Yeah, should be a few minutes. That's a Let's I'm going to start the uh meeting for August October 2nd. Sorry. All meetings are televised live and available on
demand by chimps of tele media. Also on Zoom tonight, we have the building inspector and town council. Okay. Public input. Public input shall be limited to statements from the public related to any issues with the jurisdiction of the Chumsford 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. Does anyone want to speak? Okay, we'll go to Ray to agenda meeting agenda number one, 28 Elorado Road, a
draft certificate of decision for review and endorsement. This is uh unlike anything else we have this this evening because uh at the board right now, there's only four people that can speak on this matter.
the four people that voted. The fifth one is in Greece, so he's not going to be speaking. Okay, we'll start with Stephen. Stephen, have you read the decision? I have a question of the attorney.
Um, you have a question. The attorney is sitting in online. The attorney sitting in. I was told not to take any questions. Oh. What is this? C.
Um, but in your exception, you're on the board and what's what's the question? Um, I'm just wondering if you could enumerate so everyone could understand the voting rules for endorsement of a certificate of decision when one of the
original voters is not present. Mr. Chair, I can take that question. Okay. Yeah, the voting rules are the board has already taken its vote on the application. That vote stands unless it's changed and to this point it has
not been changed. So what the board is voting on tonight is the form of the decision and it would be obviously it reflects the reasons of the members who voted um to deny the appeal. So that vote
should reflect the votes of those members. Um I think a majority of the board voting tonight would be sufficient to approve the decision. That would be a majority of the four members or three members. Um I believe you know I know
the board is divided in its original vote it was two to two but in this case uh if it turns out that um the vote is split then in my opinion it would be appropriate for the members who have voted to deny the appeal to
vote on the formative decision and if they vote unanimously to approve it then it would be approved. Okay. So, start with you, Stephen. Are you okay with the decision how it's written? Yes, I'm in support of the decision as written. The Okay, Jamie.
I'm I'm I guess my question is all these these red lines and red write outs. What is I mean, are these the edits? Are we changing? What is what are all these edits? Yes. So on the agenda, I provided um two
variations of the draft decision. Uh what you see in black is what was submitted to town council and was drafted. And then the red strikeouts and the red additions are town council's comments. So this is how you see it, how it was edited by town council. Um but I
also provided a clean version, which is when you close out the document, the second link that says no strikeouts. It's the same document without seeing the edited portion. I thought it'd be important for the board members to see the edited portion because town council
had made some um comments and those are the boxes on the side. So this so the non- strikeout is really what we're saying is the true reflection of what we voted on last month. They're both the same document. One, you
see how it was edited from how I drafted it. So, I was asked to create a draft and forward it to town council and um town council made necessary edits and he can speak more to that if if he'd like to elaborate on it,
but there were um a few comment boxes and so I forwarded to all of you that way so that you could see it in its you know in its working format. Okay. So, there's the one with no strikeouts. I have another question of count
counsel. We're on this subject, please. Are we are we free is the board free to discuss uh the final certificate of decision points in it? Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely.
That's what's on the agenda, the form of the final decision. All right. Then I have a question on a couple of points. Okay. Well, um, council, um, I was told to only let the five people speak that
actually voted. Is that incorrect? Uh, Mr. Chair or vice chair, I should call you Mr. Chair tonight. Um, it's up to the chair. Um, you obvious the board has a custom of allowing the the alternate members to participate in discussion. You could certainly allow
that here as you see fit. You're not required to, but you could. Okay. What would you like to say, Glenn? All right. Just two to make it brief. Uh, under findings number one and two
on the final uh version, the one without the edits, which is the final one that we're voting on. Do you have that one, Jamie? Yeah. Okay. Number one, the board finds that the ADU bylaw states no new curb
cut shall be permitted for an ADU. And two, the board finds that the state regulations do not address curb cuts. Both of those are really wrong. The state came back, as anything that goes to town, meaning it eventually goes to
the state for their approval. The state came back with an 11-page review of the requests concerning uh the ADU uh as approved by town meeting. In two places in that document, it says
that it it it refers to the fact that the hard fact that that curb cuts shall not be allowed is incorrect. It says that curb cuts uh are discretionary,
not a hard and fast rule. True enough, Glenn, but uh but we wrote the planning board rewrote the ADU plans and it and the state came back and said we're okay with that. No, the state came back and said it's okay with it provided you use discretion
on it. And which we did, and it says it in black and white on the document itself. which I think the members that voted did do that. I think what he's saying is is that the state regulation, the fact that the
state did make some comment in regards to curb cuts, saying that there was no comment regard from the state regarding curb cuts in this finding seems to be a little inaccurate. May I make a suggestion if I could because I typed that part up um and I
don't Yeah. Um, I was referring to state ADU regulations and I can add in ADU if you'd like to for more clarity there. ADU regulations do not address curb cuts, right? Whatever the state, the comment
letter, it came from the attorney general's office, but the actual and and town council can confirm whether I'm correct on this. Um, but how it was worded and how I typed it in, the intent was referring to state ADU regulations
that they do not u mention curb cuts. They mentioned curb cuts on approximately page nine. I apologize. I had the document. Becky saw the document earlier today. But that was their opinion letter, not the regulation. It's specifically correct. That's what they came back as.
But it's the opinion letter, not the regulation on town. No, that's not correct. It's their what they said. They make the final determination of anything that's done at town meeting and they said that it should be done discretionary and
there's a on page one there's a a section which refers to town council that they were approving it based on town council's assurances that things would be looked at uh uh not as a hard
rule but as a um discretionary I think we have obeyed all the rules that you're talking about, Glenn. U you should look at the document because that's what it says and that's the official rules that the town has to abide by that the state came back with
68 section of chapter 15. Use the attorney because he's that's why he's here, right? Yeah. Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes. I believe I don't have the attorney general's letter in front of me, but I believe as Becky says, Glenn is referring to the attorney general's
review of the bylaw. Those the attorney general reviews the bylaw for consistency with state law. It approved the bylaw in the forum town, meaning voted it. So that bylaw is now in place. Becky is correct that that sentence as I
read it refers to the state regulations. Those are the regulations that were drafted by EOHLC and ultimately put into effect as law when they were finally approved in the end of January. So that's correct. Those regulations do not refer to curb cuts.
The AG in its letter is providing guidance to the town about how it believes those regulations should apply when the town applies its bylaw to applications. But it does not um it is not the state
regulation. It is the AG's guidance about how that regulation would apply. Yeah. That was the guidance we got during the last meeting when we voted, right? Yes. Yeah. That's what we based our our findings on.
Okay. So So I'm going back to you, Jamie. Are you all set the way it's written with your little um is that with your little addition? Are we going to add the word ADU in? Is that what we're
We're going to leave it up to our clerk. No, it's for all of you to decide, but if you want me to add that in, I will. It should it probably should say chapter 150 section 8 of the housing housing law which is what specifically addresses that's the law that was signed in in
2024 that specifically addresses the new ADU standards for the state. It's the AG's letter that references curb cut specifically, but if it's not written in the law, which is under the chapter the 150
section 8 that specifically addresses that's the legal law that was signed. Okay, if that's what we're detailing, that does not specifically illegally address curb cuts. Doesn't mention it, I should say, curb cuts. The attorney general's
letter specifically mentions curb cuts as their concern. Yeah. But the attorney general's letter is an opinion. It's not law. Yeah. Right. Is it an opinion? Is can the attorney answer that? It's an opinion. Not It's an opinion about the curb cuts. Correct.
Yes. That's exactly right. Excuse me. That's exactly right. That's the AG's opinion. Okay. How they should be applied. If Okay. if if it's their opinion and eventually this gets um the applicant goes uh back to the
state for uh restitution. Is the attorney general the one who decides uh that it meets their criteria or doesn't meet their criteria for their their interpretation through you Mr. Chair? No. The appeal
goes to court. Okay. So Jamie, are you all settled the way it's written now for for that part? Yeah. That it's specifies specifically that it's the law portion, not the attorney general specifically. Okay.
