because this is a meeting of the town of Norton zoning board of appeals. It is 7:07. Sorry for the late start. We're having technical issues, which is uh pretty common um these days. Um I'm Tom Noel,
chair of the zoning board. With me is Jim Tenori, Lucas Wisiaak, Nick Ferguson, and our building inspector, uh Ed Bailey. Yep. and uh Brian Carmichael, our clerk. Uh we have a few items on the agenda
tonight. The first item is continued from the last meeting. It's 34 Woodland Road. And just to recap very briefly, this was an application that been before us for several meetings over the last few
months. the applicant right before our July meeting emailed that they were not going to pursue the application. Um, Mr. Carmichael asked if um, Mr. Carmichael asked, "Are you intending to withdraw it without prejudice?" They
responded yes to that. So, I take that and I will u entertain a motion or deem a motion on the table to allow the applicant to withdraw that application without prejudice. I'll make that motion. Okay. Second. Second. And this is what Mr. Wazak and
Mr. Tenori had sat on for a few sessions. So, we needed Mr. Waziaak back. Uh, we'll have an announcement on about Lucas in in just a minute. I'm not going to accept it. Yeah, I I'm not going to accept the resignation either, but we'll we'll talk about remedies later. Now, we don't have
to withdraw this without prejudice. It's just something this board has done commonly. And since Brian actually asked the applicant, "Is that your intention?" And the applicant responded, "Yes, I think it only fitting that we allow that." I think the bylaw section that
bars repetitive applications still applies. So that they'd be limited to two years, but frankly, I don't know what would control if they filed it again uh right away. I I don't know what would control there. Having said that, is there any other discussion on this
matter? Uh then uh vote is in order. Mr. Tanari, your motion to allow the withdrawal of 34 Woodland without prejudice. Yes. How do you vote? Yes. Mr. Wazak. Yes. Mr. Noel votes yes. And notes that that
may be Mr. Wazak's final vote on the zoning board of appeals because earlier today when I signed on got the bad news that Mr. Boazak is thinking of leaving the zoning board though. Jim, you're indicating we can vote on this and vote
it down. Yes. I don't see I didn't see that in the rules, but um I'm making the own my own rules. Okay. All right. By the power of vested me of the state of Massachusetts. All right. Commonwealth. Commonwealth. Yeah. All right. I'll go along with your vote. So, Lucas, you're stuck. But that
was the last one we needed your vote for for tonight. So, you may want to not get involved in the others. And I will note that Mr. Ferguson has was sworn in and is now our third um regular member. There's nothing regular about us, but
I vote he stays the entire night that Lucas stays as the alternate member. Okay, I'll hang out. I I second the I second the motion and uh we uh vote in favor. Two two to one, I think. Well, Nick can vote with us. I favor. All right. So, three to one and
actually or you can go to Wendell's have our winners ready. I'll meet you there. Either one. Pick. You pick. Lucas doesn't get to vote because he was the alternate. So, that's it. It's three to nothing. Lucas has to stay or or Yes. Pay at Wendell's later.
Yeah. In any event, let's move on to the second item on the agenda. Mr. Ferguson, I will ask you to vote on this one. And that is the um public hearing uh property address is 0 Elm Street. We
have just a few materials on this and I actually have a question off the bat, but it is presented I think by level design group. Correct. And you are for the record. Uh good evening Daniel Campbell, Level
Design Group. Mr. Campbell, nice to see you again. see you. Um, this is for it's noted as an application for a variance and a finding and we have two pages of a plan set in
the record. The first one doesn't show just shows the lot number. Second one which is marked material. Okay. Sheet two of two dated July 16, 2022
shows what's intended on the site. It's a duplex with garages on either side of the duplex. This is a lot that is now presently a parking lot. I'm going to let Mr. Campbell explain what they're
what the applicant is looking for. Level design represents the applicant tonight. Uh, but off the bat I my question is kind of procedural. Why isn't this before the planning board on a special permit? I I'll ask Mr. Campbell, but I
have that I'm not sure it's should be before us. Uh, but Mr. Campbell, Brian, you know something? I can answer that question. It is unders sized for a duplex. It is undersized for
a duplex and for a couple other Right. And they're going to planning board next week. Okay. Thank you. So, this is in line for a special permit, M. Or you've applied for a special permit. We've applied for a special permit for um the modification of a pre-existing non-conforming. We're in front of you
tonight for the further modification for a duplex. Um, so the the special permit finding would be for the use um because it's it's non-conforming as size today. Um, but we're looking for a duplex which
then throws it to the zoning board. In addition to that, um, not sure that's right, but I think we consider we can consider it for variance relief because of a couple of points. The frontage is 20 what? uh
272.4. Okay. I guess you don't need a variance for that because the bylaw for R60 says 150 ft. But then there is a there's an additional zoning bylaw that says for
duplexes it has to be 200 ft which applicant satisfies. So what variance relief is necessary for us to vote on? That's again my question. So a single family requires 60,000 ft, but a duplex requires 80,
right? Um so when the plan was originally presented uh both the building inspector's office as well as as um uh Paul in planning um said that we needed to come for the variance specifically for the duplex use not
necessarily for the use for the square footage for the square footage the 20,000 lot area correct and what is the lot area at issue? It is 40,000 ft. Okay. So, it's undersized in an R60 zone, even if this was going to be a
house. Um, duplex in the use table is listed as special permit in an R60, although the new bylaws proposed, I think, toss that over to us. Um, but 1756.86
8 six says for purposes of conventional development plan showing multif family or duplex the required frontage shall be 200 ft. That's what I was referring to. And in the uses table uh at some point it says
it has to be double that required in the R60. So it's supposed to be 120,000 square feet. Isn't that uh it's 80. It specifically it specifically uh denotes 80 as far as the the zoning.
It does. Yeah. So if we go multif family building 80,000. Yeah. Multif family has a a different requirement versus duplex. So there are three stages. Okay.
