6 2025 public input public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to issues with the jurisdiction of the chelwood 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 there are no administrative reviews and our first public hearing is for Courthouse Lane Unit 16 Terry Norton
doing business as bodywise Muscular Therapy is requesting an after Thea special permit under the zoning bylaw section 195 attachment one to run a massage therapy business or any other relief deemed necessary this property is located in the commercial CC zoning district and what this means is the uh applicant has been running for several years as a massage PL and through an
oversight of the town did not get the proper permitting so tonight please approach uh tonight we'll be trying to remedy that for them Mr chair if I may for just a second um we actually only have four board members live right now I'm waiting for an additional login because we got confirmation that more board members would be online and I only have Jamie and Danny Ste Ste is supposed to log in as well yeah as as is Rod and glad I think uh Glenn might be logging
in online as well so I just want to make sure we have a quorum so we we have four sitting members that would mean that everyone would need to vote in your favor to approve this permit I I don't see any headaches with that I just want you to be aware that uh if you had a board of five you could have a 4 to one vote and still pass I don't see any obstruction for you there seems pretty straightforward to me um so like you said I have been operating at four Courthouse Lane for four years in January of 2021 when I
found the space to rent I was going through um the state licensure for opening um a business as well as I came to town hall and I filled out the paperwork that they handed me I thought everything was well and good and I worked there for four years and I came back to renew my business certificate and you said uhoh you're missing the special permit so I'm here tonight just to apply for that special permit okay
well thank you uh is there anything you'd like to add Jose that cover everything no I te summarize everything right great uh so I guess I'm going to ask out uh to zoom if either of our uh board members has comment on this application Dan any or Jamie you're all set if you could each unmute yourselves so we can hear you I have no questions
chairman thank you I have questions did you say you did have a question Dy no questions thank you Charlie I'm fine I'm gonna go ahead and read the letters we did not receive any departmental concerns just the standard letter from DPW okay um that you can read in I guess I'll read this in out of out of habit but it's not necessary as she's not doing any uh
construction uh regarding four C Courthouse Lane Unit 16 dear members this office has reviewed the project applications and documents subu to the DPW on January 29th 2025 for the following public hearing notice on February 6 2025 for Courthouse Lane Unit 16 Terry Norton doing business as bodywise Muscular Therapy is requesting an after the fact special permit under the zoning bylaw section 195 attached one to run a massage therapy business
and any other relief deemed necessary this property is located in the commercial CC zoning as a result of this review this offic has the following comments it is understood that the application does not propose a change in use from the existing of four Courthouse lane or Unit 16 or propose a change in sewer use the DPW shall Monitor and en Force sewer flow limitations and impose penalties for violations there of in accordance with with the town's sewer
policy if there is a change in use or expansion the applicant should submit necessary floor plans to the supplement the sewer allocation calculations regarding four Courthouse land Unit 16 the Board of Health has no concerns regarding for Courthouse Lane Unit 16 the police have no concerns regarding four Courthouse Lane Unit 16
uh the north chelsford water district has no concerns and that is all the letters I have except for the denial letter from Jose which we've already discussed and just so you know Stephen just joined the zoom okay Stephen is on can I see if Stephen has any questions at this time is he muted unmuted Stephen can you unmute yourself
yes I can thank you good evening see I just want to find if you had any questions I no great I'm going to open this up to the uh audience and if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition to this now is the time seeing none I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing I'll be looking for a second close the public hearing Jamie is
a second all in favor I I the public meeting is closed I think uh just because we're on Zoom we have to do a roll call so everybody knows oh that's right that's right thing uh so jam you vote to close the public hearing I affirm yes Stephen do you vote to close the public hearing yes Danny do you vote to close the public hearing yes Joly do you vote to close the public and I as well it's unanimous okay
I think we can take this up right now yeah let's do it um I make a motion to um to approve the special permit at four cour House Road Unit 16 um for the after the fact special permit under zoning bylaw section 195 attachment a with consideration with the letters written into our meeting chairman I second the motion second by jamy Jamie all in favor I dooll uh Jamie you're in favor I am Charlie you're in favor y Danny is
in favor yes and uh who's left Stephen is in favor yes I am also in favor it's unanimous 5 Z I'll get back to you with the paperwork all right thank you very much thank you good evening appreciate your patience back in the zoom mode again too yeah this is all new again all things we wanted to forget you can be sure all things we wanted I foret uh regarding 26
vinyl square I'm going to mess up your name I apologize shanzi Lee doing business as Spa Tao lsz Enterprises is requesting an after Thea special permit under the zoning bylaw section 195 attachment one to run a massage therapy business and any other relief deem necessary this property is located in the commercial CD zoning District good evening good
evening uh you you find yourself were you able to understand the the meeting before I just the first time meeting I English not good just yeah okay um Mr shman can I yes please so this is very similar to the one previous uh it's after the fact uh same circumstances over an oversight um and she uh life to ify the situation under a special permit
okay thank you so I guess uh we'll read the letters as we just did and this is uh regarding 26 vinyl square dear members this officer reviewed the following application plans document submitted to the DPW on January 29th 2025 and finds the following it is understood that this application does not propose a change in you use from the existing use of 26 vinyl square or
propose a change in sewer usage the DPW shall Monitor and enforce sewer flow limitations and impose penalties for the violations thereof in accordance with the town sewer policy if there's a change in user expansion the applicant should submit the necessary floor plans to supplement the sewer allocation calculations that was from uh Sheila Joyce project engineer
I have a letter from the fire prevention office for 26 vinyl square with no concerns I have a letter from the Board of Health for 26 vinyl square with no concerns I have a letter from the police department for 26 vinyl square with no concerns and a letter from the north chord water district with no concerns I have the original denial letter from the building inspector which is already been
entered are there any questions from the board at this time including Zoom no I have no questions chairman I have no questions thank you Charlie same as the last one okay uh we're going to send this out into the audience again if someone has concerns or objections now is the time no objections I'm just going to I'm the owner of the building she owns the
business okay any trouble very good I don't want to drag you up there but if you're gonna talk you really need to be at the podium for the rest of uh the commit so maybe less is more in this case oh you can if you're going to speak you need to speak into the mic so it could be recorded I don't need to speak okay I thought maybe that was the case uh can I get a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing
second and I second the motion and if I could get a roll call for the vote uh Danny how do you vote Yes Jamie how do you vote Yes Stephen how do you vote Yes Charlie how do you vote and I vote Yes as well it's unanimous thank you I now we have to fix my computer do you want another one there's probably some others fix
for Char's got a technical issue just be a minute technical issue right it's always me someone want to make a motion to uh vote in the affirmative on this chairman I'll make a motion to approve the special permit for 26 finyl Square uh requesting a special permit after the fact including the letters read in thank you second by Danny we going have a roll call vote uh Denny
how do you vote Yes Jamie how do you vote Yes uh Stephen how do you vote Yes Charlie how do you vote and I vote Yes as well it's unanimous enjoy thank you thank you thank you have a good evening I'll follow up with the paperwork Indian Drive okay our next hearing is two Indian Drive David capro
is requesting a new after theact variance Andor modification thereof of a previously approved variance modification under the zoning bylaw section 1958 non-conformity for the construction of an enclosed porch along the back of the house which post construction as buil plan shows was not in keeping with the previously approved variants modification that allowed an 18-foot setback this property is located in the
residential RB district and I believe at this point so you have a 16t setback is that correct correct it ended up being 16 ft um the way we just first came up with the footprint it was it was based on an existing fence that's been there for many years and if you were to take that measurement from the fence to the corner of the building it is 18 ft so the fence wasn't located on the property line many many many years ago yeah yeah so that's and based on my
previous um we first had the two c garage variants which gave us that 18t variance and based on that corner of the garage to the fence it's 18 ft um so we basically projected that I projected that forward to come up with the footprint and based on that mathematics the fence was where it's supposed to be um so when I went through all the perming because we actually would have made it you know I would have went for
the 16 foot because I wanted the 12 the you got a variance which was the challenge not whether it was 16 or 18 I mean you can't say where it would have gone but yeah I mean but appreciate that it probably would have yeah like we would have had it all done at the same time as what I'm getting in the garage because then we wouldn't had to go through the variance on the porch the modification do the modification so now I'm here asking for another modification to have that adjusted to the 16 ft um that's where we clear yeah
um okay uh do we have letters did submit a letter from the departmental letters yes yeah or any letter and the applicant also had um letter of support from a Butters okay good that would be something read this is from Sheila Joyce and I mean I understand most of this after the fact but we we do need to read it in yeah uh
this uh 8 8 Columbia I thought this was two Indian dri okay my apologies no worries thank you you're welcome okay so this is comments on two Indian drive from Sheila Joyce project engineer two Indian drive as a real result of this review this house in the following comments no
additional comments comments from the previous letter dated May 10th 2024 remaining pertinent regarding any construction related activities for the enclosed porch so they've already deferred which is great they write long letters uh the Board of Health has no concerns fire prevention has no concerns zoning uh other than the obvious uh has no concerns
the police have no concerns and the chord wat district has no concerns oh and we have another one uh no concerns from the treasurer tax collector that's a good one I have a letter I'm going to read in uh from Michael Brooks 14 East Shepard Lane Daniel moral from 16 East sheeper Lane Lane and Brett gross from
four Indian drive now is four the ab budding neighbor with the fence they are all abutters to my backyard the one that's AB butting the fence is that four uh so no four is an open Line uh so if you're looking at that four is right below me right there that's four and then the two other Butters are uh one with the pool and then one one out the pool right there okay uh Dan is right there with the pool Mike is below that and Mike is the fence guy then uh no
