Open the public meeting. 7:30 p.m. 20:04. Public input. Public input shall be limited to statements from the public related to any issues with the jurisdiction of the chams of 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 hearings shall only be heard during such public hearings and may be limited to three minutes time. Any public input tonight? Seeing none, our first public hearing is
new. 243 Riverneck Road, 243 Riverneck LLC, and its manager, Ashok Patel, are reapplying for a comprehensive permit to request pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 40B. The proposal consists of seven single family dwellings for sale
and 15, I'm sorry, 16 town houses for rent. Of the total of 23 housing units, six units will be designated as affordable, consisting of two single family and four town houses. The property is located in the residential RB district.
Someone here to speak uh in favor of this. >> Good evening, uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, I'm Adam Costa, attorney with the firm of me Costa with an office in Newport representing 243 Reneck LLC and a hotel
manager. Uh you will recall that I was before you um or my my colleague was before you uh on a submitt that I had made back in May for the same property at 243 Riverneck Road. Uh this is a property that had come before your board uh back in the early 2000s for approval
of a comprehensive permit development at that time. uh an entity by the name of Princeton Properties was the project proponent and uh proceeding ensued before your board on a comprehensive permit application. Ultimately that comprehensive permit was granted. There
was some ensuing litigation. Uh and long story short, the project was never built. Uh that was a project that was comprised of 48 um 48 units in a garden style units in a single building. Um, fast forward a number of years, we uh
came before uh your housing advisory board back in uh 2023 with a proposal, a different different developer. Uh proposal to develop the site with a different form of a chapter 40B development. Uh specifically something quite similar to what you now have
before you uh seeking support from the housing advisory board which we successfully obtained. And then we went before the town select board to seek uh what is often referred to as a lip endorsement, a local initiative uh program endorsement that uh allows for
the chapter 40B application to proceed with support from the town select board. Uh select board reviewed the project over a period of a number of months and ultimately decided not to provide support for what's referred to as a friendly 40b, a lip project. Um but that of course didn't prohibit us from
proceeding. Simply couldn't proceed with the support of the select board. we had to go through the traditional route to submit an application to the board to your board. And so we did that. We made application to mass housing. We obtained a project eligibility letter. In fact, we obtained two different letters because there's a component of the
project that is an ownership component and there's a separate component to the project that is a uh a rental component. And so we obtained two project eligibility letters and we submit an application to your board back in miday of this year. Uh we were notified shortly after we made that submitt that
the town's position was that it had satisfied its uh what's referred to as a statutory minimum, one of several that's in the chapter 40B regulations. Uh specifically, the one that uh allows you to reject Chapter 40B developments and comprehensive permit applications if 10%
of your housing stock has been deemed affordable. And the town had determined at that stage on the date of our application that you had satisfied that 10% threshold. And as a consequence of that, our application, you may recall, was rejected back in I think that hearing was opened in uh late June or
early July. I can't remember the exact date, but you had rejected it. You had obtained advice from from town council at that time. Uh you had objected it in a couple of different ways. You rejected it uh in part um based upon this 10% threshold being satisfied by issuing a 15-day letter um within 15 days of the
opening of the public hearing indicating that you felt you had satisfied your statutory minimum. and you also issued a a traditional denial decision. Uh both of those were appealed to the housing appeals committee, first to the executive office of housing and livable communities and then to the housing appeals committee and those cases are
pending. Uh in the meantime, we became aware that a number of units at the 255 uh Princeton Street project um had which had been been issued uh building permits back in early 2024, I believe it was in
in early to midFebruary of 2024, um had uh had not been issued uh certificates of occupancy. And the way and again, you've got your council present, so she can confirm or or or not the statements I'm making. Um, but their provisions of the chapter 40B regulation say that if a
period of 18 months passes between the date of issuance of a building permit for what would be an affordable unit and the date that that unit gets a certificate of occupancy, that that unit is to no longer be counted on the subsidized housing inventory as an affordable unit. In other words, it no
longer counts toward your 10% until such time as a certificate of occupancy is issued. And we were of the opinion uh back in September that that had not occurred. And so we submitted what you now have before you this evening, which is referred to specifically as a resubmitt. It's virtually identical to
what we had submitted to the board uh back in midMay, but it is a resubmitt uh premised on the fact that we believed you had fallen below your 10% threshold and therefore you could then entertain our application. We were hopeful that this might be a streamlined way to get this back before you without having to
continue to litigate the two cases that are pending at the housing appeals committee costing my client money costing the town money. Um I do understand uh that you have a memo I received a copy of it two days ago from Mr. Balansky uh in which he has appined um that his position and maybe the
board's position, maybe town council's position, I'm not certain, is that you continue to satisfy the 10% threshold that there has not been that 18-month lapse between February of 2024 and August or September of 2025 that would cause the units at 255 Princeton Street
