All set. >> Yes. Good. >> Ready to go. >> Uh good evening everyone and uh welcome to this evening's uh Damas zoning board of appeals. We are now in session. I I would ask that um if you could please silence any uh mobile devices you have
or set them to vibrate so we are not um interrupted. I'm going to start by uh introducing our board members down to our my right is uh one of our altit Ken Scholes myself. John Ber is the chair. Uh to my left uh to your stage
left is uh Ken Javvernin. uh Chris Dembowski and our other alternate uh Becky Kilbornne again coming back. Thank you, Becky. Um uh and from our uh planning department is our uh planning director, Mr. Brian Zakelli. Um I'm going to just take a couple minutes for
those who are not here on a regular basis to explain our process. Uh our clerk will read your case and once that case is called, we ask that you go up to the podium if uh you're here to present. uh tell the board what it is you'd like
to do and uh at that point we will turn it back over to the uh zoning board for questions. After the questions period, uh I will open it up for public questions or comment. Again, everything through the chair, please. And um at that point, we would close the public
hearing uh portion uh the public comment portion and uh we will uh go and deliberate in front of you in an open meeting setting here. Um, and at that point, we'll uh, you know, tell you what your options are, uh, based on how you
hear our deliberations going and and how the vote is going in your case. Uh, board members, in this instance tonight, we uh, we don't have minutes to accept, so we're going to get right into this. We are going to jump in the agenda and um, Mr. Clerk, I believe we're going to go with the 153 Andover Street to start.
>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, first case is 153 Andover Street. This is route 114A zone. Uh request a finding under section 10 off streetet parking standards 1 and two to allow for reduction in the required parking spaces
for outdoor storage. Um additionally the applicant requests a special permit under section 30 for retail sales in display on site that do not meet uh the performance standards. The request is made by Lowe's Home Centers LLC care of
CESO Inc. talk at 26-5142. >> And uh uh I will go out to our planning director, Brian, if just a quick uh blur maybe here on we're looking to continue this. Correct. >> Um yes, in the middle of uh reviewing this application, we realized that
although they had our proposed condition, they did not explain the existing condition as well as we as I'd like. So I wanted them to make a plan showing the existing and the proposed on uh showing what is actually changing in terms of that outdoor sales and display. They said that sounds fine. We request
to continue based on your uh feedback. Uh we will meet you on the 727 meeting. >> Okay. So they've asked for the 27th and um as I mentioned um I [clears throat] don't believe any of the board members got any of the prior decisions at that address. So if we could just get that.
So there's there's about 17 decisions at that address due to the con the it's a it's a condo. So it's not just Lowe's. There are several other properties there, but there's only two that are pertinent to this and those will be in everyone's packet. >> Okay. And that'll go on the online file. Correct. >> For the 27th of July. All right. Uh if I
could get a motion to continue this to July 27th. >> Um I make a motion to continue the application for 153 Andover Street until July 27th. um hearing. >> Can I get a second, please? >> Second.
>> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Very good. And uh as mentioned prior, um our next case, there's actually three of the members here that have to recuse themselves. Uh myself, uh our clerk, Ken [clears throat] Scholes, and Karine
Doherty. Uh and in our absence, uh Becky will chair this case uh of 8 Fairview Street, and uh Chris Dembowski will operate as clerk. I am going to move. >> Yeah. [clears throat]
>> Brian, while we have a moment, you just microphone closer. Thank you. >> All right. Oh, I don't need all that. Thanks. Okay. I I know we have a number of neighbors here and um so I'm just going to repeat uh what John said. Um we're
going to have a presentation of uh by the person the applicant who submitted this um application. Uh then we will go to the board uh for questions of the applicant. Um [clears throat] then after
that I will go to the audience to anyone who's here from the neighborhood or who wants to speak regarding this application and then we'll go back to the board for deliberation. So just so you have a little bit of an idea what we're going to do. Um so um who is here?
>> And we need to read in the case. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Our first continued case tonight is 8 Fair View Street located in the R3 district, map 30, lot 24. Request a variance under section 7, table two, table of dimensional requirements to permit the
construction of a single family home on a 10,000t 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 Fairview Street LLC care of Jason A. Panos Esquire docket 26-5136. >> Madam Madam Chair, if I could just absolutely >> ask a question of you or make a make a suggestion if we could take the appeal
first. uh depending on how that goes, it may make the variance irrelevant or or or moot or or or if you wanted to do them both at the same time, but they are somewhat separate issues with separate arguments and
justifications and and and rationale. And I I don't know if >> uh feel about that. >> Um for the record, my name is Jason Panos, practicing law at 246 Andover Street, Peodyy, Massachusetts. My plan tonight through the chair was to
go through the entire presentation, hit all of the issues, and I fully expect that if you are prepared to vote tonight, um, that you will bifurcate the two requests for relief. So, how you order that,
>> you're prepared and you can go ahead with your presentation the way you prepared it. That's fine. >> Excellent. >> Yes. >> Are you ready? Yes, we're ready. >> Excellent. Thank you. So, >> our ears are open. >> Buckle your seat belts. Um, so again,
for the record, my name is Jason Panos, practicing law at 246 Andover Street. I represent the petitioner. Good evening. Uh, the petitioner is 8 Fair View Street LLC and they're represented by uh
Christopher Eaku. Pardon me, Chris. Uh, of seven Greenleaf uh, Drive, Danvers, and Andy [music] Row at 11 Avon Street, Melrose. Uh, and as I indicated, they are here tonight. Uh,
some housekeeping issues. I sent a supplemental memorandum uh to planning yesterday um which got circulated uh with some additional support not really changing anything we requested in
the initial application but giving you additional support for our position tonight and I'll do the best I can to unpackage that for you um because there are a lot of facts and circumstances that um that I'm going to do the best I
can to to clarify and synthesize and simplify to the extent uh they can be simplified. And really what we have here is an unfortunate set of circumstances. And
it's not my goal from the outset to embarrass or criticize a process. I just want to uh state the set of facts that presupposed why we're here tonight and hopefully ask for the assistance well
not hopefully I will ask for the assistance of the board to kind of rectify it. Um to give you a little property background, uh the property at 8 Fair View Street predates zoning adopted in June on June 19th, 1946.
And it is comprised of lots 72 7374 and 76 on an 1897 plan. Um >> 72 73 74. >> Hold. I'm sorry. >> Please don't interrupt him. Thank you. Thank you.
>> So um 8 fair view is comprised of 72 73 74 and 75 um referenced on the plan of land from 1897. The whole neighborhood is comprised of
parcels from that 1897 plan. And um even today if anyone were to uh convey any parcels, convey their house, sell their house to another person, the
deed reference would be according to that plan. By and large, there was a plan for property across the street that combined certain parcels. That is an exception. However, um that
1897 plan is the predominant plan that describes all of the lots in that most of the lots in that neighborhood. The property is a 10,000 square ft vacant corner lot which has frontage on both Burn Street at 100 ft and Fair View
Street also 100 ft. The property is bounded by both uh Burn Street to its west, Fair View Street to its south. the property at two Burn Street to its north and the property at Six Fair View Street to its east. Um, and I've given you, by
the way, that plan in the materials, um, if you care to follow along. The property is currently located in the town's residential three zoning district which allows by right among other things use of the property as a single family
dwelling and in fact all of the houses in that neighborhood are single family dwelling houses. Uh the lots depicted on that 1897 plan were lawfully created when it was recorded at the registry and predate as
I indicated the adoption of zoning in 1946. Uh, and as I indicated, that plan remains the reference plan for almost all of the lots in the neighborhood. Notably, the 1897 plan is the most recent plan of record depicting the
property and those at two Burn Street and six Verview Street. Um, and the property itself and the lots comprising these properties have not been reconfigured in any manner. Um, as I indicated, if you uh take a look at the
applicant's deed, it's by reference to those lots on that plan. Um, the property and those at two Burn Street and Six Fairview Street are legal, pre-existing, and non-conforming lots.
The property and the proposed development thereon is consistent with and similar to several adjacent and surrounding lots in the neighborhood being undersized with most lacking compliant frontage.
again in the R3 requiring 100 uh 30,000 square ft um and 150 ft of frontage. Most of the lots do not comply with that in including 8 fair view only to the
extent of the lot area but we do have the adequate frontage. Some brief contextual background. Why are we here? Uh, in January of 2025, the prior property owners, Michael Dargan and
Katherine Dargan, sought determination by the town zoning enforcement officer that the property was buildable. Um, on January 31st, 2025, Brian Cassidy, the town's planning technician, in an email concluded that
the property was a conforming lot when zoning was first adopted in 1946. Based on those facts, he indicated, and I provided you with his email, um, the property is a pre-existing non-conforming lot and is buildable.
which conclusion and determination is confirmed by uh Mr. Zakelli uh in a subsequent email of February 4th, 2025. And I gave you that email. On February 5th, the Darens arranged with
uh Mr. Zakelli to have the assessor designation of the property changed from non-buildable to buildable, which is accomplished and I believe is the case today. The assessor still reflects this property as buildable. Based on this determination and change
in assessment status concluding that the uh lot is legal pre-existing and non-conforming, the applicant purchases the property on November 20th uh 2025 last year, several months after all of
these determinations had taken place um for the sum of $325,000 using their own personal savings. On March 5th, uh, 2026 this year, Mr.
Cassidy transmits a letter based on a telephone call from an applicant, uh, from an owner at the adjacent Six Fear View Street to Dargan's attorney. So, Mr. Cassidy sends a letter to Dargan's attorney. Darens have been out of the
picture for several months at this point. uh and basically indicated and I provided you with that letter that the zoning determination was deter was uh suspended without any notice to the
current owner and applicant. Uh even though the Darens as I indicated did not own the property for at least 4 months, the damage was already done. They already purchased the property. They already spent the money. the uh
zoning determination at least through Mr. Cassidy was reversed but note too the retraction came from Mr. capacity who is not the zoning enforcement officer. This made its way to the building inspector. So on March 26th,
2026 and this is all based on the record as I called it together. Um the applicant through Andy Row again without any knowledge that the zoning determination was suspended submits an application for a building permit to construct a single family
house on the property with the building plans that I've given you. um compliant with the zoning determination and but for lot area compliant with all of the other zoning bylaw dimensional requirements. So but for the lot area the house proposed
meets all the setbacks. It meets the front ditch meets the height um and so forth. The building commissioner confirms this denial in his letter of March 27th uh based on alleged merger of the property with that of Six Fairview Street. And in
doing so, the property is rendered worthless really uh risking the applicant's family savings used to purchase the property. And on April 24th, um that's when we filed the appeal.
So the there were two requests for relief. An appeal to overturn the building commissioner's denial of the building permit, and I'll go through why we believe that's justified. And in the alternative uh grant the variance uh grant the variance application to allow for
construction of a single family dwelling house for the undersized lot at 8 Fair View Street. Um so the first basis for the appeal uh of the
building commissioner's determination uh basically the building commissioner lacks jurisdiction to deny the building permit application uh based on the record that we've been able to call. uh pursuant to the zoning bylaws, the zoning administrator shall have the full
duty of interpretation of the zoning bylaw and the zoning administrator's decision shall control. Uh as as I'm sure you know, this is section 3A of the zoning bylaw. In this case, the zoning administrator's zoning enforcement
officer is Mr. Skelly, not the building commissioner or Mr. Cassidy upon whose letter the building commissioner's denial is based. So on the outset, we believe that the building commissioner lacked jurisdiction.
That's a procedural argument. More substantively, we believe that the property is exempted from the current dimensional provisions of the zoning bylaw and is legal, pre-existing, and non-conforming. Um, the merger doctrine
as applied by the Massachusetts courts does not exist in the zoning bylaws. It's not a it's not a legal construct that's even addressed in your zoning bylaws. And believe me, I looked uh the uh uh common ownership of lots, merger,
uh those words are not used in your zoning bylaw. uh they may be implied but not used. Um, so what is pretty clear is zoning bylaw
section 3 general provisions for lawfully created situations which state and I'm going to summarize a lot, a building, a structure, a whole host of things, but I'm just going to focus on the lot because that's what we're
dealing with here. or any other activity is considered to be lawfully created with respect to zoning requirements if it was in existence on June 19th, 1946 when the zoning bylaw was originally
adopted or subsequent to June 19th, and I'm quoting directly from the bylaw. It was permitted by the zoning bylaw either by right or by special permit and was in existence prior to the effective date of any amendment which rendered it non-conforming. The property is comprised of lots
created by virtue of that 1897 plan recorded with the registry pre pating zoning adopted by the town in 1946. Obviously, uh, pursuant to which all lots, streets, and ways are legally laid out,
the zoning bylaws exemption affords greater protections than that afforded pursuant to general laws chapter 48, section 6, uh, notwithstanding, uh, paragraph 4 rather, notwithstanding
the provisions of the same section, paragraph 5, which I'm going to talk about in in a [music] moment, moment. Um, why is that important? General laws section 48 section 6
speaks directly to merger for single and uh, two family homes. Uh, you're allowed to build those. They're grandfathered so-called. Uh, unless you have lot merger. It
expressly says that in 4A section 6. It does not say that in your zoning bylaw. Okay. And that's really that distinction is really important. Um
and case law is pretty clear that towns are allowed to adopt more liberal so-called grandfathering pro provisions. and when they do um they're observed.
