We're all good to go. >> Okay, that's fine. Thank you. >> Uh good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Uh everyone, uh welcome to tonight's uh Davis zoning board of appeals. We are now in session. Um I would first ask if uh you could silence your mobile devices
or cell phones and uh so we're not disturbed throughout the meeting. Uh I'll start by introducing our zoning board members. Uh to my right is uh Chris Tambowski. Our clerk tonight will be Karine Doherty, myself, John Bowerer. I'm the chairman. Uh to my left is uh
Ken Jarvin, and down to my far left is Kevin Bur. Um all five members will be voting tonight. Um uh and oh, sorry. From our planning department is our planning director, Mr. Brian Zelli. Uh members, we were all in receipt of uh
minutes dated uh September 8th of this year, 2025. Um, if there's no further discussion, if I could get a motion on those minutes. >> I make a motion to accept the minutes >> and seconded. >> Second. >> Uh, all in favor?
>> I. Any oppose? Very good. Um, I'll briefly just go over our procedures. Uh, the clerk's going to read the the uh >> just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I did not I did not uh vote on that because I wasn't present at the meeting. >> Okay. Very good. Uh, yep. I'll note
that. Thank you. Um our procedure is uh such the clerk will read the notice. Once the notice is read, we ask that you go to the podium there at the microphone. Uh we are on damas cable, so it's uh helpful for our minutes people, but also for uh anybody
tuning in at home. Uh please give your name, your address, and uh uh whether you're a public comment or if you're an applicant, uh please just tell us what it is you'd like to do. At that point, I'll turn it over to our board. Our board will ask questions of the
applicant. Once the board has completed asking their questions, we'll go back out to the audience for public comment. Uh from there, I'll close the public comment off and uh the board will give you your options based on our deliberations. Um and from that, uh
you'll get a good kind of sense on how the board's uh leaning towards your particular case. Um, and I think I've addressed everything. We're going to change up our order a little bit tonight and we have a couple of continued cases. Uh, Madame Clerk, if we could start with
our first continued case. >> The first item on the docket is 342 Andover Street, R3 um, map number 39, lot 010A. request a finding to expand a pre-existing non-conforming use of the
property to allow landscaping businesses that park on the rear of the property to also be able to park in the front of the building. Additionally, an expansion of the use of the main building to allow other businesses to rent professional or general office space inside the building
as the dental lab is no longer operational. Request by Guy Castanza, docket number 25-5108. >> I understand we're in a receipt of a letter asking for a continuence. >> Yes, it is dated Wednesday, September
17th, 2025. Hi, Brian and Company. Um, I guess I can't give you an exact time. Wait a minute. Let me start from the beginning. I apologize for the extended delay and won't mean it didn't mean to let it get that far. I do not have a surveyor hired yet, but we'll make sure
I take care of that this week. I guess I can't give you an exact time frame until I hire them, but we definitely need to continue and hopefully four weeks would suffice. Best regards, Guy Castanza. >> Okay, so uh we have a motion to continue
to October 20th. Uh if I get a Well, I need someone to make that motion. Can I make a motion to continue this case until the 10 2025 meeting? >> I got Chris to make a motion. I need a second. >> Second. And any further discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? >> Very good. And um we're going to call uh S 75 Silven Street next. Thank you. >> 75 Silven Street um I1 I2 district map
51 lot 31. request a variance under section 37-3-3 to allow two singlesided and double and two double-sided signs in addition to the two freestanding signs currently on site. Request made by 75 Silven Street
LLC in care of Nancy McCann Esquire docket number 25-5116. Would you like to speak, but I just have a sweet letter? Okay. And we're received a letter on that property as well. >> Yes. from attorney McCann. Dear board members, on behalf of the applicant, 75
Silven Street LLC, I request that the hearing on the above matter be continued without discussion to your meeting of October 6, 2025. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Nancy McCann, Esquire. >> Uh, could I get a motion to continue
this to our October 10th meeting, sorry, 6th? I make a motion to continue this matter until 10625. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Uh, any further discussion? All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? We'll see you on the
6th. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, madame clerk, if we could read our first case. Nine MacArthur Boulevard um R1, map 61, lot 15 requests a special
permit under section 32 um D in order to build an addition to convert a conforming two family dwelling into a conforming three family dwelling requests made by Tom Thomas McCormack and Cheryl Leon McCormack in care of
James Cippetta Esquire. Um, docket number 25-5115. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, honorable members. James Cipperto. I'm the attorney for Tom and Cheryl McCormack. My law office is at five Fremont Street
in Winthrop. I always like to uh get the sense sometimes that the boards like to be acquainted with uh with the applicants because sometimes there are conditions should the uh relief be granted and the board should probably have some sense of whether these people
have the ability and the credibility to follow those conditions. So I think it was always u uh helpful to uh give a little bit of background. So Tom um is uh the owner of Salt Construction Company and he is uh engaged in building
out uh large retail uh complexes around the country. He's very familiar with uh the construction industry and also with planning. His wife Cheryl is the uh assistant town manager and the town planner for the town of Winthre. So she
is uh she had a big hand in putting together this uh project with her knowledge and um sort of uh understanding of what what the neighborhood would um would benefit from
and what the pros and the cons were and massaging the plans to come out with the best um possible one to present to the board. So, as the um application states, this is a request for special permit to convert a
conforming two family to a conforming three. This would be accomplished simply by adding if if looking at the plan of the front of the building uh you see that there is to the left the majority of the house is two stories and on the
right hand side where those uh stairs are is a onetory and a It includes only about 400 square ft of living space. The plan simply calls for building on top of that within the
footprint about 400 give or take maybe fewer square feet of living space right on top of that so as to bring the roof line across. maintaining the u um the style of the home and integrating
into the uh style of the homes um surrounding it. All of the construction would be within the footprint and all of the construction would uh take place in compliance with the existing uh dimensional regulations. No height uh
relief would be required. No side or front yard relief would would be required. The interior would be for living space. As you can see there, there's going to be a a little extension uh over the top
of the uh existing one-story side of it there. That's going to be um uh part of the living space for the uh the third unit. Why three units and why
uh this configuration? Well, Tom and Cheryl have three children, 27, 30, 32. They're all out of the house. It is the plan to have the children all in that house. And the way that it was done was
um to make sure that if if the relief is is granted and they all get their own living space is to condominium the the building indeed each one of
those spaces to the three children. Pretty good um planning um estate planning I would say. Uh so where they have three children now and two apartments, no fights. If it was
just going to be rental, they don't want to rent it out. Each each child would have the pride of ownership. They would have the ability that many people in that age group really struggle to have to own something and it would be within
within the family. Yes. Is it possible that in 10 or 15 years one of them may have a family they're going to outgrow it and sell it perhaps. But I think in my experience it's always been that if somebody owns the property and there's a condominium association it's better
kept. Uh there are some things that uh need to be uh addressed legally and I I know that the under chapter 48 what the standard is of special permit whether or not it is um substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the current uh use. I would suggest that it's not the simple addition of one more bedroom, one bathroom in one kitchen in that in that space is not detrimental.
