covering as best I can. So, I guess we'll call the meeting to order um tonight June 23rd. Uh we have uh first thing I before we get to the public hearing, I wanted to everybody's had a chance to
review the minutes. Good. So, we have a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. All in favor? I note that it was unanimous. So the first we have a public hearing. Uh I'll just announce the rules. There's five members
of the board. Uh they're looking for a variance. Um they have to get a vote of four of the five members for the variance to be granted. So if even if you get a vote three to two, it will not grant the variance. Um you need a super
majority. Um there's a a petition. And so the way we would ask is we'd ask the presenters uh in favor to put their case on first. Give your name and address before you speak. Um and then each party will get
their their say. We'll let the people who are presenting the case present their case first. Anybody who's in opposition can then speak um in opposition giving your name and address like everybody else. And if you sign the signup sheet so we know everybody who's
here. uh you can speak. Uh we'll allow uh the proponents based on the comments from anybody who's opposed um to rebut or present evidence on any new new
matters that were brought up by the uh uh the opponents. Um, so I'd asked to to open up the hearing um and uh have the clerk read the uh the notice.
Good evening. East Meadow Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing legal notice. East Meadow Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 23rd, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in the Pleasant Valley Senior Center, 328 North Main Street, Eastlaw Meadow, Mass 01028.
according to the uh public notice and via Zoom webinar. There's a link attached to that that's no longer valid. Case is ZV202501, a petition for variance under the East Meadow zoning bylaws. Table 32 frontage requirements in which the applicant is
required to have a 100 foot of frontage with adequate physical access along Maple Street. Currently has two abuing parcels each with 20 ft of frontage along Maple Street. Both parcels located on Chestnut Street assessor's parcels IDs
6-128-f 6-128-G in the residents B zoning district. The applicant is Bron Meadow LLC courtesy of Levine Law 56 Summers Road East Meadow Mass 01028.
Information relating to the applications filed with the department of planning and community development available for public inspection at the town hall 60 center square to view an electronic version of the case files for the board James Shannon clerk and this was published in the reminder on both June
20 or June 5th 2025 and June 12th 2025. I just wanted to confirm with the clerk that the registered mail um notice is also out to the about 300 ft. Yep. Correct. The timely. Okay. So, uh, jurisdictionally we're where we need to
be. So, now the applicant or the representative wants to present their case. Good evening. Nice to see you all again. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. Uh, I'm Josh Lavine of Green Law here in East Meadow. I'm here
tonight representing the applicant Brown Meadow LLC. Um, Brown Meadow is the owner of two lots that have frontage on both, Chestnut and Maple. Uh, I'm sure you're all familiar with the properties, at least driven by it many times. You can't miss the Chestnut side. It's over
200 ft of undeveloped frontage that when you're turning uh off of Dwell to your left, it drops down and it's well below grade. Uh, the Maple Side uh has a curb cut right next to a gray
house that was recently uh renovated. um or I guess uncovered. Uh for lack of a better term, it used to be a house that was completely covered in shrubs and trees and uh it was recently renovated and those were cleared out which revealed uh a barn in the back as well
as the curb cut and the uh path that goes off of Maple towards these two pieces of property. Uh the applicant is here tonight to seek a variance uh from the zoning board of appeals to use the maple frontage uh for driveways to the lots in order to build uh construct two
single family homes. Uh both of the lots have maple frontage of roughly 20 ft and chestnut frontage of exactly 107.77 ft and they in residential B which requires 100 feet of frontage to be buildable. Uh so these both do uh as a
matter of of course uh have enough frontage to be buildable. Uh and as discussed in the application as I'll summarize now uh the factors for variance weigh in favor of the applicant. Uh in short the Chestnut Street side of the lots they're unbuildable and it is impractical if not
impossible to build driveways to reach the buildable portions of the lot which would be much closer to the Maple to Maple Street. Uh for the first factor, the soil conditions and topography both hopefully in favor of a variance. Uh the entire chestnut side of the lots are
wetlands. Uh and single family homes could not be built in those conditions. Uh even if they are not wetlands, they are well below grade and they would require a massive amount of fill to bring them up to building level or to put in driveways for that matter to go across the wetlands. Uh for the second
factor, the the hardship uh little enforcement of these bylaws would under these lots on buildable. Uh as I said, only the maple side of the lots are unbuildable and running a driveway would be cost prohibitive due to the required length. Uh and also it would likely not be possible to even put
in driveways uh because of the wetlands. Uh granting a variance would allow the construction of single family homes with reasonable driveways to greatly increase their property value. Uh for the third factor uh the bylaw would not be the purpose of the bylaw
would not be frustrated by granting this variance. Uh the maple frontage looking at the lots from the maple frontage the houses would be well back from Maple Street. So there wouldn't be an overcrowded uh frontage which would normally be the the goal of having a 100
foot frontage requirement to be buildable. Um, and in fact, there's already a curb cut and a path at the location where the driveways would be. So, other than paving the road, uh, there would be little change. I'm sorry, paving the driveways. Uh, and finally,
for the the last factor, town residents would not be hurt by this variance if granted. Uh, approving this variance would allow new houses to be built. they would be set well back from the street uh by virtue of how the lots are laid out. Uh the town would benefit
from improvements to the lots both from a tax perspective and as well as more housing for residents. Um and finally, as I laid out in the application, there are a number of other lots in town that have a a similar uh driveway frontage situation where they have adequate
frontage at the back of the lot and a driveway coming off of a much smaller frontage. And those are listed in the application. Uh, and I know a number of them are in the uh Great Woods uh neighborhood. Uh, and one was recently passed on Lee Street uh last year or the
year before. Um, so thank you very much for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions and one of the owners of Brown Meadow is also here if there are any particular questions that are beyond my knowledge. I have a couple of questions and my
first concern is um do you a copy of the deed um by which your client obtained the property? [Music] Uh I will have to work in my file. Okay. I think you submit as part of your
application. So did I. Don't know why I'm not seeing I know it's one of the requirements. So it would have been [Music] I I apologize. I don't have it in my file. I know I submitted it. I don't know why it's on my copies.