So it's in order for variance relief as to the size of the lot where 80,000 ft is required. This is 40,000 ft. Um a significant um diminishment of what
the bylaw provides. Go ahead, Mr. Campbell. Uh tell us what it this is. This is a lot with a parking lot on it. Uh currently the lot is almost entirely paved. Um, it's the parking lot across from the old mill building on Elm Street. Um, it has been that parking lot
uh as far back as we could we could do research back into the 40s and 50s with the available maps that we didn't have to uh request from from others. Um, so in the range of 80 years it's been um the current use
um as a parking lot or or not necessarily a paved parking lot but a parking lot nonetheless. Uh what we intend to do is we intend to take the parking lot up in its entirety, replace it with a duplex structure. Um two essentially single family houses
connected in the middle. Um two twocar garages, two septic systems. Um just happened to be a duplex on the lot. What we did um and what I handed out earlier or is currently in front of uh Mr. Noel
is I did an evaluation of the uh local area as well as the zoning district as a whole. Um the first handout the 8 1/2 by 11s give you there are multiple copies. Correct. There are multiple copies. Correct. Um what it does is the first page is a 500t radius of the properties
around us. Second page is 1,000. Third page is just under half a mile uh around the property. So you can see what the uses are. what we have on the aerial photos. Um, from a zoning standpoint,
a property, uh, again, almost fully paved. Across the street is the mill. It's zoned as commercial. For whatever reason, there's an industrial parcel that surrounds two single family houses across the street. The majority of the rest is R60 with the exception of the
VC, which is the downtown what we currently sit in. I reviewed inside of that district in our surrounding area. Again, this is us as to the multif family as well as as um duplex lots what sizes they were and and
how they were in relation to our property. So, this is the property in question. Uh just four doors down, we have a 12unit property. Y four units or four doors down from that, we have a duplex. We have a duplex adjacent and we have another duplex on
the corner. The 12 unit property is approximately the same size as the property in question. The duplex lot at the end uh in this location is about 25,000 ft. Uh most recently um renovated
the duplex lot or the two family lot at the corner um somewhat recently. It appears we have a two family four doors down the other direction. That is two entirely separate structures. Um not a duplex but
two families and the same zoning district ignoring the BC which is along um town hall and along uh east main. We have uh two family across the street. We have a townhouse complex of 32 units uh
adjacent to Weaton a two family and then just off the page at the top there's a 44unit townhouse complex. So within 1,000 ft of the site, um there's multiple properties that have not only a duplex, but multifamilies. Um
some significant multifamilies, as I said, 12 units, or the property that's across the street, though the developed portion is a lot further away than that. The developed portion of 44 units is is probably still 2,000 ft from our
property. The property itself, however, touches. is the covered property associated with the mill the old mill across the street. So it is owned by the same person but it is not in the same ownership. So it was
purchased technically at a later date. It was purchased as part of a foreclosure is my understanding. Um it has always been held separately and is currently held separately from the mill itself. When you say separate, it's the same
owner though. Um, so it is it is actually a separate LLC. It is. Okay. Okay. Um, so this to me means that we would also in fact need a finding because it's a non-conforming use proposed to be a
residential use. Duplexes are allowed in an R60 although by special permit. Right. But applicant is saying they're going there. They're in the process of doing that. Correct. Uh anyway, and I'm not trying to cut you off. Are there other
questions from the members? Do we have precedents of voting for such a variance for a duplex in an R60 with it being what' you say 40,000 square feet is the size of the 40,511? But yeah, 40,000
currently with 80,000 being the requirement. applicant is I don't know that we have ever taken that vote in this board. Applicant is showing us that there are others there. I assume they are pre-existing or that they were properly permitted. We don't
know any of the that it's up to the planning board to say whether because a special permit is going to have to be issued for our duplex. So, I can't tell you, Nick, that this board has ever taken a vote for a duplex on a 40,000
square foot parcel. I don't know. But applicant has done his homework to show us that there are other multifamilies in the same area of town. It's the best I can answer. Okay. It's not a complete answer or perfect answer, but that's the best I can do. I
don't remember one before the board when I've been on the board. Y and you guys are voting on lock coverage really, right? You're not you're not voting on duplex. You're voting on allowing units on a lot covered situation. And I think any decision would be tied
subject to approval by the planning board of a duplex development. And if the planning board deems, you know, not appropriate that this our decision would be null and void. Um I mean that's how we'd have to do it.
We've done that a few times. We've done that before. It's never clear, Nick, whether the planning board gets first crack or we do. We kick that around constantly. Um, yeah. The the unfortunate part is is we have other places in town, um, South
Main Street where there's now a 4unit in the multif family that would have required 120,000 ft. We have a variance for that from this board. The 3-unit turning into a 4unit. The three-unit would have required 120, the fourunit
would require 120 and it is a 32,000 foot lot. Um, so in that zone there has been precedent within the last 5 years from this board. Is that up by the is that farm? Yeah, that's what I was remembering north of the highway just over the
highway. Um, these properties we we tried to date them purely from assessor's records and we have anywhere from um the late 1800s on the front house and the 1960s7s and 80s on the rear house. The duplex that's uh eight
doors down from us was renovated within the last 5 years. So, um certainly there's there's movement in the area. Um, and what we're trying to do is we're trying to rehabilitate uh a property that's really in the middle of residential that is currently paved.
Uh, and I note it appears that setback requirements would all be met. Correct. I'm not sure I can see all of them drawn in here, but I I can see the table what is being asked for and we can go by the table. I I certainly could point them out on
the the picture on the side. It is. It is. For instance, this is the corner in the rear. Oh, you got a This is the corner on the side. Where are the Where are the distances to the actual numbers? The actual numbers are up here in the table. Okay. Table.
The numbers aren't indicated. We typically require that. Yeah. On the plan. That's our preference. Um, it could be uh we could go just by the table. So we we do have them not the setbacks themselves, but the setback to the structure is physically on the plan.
I was just pointing out the setback line. So that number that's from the structure has So the number that's on that corner for the structure just I can't see it. 63.8. Yep. To the rear. Is that about that? Can I look at the table?
Scroll down. Is that Yep. Yep. That's done. We made a a minor change, but it's 63.8 63. Did you have a deck on the back of that? Uh, we have a patio on the back specifically. Oh, it's a patio, but it goes from the patio.
It It goes from the deck was my understanding. That was a permanent structure. Permanent structure. That is. Yeah. Okay. So, if you put a step in, it goes from the step. Yep. So, I I think we're going to ask that this be presented with the setbacks
shown from the patio to the rear. Sure. Um you can, you know, submit that and we can uh well, let's talk about that. Yeah. And also that setbacks be shown on each side. In the front and the front,
they are dimensioned in each location. I see 74.5 on the left. Can we see the front? Yes, I don't see that. 63.7 is is your front dimension. I'm sorry. Can you point that out with your picture? Absolutely. Um Brian's circling it
currently. Okay. The left hand side is 74.5. All right. I see that what we did was we dimensioned the the smallest dimension. Um it's greater than that on the right hand side. I I think we're going to ask that it be
shown right each one. Absolutely. in all four directions, closest and the non-clos corners. Hopefully, we can do that as a condition if the board chooses to move it forward. Yeah. Um we we are well inside of all the dimensions regardless of that. But
I'm not doubting that. I'm just we usually because we attach a decision to a plan and we we want the numbers on the plan. I am happy to change it before the plan is is recorded. Other uh questions or issues that we should uh discuss?
