All righty. Uh, good evening everybody. This is the Newberry Zoning Board of Appeals. It is Thursday, January 15, 2026. The time is 7:30. We're here at the municipal offices at 12 Kent Way and Bfield in the second floor hearing room.
And with us, we have Christie Bri, who is our administrative assistant. I'm Eric Swan the chair. Mario Aronali is a member. Michelle Wler is an associate member. Jack Kelly is a member and Larry Murphy is our um leazison to
uh with that let's uh open the first hearing. >> Okay. Um Michelle Tanzolo 25 Harvard Way. Uh the applicant is requesting a special permit for relief from section 97-4D5C01 increase in footprint and 02 increase in
height Newberry zoning bylaws and any other permanent relief as may be required under the town newberry zoning bylaws to allow the proposed project for additions and renovations to the existing dwelling which consists of an expanded deck screen in porch and
enclosed entry stair with mudroom and a new exterior stair up to the roof deck. Okay. On the property located at 25 Park Way, Pum Island, New England. And this is a continuence from 15 application. >> Okay.
Yeah. Oh, there you are. >> Good evening. Thank you. Uh Jeff Roloffs, council to the applicants. Um, you may have noticed I wasn't involved with the first hearing. The applicants, Michelle and Bill, uh, got in touch with me after the first hearing, uh, with the
understanding that there were a couple zoning regulatory type issues that maybe I could help out with. And I, as I understood it, uh, from discussing the project with them and their architect, Gene Allen, who's with me this evening, um, there were really two issues. one
related to the height of the proposed uh structures improvements in particular related to the roof deck that they proposed. The second issue related to the apron enclosure sort of around the bottom of that deck concealing the
framing with respect to the height. I started looking into how height is measured in a context like this under the zoning bylaw and and what I found was that there's no real clear answer on that. And in discussions with Gan, it became apparent that uh it's an issue
that we may not have to wrestle down here if there's a way to just comply with the height requirement even if you were to interpret the provisions to treat the roof deck as the top of the roof. So Jean has gone ahead and revised
the improvements to bring the the roof deck down below the 35 ft height limit. It's at 34t 10 in I believe. >> Right. Right. Um so our conclusion there was rather than wrestling over
um whether or not the height should be measured in some other way, let's just meet and comply with the requirement with the highest part of the structure. So that's that's what you saw in the submittal that came in uh a week or so ago through Jean's letter. Um the second part of it related to the
uh the apron enclosure. Uh, and as Jean's explained it and my clients have explained it to me, there's really two purposes for that enclosure. And this is under the roof deck. Um, sort of a shingled apron that conceals the framing underneath the roof deck. So, there's an
aesthetic value uh that Jean and my clients uh believe is added by the feature. Uh, in addition to there being a structural value, if if we were to do away with the apron, there would have to be some reinforcement of the framing.
Uh, it just it just wouldn't look as nice. The there's a windshar issue that the apron sort of addresses. So, there's there's aesthetic reasons for having it as well as structural. Um, in Jean's submitt, as I encouraged her to do, she
provided you with elevations and images that would allow you to compare the a the structure as proposed with the apron from different perspectives and without. Um, and our hope there was that you would agree, at least aesthetically,
that with the apron looks better. And it's also consistent with other structures on Plum Island. I didn't see anything in the zoning bylaw that gave me any reason to think that there was a problem with the apron. Um, if you feel differently, I'd like to
just talk through it with you because I I didn't see anything that presented any problems. And Peter Bernett also didn't uh believe that there were any zoning compliance issues or building code issues associated with the apron. So, we hope that we've addressed the concerns
that were raised. Thank you. Well, thank you and I appreciate the first one uh in terms of the height because we could go around for months. Uh it is a little bit unclear, but we are under the perview having a bylaw that there is some height
limit and we are trying to work within that to be equitable across the board. And certainly putting a flat deck on top of a ridge line adds mass to a building. So adding mass and in the intent of the
bylaw and especially the POD of blocking light, of blocking air uh and creating more density or increased or exacerbated density is where the thought that we view
uh proposed projects and what that means. uh the roof the roof deck creatively done um is looked at very closely every single time. So for number one at least
I brought that up and I was the one that proposed if you just bring it down a few inches it it you know the flat roof if someone wants to challenge it it's a flat roof and it's below the height what are we going to say? So, you know, to me
that was what I thought and that that to me meets the intent of of being under 35 ft height. >> You guys >> agree to feel that. >> All right. So, we seem to be in agreement on number one.
>> Great. Number two is along the same lines uh and appreciate the the uh presentation and the argument for aesthetic value and structural value. Um certainly won't argue the I guess the structural value and I can believe
that's um plausible even though I don't have structural drawings in front of us to say that there was in order to get the apron you would have some horizontal uh framing members in order to hold the the the backing for all the shingles. Um, and the aesthetic value is in our
view not we're not we may have opinions about aesthetics, but we're really not here and there is no bylaw that gives us any kind of guidance to say we don't like it light or we don't like shingles or anything like that. So, we're really not passing aesthetic value. And to me, that goes back to the comments of the
density of light and air and are is something being added to a property that in all intents meets the the bylaws but is is bigger. And on Plum Island, we have the the PIOD and in that is the
judgment of how what is proposed meeting within the require the defined dimensional requirements that are given. And then there is leeway to judge on how um what is being proposed is um fitting
within the existing neighborhood so as not to be more detrimental. So that's that's where the thought of, you know, adding another, you know, someone else might come in and argue against and say, "Look, they're adding
another floor and you've got three floors on your house and the flat roof on top of the ridge is a whole another floor and we could be debating that for for a long time." So adding a skirt to seem to add mass truthfully if for the elevations that are presented now after
a little time has gone by it doesn't look as massive to me as it did previously and maybe just with the height and the height and the skirt we're acting together and if the height now is resolved then maybe the skirt isn't as
big an issue. Sorry, I talked a lot. So, do you guys have anything to say or add or conclude? >> Good. >> You're good. >> I just have a point of clarification on the And, by the way, this was a good
idea. Whoever came up with the drawings with the skirt, without the skirt, because I personally prefer with the skirt, although that's not one of the issues that we decided on, like the chairman said, it's perfect. There's a picture on the uh there's a line on the roof deck without the skirt where it's
clearly pointing to the deck framing and it says vinyl cedar shakes typical throughout. I think that's just an arrow that didn't mean to be there. Am I right? It's on page A2. >> Give me one second. Gina, I'm going to ask you just come up here and adjust that, please.
