second floor hearing room and this is the zoning board of appeals we have with us uh Christine Pri who is our administrative assistant Michelle Wigler who is an associate member we have Mario Harvali who is a member Jack Kelly who
is a member Larry Murphy who is our leazison from the planning board and I sw the chair so with that tomorrow let's open up um Ward 80 Northern Boulevard the
applicant is requesting a special permit finding for relief consecutive 974D5C01 square footage and 02 upward extension of the Newberry zoning bylaws and any other permanent preach may be required under the town of Newber's zoning bylaws to allow the proposed use
project in order to raise the existing dwelling on the lot while keeping the garage and the construction of a new single family dwelling on filings on the property located at 80 Boulevard Plum Island Newberry Mass 01951 Ces Matthew
Hugh 03 lot 181 and this was continued from February 19th meeting and Al has requested that we continue this until next month April 17th 7:30 here
um and do you want to add a little um extra color on why we're why there's a request uh the project's going through conservation of butters have uh submitted additional uh comments and
pictures as you will see in the handouts for 80 they were just received uh this week uh and DP has made comments uh to the conservation commission for a list of additional items relating to uh dune
in wetlands and planting and schedules and things like that so I can print off on the from the D website what they're requesting and I believe the next meeting for Hong Kong is April 1st and that may be continued to April 15th and
then we have them back in front of us on the 17th so the pictures that were sent in of were of a previous hurricane from 1950 that affected uh that 80 Northern Boulevard and the houses across the street so the abundance just wanted the
board to see that we did receive a letter and letters from the um town administrator and so did you receive that as well no I did not okay so
um you should ask Tracy to copy you on that i will do that and then we'll and then you can stamp it in as received as the record okay um since we're not hearing it tonight otherwise I'd figure out how to pull it up or Okay discuss it but let's just note that there was some
additional communication that's in process okay and then with that is there um motion to continue i'll make a motion to continue the meeting till April 17th 7:30 second yes please all in favor i
all right continued on to the next one all right [Music] um well I'll start reading it u General Van Diddy 11 and 15 Sunset Drive the applicant is requesting a variance
reversal or administrative decision and a special permit binding uh for relief from Newbury zoning bylaw section 974D2B and 976B regarding allowed use and dimensional requirements in order to correct the lot configuration allowing
for the creation of a legal non-conforming lot to be redeveloped in order to raise a pre-existing non-conforming dwelling and for the construction of a new single family dwelling with garage on pilings how are you
on the property is located at 11 and 15 Sunset Drive Math 01951 Cessors Matthew 02 78 and 80 continued from 219 all righty so we've had several um
continuations of this hearing and at the last hearing recap was the understanding is that we looked at both um properties and understanding that um or had discussions about the variances and then we also
then went back and and had a discussion about what um if a variance was granted what that would do to the properties in terms of allowing rights or to them and and having that discussion
um in understanding that the what was being requested by the varants um we felt that having odd having two lots that are fairly equal in size and dividing them so that one lot became bigger and one
lot that became smaller was favoring one lot over the other in um in allowable buildable area and that seemed to be gaining favor for one lot over the other and and a more
equal division of the lots would seem that the existing um area of the two lots even though revised in in a a new property line between them if they were more equally
um sized then there would be equal developments on both lots which would be more in keeping with the current rights that are there and also the neighborhood and even though that doesn't have an effect um on the the conditions of a
variance it was important to understand that because we didn't want to grant a variance and then get to step two and then figure out what well this this isn't this um one lot now can have a much bigger house than the other lot and didn't want
to create a situation so that that's where that whole discussion went um and then leaving that meeting we we said we would think that a more equal division would would be um favorable in
the second step uh Mr from that he uh did do that created this plan have you guys seen this plan yes that one thank you um and and had created two
lots and for 11 Sunset Boulevard is plus or - 14,435 ft and 15 Sunset Boulevard is 17,680 square feet so um and and with
that the the line is drawn in a way that provides 20 ft of frontage on Sunset Boulevard to access 15 Sunset sorry 15 Sunset Drive from
um from the road so then we come uh to the point or discussion of of the variance and the appropriateness of a variance and um and deciding a variance that is both
joined because there are joint property and property lines between them but also in consideration that there needs to be two variances one for each property and in the essence of of the variance um for moving this property line these
are two existing non-conforming properties and by if a variance was granted we would basically be resetting the existing nonconformities of the
lots so um It's not like we're just talking about this the size of the lot it's it's even though some of the um the frontage changes on both lots the area changes on both lots
um those are the um those are the two conditions the existing house on 15 although it doesn't meet the yard setbacks would could now technically be