I would just say that it's unique that he's meeting all the setbacks. You know, the law coverage situation usually impedes into setbacks and they can't, you know, they're trying to put an oversized building on an undersized lot, but in this situation, all the setbacks are being met. So,
I agree. Seems reasonable for my opinion. I I agree. And also, you know, the noted policy change. It's not really a change, an evolution. We're trying to encourage housing development. I mean nationwide, not only here in in the uh utopia of
Nortonia, but nationwide. And this is this would be to uh single family residences, correct? In the form of a duplex, which is a which is a good thing for the town. Um are there other questions or issues? And next, if we're going to require another
submission, do we kick this over to the September meeting? They have to go to the planning board anyway. um so that we can get the new plan in or do we go by the dimensions in the table and and uh wait for the new plan to be delivered? I
will ask if there's anybody here to speak in favor of or in opposition to this. We normally require the applicant to submit the plan that we're voting on. I don't think it's going to prejudice you if we take this up at the September meeting for a vote. I don't mind
normally because he has the setback. We we know he's with within the setbacks already, right? Based on per the table. I wouldn't mind I I I don't want that to hold him up or them up.
You know, we can just have it resubmit, but I don't feel the need. If it was close, I'd say yes. Resubmit. We'll kick it to the next. So we voted in the past where we said as long as the lot coverage doesn't change right you know the motion was made that hey
the lot the lot coverage as this is being approved at this number and because of the patio that the rear setback will not be you know uh exceed the setback distance right like basically say it won't be more than 50 ft no matter we can note that the table numbers will
change slightly for the patio or whatever structure you have there and uh that all others are within uh boundaries, right? If that's what the board wishes to do, I would be okay with that. My only point is let's ask first, is
there any Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Don't don't go anywhere. Is there anybody else here or remotely attending online to speak in favor of or in opposition to this application? Brian, do you do you note anybody online?
No, this is all five people online. and Mr. Kimble, go right ahead. Man, who needs no introduction yet? Well, Bob Kimble, 51 Pine Street. Yeah, thank you. The um couple of things for clarification,
probably more toward than any of you. The property 47 Elm LLC doesn't pass purchase the land um you parking lot paid $1,500 for it. they owed us down um about $42,000 in back taxes for the
property. So, that has to be cleared up prior to any any building on the property. My other concern is, and I'm not opposed to this, by the way, just so you know, my other concern is the um status of the property on the other side is, as far as I know, has not been purchased.
That is the actual structure contaminated, right? That hasn't built. That is why I asked that question if it's tied to that at all. Yeah, it's um it's under agreement, but I don't believe there's been any any paperwork or final amount of paperwork done on it. The other concern I have is the
contamination. Uh 21E should be done on a property. No, can't be residential property. So, what we have here, folks, is a contaminated site across the street. We have a history. Um, a few years ago
there was some research done and there was some plumes of Yeah. material coming beyond the mill and it it's uh going into some of the neighbors properties. So, I'd be concerned about that. I'm just bringing that up for conversation. Uh, something we should
look into because what we don't need is a house built there and then we suddenly find out that it's got other issues. the title five that's going to be interesting to see how that's built um on that property because it's kind of I don't know what kind of park test have
been done on it but it's going to be some issues with it. Um referencing property on West Main in the village commercial district is probably not the same as I believe this is just a residential lot. So we can refer to
other properties around town but when you're talking about West Main Street we shouldn't talk about that. That's a village commercial district. So that's a different area all together. So um I believe there's a lot of homework to do by the planning board. You know they should they should do more of it. But I
would encourage uh through you Mr. Chair Ed that maybe a 21 isn't allowed but we need to have some kind of assurances that we don't have an issue there before we have an issue in the future. and it would be in the future
property owners best interest to make sure that that land is not contaminated. Thank you, Mr. Kim. All very good points. I know the town is aware of the tax issue. In fact, I think there's a settlement in place. Yeah, we have a payment plan, Bob, where
they have to do it anyway. Upon approval, they have to pay the back taxes and if if it's not approved, they have to pay by November 1st, I believe. Okay. I'm not part of that, but that's what's been communicated by Mr. Carmichael. It's basically your understanding.
Correct. Yeah. Everything has to be paid by November 1st or by special permits by the time they get special permits that everything should be paid before final. Okay. So, I'm viewing our role as more
limited the seepage of pollution. And I'm not saying there is pollution that has seeped. I don't know that. But that's a an excellent point. Can I ask our building inspector, Mr. Bailey? Yep. Um,
are there ever inspections required in the residential context? Typically, no. It's it's kind of a freewheel for for folks. Interesting. realistically to to to me you guys should be focused more
on what are the hardships that allow a 40,000 foot variance, right? That's, you know, whether whether a duplex gets built there or a home gets built there or remains a parking lot, you know, if somebody puts a commercial
building there, a 21E may may well be done. But as it stays a duplex and a single family, it's it's kind of outside of our realm to ask. That's an interesting point whether it could be a provision of the planning board. That's, you know, that's
a question for above my head, but Well, I know we're allowed to impose conditions, but as I understand it, it's conditions related to zoning. Correct. I certainly don't want this to be approved. Go on
the market and then have somebody move in with a couple kids and say, "What? I didn't know there was a site across the street that might have seeped here, right? I don't know what we do about that." Do you, Mr. Kimble, have an experience with that? Like a disclaimer almost?
No idea. On a property? Applicant is uh shaking his head. He looks like he may have Thank you, Mr. Kimble. Uh Mr. Campbell. Yeah. Um, so few things. Yes, there's an agreement on taxes. Um, as far as the the question on the VC zone. Um,
specifically, all I was pointing out was the properties along are in the VC zone, but the ones that I specifically labeled are in the R60. That that was the intention of of the handouts. As far as contamination goes, um, there are two monitoring wells on the site. One in
this location, one in this location. Um testing has been done at both those monitoring wells. The house, the duplex structure was specifically elevated just about with the basement floor at the existing
ground level um above any um groundwater as well as above the majority of the existing soils. though there isn't anything currently in the area um this property there was the concern of the board of health as well as our office
whether or not something like that would occur specifically so we elevated the structure um the one condition of the board of health is currently the plan has a well on the back of the structure we've talked to the board of health and talked to the water department to make sure that we can connect to the water
line in the street ah so that's the plan correct Who monitors the monitoring wells? Is that the state? Um the reports go to the board of health. Um the reports go to the state. Technically, they're also filed with the
town clerk. Um they're required to be um monitored through I want to say this was a RAM plan, which is an overall contamination cleanup plan um for an immediate response action. This particular property is purely being
monitored to see if it moved that direction. Groundwater in the area tends towards the lower part of the site or to the lower abuing site just so if you have a contaminated building in this location, it's primarily moving
this direction and this direction towards the water because this parking lot on the other side of the street, for instance, is around 9 ft lower than the mill building itself. So the contamination's moving in that direction. The first floor of the mill
building behind Elm Street specifically because it comes from Elm and it drops down a story. The contamination came from the back side of the building. So it started a story below where we're talking about to begin with and it's
moving towards the the south really at least from what they've submitted to the state thus far. But the answer is there are monitoring wells on site and it was tested already. Are the are the monitoring wells visible? Yes. What do they look like above ground? I
mean it looks like a water gate. It just says monitoring well on it. We've done that too. Is it marked monitoring well state dem or anything? No, it's it's marked monitoring well. It's it's just it's got um it's a pipe in the ground with a bent
knight seal around it with screening at a certain elevation and it's got a um metal grade on top of it. Okay. They're about 4 in give or take. So there is some notice to people who
are going to consider the property. I I assume the monitoring wells will will be there. I'm not sure what we have within our purview to slap a label on anything saying
no one thing I did he Mr. Gamble did bring up is the hardship. We haven't really talked about that. Sure. If you could the in this particular case shape topography or soils, we have a filled
site that's been modified extremely over time. um the soils themselves um and the elevation of the structure warrant the necessity of building something greater than a a single family to change it from the parking lot that
it is into something else. Um so in this case we would be uh working through soils not lot shape which is fairly square. the topography itself. Um the only limitation on the topography is currently it takes the majority of Elm Street from a drainage standpoint um
down onto that property onto our neighbors property. Um so from a topography standpoint, we've planned in swailes and things of that nature for it, but it's it's soils in the most part. Is that sufficient? Yep.