to drop off the inventory. Uh that is Mr. Balansk's position. I'm sure he can speak and will speak for himself, but that's how I how I read the memo that he issued a couple of days ago. Um the the the nuance that I would bring to the board's attention is that that memo
refers to the issuance of uh four to six temporary certificates of occupancy for that project at 255 Princeton Street. That project, you you may know it as the Alexen project, Alexen at Chumsford. Um these these uh certificates of occupancy were temporary certificates of occupancy, not the same as permanent
certificates of occupancy. Uh, I draw a distinction between those two things when I read the chapter 40B regulations. It doesn't refer to temporary certificates of occupancy. In fact, it doesn't even use the phrase a certificate of occupancy. It uses the phrase the certificate of occupancy. So, I interpret that language in the
regulations to mean the actual certificate of occupancy, the permanent certificate of occupancy that allows for indefinite occupancy of the units within a project. that is what needs to issue within that 18-month time frame for units that were counted on the inventory at the time of issuance of the building
permit to continue to count. Um, and so it my position has been continues to be uh that the town has dropped below the 10% and was below the 10% at the time of resubmitt of our application on September 17th. uh and I would hope that the board would consider that and would elect to proceed uh with this
application and reach the merits of the application so we can discuss the proposal that's before you which I do think is an appropriate use for the site. It is a far less intense use of the site than what was proposed back in the early 2000s and approved by your board 48 units before. We're proposing
only 23 units on the site. Uh we're proposing a mix of housing styles. We're proposing a meaningful affordability component that will be both an ownership affordability component and a a a rental affordability component. We think that this would be an appropriate addition to the neighborhood and to the town's
affordability stock. Um and we would like to see the board reach the merits. But with that, I'm not going to delve into those merits until I have a sense from the board um as to what it it decides to do. If you're if you're going to determine that you're satisfied your 10% standard and that you're going to
reject the application on that basis, there's no need for for me to present you with all the merits of the case and for us to get any any deeper into the mix. And with that, I'll I'll turn it back over to the board. >> Okay. Um what what I think that uh we we also are not certain of what's going to
happen uh with the two cases that are in front of the uh the EOHLC. Uh what we think we'd like to do is uh establish our feeling that we are in safe harbor. Going to make a motion and and consider that. And then we'd like to
continue the public hearing until February 5th, 2026 when we hope that this will be determined and we will have safe harbor or not. to go into the process now before we have safe harbor, before we have a guarantee of safe harbor seems just repetitive because
we'd have to go through it again if it uh is found or isn't found and the directions would change pretty drastically. >> Seems acceptable. That would be the goal of the board. >> Sure. So I I I I guess the only the only complication uh or or or maybe
difference of opinion as to what might be accomplished between now and early February is that um while I agree that between now and February we ought to have further guidance from the housing appeals committee as regards the two pending cases and and just for further clarification the only reason there are
two cases is because of the action that the board took a few months ago where it both issued that 15-day letter and also denied the comprehensive permit. Correct. >> Right. So, both of those had to be independently appealed. We had no other option. And so, there are two cases. One has been stayed, the other is proceeding
because really a decision in one is going to be a decision in both. Um, but those decisions are going to be based upon the application we submitted on May 19th and is is going to be based upon the status of the town as it relates to
the subsidized housing inventory and your affordability count as of May 19th. In this instance, in the case that's before you tonight, the date that the all-important date is September 17th, which is when we resubmitted. So, you are correct that you may be better informed, I will be better informed in
early February, presuming that the HAC rules that quickly. Uh, we have deadlines that that would require us to make our submitts well in advance of that date. And I would hope that we would have a a speedy ruling. The regulations do indicate that these types of matters are meant to be resolved expeditiously by the Housing Appeals Committee. But that ruling is going to
tell us and tell you what the status was on on I think it's May 19th of 2025. It's not going to tell you what the status is or was on September 17th. And again, we wouldn't have made a resubmitt if we didn't think the status was different on September 17th than it was
back on May 19th. >> Right. Well, for different reasons, of course. Right. >> Uh I I think that we still find ourselves in the same spot. We don't know. We're we're we're claiming safe harbor. uh and as such we could deny it but I think continuence is much easier
on everyone. It uh it creates a little more need than than just denying it outright. I mean >> if if unless you feel differently I think that's what the board would like to do. >> I mean I will defer to the board. It's obviously the board's decision. You're free to continue even over my objection. You're free to continue the public
hearing. You have 180 days to act on a comprehensive permit application. So, uh, if you see fit to to continue it, um, and to wait and see what happens over the ensuing months, you're certainly free to do that. Uh, again, my position is that I do still think that there will be a question, even if we have a definitive answer, even quite
frankly, if that answer, and I hope it won't be, is not to my benefit and not to my client's benefit. Um, what we will know then is that you were in safe harbor on May 19th. uh and that therefore our application was appropriately rejected, meaning the original application, it still won't tell us about the current resubmitt
that's before you and what the status was on September 17th. >> So, would you prefer a denial so that you can uh take it to appeal the September date and and have them act on that as well? I I don't I'm not sure. >> Does that matter?
