Good. All set. Thank you. Uh good evening everyone and uh welcome to the Davis Zoning Board of Appeals. We are now in session. Uh I would ask uh first if you could silence any uh mobile devices or set them to vibrate so we're not interrupted uh during our meeting.
I'm going to start with uh introducing our board members tonight. Down to my right is uh one of our alternates, Kevin Burch, Karine Dherty, our clerk tonight, Mr. Ken Scholes, myself, uh chairman, John Bowerer. Uh to my left, Ken Jaron, uh Chris Dumbowski, and another
alternate that we just keep bringing back is uh Becky Kilbornne. And um from our planning department, our planning director is Mr. Brian Zelli. Uh folks, uh I'll go over our procedure in a minute. Um board members, uh we were
in uh receipt of minutes uh dated May 11th. Uh if I could please get a motion to accept those minutes. >> So moved. >> And could I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Um folks, we got a few cases on tonight,
a couple of continued cases as well. I just want to briefly go over how we run things. Uh we we are on Danver Cable. Uh we do ask uh if you're going to speak or present a case, you go up to the podium in the back and please speak as clear as you can into the microphone for both uh
the people at home and our ability to take good minutes. Um announce your name and your address if you're speaking as a neighbor. Um after the clerk reads the case into the record, we'll ask you to go up and present what it is you'd like to do. From there, uh we'll turn it back
over to the zoning board. the zoning board will ask questions of the applicant. At that point, uh once we've completed all our questions, we'll open it up for public questions or comment. And uh once we close that portion of the meeting, we will come back and
deliberate. We do ask that we're not interrupted during deliberations, that you don't speak out, and uh you can hear uh how the board is deciding to vote on your case, and we'll give you your options from there. So with that said,
uh we have uh a unique situation tonight where three of us have to recuse ourselves from the first case. So at this point, Karine Doherty, our clerk, Mr. Ken Scholes, and myself will step aside and uh acting uh chair will be
Becky Kilbornne down the end and uh we'll clerk that case with uh Mr. Chris Dembowski. And with that said, we'll we'll uh pass it off to you guys. Go ahead. Our first on the agenda, 8 fair view street
located in the R3 map 30 lot 24 requests a variance under section 7 table two table of dimensional requirements to permit the construction of a single family home on a 10,000 ft lot where 30,000 ft is required. The applicant also seeks an appeal of the building
commissioner's denial of permit R-26-72 related to the construction of a single family home at this location. The request is made by 8 Fair View Street LLC care of Jason A. Panos Esquire docket 26-15136.
>> And I understand we're in receipt of a continuence. >> Uh we are in receipt of a letter for a continuence in regards to this to be scheduled for the next scheduled meeting at June 22nd 20 2026.
>> Okay. Um, I understand Mr. Panos is here. >> Yes. Good evening for the record. >> Good evening. I mean, typically I'm just going to say that typically we would go through your presentation. Um, but I know that you came tonight uh and typically with a continuence we wouldn't
have you speak, >> right? >> But I know you came tonight in case any of us have a question. So, I'm going to let you say a few words. >> Correct. So, I'm simply going to say for the record, my name is Jason Ponos at 246 Andover Street, Peodyy,
Massachusetts. I um am simply here in the event you've reviewed the materials and have any questions I can prepare answers for for the continued hearing on June 22nd. But I fully anticipate that you will not open your
hearing tonight and take any substantive testimony. So, I really don't want to delve into that. But if you do have any questions, maybe tonight is not the time to to even jot them down, but maybe you
can pass them through uh Mr. Zeli. And >> we'd be glad to do that through legal counsel and Mr. Zigelli if you have if we have questions. Um that'd be perfect. >> I'll just call the board if anybody has anything that they'd like to ask at this point. Otherwise, we're going to
continue for two weeks and we'll hear his full presentation then. >> Yes. >> I I don't have anything to ask. >> You all set? Okay. >> Yeah. I don't have anything right now. >> Ranky, >> I'm all set as well. Thank you. >> And me, too. Uh I'm sorry. We're not going to open the hearing tonight. It'll
be two weeks. Okay. >> I just have a question about that. Will a new of Butters notification go out with the new date for any people in the neighborhood who aren't here this evening and aware that you're rescheduling. Brian, >> you can answer question. So, um, this
happens all the time where petitions get continued. Um, no community does what you're talking about, although many people feel they should. >> Okay. >> But there is that. Um, so what you do is you check the agenda, but we it has been or it will be on 7 p.m. on the 22nd.
>> Okay. So, we'll just make sure we notify this. >> Yes. Yes. And anyone who talks to the neighborhood just say always, you know, look on look online on to the town hall, you know, to the town website and uh the agenda for that. Nice. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. >> And yeah, on the website now that >> it's there. Okay.
>> All right. Um so I have a motion to continue. Uh all in favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Do you have a motion? You do not have a motion. >> I am sorry. Go ahead. >> Madam Chair, I Madam Chair, I make a motion to continue this matter until our next meeting on the 22nd of June.
>> Okay. I second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you in two weeks. >> See you in a couple of weeks. Thank you. >> What do they say? >> Well, I stand corrected. >> That was the That was six minutes.
>> The big >> I know, huh? That was the big draw tonight. No, I just I just looked. It says 706 and I was I was like nothing lasts 5 minutes in this place. So, >> and by that I mean Earth, by the way, not not Danver.
>> Okay, folks. We're going to move on now to uh our first continued case. Mr. Clerk, if you could read that in. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next case is 154 and 170 Water Street. Um Map 67, lots 001 and 001A. request for a modification for the
special uh permit docket 23-5012 submitted by New England Home for the Deaf Care uh/win development company for properties at 154 and 170 Water Street um respectively by the replacing special
permit conditions number five section preference shall be given to Danver's reference residence in perpetuity end quote uh with the condition Five, second preference shall be given to Danvers residents during the initial lease up
period subject to HLC approval. End quote. Uh, in conformance with fair housing guidelines and regulations, docket 23-5012. >> Hi, good evening. >> Good evening. Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf
of the applicant. Uh with me tonight is uh Stephen Senna from Wind Development. Also with me tonight is uh Steve Sako from New England Home for the Deaf. I don't know if Mr. Zakelli wants to say anything about this first and then I'll speak or I'll go first.
>> Uh I'd like to hear from you if I I'll go to Mr. Zakelli as part of our questions. How >> Okay, very good. Thank you. Um, we have requested um a modification of condition number five of the special permit relative to the New England Home for the
Deaf Wind Development uh development at 154 Water Street and 170 Water Street. You'll recall that this uh project was approved a few years back and a number of conditions uh were put on that approval by this board. And as we have
proceeded forward toward getting uh financing and working with HLC, the uh executive office of housing and livable communities, that's the state agency. Uh it has been uh brought to our attention
and to the town's attention that the um condition number five uh which states a second preference shall be given to Danver's residents in perpetuity is in violation of the federal fair housing uh laws as well as Massachusetts fair
housing guidelines. Um the reason for that is simply uh that it is believed by the uh by the federal regulations as well as by the state that such a condition um can result in discrimination.
And so uh we had a uh a rather lengthy and productive meeting um conference uh by Zoom with Danvers Town Council uh myself, Mr. Kelly and three representatives from HLC at the state
level uh to discuss this condition and um it is certainly the state's preference to eliminate um local preference entirely. However, uh they were in agreement with the proposed condition that we were requesting this evening, which is to replace the second
preference to Danver's residents in perpetuity with a condition that uh the second preference shall be given to Danver's residents during the initial lease up period uh subject to the AC HLC approval. And as some of you may know,
HLC has to rep approve the marketing plan and for the development and uh whether conditions are uh violate state or regular federal regulations also impacts financing and funding for the
project. So um we are requesting that this condition of a second preference and you'll recall the first preference for this project is going to uh individuals who are deaf or deaf blind um which was really it's on the campus
of New England Home for the Deaf. That was the purpose of this development. It's a a development for over 55. Um first preference to deaf and deaf blind. second preference to Danver's residents and we would request that be during the
um initial lease up period which the state has u told us that >> so basically remove in perpetuity and add during lease up period >> correct >> okay anything else >> that's it from me thank you
>> and before I go to the board I'm going to hear from our uh planning director so Brian any any more you want to add today >> the only I would yeah I agree with everything that was just said. Uh the only thing that I would add was that I think the original solution was some
type of deed writer that would be added on. Our town council and HLC didn't think that that would actually fix the problem because there's a decision with this condition that's at the registry that needs to be modified. So they felt that this was all this was one of two
solutions but by far the belt and suspenders approach >> and attorney man thank you Brian and uh just before I turn this over questions uh so this would be an adjustment and be recorded at the registry of deeds and
you won't be back before us unless HLC changes their mind again. >> I will not be back before you. That is correct with regard to the special permit. However, what we have just recently realized is that the variance, there was a dimensional variance for
this case as well that also had this condition number five in it. It the variance decision for one reason or another uh took all of the conditions of the special permit and simply repeated them in the variance and we didn't pick up on that. So, we will most probably be
back to you to say, "Remember when we asked for the special permit condition change? We'd like that same change in the variance." So, I don't want to misrepresent that I will not be back. >> We're only changing the special permit right now. But you feel the variance is going to also need the same change
because the language is the same. >> Exactly right. >> I got it right. >> Yes, you do, sir. Weird one. >> You do right now. >> Yes. >> It's a weird one. Yeah. >> All right. Uh we'll start down there with you, Kevin. Questions. Uh good evening. Is the project permitted right now?
>> Yes, >> it is. Okay. Thanks. >> Fully permitted. Yes. >> Only question. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh Karine. >> Um I I have several questions. Um starting with who exactly did the HLC contact from when
and I I guess how was it triggered? Um you've already gone through your funding phase. this um I I guess application was in front of us three years ago. So I I just don't understand how all of a sudden three years later they're looking
through it and now all of a sudden they have an issue with one of the preferences. So um I I I'm just curious to find out how they contacted you and um what exactly uh was said to um whoever the wind representative was who
fielded the call. I'm going to ask the wind representative to answer that question. Thank you. >> Steve Senna with uh wind development. Excuse the voice tonight. Fighting some allergies like I think a lot of fighting the same. >> I am too. So we all understand.