>> I think it just could carry through for some reason. >> Oh, you're fine. >> Seed right. Is that the note? Yeah, this one right here. We don't really want that there. >> Am I messing something? >> That is
the roof steps in at that point. That is that >> typical. >> It's a note that just wasn't turned off for the for the non-skirt. >> That's what I thought, but I'm just asking. >> Typical throughout. >> Okay. Yeah, that that >> What does that note say? >> Typical throughout vinyl siding.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah, >> vinyl cedar ced. >> Put an X through that. >> Yeah, that doesn't belong there. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> the final seat of shapes was interesting, too, on another level.
>> I know that was all I agree with the chairman. It got better. >> All right, Michelle. >> Uh, yeah, I don't have comments. I missed this the first round. So, >> no. All good. Is there we close the we're receiving your documents. Is there
anybody here that would like to speak in favor? >> Name and address. >> Uh Vincent God, 28 Harvard Way. I'm actually here for a different matter, but since I'm directly across the street, I think the plans look great. >> I think it's going to make it look nicer. So,
>> I'm all for it. >> Great. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody in the audience against or would like to just speak? others. Yeah. >> Hearing none. So, nobody there. A motion to be had.
>> Um, I'll make a motion to accept the new documents that put the height below 35 ft and the skirt included. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Okay. So, we had made a motion previously to
a favorable motion if there was some adjustments to be made. >> So, I'll take it. >> You'll you have draft. >> Yes. >> So, we'll tweak the draft to include addition these drawings and the comments that the the deck has been lowered and
that the skirt is found acceptable by the board and we'll we'll draft a decision to be reviewed. >> Are you going to vote this evening uh or are you going to wait for the draft decision to >> usually just wait for the draft decision and vote? >> Okay.
>> I think that's our standard course of action. >> Sounds like we're in good shape then. Thank you. You are in good standing. Just a little bit of time to make it all out. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. My Okay. Um the sunset.
Uh next is 28 Old Point Road Sunset Club. Uh discussion on minor versus major changes modifications to the ZBA approved pavilion structure site plan submitted to the planning board. Board has determined that changes constitute a minor modification. New sets of
photographs provided by the applicant for review. Uh and this is a continuation, right? >> Yes. Yes. Continuation from >> Hi, Vincent Goden. I'm uh one of the owners of the property.
Um so what we submitted um it's not 7X but um now does everyone have uh copies of the images? If not, I have some extras. >> I've seen them, but I'll take them. >> Sure. >> I've seen other Okay.
>> Okay. So I think when we had submitted back in October um the idea of doing a horizontal louver system, there was a little bit of uh misunderstanding with the metal cut sheet that was done that was really meant to to show the
calculation of the air flow through it, not show what the actual louvers were going to look like. Um they're anticipated to be just wood slatting essentially just turned. Um, this will allow as you're approaching the the
pavilion, more and more of it will become more open as you get closer and closer to it, walk by it. Um, but it'll still accomplish the whole goal of what we were trying to do, which is block the rain from entering as well as the sun
from entering. Um, because that was the entire intent of of getting the pavilion. So, I think this kind of gives something that uh provides the open space that that uh the board had requested while still accomplishing what we need for for the restaurant
operations. >> And in the rendering that we're we're looking at, is the structural and the and the the horizontal louver all painted the same color? >> Yeah, this is not going to be the representative so much of the color. It's more of the other images of the
grays. Okay. >> There was the thought that we were going to do a slightly different gray for the trusses from the louvers. Just a variation of grays just so it gives a little more >> something darker in the back. >> Exactly.
>> Okay. Um, and is this representative of the size that these are larger boards? We're still need to figure that out with the the builder to figure out what's going to be the ideal whether they're going to be 8 in boards or 6in boards. But they're either way, no matter what
it is, it's going to be at the angle to provide the same amount of air flow and visibility. >> They're eight to six. They're not like one or two. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. They're going to be sizable. Yes. Yes. Yes. >> What's the space between? >> Uh it'll depend on actually the size of the board because it's all just a
calculation. If you imagine what it'll be is that the bottom of one slat that's going down in this way will be lining up to the beginning of the next slat. That way it does not allow any sort of rain to come through when it's coming at an
angle. But when you're approaching it, you'll see right up into >> Looking at this, it looks like the space is greater than what you kind of just mentioned. >> That's because you're >> you're looking up at it. So the way the way it ends up being is if you look at the other image, you really can't it
almost looks like it's more of a solid structure from very far away and as you get closer to it, you can see up into it. >> So these you get me all confused here now, which is easy to do. Uh these appear to be nailed flat
on the trusses. You're saying >> No, no, they're they're they're at an angle. Yeah, that's just the best that they were able to do as an as an image. >> So, so the bottom of this one equal to the top of this one. >> So, there's no light going except at an angle. >> If you're down here, you're looking up
into it. >> You're out here. It's looking more solid. >> It's pretty far away right there. That looks like there's a lot of space. >> I was expecting something that we could see through. That's what we approved the first time. And now this is the third
version that we've got where it's impervious to to >> I I a couple when this was first approved a couple years ago I I was at those meetings and and the discussions that happened when we turned it when it was originally proposed to go north
south and there was a discussion that you did not want to see all that roof line and it was turned. The first thing that was said was we can do that, but the only way for it to accomplish what we need is that the gable has to be covered. Otherwise, you're just letting in all the room, all the sun, all the
rain. And that was discussed in that meeting. I have I can queue it up. We can have that discussion. What ended up happening was when it got approved, the picture that got thrown in there was the original picture that showed it
open. Even though the discussion was it would have to be closed cuz I I I'll be completely honest, we wouldn't put up the pavilion. If the gables are open, it's going to defeat the entire purpose of what it needs to do, which is to protect people from rain and sun. And
the majority of the rain and sun comes from either the east or the west depending on the way the storms are coming. >> Well, that's one solution. >> I for my opinion, I don't have a problem with this. I think it does block light, which it should in a way not cause
evening light pollution in terms of spilling out. Um, louvers do have openness if there's any any breeze that comes through. I guess the point that in terms of looking
through it um unless there's a certain distance away that it will look more it will look solid then when you start to approach it and you can look up into the louvers and you can you know this is fairly tall and it's up here and you're person down here you're going to see
