Um, and I will call the zoning board of appeals meeting to order. Um, Emma Lily, would you please go on mute? Um, I have with me in the room from the zoning board of appeals, John Banerys, Georgia Pendagas, Colleen Moore, and
myself, Sarah Melish. We have only four people here tonight. Um also in the room is Brian Solacey uh the leazison for um we will be opening with the continued
public hearing um for two blocks away. >> I move to open the continued public hearing for the application of Benjamin B. time an attorney on behalf of Samuel and Tracy Burn of 1 to3 Blossom Lane for the appeal of an administrative decision
under section 7.4.5 4.5 of the zoning bylaw dated November 13, 2025 regarding a request for zoning enforcement filed with the building inspector on October 30th, 2025 for action against structures,
conditions, and uses which are not in compliance with the zoning bylaws or special permit granted by the ZBA on September 5th, 2029 at two, excuse me, 2019
wish um at two Blossom Lane Assessor's Map number 17, lot number 12 in District E with a town clerk on December 15, 2025. Do I have a second to open the public hearing? >> Second. >> Georgia seconds.
>> Um roll call vote. John >> approve. >> Georgia. >> Yeah. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> And Sarah, yes. Um, we did receive a letter from Miss Julia Barry on behalf of Rodney and Kyler Smith, um, property owners of Two
Blossom Lane, responding to the issues raised in the field. Were both members of the board received that? >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask Mr. Simon um to provide some opening comments regarding including the his a
brief history of the background um since the special permit was granted in 2019. I will then offer Miss Barry an opportunity to provide opening comments um with respect to the property history. Um we'll then discuss each of the four
issues separately so we don't get confused and go through them one by one and give both Mr. time and Miss Barry an opportunity to speak separately on each issue raised. Um we'll also be taking u public comments.
Okay. Um go ahead Mr. Time. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Benjamin Thyman. With me is my colleague attorney Study Vancat who will also be participating in the presentation on some of the four issues. Um it's nice to see at least two of you um who I think we got to spend
some time together three years ago uh on this project and I think sales as well put on the board at that time. >> Um so I appreciate the opportunity to provide sort of some procedural context and I'll try to keep it as succinct as I
as I can. Um a a special permit was granted uh for the the redevelopment project at Two Blossom Lane in 2019 by this board. It was a special permit under um under chapter 48 section six
which is uh with respect to extensions of prior non-conforming structural um structures or uses. So like many properties it's an undersized many properties in Manchester undersized lot with u grandfathered prior
non-conforming um structures but the expansion of that project required a special permit. And I know the ZBA is quite familiar with with that standard, which is uh whether or not the um extension of prior non-conforming uh structures or uses will or won't be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So the 2019 special permit um was u applied to a particular project that the um Smiths and their representatives brought forward to this ZBA in 2019. And the ZBA decided that
that particular project was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and it approved it. And as the board knows in in its 2019 decision, it it said you can build that project. And one of the conditions of that decision was that the project be built
in conformance, not with some future building permit or anything else, but with the special permit plans that were part of that project. And as we get into some of the issues, we'll we have copies of some of these relevant materials that we'll ask to put into the record uh as
we present them this evening. So that part of that case has been now litigated at the Massachusetts Land Court. And as part of our ZBA appeal submission in this round, I think it was dated
December 15th of 2025, we include a decision from Judge Michael Ve in the land court that preceded the trial where he um sort of separated some of the issues. So there were some issues relating to the two blossom lane project
that were tried in November of last year, a 4 and a half to five day trial in front of Judge Vy. And then there were issues that Judge Vy said for reasons that he explained in the decision that I attached to the um appeal this time uh would not be heard
in that trial, but that could be brought back to the CPA. So the issues um that were tried just as a brief overview were really three um they were the size of the inground pool, the size of the pool
house and the um elevation changes to the site. And for the couple of you who were here, and I know you've had many cases since then, so it may I'm sure it's not like front of mind, but all of those issues were um joined and debated
thoroughly um front of the ZBA. Judge Vy has not issued a decision with respect to that trial. Um he may, you know, any time. Um we don't know when he'll issue a decision. And none of the lawyers who were involved in that trial, which include um attorney Vanc, myself,
attorney Barry, who I I think is behind me on the Zoom, um >> um none of us, you know, know how that's going to come out. Um it could be that Judge Vy says that the ZBA's decisions with respect to the pool and the pool
house, which were that that the Smiths did not need to reduce them to the sizes that were in the special permit plan. It may be that he says that's okay and that that can stand. It may be that he says that the elevation changes that the ZBA
um did not go as far as we had urged it to go in 2022 and three when we had the hearing. Um he may say that that no more mitigation needs to occur there and that the elevation issues and the grading issues did not require a topographical
change special permit which was the issue in that case or it may be that he says we were that the burns are correct and that uh the ZBA made an error on one or more of those issues and it could be somewhere in between. None of us know how that's going to turn out. It may be that you see that those issues again
based on Judge Bay's decision. and it may be that you don't um the four issues that he has that he did not have a trial about um and that we're here today to discuss and I won't get into them in depth because um we'll do that uh later
um in accordance with the chair's um framework which certainly seems to make a lot of sense um are the pool house use so as distinct from the pool house size um you know the judge in his wisdom decided to separate those issues. So,
we're back to talk about pool house use, which is equipment use, which we say was the authorized use under the 2019 special permit plan, versus a recreational and social gathering use. Uh, that's issue one. Issue two um are
the um parking spaces that are have been designated by cobblestones uh on Blossom Lane within the front yard setback of to Blossom Lane. That's the second issue that Judge Vay said go back to the ZBA and run through the process there.
Um the third issue uh is outdoor lighting and the fourth issue is the second floor deck which is another issue that you know received plenty of debate back in 22 and 23 under a similar argument that that
second floor deck and we have you know the evidence to to show you tonight on this was not part of the special permit plan that was approved was additional structural expansion that worsen nonconformities and therefore needed a special permit didn't
get one because the plan that was approved set the limitations of what could be built and and it did not include >> Yes. Sure. Yes. >> So that's the fourth issue is the second floor deck. Um, and so we appreciate everyone's, you know, patience and
attention with with this case and, um, happy to answer any questions now or later about some of the procedural things that have had us come back here now, um, you know, many years after the original special permit and several
years after the, uh, last CPA hearing. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. U, Miss Barry, do you have any opening comments you wish to make? >> Yes, I do. Can you hear me? >> We can. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much for the time. I just want to briefly clarify a couple of things that Mr. Thyimman said because
he's omitted a few things. I think it's important for this board to keep in mind throughout this hearing that this is not an appeal of the special permit you granted in 2019. That appeal became final. Nobody appealed it. The Burns themselves
approved it. It was uh recorded. The project was built. devel received the building permits required. I see that Mr. Orlando is here as well online and should be able to answer any questions you have that way. This has nothing to do with the special permit. What it has
to do with is Samuel and Tracy Burns decision to take a zoning enforcement request to the building inspector to deal with certain things that they didn't like. And what Mr. Thyman was referring to earlier was already happened and is done. And judge Vy in
the court decided when he was determining this these issues that these four issues had not been correctly procedurally raised and he didn't have jurisdiction over them. He gave no decision or impression one way or the other about these things and the
decision that he has before him after trial also has nothing to do with these things. That that decision also has nothing to do with the special permit appeal. It was a trial over the Burns request for zoning enforcement that the
building inspector denied because certain things had been modified and he had uh determined that the project was substantially in compliance and this board upheld his decision and that's what's before Judge Bay. Yes, a 4 and
1/2 5day trial on that request for enforcement. It has nothing to do with the special permit. This is not an appeal of the special permit. So what you have before you tonight is Samuel and Tracy Burn's appeal of the use of the pool house which there for which
there is no special permit requirement. The second floor deck for which there is no special permit requirement. The exterior lighting for which there is no special permit requirement.