>> Happy to chat after the meeting about any solutions, home remedies. Um, in any case, uh, so the process, although more stretched out than we anticipated, and frankly, uh, that has been the case historically, has played out the way it
normally does, uh, which is after an initial application to the state where the where the state makes an award of state low-income housing tax credits uh, and federal low-inccome housing tax credits. the actual process of then filling out the rest of the
capital stack has to play out. And the most significant uh player outside of the tax credit um portion of the capital stack for these affordable housing projects is uh typically a quasi public agency and in this case it's mass
housing. Mass housing is issuing bonds um tax exempt bonds that provide the per uh permanent financing for the project. Uh, and it's that underwriter and that process um that asks a lot of hard questions to be able to prepare a
prospectus that goes out to um investors uh who will buy the bonds for the project. Uh they asked questions to try to get out ahead of a question that they knew would eventually come up based on their experience doing you know dozens hundreds of these affordable housing tax
credit uh projects. um at some point in the balance of the closing. So, one of the first things that that's happening is the mass housing underwriting, the last few things that are happening is the final legal documents that secure all these uh state state subsidies
through various um typically what they call soft debt. Uh and um that includes the the final approval of two very important documents. the affordable fair housing marketing plan and the tenant
selection plan. And those documents are required for any of these affordable housing uh projects that are being regulated by the state. Some there are some projects that are just regulated by a local community. This is regulated by the state because it's being subsidized
with with state funding. Uh and so Mass Housing called this out as a potential concern. they had not seen a project uh like like ours um be committed uh have a commitment to a local preference in in perpetuity and asked us the question are
you sure um the executive office of housing and livable communities is going to accept that and we said well we'll get in touch with them and confirm it. Uh I think my initial expectation was that because it's a second preference in a way it's a softer in perpetuity. In
fact, if there is enough demand from people who are 55 older, 55 or older, deaf, deaf blind or or heart of hearing, there's a potential and those people are coming from all over the state, then there's a potential that you're never uh those people could also be Dammer's residents, but there's a potential
you're never drawing down on the second uh on the second preference, that second weight list. Um, so not knowing entirely what to expect and having not done the all the legal research that would uh would would follow, my hope, my
expectation was that because this was a second preference would be a non-issue. And the deeper we got into it with HLC and their legal council, they came out very strongly um that in their view this was a fair housing issue and that it needed to be fixed. Um and so we reached
out to to um to uh the planning department and and involved town council. That's how we ended up here tonight. >> Well, so it seems to me that that part of the issue here is that you're going for public financing and that's um and
that's why I guess it it you came on the radar because they were viewing these documents. Um, typically that doesn't that doesn't happen unless there are this this funding in place, but I thought your funding um was done two
years ago and last year. So, you're still >> again >> continuing on with financing. >> In other words, all the financing isn't completely set yet. So, it's a it's a um distated
to uh um >> are you trying to be delicate and say that it's a very cumberless very cumbersome lengthy process and for good reason. These are state dollars being used to finance privatelyowned
uh real estate development projects. And um that announcement so just for the people aren't aware was made I think in June of 2024 uh actually at the property at the at the campus New England Homes for the Deaf by the governor and I think there
were maybe 12 other projects that were awarded um at that time. the the state then so now you're in the queue and the state what the state hasn't told you you're an approved project is when you plug into their queue and which of their
let's say their 20 different buckets that they can draw from to finance affordable housing projects uh where you fit in the queue are you a you've been awarded in 24 but are you going to be scheduled to close and start
construction 25 and 26 27 and which sources are they going to draw down from to fund your project and that's what we've been waiting on as Steve knows and um u you know weekly discussions
internally and monthly discussions externally this is the challenge um to figure out what the timeline is and the and the state strategy for funding the project. So uh given how stretched out that financing
process is unlike a typical private sector development where maybe there's only one commer one investor and one commercial bank and that underwriting is playing out over three months you're talking about underwriting that's playing out off and on over three years in this case. Oh, no. It's a it's a
tough process. And I guess what um what confuses me is that when it comes to affordable housing, this HLC wrote the regs that go along with all of the all of this like affordable housing and fair housing. And they they do allow
preferences. And they do allow preferences if you can document that that it's needed in your community, which at our meeting it was the Danverse Housing Authority who stated, you know, we have a list. We have a lot of um
community members um who would qualify and we definitely have a need for this kind of housing. So I don't understand why they now say well local preferences that's discriminatory because they wrote the regs. >> It's so to me I I I I just don't get it.
I really don't. >> It's only the imperpetuity that is a concern for HLC. >> Well again it removing the the imperpetuity. I mean I guess we can certainly go along with that. We don't want to hold up your financing. You've
certainly waited long enough for that. Um, what I'm more concerned about is the phrase that comes after it with HLC approval. They literally have approval over every process and that approval process is not defined in those regs.
So, if you attach that, what does that mean for you? that should a Danverse resident qualify, whether it's because of a disability or um an affordable, you know, need, do they have to go through another process that's not defined? They
can't even handle what they do define, let alone what they don't define. So, I think it's very vague, and I'm I'm kind of leerary about that. not so much about removing the in perpetuity even though I I really think you know this was done in conjunction with the Danverse Housing
Authority. I don't even know if they've been notified. Um and I wish that they actually had like a representative here to kind of give us their opinion on all of this. Um but again, I'm I'm not as concerned about the imperpetuity as the
clause they want to add after it. the the subject just so I'm clear. The subject to HLC approval. >> Yes. >> And again, I know what you're going to say. Well, they they have to approve everything and I I agree. I 100% agree with that. >> Sort of unfair,
>> right? But it but you you already have to comply with everything else by adding that in. Um unless you want to qualify it subject to approval per the regulations or something. So it doesn't give them blanch or it doesn't
doesn't impose an additional step on you to get some Danver resident additionally qualified. >> Well, there's no Danvers resident who's going to be excluded. So the just to talk about the specifics here if we play
out the balance of this process when will continue marching along with its both its um its uh private partners, investors and and um tax credit buyers and the various public entities toward a
financial closing hopefully soon. Hopefully this summer um before that that closing happens and that closing needs to happen before we can start construction. Excuse me. The affordable fair housing marketing plan and the tenant selection plan. These things two
things work together need to be finalized and they're for these are >> no I'm very familiar with all of these documents. >> That's right. And so that what what um what that clause or phrase at the end of the of the revised condition is
referring to is simply that process. win and this is for the protection of the town and the town's residents and the public at large. WIN doesn't have the ability, the right to draft a tenant selection plan that
works best for us and make up a reason that skips a step or two because it saves us a few dollars. This is a plan that you have to draft and you submit to the state and that the state has to reviews it and approves it. So that that's the intent of the process to make
sure that process is done right and consistent with with with um >> well again you know I guess if you're comfortable with it I would prefer some sort of qualifier to it. To me it just seems very open-ended um and again gives
them sort of the right to um impose themsel when they might not be with anyone in a similar situation um to your applicant or your application. I I personally don't think I think that's
implied that the HLC approval these these are state >> employ they they approve every single step along the way >> that the these HLC employees these staff folks have an obligation to enforce regulations they're they don't have um they're not making an independent
judgment uh one ten selection plan after another. they have to review the >> the tenure selection plan in the context of the existing regulations. I think it's that's implied, but if if you know additional language would make the >> um board more comfortable, we would certainly have no objection to that.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thanks, Green. Uh Ken, >> well, I was going to ask when is potential groundbreak, but after hearing that, uh who knows? So, I guess I don't have any other questions. >> All right. >> Thanks, Ken. Uh Kenj, I have no questions. >> Chris, I'm all set. Thank you. Uh I have
a few. Um maybe uh I'm not sure if it's attorney McCann or gentleman who's up there now. Um what so what's the lease up period? Is that defined? >> The lease up period. >> Yes, just just the initial lease up. So
through the last through the um >> is that a set length of time? >> No, it's not. >> Well, we in our case, we're hoping it's it's it's within 6 months. Um but it's a function of uh every unit being leased for the
first time. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And uh refresh me because it is 3 years ago and I remember a lot but not this much. >> How many units were we are we adding or are you hoping to add to this property? >> 116.
>> One more time. >> 116. >> We were approved at >> and those were all counted as affordable on our housing. Correct. It's a very important question and this is >> Yeah. And um Attorney Kim, maybe this is
for you. Has uh DHA been notified of this change, Davis Housing? >> Uh no, they have not been notified of this. This is an application on behalf of New England Home for the Deaf with Wind Development as the developer
selected by the Damverse Housing. So we don't feel this will trigger anything different in their process on what they do. >> I I absolutely do not. They are looking for housing generally speaking. >> I mean this might be more on the comment side but I kind of echoing what Karine
said. I it just seems a little disingenuous that the HLC kind of is the judge, jury, and executioner here. And I but yet we can't get them to put anything on paper. I I just I don't get it. That's well that's why we had the conference call that we did with your
town council present and Mr. Zak Kelly was present and we were present uh during that because uh we did ask for something in writing and the their response and town council I think agreed with this is it's the state doesn't put things like that in in writing. They
just don't >> but yet they could come back and say this is discriminatory >> at some point. >> Yes. Absolutely right. But we're very comfortable based on that meeting and there were three represent representatives from HLC including their
council at that meeting uh that the language that we have proposed um with uh during the initial lease up period subject to HLC approval that that approval will be given. They they did not hesitate on that. >> Um
well I I don't think you have an answer for this one but I'll ask it anyway. So what's is there another scrub of this document that's going to un unfold some new language issue that they don't like? >> I certainly do not think so. We have
gone through the process with them. We've gone through the conditions and this is the one this when you talk about fair housing and you talk about potential discrimination, those are real triggers and and that was it was just kicked back in
for that and said your marketing plan if it includes this language as written will not be approved. >> And uh I guess lastly uh Karine also pressed on this a little bit. So we want this to say lease up period as
determined by HLC or we can withdraw that piece of it. >> Uh well no it's not the lease up period determined by HLC. It is second preference shall be given to the Danvers residents during the initial lease up period subject to HLC approval.