So while the statute applies current zoning requirements to lots merge for zoning purposes, the zoning bylaws clearly contain no such preclusion. Accordingly, the more liberal zoning bylaw provision exempt the property from
the application of the current zoning bylaw requirements. And as I indicated, it is long held that a municipal zoning code's more generous grandfather provisions can indeed trump the grandfather protections of 48 section 6 because the municipality may
in the first instance provide for smaller lots in certain districts or in certain prescribed circumstances. What are the prescribed circumstances here? Um, they're pretty simple. that the property comprised of the lots created
on that recorded 1897 plan is according to the zoning bylaws a lot lawfully created um with regard to zoning in existence prior to June 19th, 1946 when the zoning
bylaw was originally adopted. [clears throat] Um, but then if you read on the bylaws, you'll say, "But wait, there's a provision regarding non-conforming lots directly addressing potentially this situation."
Um, and that's in section 3, general provisions 14, non-conforming lots. Well, [clears throat] I read through that really carefully, several times in fact, and that doesn't really affect the outcome. It doesn't change the
conclusion. I just gave you uh as required by the nonconforming lots provision and you could read it for yourself. Uh the property nor those at two burn street or six fair view street were not subdivided or otherwise changed
in area or shape. Um they were not changed. Remember I told you that the lots referred to on that plan are the lots that exist today when you describe them on a title deed. They're the same lots. They haven't been subdivided. They
haven't been reconfigured. They haven't been mashed together except for those two lots across the street which we're not talking about tonight. Um that really has nothing to do with anything with regard to this um with regard to
this matter in front of you. So they weren't subdivided or otherwise changed in area or shape. The they weren't changed in area or shape so as to increase the degree of non-compliance. They weren't changed to be closer, in
other words, an affirmative act to change them to be made closer in compliance, but one once brought closer into compliance with the zoning bylaws, you can't go back. None of those circumstances existed as contemplated in
your bylaw. The aforementioned scenarios contemplated in the bylaw non-conforming lots requirement require a reconf pardon me reconfiguration of the lots in such a manner as to render the plan
obsolete. In other words, that 1897 plan would have to be replaced with another plan of record that changed somehow the configuration of the lots. That didn't happen. Um,
i.e. a subsequent post 1897 recorded plan changing lot sizes, dimensions, and further subdivisions or consolidations. That didn't happen. The lots comprising the property and those at two Burn Street and Six Fair View are the same as those referenced on
that 1897 plan. I'm driving that home because it's an important fact uh and are referred to as uh such through the most recent conveyances and deeds out to the applicant which continue to refer to
those plan lots to describe the land. Uh once again, the cited provisions contain no reference to the concept of merged lots or parcels of land subsequently placed in common common ownership. Unlike the provisions of
general laws chapter 48 section 6 paragraph 4 which directly clearly and expressly state exactly that merged lots do not get the grandfather protection. Your bylaws contain no such language.
The property is not subject to the current dimensional lot area provisions prescribed in the zoning bylaws requiring 30,000 square feet where 10,000 square feet is pro provided. Uh, pardon me because the property is a
legal pre-existing non-conforming lot allowing for the issuance of a building permit and subsequent construction of the proposed dwelling house shown on the building plans as filed and provided to you. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
proposed development as I indicated shown on the building plan submitted with the application is compliant with the dimensional requirements of the zoning bylaws in all other respects. There's another provision that is a little more limiting that is a part
of 48 section 6. So remember I said notwithstanding uh paragraph 5 of 4DA section 6 you know we have all of this uh analysis that talks about for paragraph 4 the
preceding paragraph well there's a new exemption to paragraph uh uh to paragraph 4 and it was just added in 2024 uh under the affordable homes act and this I will read to because it's fairly
straightforward and short. That adjacent lots under common ownership shall not be treated as a single lot for local zoning purposes if at the time of recording or endorsement. That's the operative time.
The lots conformed to then existing requirements of area, frontage, width, yard or depth where each such lot has not less than 10,000 square ft of area and 75 ft of frontage and are
located in a zoning district that allows for single family residential use. Here's the catch. Any single family residential structure constructed on said lot shall not exceed 1,850 square ft of heated livable area. That excludes
attics. It excludes uh basement if they're not heated. Uh not finishable garages. I I have clients who even count exterior wall clapboarding and get 50 to 75 square
feet out of that when they do their deductions. So an 1,850 ft heated livable area house would translate probably to a 23 2400 ft house by the end of the day. You know, within a
footprint has to contain no less than three bedrooms and shall not be used as a seasonal uh home or short-term rental. I don't want to concede my argument in the first instance of why your bylaws
allow this particular property to be pre-existing and non-conforming. But this is this is an option for you to consider as you go through all of this. Um, this newly added statutory provision
expressly overrides the common law doctrine of merger uh as applied by the building commissioner and as interpreted by the Massachusetts courts and applies to the property. Specifically, the provision was enacted to and expressly precludes
merger of lots alleged to have occurred between 8 Fair View Street and 6 Fairview Street, resulting in the building commissioner's denial of the applicant's building permit application. Here the operative time frame as I indicated
uh as a measure of compliance with the zoning status is clearly the time of plan recording and endorsement. The property is comprised of plan lots created in 1997 uh predating the adoption of 1946 zoning
and it is by virtue of that compliant with then the then applicable zoning requirements at the time of recording. You didn't have zoning in 1897. The lots were created in 1897. They were compliant with zoning.
That's basically the the conclusion. The property meets and exceeds all of the criteria established in the new statute. It's 10,000 square ft. It has 200 200 lineal feet of frontage where 75 ft is required. The property is located
in the R3 district with which expressly allows for a single family residential use. Uh the property clearly and expressly complies with both the spirit and intent of 48 section 6 uh paragraph 5 allowing
for construction there of a residential 3-bedroom dwelling house of no greater than 1,850 ft of heated livable space. What and precludes use of that home as a seasonal home or short-term rental.
Uh so in this case there was lot merger. It happened before 1946. You have four lots that combined into one to create 10,000 square ft. And now
with the addition of this provision, this new statute from 2024, it steps in to prevent that [clears throat] law from being denied constructibility. Does that make sense? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So that is the application of um the three factors we believe justify the overturning of the building
commissioner's denial of the building permit. So jurisdiction process he didn't have jurisdiction. uh he overturned it based on not the zoning uh enforcement officers determination but one made by someone in planning. Uh but
more substantatively your own zoning bylaws would uh support the notion that this is this is a legal pre-existing non-conforming lot. And on top of that, the new provision of 4DA section six
would prevent merger from occurring. that would prevent the construction of a house there for 1,850 livable uh square feet, three bedrooms with the uh restrictions that I discussed.
Uh alternatively, uh we believe variance factors for Matt and hardship justifies the grant of a variance. uh if you want to go there. Uh the topography of the property justifies the issuance of the requested variant.
Specifically, there's a 13t grade change from the easterly bound of the property at 6 Fair View Street to the southwesterly bound at uh at Burn Street. Um this grade change results in a limited area pursuant to which the
property can be developed and is specific to that property and does not generally affect the zoning district in which it is located. Uh additionally the lot area of the property is deficient in accordance with the zoning bylaw resulting from the various conveyances.
So I give you in the most recent memo a rundown of how these lots came to be. And the fellow's name who did this is David Blair and his wife Emma. So Blair
bought up all these lots through a period of I don't know 20 years or so. And he played Tetris with the lots. He he bought them, sold some off, kept some. Um the house itself >> probably don't need all that history.
>> Yeah, exactly. But you have it. You have it in front of you if you want it. Um so all of that basically resulted in the size and shape of the lots as they are today. So the lot behind us, for example, at Two Burns
is 10,000 square feet. It's almost the same exact lot as ours, uh except it has less frontage. >> Yeah. Um uh and that too applying the the arguments would have been non-buildable
because the uh zoning changed by the time that house was built in 1960. Zoning changed in 1957. I'm now an expert on the history of Tanver zoning. changed in 1957 uh from 8,000 square feet where which
was required in in in that zone residential agricultural agricultural residential rather uh to 18,000 square ft. So that too, they're all pre-existing. The point is non-conforming. Um,
and so the lot shape as a function of lot the lot area as a function of lot shape is deficient not through anything these guys did but occurred decades ago.
um resulting in a literal a literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning uh bylaws requiring 30,000 square ft with 10,000 square ft of are provided involving a substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner
especially where the proposed development of the property complies in all other respects to the dimensional zoning bylaws and requirements. Uh so a variance can be granted because it fits within the neighborhood. It's
same exact thing as what's around us. Uh to the public good because proposed development uh at the property is consistent with other dwelling houses in the neighborhood. Uh also uh consistent with
zoning bylaw section 1.1 purpose uh which prescribes the many zoning bylaws purposes uh being uh one of them being the the uh uh careful uh development of of land and
town. Um, putting the property to a development developable use consistent with that proposed by the applicant is more desirable than leaving [clears throat] it vacant because it will provide for increased housing stock and result in higher tax revenues to the town. There is, as I indicated, no
self-imposed hardship because topographical and lot shaped circumstances pursuant to which the property pre-exist uh the applicant's ownership of it. uh the applicant had nothing to do with the topography or the lot size lot area.
[clears throat] The property became non-conforming to the requirements of the zoning bylaws well before the applicant's ownership when dating back to as early n as 1942 uh title resulted in conveyances
resulting in the deficient lot area. So this brings us back to why we're here. Uh we're asking you to overturn the building commissioner's denial of the applicant's building permit or in the alternative grant the variance
uh allowing for the proposed development on the property providing 10,000 square ft where 30,000 square feet are required. So with that uh I'm happy to entertain. I know that's a lot and I try to
>> and a lot that we've reviewed prior to this meeting. So, >> I'm sorry. >> And a lot of information that we've reviewed prior to this meeting. Good. So, yes. >> So, if you have any questions, >> what we would like to do is ask you some questions. Yes.
>> Um and uh we'll go through that um and then we'll go to the audience for any comments or questions from them and then we'll deliberate. >> Okay. Okay. >> Sure. >> So, I'm gonna start with you, Kevin. Uh >> if you would like.
>> Sure. Um yeah, uh Mr. Panos, thank you for the uh uh lengthy but thorough pres thorough presentation. Um I want to maybe just ask about uh
a couple of issues. So, your um first of all, your your first uh memo accompanying the appeal uh I think made some additional arguments um more about timeliness and and essentially saying
that that the letters from town staff constituted an appealable decision. Those decisions were not appealed within 30 days. I I haven't heard you repeat those arguments tonight. I was wondering if you if you were kind of in essence abandoning those arguments or or just didn't make the summary >> there. It didn't make the summary uh
because it's in the papers and um you've had that for several weeks now, but I'm glad you raised it. it it's a jurisdictional issue and the fact is that under uh 48 section 15
uh if the zoning enforcement officer issues a determination that causes a grievment to someone else that someone else has the right and ability to appeal that determination to you
now and they have to do so within 30 case. Now, I understand that the determination came uh through this course of emails that happened back in January, and I
understand that some people wouldn't have uh picked up on that to figure out whether or not it would have caused a grievment. But come March, early March, let's say March
1st, maybe end of February, because Mr. Cassid's letter is March 5th. So sometime before March 5th, someone certainly caught wind from six fair view called and said, "But there was lot
merger between six and eight. you you you can't render this determination because merger precludes a determination that would have allowed those lots to be buildable. Um,
no, you don't do it that way. You don't drop a dime and give someone a deed and say, "Ah, reverse your determination." No. When you find out about the determination, you appeal it. you appeal it so that
this board can have uh afford the the same open hearing process that we're going through right now to determine the facts that didn't happen. >> So I I think I understand the argument.