[Music] that is addressed in the well the soil type is addressed in the level design submission. I didn't see it. Yeah, it's kind of just set down and it's left left hanging. I mean,
yeah. Uh but Mr. Campbell is referring to those site conditions that are cited there. So, as far as the septic system, which was the last thing Mr. Kimble brought up, we did do soil testing on the site.
Um, there's approximately 5 ft of fill on top of basically pure beach uh sand. It's beautiful sandy material underneath, but there's um bottles and car parts and
other things inside of the fill above it. Um, it definitely was a gravel parking lot for years cuz we have almost 2 ft of gravel above the fill. Other questions, issues from the members? Um,
I mean, you guys can also just continue this until the Well, that's planning board approves it. You don't have to vote on it necessarily, right? the the planning board did issue a memo today um looking for this vote before they would recommend approval. Um
Paul Paul issued that maybe 3 hours ago. Thanks Paul. Yeah. I mean literally supposed to go the other way around. It's supposed to go the other way around. Yeah. I mean it's we're contingent on them, right? That's going to be in our decision. But that makes no sense.
Um, let me ask if there's anybody else to speak in favor of or in opposition to. Yes. Could you identify yourself for the record? Roger Myers saying 62 Power Street. Um, just a couple of questions that I had is
it sounds like a chicken and egg thing you you folks are dealing with with the planning board and and yourselves. Um, happens all the time. Yeah. With the chicken. Yeah, exactly. Sometimes. Um, I think that you should wait until the planning board acts on this before you
act on it. There's there's a couple of issues that you may want to act on and that is the actual size of the lot. There's a reason that it's zoned for that space and the fact that there are other
buildings and duplexes that are somewhat in the area. Um, I believe just because we've may have not considered that in the past doesn't mean we should cons shouldn't consider the size of the lot now. And there's a reason that we zoned
it for that size for that area. And to just to say that, well, there's other things in the area that are that size. I think you're just uh um not considering the reasoning behind having it zoned for that purpose to begin with.
Um and the other um issue that isn't necessarily our issue is um we're constantly adding to our housing in the town and I think we need to consider how that affects everything
else that goes on in the town. So, the fact that we're putting wanting to put a duplex in an area that isn't even zoned, the lot size isn't even zoned for a single family home, I think is something you need to consider. Thank you.
No, it isn't. Okay. Okay. Uh, any reaction to what Mr. Maran said? I I would point out that um realizing that not every other duplex
should be considered in relation to this application for the right to put another duplex. And um our decision though is based on how this affects the other parcels in
the neighborhood. And part of our decision is going to be whether for the finding whether this would this use would be substantially more detrimental to others in the area. So I think the other constructions that Mr.
Campbell has pointed out are relevant. So how they got built and why and under what permitting I don't know and I can't speak to Lucas. So just to give you got I don't think I remember dealing with this but so this property is in the water resource
protection district. Yeah. So um through special permit and this is probably going to what the planning board's going to have to deal with. There is a lot of rules about basically disturbing a lot and construction and
how much debris you move and everything. So I would advise to wait for planning board to vote on it in my opinion. Um just because once you read this whole section it's a whole different a whole different array of issues that I
think this property is going to run into especially with monitoring wealth. So, so you're suggesting that there are issues that wouldn't be before us, but that the planning board has squarely before it. Yeah. Um, that's a more complicated reason than I had earlier just to get the right
plan in place, the right, you know, with the right dimensions drawn on the plan. Um, but I think that's a I think that's a fair point. Um, and I think we can push back on the planning board a little
bit and say, um, we're not we weren't ready tonight to take a vote on this, whether we wait for planning to take a vote or issue a special permit. I don't know that we should do that or base our vote on that, but I'm comfortable
continuing this to the September meeting. What is the date of the September meeting, brother? Sorry to ask you on the spot. September 10th. Yeah, the 10th, I think. 10th. Yep. Yep.
That's early. Um, is it I would entertain a motion to continue this until September 10th at 7:00 asking for the revised plan set that we've asked for. Yeah. But the only thing I think we have
to address if there is a letter from the planning board asking us to vote, we have to somewhat address it. Although we I haven't seen it. I you know, it's not in my email. I don't know if you've seen it's on it's on the portal, unfortunately. It's on the portal. Planning board portal.
Um the the online portal, application portal. It was a note dropped open. Yeah. So I don't want I mean I'm I don't think we have to do what the planning board has asked. No, no, no. And I agree you with that. But what I what I think we should say is we should have let the planning board
know like, hey, just cuz you asked us to vote, we don't feel comfortable. I I was toying with the idea before we get into this whole discussion with postponing it to see what happens with the special permit. Um
I I still think I know this is still an open discussion. We're not closed, but I still think we should do that regardless of what they say in that motion. But I think we need to tell them that although they asked us to do that, I we don't feel comfortable or at least I don't
feel comfortable. I don't know how you guys all vote, but I can I can do that in a communication, right? explaining that we're considering we've asked for a new plan sheet plan sheet and and as to how the planning board is going to
treat this and uh whether or not they do it at a single meeting or other meetings, right? We've continued the matter to September 10. Yeah, I can certainly do that. Yeah. Um I mean I would feel comfortable with that. Is there a motion? Well, do you want to
to continue? Mr. Campbell, do you have anything to say in response to the continuence? No, I I'm We've gone back and forth on this very issue with this board and the planning board multiple times, so I I understand. Do you want Do you have to close the public? No, no, not yet.
