today's meeting here and I think we have three on for continuance or yeah three three continue cases here today I'm just going Uh start very
briefly with 90 John Carver Road because we had another request for an extension. So we'll handle that very quickly. Um same reasons. Does anyone want to make a motion to >> continue to to July?
>> Well, they said they actually could continue for a couple months, but let's do July just in case, I think. >> Okay. All right. So, I'll move to accept the request of the applicant on um number Z26490 John Carver Road um to continue um its
hearing until the July meeting. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> All right. So, before we begin today, if anyone would like to speak today, please stand and
raise your right hand. Um going to take your oath. You mean if you have to ask a question, >> uh, if you want to speak on any of the cases today? Yeah. >> If anyone's >> the testimony before this board will be held um, I actually don't have that
before me. Uh, testimony be before this board will be taken under oath. So if you want to speak, I swear the testimony given before me will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The response is, I do. >> I do. >> I do.
>> Okay. >> So, let's start with 107. Yeah. 107 Wuburn Street. A continuence from last time or two times. >> Good evening. I'm attorney Josh Leam here tonight on behalf of 107 Wuburn Street. This is a continued hearing from
the April 6th date. Uh to give a brief summary of the context, uh we did appear that night and we presented our primary case. We also submitted a memorandum and and had a PowerPoint presentation. Uh we did propose continuing for two months so that we could discuss some changes um
with Mr. Tucker and Miss Dominichi, the Abutters. Uh relative to the site plan, uh we did since prepare a revised site plan. Um sent them on May 4th. I did meet with Mr. Tucker this evening just to discuss it. And we do have an additional change from that meeting. Nothing that should I think hold up.
It's more just a condition we can include in the decision. And that leads to this evening. So with regards to the revised plan, which should be in your packet, uh major updates, we've reconfigured the parking lot. The existing parking lot was a commercial lot provided for 18 parking spaces. Uh
it also had spaces that face directly into the neighbor's home. And so what we've proposed doing is reducing the total pavement by about 932 square feet. Reconfiguring the parking spaces so that none will actually directly face into
the home. Uh this also allows us to increase the green space by 932 square feet. We're adding a row of arbor vite along the property line uh to create a vegetative buffer. And the additional thing we proposed from our meeting today was to add a privacy fence. So it'll be
along the inside line of that arborite. Um the fence that we're proposing is similar to the one at schoolhouse commons up at the St. Agnes project that my client had done. Um so it was a quality fence. It's done very well. So it's a similar fence to that that we would install and we can provide an
updated plan as a condition of the decision if you are inclined to vote tonight. Uh with that, that's essentially where we are at this point and I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have. I'll open up for questions for the
number one. >> Just for context, I can't picture the existing fence of the other project. Do you know like about is it solid? Is it wood? >> It is it's a privacy fence. So, it's a solid fence. I can't remember if it's if it's wood or if it's a a different type
of material, but um it was approved by the by this board when we actually did that project. And so, it was something that we figured out. I guess I can also note that I have in communication with Andrew McNichols who did prepare a draft decision um that I
reviewed. I think the only comment would be to to add in that this fence would be a revision um from what he had prepared. Sounds like you addressed most of the concerns, if not all the concerns from before. Um, I don't have any questions,
but I was here for the meeting. So, if anyone has any additional questions, the main issue that we discussed last time in April um, was really that parking lot issue. I think the neighbor was concerned that they were going to
create a whole lot more noise in the medical facility. Although medical, you know, 9 to5 really isn't feasible for this property anymore. Um, and I think sounds like you've addressed those concerns. >> And if it helps, the required number of
spaces would be nine. We are still providing 13. We're reducing it by five. So, it's still going to it should not create any parking issues. We should have sufficient surplus parking. So you're putting a fence in front of the U arborites, >> right? It's going to be like layered. So
the neighbor is >> correct. There'll be a fence along the lot line right where their chain length fence is now. And then on the inside of our lot line will be a series of arborite as well to create a vegetative buffer. >> So that's where the two cars are parked tandem there. >> Correct. Yeah, we have that done more of
a parallel basis against correct. Okay. Oh, there it is. I was looking for it. >> Yeah, >> I saw it earlier today. >> Oh, you do have a chain link fence. Oh, so you're going to put that? Yeah. Okay.
