Yeah. >> All right. Everybody good to go? >> Uh, good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and uh, welcome to this evening's Dan Zoning Board of Appeals. I would ask that you uh silence any cell phones or uh any electronic devices so we're not
interrupted. I'm going to start by introducing our board um all the way to my right. Uh actually I'll start with our planning director that is Mr. Brian Skellyy. Um Becky Kilbornne uh kind enough to come out in retirement and support us tonight as a um alternate.
She will be a voting member tonight. Uh Karine Dhy to my right, myself, John Bounter as the chairman. Uh tonight our clerk will be Chris Danowski and down all the way to the end is Ken Jarvin. Um board members we were in uh receipt of
minutes. Uh if you remember last meeting we had uh debate debated uh about um you know the the I guess the detail in those minutes. Uh we have since uh and Brian correct me if I'm wrong. I believe in my
review of it, we had as you had indicated, we had a uh kind of a full transcript and then we had a summary of that transcript. >> Correct. There were two file two files in the >> Yes. >> And um so that to me kind of satisfied the the level of detail I think I was
looking for. Um I'd entertain any further discussion on the minutes for February 11th. If not, um if somebody could make a motion and we'll accept those minutes. I make a motion to accept a minute >> and a second. >> I second. >> Uh all in favor? I opposed. Okay, good.
Um and thank you for that, Brian. They look good. Uh so I would expect I guess we'll get them in that format from here on out. >> Yeah, as an interim, yes. And the ideas that we're trying to introduce or the we're not trying to do introduce this.
the um the town manager is also looking at like globally how all boards and committees are operating in terms of minutes and procedure. >> Mhm. >> And the idea is to get everyone kind of doing the same thing which is and this is most likely going to be kind of like the uniform minutes for all of you know
select board included all you know boards and committees. >> Very good. Okay. Uh with that said um I'll just briefly um read uh you know we'll help you through the process. Uh we know not everybody's here before us every night, but uh what we do look is after our clerk reads the case, we would
ask you to go to the podium, identify yourself, present to us what it is you'd like to do. From there, I will turn it over to our board to ask questions of you, and um at that point, we'll turn it out to the public if there's anyone here for public comment. And at that point,
we'll close that portion of the meeting and come back to the board. you'll hear our deliberations and uh we'll give you your options at that point. So, I hope that makes it clear. Um we have a a somewhat of a continued case, but more of a check-in, I guess. And uh Mr.
Clerk, if you could read in uh that first continued item. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our first continued case. 41 Hobart Street Street located in the R1 zone for a check-in regarding a special check-in regarding a request a special permit under section
30.2.D to allow for the conversion of the existing single family dwelling constructed circa 1900 into two dwelling units. Docket 24-5085. >> Uh, thank you. And I believe you're here
on that case. >> No, he's for Tony Water. He's actually >> Oh, okay. >> So, we um >> So, I guess we maybe will hold this. >> Yeah, I just texted the applicant. I I found their um phone number through open gov through the building per our building permit system.
>> I'm thinking maybe they're at town hall. I I don't know, but I just >> I haven't got a response yet. >> Okay. >> I've at least let them know. But yeah, we should go on to the next. >> Yeah, we'll hold it for a second call. >> Okay. Um, >> nope. And um, uh, Mr. Clerk, I guess
we'll go to our regularly, uh, scheduled item. Now, >> our regular case tonight, 20 Water Street, located in the R1, map 059, lot 131, requests a finding under section 3.10 of the zoning bylaw to substitute a pre-existing non-conforming use, a
restaurant with a different non-conforming use recording studio. No footprint changes are proposed with this request. Request made by 20 Water LLC. Chris Blasak, manager, docket 26-5134.
>> Hi, good evening. >> Hi, good evening. >> How do we do on the name? >> Oh, pretty good. Yeah. Yeah. >> Help us out. Say it again for us. >> Blazak. >> Blazak. >> Yeah, you did good. Yeah. >> Mr. Blazak. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Tell us what it is you'd like to do. >> Thanks. Uh, good evening, chair, members of the zoning board of appeals. My name
is Chris Blazak. Please hold up the mic and use >> new mics. Sorry, I didn't see it. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. No, my my mistake. Uh, yes. So, I'm the owner of 20 Water Street, and this is in regards to uh the
property on the same parcel as 20 Water Street known as 18 and a half Water Street, which is just a mailing address, but it's a freestanding commercial, excuse me, uh residential building that's been used as a pizzeria for I think about 50 years. Uh well, we uh
finally had that uh building become vacant. And after a long and hard discussion with my wife, we've decided to not open a pizzeria, but to open a podcast recording studio. Um, so, uh, what I came up with was, um, uh,
requesting for the finding of the zoning bylaw to substitute the former non-conforming pizzeria restaurant to a lowtra professional studio space. Um, the previous space was hightraic restaurant with regular customer turnover, food deliveries, and peak
parking demand. a typical restaurant hours and activity. The proposed use is strictly professional studio space by appointment only. No walk-ins, no f food service, no retail sales. Uh traffic and parking needs would be substantially
lower than the pizzeria. Uh there are no proposed exterior changes, no expansion for the building footprint, no increase in intensity. This change would result in a use that is far less detrimental than the neighborhood to the neighborhood than the existing
non-conforming restaurant use. It'll keep the property productive, well-maintained, and compatible with the surrounding area along this commercial corridor. We respectfully ask the board to grant the finding and approve the change of use. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have and thank you
for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Blazak. I get it right, Blazak. All right. Um, very good. Um, we'll start down there with you, Becky. >> Okay. Um, could you give us an idea of
exactly what this is going to be like, how it's going to operate? >> Um, it's it's a little confusing. So, okay. >> So, it it's going to be a familyun business. Myself, my wife, and eventually someday my kids. >> So, your own business, >> correct? We're going to open up our own
business in the space. Okay. by appointment only. Um, my business model to date would be somewhat like, well, someone's going to either have a podcast on iTunes or a YouTube channel, and they're looking for a professional place
to come and record and have somebody edit that raw footage to give back to them so they can put it on their channel. So, there'd probably be three to four backdrops, acoustic walls, maybe some
curtains, um, a premium look. Um, and by my calculations, it looks like I would probably be looking at around 30% occupancy for the first 6 to 12 months and hopefully ramp up to 50%, meaning 15
days uh a month booked for anywhere between 3 to 6 hours during that time. If it does more, then it's a win. No loud music, no instruments. It's more of like an atmosphere like this where
there'd be two nice lounge chairs, a nice backdrop, and professionalgrade recording equipment, three cameras, a mixer, and a computer. >> Okay. And how many square feet is that space? >> Uh, I believe it's
>> 1100. >> Including the garage, but this wouldn't include the garage space. It's uh I I think it's 800 >> 800 square f feet. Okay. >> So, you're talking 3 to 6 hours 15 days a month.
