I don't know. >> Okay. Good evening, uh, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to, uh, a Wednesday night edition of, uh, Danver Zoning Board of Appeals. Um, I will start by introducing our board, uh, down to our Oh, sorry. Actually, uh, if you
could please, um, uh, if you don't mind, please, uh, silence your, uh, mobile devices or anything that could possibly interrupt us. And, uh, with that said, I will introduce our board. Down to our right is, uh, Karine Doy. Our clerk tonight, Ken Scholes, myself, John
Bowerer, as the chairman. Uh, to my left is, uh, Ken Jarvin. Uh, Chris Dumbowski, and our alternate tonight is Kevin Burich. Um uh and uh from our planning department is our planning director, Mr. Brian
Zakelli. Um members, we were in receipt of minutes uh dated three sets of minutes dated November 24th, uh December 1st, and January 12th of
this year. Uh I I'll entertain a motion unless there's further discussion. >> So moved. And can I get a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I >> opposed. Good. Um, folks, we only have
three cases tonight. We actually have one continued, one that was postponed, and we have one regular case tonight. We'll take them in that order. Uh, we ask that you do go to the microphone after your case is read up there at the podium, introduce yourself, your address, your name, uh, tell us what it
is you'd like to do. Uh from there when you complete your presentation we'll come back to the board. Uh the various board members will ask questions of you. Uh we can get any clarification we might need from our planning director. Uh at that point we will open up uh once we've
completed our questions we'll open it up to the public for comment or questions through the chair. Uh once we close the public comment, we ask that we're not interrupted and uh if if the case is going to move forward, we will deliberate and you'll get a uh an idea
of how the board is going to vote and uh we can uh give you your options at that point. And uh I think with that said, uh Mr. Clerk, if we could read our first continued case. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our first case is 7 Wildwood Road, zoned R3. uh request
a special permit under section 9.3 to create an extended family living area that will be larger than allowed by right at 1,082 square ft where 750 ft is allowed. The request is made by Peter
Vitali dock at 26-5129. >> Anyone here on 7 Wildwood? >> Peter Vitali 7 Wildwood. Good evening. Uh we didn't think it was going to be such a delay in having you back, but uh winter's biting us a little. Uh we all did receive updates. So maybe if you
could just give us a brief summary of uh what what transpired and where you're at right now. >> So um pursuant to the last meeting, Brian Kelly had suggested um two doors for the shared space, one
on my son's side and one on my side. So, uh that is the current plan that you see here. Um he can access the shared space which is a 12 by13 room from his side. I can also access it on my side through
the hallway uh that leads past the uh bathroom and the laundry room. So, that's the plan. Um by doing so, that reduces the request down to 926 square ft. 926
Okay. Anything else you want to present to us? >> No. I mean, uh, once that room is created, uh, the rest of it is our space. I mean, we talk about shared space. My wife and I were laughing last time because the whole house is shared space.
>> The whole house is shared space. My door has doesn't even have a lock on it. My my son's family comes over, we go over there. It's just it's one big shared space. But for the sake of the efla, >> that is the shared space. >> That's a dedicated space.
>> Very good. Okay, I'll open it up for questions unless you got anything else. >> Oh, no. He's >> Yes. >> Do I? Yeah. >> You have anything else you want to present? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Kareem, we'll start down there with you. >> Uh I do not have any questions.
>> Thank you, Ken. >> I do not have any questions. Thank you. >> Ken J. >> I don't have any questions. Um, Chris, >> no questions. Thank you. >> And Kevin, >> uh, no questions. Thanks for making the updates that we requested. >> Thank you.
>> Um, I think you clarified, uh, you know, what we were looking for is I think we needed the rooms a little bit more clearly labeled. I just have one uh to the left where it says common living room space that 446 ft. That's not considered part of the
efflow. That's part of the main house. >> Yeah. You mean to in front of the door that's going to be created um in the >> Yeah. On the left side of the drawer. >> Yeah. That that's a living room with the bar. You were asking how many people can sit at the bar. There's four seats there. >> Well, there's six of us, though.
>> I know. We can we can we can fix that. >> Okay. But so uh and and then everything to the right uh totals this 926 square ft. So >> yes, with the with the change now to that. >> Got it. So your original ask of uh 1,082
we're now >> that's gone >> reducing down to 926. So >> the only thing I would add was that that sun room which was not clear to you in the last meeting there. If you look up top there the sun room >> um that's almost a threeseason porch, >> right? >> I mean it's freezing cold in there and
the person that put it up didn't put enough heat in there and we have to sit in there with a with a sweater on every night. >> Sure. >> But is that 170? >> It is it is it is counted in the night. It's counted as part of this 926. Okay. >> All right. Uh yeah, go ahead, Ken.
>> A little point of clarification. I think where he has the common living room mentioned, that's what he was going to use as common area before all this transpired. >> Got it. >> So that's why it says that on there now. >> That's correct. >> Okay.
>> Or it's not. >> All right. Yeah. Go ahead, Ken. >> That's a good question to uh Mr. Planning Director. So, is um the sun room, the threeseason porch, is that considered that's not considered uh living space, is it? >> Uh it is. >> Is it?
>> Yeah. >> And it was count It was counted the first time. It just wasn't on the plans, but it was counted in the math. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's conditioned space or it's unconditioned space? >> It's heated, right? >> It's I mean, you're there three. >> You said it's not adequate heat, but it is heated. Correct.
>> It's he it has a mini duck. >> Okay. You can you can put it up to 90° and you're still going to be >> doesn't get it done. >> Okay, I think I understand. We all good on the board. I'll open this up for the public. Uh we're here on seven Wildwood Road. Any uh questions or comments?
