Good evening everybody. Let's see. This is the zoning board of appeals. It's Thursday, May 21st, 2026. It's 7:35. Um we're here at the Newberry Municipal Office, 12 Kent Way in Bitefield. We're on the second floor hearing room. Uh
purpose of the meeting is for the zoning board of appeals public hearings. So we have Chrissy Pri who's our administrative assistant. My name's [clears throat] Eric Span. I'm the chair. Mario who's a member. Michelle Weaver who's an associate member.
Josh Walker who's a associate member. And we have Mary Murphy who's our please on the planning. So with that Mario you want me to just read the first one. We're going to continue. >> Yes please. >> Okay. Um, Peter Nicolakaco,
129 Northern Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a special permit finding for relief [snorts] from section 97-4D5C01 increase in footprint and 02 increase in height of the Newberry zoning bylaws and any other permitted relief as may required under the town of Newbury zoning bylaws to allow the proposed use
project for renovations to existing single family dwelling including the addition of a second story and roof deck on the property located at 129 Northern Boulevard, Palm Island, Newberry, Mass 0191. assessors met U04 lot 28. Uh this
hearing is automatically being continued uh to the ZBA's next regular scheduled meeting which will be Thursday, June 18th, 2026 here at town hall at 7:30 due to uh non-compliance with the required legal and publication requirements.
So the the legal notice did not >> he never paid in time and then it never published in time and thought that he could um have it run both both ads run the following week in per our bylaws. That can't happen. Has to run twice two
consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. So I have to automatically continue that. >> Great. Thank you for that. Thank you. >> Yes. So, let's um Is there a motion to
continue? >> Make a motion to continue the meeting till Thursday, June 18, 2026, 7:30 here at town hall. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I All right. So, it is continued to June
18th, which is the third Thursday in June here. 7:30. >> Thank you. Okay. She go um read the next one. >> Okay. Gerald Fandettia 15 Sunset Tribe adopted and requesting a special permit finding for relief from section
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 Newberry 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 Palm Island Mass 01951 Cessence Match U02 lot 80 and this has been continued from 4:1526
here. [snorts] [clears throat] >> All right. >> Um All right. What's up? Uh thank you for the continuence we received first of all and uh we have uh updated our drawings and our application
form so everything is in coordinance with each other and uh we've addressed uh I think pretty much all the board's concerns on the drawings and on the uh submittal application form.
So if the board has any questions regarding those uh documents uh we can uh address those right now. >> Okay. And there was a site visit. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> And who who was at the site visit? >> I was. >> I was. >> You were. >> I was. >> Okay. And the site visit was to view determine >> number of bedrooms.
>> Okay. View the existing structure. >> Yeah. >> And so is that included as part of the documentation here with this? Is that >> No, >> that was um received from in the butter as proof of the listing of what is out
there. Okay. So, we'll take this take we'll take what has been added in order. >> But I guess my question was the the drawings and the application update are a result of of that. >> Yes.
>> Yes. We uh had to reviewing all the documentation presented to us and the historical uh documentation for advertisements. Even though when we purchased the property there were two bedroom [snorts]
two beds one in each each room. Uh it it is uh I guess classified as a onebedroom. So, we clarified our drawings to show a two-bedroom house. >> Two bedrooms two bedroom.
>> On this form there, it says twobedroom. >> Yes, two bedroom. >> We I think you determined you said it was a onebedroom. >> The original bed, the original house, right? You you may find that the documentation that addresses the
existing house may still say um uh that we claim it's a two twobedroom, but that's only because we are waiting on a decision that we presume would happen today. Okay. >> So, >> okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that's
>> our >> Yeah, it was a two-bedroom house. However, we're acknowledging the fact that it's a one bed was a onebedroom and okay, we we redid our design to show the
new structure to be a twobedroom >> in terms of your >> So, based on our >> walk through >> walk through, I I determined it was a onebedroom only because there was only two rooms in a kitchen. Um >> I agree too. One room definitely has a
wider opening on that one bedroom. There's no doors or casings on either room to be honest. But um >> that's a fair conclusion. I I don't mean to interrupt your deliberations, but just to clarify, the original proposal
for the um proposed house was only for two bedrooms initially. Anyway, there was some question as to whether or not the office space could be interpreted as a bedroom um based on the relationship of the bathroom to it. So we did adjust that um like we had spoken about at the
previous meeting. >> Well, the original drawings called out a guest suite above. >> That is true. There was no bedroom bathroom. There was no closet associated with it. But yes, you are right. We did make that clear that that is a storage unit.
>> Okay. So that's that's what we have is your your reporting to say, right? >> Send it and Okay. So, there's some application verbage that would probably need to be going over. >> Yeah.
>> There's no drawing. And so, we're we're at the point of of the walk through saying it was a onebedroom, a kitchen, and another room. Um there's some agreement from the applicant. So, then from there, um what exactly has been changed on the
drawings? Specifically, the um space above the garage is fairly identified now as a storage unit, which is how the intend to use it. And the office area where um we had discussed at the last meeting we
were going to change the door. We're going to add a door to the bathroom so that it wasn't perceived to be um part of a suite. It's it's it's the the half bath the powder room for for um the public if you
will portion of the house. Got >> it. Do the in the storage area. Is is that going to be heated? Is going to be finished? What's what's your plan? >> Well, the intention is it Well, you want to >> It's going to be storage. It's uh But is it going to be finished or is it going to be heated?