So you're okay with the decision. Give me one second. Maybe skip to Peter. No, I didn't skip Peter. No, I'm saying maybe you skip to Peter and give Peter. Hold on. You're also what the decision has written. One more question. Town Council. Last
one. Promise. Seriously? Yeah, please. If if um I think it's specifies in the law that you cannot discriminate against ADUs in any way uh against the rules
that apply to single family homes. If the if ADUs are not allowed to have curb cuts in Chsford, does that mean that if they do, it's um
a violation of uh the universal uh standard for residential homes versus ADUs? And if so, does it mean that residential houses going forward can't have curb cuts either? Mr. Chair, I can just briefly address
that. Um, it's not a question obviously relative to the form of this decision, but the I can say that the ADU regulation the town has adopted does not impact how curb cuts can be um allowed for single family residences. It does
not address that at all. But you cannot discriminate uh ADUs against single family homes either. And it does say that in the in the state's uh laws. Is that correct?
Um you're basically interpreting the state's laws. I think they say what they say. I go with that. Okay. So, and I'm okay to wait to the way decision was was drafted. So, still waiting on Jamie though, right?
Um, so that that would make three of us. And the last um was Jamie 2011. Should we ask about that? Um, you want me to council? um on on our on our first memo,
our first draft, we had um we had space in it for the for the town clerk to sign and you had erased the whole thing. Um why did you do that? Oh, you have to unmute yourself. Oh, unmute yourself.
You're on mute. You're on mute. But it look good. I apologize. No problem. Insertion is for the town clerk so that a decision can be recorded. Um there is no recording requirement for uh an appeal like this.
Okay. Thanks Jamie. Okay. Okay. Okay. So that's four members here and four voted yes. So, we're okay with the um with the 28 the way it's written
plus represents the way the board voted. Do you want to take a vote on that? Take a vote on to form but we're going to we're going to use that um the section what 150 going to put that in.
Mhm. Okay. I thought that was the vote. The four yeses. That's what I thought the vote was. I apologize. I missed it. Okay, we all voted one by one. Thank you. Sorry about that. Yeah, sorry for my confusion. Do you want to take a vote on it? Um,
well, I think our votes in. Yeah. Okay, that's what I thought, too. Because we individually had to go to it and say four for four unanimous. Okay. Uh, could you stick around, council? Uh, yes, briefly. I do have another
meeting, but yes, I can stick around for a bit. So, what are we doing next? Is it the move to the next item? I would make this suggestion to take the agenda out of order to address the question with town council for the other hearing. Okay, we're taking the agenda out of
order and we're going to do 101 Mil Road. That's um that's William Harvey. And for this I'm going to recuse myself and the chair will be Stephen. Okay.
And I will be same here. Could you just announce it into the microphone that you're recusing yourself? I'll be recusing myself as well. And I'll be recusing myself as well. We're supposed to have three members on this, right? But there's only two. one of the members um Danny Ruiz
had contacted me and he had every intention of being here. I haven't heard from him um as why he's not here. We thought he was just running late, but he's actually not here. Um um Mr. Jav, what do you think? What are you asking him? what he thinks
of if he if he wants to continue ask if he can stay on for a few more minutes to see if Danny shows up. I was hoping to have a hearing um tonight. Yeah. But I don't I don't want to I don't want to be difficult. I understand that um
you have a you have a very uh large agenda tonight and you have a very busy schedule. So, I'll just ask for um a brief continuence until you have enough members, okay, to hear my um my application. Okay. I only
Thank you, Mr. Avi. I only have one question. Um something seems to be missing. Do we have any letters on this? We can't hear anything. We haven't we haven't had any discussion because we haven't had the forum. So, that's why but I can um the letters are
hold on a moment. I thought I had uploaded them. But we can't discuss or hear anything. Correct. But what I do have for comments is on the agenda. I can say that. Okay. I'll I'll take a motion on 101 Mil
Road. To continue to continue. What's the date of the next one? Uh November 2nd. Yeah. November. Okay. I'll make a motion to continue uh the hearing for the request for a
special permit under 195-5 for 101 Mill Road to the November 2nd meeting. Okay. Motion by Stephen. Second by I'm sorry. November 6th. That was a typo on the agenda. November 6th is the next meeting. If we were going to recuse ourselves, can
we still Right. How does that work? I don't I don't think it'll be you and Glenn only. Okay. So, I'll make a motion to continue the
hearing uh as requested by Mr. Harvey on it for 101 Mil Road under 195-5 until the November 6th meeting. This is way. So, second Glenn.
No. Okay. Okay. Um, do you want a reason? Sure. Um, what's not included in this is a is some sort of comment by the preservation committee which wrote up the original
rules when that property was sold. Uh, as far as that it had to have certain this, certain that because it was a historical site. So, we should have a letter from them. Uh, and I would approve the continuence if we also request as part of that we request a
letter from them commenting on the door that's proposed. Um, town council, um, I believe if we're not even sitting on this meeting, we can still postpone it. The the the members here can postpone it even if they're not sitting on it.
Uh, it would be best if when you recuse yourself that you don't participate in discussion or motion. So, but keep in mind here that what's before the board with the voting members on this is that it's simply a motion to continue it. Glenn's request is fine, but you want to
avoid discussing this application now that you're moving to continue it. Once you do that, um, you're actually opening the hearing in a manner that's going to require some action by a missing member to continue to participate. But I think if it would be best if you stuck to are we going to continue this to the next meeting?
Okay, Glenn with continuing it. You're okay with that? Yes. Okay. So, okay. All in favor? Go ahead and Okay. Perfect. Continued. All right.
Um, should we do we want the town council for the next the next agenda item? I don't think we had asked in advance. You can you can discuss that with How much longer do you have? You're on mute again. Mute again.
What do you mean? The pesky mute button. He's on mute. Town council, you're on mute. I'm sorry. About 15 minutes. 15 minutes. We We should be okay. We're going to be I'm not familiar with the next item if
it if that matters. Okay, we're we're fine. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you both. Thank you all. Okay. What? What a meeting so far. Okay, next. This is a real public hearing.
It's new. It's lot It's lot 38 on the corner of Shore Drive and Mallerie Drive. The owner is CJ and J LLC requesting an administrative appeal under zoning bylaw section 195-102B
subsection 3 and any other relief deemed necessary to overturn the building's commissioner zoning enforcing officer determination that the lot does not qualify as a grandfathered buildable lot. This
property is located in R R A district assessor's parcel ID map 18 block 48 lot 24 and consists of approximately 009 acre 4,77
square ft. Okay. So could you state your name and address please for the record? Of course. Uh good evening everybody. My my name is Amato Bokino Bokino Law 103 Grover Street, Beverly, Massachusetts. Uh, and I'm an attorney representing the
petitioner. And Mr. David Canella, the principal of the petitioner, is here with me tonight. I do not typically do permitting work, and this is the first time I've been before this board, so I apologize if I
don't follow protocols. Uh, exactly. um in the and what you have in front of you, this is a a blow up of the plan that is in the record already. Um I believe it's exhibit 2 or exhibit three of the
application material. And real quick, the yellow corner lot, excuse me, green corner lot, that's lot 38. The yellow was the abudding lot 39. The red around here is the um
the midway point around the ways that surround the law. Uh in the application material, I put in a very lengthy I recognize six-page letter spelling out the basis for the appeal. I'm not going to go through
that. I'm just going to hit some of the high points. Uh lot 38 is about 4,000 square ft. It was divided from became isolated in 1935 or 1936 from lot 39 uh
depending whether you read the the date that the deed was signed versus the date that it was recorded. Uh it has more than 50 ft of frontage. Um again it's it's le it's 47 about 470
square ft. Admittedly, it's less than 5,000 square feet. But if you apply the Derwood fee statute, which says in a nutshell, which says in a nutshell in this instance, the owner of lot 8 owns up to the center
line of the abodding ways. That's an extra about 2,700 square ft. You add that to the about 4,000 square feet and you're more than 6,000 square feet which comfortably satisfies the 5,000 square feet minimum.