>> I would love that. Yes. >> Okay. If you can get up to that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Is there anything else like this in the area? >> Not to my knowledge. No. >> Okay. just uh I don't think it's a competitor, but the workspace at Staples
eh this is more like there's not going to be multiple artists in there. It would be one one person or two person or three person whoever the podcaster is going to interview or it might just be a single person which they call a talking head video um at a time and that's what
I think is going to set it apart from well there's nobody else so one at a time exclusive use of the building and the space. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No employees just family running it. >> Okay. I mean, I know a lot of these um
things that are posted um are very loud and mu a lot of music and everything, but I'll I'll defer to the I'll defer to the board rest of the board. >> It would just be like this. >> Thank you. >> Speaking. Okay. >> Very good. Thanks, Kareem. >> Uh so, in this space, there's only one
studio, so you could only have one podcaster in it at a time. >> Correct. And it says here that it's the the business operational hours would be 9 to5 because they're only recording there and then for broadcasting they
take it to their own whatever their either YouTube channel or their own platform right is that how >> I would like I would like to keep it 9 to5 for me. Mhm. >> There would probably be some instances where someone would want to book. Well, maybe they work full-time and they
needed 5 to 7 or something like that. I guess it would have to we'd have to figure that part out. Uh, and I'm sorry, what was the second part of your question? I'm so sorry. >> Um, no. And then, so in other words, they're not broadcasting from this spot. They're just recording and it's
broadcast. >> So, we edit it and then we use a it's called we transfer. We upload the uh edited polished footage and then the end user gets a notification and then they get it digitally sent to them. >> Okay. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Um those were all my questions. Thank you. >> Thanks, Karine. Chris, >> uh no questions. Thank you. >> And Ken, are you going to Excuse me. Are you going to have any signage? Any signs? >> Yes. And I brought an example. Uh I
>> I only made >> I can put it up if you want to wait a minute. >> Oh, yeah. Great. Thanks. Um, raise lettering right on the facade. Uh, thank you, Brian. >> Just a sec. >> Brian, why you're bringing that up, and
I'll interject. Um, where this is a residential parcel, how does the sign bylaw work into how large a sign he can have? >> Yeah, he actually asked this this morning. Uh so which was how large can the sign be? So he is afforded so this
is a pre-existing non-conforming pizza shop. So the sign that was up there that's been up there for many years. He's basically afforded the same size or smaller can't go an inch bigger than that original sign. So that's what he is afforded as a pre-existing
non-conforming. >> And is that like 20% of the facade or what? >> I don't I don't think it is. I think it's a little it's a little larger. This is so this is what he's proposing which is >> frankly less than le less less lettering in terms of the signage area than the
previous sign. >> Very good. And sorry can uh continue. >> Is it um illuminated? >> Uh yes. So oh just uh that light goose neck >> just the gooseseneck >> and that'll be turned off. >> We'll get to a candle stick out enough
to >> Yep. >> make it look just right. >> See the sign. Um, so what are the hours of that light? Is it going to be on all the time? >> Great question. I guess it's whatever the town wants. I I would think it would be on.
>> We have a bylaw that uh the sign would cease to be illuminated 1 hour after hours of operation. >> But I don't think you've necessarily defined hours of operation with us yet. I I know you talked about 9 to5 and Karine's question brought you to
possibly some nighttime hours. So I think we would need some definitive statement there. >> Okay. >> And then the sign lighting would be off an hour after closing. >> Perfect. >> If I have that right. I believe I do.
>> So I will I will make my state. Thank you for the guidance on that. I will say I will go hours oper of operation 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. And I'm going to strive to be out of there by 5:00 p.m. at night. I want to make the business work. So I'll do whatever it takes. to
make that happen. >> So then the >> it will be appointment only and no walk in. >> Sure. >> So that would make what? 9:00 for the light to be off. Definitely. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> 9:00 would be it. Yes. >> Okay. >> Or sooner.
>> I have no other questions. >> No other questions. Thanks, Ken. Um and I think I if I can I'm sorry I've got the wrong glasses, but I think it says Northshore Podcast >> Studio. Studio. Okay. Thank you. And um so clearly um you spoke about
renovations inside. I imagine there be some renovations to the exterior of the building as well. >> All we've done is a clean and we've uh put a new roof on it with proper permits. We've done a new HVAC system with permits, some electrical with permits, new flooring.
>> Uh we've replastered the walls. Um >> so this work's already gone on. It's the work's already gone on because one way or another it it needed it. It was >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And um uh so you know you you talk about uh
studio equipment and and setups. I imagine this is expensive equipment. Um what what are your uh plans without tipping your hand too much I guess uh about security and things of that nature? >> Right. We'll be ringing uh wiring up
Ring uh video cameras on a monitoring system and the um oh jeez what's the other one? Uh Simply Safe system. So have video cameras exterior front side inside locked up in a uh uh utility room
with the modem, you know, Comcast and the router. >> Okay. And if you could just shed some light on the parking. I think uh I understand the six I think is it six or one 2 3 4 5 6 7 on the right hand side
>> when you pull down Mil Street. And I guess the uh intention >> for this business at 18 and a half Water Street would be that the parking would be in the rear >> which it's always been for the pizza shop. It's just old and kind of um worn
away. So, at a minimum, I would like to seal coat, restripe, and put four curb bumpers approximately 4 feet off the back of the property to allow for a walkway and to keep things nice and order and and tidy. >> And uh is your expectation that people
will enter the business from the rear of the property? >> I think they I think they will because there is an alley in be in between uh 20 and 18 and a half. So, maybe a little blade sign in the back um in some uh uh parking. Uh
>> be careful on the blade side because I'm not sure >> Oh, >> you can do the blade side. >> Well, I wouldn't do anything without approval, but I >> And we appreciate that you're you're in here trying to >> uh get all your ducks in a row. Um >> I don't think I have any other
questions. You So, you talked about your hours of operation. We talked about lighting. Um I've got the name of your business now. Yeah, I guess uh I'm done, too. Is there any additional uh questions from the board? All right. Uh I'll I'll go out to the
public if anybody would like to speak. Uh we are here on it's 20 Water Street, but this is an adjacent property that's considered 18 12 Water Street and it's uh autis. Anybody here
want to be heard or spoke or speak? Sorry. Anyone online? Brian? >> Um no. 41 Hobart is now online though. >> Okay. Well, we'll go back to that when we finish here. Um Okay. Uh hearing none, I'll close public and uh we'll come back and uh deliberate
and we'll start with you, Becky. >> Um I I think this is a very non-intensive use. It looks reasonable and I would approve this. >> Thank you. Uh Karine, >> um I would I would vote for this as
well. I I think this is a a great I guess um change for this this specific use um and it's much better um use in a neighborhood. So I agree. Yes, I will vote for this. >> Thank you, Karine. Uh Chris, >> I would also vote in favor. Um good
luck. It's a great idea. >> Thank you. >> I hope you have good luck with it. >> Thank you. >> You make Yeah. >> Thank you, Chris. And uh Ken >> um also vote for this. I think it's different. It's a good idea. Uh, you know, there's many I love pizza, but
there's many pizza places, too. >> But that that's a good idea. >> Thinking outside of the box. >> Thanks, Chris. I can rather Sorry. Um, yes. And and you know, I got to say of all the cases we've had before us, this is a first. It's definitely unique. Uh,
maybe you're a trailblazer here. Um, obviously podcasts are uh a thing that people really enjoy these days and uh you're giving them a place to hone their skills or present something a little more professional. I I think the property before was very
unsightly. So, I commend you for cleaning it up and thank you >> uh and trying to do it. And, you know, the fact that there's no neighbors here pushing back and saying, "No, we don't want this." Um, and I see it as much less intrusive than a pizza shop. So, for those two reasons, I would also vote
in favor of this. So, board members, if I could get a motion to accept. >> Um, I will make a motion. Um, Brian, should I um refer to this as 18 and a half Water Street or 20? >> So, this is one property that is 20
Water Street, which is what the um which is what the legal ad shows. This is all still 20 Water Street. It's really addressing purposes is 18 and a half. I would say 20 Water Street, map 59, lot 131. >> Okay. >> Cuz there's only one of those. >> Okay. So, in other words, the 18 and a
half or whatever the other uh designation is is really for the post office. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um I make a motion to grant a finding under section 3.10 of the zoning bylaw to substitute a pre-existing
non-conforming use of restaurant with a different non-conforming use of recording studio. and the proposed extension alteration of the structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood. And um with the condition
that the hours of operation um be from uh 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and with the exterior lighting um being I I guess extinguished um 1 hour after closing.
I've got a motion. Can I get a second? >> I second. >> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Very good. And good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> You got it. Okay. Um Chris, if we could reread um
41, is it 41? >> Yep. >> 41 Hobart Street. Next, we have a continued case 41 Hobart Street in the R1 zone for a check-in regarding a request a special permit under section 30.2.D to allow for the
conversion of the existing single family home constructed circa 1900 into two dwelling units. Docket 24-5085. Uh, good evening. I understand we have somebody online. if you could just uh introduce yourself.