In fact, by right, they could still build on within that footprint, make that 400 square feet part of the other living space on the second floor, and you're still going to have the same number of livable square feet, the same
number of people, the same number of bedrooms, on and on. And I think it's important to to note that and I know the board in its expertise understands that you can't always estimate the number of people who are
going to um inhabit a property by saying well it's a one family, two family or three family. Essentially it's easier to count bedrooms. So, it would be the same number of bedrooms if they built it out as a matter of right and extended the living space on the second floor and
made that um that existing or the the existing second story uh apartment larger. It's it all comes out. It's it's zero sum. All they're doing is is essentially uh making a third unit which would be
segregated. all three um members of the family unit would have their own. And important to note, u Cheryl talked to some of the people in the neighborhood. Obviously, she couldn't talk to everybody because she works. Um everything that's going to be done is going to be done on that right hand
side. It's not going to encroach within the setbacks. It's not going to go outside of the of the footprint in the left side. I know that there's um there is a way that you could park there and maybe come down to park on the back. They don't want to do that. They're not going to park on that left side setback.
They don't want to take up uh any of the green space. They want to conserve the open space and keep it essentially the way it is. They do have to uh remove some of the stairway in the front uh and that little porch that's on the right hand side to accomplish that. That's not
increasing any of the um setback uh requirements and it's not going to uh result in a violation of any any of the setbacks. It's just a way to keep that smooth um contour of the front of the
house, add a small stairway to that one doorway that you see on the right hand side. Um that is in in the setback and also to make it um make it a little more appealing and more more in in line with the neighborhood. Uh if there are any
questions, uh certainly um Tom and uh Cheryl designed this. They're happy to answer them. Very capable of answering them more so than I would be. But if there any uh with respect to the uh the zoning ordinances or any zoning implications, I'm happy to uh answer any
that the board may have. >> Very good. Thank you. And attorney, I just want to make sure I get your last name right. Is it >> Cippetta? It's been anglicized, of course. Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Cleta. Um, great. Uh, I will open it up to questions and I'll start down there with you, Chris.
>> Um, the units themselves, I'm assuming the first floor is unit one and that's strictly just the first floor. >> That's correct. The first >> Can you could you identify yourself, please? >> Sure. Cheryl McCormack, 9 Casiotus Lane, Middleton, Mass. currently the owner of
nine MacArthur Boulevard. Thank you. >> My husband Tom. So, the first floor is um where my daughter would stay. And that is um I believe it was currently two or three bedrooms, but we're going to probably make it a onebedroom with a closet. She wants to have one big bedroom, so she'll stay on the first
floor. Second floor is two bedrooms and an office, and my son will live there with his fiance. And the third unit will be my youngest, um which would be the smallest space he gets by adding that second edition.
And I'm assuming off the first floor in the front. Brian, if you could go back to the first floor. Uh the front closest to the driveway. M is that like a mud room area where they'll all have access to that which will also get them access to the basement as well.
>> That's correct. That'll be common area. We actually relocating. Well, actually we're adding stairs to go up to the second floor because currently the the existing stairs, if you can see to the right where it says unit three, access the second floor um just to keep the conformity of the single family home in
the front. We wanted to just have the stairs in the front. So then my son will access the second floor that way and then they'll all be in a common area and each be able to access the basement. >> And they'll obviously all have two means of egress. I would assume
>> that's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. All set. Thank you. >> Thanks, Chris. Um Karine. >> Um yes. Actually, may I go out to um the planning director? >> Yes, you may. >> Um Brian, I drove by last week and I thought I saw construction vehicles out in front. Has construction started on
this property? >> Uh yeah. So, they're doing um so they're doing a remodel. uh they have building permits for that that are unrelated to to the use uh currently. So um but yes, I mean they could
>> and just to further clarify, there's been no construction for that addition. We have permits for the basement and renovations of kitchens and bathrooms, which we're in the process of doing, but we haven't done anything on that side unit yet. >> Okay. What are you doing in the
basement? >> Just is it a finished basement? any younating. It's an unfinished basement. Um we're just putting up um walls. We took down some walls and insulating. It'll be all open space. >> Okay. Okay. And what is your plan? I
know you you said there's plenty of parking, but what is your plan for parking? >> Currently, there's parking for four. We're just going to widen the driveway to accommodate two, but there will only be three vehicles at the end of this because my um all of my children have have vehicles, but my son's fiance does
not drive. So, there'll only be three cars. I'll accommodate six because I have to, but there will only be three vehicles. >> Well, can can you show us on the plans? >> It's on the plot plan. >> Oh, it is. >> Just a moment. >> I didn't see it on the plot plan.
>> I didn't either. >> It's just Well, they put the dimensions. >> Yes. I spoke to Brian prior and had them map it out on the plot plan where the parking would be >> just widening it. So, so you can fit six
cars on that. And you're right, you might only be parking three, but the requirement is for six. And if they sold the units, you would need the six parking spaces. >> Yes, I can accommodate six easily. >> So, it's it's it's it's um the bylaw allows it. It's three. It's three all in
tandem. >> We would do two, two, and two. >> Correct. So, all of them would be tandem. So, your unit would be two cars in tandem. your next unit. Your next unit. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, if the person in the front needs to get out, everyone, you have to do all that.
>> You got to shuffle it out. >> Okay. >> Okay. No question. No additional questions now. I might have more later. >> Thanks, Karine. Uh Ken, >> so you're converting from a conforming two family dwelling to a conforming
three family, but you're going to you need um 30,000 square feet and a lot for a three family. Not as a matter of right. I can do it as long as I don't enlarge the existing footprint so I can convert. >> Is Is that true, Mr. Planning Director?
>> Uh you're both right. So if you just had you needed if you just had vacant land, you needed 30,000 to do three. But for a dwelling conversion, you only need 2500 square feet of land per unit. So, it's because they're going through the dwelling version special permit that
they are compliant with what we would consider a three family for for a dwelling conversion. >> Okay. Also, is that the same for the setbacks? Go bigger too. You need 30 in the side. No, wait. Sorry.
>> It wouldn't matter. And the footprint is not changing. So, the more more importantly, >> yeah, the building size isn't changing. >> Okay. All right. So the setbacks don't Yeah. No, it says 30 side setbacks you would need yet. Right now it's eight.