>> Yes, I'm anticipating it would be heated and and finished. Yeah. Well, to clarify, what storing there is not like lumber and bicycles. It's artwork >> and sculptures and >> we have an extensive art collection and
uh antique uh antique trains and boats and all this kind of stuff that uh we have collected over the years. And uh we have several storage facilities [snorts] around the area. We want to consolidate the most
important items in our home. And that's one of the reasons if you notice that the width of the corer there, that corer is not only a an element for transportation in around the house, movement around the house is for
display of the artwork. So that storage area will be a part of that uh whole process of storing and displaying materials that we've collected over the years. >> And I can add that Charlotte is quite
the collector. She's an artist herself and she's got vast amounts of art. Another uh change we made that the board recommended was the uh having the driveway
have access only from Sunset Drive. And we uh included a updated survey to show that. >> Maybe I'll just look at yours. >> [laughter] >> No, I was just looking at So, is there a doorway to the store
here? Um, but I'm showing Well, it be a throwway from the garage separating the the storage directly. Yes, it has to be in the house from the house upstairs. It will be at the
anticipate at the top of the stair >> there would be a door. >> I mean you have to fireproof the garage. So it has to be separate from any other part of the house. >> You can't the house. >> That's that was my question. >> Yeah. No, you can't. >> Okay.
>> That's not true. You can if it's if it's built >> in the garage and then go up the stairs. Yeah, there's a way to access it from I I guess um >> like a separate eress from apartment. Is that what the concerns would be? >> Y >> there's no there's no second egress and
there's no there's no way to access it from the interior of the house unless you go all the garage. >> Yeah, I think that's my concern is that it should be accessed from the inside of the house. >> Oh, I would think you want it just because then it makes it more integral to the house and more like living space
and less like storage. Well, I think there's a few concerns with it, right? Um, it it was a bedroom, right? >> No, >> well, last month it was a bedroom. >> It was guest fully >> flush storage. And so, because you can
access it separately, I think, and it's going to be finished space and heated space. >> Yeah. >> Down the road, that could very easily become a separate >> Well, that I don't buy any of those arguments. There's no >> it could be you know all these >> you don't have to buy it but this is
this is excuse me all these spaces in that house any house can be modified into anything else >> but this clearly has a separate this clearly has a separate entity let her talk please >> I'm just I just want to emphasize the fact
>> we understand but just let her talk >> this clearly has a separate entrance though that could be seen as a separate entity on the on the property >> because you're going through the garage to get to the storage. You don't have to go through the house to get to the storage unit. That could very I mean
that that's an ADU, right? You got a bathroom and a little >> I know there isn't right now, >> right? But we're all very smart about you guys are both very smart about this, too, right? You have to go through the garage. You know how easy it would be to do that down the road.
>> So, you understood the concern, right? >> Functionality. >> Functionality. >> I mean, it's going to be a storage area. What's going to be? >> So, >> we have no intention of using it as a bedroom. >> Okay. >> Or a guest unit. >> So, hang on a second. >> Okay.
>> So, >> yeah, >> defend any, you know, size of the building is an issue in terms of um the neighborhood and what is being
built is appropriate for, you know, our opinion of the of the neighborhood. So, let's get back to metrics first, then let's get back on to perception. With the new ADU
allowability, it could come back before us as an ADU >> and that would be a separate project. >> True. >> Yes. and and there are certain [snorts] plans that are represented that look that
obviously look different than what the intent is. And I'll I'll use 80 Northern Boulevard as the intent with the breezeway where it was obviously separated two two two dwellings on on one. Um our guidance has been that if it is
presented as such then that is what it's supposed to be and if we have a concern we can have a condition but it is the building inspector as the enforcement person. So I [clears throat] think our
our perception of what things are labeled like you know there are clearly two bedrooms here. There is an office and there is now a third. And so the concern of just trying to meet the intent of the bylaw that says that you on Plum Island can have one more
existing bed, one more bedroom because that's how the whole sewer system was calculated as to what was existing. And then they added one for everybody and then they came up with a sewer size and we're trying to protect not exacerbating the the flow into a now
set sewer size, right? Um, what I guess I'd like I would like to go and start with like, okay, what what's the lot coverage? What's the F? What's the height? We're talking about the number of bedrooms being two and then
then then that can be a question as to whether that gets to another bedroom. Um if there is no plumbing over there and there is no this is all on sort of piles on the dune. >> Yes. >> Um
is all within within the law the with the law coverage maxed out like at 20% but the changes all fit within the requirements. Correct. What? Um, so maximum lot coverage is 20, existing
was 6.4, the proposed is 20, maximum height is 35, the existing is 10.3 and the proposed is 24.8. Maximum story is two.
um proposed is to being a one-story building with the unit over the garage, a space over the garage uh and the maximum F is 25, existing is five and so the proposed is 20.
The whole lot discussion evolved around access because of the unimproved Dartmouth Way. Uh and and creating or or creating two lots um one of which or both of which had access off
of actual paved uh road. So, um, where are you in terms of of, uh, is this is this the plan? Is this the architectural drawing? Is this like schematic? Are you just trying to get
this approved and then think about it or is this >> That's it. >> Okay. Have you gone to Concom? >> In the process right now. So what what have you you've submitted everything to Concom but you haven't had a meeting with them?
>> We are preparing documentation for Com. >> Okay. So they haven't seen anything yet? >> No. um the size of the previous existing building and the size of the new building and the shape of the lot and
dunes um and where how the driveway goes is you're meeting the the coverage requirements, but there's a fair amount going on in terms of that that site that
I wonder if if Tom will have you had any discussions with them. >> Uh just briefly, yes. >> Did they like nod blank or just wait for the drawings because >> the waiting for documentation? >> Okay. >> I I can just say one thing, you know,
based on our site view there. Um the dunes are pretty close to to the to the building to the building current building right now. Um I would think maybe Kong wants to review this first. Ocean side dunes or or >> estuary side dunes
>> just in terms of the structure just >> the grade ocean slopes down right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's not the ocean side. >> We drop down from the street here, >> right? Dartmouth Dartmouth Way is the the marsh side.
