Um, we have not received any updates. There's been a few correspondence between the planning department and Mr. Castanza. He was supposed to appear tonight to give us an update um on where he's at with this. Uh, we can hold it
for a second call if we choose or we can uh take a vote and deny it or we can vote for a continuance. So, I'll just quickly go through and I'll start with you, Becky. Um, we heard this case in July, I think, and then we did a site visit August 7th.
That's correct. Looking at dates here. >> So, it's been two months since the site visit. >> Um, and we asked for a plan at that point. Um, it's disappointing no one is here. >> Agreed. >> I'll defer.
>> Very good. Uh, Karine, >> um, I I think before we take any vote, maybe we wait. Um maybe he's just >> for a second call. Okay. And Ken >> um I guess we can wait for a second call. I mean we like you said we've even done a site visit to this property. We
which we typically do not even do. We gave him the benefit of the doubt of that >> and he still didn't come through with anything after like Becky said it's been two months. >> Yeah. >> So I guess we can wait for a second call. >> Ken J. >> I I think we should wait as well.
>> Second call. And >> Chris, >> I'll wait for the second call. Kevin, >> when would the Would you do it next? >> Well, we'll just wait. I mean, we can go right till the end of our meeting if he pops in. I'm wondering, you know, >> No, we I just I just think the majority of our audience is is here.
>> Is anybody here on 342? Show of hands. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I I would say go to the end of the continued cases and then that's it. >> How about that? >> That works. >> So, >> yes, sir. >> Um I see that I had a voicemail. He's still he's still planning on coming at
3:45. He he'd been he he's planning on coming. So, okay. He's just, you know, he know the meeting started at 7. It's 7:05. >> But, okay. >> I I um we we know Mr. Castanza, so when he comes in, >> you don't have to continue to att
Okay. Uh to board members, we'll just uh hold this for a second call. And uh Mr. Clerk, if you could go on to our next continued case. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Next case is 153 Andover Street. This is Route 114A zoning district. uh request for a special permit to allow a contractor's
storage yard to be operated at the address listed above. Additionally, the applicant requests two uh storage containers to be placed on the property for more than 180 days. Uh request is made by Interstate Property Management
Care of the owner uh Preso LLC dock at 25-5112. >> Okay. Hey, is anybody here on 153 Andover Street? >> We're off to a rousing start here tonight. Um, Mr. uh planning director driving through Salem, I could
>> Yeah, I don't know. Um, uh, Brian, if I could um, what one thing I did want to ask about this case, which I don't uh, think although it covers the same address, I would like to know. I believe uh Lowe's was under an enforcement
letter and uh perhaps you can update us on that. Do we have an update on that? >> Sure. So, this is a complicated property that has been um condoed. So, there's some common areas and then there's some exclusive use areas.
So, there's what we're talking about is not the Lowe's portion and not the not even the common area portion. The common area portion was under a con conservation commission violation. Not you know uh not due to um the owners but
uh pe people essentially throwing trash in the wetlands amongst other things like couches uh this about two weeks ago. So we got that out. Um but uh yeah, so this this is just about uh this one this one portion of this much larger
property where there's there's like a condo deed, there's a condo master deed um that governs it. So a lot of a lot of players. >> Okay. But specifically Lowe's, I thought they were also under an enforcement through Mr. Cassidy for outdoor sales.
>> Outdoor sales with with non-veget. >> Yeah. >> Yes. That's still um >> Have they complied? Do we know or >> I do not have an update for you on that. >> Okay. Well, all right board members, uh we don't have anyone here to speak on this case as well. So, I guess we'll go to our third continued case and see what
happens there. Our third case is uh 9 MacArthur Boulevard. This is zoned R1, map 61, lot 15. Request a special permit under section 30.2 section D. in order to build an addition to convert a
conforming two family dwelling into a conforming three family dwelling. The request is made by Thomas McCormack and Cheryl uh Leon McCormack, care of James Cipperetta, Esquire, Docket 25-5115. I hope I didn't butcher your name.
Sorry. >> Spot on, sir. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Well, you moved into the starting lineup. Yes, by default if not but I'll take it. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman and uh members of the board of appeals. Uh we appreciate the opportunity to re to
revisit the uh the board and to uh make a supplemental submission which I I think um all of the board members received in a timely manner and hopefully had a chance to at least peruse it. Uh not to u repeat all of the facts that we had laid out on the record
at the earlier hearing. I I would just like to uh point up some of the things that have been modified on the plans which um are now the operative plans. Uh the biggest we tried to address the largest and the most mentioned concerns
that came from both the board and the neighbors. So, um, as as the board knows, obviously, we're u looking to add a mere 400 square ft of living space above, uh, the right hand side of the
second floor area of of the home. And, and the two issues that seem to have been very uh, burning were uh, parking and whether or not the use as a three family would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So, I'd
like to address the parking first as is shown on the the new plan um which is substantially different uh from the existing conditions which show an existing four parking spaces in the front of the house. And I think that was
a little bit um bothersome to to the board and a number of the me the neighbors uh that that was maybe uh a little bit um overuse of that that front space. So what we've done is to remove one of
those four spaces um keep the plan to architecturally improve the front of the house and then to create three conforming spaces at the rear of the building. So that would give us six spaces which complies with the parking
requirements. It also unclutters the front of the house. It increases safety from coming and going from from the home because the access and egress to those three parking spaces in the rear which have a gen um a very generous
uh turning and backing uh radius to get in and out of those those spaces. is by a driveway that conforms with the driveway requirements. So that would be easily accessible. As to the front of the house, um that would be again uh
reducing whatever nonconformity that would have been which currently exists and of course it's pre-existing nonconformity, but to bring it into further conformity. So we would have six spaces, three in the front, three in the back, as opposed to adding spaces to the
front of the house. The second was whether or not the three family or three units in a two family zone would by special permit be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Well, they framed the
neighborhood when we hear um the last time and we pointed out in our supplemental submission what the neighborhood left and right and those were the neighbors who spoke. What is the condition of the property and what it is is it used for how many units are
there? Well, we did some research. So to look at what the neighborhood consists of, at least the immediate neighborhood, we have at number seven MacArthur, we have a house in the front connected by some sort of a structure
which we refer to as a breezeway whether it is or not and the board will determine what it is, but some structure connects the front house to the back in their condominiums. So at seven MacArthur there exist according to the ex the assessor's
records three bedrooms and one bath in the front house seven MacArthur the rear three bedrooms three full one 3/4 bath that gives six bedrooms
and 4.75 bathrooms at seven we are proposing proposing a total of we have now two bedrooms on the first, two bedrooms on the second, a bath on the on the first, a bath on the
second. The additional space would be one bedroom in one bath. And that would yield us five bedrooms, three baths. So on the left we have six bedrooms, on the right we have six bedrooms. We're
coming in under that that number. as as concerning the parking of the neighborhood. We've sent photographs to you and you know, not to criticize, everybody's going to park where they can on their own property and that's that's
the way it happens. But we have something that's much more detailed, much more organized and simply much more um accessible and in compliance with health and safety. Um, it it's not
it's not going to be a food fight to get in and out of there where you have unassigned parking spaces in unnumbered and undesated uh parking spaces. So, what is the difference between the three
unit or the proposed three-unit and what we have there in the neighborhood? Well, it's pretty obvious. It might be equal to, but it certainly doesn't add any density. It doesn't add bedrooms. It doesn't add people. That um
house at 9 MacArthur with the 400 uh square foot addition is able to be constructed as a matter of right. So, we can construct it anyway. That's not why we're here. It's how are we going to use that? Are you going to
put up a door and a wall and have the same number of people or are you going to have an overly large second floor with the same number of people? So, density is not going to be a concern. Parking is not going to be a concern. Traffic is not going to be a concern
because the same number of people are going to live there whether it's a two or it's a three. Then there was some some other concerns from the board and from individuals in the uh who spoke.