light in between the louvers as you look through it. >> I understand that. I just didn't see it in this. It's not in this. >> Yeah. That's what's been tricky. We've never actually seen an image of what you're describing, I think. So, every time it's a little different and
>> um it's still not I think what you're trying to do. >> So, are these boards on the outside of the structure? >> Cuz these are shown behind the structure, but >> they're they're going to be attached either >> doesn't work. >> No, they're going to be attached kind of in the trusses going across at
>> you can see through it. So the same >> and and just a clarification of the idea of seeing seeing through it. I I I went on Google Earth >> from where it's going to sit like if you're driving over the bridge as an example. The the actual angle of where this pavilion sit goes out into the into
the marsh towards the river area. It doesn't >> even if you're at the bridge, all you would be seeing is the back of the the >> of the um roof. You would not see through it. It's not lined up with the bridge. so that you can see through it when you're driving on the island cuz
it's it's naturally I mean you you assume that's the area but it's tilted more towards the river and the Japa flats area so unless you're in the middle of Japa flats at the right angle you're not seeing through it even if it
was open >> I think we we in terms of commercial and the limiting of the commercial we probably don't have great bylaws about lighting and so trying to to me limit the light per evening um to within the pavilion and on the ground is is
important. Um I think we were discussing that the openness is something that allows air through and again it's something that doesn't create mass or excessive mass and if something is has some openness to
it then it it obviously has less mass or less density to it. I I believe in the meeting in October it was thought that you the board would be happy with something that had at least 25% kind of air flow through it was what was discussed and what's being proposed
is actually double that at 50%. So we've gone >> 50% is pretty standard for the maximum air flow through through >> yeah I just I wasn't buying the louver. I didn't know they were selling the louver. So I mean if everybody's on
board with louvers I will not hold them up. So we I was suggesting openness and then I was suggesting some percentage so that we had something to gauge and I threw out 25% is just a number and and to come back
with at least 50% open in terms of air flow uh seems very positive. So that that's how I think that that is how the discussion went. That's how we're here. Whether we call it blocking
or we call it a louver, but I think the intent for submitting the metal luber was to prove out that they would at least provide 50% because that was a cut sheet that had a calculation on it. That's what they were you were trying to prove out something
>> to us. >> Yeah. Yeah, I guess I'm not worried about light pollution in terms of I think the amount of hours that there's lights on for majority of your season. It's not very much compared to during the day, how much you're open and how
much a part of Palm Island, you know, the experience is is coming over the bridge and coming back, you know, from the beach and things like that. So, I guess the light pollution isn't really a concern for me. I think also the original approval showed the lights
within the structure that were so they wouldn't be spilling over, they wouldn't be leaking out. >> So I guess that part's not concerned. It's more It's always just with the openness. >> Would you consider any type of a little bit more openness on the
shutter keeping the same angle but just a little bit space in between just to let some light? So basically we did a smaller board but kept the angle. So there so you know if Eric on your >> sketch there >> or the same board but just a little
lower so it didn't meet the top just a little bit more that work. >> I mean as as long as it's not letting in the the whole purpose of this is to not let in the sun and rain. I mean I'm open
for anything that accomplishes that. So I I'm The way the usually louvers work though is the bottom of one is the top of the other, but the minute you're near it, it looks if you're standing at the angle that they're they are. So if you're going to be 20 ft from this,
you're not even going to see the boards cuz you're going to all you're going to see is the whatever 1/4 in of the board and it's going to look like it's wide open inside of it because you're going to just be seeing through these gaps. And then you're going to have every, you know, foot or so, you're going to have a
little board and it's going to look wide open when you're standing. >> I think the point is driving up to the island. It's not being close. It's from far away. That's the problem. I mean, driving I think we understand when you're close up. >> No, no. I I understand that. But I think we also need to recognize that the other
corner also just had a 35 ft mass approved on it. That's >> that that is set back though further from the property line from the street. That's set back further. This is fairly close to the property. >> Sorry, >> this is the alignment of the bottom to
the top. >> Yep. >> This is this is 6 in. >> I think that could accomplish the same thing. Uh because especially if the boards are big enough, it'll it'll create enough of that you you'll still see through, but it'll stop any rain
from Exactly. So there might be a little light but there >> would be definitely rainset, right? >> No, I would I would 100% I mean I I think that's very reasonable and that
>> I think this is sort of what we were hoping for more is just seeing more >> when you come over. Yeah. See that kind of >> through it maybe a little blue or something, >> right? >> So it'll be a little light that >> creates some kind of festivity. Well, and and remember that's only going to be
when you're very far away. The minute you're within a few hundred yards, you're going to start seeing more and more inside of it to the point where you where it's going to look like it is open >> to it. So are we accepting the chairman's >> I think this is kind of important though
of what we are approving because there seems to be confusion of what was approved originally from what we thought we were approving and I think what you guys thought we approved because of the discussion. So I think that's a good question is how how can we document this? Do we take a picture of this or what?
>> Sure we could how do we document? We could um I don't know. I could give this to you. You could take it to your builder. You could make sure it works. >> I mean, I think the easy way is if we just describe that there's going to be a one inch gap, >> two inch. Yeah. Whatever. >> Between the the board at least a one
size of the board. So, that's important. You know, >> I think just a quick sketch like this is what we need. So, >> I think that's >> Let's let's say so that we can move things forward. I think you'd like that. that the the height of the glue the the height of the boards will be spaced six
inches. There'll be a one inch gap straight through. Yep. And the board will be tilted back so that the tilted board's vertical height is 5 in. >> Perfect. >> And we'll we'll write that in text >> and that'll and that's what I'll give to the builder and uh that's what they'll
build. Y >> Jack, yes. Michelle, agree. Agreed. Mario. Yep. Good. Good. >> Are we doing a memo, a letter, not a decision? Cuz it's not a hearing. >> Yeah. >> Or you want to provide an email to me? >> Yes. >> That I provide.
>> So, I will make a motion. >> Wait, wait. Excuse me. The the 6 in thing gets me. A 6 inch board is five and a quarter. Five and a half. >> What What are we going for here? Six or five and a half or? >> So, the the vertical height is 6 in from
bottom of board to bottom of board. >> So, the the >> Okay. Okay, I see what you're saying. You're not specifying the height of the board, you're specifying the space. >> Yeah. >> Very good. >> Solve that. >> So that way though, even if the boards are larger, the space should still be >> correct. Inch.