>> Yeah. The dunes are back here. >> The dunes are back here and the driveway comes up. The house is up on piles and the driveway climbs up into the garage and then it's it's all one level with obviously second.
>> Yeah. I mean I'm I'm no surveyor but I mean you know proximity to the building it looks close. Okay. >> My only point is maybe we wait till >> so I last time when we deferred this because we wanted to understand the existing uh structure. We wanted to do
so to to understand the the bedroom count in order to understand the size of what was there and what was existing and what a what you were allowed for the bedroom count but two there was some questioning of the size of the the structure. >> Right.
>> So um so we've determined the the the bedrooms. There is a a discussion going on about whether the the space of the garage um [snorts] storage or possible bedroom. But um
is that your concern? Is is that the space over the garage? >> Are you asking? >> Yes. >> Um I'm concerned about the overall size as well. C can I just ask question for one second? On this planet, it says
proposed deck like at the top of the driveway. >> Wasn't that Wasn't that an error last time? >> These are new drawings. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Was there first one was 326. Do >> you want to come up and look at it here? Because I think that is a piece of text that's floating and not >> maybe an old survey drawing. >> There's like a hatch. >> That's that's um
>> the surveyor just left that on. Yes, that's an accident. >> Okay. So, we can cross that off and really probably should have said existing structure. >> There's a proposed driveway and then there's the outline of new build. >> Yep. So there is no there's no
>> Yeah, there's no deck. >> There's no deck there. >> Um yeah, I'm concerned with the overall size as well. It's um significantly larger than the current house that's there and I do think that's a detriment
to the neighborhood and to this specific location. Do you >> I mean other people should >> I mean I have I have a few comments with you. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> I mean um I'm agreeing with Michelle
here. I do think that it represents in intens dramatic intensification of use and uh despite you know complying with all the dimensional requirements as you know the setbacks and things like that and I think the issue really is whether
you know a 3500 more square foot structure replacing a 786 cottage fundamentally alter alters you know the intensity and use and functionality of the neighborhood. I just think it's an enormous >> Well, there's, you know, you you guys approve those two houses down at uh
where the um restaurant used to be. >> We're just talking intense intensive intensity of use there as well. >> What's the square footage on what was it? >> I don't know what it was. >> Well, then I [laughter] think all these things out my house at 424. >> Can I Can I finish?
>> Sure. Go ahead. >> Okay. I think, you know, the the label of a two-bedroom when you look at a a study, a library, office, and other living spaces doesn't reflect the actual functionality use. Not saying you're going to do anything differently, but
that size based on functionality is is a question. Um, when when you combine a 2 and a half bed bedroom and a private office with a closet and and a library and an office, the do you the average two family home in Massachusetts is
about 1,500 square ft. >> Well, this is not an average house. >> Well, this is not an average uh island either. I mean, that's why >> Well, that's why that's why you guys are reviewing all these do all these projects and I respect that.
>> However, there has been precedent everywhere on the island where these houses have been replaced by larger houses. I'm not the only one >> I know we're currently talking about. >> As a matter of fact, my house at 42 Forum had a 400 ft house on it and
because of the lot size, my house there is 4600 ft. That's a precedent. >> We're talking we're talking about this house right now and then we can talk about other homes. So, >> okay, it we understand the the precedent argue argument. We don't
um we say that we're not setting a precedent. The bylaw specifically says that is what is being proposed meeting the intent of the bylaw and is it deemed to be more detrimental to the neighborhood? And there's a fair amount
of leeway on our side in terms of interpreting what the neighborhood is and what is more detrimental. So when we started this project and the the the first step was to understand the lots, the two lots, the
proposed moving of a lot line with the understanding that in doing so that we would be creating something that allowed access from Sunset Drive. >> Right. >> We all agree with that. two, you had proposed something that had
made a big and a small lot the first round. >> Yes. >> And then we asked you to go back and we asked you to look at Plum Island and you looked at the the southern half of Plum Island and you showed us that there were some small lots and there were some large lots and there were some mediumsiz
lots. And so then our ask was we we don't see giving favor to one lot and and my words were cheating the other lot to make a small lot and make a much bigger lot that we wanted the lots to be more equal.
Right? the size of the lot, the size of everyone's lot on Plum Island, [snorts] then gives them parameters against the dimensional requirements of the bylaw of the lot coverage of the F
and and the height is standard for everybody. So that if you have a really big lot, you can build a really big house. If you have a smaller lot, you then might run into limitations as to the size due to meeting those criteria. And then we take those criteria and we
understand that the the size of what was existing and the size of what is proposed and we we view the neighborhood and if there are like houses we are at least in in my point of view we're trying to be fair to
homeowners to be give the same rights that that the neighbors have to somebody that wants to do something. And when someone says it's too big or too small and there's five houses in a row that are all the same size and they're slightly over the F, we tend to allow a
little bit over the F because it is it is equal. And so there there is the effort then is also that we are trying to improve every piece of property on Plum Island. And if there are nonconformities other than size of
the lot and other than frontage because you can't change your frontage, you can't change your size of the lot unless you buy another lot. Um but we already resolved that in the previous go around in dividing the lots. Then then you are the things to be judged on are F lot
coverage, height um and and number of of bedrooms in terms of meeting the dimensional requirements that are that are listed um in the Bible. Right. So we've we've
previously these two lots were created. The two lots have a certain size and those two lots um with that size something that that meets the dimensional criteria can be proposed. I think what what we have is is is
something that we're seeing that what was there and what is proposed there may meet those dimensional requirements but the um the size or the expansion seems quite large
if I'm trying to express what I'm >> I mean the expansion's of almost 4% four times four times greater than it was not one it's not Too much doesn't say that. >> Does it It does say what it does say that if it's detrimental to the neighborhood.
