Okay, I'm going to call the meeting to order. >> 10 by 10. Okay, >> this is a meeting of the Town of Norton zoning board of appeals. We've got three applications on the agenda tonight and one set of minutes. We'll go to the
applications in order as appear on the agenda. Um the meeting's open uh by way of electronic access too for anybody who wants to uh observe or participate by Zoom. Um first is a continued
application concerning 25 West Hodgees Street. Is the applicant here for that? >> And is it Miss Shaw who's speaking to us? >> Yep. Miss Shaw, right? Yeah. Campbell. >> Oh, I thought you Sarah Shaw is the name
I have. >> Oh. Uh, she's the previous owner. Uh, but that's mother-in-law. Soon to be mother-in-law. >> Okay. Go, go ahead. >> Um, so the last time we did not have our
certified plot plan, which we have. Um, and it shows all of the setbacks. Um, >> I see. And the proposal is to put a second floor over the existing footprint, right? >> Yes. Yeah.
>> Okay. And I'm looking at a plot plan from Sheret Land Surveying >> out of Mansfield. >> Yep. Dated. I'm looking for the date should be >> Thanks. June 11, 26.
Thank you. And this is what we were discussing last time that we need to see. >> So we see the present setbacks of 10.3 ft, 6.4 and 12.1
uh from the existing structure. This is I guess in in need of a finding, Ed. >> Uh yes, >> this is here because of a >> Yeah, because they're not creating any new nonconformities. They're just it's just for the 25% on a non-conforming.
>> Right. So, it's before us for a finding only because the existing we would treat this as a pre-existing non-conforming use. This is a single family residence. >> Yes. >> And it's going to be used as single family residence. >> Yes. Uh my mother-in-law is going to be
living with us, but we're not doing like the whole second kitchen and all that. >> Okay. So the habitable floor space is what kicked in here, Mr. Bailey. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um and a finding uh that this isn't
going to be a further detriment to the area. It's non-conforming because of the um existing setbacks are short. Um including the um front yard, it looks like. Yep. >> Yeah,
>> front yard too. Uh, but this is an older construction. Um, >> I think we had looked at the uh tax record um last time. So, are there any questions of the applicant or the U applicant's representative? >> Nope.
>> No. >> Okay. Are there any is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Tori, how do you vote? >> Yes. Mr. Ferguson. Yes. Mr. Noel votes yes as well. So discussion here. I don't
have an issue with this. It sounds like it's going to better the property, allow more people to uh make use of the property. The u the distances are what they are. >> They're they're small, but it's been there for a long time. Um, is there a
motion to make a finding under the statute and the bylaw that the plan of record, which I described as the Cherret plan for 25 West Hodgees Street dated June 11, 2026,
will not render the uh parcel or the construction substantially more detrimental to the area. >> I'll make that motion. I'll second. >> Any further discussion? >> Nope. Mr. Tenori, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Thank you very much for submitting this. This is what we need. We'll do a decision in the next few days. And we actually attached this to the to the decision. >> Okay. >> It has to get filed in the land evidence records. That's why we needed this with the dimensions on it.
>> Y >> and and we note that this is an upward extension, not a lateral extension. >> So, uh, good luck to you. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you for returning and uh and understanding >> gathering all of the information we needed.
>> One thing, this was uploaded into the wrong file. >> Okay, >> we found it. It was uploaded into a building file, >> but that's fine. We found it. >> Where do you need us to upload it somewhere different? >> He moved it over. >> Okay, cool. Awesome. >> Copied it over just 10 minutes ago. I
came in as there's no there's no new plan. But then Ed Ed spoke up and said, "Well, I think there is one, but uh so that's fine. We're just letting you know." And Ed, Mr. Bailey, thank you for clarifying that and >> sorry about that. >> Getting us copies of this. Not at all. Good luck to you with the project.