>> Yeah. And if Okay. So, uh uh these builders are tricky. We got to watch out for >> Well, that's what they mean. We're saying one inch gap and uh yeah, but you know, that can turn into many different things, I think. >> Okay. So, I would propose to draft a
letter that outlines the acceptable solution of of the endgable um design. >> Mhm. >> And I will state in text and if I'm feeling great, I'll make a nice sketch,
but I'll probably just put it in text that says that the the vertical spacing of the boards will be six inches and there will be at least a one inch gap. Okay? >> And if if if lumber metrics to change then you will hold at least an inch but you can modify
slightly to get to dimensional numbers so we're not having you cut >> right >> a quarter of an inch off the board make the text >> so there's you know right >> okay >> I like this >> great um second your motion is there a second to
that one >> second all those in favor >> I I >> All right so it passes will draft uh a memo >> I appreciate Y questions. >> Thanks for your patience. >> No problem. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Uh Michael and Michelle Mccurio, 7 exit away. The applicants are requesting a special permit finding for relief from section 97-35C01 increase in footprint and 02 increase in height of the Newberry zoning bylaws and any other permit relief as may be
required in the account of Newberry zoning bylaws to allow the proposed project for improvement to the existing non-performing single family growing which consists of addition of a second story and roof deck and the conversion of the bottom level of the house from a
living area to basement to a basement area to be used exclusively for storage and mechanical equipment on the property located at 7 exit plum island newberry mass 01951 cessors met u 01 lot 91
>> here >> uh yes thank you is it okay if I present from here >> okay for the record representing Michael and Michelle uh Mercurio uh who are both here this evening um they are the applicants and current
tenants, prospective purchasers of the property. The owners of the property, Danielle and James Bradshaw are also here this evening. They they own the house and also live almost across the street. I'll have some figures where you can see that. Um, and our architect,
Andrew Jones, is here as well. I'm going to go through some slides. there's going to be some elements of the architectural details in what I'm presenting, but I'm going to ultimately turn it over to Andrew to get into the the details of that. So, if you have questions on architecture, I would suggest that you
wait until um he's up and working through his drawings. Um okay, seven exit. So, uh, let's see what do we got? Neighborhood, um, exit way. It's sort of, you can see
the seven exit way is is circled there. A few of my figures have north to the top and some have it north to the south. And the reason that's the case is because when you're looking at this property from the street, you're actually looking south. So I just point that out because you're going to see
things get twisted around from image to image. So this is looking south. Uh north is actually north is to the bottom. Now we're looking this is exit away. We've circled seven exit away the existing building. Um I do want to point out here
as you're looking at this uh the property to the right that vegetated space to the right there is a piece of land associated with the house um on form way behind it. It's actually two lots in the assessors, but it's one
Stewart uh tie-in. So, it's basically one lot. And I just mentioned that there's no house there. Um that comes into the the evaluation of impacts to the neighborhood. So, it's an area that's not likely to ever be built on. Um this property happens to be outside
of the flood zone, so we don't have any issues there. Um, we haven't yet gone to the conservation commission, by the way, but we will probably be going to them just for a determination of no applicability. We don't expect to have to get an order of conditions. If we need it, we'll we'll get it. Um, so this
is a view into the property. The the lot itself is non-conforming with respect to lot area. It's a pretty small lot, 6,177 ft, 60 ft of frontage. The structure is non-conforming with respect to FAR at 31
lock coverage at 28%. And there's a side step back on the west side, the side with that vegetated area and the deck of only 9.8 ft. There's a grade change through the property from west to east. You can see the retaining wall there along the driveway. So, it pretty much
comes straight across and then drops down to the driveway. Um, the existing house is a three-bedroom house. It's two stories because the basement, as it's currently configured, is an active living space. There's an office bedroom type space there, a bathroom. It's only
got 6' 6 in of of height. Um, but it actually, as you calculate it out under the the approach that the bylaw calls for, um, it's considered living space and it's considered a story right now. Um, so that you know that and that that was
all cut brought into the calculations that were included on the survey plan that we submitted. This is the survey plan. Our surve too much of this, but uh that's the plan that was submitted with our application.
Um the blue on that plan is the proposed footprint. You can see that it matches the existing footprint. I've highlighted in yellow the existing non-conforming aspects of the building. Um, and that brings us to the proposed
improvements. It's a pretty simple concept. It's going to be a an upward uh extension of the existing building within the existing footprint, adding second story. There's a concealed roof deck in there. Um,
that's not going to be very I I call it concealed because you're not going to see it. It's on the plans. Um, but it's built into the roof line. Andrew can get into that. The lowest level is going to be converted to a basement storage area only. And that's going to happen by
taking out all the interior walls and removing the bathroom facilities. Um, there's also a small grade adjustment in the corner. Um, as you're looking into the driveway, it's sort of it's the back left corner of the building. They're just going to elevate some of the grade
there and put a small garden in there. These are the calculations. Again, we can go back to this if there's something there that you want to get into. I don't plan to walk through that now. Um, the architectural design. When I first got involved with this project, uh, the design was quite different actually than
what you're seeing here. Um, I was contacted for this to get involved with this project as we were just finishing up on the Plum Island Grill property and I was pretty sensitive to concerns that you would raise there with respect to
FAR and sort of massing uh issues. So, I worked with uh Mike and Andrew to really scale this back. Um he's not looking to to you know this isn't a situation where he's building something out looking to
sell it. He's looking to buy this house and move into this and it's a modest buildout that he's proposing or that they are proposing. Uh we think it fits well with the neighborhood and with the lot even though it's a small lot. Um the proposed structure is going to go
obviously they're adding a floor so it's going to go from 15.8 ft to 31.2. Again, that's shorter than what had been originally proposed. The living area is going up slightly to 2,128 square ft. It's a modest size. The FAR
from 31 to 34. So, a modest increase there. Lot coverage and bedroom count remains the same. The neighborhood context, these images are all in the package that we submitted if you've had a chance to look through that. Um, but as I was poking around the
neighborhood and and looking at some of the Google Earth images, historical images, and uh digging up some of the zoning files associated with properties in the area, what became pretty clear was that um the proposal to extend the
building here up another story uh is pretty consistent with what's happened in a lot of properties in this neighborhood. So, that's what I've tried to point out here. These are images from 2025 on the left, 2021 on the right. So, we got a roughly 20-year period. And you
can just see those properties circled in red on the right. Used to be, you know, like this house is now, smaller singlestory structures that um were later extended upward to do basically what uh the Mercurios are proposing to
do here. Um, I will point out, and I think I'm right about this, the Bradshaws who own this property live in what used to be that yellow house and is now this house at the bottom, right? >> Yeah. >> So, this house here, that was an upward
extension. Uh, one of the issues that came up in their application was they also had a basement. Um, and the ZBA as part of its approval process required them to convert it from a space that could be used for living area to make it
clearly uh a space that would only be used for storage and mechanical equipment. So, that sort of led us to that um that that supported the the concept that we were proposing here. Um, this is just a different view of some of those properties. It's a with all these
different lines, it's a little bit confusing, but just starting on the bottom. So now we've got uh seven exit way here, north to the top, right? So form way is down at the bottom here. So these two uh buildings here are on form
way. Um I can't tell if that is two stories, but this is one of the ones that was uh extended upwards over time. This building here, you can see this. This is actually a view from exit away, but that is the back with the Koopa on
the top of the building right behind it. Uh this building just to the left as you're looking at seven exit way is this building here. Um upward extension of course the history and that's another image of it and another image of it
here. And then um directly across the street from Seven Exit Way is this house up here. So, um the proposal we think is consistent with changes that have occurred in the neighborhood. Uh again, most of these changes in this
neighborhood are pretty modest um expansions or mostly upward extensions of what was already there. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Andrew. And Andrew, if you want, I can flip through your slides. Perfect.
if you want to just stand up here and >> Good evening board members. Andrew Jones, associate architect at Phoenix Architects. So, I'll just go through the slides real quick. This is the existing uh photos of the house that you're seeing now. So, even though it's a
twostory, it's really kind of like a 1 and 1/2tory um ranch. You'll see the upper floor and then the lower floor. Even though there's that grade change, it's not fully, you know, walk out on that side, still a few steps down. The basement's
only roughly 6 and 1/2 ft. So, to today's standards, doesn't even meet code as far as ceiling height. If you uh can move to the next one. This is going to be >> just a quick question. What's the If you go back, oh, what's the uh the distance between the floor and the grade there?