>> The subject to HLC approval that's the part I want to dive into a little is there a way to modify that >> or do we not want to modify that? >> Can can we modify it? you. Sure. >> So, if I if I were to elaborate on what
that is talking about, it's HLC's role in reviewing and approving affordable fair housing marketing plans and tenant selection plans. There really two documents that work together. Without their approval of that, these units do
not end up on the SHI. units end up on the H SA subsidized housing inventory only when HLC approves them as state regulated affordable unit. >> So I guess it's advantageous to us to have this language. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Uh board members, any additional questions? Uh >> just one >> board. >> Yeah, just one. >> Go ahead. How is it okay to discriminate only during the lease up period, but we can't discriminate after that? Like
again, >> they they they it's just absurd to make those comments. And how is it discrimination if you're giving a preference to the community in which the housing is located in? And I I'm sure they told you, well, it violates this,
this, that, and the other thing. But we're not going to tell you why. and we're certainly not going to put why in writing. So again, I think to me it's just it doesn't seem fair to the community that is going along with the project to me anyway. And I I know I
certainly don't want you to lose your financing and I don't want to screw up this project. I think the fact that you have such lofty goals, 80% of the deaf um and hearing impaired community um
again like your marketing plan has to take that into consideration. Um again that's a preference. Do they have a problem with that preference? Is it only the you know the affordable and the the residents of Danverse that they don't like? I don't know. But um it it just to
me it just it just doesn't seem fair. And it seems that for whatever reason they don't like these preferences now. Maybe a lot of communities are adding them and they want to get rid of them and this is how they're doing it. >> Did they elaborate on that piece of it
at all? I will I will try to elaborate on some of it because I had a similar questions to what you're saying and I said how is this discriminatory and what I've discovered from not only
my research but the conversations is the federal fair housing regulations look at this as potentially discriminating because of the demographic of the community. We have a demographic that is
predominantly white, let's say. And if you give preference to the community in perpetuity, you are giving preference to a particular demographic
based on let's say race. And just because of the demographic of the community, that's where they're getting it. Do I agree with it? Do I not agree with it? I don't know. but I'm not the one making the decision. That's where the federal fair housing regulations come in and say giving a local
preference can result in discrimination and that's why they don't allow it. Now, why they allow preference during the initial uh ramp up? I can't answer that one, but I asked Well, you you can probably answer it, but I'm going to say
I asked the question several times during the the conference call that we had and it was basically we can live with that with an initial ramp up preference. Two, is it because unwritten anywhere it's a recognition of the
community? Maybe that's it, but they won't go beyond the initial ramp up. So, that's the that's the answers that I can give you. >> And I also have to say, and I'm not sure if you reviewed them, um the regulations that include the preference, they
there's no limitation on what those preferences are as long as your community can show that there's a need for that housing. So, again, they wrote the rules, they don't like them now, so they're changing the rules. Um >> and and we're trying to work with them
as >> No, I know. I know. I know. has to work. We get that part. We just I think this is a really good project that we would have wanted shovel in the ground a long time ago. >> Yeah. I I I just think our push back again, we didn't ask for this condition.
This was the Damis Housing Authority. This wasn't the zoning board that asked for this. Uh so that's the other thing that kind of caught us off guard. It's like this wasn't a request that came from us. this was DHA yet, but this >> and the change that we're here before
you tonight is not coming from us either. It's something that >> we're all we're all trying to work together to get this project uh >> all right. I'm I'm going to go out to the public if there's anybody uh here that would like to be heard on 154 and
170 Water Street. >> Yeah. Uh go ahead up. I'll go here first. Bill Brad Street Tom precinct one if I could through you. Um was it perpetuity that triggered this or could they have inserted for 5 years or
10 years or 15 years as opposed to in perpetuity? >> I will try to answer that but maybe I'll let attorney McCann answer that. I believe it is the fact that it's just perpetuity. it. Well, that's what the initial trigger was. Yes. >> But then in the conversations it was
they really don't allow any time frame other than they can live with the initial lease up. And what the initial lease up means is for the first tenant into each of those units >> of those 16.
>> We can offer and will offer Danver's residents the second preference. >> Does that answer your question? Yes or no? >> The other question uh as far as being discriminatory uh
is a US citizen, if you excuse that are they being discriminated? >> We're not here to talk about what the state was is doing. It's just not relevant. >> Yeah, it's it's really a >> I'm only asking because but they can't defend the state's decision is all I'm
trying to say. The the applicant or the town, we we're not here. We can't defend the state. kind of in the dark decision. Unfortunately, >> I'm only asking because I read about it in the newspaper and it seems to be on some people's mind. >> Sure. >> I read it so I thought I would at least ask. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, sir. Go ahead. Identify yourself and uh head up to the podium, please. >> Hello. My name is Bernie Misoir and I live at 27 Notre A. Okay. And my question is, well, now we settled one thing. It's a racial issue. Okay. So,
now we got that issue out of the way. But what I want to know is, >> well, hold on, hold on. Let me stop you there. It's not a racial issue. >> It is. If somebody determines who has to get, let me say this. If we have two and so I'd like to know after these 160
units are filled or whatever there has to be a list of people that in line to come on board to get the next available unit. Is that correct? >> As far as I know, but that that would all be handled through the housing authority.
>> Well, who's the who's the TLC or the SPCA or whoever this group is that came in here? Who are those people? >> That's the state agency. >> The state agency. the state agency that does what? Determines who can move into a residence. >> Uh,
>> or what color person can move into a residence? >> Hold on now, sir. Hold on. Don't attack me. I'm here. I'm on your side. >> I'm going to let the attorney try to answer your question. >> Step right up. >> I'm not sure what the question was. >> The question is, he was trying to
understand HLC and what their function is in >> their Okay. Their function is to approve the marketing plan for this project. And the marketing plan includes how it's adver how the units are advertised for
rent and um how the lottery process is handled, how uh the preferences are reviewed. Um and it's a general it's not selecting who is going to go in. It is not selecting races. It's not selecting
any of that. It's making sure that the plan as it's laid out does not discriminate. >> Okay. Thank you, Attorney McCann. Additional questions.
>> Yeah. when what happens when these 160 units is there going to be a list of some way to in other words if if there's a unit that comes available >> yes >> and someone from Missouri a black person
from Missouri would like to come here to get this place and there's a person from Danas an elderly person that needs to go into this house who determines that this USC or SBCA or whoever these people are or does on this. It's the housing
authority as far as I know. >> It's a lottery. >> It's a lottery system. >> The initial Yeah. Hold on. We'll have too many people speaking at once. Let me hear from Mr. Zelli first and I'll put you up. Go ahead. >> I don't even know where to begin only because
this is immaterial to what is going on. What's going on is that the state the house which is the HLC the house the executive office of housing and livable communities they're involved in the fair marketing plan. They're also involved in
the financing of the project. That's why they even have a say to begin with because there's state financing involved. So that that's why they have uh you know they have a hand in this. They're saying, "We're not going to approve it unless you make this change." Um,
essentially, and our town council, their council, and the developers agree that this change makes sense. That That's where we are. We're not here to defend the state. We're not here to defend the developer. We're here to >> change the language.
>> We're here to change the language to to approve a to essentially bless a project that's already been approved by this board. Right. >> Right. So, this isn't uh we're not setting uh a determination on who's renting units. That's not being done.
This document is just basically taking out some language that they didn't like so this applicant can move forward. Do I have that correct? >> Well, that that draws back to the fact of Damas residence in perpetuity. >> Again, that's not we're not here to
debate who's getting these units. We're here to just modify language. >> Okay. The the selection process will be handled by a lottery system through Danver's housing authority. Danvers. >> Okay. >> The town of Danvers. >> All right. My last question.
>> Sure. >> Since this project was start was brought up back two or three or four years ago. I have no idea how long ago it is. >> About four years. Yep. >> Why wasn't that res that notice in perpetuity an issue
back then? Well, we we just went over this. It was because of a review process that happened throughout these last three years. >> Okay. >> So, that's why. So, >> yeah. So, it's a change. >> We're the same as you. We were kind of questioning, hey, why why now? >> So, back then it was okay. But then
along the way, somebody somewhere at the state level said >> at the state level decided to change. >> We're not going to give you financing. We're not going to let this project go through unless you modify the language in the document. And I understand completely why that is. >> Okay. Have a nice night.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else from the public? Yes, Mr. Bradreet. >> And yes, for the record, your name again, please. >> Again, Bill Brad, precinct one. If this developer
funded this project on his own without the state's funds, would this be treated anything any differently? Yeah, it would never have gotten built. Uh because more than 50% of this is deed restricted affordable housing that doesn't frankly get built without low-income housing tax
credits in Massachusetts or really anywhere else in the country. >> Even if it's a sad fact, >> if they built half of 160 units, if they built 70 units and started with that and then a couple of years down the line added some more units like other other
projects do do. >> Well, it's a hypothetical, but >> I understand. I understand. doesn't math. >> Listen, we we we already passed this test three years ago. We just trying to get >> So, >> this answer changed, I guess.
>> We went from an A to trying to get an A. >> So, we're stuck as is the developer with some >> we're going to change this language and that's how this project's going to go forward. >> Some mythical body >> until the state changes their mind again.
>> Again, again, again. All right. Um I'm going to close the public side of the hearing and um >> could could I ask if >> you can if there's anything Yeah. >> could I ask one more question before we Sure. Yeah. >> move to attorney >> deliberation. Yeah. If if you don't mind, ma'am.
