Uh good [clears throat] evening. This is the Newberry Zoning Board uh meeting tonight, Thursday, July 16th, 2026 at Town Hall. Uh my name is Mario Cornali. I'm going to be the acting chairman today. Uh Eric Span had a appointment that he couldn't make tonight. So, uh,
we have tonight Chris Christie, uh, ZBA administrator, Michelle Wilder, associate member, Josh Walker, associate member, and, um, Jack Kelly, member. So, Michelle's going to read the agenda. >> Yeah, I think we're just going to start
with the second item first, just to wrap that up. Um, Gerald Fendetti, 15 Sunset Drive. The applicant is requesting special permit finding for relief from sections 97-4D5C01 increase in footprint and 02 increase in height of the Newberry zoning bylaws and
any other permit relief as may be required under the town of Newber's zoning bylaws to allow the proposed use project for the raising of the existing single family dwelling on the property and the construction of a new single family dwelling on pilings with a garage
on the property located at 15 Sunset Drive, Plum Island, Newberry, Mass 1951. And we approved a decision to be drafted last month. So, we'll review that today. >> Okay. Um,
>> I incorporated Eric's suggested edits. And on the copy, you'll notice that they're highlighted in yellow where I made changes. And in on top of the decision is a summary of all his suggested edits. I didn't know if the rest of you had any more On the top of the decision, it's
highlighted 15 Sunset Drive. >> Okay. >> I'm not sure I have that. >> Yeah. Sorry, guys. >> I I I saw it online. >> I have it here, right? This is Yeah. I don't think you guys don't have
>> I think the top of this is highlighted 15 sunset. I apologize. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> We're going to take a couple minutes just to read this draft of the decision from last month. This is the same as what was answered.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. I didn't have comments. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> So what was included? What uh zones V and zone X was included? J letter was submitted included. >> Yeah.
We conducted a site on May 12th and then under >> Can we take it to a whisper, please? [laughter] >> Can we take it to a whisper? Thanks. We're just talking here. >> Thanks. Um and then under conditions do uh additional bedrooms request to be
submitted for proof for necessary use of the drawing because of the second decision included. >> And Mario, wasn't there something about uh numbering of the drawings? >> Yes. Um was that done the additional
dates for the drawings, new ones that was were presented? Those are the ones from uh June 11th date that were submitted >> because I got this from Eric. The building shifted and revisions were made >> that was the uh latest submitt and that's included in the attachments.
>> Okay. >> And that was shifted based on concom >> recommendation. >> Recommendation. >> So So just to be clear, the date on that is >> that was June 11. >> June 11th. Yes. So June 11th is the one and Tomcom's approved and that's the one
>> it's not approved. It was a recommendation from Tom Kcom. He still has to go to Com after after we approve the draft. >> Thank you. That's just a lot. >> It was It was a good thing. >> It was four meetings.
>> So, I just needed the date of the sitewalk which you gave me. So, I read that in the original. >> Okay. >> And then ADU is important. The only comment I have, and I think we beat this into the ground, but it just doesn't seem right. It It's so We cite
the new resoning bylaws 974D as our justification for no additional ADU bedrooms or we're not addressing the maybe I misunderstood it. We're not addressing the ADU special conditions on the second
to last page. >> So we added that specific by which is 9745B >> and wrote additional bedrooms. No request, no request can be submitted or approved for an accessory unit within the dwelling for a third bedroom. Okay. Because you um Michelle and Mario did
the sitewalk and prove that existing was one thing. >> Okay. So, we don't even need to address this the whole state thing >> and within the >> RPOD supersedes. Okay. >> The state. So, kind of the point right now. In that case, I'm ready for a
motion if there is. >> Anybody making a motion or >> uh I make a motion that we accept uh the special condition permit application as drawn up >> um and modified by Christy Christy.
>> Second. All >> in favor? I >> Okay. >> Yes. Can you um just sign Yeah. >> Oh, that's Don't worry about that. That's for you for another time.
>> Okay. >> Um Yeah, it was >> was new uh but changed. So then became new again last month. >> Continue. >> So new technically new this month but continued. >> Okay. Um sorry I'm going to butcher your
last name. Um Peter Nicolopoulos um 129 Northern Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a special permit finding for relief from section 974D 5C02 increase in height and 974D 2B03
increase in allow allowable F of the Newbury zoning bylaws and any other permit relief that may be required under the town of Newbury zoning bylaws to allow the proposed use project for renovations to the existing single family dwelling including the addition of a second story and roof deck on the
property located at 129 Northern Boulevard, Plum Island, Mass, 01951, Asessor's Map, U04, lot 28. And this was continued from last month's meeting on June 18th. >> Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is Bill
Nolan from Civil Nolan Architects. Um, here representing um Peter and his wife Angela. Um, for the record, you did a lot better than I did the first time I tried that name. Um, I do have some graphics that I wanted to show. Am I
able to put them on that computer or >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I did bring my own computer. >> I think we could do this. >> I remember my old days. >> This is >> Yeah. [laughter] Everybody's locked watching.
>> I don't have a password. That's a problem. >> Oh, yeah. >> Chrissy. >> Yeah. >> Can we get into the computer so he can put a stick in? Thank you. >> This the charger. >> All right. >> No, I see. Am I okay to present here?
>> Yes. >> Um, so while we're getting set up here, I can I can start. So keep you guys here later and need be. Um, so again for the record, my name is Bill Nolan from Civil and Architects. Um, before we begin, I'd like to apologize uh for the continuence
at the last meeting. Um, the owners uh came up with some revisions that they wanted to consider. So rather than um present to you and then come back for a minor modification, we figured we'd just put the proposal together that we really want and present it to you. Um, but we
appreciate your willingness to continue the case until this meeting. So, thank you very much. Uh, so the property is Are you going to drive or >> I don't know how to do a side thing. I'm sorry. >> Um, can you pull up? Um, >> that's okay.
>> Is it a PDF? >> Yeah, >> that's probably zoom in or just slow. We are getting a new system. >> Let me try this. >> Okay.
>> Try zooming in at the top middle the little plus >> and then just go over to >> I could I can work with that. >> You can work with this. >> Oh, here the zoom. The problem is there it's a PDF and you can't do anything with it. >> Yeah, you can't change it. >> Yeah, if it's a PowerPoint. Yeah.
>> So, next next time I come before you. Okay, good to know. >> I can just use this new feature. >> No, >> still beats the old days. >> There you go. That's perfect. >> Oh, that's good.
>> Yeah. Okay. Yep. Okay. So, this is the property that we're talking about right here. 29 129 Northern Boulevard. And you can see that it um fronts on two streets, Northern Boulevard and 48th
Street. Um property is um 5,600 square ft. Um the existing site is here. Um, and I have a cleaner site with setbacks and all that, but um, you'll notice that the, uh, ex the
existing building is conforming with regards to all the setbacks. So, you have a driveway here. There is a second driveway off of North uh, 46th Street, sorry, 46, not 40th. This is the existing dwelling here walkway.