>> Good evening, Mike Becker. I'm here with my partner, Carissa Vitus. Uh we are the ownership of the property at 41 Hobart Street. I've previously appeared before this board for the uh special permit for the conversion to a uh two family
dwelling. I don't if you want to proceed. There's questions that you need to ask. Yeah, I I think I'm going to go out to our uh planning director just to give us a little bit of backdrop here. I think
uh as a board we're certainly uh we're not 100% sure how we got to where we are. Uh I do feel like it's not what we approved, but I'm going to let Brian lead us in and then uh we'll just have the board ask some questions from there. So Brian, if you may.
>> Sure. So, the applicant successfully completed their permitting with the Z the zoning board of appeals in September of 2024 uh to convert a single family home into a duplex through a special permit. The Hobart Street elevation that the ZBA was
presented with is up on the screen right now um showing one door. In May of 2025, the applicant applied for a building permit with the plans labeled here, South Elevation Hobart Street.
At the time, staff approved this building permit to accommodate the revised interior layout to go from like a front to back orientation to a side to side orientation. The revised layout showed two front doors along the Hobart Street elevation as you can see here. So, this is what they applied for with
the building permit that eventually got approved in March of 2025. Um uh two ZBA members contemplated that it's unclear if this change is too much of a change outside of what was approved by
the board and thought it should come back in front of the board to see to make sure that it's compliant with the decision. The somewhat uh hole that we have fixed in the uh since this is that no plans were referenced in the
application sorry in the decision. It just said the um it it didn't talk specifically about um these you know these plans. Those don't get filed with the decision. Those are now um anytime a decision is rendered now the the plans are
enumerated uh in the minutes as well as in the decision. Um so that that's where we are currently. It's really what's before the board is to determine really if um the changes to the Hobart Street elevation are significantly different
than the approved plans or not. Um the plans that they are showing as revised plans that they feel would also be consistent with the decision is this third one that's showing one door and a window, a picture window essentially. Um
anyway, that what we're here is to determine uh what would be consistent uh with the decision. Um this is a check-in, meaning this is technically not a public hearing, but if the board wishes to entertain public comment, they they may.
>> Okay. And I just want to make one correction. You said March of 25. It was actually March of this year, right? 2026. >> No, it was last year, I think. >> No, when we brought it to their attention. >> Oh, no, that was March of 26. that. Yes, that was March. >> Yeah, you said March 25. So, I just
wanted to >> Oh, sorry. You >> So, it was this year. It was It was just a month ago that we happened to >> uh and again, we see a lot of cases as you can imagine. So, we went from memory something didn't look right um to us as the board that approved it. Um before
you lead in, I I'll just say um I think I want to start it this way. You know, the way this was presented by your representative at the time was to keep this historic in nature and you know, we had this plan presented to us and um so
I guess I don't quite understand the changes and what necessitated them. I can certainly tell you I think any changes should have came back before this board. Now, um,
you gentlemen as developers, I'm sure, are aware of that, but but maybe that's where the confusion lies. So, I I'd like to hear from you. I'd like to understand why we're uh we we we granted something here in in uh this district. Um, and I I
feel like it was presented to us different than what we're seeing here now. So, I'll let you uh tell us what you have to say about it. uh just that uh we took the feedback that the zoning board gave us at the
time of encouraging to have a bathroom on the third floor um and some other comments about reconfiguration and we worked on those with the floor plans. The floor plan worked better to slice the building up the middle up the middle front to back
uh for those those layout changes. Uh, also we had our architect work on it and we felt that the building was less ominous to have the, you know, just having the three stories flat front up the front uh was not
it just made it look very tall that close to the street. So, we brought the shed dormer roof line down around the front and tried to bring the roof line down. It's essentially the same box that's applied architecture. Uh but with
the the roof line being lower, the ridge not coming all the way to the street on Hobart Street, the roof itself is actually lower on the Hobart Street elevation. And this was all work that we did with our architect to try to make it a better looking building. Anyone who's driven by
it now could see that, you know, we did a nice job with the siding and the standing seam copper roof and uh other design elements that are on it. It's definitely not your standard builder grade vinylsided box.
>> Well, I and I'm going to turn it to the board cuz I want to definitely get their take on this, but I can tell you uh I think I'll call it version two, which was um and I'm not sure what you can see online, but it was >> I'll get it up.
>> It was this single front door. I I can tell you I I think I certainly could have lived a lot better with something like that than versus what we have before us, which is either two front doors or a front door with a window uh
to the one side of it. So I I that doesn't look single family residential historic in nature to me, which was, you know, again, what was presented to us. So, I feel like I I I'm not comfortable with that look at all, but um I'm going
to I'm going to turn it over for questions unless there's anything else you want to present to us. Okay. >> Uh just that we went through >> we went through the usual building permit process and presented our plans
and presented the plans with the changes, pointed out the changes, asked for if there was anything further that we needed to do with the changes before we built it. Um and at the time we were told that we were good to go. Those doors have been in the the building has
been built like this for several months, maybe four or five months. And at the time, if we had known, Cararissa, by the way, hi everyone. Um, if we had known that this would have been considered a significant change, we
would have obviously gone back to you. Um, the building was not deemed historic originally, and since then, we've had multiple inspections at the property. It's a very visible property, a lot of people driving by on a daily basis. Um
we never would have continued with the work if we had known that um we are at finishes inside. >> I know it's not historic in nature, but like I said, I'm going on how it was presented to us and the look that we
were given was a single front door in keeping with the residential look of that neighborhood. But again, I'm I'm going to turn it over um and Ken, we'll start down there with you. Um questions. >> So, with the um single door, the original um presentation to the board,
what what happens when you get inside the door? Is that a common area and then it splits off to the two stairwells to go up to the individual apartment? So, what what's that look like inside? >> So, there's a demising wall that runs
right up the middle of those two doors. Not on that on the other elevation. So the building is split up the middle front to back. >> I get that. But I'm asking about the original proposal. What are you not utilizing the space like you should with
that one door configuration? Is that a common area? >> No, it it goes directly into each unit. Each one of those doors goes directly into their >> but each side is a townhouse. >> Okay. But with the single door, so you
go inside the single door, the original uh pres presented house. >> What happens after that? Is there a little hallway and then there's two doors? >> Uh you're talking about the original last
>> on the original >> the original we we didn't the original >> uh floor plan was a rear unit, a front unit. We did not build that configuration. >> Okay. So, all right, I get it. So, it was a rear and a front and this is a side to side. Okay. Um,
>> yes. >> So, is there waste with when you look at these different configur configurations? Why did you decide to uh go with the front to back, the side to side versus is there a lot of waste or what's going
on there? >> Uh, the the floor plans just made for like better quality of life. you know, some of the things that were pointed out in the ZBA, meaning that there was two bedrooms on the third floor, no bathroom on the third floor, that there was the
first floor didn't common bath, like a half bath. So, it was a a a bunch of little factors that just said, I would rather have units that were a little skinnier but laid out better than units
that were shorter and fatter. And then there was one on the back and one at the front. And then, you know, you had to park in the back and then walk around the front. You were in the front unit. Or if you had the back unit, then you had the front people's cars parked right in front of your, you know, bedroom, kitchen, living room, whatever it may
be. >> And was there a difference in the size of the two units if you had the original? >> No, we just split it up the middle. And, you know, the square footage is approximately the same. you know, varies
like maybe 10 square ft, but uh they're basically the the same size unit. Uh the main wall that runs down the middle is actually a double wall. There's two 2x4 walls with a uh sound
break, fire break in between them. >> But so, but with the original design, were the two units the same? the one in the front and the one in the back >> approximately. Yeah. I mean, same square footage. We just, you know, split the baby like differently.