Um so this is an admin administrative appeal of the building commissioner's denial. Denial was in August 1st, 2025. Um uh petitioner believes that when the
commissioner denied the determination uh he did not site we believe the correct part of chapter 48 section six which is the first paragraph the first sentence of the fourth
paragraph which deals specifically with single and two family homes and I put a lot of legal support for what the court's discretion. But that particular grandfathering provision of the statute
for single family homes that's intended to keep to preserve and keep available uh undersized lots for building single family homes. So usually u grandfather
tries grandfathering statutes try to u um get rid of nonconformity. This one tries to preserve it so you can build on it. Um and I'm open to any questions from the board. Mr. Canel is here to
answer any questions as well. Okay. Well, I'll start it off. Um, I' I've read quite a lot on this and and and according to our town council, he said you can't count the road. So, you can't count any of the any of their
road. You don't have 5,000 square feet. So, so how do you go by that? Sure. I Well, I respectfully disagree with that. Uh, I think you can under these conditions, but that's a legal point and and if that's what the town council says,
that's what the town council says. I understand that. Okay. Okay. All right. We'll open up to questions. Glenn, why don't you go first? Um, if we decide in favor of
uh the building inspector, I would assume that your next move would be to petition the land court to make a decision on whether or not it can be included or not included. Is that make sense or is that correct? Uh, that's an option. I mean, we have
the if the owner wanted to do that, right? Um Okay, that's that's all. Peter, have any questions? Well, just about the what you said about town council. Is there a letter that supports Excuse me. There was an email that got distributed
to all of you? Yeah, the email. There's an email, correct? I'm afraid I haven't seen that email. But you know, you want to speak to that. Um, there are times when the board asks for town council opinion
and it is distributed as confidential because it's client attorney privilege until they discuss it at the table. So, that wasn't something I could forward on to you. Understood. Okay, Jamie. It has to be 5,000 square feet, right? Or or more.
So, and that's pre 1938 or 33 and we can't use center line and it's not 5,000 square feet. So, when the owner bought the property, was
he known that it was not buildable? Does that matter? Oh, that would be back in 1938 or or the current current owner. The current owner. I don't know the answer to that question. Okay.
Would that change your opinion like whether they knew or not? Be nice to know how it was presented in the deed. How when you purchased it, was it presented in a way that this is not buildable or is it buildable? I don't know the answer. The full title is in
the record. Uh I don't know if if the board is going to look at it, but I don't know the answer to that question. Okay, Stephen, I guess my just black and white. If it has to be 5,000 square feet and the numbers that I have on the
document say 4,77 square feet and our legal advisor does not support the acceptance of going halfway to the surrounding
center lines of the streets in the area. I don't see a lot of okay options here. Okay. Um since this is a public meeting um I have to uh read in um the letters from all the boards
um from the building commissioner um as per your request um this department to make a determination the above subject parcel uh the matter of pre-existing non-conforming buildable law prior to 1938 the town of Chsford zoning bylaws
adapted per section 195-8 nonconforming uses and structures in Mass General Law 48A chapter 6, the zoning act. This office has determined that the property here in subject does
not qualify for protection at as pre-existing non-conforming lot based on the information you provided to us to review. Also, the PLA property lacks minimum yard requirements and it doesn't have the minimum 5,000 square foot of land for pre-existing non-conforming
status. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions, comments. Jose Negro, uh, from the Mr. Chair, may I ask, is that the December 9, 2024 letter that's in the record? Yes, it is.
Thank you. Um, from the Department of Public Works, Sheila Joyce. Dear members, this office has reviewed the project application plans and documents submitted to DPW on
September 27 23rd, sorry, 2025 for the following public hearing notice on October 2nd, 2025. lot 38 at the corner of Shore Drive and Mallalerie Drive requesting an administrative appeal under zoning bylaw
section 195-102 section B3 and any other relief deemed necessary to overturn the building commissioner's zoning enforcement offic's determination that the lot lot does not qualify as a grandfathered buildable lot. This property is located
in an RA district. Um, as a result of this review, this office has the following comments. Number one, no sewer is allowed for this lot. Number two, there is no existing
sewer service on the parcel at the corner of Shore Drive and Mallerie Street. No new sewer lateral is permitted to be built for this property per the town of Chancellor Division 3 sewer capacity and connection restrictions.
Sewer capacity and connection restrictions section 1.5 sewer unit determinations subsection six residential undeveloped properties. If there is an existing sewer stub for the lot, on-site septic system will be
required following all title five regulations. Okay, next letter from the treasurer. Um, I have received the property description. Um, and I have the
following balance of today for $237.95. Real estate taxes remain outstanding. The applicant is welcome to contact the tax collector's office. Okay. Uh, next letter. Board of Health. Dear members of the PL of the board of
appeals, I am writing to in reference with proposed administrative appeal for lot 38 located on the corner of Shore Drive and Mallerie Street. Should the board approve this appeal and development proceed on the property, please note that any proposed on-site
septic must comply with title 5. Additionally, the applicant will be required to complete the health department's disposal system construction permit application and adhere to associated inspection process. Thank you for your attention to this
matter. Fire department. Dear members of the board, regarding the administrative repeal for lot 38, the office provides the following requirements. The applicant shall file an E911 application with the town's E911
committee through the town's clerk office. Any construction on sites, they'll be reviewed by this office for compliance in all aable goal codes and standards for new construction during the building permitting process.
Provided these requirements are met, this office has no objection to the use of the lot for building purposes. This letter shall be included in the public record and approval process. Captain Josh Aayat, Fire Department.
And that's for the letters. Anybody else have any other questions? I'll open it up to the public. This is a public hearing. If anyone wants to speak to uh for the pro for the project or against the project, please come forward and
give us your name and address. Good evening, Bo. Um I live at 6 Mallerie Street. My lots this particular lot here. Okay. Um, and if uh if you just said that the Oh, I'm sorry.
My name's Anthony Maniscalo, Six Mallerie Street. Um, you had mentioned that the the the lot does not have a stub um with regards to the sewer um hookup um and that a um septic uh would be required.
That is correct. Um, so I remember um when I first purchased this my home in lots um there was a discrepancy with um the twocar garage that was built may have had to have been taken down and um
my the well would have had to have been moved because it was on the um lot that the twocar garage was on. It was a it was a um a problem with the deed, but it all got solved. And what was told to me was if this particular lot that we're
talking about right now that they're appealing is going to require a septic, I was told that my well would have had to have moved because it can't be within 100 ft of a septic tank. And my well on
my property right now is very close to that property line. and and that's my portable water. So, um I was told that and and it just came to, you know, to my uh my head now as you mentioned that the
um septic uh would be required rather than um being tied into sewer. I'm sure the applicant will look into that. Okay. But I'm I'm dead set against it. It's too close to my property. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to
speak to to for this or against it? Good evening everyone. My name is Christine Marott and I live on seven Mallerie Street. So, one of the concerns we all have is that it's really hard to see from this picture, but our road
first of all is very narrow. It's a dirt road. Short drive is all dirt. In the winter, two cars really can't pass safely if it's been, you know, it doesn't get plowed regularly. It's a terrible road. So, we're wondering, it's
right on the corner. How where's their driveway going to be? Where are they spilling right out to this street? Where if they have company over, where would they park? It's literally on the corner. And like I said, the road is not a road that you can park along. It's just not
like that. Um, so that was one of the big things we had. And also the runoff. So I don't know how that goes, but we don't have any we don't have any manholes or sewer system in the onshore drive because of, you know, uh, environmental reasons. They haven't want
to do that. So now you're going to put a house there and you know I'm more worried about even more runoff is going to come from their house and just go right into the lake. If that's a concern and it always has been I feel like that should be taken into consideration as
well. So those are two of the issues I have that we all have actually. Thank you. Thanks. I thought I saw someone getting up. Okay. Um, sure. Hi, my name is Amanda Marott. I'm also
at 7 Mallerie Street for now. Um, just certain things that I was thinking of. Um, as far as the size of the lot, obviously, uh, what I've just heard, and this is news to me. This is my first time here, too. So, um, it's below 5,000
square ft. And I thought to just reference the 12 Mallerie Street, which was built on like a corner. It seemed like an impossible thing to do. Obviously, they did that. That's the the 18489
lot there. Um, that was built and and whatever. That's fine. But at any given time, just like every one of us, there's five to six cars parked. And um and I know that's been a challenge just even with with neighbors and everything. So
my thought is the the sizes of even just like the standard sizes of the house, the like just the neighborhood, what would actually plausibly fit in that small piece of land and just how again the frontage um how everything would
work. It just doesn't really make sense. Um it would add a different element of of traffic and we already have so um I get residents are different than people just passing through to try to fish. We already have so many people just uh coming in and out and then again like my
my mother had just stated just about parking and what if they have kids and and whatever and everything um parked around the corner. It's just kind of a safety thing. So that's all I wanted to say. U she brings up a good point. I went down there and looked at the lot a
couple days ago and um and I noticed that you're you're in a side of a hill. Um I I can't understand how how you could put a home on that lot anyways with the hill you have and the
steepness of the land and it's it's really difficult. Do you have plans for that? Uh I I do not know. I mean the first step is to get it hopefully uh determined to be a grandfather lot.