>> Is there one setback that's not non-conforming right now? The 90. >> We believe that we're all uh, we're conforming. I thought it was somewhere ahead of 9.25 ft. This is 95. This is actually being removed though, so I'll get it into the proposal.
>> Um, so these are just some images of the street Google Maps. Um, this is our property here and as you can see, we're proposing a second story. It's consistent with um the houses that are around the neighborhood as well. um our property here and some um
neighboring properties. This is the house directly across the street which is actually um pretty similar to what we're looking to do. Okay, I got to get my uh zoom
oriented. Okay. Uh so this is the uh existing uh floor plans. We did a full measure up of the existing house. This is the existing uh basement. You'll notice that there's a full kitchen down there. It's really set up like a like a secondary apartment. There's a bulkhead and this
is the only access into the basement. You'll see that there's no stairs going up to the existing house. Bathroom, bedroom, kind of an open concept living room and an entry. It's completely divorced from the from the house above it. Uh it also doesn't meet the building
code with regards to the ceiling height. You got about 6'8 ceiling height in the main ceiling. And then when you have dropped headers and beams, they're actually below. >> How much of the floor path is above grade plane? Is there percentage? Just cuz I know those old spots when you walk around there, it's just curious.
>> Yeah, actually. Um so if you give me one second, I can give you that answer. >> Sorry. No, it's a good question. believe it's um so it's 78 minus 28 so four feet five five yeah about 5 ft um
you know >> it's real rough measurement I'm going from floor area but I'm just going from the basement floor to the top I think it's a little under 5t uh for the basement area and then there's a screened in porch that um uh on sun
foundations This is the existing first floor. Um, so you can see you get two entrances. Um, kitchen, dining, um, you know, it's really small. They It's It's hard to get a dining table in there. Uh, one bathroom, and it's got the shower kind
of in a weird scenario where this is actually cantaling out. So, the shower's over the um, um, in this in this cantalvered section here, which we're proposing to remove as well. uh bedroom bedroom screened in porch entry. So this is kind of where we're heading
to um in terms of the direction what we're looking to do. Um so the existing structure is a uh I'm just going to go back to the existing structure for a sec. So, the existing structure is a is labeled on the um assessor's record as a
year round camp style dwelling consisting of a one-story residence with a um with a finished basement that again doesn't technically meet the um requirements of the building code for habitable space down there. Um we are
conforming um or will be conforming in all of the um uh zoning requirements with the exception of lot coverage and uh floor air ratio. It's an existing non-conforming structure. Uh with regards to those two um lot coverage is
uh required to be 20% and uh we're at 22 existing. We are actually proposing in the and I'll get into this, but we're actually proposing to reduce the C uh lot coverage down from 22 to 21. It's a minor um improvement, but it's an
improvement nonetheless. And the floor area ratio um is required to have 25%. We're currently at 33% and we're asking the board to allow us to go up to 38% in order to make a much more livable house.
Um so uh the proposal ex uh endeavors to remove the uh finished basement as living space because it's not well suited for habitation and it's uh limited ceiling height and and a separate exterior access >> but was it used as a livable site?
>> Yes, it's habitable now. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. It's completely finished. It's got a kitchen. It's got got a liveable um uh that area is in in the proposal and the proposed is going to be converted over to storage and we're going to provide a an interior. I'll
just hop right into it. >> So this is kind of >> it's not about just the height of the floor spacing and it's going to count as extermination of that rather than was form formally lived in. Correct. >> Well, it is lived in and we're correcting that. So it's no. So basically we're kind of trading the the
downstairs for the upstairs much more livable space. >> Is it determined as a story or >> Well, you know, in the Palm Island guidelines, I know are you familiar with these? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um when it discusses the stories, I'll read you definition. It says per 9711D, a story is defined as that
portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above excluding attics that have no habitual area and that are used solely for storage and to house mechanical equipments. Intermediate levels such as mezzanine loss and penthouse should be
counted as a story. Uh the maximum number of stories allowed on Plome is too. I did review this with Peter um the building inspector too and I believe it's I don't want to put words in his mouth. I believe that he considered it as a story. I we went through the um the
process what we were asking for went through it and he seemed like it was a reasonable request. So again not trying to put um words in his mouth. I wish he was here to say that but um we got the sense that what we were u proposing was
down the right path. on. Okay. So, uh I lost my place here. So, the functional living area is re relocated to a properly designed second floor um area with a standard ceiling and conventional uh you know with with a conventional
residential layout. Um and this will meet the building height requirements. So, the volume of the structure is allowed by right. Um zoning calculations also only tell kind of part of the story too. So the footprint remains remains unchanged.
We're not changing the footprint and actually we're we're reducing the footprint um in the form of we are uh removing this bulkhead and we are also removing um this bump out here.
So this is the uh proposed site plan. I have an engineered site plan. This one's cleaner and easier for me to talk and probably easier for you to understand. So this is a site plan that I prepared and I based it off of the surveyed site plan. So the information is accurate. It's just cleaner and this has the
setbacks on there. So the uh the setback uh existing setback we're saying that the proposed setback because this is just an open stair is now 15 roughly 15 ft. So a couple things that we're looking for in terms of the site. We're
removing the front entrance. We're removing the side entrance. We're removing the bulkhead entrance and we're removing that bumbo. What we're building new is a rear entrance. Um this is just an open uh stair second means eress down
off of the um backyard area here and um replacing the front entrance with a similar entrance in the same location with a small extended open deck um not enclosed and that will conform with the setbacks.
Uh there's also an existing chimney that we're removing. I did not I did not put that into my calculation. It's small and insignificant, but I just thought I'd want to film. Okay, so here's what we're looking to propose. Um, so this would be an
unfinished basement. Um, we're removing all the finishes. The kitchen's gone, the bedroom's gone, and just kind of leaving it as a blank slate. We're um barring that up, and we are providing a internal staircase to connect it to the house. >> Is that the bathroom stain? The bathroom
is existing, so we didn't want to take that out just because it's it's there. We didn't want to incur the cost of taking that out. So, we're proposing it. Um, we if if that's a problem for the board. Didn't seem to be a problem with the building inspector went through it. It's a problem with the board. Um,
that's up for negotiation. It's just a a cost thing really. And, uh, I don't know if the the intent is for this to be um storage. It's not going to be a habitable space down there and it can't once we pull it back, hold it on unfinished, um, we can't pull the
building permit because it wouldn't meet code barring going before you guys too. The building inspector would deny it because it it doesn't meet the requirements of the building code. Second level, uh, or this is actually the main level. So, open concept. These
are this is basically a very standard plan out there. We're again matching the existing footprint. So, we're not extending um beyond any of the existing footprint. Open concept kitchen, living room, dining room with a little sitting area um kind of facing the street and a
small little powder room up there. A lot of uh what we're doing is adding the staircase that's going to connect the two floors, which currently isn't existing in their first floor plan. So, here's a staircase down to the unfinished basement and a staircase up to the new second floor.