>> No. Yeah, we don't. What he's suggesting is if if May 19th ends up being they we were in safe harbor, he's suggesting in September we were not and that won't be resolved. >> I understand what you're saying, but it it's our choice how to reject or it's
our choice what decision is made, not their >> if so. >> If he asked us to deny it so that he can appeal it, >> I think that's a right he has. Am I mistaken about that? No, because how we how we deny plays on the legalities or
how it will play out in a appeals as us as a as a town. Correct me if I'm wrong. >> You're you're you're absolutely right. I mean, it's kind of you to ask, Mr. Chair, but it's up to this board whether or not what action you want to take tonight. >> It's us.
>> Well, I guess we'll go ahead with the continuence. I I >> You need to actually formally assert safe harbor first. Okay. >> We can go through that process. I I really thought what he's saying is if you are denied it because of the main and not September, we're just going to
start over again in February 4th, September when he appeals that. >> But but even if even if we if I may, even if you played this out and even if you were to um deny this application tonight, still what the Housing Appeals Committee decides with respect to those
pending cases >> has no effect on this one. Right. So, you know, we're still going to have to see how both are decided ultimately. >> I guess I'll I'll take your advice in a sense and uh look for a continuence.
>> Talk about safe harbor safe harbor, right? That's that's going to happen regardless. >> You have the memo. >> Yes. Do you have it? >> Is that in the letter? >> I think u Jamie has it on it. >> Yep, here it is. Okay. Um,
so I'll make a motion that the board move has determined that the town of Chumps has achieved one of the statutory minimums set forth under GL40B 2023 760 CMR 56.03 03 because the town's subsidized housing inventory SHI has
maintain has maintained by the executive office of housing and livable communities comp comprises more than 10% of the town's total housing units as of the date of the application for a comprehensive permit was received from 243 Riverneck LLC for the property
located at 243 >> Riverneck Road. further that the board authorizes the chair to finalize, execute, and send written notice to the applicant with a copy to EOHLC to invoke the 10% statutory minimum with the 15
days of opening of the November 6, 2025 public hearing on the application. >> I'll second by Peter. >> You have to do a roll call. >> Is this a roll call? >> No, because you're in person. Oh, okay. >> All in favor? I
>> opposed >> unanimous. >> So then there's another motion then with respect to if you choose to continue. >> So do we want to >> February 5th? >> Um >> that that if you choose is um motion to
proceed with the hear. Oh. Uh, the the only thing I would add to that is that you would actually move to continue the hearing >> to a date certain. >> This is just a typical motion to continue. >> Okay, that's what I thought. Yeah. Motion to continue the hearing. Oh, motion two would be to continue the
hearing till February 5th, 2026. >> The hearing for 243 that correct? Uh, yes. Sorry. 243 Riverneck Road >> and you said to February 5th, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Motion by Jamie. >> Second. >> Second by Steve. All in favor? >> I.
>> Again, unanimous. >> Thank you for your time tonight. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I will. >> I do a lot of these. Our next hearing is 10 Queen Street. >> As it gets later, it gets better. >> The owners Thomas and Ashley >> Coons are requesting a special permit on
the zoning bylaw section 1958 E2 nonconformity for the construction of an attached two-car garage and family and office room addition that does not meet the front and side setback requirements and any other relief deemed necessary.
This property is located in a residential RB district. >> Sorry about that. We were actually talking with uh the Abutter. Um okay, I'm Tom. This is Ashley. Uh we're the
owners of uh 10 Queen Street. Um I think we gave all the necessary documentation. Um, so from the perspective of the home, I have a piece of paper. I thought I did. And now isn't working.
>> All right. >> So, um, from the >> Wow. Okay. You can see this is my first time. Um uh so from the perspective of the property, >> you can come up here, sir. >> Yes, thank you.
>> My vision is not that good. >> Yeah, exactly. Um so you can see from the the the property line. Um this is already kind of a non-conforming lot, and we're looking to add a two-car garage with a um uh with a uh extra bedroom, bathroom, and then like an
extra family room area. And then the deck as you can kind of see here. Um I can also bring up my laptop if you wanted to to kind of see like photos of the area. But the idea is that the angles are very steep and kind of anything within this area that we've been you know thinking about is very
kind of uh unachievable because the fact of the 25 foot offset. So we're looking for the board to kind of um allow for some grace in in allowing us to to get closer. >> Thank you. Any questions? Happy.
