to use the shed for something whether it's for a cottage or whether it's for coming on the weekend and chopping wood and buddies, but you you improved the land and that's the position. Town council went back and
excuse me, town town council and I went back and forth. That that's the way I saw it. But, uh, just to get town council confirmation, we were back and forth and after, you know, it didn't take us long to agree the two of us that the lot has been improved and therefore
it needs to meet the 80%. Uh >> would it be possible to get a copy of the momentum decision? >> Let me if I may interrupt. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Chairman, >> there's a fundamental there's a fundamental factual discrepancy though.
>> The shed wasn't built in 1987 or 91 or it was 1970. It predates 87 would be post. So the town council respectfully doesn't have accurate information. When was the power applied to the shed? >> That's the set that's the third issue. But I I want to do each one
independently if you don't mind because >> the council's relying on three things and I'm saying we already proved a doesn't apply because of the sewer betterment. The homeowner didn't do anything. >> Okay. >> Two, the shed was pre-existing and we have evidence and there's nothing to
contradict that evidence to my knowledge. That shed is clearly in there in 1970717273 and this statute the zoning bylaw came in six years later. So it doesn't apply. >> That's too for one second. Do you agree
that the shed was there from 197 whatever to >> I Mr. Mr. league told me 1987, but I could I I couldn't find any uh uh documents that it was it was placed there.
>> The aerial. >> We could send it to you. It's not as clear as I would like it to be. I'm going to have Dylan send you the two aerials in that time period that show what it was in the 60s and you'll see there's no shed and then in 1971
>> you'll see the shed. That's that's how we know. So I think that's conclusive. Now, the third piece, this infamous pole, I I'm sorry. If the utility company puts it there, that's not a homeowner making an improvement. >> Okay.
>> So, let let's that has to that nonsense has to stop right now. >> We're not talking about the insertion of the pole. We're talking about running the line to the shed. >> With all due respect, how does putting a line from here to here change the nature of something being buildable or grandfathered or not?
Not when the statute says it only affects if it's not vacant land. So town council was of the opinion that this existed as 1987. Therefore the shed it makes it non
vacant. That's not true. That's where town council is frankly incorrect. They do a great job on this one. They got bad information primarily from my client who I'm not happy with about that. Can Can you forward this to town council and ask
him if he still is of the opinion? >> I think I'm You can I can't directly contact town council, Brian. I It's a That's a >> Well, you seem to have the information of the date. >> I'm happy to give you everything. Absolutely. But I don't think I have the right to contact town.
>> So, if if you'd like to send that to Becky, >> absolutely. >> We can forward that to the town council. Just say it seems you got some erroneous information. this is the actual do you still have that stance or would you reverse yourself I don't know >> and I don't know that may should have a
dramatic effect on his opinion but what I'm having huge difficulty with is that a statute can be interpreted that the connection of a one wire is deemed an improvement to the extent that it changes the nature of a buildable versus non-buildable lot I
can't imagine that under Massachusetts law >> is there was there a permit ever generated for that pole or the line going into the shop? >> No, >> that's a little strange. >> Well, they would have had to put they had to have some paper. >> There has to be something behind that
and it would have to be requested by the homeowner to put on his property. >> Yeah. Electrical. >> You can do it without his consent. >> Wouldn't the town have a record of the someone coming in and put it on a piece of land, >> a utility easement or something? This is a there is a situation here in which uh
this is labeled as zero Rossell road because there is not a physical >> um address to the land. So we couldn't find anything. >> You can't find because there's nothing to look up. >> Correct. >> It's more on this >> which is further proof that it's it's
been deemed and I got to think the obvious here. I'm just think >> there's no proof. It had to have been deemed buildable by the town when they put the sewer stuff in in 91 or >> predates the wetlands protection act. So >> it would be theoretically buildable from
that standpoint. >> Right. >> But the town, if the town didn't think it was buildable, it would never have left the stub. >> Yeah. The residential code is like 1320, which is residential plan development. I >> I I do know of stubs that are where you'd be very surprised to see a
building. Um, I will say this during our conser, we had a different perspective trying to get through conservation because we actually did so much due diligence to try and pro prove that someone did live in that shed at some point in time. But we we couldn't
produce anything because that was my fallback strategy if I couldn't get through conservation. And as I say, it took two years, it took 55,000 to be grandfathered by >> 12 studies. I mean, it took a lot to get through conservation, but >> but that would be I'm sorry, uh, Mr.
Lee, that would be another problem. If somebody lived there and they moved out and it was vacant for two years, now you lose grandfather, >> but but there's there was never any proof of someone living there. If I could prove it was once inhabited, then according to the conservation's bylaws,
well then, you know, >> you'd have protections, but you would lose protection. >> But we can't even argue that because there is no proof of it. >> Well, then you can you could just build right there. I mean, >> but that was exactly >> Well, right now we could I mean, respectfully, we can come back to your
board and ask for a special permit. I mean, and ask for a non-conforming a pre-existing lot and then we're going to have to say the hell with the concom upset with this board because the benefits to the con >> probably take the head from con. >> I know that you do, Brian. You used to
be on it. I know >> it's somebody's going to have to give here if this is going to get built. And >> the only thing you're giving up is a sixoot variance. Really, in reality, >> you're changing an existing same footprint going from here to here.
Who's the I understand that. Uh >> I think Charlie had a good point that we should probably look at it. Do we want to go as a >> I think it's way better than looking at pictures. Really? >> Well, I agree. I mean, looking at it, I don't think it's the same I looked at last week. So, um >> the wrong place.