>> Why is that detrimental to the community to have a house one lot away is four stories tall? >> Because what you're doing what you're doing is you're increasing the intensity and the mass that was previously there >> of that lot. But that lot >> I'm talking about what was there.
>> I'm talking about the neighborhood that you were mentioning. I'm talking about the neighborhood has houses that are four stories tall because they have a very large attic on a small lot that is very intense use.
>> But we're talking going from one house I want to listen to. You're not you're not listening to me. >> I just have to get >> You're not listening to me. You're not listening. I'm getting >> I I want to build a onele house and for that I'm being punished. >> You're not You're not being punished.
What you're building is a massive home. >> If I made it, it's massive. >> If I went that 3500 ft is a four is a four to five bedroomedroom home is a four bedroomedroom home. If you look at an average home that's that size we're
counting garage and decks here, you count everything in F here. >> We're counting everything in another house, too. >> You count everything. >> We're all counting oranges to oranges. It's not different. You're saying the average house in Massachusetts, the four bedroomedroom house is 3,000 ft or whatever. That doesn't in that does not
include garages and it does not include decks, patios, >> and all those kind of attributes that are added to the house. Here at Plum Island, we have to include everything. That's why it >> and there's a reason for that. And there's a reason. >> I agree because we don't want >> unique environment.
>> It's a unique it's a barrier island. It's unique and we don't want to increase the intensity of the island >> and that's why we comply with that. We comply with it. Let's >> to me why as a detriment to the neighborhood here. This portion of Plum
Island is not as dense as when you go further north. Right. And I know you were talking about the town houses that we approved across from from Sunset Grill. That's almost like the urban center of Palm Island. Where this house is located,
>> this is two lots away. >> Where this lot is located, you're it's it's a more the lots are larger. >> I don't agree with you. Every one more thing, every neighbor every neighbor with the Sunset across the street for that restaurant was in agreement with
that because of things like garbage and and 125 seats versus four condos. They were all in agreement with that because it was better for the island. It was better for their space, better for the neighbors. It wasn't more detrimental. Now, if you put a restaurant on there
with 125 seats, that would have been more detrimental than the four town houses that are blowing up. >> So, that that was one of the items that I said in terms of applica every application before this, we're looking to improve to a conformity that meets
the bylaws. So >> Josh, you haven't spoken yet, do you? >> Yeah, that means that we set a standard to meet the bylaws and the plan falls within those bylaws. You know, detriment is there's a lot of room for interpretation there. And while I understand and express the concerns,
it's like he's meeting the written law, right? So, um, detrimental to the neighborhood, like legally detrimental. I think like the compound process is going to be interesting, you know, and I think that's going to be a big part of this process. But I mean I don't I view
um impact intensity of use but like you know property values and there's there is some you know some positives like it it I'm in my understanding we're trying to interpret these laws in the Pal Island overlay and make sure that he falls within those restrictions and we can imagine what anything he might do with the with the building but that's
kind of what's in front of us right now and our jobs to interpret that. I think um there's a lot of arguments for for it being detrimental and and we can kind of hear those out, but it's you know at the end of the day like that's the job, right? Um if >> in regards to being detrimental, the
house that's there now is practically falling down. Is that positive for the neighborhood? This is going to be a million dollar plus house. How is that detrimental to the neighborhood? So everything is taken >> I don't understand
>> within context or it can be taken in the context of being grouped or singular. So if there's a shack on there that's falling apart like yeah that is detrimental. But if if that shack in terms of the environment is quite small and the next project is quite large
there there's an opinion that that that is detrimental. So let's hold the discussion for a second. We have some We have three three items here, Chrissy, that were submitted to us. >> Yes. The uh appraisal or description of
the property uh as a one-bedroom >> and then uh concerns from Paul. >> Is that this one? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That was received. >> So, who who sent this in? >> Um there's a group of six or eight of one of those one of those sent in. as
what appears online as a description the property. >> Okay. So, we can all agree that we've already discussed this and and what what they're what they're printing out here and and saying to us and what you guys did on a site visit and you guys have agreed to it. So, we'll
>> we'll put that aside and we'll read everything on that. >> Um, the next one is from Paula Irving. >> Yes. >> You want to read it? >> Okay. Uh, please include my comments for the record for the zoning board for 15
sunset on May 21st, 7:30 p.m. Dear ZB A board members, the last zoning meeting and email identified a follow-up hearing from 7:30 p.m. As I received no correspondence concerning a change of that date, I was town hall 19th of May for that meeting. Unfortunately, I'm out of town today and I can't attend today's
meeting. I did for this last last listing of this property, one bedroom with barely 800 ft of living space. The revised draw drawings still show a quadrupling of the living space, including two official bedrooms, a separate studio, a library, an office
with its own bedroom, and an expansive bathroom space. The owners of this property include multiple major properties on the island and beyond in this real estate portfolio and thus have the needs and the ability to quite easily transition this from an initial two-bedroom home into a minimum of five bedroomedroom property in a matter of
weeks post construction. All of this is very concerning as this as this owner is clearly attempting to skirt the rules by simple schematics. A changing bedroom into offices, library, studio, storage space is in no way keeping with the intent of today's zoning restrictions for what is an 800 ft one-bedroom home.
Sincerely, Paula. Thank you. Okay. Uh J. Martell for Binmar Way Island May 21st, 2026. Supplemental opposition and request for continuance uh 15 Sunset Drive uh Matthew 2 par 80.
