We're going to be a couple minutes late. after seven we'll start the meeting of the um court of appeals. Um I just want to say all meetings are televised and available on demand by chimps of tele media. Um, please note
that while an option for remote attendance in or participation is being provided as a courtesy to the public, the meeting hearing will not be suspended or terminated if technical problems interrupt the virtual broadcast
unless required by law. Okay. The agenda public input. Public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to any issue with the jurisdiction of the chimps 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 hearing and may be limited to three minutes. So anyone want to speak about anything?
Okay. Next thing on the agenda is board reorganization. Uh we have to do the chair, vice chair, and clerk. I believe we've never had a clerk, so we'll start with the chair. Anyone want to nominate someone for chair?
>> Jamie. >> I got a nomination for Jamie. Stephen second. >> Um that's enough. Um uh anyone want to anyone want to nominate anyone else for chair?
>> Seeing none, we'll open the um we'll vote on it. Jamie for chair. >> I take a roll call. >> Glenn got roll call. >> A roll call. Danny. >> Yes. >> Yes. Pete. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> I can't read on myself, can I? >> I think you can. >> Yes. >> Yes. I vote yes. >> Yes. >> Don't forget Glen. >> Glenn. Jamie for chair. >> And he's frozen. >> No, he's good. He's good.
>> Oh, he moved. Okay. Okay. So, that's >> that's >> Did he say something? >> Did he say so? >> Yeah. He said he rolled his eyes. >> Glenn, can you hear us? >> Can you hear? >> Uh, I don't get any audio.
That's That's got to be on your agenda. >> All right. All right. Move on to Okay. For vice chair. >> I get it now. >> Okay. For vice chair. >> I need some nominations. >> You >> I nominate Charlie for vice chair.
>> Something with the echo. >> Okay. Have a nomination from you. >> Nominate Charlie for vice. Second by Danny. >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other nominations for vice chair hearing? None. Um I'd like to make a vote. Vice chair for Charlie. >> Danny. >> Yes.
>> Pete, >> yes. >> Danny, >> yes. >> Charlie, yes. Stephen, >> yes. >> Glenn, >> yes. I heard a yes. Okay. Um, I didn't speak to um, Becky about this, but we've never had a clerk, and a clerk usually
signs our signs our motions and signs our decisions. >> So, we're going to we're going to have a clerk. >> You don't want to have a clerk, Glenn? I mean, Evan, >> we don't need one. We don't need one. >> We don't need one. >> Okay, that's good. Uh, meeting date
confirmation August. We have no meeting, but I think we should discuss that because we have a few things on the agenda, right? >> So, Becky informs me that there's uh two applications have been submitted. >> Okay. >> So, if you have a meeting
in August, those two new items would be on the agenda and then whatever is continued from tonight. >> Okay. I'm okay with having a meeting in LA if we need it. >> I'm here. >> Everyone make it. >> I'm here. >> We don't even need a vote. August 6th. >> August 6th.
>> And the rest of the meetings are all September 3rd, October 1st, November 5th, and December 3rd. >> Okay. >> Um, since I'm no longer the chair, I'd like to turn it over to Jamie. >> Oh, thank you. >> You're very welcome.
>> Not. Yes. >> So kind, isn't he? >> Change your name plates, too. >> Yeah, we're going to do that. And don't drink that caffeine. >> Oh no. All right. How's everyone tonight?
Everybody ready to get started? >> All right. There are no administrative reviews. So tonight, so we'll start with the first public hearing which is to be continued for one Smith Street Choice Housing Opportunities for the ENT
intergenerational and community endeavors. requesting a comprehensive permit pursuant to chapter 40B, the proposed development of the Chsford housing authority site, which will include demolition of all existing units and the construction of 96 new units of senior
62 plus rental housing. Please state your name and address for the >> Good evening, newly appointed Madam Chair. Uh for the record, attorney Melissa Robbins from Ferrell Robbins. Good evening. As as Madam Chair has stated, we're here tonight for a continued public hearing. Uh at the last
public hearing, we had actually gone through most of the issues, but we did have some outstanding DPW comments. Um and we did respond to every single comment in writing. Uh you have response letters from every single department that had outstanding comments saying that they have no further comment. Uh
and DPW had no further comment as well. Um we did work with Evan to draft conditions of approval in a decision that's in your packet this evening. Uh we've also updated the plan set to include all of the items that were highlighted in the DPW response letter.
Uh Madame Chair, since the DPW letter is what we did was cut and paste the comments and add our responses to the DPW uh comment letter, I would request that the board wave the reading of all of those comments. um if the board's inclined to do so since those were already in record and it's just our
responses and all of those responses are uh collected in the comprehensive permit decision the board has in the packet this evening. Uh I know it's a little out of your purview but just I know it came up at the last meeting but we also uh did meet with conservation after last meeting. Uh they were waiting for storm water responses from DPW which we have.
Uh so we anticipate that they will close their meeting next week as well and we'll get our notice of intent next week for this project. So everything's going well. Uh David couldn't be here this this evening, but Kirk Fulton from Chzford Housing Authority is here as well as Don Rose, uh the project engineer. So if you have any questions
for us, we're happy to answer it. But I think um all outstanding comments have been dealt with. >> Evan, we we usually read everything into record, so would we okay just >> Yeah, you can wave the reading. I mean, I assume everybody's uh reviewed
what's online. >> It's long. >> Yeah, it's very long. >> It's long. >> Yep. >> Break you in. >> Way to break. >> My inaugural reading. >> Madam Chair, if it was something new to record, I wouldn't ask for the waving, but since it's already in record, that's
why I suggested waving the reading. Save you some time this evening. >> Appreciate the consideration. >> Any questions from the board? Anybody in the audience have any comments, questions, or concerns. >> Okay, I'll take a motion.
>> I'd like to make a motion that we close the public hearing for one Smith Street. >> Second by Steven. >> All in favor? >> Oh, I'm sorry. We have to take a have to take a roll call. >> Danny.
>> Yes. Yes, >> Charlie. >> Yes. >> Yes, >> Glenn. >> Yes. >> All right, it's unanimous. Public hearing is closed. >> Any um discussion needed? >> This is a good thing for our community.
>> I agree. Question. >> Very, very appropriate. >> Make a motion. >> I'll take a motion. Make a motion to approve the comprehensive permit pursuant to MGL chapter 40B for one
Smith Street uh Chumford Arms uh with respect to the letters that were not read into the submitted but submitted. >> But submitted >> but submitted that >> second. >> All right. Per the per the draft decision.
>> Per the draft decision. Yes. >> Danny. >> Yes. Yes, >> Charlie. >> Yes, >> Stephen. Glenn, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Unanimous. Thank you. >> Good luck with it. >> Thank you very much, members of the
board. Uh, just on behalf of Chamster Housing Authority Choice and SCG, we're excited to get started. Um, we'll keep the board informed of when we get funding and when we're ready to move forward. So, thank you very much. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Jamie, are you able to come by the office tomorrow morning to sign the
decision? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. want to come by like around uh 10 10:30. >> All right. Second hearing is for 243 Riverneck Road. They're reapplying for a comprehensive permit. This has been requested to be
continued without discussion. So, I'll take a motion. >> Motion 243 Road to continue without discussion. >> Second. Second publish to a date. >> Yeah. To >> till August >> August. >> August meeting.
>> Yeah. August 6th meeting. >> Second. >> Second by Stephen. >> Danny, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Charlie. >> Stephen. Go ahead. How do you vote? >> Yes. >> It's unanimous.
>> Moving along. New public hearings. Windmir Lane, owner. Windmir at Chelmsford Condominium Trust in care of Perkins and Antil PC requesting an administrative appeal zoning under zoning bylaw section
195102 to appeal the building commissioner's decision requiring their continued maintenance of trees located on the Burm area of the property abuing 217 Princeton Street in accordance with the previously approved 40B comprehensive permit.
Please state your name and address for the record. >> Good evening, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Scott Ericson. I'm a shareholder with the firm of Perkins and Anel. We represent the windmare at Chsford Condominium Trust. Uh as Madam Chair said, we are here tonight appealing a decision or or notice of the
building department that was issued on May 15th of this year. The notice is u a bit unclear. It says if such barrier no longer exists, it is my opinion that such buffer trees need to comply per the approved plans and any missing cut off
or dead trees need to be reintroduced as intended. We'll go back in time 23 years ago. This project was approved uh in May of 2020 or excuse me 2003. Uh, and in connection with the approval, the
developer as an accommodation to an abuter was required to install a an L-shape of trees around the side and rear lot line of the abuing property. That was done. Those trees are still
there today. Um, those trees are 20 years older now. Um, so those those trees are pines. I would love an opportunity to conduct a site visit with the group to show you that uh those trees are in our opinion still there still functioning as the screening as
they were intended uh in connection with the condition that was approved in 2003. Uh obviously the trees have aged. Um so at the bottom the pines are not getting as much sun. Some of the lower branches are dying off but the trees are alive uh
and they're still there. Uh the condominium trust once we received this letter has engaged two arborists uh who came out to look at the property. The challenge that we present to the board now is these arborists tell us that the
concentration of trees, the number of trees and the size of the trees in place here really doesn't make sense. They're going to sort of starve each other out for resources and sunlight and everything else. So, in terms of adding more trees or or adding new screening, uh, we're not really sure that's viable.
Um, we're open to work with the board and the neighbor to make sure that there's appropriate screening in place, but our view is that the screening as intended still exists in its in its appropriate condition. >> Which ex which line of trees are we talking
>> come around here? So, please >> we're talking about this is Windmir Lane. So this is the entrance to the condominium property. We're talking about this line here and it wraps around there. >> So the culde-sac is yours as well. >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. >> So, and these trees are there. I drove
out there just before this meeting tonight. I mean, they're there. Uh what you see is the top, you know, obviously it looks pretty thick here on the on the lower side of the trees because they are pines. They're a little leaner, right? The pines are there, but the branches that are not getting as much sun are not
as as green. >> Do you know where the neighbor who's making the request is? Is >> Well, I think the neighbor who brought this to the attention of the board is here. >> Okay. So, I guess we're looking for clarity
and direction. Again, we want to be good neighbors. The condominium wants to be a responsible steward of their property. Um, but there are a couple things in play here. One, when the condition was approved, it really only reads that the applicant, then the developer, was required to install these screening
trees prior to construction. Um, the the decision itself does not go on to say that they shall be maintained. There's nothing that sort of carried over in terms of condominium covenants that talk directly about these trees or ongoing maintenance obligations. Um I would also
again say that you know for the most part the buffer remains intact. It may not be exactly as it was, but I don't know that it ever would be. Right. And again, based on the feedback that we've gotten from the arborists, we're not sure that the design or what was intended originally is really an
appropriate functional design to support the health and life of those trees. Can I just You're asking to appeal the building commissioner's letter, but you're also saying you're willing to work with the arborists to improve the
screening that's currently there >> to the extent necessary. I guess what's challenging for us with respect to the building commissioner's letter is it's not exactly clear to us what they're asking us to do. Right? It says if such barrier no longer exists, it is my opinion that such buffer tree lines need
to comply per the approved plans and any missing cut off or dead tree needs to be reintroduced as intended. I'm not really sure what the commissioner believes may be missing. Okay. >> So, it's hard for us to comment specifically. >> Okay. >> Jose, could you comment on that?
>> Yes, Madam Chair. So the intent the the intent of the letter if uh per my conversation with Evan before I send the uh the letter out, Evan and I discussed it and the proposal of the trees was to create a buffer, a barrier between the
two houses. I pay a visit to the home maybe two or three times and I mean you can touch the person's deck on the other side. The uh Jerves, I'm sorry if I pronounce your name wrong. That's good. Okay. Thank you. So, you no longer if
you're on their side, you can see everybody grilling on their on their side because there's nothing there. The tree with time I agree the tree they grew. Uh it is my understanding that uh on the letter I think I'm pretty
specific that if the if the buffer zone is no longer there the the uh the agreed person uh in this case the condominium has to abide by what the board of appeal at that time approved which it was the
rows of trees as as a barrier condition to the neighbor. And just to clarify, the trees are still there. It's just that again at the at the lower level, they're pretty much just trunk.
>> So the tree is still there. It's just that uh the proximity of the Jerve and the condominium uh the barrier that it was supposed to uh be intended with the trees is is no
longer in existence. So some uh some of the trees are I when I visit the site, it appeared that I I noticed some of the stump from previous trees probably cut down. Um, based on the site plan and my
conversation with Evan, uh, the trees needs to be replaced somehow to to to serve the the intended use at the time, which is the the barrier between the two properties. >> Pretty much there's no longer in your
opinion, it's no longer being an effective screening screening at eye level. >> That's that's correct. >> Okay. So e so even in the future if you were to take those trees down and add new ones it's the same thing's going to happen again would a fence work as a
visual buffer >> perhaps right and I guess that obviously isn't part of the conditionation >> you know frankly neither is eliminating all these trees and planting new trees right I mean I think that goes far beyond what the condition intended what was intended was completed it's just
that now we're 23 years down the road >> just To provide some additional context, all decisions as far as the town is concerned, whether it's planning board or zoning board, your decisions reference plans,
those are conditions of the approval. As far as we're concerned, it goes without saying that everything shown on the plan is to be uh maintained in compliance. The decision does not need to specifically say that landscaping,
storm water, lighting, pavement is to be maintained. It is it is assumed. So I don't I don't in no circumstances do I want the zoning board or the planning board to consider that legal that legal uh that legal consideration.
If you do that, then all of your decisions are meaningless. >> I think so. Then we go on to literal enforcement. The plan shows a double row of arborite and let's assume it called for 40
plants. Yes, it's it's 30 years later. We knew from day one or people who were involved in the project from day one should have known that 30 years later that proposed landscaping was not going to be an effective means. That's exactly what
happened. But for purposes of enforcement, which is what Jose and I are doing on behalf of the board, it's a literal count. We're not making a determination about um you know, half of them are half of them are living and half of them aren't.