So, arriving um at your second floor here, primary bedroom uh with a little balcony and bathroom. Um two modestsiz closets uh and two kids beds um uh again modest size uh bedrooms and and some
closet space there and a kids bathroom there. So, this is essentially the second floor. We're hoping to because of the proximity to the ocean getting some of those beautiful views and we are proposing a um a penthouse that would just be a staircase up to a flat roof
deck um so that they can hopefully get some water views. So that would be this. So, no structure up here. It's just a flat roof with the roof deck, railings all the way around, but there will be a interior connection to get up there.
So, I forgot to mention, I kind of flew through my introduction there. Um, but the genesis of this project is uh cuz Peter and his wife are um their kids are older and they're looking to downsize. They have a big house right now in Georgetown. So they're looking to downsize and they're also looking to
turn this house into So it's going to be an owner occupied project. So they're looking to make this their their house. So that's why we're trying to make it nice as nice as we possibly can. Okay. Um so this is I I skipped in your packages.
You have all four elevations on there, but just in the interest of saving some time, I condensed it to the the front image just so we could talk about heights. You can see the existing basement there. Um the existing floors for first floors to remain. This will be
the new second floor. Uh and the new roof deck uh and even with the penthouse where um we're above or below the um required height. The majority of the building is actually significantly lower than the max height. It would just be this piece right here that's getting
fairly close to the top, but we're still under. >> Is it 34.6? Is that the elevation? >> 35. Um, so average grade is minus five. Um, so we were just basing it up of L. So for us, um, we set our our our first
floor cuz that's a dat as as our zero. So average grade is minus five and then 35 which is the height limitation uh takes us up to 30 uh based off first floor elevation. Does that make sense? >> Yeah, but we count it based on that
median grade. >> Yeah, that's the math is still the same. So assuming the average grade what you have is the average grade is the >> flat. That was a question that was a question I had. You had five five feet all around the building. >> Yeah, it's a flat site. Yeah, it's it's
pretty dead flat. Um, so and we will make uh uh we're not asking for any relief on height. So, anything that is submitted to the building department will will meet the uh the height limitations. Okay. And then uh some images here of
what we hope it to look like. Can end on that. And as you can see, I don't know if you can recall back to that picture directly across the street, but it's similar um in architecture. I actually prepping for this meeting um Google Maps is great. Um went down um um
maybe mile down North End Boulevard, maybe a little bit less than a mile in both directions and saw some um of these flat roof kind of more modern shingle style houses. So, it's certainly in character with with some of the um projects that are out there in both
scale and in in style. Um so, the neighborhood impacts, the proposed project remains with the established building footprint, complies with all the required setbacks, complies with the maximum building height, maintains the existing three-bedroom
configuration, does not increase residential density or traffic or anything like that, and improves the impairments and functionality of the property. in our opinion and converts a an updated camp style dwelling into a modest yearround uh residence. Uh one
other thing I will mention is that we did go before the conservation commission and got approval. We submitted an RDA and got a negative determination which is an approval. So this has been before um the the conservation commission. Uh we were granted approval and a waiting for the
orders of condition. Um, so we did run it by that and they were they were fine with what we were proposing. Um, just make sure I get all my talking points here. So in conclusion, um, the summary u modernizes an agent home while
respecting the established neighborhood. Um it maintains the existing footprint, reduces the lot coverage slightly. Um compiles uh complies with all the setbacks and height requirements, maintains existing number of bedrooms and have has received a conservation commission approval. Um for these
reasons, uh we submit that the proposal is not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and the existing non-conforming structure meets the standards for granting a special permit. And I always try to remind although you probably don't need reminding that that's the metric that we're working
with here. Does it substantially uh is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and not for the reasons that I just uh listed those that's why we're thinking that complies with complies. Um that's pretty much the extent of my presentation. However,
before we include um the owner Peter did want to introduce himself formally to you and I think say a couple things. So, um, after after he gets done talking, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> Thank you. Um, Peter Nicolopolis, there's always a pause the first day of
class. You know, [snorts] when people come to our name, so you did a good job. [laughter] Um, like I mentioned, um, my wife Angela and I, uh, we're looking to move into this house year round. Uh, we own a business, uh, nearby, um, that, uh, we love the community. Um, we've
been invested in the community and we're just looking forward to, you know, uh, a pretty much a final home. There are some beds for the kids to come just in case they want to. Um, cuz kids are always welcome to come, but uh, like you said, our kids are one is finishing college, one's off to college, and just want to
kind of downsize. So, I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. >> Okay. Questions comments? Uh I I think after we >> we're going to project >> it's below the height of any new build
on PI. I think the before you get to any kind of story relief if it's just the FAR I think that's what's going to come up. You know it's just like 13 points. >> It's a jump but it's you know five points from the existing number for me to begin with. Yeah. It's a very it's
unique. It's unique. It's a unique deal. It's a it looks beautiful. Um, >> I know that's what's going to be >> before you even talk about like story stuff. Um, >> I'm just curious to see what the rest of the board has to say.
>> So, the finished space, the total 249 square ft. It looks like that includes 56 square ft of basement. >> Might be the stair uh stair going down.
We uh we tend to um round up on our numbers just so I'd rather have extra square footage in there than short change it. So we'll tend to be conservative when we're rounding up. >> So the basement the rest of the square footage isn't part of your FA.
>> Correct. Yep. Doesn't meet the height limitation and and the intention is for it to be storage unhab uninhabitable. If you look at the square footage calculations on there, the the the cheap version the um is we're basically adding
214 square ft to this project in the form of and most of that's on the second level. 80 80 ft of it is in this um penthouse. So >> you show the pictures again to the neighbor pictures
>> of the existing >> Yeah. just buildings. >> Yeah. Just trying to figure out in my head exactly down >> lines in that narrow strip between the basin >> the pre-nforming structures hanging you guys up
>> that actually helps us >> if if we were non if we were conforming >> to start it but >> we we typically >> the gohead we typically include the basement area if it's a basement in the farm
>> um okay based on the um the the building inspector's assessment because it's not inhabitable. We didn't need to include it. >> Again, I'm just working off of what I was told. >> We can you can make a determination. It's not a story. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> So, it's covered, right? >> Yeah. >> It's covered. It's included. >> Included in F, which means your F is actually quite a bit higher than separate from the story conversation
>> I guess. So the the my reading of the boards is not very specific. So I understand that you have seen many projects out here and and this is kind of a determination but taking a kind of a step back and realizing that we're taking a a function that doesn't
function very well but is set up for an interior and relocating that repurposing that. We include overhangs >> like in far >> in far >> that makes no sense. Is that finished floor? >> I can I can I can give you the definition but the basement
>> um but it's not finished area far stands for floor uh finished floor >> far shall be constructed as a mathematical expression term by dividing the total gross floor area of a building by the area of the lot >> and overhang is not floor. We're not talking about overhang now. Just basic.