Dear chairman and honorable members of the board, I'm un unable to attend this meeting continued hearing due to prior obligations. I respectfully request this letter be read into the record of it in its entirety. This letter supplements and incorporates by reference my comprehensive opposition letter of March
19, 2026 and all the documents previously submitted for the record in this proceeding. one uh request for continuance inadequate notice of substantial revised plans. The revised supplemental plans dated May 14, 2026 were not received by a Butters until
approximately 12:14 p.m. today, barely 7 hours before 7:30 p.m. hearing. These plans contain material changes including a new second story level, increased FAR, increased height, and a restructured layout. Seven hours is manifestedly
inadequate inadequate for any party in interest to meaningfully review revise architectural plans of this complexity. A butters with standing under GL 4A1 have a right to adequate review time. A vote tonight on plans received hours ago
would deprive parties in interest of meaningful participation and create unnecessary vulnerability. I respectfully request continuence of no fewer than 21 days. Two, the revised plans are more intensive, not less. The board should examine the actual numbers.
In several critical dimensions, this project has gotten worse. The far increase from 20 to 23. The applicant increased the ratio of built structure to lot area after the board hearing opposition about overdevelopment. This is a move in the wrong direction
approaching 25% maximum. The height increased from 21.2 feet to 24.8, a 3.6 6 foot increase driven by the addition of a new second story on a lot with 20 ft of frontage in a neighborhood of modest cottages. This compound's visual
mass and incompatibility. Floor area remains at 3988 ft, still more than five times the existing 768 ft cottage. The 110 square ft reduction from February submission is
cosmetic. The lot remains at the 20% maximum. No reduction in imperous surface has been offered. Three, the new second story storage level. The revised plans now include a second story level above the garage labeled
storage accessed by an internal staircase and encompassing approximately 450 to 572 ft of enclosed space. This floor did not appear in any prior submissions. the far county. The board should require the applicant to confirm this space is fully included in both far
and law coverage calculations and whether a second story change any dimensional analysis. Conversion potential. A stair access second story space of this size above an enclosed garage is readily convertible to habitable living space. If the board is inclined to approve a deed restriction
recorded at the S6 South registry, permanently prohibiting conversion of this space to habitable area should be required as a condition of any approval. height impact. This addition, this addition directly explains the 3.6 ft height increase. This is not a minor
refinement. It's an entirely entire new floor. The studio, library, and office spaces. The board site walk confirmed. Existing structure is a one-bedroom dwelling under POD section 974D5. One additional bedroom may be creating allowing a maximum of two. The plans
show two labeled bedrooms with facially complies. However, the plan still includes Charlotte studio, 282 ft. Library, 248 ft. Jerry office, 170 ft, 700 ft of additional enclosed rooms,
each functionally capable of serving as bedrooms. Personalizing labels do not change functionality capacity under C80 CMR. Bedrooms are defined by function, not label. The board should require a building commissioner determination of whether any of these rooms constitute
bedrooms by function. And if the board is inclined to approve deed restrictions recorded at the Essex South Registry should permanently prohibit conversion of any of these spaces into bedrooms, accessory dwellings units or short-term rental use with enforcement rights for
the town and the abuters. Five prior objections remain unressed. By March 19th, opposition raised specific statutory objections that required findings in the board's written decision. None have been addressed on the record and the revised plan resolves none of them. One, the not more
detrimental finding under general law 4A 6 and PIB7 974G cannot be made given a 412 floor area increase quadruple lot coverage and increase in height. The doctrine of merger has town council been consulted
as requested question mark. If so, what was the opinion? Question. If not, why not? Question. Infrastructure deficiencies. No fire suppression plan, water supply analysis, emergency apparatus, access documentation, storm water management plan, female flood zone compliance analysis. The May 14th
submission addresses none of these. The applicant remains facially application remains facially incomplete. Conservation Commission review has not preceded ZBA action. No order of condition has been issued. This is now the third material five. This is now the
third material revision. um each uh square foot with higher F, higher height and a new story each submitted shortly before a hearing. Self-created hardship, unpermitted work at Levenson Sunset Dartmouth Way Paper Street and the East confirming the lot's functional
deficiencies all remain unresolved. Uh, under Davis versus zoning board of Chaden and Wendy versus Board of Appeals of Bill Ricka, a decision that fails to address material objections raised by parties withstanding will not survive judicial review under general law 4817.
Six, procedural matters, open law meeting. And I respectfully note for the record that questions were made regarding whether open meeting law requirements under general law 3820 have been fully satisfied in prior hearings on this matter, including the March 19, 2026 hearing at which a buttered
testimony was restricted. Conflict of interest. Given the significance of this application, I respectfully request that the board confirm on the record that all members participating in deliberations and voting have made the disclosures required under general law 268A, including as to any professional,
financial, personal relationships with the applicant, the applicant's representatives or parties associated with the application that could give rise to an appearance of conflict. >> [snorts] >> There's not. >> Anybody have any interest in this? >> Seven. Formal requests. Continue the
hearing for no fewer than 21 days to allow adequate review of substantially revised plans today. Require submission of all outstanding infrastructure life safety plans before the next hearing. Provide the status of the town council referral on the doctrine of merger. Confirm on the record that all prior written submissions from J. Martell are
part of the official record and will be addressed in the board's written decision. Confirm conflict of interest disclosures under general law 268A for all participating members. If any approval is contemplated, require deed restrictionally prohibiting conversion of the second story storage level, the
studio, the library, and the office of habitable bedroom accessory dwelling units and short-term rental use. Enter this letter into the record in its entirety and read it out loud at tonight's hearing. I reiterate my strong opposition to this application. The revised plans do not address the fundamental concerns raised in my prior
submission. The project remains a 412% increase in floor area and profoundly non-conforming lot with 44% of required area and 16% of required footage. The infrastructure deficiencies remain unressed. A new second story has been added without prior disclosure and
none of my statutory objections have been responded to on the record. I reserve all rights under general law 4817 respectfully submitted. J Martell for Primar Lake Pal. >> Okay. So,