After if the board grants that uh and after that the the principal who I understand is a builder. Um he does his process. I'm sure he'll come up with his plans and he will file a building application. what whatever you
need and from there the building inspector and the and the conservation commission I'm sure they will put whatever safeguards are in there uh and just and to the point about building and traffic and safety all that I understand
that the only issue here before the board is whether or not the lot is grandfathered or not. All the other concerns which are legitimate concerns and and practically speaking must be you know those are hurdles that's for someone else to to to figure the
conservation commission the fire department the building inspector and what have you. Am I correct? That is correct. That's all we were looking at. Yeah. But we do consider so ando and if I may and all those
departments when the building process goes forward those departments I am sure will do whatever is necessary the principal will need permissions from there and anybody who has anything to say will have an opportunity to say it to those people.
Okay. I would just like it to make a to make a little um suggestion that we go look at this lot and continue this till next month. I I would say that if it doesn't have 5,000 square feet and we can't use
center line, I'm not sure where we could where the where we are have any latitude to change. I mean what will we be looking at? Yeah, just look at we're not deciding all the issues of if if it if you can put a
house on it. All we're here to decide is is it a building lot or not. That's what we're trying to decide. Uh according to town council, it's not. It's not and we don't need to see it. He's you know, if it can be proved otherwise by a
higher authority, fine. But based on the gate the guidance we've been given and he's the lawyer. We're I mean we're not so if I if I understand correctly the if you deny the the application tonight it's the one issue about whether or not
the center you can use I will refer to it for shorthand whether or not you can use the derelict fee statute to use the centerline land to add up to the 5,000. That's the one issue that you know that would be the first in our in our
that would be the first to move forward. Well, is that the only issue? Yeah, I don't hold any well that that would be that's the roadblock that's stopping us from going further. We wouldn't even look further because that's the first one like there's no need for us to look further if that's the roadblock that we can't change. We
can't go overcome. So and speaking for myself of course as we have not voted as a board but we can't overcome that hurdle because it's pretty clear and direct. So there's nothing we can't change that based on the guidance we've been given by council. So there's no
need to in my opinion proceed anywhere else because we can't change that one. I think for me everything else is potentially subjective but that's math right. So, it's a if I may, it's a legal question
that I'm an attorney, the town council attorney. We have a different opinion about it. Um, and I say that in a truth sense. I'm not saying I'm right, he's or he's wrong. But that's just a legal up or down question. Everything else, the arithmetic is the arithmetic.
You know, there's 50 feet of frontage and uh all those other things. It's just this one legal question. Yeah, that's fair where we're stuck. Okay. Um and and I'm kind of leaning towards our council. So,
do we think we should close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. But motion by Jamie, second by Peter. All those in favor of closing the public hearing? I. Yes. Okay. Since uh
Well, my I guess my question had an impass. If there's a I don't see the value in going to see it because it's the math problem. Correct. If there's the opportunity for uh the two attorneys to have their
attorney death match and figure out which one's right, then you know I I would not personally be opposed to having them go off and figure out if there's an opportunity for
our town council to learn something new. I think we vote on the guidance given to us and if it needs to go to appeal by a higher authority that the supreamers above us right I I think that you know the town council
giving you how the law is written based and then the town telling us there here's the way I view it. Okay. I think that's a pretty strong point. I did go back I did find the letter in my email. I'm sorry I read it while we were sitting here. I meant to do printouts and I forgot. No, it's okay. So I
apologize. I think in there there was also some discussion about the town's definition of um a lot and that it doesn't include you know I I agree with Stephen that the two ear two attorneys are going to hash it out but ultimately it has to be
decided by probably someone above them and um delaying it doesn't I mean they can hash out their opinion doesn't change the position of any decision comes from us whatever they hash out their opinions the decision is going to come from house and then if it's not in whatever they
can choose the applicant can choose to have it appealed or not appealed but we have to make the decision. Well, the decision is based on it not being 5,000 square feet, right? If if a higher authority comes down and says, "Yeah, you have to include this," then it is more than 5,000 ft. We were overruled.
We've been overruled occasionally before, but okay, based on what we have, it it doesn't it's not more than 5,000 square feet at this point. We just need to vote. Such that sound like a motion. I'll make a
motion to approve the administrative appeal for lot number 38 on the corner of Shore Drive and Milery Street in accordance with uh the building commissioner's decision letter of determination and the letters written in
that's to approve. Okay. Yes. To approve the administrative appeal to the request as requested. We always request in the affirmative in the affirmative. So, we're requesting affirmative of our building commissioner's ruling.
No to overturn it. Overturn it. Oh, overturn it. Okay. So, when we get to the vote in support, we'll overturn his decision, the building commissioner's decision, right? That's correct. So, we always have to make a motion in the affirmative.
Affirmative, which is to support the application. Uh, Jamie Jamie, it's closed. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Okay. I'll second the motion. Second motion by Jamie. Okay. Second by by Peter. Me by Peter. There's a lot going on today.
There is. Um all those in favor of Jaime's motion. All those opposed to Jaime's motion. Denied. 05. Motion fails. Motion fails. So thank you. The the motion has upheld
the building commissioner's ruling to deny uh the buildable the buildable lot. Okay. Thank you. Need a decoder ring. Yes. I will um be in touch with you. Let you
know when the paperwork is complete and when it's filed with the town clerk. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Okay, next on the agenda for this evening, uh 295 Actton Road, fire station number five. What?
What? What do you mean? What? What? That's the next one. Uh requesting variances under zoning bylaw section 195 8. D for purposes of increasing existing nonconformities,
front and side setbacks, floor area ratio, and building coverage as part of constructing a new fire station and any other relief deemed necessary. The property is located in an RB district and consist of approximately 14,030
ft. Is there anyone here? Uh, what happened to the chief? Oh, you talking? Could I have those? Oh, yeah. Yeah, sure. Yeah, definitely. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board
members. It's been a rough day. It's been a long day. No, thank you. So, thank you for having us. We're excited to be here to show you our project. So, it's uh it's been a long road, but after 3 years, I think the fire station study committee did an effective job of
demonstrating the need for these two stations. And I know we're here for engine 5, but certainly I think the two stations will certainly meet our needs. Um, so certainly thankful to be here to introduce this project. It's really kind of the first stage for us. I know we
have more meetings coming up uh with planning and conservation. So, we're excited to show you this project. Um, looking forward to moving this forward. Um, I've also had an opportunity to meet with um, and thanks to Becky, by the way. I know there's a lot of work that
goes behind the scenes, so I thank her for her efforts. So, I met with 14 of the uh, 12 of the 14 of ours. U, the 13th one was a renter. U, so, she's going to pass on the information to the owner. In the 14th one, I've been there three or four times and not been able to
connect. But the 12 that I met were all strong supporters and which is not a surprise because I think when we went to the voters last November, we had all 11 precincts voting for these projects which is overwhelming. So certainly thankful to the voters to the select
board finance committee and certainly to this board. So I'm here to answer any questions and I'll let them present their work. Good evening. My name is Ted Galante. I'm the architect for the project. Uh, and I'm I'm just going to talk briefly because our civil engineer is going to
speak more in depth. He he he actually filed the application. Uh, but the buildings, as you may know, are are um the existing building, let's talk about five. Uh, the existing building has met its useful life. Um, it it is uh um
lacking in a number of ways. Um, not meeting a number of standards and fundamentally is an unhealthy building for the department. And so so meeting with the chief and with department um we've developed the concept uh um and to to to be the building size that's needed
uh for this community at this location um and um the existing building is non-conforming and the proposed building is non-conforming um uh but slightly more egregious. And so I'm going to let Dave uh uh take over and speak about uh
the application and if there are questions I'm here to answer those. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is David Jordan. I'm an engineer and land surveyor with Greenman Peterson. Um, I'm going to quickly summarize the
variances for you um and then go through the uh criteria. Um, so this lot is a pre-existing non-conforming lot. Um we're in the residential uh B zoning district uh which requires lots to have
a minimum of 40,000 square feet, 150 ft of frontage. Um this lot was purchased by the town in 1966 and the building that was that is on there today, the fire station that's there today uh was built that same year. Um the lot is only
14,000 square feet in size and only has uh 82 feet of frontage. Um, this is one of a series of lots on this side of Actton Road that uh do not uh come even close to meeting current zoning standards. All of these lots were
created by subdivision in the 50s and 60s. Um as uh Ted uh said uh the proposal is to remove the existing station and construct a new uh station that com that
meets all uh fire department standards, industry standards, health and safety standards. Um and in doing so, the building needs to be bigger than what's out there today. It just doesn't work functionally with the small building that's out there today. Um, as a result of the the shape and
