WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=SD_0lm-eUOQ Part: 1 1 00:01:59.760 --> 00:04:44.160 Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Looks great. >> Hi everyone and welcome to >> Sorry. >> Welcome to our June meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals. Um the first item on our agenda is to approve the minutes from um our past 2 00:04:44.160 --> 00:04:59.440 meeting. Does anybody have a motion? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All right. And then we have um someone can make a motion. The um petition num- um 3 00:04:59.440 --> 00:05:16.200 Let's see. Petition 2604 has been um has been What's the word? Um >> Been withdrawn. >> It has been withdrawn. If someone could make a motion for >> Sure. I'll make I'll make a motion. Make a motion to um allow the motion to withdraw petition 4 00:05:16.200 --> 00:05:32.760 2604 with no prejudice. >> Do you have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All right. Um and then I'm going to take these next two out of order. I'm going to take um the item number four on our agenda first. And that's petition 2606 5 00:05:32.760 --> 00:05:47.280 by James Webber. Um that's a request for a special permit um to build a small dormer on their house that that is currently um non-conforming because it sits in the setback. And I believe um 6 00:05:47.280 --> 00:06:03.720 Is it James? Is James online? Oh, hi James. >> Hello. Hi there. Hello. >> Hi, so do you want to just tell us a little bit about your petition? >> Uh yes, we wanted to build a dormer to gain access to the third floor where the 7 00:06:03.720 --> 00:06:23.120 attic is um so we have more space and everything. Um well, in the future we'd want to convert it to a more livable space, but for now we just want to make sure we can get good access up there basically. >> And I noticed that on the um 8 00:06:23.120 --> 00:06:39.680 on the plans, the square footage for that attic space is listed as 71 square feet. Is that because um even once you do this dormer, there won't that's the the maximum area that would be above um 74? 9 00:06:39.880 --> 00:06:56.240 >> Um I think it's the maximum area above 74. Is that Is that right, Steve? >> Yeah, it's actually anything over 7 ft 3 and I just included That's that strip down the middle. There is slope ceilings on either side, so we do have some more 10 00:06:56.240 --> 00:07:12.840 space there, but basically the access is through the middle of the attic. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um so I don't think anybody has any questions. In my mind, I see this as kind of a basic section six [snorts] there. Um >> Or I think it's like a balata that's 11 00:07:12.840 --> 00:07:27.520 >> A balata, I mean, sorry, a balata because it's >> Right. >> existing in the setback. It doesn't The new doesn't create a new nonconformity and um it's not more it's also not more detrimental than the existing 12 00:07:27.520 --> 00:07:45.680 encroachment. Does anybody else >> Right. >> any questions on that? >> I don't. Do [clears throat] you have questions >> here to speak on this petition? No, we have two letters of support from neighbors um which was really nice that are, you know, very nicely welcoming you to the 13 00:07:45.680 --> 00:08:03.600 neighborhood, so that's great. Um >> Yeah, yeah, for sure. Yeah, that that was that was very helpful, yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah, that was nice. Um all right, so do we have a motion for this? Would anybody like to do a motion? >> I >> I can motion. We're going to I can We're going to call The board's 14 00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:20.640 going to be everyone except Tony for this one. >> I can make a motion. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Now you have to say something. >> Yeah, you have to Now you have to do it. >> Oh, good. >> You can do it. >> You think? >> Um Okay, I'm making a motion for >> to make to help you out with that, I 15 00:08:20.640 --> 00:08:35.760 believe. >> Thank so much. >> Oh, sure. >> Um >> So, I'll make a motion to to to make a finding on petition 2606 16 00:08:35.760 --> 00:08:52.360 that the proposed um modifications with the addition to the attic space um presents all conforming um changes that are no more 17 00:08:52.360 --> 00:09:06.880 um detrimental than the existing non-conformities and that under the Balata case uh the relief is permitted as of essentially with a finding um 18 00:09:06.880 --> 00:09:23.520 and so to approve that with the work to be done in compliance with the plans that have been submitted. I think that's it. >> That's it. >> Do you have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Um and I can send you a Balata. 