there's a lot in here and we've already covered a lot and uh Okay. So, I'm going to propose three things [clears throat] that will ultimately be
in a continuence for one, Jack is not here. He was one of the original voting members. We have alternates that are here. If Jack does not show up next time, we have other the associate members that sat in can continue on with the hearing. Jack
can watch this on video and he can continue on. So we we we won't have a technical issue of members being present for this hearing. Um I don't know whether Jack being here is is deemed by you to be more favorable or less
favorable to the board, but um we'd have to make sure that Jack saw it or um or I guess we could make the determination of the associate member that that we fill in. two, I think we'd really like to to to
have you go through Com their own entity and we're not proposing anything, but we'd like in this project to make sure that they're that we hear what they're saying before we go on because we have some disagreement on on size and shape. And
if they they have issues with dunes and coverage, it they're going to dictate some change and you'll be back here anyway with a change of plans. Mhm. >> So, it's kind of trying to head off a circular thing. Two, uh, we'll make the
effort to have a response now that Mr. Martell has put two fairly lengthy letters in front of us. The board should do the due diligence in terms of responding to this or it's just going to be hanging out there. Um,
so I think we're going to get to a continuence on this. >> Mhm. Uh, I would say that again that we we previously looked at the lots and trying to make lots that were more
equal size and more equal to to the neighborhood. Once you have a lot, you can't change the size and you can't change the frontage. So even though it seems like there's percentage increase, it's it's again you have a lot size and
now you're you're applying F lot coverage uh to the size of of the lot and that's the same for everybody. [snorts] um heights the height and and whatever you're non-conform again whatever you're non-conforming for for
the lot size and the frontage is is covered by the the F and the lot coverage that make sense so understanding that we in our discussions have some issue with the size we need to make sure that that size is related back
to the bylaws in and also I don't know if anybody has, but do we do we have the previous study of the size sizes of the neighborhood that was originally proposed in
in looking at the lot size? >> We did the analysis just on lot size, not on relationship of houses to the lot size. So, we just did a lot size analysis. But I I I
think that would be helpful in terms of having a squint test or something of the neighborhood of saying like, okay, so if this is an average size lot and this averagesiz lot allows you certain sizes
by the bylaw, then then the average size of the homes could all be this size. >> Can I ask you a question about that? Is it possible [cough] to get the F for the um adjacent lots? I know I know you can get the footprints and you can look at
the height, but can you actually get the number the F? >> You can go to my maps, I think, and and ask for more information and it will give you the owner. It will give you the lot size. I'm not sure it's going to give you the dwelling >> because it's an important distinction
because our house is one level and those are some those are three plus >> true and >> the accessessors would have square footage of the >> and then there's another interesting aspect that's not being considered when you talk I mean when a lot of houses rub
on pilings uh the lower level is obviously open and used for for parking area and uh you know it doesn't count as F but it in it's part of the structure mass of the building. So that's another
indeterminant that is hard to analyze. >> Yep. >> So these kind of things are all out there and when you [clears throat] look at the the the neighborhood I mean do you look at that? How do you look at that?
>> You know there's a lot going on here. There is a lot going on here and the bylaws again on Plum Island the POD is and we've talked to town council a fair amount of times on this for certain projects where there seems to be
some confusion or we need some guidance as to understanding that our leeway is in the judgment of of the neighborhood. And I I thought I went through that fairly quickly. It's your argument to make. It's your your effort to present to us.
It's not our effort to make your project work. It's our effort to double check and say yes, it's it it meets the interpretation uh and the and the physicality of what is in the bylaw. So if if if the board what I'm sensing is
the board says it's too large and it's too big and it's too big because of the smaller house that was existing to the bigger house then we're our guidance is in not more detrimental to the neighborhood. So now we're discussing what the neighborhood is. So in in
creating the lot size, you did present the neighborhood so that we could look at it and what we looked at what I looked at in that drawing was if there was one lot that was tiny and you were proposing your lot to be equal to that tiny lot and the other lot to be bigger
then you were cheating the separation because the average you were creating a lot that was on the smaller side and there was only one of them in the whole area. If by dividing these lots and making them more equal and the lots were more equal then then because of area
everybody in the ne more people in the neighborhood would have the same rights as these lots that we were creating. So you create one lot that was really big and one lot that was really small then then this lot in the future would always have a small house or always be limited and that didn't seem fair in trying to
equal out the neighborhood and be more uniform in terms of what was going on. Another question will be how do we analyze what was previously on the lot and what is currently on the lot.
If we're talking about well this is a small house analysis we're proposing a big house and we want to do an analysis of that whole mill of issues. How do we find out that information? Where are we going to find that? Well, unusually out
of scale, right, for the name is that like the not to be proven more detrimental than language like unusually out of scale. It's there's no set parameter, right? [cough] [clears throat] There there are there are dimensional requirements and
there is language in the bylaw about the dimensional requirements shall not be closer, you know, the sideyard shall not be closer than 10 ft unless an existing sideyard exists. There's something about the front yard and an existing building line which we've been interpretating so
that we don't end up forcing somebody to follow the strict literal int reading of the letter and then you're driving down the street and all the houses are in a line and one house gets pushed back only because we're literally intending it. If they're all equal, it's a much better
neighborhood and a and a sense of community than if if we're we're creating oddities only because we're So that's where the leeway comes in in terms of the bylaw. Does that make sense? >> Absolutely. Yes, for sure.
>> Um so let's let have their say. Let's um let's let's our our I think the board's argument is going to be it's too big and it's going to be too detrimental for the neighborhood. So, we might as well look at a little bit more of the neighborhood
and understand that there I don't know if there's an equalized lot with an equalized house and or there's an equalized lot with a with a slightly lesser house, but it it is two stories and it's up on piles and it has a big pitched roof and so it it's at the 35 ft
and you're down at 20 what? 24. >> Mhm. Um, that's the argument that this house in terms of its size and its positioning is is equal and even less detrimental than others in the neighborhood.