>> So if if the board were not to approve the change in language tonight, what would I guess like I'm thinking two and three steps down the road, right? So you would submit your presumably submit your marketing plan and the other plans you
have to submit. Would that force the state to then go on record and formally disapprove and tell you why they disapprove rather than kind of play this game where they won't commit to to their logic? And I understand why. They're essentially making a disperate impact uh argument and those are a little tenuous,
right? They're not saying that you've discriminated on the face of what you've written, but there's potentially disperate impact. So, if we don't approve this, would that just force them to go on the record with what their objection is? >> I don't think that would be really how it would work. I think what we would
have to do is appeal the denial of the modification. And uh I don't believe that the town would be in a good position on that uh on that appeal and that would be money
spent and all of that. So I think that unfortunately that's what would have to happen because you know the appeal period is 20 days and we're not going to get anything reviewed by the state in 20 days. So uh we would have to appeal and that that would be a truly unfortunate.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um >> I have one other question. >> Sure. >> If I may. Um uh I I don't agree that it's the the Danverse Housing Authority. Isn't it like some sort of charity picked by the
state that runs these lotteryies? >> Yes, it is. I don't believe it's the Damber's housing specifically, but Steve can speak to that. >> You can only build an Endamus, but we have nothing else to do with it. Right. >> Exactly. >> It's what I'm hearing.
>> Exactly. This this this lottery process is as a function of these documents that we've talked about the affordable fair housing marketing plan ten selection is a highly regulated very carefully executed process by professionals compliance people who do this all the time.
>> Yes I I uh I I have dealt with them before that's why I'm saying >> you know >> open the envelope >> it's like counting votes that's how sacred this process is. really really very very important process that it be done well and fairly. Yeah,
>> exactly. Well, good I mean good luck because does that mean if you have 50% that you have to get all 50% through the lottery? >> Sorry, I don't >> you said this that you're going to have
50% >> of the units are going to be affordable. So does that mean at least during the initial all 50% have to be selected through that lottery process? >> I I'm not sure I follow those affordable
units have a have a affordability restriction >> right >> tied to their financing which is depending on the financing source for 40 to 50 years. No, no, no, no, no. I What I'm saying is >> so it's not just the initial lease. Council >> is suggesting I get that the answer is
yes. The affordable units go through the lottery. >> So all 50 50%. So if you're talking 116, that's what one that's 58 of these units during the initial period. All have to go through that that >> not just the initial. So they to get to
get in one of those it's for 50 years they have to go through that lottery. There's a lottery. There's a that's how you get it into any of these units is through a lottery. The lottery becomes a weight list. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Oh. So, so >> it's still a lottery 40 years from now.
It's still it's not based. >> I get all that, but you can actually keep the list. So, let's say someone moves out a year and a year later and they had one of the affordable units, you can call someone else on the list and they could take the unit.
>> The waiting list is a live document. >> Yeah. Oh, >> so they're held on that list. >> Yes. First come, first serve off of that wait list. >> Okay. >> And and I just want to take a second to point out this is not unique to this project. >> Any of the projects that this board has
approved which has affordable units >> has to go through the lottery process, has to go through the review of the marketing plan, has to do all of that with the state involvement. So this lottery and all of that is not unique to this project. This project is unique
because we have 50% affordable, >> right? >> That's unique. >> What I do feel bad for are the people that have to go through this for one unit, right? >> That's exactly right. >> Y >> All right. Um I'd like to wrap this up. Do you have anything you want? You >> I one more. >> All right. >> I'm sorry. >> Shoot.
>> So, you just touched upon that the waiting list with the lottery. So say if someone was there was a you have the waiting list and then there's like 50 people on it or whatever then none of them are deaf blind but then you have
like the 51st first person is deafb blind then it opens up does that deaf blind person get first preference? Yes, >> they they would leap frog to the front. >> Good. Because that that's what this is all about. That's the idea of this, right? Yeah. >> We shouldn't get lost. >> That's the first criteria.
>> That's correct. >> That was all part of the first application. Correct. >> Yes. All in the language of both the first preference >> and the special permit. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. Good. Now, I'm going to close this. I'm just going to give you a chance. Is there anything you want to add before we deliberate? Because I'm
not going to take any more conversation. >> I think I think we're all set. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh Karine, uh deliberations, please. >> Um I I I have to say I'm not happy about this. I I I have had not great
interaction with that HLC. Um I don't think that this is discriminatory and I would love to take this all the way up as far as we can get, but I will not do that to you. Um, I think this project is
worthy and I will vote yes. Um, but I don't like this at all. I want to be on record for saying that. >> Thank you, Karine. Ken, >> um, I I'll vote for the language change as well. Um, but I kind of I find it a little disconcerning that we have to I
don't want to say it inappropriately, that we have to basically cow down to this. Um cuz like you said, if we vote no, you're going to have to appeal. So basically, we're putting you in a tough situation if we say no to this. I I hate
changing special permits. I hate changing variances that are already on record. We already went through all this. We did a site visit to your project. It just it's a little disconcerning that we have to cower down to say yes to this, but I will say yes. >> Thank you, Ken. Kenj.
>> Um yeah, I'm fine with this. I'd vote for it. I think the uh second preference uh language I mean uh like the gentleman said the second preference would maybe never get utilized anyways most likely. I mean as we we really ideally you'd
want a deaf blind person from Danverse but we may never get there. So um deaf blind first obviously and that's what it's all about. So yeah. >> Thank you Ken and uh Chris. >> I would vote in favor. Thank you, Chris. Um, I would echo a lot of both what Ken
and uh Ken Scholes and Karine Dardy have said. I I just find this uh you know, kind of changing the rules midstream. I I don't like it. I Brian's heard from me uh off the record about
this. um the fact that you're going to have to come back, it sounds like, and do this again with us. And we can't even get a state agency to put it in writing what they don't like. And um you know,
this is being done and this project was approved through this board because it was going to be a benefit to the town of Damas. I I don't know where discrimination comes in for that. If not, you would have done this project in some other town. So, um you know, I I
hope what Ken says is accurate. You know, that this is mostly filled by uh people that really can use the services over there that come along with it. So, maybe this is a moot point, but I I just really don't uh like the fact that HLC
comes in in the 11th hour and changes the rules and they hold up your funding and they hold up everything. It just seems very unfair. Uh, I will vote in favor. You do have the votes. Uh, board members, if I could get a motion, please. >> Um, I make a motion to modify special
permit um, number 23-5012 by replacing condition number five. Second preference shall be given to Danverse residents in perpetuity with second pre preference shall be given to Danverse residents during the initial
lease up period subject to EOHLC approval and no other changes are proposed as part of this modification application. >> Second. >> I've got a motion and second. Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor? >> I >> opposed.
>> Thank you very much. >> I guess we'll see you again. Yes, >> you're going to see us again on the variance and perhaps >> Okay. Well, hopefully this gets it. Will this uh >> Thank you very much. >> Are you able to move forward at any point or does variance change have to
happen before you can move forward? >> Things are moving. This will help this vote tonight will certainly help to keep things moving forward and then we'll be back. I would say you have a meeting in July, your July 27 or something meeting. That's your next meeting. Um, we'll
probably be back then just for purposes of needing to advertise. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Clerk, if uh you could >> uh Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next case is 69 Center Street, uh, zoned R2,
request for a finding under table two, uh, table of dimension requirements to permit a garage/shed expansion that will encroach into the side setback at 6.9 ft where 15 ft is required. The request is made by Dennis
and Nancy King, dock at 26-5137. >> Is anybody here on this application? Hi, thanks for hanging in there with us. Uh, if you could just go up to the mic, identify yourself, and tell us what it is you'd like to do. >> Okay. Good evening. My name is Dennis
King. I'm the owner of 69 Center Street and I'm looking to um get approval for uh 20 foot um addition to my um onecar
nonconforming um setback garage. So, uh to add on, I'm looking to add directly behind the garage. Um, and therefore the uh addition would
be set back 6.9 and it's kind of angled. So the the front of it would be 6.9 but the back goes to 7.3. So um
I um I live uh deep in the heart of the historic district. Um, the Samuel Paris um um is uh
in my back in my backyard and um my house was built in 1850 and the garage I would say was built uh around 100 years ago and back then uh there was no focus on setbacks. My house
does not meet the setback requirements on one side and my garage does not meet it on the other. Um, the reason for my request is uh I've been living at this address for almost
40 years now and in 40 years you accumulate a lot of stuff. So, um I've struggled up to this point to um to try to manage my stuff within my onecar garage
uh in my basement and um my poor um lawn tractor has sat outside since the day I I bought it. So, uh I want to buy a new one. I'd like to have a place to put it. Um, so, um,
I have a floor plan that looks like, uh, 12 by 13, um, for a workspace and 7 by, uh, 13 for a storage area. Um the
workspace um is um something that I just feel I need to have uh to convert into a workshop um or an office area. Um I
um was renting a spot at 88 um Holton Street for several years and uh when they closed that down uh I got booted out and all my stuff is in storage now. So, um, when I thought about doing this,
I figured, well, why not, um, create a space that's in my backyard that allows me to do the things that I was, um, um, doing at 88, um, hopes to be. Uh, >> very good. Uh,
anything else you want to present? No, I um you know because the S Samuel Paris thing is in my backyard um I'm I I tailored my narrative uh to um accommodate both uh the requirements for
zoning as well as um the historical commission which if everything goes well tonight I'll be meeting with them on the 25th. >> Okay. Um I admire um you know most people are out buying a antique car or something.
>> Well that's what >> the fact that you want to get a new tractor to cut the lawn. That's that's good energy. >> I I have my my one car garage has my classic car in it. >> Okay. There you go. Um okay. Um I'm
going to uh open up the board for some questions and we'll start down there with you Chris. >> Uh I don't have any questions right at this moment. >> Thank you Ken J. So, it's the um side side setback that you're um we're talking about there. So,
it's 6.9 in now, but then when you build to the back, you're actually going in. >> Yeah. >> Property a little more. >> Yeah. It kind of uh if you looked at the bot plan, I think it would show you how >> it's up here. >> How it just kind of >> I just threw it up. >> Oh, thanks. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, you're actually Yeah. So, we're gaining a little bit, but I mean, it's longer down uh down the back, but >> you're not encroaching it anymore than you already are. >> And my neighbor is totally fine with it. So,
>> do we have any um letters from the neighbor? >> Yeah, they they're welcome to speak tonight if they're here. >> Okay. I I have no other questions. >> Thank you. >> She had an issue with that Joyce would be here. So >> y >> are we um are we >> finding >> right? Are we um counting the eaves
overhangs with the uh setback >> the overhang on the >> Is there any overhang on the shed? >> Uh there might be. >> Does you have to include that? >> Yeah, the overhang would have to >> set back. >> Yeah. Um
>> is there an overhang on the current garage? >> Yes, there is. It's about 4 in, I think. And it's going to just mirror that. >> Yes, that's my that's my plan >> because that's what the building inspector would be measuring too. >> Okay.