>> Thank you very much. Have a good one. >> You too. >> I have one question. >> Yes. >> So, is there a is there a 20-day grace period? >> 20-day waiting period. >> 20. So we have to we have to do the decision and sign it and file it with the clerk >> from then from the filing with the
clerk. There's a appeal period where any auter. >> Yeah, it'll it'll be uh a few days. We have two weeks to do it. I'll try to do it in the next uh week or so, but >> all right. Thank you very much for your time. >> Yep. And I don't know what the town does. I'm sure some people start within
the 20-day window, but it's your it's to your peril, you know, if somebody >> Yeah, I'm waiting to add one more thing to my building permit. I'm waiting for an engineer. >> I'm just saying if somebody were to appeal within the 20 days, then >> legally good start within that 20-day window, >> but it's at the peril of the
>> Yes. If somebody appealed it and it went bad, you're so >> right. Gotcha. >> All right. Thank you very much for your time. >> Yeah. Good luck to you. >> Have a good night. >> You too. You too. Brian, I'm going to give this to you. Uh, well, it's in the file already, but there's a paper copy
if you if that helps your paper record. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thanks very much. >> You're welcome. >> All right. Next on the agenda, we're we're ripping right along here. On for 7:05 and it's 8 minutes after 7 now, so we're good. 28 Elm Street, Jonathan and
Amanda Dubbness. >> Jonathan Dubbness. Thank you very much. Have you been before us before? >> Um I've been to zoning hearings uh before. >> Okay. I I kind of recognize the name. I thought from another application. Maybe not.
>> Yeah. I mean, >> can you just uh tell us briefly? This is an R60 zone, 28 Elm. I'm sorry, I got the wrong one here. 28 Elm Strain Elm Street. It's an R60. You're trying to subdivide the lot.
>> That's correct. >> Now, we can't we the zoning board does not subdivide. I assume you're aware of that. >> Yes. Um I mean, I have a statement if you want me to read it. Help. Like I don't I don't know how formal. >> Nope. Go right ahead. Just help us along by explaining where you are and what
you're looking for from us. >> Okay. Uh good evening. Um I'm John Robbes of 28 Elm Street. Uh this is my brother who is an architect. uh he's helping me understand a lot of these types of things because it's a little bit above me. Um I'm seeking a variance to subdivide my 6 and 1/2 acre property
into two single family lots. Uh the existing house would remain on one lot that is approximately 5 acres and the newly created lot would be approximately 1.6 acres. Uh the proposed layout was designed to comply with all the other zoning requirements. The new lot meets
frontage requirements. The existing house remains on a conforming lot. The only relief being requested relates to the upland uh requirement. Uh the primary limitation on the property is the presence and configuration of wetlands which divide the parcel and
limit the amount of uh upland available for development. >> Excuse me. Is this the wetland drawn in here in the center? It looks like that dotted line is the >> wetland boundary. >> Wetland area and that's the is that the correct >> the 100 foot buffer flag
>> dotted line. >> This is the wetland buffer. This is the lot shape factor that they're using. >> Oh lot. Okay. >> So the the rule Mr. Bailey is the 60,000 ft square feet has to be dry. >> Yes. >> And that's something we don't always
understand. I mean it doesn't come to us for that reason a lot. >> Correct. There's 60,000 feet in the new lot, >> but it's not all upland as the correct applicant states, >> right? There's approximately we would meet uh 43,000
upland feet where the requirement is 60,000. Um but the lot itself would be 1.6 acres. Um I've worked with uh Rim Engineering. They did the survey um and he helped me figure out the best way to configure the lots. the remaining uh
five acre lot would be conforming um but due to the wetlands it would not be future subdividable >> this Nick you can have paper if you want >> thank you >> y >> then uh and and just uh the one
additional residential lot um is consistent with the pattern size and character of the surrounding residential lots and existing uh new development along Elm Street. Um, and I mentioned we work with uh Rim Engineering and I appreciate the board's consideration. I can answer any further questions. That'd
be great. >> Are you going or have you gone to the planning board yet? >> Um, I haven't. Um, they when I talked to the building commissioner, uh, they said to get approval for the upland first to show that that because it's not meeting
the zoning requirement as as it is right now. >> So, if I may answer that. Yeah. So ANRS which he's going to apply for would need to be meeting the zoning requirements and so they will be denied if they do not. So if they need a zoning variance
they need to come to you guys first. >> So that's something we always talk about as the chicken and the egg. Which comes first? >> So it's not that they wouldn't be legal. It wouldn't be buildable. >> If they aard it they would have to say lot one and unbuildable lot two by gaining this variance ahead of time.
Then they can go in and just have two straight up ready to go lots. >> But they could ANR first and then come to us. >> Correct. But if you can't get this variance, there's no point in ANRing. >> You'd be better off putting an ADU at that point, >> right? Other considerations come into play.