I guess taking >> and I'm not waving it now. >> No, no. Okay. But taking it to its next, you know, the next point in that argument, you know, that >> uh certainly staff can issue advisory opinions that don't count as as an appealable final decision. No,
>> the rule of law uh the rule basically is if there is a decision, a determination that causes agrievement to someone else, it is appealable by definition. you know, you look at and and agrievement is in the eye of the
beholder, but uh and I'll I'll make this as simple and succinct as possible. The um courts, legislature,
everybody wants housing. It's it's to uh address a housing crisis. So they've made it a heck of a lot harder to mount these cases of proving agreement. You have to now show particularized harm even before this board. Uh appeals of
building permits, appeals of zoning determinations, you have to show how you are specifically harmed by that determination. However, if you feel and there's no presumption of agrievement, there's no immediate presumption of harm like there used to be. And these are
changes that are recent. Okay. But the fact is if you feel you are agrieved, you are somehow harmed by a determination of the zoning enforcement officer, it's your responsibility to exercise and exhaust your administrative remedies,
an appeal to the zoning board of appeals before you bring this to court. And if you don't, there's an argument that you're not even allowed to appeal the building permit because you sat on your rights at a time you realized you
had them. So, does the 30-day time clock start at the time the determination was made back in February of last year? Probably not. If they How can you know? If you didn't know about it, you didn't know about it. But certainly when you did, you start counting the the days and
that that time is long gone. >> So since you you brought up section 15 of 4A. >> Yes. >> Um so >> that's going off my memory. [laughter] >> So good memory. I think you're exactly correct about the the right section. So
I guess in your >> for the appeal portion in your initial Yeah. letter. You essentially brought up the procedural issues. >> Sure. >> Um and then yesterday um sent a a supplement to to the town. Yes.
>> In which you brought up uh new substantive issues that had to do with with you know your analysis of the law, your analysis of uh the history of >> uh whatever hill it is that was on the was on the plan. Uh >> Cedar Hill, >> Cedar Hill, the history of Cedar Hill
1997. So I I guess given that the responsibility of the uh of the applicant when you're appealing is to state the like within 30 days appeal and state the grounds. I I I'm concerned that these new substantive arguments uh
although I I find them more compelling than the procedural ones. >> Um I'm concerned that are are you time limited here and that that you stated new grounds after 30 days rather than expanding upon the initial grounds that you raised. No, I was very careful in my
supplemental memo to make sure that the initial analysis remained intact and this was only to in addition to that. Uh, no, I'm not I'm not precluded um from making those arguments because
look, I know how uh thorny process can be and the board deserved more. >> Okay? And so I gave you more and I gave you a legal I gave you three legal bases. Uh the variance was always there
that was in the initial papers. But when I when I looked at the property, I mean the property topography didn't change in two weeks. >> Uh you know, and I said, you know, we have a topography issue. So that's a variance. I looked at the zoning bylaw
again and I started looking at the case law just to give you an idea of my kind of process. I looked at the case law I said wait a minute their zoning bylaw section 3 paragraph 4 is quite a bit
more liberal than what 48 section 6 affords. And so I wanted to make you aware of that um to the extent you're not. Can you do you do do you happen to have the citation that you're thinking of that for the the more liberal grandfathering of a
>> It's in your zoning bylaw. >> So So I but I I think you said that there is some case law in this that that the more liberal zoning bylaw will control over. >> It's the Marinelli case and I cite to it in my in my papers. >> Thank you. >> Yes. It's the only case I again, you
know, I was a I was a chair of a zoning board of appeals for 10 years in neighboring puberty. So, and I'm a lawyer and I should eat all of this stuff up. Well, I don't, [laughter] you know, uh, you know, the simpler I can keep it, the better. Um, we're we're
not in court. >> And I think I think this is my last one. So, so if we found >> none of the arguments that that I've been asking questions about uh you know >> to be to be prevailing but >> uh you know the the you know the merger
doctrine kind of exception that was written in in 2024 1850 ft. >> Yep. Uh, I guess what was the square footage of the house that you proposed building and can you get to 1850 if you
subtract exterior walls and things like that like you were suggesting? >> It's a great question and I address that in a footnote in my memo. Um, so that's a discussion that should happen between the applicant and the and the building inspector. And so the plans presented,
the building plans show in excess of 1,850 ft of livable area, but I don't think it went through the calculation. It had a deduction um for a couple of things, but certainly not a comprehensive list of deductions.
So I think the basement area and those building plans might have been included in the livable area, that type of thing. Certainly back to the drawing board. Uh let's do some deductions and allow that that process to flesh
out. Can they be uh tapered down? I'm sure they can be. >> Yeah, I think you know obviously like I I I'll ask this now because I I won't be able to ask you a question during the deliber deliberation portion, right? So like I I find that to be the most compelling argument for the exception
for the for the appeal, right, portion. >> So I guess >> um if I were to vote in favor of granting the appeal, it would be because of that, right? But unfortunately, if I vote in favor of granting the appeal,
I'm just voting to overturn, right, without and grant and grant it without that calculation of the 1850 square feet. So, correct. Can you can you help me square that circle? >> Yes, absolutely. Um, well, just turn the circle into a square. Um, [laughter]
pardon me. Yes. Uh, again, that's a conversation that happens between the building inspector and the applicant. So I would fully expect that uh they would go back with another revised set of plans and say okay that uh chart that
was on our building plans that showed 23 24 whatever 100 livable area well it's not really that because now the attic is no longer uh heated for example I I the building plans are provided to you or
the basement is restricted it's not heated or we didn't take out a utility area that's 500 square ft something like that. So yes, that's exactly right. >> Can go back to him with >> Okay. Right. >> And your determination tonight would
simply be no building commissioner. We don't agree with you. Um we're sending these people back to talk with you about a building permit for this. >> Okay. you know, >> and and those conditions that kind of
come with that exception, right? It can't be a short-term rental. It can't be. >> Uh it can't be a seasonal residence. How how do those conditions stay in effect for for perpetuity? Those have to get conveyed in the deeds. >> That's a great question. And yes, I believe I just did 20 lots in Ashland uh
on this very uh on this very basis. And um we're figuring this out uh right now because we are at the point where we're doing a full subdivision. Um and
we're in the process of building the streets and the ways and the storm water management system and we'll be conveying out the lots pretty soon. And we believe that either there'll be some reference to 4A section 6 paragraph 5 in the deed
four no five in the deed something like that but we haven't quite figured it out. I mean as a matter of law um the restriction is there how you and it's all over our plans by the way. >> Uh we recorded plans at the registry of
deeds 48 section 6 is all over the place on those plans. So, um I'm not sure how we'll do it, but uh we'd be happy to have fashion some kind of condition in that regard if that's where the board ended up. >> Madam Chair, that uh thank you for uh
your your patience with my large number of questions, but that's >> I hope I answered them adequately. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Okay, you're up. >> All right. Yeah. [clears throat] >> So, I'm just wondering um why wasn't this caught during um title search
>> and um when there the purchase of the property with the closing attorney and the title search? It seems like um >> it's a good question. >> There's a lot of deeds going back uh way back to the 1800s and stuff, you >> would think a structured practical pra
pragmatic uh title search would have revealed some of the issues here. So the title standard for title search is 50 years. They went back to 1966 when all of this happened. Uh after all of this
happened. So you're you're 100% right. um that this particular discrete set of issues and circumstances which were not contemplated at the time of the property conveyance or the property purchase because the property was purchased on
the basis of a determination that this was a buildable lot. So none of that was really in consideration and let's face it, it's a 10,000 foot lot. You shouldn't have to hire if you have a determination on record. Uh you have a
an assessment [snorts] change from not buildable to buildable. You shouldn't have to hire an attorney to to do to to look at this more carefully. You should be able to rely on it uh on its face. That is what happened here. >> Well,
>> so there there was that title search that went back 50 years and didn't catch any of that. >> Mhm. Um, so that's that's why >> so in 1966, was it conclusive that this was a buildable lot? >> It wasn't even a consideration. All they
were looking at was title. What happened? When was this acquired? What was the first deed out going back 50 years and do we get to our uh conveyance for value? In other words, are they interrelated deeds, you know,
among family members for zero consideration, for all the love and health in the world, or are they real deeds, right? Are they deeds for actual consideration? So, they go back uh 50 years. If 50 years isn't the
benchmark, then they go back beyond 50 years. Here, they didn't have to go back beyond 1966. That was their benchmark for this property. But they weren't looking at a zoning issue. They were looking at title. So they met the title
standard. I wasn't involved in the purchase, by the way, or the acquisition. >> But well, so the >> but they met the title standard. >> The intent of the purchase was to build on it. >> Correct. >> So based on getting the loan uh from the
bank and the bank, >> there was no loan. This was their personal family money. Well, the the closing attorney >> Yeah. >> I mean, probably had some sort of inkling that there was going to be building on this lot. >> He did.
>> He didn't. >> Oh, well, he didn't need to because there wasn't the mortgage. It was just a deed of conveyance. >> So, then no one was looking out for the best interest of >> Correct. >> Uh the seller's attorney, however,
>> had a heavy hand in this. The seller's attorney is the one who got the Ian the seller himself. They were the ones who got the determinations from the town. Keep in mind all of that happened in February.
The closing didn't happen till November. So between that period of time, you know, everybody thought we had a buildable lot based on the determinations that were rendered by the town by the zoning enforcement officer. There isn't title searches and uh
closing at and property attorneys >> in the planning office. Sure. >> I mean, so Mr. Zelli and Mr. Cassidy were doing the best they could with what they had knowledge of >> and then they found a mistake or they found an issue and then they brought it
forth. So, I mean, they they try to fix it. I mean, the timing wasn't the best, but all of it shouldn't be on them because it seems like something's lacking some due diligence or something with the the not the title search per se, but the
other piece of the pie, whether it was uh >> buildable questions. >> Um, well, I'm just sort of hung up on that. Like, how how did this get missed? Because it seems like there's something missing. >> That's a good question. Um, >> he wasn't involved in >> I I wasn't involved, but I'm not going
to duck the question. Uh, number one, it got missed by the closing attorneys because they weren't looking at it and they met their title standard, you know, for conveyances. Um, number two, there was a significant amount of back and forth and I gave it
to you in emails between the seller and the seller's attorney and the town. Now, if the town, and again, I don't want to embarrass anybody. I'm not here to do that. But if there was a question,
and there clearly was, a lot of these issues were vetted out. If you look at the correspondence I provided you, um, if there was a question, then the determination should never have been made.
>> It doesn't sound like it was concrete. When I read it, it seems very >> superficial. >> It doesn't seem like a deep dive. Like it doesn't seem a lot's going on there. It seems like it was >> You're talking about the background >> and the
sellers attorney itself. They don't seem deep enough to warrant like a like a real a study. It seems like they're just going about this is what usually happens in these circumstances without all the
information um that they didn't have all the information and then once they found out that information that that's just at first blush when I read that >> I just see that there seems like there's something that they didn't know. >> If you look at it more carefully um
there were some pretty strong conclusions drawn in those emails. um to the point where the assessment designation was changed. So, and not only was the conclusion drawn in the email,
um it was reiterated, there was a an email issued on January 31st from Mr. Cassidy, uh, which was confirmed on February 4th, 2025,
and I'm going to read it to you. Dear Mr. Dargan, this is from Brian Cassidy. Dear Mr. Dargan, sorry for the confusion. So, they had been going back and forth on this quite a bit. Okay. Brian Zeli and I reviewed the facts
today and agree that as stated in my January 31st, 2025 email to you, number one, we do not believe parcel one and parcel two. Parcel one was a parcel across the street. I'm not sure why that was ever in consideration, just to give
you context. And parcel 2 is 8 Fair View Street. Parcel one and parcel 2 ever merged since 1887. the lots 1897 really the lots were separated oh well perhaps 1887 I'm sorry I'm going to keep reading
and not interrupt myself uh since 1887 the lots were separated by Fairview Street C attached plan the plan the parcel 2 has 100 ft of frontage on Fairview Street and 100 ft of frontage on Burn Street and contains 10,000
square ft of land and number three parcel two was a conforming lot when zoning was first adopted in 1946. Minimum 8,000 square ft on 80 ft of frontage. Uh based on those facts, parcel 2 is a
pre-existing non-conforming and buildable lot. He states this conclusion. It's not a casual statement. This is this is pretty definitive. He looked at this.