and the area on the Smith's property adjacent to Ba Blossom Lane that is being used just like the Burns shoulder area of their property is being used for decorative purposes in a planter and it could be used for overflow parking just
like theirs is used for overflow parking because I'm sure you're all aware and from the site visit last weekend that there's no space for parking anywhere in Blossom Lane for your Amazon trucks etc etc. What Mr. didn't mention about the trial that we
just had and that is Judge Vay decides in our favor both the town's favor and the Smith's favor is that the Burns have failed to set forth any claim of credible harm to their interests from any of the things they're complaining
about. In other words, smack dab before the court is the core issue of whether they are actually persons agrieved by any of these things. and we feel confident that he's going to say no, they're not. And that's going to get rid of those items. Although I, you know,
there are other steps after that. But right now, for procedural purposes, Madam Chair, and thank you again for asking, this is a separate appeal of these four items, none of which, as Mr. Orlando determined in his decision when
he was requested by the Burns to take an enforcement action against the Smith on these four items, the lighting and whether putting pool furniture in a pool house means it's not a shed anymore or some other use and whether a second floor deck is governed by a special
permit. All of those things, that's the core issue for you is whether this board has jurisdiction over any of these things. That's the real question. Thank you for the time. >> Um, does anybody have questions on the
history of the case or procedural things before we get to the underlying items? >> From what I recall, >> yep, >> the pool house was constructed and then it was larger, >> right? So, that that was torn down and it was rebuilt to its current state.
That's I read that today. I just want to make sure because I remember that years ago. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. Should I address that? >> Yes. State your name and address, please. >> My name is Rodney Smith. My wife Carlos Smith is here. We represent you Lawome Lane. Um, you are correct. It was a slightly larger pool house that was
built. That became an issue. We took that down. We rebuilt a smaller pool poolhouse under 200 square feet only after the building inspector and the zoning board approved those plans. And we built it after it was approved exactly the way that it was approved.
>> Yep. And then so I drove by the property today. Obviously there's snow everywhere. Um the parking space is like the letter I'm reading referred to as on street parking but that's in fact on the property. It's part of the driveway. Correct. It's not on Blossom Street.
>> That is an apron. >> There's a little nuance. So our property line which we requested the special permit for comes out to that stone wall with the decorative iron railings. That's the end of our property. We then own we share ownership of Blossom Lane
with all the neighbors. We own out to the middle of Blossom Lane adjacent to our property and that's where we have cobblestone decorative aprons on each side of the walkway to the front door and we have flower pots on there. There were times where people park there. There are times when people park on the
other side of the road. There are times the Burns's service people will park on our side on the cobblestones. So, we put flower pots out there and the the burns also have uh blue stone or cobblestone and they have flower pots along that
apron so that those areas that they contend are parking are not intruding in Blossom Lane. They don't block Blossom Lane and they don't go into Blossom Lane. >> Thank you. >> And then just one last thing, the
the outdoor lighting, that's I guess the issue here. Are those the gas lights along the wall? >> I can tell you the outdoor lighting that we have is the gas lanterns on the posts. We also have typical outdoor lighting on each side of the doorways
around the property. We have some flood lights towards the back of the house that face the driveway and the backyard and over the pool. And then we have low low um low voltage lighting in the landscaping and in the beds that shine up on some columns and trees. There's no
lighting on the property. That's atypical for any residential property. It's all pretty standard, but exactly what they're complaining about, I think it's all of it. >> Thank you. >> Any other broad questions? Okay.
>> Um, so the first issue is the use of the pool house. um which I think we're all aware aware of
where it's located. Um let me just read what the building inspector's decision was because that's what's being appealed is what the building inspector said. and his response to the use of the
pool house was is the accessory structure on the east side of the property was approved as part of the special permit process with the zoning board of appeals in 2019. The use of the structure did not require a special permit, nor were there any
conditions in the special permit that restrict the use of the structure. It is my determination that the structure can be used for any customary accessory use allowed in the residential district and use of the structure is not not a
violation of the applicable zoning law. Okay, Mr. Thyman, let's be somewhat brief, too. >> Sure. Um, you want to go ahead and speak to the pulleys? >> Yeah. So the
>> could you just state your full name for the record? >> Okay. Attorney for the Thank you. >> So the special plans uh do not mention any pool house. Uh they mention equipment shed. Uh the pool house which
was built um is about 17 ft larger than that was permitted was equipment shed. It houses a it has a fireplace. I believe it has speakers. It also has seating lounge chairs. And I have some pictures here.
Um, yes, please that sort of show the use of the B house. for the um documents that we hand out to you, Madam Chair, we'd like to enter into the record. And uh I think in some cases we
only have three Thank you. >> I just want to request on the record, this is Julie Barry, that uh Mr. Thyman or Miss Vanc provide copies of whatever it is they're giving the board that wasn't part of their original filing.
>> Yes, ma'am. We will. So um if you can see those pictures there's you know um lawn chairs there's fireplace essentially a social gathering recreational space given the nature of that structure that
is one for entertainment with speakers and fireplace and a place for gathering the noise that it creates in fact has had an impact on det's wide enjoyment of their own property. Um, this place is clearly not for storage of equipment,
which is what the special termit says, an equipment sh. Um, >> that makes sense. >> I do have some videos showing the mouse noise impact and from the burns
properties I'd like to play and show. >> I feel like the board of health But >> we're gonna we're gonna we're going to enter the videos into the record. >> Yeah. >> And you'll be free to to to look at them. Um
>> I mean, people do are are allowed to use their backyard. >> Yes. >> But the point is, and and this is where Inspector Orlando got it backwards when he said, "Well, nothing in the decision in 2019 prevented a pool house." That's backwards. The decision set the
limitations of how a homeowner could expand his prior nonconforming structures and you cannot build an accessory pool house on a non-conforming lot is >> well no it is respectfully
>> it it is it it is not in the appeal you gave us >> no pool pool house use madam chair you it structures and uses as I said at the beginning This the structure and the size was was litigated. We're judge bay is going to decide that one way or the
other. But use is also some you cannot expan extend a prior non-conforming use without a special permit saying yes you may have this use in that case a pool house that creates
impacts. Instead, this board in 2019 said you can have a 180 ft pool equipment shed to place the equipment. So, it's really and you know, just to step back, you have the Smiths who are
here and their their council who have repeatedly said, "What is the big deal? Why are the Burns concerned about this?" But please think back to 2019 when it was the Smiths that came to you and their representatives saying, "This is a limited project. We know we need permission.