>> In this in this particular in instance, he'd be better off getting his variance and then they almost can't not anrr him anyway >> because we've talked before about, well, gee, can we grant a variance to a lot that doesn't exist? It is it's a chicken and the egg in that if you look at it
that way. >> I I think we could I think you could grant it with the idea subject to the planning board, you know, this lot becoming created. >> Yep. I think that's what we'd have to do. >> Um do you have any problems with that members of the board?
>> We talk about this whenever this happens here. It seems like there are reasons to come here first. Although we could say, well, the the lot owner has to take a chance, you know, let them ANR first. They still own both lots. Of course, then that might mess them up for
something else they would like to do. >> It it' just be a lot of unnecessary back and forth. This is this is the tougher one to get where the ANR is essentially a guarantee. It's just a matter of whether it's going to be buildable or non-buildable. >> I see. Thank you for the explanation.
>> Members, do you have any questions for the applicant? or concerns with doing it this way. >> No, I have a question for us, >> but is there I It's in my head right now and it's been a really long day.
>> Is it 100 ft from the wetland? You can't build within 100 ft. >> Within the 100 foot buffer, you have to you'll have to go talk to conservation, but you can build within it. It's 100 foot is buildable. 50 feet gets real touchy. 25 is pretty much a no no.
>> So they're I mean they're >> Does it show? >> It doesn't show >> how far they are from the wetland. >> If you use the 20, it looks like they're 30 to 40 ft. >> 30 to 40 ft.
>> But that's not we're not saying he can build, >> right? We can in fact in the decision or discussion note that they may have to go to um conservation. >> Yeah, they're still going to have to go to the other boards. If they're within the 50 ft, they're going to have to go
see conservation. If they have to move the house and it becomes a variance, they would have to come back for a dimensional setback issue. >> And that and that's just a proposal house location with the engineer. He's like, I'm just going to put it here um as a proposed location. But that's, you know, that has to go through planning
and and >> the building commissioner to help me meet the setbacks and everything. So, >> it could be repositioned u either forward toward the street, although then the setbacks get smaller on the side, >> right? >> But it could also be turned around, I
suppose, or re rejiggered. the architect could just >> put a put a different shape in >> or again they would just have to come back in front of the board and request a a dimensional variance for that issue if they couldn't make it work some >> Yeah. I just some way shape or >> I wanted to at least comment on it because it's there's no
>> Yep. >> There's no dimension on there. So I mean that definitely would have to >> Yeah. this is just a rim engineering was just like well we'll just put this here as a visual cuz I originally was like oh why don't I would line it up with the other house and he said that's not
that's what this meetings for he said it's just approval for the upland >> yeah right >> so I don't know if this is a factor but there is a typo that rim has on the chart where they up in the continuous upland they accidentally put the wetland square footage up there and not the
contigu uh contiguous uplands they put the 46,759 in Yeah. Rather than the 43,482. >> Yeah. >> Oh, good catch. >> So, I don't know if that's something we need them to fix before we vote on it. >> You can just say Yeah, you can.
>> No, I think the upland is the 43,000 and we're not meeting the 60,000. So, there would be 46,000 of wetlands and 43,000 of upland. >> Yes, but they wrote the 46,000 in the contiguous upland. >> Where is that row? >> Oh, on the top right. Sorry, I'm looking
I'm looking at the bottom there. Sorry. >> I think >> but can we >> I think we can note that >> and >> deem it >> to be what what is the number? I don't have the numbers. >> It's right there. 43,482 is the actual contiguous upland for the
bottom. >> Yep. On the bottom there. >> You may have to u Got it. I see. And so the that number should >> Yeah, they did the wrong number. They did the right the square foot of the wetlands, not the continu continuous upland. Okay. >> Yeah, >> I can I can attempt to fix that record.
>> Yeah, I don't think we'd have to have a whole new plan, >> right? Agreed. Agreed. >> And I can definitely have him send us We just want ourselves, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. >> Gotcha. >> Yeah, I guess for filing. Um I I mean I
could write it in too, I suppose. >> Right. >> Yeah, >> I'll I'll do that if we get to this in the next few days. Um, other questions for the applicant or problems doing it in this order? >> Nope,
>> I don't have any. >> No, I just haven't had to vote on one of these before. So, I don't know the his I don't know our historical voting record of voting for an up, you know, an upland. >> It would be It would actually just be a variance as to lot size, >> right?