And I would point out that it makes some sense that these concerns would enter the minds of of uh people hearing the presentation and looking at the plans. And one was, well, I just
don't like three families. Well, that's fine um to an extent, but that's not the legal basis. That's not the legal standard that the SJC has set out for determining whether a special permit should or should not be granted.
Someone said, "Well, there's nothing to say that that small third unit isn't going to be sold to somebody who has more people or children and more cars." Well, that's speculative. And speculation is not is not something that
meets the standard that the SJC has set out and the legislature has set out when determining whether or not a special permit should be issued. The third was, and this is always a concern, no matter
what city or town I've ever appeared in, it's always been a concern, parking. People are going to park wherever they want to park. And and I understand that there's some concern, well, they may be parking on MacArthur Boulevard. They may not be using their parking spaces. Again, it's speculation. It could
happen, but it's not part of the record. And what the what the courts have set out as a standard is that in judging and determining whether or
not a special permit is going to be or not be granted has to be wellreasoned based on fact. Well reasoned and based on fact not speculation. I think the facts are on our side. I think we've met all of the
requirements to hurdle that bar of not being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. And it doesn't mean just be, you know, we're not saying and fair minds could say, well, it's going
to be detrimental because you're adding a person or you're adding a bathroom or you're going add 400 square ft of living space. That may be detrimental, but is it substantially more detrimental than what you have there? You will recall and
can see from the plans that the construction all takes place within the footprint of the existing building. You will also notice that the the addition is is very small and
it's it's not going to increase the height. the architecture of the building as proposed will keep the the roof line. It will keep the uh the appearance of you know in in compliance with the uh
the existing house and looking like maybe a one or two family house which is architecturally appealing. It's not something that's going to be boxy and just thrown up there as like 20 x 20 by 20 or something as sometimes we see in modern construction. So that's not
substantially more detrimental. So what would be what would be? We're not adding people. We're not adding cars. We're not adding um any excessive uh burden on public utilities,
on sewage, water. We're not requiring any more fire protection. We're not requiring any more police protection. we're not creating any strain on on the public on public safety or public utilities.
So when you take this into consideration and with an open mind and in in fair view of what's being proposed, I would suggest that it would should be clear that this special permit
may be granted without substantially dergating from the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and is not substantially more detrimental than what you have there with four cars parked out in front perhaps backing out into the uh
into the roadway and cars may be parking a skew all over the property. Um I'm available for obviously for any questions. The owners are here with their son as well. If there are any questions regarding uh the use or the construction or the design of the
property, uh we're able to take those when the when the board is ready to give it. >> Very good. Thanks. Go ahead and stay up at the podium. And um >> I just want to make sure I point out and and get clarification from Mr. Zeli. Um town engineering said a storm water
permit would be required. And uh are you aware of that? >> Yes, we're aware >> aware of that. >> I think we're also aware >> because even though there's no building Yeah, because well yeah they probably told you exactly why. >> Yes,
>> someone tell me. >> Does anyone uh do we have details on why you >> might need your mic a little closer? >> Chevro had the conversation with the >> just reidentify yourself please. >> Cheryl Leon McCormack 9 Cassot Lane Middleton owners of nine MacArthur
Boulevard. Good evening. I spoke to um the engineers and they told me the storm water water permit would be required just for the sake of parking. >> Okay. >> Nothing further >> sake of adding parking. >> Correct. >> More imperous.
>> Correct. >> More impervious to the back. >> Okay. Yeah. Just want to make sure that was clear at the top. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Mr. Chairman, I I think uh it might if if I didn't mention it, I I think the um the surface of the parking area is is to
be those uh formed uh concrete >> pavers possibly >> pavers with the grass can grow up. >> We're looking into all options, >> right? Okay. So, not tar, not paved. No, I >> I don't know. I I don't want to say no, but I'm not sure at this time. >> Good enough for me. All right. Uh Becky,
we'll start down there with you. Okay. So, um I did visit the property and did get a tour. Thank you. Um on the left side then the new driveway. What is the width of that driveway? >> How much?
>> 11 and 1/2 ft. >> 11 and 1/2 ft. >> Yes. >> Okay. And do you feel that's sufficient for the parking spaces to back out and turn to get back out onto the street? >> Well, they they'll be coming. They'll they'll back they'll back out
three-point turn, come out the driveway, and come out come out forward to the street. >> So, that's enough space. >> There's enough space for turning turning radius. >> Okay. And I just kind of missed what you said about what the surface would be. >> We're trying to make it as as um
ecologically friendly as possible with and we've been looking into these and I'm I'm not really sure what they call them, but you've seen them. They cast >> uh cement and then then the grass can grow through them as well rather than putting down even some of the more expensive and the more attractive pavers
which then would cause water to sheet and wouldn't necessarily be able to be absorbed into the ground. >> Okay. And um my final question is what would the access be from the back parking spaces into the property?
>> I'm sorry I was distracted. What is the access from the rear parking spaces into the property or do the people have to walk around the house to get into the house? >> Well, go ahead. You're the architect. >> They have access. They have full access
to they would have access to each unit both in the back and the front. >> All three units could access from >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Karine. Um, I have no questions at this time. >> Thank you, Ken. >> No questions. Thank you, Kenj.
>> So, uh, what's the square footage of the addition? Is it still 400 >> 400 ft? Give it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Chris. >> No questions. Thank you. >> And Kevin, >> no questions. Thank you. >> Um, so currently right now, is there a
curb cut on the leftand side of the property or is that >> so that would be something you'd be requesting to a DPW? >> Yes. And if the board obviously would to were to grant that, it would be obviously a condition. >> Okay. And is there any vegetation, large trees or anything that have to be taken
out because of this driveway? >> No. >> Very good. Uh I don't I too I think that's it for me on questions. So I'll go out to the audience on this if anybody's here on nine MacArthur Boulevard. And again, I'll entertain new comments, not regurgitation from our
prior meeting. Anybody here? Nine. MacArthur. Anyone online? Brian. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Good evening. I'm Bill McKenzie. Uh 34 Harbor Street. I think this is great that they're going through all this
motion because a lot of people in the town in the past just do it anyway. So I I commend you for that. >> Very good. Thank you. No, we're all good. Okay. Um, if there's no further questions from the board, we'll uh come back and deliberate. And, uh, Becky, we
started with you. >> So, I'm not voting on this, so I'll defer to the board. >> Very good, Karine. >> Um, I took into consideration, um, you know, the new plan and the fact that you were parking in the back. I'm still not a big fan of the three spaces out in front.