Okay. Yeah. I mean, I'm I know I've seen it in my packet in the office. Um but I I just I wanted to make sure it was in evidence here today. I had some concerns. When was it the property acquired? Uh, this property was acquired, I
believe, last year. Last year. And how much did your client pay for it? Uh, that I do not have off the top of my head. 280,000. $280,000. $280,000. Okay. Mr. Chair, I'm bringing up the um the
registry detail on that. Okay. Yeah, I just would like to have that as one of the here. I I apologize. I have one right here. Thank you. Makes it easier for us. June 24th, 2024.
And there's a variance. Do you know what that variance was granted for? Uh, I did not do the title. I didn't do the purchase, so I don't know. I do have some concerns because to me, you've got one curb cut. You're going to
be putting two, you know, two driveways basically next to each other. And I'm concerned about having so many driveways in a short location from a safety point of view. Um because it it looks like but things that you've submitted, they'll have separate
driveways on each of their parcels. Correct. Um I just the concern I have is it's the it's you know with the 20 ft of frontage and we don't allow um a flag lot which is in essence what this is without more
frontage uh than the 20 ft. So that that's a concern that I have. Um there may be a hardship, but I'm very concerned about a hardship for two lots versus one lot. Um given the closeness of the driveways um you know together
here plus the you know the two houses next to with the garage on the right hand side right there. You're going to have three driveways literally next to each other which I think creates a major from my point of view and Maple Street's a pretty busy street. Uh especially in
the morning and schools in session. I have some concerns about the uh the safety of three driveways. Bang bang bang. Um but they are they're not subdivision entrances. They are just they would both be for single family homes. I understand you got three
driveways, you know, probably going to be in in 60 ft. Just concern, you know, with the number of driveways that close together. Um the um the house, the existing house 286 has a circular driveway currently. I mean,
it's hard enough to get out anyways. I mean, and and this would make it very difficult. You know, you'd probably have a circular driveway and go in and out because you don't want to be backing out onto Maple Street. For sure. Right. Both of these would be built with areas to turn around toward the back. Correct. Uh
Mr. Chair, so I did find that variance that you're referencing. So it was a one-page document filed in 1974. Okay. It says conditional or limited variance. So I'm not really sure. You don't know what it was for. Doesn't describe what it's for. It just says who the owner
was, the property, 286 Maple. Was it Daniel J. Neand 1974? Not much else besides that. But there was never a house built on that. That's why I was just concerned whether or not they got a variance back back when and what what that variance was for.
That's all. There's a barn. Again, I I didn't do the title for this, but I believe it was all one lot at some point. Yeah. Yeah. But it got subdivided at some point, and it looks like that was done in 1990.