>> Just so you're clear. >> So I'm assuming that's he's through you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean >> he's including that >> what well what we what we would say is that whatever the dimension is that you are approving if it's it's really >> he's got to he's got to meet that.
>> Yeah. He's got to meet the the overhang has to meet that. That's what you're proving. If he, you know, so you need to say whether or not 6.9 Well, 6.9 is the end of that garage. That's already there. >> Yeah. >> It's really that really the back one that's changing. >> Um, >> but yeah, it it has to go to the
overhang. >> Okay. And no one's here from 67 Center Street, correct? >> No, >> we don't know that yet. >> I can ask. >> Well, when the ask for public comment >> and uh >> I have no other questions. Okay, Karine.
>> Um I I just have one. I'm looking at the plot plan that you included as part of your application, and it looks as if um at the end of your garage, there's a line that goes through it, but that's not the end of your property. Does your
property go all the way up to um where 67A is? I have to look at the block. I don't think that's a line, Karine. I think that's a measurement 45. >> No, no. I I I I know, but I'm just I'm
That's what I I think. It's just the measurement. But does his property include all of lot A? Does it go all the way up to the end there? >> No, it's all of lot one. Lot one. >> Um Yeah. >> Didn't I say lot one? >> You said lot A. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I meant lot one. >> Yeah, it's all lot one. Yeah, that's all
that's >> that's all his lot. It's a big lot. >> Oh, it goes It goes This is why he wants the track. It looks strange because uh what um was what is the parsonage used to be
part of 69 Senn Street. >> Um in 87 um it got split off. >> Okay. >> And um >> so that's why it's kind of like the weird >> That's why it's weird. Yeah. >> A weird one. >> Okay. Okay. I have no other questions.
>> Thank you. Uh Kevin. Um, so I guess I I just want to be I know that we don't have a use variance in front of us, so I just want to make sure that we're >> I do. >> I know. So, so but but you mentioned it almost sounds sort of like you're operating a commercial you operate a
commercial business at 88 and now you wish to operate it here. >> No, no, no, no, no. I I um operate an eBay business. So I >> Oh, what game business, sir? >> Pardon me? Oh, I didn't I didn't eBay. An eBay business.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Home occupation. >> Got it. Yeah. Yeah. No, I I just want to make sure that we're not uh >> I'm seeing what you're seeing >> going down the the primrose path here and approving light manufacturing and a residential zone or something. So, I guess
did you give any consideration to building your shed in a place that would be conforming on the lot because it it it doesn't look like it would be impossible. It's It's possible, but it would be right smack in the middle of my
yard. So, um if you if you look to uh the left of where the proposed shed is, I've only got 45 ft. So, that would mean that I got about 25 ft to work
with. Understood? >> So, thank you. >> Thank you, Kevin. Uh I don't think I have any questions. cuz I did visit your property yesterday. I get what you're trying to do. The setback issue is already an issue. You're pre-existing non-conforming.
Uh, you know, if this shed if if this extension I don't know if we're are we calling it in a shed or we calling it a garage or extension of a garage, you know, if you were to make it 15 ft versus 20 ft, you're still going to have the same setback problem. So, right.
>> Um, >> yeah, I guess I don't really have any questions. So, I'll I'll turn this out to uh the public. Anybody here to speak on uh is it 69 Center Street? >> No one online either. Oh,
>> you're up. Doesn't cost anything except my time. >> Our time. Our time. Again, Bill Branch Street town meeting member precinct one. Just to clarify some something in my mind might not be
the case here. Using the same footprint, you can replace what's there with what you'd like to have as long as it uses the same footprint even if it's too close or whatever to align. Is that right?
>> Well, he's not really replacing. He's extending. >> Okay. So, he's going to add >> he's got an existing garage already does not meet the setback. Now, he's going to build on to the back of it >> to increase the nonconformity.
>> Okay. All right. >> With that same setback, staying in line with the building that's already there. So, if you were to see it from the street, it won't look any different. >> If you see it, >> just be longer. You can't see it from the street. >> All right. I was just in my
>> but you'll see his tractor is not in the yard anymore. >> So that could be a win for the neighbors the way I look at it. >> I was just curious because in the past I know what had come up as long as you use the same footprint even though it might not be >> correct if he was knocking this
structure down. That's right. He he probably wouldn't even be here. >> He'd be pulling a permit. >> Yeah. He this is not a tear down. He's not building on the same footprint. He's doubling the footprint. >> Modifying the opposite of that. I'll try to remember that for the >> I actually do have one more question.
>> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> I did uh sorry um Dennis uh uh there's no plumbing uh in this structure currently and no plan to put plumbing in. >> No. >> And this will be a slab on grade. This will be a >> slab. >> Slab. Very good.
>> Yeah. >> Any additional questions from the public? >> Hearing seeing none. Nobody online. Uh Chris, we will come back and deliberate. And I started with you. I will vote in favor with this. >> Very good. Uh Ken,
>> I'll vote for this. >> Sorry, got to get my little school cat here. >> Uh and Ken, uh Schulz, >> I'll vote for this. >> Karine, >> I will vote for this. >> And I too will vote for this. Uh we're looking for a finding. Uh members, if I could get a motion.
>> Um let's see. I make a motion to grant a finding under table two table of dimensional requirements to permit a garage shed expansion that will encroach into the side step setback at 6.9 ft where 15 ft is required and that the
proposed extension alteration um of the structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood. >> I'll second. >> I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I opposed.
>> Very good. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Enjoy the new tractor. >> I think I think you're more excited about the tractor. >> You know, every time I get a chance to cut grass on a tractor, I take it. So, >> nice.
>> Okay. Um, Mr. Clerk, moving along. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next case is nine Lawrence Street, zoned R1. uh requests a variance under table two uh table of dimensional requirements of the Denver zoning bylaw to construct a shed that will be located closer to the side
property line than permitted as of right 7.5 ft where 8 ft is required. The request is made by Eduardo Gonzalez dock at 26-5139. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Eduardo Gonzalez. I live at 9 Lawrence Street
Dammers Massachusetts. With me is my wife, Angela Perez. She is also uh owner of the property. Um I seek a variance uh to the 8oot setback based on the shape of that lot. As you can see, it's a pork
shop lot. Um and that pork shop part is 27 ft uh wide. Um not much good for anything except horseshoes or archery. Um so looking to do something with it.
Um, we had a shed. The shed was rotting. Tore down the shed. We would like uh permission to build a 12 12T by 20 ft shed. Um, and it would be um the variance would be
on the sides. Um, we would put it 10 ft from the rear property line uh where 8t are required. So, two extra feet uh so that we're not don't crowd those folks. Um and then the setback would be half a foot on either side. Um
that's what it is. >> Okay. Anything else you want to present? >> Um no, it would be uh simply for storage of um of lawn equipment. Um we would be interested in putting
electricity but no plumbing. uh for lights or maybe to put uh a small shop uh in there if possible at some point in the future. Um but that would have to go through the building department uh which would be the next step if we grant if we
are granted the variance. Um you may have questions uh about uh the recent uh work we did at the property. Happy to answer any of that um or any other question that you have. >> Okay. Um I'm going to turn over to the board. Uh Kevin, start with you. No
questions. Thank you, Karine. >> Um I I don't really have any questions. Um uh just a comment. Um this this is the second time you're appearing in front of us. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Next next time we need to make these a
little bigger. >> Yes, ma'am. >> That's it. No questions. >> Uh Ken. >> Um thank you. Is this shed where the old shed was? >> No, sir. Uh it's about um it I did submit two plans. Uh the
first plan shows where the where the other shed was. >> I see it. >> Um >> no further questions. Thank you. >> Old shed. >> Thank you. >> The first uh Go ahead, Ken J. Sorry. >> So the older shed um how close was that
that to the um side setback? >> Two two feet and a half. >> It was even closer. It was probably Yeah. Two three feet. And I take it that's under the uh 10 by 12 size that's allowed by Right. >> Well, it's out. It's gone now. He
destroyed. >> So, um the new one's an improvement. It just looks like it's not centered. So, to me, it looks like it's But you said it's in the center. It's 7.5 on both sides, right? >> It's 27 ft wide, that that strip. And so
we seek permission to >> put it right in the middle. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. It just looks like that's off to my untrained eye. >> So, if I may interrupt, so the part of my memo said that so we would need a certified plot plan showing where the proposed shed is. And this is perfectly
fine for our purposes, but to get a building permit, you need to get So, you have a certified plot plan here, but um you you would have to have them put the proposed shed with the location of seven and a half. You realize that you're going to need to get it surveyed. >> Survey. >> No, it's already been This is a recent
plan. They just basically before they got the the plan, >> you're going to add the shed. >> I am now, sir. Okay. >> All right. >> Additional questions? >> Nope. Also, >> Chris, >> is there any access to this shed from the rear of your property? Just strictly
from the long walk to it? >> No, sir. It's the long walk. You going to have a tractor in there so you can get back and forth to the house quicker or >> I have two sons. They need exercise. >> Exactly. >> Thank you. It >> work. Uh
Mr. Gonzalez, I just have one question. I was I visited your site yesterday. Um I guess is there a carport or something on the right hand side of your property? >> There's two driveways. uh in the '8s that house was a um
a two-unit house. So, and um >> so there was two driveways. The driveway on the right uh used to extend all the way to the back. >> Um before we bought the house, the second unit um was made back into a
single family home and the folks who sold it to us redid the entire house. Uh, so when we bought it, um, let's say it's three levels plus a basement. Um, all three levels were one house. The thing that we tore down last year was
the stairs which were originally servicing the second apartment. Um, and um, that might be what you're calling a carport, sir. >> No, this is external to the property. It
looks like it's almost like a tent. Was I looking at the wrong property? >> A hoop house kind of thing. I think something. >> Yeah, it's like a blue awning kind of thing that you park under a car. >> No, sir. I have no blue I have no awnings on the right side of the property.
