Order at 7:06. It's a meeting of the town of Norton zoning board of appeals. We have several items on the agenda. Unfortunately, we do not have a Zoom hookup. Town council is with us by
telephone and is on my speaker phone and we're going to have to make do with that. Town council is here for a couple of the um the matters this evening. Um I'm Tom Noel. I'm the chair of the
zoning board. Lucas Waznjak is here. Um and um Jim Tenori is our third voting member tonight. We have a number of items on the agenda. The first is the continued application of Islandbrook
Chapter 40B comprehensive permit. Mr. Atani, he went to the restaurant. Yes. back in just a moment. Uh you are uh Son Kadura. Uh I work with Okay. And Mr. Tani is here. Thank you. Uh Miss Quzle
is here by telephone unfortunately. Uh we'll see if uh we can make do that way. Uh this has been before us for some time. Um Mr. Ritani, the decision that was given to us, the draft by your
council was marked up by Miss Quzle. Is that Are you authorized to Okay, that is town council with us tonight. I'm You are I'm going to I'm going to do Chris Augustino. He's waiting for the phone. I told him I might have to put him on
speaker on FaceTime at that point, right? For the two phones. Yeah, two phones. Yeah. Hi, Chris. Can you put Mr. Dagustinina wants me? Yeah, that's him. He's I'm going to bring the phone closer to you. Um, so you're going to be uh on the phone and I'm going to hand the
phone to the chairman. It's not good. Thank you. And Frank Gallagher is there to Frank Gallagher is here. Amy, um, Mr. Dagustinino and Mr. Gallagher are attending uh by phone call in to Mr. Itani's phone. So, have you had an
opportunity, Chris, to uh look at the edits that Amy had returned? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I hear everybody and I I just heard Amy in the background as well. So, all all good. Um, yes, we did. And and thank you uh to
Amy for for sending those over and uh I was able to review them uh with Muhammad and the team. And uh we understand the uh one substantive issue that Amy had uh changed just to uh make sure that the
town's bylaws to the extent that they're not waved uh by the decision remain protected. And uh we were fine with that with that substantive change. So I I think we're uh really in a position where we're able to move forward at this
point. Um and uh I thank everyone for their help in uh putting it together so that we could get here. So I I think it's uh ready for for a vote. Okay. So um so Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes. On um on paragraph 18, I did have a question.
Yeah, I see that. I was just going to ask about that. Yeah. So I I just I didn't see any changes to the waiverss. Um so are there any changes to the waiverss? And if not, we would just say uh with the waiverss of local regulations initially approved by the
board period. We wouldn't we wouldn't say as may be modified by this endorsement decision because I think that makes it complicated because obviously both the chair and I had that question. Yes. Yeah, I saw that Amy and um uh we looked at that question and we
don't believe that there were any additional modifications to waivers. Um, so we thought you either wanted to just delete that or make some other change. So we're fine with deleting it if you think that works. Yeah. So I'm going to delete that clause that says as may be
modified by this endorsement decision comma. That's fine. Y Okay. All right. So um Mr. Chairman, I can um I I think that the board um can definitely um vote
on this uh this decision tonight and then I can um just easily clean it up and um get it over to Brian in the morning and u it's this we eliminated that. Yeah, I think um we accepted their changes and
show and Mr. Dagustinino is just is saying that we could just cross that out. So, we've got that. Thank you. Oh, actually, here's a copy for um District and I give one to the U to
the clerk. Okay, Amy. So, I'm sorry. This is in line for a vote tonight, correct? Yes. Yes, you can you can definitely vote on this. I will um provide you with a final version for um for signature. Great. So, um, and then I
can fill in the motions and the seconds and all that stuff. That's fine. U, Mr. Tinari, Mr. Wazi, Amy, I think, did we not close the public hearing on this last time in case there were issues to discuss?
We did not close the public hearing of my notes. So, right, that's what I remembered. So, I should entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Island Brook so that we can discuss the uh the draft. Is there such a motion? I'll make that motion. Second. A motion's been made and
seconded. Mr. Tori, how do you vote to close the public hearing on Island Brook? Yes. Mr. Wazak, yes. And Mr. Noel votes yes as well. So, the public hearing is closed now. Uh, we've gone over this in the last months uh cooperatively with the applicant and
working out certain issues. I think the draft is is is good. Amy has gone through it, made her red line edits that the applicant has exceeded to, including crossing out the one question uh that
she had flagged in 18. Um is is there what further discussion is there before among among the board members? I don't have any question. We decided last time it was just paperwork. Yeah. And so is there a motion to approve this draft with red line markings as we've just
discussed as the U Islandbrook decision number whatever it is because we already we voted on this 11 years ago and then maybe 9 years ago as well uh but it's back before us for reasons that we've gone over. Is there a motion to approve
the application as reflected in the draft decision? And Miss Quzo will provide this in final form for signature in the next day or two. I'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman. Second. No further discussion on the motion. Nope. Mr. Dari, how do you vote on the matter of
Ibrook? Yes. Mr. Wazak, yes. And Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Okay. U we will get this signed in the next uh couple of days. Amy will get it back to us without the red lines. So, Mr. Chairman. Um, so
I'm just um I'm I'm a little bit blind here, but I'm pretty sure that was Mr. Tenori that made the motion and Mr. Wazak can second it. Yes, it was. Sorry about that. Right. Okay. No, I didn't I can do it. I got it. Were there other votes contained within this? I know that
happened a couple. Okay. So, we um because there's no um because there is no um there's no waivers, right? No specific waiverss. You do not have to do those separately. We don't have to do individual folks. So that is done. You
are done. Thank you town council for your assistance. Mr. Itani will get it out to you through Brian in the next couple of days. We all have to sign it. Um I I will talk to uh town council. Should we just sign the last page? Amy,
you could. Yes, I will not change the last page. So you can you can sign the last page and then um let's do one. Um, we can file it with the town clerk. Brian can fill in that date. That's not a problem. Is that That's acceptable to Yeah, we can we can get that done
tonight. You have a blank blank. Thank you. Yeah, Mr. Turnori has a blank that's not stapled together. So, we can do that. Okay. And uh Great. So, we don't have to remember I went to Mr. Turnori's kitchen once to get a
signature on about 30 pages worth of u the decision that we had done a few years ago. Great. I couldn't get him out of the house, though. Problem. He's never coming back. Well, they kept offering me food and I kept accepting
and I had to digest it and eat more. So, okay. Uh, we have recorded our votes. I'll give the last page to Brian with the understanding that Amy's going to return the finalized document. We'll attach that to this and effectively we
should have that tomorrow. Awesome. I mean, it has to be posted with the town clerk, of course, for the uh normal This gets a normal appeal period, Amy. Correct. No. No. Yes, it does. It does. Yes. So, we'll have to add that to the uh I'll we can add that paragraph that I
do at the end of decisions and I'll get that to you tomorrow, Amy. Oh, yeah. I I can add that. I um right. It doesn't have It doesn't have it. So, I will add that. I can add that right now. Mr. Destiny. I um I'm not sure and and I think
anything as we know is appealable. Um I I think there is some you know the 20-day appeal period is fine. Um but I believe just as a technical matter uh that there's some case law that it's it's not necessarily an appealable
decision. But um but all good to add the 20-day uh u appeal window. I think that's fine. and we'll further further certify the fact that the decision is final. Okay. Uh so we'll get it to town clerk for posting anyway tomorrow. And
uh thank you Mr. Itani for your assistance and all this. I know it's been a long time. I know. Thank you, sir. You owe me a hug, remember? Good luck with the uh with the progress and keep us posted as to anything that comes up. Awesome. I'm just going to grab my phone. Yeah. Yeah. You want to
come for a hug? Now he wants Now he wants his phone back. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, guys. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you, Mr. Dagustino and and Amy and I will communicate tomorrow and Brian will get it. Okay. Uh
Amy, are you you are still there? All right, I am. We are moving on to the second item of the on the agenda, which is uh Zero Hill Street. The applicant is listed as Dan Campbell. The owner is Mr. Laruso.