White Smith Associates divided into a non two non-conforming lots. Well, I guess my concern that that I have is when your qu client he he bought lot C, D, E,
and E on the plan, but now we've got two. So, I guess what happened to the other lot? It was recently approved as an ANR lot. Uh, and if you look at actually the
lot that has I'm sorry, uh, the plan that does not have the proposed building, you can see this. Yeah. No, it should. Yeah, you can see where the
lot line was and the ANR was done to give these the the maple frontage because prior the lot that is on the left when you're looking at the plan had only chestnut frontage and would never be buildable. So, this was done as an
ANR in order to give a chance of being they carved out the back land. I mean, they I'm just trying to figure out what was acquired. I mean, he bought lot CD and E. If I can approach, I'll point it out to you. I don't have that old plant
stuff. The dash. So, you can see some dash. Yeah, you can see this dash. So, this they bought here all the way through here. This lot, this was the line going to here. So, this had a a bigger So, this was all one lot
here. This was one lot. This lot ended right here. Correct. It was all on chestnut. Correct. And so this line was put in by the ANR in order to give some maple frontage to to this lot. Also, they probably gave you the square
footage you needed to have for building one, right? To get the square footage to get the square footage, I'm assuming, which should have now you would have it, but before you had one lot. I mean, this one lot,
this Maple Street was one lot at one time. Now we're subdividing it to get two lots out of it. That's my concern. Yeah. I mean, you know, it has the frontage on Chestnut Street, but it doesn't, you know, that's not real frontage. I mean,
per se. You can't access it because you got wetlands. And I understand the hardship, but I I really got two concerns on how um you know, is he is he sold out any of these parcels? No, it there's just the two parcels now
and so we're seeking variances for the two parcels, right? We we have now. So we've got two parcels, but before we had one parcel that was just on Chestnut Street, correct? And one parcel that was from Maple all the way back with that
dotted line. Right. Well, that that was prior to to my involvement, but that the 286 is also owned by Brown Meadow. So that's um but that was they bought that as a separate lot a separate lot 286 right
so that was not part of Oh you know what is that that's not right come up for sure guys I'm just trying to figure out what happened here you bought you bought the house along with this right y was one one but it was two lots it wasn't one
lot no it was it was already broken up it wasn't broken up on this surveyor said it wasn't broken up in the it was broken up when we bought it but it wasn't it had the house lot just for the record so the the issue Mr. to share was that um there was a
different owner before Brown Meadow that came to the planning board to ANR those two lots as separate um that plan was endorsed by the plane board but was never filed with the registry of deeds and hadn't been for a whole year. So they came to the planning board a couple months ago at a recent meeting and
offici so now it's been filed and they're legally two separate lots. Okay. But that that was not it was they were but my question is you originally bought C D and E and so I'm trying to define what C D and E were on the it was the house the
current house lot and then the two lots in the back with that dash line I showed you H that was D that was C and that was okay and C was acquired as a separate parcel and now you're grabbing this piece to grab another rod out actually I
can I can show you here. This is the old plan. So there's C, there's D, and there's E. Okay, we've truncated this here. And that was the but that was a 30ft frontage. So
this has been expanded a little bit. And this other one had less than you've now made it 20 ft. So you've taken some of the frontage from this parcel from that house. Yeah. I mean E's kind of always been E.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. C and D there. But he's taken a piece of C to create. Yeah. Yeah. More frontage for that. Yeah. Only maintain and do this to get the frontage on just those two.
Have you looked into whether or not But C had the house on it. Correct. Correct. And you paid 280,000 for a house plus you're hoping to get two building lots out of that. You know, I just I'm a little bit concerned that they may not have been
building lots. I might be able to find hardship for one lot, but I'm very concerned about a hardship for two lots. If I can add, um, yeah, the curb cut that's there is like 40 plus feet already with it has a a storm drain storm drain storm drain in front of it.
Um, there's a 6-in sewer line that the previous owner had installed by the DPW that runs all the way back to the barn that's stubbed up. Um, I have photos if you I think it was at that 19 whatever that 74ish
uh the very date was. It was like 1974. Yeah. I I mean I'm just trying to get the history on it so I have some understanding of what what we what you bought. Was brought in. He had telephone poles put in. Um I think his plan was to build two houses for his kids, but he
never obviously um made to that. Yeah, I don't know. I have no idea. I know Mr. Neil and I Well, let me just ask you, Mark, if if there's a if there are wetlands on both of these lots,
then why doesn't he not have an argument of, you know, well, he created his hardship? How? by doing what? By in terms he he didn't have two building lots before, per se. I mean, he couldn't get to the
access lot. I mean, you bought 280,000. You have a house and I don't know what the assessed value of the house by itself with the land. Now, we put about 125,000 into it. It was buried in shreds and Well, well, I mean, you're you're an
attorney and I'm certainly not, but My my question is is he has stopped from creating or or petitioning a board for relief on a variance because he's trying to do
an assemblage. Well, no, not necessarily. I the one of the issues that come that I just have is in terms of he bought the lots knowing what he had um at the time and you had um basically a lot with my understanding it
was less than you know you had like 30 ft of frontage that went with 286 it's been taken away and split up now into two building lots to make building lots. No, I understand the front the the access road. Yeah. And my concern is
whether or not that's just creating your own hardship. Well, lot E was the hardship is because of just hardship. Yeah. No, no, I understand that. But lot E was that didn't have a single buildable foot on it. No, it it clearly did. Yeah. No, we understand that. But
he bought from when I that's what I was asking, you know, what he bought. So, he bought a house and two lots, but the he's reconfiguring the house lot to take away some of the land to add to to create he's, you know, in my opinion,
he may be creating his own hardship for two lots. I I I could clearly understand one lot. Um, but I got a real problem with two lots. Um, trying to say, I got a real hardship. I got to get two lots out of this. um that that I got a
problem with because of the way he I mean he created his own, you know, new frontage um by taking it away from the house lot um and and taking away some of the back land from the house lot. Was trying to
use the best use of space here. These are two big lots that Well, yeah, the but it's just the narrow sections up front. If you cut this back stuff off, this back land is pretty useless. But if you just had these two and that was just
one lot, I wouldn't have a problem. I just think getting two lots on with that type of frontage with that many lots, I think, is creating your own hardship. But I mean, that's that's my opinion. I don't know what the other people feel. the seat belt.