totally on the property if it comes forward does anybody have any questions or or is there anything that I just said in terms of recap correct or needs more discussion does Mr fandetti have anything to add
can you hear us i can hear you guys well thank you uh for asking uh it sounds like uh the chairman's review uh was right on point all right we do have two people uh here uh present tonight and so I'll ask them if they would like to speak or or say
anything is the line that line uh is that the original line on the last proposal no no what is that what is this line that's just a line just
But if you'd like to come up here we could explain it so originally one two three four lots were made into one and two lots and
now keeping the existing lot line here to this point and then running it out to here in order to provide that much actual frontage on Sunset Drive now that's where Hill driveway will be this is Yeah and that
20 foot frontage okay all the way across okay and so this lot loses technically this area this lot technically gains that area this is 14 almost and a half and this is 17 and 3/4
looks great and I'm glad that this property has more u property okay can you just state your name again for for George Finnegan and Jonathan Six mile away which is right here you're right here
okay excellent thank you for coming up thank you for the Thank you all right mr pandett do you have any um other comments for uh the argument of the variance
uh no not at this point i think uh the latest letter that I submitted pretty much uh reviewed uh my position and uh the be uh an attempt to um make it workable for everyone in the community
and for the board as well okay so we've received the the the um the revised site plan we received the letter i think Mario you got to read the letter okay
okay uh dated March 4th um 11:15 Sunset Drive variance request uh dear chairman and board members I'm requesting variance for properties at 11 and 15 Sunset Drive both properties have significant hardships and therefore entitled to a variance and both properties meet the requirements as
outlined in chapter 48 section 10 of Mass Law variances are needed for the reasonable use of the land the requirements meaning of requirements in meeting those requirements are as outlined below circumstances relating to soil condition shape or topography of
such land or structures and especially affecting such land and structures but not affecting generally the zoning districts in which it is located a little enforcement of the bylaws would involve a substantial hardship on 15 sunset the shape of the land does not afford it access to a public way
although it butts Dartmouth Way in a public owned right away it is unimproved and will be extremely costly to improve if allowed by the town and state and thus and is thus a serious financial hardship however town and state regulations will not allow improvement on Dartmouth Way as a street thus a
variance is justified also because Dartmouth Way is unimproved and not designated in any way on Sunset Drive as a street it would be extremely unsafe to exit any part of the property through Dartmouth Way for 15 Sunset to obtain access to a
public way as required by state law requiring all lots of a public way we are proposing transfer a small section of 11 sunset to allow for 20 ft of frontage to the lot at 15 sunset see attached planned and land area analysis table this would also allow the house on
15 sunset to be located on land owned by 15 sunset entirely and eliminate the hardship of one structure straddling the property line the variance required for 11 sunset district topography um as the extreme contours of the property limit
the area where new structure can be built thus creating a significant financial hardship for building as allowed by the pod guidelines in addition a significant portion of the building structure 15 Sunset is located on 11 Sunset thus creating an additional
financial hardship as would be extremely difficult to sell improve or improve the property and others owner structure on the property these are unique conditions and are not typical for properties in the neighborhood 11 Sunset Drive is also subject to flooding as is located across
the street of Tidal Marsh these conditions are unique to these lots and not the district in which they exist the little enforce literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in significant financial hardship there would be no significant negative effect to the public as the land areas of the
lots would be similar in size relative to each other as currently exist and similar to the majority of the lots in the neighborhood making lot 15 sunset the approximate size of lot making making lot 11 sunset the approximate size of
lot 15 sunset and making lot 15 sunset the approximate size of lot 11 sunset effectively keeps the lots the same rel same same relative to each other and does not create any neighborhood discrepancies relative to the lot size but resolves the hardship issue granting
a variance for both of these properties in no way would nullify the intent of current zoning ordinance or P overlay district granting these variants will improve the sighting of the current and future building on the site add to the overall neighborhood integrity and public safety by allowing ing proper
vehicular access also the requested lot change will not add to the current non-conformance of the lots as they will remain similar in size relative to each other and general entities thank you all right excuse me Mr chairman okay can
I ask just Mr fandetti just a couple quick questions just as a refresher because we spent the last meeting pretty much on 11 and I want to make sure I got my facts on 15 straight is that acceptable yes um so we had the deed somewhere and I was looking for it mr pendett my understanding is this is this
was a relatively recent purchase is that correct about a year and a half now yeah good and I remember at the first meeting that's that was either you or one of the neighbors said the previous owner had been there for some time 30 40 years
something like that we know uh no i wouldn't know i wouldn't the length of their ownership yeah all right and the access thing has been confusing me a little are you aware of any access to 15 uh sunset from anywhere other than uh