>> Excuse me. That's not before us. >> Um I take I I understand that's your position, but from the very beginning in 2022 and continuing today, we're we're saying correct. We're not appealing the 2019 special permit. We want you to
enforce the 2019 special permit. You didn't do it in 2022 and 2023, and we're asking you to do it with respect to these issues that Judge Bay has said um are still live issues. It's my understanding that the original special
permit was with respect to section six structures. There was nothing in that application with respect to use, >> right? Because they didn't ask for it, >> right? >> They don't they don't get it by default. They have to they have to any expansion
of a prior non-conforming structure or use needs a special permit. But it's my understanding that if the special permit was only with respect to the structure, it doesn't automatically bring the use underneath
it, >> right? But it it goes in the other direction. Again, it's >> Miss Barry speak to this. >> Uh Madame Chair, thank you. You are correct. There isn't a use that the the board was required to review this for
use. And by the way, Judge Vy dispensed with the difference between pool house, pool shed. It's all referring to a small structure adjacent to the pool, which is a social gathering space that is less than 200 square ft. And under the Manchester zoning bylaw or the state
building code, there's no permit required for that structure. I believe it is 197 square ft. And the evidence at trial showed that's the case. And the evidence at trial showed that it complied with the height restrictions that this board had addressed in its
previous discussions. So the structure was raised for purposes of lock coverage issues before the board, not whether and how it could be used. There was that that is all something that's come about by way of trying to regulate what the
Smiths do in their backyard around their pool. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. just like to submit the thumb drive into the record. So the these are videos showing rule house use which is one of the four issues >> and judge bay didn't dispense with
anything. He hasn't rendered a decision in the case. I will I would like to ask that a copy or Ben that you tell me what videos you're referring to because I can tell the board right now that several of those videos you can't see the pool
house so they're not relevant and we ask the board to keep that in mind until I have an opportunity if necessary to provide any further information >> after the hearing tonight. Attorney Barry will email you um everything that we've that we end up submitting today.
Now, in um in our decision on the appeal um from August 8th of 2022, um we will be denied the appeal.
We talked about the bullshed and as says it doesn't matter whether it's called a crew shed or the house is an accessory structure. Um we were aware there was a chimney a fireplace. um you know and we didn't raise concerns
at that point in time and we approved the structure with the reduced size with the chimney with the fireplace in it which says to me if you're going to have a fireplace you're going to have people in it and I
struggle to find the difference between having a small pool house it's small we looked at It's not very big. You can't fit many chairs in it. And I don't see that there
would be a difference. Actually, I think the the pool house would help the noise because they could do have the same use on the patio and patios are not subject to any um regulations. >> Well, I mean, I think this picture is
helpful because it shows it's looks like there's like a rollup window or a blindfold. >> There's the the nano door. Banano doors, whatever you call them. >> Yeah. >> So, it looks like these >> open up. >> They're So, these these tables and chairs, they're opened to the pool area,
>> right? >> And by having the pool house there, it creates more privacy and less disturbance for the neighbors. And if that structure wasn't there, then you'd just be seeing a set of tables and chairs out there anyway. >> So, I don't I don't understand how this creates an issue. >> Does the pool house have bathrooms?
>> Uh, it doesn't anymore. Does it have a kitchen? >> Uh, it doesn't. When it was 480 square ft, um, it had a bathroom. Um, as part of this process, it was uh downsized to keep the lounge and the chimney, but it eliminated the bathroom.
>> Okay. In my my personal opinion or experience is that with accessory structures, the concern there is after the permit's issued and people go about their day, is that going to turn into an apartment or a second living area or the in-laws are coming. Are we going to beat
this up? Now we have a little guest room, we have a bathroom, we have a kitchen. None of that's happening here. If anything, this is just a a stone structure with a fireplace. But I don't know if we're on opinion yet. Well, and I think that
um under our bylaw, an accessory structure is limited to residential uses. I don't think this board has ever placed restrictions. um residential uses for
>> you know if I wanted >> are excluded in the bylaw for either a primary residence or an accessory structure >> like if we approved a shed we're not saying okay you can only store wheelbarrows in there you cannot have a paint you can't store your paint in there you can't have a little painting
yeah you can't have a she shed it needs to only >> if we are doing that detail that's just that's >> way overzealous yeah that's not zoning at that point Okay. Um,
let's go on to the outdoor light. So, for outdoor lighting, um, there's just extensive lighting around the portal perimeter of the Smith's property. Um mainly they um they have gas lanterns at
the front of the property. Those are flicking glass gas lanterns. There's also flood lights um look like flood lights on the upper level of the house near the deck on or near the deck. Um there's also extensive landscaping lighting. Um
>> what section of the bylaw is um speaking to the outside? That would be section 6.3.4 and section 6.3.5. So for example, section 6.3.5 says flickering and flashing lights. There should be no flickering or flashing
lights. >> That is under site plan review. Correct. The section of the of the bylaw that's the site plan review section of the bylaw. Is that correct? >> I'll have to check that. Um I have
>> it's >> it's my understanding it's a section that was added after the special permit was issued and the site plan review was not required when the special permit was issued. It was my understanding that the
resident can add any type of outdoor lighting they want any time they want which doesn't require a building permit. doesn't require a special permit. So, you wouldn't need a site plan review unless you were applying for a special a new special permit.
>> Right. 6.4.3 is in the um special permit and site plan review section of the bylaws. >> Our position with respect to the lighting. It goes back again. I I realize that you um have stated you disagree with this, but when the
applicant, the Smiths came to this board in 2019, they had had to come hatin and say, "Here are the things we would like to add to our property that will make this project not detrimental to the neighborhood." And if they wanted, you
know, lighting, which would be as obtrusive as it's turned out to be for the neighbors, they should have put that in their site plan because the special permit in 2019, which we are again asking the board again to enforce um said you can have
your expansion project, but it must be confined to this plan that we the ZBA has decided is not substantially more detrimental than you could. >> And and I'll disagree with that. I I think that when we review a special permit, we're talking solely with
respect respect to the structures. We're looking at changes in footprint. We're looking at adding masses to existing non-conforming structures. We are not looking at lighting on a residence. We never have. And you know, so I don't
think you can argue that the lighting was part of our special project. Um, Miss Barry, do you have any comments? >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. No, not really. Just to say that um the to reiterate about the bylaw not being part
of of applicable at the time of the special permit. And also, you know, that there's no there's no flashing or blinking light. So, those wouldn't be applicable anyway. You don't call a gas lamp a flashing or blinking light. we're
clearly referring to something else. So, the board I correctly I agree with the the board that it doesn't have jurisdiction over this. >> Um, let's move on to second floor deck and balconies. >> I'm sorry. Go back to Mr. Orlando's
decision on outdoor lighting. He says the provisions of section 6.3.7 of the zoning bylaw cited in your enforcement request were not included in designing zoning bylaw at the time the project is permitted and therefore are not applicable.
The next item is the second floor east deck and balcony and Mr. Orlando says the second floor east deck and balcony are shown on the plans approved for the building permit granted on August 13, 2020. Your request for zoning
enforcement now is not timed. Additionally, the deck is not a substantial change from the plans approved by the ZBA, nor does it increase the non-forming nature of the structure. Mr.
um the special plans that were applied for and that were approved simply did not depict the tax. Um there are some the plans that we'd like to to place.