Yeah. But is is there anything that requires your driveway to be on your front lot? I mean, aside from DPW giving you a driveway permit, is there anything in our bylaws that say Yeah, the frontage. But what it says that your driveway has to be on your frontage lot. Well, your access usually is on the
road. It usually is, but does it have to be? just take what we just that Lee Street project, but there was only one lot. That was only one lot. That's That's what I'm saying. I mean, just say I don't have a problem with one lot here. That's actually that's a great question. I went back and forth on this
with Rob um because I don't think the bylaws are clear on it when you're undergoing a review. Uh this is one of the things where I did not see an explicit requirement that the driveway has to be on the frontage because you can put frontages together. I understand
but you couldn't get to the lot other than Maple Street. Can I have one thing you should real quick? Uh so the definition of frontage in our zoning bylaw actually has a a tippet in there. Uh it says it's the common
boundary between that portion of a lot in the town of East Law Meadow and a street as defined here and after in this section which provides adequate physical access across said boundary to a potential building site. And that kind of mimics the same terminology that's used in the ANR handbook and the
subdivision control law for what constitutes adequate access and how you can apply that to frontage. Right? I mean, if the these are the ones where you have the the the case law that talks about where you got a loser frontage, you know, you're on a a state highway
that's a limited highway thing. I I front on the Mass Pike, so give me a 10-ft driveway and I want to build 10 lots off of that. I just that that's I you had uh basically two lots. He's
getting three out of it now basically is what he bought. He had one lot that was useless, which was the wetlands that he knew he had. And then he's just combined that. He's he's made he bought two lots and trying to get three out of them. And I think he's
creating his own issue. It was three lots. One of them was completely useless. Useless. What does it say? But he's he's just throwing that on three useful lots. I understand. That's what I I'm saying. I just don't think he's trying he's trying to do something that makes sense for him to do. No, I'm just
pushing the boundaries apparently of of uh of uh the zoning bylaw and I've known Mr. Begland a long time and he's not an unreasonable guy. So I guess I I tend to side with him. Let's keep going. Yeah.
No, I those are just my questions. I I my concern is just I think it's a little push to say, "Oh, I got two two lot hardship." Um, he basically had two, you know, two lots that he had on the street. Uh, one was a house lot and then
was another lot. And I don't have a problem giving him the other lot because I think he does have a hardship to get to that lot. Um, but to put put three driveways, you know, right next to each other like that. I just don't I just don't think it's safe. There are a
number of lots of towns as I mentioned that do have this configuration smaller frontage for the driveway. Oh, yeah. No, no, they happen to be next to each other. Yeah. Well, but here you end up now with three homes right next to each other with driveways. Isn't that one driveway is like 70 ft from the other
driveways. It's not connecting the three together. One, two, three. Like they line up the race. Yeah. No, no, I understand. But these two you've got I'm trying to read the the plan. You got three grand total of about 40 ft. Yeah. For a total. Can you do a common apron
driveway off the road? It's already It's already cut for an It's a big 40 foot apron right now with the storm drain right in front of it. Yeah. I mean, the problem is I think it was designed initially. You had 30 ft. They didn't have enough with you had to have the house lot. You took the footage because
before if you needed the frontage, you could have taken potentially more, but then he would have had enough frontage for the house lot. But but he needed he wanted to get something. So, he could have get a driveway for two lots. There was a lot of miscon cuz we thought that the road was cut for
that 40 ft already because we thought that that was the access but the sellers kind of I don't know they didn't mislead us but they kind of guided us to say oh there's it's already cut 40 ft and yeah I mean Mr. Nean hey actually um before you continue for can you sit a little bit closer to the microphone so I can pick you up you can bring a chair with
you if you need to. Yeah just because the microphones back there don't work as well. Appreciate it. Yeah. Um, so what I was saying is when we purchased it, the 40 foot section was
already carved out. Um, the storm drain was in. He showed us pictures of the sewer brought in and stuff like that. Telephone poles, etc. And we thought that um, if we went through the necessary process that we would be able to um, get these approved and that's why
we Yeah. I mean, I don't know what was the intent way back when they put it in. and it might have been intended to be a subdivision road at some point in the future, but they decided to build more houses right on Maple Street and, you know, didn't leave themselves
with enough frontage um to put a subdivision back there. Um and so now the option is you know, but I do have a concern because you end up with a house in two building lots. Um you know, I definitely see the hardship for one building lot. I don't
necessarily see it for two because that's he's created his own lots here. I mean these aren't the as I said this is a new configuration cuz it took 10 ft from the original sea
of the frontage here. And I I I agree with you. I mean do you guys all fellas can you not take 10 ft like that from the You can do whatever you want. I'm just saying. No, no, no, no. It just see But the concern is you're trying to say I got two lots. Well, you created the
the lots to create the hardship to say I got but you know the hardship applies for one lot. Like no problem. I don't see a problem with that. It's like you got a good chance of getting one lot tonight. Doesn't sound like you your chances of getting two are all that great.