Just leave it open because So, this will be continued to the September 10 meeting. The public is still invited to comment. We still are taking input. So, we don't we can't close the public hearing portion. What I would advise is that when they do come back that they address
the water resource protection requirements because it it is in our zoning bylaw and it talks about new construction requirements of a recharge system. There's there's quite a bit of uh quite a bit in here for the zoning board. It's under zoning through special
permit. So I So it's planning board. It goes through the planning board. So So you should see that before you we can we can ask Mr. Campbell to tell us where they are with that with the planning board. Yeah. And I'm happy to submit the same narrative that we submitted to the
planning board on on all those items. Why don't you advise the applicant to do that and um and also to give us the the plan that we asked for with the actual setback distances enumerated for each of the boundaries.
We we will have every setback possible from the patio from the back of from everything. Yeah. Um, with that, uh, motion's been made and I think seconded. Mr. Ferguson, you seconded the motion to continue. Yes. To continue to the next meeting. Let's then we can consider September
10th where we are. Maybe we're comfortable at that point um passing on the variance and the um the finding for u you know change to a non-conforming use or maybe not. But um I suggest we
talk about that September 10th after we get the plan and some more input. Okay, sounds good. Mr. Tenori, how do you vote on the motion to continue? Yes. Mr. Ferguson, yes. And Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great evening
for understanding uh the process that we are suggesting. Absolutely. Uh I'll multiples of that as well. Yeah. If you want these, I mean, I know this property, right? Right.
You want this even though you're meeting just enjoy the ride. Yeah. I did that for two years when the other guy joined. Yeah, but you actually have to show up. No, I didn't show up for two years. I know you didn't. Trust me, I'm well aware of that. You guys did a great job.
Yeah. Next is the application for 49 Island Road. The applicant is Amy Williams. The Ryan Chase. Are you Miss Williams? Okay,
we have both. The applicant is seeking a sideyard reduction to 5.7 ft, front yard setback reduction to 12.5 ft for a proposed additional detached garage on the property and a plan sheet was
submitted which is being projected right now. Um who is going to speak and explain what's going on? And this being my first uh town name, you like me at the podium? Yes, please. Yep. And uh we'll ask your
name and um your relation to the owner. Sure. I am the owner. My name is Brian Chase. Amy is my girlfriend and um this is our proposal. So you're familiar with all the cottages around the lake and in town. Do you live at that address?
I live at that address. I've been there since ' 92. Um, you know, uh, our plan is to make some more living space and the the original, uh, proposal that it I was going to present was done up by my contractor,
which was going to be a 20x 20 structure behind the garage and then trying to make the garage bigger, but that crossed every single possible line. That would have been a no. And this this would have been the only way to, you know, to make this work. The garage is as much storage
as it is to replace my original garage where you often all guys know you're out there puttering, fixing something, doing whatever. So, it's going to serve as that as well as storage above it. Um, and then changing the existing garage into living space
uh being a master bedroom and a master bath. Ah, that's the proposal. Okay. Um, I understand. open it up to questions from the board. Go ahead. Well, my understanding is that you know
that I don't know if it's that buffer zone or the proposed part is that it's a little too close to the street, but it's actually I don't know. I look at it and I it's actually
you can't really see like the fence and everything. Nothing's nothing's changing. In other words, the building's not coming closer to the street, right? The entryway to the building. Let's put it that way. None of that is changing. I see that. In other words, this is 12.5 from the road. You're at 11.7.
It looks like the other parts. It kind of shapes the house, the structure into like a U. Mhm. Is there a reason why you're putting the proposed addition on the back instead of that front area where it's kind of the you? Well, so that the existing garage
there, that would allow a hallway into the new living space and I'm adding six more feet to give me that extra space to have not only the hallway, but also the bathroom, the original bathroom is right there. So, all the plumbing, everything,
there wouldn't be a lot of changes there other than hookup and length. whereas I I start moving that around because I'm actually taking out the existing bathroom which is like a phone booth in that house. Yeah. So, um that made the most sense to me. Is the proposed addition part of what
you're asking for? Yes. Actually, we were supposed to discuss both of those. I think I think that probably just got lost in translation, but um Okay. Well, that's basically it's for the garage crossing that line on the zoning as well. But does that affect zoning issues like
setback on the side? What? What zone is this? Do you have a cop? Yeah, you do. It should say right on the plan. You go back to the drawing the top right corner. Usually
Oh, wait. I don't have it. I think it's down there. It's It's got to be usually 60. We actually require it usually on the drive. What is that? Yeah, it doesn't have the zone here. Got to be a 60.
That's That's 60. Can we find out what zone this is in? Yeah, it's R60. It is. Yeah. Yeah. Why are you detaching the garage, not attaching it? Part of again is is space because of
that wall. because my my home is so small to lose a section of wall to enter that didn't make any sense to me and then I worry about rot other things you know affecting the home um it just made
more sense to me to to keep it you know separate to separate by 3 ft it looks like yeah roughly 3 ft I was trying not to cringe too much on the neighbor beside me is there going to be a living space above the garage No storage.
Storage. What is I can make most sense. To the right of you. To the right of me would be uh my neighbor's property. And what is there for development for structure? Uh a home. He has a couple of sheds I believe there. And there's a fence
between the two of us as well as some pretty large trees on my side. You know, keeping that private. I'm Does this trigger the 25% increase in living space on your end as well? That that's what I was just wondering as
we're talking about converting the garage over cuz usually that triggers on these smaller lots that usually you guys it comes to us because that would just be a finding by by you guys while it's here if uh if that is the case.
Well, he's not constructing a new footprint on the garage. No, but it says converting habitable space. Converting habitable space plus a proposed space. If we take the garage, is that is that 25% of the home
with the addition of the the 6x19? It certainly looks like it would be more than 25%. Yeah. But question, more basic question. Can can a homeowner build on a wetland buffer over a wetland?
That is my problem I'm having right now. I don't know the answer to that and I don't know if that that's our purview really but no I mean it that that ends up with the conservation commission does have you apply to conserv you have I actually have a meeting here the 25th
so again but it's it's two boards that can work independently if let's say this board allows everything here and conservation does not then a permit doesn't get granted right right but some somebody's got to take right take the lead here Yeah. Planning board.
We're affected by planning board. Yeah. Yeah. Even with the planning board, if they allowed the special permit on the previous one and you don't allow the variance, it it dies there. Well, the dimensions are on the uh plan
sheet. Um I mean, somebody allowed it. Is there a lot coverage uh calculation on there? Because that's another item. No, I don't see that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, cuz you have a lot coverage issue obviously with the garage. So that
you need that table on here as well. So lot coverage with the R60. He may not be a lot coverage issue because he's got all that extra space on the outside. It may be the the increase in habitable space. Well, both I mean they're both
dimensional. He they need it. It should be on the plan. Yes. But yeah. Yeah, that's what Lucas, I think, is getting at. Yeah, we could request the uh a new plan drawing. Trobridge knows how to do that. I'm surprised Trobridge didn't actually usually put it on here, right?