>> All right. So it's going to stay in the same footprint in the side and everything. So the dimensional it's fine. All right. I have no other questions. >> Thanks, Ken. Uh Kevin, >> I would like to say what a what a nice use it is you're planning to uh put the
property to. It's kind of like putting all three of your kids in a getalong shirt. Um, it's great, but I guess if I can just touch on a couple of the items that my fellow board members touched on already. So, for parking, my understanding of the bylaw is that parking cannot be within the set within
the setbacks, right? So, it it to me with that driveway, if you park tandem, the rear car gets into the setback. So, in general, we you find that for commercial properties, if you look into any neighborhood in Danvers, um you obviously don't want people parking on
the sidewalk, but people being completely compliant, meaning that they are their driveway is just I mean, I couldn't tell you what percentage of driveways are directly up to that to that sidewalk line where you where people park because that's where they've
parked for 50 years. So, as long as they're not in the right of way, that's fine. >> If that means anything, >> and we're not even encroaching on the right. We stayed within the five. >> Yeah, it makes sense to me except that most only the conversions, as far as I know, have a specific requirement that
say and the parking shall not be within the setback. Um, so two off- streetet parking spaces shall be provided for each unit unless a reduced number is granted by the SPGA. Parking areas shall not be located within the front yard setback and shall
be screened from adjacent properties as required by the SPGA. >> Um, all right. I think that has to do with new parking. the fact that there's already parking in the setback now. That's part of this like that's part of what you need to review, but there's already parking in the setback
currently. >> Exactly. >> But we'd be adding two two more or well at least one more that would be within the setback it sounds like. Right. Because we're going to widen that driveway to accommodate >> one more tandem. >> One more. Correct. One more tandem, but only one of them potentially could be in the setback. Right. Both of them
wouldn't be, but at most one would be correct. >> Okay. And and then my next question, and it's the the last area I want to touch on, the like like a lot of times it seems like a lot turns on the word substantial. Uh right. So I
I uh the zoning bylaw suggests to me that it says, you know, except for additional exterior entrances. Uh and so that kind of gives us a clue as to what means substantial. So it seems to suggest that even the addition of a door uh is substantial. And this seems to me
to be more than the addition of a of a door, right? The exterior um outline is going to is going to change a bit. I don't say for a minute that it looks any less like a residential house or uh anything like that still fits the neighborhood. So I guess attorney
am I am I off on how I'm interpreting substantial or how would you interpret it in this case? >> Yes, sir. Uh Mr. Chairman, threw you to the member. Um in the reference to uh that you're making is to chapter uh chapter 48. And what they're talking
about in the special permit section of that is that the the standard would be whether or not the proposal is substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood than the existing use. So where we're talking about a use and in instead of perhaps a pre-existing non-conforming structure or non-conform pre-existing non-conforming use uh in a
special permit in that in that realm the definition of substantial now you can make you know the board is is the final arbiter of whether or not is substantially more detrimental. First you have to f make a finding is this
detrimental and if it is is it more substantially more detrimental >> uh than the current use >> that's what I was referring bring it up okay so Mr. will bring it up, but I I refer uh sir to our zoning bylaws, which I'm sure incorporate that same uh echo
the same terms used by 4DA for a um for a reason, but >> do you have any additional questions? >> Just to get this gentleman's comment on. So this is my is my question as to uh the exterior appearance of the structure
shall not substantially change, >> right? >> Um so it it this board I think in the past has interpreted that to mean except for those entrances will not change except for perhaps one other uh case. Um, so it it I'm just having a hard time
and giving you a just giving you a chance to explain to me why I shouldn't have a hard time thinking that that the exterior change is a substantial change. >> Well, it says the exterior appearance. So, they did a lot of work to try to maintain the the current appearance of the home. Uh, they didn't super
modernize it. They didn't change it to uh change it in height. Um it's it's substantially the same um the same architectural um elements to it. It is um the use obviously is is the same.
It's a residential use. So um a substantial shall not substantially change and shall remain residential. Yes, it's remaining residential. Um is the appearance of the structure substantially different? I guess it it
would be another way to put it. No, not really. Because what they're doing is they're going up. They're taking things away from the front. They're taking that porch out. They're taking the steps out. They're relocating one of the u the entrances. And in the from the 10,000
foot view when you look at this project, is that making it u wildly different? No. Is is it making it, you know, and I I I hate to try to use the word substantial to define substantial um but but is it is it
materially different? I mean, it it still looks like a one family house. Um it has one addition to it uh which was within the footprint which is able to be done as a matter of right. Um, so I I would
say in in defense of the plan that it it does not substantially change the character or the appearance of it. Thank you. >> It's a natural growth. >> That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kevin. Um, all right. Let me let me see if we can uh put some numbers
to this. So, this third unit you're proposing to add, what would the square footage of that be? >> Approximate. It's fine. The currently the addition uh currently the first floor addition I believe is approximately 400 square feet. We're looking to add about 318 square ft on
the second floor totaling that third floor unit at 718 square ft total. >> So approximately 800 foot unit >> 7 713 >> and and uh the first two units what are their sizes?
>> They,00 >> each. >> Yes. So, I guess it's whichever kid you like the best gets. >> Well, that's why the youngest is getting the getting the smallest unit. >> I I'm I'm struggling with the parking. Um, and I'll I'll tell you why. I did a
site visit yesterday. Uh, that asphalt is uh to your neighbor's fence. Um, your grass strip over there is approximately 5t wide. So, you're saying you're going to widen that? >> I'm keeping that. I'm not asking for a variance on the right setback. I meet
the 5ft set back to the fence so that grass strip will stay. I'm going to the left. >> Okay. So, you're going in towards the center of the house more. And how many feet are you adding on that side? >> How many >> approximate is fine? >> Six feet. About six feet over.
>> I I mean, I'm looking at uh >> I could have gone over to the left, but I wanted to be considerate with my neighbors >> to the left. >> Here to the chair, please. >> Sorry. I wanted I could have added parking to the left side of the house, but being considerate and not wanting to No, I understand. I I'm I'm just trying
to understand the plan in general. So, >> just widen it six feet. >> So, you widen it and you widen it on towards the center of the house, but to the left if you were facing the house. >> So, if you're facing the house, it'll probably come just before the front set of stairs. Widening it just before the front >> left of where it is now.
>> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. >> That's correct. >> And three sets of tandem two space spots. >> That's correct. Not that we'll use it, but yes, >> it's required. Again, what we issue isn't just for
>> correct >> this current ownership, right? >> Um, uh, like Kevin's question though, I mean, I think it's a high bar to, and it is up to the board's determination. Is this substantially
more detrimental? It's very subjective. Uh, as a board, we're uh, that's what we have to struggle with. That's that's why we're up here, right? So, um I think all my other questions Oh, uh I'd like to understand uh the bedroom count in each
unit. I believe you said this new third unit would just be one bedroom. >> That's correct. >> And what are the other ones? >> Currently, there are first floor there's one. It it we bought it. It was three. We made it one so she could have a walk-in closet and laundry.
Um second floor has two bedrooms and an office. And the third unit would have one bedroom. >> So, two of the units are onebedroom and one of the units is two-bedroom with an extra room. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, I don't think I have any more
questions. Board members, do you have any additional questions? Yeah, go ahead, Karine. >> I have one. Um, I reviewed the plot plan again and I just want to confirm that the driveway is 24 feet wide and Oh, the
proposed driveway is 24 um 4. >> No, no, 24T, isn't it? Yeah. Wide. >> 24 wide. 213, >> right? Deep. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh we're going to go out to the public on this case. We're here on Nine MacArthur Boulevard. If anybody'd like to speak on that. Yes. Right over there in the green shirt. Bill Brad Street town meeting member Precinct One Essex Street.