>> No awning, sir. There's >> not an awning. A car. It's called a carport. Temporary structure. >> No, sir. >> I think that's the neighbor. >> Yeah, it has to be the >> That's the other side. >> Okay. >> It's like a blue top. I know what you're talking about. >> You saw the same thing. >> Yeah, but it's not their property. Yeah. Right next to the house set up right.
Yeah. >> And um you are aware if you did a 10 by 12 shed, >> you uh could encroach the setback if you did a smaller shed. >> If I did a smaller shed. Yes, sir. Uh the entire purpose of this was to get
permission to to utilize the the property to the most I could. I mean, it's 122 feet. I could build a 10 by 122 feet and not need permission, but um that would that would be awkward.
>> Okay. Um yeah, I guess I don't have any position. >> Bowling alley. >> Yeah, >> indoor archery. >> Archery. >> Uh I'll go out to the public on this. Anybody here on nine Lawrence Street >> hearing? Seeing none, I will come back.
I think I started with you, Chris. No, I started with Kevin, right? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> But I don't >> I'm sorry. And Kevin, you won't be delivering. Karine, >> um, I will vote for this >> and Ken Scholes. >> I will vote for this. I think it's fine. >> Kenj, I'll vote for this as well.
>> And Chris, >> and I will vote as well. I like what you've done with the house. It's beautiful compared to what it used to look like. >> And I too see this as uh, as long as you understand that you are going to need to get your uh, certified plot plan updated. uh for the town to be able to
spot the uh new location. So, I too will vote for it. And uh with that said, could I get a motion on this variance? Um, I make a motion to grant a variance issued under table 2, table of dimensional requirements of the Danver zoning bylaw to construct a shed that
will be located closer to the side property line than permitted as of right um 7.5 ft where aid is required and that this condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve
substantial hardship to the applicant. Granting this variance waiver would not create a substantial detriment to the public good and will not nullify or dergate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. >> I'll second. >> I got a motion and a second. Any further
discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I opposed. >> Very good. Good luck. >> Good luck. >> Good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> You got it. Do they want to continue? >> Uh um it never went through at all. It
never went to public. So they just >> Which one didn't? >> 18 water. >> That never got advertised. So that case got >> gone forever. Is it >> the packet or are they going to have to refile? >> Oh, they didn't have to refile.
>> I have everything. >> They weren't doing what they made. All right, Mr. Clerk, if we could uh read in our final case. >> Um our final case is 34 Endicott Street. Um this is Danasport Industrial Zone. uh
requests a finding under 3.11 of the Damasoning bylaw to construct an accessory building that will be located closer to the front property lines Endicott Street 6.9 ft and uh Appleton Street 7.1 ft than permitted as of right
which is 50 ft. Uh request is made by Keith Oakley dock at 26-5140. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Bill Nolan uh Seavoy Nolan Architects here representing Keith uh the owner of um
Patriot Fence Crafters at 34 Endicott Street in Danverse. Um just a little history about the business. Um Patriot Fence Crafters is a local um fence installation contractor. Um they've uh who has their headquarters here in
Denver on Endeott Street. Company's been in business for approximately 30 years. uh and have operated in Danverse for over 10. Uh the property description property is located within the Danverse port industrial zoning district which is
different than what the um um assessors listed as. Um and fronts on Two Street, Endicott Street uh to the north and Abton to the east. Um pro uh so to the north. It's hard
without a um the uh there is uh um Crane River. You can see the uh kind of dark gray. Yep. Um Crane River uh to the north and then uh small neighborhood uh just to the north uh west. Um that's a
Nem Street. And if you go to the next um slide, there is a picture of uh Needm Street. So this is the second to last house on Needm Street. And I just want to point out the um the um hedge or the um the trees kind of buffering um the
neighborhood from Endicott Street and then beyond Endicott Street would be our property. One more slide. This is the end of Needam Street. This is again across the street of Endicott uh next to the Crane River. Um and you can see that the vegetated buffer
extends all the way down. Um to the east is uh this is taken from the property basically where we're proposing the the the proposed building. Uh looking down Apple into the um residential neighborhood u but there's a buffer
between our property and the residential neighborhood as you can see to the right. Um, this is looking straight down Appleton Road to that um uh uh first house that on the corner. Endicott Street is uh all the way to the left.
One more slide. If you continue down Apple, directly across from our property is a parking lot within the um within the vegetated woodland u separating um Appleton, this piece of Appleton in the in the
neighborhood. Um, as you can see, it's a pretty thick um, buffer between the residential zone and our zone. Continuing. Next slide, please. Yeah. So, this is just the MA uh, GIS map. Um, to the west
is um, first there's about 97 ft of uh, abandoned railroad owned by the B&M Railroad. And then uh right beyond that is the um uh I just want to get Bright View Senior Living Center. Um that that
railroad is about 97 foot wide. And then finally to the south uh you'll see um uh that's the industrial park there. Um, it's got uh two two businesses uh that are pretty far away, but it's
the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company and the Chemical Development Corporation, and those are the big buildings uh to the south. Um, so the existing site conditions, uh, I wanted to point out a few things regarding the site. Um, uh, first, if
you can go one more slide and then we'll have to go back to that actually. Okay. So, this is our site plan that we proposed, the schematic site plan. And if you see the um box located in the middle, that's their buildable area. Um if we were to meet um the required
setbacks for this property, and obviously there's no viable buildable area within the site. Um so, I wanted to point that out. Uh if you go go back up one, uh back to the previous slide. Thank you. Uh along Endicott Street, there's approximately a 25- ft slope
terrain. Um uh between the property line and the existing sidewalk with an elevation change of about 12 ft. Uh if you go two slides forward, you'll see this in section. So this is a picture kind of looking at the property on Appleton um and to the
right. that that slope there is about 25 ft if you're looking at it uh in bird's eye view and it's an elevation change of about 12 feet. Um can you go back one slide
from that? Yeah. Okay. So, the other thing I wanted to point out is Patriot Fence uh currently maintains agreements with um B&M Railroad and uh Boston Gas Company um to have uh accessory structures and storage on their properties. Um so they've maintained
that. Um so that's when you'll see our site plan some of the buildings go beyond the property lines, but that's an agreement that um Patriot Fence has with the with the property owners. And then finally, if you can go back up one more, sorry,
you can take a look at it. It's a very congested lot. It's a it's a small um it's a small property. Um they're trying to make the best out of it. Um but if you can see the vehicle circulation in there can get pretty tricky. Um so those are the things that I wanted to point
out with the existing site. Moving on to the project description. Um so the goal of this project is to construct a building that consolidates a workshop space and interior storage into a single permanent structure. Uh during the design process, we evaluated several uh
potential building locations and configurations on the site. Uh the proposal before you was ultimately selected because it best meets the operational needs uh while main minimizing the impacts on the surrounding property. specific. Uh the
proposed location you can see there shaded um keeps the entire operation on land owned by Patriot Fence. Um while the arrangements that they have with the adjacent land owners have historically worked um the
they rely on third party ownership and could be affected by future um changes. Um the second is that it provides uh sus uh sufficient space for the workshop functions and material storage. The other thing is that um we sought to
maintain safe vehicle access u from Appleton Street utilizing the existing driveway minimizing trucks or cars coming onto the site make having to do you know turning. Um and then la uh lastly it allows the
business to remain operational uh during construction. The benefits to the town um include the town and the surrounding area include much of the material storage um and work activity that currently occurs outdoors
will be moved inside uh at the proposed building. Consolidating these activities indoors will improve uh the site organization, enhance safety and reduce visual impacts associated with the outdoor storage. Project also represents an investment in
a long established local business and will um support its continued operation and growth within the town of Danvers. Um another part of the design process is we consulted with the town. I met with um Brian and Josh Morris uh to review
the concept before we submitted an application to you uh to discuss potential concerns. The meeting was really productive and um provided a lot of valuable feedback uh to shape the proposal before you tonight. Why are we here? Um, the reason we're
before the board tonight is to request a finding under section 3.11 of the Denver zoning bylaws relating to alterations uh and extensions of non-conforming structures. Uh specifically, we're seeking relief to extend uh the existing
non-conforming front setbacks as follows. Along uh Endicott Street from the existing setback of approximately 47 ft uh to a proposed setback of 6.9 ft and along Apple Street uh from an
existing setback of approximately 20.2 uh to a proposed setback of 7.1. Uh given the unique psych strengths surrounding buffers, industrial zone contacts and operational benefits of the proposal, we believe the project will be substantially more will not be more
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and the existing conditions. Um and it's consistent with the intent of section 3.11. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> Very good. Thank you, uh Mr. Nolan. Um
before we before I turn it over to the board, I guess I you you mentioned one thing I just want to get clarity on. Um you have existing uh leases with butters to have storage
containers, I guess, or uh on there. Will those go away as uh this building, proposed building, if this were approved, would those uh existing storage locations be removed? >> I believe he's going to maintain um the
the agreements that he has in place at least uh for the interim. Um the the goal is that u a majority of it will be put into the building. The building is is we've selected the building to fit within the space. um maintain what we
are considering reasonable setbacks when you also include the setback from the street that's that's there. Um so uh so we we we chose the size of the building, you know, to to work with the site as best we could. Um and then we're limited
to that box in terms of what he can store. So there's going to be a significant amount of it, a significant amount of it, and all of it will be repa all the the storage that is closest to the street, closest to the neighborhoods, that will be replaced with a indoor building. So um I would
argue that where it's most important that is going to be removed. So okay, hopefully that answers the question. >> Yeah. All right. Uh >> that is correct. Right. You're going to maintain your your lease with the um >> I'll start down there with uh Chris.