>> Okay. Sorry. Um the total amount of allowed is is 25%. But um this can include covered decks is what I was talking about. >> Right. >> But we've included the cover decks. >> But you have to include the basement. >> I disagree with that one. Um so if I can
get the building inspector to sign off on it not being a story, will it still come? >> That's that's our decision. >> Okay. We very rarely disagree with them, but we have occasionally. >> Yeah. >> Well, again though, it's and it's not whether it's a story or not. It's it's square footage.
>> So, we're not looking at height necessarily. We're looking at >> Yeah. But floor area ratio is uh intended to be. So, you you're trying to The whole idea of floor area ratio are because I deal with this in all types. It's it's more of an urban um metric
that that suburban things have adopted into um controlling density in the project. My whole point is that we're not increasing the density here. We're keeping it a two threebedroom. Um the same amount of people that currently live in this house. In fact, you could
argue maybe less because there's an apartment downstairs. So, um we're keeping the same density. We're keeping the same exact function of this house. problem with the floor area ratio is it really penalizes people with small lots and it makes it, you know, hard for them
to do anything. So, if you just look at the street, I mean, there's this house right next to it, which is essentially the same thing. This is a twotory space here. And >> do they have a basement? >> I don't know. I haven't been in the house.
>> No, they don't. >> No basement. >> I own that house before. We're we're gonna ask um the public just to um not say anything until we're done here and then we're going to open it up to everybody and then you could say as much as you want. >> And this is a house directly across the
street. >> I will say that, you know, I wasn't clever enough to uh look at on Google Maps, so I drove up and down the other day and I I got to disagree a little with your characterization of the neighborhood of being mostly uh flat top
double-decker style buildings. I think it's mostly capes. I yeah I did I if I said that I didn't mean >> the building adjacent to it I will admit is kind of a twin to what you're proposing but the rest of the neighborhood I would say without questions capes and converted capes
>> yeah uh if I said that I inadvertently said that it's a majority of that what the point I was trying to make is that it is in context with the rest of the neighborhood there are other houses actually if you go down I would say probably about 15 houses on the left on this side there's another flat roof
house that something very similar to this. >> That might be a new report. >> You're close. >> It's in the same neighborhood. It's a walking distance from it. So, I know we're kind of like splitting hairs here. My my contention is is that you put the proposed building into this neighborhood
and it doesn't stick up like a sort of thumb. It's in keeping. It's a shingle style >> [clears throat] >> uh house um common that you see in the K. Any other questions? >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Anything else? >> Uh, no. I I reserve the right to
disagree later, but uh I appreciate your response. Okay. >> Yeah, I think I mean I I think the design is is very beautiful and I I think it does work in the neighbor. So, I guess I don't have a problem with
that. It's more the the numbers that I'm struggling with a little bit here with um you know, just meeting what's in our zoning. I mean, we're we're already over that. Even if we don't talk about the basement, we're already over >> um F and now we're increasing that more.
>> Um and and that's not even including the conversation related to the basement. So, >> I think those [clears throat] are that's summary of my thoughts. >> We looked at two separate things by the book by the book. You know, what to get for our story and and for the farm. I'm curious to see if you're going to be
neighbors maybe someday what everyone has to potentially say about it. Looks like we've got some neighbors who want to say [clears throat] something. I just want to I just want to throw it back to you guys. Just one one thing. I I've sat on the zoning board for several years in Denver. Um so I've been in your position
and um the the the metric that we're dealing with here is is what we're proposing substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? And if you find that it's not, you have the right to grant this special permit by mass
general laws and by your own bylaws. So just I just don't want to lose sight of that. I think what we're proposing is you have a partially functional house here. Okay. The the basement is not a very functional space, but it is used. the it was built as a camp prior to
zoning and owners throughout the generations have tried to do the best that they can with it. You have a person that's trying to make this their home, but they want to make it correct. We want to make it right. And we also want to work with your bylaws. We've done, I
think, everything that we could to stay within the confines of that. the floor area ratio for a a lot this size is is um is is creating problems to to make a to make a functional house of what currently exists there right now. So
that's the problem that we have. But again, I keep going back to what your charge is is it more um detrimental to the neighborhood and we think that it's an obvious no for that. So with that, that's >> okay. Okay. Um I'm going to open up to
the public. Um anyone for the project here? >> Anyone who has questions [laughter] >> again if you uh if you want to speak just um you know just say your name and address. >> Okay. >> My name is Beth Mitchell. Um we directly
about the house on Boulevard. Our property lines run along each other. I have one request and then I have two questions. one of which has been partially answered. But um the request is that on the original letter that we
received, we had the increase in footprint is number one and the increase in height is number two um as far as bylaws. And then it says and any other permanent relief as may be required under the county board zoning bylaw's zoning bylaws to allow the proposed use
project. And that kind of leaves it totally wide open. I picked up on that true and you're right on that. >> I would request that that portion be taken out of that requesting one and two and all of a sudden you don't have to go back for any
more bylaws while you're building this. >> That concerns me >> actually. I'll say just a few things. One, it was written by our legal our legal people. And second of all, any changes people have to come back to the zoning board. there is no way a change can be made without coming back to the
zoning board. So that's our sounds. >> Yeah, if you read like a final draft, >> it actually does say that there's any changes major and minor have to come back to the Zboard and we have to make a decision on it. So I think that protects >> Okay. As long as you tell me that.
>> Yeah. When a decision is issued, we attach all the plans with it. So if anything is being built that doesn't meet these plans, they would have to come back to the board for that for approval of those changes. >> So this is your final plan for the place. I mean you said there hopefully
>> well see how if we can get to >> All right. >> I I was um that I'm glad that you actually brought that up because as you were reading the minutes and I actually too thought that that sounded like an open door which is not anything that we're trying to do. Yeah. Oh, you're talking about this
>> the point that you brought up. Um, I agree with you on that. It does sound like it's a it's an open door >> and and considering what's happened on 37th Street. I mean, those two houses are enormous and I can't even figure out how they got how that happened. They're
taking up so much room on 37. Um, but so that frightens me for the rest of the neighborhoods. So far the um but the questions now the floor area ratio on
the original proposal the floor area floor area ratio the original square foot of the property was 5,10 ft. Now on the new one the the second proposal the
new one is 5600 square ft. That's a big difference. And I don't know the sign. I mean, I know every place has one of these types of sheets. And on this sheet, it says 5,000 square
ft. So, I'm not quite sure where the 5600 came from. All of a sudden, >> that's the lot size. >> Lot size, not the car. >> That's the lot size. But that's how they determine the area ratio. 20% of the land size.