Anticipating, but lot lot coverage percentage and also um how do you describe the other or the increase in habitable floor space? It is a change to a non-conforming. So
yeah, so if it's over the 25% it would need a finding with you as well. But we but what we're saying is on a a new plan drawing percentages of habib habitable floor space. Yep. Present and intended.
Present and future. Yes. [Music] Would that um take care of any questions further questions on this that we would have except for the
conservation issue of course which isn't our purview isn't our purview. Gentlemen, can I further add to that? Sure. Yes, of course. It has been discussed about the difference between having it attached and having it detached. I would
prefer to have it detached, but if it was a a go no-go thing, I I could understand it. So, I I I'll just say that um I'm open to it. Well, that's an issue. I mean, you
presented us with a plan, correct? So, that's what we're voting on. We could make that an issue if we want to. What is the rule? If it's detached, it can be within 10 ft. If it's an accessory
Yeah. So, if it's an accessory structure, it can be within the 10 ft. So, is this an accessory structure? Currently, this is an accessory. So, it would require a variance because you've got you're 10 you're not 10 ft off the property line. You're only five.
Accessory can be within 10 ft, right? But he's only 5 ft. No, you can't. You have to be outside of 10 ft. Excuse me. For an accessory structure. For an accessory structure, you can impinge on the setback requirement, but still the normal setback here would be 30. Thank you.
The accessory would be 10. If it was attached, it would no longer be a variance. It would be a finding because he's already violated that side setback. Well, it would be a variance on the setback requirement. No, not any longer because technically they would have already violated the setback with the
247 to the to the house. So, we're not Oh, it wouldn't be violating a new It wouldn't be violating a setback. It would just be making one worse, but you've already broken. We've taken those situations in the past and we've said
that we need to vote on variance as well as a finding if it encroaches further. Especially here it's significant. We would be voting on a variance. It just would be the difference from the normal setback requirement rather than
the 10-ft accessory building requirement. But the up in Brooklyn, the state decided that if if you already violate the setback, the floor area ratio, etc., whatever the dimensional squabble is, they've said that once you
violated it, it can no longer be a variance or should no longer be a variance. It should only be What is that? Is that a court case? That was a court case. Yeah. Um, I don't reme recall it right off the bat, but it was based on a floor area reference where
they it was like 10% or something like that. They were already under it or over it and the court said, "Yeah, you you can't do it as a variance because they've already broken the rule. So, it's it's too late to try to uphold the rule."
So, you can do it as a finding, but not as a variance any further. I'm not familiar with that case. I'd have to ask U council what that is. You say it was Brooklyn. It was Brookline. I can I can find it and email it over to you. Really? Yeah.
I have it in one of my case law books cuz I was like that's that's a big deal depending on how these are set up. Yep. I mean that would alleviate us having to vote for double votes on these you know varants as well as now this being that it's a separate structure even though that is already
violated all bets are off being a separate structure it has to go back to the variance process I'd like to read that yeah thanks that's interesting but initially it sounds like we need to
continue this to September 10th as well since we're asking for a new plan uh with other data on the plan. So in our zoning bylaws, there is a wetland protection for us. Yeah,
in the wetlands protection district, I think this would but I don't know if that applies. I got to look. Okay. But they talk about existing home buildings and uses including additions to alteration of resistant buildings you can't do. I don't know. Is that section
175 uh 5.3? It sounds like you just found some homework for us. Yeah, I sure did. Do you have architectural drawings for your for the addition yet? No, I do not at this point. In wetland protection said no dumping,
filling, earth transfer location shall be printed, which I Yeah, we knew that. building or structure to be erected, constructed, moved except for one or more of the following except for one or more of the following
purposes in accordance with a special permit by the planning board. But I don't know if that's in the wetlands. I don't know that we have jurisdiction over that section of the bylaw. But this is what's never clear to me
where our jurisdiction I mean my understanding is our jurisdiction is for dimensional uh matters not for wetland matters because that goes to conservation anyway and you just referenced the planning
board. I may be wrong, but that's my understanding. And now, now technically he's not in the wetlands. He isn't because I'm looking right buffer zone. Well, no, because there is a I'm looking right now.
Wetland Protection District is also water resource, which would be a special permit from the planning board. So, if is he That's what I'm trying to figure out if he's in it. this propose the proposed addition on the back of the garage. Well, that's in the buffer. It's not in
the wetland. Yeah. Well, yeah. Right. Well, that's that's where our bylaw is a little lacking in clarity. So all the land at or below the
elevation of 105 ft draining to the Norton reservoir to be a part of it. I think that I mean that this is part of the wetland consideration. Yeah. But we don't know if that's our jurisdiction.
I mean it's in our zoning bylaws. Well, there's several sessions that like say right. Yeah. So I don't know if it kicks Yeah, I think it kicks it. I think it kind of kicks it to and the applicant is before conservation or is in process
communicating with conservation at this point. Anyway, we have uh filed a notice of intent. That's what's been done so far. You said you had a meeting though tomorrow, the 25th. 25th. Yes. Next Monday, I believe. I mean, so they'll they'll tell us they can't do it.
Yeah. I mean, we can Yeah, we can certainly condition the, you know, the variance. Well, you're going to continue this anyways for the Yes. Right. Yeah. So, by then you we should know exactly. All right. Yeah. I mean, it's a good point, but they'll
answer that for you. Yeah. I just worry about the wetland the buffer because I know I don't think we've ever allowed anybody to build in in the buffer zone. No, we've always stayed away from that though because it's always been the
conservation issue that they issue those parameters for what the uh construction can and can't do. I thought within the buffer zone there was no disturbance. That's what I remember from the No, within within the within the 100 foot buffer zone, you can you can
disturb. It's just the notice of intent. Oh, 50 foot it gets a little stricter. And then usually within the 50 or within the 25 foot is almost a no touch. Yeah. No, no touch. It's a no touch, right? It's within the 50. This is within the 50.
The 100's just a few more provisions. It depends on where. Like I live next to the Waiting River. My entire property is within 200 feet. I'm not supposed to be do anything. I can't put a paper down technically. Oh yeah. But 25 ft is no construction. And then I
have my certain parameters. Got it. So you're going to have Yeah. I mean also you guys, you know, for consideration, we've also discussed, you know, the size of the building and lot coverage and is this necessary? You know, cuz it's a 36 ft deep structure. Is that oversized garage? You know,
there's other factors here. That's why I asked if there was architectural drawings, you know, because part of the vote is, you know, the neighborhood and how it affects. Let me ask uh right now if there is anybody present to speak in favor of or
in opposition to this application. Yes, Mr. Marcan. Roger Maran, 62 Power Street. I'm not in favor or opposed. Just a point of information just to know that this uh piece of property is at the very end of
a deadend street and the parcel to the right of where they are, the home is as far away from this parcel as you can get. So, just
something to consider that it's probably not impeding or intruding on the the neighbor's parcel much at all. Thank you. And I wondered if the neighbor was present. Uh Brian, do you see anybody online? No one's online. Okay.