Hey, Bill. >> Hey. >> Two double the two double doors. Are those facing Appleton Street? >> Yes. >> Okay. And how about any water, sewer, anything going into the building? >> Yeah, it's a great question. So, we didn't include that and and we can go through the actual plans. I I they're so
simple that I kind of bypassed them. Um we're not including anything and and prefer not to. Um, however, uh, I've had another project in in Reading, um, uh, a utility building for Golf Course, Metobrook, and and and the, uh, the town
required per plumbing code that there be a bathroom installed. I have a feeling that this is going to trigger that, too. Um, we uh, just as an aside, we appealed because it really wasn't necessary and and they didn't want to incur the cost
of putting it in there. Uh we we appealed to the plumbing board, they denied it, so we were forced to put it in. Um if that were the case, it would be out of our hands. >> Uh and they'll obviously be electric. >> So you do anticipate it. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if that's contingent
on you guys making a determination, I would I would put it in the um in the um >> Yeah. It wouldn't be us. It would it would be the any storm water permit or any other any other permit you would potentially need through them, but it wouldn't be something that the ZBA would
put on that there has to be a a bathroom in this building. If the building code requires it, it requires it. >> I'm all set. Thank you. >> Thanks, Chris. Uh Kenj, >> there's a uh residential um building on there, a house.
>> Yeah. So his his headquarters right now was a former residence that now they're they're used. There's no residents living there. Now it's just a headquarters for him. >> So it's just the office. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I noticed it wasn't any other residents around the >> No, it's just >> uh just just the neighborhoods that I
pointed out. >> Yeah. Behind it. >> Yeah. Apple. >> Can you fast forward to the You can just Do you guys Are you interested in seeing the floor? We can go through them. It's just a rectangle. If you just want to back up a little bit. Uh, sorry. >> Yeah, one more.
>> Yep. >> Or two more. >> Two more. >> Uh, the other way. >> And one more. So, real quickly, fastest plan you'll ever see. It's a big rectangle. >> Workshop. Mezzanine. >> Yep. Uh, just single stair going up mezzanine. The the storage the workshop
area is going to be, you know, in exactly that. Um, there's there's two doors kind of pulling in. Go to the next uh slide, please. elevations. Um, so this is, you know, taking the hill away from it and just, you know, a box as if it was built kind
of on flat land. That first upper leftand corner, that's the front elevation. Two garage doors with a small little roof um more for decoration than anything. And then um a few windows at the top. that uh upper right hand um
elevation uh is a little uh deceiving in that you won't see the bottom two/irds of that building because of the hill. You'll only see the very top of the roof and and hopefully we'll we'll get some natural light into those windows. Uh the bottom left is the rear facing
the railroad. Um uh we are proposing to put a a back door there just to allow things to come in and out. Um and uh and then the uh the facade that's facing the existing um house that's being used as
the headquarters is lower right. Um just you know there's a man door to get in and out. Uh some glass on the upper level to provide some natural light. And then lastly just kind of a before and after. This is
a computer model that we did. um and kind of superimposed the best that we could on an existing photograph that we took um a couple weeks ago. Uh to the left is existing how it how it exists and to the right would be the building
kind of superimposed on that >> and that's um Endicott Street to the right. >> Endicott is to the right up the hill. Um we're on that Appleton >> um >> Appleton kind of drive uh looking directly at the proposed building
>> and that's where the outdoor storage is contractor yard if you will. Um it would be taking the place of that. >> So is that a steel construction? >> Yeah, metal building. >> Metal building. >> Yep. >> Okay. I I have no other questions. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> Can Charles Schles.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Bill, what did we say the width of the uh B&M railroad area was? 97 ft. >> It's 96 >> 97. >> Yeah, it's 96.9 specific. >> Two things. >> Yeah. >> What if you made the building 30 by 40
and shuffled it back uh to the west into the B&M railroad area? >> Would you be more conforming in a couple of different uh setbacks? >> Maybe. But it um it's arguably you you could make that argument, but it would be putting a building on a third party
property, which we're really trying to stay away from, >> which you already have now. >> Those are somewhat temporary. We're going to be investing a lot into this building. So, we don't want to put it on a property that could potentially change the existing buildings. Um those are
those already exist. If those for property change had to come down, um he could still operate his business. We don't want to do that with a brand new building that he's putting his >> So, the agreement uh doesn't say that you can put another building encroaching that space.
>> Uh I haven't read uh the agreements uh uh with a fine tooth comb. I do do you happen to know that if you were to put another building that I mean, we really don't want to do it. So, it's kind of >> We don't want to do it, but I'm trying to get you more conforming. >> Yeah. That's not going to work for us,
though. uh we're not going to invest a building that's on multiple properties. So that would have to if there's, you know, we're open to subject suggestions, but that one I don't think is going to work for us. >> Okay. Uh no further questions. Thank you, Karine.
>> Um is this um business more of like a 7 to three or 9 to5 business? >> 7 to five. >> Okay. Um >> Bill, could for the record, can you answer or gentlemen? >> 7 to five. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
And I I this gentleman might have to um answer the next one. Uh how many people are working there because you've taken up a lot of space. Have you eliminated too many of the parking spaces for employees? >> There's actually no parking where we're proposing it. The parking is that little
uh parking lot across the street. >> Okay. >> Um you may see vehicles there from time to time like loading, but that's why we have the garage doors there is that they would be loading inside. Yeah. So the answer is no. We're not removing any parking space. >> All right. So, it doesn't impact parking. Okay. >> Nope.
>> Okay. That's all I have. >> Uh Kevin, >> so I I guess I'm just trying to uh figure out who's who. We have a quit claim deed that shows uh I believe Loretta Cooper as the owner of the
property. Am I And if that's not the current owner, I'm just trying to figure out why we have that in our packet. Um, it's tricky for us sometimes to find the quick. That might be our fault. Maybe we grabbed the wrong one.
>> Cool. >> Good gosh. >> The locus says 34. It >> It's the original owner. Yeah. So, I think we might have just grabbed an older one by accident. >> Okay. So, who's the owner of the property now? >> Keith. >> Just state the name for the record, Bill. >> Keith Oakley.
>> And And Mr. Oakley owns it personally or it's owned through you know 34 Endicott LLC. >> Introduce yourself. JKS Endicott Realy LLC is the current owner. >> Hi Keith Oak. I own Patriot Defense and JKS Realy which owns the building but
you know it's the same people. >> So we Patriot leases from JKS just as a kind of formality. >> I see. And >> did you buy Keith? >> Uh it's around 10 years ago. >> Okay. Uh, continue, Kevin. >> Sorry.
>> Um, no, I so I I did notice I think it was visible in Google Earth. I know you this this is kind of the reason for the building. You're going to clean it all up, but are there some, you know, temporary storage containers like ISO kind of containers out there in the in the lot now? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, are you >> on the lease side, >> are you generally aware that Danver has a bylaw specifically about those kinds of containers and there you can only have them for so many months of the year? And I again I know >> well not not industrial though. >> No >> no it's still 6 months. Yeah >> it is still 6 months. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So anyway uh to make you aware Danver has a bylaw about those containers. I understand that what we're doing here is to maybe alleviate all that. But you know just just know that you know you
if that weren't corrected if the board were to approve this and that still were not corrected. >> We can work with the Mr. M. Mr. You may see Mr. Zakali again. >> Uh, duly noted. >> Additional questions? Yeah. >> So, on that thread, uh, Bill, would you
take a condition to be sure that, uh, situations rectified prior to permit? Uh, how Let me ask it another way. How long's the container been on site? Sounds like forever. >> A year. >> A year. >> Yeah. So, it's in violation, right?
>> Okay. >> It's only six months. Um, speaking of violations though, cuz I've seen from time to time uh the flag banner signs hanging up there, which also are not allowed. I see they're not up now currently. I don't know if the
enforcement officer ever got to the point of issuing a letter, but um they aren't allowed by our bylaws. I noticed there is a stand for one still on site, so that says to me it probably comes up and goes down. But I just want to also
point that out. And then there's signage on the fence fences. And I'll go to the building um director, sorry, planning director on this. I don't believe that's allowed either. >> I mean, it counts to I mean, it is allowed, but it's count toward it is counted towards their allotted signage.
>> Yeah. And I think I see you have a quantity of three of them right now that are rather large. Correct. On the fences. >> Yeah. Go ahead. And if you could into the into the microphone so we can hear you. >> Yeah. This was our 30th anniversary and the 250th anniversary. So we're doing like some combined signs. So that's why
we're having some extra signage. >> Yeah. But they're not permitted. >> Okay. >> So they'd have to come down. >> Okay. >> Or get a variance to add them. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um so with that said, uh my questions around this proposed building.
Did we consider um you know something slightly smaller or would we consider something slightly smaller to maybe help with that setback a little? >> Which setback? >> The 6.9 >> the end of cut street one.
>> Yeah. I I realized you're back 25 ft. >> Yeah. >> Um but >> so there >> I guess just elaborate, have you you know you got a 30 by 60 here. Is there any other sizes that were considered? >> Uh yeah, sure. Certainly the different locations, different sizes. Um, we have
considered that the 30 is a pretty standard metal building size, especially with the two doors, um, to allow the trucks to pull in, load up, and then pull back out. Um, so, um, we were careful in in selecting an appropriate what we thought was an appropriate size.
Um, again counting the fact that it's down 12 feet from the from the Endicott Street and with a pretty sizable buffer there uh which would which takes the which takes the separation from Endicott Street um which is you know very busy
street um to the proposed building um to be about 34 ft. >> Okay. Um I think that's all I had. It is a sloped roof. Correct. And I saw a height of 29 feet.
Is that correct? >> Yeah. 29. >> 29 ft is the height and it's a slope to roof. >> Yes. >> And that's to the midpoint. >> Yes. >> Very good. What's the overall height? >> Uh >> uh. It's 20. That is the overall height. >> 29 ft is the height.