>> Right. So it's is it 5,10 or is it 56? >> So this is our current um site plan. I'm sorry I'm supposed to be talking through right. Are you formal like that? >> Through the board just to keep you up. Um this is our most current site plan
done by a local surveyor blank. Uh and he has it listed as 5,600. I have to rely on the surveys. I'm not a surveyor. >> Was it a formal survey? I >> this is a formal this is done and certify it. So that's this is certified.
>> We have a copy over here and it is stamped by a surveyor. >> Yeah. >> Of the 5600 >> and that says 5600. >> Y >> this is a measured uh drawing an instrument measured drawing. So this is what the Tom requires. >> Okay. Um
all right. Um then my other question concerning the basement and how you know the original on the original paperwork it said 2815 square ft for the property which included the basement. Um now the new 2121
square ft the new proposal um they've taken out 19 for is it the bathroom 19 for the and 34 and then the 580 square foot um 500 of storage area
which was to be down in the basement apparently. So that's about 633 square ft but I >> I'm not understanding how you can just eliminate or choose to say that doesn't count. >> Um I agree that it's beautiful. I I like
it. I would like it I would just like it to conform and I'm I'm feeling a little outside of that. >> Yep. >> And moving directly above it. I just I don't want to mind it expanding on me. >> Sure. Well, we we can't expand it on you. So, the existing footprint we're
we're matching that. Um, so it's not going to come any closer to your property and we are going higher, but we're we're going within the required height limitation. But your question about the basement and I think this is where the board and I I have somewhat of a dis disagreement on but the idea is
that the basement is no longer being used as floor area and that it's used for storage but um it's not living floor area. The the definition is up for interpretation but these are the guys that interpret it and they were probably
not the first to come before you with uh with with that. So that's where the kind of confusion is right now. It's our contention that the basement is no longer being used as habitable area, meaning that it's not going to increase the density. More people aren't going to be in this property as a result of
having the basement. >> Is the plan, sorry to interrupt conversations, but uh is the plan to remove drywall studs from the basement, any flooring, any ceiling, all that will be removed? >> Yes.
>> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Um, in fact, that it's going to make the storage a lot nicer because the ceilings are kind of low having that extra space. And the bathroom is up for grab. I mean, if that's a sticking point, I'm sure we could negotiate the the bathroom. Again, the only reason why we didn't do it is
because of costs >> and and I don't believe that there's I believe you can have a bathroom in an unfinished basement and it doesn't come to as living space for the code, building code. What is the square footage when you include the basement?
>> 28. >> 28. >> You would have to add another. Yeah. So, it' be 2860 somewhere on there. >> And your current square footage is without the basement. You said 21
>> 2121. Well, what what we're what we've calculated is what you have in your package is the existing including the basement is 1835. That's what we're coming up. Um so, and the existing you didn't include the basement.
>> We did. >> We did include the basement cuz it's finished. Okay. It's floor area. >> Yeah. Okay. And the proposed is 2121. Is that correct? >> The proposed is 2049 without the basement. And that's in your package.
>> Okay. >> And that nets out to a 214 square footage addition. >> Okay. Thanks. So So again, that the the numbers and
I've been in this battle before. I uh I don't personally this it doesn't matter. I'm not a big fan of FAR in residential. Uh but that you don't care about that. But we have it in our >> guidelines. Part of [laughter] the job. So we can't just disregard that.
>> But the Sure. And we're not asking you to certainly not to disregard it. But do you know why it's there? Why it's there is to control density? That that's the whole idea of Florida air calculations. And again, it started with urban development bringing it down. So the >> and the POT is a little bit different
than >> right you know our suburb or Newberry different actually I should say. >> Sure. I I grew up in the Salon Willows, really tightknit community. So the regulations are are looked at with a fine tooth comb, right? Certainly understand that. But again, the
calculations, the numbers really kind of tell you only half of the story. It's it's what do those numbers actually represent. Again, I keep going back to this that what our proposal is, and this is what we're trying to accomplish is that we're not making this a more dense
project. We're just making it a more functional house. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Uh Douggee Anderson, 474 46 Street. >> Um lovely people. I've met them. They're
great people. And I don't be wished I I want everybody to have a beautiful home, but you know, we've had a few projects go in the neighborhood and we were all held to bylaws.
Um my lot 6,000 square ft. They kept me right at 1,500 square feet. Another fella on the corner, they kept hitting right at 1,200 square feet. I mean, I
think that's why we have bylaws. Um, uh, as far as I can see, uh, they're going from the 18 the existing FA the F at 1835 and they're saying
they're only going up 214 ft. Uh, 214 square ft. Um, but isn't it supposed to go back to the F the 1,400 square ft for a 56 uh 100 5,600 ft lot? That's the 25% is
14. >> Well, right now it's it's at 33. So, it's non-conforming anyway. So, it's non >> it's non-conforming. Right. >> Right. Right. We can't we don't make people go back. Um, if they have a non-conforming house or lot, we try to work with them within those parameters.