>> Yeah. um saying that this lot um there's a a hardship presented um in so far as the applicant wants to subdivide. Um I mean we've talked before about whether hardships can be
selfcreated but I note the position of the existing house stays away from those sideyard setbacks. you know, we could we could say, well, we don't like this, you know, make the
line closer to the existing house and but then they'd have to apply for variance for that. Um, that's up for discussion. We can talk about it in in a second if you have any other questions um for the
applicant. >> Okay. Then um hearing none, let me ask if anybody else is present either in the room or by way of remote access to speak in favor of the application or against it.
Yes. Could you could you come up and state your name? And >> I'm in favor. >> Could you >> Yes. >> You can just >> Yeah. I'm the applicant. Um, but I was
just saying I'm in the room and I'm in favor as well. That's all. I wasn't sure if you needed >> That's my wife. >> Okay. >> So, that's all I wasn't >> I thought you said you were a neighbor. >> No, no. I said I'm the applicant. I don't know if you need me. >> Got it. >> Is there anybody else to speak in favor
of or in opposition to the application in the room? Um, for the record, none. Anything online, Ryan? >> Nobody appearing online. They're not raising their hand or unmuting. >> Okay. Then is there a motion to close the public hearing?
>> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Um Mr. Tenor, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Ferguson? Yes. >> Mr. Noel votes yes. Now open for discussion. >> Um he's creating the hardship himself. Um and we've talked about how we don't
like that >> as a matter of policy. There's I don't think that's a legal prohibition or a bylaw. Uh I don't think I'm in favor of granting the variance in this
circumstance. Um I mean we don't like it. I'm trying to remember where we've said well wait you're creating the hardships so we're not going to go out of our way. But it's when other factors are involved. >> Other in factors like I what comes to mind is we've had some where they don't
meet the frontage. >> You know, it's less than 150 ft and then they're trying this one. It's run over by the >> That's usually when we have, you know, had some heartache over it.
This is this is really just a setback >> where some neighbors oppose as well. >> Correct. >> I mean, we've said, well, wait a minute. We're not gonna overrule objections from your abutters. >> I >> where you're creating this hardship, >> right? And the fact that that person's
not here, you know. >> Yeah. But I the only pause I have is is I didn't, you know, they put in the possible house location. That's my only pause. But again, you would have to come back anyways. The applicant would have to come back. I I typically I mean, we
typically like to have all right, this is where it's going to be, >> right? >> And and with We could require that, Jim, if you >> No, no, no. I I I think I'd be okay with if we moved forward if they moved forward, but they're going to have to
come back, right? >> Maybe. >> Maybe. Well, >> depending on where the house goes. >> Yeah. If they submit a plan to Mr. Bailey and the h house meets all the setbacks, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Then they're good to go. >> Good. >> Same thing with the wetland line. if that's too close or
>> you know they tell them to do something else and then there's a non-conformance they'll come to us but we're just deciding on the lot size >> the lot size >> variance >> right and that right and that's why I wouldn't hold this up right now I think I'm comfortable approving it >> with the lot size
>> okay >> the only posit I just mentioned that a proposed house you know what I mean but again >> we can we can mention that as well >> yeah I I'm not we typically like when it comes to us, this is where it's going and these are what is going to be there.
I get what the applicant has stated. So, I I'm I am comfortable moving forward knowing that they if they put the house most likely they're going to end up having to come back to us. I can't see a reason why they I can't see a position they could have
in here without me may I mean maybe I'm not an engineer so but I'm looking going >> well the hardship as explained in the record too in the narrative is this big piece of land and there's wetlands cutting through it right
>> kind of bissecting it >> um whether you consider that a hardship to somebody who's trying to you know separate the land and build a house and maybe sell the house and make some money. That's u you know that's where
our judgment comes in. I think this is a valid ask because of the size of the lot it's starting from and there's plenty of there's plenty of space there. Right. >> That's my only >> that's my positive for this. >> Right.