And I'm still a no. >> You're still a no. And, uh, Ken, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have no problem with this. I I I think that they created a good parking situation. So, I'll vote for this. >> Very good. Thank you, Ken. And uh Ken J.
>> Yeah, I'll also vote for this. I like the um the parking situation is much better. So, there, you know, won't be on the street. So, I'm good. Uh I would approve this. >> And Chris, >> I would also vote yes as well. >> And Kevin,
>> I am not voting, so I will defer. >> Very good. Um, so I guess it comes down to yours truly. Uh, I am not a big fan myself either of parking in the front. Uh, and I I do
appreciate the um effort that was put in to come up with an alternative plan. I think stacking of vehicles at the front uh would have been detrimental to the neighborhood. although those vehicles still have to back out. Um, and they're
not tandem. So, that lessens that blow. And I I guess with that said, um, you know, I think I mean, you are an architect by trade, I guess, or not. You're you're pretending to be one, I guess. >> Um, but I feel like, uh, you know, the
what you're trying to do here and provide for your family, I think, is a good thing. and I feel like you'll do this drive tastefully. I I at least that's the hope. So with that said, I will vote in favor. And uh with that said, board members, I will need a motion. I make a motion to grant the
special permit under section 30.2 section D in order to build an addition to convert a conform u conforming two family dwelling into a conforming three family dwelling and that the exterior appearance of the structure is not substantially changing. The structure
remains residential in nature. Adjacent properties would not be adversely impacted. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public good and would not substantially deviate from the intent or purpose of this bylaw. A payment of $28,000 to the affordable
housing trust must be paid prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy. >> I've got a motion. Any further discussion? Do I have a second? >> I second. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> I uh
>> the motion passes. Um see the planning department and uh good luck with your project. >> Thank you very much. >> Yes. >> Uh 342 Andover is here if we if you wanted to go back to the first case.
>> Okay. Um and I see Mr. Castanza is also here. >> Well, yeah, that's 340. That's 342. >> He's 153, I thought. I'm sorry. No, I've got it backwards. >> 342. >> 342. Uh, Mr. Clerk, if we could reread 342.
>> Uh, this case is 342 Andover Street, zoned R3, map 39, lot 010A. requests a finding to expand a pre-existing non-conforming use of the property to allow landscaping businesses that park in 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. The request is made by Guy
Castanza, dock at 25-5108. Good evening. >> Good evening. Thank you for taking the time to hear me out today. >> If you could reintroduce yourself. >> My name is Guy Costanza from 342 Andover Street here in Danvers. >> So, Mr. Castanza, give us an update,
please. >> Okay. Um, I know we were instructed to get a plot plan and a parking plan and um that is in process. It proved to be a a harder task than I thought, reaching out to just under a dozen uh surveying
companies. Uh many rejections for the claim that they are too busy and not taking on new clients. And uh two of them that I received written quotes for after a month of back and forth with them um are between $6,000 and $8,000
for these parking plans. Um which is quite exorbitant. Uh, I did find someone who was able to do it for a little less than that and that's in process. So, I could use a little bit more time to present the parking plan and plot plan to you as requested. Uh, however, we've
done other cleanup in the meantime and spent a few thousand dollars uh for dumpster service and construction company or excavator company to remove uh the debris that was on the property line near the cemetery. So, we've done quite a bit of cleaning up and removal
of vehicles as requested in addition to that school bus that was used as a storage container that's been removed as well. Uh, and all unregistered vehicles and including the boat has been removed uh by my tenants. So, it's an ongoing process and we're doing our best to
comply and make things um in line with your requests. >> Well, um Mr. could stand when we called you uh initially, you know, you weren't here, but I think the date of July was brought up and we're now into October. This case
was first filed in July. >> Yes. >> Um I believe you're under a uh um uh a notice from the town as well for non-compliance. So, uh from where this board sits, it seems like we're kind of dragging our
feet here. and and and not to um belittle the costs associated with this, >> but we didn't bring this problem on, right? So, I understand I I just >> uh you know, this is a request you're asking for.
>> Uh I don't want you to flip it around the other way. No, >> you're you're trying to do something that's not currently permitted at this property. Um, and we've been sitting and waiting for a parking plan and a site layout uh for months now after this
board went and did a site visit. So, I'm glad uh there has been some progress on the property, but it's moving at a snail's pace. So, um you know, I'm going to put it out to the board members and I before I do that, I I will go and see uh
Mr. Z Kelly, is there anything you want to add to that or any updates from the planning department? >> Um, this week uh several uh uh I would say yeah, two surveyors reached out trying to find out
more exact detailed um uh details of what we needed for or you know what what you wanted uh in this parking plan. It's essentially an existing condition survey with a parking plan overlaid on top to find out to figure out where all these vehicles
and other um well the vehicles where they can all physically park. Um so you know that's the only update was like in the past probably five work days I've talked with two surveyors related to this property.
>> Okay. So Mr. Stanza, when do you feel like you're going to have the information that this board's requested? >> Uh, with the current surveyor that I'm working with that um is in process as we speak. I just finally connected with him last week after the other 11 surveyors.
Um, he should have it within about two weeks. >> So, you would look to continue this case until our October uh 10th meeting? >> November 10th. Do you mean? >> I'm sorry. >> Sure. >> We're in October.
>> What What month is it? >> It's been that kind of year. November 10th meeting. >> Yes, sir. >> You feel that's a date that you'll hit? >> Uh >> because we've continued this, I believe, four times at this point. >> I wasn't aware it was that many, but I know it was more than once.
>> I think it's at least >> It wasn't four continuences. It was more than four meetings for sure, but it was um >> So maybe three continuences over >> this would be the third, I believe. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I I just again I'm I'm just trying to put some reality into this.
So, you tell me. You're driving the the boat here. >> Yes, sir. >> You think uh November 10th would be enough time. >> That's the next meeting. >> That's our next meeting is November 10th. >> Yes. I I'll uh >> And that would mean in the office the Tuesday prior so that information can
get out to this board. We can't get it on November 10th, >> right? >> I think it would probably be November 3rd. >> 3rd or second? Yeah. >> Fourth. >> Fourth. >> So, does that work? Cuz if not, uh, we would go.
>> Okay. I'll make that happen. >> Okay. >> And if I have any difficulty, I'll reach out to Brian tomorrow >> just because there's been a number of, uh, meetings here. And post site visit. Uh, I think it's your first time in since the visit. >> I'm going to I'm going to just quickly
uh, strobe the board for a question. So, uh, Kevin, we'll go down to you. >> I have no questions for the applicant. >> Thank you, Chris. >> No questions. Thank you. >> Ken, >> did did you have uh the electrical inspector come and look at that uh that receptacle and the stump?