>> The basement. >> So, that that basement wall is roughly like 5 and 1/2 ft to the side. below grade. What's the distance below grade? >> Uh, it's about like another foot and a half, 2 feet. So, there's about three steps down. There's a little dog house on the side and you take three steps down and you're at the basement floor.
>> Yeah. >> So, this is the uh proposed front graphic. Um, you can just move forward and maybe we can circle back here. So, these are the existing plans. To the left, you're seeing the basement. So, as I was saying, that dog goes to the left.
You take a couple steps down in the basement area. Our plan is just to completely gut it, bring it back to just, you know, foundation wall. Um, all the HVAC, electrical, all that's going to go down there. New stairs down, but we're keeping it simple and just
strictly utility down there. Then upstairs, you'll see right now, it's a little unconventional. You come up to the deck on the right hand side that we're maintaining. And from the deck, you actually come into the front door. Uh kind of an open open concept dining,
living, kitchen, two bedrooms in the back. Um and that's pretty much the layout that's there right now. Just kind of ranch style home. These are the elevations that you see in. So you can start to see the grade change in the front elevation that drop
down roughly 4T. Um, and then that existing photo from the first slide, you're kind of seeing on the uh rear elevation there with those two windows um in the basement. You can go to the next slide. So, this is what we're proposing. So, we're maintaining the
little doghouse walk down just strictly for storage, beach stuff. Um, you're seeing that little retaining wall. We're bringing up the grade on the left hand side. Um, kind of matching around the rest of the grade. And then as far as the first floor goes, we're
trying to create a front entry. As before, when you're on the street, there's not really a front door. You come up the deck, and then you come in through side door. So, what we're really trying to do here is give it a very conventional uh look and feel where you come up to a front porch, come into the
front entry and for um to the right, you could go over to the deck, but you'd come through a mudroom. Nice size kitchen, open concept dining, living room in the back. We're showing a small little office there in the back right
hand side. Uh bathroom and then stairs going down to the basement. Stairs going up. Now Jeff, if you want to go to the next one, you go upstairs towards the front of the house, which would be from the street. You see two bedrooms there shown a laundry bathroom
for those two bedrooms. And then the back is going to be the primary suite. So, walk-in closet, another bathroom. And then, as Jeff was mentioning, we did scale this back, even though you guys didn't see it before. Before we were really creating this big coupla where you come up the stairs and we're
actually creating like a little room up there. Now, it's more like a widow's walk. You come up the stairs, there's a door that just leads you directly to the roof deck. So, it's really utilitarian now. Um, as far as the upper floor, it's really just to get you out into the roof
deck. I'll kind of explain the roof lines and what we're doing within the roof deck in the next slide. Front elevation. So, you're starting to see up top. That's the kind of what I'm calling like a widow's walk where the stairs bring you up and into the roof deck. You can start to see the front
door trying to create a, you know, front facade that is missing from the house itself right now. And you know, we're giving it a nice coastal kind of charm to it. You'll see the swoops and a lot of nice roof lines now. And really trying to um bring up the architectural
elements to this house. Jeff, you want to go to the next one? This is the left elevation. Um so you can start to see here I show a little person. The roof deck's going to be hidden by the roof line. So, what we're doing is pretty much like a little parapit wall that
goes up 3 and 1/2 ft and then goes to the flat. So, that's going to act as a railing. So, a lot of what you know, if there's going to be furniture or anything up there, you wouldn't see it from the street. It's all going to be hidden uh within the roof line itself. Um, which I think is a really nice
feature. Then you see in there the little boxed uh bay which is in the stairwell itself. So, just a nice architectural feature as you're going up the stairs. It's the rear elevation. So, you'll see we reduced the windows down in the
basement. Really, the only reason why we're keeping it is the openings there and just for ventilation if needed. I know it can get moist down there. So, it's really that's the sole purpose of that. Um Jeff, if you want to go next slide. And then this is the deck side of
it. So, um removing what was the front door there. Just put in a couple multi-lide doors out to the deck. that's there now, but the footprint doesn't change. It all kind of stays the same. And then this is just like a little cut
sheet of the materials. So, we're planning on doing some nice, you know, architectural materials to it. So, um, seranted, uh, gray shingles. We're doing all AAC throughout. So, fascia, sophets,
trim around the windows, all going to be AAC. Anderson 400 series with the STL um within the windows and then um ceda shake siding. So no vinyl as far as that goes. We're going to do actual um ceda
shakes which I think is going to give a nice look to it. Nice coastal look. And then that's a before and after. >> That's it. Thank you Andrew. So, I mean, and then obviously the relief we're looking for here is special permit under the PIAD provisions for an upward
extension of an existing non-deployment single family home. Um, and for the reasons we've explained, we think that uh the the proposal meets or would support a finding that the proposed improvements will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
non-conforming structure to the neighborhood or the pay, the standard articulated in the bylaw. So, with that, I'll turn it back to the to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any uh comments or questions? >> I I have a question. In the um proposed
packet you guys sent us, the basement is not covered at all under the FAR. Correct. >> Uh the basement is not covered in the FAR for the proposed condition. Um it's covered but the FAR calculations for existing and proposed are included on
the survey. >> So we came up with 34. Yeah. Does that include the basement? >> The 34 does not include the basement. Correct. Because it's not considered a living area. and as calculated
um it doesn't actually count as a story either any longer even though it does now. So those calculations I'm trying to get up to them those calculations are laid out here. Um, so it's a the the reason it's not a
considered a living area for FAR purposes and Peter would agrees with this is a combination of the uh post the the proposed condition uh being such that that basement will
will be a story but also because we're stripping out all the living area from it. So it be it be it falls then into the definition of an excluded basement area. The only reason I say that because when I looked at the by laws under the definition for FAR >> Y
>> um it says under the definition a basement that is finished and inside the thermal envelope must be included in the gross floor area even if you change it's used from living space to storage and mechanical >> right so that's why we're not just
changing the use but we're stripping out all the all the finishings so it's not going to be a finished basement it's not going to be a But it says even if it's for storage and mechanical still has to be included. >> Well, if it's a livable area doesn't say that.