the current access uh no there there was never nothing not I know of we've had the property surveyed and uh no other access revealed itself i'm curious in particular about Dartmouth Way is there any history that
you're aware of on Dartmouth Way of Access i mean there's a lot of frontage on Dartmouth Way but is there I'm aware that it's a paper road no I haven't no there's no no access through Dartmouth Way not that I know of okay and the last thing on Dartmouth Way
uh have you made any attempt to see if if Dartmouth Way can be improved do we have any uh Well for instance think about a beach access beach accesses on Plum Island are very popular except with the abutters um is do you do you know if the town would be interested in making a
beach access which would give you uh you know maybe the beginning part of it or or or I guess a simple way to say it is do you have any have you applied to any federal state or local authorities to see if Dartmouth I had I've had
experience on Gerard Way which is about two street down uh where I uh wanted to connect the two sections of Gerard Way it's uh
they're both dead ends and I wanted to connect it because we owned a property at the end of Gerard Way and I went through the process with the state and Doug Packer a conservation agent at the
time and there was stiff stiff resistance trying to get that road connected and it was just a small section probably 50 feet would make it a through street and no way they would not
even listen to me both conservation and the state D would not listen to my arguments even though the streets were only 50 ft apart and it was a very small area it didn't have any significant
vegetation on it and they would not entertain and I said I would pay for it and they would not entertain that uh proposal so okay based on that and this had to be this is it was about five
years ago maybe six in that time frame um I'm just making sure we did our due diligence uh so I I agree you're probably right it would be difficult but but for the record you don't have any written denial from any agency saying that Dartmouth Way is uh you know no go
not not for Dartmouth Way no okay thank you i just wanted to get up to speed i felt it would be just an exercise of utility to try and get that um any get any sort of access through there i mean
it just seemed um feudal to try even try based on and I went in terms of Gerard Way spent uh significant legal fees and uh and spent over a year trying to do it and it
just wasn't going to happen it just was not going to happen so what was it uh can we uh say that it was uh additional impervious surface added to Plum Island it was the cost of putting it in and
then it was there a cost of maintenance i mean what what was the resistance do do you have uh well conservation did not want uh any disturbance of the uh the dune grass
there and uh they didn't want it required some excavation to level it because Gerard way at one end was higher than the budding property so it had to been excavated into a slope condition
and uh they did not feel that that was uh something that they would they would approve and then Doug Packer who was very helpful but did not see
uh uh the state conservation authorities approving that at all and we went and made application and just didn't go anywhere just did not go anywhere so that that's where my experience comes from and and that's why I didn't think
uh it was worth the effort to try and uh uh make an argument for dropman's way it just was not and I I had I talked to um Tom Hughes about it also and he mentioned that uh nope was not something
that would be uh feasible and he's he's a a consultant that not only I use but uses so it it was that kind of u those kind of conversations that Thank you doesn't seem to make sense pursuing
thank you uh I guess while we're on the subject Larry as a side note is there any what's the last road that was added to town but that's a public road that's not a development road on on I couldn't say right yeah i can't think of one
either okay all right we move on from the road thing can we yes absolutely i'm I'm up to speed you're up to speed michelle question i'm good question clarity anything to comment on nope right
um okay so I think we're at the point where we will close the public meeting and we will um ask for a motion on this um I have a motion drafted can Can I Before you do that let me ask
maybe this is for the board part of the board discussion cuz uh I'm okay with 11 i'm thinking about this but the variance on 15 has me a little I'm not sure I see it um it seems like 15 is a pretty good
property it has uh an undersized lot but it's pre-existing non-conforming most lots on the island are undersized uh it has no frontage but again that's not an issue because of the existing non-conforming uh and it has grandfathered access to number 11 uh
where the access is and as Mr fandetti just it sounds like it's been that way for 100 years since the has been open and continuous use across a 20ft section of 11 into its property for 100 years um
so uh I don't really see I don't how see how the shape what are we going with here shaped or topography or the shape doesn't seem to be I don't see how it fits i just want someone to explain it to me yes we had previously said that the shape of the land against an
unimproved way was the hardship and that having to improve a public town right away for your singular use was the hardship of expense but the but the existing
one I guess it's on the corner of Dartmouth Way but it's mostly across 11 and it's not a very big encroachment on 11 it's about you know it's an amorphous shape but it's about 20 by 20 the size of a good size living room it's not like it's a huge so if if 11 isn't willing to
give an easement and we talked about you know asking if we could have an easement asking if if if Dartmouth was semi-improved if there was uh you know there were rights because it was a public way um someone could try to drive down it even though it's all doom and it