Will the addition of the widening uh require additional curb cut to get in there? >> Uh not the addition the driveway you're talking about. Yes. Um that's that's a good question. I will go out to our planning director on that. >> Mr. Brian, >> they would require a curb cut with the
with the with the DPW with the streets division. >> They they would apply through DPW to widen the curb cut to accommodate the new driveway if granted. So, we don't know that until that happens. >> It has to h if we grant it, it has to
happen. It's supposed I should say it's supposed to happen, but we're not the DPW, but I Well, I'll ask it again. So, uh a different way. >> So, if this were granted, >> is it part of the permitting process uh
for occupancy or no? >> Uh well, it's so um >> one of the whatever. So this if this gets voted on favorably, this plan has to get implemented. Meaning that the driveway uh if for some reason DPW says for some reason, I have no idea why in
this particular case, but I really don't know >> that they couldn't do it. >> If for some reason they said that this is unsafe for some very particular reason, they would figure something else out and they would come they would but either way it wouldn't be it wouldn't be significantly different than what you're seeing here. If
anything, maybe something might get shifted over a few feet, but if anything, it would be for a safety reason. No, no other reason. >> It sounds like from what the applicant uh presented, they're widening by six feet. So, the curb cut would change by 6 feet. >> That was my question.
>> Thank you. And it's through the DPW. >> You got it. Anybody else here on 9ine MacArthur Boulevard hearing? Seeing none, if I could have the applicant back up so that >> Oh, Mr. Chair. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. I apologize. Come on up.
>> Um, so I'm Katie Trillo. I live at 11 MacArthur. Uh, so right next door. Um, so I mean I I live I see this driveway every single day, multiple times a day. Um, so I've never been I mean as long as the other folks have lived there um,
prior to them purchasing this. Um, I've never been able to I've never seen four cars in the driveway. I've only seen two cars in the driveway. Um, I I don't really know. I mean, I haven't seen the dimensions, but it just seems like it's a very tight spot there and all of the cars have ended up on the street. So,
uh, from my perspective, um, I mean, is it can they really fit that can you really fit that many in that space? >> Well, by by the uh what they're proposing with the increased size and driveway. >> Yep. Uh and I believe through the review
of the planning department it is enough space to fit six vehicles. Okay. Tandem. >> So >> but go ahead. Yeah. >> Yeah. So the reason why it has to be 24t wide is that it has to be at least 8 ft wide by 20 ft long. They have just over
20 ft long and 24 ft wide. So it is compliant with with our parking table. >> So that's that's the only measure we can hold them to. >> Okay. >> And that's what they're proposing. Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Makes sense. >> Are you uh for or against this?
>> Um so I'm against this just because uh I understand what they're trying to do. I respect it. Um you know, someone that struggled to buy my first house, you know, I understand it's tough out there, but um there's nothing to say that they can't sell uh one of the children can't
sell the property and then make that into a unit that gets rented all the time. And as the renters start to come in and out, uh, the noise level, um, you know, there's already someone that lives adjacent to me that is playing music at 3:00 in the morning all the time. So,
the noise just is, uh, is bothersome to me. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Anyone else here on 9 MacArthur Boulevard? >> Hi, Donna Sharp. Seven MacArthur. We live to the right. >> I'm sorry, your address again. Seven
McAuth. >> Thank you. >> And we the thing we are concerned about the driveway because we've lived with the people that lived there before and if they're going to be putting two and two and two and two, it makes it really crowded when like we're trying to back
out of our driveway to even see past if they end up having I mean the kids are going to have girlfriends or whatever. I know they don't now, they said, but that doesn't mean when you have access to two on each side, it's going to make it a little more difficult for us. So, the
driveway to us is a problem. >> Sure. Uh, understood. Uh, however, this board can't control uh public parking, which I'm assuming is allowed on that street. What we can control is uh the requirement of the drive size of the
driveway, which they are proposing. >> No, I'm saying in the driveway. I'm not I'm not even talking about on the street, but in the street they can't park there in the >> Well, I'm sorry, but so back me up. What is it about the driveway? >> You're saying that the cars are going to go two and two two and tandem two.
>> Yes. >> So, it's like a parking lot there now. If they all have that and us pulling out of our driveway to be able to see past all of those cars to stop pulling out of our driveway makes it more difficult. >> I see is all I'm saying. >> Understood. Thank you.
>> Okay. Anyone else on nine MacArthur? >> Hi, my name is Mary though. I live on 11 MacArthur. So, it's to the left of the property. >> I'm I'm sorry, Mary. Could you say your last name again one more? >> Silva. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um, my concern is the parking. I really sympathize with Katie and I've
lived there for almost 12 years now. I don't see that more than two parkings have been capable. So, I'm really I was really surprised to see and I understand you have the numbers. However, visualizing I'm still having a difficult time. Now, I'm the neighbor too and I
found that the previous neighbors were parking on my side obviously over the lawn. So, I just concerned I hope that doesn't happen. I'm sure that um if the parking is created that's the case. I'm also concerned with the tree in front of the house. Is that tree going to be
removed to make access for the parking to come in for the cars? Uh we can ask the applicant that. >> Okay. >> Do you have any other uh questions? >> No, that'll be all. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> uh if you could come back to the podium. >> Uh how about the tree? What can you tell us about the tree?
>> Far away. >> We're not going to be anywhere near the tree. We're going to be right where those front stairs are. It'll be six feet over. So we're not even going to be anywhere near the tree. >> Okay. So the tree won't be uh >> and that was a big uh factor for our children who said no way are we even
going to entertain it. They're tree lovers and we wouldn't take the tree down. So >> So uh two things I also uh want to just reiterate. Um one uh town engineering department said this will require a storm water uh permit. So you're aware of that I'm sure. And secondly the other
part we uh discussed which is uh a curb cut through the DPW. So you're aware of both of those items. Yes, sir. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh there's no more public comment. Uh I'll come back to the board and we'll deliberate. Uh we'll start down there with you, Chris.
>> Through you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for >> Oh, you have one? Yeah, sure. >> Is that picture current? >> It says a year usually. >> No, this image was captured in 2013. It just happens to be the most recent uh Google Street View, but it's quite old,
which is odd. There's a fence on the right hand side now. >> Is that in? Are you good? >> So, can I go back to the applicant for >> uh Yeah, we're going to open. Sorry. Our board has one additional question. So, if you could come back up to the podium, we'll hold off.