Hearing? Seeing none, we'll come back to the board and deliver it. Uh Karine, >> um I will vote for this. >> Thank you, Ken. >> I will vote for this. >> Ken J, I'll vote for this, too. >> Chris, >> I will vote for this as well. Devin, if you were voting, >> uh I would vote for this if I were
voting. >> Yep. And uh I too I see this um you know, you're not changing the structure. It's all interior. Uh it meets all of our criteria except for the oversize. I don't think there's a lot um that has to
be that you could do to reduce it to our 750 number. So uh I too am in favor. And board members, if I could get a um motion, please. Um, I make a motion to grant a special permit under section 9.2 in order to create an extended family
living area that will be larger than allowed by right at 926 square ft where 750 square ft is allowed and that the exterior appearance of the structure is not substantially changing. The structure remains residential in nature.
Adjacent properties will not be adversely impacted. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public good and would not substantially deviate from the intent or purpose of this bylaw. >> I've got a motion. Could I get a second? >> I'll second.
>> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Very good. And good luck. >> Very good. Thank you. Appreciate >> it. Good luck. >> Okay, Mr. Clerk, if we could go on to the next case. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next case is 100 Independence Way. This is zoned
commercial 3. Uh request a variance under section 37.3 for proposed signage larger than allowed by right in the com uh commercial 3 zoning district and to relocate existing signage detailed detailed in application. Uh the request is made by
Saxton Sign LLC care of Darren Catz on behalf of the Liberty Tree Mall docket 26-5131. >> Hi. Good evening. >> Good evening, guys. Thanks for taking the time to hear me this evening. Darren Katz with Saxon Signs 1320 Castleton,
New York. Um >> I'm sorry. I I didn't hear you Darren. >> I am. >> Thank you. >> And you? No. Um so basically um AMC theater has um upgraded their contract with Dolby
Laboratories and they're adding 40 new locations merging with the theat's uh visual and audio capacities by 2027 to bring them up to 200 total. So basically this is just kind of a corporate identity because the way the signs are
designed it is an additional sign at about five square feet. 5.3 square ft is the size of the new sign. Uh the mall is all in favor of the project. We'll be if permitted we'd be moving over the
current um AMC and IMAX over to the side and then using the Dolby over to the left. So, it really is kind of a minimal minimal change to the facade of the entrance. I'm not from the area, but I did do a driveby on my way in today, and
it's not really interfering with the character of the neighborhood. It's a very, very commercialized neighborhood. I mean, this is actually on the mall, so there's several signs. It's one of those situations where it wouldn't even really be noticed except for signed people like myself and you guys because you're part
of it. Okay. Anything else you want to present? >> That's it. >> Any questions? >> I'll open it up for questions. Uh Kevin will start down there with you. >> None. Thank you, >> Chris. >> No questions. Thank you. >> Kenj,
>> I have no questions. >> Ken, >> I think I'm good. Thank you. >> Uh, how about you, Karine? >> Um, I just have a couple. Um, may I ask um the planning director question? >> Sure. Go ahead, >> Brian. Uh could you just give us an
overview of how um this sign application is impacted by the old law versus the well the old bylaw versus the new bylaw and what are we actually granting now that we either couldn't or we could
before >> strangely enough I understood that >> makes one of us >> um so uh this would have been caught under the old the new bylaw is more per permissive than the old bylaw. So, this would have been caught under the old bylaw and it would have been harder for,
you know, technically this would have happened, but you'd still be under that lens of is it, you know, necessarily worse than than what's there. That's really the lens. The weird part about this one, I'm going to have to go to my notes to get this right because it was kind of a a convoluted story uh once I
started digging. So, I might as well just um >> Yes, I was going to ask. So, so yes, give us the whole history. >> Sure. So, uh, a number of signage variances govern the site. Uh, the most recent variance was granted in 2009 to
add the IMAX sign. Since there's no entrance to the cinema through any other means, uh, the AMC is afforded a maximum of 48 square ft. Um, and in review of the history, uh, there was actually no approval for the AMC or the original Lowe's sign. So,
we're talking two iterations before this. So, this application proposes an addition of 5.3 square feet to the existing signage, which is what the applicant just stated. However, in total, the real ask of the entire application, meaning this whole thing
that we're looking at currently right there on the screen, the Dolby AMC, IMAX, and the mall sign with the AMC, IMAX, and Maul sign already being there. We're just adding the Dolby and and then centering it up essentially as part of the application. Um, but when you add all those together,
it's 142.5. So, basically, that's the lens that this board has to be looking at in terms of what it granted what is granted because there there was no application. Uh, there was no I I we don't believe one ever was applied for. We know there was never one ever
granted. We're sure of that. Um, so this would clean that up, get um everything that you're looking at right now under one variance. um that would um allow them to um add this again this 5.3 square feet uh in addition to what's
currently there. >> Okay. >> So, sorry. >> I mean, the history is just kind of odd that that it would be a big sign package like this and that there would be no application and and all of that. Um >> the re so the rebrand was done mean was totally done through a building permit.
We understood that. They're like, cuz they go down to the building department and they're like, "We're not changing any square footage. We're just changing the content." You know, instead of Lowe's, it's AMC. So, that would have been a building permit at the time. You're you're not changing anything but content. Done. >> Yeah.
>> But the original one never got one in the first place. So, that that was the problem. >> Okay. >> I I have no other question. Thank you, >> Brian. on that thread. Um I know is is there is there did you guys
look at I know this is 100 independents. I believe there's this the large pylon sign that's on Home Depot's property that I maybe is 50 independents. Did we look at other addresses for independence? Because I think there's
three that kind of govern this site. There's three separate main parcels that govern that govern it. But the um >> but none of them had this ask. >> No. No. Even I mean uh well the the the last one in '09 did have have the IMAX. But um but
>> that was for 100 independents. >> Correct. >> But there's also there was nothing ever filed that we could find and there was also nothing ever uh filed at the registry. So there's like no indication that any application has ever occurred.
