Uh we're going to get the meeting started. It's 7:02. Okay. >> This is a meeting of the town of Norton zoning board of appeals. >> We have four matters on tonight. >> Uh one of which is uh there's a request
for withdrawal. We'll deal with that in a in a minute. >> Um >> one of our members, Mr. Wazak, is attending remotely tonight. Is he on? >> Thank you. Thanks very much, Lucas, for
joining in. Um, Mr. Chenoi this afternoon um informed us that he was stuck elsewhere on assignment and was not able to be with us. So, Mr. Wazak, our alternative alternate member, is joining us by Zoom from I hope the
comfort of his home, but I'm not sure. >> You don't have to say where you are. >> Lucas, um, you can see what I'm here for. >> Don't say that. anywhere warmer and we'd throw you out. Um, >> okay. The first item on the agenda is
actually a continuation of a matter we started hearing in our November meeting >> and we asked for a new plan to be submitted showing well showing um existing building uh coverage.
Um, we we asked actually for something different that was submitted, but I think we have what we need. So, Lucas, um, hopefully you can you have that and can see what we're dealing with. Um, at the last meeting and I'll call this um,
this is the matter of 20 Juniper Road. Uh, Mr. John Alves, who's with us again tonight. Thank you. And, um, Mr. valves came to us, filed an application for some construction that had already been
started and then um halted by the building commissioner who um said permits were needed. And it turns out um Mr. Als needed some relief from the zoning board, so he filed an
application. At the last meeting, we we talked about this and um how we did not like proceeding on applications where the construction had already started. That's not the way it's supposed to
work, but we um said we were going to look past that and discuss the uh application on the merits. We asked for a new plan showing there are quite a few buildings on the property. Uh they're
being displayed right now. Um the planned construction that has started is in the upper right. It's a threeseason uh open kitchen and dining area. Um the other
building shown there were already there and I can't see is that the new plan showing the um >> it is the revised plan. >> It shows the square footage of each building. We actually asked for the dimensions of each building. We were going to figure out the square footage, but um showing the square footage and it
this is signed by the engineer. So I think this is as good as uh for what we asked for. And uh so Lucas, we're dealing with a new plan tonight that was submitted in recent weeks. The application
is in an R60 zone. Uh minimal frontage. It's a non-conforming pre-existing because the frontage is only 62 feet and though it's an R60 zone, there's 6,200 square ft.
Is that right? It's not 62,000, is it? 6,200, I believe, to the property. Yes. 6,200 square feet. And our concern, um, our question last time was, well, what about lot area coverage? Because
this is a lot of construction on a an undersized lot as it is. We asked that the plan be resubmitted. Um, and the plan was submitted. The plan dated now revised 10:1525 which I think was a day after our last
meeting shows the square footage of each um structure on the uh premises that adds up to 2552 square ft which
results in a lot area coverage of 41.16% of the property. property square footage. The um limitation for R60 is 16%. Now, frankly, uh that's over by a lot.
However, pardon the pun. However, I note that the additional the new buildings for which we are in consideration tonight, the two in the upper right corner cover deck under construction,
that's 226 ft. covered outdoor kitchen under construction is 302 square feet. So the additional square footage is 528 square ft. In other words, um the
occupancy was already well over the 16% um limit of um total lot area coverage for structures. This however um assuming that this construction is is
permitted and goes forward results in 41.16% lot coverage. It had been if my math is correct 32.6% prior to the new construction. So I think that factors into our discussion
and consideration tonight as well. Um we heard from Mr. Als last time. Thank you for uh submitting the new plan. Appreciate that. Are there other questions from board members? Um Lucas or
um one gentleman spoke up and I I do see him here tonight. I'm going to ask if uh he has viewed the new plan and I'll ask him to uh tell us whether he has any opposition. He had questions about the project. I wouldn't say it was
opposition or support. Um sir, can I ask you at this time? Do you have any further comments on the uh plans, the new plans as submitted? >> Uh what is the new plan versus the old one?
>> The new plans show the square footage of each of the buildings. >> So that wasn't there before, >> right? And we were curious about that and we had asked about that. The positioning of the buildings appears to have remained where it were. Given the site uh I'm sorry, the setback distances
from the side, from the back, from the front, all of those stayed the same. Square footage of each structure was filled in. We can now see that what is there and already fully constructed was 32.6%
coverage of the entire lot. the application would increase that to 41.16% coverage of the lot. And that was the question we had last time. How can we
even speak to what the lot area coverage is? It's obviously over the 16%, but we wanted numbers so we could at least record them in the decision. So, I'll ask if you have any uh further comments or questions or to speak in favor of or
in opposition to the application as it stands. >> I'm not opposed, but I'm not necessarily in favor. >> Could Could I ask you to step to the microphone? Sorry about that. >> And just state your name and address, please.
>> Yeah. >> Tom Watson, 15 Farm Lane. And you had questions last month. I >> I had some questions in regards to my property um which was a separate issue >> in back of which is directly in back of this property. Correct. >> Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. So do you have any comments as to the application either in favor of or in opposition to? >> I'm not against it but but I'm not in your position because this has already been done. Now you got to somewhat rectify the problem which you probably
can't because there's already construction been done. >> Yes. >> I know you s you mentioned about eliminating that uh existing metal gazebo.