>> So these are the uh the special permit plans that were submitted to the board that board's decision in 2019 said needed to be um imported with. And then the single sheet is the site
plan itself. That was the That gets the special permit approved there and um the application plans show in the elevation
um and we've you know gone over this before the board showed really that what you just read Madam Chair from Inspector Orlando about what the special permit plan showed for a deck and then it didn't
depart or something from what's there. uh is completely not the case because as you can see in those special permit plans um there is a sloped roof shown on the eastern side of the building and instead
there was a deficold there and this board said to the Smiths you could build this project according to these plans that would not be substantially more detrimental and they built something else.
>> But in our decision in respect to the prior appeal, >> we stated house with respect to front setback re in which we denied the appeal. Rear setback and roof height based on a finding the dimensions are consistent with the 2019 special permit
and the east second floor deck in design are cons consistent with the approved August 2020 building permit. Neither of which was appealed. >> Right. >> So, we addressed the fact that there was a second floor deck. >> You did. And and we appealed that
decision in 2023, >> but the court wouldn't hear it because they said they didn't have jurisdiction. So, >> that's not that's not the case. The the court said the trial that we had in November was was on our appeal of your 2023 decision. And in the as as is shown
in the pre-trial decision that I attached with this appeal, Judge Vy said with respect to the four issues, I'm not going to hear them as part of this trial. And he explained why, but he said they are dismissed without prejudice.
And then he further clarified before the trial that we could um do exactly what we're doing now and exhaust our admin administrative remedies a new by going to inspector Orlando and then here
we are coming coming to you. So, this is all part of the appeal of the 2023 decision which declined to enforce your 2019 special permit decision. >> Um,
is there any difference between what was submitted and what was built other than the addition of a real? >> Yes. Um, could I borrow that for a
second? Thank you. If you look at um the plans and you go to the third page, the south exterior elevation. And again, these are the plans that the
Smiths and their team submitted to get the special permit in 2019 where it says bold outline indicates envelope. So, as you can see, that is very clearly showing a sloped roof >> going down. Very >> sloped. >> Well, it's certainly not a deck. It's
not It's not any deck that I would ever want to stand on. Um or it end up on the ground. So, that's not a deck. And so, it's not just about an addition of a railing. It's about a second floor deck that was installed um that creates
certain privacy issues that we've talked about before. Um, and that was not authorized. >> Madam Chair, could I address one issue? >> Go ahead, Mr. Smith. >> Just to clarify, the plants that you're looking at in that sloped roof, that is the original house that was there, not
the newly not the proposed house. And when we put the when the architects put the lines around, they were showing the envelope of what was going to be constructed, which basically showed that the entire original house was going to be touched. And it showed the new
footprint of what was going to be built. But that structure you see is the original house, not the detailed plans of what was going to be built within that envelope that they put the the dark line around. So that sloped roof is the sloped roof of the original house, not
the new house. >> And there is no quote unquote detailed plan that ever showed a deck uh as part of the special permit proceedings. >> Uh actually, it's called a building permit plan as Mr. Orlando referred to in his decision and the special permit.
There's no special permit requirement for a second floor deck. Every house in the neighborhood has one. >> Okay. The other clarifying point that I would make is if you look at the plans, you'll see on the east side there is a one of those dark bubble lines that
comes out on the east side where the deck is that shows the envelope of what would be a roof over a door because the deck was going to be built there. And we had to we showed where we would have a bump out that would have the covering
over the door. So again, it was just a rough design of the original house with the outline of where the construction would happen. Now, you al also referenced balconies. When we were on the site visit, um what we saw was
a roof with a very shallow exterior detail around the roof. We did not see any balconies. What balconies is he referring to? Um, I mean, I think I'm talking about it, but yeah, we call it a balcony. It's synonymous with a deck. I'll point out
as well that we, for the record, I think this is important to have in the record that we did request of the Smiths through their council um that um that the site visit that you conducted on Saturday include a walk up to the second
floor deck. And uh the Smith's Council refused um our request to allow that. So, Milish, I'd like the opportunity to respond to that. >> Okay. Yes, Miss Barry. >> Thank you. This board conducts its site visits at its discretion and under its
authority. They are supposed to last approximately 15 minutee long. They are noticed to the public and that means anyone can attend. This is not our appeal. It is the Burns appeal. And what my clients can see out their window is
not relevant here. And Mr. Thyman knows it. There was that was a an an effort to harass the Smiths because there's no reason and with all due respect to this board. There's no reason to have people trumping through their house for Mr.
Thimman's appeal on behalf of his client. We had a discussion about that. I said I didn't want this board being given any direction as to what it could or could not see. And yes, we did not agree to people walking through the house.
And and I will say that um the ZBA site visits, we never go into office. They're always external. Never. Right. Okay.
Parking spaces on Blossom Lane. Um Oh, wait a minute. Hold on. Let me read what the building inspector said. etc. Mr. Orlando said nothing in the zoning bylaw at the time the project was permitted for now requires any approval
for parking on Blossom Lane. Of note, section 6.1.5 cited in your enforcement letter was not in the zoning bylaw at the time the project was permitted. In any event, that section applies to off- streetet
parking and provides parking is allowed within the driveway for residential uses. The driveway has been constructed in accordance with the building permit issued on August 13, 2020 and related plans and your request for zoning
enforcement now is not enough. And so, and I know Miss Vanc will will um follow here, but there unfortunately, Inspector Orlando, with with all respect, completely missed the boat because we're not talking about the
driveway. We're talking about the quote unquote decorative parking spots that are in the front yard setback of the And as part of the um Judge Bay decision
pre-trial that we submitted with our application, he indicated that a reason why he didn't believe the parking spot issue was ripe or within his trial jurisdiction at that time
was um because they hadn't been fully built out at the time of our earlier proceedings. So here our argument is twofold. One, the one I've made repeatedly tonight and and basically since 2022 about what was and what the
limitations of the special permit decision were. And secondly, that when the parking spots within the front yard setback of the Smiths were put in, they were governed by bylaws that we've cited
in um our papers that prohibit um parking and front yard stuff. I thought that the property lane for purposes of calculating
all the setbacks used was kind of in line with the grant posts at the end of the driveway and therefore just a few inches in front of the front stone wall. If that's the case, then this parking would not be within the
front setback. It would be along on the street along the street which would not be covered under the zoning bylaw beyond street parking.
>> Well, um >> looking at Sorry, I wanted to compare this plan you gave us. I'm looking at the property line here. It looks like these two square columns that are marked on the plan. I'm just trying to correlate it with the photo. Wouldn't that be the entrance to the
>> Yeah, there's a stone. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I think these two are these two and they're beyond >> they're >> they're inside the property. >> They're on the street side of the stone wall. The stone wall goes along here and
the prop the parking spaces are here. >> Okay. Got it. Yes. >> On the street side of the stone wall. >> All right. >> We couldn't really see them because the snow was >> got it weren't loudly. >> But your your your point, Madam Chair, it doesn't you know it doesn't cure even
if I were to agree with you and I don't. I think that the the center line of Blossom Lane is the uh Smith zone up to the center line. Um, but even if I agreed with you on that point, it doesn't cure the problem that the special permit again needed to have
approved the things that would increase nonconformities. The other point I'd like to make briefly on the parking spots. Um, during the trial, at some point during the trial, the Smiths began putting planters um in those spaces.