>> I mean, the snow coming around. >> I don't know about this. >> We're in the right place. I don't know. The point about it is there's going to be no snow or ice hopefully if we do it over the weekend kind of thing because it's supposed to melt and be 50°. Do do we want to go out as a group? This this >> I'm gonna go out on my own because the weekend's tough for me to go with a
group. I'm >> have some stakes there now, but >> come up here. >> Sorry. I have some stakes up there now, but um I you know, one thing I will say since they station a cop at Barney Park now, some of the people that used to park there and sell drugs now park in
this lot and and sell drugs because it's private. It's a private road. You can't see it. And so, you know, I all the other arguments and I'm happy to show you guys the place, but I will give you like the 5,000 foot view of what I deal with, which is, you know, I also own the beach there
and I have people there illegally fishing all the time. You know, when the kids come up and knock on my door and they're like, "Hey, Mr. Lee, can I fish there?" I'll always let them do it. But it's it's the other people that when I have to let them know that it's private property and they say, "Prove it." And I'm like, "I don't have to pull out my
survey right now. No, I just >> So, where are you living in relation to this property? >> I live right down the street on 20 roll, >> but he owns on both sides of this area of the street. >> So, I have 200 feet of the beachfront there by the sign. And I just I own another stretch of the beachfront um down the street as well. And it just
so happens to be the cumulative 400 ft of beachfront that has no shrubs in front of it. It's completely unobstructed and you can fish without bumping shoulders with people. So, you know, I'm constantly having people, you know, get agitated, scream at me,
threaten my wife when she's just saying like, "Hey, you know, I'd love to let you fish there, but I can't because someone gets hurt. It's on me." You know, and then I've got the kids that are breaking glass bottles. They're carving their names into the shed. You know, I've kicked three guys dealing
drugs, you know, just sitting there parked on my grass, you know, dealing drugs. And you know I now Joe I was a cage fighter for 8 years. I don't need to get into you know arguments with anybody and I don't you know this is right next to my home
>> and everybody else on my street >> doesn't want to deal with this. So I'm I'm impacting everybody by just leaving this a vacant lot. Um so you know on the betterment side of things it's just for those reasons alone. You know I'm
building this for my dad. So, well, I was and then he doesn't like how small it is, so he's taken my brick house and now I got to move into this thing. Um, but neither here nor there. >> No goes unpunished. >> Okay. Too many stairs. Um, so you know,
by putting a house there and I can put a nice split rail fence and I can make it beautiful, I won't nobody will have to deal with those issues because Concom, as you know, is currently battling with all the land they own around the lake with all the illegal fishing and people littering. I I can't tell you how much
trash I pick up there. I've been to the hospital twice because I'll be mowing for the first time of the year and people just cut their lurs, throw them uh kids, they finish with their vaporizers, throw them and then they explode in my mower, you know, and so,
you know, it's getting really frustrating at this point. And when I was battling with Concom, I know I told him, I'm like, I'm within my right to put up a fence, take the eight feet of that road back for myself and then the town can spend half million dollars putting a new road in where it's
supposed to be. But I don't want to do that. I just want to work with everybody. Um, and it's taken me, you know, two years to get to this point, which is none of your fault, but you know, it's it's it's been a lot of work for a thousand square foot house. >> It sounds >> Yeah. Yeah, it sure does. the things we
do for our parents. So, >> what do you think? We're going to take a look at this. Doesn't want to >> I honestly don't looking at the property will not change anything for me. Honestly, >> logistically speaking, if you all go this weekend, I would suggest you all go
individually because we'd have to post it as a public meeting if you all go as a group and we don't have enough time to do that. >> As a grouping, I got six hours of Girl Scout cookie booths. So, uh I've got 30 Girl Scouts depend we can uh take a plan and go out and it
would be really nice to at least get let's say the four corners but the the eight corners of the house there staked if possible. >> Besides besides that issue wanting to see it and I I get it. Are there any other concerns in the voting members that they say I don't like it because I
that's what I want to address. I I don't think there should be but you're independent people so I want to get your reasons. >> Is the shed on this thing? >> No. I have a question about conservation. Um, is that a variance to build in the
50 foot no build zone? >> How does that work? >> We're staying outside of the 50 foot. Is that >> Let me I can show you that again. >> So, right at the borders. >> Oh, yeah. >> They moved us forward because we were basically sandwiched in between the 50 foot of the lake and the 50oot of the
wetlands. And so, you know, we came to the compromise that the 50 foot of the wetlands is more important than the 50t of the lake because there's 49 houses around Cream Lake and 31 of them are within 50 ft of the lake. So, we're not spend we're not setting any new
precedent. And since it's separated by a road, there's no impact to the lake. So, the 50 foot buffer for the lake, they were fine to cons you know, in exchange for that variance. Like I said, I've got to do you know, 4 and a half thousand square
feet wet restoration, invasive species removal. I've got three years of turtle nesting monitoring to go through for certificate of compliance conditions pages. >> Yeah, it was pretty extensive. It was >> and it's attached to the package.