size of this lot, uh, we're forced into requesting a number of variances this evening. Uh, the first one is front yard. Uh, 40T is required in the RB zone. Um, and the we are requesting 27.4T
uh to the to the front of the building from the right ofway line. Uh, sideyard uh 25 ft is required. Um on the left side we are requesting 14 feet. On the right side we are requesting two and a
half feet for the first floor and um half a foot 0.5 ft for the second floor. Uh the second floor on the right side has uh some projecting windows that uh project beyond the uh first floor uh
wall. Um and as a result those are uh closer to the lot line. Uh the next item is floor area ratio. Uh a ratio of 0.2 is required in this district and uh 62
is proposed and that's a ratio between total gross floor area and the the lot size. And then lastly building coverage. uh 15% is the maximum allowed and we are requesting 40% building coverage. I will
point out for the board that the existing building uh does not comply with the sideyard setbacks, the floor area ratio or the building coverage. Um as this board is well aware, there are certain criteria that need to be uh
met uh to satisfy the uh granting of a variance. Um and I'll just quickly summarize uh our position on those. The first one being the uh owing to the circumstances relating to the soil condition soil conditions shape or
topography of the land and structures. Um as I mentioned this is one of several pre-existing non-conforming substandard lots in this area. Uh the trapezoidal shape makes it very difficult to site a building on this on this lot. And again, the narrow width uh basically precludes
any building from complying with these setbacks. Um all the land around it is uh is privately owned and built on. So there's no opportunity to acquire more land to uh make the make the lot and the building comply with the current zoning
requirements. Um the second item is that literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning law bylaw would involve substantial hardship uh to the applicant. Um and it certainly would. uh
literal enforcement of the of the zoning bylaw uh would either mean that uh the town would need to acquire more land to make this lot bigger which is not feasible or they would have to basically look elsewhere for a lot that they could
put this building on and meet with the meet the zoning setbacks and that would create uh considerable financial hardship to the town. um and also would create hardship from a a time perspective, meaning it would take considerable time uh to find such a
location. Um and then lastly, that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without uh substantially dergating from the intent and purpose of the bylaw. Uh clearly the use and
nonconformity out here already exists. So granting relief will not be a detriment to the public good and nor does it nullify the general intent of having dimensional requirements and un uniformity within a zoning district uh because that those uh zoning requirements aren't met uh on any of
these lots in this area. Uh with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude my presentation and myself and the rest of the team would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Okay, Glenn, let's start with you again. On the right side of the proposed
building, how much uh land is there now for with the existing building there? The existing building is from the lot line is 13 ft from the right side lot line. And you want to reduce it to
uh 2 and 1/2 ft on the first floor and uh one foot half a foot on the second floor. Half a foot. Half a foot. Two. If it was anyone but the town, we
would think that's ridiculous. How tall is the fence? And Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't I wouldn't argue with that. Um, but I think also included in our package, we do have elevation drawings and floor plans. Um, I mean, uh, Ted can speak about this
better than I can, but I know it's a much larger building than what's there today, but from a fire station standpoint, it's a pretty small fire station. Most of that space that you see in that footprint there is the apparatus bays. Um and we have, you know, modest
space left for um all the rest of the functions that happen within within the fire station, including sleeping quarters, exercise room, equipment, storage, um all of that. Um and that is the reason also why that this is a uh
going to be now a two-story building because again there are numerous elements that have to be accommodated within this building. You know uh you know I believe all that's true but you're limited to why we
deviate from the norm. Well, he gave us a few reasons. Public safety, but none of them refer to what we normally deal with. Can I can I ask the size? Mom's a retired firefighter from
Baltimore. So, retired MP from the army. I've been around first responders for a very long time. could appreciate, understand the need knowing the manpower that is typically at station five and the size and being
equipped in station five. Is it comparable? like are we building a station that is comparable to what is typically being manned at station five or are we building a station a size of a station for something that is larger
than what is typically on shift at station 5. I think I think I would let the the chief speak to shifts and and and manpower and stuff. Um um but I think what I'll say is that we our firm specializes in public safety facilities.
We do fire stations all over the place, different parts of the country, mostly in New England. Uh, this station is super modest by most standards. Not modest, super modest. We've cut as much as we possibly could to make the building as small and effective as possible. Uh, given the constraints of
the lot, yet still meeting NFPA standards, keeping the firefighters healthy, creating a a hot zone, cool zone, transition zone, etc. Um uh and so um there really isn't a way to make it
smaller other than changing how the fire department operates. And that's a that's a question I can't answer as operating procedure. Um um but I but if we don't use this site, public safety is another another piece because we wouldn't be able to
operate. there's a coverage area that the that each department needs to get to, each house needs to get to and and so the chief would speak more about that, I would think. A question for the chief. For the chief, that's what I was going to ask. Um, I think anyone who's involved with
town government in any way uh knows that the tremendous amount of work that was done on the study for the fire department, modernization of its facilities, and um I just wondered if part of that study at all involved
using the existing lot that we have for a facility that meets modern standards and requires irements. Did they look at that at all in terms of what how big the facility was going to have to be on this specific lot or did they did they
recommend a different lot envisioned or So to answer your question, we looked at for we met for over three years. Yes. And looked at different scenarios. We looked at fivestation models, four station models, even three station models. We looked at three station
models with a third station at a different location. So we performed different uh we looked at different um models uh response times from those stations but we kept coming back to the five stations and the reason for the
five stations because of the response times. Yeah. I'm not I'm not questioning the five stations. I'm questioning the fact that this particular station was going to need to be bigger. Correct. To meet the needs of today's world. Yes. but that the lot is what the lot
is. And did they look at all at the need to potentially relocate this in the same area? Sure. Absolutely. And what was those what were those conclusions? We looked at um I think for this
specific station, we looked at the town manager here. We looked at property I think down off of Park Road. We looked at real estate off of Littleton Road. We looked potentially across the street to um to approach maybe potentially the parley's but it was in wetlands so we
couldn't do that. Um we looked at town owned property in the area but it was deed restricted. Um again the town managers here but we this the committee not myself I mean the committee looked at different areas and it just for one
reason or another just did not work. Was Maxwell's available at the time you guys were looking? You know, there's a lot that used to be the old Away and then it become I know I'm very familiar with though that was under consideration from another contractor. Okay. So,
is there no is there no variance already assigned to this deed? Not that I'm aware. As far as the variance, we knew that if we built here, we were going to have to go through this process, but there's not one on it already because you already are existing non-conforming. Yes.
So there's no but there's no variance already assigned to the deed with the being non no there's no variance no variance we're going to answer to answer your question about the variances we just have to use our minds and decide what's right and what's wrong
you know even if it's well if you're going to agree to one foot yes how are you going to deny anybody else who comes in here this is a public seat easily this is a different and we don't set precedence each is an individual case isolated by itself supposed to be.
Have the have the letters from the abutters been into record already. I mean the chief mentioned that day he's talked to everybody which I think is a great thing you know and some of them were here earlier but they had to leave and one of them is still here strong support for all the abunders that I've talked to.
Okay. I mean is that on record? Um I no no no offense I'm you know just like you just have to go off of I I do not re the office did not receive any letters from the butters. Okay. Right. But we do have departmental letters. Ready to read the letters in I guess so. Sure.
Anyone a question to you? Uh no. Stephen, you're kind of quiet. I'm stuck on one foot. That's some people. It's actually half a foot. Yeah. Half a foot
on the second floor. On the second floor. All right. That's a good one. I'll start with the fire department. Variance. Regarding the variance at station five. Um, all applicable codes and standards
shall be met for the construction of new structures, including but not limited to NFPA standards, Massachusetts general laws, CMRS, the Massachusetts State Building Code, and the Town of Chford
bylaws. A flammable combustible storage permit shall be obtained and renewed bianually from this office for the on-site diesel generator. A fire flow test shall be conducted and
submitted to this office for review. The hydrant currently located in the front driveway shall be placed with a new hydrant that meets Chsford Water Department specifications. With these conditions satisfied, the office supports approval of the
variance. We respectfully request that this letter be entered into the public record and incorporated into your approval process. Joshua Abbott required um from from the building commissioner.
