Sounds like a teacher. >> Hi, good evening everyone and welcome to this evening's uh town of Denver's zoning board of appeals. We're now in session. I'd like to start off by asking if you could just uh silence any uh mobile devices or phones, beepers,
whatever you might have so we're not interrupted. Um I will start by introducing our board members down to our right is uh one of our alternates, Becky Kilbornne. Uh Karen Dory. Uh our clerk tonight is Ken Scholes, myself, John Bower as the clerk. Uh to my left
is Ken Javvernin. Uh Chris Dembowski and our other alternate is uh Kevin Barich. Um and Kevin, am I saying your name right? I have to keep checking. >> Uh I I say Barrett, but but close enough. >> I'll get it. Bar.
>> I I knew you were talking about me. >> And uh from our planning department is our planning director, Mr. Brian Skellyy. Um I'll go briefly over our procedure. We'll have our clerk read the applicant.
Uh at that point, we'll ask you to go up to the microphone up to the podium there and describe to us what it is you'd like to do. We are on Danver's cable. So, uh uh please announce your name and address if you uh get up to speak as part of the
public. Um after you present your case to us, we'll come back to the board for questions amongst the board members. After that, we'll open it up to the public if there's any comments or questions from the public. Uh at that point we'll finish and return to our
board. Our board will deliberate. We ask that we're not interrupted and uh based on those deliberations um you'll get a sense of which way your case is going and we'll explain your options to you at that point. Um with that said, uh members, we were in receipt of board
minutes both October 6th and October 20th. Um I didn't attain a motion, but I would like to open it up for discussion. And I uh will start it out by saying I I did have some uh discussion with Mr. Zelli and I believe we have um one
person at town hall who's taking care of minutes for multiple boards and seems like other boards want maybe less detail than this board and uh I feel like in my review of the minutes uh the the minutes haven't had enough detail. So, um,
uh, I I'd like to open it up for discussion, I guess, based on that and whether we not we approve it or hold it for tonight. Anyone? >> Um, I I agree. Um, Mr. Chair, we could use some more detail on on our minutes
only because we actually refer back to them and sometimes it's not just a week or a month later, it's years later. So, the more detail we have with the minutes um, would be helpful to us. and also helpful moving forward. So, I agree we
could um we could spruce us up a bit. >> And let me go out to Bri Brian if you want to maybe shed some more light. Um does that make sense our request? >> Uh yeah. So, right now we're trying to formalize at some level all the type all
the minutes of all the boards and committees. Um, like you said, some were like, "Oh, they were they were they were telling our um our regulatory board assistant like this is a little too much. Like we don't we don't need all this detail." And then that's been trans
transferred over to ZBA a little bit and we're like, "Whoa, wait. We we kind of liked what you had before or at least so I am dealing with it. It is an issue. I agree with you." >> Okay. >> Um, it's making it a little bit hard on on her on our regulatory board assistant because she's trying to field many different but I agree. I um and we're
gonna try to okay >> try to get it a little bit better for you guys. >> Is there any other discussion amongst the board? Uh Brian, I think with that said, at at this point, we'll hold on approving these minutes and looking for maybe uh some more detailed updated versions of both October 6th and October
20th. So, uh with that said, uh we'll move on to our continued cases. I don't see our first applicant here, so we will uh skip over that and uh go to our second continued case. Mr. Clerk, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um our first case tonight is 103 Newberry Street.
This is Highway Corer zone, map 40, lot 12. Requests a variance under table 2 to place a mobile home number 22 on the side property line abuing the cemetery where a side setback of 25 ft is required. The request is made by Leah
and James LLC, care of Nancy McCann, Esquire, Docket 25-5119. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Thank you very much. My name is Nancy and I'm here on behalf of Northshore Property Group LLC. The applicant in this case relative to the
property at 103 Newbury Street. With me tonight on behalf of the applicant is Joe Rogerro. Uh the project uh engineer Will Scuda is also here this evening as well as the property owner James St. Pierre. Um we appeared before you back
beginning of October, October 6th and made a full presentation at that time requesting um a variance to allow the placement of one of the mobile homes at a point to be uh on the lot line. So
it's the uh mobile home itself is kind of ketty corner to the lot line and the closest point touches uh the lot line. So we were requesting a variance to allow uh that mobile home to remain as it has been installed. Um
it was installed in that location um primarily because of the driveway configuration and so the mobile home wouldn't uh stick out into the driveway as was originally proposed. As you can
see there, it kind of sticks out into the into the driveway. So, it was pulled back uh and the point that's closest to the cemetery lot line um the point of the mobile home touches that uh that lot
line. Um we requested a continuence to allow us to uh consider the comments that we heard and to investigate whether we could pull the mobile home back from uh that pointed lot line. And again, the lot line we're talking about is the lot
line with the cemetery. The owner of the cemetery is unknown. Um, and unfortunately, this situation happened during the course of placing the mobile homes on the the lots. Um, pursuant to a
decision of this board back in 2023, and uh, it wasn't discovered until the asbuilt plan uh, was prepared. Um, since the last hearing, um, Mr. Zakelli and Mr. Huden, the, uh, building inspector,
have gone out to the site, uh, and have looked at the property. Um, and I have also met with Mr. Zelli to, uh, review the original decision, the 2023 decision of this board. Um,
and I have submitted a letter to you dated uh November 5th uh with a proposal based on what we heard from you, our review and my discussions with Mr. Zakelli and and uh and his review of the property with Mr. Huden. Um, and we are
proposing to move the mobile home that's uh number 22 1 foot off of the lot line. Um, Mr. Zakelli and Mr. Huden agreed that moving the home any more than 1 foot off of the lot line would cause an
unsafe condition for that mobile home as it relates to the drive aisle. We've submitted a revised plan, I think, if you can pull that up, please, which shows the uh the mobile home being moved uh so that the point of the mobile
home is one foot off of the lot line. I know this is the original plan that you submitted with >> Right. And then with my uh November 5th letter, uh I submitted a revised plan. >> Sorry, you'll have to give me a minute.
>> Yep. Um, as you'll note, the um existing home to the right of uh unit 22 is 1 foot off of the lot line.
>> Attorney Mcan, just for clarity, can you uh identify the number of that one to the right? Is that considered number 24? >> Oh boy, that's 23. >> Number 23. Okay. >> Really small on my piece of paper.
can hopefully blow it up. >> The one to the right is 21. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, >> I'm not 23. >> 21 to the left. >> Are we in receipt of the November 5th letter? I don't seem to have a copy of it. >> Uh it should have been in your package. >> It would have been in the uh digital copy, I'm assuming.
>> Yep. Yeah. >> Uh, not a paper copy. No, >> there wouldn't have been a paper. >> So, we're proposing to move uh unit 22 1 foot off of uh the lot line which is in keeping with the abuing uh mobile home
which is also 1 foot off of the lot line. Um, and in reviewing and again uh Mr. Zakelli and Mr. Hudin were in agreement that moving it any more than a foot would cause the mobile
home to uh be in an uh in an unsafe condition uh as it relates to the uh the drive aisle. In reviewing the prior board of appeals uh decision that's 23-5014. This board granted a variance um to
allow uh new mobile homes to be um constructed on this property. And specifically the wording of the decision is the variance is issued in accordance with table 2 to allow new mobile homes to be placed closer to the side and rear
lot lines than permitted as of right in the highway corridor zone but no closer than the existing mobile homes are to the property line where the unit number 22 is now which is the point is on the
lot line. that is uh not consistent with the board's decision because it is closer to the lot line than the existing mobile homes. What our proposal is to move unit 22 1 ft off of the lot line,
keeping the drive aisle clear. And in doing that, uh, we are then consistent with the board's prior decision because the home is no closer than the, uh, existing mobile homes and that existing mobile home happens to be right next
door. So, we think this proposal um is consistent with the board's uh, 2023 decision. We don't feel that there's really any action that the board needs to take uh because uh moving the mobile home will bring it into compliance with
the decision. Um and I think that is uh that is where we are. I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Uh thank you, Attorney Kand. Um, but before I pass it out to the board,
so um, but you are you are asking this board, I guess I'm confused. Um, I remember the decision based on the minutes that it was going to be a 10-ft setback. you uh
asked for a variance to allow a previously approved mobile home to be located closer to the line than permitted. >> Mhm. >> Is that still the ask?