That was a thought that you had at the first meeting >> that was thrown out. Yes. >> Yes. was thrown out there to consider. Right. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm I'm simply asking if you want to speak in favor of or in opposition to the >> No. No, I do not. No.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Let me ask, is there anybody else in attention in attendance to speak in favor of or in opposition to Mr. Alves? Could you come to the microphone? Uh, >> I got a letter uh from my from our next
door neighbor uh at 22 Jinper Road, the one right next to the construction kitchen that lot uh I can't really see that >> to the right. >> Yeah. Uh 533 >> that lot. Uh he wrote a letter uh here. Uh can you read it, Brian?
>> It's from uh Mr. uh Devon. to whom it may concern. My name is Devin Galileo and I am the homeowner of 22 Junifer Road in Norton, Massachusetts. I am writing to address inquiries regarding the recent construction on my neighbors
my neighbor Jean's property which pertains to his patio and outdoor area. I would like to emphasize that Jean and his family have always been exemplary neighbors. They are respectful, friendly, and contribute positively to our community. I fully support Jean's
decision regarding his property improvements as they do not pose any issue for our shared neighborhood. I thank you for your attention on this matter. Sincerely, Devin Galo. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll keep that in the record, our our files. And for the
record, I see that Mr. Galo maybe uh his lot is to the right of the subject property when you're looking at it. uh um on the board or on the um the new submitted plan. So, we'll keep
that as part of the file. Now, uh members, do you have any other questions for Mr. Alves, the applicant, concerning this application? >> Not directly. I know last time we talked briefly about wondering about the GI about the the plot plan and how it was
kind of inverted in. We didn't know if that was accurate or not. Sorry. >> Remember we had discuss >> always always go by the plot plan. Stand by the uh by the surveyor. Don't ever don't go by the computer generated one. >> Yeah, cuz we had disco. You weren't Yeah, cuz I think you were I was
>> This is This is a great representation. It is not perfect. >> Yeah. >> Always go by the sample. >> And for the record, you're looking at it looks like the tax map or something. >> No, the G Norton G. >> Gio, which is essentially the tax map. >> Okay. >> Okay. And there's no protrusion in the
lot line um according to the engineered uh stamp plan submitted either the first one or this one. Uh but right to bring it up. Are there any other questions or comments from the board uh or anybody else to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the application? If not, is there a motion to Lucas, did you have any questions? Or is there a motion to close the public hearing and we can discuss the application? >> Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> Yes.
>> Is there a second to the motion? All those in favor? Mr. Noel vote. Mr. Wazak votes yes. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Noel votes yes as well. >> Okay. Uh, thank you. You can you can be seated. Um so in front of us is the um
amended plan showing u an excess coverage of uh square footage given the small size of the lot. I don't know that this is um unusual for
lots on that uh in that particular area. We heard from the gentleman in back who uh had only questions about his property and >> what we looked at last week indicates he has a lot of lot covered um structures,
a lot of structures uh contributing to a lot of lot area coverage too. That's directly in back. Then now we've heard through paper from Mr. Galo, Devin Galo, who is the U homeowner on the to the
right of the property on Juniper Road. U he has no issues with this. Lucas, we did note last time that construction had commenced without the proper permits or permissions and the building
commissioner um directed them to shut it down and that's why they are here before us. Feelings of the uh of the board, Mr. Wak, Mr. Ferguson [sighs] Yeah, Lucas can go. Lucas
Well, the the choice if we don't approve um if we don't do a finding and variance relief and I think both are required here. Um it would be up to the town and Mr. elves as to how to resolve it. Um, you know, the town could
start an enforcement action uh or the town um can do nothing and um then it's up to Mr. Alves and and um the legal legal process if there would be any. Uh
so I'm in favor of taking action to uh grant the permission necessary with the public warning that we don't like these where construction has started before an application is
submitted and the town uh maybe we should have better bylaws and guidelines as to what to do in those situations. Um but we don't we have to live with the rules that we have in place. Um town
meeting in fact last month rejected amending the bylaws. So we have the same bylaws we've had for the last uh several years. Um, I I guess I'm saying I'm not in favor of leaving it to the legal process
and the town getting into a um a fight with a resident when there have been no objections from neighbors. And I also note the existing construction um as shown on the plan, the existing
metal gazebo is 2.75 ft off the property line. The existing main house structure, main residence is 3.6 feet off the sideline with Mr. Galo and uh less than 10.6 ft um from Juniper Road. It's 10.6
ft to the corner of the house, but we also see there's a covered porch there and steps that encroach even further. So, I'm not sure that the um variance requests are out of line with with
what's there already. Although, again, significant down to 2.8, 3.9, and 5.4 ft for the new construction in the back. Um, but again, present construction already uh there is uh even even um
shorter to the sidelines and the rear rear lines. Oh, do you agree? Do members, do you agree that we need we would need to approve this variance relief and um a finding
for a previous uh pre-existing non-conforming? I'm going to I'm going to make that call. Um, and I will ask if there is a motion to u for a finding that the
construction as shown on this revised plan of record shall not render the property u substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood in terms of the factors in the bylaw, light,
noise, traffic, or any of the other listed factors. Is there such a motion for a finding? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ferguson has made the motion. Lucas, do you second that motion? >> I'll call for a uh voice vote then. Mr.
