Regarding public input, public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to any issues with the jurisdiction of the childhood zoning board of appeals that are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing. Before the zoning board of appeals, public comment on any pending public
hearing shall only be heard during such public hearings and may be limited to three minutes time. Would anyone like to speak this evening? Seeing none, we're going to move ahead to our first agenda item, an administrative review. Marose Avenue,
Cobblestone Place, 40B comprehensive permit. We have an agreement form endorsement. I don't know if someone's here to speak for the I don't believe there's anybody here. This is a um housekeeping item, standard practice uh with um with 40B
applications. uh you haven't had many recently uh but the board has um signed this uh this form uh in the past. This this will then set the stage for the regulatory agreement to go before the
select board and then go on to the uh the state for their endorsement. Would you have me read the acknowledgement? No, no need to no need to read the acknowledgement. Just sign away, please. Everyone will sign it. Do we have the uh
five boarding members? Leave that blank. It's uh Lar Ro. Uh yeah, six six unit I think. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. difficult for you. I have two copies and
four copies of the second page. Oh, no. I'm not I'm a lot of paperwork. Of course. Hold on here. Confirm. I'll make sure I
little more housekeeping. We'll take care of our getting organized with that. We have a new public hearing. 101 Mill Road owner 21B Street Development LLC manager William L. Harvey III is requesting a special permit under
section 1955 use regulations A4 in accordance with section 19513 conversion of dwelling units to convert a single family dwelling existing prior to 1938 into a two family dwelling and other relief deemed necessary. This property
is located in the residential RB district. U the hearing is open. We're going to not take a vote or uh testimony. We are do not have a quorum suitable for the project. And we're going to uh vote to
continue this until October 2nd, 2025. I'll make a motion to continue to October. And who who can vote on that? Anybody? All okay. I have a motion. Can I get a second? Second.
Second by Jamie. All in favor? All opposed? Seeing none. Unanimous. I'll give a minute. Sorry, the 40B decision is a little bit different. I'm just looking to see where it lists the five because the page is
different. What are you trying to determine the voting members on the uh Marose Avenue? Who actually voted? Yeah. Okay. I'll let you wear that. That can that can be continued.
Our next hearing is 28 Elorado Road. Owner Faro Karini is requesting an Karani. Thank you. Farik Kurani is requesting an administrative appeal under the zoning bylaw section 1952B3 and any relief deemed necessary to
overturn the building commissioner zoning enforcement officers determination of byright denial per article 1D4 parking. Separate driveways are not permitted for new ADUs and issue a finding based on reasonableness test
set forth in section 760 CMR 17.033A. 033A. The applicant also requests that all filing of butter notifications and legal fees associated with this petition be waved. This
property is located in the residential RB district assessor's parcel ID map 126 block 469 lot one and consists of approximately 94 acre. Good evening
Mr. Mr. Chairman, just to give some for the record, sir. Kurani, 28 Al. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to give some very brief context, as the board likely knows, this is the first um ADU application that that this board has
seen. Uh and it's likely the first time uh the board is um uh seeing or dealing with the ADU bylaw and the ADU issue. Uh so based upon that uh we've asked councel uh to join us tonight uh kind of
walk the board through um the uniqueness of uh the ADU as as it's defined by the state uh which is a do use. So there's it's unlike many things that the zoning board has dealt with in the past. It's not a special
permit. It's not a variance. Um Farooq is the first applicant. He's been engaged with town hall uh for many many months. Uh and the final item I'll say is that this will likely be the first of a number of similar applications that
will need to go to the zoning board until such time as the uh the planning board uh decides or chooses to advance any amendments based upon uh the ZBA experience. We are in essence uh reviewing the
building inspector's decision. As I understand it, the uh your the building inspector denied the byite application based upon the the the words in the bylaw. Uh and it is now your job based upon uh the applicant's
request uh to make a determination uh as to what extent the uh the request for a second dedicated driveway for the ADU is is reasonable and council will council and the applicant will go into much more uh detail related to that that
reasonleness test because we don't have any information this on the zoning book. Correct. It's this is all new. Yeah, this is all new law. We won't have anything in the zoning book to refer to. We have a we have an ADU bylaw um which uh in many aspects reflects the
state um ADU bylaw. This provision um is essentially a local provision. This is a town provision. Yeah, it's essentially a local town provision at a town meeting. Correct. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. You'd like to give us a little overview
of your point of view on this? Um, again, you know, I'm I've stated it in my application. I'm not sure if you guys have have fully read it or not, but essentially the state gives all homeowners the buy right um for attached
or detached ADU. Um, I'm applying for a detached ADU with a garage. My lot is, you know, if you see this, it's a it's a wide lot. Okay. The the most reasonable way to do this is with
separate driveway. The most unreasonable way to try to make me do it is pave through my front yard to get to the garage. It's just that simple. Um, and I, as I stated in the application, Chumford's ADU bylaw, and I, and I, I
told the planning board this when they were drafting it, does not allow for a do use reasonleness, you know, calculation, unlike other towns like NIC, etc., where they have a ladder of, okay, we'd prefer this, we'd
prefer this, but then a driveway is ultimately allowed. So, because the building inspector, who is the zoning enforcement officer, is not given permission by the town to determine the reasonleness of a request that falls now
on ZBA. Am I stating it correctly? Sounds right to me. We could get a little uh input from the attorney on the how this would work. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this on?
Yes. Okay, good. So, maybe just a little more overview might help the board. So, you do town meeting did adopt a bylaw um to address accessory dwelling units. Uh it's now section 195-6.1.
Um and that sets the requirements for um allowing ADUs in the town. That bylaw was adopted to bring the town into compliance with the recent changes to state law which make ADUs of a certain size
a byright use wherever single family homes are allowed in the town. So this bile is an attempt to basically meet those standards. However, there are certain number of black and white requirements in the bylaw which the town is allowed to put
into that bylaw. Some of those are design requirements, some of those are dimensional requirements. One of the requirements here, it's in section D4, um is that no additional off- streetet parking
space should be required. Um, an off- streetet parking space shall have vehicular access to the existing driveway. A separate driveway shall not be permitted for an ADU. That's from the town's bylaw. So, what Mr. Fannie proposed is an ADU on his conforming
lot, which has his house on it, and you'll see the plan that he put up there. Um, everything about that ADU conforms to the town's bylaw except for one thing. It has a separate driveway. And if I may, um, in in the AG's
response to the town town counc um that this would be a a factf finding um and not follow the bylaw strictly. Jumping ahead a little bit here. So the AG has not reviewed his petition.
The AG has looked at the town's bylaw and approved it. It excised a few words, but now it's in effect. So what's different about this from a normal application, normal appeal, is that if his if a building permit
application for an ADU does not comply with the black and white town bylaw, ordinarily that would simply be a no and you could ask for a variance or special permit. But this particular use is now a protected use like churches, like
schools, like child care centers. They're in a section separate section of the state zoning act that says you can only reasonably regulate again as to those uses. And what that means is that for each particular use if a regulation
of the town um if the if the use cannot comply is height and you want to have a large steeple. Exactly. Yep. Mormon church. Okay. Right. The issue it doesn't stop there. Then the board is required or the town is required to go the next step. That
step is to look at what is being requested. Look at what the B what is the purpose of the bylaw requirement that they want to go beyond and look at what the impact will be on the use and to balance those two things. And if the
impact on the use is greater than the the benefit to the town, then it has to be allowed. even though in black and white it says no. So that's because this is a special protected use. Now it gets the benefit of that consideration and that's what the board is being asked to
do tonight. So our decision basically is is the driveway allowed to go in a roadway a new creation of a driveway. Correct. I mean to look at it, it's it's clearly the the ideal place, but are we
obligated to provide a garage in this ADU that is not uh you know the 836 square feet uh is the ADU but the 294 square feet is a garage and it must be separate not I
not physically separate but that would end up being 1100 square feet which would make it oversized. if you call it part of the ADU. Right. Correct. And it and under the state's definition, the garages do not count for counting the ADU size is not
right. Correct. We're really deciding whether we grant the garage or the access to the garage as well. Correct. Okay. Right. I mean, it's something to discuss. It's something to understand. Correct. Right. If the garage was of a size that was under the 850 is it the 900 square feet?
900. If it was under that, then it'd be a much different scenario. If the ADU was greater than 900 square ft, that's a completely different scenario. Those it that exceeds a dimensional requirement, right? That would Yeah, that would then take it beyond the state protection. But
we do have an ADU here that would be protected, is protected because it meets that definition of 900 ft. So the garage is not not counter. So it's not part of the ADU. Correct. Well, it's it can serve it and that's allowable, but it's not counted
as part of the 900 ft, right? This is tricky. Yes, it is. Agreeable. Are there any thoughts from the board at this time? Well, mine at first, um, it seems like
the ADU is part of the front yard. Um, but maybe I'm looking at it incorrectly. That must be the side here. Is it allowed to exceed the footprint of the house as to the front? It must comply with the dimensional
requirements, but according to the plan, it does comply with all dimensional requirements. So, Jose, if I can ask, if I wanted to build a freestanding garage, I cannot put that in front of my house. Is that correct as part of the bylaw? Per the definition of the bylaw, that is
correct. Yes. I guess that's another consideration is is this proud of the house proper? This one is specifically Yes, this one. This one meets the requirement. It's not it's not in front of the house. It is
so that it's to the side, but it it's it's allowed to be the front of it, right? The front. Okay. I'm sorry. I think I interrupted. I was just trying to figure I have an idea. Um I drive by this house almost every day and um and it really
is. It's a massive lot and I and I think people should go look at it just because it's the first one and we want to make this correct. We want to make everyone feel a sidewalk or we could individually we really don't even need a sidewalk.
Just drive down the road. Right. So, we don't need to meet No, I don't think so. Do we need to meet anyone there and see where Cuz you're If we do If we drive by and look at your lot, we we'll know where the Yeah. No, I'm right next to Tracy, by the way. So,
pardon me. I'm I'm I'm at the end of a dead end, so Yeah, there's no sidewalk there. Yeah. Right by my niece's house. Right. Right. Um, so I I think that would help us a little to look at the lot.
Okay, that's only my opinion, of course, and whatever you think. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. I have a question at the town council. Did the state in in enacting the ADU
bylaws, per se, from from their standpoint? Did they say one way or the other that turb cuts would are allowed or not allowed? Did they say anything about it specifically? State regulations don't address curb cuts, they don't address driveways. Not
expressly. So the town uh if I may and if I may, um while the while the regulations do not specifically address it, the model ADU bylaw put out by the state does actually
address it. Um and town council's aware of this and they basically as I've put in my application say that um you know for a corner lot um you know a curb cut may make sense and it has to be
reasonable. But um just again the model ADU bylaw from the state does specifically address this because there was commentary during the regul regulation period and when the state put out the model ADU bylaw they
specifically said this about curb cuts. Yeah. Just to be clear. So the state model bylaw is not a regulation. It's not a requirement. It's state guidance. It's the state's profered guidance to towns about how to apply the regulations.
They then address this particular situation and say it might be reasonable in certain circumstances, particularly as a corner lot, to allow for a separate driveway or allow for separate curb cut notwithstanding what your regulations might say. That's all it says. It
doesn't say yes or no. recommendation. So the so the state is saying uh reasonleness is is the by really the law that's where the do come judgment comes in sorry that's where he's referencing the do judgment so that we have the reasonable
ability to make right and the town when these when these rules came out the planning board uh did what they could to uh in some ways
cut back on what was limited in what the state had put forward. One of them was coming forward with this requirement that there could not be curb cuts when obviously there are circumstances where curb cuts are
the most reasonable thing you could do uh and not ownor and the state one of the things the state wanted to do was not have something ownorous on someone who wants to have an ADU. They made ADUs a right and they didn't want to put anything that was ownorous on anyone
having an ADU. In this case, having the driveway not in the most logical place is ownorous on the applicant and that was the intent of the state. Not having anything ownorous
uh on an applicant because they are trying to increase the stock of lowincome housing. That's basically where it all came from. So, it would seem to make sense that in in terms of reasonleness,
the town when it the planning board when they put together their impediment for no curb cuts, they didn't leave in any dialogue about reasonleness. They just said no. Period. which really should
have gone back to the it would seem it should have gone back to the state and and the state would have said all right these are chumsford's changes that they want to make to ours and from what I think council believes they never came forward and say yeah chumsford's changes
or requirements are all acceptable except for this one which is not reasonable that never happened correct so it's but the state left it continued to leave nebulous. If I may, sir. Uh, I would let Can you hold on a minute? I'm trying to
hear him. Just hold up. Sorry. Go ahead. So, reasonleness is where it resides. The state was almost um locked down the rules for ADUs, except for this curb cut issue,
which left it to boards like ours to say, is it reasonable or not reasonable? Whether the city decided, the town decided that uh curb cuts were allowed or weren't allowed, it would still be on us to say it's reasonable or not
reasonable. In this case, it seems to be perfectly reasonable and not to be ownorous on the applicant. I don't think there's any neighbor who's going to complain about this curb cut in this particular location. There may be cases where the additional curb cut could be
ownorous on the neighborhood. But this certainly doesn't seem to be one of them. Good, good point. Could we see the neighborhood shot of the if you wouldn't mind the I would like to chime in, sir.
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify again. You know, I I appreciate your remarks that the state did have a chance to review the the ADU by bylaw, including the code and town council made representation to the state and the AG
that the specific bylaw lines would in fact be applied on a case-byase, fact-byact basis. Uh um there there was a review by the state on this and town council did make
representation in writing to the state and the state's letter back to the town uh did incorporate that as well. So the case by case is that correct like when when the commissioner denies the case by case is is that's what we're here for.
Is is that the case? Did the state come back and say it's on a casebyase basis to the town? So, just to be clear about that, the bylaw when it's adopted by Tom Mini is submitted to the attorney general for review and approval. The attorney general is looking to see if
the bylaw conflicts with state law. The attorney general found in this instance with this particular piece that it does comply with state law. However, Mr. Ferrani submitted a letter to the attorney general as part of that review
suggesting that this was an unreasonable regulation. We were asked as town council to respond to that letter. We then sent a letter also to the AG. Mr. Fannie is correct that in that letter we acknowledged, we didn't promise. We
acknowledged that state law requires the board to do exactly what it's doing now, which is make a reasonleness determination if a case is brought to the board saying in this instance it's not reasonable to apply this bylaw to this application.
So, just to add to that. So it's so the state is saying that in this particular ca in this particular part of things reasonleness is something that the ZBA can rule on.
And absolutely. Yes. And in fact the state gives you a test in its regulations that you can apply to determine what is and what is not reasonable. And the first part of the test is you look at the intent, the purpose of the zoning bylaw that's being
looked at in this case. That's the that's the driveway requirement. What is the purpose of having a requirement that there should be no second driveway? What was this? What was the town's response to that? No, I'm I'm saying this is what's in front of the board now. This was not part of the review with the attorney
general. This is how the test works when it's applied to an application. So, this board is going to determine what's not acceptable and what is acceptable. Period. What's the purpose of the bylaw? And then looking at this application, what is the impact on this person?