>> Mr. Chair, I have one more question. >> You do, too. All right. We got a couple more questions before we deliberate. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> You want the applicant or the attorney? >> Uh, the applicant. >> Yeah. So looking granted that picture is from 2013 you said
>> in the drawings that you gave us. Has the >> Now I went by this house last week. I has the front of the house changed because now there's a on the plan there's a door there's a window to the right of the front door and in that picture there there is no window to the
right of the front door. on on the left side of the house that to me I believe the house is exactly the same absent the fence um but the proposed plan because we're adding the second uh the stairs that'll
go up to the second unit right so the front door will stay on the left existing first floor unit and we're adding we're taking down the deck >> okay >> and that second set of stairs will being closed into uh
to the >> So, I think what I'm confused with is looking at this picture here, you see the front door, you have the double hung window to the right of it. When you flip back to the picture from 2013, you have the picture of the front door and the house ends and it goes back to
the deck that is set back off a little bit. >> So, that window I believe will be in the common area, correct? >> Yep. Right. Tom McCormack, 9 Casotus Lane, Middleton, Mass. When you're referring to uh that window, that window and the
two windows above will be part of the addition. >> Okay. >> That you see on your plan there. That's why it's not on the plan that you've seen on the pictures. >> Okay, perfect. I'm all set. >> Yeah. Hold on. And uh we have one additional question. If you could just stay up. Go ahead. >> Did Did you do uh do any research in the
area in that neighborhood to see if there's any more uh three family houses? Uh, I I personally don't believe so. I've talked to the planner um that there are other three families um but I don't know specifically >> in in that in that street on that same
street. There isn't. >> I don't believe so. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I just know if you look to the left and right it I thought they were three families honestly, but they must be two. >> Okay. >> It looked like three. >> Does that answer? >> Okay. But the parking
>> Yeah. and they park in the back and both left and right, which I didn't want to do to take privacy >> away. >> Okay, I'm going to close questions and we're going to deliberate. >> Very good. Uh Chris, we'll start with you. >> So,
outside of the parking, um I'm going to vote in favor for this. I do appreciate that you're keeping the roof line the same and the addition on the third unit is not going to exceed exceed the existing height of the house. Um I
I just um the parking thing I know you can have the six spaces and I know everyone's going to park on the street. I know the neighborhood people park on that side of the street constantly. Um, but what you're doing for your three kids and I probably going to have the
same problem someday. I will vote in favor of it. Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you, Chris. And, uh, Karine. >> Um, I will not vote in favor of this. I do not like the parking situation at all, and I know that you can cram those six spaces in there, but um, I I I think
it's too detrimental to the neighborhood. I swung around, came down macather and had to swing around to swing in front of your property and I can't imagine what it would be like with six cars and the six cars if there is
eventually six cars there, they will not park in tandem. They will not take the time to switch cars out and they'll park in front and I just think it's it will create a dangerous situation. Amino, >> thank you, Karine. Uh, Ken,
>> yeah, I admire what you're doing uh with your family and um it it sounds like a very good idea, but I I would hate to open it up to have others, you know, put three families or try to convert it. And I just don't think it's a three family
um uh a multi-unit house uh dwelling um neighborhood. I think it's uh maximum I I would say in that neighborhood it seems like a a nice suburban neighborhood um with it's an R1 small uh
plots and I think uh maximum two families so I will I will not vote for this. Thank you. Uh Kevin, >> I will not vote for this. Uh the I think that you know the dimensional requirements that we normally have for a
multif family we give some relief to uh or some leniency to uh with our conversion um bylaw. And I think because the conversion is already a special case, we uh owe town meeting strict fidelity to the spe to the special
dispensation they've already given uh for conversions. And I think for uh the reasons I described with parking uh and the changing of the outer appearance of the building, I don't think we'd be giving strict fidelity uh to what is
already an exception in our bylaws. >> Thank you. Um, I too think this is a case where I commend the applicants um, drive and why they're doing it, but uh, I I feel like this house is uh, not
really equipped to be a three family. Um, if the parking were different, uh, I think I would change my tune on that because as you've clearly have pointed out, you know, you're not increasing the footprint of the building, but I do
think the parking is too tight. Um, and for that reason, I'm a no. So, you don't have the votes. Um, what would you like us to do? You can withdraw without prejudice. You can ask for a continuence if you were to come back with another
plan. And if you could just uh come to the mic and let us know. >> Yeah, sure. >> Uh to the mic. If you could >> could you repeat the options please? >> So uh if if we take uh so right now you don't have the votes. You need a
supermajority which would be at least four members. >> And um if you ask for a continuence we would need some other plan. You can withdraw without prejudice. If we do take an actionable vote, uh, then you wouldn't be able to come back before us for two years
>> with the same plan with the unless it's materially different, right? Under 17. >> Uh, >> let me go up. I got I've got a hand up from the planning director, so I better go to him. >> Uh, that last thing you said was correct. I just wanted a very quick point of clarification that yes, this is a special permit, but it is super
majority is not required in this case. It is a simple majority because we are adding housing. Sorry, just >> simple majority, but you still don't have the votes. >> Correct. But I wanted to make that decision. >> Thank you for that clarification >> because it's a housing >> request. >> Yes.
>> So, um I you know I think based on the comments I I don't know if a continuence makes sense because I can't see a different parking plan um that would suffice the board. So, >> okay. Uh we would uh respectfully
request a continuance. Okay. Um, we uh have dates of uh October 6th and if that's uh too close, October 20th. Uh, I would point out that um if there was going to be a change in plan, that would
have to be into our planning department the Thursday prior to those dates as uh so it can get uh sent out. Uh or is it the Wednesday prior? Uh we typically like it the Tuesday prior to the main >> the Tuesday prior to either of those
dates. So uh we have October 6th, October 20th. After that's November 10th >> if they are requesting a continuence, what you want them to work on a new parking plan? >> Yeah, I I don't see any other option uh except a different parking plan.
>> Read that loud and clear. Okay, chairman. >> What date would you like? >> Uh 20 October. >> Hold on. >> What date are you looking at? 20 October >> 20 October. Um so we'll have someone make a motion and you can uh add your discussion at that point >> if if if those are the two that are
being offered than the uh the latter one I think because I do think um as some of the other applicants who were requesting continuence is one of them we realize getting the surveyors and the the people out there to redraw things >> is not the easiest task.
>> Yeah. Uh so uh if someone could make a motion to uh continue this case to October 20th. >> Make a motion to continue this case to October 20th, 2025. >> And uh do I have >> I second and then we have further discussion.
>> Oh, I was just saying I don't think for me parking doesn't take care of the situation for me. I just didn't want to make it look like that took care of it for me. >> No, that's uh that's clear. And you I think the applicant has that. >> Okay. Okay, I've got a motion and a
second. Uh, all in favor? >> I opposed. Okay, we'll see you on October 20th. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Sorry, Green. Hold on one second. It's >> okay. Take your time. This isn't in order, so I started
filling it out up here. Okay. Uh, if we could go on to our next case, please. >> The next case is 12 Salvador Circle, R2, map 41, lot U map 41, lot 49. requests a finding for side setback encroachment of
a pre-existing non-conforming single family home where an addition is proposed to be located 10.9 ft from the lot line where 15 ft is required. Request made by um Betsy Dashall.
>> Dumal Dumashell docket number 25-5114. >> Hi, good evening. >> Good evening. Uh, we are the applicants for the proposed addition at 12 Salvatore and Betsy Dum Michelle. >> And I'm sorry, Mark. >> Bob. >> Bob. Thank you. >> Betsy.