Wazak, how do you vote? Uh Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Noel votes yes as well. the variance relief as shown on the revised plan. Um the distances are shown on the revised
plan as 5.4 ft and 3.3 ft to the rear of the property. That's to Mr. Watson's property, 3.9 ft and 2.8 ft to the right
of the property as shown on the plan of record. Um I note that there is existing concrete block patio in the center of the property now. Um which makes it
impossible to locate really anywhere except where it is located where the uh planned construction is uh at the current time. There's certainly no room out front. To the uh left of the existing residence is a concrete
driveway and to the rear is the existing concrete block patio. Um so I think that is a sufficient hardship in my mind
to grant variance relief though obviously um these are big variances. the sideyard setback properly is 13 ft um in this zoning district. However,
noting that the construction that's been there apparently for years is 3 and 1/2 ft away from the sideyard setback and um one and a half one and 2/3 ft away to the rear. So again, um I'll ask if there is a
motion to approve variance relief as shown on the plan of record. >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Wisak, how do you vote on the variance? >> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Noel votes yes as well. So with some caution to everybody who is in attendance by Zoom or otherwise and with respect to the building commissioner who did the right thing, we do not like it when people start projects and then ask
for permission later. However, Mr. Alves has explained himself and we are looking past that in this instance. We might not do it the next time around. Um but you have your permissions and good luck to you. Thank you. [clears throat]
>> And thank you to the abutters who took part and uh voiced their questions or their their comments. We appreciate those as well. Good luck to you. We'll drop a decision uh within the next two weeks and get it posted and there's an appeal period after that, but as you
saw, your butters are not um opposing your construction. So, good luck to you. >> Yeah. >> And thank you and thank the building inspector again for his work. We're not exactly u we're not dismissing
your findings in any way. We respect your work. >> Our bylaws are outdated for this area. Yeah, >> that's what it comes down to. >> Sideline. >> Okay. Uh, Lucas, stick with us. U, the other three matters are, I don't think, lengthy. U, the second item on the
agenda is 49 island road that was a continuence I think from September. Actually, we continued it to the last meeting. Applicant had asked for another continuence but then applicant has contacted us saying that due to personal
reasons he's asking uh to withdraw the application altogether without prejudice. Um so the application for 49 island road is uh up for a withdrawal without
prejudice. The applicant cited some personal reasons. I I may have uh seen health issues. I'm not sure. I also wouldn't want to get into those publicly, of course, but um I don't see a reason why we would not uh allow the
withdrawal without prejudice applicant. It only means that um if we did it with prejudice, he'd have to wait 2 years to come back. Without prejudice means he can come back, but he has to file a new application. and we had questions about it in September. Um, and he was in the
uh process of fixing those questions, addressing those questions. So, the applicant would have to start over again. He could start over again any time. Um, but I don't see a reason to refuse the without prejudice qualification. Um,
is there a motion from Mr. Ferguson or Mr. Wazak to allow the withdrawal of the application for 49 island road without prejudice? Yes, >> Mr. Ferguson has made a motion. Mr. Waziaak, is there a second?
Uh, no further discussion. Mr. Wazak, how do you vote? >> Mr. Ferguson, >> yes. >> And Mr. Noel votes yes to allow the withdrawal of the application without prejudice. Okay, moving to the third item on the agenda.
111 Oak Street, applicant owner John Krugelli. Mr. KNI. Uh, good evening. We're going to ask you to come up uh to be seated in front of us and uh take the podium for a second
just to explain to us uh what it is you're seeking. This is a single family residence uh at 83 Oak Street. You are not residing there. I'm sorry. That's your That's
>> I'm at I'm at 83 myself. >> You're at 83 now. The application is for 111 Oak Street. So, I take it you have purchased or are purchasing the parcel, >> right? >> There's an older construction one uh single family residence, >> single family non-habitable house
[snorts] there. Now, >> so the applicants here have purchased that uh property and are asking for permission to demolish that house. >> Correct. and also to construct a new single family residence. Correct. >> Correct. >> To the rear of the property. The
property is a fairly extended uh thin lot. >> 400 ft deep. >> 400 ft deep. Yep. But only 80 ft wide. Is that right? Do I have >> 120? >> Oh, it's 120. I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the other application, the fourth one. Never mind.
>> 120. 120 wide. That's That's where we're we're lacking in the uh frontage. minimum frontage. That's right. You have 120 ft of frontage where the bylaw is for 150, of course, and it's an R40 zone.
Area of the property is sufficient 46800, but only 100 ft under 20 ft of frontage. Therefore, again, it's a pre-existing non-conforming use. And I'd suggest
that we need a finding. Um I don't think we need variance relief on this though. I'll look at the plan of record. This was also a revised plan, wasn't it? There was an original plan
and then one dated revised 101425. So that's the plan I'm looking at. Uh it would be the one with >> with 80. >> The first one is dated September 25.