actually Dan is oh okay okay Mike put a brand new fence and he put it in shortly after we moved in so there's a brand new vinyl fence but then Dan has an existing like a 4- foot picket which when I was talking to him he informed me the previous owners put it in about a week after he bought and moved into his house and I think the previous owner marked some ground Stakes assuming where it was and went with it that way many years ago um so it's been there for since Dan own
the house yeah right and as you can see they have no issues with it right now yeah I got to read the letter into the record uh the the three gentlemen three owners dear zoning board we hope this letter finds you well I am well we are writing to respectfully request consideration for a minor modification to the approved variants regarding the placement of an enclosed porch at my residence located at 2 in Indian Drive the enclosed porch was
recently constructed with a 16t setback from the property line rather than the approved 18 feet we're requesting that the town consider the existing setback as my neighbors have no objections to the new structures location to demonstrate this we have gathered support from my immediate neighbors who agree with the current placement of the enclosed porch you'll find signatures below from my neighbors confirmed they have no issue with the 16t setback are in full support of the modified variants this variance request a simply reflection of the structure's Practical
alignment on the property which does not negatively impact any neighboring properties we talked to them about what happened during the planning and how the mistake was made we kindly ask that you consider this request to review the matter we would be happy to provide any additional information if needed thank you for your time and understanding and that is the uh the letter so we'll leave that in the record does the board have any questions at this time Zoom Charlie does um yeah I
know you said it's off 2 feet but I just I just cannot figure how it can be off because um didn't the surveyor LW tell you where to put it no I never had it surveyed before the footprint it was if you look at the maps um I believe I have those entered in it was a it was a diagram based on measuring from the fence line that I did um usually certified plot so it wasn't
it wasn't you approv the variance based on my diagram which I have this copy um should be in my record saying how far off the fence it was so the fences I assume would be my property line right and never assume that well that's based on where my my garage was that that had the as built based to the Corner that's how I came up with that and that's
that's what I presented to the board when I got the approval to build it and then the next page guess we messed up on so there there was another uh there is a certified plant plan that was included uh with another surveyor a different surveyor and they uh it appears certified from the 18.2 point uh it does not say the fence it shows the property line and
it's uh it's a certified PL plan so um I I think I remember this one so Charlie you may recall a year ago or 2023 we received the application for a variance for that garage and so that is the as built showing the garage built and that's what the applicant came back for in 2024 for modification of the variants and he provided that as Bolt plan and if you flip the page I believe it shows the estimate of the porch with
its Dimensions which is how it got built with those Dimensions but he thought he was keeping in line with that 18 the the established 18 footstep back I I see how we happen yes I mean you have it you have the visual helps I apologize I didn't attach that to this agenda so he was trying to keep with that 18t that was established for the garage but the as bu for the porch came back 2T off I get you my tape measure I
get you it's it's a certified plot plan so so and the and it it wasn't a foundation build so I didn't do it until the um Ste Steven is that is the gentleman the building inspector that came out uh Paul pa pa Paul diari Senior inspector thear he came out because I asked him as I was building to make sure I was building correctly and he says all right you know when you get it fin finish with the windows up let me know come and I'll
sign off and I go that's when I'll order the as built because there's no Foundation they go from the building right the building has to be in place right and that's when I found out there was the big issue yeah so the porch was approved under a modification to the initial variants so I don't know how the board if the board wants to proceed with another modification to adjust for this or um a letter to the file
explaining that they are aware of this change or how how you want to go about I guess I would defer to Jose what would you feel is the correct uh where we have where we agree on it as as built how would you like to see that uh um file I guess so he already submitted the as bill which is the for this hearing which it shows the discrepancy of 2 feet yeah I think that's what we're we're
looking at right here I know everyone can see it so um depending on what the board vot on to approve or disapprove um if I understand your question I mean he can resubmit that I'm just would you would you rather see it as a new variance a modification to an existing variance I believe uh under if you recall back with the previous Town Council I think it should be a modification to a previous variant okay
and I think that'd be less honorous anyway I don't know if we even need uh you know uh it's an existing variant so we could modify it right potentially a minor change I don't know if that's really that is correct um chairman if I could ask a question certainly am I understanding that the certified plot plan that we received when we gave this initial variance or modification variance was actually an error on it I believe so
yes I can answer that there is an error on it and it is a certified plot plan yeah so they if you if you would to see the actual original plot plan um I digitally dropped an image and highlighted and color coded and said this is where I plan on putting it so I was using the existing plot certified plot plan to drop my porch on to show where I planned on building the location the setbacks so I could go from there um what was not known to me is that my
fence there is not the boundary line and based on I looked at it that from the corner of the garage to the line if I measure what my tape measure that puts me where the fence is so I brought that Dimension towards the back um to the corner where the porches because the porch is kind of set off the garage back from the garage um I don't know if you can so you put images on the certified plot plan and added measurements I
dropped image on to explain where I wanted to put put the porch I didn't I didn't cheat the document I didn't I presented that that this was my ad in my math on a previous existing plot plan so I could explain where the porch was going to go and that's what was approved when I had the modification teachers I'm going to I'm going to pull up those images that was May 16th of 2024 and I'm going
to pull up um those images that were attached to that agenda um just give me one second I'm almost there so the deck proper was a modification to the variance explain I don't understand what the the deck itself the porch itself was the modification to the variance that was originally for the garage correct it was and that is the certified plot plan we have here for the garage
correct I have a question yes um so Becky am I correct that when when a submission is is coming in for a variance like this we need a certified plot plan done by the surveyor so when this happens you know where an applicant draws on a survey how how do we know that it's going to you know how we is there something that
we're getting in writing from the surveyor saying that this is the correct plan because typically it's not allowed to you're not allowed to just draw on a certified plot plan if you don't mind Becky can I respond to that um so let me just clarify uh something here so when the applicant came for to revise the variant that he previously had to add the porch uh this board
granted uh a variance to 18 feet setback and he did provided a certified plot PL uh showing the 18 original the original uh when um he did not put a found a full foundation for this addition uh and correct me if I'm wrong I did not issue this permit so um the the new addition was put on
Pierce that's correct I think that's what we it was put on Pierce um so the building official went to the site and did the footing inspection and contingent that he will receive the as Bill right during that time uh it is my understanding Mr uh uh capro he continued to do the construction work and that's when he noticed uh he measure
and he noticed that he was off two feet by the new uh by the asille submitted by another uh land surveyor so the first asille correct me if I'm wrong was issued by one surveyor and the second one was issued by another surveyor right so there was a discrepancy there with where the fence was placed according to the distance
to the structure correct I don't know if I if I if I answer your question yeah you did thank you um and uh Danny to further answer the question you had asked me so yes normally when it's an addition we as Jose explained we do require that and the addition was for the the garage which is what I have up on screen I don't know if you can see it on your end so it showed what the propos OS garage would be and the distance would be 18 ft
and so the board initially approved this um back in February of 2020 excuse me April of 2022 um because this is a copy of the the initial variance that was provided when they came back for a modification to the previously approved variant so this was the um the plot plan that we had for the approval of the gar and then when the applicant came back
for a modification of this to include the porch in the back and I'm that's what I'm trying to get up on screen now um he did come in showing the dimensions of that porch and it would be in keeping with the 18t setback but not having a new plot plan just working off of this one and the board discussed that and decided that that would suffice for a small modification because it was for an enclosed porch without a foundation as
Jose mentioned I have the image on my phone if um they have a camera that I can hold it up to no I don't think so no okay yeah I thought I had it in here I'm just trying to find it Well they can look at the one on their uh agenda oh maybe they don't have the uh yeah I thought I had the it's in the file I have it here unfortunately those
on Zoom can't see it right right yeah I think I I thought that that part was scanned in as well and I'm just going to look one more time to see if this is scanned I think basically we probably tried to accommodate him without having him do another survey and it uh apparently bit so we uh we were part of the mistake here um
yeah it looks like for that meeting I had accidentally put web links twice but um twice on the architectural plans and not a link for the actual as built the actual proposed enclosed porch but if you give me a minute I believe I have that on my computer and I can just switch over to show it on the screen so you just so I could clarify the
Builder uh the owner I'm sorry when you were finished building or in the process of the building you discovered on your own that it was 16 ft and so you decided to get a new surveyor out there to do another plot plan is that how we came to these plans by lewig no um I I was told to basically finished a build because the walls had to be up to get the as built so they had something to measure to um and um Pat flarity who did the
original survey is no longer surveying so I reached out to a local surveyor um to come in and then resurvey the the plot um so I it was even more money out of my pocket because of that but had to be done and then they they surveyed and did a more in detailed um as built on it um my my proposal was just all my drawing on an existing to explain where
I wanted to put it based on the size and everything like that but it was already on existing you it was already an existing structure so you weren't adding to so that's why we went on the measurements on the pre-existing plot plan correct so I could explain where I wanted to drop it how big because if I known that I would have asked for 16 foot instead of the 18t and the only reason why we stuck even with the 18t is we didn't think we needed to had a modify if again because we were just staying within the modification for the