And the rationale for that is you got to try put two driveways in a small space. It's a small space, but I don't think think you're creating the hardship that you get two lots. I just don't I think you bought basically what you bought was a house with an extra building lot.
That's what I think you bought. Now you're trying to get a house in two building lots. I mean, you knew what you were getting when you bought it. Maybe. But chestnut this the wetlands, it's useless. Yeah, that caused the hardship. Brown Meadow the applicant is
trying to do the best. No, no, I understand if he left the the the way the lots were. I would have no no problem if he wanted to combine the back part of C with the the the the useful piece to create a good size building. So, we we know it's all in good faith
and all of that. Problem is that it's a variance. Variances are pretty serious um forms of relief as you know because you're You're varying you're you're because you're you're asking us to bend against
the zoning law that the town Yeah. And it's a huge bend. I mean, this isn't just a and the risk is if you grant something like this, even if it seems relatively innocuous to people here or maybe a few of the members, you never know what's going to walk in here next
time. And then the we're stuck, you know, with with having set a precedent. So, it's better to air on the side of caution when you got something that's kind of, you know, and you could easily have somebody we haven't heard from anybody opposed yet, but this this could be challenged
fairly easily, I would think, if we got 80% 90% variance for two lots. We're still granting the variance, but it's less. Yeah, it's just it's a huge variance. 60% and 80%. Yeah, that's they're good
size variances. I just I don't know if you want to continue with public hearing, but Well, I want other people to speak. I mean, get their their opportunity. But I mean, those were my concerns when I looked at this was I just thought, um, you know, you knew what you bought when you bought it.
Um, now you're trying to get three lots out of it, buildable lots. You knew this lot here that didn't have any, you know, frontage on Maple Street was useless. Would it be possible for us to have a couple minutes to converse? Yeah. No, no, that's fine. But I I also want to hear from other people, too. That those
in favor and oppose. Uh if if we get at least the the people in favor, if they want to speak, if anybody else here to speak in favor of this hearing none, I'll I'll let you guys talk out in the hallway
and then we'll we'll listen to the, you know, let them talk and then we'll let Yeah. the neighbors want to speak in favor or just speak. Well, speak now. I'm looking for the opposition because nobody stopped forward. Just state your name and but um folks who want to speak are going to have to use that microphone
up there. So, if it's okay, Terry Levine, if you guys don't speak for a few minutes, appreciate it. And also, could you sign in, sir, so we know who you are? Thank you. So, my name is Michael 202. Um I got a question to the chair. Have
building permits been applied for? No. Well, they couldn't get them unless they got this this variance. All right. So, I tried to buy this property. I'm the one that submitted the ANR on behalf of the original owners. I was told point blank by the building inspector that building permits would be issued. I was also told by planning the department I
did not constitute because there was no hardship. So, yet here we are. So, I'm not for against I have no, you know, ill will against Mr. Mr. But are we setting a standard that is going to come up at a later date because
once this goes because there's other there's other properties like this in the town. Well, there are pieces. I mean, and that that was my concern because you have the frontage here that you know is is problematical. And as I said, the three
driveways in a row is very problematical to me. But I I you know it's I think we've done done other ones that that have had like 40 50 ft of frontage to get back for a driveway for other you know large pack tracks in the back. Um
but to to create two very narrow you know access to roads. All right. From a procedure point of view should the building permits have been applied for denied for reason? Well, they had a right to to to do whatever they wanted, but they would have probably been denied because it doesn't meet the zoning
requirements cuz your frontage that you have for the lots is a loser. So, if you approve it tonight, the building building inspector still have a right to not issue permits. No, we approved it tonight, you could get two building permits to build two lots, two houses on
that lot if we approved it. Okay. Now, someone could appeal that and say, "We don't think there's a hardship here. We think this hardship was created by the petitioner and he created his own bid. I mean I think you know he bought what he bought and knew he was buying a house
and at least one building lot one lot and he might be able to get a variance. How long ago you had before you I submitted that that was yours in two years year ago year and a half ago. Again, you had a year ago saying about a
year ago. Yeah. Risk I wasn't about to risk the money on an unknown, right? No guarantees. I certainly don't want to risk money. Yeah. I wasn't assured of. Yeah. No, a variance is a is a risky proposition. I mean, if you're going to buy something, most people would buy Atlantic edition. I'll buy it if I get
the variance. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other people speak? If I could just yeah clarify a point on that uh ground did was going was told to apply for a variance before the building permit you did try right
right no usually they that's how it works you get denied you get denied and then you got to get a variance to be able to get a building I don't think it was denied yeah take the pen oh yeah Mike can we um have the pen up here thanks
Okay. Kathy Hood, 505 Chestnut Street. Um, let me just give you a history of the property. So, um, Albert Hood owned the property. The I don't know what they're saying. ABCD, the three acres or
so parallel to 505. Okay. That was a gladiola field for many years. As a young girl, I would sell his gladiolas on the side of the road. The trees now have grown. And Mr. Neilan approached my uncle in the early '7s while he was
still alive and purchased the land. My parents were none too happy because my dad would have taken it just you can't do anything with it there. He sold the rights to the culbert. It takes all the water from Marsh um what is that street all those houses down there. It comes
around there's a stream. It comes in front of Chestnut to the left of my driveway. The cobra goes under Chestnut Street and flows out across the street from me. Mr. Nean bought it thinking that he was going to put eight houses in that property. Had it perked. My dad and I
watched him. I was I don't even know how old. 74. I was 16 maybe. And he needed back fill. He didn't There was not enough in the world to backfill it. Mr. Neil then tried to do similar to what
they're trying to do. I personally don't care. I'm more worried about it's a variance and it wasn't good in 1974. He was denied for two lots. You're correct. Somebody said he wanted to build them for his kids. He didn't never went forward cuz he was told no. My parents
bought that then. So if you're talking about Chestnut Street is absolutely useless. You can't drive a car down there. You're going to get stuck. It's not going to go through the property. If it rains, forget it. So to say we're
going to use part of this to go on Maple Street certainly it's changing the variance only helps the builder. It doesn't help the people that presently that are in this room tonight that live near there. So who are you representing?