Then there's one submitted September 25 but revised 1014. You could take a look at this if >> I think I asked them to add the the zoning table onto it. >> Right. >> That's that's the revision. >> That is the difference. I >> I said that's that's something they've been looking for here. So let's beat it
to the punch. >> And thank you again. Thank you again for doing that. Thank you for submitting the revised plan. So that's the one we are considering. I think the positioning didn't change at all, but the zoning requirements are shown on the the table. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> So here I think it's in line for after
discussion of course and questions from the board a finding um as we did in the first application, but I don't think variance relief is required. No, if you look at my comment on open gov, it was this was more in line for a
finding for increasing the habitable area by 25%. The uh insufficient frontage would be waved based on the uh non-conforming single and two family uses, >> right? >> Yeah. And it's obvious that the habitable floor space it's it looks like
it's being quadrupled, never mind 25% because it's a tiny house there now, the dilapidated house. Yes. >> And you're building a what I will call a normalsiz house or a nice size house there. >> Correct. Yeah. It's only 600 square ft if I remember right. Y existing now.
>> Existing house, but your your construction is uh >> right around 1500. >> Okay. 32 by Yeah. by the the dimensions are shown on the plan of record. Correct. >> Are there questions from the board? Uh first of all to Mr. Krugali
>> again he you live right down the street presently, right? So this is you're upsizing basically. >> Well, no, it's actually my daughter's going to be moving in there. So yeah. No, I'm staying where I am. >> Very very nice of Mr. Kunelli in that case. >> Oh, no. She's going to pay for it. Not that nice.
>> We don't have to get into all that. Don't worry. [laughter] >> I I think I know your daughter. I have a daughter about the same age. Um, >> what >> questions from the board? >> Lucas, did you have a question? >> Mr. Ferguson, >> no question.
>> And I think I I just wanted to lay out the grounds of what what's going on. And I think we've done that. I'll ask if anybody else in attendance tonight, either in the room or attending by Zoom, wishes to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application, please
let us know. Uh Mr. Carmichael, tell me if anyone is on Zoom speaking up. >> I see no hands raised. >> Thank you. And seeing none in the audience, uh is there a motion to close the public hearing, which is the first thing we are supposed to do?
>> Yes. >> Yes. I have a motion. Mr. Wazak, do you second the motion? Okay. No further discussion on the motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Waziaak, how do you vote? >> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Thank you. Any further discussion on the application? I think we're all satisfied that uh this is a a good plan. The applicant showed us what he needed to show us and explained what we didn't didn't know or
wanted to ask about. Uh I suggest a motion to uh approve a finding um for the alteration and extension expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming uses in order. finding would be that the planned
construction as shown on the plan of record revised uh will not render the property um substantially more detrimental to the area in which it is than the existing uh
situation at the locus um in terms of light, noise, traffic or any of those factors. Is there such a motion? >> Yes, >> Mr. Wazak. Is there a second? Is there any further discussion on that
motion? Hearing none. Uh Mr. Wazak, how do you vote on that uh finding? >> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Good luck to you. >> Thank you. Appreciate it.
>> Um and uh we'll do a decision in writing within a couple of weeks and then the appeal period starts. But again, no objections from anybody in attendance, so you should be on your way. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Good luck to you. >> Uh where's the fourth?
Right here. Fourth on the agenda. Lucas, see your attendance tonight has enabled us to go forward with all of these and not put them off for a month. Thank you. And he thought he was done with the board >> as an al.
>> You tried. You tried. But I think we I think we conscripted you as an alternate. But you you saved the meeting tonight. You saved all these applicants tonight. >> All it took was that nice that nice certificate you made them. >> Did we? I don't think we signed that certificate though, did we?
>> We drafted him. Um, next application, the final one is the application of the owner is Karen Dalton. Uh, Mr. Sigonowski is the engineer and I think he's going to present the application for us tonight. The property address is
113 King Phillip Road. Let me just uh tickle through this. The frontage here is also um undersized in an R80 zone. 75.13 ft of frontage.
The area of the property is also under size for an RS880 zone at 12,600 ft. Um, and we have on the application that the residents single family residence again. Correct. >> Correct. >> And [clears throat] it was built uh in
1945. So, it is a pre-existing non-conforming um use. Also, it looks like as to side and rear setbacks, I'll get to the map in a moment. But first, I will ask Mr.
uh Siginowski, the engineer on the project, simply to take us through what is planned, and you can refer to the map, which that's the map, correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Thank you. Go right ahead. >> Okay. Uh good evening, Craig Siginowski, Rim Engineering. Karen Dalton, the owner
of the property, is also here. So [clears throat] yes, the house is built in 45 according to the assessors. Uh it's built uh 5.9 ft off the northerly property line which is on the plan to the left with the [clears throat] winter pond to the uh
east or the rear of the property. The house [clears throat] is built uh further back on the lot. It's about it's 85 ft back from the road. Uh we surveyed and we worked on uh property to the left, the Greeko property last year.