garage and then that's when they said they needed the modify to modify and now here we are you were you stayed in the same footprint but that footprint was actually measured wrong on the initial correct PL correct got it got it okay thank you this one that one that work yep okay there it is okay I just pulled up the um how it was
submitted for the modification can you all see the screen at home okay I'm going to zoom in so you can get a better look at it this is what was submitted for the modification so it was the as built with the garage from the original variants showing it at 18.2 which is what 18t was approved on the initial variance and then working off of this
the proposal was this enclosed porch here if you can see follow my mouse and the applicant thought that this here would be in keeping with the 18 ft so that's a new footprint the porch is a whole new footprint yes so so that's the structure that's within 16 ft now
correct is the garage 16 ft off the property line or the garage 18 ft off the property line 18 foot2 so the me the Assumption was wrong because your property line comes inward so if your property line comes Inward and you're I guess where why would the Assumption have been it was 18 ft I think I can explain that um so Jamie
when you look at the property line that was the property line that was assessed um what it doesn't show is that there's a fence right is that right correct that that 121 foot spin has a 4ot picket fence that goes along it what I'm not what I was not aware of is that picket fences on my neighbor's property by 2 feet and so the applicant thought the fence
was the property line when the fence is actually 2 feet over the property line and so when he measured the dimensions for the proposal that's where it was off by 2 feet so as a board we technically didn't have a certified plot plan for the addition I guess that's a reasonable AR yes okay okay well we allowed
it we allowed the certified plot plan that was in place for the garage to be forwarded to right the and and the owner added his own which these these are all measurements that maybe we but these are not certified measurements on a certified plot plan these are owner drawn on top of correct and that was and that was made clear during the hearing in fact I'll zoom out the applicant had
photocopied um the plan but we were aware that that was not okay because if you look it's just a zoom in of the plan it didn't even have all the heading and he wrote in his own notes which are the the boxes highlighted in red and he made that clear when he applied and he made it clear to the board during the hearing okay what what should have happened is he should have had the corners located uh by a surveyor and I think that's what
really made it not work everything else was we we should have had we couldn't have had a certified plot plan because it didn't exist so we would get a proposed plot plan and these dimensions are where they go but when he looked for those Dimensions he took it from the fence and that created an error simply and then when he had the asilt done which normally you would understand that the foundation's construction this is wrong as soon as the foundation
went in you have an as built done but he didn't have a foundation he had peers that did not locate the external Corners it's I mean I can understand the mistake I don't think anybody was doing anything they shouldn't have it just uh I don't even know how you you do it right without a foundation I mean it just was sort of the way we allow it to happen he did have a certified plot plan we did give setbacks if he was to find it before construction he would have had
to have the surveyor locate the corners which in hindsight wouldn't have been a bad idea but I think he thought he understood how this worked and probably wanted to save 500 bucks and and didn't do it I don't even know if you considered doing it I don't I don't know I didn't know because I once again I the the fence was my boundary line right and I measured from the garage corner in and In fairness if you can imagine this deck he could have just moved it down until
he had 18 ft I think he took it back until he had 18 ft and said that's that's where it goes because as it grows all he would have had to do is move the entire structure this way to accommodate the size deck he has now it would have just been farther towards the right of the home I'm not I'm not saying anything on the anything was erroneous or malicious on the owner's part but any mean I don't want to try and infer that at any point
if that I don't believe that's the case phone sound please please excuse if I'm just trying to ask questions to make sure I have the facts in my my mind straight uh I know as a as a board when when people propose additions or any type of modifications to their homes we get certified PLT plans and those proposed additions are indicated on the certified plot plan with the new locations and the new setbacks so that's just was just trying to get clarification on how I think that happened ex docents what the board was
looking at at the time when they made the decision for the mod the initial modification so at the end of the day it was the the applicant's responsibility to locate those two points and he used an erroneous point to get to it and it it had you know I I can understand how it happened I I just uh it's one of those few things we don't you know we don't like the problem any more than you do we don't want to have modif on top of modifications anyways so I the
only comment I would say is I mean I agree uh that you know no one was doing anything on purpose or malicious and any intent the only thing I would say is for future I think when when we get a plan similar to this maybe just we have a condition that says you know the corners are staked out by a survey or the line of the VAR sorry that was my dog sorry he didn't like that you didn't even have to tell us we never would have
known um the so when the line of the variance maybe that gets staked out so that there is no mistakes in the future just something to think about for future conditions yeah yeah no it uh it should have been avoided but I I can see how it occurred with we had a certified plot plan we located it and gave granted the 182 without concern we had already granted the variance for 182 we granted it basically again and it was just
locating it that was a mistake it uh I could see that happening again honestly I don't I don't know how we would put a a unless I think the corner should have been staked by a surveyor that would have been the solution maybe we require that when a foundation I mean if the foundation's in you're still in the same amount of trouble because the foundation is obviously something that doesn't come out without a lot of work and and cost and effort so that would L less than the whole building being
done but at that point you would have had this the foundation surveyed and the building wouldn't have been constructed but now we're through the whole process so it's It's Tricky that being said are there further questions of the uh of anybody on the board I have no more questions chairman thank you I'm going to open it up uh to the audience someone is in favor or opposition to this uh now is the time to
speak please approach the podium I'll make a motion to uh close the public hearing we have a motion can I ask for a second second second by Danny going to do a roll call Steve are you in favor of uh closing the public hearing yes I am and Danny are you in favor of closing the public hearing yes Jamie are you in favor of closing
the public hearing yes Charlie are you in fav closing and I am also in favor so the public hearing is closed I want to let you know you guys are all set you're welcome to enjoy and stay I just you're all set if you we're going to leave after this one okay it's good TV right not that good well it's not a rerun somewhat right actually yeah okay uh so uh that being said I think we can take this up and I'd like to make a motion um
to repair this to Indian drive by making a modification of the previously approved variants that we messed up the 18 foot to 16 foot and um to make that into into the variance and in consideration with all the letters written in is that clear so to clarify to modify the pre previous modification right modifi the previous okay that sounds
that sounds like what we're looking for okay and if I could get a second I second the motion chairman second by Jamie I'm G to do a roll call uh Danny are you in favor of the motion yes should I should I ask uh whether it's a vote is that a better what yeah better better to ask for the vote could can I have your vote Jamie yes okay and Stephen your
vote in favor in favor Charlie yes and I am also in favor it's unanimous we'll move on from that little mistake thank you thank you everybody thank you good luck with it I'll follow up with the paperwork for you okay I'll talk to you tomorrow okay so still don't do anything until I see the paperwork right correct okay there there is an appeal period of 21 days uh I don't know what you're going to do you know with whether it's done or complete or not but deciding to finish good luck thank you
thank you all right well thank you come any any uh first of the Thursday we'll be here I just didn't know if they knew SK because I know there was a language barrier um if you could hit that magic button again so I can put the agenda back up and so I can pull up the next applicants that should do it it just takes a few seconds there we go back online okay our next hearing hopefully
not as complicated as that one keep attorney we I just need to get back to today's agenda one second can I can I read if you can read it off yeah this is for 8 Columbia Street and 10 minor Avenue Robin mot is requesting a variance to swap land between two non-con forming Lots making 10 minor Avenue more non-conforming due
to a reduction in lot area and an additional variance for reduced rear setback for the newly created lot line at 10 minor Avenue these properties are located in the residential RB zoning District good evening evening my name is Greg Hina 56 Central Square charford and I'm here uh tonight on behalf of Robin mot the applicant uh Robin has for 40 years owned her home at 8 Columbia Street and adjacent to her parents
home adjacent to her home is her parents home which is at 10 a minor a her parents were Howard and Marilyn Ryan and they owned that property for 60 years and if you could pull up uh Becky the I guess the gis map would probably be this way just to show this what you're looking at outlined in green on that map is um Robin mot's home and if you could highlight the adjacent
property that her late parents Howard and uh Marilyn Ryan owned uh it's directly AB budding it but it has an address on U minor AV now Robin's mom passed away in 2021 and then her father passed in uh May of 2024 and Robin is the personal representative of her dad's estate her dad's property which is presently outlined um if you could put that in green the dad's property 10
my one moment yeah that property at 10 minor um has a pool in the backyard and if you go even further in the backyard you can see there is a garage which is detached at the uh rear of that property um the garage has always been accessed over Robin's property from uh Columbia even though it's located under dad's property it's always been uh accessed over Robin's property and they
both used it it was never a problem it was her father's home and it was her home so you know passing over it to get access to the garage was never an issue but now that the estate needs to sell her dad's home they need to clean up this issue all we're seeking to do here is to move the lot line from Robin's home which is on 8 Columbia and then to place it a little beyond that garage sufficiently setting back the garage
from Robin's property so that you'll have the garage on her own property which it already um accesses and which she already uses the problem came up and the reason we're here as you can see in the denial letter from Mr um Negron her dad's lot at 10 minor is uh undersigned undersized it's you require 40,000 here in the RB of course and he is at 30,000 which um is about three times the size of the other Lots in the neighborhood as you can see from that GIS map and what we'll