wouldn't work well that Well that's my point the the opening continuous use for 100 years according to the council that I spoke to which was not Tom council don't bill said that that grants an easement for access only uh so that it
would be that in the unusual situation that Mr fandetti would sue Mr fandetti to prevent himself from having an access i across that a lot uh want you to prevail in at the same time but I'm saying that access exists and so how we
get in a hardship here frontage exists it doesn't exist there's no frontage to that lot that actually touches the public way there's access but there's no frontage but that's a pre-existing non-conforming
thing right right and so if if if in coming before us if it has no frontage if you know we we Plum Island is unique we have lots of
conditions of of issues we look for properties that want to do something to propose how they are going to improve the conditions the dimensional requirements of that lot
um in reading for variances safety is a concern of which you can claim a hardship that if it doesn't have direct access and properties are sold um and maybe the easement on 11 would
encumber the the value of 11 so it's not going to grant himself an easement for it and that easement goes away then then the land is landlocked on 15 and it it it you know not having something or just having a little bit is is the difference on my island
and how we judge things properties are over the F they're over the lot coverage somebody wants to do something new and they improve the yard setbacks they improve the F they improve the lot coverage and we judge it
against the existing neighborhood as to how you know how others have their property developed so that we're we're giving equal rights in terms of how the the POD
is seen i think if and I'm not saying that he could have done this because we didn't give him enough time but I think had had Mr vandetti shown the existing access it's essentially side by with the with the proposed one i don't know how
one can be safer or less safe than the than the one that he shows on uh sheet one and limited existing conditions for right here right yeah I highlighted it so that's good but on this one it's not there but if it was on the one we
got tonight and I I admit that he didn't have time they'd be right they're right next to each other why why do you like the new one better than the old one because this this is a legal pathway to to setting the properties rights and
continuing as a nonconformity but having the access right and having some some frontage a legal frontage even though it is previously not conforming with the variance that allows it to continue with its with with it with its
nonconformities i guess my point is that I think that the existing one is legal it can't be made unlegal my understanding is someone would have had to blocked off access to that for a 20-year period i mean it's been there 100 years i guess I think I'm
paraphrasing is that if if he sells the land two different people own it and then 11 says "Hey you know that's not your land." I'm I'm saying that in that event 11 would lose clearly and I think that's almost certain i was told it's a slam dunk i mean we can ask town council
but um for an opinion but if a very I I'm not trying to rock the boat i just think that we got to let's pick a condition and I don't think Chief is working excuse me excuse me my familiar familiarity with that section of the law
and I'm not a lawyer and I don't Well neither are to be but but it's open and notorious is the terminology I think the law says and I don't see it as being because there was one owner it wasn't a
notorious uh condition there it was hoping yes because the other own the owner such who owned maybe both properties at some point uh allowed it to happen but it was
not a notorious kind of situation we don't we the zoning board don't have anything to do with agreeing to providing for allowing agreeing or
promoting access over somebody else's property we if if and we did ask the question if someone wanted to grant an easement or somebody had an easement and that easement runs with the land that comes
before us and that's presented as a matter of fact we we're not taking access that isn't deeded as as an easement as a condition that exists even though it is there on the plan
so if if it wasn't Mr fandetti that applied for 15 if it was someone else and they said "Hey I want to build a new house i want to move it off the property line put it in the middle of the property come back." We would say "No because you don't have access." Yeah we' say "Where's your where's your frontage?" I mean it'd be a head
scratcher and we did do that to the lot on Pearson Drive that didn't do the development within the 8-year period and had the flag lot that went up he he he had a minimal driveway with you've got it yeah you were granted the rights that was a separate kind of
issue but you were granted the rights during the development you did not act on the conditions that were granted for that development within the time period that was allowed and you now lose that right and it reverts back to yeah you got a piece of property that's an acre you got a piece of property where you
could put something with all the dimensional requirements and all the area and stuff on it but you don't have the frontage and we were saying like I don't know get yourself an easement over somebody else's and maybe that could solve yours but go figure that out we we're not going to grant you an easement we're not going to say if you get an
easement we'll approve this what we ended up saying was unfortunately your property even though it's a really nice piece of property doesn't have the frontage so you don't meet the criteria in which to build on it sorry you're you're Yeah that makes sense but it still seems
here like this one hangs on the issue whether the easement that I'm saying open and notorious or exist or not it's it's it's not it's not on the drawings there is no easement there's no survey dash lines that say easement it's not there it's not legally there right now
it's physically there but it's not legally on this document it's not deed it's not on a deed plan somewhere and it hasn't been filed it's on this one it it's not I know it's not a boundary survey but I mean it's it's drawn it's