>> Okay. I I have no other questions. >> Uh, thank you, Ken. Uh, Chris, >> on the original with the one door in the front, what was the egress situation for each unit? Did they each have a second egress?
>> I believe they would have had a second egress. I'm not I I don't have that set of plans in front of me. >> We would just leave that to the architect to design um whatever was required. >> Okay. So, let me go to the
what I'd say the plan that has the door and the picture window. What does that now do to the egress situation? If you go in that door, do you have a common area with an an egress door to each unit? Yes. Okay.
>> So, what would happen is there's a 3 or 4 foot uh foyer that that common door enters into and then there's a door to the left that goes into the driveway side unit and door straight ahead that goes into the right side unit. Uh both
units have doors that go out the back to the parking area. And if it was to stay the double doors in the front, clearly the door on the left goes to the unit on the left. Door on the right goes to the unit on the right.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Chris. Karine. >> Um, just to um follow up on this door situation. So, you went from two doors, well, you went to one door to two doors, then you went back to one door, and then
you said that one door wouldn't work. So now you're back to a door and a window. If you only have one door, but it's off center, why can't you just have one door like you had in version number three? No.
>> So, we were we we made that picture and then we realized that there is a loadbearing demising wall that runs up the middle of that that supports the second floor that does not have a header that goes all the way across and would
not have a beam or the height for a beam to hold up those the two demising walls that I made. The two demising walls are about 11 in in in thickness. Uh but there would need to be a header that
went front to back holding up those two demising walls that would then need to connect to a header above the door. uh all within 7T 10 or something like that for for a ceiling height uh which could not be
done along with the sound break required fire separation uh and basically meeting building codes. We thought we could do that and then they had asked us for the uh fire and sound separation. I sent it to my architect. I said give me the fire and sound separation. He said, "I I can't
make this work with the structure." >> Okay. >> So, the building is framed uh left to right. So, all of the uh joists land between those two doors on a central wall that bears on columns in the basement.
>> Okay. when you when you prepared this drawing uh which is the original drawing that was submitted to us with floor plans um did an architect do the renderings for those?
>> Yes, that was uh Seagar architects I believe they may have been available on the ZBA meeting. >> Yes, they were. Yeah, I mean there was an architect that was that was or there was a professional that was there. I'm not sure um what the specialty was. Um
>> yeah, there was an architect was there. >> I I think you understand that our conversion bylaw that one of the requirements is that this remains residential in nature. Once you put two front doors on the front, it's it's not residential. It's not it's not in
keeping with the requirements of that zoning bylaw. And if you look at your application that you submitted, it states that um the applicant uh the
exterior appearance of the structure will not substantially change and shall remain residential in nature. And it further goes on to say the applicant proposes no additional exits. Existing exits will provide the necessary access.
So based on that you provide us with the drawing and then in addition to that you provide us with the narrative that tells us the exterior is going to stay the same and in addition to that you don't need any additional exits. So when you
when you present that to us, we think the exterior is going to stay the same and we don't even have to consider additional exits because at that time we would have told you to keep the front door the way it looks now and if you need additional exits to put them in the
rear of the building. We never would have approved this with two doors in the front. And in addition to that, the roof, I I know that you think that this is a better drawing, but the character of the
neighborhood required the roof to stay the way it was, and that's the way you had it drawn on the original plan. I'm not sure how it morphed into what it ended up being, but it's not in character with the the neighborhood. And
I mean, it's just massive. So, and the height of it um I am looking at >> it's actually shorter on the front uh elevation like the the the peak above the window not the peak the ridge sophet
above the windows is actually lower than the sophet of what the original plan was presented and we did this we also the roof line on the second floor roof is much lower than what the other uh elevation was I I don't know how we can
look at this and say this is not residential in in appearance. One and two family is it's very residential looking in my opinion. Furthermore, the house immediately to the left of this is a duplex with two doors on it. So to say it's not in keeping with the neighborhood or the other two families
around it, I mean is is also not true. >> Um well that's your opinion. It's clearly not mine. Um >> understood. I will wait um to hear additional >> questions.
>> Thanks, Karine. Uh Becky, I know you I don't know if you sat on the original this initially, but the the only question I would have I I see that the board has one opinion. The building inspector went in another direction. Um when were these plans approved by the
building inspector? >> Approximately 6, eight months ago. >> May May of 25. >> May of 25. May of 25. So long 12 12 months ago. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And we've been building based on these plans and I think to come back now
and tell us that we have to do a complete redo on it is not fair to us especially when you know I brought the changes to the attention of the building inspector and the zoning enforcement officer because I had questions about whether the changes were substantial.
>> I understand. Thank you. Well, I I I'll I'll talk to that point a little bit. I think you guys um as I said at the top, presented us something. Um and it was through a zoning board decision that allowed this to even
happen. And I think uh the the first stop should have been back here at the zoning board for any changes. Um, but I will ask uh why the window in this where we've settled
and uh why can't we center up a single door? So, I guess that's a two-part question. I mean, we don't have to keep the window there. Uh, however, the entire building is like sided minus a couple pieces of
trim at this point. And this elevation, it does bring in good amount of light. So, you know, I didn't really want to lose like this glass in the front door. Do I have to have that window? No. I'd be willing to lose that
window. Centering the door uh requires structure that won't fit above the door and still meet building code. Like the lowest sophet you can have, I don't know if the building inspector is present, but the lowest offet you can have is 68. There's not enough room between the
bottom of the floor that needs to be held up above it. As I mentioned, the floor framing runs left to right. The beam and bearing walls that pick that up run front to back right between where the two doors are. So, there's a post that
runs down between those doors all the way to the foundation. If I put a door there, there's nothing to pick that up. And I still have to put a beam under the joists that run front to back. There's there's not enough space above the door
from 68 to the framing to do that. And then also the fi the sound separation, the fire separation, etc. >> Our choice would be to leave the two doors if we could because of this situation with the light. The units do
get very dark if we don't have some sort of light there. And you know, I just want to formally apologize to the board. Mike and I have been doing this for 20 years. Um, we had a stint on HGTV. We're we think we're pretty good at what we do
and if we thought for a second, you guys, that this wasn't the right avenue, we would have wholeheartedly come back to you. But we were unaware of that. >> And we built this. >> Oh, go ahead.
>> We built this based on what we thought was okay at the time. Again though, what was presented was a frontto back unit and you guys totally flipped it and I I especially based on your comment that
you've been doing this for 20 years. Um I would think that would have triggered you the hey we we need to go before the board again. Um let me ask you was this house a total tear down? >> I mean this was a build from scratch except the foundation correct?
>> Pretty much. Yeah. As we got into it and I took pictures to document it, the foundation had been parched on the inside and the outside, but there was voids in between with like rodent nest and deterioration where it just been washed out for years and years. And in
order to get the structural that we needed, we had to put a grade beam on top of that foundation at a point where it was solid that we could then pin to the stone and get Jbolts that would actually hurricane protect the house. So, the top
uh 18 in 12 in of the foundation that had been exposed to weather elements was completely deteriorated. Um, and you know, I can send you those pictures if you want to see them, but it it would have been easier to knock it down and build it from scratch
and probably less expensive. >> Well, I and I would say it would have been easier if you came back before this when the plan changed. But um >> I just want to make sorry chair >> and I know I would have needed to I would have done that. >> So I just want to make clear one one one thing is that um so they they did reach
out to me we did sit down. >> Yeah. >> If I would have told them at the time you need to go back in front of the board undoubtedly they would have. >> Right. >> So it might seem like a bait and switch but they didn't just apply for the building permit hoping we wouldn't
notice. That is not at all what happened. >> So I just want to make that clear that that is not what happened. >> Yep. Okay. Um I I do want to ask uh because I think Karine touched upon it. So we were given a height of uh 29 ft 10 in to the midline and you're saying that
height is still the same. >> Yeah. I can't read the plan from from here, but >> this plan is showing 283 to the ridge. This one with the window, >> the one that we're looking at right now,
>> it says 283 to the ridge. >> Do you see that on here? I see 2910. >> It's uh Well, yeah, it's the This is the third the third one. >> This one, right? >> I can barely read it, but I can zoom in here if you want me to. >> Oh, I see it up the top. Okay, that's to the ridge. All right. Yep.