be doing is by moving the lot line there's no construction no change of views nothing all we're doing is moving the lot line so that the garage is uh on sitting on On's property Columbia Street yes um what we are doing is making the 10 minor property a little smaller as I said it went from uh it'll go from 30,000 to about 14,800 Square ft although it is still twice the size of the Lots in the neighborhood as you can
see um the other variants we're asking for is the uh pool which is in the back of the 10 minor property will be uh 27t 2 in and you require 30 in the rear yard and there's some uh pavement going around the pool as well so we've applied for a variance and as I said there's no new construction no change in the use um and the hardship here is that because of the shape of these Lots you know you can't do any equal swap so you're going to have to make one of them smaller um by
changing the lot line and additionally for minor AV on her dad's property if you were even to get to the garage you have to go down a very a steep incline on the uh bottom portion there which U I think Becky is pointing to and you go by that pool and it's a narrow and uh steep incline so it would be difficult to use anyway so what we want to do is just be able to have the garage on Robin's property just by moving the proper land no change in use it'll just
be for storage um no detriment to the public and as you can see even though these lots are changing you are making the 10 minor AV lot smaller more non-conforming you're making the other one bigger less non-conforming um it's not an equal swap but um nothing's going to change to the neighborhood no no see anything with the smaller lot Jose would that be considered a pre-existing non-conforming lot and does that give it
any protection well under 19510 so you're getting a non-conforming lot and making it like the applicant stated more or less conform further non-conform so that creates the need for a variance right and then the setback would also create a second need for a second variance the setbacks for minor uh it appears that um I don't know when Miner was built
what Miner was built in 1963 1963 so that'll be 25 on the side 30 on the rear the setbacks to the pole it appears to be okay um and as a as a matter of fact let head back to the rear of 10 minor uh they are at 78 ft is that correct I have 27 from the pool from the pool the new property line and then from the from the house to the property line
you're at 78 if I if I'm reading this correct right um I need my magnifying glass to see that plan um I can zoom in more yes let me zoom in so the rear would be 30 correct Jose well the garage would be 30 the garage which would then be part of um colia but we're talking about the pool which is 27 2 in so to your question Mr chairman um once the lot size is reduced
to 14,000 squ feet plus or minus 14,792 square feet plus or minus uh the pool will be within the setbacks required for a pull right and the rear of 10 minor will also be in compliance because the the rear setb will be right and then the side setbacks are pre-existing uh side
setbacks I don't know if I answer your question Mr chairman I was just wondering if they got any protections because it would be considered pre-existing non-conforming you mean t minor uh yes um I believe once you make another non-conformity um you cannot um do uh I forgot which section it is but I think uh your luck with that second non-conformity you can it would ex yeah
I think I know what you're saying yeah my understanding is we're making it a little more non-conforming because it's going it's already small although it's three times the size of the other Lots in the neighborhood it is undersized technically so you making it a little more undersized well at the same time you're making uh Robins lot larger but you are technically making it uh more non-conforming so we'd be granting a variance to 8 Columbia for the rear setback and to 10 m for the reduction in lot size or they both go I think both the
variances are for uh minor for the reduced size of the lot the rear setback I thought was acceptable on miner uh it had been applied for because of a rear setback but if uh the 27 ft is in the opinion of Jose and what is the setback from the garage to the rear splitting minor and colia 30 ft so that that's yeah we really only be granting one variance is that correct to your
thinking Jose yeah so let's suppose that 10 Miner had that lot size right now 14,7 92 square fet and they wanted to put that pull there then that poll will be in compliance because it's and the setbacks of the house are certainly right just to clarify with a legal notice that was an administrative error because I was we were looking at the 27.3 ft and thinking of the 30 foot setback requirement forgetting that a pool only needs 10t so we we we are
compliant other than so we don't need that secondary I I mean I apologize that came in after this was filed but yeah that if that's the case then the only variance is for the uh for the lot size of uh minor a and I don't want to get uh crazy on this but couldn't we take a square of that and the side uh and achieve some more footage
for minor raav like I can't be behind the garage though I would think that line uh you'd have an oddly shaped plot and um you know you create issu I TR to figure way to get Miner uh enough to go for a special permit instead of a variance I looked it at six of one half dozen and the other I guess but I mean at this point I think you'd be hard pressed to find a way to and I'm sure the engineers look at it Mr chairman I just want to make one
clarification uh the setback for a pool uh it's kind of equal on all sides that includes the main house I don't know what's the distance of the pole to the house um that would be the only question that I will have that this uh off the pole to the house because if it's less than 10 ft then that will be a a concern but pre-existing if that's not changing yeah but yeah the only thing is you know now
that I see it um if it falls under the statue if it doesn't fall under the statute of limitation they no no yeah I mean I I think it would have been that's to my knowledge always been 10 yeah the big guns
yeah there's there's nothing uh visible saying that that's that's is as it is but
uh I can't I can't find anything that's even you know uh a comparison number to kind of work from MH I don't know this is probably not very accurate I'm just curious whether it looks like it would do it there's an 18.2 line from the property
line to the back of the pool patio and if I put that where the pool begins um it's it's somewhere near half of it now which would be 9 ft and I I I can't even tell you it's accurate I'm just trying to get a an idea whether it's close which it looks like it would be how many square feet are we taking
away from the 30,000 ft requirement what is it now 27 are you talking 10 minor well the the size of the thing is supposed to be 40,000 because it's a new lot is that or we'll be using 30,000 well they are not developing the new lot on a colia so they just want to
um a new lot would be 40,000 is that what yeah I'm just trying to understand a conforming new lot would be 40,000 square F feet but in this case it looks like a Columbia is 35,1 122 ft today today and 10 minor is I think all together was 30,00 300 8 Columbia will increase to
35122 okay and 10 Miner will go down from 30,000 to 14792 and the reason that's the disparity you're making uh you know Columbia bigger but then 10 minor smaller but given where the barn is I mean you can't just divide the line right down the the garage so I'm just trying to figure and I didn't realize it was as much as 15,000 feet of shrinking um but you know as you say the lot to the front of it it doesn't give a
size but they are like 15s at the most yeah the adjacent lots are you know on our side of the street are you know but even if we take the the corner of the garage is not behind the garage on both sides you're going to get like 800 UND ft for for each one we're really struggling issuing a
variance that's that's a challenge for us we're trying to get to the point where it would be a special permit which is uh less problematic have you looked into uh relocating the garage closer to and I'm not trying to you know make a big deal out of it but um if the garage was relocated closer to minor f a you mean closer to Miner have Miner is on I'm sorry closer to columia oh well I mean it's a pretty large structure I
mean it would be not without cost I'm sure but um it might be an option to keep the garage usable on the Colombia side I mean I look at it as a variance I guess in support of doing it as a variance uh for two reasons one because of the shape of the Lots you really can't you'd have a very oddly shaped lot if you tried to swap an even amount so you don't change the lot size that would be your hardship there but would end your setbacks on the
side too yeah you would fact those can't go past that without creating a new yeah so based on the uh shape it a lot you you'd have a hard time doing an even Swap and then the question on the garage which is accessed through uh Robins property at Columbia um the only access is if you were to access it from um minor 10 minor you'd have to go down the side of the property which as I said is a very narrow if you seen it if you out there yeah it's narrow and it's a
steep that's a problem at topography which is in your favor for a variance that's that's what I'm pointing out and then um I'd say lot shape with respect to the size being changed of the Lots because the shape of them you just can't do an even swap I was trying to look at a way to not give you a variance and that's uh kind of the goal to make it less honorous Mr chair I have a question yes um I thought I read in my planning board
book 20 million years ago that um a pre-existing non-conforming lot that was undersized could not be more undersized and the reason for that is just because of that one reason it's already pre-existing non-conforming you can't make it more non-conforming unless unless there are certain criteria it could be a new school going up they needed for a driveway for a police station it could be a public taking but
in this case I don't I don't I I don't see a reason for for changing the lot lines well what you have is well I that's I guess would support a variance um what we're trying to do is keep that garage being utilized by 8 Columbia which is access to it is over 8 Columbia and as I said the 10 minor was her parents and it was no problem if you know parents access over your property but at some
point you're going to sell it as the executive of your parents estate do you really want a stranger driving through your property to get to that garage I mean that's you know the situation we're facing trying to think outside the box a little so that we can accommodate you can get where you want to go which I believe is to put the garage so that uh Colombia can utilize it have it as part of their property but to to take a 30,000 Square fo lot and make it less than half is a big ask in in my opinion
it is I would point out though that the other Lots it's still going to be twice nearly twice the size of all the other joint adjoint I see that and you are actually making one lot more non less non-conforming because you're getting closer to Columbia is now becoming closer to the 40,000 still not there yet but it's closer it's a larger lot you're increasing that so you're that's less non-conforming and that's the trade-off with uh 10 Miner then
becoming more non-conforming I can't speak for the board but I think it's going to be an uphill battle to get a variance for this what I would suggest is we continue it and if you want to talk to the engineers and uh maybe a few contractors and understand that if I mean buildings move they're not that bad to move if you wanted to look into and decide if the cost was offset enough to be worth it to you uh you it appears looking at it that you should be able to move that forward
until you get a point where it's an even land Swap and you uh you know you you can do what you need to do can I just can I just say something the building cannot be moved it's like part of it is part of it is built with large microphone go to the microphone to the Pod I mean we're not not in favor of it what we're not in favor of is granting a
variance building is built I'm sorry I'm Rober mad I'm the the uh owner of this these two pieces of property right now um unfortunately it's built into the side of a hill and it can't there's no way it could be moved without seen it as as you know I mean I wouldn't go on your property without me I I can I can show you I have three pictures here that you can see what the property looks like um I know they probably they they aren't