physically there it's used if you went there today to drive over it but it's not deed as you can go to the registrated deeds and call up the plan and see that there was actually an easement that was granted and signed by both parties and it was legally accepted
so it doesn't exist as as an eman doesn't legally exist as an east well one I'm not sure I agree but but that's okay uh why don't we go ahead can can I ask one more thing to the way I've always sort of looked at at these two different properties is once the
property law changes um because as we've said any nonconformity existing nonconformity is reset right so we no longer um can sort of use that in the future as someone else might so so Mr fendetti might sell
15 sunset the person who buys this they now have no existing nonconformities no they they have they have a pre-existing nonconformity in that they don't have the required frontage but
they actually do have access off the road to get on their property with the new lines with the new lines yeah yeah so so that's that's my question though so they don't have required frontage so will that person have to come back to us though for us to grant that is the
question i'm just saying does that make it harder for that goes for the lot size to have to um come back to us for the POD if they want to do upward extension but does that prevent that next person you know that's that's another barrier
for them as we said on other cases and let's call out 80 Northern Boulevard and the neighbor was arguing against the positioning and the applicant was listening to them
nicely and the new addition um cleaned up except for the garage piece but basically the size the lot coverage the the setbacks were all made to be conforming and as we said most of
the lots it's the size of the lot and it's the frontage which is almost u common across Plum Island that are the nonconformities that remain and as people come before us the size of what
they can do is generally dictated by the size of the property and that the location of that new structure um unless there's an existing one and they want to to try to maintain that previous
nonconformity is is located so that it meets the requirements of the of the yard setbacks and the heights so yes they they they would come back before us they're pre they would now be a pre-existing non-conforming lot with
20 ft of furniture they wouldn't be pre-existing non-conforming anymore they would just be non-conforming because it's not it's no longer am I understanding that right it's no longer pre-existing because we're saying we're starting fresh now we don't care what was there you know yesterday now we're gonna create new
lines and that's the variance makes it a legal bot as we grant the variance so they come before us and we say you don't have the frontage yes that's pre-existing because I got a variance there was a variance granted to this property so it's there it's I have it by
right yes in terms of an original issue where somebody created a piece of property it had to be created before the zoning and that made it precon pre-existing non-conforming we're just making a change we're not really making anything better I guess is
my point we're making a change we're not making anything better i mean yes there's legally now access to 15 but you could say 11's actually worse because it's smaller so it's even more non-conforming right um I'm not saying we should have move i'm just sort of
pointing out the way I've been thinking through this is we're nothing we're not making anything better at I think at this point you're technically providing frontage to 15
which is what is not there now so you are improving 15 Good i'm I want to hear the motion before I decide how to vote all right so after hearing uh the petitioner present uh the proposed lot
lines changes to both 11 and 15 Sunset B Sunset Drive together and separately uh I will propose a motion to be drafted to grant separate variances for each project property the Massachusetts standard for granting the zoning variance is notoriously difficult to
meet massachusetts general law chapter 48 section 10 requires proof that one due to circumstances concerning soil condition shape of the lot or the topography of the land which especially affecting the land but not the the
zoning district generally literally uh literal enforcement of the zoning ordinances would cause substantial hardship financial or otherwise and relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without nullifying or substantially
degradating from the intent and purpose of the ordinance commissioner has proposed revising a lot line between two adjacent pre-existing non-conforming properties the adjacent lot lines affect both properties the board has reviewed the arguments presented for the variance on
each property taking into account the requirements of Massachusetts general law chapter 40 A section 10 um you taking copious notes oh yeah i'll give you Thank you um so the uh the board has reviewed the
arguments presented for the variances on the properties taken in account the requirements Massachusetts general law chapter 4A section 10 and the town of New Hub's bylaws chapter 79 zoning uh the properties are located in Plum Island overlay district and are as such governed by the section 97-4 regulations
of overlay districts uh D Plum Island during the deliberations the board requested the petitioner provide documentation as to the existing conditions of the adjacent neighborhood as to inform the board of the range of of existing lot sizes in in the local
area of 15 11 and 15 Sunset Drive the research presented showed that the proposed changes of the lot adjacent lot line would create neither the smallest nor the largest lot in the neighborhood although the lot the size of the lot was
not considered as a standard for granting the variance the board thought it prudent to understand the ramifications of the new dimensional criteria that would be afforded the lots should the variance be granted the result of the board's decision led the board to find that the changing of the