>> Uh we remove the cord from that section. Uh so to my knowledge, it's not being used. Um I can get an electrical inspector if we have to. I wasn't sure I was instructed to do that. Um we basically just disconnected uh anything from that.
So, did you do anything with the receptacle because it looked like there was a GFCI on there? I don't know if there was one before, but you haven't changed nothing. >> No, sir. I I wasn't sure I was under that instruction for that. I know we pointed it out. I recall that when you
visited um >> and we just disconnected things from it. >> I don't think that's going to do it because it's still there and someone's going to use it. So, you should get the inspector out there just to see if that's the code. >> Okay. because you have the the ROMX going up there. There's no conduit. It's
just on a stump and it looks like uh you know, I mean, if someone gets hurt, >> okay, >> it's gonna be bad stuff. >> I'll reach out to the electrical inspector tomorrow. >> Great. So, what's up with that um blue um pickup truck
like on the side? Is that being used? Is that registered? >> That was a plow truck, I believe. Yeah. that one of the tenants was using uh just to plow the property. >> Okay. So, it's being used. >> Uh yes. >> And it's registered. >> Uh he has to get that registered still.
I'm going to be contacting him tomorrow to make sure or have him remove it immediately. >> He won't register it. >> And what about the tires underneath the top? The camouflage top. Is are those supposed to be there? >> Were those in the front of the property or the back of the property? I'm not
aware of those. front. >> They're in the front to the side >> like near the If you look at the truck, the uh blue truck, it's sort of like in front >> of those main building. >> What's that? >> Was it close to the main building?
>> Uh, no. So, there's a big trailer. >> Yep. >> There's like a big trailer in front of the building. So, this is up top and then to the right of that is like a tarp with all these junk. It's bunch of junk and uh tires and stuff like that. So closer to Andover Street, not close to
the main building. >> Correct. >> Okay. That would be the tree guy. I'm going to have to um he was supposed to remove those. I'm going to have to follow up on that immediately. Also tomorrow. Um he has removed a great deal of uh materials and stuff, so I can't confirm 100% if the tires are gone, but
I will make sure he gets them out immediately. >> Yeah, cuz I believe they're not. Mr. Planning Director, are those supposed to be there? I mean, is that okay to have some junk on the property or I don't know what the limit is of what is legal or illegal?
>> Well, I mean, it's it's it's certainly if it's um I mean, no, you can't really have just like trash or junk. >> Yeah. So, that's not >> if you're talking if you're talking about um Yeah. It doesn't sound like you're
talking about any type of contractor yard situation. You're talking about actual just like things that need to go to the junkyard, then no, they cannot have that on the property. >> Yeah. It's not like mulch or pavers or anything. It's trash. Okay. >> It can't be construed as construction or
landscaping material then. No. >> Okay. >> I'm under the impression that he had the tires uh as spares that they are usable for his equipment. Uh if they have a blowout that they can have something ready to switch uh without having to order it. But I could still again make
sure he gets them out of there. >> Yeah, it looked like a lot of >> Okay. >> tires like being hidden underneath the tarp. >> Yep. >> And I think that's all I got. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Very good, Ken. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the tree
truck, the tree trucks, >> are they still parking out in front of the building? >> Yes, sir. >> Which is illegal at this point. We understand that. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, I'll save the rest of my stuff for comments. >> I was pending, you know, they're there pending approval or rejection of my
expanded use, but if we get denied, we will evict them. >> Okay. Uh, Karine, >> um, so will you be able to have both the plot plan and the parking plan um, completed by that what was it? November
10th meeting only because I I assume the plot plan is done first and then from the plot plan you're able to determine like your parking plan and draw it out. Um so if you if it's going to take two weeks for the plot plan then you're not
giving yourself any time for the um the parking plan. >> Okay. I will verify his timeline tomorrow uh immediately. Um, I'm under the impression he's going to take care of both at the same timeline. >> Is it the same contractor doing both? Like I'm sorry, the same.
>> Okay. All right. Then then do it. Okay, that's fine then. >> I thought you had reached out to two separate companies. One to do the parking plan. >> I've reached out to a dozen and I didn't think a lot of them would take so long to get back to me and then the ones that I actually connected with literally took
over a month to reach out to Mr. Kelly for further details and then finally put a quote back together to me. So, it's been almost two months for the ones that I actually connected to and I didn't want to reach out to a dozen all in the beginning because I didn't want to get them all on the hook and involved uh and
become a lot more confusing. Um >> okay, >> became a tougher task than anticipated, but >> Okay. So, it it is realistic that you could have it done by the 10th then >> I believe so. Yes. Thank you, >> Becky. Um, so I'm going to be specific with you. Um, do you have a signed
contract with someone to do this work? >> Uh, it's just a verbal agreement right now. >> Okay. So, you don't have a signed contract with a specific date? No. Delivery date? >> No. He's supposedly doing some research as we speak. Um, and because I finally found out about this individual late
last week knowing the meeting was today, I didn't want to um I didn't know what the instructions would be today because things had progressed the way they have. So, I told him I'd give him a yes or a no to proceed following this meeting immediately. >> Okay. So, you spoke to him last week,
but you don't have a signed contract or any >> specifics from him with a delivery date, >> correct? It should be done within the two weeks he was talking. I'll confirm all that tomorrow for sure. >> Is it somebody local? >> Uh I believe he's in
>> asking for specific name. >> Yeah, I can give his name if you want. >> Do you want his name? >> Yeah, sure. >> Yeah. Joe Sherwatka. He's a chief engineer. Um and he's going to be performing that task.
>> He's local. >> I believe he's out of Danvers. I'm not 100% sure that it's Danvers. It's Joe Satka. He was referred to me by a contractor friend of mine. >> Okay. >> And he is an engineer. He used to work for Hancock Survey Associates, but I believe he's independent now. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, uh, Becky. Um, all right. So, Mr. Castan, just to be clear, to throw more uh conflict at you. Um, so November 4th, uh, is election day, and I don't know if we're open. Uh, I guess I'll go out to Mr. Zelli. Are we?
>> I believe we are. >> Okay. So that shouldn't delay things. Uh but but I think um just to be clear, uh we plan to go forward on this on
November 10th. So um I think think Becky's question is a good one and and I would drive towards your surveyor um person making sure that they understand that you need something to be delivered to Danver's town hall.
>> Yes. by November 4th so it can be disseminated out to this board. >> We're definitely open. >> Okay. And we're definitely open. So there you go. >> All right. Uh with that said, I I don't I guess I can go out to the public. Uh if we have any new comments as we can
see, uh this is a case that's still in progress. We don't have a plan before us. So the board won't be voting on anything tonight. The applicant has asked for continuence to November 10th. So, I'll only entertain uh comments from the public if it's something new that we
don't already know about. Go right ahead, miss. >> Hi, good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh my name is Susette Witchie. I reside at 12 Buckton Road. Um, just going back to something that was discussed at the last meeting.