>> Bob and Betsy. Tell us what you'd like to do. >> We're seeking um the board to give us a finding to allow for a 16x 24 foot addition to our home. The existing structure is nonconforming
to the current side setback requirement. The addition is no more nonconforming than the existing structure. Um we have letters from our five director butters expressing that they
have no um objections or concerns to this. Um our neighborhood has seen several additions in the last couple of years, few years. Um these houses are quite small, mostly post-war ranches and um
the additions we believe have um enhanced the neighborhood and increased all of our property values in addition to the neighborhood aesthetics. Um, we downsized quite a few years ago and now there are um, grandchildren who
want to stay with us and we found ourselves downsized a little too much. >> Okay, I think I understand that. >> And we'll take questions. >> Is there anything else you'd like to present? >> That's it. >> Okay, very good. Uh, we'll start down
there with you, Kevin. [Applause] I guess did did you consider any other additions that you could have done by right instead of this one which requires a finding and that it's into the setback and >> if we had added on to looking at the
home if we had added on to the left side where the detached garage is I believe we would have uh been able to stay within the current setback requirement but we would have lost our onecar uh detached garage.
>> We also have a really nice backyard for a um a city- type neighborhood. It's quite peaceful back there. And this addition allows us to still have a really nice um area for
family. >> Okay. And and as I understand the plan, uh a bedroom and a bathroom essentially is what's what would go in the addition, right? Okay. Thank you. No, no further questions. >> Thank you. Um Ken, >> so uh how much are you impeding the
setback more than it is is right now? Because it looks like you're >> it's less. >> I believe the setback requirement is 15 ft and we're 10 and a half. >> Yeah, because >> it's already it's already 9 and a half right now. The front of the front of the house is nine and a half. >> Yeah. >> A little further, right? >> Mhm.
>> All right. So, the back setback is fine. The back set back is fine. >> The back. The back is plenty. >> Side set. >> Oh, yeah. The rear set. Yeah, the rear setback is totally fine. >> Yeah. >> All right. I have no other questions. Thank you. Uh Karina. >> Um actually, you are right. We've had several neighbors come in and it appears
that their additions have come out nice. They've enhanced the neighborhood. Um and we do, since I am the clerk, we have a list of your neighbors. and Brian, I'll just read the neighbors names and what their street address is into the
record. Um, and they're all in favor of the project. So, you have Antuinette Anderson at 12 Salvador Circle. Lisa Cassidy. Oh, no, wait a minute. You're 12. Um, >> 10. >> 10 10 Salvatore Circle. Lisa Cassidy at
98 Forest Street. Um Scott and Kathy Nolles at 14 Salvatore and Louise Mweeny at 11 Salvatore Circle. So I >> I think there's one more. >> We have one more. >> Um Jamie
>> Oh, Jamie and Eileen King at 964 Street. Um and I have no further questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chris. >> No questions, Mr. Cameron. Thank you. Uh I don't think I have Oh, I just want to know uh does this addition include uh and I'm just going to summarize here.
We're looking to uh it looks like the setback of the addition would be at 10.9 and 11.1. And does that include the overhang? >> Yes,
>> it does. Okay. Uh and I too uh do not have any additional questions. I'll go out to the public. Is anybody here on Salvatore? Is it Circle? >> Yes. >> Salvatore Circle.
>> All right. Hearing seeing none, I'll come back to the board and uh Kevin, we will deliberate and start with you. >> I would vote in favor uh of this. I think uh it is much along the lines of other things we've we've approved. I think
there was one uh that that I was here for uh a month or so ago where it was somebody expanding their garage along, you know, uh same kind of thing. So, uh I think very much in keeping it helps that the neighbors are all uh in support. I I do uh there's a piece here
I haven't quite come up with a a good uh mental test on on on you know, it's always about increments, right? So if somebody if if the existing property were 24 ft and they want to double it >> uh essentially double the linear feet that are in that side setback um seems
substantial. If it was 10% more it seems insubstantial. >> Sure. >> Uh so I I don't have a great mental test on that yet but I I think in general I would vote for this. >> Very good. And uh okay I also would um I'll vote for this. Thank you. >> Thank you Ken Karine.
>> I will vote for this. >> Thank you. And Chris >> I will vote for this as well. Thank you. >> Yes. And uh um I did a site visit to this property. Um I I commend you. It's uh looks like it's very wellkept and it does look like a great neighborhood and uh I hope you get to move your little
patio area over and recreate it. Um and I can see uh you needing the additional space on a on a smaller size home. Um it's a pre-existing non-conforming, so I see this is uh not detrimental in any
way. Uh so with that said, I too will vote in favor and if I could get a motion, please. >> Mr. Chairman, I move to grant a finding for side setback encroachment of a pre-existing non-conforming single family home where an addition is proposed to be located 10.9 ft from the lot line where 15 ft is required and
that the alternation the alteration or change to the non-conforming structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. >> I've got a motion. Can I get a second, please? >> I second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any
opposed? Very good. And good luck. See the planning department for your permits. Yep. >> Appreciate it. >> Alternation. >> Okay. >> Did I read the typo like Ron Burgundy? >> I don't know. >> I will go to our last case for the evening. Um the last case for the
evening is 28 Putnham uh Lane I believe R3 map 23 lot 42 requests a finding for rear setback encroachment and of an above ground pool which replaces a larger above ground pool that will be
located 4.2 ft from the property line where eight is required. Request made by Laura Kent. Docket number 25-5113. Ju just before you start uh board members uh in our packets we were given
um the uh prior decisions on this address I just want to make it clear uh that both Putinham Lane and Putinham Street were in our packets. Um obviously Putinham Street uh is not related to
this address. So just keep that in mind. The bottom two decisions are are not associated with this property. So, it looks like our last uh finding was uh 1993 at this address. So, with that said, if you could introduce yourself and go ahead.
>> I'm Joshua Samson, uh Laura Kent's son uh regarding 28 Penum Lane. Um yes, our pool was collapsed. It was 32 years old. We want to get a new one. Um, it was non-conforming. And
from what I understand, the new pools that you can buy, the closest one we can find to that size that exists now is going to be uh 6 and 12 in wider just on the railing that goes
around the top of the pool. the pool is the same size um from the statement I have from her and it was um previously approved from a finding for a pool that was 2 ft shorter in the same width. And
apparently the only pool we can find to replace our collapsed pool is the same exact size pool, but the railing would be uh 6 and 1/2 in wider, which would put it uh 4 feet and 2 in from the property line, which would be non-conforming
because I believe it's supposed to be 8 ft from what I understand. >> Okay. And I'm sorry I didn't catch your last name. >> Samson. >> Samson. Thank you. Is that all you got for us? Ready for questions? >> Yeah, I got a packet here. It's the
zoning board application. I believe you probably >> Yeah, we have the same thing. >> Yeah. >> Um before Mr. Samson, I go out to the board. Um I do want to go to our planning director. Um >> Sure, >> Brian. Um so I there's not a decision
for this prior pool. Am I correct with in that? >> Correct. >> Okay. And um also before I go out to the board, there's both a barn and a shed on this property. Are either of those there through permit?