He discussed it. >> I meant on the emails, but then there was after this sub after there was um other information that they >> there was a memo that was uh drafted by the Dargan's attorney back in um
back in November 5th of 2025. This was before the closing and and I provided this to you. and he lays out his argument for why uh and I'm not sure this I'm I'm not sure
why this memo came into play uh after that very definitive conclus conclusion was drawn uh but there was a memo drafted November [snorts] 5th 2025 that that provided some of the background
that [snorts] you're alluding to uh that's one rather the large paragraph, two paragraphs really, um, and talks about talks about what happened, um, and why the why the lot is pre-existing,
non-conforming. Um, look, I'm not sure I agree with the analysis in that November 5th letter. Um, and I've given you other bases other than what's in that letter, but the fact
of the matter is is there was a significant amount of back and forth that led to a concrete determination to your question. It wasn't just a casual um it wasn't just a casual conclusion. It was a concrete conclusion based on a
lot of back and forth. And if there was any trepidation, if there was any hesitation upstairs, the determination should never have been made and you should have said, you know what, we should have town council look at this. That I don't think ever happened.
And but the conclusion was made. And so these guys came along and said, "We've got a determination." And I believe these guys even personally engaged with the counter to make sure they didn't hire an attorney. That is correct. to look at this discreet issue. They relied
on the written record. >> So why does this say um unofficial property report card property record card? >> That's your record card. >> So >> from the town records. >> It's just printed off the page. That's just >> I thought All right. I didn't know if it
was [clears throat] >> Yeah, that's your record card. >> All right. That everybody has access to. >> Yeah, I'm all all set. I just uh yeah, I thought it just wasn't thoroughly handled uh beforehand, but I'm done.
>> All right. Well, thank you for your question. >> Y >> Chris, [laughter] >> where do you go? >> Um, was there ever a plot plan done on this
plot showing what they want to do with this house on this plot? Uh I believe it was provided at the time of the um >> the building permit. >> Building permit. >> However, I did provide you. Let's take a look at the date of the existing. No,
there was Yeah. See the big plan. >> There's an actual plan. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Trying to avoid opening that. >> Um >> it shows a setback compliant house. >> Okay. So, that answers my question. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's dated February
20th, 2026. So it happened, this plot plan was done after it was in preparation for the building permit. [snorts] >> So I think >> and there was probably a plot plan done for the closing uh because there was title I do know there was title
insurance purchase. I didn't mean to interrupt, but >> No, that's fine. But I was just looking to make sure there was a plot plan given to the building inspector. He actually physically saw her before he denied anything. >> Yes. Yeah. It would have been the blow up. >> I think I'm going to piggy back off
Ken's question. >> Yes. >> Is why was there not everdeed research done on this? >> Well, there was in conjunction with the closing. >> Okay. And that being said, this would have come forth that this was a 10,000
foot lot and we would have determined all this beforehand. Correct. >> Determined what exactly? >> That it wasn't buildable with what? >> Well, I'm not coming to that conclusion. I I believe it is buildable and I would
have had a difference of opinion had I been involved with the building inspector at the time. Um I believe it is buildable. I don't believe there's a merger issue. There's not a merger issue because your bylaws say there aren't there isn't a merger issue. There's not a merger issue because 48 section 6
paragraph 5 says there isn't a merger issue. Merger is preluded by the express language of your own bylaw. And if you don't like that answer, it's definitely precluded in my opinion by the express new provision of the affordable homes
act. That's the whole point of the affordable homes act is merger for local zoning purposes does not preclude construction of a single family house. So I disagree and and I'm sorry Mr. Jarvin and uh was that the premise of
your question as well that we should have caught that this wasn't a buildable lot? >> No, it's just all the back and forth from >> Yes, I got it. I I mean it just seems like this should have been ferreted out uh before before it was purchased by the
next uh >> um and had it been fared out by me anyways, I would have drawn this conclusion that I've presented to you today. So I I I do not agree that this is not a buildable law.
>> Um I'm good. The rest of mine are more comments than questions. So, I'll hold off. >> Okay. And the only the only question that I have I think most of my questions have been answered is >> going back in the records, there was a
letter from Dave Harris, who was the assistant building inspector in 2016. >> Okay. >> Saying the lot was not buildable. And um I know you weren't involved in the closing. I wonder if that came up in
your review of the documents. >> I did not see that uh letter. >> Okay. >> Um but in 2016 uh I I uh jumped ahead put put the cart
ahead of the horse. I'm not sure how big of a an expert I am on your zoning history. I'm not sure when that bylaw provision uh came into play. Okay. that that that grandfathering provision that I was alluding to, but certainly the Affordable Homes Act wasn't in play in
2016. So, um, [clears throat] >> you know, there was a point in time, the building inspector made the zoning decisions. >> Sure. >> So, it's changed since then.
>> Uh, so that that's a difference in uh the way that we handle uh this, >> right? Um but um there's a lot of I went through all the different emails and there's a lot of back and forth. It's not buildable. It's buildable. It's not buildable. It's buildable.
>> So um you know I wondered how much you looked into that. >> Um I did not see that 2016 letter. >> Okay. >> But what I did was I did do the undertake the exhaustive title uh work
that Mr. Jarvin and uh indicated took me there are tricks on the registry of deeds website where you can find this stuff that goes back to 1887 and I uh 1897 and I tracked forward basically a
lot of these deeds. A lot of it uh a lot of the information was a lot of background information that really isn't valuable here. >> Okay. Um, >> so if you if you're pretty good, um, I'd love to go to the audience if that's
>> unless you have anything else you'd like to share. I don't uh I hope I >> we might have some back and forth once we deliberate, [clears throat] but uh >> I'm happy to um >> I wait until the deliberation, but my
understanding is that they'll uh be an opportunity to understand where you're asking you any more questions, but uh I think that I have some of the same issues you do. >> Yeah. But I I think yeah I I think madame chair to
>> to address Mr. Panos's question like we >> we normally give the applicant some options. >> Yes. >> Before we before we vote. >> So so we may call you back for that. >> Okay. All right. So we now have the audience. Uh sir, would you like to
please give us your name and your address? >> I would love to. [laughter] Good evening everybody. My name is William Carson and I own 7 Fairview Street. I am what you call a town. I have been familiar with Cedar Hill since the mid1 1960s on my
last living beneficiary of that family neighborhood. >> Okay. >> And boy, what a performance. This was stark. Paul, I haven't been this insulted as a damis resident. I think >> let's be kind. >> I am being kind, madam, but let me get into my notes here. All right. Uh, I
became aware what was going on with the property on December 26th, 2025 when I happened to see a land surveyor outside my >> after it closed. >> After it closed. >> Okay. >> Okay. Such point I happened to mention it to Mrs. Smith over here. The following business day I was down here
in town hall and I began my investigation asking various questions of various personalities. So I'm going to use some very simple language here and tell you what my perception of this is. All right. So going forward here, uh the focal point here of this meeting is
denial of permit R 2672. And regarding this, we shouldn't be having this conversation as in a perfect world, this would have been dead on arrival. Okay. The sale of 8 Fairview Street was perceived to have proceeded under a cloak of subdivage complicated by
incompetence andor unprofessionalism with a conspiracy being a reasonable opinion thereof. It was like mystery. We had no idea what was going on. In my opinion, it is a blatant example of criminal like greed and naked deceit. Really, the actions of a flipper, a
property developer, whatever you want to call it. The seller of the property, Mr. Dagen, although previously informed of the property's history, and that being there was a transferred ownership from six Fair View to 9 Fairview in 1961 between family members, Airgo deeming
the property unbuildable. You know, he mentioned Mr. Grace and Mr. Blair. I knew these people. That was Uncle Dave. That was Uncle Bucky. That was Aunt Katherine. I knew these people. And this was these were straightforward people. It was handled basically to accommodate
the needs of the family. Okay. And now it's turned into uh splitting of hairs here. Um anyway, and the buyer proceeded in a questionable and unethical manner by not taking the steps necessary to verify the status. And this to me, well,
I'm not going to use the hard word, but it ain't a nice one. Okay. Uh, in any event, nonetheless, the seller proceeded with the sale of this property under the cloak of secrecy. The perception being the seller assumed that if none of the parties concerned became aware of the sale, no one could or no would challenge
the legality of the sale nor be able to stop development of the property. I believe that is exactly what the case is here. All right. Well, I'm just going to interrupt you a little bit and say that it's not the responsibility of the property owner to notify the whole
neighborhood if they're going to sell their property. >> Understood. Point taken. Thank you. Yeah. >> All right. >> To add to the mix of this highly unprofessional situation is both curious and suspicious. The town of Davis lacked the detailed provenence of this property
prior to 1966. I mean, how is that? How how is the town of Danis, shall we say, in the dark on something like that? But I'll just mention that. Continuing on, a thing that really I think floored me here in continuing almost unbelievable the situation was further complicated by both the sellers and the buyer's legal
representation. Somehow both during discovery coincidentally overlook this property's history prior to 1966 and by doing such created the impression that they too thought no one could nor would challenge the legality of this transaction. thereby by their actions or
lack thereof they became accessories to this scenario as far as I'm concerned once the sale came to light which came about almost by accident like I said December 26 I look out my wind window when middle of snow on the ground so and so but I'm seeing a surveyor out there
kind of odd um it is was highly suspicious manner pertinent information regarding this property's history was then provided to the town of Davis building inspector on March 4th 2026 and upon review of the building inspectors the upon review the building inspector's
office reacted by issuing the denial of permit R2672 and the property was unbuildable and this ruling was vetted by the town's council and that was told to me by people who work in this building when I was inquiring about it okay to continue now with the details in full
view the buyers legal repres representation has the audacity to stand before this board requesting reversal of denial of permit R2672 presenting an argument that somehow the taxpayers of damis should allow an appointed representation to succumb to this attempted fraudulent
travesty. That's how I see this. This is fraud and to reward understanding this with a blessing and legitimacy. What an insult. I feel absolutely insulted. This man came here tonight, insulted us. Our community insulted you. >> Excuse me. >> Let me continue, please. I'm almost
done. I won't I won't go off the rails anymore. >> You'll be able to continue if you >> All right. All right. Now we the affected and agreed residents of Fair Fair View Burns and Long Fellow Streets neighborhood stand before the town of Danver Zoning Board of Appeals seeking an appropriate binding decision and that
being in view of the undeniable facts that the denial of permit R2672 be upheld. Period. >> Okay. Thank you. [snorts] >> Is there anyone else who would like to speak? [clears throat]
Yes. Uh, Linda Collins Smith, 6 Fair View Street. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Okay. >> It was the site of the original property there. And I think I can shed an awful lot of light >> because when we bought the property in 1990, the realtor brought us to a
property that had an unbuildable lot so we could see the river, the sunsets. My husband liked that he could walk to the Danvas Canoe launch. It was in fact an unbuildable lot for 60 years. But just to make sure, I ended up
doing the complete in the not online the old way, the complete uh title search. And I also checked all your zoning laws including the grandfather. This was never an orphan lot. It was part of six fair view. And I have an advantage in
that one of the oldest members of the neighborhood. He was born in 1903 and I used to look in on him and he told me the whole history. So I will try to give you a brief history of the area. So it goes back to he's right that 18 but
it wasn't sold until 1926 and it was not the Blairers it was Mr. McKenzie. They were family members that all had roots in Nova Scotia. >> Okay. I live in the great Boston. >> This is going to be more information than we need. >> Okay. Well, I'll try to go on. So, he
buys 1996. He buys 12 of it was grided. There were 25 ft by 100t grids. He bought a dozen of them. It includes the property that we're talking about. So, sort of like L-shaped. >> 1946, your zoning comes in. It's all zoned. >> And now Blair is the owner. Jump ahead
20 more years. So, 20 years it was under zoning. Again, never an orphan lot, not grandfathered because you use the term affixed and it was a fixed to six Fair View Street. But what happened is they're start these are all summer cottages. So they're starting to
winterize. They're moving in here and nine Fair View Street, Mr. Grace, I'll call him Grandpa Grace, has a single car driveway and basically no front lawn. He asks his relatives, the Blairers, if he can buy the property across the street from him. It sits on Burn Street, but it
is across the street. That's 1967 February is when that property is sold. And it is never sold again as a separate property. It is bundled as an unbuildable bonus lot as nine is sold. Nine is sold three more successive
times. nine is sold the last time it was bundled was sold in uh 2021 [snorts] is the is when it sold is to I'll call him Mike the flipper comes in and he has no endearment to the neighborhood. He
tells us right up front he tells Bill um my wife and I buy properties and then we sell them really quickly. Mike and Bill says, "This is not a million-doll neighborhood." And I say, "Well, apparently you're wrong, Bill, because
he sold 9 Street for a million25,000 just a year ago." And I see him taking down the sign and I say, "And did you give him the lot, Mike, cuz all along I was telling him, you know, that used to be part of my land. It wasn't joined and it is not a buildable lot." He looks away and he says, "No." He basically
took their front lawn from them because they have no front lawn. There's no place to park cars. They were sardines all over. >> That's a separate. >> So, so ends up the next thing I know is it's showing up online cuz now I know most of the neighbors by the way did not
know that it hadn't gone with the property including Bill. But I know and so Patriot Property starts showing it for sale. 350,000 but unbuildable. Unbuildable. Unbuildable. And then overnight almost
buildable sold. And yes, I am the one who uh picked up the phone and I met the developers. They came to my home and they asked me and I said, "Yes, I'm guilty as charged." >> But um I just want to say that it is an
how it was presented to me was flawed. It because I kept saying it's not a buildable lot and it they did only go back to 1960. the realtors or the people that were involved in the sale.