>> 16 was built in 2018 and they only had to write three sentences. They they had an existing shed basically the same the one I have there. They removed it, moved it 12 ft to the left, dug a full
frost wall foundation and a 2,000 foot house in 2018. Um, you know, in 1999, Gloria built her house. They had her move it farther back from the road towards the wetland so that people could see around the bend, but her house is still about 9 ft off the street. 30
Russell Road was built in 2023. It's 4 and a half thousand square feet on acres. >> Um, you know, and they brought in 18 triacs of fill. Uh, and so, you know, my house won't even be built on site. I'm going to put the pillars in and then the
modules are going to come in. They're going to be dropped. It's going to be a construction site for like 10 minutes. Um, so, and it that driveway isn't even pavement. That's echoed edge. So, it's completely
porous, but you can plow it. And so everybody else is a black top driveway. It you know in ex and conservation made me maintain the drainage for all across the road and try to attach it to that deed property. Town council actually
said they couldn't force me to do it, but I had already out of my own pocket repair all thes from the prior construction projects that overwhelmed the system and it failed and I came in to fix it and now I have the entire street prep. prepare for a 100year storm
event >> which it wasn't prepared for but I did that >> all in exchange for a thousand foot building which my neighbor's garage is thousand square feet so it's like you know >> that's a lot >> this is why I'm coming back to you and
just saying >> for the love of God please make a vote I know you want to walk it but >> at some point common sense has to dictate here >> to me walking it doesn't change >> it's not going to change anything for me either either. >> What am I going to see that's going to
change my opinion? >> Yeah, I I just it's all Charlie. >> So, so just to clarify, there's um the applicant when applying asked for a variance um obviously for the frontage,
which is has been what you had looked at all along. Jose's recent revised letter with town council's opinion mentions the need for a second variant. So the board needs to vote on whether or not it's going to act on that to clarify that in your decision- making in terms of
>> the second varian determine the grandfather status. Is that correct? Okay. >> So >> what's the grand grandfather status? >> You could say we think it's grandfathered and that's it. >> It's maintaining the grandfather status. Exactly. >> And what can you the case that you're
citing again? I'm sorry. >> Nelson versus Willington. >> Norman versus Willington. Norman or Nelson Nelson versus Wilmington. There are other cases similar to that one, but that's the one I I took the time because >> Wilmington, Mass. >> As you can imagine, >> some council mentioned I think three
cases in the email that's now attached to the agenda that I forwarded this morning. >> But I would tell you that they are not actually >> exactly on point because of the issue of the structure being predated. That
wasn't true in the other cases. Brian, I would feel a lot a lot better if they said that it was okay rather than town council saying that it's not okay. I I think and again I'm not speaking on behalf of town council and I want to be
clar uh the my letter is based on the fact that I found um >> in in your diligence >> in the in my due diligent town council for the sake of uh when I have questions that hey let me let me reach out to town council to see what he has to say on
this. I can see why it's it's >> because sometimes like I say in our department uh Evan and I sometime we we agree or we disagree and sometime uh you know we myself I I reach out to council just to see what he think and uh this is
this was the case with him that he he gave his legal opinion his expert opinion on the matter based on c on previous case law and the interpretation of of 48 a uh section six paragraph
either one two three or four in this case it's paragraph four in which a bacon bacon lots they they can maintain grandfather unless they don't get improve and
improvement based on what the judges have determined is if you put a shed in the in the in the in the parcel or if you put any sort of structure utility That is part of improvement based on ba based on the interpretation
>> but the shed wasn't >> that's the difference >> well we have to uh council uh uh houseler I think in this case the burden of proofs on you I think if you present the board with with that pre-existing shed dea back in to the 70s then the
board can >> and you would agree with us >> huh >> you would agree with us >> I wouldn't agree with you if if if The shed was placed uh two years after the bu the the uh um the land was uh I'm sorry the law was
developed because we will go back to the same thing. >> But if it predated the law, you would feel >> right. We can demonstrate that. I'm not even worried about that. >> Do you have it here? I >> we have it on we have it on I had it forwarded to me as two aerial
>> email Becky then and we can pull it up. >> While we're waiting for that, I'm going to go ahead and read the letters. So, we're just ask question before you get to that >> question for Jose before you >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. >> So, if the shed was the lot was from
1970ish, >> 1971, I believe. >> 1971. Were you saying that if the shed was built after it became a lot then you don't agree with them? Is that correct? >> Like based based on the on the
>> after it became a law is what position is >> 1978. So if the shed >> so so what we are I'm sorry uh Steve so and I just want to >> the argument here I think is the 80% I don't think it's the is the lot itself
>> is is the 80% in which >> you know back in 70 I think it was 78 that they introduced the 80% >> and after that they introduced the contiguous the town bylaw the contiguous
uh wording into it and asked after the fact in which if he told me 1987 then I base you know >> it would be after the law >> on on our system I think we we go back
to n uh 2011 or 2005 I can't go back any further back just to look at the historical views from the sky >> goes to 1941 >> so I I think uh the burden of proof is
is on the applicant to present to the board. >> That should be in your email. >> So if either the shed or the electrical connection came after the law in 1978, that's when you're saying the property
was improved and it lost its grandfather status. Correct. >> Based on those case laws. Yes. >> Okay. >> But I I think you're saying the structure, not the time. >> No, the Yeah, the shed. the the actual because the utility pole I don't think would be considered >> it's out of his control when the Yeah.
>> Yeah. Because it's not >> but I'm not I'm not talking about the pole. I'm talking about the shed or the connection to the pole. >> Yeah. The wire. >> Yes. >> Can I ask you to send that to me forward? >> While you're doing that, let me remind the board and Jose,
>> this is nothing personal. >> No. >> I want you to understand >> because I won't be able to pull it up on the big screen. Give us some bad information though that council relied on. >> I'll yell at him later. >> I don't have my email on this computer. This is the meeting computer.
>> The ultimate goal of 80% being met. If if you're really going to make us go through that, I'd have to go back and then do replication in the dry area way in the back. go to Com and say we could still do this, but we're going
to wind up taking a portion of this wetland area, adding it to get to 16,000 square feet, and in the back we're going to take 8,000 square feet of dry land and make it wetland. We could do that. Why make
us go through that? >> You can vote in detrimental the intent of the bylaw. It's when enforcement of the bylaw is so odor ownorous. That's what that's all it
is. It's ownorous. >> Here's the here's the thing, Mr. Hower. We cannot if the interpretation is if his interpretation is correct >> is correct
>> by legal standard. We cannot say we as a board cannot say no we do not support >> because his interpretation is correct. It's not a matter if it's common sense or doesn't make sense but we have a decision in front of us that we have to
make a decision on on legal premise. Right. >> I agree. >> So, it's not a matter of do we agree with what he's doing? Do we think it's the best thing since sliced bread for this particular property in the neighborhood? And he's God's gift to, you know, Freeman Lake.
>> What is the point? >> But we have two variance applications that we have to make a decision on right now. And it's about legal premise and his interpretation. But if he's making a right interpretation, we can't say no, we don't agree with it or yes, we do agree with it without having all the
facts in front of us. >> Well, let me make a suggestion to you that if that's really a hangup for you here, >> respectfully, I don't think it should be, but I get it. >> We have to decide if we don't have the facts. >> The facts are that you it can be met. We
can demonstrate compliance, but we're trying to avoid going through one step. We could demonstrate compliance by taking dry wet dry land in the back, making it wet and converting wet into dry to meet 16,000 square feet. We can
absolutely do that. Why make us go through that? >> Okay. >> And the argument is we then we're hitting your legal standard though. >> We could grant the variance. Yes. if it's necessary, if we agree with the
need for his interpretation of does it have grandfather or does it not >> and that is where we are trying to determine do we need to make that determination. >> I agree with you. >> That's where we're at. >> But you have two ways of saying yes to get to the same point.