Correct. And um Mr. Campbell. Good evening. Dan Campbell. On behalf of the applicant, Anthony Laruso. We have to u we're going to ask Amy to be with us by phone. I know Zoom isn't working. Uh Amy
had given us a uh memo which we uh forwarded to you a few days ago and uh I will give Amy the opportunity to summarize for us first
uh her memo. Miss Quzo, would you be prepared to do that? Sure. You have that? Sure. So you want me to do that now? Yeah, if you could first. Yeah. So um so there's the application um before
you is for um variances to create three non-conforming lots and um essentially so the property is located it's in the R80 zoning district which requires 80,000 square ft of lot area and 150 ft
of frontage. So the three lots that they're proposing ne none of them meet those requirements. None of them are 80,000. None of them have 150. Um there is however this um remaining area which is about
130,000 square ft and has 1808 I think 108 um ft of frontage. But um really it's the three lots that are in front of you and um the applicant is
um is providing an argument that um because the laws were created in 1967 and they were conforming at that time um they are somehow forever conforming.
And um I I simply do not agree. Um, I did quite a bit of of research into this and um, the argument boils down to the merger doctrine and um, there's just no way around the merger doc doctrine which
is that you could have had conforming lots. But once those lots once the zoning changed and those lots become nonconforming, if those lots are owned by the same owner, they become they
become merged for zoning purposes and they are merged for zoning purposes to create conforming lots. And so there's nothing stopping this applicant from taking the four lots, which are the three proposed lots and the remaining
land, and creating conforming lots out of those lots. Um, and and that's their biggest hurdle. um is that the fact that they have enough land to create um at least one, possibly two conforming lots,
but they're looking for three substandard laws, non-conforming lots. And so um so that is you know that that's my position on on their their argument that
at one point they were conforming and unfortunately what happened was the zoning bylaw changed and um they did not apply for a building permit and they did not develop these lots in time. And so
the merger doctrine does kick in and and that is my position on that. With regard to variances, they are looking for variances and as you know as you know um you know variances are extremely hard to
come by. They should be granted sparingly. Um and the first var the first prong of the variance there's three prongs and the first prong is um they have to be owing to circumstances relating to the soil condition, shape or topography of the land and the applicant
simply cannot um meet that prom and um further um you know which which does not um which cuts you know cuts across the the argument of the developer is that um the applicant And um by separating these
lots into three non-conforming lots instead of using the overall land that they have um they're creating the hardship which is which is consistently not allowed. the um the Supreme Judicial Court held that um um it's a principle
of long-standing application when a land owner will not be permit permitted to create non a nonconformity um if they could have used the joining land to avoid the or diminish the nonconformity. So um in my opinion
um the lots the three lots that they're proposing cannot be created. Yep. Um we we questioned the applicant uh at the last session we had which was two meetings ago. Um as to that and it it
was in and and our question was well you could have the owner could have stepped in several times to actually build um before the next zoning iteration came up and did not do so.
That was our view. So I asked for council's opinion as to whether we were missing something. I think council's memo and what council just recited is conforms to what we were asking about before, but I'm going to
ask Mr. Campbell to give you the opportunity to tell us why you think we are wrong on that. Sure. So, um, and I did read through Amy's memo, and my problem with Amy's memo is it didn't actually address what
I asked the the um board to address in the first place. So, I understand the merger doctrine. Absolutely. I read all three cases that she referenced in in and all three cases refer to zoning bylaws that specifically require the
combination of non-conforming lots should it be non-conforming at the time of the adoption or the time of the amendment. The unfortunate part about Norton's zoning is in 1974 when the zoning went into effect, it specifically
exempted lots that at the time had an ANR plan which created them, an endorsed plan that created them, making them, in the words of the zoning bylaw, conforming
lots. So, every zoning since then has read any non-conforming adjacent lot held in single ownership established or recorded by deed at the adoption of the zoning bylaw in 1974. The problem is at the adoption of
the zoning bylaw in 1974, the zoning bylaw specifically made these conforming lots. They weren't non-conforming. That's where the problem comes. So our application is actually two parts. Our application, the first part of the application was whether or not
the three lots could be built individually. The second part of it was we were looking to add land to the nonconforming lots, not solving the entire nonconformity, but making them less nonconforming. So it was a two-part
question. One we applied in the first place based upon the building inspector's um denial of the the permits in the first place. So, the problem with um Attorney Kessle's letter is it never actually
addressed Norton's specific requirement that allowed the exemption of these lots creating them as conforming at the time of the adoption. It reads contiguous vacant lots and one ownership at the time of the bylaw
adopted. Uh, sorry. Land uh shown on plan submitted for the planning board endorsement or approval prior to the effective date of the bylaw shall be exempt from it as provided in 7A4A of the general laws. It was very clear in
1974 that as long as you had an endorsed plan, the lots were exempt. Period. So they are conforming. So, every bylaw since then says if they were nonconforming at the
time, but they weren't. None of the cases that um Attorney Quest specified had anything related to that. It was only if the lots were non-conforming with the zoning at
the time and there was never an exemption that you would have been able to go back to and talk about. But in each case, the zoning bylaws changed over time and specific reference time frame was given for lots to be developed
or merged. If they were nonconforming at the time is the problem. But you understand that going along with that theory would say we have to delve back 60 70 years in
every lot's history. You should based upon the current based upon the zoning. That's not a useful that's not a useful rule for this board. I understand. However, in this case, the problem is your 1974 zoning
specifically allowed those lots to continue regardless of anything else. Let's say you're right. Let's say you're correct. Just for argument sake, let me just ask a question. What relief can this board give you? If you're right, you have to
establish that somehow. So, what are you asking us to do? You can't redraw lots. I don't intend to. the building the building department specifically at the time gave us a letter of denial for a building permit for those three lots based upon
their non-conformance. So we've appealed that letter. Okay. The second part of that was in assuming the lots are developable we were intending to make them less non-conforming which as attorney said is
an allowable decision by the board. So the first part is we had to establish that the lots themselves were fine. Then we had to request whether or not we could add land to them to make them less non-conforming.
I think this is before us as an appeal of the building commissioner's uh denial which was back in apologies back in was it October? It was October of 24 I believe. Um, I don't believe that the
building commissioner was incorrect. I think that the building commissioner acted according to the bylaws. I understand your position, but I think this is the wrong place to establish that position if you need to
establish it. Um, having said that, I'm going to ask if there's anybody else in attendance to speak in favor of or in opposition to this application or the appeal. Well, the last time we were here, we specifically asked attorney
Quessle to address that one issue. She addressed merger doctrine as a whole, which is my problem with the letter. It wasn't specific to your zoning. It was a global if zoning changes.
Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes. Go ahead. So the the argument is is nonsensical because what it means is that so first of all, a lot cannot be created unless it's conforming. So every lot is conforming
at some point. So what happens is is that you have a bylaw that allows for 20,000 square ft and 50 ft of frontage and you create lots by ANR and all of a sudden you have 10 lots and then the zoning changes and
the zoning then creates lots that are 40,000 square ft in area and 100 ft of frontage and then you've lost half of your lots because you haven't acted upon you haven't developed them. They do not become non-conforming unless they are
developed. Then they are merged. So the merger doctrine is the overriding force in this in in in this argument here which is why that is what I addressed. The argument that a lot becomes
conforming and stays conforming forever is essentially it it is it's absolutely in opposition of what 4A the zoning act provides for. Okay. There's so I'm satisfied I'm
satisfied with that explanation. U Miss Yes. I the the problem is that doesn't address the specific exemption from the zoning that the lots that were signed off prior to the zoning bylaw granted
those lots. Yeah, but I don't it it wasn't enacted upon. That was the problem is the original zoning has a separate section in addition to no longer in play. That zoning is not in play anymore. That's
what happens. Section five allows towns to amend their zoning and it allows and it allows a land owner to take action within so much time if they have lots that would by
that amendment become non-conforming whether it's for the first time or the second time or the third time I assume. Correct. That's 486. Yes. Correct. Okay. So I'm going to ask again. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of or in
opposition to this appeal of the building commissioners? Yes. And what is your name? And uh I'm Amy Connley. I live at 61 Hill Street. I mean, I certainly can't speak to all the legal piece of it, but as in a butter,
um, I certainly would say I'm in opposition of this. I mean, I can give you reasons why. Um, in talking with an attorney that we have used, um, going back to that plan in 1967, he stated
that just because it was approved at that time didn't mean it was actually approved to be built upon as was as it was approved at that time given to the planning board. Um, and I I know we haven't talked about like the actual or she did mention the
topography of the land. I mean it is very wet and even the the previous owner um Paul Lamb of 61 Hill Street did approach he wanted to purchase the land and he did approach uh the building commissioner at the time. He came out
and looked at the land and he did say that this was one conforming lot and it's only been taxed as one conforming lot all of these years. So it's never been considered individual lots. So the question comes down to can there
be one residence there or two or three correct in your in your mind that's your concern,000 continuous uplands which I'd be questionable whether you could get one especially based on a septic but that's not our perview the wetlands is
conservation and that's been staked out. Yes. But thank you for your your voicing your concern. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of or in opposition to from Rich Rich Connley? I'm 61 Hill
as well. You know, those are tiny lots right now and they're trying to make it sound good. Adding to it, even adding to it, they're still tiny. Well, and when? Well, again, when is not our I know, right? It's a concern, but it's not our
perview. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, is there a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Um, without further discussion, Mr. Chori, I vote yes. Mr. Waziac, yes. Mr.