So you your feeling is this makes everything correct >> this >> going forward I guess let me ask it this >> year from now Dolby pulls out or AMC gets renamed what happens >> uh so if they're just changing content
but they're not changing uh the the amount of square footage of signage >> they just come in and pull a permit they not >> that's a building that's a building permit >> right >> that's a building permit >> which we thought was what should have happened originally but didn't >> no a building permit was pulled but but
uh for the AMC to go from Lowe's to AMC there was a building permit pulled that was fine and so they thought so then from AMC on everyone thought that it this is what you know it's you know we we've already done it it's already been up there it's been up there for years blah blah blah but the Lowe's one never
got basically should have gotten a variance however many years ago >> when it went from Lowe's to AMC they should >> previous no when whenever it was whenever it It wasn't Lowe's. There was nothing. It was just like Maul, >> right? When they created the movie theater. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's a lot to think about.
Nothing to do with your ask here, I guess. But >> still confusing to me. >> Well, we have the abil we have the ability to >> confusing >> to clean it to clean it up and make it clear for now and moving forward. >> So, uh, Darren, it was right. Um, so you
understand how our bylaw works as far as square footage on signage for this building, >> correct? >> And uh what is the amount of square footage with this Dolby sign that you're adding? >> The Dolby sign is uh 5.3 square ft,
which would bring the existing sign to 142.5. >> And I'll go to Brian. 142.5. I think it's is it 10% of the building size? So this clearly is >> No, they're allowed to do 48 square the
the the ask is that where 48 square ft is allowed. >> So So this 142 is well above that. >> It's well above that, but it's it's been well above it's been well above that for >> right >> call it 20 plus because it was pre9.
So this 142 is the word mall as well or is it just AMC? >> No, it's everything you >> mall. Everything I see here and including the sign you're asking for a Dolby. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I see it. >> Additional. Yeah, go ahead. K.
>> Um, is this considered Brian? Is this considered a marquee sign or a wall sign? This is a wall sign. >> Wall sign. Okay. >> Anything else? >> Uh, nope. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I I have another question. >> Yeah, go ahead. K. Okay, I know 48 square feet is allowed,
but it's Are we talking just on this little facade that's shown right here or the whole entire mall that they own? >> No. No. So, it's so it's um it's based upon the building frontage. And then how we calculate that is it's literally not not the frontage at the street, the
building frontage. So, we're talking essentially here of the silver the silver middle portion of 24 ft. So if when that >> connecting buildings on each side >> if that's 24 feet because this is basically um I mean this is actually one of the few things that is governed in both the previous one and and the new
bylaw is that when there when it's a strip mall you have to calculate it some way and this is how it's calculated. So it's it's 24t wide therefore they're allowed 24* 2 48 feet 48 square feet of signage. So it's actually not super large that they're they're accommodate
anywhere. So all that means is not that they're not allowed to do that. It's that it's a trigger for review. So you guys have to look at this and see like does this make sense. >> I got another thing. >> Yeah. Go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman. May I? >> So in all actuality, this mall has two other frontages.
>> Uh so Buffalo Wild Wings has its own thing. The >> No, no, no, no, no. The mall itself over by uh the trampoline place on either either side of that is a entrance to the mall on either side. So that's a that's a frontage. That's a frontage. Has
nothing on either side of it. >> Yeah. The >> Why can't you add that to the total of this? >> Because this is just looking at the width of what >> specific this specific building frontage. It's not It's not Yeah. It's not like the whole wall. >> We're only looking at this.
>> Yeah. You're only looking at really the width of the silver. >> And that's why I asked about the whole building itself >> because there's other entrances to the mall, >> but they would need variances to do that as well. I'm saying you you could add those entrances to the total of the
frontage of the mall. I don't know. I guess it's a hairy situation. I don't know. >> Uh go ahead, Kevin. >> Anyway, sorry. >> Um so my recollection is that AMC has its own for the planning director. AMC has its own set of entrances,
exterior entrances. At one point, at one point they were widely used and then they became and then they became handicap only entrances and exits. Why doesn't their entire building frontage on this on that side
count? I mean, well, I'm trying to think because >> I mean, the way we look the way we look at a strip mall in terms of I mean, this is you just you're whether there's the the back could have its own that would
that would be a different that you would you would you would measure that in and of itself. meaning you have this the entire front of the strip mall whatever is your portion of that in this case the the AMC is taking is since there's no um
>> uh you're saying there is an you're saying there is an exterior entrance into the into the movie theater >> there is >> in the back >> so that is not how it's ever been interpretated interpreted for this case >> yeah it's many it's many many doors wide it's you know six eight 10 doors
>> yeah I think it's 10 >> yeah it's by the backside I'm aware of it, too. >> Well, let me summarize here. So, if I if I could, Kevin, did you did you've asked your question, but I don't know if we clearly answered it. >> It sounds like Brian, what you're saying, if if I'm hearing it right, is
we take each entrance to a strip mall or a mall, strip mall, mall being one and the same for us for this purpose, as its own sub set of a facade, I guess, >> right? So I mean >> we're not including the buildings for
instance to the left to the right. We're just talking about this particular entrance. >> Correct. >> And it's 20% that >> square footage. It's two it's two times the length of the of the building. That's why it's not really it's called building frontage but it's really the it's the length it's the width of the
building. >> So that's why you that's why like little swimmers their sign can be certain. It can be so big and buffalo wild wings can be so big. It's based upon the linear width of the building. that's designated for that use. >> Okay. And I So to come back to Kevin's
point, so this rear entrance that is direct >> that's it's kind of news to me even though obviously I know that it is there but I've never >> So there's this large area in the back it it is about eight or 10 doors wide. I think at one time maybe still it was
meant to like be the exit of the movies. you know, the movies let out and it can take a a large volume of people. >> If they wanted to um also do a sign back there, which I get why they wouldn't because it's on the back side of the
mall, no one can see it. They would be under this same >> whatever the whatever the width is in the back. >> We would times two, that's their square footage. And so that's why you can't really add two of them together. It's the width of the building of the thing we're talking about. It's it's just