lot line and thus the size of the lots would favor one lot um at a detriment of minimizing size minimizing its size to the other lot additionally the board concluded that
um a revised lot um board concluded that a revised lot line that maintained a more equal division of both lots uh would keep and preserve the PIOD dimensional requirements of lot coverage
and floor ratio and yard setbacks that currently exist on both lots and in the adjacent neighborhood 15 Sunset um drive is a pre-existing non-conforming site that contains an existing residential structure that is
currently located over the property line with um over the property line with 11 Sunset Drive and is landlocked without frontage on the public way due to the circumstances concerning the shape of the lot in um in that the land is locked
due to the unimproved uh town way Dartmouth AB the unimproved road affects the land but not the zoning district and little enforcement of the zoning ordinances would cause a substantial hardship financial or otherwise for the property owner to create the town uh for
for the owner to create a town road finding that the grant granting of variance would be without substantial detriment to the public good and finding that the variance would not nullify or substantially degragate from the intended purposes of the
POD ordinance 11 Sunset Road is a pre-existing non-conforming site that contains an existing residential structure with a previously existing deck um that did not meet the dimensional side rear yard setbacks that
has recently been removed due to the circumstances concerning the topography and shape of the land um the site is situated on a sloping dune uh dune corner lot with a large radius frontage against Sunset Boulevard in
Verarway due to the topography and a two road frontage placing the structure in a location other than the current location would be difficult uh and impose a hardship the revised lot line affects the land but not the zoning district and
the little enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause substantial hardship financial otherwise for the property owner to create um to create anything new on the property um finding uh that granting a variance would be without substantial
detriment to the public good and uh finding that variance would not nullify or substantially degragate from the intent of the purpose of the POD in conclusion the granting of a variance for 11 and 15 Sunset Drive to break or figure both lots due to the conditions
of the land that would reset the non-conforming conditions of the lot and that would um and that would allow any new structures on the property to not be a detriment to the public good or deregate the intent and purposes of the town of
Newberry's zoning ordinances so that the new lot sizes and the rights allowed under the PIOD would not be more detrimental to the existing surrounding neighborhood am I the uh am I the loyal opposition
here is there is there a second let let me ask this are there any modifications proposed would you is is it this or nothing is there a second to this and then you can I'll second okay so the motion was made it was second if if you'd like to make a counter motion or
I'd like to make a correction or you'd like to I would like to make a uh how about a counter motion i'll try that um I'd like to adopt everything that the chairman just said except that instead of using Mr pandetti's drawing of the
lot line we use the one that should we we make the easement where the current one is which I contend legally exists already so it would be it would even out the lot slightly more we'd take
the current access and make it the variance access and then everything else will stay the same how much I don't how much difference is it it's it's it gets a little it's going in the direction Michelle wanted that's
the existing one the new one is right here oh pretty much next door to each other but that doesn't solve the issue right that's a structure that's a different issue there's multiple solutions to that but I understand us to be talking about land right now and shape so you're saying the property line
comes here follows what's there existing or Sure whatever yeah that's fine because I think and I think Mr vendetti is aware too that the it's called adverse possession he he corrected me and quoted the the law that
I was told about uh you know I said continuous he said notorious I believe he's to be correct my contention is that's an existing legal right away it wouldn't have to be a battle but it's there even if it's not in the deed we could put it in the deed make a variance
and call it quits I do say the chairman so I guess though this line though still doesn't provide frontage on well I mean I don't know where technically sunset stops and darkness starts yeah it I understand your your
point of trying to keep the existing physical condition that's there but it doesn't give them frontage or it would give them like 5 ft of frontage and I think that's that would be
a you know we're we're either doing it right and and and providing some frontage the width of of a of a vehicle or two for proper entry and and granting a legit even though not legal
frontage as opposed to granting what's on the piece of paper but still isn't still isn't legal frontage whatever the requirements would be for a driveway 9 ft in New whatever it is lane I think it's
16 depends on um um I can't recall what we said last time we had somebody that in a driveway that wanted we needed enough room to get it in there yeah I do remember that i thought it was
nine but I could be mistaken it was that skinny one off of the common Green tea I think what What's the difference between 20 and what we're looking you're looking at this is that there's
something existing that you think works and so why change it right because well I just don't why change it to I I don't see the the hardship aspect of it um I don't see how that fits into the hardship it just you know the hardship is that it's not it's
not legal at the moment it doesn't there is no frontage and and your solution even though it it keeps the condition the same right now and would seemingly be greater tomorrow because it would just operate the same as it did today still