>> That's what that's what they that's where we're at. >> Do we need to include that in a decision or not? That's where we're at. That's all. But all I'm saying it can be granted but under either scenario A or scenario B and still be supportive of his interpretation.
>> Either way, it comes out being supportive. It's just a matter of going an extra step. That's all it is. >> Russell >> as a practical practical reason. >> That would be if you totally disregard my argument. >> This is road.
>> This is Grten Road in 1963. The next photo that NASA had was 1971. And the shed shed's right there. >> That's a different location. It's right up against the road. >> Well, that's the thing. The road was originally a dirt road and then it
became paved. So, you can see that even in the 70s, Russell Road was still dirt. >> No, no, I'm not talking about Russell. I'm talking about the proximity to Groten. It just looks like it's really up near Grten Road, like on the opposite side of your lot. >> No, the senior center wasn't there. I don't think anything was there.
>> You're saying this is Graten Road. the bait shop right there. >> This is Grten Road. >> But if that's the shed, it's right on the corner. It's not pushed in like it is now, right? >> So maybe that's a different one because that looks like it's near the roadway at the corner.
>> But also >> at the corner of the lot versus interior, >> you know, it does look closer. Um but you know, ultimately people do move sheds. They scooch them over, you know. >> No, I get that. I'm just pointing out that it's in a different location. >> Yeah. And I think at that time Freeman
Lake was a dry basin. You can kind of see in the photo that it uh cuz some of my neighbors have been there for my neighbor Gloria has lived there since she was three. She's 85 like 25 years. Freedom Lake is a dry basin.
>> There is a dam there. I know there's a dam at the back. >> Yeah. So the lake is still controlled by a spillway. Um >> but you know I actually called my engineer originally to kick off He showed up to the house and he already done on the lot. He started walking
towards the car path road side of things because he had looked at that side. He's like, "Well, that's where all your open grass areas." I was like, "No, no, no, no." Like, "We have shed down here. We got sewer stove. We got power. We got all that stuff. This is where I want to put it." He was like,
>> "Okay, well, that'll be a pain." >> But I knew that conservation would be pissed if I cut down 50 trees. ultimately, you know. So, if you look at it, I live right here, you know, it's not like I'm some outsider trying to build a house in a neighborhood that I don't care about and
I don't have to look at every day. I got to drive by it every day. You know, I live right here. This is my house. And so, if I, you know, the the reason this is labeled restoration area is that this is all going to be tree planting, shrubs, and
stuff like that. You don't plant in wetlands. Uh so you know there's there's that alone. But if I destroy everything over here and I bring in all this fill and stuff like that, you know, it's going to impact the wetlands. It's not going to flood anybody because the wetlands and the lake are hydraulically connected. So
there's nothing ultimately I could do to raise the water of the wet wetlands because they're hydraulically connected through substrate sand. >> The lake is controlled by spillover dam. So you can't I could put all the water from the lake in the wetlands and it'll end up in the same place. Um, but you
know, there's been five houses built on my street that haven't gone, you know, anywhere close to, you know, this level. >> Just for clarity, the pictures that came in were tough to see. If anyone would like to look at them, they're welcome.
But I didn't I didn't get an opinion either way from that. Those, as they're set up, are just the two, and you can expand them both. I'm sure we could get an affidavit from the neighbor who's been there for 80 plus years that would take care of that
issue entirely saying when the shed was put up. I don't think that would be a problem. >> Yeah. Cameras in the 60s. I wasn't around. >> Let's go. It would it would seem that this >> the whole argument is >> uh for approval other than this letter
from the lawyer and making his decision period. >> Mhm. So I think to solve everyone's needs, we continue it and bring the lawyer in and let him defend his decision
>> or provide him additional information >> and let him >> This is my stumbling block is that if we can >> determine >> I'm trying to see if I can get a different angle. >> Oh, you got on the road. >> Well, I'm on the road from a different angle. I'm trying to go down, but I
don't think the car went down that way >> cuz this is cart path. This is car path right here. >> Yeah. So, that's where all the dry land is. If you can keep going down car path road. >> I don't think it'll take me there either. Will it? >> Oh, no. They're crazy. They go all the way back. >> But they didn't go in front of Russell. That's odd.
>> This is all dry. That's the restoration area. >> You can keep going up because I went all the way up to the Davenports. So, if you keep going up, >> sorry, it's all dry. >> Trying to pivot here. That's not working. Hold on. Here we go.
>> There we go. >> But there's more than a quarter acre there. >> Oh, yeah. >> That's dry. >> Oh, yeah. There is going >> I know the area. >> Most of this backyard even belongs to me as well. The Davenports Mullet, you know. Um, and they've signed on the project as well, but I own almost right
up into his barn. >> Um, so, you know, >> that structure right there kind of like your your question >> and again And I'm sorry if I get too passionate about it, but like the the craziest part about this project is that I wouldn't there's an avenue for me to not have to go in front of conservation
and not be here, which is building on that side of the land. But, you know, I sort of felt like over the last two years I've been penalized for for basically just trying to do the right thing, you know, by my neighbors, by the surrounding environment, by the
surrounding wildlife. Uh, all that stuff. I I consciously chose, you know, the hard route and knew I there would be a high bar to meet. Um do it >> but I've definitely, you know, I've got
everyone's support around the lake. In fact, my architect is my neighbor. It lives on the other side of the lake. Um you know, it's uh we all get together on the lake every summer. We meet in the middle on our boats and we bounce to everyone's kind of beachfront. Everyone on the lake
knows this project and is supportive and I filled them in over the last two years of my kind of trials and tribulations and they, you know, and it's frustrating because they're like, "Oh yeah, my house started off as a little like basically 200 square foot shack and then I just kept building additions, additions,
additions. Why don't you do that?" And because I just wanted to do it the right way. That was basically it. I think we should read those into the record as well. >> Brian, I I have a problem with this map right here. So, that's really not the wetlands, the blue.