what's in front of them right there. And it's because that's >> they don't have an actual >> building as part of the strip mall. They just have the entrance. >> It has always been interpreted that the mo that the that the movie theater does
not have an exterior entrance directly into the theater. So therefore, they are afforded this type of this signage out here is the two times the the the width of the building. >> Well, let me go out to Darren. So Darren, I you already stated you're not
from the area. However, how much do you know about the uh the flow, I guess, in and out of this theater where people come in and where they go out? Why why why here? Why do you want Dolby here? >> Because that's their main signage and main entrance for the theater. So AMC
has no other signage except I think on the >> street pylon separate pylon out on the street >> and that's the only other place signage for AMC exists at this site to your knowledge. >> To my knowledge, correct >> exterior. >> And Kevin, I think I agree with you. I I
don't think there's anything on that back side. Right. >> There isn't. >> There's nothing. >> Okay. Um is there any additional questions from the board? Karine, you got anything? I just wanted to say if we counted what was in the back, they could literally have a sign over the entire front and it would probably be
>> But the whole Yeah, that's why you can't add them. You can't add them together. >> Anyway, I guess what I'm confused about is please don't actually >> um >> I agree with you. You know, if they were if they were allowed 48 square feet on this particular entrance, how do we get
to uh minus this 5 ft of Dolby that says we're, you know, around 137 without any variances? That's what I'm confused about. >> I I mean, I I think it it's just a it's a it's a trigger for review and then
it's you it's your job to to to >> But it sounds like we never reviewed this. >> It does not sound like you ever reviewed this, >> right? Um, >> that's probably why so many questions are coming up now. >> I mean, >> you know. >> Okay. Well, I I mean, we're not trying to beat you up. I think we're just trying to understand it. So,
>> um, >> okay. Uh, with that said, I will, uh, go out to the public. We're here on 100 Independence Way. This is for signage for, uh, AMC movie theater. And, uh, seeing hearing none, uh, I will come
back to the board and we will deliberate. And this is for a uh request to increase um >> variance >> I guess allowed existing signage to increase by
5.3 square feet. It sounds like >> exactly correct. >> Thought you'd be in and out of here, didn't you? >> Uh Kevin, go ahead. >> Um I I have heard every standard of review tonight for a variance besides the right one. Uh I have heard that it's a trigger
for review. This isn't the planning board. I've heard uh is it more detrimental than what's there? This is not a finding. Uh it's, you know, it's just it's not a special permit. It's a variance. Uh it's a variance for over
twice what's allowed by right. Uh this is not a the new bylaw was written poorly, so we're stuck, so we're going to interpret it based on it. Like this is a variance. I have heard absolutely nothing that would get us to the legal standard of a variance. uh a thousand times. No. >> Very good. Uh Chris,
>> I would vote in favor. Thank you. >> Uh and Ken J. >> I think it's minimal um minimal extra than what was already there. I mean, we're used to what was there. It's only 5.3 square feet more. I would vote for this.
>> Very good. Uh Ken, >> um I'll vote for this. I mean, the fact that he has to include mall in the signage square footage, um, it kind of puts him at a little strangle hold. So, I I think it's very
minimal. I'll I'll vote for this. >> Um, Karine, >> um, I I agree with Ken. I I also think, too, um, his change is minimal. It's all part of his branding. We deal with that all the time. Companies have different branding and, you know, they kind of
want their new signs. I also think the time for us to complain about this sign was years ago, not now. >> Yep. >> So, >> uh, >> I will vote yes. >> Thank you, Karine. And, and, uh, I again, I I guess I don't really look at this as complaints as this board just
trying to understand, >> right, >> get a better handle on things. I do agree with Kevin. I I think the fact that we're looking for a variance on this, which is a high threshold to me, uh, doesn't make sense. I think uh, Mr. Kelly later in the meeting is going to
update us on where we are with the town um uh bylaws on on that. I'm going to ask him to anyway. So, uh but with that said, I I you know, this is kind of like we don't know how we got here. It it does look minimal and uh I too will vote
in favor of it. So, if I could get a motion. I make a motion to grant a variance waiver under section 37 to allow for the installation of new signage that will be 142.5 square ft where 48 square feet is
allowed by right and that this condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship to the applicant and granting this variance waiver will not create a
substantial detriment to the public good and will not nullify or dergate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. >> Got a motion. Can I get a second? Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> I opposed.
>> Good luck. >> Thank you very much. All right, let's go. Ready. Um, our next case is 123 Dayton Street. This is zoned R3. Requests a finding under section 3.10 of the zoning bylaw to expand a
pre-existing non-conforming two-unit property by adding a third unit within an existing building on site. Uh, interioron renovations are proposed. The request is made by John and Ruth Pension Trustees JNR Pension Realy Trust Care of
Nancy McCann Esquire Docket 26-5132. >> Hi, good evening. >> Good evening. Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf of the applicants, John and Ruth, Pension Trustees of the JNR Pension Reality Trust. With me tonight is the
pension family. We have John and uh Nina uh pension are here. Ruth pension is here and Jay Pension is here. Um the property also I think we may have uh Jay Palakawitz uh remotely. Uh he prepared
some of the plans that were submitted with the application um relative to the property at 123 Dayton Street. It is located in the R3 zoning district and we're requesting a finding in order to allow the expansion of the existing nonconforming use. We have two dwelling
units there. Now, we're requesting to go to three dwelling units utilizing space that has been occupied by a school uh for many years uh on the property. This will require interior renovations only.
There will be no building changes, exterior changes I should say, only interior changes. There will be no site changes associated with this request. Um, the pensions purchased and have occupied this property since 2006
and have operated the Plumfield Academy out of uh this portion of the property that's in bold on your site plan up there, which is the uh portion of the property that we're talking about this evening. It's about,31
square ft. And again, Plumfield Academy has uh occupied the property for about 20 years. there are um but back last June June of 2025 the uh school ceased its operation.
Um on the site we have uh a number of different structures. We have two existing dwellings, the main house in the front and the cottage in the back. Um and we also have a garage and a barn.