isn't there's no legal frontage to the lot which we're correcting with the variance no because if you redraw that line like that there is no we're not granting a variance we don't grant easements we can't do that we don't have that right to to do that well I'm asking him to redraw the lot
line like he did and there would be straight across there would be no there would be no frontage then a small amount and we only need a I mean it was hard to scale out cuz it's not exact but you said 5 ft i was looking for nine uh I I
think we're close any existing houses over the over I mean it does solve or create a lot and create a condition for a structure that that is not is not passed on as being over the
property line and and continues a addition um I don't know if there's any factor point of asking whether the house on 15 is is proposed to come down soon and then the
the physical property goes away and in in trying to keep this the same um Jack what is what does that what does that do it it keeps it it doesn't change the condition that already exists they do want to raise this though right
yeah um you mean the access not because I wasn't really talking about the structure because I thought we agreed that this was about shape not structures so I didn't really think about the the location the structure comes into play when you have something like an historic
church or a structure and and that's the hardship of of moving or changing why you would grant variance against a structure of that caliber historic nature or or significance as opposed to a there all
these residents it's not as significant it's not a significant structure compared to everything else in the Okay well that so that's fine for now um I I I guess to repeat what I said before I like the fact that
um that it uh trying to I'm trying to rephrase it in a different way um has minimal effect to anything and legitimizes what I think is already legally there and evens out the lots a
little bit but I think it's kind of a no- win excuse me no lose a win-win i guess we have to decide what the front what the feet how many feet we have to give them that's your point i mean it does say that in this in the hardship rules
that we read earlier that lack of frontage is not a hardship fl says that in the mass statute um we're getting around that i'm kind of suggesting a way that to you know right now our really our only that's our only hardship lack
of frontage which is supposedly not part of it [Applause] do you want to go back and draw the line again a new line or if the rest of the board thinks it's a bad idea then I'll get out voted
there are in trying to read up on variances or other conditions and again not being a lawyer or or trying to to represent in cases but there were some cases in which public safety was um the
lack of public safety was a hardship for um a property and if and um and reasoning that that's that in the shape of the land
um was a consideration for granting of a variance i read up on it too and it was interesting some of the things that I thought would have qualified for a variance for instance one one case I read was the needs of an elderly and infirmed couple wanted to build a garage
didn't have enough room access in and out of their property that got shut down another one was uh a guy had a growing family and his house was too small he wanted to put an addition on uh and they said "No the needs of a growing family aren't suitable for variance." So you
know as a zoning board member I probably would be more sympathetic to those two examples than I than I am to this one so it's a but as you said earlier it's a very difficult standard in Massachusetts to get a variance i'm not sure we're hitting it here and as you said before
putting all the other things aside the the shape and the topography of the land as it exists and what we're we're doing to change it
um is it in keeping with the current zoning district and and doesn't change it um and does it um there are five things that that are listed so it's due to the
circumstances of of the of the lot and the land um it's it's unique um land uh within the zoning district the little enforce the literal
enforcement would cause a hard substantial hardship finding and granting a variance um would be without substantial detriment to to the public good uh and the finding a variance uh would not nullify um or degrade from the
intent to the purposes of the POD so granting a variance here would not be detrimental to the POD and we we did that by looking at all the lot sizes and and seeing that the lots were kind of equal yep and the same with the public good and and the granting of the
variance would Yeah wouldn't hurt the public good one way or the other agreed um little enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause substantial hardship so if we said you couldn't do anything with a lot without any
um frontage and the variance provides frontage then um the the little enforcement of the current zoning ordinances of having to have some frontage on on Plum Island that is and I
guess my mind again this is a variance but then the next step is always in keeping with the neighborhood for everything that is done out on Plum Island i guess my only comment there would be if we're is this the only lot with lack
of frontage on Plum Island that's existing non-conforming because we're kind of saying that's grounds for variance of liberty if well you may have a landlocked lot but they would might have to go across other people's property to get it unless
in the zoning or if they could buy the other lot they can't solve their that problem that way okay so it comes up to the unique condition of that and there probably are landlock lots that have some agreement or no agreement where people get access
all the time you drive around the northern basin and you look at some of those roads you you wonder if it's a driveway or it's a rideway or what is it some people are very nice about it and some people aren't