>> Is that Is that a 23.7 on the left? >> Sorry. >> Yeah, 23.7. >> Oh, sorry. >> Six. Okay. >> Oh, yeah. That's the existing. So, yeah, red is the new addition. That's existing. So, you can kind of see we're already nonconforming. And then from
like a hardship perspective, again, the really steep angles. It's a very narrow lot. Um, and then the other part too is there is a drainage ement on the lefth hand side. So, we're kind of like on both fronts. Like, it's really difficult for us to be able to >> And um you have the the photos like
we're trying to stay in kind of like the the motif of of our neighborhood. Um we're not trying to do something too big. Oh, okay. Thanks. Uh perfect. Uh we're not trying to do anything kind of fancy from the perspective of like being outside. There's actually the
inspiration of this house is uh two houses down from us. Um so we're really kind of just looking at it from the perspective of like not this McMansion, but just giving my family the the space to be able to to kind of grow into because it's a very small home. Um and
uh this allows us to have like room where we can have like, you know, family gatherings without having to bump into each other. >> And the deck is pre is already there. Correct. Uh, oh, sorry. If you go back to the architecture, >> the deck would be removed. >> The deck would be removed. Yes. >> Yeah. But it's thick. >> Oh, yes. The deck is there today. Yes.
>> So, >> the 17.9. >> Yes. So, if you look Yes, exactly. It's uh This photo is a little hard to see it, but yes, this deck is already right here. >> Okay. >> What's the new number for the uh set back on the right? >> It' be 10 ft at the shortest and 19 and
a half at the longest. >> Okay. like the really steep that we have >> seven >> and it's >> that's more than >> it's a special permit because it's non-conforming already.
>> Yeah. >> That's right. Because they already don't meet setbacks on both sides, right? >> Right. >> Right. That's right. Okay. >> And the easement just for my own edification, the easement they can't build in. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. That's the main water drainage system for the uh the area. >> Just confirming. >> Any further questions from the board? Going to go ahead and read in the letters. I have a letter from the fire prevention office
uh regarding 10 Queen Street. Um, the office issues the following requirements and recommendations. In accordance with 780 CMR51, a heat tech heat detector shall be installed in the new garage. This detector must be hardwired or t-shirt connected to at
least one device located within 20 ft of the nearest door to the garage. This is the minimum level of protection required. This offer office further recommends the entire residence be upgraded to a hardwired interconnected system with smoke and carbon monoxide
detection throughout to provide a higher level of safety protect life safety protection. All plans are required to be submitted to and reviewed by this office as part of the building permit process to ensure full compliance. I request this letter
be made part of the public record and incorporated into your approval process. Sincerely, Josh Abbott, Captain Fire Prevention Office, Chelms Fire Department. I have a letter from Christine Clancy, the town engineer, regarding 10 Queen
Street, owners Thomas and Ashley Kaknus, requesting a special permit under the zoning bylaw. As a result of this review, the office is the following comments. The proposed addition will be near an existing sewer service. The applicant must contact the DPW sewer
division to coordinate any necessary actions to alter the sewer service. A sewer capacity impact fee to be assessed with the building permit per sewer use regulations for bedroom calculation section 14.5.
$15 per gallon of daily wastewater flow will be applied for adding bedrooms. Per title five, one bedroom is equal to 110 gallons per day. Do you know how that works? It's 1,500 bucks.
>> Two, erosion control devices must retain the sediment on site. A, the street should be swept and cleaned from construction dust. Silt sack or other equal erosion control should be installed in a catch basins in front of 10 Queen Street. Consideration three,
consideration should be made to install roof drain drywalls to reduce the volume of storm water runoff generated by the roof of the addition. This is not a requirement for approval. I have a letter from the conservation commission.
I think it's no comments. Um, is that right? There's no comments on it or >> highlighted on no concern. >> Says not posted on agenda, but I don't know. >> Yeah. Otherwise, he would have um this says uh and highlight this project will require a filing with the conservation
commission. >> So you'll need to go to that >> must have an approval. >> Yeah. >> Uh if you look at the property over here, this 25 foot line scroll down. Um they didn't know where it was. We believe it's actually back here, but yes.
>> Right. So they'll they'll locate it. It doesn't look like it'll be problematic for your for your application. >> I have a letter from Jose Negron the special permit. um E2 special permit for non-conforming
single family and two family residential structures in the event that the building commission determines that a byite building permit cannot be issued per section E is a non-conforming nature of such structure would be increased by the proposed reconstruction extension
alteration or change or new conformity created the board of appeals may by special permit allow such reconstruction extension alteration or change where determines the proposed modification will not substantially be more detrimental than the existing
non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. I have a letter from the treasurer tax collector uh for 10 Queen Street with no concerns. And I have a letter from the Chumpsed Water District for 10 Queen Street with
no concerns. One more. I have a letter from the police department for 10 Queen Street with no concerns. That's the extent of my letters. Any further questions from the board? Open this up to the audience for
questions and comment for or against? >> Neutral. >> Neutral. >> Maybe in their favor. For the record, Douglas House represent I represent the abutters that are on the right side where the action activity is going to be built.