>> Um I think in moving the mobile home a foot away from the lot line, it is now consistent with the decision our original ask. >> I understand that part, but I guess based on this variance, this new request,
>> uh, the new request was based on leaving it where it is now, which is zero feet off of the lot line, and for that I would need a variance. >> Okay. So, are you saying if you move this a foot, you don't need a decision
from this board? >> I think that's true. >> She would with Yeah, there would be a withdrawal. >> Interesting. >> If you're willing to let them move it one foot. >> All right. Well, let me put it out for questions and we'll see if we can't uh figure this out. >> Uh we'll stop down there with you, Vicki. >> I don't have any questions.
>> Thank you, Karine. >> Um I have a few questions. Um I I I know we're in this situation and we can't really go back. So, I'm trying to I guess ask some questions so we prevent these kind of things from happening in
the future. So, I went back and I reviewed not only our minutes, but I also um saw that I I looked at the jacket. So, I saw that a few weeks after you came to this board, you went to site plan review and then after that, I'm
assuming or even before that, there was a building permit pulled for this work. Correct. >> It would have been after that, but yes. >> Okay. So, after that, you pulled the building permit. And I'm assuming that at that time it still had that
particular mobile home to be 10 foot 10 feet off the um the lot line. Correct. >> I think that's true. Yeah. >> Okay. So maybe you can kind of fill in the gap for me. So a after you pull the the
building permit um you pour the um pads and then there was a decision made as to which mobile home would be put on that site. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then prior to I guess someone
moving in, is there a certificate of occupancy um that is that is issued for each one of these mobile homes or or do they all have to be completed and then you go for a certificate of occupancy for all of them at once?
>> I believe the certificates of occupancy are individually issued and I'm looking at Mr. Zakelli because I know he and Mr. Huden went through this as well. So mobile homes are a little bit different in terms of cos because they are actually fully inspected before they get
to the site. >> Okay. >> So we do give them a CO but essentially sorry the only thing that the building inspector is going to inspect is the concrete pad. >> Even the stairs leading up are not
attached to that mobile home. He's not, we are not even um inspecting those stairs. We are literally just inspecting that concrete pad to making sure it's safe and then obviously the hookups. But in terms of the CO, like the CO gets issued when that essentially that
concrete pad gets signed off on. Uh but it the this the certificate of occupancy for the home is actually done offsite before it even gets to the site. >> Okay. >> Not by us, by the state. I was just gonna say, is this like one like a a prehab?
Like a modular home where it's the state that inspects it? >> So, he's not our our staff is not going in there and going inside the home inspecting it. It's just the pad. >> All right. But the pad >> was 10 ft back. Correct.
>> So, no, no. Um, uh, yeah, the pad was not in the location that we're talking about, >> right? So, it was the they they made the decision to move it back before they poured the pad. Then they poured the pad
and our building inspector inspected it and signed off on it, >> I believe. So, >> okay. Okay. So, there are many people who made mistakes here. Um, okay. No further questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kim. >> I have no questions.
>> Kenj, I have no questions. Uh, Chris, >> no questions. Thank you. And Kevin, >> what was the closest to at a budding lot line that it that a mobile home was in 20 at the time of the 2023 decision? Is that one one foot?
>> The one right next to it. 23. >> Yes, it just happens to be the one right here. >> No, I understand. I just can't I just can't tell if that one was there in 2023 from >> Yes, it was. Okay. >> Okay. Uh, no further questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh, Kevin. Uh, attorney Ken, I got a couple. Um
um I guess just let me see if I can get this straight. So it sounds like the applicant made the decision to pour the pad closer than we approved. Is it fair to
say that? >> I guess so. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I I guess we were all under the impression of 10 ft. >> Yeah. But somehow this has got got poured at at zero ft. And um what is the length of this particular mobile home
number 22? I'm guessing it's the maximum 60 >> cuz I believe you stated uh from our old notes that the three lengths are 526. >> 56. It is not the 56. Okay. >> Correct. Um
and uh where so if this board uh I guess agrees to let you withdraw and just do this. I I guess I'm still not clear how we
orchestrate this, but let me hold that thought for a second. Um, where would the propane tanks be in relation to the where are they now and will they move? Um, >> are they considered on this property or
are they on the cemetery property? >> Coming up, >> please identify yourself. >> Uh, good evening. Will Scrutter from the Moren Cameron Group. Uh, the propane tanks are located on the back of the building and they are on the property. So, they are not on the cemetery property.
>> Okay. And how I guess we don't uh have a setback requirement on propane tanks, >> correct? >> Okay. So, they could be at the zero foot mark um by right, I'm assuming. Okay.
Um >> yeah, but if they're in the back, >> sorry. >> Um so, >> I shouldn't be on that. I think I still have uh I I just don't understand how this happened. But um
so the decision was made. We we poured the pad too close and we just went with it hoping I guess I don't understand why why why is it before us because something broke at the end of
inspection. I'm assuming somebody said, "Hey, wait a minute. This is in the wrong spot." No, it nothing broke. It was part of the asbuilt plan. >> Well, when I say broke, I mean some something finally got caught that hey,
this is in the wrong place. >> And that was the the asca was doing the asbuilt plan and he said, hey, >> this was supposed to be 10. >> It's supposed to be 10 and it's at zero at that point. And that was that was
when it happened. That's that's exactly what >> and if >> if we looked back I mean hindsight here >> what what what >> what could have been done or what should have been done to not have this happen a smaller mobile home uh a different
inspection point on the pad? I I mean I'm just trying to understand >> probably at um well >> the pad um there could have been a certification required for the foundation. Um
>> and do we let me just interrupt you though. So, do we the town does not require that because this is a mobile home park and there's multiple pads >> or is this something we just missed as a town? >> You know, I I think it there were a
number of players here there. There it was poured too close. Um they're dealing with a lot line uh up against a a piece of property that is an unknown owner that the the mobile home park does actually some maintenance of the
cemetery and takes care of it. So it wasn't an intentional oh we're just going to disregard that setback. um it they thought they were putting it in a place that was acceptable and it's not
even according to the the prior decision. If we talk about the fact that it's closer than the one next to it, which is one foot off of the lot line. So it it happened.
>> Yep. and uh and the unit was put there and um it is occupied. Um moving it even the one foot is not going to be easy. >> Well, that's that was my next question. What's it going to take to move it this
one foot? >> Well, it's going to take uh a bit. Not only construction-wise, they're going to have to to >> for additional foundation and physically move it, >> but there is an elderly couple living in
this mobile home. They're going to have to be displaced, put in a hotel for three, four days. Best case, it's that's the time frame. And they what do they jackhammer out the the one foot that were moving it
>> on the back side? I guess >> they would s Yeah, I they and they would have to add the foot on the front. So it's a lot of work and a lot of um displacement
of of this. >> I understand that. But that is no fault of this boards, right? >> Absolutely not. Absolutely not. But uh that's what we have to do to make this uh conform. And you know it would be the
same process if we were moving it further. >> But again the building inspector and Mr. Z Kelly have looked at this and came to the same conclusion that the person or persons who poured the foundation that
having it further from the lot line puts this home in in a bad position for the drive aisle. the the applicant and the owner of the property have done a really good job
addressing, updating, creating a nice uh neighborhood for these folks. They've done a lot of work up there since 2023 when this decision was granted and it fits and it it fits with the drive aisle and everything else. But it's a
lot of work for one foot for sure. But that's what if that's what has to be done then that's what has done >> has to be done right. Okay. Um and what if anything has um has the applicant done to try to acquire the
cemetery property? Has there been any steps there? >> We don't even know who owns it. >> Yeah. So none nothing's happening there. >> No. As I said, they do mowing and and that sort of thing. And uh
mobile home number 23 is also at a one foot setback. Do we know that? >> Uh number 23 is 1 foot and number 21 is 2 ft. >> Okay. So walk us through this a little. I just want to understand it more for the board
and myself. Uh so you're actually asking for a withdrawal now of this variance request that you put into us and and I guess how so this is just now handled with the inspections department that you
will now move the one foot >> basically if they >> what guarantees do we have I guess >> they don't if they don't move it one foot we can >> they're under $300 a day zoning violation standard. Uh >> so you'd be under enforcement order if this doesn't happen. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And that's what you're asking. You're
asking for a withdrawal without prejudice. >> I think that is uh an appropriate way to go based on the prior decision. >> 20 years from now uh the future boards look at the minutes from the decision in
2023. >> Is there going to be confusion because the decision says 10 ft but yet this one's at a foot. >> The decision. Does that get >> The decision does not say 10 ft. The decision says no closer than the
existing mobile homes are to the property line. The decision says nothing about 10 ft. The decision doesn't reference plans. So the decision >> So how do we come up with 10 ft then? >> It it was on the the application. It was
certainly discussed, but the decision, the motion of the board and the decision of the board is to allow new mobile homes to be placed closer to the side and rear lot lines than permitted as of right in highway
quarter zone, but no closer than the existing mobile homes are to the property line. That is the motion. That's the decision of the board. >> All right. Um I've taken up enough time here. Um, I'll just uh ask the board if there's any additional questions before
I go out to the public hearing. None. Uh, anybody here want to speak on 103 Newberry Street? Yeah, come on up. >> Hey, good evening. >> Good evening. Bill Brady, Tommy,
precinct one. What I heard was the trailer was inspected offsite. What I heard was I believe that the pad was inspected. >> I also heard that steps were going to be added from the pad to the trailer. Who
inspects those and when is that done? >> Well, I think that was just an example. What Mr. Skellyy was pointing out is that they don't own that inspection piece of it if I heard it correct. >> Right. They don't even there are stairs there. They don't they're not inspected. It's not part of our process to do that
>> because it's a pre-built home. >> So, the steps are attached to the trailer and not the pad or >> they're not attached to anything. >> They're not attached to anything. >> They're just there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else here on 103?