>> No, I think it is hard to compare a house that was in the flood zone that by code had to go up on stilts because is that correct? You're not in the flood zone here so you don't have to. Right. >> The flood zone's right through the house. >> It has elevation elevation 13. It's right.
>> Okay. So you're just not going up to be able to park underneath it. Instead, you're doing a garage. >> We are up to comply with the topography >> requiring >> the topography 2 ft in the back. You have to be 8 or 10 ft in the front. >> Yeah. But again, if if someone what
someone could make an argument to the neighbors that that if this house was put up on piles to park underneath it, it would be taller and it would be stretching a gabled roof to the to the be under 35 ft would be much taller than a one-story
>> house that that they're looking at the sunset over. Right. and and the the Plum Island Grill was also a positioning of of where the new structure would go in relation to neighbors so that the
neighbors um weren't totally blocked by the new structure. And that's why they were in favor of its positioning. And as Mario said, they they were also, you know, the abandoned nature and and also on the backside is where all the the
grease and the traps and everything else happened. Um so there were favorable arguments or betterment for what was proposed as to what was there and they had three sewer betterments and they
were going to drop two and use uh or three to two. So they, you know, they were going in the right direction and again everything looked like it was an improvement even if it was the same size, same size, which was over the F, but there were betterments and
improvements in terms of most of the guidelines within the within the bylaws. >> We're trying to stay within the guidelines. We're not trying to go over that. I I understand that but we [clears throat] >> and as a matter of fact below the
guidelines our f is well below our height is well below >> the only reason why we have 20% coverage is because we want a onele house is because my wife is in a wheelchair that's why we need this >> I understand >> I would design a completely different
house if we were 30 years younger wouldn't be designing this house >> I want the board to consider why we need a one and [snorts] we like to hear and understand but but also do not take full value or faith in
exactly what you are doing. Uh if it meets the intent, if if it doesn't meet the intent, then there is an issue that you've created a problem with a piece of property with a dwelling that won't be
conforming or could be conforming in the the future. like we're supposed to avoid making problems. So, and as it Josh said it and I think I said it too, if you know there is we are supposed to take for face value what is on the plans.
There is nothing in the bylaws or or in the building code that says you can't have an office that you can't have a studio that you >> can't have you can't have a personal dance studio. You can't have a public dance studio because that's not a that's a use item. but in terms of what room
somebody wants in a house. And so we're back to the physical nature, which is our discussion that this appears too big. And so what I'm trying to say is I'm trying to figure out how the board is going to determine whether it's too big instead of we need more than it's just too big. We need something and that
something is in the relation to the neighborhood. So, I think we need to go back to those plans and we need a little bit more argument from you as to these are all the favorable things that we're doing and these are the things that we are
under and here is the the the neighborhood and here are three lots that are all the same size and look let's let's look at what's on those lots and compare it to this and say well this is a betterment or this is this is this is larger and and we can
>> [snorts] >> donation >> in regards to changing these things. I have been in the business a long time and have dealt with many cities, towns, officials and have never ever because of
reputate reputation going around changing things from one use to another use to another space to another space >> and that's >> your history. I just I just like >> we hear you >> being accused of that >> in these letters that come floating
around. >> Yeah, we're not calling somewhere else on your reputation. Again, we'll leave that up to the building inspector. Depending on where this goes, we have conditions. If if we feel like I don't know, the house has to be blue, we'll write the condition as blue, and the
building inspector will be the enforcer. >> Like we don't we don't go out and enforce it. So, um, and and yes, we we as everyone else who is is a property owner are taking you for what you're representing in in this meeting. If
unless somehow you're a convicted felon and you shouldn't be out of prison, then we're not listening to the past. We're listening to what you're presenting and what's in front of us right here. >> So, >> I think it's important to know nothing is personal here. We're looking at what's >> I'm just
and what's in what's on the >> making reference to the letters that I'm making reference >> keep cutting me off. >> I'm sorry. >> It's very frustrating. >> I'm sorry. I apologize for that. >> I was just making reference to the letters that came in. >> So, >> yeah, I I think and and and we're happy
to hear what the neighbors say, too, but we're making comments based on what's in your drawings and what's on the site currently. And I think Ju just to be clear because I'm not sure if you totally are understanding what my thought is about
being more detrimental. It's not so much the height, it's the fact that we have 500 ft and you're going to 3500 square ft. So, so I I understand why it's one story and I think your neighbors will appreciate that it's one story so that
you know it's not as tall and they can still see over it. And so to me, it's the size, the square footage, not necessarily the height. So I know you keep mentioning, you know, other houses are on piles and they're four storyt,
you know, to me that's not the detrimental part for >> you're saying the detrimental part, if I understand it, is because it's going from, I don't know, 7 6 700t house to a [clears throat] 8 4,000t house or whatever it is. Yes,
>> that's that's what's detrimental in your eyes. >> It's a it's a huge increase in use for this site from what it currently is. And and I don't think we should be looking at other we we always say every project every project is so if we did something
on another project that's fine. Maybe we had different reasons for deciding that or maybe you know there was completely different conditions. So, so we can talk about other projects that were approved or not approved or your other house that was approved, but we're looking at this project and it's in a bubble on its own,
not related to other projects that have been have that have been approved recently or last year or four years. >> But what are the guidelines for that? >> What are the guidelines? The guidelines are what's in the zoning. >> Exactly. >> And in the zoning is also our is our
choice to if we believe it's more detrimental and why it's more detrimental. >> What what are the guidelines for being more detrimental? >> Well, that's it's up to the board's discretion. >> So, it's a discretionary thing. >> It's it's in the zoning what exactly
we're allowed to >> There's not a number. If you're looking for a number, there's not enough. >> So So >> there's not. >> Well, that should be easy. >> We're just It's Guys, >> you guys do feel that it's large. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you guys need to find the
exact wording in here that that says what you want to say >> to back it up. And you >> and you have to make your argument as to all the pieces of improvements or
betterments or meeting the requirements that are in the zoning. And that's that's the list that we're going to that's the list of judgment that we're going to go down. Okay. And I think we want to hear from from Comomcom because of what was on the site previously uh and what was undisturbed
and what you're putting over there and and their their opinion of expanding over dunes that weren't expanded on. >> Uh I think you know could have the same opinion of this. Before you leave, we do have someone in the audience. Would you
like to speak? You're just listening. Okay. So with that, I'm going to ask for a motion for a continuence. Is that clear? >> May I just say one important, if you don't mind, I'm sorry. Yeah. Um I just want to make say for the record um I
want to make the point that in the letter that was read aloud, the long one, there are many inaccuracies. I just want to say that for the record. >> Yeah. And I think >> technically we saw some of those based on the numbers that are not >> I'm sure. Yeah. >> I agree with you. >> That neighbor has written two letters.