>> So, our town No. So, our town GIS >> has estimations of wetlands. They are not flagged wetlands. So, you have to go by what's on the certified plot plan because those wetlands were actually delineated by a wetland scientist. Yeah. So, so when you look at the colored one,
which when you look at the colored one, I'll pull it back up. This lime green almost yellow, that's the wetland. And then it actually shows the the no um no no build zone. So, the house is right up
against the 50 foot no build zone. The buffer is there. You can see the 25 foot buffer, the 30 foot buffer, the 50 buffer. It's these lines that come from up here. and follow the wetland contour. And I'll pull that back up.
Yeah. So, the the GIS map is deceiving because the wetland's a lot bigger than what it looks like here. >> He's sandwiched right in it. >> There you go. >> So, he's not disturbing anything. >> This is more accurate.
Um, >> even with the conservation submitts, you know, I could have done what some other projects do, which is force an NOI through, get a denial from the board, and then just appeal to land court because the state's only got a 25 foot setback. >> I could have done that
>> stringent requirement, not the state requirement, >> but I chose to hel hold myself to what Concom wanted versus just being like, well, I'll just be like, you know, any other developer. Let me, you know, just peel your I don't do this for a living. Just to clarify, I'm not a I'm not a
builder. I just, you know, >> well informed. >> I appreciate it. Um, >> so, you know, I I just chose not to do that and I chose to go to, you know, dozens of meetings with Concom and try and find a way to make this project
literally good for everybody. U, but, you know, I I didn't take that route intentionally. If I did that route, I wouldn't be here either because I I wouldn't think that setback might be another thing, but I wouldn't
be asking for the pro setting pretty muddy. I'm going to go ahead and read the letters in. Uh I'm just going to read uh Mr. Negron's letter in uh first and and that may provide a little clarity for the situation. Mr. League
per the plot plan divided the parcel here in the subject lacks 80% contiguous land requirement for zoning compliance for lot area it also lacks front yard requirement of 20 ft in the RC district depicting only 14 ft of frontage on the
plan based on the improvements made to the land in 1987 which you are contesting I understand uh a shed was built in 199 shed was built period in 1991 sewer line connected to to the land. In 1992, a power pole was
installed per the current zoning bylaws. A variance is required from the board of appeals for both deficiencies. You can appeal this determination within 30 days of this notice to the board of appeals. Thank you. >> I'm sorry, Mr. I think you might have skipped a a sentence.
>> Yeah. When you were when you said uh the pole was put on the on the shed. So in 1992 a power pole was installed on land and to shed. This is your lot. This said your lot lost grandfather
protection and needs to meet 80% lot area per the current zoning bylaws. So the the question here is was it 1987 which I understand you don't feel is but the 1991 sewer line I personally don't give credence to because you didn't do
it and you know I know Weston Samson drew it out without regard to what was there and they put a lot of stubs in town that were never going to be built but the stub is there and even that argument has been made well it had a stub is not as you know it's uh it doesn't go the other way either it
doesn't you know it doesn't go against you and I was born in 1992. >> Where you >> Hey, I just want to I just want >> on on your stub thing. Um and I know the reason they put in so many stubs because the more stubs they put in, the more
money they made. >> Well, did the land owner pay? >> Because I saw stub one supposed to be long and it was 10. >> So, they got paid 30 extra dollars. So, they put in all they could. Well, the stub being in does allow that land potentially to be built. A lot of the
land was wet and it did dry out after the sewer went in, which we saw all over town. >> So, probably was a economic factor there as well. >> It was not supposed to happen for another 25 years. >> Mr. Shamine, just for the record, I I
feel great respect for attorney Hler and I met with the uh with the applicant. My letters are not based on any personality or anything like that. It's really based on the facts and the information I gather. >> Um I just want to make sure that they
understand that >> 100%. >> I I didn't have any other opinion personally, but that question >> is even if let's say that the 80% was required, >> you could still get a variance for that
too. >> Yeah. And that's the rest of the letter. That's the rest of the letter. If we if we need the variance, then we we vote on it. >> That's what we're trying to figure. If we need it, then let's vote on it. If we don't need it, then we don't need to make a decision about it. And >> so, I guess the question is to the
applicant like do you want to go down that road or do you want us to vote? >> It's a matter of >> based on our variance. >> Whatever makes the board feel comfortable as long as it approves. >> It's really that simple.
So the last sentence of his letter is a variance is required from the board of appeals for both deficiencies. You can appeal this determination within 30 days of this notice to the board of appeals. Thank you respectfully Jose Nigu. So he's he's denying it with two. But we
don't really have an option here to unless other evidence and actually Jose would have to say due to further study I have made a a change and that is not required and I think that would require talking with the uh attorney about
whether the date being corrected affected. I think I think to me the sewer stuff is not a factor. If if we if we say go ahead say if we granted the variance and then it was determined there was no need for that particular variance could they pull it?
>> I think at that point >> it's a moot point. >> Doesn't matter. You're moving ahead if you voted to grant the variance, >> right? I mean it'd be a mute point, but then we wouldn't have it on F. It wouldn't need to be attached to the deed though. But that's what I'm saying. Say we say we >> obviously had I see
>> it would be pulled because the variance is attached to the deed and that's always the sticking point for us, right? because it's attached to the deed. It stays with the land forever, right? And we don't know what's going to happen in 50 years with the next, right? And this is where we're at now, right? Because things happened to the property. Now you're dealing with it and prop improper
documentation, blah blah blah blah blah. Future use of the land, what's going to happen, right? So, say we do it now, but we determine with proper documentation, it was 75, it is grandfathered, it didn't need the variance. Can we pull it from our
decision? after the fact because it was it was an an unnecessary invalid decision. We walk out of here. >> A new decision would have to be written to revoke the previous but if you're issuing a variance to allow building of
the dwelling you make in conditional upon this project >> because we're not in this case you're not talking about the the typical variance you usually issue which is for a setback which is then parallel to the whole lot line. This is different is my understanding is because it's coverage.