What's the what's the primary purpose and then how is that being how is that how was that uh approved? So I think as the as the petitioner is indicating uh there's there's obviously room for uh
reasonable discretion and interpretation but that's not that's not for Jose and I to uh to determine >> just I would say you know a bit more nuanced obviously the buffer the trees grew right now we know with the benefit
of decades that the plan was not a good on my view our the condominium's view is that you know asking them to remove and install a different type of screen is a totally new condition alto together
so I I I'm usually not this um vocal on these things uh but this is this is very very basic if they wanted to wind association They could go in, remove everything and
replace it per the original approval. Jose and I would have no problem with that. That's maintaining landscaping >> except the cost of removing and replacing mature healthy trees >> that would be overly burdensome to the community. >> They could for literal enforcement. They
could go in and plant new ones so that the count is per the original approval. I'm not suggesting that makes any sense. That's exactly what the petitioner is saying. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Through this zoning board process, as the petitioner has indicated, there may
be uh means to revisit those buffer lines and modify and come to an agreed, you know, modification that makes more sense. >> I mean, in in in the end, if we do the same exact same thing, we're going to get the same exact same issue 20 years
from now. So, in my opinion, I think if we can look at keeping those trees and adding a fence as an additional buffer, it's still going to provide the same exact screening that is was intended from the beginning.
>> Why do we want to keep the trees? >> Because I'm sure those are are those second level like there two stories pretty tall. >> Yeah. So, you're going to and they're twotory houses. You're the intent when when the visual buffer was installed, I'm assuming, was to eventually grow and
provide a full screening of all of those back of those houses and they didn't think about the fact that with pines, the bottoms of those trees always die out. >> Is there anybody else wants to speak about this? >> So, yes, let's let's uh let's open up
the um let's open up a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak on this matter? Come on up to the podium and please state your name and address for the record. >> Can you bring my water? >> Okay. I'm Linda Jet >> and I'm Joe Chaveet
>> up to 17 Princeton Street where the abut is. And um before I start, I just want to apologize because I don't really like doing this. So if my voice gets soft or too fast, just signal me to Yep. >> And I just want to apologize too for um I'm probably going to get emotional
already. So um I just want to give you a little background first. Joe and I have been living in this house for 38 years. Very happy in this house. His grandmother bought this house and then his parents and then us and our
children. We had five generations in this home. This is our little safe heaven, this little piece of land. That's all we have. We're both from North Chood. We both lived in the same neighborhood. I grew up on um Crystal Lake. I'm a Godette. So we, you know, we've been in the same area for for all
our lives. Um, so about 35 years ago, they um, Finn and Kate's built um, village of Meadowwood. And I'm bringing that up because it'll help me later on
explain something. Um, and so Jay said, "We have the entrance of village of Meadowwood and Windermir in our backyard." I don't know if you want me to show you that on there, but so Jay had come to me. Jay Finian and
said, "Lynn, do you want a fence?" I said, "Yes." I'm not against fences. Fences are wonderful if they're put in the right spots and it helped us, you know, with the traffic and the lighting. So, um,
I put my glass. Okay. So, then about 15 years ago, uh, Meadowwood decided to take down that fence and put a vinyl one because it was wood and that was fine. I went out to ask him what was going on. and they were they felt that they should be able to
extend extend it. So I said, "No, no, no. You can't do that. You have to keep the exact measurements. That's the condition." Um I was told by one of the um residents down there was to keep the riff raff out, meaning me and my family, which
didn't go over too good. Um so anyway, and they cut limbs off the pine trees of the burm for Windmir. And I said, "You can't do this." and they did. So I came over to the town, went to a board meeting and I won the
case and no one ever did anything about it and I just let it go because um I had just lost my best friend and I was in no condition to do any of this. So now we have windmir 23 years ago and all this lee and the 10 acres belong
to the kirks who lived um on that 10 acres of land and the j and the kirks were good neighbors for all their lives. Joe used to have his pigeons out there on their land, his gardens. That's what good neighbors were.
Um, so just just to fill you in, I don't know if people in even Windia realize what that land was. It's not it wasn't all flat. It was like a forest out there. There was all these beautiful trees. There was paths. There was hills. They came in and
knocked down every tree there was. Knocked down all the hills and built Windmir. So people might think it was all flat out there, but it wasn't. It was beautiful land. So now Jay decides to do a 40B, which we
were against because it's too many houses. It was quite crowded as you can see. Um, I don't want to say anything bad about the people. It's just that it was quite it's quite crowded all those houses. So, of course, we came to all the meetings and fought the party B.
And of course, it went in and so I we sat down with Jay and Jay said, "Do you want a fence?" I said, "No, please. We have one fence in our backyard." He said, "What would you like to do?" So, we sat down and I had brought a picture to the meeting of a development. I
believe it was in Lexington and there was condominiums like three stories high and they had built a border uh and you couldn't even see them. So Jay said, "Yeah, I'll do that for you. We'll put two rows." So
So that's what he did. Okay. So, everything went along fine for a little while because the trees were like Jay put in um 12 to 14 foot trees 10 ft apart and it was fine for a few years because we wanted them to grow a little bit because they then blocked out
their windows so that they had more privacy. They couldn't see us and their lighting out in the development used to shine right in our house and it blocked out that. But the one thing we forgot to put in I guess like as Evan was saying was we didn't put maintain and I just assumed
you know it's your trees you have to maintain them. Um so that's what I was told by um the development that they were not going to maintain them anymore. I just felt like good neighbors maintain their trees and
take care of them. I work on a lot of developments and I have never seen anybody not maintain their trees. Jay Finnegan put a lot of money into these trees for us and they were never watered or taken care of. So Joe and I took pictures. >> Do you want to pass them home? >> All right to come up there and pass them
around. >> Sure. >> So you can see like for several several years the trees were healthy and growing and thick. >> Um They're not the best pictures, but something. >> Thank you.
>> And if anybody has a pine tree, they know that, you know, if you don't keep trimming them, the branches just get long. Everything's on the end of the branch and nothing's in the middle. So, everyone says, you know, I keep hearing that they were too close. Well, obviously they weren't because they were
growing for many years. And for many years after this, you know, they started getting skimpy and growing out of shape. I started calling the property manager, Rhonda, and we worked well for many years. There's a picture in there that shows one winter um how the trees were
so close to our garage, they were hitting our garage. And so I told her and they came out and cut them down and trying to be good neighbors and work with these people, the the board. Um we told them, "No, you don't have to replace them. It's okay. It's our side of the garage." Thinking that, you know,
we'll be good neighbors. Um I know in one of the conditions, our neighbor Judge Zerulus, he was on some of you probably know him. these on a lot of the boards. Uh these these are
the same trees that go around the whole development, not just our property. We're the only ones that have two rows, but the whole these trees go around this whole development. And George was smart enough to put maintain in his conditions. Also, in the conditions, it says that
the town will not be responsible for any of their their landscaping. Now, these trees are out on Princeton Street, too. And you know, I'm thinking if one of those falls out there, Chumsford's not going to go out and take care of it. I'm not going to take care of it. So, who
does who's going to take care of it? I would think Bill would I mean Windmir. So this kind of all started this little episode was because I have been working with Rhonda in you know telling her like
a few years ago they cut like all their dead branches off their side and I said to Rhonda when are you going to do our side and she said oh let me get back to the boiler and she never gets back and now it's at the point that she hangs up on me when I say who it is but that's
neither here nor there but um So I have told them and told them please and I think it was in 2017 they had iron tree come out and we let them go on our property with all their trucks and stuff and they they cut the
trees on the tops. Well unfortunately I didn't get a picture of that but the tops as you can see when you look down how bushy and thick they are. You can't even see through them because they took care of the top. But now when it's windy which it has been a lot lately those things are rocking and rolling. I just
wonder like, you know, those things are 40 to 50 feet high now. How high are they going to let these things go? I have grandchildren that play in my yard and, you know, I don't want them to hit my house. And that's how close we are. And these trees were never intended to
be 40, 50 feet high on a 4ft burm. You know, if the burm if the trees were kept smaller would have been fine if they kept in trimming them. I know that um they had said that they like to bring like an aubberist from Iron Tree out or Emanuel. Well, those
are the people that work for them. So, I don't think that's too uh you know, I think that's a little one-sided. >> All these years they have never come on. Um well, in order to take care of our side of the trees, they'd have to come on our
property, which they do sometimes, but we've been the ones that rake the leaves out there because they've never done any of that. And we have to because they blow in our yard. They have a garden down the end of the development. They go down there and clean it out and leave the leaves in our driveway for hours.
Never said anything. Are the trees on your side of the property or their side of the property or both? >> Trees are on their BM all condominium side. Okay. >> Right. >> Okay. >> That's >> Yeah. So this Okay.
>> Now, as far as a fence, it's kind of hard to have a fence out there after you've had trees and you looked out That's why everything wasn't taken away from us.
Um, and if they put a fence, the fence would be well from here to that wall that we'd be looking at. And we're looking at a fence that would be 180 ft long in our front yard and 190t long on our sideyard. We're not talking a little
fence. And the fence would be useless because it would not go high enough to cover their windows. So, and I don't know if they would admit to putting up a fence or not, but I don't know if that's their plan because they had it all surveyed and that cost a lot of money.
And I thought it was a little rude that no one ever came and knocked on our door and said that they were going to be out. My granddaughter said, "There's someone out in your yard." So, I thought that was a little pushy to >> I didn't have a problem with them
surveying, but gee less. No. And also if they put a fence on the side of our garage, one of our other conditions was that Jay put in a French drain and then it goes into a catch basin. And right now the way it is surveyed, they'd be putting that fence
right on top of that. So I don't know what they want to do about that. And also one of our conditions was at the end of our driveway to get out, we we had to have a clear sight line. So if they would put a fence, I don't know how far they thought that they were going to
put that, but So I guess that's about um so I guess, you know, I'm just really surprised that I'm here because I always felt like once the conditions were set, you don't change them. That's that's the
way it is. have to keep those. I know that they had >> a little bit over the years. We wouldn't be here. They'd be beautiful. Everybody be happy. I know the neighbors on my on that line there, they they don't have
any privacy, but they bought into that. We didn't buy into a party to be right next to people. Uh, okay. >> Glenn, do you have a question for her? >> Um, only well question and a comment.
Have you had any problems with uh sap raining down on you? >> Um, I'm I was going to put that in there. We had our driveway um sealcoated last year. This year after the winter, we were like, you know, sweeping up and all the seal coat came up. So luckily
our our guy came back and he said this has never happened. So when he was sweeping up he picked up the pieces and said this is from the step coming off those trees onto your driveway because the limbs are so long now. >> All right. Well, you know I empathize
with you. I live in the condominium uh complex not far from where you are and I'm very familiar with both windoware and metawwood and uh maintenance of trees. >> It doesn't seem to be a high priority
among uh among condominium associations. It's kind of one of the last things that they think about. And um I had to at my own expense have a a 40-in uh trunk pine tree removed uh because I couldn't go outside my door
without getting rained on by pine sap and it was true of a lot of people and all of us faced the same issue. We had to pay to have the trees removed. Now, the association was nice
enough to allow that to happen, but we still had to pay for it ourselves. And it would seem that uh I would agree with Evan that this issue does not seem to be in the preview of the uh ZBA. It really
is a condominium association uh problem and requires negotiation with them. Uh, you know, certainly if you could turn the clock back, you could pick a different tree species that would grow to a x very
bushy but low. Um, the die has already been cast. Uh, and it's up to the uh petitioner to work with their condominium association to come up with a reasonable
um result. Uh, and I feel for them, but I don't believe it's a problem for the ZBA. >> Was that what you said, Evan? >> I just add something else, too. >> Let me just You have a valid appeal in front of you
>> from Windmir. I The board has three choices. you can uphold Jose's determination, >> which means that Jose will literally require them to uh replant
material that's missing so that the count is per the approved plan. Not suggesting that that's a logical or reasonable approach, but that's zoning enforcement. Second is to overturn. Basically that would mean that the
zoning board is saying either this is not literal zoning compliance issue or the zoning board is saying something else. And the third option uh is to seek some sort of alternative uh resolution which you know in my estimation would
require the the two parties to convene and then come back to the board. I mean, unless the board wants to try to dictate an outcome. >> Okay. But >> nothing you said was that this was not in the purview of the board to make a decision. Correct. >> We have to make something.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You have to make some sort of decision. I think what Glenn is referring to is is um my initial comment was that the decision uh assumes that there's going to be maintenance. That maintenance wasn't wasn't going to be done by Jay Finnegan,
the original 40B applicant. it was going to be done by the association. And in fact, there's a condition in there that that says such. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from the board for this? >> His hand is up again. >> Glenn, you have another question.
>> No, no, that's it. I I I feel for the applicant, but um it seems to be having lived in the condominium association been chairman of the board of the association and these issues come up, it's uh it's really a condominium
association uh problem with the applicant and for them to work together to come up with some reasonable uh solution that will satisfy all the parties. >> Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this? >> Please come up to the podium. State your
name and address for the record. Hey, >> Glenn. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Rick Mahoney. Uh 8 Dornock Circle. I'm the uh president of the board of trustees at the Windmir con uh at Chster Condominium. Just a couple of points. Uh
one, those are not our trees. Those are fur trees. You can't trim fur trees. They won't grow at all. Period. But they were watered. There is watering system out there. We haven't used it in years because the trees are growing and they're fairly healthy to be honest with
you. Um, Mrs. Jervis is correct. She did request to the board to cut and trim some of the branches on her side of it. The board discussed it at some length. We felt that by cutting those branches out, we would be mitigating or taking away some
of the buffer that was there. The tree the branches are thin and they're they're dead, but they are somewhat of a buffer. I mean, if you didn't have those there at all though, the people at in Windermir could see straight out to Princeton Street, right down her driveway out to Princeton Street. Um, so that's we looked at it. We did and we
can still we can do that. We're happy to do that if that helps, but it's not going to it's not going to solve this problem. It's going to in fact take away somewhat of the buffer situation that's going on there right now. quite honestly. Um the
the the genesis of this was the survey that we ran and it's interesting because we ran the survey specifically because we are concerned about the trees at Windemir. We have trees as you know down Windermir and up we call it doornock up
towards the front of Mrs. Jur's property, but we've got a whole bunch of trees between us and the village of the village of Meadowwood. All right. And these are also these are actually bigger trees. These about 60 70 foot trees and
we just replaced roofs on our three years ago at a cost about a million and a half dollars. So we don't want trees landing on our roofs. >> Yeah. So we did the survey to see where which trees are ours, which trees are metwoods, which tree, you know, so we
can make that adjustment, make that assessment, see which trees make the most. We got to take a look at because we don't want them fall on our stuff either. You know, in terms of maintenance, we do we do the maintenance on all our trees. We, you know, is it a daily thing? Is it a weekly thing? No, it's it's when we have an issue, we
handle it. >> What What kind of maintenance if you're afraid to cut and trim, what kind of maintenance do you do on the trees? We we assess them. I mean, if the trees if trees are are leaning and going towards the home, we'll we'll cut them. We'll make, you know, we have actually notified the person living at 286
Princeton that their trees were overhanging our property. And to his credit, he cut the he cut some of the trees down. We also trim the trees because there's we're allowed if the trees are overhanging out to onto our property, we can cut them trim them back so they're not hanging onto our property.