It's my understanding that that Mr. Castanza does not have a variance. Is that correct? >> Uh, there is a pre there is an existing variance. >> Uh, and what he's looking for is a modification of that variance. >> So, it's a it's a variance for
non-conforming use. >> Correct. And that variance goes in perpetuity with the with >> that is also correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Is that right? >> And and I mean just to quickly summarize it, it's it's always had a mixeduse
component at that address. However, uh that use has changed and came by uh through notification of the town. So they are currently in violation of that agreed upon variance. So, Mr. Castans is
in here seeking uh a change, >> right? But there is >> and that's what's before this board. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Okay. Um with that said, board members, um >> wait, >> I'm sorry. >> Is there another person? Yeah, go ahead.
>> Uh Tim Gray, Tom Meat member, nine bucks in the road. We're in a butter. Um just want to bring up a few things that have happened since uh we were here last as well. um the logging operation that happens over there um last week it moved to the front parking lot. Um so we just
want to make sure that that was brought up to the attention as well. Um not sure if he's aware of any of that cuz you know I think we're kind of aware that he's a a vacant owner. Um there are still junk vehicles that we
can see from Cemetery Road. Um, you know, you uh Ken brought up the the blue vehicle that's over there that's still um unregistered. Um he did say there they were all removed and then he backtracked and said that that was still
on site and unregistered. So um just want to bring that up again. Um and then um he they did bring in a larger piece of equipment last week, a larger front end loader um that are they're using in
the back to move gravel around. They brought in a large um quantity of gravel into the back and they've been bringing large trucks in and out to to load gravel and um in and out of the property. So now we have uh larger
vehicles coming in and out of the property. uh dump trucks um hauling gravel back and forth. So, we just want to bring that up to your attention as well. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, I mean they are they can operate a contractor's yard in the back. The pro
the reason why they're here is because they're part. So, there are certain rights they carry with the property >> including being a contractor yard. So there would imagine there would be movement of gravel uh and that type of
thing as as part of their use that they're allowed to do. The problem or the issue at the moment is that >> expand it trying to go to the front. >> Very good. Okay. So board members, uh the applicant has asked for a continuence to our November 10th meeting. So if I could get a motion in a
second, please. Motion to issue a continuence for petition number 25-5108 to the November 10th, 2025 meeting >> and a second. >> I second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> opposed. Okay, Mr. Cassanza, hopefully we're going to move forward and we'll see you on the 10th. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you. Okay. Um, is uh any chance that anybody from 153 Andover is online?
And I take it there's nobody here from 153 Andover. All right. So, board members, uh, we have a choice there. I guess we >> just move it >> and ask for a continuence on that as well. >> Move it. I would just move it to the end and >> Yeah. Okay. If we don't have it there,
we'll we'll go for a continuence there. All right. Let's start out with our regularly scheduled items here, Mr. Good work. >> All right. Our next case is 36 Sherwood Avenue, uh, zoned R2, map 28, lot 63. Requests a finding under table two for a
side setback encroachment for proposed addition that will be 13.37 ft from the property line where 15 ft is required. The house is non-conforming with respect to the front setback, side setback, and square footage. Uh, the request is made
by Daniel and Hillary Gordon. dock at 25-5117. >> Okay. Somebody here on 36 Sherwood A. >> Good evening. My name is Hillilary Gordon. I live at 36 Sherwood A. >> Good evening, Hillary. How are you? >> Good. Thank you for having me.
>> So, tell us what you'd like to do. >> Um, I'm just trying to make an addition for my growing family. I have four kids, so we're making a playroom. Uh, it's about >> Where are they? >> They're with my husband. I got the guitar. >> So, you love being at this, right? All right. >> I do. Um, so we're just trying to make
it flush with our current wall. Um, it's just about 13 in in within the 15 foot setback. >> Okay. So, just adding an addition. >> Yeah. >> And you're going to encroach the setback and you are a pre-existing
non-conforming. Is that correct? >> I'm getting the plan up. Sorry. >> Sorry. That's okay. >> Here it is. This also required concom so this site plan has um a few more lines than you know >> pretty busy.
>> Yeah, very busy. >> So um >> yeah, go ahead, Brian. >> The they're asking for 13.37. The current overhang is 12.8, so it's not getting any worse. Um but this is the addition that requires
>> uh the relief. This other the addition on the left hand side does not require anything from ZBA. >> The left hand side as we look at it >> the left hand side as we look at it. Yeah. That this addition on the left is not what we're talking about this evening and not up for discussion.
>> Only the one on the right hand side. >> The one on the right is because it is breaking a set bank. >> Okay. Anything else you want to present to us? >> Um nope. I don't think so. >> All right. I'm gonna open it up for questions and uh
>> Becky, I need >> I don't have any questions. >> I don't have any questions. >> Very good. Thank you, Becky. >> I did go look at it, >> Karine. >> Um I just have a couple. So, I drove by and I saw your house. It looks like it is Was there another addition put on the
house earlier? >> Um we bought it in 2018 and yeah, it used to be one of those rancher Campanelli ranchers. Um so, the previous owners went above. Um, and then we did a renovation. We pushed out a little bit um, three years ago. Just about 180 square feet, I think.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Brian, I didn't see a history in here. Did I Was I just missing it from my package? >> No, it didn't require >> even the addition. >> No, I don't believe so because it was all within It was all within the setback. >> Okay.
Okay. Um, and so right now what you're proposing, um, these these drawings were kind of a little hard to to follow. >> Yeah, no worries. Um, I can >> So, you're doing a like a playroom, which is it referenced here as a sun
room? >> Yeah. Is that something? No, it's the same. Yeah. And then the one on the left, I'm not planning I don't even know if I'm going to do it. Um, but it would be like three to four years down the road, but it's just with the conservation commission, I had to apply for it all. Um, so it is really just
that one on the right, that square on the right. Um, right there. >> Okay. All right. So, that was one of my questions. >> If one of these additions was just proposed now, but from your narrative, it seems like you're going to be doing it later. >> Yeah, if at all. But, um, yeah, just the one on the right for now.
>> Okay. All right. And um based on on the plans that you have in the way um it looks as if like the the bottom half is being proposed. Um is this is this like slab construction?
>> Yeah. >> So you're just continuing that. Okay. >> Exactly. Yeah. No basement or anything. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Uh Ken thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Hillary, have you talked to 34 and 38 Sherwood? >> Um yep. No opposition from them?
>> Nope. I think she'd be here if she did, but >> no further questions. >> Thank you, Kenj. >> Oh, you're very I like your um Halloween decorations. >> Oh, thank you. I appreciate that, >> Bendy. >> Um I know no other questions. Oh, thank you. >> I appreciate the compliment. I spent a
lot of money on those for some reason. >> Yeah, it was scary. >> Tell 20-year-old myself that I would spend hundreds of dollars on Halloween. >> There you go. That's nice. Chris, >> uh, the house has come a long way in a short period of time. It's beautiful. No questions. Thank you, >> Kevin.