Well, you're saying that the this board is supposed to be over the planning board's rule that we can say, yeah, it's it's a legitimate requirement or it's not a legitimate requirement. So, the requirement's legitimate. The requirement itself is legitimate. On a
case-bycase basis, this board has the authority to determine that in a particular situation, it's not reasonable to apply it. But on a case-byase basis, refers to every one of these that comes before us. Only if the building inspector denies it based on a
well, he's going to deny every one of them because it's against town law. This this is why in my opening comments I said based upon the ZBA getting a number of these or a dozen of these the planning board may go back into the
bylaw and revi recommend revising it accordingly if there's a common trend with the zoning board. But I think I think the initial um uh statements that you made and then what Jamie was referring to looking at
the neighborhood now you're beginning to do a fact-based analysis. So I think you're on the right the right methodology here. You've indicated that you know maybe uh members want to do a driveby since it's the first one. But while it's not a variance and not a
special permit, many of the same uh attributes and criteria that you would normally consider would likely be part of this fact-based analysis, I think. And step one of the test, right? What's the intent of the bylaw according to planning board and town
meeting, right? Not to have two driveways next to each other in the front yard, right? Well, there was never any me there was never any discussion of what their intent was. They just made the rule. Okay. I think we could probably all agree they don't want two driveways in
the front yard. I mean, that seems pretty common sense in my opinion, but if we look at his property and his proposed location, it really kind of veers to the side. He's on a corner lot at the end of the road looking at where
he is and the position of where he plans to build said a um ADU. Putting the driveway where it wants to be I don't think would visually look like two driveways parallel to each
other in the front yard in my opinion. So, I don't think looking at it from here and here, it would violate, in my assumption, the intent of the no cut, no curb preventing because if if it if it was the lot next
to him and they tried to do it, it would look like two driveways parallel to each other in the front yard. And I don't think that's what the planning board or the town really wants to see. As opposed to his lot, it's more to the side. on the cur on the side
in in my opinion. It's just my assessment. You know, I I agree with you. I think the the the ultimate intent here is that we don't want to set a precedent one way or the other that they are acceptable or they're not acceptable.
We're looking at it from the standpoint of in this case only. But we're held to president, but it's very powerful regardless of we're held to it. It's he did it, why can't I? And it's it's very that's why we analyze every case individually and based on its facts
presented and so to make sure we can articulate our decision based on the record set in front of us. I think that any any motion would have to include dialogue of why we found this one acceptable because we would be using as a defense basically
later on if we had to. Right. At the end of the day, we're voting on a driveway, right? Yes. Well, I mean, he can put his a his ADU there one way or the other. The ADU can go. We're voting on a driveway, right? But I mean, the bigger picture is preservation of the neighborhood
characteristic of the community meet up, you know, upholding the bylaws as it was voted by the town, right? So, town members voted on it, went to town meeting, like there was this whole governmental process that the community went through. You know, that's what we're supposed to represent. But we have
one of our community members standing in front of us where that as a blanket may not be completely 100% beneficial in his particular situation. So yeah, it is a driveway at its singular at its singular look, but in the grand scheme,
I'm not trying to belittle the driveway. I'm just saying there there's the ADU, which which is the structure, which is allowed by right, which will go in one way or the other. Even if we say no, if he wants to not put a driveway, he can still put that structure in. So, we're not exercising any ability to
deny him his ADU. That's he'll just park he'll just park in his driveway and have to do a long walk. to travel to He can come in and and put a driveway in along the front of the house and get to the garage,
cut away all his nice lawn. Not impossible. I think I really would uh like to look at it as well with Charlie. I think that we would uh continue this and and get a look at it uh in person to understand it. Is it staked at all, sir? Uh the
property itself, is it staked for the location of this? Um I actually did call Dick Safe. Um and yeah, they probably wouldn't be doing Well, so to have Dig Safe, you have to mark it on the property. Yeah. And basically there there there's no gas lines or whatever. But did you
stake out the price so we could go by and see where you'd like to put this the drive? Not because I have not been requested to do that. Um, and I would request the the the board to rule expeditiously given that I
I filed the permit request months ago and there is a limited building season. I'm sure you can see reasonably that again it's on a corner lot. There's a dead end there. Um, Mr. the f is familiar with the area. Again, I
literally have no neighbors on the side as I put in my in my property in my application. I have no neighbors. There's no sidewalk. I understand that if a house in front of a school where it's busy street wanted to have a second
driveway, that would not be reasonable. This is the literal opposite effect of, you know, where a driveway, if there's a driveway to be promitted at all. Mine pretty much falls right towards, you know, there's no, you know, interference
here. So, I would request the board to please rule now so I can get started. A drive by is not going to help. I'm happy to pull up Google Maps on my phone to show it to you, but I mean literally there's there's no neighbors there.
There's the votes just farm where the FL at one end and that's it. Mr. Chair, just one comment for for all of these, not just this application. One of the factors that you consider in
terms of impact of this bylaw on the is the cost to the applicant of having to comply. And that's actual cost. That's dollar cost. Um that's one thing the board can and should consider. If that cost is outsized compared to the benefit to the town, then the result should be
that uh an exemption is allowed. When you say benefit to the town, just the benefit of meaning the ADU, the benefit of applying the bylaw in this particular situation. So keeping it from having that second driveway. Correct.
Okay. The part of the state's ADU dialogue was that town city and towns, if they wanted to modify it in any way, uh they shouldn't be doing anything that's ownorous to the applicant moneywise. If he misses the the building
season and he has to build it next year, the cost of building is going to be more than it is now. It's going to have a direct cost uh detriment to him. I can't make a decision on that. I don't I don't find that reasonable. I'm just saying that's part of why the state did
what they did. That they said you can't cause the applicant to spend more money uh by putting some impediment in his way based on their rules. They signed off on it. The attorney general said this is acceptable. Our
bylaws are acceptable. No, he said that they in some cases you could do it and in some cases you can't do it based on reasonableness. They didn't say you can't on this specific item of a driveway, a second driveway. That was a ruling
that the ruling from what council said, they came back and said that uh the board, the zoning board has the ability to use reasonleness and reasonleness can be many things. I agree. And cost is one of the reasonleness
items you might want to throw on there. And they said reasonleness is in the eyes of the board. If the board says that it is reasonable in this case specific case, they can find uh against
the hard rule that the town has because they've given the board, the ZBA the ability to be reasonable in the interpretation of the town's rule. They left it up to the ZBA to determine how hard and fast that rule is. Is that
paraphrasing? That's essentially correct. Yes. So, we have the ability to say in this case it is reasonable and the town's uh idea of why they wanted to do this have this rule doesn't apply in this case.
In other cases, it may apply, but we are the final authority on that reason. I don't see how a driveby is going to confirm or or change anybody's mind. what they're going to do with this. I think I think the the applicant has a
reasonable request that we act on this and I mean I think that I think the this Google map here does a pretty I mean it's wide open and pretty cleared lots. Can you go back to the house it I'm sorry. Can you go back to the house itself?
The lot I have it right. This is your This is your own. Yes, sir. That's being shown there. Okay. Again, literally there's half an acre and the driveway is going to be way down there, right? Yeah. The driveway is right at the other end at the dead end. Yeah, it's it's effectively I mean I
think I think I think you pointed it out. Bush. There's a fire hydrant at the end. It might probably go all the way there. It's literally half an acre of nothing which they mow. You see the hydrant right there? How how far from the hydrant is the new proposed
driveway? I think it's a little farther towards the street from what he has up now in those arrows. I don't think it's shown on this. I'm sorry. Oh, there's the tree line. So, it's a little bit past the tree line. Okay. So, it's like the bush and the tree line. Between the bush and the tree line.
I mean, there there are some neighborhoods where we have driveways closer to each other. Yeah. On lots. Absolutely. Yeah. Probably the next two next to the next two lots. I think we're closer. I I guess one of my struggles here is simply
the garage is not the ADU. I mean, I that was explained by councel. Well, I understand it's perfectly legal to do this, but we're being asked to approve a driveway to a garage that's not part of the ADU, right?
The law doesn't say everybody gets a garage with an ADU. It says you get 900 square feet for a dwelling. and he has an 1100 foot dwelling adding a garage. I thought the garage didn't count as the dwelling. And if I may, I I believe that state law
says that that the 900 is livable area, not and we're required to approve the living area. We're not required to approve the garage. Nothing says we have to approve a garage. But is the right there's there's nothing in anything that
says you can't have a garage with an ADU. I don't think the garage is in front of you. Yeah, we're here. The old I think the way I look at it is applicants have a choice to make particularly if we're detached. Do they want a garage or
do they not want a garage as part of the ADU application? If he chose to make a fivecar garage there right after the setbacks, that'd be fine. Um, no. I don't I don't believe the building commissioner would trigger there. Then
uh anything any detached structure that's not an ADU over 900 square ft requires a special permit. I think you could also make a reasonable interpretation that a 900 ft ADU is reasonable to have no more than a twocar garage.
I'm I'm not saying the garage is not reasonable. I'm just trying to understand where but to speak to your point I think applicants as the ADU law is set up applicants have a choice and in this case the applicants choosing
to include a garage as I understand it to serve the ADU they have that right created a a structure that is over 900 square ft state the state law doesn't the state law does not include the garage towards
the 900 square ft. So then why can't he have five garages? Yeah. I think then we'd say it's not reasonable. I think the commissioner would likely say that's not that's not reasonable and that's not within uh reasonleness of a of a 900 foot
uh reason but but this application is a what is it? A one car one car garage. way. Even if I didn't have a garage to access that ADU because it's detached on the side, the most
reasonable way is still from the street. It's not across my front yard. So, the garage is a moot point. I disagree with you. I I think that if you didn't have the garage, then they could park in your driveway and there could be a walk to the house. Well, that
may not be your decision, but it certainly would be in keeping with the the town's request. And that would not be given the location. And again, this is this is about approving the driveway only. It's really about approving the curb cut
and which is to be what the planning board is having a problem with and did make a ruling on not going to have two. It wasn't vague. Now again what is vague about it is the is again the state has said and the town council has committed
that this is to be applied with a standard of reasonableness on a casebyase fact by fact basis and if my location isn't reasonable for a driveway nothing is I'm again and because because
it's on the side and because of the location because it's a dead And because of those sidewalks, O'Brien applicants in this particular case, a detached could still want a driveway without a garage. I I don't
So the garage isn't I don't view the garage as really being in front of the the It's going to be a problem down the road to approve another curb cut because the next guy in here is going to say the same thing. And it's he has a point, I think. you know. Yeah. I mean, I think you need to continue going going through the methodology.
Uh I What about butters to get notified on this? This whole thing hinges on the reasonable test. The next guy coming in asks for a curb cut and we say, "Well, you're too close to the existing driveway. It's not reasonable." I think this one's reasonable. I think the applicant's
correct. And sir, if I may, the the the state model ADU bylaw specifically states that the ZEO, the zoning enforcement officer, who is the building commissioner in this case, shall again, as part of the model ADU bylaw guidance,
shall wave town bylaws that are unreasonable in that particular case. But he didn't. again because again I'm think because the model ADU bylaw came out after the town had already passed it
bylaw the town bylaw did not give the CEO the power to conduct that reasonable test reasonable that test now falls on the ZBA procedurally that was all discussed as part of the planning board deliberations
the planning board understood um what they were proposing and town meeting was presented and understood what they adopted. It was understood that there was no clear guidance or directive to empower the building
commissioner and in and by default everyone understood that meant that people had the right to petition the zoning board. Let me let me say I'm a town meeting member. I was there when this was voted.
There was no great discussion about this specific part of it because it was just kind of swept up with the rest of the dialogue. It was left to us to make a decision. If this particular case is uh determined as
not acceptable, I agree with the applicant. What the heck could possibly be acceptable? It's in the middle of nowhere basically and is the most logical thing to not make anything ownorous on the applicant.
You know, we still reserve the right to judge every one of these individually. This is the first. You know, maybe it would better if the first one was not acceptable. And we could argue that part of it, but this seems to be totally acceptable where he wants to put it. and
not owners and you got nothing back from the neighbors that they found this unacceptable. I would assume we haven't had public comment yet but uh we have we did not receive anything in writing. Okay. Are we going to hearing and all the uters were within
300 foot radius were notified and it is a public hearing so at some point we can open them up. Are we going to have a public oh yeah comment? We can certainly have this vote now. I I don't have a problem with that. just don't agree with it. Should we Is there anyone here who's want to speak on this?
We got to get to that. We haven't gotten there yet. And we can go there right now. We have letters, right? The departmental letters first. Okay. I'm going to read in the letters from the town regarding this. 28 Elorado Road. That is not us, right? Yes. Okay. The office reviewed the project
application plans and the DPW has no concerns regarding the location of the proposed driveway. I can I can read them all. Trash and recycling service are made through primary dwelling and remain capped at that limit. Trash and recycling will not be provided at the new driveway. The
proposed ADU will be near or possibly over the existing sewer service. The applicant must contact the DPW sewer division to coordinate any necessary actions to alter the sewer service. Sewer capacity impact fee to be assessed with the building permit per sewer use regulations. Six bathroom calculations,
excuse me, bedroom calculations 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. sewer connection as proposed for the ADU must connect on
property. A plan showing the proposed sewer connection must be submitted to the DPW for review prior to the building permit approval. Plan should include the proposed elevation at the ADU and proposed at the tie-in location. A licensed contractor must apply for a sewer and trench permit and the DPW at
the start of work. Erosion control must retain sediment on site. The street should be swept and cleaned from construction dust. Silts sack or other equal erosion control should be installed in catch basins at the front of 28 Elorado Road. Consideration should be made to install
roof drain drywalls to reduce the volume of storm water runoff generated by the roof of the proposed ADU. This is not a requirement for approval. That's the letter from the engineering fire prevention office administrative
appeal 28 Elorado Road. Dear members of the board, fire prevention office reviewed the administrative appeal for 28 Elorado Road and offers the following comments. An application shall be filed with the town's E911 committee for addressing purposes. Clear and visible numbering must be posted on both
structures located on the property. While construction shall comply with the current requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code regarding smoke, heat, and carbon monoxide detection, plants will be viewed by this office as part of the building permitting process. A final inspection by the fire prevention office
shall be required prior to the occupancy and use. We respect this request the letter be made part of the public record and incorporated into your final approval process. Josh Abbott, Captain Fire Prevention Office. We have a letter from the Chumsed Water
District. No concerns. With no concerns. We have a letter from the Chumsard Water District. No concerns. Sorry. We have a letter from the Chelmsford Police Department with no concerns.
We have a letter from the Treasury Collector with no concerns. We have a letter from the board of health with no concerns. This time if there's not further questions, I'll open this up to
the audience for concerns, comment, opposition. Seeing none, we have enough. We can motion to close the public hearing. Brian, why don't we not close it till we um till we do the um the next thing on
the on the request. It's the applicant also um requires that all the um all the legal fees, notifications, and filing be waved. That's part of the request. Right. Right. I I don't know.
I think we should do that before we definitely take that up. Yeah. Yeah. Does anyone have any thoughts on it? What is What? Why do you want to do that? I'm sorry. Why do you feel you have the right to have all the fees waved?
Because I'll tell you why. because the town when passing the bylaw did not give the the zoning enforcement officer the
ability to conduct a reasonleness test with regard to the do amendment use. So therefore for a applicant to request that there should not be additional fees
um because it the the town bylaw does not match the bylaw and does not match other towns which allow a reasonableness test request without additional fees being paid if that makes sense.
I I understand what you're saying. I mean, aren't we following the due process that we laid out? What can I ask what additional fees were incurred by having to be here today for you as opposed to the What additional fees were incurred as oo with him denying and you appearing here
as opposed to him doing the reasonable test and um there was a a administrative appeal fee I believe. I can I can speak to that. Thank you. Um the application fee for administrative appeal is $300. There were 15 abutters on the certified
abutters list um which equaled $52.50 for the mailing fee and then the newspaper legal ad was a total of $67826. Um the three added come to a total of $1,30.76. Okay.
Thank you. I I think the the intent by the state was that if we caused him unusual uh costs uh unnecessarily,
then he shouldn't have to pay those. For example, if he had to come here tonight with hire an attorney to come here tonight to defend this situation, that you could potentially make an argument that that is a burden on him that he shouldn't have had to. But as
it's written up there, these are normal costs and have no bearing on causing a burden that would be the same thing for anybody to to pay. If anybody wants to appeal the decision as the law was written, this would be the process,
right? And that that last that last uh pot shouldn't apply to this case. And and in my opinion, every town has their right as a planning board and as the town meeting to make their bylaws what they fit for the community. And why we have a zoning
board of appeals is to for the town members to come to us if they don't like the commissioner's decision. So not if the town doesn't want that right to discretionary right to approve uh
override the board the zoning laws then that's why the town members come to a zoning board of appeals. That's why the town has us has elected us to serve here. So um Unfortunat that's how the board and the town wants to maintain
that level of procedural process. I mean that's unfortunately that process what I'm saying is that you can follow the process but that the the town of Chford has imposed a special
cost on doing that process as opposed to allowing for the model the state's model the ADU bylaw allowing the zoning enforcement officer to make that reasonable determination first and then
if need needed come to the ZBA for an appeal because the town bylaw itself was so rigid. It starts off not allowing the the CEO to even conduct that the bullet
decision. I'd like to see if every town who's adopted a new bylaw has given the authority to the commissioner besides chunks. Regardless, it's what our town voted on. This is ours. It is and maybe the law needs to change but at
this point it's it's and everybody comes to the zoning board of appeals for any appeal it's the same amount of special permanent varian special permit varian that is the price you pay for building in Chilford I guess uh to the town council did I hear you
correctly earlier that after these have come to the ZBA enough times then then we will have set a precedent for the building uh inspector to to make a reasonleness decision.