>> Yeah. >> Right. >> So >> perhaps we could make it easier and address exactly your point. You could vote tonight on the six-foot setback issue as a variance. And I think you might grant that one
from my sense. But if you grant that, then you could continue this hearing and then we can decide collectively by submissions or whether we even need whether we supply we apply for a variance as to the 80%.
Don't have to get into any interpretations then because I still think we hit the 80% variance requirement anyway. Or we all agree that it doesn't even apply here. It's grandfathered. It will either way we'll wind up with an approval most likely. But you can vote
on one of the variances tonight. Absolutely. Without walking or doing anything. It's 6 feet versus 20 feet versus 14 ft. >> You're saying you're saying your coverage plan already has the already has the 80t coverage.
>> No, I think what he's saying is just voting on the first one and then at a later date. >> Whether you are or not grandfathered, your plan already has this 80 is what you're saying. Our no our plan shows that when variance would be required. Okay. >> It does say that already on the plan.
>> Okay. >> In response to Jose's question. >> But you're saying you could >> and I'm saying we could address that particular need for a variance or not. >> Okay. >> At the next hearing. >> Okay. >> And then if it's deemed grandfathered, we don't have to ask for the variance.
If it's deemed not grandfathered, we're asking for the variance and you vote on the criteria of a variance, which I think you may wind up coming to the same conclusion. >> Conservation has approved all these >> everything's approved by them. >> They have conservation approved >> 13 pages.
>> Yeah. >> So that's finalized. >> The order of conditions is and the um plan submitted to them is attached within the application packet. >> I think I was just trying to avoid a continuence. >> That's what I was trying to do. I was trying to avoid a continuence. >> Jamie, I appreciate that, but I think
this is a cleaner way for everybody and for the >> vote for one or both. Now, either way, it sounds like you might end up back here or not. >> I shot myself in the foot, but I walked out here with approval and I'm like, now he just has EBA. But that's going to be, you know,
>> you jinxed yourself. >> So, I Why did I jinx myself? >> I don't know how the board feels about that approach. I'm not against it. I mean, if that's uh >> flavor, we can definitely hear the verse one and then
>> wait for further documentation. I I think what we would need to see uh to say we don't need a variance is for Jose to reverse his position based on conversations with the attorney, which is fine if that happens that way. facts
>> or or do we feel just to just decide based on what the law just b vote on the variance >> based on what the lawyer has right in front of us now >> it's it's option B for sure >> I think >> and then let them >> proceed forward from now whether whether
they need it or not I mean the deed's going to have a variance but >> well let me finish housekeeping and read the rest of the letters and this is from Sheila Joyce project engineer >> uh regarding zero. I should call it zero zero.
>> It goes a lot off Russell Road is how it's defined. >> This office has reviewed the project application plans and documents submitted to the DPW on December 30th for the following public hearing. Notice on January 8th, 2026,
she's a variance. We don't need that. DPW reserves the right to review and uh cut and fill calculations grading plans upon submission. This can be submitted prior to pre-construction meeting. sewer capacity impact fee to be assessed with the building permit per sewer use
regulations for I'm sorry six bedroom the building permit per sewer use regulations six bedroom calculation section 14.5 a $15 per gallon of daily wastewater flow will be applied to the adding bedrooms per title five one bedroom is
equal to 110 10 gallons per day. A a sewer stop for Russell Road zero Russell Road is available must be located and sewer connection must be performed by a licensed contractor to town standards. B. If there are change in use or expansion, the applicant should submit
necessary floor plans to supplement the sewer allocation calculations. C. Sewer impact fee, $15 per gallon, 110 gallons per day, two bedrooms, equals $3,300, shall be paid to the DPW sewer prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy. And we jump to three. Erosion control devices must retain sediment on site. The street would be swept regularly and cleaned from the construction dust. Consideration should be made to install roof drain drywalls before to reduce the
volume of storm water runoff generated by roof non-metal of the proposed addition. This is not a requirement for approval. >> You say by roof non-metal, >> right? So it's an asphalt roof you would have but metal roofs are not required.
Um nor is any of it required honestly. It's just a >> suggestion. Right. This from the Chelmsson fire department, the fire prevention office. >> Did you read the ending? >> The other side. >> I apologies. >> Five. Proposed project is located within the wetlands buffer zone and river
buffer. Hear the riverfront. >> No, I don't believe so. >> Proposed project is located in one of the wetlands buffer zone. The additional fillings or coordination with the chams conservation commission to meet their standards is required.
Site utility contractor must schedule pre-construction meeting with the DPW engineering prior to start of work. If you have any questions, please contact this office at 978-250-5228. >> We'll go to the Chs Fire Department. >> Okay. >> Dear members of the board, reading the
special variance request for zero Russell Road, this office issues the following requirements and recommendations. All construction will be required to meet 780 CMR for a detector type, location, interconnection, and power supply for smoke, CO, and heat detectors.
All plans are required to be submitted to and reviewed by this office as part of the building permitting process to ensure full compliance. The applicant must apply to the town's E 911 committee for addressing purposes for the new home to be constructed. I request this letter
be made part of the public record and incorporated into your approval process. Sincerely Josh Abbott, Captain Fire Prevention Office. >> Dear members of the zoning board of appeals, the conservation commission has approved this project. The commission has determined that the house is on the
proposed location of 39 feet away from Freeman Lake and will have no impact on the lake. However, it is also located 50 feet away from an area of bordering vegetated wetlands BBW at the rear of the subject property that the commission
considers to be ecologically more sensitive than the lake. Thus granting the requested variance allows the house to comply with the 50-foot no build setback from the aforementioned BVW required under the Chelmsson wetlands
bylaw regulations and we are looking at the town engineer. Oh the treasurer collector has no concerns. Agenda has no concerns and there was >> one letter. Yeah, I saw >> Republican part ready for that.