going to be able to see it um on Zoom but I can show you what it looks like um I mean and I would even be willing like I mean apply for a variance myself too with like can we just do 15 fet and give 10 minor like a little extra on the backside instead of me having the 30 feet from the back of the bar like if you want to get to I I I don't know I'm just can I we could apply for a special pyramid and get a 20% reduction in your
rear setback and that would improve things but I don't think uh that is a big de the topography yeah that that's a it's a reasonable argument the topography so we could vote and see where it lies you could move that couldn't you Charlie easily there you go I mean I'm not suggesting you move the
foundation you would you would have to put a new foundation and that would be uh certainly an expense we're just trying to figure out how we could get this done and uh you know not do the things that we would rather not do which is Grant of variance and I'm not I'm not sure if Jose agreed with Charlie is there uh reducing a lot yeah 19510 not reduce a lot that is not so we really can't do that could we Grant a
variance for that I I Mr chairman I think um once I issue this uh letters uh based on this sections of the bylaws um when I see the word shall not uh it it means option that would be a good question for Town Council and we can pursue that too I mean if we can't issue as you shall not
um that's going to I I assume that a variance was appropriate and available although you do have the standards to meet that I think you're struggling with this what I'm hearing yes yes um would the preference be for a special permit if that could be crafted I mean this just was presented and published and filed as a variance I mean if we could consider we could still look at a special permit because was advertised as a variant so that that could continue I think uh the board would be more
comfortable with a special permit and we can look at you know reframing it I I would be more comfortable with a uh a variance for the rear setback and then we could extend that I don't I don't think it's going to help you to remove 20% of the setback from Colombia to minor if we weu if we bring the line 20% forward I don't think it's going to change a lot it might get you to 16 or 177,000 but I don't think we can do that that's that's what I think
is happening is we can't reduce minor size at all okay I thought you could and obviously we can you know have Town Council look at it and I'd be happy to more than willing to forward that or yourself a question to them and uh ask him to rule on whether he feels that's even legal to do because that would be the thing we need to resolve and and I'm I'm pretty sure that even if we said you don't need a setback in the back of the
uh garage you still wouldn't gain 15,000 ft you wouldn't perhaps if we could be continued to the next hearing of the board we get we can get organ we can work on this yeah it just viewed it was fil as a variance I mean I think there are some hardships I can make the argument but I'm seeing obviously you're struggling with it so I'd like to look into it a I don't think if I'm
understanding both Charlie and Jose correctly that we can reduce the lot size of any non-conforming lot if I'm if I'm understanding what they're saying correctly 19510 says shall not Mr chairman so that that's that's definitely a trick um so and and you know I I'm not trying to spend money that you may I'm not trying to do anything but I think you may consider looking into what it would take to move that building it may not be worth it it
may not be worth you know and and that's acceptable too I understand that I just uh trying to think the easiest solution was to just try and divide the property a little bit I just yeah well you may look at selling the property as is with a uh a use feature for the garage for 30 years you know whatever makes sense is is an OP option for you you can basically uh you know say we're going to going to sell the
property this is what it costs and if you uh you know we're going to have a I'm sure the attorney would put it together and say we get the garage at $100 a year till we decide not to and then they they would take it over after you're done I I don't know I don't know the it's it's going to be tough though because if we can't reduce minor a that we can't so that that's probably the first thing to understand okay we'd like to look into that issue if that you know would
make the board more comfortable yeah yeah no I think that we will continue and we'll get together with Town Council I pose the question I'm sure you will as well and we'll get us you know a response as to whether we can legally do that with a variant and from there we can we can look at it you know I'd feel a lot better if he said yes you can do that I mean I'd feel better about it but I think I'd still like to see probably an application for a special on the setback gaining you another 5T of space so it was 30 feet right was the setback
yes 30t so it would be uh be variance and a special permit based upon what you right you'd be getting a special permit for the the garage and the setback on the rear uh maybe even a variance on the setback for the rear and increase that but I I think it sounds like if if I can't reduce it by a foot it won't matter because if I can't reduce it by one foot I can't reduce it by you know 12,000 or 10,000 or whatever so we'll we'll get we get some
things homework on that and get back to you okay I'm G to leave the public meeting open I'm GNA go do you want to just read in the comment letters just for like procedural so we know we've covered that and if the board has any questions tonight further questions for the applicant I have no questions chairman okay seeing none a question for you Brian is it for the for the for the variance that we're talking about it's got to be uh 4 to one
correct I believe to be a super majority that's correct correct okay I think that's that's absolute yeah and I'm I'm not even sure we can grant the V so we've got some work yeah yeah I just saying if if if that was if it came back that we could it' have to be a 4 to1 vote that was my question and you answered so thank you yep and and just for the record as well
um I just want to state that both members um Glen digs and Rodney Cleaves are now on online on the zoom call it appears that they were in the waiting room for a while and I just want to apologize because I had set up the opposite computer to show the previous um PL plan I was I was I went silence on the zoom so I apologized to both of you you were waiting and I couldn't see that but they are online now so I just wanted to they observed the whole meeting so we can carry them as members yes they did
they were there for the whole meeting I'll I'll ask I'll confirm okay for this for this particular public hearing yes they have both been on for this particular public they're observing and they can they still qualify for the next meeting when we continue and even though they didn't ask questions they they okay they've been observing this whole time at this point yep Ronnie I I think Ronnie had a question did you have a question I just got to confirm I was watching from from the
time it started so okay just for the the record Keepers this is from the uh Town engineer dear members this offic has reviewed the project application plans and documents submitted to the DPW on January 29th 2025 for the following public hearing notice on February 6 2025 8 Columbia Street and 10 there is new no additional sewer capacity allotted on the slot and it is understood the purpose of this project
application is for land ownership only the attached garage is not permitted to connect a town sewer it is understood that this application does not propose a change in the existing one of Eight Columbia Street or 10 minor a or propose a change in the sewer usage if there is a change in user expansion the applicant should submit the necessary floor plans to supplement the sewer allocation calculation I have Jose's denial letter which we
already have e Columbia AB from the fire prevention uh department has no concerns the Board of Health for 8 Columbia and 10 minor has no concerns the police for 8 Columbia and 10 minor have have no concerns and the north chumford water district has no concerns as well as the treasurer and collector Town tax collector have no
concerns that being done I'm going to ask for a continuance till March 6 is it name is today y February 6 no kidding March 6 I like I'd like to make a motion any further questions um well we have a neighbor who is in support of it but if the hearing is going to stay open if he can if he's available the hearing will be open you you could speak if you wanted to I'll come I'll come next month I okay what
date is the uh March 6 Mar six thank you I just wanted to make sure he was available like they say good TV yeah make a motion it is interesting something make a motion to continue 8 Columbia Street and 10 minor Avenue to our next meeting on March 6 GNA ask for a second second second by Danny do I need a roll call Danny uh do you vote to continue the meeting yes and
should I do everybody just yeah everybody rod do you vote to continue the meeting look like a yes yes yes Glenn do you vote to continue the meeting thumbs up he gave us a thumbs up peace okay I can't the see of there uh who do you have Jamie do you vote to continue the public meeting I do sir and Steve do you vote to continue the public meeting I do Charlie yes and I do as well it's
unanimous we hope to see you in person next next meeting thank you that's it right um oh jeez I didn't need the this I didn't I how many do we have uh going back yeah I'm going back to the agenda okay so um the next item do we need to continue that uh oh Crosby okay we do have we do have another item of
business um the next item on your agenda is 14 Crosby Lane which you may recall was to uh a request to renew and expired previously approved laa um we have not received any testimony on this particular public hearing since we opened it several months ago um I have not heard from attorney how hler on this he was representing the applicants you may recall the last time we heard from attorney howler was in November when he
asked for a continuation of the November meeting and asked for it to be continued until January we did continue um this item last month and um we had not heard from him and no one showed up for the public hearing I have reached out a couple times since our last meeting I still have not heard back from um attorney howler and I've left emails and voicemail um but at this point I just want to point out that um it's a bit of
a a moot point um because laas are no longer part of by bylaw as of a week ago Monday January 27th there was a special um meeting town meeting in which the laa bylaw was removed from our zoning bylaw and has been replaced with the Adu which is now the mandated state law um so see how that goes yeah so um a
suggestion would be to close the hearing since we haven't received any testimony up to this point and it's no longer valid the request the board may want to make uh a vote to determine that does that make sense that we would vote to oh may I add I apologize the last time we did hear from attorney H in November when he asked for the continuation until January he gave us an extension to act only only until March 1st so that extension will expire by our
next meeting therefore it it won't it will not no longer be valid so the Board needs to um act on it tonight couldn't we just make a motion to say to determine based on New State legislation this application now becomes invalid and move from there m I believe so yes okay there's another question on that and that is that uh it was passed by
town meeting uh there were it was basically the state's uh agenda with a couple of caveats that were requested by the planning board uh am I correct that once the town meeting approves that it has to go back to the state for their approval of the caveats the attorney general has to approve it regardless but the caveats be included in that so that it's kind of the whole thing is still kind of in limbo for the
town well if they come back back with the state matching the state rules but they don't match the rules that are tentative uh with chid um that leaves us kind of in the middle things the additional adjustments we want to be applicable to Chums fur or in limbo but we still our laa laws are out and we still have to apply by State chord has also added changes to the state we can't right we can't enforce