Okay. But if you count the 1835 and they're really in in if you're going to do a house over, actually take the first floor off and do it over. I was told that you have to you can't go over
the F. >> If you're going to demolish the house, >> well, you're pretty much renovating the whole house. >> So that's kind of demolishing it. Well, they're keeping the existing foundations. >> They're working,
>> but the other thing is I don't understand how you can get rid of square footage, >> especially that's up for that's up for debate at this point. The whole basement is >> especially if they have egress windows and and it sticks out of the foundation sticks off the subgrade 5T,
>> right? And and that's up for >> Okay. I'm just letting you know how I feel. >> Yeah. No, that's why I ask for your comments. They're lovely people >> and I would love them as neighbors and I would love them to have a house, but I'm afraid if if we don't go by the bylaws,
>> we don't want to set precedents. >> Exactly. Exactly. Can can I respond to that? And actually to what you just said, too. Okay. I want to say something. >> No, give me one second. Just so um there's misconceptions out there and I've actually seen it on boards as well. So, by law,
a board cannot set a precedent. in order to set a precedent has to be within a court of law. So this board, even if it wanted to, couldn't set a precedent. The Mass General laws state that every project is looked at on its own merits. So you you'd mentioned something at the
beginning there where you were held to something. >> I was held by the bylaws. >> I feel bad about that. And >> well, I went by the bylaws. I I don't feel bad about it because those are the bylaws. >> I have no idea what you were proposing and we can't really get into that here, right? because it's not part of this
project. It's not what's before them. What I'm saying is that they don't set precedent. So just because maybe they made a mistake in not granting a good they kept it to the FA. [cough] [clears throat] >> Well, so again now back to you the
chair. >> Yeah. It's not a legal in the neighborhood. People would come back and say, "Hey, you did it for that guy. Hey, you did it for this guy. Why aren't you doing it for me?" So that's the kind of precedence we're talking about. Well, but but I think again it's it's kind of the same same path. I think
your answer to that or if I were on this board, my answer to that was I'd have to look at each individual project and what they're proposing to us. Are they keeping the the bylaws in the back of their mind? Are they trying to meet the intent of the bylaw? And again, I' I've
gone through great lengths to try to express to you how we are doing that. >> Appreciate that. And the intent is >> and there's just there's just one more thing I'd like to talk about stories. When you read the definition of a story that you can call he called it a
penthouse. Okay. I we used to call them in the trade doghouses but that enter the roof. You can you actually define that that uh as a three three and a half story. >> Again that's we're here for
>> interpretation. I'm just saying that's actually a story >> and you're only supposed to have two stories on the island. [clears throat] >> Now, I don't know how it says it, right? >> Yeah. >> You read it. >> You read it. I can read it to you. I wrote it down. >> It says two stories.
>> Yep. >> Agreed. >> Are you good? >> Yeah. Any >> that's all I just checking. >> Uh anyone else? >> Yeah. I know. >> Jim Mitchell, I'm just to the south of
you on a butter with my wife. Um, I'll be brief. In granting a variance, there's going to be three characteristics that apply. Um, you know what they are.
Circumstances relating to soil. Uh it would involve a hardship and it would not cause a deterrent to the general public. >> I think they're going for a special permit though, not a variance.
>> Correct. When you go for a special permit because it's non-conforming. Is that correct? Do you use those same three characteristics >> to look at?
>> No, we we go by the POD bylaws which has height, F, >> um, side setbacks, >> front, side, rear, >> and and the character we determine as he mentioned by substantially more detrimental. That's our test. >> That's the bar. Yeah. So, you did your
homework and for a variance that's spot on. Um, but we're actually applying for a special permit. the standard bearer there is is um substantially more detrimental. >> Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I prepared a statement. Um but it's
based on a height increase. So if that's a moot point, then that's a moot point. Um my name is Richie Tilleri and I'm the owner of 133 Northern Boulevard unit A and B. I respectfully ask the board to deny the requested special permit finding for a leaf from sections 974D5
CO1 and 974D5 CO2 of the Newberry zoning bylaw. These sections of the Plum Island overlay district were put in place for a reason. They recognize that many homes on Plum Island are pre-existing non-conforming structures and allow reasonable improvements, but they
specifically limit increases in footprint and height. The applicant is seeking relief from both of these protections. The board's standard is whether the proposed changes will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. I believe they will be. Many
property owners throughout Plum Island have invested significant time and money designing homes, additions, renovations, and rebuilds that conform to the zoning requirements or remain within the limits established by the law. They have respected the regulations that were adopted to protect the character, scale,
and unique environment of the island. Granting relief here for a larger footprint and greater height would create an unfair precedent for those residents who have complied with the rules and accepted the limitations imposed on their own properties. It would also be an invitation for potential future buyers on Plum Island
to buy the smallest houses available, knowing they too can get relief to build a larger, taller house. This neighborhood is made up of many year-round residents and longtime property owners who have invested decades of preserving the unique character of this part of Plum Island. When faced with similar requests for
relief in the past, neighbors have come together in much the same fashion as they are here today. Not out of hostility to change or improvement, but out of shared commitment to maintaining the scale, character, and spirit of the community that has made this area so special. Residents have long understood
that protecting the island's identity requires adherence to the standards that have been carefully established, and many homeowners have made personal sacrifices and design compromises in order to comply with those regulations. The people who live here year round and those who have called this neighborhood
home for generations have worked hard to preserve the sense of place that defines Plum Island. It is that collective commitment that has allowed the island to retain its charm and character despite the pressures of redevelopment. Granting release from these requirements for increased footprint and height
footprint and height would undermine those efforts and send the message that the rules that have guided responsible development for years are no longer meaningful. More importantly, this proposal does not fit the established pattern of development in the immediate neighborhood. The existing homes along
Northern Boulevard reflect the ex traditional scale and character that have defined Plum Island for generations. Increasing both the footprint and height of the structure risks creating a home that is noticeably out of scale with surrounding properties and inconsistent with the visual
character of the area. Plum Island is special because it has never become a place of oversized homes built to the maximum possible dimensions. The island's character comes from its modest scale open views in the sense that no single structure dominates the streetscape. The zoning regulations were
carefully crafted and to ensure that development redevelopment occurs in a way that respects the neighborhood as a whole. If relief from these requirements becomes routine, the cumulative effect will be significant. One larger house becomes another and then another until the very qualities that make Plum Island
unique are gradually lost. The zoning rules are not simple technical requirements. They are part of a long-term effort to preserve the fabric, identity, and character of the island for current residents and future generations. Zoning regulations are more than measurements and dimensions. They
respect a covenant among neighbors and a long-standing commitment to preserving the character and fabric of Plum Island. Once the character is lost, it cannot easily be restored. If exceptions are repeatedly granted to allow larger footprints and taller structures, the qualities residents have worked to
protect will slowly disappear. For all of these reasons, I respectfully request that the board deny the request of relief and uphold the intent of the Plum Island Overlay District Regulations. Thank you. >> Comments? >> Sure. Yeah.