>> So, we'll put our privacy fence on our property line side along that exact fence. So, I'm assuming that you had a conversation with the neighbor. >> We did. And they are here this. >> Yeah. >> Any further questions?
>> Okay, I'm going to open it up to public comment if anyone wants to speak on this property. >> I don't think you got sworn in. Did you? Oh, you did? Okay. Come on up. Sorry, I keep forgetting that
>> 77 High Street. We're buttoning the7. I have talked to Josh Le and stuff there. Uh we're we're not happy about it, but we're kind of just doing what we can do and stuff there. Uh I just had one question that I brought
up there. Trash. Uh what is going to happen with the trash? Is it going to be a dumpster? Is it going to be >> I would have to talk to Andrew for six units. I'm not sure if it's going to end up being a small dumpster, if it would be more of the the pull out variety
>> because that was the other consu going in and stuff like that then where it was going to be located and stuff like that. >> Yeah. >> So, >> I can commit it's not going to be along your property line. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I'm not too worried about that. I'm just worried about trash general because of rodents and everything there all around the area and
stuff. it's just drawn in because where the medical building was, there wasn't that type of trash, that household trash and stuff like that going on. So, that was one of my concerns there and stuff. So, but uh yeah, so it's just yeah, we
just me and my wife died. We got some medical things going on, stuff there, and it's just we just don't have the sources, the power, and to fight it. So, we're kind of just packing up and falling back. So, all
righty. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this case? All right. I'm going to close public comment. Um, so we did go through all the variance criteria last time, so I don't think that we need to today. Um, all that's
left is really to vote. Um, so if someone feels strongly they want to make a motion. >> Did you guys have a chance to review the draft decision? I did send that over. Andrew did add a handful of conditions
in there. Um, you guys can change them. They don't have to be set, but that's part of kind of like what we Josh for. And if you like put this up on the screen if you want >> this one through seven. Um yes.
>> Did you see? >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Number one is the basic standard that we put into our decisions. There is uh just to address some of the neighbors concerns. Um one of the
conditions that is recommended to us here from the town um concerns trash removal and delivery. Trash removal and delivery to the site shall be prohibited before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.
All these look like good recommendations. Did um did you have a chance to discuss if the affordable units were >> Yes, absolutely. So, we're proposing two affordable units um at 60% AMI. Okay. >> And that's included within the
conditions. The only change that I would have is the new one just to add under number four that we will also do the privacy fence. >> Thank you. Once everyone has times to take a look at one through seven. >> I actually haven't seen that. >> Oh, here. Do you want to
>> Did that get emailed out? >> It's the last email. >> It came >> the very first. >> Yeah. >> I didn't get an email about that. >> I didn't get that. >> So, you guys should have >> Oh, >> it was with the Yeah.
>> Yeah. with the continuence >> the decision and revised variance criteria 28 this morning. >> Yes, this 28 also have it up on >> I have it up on the screen as well.
That's okay. Okay, good. Do you want to take a look? >> I I have it on my laptop. I move to grant the petition is Joshua Leam on behalf of
Rick. >> Who's your client? >> 107 Wman Street LLC. >> Okay. on behalf of 107 LLC a variance from sections 77 3 7.3
present to match general law se chapter 48 section 10 under writing zoning bylaws section 4.5.2 6.3 and 7.4 four. Sorry, ignore the first two. I think it's just Do we need a special this one?