Then we worked on this property here. They were all undersized lots in this area. Uh >> this is right on Winnacana. >> Correct. The back property line is the uh technically it's the water line, but there's a retaining wall along the property. [clears throat] >> Excuse me, the edge of the uh the lake.
So, the like I said, the existing house is 5.9 ft from the property line, and they're looking to do is add a 12x 24 uh roof addition. Will [clears throat] the coming off the front of the house
towards the street uh along where the they have a paved driveway that comes up about halfway to the house and then it turns into a walkway. So, the the uh addition will be along that walkway. And there's an [clears throat] existing deck that wraps around the front of the house. That portion of the deck will be
removed uh so that the addition can fit there. There are no other >> This is the property I was thinking about during the last application. This is 80 ft 75 [clears throat] ft frontage but 80 ft wide at its widest point. So >> right
>> any addition is going to encroach the sideyards >> in the R80 zone with 35 ft required setbacks. We can't really build anything without a variance >> or you could build a 10-ft wide uh room, >> right? So, the other second issue we have is
lot coverage. Uh building coverage in this zone is allowed at 12%. We're at existing 5 uh 15.08. We're adding uh 288 square ft or 12 x 24 which increases it by 1.84 84 to a total
of 16.92%. >> The addition would be roughly 27% of the existing house increase. >> Okay, [clears throat] >> that's uh pretty much where we are with this. >> Okay. Uh questions from the board, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Waziac,
and this plan >> uh just living space. It's not a bedroom. It would just [clears throat] be um >> It's a bedroom, bathroom. >> Oh, >> bedroom, bathroom, office. >> Oh, my mistake. It's a bedroom, bathroom, office. >> Okay. For the record, I'm looking at a
plan that was also revised. It looks like uh re it's dated 102425. >> Um it wasn't re Oh, yes. I'm sorry. We did add the contours. Uh >> yeah, there was an earlier >> had mentioned the um >> water resource protection district, the
wetland resource protection district that is at elevation 70 in this zone. All the land that uh drains to the pond. So we are showing that we're not in that zone. The 70 contour is behind the house and we're not doing any work back there. So this is [clears throat] is am I right
that this is really about the only position you could put an additional room? Well, I mean they could go along the side of the house, but then we'd be even closer to the property line. [clears throat] I assume the reason for where it's placed is access through the
there's a doorway there for the existing uh porch. So [clears throat] it lines up with that >> and it's right in front of the driveway. >> Correct. Uh but if applicant were to prop would have proposed it to the right of the building that would have meant a further
>> dimmunition diminishment of the sideyard setback there. So [clears throat] >> this is actually about well it's not centered but within a few feet u about the least uh obstructive or obtrusive place they uh could have built this and
it's [clears throat] a standard size room 12x 24 ft >> right >> or I should say addition 12x 24 ft it's not giant >> u those were my observations here um and that it seems to call u if approved for
variance relief. Uh the two side yards and not front not front yard set. >> No, [clears throat] we meet the front yard. We have 65 ft where 50 is required. >> Yep. Um [clears throat] and also a finding because it's an
undersized lot pre-existing non-conforming. Those are my observations. Are there questions uh from the board? Mr. Ferguson? >> Nope. Mr. Wasiaak, do you have questions or uh concerns, observations, anything?
>> Let me ask if there is anybody in the audience either in the room or attending electronically who wishes to speak in favor of or against the application as shown. I there are five people in the Yes. Uh,
ma'am, could I ask you to just to simply identify yourself and where you live for the record? >> We got to do that. We're not trying to put you on the spot. [clears throat] >> Uh, >> your name and address. >> Colleen Smith, 111 King Phelp Road on
the Alexander Budnick property. >> I'm sorry, on the left. >> On the Alexander Budnick property. I'm also [laughter] on that >> as shown on the plant. Yes. Yes, >> that's your property there. >> Yes. >> Do you have uh comments? Uh >> just a question. Is there a time frame
um that anyone could take action against the special permit? >> Well, first of all, it's up to us to say yay or nay. And I I think you heard from me and the other members uh that we don't have a particular problem with the
proposal. So if we approve it and take a vote tonight, we then write up a decision in the next 14 days. I think it required in 14 within 14 days. Then there's an appeal period of >> 20 days after that when it's posted in
the clerk's office for anybody to file uh well an appeal in the superior court or the land court. I'm not even sure of the process. and you will get a second notification for when that is stamped and filed.
>> But if you have concerns against the application, we ask that you, you know, we can consider those tonight. I mean, this is the first step in the process. >> Um, I think it it
there may be an issue where the lot lines are. Can you explain what you're referring to the lot the dividing lot line between your property and the applicants? >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's
I don't know if uh the engineer has anything to speak about that or is familiar with the the question. Did you have what is your concern ma'am? I mean what is your what is your concern based on I guess? So, we had a survey done um
and it actually shifts the lines over a bit. >> Which >> so I don't know if that's going to >> which way into the applicant's yard. >> Uh >> expanding your property, I assume. >> No, shortening my property, expanding hers, but I it might move it over.