>> Chair. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Um, very quickly, I agree with attorney McCann that if this does get moved one foot that it technically would be consistent with the previous decision. However, there was a mistake in that
decision. It didn't reference plans. It didn't reference it didn't reference distance. I think it'd be much cleaner if what if if if you agree that that you would like to move this one foot. I think you should give the relief for one foot and then it's then we know what's
going on. We the like you said the next board wouldn't have to figure out which decision are we looking at? Why is that why is it why is that closer? Like I think we should make this clean. >> So not well Attorney Mac maybe if I could have you back up. Um
perhaps we don't ask for a um uh withdrawal here and we do act on a decision. Again, I I I remember it as 10 ft. I thought the minutes reflected 10 ft. It surprised me that the decision
states what it states. So you can understand the confusion here. And I think there's been confusion from the get-go. And I agree with you. I think the applicants done a lot of nice work there. I I do remember a reduction in amount of units. I think they were
looking for two additional units. They withdrew that based on input from the board. So I I do think this is uh an unfortunate situation. So I guess I'm going to ask you uh withdrawal without prejudice or a variance. >> Um
>> state this clearly as Mr. Saki says so down the road there isn't confusion. I have no problem with uh with either either approach. I think we don't need a variance, but if the board is willing to grant the variance, I think that makes a
cleaner record. >> Well, if we grant this, we're granting it for just this unit, not the site. >> That's right. >> Okay. Uh board members, any other input on that before we deliberate? >> Okay. I'll go for deliberations here and
Becky will start with you. Um, I won't be voting on this, so I'll defer to the board. >> Thank you, Becky. Karine. >> Um, >> Mr. Chair, I agree with what you said and, um, Attorney McCann, I agree, too. I don't want to have you withdraw. I
would prefer to to grant relief only because should they want to expand in the future, I would want them to come back and not think that they are or be under the assumption that as long as it's like a foot or two away that they don't need relief. Um, so that's number
one. Um, number two, I I want the owner to recognize that should we ever grant relief in the future and an issue like this comes up, and I agree. If you look at where it was placed, it's in the drive lane, and that's a very dangerous
situation. So, I agree that it that the mobile home shouldn't have been out that far, but they really should have contacted the building department or come back to us to ask for that additional relief. That would have been the right path. However, the building department when they went out to
inspect, they should have realized that where the pad was poured was not the correct um was not the the correct I guess position or the the the right distance. Um, so based on that and the
fact that this would be a disruption to these these homeowners and also a big expense for your client and it was something we should have picked up. Um, I I would be in favor of you keeping it where it is and not incurring any
additional cost. So, uh you >> I am for the zero feet. >> Okay. That was a third option that hasn't been thrown out yet. >> I'm sorry. I thought that was my >> We're voting on whether they move it a foot where
>> or withdraw. >> The original application is still before you. >> I I I would vote yes on the original application then, >> which is to move it a foot. >> No, leave it where it is. >> Leave it where it is. Okay.
Uh Ken, >> I'll I'll I'll vote to leave it where it is. O, and it only and only the only reason is because of that cemetery where we don't know who the owner is. It's a very unique situation. So, I will vote for the zero.
>> And let me just add, I agree with with Ken. It's because of where it's located. And I know that we don't know who the owner is. I don't know what the process is for adverse possession, but um again, if he's doing the the the maintenance work, then you know, maybe he should own
the that property, too, and then this wouldn't even be an issue. >> Agree. Uh Kenj. >> Well, I'll just make a comment about the cemetery. There are bodies there. So I don't think anyone can adversely possess
the the cattle that is the bodies that's hallowed ground and I think yeah that should be left alone. Um I am for the zero where was I voted for this um last time and the statement I was making well the protein the protein the propane
tanks are on the the back but they're over to the right. So there is there's an angle. So, um, they're not on the line because before I was thinking that, oh, if they're on the back, they must be on the line. But that was just, uh, yeah, they're right there. So, I I am
for just leaving it there so you don't displace the elderly couple and there's no reason to destroy stuff when it's not harming anything. There's a right of passage through that cemetery, I would think, that people can see. Well, I don't know if people are going to see
their loved ones. It's been a while, but still if they want to, they have access in there, I'm sure. >> Uh Chris, >> I would vote in favor it stay as is as well. >> And Kevin, >> um I I guess the the part of the mystery
I still don't quite understand, Mr. Chairman, is you've you've referenced thinking that it was 10 ft. The decision says um no closer. Uh and so much like the minutes get done once we leave the meeting. So the so do the decisions.
Uh and so I don't I'm trying to think of how we get after this problem where we don't all think we said something in a meeting. The decision says something slightly different and then all of our signatures just get stamped on it. Um the the the best I can come up with is
to do more like other communities and generally not issue decisions in the same night we hear a case. >> Say thank you very much. please go draft a decision that says X to staff and then we'll all, you know, consider that decision the next time. I think I mean
that's the only foolproof way around it to make sure our decision says what we think it it says. Otherwise, >> this this problem is going to repeat itself and and we're never going to >> we're open to that. >> Yeah. And we we have no idea how many bodies are buried. Not trying to make a bad joke about the cemetery, but no idea
how many times this has or hasn't happened. And we won't know until it comes up. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Thanks. Um, Attorney McCann, I I won't vote in favor of this. I think uh our decision was clear the first time. You still have the
votes, but uh I I will oppose this. So, uh board members, if I could get a motion please. >> Would you like me to read it? Um, I I make a motion to grant a variance under table two to place a mobile home on the side property line abuing the cemetery
where a side step setback of 25 ft is required and that this condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. The hardship is the irregular irregular shape of the lot. A literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve
substantial hardship to the applicant and 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've got a motion and a second. >> There's a second.
>> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? >> Opposed? I >> All right. You Thank you very much. You have it. Uh, Mr. Clerk, we will go to our next continued case. Our next case is 342
Andover Street. This is zoned R3, map 39, lot 10A. Requests a finding to expand a pre-existing non-conforming use of the property to allow landscape businesses that park in the rear of the BU 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 Costanza, docket
25-5108. >> Hey, good evening. >> Good evening. >> So, uh, update us where we're at. >> Okay. Do I start by identifying myself? >> Sure. >> Yeah. My name is Guy Costanza. Thank you for taking the time to hear me out. Um,
after long and careful consideration of this process, I would like to actually withdraw my appeal for expanded use for the front and would go through the process of um removing the three tenants out front where they are not currently
zoned for and resuming the original use that we were approved for for the last 30 years. um the dental lab itself. I would probably also withdraw that appeal at this time and seek out renting out to another dental lab if they might be
available. Take a few months to explore that uh and get the place kind of cleaned out and maybe liquidate equipment left behind. Uh, and if we can't find a suitable dental lab to take that spot that I believe it's currently allowed for still without the appeal,
um, then we will come before you for just that solely and not seek out renting out the front use of the property. Just stick to the originally zoned rear of the property as it is. >> Uh, and try to keep that subdued and minimized on the impact of the neighbors
as much as possible going forward. >> Okay. Um, so you're you're looking for this board to uh withdraw without prejudice. >> Uh, yes sir. That would be >> uh before we do that, let me just go to our planning director um Brian. So um
currently this uh address is not in compliance with a prior decision. So does that mean the clock starts ticking as of this withdrawal and Mr. Castanza has 30 days to get things right before fines occur. How does that process work?