Noel votes yes to close the public hearing as well. So now there is this is framed I think appropriately as first an appeal of the building inspector's decision. I couldn't even remember, you know, how it got to us, but that that's
accurate because it was a denial. Um, and secondarily, there may be an issue, but I would suggest a motion as to whether uh to uphold the building inspector's decision as proper under the
bylaws. I'll make that motion to uphold the building inspector's decision. We've had this situation in front of us on the reservoir many times and the whole common ownership acting upon and time, you know, the zoning board the the bylaw
wasn't just, you know, enacted one day. It was through town meeting and everything else. So they I think they had the appropriate amount of time to act upon it and I agree with the building commissioner. So are you seconding? Yes. Mr. Chori's motion? I second. Okay. Then is there any further
discussion on the building commissioner the propriety of his decision? Doesn't sound like there is. Um on the motion that the building inspector's decision denying the applicant um that that decision was proper under the bylaws.
Mr. Turnari, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Wazak, yes. Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Great. Thank you. So you have I mean obviously it makes the second part move regardless, right? That's the second question. Moot, thank you for framing it appropriately, though. If you have if
you have reason to believe that we are an error, you can appeal it. I'm not sure why you started with this board anyway rather than going to planning or going the route of of court, but it is
what it is. Sure. Uh we'll see what happens. We wish you luck. We must uh wish the um the owner uh luck with this land in the future, but as of now, that's that's the extent of what we can do. I appreciate it. Thank you for your input. Of course. Have a good night.
Have a good night. Thank you. Um Amy, yes. Do you want me to draft that decision for you, Mr. Chairman? That would be helpful. Sure. Or at least this the u the bones of it. Sure. Yeah. Don't take Brian's uh work away from
him. He likes uh five other applications. I'll work with I'm joking. I'm joking. Amy, we have five other applications tonight. Apparently Brian's been standing on Main Street with a sandwich board saying, "Please apply for
variances." And so, uh, Miss Quzle, nothing else for Miss Quzle tonight, I believe. I don't think so. Right. This is the biggest one. Yeah. So Amy, thank you very much. Sorry for the Zoom Zoom problem. Nice to hear everyone tonight. Thank you, Amy.
Nice to hear you. I will I'll work with Brian on that and I'll get you guys something. I'll get I'll hear something. Yeah. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. I can I can communicate with you tomorrow to help you. Thank you. I'm around. All right. Thanks everyone. Have a nice night. You too, Amy. Y
Okay. So, everybody in town wants to do a change at once. Fine. We're here. Um, next on the agenda is the application for 186 Lincoln Street. Uh, Kyle Garini. Are you Mr.
Green? Yes, I am. Okay. We have your application. Let me just take a moment to shuffle my papers because that's what I do best. There it is. 186 Lincoln Street. Correct. This is an R80 lot. I'll give you the chance to correct me if I'm
wrong. It's an undersized It's an R80 zoning district. Sorry. It's an undersized lot and the applicant seeks to increase uh the non-conforming nature um by increasing the habitable floor
area by 25% or more. which means it has to come before us for a finding as to whether this is going to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood or not. Under I think it's 175
1.6. Um it's a non-conforming lot in that it's undersized. Currently there's a house of 1288 square ft. Uh apparently a new septic system is going to be required for uh proper waste
disposal and applicant is saying in the application that this is the um the only way uh it can be done and that it would be a hardship uh not to do it this way. Uh Mr. Karini, am I missing anything uh
as to what you want to communicate? Uh no, mostly um you know proposing to you know remove the existing house. Um that's you know it's pretty undesirable condition right now. Um it only sits about 5 ft from the street. That's amazing. Um I've looked at it
on extension. Yeah. So, I'm proposing to, you know, um add over 25% um to the new current and house size um but meeting all the setbacks um for the R80 zoning and the frontage um that runs
down the Lincoln Street extension. Um like you said, it's a pre-existing lot. Um does not conform to the R80 lot size. um very I believe the uh the proposed house will add you know great value to the town and
uh within the neighborhood um and by getting it off the street and you know sending it back. So your plan is to demolish the existing structure replace it with some Yeah. single family residence. Yeah. I don't know if you guys saw the have some pictures of it.
Yeah. We just looked at it. Oh Google Maps. Yeah. So you can see it's 5 ft from the street. And then I kind of like a rendering of what I was proposing. Do you guys see the uh site plans at all or Yeah, we just that's what we have to go by
actually the plan. So I I have the uh the perk test done and we develop those uh the plans for that. Yeah. U this is a plan dated March 3, 2025 from Trobridge Associates. Um it's a little tough to see the placement of the buildings
because it's a wetlandation. Yeah. But you can see is that a bigger copy of this is what you're exactly exactly but no fault there. All the setbacks with the new
construction are in line. The problem is because it's an increase in size more than 25%. It's like doubling size. it comes before us for the determination as to whether this is a detrimental um effect on the neighborhood under the the
wording of 1.6. Thanks for the your map. Um do you want this back? Yeah, you can take it back. It's the same thing. Thank you. Um let me just jump forward. Are there questions from the board? First of all, I don't have any. Are there questions or
comments from anybody in attendance either in favor of or in opposition to Mr. Garini's application for the Yes, sir. What is your name? I'm Paul Jas from Joan Sons. Uh I'm working with Kyle on the design part of this. Um, and I can ask the
building inspector uh as far as uh the bylaws go is that he Kyle does have the opportunity that if this gets denied that he could just knock the house down and rebuild in that same spot.
Understood. We understand that. Okay. But the application is to replace it with a much a larger structure. Absolutely. That's what we're going with. Right. Don't hold me for this, but I think it has to be on the same foundation. Exactly. The same foundation. Exactly 5 ft from the street. Yeah. So, which that would be
the because that would be the alternative, right? The alternative cuz the house is falling down. Is it? Yes. Understood. Understood. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of or in opposite? I assume that's in favor of Oh, yeah. Yeah. Anybody else to speak on this
application? For the record, none. Um, is there a motion to close the public hearing on this or do you have other questions? I don't have any other questions. Motion to close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Uh Mr. Tenor, how do you vote?
Yes. Mr. Wak. Mr. Noel votes yes as well. These are the rules. We have to speak the vote, believe it or not. Uh public hearing is now closed. Discussion on this. This is not a problem. Obviously, in my mind, it's a great improvement. It's an improvement. It's an improvement to it gets it off the
street. I can't It's hard to believe that there are are residences in town that are sitting right on the street. I mean, I I know there are a couple that I'm familiar with, but here's another one I wasn't familiar with. It pushes it back. The setbacks are all uh
corresponded to. The only problem is that it's a prior pre-existing non-conforming. That's not a problem. Agreed. Agreed. So, is there a motion under I printed out the statute just so I could get it right. It would be the
first, but I'm just going to I need a personal secretary, not you, to keep on my papers straight. You don't want me. I forgot my computer. You forgot your computer. I hope it's not somewhere in the parking lot. No, it's in my office 175. 1.6. Thank you. It is
1.6. And it's specifically part C. uh increase in non-conforming nature or inhabitable floor area by 25% or more. Determination may be granted by us only if there's a finding that the
appeal of the board of appeals that the reconstruction extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood in which the structure is located than the existing non-conforming structure. That's our question. Is there a motion
um in the affirmative that the planned construction according to the plan of record uh with the date recited um will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? I'll make that motion as stated. Second. Any further discussion? Nope. Mr. Denori, how do you
vote on that motion? Yes. Mr. Wisak, yes. Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Mr. Greeny, good luck to you. Thank you, John. We'll draw we have to draw up a written decision. Um and then it has to be posted at the town clerk's office and there's an appeal period after that.