>> So, how Okay. And then 293 uh 2910s from the foundation. >> Yeah, the lowest the grade. Okay. >> Um well, I I I think there's some neighbors here. Uh I I'm assuming you are a butters to this. Uh I would like to hear
from one representative if you all are thinking the same. Uh if you could come to the mic and identify yourself if there's anything you want to raise to us. >> I think we can let them all. >> Okay. working. Are we working? Okay. Bruce
Sweder, 33 Hobart Street. Now, 41 Hobart Street came before the board over a year ago. They wanted to go up one floor and they wanted to make it a two family. Well, Mr. Melo brought up the fact of one door
in the front, one door in the back. They told us they were going to put a sprinkler system in which would cover the one doors. I brought up the fact that this foundation was a a deteriorating field stone and that wouldn't support another
floor. They told us they were going to bring in a structural engineer and take a look at it. A few days, a few months later, I should say, I went to the building department and they told me that
structural engineer had looked at it. He said the wall back wall was fine. The front wall had to be replaced. Well, they did replace the back wall. The front wall, they just added a few things, a few feet of cement on it. If
you go over there now and look, the outside looks like a brand new foundation. And the field stone is still there underneath. And actually, if you go in and look at the foundation, it's really horrific
inside. But anyway, I called the uh Danvas housing commissioner, building commissioner, and trying to find out why they got all these changes without going back to the board. He told me they had all the permits and that was it. They
they had everything was there. So, my question was, they should have gone back with all these changes. Now, I don't know if you're aware, they tore the house completely 100% down. There's nothing existing except the old
foundation that is there now. Uh they cut it in half, tore the back half down, rebuilt it, then they tore the front half down and rebuilt that. So it's 100% and as you look, it looks more like a duplex now than than anything.
>> So that was my concern. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else would like to come up? Yeah, go right ahead. Just identify yourself. Hi Richard. >> I'm a 39 Hobart. I'm the butter to this house and uh the house looks great. Not
saying it doesn't, but my question is they be I have a stockade fence at the back of my property by my garage which is facing their deck and they don't had didn't put any bulkheads for the basement and there's like a 4 foot by
five foot door or window down in the bottom and there's a big pit. No support, no piping, nothing around that pit to keep if I took my fence down, I could actually get out of my vehicle and fall in to that pit. You know, I don't know what the reason.
>> These are bulkheads you're talking about. >> There is no bulkhead. They like had the side the back of the house has two doors. One on the driveway side and one on the side by my house. And underneath the decking, there's a window in the back of the foundation, like a 4ft x 5
foot window. And there's a pit there with steps, granite steps coming up to walk right into my fence. >> I guess it's an eress to come out as a case of a fire, but there's nothing, no protection, nothing there.
>> I can I can ask the uh builder about that. >> The originally when we came over a year ago, this was bu being a built as a Gambrell building. >> Yeah. Then they tore the house down, which is okay that I don't care about the gambrell. And I had asked
specifically when they put the Gambrell to put a gutter on my side on the driveway. And they put nice copper gutter in the front. And still they've worked in all kinds of weather on my side. There's still no gutter up in the third floor. And when it rains, the gut
the roof is on a pitch. So, when it rains and it's windy, the wind comes right down and blows all all over my vehicles, which is they're going to get wet anyways. I understand that. But, you know, when it's sunny out and it's raining or something like that, it should have a gutter. >> Okay. Well, we could definitely
>> I do not want the gutter drowning it into my driveway. >> Sure, we we can ask the uh the builder about that as well. Anything else? >> Uh you good? >> You're not the grievance committee, so I'm going to end it there. >> I'm sorry. You're not the complaint department, so I'll just end it there. >> Okay. Very good.
>> I be here all night. >> Thank you. >> Uh would you like to speak as well? Okay. >> Um how about that? Can you guys talk about uh the the two points that were brought up? I completed is is there gutters planned? >> There are gutters planned. We didn't do
the gutters in the winter because the down spouts would have just poured water all over the neighbor's driveway, made a big icy mess. We need to dig the trenches for the uh underground um drainage pipe that will be attached to the gutter. Uh there's an emergency
egress window in the basement. I believe it's 27x 42 which is uh egress window size. Uh and there is uh concrete uh landscape block that are 100% on our property that allow for that window
well. Uh, it's it's a safety thing. If I'm going to do a finished basement, even though I was told by the building inspector it wasn't required, I still like to install an aggressable window. >> Okay. So, you feel it's built to code and uh as as code.
>> Yeah. >> All right. um to exceed code. >> You know, I can just and again I I don't know if deliberations is a fair statement to make cuz I you know, we deliberated on this case. We came to an
agreement on this case. Um and I I I think I have a clear picture on why we're where we are. Uh how we got here. um seems like uh we would have preferred to be part of
the process. I would ask uh this this window that's called uh the G window which is this in place of this second front door. Uh can that window be reduced to uh you know kind of a small
just uh I don't know I'm I'm not a builder Chris you are. What would be uh a window that would just shed light versus a functional operational window? I guess maybe that would be some kind of medium uh to meet here. What what would
be the is it G or C? I uh I guess it's C >> or is it G? >> I think it's G. >> It's G. >> Is the possibility to change that to be more of a um >> we actually have a motion that we have to. >> Okay. Uh,
is that a possibility? >> Yeah, the window hasn't been purchased or installed yet, so we could just buy a smaller window. >> Well, I guess where I'm going with this is, you know, like Karine said, I don't think I would have voted for this had you presented
this to us back in 24. I would have asked you to go sharpen your pencils and come up with something else. I don't like the two front door look. Um, again, this was a conversion and and the way it was sold to us is not where where
we are in my opinion right now. So, um, you know, I I see the efforts to try to kind of come back to that by removing that second front door. But I I still I don't know. I just I guess the way it's
trimmed out too, it still gives the appearance of two front doors even though it's a window. So, I'm just wondering if we can make a change there. And that's my question. And um I will uh strobe the board to see if there's other questions, but then perhaps we can
deliberate on where we go from here. But I'd like to hear from you on that window. I think the tough thing with that is if we were to do something like that, we're removing some square footage out of the living areas of these units inside and it really does reduce the space and
the livability of it inside for for >> Well, explain that to me. How does a window change change square footage? >> And by the way, before you answer that, what is the square footage of these two units? I don't know off the top of my head. I
think they're 14,500 square f feet, something like that. But the vestibule that would be installed in the right side, I think what Carissa is saying is she would rather keep it with two doors and as
would I. Uh it's the installation of the 4-ft vestibule uh on the right side that reduces the livability uh of the right side unit. It basically makes the living room not the living room,
>> but that's uh I guess I'm not following you. The right side unit is the one that has the door. Yes. >> Yes, it has the door. So you'd walk in that into a um I call it a vestibule or a common foyer. So that space is
basically getting subtracted out of the right side unit to then provide access to the left side unit. So it creates a 4oot sorry four-year-old entering the room. >> Uh >> well I guess how would changing that
window affect that? Right. >> The changing the window, sorry, changing the window doesn't affect that. Making a smaller window does not affect the square footage of the left side unit.