>> That's why. Okay. I move the to grant the petition of Joshua Leo on behalf of 107 Street LLC of variance from sections 5.3.2,63 and 7.4 um pursuance of mass shar law chapter 48
section 10. um in order to return the property 107 Luburn Street or to convert an existing non-conforming medical office into a new non-conforming multif family residential dwelling um and a single family district
on the property at 107 Uber and street um ready Massachusetts um subject to the conditions that or subject to the conditions that um Andrew Meno has drafted in the draft decision dated
do you have a date >> June 1st >> June 1st 2026 um >> with the additional privacy >> yes additional private sense under section 4 section C um >> I don't think we need to read through
all of them here so okay sounds good um and all the usual um conditions apply which are all laid out in this draft decision um seconded. >> And we're going to reference a plot plan two here. Uh 107 Wuburn Street prepared
by John D. Sullivan the third. >> And yes, and so this was revised 5426. And we're also going to get an updated one from Attorney Leam that shows the privacy fence. So we'll condition it
upon that. I also want to note that attorney Leon verbally committed the dumpster wouldn't be along the fence line. So, >> and we had a second. >> Yep. >> All those in favor. >> Thank you very much. Have a nice
>> All right, moving right along. We already did 9 John Carver Road, so we're going to end with 51 Forest Street, which again is a continuence from May, I believe. >> May. Yes. >> Yes,
>> I did get the email amend. It went into my trash for some reason. >> Not that it's trash. Do any of you need any copies of the amended documents that uh I provided? >> If you've got copies, I could use them because they're living on my phone.
>> I have so many copies. >> These are not the right doctors. How about sake? Hang on a second. I have too many. >> No, I'll look on somebody else's. That's fine. Here we go.
He's got >> for you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Sure. >> For you. >> Thank you. >> For you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Got them. Sure. >> Absolutely. I've got them.
You're all mine. Very good. >> All right. Uh I also uh I have photos of the lot. This is just to help you visualize. Yes. >> No. >> Oh, okay. Very good. Uh this is just to help you visualize uh the space of the
lot. And I am not an engineer, but I did also take like a little bit of a measurement of the garage of the um the driveway uh to the best of my ability. Uh, and I just wanted to give you guys the idea that when we're talking about
the garage here, we are talking about a space that is already the the driveway. It is the width of the driveway. It's not going to be bigger than the driveway. It is like almost what? Sorry, >> that the driveway is 24 ft. Right tree. >> Right. Uh, not even right before that tree, just right on the driveway line. Really?
>> Basically, just smack dab right on that driveway line. So, just keep that in mind as we talk about uh the property and the variance that I am requesting. So this is a continuence of course from last time uh and uh the relief is unchanged, the plan is unchanged but I
have come bearing more uh evidence to uh support the variance criteria and I have also revised the variance criteria that I have submitted with the request. Uh so in brief I would like to go over those very quickly. Um and then we can I will
open up for any questions. So first of all uh the first variance criteria is to describe the circumstances relating to the soil condition, shape or topography which especially affect the land or structures in question but which do not generally affect the zoning district in
which the land or structure is located that would substantiate the granting of a variance. Uh so the property is on a pre-existing non-conforming lot significantly deficient in total area and lot frontage. So, I have 76 feet of frontage. I'm supposed to have 100, but
that's just the way my property line is. Uh, and it is also 13,000 square feet, uh, roughly uh, where it should be 15,000. Uh, these physical circumstances, which affect a large amount of the S-15 district where my property is located, are further
complicated by a unique tapering lot shape. This unique tapering lot shape allows for near but not complete compliance with the required sideyard width as specified in section 6.3 and applied to attached gardens garages,
excuse me, in section 5.5.1.2A. The second criteria is to describe how the literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance relating to the circumstances especially affecting the land or structure in question would involve substantial hardship financial otherwise to the petitioner. This was a subject on which
the board had several questions during the last meeting and so I opted to be very verbose in this section of the hardships that I believe that are presented here. So literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would require the ped proposed
garage be either relocated and detached or redesigned. Recolocating and detaching the garage inflicts significant hardship both financial and operation. The next most feasible location for the plot for the garage uh based on uh my my builder's
assessment uh appears to be somewhere in the rear of the plot. However, my builder estimated that location and said it would impose an additional $33,500 to $57,500 of additional site work. You can find