>> Um, I think you hit it on the head. I think the board has the ability to give the withdrawal, but it would be under a certain amount of time that those vehicles in the front would have to be removed. So, you're essentially giving me a direction to
um initiate fines after a certain amount of time. So, see how much time he needs. 30 days for getting for moving several tenants out of, you know, I I I don't know if that's reasonable. I think that's the conversation you have to have.
>> Okay. Well, Mr. Castanza, uh I I will uh let the board ask some questions if if uh you so entertain, but what you know, we've we've had you in front of us for quite some time. >> Yep. >> Um this is a change of um request obviously, which you're well within your
right to do. M >> how much time do you uh feel you need to uh achieve getting this property back to what it was originally approved for? >> Sure. >> And you're real clear on what that approval is. >> Yes. I don't want to ask for less time
than would reasonably uh suffice for my tenants and then have to come back and request more time. >> Well, you wouldn't come back. So, just so you're clear, once once we withdraw you without prejudice tonight, >> uh you're you're dealing with the inspectional part of the world, not us anymore. >> Okay. Understood.
>> So, uh, if but but we would, uh, as Mr. Zakelli has indicated, we would indicate a, uh, uh, you know, I couldn't see 60 days. I I could maybe entertain 45 days, but I would like to hear from the board. So, actually, why don't I start down there with you, Kevin? Uh, there this
applicant's looking to withdraw without prejudice. >> This is questions for the applicant. >> I mean, sure. Yeah. I >> I don't have any questions for the applicant. And and as far as time frame for him to comply, >> what do you think's reasonable? I >> I I think your 30 and 45 days
suggestions 30 to 45 >> sound reasonable. I I also think given the amount of time the board has invested in this and the fact that without prejudice it could be back in front of us next month, >> I I think um taking negative action uh
rather than a withdrawal without prejudice is also reasonable. Okay Chris >> I'm in favor of the withdrawal with a 30-day contingency. >> 30 days. >> Also, one other question. Have you spoken to any of the three tenants out front?
>> Um, aware of what might be coming at them or No, >> only originally when uh the first the issue was first brought to my attention prior to filing the appeal for expanded use. So, I originally thought I was going to have to vacate them then in the springtime or early summer. Um, but as
of right now, no, I didn't. They know it's an ongoing situation, so they're aware things may change, but no, I have not given anyone formal notice. >> Okay. Thank you, Ken. Jerry, >> um, how how long do you think you'll need?
>> Um, I was originally going to ask for a decent amount more time than the 30 days only because, um, the tenants have been very good to my father uh, prior. They have a very large operation and they're seasonal, as you are aware. they are coming towards the tail end of their
busy season. Particularly the tree company is quite large and maybe a little too large. Um but it's going to be quite the task for any of the three operations out front to find ample space in 30 days or less or even slightly
more. I I would like to give them 60 days. I was really going to request 90 days, but I can tell that maybe um asking for more than would be available. But I think 60 days, if you remember the size of them out front, that's quite a
bit. Um, it may be slim pickings, particularly at this time of year, for them to find a spot. And I don't want to get into um having to force them out through court evictions and stuff like that. I'd like to work with them in as friendly a manner as possible and not uh kick them to the curb so quickly.
>> Yeah, it's good to do it right the first time. they're they're feeding their families and they're working hard and uh you know they're if they're willing to leave without causing issues. I'd like to work with them to make that transition as smooth as possible >> and not have anybody become vindictive after either was you never know how
people may retaliate if they think they're not being treated fairly. So I want to be as fair to them as I hope they'll be to me. >> Yeah, I mean I think 60 days would be probably the maximum for me, but I think 60 days is fine. >> Thanks, Ken. Ken. >> Uh thank you, Mr. here. Um, in looking
at my calendar, I think the first of the year is suitable. >> Okay. >> Till the end of the year. Yeah. >> Till the end of the year. >> Karine. >> Um, I I agree. I I I think you need some extra time because you're you're going
to have to, you know, even if they're tenants at will, you're going to have to give them an appropriate amount of time, at least 30 days. And that's 30 days from when you give them notice, not 30 days from tonight. Right. >> Um so I would be willing to give you
more time, but I to be um you know to be clear about this, it means that they have to remove their trucks, but also all of their storage containers and all that other stuff that they're storing whether >> properly or improperly. And even in the
back of the property. >> Yep. >> There's some stuff going on back there. That's that's that's not legal either and that needs to be cleaned out as well. >> I agree. >> So, um I I would give you some extra time. I I don't I honestly do not think 30 days is enough time.
>> Thank you, uh Becky. >> Um I guess my question would be are these tenants on leases? >> Uh they are tenant at will. Not >> tenant at will. All of them. >> Pardon me. >> They're all and they're three tenants >> up front. >> Three tenants in the front and they're
all ten. about 10 total front and back, but the three in the front would be vacating the front. >> So, you could give them you could give them 30 days notice. >> Yeah. Legally, yes. >> Um, >> yeah. >> To vacate, >> but again, hoping for more to help them find an appropriate space.
>> And, um, through you, Mr. Chairman. Um, >> Brian, what about all of the, um, problems in the back and the fact that he's not in compliance in the rear of the property? So most >> that's one of the reasons he's in front
of us, right? >> No, most of the reason that he's in front of us is we wanted to figure out what if he was if the if the back parcel or the back of the parcel was potentially being mismanaged in terms of parking that maybe you don't even need the front. So on its face there was
nothing well there was uh a lot of vehicles that should not have been there in storage in storage units. A lot of that has been taken off. Um so there there were a number of recreational vehicles and other types of vehicles that have since left the property.
>> Um but the reason uh the all this started was due to an enforcement order of vehicles in the front. >> Okay. >> So like that is the main issue that that is what needs to be fixed in terms of what he would he would get a fine for if there are vehicles that will continue after whatever the 60 whatever it is.
That's what we would be potentially finding the property for is the what's going on in the front. Okay. All right. Um, and the >> the building is vacant at this point. >> Uh, one of the tenants out back, a
landscaper, does rent a small office in the building at the lower portion that was previously authorized to the best of my understanding. But the upper part, the main part that was occupied by my father has a dental lab, not a dental office, but a dental lab, uh, that has
been vacant since his passing last December. And that's what I'm hoping to >> um find resume the same exact use. >> So you're gonna heat that. We're going into the winter. So >> pardon me. >> We're going into the winter. So you're going to have to heat that building without a
>> It's been heated nonstop. Yeah. I feel the impact of that. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We don't want pipes freezing or anything like that. >> Okay. So I just want to understand what's going to happen. Jan, let's say we pick January 1st as a date. as of
January 1st. You go out there. I mean, we've had non-compliance here for six months. So, I I'm sorry, but I'm not sure, you know, that there's going to be compliance on January 1st.
>> What is the process? >> I think so, typically how this works is that if we find a violation, we send a letter. We're saying, "Don't know if you knew that you're in violation, but you are in violation. you have essentially 30 days to remove whatever it is you're doing. If it turns out that they're
like, "Actually, in this case, I want to apply for ZBA." We don't we don't start finding them after that because they're they're technically going through the process. Now that this pro process is potentially over and the fact that it has been extended several times, my take
on this would probably be January 1st. If we go out there and there's vehicles there, that's one fine. Then we would go out five days later. If it's still there, that's another fine. We technically could find them every single day per violation. So, >> are you aware of this?