Um he um he quotes um on the zoning book 195-8 D non-conforming uses and structures variance required except as provided for subsection CE the reconstruction
extension or structural change of a nonconforming structure in such a matter as to increase existing nonconformity or to create a new nonconformity require the issuance of a variance from the board of appeals and that's from the
building commissioner Jose Negro. Um, no concerns from Well, that was that was the Chunsford Water District. Oh, that was the water district. Yep. No concerns. Oh, no water. Oh, okay. Okay. Chsford Water District. No concerns. Very good. Board of Health,
no concerns. Oh, this these are good. And planning boards collector. Oh, tre treasurer cast collector, no concerns. So, those are all the letters we have. We don't have a butters. Um,
open up. So, well, I just have one more qu. So, so there's absolutely Gary, no way to make this building smaller. Correct. Correct. Correct. Or or redesign in a way that it's not half a foot to the adjacent property line like
So you mentioned you have five people in your family. So it it this station is built for 50 years. 50 years to meet our needs and which is we found out with the station building 66 that we quickly outgrew that station. So yes, we have a couple members there now, but we are
projecting 50 years out and the PA calls for four members on the truck. So we like Ted mentioned um the group really did a hard look at the station and I think this is about as really the
appropriate size for it. It's probably the smallest we can get to meet all our needs. Okay. But I'm what I'm saying is so you have 65 feet to the rear 60 64 feet to the rear 65.
Is there a way to and I'm again not an architect by any means? um reign the the way the building is so that you could use more of that rear ground space so that you're not half a foot to the
property line on your right. Yes. So, because the lot is so small, um we need to provide parking behind the building um for the for the firefighters and staff. Um so, that's why we can't go any deeper with the building because we need
room back there to to actually park some cars. As far as whether we could actually move the building away from that right sideline a little bit further. Uh again, you know, the lot is so narrow. Uh it's only 82 feet wide. Um as I just mentioned, we need to get
vehicles to the back of the building. Um that leaves us with a 12-oot driveway on the left side. Um that's the bare minimum to get a vehicle along the side of the building and out to the back. Makes sense. Okay. Okay.
Why are the windows protruding on the second floor? So, because the the building um is right up against that side lot line, the second floor has the uh the bunk the rooms um for the firefighters.
In a traditional situation, a window would just then be looking directly out into the backyard of the butter. What the architect has done is he's actually u designed some forward facing windows that uh face towards Actton Road that's
letting natural light into those spaces. We don't have no windows because that would be terrible of course u lets natural light into those spaces. Um does afford a little bit of you know a little bit of view um but you're not looking directly into the abut's backyard or the back of the ab butter's
house. So that's the reason and it's only the second floor, the first floor. We do have the two and a half feet which at least allows maintenance of the siding and and things like that. Walk around the building. You have something else, Glenn, for I just wondered what's adjacent on the
left side to the property. Uh those are both residential homes. And on the right side, same residential resial. All residential. Yeah. Yeah. All res. Okay. Um, since this is a public hearing, if anyone would like to speak
um for this project or against it, uh, I just need your name and address. Paul, excuse me, Paul Ericson, 291 Actton Road. Um, I'm the butter on the right. And when the when the plan was first
presented to me, I'm kind of like, you got to be kidding me. But I fully understand and support the needs of the firefighters. Um, I've been involved just with emergency management in town for 20 plus years. I know how the
stations work and all that. I know that this station is grossly undersized. I also know that it does not meet the standards that our firefighters deserve. Um, that being said, I am
very optimistic after meeting with the chief and um the architects and stuff like that that they're going to do everything in their power to lessen the blow, if you will, on my side of the property and that. I mean, yeah, it's going I've got 12 1/2 ft now. It's going
to be 2 feet, which is, you know, my bedroom is like right there. But that being said, um I am here to support the project wholeheartedly and I hope that um the project can move forward and we
can, you know, make it right for our firefighters. I have a question for you, Paul. Yes, Charlie. Um how come we should sell your land to the fire department? That's something that um believe it or not, there was a rumor going around about that. It was.
Yes. But, um, I don't think that that's in the plan or budgeted for or anything like that, you know. And I did I I'll be honest with you, I did question a couple of the locations. Um, the property that town owns that Phil Jones was dumping all the
stuff on, but after talking to Gary and that, there's a lot of environmental considerations and all that kind of stuff that basically makes it not viable to do that. So, um, if this is the choice that has to be made, then
so be it. Thank you. Thanks, Paul. Okay. I see a lot of people out there. No one wants to talk. And you said you talked to the fiddlers to the left. Mr. Fiddler was here earlier, but he had
to leave. That's sort of But yes, we we've I've talked to him many times and met with him. He has shared his concerns with the architect team. So we are directly engaged with them. Okay. So okay, one more question. Yeah, it has two.
Were the firefighters themselves directly involved in the design and needs in the firehouse? Yes. So we met when we presented it to Falltown meeting. We got together the members of the fire station study committee and we did like a needs assessment and that was back with Weston
Samson. So, this is slightly different, but as far as the um the needs of the firefighters, they were involved. Yeah. Of of firehouse 5. Correct. Correct. On the left side, is there going to be a lot of windows
on the right side? Excuse me. on the the the side facing the right gentleman who was previously the bedroom windows um as described are angled towards Actton Road so that they afford him privacy
only the second floor no windows on the first floor right and there's an 8ft fence that will be along the property line what type of fence an 8 foot fence like a cedar fence cedar fence correct Yeah.
Okay. And we're working with both Mr. Fiddler and Mr. Ericson for landscaping needs for shading, additional shading. So to afford additional privacy barrier,
I know this is a tough one, Glenn. Make a motion to close the public hearing. You think we need to close it? I think so. Last call. What are the the hardships are the that are being presented are the lot size
and and the money issue too public safety issue. Yes. Oh, positively it's not closed. Please speak. You guys seem to be debating. Um Anita
Tanini 8 Columbus A. I'm also a town meeting rep. Um, as a lot of you may know, I'm a real stickler about zoning and setbacks and stuff like that, but I think this is a valid exception. And I think if you need to listen to the neighborhood and especially the butters,
um, if you're going to make an exception, this is the time to make it. Everything else aside, this is, you know, about public safety. The voters voted on this. Um, and if this neighborhood and those of Butters want this and they're okay with the setbacks,
then to me this is a no-brainer. Like I I don't understand why you're like concerned about it because these are those types of exceptions that I think or why you're here, right? Like each case is independent and again I'm a real stickler about setbacks and this is
how much space needs to be between things and to me this seems like a no-brainer. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Motion by P. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. A second. Second by Jamie.
Any questions? No. In favor? You're voting. Oh, we're voting on closing the public hearing. Voting close. Yeah, sure. 5. Okay. Um about the half a foot. Glenn,
it's a building. We kind of need it. I think Mr. Ericson coming up and speaking being the a butter who's going to be probably most affected by this and in favor of it is a huge when I asked about the letters and about approval to me neighborhood means a lot to you know if everyone
comes in favor to speak for something I think that's very important. He stated his case very eloquently that he was okay with it and he's the most one who'd be impacted affected by it. Exactly. I mean, there's a fire station there and now the lights go on and everything else
every night when or when they go out. So, I don't think that's really anything to be that concerned about. It is. I can appreciate the architect's um considerations and the slanting of the windows. Yeah, it's it's closer, but the protruding and the slanting and caning
so it's not the windows aren't open and directly overlooking the Butter's house, making them so that the privacy is there for the abutters. I I think that paying attention to those kind of details in the architecture is something to appreciate. Knowing the size, the lot,
the land, making sure our firefighters have what our need with, but being considerate to the neighborhood. All right. I mean, that's where the half in that's where the half foot is is because those slants are protruding. It's on the second floor. That's why those that's why it's the half foot is there is
because they made that design consideration. So, if they made it flat windows, we we wouldn't be a half foot. We'd have more. But, okay, that almost sounded like a motion. Variance as much as the next guy. Oh, pardon me.
I saying I love a variance as much as the next guy. Uh yeah, but I for me the the one neighbor uh at the 2 and 1/2t side or 6 in side in this case coming up and saying that being the
most impacted he was still voting for it um means a lot. A lot. Okay. So I I understand the public safety aspect of it and the tiny lot trying to fit a required safe building on it kind of thing. So
give it to us. I have a question. How many cars for employees should you expect to the the public hearing's closed? That's not We voted to close the public hearing. We voted to close it.