that in the uh formal contractor assessment uh that was prepared by the prepared and signed by Catalano Construction Group. Uh it's attached to the document. Um, when asked for an assessment, Cutalong Construction additionally raised site safety and
feasibility concerns regarding to the proposal to relocate the garage to the rear of the property. Uh, you can find that also attached as the contractor site safety and feasibility addendum. Basically, the long and short of it is they're concerned that if they try and bring their machinery into my backyard
that they're going to get too close to some of the existing structures and so those structures will need to get modified as well. Um, in addition, there are a number of smaller hardships that add up. This is a little bit fuzzier, but I do want to bring them to the board's attention. The
new location uh introduces 500 to 650 ft of a new imperous driveway. Vehicle traffic would regularly be channeled past the first floor windows of both 51 Forest Street and the neighboring property. Routine use of the structure at the new location required traversing 40 to 50 feet of exterior walkway in all
weather. And we know how the weather can get. Uh there is an ingground sprinkler system that would need to be removed or substantially altered. There is a raised bed garden that would need to be relocated or otherwise have its access be hampered. And the light in the rear yard of the property would also be
substantially affected by the construction of the detached structure. Redesigning the garage therefore may seem simpler on paper how to do so. However, to do so carries its own hardship. Catalon construction quoted 24 ft x 24 ft as the minimum size for a
twocar garage. Therefore, to redesign the garage would be to reduce the size of the garage from a two-car garage to a different type of garage, a onecar garage or one and a half car garage, something along those lines. Taking together with the previous statement of hardship, literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance precludes the
possibility, barring significant hardship, of a twocar garage entirely on the property, a clear blow to the value of the property based entirely on the tapered nature of the lot. to point at Reading's own housing demographic statistic currently published to the town website. As of
2020, the vast majority of households in Reading are family households. Forest Street is especially a neighborhood of family households, holding to its proximity within walking distance of Reading War High School, Arthur W. Koolage Middle School, and Birch Street Elementary School. If you drive down Forest Street, you will see numerous
two-car garages. They are necessity for family properties. I purchased 51 Forest Street from a family. I intend to raise a family at 51 Forest Street and beyond my time on 51 Street, I am certain I will not be the last family to whom the construction of a twocar garage would be
both necessary and beneficial. The third criteria is to describe how desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Relief may be granted by the uh relief may be granted by granting the variance of 5.1 ft allowing the 9.9 ft
setback at the front corner of the proposed structure. This does not submit uh inflict substantial detriment to the public good as the setback is only 9.9 ft at its narrowest growing to 14.7 ft at the end of the structure owing to the tapered nature of the lot. You can see
this in the revised uh what's the name of the plan? That one over there. plan. >> Um, you can see this on the revised plot plan. Uh, survey, that was the word I was looking for, the revised survey that, uh, I've I've attached here. Um,
even the proposed 9.9 ft setback is nearly doubled the 5ft setback required for hatched garages under section 5.512C of the running violence. Additionally, the project maintains a total lot coverage of only 15.4% 24% which is well below the 25% maximum allowed ensuring
the structure does not overcrowd the lot or negatively impact the surrounding neighbors. Uh I also submitted that the abuter most affected by the relief has reviewed the certified plus plans and architectural plans has offered their verbal and written support for the proposed variance. This was under the
impression uh that they were going to provide a signed letter. However, they chose not to do that and are instead here in person. Uh finally uh I would like to describe how desiraability may be granted without nullifying or substantially deraggating
from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance of the town of Reading which is the fourth criteria required. Uh and I would like to claim that under section 1, no provision of the purpose of the zoning bylaw is violated by the relief requested. And in fact, the requested relief supports the zoning bylaw's
mission, namely by being positioned directly at the end of an established driveway that is exactly the proportions of the garage. Uh the proposed structure necessitates the smallest amount of destruction of natural resources, the lowest impact on drainage, and is plainly the location that most enhances the beauty of the
neighborhood. Does the board have any questions? Under question three, you mentioned relief by granting a variance of 5.1 ft. Where is that measurement on the plot plan? >> Well, 9 9.9,
>> right? But his first sentence references because it would be >> minus >> because that's the difference between what you're supposed to have and what you understood. Thank you. this the the site work item. >> Mhm.