>> Me? Yes. Uh that's why I was asking for 60 days if possible because I don't want to um overestimate the ease of the situation for my tenants. As you remember, they're quite a large operation. It is going to be difficult for them to find suitable uh spot to
replace where they are now. So, >> so I'm sorry I interrupted you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> No, but I mean based like I said based upon what has occurred, this has been in violation now for about a year. So, no, we're ready. We're ready to levy a fine
on January 1st if that board decides. >> Okay. >> And Karine, you had Yeah. Thank Yeah. Go ahead. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Castanza. I thought there was one business that was approved for back there and now there's seven businesses operating out of that back
lot. >> Um >> or seven tenants >> there. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with No, it was the use that got there was never we've never limited number of tenants back there. There's nothing. Yeah. Yeah. There's >> they're approved for a contractor's yard. >> No, no, I understand it's a contractor's
yard, but one of the things that we had asked for was um kind of like a parking plan. uh like how if there are seven businesses back there, what's the parking situation back there? I mean, obviously when we went back there, things were everywhere, but is is this
our opportunity to clean it up back there if all of those businesses are staying? >> Well, not right now. There there's there isn't a violation in the back that I'm aware of. And it's and well, really, it'll be like come January 1st if there's anything back there. Maybe there
could be new something new. But as of right now, there there's not an enforcement under enforcement order under the rear of the pro of the part of the property. >> And we've had we have no there's no issues under the bylaw in the back of the property as far as I know at the moment other than when we went out there
and we saw certain ve like we saw several vehicles in storage containers. >> Okay. In the in the storage containers though, >> right? So those were the two the two things that in the back that were an issue were vehicles and storage containers. They've gotten rid of a number of those vehicles. Okay.
>> Until and and as far as until January 1st, we'll see. We'll we'll see what happens. But as of right now, >> okay, >> we are not in doing any type of enforcement order in the back. >> Okay. All right. And we definitely need to revisit that storage or contractor's yard. >> Yeah. >> By law.
>> Um All right. Uh Mr. Castanza, and I'll say it this way, too. I know you mentioned uh these tenants and their loyalty to your father, but I I feel these tenants have >> taken advantage of the situation and uh even more so since the passing of your dad. So >> up front
>> or all around >> in general, I think the I think the property is uh not >> what it was set out to be uh when this initial decision was granted. >> Uh that's through what we've heard from the neighbors from our own site visit.
So, uh, we'll just make that as a statement, but, uh, I would be agreeable. I believe first of the year is enough time. It's not quite 60 days. >> I believe it gets your landscaping tree type uh, businesses through their busy
season of the fall. >> Okay. And um I think that's an agreeable if you're in agreement with that. I think that's what our direction to the planning department will be that uh that this uh come into compliance by January 1 2026.
And uh with that said, I'll entertain a motion for withdrawal. I add uh just one brief comment. >> Sure. >> Yeah. As I said, I just want to reiterate what I already said. after um we go forward and things proceed as planned, I do plan to be more diligent
in managing the back of the property, especially since my focus will be narrower and minimizing the impact and reducing noise uh that bothers >> and that's great. And I think your neighbors will be very appreciative of that. The town will be appreciative of that. And uh I think the property will
be, you know, a lot easier to manage if um you just kind of set things straight. >> Yeah. A lot of this enlightened me to things that I was not aware of and um getting a grasp on things and trying to focus >> well and I I I know you don't want the fines and I'm quite frankly sure the
town really doesn't want to be out there writing fines either. So especially in January, right? So >> so the goal would be to uh you know move between now and and January 1 and and uh get things back in order and uh >> Mr. Chair there are neighbors here if
>> Yeah. But where we're going to have a withdrawal, I'm not I don't think there's a need to go out to the public, but I guess I'll if if we want, we can. Yeah. Go ahead, Ken. >> No, I was just going to say, why don't we keep it Why don't we do 60 days so it isn't right on New Year's Day because I don't think the calendar days is that
January 5th. >> January 11th orth January 10th. >> That would be appreciated. >> January 10th. It would give Yeah. Just a little more wiggle time after the new year because Yeah. I mean, it's holiday time and everything like that. And I
would just give it a couple a couple more days. >> All right. January 9th. >> The 9th. >> Friday the 9th. >> January 9th. That's a Friday. >> It's a Friday. >> That's good. >> Um, and all right, Becky. Yeah, that's that's probably fair. Is anybody want to be heard from the public? Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Stanza, if you could just
yield the mic. >> Yep. >> You look familiar. >> They've seen me a few times. Dave McKenna, 383 Andover Street, representing one of the cemeteries that is his butter. Um, obviously he's going
to be trying to clean up a mess that was left. I don't blame him for it. It wasn't his doing, but it's got to be cleaned up. The fact that he's operating, one of his tenants is operating on cemetery land, which they filled, is that anything that would come
into play with this um enforcement or is that outside of zoning in a civil matter? uh >> it's filled there would potentially be conservation. >> Yeah, that might be Concom. Um but that you know if any if if I mean I guess
I'll say this about the whole site. Anything that's going on there that's not in the uh recorded variance that we have is an actionable item by the planning department and our enforcement officer I think is the best way I can say that. But I will defer to Mr.
Zakelli. Um, I mean, this is the first I'm hearing about Phil that's happening in this area. Is >> I I sent you a letter uh when this first started showing um are aerials of uh where they were they they had encroached onto the cemetery and filled beyond the
property line. >> Um I I did forward those to our conservation agent. >> Okay. If they if they have not gotten back to you, then I will follow up with you. >> Okay. >> How about that? Okay. >> All right. >> Anything else? That's not That's not part of the zoning issue, though. >> It's not. No.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> And good luck. I hope I hope you get the straightened out. >> Any anyone else here on uh 342? Yeah. Go ahead to the mic. >> Uh Tim Gray, nine bucks in the road. Uh also at NATO. Um I think one of the
original complaints when we first called was the the noise on the back part of the property. um he was operating um in the back garage during all hours of the night. So I think uh we will make sure that that gets addressed too because I think >> just now we were saying that we weren't
going to enforce anything in the back. We're only going to be looking at >> head to the chair please enforce it was not hold on but so just to be clear >> they have variance to operate back there. They should be hours of operation and yeah those are all enforcable
actions that okay >> can be brought up to the planning department. Okay >> if we feel that's not being complied with. >> Okay. >> So if there are noise complaints um that that can come to the town planning department health department. Um but they are allowed to operate a
contractor's yard at this location. Okay. >> Typically it's >> in the rear of the property. >> In the rear of the property. Typically in in town they can start as early as 7 a.m. >> Okay. in excavating into the landscape and is also part of the
where does that fall into it when he's digging into the embankments in the back of the property? >> Well, again, I don't I we can as a board there's not a lot we can do about >> that's all with the planning department.
>> That's all with the planning department as well. Okay, that's fine. >> And it sounds like Mr. Castanza were going to take him at his word. I think you can agree as a butter a lot has uh taken place since this came before us. A lot of things have cleared out. I think
a lot of things have been removed and um Mr. Castanza is you know uh going to be under uh potential fines if he doesn't continue on that path. And can we just um I guess just ask that it's very clear on what is allowed and
not allowed based on previous >> the previous decision >> um because I've heard a lot of I thinks and um >> I think the previous decision is really clear. They can't operate anything in the front of the property. >> Okay. >> And >> but they can so the go office and dental
lab in the building and then there's contractor's yard in the rear. So he's allowed to have a landscaper have an office in the in the building as well. >> So if you have an if you have an office Yeah. Sorry. Um because he has that
office then he's allowed to have park his vehicles and have a contractor's yard in the back. It specifically cannot park anything in the front any construction or not any any construction vehicles. But people that are visiting the office, they can have normal, it's those there's like seven or eight um
passenger vehicle spots that are in the front that would be able to continue. >> So the landscaper can have offices in the building currently. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Because I want I'm sure that was clear. >> Does that answer for you? >> Yes. >> Very good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh board members, uh
anyone else from public? Okay. Board members, I'm looking for a uh withdrawal without prejudice on 342 Andover Street. If someone could >> you need to stipulate though what >> um I don't know if we >> you just leave that openended
>> which part >> a withdrawal without prejudice >> if that's the vote >> right with the stipulation that >> that right that we're going to >> right >> uh have the property with in compliance by January Friday January 9th of 2026
>> right >> does that um does that do it for us >> can can Can I make an inquiry? >> Sure. >> So, the way I understand it, that January 10th date is not a condition of the motion, right? A withdrawal is a with a withdrawal is a motion. We're
just giving directions, right? Correct. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, a motion, please. >> So, it should be the 10th and not the 9th. Correct. Because it's 60 days even. We should just keep it. >> Or do you want to do the ninth? >> I just want to give a hard date. >> Friday.