Those structures all date from 1875 and uh they are occupied as uh the cottage and the main house as dwelling units um by the pension family. Uh the pensions wish to renovate the interior
of the area in bold which is uh what has been occupied by the school to make a small dwelling unit a one-bedroom uh dwelling unit um which the property is perfectly suited for that. If you went out and looked at this site um there is
adequate parking uh for already existing on the property. Um there's a separate door going into what was the school and it just lays out beautifully. Um again requiring no exterior um alterations to
the building, no exterior uh changes to the site itself. Uh strictly interior um alterations um existing on the site. We already have seven parking spaces um and three garage spaces. For three dwelling
units, we would need six parking spaces. So, we have more parking spaces than we need. I've submitted with the application the plot plan, which is what is up on the screen right now. I also submitted to you uh floor plans, which are uh very straightforward. It shows
the school area again about 1131 square ft. The school consists of uh two classrooms, a computer lab, a bathroom, and a kitchenet. And we're proposing to take that space, not altering any wind altering any
windows or any doors. It's simply interior renovations to create a one-bedroom uh unit with living room, kitchen, and bath. Pretty straightforward. Um in this case, uh the non-conforming uh
two dwelling units that are on the property plus the school. Um, we think that the finding to create this uh take the school space and create that into one uh small dwelling unit will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than what currently exists, which are the two dwelling units and what has uh has been a school for for 20 years. We think this is a reasonable use of the existing building and certainly in keeping with the residential
character of the neighborhood as well as since we may need to make no changes to the exterior of either the buildings or the site itself. It's in keeping with the historic character of uh of the property. Um,
we do have some photographs of the interior of the classroom space that would be changed uh and renovated into a simple one-bedroom uh unit.
Um, the pensions I will say uh went above and beyond reaching out to their neighbors. They reached out to all of the abeters and uh I have 14 letters of support from their neighborhood from
their neighbor. These are all of us. >> Thank you. >> And uh their outreach as you can see was successful in answering any any questions as we don't have anybody in the audience but uh but the applicant.
Um so the uh as you can see the letters of support state that they feel that this uh this change of this uh school space into uh one small dwelling unit will be beneficial to the neighborhood. I would be uh happy to answer any
questions and we certainly feel that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood um than existing conditions. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Karine, we'll start down there with you. Um, Attorney McCann, um, when when your
clients purchased the property in 2006, they were the ones who created the school and started the school. >> Yes. >> And what was it before that? >> Um, this addition was added on in the back for to accommodate the school
because, as you know, the school is an exempt use >> and this addition was added on there. Actually, I will tell you, uh, the the pensions have been very, um, judicious in doing things the right way. And when they purchased this property, there was
actually an illegal third unit. And they found out that that was an illegal unit and they took that out. And then they went through the process of um, putting on this small addition in the back to accommodate the school, which is an it was a nonprofit educational uh, use,
which is exempt from zoning. Okay. All right. So, we have the three structures. So, you said before it was there were two two dwellings. So, it was the original one without the school. Yep. >> And then there was the other buildings.
So, those were the two structures that were dwellings. >> Yes. Two c two dwelling units. The main house in the front and the cottage in the back. >> Okay. So, those are the buildings that go back to 1875. >> Yes. as well as the garage and the barn.
>> Yes. No, no, no. Yeah. Yes. Um, >> okay. That that's all I have for now. I might have more later. >> Thank you, Karine. Uh, Ken, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so when this was a school, like how many students would they have it on average per day? About
>> roughly >> 24. >> 24 students. And that students would be dropped off and picked up daily. So, cars in and out. >> Yes. And now we're going down to potentially one or two people in this unit. >> Correct. >> No further questions.
>> Thanks, Ken. Kenj, >> is there any um entrance way from the uh main house into the existing school? >> It looks like they're budding. They're like really close. Are they like touching? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. There is a connection. Yes. So is that going to be taken care of or are you is it going to be like a shared type of >> This is not a shared living >> uh arrangement. So there is a door there now. It would be would be or could be closed off. But the uh the school which
would then become the one unit has its own separate completely separate entrance. I think we had a photograph of that. >> Okay. I I have no other questions. Thanks Chris. >> I'm all set. Thank you. and Kevin.
>> So, the the thing that I the plan generally to me seems reasonable and tasteful. The the thing I'm struggling with is the non is the pre-existing non-conforming use. Um, so this whole property became subject to the Dover amendment at some point, fell out of,
you know, became excluded from zoning, right? So housing attached to a school could be thought to be excluded much the way a rectory attached to a church could be excluded. >> No, I would disagree in this case. >> No. >> Well, just because so the the the two buildings that we're talk or the the
four structures on the site that we're talking about. So my you can't really see my mouth the mouse very well but this structure this structure this structure and this structure were from the you know 18 call it 1870
something 1880s >> u so that's so it was a two it was a multi-house lot for pre for pre-existing zoning so therefore uh whenever zoning started 1945
Pre-existing non-conforming is a is a multi house then. So it's a pre-existing non-conforming use right now regardless of the school has nothing to do with the school. So this whether the school's there or not there doesn't affect its pre-existing non-conforming use.
>> Okay. Um so I guess the my other question is I'm I'm looking for some kind of limiting factor right for for when we're approving additional units for a pre-existing non-conforming. So, I happen to live next to uh a house that
something very similar happened. It was a two, it was a two family from well before zoning. This board decided in the '9s, I think, that uh four units was not substantially more detrimental than two. And so, it just occurs to me if we just take small slices, right? Like plus one
more unit will never be less substantially more detrimental than one less, right? Though it would I could see a perfectly reasonable board coming to the conclusion next year that four units is not substantially more detrimental than three and five the next year is not substantially more detrimental than
four. How do we how do we keep from how do we keep from go like what's the limiting factor there? >> There isn't a limiting factor. It's an application process, right? That uh anybody who wanted to increase the nonconformity when you have grandfathering protection under 48
section six, which is what this is, >> you do have um you have a good deal of maneuverability, if you will, in changing or altering or expanding. Those are the the things that are allowed under under section six. But it requires
a process. It requires a public hearing. It requires neighbors coming and objecting if they if they don't want it. So if someone applied to add another unit um five years from now, this it would go through this process and there
might not be 14 letters of support um as there are in this case. Uh while the nonconformity are the two units y >> that are already existing. Those are the grandfathered uh units. You have to take the situation as a
whole and we also have a school, right? And and the impacts of the school and space that was built for the school. So that does have to be cons taken into consideration when you're looking at is one dwelling unit that's eliminating an
elementary school going to be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the the two units that are there and and the school that that is there. So, um I think in this case is a little different than some that you
might otherwise see because of that um special factor of having the school there, the building is there, no exterior alterations, no site changes are required. Um it's a little bit different and a little more compelling to find that this is not substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood. But to ask answer your question, under 48 section 6, there isn't a limiting factor other than the hearing process. >> And each one opens up an appeal period if someone objected. >> Thank you. >> I'll second. >> Yeah.