Is it just for them or he's got one lap build on your one lot and walk away? Well, he's got to get a bearance built on that lot for the one lap. No, he wants two. I know I understand from your side of No, no, I you can't. No, I know I can't to say it. That's why I'm
sitting here going like either way to build either one or two because he doesn't have opposed to but I'm not going to see it. So, I'm not going to talk for the people that it's going to affect. Maybe they'll come forward and talk on their own. But,
so that's just to kind of give you a history of the property itself. It truly the Albert Hood piece is useless. And so to say that we can use it to benefit somebody that's over here makes no sense to me. And we've already
fought it. My parents bought it back in whatever 1974. You said somebody said it. Well, somebody got a variance. I don't know what it was for. That's Well, he tried to and then it didn't go through. Well, they went the recording and it got shut down. Well, he didn't go
forward with it. Yes. Yeah. He decided not to. So I, you know, that's why I wanted to look and see what that variance said. I'm pretty sure the variance from 1974 potentially might have been use variance. That's probably why I didn't specify what it was. I I
have no idea. It was one lot. Yeah. I mean, was it originally one lot? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. All I'm just saying is that's kind of the history of where it all started from, where it started to go and why
we're Thank you for the history. Thank you. Thank you. Any other people? Yeah. [Music] Just your name. All right. Good evening. Uh, my name is Dina Hoo and I reside at 272 Maple
Street. I have been a resident of East Long Meadow for 43 years. With regard to tonight's meeting, I feel that if a new owner would like to make changes to his or her property, those
changes have to abide by the written ESON metal bylaws. In this case, the applicant is required to have 100 ft of frontage with adequate physical access along Maple Street.
If the owner doesn't have the 100 ft of frontage, the request should be uh should not be granted. Period. The bylaws are written for a reason. Thank you. Gentlemen,
[Music] John. I reside at uh 461 Chestnut Street, which is the 5 acre property, I believe, just to the east of the property we're talking about. Um my only uh two things I'd like to mention before chief I mean um uh building inspector
Helier when I asked for permission to build on my I have a flag lot on both ends and I was told that the property couldn't be have been manipulated in any way and that I was grandfathered in a certain year before this 100 footage rule. Uh so I assume sir based on what
you said they're going to be asking for variance regardless tonight. Is that correct? They would have to get one or two. Yes. Okay. So, I assume that's right. I mean, because they didn't have 50 ft of frontage on that lot. They There's an exception under the Massachusetts laws. If you have a lot
that has 50 ft of frontage and 5,000 ft. They have the 5,000 ft. They just didn't have the 50 ft of frontage. Um, and they grabbed something to make a bigger lot, you know, frontage, bigger lot, but they
took it from the house that they bought um to create more of a frontage so they would have a little bit more, but they reduced it, but you know, they they still kept that lot. And that's what that's what at least one area, but there's a 50 50 by 100 uh if but it's
only for a single family home. It can't be homed with any adjoining item. here's it's all new to joining land and they could force you to what they call merge to to make it closer to performing and so that that becomes a discretionary type thing but there's there's the
exemption under Mass channel law is chapter 48 section 6 for lots that have 50 ft of frontage for single family use okay and and this goes to my second point uh the building inspector told me that the only thing I could build was either a single family home or a duplex
at the time I built my home in 2005 I just wanted those points to be expressed. Thank you. 272 Middle Street Uh, I said a couple things that I wanted to um
talk about. Um, the bylaw states 100 ft of road frontage. I I understand that there's Chestnut Street and that there's hard, you know, um you know, issues on on Chestnut Street, but it seems like we're talking about
not 100 feet, we're not talking about 75 ft, we're not talking about 40 feet, we're talking about 20 feet for each driveway. Um the you know I I am neighbors with you know Dan Neand um and I've been over
there several times. Uh the cutout that everyone is talking about was part of his original driveway so he could turn his car around because Maple Street is so busy. Um Maple Street is a safety issue that is right on a bend. Um,
it's a blind bend and you're going to be putting two new driveways in to an area that's already crowded with 305A Maple Street. Um, people zipping down and
around at 4:00, 5:00 in the evening or school buses in the morning. Um, it's just it's it's a it's really it's a traffic hazard. Um, so I think those things need to be taken
in consideration that after they had redd designated the area, the home and the land, so they could put these two spots in. I mean, really, you know, I know understand that we're talking about 40 ft, but each driveway is 20. So, I mean, what what is it 100t, 75, 40, 20?