>> Friday's good. >> Stay with the nth. the N. >> Yeah. And then Monday 31 days had his grace period over the weekend and >> right >> Monday someone will be out to have a look. >> Okay. A motion please.
>> I will make a motion to accept the applicant's motion to withdraw his application um >> without prejudice. Without Prejudice at 342 Andover Street, um docket number 25-5108.
Um together with the stipulation that the property will be in compliance by Friday, January 9th, 2026. >> I've got a motion and a second. >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? I
opposed. >> Very good. Good luck, Mr. Cassanza. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Um, Mr. Clerk, if we could move on to our first uh case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next case is 165 Endicott
Street. This is zone uh commercial 3, map 63, lot 18. requests a variance under section 37 to install one freestanding sign measuring 42 square feet and 15 feet
tall where only 40 square ft and 10 ft tall is permitted. The request is made by a15 management LLC uh care of Nancy McCann Esquire docket 25-5123. >> Hello again. >> Hello again. Thank you very much. My
name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf of the applicant AAM15 Management LLC relative to the Kelly's Roast Beef location at 165 Endicott Street. With me tonight is Craig Fannensteel with uh
AAM15. And uh we may have Gary from Metro Sign. Oh, he's here in person. Okay. Uh he's with us. I thought he was going to be remote. um from our sign company and we are here requesting
under the new sign bylaw, my favorite, um a waiver slashvariance to allow the installation of a new freestanding small sign for the Kelly's Rose Beef location
um at 165 Endicott Street. And again, the property is located in the C3 zoning district. Um the sign as proposed, you see it up there, um complements the existing signage that uh the wall-mounted signage for the restaurant
and it also um importantly identifies the drive-thru component. Um the proposed sign is 42 square ft and it is 15 ft high. Uh it has been cited uh as you see on the plan that was submitted
with the application as well that it's uh located to meet the setback requirements and it does not interfere with uh some drainage lines that uh that are located in that uh that general area that the engineering department uh made
us aware of. In 2013, this board granted a variance for this site uh for Kelly's Rose Beef to allow a 100 square foot sign uh 19 1/2 ft high
for reasons I don't know. It was never installed. So um the board at that time found uh met hardship requirements for visibility and and the location of the site and
granted um the variance at that time again for 100 square ft 19 1/.5 ft high. We are proposing um a much much smaller sign at only 42 square feet and 15 feet high.
Under the new sign bylaw, which um I've discussed with you on a number of occasions, um there are a lot of error uh errors in that bylaw. And one of the errors is that the dimensions of freestanding signage in the C3 zoning
district has been changed. uh erroneously so from 100 square ft 20 ft high as the permitted sign to 40 square ft 10 ft high. That was not an
intended uh consequence of the bylaw. It was uh not as presented um to town meeting and unfortunately that's what was approved by the attorney general's office. So, uh, even though we have a
very small sign at 40 square ft 10, uh, 15 42 feet, I should say, 15 ft high, um, we and that an error in the bylaw requires us to request this waiver/variance.
Um, the new signed bylaw, uh, as a matter of fact, it lets us have two freestanding signs. We're proposing only one. So, um, with all of that being said, we believe that the sign, it's much smaller than, uh, the sign previously approved by the board. Um, it
will adequately identify, um, the site, the restaurant, and importantly, the drive-thru, and it's certainly very modest compared to the other signs for similar uh, uses along this corridor. Um,
we're requesting this waiver variance um under section 37.3.7 of the new signed bylaw. And um the finding that this board needs to make is that what we're proposing is uh
will be no substantial detriment. Uh no substantial detriment shall result from the proposed sign. Again, it meets all of the setback requirements. um for the location of a freestanding sign. I would be happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. And uh just so just to be clear, the uh variance that we approved I think I sat on that one 2013. >> Now I got acted on. >> Yes, that's correct. It was granted. Uh
and this is the sign. I >> Yeah, I Yeah, okay. I do remember that. It's kind of weird that I remember that. >> And uh and it for some reason, and I
don't know, uh the applicant was not operating the Kelly's uh location at that time. >> Different owner back then. >> It different operator. Yes. Of >> operator. Okay. And uh I do like that this uh so uh I'll turn it over to the
board. I I'll say my comments, but I guess what I'm trying to understand is so this snafu with the bylaw, uh, I'll just call it that. Would you be before us still uh for this new sign?
>> No, I don't think so. >> I don't think so either. >> Okay. >> No. >> All right. Very good. Uh, I think I'll start down there with you, Becky. Yeah. Do you have anything more? >> No. Okay, >> that's it. So, >> you want those back? When did Kelly's open that location? Uh, when did they go
in there? Do you remember? >> Oh, I don't know. TW >> Probably just prior to that. Right around there. >> Right around 2013, 2012. >> Okay. So, okay. Um, and they just never put the sign up.
Okay. Um, yeah. I'm I'm not sure why they uh it was determined that it was needed then uh by the applicant back then and then they didn't put it in and it really is needed. So now you >> a lot of sign activity on that street. So I guess
>> but this is a small one compared to others. >> Karine >> um I agree it's a small one compared to others. Um I guess my question is that we're going to grant another variance. Why can't we just amend the variance
that you already have? >> Because it expired. >> Oh, yeah. You have to act on it within two years, right? >> Oh, that's right. That's right. All right. All right. >> One year. >> One year. >> One year. Sorry. >> Okay. >> That's why you are the attorney and I'm >> All right. All right. Um All right.
Well, then that makes sense. Uh because I I just don't want to have any outstanding variances out there for these signs. Um All right. I don't have an issue with this sign. I actually think it's tasteful and it's small
enough. So, um, anyway, that was I'll save that for comments. No more questions. >> Ken, >> I have no questions. Thank you. >> Ken J, >> I have no questions. >> Uh, Chris, >> no questions. Thank you. >> And Kevin, >> uh, for Mr. Sakali, if I may. >> Sure.
Is staff planning on fixing what we'll I'll continue calling this sign snafu at at this coming special town meeting or >> snafu. >> So th those uh we would love to fix this as quickly as possible. >> Yeah.
>> Uh but um really the it's really the select board and the manager that are kind of determining the spe at least the special meeting. >> Oh in terms of what's on the warrants. Yeah. So, we've kind of been um we've
been kind of told to pause on zoning for a bit and we we have let them we have let we have let the manager know that um not just the signed bylaw but also accessory dwelling units. Uh those are the two kind of things that we would
like to get on the docket as quickly as possible. >> There's more than that. >> Sure. >> There certainly is more than that, but >> conversions may need a tweak. conversions. >> Well, so accessory dwelling units >> is it's tied to both dwelling conversions and eas. So that's one whole
thing. When I say ADUs, it's ADUs, EAS, and dwelling conversions. >> I I could understand letting dust settle in town from and everybody needs to digest some previous zoning changes and so the pitchforks go away. But uh like
to me this like maintenance is a different issue than further changes. >> So any any and all help uh from from you to get this on the warrant as well. >> The the the problem isn't that it's not maintenance and I agree with you. I think all the maintenance issues should
be on it. It has more to do with what they want to focus those meetings on and they just don't want to cloud anything up with the zoning issues. >> I mean I understand that. >> Yeah. I mean that the town the town manager acts review may be >> that's one that's one of the big ones
>> hours and hours long discuss focus >> but basically I would I would love if you were forceful as well in trying to get >> yeah because I I don't like I don't >> clogging up for needless >> yeah I mean
>> it's great work for everybody >> it is and it's also frankly the like if I were put this in like in a different different not a town context but legislature writes a bad law. The job of the court is of a court is not to
like fix the law the legislature wrote poorly, right? It's to look at the political branches and say go fix yourself and write a better law if you want a better law. So like giving variances because we because the law is written poorly is like I understand we
just the world's got to move along, right? But it's not it's not the ideal circumstance that we're in here. Any additional? >> None additional. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, and attorney McCann, I think I've had all my questions answered. I I
think this sign uh wouldn't be before us tonight otherwise. So, uh, I will go out to the public. Anyone here on 165 Endicott Street? Kelly's, you're just waving back there. You're
not okay. All right. Uh, with that said, I'll come back to the board and we will deliberate. Uh, and we'll start with you, Becky. >> Um, yeah, I'm not voting on this, but it makes sense to go ahead and approve it. >> Karine, >> um, I would vote for this. >> Uh, Ken,
>> I'm fine with this. >> NJ, >> I I'll vote for this. I'll vote for this as well. >> Chris, >> I will vote for this. >> And Kevin, >> uh, I I don't have anything to add. Thank you. >> Okay. And uh I too will vote in favor.