those until those are approved by the state right so we would be making a decision make a decision based on what the state says but later the Attorney General says that Chums changes are valid and there is some in the applica applicants uh what they want to do that matches uh doesn't match what Chum's now is at after the attorney general has approved it we're kind of stuck in the middle which kind of lends to deny we
just deny the application if they wish to bring another one forward they can but we don't have permission to continue this past March 1 we're meeting March 6 Mr I'm just I'm just talking in general someone came before us may I also clarify a couple of other things the reason why attorney howler once this was um the public hearing had open and he initially requested uh continuations is because I brought to his attention that the previously
approved laa did not conform with our laa bylaw standards which had been amended I think after that laa was approved and so he was going to look into um uh potential adjustments and Jose may be able to speak more to this but that was part of why it was continued we were waiting on revisions to the actual floor plan and attachment to the main dwelling um and so at this
point because the state mandate as it is out rules our former bylaw the board doesn't have a basis to renew a previously approved special permit however this may now be by right as of the state mandate um M Mr chairman um members of the board um so I had a similar situation last week and on a previous approved special permit for an
nla um like Becky stated for any new application this is my understanding uh after the 27 of last month for lla they shouldn't be accepted my understanding is that any special permit approved by the board that is pending is is Bid so um similar situation this board approved
two years ago a special permit for an LA and the person took all this time to you know submit paperwork and plans um but as you we all know um we already under the new uh bylaw so Evan and I discussed it and it was determined that the application was submitted and and the board has issued a special permit so it was uh deem
valid um so this one to me coming coming into this meeting I was thinking that this one is the same thing that the board has already approved this uh special permit but the only thing the person wants to do is to uh have a reapproved right because theirs actually expired they didn't act on it yeah they didn't act on it this one was actually
um I think if it's expired they're getting issued a new special permit so it falls under the new statutes of what's in time now because once it's expired don't they they fall in anything applicable at time of at the new permit yeah that's something if the laws change after expires they've got to follow any new laws that are applicable at the time they're applying for the new permit I think the laws are going to work in their favor it expired in 2018 I was thinking about that too that if they
resubmit it's a wiser choice to just win they better it off now and he hasn't made if we don't do anything right it's expiring on on March 1st anyway we can correct so we vote permit expired in 2018 it's not like it expired three months ago years ago but the application for this was not 18 this was nov they're asking to renew an expired or previously expired permit that was issued and that's what I think I meant I think I
was basing my comments on the resubmission of the application because like uh the um right that was November yeah right it was 2018 when they got the special permit but they did resubmit an application to reinstate that special permit prior to the um you know January 27 uh 27 but I don't think we'd be doing any harm to close and then deny the application
and it's not going to be an application in 20 days anyways and we've received no instructions to continue it we're not meeting again before the first so this is our last time to act at all or we can just leave it I mean we don't have to do this but I think it's in everybody's best interest to have closure for this and if they decide they want to reapply for the laa no for the uh for the ad they can right they fall under the new bylaw yeah I mean I think that was going to be the case regardless because this
is unattached correct this one it is yeah yeah so that would that would make it illegal as an lla but legal as an Adu so it's in their best interest I agree okay yeah does the the board on Zoom have any other uh thoughts on this I just had a quick question uh I'm not up to date on what our bylaw change was from um the what was added within our Adu um would it
require them coming to the zoning board uh Adu does not require the board of appeals no okay so then us denying the permit they wouldn't even have to come back before us they would it's a whole different process so our denial wouldn't even matter right as long as they didn't have other uh requests that created a special permit or a variance but either way an Adu or an lla it's going to be the same thing they would have to come to us if they made you know
the setback and everything else that we still have perview over yeah because I know we didn't change the setbacks at all I don't know everything that Tom meeting did but the setbacks will remain the same for any structure pool garage anything okay let ask just one general question not specific to this but generally we have a number of laa in town at this point and uh you I tended the uh board um board's meetings and it
never seemed to come out definitively whether or not uh existing laas could petition to be considered now adus oh they are right well it was never specifically said that they are all if we had 25 or 100 of them in shuit that they are all now adus do they have will they be required to come to our
board uh for that or simply say that they have the right there as they have uh you know the right to them to be called adus on their own I would think so Glenn you bring up a good question I actually added in a portion for our um board discussion on up uh the update to the Adu and where we stand if we could discuss the current bylaw and where we stand and just make the motion to close this out so that we
stay on topic if that's but come back to your question that would be okay any further questions comments so I suggest we close the public meeting for I don't even know what street this is 14 Crosby Lane that's right and I can pull up the letter with the um just reiterating one moment that this was the
last extension to act we received um through March 1st so the Board needs to take action today like to make a motion to close the public hearing for 14 Crosby Lane I second the motion second by Jamie going to do a roll call Danny do you approve the motion yes um Steve do you approve the motion yes Glenn do you
approve the motion yes rod do you approve the motion and Jamie do you approve the motion yes Charlie do you approve the motion yes and I approve the motion now if I get a motion to deny or actually a motion in the affirmative for 14 CR Lanes we have to go in the affirmative right so we would get a motion in the affirmative for 14 Crosby Lane we before
we do that can you wouldn't it be better if we just let it like Fall by the wayside and not not vote or no because then it's approved right yeah because then it's approved that's true yes it would automatically be approved constructive approval no action is approve silence is consensus okay okay okay it sounds like want make a motion chairman I'll make a motion to approve uh 14 Crosby Lane for the requesting of a renewal of an expired
previously approve special permit under Section 195 d6.1 with all previous letters and testimony submitted I second second by Steve Danny may I just clarify there was no testimony there were no letters read into the record because we never had testimony on this okay so I I just want to clarify that with the motion we'll leave that out of the motion yeah leave that out or or the board may want to
decide to not granted based on the fact that there was no test the comments that the comments in the letters from DPW and stuff that those weren't read in last time no I thought we read that I thought we read those letters we were always asked to continue without discussion so everything was posted on the agenda but we've never discussed this this um property so you may actually want to make to state that that's the reason why yeah uh I I will amend my motion um men
making a motion to approve 14 Crosby Lane uh requesting the renewal of an expired previously approved special permit um there's been no discussion and no response after the request for initial attention can we add that we have to act during this meeting based on the uh the fact that the extensions run out on March 1st yes no we can even put a little caveat to explain that so just to
clarify is this a motion in the affirmative or the motion is in the affirmative the affirmative it's got to be in the affirmative it has to be presented that way can we make an exception why I'm just asking you have to vote to deny if you're not in favor why change it it's the way it it's always been I second her motion of a second from Steve Danny do you approve the motion no
uh Stephen do you approve the motion I do not Glenn do you approve the motion no rod do you approve the motion oh St and Jamie do you approve the motion I do not Charlie do you approve the motion no I vote no and I vote no as well it's unanimous denied okay thank you okay I think we handled
that right I to tell you it's a difficult uh transition exceptions Bri that's all just somewhere in the notes I'd like it to you know just show that we were we were at the point where an action had to be taken based on so I will write a decision like I do for any other um special permit and in the findings this is a this is a little bit different that there was no testimony so I will put that in in the findings there there was no testimony the extension to
act um was expiring and that we had not had any representation or had heard in the past two months so and if you have concerns you can forward him that uh and before you get to me and just make sure it says what he wants him to say yeah no I'm fine with it I just want to make sure if this comes back it's like yeah something opened no one ever said anything and they left it alone and time was running out we had to vote yep right so I will list that in the findings to justify why you all voted no because
with every with every decision we have to spell out um reasons why folks are in the members are in favor or not in favor of a project moving forward so that it's it's clarified that way if it's appealed well understood why the vote went the way it went yep can we also add in their lack of information yes just to cover yep lack of information lack of
testimony and expiration of time to act sounds like a good enough reason to me okay all right I think I'll Becky uh take the helm and uh tell us what what went on at uh uh let me just go back do we have to do we have to say anything
about the other two continued things we on yeah we're still on the agenda uh one moment so am Mr chair the next item is the continuation of mar roav the 40b project Cobblestone 5 and the applicant requested a continuation without discussion the reason being um I did attach uh the letter the reason being though just to clarify is that the
office is still our office is still in waiting for receipt of requests for proposals for a third-party review I believe that expires tomorrow the ex the deadline for rfps therefore the town nor the applicant had any update for the board tonight because we're still trying to set up the third party consultant just to clarify that that's the reason why so um the board would need to uh make a motion and vote on a continuation
until March 6th and are we okay with the time with them yes yeah we did receive an extension to act on this as well let rip JY in fact I will bring up that letter um the request was I just pulled it up on the board the request was to continue from today until March 6th and the um to allow time for the uh for the parties to reach to third party the previous letter I received from Council did give us an extension to act and I will follow through next month
with the date but we're still within that time period believe sorry I was going to say I believe I'm off that one right correct okay yes so the voting members um for this I believe um are the chair Brian Charlie [Music] um Jamie did an a Mullen affidavit and Danny is the alternate on this case and Peter is not here today but he's a voting