>> The board of health >> also sent a letter. Dear members of the zoning board of appeals, I am writing to address the variance request concerning zero Russell Road lot 12-29-5 for the proposed construction of a single family residence. Should the
board grant approval of the development proceeded proceed? Please be advised that any on-site septic system must fully comply with Title 5 regulations as set forth in 310 CMR-15, which is not applied. Furthermore, the applicant will
be required to complete a health department septic approval process, including soil evaluations and submission of a disposal system, construction permit application, and adhere to all associated inspection requirements. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Donna Greenwood.
>> And I set it aside. >> Sorry, I forgot to upload that one to the agenda, but you can get a copy of it. >> They have to do a septic assessment. >> Whenever board of health sees um a vacant lot without a dwelling, they always refer to title five because but
in this case, there's a sewer stub. >> One last letter. This is from an butter Barbara Madden. Um >> um when she's referring to not being here, it was from the original meeting. >> Should I go read it in? >> Yeah.
>> Yes, please. >> To the chair and board members, good evening. I am unable to attend at tonight's meeting. I'm a resident on the Russell Road and have concerns about the proposal. I would like to start by saying my concerns about this project are in no way personal against Mr. Lee
and Miss Luna. I have lived in Chs for over 70 years. I've watched as variances have been readily given on Steve's watch, but I'm watching a town I grew up in to become unrecognizable. The project is constantly being compared
to other homes in the street. The other homes in the street have existed for over 60 years, probably before the current zoning regulations. However, there's never been a home on this piece of land and therefore should be considered now new construction and have to follow the current zoning
regulations. The proposed new house will be constructed with only a 7 foot setback from the pavement, not 14 ft. One of the surveyors maps provided was from 1970 prior to sewage being installed and the street repaved. When looking at the space that is actually
there, the house will only have a 7foot frontage. A three-story house with a seven-foot frontage at the beginning of the road does not fit with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Barbara Madden, 16 Russell Road. That is the extent of my letters.
>> What about this letter? Does this need to be >> read? Yeah, that's the attorney doesn't want me to read that in. It's way too long. >> Would you like it written, >> Doug? Do you incorporate it by reference if that's okay? >> Incorporate the letter written January
8th, 2026 uh by reference from uh Attorney. Okay. Well, that was quick and fast. I like that. >> So, do we close the public hearing to vote on the single variance?
>> No. >> No. >> No. Definitely not. >> Or else we would have to start a whole new hearing and hear um testimony all over >> without closing it. >> Um >> you've never done it. So, >> you can
close the hearing. I'm thinking we we might be able to do like you have a plan A do one variance, plan B do two variances or plan C continue until next meeting and do all the variances we need. >> I would like to understand that the attorney does or doesn't agree uh with
the changes with the changes in date to the shed. >> Uh it's clear that that uh Jose's information was not accurate through no fault of his own. >> So if we if he talks to the attorney, he says same thing. I don't care or whatever he says. I would I would like to hear that at the next meeting
>> which I know is going to be a difficult meeting but uh >> we can do it >> right. >> We can do it. >> We can do it. >> We can do it. >> So would like someone will be at the next meeting. I'm sorry not to cut you off. Just town council will be at the
next meeting. Our next meeting we have um the ledge road appeal the new ledge road appeal. We might not be in this room. We might have to go to a different location. There's a second appeal and um we also have riverneck 40B. So it is just so you know it's on the agenda for next meeting. Be difficult.
>> Yeah, I might be sick for that one. >> It's a tough one but very difficult. >> Very passionate. Um so could I get a motion to approve a variance for the frontage only on Zero Russell Road? I'll
make a motion to approve the variance for the frontage on uh zero Russell Road. Is that what we're using? >> Referring it to all letters read in >> is it for the front? >> I would say that in that same front yard setback >> it should be zero Russell Road also
known as for Russell Road. >> I'm sorry >> that would modify that >> front setback, right? Front edge because they have the front edge, right? It's front setback. The front edge is the entire length along the road. >> So we have the correct fronting. >> We don't have the setback.
>> Correct. >> So it's reducing the set back to 14 ft >> with all letters included. >> Before you the letter from Jose that specifically says depicting only 14 ft frontage on the plan.
I think he meant front yard. >> Yeah. So that that was meant to say front yard setback is that >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Because the frontage is the full length of the lot >> or the Yeah. >> full length.
>> My motion's been made. >> Oh, so second. Peter, >> so all in favor of granting the variance, >> yes, >> give it to him. >> There's your way. >> Mark the calendar.
>> And I would ask for a motion to continue the public hearing until, you know, February, wherever. >> February 5th. >> It's February 5th. >> No. Make a motion to continue. Can I just interrupt for one second? >> Yeah, sure. So, we're continuing it. And
what is that going to gain? It's just the approval of town council or the disapproval based on their argument of when the shed was there. Right. >> That would be correct. >> Or we could just approve a variance whether they need it or not. >> Right. I I I don't understand. Like it
sounds to me that it's a win for them based on aerial footage. >> Can I can I take Can I take a straw poll? We could do that. >> I I I honestly don't know that. Uh but you make a really good point to >> Can I can I take a straw poll? >> Yeah.
>> If the if the variance is required, would that would that cause anybody on this board to not grant it? >> If the variance is required, >> would you vote no? >> Would you change your vote? >> Would you vote in the affirmative?
>> The reason I asked for the stop is based on what he's gone through, right? and what he's done for conservation and what he's done with for his neighbors and based on all that factual information. How is this house he could go in and I
I've done it in Maine. You can go in and he can not do something to that shed and be right wherever he wants to be. He's done everything in his power to get it to where it needs to be. And I mean, it's not an overbearing house. Clearly,
you want the the uh view of the lake from the home, right? I don't blame you. I live on a pond. It's a great thing. >> He's not even building on the property. >> He's not driving a foundation into the ground. He's putting >> pilots. I appreciate that as well. >> Right. I mean, you've done he's done everything here. And I don't understand
why. I got to go with you, Mr. Hler. What in common sense ground? He's done everything not to disturb the land there, not to disturb the neighbors, the trees. I mean, I got to be honest with you. If you push me like this, I mean, honestly, you could really go the other
way here, right? I mean, he could go and build a home however he wanted on his property and start digging it all up and everything. And I think it's important to consider that when we're looking at a project like this. That's my only point of the whole thing. And
>> I understand now, I looked at an aerial photo. I don't think it's a lie. I mean, certainly he's not here to to mislead us about the photo. I didn't think it was. >> No, no, but I'm what I'm saying is there's evidence there that proves that there was a shed there, >> right? Based on aerial photos from who?