>> So So you've cut the trees back when they're touching her house? Yes. Yes. Um, now you know it gets kind of it gets kind of dodgy because the survey shows some of our prop some of our
property is on her property and it's that that's that's a different discussion at some point later on. But we went and did that survey specifically to see which trees are ours, which trees we have to maintain because we don't want to be in a situation we know we got trees that are 20 30 years old right now and that are at risk. and we decid
that's that was the whole the genesis of this situation. >> Okay. >> Any questions? >> Yeah. So, >> sure. >> For the situation that's being discussed, do you have any uh opinions or proposals for what
your board or condominium association is thinking would improve the situation? Or is your position that the trees are what they are and that's the end of the story? based on talking with the arburist the tree we believe the trees are what they are and there's not much
we can do about it and to try to plant other smaller trees in there be a waste of time and money they're not going to grow they're not getting the sunlight >> so based on your assessment after your survey in regards to those trees and your property
>> do they pose a hazard >> no more than any other tree does I mean there are trees blow down in in winds all the time we can't that's act of god kind of level stuff >> right Are you taking any are you taking any measures against any other trees on your property to protect your property
>> at this point? No. We have bring we're bringing an arborist in late. Our plan is to bring an arborist in later in this year now that we've got the lot lines established to take a look at the trees. >> So, you haven't had anyone actually evaluate which trees or who or how to address anything that might cause any damage to any of your condominiums
>> outside of the two arbors checking this row of trees behind Mr. Jervis's home? Not yet. >> That's part of our plan. It is on our It's in our budget quite honestly for this year. >> Okay. >> Before we continue, we've gotten word that the AC will not be repaired this
evening. So, I just mentioned that collectively, if you guys want to power through, we can. If we want to collectively, you know, continue everything and >> Okay. >> come back in August. >> Okay. >> Well, I'm retired Army,
>> so I can do a lot worse. Um, >> I say we could finish this and take a fivem minute water break if everyone's okay with that and we can move forward. >> Okay. >> Um, anyone else have a question for >> I just wanted I just have a comment
>> and just a comment. Um, let's face it. When you planted the trees, the intent and the intent is a word that has many definitions. It worked. The intent to screen worked. Everything worked fine. Everything was
fabulous and and I I guess the only thing someone did wrong is they put in the wrong kind of tree. And how you going to know that like 30 years down the road? So I think you can because we have arborites all over our property in
between their homes. >> Okay. And they have grown to about 20 feet as well, but they're not going to grow a whole lot more. >> And they didn't, you know, but the other thing is they didn't space these. >> Okay. Anybody else want to speak? >> Well, before you leave, I got a one more
question. So from your point of view, um, do the screen do the trees as they exist meet the intent of what was written into the
conditions of the uh, approval back in whatever that was 2003. >> So the condition itself reads that the applicant would Ready? We'll we'll just read the condition. Two staggered rows of 12 to 14 foot trees on top as shown
on the site plan comparable to the burm shown in photographs to be submitted to the board of a project in Lexington. We've not I've not seen those. Um we they're not I don't know if they're in the file uh that the that the folks have. Um again, it's 23 years old now.
Um so those trees are there. If you look at >> what I'm sorry, Miss >> Jer, >> I do she submitted the second to last page March uh 24, 2026. You know, the the picture
that's sort of sideways at the bottom of that page. I mean, that's really you can see it right there, right? You can see these two rows of trees along the burm that are close and now crowded, but they're there.
Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Give a 217 Princeton Street. >> Back again on these trees when the conditions was 12 to 14 feet to trees
were going to go on a 4ft burm. Now that was fine for a 4ft burm. There's no safety issues. Now, these trees are 40 feet high. Half of them are dead or pretty close to dead. And now they're teeterling on a 4 foot burm. On your
last page that I showed you, those those are the trees that are at the property on their property line. Another thing is there's no irrigation at all going to those trees at all.
That's why they're dying. Another thing, if they kept kept them at 12 to 14 feet, there'd be no problem here. There'd be no safety issues. There'd be no sap falling all over the place. They're 40t high now. There's a safety issue. On the last
page, you got a tree that's leaning on my property at a 45 degree angle. Um, we call Rhonda up in March. It says it in March of this year. and she referred us to Scott Ericson and Scott
Ericson called us and says that that tree that we supposed to cut it down and get rid of ourselves. That tree is still there hanging over our property. As far as I concerned, that's a safety issue and you ain't good neighbors when you do
stuff like this. They have no use for this 40b project at all. Everything that they want to do, they want to get out of. >> Okay. >> They got a bunch of trees you're speaking about. That's >> the one on the >> last page. Last page.
>> The last page. >> Yeah. >> This one. >> Second to last. >> This it's this one up here. >> The fallen tree one on top left. >> And that's how this all started. There's there's nothing left of these trees. You
can see in these pictures everybody's house. You can see what they're watching or eating on TV or eating at the dinner table or what. This is a joke. >> Okay. >> It's there's a picture in there that this is how this all started. I think I
forget the date, but it fell on our fence in the backyard. And so I called up Wanda and she didn't talk to me, but anyway, I said another tree fell. Now, these are all the dead trees. There's absolutely no green on them at all. And I, you know, we've been as there's one
right next to our garage, too. They've been asking, "Please take it down before it falls on our garage." So, anyway, on the one in the fence, they came and they took it down. Then, right next to the picture with the one that's still hanging there, there was another tree that fell in the window and I
don't No, wait a minute. As far as I know, when you tell somebody about their trees, then they are responsible. And I told them, >> came home from work, it was gone. Now, the one that we see there that still
there because they that's when they said, you know, we're all done with we've tried to work with them, but they don't want to work with us. And as far as trimming these these trees, when we didn't just go out to any place and pick these trees out, we went to um Jay's
aberrationist and told them what they were for. And that's what they said this these two types of trees would be perfect for that. We didn't just go out and say we like that. They told us that these would be perfect for this spot. So they can be trimmed. And when they were trimmed on the top, I mean, I wish I had
a picture of that. Well, you can see how bushy they are on the top. They're so if if we could cut them down now, they make a fortune selling Christmas trees. They're This was a while ago that now they're so thick on the top.
>> And as far as a safety thing, a lot of these trees are now leaning towards their houses, >> not just mine. And they're leaning towards Princeton, too. >> Second deer. >> Okay. Another thing why these appies are doing so good the grass is irrigated
over there and those appatis are right in the grass area while these they're white pines and there scotch pines in there they're Christmas trees and when you say you can't trim them they'll die
10 ft of of them uh taken off they took brought a crane in there and set it up in our driveway of course and took took 10 feet off the top of these trees. So there you go. They they ain't going to die if you trim them. They supposed to
be 12 to 14 feet tall and this wouldn't be happening today. They didn't do their job and here we are again. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh Steven Brewer, uh 219 Princeton Street. Uh some neighbors with uh >> I'm sorry.
>> Yep. >> F in one ear and can't hear out the other. worries. Uh, so Steven Brewer, I'm at 219 Princeton Street, so I'm neighbors with uh Linda and Joe and sort of adjacent to to Winmir, but um so I think there's a couple things that weren't necessarily correct were saying that the assessment is what prompted
this whole discussion, but I think the the trees falling on their property is what prompted the assessment, which prompted them coming in saying we don't want to maintain our property according according to that agreement. I believe what if there's a total count number there? I mean, if a tree falls, whether
it's written into an agreement legally, it's your responsibility in the law to maintain your property and take care of that, especially if there's a safety concern, but especially if there's a number agreement to it. That tree falls now, shouldn't they be obligated to replant that, to maintain the number and the honor of the agreement? But, I mean,
I guess, you know, it's and they can say whether they made the wrong decision 30 years ago about which trees to plant and now they have to deal with that bad decision. But I'm a homeowner and I'm dealing with the bad decisions 30 years later from previous owners. You know, that's that's what happens. That's what
when you manage a property, you're and you own it. You're supposed to maintain it. Whether or not there's an agreement that says specifically maintain your property. >> That was the agreement. They set that up to be that buffer zone. You're now responsible for your own property. And it's their property. They paid the survey to prove that they're responsible
for their property. I I don't see how it's any simpler than that, but But it doesn't seem like they maintain the property at all. The fences along Princ Street have damage to them. They're they're caving in. They're falling. They're nice looking. Doesn't
seem like they do anything. I'd be kind of curious when the whole point of these associations to actually maintain and beautify the property on behalf of the town. Are they actually doing what they're intended to do? But that's a I guess side problem. But yeah, just a couple and especially the point of them saying that they assessed the dead trees
in the back and said, "Oh, we don't want to cut these because that would ruin the, you know, or make the view worse." That's just code for I don't want to pay to do this. So, I don't know. It seems pretty straightforward. I, you know, I had a a situation last year where we had a couple trees between our two
properties that we were both concerned about the the safety of both of our houses and and the people that live in them. And we split the cost for two trees to trim them down when they're on my property. and they were more than willing to pay the whole thing. And I said, "No, no, these are mine. These are these are good people." And I just don't The reason I came down here today is cuz
really don't like to see big corporations that have plenty of money that tax that from their HOA association to maintain their property. And I believe this gentleman was saying that he lives in one of these associations and he's responsible for taking care of a tree issue that's on his association which or his property in the
association. That isn't that what the association is paid is supposed to do? Isn't that why they collect those dues? So I really What am I supposed to do? Pay for the HOA's entire property tax now at this point? Am I responsible to maintain their property? They're
supposed to go and cut down the tree that's not on their property. That's trespassing. That's ridiculous. Like so I don't know. That's all I have to say. This is what >> Thank you. Aside from the fact that the affordable
housing project next door is not a big corporation, of course, uh I don't have anything further added at this point. >> Tory, any questions? >> Any other comments from the audience? >> I just want to point out two two
questions for you. Um so the decision that was uh passed in what was this 200 Three. >> Three. Right. Specifically says that
the applicant has proposed the board appeal requires the following aspects of the development shall be and remain forever private. Any legal responsibility for operation or maintenance of same and includes
landscaping. So do you maintain the landscaping of every all the other space in >> course and that condition is baked into the condominium documents? Yes. >> Okay. So would you consider these trees on this burm part of your landscaping?
>> Yes. And again they are maintained. They exist. We can see the photos that were provided by the name. >> Okay. Just just wanted to >> they exist the way they grew. >> Okay. So and then the other um point just to
what is your definition of a buffer? What would you so so the other stipulation of the approval was applicant shall provide a buffer between the abutter's property and project site uh of the BM with staggered rows 12 14
ft etc etc. So really it would come down to maintaining that providing maintaining that buffer which is >> yeah I guess madam chair one I was in law school when this decision was issued. Um two um the buffer I think was
intended to be a vegetated natural buffer of staggered rows of trees and it is >> and to visually would you say to visually block between the two properties >> was to have something that was going to be uprooted. So, you're going to take out, you know, a hundred or more
healthy, mature trees and replace them every 20 years. I don't I would not interpret the decision to say that. >> I I I don't say that's I I wouldn't say that would be the case, but um I I'm just asking would you would you say
though that this stipulation would be to create a visual buffer between the two properties? >> Yes. But I think this vegetation >> Sorry, I didn't mean to jump in front of you there. Yes, but I think that this was probably a lack of planning again and it sounds like, you know, we could
have used different species that would have accomplished a more permanent buffer hopefully, right? But the trees that were used and it sounds like according to Mr. V that these were the trees that were intended. They they chose these trees, but these trees have now grown to a maturity where they no
longer function the way they did in 2003, which these pictures that she provided are kind of nice, right? They showed the 12 to 14 inch Christmas tree look that now these trees are not. >> Okay. Um have you engaged in do you have
an opinion drafted from an arborist that says these trees could not have been trimmed to maintain that 12 to 14 foot uh height? >> Uh not not an opinion that these trees could not have been trimmed to maintain that 12 to 14 foot height. No, I don't I
mean I don't that's something we could certainly ask the arborist. I'm not sure that >> What type of trees are they? Does anybody know? >> They're pines and >> I don't think you could have permanently kept these trees at that height. >> Okay. >> Are they ballome furs or anything like that? >> No. >> No.
>> All pines. >> They're just >> I mean >> you have to come up. So, okay. >> Have you Yeah. I guess the other question would be would um have you are you um spruce. >> You have to come up to the podium if you
have anything you wanted to add, sir. >> White pine and spruce. There was two different types. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I guess my only other question would be would you be open to having a discussion with via butter about
establishing or engaging with an arborist about an if there are vegetation plan options that could be added to what is there. So we not uprooting mature trees, but we could add some additional vegetation that would
increase this the buffer or the screening back to its original intent. >> Yes, they would be willing to do that. I do think again, you know, in terms of a buffer, right? I just was thinking about your question. I mean, a chain link fence is a buffer, but we can see through it, right? There are barriers
that are visible. I I understand that the intention here was screening, but from a cost standpoint, you are dealing with, you know, an affordable housing community, right? A 40B community. >> Um, so it would have to be something that doesn't overburden the neighbors
when the letter of the law is is is complied with. There are two rows of staggered trees. Now, if some of them are missing, we can look at that, too, right? But that's different than, you know, sort of uprooting everything and starting again. Any
other questions? >> Glenn, do you have any questions? >> You're on mute >> now. Can you hear me? All right. I think that it was very telling that the uh homeowner
identified that they picked out the trees. Um, not that they were experts by any means in the types of trees or anything like that, but I would think that the fact that they actually picked them out and not the association picked
them out uh is a negative on their part. I thought what I heard was that they went to a place with the association. The association said, "These are the trees that'll do the job and then they picked one." >> The nursery did, the nursery did. >> And and just to be clear, at that point
in time, it wasn't the association. It would have been the developer. But yeah, >> the developer trees, you know, for they are maintainable at a 14. They have to be trimmed, they have to be watered, they have to everything has to go on. So there is a maintenance issue here that was not followed. I worked at
a nursery for a long time so I know a lot about trees and they can be maintained. >> Okay. Um if there are there any other comments from the audience >> I just remember that I did forget what somebody was saying about a fence. >> Say your name again.