>> Uh, attorney McCann, with that said, so this is our three and we don't allow multifamily in R3. Um, if this were granted, uh, nothing stops this board from
having an ADU be built on this site. Correct? Cuz that would just be a matter of pulling a permit. So, this easily can go from again even the two units that are there now to a third unit. But if we grant
this, this could go from a three to a four. You agree with that? >> Under the state ADU y >> uh section, I think that is true. >> Right. As long as it complies with our bylaw of ADU, >> you could put an ADU on this regardless of the decision tonight.
>> Uh if the town doesn't take steps to put regulations on ADUs, that might be permissible. Okay? Because permissible regulations are allowed if the town takes that step. >> I don't I don't think I don't think any uh ADU bylaw that we would be able to
get passed by the AG would be able to limit to limit them. >> That's right. So they could we could Yeah, but we can't limit that. So the answer is no. They they could definitely have an ADU >> and it wouldn't come before the school. >> It wouldn't and it wouldn't come unless
they were trying to dimensional variance. But I >> I'm just trying to make that clarity. So, and the other thing I think um what what year was the school built? >> 96ish. >> So, so
>> when was the school addition added on the back? >> 2020. Sorry about that. 2020. >> So, this was just six years ago. >> So, there's um >> if you're going to speak, I need to know who you are and come to the mic, please. >> Hi, I'm Jay. Um >> J Pension. Yep.
>> I live at uh 123 Dayton Street. And so there's the um there's the original main house from 1875. >> Okay. >> There's an addition off the side that was built in the '9s. >> Yep. >> Um and then there is an addition that
was put on in 2020. Um and it's the additions to the main house that are used for the school. So in 1996 there was an addition put on the house and then an addition to that addition in 2020. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So attorney McCann, you know, it was
non-conforming with the four units. However, the school was put in under a 501c3. Correct. Exempt. So that's not a non-conforming use. That's conforming. Correct. >> Uh you confused me at your start by
saying four units. There weren't four units. >> Uh, no. I'm saying there's uh the four buildings, sorry, two barns uh or a garage and a barn, but there was already two buildings there that those four structures.
>> Yes, >> that's where the nonconformity is. Correct. Correct. >> The nonconformity the school's not non-conformity. >> I agree. >> Okay. And I I think I would get back that way >> that the nonconformity are the two units as Mr. Zakelli described previously as
well. That's the nonconformity. But there also is u a situation to consider is is this school building that went in legally with those two additions. >> But again, not as a non-conforming >> not as a non-conform. They didn't have
to come here. >> Do you see where I'm going with this? So, we have a a non-conforming property. >> Yes. >> We put a school in that was put by right and now we're going to flip it and say, "Well, it's a non-conforming property."
>> No, it was always a non-conforming property. >> I understand. But this building wouldn't have gone in if it wasn't a school. >> Well, they they could have built the they could have done the addition. The addition was was zoning compliant. It's over 30 feet from the setback. So they could have they definitely could have
built the thing. They could have built this >> an addition. >> Yes. That large without >> an addition. But we're not talking another place to live though. >> Correct. >> We can do an addition. We can make our houses bigger as long as they're within setbacks. >> But I think when it kicked it over to a
school, now we have a much larger structure. Right. I >> I don't I I don't I I think the school is confusing the issue. I don't think the school matters at all. meaning that they did a compliant they did a compliant addition. They probably could have even gone a little potentially even
a little bit further. Um but they they did a large addition over the years and now they want to forget the school. They want to they want to turn a two to a three. That's the that's it meaning the school has nothing to do with the the legal like any of the legal questions
regarding regarding the site. >> Okay. Um, in the square footage I think you noted is how much? >> 1131. >> 1131. >> Okay. Um, I don't think I have additional anyone else on the board. Additional questions?
>> No. >> Um, and you guys, uh, I've got your letters of support. All right. I'll turn this over to the public. Anybody here on 123 Dayton Street, which I see or hear none online? So we will come back and
deliberate and we'll start it down there with you Karine. >> Um this is this is res three and we already have nonconforming. We have two dwellings. Um I am not going to vote to expand it to three especially where
there is the potential for an ADU. So I'm a no. >> Thank you Karine. Uh Ken. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I think by my questions to you, um, I think I established that this is not more
detrimental to to the neighborhood. Um, we have letters of endorsement by all the neighbors and I think it's really cool that the family can all live in on one lot. I will vote for this. >> Thank you, Ken. Ken J.
I think it's a good use of the um existing structure that's not going to be used for a school anymore. It looks good. The design and stuff, I think it's I think it's going to be a beautiful project. I I will vote for this. >> Thanks, Ken. Uh Chris,
>> I will echo what both Ken's just said as well and vote for this as well. and Kevin. >> Uh, I'm I'm not voting, but I I think given the strong support from the Butters, uh, and I I'll I'll try to be
consistent. I don't necessarily like the outcome, but I think if I use the standard of review that's applicable here, I arrive at the conclusion that I would support this. >> Thank you, Kevin. Um, attorney McCann, I think for the same reason Karine stated,
um, I just I I just don't like the direction this is going. Um, especially in R3. Uh, so I am a no. I think this um nothing I I think the ADU route could have been chosen here. And uh even
without that, nothing stops this property from uh 8 months from now having an an ADU. So now we have four residents uh residential houses on one lot. So I am a no. Uh however, you do have the votes. So uh you only need a
simple majority I believe uh on a finding. So we're a split board tonight, but uh if I could get a motion, please. >> I make a motion to grant the finding under section 3.10 10 of the zoning bylaw to expand a pre-existing non-conforming two-unit property by
adding a third unit within the existing building on site. The proposed extension/alteration of the structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood. >> I've got a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second.
>> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed? I >> I >> uh you have the votes. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. >> Um uh uh Brian, before uh we uh and board members, before we uh close to
tonight, we did want to have a I guess a brief summary if we could, Brian, on where we're at with our lovely uh signed bylaw that we're hoping to get updated. I know we you and I had some discussions around um changes that need to happen in town
meeting and we've already seen I I don't know I guess four or five cases already that have been triggered to come into the board uh that probably normally won't if we do get this corrected. >> Uh I think if you could just give us an
update I guess. So where where we are is we've we've have two applications that should have never gone in front of the board, but it has brought there's been a total of five where maybe they're asking for more things than what's expected.
What this board has come to realize and I completely agree with that the lens of looking at any type of sign anything related to signage for a variance doesn't doesn't make legal sense. Um, so part uh part of this is that we want, you know, and that's that's just always
been that's just a thing that's been in the that's not a change that anyone's made. That's been in the bylaw for literally 50 years 50 years. >> That's been our landscape in Dan. >> Yeah. 50 years we've been um >> and we want to change that to a special permit lens. So it's the same super majority. you still need four out of
five, which is kind of the main thing is like, okay, you're asking for something that's that's large, but using the special permit lens just makes more sense. And then also cleaning up the the dimensions. So, where we are on that is that there's a deadline of February
20th, which is next Friday, for uh all potential articles to go to the manager's office. So there's a number of articles that uh land use and community services the whole um division you know the whole department is is
looking at. Uh one of them is going to be this signage bylaw. So we have uh typically been told and everyone this the the history of it is that um you know we don't typically do any zoning
whatsoever in May. Well, we have one anyway, no matter what, simply because we have a citizens petition for the pet daycare. Um, >> so your hope is we get this in front of town meeting in May because we're there anyway >> at at the end well at the end at at the
end of the day it's the select board that decides really it's select it's well I guess in conjunction select board of income but but the select board um decide really what gets on the warrant. So I'm like, you know, we have a letter from >> And you have something packaged and
ready to go. >> Ready to go, >> right? >> Um, so and and all we're Yeah. All we're doing is changing variance to special permit and then basically just having the the the town center that, you know, the downtown uh signage dimensions for
downtown and then have other the other dimensions that we've we've known for the rest of. >> So the bylaw would be broken up uh in in such a way that it's a special permit. Uh downtown has a set of rules, if you will. Everything else has a different set of rules. Everything every it
matters what zone you're right now. It's essentially the same dimensions for the entire town, which was not the intention at all. It was a mistake. It was a flatout mistake. Um we alerted we alerted the state at the time >> to say we want to pull this back like
before they approved it. Um but uh >> and and this is something that uh you have to present to the selectman. Uh the town manager does both of you. So does this board need to be involved? How how does this move along?
>> So um March so it uh March 24th is the is a planning it's a Tuesday. It's a planning board. Uh that is going to be definitely the citizens petition one for sure because that has to happen. They've got their signatures in. They've
they've done the thing. So, they're ready to go um for So, so there there's already going to be a zoning hearing at the planning board meeting on March 24th. At that time, I would um present the the signed bylaw as well because
it's the it is the it's the zoning hearing like uh for the >> and is our support needed at that meeting to further drive home the point? >> Uh yeah. So, you know, so, um, yeah, that would be great, um, to show. >> And this is March 24th. >> This is March 24th. And if you can't
make it, um, you could individually write say, you know, your experience of saying that, you know, of why you think this doesn't make sense. >> It makes no sense to have signage in perpetuity by, in other words, by giving it a variance. >> Right. >> Right. >> It makes no sense at all.
>> No, I think we can all >> There's like there's like there's probably three good reasons why why it shouldn't. And um >> and none for why it should. >> I I mean I don't I don't know why typically it has nothing to do with >> I guess you could say topography.
There's probably some very weird cases where the topograph where it needs to be taller because the sign is in hill or something in front of it. >> But like it's more of like no what we're really looking at is what's what's around you. You're on 114. Okay. That's a certain amount of sign that you're
gonna get. you know, if you're over here, it's going to be a completely different experience downtown. You know, you you know, it's a completely different exper downtown or the same as the rest of town. >> I think every district is individual, right? >> So, yeah, the Tapley overlay has its own
has its own Yeah, has its own thing. Um, but yeah, >> I think that's what you pointed out. So, you know, downtown has a set of rules, if you will, but uh commercial has a set of rules and R1 has a set of rules and
and and so's depends on the zone. >> Yeah. There's there are very there's a very little amount of signs allowed anywhere in the residential district like >> but like highway corridor. >> Oh, yeah. Like I mean the main the main problem right now is that you're looking at downtown and you're looking at the
C3. the C3 being Endicott Street and right now they have the same dimensions. Yeah. >> So anyone knows that that just makes no sense that that that makes no sense and yeah. >> Okay. So uh Brian if you could so walk us forward a little. So that's presentations made to the planning board
March 24th >> then it goes in front of the selectman. >> So I don't know the time. So we we just we just finished town meeting uh Monday. So I think now everyone can take a deep breath for 24 hours and then now we're you know on to the next one. >> But I guess what I'm trying
>> I don't I don't have those dates. >> So but but what I'm trying to say about March 24th that's a what a a vote by the planning board. >> No they have to they required by >> it's required because there has to be a hearing so they can have public comment. >> It's just for public comment basically
to explain. >> So it's on their agenda for the 24th. Yes. for public comment on for or against this change in our bylaw. >> Correct. So, it's it's probably going to be my guess mostly questions and then some people that have >> and so then from there at some point it gets in front of the selectman and
they'll decide on whether it gets to the May. >> Yeah. Sometime in April >> meeting member >> and and and basically it's like you know I couldn't get an answer. It didn't make sense for me to like >> you know ask all the select board members oh do we think we should do this? There's just like I don't know
like we've been working on it. If you don't want it on, you don't want it on and we'll you know it'll it'll move on. It'll it'll we'll keep dealing with it. We'll move till February. But I had to we had to work on it. We didn't want to just because we were never going to get a go-ahad. So we're like, let's just
work on it and >> okay, >> see what happens. >> I mean, I think this is it. It's kind of like we have um a preservation one and it's basically just a cleanup. I think we can have those um on on like the May meeting. They they take like two seconds.