19 00:09:23.520 --> 00:09:38.600 >> I think I did one already. >> Did you do one? Okay. >> I'll do it. >> Yeah, awesome. Thank you. >> No problem. >> All right. Um so, we're going to um move on to the item number three on our agenda, which is petition 2605 um by Charles Wil- Wil- Wilson, 20 00:09:38.600 --> 00:09:59.120 um which is an appeal of the determination of the building commissioner, um >> Uh thank you to the board for hearing my appeal. Um I do have a couple documents to hand out to you. >> Okay. Do you know what the zoning is? 21 00:09:59.120 --> 00:10:15.560 The number? Oh, yeah. >> readable in addition to a few pictures of the property >> Excuse me, but is the Webber matter been approved? >> Yes. >> Uh I believe so, yes. Uh >> Yes, yep, you're all set. Thank you. You have your relief, sorry. You're it's all 22 00:10:15.560 --> 00:10:31.120 been voted on and um that'll be submitted um within the next couple weeks. >> Okay. Okay, yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Bye-bye. See you. >> See you. >> What [snorts] I've handed to the board 23 00:10:31.120 --> 00:10:48.320 is just a a brief that um is in line with the original appeal, but it's a little shorter, more readable, in addition to some pictures taken from the property boundaries of my property. Um they can be made available to the public at a later date. I don't have digital copies with me. 24 00:10:48.320 --> 00:11:03.000 Um again, thank you for hearing this appeal. Um I am asking for a determination regarding uh the previous determination by the building inspector. Um my primary concerns are um classification 25 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:20.160 of the storage sheds on my property, um a clarification regarding the factual basis of the conclusions contained in the determination, and some clarifications regarding the property boundaries and the treatment of the multiple legally distinct parcels as one parcel as they had been treated in the 26 00:11:20.160 --> 00:11:35.960 determination. Um in there you'll also see um a compilation of the zoning plats of the three parcels um highlighted in different colors so you can see the three distinct properties. Each of them is taxed separately and are separate 27 00:11:35.960 --> 00:11:52.040 entities. Um My initial question is um in the determination by Mr. Balducci uh on September the 3rd of 2025, he said the um 28 00:11:52.040 --> 00:12:07.240 that he did not see any dumpsters on my property, which was part of an earlier complaint, but that he did see two sheds. Um if they are being determined as sheds, I want to know why they are being applied the rules for storage containers. Um I do see under 29 00:12:07.240 --> 00:12:24.840 town bylaws 2.2.3.0 that temporary storage containers are for temporary storage use. They're non-permanent and have no form of a foundation. The storage containers on my property are anchored to the ground by helical ground anchors and rest on compacted 30 00:12:24.840 --> 00:12:41.560 gravel or earth foundations, respectively, and are in permanent accessory use to my building. They are storage sheds and tool sheds, not temporary storage containers. Um I also would like to bring to attention of the board that the uh 31 00:12:41.560 --> 00:12:57.760 Um uh it's asked for a determination regarding how the evidence for these determinations was made and just get procedural feedback on how that was originally determined. Um and would like to bring to attention the board that um I made a 32 00:12:57.760 --> 00:13:14.400 clarifications request as of September 16th after the initial on-site inspection with Mr. Balducci that was not responded to, meaning that these fines were issued based on unresolved classifications that hadn't been determined as of yet. 33 00:13:14.520 --> 00:13:31.440 >> So I I have a question about that. Ask a question about >> Yes. >> So I have a kind of a threshold question about some of the relief that's requested um on the appeal. >> Yeah. >> Um the the concern I have is about ZBA 34 00:13:31.440 --> 00:13:47.800 jurisdiction for items that were essentially determined in the September 2025 um, letter of the building inspector. So, to the extent you didn't timely appeal those 35 00:13:47.800 --> 00:14:02.600 um, those determinations. Um, it's my understanding and and I've been on this board a long time and been through uh, appellate process from here 36 00:14:02.600 --> 00:14:19.440 with building inspector appeals going to the land court or the superior court. And the time limitation of 30 days to appeal a a determination takes that jurisdiction away from the ZBA. I don't think you you've timely 37 00:14:19.440 --> 00:14:34.240 appealed any determination that was made in the April >> Mhm. >> letter which had the fines. But, in terms of some of the like the classifications, the determinations that the building inspector made in the 38 00:14:34.240 --> 00:14:51.120 September letter, I I think you're time barred to appeal those. I think it's more an analysis just of the factual findings and determination that was made on in the April letter. >> Um, I hear what you're saying, but I would counter that the determination 39 00:14:51.120 --> 00:15:07.600 made in September did identify those as storage sheds, not containers, which leads to some ambiguity as to expectations. And that ambiguity was followed up with directly by the um, you know, from me to the building inspector and I received no formal clarification 40 00:15:07.600 --> 00:15:27.280 on that. Um, so from my perspective, the determination read storage shed and the applicable uh, bylaws that are being applied are not in line with that original determination. >> But, he did conclude that the structures were prohibited. 