member okay okay uh I'll make motion to uh continue M Ros to our next meeting on March 6th I second the motion okay I'm going to do a roll call Danny are you in favor of continuing yes Stephen are you in favor of continuing iy abstain he has to abstain because he's not a vo member on the public hearing Glenn are you in favor of continuing not member I abstain also
right he's abstaining as his Rod so it would be Peter and then the two of you okay Peter's not here Pet's not here Danny votes Jamie votes because she was a Mullen Jamie are you in favor of of uh doing whatever we're doing continuing the public meeting yes and Charlie's also in favor that mind and for the record I think Rod has been here for all of those so he can still act as an alternate if needed
okay yes Rod qualifies as an alternate if if needed so we have one more of those Brian right ledge road is asking of a continuance for their administrative appeal under zoning bylaw section 195 102b of a cease and assist order issued by the Building Commissioner relative to the use of ledge Road for a commercial vehicle vehicles and any other relief deemed necessary and they have a request for continuation without discussion mhm if I
could get a motion for that do we have the time for this also Becky all set yes yep okay I'll make a motion go ahead go right ahead Jamie whoever wants to make to a continue ledge Road till March 6 second second by Charlie and we still have Danny yes Danny are you in favor Stephen is as well right yes yes
Stephen is and he is yes yes Glenn yes and Rod yes and Jamie yes and Charlie yes and I hate Zoom I hate Zoom can we ask Jamie again I like when we double check with Jamie [Laughter] so okay so now we are gonna uh here some
input from Becky on the uh town meeting the other night and the special town meeting yes and I apologize when updating the agenda I did not include um the Adu bylaw that was voted on so I will go ahead and forward that to all of you um tomorrow tomorrow make a note for myself to do that if you haven't seen it yet um so town meeting did vote in favor
of creating the Adu bylaw um so that uh which puts us in in compliance with the state mandate uh and does remove the laa bylaw previously existed um removes that um and I believe the discussion was that the existing permitted laas automatically become adus and Jose may want to speak more to that um and then
so from here on out as a state mandated if a proposal for an Adu Falls within all zoning requirements it is as of right and goes directly to the building department again our only input would be almost dimensional yeah it seems to be uh that you know now people have the right to have it detached the owners don't have
to live in it in any of the units uh it could go into two families multifamilies uh people can't get more than one with a special permit um you have two with a special permit uh the I believe the way the bylaw was written is that our town will not allow a second one I might I I didn't check all the changes that they made the state mandate was that you can have one Adu by right and if someone wanted a second Adu it
would require a special permit via um the board of appeals but I think the Way It Was Written I can look it up on my computer um I I don't think that they voted to allow that for this town as far as our bylaw and that might be What Glenn was referencing to is some of the the differences cuz that was discretional based on each municipality um do you have it on you Jose change I recall that we did I don't recall any other changes there were two
other changes from the state one was no curb Cuts uh for the for an Adu I remember that and the other one was that adus could not be located in the front yard that was the one I had the question on yeah y okay is that proud of the building at all is that what that amounts to that's to be at the front of the building and behind that's that was their they didn't Define what was
considered front of the building you know you could have some Lots where it's really you can make the case that it's beside it's not in front of the unit the I'm sorry Mr uh Glen you have some clarity that'd be great yeah so the front yard the way we do it now for example we don't allow pools uh accessory structures in front of the house garages it is the same the same the front of the house is considered the edge of the front of the property yes
sir far the farthest front point right okay so adus are not allowed in front of a uh single family dwin or uh the main dwelling home correct so and Corner lots have two frontages and that's another thing to keep in mind right and so as far as the uh the second ad you did Mr chairman I thought I have read something uh on the uh
Revis adus uh by the planning board but I think Becky can uh maybe find be a special permit from the planning board for a second a for a second that's that was my understanding but we can verify that clarify I just to start on the three front on the on I know hopefully we're able to apply some common sense for lots that have two frontages are they is it if the Adu is visible or parallel to the front of the
house are we allowing that or or no not a visible issue it's the front of the house is it uh is it proud of that do it come into the front yard which is the edge of the house so you can see it lots with two frontages so I mean we're making sure like the front door right so I just you know how are they defining the setback is important as well the frontage is usually a larger
setback right and but we've done lots that have two frontages so we've made them you that's where we have those lots that get the variance because they're considered two front edges and they have to have two front 40 on both sides because they're considered two front edges so correct what if what if you have uh if all existing are now adus but some of them have separate driveways and some of them are in the
front yard where does that all stand well they wouldn't be allowed to have a new curb cut right have one now and they're not as an Adu they're not supposed to have one I would assume it's a pre-existing non-conforming now right right that would that would be my guess too well they're liable to be visiting us I think there's going to be a lot of legal going on the next couple years with this while they sort it all out you
know the guy that wants to have the the property with two frontages and he can't put it there or there he he has a legitimate hardship uh is that going to get him a variance so he can put it somewhere it it's it's all going to have to you know be tested Case by case which is what we do now you have you have uh what's historically called Retreat Lots let's
say you had five acres and you decided to place your main home years ago way at the back with a long driveway coming in so now you have four acres in front of you um someone's liable to make a claim that you know I want to put it out there because that's where all the land is but the frontage still wouldn't allow them to do that because of rear lot typically does not have 150 ft of Frontage but if you if you H well no cuz
the also the Adu uh has to be less than 900 ft so the main house could not be considered the Adu and another one built in front of it and have the smaller size the Adu is required to have the 900 ft or less I suppose if your your house had less 900 ft you might have an argument but we still have to meet all the setbacks including Frontage
now does a rear lot uh require Frontage uh yes but it doesn't it it has to be what is it 50 feet wide a rear lot at at no point it can be less than 50 feet wide and then that 50 foot is your entrance to your rear lot that opens up in the back but you wouldn't have a room to put a house there I mean I guess we're just going to have to wait till the ones that come in front of us and you know step by step go
through them yeah because there's going to be many of these that we no one for you know can see a situation normally occur can anticipate some of them but the reality of them will be different the main the main um uh direction that the planning board was trying to avoid is that they were afraid that this was going to make Chums would look like some ofal uh that we're going
to have two families everywhere in town and you know the case could be looked at in terms of what the state has come down is almost the same that Westford has had for years and Westwood doesn't look like some of all with all two families and probably not going to happen in Chumps but there will be more of them uh especially since they can be rented out they don't have to be torn down the investment that people make in these units is uh a good investment for future
years even after the loved ones have moved on um so I'm sure Jose is going to be very busy drop security yes the way I'm looking at this is uh to apply the same logic we are using now in in the previous byw the only thing is that the adus now can be detached uh
they are greater in square footage uh that kind of logic that that now they can be rented the owner doesn't have to leave in either of them and I think it's easier to because the lock coverage and far and all that we still will still apply other dimensionals and I think that's when the board of appeals is going to see them
when people try to get a special permit or a variance to increase what they're doing but it it it is there are Protections in place I think that that'll make it a challenge for every lot but some lots are just made for it so we'll see how that goes he also defined it didn't come up much in the discussion but in the State uh and the building uh planning board
didn't have any objections to it the state definition of how you determine the size was that the square footage it was the smaller of 900 square ft or 50% of the existing structure but they included in the existing structure uh the basement as square foot area so if you had uh let's say a 300t house and 300 for an upstairs that's nine and then you added 300 for the
basement um that would make nine or whatever the case may be they included the basement as part of the square footage you're saying that they excluded the basement or included no they included it they in they didn't Define it as developed or unfinished they just said the basement area included but still not getting any bigger square footage I thought I'm sorry uh Glenn can you clarify that you said that they excluded the basement included the
basement is included included okay thank you yes included in the gross square footage determining the 50% so if the house was 1,500 square ft 50% would be 750 but if you include the basement maybe then they get close to that 900 right but they can't go over 900 right ever and is there an appeals process for us for that for 900 no and
that's it 900 there's no there's no special permit there's no well that hasn't really been determined has it that unit is going to be 900 so if if I think yeah I I think it is in the stay uh 760 CMR but I don't I didn't see it on the the lla is 750 but we didn't change that at the at the meeting well one was 750 now it's gone
to 900 right by the state mandate yeah or the smaller number could be if it was a 1500 square foot house including the basement 750 correct if it was a, 1500 foot house and uh without the basement then you added the basement size in you would get to 2100 and that would get you to the 900 so they increase the they basically said that most uh adus are going to be 900 feet if you choose to make them as that but they won't be bigger it seemed that the the putting
the 900 square ft uh was their way of getting around any arguments that a 5,000 squ foot house at 50% would be building in La of you know an enormous laa which you know people in smaller houses couldn't do right so by capping at 900 they tried to level the playing field yep that makes sense but we still don't have the final
language what one of the things we're still from distinct it'll be a year from now all the legal challenges will come out there'll be a lot of stuff I'm curious uh Jose will they get around the hers rating CU it's not 1,000 square ft so her rating is is not a zoning uh matter it's a code so uh well I'm sorry
to respond your qu to your question quick they wouldn't be required because they are under a th000 square feet it's not a requirement yeah I apologize yeah that's okay I'm I was thinking about it too just going it was it was also brought up at uh uh town meeting that the day can tie their Adu into a um existing septic system tied to the town because these units would would only
have two bedrooms and they use 110 gallons per day as an average so building an Adu with two bedrooms still would be under what the principal house could build on to uh and so they could tie them into the existing uh sewage system but there was some um lack a definition on them where they exactly tie in but they can tie in and don't need to put in a septic