Spoken. We haven't We have not closed and we're not going to close the public hearing anyway. Go ahead, sir. I I just wanted to let you guys know that I I have spoken to the two neighbors that would have been directly affected. One across from me who would have affected his view and Lee, who was
the one that we just spoke of on the right side. And you know, both of them were like, you know, we're fine with it. So, um, of course, all the notice the, uh, the notices went out to the abutters. Right. Right. I don't believe any of them have said anything at all. So,
they have not to us, and that's why I was just asking if anybody was online. Yeah. Uh, but thank you for the information. Okay. Um, I I think I'd suggest a motion to continue, but ask the applicant to supply to get in touch with Trobridge
right away. Sure. Tell them that we need to see on the plan sheet the lot coverage present and intended and the lot coverage percentage present and
intended. They'll know what this is and the change to the habitable floor area. Is that the terminology? Yes, the the proposed and existing existing habitable space. Trobridge should understand that. Can I ask you just to write that stuff down?
Uh, well, you can write it down. Sure. I don't have a pen. I'm sorry. That's why I So, it's 175-1.6 talks about the 25% uh floor area. Mhm. A dimensional table on the plan sheet.
Okay. um showing the existing and intended lot coverage percentage and the existing and intended well the change to the habitable floor space
present and future. It's actually the change that we're interested in. Trobridge should know those things and a dimensional table on the plan sheet. I think that's the lingo that you should communicate to Trobridge. Okay.
Probridge usually does put a dimensional table, I think, on the plan sheet. So, I think they'll they'll know exactly what we're asking. And we're going to uh take a vote in a moment to continue to September 10th. Okay.
We'll ask you at that night uh what happened, what is happening in conservation, what that process is, and we'll sure take the matter up again on September 10th. M I would ask for a motion to continue to say 7:05 since the other one was 7:00.
I'll make that motion to continue this till 7:05 September 10. Yes, sir. Is there a second? I second. Okay. Um Mr. Tenori, how do you vote on the motion? Yes. Yes. Mr. Ferguson? Yes. Yes. Mr. Noel votes yes as well. September
10th. Okay. 7:05 after the last one. Okay. Um and uh we'll hear it out then and uh you can let us know what's what's developing with conservation, but Trobridge should be able to get that
together pretty quickly and get it to uh zoning board file. All right, sounds good. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Pat. And the public hearing is still open. So u gentlemen, we'll you know we'll ask the same questions next meeting. Thank you.
And yeah, I'll look at the uh the bylaw section, too. But I don't know if it's just kicking it to them. I got to look at it. Thank you for your help. Okay, we have a couple other issues
tonight. No applications. Those were the applications. Um, we have the zoning bylaw update and we have some minutes that were uh distributed. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at those. We can get to
that in a minute. Zoning bylaw update. Brian, um, I looked at the the sections that I had trouble with last time and I think I'll withdraw my concern. Okay. I think they conflict a bit, but I don't
think it's fatal to anything. Where are we in the process? Uh where is Paul in the process and what needs to be done? We had gone through the new bylaws last time and the portions that affected us
and made some changes. There's a new document on the portal with those changes incorporated. Um what is next in the process? So the board is going to go to
town meetings. So they're going to do public hearings. Uh the 28th is when they have to uh approve the language by which they have set forth for the draft. 28th is a week from tomorrow,
right? Are what is our participation? Now Paul had asked would we warrant this or certify that these are our changes or something like that. Clarification as to what Paul is looking for?
Uh, I think more your involvement for with the planning board or at least a member to go to town meeting and uh go to public hearings to speak on behalf of the zoning board. So,
nothing in writing or decision, but just to and I can tell Paul by email that, you know, we'll certainly do that to help facilitate the process. I mean, I'll I'll commit to that personally and, you
know, Nick and or Jim or Lucas because we're not letting him off. No, he's not going anywhere. Sorry. Um, but we can communicate a whole new bylaw being released or is this just an update to our existing bylaw? edited existing edited to
edited existing and they changed some you know what I mean the formatting and I just I think we should read it again because look how you address the wetland thing tonight or the water district overlay I feel like we should look at these sections and the first paragraph
should say for reference only deemed by conservation department but considerations and now you say okay well anyway Um, but I just I feel like there's there's these things that we always run into. We're like, well, what do we do
with this or how do we this is the opportunity to clean those up right now. I'm not shooting that down, but we This is part of what we discussed in July with Paul uh doing some edits. If if you have some
suggested changes, I'd suggest you get them to Paul and that we talk about them. I'm not or application requirements such as you know an architectural rendering and the table on there and
that's actually a procedural thing where we can make rules as to what we require for an application and we started doing that a few years ago. It has to be approved. Um but that's not we don't make a bylaw on that
based on that. Yeah. We we have a a rule sheet and a list that we present publicly and say we need these things. Mhm. You know, and I think we should we should close that process off by pursuing that. So, in your further time
on the zoning board, we'll ask for your help. I'll be out. But town council had explained that we have to publish that these are our rules and then we can follow them. But it's not more
complicated than that and I will effort that so I think that's important. For example, saying what we want on the plan sheet. Yeah, it's pretty, you know, we want distances to each sideyard to each setback. We want the
period distances everything drawn in. That's it. And we can say dimensional table as well. Yeah. You know on whatever aspects of the proposed development impact zoning requirements.
Mhm. That covers it just by putting it that way. I think uh because it seems to be getting slippery, more slippery as we go with people just not following those and we send people out and it's happening
more now than it than it did a few years ago with those basic things not on the plan sheet. Um so good good suggestion. Um so I can communicate to Paul
uh further and you know tell him that I will take part and ask um all three other members to join me if they are um if they are willing on when's it going to be public hearings and yeah have they set the dates?
We do have dates set up. I can work with Paul tomorrow to I'll ask him to lay it out. Yeah. Yeah. Just tell us the date. I'll let you know if I can go. The zoning board is to assist. Tell us what's next and the dates, specific dates, and we'll
make an effort and and and I personally will make an effort to uh to do that to facilitate. Now, minutes. Yep. Brian sent out the last six sets of minutes from 2024. Yep.
Are we ready to uh vote to approve those minutes? Yes. Okay. I don't know if a couple like Mr. Ferguson wasn't present at any of the meetings. I would ask Lucas if he is u set to vote on those six minutes. And
if so, if they are approved, I will um just reformat with the signature blocks as I had done the last time. And I'll only say Brian's always done a great job. And now that everything's recorded, it just makes it that much easier to approve minutes. Yeah. where when we, you know, eight
years ago it was not recorded and Yep. so on. It was recorded but it's not part of the Yeah, exactly. audio record. Oh, it was you with your little tape recorder. I Yeah, I have some cassette tapes if you want. I still have that thing. I got two of them.