And I think they I mean it seems to me that given what I'm hearing from the Smiths about these not these being decorative, these being spaces that apparently they claim they don't intend to advertise as parking spots, then it
shouldn't be that big of a stretch for the door to strictly enforce the rules as we've laid out and say that there shouldn't be parking there. I also want to point out, and the members probably know this from either the sidewalk or
just knowing the street, that this claim that somehow the Burns visitors and guests parked there is completely bogus. The Burns have ample parking on their larger lot >> in the front setback. >> I'm sorry. >> In the front setback. >> Well, no, it's their parking goes all
the way to the to the stone wall. >> Yeah, but they didn't ask to do an expansion that required a special permit. Those are all grants and other uses. So >> we don't rule on any landscaping, anything like that. Our special permit
is with respect to the structures, not with respect to landscaping parking or anything like that. So for you to say that the parking was part of the special permit, I would respectfully disagree. >> All right. Well, we'll agree to
disagree, but I do I do want to point out that um this is not a place where anybody going to the Burns property is is parked. These are spaces directly in front of the Smith property that they've put there. Um as with many other things
to sort of, you know, beg forgiveness rather than seek permission. Um and those are spaces that are used to uh for guests of of the Smiths. And in the summertime they invite other people to park there on a road Blossom Lane that's
already quite narrow and difficult uh to navigate for people on that street including the Burns when when >> Madam Chair we do have photographs of the Burns landscapers parked on those cobble blocks and if you want to see them be happy to >> I don't think it matters I you know I
really don't think it matters um what that space is used for who parks there um you know It's it's you know it's whether they're covered with a special bar. Miss Barry. >> Yes, Madam Chair. It's Julie Barry. Thank you. I agree with you. I don't
think that it matters. And I think that Mr. Thyimman is stretching here to try to drag this within the ZBA's authority. And in fact, he's incorrect that Mr. Orlando dropped the ball. Mr. Orlando
address the issue that would be part of the zoning determination as to vehicle parking which is the driveway on the property which was which was uh constructed correctly. There was never
any complaint about it. The building permit was never appealed and it's too late. The cars are parked in the driveway. That's what the driveway is for. There's no reasonable dispute about that. and Mr. Orlando correctly addressed the only thing that could be
an issue before this board which is lock you know the the the driveway in the context of the board's decision concerning lot coverage and those types of issues. It certainly didn't have to do with the use of a space outside of the setback. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> At this point I'm going to open it up for public comment. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to speak on this application? Is there anybody on Zoom who would like to speak on this application? If so, please raise your hand in Zoom.
I see no public comment. Um, I will at this point ask the board if they have questions as part of this public hearing. No questions. >> So, are we ready to close the public
hearing and move to deliberations? >> Yes. I make a motion close public hearing. >> Georgia makes a motion to close a public hearing and re and lead to deliberations. Um, do I have a second?
Second. Colleen seconds. A roll call vote. John, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> Colleen, yes. Such, yes. Okay, we have the four issues before us. Um, let's go through them one by one.
Who has shoes? What are thoughts? I think if we're regulating what we're doing with an accessory structure, if it's not asking to be an accessory dwelling, an ADU, it it there's no
occupancy permit for it. It it we shouldn't be regulating what people are using accessory structures for, whether it's storing shovels or pool equipment. Um speaker, if there's speakers on that access
I agree >> and I my what I had written in my notes I think the noise complaint if people are outside and being too loud then I think that would be in my opinion a board of health concern you know if you think those decibb are being reached and that it's an a hindrance to live in the
house and have people in the pool outside then >> I I think reality is is this town does not restrict people's use of their property. It's like me. Yeah. Yeah. >> Unless you're hiring Metallica to put in your M.
>> But in my mind, it's commercial. It's a residential. It's not like you're asking for a new unit, a a living unit. It it the use of whether they're in their driveway, their car, in the pool house is in >> Yeah. >> the same. >> Yes. Exactly.
>> Which is not subject to anything. >> And I agree with what everyone was saying. I mean, it was you're beside the pool. You can have people around the pool and making noises and stuff. So, I think the use that they currently are using is fine.
>> Well, and I think that we have to remember is that the special permit that came before us was to deal with non-conforming structures and a non-conforming lot.
It was not to deal with the use of that lot. It was a residential use non-conform. You know, it it it's a a conforming use. It's a residential lot being used for residential. Um I don't see what use has to do with the special
permit. We issued as long as it's valid as an insurance. >> So I'd argue I agree with Mr. Orlando on that point. Okay. Outdoor lighting. So this one
is under our current bylaw. If one submits for a special permit, there's now an added requirement of a site plan review, which used to only be with the planning
board and now it was extended to all special projects. Um, but it only applies if you apply for a special permit and it didn't exist when in 2019 when the special permit
was issued and my understanding that I can install an outside light at my house and I don't need a building permit and I don't need a special permit.
Therefore, the site plan review would not kick in because I'm not applying for a special plan. >> I would agree on that. And I from what I've seen in the bylaw, we don't have a lumen count. We don't have types of lighting. We're not a dark
sky community. We're not So, I had put in my notes that I do appreciate the the gas lanterns. They're less lumens than the regular LEDs. The house does have LEDs. One of them seems a little bright on the deck that but again that's not
something we regulate. My neighbors turn their headlights on when they get home, but they turn them off. You know, it's not. So, that would be my opinion on it's not >> John. >> Yeah. I mean, there's nothing out of the ordinary here. I think those gas
lanterns look amazing, actually. I think it's a nice touch. And the uplighting on the landscaping, I mean, that's so common around here. It looks great and makes the house. I have no issue with it. I'll have to say we looked around for
lights when we were at the site visit. We had troubles finding when we stood on the street. We were standing in the street and we we saw the gas lights on the posts and at the door and we saw the light over the little portico on the deck and we didn't see
any other lights. >> No, we didn't see any. second floor deck and balance. So it seemed clear the only at the site visit the only thing in question was a small deck on the second floor which is
the front. Um and it was on the building permit. Um the building inspector felt that it was a dimminimous change.
It didn't impact the ability to issue the building permit. Therefore wouldn't be a violation special permit because it demands change. We I think that we never expect what's built to be
exactly what comes before us. It is supposed to be substantial um in agreement with the plans. I would agree if he didn't find it substantially different than what was approved and it was dimminimous.
It still has the same setback. It still has the same length, but what it's used for carved in in the middle makes no difference. >> John. >> Yeah, >> I agree. Parking spaces.
Um, I I think that it's difficult to have an argument that the lot line is in the middle of Blossom Lane and therefore this parking is in the front setback if you're not using the middle
of Blossom Lane to calculate the setbacks for the structures. And it's my understanding that all the setbacks for the structures are based on a lot line which is the property side of the rightway along the road.
There's a road and a rightway and that the stone wall is along the property line the lot lines which would mean that this parking is on the street not in the front seat.