What are we really talking about? Thank you. Any other people to speak one way or the other? Anthony Trovado, 268 Maple Street. I agree with you, sir. What you said
about the safety concern with three driveways on Maple Street. Now, I've lived there 43 years, and that street has gotten busier and busier. There's definitely a safety concern
there. Okay. And uh so, and the the idea of u giving a variance here, I mean, you're going to open up a can of worms here. Then who else is going to come up
here and uh you know make an argument? There's a reason why we have zoning laws. Okay. And they should be upheld. So I have to say thank you. Can I just say one more thing? I have a
family member living in the uh the house that's on 26 Maple Street right now. He's a single guy. Just just so it's on the record. He's a single gentleman who was living there. But what what's the difference if there was a family of four there with three cars in one driveway?
If there's three driveways with five cars, you know what I mean? If he if he was a family of five with three different cars in the driveway, what does that cause to the traffic pattern? if there's three cars in his driveway or one and there's two other you don't usually see three driveways within you
know within a 40 foot yeah agreed spot I mean you know sort of unique but even even apart from that I I I don't excuse me let me just make sure this thing stops talking apart from that
um safety is is an issue do. But I really look at this first as you're here for a variance trying to create two lots and you've got a case for for creating one.
In my opinion, you seems like you meet the criteria, unique soils, you've only place you can put the house, you need the you don't have the frontage, it's the only way to access the the site. That that seems to make sense to me. But
the second lot doesn't make sense to me just on just on the on that basis apart from the safety the and I think that the the we're not civil engineers up here. We don't design driveways. Um but it is reasonable for a zoning board to
consider safety 100% in something like this. So, I I think to cut to the chase here, uh it doesn't look like you you have the votes to get two and and you might want us think about either withdrawing and coming back, revise your
application for one and and and and um and and proceed that way. I mean, I know I'm just based on how I feel and and and how the chair feels and I speak too much. My my fellows haven't even chimed in. You guys are doing a
great job. What about the placement of the buildings and houses on these lots? Has anything been done for that? Why Why don't we have something showing where, you know, usually we see lot plan with where they would be. They don't want to have a long
driveway. cost a lot of money on the driveway. That'd be short of it. But if we could speak outside for minutes, we appreciate take a recess. I guess we got a recess.
Thank you. the applicants they are uh they have been swayed by your uh reasoning and would like to proceed with one variance and then it's just a question of how procedural yeah we would procedurally I think what we'd have to do is readvertise send out notice with the
plan so people could see exactly what's being proposed so they know where the driveway is going to be and how safe it's going to be you know cuz those are important to me in in in relation to safety point of view um to try to have it you you know, not right on top of
somebody else's driveway. Require a new ANR first. Well, I think it would be a new I assume you'd have to do an ANR plan that would, you know, make that one lot going back and eliminate the, you know, part of if you want to keep this
as a separate lot here and then have the this all be one lot up to, you know, bring it over, you know, leave that lot the way it was and then have that come up like this and then in out. and just eliminate this this middle lot line. So,
procedurally, um, can we amend the application? We can I think you can amend the application, but I think we're going to have to republish because people, you know, they have a proposal today for two and now they they have a right to they may or may not be against one. They may not want any. Mr. Chair,
can I um can I say something about this, mayor? So I I guess it would make sense for the board to continue the hearing to a date that is agreeable and and I guess achievable to to do the change that requested. We would revertise in the paper um two weeks and one week
beforehand as far as obviously you have to submit updated plans and maybe a written narrative too describing the changes just so we don't have to make you go through the whole transmitt process again and and whatnot. It would still be the same petition, but you're just amending it and we would re notify
the property owners. We tell them exactly where to find the updated materials for their review. Um, as well as run the paper. Wonderful. So, probably be the best approach. So, it's up to the board when they want to continue the hearing too.