system of the wrong I think it would have to be a why out if they're detached based on what would happen today uh if you were to build unlikely a garage detached that had a bathroom in it that s would tie in outside of the main home that would be the the deal today but we can't we can't have a freestanding structure last week not to say today but that would that's how you would tie that
in you you don't take a pipe into a house and then go back out again there's there's no Avenue for that well it was suggest it seemed to be suggested that it was U you had to submit a plan of how you were going to do it way I think that' be the correct you know and Engineering would prove it but if you try to go uh out of a building back into a building you you really can't do that now it's if they build their if they build their ad you
attach to the existing structure then that could attach inside the home because you're not leaving the structure detach would be a different and they're going to they'll figure it out too they'll they'll get their laws and rules and that's how you have to do it to comply but I don't think they want sewage going out of the house and then back into it or coming from out of the house and then going back into it they would like the y in the front yard or wherever is appropriate and you connect up two 6-in
pipes the trick is that in the house it's PVC and 4 in outside the house it's PVC 6 in so you you would go to a 6 inch to be compliant outside and if you would back into the home you'd have to go back to four and now you're having a 6-in pipe Fe a 4in pipe which never have it can and then again it would have to grow outside of the house again so that really wouldn't happen I think I'm sure we'll see some unusual
ones come along it it's new new territory for sure M Jose is reading a lot I've been reading a lot I think so yes everybody is lot to take in we are not the only ones I speak to other Commissioners and inspectors and everybody's in the same boat I imagine there'll be a few uh seminars on this as well when it gets rolling as a matter of fact I'm going to one next week yeah yeah not a
surprise so I want to apologize if I misspoke I was trying to speed read through um the bylaw I am going to forward that on to all of you um that part might have been omitted before the final draft that went to town meeting and I apologize I've seen so many different versions of it I lost track so that part that I was speaking of may have been omitted already so the bottom line is that non-conforming proposals um for single family dwellings
and two family dwellings if it's not as of right the way it's written it will come to this board we just don't have any further regulations yet from the state that let us know to enforce how to enforce that and how to proceed so we're still a little bit in limbo but to be continued yep to be continued mhm and I can keep this on the agenda moving forward um just so that if there
are any updates upates we can keep keep it on there okay meeting minutes has any uh one read the meeting minutes before the minutes we have to confirm our our schedule dates that was the other part of a discussion item for today I had emailed um all of you with the list of dates and I just need to apologize for turning my back on you I need to grab the sheet out of my bin that was a good right
3D March 6 April 3rd the next meeting uh that's what I believe it is yes March 6 I have no conflict April 3D um so so you may recall I sent an email um at the beginning of the month listing our regular first Thursdays of the month um obviously we already had
January today's February uh March there's no issue for the month of April we need to reschedule April um due to the fact that the select board has April 3rd prescheduled for their organization meeting following Town vote um and there there's a potential for room meeting meeting conflict if that meeting runs over so um I was asked to either uh reschedule we can and I did look at the
calendar the 10th is available if the majority of the board members are available if you want to reschedule to the 10th but we were advised um by Town manager's office not to keep it as April 3rd okay that sound good it does take time to set up the room between want make sure of that t should be good 10th works for Jamie okay yes fine okay yeah it works for me I'm good Stephen okay okay so R I
think Rod's hand was up too so it looks like yep majority can do it you can't hear me uh we didn't hear that but I I heard what you just said okay I've been unmuted the whole time so we hear we're hearing you clearly now we didn't hear uh your it might have just been someone else spoke and you I think it cuts out if one person is speaking Yeah so you may have spoke at the same time okay I I don't know I don't know what
happened okay so now we're looking at may do you want to get the whole thing squ away right uh May 1st May May meeting May Day good you got the poll thing going are you able to do that too the poll thing yeah Mayday I do Mayday poll correct okay I might not be able to attend May 1st I believe there's a school function that night um but I can ask and see if someone else can I don't want the board to have to reschedule on my behalf I can ask Evan if he can fill in for me
that day okay um but I was just made aware of that earlier today that May 1st is a school presentation for one of my kids excellent for that night yeah it's a big deal um so for now we can keep that on if that's okay and I will just make sure that there's coverage in terms of managing the meeting especially if we're on Zoom do you want to go through the year we can do the rest yeah okay that would be good so June would be uh a
Thursday June 5th okay I'm good are are most people planning out there Thursdays that far in advance cuz I'm just going to say yes to anything I'm like I have no idea to I planned out for the I planned out through till next September so yeah there were only there were three dates that were in question it was April 3rd July 3rd because of the 4th of July holiday and then um August
um because for the last few years we we've recessed in August but the reason being is that as the town is actually about to roll out a revised website come April uh we're being asked all the boards are being asked to post all of our meeting dates on our individual pages in advance so people can see them we can certainly I can go in afterwards and change it make changes we'll certainly have in there that we typically meet the first Thursday of the month but if the board is ready to go through the summer and just confirm and then we can you know take it from there
I'll post the dates and of course it's always you know there's always a potential for a change but so July becomes a question that's 10th right the 10th would be the second the third is is probably not a good day to have a meeting so the 10th would be the next one what's WR what's wrong with the third just because it's day before the fourth I get really nervous around fireworks fireworks I don't want to be barking at
the door that's that's also the uh some the fair for um that's right the the concert right Country Fair and concert Country Fair I'll be away virtually the whole month of July okay okay I'm good do you want me to see if we have room available ability for the 10th and I'll go ahead and schedule that because really that's what it comes down to if we need to resched its room availability CU right now I just have the first Thursday of every month
prescheduled where the rooms reserved that's kind of my so I'll I'll look at June excuse me July 10th July 10th okay this I I probably won't be here for the I'd probably be involved with an activity the third if the C Fair goes as it does so okay I think the 10th is great okay 10th is perfect and then we're agreed on the 10 holiday all right I I didn't hear August we're going to have a holiday that I'll leave that up to all of you if it works okay if you
schedule it it works yes yes so maintain August is the recess month yes yes yes because my question was did you want to maintain August or take it in July so okay that that clarifies I'm I'm open to taking it in July too but I think not also either or but I think that's uh yeah August is nice people are ready for that it's it's a quiet month typically you're either building already or you're not and you
know it just uh it seems to be a good fit okay and that would take us to September which is the 4th of September any [Music] concerns I'm good fine I'm good I'm great back there you go and I have to roll each month too so get ready great okay so there's September October
second now mind you school calendar is not out for the new year yet so correct ending school calendar I'm I'm good Y and then it would be no November 6th and December 4th which is our usual first Thursday those are fine and of course we can always change them later on if we find that there's a go a matter of room reservations for
now that's the sixth of November thank you put those in the file and we've already gone through another year see how quick that goes no that was enough one years blink and it's over it's true too that's December 4th
right yes December 4th all right well I thank you all for your time thank you I hope we can get together uh next month rather than this meeting minutes I did me to read the meeting minutes meeting minutes meeting minutes thought they were buying way written uh we have an error with last month's last yes yes we did I think go ahead and point it out um I was I
abstained from our first hearing and you have me provide approving a motioned oh okay okay for that first one all right oh see that was thank you I will correct that yep and you have me a motion approved by Brown for the 17 crab apple Lane oh okay thank
you I'm not sure how that happened but I appreciate you saying that because I do remember putting at the top that you had recused yourself yeah I did okay that's what I got Ai and I missed it I did that okay was that the only edit needed for January uh that's the only big one I saw okay it wasn't here for the November one
so in December I didn't nothing in December popped out mhm did anyone else have any edits for any of those no I don't see anything nope I have when to do a in
Mass you want to do them all in one or you want you want three approvals take a long time going through but whatever excuse me so could I get a motion to approve the 117 24 minutes 12 do you want do you want three motions um sure either way we could do it all at once given that we only received edits with the mention that the edits are for the the January minutes okay so 117 24 125 24 everybody able to
vote on all three sets that's the only question I'm not able to vote on November J you can't vote on so we do have to do them separately could I have a motion for 11724 uh to approve the minutes so moved second Danny Danny and Rod and Rod thank you So Jamie do you approve the role the uh minutes for 11 oh jam is when the can
for this one right yep I'm sorry uh Glenn do you approve the minutes yes 117 rod do you approve the minutes for 117 yes Stephen do you approve the minutes for 117 yes and Danny do you approve the minutes for 117 yes and Charlie do you approve the minut for 11 yes I approve as well great thank you Jamie do you approve the minutes for actually need a motion we can make a motion for 12 and one together I believe
okay I get a motion for 12 and one together make a motion to approve minute minuts for 12 uh December 1st December 5th and January 2nd with the forementioned uh correction for the January 2nd 2025 minutes I'll take the second on that okay Ron okay uh Danny do you approve the uh motion yes Jamie do you approve the motion I do Glenn do you approve the
motion yes rod do you approve the motion yes Steve do you approve the motion yes sir Charlie do you approve the motion yes Brian also approves the motion wow thank you one last motion to get rid of Zoom forever I motion that we get rid of Zoom can we do teams yep Instagram is that a real Mo make a motion to adjourn make a motion
to that's not uh we don't need a second I guess I'll do a roll though Danny do you approve the motion yes Jamie do you approve the motion I do Glenn do you approve the motion yes rod do you approve the motion yes and Steve do you approve the motion yes Charlie do you approve the motion I also do the motion I'm sorry uh motion to adjourn was Jamie Jamie Jamie thank you uh 910 J looks anxious you could announce
that we have now adjourned for tele media yeah the board of appeals is now adjourned good night e