>> Well, let's let's look at maybe let's just look at No, that's fair. Let's look at it together because we talked a lot about this as we were coming into it. >> Go ahead. >> Um, >> you did mention though if it's in within the heated capsule, >> if it's just a basement. >> It's going to be unheated. It's
unconditioned and it says it in the plans, right? There's another definition too. >> So suspended basement outside the thermal en the thermal envelope envelope shall not be counted as gross floor area. That's why it's not
being counted as >> suspended basement. >> Yes. >> So my issue with that is I had the same thing. It says a suspended basement is 250 ft or less. Are we 250 ft or less? It also says a suspended basement can
only be accessed from the exterior. I think we got that. And has no direct access from the building. Has a maximum ceiling height of 6'2. I think we said we were 6'6. >> Mhm. >> So that's uh so I'm not sure where we are with those.
>> Um maximum ceiling height. Well, let's check the area. No, it's it does exceed that. So, I don't know if we qualify for that criteria as a suspended basement, but it is outside of the ther thermal envelope.
I mean, that's what the purpose of stripping out all these walls and everything was to specifically not just say that we were going to only use it for storage, but to render it unusable as a living space because it's no longer going to be a conditioned space.
>> Correct. I agree. And that's >> and just going back to the other uh point here. It says even if you change its use from living space to storage and mechanical
each floor level. So but that kind of so in the floor area gross definition you have to count each floor area which I think brings us to the definition of story. story then is defined in a very specific
way when you tune into the story above grade and that calculation is what is done there >> by the surveyor right so >> so I have the definition of story for island >> okay >> I don't know if you do you have it >> I do I'm looking at it >> is that to find the portion of a building included between >> yes
>> upper surface include excluding attics that have no habitable area and that use only for storage >> y >> intermediate levels such as mezzanines lofts and pentile shall be counted as a story, >> right? Okay. And then the next definition below that is story above
grade. Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade except that and and then it defines when you count a basement as a story that >> that's in the next >> it's it's the next definition in the
zoning bylaw. So I don't know what you're working on. >> Yeah, I just cut out the piece. >> That's fine. Yeah. >> So that next definition, it basically explains when you have to count a basement as a story >> and two below that is the definition of
suspended basement that I quote. >> Yes. But we might not be on the same page. >> No, I know. Yeah. >> Yeah. It says more than six feet above grade. >> Right. So, there's three ways that a basement can be um there's three ways that a basement can
become a story under that story above grade. And what the surveyor does here, I should point out this existing word is supposed to be proposed. The existing is over here. This is the existing calculation. This is off the survey
corner. This is the proposed basement. and um the gray plane you know he does the math in the proposed condition and as proposed
more than sorry less than 50% of the basement >> is above grade >> and for that reason it doesn't trip the require that it doesn't trigger what would cause it to be a story. So, if it's not a story and it's not a
suspended basement, what is it? >> It's not a floor. That's what I'm getting at. So, when we talk about floor area, living area, it's not a floor. And then I'll and then I'll also point back to the definition of story. >> So, I guess like Michelle just mentioned
something that just says it's it's not a story above grade. >> Above grade, which I don't think anyone's debating, right? >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. But that means it's also it's not a story I think because >> above grade. >> Okay. Story above grade. >> Yeah. It's not story above grade.
>> What do you call a floor then? Right. When you're counting living area and you're trying to include >> from the >> all these spaces that are living area is habitable space. The only thing I think in Newberry's bylaw that counts something different than that is
the exterior areas under a roof. Right. because you wanted to do that for a for reason for good reasons. >> Obviously, when it excluded an attic that's not habitable, it would have been great if they had just said >> a basement also that's not above grade
and it's not habitable for even if it's for other reasons. So here talking through it with you I don't think there's anything that's locking down a specific it's not there's not a clear answer but I think the intent here
is to not count as living area a space like this that's not a basement above grade it's not a story above grade it's also not finished there's no conditioning of the space.
We've taken out all the walls. >> But in the definition here, it does say even if it's not finished, >> that so that alone isn't enough. It's the combination of factors that I'm getting at that pulls it out of the >> We have to take the living space out
because that's nowhere to say living space in here that it's included. the living area in the proposed condition um is not included. Right. That's what we've been saying. >> No, I I'm saying that it's it's not saying that it's livable or non or
livable. It says here it's neither be included in the FAR. >> So, they're saying it's either can be storage and mechanical which no one's going to live in. >> Can I scrap my copy back?
So for the purposes of what we're looking at, the story deals with height, right? It's whether it's counted as um >> in the bar.
>> In the bar, right? And then whether it's occupiable or not the question. Um and I guess the understanding of of what it what it is and you know what it could be
they are and then you take the whole let's take the whole thing into account. So basically you're you have an existing structure that includes a deck and then you're going to you're going to modify it or you going to take it down.
>> Is this like full demo or is this >> the deck? >> The house. >> The house. >> The whole thing. >> No, we're going to No, modify it. >> You're going to modify it. So, it's it's it's um non-conforming, pre-existing in terms
of its location on the property because of the sideyard setback. And I have to say that with the deck, the existing deck that your sideyard setback is zero on the right hand side a because the deck the deck touches the property.
>> Yeah. If you count decks in the setback, then that then you're correct. So, that would be zero and zero. We're not changing the deck either way. That's an existing non-conforming. So yeah, we could correct that. >> Yeah. >> So that's a correction on the application. But >> in a sense, they are taking a
pre-existing nonconforming nonconformity in terms of um the lot area is not changing. The frontage isn't changing. The lot
area is not changing. Although it's plus 8 over the POD, it's not changing. The F is increasing. Um the front yard is the same. The
sideyard A, which being the right side, is zero, but it's not changing. The sideyard B uh goes from is not changing. And the front front yard set back is not changing. The
height is increasing but it's under the allowable and the beds are not changing from three to three. So if the question here is really that the FAR is the only thing to increase
exacerbate increase whatever you want to say it's getting bigger as opposed to everything else is truly staying the same. Is that is that the issue on the table to discuss in terms of what what is here? If >> if if you have an existing and you're
replacing the existing or you're doing something to the existing and it's no more detrimental, it's really no more detrimental, right? There's no argument. >> Yeah. Regardless of like regardless of what the number is and but >> the same the numbers, it's no more
detrimental. It's basically the exact same thing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So in terms of other discussions that we've had in the past, we've always uh been very favorable to somebody that
has nonconformities that are improved, right? Um any nonconformity that is improved is a positive on the on the project, let's say. So if if if there are nonconformities and
they're really not changing that's one statement if they're slightly changing is the change from what is the F going to again >> 10% increase from 31 >> from 31 to 34 >> right so that in terms of what is being
presented basically what what is there now is and whatever they do um besides looking different is going to be the same in terms of its proportions and its metrics except for the F which will go up%. >> Is the shed stay?