>> You don't feel that they gave you a full story. >> Um, are you talking about the flippers? >> I I guess the new developers I don't know. I mean, you're saying that you don't you didn't get the full story. >> Well, I don't think they gave the full story to you to the town. I think they
presented a flawed presentation. and they didn't go back far enough and I kept telling them that it is immediately when you went from unbuildable to buildable. I lost one of the rights to my property. The right to quiet enjoyment. >> Yes.
>> Was unconstitutionally taken because we had that mean we bought it predicated the fact that >> you don't own that property, right? >> We do not own but the town always wanted it. And one of the neighbors that did own the grandson of Grandpa Grace at one point asked the town about building Bill
and they said that might be what you're referring to. He was told point blank, "No, that is not buildable. So that's what I have to go with." >> Um, >> so I just want to end with this >> is that at least we're here tonight discussing it.
>> Yes. Because my biggest fear, as much as this has been a nightmare, was that the entire neighborhood would have it's would have woken up to back holes, bulldozers, and cement trucks on a 14 ft street. Most of the people have never been in this neighborhood night.
>> We drove up there. We all saw. >> Oh, okay. Thank Thank you for doing that because we're getting a lot of flippers about who've never been on that street that they would wake up to that dig for a 10,000 square foot lot that sits at the base of the hill where you're going
to have storm drain. You're going to run all kinds of things and you're only 400 ft from one of the most endangered rivers in the country. >> Yeah. >> Well, we like to come up to my yacht. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you.
Yes. >> Go. Yes. >> It's your turn. [clears throat and cough] >> Uh, Keith Richard, I'm at one Longfellow Street. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Longfellow intersects Fairview.
>> Can you show where that is? >> Uh, can he? >> There we go. >> Right. So, I abut Mrs. Smith who abuts >> in between. A lot in between. Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Um, >> and how long have you lived there? >> Since 2020.
>> 2020. Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. So, I don't have the history um of some people. Um, I appreciate the comments of my neighbors. I'm speaking, you know, for myself here. >> Um, sticking to matters of law. I understand we separated at or you the board separated at the beginning the um
uh buildable law question versus the permit. Can I speak >> applications? two specific applications. >> Sure. I'll try to speak to all of it and allow you to sift through, you know, which things apply where, right? >> Is that good? >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, [clears throat] um, uh,
I'm less immediately focused on the conforming size of the lot. I mean, it is worth saying it's not a 30,000t lot according to, um, our three zoning. It's not even a 20,000 uh, square foot lot that would satisfy R2 zoning. It barely meets what would otherwise satisfy R1
zoning. Uh but as councils point out, the AHA AHA law um has bearing here. My understanding, and I leave it to council and the town and the board to like adjudicate this and figure this out, I don't think that the AHA um supersedes
other zoning bylaws like height requirements, setback requirements, and front and what have you. The lot size and the frontage are um as uh council said 10,000 ft and 70 I think 75 ft respectively. um are are sufficient for that. Um some [clears throat] concerns
we have as residents and I do are that there are only two ways into that neighborhood. Burn Street is one of them. Longfellow is the other. Um Longfellow Street becomes impassible uh in winter weather. Um we often have to resort to using Burn Street even though it's more convenient for me to drive up
Longfellow Street. Um many of us get stuck, right, and we have to back down uh and go the other way because the whole neighborhood is up raised uh on a hill. [snorts] Um though they are very narrow streets. Uh even Burn Street can be a little tricky sometimes, but if you, you know, uh bite down and bear it,
you can you can kind of get up uh in a car. Um I'm concerned about um whether it meets the conditions for a permit approval or um you will require conditions on any approval. Um, I think the amount of impervious surface I would expect to see for a minimum
three-bedroom house on such a small lot that is situated on a grade would exacerbate the runoff issues that we have on Burn Street. Um, so the only other way into the neighborhood that's passable, Burn Street, I think the character of that and its ability to uh be passed in winter weather would change.
>> Um, and I would leave it to the board in the town to figure out what the redress is. Is that a denial of permit? Is that a condition on any u building? That's not for me to decide, but like that's a serious concern we have. Can't get into our neighborhood. That that's a problem for emergency services, for people who
have elderly, sick people, people have children. You have to be able to get in and out of the neighborhood. Um, it is a very small and tight neighborhood with narrow roads, um, and limited sight lines going around that corner. Um, like I said, uh, there are older people, some
medical conditions, many, and a growing number of children in that neighborhood. there are no sidewalks. So those narrow roads become meaningful when there's no sidewalk either. Right. Um our concern is that >> impacts everyone who lives in that neighborhood. Right. >> Right. Yeah. And our concern is that to
add to that, for example, a likely roadside driveway, um a lot more impervious surface on that lot. Um our concerns are what that will do to our ability to get in and out of our own neighborhood. Um, on the short term, also just the construction itself would
probably quite literally block access for a period of time. Although I understand that, you know, if you hold your breath long enough, that will pass and it will just be a a residence and that won't be there anymore. But it's meaningful again because during a period of the year, Long Fellow Street becomes impassible. Despite uh proactive and
early and frequent treatment by the town uh with salt and sand, it still um can be impossible to get up sometimes. Um, in addition to all those, sorry, I'll refer to my own notes. Um, I think that the my understanding of the uh AHA is
that it again it doesn't supersede other uh zoning bylaw requirements. It does basically supersede the square footage and frontage requirements, but not the others. And for that reason, while um council's made a very compelling point about um those two points, I'm concerned
about whether any ensuing property could still meet the conditions and be on that lot, whether it's setback um uh lot coverage or what have you. Um and then whether um the permit should continue to be denied and then if uh approved, I would encourage the board to consider
what the right conditions are so the rest of us can pass safely, continue to enjoy the neighborhood and so forth. Okay, >> that's it. >> Thank you. >> Speak a second time. I forgot something. >> There's somebody in the front here. Let somebody [clears throat] new speak
first. >> Thank you for giving me the opportunity. My wife and I have [clears throat] lived for 40 years. >> Can you give us your name and your address, please? >> Mike Matt Pbachchuk. 82 Green Street, which is the corner of Green and Burns. >> Okay. one lot removed from uh two burnt
street and two lots away from the eight fair view in question. As I said, we've lived there for 42 years. Our property is one lot removed from the one in question. And uh for what it's worth, I've been a town meeting member for the last 28 years. So, I would like to
include in my uh my uh uh viewpoint this evening that of the uh homeowners at number two Burn Street who had a death in the family this weekend and and and couldn't attend the meeting this evening. In our time in
our home, there have been uh four owners at the property, the home property at number nine Fair View across the street. The first three of those also own the lot at 8 Fair View Street. Each of these owners has been aware that the lot across the street from them at number
eight was an auxiliary piece of property that we that they used to uh and that was unbuildable that was used for various um purposes. Yes. things like a playground for the children, gardening space, a place to park their vehicles
because the the driveway at number nine Fair View only accommodates one car and it I don't know any family that has one car. So, it's been strictly an auxiliary piece of property. They all recognized that it was unbuildable and accepted that fact. >> [snorts]
>> back in the in the 60s, as we've learned, the uh that property was conveyed to the owner at number nine who used it for those purposes and subsequently the other three owners. And now the other three owners, I'm talking 41 of my 42 years, three owners, three
owners owned that lot at number eight, Fair View, and all used it for the same purpose and all recognized that it was unbuildable. >> No. [clears throat] When each of those three owners sold the property, the home at number nine Fair View, they also included the eight Fair
View lot in that transaction. Uh, and um, for whatever reason, the last owner to sell that uh, decided to not include that or to retain the lot at number eight, not included in the transaction. It seemed a little uh perplexing at the time what why that was the case. But I
think we all recognize now uh that it's much more apparent why that happened. We all understand I'm not telling you anything you don't know that [clears throat] building a house in an R3 lot in Danbridge requires 33 30,000 ft minimum. That lot contains onethird
of that space. And it seems clear that the last seller of the house at 9 Fair View perhaps, and I'll emphasize the word perhaps, did not uh perhaps misrepresented the possible use of that lot at 8 Fairview.
While it's extremely unfortunate to the buyer, the neighborhood should not be required to pay the price of of sidest stepping the zoning requirements. It seems to me that the intentions of the last seller of the lot are the probable source of
the issue here and not the zoning issue which very clearly states the requirements for building in an R3 lot. So I thank you for hearing me. On behalf of my wife and my neighbors at number two Burn Street, we respectfully request that you consider denying this variance.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> One other thought is addressed to Mr. Panos, Attorney Panos, is that you said it is a worthless lot. It is not a worthless lot. As Mike has said, there's
been playgrounds. It is a place to park the cars. The neighbors when they've done and that's how it has been used. The neighbors at Tuburns had expressed interest in putting their driveway there. They have to climb two flights of stairs and they've both both husband and
wife have had several knee operations in the last few years carrying groceries if they could have purchased but not but at fair market value not what Mr. Dargan was looking for. >> So it does have value. And I had even
when I mentioned to Mr. Dargan and he said he didn't give it to him. I said you know that's not a buildable lot. It was a join to mine. I even mentioned that and I said, "Or mine." And I even checked with a lawyer that if I had bought it, I could actually put in a driveway and license the neighbors and
even like give a license to the brand new young couple that has nowhere to park their cars. It is a 14 foot wide. >> It's unfortunate if there was a sign that no one in the neighborhood bought it. Yeah. >> Yes. It wasn't presented and no one knew
that it went except I saw him taking the sign down and I knew. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Is there anyone else from the neighborhood that would like to speak? >> Do you want to make a comment? >> Yeah, there are just a couple of quick
hour. >> We have a lot of other cases tonight. >> I know. I know. I'm respectful of that. Uh, quickly, accessory use is not a permitt permitted principal use in R3. So, yeah, >> it is worthless. Two, could not have bought it for accessory purposes.
>> Okay, >> number one. Number two, a lot has been made about the intent of the property as it relates to nine Fair View. Well, if there was no merger with six and two burns, six Fair View and two burns,
there definitely wasn't merger. Regardless of the history across the street, there was a street dividing it. >> Somebody bought just bought it. Yeah, >> exactly. So, I I would leave that that that point there, but I stand by
everything else I said in my presentation. Uh, regardless of the personal attacks, >> we may have comments for your questions as we deliberate. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh, uh, I'm sorry. There's one thing I forgot. Pardon me. Um, there was a
letter that I neglected to transmit. Um, and I just transmitted it to Brian. Now, it was a letter in support. If Can I read it into the record? >> Yes. >> Through through you, the chair. It's from uh Justin Proventure of
uh 13 Ipsswitch River Road. And he writes to the board. Um, >> which town? >> Uh, here in um Danvers. >> IPS River Road in Danvers. Yes. >> Ipsswitch River Road
>> right on the line. >> Okay. >> He's uh I believe he's on the abuters list. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Um dear Miss Manson and the honorable members of the zoning board of appeals. I reside in the neighborhood where the
premises of 8 Fairview Street, Danverse, Mass is located. And I am familiar with the appeal application before the zoning board of appeals by uh Christopherovakoviello, pardon me, Chris uh and Andrew uh Row
for 8 Fairview Street LLC. I support their appeal to overturn the BU Dan Denver's building commissioner's denial uh of the applicant's building permit application to construct a single family home there with the current setback dimensional requirements of the zoning
bylaws up to the size of the house proposed in the application or in the alternative grant a variance allowing the proposed development on the property providing 10,000 ft where 30,000 ft are
required meeting all other dimensional uh and setback requirements of the zoning bylaws. Thank you for your consideration of our support. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Where where else? >> I can promise be very brief and it
relates to the letter. >> All right. >> I had no interest in talking. >> Go ahead. I appreciate um the you know prerogative of the parties to like you know tour the neighborhood meet people solicit you know um support they you know came by all of us right and they came by my home
as well and asked for our support um I'll take the letter that was written in on face value um it's worth mentioning when visiting our home uh the two gentlemen here uh misrepresented themselves I think uh very unfairly
by saying we are not developers, we're just two people where we then uh I was not present but my wife was. Uh her response was well hold on a second like we've done our homework too. Like you you you know our name before coming over like we we looked you up as well. Um you
have LLC's for construction companies. Those construction companies have Facebook and Instagram accounts going back years showing net new properties and additions and renovations you've done. You are developers, right? Um, and they sort of laughed and she said, "Well, is the home for you or for you to sell to the other?" >> Well, I think this is kind of irrelevant
to to >> Okay. >> I mean, unfortunately, [clears throat] they are the owners of the property. I I don't want you. >> Yeah. I don't I will end by saying I don't think that there's any law against lying, right? Like you could say you're from the planet Mars and and I don't think there's anything against that. Um, I just know that they didn't earn our
support in the form of a letter through that kind of presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, we are now going to deliberate and uh we'll consider all the comments and the presentation.