I would agree which is what's in the new bylaw. It wasn't in the bylaw when >> okay >> the 2019 social park was issued part of the site I think >> and I'm not even convinced it's part
>> well I also think it's actually for the better of the neighborhood to have a little relief people go down there's three houses down there they make a wrong turn whatever people show up, they don't know whose driveway to pull into at least a space to stop and figure things out, you know,
which is probably why the neighbors have visitors park there accidentally or whatever. You know, the gates always going to be open to let people in. So, I mean, I don't see how it hurts the neighborhood.
>> I agree with that. And the fact that it wasn't plowed says to me that it's not a daily. Yeah. >> Or my like what's the difference between what if someone on the street had a graduation party that day and
one side of the street I know it's a very narrow street or you know what one of the houses had a part a wedding and people were parked out there. To my sense it's no different. We shouldn't be regulating who's parking when. Well, and and the zoning bylaw
does not regulate on street parking. Yeah. And our responsibility is with respect to the zoning bylaw only. Um there's an issue of parking on a street. That's a police enforcement issue. It's not part is also a private
street at that matter. I think that adds another layer of that's So you ready for so that are we in agreement that we wish to deny the appeal?
>> Yes, I agree with this thing. >> So you ready for me to make a long motion? >> Sure. I move to deny the appeal filed with the town clerk on December 15, 2025 and
uphold the enforcement officer's administrative decision dated November 13, 2025 based on the following findings. poolhouse use. The board finds that only structural relief, not use regulatory
relief, was requested from the board in the granting of the 2019 special permit. The structure label on a plan is irrelevant and the revised plan approved by the board in its decision denying a prior appeal filed with a town clerk on
August 8th, 2022 included the fireplace and chimney. Under the bylaw, an accessory structure is limited to residential uses and the board has never replaced restrictions on those uses.
>> We agree with that. outdoor lighting. The section of the bylaw cited by the applicant requiring the site plan review was not in effect when the special permit was granted in 2019. Under the current bylaw, a site plan
review is only required in conjunction with an application for a special permit. The installation of exterior lights by a property owner requires neither a building permit nor a special permit and may be installed without any
need for adherence to the factors considered in a site plan review. Agree with that. >> Agree. >> Second floor deck and balconies. The board finds that on the on-site visit, it was clear that the alleged
balconies were merely low decorative trim around a relatively flat roof, not balconies. There is a small second floor deck with railing on the second floor. Although the railing was not depicted on
the ZBA permit set, it was included in the building permit application and the board finds the addition of the railing is a dimminimous change from the plans approved under the special permit. Is that sufficient?
>> Yes. Great. >> Parking spaces on Blossom Lane. The board finds the lot line is at the front of the granite pillars and a few inches in front of the front stone wall, consistent with all setback calculations
used in the special permit and building permit applications. The alleged parking spaces are along the street in front of the stone wall, not in the front yard setback contained in the bylaw. Furthermore, the decorative pavers in
front of the stone wall are part of the landscaping plan and not necessarily parking spaces consistent with other properties on the street. >> Great. I will take a second. >> I second it.
>> Georgia second. Any discussion? Vote. John. >> So to be clear, the original motion was you >> denial denial of the appeal. >> So I approved the denial of the
>> upholding the building inspect the enforcement officer's administrative decision. >> Yeah. So I approved the denial of the bill. So yes. >> Okay. Georgia. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And Sarah. >> Yes. >> Um with that the appeal is denied.
appreciate your time. Um we'll um email the clerk PDFs of the things that we submitted directly in the paper. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Next I still haven't tested Rob. So, George is from
>> Murphy or No, I always say Murphy Hass, but it's not. Who is it? >> Thank you for being so patient. local brains tonight. >> Pretty good. And I'm like, >> we're just taking a brief moment for
sure. sanity. >> Feels like Steve comfortable. What? >> Nothing. >> Oh. Yeah, >> we're now moving on to
Pleasant Street. Um, and one of the things I just want to make clear is that it referenced 70 Pleasant Street on the application,
but this is one lot >> that contains both 68 and 70, and it's actually 68 Pleasant street >> 70s in the back. Yes. >> Oh,
>> I just wanted to clarify that. >> But the assessor's map number and the lot number are are at >> Okay. >> Okay. I move to open the public hearing for the application of Karen Okone for special permits under section 7.2 2 and
12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to add one and a half stories on the existing footprint of a singlestory non-conforming residence and add a 6 foot5
by 10 foot5 rear edition to accommodate a stairwell on a lot containing two residents number 68 and 70 at 68 Pleasant Street assesses map number 41 lot number 54 in district D2B
file with the town clerk on January 28, 2026. >> Do I have a second to open the public hearing? >> Second. >> Go to open the public hearing. John, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> Elaine,
>> yes. And Sarah, yes. that um I would like uh are you going to present? Would you state your name please and your relationship? >> My name is John Andrews with JFA Design Group. I'm the project manager on the
project. >> Okay, >> I can start. >> So what we have here is we have a singlestory dwelling that has two bedrooms, one bath about 760 plus square
ft. we would like to propose is a second story on top of this to increase the square footage that'll also increase the bedroom size for three bedrooms. We have a a rare proposed addition like you mentioned it's 65105
in the back of the house and that's for a mudroom slb. So, we have why we're asking for the relief is we have uh the mom and dad and two kids here. Right now, we only have the two bedrooms. We also need the size.
So, even with the increase of the second story, we're only at about 1,600 square ft. As far as beyond the footprint, the only thing that beyond the footprint, if you can see on the plot plan, is the proposed addition
that's just in the rear. There is two 1-ft decorative overhangs, but they do not have a foundation. And so, as far as roof area for drainage and stuff, it remains just about the same except for that small 70 square
foot division in the back. All of the existing plans are marked are marked ex. And then all the proposed plans are A1 through let's see A8.
There was a comment made by some of the board members that came out and looked at the property about a third level. This is just an add level there. It part of it is decorative and the other part of it will be for storage. So, it's a 4
foot high wall that's up above the existing wall and then of course there's the hip roof above that. So, when speaking with the building department, Mr. Orlando, he mentioned 2/3 of the space inside of this attic can be used
at a full height. So, when we did our calculations, we came up with 203 square ft of that area that we would use. Again, it has a walk up staircase, but that's mainly just for storage at this time. And the windows there are the big
part of it is decorative. >> Is is is there any way to pull those walls down to less than four feet? >> I can make it 3 foot six if that has to be under. Sure. >> Yeah. I mean, the the the height definition in Manchester Yeah.
>> is two and a half stories. >> Okay. So it has no it doesn't bear any relationship to how it's used per se. >> Sure. >> And if it's a half a story is defined as
>> 50% of the space that's below >> the space at a wall height of 4 feet. >> Okay. >> So if you were to drop the wall height down to 3 foot 6 in then I think would be okay. That would be
>> Yeah. And that's We can absolutely do that. >> Was that intended for storage space? >> Yeah, exactly. Because what happens is well, you've got the pitch of the hip roof. So when you sort of come up by default, you have that open anyways. So you can come out there and have some storage space,
>> right? >> That was it. Because in the basement here, this is an old field store uh basement and is the height varies from 4T to 6 feet. It's all over the place. That'll have to be shored up. So, we don't want to remove take down the whole building. What we want to do is just shore everything up, work on the first
floor, and then if we have to stud those out to be 2 by six studs and then work our way up to the second, it would be fine for insulation. But we just don't want, you know, take down the whole building. Want to leave it the same footprint in the same location. uh all the other requirements uh meet
within the building code. You know, we realize too that when it's essentially going to be a new building by keeping this footprint and then like I said, keeping the first floor walls. So, everything else will be brought up. Her rating, insulation, structural engineering will be done on
it. And I think that's just about it. This has been dwelling for a while. So, it's not a converted garage or anything like that. It's always another town. >> How long have the two structures been on the last?