>> That's my feeling that this applicant is is just trying to make use of the land. We we the policy, you know, has been noted that we need housing in town. Um we don't know kind of house that's going to go in there obviously, but it's not
um there's not a lot of room to do a lot of things there. Uh for all those reasons, I think I'm comfortable with this. >> You >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. Is is there a motion uh to grant a
variance as to lot size for the proposed lot one? Correct. >> It's marked as lot one. >> Correct. >> Yeah. lower >> to be no less than sorry what is it 43482
square ft of upland area whereas in this zone uh 60,000 is required as shown on the plan of record reserving however that applicant still has to get clearance from
um the planning board and also meet with and satisfy by the um conservation commission and conservation concerns. Um also noting that the house, as shown on
the plan of record, is a preliminary plot and we make no um judgment about that because none's required, >> right? >> Yep. >> I'll make >> You're comfortable with that? >> I'm comfortable with that. I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> Okay.
>> Good luck writing it up. >> Yeah. Well, that's why I look at the recording actually. So, hopefully Shane is recording. Shane. Um, >> is there a second? >> Yes. >> Okay. Any further discussion on that complicated motion? >> No, sir. >> No. >> Okay. Mr. Tenori, how do you vote?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Again, good luck to you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Uh, it'll take us a little while to write this up and get it get it right. >> Understood. a clerk has to file and then there's that 20-day appeal period in case a neighbor speaks up. Uh public uh
is closed. I didn't There are no uh neighbors who came with concerns. >> Um I don't know what's on the other side. Did you uh Well, we've already taken the vote, so it doesn't make sense to ask anyway. >> Okay. Uh good luck to you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Good luck.
>> Yep. >> I was going to ask that. I forgot. Yeah. Yeah. >> But we voted and I'm comfortable regardless. >> I knew there was 100 ft. I'm like, damn, I know it. >> Yeah. >> All the wetland. >> Yeah. The wetland. I knew it was. >> Well, like I said, they can still build within the wetlands. It's just you're
under wetland >> conservation control. >> It gives their it gives them >> correct >> the muscle to say something. >> If by chance that happens to be the outer limit of the wetlands, he may be outside of that 100 ft. or you know again he could shock on the house turn it to the side and >> right
>> go a little closer >> but it's good to note those contingencies in the decision >> in the narrative if not in the um you know the vote itself >> try to get try to get in the vote >> okay the third application for tonight
is 17 Sunset Road Joseph White >> is that you sir >> yes sir >> okay thank you >> and this is my wife Jennifer Hartnet. >> Nice to meet you. >> Likewise.
>> Um, I think this is up for a finding as a pre-existing nonconforming. Uh, but I'll ask the applicant to just tell us what they're trying to do and why they're here. >> We are trying to expand the the footprint of the house to make it more
livable uh for us. I'm not sure if you've been into the houses in the area, but there's not a lot of storage space, a lot of uh it's it's just very tight. Yep. >> Uh for for our family. So, we're just looking to expand it and make it our
forever home. I've lived here for 24 years and we'd like to continue living here with an expanded comfortable living area. >> I see existing deck. >> Yes, sir. >> Are you demolishing the deck or does this goone?
gone. >> The deck will be gone. The the expansion is to come out to >> just >> uh I'm not sure if you have the proposed expansion on that. >> Yep. >> I was just curious. >> Okay. >> So, it's going to change that whole side of the building. >> Yes.
>> That that whole side of the building will extend out to where the proposed addition ends. >> Yep. >> And the front door will move back onto Sunset Road. I know it says Sunset Lane there, but it's Sunset Road. >> Yeah. Yeah. I almost read lane and then I saw in the application it's road but I
wasn't sure which was which. So this is on the corner of Patton and Sunset. >> Yes, >> Patton Sunset and Sailor >> and Sailors. >> Oh, I see. >> Thank you. >> Yep.