>> Oh Linda Jet uh Princeton Street. Um, I'm really nervous about a fence, too. And that's why I brought up the Meadowwood thing when that entrance went in and the fence because they extended that fence. And if they put a fence now, I will be blocked in my backyard. And
the fire hydrant is on Augusta. It was moved from Princeton Street down to Augusta. and I will now be blocked in and the fire department won't be able to get to my house because I'm sure they'll the the um fence to the to on the entrance they
extended it and now if they go on their boundary to put their if they ever put a fence I'll be blocked in. >> You you don't exit off of Princeton? >> I do. So, how if they have a fence? >> Is that your house there in the >> Yeah, it's the one with the Lshaped
driveway. >> How are you blocked? I'm I'm confused how you're blocked in. >> So, this is the entrance of August. There's a fence that comes down here. >> Okay. >> My backyard. >> Okay. >> And if they put a fence
>> Uhhuh. >> this here and this be There's a street there, right? >> Blocked in. >> Blocked in how? >> There's only three sides to the the fence you're talking about. >> You have a driveway. >> You have Yeah, you're exiting off Princeton.
>> The fire hydrant is down here. If the fire truck comes down here to the fire hydrant, how are they going to get through? >> The the truck would probably fil the holes over your fence. >> I don't plan to put up a fence anywhere along that side of the property.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. I'm just making sure. >> Okay. All right. There's no other comments from >> the first. >> Okay.
>> So now I'm like >> Okay. If there's no other comments from the public, make a motion to >> Well, do we want to first consider if we want them to meet and see if they can come to some sort of agreement before we
do that? >> You want to have that discussion? >> If you're going to do that, then you would keep the hearing open >> to report back to you. >> That's Yeah. >> Is that what you guys want to do? >> Don't know that it looks very promising. It might get promising though.
>> Do you guys want to do Do you guys want to go look? Do you guys want to go out and do a site survey as well? Take a look at the site or >> I always like to >> I know you do. >> Pretty telling. >> Yeah, I thought the pictures are pretty telling. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Would the parties be open to having a meeting and we leave this hearing open and continue till August and give you guys an opportunity to have a sit down meeting and discuss viable options to have a resolution on this matter before the board makes a
decision. >> We're certainly happy to have a conversation. I you know our view is that this is a shared problem now that no one could have anticipated. So hopefully the neighbor would approach it from that same vein. And if that's the case and they're willing to compromise, then we would be happy to have that
discussion. >> Make a motion to continue the public hearing till August 6. Would you like to are you open to having a conversation with the representatives of the condo association >> the development
>> the owners >> as far as updating fixing >> the buffer vegetation >> I >> I don't understand why we'd have to do this >> in the conditions it's 12 to 14t trees there 12 to 14t trees out there
>> you don't have to have the conversation we were just asking asking if you'd be >> we come in here. I thought maybe you'd be able to settle this. >> So, you'd rather not go another round with the association is what I'm hearing. >> We ain't friendly if if that's okay. >> Okay, that's fine. >> That seals it.
>> That seals it. Let's make a motion. >> We'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> Second. >> Yes. >> How do you vote? >> Yes. >> How do you vote? To close the hearing. We have to do >> Okay. Yes, >> Charlie.
>> No, I don't want to close. >> You don't want to close public hearing? That's one opposed to close public hearing. >> Yes. >> Glenn, how do you vote >> to close the hearing? >> Well, yeah, he's muted. >> You're muted, Glenn.
>> May I ask a clarifying question? >> It sounds like they're not willing to meet. So I guess I want to understand if if there's no discussion on compromise, >> we'll make a decision. The board will discuss, >> right? But what what would be the purpose of continuing the public hearing?
>> We're we're not >> we're not we're closing Okay. >> the public hearing. >> We just have to >> we have to vote. Okay. Yeah. >> Go ahead. How do you vote about the motion to close the public hearing? >> I vote to close the public hearing. Okay. >> Okay.
what you're hearing is closed. >> So, >> yeah, it's all >> the letter is >> Have you guys you've seen the letter, right? So, >> we only have two options. >> Yeah, >> because the third one's out. So it's
either uphold it or >> So if we uphold it, could we put stipulations on the uphold? >> No, I don't think I think it's uphold. >> We uphold it as it is. >> It's pretty sad. >> Yeah.
Is is it possible to continue it and uh with looking for a uh avarice that's satisfactory to the land owner and to the association to talk about if these trees could have been properly maintained?
>> They have already we they have already determined that they are not uh open to conversations. They're looking for us to make a decision. >> Yeah. And we closed, so we can't one way or the other. >> We can't continue it anyways, >> right? >> Okay. I mean, unless we reopened, we
could reopen. So, >> from what I'm reading from the decision from 2003, the developer had to provide a buffer and landscaping maintenance
was private in their responsibility. And that buffer in my opinion is part of the landscape requirement. So I don't see the the only problem I see is we have to uphold it as what the condition says and
if we do the same thing in the same condition this is going to happen again. >> I think visit it again in 23 years. >> Yeah. Definition of insanity. >> Well and Evan can speak to that. It's >> if it's incumbent upon the property
owner >> to make that determination. >> Okay. >> If they don't want to continue doing the same thing over and over again, they can come back to the board with a modification. >> Okay. I >> mean, I don't the decision doesn't say
plant trees X, Y, or Z, right? So, they could plant something different. >> Yeah. Whatever they >> There's also there's a landscape plan that I think specifies >> Well, the plan that they pictures of just says >> and conifer
seed base type. >> Yep. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I think there are many options. You could you could even plant the same thing but then maintain it differently or so. I don't think we're damned to get back to exactly the same position. >> I mean, I think I think there might be a
ve an alternate vegetation option that could be done to keep the current trees and still provide But I think at the end of the day that doesn't >> at the end of the day I don't think any of that matters here now because we
can't say this but x y and z. It's either uphold or not. So >> that's we can't tell them what to plant or not plant. It's just >> uphold the decision. >> Yeah. Right. >> So I mean if they maintain the buffer, right?
What's it say? You could change maintaining the buffer would be you you planted those trees. They're still there. The buffer is no longer there, which is what you have to maintain. So, >> well, I guess
>> what you what you choose to plant to maintain the buffer would be your decision. >> I'm not sure that it is >> ultimately. I mean, I guess that would be I mean, how I mean, I guess that would be up to the up to them, I suppose, or their lawyer how to interpret. >> I think that would be a modification.
>> We we can't >> the meeting's closed, unfortunately. So, >> it's going to be in kind what was shown on the original plan number and uh >> quantity and the the specifications is what if it's upheld is what Jose will
hold them to. That's enforcement, right? Two rows of fur trees 10 ft apart on a Well, I don't think it said Did it say the 4ft BM or did it just say? >> Yeah, the 4ft BM is is part of >> not saying it needs to be what it was what it was originally planted in 2003.
They they could literally go in and where there are trees missing within those two rows, they could replant. Doesn't have to be 12 to 14 feet. >> So, they could be filling gaps, >> but then they'd be more than half to 14t. Yeah,
>> there'd be more trees this time. >> Well, if there's gaps that are over 12 to 14 ft. Yeah. Then the gaps need to be filled. >> He might have had to be 12 to 14. >> Yeah, cuz it calls it out as 12 to 14. >> I think that at planting >> is my interpretation of that. Not not mature height.
>> Correct. That was my >> If they go and plant something on Tuesday, it should be between 12 and 14 feet. >> Yes. >> It just needs to fill the gap quantity and fill in the gap to to serve as a buffer. >> I thought we were doing literal enforcement. Oh, that's that's where I was saying. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean,
>> the definition of what's there, >> if if there's if there's two mature trees that are fine and 12 to 14 ft above the ground, they're green, then then they're just planting something to fill the gap. >> I don't know the status of it,
>> but we Jose and I would have to work with them to uh achieve compliance. So if we uphold it, it then at this point turn goes into them and they can work with them to >> determine compliance
doesn't necessarily mean the plan just it's what they deem in compliance with the plan. >> Yeah. It doesn't it doesn't give distance >> this thing here. All it says 12 to 14.
Planet Oak on the center for separate but they say the 12 to 14 ft >> tall. Yeah. So >> I mean >> yeah do an assessment of existing conditions. >> Yeah.
>> And see to what extent if any um it's not serving the >> Yeah. There's no quantity of there's no exact >> but out of the gate I would I would review this as repair and replace. We up for a motion. >> What do we Any questions?
>> I'm good. >> So, we're voting in the affirmative. >> Yes. >> I will make a motion to >> Oh, I'm sorry. Before we do that, do I have to read these letters? >> No. >> Okay. >> You can wave the reading if you want.
I'll wave the reading of the letters as they're not relevant. There's no bill. >> A motion uh for the Windermir to >> uphold the request from Windermir Lane.
>> Nope. >> To uphold the building commissioner's >> determination. Positive. I thought the positive was going with them. >> Okay. >> You're gonna No, he's going to make a motion. Go for it. >> Make the motion. >> I make a motion to uphold the building
commissioner's determination. Um, dated >> always make an affirmative to the applicant. >> That's what I thought. That's what I Well, that's what I was trying to do. >> You make an affirmative to the applicant. >> The affirmative is his. The appeals are a little different. So I mean the
cleanest way is to do the motion as >> make an affirmative to the applicant and if we are supporting the building commissioner then we vote against >> okay what I thought but I could be I don't know I never wing it Danny you go for it. All right. So, this time I make
a motion to >> approve >> approve the Windermir Lane um appeal of the building commissioner's decision requiring their continued maintenance of the trees located on the Burm area of the property abuing 217 Princeton Street
in accordance with the previously approved 40B comprehensive permit. >> Second the motion. Anybody? Stephen second. Roll call vote. Danny, >> no. No >> George. >> No. >> Stephen
>> Glenn, how do you vote? >> No. >> That' be unanimous the building commissioner's um letter is uh stays upheld. >> Thank you. May we coordinate with the
building inspector to get more clarity in terms of the expectations? >> Yeah, you you'll have to meet with him. Yeah, we could do that >> from the meeting tonight. I got to be honest, that conclusion was a bit chaotic. I don't think we have a clear sense of the direction.
>> We just upheld. >> We just upheld his letter. So, >> right. But his letter says if such barrier no longer exists, which is a conditional. We're not there's no determination that the barrier does not exist. >> Yeah. So, I think you have to follow that up with right
>> his assessment. We just said we have filed his >> his letter. It's your responsibility to maintain the barrier. So if you go out there and make an assessment, if you need him to assist you in making that assessment that the barrier no longer exists per the conditions of the original bill, then you have to do what
is necessary to bring that barrier back. >> But the board upheld a conditional. So it says if it doesn't exist, then you have to maintain it, >> right? >> But we believe it exists. >> Well, then that's why we have a building. >> So I guess we'll need clarity, greater clarity from
>> from building commissioner. So, uh, Mr. Negron, I'm happy to set up a time to speak. >> Yes, sir. If you call me tomorrow, maybe we can schedule something for next week. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> All right, ladies and gentlemen, we will take a fiveinut
break, get some water, and then we will move on to the next application. One minute. 35 8:35 we will reser resume tonight's meeting. Our next application is five Frank Street and two Bison Street owners
Greg Stein requesting a variance for reduced lot area to create a buildable lot on two bison which is lot 22 and variances for dimensional relief to locate a proposed dwelling and any relief deemed necessary. Please state
your name and address for the record please. >> Good evening. Bruce Ringwall from Goldmith Preston and Ringwall 39 Main Street Air Mass. >> Okay. >> You ready for me to proceed? >> No, absolutely. >> Certainly. Good evening. Good evening,
board. Um, this site is and this application has three different parts. If it pleased the board, I I'd like to go through the first part and discuss that. And if we can proceed, then we'll go to the second and go from there. if
that makes sense. Um, this property and I'm looking at two different pieces. Oops, it's not up there. All right. This >> or the image. >> Yeah, the image is good. There you go. That's great. And if you could click on There you go.
Um, so two bison is that lot right on the very end of the Frank Street Bison and the other street across the end. I can't remember the name of it. I can't read it from here. Um, >> what does this have?
>> Yes, this is a development that was done in 1949. Um, prior to your current zoning, this lot is zoned RB uh with a 40,000 square foot zoning requirement.
Um, I've asked for a variance on this lot from not necessarily your zoning, but section six, uh, chapter 48, section six of the Mass General Law, which, um,
in 20 24, August of 2024, the state modified that law. Previously, non-conforming lots that were in same ownership had to be felt and dealt with as though they were one lot from a
zoning standpoint. And the law from 2024 um allowed for those lots to be separated. Um they had stipulations in that. One stipulation is they had to have 75 ft of frontage. Another stipulation is they
had to have 10,000 square feet of land area. They had to create a three-bedroom home and they had couldn't have more than 1,850 square ft of living area. They also
cannot be used as a temporary rental, but the idea is to create additional housing um to help with the Massachusetts need for housing and to allow for those things to occur. So, the
board may decide that um we're asking for relief from the 40,000 square feet, which is fine. Um this particular lot, and if I could ask Evan if you could maybe zoom out just a little bit on that
image for a moment. Perfect. Um, you can see here on that image that there are roughly 32 homes that have lot sizes that vary from around 7,200
to about 10,500. Um, the development that we're talking about um was the one that's on the south portion of that cluster and the northern portion was a a different development. Um
apparently the at some point in time the owner of the adjacent lot which is five um Frank Street and this lot had the same two lots in ownership and for many years they couldn't be separated. Um, we believe that there's an avenue now to
allow for them to be separated to allow to have a smaller home like those in the neighborhood. Um, a three-bedroom as is required under the zoning and not to be rented out um on a um short-term rental,
but could be rented on a long-term rental or it could be um even sold. And so that is our proposal. And if you go to the next exhibit, I think it is Evan.
Yes, perfect. So, this shows uh the lot as a separate lot. Um the property has been um established um with two de two tax records. Um as long as we know of um the prior owner
and and the and the current owner, um Mr. Stein has had that situation. Um, and if if you could go to exhibit, it's in the other package. Exhibit number four, I believe it is in the 8 and 1
half by 11 package. Yes, the one right above there. Oops. Oh, the the package above that. I'm sorry. The one to right there. Yeah. And jump down into No, you still got the
same one for some reason. Second item down. >> Yeah, it keeps going to that same one. >> Looks like there is a duplicate. >> Oh, okay. Well, the image that I was going to bring up is the 1949 uh subdivision, and it shows all the all
these small lots. Um, >> you want exhibit four, you said. >> What's that? >> What exhibit number was that? It's Yeah, it's in your packets there. I believe it's exhibit number four. That is correct. >> I think I have it here. >> Yeah.