>> Um I have I have no idea, but I know they've been they've been there for um >> ever. >> I Yeah, I I don't know. Is the short >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh we'll start down there with you, Chris.
The new pool is literally going to fall in the exact same spot outside of the railing outside of the correct the railing around the top of it. >> From the statement here, I can give it to you, but yeah, it's going to be the same exact size pool, but the railing is going to be 6 and 12 in wider. Um, so it
would be like just not from the ground. Yeah, just the railing above the pool because it's an above ground pool would be that much wider than what was previously there. Okay, I'm all set. Thank you. >> Thank you, Karine.
>> Um I'm confused now because if you go to the previous um docket, isn't there on March 6th of 93, isn't there um isn't there relief to put in an above ground pool?
>> Oh, there is. I'm sorry. I You're right. And I did not see that. >> So, there should be So, there there were two decisions that were associated with this property. the one and one of them had to do with the house that is not included in >> it shouldn't there's one that has that is the house that's is I don't believe
is included in your packet but the minutes in the decision for the pool should be in your packet >> I didn't see the minutes for the pool but but I see it on this >> yeah the the decision for the pool is uh docket number 93-2687
and in 1994 a year later there's is a uh a decision to construct an addition to the structure closer to the rear lot line than allowed. >> Right. So there um
>> so there was an addition added in 1994 and in 1993 there was a allowance for to install above ground pool accessory to a non-conforming single dwelling. >> Yeah. The >> So I'm wondering there there was
certainly an addition approved. I don't know if it was built cuz it it's not apparent to me from that. >> Yeah, it doesn't look like they got the addition. Maybe maybe the permit was never pulled. >> Here it is. So, >> I can give you that number if you want. 94. >> Oh, here it is. It's the 93 decision in
minutes. So, it got put into this. We're having you guys know we're having this bad sharing sharing problem related to our file folder directory funness. Anyway, so it got put into your packet, but it didn't get updated. So, it is in
your >> uh it is here. I can put it up if you would like. >> Well, I I think we're just trying to >> So, go ahead. Go ahead. >> This is so generic what it says as far as like there's nothing about um being too close to the property line or or it
doesn't state the relief, just that um they gave relief to install an above ground pool. Um, >> and I'd like to understand if there was indeed an addition put on in 94 because I don't think that doesn't look
like that could have happened too. Well, the the first one is the finding for the decision in 1993 says that the the decision um uh the decision was that they find that the pool increases the nonconformity and will further find the pool is not
substantially more detrimental than what exists. So there was and it goes through the motions uh there um but they're really the board member says the back of the property has a very steep slope and question where the pool will be located and then they went through that
conversation but it was really the decision is is the minutes essentially uh from 1993 that's how it was done but not much information. I'm wondering like it's I mean we basically already granted them relief to put this pool in now that
it caved in like again we didn't give them it seems from the decision we didn't give them the relief to put it to like closer to the lot line right >> um >> it it there is some verbiage here so there's less area in frontage but it
>> yeah so it um it got put in because or sorry um the nonconformity was the uh square footage of the lot and the frontage and the accessory building. There it is. The accessory building not meeting setbacks.
This needs a rear setback for the pool. So, they were just saying that it still needed the pool still needed a a rear setback. >> Not be in the rear setback. >> Yeah, it could not be in the rear setback. >> So, this granted them the ability to do that, >> right? But it was weird that they called it a finding because of it was other
things that were related that were unrelated to the pool that they were making it non-conforming. They were talking about the lot. >> Right. >> This is a weird This is a weird one. >> Well, but but also they didn't mention like how far it was going into the um step back. >> Even the decision even the decision does not mention that.
>> So he does I mean could he as of right just rebuild it then if he already has one even though it's going to be 16? >> I guess I would have that same question. I I if I were him, which I I'm not, but I would want to button it up. I would say this is this is how I'm this is where I'm able to put this pool and here's the
>> because nothing was filed at the registry >> that so uh previously for this one. >> Okay. >> So, this will button this up forever. >> Okay. >> In terms of whatever >> define >> it'll define where the pool should be located because a plan is associated with the decision.
>> Okay. >> And it's much cleaner. >> Go ahead, Karine. You want to roll? Um, you answered all my questions. Thank you. Um, that's all I have for now, but you might want to come back to me. >> Uh, yeah. So, so I just want to clear
this up. The the rear se Mr. um, director, Mr. Zakali, um, the rear setback for R3 is 20. 20 ft is needed, not eight. >> Correct. This is Yeah, this >> Yes, this is R3. >> This is R3. It's Yes, 20 from the back.
20 is the rear set back. >> Okay. Um >> they're going to be false. >> And um yeah, I have no other questions. I just wanted to clear it up because I >> 4.2. >> Yeah, >> that right. >> Do I have that right? >> That's what that's what I have written. Yeah. 4.2. >> Yeah.
>> Right. It's It's likely that the other pool was in the roughly the same location, but we don't know because there was no plan and it wasn't a decision. >> Wasn't registered and wasn't captioned. Got it. >> Okay. >> It's collapsed. >> Thank you, >> Kevin. On to you. uh through you Mr. Chairman from Mr.
>> Sak Kelly. >> So it seems like a finding was improperly granted at one point like the the proper standard of relief before may not have been a finding. >> Yeah, it's Yeah, it's Yeah, it's possible it could have been something it
should have been something else in 1993, but was was blessed by the ZBA at that time. So, and the way to correct the way to to further bless something that may not have been a finding is a
further may not like it's possible it should not have been a finding, but we will further bless it by issuing another finding. >> Well, now it's before the board for something that is a is certainly a pre-existing non-conforming condition. It's not it's not through a variance or
a special permit. It was a finding. So that was well over 10 years ago. So you can you can go you can say that you're still so you know that alone should be allow you to move forward. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um I think I understand what what's on the
property on the other side of where that fence is. What's what's behind it >> towards the neighbors property? >> There's a there's a do is correct that there's like some flat yard there. Um and then it is like a steep little incline. Um, and then they have like a
fence that actually encloses like their nice yard and everything. Um, so it's pretty like barricaded and you can't even see like the other property and we maintain like down there and like around
the pool even though like the lines are right up against the pool basically. Um, so >> that helps. Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh, no further questions. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Mr. Samson, tell tell me about the uh large structure that's
to the left of your driveway. >> Yeah. Uh so that's like an overhead like um basically for the cars. Um there's like the garage for a single car and then there's like a twocar overhead >> overhead
>> like a roof like a metal >> gazebo thing >> roof just to park under >> canopy. So, let me ask let me back up. So, how long uh have you owned the home? >> Uh, my mother is the homeowner, which I
apologize she can't be here. U, but I would after the after the um all that 1993 stuff, I would say 90 or 2000 99 or 2000.