You're off to the races. Uh thank you. Good luck to you. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you for your help, sir. Uh 22 lane. What's that? He was just asking me what the next one was. He's my secretary. That's the only thing I'm
good for tonight. I just I got it on my phone until my dies. There it is. I got it here. You got my phone. I got it. I have too many favorites floating around. 20 Sailors Lane. Mario Marquin. Yes, sir. Are are you here to speak for the
application? And can you uh quickly if you can uh run us through what you are trying to do? This is a R60 zone with again an undersized lot, front and rear setbacks, and a proposed
uh addition. and a plot plan dated. Let me just for the record get that August 14, 2024. Sounds right. If you could run through
what it is you're trying to do. Well, as of right now, the kitchen that that we have with my wife is very, very small. So, all we wanted to do is just take down that wall, go up maybe about cuz I have another lot there. Um, so just go out there like maybe about what
is it 18? We're going 16 out 18 across. The thing that my understanding is is there's going to be a pantry, but it it comes off the side 7 ft. That's where it's uh encroaching the setbacks. Oh, I see. So I think that's what the
discussion was about that pantry by 7 by7 is the pantry. Yeah, it's small. And the thing with with about it is that I have two trees in front of the and I also have a fence. So you're not even going to see that
pantry. That's why I don't I don't I I understand that maybe it is a little and then my porch is actually further than the pantry would be. I see that. So I that was grandfather as far as the porch does. Um yeah, if you look before the
porch. Yeah, the porch is actually a couple feet I think. And the distance from it would be a rear yard setback even though Sunset Road is right there. There's no way it goes, you know, there's no way to move that to the I
don't know if you call it the front or the other side. No, there's a bathroom window on the fast because that Yeah, I see that. Okay. So, it kind of since it's a small lawn, it's not more detrimental than No, I I just wanted to make sure I was right on that. Okay. It's basically a galley kitchen. It's 8 ft by seven. You you
know, this is So, either that or I'd have to move. My wife is getting to me. He's like, "Hey, we haven't done anything for, you know, 20 some odd years." So, and sorry if I didn't if this is maybe what you just asked. Is there a way to slide it down? Yeah. And
that's what I Is that what you're asking? Is there a bathroom window here? Is that what you Yes, exactly. Oh, that's the over. Yeah. See, this is this is this is the bathroom right here. So, we can't go over here. That's what you were talking about. I'd love to do that. There's no way. Yep. So, that's that's a
hardship. Uh, do we need a variance here as well as a finding? I think that would Well, I you don't know. Is it the porch is already It's already there. 5 ft. I mean, we don't know the history of that, but it's not our story. We can get into
that. Right. So again, this is a finding um under maybe a different section of 1.6 175 1.6. It's a pre-existing non-conforming lot and structure in an R60 zone. Uh lot
sizes unders sized of course. So which why is this necessary to come before us? Is this an increase in increasing by 25%? It is 25% according to the the notes on I didn't do that math so I'll take your word for it. I didn't either. I'm going
off next notes. Thank you. Okay. So, it's the same standard that was just applied. Yeah, that's right. I looked at that as well. So, it's like right here. Yep. He's wedged between I didn't see the I didn't see the porch.
See the porch with the That's a porch. Yeah, there's like an awning on it. Is there like an awning on the porch or something? Like a white awning? Oh, yeah. A little screen and thing that comes out. That's the porch. You call it a deck on the plane, but okay. You got it. A deck
with with some kind of structure on it. How big is that? It is. I mean, it makes sense. He has nowhere else to go. So, the standard is as described before whether this is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood in which it sits. And like I said, there's
two trees that we planted with my wife. They're huge and they're right in front of it. So, you you wouldn't even be able to see the Okay. The Okay. You're here just for protocol. Don't worry. Don't worry. Are there any
other questions of the board? Let me ask if there's anybody present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application. For the record, none. Uh motion to close the public hearing on this. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Okay. Mr. Tinori, how do you
vote? Yes. Mr. Wisak, yes. Mr. Noel votes yes to close the public hearing as well. any discussion on this? Nope. It's the same decision as previous, I think. And this doesn't offend I mean it it bothers that it it's going to be, you
know, 7 ft off of Sunset Road, but there is an existing structure that's closer at this time. We don't know the history of that, but we don't need to get into that either. Um I don't think this is a problem. I'll ask for is there a motion to
um approve the uh planned expansion at 20 cents sorry 20 Sailors Lane um as depicted on the plan of record of August 14 2024 because it will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. I'll make that motion as stated. Second. Any further discussion? Nope. Mr. Tori, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Wak. Yes. And Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Okay. Good luck to you. Again, we will get a decision uh written out and
posted and then there is an appeal period other than that. Another 20 days. That's the appeal period. Okay. Um you know, I don't know what happens with the building inspector's office during that. It's I mean you you would be doing something at your own risk if you
started it before then, but I'm going to let the building inspector deal with that. Uh good luck to you. Good luck to you. Thank you. Okay. Have a nice evening. Yeah, you too. Okay, let's see. Two together. Next on the agenda, 34 Woodland Road,
Live and Learn Adventures. That is you. Yes. Could you identify yourself for the record? Uh, yep. I'm Kyle Perno. Okay. Chris Perock. And can you tell us uh what it is that you are trying to do at 34 Woodland
Road? We have our uh attorney too. He was going to be on the Zoom. Um so I can He said I can call if you want me to give him a call. I'll bring your phone over here. Yeah. Who is that? It's Mark Lanza. Okay. We we're familiar with Mark Lanza. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Okay. We
can join him in. It's not a perfect system, but we'll make it work. Can you just put the volume up on speaker and put the phone maybe next? [Music] I also have paperwork. I can pass that
as well. Well, is that was that submitted? Yes. Yeah. I didn't know what you had copy on. So, Does it sound like that? While we're trying to call forward,
I can start explaining. Yeah. Well, first of all, this is a um this question here. There is a house. You are attempting to build a a new house and
you provided a um picture or schematic of that house. Yes. I'm going to try Mark one more time and if he doesn't answer I can give the whole background. Okay. Hey Mark, you there? All right. I'm going to put you
on speaker. Hold on one second. All right. I got you turned up. Great. Mr. Lonza. Hi. Um Noel here with the zoning board. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Trying to zoom in but technical
difficulties just uh the Zoom is apparently not functioning. Apologies for that. We can hear you. We can hear you on the phone and thanks for participating that way. Question here. The
application states and it looks like 161 and 162 are merged lots. Yes, they are merged for building purposes. they are not uh they're still separate lots as a matter of record
which deeds uh and that that's a very common situation very common occurrence where zone of course building is required to view them as one but as a matter of fact as a matter of law they are still two they can be separately
conveyed treated like any other mortgage you may any way that can be treated or double treated I'm not familiar with that precept that they could be conveyed separately. Um, I'm not doubting you.
You're, you know, you do this. I don't, but I've not heard that. That was not my understanding. But for zoning purposes, we have, we can only allow one residential structure on a lot. So, I'm not sure how we get around
that. Uh the exactly what we're asking for a variance. We asking for a variance to allow two structures on two lots. So if if the board were to grant a variance uh
to allow construction of a structure on 161, one left um 5,000 square ft 50 project. um the site plan to fix the setbacks which are consistent with the kind of bylaws for small walks. Um then
the board effectively do um is it duty which the board can do all the time like this? I am honestly not familiar with that. It's not something we've ever done and I think there is a
bylaw section saying that there's no use variance so that we could not permit a um a second residential structure on emerged lot. I u let me ask for uh assistance of u
board members. I just want to move to the assessor's map geo that's one lot it's recorded as one lot. Yeah. And what Mr. what attorney Lana is saying is that we can unmmerge the lots. That's not something I'm familiar with. Um Mr.
Lonza and the applicant. I I'll put it this way. If you would want us to consult town council who's not here, she was with us earlier in the meeting. We can do that and and continue this to the
next hearing date. I will offer you that. But from the reaction of the board members, we're just just sitting here um asking the questions initially. We're not uh closing this off at all, but I'm not sure we can do this. Go ahead, Mr.
URI. So, it looks like there was house just built on that property. Correct. Uh 34 Wooden. There's a house on the lot 162 there which we uh we you know purchased and we've just been it was just flipped by somebody but it was like not well done. So, we've been updating
that house currently. Is this the one to the right? That's just showing you the one to the right is the one that we're renovating. The lot 161 is the vacant land of the middle. So, is this an existing house? Yes. Yeah. I was going to say, all right, but the lot in the
middle is in the same ownership as this house. Correct. Uh, currently correct. That's part of what we're seeking the variance for. So, this land and this house is all in one ownership. Um, I'll let Mark speak to the legal side of it, but it's it's always had its own I don't
want to misspe, but it's always had its own deed reference, its own lot. You know, when the subdivision was done, it was designed to be its own buildable lot, but it was, as far as we know, and Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, it was always just owned by like the person who lived in the house.