Don't worry. I remember you just placing the zoning boards. It's at my house somewhere. Uh oh. I'm going to be arrested now by the Norton police. Yeah. No, you're not. I'm not stealing it. I'm just it's I've had it for like 10 years. You know, your tape recorder and your fax machine.
I don't my fax machine. I don't have that. It's not. You keep it at my house. It'll be worth something. I know. Five bucks. So, what are the dates specifically? Reel those off and then entertain a motion to approve
as submitted um simply to be formatted by the chair and passed in for Brian's signature. Minutes on uh 723 24 minutes of 82124. Minutes of 918 24
minutes on 1016 24 11 20 24 12 11 24 So that's actually seven sets of minutes. That's six. And then we have one random in here that goes right till uh July
23rd of 25 which says bylaw update which has bylaw update. So I don't know if that was that supposed to I don't think we have to approve that. I think that's just a what does it look like when you open it Jim?
That's a good question. I noticed it but I think that my computer's not working right. It's I think that's the We'll just do the 24s right now. Yeah, we'll just do the 24th cuz I think it's something it wasn't intended. Yeah. So, so the 6 24
Y that you just recited. Yep. Is there a motion to approve those minutes as accurate uh renditions of our meetings? I'll make that motion. Second. Any further discussion?
Nope. I I I will format the signature pages and um get them to Brian. If uh Mr. Tori, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Waziaak, yes. This is his final vote. Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Not his final. Okay, Jim. All right. Yeah, you can still close the meeting.
It's not. But we do have two more things. Two. This is a bill for Nick's name plate. Do we really want Nick Ferguson to have a name plate like ours? We have to pay for it. All right. It's
$3157. God. Wow. Yeah. His is going to be look better than ours. It's WB Mason bill. Is Is there a motion to approve this? You already have it apparently. So why do we have to pay for it? Oh, we already have it. Yeah.
So we don't have to pay for it. No, that's not how it's done. I guess we actually have to pay WB Mason for it. Yes, we do paper bills, so sometimes they're after the fact. Ah, so we have to pay it. That means our credit must be good. Um, is there a motion to approve this
expenditure for Nick Ferguson who now owes us big? I'll make that motion. Lucas, I'm not voting. He votes on his own name plate. Do I? I second. Will you second the motion? I second. Mr. Tanori and Mr. Ferguson, how do you
vote? Yes, I know you vote. Yes. I don't want to spend time money. Um, that's like signing on for four years, right? You just go back. Now you got to earn it. Yeah. Lucas, what are we going to do with yours? Yeah. He's staying right here. I'll be back. So, do I just sign this appreciation?
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's your parting gift. Wait, there's something else. Do I sign everything? Just the same thing. I have one copy for them, one copy for ours. Okay. this. I don't need to. No.
Okay. We're done with bills and warrants. Yep. We have a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Waziac. But Nope. We actually have this. I'll fill it out. Oh, here we go. It's official. 20. I'll put it next to my high school
diploma. Yes. Don't make fun of it. In your office. Yeah. fun of it. Ryan very nicely thought of this. My GED. Did you spell his name? Far more than that diploma. I'm going to sign it. So, it's worth something. I don't know what it's worth,
but certificate of appreciation. This certificate is presented to Lucas Wasiaak. Is that how you pronounce? For his commitment and service to the town of Norton zoning board since 2016. Wow. You know, I should do one more. Yeah.
Make it 10. Well, you are. So, why are we giving you this? Thank you, Brian, for Yeah, I guess so. Huh? Wow. Thank you so much. Frame it. I'm going to bring this to Wendles with me. Yep. Don't get grease on it. I mean, listen, now that you have
another member, I didn't know that I can stay as an alternate. I'm just not going to show up for a while unless you guys need me here. Really? Remember that other member when we were still doing meetings in the other Brian or David? What was his name? He moved to Plainville or Spankler. Spangler.
Yeah. Spangler. I mean, he was on for 15 16 months and I didn't I didn't show up. I was just an alternate. Yeah. But what if one of us suddenly says we can't make it like me? You'll make an effort to fill in. I mean, I just appreciate that.
It's not a big deal. It's just my You just can't plan for it. You need to call my wife and let her know that I stayed on. Yep. No, he can go. He's like, "Cheers." Yeah. Who wants to call her? I saw Janice on the email chain. I have a hard time calling my wife to tell her I'm not going to be there.
Does she want to join us? No. I mean, listen, if you guys You can stay on as an alter. I'll stay on as an alter. Then I'm still taking this with me. Notify brownie points. Lucas, you got to do an email then to Brian Clark, right? I'll retract I'll retract my uh resignation.
No, I think No, I think you actually need to. You have to resign as a full-time member and then come back as a I was never full time. I've been an alternate this whole time. You guys were looking for another third member this whole time. Yep, that's true. I never the selector never put me into
the member role. But you should then that was an oversight. You get an email tomorrow though to notify that because you're an alternate you you can saying if something happens and you guys need me in the middle of January and I can zoom in and help you guys. What's the big deal? That would be appreciated.
The problem is is that the school sports and the this and that it's just out of control. That would be great. Tell me you can reach your 10year mark and get your full pension which is zero. Believe me, I know. We put in the zoning bylaw like members
don't have to pay real estate taxes or something. Second that'd be good. Wait a minute. I got to take out of town members. There was something a few years ago. If you were older than 65,
you could work off your property taxes by volunteering in the town or something. I don't know what ever happened to that. They still have it. Yeah. Do they really? What the folks sitting at the front desk every day that kind of greet people coming and going? Yeah. You have to just contact the assessors. Really? Yeah.
And they get credit for each hour they put in or something. I think there's a cap to it. I don't I don't know the whole system, but that's cool. Yeah. Well, that's good. You make 15 grand doing it. What happens when you become 50? What happens when you become 50? Thumbnail. Let's do it.
I don't have any sympathy for anybody who's only 50. So, another 15 years. Thanks, Lucas. Uh, do a follow-up email saying I'll do a followup email. Like I said, I'll just That would be great. God forbid something happens. Well, that means we get that certificate back. We should shred that so nobody
I usually meet you in like September, October, and November. That's true. I'll be available 2026. Our our next meeting is September 10. Let's go over what we have. October what? Uh we have done this.
Hold on. I got to wait. Hold on. Hold on. All right. So, you got September 10th. Yep. You got October 15th. You got Novemberth 19th. Thanks. And December 10th.
Great. Yes. Yep. Great. Thanks. Anything else to come before this esteemed board tonight? Nope. Make a motion to close public uh the zoning board meeting. Second. Second. Third. Yes.
Nick, isn't this fun so far? Okay. Um, all those in favor? I I'm not giving anything. Jesus. November. I give you a gift. What was the November date, guys? No, it's November is Yeah, the 19th. Yeah, the 19th. Yeah. All right. Are we closed?
Yeah, we are closed. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Norton.