And you know, so on this particular site, um, when we go for a variance, we know we have a hard rule to deal with. We have to deal with a little literal enforcement of the bylaw that involves a substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise, to the petitioner. Um, at this point in time there's the issue where there is a regulation or there is a regulation that this lot is just under 1,400 ft under what the level
is that the state is looking for currently uh to allow for lots to be separated from their other lot when they're owned in common ownership. Um this lot in here has circumstances relative to the shape of the lot and the
size of the lot. This was created in 49 um back when zoning allowed for this shape to occur and it is not the conditions of the whole RB zoning district. much of the RB zoning district
is um of 40,000 square foot lots or of uh some uh apartment housing or uh condominium housing that is also allowed within the district and has been over the years. We believe the desirable relief can be
granted on this without substantial detriment to public good and that as I mentioned there are 32 lots in this little cluster that are of very similar size right around the 8,000 square foot lot size and we're also not nullifying
or or substantially degregating from the intent or purpose of the law of the bylaw which and your intent and purpose are for good land use uh for housing and protection. ction of uh the area. So, here is a lot that is of the similar
size of the abuing lots. Um the state law is looking to create more housing. Um and this is an option that can occur. And in my application, we wrote that we highly recommend, should the board agree
with us, uh, that there be a condition imposed that it be a three-bedroom, that there not be any short-term rental. Um, and that it obviously has to be under the 1,850 ft of living area.
That's my argument for this portion of the application. >> Um, so you're asking for a variance So that you >> can separate. >> So that you can separate and apply under the 48 uh six. Right.
>> That is correct. >> Can we even do that? >> If I can clarify uh madame chair. So uh the applicant is coming under the 2024 housing act uh the amended housing act
section uh 10 48 section 10 which uh even if this parcel at the time of endorsement uh was endorsed uh in common ownership uh to meet the to the the standards that
the state set forth which is 10,000 square F feet, a minimum of 10,000 square feet, uh 75 ft frontage, and uh a house no less than three bedrooms just just for the part just for the part of
the size of the lot. Uh unfortunately, under that provision, under that amended uh uh the housing act, uh this this this parcel is not protected. >> Yeah. Because >> aren't we getting a it would be
requesting a variance from the state law, not from our zoning. >> So the state so so what the state is saying that in order for you to be protected or qualify for a buildable lot you need to have as a minimum 10,000
square feet 75 ft frontage. um this this lot unfortunately let's say the board will I don't know if that's feasible grant a variance for the lot but there are other conditions such as building coverage and far
yeah it says right here so if adjacent lots under common ownership shall not be treated as a single lot if at time of recording one conform to the exist existing requirements of frontage,
>> yard and depth which each such lot has no less than 10,000 square feet. >> Yeah. I I don't see how we can give a variance from a state law. >> I don't see where this is at. In the in the paragraph before that in section
six, it has the um the regulation of allowing for construction on a lot with 75 ft of frontage and 700 7,500 square ft, which this lot has, and meets. So,
alternatively to the guideline that we were just speaking of, it would be a variance from your 40,000 square foot to allow for a lot in excess of 7,500 square ft that this lot has and
then to allow for that then to um you know grant a variance from that from the 40,000 to the 7500. Given that in this neighborhood, this is the size of the lots. >> Do we have that 7500 reference anywhere?
>> It's in it's in my application >> in that referencing, so it says >> nonlos fit in the draw. >> Yeah. Any increase zoning laws may define, regulate non-conforming. An increase in area, frontage, yard width,
depth requirements, zoning ordinance or bylaw shall not apply to a lot for a single family residential use where at the time of recording common ownership already exists. >> I get the sense that the house is
already there. I think the biggest thing is the 10,000. Once once you hear that you has to meet the 10,000, >> it's it's over. We don't we don't have the authority to give a variance to
allow that >> under the state law. We ZBA doesn't have that authority. >> Any increase in area fringe with That's just cool. was recorded or endorsed. Just to simplify and clarify, Jose did
ask council informally. It doesn't meet the protection standards under the new law. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. So that that's settled. >> Okay. >> It does not meet the pro the byright protections under the new law. We didn't
ask council about whether the zoning board has authority to grant a variance to the state law. The state law doesn't make any mention of of zoning relief. That's an interesting question. Uh we could go back to council and ask
councel. Uh, or is the applicant saying you could treat it as a as a typical variance request the lot area? >> Yeah, >> which is fine. >> I just I just have a little comment. Do you ever think about building an ADU there instead of a house?
>> Um, yeah, but the ADU all these homes in the neighborhood are small in size and it would be a fairly small ADU from that standpoint. They don't want >> I mean so so I guess the argu if we don't they
don't meet the 10,000 you're saying now the argument is they're asking for just a general variance >> in lie of council in lie of us asking council the specific question as to whether a variance can be uh granted per the state law uh for the um the unre the
un the unmmergering. Uh if that's if that's not allowed, then it's then it would just be a regular variance from a lot area. >> So they're asking for two variant two variances. A variance to reduce lot area to create a buildable lot and a variance
for dimensional relief to locate proposed building. >> Is it on the same lot? So >> if I if I may, Madam Chair, that would be a special permit. Um, under your bylaw, you allow for a special permit
for reduction of setbacks, a 20% setback reduction. >> There is a variance, a third, a second variance that we ask for later on in F, which is not necessary. um we can downsize the building 129 square feet
and meet the 20% F and our coverage where we're we're like just barely 10% coverage under the 15% coverage. So those items are met um can be met. It's the issue of allowing for your 20%
setback uh that you allow for existing lots and to go from a 40,000 foot lot to a 8,600T lot where all of the lots in this area are of that similar size. >> But any other questions?
>> Yeah. So, oh yeah, actually not a question. It's for discussion later. >> You want to read some letters? >> I was going to Yeah, sure. I would love to read some uh from the
Department of Public Works reference to five Frank Street and Two Bison Road. DPW confirmed the location of the sewer stub. Sewer privilege fee for the sewer stub at Two Bison Lot 22 was also recorded to have been paid in full.
Uh, no increase to town of Chumsford sewer infrastructure shall be more than 500 gallons per day per CRM 15 title 5. Erosion control devices must retain the sediment on site. These must be
installed prior to any work or demolition. Number four, a driveway permit is required for the newly proposed driveway. applicant must contact DPW engineering division to coordinate.
Number five, consideration should be made to install roof drain dry wells that are equivalent to infiltrate roof runoff to manage on-site drainage. The property is located within aquafer protective zone 2. This is not a requirement for
approval. Any trees in town's right of way proposed to be removed will require a tree hearing and meeting with the tree warden prior to removal. >> Would you like me to respond or >> No. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> This is Board of Health. All right. The letter regarding the request for a variance for the reduced lot area to create a buildable lot at two Bison Street. proposed project is regard is located within the tone water resources high aquifer protection zone 2
and the state water resource protection zone 2 wellhead protection area. Accordingly, pursuant to Town of Chumsford general provisions chapter 2011 Board of Health Article 7, Groundwater Protection Zone, the applicant shall obtain approval from the
Chumsford Board of Health prior to the issuance of any permits or approvals necessary for development of the lot. The board of health's approval shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable groundwater and wellhead
protection requirements. Following the board of health approval under chapter 2011, any proposal for an on-site sewage disposal system shall be required separate review and approval under 310 CMR15 title 5, including
submission of engineering plan soil evaluations, pre-correlation testing, and the health department's disposal system construction permit application and inspection process due to the subject parcel containing only 8,69 9 square ft,
substantially less than the town's current minimum residential lot size requirement of 40,000 square ft. It is unclear whether sufficient area exists to accommodate a title 5 compliant sectic system reserve area and all
required setbacks from the property lines, structures, wells and other. Therefore, approval of the requested variance should not be constructed as a determination that the lot is suitable
for onsite sewage disposal system. In the event that this project is approved for connection to the municipal sewer system, the applicant shall still obtain approval from the Chelmsford Board of Health pursuant to chapter 2011 article 7 groundwater protection zone as
the property is located within the protected wellhead and aquafer recharge area. Sign Donna Greenwood, public health director. >> Have you been to the board of health or >> um not we would go if we needed if we got to that point. We're not opposing
the sub system into the sewer. Better as you read the betterments have already been paid. Um could be building department. >> The AC should be on. >> Do you know how to change snowflake?
Shelmsford Fire Department request for variance. Uh um the applicant shall file an E911 application through the town's 911 committee for the proposed building lots. any construction on the lot shall comply with all applicable codes including but not limited to
Massachusetts state building code Massachusetts fire prior prevention regulations and the shelter bylaws plans will be subject to review by this office as part of the building permitting process based on these conditions the oper office does not oppose plan
I respectfully request that this letter be incorporated board's approval process and entered into the public record signed Josh Abbott captain fire department >> on the butter letters. You can reference their name and whether they are for or against. >> Okay,
this is zoning board. This there's four butter letters attached to the agenda. >> And there is police have no comments. That's what it was. And North Chsford
Water have no comments. In addition to the four uh about letters attached to the agenda this evening, we received um two, one from um Benjamin and Sierra
and Frank Street. First one was the second Yes. >> Two more that were in favor. >> Those are those attached to the agenda. Did they come in before today?
>> Uh they came I think they came in this today or yesterday. Can't remember. I gave them to I emailed them to Becky. She responded to them. >> Yep. To Silva. >> Yep. There were two attached that were approved >> like >> you said you said >> I think the green
>> did you say western a >> there's there's four here >> six western came this evening >> okay I have and then I have five Frank >> two in green on the agenda are in support
so five Frank is not in support. >> There are two in support, two not in support, and then the two new ones that we received are not in support. >> I can't tell. >> Would it go to the public?
>> This one doesn't look like it's in support. So, we have a letter from uh your better Jordan Brewer by Frank Street. Um project says I reside at 5 Frank Street North
Tomes for Massachusetts and I'm writing to respectfully request that the board deny the requested variance for the reduced lot area by Frank Street. Pretty lengthy letter. So then I have an email from
Robert Wayne to Merida Avenue with um writing my uh my wife and I are very much against allowing the developer to set aside these lots. So against the application and then I have a letter from
I think this is Greg Dilva >> Dilva. >> That looks okay. >> It says Greg is okay. And I can't read his address. 10 >> same street as >> 10 Mildred Avenue. Okay.
Florida Avenue. I Greg explained I support the division of the land and the construction and construction a new house at AP26 lot 107-1. And then a letter from Frank and
Michelle Melvin at five Bison Street. We support our neighbor Greg towards obtaining a variance for the division of his land and construction of a new house. discuss that. Okay, I think that's all of them. Yep, already did that one. Okay, uh
we'll open it up to the public. If anyone has any questions, comments, or concerns about this matter, please step forward and state your name and address for the record. >> Hi, my name is Matt Robbins. I live at five Maroba a that's somewhere over that way but we
talk about how it's 10,000 square feet and we talk about how they has to have joint ownership right Greg has already sold one of the lots for 700 grand to me that you know joint ownership of these two parcels there is no joint ownership of two parcels one lot's already been sold and if you want to do this for
affordable housing that lot itself sold for 700 grand if you're going to put up a house that's bigger than that it's certainly not going to help affordable housing. Um, and I think too on top of that, it's a dangerous president for this neighborhood. Uh, I think we like what we have currently and like we don't
need any more traffic through that neighborhood. We have a lot of people who get lost on Drum Hill. I have an 18-month old kid. Nothing would scare me more if there was more cars in there not knowing what they're doing. Um, I just feel like there's there's already been financial gain. There's no hardship
here. and you're not going to help anybody out by selling a house for eight or $900,000. So, I don't see the point in even considering this, but that's just me. >> Thank you. >> Hi. >> I don't forget anything. Uh, my name is
David Scarfo and I live at 6 Frank Street. Um, I respectfully ask the board to deny the requested variances. Um, I understand there are a variety of lot sizes in the neighborhood. Um, however, I don't believe the existence of older
or non-conforming lots uh by itself is it a good enough reason to create another one. Um, the applicant is asking the board to approve multiple variances to create a new buildable lot. In my view, the zoning bylaw exists to guide future development and and exceptions
should be granted only when they are truly warranted. Um, I'm concerned about approving this request. I am concerned uh that this request being approved would allow a level of development that current zoning uh does not otherwise permit and could encourage similar
requests to be in the future. I just respectfully appreciate the board's time uh and their due diligence and ask the board to uphold the intent of the zoning bylaw and deny the requested variances. Thank you. Thank you.
Good evening board. Uh Joshua Kaine for Frank Street. Um I have another letter here from Jess Matnazki 8 Western a she did submit it but it doesn't seem like you guys have it. So um we'll make sure that you guys have it. So you have another but she was also in opposition to it. Um and we've talked to some other neighbors who weren't able to make it
here tonight who are also in opposition. Um you know as we see it it's it's it's a nice neighborhood. It's small and it seems like the variance that would really need to be required would be go from 40,000 down to 8,000 some odd. Um that seems like a really significant variance. Um and would really be tough I
think for the town to continue to do that and and and be able to stuff these small houses in there. Um and also it's maybe hard to tell, but I mean where the the house at Five Strength Street is currently like this house will be maybe 20 feet and they'll be looking directly at each other. Um, so I really feel bad
for that that person that just bought that house to be staring directly into somebody else's house um not even maybe 20 feet in front of them. Um, and and I just don't think that we can necessarily need that in their neighborhood. So, thank you. Day from six Milda Avenue. Uh
I'm one of the oldest living relatives of this neighborhood and been there since 1980. Uh in that 40ome years, uh every home uh he's only talking about the little cluster of the existing ones that were all built in the 50s. Uh all the rest of
the homes, as you can see on them, all the other ones have a budding larger lot. Okay? So it's not like well because we got this little cluster that was built in the 50s right after World War II that all of a sudden uh you know everything should just follow it as was
mentioned by the building inspector correctly that you know the 10,000 thing and again whether the board follows that recommendation from the state about 10,000 ft but considering something this small uh is
a little ludicrous and as I said, "Every other house that's been built since I moved in there on these abuing streets has met the 40,000 square ft." Whether it was Western A, whether it was Frank Street, whether it was the around the curve and whatever. If you look at the
outside fringes of the loops, you'll see large lots, large lots, large lots, lots. So, this neighborhood isn't just, oh, a bunch of whole little small houses. It it it isn't. And also too as mentioned about for those that have the
young children and whatever um since the 50s uh when they and in in 1963 I think is when they changed the zoning to RB. So, it's not like a short period of time that this 40,000 square feet uh has
been in play and that these lots that that are lumped together considered. I myself, okay, have a property at six Milda. I have the real lot behind me and I also bought the two other lots on both sides, okay, so that no one could literally
build right on top of my yard. Okay. Uh the idea is it it is an aqua protection area and whatever it has problems water supply and all the other kinds of things and further development uh on the on on the idea of these sub substandard lots
is well it wasn't the intent and you look at the entire neighborhood other than modifications or 40bs or whatever else that have occurred in the area. we've been following since ' 63, okay, the 40,000 square foot lots. And I don't
see any reason for one singular lot uh to be somehow the exception to the exception to the exception to the exception kind of thing that's being proposed. So, yes, we're we're definitely against it. And when I bought the lot, it was non-conforming. when I
bought the other lots that went with it for a buffer zone around it. I'm not looking to build future homes on those lots. I'm not going to be coming back and say, "Oh, well, if you're going to be building all these small lots, I guess I I should get on the line, whatever." That wasn't the intent. The
intent is a small neighborhood. It's a very, very close neighborhood. everything that was built since 1980 till now, which was quite a few lots, at least a dozen plus, okay, are large lots, okay, and and complied with it.