>> So the two different prices that he sent you. >> Mhm. >> It's one where the garage would be in its place now. >> No, that is in addition to the price of the garage. This is before he even pours the foundation. what would he need to do
extra for uh the the additional work to put it in the rear of the >> So, is he saying, let's just take the first one, tree removal, stump grinding. Yeah. >> Is he saying between 35 and 65? >> Yeah, he's giving you an estimate because he he said that he didn't know the exact numbers until he was like on
the property doing the work because that sort of thing can vary depending on >> So, it's not two different prices. >> Not to my understanding. Yeah, it is an estimate >> because that's a big estimate, you know, from 35 to 65, 8,000 to 14,000.
>> Yeah, I can't speak to >> I because it does say from between 33. >> I would love to estimate jobs like that. >> I wish he was here. materials can kind of fluctuate a fair amount
to be anywhere,000. >> The um this is if you put the if you where was he estimating putting that garage like where in the back because I see you have trees back there, right? >> I do. >> You do? Yeah. Yeah. He was estimating of putting it about squarely in the rear of
the property. You can kind of see on the plot plan. Unfortunately, I don't have >> Yeah. Over to the left. >> It was Yeah, it's to the left. It's about 15 ft from the deck, 15 ft from the shed, about squarely in the middle of the back there. >> Yeah. And thanks for that measurement.
See, that makes most sense cuz you're right there almost complying. >> Yeah. >> You know? >> Yeah. Right. >> Cuz I didn't know if that was still like >> Right. Like 10 ft. Sure. Yeah. No, no, it's it's very very close. >> So, basically, it's your front corner
and then >> Yeah, >> that's the most dramatic. >> How about the tree that's in the driveway? >> Um, >> towards the front of the garage and the left side. >> Yeah, towards the front and the left side. Uh, yeah, I I believe that that
will likely need to be uh removed, but it probably won't need to be removed literally for the construction of the garage. >> Yeah. Um, it just might need to get removed because we don't want it hanging over the garage structure. >> Well, I'll just say that you you
obviously listened to what we were saying last time and you addressed everything. So, thank you. It >> was a great presentation. >> Thank you. >> I knew a little bit more about what to expect this time around. >> Yeah. The only thing confusing was this uh the amount of construction between
>> Yeah. >> Um also I you said you've sent the set of plans. >> Uh yes. Um previously uh there was a question about moving the windows from the easterly side to the northerly side
of the property. Uh so I had my builder draw lines for doing exactly that. seems prudent to protect the privacy of my neighbors. >> And what do they put in a a lally column right in the middle of the garage? >> I guess that's what they need to do for
support. >> Cuz it's only one story. >> Yeah. Maybe the idea is that I can expand it upwards because it's now so supported. I don't know. I could not tell you. He he told me at one point he was like, "This is this is important and you need it."
And that was basically what I heard. >> Well, they do have engineered um joist. You go across with engineered joist 24 ft. >> That's max, right? >> Yeah, I think so.
>> You could also go with metal I beam >> and I put a be >> a little bit more but >> instead of having a post in the middle. >> It's a good >> It's been done. >> Again, thank you for taking the time to update the criteria. I gave you my
feedback. Uh I think I went on the record and saying that I already supported uh number one and number two here for the credentials and you laid it out very nicely. So um I drew an inference on
three and I feel like you cleaned up number four. Um, I would like to hear from the public, but if anyone has any questions before Okay, turn it over. Uh, open it up to public comment.