I have mine with me if you want. >> Okay. Did Did when did you do this? >> Uh two weeks ago. >> Oh, okay. Uh, Mr. Siginowski, uh, can I thank you for your question, your your comment, and let's try to clear it up if
if we can now. Uh, Mr. Siginowski, do you know what this U butter is referring to? >> Yeah. So car they spoke to Karen Dalton uh my client and mentioned they were on vacation but they mentioned they were going to have a survey done which when we staked it there's a question of the
three uh sheds on the property with the belief that the right the furthest to the right shed that's actually on the property line was the neighbors. Our survey revealed that the property [clears throat] line is the way I'm showing it. We worked at Mr. Grio's
property on to the number 115 which is to the left. uh last year uncovered a property corner in our the common corner of the property that I believe is Mr. Budnich and and my client and also [clears throat] it's still there today.
However, when we went when we did uh survey on the property next door at number 111, there's an iron rod. Their property goes over I think I forget 80 ft and then makes a bend coming towards the house and there's an iron rod there. Well, we find it to be about six feet
further to the to the south than it should be, which creates a [clears throat] gap between the two lots, which is what she's referring to. When their surveyor, we stake it, we went out and located, and it creates like, let's say, a 5ft parallel to our property line that I'm showing. So, it's
not an encroachment on our property. It would be an encroachment on what I believe is their property. My opinion is I would not I would not hold to that because we also found a property corner in the back left corner near the Winnipe Pond and then also on
number 115 when we work for Mr. Griico. >> So I'm confident it would increase our lot area and give us less of a we might meet the the 16 for whatever we're allowed to do. But I don't feel that that would be the right
thing for as far as a property line is concerned. the prop. You're sticking with your [clears throat] survey. Of course, that's what you're telling us. >> I mean, we we looked at the information they they they located and again, I'm finding a 6ft gap and that's much more than should be.
>> I mean, we're not we're not supposed to create gaps or overlaps. They're supposed to find a way to fix that and they could come to a decision maybe go halfway between there to create a new property line, but that's between the two owners. At this time, I wouldn't change the property line. How often does that happen when uh two surveyors I mean
we know >> six foot gap is quite is large you know usually we're talking 6 in really >> people argue over >> and it's you know legitimate either way I can see why they did it there's there's an old iron rod but you know not to get too technical but
when you go back 20 years we were using iron pipes and that's what we're finding in our corners that we're holding to iron rods we started using later in you know let's We use them now, but 20 years ago, we wouldn't have even been using them. And surveyors in Norton, iron pipes are much
much more common. So, I believe the iron pipes are the original markers. That would be why I would hold to it. No. >> And it's not an overlap. It's a gap. So, >> it would benefit my client, but I don't feel like we it would it's not in my opinion not the right thing.
>> You can't submit a plan to us with an imaginary line on it anyway. So, you're submitting >> No, I mean, they had a surveyor. I I don't know. Oh, I forget who who they were. I wasn't sure. My brother was out who had and spoken to somebody. They told them who who the I wasn't familiar with it, but you know, they have a
license, so they their opinions as valid as mine and they could probably back up why they held to it. >> But again, I don't see a reason and it's if it was an overlap, I'd say we'd have an issue that it has to be resolved, >> right? And I [clears throat] don't I
just don't think without further evidence why we would take that. >> The extra sliver, if I can call it that, doesn't encroach on the lines you're showing us here. It would push the lines over to the right. It would give you a bigger lot. Perhaps
this woman a bigger lot as well, depending. >> Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, it could be worked out between the two neighbors, you know, >> that's between them to figure out how they want to handle the lot lines. >> How does one redraw that an official? We would do you know the two surveyors could come to a conclusion that
satisfies both parties >> and then you register it or you have to >> the deed would have to change and of course that would you know let's say we get approved tonight and the lot line increases and we don't need this you know but that's down the road. >> Yep. Understood.
>> Thank you for explaining that. So my view, if I'm hearing it right, is it's not going to potentially make the applicant's lot smaller, >> right? >> If anything, once it's resolved, it would make the applicant's lot larger.
>> So we can note in the decision that the lot line to the south southerntherly dividing line is in question. Um but the uh you know the variance if granted will
work off of whatever property line exists now and whatever is determined to exist in the future. In other words, I think they would still need variance relief because it's supposed to be 35 feet [clears throat]
on each side and well it might mean one variance would go away but not both. I don't I don't think No, because you need more than that. You need >> 10 feet plus two feet it looks like. So you [clears throat] need something like 11 or 12 feet, >> right?
>> So I don't think it's a reason to hold any up any decision tonight or or to negate, you know, a positive decision. That's that's my understanding. But uh Lucas, do you have any questions
uh regarding what we've heard? I'm sorry. I was >> He's [clears throat] asking if it's an apartment or is it just part of your house? >> It's just part of my house. >> It's Is there a separate entrance to the room? No, it's going to be the same >> off of Where is your entrance to the
>> entrance is on the side of the house >> where the deck [clears throat] is the wraparound deck? >> Yes. >> Off the deck, right? >> Okay. >> Just go in and >> so I I think Lucas that means it's a um an extension, not an accessory
apartment. Do you agree or have any other questions? Lucas, thank you. And thank you. >> You have an >> I don't think the uh property line if it moves I mean it's Yes. Thank you. I see.