>> The meal >> closer to butter more effective a butter. >> Yeah, this house. So, uh you can it's we just spoke outside. You'll see that they have three existing really mature bushes here, evergreens. So, we were just
talking outside. All we're concerned about is some privacy buffer between the two lots. And >> is it the your your client's feeling that the the trees would be removed and be affected? >> I think these would get they have to be removed.
>> So what we wanted to talk about and part of my fault and mostly on their survey too. I tried to reach out to Scott Lewig to talk about some ideas ahead of time and for whatever reason we didn't connect until this morning. I sent an
email out on some ideas on Monday. In any event, we had a wonderful discussion outside. That's number one. Number two is we're going to want to see if these can get replanted. So, we have keep that buffer and to expand it with some similar type plantings just to
>> extending the line. >> Extending the line. No more than that. Other than that, we don't have real concerns. Just the privacy. So, we'd like that kind of a condition to be >> written in >> written in with with the obligation that the property owner who's getting the
special permit has the obligation to maintain it. >> Can we do you do you want to see five seven? Do you have a definition? >> I don't have it defined yet. So, I suggest >> I would like to word that. I guess that would be the >> So, I thought that what we would try to
do is even if you took a vote tonight, allow us to have a condition brought to you and to Evan to review. Hopefully, we'll get it to a quick agreement. I'm planning on trying to see over the weekend to actually walk the property a little bit. >> Sure. >> And then figure out how many bushes like
that we need. And if it's two, is it three? That kind of a thing. >> Do you want to do uh And you certainly can comment on this is do you want to say four to 10 or something that you >> I don't even have to go that far. I don't think it depends on the distance
to be honest with you. Seeing the architecturals tonight was helpful because I now know that the height isn't increasing >> isn't going to be an overwhelming. >> It's the same height. So that's a very positive thing. So we're not against >> we can continue it. Will that affect
your construction? >> That's what I'm concerned about for their sake. I don't want to hold them up. >> Could we just put in there to extend the the hedges up to 10 feet? >> Just do >> in length. >> May I suggest a condition along the
lines of attorney Howler saying uh conditioned upon um extension of the uh landscape buffer uh >> replacement as agreed upon between the two parties. >> Yeah. Between the two parties. That'll be the motion. and then sometime over
the next couple of days into next week, they'll provide me the exact language. That's what we'll put into the official decision. >> Okay. >> That's what we're looking to do. I don't want to hold them up. >> Yeah. >> I don't want them to be denied. >> My clients, it's not made. My clients do not. They just want to protect themselves.
>> That's all. >> Yep. >> So, your motion tail would basically be a placeholder until we get the specific agreement from them next week. >> And is that agreeable for you guys? >> What if they don't agree? Well, that's up to that. I >> No, no, no. Not what if they don't
agree. Like, if we put that in there today, language or to say it's something agreed upon between the two parties at a later date and come next week, Wednesday, I'm going off the reservation here, but your people say, "I want 22 trees." And they say, "I can't do more
than six." So, there's a stalemate. What What happens then? Because we said condition >> be allowed to come back if we can without prejudice for them or us. The other way of handling this is these are the existing >> shrubs. >> Yes. Those are on my client's property. >> Okay. So those look to be aligned with
the existing front of the house. >> Yes. >> So you could say that the >> that's not the ones that's not the shrub you were talking about that's going to be moved though. >> Talking about the arbor right here. So those those align with the existing house. >> Correct. Yes. And then so you could have
a more specific condition that says the new landscape material is to continue from the end of the existing arborites to the back end of the proposed addition. >> That's what we're going to be trying to get to.
>> So So then the board can at least provide a framework of >> the length >> and then they can figure out how many shrubs or trees fit within. >> We're fine with that. We're fine with that. >> So like they're they're way bigger now. >> So like maintaining the existing what we
have right now is totally cool with >> Yeah, I understand. >> Can I assume that that >> you and your and your neighbors have a a congenial uh >> relationship relationship.