>> What is it that actually goes into the setback? Is it the sun room part or the covered patio part? >> Um, both of them because it's just a continuous um built uh building and then the overhang is just going to be like a gable. >> I see. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> Um uh I'm sorry. Um, Miss Gordon, um, how how big is the existing house square footage wise? >> Um, I think it's just under 2800 square ft. >> 2,800. And And how big is this addition?
>> Um, it's I wish I approximate. Yeah, I'm >> 20 by 26. >> 20 by 26. >> I think it's like 500 square feet. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> okay. I think that's all he had. >> And you're uh aware this is going to
require a storm water permit. >> Yes. Yes. >> And if I'll just go out to our planning director, uh Brian, so the uh concom part of it, explain that to us a little bit. >> Um they're right on Frost Fishbrook,
which takes it's hard to say fast. It's one of those tongue twisters. >> Frost Fresh Fish. So pretty much anything other than mowing they have to go in front of Concom. Um so they're doing some other landscaping as or planning is is
associated with that. I think you're is it this Thursday or you >> So that's happening in parallel with this. >> They're on for this Thursday. So um it's you know permitting week >> for the Gordens. >> That's a lot of fun. >> All right. Uh I don't have any
additional questions. Uh I'll go out to the public on this. We're here on 36 Shorewood. A anybody would like to be heard hearing. Seeing none, no one online. I take it, Brian. Uh I will come back to the board uh and we will deliver it. Becky,
>> uh I won't be voting on this, so I'll defer to the board. Thank you. >> Very good. Karine, >> um I will vote for this. I I like the plan and I also like what you've done so far, so um I am a yes. Thank you. >> I will vote for this, too. >> Thank you, Kenj. I'll vote for this as
well. >> And Chris, >> I am a yes as well. >> Very good. And um Kevin, >> I my obviously I'm not voting so it's somebody's neither here nor there, but I
am concerned that especially in Woodale, we have generally conforming lots. Maybe there's some pre-existing non-conforming there because we've changed setbacks here and there. I am concerned that we let people just continually take little bites at the apple, right? Um, so this one's not a big deal. It's a few inches on this side, then the next the next
one's, you know, a foot or two on the other side. Uh, if we just let everybody take little bites at the apple, no bite seems bad, but before you know it, the apple's gone. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Kevin. Um, I think this is a lot of house uh on a small lot. Uh,
however, you have a lot of people. So, uh, I know you don't have a basement either. So, uh, I see that as a challenge. And, uh, with that said, I would vote in favor of this. So, if I could get a motion, board members, I'd like to make a motion to issue the
finding under table two for a side setback encroachment for a proposed addition that will be 13.37 ft from the property line where 15 ft is required. and that the proposed uh extension alteration of the use is not substantially more detrimental than the
existing structure to the neighborhood. >> I got a motion. Can I get a second, please? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Very good. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> Happy Halloween. >> Yes.
>> Happy Halloween. >> All right, Mr. Clerk. Moving right along. Our next case is five Watson Parkway. This is zoned R3, map 39, lot 97. Requests a variance under table 2 for a side
setback encroachment for a proposed garage addition that will be 12.1 ft from the property line where 20 ft is required. Additionally, the applicant requests a finding under table 2 for the front setback encro encroachment of the
proposed garage addition that will be located 25.4 4 feet from the front setback where 30 feet is required. The request is made by Eric and Mary Beth Don, dock at 25-5121. >> Hi, good evening.
>> Good evening. I'm Eric Don, my co-owner with my wife Mary Beth Don, 5 Wson Parkway. Our family has lived in Denver since 1989 and our current at our current address since 2002. We are seeking relief for a variance for
a side setback encroachment of 12.1 ft and also for a finding for a front setback of encroachment of 25.4 ft for the purpose of building our twocar garage. We're getting older and would like to have the convenience of storing our vehicles, especially in cold winter months. We also plan to use attic space
for some se seasonal storage. Uh I have spoken uh with the majority of our neighbors and they are on board with this addition we're proposing. Thank you for your time. >> Very good. Thank you. Um >> um I will start down there with you,
Kevin. >> I don't have any questions. Thank you. >> Uh Chris, >> no questions. Thank you. Uh, Kenj, >> I don't have any questions. >> Uh, Mr. Scholes, >> um, no questions at this time.
>> Uh, Karine, >> I don't have any questions either. >> And Becky, >> I don't think I have any. The house on the left where the garage is going to be, it's far away, right? >> It is. My friend Kathy, who's here tonight,
>> it looked like there's a lot of land between your house and where the next house. That's why it's not really an issue with my neighbors because it's far away. We have plenty of space. So, >> okay. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Thanks, Becky. And um so currently right
now there's a driveway there. Is that basically going to replace the driveway? >> Yes. Um yeah, the driveway needs to get replaced. Uh we moved it over. The landscape landscaping has been moved over. So, right now there's only hot top
for one car, but we're gonna make two widen it >> and I've already talked to the DPW. >> So, you're going to increase the curb cut? >> I'm going to have to increase the curb. Yes. >> Very good. >> Yeah. >> And is there already an uh So, is is there just one single curb cut at this
property currently? >> Actually, the curb cut uh was probably three cars wide because it original parking was in front of the house. >> Okay. and and I didn't like that. So the landscaping is now in front of the house and the parking will be basically on the
side of the house >> and as you look at the house the lefth hand side >> exactly >> where the new garage will be. >> Yes. >> Okay. And um did you consider any slightly smaller garage that would then fit within the setback?
>> I did. Uh, I have a I have a a a truck >> and uh our previous address uh back in 2002, we we parked my truck in in the garage and to be able to park a truck in a garage, it's got to be pretty good size to be able to get through the the
garage door. So, um that's why I'm I'm, you know, building it, trying to get it to that width. So, >> okay, makes sense. And, uh I'm just going to go out to our planning director. So, Brian, they're here on the finding for the front setback and they're here on the variance for the
side setback. >> Hey, I'm getting good at this. Okay. Any additional questions from the board? >> I just have one. >> Yeah, go ahead, Green. >> Um, I noticed on the plan that it said you're going to have a pull down. So, I'm assuming um that there are no stairs
to upstairs. It's just the pull down. Or am I wrong about that? >> You're correct. That's that was the plan. Yes. And that's where the extra storage will be in the >> Yeah. Like whatever, you know, I can get up through there if it has to be there. But it's just, you know, some like cushions, that kind of stuff, seats. We
have a pool in the back. I instead of storing in the basement, I'd like to store it up there. So >> Oh, no. It's the perfect spot for it. I agree. I just want to confirm that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh I'll go out to the public. We're here on Five Watson Parkway. Anybody who want to be heard? Five
Watson Parkway. Anyone online? Right. >> No. >> No. >> Very good. Uh Kevin will sat down there with you. >> Yeah. I the the finding uh to me is is pretty easy. The standard for finding is pretty low. Uh the variance I have a uh
harder time with. I think it's less the shape of the lot that's a problem and more the orientation of the house on the lot. Um which are are not quite the same thing. Um, I I have a hard time getting to substantial hardship for a garage. I think a garage is always a a want, not a
not a need. Um, so if I were voting, I would not support the variance, but I would support the finding. >> Very good. Uh, Chris, >> uh, I will vote yes on both the variance and the finding. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Ken J. >> I'll vote uh yes on both the finding and
the variance. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. the Scholes. >> I'll vote for both. >> Thank you, Karine. >> I'll vote for both. >> And Becky, >> and I'll defer to the board. >> Very good. And uh I do see this as um
you know, a a very simple um and modest addition. So, I too will vote in favor. We're going to need both a uh a variance read and a finding read board members. So, if I could start with the finding, please. Um a motion um for a finding
under table two for front setback encroachment of a proposed garage addition that will be located um 25.4 ft from the front setback where 30 ft is required and that the proposed extension alteration of the use is not
substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood. >> I'll second. >> I've got a motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I >> I >> and variance please. >> Um motion to issue a variance under
table two for side setback encroachment for proposed garage addition that will be 12.1 ft from the property line where 20 ft is required and that this condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A literal enforcement
of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship to the applicant. The hardship is the irregular shape of the lot. Oh, wait. Excuse me. One more. Yeah. Um, granting this variance 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. >> I will second. >> I've got a motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> You got it. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Keep that.