Yeah. Um, well, you I think you're going to need to do an ANR. So, it's a 21 day. I don't know how quickly the plan can get done. So, it's got to get approved by the planning board first. Um, easy enough to erase the line. Yeah. No,
no, I understand. But you got to you got to submit the form A with the request to the planning board and they have 21 days to act. Yeah. And he could if he does it quick enough, he could probably get on for the 15th of July for the ANR. Um, so
anytime after that, uh, pass the date. No, I mean I don't want to speak for your client. You got the 4th of July coming up a big deal. So I guess it's just up to the board to pick a hearing date anytime after July 15th that works for everybody. Yeah, it the only issue I
have on an amendment though is I would like to get a waiver because we have a certain period, you know, we haven't closed the public hearing. So we have 90 days on the close of the public hearing, but you know the time frames I just don't want to be stuck with any of the time frames. Well, if the hearing is still open, you continue. Yeah. No, no,
no. I understand. But we, you know, my concern is just to close the hearing and make sure we have members cuz we've had problems in the past on vacations and one or two people are out. Yeah. You know, if one person's out, it's got to be in the end of this. So,
you want to try to do live? I it's up it's really their call. I mean if you guys be with people's vacation schedule because people usually wait in July and August. So I I right now I appear to be I'll I'll be around
I'm not available last two weeks in July. Okay. So or the first week in August. What about um August 11th? I'd be available that I think Charles um if by Zoom I'm definitely
available. I'm not sure. Okay. Otherwise, but Dan, are you going to be away or for which date? The 11th of August. I should be around for that. Okay. I'm away. You're away? Yeah. Yeah. So, that's for the day. What about the 18th
of August? The week after that? No, I'd rather do it sooner than later. Yeah, let's just put on the 11th if I got back. So, we'll continue it till the for a new petition. Um, we'll keep the public hearing open to allow them to
submit a new petition. Uh, but we need to have that petition in so we can do the publication the paper in a timely m, you know. So you'll have to have your non sub in and a revised plan showing the location of the one house. By what the 28th by the 18th of July we're going
to need everything including the ANR plan which and Jim had a question that you might want to answer. He has the old plan. So on on the old plan the front edge along Maple Street adds up to 148 ft
but on the current plan the front edge only adds up to 140 ft. So I don't know where the other 8 ft went. That's what they took. No, cuz you got 20 + 20 + 101 is 141. 118 + 30 is 148. So there's an
extra 7 ft somewhere that may be to your client's benefit. I think they were keeping that in the middle. I think Mike said he was going to keep that in the middle of the two drive. No, that doesn't your total thing is like 40.17
and you have 100 You might want to look at that, but it might be to your benefit. There might be 56 or 54 plus 12. 18. Is that 112 or 118? 112. It looks like an eight to me because 11 came off to make this. Yeah, that would make sense because these are
20 point 40.17. 101. That's a two. Yeah, that's a two. Hey, did someone tell you that's a two? That's a two. That's a one. Your eyes are better than mine. It's a tough. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'd like
to get a blow up cuz I'm getting old. Good deal. Glasses. Stop wearing them because I never have the right ones. I just don't wear any now, you know. So, um, did you guys formally take your vote yet to continue?
Take a motion to continue at 6:30 p.m. here. The dance mic cuz I tell you August 11th. Did you make a motion? I did. Okay. I'll second that motion. All in favor? I have a question. Yes. Yes. Is he done? We're we're continuing the
hearing. We're continuing the hearing. Give them an opportunity to submit a question before you continue it. Yeah. Or can I ask? No, you can ask to I'm new to this. So, the variance right now that's on the floor is for two homes,
correct? And we're you're saying we won't give you. So we're still changing the variance even if you give them the permission. Well, we don't know that we're going to grab the one. I said he he has a better case for one. I don't think he has a case at all for two. He's
coming in. No, I just saying I just want the audience to know. So we're not in favor of changing the variant for one or two houses. No, no, no. And that's you have a right to say we don't want any houses back there as long as I'm like wait a minute. So
the one various change would have given him two. Yeah. I mean we're not giving him anything tonight. You got nothing in favor of a varian change anywhere in this town cuz there like some people have said earlier there's stuff that's happened in this town that should have never happened.
Right. So I get that. So unless you pay attention especially for people that live around the area. We're nice people. We're just follow the law. No, no. I mean, and you have every right to say we don't want any homes in here. No, it's it's too much of a variance.
Been there since 1957. We got a vote on the floor here. We should probably finish up one point for you. Um I I'll have to talk to Smith Associates about getting in for the 15th. Should I just communicate with the planning office? Yeah.
And you should if the plans are done before that Thursday before the meeting or that Friday in my office, you'll be on the agenda. And for push out that push it out. Yeah. But I don't see any issues. Yeah.
So, we have a motion. It's been seconded. Yeah. And could you repeat the date and time just so that the 11th of August at 6:30 p.m. at this location to give them an opportunity to submit an alternate plan. And once we know what the alternate
plan, everybody else should have a right to know what the alternate plan is and comment on it. They may want none. They may, you know, but and we'll have that plan available at the planning office once it's completed for folks to check out physical copy. It'll be available online as well. Mark, I don't think you called
the vote yet. Yeah. No, I called the vote. All in favor? I I I. So, it's continued. The public hearing is still open for comment. He's going to maybe propose, maybe not proposed. That's his call. Um I can't guarantee that he will
get uh a variance or he won't get a variance. Um but we knew for sure he wasn't going to get he wasn't going to get two lots for sure. tonight. Hey Josh, three weeks better. Just quick side.