>> Um, anyone else? >> My name is David Dempsey. I live at 846th Street. Um, as far as the project in this area is, I've done four projects right around this house. 131 complete renovation, total gut, did the whole
thing over. Uh, my house at 846th Street, less than 50 yards away. Um, did the same thing, came before the board on that. Uh, was basically followed the compliance of all the the bylaws. We talk about basement
space uh on that property. When I first did mine 14 years ago, I wanted to put the utilities downstairs. It was a crawl space. I cut out a 10x10 square, had a cinder block, and put my heating system and my hot water heater down. I had to add that 100 square ft to my square
footage of my F. Um I when we did 131 next door, um on both of those rehab projects, I sat down with uh building inspector Sam Joslin, went over everything with him. He explained to me what how to keep the envelope of the properties, how to do
them, and how to be able to come before this board at the time and get full compliance and no complaints from many of these neighbors that I all live have lived around and buy for 14 years. Next to my house at 748th Street, I tore the cottage down that was there and came to
this board with a full set of plans to build a new house. And we talked about the FRA and we talked about the lot coverage. Uh, your overhangs do count. I had a 30-in overhang on all the way around my house. I had to cut it back to 20 in because that's what the board told me I had to do. I came with a set of
plans that said I had I wanted to put it on twoft pilings. The board said, "No, you're going to put on 8ft pilings." The house now sits on 8ft pilings. It's a beautiful house. I don't live there because of a health issue with my wife. Uh she had an anerism and the last thing the doctor said was stay away from
stairs and because it was on 8ft pilings, there was 32 steps to the kitchen and 40 steps to the roof deck. So, we stayed in the house that I live in right next door and we've been very happy there. Uh, the last time that this board was involved with a project that I was involved with, I was owners of the
134 Northern Boulevard, Plum Island Kitchen. There was a gentleman that came before this board that was going to build a new house on that property that I had had a purchase and sales agreement with. He wanted to build the same house that as you come over the bridge, you see the large structure by the cottage
with the big half moon uh uh stair stairway penthouse as it's referred to to the roof deck. He came with the same set of plans. He came to me and I said, "If you're going to go in there with those plans, it's never going to pass. That house will never be built there." One of the things that he came in was
the same exact story about the basement that the basement was going to be a space that was not going to be ever built in. He was not going to have any access access except from the outside. There was going to be a playroom for his grandchildren and there was going to be a shower and a bathroom down there for
the for the people coming off the beach. That project was denied. The person sales sales agreement was then invoided. The sale didn't go through and Lucy's has now opened up where that property was. I think the point I'm trying to say and I understand that this gentleman doesn't understand about didn't like the
term of precedent but I think this board in my experience has done a great job of making the good decisions that has kept that neighborhood exactly the way it is and in all the times that I've been before this board and have worked with the building department. I also conferred in much in advance with my
neighbors to talk about what was going to be done so that there wouldn't be a half of a neighborhood sitting here that was in contention of what was being done. I think the point of the basement is that that is part of the bylaws and it is and I've been in that house so I don't know about five feet but the
gentleman that lived in that house and lived downstairs Steve he was at least almost 6 ft tall and I never walked through that place and had to bend down and I think if you look at the elevations of their drawings it says 2'8 where the basement floor was and then the the foundation shows it's another 5
ft. So I think it's almost seven over 7 ft in that basement. Uh, and I don't know how if you have a five foot, how do you have a bathroom with a shower in it with only a 5-ft head space? So, I think there's some controversy in that. I haven't I I I know I've been in the house multiple times. Again, doing the
rehab next door, owning the store across the street, knowing Steve and his mother, the former owners. Um, I've been in that basement multiple times and I've never had to lower my head to walk through that basement and go in and out of that bathroom or sit in that kitchen. So, I think there is a little bit of controversy. I don't know if the building inspector um has gone into that
basement and actually looked at it or if he was just taking off the drawings, but your elevation does show that there's a a 2T 8 a 2T 8 and then another 5 ft on top of that where the foundation wall is before the floor of the first floor. >> Yeah,
>> that's a total of 7.8 7 ft.8 in in. So that's that there's plenty of headroom down there to do a finished basement. And uh so I'm just that I I I I think you really have to take a look at that. Uh there has been issues where people have been turned down because of the definition of what a floor consists of.
And again, I know we don't want to talk about setting precedents, but I'm going to use the word consistent. This board has done a great job, I think, of doing their job of maintaining what our the integrity of our bylaws and what the this the town of N Newberry, not Danish,
not Mthuan, not any other place. what's important to the town of Newberry and the integrity of our neighborhoods is what this board is in is is really done an outstanding job of in the four projects that I've been deal dealt with in that area. And I think that's what made that has made that area of the
island unique. I think it's what's important and I think it's what's important to the people that have lived there. These people that are sitting here, we're all year round residents. I live here year round and like I said, I invested a lot of time and a lot of money. We talked about the houses on 337 Street and the houses that have been
built there. My sister and I own 337 Street originally. We sold those houses to that and I'm I'm devastated at what they've done to that property. So, I think when we talk about the integrity of that neighborhood, I think this board has done an outstanding job over the years, the 14 years I've been here and
my affiliation with the town. Sam Josyn is the building inspector. I have not worked with the most recent building inspector, but Sam was always good with me. We sat down. We talked ahead of time about what was being done. It was a great conversation with myself, my builder, and and my and John Savom, my
architect. And I think that's what makes a project work. And I think that's what makes a project done right. And the fact that this board has been consistent. I'm not saying precedent. I'm saying consistent in the decisions that they've made is what's made Plum Island a special place to live. And you can't
compare it to to to any other place. And that's why when we talk about the lot coverage and we talk about the FS, it's important that we maintain those decisions and those decisions are based on based on the integrity of this board. And I think you've done an outstanding job as far as my my involvement with the
town and I think it should remain that way and thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Can I respond please? >> Yeah. So I just point of clarification. You're right on the um 7 foot8 that's four to four though. That's from the
basement floor and the top of the um first floor. >> Right. But if you look at the floor joist, they're probably >> 2x10s. I have and I've measured it. >> It's 6'8 in the best case scenario for the main ceiling. If you look at the building code, >> um >> well, it went from 5T to 68 now. So, at
least we're on the right page. >> Nope. I think you misunderstood. Uh it is still 5 ft above average grade. That that is I haven't wavered from that. U what I'm saying is inside the space is below the required um basement height
for that. That's my contention. Um I'm also hearing quite a few people reference projects that they were denied or you know some didn't go so smoothly and I I apologize for that.
>> Although I had nothing to do with it. Um >> you apologize. That's not a reason though to to perpetually do um something that isn't consistent with the bylaw. >> So, we'll leave it at that. I don't want to be contentious. >> I love the way you guys talk about this neighborhood and I love the way that you
talk about this as an artist, as an architect. >> We're trying to do that. >> We're doing everything that we can in order to do that. Now, I know some of you might disagree with that, >> but that's our that's our charge. That's what we're trying to do. They want to live here because they love this uh
community. They're they're relocating from Georgetown to to to be here. You've met with them, right? They're extremely nice people. >> Lovely. And you did a great job on the house, too. >> Thank you. >> You did a wonderful job. >> So, we're trying to to to enhance that character. We're taking a dilapitated
property and making it nicer. It sounds like this basement. That's the kind of the Any Anyone else have any comments they'd like to address? One thing, even if we didn't count the basement, it's still 650 ft over.