41 00:15:27.280 --> 00:15:42.560 I I thought he he concluded in the September determination that the structures were prohibited storage containers. And the vehicle violated the bylaw. The um and that the parcels were separate lots. 42 00:15:42.560 --> 00:15:57.760 I I had another just a general question about the parcels. How many acres do you have there combined if if all three parcels were >> Greater than six and a half, approaching seven acres. >> Okay, I just want to make sure if it was over five acres. >> It is, yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. 43 00:15:57.760 --> 00:16:14.120 Um so, in my reading and I since this is um uh by the letter and and you're you're going on procedural concerns, it says at the time of my inspection, I did not see any dumpsters on the property, but I counted two storage sheds, period. According to the table of principal uses 44 00:16:14.120 --> 00:16:30.600 of the zoning bylaw, one storage container for the storage of personal property provided such storage container does not exceed cubic feet and not maintained more than 90 days in any consecutive period. Therefore, one storage shed measuring is allowed on the premises until November 12th, the second 45 00:16:30.600 --> 00:16:45.800 container must be removed upon the receipt of this letter. But I think that this is ambiguous. It cites the the bylaw, but it also references it as a storage shed. So, in my mind, this didn't apply clearly, and that's why I 46 00:16:45.800 --> 00:17:01.960 asked for a clarification, one that I did not receive. Um >> I think I think one of the problems with the the request for clarification is um it's worded in a way that says a formal request is coming. It's sort of like a heads-up email the way it's 47 00:17:01.960 --> 00:17:20.160 written. It the the wording does not request um a It says what I will be asking for as opposed to what I'm asking you to answer right now, and I I think that's probably why it didn't get answered. Um Uh that's that's my unders- that's my 48 00:17:20.160 --> 00:17:35.720 analysis of that letter. It It kind of was sort of a I'm working on my formal my formal request, but that formal request never came. >> I see. >> I don't know if anybody else wrote that. >> My intention was to get a clarification 49 00:17:35.720 --> 00:17:55.520 um from Mr. Baldacci [clears throat] at that time. Um >> And that's that's that's one thing that I think I I think that >> Getting >> jurisdictionally we we can only address a limited amount of items 50 00:17:55.520 --> 00:18:11.280 um because I think the storage container determination was made September 3. And I I think that the um appeal was untimely as the storage 51 00:18:11.280 --> 00:18:31.880 container classification. Um But I do believe we have juris- partial jurisdiction on the unregistered vehicle. Um at that in the September letter, the commissioner observed one unregistered black 52 00:18:31.880 --> 00:18:48.320 Suburban. And the owner represented it would be sold a garage before 6 months. So no immediate violation was imposed beyond restarting the bylaw. And then in the April 26 letter, that's when it was 53 00:18:48.320 --> 00:19:10.640 reinspected and the unregistered vehicle was subject to fines because it was more than 6 months. So I think he's got a timely appeal on the unregistered vehicles. Um >> And on on that my um What is What is What do you feel is 54 00:19:10.640 --> 00:19:27.160 incorrect about the um decision of the building inspector on that unregistered Is it an unregistered vehicle? >> Uh with regards to the unregistered vehicle, I ask what the factual basis for that determination was. It says it was inspected at that time, but I inspected in person. Was there pictures 55 00:19:27.160 --> 00:19:41.640 taken? Was that independently verified with the registry? >> Is it registered? >> It is currently, yes. >> It is currently It's currently registered. >> Yes. >> So, it wasn't registered >> It I At the date of the inspection, I was not present, so I don't know the 56 00:19:41.640 --> 00:19:58.200 exact time or date of that inspection or where that inspection took place from. So, that that is why the inquiry regarding the factual basis. I don't know how it was observed or confirmed that the vehicle was unregistered. >> unregistered on the first when it when you were there 57 00:19:58.200 --> 00:20:14.560 when you were there together. >> The initial visit where Mr. Badachi and I walked the property together, that vehicle was unregistered, yes. >> what Do you know what date you registered it? >> Um I It was registered recently. So, it may have been unregistered at the time of his inspection, but I am not asking for that. I am asking for 58 00:20:14.560 --> 00:20:29.480 the factual basis by which it was determined that it was unregistered. >> Um so, I'm I'm I'm a little concerned that you're you're asking So, our our role here, it's not a de novo hearing. It's not that we're hearing everything and making a record of all of the 59 00:20:29.480 --> 00:20:44.520 evidence of the case. We have a very narrow jurisdiction for things that are that we