So you yeah your decisions if you make several decisions it will provide guidance to the building commissioner from which he then could make that decision on his own. He's not prohibited from making that decision but he chose in this instance I think rightfully so
says the byw bywall is black and white. You don't comply. I don't feel qualified to make a reasonless determination at this time. You can appeal it to the ZBA. They can apply the test. So, playing the tape forward several months and we've heard say a half a
dozen of these, we've made a decision. This is not reasonable. This is reasonable and so on and so forth. We didn't necessarily we may not put in dimensions like you can't have a driveway 10t away from another driveway, that kind of thing. But a but
after a certain amount of time the uh the building inspector commissioner will have the uh if I say make the reasonable test on his own. I think the town's I think the town's tendency is to throw it back as a warrant back to the town for an adjust
amendment to the zoning laws. Is that Yeah. Well, that's that's where I'm going. Yeah. Yeah. With this. So in the future the fees that the gentleman incurred won't even be there because it will be approved by the uh inspector.
That would be true. If he doesn't have to appeal then there wouldn't be any fee. But of course the fees are for costs of the town. That's what fees are. And those costs have been expended in this instance. So it's completely fair. I'm I'm going to play devil's advocate as well because
everybody who exceeded an ADU over 750 square feet had to come and get a special permit or an appeal and now by right it's 900 square feet. So should we wave all those people who No, no, what I'm what I'm saying is Yeah, I know I know what you're saying
but no what I'm saying is someone who comes to us say a year from now the fees won't be incurred perhaps. I know because the building inspector simply approved it with a reasonable test, but they're here now. I mean, we can ask OJ, but I don't think
he has uh any it doesn't if we did a hundred of these, it still doesn't give him any guidance unless we specifically say, which we can't be 10t away from another driveway. Uh the curve of the of the you know, you can't put it where there's an
extreme curve. Well, there's no there's no guidance on the dimensions or the position of the driveway. Again, it's a reasonable the town the town would have to do that a town meeting and become part of the zoning law. Am I off on that, Hunt? Would you feel
I think this is a learning curve for all of us right now. But I think I will I will I will do the same thing I did on this one for others which is under article one second driveways are prohibited.
um per the uh advice of KP Law and my conversation with the planning uh department it is best if I proceed the same way I'm proceeding uh if it ends up in the zoning law that
this is what a second driveway can contain then you would you would have be very comfortable grading or not grading but until that then that would be something that I could do by right we can't set the guidance for that I don't think That's why I started with town council and I thought I heard
that accurate to say we can't really set guidelines for that as far as wouldn't we be changing the zoning laws by saying you can have a second driveway as long as you whatever the parameters might be. No, your reasoning on each decision might from that people could say okay
decision they would have to come to us have to have the legal notice and the newspaper ad which is significant. Yeah, you can't amend the zoning bylaw by your decisions. Right. Right. We can't we can't not make the decision without the legal notice or without the correct uh newspaper.
The same when they amended the bylaw a couple years ago after we saw all of the same special permit for the 10% increase, right? We saw like a hundred of the same things. So then they amended that it did. And at that point the law changed. The law changed because they saw a trend
and was like, "Okay, here's the trend." That's only done, if I'm not mistaken, a town meeting where are the feet something that we've ever ruled on? No. No. Why is he even brought to this board? I mean, that's more about the town itself. Yeah. That's just
Mr. Chair, technically it's a request that he's made. It's not part of his appeal that's been made in his appeal, but it's really just a request to the board. So, we don't have to vote on that separately. I think the motion would either include It is a separate motion not include because it's written. Okay. Correct.
Yeah. I think you could just Yeah, you could have a separate motion and just say with with respect to your with respect to your request to wave the fee denied. Yeah. Okay. Any further questions?
Make a motion to close the public hearing. I like second by Peter. All in favor? I opposed. Seeing none, it's unanimous. Um,
Brian, Steven, Jamie, Charlie, and Peter. The five regular members. Okay. Okay. Um, can I make a motion because this is the first one and I'd like to make a motion to approve
the first ever um right by denial per article 1D4 for parking for the first ADU. Um, in the motion if I could um the the filing fee the notifications and legal
fees um shall not be waved. So you're making a motion. Uphold. Uphold. Uphold. No. Keep the keep the fees the same. You just for the for the driveway. Oh, the driveway is definitely approved.
We always make a motion in the affirmative. We approve the right of denial. Yeah. I guess that's the backwards. I don't know what I'm agreeing with or not. That's why I'm asking for clarification. Appeal. Administrative. Could you do those separately? We differently. We have two motions. Yeah. Two motions. to approve the
administrative appeal. Is that what the motion was? Yes. Thereby overturning the building. Overturning the by right. Okay. So, okay. So, this the single motion just for the
driveway. Yes. And if you vote yes, it's to approve the overturn the building inspector's decision. A no vote or opposed would be to uphold the building inspector's decision. Right. Kind of backwards. Yes. But it's okay.
Yeah. We need to make it in the room in the affirmative. Oh, really? So, we're approving application, which is to overturn Jose's decision. Is everyone clear on the decision? Can I
I'd like to make a motion to overturn the building commissioner's uh decision on 28 Elorado Road for the administrative appeal and allow and allow the driveway installation of the driveway. Okay, that's much better.
Okay, that'll be the motion that is made. That's the motion to allow. Would you like a second or second? Second by Charlie. All in favor? Second by Charlie. Opposed? Um, so read two. Is it a super majority? Yes.
So it is denied. Denied. Could I just see that that was Stephen, Peter, and Brian opposed? Opposed to And then we would have a second vote, correct? For the fees.
make a motion to deny the uh waving of the fees for the application for 28 El Dorado Road. You're voting to make a motion to I'm sorry. I make I make a motion to approve the request to overturn or wave
the fees for the uh filing for 28 Elorado Eldorado Road for their administrative appeals. I second the motion. Second motion. So that means that if we if you vote in the affirmative, you're approving overturning the fees. Correct.
Okay. All those in favor? Seeing none and opposed? Seeing five. Okay. Wait, wait, Brian, just so I'm clear here, we did not allow the driveway to go in. Correct. Correct.
Why? What is What is I I don't understand. What is the reasonable leg lo legit logic? Do you have to provide a reasonleness logic? I I don't agree with you. So that's why I voted to not do that. I don't know the
opinions of the other board members. This is the area to discuss any of that. Right. We voted and I mean at this point there'll be a written decision that you'll have to issue once it's drafted. The board will have an opportunity to vote on that which would provide reasons for the decision and then and there's an appeals route
for that as well. I'm sorry, what? There's an appeals route for that as well. You don't If you agree by our decision, you can appeal it. I I don't Why did the other members not vote? We're associate members.
I'm sorry. We're associate. Only five Only five people vote. Five people. Five people in the vote. Okay. But I don't you can you can maybe Evan can explain it better. You can appeal this decision.
The applicant understands his options. I think he's just in shock and may be a little puzzled as to why two members who voted against may not have articulated. But as as council mentioned, the decision will have to provide um clear reasoning.
Yeah. He's saying two out of the three did not articulate. Brian Oh, okay. was very vocal about his reasoning. I I got you. I feel one of the options to you is if you do appeal this, and there's a process to do that,
part of that process allows you to claim unreasonleness causing you harm and ask for the money's back. If you have to hire a lawyer, you could ask for the money if if a higher
authority agrees with you. Um, so what exactly was the vote? 3 to two against against three to two to uphold the building commissioner's assessment uh that the
town of Chunford bylaws do apply. The reasonable test was upheld with his decision and the application of the rules of the law and the reasonable reasons were what exactly? Well, the next steps are staff was going to draft
a decision. We're going to ask the three members who voted against to provide their reasoning based upon the uh the testimony this evening. Council will review it. We'll clock it in with the town clerk and you
have there will be a 20-day appeal period, but the decision the decision as council said will articulate the reason of a denial. They're going to put it in writing for you and you'll get that. Is there a way to rapidly appeal this?
You have you have to have a written decision filed with the town clerk before an appeal period begins to run. So the board has as much time as right board will draft a written decision. Once it's filed with the town clerk, you can appeal.
Mr. Chairman, just just for the record that in the meantime, the applicant can continue with the uh ADU building with with the construction project. I believe that would be correct. Yeah. You can you can build the ADU. This
won't help pull you just you can't build your driveway. No, but the decision will be clocked in within 14 days is what we normally we normally do. But if you if you go back No, I'm sorry. But the the town has to provide me a reasonable alternative to a driveway. I
mean again it it literally the alternative to the driveway which I don't believe the town is required to provide for you because again is not part of the ADU. It is part of the garage but you can put a driveway from your driveway right in there. Again it literally makes no difference
if there's a garage there or not because of the location of the ADU. You'll when they give you the written decision, you'll have your reasoning by the those members that voted against your application and you have a right to appeal, but their decision about the
driveway does not prevent you from building the ADU. So, it won't stop you from incurring or cause you to incur any costs or delay in building the ADU. that that's completely not true because without a
So so we voted it's not going to change. So sorry it didn't go the way you'd like it to go but but we do need to move on to the next application unfortunately. I'm sorry. We do need to move on to the next application and we're going to take it out of order at this point. We're going to hold off
on off Old Westford Road and take on 180 Mil Road. The applicant is Tim Scally of Construction Design and Build representing uh representing America's America and Erica Luango requesting a variance under the
zoning bylaw 1959 conformity to construct a new family room and home office addition to their conforming single family dwelling which does not meet the minimum 25- ft setback and any other relief deemed necessary. This property is located in the residential
RB district. Good evening. How you doing? Did you want the family in the room with you? Um I be Yeah, I'm going in real quick. Do we have to finish Marose first? Thank you guys for your time tonight. Uh I think that's just a signature.
Okay, we're just waiting on the names. All right. I just I want to make sure that open that way. Jonathan, thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right, sir. Thank you. Rend your money, that's for sure. Oh, no, not yet. It ain't over till the flat.
We're doing Mill Road, right? 180 Mil. 180 Mil Road. Mil Road. Uh, thank you guys for your time tonight. I want to say a special thanks to Becky and Jose for all their help behind the scenes with the homeowners and putting everything together. It's kind of been a journey,
but um basically uh I met the Langos back in about November when I was working on a project at State Street. Um they approached me to do an addition. They were going to do a a lavish addition originally. Um but then they decided to scale back because um they've
had a third child since and they can't really, you know, pay for it at this point. So right now they scale back the project. We are uh attempting to do a 21 by 16 foot addition on the west side of the property. Um new windows, new roof, just
kind of jazz the place up um for now. Um as you can tell, it's kind of a pieshaped lot. Um so it's tough. We don't really have the required setbacks that we that we need uh to meet the
town's 25 ft. Um, so basically we're here today for variance to hope to um get your approval to to help this out. And uh basically both AJ and Erica work remotely from home. Um right now the
third bedroom um they're using as an office which we're going to be moving down into the actual basement space. There'll be a living room upstairs uh and that'll be accessed from the dining room and then the office the new office will be accessed from the uh basement
itself right now. Um so basically we're just asking to see if um you guys would give us the variance on the um on the left hand side. Sorry. Don't worry about the button confirmation. We don't care about that.
We don't have to worry. Okay. Um, he is outside of the uh east outside of the 50. But that's conservation. We don't have to deal with that. Yeah, we've had Norse out already to mark out the locations that uh are
marked out on the plan itself. and ask would it get better dimensionally if you move that addition forward? So, we we've played around with that with the surveyor a bunch. Uh we tried to move it forward uh in front of the
fireplace, but there's actually the gas um meter is right there to the left of the actual fireplace. And then also um we we tried shrinking it down. Um it just doesn't fit the the look that
they're going for, you know. Um it is only a onestory could be cathedral living room. So um it's it's going to be tastefully done um to match the rest of the house obviously. one foot 10 farther back. It would be
pretty far forward. I'm not uh I'm not really against moving the gas line to accomplish that, but the the chimney is functioning at this point. Couldn't the gas meter just be moved? It could be. Yeah, definitely. It's just
I was just trying to save um cost, you know, but do they understand the If it moves forward, there's no variance needed. Yeah, doesn't seem to be. There is a chimney there and the gas line. The gas line is is just the chimney. Lots of people have chimneys in their room.
And then also there's um in the rear there's a double window um right over here so they can view the whole backyard where there's like a patio out there and stuff where the kids play and stuff. So that's kind of why they wanted that to kick out in the rear there. I think it's like I want to say 8
feet the bump out. Um, so the three the three-prong test for variance doesn't unfortunately include design features of the project. Y, but it does include lot shape. It does. Yes, it does include topography which is also
the wetland. So you do have lot shape because the shape creates that diagonal. The wetland moving forward would actually get him further away from that property. I'm sure you guys spent a bit of time trying to figure out how to make it comply.
Yeah, we we really have. It's mildly uh you know, you you have 1 foot 10 and I think you would get the special permit. Um yes, you had to off um correct,
but we were still off by um two square feet at that triangle at that 20 foot mark. So, we're still kind of not going to comply with it where it sits right now. So that's why we're kind of asking for the variance instead of the special permit, you know,
less than two feet. Is that black dot where the where the gas meter is? Yes. Yes. Yep. Right there. Yeah. Uh I'm sorry. No, it's actually um on the left hand side the meter. On the left hand side of the chimney.
Yeah. Yep. Yeah. That's where the black dot is. Right there. No, that's not it, though. Right here. Oh, behind the chimney. It's actually right here. Yeah. Right there. So, it's about 18 inches off of that chimney itself. So, it's kind of a tough spot, you know. If the room will move forward to the
chimney, what does it mean for the distance from the corner to the property line? Do you know? Um, it wouldn't get you there. it still wouldn't get that 21 by 16. It would
have shrunk down. I think we did the math was like 19 or 18 and some change to make it just hit that 20 foot mark um for a special permit. But if it moved all the way forward, it would Yes. and it just aesthetically wouldn't
be what they were looking for because that was my my thing too is like we'll just move it forward. But then the chimney, the two foot x 4 foot chimney that's 8 square ft is already taken out of kind of a small um family room as is, you know. Um
we uh we went every way possible, AJ and Eric and they they had their heart set on this. So this is why we kind of presented to you guys to to give us um some guidance or variance. And what room is it connecting to in the main house?