There's no animosity. No. I mean, so I mean, so someone says, "Hey, I can see into your place or you can see into my place, just plant another shrub, whatever you need." >> We're trying to be good neighbors, too. So, yeah, >> we're working cooperatively.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I didn't have the right words. >> You did fine. >> Danny's help. If the writer was like to figure out within the existing uh uh I'll call it like the privacy buffer kind of like what we have today
and figure out how many either new plants like we were even talking about like maybe because they're beautiful like transplanting the existing ones like if that's financially the best path. My only concern is when you transplant and to be you know we don't want >> providing so that's all we want to we we we both want to get to the same result
without >> they both benefit from the privacy I get it >> so and we're very happy to kind of like >> so I don't know how you could phrase your condition I I like >> making the motion so that's good >> I know >> someone else worry >> I just don't want that to be delivered
>> I think Evans um condition still works I mean I the addition to them arguing about >> 10 trees. I I mean it might come down to one or two is what I really think. >> I don't want to have to appeal it. >> Yeah.
>> I mean language that uses equivalent or adequate, >> you know, can be used here, right? >> Mutually agreeable. Mutually agreeable. >> How many are there now? >> Three. >> Three. >> But they're very big. >> They're very very size. They're in great condition apparently. >> So
>> that's that's I think probably like Those are a little over 10 feet or something. >> They're much bigger now. >> That was six years ago. >> I think I think you could get >> very >> Yep. Yep. Okay. That's a lot bigger. >> Very healthy.
>> Oh, wow. >> Okay. >> Uh yes. >> Uh not at this time. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> That's the part. We just love our neighborhood. >> I like Queen Street. I know where you are.
>> Okay. Are there any further questions from the audience or comments? >> Excuse me. >> Seeing none and entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> I second >> by Steve. Second by Jamie. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Just on on the motion. Uh just thinking about this more maybe the cleanest way is to say um prior to um clocking in the decision with the with the town clerk because we have I think it's uh 90 days to do that
an agreement shall be submitted >> to the board. >> Right. >> Okay. >> To the board. So they're going to come back here with the agreement. >> No, no, the administratively. >> Okay. They can bring it to >> Yeah. That way we're not guessing. We have we have plenty of time. So
>> that to be added to the >> be the last thing done anyways and it'll be the last thing. We'll you'll you'll vote tonight. Condition being that prior to uh the chair signing the decision
that agreement will be will be submitted >> mutually signed by both >> be submitted and incorporated into the decision. >> That way there's no there's no ambiguity. Nope. >> If it was not to work out, then they'd come back in front of the board. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
>> One of the one of the parties would be agreed and it'd end up back in front of the board. >> Okay. >> Okay. Would someone like to make that motion? >> Good luck. >> Changed so many times. >> You want it? >> Oh, it's changed too many. >> So, I'll make a motion to approve the
special permit for 8 Queen Street. >> 10. >> Oh, 10. I'm sorry. 10 Queen Street for a special permit um to include the letters uh read in with the um condition that a mutual
agreeable mutually agreed arrangement is brought to um >> a privacy barrier >> brought to the building department in regards to a privacy barrier for the continuation of the current arboris and agreed of
distance length of how many trees need to be and that that that agreed upon amount will be included in the final written decision of this board. >> Sounds good. Let's second that. >> Second by Charlie. All in favor?
>> Unanimous. >> Good luck with it. >> Thank you. >> Good. >> Enjoy. >> Next hearing. >> Some of you are leaving the room. Yes. >> We'll do our quick arrangement rearrangement of chairs
>> is 101 Mil Road. >> Are you sitting on this? >> I have to recuse some butter. >> Okay. So then just uh whoever's recusing can um >> remove themselves from the table ideally. Can >> we come back in and close the meeting?
>> Yes. >> You don't even need to if you don't want to. I mean there is there anything else on the agenda? >> Just the minutes the minute minutes. >> You want to do the minutes now? That way you don't have to stick around. Wait. >> I honestly have not reviewed them. Has anyone reviewed them then? >> No, we can. >> I have. >> I have.
>> We'll table. >> We can table. >> We'll table that. >> Okay. >> So, we don't need to be present to close them. We have enough to close. >> No, we'll have enough. >> Oh, all the permanent board members will leave here. >> Hey, I'm still here.
>> Sorry. >> Wow. Floor. >> So, you know what? You're going to open the hearing and >> Yep. Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Bye >> guys. yet.
>> I feel so far away now. >> Yeah, it seems that way. >> Okay. I'd like to open the open the hearing for 101 Mil Road, owner 21. >> We've actually we've actually already opened this hearing. >> Oh, sorry.
>> Uh so why don't we have the applicant do the presentation and we can read some letters. Okay. Mr. Harvey, would you >> your name and address? And >> good evening, members of the board. My name is William Harvey. Um, I'm representing 21 B Street Development.