>> Um, Mr. Clerk, if we could read our last case. >> Our next case is 152 Enderot Street. This is zone commercial 3, map 63, lot 14. Uh requests a variance under section 37 to allow a third building mounted
wall sign for a new hotel where a maximum of two signs per lot are allowed. Uh the request is made by AAM Danas Hotel LLC care of OPG construction docket 25-5122.
>> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. >> Thank you. Hi, good evening. >> Good evening. Uh my name is David Sherborn, uh vice president and lead architect at OPG Construction. Uh with
me tonight from AAM is uh Craig Finsteel. Uh we're excited to be uh constructing a second building uh this year in Danvers. We recently completed early this year the Maple Square Apartments. Um so we're excited that the
hotel is under construction. Uh as mentioned we are requesting a variance for a third sign uh building mounted bull sign with uh to our permitted for lots fronting uh two streets. Um if you
go to the second page um there is a colored site plan there. Uh so what we are calling sort of the by right two wall signs would be the one on the north side facing Indicott Street. the one on the southern facade uh facing
um Yankee Division Highway and uh on the west side of the short end of the building which is facing Chalet Court would be the third sign we were asking the variance for. Um part of the reason for um the third sign is this is a branded hotel. Uh it's a
Hilton Home two suites an extended stay hotel. Um the next page there that you'll see that'll be the sign facing Endicott Street. Um it's on the right hand side there. That is a branding element. It's called the beacon uh that you would see uh all home to suite
branded hotels have. Uh that's an important element for Hilton to have on their hotels and facing um the main street frontage. Uh if you go to the next page, Brian, uh the next element uh signage element here would be on uh the
south side of the building directly above the main entrance and the port of cashier. Um and part of the challenges with this site, it's obviously very long in the uh east-west direction. Uh the entrance into the site is off Chalet Court. Uh which brings the approach to
the end of the building. Um the placement of the entry in Porticashir is on the southern side. Uh mainly to a facilitate uh the efficient parking to meet the parking requirements uh that were needed by the town um as part of
the development and also to allow on the western side and sort of the triangular piece of um remaining sort of landscaped and p patio area would be an amenity to the hotel itself on the west side. Uh if you go to the next slide here, this will be the third sign that we are asking for
the variance of. Um I will point out that each of the signs, the one on the north side, um it sign only accounts for 1% of the wall area at 95 uh 95 square ft. The one on the south elevation accounts for half% of the total wall
area of that south facade. And then on the west side uh elevation with this sign on the screen right now accounts for 3% of the wall elevation. I know that the ordinance has changed between the Maple Square project and here um I know that we can get one square ft per
linear um linear feet of frontage uh building elevation main uh facing the main primary front and then half square feet per linear feet on the secondary. What we have between all three signs is a combined area of 245
square ft. Um we've got combined between um either if we take the short end of the building uh you'd have 36 square ft of secondary plus 240 square ft. Uh so on a conservative side permitted of total wall area uh permitted would be
276 which we would still be compliant with. If we could take the north and south where we have the sort of two by ride signs, it'd be 360 ft. Either way, we're less than the total combined wall area of sign available. And then finally
on this slide here, uh this would be the proposed elevation perspective. So this is where you'll get approaching the hotel from Chalet Court. Um we think it's an important addition to this building given that firsttime guests in particular there's wayfinding to the
hotel itself trying to get them over to the right hand side where the main entrance is uh as an important uh element for both ownership but also Hilton as well. So with that being said I will uh hand it back to you and happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Uh and just to be clear so it's it's this sign we're talking about. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that is the one that uh I think is facing I guess Charlotte Court. >> Shall Yep. Correct. On the waist. >> Okay. Uh Becky, we'll start down there with you.
>> That's quite a building. >> It is. >> It went up fast. It looks good. Um I don't have any questions. >> Thank you, Karine. >> Um I I I just want to um kind of total
up all the signs that you have. Mhm. >> So, you have the existing pylon sign. That's the one that was just um installed by was it Fidelity? Fidelity installed it. >> Correct. >> Which is the three-party sign, right? Salem 5 um Fidelity and then you guys,
>> correct? >> Then you have the existing directional signs you have and now you have, let's see, three wall signs. one that one as of right and two you're requesting permission to put up and then you have
the existing pylon sign that's facing out. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. So you have one, two, three, one, two, three, four, five, six. So you have seven signs. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Five four of them existing. Correct.
>> Yes. Yes. Okay. No further questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Karine. Uh Ken Schultz. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes. I too, Karina. Trying to figure out the signage here. So, the existing pylon sign that's on Indicot Street,
>> you see that, you turn in, you're on Chalet Court. Correct. >> Correct. >> And then when you're on Chalet Court, you see uh existing directional signs. >> Correct. >> Which puts you into the hotel parking lot. >> Correct.
>> Okay. I don't have any further questions. I'll hold for comments. >> Thank you, Ken. Uh Kenj, >> I have no questions. >> Thank you, Chris. >> No questions. Thank you. >> Uh Kevin, >> no questions. Thank you. >> Can I just clarify one thing? I think Karine, you would see it. Are we asking variance for two? It's only one sign
we're asking for. >> I'm sorry. Yes. No, that's fine. That's what I meant. Two as of right, one you were requesting permission for. >> Um >> microphone. >> Sure. >> I'm Craig Fencil. I'm with AM. We we're the owners of the hotel. >> Okay.