So there is a uh dining room there now. So there's a kitchen, dining room, and then there'll be a uh basically a 5ft cased opening going into the new addition. It's really not a large family room now. You know, it's it's a tight space. It's
not tiny, but uh I think that's I think that's exactly how my great room is. Yeah. I mean, with the vaulted ceilings, it make it feel bigger. At least, you know, we have a variance phobia here. It's pretty strong. Yeah, I I know. Just it sticks with the deed. I mean, it
I mean, it it travels and you sell. I I think we do have a good argument that the lot is an odd shape. It's a large foot. It's a big lot. I mean, if you I don't know if you have a site map. Um but I mean, it's nice all
wooded. Um it's it's pretty set off from the neighbors. Um, and AJ and Erica also went around to all the touching and budding neighbors and got a letter of consent more or less show them the drawings what was going to happen and
they all signed it and said that um they would be they would love the improvement. Um, and they enjoy the langos obviously and having the great room directly off the back of the dining room as opposed to the dining room. Um,
there's a bulkhead there too. Yeah, there's a bulkhead in the rear. Um, I mean, I think they do down the road have intentions on maybe they hit the lottery, they can do this that they want to do down the road. Um, but so they want to leave their options open, kind
of leave the family room to the left with the office below. Um, opens up the bedroom upstairs for the kids. Um, was there consideration for a land swap with the neighbor? Had that been approached? No, it hasn't. It's it's really not as
ownorous as you might think, but you can approach your neighbor and if they're willing, you sell them 200 feet and they sell you 200 feet and there's a jog in the in the property line. Very legal, very easy to do surveyor together. And
I might suggest you consider that. I I don't know the flavor of the whole board, but it's really a struggle to pass a variance. Um, and it has to be a super majority. It was four to one. So, it's a challenge. Um, I might suggest you look into that and I I know time is of the
absence, but we would meet again uh October 2nd. And if you can uh talk to the neighbor and understand if it uh if it made sense it it maybe some of the neighbors, you know, he's not losing any actual space. He's just giving up the air. It would be a bit of a Z. he would
go out far enough to give you and really you're talking, you know, 1 point uh 10 in one 1 ft 10 inches. Yeah. Would get you the special permit. So, it's not a big step, but it might be uh something that's a lot easier than than being denied honestly because if you are
denied, then you're going to go back and do something anyways. Yeah. And I mean, I wish it would it was built six six and a half years prior because then it would have met the 1961 setback. 17 ft would have been no problem. But like I obviously that doesn't apply.
But um yeah, we're just hoping that you guys would uh let us move this along since we've been at this since uh January. You know, I mean it it does it is an odd lot shape. Is there any thoughts from the board as to whether this is acceptable
or do you think the avenue of trying to do a land swap with the neighbor is practical? uh certainly legal to do. You just, you know, mayor draw it up. Are there any butters that are saying anything about it? My understanding that the butters were were No, I actually have a letter here if you want me to read. Do you have time? I
mean, kind of Do you want me to read out the letter that they signed or It's probably in the packet, right? No. Oh, I did not reen. So, if you want to submit that to the board, you need the most influential letter from the about right next door, right? Yeah.
Patricia and James Sherman Frank Vitali 181 Vitali. Do you have Hegel? You have Sherman or 176. Yep. 176. We have Hegel, Sherman, Vitali, and Puja all signed it basically saying that they
support the addition at 180 mil road. They understand the variance is required due to a minor setback. Um, as direct neighbors, they have no concerns about this project. The planned addition is welldesigned and will be a great enhancement to the property which will
be positively contribute to the overall value of the street. I believe this variance is reasonable and should be approved. Thank you for your consideration and they've all signed it. The four closest to us. I would think the landlop is the most reasonable solution.
It seems that the applicant wants to put it where they want to put it because it makes the most sense to them. Period. And it's frankly to my thinking not oversized for the broom. It isn't like this is going to be right. And they don't need a lot of room on that side from the neighbor.
Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's not unheard of. People do it all the time. I I think there's there's it really would be less than than probably 20 square feet of land swamp. I
mean, I I know how bad it can set you back, especially this time of year. just the attorney and all that jazz and registry of deeds and surveying and we could be talking another four grand, you know. Yeah.
I mean, my viewpoint is I I think it makes sense and if it was a special permit, I'm all over it all day every day. Y um but the variance part of it is we do have the the uh topography and the lot shape as as an argument. I I do you
know what's the topography like the wetlands? Oh well yeah the the wetlands is stopping them from putting it further back. Not further forward. Yeah. Further forward. So it does it's an impediment
or put it behind. If they go farther back they'll be further into the 50oot wetland. It looks like they're at the edge of the 50 foot. I don't think anyone's asking them to put it further back. Well, that was what was discussed as an option. I think the option was further forward.
Further forward in order to avoid the boundary. If if it went to the to the chimney, I don't believe you'd accomplish it. If it went to the front of the home, I think you could accomplish that. It would be very close.
inches. It's not with options in including the landslap. I guess I would uh request that you come back with and if you said they will not do a land swap and we you know we can't move it forward or or if the math is done did you do the
math and see if it was even with the front of the house. It did. It just aesthetically wasn't what they wanted at all. But it did get you into special. It did. Yes, it did. It was right. I understand what you want. I I appreciate that. The variance is very difficult uh to to accomplish.
Couldn't it be built not perfectly square but in a different design to move that corner only away from from uh consideration? Sounds make it look really funny. I think that would be problematic.
Nothing's a problem. Well, there's, you know, there's, you know, lots of houses that have a a small family room and then there's a garage and one is set this way and one is pushed back this way. Um, it's, you know, they're all over town.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, what's in front of us is not the back corner off the house and making it just make it not have a back corner, right? That doesn't make any sense. I mean, I I think there's a bit of a split board
here. I think you could you can ask that we vote on it and and uh go back to the drawing board if it is not effective. I think that would be uh an option for you. Yeah. I mean uh I mean obviously we'd like a positive uh outcome but I mean maybe take the vote and see where it
goes and um otherwise we're going to have to go back to the drafting board, you know. Okay, let me uh public input. Yep. Yep. I was going to figure that. Thank you. Going to read the letters.
180 Mil Road is the Conservation Commission and this project will require notice of intent filing with the Conservation Commission. You can move ahead on from the Chumsson Fire Department. Special permit application 180 mil road
is technically a variance. Dear members of the board, the fire prevention officer reviewed the special permit application for 180 mil run off the following comments. Submitted architectural plans indicate compliance with current code requirements for detector types and locations. Smoke, heat, and carbon oxide detectors shall
meet all applicable provisions of the Massachusetts state building code, including interconnection and power source requirements. As part of the building permit process, all plans must be reviewed and approved by this office to ensure full compliance. A final inspection by the fire
prevention office will be required prior to occupancy. We respectfully request that this letter be made part of the public record and incorporated into your approval process. Josh Abbott, Captain Chums and Fire Prevention Office from the board of appeals from the
engineering department, Sheila Joyce. This office reviewed the project application. Number one, record sewer does not show any conflict with the proposed structure. Two, erosion control devices must retain the sediment on site. These must be installed prior to any work or
earth disturbance. It should be noted that the properties located within the wetland and wetland buffer zone and the conservation commission should be coordinated as necessary. Consideration should be made to install roof drain dry wells to the proposed addition to keep the storm water runoff within the
property. This is not a requirement for approval. We have no concerns regarding 180 mil road from the Chelsea water district. There are no concerns with 180 mil road from the police department.
There are no concerns regarding 180 mil road from the treasurer or tax collector. And there are no concerns regarding 180 mil road from the board of health. This time unless there are further questions regarding the letters and open
it up to public comment in favor or opposition. Brian, could uh the homeowner Erica say a few words? Certainly. Certainly. Um so Erica Lwango, I'm the owner of 180 Mill. Um the reason we came here to apply for that variance is because that
lot size, our lot size is oddly shaped. Um as you can see, we have a very large crew. Um and we really need the space. We're really growing out of our home. Um and I think because our lot is oddly shaped, we do qualify for that variance.
Um, we've worked with Tim extensively trying to move it, adjust it, bring it in, and it's already a tight space as is, you know, what we're trying to add on. Um, so I think the way we have it is aesthetically it it fits what a lot of
homes have. Um, I think if we do move it forward, aesthetically it looks it's not going to look as as nice as we would hope. Um, I don't think it lines up with the house at the front of the house as well if we were to move it. So, it kind of will jut out, which feels a little funny. Um, and so, you know, we both
work from home. We have a large family now. Um, I just ask that you take all of those reasons into consideration um when making a decision. Thank you. So, it is a single single story. Any further questions?
And I get a motion to close the public hearing by Peter. Second by Stephen. All in favor? I opposed. I would like to make a motion. Make a motion.
I'll make a motion to approve the uh variance under zoning bylaw 195-9 conforming to construct a new at 180 mil road um which does not meet the
25 foot setback and any other relief deemed necessary with regard to the letters that were read into the meeting. A second. Second by Jamie. All in favor? Four.
Opposed? Passes. Thank you. Thank you guys so much. Day when gets through. Have a good night. Thank you very much. Enjoy. Have a good night. Have a good night. Good luck. Good luck with it. There you go. Oh yeah, you can.
Yeah. Avoid it. Okay, we're going to backtrack a little to off Old Westford Road, also known as the triangle line at Old Westford Road, Davis Road, Graniteville Road. The applicant, Georgia Construction, is requesting a variance
under the zoning bylaw section 1959 conformity to reduce the 80% minimum upland area requirement to subdivide the land and create two buildable lots and any other relief deemed necessary. property is located in the residential RB district.
Chairman, I'm going to recuse myself from this one. Jamie will recuse and that will make the land. Yep. Okay. Good evening. Yeah, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Attorney Jim Dangora with Shay Dangora Nelson and Bill Rucker. Uh I represent the
applicant, Sha uh George Allen and Sun uh Construction. I have son with me TJ Allen of George Allen and Sun Construction. Um what's before you is a variance uh a petition
uh but uh what we have is 4 acres. It is the triangle lot uh that some of you folks are familiar with. Um if if I may approach Mr. Chair. Yeah. Uh Becky, could we go back to the uh plan that's been approved by the planning board?
Yes. Okay. So, it's four acres. We presently are approved for the two building lots. So, we're not asking for additional building lots from new people. What we're really looking to do is just to straighten this lot line out. Um, so we
we can get rid of this this job here uh and and create some uniformity uh within this this 4acre triangle. Um, we spent considerable time with Evan and and and Jose uh before we submitted this plan to the planning board which which was
endorsed. Um, and uh this plan here meets all of the zoning requirements including the depth requirement. Uh, meaning uh we you one of your criteria is that the lot has to be 150 ft deep.
So, what we've determined is that the frontage for lot A, which is this area here, would be on Davis Road. Um, that would require access to the frontage. It would require a DW driveway
uh off of Davis Road. U which would mean more imperous surface within the buffer zone. So what uh and as a matter of uh so what we're struggling with is this uh just to just to eliminate additional
impervious in the uh in the buffer zone and to create two nice uniform more uniform lots for these potential uh buyers uh of the house. So we have upland in this area here uh in in this
area here and that's the area where the two houses will will be uh developed. Uh but this scenario here creates uh some issues. Uh this uh n this uh house here this owner here may take some liberties with this gentleman's property here and
it could create you know adverse possession issues and other issues between uh neighbors. Um uh but it would also require more impervious within the uh buffer zone. So this complies we need uh it's a 40,000 square foot zoning
district. We need 32,000 ft of upland. Here we have 35,000 square ft of contiguous upland. Here we have the 32,25 ft of contiguous upland. So this complies. Becky, if we could uh then uh talk to the uh plan that's before the
board. So under this scenario which is the proposal that's before you folks the request uh is to uh cut the 4 acres uh this way uh it would uh we would have we wouldn't
meet the contiguous upland uh on lot B but we would certainly meet it on on lot A. So that thus uh you know the the variance. Um the other thing that this plan would do would would obiate the need to bring the driveway in off of
Davis Road and perve and pave within that propert. So um one of the purposes of zoning is to create some uniformity. Uh and what's very interesting is if we comply with
your zoning bylaws, we get a little bit of a peculiar two peculiar lots. Uh but if we uh if we go the variance route, we we have more uniformity uh with respect to the two lots. So uh
what's driving uh this is the reduction or eliminating additional impervious within the buffer zone. uh we consider it a uh a soil condition issue. Uh the uh access to bulk lots here under this
scenario would be off of Old Westford Road. Uh both homes would be uh um uh connected to municipal sewer as well. So under either scenario that we don't need septic systems, we're going to connect
to uh municipal sewer. So, it's the soil conditions that's driving it and and the uh desire to avoid additional uh imperous surface within the buffer zone, which would require us uh to go back to the um uh to the conservation
commission. So, uh that's the application in a nutshell, folks. It's it creates more uniformity. Uh we do have two lots that can form. We're not asking for anything more. Uh all we want to do is just straighten out that lot line and and again create some
uniformity and uh that's all I have Mr. Chair. So So in in lot A you have 40,000 312 contiguous upland. No you need uh that's what you're asking for.
Uh yes that is correct. So we need 32,000 square ft right to conform. Uh we have uh 40,812 ft here and on lot uh B we're at 26,000 so it's
about 5400 square ft uh under the uh the requirement and and I'm going to ask the obvious. Can that line be adjusted to uh diagonally go across? Is that affect your frontage or what is what is
stopping it from equaling it? Yeah, our it's been engineered over and over and and this is what our engineer told us uh that um uh that he could do. So, um and the other issue is what would be the problem with adjusting
our line? There's a storm water the storm water pits for the house are on the side. We had the tests for those uh being far away from the wetlands for the house positioning. That stops you from going up and then left and then up
and then the set back from the street. That's what I was thinking. I don't know. So this comes down to point and then this would this space here if this was 5500 would give you your up there reducing this but you can reduce that
you don't have a problem with that it's uh 40,812 but something like 5600t but I I believe it's been engineered I don't think you'd be here if it wasn't I just don't understand the the obvious
thing staring at me that's That's 50 by 100, right? Build on the back side by the schools. 50 by 100 would be 5,000. I the access for this lot's going to be through through this area here. I don't
know. Yeah. Yeah, I I for some reason the engineer has told us this is the plan. I mean, I'm I'm just looking at it obviously very quickly and I'm not an engineer. Yeah. But I don't know why that line couldn't be adjusted to accommodate uh it's not a
frontage issue. No, it it complies with everything except for that that U. What are you referring to? is here. I just don't want to see the downside
from from a point and come over here, which would take the contiguous and put it in lot B. We just came down here. Uh, and again, you need to get 5,000 ft. It's 50 by 100. It's not a massive area. Do you have the plan? Do you have the Kong plan or the
Yeah, the plan with the house on houses on it. Yeah, that's that's the one right there with the skull. I'm sure you looked at it. I I'm not trying to make a problem. I just don't understand. Okay. So, here here is your fun plan and that's where the house is the house is situated situated off the wetlands.
We're trying to honor the here right here is to continue through this directly. Yes. And this house cannot travel this way because it's not shown on the other the wetlands. And if you come across here, you wouldn't be able to gain 5500. Okay. I knew it had to be.
Yeah. pinned in here because of the uh the effects. Is that an elevation map? Is that what that Yeah, it has elevations as well. Would you like to see it? Yeah, if I could, please. That's the con. But does it have the elevations on it? And and I I knew as much, you know,
right? and the their opinion is they cannot and the location of the houses on that make it much clearer that that would be a setback issue. Pretty much the house is going to go where the existing barn is. We have to honor the 50 foot uh wetland. So the houses go in a in a particular
area so it'll move the lot line back and forth. And and you guys are not the first to try to get lots out of this place. It's gone on. They're they're essentially locked the location of the houses are essentially locked in. The commission doesn't look at lot lines. Yeah. When they locate the houses, they're
looking at step back from wetlands. So, the location of the Concom approved house lots on the planning board approved lot plan. The envelope is tight is essentially locked in the location of
the house. That's good. To get the 50, to get the 25, to get the wetland set back. Right. Right. Right. The issue is that the the lot on the right side based on what it was pictured on the screen is too small.
Correct. The contiguous is under the 32,000 square feet that it has adequate lot area. Yeah, we have uh it's 94,000 square ft. It's a It's a 2.1 acre lot. Um he does get the vineyard though.
Pardon me. The vineyard. The vineyard back. I haven't been over there. Bring that story up. Uh, and this barn's coming down. Yeah. The barn is basically where where the uh house is going to go. It looks Yeah. Yeah. So, we're we're we're
strapped with, you know, honoring the the 50 foot and uh here in this area here and this area here. So, it's pretty wet, huh? Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's really interesting piece of property. Uh it's a lot of land and and it is
interesting that you can only get two lots out of it, but that's perfectly fine. We're not looking for any more than Hey, 30 years. People have been trying to build on that thing. Is that right? Forever. Yeah. Sunny Alves own that. Is he still on it? Is he still alive? Mr. Oily. Yeah, he's still alive.