>> We don't know they own it. >> It's it's the shed will stay. >> We can knock it down. It does not have to stay. >> That's a good question. I don't know. >> We're going to increase the farreach%. >> He likes sheds. in relation.
>> Do we have any data of what we >> I haven't collected data on sort of the far expansions for the other properties but as I point out there have been a lot of upward extensions. So um
>> but you have a problem with the upward extension that's fine. >> Yeah. I mean >> so that that it seems that in terms of everything that's going on that the one question is the FAR it's going up slightly you are increasing it and the question for us is really within the neighborhood is it is it more
detrimental or 10% increase for this property for what's already existing um the non you could say the other nonconformities that are there although the zero outline deck is
is not favorable. It's not increasing or exacerbating the nonformity. >> Yeah. And Mr. Chairman, while everyone's thinking through that, I think that sort of you you framed it up nicely. We haven't yet heard from the public and I know you want to do that. So maybe we should see if they if they contribute to
any of this >> great >> question. Great idea. >> All right. So here we are. Is there anybody in the audience like to speak in favor of the project? I'll speak. >> Hi, I'm Danielle Bradshaw. I'm Jagger.
I'm also the owner and I'm all for the project. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? >> I second that. >> You guys can speak too. It's your project. You can say you're in favor. >> Michelle Mccario, I'm in favor of the
project. >> Um in in the intent of doing what you're doing. You're obviously trying to improve and upgrade the house. >> Correct. >> You're you're choosing to keep the
existing bones and modify it as opposed to doing something else. >> Correct. If you take away the base, if you if the basement is purely just storage, do you need the outside shed for snow equipment stuff? We don't. If that
>> if it makes a judgment on you, we would get rid of it. Yes. Let's hold that thought. >> So, what do you guys Let's take everything but the F.
Is does anybody have any questions about any of the other dimensional metrics, size, what's existing, what's going back? Um, >> the only actually I have to look a little closer in the drawing, but the the height is measured
to the upper grade. Is that the mean grade? >> So it >> I had the same question. >> It is from the upper grade basically where the front steps are. >> So it should be measured from mean average grade, right? Mean grade. Even
if you went from the bottom below you're it's 313. So if you took the mean which let's say three sides of it is at that dimension and then you dropped it 4 feet it would still be below that 35 ft threshold.
>> So let's just say that you're at nine and you're at 12. So, um, you're at what? 10 and a half. >> And so, even that, and when you do measure, you also measure
>> point you measure. Well, you don't, right? You don't measure to the mean, you're measuring to the top. So, >> so you're under. So, that's fine. Um, >> if you're 31, >> right? So, you you take off a half a foot and a half to get to the mean of the roof, let's say, and you add a foot
and a half for grade. You're exactly where you are right now at 313. >> Yeah. >> Give it take a rough calculation. >> Yeah, I should have caught that one. >> So, >> it would have been favorable to get it lower.
>> In quick measurement, the deck is included. The shed is included in in the lot coverage. So, the lock coverage doesn't change. Um, what is it about the F that's that is changing that that is like where is the
F changing? Do we know that? >> Yeah, cuz what you're doing is you're swapping out the basement. You're taking the basement living space what's counted as living space in the current lowest floor. I don't call it. >> Yeah. And then you're going to for the
existing condition, you're including that lower space. And then you're gonna instead wipe that out and count the second story in the proposed >> the crawl space that is the difference. >> Exactly. There's a little bit up front that's not part of the uh finished
basement. >> Probably 5 foot 10 ceiling down there. Jim, >> sorry. >> That's making up the >> 5 foot. I hit my head on it a lot. >> Downstairs isn't counted. Upstairs it
is. But but the volume of the box is is not changing. >> Okay. So um understanding all that we go back to to the F and if it is the F is increasing
because this V crawl space is not counted currently but is counted upstairs and the volume isn't changing. Is that really considered uh an
exacerbation in size and mass if it's already accounted for >> only in terms of precedent? That's the only place I see fit. >> But in terms of physical >> precedent, >> I mean I think there's some opportunity
to like the deck to improve it. what's uh nonconformity right now >> is is um is there any is the deck on your propert I mean you don't have any issues cuz the it's the backlog of somebody else but is is the deck on the
line is the deck over the line or does anybody really know or >> it's right up the line right >> it's right on it >> are you reing the deck >> sorry >> are you rebuilding the deck >> no resurfacing it that's all in I guess in my opinion if if I don't I
don't see the F increasing because the volume or the box isn't increasing and so I don't see that as as as as the volume is getting bigger in terms of what neighbors and neighborhood can see
and feel because it's already there. Um >> well I mean but you don't see half of it now, right? Because it's pretty much below grade, >> right? So So you do see more volume than what you see now, right? >> Um
extra story, >> right? >> Yeah. >> An extra story. >> Yeah. Like I look at the other ones. I mean, it's it in terms of the box of of the shape of the house, I don't Yes, it
is increasing and they are expanding, but >> it's not like the footprint is growing. It's not like it it's it would create there's an additional appendage that's creating more shade or shadow. It is the box that is going up.
That's I understand what you're saying, Michelle. And I but I still don't think it's is all that detrimental when you look at the other houses and you look at the height and size of the other houses. It would be nice if somehow your deck didn't hit the property line.
>> Yeah, it' be nice to try to do something about the deck. I think >> either that or the shed. You could you could you could increase the F on either one and I don't think it would be painful. >> The shed is block coverage. The shed is not. >> Excuse me. >> But the decks are >> All right. So, how do we how do we like
move this along? I think we're we're it's we're we're caught up on one one line item out of 15. And would you guys agree with that statement that it's really just the F that we're trying to understand and
plays in it? >> Yeah. I mean, I think if if you can improve the deck, there's definitely Yeah. >> So, there's two >> there's two the deck and and the farm. Um, >> I do think the design is very nice though.
>> Definitely. Yeah, it's a very nice design. >> Thank you. Good job. >> I mean, so the deck is actually on an angle on the property line. >> Yeah. >> And I'm just pointing that out because >> the front,
>> you could notch out that corner and probably establish a twoft setback by doing that. I don't know what that I say that with knowing nothing about what that entails and what the impact is. >> Is that crazy to do something like that?