>> 1963, 1971 >> in NASA. I think it was, you know, so we have to trust something here. And and I think just going and dragging this out one more meeting is it's a moot point really in my in my opinion. >> My position is we've given a variance,
right? So >> with a legal hardship, >> right? just over the >> So does it would it matter whether or not it's determined in a month that he needs a second variance? Would you say no to the second variance? Whether he different basis they're not
>> they're not the hardship is still the same. >> Yeah. The hardship has >> that's kind of where I get down to. It's like >> you still meet the hardship. You still meet the hardship step one. You meet the second one, step two, and you meet step three. So he still complies with all of the three steps of the variance
>> even if he needs it or doesn't. >> So if they come back say say we if we say we say to we say today yes you need it even if he doesn't we say yes you need it today and vote would it change your opinion if
council were to come back next week and say no he doesn't need it or yes he does need it next month would it change your vote? probably not >> right. >> Would it change your vote
>> for justifying a hardship? >> I guess where I was where my mind was grinding was the whole improvement on the property thing. Did does that >> stick somewhere? >> That's the 80%. That's basically what's
happening is so even if that was to apply if he needs >> he's asking for the variance. Yes. >> Right. Right. But we still have to So, but would it change your vote if he needs it now or he needs it in a month? Would it change your vote? >> No. Not. >> Okay. So, why don't we say he needs it
now? We're going to go with council's based on the information given at the time of the decision, his opine was issued >> and we just vote now. If it's not going to change your opinion, change your vote whether council says nope, we need it
now based on the the building was there in ' 89. Yep. The applicant gave the wrong date. His lawyer is going to give him a hand slap in the tomorrow. >> He's going to have to pay him more money. >> I want to say something because >> it's not, you know,
>> right, Mr. >> That's my thing. That's why I kind of I think >> Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I don't want to butt in. Um, I know we want to go home, but the letter, the intent of the letter that I wrote is specifically
for this board to make a determination on both, not one. >> Yes. >> They they they need they have the the hardship of the 80% >> and the and the yard. So, so I agree with Jamie that
voting next month, it doesn't make any difference because if they're gonna get it, they're gonna get finish line. You're halfway there. >> So, and I'm sorry, I don't know if I'm speaking out of line, but I'm just speaking on behalf of my letter. It was intended so that they so that the
applicant gets uh a decision on both to today. >> Okay. >> My only concern is that Mr. Lee gets two wins in one night. That may be down the street. >> He might get a mic. >> You're gonna have to buy him a beer or something.
>> I don't know. Stephen, can you can you can you do that in one night? >> The second thing we got to worry about cuz Steven handle it. >> Stephen Steven twice. You know, I don't know. >> Worlds are colliding. >> Those planets must be aligning
somewhere. >> Only water in that thing, too. >> Are you sure that's water? >> No one knows that for sure. >> Can I make a motion? Can I make a can I make a motion to approve the variance for the uh Well, let me hold on.
>> Can I can I let me let me pull up the uh >> Where's the agenda? Right. I want to make sure I get the verbage right. >> Well, that part wasn't in there. >> Oh, so what what verbiage do I need to put? Uh do you wish to approve the variance
uh overriding the 80% requirement on lot zero aka for Russell Road >> for contiguous area >> for contiguous area. >> All right. So, I'll make a motion to um
approve a variance to override the 80% lot area continguous lot area requirement for zero Russell Road, >> also known as >> also known as >> or for Russell. Second,
>> second by Peter. >> All in favor? >> He's fighting it. fight his ass again. >> This is way more fun. >> You know, it it seems a slight thing. The problem is and and we're not held to precedent. >> Oh, >> but
>> good job. >> One more vote. You still have to close. >> Everybody have a motion closed. >> Try to make it home safe. >> Good luck with the project. >> Thank you very much. >> Is there an AED in the building in case? Yeah, we've >> done a lot of work to get there. >> Sincerely, good luck with this.
>> Looks like a cool place, too. I'm gonna >> Thank you all. >> We all have to do our due diligence. >> Now, you tell you go home, tell your wife and your father. >> Yeah, cuz she's like, "You better not have wasted two years of our money."
>> She's so she's so good with that one. I got the divorce case ready to go tomorrow. That was bad. >> So, can I entertain? We have a motion to chairman. >> We have a meeting. >> We have not closed this hearing. >> You didn't close the hearing.
>> Oh, I make a motion to close the hearing. >> I'm just checking. >> Thank you. There are >> there are motions that we need to close this public hearing. >> I make a motion to close the public hearing for Russell. >> I understand that. >> Sorry. Sorry for the >> Good night, Jose.
>> Danny, all second. Okay. >> Second. Charlie. >> All right. >> Okay. Um road is now closed. >> That is officially closed. >> I make a motion to >> No, no, no, no, no, no. We have to do minutes.
>> Yeah, we got to do minutes. >> We were on that thing for an hour. We do minutes next month. >> It's a long meeting next month. >> No, the the minutes were real short. Yeah, >> I read them twice. >> Okay, >> they were great. >> I'd like to approve the minutes and Rod were not here, so everyone else can
vote. Mhm. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Yes. >> Four, five, six. So, six people. >> Danny wasn't here. >> No, he was. I make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Can everyone read them? That's voted. All >> in favor by Danny. Second. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Who seconded? >> Danny. >> Thank you.
>> It's unanimous. I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Wow. Yep. Unanimous. >> Such a joy to work with all of you. >> So, what's this?