Yeah. And he and um yeah, he's been patient through this process. Been to the planning board, been to the conservation commission. we're in route to uh you know border health and storm water management. So uh we're we're pretty far down the road. We do appreciate the time that Jose and and uh
and Evan have spent with us on this. Uh but again I it's a matter of creating some uniformity and creating any issues that that jagged uh property line. Even resell would be tough. Yeah.
Yeah. Well, it's two lots now and it will be two lots after. I just have one question. Um, you had mentioned you have to go do you have to go back before conservation? If this wasn't approved, we would then
have to get conservation to approve that driveway uh that went across the frontier, which would add considerable impervious to uh within the buffer zone. So, um, well, there's certainly previous driveways as well. So, yeah, and there are, but it still would
require an additional filing. Uh, that plan that you just looked at here, uh, has been approved, uh, with the driveways coming off of Old Westford Road. Um, so conservation approved that. That is correct. Yeah. Um, and I think they weighed in on some
of the com actually they had a no comment, I guess, in their comments. I was kind of hoping there'd be a little more, but uh I'll take a no comment from a conservation commission, you know. Great. Okay. I guess I will read the letters in and I'll move ahead here
from the board of health, Donna Greenwood, public health director. Dear Planning Board, I'm going to read this in as well. This letter regarding the proposed project Triangle Lot at Old Westford Road, Davis Road, and Granite Road. The lot is proposed to be divided into lot A and lot B. This pro this
proposed project specifically lot B as a property line in the town water resources high aquifer prosection zone 2 and the state water resource protection zone 2 wellhead protection area. Therefore this project will require approval from the board of health pursuant to the town of challenger
general provisions chapter 2011 board of health article 7 groundwater protection zone for the following property. Upon approval from the board of health regarding the town of Chelms general provisions chapter 2011 the board of health article 7 groundwater protection
zone. If this party is not able to connect to the town sewer systems it would then require an on-site on septic system that must meet title 5 regulations pursuant to 310 CMR 15 septic systems along with completing the health department's disposal system
construction permit application and inspection process. Respectfully, Donna Greenwood, public health director, but you have met that and you will not be putting in septic or we are putting in sewer and we will address that uh wellhead protection
district issue uh with the board of health. If if you want an illustration as to where that wellhead protection area is on this plan, it's not in in the area we're developing. Uh, it's actually um it it it's off the corner of lot B in
this area here. I know it's tough to see. I got it located on this one. Yeah, that's all right. So, we'll we'll straighten out with with help. Sorry. Uh, Chelsea's Fire Department, Fire
Prevention Office, special permit request, triangle lot at Old West Road, Davis Road, and Granville Road. Dear members of the board, regarding the above restrooms special permit request, the fire prevention office provides the following comments and conditions. The applicant shall file an E911 application
to the town's E911 committee for the proposed building lots. Any construction on lot shall comply with all applicable codes including but not limited to the Massachusetts state building code 780 CMR Massachusetts fire prevention
regulations 527 CMR NFPA standards and the town of Chson bylaws. The plans will be subject to review by this office as part of the building permitting process. Based on these conditions, this office does not oppose the proposed plan. I respectfully request this letter be incorporated into the board's approval
process and entered into the public record. Sincerely, Josh Abbott, Captain Fire Prevention Office. This from the uh Sheila Joyce, project engineer, zoning board of appeals off Old Westwood Road, aka the triangle lot
at Old Westwood Road, Davis Road, and Graniteville Road. Applicant Georgia is under construction. One, erosion control devices must retain the sediment on site. These must be installed prior to any work or earth disturbance. It should be noted that properties located within the aquifer and the wetland buffer zone
and the conservation commission order of conditions shall be coordinated as necessary. Consideration should be made to install roof drywall drains to keep the storm water runoff within the property. This is not a requirement for approval.
[Applause] We have uh a letter from the conservation commission regarding off old Westford Road with no concerns. We have a letter from the Chsford Water District regarding off old Westford Road
with no concerns. We have a letter from the police department for the uh for off old Westford Road with no concerns. And we have no concerns uh regarding off old Westwood Road from the treasurer collector.
That is the extent of my letters. At this time, we're going to open it up to the community. If anyone would like to uh speak in favor or opposition to this application, now is the time. Seeing none, entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing by Peter, second by Charlie. All in favor? I unanimous. Is everyone clear on the subject that it's the Upland contiguous land, meaning it's all attached? There is other Upland
on the property, but it is not attached to this one space. seems the most feasible way to divide that lot and make it clean for the home. Certainly much cleaner for the for the future homeowner for the future homeowners
problems of adverse possession and I think it's really more housekeeping for them than changing anything. It uh it just makes a cleaner setup which I I think is a good idea. I think it keeps the driveway away from the wetlands also.
Right. driveway thing, right? That's a which is a good point, Charlie. Yeah. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for the triangle lot. Um um because of the 80% conformity in the
upland wet uh dry land um in consideration with all the letters being uh read into our meeting. I'll second that. Second by Peter. All in favor? I unanimous. Very good.
Never happens. Thank you. Thank you very much, folks. Good. Good night. Jesus. You sure you're not a comedian? You didn't even hear you. Oh my god. He's good. Okay, moving right along. So, we have
all of us. We have 180 Mil Road 150 150 North Road owner Viking Development LLC is requesting a variance under the zoning bylaw section 19531 for a monument sign that does not meet the minimum 15 ft front setback from the
street line and 20 ft from the side lot line. Wall signs that exceed size and other relief deemed necessary. This property is located in the residential RV district. Oh, you guys are the uh the daycare. Is that fair to say?
Okay. Just to get acclimated preschool. Good evening. If I have your name, address. Sure. My name is Heather Dudco, 27 Old Meeting House Road in Auburn, Mass. And I'm a signed permit consultant for National Sign Corporation, who is the sign installer for the school.
And we also have um a representative, the vice president of real estate for the school here in attendance as well for any questions. I thought your face look what happened. His face looked familiar. Oh. Oh, you know him. You better recuse yourself.
Been in front of you guys before. For the previous That's why that's how I remember his face. That's I don't know him. Just remember his face from the previous. So, as you know, this is a new school um in town on North Street and we are here to present the proposal for their
signage that they're they're looking to install. um it is in a residential zone. Therefore, the signage does not conform to the the regulations um in the residential zone. So, I just like to walk you through the entire sign proposal and then we can address any
questions for that. Okay, first we there's a chart a little chart there that has a summary of all the signs. So, we are proposing a monument sign, 27.5 square foot, two wall signs, illuminated channel letters, and then
five non-illuminated logos on the building. So that's the the entire um scope of the signage. The next slide will show the monument sign that is proposed as an illuminated sign. The background will not illuminate. The
logo and the letters push through and that will be the only portion of the sign that will illuminate. Down in the um the packet later I'll show you. We have a example of how it illuminates. Um I did provide a large site plan. We do believe that the sign will meet the 15 foot setback from the street and the 20
foot setback from the side. It'll be 1.7 foot from the lot line, but we do believe it it meets the 15t set back from the street. The next slides will show the proposed channel letter set on the front elevation.
12-in illuminated channel letters on the north elevation, 30.3 square foot. And that's the main entry. Is that correct, Chris? And then you'll see um on each of I'm sorry. Um on each left side and right side are where the non-illuminated uh
logos are proposed. The next slide should show the additional wall sign illuminated. The two wall signs are the same. No, they're not. I'm sorry. Um, this
wall sign on the east elevation is 22.7 square foot. It's a little smaller than what's on the front. This is the one facing the 495 ramp on this elevation. Chris, this faces this is what you would see passing by. What was the previous one then?
It's our front entrance which faces north. So, it faces it faces the parking lot. Okay. So, that's the one facing north 495 round. Okay. And this also has the two logos on the
left and the right side. And there's an additional this this that we're seeing there is the north road street view view. Street the street view. Correct. Okay. No, the north this is the east. This is what faces this is our our north road elevation.
That's what I thought. Okay. And then the next slide shows just the additional um logo on a south elevation. There's just one additional but that show the three complete elevations and
and those are not illuminated. Correct. Correct. And then I can show the Becky if you wouldn't mind showing the the rendering that we sent with the illumination. That's how the signs will illuminate. Do do we have an aloom counter LED
number? Do we How bright are these things? Um, we do see that there's some there's the conditions for the illumination and we'll adhere to those. Um I don't have the specs on the on these drawings, but we will adhere to the lumens and the knits that are outlined in the illumination um statute.
Are we planning on having these on at night when you're closed? Um yes, and I believe there are there are time frames where they must be off within your code, which we would obviously adhere to. We do like to have them on for some period of time
following closing for marketing and branding purposes and people But like the site lighting and everything else, we can put it on the timer. I have a a question. Their petition says it does not meet the minimum 15 foot setback,
but she began a discussion by saying it does meet 15, but there's a sidewalk there. Is that what creates the difference? So the confusion and the clarification there is it the language says street line. So I I believe we are 15 feet from the curb
from the street line but we are only 1 point something ft from the property line. Right. So if if the if the board feels the language is from the right of way then we're looking for a variance from that. If if the language is supported that 15t from the street line is how it's written
and how it's meant to be we we comply. It said street line instead of right of way which so basically I assume 50 foot road up in the air. Is that what it would be? A 50 foot road. The right of way the width I don't know.
Okay. It's probably our same way. Yeah. This being uh in a residential district is a big part of this problem. Is that correct? That's the sign there's a picture. It is. It is. It is the reason why
they're here. Mr. chairman because the zoning is different in the residential area. Yes, sir. Yet they are certainly allowed to be in a residential area as we Yes, sir. So we quite a ways back. We use historical data with a school on the same road to grant this uh to issue
the letter so that they could be used. Yeah. Primrose primrose isn't luminated, is it? Is primrose? They have like but it's right. It's not like glaring back like this one.
I'm sorry. It's not they got little like spotlight kind of I don't recall. I thought you were saying that wrong. No, no, no. The fine term. Typically external illumination has
worse light trespass than the LED back lit because it's actually blocked in some fashion. Okay. feel like it has less. The sign is going to be kind of up in the air based on the roadway is that when you drive by down drive through
there, it seems the whole project is up. Yeah, there's an elevation change of I think 10 or 12 feet up to the building plus the building being 12 ft tall. Will people who drive by there be able to see the sign? They should not. They'll be up on a Yeah. So, the building sign um FA on the
east elevation facing North Road, they should be able to see the gardener school lighting there. The one over our main entrance, that's more of a branding, just a school main entrance. You know, not going to see much of that unless you're in the parking lot. How high over the street level is the monument sign.
The monument sign, I think, is like six feet in total height with the the base and all included, right? But I mean, oh, if your property goes up, I mean, it might be a couple feet. That's pretty much at street grade. Okay. So, six and seven feet or something
would be the maximum height of the monument. Correct. No one driving by is going to miss this. Hopefully not. That would be our that would be our should be driving if they So, you think due to the incline it will
just add a couple like two feet? Yeah. If that again If it's pretty close to the road, so we we can't be that far off. Got to be pretty much be a small incline. You took a you took a lot of dirt out of that property. I mean, you lowered it
quite a bit. Great. Yeah, there was an attempt to balance earth work as much as we could. But, you know, through the whole planning process and everything that we went through, there was give and take on what was needed. So, I think there was some Were there conditions with signage?
I don't remember seeing them. I don't think that we uh that wasn't in front of us. We delved into that. Has there been any written the building wasn't part of our wasn't right in front of us. Science wasn't included. Yeah. Because that wasn't their their
plan wasn't any further questions at the time. I can read the letters if there are connect. How much? 131. Okay. We have a letter regarding 150 North Road with no concerns from engineering.
We have a letter for 150 North Road with no concerns and fire prevention. We have a letter from Chumps Water District with no concerns for 150 North Road. We have a a note from the police
department regarding 150 North Road with no concerns. We have no concerns from the treasurer collect treasurer collector for 150 North Road. And we have a letter with no concerns from the board of health,
which makes sense. I'm going to open it up to the community if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition to the signage. Uh, now is the time. Please approach the podium. Seeing none, I'll still be curious as to what all these people are doing here.
You have three more cases, don't you? We haven't got the intermission yet. We still There's a lot of patience here. Who took that month on? All right. Uh, could I get a motion to close the public area if there are not further questions? I'll make a motion to close the public area. I second the motion.
Second by Jamie. All in favor? I opposed. None. So, they need to light it. Uh, they'll be complying with the hours that it's lit. It doesn't seem to be over the top for
I just wonder because maybe I'm doesn't most businesses are allowed just one sign on if it's in a business district on the building. Uh no, there's a square footage calculation for that. It all depends. I mean you can have
multiple sign in this situation. They have a freestanding sign and they have uh I mean but attached to the building isn't it one attached to they have to comply with the 20% requirement on the facade. This is square footage
right? I thought it was 15. Yes. So their their true problem is that they're in a residential district. So there is no uh you you you can't put the sign on your house. So where they're in the residential district, they still have
the rights given uh with the same as the ADU where the state has said that you can put churches, child care, uh now ADUs in residential districts and that's where they don't comply because there's no signage rule for residences.
Well, there there are signs There sign rules for residents residential districts. We have signs for residential districts. Is there a criteria for a signed varant it the application doesn't fit very nicely with the traditional variance
that you deal with. Yeah. Um but normally that's the zoning relief that's required. the bylaw doesn't have a special permit provision. Um, so I I understand you're struggling
with applying the traditional are there any pathways or like you know you got more than 12 trees in front of your house? You got I mean you you could attempt to take all that into consideration, you know, if you wanted to view the landscape plan. The we already talked about elevation.
the applicant indicated why they wanted um the proposed uh signage that they're that they're asking for. So, you can attempt to apply the traditional three variance criteria. You may find out in attempting to do
that that it still doesn't really uh have a have a a relevant application. Um, the other thing I will say is, and the applicant hasn't said this yet, it is a do use. Um, the only reason we sent
this to the zoning board is that was exactly the way the primrose school was handled. So, we were just being consistent. Uh, if attorneys were involved on either side, because it's a do use, there would likely be some talk
about not applying a variance standard. Um, but like I said, we just administratively we treated this exactly as the one the closest one and the most recent one, right? I think they have a right to signage on it. Uh, they have a right to put it in a
residential district and what we have is a puzzle that doesn't come together and allow that. So, there's the variance. Your other approach may be is it reasonable is what they're asking based upon a do use within a residential
zoning district is the proposed signage the amount the size the type is that considered reasonable. Yeah. So this would conform in a business district very likely.
And you say you above grade. I'm let me just look at the measurements again. I'm sorry. Can you go back to the packet? Like what is the what is the one specific sign? The 30 or the 20 foot. There's a lot of numbers here.
That's the overhead of the center. So which is the the chart are you referring to on the building like where is it? This is the 20 foot sign right there. the gardener school in the main entrance and that will also be over here which is in the parking area.
It cannot be more than 20% of the whole area which it is not. I mean they can't even it doesn't even those are applying commercial standards right and and we don't have that luxury either because it's not commercial but using% of the front wall of said building are 60 square feet
that's the sign that's looking for the one in the middle on the facade is that correct I think all sign is in total all of it in a residential district we're allowed 90 square feet y we are as you total of the three on that table I think it's 80 square feet which
is Exactly what's in commercial district. These are the size of a commercial building if they were to be in the zoning the commercial zoning district. Well, the other part is the monument side. I mean, it's within 15 ft of the paved road. Correct.
But it's too close to the term. I'm sorry. whichever they're on different elevation. So the code the code reads 15 foot from the street line, right? So it's not so but in a residential they can't be lit.
That's the other. Yeah, that's the thing that's got Yeah, we've closed uh we closed a hearing to discussion. I think that might have been a little premature. So I could get a motion to reopen the public hearing. Motion to reopen. Okay.