>> Well, cut a little bit >> just notch out the deck a little bit so you can establish a twoft setback from the property line. >> I mean that deck can host like 50 people. >> It's a big deck. >> I think you're not sacrificing very much but it would improve one of the
non-conforming. I mean, just personally, just looking at it, if you put a little bit on the front where it's sitting, cut it back a little bit. It's not going to >> Maybe just hit hit like a balcony in the front instead of the steps. And then >> just enough for the front porch that we're proposing where you can go around
still onto it. But >> and then let it come back to its normal one. >> Or you can start where where your dimensional. It's a lot easier for me to change the mic. >> 25 took off. >> 10 ft. >> Yeah.
>> Could you come up and maybe just >> Absolutely. I mean, I think there's a couple ways. Do you mind going to the architectural? >> I don't. Um, yes. Let's You want to go to the architectural? >> The proposed like first floor. >> So, I think there's two two ways.
>> Oh, yeah. Here we go. >> Either we can kind of cut it like this. say from this post to that post, you just take it like that and notch a little piece out of it so that you could still from the porch come around because I think that's a nice con concept from
the porch you can still get to the deck. So like red line here, red line there and that will take away from it being right at the point or if you guys are okay with it and you don't really care about this concept of being come right from the porch to it. It's just take
that whole piece right off. So still from, you know, these two sliders, you could come out to it. I think either or would work, but yeah, something like that. >> Within as long as you're within 4T of that corner, that would be fine. >> A question.
>> Yeah, I was just wondering like cuz it's it's not over the line. So like right on the line >> like right ours across the street is almost identical to this situation where I think the corner of our deck it cuz it's the property line's angled just like that and the corner of our deck
ends up I want to say they said like 18 in on their property but they were all right when they bought the house the people behind us and they put up a fence blah blah blah but the thing is is this here this deck that we're talking about here this an empty lot that's unbuildable that nobody's ever going to
be able to build it. So that's the only reason why I >> see that now until that has anything to do with it as far as >> well they don't have a sewer mass front now front >> it's it's yes and so as as you're you
know you're increasing and exacerbating and we could make an argument for that and if you're giving back something we can in all honesty say that you gave a little and you're getting a little and it's it's it's >> even And and then that premise goes for your
neighbors and anybody else as well. >> Yes. >> Right. And so people that come in here and and want more and want more and want more then then >> we we will become the board of more. And we're we're trying to hold the line somehow. >> Absolutely.
>> And and be fair to you and be fair to your neighbors. And whether your neighbors have or haven't built yet, they have they have rights and you have rights. And within the POD, we're just trying to make sure the neighborhood all has the same rights. >> So, we're not trying to be
>> too picky and too painful, but we are looking for the premise that you're not >> totally exacerbating. And if if you're increasing a little, you are fixing something or you're making something better >> and and the the two are favorable in terms of the project. Um, so let me just
ask then what kind of feels right to you in terms of uh, you know, is it is making a change here which we can think about and propose to accomplish a twoft setback where we currently have zero. Is that feeling like that's an improvement worth noting? Is or
>> Yeah. You're you're taking something off the property line and you're you're building off the property line. >> Okay. Well, isn't that like if we did that rectangle, isn't that a lot more than 2 feet? >> It might even be more than 2T. I guess I want to see something. >> I'm just trying to get a sense if we're
talking about kind of numbers here. Um, >> we're looking for improvement. We would think that you'd want to logically figure out how the the deck is structured so that you're not >> that's why at one time I just want to look at what makes >> going through super hoops in order to do it. But we are looking for for something.
>> Okay. >> And you know the two would be great >> in my opinion because it's going to be them. It's going to be their deck or whatever. But >> y >> in my opinion, if if it was like one or the other, whether it be the deck or the or the shed. >> I mean, if I were you guys, I would do the shed just because the deck is so
narrow already, >> but the deck is more the deck. >> I think it's actually two separate. >> I mean, I would get rid of the shed, too. A personal, you know, I would >> we were looking for ideas, right? Right. >> The deck is on the property line. >> If you pull your deck off the property
line, then you you have a pre-existing non-conforming, but it's not >> on the property line. I was just wondering because it sounded like it was one or the other, but >> if it was one, >> I think we would be very favorable if the deck was kind of modified and and so I don't think anybody would have a
problem trying to get two feet. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, if we take that deck and just basically bring it back to >> Yeah, we could do that too. And I think that'd be cleaner than trying to do the, you know, >> and get rid of that. >> And I think and we could maybe talk about the sh maybe put in a smaller set
even just something that's going to add some value. So, But I would like that >> is less of an issue. >> What when I sit here and I This sounds to me this sounds positive. This sounds like we're moving in the right. We know what you want. I think >> yes. >> I'd like these guys to have a little time to think about it obviously and and
everyone wants the plan to reflect the final proposal. So the only reason I'm even talking and sort of bing right now is what I don't want to do is I I want to try to get this done at the next meeting like done. So would you be
knowing that we're going to work on these topics, would you be comfortable um uh I don't know what you have to do authorize um the drafting of a decision. So at the next meeting if what we present is satisfactory you can vote and end it at
that next meeting. >> We can ask that a decision be drafted >> without a vote. Um and I think we we say that we think we're going in the right direction. Yeah. >> Um, sometimes we would vote.
>> I think here we just want to see it. And so in order to do it all at once and not have to draft it and if that draft >> gets tweaked because there's a piece of language 2 feet or 3 feet gets we could figure that out. >> Yeah. >> Um, so what I would do is I would
propose a continuation or make a motion to have a continuation to the next meeting. I would ask that we draft a decision and that the decision um states and I can help you with that language, Chrissy, that basically the
pre-existing non-conforming are the same except for the F which increases from 31 to 34 and that the applicant has willingly made modifications to
improve pre-existing ing nonconformity of a zero line set back to a favorable and we'll just say 2T from the if it's a little more that's great. It would be nice if it wasn't less than 2
ft but we had it please >> that that would be great. >> That's the motion. Is there a second? Second by Mario. All in favor of the motion I >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> We're on a good We're on a good path.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you for >> Oh. Oh, sorry. Sorry. One more thing. Give us doesn't involve you, but give us a second. So, part of that motion, we will have the continuence to the next hearing which is on
>> February 19th, >> February 19th. My birthday, I want. So, we will continue this hearing to February 19th at 7:30 here on the second floor. You'll you'll get the proper
three things in here for proper. >> Yes. >> So, a motion for continuance. Second. Second by Mario. All those in favor? >> I thank you, Chissy. >> Have a good night. The supplemental due the week before.
>> Yeah, you too. >> Okay. So Mason conservation is going to draft up a memo to the zoning board that the recreation area has been completed and it's satisfactory and his recommendation
to release the bond and that would make >> that's what we discussed. We are looking for our consultants >> and then we can >> ask I want to talk to both. Can you wait five minutes?
>> All right. Is there a motion? >> Second. Second by Michelle. All those in favor?