But taking the door out of there and if if we have to go to one door, then we have to go to one door. But I would throw myself on the mercy of the board to say we tried to do everything we could that we thought was right. And the instruction we got was that we were I
understand. I I heard that, but I'm confused because what I have before me is showing one door. Am I missing something here? >> Yes. Yep. And I believe that we submitted a floor plan with this showing the common foyer uh and how that cuts
into the right side living area. Uh the units are approximately 12t wide. So, if you take four feet out of it, now you've got an eight foot wide, you know, would be living room for that section of the living room. Um, Brian, do you have the
drawing of the floor plan? >> Uh, so I don't >> easier to visualize. >> Yeah, I don't. Uh, I don't think a floor plan made it into our packet. >> Uh, I think I submitted that to 10. Give me one second. I'll just email.
>> Isn't this what they're submitting to us at what they want to do? No. >> So, I just want to be clear. So, this what we're looking at is what they're >> that's what they're that's what they're proposing. That's what they're asking to do. >> Doesn't that look like this? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it does.
>> A door on one side and then a >> Yeah. What what what you've submitted what Becky has might be what you're looking for, John. >> Isn't this what it is? >> No, that's not a floor plan, though. That's just showing >> Well, on the sides it's >> Yeah, that's what I have. I have that before me.
Sorry. >> Shows you the best of your >> So, uh, can I share screen >> for the units? >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I said, can I uh share screen? >> Oh, yep. Hold on. I'll I'll allow that. >> Can I just say something? >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Becky.
>> I I think this uh owner is in a difficult >> Sure. No, I agree. I want to just say that, you know, they certainly changed the plans and it was not what was approved, but they
changed the plans a year ago and the building inspector and the planning department approved those plans. And so here we sit as a zoning board on one side of the approval and the planning department and the building
inspector sitting on another side of the approval. And I think it's really difficult for this owner to be in the middle of this. They've obviously spent a lot of money and want to get done with this project. So I I think we have to be
fair to them. um in that they did talk to the building department about this plan and they did get approval for this plan and they're in a tough situation and
they really are in a tough situation and I think we need to be fair to them and what they are trying to do. Do I like the plan? No, I don't like it. You know, I don't like the roof line. I I think it's boxy. it it's out of
character for the neighborhood. Um but somebody said it was okay. >> Yeah. >> And so I think we have to be fair in in what we're doing here. Um and be fair to them because they've
obviously want to get this project completed and they've gone a whole year under this plan. >> Yeah. No, I agree with that statement, Becky. I still though I guess I'm not understanding uh to me this seems like an
insignificant change to go to a smaller window on the left hand side. So I don't understand that that >> yes that's not even the the like we could go to a smaller window. It's the
taking the door out. That's Am I sharing this with you guys? >> Yeah. I I'm not talking about a door, >> but it's very Yeah, it's very small. >> I'm saying the door stays right where it is on the right hand side. And this window G that you show on the left hand
side to me looks like a large window, unless I'm seeing it wrong. They want to go back to the >> what they're trying to do is say we understand that but by the fact of even having that that window on the left the fact that we're doing this and not two
doors they're eating you know you can see on that plan on the lefth hand side that it's eating into the right side unit. So they would prefer to not eat into the right side unit >> that Becky has is what's on the screen right now. >> That's I I hope that's I don't I think that's the >> So they they're asking to stay with two
doors. They're asking to stay with two doors. If there's no way to stay with two doors, then then you should say there's no way we're staying with two doors. >> That's what you were talking about, Becky, right? You were you were arguing for that. >> So, you're looking to stay with this? >> Yes. >> I think >> that's what they want. That's what they're asking.
>> I would stay with two doors. I think it's it's symmetrical. It makes sense. I think to cut out one door and do a window >> coming that >> it's that's my opinion. And it's more symmetrical to have two doors.
>> Gotcha. Okay. >> And we have other houses on that street that have two doors. >> Okay. >> He's a picture of it. >> Yeah. Okay. So, that's what I'm confused with. I thought we were going to this. >> So, we really want to do this
>> that that what she has is this. >> Yes. Got it. >> This would be what they have. >> All right. Uh, any additional questions out of the board? Um, I I I agree with everything Becky said. We're in a tough spot here. Uh, I
I I I've said it myself. I wouldn't have uh approved this look. Becky said she wouldn't approve this look. I'm pretty sure Karine said the same thing. Bottom line is is here we are. Um, so with that said, um, I will start down there. I think I started with you, Ken. So, your
thoughts. So I think there's there was some confusion with uh different parties um in here. Um well not confusion there was some revelation um some changes and some due diligence
on the uh on the um builders or the parties that are pushing this forward and it didn't get back to the board somehow but I don't know if there's a mechanism for that but I think they got the information at the time that they
depended on and I don't think it's fair to cause a a big cost on their end to rip down something or change it sub substantially
back to um you know make that vestibule take space on the right side and stuff. So I I think it it's not exactly what we wanted but I think it makes sense like this and I agree with what Becky said. So I would I would approve the two
doors. >> Okay. Chris, >> you have more of a question. Yeah. What's the applicant? >> Go ahead. >> So the screen you have shared right now of the partial first floor plan. That vestibule is on would be on the right hand unit.
>> Yes. That uh dotted line wall is the uh firewall, the double framed wall that runs the middle of the property. >> Okay. So, has that gone to Tim yet as a possibility? >> Uh, we haven't we haven't changed any of
this. Basically, uh, we submitted this information and the thought process was we would be better off to just check with the ZBA on whatever we do before we do anything. >> Okay. Um, I wasn't part of the original
decision, but knowing what you would have to go through at this point to make it a single door slash window with that vestibule, I'd be in favor of staying with the two doors as it sits.
>> Thank you, Chris. Uh, Kareem, >> um, it it appears that I'm in opposition with everyone here. I think you got the special permit. For whatever reason, you decided to completely change the floor plans. You stated in the hearing that
the exterior of the building would stay the same. And yes, you made changes to the interior of the building, but the minute it impacted the exterior of the building, you should have come back to us for approval. You said by your own
admission, you've been doing this for 20 years. You should know better. And again, I don't understand why you submitted plans to us for not only the exterior of the building, but the interior what you planned on doing. You immediately changed the plans. You
immediately changed the plans. The original plans that you submitted with the plan with the planning department and the building department were completely different than what you submitted to us. So again, I am a no. If you can somehow figure out how to end up with one door in the front there, I
could be a yes. But I am a definite no with the two doors. I think the building looks terrible. I think the roof looks terrible. There's not one redeeming quality to it, and it completely um obliterates anything we were trying to do with that conversion bylaw to keep it
consistent with what the building originally looked like. I'm an O. >> Thank you, Karine. Uh Becky, >> um I didn't vote on this originally and I think you've heard my opinion. I think it's
we're in a really bad situation here and um I I don't I don't I'm not going to say anything more. >> Yeah. Uh look, this seems to me like maybe there's blame to go around on all
fronts here. Uh, I don't like the two front doors. Um, and I'm also a no. I'm not going to vote for this. I'm I'm sorry. Uh, if it causes hardship, but uh I I would have never agreed to this plan
if it was presented to us back in 2024. Um, I agree you you brought this in to uh get approvals, but uh it it wasn't my approval and it really circumvents what
this board does as a whole uh to um have it turn out this way. And it's kind of unfortunate because uh and I think I heard one of the neighbors say it it certainly looks better than what was there. And we always are happy to see a
property uh get revitalized and utilized by our neighbors and and people to move into town, but this isn't what I uh envisioned. So, I don't know where we go from here, and maybe I'll have to defer to Brian. >> Well, they have to move forward with something. Yeah, I would like to point
out just before we go forward, uh, this building actually looks more like the building that was there than the one that we proposed in that the building that is built has a shed dormer with the roof line around it, similar to the
front-facing shed dormer that was there. It's a story taller. Agreed. Like, I'm not saying it's not bigger. It is but it is more similar to what was there in architecture than what was proposed originally. So I don't know that being
you know similar to what was there is is actually the priority or better than what was there is the is the priority. It does doesn't sound like it. Well, I I understand your statement, but you know, I think you can understand like if you know, if you had a if you
gave plans to a builder to build a certain property and when you pull up to the property, it's not what you gave to them, I I think you'd have the same concern that this board does, >> the original house, >> right? >> I understand that we did submit the floor plans as draft plans. We didn't
say those were final. We said we were going to make changes. We were encouraged by the board to make changes to the floor plan based on the lack of a bathroom on the third floor. >> Not not by the board. You weren't? >> No, we were actually encouraged by the board. If you you can review the minutes
if you'd like. I distinctly recall one of the board members stating that they thought there should be a bathroom on the third floor cuz at the time that we had proposed, I believe there were two bathrooms on the second floor along with the primary. >> Yeah, I'll I'll revise that statement. I
do remember the bathroom discussion, but that is not what I think we're talking about. We're talking about uh you know this look which was a single front door to where we are now. Um and I I understand
everything you said. Listen, we've we've deliberated. I'm not going to keep going back and forth. I I >> I would not have built this if I thought this was going to be back here with this because I I don't want to waste my time or my money or, you know, piss off any >> money
through the right channels. >> You know, my understanding from every municipality I've ever worked in is the zoning enforcement officer is the person to consult on this kind of thing. And you know, we did and as well as the building inspector. And now here we are with, you know, a building that is not
compliant with what's going to be decided. >> But all right. Well, >> so what's in front of the board now is basically this was the proposal that they had put forth. If there wasn't going to be two doors, this was this was a proposal. So they need some direction
forward to >> so this proposal >> do something if it sounds like >> that to return to one door for structural reasons is not necessarily possible based on
>> how did they how did they submit the plan for it >> this what you're looking at is possible >> hold on people >> no no no I'm talking About like two weeks ago, they submitted a plan with one door. >> Oh, sorry. >> Is this plan with one door buildable?