All in favor? Sir opposed. I thought Jose was gonna address that the setback. No, I just wanted to see a freestanding sign front yard lot exceeding 5% of wall 40
or freestanding sign and you're allowed one, right? Which is what they have. I guess a business district kind of thing. It feels like the signs are reasonable for a building of that
size. And if it was a commercial building or in a different district, it would be they wouldn't even be here, right? It'd be fine. And a it's allowed to be where it's going. So it seems to make sense that it should have the signage that's appropriate for the
and and we've already set again these precedents. I I I struggle with them but we have set precedent with the primrose school and that's exactly what we did with them was we allowed them the commercial limitations which is where they're at as well. So with the same amount of illumination do
you remember? I mean that's I do not I don't know that's one thing that I think with phones on either side and in front we didn't I don't know that we got into the depth of that but I know that uh what's across the street from this like how houses houses far like right right right in front and then there's
directly in front on either side as well if I could there were setbacks building wise at least 75 80 feet from the ride of way there is a street light right outside which will project more light than our signs eliminated.
Well, I mean, that's kind of what I'm trying to get to. Like, I know I understand where it is that houses are across the street, but Well, I would look I but just to give him perspective, I mean, not to disengage what you're saying. I drive by this place and I've seen it evolve from
that picture is not in any way, shape, revolving what it currently looks like. They've cleared and leveled and and whatnot. But I mean, road lights and roads noise traffic because North Road is heavily traveled. But um I I do have
concern seeing what this very large monument light sign's going to look like on North Road, especially in the late fall winter. As we're driving down at five o'clock and it's pitch black, we're
gonna see this huge monument significantly. I I just wonder what it I don't know. So, it's it's six foot overall height. It's six foot. So, if you want to picture I mean it's not like it's a 20 foot
sign. It's just so six Yeah, I mean six foot taller than me. So, And I get it. It's not a pounding, you know, tower, but I'm six foot taller than me. So, but it say you you confirm taller than my vehicle tower, though, right?
We will. Yep. Just to be clear, they're proposing internally illuminated signage, not allowed in the residential zoning district. That's part of the the variance consideration. I think you all know how uh Primrose is
is illuminated. So that's that's part of your thought. It's not offensive. I mean, it's part of your I'm just just making it clear that that's part of your consideration. So if you want to if you want to look at this the picture again, they're they're a halo lit letter. So the light does not
shine through the face of the letter. The light only comes from behind. It's just a little letter, but it's not from behind. So it's more of like a silhouette halo kind of effect. The fa the faces of the letters do not light but it appears there that they do but
the light comes from behind. Yeah. Yeah. These are these are LED. Yes. So one one way we've handled administratively uh for LED signs is we how correct me if I'm wrong. We've required a um the sign
to include a the dimmer. Yeah. So that if it's installed and it's problematic, a nuisance so to speak, meaning residents or a butterers start calling, we at least have the ability to engage with the with the applicant.
Can you turn it down to to try to try to adjust it because I don't think we've addressed LED in our light and our signage. We do have we do have LED standards. Okay. and they've I think they've indicated that they are going to comply
with those. What I'm what I'm saying is that just because an LED sign complies doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't create a nuisance. This is this is a unique this is a a unique setting for an LED sign.
So, if the board if the board is concerned that we don't we just don't know. What I'm saying to you is we normally require that it have the the manual adjustments. Most applicants are willing to work, you
know, reasonably with staff to uh to provide adjustments. And that's on a case- by case basis based upon the where the sign is located, where it is on the roadway, what are the surroundings, things of that nature. And and this has a a street light directly
above the sign or within five feet off to the side. And that's going to illuminate regardless. And it's also going to illuminate the sign in some capacity. Yes. Not intent, but where' that picture come from? Well, they street.
These are what we have installed in Wayman. Is that the closest illuminated sign you have from here? Uh, you may know better than me. The other one would be denim. I actually I'm not originally from Massachusetts, so I probably would not. They might get
closer. Okay. I don't find that overly bright or offensive at all. I I can't tell from here. I think the picture kind of blurs a little bit. It's a very No, you can't tell. No, I mean, I've seen signs similar. on another have has there probably I'm
just asking for my own um has there been a study or an analysis to make sure that this doesn't becoming a driving obstruction like for turning for your people coming in and out for people driving down or has to turn watching
traffic flow this doesn't become a visual of traffic obstruction for for drivers I I can tell that DPW and police as part of their review look at site distances. Okay. So, if you look closely at their exhibit, the stop line leaving
uh the driveway is um protrudes further than the than the FA sign phase. So, that that has been looked at um from a from a driveway safety perspective, sight lines. I'm just wondering if like people are
coming down and your stop line and people are trying to turn out and people are driving down North Road. Are they going to be able to know that people are at trying to get out and not blocked by the sign so that you end up having T-bones coming out cuz someone was trying to come out of the driveway and
someone's driving down North Road and they didn't see each other because your sign blocked them. You can see that the sign you can see the sign placement relative to the stop. Yeah. I don't I mean if you look at the thing it does not uh the sign is above it. Yeah, by 10 ft. It was on the site plan. It sight
triangles were part of our whole planning process. You know, the details of the sign weren't. I'll tell you that the one in Wayment, we have had some complaints. So, it was on our radar as a concern to make sure parents have visibility, especially in North Road with our talks on traffic. It's a busy road
and very very busy and kids walking bus stop because there's a bus stop and crosswalk. Any more questions? As long as they're if they're open to a
dimmer and open to if we get complaints. That sounds like a motion. We first need a motion to close the public hearing. Once again, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing again. Second. Second by Steven. All in favor? Yes.
Opposed? See? So, regarding that motion, you were doing Oh, I guess uh I will make a motion to approve the
variance for 150 North Road uh for um mounting signs and the monument sign and all other varief necessary in accordance with section 19531. All letters, all letters read in and in
addition adding a dimmer. And if we have an abundance of complaints, the applicant is willing and will adjust said lighting to um respond to said complaints and concerns from the community.
Second by Charlie. All in favor? Hi. Hi. It's unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for the clarity. Yeah. Three.
The next one should go real quick. Two for two. Christmas. Our next application is 12 Colonial Drive. Uh Patrice Sawuk. I hope I'm getting that right. I think a special permit. Yay.
under the zoning bylaw section 1958. I'm not Patrice Suk. That's okay. Non-conformity for construction of a farmer's portion will increase the pre-existing non-conforming percentage law coverage and other reliefs deemed necessary. This property is located in the residential RB districts.
Good evening. I have your name and address for the record. I'm Deborah Sachuk. I also live at 12 Colonial Drive. I'm standing in for Patrice. She's traveling out of state and couldn't be here tonight. Fine. But she is watching. She is watching. She's watching. And she
I'm glad she's not here to answer questions if you have any. She's gonna owe you big now. Yeah, she is. But I think there's a promise of dinner in here somewhere. More than dinner. I win. Dinner cruise. After this long, it's me. The bankroft,
right? Going to the encore. Okay. So, what do we got for dimensions? Do you want to explain? Do you know the Okay. Somewhat across the street from the uh
across the street from the school. Why is it so cold in here? Oh, did it come rainbow? Oh, it's down the street. This is from the building commissioner, Jose Negron. Mr. and Mrs. Sach, please be advised the
proposed farmer's port edition at the above regarded just exceeds the pre-existing non-conforming building coverage. You'll need a special permit from the board of appeals. If you'd like building coverage relief, please make the application to the community development department within 30 days of
this notice. Thank you respectfully. Jose Nigron, building commissioner, zoning enforcement officer. The site is 4 acres. Really? Oh, she's already nonconforming. She's already nonconforming.
But the garage already bumps up. She's not even right. She's not She's not There's no uh further non-conformity. It's the actual area. But I mean like she's not protruding like there's already there's not further nonconformity. Correct.
Yeah. She's really only covering it. It's not setbacks. It's for percentage not coverage only. I'm just saying from looking at it like the existing 16.8 and then with the porch it's 18.5
and the allowable is 15. Is there a is there a slab there right now? like a full extended slab or is it just like stairs under front of a door? This just looks like there's an existing set of stairs right there. Right.
I mean, this is this is this is just uh I think they need they're required to have it, but I don't think this is any kind of problem personally. It's going to look good when you don't. Are there any questions of the
applicant? It's straightforward. very much. So, we're just going to read some letters. I'm gonna speed read the letters. Where is this from? Oh, yeah. Of course it is.
12 Colonial Drive. Uh, the proposed farms porch will be near or possibly over the existing sewer service. The applet must contact the DPW sewer division to coordinate any necessary actions to preserve or alter the sewer service. Two, erosion control devices must retain
the sediment on site. These must be installed prior to any work or earth disturbance. It should be noted that the property is located when the aquifer protection zone 2 and conservation commission should coordinated as necessary. Consideration should be made to install roof drain drive to the
propon proposed farmers porch to keep the storm water runoff within the property. This is not a requirement for approval. This is from the fire prevention regarding 12 colonial drive. They have no concerns. This is from the Chumsed Water District
regarding 12 Colonial Drive. They have no concerns. Uh this is uh from the police department regarding 12 Colonial Drive. There are no concerns. And this is from the treasurer collector for 12 Colonial Drive. There are no
concerns. It's from the board of health regarding 12 Colonial Drive and there are no concerns. That's the extent of my letters. Open this up to the audience and see if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition to this.
Nope. It's getting too late. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second that everybody. Second by Charlie. All in favor? I I make a motion to approve the uh application to build the um farmer's
porch. That's not Yeah. To increase the existing non-conforming percentage of lot coverage 195-8 for 12 Colonial Drive. respect to all the letters. With the respect to all the letters. Thank you, Stephen. I'll second it. Second by Peter. All in favor?
Yes. Opposed? See, it's nice at the end. Let them know. Congratulations. She has her special permit for appointment. Thank you. Did you even make a presentation? He'll be lucky to get to army out of here. Yes,
he's gone. I think Brian wants to go home. Now proven. Did we get the hard ones done? I think 128 Warren A owner Gail Small Don is requesting a special permit under the
zoning bylaw section 1958E2 nonconformity for construction of an attached garage does not meet the side and rear setback requirements nor the percentage lock coverage threshold and a variance exceeding percentage lock coverage for section 1959 and other
relief deemed necessary properties located in the residential RB district. Good evening. Good evening. Your name, chairman, members of the board. Um, thank you for uh hearing our petition here. I'm representing uh Gail Small.
I'm her builder Paul Catalano and our company's Catalano Construction. We're out of Westford, Massachusetts. I've been working with Gail for about a year now. Uh trying to place this structure. And the reason why she needs this structure is because uh and I'm not sure
if this applies or not, but this is why we're humbly asking for your approval is that uh if you could consider her lot uh the shape and topog topography a hardship would also have to ask you if there's any way that you would consider
any other hardships. And in this case, Gail has medical hardships where she's had open heart surgery a year ago and uh is under advice by her doctors not to do anything of strenuous activity.
And she's unable to find help in the winter to clear her car of ice and snow. She's able to get her her driveway plowed, but she can't find anybody to salt and break the ice and so forth and so on. and and uh she's concerned about
her mobility being able to get out and about. She's a lifelong pardon me since age five resident of Chemsford and a and a staple of the community. a former um a teachers assistant in town and uh just
an allaround good person that I think deserves the board's highest um consideration for can not be less than a difficult placement of this structure. Thank you. Five
here since 5 years 1962. So you're a fly in just like a blowing a blowing a blow in blowin right yeah it's very crowded go ahead and zoom in on this yeah where is
I've only been here 40 years crap for that that's the lotund you know that's the lot so the shed's already at 12 this has nothing to do with this but I just want you to know there My wife
found an organization that helps uh elderly people in the winter town driveways and stuff. Be happy to give you my number and nothing to do with this and if she can find this organization again
happy to share and then the change the lot coverage I understand we're facing the same thing. Yeah. I don't see where that actually wasn't put on the plan. Yeah.
Coverage existing lot coverage is 5.7%. Proposed lock coverage is 16.7. Oh, there it is. It has nothing worth 15, right? Correct. So, it's 1.7. But we can still do a special on that,
right? there. Okay. 10%. That's a variance for exceeding the percentage lot coverage. That's by 1.7%. Yes, that's how I wrote it up. It wasn't
clear at first when it was applied for whether or not it fell within the pre-existing nonconformity or not because the plan shows the proposed law cover but didn't show the existing. So I wrote it up as such. Okay. So that it the legal notice would
include both in case both was needed. Okay. Because I was unsure of whether or not it would all fall under special permit. Okay. But we definitely need the variance for the lock coverage because this only this one says 57 for existing.
I don't think that's that looks kind of small. Yeah, I don't think that was that's not correct. Right. relocate because the garage is small. That can't be 20 here.
This is 16 and a half. 16 and 12 by 28 is a proposed garage. 16 in the front. Uh 28 down, but 16 five and a half. So that it comes carry the back wall. Carry the back wall. Correct. Okay.
This 20 by 22 is that that's not that's not that's not oh okay I explained that plan is just so you can see the setbacks better look at the set is current but the garage is going next to the house the garage size 16 five and
a half in the rear 16 even in the front which just allows you support on the back wall carrying right through and then the overall length is 28. What year are we in? The the location of the proposed garage is
on the larger plan. The letter size one was just so you could see the current setbacks a little bit better. Right. Non. So they're already non-conforming 12 and a half. Yeah. Okay. Variance All right, master builder about a great
size for which which date is on? No, it wouldn't be any smaller. It wouldn't be, you know, to be able to open doors and uh, you know, yeah, and you'd have to get rid of one, what is the lot size 10,500? So, you'd have
to get rid of 105 or something. It wouldn't You wouldn't get away with it. You wouldn't get you couldn't shrink the garage and and accomplish that. Oh, and she's adding a deck, too. Is the deck part? The deck is part of the um Yeah, the
coverage area. Which is 120 ft. Yeah, that's pretty big. I mean, it's it's a deck. It's probably small deck as you get away with and enjoy. Certainly not oversized.
Nope. We'll look at it. I'll read the letters in regarding 128 Warren Avenue. The conservation the project will require a notice of intent filing with the conservation commission.
the fire department regarding warav 128 warav. Dear members of the board, the reading this the regarding the special permit request for 28 warn. This offer issues the following requirements and recommendations. In accordance with 780
CMR51, a heat detector shall be installed in the new garage. This detector must be hardwired and interconnected 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 author further recommends that the entire
residence be upgraded and hardwired interconnected smoke system with carbon oxide detection throughout to provide higher level of life safety protection. All plans are required to be submitted and reviewed by this office as part of the building permitting process to ensure full compliance. I request that
this letter be made part of the public record and incorporated into your approval process. Sincerely Josh Abbott, Chums and Fire Prevention Office. I have a letter from Sheila Joyce, project engineer. Request for determination
as proposed addition will be near or possibly over the existing sewer service. The applicant must contact the DPW sewer service to coordinate any necessary actions to preserve or alter the sewer service. The DPW has no concerns regarding the location of the proposed driveway extension.
A licensed contractor must apply for an RO and driveway permit the DPW prior to the start of work. Erosion control devices must retain the sediment on site. These must be installed prior to any work earth disturbance. Should be noted that the property is located when
the aquifer and the wetland buffer zone and the conservation commission should be coordinated with as necessary. Consideration should be made to install roof drain drywalls to the proposed garage to keep storm water runoff within the property. This is not a requirement
for approval. I have a letter from the Chsson water district regarding 128 War a and there are no concerns. I have a letter from the police department regarding 128 Warav with no
concerns. Have a letter from the treasurer collector for 128 Warren Avenue with no concerns. I have a letter from the board of health regarding 128 Warren Avenue with no concerns. That is the extent of my letters.
This time I'm going to open it up to the audience and see if anyone would like to speak in favor. Okay. Or opposition to this application. Um would it be possible to submit a letter from the uh south halls who are the neighbors to the north
certainly of uh okay unfortunately I wasn't able to make they were here but they well uh 10 copies but she miss was here but it had to had to go so if I can leave that with you sir. Yep. Thank you.