>> What? She owns the property. I'm >> fine. Daughter. >> No problem. >> But, >> um, my name is Sheila Bruisey and that's my mother, Rose Bruisey. So, like I said, she's the owner of the property. I'm the trustee. But so, um, as Rich
said in his proposal, um, that we've, um, look through the plans. I did actually just download the packet this weekend. So, I looked it over this weekend, but we're not architects or engineers. So, so it looks great. We're happy that Rich is going to enhance his property. You know, we're supportive of
that. Um, and so I guess we just have one question, maybe concern. Um, if down the road I want to apply for a variance, now having his structure at some point 14 ft and then 9 ft away, would that in
any way impact or preclude me from getting a favorable approval for >> you're on the left. Are you >> I'm If you're facing his property, I'm directly on the left with your Yeah. 55 Forest. So that would be my only concern with these new setback
limits or lines or feet. Would that >> So what what is it that you're thinking? >> Yeah. I don't know if that makes sense. Like down the road if I want to apply for a variance. >> Yeah. >> Just because there is like a a solid structure now 9 ft or less than 10 feet
away in one area and then 14 feet away in another area. We share a property line. if I wanted to do something on that side because I'm closer to the property line. I don't know. Does that make sense? You know what I mean? >> She has a different case, I think, because she's already that close to the
property line. It would be are already a non-conforming structure, >> right? Like I'm thinking I have to probably put in a variance someday if I wanted to do something. But now having, you know, >> right if it's a different process because non-conforming structures will go through the special permit process
rather than the variance process which is a little bit easier to get. only if so if she's doing something like it creates a new nonconformity that would be a variant. >> Gotcha. And same thing like in the back if they decide I'm assuming you probably couldn't do it but
full edition in the back going backwards if they would create a new non-conforming >> or sideyard set back that would be >> but if they were extending >> what she's saying is >> along or up >> you could go back >> what's the non-conformance now
>> um how close >> the side the left side of her house >> oh that side oh yeah I see >> I don't I don't know because that that's clipping the roof. I don't know if that's straight, you know. >> Yeah. >> Is it non-conforming? >> I think that's a little >> obviously it is cuz it's not 15 ft.
>> I don't know. >> If you have to um if you're required to get a variance for anything, you're still going to have to meet the same criteria. >> Okay. So, it doesn't like reset my criteria. >> You're still sense because he has a structure closer. Does it then make me have to go further back?
>> No, your dimensions will still be the same. So, you're still going to be dealing with your lot line. he's not coming over into your property. >> So he has no impact on me in the future or that struct his structure will have no impact. I mean you guys decide what you decide and I put in my application with whatever and I may be approved or
not approved but that won't impact a decision. >> I think you answered my question. I think I'm >> Yeah, you have that's your driveway side of the house. >> Right. Right. Right. So I I'm estimating it's probably 30 feet away from his lot
line or y'all you know your sharing lot line. >> Yeah. That looks like an old picture. >> Yeah. >> But um >> when you say brute that's that culdeac thing. Yeah. Yeah. >> You guys have a little compound there. >> We used to. Yeah. But yeah, my brother's still back there. Um >> yeah.