>> The one we're looking at right now with the >> one you have submitted to us, the latest one you have submitted >> that is buildable. It would not be my preference. >> No, no. I'm talking about the one with the one door. >> So, Mike, you submit you submitted a one door proposal
>> in March of 23rd. Oh, about about it was a Yeah, it was like 10 days ago or so showing that like if you had to do this, this is way you could do it. But then and then you came back with this one. And what Karine is asking is what happened to the one door? What happened to the one door proposal?
>> This one here. Um >> you had sent us a potential floor plan showing one door. >> This one? >> No. >> No. >> Was this one? >> This one? >> This one. There's a plan that we could do that has a door on the right side and actually it
has a window where the left side door is right now. That could be built. It's not what I would prefer to build, >> but we just take it >> talking about the one with the window. >> There was a Yeah, there was a there was something that you sent last week that first showed one door or maybe it was
two weeks ago first showed one door >> with side lightss on the side. >> It's dated March 23rd, 2026. >> Okay. So, the one with the two side lights is actually not buildable because, >> okay, >> when the building inspector asked for the complete rundown as to how we would
do that, I sent it to my architect, sent it back to him. He had drawn that as a rendering to say this is what it would look like. We sent it back to him. He said, "Okay, how you going to hold up the middle of the building that posts down?" Uh, if you you saw the floor
plan, you know what I mean. the double wall that is a bearing wall all the way down to the basement. If we put a door there, you have to have a header above the door. You have to have a header to pick up the uh bearing wall in the middle. And there's not enough room
between minimum 68 code and what we would need to be to get under the floor with what it doesn't work. >> So, let me summarize this. The plan you submitted, which we're calling the second plan, which was dated March 23rd, 2026, you're
saying is not buildable because of the loadbearing wall and the header requirement to have a single door there. Am I hearing that correctly? >> Yes, that's the latest now. >> Sorry. the latest plan you submitted,
which I don't see a date on it, but it's the single door on the right with the window on the left. That is something that could be built. Correct. >> That is buildable. Yes. >> Okay. Not ideal, but buildable. >> Correct.
>> Yes. And I could make a smaller window in that left side as well. >> Okay. I I I I think in in interest of uh moving forward and giving direction uh I would ask that this would be the
plan we would build and I will agree to that plan. Um because it does come back to a single front door. Is that agreeable? Hey, you submitted it.
>> Do you want >> Is it agreeable to me? >> Yes. >> I mean, if there's no other What's that? It's not like I have an alternative >> forward. >> If there's no other path forward, you know, I'm do I want to rip the other door out and, you know, go through all
that, have a lesser uh floor plan? I would prefer not to, but it, you know, it sounds like uh uh Doran is a definite no. And uh I need four out of five votes in order to let proceed in life. Correct.
>> Correct. And I'm willing to forego my no vote if we go to this this latest plan submitted which I understand is ideal and I understand I believe to me there's fault on both sides here. But I can tell you
where there isn't fault and I don't feel it's on the fault of the zoning board. I'm not suggesting that it's your fault. I'm just saying here's here's where we are. Kind of like you said, you know. >> Yes. >> So, if that's the only path forward, you
know, we'll take it. It's it's less than ideal. But, as I understand, it's, you know, the scenario is less than ideal for everyone. >> Yes. I I I think that's where we're at. And, you know, I I have to believe you've had this scenario present itself
before. I just am surprised you regardless of what our planning all the >> Well, hold on. Let me let me speak. Let me hold on. Let me speak. >> Regardless of what the planning department or building inspector told you, I would think with your years of experience
in this change and knowing that this was a special permit through zoning that it would have required a review back with the zoning board. Well, as I understood it, changes in the interior floor plan did not require that
and there was no plans that were, you know, >> but this wasn't just interior. What >> understood? So, we knew the interior we could do and we thought the exterior we could do, but we presented the exterior to what we thought was the uh jurisdictional authority. And you know,
that's every municipality I've ever been in, the jurisdictional authority. uh either the zoning enforcement officer or the building inspector makes final decisions. I I just I'm >> I understood. I I I hear I I understand.
>> Well, we still need a vote. >> I'm sorry. >> We still need a vote. The vote didn't carry. >> All right. Um so, uh could I get a motion, please? And I think it is on our >> Can I ask ask you a question, Mr. Chairman?
>> Sure. So, are we okay with the size of that window or were we discussing a smaller window? >> I think if I heard the applicant correctly, they're looking for more light versus a smaller window. Uh I >> I'm It's not a hill I'm willing to die
on. Believe me, I get, you know, >> Yeah. No, I get it. >> The door thing is the most important thing. The window that goes in there, you know, we can adjust the size of that down. It's just it's a small detail relative to the rest of it. I'm I'm not
I don't know if everybody's looked at like the siding on the house, but it's an expensive siding relative to like vinyl and the design in it and the copper roof and all that stuff was expensive. I don't have to rip all that stuff apart. I'll put a window in that's shorter in in
>> I I think I think what we're asking is just make it so it doesn't look like a second front door. I'll leave it that at that. >> I'm not exactly sure what that means relative to staying in compliance with the decision though cuz the symmetry is,
you know, there's two doors there. It lines up with the window above. It's mirror image of that. Uh, I just don't want to put something in that's gonna be not, you know, to the satisfaction. >> Yeah. No, I get it. >> Put a shorter window in. >> What? What if it was the size window
that is in the door to the right? >> Then it'll look like a door. Then it'll look like a door. Yeah. Look like a door. Like, >> yeah, I understand. >> Just leave the door. >> Honestly, I wish I wish you weren't here before us, you know? Honestly, this
isn't um you know, this isn't something we prefer to do. Uh >> I would put a I'll put a window in that's the same size as the door, but at the end of the day, it sounds like it's counterproductive to what the the point is of having, you know, two front doors.
You're the zoning board of appeals. You have the the authority to grant me the permission to have two doors. And I think us changing that window around It it's it's a little bit of gymnastics to like
avoid the looking like a window, picture window, but it's going to end up looking like a door. >> You know what we could do? And it won't be in balance and it won't really be in keeping with the rest of the building. But we could do a smaller transom window.