So, I would have them reference Hill Street. I would say it's merch. It's the same thing as Hill Street. Yeah. Mr. Mr. Lonza, it sounds like to us our re an act initial reaction is that the lots merged so we can't permit a second
residential dwelling on the same lot. If you would like, we can consult town council on the question of unmerging them, but I don't think that's something that we've ever done at this board. Yeah. And I don't I don't know how it
would be done under the bylaw either. Um um well again I as you noted Mr. Chairman I've been doing this for a very long time. I've had a number of cases where lots have merged because the owner um didn't realize that the zoning change
caused them to merge but they're still separate lots of raised teeth. So um the owner has gone through the zoning board of fields. I had one in the town of Warren, Massachusetts 5 years ago. Almost an identical situation and he said, "Please, you know, um give me a
variance for Huntington so that the one uh that's merged into the other one can remain as a separate lot and build it." Um so that's what we're asking. Okay. And and it's no I don't think it's any coincidence that the house of 50 ft
of primary 5,000 ft that was required that is required in chapter 48 section 6 paragraph 4 for a sentence for small isolated residential lots. Understood. Um and and again legally um after registering deeds is several parts. You
know, if I were to convey this um if my clients were to convey this land to somebody else, I would refer to two lots indeed. One I might say um they're being conveyed as a single parcel, but you still have two separate plots or I might
say they're being conveyed as separate parcels uh for future uh very separation, whatever I might say. But uh now it would be different if there were a plan uh there were and and people do this all the time and our plan for the
court which merged and erased the line between in this case 161 162 and created essentially as a matter of record one lot people do that all the time that wasn't done I think I think if
the applicant tried to convey lot 161 won. Uh if it that was conveyed separately, the the buyer would have a pretty good lawsuit that he thought he was getting a buildable lot and it's not. Um according to zoning,
it might not be conveyed as a buildable lot. It could be conveyed as buffer extra land. Right. That's true. That's true. Okay. We could convey it to to plant trees, but um it can't be conveyed as available water unless this board.
Yeah. And I don't I don't think we have the power to do that. Um we are I'm offering to put this off till the next meeting if you would so choose, if you would u ask us to do so. Otherwise, I
don't think we can provide the relief that you're asking for. I think we would have to vote this down. I I I I I am extremely confident that you could do it. Whether you are convinced that you could do it right now is another matter. Um I I think it's a
good idea to uh continue the matter consult with town council. I would is counseling to be um publicly engage law. Um it yes, it's Amy Quessle. Okay. She knows me well and I know her. So, um I
would like to be authorized to communicate. She can't communicate with me once the board lets her. Yeah. I'm sure she and I can communicate very succinctly about this. You can try. She's she's been on trial. She's been on trial a couple of trials, I think, and
she's been very busy. But I think the best thing to do is to continue this till the next hearing date. So, we can get some clarification on that. But it's nothing that we've ever understood. We can do I can tell you that. Um All right. So, when is the next
meeting date? We don't have We didn't do June. Really? No, we just have tonight's schedule. Well, let's just end it tonight then. Not be the rest of the year. No, we can't do that. No, I wasn't looking for that. Actually, I was looking for my um notebook. Um,
what night works in June? Uh, three weeks, four weeks from tonight. I'm good with the 11th and the 25th. The 11th. I'm more comfortable with the 11th. I can't do the 11th. Can't do the
11th. I can't do the 18th. Oh, I if I could chime in here. I can't do the 25th. So, so before uh attending my daughter's wedding in Alaska, I won't be here. Alaska. Yes. I could do the 10.
We could hold a meeting in a lot. No, we can't do that. Um, what other uh is the fourth the fourth is the last Wednesday of April that we haven't discussed. Otherwise, we have to do a different day a week.
Yeah. But the fourth is a Wednesday, right? Right. But that's the last Wednesday we haven't talked about yet. That's too soon. That's two weeks, right? Yeah. I mean, we could I don't I mean Yeah. Okay.
I was on the 11th and the 18th. I have a client meeting. Can you do the 10th? I can do the 10th. I can do the 17th. Can you do the 10th, Mr. Lonza, which is a Yes. Tuesday night? Yes.
Yes, I can do that. I can do that. Is that okay, Brian? Tuesday night this coming up. I mean, I I think I'd have conflict with planning board, but uh since Paul does planning board, I'm going to still be here. This might be the only item on that agenda. Well, I
don't know. You tell us. Is there another seven applications waiting? You never know. But at this time, only that application. Okay. Why don't we Why don't we say June 10, Tuesday, right? June 10. and um
and everyone else should push them to a July date. Yeah, agreed. So, Mr. Lonzo, we're going to meet on June 10. Um we're going to continue this matter to June 10 and I'll try to be in touch with town council before then. I mean, I will be
in touch with town council before then. We'll try to clear up that u matter uh as a legal matter. Um I'm just not familiar with what you're saying. All right. Is there a motion to continue this till June 10 at say 7:00? I'll make
that motion. Second. No further discussion. Mr. Tenori, yes. Mr. Wisak, yes. Mr. Noel votes yes as well. So the hearing on 34 Woodland Road application will be June 10th at 7:00 to be followed
by one or seven more applications. Uh thank you, Mr. Lonzo. Thank you for Okay. Thank you. Yep. We'll clear it up. Thank you. Thanks, Mark. All right. Next item on the
agenda. 20 middle sex out. Thank you. Uh thank you. Yeah. Thank you guys for your understanding. We'll try to uh see if we can come together on it, but if not, yeah, we'll see. Understood. Thank you very much. All right. Good luck.
You too. 20 Middle Sex A Norton. This is an R80 zone with a proposed addition non-conforming to the lot size and front setback and one of the side setbacks. This would further encroach
the other side setback. And I have a question off the top to the left, which I think is the west on the plan. Is that Route 495? Yes. And it's vacant between you and that that is correct. Yes. As a matter
of fact, I handed out if you look at the little plan. By the way, that's what I Jack Jacobe 144 Bank Street where we're representing the applicant. And is this the out? Yes. Hi, I'm Carol Joy. Miss Joy. Okay. Thank you. Carol Joy. Yeah. I looked at Google Maps and I said that's
what I printed. That's what's on the other side. So I section I circled where the house is. The house is at the end of the street. Yeah. And the Norton Housing Authority is the owner of the abuing land. I saw that. But my understanding is is that because of of environmental
issues, they can't get farther back than this circle that they already have. What c What circle you pointed to? So culdeac at the end of the road, the Jacob. Oh, the culdeac. I see. So this is the housing authority. This Oh, that's the
housing authority. Yeah, this is my client's house that I circled. And here's Core 95. Yeah. So the budding land in my opinion could never be built on. Yep. And uh that was my that's what I was getting to. But uh thank you for
Yeah. And so my client had her architect and I handed you out the um the copies of these like you did the elevations of the proposed edition. Yeah. And so what I would suggest as you as
you said is that um this is an R80 zoning district and it's an 18,000 ft lot which was lawful in 1973 and is obviously undersized. Now uh in addition to that as you could see from the site
plan that our engineer prepared uh the the property is nonconforming in the sense that we only have uh I believe 25 ft here on this side. Yeah, it's not marked
on the plan, but I see and uh we the front is deficient as well. Uh and the lot size is deficient. So, there are three nonconformities to this lot. Yeah. And what we're proposing to do is to put
the twocar garage uh with a little office space behind it. And so what we did was we stepped it back and set back the addition so it is the proper distance from the street. And we looked at whether we could 50
somewhere else on the lot, but because of the septic system, we can't build over it. So therefore I do that uh our request and I think this is under B2 uh is uh to um let me just let me not
here B3 excuse me uh where it says that you can alter a single family house if the work does not further encroach on the nonconforming front side or rear yards but complies with current dimensional requirements for building coverage and building height. Right. We
do meet both of those, but I believe that we need the variance in order to be only 22.5 ft uh from the sideyard. But I submit to you that uh this land could never be
built on. It's wooded on that side of the side of the house. So, um I think this is a case where the nonconformity doesn't really cause a problem for anyone else. And Mr. Carmichael, did you
have something to add? I I was going to say that this is also a finding based on Yes. that which is the night for those findings under 1.6. Well, we get a lot of them. Yes. We got a lot of undersized lots. Yeah. So, uh pre-existing of
course. We would submit to you that uh the plans the architect has drawn um show a very nice addition to the neighborhood and nice addition to the house. Uh allows my client to have a two-car garage. That is that's my question for
the record. That's going to be a twocar garage that's planned and at the front and then the back is an office space for her. So no bedrooms, no bathrooms, no kitchen. Correct. There there will be a bathroom. Yes. Okay. Yes, I would. But no kitchen, no bedroom. No kitchen, no
bedroom. It's not a residence. No, it's just it's just for my office. That's it. So, you should write that as Yeah. So, the floor area, right? And I did have the septic system redone in 2014 with the hopes of building this addition. Um, and we only question accessory
apartments. Okay. Yeah. No, no, addition of this size. So, and the habitable floor area. I don't know that a is a garage habitable floor area. No, I don't think we've considered it. That like we don't count that. So, the office and bathroom,
I mean, this is a pretty standard size garage anyway, isn't it? Yes, I would submit it is it's going to be a strip out in the back of the garage in the office. And that is correct. That's correct. All right. That's not going to implement. Yeah. I'm just writing the decision for the building inspector to say that there would be no,
you know, bedroom or kitchen. Yeah. which is perfectly acceptable because that's our intention. So, I don't want to oversell this uh but I do want to answer all your questions, but as I said, uh Doug Andino has drawn
a very nice uh addition which I think credit to the neighborhood um rather than the detriment. As you can see, the house is Did you say that's 25 ft off the um right hand? What is that? the uh yes the right
hand uh is dimension is 25 ft and the front is 42.1 but as I said we stepped the addition back uh to meet the uh 50.5 to meet the requirement right okay noted uh questions go ahead
Lucas if I can just make that a requirement on every application for board right a table the table is very well done on this never get this. So it's awesome. We know rim. I just want to make sure I actually did a lot of this work in this town, other towns
around Adela, North Attboro, Planeville, Secon. And I know how I appreciate it because it makes it easy for me to figure out what's going on. It's a summary of what's the numbers and lines on the plan, which you know. Yeah, absolutely. Good. And it's my dream.