um and the unimproved you know the unimproved road affects the um land but it doesn't affect the zoning district it's not a new road that that makes the cuts the district in half it doesn't either add or decrease
from from Long Island don't we have to vote on the first one and then take the second motion it would be if it passes then the second motion wouldn't matter right so you have a motion someone can make a second motion you make a third motion you have
to clear up the motions to get back to the first motion is the simple way I understand it right so you're you're there's a motion out there and now we're trying to adjust or tweak that motion or have an understanding of that motion before we
get back to that motion you know there's lots of reasons to make a motionless and the the way motions work everybody could have a motion and then we could decide in in the validity of order of of which motion
goes first it's not that I made a first motion but each could have made a motion and then if the timesensitive ones move to the front versus the other okay well mine hasn't been seconded is there a second to it okay i stand corrected
um usually I got this this this deep so um we could there could be a second and then there then then there's obviously a vote on it which you can then move forward or not um there's been a second to your motion yes all right and a
second to your right and I think we're still on who's voting on it that's another question who's voting on us no not me no no i mean we are the three of us right you were I haven't missed anything
i wasn't here i caught up i I watched the video so so it's it it's back tomorrow yeah yeah and that's fine i just I'm just trying to make sure we understand yes who who needs to have the deciding factor here well I'll tell you what if it'll make things simpler I could
withdraw my motion mr chairman would that be acceptable or would that be better um you have the right to do that i believe uh it was a good discussion uh I'll withdraw my motion if that's permissible okay do you think
your that do you think the lack of advancing your motion has effect on the decision what do you mean well you you proposed something and you you tried to move the the first motion
to a different or what was proposed to a different direction so I'm trying to understand where we're going with this well the board discussed it and it doesn't seem like there was a lot of traction for my motion so I I withdrew it after hearing the uh input from the
from the other members okay so that motion is withdrawn and so we we're back on to the the first motion is there any other discussion on the first motion then no okay c can I just note one thing i know I'm not voting but I just want I
think it's important to note that every project every piece of land is specific on Plum Island and just because this may be approved it's not setting a precedent for every other property on Plum Island we we just should say that and we
um do bring that up from time to time when somebody jumps to point out something especially when they point out something over there and their house is way over here and we're have said in the past that the the neighborhood and I have asked town council and the neighborhood says what do you consider
the neighborhood like what what boundaries in that location on Plum Island is is considered be argued to be the neighborhood it could be three houses in a row on Northern Boulevard and here it could be every house on this
end of island yep and that that is leeway and purview for us within the POD i think it's important to know right and and just as important for us and the board too to know moving forward too just because we had people submit the exact
same house in different lots and one pass and one fail so we held true to that yep okay that's it all right so we're out of out of vote so all those in favor I I all those
nay none all right mr pendetta you're your So that was we'll say that was for 15 because that's what we were discussing so now is there a motion for 11 we should vote twice because they're separate boxes yeah so I I made the
motion for both but I believe it's a separate vote and so is there I'll make a motion to accept um the new drawings here and the new lot lines for uh 11 11 second
i'll second but I think you can second if you're on the panel and you're in the discussion you can move along but we'll we'll we'll working to clarify um rules of order for everyone to have a little cheat sheet all right so is there a vote all those
in favor i three eyes all right mr uh Fandetti congratulations 11 and 15 Sunset Boulevard received variances for the lot line that has been redrawn um to present 11 Sunset
Boulevard approximately uh 14,435 ft and 15 Sunset Boulevard for 17,680 ft thank you well thank thank you uh Mr chairman and board members for this uh
extended uh educational and uh community process i think um uh everyone should be applauded by the dedication and work everyone put into this uh approval process it was a long arduous journey
thank you again all right thank you all right we're going to hang up now okay goodbye thank you so two varants a variance request for each two separate motions and you can
take that I will send you the text if that helps you no that's good okay thank you thank you for participating and attending and watching over thank you very much we'll be at the planning board too okay great keeping us honest
keeping us honest we're interested cricket thank you yep there is there was some um trucks running over drive uh grass again and that was fixed i don't know if
I saw an actual the text walter said I will get to this today and I didn't see a followup he cleaned it up very quickly last time and then the neighbor was happy with the cleanup i don't know but I assume the same process
and this emailed the applicant on bomb status talked to Walter today he's coming in Monday to drop me off that check for $10,000 everybody and uh I've been given the correct um account number to deposit it
to so I will take care of that Monday and I can ask him if the rent run over corner has been taken care of all right those are the only two issues yep motion to close the meeting second all
in favor i meeting closed