Thank you. And uh I'm going to start with Kevin. >> Could we ask just one more question? >> Go ahead. >> I I'm still want to talk about these merge. Yes, please. Could I just sort of
just discuss this real quick with all this because it's a lot of back and forth of >> different dates and >> Sure. >> if something was merged and if it wasn't or whatever. So, >> sure. >> So, pretty much
all right. Attorney Murphy says uh POSA one which is nine pos two which is eight. They were never conti contiguous and therefore never merged. >> Yes. because they were separated by Fabian. Then you have um [clears throat] so you have what lot
six [snorts] and eight um were merged in some way. Wait, so >> yes, that's what I spoke about. 1920. >> So six and they were held. All right.
So, in 1946, it appears they were, but then the square footage changed to 30,000 square ft and then it was sold. 8 Fair view was
sold after. So then the Affordable Homes Act wouldn't apply then. >> No, it would apply. 2020 >> because it's it's designed to prevent the very kind of merger that you're
alleging. But I'm I am arguing that yes, according to 48 section 6 paragraph 4, uh merger precludes construction on
uh property for single and two family purposes. according to that unless there is an overriding local town bylaw that grants more generous
uh allowance and there is and I cited it to you. It's in section 3 paragraph 4 and it's um entitled
And I go into great detail in my uh in my letter um from yesterday. It's entitled lawfully created situations which again I'm going to reiterate and I'm
sorry to repeat myself through the chair. your bylaw does not have built into it the concept of merger. It just doesn't it it you can't even find the word unlike 48 section 6 which
clearly says merger stop stop action you've got merger. No, your bylaw says a lot or any activity is considered to be lawfully created with respect to zoning requirements if it was in existence
prior to June 19th, 1946 when the zoning bylaw was originally adopted. These these were done in [snorts] 1897. So, they were lawfully created well before zoning came into play in
compliance with that provision of your own zoning bylaw. And then there's a zoning uh bylaw provision that follows a couple of pages below that addresses non-conforming lots and I give that to
you. Uh, you know, it's it's a somewhat lengthy provision, but um the non-conforming laws provision in the bylaw contemplates that someone did something to that 1897 plan to change
it, to supersede it, to make it obsolete. None of that ever happened, to reconfigure the lots. As I indicated, and I repeated this time and again, the lots created in 1897,
that 1897 plan is the operative plan today. It hasn't changed. If uh Miss Smith wants to sell her property tomorrow, she's going to refer to that 1897 plan to to to describe her property. It hasn't changed. There's no
new plan of record. So your bylaw precludes this construct of merger. Now in addition to that you have the affordable homes act and the affordable
homes act definitively operates to say you don't have merger if you have a 10,000 foot lot with 75 ft of frontage. that your lot um adjacent lots under common ownership shall not be treated as
a single lot for local zoning purposes. It says it black and white. [snorts] So you don't have merger. Uh if if you don't think that the bylaw says what I think it says, you've got the Affordable Homes Act that says
exactly that and it has some strings attached. But the determinative time to measure, and I I can't stress this point enough, according to the Affordable Homes Act, is the time that the plan was
recorded. What was the status of zoning at the time the plan was recorded in 1897? You didn't have zoning in 1897. So, by definition, it was compliant with zoning in 1897. Stop action.
Go forward. You have a 10,000 square foot lot that has at least 75 ft of frontage located in a zoning district that allows for single family housing. We meet the letter and spirit of that provision.
>> Yeah, but wasn't it changed from 30 >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, but wasn't it changed from uh to 30,000 square ft? >> No. No. This is the brand new affordable homes act that the state the Massachusetts >> passed 2024.
>> It's a brand new law. >> So it it it's designed to prevent the kind of merger that we're talking about >> so that we get more housing. >> Now it's worth mentioning too this is an opportunity and I I I think this is important. >> You're going to like Okay.
>> Yeah. Just very quickly >> summarize. >> Yes. This is an opportunity to kind of hedge your bets because there's a provision on the ballot in November that's going to allow if it's passed um by right building on 5,000 square ft.
>> Okay. >> So, what do you get? You get two houses on this corner lot. >> Thank you. All right. >> Um that >> No. No. Mr. Sakali, is there anything that you would like to say? Um, I'll
just give you an opportunity. >> Thank you. >> You're in the middle of all this. [laughter] >> Uh, I definitely am in the middle of all this. Um, there's a lot that has been said and I'm not going to be able to summarize or point or counterpoint all
the things that were said this evening. What I can say is that up until last night at 8:42 when we got this, we had never gotten the full title search, >> the full >> the full title search, which is not the
town's responsibility. Some people think that the town is supposed to do this deed research. That is not true at all. >> What we ask for is proof. Show show us the research. Show us the deed research and then we will analyze it. >> Okay.
Um at the time uh the uh from what we had we said yeah based on this eight and the question that was asked of staff was where's eight and nine ever merged? And the answer is obviously no because there's a road in between and there's always been a road in between. So we
said yeah those those lots never merged. >> Okay. >> But the question at hand was that that what should have been at hand was has any have have any of these lot have any of these lots ever been merged in the past? But what what I'm trying to say is that we have not reviewed this brand new
information as of last night. I sent it to legal counsel first thing this morning. Um I would have I would have loved if they were if they would have could have been here. They were unable to come this evening. But to at least analyze the deed research because if 48
section 6 applies, there's no need for any of this. >> There's no need for any of this. it either applies and they can build their house or it doesn't apply and they can apply for a variance. That that's essentially where they are. >> Okay. >> So, if they're claiming that 4A section
6 applies, they're in the wrong house. They can just go down to the building department. They can talk to us. They can prove it. And essentially, that's what they've done. Now, not saying that they proved it, but they're trying to prove it through deed research. I can take this research to legal counsel and
then they can make a call meaning make a determination based upon what they have provided >> if that's the case it's again it's not in front of the ZBA if 48 section 6 applies they can go build their house at 1850 ft because everything else there it's totally true everything else is
there setbacks are there they got the 75 ft of frontage they actually have 200 because you count both they have everything they need according to it except for this merger doctrine um like proof essentially >> or really anti-proof if you really want
to get into it. You have to prove that it didn't happen. >> Can I ask Mr. Isilly a question? >> Sure. >> So Brian, I guess where we are now, the board can overturn the decision, but I think I think what you're holding out is that staff can overturn its own decision
or reverse its own decision on its own without >> with new information. Yes. And I and I'm and I'm bas I'm not saying that with this new information we will overturn it. >> No, it can not. >> But it's totally possible that with this new information we can say this lot is buildable without you. Without you,
>> right? >> Yes. >> Under the new law. >> Correct. >> Why do I have a feeling we're going to be hearing the >> appeal in another month anyway if you do that? But just from someone else, >> I mean that that that might not be, you know, that I mean the only thing that we
can do is >> Sure. >> search for the truth and present it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. You want to go forward >> with debate? I I Yeah, I mean I think it's worth >> I mean unless you you want to continue
and get a legal opinion from town council. Um, if look, I'm not sure I entirely agree with Mr. Zakelly's assessment in the sense that we still have a denial of a building permit out there.
>> Okay. >> And it's [snorts] based on this lot merger. Um I but I do agree to the to the point that um if you overturn that denial then what happens as far as the application of 4DA
section 6 and we talked about this a little bit is between the applicant perhaps you Brian >> right >> and the building commissioner and coming up with a house plan that meets the 1850 ft heated livable. However, if the
what I was hearing was you'd like a little more input from town council on its application perhaps because I I really don't think merger applies here. I think it's a misnomer in this. >> Okay. But the question in front of you, >> do I want to continue? I mean, we can
deliberate and we can give you our opinion and then you can decide, but I'm asking you if you would like a continuence for an opinion from town council. Um >> um I' I'd definitely like to hear from time out. He he cannot request that.
>> The ZBA can request a something from town council. An applicant cannot say I want town council to review this. >> So the ZBA has to say we would like town council to review this. But we could deliberate and inform the applicant where we are and then he could >> that is your
>> decide to request a continuence if you >> That is true. Yes. >> Okay. >> Can we >> Okay. So, we're going to deliberate. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Um I guess I'll >> So, we have two issues, right? >> Yeah. We'll start with the appeal. Do
you want to start with the appeal and then move on to the variance or do you want us all to state our opinion on >> Why don't you do both? >> Okay. Uh so I I think this first of all is one of the well not one of the this is by far the most complicated case in
my you know brief time on on the ZBA. Uh lots of procedural issues, legal issues like it's it's exceptionally complex. Um I the procedural issues aren't compelling
to me. I I think that if we went down the path of calling what I still believe are adi, you know, kind of advisory opinions, like I think every resident needs the ability to go to town staff and say, "What if?" >> You know, given this, what if? [snorts] Um, and I think that town staff is
generally pretty careful about saying, "But you should consult council or given the set of facts you've given me this." Um, so that one's not convincing to me. The the issue about the lawfully created
situations in our bylaw, you know, not addressing merger. I am I am not an attorney and I'm always and I'm always up here uh with, you know, uh, learned attorneys making arguments that that I am perhaps not qualified to fully uh, parse. But I
I think to my limited knowledge that is kind of the nature of common law is that we shouldn't expect to find it written. Um so I also don't find that incredibly compelling. Like ultimately where I get to is the AHA or AHA like that's the one
where I go aha you know what I mean? I think that's the one, right? Because I think like the state uh and and as much as I wish it wouldn't happen, the state has taken some flexibility away from cities and towns and said this like we don't care what your bylaw says. This is
the statute. This controls. >> Um so like I find that argument pretty compelling. Um, but I I am loathed to just vote to overturn because if we vote to overturn, we get exactly what they
proposed, right? Without the um because we're we're not overturning for a reason. We're just overturning, right? Um and and I to my knowledge, and I'm I'm happy to be corrected on this, we can't condition uh an overturning, right? It's not like a variance where we
can where we can list conditions. So, um, I like my preferred outcome here would probably be to continue if the applicant were willing to work with staff to see one if staff would agree that they're allowed to build a house on that lot given the new information, the
new arguments that have been presented. Um, and uh, and two, so the analysis can be done of the, you know, heated and cooled square feet. And the building inspector is certainly much more qualified to talk about exactly what qualifies there. A
exterior wall, a bulkhead, you know, whatever, right? Three season porch. >> Um, so like I think that's where I land. I also think that this offers the neighbors some protection because they are limited to a modestsized house on this lot. Um, which I I hear the
concerns. I understand them. Uh and I I I do believe people when they say that our understanding for 40 years was that this lot wasn't buildable, >> right? >> And my and I agree with them. I think until 2024 this lot was not buildable. Um
but unfortunately the the state legislature change changed that fortunately or unfortunately right the state legislature changed that. And so I um I try uh very hard to come up with a decision that's that I think is based on
the bylaw or based on the statute uh and not just like what I what I would like to see. Um and I and I think that that's where I land with this one that I think I think the applicant should be able to build a house, but I I think if they went back to town staff, they could perhaps work that out.