This the box is our dream. I didn't really know where to go with that. I was going to say the same thing, but I was I'm not trying to be wise, Scotty. I'm just um Got it. So, are there any other questions of the board? I don't have any. Okay. Is there anybody else here to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the application for the record? None. Uh motion to close the public hearing. I'll make that motion. Second. Mr. Toroy? Yes. Mr. Wasiac? Yes. Mr. No, I'll vote yes to close the public
hearing. Again, this is a in line for a finding under 1.6, but also I think we Yeah. Well, we we should do a variance as well. It sounds like we need a variance for the sideyard.
22.6 reduction from Mhm. 25 22.5 22 the front the back and the but the oh the side doesn't the side is there added to the left I gota yeah yeah see that's
it is a further encroachment there so I think it would be in line for a consideration for a finding and variance on that and for the variance the hardship being that uh behind they can't go behind because
of the um septic which was redone rather recently. Um and there's really no other place to put this um don't want to put it in front of the house that would encroach further and there's no room in the back of the house for this uh this
development or anything um approaching the size. Um is there a motion um under 1.6 6 that the um alteration of the current
non-conforming existing use pre-existing use will not render this substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I'll make that motion. Second. Any further discussion? Nope. Mr. Tori, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Wasak, yes. Mr.
Noel votes yes as well. Is there a motion for variance relief that the sideyard setback? Looking for the direction here. I think that would be on the I'll say I think it's the south. I don't see an arrow. I don't see an arrow
either. That's right. On the left of the plan as as viewing the plan. The side of 495. Thank you. Yeah. The side of 495 that the sideyard um requirement of 35 ft be reduced to no uh less than 22.6
six feet as shown on the plan of record. Um the hardship being the placement of the intended structure given the um septic and the rest of the uh property. I'll make that motion that
variance relief is appropriate down to 22.6 ft. Second. Okay. Yes. Discussion on that aspect. N um I don't think there's a question there as well. U Mr. Mr. Toro, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Wasak, yes. Mr. Noel votes yes as well.
Thank you. We will write it up. Thank you. Um, you don't have to move the septic system again. So, or redo it again. I know what that's like. I done it myself. Yeah. And I I did it really large for, you know, the chance of building an office in a bathroom if I
needed to. Well, that's I appreciate you time. Thank you. Inspector, of course, in the health department, but we'll write it up and then there's an appeal period. But good luck to you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation being so clear. We both We Yeah, we did both. Yeah, we
did. We did both. Yeah, we did separately. Yep. [Music] 260 South Washington Street. [Music] This is in an industrial
zone. The occupancy is uh use is commercial in an industrial zone. It is a large building on a large parcel that is now vacant land.
The plan is to construct a 52,820 ft building to be used for cold storage. It says seven units, but I think I counted eight for my variance for Westside yard setback
required is 30 ft provided 17.2. Um, was a new plan submitted just today for the presentation? It was uh it's
more it does have more detail, but I'm sure the applicants can speak more. Yeah. Okay. Well, it doesn't affect the variances. The date is May 1, 2025. It's called Unit Cold Storage
LLC by Kelly Engineering Group. It is stamped another property near Route 495. Right. I have a It goes right be Yeah, it's right before uh the hotel. Correct. Right on the left hand side. You're
going towards the Holiday Inn as you're going toward. Yes. Go your brick place and then the And here I did a Google map here as well. So it go in this slot of of land which this looks deceptively small. But I I have a question about the plan.
Um there's a blowup called a viewport showing I think the setback that's impacted. It shows to the corner of 17.2 ft, but what is the structure? It looks like there are staircases and doors that
come to 11 ft. I Yeah, I can address all of that, Mr. Chairman. And who is it that's presenting the application? My name is Ed Valenzola. I'm an attorney from Mansfield. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good. Go right ahead. And with me is uh Garrett Corvall from Kelly
Engineering Group. He's going to make a presentation on on some of the details of the plan. We've been working on this for a number of months now. Uh I've already been to conservation. I've met with Paul Gassepp your predecessor, the uh
building inspector before. um and you know get a got a lot of good feedback. Um so we're here tonight on a variance for the west side yard setback and that's it. So the applicant here is unit
cold storage LLC. The owner and you we file it with you has authorized me to um make the presentation on behalf of the applicant. Um they plan on now you said around 54,000. It actually now with the mezzanine we think the building is going
to be closer to 59,000 square ft. It's used for cold storage containing you're correct eight units approximately 6600 square ft per unit with parking and loading areas. So businesses, restaurant groups, small
uh distributors would use this um to store their cold goods and they might make a couple trips in and out each day with small box type trucks. Interesting. And there's there's demand for cold storage, enormous demand. This is a one of their smaller buildings um that
they're working on now, but they've there's a a great demand for this where um people, you know, whether it's restaurants or or stores are able to use these facilities to uh to keep their cold product. So, a group of stores or
one store might lease out space, one unit or two units. Exactly. And then have that as a large freezer space. Exactly. That's true. rather than taking up retail space or restaurant space, uh, kitchen space, seating. Hadn't thought
of this one for line of business, but it's interesting. Well, I've been doing this for 40 plus years, and I've not I've done the, uh, the typical, you know, storage units where people want to put their, you know, um, stuff from their house that they don't want to keep in the basement any longer. But this is
the first cold storage I I've done. We're going to be noticed cold storage capital of Massachusetts. We've got the ice cream uh facility. There you go. Right. Um I was hoping you'd be storing ice cream there and they Well, you already got one. That's okay. But this
is a pretty a passive commercial use. When you look at all the list of commercial uses, is a fairly passive one and that there's a couple trips in and out for perhaps for each unit uh per day and there's really no activity going on there. Um let me talk to you about the why we need the variance and the
challenges this lot has. So the lot size is 326,000 square ft and we only need 45,000 square ft. So the lot side is more size is more than ample. The frontage we have is 355 ft. You only
need um 150 ft. We comply in all respects with setbacks area uh requirements. The only variance we need is that west sideyard setback. Um we 30
ft is uh required. We propose 17.2 ft. And as you can see from the plan, that building is pushed right over up toward the west uh property line. Those little jet outs along the building are only steps from the emergency exit. So you
don't measure from the steps, you measure from the building because those steps are not used as ingress and egress for the building. They're only there because we had to have a second uh way of exit uh for emergencies and that's that's the only reason those are shown.
Um are those flat with the uh level with the ground? No, they come down. There's a couple. They are steps down. Fixed there fixed there. It's a fixed stair that's there and uh again it's not used for ingress. It's bas it's an
emergency exit and um you really can't go any place as you can see from the plan there's nothing behind that no place to go behind that building if you were to come out the loading docks the access where the trucks back in the parking areas are all in the front of the building. Let me let me just ask I'm
sorry for interrupting with this size lot and this size building it couldn't be it can't be moved just 10 ft. I'm gonna have Gary. No, that's this is what we the challenge because there's um so let me talk to the hardship. Yeah. And I think that'll answer your question.