Glenn, you wanted to close it. I have a question. Shall I ask it of you? Sure. If I can. How many cars are going to be parked in behind the building? There's five bedrooms in the thing. It depends how many firefighters there are. Looks like they have five spots.
They have five parking spots. Five. Go ahead. And couldn't the parking spots be in front where you can't you can't get in the way of the trucks, Glenn? They have one handicap for access only. They have to exit. Did you look at the
Did you look at the 3D drawing of Yeah. Yeah. Where are they going to put the parking spots? the only place the rear there's there's nowhere to put it in the front. They have the door entrance and then they have keeps the cars away from the fire trucks
leaving exit. And you probably could stuff another one in there if you had to off to the side. But no, no, because that's the exit. There's a rear bay exit. There's a rear bay exit right there. But trucks would never come out on that. But other equipment could
other equipment or maintenance vehicles if the truck gets broken down. But no trucks, no trucks would come out that 14 foot. No. No. But they're maintenance vehicles. Driveway. It seems like there's adequate parking in the back for the cars for the firefighters. But there's no way to put them anywhere else.
And that's what I think the engineer addressed with us. He was talking and the width not getting closer to the fiddlers because of the need to drive back there. Right. That's why they can't move the building anywhere else. So if we make a motion, yeah,
how do you make it in relation to defending what the grounds on which we're making it? We don't have we don't have authority to make something based on the public good. Um approve the variance with the letters read in. I've read some of the variance
from the mass mass building code and uh it eludes to safety like there there is a safety aspect and in this case it's a monster safety aspect. It's a whole fire station. So in
my mind that's why I'm So it's f you can make that decision based on public safety alone. No, no, no, not that. We're doing it on the finances. We're doing it on finances. Is that a reason shape and
size is considered a legal as it relates to the size and shape is the is the financial it's like when we've approved someone to put a garage on the opposite side of the house because there's granted on this side. It would cost the cost of that is financial. It is a
financial burden to the to the person. What do you mean hired those guys? Well, would you like to make a motion? I absolutely would like to make a motion. All right. I'll make like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman to approve the
variance for 295 Actton Road for fire station number five in accordance with the zoning bylaw section 195-8 for the purpose of increasing the nonconformities and to include all said letters read in
based on the hardships of the lot size and shape. Second second by Peter. Motion by Jamie, second by Peter. All those in favor of granting the variance. Oh, look at that.
This is a miracle. You know, nobody understands, you win. Certainly appreciate. Thank you. And I appreciate the support and no new curb cuts, right? Just invite us to the river cutting.
Thank you. I appreciate. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, gentlemen. Oh, I'm gonna I know that hurt. We're gonna take a five minute break. I need to get a drink of water so I can speak. So, we'll be coming up with 128 War in five minutes.
Use the restroom. Next uh meeting all set. Save the best for last. The best for last. Right. All right. 128 Warren Aav requesting a special permit not a
variance under zoning bylar 1958-2 non-conforming for the construction of attached garage that does not meet the side and rear setback percentage lack coverage threshold uh per section 195
nan consist of 0.25.24 acres and we're all set to hear from you. Are you okay? Evening. Oh. Uh, thank you for uh I'm good. Oh, I'm sorry. Waiting to hear from me
or you're you good for hearing from you? Oh, we we super appreciate uh this second meeting and uh wanted to just take a moment to remind the board that uh even though we're asking for a bit here, uh the primary
reason is uh we use do this for Gail's health. She needs a garage. She's diagnosed with fibromyalgia and cardiomyopathy. So, she can't really remove ice and it's very hard for her uh physically to to
kind of like shovel and things like that. And so, we're trying we're proposing a modest garage 16 by 28. And the reason it's a little deeper because she really wanted a twocar garage, but I I had a heck of a time convincing her to keep it at 16. So, she's got room for a
few gardening things and stuff like that that she likes to do in the springtime with an extra four or five feet in the back of the garage. So, we were hoping that the board would look on this favorably and help a senior out that could use it. And I and I know that you're bending a few rules and making
some exceptions, but would be super appreciative if you could do that for us. Thank you. Okay, Glenn, you like to speak first, ask questions? Uh, I have no objections to it at all.
You No, I'm good. This, if I'm not m not not uh if my memory serves me correct, this was the uh petition about the um easement with your neighbor. Correct. And then we had
to come back and determine um the the right use right of use. What was the findings of that? What? Well, um it was determined that uh that the um this uh 100 by whatever the width is
here, I can't read it. Was uh was a usage right away and that uh we we presented a copy of this cleaned up uh proposal without all the topography on it and uh right and conservation work on it so that uh
Mr. neighbor could look at it and decide whether or not he felt that he could, you know, be in favor of it. And we heard nothing back from him to the point where he didn't think it was he didn't think it was a problem. I can't speak for Mr. Neon, but we didn't hear back
from any negativity about it. So, we're just assuming that he's okay with it and he's good with it. And I don't know if Becky has had a chance, Mr. Silva's had a chance to talk with uh Mr. to neg anybody else. But I mean, we all I also know that uh that that she did have a
chance to speak with the neighbor next door and he was okay ultimately okay with everything and so I feel that uh if I may I'll I'll give you all an update. Um so um as the representative mentioned we had
asked for a revised plot plan um because we didn't have the dimensional table on the original one. And so that is something that um is beneficial to the board and to Jose to see those numbers on there. We didn't know one of the things that came up at the last
meeting that we had was we didn't know what the lot coverage presently was and what they were asking for. or we didn't know what the floor um floor area ratio it currently is and what is being presented. So, we wanted that dimensional table on there so that the
board was um very clear on what those numbers would be. Um that is one point. The second reason for continuing um Jamie, as you mentioned, part of the information that was in question was the easement. So, the next door neighbor had
questioned whether or not the existing paved driveway was currently on his property within that easement. And so, um, the certified plot plan came back that day when we opened up the hearing and showed it's still the same exact
dimensions that you're looking at now. Um, but this one further confirms that the current driveway is with one tiny sliver at the top all within the applicant's property. Okay. And that the easement is open space. And
once the abutter saw this um both the revised site plan that you all received last month during the meeting, I had forward for forwarded it to him after the meeting. He wrote back that knowing that the easement is what it is and the
driveway is where it is, he's fine with the nine and a half foot setback. I sent it again once we received this copy and he reconfirmed, um, it's still 9 and 1/2 ft. I'm fine with it. So, he has no objection to the encroachment on the property line. His concern all along was whether or not there was going to be
paved way within the easement. Okay. Um, or excuse me, if the garage would have any portion of the garage would have been within the easement. So that's been cleared up and I did attach his emails to the agenda. So you have those already. Y um and then the other thing that came up
um with that I had mentioned when I posted the legal notice and um in conversation during the the last meeting was whether or not everything can be all the zoning relief can be within a
special permit. And so it was duly noted uh the legal notice was posted as the nonconformity for pre-existing non-conforming structures under 195-8E subsection 2. Um and I did speak with
Jose about that. I also spoke with Evan about that and um Evan clarified that that was the intention of that portion of the bylaw. That's the portion that was inadvertently deleted and then put back in. When it was put back in in 2023 through town meeting and they explained
and had the presentation and put it back in, they purposely added in the language of um existing nonconformities or creating a new nonconformity pertaining to a non-conforming structure. So this all falls within that and that was done on purpose because the
majority of the lots and structures and residential in Chelsford are non-conforming so that the board can review them as a special permit versus a variance. Um Jose is on Zoom if you want to ask him any questions or confirm anything I've said. I don't want to put
words in his mouth. Um but we did we did speak regarding that as well. So, so adding the new non-conforming FAR is still special permit because the property the whole property is is already non correct. Want to confirm that? That's what I
thought. Okay. Yep. And the board has already discussed that a couple months ago and and stated that that's that was your interpretation as well. I guess I have one letter to read in. Oh, I think Glenn has a question. While you find that letter, just a quick question. I was just
wondering who the easement is to it's to her by the partner for the um it was for gardening I believe it was an initi gardening in a driveway gardening in a driveway and when it was originally presented there was question about is the driveway in the easement
already and then right I understand that I was just wondering what the purpose of the easement was yes so that that answers your question one uh other thing I wanted to add in was one of the questions where We continued uh you all voted to continue
the the hearing was to ask for legal counsel regarding whether or not you can take into account the easement and um I did forward right and I did forward um town council's opinion on that and um it is
that you only look at an applicant's owned land. You do not consider the easement when you're looking at things from a zoning perspective. Got it. Good to know. But it does help to know that the garage is not in the easement. So
yes, for sure. Oh yeah, you're going to get the letter. It's from the 24th. So we do need a variance for the lot coverage. Correct. though it says that on the
No, that's it's falls under 2E because it's already a lot. It's already Yeah. Which is a special It's a special but it says variance in and a variance for exceeding percentage lot coverage per section 195-9 is what it says in the
Yes. And then it was further clarified that wasn't necessary because in 2e it's already non-conforming. Y hold on just a moment. I just need to get my files cleaned up. We had this conversation before. I remember we did this already. No one's informing and Okay. So, all special permits.