I think um at worse it means we wouldn't have to allow as large a variance on the northerly side sideyard. But it's I think it's inconsequential. the house is already
only 5.9 ft off that same sideline. So, I don't think it it would be fair to say to the applicant, we'll work out the property line and then come back. I don't think there's a reason to hold this up. That's my view. Um, is there an applicant who wishes I'm
sorry. Is there a uh person u attending by Zoom who wishes to speak? We hear you. Well, yes. What is your name and what is your address? >> Do you have any history uh to inform us on this property line stuff having lived
Yeah, >> think it means >> okay. All right. So, you don't have you don't have any knowledge of the property uh line. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Your
engineer is here before. Should we uh torture him a little or did Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Thank Thank for taking part. Is there anybody else attending who wishes to
speak in favor of or in opposition to the application? Yeah. Again, come on back if you can, just so we can hear you and get you on record. Yes. Just to >> Colleen Smith, uh the 111 homeowner. >> Yes.
>> Um not opposing or approving. Um so the shed that is on the our side, the um Alex Budnick side, we have that has always been our understanding that that's our section of property. um since
we've lived there, we can go back pretty far um at least to 2005 that 111 homeowners have maintained that section. Um >> so >> you're talking about the shed that appears on the right lower part.
>> Uh >> you can >> Yeah, it's hard to me. I I don't have an electronic pointer. >> Yeah, >> this down here. >> Yes. Yeah. But you're saying you think the property line now is >> so to the right.
>> So we had when we moved in, we were under the impression that the lot lines went between the two sheds. Um and so we have my husband and I have maintained okay that section >> um in the time that we've been here and
even prior to I've spoken with several of the other previous homeowners. So there's been some question there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, we don't we can't resolve lotline questions and it doesn't sound like you're really in dispute. Hopefully
it doesn't turn into that going forward. Um >> you know, hopefully for for you and for the applicant, >> but we we wouldn't be the ones to resolve any differences in surveys. That's why I was curious how did this come about? Mr. Siggonowski told us what he could tell us, but
>> yeah. So, it came about because we originally thought that we owned the land that went between the sheds and then we're told um >> so you're not opposed to this construction. >> I want to make sure that there wouldn't
be an issue if Karen and myself, we discussed ownership of that section of land. Is there going to be an issue for her to build as we've maintained that section of land? I can't answer that. >> Okay.
>> If if you're trying to settle who owns the shed, >> those are the >> um that's going to have to be settled elsewhere. >> That's okay. That's okay. I don't I don't want if we discuss >> you're not >> a shifting of the land. I don't want
that to become a problem for her >> in the building. >> Let's put it this way. If you're if you don't have a problem with the planned construction, yes, >> you're not conceding >> Mr. Signax's lot line. By saying you don't oppose the
construction doesn't mean you're agreeing with where the lot line is. >> Okay. >> So, is that good enough? >> Yes, >> I can say that much. Anyway, >> doors on this side. >> But as far as boy, these old plot plans and engineering, it's interesting stuff.
I don't know how that gets resolved other than cooperatively, as Mr. Sigodowski pointed out unless one party [laughter] >> begins a court action and I don't see that in either one of you um and in what you're you know communicating that you
intend to do um we're just dealing with the plan of record adding an addition um and the plot plan that we have here >> shows certain setbacks to the side property lines that we are going to take
a vote on, but it doesn't mean that you're agreeing that the property line is there. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody else? Yes, sir. Come on up. And >> can you identify yourself?
>> Cooney. >> Sorry. >> Cooney. >> I live at 113 King Phip Road. >> Mr. Cooney. >> Yes. >> Go ahead. So, we had a discussion with them this afternoon that we agree with his plot line because it gives them more land with our with our surveyor. We
don't want to, you know, they're good neighbors. We don't want to take nothing away. I was like, why' you why'd you hire them? They took land away from them. So, that's all. We did agree and hopefully going forward will.
>> So, you don't have anything to oppose the application? >> No, I lived there. I wanted to go through. So, I'm just saying with, you know, we we are trying to work it out. And >> so, this plot plan shows the shed on the applicants side of the line.
>> I we can't speak to that the accuracy of the lot line. >> Yeah. No, I I agree with I was just saying I agree with >> and you know, if you want to work out, it's still your shed and you can, you know, enter it and we're not going to do that's that's a private matter between the land owners
>> or the courts. But again, that's up to either of you to um you know, to speak up and say uh if something is not not right. Um is there anybody else to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application?
Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> Yes. >> Uh Mr. Waziaak, uh do you second? Mr. And Mr. Wazak, do you vote to close the public hearing at this time? Mr. Ferguson. >> Yes.