Turning the trucks turning in and Well, go ahead. Yeah. So, you have in your application and as you know under chapter 48 this uh we have to satisfy several criteria. The first being circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape and topography. So, as you can see, we have an odd shaped lot,
right? It uh it's not rectangular. The frontage is a little odd shape. It goes up and then it turns. Then circumstances especially affecting the parcel but not the zoning district in general where the land is located. Those circumstances are bordering vegetated wetlands on the
parcel with applicable no disturbed buffer restrictions. So we've been in front of conservation. Uh Garrett will speak to that a little bit more. So we're really limited on where we can put that building in the driveways. The next uh point number three, literal
enforcement of the of the bylaw would involve a hardship financial or otherwise to the applicant. The hardship, this is a 326,000 ft lot, which could fit a much larger building on it if we didn't have the challenges with the wet land and the
odd shape. Um the uh so we easily exceed the 45,000 that's required. And um again that we've got a hardship two hardships with both the shape and the wetlands. Um and desired the last one desired relief can be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent of the bylaw. So as I said earlier all dimensional zoning requirements are to be satisfied. All area uh requirements are satisfied. Um and the size of the lot makes the relief
we're seeking with all due respect dimminimous. Um it's it's a it's minor relief and this is the only way we can get a building in and this is probably why this land's been vacant for so long. There are challenges there for parking. If someone would come in with a
different type of commercial use, a use that might require um you know more parking area and more green space. Uh they just you can't do it. So this is a perfect use for a spot that's been vacant for forever. Um, and uh, and it's, as I said earlier, it's a somewhat
passive commercial type use compared to mulch. So, is there a way to is there a way, and I'm sure you've looked at it, uh, to shorten the building to comply. Is there Yeah, if I may, can I turn it over? Yeah, I can. So, Garrett Horsefall, Kelly Engineering. So,
smaller. The way the refrigeration components work, you have to have two at a time. Um, so the only options here are pods work in tandem. So, we can't have 10 and anything under than eight. It doesn't just doesn't work for the the
applicant um numbers wise. Um sorry, say that again. You have to have them in twos or Yeah, the way the refrigeration and the paneling systems work. Um and the mechanical systems um basically they have to come in pods of two um with the
refrigerant coolant and Okay. No, but I'm saying the length like so where it's what 11 I if we shorten the length of the building but that's not going to get us away from the property line. How about the we can't go we can't go this way. The length of each pod I guess.
Yeah. So that each pod's what? 120 ft long. Yes. Right. Can you make it 10? No, you can't. It would get too narrow as it is now. They would like they would have preferred it be wider compared their prototypical building and units.
It would be much wider. So, we've shrunk this and Garrett can talk more to how the conservation, you know, how those hearings have gone. But we've shrunk this as much as possible to work and pushed it way over to the corner. We can't go over here. This is Yeah. No, I
get that. I do like the idea. It's away from the hotel too. I you know that was one of my concern. But but could the pod could each pod be I'm talking top to bottom be reduced in size top to bottom.
I think it would make the project just because again their prototypical building is built bigger than this. They built this is considered a small uh cold storage unit building. I mean, it's eight eight units is not a lot for the area they're going to try to
service. They'll fill this up quickly. Restaurants, other uh, you know, businesses in the area that want to have something like this. They would prefer this to be double the size. So we have shrunk it as much as possible for the numbers to work for this to be feasible
um and to get away from the you know the buffer areas and the uh um and you know to make the parking work as well because we have to have trucks back into these spots. Yeah. I do have one correction cuz we've had this issue before about
stairs. Yeah. So in the zoning bylaw Oh, you found it. There's a definition of structure. Yeah. a man-made arrangement of materials requiring a fixed location on the ground or attached to something permanently located on the ground. The use of all structures shall conform to
the provisions of this bylaw, but only structures projecting above ground level other than fences, customary minor accessories such as electric and telephone poles shall be subject to the location requirements. So you are actually looking for a variance of 11 ft, not 17. I agree. Okay. So when I
spoke with uh your predecessor, we talked about this and because it's not being used, it's only for emergency exit. Well, that's I mean if if I just want to make sure that we have a correction because we tend to agree with you and that's why I it's opinion I I
would have recommended if they were going to do the variance do it to 11 ft anyhow because listen, you know, the application is within an industrial park. It's industrially zoned. uh you know there's not you know we've had the cold storage facility that we talked about we had the ice cream place we had
a lot of other issues because you know we had residences directly behind it the only question that I have is that hotel and what I don't want to have happen down the line is the issue we have with the ice cream spot well the hotel's on the other side of the variance yeah but
the reefer trucks are going to be right here would you know what I mean but it's industrially zoned I agree I agree so So question I had, what is the not perview either, so I get it. Yeah. Yeah. The hotel, I mean, they may be here. They
could be here to speak up if they were concerned that they're I don't think they're here. What What is immediately? That's a That's a narrow slot. 11 ft. I'm thinking of access to emergency via a fire truck or something. Can't get a
fire truck in 11 ft. So what's on the border there? What's actually on the border? It looks like there's a road on the other property. It it accesses the abunding industrial uh property um to the west of their main driveway there and just between the building and that
property line will just be grass and seed. Um per request of the um water department um there will be a loop of around the building. Um so the water line will be going through there as well. We we have had discussions you know with water um sewer um etc.
But is there a fence or a barrier on the border? Yeah, I saw I see the picture and I have that picture. Just a tree line. It's a tree line. Yeah, it's just a tree line or a shrub line or there's no uh are there going to be any trees or any tree line between you and the other driveway once this project is completed?
Yeah, the buffer will still um the tree line along the wall line will still be there. Okay. I'm wondering about emergency vehicles again, but I guess it's open on the other lot. I mean the fire that was a question that the fire department had it
it hadn't been answered on the portal but uh Deputy Chief Robbins did ask oh will there be a I didn't see that. What is the question? Uh let me let me pull it up here so I don't misspeak. Yeah, I don't think that was in our packet.
Uh I don't see a hydrant location on the plan. Are you planning an emergency access roadway around the building? and then some talk about Norton swept analysis for parking lot. There was no response. Okay. Um I'm just asking the
question uh voicing a concern if if there's a need to get a fire truck there. You can't do it on the property. That happened at um 195 Mansfield A that just right next on the other side of TPC's entrance. That building that went
up across links. Mhm. They put a road in behind them. You can drive around that whole building. Oh, I think there was a similar concern actually. That was a concern. That's right. That came from fire that you that they wanted to be able to drive around the whole building. We didn't have that project. No, but I
You saw it on planning board. Yeah. So, I'm just bringing that up. Is that a concern? Uh I It's a concern. Is that something that would prevent us from granting that um in these dimensions? Um, I go ahead.
I mean, I I think in all being prudent, we should at least I know they haven't respond. Do they have a certain amount of time to respond? Fire department. No, he uh that wasn't the fire department. That was the fire department posted the question I just read to you. It has not been responded
by any applicant cuz we've only enforced that under special permit, right? Things like that, right? This isn't special permit. If it was special permit then we have our checklist checklist. So we will be going obviously to the planning board um
for site plan special permit um and obviously um you know we'll be reviewing with all these departments again. Yeah. Um so this is sort of our first you know formal formal stop. We did go to conservation a few months ago for an ORAD to confirm all the wetlands on
site. Um and you know those filings were forthcoming. We have we have done well but that's it. It it doesn't matter. It's subject to them anyway. They can't do if you grant the variance and the planning board is going to scrub this right as far as parking and ingress
egress lighting and including the fire trucks and and there is it's a roadway in back of the boundary anyway. That's not to say somebody can't put up a wall there or a fence certain fence there. But it strikes me that fire departments
I mean you write the decision tree we have a concern but it's not there's a tree line as well. I mean there there could be trees there as well. So we can't dictate you know clear space of 30 ft for a fire engine. It's not a residential development.