Uh oh, the the variance. Uh I I am I would be we have to meet the all the specific conditions in 4DA to grant a variance as the board knows. Um soil shape topography uh the the topographic
argument I don't really buy. I do agree that the land like the land has a slope to it but I don't believe it's the slope that is causing the lot to be undersized. Um so I I you know for for that reason I can't I can't meet one of the required uh elements for a variance.
So I I wouldn't uh support a variance in this case. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Okay. Um so I I too wouldn't support the variance based on I don't think it reaches the threshold of um all the
necessary prongs um for that and I believe it's more like a financial issue and that doesn't reach the threshold of uh of granting a variance to me. So, I
just I I would not uh support that. As far as um overturning the um decision on the town, the town's decision um to stating that it's not buildable.
Um I wouldn't do that either. I I don't think there's enough information really. I I still am I this is ambiguous to me in some ways. I mean there's a lot going on here and I do not have a definitive
uh you know grasp on what exactly is going on here. I think it's great that uh legal counsel can uh for the town can look at this and sort of decipher it further, but as as um right [clears throat] now I am not in support of overturning
the building inspector's uh decision. >> Thank you, Chris. Um, I think I'll echo what Ken said in far as the variance. I don't see the financial part of it being the argument that way. I would not
be in favor of the variance and the bu building commissioner's ruling. Um, [clears throat] I would also not vote in favor of that, but I'd also like to hear some feedback from town council. I didn't know that
was an option in the beginning of this. Um, will it change my view? I'm not sure, but I still would like to hear a little bit more from them in regards to this.
Um, I'm also stuck on the closing attorneys. Like, it's $350,000 for a lot. Um, what did they think was going to be done with this? That someone's not buying it to park a car there. from the beginning
there was going to be a house put there no matter what. Um I think I'd be in favor of a house being put there as long as it's not you know what was it 2500 square ft that doesn't belong in that neighborhood.
Build a house, build a campanelli, build a ranch that looks like the rest of the neighborhood. Um this is more of a feedback or not feedback. This is more of just me speaking out loud. That neighborhood in
driving a GMC 3500 down that street. I barely fit down that street. >> Correct. >> If I put an 8 and 1/2t plow on that truck, >> school buses, >> I don't fit down that street. How are you going to put an excavator? How are
you going to put cement trucks? How are you going to put a pump truck >> for the foundation >> for the folks living here live here? can please. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat]
>> Okay. So, I went through all of the correspondence. I think this is difficult. It's kind of a gray area a lot of this and um I agree that this is very difficult and lot of material to um review. Um
I in February of 2025 um Mr. Sagali said that the lot was buildable and issued an email um in response uh to a request wanting to know if it was buildable. Um
and also the assistant um Brian Cassidy issued something saying that it was buildable. Um, and in November 25, 2025, uh, Patrick Murphy buildable. Uh, and
then in November 2025, the owners, uh, the buyers, they closed on this property for 325. Um, I personally in town have owned two properties that were pre-existing non-conforming uses. Um, and I relied on
the building department and the planning department for information as to whether or not I could proceed and do what I wanted to do. Um, Mr. Selli is the zoning enforcement officer. The building inspector is not
the zoning enforcement officer. Um, Mr. Kelly made the decision that this was a buildable lot and I feel that the buyers relied on that and um not to take anything away from him but
he made the decision. He put it in writing to the buyers and they proceeded and purchased the property. Can we then three months later go back and say, "Well, we're sorry. We made a mistake and we sorry you paid $325,000
and your money is gone and now you can't build." I don't think we can do that as a town. I don't think it's fair. When we go to the building inspector's department or we go to the planning department, um it used to be the building inspector made the decision. that was changed and now the planning
department makes the decision of whether something complies with zoning and if we go to them we need to be able to they put it in writing we have to be able to rely on it. Um so from my
perspective I feel that the building inspector didn't have the authority to say it was not buildable after the planning department said it was buildable. Um, I think the Affordable Homes Act is the
way to go. Um, I really think that we didn't like ADUs either. And now everybody can build a house in their backyard and that's what the state decided that we don't have enough housing so we can build everybody can build a house in their backyard. Do we
want this in our town? No. Do I want it in my neighborhood? No. Um, and I totally understand you. Um, but now we've not only gone from the ADU aforary
dwelling unit to an affordable homes act and who knows where else we're going because we don't have enough housing in the state. So, my feeling is that if um that we should get an opinion from
the town council and see if um I would rather see them do the 1850 foot house. >> So, is the direct question then whether 48 section 6 applies and whether coun and whether council believes that to be the case. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. because I don't think we can take
away a property that somebody already purchased and and make it unbuildable. Um I just don't feel it's fair. Um so I guess I'll pull the board and see what you
think. Um, >> so yeah, I guess I guess at this point I I I think I've heard from you and and I think I got the sense from Chris at least that he'd like more information. >> I'm not sure about Ken. I'll let you speak for yourself here in a second. Uh,
I would I think what I would probably be most in favor of is a continuence uh to allow us to get an opinion from town council um about the the new the
new aspect of 4DA uh and whether this applies um and and also in that time, you know, there there may be discussion between staff and the and the applicant, you know, pending the outcome of of town council's Yeah. >> Uh opinion on that.
>> I think that's where I would go is to is to do a continuous >> I think that you know the state is shoving stuff down our throats and we're going to end up you know having to accept some of these things. So um I'll let you say if you're okay with that. >> Yeah. Um continuence say with that as
well. >> Y okay. >> We'll agree with a continuence through July 27th. >> 27th. >> Okay. And that'll give us enough time. Right. That should definitely give us enough time. >> Okay. >> And I'll encourage that uh internal discussion >> and I don't know if I said but I would
not be in favor of the variance either. So >> Okay. >> You did not. >> No. Okay. Um >> we require a unanimous vote. >> Madam Chair, I make a motion that we continue this matter until July the 27th. >> Second. >> I second. >> All in favor?
>> I thank you. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Do you want to take literally a twominut recess just to clear everybody out and change around? >> We're going to take a five minute break here. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome.
tonight's eyes confused. You're >> next brain. >> Mine was hurting. Not fair. >> Me read it in. >> I I I typic I typically don't unless I'm >> ready to go. >> Uh yes. >> Yep.
>> All right. Ready to go. Thank you. >> Uh folks, we're going to come back into session now and uh I just before we move on, uh thank you to that's quite a complicated case and um thank you for the other folks that are here for hanging in with us. We'll try to move uh
judiciously along here um to not tie up further on your evening. And with that said, Mr. Clerk, our next case, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next case is 34 Endicott Street. This is zone Danversport Industrial. request a finding under section 3.11 of the Damas
zoning bylaw to construct an uh accessory building that will be located closer to the front property lines Endicott Street 6.9 ft and Appleton Street 7.1 ft then permit permitted as of right which is 50 ft. The request is
made by Keith Oakley dock at 26-5140. >> And who's here on behalf of the applicant? >> Good evening Mr. Chair. Uh my name is Bill Nolan from Seavoy Nolan Architects. Uh I'm the architect here representing the owner who is with us tonight as
well. Uh Keith Oakley, Patriot Fence Crafters. Um so I'll be brief. Um at our last meeting, we presented um essentially what's in front of you on the screen. Um
a a detached uh structure. um seemed like we were going to get the votes for it and kind of at the last minute um there was a question as to whether a detached structure constitutes um uh an extension of an existing nonconformity.
We continued uh I was uh Brian uh Z Kelly got back to me very quickly uh thank you for that Brian um and determined that uh the town now looked at detached structures as not being an
extension of an existing non-conformity. Um so our um our our approach is to actually connect the buildings um with you can see a small little square there. Um there's an existing uh door on the existing building at that
location. Um and it's actually a happy accident because now it provides a um an interior connection especially at like a day like today. Um they can go um from the offices which is in that existing building to the new um
structure that we're proposing. In all other respects, it's the same uh as last last time we presented. So, I'll spare you the details unless you uh have any questions. >> No, I think that kind of hits the nail on the head. Uh I've got a couple questions myself, but I'm going to turn
it over to the board. Do you have anything else you want to present? >> I'm happy to answer questions. >> Karine, we'll start with you. >> Um I have no questions. Thank [clears throat] you, >> Ken. >> No questions. Thank you. >> Ken J. >> No questions. >> Chris, >> no questions. Thank you. Uh I have two
uh one uh two of the things that came up uh at the initial meeting because I reviewed the tape was uh illegal signage at the property. Uh could you speak to that and have they been removed? >> Sure. I don't know if they've been removed. I did speak with the owner. Um we can ask him in a second. I did speak
with the owner. He's aware of it and the signs will be uh taken down. >> Okay. >> Yep. If they haven't already, have they? Uh if I could have the uh the owner uh identify himself and speak to that. >> Uh Keith Oakley, owner of Patriot Fence. We haven't they're just zip tied up now,
so it's we're very quick. So we can take them down, you know, immediately. So it's just it's not a >> they're just a couple of banners that are attached to the fence. So it's not any type of permanent size. >> Okay. I think three banners, right? Three large ones, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, so there's a couple that are for the anniversary of the country. Would
those come down too or is that just that's like >> uh go out to our uh our um planning director on that. >> So yeah, the messaging doesn't actually matter. So it doesn't matter what's on the sign. It's >> Yeah, the sign itself. So yeah, >> I wasn't aware of that, but okay. Yeah, we can pop.
>> That's why we do this. Get everybody on the same page. Uh and might as well stay up there. The other thing was um there was a um there there are I guess quantify for me right now how many storage containers are on site and you do realize that those are only permitted
for 180 days. >> So I wasn't aware of that but yes there's three and then that was part of the plan is to remove those >> and so the plan uh would you take in condition to make sure those are removed prior to construction? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Prior or are they needed for during >> Do we need it? Yeah. Hold on for one
sec. Yeah. Just give me one sec. So [clears throat and cough] part of the reason why we're doing this addition is so they can keep his business operational. Um we're we're going to be effectively removing an existing contractor yard during the construction of this. So we're limiting
his property. So what we we're hoping to do is go through the town, apply for the proper permits for those. I know they're temporary uh to give us some reprieve until the building is uh built. at at this point just to build that building he's going to have to
>> rearch understood. So within completion these would be removed. >> Yeah, >> that's all I wanted to hear. >> If we could amend the condition to to state that as opposed to prior to >> well it probably like prior to CO is probably >> prior to CO realistic a realistic
conditions for prior to the CO for the >> prior to occupancy the the storage would be gone. >> Yeah. Okay. That's reasonable. >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh, I will go out to the public who are here on 34 Andicott Street. Uh, Patriot sign. Anybody want to be heard or say any
words of wisdom? [snorts] Very good. Hearing none. I'll come back and we'll deliberate. Karine. >> Um, I would vote for this with three conditions. One, that the three illegal banners or signage must be removed. that
um uh prior to the certificate of occupancy um being issued um >> storage >> that all the storage containers will be eliminated. Um and with regard to the um
storage containers, if it's um pursuant to construction, do they have longer to keep them there or not? [clears throat] >> Uh it's so if it is part of Right. if it's part of a building permit but but at the moment it's not. So that's why I think
you should put it as a condition. >> So no I am leaving it as you are correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um and the only reason why I'm saying that is the owner I believe said he was going to go to um you know down to town hall but if it's over 180 days he's not going to be able to get that. So that's
why I'm asking if they pull a permit and have those uh storage containers as part of the construction process. Do they allow them to have it through the end of construction or are these containers not even part of that because they're not
considered temporary for construction? >> I mean, if they're actually part of the construction, then they're ail they're associated with a building permit. I would say that they're not associated with the building permit because they're storing material now. >> True. True. >> So, I would so I you know,
>> so I >> Yeah, I would I wouldn't say the storage containers are there. um for for the for the construction of this proposed building. So, the idea is that I would put it as a condition for it to be removed. >> Oh, no. I definitely want that. I agree.
Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Karine. Um Ken, >> yeah, I will vote for this with those conditions. >> Thank you, Ken. Ken J. >> Uh I'll vote for this. Um yeah, I'm not too worried about the signs, but they are in I guess uh violation. So, they
look pretty cool, though. It was the 250th anniversary. You know what I mean? They'll probably be off like after that, right? In July. So, >> I mean, we could give Yeah, give it a couple >> another condition after the fourth. >> Yeah, after the fourth, maybe.