>> And Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Um thank you Mr. Siginowski. Then it's up for a um a couple of votes I think. Um discussion first. Members um do you have issues or um concerns with the plan of
record? >> I do not. The lot line question is interesting, but again it can only benefit the applicant according to what we heard. The location of the shed I think has to
be worked out by the neighbors. Um and the location of the lot line also perhaps um but I don't have a problem with this as presented. Um the information seems
solid. This is a pre-existing nonconforming use. Therefore, it is in line for a finding that the proposed addition as shown on the plan of record dated 102425 will not render the neighborhood
substantially more detrimental in terms of light, noise, traffic unless one room is going to increase traffic uh that much. Um, I don't think we have any uh evidence or testimony to that effect. Is there a motion for a finding to that
effect? >> Yes. >> Uh, M. Okay. Any discussion on that motion? >> Nope. >> Uh, Mr. Wazak, how do you vote on the finding?
>> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Noel votes yes as well. And then I think we need u two variances. We could do one variance vote that the um proposed addition as shown on the plan of record
shall shall be no closer than tell me Mr. Chinowski if I not reading the numbers right 25.8 ft on the northerly side and 33.6 feet on the southernmost side.
>> That's correct. All other um setbacks uh being uh respected as uh required. M is there a motion uh for approval of the variance? >> Yes.
>> Is there a second? Second on the motion just for discussion. Again, the hardship it's it's a thin lot. It's been in existence for a long time. the single family residence has been in existence and putting the addition anywhere else doesn't make sense. I didn't ask and I
meant to. I'm not sure they could put it to the rear or to the south on the side because of the proximity to wetlands. So I we didn't ask that. Um it seems to make sense where it is and I would suggest that's the necessary hardship
being shown. Is there any uh further discussion on the variance uh motion? Mr. Wazak or Mr. Ferguson? >> No. >> Then Mr. Wazak, how do you vote on the variance uh motion?
>> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes. >> And Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Okay. To the applicant, thank you very much for uh explaining everything, Mr. Siginowski. Interesting issue. I'd be interested to hear how it turns out later if those uh lines are straightened
out, but just as a matter of interest. Thank you very much to the applicant and to the uh other participants who came forward and u um gave us their u their feelings about the application. We appreciate the participation. We'll draw something up in the next 14
days, post it in the clerk's office. then a butters will have an appeal period of 20 days to um file some action to appeal it if if they want to do so at that time. Thank you very much and good luck to you all.
>> Thank you. >> Now on to other business of the board. Uh Lucas, again, thanks for stepping in at the last minute. we can um do something mean to Jim Tenori for the last minute notice, but that'll have to
come late. That'll have to be later and it'll have to be off the record. So, um is there any other business tonight, Brian? We had to check on Did we Lucas, you weren't at the last meeting. We can't we couldn't remember if we took
action on a set of minutes. Uh but we're going to check that with the video record and see. Um Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. But not for October. Um, so let me ask Mr. Carmichael, is there
anything else to come before us tonight business-wise? >> I know we want to probably talk about meeting dates. >> The meeting date, the next meeting we had spoken about for December 10th, Wednesday. Um, again, something came up for me. Uh,
Mr. Ferguson and Jim Tanor indicated they could do the night before, which is Tuesday, December 9. Correct. >> Yes. >> And, uh, Mr. Carmichael has indicated that none of the notices for that meeting have gone out saying it was the
10th. So, with, uh, the permission of Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Tenori, who's not here. And Lucas, we're going to move that date to Tuesday, December 9 at 700 p.m. Um, again, Lucas, we don't think we're going
to have to call on you. Uh, Jim Jim said it was okay for him. And, um, Mr. Ferguson and I u say the same thing. So, uh, we'll we'll set that meeting date for December 9th. Now if you want to you know I don't know what the
notices are what stage the notices are in other are there applications coming up that you're working on Brian >> be a member of the public >> not currently for us but for planning board so we might have no applications in for December. >> Wow. >> Okay.
>> And we're going to check informally on whether we approved a set of minutes at the last meeting. If so I will get them finalized and signed and get them to you. And then the next available meeting, we'll talk about the next set of minutes and so on. >> Yeah. >> Do we have a meeting scheduled for
January yet? >> We only have December. >> Can we talk about a January meeting date? >> Yeah, >> Mr. Ferguson. A January meeting date. We have to look on our >> I think we only did to the end of the year. >> Yeah, we did. >> So, let's just look now. Um
>> Yeah. 2026. >> Yeah. I [snorts] don't This is scary that it's going by so fast. Either time is going by or I'm getting older or both. Lucas, don't just don't start on me. [laughter]
>> Um, January, can I Is the 14th a holiday? That's No. >> No. >> Can I Can I I'm just throwing it out there. Wednesday the 14th of January for the next the first meeting in 26. Is that
okay with you so far? >> Works for me. We'll ask Jim in the meantime and uh why don't we keep it there right now and we'll look when Jim is with us. We'll ask about further meetings in February and March. >> Okay. >> I don't even want to think that far ahead, but let's set say that we're
doing January 14th anyway, 7 p.m. here. Okay. >> Yep. >> No further business to come before us right now. Thank you very much and thanks to our building commissioner as well for uh assisting. >> Anytime. >> Is there an adjournment? Motion at 807. >> Yes.
>> Uh Lucas, I know you're going to second that. Are >> all those in favor? >> I if any if anybody opposes, >> take a hike. >> Get the pain. >> Meeting is concluded at 8:07. Thank you.