I'm the manager. This is an application that's before you for conversion of dwelling unit that is allowed by section 195-13. um in the cher bylaws 195 chapter 13 allows uh a conversion of
a dwelling unit if three excuse me if four um criteria are met. Number one is that the building uh was constructed prior to 1938. The second is that the lot of land that it sits on is at minimum of 15,000
square ft. Uh number three is that the characteristics of the look of the house as a single family uh does not uh change from the uh current character of the house and each unit contains a minimum
of 600 square ft. I've provided documentation in support of each of those uh requirements. Uh number one is that through the assesses database and as well as it's a historically um it's it's on the historic uh chumps historic
list of the house. Uh it was built in 1850 which is before 1938. Uh number two uh the lot contains 40,839 square feet. In support of that, I provided a uh
uh subdivision plan that was uh conducted by the department uh the highway department, department of public works. Uh number three um is pretty much the exterior of the design of the building
uh will not be changed from the character of a single family dwelling. Um, the only thing that will be added is a secondary egress. That secondary egress would be located in the back of the house and just to try and blend it
in with the house. The house has white vinyl siding. So, I pres I would suggest to putting a solid white door in. Um and also criteria number four is that
each dwelling unit have a minimum square footage uh of 600 square ft. The building in itself in it of itself is by the assessor's office is 4,37 square ft. So each each unit will be
well in excess of uh the 600 square ft. In addition um to the conversion of dwelling unit, this is a special permit application. So therefore, the board also has to take in consideration of certain criterias that are listed in
section excuse me uh bylaw chapter 195103 um that deals with special permits. Um, sub chapter B is the criteria that um
that the board must consider relative to um is if the if the uh conversion would be more detrimental to the to the town and not weigh outweigh any of its beneficial uh impacts to the town. And
those criterias that the town can take your members of the board can take into consideration is the socioeconomic and community needs which are served by the proposal. Uh number two is the traffic flow adequacy of utilities, neighborhood
character and social structure impacts on the environment and the potential fis fiscal impact including impact on town services, tax base and employment. And uh in my packet I've
I've answered um pretty much all those criterias. In addition, all the town departments had responded to this application and had input and I believe it's all positive
input. I don't think there's been any negative input uh by any of the town resources. This is a unique parcel of land. It's not necessarily considered in a neighborhood per se based on the fact that
um it's abided by soccer fields. It's also abided by um it's privately owned house um at I don't know the address. >> 99
>> at 99. Thank you very much. 99 mil road and um it's on a main road and directly across the street from the main road is a neighborhood. With regards to also the um traffic and
safety flow, the town's recently installed um traffic humps uh I believe four of them on Mil Road, which has provided an extreme amount of safety relative to 101 Mil Road due to the fact that it's extremely difficult to see
traffic coming from the lefthand side and also the right hand side. So, that's completely uh slowed down the traffic and it's been uh it's been very it's been very helpful to 101 Mill Road in order to access um the road.
>> If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. >> Any questions from the board at this time? >> I have no as I remember. I believe I was on the board of selectmen when this property uh was transferred from the town uh to Mr.
Harvey and at that time there was a quite a litany of uh requirements by the preservation committee uh and that there was no objection that the property be conferred as a two
family at some point in the future. They were mostly concerned that the property be uh kept as it always had, has the same look, the grounds were kept the same. And it seems the only change that's required to make this conversion
is the door. Is that correct? >> Yes. From the outside, the door. Yeah. And um it would seem if they thought ahead far enough, they did permit conversion to a two family that
it's kind of intrinsic in that that maybe there was a separate door needed as long as it was kept in the same flavor as the rest of the building. So uh you know I don't see a problem with
um the design per se at all. True. Um thank you very much. And there was a historic um covenant that was recorded. And what the con uh historical commission was primarily concerned about
is the um the main house itself in the front um that that be preserved and not um be renovated or touched in any such way. And if in fact I have to go and let's say down the road I have to put in new windows or siding or things like
that, I do need the permission from the historic uh commission. But the pro that the side that we're dealing on right now isn't isn't the side that would be covered under the the restrictive covenant.
>> Any other question from the board? >> I'm good. >> I seeing None. I will >> you want to you want to read any letters or do you think they're fairly benign at this point? >> I was going to open it up to the audience, but we don't seem to have one.
>> Um I don't see anybody here either. Oh, there's >> there's one person back there, but >> assume you have no comments for the uh Okay. So, >> lighting board. I didn't know that. >> I will read in the letters. Uh Shsford Fire Department
Fire Prevention Office has reviewed the special permit application for 101 Mill Road and offers the following comments. The proposed conversion must must adhere to all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts State Fire Code in MGL
chapter 148. This includes but is not limited to requirements for fire alarm systems and emergency eress. Um, interconnected smoke and carbon monoxide detectors must be installed in all required locations, including hallways, bedrooms, and
basement to ensure occupant safety. All dwelling units must provide clear and unobstructed means of egress. Exits should allow safe, direct access to a public way. All plans must be submitted to and reviewed by the fire prevention office
as a part of the building permitting process. Final inspections are required prior to occupancy to ensure full compliance with all fire and life safety regulations. We we respectfully request that this letter be made part of the public record and incorporated into your approval
process. Department of Public Works office has approved reviewed the project application plans and documents submitted to the DPW. Uh applicant must contact the DPW sewer
division to coordinate any necessary actions to preserve or alter the exterior sewer service. Sewer capacity impact fee to be assessed with building permit per sewer use regulations. Chapter six
looks like it bottom line is 3,300 sewer capacity impact fee. The town engineer has no concerns. That's the Chumsford Water District has
no concerns. The police department has no concerns. The treasurer slashcolctor has no concerns. What is this one? >> The BO. >> The board of health.