>> What is the 166 and 167? >> Yeah. >> That was the original when I bought the property. That was the original lots that was explained when I purchased the property 24 years ago >> and it's all one lot now. >> As far as I was told that
it's it becomes conjoined at some point. I I don't I I don't know the answer to that question. Um we've treated it as one property since I've bought it. Once they built the deck onto both
properties, they and were owned by the same person. >> Yeah. >> Doctrine would come into favor here >> because it's a small lot. They're both small lots otherwise, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Which is also why 6.3 uh Mr. Trobridge didn't put it on the
page here, but 6.3 comes into play here where they only need the 25 and 13, but since they have three three street side spaces, they're 25, 25, and 25. >> Oh, >> so it's really more of just a finding
for the doubling of the size. >> The doubling of size >> versus all the variances. Okay. They do meet the minimal lot setups. >> Yep. Yep. >> That make that >> No variances required. No, >> no, cuz they've got 13 and the 19 on the sunset lane side does not get worse than
the 18 that was already buried. >> That just threw me off with the 166 and 167. I was like, what? >> It almost looks like it's I don't Three lots. >> It took four or five looks to get this one like >> straight away in my head. >> But >> thank you.
>> The U 6.3 is for when zoning came into existence. Yes. >> We don't know when the >> these houses were all like 40s50s cottages. This is down um down right on the reservoir. >> Y >> I know exactly where it is.
>> We can I can assume that >> was when I looked this one up through the database it was older than 74. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Definitely the lot if not the home as well. >> Yep. Because we don't know when the home was put there or the deck. But if it's
that old, they would have merged by operation of law, >> right? >> I think >> what was that? >> I said I'm pretty sure the house was built in 1960. I'm not 100%. The the cottage before the addition was put on. >> Okay. >> And I think with 6.3 the house is less
of the factor. It's more the lot had been drawn. The lot >> I agree existed. >> Yep. >> Yeah. And by single owner, right? It emerged. >> It would emerged. >> Okay. Are there other questions for the applicant? >> See that? Yeah, that helps right there. It even it even has it on the
>> Good job. >> The map. Yeah, >> the accessories map says it was built in 1940. >> Oh, like like I said, I >> when they put the addition >> and it also says it's one lot. >> Yeah. >> So, all right. >> Sorry, just got sidetracked with the numbers.
>> Got me confused there for a minute. >> We need to do >> good questions. So this would be in line for a finding also not variance relief. >> Yeah, just a finding. >> I mean at best if you want to do a finding on the setback from Sunset Lane, but I think that's ancillary of
anything. It's really just the 25%. >> Why Why would we do a finding? So, in a lot of towns, they will do findings where variance isn't necessary because they're still >> it's still not um
it still doesn't meet the actual setback, >> right? >> You're just finding that yes, continuing this is not a problem. >> I think that's part of our same >> finding is according to the plan of record, >> it's not going to make it more
>> detrimental to the area. Right. And that's why I say I think >> if if they weren't going over 25% >> Yep. >> you might send it for a finding just for that, but where they're over 25%, we're already talking about the hole. So there's to talk about the Yep. >> the pieces. >> It's extending altering, you know,
what's there. So yeah, I think we do need a finding >> anyway, although maybe that's in one of the exceptions now >> where they don't have to come here. But a finding is I'm comfortable with that as our plan of action tonight. Any other questions for the applicant? No. >> Nope.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in attendance here or online to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application? >> Sir, can you come up here and give your name and
uh we've got a team here. >> My name is Francis Mclofflin. I live at 44 Patton Road, which is directly across the street from this parcel. >> Okay. >> Uh I would like to speak in favor of it by just saying I hope you approve it.
>> You have no problem with increasing the the nearness of the building to you? >> Absolutely not. No way. >> Thank you. >> It'll do a lot for the neighborhood. It's tough down there to make uh >> Yep. >> additions and remodels and so forth. >> We we see them a lot.
>> Yeah. Yeah. This is definitely uh going to do something nice for the neighborhood. >> Zoning came in and it kind of ignored what was already there. >> Yeah. Well, this, you know, I heard you guys talking a little while ago about this. This assesses map. These were all
40 by 80 foot lots and then when zoning hit, they had to combine them if they were not in contiguous lot ownership, >> right? >> Um to to make it buildable. But, uh, he's got plenty of room there. And this is one of the few places in town that
you will find. I don't think it didn't in 93 when I built mine. Um, you have uh a bylaw that will give you dimensions off of two streets on a corner lot, but none for three.
So when I did mine and held the held the lots uh the dimension on the side all on sunset patent and the building inspector at the time said do whatever you want with sailor. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And sir, your name
and address? >> Hello. Uh my name is Chris Butler. I live at 18 Sunset Road directly across and uh >> yeah and I approve. >> Anything anything to add to the plan or uh to our consideration? >> No, just hope you approve it.