and and you can write a rebuttal, but I also think that we've received the letter now that we need to clarify some of the instances in here as well. >> I think you're very familiar with the project at this point, too. So, you can probably see them for yourself. >> Yeah. >> Yes. All right. Is there a motion for
continuing? >> Um I I'll make a motion for continuance on June 16th. Is it? >> It was 18th 18th. >> 18th. June 18th. 7:30 here in town hall. >> Okay. [snorts] At 7:30.
>> Yeah. >> One, two, three. The 18th. Okay. >> Second. >> Yep. >> All those in favor? >> I All right. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you very I think we discussed
>> we discussed that. You know, we >> we need to make our side argument. They need to make their side argument. And then we need to re review the Okay. >> All right. >> I would imagine I'll work on that. You know, that that neighborhood is
unusually large, but [snorts] nice 22 ft. >> Yeah. I'm not a huge fan either. It's just from what I understand the world is just listen there's a there's some big salt fans right in there, but on that marite are definitely a catch
compound. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think it's good. >> They don't like conservation doesn't like to make a decision until after zone decides project. >> That's right. >> But maybe they can make comments on it. >> They can especially on dunes and provide advice.
>> Yeah, >> that's open that road. >> All right. So, uh we continue. So, we're not going to debate this anymore. Um, but I will I will reach out to Com
just to let them know our dilemma with that piece of information. You know, they don't have to make a decision, but if they have any guidance, we we'd appreciate it as we all walk through this process.
>> All righty. So, the annual town meeting lumped all the zoning revisions to the bylaw and the request to go from 3 to 5 into one. And by the by the 25th
warrant, I don't know, there's probably about 65 people that left and so passed. So, what now happens because it's changes to the bylaw, that piece of of
those warrants need to go to uh the state, the state needs to review changes to bylaw. They come back and say, "Check," and then somebody types it up and then it actually becomes official. >> So, it was approved, but it's not 100% official yet. >> Uhhuh.
>> So, we're still operating under three until we figure that out. Once it's official, then the select board needs to figure out what the terms are. And what
should happen is that we'd like if we have five members, then we'd like the five members to be rotating so that, you know, we have like three of us u terms come up for renewal in the same year. Mhm. >> Um it's not like we're getting voted in.
We're getting um appointed, but it still is better just to have one appointee to deal with as opposed to uh allowing three to be appointed at the same time by a board that might select board which may have a a opinion going one way as
the other when so they're put in check by the one a year. >> That's so I'm not exactly sure the process but that's what's going down. Um, are you going to reach out to town council regarding Jay Martell's letter
too because that needs to be resolved probably until the next meeting. >> Um, >> some of those issues. >> If if you have a question or definition, you can reach out to town council. Um, I think I like I said, I will try to address um
I will try try to address the memo. Okay. But if if you'd like clarification of something at this point, you need to you can reach out separately. >> Yeah. No, I was just talking about the memo. >> Yeah, >> there's a lot in there. >> I know. And we're not we're not legal people. We have Larry here as our legal
person. So, if there's something that comes up in terms of town bylaw and property, Larry's our expert. >> Well, I I I'm not town council. >> No, no. and I and I I intentionally stay away from or try to stay away from
>> but we look for you for some guidance is what I'm saying. >> Chad GPT makes constituent letters. [laughter] Um but if somebody's referencing CMR 310 and it's it's the state residential building code. Um
that's that's not a question for planning board. It's you know we just I assume he's correct in the CMR reference. It's just the definition of a bedroom under the state code, >> right? And our definition says a bedroom shall meet the definition of the
building code. >> Yeah, I think it I think it used to have to include a a a closet, but I think they removed that. There's no I've looked at this a million times. It has to be 7 ft minimum in both directions. It has to have an egress and
it has to have seven feet in height. And there there is something about rooms that are not bedrooms that could potentially be bedrooms like functionality. >> Doesn't he have a right to have an STR an accessory unit >> by right?
>> That is a question that I will ask on council because the number of bedrooms >> dictates. If you have a septic system in title five, >> that's what dictates. If you're on Plum Island, you get one extra bedroom. So, >> you may have a right to have an ADU. I
misspoke earlier. If you may have a right to have an ADU, but if you're only allowed one bedroom, >> you can't keep adding >> can't keep add. >> So, there's there's a c there's a different catch depending on >> what everyone's allowed an ADU if if
their title five septic is up to it or if they have the they haven't matched the bedroom requirement on. There we go. >> All right. Happy Thursday. Uh motion to end the meeting.
I'll >> make a motion to close the meeting. >> Second. All >> in favor? Bye. >> Bye.