>> So, you guys have owned it for some number of years. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. >> Okay. And um how long's this car port uh structure been there? >> Quite a while. Uh I would say maybe a good
10 years or less. I'm not exactly sure on that one. >> And and what can you tell me about the both the barn and the shed? Were they there? >> They've been there since before we bought the property. I know, like there's like a corner of the barn that's non-conforming and
>> yeah, the shed's been there and it's just sits there. We don't even use it. Um, it's a tiny little thing, but yeah, that was all there. Um, the only thing we added was that the carport. Okay, that's what the term >> that called the car. Yeah, there it is.
>> And that carport has electricity in it. >> No. >> Well, I saw a light hanging up in there. a working light. I mean, I don't live there. >> Maybe it was like a cord was running over from an outlet from the house. Not
to my knowledge, there's electricity. >> Okay. >> In there. I've never seen There's a lamp post like across from it. Um. >> All right. And uh I did reach out to the building through Mr. Kelly about uh
whether this structure uh requires permitting or not. Um but we didn't hear back. Um I guess I don't have any additional questions. It it sounds like you are replacing a pool that a prior finding didn't have uh
defined um placement as to where it was going. And and the way I look at this, you're just that's just being added that it's going to be 4.2 two feet from the property line. Is that am I is that what you're asking
for? >> Yes. Uh the from what I understand the only difference to what we're going to replace with replace is 6 and 12 in um to the width but just above like not
to the structure on the ground. It's just the railing going around. Al, but so just to be clear, what this board wants to know is how far away from the property line you're going to be with whatever. >> Oh, right. Uh
>> you're Well, hold on. Let me let me just spell it out for you. So, in R3, the requirement is 20 ft and you're asking for a setback of 4.2 according to this plan that was submitted. So, um, as long as that is what we're talking about, I
guess I have no further questions. Uh, Karine, go ahead. >> Um, so just to recap, the original pool was 4.8 and this overhang is six um >> 6 in. So now it's 4.2. >> Yeah, I think that's what
>> Yes, correct. >> Okay. And you just mentioned um about the fence. You said that there's there's additional property and then that you maintain that's actually your neighbors and then there's the fence. So is the fence for the pool not on your property?
>> No, the fence is it's like on the pool. So there is another fence like a fence into the ground like up above on top of the hill little small little >> incline um that enclos actually encloses the yard that the neighbors there keep.
Um even though their property line comes >> up to your almost >> Yeah. Yeah. It's like it looks like it's our yard because it's like their yard's enclosed by a fence um deeper into their property. >> Okay. >> Yeah. a separate fence into the ground.
Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Um and then a question for Brian if I may. >> Sure. >> Uh so would this be an amendment to the finding or is this like an initial finding? >> So I think because there was so much
like little information in that first one. I would just do this as a new finding to uh you know increase that you know there was a pool there. It has now been destroyed. you're we're now you're now, you know, looking at what to to replace a a pool that was already been,
you know, gone through the ZBA. So, I would say that is a it's a it's a it's a finding because it's it is technically the railing is getting closer. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And and Brian, on that note though, so this would get uh be registered with the
register of deeds. All decisions that you do must they're supposed before a building permit before they are issued a building permit for anything that they uh whatever if they went through the ZBA they have to record that at at the registry before they're given a building
permit. That happens >> a lot of the time but you know sometimes that doesn't happen but >> and it didn't in this 1993 decision. Yeah, there's probably lots of decisions in the 80s, 90s, uh, all over, uh, not just here in Danver, but maybe they
didn't get recorded. Um, so, >> and and on that same vein, um, so do we know anything about the 1994 decision >> that granted uh, >> that had to do with the h it had to do >> construction uh to construct an addition? I'm just trying to understand
if this addition actually happened. It does not look like it's happened because they have not broken any setbacks at all other than the pool. >> Okay. I I guess where I'm going with this is did we give the house an
addition and that's why the pool's further back? So, was the house skinnier? >> There'd be no there'd be no reason to give a house in this because Yeah, it's within because it's within the set it's within the setback in all respects. So,
I would say that's I I say everything is pointing towards they went through this process, they were granted it and decided not to go through with it. >> Okay. Okay. That's it. Uh we'll go out to the public and we're here on uh 28
Putnham Lane. >> Okay. Seeing hearing none, I will come back to the board. I believe I started with you, Chris. Uh we will deliberate. >> I will be voting in favor of this. Thank you. >> Very good. Um, >> Karine, >> I will vote in favor of this.
>> And uh, Ken, >> I'll vote for this, too. >> But in the back is Towns and um, oil anyways, right? So, it's like an industrial. >> No, that's residential. >> Oh, in the back. I thought I saw Towns and Oil. >> This is Lane, not See, I was on,
>> but I will still vote for it. Okay, my bad. >> I got to go to this. >> Go ahead, Kevin. >> Uh, I'll vote for it. Very good. And um I'm not happy with that carport. I think it's unsightly, very oversized. >> Yeah.
>> Uh considering you have a barn on the property and a shed. >> Yeah. >> I I think this is kind of overkill. >> Um but that's got nothing to do with this pool. Um I still question whether that should be there or not be there, but uh I will
vote in favor. So, if I could get a motion, >> uh motion to grant a finding for the rear setback encroachment of an above ground pool, which replaces a larger above ground pool that will be located 4.2 ft from the property line where eight is required, and that the
alternation or change to the non-conforming structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. >> I've got a motion. Can I get a second? >> I second. I'm sorry for further discussion. Uh is
a two-part finding or one? >> No, no, it's a one, but the mis there's the mistake. Sorry. Uh it's a scriber's error. It's where 20 where 20 ft is required, but that was just a a copy paste mistake. >> I I believe it's also an error that says which replaces a larger above ground
pool. I think we've heard that the the the existing pool was >> was actually Yeah. >> actually slightly smaller. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Correct. That's the other way around. It was applied for as as as a pool that was slightly larger, but >> not true. >> Do we need them to reread it? >> I think uh if we take out what's in the
parenthesis and then say that's where 20 ft is required, then then that's buttoned up. >> Chris, let it rip again, please. >> Motion to grant a finding for rear setback encroachment of an above ground pool that will be located 4.2 2 ft from the property line where 20 ft is required and that the alternation or
change to the non-conforming structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. >> We got it. Got it. Yeah. You have a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? >> Very good. Good luck.
>> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Okay. With that said, uh any business for us? I think you sent us out digital packets of a new zoning bylaw book. >> Yeah. So that's basically >> like everybody to review. >> Uh well so I know that uh so the content
should be great. The right now the problem is the table of the table of contents I'm having there's but I wanted to make sure that everyone had the content in terms of section numbers and all that stuff. So we have not gone to print yet but at least I wanted to get it out so it's usable because it's
usable now. the only uh the hyperlinks uh are not are not and those are very helpful. I use those as well. Yeah. So, those are not set yet as um but you can at least go to every section and find what you need um and implement the bylaw. So, the hope is that we're going to have it for next meeting in two
weeks. Um if something changes, I'll let people know. >> Excellent. Okay. With that said, uh a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Oh, somebody somebody's going to make the motion. >> I make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Second down there. All in favor? >> I.
>> Very good. Good night, damners. >> Good night.