>> Okay. Board of Health has no concerns. Um, there's a letter from Mr. Harvey to a Mr. Puchi in response to the Department of Public
Works letter submitted to the Board of Appeals dated September 2nd, 2025, drafted and signed by Sheila Joyce. I hereby agree to pay 3,300 sewer capacity impact fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
A letter from Brian Strip. It's a long one. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Brian Strip and I reside at 90 High Street. I was at the meeting on September 4th, but was told
this matter needed to be continued until tonight. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend Unfortunately, I'm unable to be there in person to speak against the granting of the special permit to Mr. Harvey to convert 101 Mil Road to a two
family dwelling, if only in principle. In 2016, the town formed the 101 Mill Road Committee to investigate uses for the property. That committee commissioned an architectural assessment from Guinap Design who in turn hired
Dagel Associates to do a comprehensive initial structure condition review. I was very familiar with the building as my wife and I had been through the house several times with various contractors getting bids to correct the deficiencies pointed out in the report.
I've given a copy of the report to the building commissioner so he is aware of the serious issues that report found with the building. Converting into a two family will require a sizable amount of work.
The first two rounds of bids yielded no takers. So the town amended the covenant and removed the restriction forbidding the converting forbidding converting to a two family for the third round of bidding. My wife and I had put in a bid as we
intended to renovate it back to a beautiful two beautiful single family home. Mr. Harvey outbid us and two others and was awarded the house even though prior to the bid prior to the bid award he accused the
select board and myself of collusion saying the board would make use of a loophole that would allow it to accept the much lower bid of a historical commission member which I was at the time
over his order to sell it to my wife and me. In his bid, Mr. Harvey stated, "My intent and desire is to preserve and restore the 1816 Federalist style home built by Joseph Adams, the great great
grandson of Samuel Adams." The home was also the birthplace of Deacon Otis Adams, who authored the town motto, "Let the children guard what their sireers have won." which by the way he copied word for word
from the Lowel Sun article from May of 2017. He also stated in his proposal, I plan to return the home to a single family dwelling and renovate the exterior to bring it back to its historical likeness
before it was converted to commercial use. Maybe after seven years, Mr. Harvey figured no one would remember or care what he said, but I want him to know some still do. Thank you for your time, Brian Strip.
And that is the extent of the letters that I have before me. Any other there's a >> there's anything else. These are just looks like other
>> things in the file. >> Y there any questions for the board and response to any of that for Mr. Harvey? about >> again as I remember the town had a very
very difficult selling the property uh and it was put to open bid and Mr. Mojave had the highest bid and was awarded to him. If he felt at the time that he wanted to keep it as a single family, fine. If after quite a few years
he decided that it he would prefer to have it as a two family, he has the right to do so based on uh the agreement that he agreed to when he purchased the property. >> Yeah. Yeah, I don't think there's anything in front of us that that holds
him to any, you know, prior commitment that was contingent on the sale of the house. So, I I I agree. Um, anyone want to make a motion to
hearing >> close the hearing? >> I'll make a motion to uh Do you close their approve? >> Okay. Um, I'll make a motion to close the hearing for 101 Mil Road. Anyone want to second? >> Who seconded that?
>> I second the motion. >> You got it, Mr. Glad. >> Yep. All in favor? >> Okay. Anyone feel like making a motion on this particular case? Um, I'll make the motion. Uh, I make a
motion to approve the special permit for 101 Mil Road, uh, requesting a special permit under section 195-5, use regulations A4 in accordance with section 19513, conversion of a dwelling unit um, from a
single family dwelling existing prior to 1938 in a two family dwelling and other release uh, relief deemed necessary. uh with the inclusion of the letters read into the record. >> Thank you.
>> I can second that >> Rob for a second. All in favor? All right. >> I appreciate your time. >> Good luck with it. >> Consideration. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Have a great night. >> Thanks. You too. >> So I believe we've tabled the minutes
till next meeting >> which is December 4th. >> Yes, December 4th. So motion to close the public hearing. >> I move we close the evening. So to
adjurnn motion to adjurnn. There you go. >> Thank you. Yes. >> All right. Thank you. The meeting is closed.