All special permits. You won't have to tie your arm down. Charlie, you're referring to the email, correct? On September 24th. Oh, is that what you're referring to? Um, let me zoom in. I have it here electronically.
Um, so the abuter's name is David Keley and he wrote on September 24th as well as um September. Yes. Yep. I was referring to the email on here. So stated, thank you for the update. Um,
still the 9 and a half foot setback. So all is good with me. And prior to that on the 15th um David had written um thanks for the update Becky with the correction of the plot plan to 100 ft because before there was a typo of 80 ft on the side.
Um I have no issues with that. Looks like it's a 9 and a half foot setback. Let me know if there are any other changes. All right. So we're all set. We could close the public hearing. I guess you don't have any Did you have any questions for Jose?
Oh, any questions for Jose? No, I'm good. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Close. Second by Jamie. Second by Jamie Peter. Peter. All those in favor? I Okay.
Okay. I make a motion to approve 128 Warren Avenue for a special permit under zoning law section 1958E2 for the non-conformity for the construction of attached garage and um
the butters said letter of approval. Okay. Second. Second by Stephen. All those in favor? All those opposed. Good luck with it. Good luck. Good luck with that. Good luck with everything. Sorry, it's been a long day.
Congratulations. That's a way to end the meeting. It is a way to end. It is everything and I hope you feel better. Congratulations. Thank you so much everyone. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yep. All right. Okay. Now, go get yourself a garage. Make this guy hurry up and build
tomorrow. Don't take for Don't take forever. Have a good night. Have a good night. Thank you. Okay. There's just a meeting uh next meeting dates November 6th November 6th December 4th. Yes.
Everyone all set with that. Yep. As good as it's going to get. I make a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I have a question. Okay. Sorry. Sorry, Joey. Mo motion to adjurnn is a privilege motion.
Well, there's more information on the sheet after adjourn. Okay. Yeah, I heard you were going to give us some some papers after. Well, name no, namely the last sentence uh that says that um other topics not posted may also be brought up for
discussion to the extent permitted by the chair. By the chair. Correct. That's what that's what council was telling me. Um that's why I let you speak. I wasn't going to let you speak. Okay. Okay. Just so you know,
I I feel that there's a there's not a consensus with the board in terms of whether or not we have the right to deviate from t from town meetings uh by law.
I think we do. We do what I think we do. We we can however we see fit. We can we can twist our meetings in my mind. What? What do you mean deviate? Oh, deviate. This does has nothing to do with the
first applicant. This has to do with whether or not we can deviate from town uh meetings dictate of no curb cuts, whether or not we have the right. I think that's an individual opinion because that was a split vote. We can
deviate from the bylaw. That's why we give special permits and variances. That is a deviation from the bylaw. Correct. That's what special permits and variances are. They're deviations from the bylaws. So my question is, does everyone understand that we do not have to go
along with what town meeting said? Because I got the feeling that people voted because this is what town meeting said and it's clearcut. No curb cuts period. when we do have the right to uh
be reasonable in terms of that dictate by town meeting. That's what I always thought. Well, I think that's assumed by the fact that they're able to come here. So, like if we couldn't do anything, then what would be the point of them? What would be the point? That's what an appeal a zoning appeal
board is for, to appeal this by zoning bylaw. But do you agree that we have the right to do that? Yes, that's what we're here for all the time. if we deem it to be the right thing to do. Yes. If if that's the case, yeah, the situation on the on the first
article, um there could be no better um case test case of that than the first case of where he was putting the road. If I don't know if anyone's gone down there to look at it. I you
before we continue like is this the right venue for that? No, I'm saying I'm saying that if we if we deny that as a test case when it when it couldn't there couldn't be any case better than that one. Are we
saying that we will not accept any curb cuts because there'll be no case better than that one? No, but I think you're speaking about a very specific case and and making claims on that case and and your viewpoint of it that now depending on
how that goes in an open meeting could be entered into court, right? So, it's not it's not a one that that case isn't finalized. No, I'm not. It's not has nothing to do with way that case went one way or another. has to do with that was a
perfect case of the driveway was not interfering with anything. I think that's the individual, right? I think from what you're saying is so if I'm reading what you're saying, it's you know, we're just I think it's more of an opinion.
It is based on the bylaw, interpretation of the bylaw and how each individual person reacts to that. Glenn, and you remember the vote, it was a two to three. Not everyone voted for the bylaw and not everyone voted against the bylaw.
It was a split vote. But that's what we as a board, we individually vote our positions. Sometimes it's unanimous, sometimes it's split. So the question is, so am I hearing it correctly? This is kind of theoretical.
Well, no. Am I hearing this correctly? Because this is the first case and there'll be more cases that come before us. Correct. So, we just want to get it right from the get-go. That's all I'm interested in. I don't I don't know if we won't we won't get every vote right every time.
We we turn around we turn around and say there's no precedent. So, if there's no precedent, then regardless of what we did on this one, it can't be held on the other one. So, even if this one was perfect and we said no, we can still say yes to others. You can't make a case for the fact that you
would vote to deny it simply based on the fact the town meeting said there should be no curb cuts. Is that fair state? Do we know? Do we know why the the people who voted no said no? Have you heard the reason why they said no?
Has there been let I have to warn you all. You're all talking about a specific hearing that's already been closed. And I should say an email went out saying that if we were going to discuss the ADU bylaw, it needed to be duly posted. Town manager said that, town council said that. Brian
isn't here. And so I was informed not to put this on the agenda because Brian is not here. I should rephrase that. You're making assumptions about why certain people voted a certain way about a certain topic. Okay? And that we is what you're happening.
And we you you can't we have a right to vote based on our interpretations. But as a board of appeal, we all understand and the community has a right to we can vote against and change the bylaws per
each individual case as it's presented. That is what we serve for the community on every bylaw. That's why they can get special permits and variances. Okay. So Glenn, I'd like to take this up with the chair here. So, I'd like to table this till next month. I agree.
Okay. Then we have this motion. But wait a minute. Are we going to discuss curb cuts? Because I don't think that's cra I think that's crazy. I mean, it is it is based on maybe next maybe next month. If we're going to have an executive session on that particular case should be town council here. There should be a
whole lot of things that we Oh, absolutely. I mean, he's the discuss. Why do we want to talk about this again? Like it's it's closed. We made We're not talking about it in relation to that case. Yes, we are very specifically talking about how many of these cases
specifically mention that case and it being I don't know we don't know maybe none well if there's a problem with the bylaw will be someone will want to drive it needs to go we need if problem with the bylaw then we need to have a a warrant generated and it goes back to town
meeting that's where it needs to go I thought we agreed to do this next month I agree to do it next month I think it should not be done now I'm just saying that we should have a further discussion, right? We had on the specific issue, not in relation to what came, you know, the first one we
had, but in relation to the theory of curb cuts going forward. Okay. That that's all I'm saying. I'm okay with that. But didn't we hear that tonight from the town council already? Yes. So I based on that I'm I I I think your opinion should be formed on his
opinion on what what he's saying the town and how the town has voted to move forward. And I and I honestly think that this body really can't make any more decisions on curb cuts by the bylaws. I think we can hear each individual case each case.
But the lawyer presented his view and we accept the legal position of our town lawyer. Correct. In general, we do I don't want to discuss this anymore. I think we're going to But if you have But you should have the document that came back from the state concerning curb cuts, which is not what he presented.
I thought you were going to give us a copy of all that. I do have it, but I The lawyer said the same thing tonight he said last month. Yes. And he was wrong last month. Okay. Can we stop? I think next Can we please stop talking because it just keeps getting worse. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to close the public here.
No, I I said make a motion to adjurnn. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Sorry, wrong motion. Ajourn. Second. We don't need to second it. We just in favor. Good night. Good night.