And by the way, a lot of those properties way back when were a combination of multiple little lots and they put a number of them together and came out with the appropriate in amount of square footage. So, want to go on record to say that no, I'm not in favor of it. And as also mentioned,
yes, it's potentially opening up Pandora's box in regards to the small lots. And as I said, as mentioned by uh Mr. Roy Ruiz, uh that you know, the state says 10,000 is that minimum that you should consider the fact of making
waiverss and we're not even at at that point either. So, I I I agree with the building inspector's interpretation, and I think he, as was mentioned, that there's sort of an informal thing from the attorney saying, uh, I don't think it's, uh, something that you can just
wave, uh, as a as a board of appeals. So, uh, I I think we're on the right track if this this gets turned down. So, thank you. Appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? Any questions from the board? >> Um, at this point
I would think we'd like to withdraw without prejudice at this point. >> Okay. >> A motion to accept that. You'll follow that up with an email to to Becky. Okay. Who would like to make a motion?
>> Um I'm I motion that the zoning board accept the withdrawal without prejudice for five Frank Street and two Bison Street. >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Peter.
>> Roll call vote. How do you vote, Danny? >> Yes. >> Charlie. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Unanimous. The petition has been withdrawn. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you for your time. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> They tied. >> No way. >> He was going to try to ask. >> Okay. >> Good night. >> Thank you. Have a good night. All right. Next on the agenda,
20 Mount Auburn Street owner Stephen Owlette requesting an after the fact variance to keep and maintain an existing structure within the front yard setback and the reduction to the front yard setback requirement for an existing unpermitted retaining wall and any other
relief deemed necessary. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Good evening, madam chairman, members of the board. My name is John Galant from Galant and Irvin and Chumsford. I represent the uh the applicant Steven who's also here this evening. I have
some additional photographs to present enough copies but >> we can share. >> Charlie, we always share. >> I'm too blind to share. A good chair is out of a great >> As stated in our application, we're
looking for a variance from the frontage requirements of the bylaw for the retaining wall that was constructed by Mr. Ullet. Mr. Le purchased this property in 2017. hear me? In 2017, it did substantial renovations to the street, to the
roadway, to the property, including u but not limited to taking the utilities down and running them underground, running granite curbing along the area. And the town engineering department actually asked him to remove the circle
that is set forth on the plan that abuts his lot. So, the circle doesn't exist. The roadway as constructed is reflected on the plan. That's significant because it makes this lot unique for purposes of what we're requesting this relief for. This retaining wall that's constructed on his land replaced an existing one
that was there when he purchased the property. I have photographs of that here. Some of the abutters have claimed that it wasn't there, but it clearly was. It was there beyond a burm. So, you wouldn't see it from the roadway like you can't see this from the roadway. But the the varants exist because the the
the level of the wall is above four feet. You can construct a fence in that area without restriction with a permit. Once you get a retaining wall, it's above four feet. It's considered a structure, a house, and then you need to comply with the setback requirements of the bylaw.
>> I'm sorry. You said you don't need a a permit for a fence without restriction. Is that what you just said? >> No. No. I said you do. You can get a permit for a fence. You can put a fence there as opposed to retaining wall. >> He replaced an existing retaining wall. copy of that retaining wall or a picture of the retaining wall that he replaced
is in the last two photographs or the la second to last photograph in the packet that I submitted. This particular wall that he constructed is not complete. I know that some of the butters may have some concerns that that that's what it's going to look like, but that's not what he intended to look like. The circle
that's set forth on the plan, is the plan up? Yes. The circle that's on the plan shows the outer boundaries of his lot, but not the street. This actual retaining wall is somewhat it's it's 40 to 50 feet from the roadway. Usually
when you're looking for a variance from a frontage requirement, you're measuring from the edge of the lot, which is the edge of the roadway. In this particular case, the culde-sac or the circle has doesn't exist. It's not there. The engineering department of the town had my client apply for a permit to remove
this circle. So now that doesn't exist and the roadway and the driveway go all the way up and Mount and Mount Auburn Street is as reflected on the plan. If you go from the roadway, this retaining wall complies in every respect with the bylaw if that was his lot line. But you
don't. According to literal interpretation of the bylaw, you measure from his lot line as opposed to the roadway. and his lot line based upon the original plan is closer because of the circle that was originally designed for this roadway. The problem is is that by
replacing that retaining wall and having it over four feet and it considered to be a structure because of of the the the height of it in certain places, not all places, it it needs a variance from the front requirement of the bylaw. The plan
shows how close it is to the lot line. Um, not the roadway. If you go from the roadway at its closest, it's over 30 ft, which is at the the beginning of Mount Auburn, but that can't be viewed from Mont Auburn. Um, this according if you
look at the photographs that I've submitted, they kind of tell you a lot about u the improvements that my clients made to the property and how it looks. The photograph, the second page of the attachment shows his lot from the
street. You cannot see the retaining wall from that area, from that lot. You can see the substantial vegetation and trees that he's put all over the lot as well as the granite curbing that he's installed throughout his property all the way up through the roadway.
Second parag second is on the right side of his driveway. Those are all of the trees and boxwoods and that he's planted that provide screening to anybody to his left his depending right if you're looking at the property from the roadway. Um the third photograph is a
picture from the roadway itself very front of the roadway showing the burm and the vegetation. Again the retaining wall is not visible from the roadway from directly to the front. There is no house directly across from him and you can't and it's not visible for any house to the left or to the right or across
the street. This retaining wall is not visible. The only time it is visible if you continue to flip through the photographs that I've submitted. I think it's the uh fifth photograph shows the level of the retaining wall up through
>> the this is not that's not the photographs but that doesn't really show but on the photo in the photographs I submitted today it shows that the area and the height of the retaining wall at the very front of the property at its closest point is only a couple of feet high. It's not over four feet but at its
highest at its highest at the corner it certainly is. It's It's definitely above that area. You'll see in in photograph six is the area looking back from his yard to the retaining wall that was constructed. So, we could put a family swing set there and more level off his yard than exist. When he purchased the
property, it had a a large acceleration or um escalation up to his driveway. His driveway was much steeper than it is now. He's cut it down. It's much safer. And he's put the granite curving in there. This retaining wall was constructed for several reasons. first
to give him some privacy and what he intended to do uh prior to receiving a letter from the building department was to face this lot this stone wall uh with stones. I've attached at the end of this a copy of his pool area and the pool
property and the the structures that exist in the back of his lot that you can see that they're all faced with stone or a uh I don't know what you call that. It's a veneer of stone that you put on it. He he that's what he intended to do to this wallway to this construction wall before he received the
letter from the building department is to finish it off nice and well as to put a row of boxwoods up the up the driveway uh and up along the thing to further screen it even though you can't see it. Um, in this particular case, because of
the the dimension and shape of his lot and the front, he needs a frontage requirement because it's 26.1 ft in one area and 22.1 ft from the edge of his lot in another area. Um, again, my client believes that the shape of his
lot, the topography of the land is different than every lot in the subdivision. No other lot along Auburn Street has the same condition. If this area of the circle was part of his lot, this this road this retaining well be would be fully compliant with the bylaws
because it's set back more than 50 feet from the roadway. And if his and that was part of his lot, it would be more than 50 feet from his lot line. But it's not because that was part of the original design that was included within the roadway itself. Um, we believe that
he spent considerable amount of money re finishing his lot and doing a great job in terms of how the lot looks and the plantings of his lot, his pool area, as well as this retaining wall. He spent over close to $35,000 between 30 and 35 constructing this area and grading this
area to look the way it does. and he's and he intends if the board permits him to keep it the way it is to veneer face it with a stone and put Buckwood's front trees in front of it to make it even look better than it does now. Um we we we believe that relief can be granted
here without dergating from the intent and purpose of the bylaw. We believe that the shape of the lot, the topography of the lot that exists is unique. The area of his burm that's constructed in the front of his lot also existed on his lot at the time he brought it. And that's unique. It
doesn't exist on this roadway or in this zoning district other than his lot. It's depicted on the two last photographs that I've submitted. Shows that that burm area was there and the the retaining wall was there when he purchased it. Um the abutters have
claimed that it wasn't, but it was. They just couldn't see it because it's where it is depicted on his lot back from the roadway. Those are the two things. That's the retaining wall that was there, but it was a retaining wall built of uh boulders, big boulders and stones
as opposed to a concrete one, which is what's there now. >> Do you know the dimensions of that that piece of that that retaining wall right there that's coming off of the uh >> I don't know the dimensions. I don't know if my client has an idea of it. He can give you an idea of the size of it. >> Is there any way you can go on the
Google maps to show the history like from the street view? You cannot see the wall any from any of the yearers. You cannot see the wall from the roadway except when if you're at the very base of his driveway. On the pictures that I've submitted, I did take a picture
that shows the wall >> as if you're at the base of his driveway. On the roadway, it's uh one, two, three, four. >> Was that coming from the west? Was that coming from the west? Um >> it's uh it's like the sixth or seventh photograph in this one here.
That's taken from the base of his road looking to the left up his property. So that and from that view it's visible from every other view. It's not >> it's not a view from view from the abuing lot to the left. It's not view from across the street. It's not a view from from left hand. >> You go to if you drop and the house is
on the right. >> If you um just go to street view, drop the person on the bottom right. Again, we we our position in this case is that >> up and drop them right in front of the house >> had not been for the shape of his lot and topography of this roadway as as approved as Mount Ar
this this retaining wall be fully compliant. He merely replaced it again he replaced it with a bigger concrete wall >> for for reasons for his family and for reasons that was privacy and for structure. He didn't want to put up a fence that's going to derate over a period of time. This will not and it
will look much nicer than it does now if he's permitted to finish it by this the stone finish and the the plantings of vegetation in front of it. Um again >> facing the wrong way. >> There we go. >> The topography and size of the lot in
his in this area is unique. There is no other lot with that circle there that would that would be necessary to measure the frontage from the literal enforcement of the bylaw. little enforcement of the B would cause him substantial hardship having to take this wall down and and and
would be extremely cost costly and it cost him an over $30,000 to construct it to begin with. Uh relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent
and the purpose of the bylaw. Um I've seen a couple of of objections that were filed by Abutters relative to this. I don't know if they were objections. They one of them is one of them is not clear, but they claim that this was a gradual slope and it wasn't that. That's that's
not true based upon the photographs that I've submitted. There was an retaining wall there. There was a burm there that existed from the roadway. He merely replaced it with a a bigger retaining wall that exists now. Had it not been for this circle. And I should say to the to the board, it was the town engineer
that asked him. He pulled a permit regarding that circle so that he could struct this the way it was. The town engineer asked him to pull a permit because the town didn't want to maintain that circle on Mount Pleasant on Mount Auburn Street and to make it a straight roadway and to put granite curbing all
along there, which he did at his expense. He put the utilities all underground at his expense. He put all all the vegetation underground at his expense and and he did all of that and he also had to maintain some area for neighbors and access. He did all of that at his expense without any difficulty.
But it was the town engineering department that asked him to do that. Again, if that area was a part of his lot, this this wall would be fully compliant. >> You want to say something? >> Yes. >> Steve Wlette, 20 mount Auburn Street.
So, I purchased this house in 2017. Uh, I basically gutted the existing house that was there and it was too far gone structurally. So, I built myself a new house. Uh, basically what I did is the original driveway was too steep. So, I
moved my driveway over to what you see now. When I excavated my driveway, it was all boulders and I basically left the boulders there for my landscaping. My wall is not retaining more than four
feet of material. So I only have four feet of material whole on the back side of that wall. If you look at one of the pictures that shows my actual front yard, what I was trying to do with this is have a 4ft wall and then have my rest
privacy so I could veneer it, stone it, and give myself some uh privacy as well. Um, again, I thought as long as it wasn't structurally holding up 4 feet of material, I was good with it. Um, I
didn't want to put a fence. I didn't want to do a 4ft wall and then put a fence on it because fence fences deteriorate over time. And if you walk my property, I have stone work everywhere. Um, again, I'm not going to leave the wall looking like concrete. If
you guys allow me to uh keep this, I'm going to veneer it, put boxwoods, so you're really not going to see that much of the wall. >> Thank you. >> How how big was that retaining wall that comes off the house?
That small retaining wall before all the uh >> heating the existing boulder wall. >> This one right here. >> Can I >> come? Yep. Come on up. Which I'm assuming is the one you're saying that was pre-existing. >> Yeah. So this when I did my driveway
iron earth my whole front yard. So you see where this machine is up here. >> That was all ledge and all material. So when I put my driveway in I unearthed the stuff. >> Okay. >> Basically what I did is my telephone
pole was on one of my neighbors properties. Uh-huh. >> I had a discussion with them and told them I would remove the telephone pole from their property. And basically what I did is I went all through here to my telephone pole and put all my electric on the ground. >> Okay.
>> So, by doing all that, I I took my yard and created it. So, if you look at the picture, you can see what my yard looks like now. >> Yep. >> It's No, the other the other one. >> Yep.
So, so basically my electric now I ran basically underneath my ground when I moved everything and the whole purpose again for this is to give myself some privacy and uh instead of doing a fence I ended up doing
>> so again this is this is the but this is the pre-existing retaining wall you're referring to. Yes. >> No no no no. So there's no >> because you said there was a pre-existing retaining wall. >> No. So when I cut my driveway in, this is all ledge. When I excavated, this is
the stuff that was basically there holding it up. >> Okay. >> Because originally this was all material. And if you look at the original picture, do you have the original >> driveway? >> Well, so pull it up on the last photograph they have. >> We we were just looking up on Google on
the Google maps. >> So if you look at if you look at where the driveway was, >> you know, now my driveway is over here. Okay. So, you cut it wall. Where where is that pre? Because this is where the new wall is, right? >> Yeah. The new wall is basically right in
line with this. >> Okay. So, where's the pre-existing retaining wall that you were referring to? >> It's it's the boulders that were there when I had an earthqu. >> So, they can't see the retaining wall. No one can see a retaining wall. >> No, no, no. Basically what it is was was just all the boulders that were there.