>> Well, we've been there since 1980. >> They were built in the 40s. So, both structures. Okay. Okay. Well, it's in it's this house is in D1. >> So, it could be a two family, but under the D1 two family, they have to be
connected. So, this is that's why I believe so that's why it's non-conforming is because they're two separate houses on the lot. >> We also thought about the ADU was at 900 square ft or half of what the main house
would be, right? And we we just needed more space. That was a big deal. >> You're hearing that. >> Talking's okay. >> Currently, currently under a bylaw, though I hope it's going to be changed at time meeting, an ADU is not allowed
in district D1, a large ADU, >> just a 900 square foot. So, I'm trying then I've asked them to change that because we had one we had to deny. We couldn't approve. questions from the board. I
>> think that's nice. >> I appreciate the streetcape we've given. That's helpful. >> Yeah, because um that's was the first concern when we took the project on is what is it going to look like with regards to the homes,
you know? So, we wanted to keep that into a certain height. And we did receive a letter supporting the project from
Peter and Altha Sergeant at 60 no sorry 72 pleasant >> which is the house on the right >> next. >> Um is there any member of the public in the room who would like to speak on this
application? No. There's nobody on Zoom except for the town planner. Um, >> I don't know. They all left. >> Well, poolost. >> I did just also want to call I have to
throw it out, but knowing you could do what you could do. You're still under the lock coverage allowable amount and you're still under the lock coverage impervious coverage amount which is >> right >> always nice to see >> you could have gone for the full gam it but
>> yeah we're kind of sticky at that >> that might come up yeah >> you know we have such a high water table that >> it is that was mentioned plus two >> the coverage is really important to us
and it looks like in Uh D this is D2. I guess it is not D1. Um that it meets all the setbacks in D2. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? >> Nope. >> You ready for me to close the public
hearing? >> Um I move to close the public hearing and have the board enter into deliberations with respect to this. for seconds vote. Yes. Yes.
>> Discussion board. >> Fine. >> Fine with it. >> Me too. >> Thank you. >> I will make a motion. I move to approve the application of Karen Okone, sorry if I mispronounced
it, for special permits under section 7.2 2 and 12.5 in of the zoning bylaw. And other relief is may be necessary to add one and a half stories on the existing footprint of a single story non-conforming structure which conforms
with all the large setbacks and add a 6 foot five 6.5 foot by 10.5 foot addition to the rear on a lot containing two residences number 68 and 70 at 68 Pine
Street. Assessor's map number street. >> Pleasant Street. >> Thank you. >> 68 Pleasant Street. I've been calling it Pine Street all along. >> 68 Pleasant Street. Assessor's map number 41, lot number 54 in district D2B,
filed with a town clerk on January 28th, 2026, based on a finding the proposed project is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which
it is located than the existing non-conforming dwelling. and the requirements under section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on the following conditions.
The addition is located as depicted on the certified PL plan prepared by Northern Associates dated January 23rd, 2026. the attic. The the third the halfstory attic
um shall have an ex exterior wall height of 36 6 in. Um, the project is constructed substantially in accordance with the following plans prepared by JFA Design Group filed with the town clerk on
12826. Um, now that the hard copy of the plans I have um I think one is misnumbered. >> Oh, it is. >> Yeah, I think the second one says A3. A2.
>> A2. >> Okay. So, proposed elevations A1, A2, A3, and A4. And proposed floor plans A5, A6, A7,
and A8. And existing elevations EX1, EX2, EX3, and EX4. And I don't need to include the existing
floor plans in the decision. >> Um, do I have a second? >> Second. >> John seconds. Any discussion? >> Vote. John >> approve. >> Georgia. >> Yes. >> Colleen. Yes. And Sarah.
I'll write this because everyone else is so slow. Who would like to? >> I know. I was I I didn't I'll Well, I'll review. >> Okay. Just send me both. >> Thanks, Sarah. >> Yeah, thank you Sarah. And I finished mine yesterday. >> You're all set. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Take us up to 60 90 days to write the decision because we're slow, >> but >> hopefully it will be for if we have a lot more snowtorms. It may be quicker than that. >> I can write I can write that. >> Yeah, we can step in. Let us know.
>> Um, just one question. Is there any kind of appeal process that we have to make for as far as 20 days or anything like that or >> Yes. So, what happens is is once we write the decision, >> yeah, >> um we'll file it with the town clerk. >> I see. >> And there is a 20-day appeal period, um
the building inspector will issue a building permit before that 20-day appeal is up and you can build at your own risk. >> I got you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So, it um you and we'll try to be quicker because I know we might be
getting to building season pretty soon. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Sorry for the wait. >> Thank you, >> Josh. >> Yeah, I remember Josh. that uh >> I'm definitely
>> hope we learned a lot. And then halfway through that he was so interesting. Thank you. >> He's really good. He's very good. >> I thought he was a boy.
>> What? Kendall Kendall again the land clerk who administrates the system. >> Oh, okay. >> She doesn't She takes it all off of the >> Yeah. >> She watches the
AI. >> Okay. Okay. >> Sorry. >> You catch. >> So, where's my page on my agenda? >> I know.
Wait a minute. I'm on the wrong date. >> Wait a minute. >> One other um >> Yeah, we have another >> five members. No agenda. Look at that. >> What? >> It said five members. >> No. Well, mine's on.
I like those like the glass the lanterns are still cool I >> am at night there isn't anybody on right >> no there is well we don't know I mean I'm from home so >> so >> I'll get the agenda right now I have it right
>> the The next item on the agenda is with respect to 14 coolage points and this is a request for a determination regarding a dimminimous change to our special permit. Um the
issue behind this is they applied for a special permit in 2023. It was not written correctly. So, it was supposed to expire after two years. So, they came back to us and we extended it
for another year and it's due to expire um April 10th, 2026. Um the homeowner is in Madrid, Spain,
and I chose not to require him to attend due to the time difference. and he sent us an email which I think everyone received which laid out what he's trying to do plus he sent
copies of what was originally submitted and um change now when I looked at it the design is completely different he is an architect which means >> but this tower house >> what
>> is this the house of the tower Yes. >> The old World War II tower. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, where is this? >> So, >> is it on mask? Is it? >> No. No. >> Coolage. >> Okay. Oh, yeah. >> It's on Koolage. >> Old World War II uh
>> like a little I mean was it just a cement? >> Yeah. The big thing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I remember this. >> Yeah. When it came on the market. >> Yeah. And so he um what he has explained to us
that um they're trying to break ground so that we don't have to issue they don't need to apply for a new special permit. Um and they submitted the building permit application
and Paul Orlando suggested they come back to us and have us make a determination of whether the changes are dimminimous and the changes with although the design's different the changes with respect to footprint are the height
they've reduced the peak height from the approved 35 ft down to 32 ft. 11 in. They've created better buffers. They've increased the side setback moving from 20 ft to 23 feet in one of
the setbacks to give their neighbors more room. They adjusted the location of the garage um for better driveway flow and preserved more pvious green space.
while staying strictly with all setting zoning setbacks. So, it's a non-conforming lot is is the problem. Um, and they said since our applications, our neighbors relocated their parking area close to where we planned a kids play area in front of the
previous garage. So, we decided to give them and us more privacy by removing that area and shift the garage to its new location. and he said the house remains a three-bedroom cottage shingle style
residence just as originally proposed. The design also wants to be more in line with the buildings in the area and we see it as a better interpretation of the town's goals for highquality architecture than the previous version.