>> That's not to the mid. Okay. Um, I don't think I have any additional questions. I'm not sure you answered those. So, a smaller building could be on the table or this is really what you >> I mean, this is what we're asking for. >> Hey, I get the 30 width. Is there any
chance of reducing the 60? >> I said 30 by 40. >> Yeah. Or maybe somewhere in between. >> Could you get 27 and a half over here? >> Yeah. So, the space is being used for basically a contractor yard right now. So, So you're just replacing that space.
>> And the smaller we make this, the less stuff we can put in there, the less stuff, you know, more which means more stuff outside. So I I think it's in the, you know, if I can plately urge the board to consider the best use of the space for the town as well as us. Um I
think the design that we have is is a strikes a good balance. We we've done a lot of vetting um internally as a team, but also with the town as well, too. So I'm not I'm not trying to be difficult. >> Yeah. Got it. Um, all right. Board members, uh, any additional questions
before I go out for the public? Yeah, Kevin, go ahead. >> So, is there and I know that I probably have the the built right now here somewhere, but is there an existing building in that footprint right now? >> No, no, >> no. It's just a contract. >> So, I guess I'm I'm trying to understand your request for a finding under section
>> uh 3.11. >> So, here this is a weird Let me go back to that because of this is in the Danversport industrial zone. >> Okay. The setbacks are like 50 feet, 75 feet, right? That type of thing. So here, look the
>> you can't even tell that this is the box. So that that long rectangle and you see that that's the development area >> inside of there. So any everything is a find. So therefore, they're already too close. >> Well, no, no, no. But the section
they've applied for a finding under is for non-conforming structures. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, just follow me for a second here. >> This is a new structure. >> This is a new structure. There is not a non-conforming structure that you're requesting to alter, change, or extend. This is a new structure. So, I like I'm
not saying that there's no relief that this applicant could possibly get, but they haven't applied under the correct uh hold on. they haven't applied under the correct section, which means we're probably not applying the correct test because because although the applicant
could request relief from this board to build this structure, I have a sneaking suspicion that what they need is a variance, not a finding, and this is a completely incorrect uh application. >> What are your thoughts on that, Mr. Bill? >> The fact that the building is I mean, I
don't know if we can play games and connect the building and then it's connected. I mean that that's kind of where I was where I so the fact that there is an existing building that is uh well the the existing building is is is
encroaching on every setback at the moment. the existing building number 34. It's encroaching on every setback except for the rear I guess. Um, you know, it's possible maybe we need to think about this. Maybe maybe it is a
continuence. Uh, but you know, I'm only second guessing myself here, but I don't know what the relief would be. I I don't I don't know if this is a a variance because that can only be when there is no nonconformity. So, so, so I I understand, but it's not
it's up to the I think it's up to the board to grant relief or not based on what is asked for. >> Correct. >> Right. So, >> correct. >> I to me like I I don't understand why this paragraph applies because there's we're not talking about a existing non-conforming structure.
>> I didn't see it that way, but I I can see that this is worthy of of maybe a little more study. >> Yeah. I think what you're saying, Kevin, is this you feel this is more in the variance request versus the binding? It could be. It could be. I think he's
saying >> it could be. What I'm saying is the request that as it's presented isn't appropriate. Like I don't I don't see how the board could grant the relief requested because it's not >> it's not an existing non-conforming structure. It's a brand new structure.
>> Yeah, I tend to lean uh towards that as well. But uh let's keep chugging along here. Um, board members, additional questions before I go out to the public. Yeah, Chris, >> this is probably pretty easy. The trees
that are along Endicott right now. Yeah. >> Are those going to stay? >> Correct. They will. >> So, I mean, you really won't see much of this building this time of year anyways. >> No. >> Thank you. >> Very good. >> Uh, I will go out to the public. We're
here on uh 34 and Yes. Yes, sir. Good evening. I'm Bill McKenzie, precinct 3, town meeting member. This is in my precinct. I think this would be an
addition to make it look nicer and better in that property. I've dealt with the company a few times myself. Very professional. I think what he's trying to do is make it more professional for his workers, safer, and a lot easier for
them to make their product for the people in Davis. >> So, you'd be in favor of this? >> Absolutely. >> And And do you think it's a variance or a finding? >> That is kind of gray. >> That's up to us. >> Well, at first I thought I heard the thing like, "All right, they're going to tear down the house when I first looked
into this and I said, "No, now I can see what they're doing." And I don't know. It's up to you guys how you feel. You can you can see where we're at, right? So, we would look at a finding as if they were modifying that house. I >> Yeah, like if they're going to put >> they're not modifying the house, they're adding a whole new structure. So,
>> if they want to put a window in the house of >> I that's up to you guys. >> Yeah, >> I've I've seen gray areas before. I've seen seen a lot in D. >> You're not a director of butter, correct? >> No. >> No. >> No.
>> Okay. Anything else? Any other comments? >> That's it. >> Very good. Thank you. Uh, anyone else? Well, board members, before we uh deliberate, we could continue this, we could go back to the drawing board a
little bit here um and maybe go a little deeper. I I I definitely get Kevin's argument. >> I I would say that you should not vote for something that you don't think is going to do the job. >> Yeah. I think >> so. I would I >> You understand where we're at with this,
Mr. Nolan? >> Yes. Yeah, because I agree with Kevin. I mean, if we were modifying the existing building, you know, a pre-existing nonconformity and we're increasing that non-conformity, >> the fact that it's detached. Can I ask the board a question and maybe Sure.
>> Um, Brian, a question through the board is um if this was attached to the building in the way >> I think that there's no doubt. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think you'd have a better chance at a finding than you would a variance. We're just talking about what is the application. If the thing is attached to
there's no doubt it's a finding. >> If you're applying on a 311, >> right? Then if it's uh attached via a breezeway or something, >> we'd like a continuence. >> They're going to draw up a So you're going to modify this. Save you guys some
time. We'll continue this till uh June June 22nd. >> Does that work? Is that enough time? >> Can you get plans in a week? >> We would need it uh the Tuesday prior to the week from now. Yeah. >> Do you have room for us? >> Well, may I mean
>> Yeah, it's right. So, we only had one meeting in May. We only have one meeting in July. If you look on our board in our in the office, we we have a lot for the next two or three months. And that's just the way it's going to be. So, >> okay. >> We have a lot. So, that's it. >> You want to hear some comments
beforehand just so we can make sure we get all this right away? >> Definitely. >> Uh Chris, I started down there with you. >> As long as you go easy on me, though. I like that you're keeping the trees and I do like the elevation, but I'll I'll save my comments to the end. Uh, go ahead, Chris. >> I'm all set. Thank you.
>> No comments. C can't >> just comments that they may >> just back to that. I mean on So, is it the property or the building because existing non-compliance on the property? So I mean but they have to be So I mean there is So are we going is it all is it
mutually exclusive the building to the property or is it because I mean it's the property is existing >> the B we don't have to get into the to the details at this point but basically they talks about non-conforming structures and non-conforming properties.
>> There is a gray there is a gray area. I'm going to make that gray area black or white by next time. But I have a feeling that either way they're going to have, hey, if you guys feel that this is a finding, I'm going to give you this plan and if you guys feel it's not a finding, I'll come back in several, you
know, I'll come back for the next time to do a variance. It sounds like that's where we're at. >> That makes sense. >> Yep. >> But I will I will make it much more clear. I wasn't thinking about it through this lens. So I made a mistake and Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, so put it this way. it. I think it's too big. First of all, um if it was a finding and we were, you know, somehow attached, I'd probably be a yes. If it
was this way as a variance, I'd be a no. >> Okay. >> So, that's information. >> Um I I actually like the fact that you're taking everything that's outside and putting it in somewhere. I'm not a huge fan of these contractor yards. So,
if we can eliminate it, I'm on board for that. So, that's my comment. >> My comment before Kevin doesn't get to comment. Good catch. Um, >> yes. >> And Phil, I I think if this were to be connected somehow to the existing
building, I would hope maybe that comes with a slight reduction in the size of the building. But I like Ken, uh, I think if this was a straight variance, I think I would like to see maybe slightly smaller, not in width, but
maybe in length, 50 ft, something like that. You do the breezeway, maybe that can be also utilized in some way to make up that difference. I don't know. But, uh, that's just my opinion. So, with
that said, uh um we're going to continue this. I'm going to ask for a motion to continue this to June 22nd. And um we'll get updated plans and direction from our planning director on whether this is going to have to be a variance and
readvertised or we're going to stick with this finding. And here's the modified plan. But we're all on the same page. >> I'm sorry. I uh so the what you're going to decide is if the current proposal >> I'm going to re I'm going to reassess the application for whether or not this
is the correct relief that you apply for for the for the ex the um proposed building. >> So as submitted and then if you determine that as submitted it requires a variance then >> I'll it I'll make it clear to you and the board >> continuence. Okay. >> Yep. Okay. Great. And then we we would
say we would then at that point we would have to deny the finding if we felt that you wanted to move forward with that application and only that application as a detached building. We would say that we can't give you this relief. You're denied for the essentially the wrong application and then we're just
essentially 3 months behind. >> Yeah. And I'm trying to avoid that um for for the client's sake. Um so let me ask you a question. If uh assuming that we are going to find the current proposal is going to require a variance
for the the um situation that um >> Okay. Assuming that Yeah. >> Yeah. Then um and we do a connected building. Um does that require a resubmission revert? >> No. If you're giving revised plans to to to get the relief you need? There's nothing
wrong with that. If you're going to go through the finding, you're going to attach the building with some type of breezeway or some other design element. You don't need to re-vertise. You can just come give me your plans in a week and we're ready to rock. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Make sense? >> Yep. >> Good. Uh board members, if I could get a
motion to continue this to June 22nd. >> I make a motion we continue 34 Endicott Street Dock at 26-5140 to our June 22nd meeting. >> I second. >> I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor?
>> I opposed. Very good. We'll see you on the 22nd and please uh plans ahead of time. >> Yep. Thank you. >> You got it. Uh and with that said, board members, unless you got anything, prior, >> uh no, no, no, no. Uh nothing to say tonight. >> And uh we'll uh somebody make a motion
to uh adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Um and a second. >> Second. Second. >> All in favor? I. Good night. >> Good night, Dress. >> Good night.