So uh board, if I could uh get a motion, please on 165 Enderot Street for a variance. >> I make a motion to grant a variance waiver under section 37 to allow for the installation of a new freestanding sign
42 um square ft 15t high where 40 square ft and 10 ft high is permitted. in that this condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A literal enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve
substantial hardship to the applicant and granting this variance waiver does not create a substantial detriment to the public good and will not nullify or dergate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. >> I'll second. I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion hearing?
None. All in favor? >> I opposed. Thank you very much. >> Very good. >> Okay. Um, moving right >> one more. >> Moving right along. Yeah. We'll, uh, Mr. Clerk, if we can go to our last case.
>> Our last case is 25 Pope's Lane. This is Highway Corridor Zone, Map 40, lot 17A. requests a variance under table three to allow the construction of a retaining wall that will encroach a side lot line within one ft one foot of the property
line. Additionally, a finding is requested under section 3.11 to extend a pre-existing non-conforming retaining wall along the rear lot line. Request is made by MJS Property Group LLC care of
Nancy McCann Esquire Docket 25-5124. Hello. >> Hello. >> Busy night, Nancy. >> Yeah. >> Tell us what it is. Uh, I believe you, this property was just before us, not too long ago. >> It was rather recently. Um, for the record, my name is Nancy McCann. I'm
here on behalf of MJS Property Group LLC. Uh, Michael Celig, principal, is here this evening. Um, also Tim Grant from Hancock Associates, uh, the project engineer, is also here. We're here
relative to the property at 25 Popes Lane located in the highway corridor zone. And yes, we were before you uh in August and we received a finding, a special permit and variance uh relief to allow the continued use of this property
as a contractor's yard. Uh it's been a contractor's yard since 2018. And at that time there had been a single family home that's been adapted as a contractor's yard um non-conforming structure itself. And what we proposed
and what you approved in August was um some improvements to the site. One of them being removing that uh residential dwelling and constructing um a building that's more appropriate for uh a contractor's yard. and you uh granted
the the special permit for the the contractor's yard in the back. Then at that cross-hatched area is the contractor's yard and on that um and you did approve some storage containers that would be on the site until the certificate of occupancy was issued for
the building and then the storage containers would be removed. So that's what we were here for back in August. And on that plan, we did show uh a retaining wall going around the site. Um there is a retaining wall currently on
along the rear lot line uh for a portion of the rear lot line that was uh put there. It's about 3 ft off of the lot line and it was constructed as part of the approval process uh that we went through in 2018.
Um while the bylaw hasn't changed, the interpretation of the zoning enforcement officer and the building inspector has changed. Um that interpretation previously in 2018 was that retaining walls that by their
design are intended to support and hold up abudding properties. Um in 2018 those retaining walls were uh were deemed to not be required to meet setback.
So we have a partial we have part of the lot line the rear lot line has a retaining wall constructed in 2018 3 feet off the lot line because it was permitted then we have new uh zoning enforcement officer new building inspector and a change in that
interpretation to uh to find that retaining walls now have to meet setback. Um that's difficult um again because of the purpose of a retaining wall. It's typically it's going to be along the lot
line to support abudding properties. That's the case we have here. But that brings us here. So we're seeking a finding in order to extend along the rear lot line the um current
nonconforming uh retaining wall. And then we're bringing that retaining wall around the the side, the northerly side. Um, and so that requires a variance because it's uh
it's a new um change. Uh there is no retaining wall there at this time. Um and the need is simply this is really I'll say classic zoning uh variance. Uh
we have an irregular shape lot and we have topography that uh the sides the the uh westerly lot line and the northerly lot line the abuing properties are much higher.
Uh so we have a topography issue to support the variance. We have an irregular shaped lot clearly and we have uh topography uh that really supports the need uh and the uh granting of this
variance. Also important to note um due to the topography the abuing properties are higher. So the reveal who is going to see this retaining wall is going to be this the applicant. The abuing properties don't see the retaining wall.
The uh the property 25 popes lane is lower. So who's going to see this retaining wall? And the retaining wall is high in some spots. It goes from zero up to 15 16 feet in height. Um,
and a variance is required under the new interpretation once the retaining wall is 4 ft or higher. So that's um that's why we're here. We think this is certainly um the uh shape
and the topography supports the issuance of the variance. It is in keeping with the the prior um retaining wall. It is not going to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Certainly, it's going to facilitate uh
cleaning up this site the way was it was presented to you in August. Um and uh that's uh that's it. Be happy to answer any questions. Uh Tim, do you want to
point out the retaining walls um on the >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you for hearing us tonight. My name is Tim Grant from Hancock Associates. We're the civil engineers on this project. So Nancy, a um thank you for that. That was covered
a lot of what I was going to say, so that was good. No, that was great. Um >> I talked too much. So the retaining wall in question is on the the north side plan right if you will um of this sheet and basically loops around as Nancy said
the hatched area of where the crushed stone will be the highest point of the wall is plan right the northmost side where it is um exactly 15.8 ft or so tall at its highest point. Um and then on the west
side, plan the plan north, if you will, again, um that's where it connects back into the existing retaining wall. Um for reference, what we show in bold, the bold text around the retaining wall represents the areas where the wall
exceeds 4T. Um so that that's what applies here. And then you'll also notice on our wall call outs where we say top of wall, bottom of wall, there's also top of wall NW reflecting north, south, east, west. So
that's just to say that the retaining wall is um sort of a stepped block retaining wall that you'll see just a uh concrete or stone and it has you know varying levels. So, we just reflect that
by saying um I can't see the exact text from here, but um you know, we we just reflect that it's not, you know, the same 16 or 15 feet high across the full length. It it does a um >> so it slopes as it comes down, >> right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Correct. That's that's how to phrase it. Um those were my notes. Um if there's any questions from a design perspective, I'm happy to answer. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, Attorney McKim, before I turn it
over to the board, um, I'm going from memory here. I remember one of my concerns was, uh, the gas storage issues on site. Can you tell me what has changed with any of that? >> It was immediately taken care of within
a week, >> cube, right? Yeah, it was within two days. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> And what about uh, so that was the cube? Yes. >> What about all the other um gas containers that were on site? >> Fire department came out and
>> it's all been all inspected. >> Yes. >> Okay. And um I'm going to uh turn it over to the board and we'll start with you Kevin. So the the changing interpretation of uh retaining walls and whether they can be
along lot lines or need to meet setbacks. In your uh opinion, ma'am, was the previous interpretation right or is the current interpretation right? >> You're you're asking my opinion. I I my
opinion is that the prior interpretation is correct. I understand Mr. Zel Z Kelly's reading of the bylaw, but I also understand that retaining walls for to meet their purpose
should be along the lot line because that of what they are intended to do. >> That that makes sense to me. Uh, I guess given that you feel that there was an error in interpretation, maybe not an unreasonable reading, but not the most
correct reading of the zoning bylaw. Why not appeal? >> Why not appeal? >> Right? So, that's I mean, you you could ask for a different relief, but the relief you asked for assumes that they are correct. If you think they're incorrect, why not
appeal their decision? Well, uh, I think I'd be before this board asking you to find that the code enforcement officer is wrong and, um, I think I have a stronger argument for a variance based on irregular shape, lot,
and topography. >> Mr. Ziggeli, yeah. >> So, the thought process, so the building inspector and I, the first the first thing that we had to determine was what is a structure? Turns out it's a structure once it
reaches four feet. So if it's over if so you could build a small whatever if it's under four feet you can go all the way up to your property line. The problem that we had is we envisioned that if we if we went under the older
interpretation essentially an entire street let's say the whole street is uh you have a you have a big backyard that's just sloping down. The whole street everyone has a sloping yard back down. If we would take this interpretation or the previous interpretation, I would be able to build