So and so what the table of changes reflects so the lot size is 19,863 and the minimum is 90,000 which is 94. The special permit we approved was a gross floor area of
3,900 square ft. This design is 3,730 square ft. Um lat with lot frontage doesn't change. Um it's short small. Uh the front setback
is 30 ft which is what the zoning requires. The side setback the zoning requires 20 feet. We originally approved
15 on the west, 20 on the north, and 17.9 on the east. The new design is 20 on the west, 23 on the north, and 20 on the east. So, it's now conforming with setbacks.
Um, and the building height was 49 feet and now it's 34 feet 10 in where 35 is the maximum. And the building lot coverage
is now going to be 2,220. no is currently 2,223 square feet and we are asking for 2,658 the maximum of 15% which is 2,979.
So they're under the 15% coverage by structures and imperous surface is going to be total impervious with the building is going to be 2302 and the
maximum is 4,966. >> I like it. So, and >> I have agenda. >> Yeah. >> And he included a descriptive narrative
that was in the original application. And then the building permit application is your house is is a different different shape, but it's relatively the same square. You know, it's relatively the same footprint.
Towers being eliminated. >> No, >> an interesting talent. >> Yeah. >> Moving to my house. >> Kids playground. >> The sub tower, wasn't it? >> Yeah. >> Looks like it.
>> Very concrete. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sub towel. Brian Kelly had one, but it was >> Yeah, it's still up there. Different. >> It's taller. >> Yeah. His new house >> actually sub tower though I think. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This one was >> in was yours was a tower.
>> Kelly's >> Yeah. This was a >> nose bleed. More like like Soviet style. >> Like slavage to the other throat. >> The cargo building. >> Yeah. >> So,
>> are we okay? >> Yeah. >> Yes. being a dimminitive ch dim >> I agree it's getting more conforming than it was >> I mean I I think you know what we've tried to argue awesome is that you know we're not
really approving the design per se we're really looking at footprints >> and yeah >> and this seems to be addressing that okay so I'm going to make a motion
made this up. I move to confirm the zoning board of appeals determined the plan submitted on December 30th, 2025 requesting a building permit include
dimminimous changes to the plans included in the special permit granted on April 11th, 2023 for the property at 14 Coolage Point, assessor's map number three lot number
11 in district E and authorize the chair to notify the building inspector of its decision. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Colleen second have some fun too. >> Said I need to have some fun too. >> Vote Colleen.
>> Vote John. >> Yes. >> Georgia. >> Yes. >> Colleen. >> Yes. >> And Sarah Rose. >> Okay. I'll send an email to the building inspector and through the property. >> Thank you, sir. Okay. Next item on the agenda
is approval of the minutes from January 28th, 2026. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes of January 28th, 2025. >> 2026. Sorry. >> I have a second. >> Genesis. >> I'll second.
All this was in case you forgot to look at them, the continuence of two blossoming rain. >> Yeah, >> it was an easy one. Take a vote. John, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> And Sarah votes yes. >> Um, next is outstanding decisions. We
still have 38 C Street, do we not? >> I have that one. Yeah. Um, >> I think the deadline is >> it's March March 15th by >> All right. This week. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Meeting. >> What's that?
>> I heard that. >> Yeah. Then the >> good life kid. >> And then I saw the homeowner at Laugh and Gall. I was like, "Uh, do you need that four feet of snow? >> I followed you." >> And I've got two 22 union so I can't
give you too hard a time. >> Yeah, I'll get it done this week. I promise. >> And I stay mine in yesterday. >> I saw that. >> I think that was 30. I forget what it was. I know the um Brian Stein >> if I know that people are you know uh >> okay
>> looking to get going like I do it right away. >> Okay try these guys all >> um we have one decision one application for next month which is nine mascano.
>> Oh yeah. Is >> it Joe Cunningham or is it D Roni the former chair. >> Oh, yeah. I can never say his name. >> Rond Gilaramo.
>> No, no, de Jakamo. >> Jako. His house. >> And the house is being torn down and a new one is being built >> and it is the wrecking group. John, >> no, it wasn't. It was >> Is it the one that has the awnings on it right now? The old school.
>> It's the one that looks like church. >> Yes, exactly. Yeah, it has the awnings on the outside that could Yeah, it looks like >> they're going to tear it down. >> Oh, that's That was an old church, wasn't it? >> Yeah. >> Right on the elbow that you curve there. >> Yep. It is a funny looking I know that
things I pass it every day. >> The listing agent showed it to me. I went in >> I thought I saw the pictures when it was done. >> Cold was cold and dreary and >> raised area. Yeah, I looked at the pictures >> and I think they're going to attach the
garage >> because I talked to >> got married that church. >> No, it hasn't been a church for a long time. >> Talking. >> Yeah, >> there's another church on that street. >> Yeah. Around the corner. >> The same Episcopal. >> Oh my god, it's the cutest church. I
love I love Yeah. >> I should have bought it made into a Greek church. >> You should have. >> Yes. >> You wouldn't nip >> people wish to discuss. would nick the carious all >> you got the all the Browns too >> be in Florida so if I need to I can call
>> for you Colleen get out of here >> better leave on Friday >> absolutely >> our next meeting is um >> I'm gone the entire month talking >> oh well that's a
>> my name is already missed one trip because of the snow. So hopefully this one. >> Okay, we got to convince Rob. I don't hear anything from Rob Scott. >> So if I if you I can always zoom in um if you need an extra Jean is back from his group,
>> but is that the only one that we have? >> He'll be back for next weekend. >> And is it to per give them the ability to tear it down or to put something in the >> No, no, no. Um we don't we don't care. We don't care. >> No, we don't rule on the tearing down. Um we
it may be both a variance and a special permit. >> Okay. >> Um I think the garage is in the setback but is it was a detached accessory structure. So we think we'd have to have a variance to attach the accessory
structure to the primary structure. >> Okay. um it's in the setbacks and I asked him to he doesn't have any plans on the existing structure. >> Master Jackal
that was his name >> Jack was an M there with an Makamos. Yeah. >> So, um I asked him to at least give us what the existing height was.
>> So, I'm not expecting, you know, usually they give us existing floor plans. Yeah. Yeah. He doesn't have >> Oh, he doesn't have that. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I mean, that's stop one. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> At least get the surveyors out there and give us something. >> That's what I said. >> Give us the base.
>> We need a survey with a footprint. We need to understand what the existing height is. Um I think it's high but I I don't but that's our only application. >> Good
motion. >> Motion to journ. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Yes.