>> So, right to be to be fair, this is this is a cleanup for the sign one. It's a cleanup, but also a policy change. >> No, no, I know. I know. But it's not it's not substantial and it's not controversial. That's not that's typically when >> Well, I guess you'll find out March 24th.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I think anyone that's been watching has been, you know, for the past several months has probably seen the, you know, like, okay, what are we doing here? >> Can we go after the dog one? Because I think everybody will get their emotion out more controversy than the sun. >> There's no doubt there's no um shortage
of comments in general. >> Okay. Well, I I just wanted to get an update uh on the record from you in public eye here so we are all on the same page. Uh, I know various board members had asked, "Hey, what are we doing about getting this mess cleaned
up?" And I think you're working on it, so that is good. >> Should you get um Bob Signetti's as a consultant? >> Oh, yeah. >> The sign bylaw. >> Oh, Bob. >> Yeah. >> He loves the big sign. Those were his favorite. >> He was our killer with signs. All right.
Well, board members, with that said, >> I just have one other question. >> Yeah, sure. Go ahead. >> Um, there are several other zoning bylaws that could use some work. So, does that mean we need to wait until if they're going to have um like a town meeting in the fall or next winter in
order to get those in front? >> So, I I think what what we would like is to have kind of an annual February special all the time. >> Okay. If I had if I had the wand, I
would I would have we you know you have your May, you have it's all the financial it's the big financial like everyone's just talking about okay let's just get through the budget that is the main one appropriations like I get it the idea on adding another whole potentially large zoning or lots of very
small zoning ones people don't like it I get it. Um, so I would like Yeah, I would love one in February which allows us to kind of um have things kind of throughout the year except except of the summer. If you have a fall town meeting,
you basically have to do too much public particip participation in September and September alone when everyone's just trying to y >> you know like get through like you know the normal craziness that's September. So I I find se fall town meetings that there's never enough time. So if we
start talking about September, October, maybe November even and then you get, you know, we you can get at least get three or four meetings in. So the hope is that we do fe every February. So it'd be February 27th that we're talking about. >> Okay. And so uh like when when would we
bring it up to you? Like for example, I think we need to work on um the contractor yards and kind of I I guess you know make b have more detail with regard to the rules, what they're allowed to do and what they can't do and also the conversion
>> like we need we need to work on that one too. >> So I would add ethas to that list. >> So we have a draft we have a draft ADU bylaw right now. >> Yep. um that we need to work in dwelling conversions and efflas um essentially
like if you do a you know if you already have an EFLA then you you know or you can't do an AD we probably can't say you can't do do an ADU but we we can say if you have an ADU you can't do an EFLA or >> yeah some
>> it's unclear how much we can restrict it but I think that's >> I'm not even talking about those kind of conversions I know that those are gonna be kind of challenging. I'm talking about you have like we had on um street in Hobart Street where you have the one
and then you want to um convert it into a two and I I think our our rules are inconsistent and remember someone tried the one on Oak Street they they didn't have the right square footage so they wanted to be able to use like a
different bylaw and said because they couldn't comply because they didn't have enough like square footage for the bought um like we have to kind of shore up that so that people aren't clear right uneven tempted to use that other bylaw.
>> So yeah, so that's already that's on the docket for fe for what we feel is February, you know, the next special is is ADU dwelling conversions and EFLAs something that's like a that that touches all of those because you you can't really talk about one without
>> Oh, no. I agree. But I'm just basically concerned about that one. And I also think not only do we have to kind of like shore those up, we have to make sure that our definitions um are consistent and they're detailed enough. So when when
you when you read a bylaw and it has a term in there and you go to the definitions, you you know exactly what it means by the definition. >> So we can put these types of things on the agenda. >> Yeah. Um we don't you know you don't
just you know have to yeah so um or if you yeah how however you want to deal with this um but we definitely could when we have a light agendas I can you know I can I can talk with John be like okay we only have one or two >> going right now maybe we put a bylaw
bylaw review >> and just call it bylaw review and then we just talk >> that's totally fair game. >> Okay. Yeah. cuz I'm sure everybody else has has things that >> that seem um >> Well, and that way we can discuss it in this forum. It's out in the public. >> Well, yeah, cuz Yeah. I mean, that's
probably and if it's on the agenda, then people can come and >> Yeah. And we can get public input if needed, >> you know. So, and then, you know, we can work in conjunction with the planning board and get in the cyclical thing of every February. >> But it sounds like the process uh >> without a written rule has been zoning
No zoning in May. >> No zoning in May. Zoning only in the fall. And it sounds like we kind of want to maybe revisit that. >> Well, I'm I'm I'm okay with it. Meaning that if as long as we have a time, you know, right now it's fe they're saying February, which which I'm which I think is better than the fall.
>> Sure. >> Um but if there it just so happens to be this town meeting is that we already >> it's a citizens petition doing zoning. So we're already doing zoning whether whether So the the rule that you don't do zoning in May. >> Yeah. Right. doesn't really apply, right? It's >> like, okay, well, well, if we're already
not doing zoning, can we, you know, like we have a we have a bylaw that that every member of the zoning board and pretty much every member of the planning board understands that like this should probably happen because it's, you know, it's unnecessary in terms of what it's doing to applicants and to reviewers
like yourself. >> Okay, with that said, uh, I'm going to ask that we close the meeting and, uh, if I could get a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn >> and seconded. Second. All in favor? I >> I Good night, dear.