Right. There are going to be there are going to be fire suppression measures that the planning board is going to and the fire department is going to be part of anyway. I assume in an industrial building. So I'm not trying to I don't want to get out ahead of ourselves. No
closer than 11 ft. And then we can make a note in the file that says we have concerns, but it's not our perview, so it doesn't matter. I tend to agree. I'm just asking the question out loud. That that would be my suggestion is how it's written because if you say exactly 11
feet and they end up having to move it two feet out, would they then need to come back? So is no closer than we've done that in the past. So to the um could even say to the um you know egress
the west side egress on the west side, right? You mentioned the west side. So I'm not saying I have a problem with it. I'm just bringing it up. Um, are there other questions from the board? I mean, it's a it's a good project. It's revenue for the town, obviously. It's in the
right area. It's in the right area, right? Exactly. Um, I don't suggest that we should do anything but approve it with Do you want to do it public? Yeah. Yep. Certainly. Um, could I ask if there's anybody else
to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application? I got a question. Yes. I don't know if this pertains to that, but like you know how when you come out of Karma's way, it says trucks go right. Are the trucks going to enter through the industrial park? Are they going to come through Washington? Through the
through the chair, if I may. So um we have a traffic study ready to be filed with the planning board. Um there's an increase of about 10 trips um at the peak hour um from this site. Very minimal traffic generation. And there will be signage posted similarly
um to commerce way as you noted that everybody's routed back to mile standards through tong. I'm not familiar with those signs but does that answer your question? That's police enforcement. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean the signs help I live on crane.
They do help but they don't prevent. I get coming down my road. Absolutely. Not to say Yeah. I mean they have they have other things that they have to do. I want to get right out of there and get to the highway. Coming in on the 122 time trying to take a left on Washington.
Tight corner. But yeah, but not if there's a sign. Okay. Any other questions or comments from um anybody in attendance? For the record, no. Um board. No. Is there a motion to close the public
hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Mr. Tori? Yes. Mr. Wazak? Yes. Mr. Noel votes yes to close the public hearing as well. Um this is for variance relief uh for the
sideyard setback uh to be no closer than 11 ft excuse me on the west side as shown on the plan of record
um dated May 1, 2025. Um the hardship being the location of substantial wetlands and the odd shape of the the lot. Um it is in the industrial zone and it
borders Route 495. So there's little chance of problems in that direction. Um, is there a motion to approve variance relief such that the side yard setback on the uh west side shall be no
closer than 11 ft to the emergency eress structures as shown on the plan of record and note that we have some concern although it's not in our purview that there access for fire
vehicles. I'll make that motion. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Um, Mr. Tori, how do you vote? Yes. To grant the variance. Yes. Mr. Wasak, Mr. Noel votes yes as well. Okay. We'll draft it up as best we can. Uh, good
luck to you in your next uh departments. It's an exciting project. We thank you for your time, Brian. Thank you for all your help. You're welcome and assistance. Appreciate it. Good luck to you. Thank you very much. I got a question for you guys. What was the guy that was in the house? What was
he trying to do here tonight? Yeah, the one up the road. Oh, yeah. He was building a new house just Yeah. He was going to he was going to demolish one house, move it back. All right. And then the next one was
another lot. He had the garage, the house, the middle lot. What was he trying to do with that? He wants to build another house, but take the one down and make one. No, he was wanting to keep the one that was there. He wanted to make it what seemingly we say is one
lot. He wanted to make it two. Exactly. Thanks for your help. Have a good night. Have a good night. Thank you. Okay. Brian had to go retrieve something upstairs. He's going to be back in a moment. I'm Lucas, by the way. Ed, we have I gota tell you during this
whole meeting I realized that he's like that guy. I'm like is that the building? I'm like I'm just Ed Bailey. Ed Bailey Tom Noel. Nice to meet you guys. Lucas, where'd you come from? Uh town of Halifax. Yeah, you're welcome and thanks for
helping out tonight. No problem. When did you join? When did you join us? Uh let's see. About a week and a half ago. Okay. I had not heard. Not neither did I. I literally as like through the whole thing I'm like, "Wait a minute. I think that's our building inspector." Me and
Nick essentially swapped spaces. He uh I thought he went to Bridgewwater. He went to West Bridgewwater. So he that's next town over. Oh, okay. And then uh I came here. We both got closer to home and Where do you live? You live
very good. Perfect. Yep. Welcome to the chaos. Welcome to our nightmare. Is that still recording? It is. Yes, it is. Let's close the meeting. No, we got to do we got to do those. Did you read the what?
Did you read the um minutes? Minutes. I'm not doing six minutes. Sorry. June one situation. Why don't we take them all as one? No, not tonight. I did them all. They're good. You're proud of yourself. Not tonight. They're good. They're good. So, you ready? They're
small. Listen, everything's recorded at this point anyways. I know. I'm just like, great. Good job. Maybe that's what Lucas went upstairs to get. I didn't print them. Take them all as well. I didn't print them out. I'm fine. It's all recorded. Are the minutes um listed
out here? Yeah. Hold on. I'll tell you right now. They are. They're here on the agenda, I think. Just so we can get them off our plate cuz if we don't, we asked him to email them to us and I feel bad. I know. The next time they'll be coming a for it. Yeah, you're not going to get your
Christmas bonus if you don't do them. Christmas bonus. Yeah, be good. So June, I actually ran them all, believe it or not. Oh, we should actually July and August and September because I'm really not around. So it's
June 10th. June 10th is good. That's a Tuesday. Wait, no, no, no. Yeah, June 10th. Yep. Which hopefully it's just it should be just that one matter. I'd be surprised if they extended from that. What's July look like?
Uh, I'm driving to Colorado for 2 and a half weeks. Oh, yeah. Good. Never been there. So, that's nice. You're going to be It's going to be Is it going to be weird when I'm in your pool and you're not there? Oh, please. Is that going to be weird? Please. Why is Jim in my pool? Go for it.
Um, so I would say I am back the 16th. I could do the 16th. Yeah. So it' be 7:16. We can do 7:16. Yes. Um, Brian 7:16. July
16. Let me uh I can um try. Yeah. Yeah, I can do that. 16th or 24th? It's I mean 23rd. It's up to you guys. Either one. I can rather do 16. Yeah. Space it out. All right. But August is where it's going to be. August is a problem on the
13th for me. I could do the night before or I could do the 20th. Have to be the 20th. I'm away that week. Oh yeah. 6. So it have to be the 20th. Can we do August 20? Okay.
Um I'm in Newampshire. Yes, I can do the 20th. Yep. Okay. September 17. Oh yeah. September wide open. Kids are back to school. 17 is good for me. Uh, it's my
daughter's birthday. Oh, no. Let's not do the 17. Kill me. Bring her. Yeah, she already has me picking up food. Okay, I can do either or 10? Yeah, I can do the 10th. Sure.
Okay, good. Brian, you get all those dates? I do. Okay. Now, while you're away, we conspire to approve the minutes as written. Yep. All take one vote. All of them.
Doing them all. Throw all the dates out. January 17th, 2024. Go ahead. Jesus. January 25th, uh, February 13th, February 21st, March 11th, April
11th, May 16th, and June 20th. All of 2024. Those minutes have been reviewed and are acceptable to the board. Yeah. Make a motion. I make a motion to approve send minutes. Uh second. All
those in favor. I can't do that. Mr. Toro, how do you Yes. Mr. Wazak? Yes. And Mr. N votes yes as well, even though we're not on Zoom. Nope. But okay. So, those meeting minutes are fine. Thank you. Welcome. I'm proud to say that we
got through this. I'm actually surprised I saw the agenda tonight. I was like, well, me too. But well, we did what we needed to do and we were fairly uh organized and prepared. So, good island out of our life. Good
job. Not the wind. Which one? Island. Until they're not until they're back. Yeah. Well, we have a modification. Um, thanks. Is there anything else? So not sure. Uh so so when
just go on how much how much money you How much do it? 200. So perfect approved. So an applica we just had him right. So when he applied he applied for it twice. So applied what? Oh the application. So
because of our system, if you click on both a variance and a finding, it charges you both for 200. So I'm returning 200 because it's 200 for the application for each individual. Has this been approved? I mean, this is
okay. This isn't going to get us fired. I checked with uh Please do Maryanne and I explained it. Okay. But application. Yeah. I believe Brian. I believe I don't even check if you want. I don't find any
need to. I don't want to get you in trouble. Um, right. No, just No, it's fine. That's good. Yeah. Is there a motion to approve the return of $200 to Mr. Lza, who we just heard from? Yes. Yeah. Approve. I'm Yes. Second. Motion.
Do we all sign this or just me? Just you. Oh, great. Yeah. You get fired. You go down. Yeah. Thank God. with my name on it. I'm the new guy. Yeah. Yeah. Welcome to our new building inspector. Good to meet you and thanks
for Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for taking part. We're We're an okay group of guys. So So far so good. Yeah. Thanks very much. And I'm going to call the meeting adjourned at 8:50.