>> I can't think of anything that would >> Does that make sense though what I'm saying? I don't confusing. you still have >> well you're you're um you know like they said you'd still have to meet the same criteria. One of the criteria is that what you want to do does not act to the
detriment of everybody else the neighborhood basically the public good but in this case the neighborhood. So, I mean, I suppose I mean, if everybody suddenly started wanting to do it and we end up with garages up against sidelines all over
the place, you know, I suppose there comes a point where >> that becomes untenable. But >> I'm actually not thinking of a garage. I'm thinking of a of an like, you know, bumping out my house a little bit on that side because I can't on the other side or I don't think I can on the other side because it's ledge
>> and it it might be Amanda mentioned it might be frontage. It might be consumer frontage. >> I mean, we can't, you know, obviously we can't make any guarantees what the other but just I mean what what mostly is important is sort of the character of the neighborhood and the the the feel of the neighborhood,
>> right? >> Um and um >> the fact that the neighbor did something >> I I can see where on the one hand you would think, well, now it looks crowded on his side, so we can't make it look crowded on my side. But on the other hand, if it fits in the neighborhood, it
fits in the neighborhood. >> Okay. >> So, um I can't imagine much of a scenario, you know, about what you would want to do. Okay. >> Where that would affect it one way or the other. >> Okay. All right. Um well then, yeah. So, we walked the property tonight with Rich
and we I said we have the packet and we look through it. It looks beautiful. And I'm speaking for you, Mom, but you can say it, too. We fully support his project and we're his primary butter. I mean it would be most effective to us. So we fully support his project if that
weighs you know on his behalf. >> That's all I have. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Uh, closing public comment. Any last remarks, questions, anyone
wants to make a motion on this one? Our street 51. Yeah. Amanda, I have a question while we have while we're we're looking. Um, can the chair make a motion? I know they typically don't, but just out of
curiosity. >> Um, I'm not sure. I don't think they typically do. >> We won't do it today then, but in the past do it. >> Yeah, we'll ask. Okay. So, I will move to grant the petitioner.
Richard, is it Audi or A? >> It is AI. >> Richard AI. um a variance from sections 4.5.2, 6.3, and 7.4
four um of the zoning bylaws in order to um construct the garage as shown in his application uh for 51 Forest Street in Reading, record number Z265 and as specifically shown on the uh plot
plan on the plot plan by David um P. Teranzone pls dated uh 5726 or I'm sorry dated March 4th 26 and revised 52726.
Um and I think that covers it. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Unanimous. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thanks for listening. >> Next, um we'll draft the decision. The decision is drafted and posted. Um that will start the 20day appeal period. That will be also be mailed out to all the funers. Once the appeal period is done, then you can come to the task clerk,
pick up your certified decision, and then bring that to the registry of deeds to um record it there. Then you take a copy of that recording and you bring it back to the building department. And once I do all of that, I'll put notes into your open gov comments and just let
you know it's been posted um and when the expiration date is up and you can pick it up. >> Fabulous. Thank you. You're welcome. >> And if you want to talk to Andrew at some point in town hall about your variant stuff, that's probably a good start.
>> Okay. >> Um when you do go for that, are you in an irrevocable trust? >> Say again. Are you in an irrevocable trust or >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I can't give you any advice, but maybe ask the mortgage company before you do anything.
>> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, you guys are done. >> All right. Last thing on our agenda is the minutes, which I did look at.
Just want to thank you guys again for gave me like when I when I reached out to you. >> I didn't have any immediate changes, although I lost it in sense. >> And my my name is misspelled a couple of times as usual. I'm so sorry.
>> The sad thing is like I go through them so many times that I know what's supposed to be there, so my mind's just filling. >> Yeah, absolutely. You got you got it, man. >> Yeah, this is amazing. Okay. Yeah, we're we're so basically
to say >> uh does anyone want to approve the minutes? Motion to approve the minutes as amended. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Oh, here's my
>> absolutely. It made perfect sense. I think you feel like >> unanimous. >> Are we doing reor tonight or we waited? So >> yeah, it's it's even better >> anyone new wouldn't be able to share anything.
>> I don't mind. I haven't done it yet. So >> Oh, yeah. >> Unless you're going to come back. >> I at this time next year, I will hopefully not be living in Eastern Massachusetts anymore. >> Hopefully.
>> Thank you so much, Sheila. favor. >> Guess I'll nominate myself. >> I second. >> All those in favor? >> I chair nominations. >> Vice chair. >> I can't. I'm an associate.
>> Oh, well. Well, that's the thing because maybe we shouldn't do this now because >> Yeah, we should wait for >> somebody who's an associate now is going to be a full member. >> Yeah, >> but we don't know who yet. >> This is tricky. >> Um, we could do the chair now and then
do the vice chair then. Um, because I think we would still need the chair because Chris won't be the chair anymore. So, >> Right. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Sounds good. Okay. Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> All in favor? Bye.