a 30- foot tall wall surrounding my property. Therefore, your neighbors, you're going to go up to the property line and then you're going to look at this. You're going to do this because there's going to be a 30-ft tall wall there. So, if we take that interpretation, that one as
well, any a homeowner would be able to put a 50- foot tall wall or probably not 50. I guess it would be 30 would probably be the max because that would be that's the maximum amount of a house. >> Mhm. >> So you'd be able to do a 30 foot tall retaining wall fortress style around
your property. We felt that this was not the intention and that no one should be able to do that by right. That's that's it in one sentence. >> So if it's a wall four feet by right, >> if it's a fence six feet by right, >> a fence can much more easily be taken a
away. You can easily take a fence down. That's the discrepancy. >> Sure. And and Okay. >> And and my problem with the Mr. Zakelli's interpretation is that he's talking about you could build a wall and
it in order to meet what has been previously the interpretation. It has to be a retaining wall. It can't just be a wall. >> No. Agreed. But it'd be a retaining wall that in order to basic, like I said, if everyone's if everybody's backyard was
completely sloping down, it would be a retaining wall, but >> but it wouldn't be around the whole thing as you described because otherwise you'd be in a bowl, right? And the only person who would see >> No, I think you what she means is you're talking it would be the rear of the
property to level it. You wouldn't be needed out front. No, you would still need it on the sides if the whole I mean, yes, you would still need a retaining wall on the sides. It >> it's u it's one of these situations where um
an the prior interpretation was an exception. They retaining wall was an exception to the definition of structure. Correct. and current staff, building inspector and and code
enforcement officer does not see the exception. >> I see. Okay. So uh so I guess the the next issue I'm kind of thinking of building a retaining wall directly on a property line where it's the abuing property that is higher
in elevation is usually there is some structure put into the higher elevation piece be it uh you know footings fill all these kinds of things right so if you build it if the wall itself is directly on the property line that means you have to excavate a fairly
significant part of your neighbor's property in order to engineer that all correctly. Am I understanding that >> there this is not right on the property line I suspect for that reason. Um so it is
not right directly on on the property line in this case other than in a section down at the bottom where we actually have a uh use variance sorry a use easement. some of the I mean the topographical
hardship I certainly buy here, right? Why else would you need a retaining wall? Um I guess in terms of the lot shape, sure, but I guess I have a little bit of a problem with subdividing a lot, getting a variance to subdivide a lot
and then coming back and saying that, oh well, the lot's irregular. Like you you can't create your own hardship in order to meet the requirements of a variance. to me. >> Yes, I would I would agree with you. This applicant didn't create that lot shape, but that's okay.
>> You you have been the constant in the property. Uh even even though it's a different different applicant, I think I I think now >> uh it Yes. >> Yeah. Yes. And I I understand that you're here that was on behalf of a different applicant and Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Nothing further. >> Chris, >> no questions. Thank you.
>> Uh Kenj, >> I have no questions. >> Ken, >> no questions. Uh Karine, >> um no questions, just comments. >> And Becky, >> um just clarification on how high the wall is now and how high the wall will
be. >> Um the current height, it it will be at its highest point. >> 15.8. It is currently over 4 feet in height um in some sections. And
>> where is that? Can you just so we know what we're dealing with. >> So that's four like four now and it's going to 15. >> It's higher than four now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And this is the area where it's
going to be >> and it's zero where >> it's not exactly it's very it's much closer here. You see the distance >> but I mean the height of the there's no wall there at all. Now >> not around here. This is all new
>> and that will be how high >> it varies. Okay. >> It slopes. >> Uh you can if you do the >> So yeah, it starts at 15. It's about 15 ft tall during this whole corner, >> right? >> And then when it gets down to here, right here where my thing that's it's
only three feet tall here. >> Tapers down. >> Okay. I I know it's a crazy street the way that the lots are. Um >> basically it's so steep. 15 feet towards the back and about three feet tall towards the front. >> Okay. So, it come all right
>> these numbers here give you top of wall, bottom of wall. So, that's where Brian is is saying there's three feet because it's 100 and it's 97. So, >> okay. >> That gives you your heights and we did spot heights along >> attorney if you could just go to the mic though.
>> Yeah. Okay. I have the plan but I would like just clarification. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I don't think I have any questions. I I guess uh has has work started on the site besides this
>> uh some prep work but no because we're uh we have to go through site plan approval. >> Okay. >> As well which we are very close to filing that probably within the next couple of weeks. >> Okay. So, >> and this would be the first step is to
uh do this retaining wall. >> Um probably not the first step in the construction. I don't know the construction sequencing, but getting this um approval in place is certainly necessary before we start site planning.
>> Okay. Uh I look at this as a lot like a fence. Um, and especially as Becky pointed out, I think Pope's Lane certainly warrants something of this nature. Um, I guess I don't have any further
questions. So, I'll go out to the public. Anybody here want to be heard on 25 Popes Lane hearing? Seeing none, I will come back to the board and we'll start with you, Kevin. >> Uh, I don't have anything further. Thank
you. and Chris, >> I would vote in favor of this. >> Very good. And Kenj, >> I'll vote for this as well. I mean, it's absolutely necessary as it's so low and the other properties are so high. So, >> uh, I'll vote for this. >> Oh, thank you, Ken.
>> Uh, I will vote for this. We didn't hear from any of the butters, so obviously nobody else has a problem with it. I'll vote for this. >> It's the cemetery, I think, out back, isn't it? >> Oh, no. Don't go cemetery. >> Mr. St. Isn't it better this morning or this
earlier? >> And he has no problem with it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh Karine, >> um I I would vote for this and I'm not sure whose interpretation I agree with, but I have no problem having more people come to us to ask permission than just putting it up. So, and I but I
will vote for this. >> And Becky, >> um I Yes, I'll defer to the board, but I would be in >> You would be in favor? and I too uh see this as a a necessary need. So, um if I could get a motion, board members.
>> Okay, this is a two-part motion. So, >> Oh, sorry. It's a finding and a variance. >> Right. A finding and a variance. >> So, let's do the finding first. >> Okay. a motion to grant a finding under table 3 to extend a pre-existing non-conforming retaining wall along the rear lot line 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 finding uh request with a second. Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor?
>> I opposed. Okay. Um the second part motion um I um make a motion to grant a variance under table three to allow the construction of a retaining wall that will encroach a side lot line within one foot of the property line and that this
condition does not affect other properties or structures in the same zoning district. A literal enforcement of the zoning law um bylaw would involve a substantial hardship to the applicant and granting this variance will not create a substantial detriment to the
good of the public good and will not nullify or dergate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. >> Second. >> I've got a motion and second. Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor? I opposed. >> Very good. >> Thank you very much.
>> Good luck. >> Good luck. And before we sign off tonight, I just want to uh take a minute to wish everybody a happy Veterans Day tomorrow and uh to all the vets out there. So, >> Mr. Chairman, could I >> just ask for one thing? Um, >> sure.
>> 153 Endover was continued to this meeting? >> Yes. >> Would it be possible for us to read that into the record and continue it to the next meeting? >> Yeah, I think >> the minutes specifically say to this meeting
Yeah, I think that's probably something we should correct. Yeah. >> Uh, but do we have that? Um, >> I have it here. You do? If you >> That's 153. >> So, we're going to um extend that. Uh, >> just for >> Yeah. So, we'll read it in
>> just to get the vote in >> and we'll get the vote to continue it and that's going to continue till November 24th. >> 24th. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, uh, Mr. clerk, if you >> um 153 Andover Street, this is route Route 114A zoning district. Uh request a special permits to allow for a
contractor's storage yard to be operated at the address listed above. Uh additionally, the applicant requests that two storage containers be placed on the property for more than 180 days. Request is made by Interstate Property
Management uh care of presa LLC docket 25-5112. >> Okay. And uh could I get a motion to continue this to November 24th? >> So moved >> and a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor?
>> I. >> Very good. And again, happy Veterans Day everyone. And if I could get a motion to adjurnn. So moved and seconded. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Good night, damners.