>> Just kidding. >> Uh Chris, >> I would vote in favor for this with the conditions set forth. >> Thank you, Chris. And I I too would vote for this. I think uh we came to the right conclusion here with the proper uh relief sought and by uh adding this
vestibule. Sounds like it's going to h help your applicant as well. So uh with that said, could I get a motion, please? Um I make a motion um with regard to 34 um Endicott Street. I make a motion to
grant a finding under section 3 um-11 to the uh Danver zoning bylaw to construct an accessory building that will be located closer to the front property lines Endicott Street 6.9 ft and Appleton Street 7.1 ft then
permitted as of right 50 feet and that the proposed extension alteration of the structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood and with the following conditions. That the three illegal signs on the property be move be
removed immediately and that um prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued that all storage containers be removed from the property. >> I've got a motion. Could I get a second? >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none.
All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Good luck. Thank you. >> You got it. >> Good night. >> Uh, Mr. Clerk, moving along. >> Um, our first regular item is 9 Grove Street. This is zoned R2. Requests a
finding on the table two, table of dimensional requirements to permit a second story addition that will encroach into the side setback at 13.7 ft where 15 ft is required. Requesters made by
Kyle and Alex Gable. Uh, docket 26-5141. >> Hi. Who's here in behalf of this application? >> Uh, my name is John Andrews. I'm the project manager from JFA Design Group. >> Welcome. >> Mr. Gable is here as well. So, >> tell us what you like to do.
>> All right. So, we got a single family ranch home over here on Grove Street and it has three small bedrooms in there. Now, what we'd like to do is put a second story above this. So, it sticks well, it's a little bit beyond the existing footprint, but it's not any
kind of foundation. So, as a second story comes up, we have a twoft overhang in the front and the back of the building, and then we have a 1-ft overhang on the left and the right side. I guess from the setback in question is if you're looking at the front of the
house, it would be on the right side from Grove Street and that overhangs 1 ft. So we did we didn't have the 15 ft originally on the existing house to begin with and we're asking for relief there.
>> Sounds like your shortest point is 13.7 according to the plan. >> Yes, sir. We have a growing family, so we're going to add four bedrooms. And just now, Mr. Gabriel told me today that they have three now and one is on the way. >> Well, congratulations.
>> There it is. [laughter] >> And um >> it meets all the other requirements as far as height requirement and all that other stuff. So, we're not going to, like I said, put a foundation there. We're just going to build above. We do have structural engineer involved with it. >> Yep. >> He's already stamped his plans. Well,
very familiar with these types of houses and uh I did take a ride out to the property and have a look. Uh it's currently empty. >> Yes. Y Mr. G. >> Okay. Uh I will uh if you don't have anything else to present, I will turn it over for some questions. >> Very good. Thank you.
>> Okay. Chris, down there to you. >> Oh, hold on. I already went past it. the existing garage. >> Yep. >> That going to become livable space? >> No. Uh there's already livable space in the garage. It's kind of a strange layout. So, there is a small area that's
there. So, we're not going to expand on that at all. We're not going to expand onto the garage as well. >> We're going to keep that interior space. We are going to do some um renovation to it as far as taking off sheetrock, that kind of thing. You know what I mean? cleaning it up and flooring. Yep. But
that space is already in there. So if you look sort of you can see I guess the best one is the existing demolition plan EX1. It shows a garage entrance in the garage and then it shows a door going into and that was living space prior to that. So it was really just a onecar
garage. >> Okay. Thank you. No problem. >> This is the um I'm not familiar with them. I guess it's Keanelli home. Everybody >> we're very familiar with them up here. >> Okay. that whole neighborhood. >> Uh Kenj questions? >> I have no questions. Thank
>> Thank you. Uh Mr. Scholes. >> Um I don't think I have anything. I get what they're trying to do. >> Uh Karen, >> um what is the plan for parking cars then if there's no garage if it's all um livable space inside?
>> So the the the driveway is generous enough to hold four cars there, but the the parking one car parking will still remain. >> Okay. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Thank you, Karine. Um, and, uh, this might be more for Brian. Uh, and maybe
I'll start with you. Uh, the shed to me looks like it's oversized. Does not fit our 120 square foot. Do you know if a permit has been pulled on that? And when did the applicant buy this property? >> Okay. When you bought the property?
>> 2019. >> 2019. Was the shed put in by you? >> Okay. So, the shed was existing. >> Shed was existing when the property was purchased. >> Purchased. Yes. >> And Brian, I guess, do we know if a permit was pulled on the shed?
>> I can take a look. Um, but I don't know now. >> Okay. >> Do we know if it's oversized? >> Our bylaw allows for a 10 by 12. >> 10 x 12. >> Yeah. >> I don't know the size of that. I got to
be honest with you. I can put that in as a condition and find out what it is. And then if what happens if it's over that if it's over that you would have to go matter when no it matters when it was put installed. >> Yeah. It matters when it was put in. So if it's if it's prior to them if it's more than 10 years old then it's
pre-existing non-conforming even if at the time. Um so I can we can do a little bit of that. I mean I can do a little bit of research there but that's kind of outside of this. But I can certainly follow up on that with the applicant. I can have the surveyor uh do
do that measurement there and then also redo the uh proposed law coverage if that helps. >> I don't know if that's necessary. Yeah. >> I think it's more of a you know it's just something we check in on what you're saying right as you look. >> You know if it's an oversized shed it has to meet setback. If it's standard
size it doesn't. And clearly this one doesn't meet setback either. >> If it's 120 ft it doesn't have to. But if it's >> I see >> 200 square feet, it's technically supposed to be at the same >> 15 feet. So um I guess we'll leave that
as uh TBD. >> Okay. >> How about that? Um okay. And uh I'll go out to the public on this. Anybody here to be heard on Nine Grove Street? Hearing none. I will come back and uh Chris, we will deliberate on this.
>> Uh I would be in favor for this. I love the fact that you want to stay in the neighborhood. [clears throat] Those Campanellis are not easy with a growing family. I know for a fact. Um, good luck. Thank you. >> You're in favor. Uh, Ken J,
>> I'll vote for this. I'm I'm fine with it. >> Thank you. Uh, Ken, >> I will vote for this. >> Karine, >> um, I will vote for this, too. Uh I too I too will vote and I I just will ask informally that we try to clarify the shed through the inspections
department. >> Sure. >> Uh with that said, uh board members, could I get a uh a motion? Um, I make a motion with regard to Nine Grow Street to grant a finding under table two, table of dimensional requirements to permit a second story addition that will
encroach into the side setback at 13.7 ft where 15 is required and that the proposed extension alteration 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. >> Congrats and good luck. >> Thank you. >> Just one last question to the board. Is >> we write the decision and it's a 20-day appeal period or a 30-day appeal? >> 20. >> 20. >> And you you work that out with the uh
planning department. >> It'll get written before the end of the week and we'll be in in contact with you to let you know when exactly to pick it up. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh we're moving at lightning speed here. guys [clears throat] got a full uh education
on zoning tonight. >> Merger. >> We all did, I think. >> Merger. >> A merger. Don't say that word too much. Okay. >> Four letter word. >> Um let's go on to our final case, Mr. Clerk. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our last case is 187 Pine Street. This is zoned R1.
requests a finding under section three for a front setback encroachment of a proposed addition that will be located closer to Crestline Circle than allowed by right 18.5 ft where 20 ft is required. The request is made by Brendan
Delissio uh docket 26-5143. >> And who is here on behalf of the applicant? Hi. >> Uh it's the uh homeowner of 187 Pine Street, Brandon Delissio. >> Welcome. Uh tell us what it is you'd like to do. Um we're looking to um add
another bedroom on the second floor um and expand the first floor um basically to make it simple terms is doing a 16x30 addition into the backyard. Um keeping the side of the house that is
uh faces crest line the same distance away as it is now. But we want to add the roof overhang. So doing a roof a roof overhang and we already kind of don't meet the setback that's required as it is. >> This is why it's a finding. >> Um and that and that is why we are here
today. >> Okay. And uh I I have to I I visited your property yesterday. I have to uh say I admire the tree in your front yard and I'm glad you're >> Thanks. >> going backwards. That's quite a tree. Pretty uh pretty fantastic tree. >> Yep.
>> Um okay. Uh anything else you want to present? Um, I think that's it. >> Okay. Uh, Karine, we'll start down there with you. >> Um, I don't really have any questions. I do love the design, though. >> Thank
>> very nice, too. >> Um, but I don't have any questions. >> Uh, thank you, Karine. Uh, Ken. >> Um, I don't think I have any questions. The deck's fine. >> I don't I don't have any questions. >> Thanks, Kenj.
>> It's uh pretty cut and dry. I I don't have any uh questions. Thank you. >> Yeah, it's going to look nice. >> Uh Chris, >> no questions. Thank you. >> Did you know the more I think of this, I should have had these presidential cases first and got you guys out of here tonight, but you had to suffer with all
of us. The way I look at it, uh I do have a couple um approximate uh square footage of the house currently. Um, want to say it was >> I started doing the building permit and I had that figured out and then I
>> going to get the plot plan >> uh updated with the drawing that we want. I Yeah. So, I got uh >> I want to say it was uh >> I don't recall at the moment. Okay. Your question was our existing it was it's like 1,200
>> 1,200 square ft roughly 13,200. somewhere in there. And how much are you adding? [clears throat] What's the addition going to add? >> 16 by 30. >> 16 by 30. >> 16. >> 16. >> 16 by 30. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Two. >> And uh so is there a deck out there
currently and you're just removing the deck and putting in a >> No. >> Or is there a first floor and you're just adding a second floor to the top? We are basically doing we we're coming out that 16 ft and the the width of the house now
which is 30 and going up two stories. >> Okay. So this will be a full foundation with a basement. >> Yes. >> Okay. So this is total new construction. >> Totally new. The deck's new as well in the back. >> Okay. Um so you're going to encroach and this is
R2 >> one. >> R1. >> R1. >> This is R1. No, no, >> yeah. Sorry. R1. No, no. This is This is R1. It's 20 ft. They're at 185, right? >> Yeah. Cuz it's a front it's two it's two >> two front edgages. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Yep. Okay. Uh that answers it for me. Thank you. Uh anyone here on uh 187 Pine Street wishing to be heard, make a comment. Yes, sir. >> And uh there's nobody online.
>> Thank you. They're all in bed. Everybody's home [laughter] sleeping. >> Uh, Bill Barad Street, town meeting member, precinct one. I heard a comment about a very nice tree in the front yard. >> There is. I noticed it.
>> Can you make a a determination that the tree has to stay or if something happens, it's replaced with a tree, not a twig like I've seen done. I'm sure you really want that tree there. >> The good thing The good thing, Mr.
Brady, is this that that tree is in the front of the house. >> No, no, I understand. >> And not affected by this construction. >> Okay. No, >> but I'll I'll make the applicant answer that, but uh and that's it. Thank you, sir. Uh could you just speak to that? It sounds like the tree, in my estimation, will not be affected in any way by this
construction. >> The tree will not be removed or affected by the construction. >> Very good. and any any uh any disturbance of existing trees on the property to do this. >> That's I think is one of the few trees
that I have. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, you're good. >> We're good. >> Okay. Uh and with that said, I will uh I'll come back to the board and I started with you, Karine, or did I start with Chris? I started with Chris. >> I think you started with Chris. >> Oh, you start with Karine. >> Oh, no. Did you start with me?
>> It's [clears throat] too late for me to know. So, [laughter] you I'll leave you guys. >> I'll go. I'll go. Um >> um I [clears throat] I will vote for this. I I think the design is very nice. Um I do have to say, as much as I love the tree, I don't think we have any jurisdiction.
>> No, [laughter] we don't. We don't ask. It's worth asking, unfortunately. Um but yes, I I will vote for this. >> Thank you, Ken. >> I will definitely vote for this. >> And Ken Jay, >> yeah, >> I'll vote for this as well. >> And Chris, >> I will vote for this as well.
>> Yeah. I I think uh the property looks nicer uh now and I'm sure it'll look better with this addition and I too will vote for this. So, if I could get a motion, please. Um, I make I make a motion [clears throat] um with regard to 187 Pine Street to
grant a finding under section 3 for front setback encroachment of a proposed addition that will be located closer to Crestline Circle than allowed by right 18.5 where 20 ft is required and that the proposed extension alteration of the
structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood. >> I will second that. I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Good luck. And uh
>> good luck. Thank you. Thanks. >> With that said, uh Brian and unless we have any business, I will uh close the meeting. >> No business. >> Motion to adjourn by somebody. >> Second. >> Second. Second. Second by Ken. All in favor? I. >> Good night.
>> Good night, Jammers.