When I cut my driveway in and I cut my driveway in to where it is now, so it's not as steep. I unearthed all these and I used them as the retaining wall. I put a burm here and I put our provides on top of it to try to give myself some privacy. >> So you built this up as well.
>> Correct. >> You did build this up. >> When you bought the house in 2017, there was no retaining wall. >> No, no, no. Well, no, there wasn't a wall there. Jamie, look at you can see right up there. >> So, where this machine is, the original grade was probably a few feet higher
than this. So, basically what I did is I made I put abide here and then I went along my property and built a big burn. When I did my electric, I cut everything out and I basically moved it. So, my yard, my front yard is bigger.
So when when you say that when the when your abs say there was no pre-existing >> retaining wall >> retaining wall and you said >> there was you said there was >> I said there was boulders there that we acted the >> the reason why the boulders were there is when I originally did my
infrastructure I unearthed them and dug them up and those basically were the retaining wall for when I cut my driveway. >> Okay. So, >> but from a layman's term, >> if I'm I'm I'm a I'm I'm not a landscaper. I don't know construction.
From a layman's perspective as your neighbor, >> if I were to say there was not a pre-existing retaining wall, would that be a true statement? >> Yes. >> Yeah. There wasn't a build retaining wall there, correct? >> There were boulders there. >> Any other questions to the board?
>> So, a building permit was never pulled for the struct for the wall. >> Correct. So there was no structural >> was >> because your understanding was no it wasn't holding more than four feet >> of material was it using it as a wall fence because I didn't want to put a
fence up so I figured I was good and I I should have talked to >> a fence and you don't think there's a height restriction for a fence? >> I think it's seven feet for a fence I think if >> and how tall is your brick your concrete wall. So right there the highest point is 97.
>> So you don't think but so if you you're using even even if you're using it as a fence at 97 >> still above >> if I do a 4ft wall and I can do another seven feet then yeah I'd be close to it.
>> Again there's the only reason why there's a setback issue is because it's from the lot line itself as opposed to the roadway. It's It's within 40 ft. >> A setback issue, is it not? It's an unpermitted structure. >> Correct. >> That's that's it's called a structure
because it's over four feet. Yes. >> Right. Yeah. >> Unpermitted. Yeah. >> That I think that's our biggest issue. >> No matter where you put it, if you put it in your backyard more than 40 feet away from the >> We've had pre We've had other we've had the petition. >> It still has the same problem. Correct. Yes. Yes, it would still need a building
per would have needed a building permit at that point >> which he applied for >> for the after Jose I had a discussion with them. I filled out did the permit. I had to get a surveyor on board to come
survey and I had to get an engineer to come. So I filled the permit out after I had the discussion. >> And where's that stand? >> That permit was denied immediately. because
>> because of the violation. Uh so we have two things here. One is the building permit. The other one is a zoning. Uh can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So we have two situations here. One is a building permit. In the building code, a retaining wall is
deemed as a structure uh uh four feet from the top of the wall to the bottom of the footing. So that's from the bottom of the footing. In our bylaws, a structure is uh any retaining wall over four feet.
>> The unfortunately uh the issue here is that the house itself is already almost is only 5t short from the maximum uh front yard. So in the bylaws 195 Can
you hear me? >> Yep. Y >> I'm sorry. on the bylaw 19511 specifically state that you cannot put a a structure in front of the in the front yard um if it's greater than 4 feet.
So it is unfortunate that we found out uh after the fact the when we responded to the neighbor's concern the wall was already up. Um, >> so it's too tall and it's in the front
yard in front of another structure. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> So, we're not dealing with the building building permit issue tonight. We didn't ask for relief of that in our relief. We just asked for the variance because that was one of the reasons for the denial. We can go back to the building department and get this wall engineered
and discuss the issue of the permit for him afterwards. But the I guess the question here is well if you had known that that was the front setback and you known that that was a structure you wouldn't have built it there. >> Well I after before the before
>> again I I should have had the conversation I didn't I anything over four feet any if I do something over four feet I'm retaining four feet of material it's it's considered structural I'm not retaining 4T of material because I'm using it as a fence as well.
>> Yeah. No. >> And I did that so I could vaner with stone and it's it's my privacy. >> Yeah. And I but I get I get that. But the problem for me is the with the variance the uniqueness was self-induced.
You like you >> what is your argument for the variance? Because you know the three this one of three requirements for the variance. So what is your argument for your variance approval? Well, I I made the argument in my in my presentation, and that is that this lot is unique in its in its
topography and in its shape. It's the only lot in this area that has the the frontage area with a circle in front of it that doesn't exist. And and the the elevation of this lot that originally exists was much higher, much steeper than than what existed beforehand. So, this lot is different than every other
lot on that street and for that matter in that zoning district. There's no other lot that has that that that I don't know, for lack of a better word, it's not a culde-sac, but it's a circle that that is not there. >> And that's the problem. If the circle isn't constructed, his his retaining
wall is fully compliant in terms of the frontage requirements >> and it would just need a building permit. >> Front of the house though. Yeah, it's so again uh the and before I forget, I want to uh distinguish what is a fence and
what is a retaining wall. In our town, we don't have any uh bylaws restricting somebody on a fence regarding the height of the fence. So, somebody can put uh after seven feet, you get a permit for
the fence, >> but you are not restricted if you go seven and a half feet or eight feet. A >> you just need a permit. >> You just need a permit. A a retaining wall like this one is defined in the building code. It is also defined in our
bylaws as a structure and and uh I kind of forgot his qu his comment. Uh attorney gallon if you don't mind. I think you say something about not needing a permit for >> No, no, no. My comment was that this is only the discussion of the frontage, the
funage requirement of the bylaw, which is what we're seeking the variance for. We're not dealing with the building permit issue of the structure at this point. >> So, we have two things here. One is a violation to 1981, which is the the definition of a structure based on that
bylaw. And then you have the front yard definition as well that prohibit structures greater than four feet being in front of in the front yard of the house which is what happened here. If this hole has been less than
uh four feet in the front yard, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be a violation because it's not it's not the definition say four feet or greater. So I just want to clarify because I'm I'm I'm 5'4 and I I was at I was at the house with Mr.
Olette and what is the height of this wall at the highest point? 9 foot7 >> 9 foot7 from the top to the bottom footing >> very corner >> that you can see from the big picture >> and that's from the at the footing bottom of the >> is it to the footing or is that just to the exposed >> visible that's that's visible wall 97
>> so it goes deeper >> there's a footing underneath >> so that would be uh 10 10 ft >> the height is in includes the footing okay so we're talking over 10 feet >> okay >> anything under over six feet it have to be engineered by a structural engineer
and So there is a lot of variables here. Uh but the I think the most critical one is really that the house is already 5T short from the front yard and now the wall itself exceed that by the linear footage from the corner
>> when you I'm sorry you said the the house is short 5t. So the house if you look at the certified plot plan that it was provided uh the uh father the father uh end of the wall the little jug there
is 40 45 ft to the radius >> yes it's 458 from line >> there shouldn't be any issue >> yeah I I don't mean I don't think he means short in the sense of >> you're missing it. Short as in you're you're not below >> that you so the house is already uh if
you look at it the way it is on on this pl on this certified >> inches to play with. So anything past the house would encroach on your setback is what I think he's trying to say. >> Yeah. >> It's not a typical front yard setback violation.
19511 says that you you cannot have any structures between the front of your house and the street line. That's front yard area. That's what we're dealing with here. Not a traditional front yard setback of 40 ft. >> So the whole you can't put a shed in your front yard.
>> Correct. Correct. You can't We the zoning boys dealt with this in the past with pools on corner lots, garages can't be in front yards. >> Uh >> no structures, right? Okay.
>> Yep. Is there uh >> I don't I don't have any letters. I don't think any anyone in the audience would like to uh speak uh on this matter. Please come to the podium. State your name and uh address. >> No.
Madam Chairman, for the record, uh my name is attorney Steven Lentini and I represent one of the abutters who's Donald McDonald and um his wife who's not here tonight because she isn't doing well and they live at 268 Rangeway Road
in Bill Ricka, but they own the abiding piece of property. It's a sliver of property which right here. >> Okay. >> Wow. >> And then it's still around. >> And primarily Donald just came to see me
this week with regard to this hearing. So kind of short notice for me and I think he's had his issues with his neighbor here during the construction process. And I know you've got letters from some of the neighbors with regard
to the aesthetics and the history here with regard to the retaining wall. Obviously, Mr. McDonald doesn't live there, so he's not impacted by the visuals of the retaining wall. We're not going to get into that, but he is impacted
by the Culus Act. That's why he came to see me. And I was interested to see when attorney Galant was using as part of the hardship the issue with regard to the culde-sac now being all landscaped
and so forth. And when Donald came to see me, I thought that was unusual when he showed me the photographs and then I took a ride out there to look at it as well. I'm just going to share this with the board. While he's passing that out, Evan, that
circle, is that town property though? >> It still remains property. >> Still remains town property. That's what I want to share. >> Okay, >> that digging deep into the records of the town of Chelmsford, but the first sheet that you see there is the original
subdivision plan. It's a four sheet subdivision, but it was created in 1965. So, that's the first sheet that doesn't show Mount uh Auburn Street. The second sheet which is labeled sheet I'm losing
all my sheets here. The the fourth sheet is sheet 404 where you see the culdeac with Mount Ain Street and what was then at the end of the culdeac lot number 39 which was the larger lot which now is
the bulk of lot 39A which uh the petitioner owns. Uh later in 1978, Mount Aubin Street was continued and a new subdivision was created off of that.
That's the 1978 plan, which is the second plan there, which is uh just a plan for Joseph Johnston, which created a bunch of lots to the rear. But those are subdivision plans approved by the
town. So those are public ways. And then you see the last form a plan which clearly labels the fact that Mount Auburn Street is a public way in the town of Chelford. that created lot 39A
which is where the petitioner's home is now in the show the earlier home that was there that he had torn down uh when he bought the lot in 2017 and where his new home is located 39B
is the lot that Mr. McDonald bought with his wife Phyllis in 1998 which he uses to access his land behind. And then lot 14, the abuing lot is the new lot. And that, excuse me, the lot in
that new subdivision, that second subdivision from 1978. And then the last plan is the existing conditions plan. That's the subject before you born here tonight.
And I understand what he's saying and I I still find it unusual that a DPW director gets to tell an individual petitioner that he can tear up a public way and
basically take de facto ownership of it, which is essentially what I see that he's done by landscaping it, putting shrubberies. When I was out there the other night, I saw his irrigation system seemed to be working within that public
way, which is still in most communities and I would assume in Chelmsford too, it takes town meeting action to discontinue a public way and then that public way would be seated to the ownership of the
abuing owners. But that public that's a public way right now that's town of Chumsford ownership. So to use that as part of your hardship and the unique qualities of your lot. When you look at that asbuilt plan or
existing conditions plan that you have in front of you tonight and it's labeling landscape area, landscape area, landscape area. All that landscaping being done by the petitioner on land owned by the town of Chelmsford. all and you have all the nice pretty
photographs. He obviously has invested a lot of money into it and like I said, he's taken de facto ownership of it. But that's town owned property that's impacting my client's access to it from what my client has told me since he's
owned it since 1998. Some of the neighbors that's an area where children in the neighborhood used to ride over the paved portion. and it was a nice safe area to ride their bicycles when they're learning to ride their bikes and so forth. So
maybe Mr. Balansky can tell us if that's a tradition here in Chelmsford that the DPW director gets to make unilateral decisions about when people can tear up public ways and use and basically seed ownership to individual property owners.
You mentioned that you have something from the DPW. I'm not entirely surprised by that. I don't know how long ago it was. Um I don't have any direct knowledge or involvement in that, but I'm not
entirely surprised. >> I mean, my >> it's baffling to me that would never happen. >> Yeah. Okay. >> From my my experience. >> Okay. >> Aside from that, I have some photographs, too. And again, I mentioned
that there's been some goings on between my client and other council. >> Yeah. Other other council has has written not me. My client has other just not
comfortable environment. pass it down. There's been serious detriment on the property line with regard to some of the work along the edge which has seriously jeopardized the border.
So, you've got some uh I'd like to call it a retaining wall, but it's really >> just compromising the edge of my client's property to the edge of the petitioner's property. and there's been a constant issue of dumping debris and
so forth onto his property, but that's I know that's not the jurisdiction of this board and that's a private matter between our clients, but what's going on in the culdeac does impact my client in his ability to you know access his
property conveniently. >> Okay. Did if he's did he have let him finish if he had anything else? >> I'll see the microphone to try. >> Okay. >> We want to make it clear in no way are we eliminating Mr. McDonald's rights to
his property or access to his property. My client cooperated with Mr. McDonald when he was building his house to build him an access way to his property to make sure that he maintained that that circle while doesn't exist. He pulled a permit from the town to actually do the work he did. doesn't eliminate it as a
public way or a street and doesn't eliminate his access to his lot. And my client never intended to do that. It it the fact of the matter is that the the roadway isn't constructed of that little circle isn't, but his access and his rights to his access and his public way still exists. It's not affected by has
nothing to do with the retaining wall, but it has it's not affected by my client's property. >> Wait, do you know what year he uh converted that circle to landscape? >> I think it was 2018 >> 18. Do you have like did you submit something that shows you have you you
>> No, I No, that was going to be an issue tonight. But we have a permit's on record at the town. Well, >> they pulled the permit to do that. >> Not not the permit. >> You pulled a permit to do that to assume. >> Yes. >> So, I had uh John Nunan and McDow did
all the engineering for my property. >> I basically uh went to engineering and engineering told me the cult supposed to disappear when that road went through. And the original contractor that did the
project never removed that circle. So, I was informed that if I do what I'm doing, I pulled a permit. He said, "It's one less thing we have to maintain." I asked John Nan, "Do I go in front of the town and try to acquire the piece?" He
said, "Just leave it alone. Plant some grass and some trees and and call it a day." So, that's what I did. But it doesn't eliminate Mr. McDonald's rights to the access and that access way. He did build it when he constructed this property. >> Conversations and I made him an access
area to get in there. >> That's what that access is where the cones are. >> Out of curiosity and no bearing on this petition, just just out of curiosity, have you tried to um ascertain ownership of that piece or move your property line? I >> I think this is going to be the next
step. >> Okay. >> Just out of curiosity. Okay. So you I do you I guess the question is do we have anything in writing? >> I I don't I don't know if it's relative at any point because his property line is still where it is regardless of he
owns it or doesn't own it. I mean it's not that's not in front of us. >> I think it does because the argument he's making is it's unique because of that. >> That's the argument they're making. They're saying that the the road >> property line is his property line. >> No, no, I know. He's making the argument
for the variance that because they moved the proper the the front yard the all that road away from the front line now it makes it unique because >> No, no, no. He's saying it's unique because the circle is there on the map.