>> Sure. You know what? I I've got an even better idea. We could put a flat panel door in with no trim on the door, no window, and that would be less looking like a door than putting a window in there. >> That's
I don't I don't like that idea. >> I don't >> Well, I It sounds like it's either a larger window or a door >> or it's what's presented. Right. >> Right. I'm Exactly. I think it's what's presented with a larger window or if you want a smaller window. Well, Ken raised
the point. I think we've kicked it around enough and I I think we'll stay with >> Could I just if you don't mind, >> you know, as I'm just kind of thinking of it, we could put a door on. We could change the door that's there to a door, paint out the trim so it doesn't have
white trimmer on it. Paint out the door and basically make the door disappear. It be less conspicuous as a door than anything else that >> Well, I think that's what we're going for. I mean, that's that's what we >> Well, that's why I'm suggesting it like it if we want to really make the door
disappear, then the thing to do is to make it a flat panel door and paint it all out in a monotone blue so that when you look at the front of the house, you see the right side door, which will be painted out a front door color. The left
side door will be no trim, flat panels, no no panels, flat facade front, top to bottom. The trim around it will all be painted out the same color blue as the rest of the house. And that door will essentially disappear for the purposes of aesthetics,
>> but it's going to be >> And if the board could just if the board could entertain me for just a second, you guys, I just want to lay out for you where we are on the inside, just so you understand where we are. Um, we have finished plastered walls. All of
our new electric has been run inside those walls. The electric will need to be changed. The firewalls will need to be changed. The framing um we already have granite. We have finished flooring.
Um, and I just wanted you guys to know that that's where where we are inside because obviously you haven't been inside, but and you're welcome to come in if you'd like, but um I just wanted to throw that out there because if we do
decide to leave that second door, I think it would make the most sense and it won't take the square footage out of the right hand side for the living space and it'll make that a more functional space for the person who lives there. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> I I I feel like we're going to move forward with what you submitted. Would you uh consider a door that was uh painted out with with no
>> basically uh >> I I think you said it best. You you have been doing this 20 years. You're the designers of this. We go on plans submitted. Um and I'm not here to really design it. I'm just here to tell you
it's not what was originally submitted. Understood. I know how we got here. I'm trying to find a way forward and I'm suggesting a creative approach to do so that I think will further satisfy the parties and look better, which at the
end of the day is, I think, the most important thing. Uh, you know, I've been walking past this house since going to the YMCA. I grew up on Clark Street. The house that was there looked god awful. I
would greatly prefer to produce a nicel looking product that you know will hopefully be there till another 100 years. >> Well, I guess where I'm at right now, if that's if if that's what you wanted,
then um why didn't that get submitted to us? >> Well, this was like a a checking in as it was described to me. So, uh, I didn't fully understand what the ZBA was
looking for here relative to, you know, one door. Like, it wasn't, uh, wasn't presented as an option. I just kind of thought of it on the fly as we're sitting here. And you know, in order to do that, I could, if it's something you'd consider as an administrative
change, I could have my architect do a rendering, a 3D rendering from a picture of what we would put on uh in that door opening so that it all but you know, disappears as much as possible.
>> But you're still leaving it as a door opening. It would still be a door, which would be the, you know, best use for that both sides and the least amount of work to change. We'd be changing it out from what is, you seen the property, it looks like two front doors right now.
You know, if we put a flat panel door uh in there and painted it out, it's not going to look like a front door, but I don't think whoever lives in the house is going to object to that because they're never going to use that door. They're going to use the back door with right next to where they park. So, you're saying this is still a functional
front door, though? >> Yes, that's what I'm saying. >> Yeah, >> it's camouflaged, but it's still a functional front door. >> How did we get here? >> I mean, as I understand it, the the issue is the appearance of two front doors.
up. >> It's an hour on this. Um well >> well I I I appreciate that we've taken an hour but you know given the circumstances I think it's reasonable that we get the highest and best decision.
>> Yeah. Ken, your thoughts? >> Well, I I was okay with the two doors based on the totality of all the circumstances and >> pitfalls and such. >> So I mean but I I'm just saying, but if
we don't go with the two doors, I'm fine with that big window, but I prefer to have the two doors. >> Okay, Chris. >> Uh, from a builder standpoint, I like I said before, knowing what you have and
what it's going to take to change to a single door in a window, I would be okay with the way it is right now. That's a single door and a window. >> I'd be okay with what it is as we speak. The two doors. >> The two doors
>> mainly because of the structure work that has to be done to >> and Becky, you're I mean, uh, sorry, Karine, you're a no. And Becky, um, you are as well. So, um,
yeah, I don't know. I feel like there's just no win-win situation for this board as far as I see it. >> I think it's a learning experience. >> Yeah. I I >> for the future. >> Yeah, >> that's what it is. >> Yeah.
I I I I don't like a blank door. I think that's just we're just trying to hide it. So, you know, I'm more inclined to leave a second door there. And I just feel bad we're even in this
spot. Um I'm I'm >> Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I'm sorry. >> I said thank you. I appreciate that. >> Yeah. Can I ask >> where we feel bad we're in this spot,
too? Well, I think all around it it's just an unfortunate situation cuz you know again um we all know what was there and uh you know I'm glad that it's been being developed but uh yeah go ahead you got a question. >> I'm good. >> No, go ahead. >> No, I'm good.
>> All right. >> Um this >> we're trying to do the best job we can. We've thrown hundreds of thousands of dollars at this building >> and we're trying to give it the best product that we can. I think as Becky said, we're going to chalk this up to a
learning curve. I uh wholeheartedly agree with Karine on this definitely changed. Uh I think in interest of uh coming up with a decision, I'm I'm going to allow the second front door. I hope
um future projects that are done even if you feel like uh you have the right answers if if this board's involved I hope you think to at least poke and ask does this need to go back before ZBA.
So with that said >> we will >> uh >> we've we've learned how that we learned what to do so we appreciate this very much. >> Me too. I can't say uh I can't say that I wasn't involved. So >> yeah, >> experience for me as well.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Uh with that said, I guess Brian, uh based on that, do we need a motion? >> No, we needed to get a sentiment of the board because this wasn't a hearing with with actual uh you know, we did notify the abutters as an as a courtesy because
we thought for check-ins we that is just something we do in Danver that even though it's not a hearing, we we typically for check-ins uh alert the neighbors. Um, but no, you don't need an official vote. I think the the minutes will show and the video will show the
sentiment of the board for this for this check in. >> They'll continue with the plan that's approved. >> They're going to continue with doing what they're doing based upon the the vote, you know, the votes of the board this evening. So, or the the sentiment of the board. >> Okay. >> So, make sure they address. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Yeah, they did. I think they did both. Uh I just want to before we uh sew this all up, I believe the neighbors had brought up a couple of points and I think you addressed both of them. There is going to be gutters added to uh take care of the drainage uh so it's not
infringing on your neighbor. >> And um the uh decking window I think that you spoke of it is there by code. So did I hear that correctly? >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. And with that said, uh I don't think we
need an approval, so I won't ask for a vote. Um and I don't think you need one. Correct, Brian? >> No. Uh we did we approved the minutes. >> Yep. We approved minutes. And uh thank you for coming before us. Uh I won't apologize, but I will say that uh I
think um I'm glad you uh came back before us to try to help us figure this out. uh we don't like to, you know, kind of see decisions we've made um not turn out what we thought we were getting. So, I think I think I made
that point narrowly. And with that said, I'll ask >> I will apologize. I I can say that I am genuinely sorry that we did not further dig into this at the time. >> Okay. Well, accepted >> and thank you for being uh upfront with
us about it and how we got here. Uh, I hope the project uh, you know, finishes up well and uh, it's it's prosperous for everybody. So, and with that said, I'll uh, ask for a motion to close the um, meeting tonight unless we have any further business.
>> Motion to adjurnn. I second. >> I got a second. All in favor? I I >> Good night, Jameson. Good night. Good night.