>> To be that's being built by OPG. I just want to make clarification. When you come in through Chalet Court, just to answer your question, Mr. Scholes. Um, when you get in when you kind of come around that curve, you have a Fidelity building that's pretty well marked on
your left and you're directly facing, >> if you could show that page again with the one additional sign that we're talking about, but you're going to be facing a building not knowing that's the hotel and you're kind of sitting in no man's land between the Fidelity building because it's all shared parking. So you
sit between Fidelity and the hotel and this is just to make it very clear that this is the hotel on the right and Fideli's on the left. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um I'm not sure I have any questions. I think
I >> Yeah, I mean you're you're Well, maybe I do. Let's let me >> I have one question. >> Let me organize my thoughts >> two when you're done. >> Yep. Thank you, Becky. Uh so the two the two by right proposed wall signs total
how much in square footage? >> Uh you're 150 square ft? >> 150 >> correct. >> 75 each or are they different sizes? >> 95 and 54. >> Okay. And then so the idea is that that's kind of the front of the
building, the back of the building. And the thought is that you need this other side as was just described by your partner here because the fact that Fidelity's to the left, you guys are to the right and you don't feel people
driving down Charlotte Court will see that sign that's on the front of the building. >> Well, well, if you go to Brian, if you go to that rendering, you'll see that the one that's on Endicott Street really isn't visible just because of the approach off Shalet Court. Um I think if
you keep going to page five maybe >> this one here >> uh next one. So you'll see that on the left hand side there the sign's really not visible the one facing Indicott Street. And so obviously this being a hotel and being in the hospitality business we're trying
to make white wayfinding as easy as possible particularly for people that are coming here for the first time not necessarily just through during the day but also at night as well. And so >> Okay. And and on that uh vein >> Mhm. >> Uh so your lobby is
>> underneath to the right. So there is no access for new guests on the left hand side. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh that's all I've got. Uh go ahead Becky. >> And that that's what I was trying to clarify that once you come in on Shalley Court, the lobby is to the right.
>> Correct. And you have a choice to make. You can go straight ahead. that >> if you go straight in, you're inidity and there's no entrance there. The entrance is around to the right. So, we're trying to get people direct you to the right of the building. Is that okay? That's what I thought. Okay. I have one
more question. >> Um, what time is it? Go ahead, Becky. Sorry, Karine. >> Um, actually, Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Zelli the question? >> Yes. >> Um, >> what is the status of that road? Have
has it been like accepted by the town? >> I don't think it has been accepted yet. I think it's planned. It's I would imagine the next possible time it's going to it's going to be >> Will it go in front of like town meeting for like acceptance? Yeah, >> it has to. >> Okay. All right. So, it's still a paper
road. >> It's certainly not a paper road anymore. It's it's constructed. It's just has not been accepted by the town. Technically, it is a private it's a >> private road >> at this time, but it's fully constructed and we're very happy with its
construction. >> I think that whole intersection was changed too, right? >> Uh it was modified, but a lot of money was put and infrastructure was put into that intersection. Like I said, we're very satisfied uh more than satisfied with how it turned out. Well, I I can
tell you uh compared to the old uh Denny's that was there and the eyes saw that was there, it's a it's a it's a welcome addition, I think. Um with that said, uh I'll go out to the public on this. Uh is anybody here for
152 Street? Okay. Uh you would have a comment? >> No. Okay. >> I was here for earlier. >> Okay. All right. Um >> enjoying it. Okay. With that said, uh, we'll come back to the board. And I believe I started with you, Becky.
>> Um, >> or did I start problem with this, but I'll defer to the board. Yeah. >> Very good, Karine. >> Um, I I I find your signage is tasteful. You do have a lot of it. Um, but most of it's pre-existing. I'm not a huge fi fan
of those big pylon signs, but they predate you. So, there's nothing we can do about that. So, I will vote for this. Uh, very good. Uh, Ken, >> I got to tell you, I have an issue with this. >> Yeah. >> I personally think sign two should be
where sign three is proposed. There's to me there's no need for sign two. Um, if you really need to see a sign coming down Chalet Court, that would be your wall sign number three. Sign two to me is unnecessary. You have a existing
pylon sign for 128 so people can see okay this is where the hotel is I need to take this exit and then you have your pylon sign on endot to show how you get in. So I'm a no on the on the wall sign number three. Thank you. Uh Ken J.
I'll approve this. >> Uh thank you Ken and Chris. >> I will vote yes as well. >> Okay. And uh Kevin, >> I I have a hard time understanding how it could get to the variance, the very
very high bar that is a variance uh for a sign in in just about any circumstance. So if I were voting, which I'm not, I would not support it. >> Um I tend to agree with Ken on his assessment of this. Um,
I do feel like that back sign doesn't serve a purpose, particularly where you have the pylon sign out on 128. However, uh, I think it's small enough and tastefully done.
Um, it is a new building. It'll be a new location. And, uh, with that said, I would vote in favor of it. So, we do have the votes to get it. And uh if I could get a motion, please. >> Motion to grant a variance waiver under
section 37 to allow for a third building mounted wall sign for a new hotel where a maximum of two wall signs are allowed and that this condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship to the
applicant. Granting this variant/waver will not create a substantial detriment to the public good and will not nullify or deriggate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. >> I've got a motion. Do I've got a second. >> I second. >> All those in favor?
>> I >> opposed. >> I >> um motion passes and uh good luck and uh I hope it works out well. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate it. >> All right. Uh Brian, I guess we'll have one last call on 153 Andover Street. Was
there any correspondence with um them today? Uh it's indicating they wouldn't be present tonight. >> So, no, they um they got their supplemental uh plan, which is which was really the the crux of what we we wanted
to see at he Yeah. So, he he he gave that in >> on a >> uh before the day of the dead, you know, the Tuesday before the meeting. >> Let's continue. So he's like, I'll see you next Oh, next Monday. He said yes. So that was the last correspondence. I
do not have any calls from him today. >> Um >> All right. Well, I guess before uh the motion before the board is uh do we would we like to continue this? I guess >> if so, we would continue with my my suggestion was would be we continue this
also to November 10th. >> Mr. Chairman, can I ask you if I if I recall since this is a special permit, there's a time like there's not mutual agreement for a continuence. So there's a time limit after which a special permit is just automatically granted. The board has to take action, right? >> Uh no. So there's a there's a time limit
for special permits. Um there's a time limit to open the case, which we've already done. It's 120 days. And then there's a time limit once a decision is made. We have 90 days to write a decision,
but those are the only time limits. One, we don't have a time limit to act for a special permit. It's there's a time limit to open and then there's also and then there's a time limit for for us to uh for for the decision to be filed with the town. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, um I guess Brian, again, I'll go to you. Do you think uh November 10th is and you can uh we'll request that you uh contact the applicant and find out what happened? >> Yeah, my um he's a he's been very uh
respon uh like he's been very responsive since the beginning, this applicant. So, this is very out of the ordinary. Um but yeah, I can certainly contact the applicant. I'm sure something came up that he couldn't avoid. >> Okay. Um >> I'll find out what happened. I think it
makes sense to continue to Can I get somebody to make a motion to continue this case? >> I make a motion we uh continue this case um which is dock at 25-5112 uh 153 Andover Street to our November
10th meeting. >> I've got a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Very good. And uh board members uh if we uh could get a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. and a second.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I >> Good night, Dambers. >> Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to be talking there. >> That's all right. No, I >> got another case. I'm like, why do I still have those? I had to laugh at you guys because all of those signs
>> for raising pain in this