>> No objections. >> No objections. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Have a great night. >> You too. >> Is there a motion to close the public hearing? >> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll second. >> Further discussion? No. Mr. Tenori >> to close the public hearing? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Noel votes yes. So, the public hearing is closed. Is there any discussion among us at this point? >> Nope. >> I Is there a motion for a finding under the bylaw um that the planned construction as shown on the plan of record, which is
Trobridgeidge Engineering date June 4, 2026 to extend the um previously nonconforming um single family residence on the lot. uh will not render the construction or
the lot more detrimental to the area in terms of the factors in the bylaw. >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman. >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Tori? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ferguson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Good luck to you.
>> Thank you very much. >> We'll get this drafted up and posted with the clerk and um the 20-day appeal period starts. Doesn't look like your neighbors are opposed. So, I don't know who's on the other across, but they had their chance to speak up and didn't. So, good luck to you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. >> Appreciate it. >> All right. We've got three uh three approvals. Ed, thanks very much for uh >> helping us out. >> Very helpful uh background and explanations. Um next on the agenda is miscellaneous.
I have the minutes that Brian had written up from April. I >> think so. >> They were given to us before the last meeting and we put it off. Do you can you take a few minutes to go? I printed
out four copies. They're not in final form in that I didn't uh format the uh the print, you know, the uh top of the page, for example. I don't know if I can work like this, Tom. >> Yeah. Under pressure, huh?
>> I I mean, >> listen, I've had to sit through people read minutes for an hour cuz I had to fill in. >> What are you talking about? >> So, for us,
>> no, for finance committee, I had to fill in and they did minutes for an hour. So, don't worry. You guys can take like 5 minutes. >> No, I remember this. This is Yeah. >> Were you you were both there that night? >> Yep.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. And Mr. Bailey. >> Yep. >> I don't think this was very eventful meeting besides the decisions and >> Oh, yeah. The regulatory agreement. >> Yeah, the regulatory agreement. >> Mhm. That's when we do.
>> This is when we were kind of surprised. >> Yeah, >> I'm good with these. >> Yep. >> Yeah, it captures what we did. Yep. >> So, my plan would be to go in make some stylistic edits and see that the sentences all have periods and things of
that sort. But is there a motion to approve the minutes of April 22? >> I will make that motion. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Yes. >> Yep. Okay, Brian. Thanks. We're almost caught up in minutes now. Well, we're as
caught up as we can be. Um, which is the historic first for this board this year. >> They're going to they're going to pay us soon because we're up to date in the minutes, right, Brian?
>> Town's going to stipen for up to up-to-date boards like us. No, I'm joking. Of course. Is there anything else to come before us? Why has it been so busy at town hall? >> In what regard? >> Well, you said tonight you've been so
busy. Um, you weren't sure if other plans had come in. What is there something going on? >> No comment. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Close the meeting before you. >> Okay. >> Close the meeting. >> Mr. Bailey. Thank you. Is there a motion to There's no other business for
tonight. Correct. When is our next meeting, by the way? >> I don't knew you were going to ask that. I We have it. Hold on. >> Yeah, I thought so. But I write it down in my notebook, then I lose it. >> Hold on. >> If I remember correctly, unless you made one last, >> it's either the third or fourth. Um,
>> no, it's the fourth week. >> No, >> I don't know that we went as far as July. >> All I have >> No, maybe not. Yeah. >> Do we not have one? >> We don't. >> I thought we did the Oh, I said because I couldn't do the I wasn't the other
week of the 14th. Uh, yeah. I kind of remember discussing July. >> We got Wow. >> So, we want to do the 22nd. >> You're not here the week before. >> No. So, I get back on the 14 15th. So, I
could do the 22nd. >> Okay. >> Is that good for you? >> Yeah. And then you want to do August. >> Sure. Let's look. >> It'll be the 12th or the 19th. I vote
for the 19th. >> I could do that. >> Yeah. >> So, July 22, August 19. And I do know because I saw on um online today u there are a couple new applications
already submitted to us in early June. So they'll be up for hopefully on the July meeting day, but >> at least one should. >> Okay. All right. Anything else tonight? >> Nope. >> Is there a motion to adjourn at 7:41? That's pretty good.
>> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I I >> I >> Great. 7:41 we're adjourned.