The letter states, "I am Linda Southhall and along with my husband Hugh South Hall live at two Lauren Circle which abuts the back of the property at 128 Warren Avenue. We have lived on Luan Luan Circle since 1979 except for four years while stationed at Andrews Air
Force Base in 1983 to 1987. We've enjoyed a very friendly relationship with Gail Small Dome during all those years and have no objection to the building of a garage on the Small Dome property. It will be helpful to Gail to have a garage given her health issues and how increasingly difficult it
has become to find someone to clear automobiles of snow during the winter. Thank you, Lynn and Hugh South. We did receive um an email from the director to the left of the property at
124 A in speaking with him, he did state to me that he has no opposition to the garage itself. He just has concerns with the um where it's located. Um and I have the email attached to the agenda. I'll
pull that up and I'll have you I noticed there's a difference between the 80 foot and 100 foot between the old the old and that's the revised that we just received today. That's not what was posted on the agenda. So that was a correction to that which I brought to
the applicant's attention. Is it 80 or 100? It's 100 based on all the deeds because I actually looked up all the deeds. So it's it's 100% correct. Yeah. The um but I noticed I I noticed the measurements are the same
either like the 12 by two. Um, so this is the who would like to read it into the Hi, I have attached the plot plan deed and private easement for 124 war and a
chamomid. I have reviewed the submitted copy of the proposal and have several concerns. The submitted plan shows a boundary line between 124 and 128 is 85 ft while both the attached plan and the quick came quick claim deed show a boundary of 100
ft. proposed plan also indicates that the driveway of 128 is on the property of 128. That were the case, the attached easement for adding the driveway would not be necessary. I suspect that the proposal uses an incorrect plot plan and inaccurate estimates of the setback for
the proposed structure, as well as its location relative to the easement, which only grants improvements of a driveway and a garden. Any intersection with the garage and the easement would require the easement also be modified. Although not required, the site plans for a
setback variance or special permit should also include the location of the tree line see attached picture. I am likely unable to attend the hearing due to travel. I have to make for Seattle for work that week, but I would like to voice my concerns with the proposed
plan. If any other information is needed, I am happy to provide it. regards David Keley the bonus owner of 124 Warren Avenue. Then he did send another reply just to clarify that in his email when we he
referred to the 85 ft lot line here typo was 80. Okay. So the the initial the original um plot plan that was posted on the agenda and still is on the agenda had 80 feet on that side.
Can I hold this up? on the side on the left side of the property. Okay. And the applicant and the um contractor revised it this evening and submitted it to to show. I did look up the deeds and everything the deed on the easement, the deed on
the applicant's um excuse me, the applicant's deed on her property. Everything states that this is a 100 foot line. So I think that was a typo typographical error based on the opposite side. Right. this got married here and then he just made his own mistake.
I did not have an opportunity to upload all of the attachments to the agenda from this letter, but I did bring digital files so I can pull it up for you. Let me just grab those now. Um,
Just gonna ask Jose, are are you of the opinion that it is a variance at this point? Mr. Chairman, based on the uh shape of this lot and the uh proximity to the
house next door, I'm of the opinion that is a variance. Okay. I I just wasn't sure where the dust settled with the change in dimensions and such. Um so the concern is there seems to be some misunderstanding
um in terms of where the easement may be located. The revised plan shows it based on the plan of land for the easement but the abuter's his email he's concerned that the existing
driveway that's on the property is the 25 foot easement that was granted in 1994. Um In speaking with the applicant, she thought half of her driveway was part of that easement and then the other portion goes it just wasn't clear where where the
easement was. So they've submitted a new revised plan showing the easement on the left side all 25 ft being beyond that edge of her property as so but the existing driveway is 25 ft and I think that's where there is some um
needs to be some clarity for both the applicant and the abuter in terms of whether or not all of her existing driveway is in her property or some of it is part of the easement as was described because the ement just the purpose of the easement
was to have the driveway and a garden. I'm going to pull up that for you now just so you can understand what I'm referring to. Have you reviewed the easement uh by any chance, Jose? I don't have any jurisdiction over it. Yeah. Yeah. I I think I would suggest that we get a
plan that shows uh a stamp that that shows the easement. You we do have it. Oh, great. Great. Based on what was reported at the registry. Sorry about that. So, there's the actual what's on here is the actual description
of the easement that describes that it's 2500 square ft um and why it was created. I'll just read this out loud. That's all right.
We jailed Crannle Jr. and Dale Drandle Senior of Chelford, Massachusetts. The heirs executives assigns for in consideration of $2,500 paid grant to John C. Smallome Jr. and Sylvia A. Small Dome, husband and wife, as tenants by
the entirety in their hairs and their heirs executive and assigns the permanent right and easement running with the land to forever use, enjoy, and maintain the land together with improvements. Now there a driveway and a
garden exclusive of the closline poles. A falling described parcel of land 2500 square feet more or less is shown in the plan. Um but do we have an actual plan to this plan is
that's the one I think we want. So the the plan itself that was recorded in February of 1994 shows the abuter's land. So this is his property property which is to the left. Um and it shows a 100 foot line
which looks consistent with the certified plot plan that we're seeing goes 100 ft straight accurate north and then takes that somewhat 45° angle. That's this right there. Launch this for you and then it 25 ft out from the turn.
right before it pitches. Right. Gotcha. Okay. And that easement doesn't give them any rights as far as setback. A situation like this. I I think this is all new information. Uh I will have to probably consult town council on that
and see what he's I think it's a possibility that we should consider. So if if that easement is considered your property, which let's say there's an argument there, uh you wouldn't need the variance. That's correct. So I'm going to suggest that we continue
this and let uh Jose do some work and perhaps you speak uh with Mr. I won't even get this right, Terzone, and see what you can find out about the easement. And if it is in fact suitable to use as a setback, you won't have to reappear. You'll be able to move ahead
and get approval from Jose. That'll help with the land coverage too, right? That would reduce the land cover by 2500. Yeah, we won't need a variance for the land coverage either. That would be great. I mean, you might not That land is yours to only use as a driveway,
as a garden. It's still theirs to use. So, it could still be calculated in their land process. Definitely. Too bad we didn't have even though it's restricted to what you could use it for, it's still theirs by right to use with the restriction and you maintain it. They paid for it.
So it's your land. You restrict it to what you can put on it by their agreement. So it should be able to be calcul used to use in your calculations. So land coverage and setbacks. I can't see why it wouldn't probably wouldn't need to come back. You paid for it by legal right. It says
Yeah, I think that would be great. And I'm sure Jose is going to take that up as well. And then you would need a variance or special permit because it would cover your land coverage. So if So may I ask a question? Oh, sure. Okay. So if that winds up being the case, then you conform
that whole 25 ft is the side setback. Yeah. So if she wanted a little more garage, no way. Okay. Because you can only use that easement for the drive. You couldn't go into the easement, but you go up to it. I I know. Take it. Ask for an inch. Take a
mile. I know. If council agrees, you know, curious what you guys think about that. Yeah. easement would count as part of a setback. Right. And so the the clarification we need as well is the um the abuter may have misunderstood where the lines were
and thought that the easement was the existing driveway because the the language refers to a driveway. Yeah. And his concern is that the garage would be put in the easement, not within the property. It is the driveway already.
All right. Yes, but that's showing that the easement is next to your already existing driveway. It's next to it. A very small section is in it, right? This red line. He thinks your whole driveway is in it.
He's new. He's been there. He didn't that's new to that property line or that piece. There it is. Actually, I have to tell him this is your land.
I maintain it because of the easement. But actually, it's not. It's yours. You have an easement. It's yours. Yeah, it's yours. Yeah. You have right to use it. The right to use it. But I Okay, it's good. Okay.
We'll get from council when you win. Stop talking. Kind of like she's honest to a fault. Yeah. Stop. It's the right to use and maintain. Right. But I what we need town council to clarify is the right to use this. Um
does that include the setback? Yeah. Right. I I don't know that that would apply to the setbacks because it's not her lot. Yeah. We'll have it's not within her law. Okay. Question for an attorney. So we'll we'll do that. We have there's a possibility. Okay. C we'll get the lawyers involved. They know the you know
I'm going to ask if anyone like to speak in favor or opposition to this application so that we're done with that if they do not come back. So anyone Yes sir. Please approach the podium. I'm not a neighbor and Hushman t
Engineering here in town. Um, I just want to mention that I'm a I'm a licensed land surveyor. Setbacks are major from property lines, not easement lines. That's all I wanted to mention. So, it it probably won't be helpful to her.
Yeah. Whatever the setback is, the easement is intended for its uh intended use. You can't build on it. If it's a utility easement, if it is an access easement,
essress ement, it can be maintained for that use. But the setback has to be measured from property line. Period. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Good. So, I'm going to suggest we continue this uh till October 2nd and we'll see
what what can come out of this. What good or bad? Okay. Okay. Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to say this evening? Uh, thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I make a motion to continue till October second. Second.
Second with Charlie. All in favor? I. Unanimous. Thank you. See you next time. National Day. When will be the alternative president? Yeah, I'll let me check with my wife. Give me a couple of days.
Chair, you not going to be here? I'm going to be in Greece. Want you to know I don't usually give my number to ladies. Are you going to be chair? Sure. Thank you. Little study out. Our next application is 25 Wild's Road.
The applicant Joseph Luna of Luna Design Group representing Robert owner Robert Gordon requesting a variance under a special permit under the zoning bylaw section 1958 conformity to reduce the front yard setback from required 35 ft to the proposed 33 foot2 in and expand
the existing garage with the exist exceeding the maximum percentage lot by 1.9% and other relief deemed necessary. This property is located in the residential RB district. Good evening board. The wedding is the hardest part.
I hope this will actually be the case. All right. Um, my name is Joseph Luna. I am the architect for this project. My company's name is Luna Design Group. were out of Gambridge, Massachusetts. Um, it's a relatively straightforward project. Um, could we actually pull up
the existing floor plan and proposed floor plan context why we're asking what we're asking for? Architectural plans. I tried to Okay, this is the existing garage
right here. This is this mechanical room. Um several years ago a my clients um Robert and Janet Gordon put in a new high efficiency furnace. There was not room in the attic and it had to be
located in the garage. Um because it was located in the garage um the building inspector at the time required an enclosure around around that mechanical unit. Um so you could not have carbon monoxide in it. Problem with that is you see where the garage door is is it made
the garage unusable. and it's been unusable for some time. Um, my clients are getting a little bit more up in age and want to have an actual place to park. Can we go to the proposed plan? Oh, it's on the architectural plan. Just
the next couple sheets up. Scroll up. Keep going. Keep going. That's the existing elevations. One more right there. So, this is the proposed garage extension. We're extending roughly 7 foot 7 in from
the edge of the existing garage to get actual a garage door and making that mechanical room a little bit um larger so there's more surface area around it. Um let's back up, go back to the existing elevation. You can also see on
the front facade and there's a photograph here as well. This is the edge of the garage. This goes back to pretty much an unusable space in the back. It's about a 4ft high knee wall at that point. So even though the garage has some depth because of the roof slope, it just continues down. Um it
makes it virtually unusable. Um our proposal was to actually change this go up right here is to actually turn the roof perpendicular and get more usable space with inside that garage. It's still a single car garage, but when we start
shifting everything over, we went over the property line by one, excuse me, the setback line by one 1.7 ft. And that's what the the variance relief were asking for. Also too, because of the expansion on turns of the special permit, right,
the special permit, we are actually over 1.9% on on the percentage. Go back to the site plan now to give you a reference. So, here's our 7.6 ft uh 7.5 encroach um extension and our
our slight encroachment over over the front yard setback and then the percentages speak for itself. We would argue argue here there's a legitimate hardship here because of the site shape. Um I could also argue the subservice conditions because there's no reason to
actually put that furnace. And that's the overview of of this. My clients have gone to the neighbors and have spoken to the neighbors and we have four letters of support. Happy to answer any questions from the board. I mean this is a special
land coverage. land coverage is because of the driveway and the and the Did you say you're raising the knee wall or you're turning the roof perpendicular? Ah, so if you look Okay,
we didn't want to be an extruded extrusion of the roof. So architecturally turn the roof other way may provide more headroom. I I was confused on the elevation drives. I was asleep. So I think we're all getting there. That's already
I was supposed to pick up five pounds of potatoes in the way. I think that's gone. That section does say That's always been as interpreting it in the past, which is why I I wrote up the legal notice is one
or the other. But I believe it may be special. That's what I believe too. It's section 195-8 for nonconformity, but then it's subsection E2. So underneath the chart there
I don't have special forming resial special permit for the um for inside the offer protection district, right? That's where the the lock the maximum lock coverage by 1.9%.
Maybe I just requirements. Took me a second to remember how I know your road. I have a friend who lives on Parley. Yeah. Back and forth with the
shall not deemed to nature of structure which is what we're using right 1735 is it 175 and also But then the question is whether it
falls under number two which is separate. What's the current building coverage? required 11.4. So that's a max building code area measured
right it didn't give the existing required land disturbance that's a question to ask if he knows what the existing is do you know what the existing
That's was done by the surveyor in that table and I don't have that information for you. Are you looking for the existing building coverage? That that will be 15%. The existing allowable, not the actual, not the allowed building.
Oh, I'm so sorry. I thought you were the chart doesn't say what the house is now because I can't believe that I can't believe that. Well, it's 1.9% right. So you just do a deduction the other way. You could take that. It already has to be over the minute.
It's only due one. It has to be over the limit. Right. So it's already over the limit. Then it's pre-existing not conforming with law. Put it all under special permit. Yeah. I had put the language in the legal notice because it wasn't clear initially. Okay.
One or the other just to be safe so we wouldn't have to repost it. So it's already all of this is already right. We are adding we are adding 194.56
square ft to to that garage which obviously increases the percentage of coverage and I think we'll kind of work back from that. Yeah. Permit says you're going up by 1.9%. Yes. Right. request.
Understand that, right? Just back it up. Yeah. So, we're we're adding 195 square feet. Let's call it the year 61. It's a pre-existing non-conforming on lot area and and um front and sight
frontage front and rear setback. performance in the front setback. Front and rear set. Yeah. So you're you're if you take 3801.9 and I said we were adding 152 square ft.
The existing the existing lot coverage is 3,649. So 3,650 ft. So it's it's it's already non-conforming on on the percentage of lot coverage. Right. Right. So you figure which makes it a special permit. Yeah. So, it's a special special permit
in that respect as well. But it's what year we think 60 front is 30 or 35 and then the sides are So, it's going to reduce to nonconform.
Yeah, reduce nonconforming. The front's going to turn to nonconform with a special per right because it's under 20%. Right. Same with the letters.
There's something wrong. No, no, that's greater than put greater than and not the setback itself. Yes. So the current p the current area in terms of max in ter required is 3,375
and we're at 3,67 as as present and we're adding a total of 195 square ft to that garage. So just working the math backwards. Yep. That's fine. So it's already
I don't think Stephen could take another variant. So the only thing that makes it the only thing that makes it nonconforming is ground is land coverage is lot coverage because it's currently and the extension the extension prior prior to the special permits out
of 20% prior to the addition it met setbacks. Yes. Right. So we grant a special permit which is less than 20% of the uh setback itself at at 33. No because you we can't do it based on
20% reduction because that's for conforming structures because it can do it but you can do it under I believe and this is your your discussion and your decision to make whether or not you can do it
under nonconformity 18582. Commission determines it is a precon cannot be issued per section E as an non-conforming would increase by proposed construction. The board may do a special permit such extent altering determine the proposed
modification will not be substantially more detrimental. So we can do two because that's the way I thought we did it. I think that's what we're looking for. I mean this is really inches here. This is not this and that's why that section was
to give that wiggle room for I think I was just looking where's the nonconformity but it's the land coverage that's currently nonconform the setbacks they make it all the setbacks no no pre-existing pre-existing the setbacks it does make setbacks
but setback is right which is why our extension over the setback line requires a varian we argue hardship on that no no we're special. It's that's what that's what we're saying. So, because your preexisting building
land coverage is nonconforming, everything's non-conforming. Every your whole building is non-conforming. Your lot. So, we can give you a special permit for your setbacks. I I will clarify the setback itself is already pre-existing non-conforming
based on um 35 ft instead of the exist the current 40 the the 40 that's required of a it's already pre-existing non-conforming it setbacks but it's pre-existing houses built before a certain time
you get 35 ft current houses is 40 on that still still requires Those letters. How about those letters? Yeah. Not dig any deeper into this. Ch of fire to prevention. Members of the board, regarding a special perm request for 25
Ws Road. This is this office issues the following requirements and recommendations. In accordance with 780 CMR 51, a heat detector shall be sold in the new garage. This detector must be hardwired and inconnected 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 office further recommends that the entire residence be upgraded and to a hardwired interconnected system with smoke and carbon oxide detection throughout to provide a higher level of life safety protection. All plans are required to be submitted to and reviewed
by this office as part of the building permitting 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, Fire Prevention Office, Chumps Fire Department.