Even if you didn't count the basement over the 1,400 F. >> Yeah. Anyone else? We're good. Okay. Uh comments? I think we need maybe some
more clarification on a few things and what I'm thinking. Look, I have a couple brief comments to respond to some things that I've heard uh for instance uh on the F. You know, first of all, that's
in our guidelines. That's what we have to go by. It's in the bylaws, but it also serves a purpose. And the purpose is, as you kind of hinted at, is to stop people from building massive houses on small lots. And in order to do that, you just can't say that's too big. You need a mathematical test. and far though not
perfect is the one they've given us. So we can all argue about whether we like it or not or whether it's suitable to Plum Island, but that's the confines we got to work in. Um and the president's thing, you know, right, we're not a legal we're
an authority having jurisdiction. We're not making a legal court case. But but in the term that one of the people in the audience used consistency, you sort of said the same thing. He pointed the house next door and said, "Oh, it's the same thing or very similar." And I agree
with that. It is very similar. You know, I my point was the rest of the neighborhood isn't. So, I >> I think if you were to and uh it sounds like we're going through a continuence, right? That's that's the from reading the best option unless you have another idea.
>> Uh well, I [laughter] I'm happy to hear because if we come back, um I want to address any comments that I hear. Some of them we may not be able to. Um, but if we can, I certainly want to. Um, but in that time, and and I'll bring some some more. I can do more research on it.
But I do suggest it's a pretty fast thing. If you just go to the Google Street Views and take a walk down that street, I think you'll see probably more houses uh that are actually significantly bigger than this, certainly the same size, and you'll also see styles that are very comparable to
this. But what I would suggest is uh one of the things that this board does a good job at is we look at what we're getting. And there's a big get here that we haven't really mentioned which is a you know regardless of the legality of it's an apartment in the on the f in the basement is going away. That's got to be
a plus for the neighborhood I would think and that's got to be a plus for the town. >> By the way, those windows don't open down there. So god forbid if there was ever kids down there and they needed to an emergency exit. >> No, clearly it's unsuitable. It looks like they have two means of egress already from the two stairs,
right? >> In the basement just one window that you're getting rid of >> that can't even open up. Trying to open existing conditions. >> There's only one stair up. >> Oh, I thought >> and uh none of the windows meet egress. >> Yeah, you can see.
>> Fascinating. So, it is it is by in in a lot of faults not a legal living arrangement. And I you you stated it better than I could. So, so I'm not speaking to the board, but my suggestion were to be if if someone was to make a presentation,
reduce the FAR, uh, then I think we would be able to look at it more favorably, you know, and we'll get clarification on on the basement as far as is a story or not, >> you know, >> and I think we probably would need calculations, new calculations with the
basement included far, >> okay, >> so we can see what we're looking at. >> Okay. If we were to fill in the basement hypothetically, we're not going to do this and and and but just hypothetically if the basement didn't exist, we're talking a difference and we've been throwing square footage out there and
they're bigger numbers, but really what we should be focusing on is percentages. 25 25% the existing is 33% based on your definitions and we're asking to go to 38%. >> Not really. When you include the basement,
>> but in this hypothetical, the basement's gone. So 38% >> either filling it with soil. >> Yeah. >> Filling it or um then essentially this project could be built. We'd have to take a few we'd have to take 200 square foot out of it to make the um to to meet
the limits of the um of the bylaw. That's discounting our by right um non-conforming status. But again, the point I'm trying to make is that this structure can exist by right. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be here
before you if there was. >> But we are basically and this is what it is. >> But that's what gives you the right to look at the situation and say, "All right, they're working within the confines of the intent." >> But really not because the FAR is incorrect. >> The FAR is incorrect based on the um the
basement needs to be included. >> Okay. >> If you were to fill it in, it doesn't need to be included. >> It doesn't need to be included. >> And it's not square footage. >> Okay. But you might have to put on piles. That's not my fault. >> You see though that this is kind of like silliness, right? It's not the It's not
And I understand that. All right. So, first of all, you do have the right to grant a special permit in your bylaw. I've read it and and also it's mass general laws to do obligation to to abide by the bylaw. >> Your obligation is substantially more
detrimental. And that's all. It's all just detrimental. Right. Right. >> So, we agree. >> I don't know what we're agreeing on that your that your bar is substantial uh not
more substantially >> and the bylaws and the bylaws. >> And the bylaws. >> That's what the bylaw said. All right. We're we're going on a path that we're not going to get anywhere. Go ahead. That's fine. >> That's good. Okay. Um any other comments, questions, concerns?
>> Do we want to make a motion? >> Yeah. I I think we have a few conditions on Yeah. >> Do you have before any other motion we would make would be to make a continuence, have you guys come back with some more information? >> We'll come back with some more information.
>> Y, >> you know, we hate to, you know, we try to get people in and as quickly as >> we want to be fair to everyone. I mean, you know, we want to be fair to those people who have small lots and big lots. We'd love to help you out. And so, we're here to help you out. I think all the
board members have said this is a good project. Everyone said we like this project. No, the neighbors who are here, I don't want to say opposition, but not in strong support have all said they like the project. It's a nice design. >> Um, and consistency is something that this board should strive for. I agree
with that 100%. Every board should. Um, however, perpetuation of something that isn't necessarily the best way to look at something doesn't by definition >> I have to disagree allow you on that. I really do. What >> what do you disagree >> about the way you're looking at it? The way we look at stuff with related to
FAR. I mean it we go by with the numbers and we do go by detrimental. So I can't agree with you that we shouldn't look at >> my point was the the neighbors were saying that you know they weren't allowed to do something for this reason or for that reason. That really shouldn't come into play in in a
specific Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> We every every project's different. Every project's unique oneonone. We look at it in a unique way. >> Perfect. So yeah, then we'd like a continuence for that. Make a motion. >> No, make a motion to uh grant the
continuence for both the applicant and the board to come back with more information. >> And we would request that you um do the additional calculations with the basement >> including the basement. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Second.
>> All in favor? Oh, August August 20th >> 20th 7:30 20th Yes. >> Thank you. >> [laughter] >> Mario. >> Okay. So,
reference to variances. Uh, Governor Keely signed a new budget changes to zoning codes. I start from a building standpoint, mentioned it to Eric. Eric made a few comments. Somebody went into Jack GPT and asked for a
summary of all the changes. So I added that to the top section of the 48 changes and Eric asked Lisa me for a recommendation on the changes. So she did like a sevenpage memo which is attached and now variance has changed. You don't need those three
recommendations for variance anymore. It's not based on soy topography or hardship. >> Come on. I was good though. [laughter] >> Has anyone ever argued that a non-conforming structure was a hardship because they inherited it or something like that? I mean, like, has that argument ever come up? Have you guys
ever seen that? >> Driveway one for Foley did come up that they said it was a hardship that they couldn't safely take a left out of the development because the fire trucks couldn't get in and out. >> So, they were allowed to in my window and I can't play Xbox at a certain time
of day, so Um, okay. That's this >> that's that 48 pack. >> So, sorry. Yes. With those changes to 48. >> Make a motion to end the meeting. Yep.