>> Can we just ask him what his argument is since we have different >> You're saying it's unique because the circle is there by your property line by definition. Correct. >> I think so. >> Yeah. That's where it makes his >> sense. My argument of uniqueness rel relates to the topography of the of the land to begin with based upon the
elevation from the roadway up to the houseway >> which he changed. Correct. >> Yes. But as existed when he purchased the property as well as the shape of the lot and the actual construction of the roadway which is where the roadway actually is and this this circle that
>> What about the shape of the lot are you referring to that makes it unique? Well, it's the uh the uh the front area that actually it shows there as part of a roadway, which is not >> But he made it not part of the roadway. >> No, we didn't.
>> We pulled the permit from the town to do the work in that area. That's what we did. It's still part of the roadway. >> Danny, his property line did not move and that still impacts where his setback is dictated. >> Yes, exactly. Which is why we need the variance it unique
>> if it's if we own that land which we're not proposing to do that right now but if we did then then this this retaining wall would be more than >> would be >> 50 ft or more from the front area of the lot. Wait a second more to it.
>> There's two there's two things in >> within the height of the wall in front of the house. >> Yes. >> The height of the wall in front of the house. >> That's a different >> Yes. That's a So there's two. It's not just about where the lot lines up. >> We're stating that the property is
unique because of the topography >> and the shape of the lot. >> And what the shape the that half circle and is that what makes it unique or >> No, the fact that that >> outside of that it's a rectangle, right? >> The fact that that that of the existing
conditions of the lot, the fact that it shows that area that hasn't isn't actually there. that if the roadway as constructed on Mount Aruburn Street is shown on the plan, we're 50 feet or more from the actual roadway. >> But you >> which is what the we're dealing with a
frontage requirement from the front of the lot. That's what we're dealing with here. We don't have a roadway that goes along that culde-sac along that circle area. We don't have any houses along that area because it doesn't exist. And according to the engineering department, when they extended the roadway, it was
supposed to go away. That's the issue. So now we have a lot that has that area that really doesn't exist. >> Also a structure in front of the home. >> Yes. >> Right Jose which is the retaining wall. Now the letter we got from Jose was you need a frontage variance for the wall
>> wasn't we need something other the other relief is different than the variance relief. >> You can still use the roadway >> but but the the argument >> still use the roadway. >> The argument for the whole variance is that >> and then can he still use >> who use the road? I use the roadway >> to for point of measurement. You're
saying you're supposed to use the roadway as point of measurement. >> You can't. >> No, no, you're not supposed to. Usually the property line goes up to the roadway within uh within a 15 or 10 foot distance for the right of way within the town. >> That's usually where you measure the frontage requirement for the dimensional
requirements of a variance. In this case, the roadway doesn't go there. That's my point. This is a class this is a classic case where >> again we're going back to the the ser the survey lot lines with the culdeac >> on paper >> are a technical zoning violation
>> on the ground visually if you drive by you would never know >> y >> that that that uh that the culdeac is the property line. So, it's a very technical zoning violation that is
somewhat unique um in its application. And then obviously this specific circumstance is somewhat unique, but it's it's a classic case of literal zoning interpretation based upon survey
maps in what's literally on the ground. Yep. >> Exactly. That >> I wish I said that. That's the that's our position. That's why it's in terms of the other issue of the structure. We can deal with that issue separately through the building department, but that's not what we're here for today.
>> I just want to because I know we're concentrated on the cisac and and the street, but the violation here is that the retaining wall exceeds 4 feet. >> Yep. >> And is in front of the in the front yard of the house, which is a violation.
Whether that called the sack was there or not, >> it it doesn't really matter. is the violation is the retaining wall >> and that's what I think um >> is the variance for >> but they asked they asked about the front yard setback in the in the actual
>> well that's what we were told by Jose that we had a need a variance for you didn't send me a letter that said that you have a structure on your front lawn and you need a variance for purposes of the front structure of the roadway from the front you said you need a variance for the frontage requirement to leave the wall where it is what we did so I
mean you look at your letter that you sent to us and your emails in none of those did you reference the second point now that's a set issue that we can deal with separately >> the the the the intent of the letter I cannot physically go and make the your your client remove this the the
retaining wall that's the reason the board is here they see what is in front of them and they opine or they however they feel like >> um asking for >> need relief for
and frontage >> requesting an a after the fact variance to keep and maintain an existing structure within the front yard setback. So that sounds like yeah >> the problem it says existing front >> existing structure within the front yard setback.
>> Yes more than four feet tall makes it a structure. So that's one thing and a reduction to the front yard setback requirement which brings the whole >> culdeac into the >> exactly >> equation
>> for an unpermitted retaining wall. >> Yes. >> And any other relief deemed necessary. >> Yeah. We always told that >> that's always that's always >> that's just the legal ease. >> All right. So >> all right. Is there anyone else who
wants to speak on this? Before I read all these lovely letters, >> something's coming up. >> Hi. Hi. I'm Doug Galant. I'm 15 Mount Auburn Street, across the street from Mr. Roulette. And uh like to mention a
couple of things. One is uh when the uh it's a Mc Mr. McDonald's issue. Uh when the culde-sac was removed, he didn't leave Mr. McDonald's portion of the culde-sac. He took that out totally. That that that was gone and he had to he
had to re reestablish that per Mr. McDonald's request. That that that's one thing. The other thing is I'm not clear here. Um I understand there's a big cement wall up there. That's one issue. And but but he has raised property level
quite a bit. Is it also is that also the problem that he's raised raised the raised the land? Um you know you know at the back side of that culde-sac you can see from the pictures there was a on the right side of Mr. um McAffry's driveway
the previous owner's driveway there there was a rock there right and that rock would probably be about you know six feet the top of that rock probably be six feet underground now if uh if uh if if you look at all the uh all the materials that that's been put there.
So, um seems like there might be I'm just confused on is is just the just the just the cement wall that we're talking here. Are we also talking at the back of the uh >> just the cement because because >> right now we're just referring to his
his wall and where it's positioned on the property. >> Okay, that's all I wrote something in. You guys got any questions on it? I'll be happy. >> Before you leave, a question for you. Can you see the rock wall from your yard or house? >> You mean the retaining wall? >> The cement wall. Yes,
>> absolutely. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> But you you ascertain that you can see it from your property. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? I'll just I understand it's
not the purview of this board to rule one way or the other on the culdeac itself and whether he probably properly is taking de facto ownership of the culde-sac but Evan would it be possible
if my client is still concerned that his rights are being impeded in I know it's the town's rights too because it is a public way that if he asked me to I could have a meeting with you on that issue. >> You can certainly meet with me. My my suggestion is you just submit something
formal in writing. >> It's likely that it would have to involve counsel. >> Yeah, I know most communities they don't let you go directly to town council. It have to be through a town official. That's why I was indicating. Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else?
Okay. I will read the letters from the Butters. Uh this is from Linda Mcumber probably mutilating that. >> Yeah,
>> I don't see an address. Um, just says the photos are intended to provide more insight to the request for a variance of the above address. All photos are screenshots from Google Maps. Variance requests sites unique topography of the land and also claims a wall stood on the
same footprint for many years. Both of these statements are inaccurate. Excuse me. And that she has some of the similar photos that you presented. Photos above are the previous home at that address and the section along the
driveway of the replacement home. As shown, there was no retaining wall in August of 2023. The previous home had a level front yard and a gentle slope to the street, as does the home next door. It appears that
this wall is much taller than than the level lay of the land behind and around it. It also increases in height partway down the driveway. An unearthed burm several feet in height was constructed
between 18 and 20 Mount Auburn Street on 20 Mount Auburn property property for privacy. In the photo above, you can make out a portion of the slope of this burm. The height of the BM was extended across the front of the property, resulting in a much higher embankment
facing the street than was original in the lay of the land. Note that the chain link fence on the left follows the original lay of the land. The embankment created facing the street is much higher than the original gentle slope of the land. As
the pictures above show, there was no preexisting wall. The current wall extends a quarter of the way into the required setback out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. That huge unattractive cement wall was built by the owner in a desire for privacy after
raising earthn BMS surrounding his lot. Respectfully submitted Linda McCumber. Want to see the pictures? This one is from Doug and Delena
Gallant, 15 Mount Auburn Street. Uh, dear Chumsford Zoning Board of Appeals, we'd like to express our support for your request to have this retaining wall meet requirements as set by the town. In its current location and form, we consider it an eyesore that detracts
from the beauty of the neighborhood, 20 Mount Auburn Street, and thus is a detriment to the neighborhood. Steve Owlette has had surveyors verify his property boundaries multiple times over the years. He even informed us that the
property line is not the curb as the town owned the first several feet back from the curb. Based on this, we believe he is aware of his property boundaries and regulations. In response to the variance request provided by Steve Olette there, here are a couple of other
things to consider. One unique topography of the land. The current top topology of the land has been completely designed by Steve J. Owlette. The slope and elevation around
the retaining wall is grossly different due to his excavating works. We would not be surprised if 10 ft of elevation has been added in some areas by the addition of retaining walls on the front side. Previously, the top topology was a
natural continuation of the neighboring properties. See photos attached. One picture showing the topology between 18 and 20, the other between 20 and 22 Mount Auburn Street, the year 2012. Pictures are from Google Maps. Two, the
retaining wall is a replacement from an earlier wall which stood on the same footprint for many years. There was no such wall when the property was purchased by Mr. Owlette. Three, substantial hardship. Correcting this
zoning issue is well within Steve J. Owlette's capabilities. The topography was artificially altered as the current grade was established by adding several feet of fill to raise the height of the land. The issue was not caused by natural land conditions. It was
self-created. respectfully Doug and Delina Gallant pictures attached if you'd like to see Department of Public Works office has reviewed the project plans
and documents for the following Following comments. DPW injuring has no comments. Fire prevention has no concerns. Conservation has no concerns. >> Comment from the DPW at the bottom. It
says DPW's um comments for consideration. >> Thank you. Yes, let me revert back. Comments for consideration. DPW would like to note that upon review of the submission and existing conditions plot
plan, there is extensive landscaping pillars, light posts, and other infrastructures installed within the town's right of way. To DPW's knowledge, there are no recorded permits for the
work that took place or infrastructure installed within the town's right of way. It should be noted that in the event that the town decides to utilize the area within the right of way, it would be within the town's jurisdiction
to remove any of this private infrastructure or landscaping within the town's right of way. Tax assessor has no concerns. The police have no concerns.
The water district has no concerns. Board of Health has no concerns. And that's it. Are there any other questions from the board? >> I was just thinking, should the first step be to get an engineer to approve
the wall? >> That's not what's in front of us. That's not before us. >> That's not before us. >> That's not before us. >> We have to go with what is in front of us. >> Any other questions? >> Motion to close. >> It was the letter that
>> it said confidential. I wasn't going to read it. Did I Yeah. No. >> Yeah. >> Yep. All right. Can I take a motion to close? >> I'm just saying what it says on the top.
>> Oh, >> and it was attached. It was sent to us via email. It's the same one that was sent to us via email. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
>> Second. Anyone? Anyone? Second. >> Thank you. >> No problem. >> Take a roll call for vote. >> Danny, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Stephen, >> yes. >> Mr. Glenn, how do you vote to close public hearing?
>> Yes. >> It's unanimous. >> Any further discussion? >> How do we feel? >> I My one question is if we were to uphold
What is the remediation like? Do do he's he's got to figure that out. Okay. >> If we were to >> if we were deni if we were to deny their >> varian yeah if we were to varian request it's not a
>> yeah we're denying request. So >> um ultimately I mean he could what? Go to land court and appeal our decision maybe right? I mean, that's an option. Or tear down the wall. Is that is that my understanding
correct, Mr.? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if if you deny the variance, then Jose needs to continue with enforcement to achieve compliance. >> Yeah, that's what it is. >> Based on the merits of what's presented
in front of us, I don't know about you guys, but I don't see Uh, I don't see the meeting the standard for variance. >> No, I don't want >> What about you, Steve? >> I'm Mr. Varian all day every day. >> I know.
>> It's I mean, the lot shape is not that odd. I mean, especially if you bought something on a culde-sac, it's got a culde-sac and it's a rectangle beyond that. Um, but I don't
I mean the hardship of having something too tall in your front yard that you put in your front yard is kind of I don't know how you extend the hardship to that. >> It's kind of self-imposed. >> Yeah, >> that sounds like a motion. I will make a motion to
uh approve the after the fact variance to keep and maintain an existing structure within the front yard setback um and a reduction to the front yard setback requirement for the existing unpermitted retaining wall for 20 Mount
Auburn Street with respect to all the letters read into the record. >> The motion by Danny. I'll take a vote. How do you vote, Danny? >> Motion was >> to approve.
>> How do you vote? >> Yes. >> No. >> No. Mr. Glenn, how do you approve? How do you vote? >> Can he repeat that motion? It's was very confusing. >> A motion to approve the variance.
How do you vote? >> No. >> I vote no. So that's four to one. >> Motion does not. Varian does not pass. Any questions?
>> Did this require a super majority? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Um then Danny Danny's Danny's >> doesn't matter. It's >> not valid.
>> Well, it's not It doesn't matter. Close. It's >> It's >> Have a good night. >> It's four to one against. >> All right. >> Yeah. >> It required a super majority to pass and it got the inverse of that. So it it
it's not it's not closed. >> All right. >> It's 12:30. >> Last but not least are the minutes for May 7th. Are we ready to approve the minutes? >> I read them once. >> Yeah, I did too.
>> Okay. >> I delegated my minutes to Charlie. >> Any comments? Any notes? >> Do you have any problem? >> I have no problems to the meetings. >> All right. I'll make a motion to >> approve by Charlie. >> I'll second it.
>> Second by Peter. >> Roll call to vote. Danny, how do you vote? >> Peter, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn, how do you vote? I'm appro. And I I vote yes. That's uh >> unanimous. All right.
>> Motion tojourn. >> Motion to adjurnn. Roll call. Danny. >> Roll call for that. >> Peter. Yes. Charlie. Yes. Yes. Mr. Glenn, how do you vote to adjourn? Yes. And I And I say yes. The meeting has adjourned.