I have a letter from the uh engineering regarding 25 Wilds Road record. Sewer does not show any conflict with the proposed structure. Two, erosion control devices must retain the sediment on site. These must be installed prior to
any work or earth disturbance. Three, consideration should be made to install roof train drywalls to the pros addition to keep in the storm water runoff within the property. This is not a requirement for approval. I have a letter from the Chelton Water
District regarding 25 Wilds Road. No concerns. I have a letter from the Chelton Water District. Just being extra careful. No concerns. I bought a concern. Duplicates. Uh, no. I didn't get one that time, which is really bizarre.
I got a letter from uh the police department for 25 miles road, no concerns. I have a letter from the treasury collector, 25 wilds road, showing no concerns. I have a letter from the board of health showing no concerns for 25 wilds road.
That's the extent of those letters. I also need to read in uh letters presented and I'm dear committee our names are uh David and Anne Porer residing at 28 Wilds Road Christopher
Bordon residing at 23 Wilds Road. David and Norma Luprell residing at 30 Wilds Road and David Hurst residing at 27 Wilds Road. David Hurst. I We are sending this letter on behalf
of Robert and Janet Gordon, owners of 25 Wilds Road, Chamsford, Massachusetts. I we have reviewed the proposed plans prepared by Luna Design Group dated 1325 and the proposed site plan prepared by Chess Engineering dated 1625. I we find
the proposed addition attractive, compatible with scale and context of the surrounding homes in our neighborhood. I we believe that the proposed design will have no adverse effect on our property or the neighborhood as a whole. Therefore, I we offer our support for this project for the requested variances
special permits. Thank you. That's the extent of my letters. Going to open it up to the audience and see if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition to this application. We'll all rush to the podium. Seeing
none, I make a motion to close the public hearings. And I assume they're in favor of Oh, we have a question question. Y question drawing. It said min rare setback required 35
greater than 30. That means Yeah, we're way over 30. Yeah, because that's their historical rate. I don't know. That's uh I don't know why it says greater than 30. I wonder why it said over 30.
It seemed odd that it said greater than 30. That's what got me to engineering. I guess it should have said greater than 35. It might have just been a slight typo on there. Isn't that typos? I've never seen anything like it. That's what got me too. I was like, why
is it? I make a motion close public hearing chair. Thank you. Second by Peter. All in favor? Any other question? Motion. I make a motion to approve the special
permit for 25 Wild's Road in section in accordance with section 195-8. And with all red letters read in. I'm getting a horse. I'll second that. Second by Peter. All in favor?
I opposed. Okay. Good luck with it. Good luck with your project. So, we're good. No varian required also. Promise. Nice and easy. Easy. Have a good night. Easy peasy. Lemon squeezy. Enjoy.
Just a 2 and 1/2 hour debate on the uh ADU. What can we say? Very That was tough. I'll tell you. I didn't I didn't feel good about the whole thing. Our ninth and last self road. Have a good evening. Thank you.
Have a good night. Take care. Now make a motion. Hey Bob, take care. Second. Second. Should we get special consideration for being last? Somebody got a lunch out. Sometimes it can work in your favor. Let
me tell you. So 6 Southgate Road owner Kristen Lonardi is requesting a variance and or a special permit under the zoning ball section 1958E2 nonconformity for the construction of an addition that will increase the pre-existing non-conforming setback by
reducing the rear setback by 5T and the side setback by 1 ft the requirements in exceeding percentage lot by 3.7% and other relief deemed necessary. This property is located in the residential RB district. Good evening.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. My name is Hushman Davar from Taj Engineering and I'm here to represent the owner and applicant of this uh property located at six South Gate. Uh
when this subdivision in this area was created in the early 1950s, uh all the lots in this area more or less were uh created of this of this size. Uh
which is obviously existing nonconfirming of what is required with the current zone of 40,000 square foot. Um the family has grown. The the jog in the back as you can see is very narrow.
Uh they require a a little more living space. Uh but unfortunately the hardship of owning a small lot. Uh you know they are facing with this uh requirement. Uh
the side step back uh is actually uh the relief s is only 0.4 ft in the front right corner. In the back we are okay. The other hardship if you may that the
applicant is uh facing is that in this case the historical setback rear setback uh which usually is relaxed more the current setback and works in the favor
of the applicant. In in this case that's not the case. The rare setback, the current rare setback is for zoning is 30 feet, but we were told we had to go by the historical setback which is 35 ft.
and the so in order to make this addition meaningful and a little more useful uh create more living space for the applicant. We extend the existing
uh side of the building about 3 ft beyond with and which is 30 that gives us 30 ft set back to the R setback which meets the current zoning requirement. But
unfortunately for some reason we have to go by this historical setback and that is where that five foot relief comes into play. Um the house I mean in my experience working in all the towns and cities in
the area uh usually the historical setback works in the favor of the applicant. Um the house is a single uh single story a one-story ranch. Obviously it's a small house on a small lot and
um we really have no choice. The applicant has really no choice in order to make this addition meaningful to what is proposed on this plan. For that uh uh you know we request your approval.
um they don't believe we don't believe that this is really detrimental to the neighborhood in general. Uh the the addition uh from the house nearest house in the back is over 150 ft. the corner
of the addition to the left we are more than 100 feet to the house to a left and to the right which is the closest number eight south gate we are over 65 ft distance uh the addition is and the the
neighbor on the right the ab on the right number eight has given a which I actually received just tonight a letter um expressing their uh support and no objection to this addition. Mr. Chairman.
Yes, please. Thank you. All the neighbors have received the notification. They have met with the applicants and at this point uh we'll be more than happy to answer any questions.
It's going to be this one. My math tells me it's all special permit. There's no B required. Can I ask a question? How do we absolutely I might have missed this class but how do we determine which R
we have a we have a map in the office the majority of the the town seems to fall within the um I believe by looking at the map okay office that were definitely these are the front
okay because I didn't see it anywhere on the plot plan's 35 right 35 writing up this legal notice just like the other two um properties I put in
special in this case pre-existing setback is more than current setback um so we're good that's crazy I had asked Hushi to revise the plan which he did just to show all of the requirements as the pre-existing
non-conforming setbacks because we can't list them as halfconforming, half non-conforming. Um, and then in u reviewing the legal notices with um Evan because I usually have him look them over too before posting them in
talking with Jose. Um, and Jose, correct me if I'm incorrect. Correct me if I'm wrong here. In reviewing that a second time, we realize this too falls within the same 1958 nonconformity um section E2
potentially. And that's what the board needs to decide whether you want to issue it as a variance in the back or you want to just put it all into the pre-existing non-conforming special permit. Well, even the 20% on the rear uh with the 35 foot is seven feet. So, he's only
five feet shy. So, it's it's a special permit regardless. 20% of 35. So, so we can't do 20% reduction on historic setbacks because it's double dipping. So, the 20% reduction is section 1959 conforming conformity.
We can't reduce 20% on historical because they're already getting the um leeway with being granted. Right. Right. That's why we don't that's why we don't list it when we issue the permit. We don't issue it under that. So, oh 12628.
Yeah, the the side setback is definitely a special permit. We did submit this plan first with respect to the current zoning which was working in our favor. But I'm good with that. Okay. Oh, Southgates front.
Yeah. This is the front here. Yeah. So side is now 16, right? And that's because that side that side um blot line is not a direct is not a direct perpendicular. It's at a slight slant
and that's where you get that I see difference in the set difference. So they are always nonconforming because they were never at 35 front. They were at 40 front or R2 35. Right. Right.
Which they never were. existing is 29, right? So, they're non-conforming in that regard, too. And you can't do 20% on a previously non-conforming. Is that right? We can't do it on historical setbacks. But we can do it on today's setbacks.
And that would be exactly 5T 25 for the re historical. Or is it also that it's non previously currently nonconforming? Does that eliminate it from the 20% as well? We don't need the 20% because we can you can issue it under the special. Yeah. I'm just trying to understand for
for my education the things that eliminate it. So historical uh setbacks if you're using that it eliminates the 20% rule and if it's previous non-conforming that also eliminates the 20% rule. Correct.
Pre-existing non-conforming certainly no doubt is only for conformity. And if we use the setback, but that's why we have that subsection is to be able to address the majority of the lots in town that need fall under
the same the same issue. I mean the current is the current zoning is 30 ft. I mean it's Yeah. Yeah. Go figure. I mean 31 You like to open it up to the audience,
right? Why don't I read the letters? Sounds like someone wants to go there. Would you? We've got these people educated. They've been here so long. They understand it. He is a lifelong resident of Chsford
since 1983. Don't rush to be in favor. Take your time and think about it. this um graduated my children from high. Yeah, I've been paying taxforming.
What's your company? Getting tired. Overtime pay. I thought you looked familiar. Everybody looks familiar to you tonight. I know. I used to drive up. We used to next week. She's going for the mayor. I think so.
That's my business partner. Oh, okay. White truck with the red letter in it. Told you I look like brother sometimes. You do. Well, I was I didn't stare a lot, but we could set this up. Sorry. Okay. Uh members of the board, this is from the CH Fire Department regarding
the special permit request for Six Southgate Road. This offers the following requirements, recommendations. Without the full architectural plans, no determination on smoke, heat, code detector requirements can be rendered at this time. All construction required to meet 780 CMR for detected type location
interconnection and power supply. All plans 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 ratic and incorporated into your approval process. Sincerely Josh Abbott, Captain Fire
Prevention Office. I have a letter from Sheila Joyce project engineer regarding Sik Southgate. The proposed addition will be near or possibly over the existing sewer service. Applicant must contact the DPW sewer division to coordinate any necessary actions to
preserve or alter the sewer service. The application does not detail the proposed use of the addition. Further clarification will required if approved by the DPW to determine if sewer capacity fees apply. Erosion control advisor must retain the sediment on site. These must be installed prior to
any work or earth disturbance. Consideration should be made to install roof drain drywalls to the addition to keep the storm water runoff within the property. This is not a requirement for approval. I have a letter from the Chamsford Water
District with no concerns. Chsford Water District. No concerns. I have a letter from the police with no concerns regarding Six Southgate Road. I have a letter from the Treasury Collector regarding Six Southgate Road
with no concerns. I have a letter from the board of health for six Southgate Road with no concerns. That is the extent of my letters. Oops, I have one more to the chamom zoning board of appeals. What lovely handwriting.
We have no objection to the planned addition by Ian and Kristen Mc Williams at 6 Southgate Road. We are confident that it will be an asset to the neighborhood. Donald and
and in Dean 8 Southgate Road just said how good their handwriting was. It's pretty. It's not very readable, but it's very pretty. Pretty. They don't teach person. Might even just be the the We'll let her know the stationary.
The stationary. Right. Right. Back. Any any comments? Any questions or comments from the audience at this time? I make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Second by Steven. All in favor? I
[Music] like to make a motion to approve the special permit under 195-8E2 for the construction of the addition to increase the pre-existing non-conforming
uh at 6 Southgate Road. Uh taking in consideration all the letters read into the record. I second. All in favor? opposed. Good luck with it. Enjoy
your patience. Enjoy. That That works. We'll do minutes. I read the minutes, but I think before we forget, going back to the uh endorsement, I don't know if the board just wants to
sign or actually I don't know if we need to vote to endorse it, but um I did look up the five voting members on the actual comprehensive permit and they were here and I just Jamie, Peter, and Glenn. Okay,
so Jamie's father right here in a row. you could all sign. There's three um three signature pages. So, if you could take a minute to do that now, just so that I don't lose that. I did take it for the
I make notes on you sign and print your name underneath if you wouldn't mind printing your name underneath. Signes on all five copies. She I'm so messy. She wrote my name on three copies. Get a title.
I guess somebody's not getting our potatoes right marathon session down for the uh you want to go over the notes. What in writing? Oh, the minutes. Yeah, Jamie's uh
I'm standing. She wants to go home. Who got It's only 10:30. Something in writing for the decision. I will distribute the draft once the Well, next time we'll have four minutes clear as to whether or not it will come back for endorsement. I read all the minutes because I thought Evan was saying
he was saying who voted against it. Oh yes. So I'll email I'll email to make sure that I understand what we have copies. Want to get that down before I forget
or email me tomorrow. Okay. Oh, I know. He's out of his mind. Sign your name right there. We're still in open and then just print your name underneath. Thank you. But I don't have room. do it like they did. So, there's three. Don't Please don't sign the notary page. There's a page and
I guess the same thing. Sign on the line and print next to name. Please. Print next to me. Yeah, please. Sign on the line and then print where it says name. Name. I'll just um I'll just print. Put your social underneath so we can verify your identity.
Visa card if it's possible. Can we close or we have to wait till this is finished being sent? Did everyone get to read the minutes? No, I I read them for what it's worth. Yeah, you did. They were bored. I had to read some space. Pretty good handwriting right there.
The first set of minutes, June 5th, Steven and Jamie were absent, so they wouldn't be voting on it. Good. Awesome. the um second set of meeting minutes that only voting members and
he's one of the he was that night as were I thought there was five of these there's three and you didn't sign that yeah so the first three sets of minutes um Jamie and Stephen were absent so they don't have to weigh in on that
or can't and then the last set of meeting minutes the only person not here was Danny and he's not here today So all of you can weigh in on it if you've had a chance to read them. If not, we'll So why don't we do the first off? Why don't we do the first three set of meetings?
And um the 18th's pretty short. The 18th. No. Oh, we only had that one thing. There was two meetings. There was two meetings on the 18th, but it's they're short. Yeah. I'll review while you guys do the first. But you weren't here.
But you don't have to. You can't vote on them. All right. All in favor of we did Did everyone get everybody else get to read the minutes to approve them? All in favor of approving 65, 618, and 710.
There's two 618s. Two separate ones. There's two separate ones. Separate ones. Two separate. Oh, we have two different locations. Yeah. So, Peter, you and Jamie are going to get five. 6525. phone line.
Oh, if we were there, we can vote on We were voting member that night. Correct. Yep. Thank you for everyone signing these. We approve them. Motion to approve. 69 25 second
by Charlie. Okay. Who did first? I'm sorry. Rod. Okay. Rod and Charlie. Thank you. All in favor? All right. Great. So, a motion for 618 Riverneck Road. Riverneck Road. River. That was a fun night.
[Music] Approve River. We have a second. Charlie. Charlie. Second. I see. Second by Peter. Oh, second. All in favor? I. Did they go Did Ledger go to court yet? Oh, no. They filed papers. I don't think there's
been any meetings yet. No meetings. Second 61825 Ledge Road. Make a motion for that. Charlie, I want a motion to second. Rod has got a motion. Charlie can second. Yeah. All in favor. Oh, it's the other way around. Rod
first, Charlie second. Sorry about that. I just want to get it right. Get them while I can. Right. Every all hands went up. I just had so much fun that night. And then uh 71025. We need a motion.
I missed the first two. Um motion by Charlie Rod for 7:25 710 excuse me 710 so last month's meeting everyone was here except Danny Charlie and Rod and they missed the first two
did you know Ledge Road made the news on WVZ that's a big deal it's a monster in the crowd that was a big deal oh yeah I don't think there was anybody against I knew it's ridiculous. No trucks should be
going through neighborhoods. So before we to say next meeting October second motion to adjourn. Yep. So October 2nd next meeting I'll be absent. Joe's going to take that home.
I'll try to do that. I'll be here.