have the ability to hear. We need to determine whether or not the building inspector exceeded his authority 60 00:20:44.520 --> 00:21:01.840 or made some error >> That is indeed my question. >> overturn. So, I I think So, I you know, in terms of, you know, asking questions, I I think it's more we need to ask you questions as to what evidence you have 61 00:21:01.840 --> 00:21:16.960 to show that you presented information to the building inspector that he ignored or he did not um properly consider >> Mhm. >> so that we can if if you're successful, we need to find that 62 00:21:16.960 --> 00:21:33.320 there was an error that was made by um the building inspector in making his determination. >> Um that >> So you say it was registered recently, do you know what date you registered it? >> It was officially registered today. >> Today, okay. So it's registered currently. >> Yes. 63 00:21:33.320 --> 00:21:49.920 >> But on um it on April 13th, it was not registered. >> It would not have been registered at that time. >> So I see that is pretty clear-cut if the building inspector didn't have evidence of the vehicle being registered. I don't know what the building inspector did wrong in making his 64 00:21:49.920 --> 00:22:06.120 determination. >> My question solely relies on the factual basis of the determinations and I still have concerns regarding the earlier determination, but you have told me you are not able to hear that. Uh so I would >> I'm only one I'm only one vote here. I 65 00:22:06.120 --> 00:22:22.240 don't know we we would need to have a vote as to the jurisdiction >> Mhm. >> to determine if everyone agreed with me or disagreed. So I can't presume everyone's going to agree with me on the jurisdiction. The on the issue of the vehicle 66 00:22:22.240 --> 00:22:38.440 >> Yes, the registration is not observable unless you are on my property, so that is why the inquiry as to how it was determined whether it's registered or not. Was that independently verified through the RMV or was somebody on my property without notifying me? 67 00:22:38.440 --> 00:22:54.200 >> So on the um >> I think that that might be something you want that's not something for us to decide or determine here. That that's we're basically trying to determine did you their request was that the car was 68 00:22:54.200 --> 00:23:10.200 unregistered and it needed to either be you know, there were options garaged registered, sold, you know, all the all the things. And those things didn't happen in length of time. And then on April 13th, when you were notified that it still wasn't done, it still wasn't 69 00:23:10.200 --> 00:23:25.200 done. So, there's really beyond >> thing that I think we have jurisdiction because he timely appealed when the April letter went out on the vehicle. I think that we would have the ability. So, now if if in fact he's got the vehicle registered, 70 00:23:25.200 --> 00:23:42.240 perhaps or what we could do is remand that question to the building inspector to consider the fines that were imposed now that it's been registered. Uh that's one thing that I think we would have jurisdiction to do. 71 00:23:42.240 --> 00:23:58.200 Now, the building inspector would make his own determination whether to waive those fines or not waive the fines, but it's his determination, not not ours, is the way I see it. So, he could consider it that he's got compliance now on that issue. And 72 00:23:58.200 --> 00:24:13.720 um if he chose to fine for that period of time, that's totally within his his purview, not ours. >> There is one additional concern regarding that, which is that that that uh vehicle is housed and garaged at 27 Little's Point Road, which is not the 73 00:24:13.720 --> 00:24:30.160 address with to which the determination was issued. This is why it's relevant that there are three separate residential parcels in question. >> on notice of the alleged violation, right? You got >> But asserting that the violation is towards a particular property that is 74 00:24:30.160 --> 00:24:46.920 not actually the property in violation does raise concerns about procedural basis. >> So, I see that is a an argument that there was a mistake that was made and therefore you should not be subject to You have you have if if if it was a 75 00:24:46.920 --> 00:25:03.400 different property that you didn't own, it was parked on that property, I could see it. But if you own all these control all these properties, I don't think that's the uh my thought on what your best hope for on this issue on the vehicles >> It's It's right. >> would be to look for the remand and look for it. Now now that you have it 76 00:25:03.400 --> 00:25:19.120 registered [clears throat] and you show that to the building inspector and and ask him to waive the fines. Now that it's >> Absolutely. >> what I would see as a a fair resolution. It's been a long time that you know over the 6 months >> Mhm. 77 00:25:19.120 --> 00:25:34.520 >> that he's been trying to get the compliance and he had a lot of effort that he had to take here. And >> I don't mean to diminish Mr. Bodachi's efforts, but I don't mean to diminish any of the efforts put forth by the building inspector Mr. Bodachi, but I think that the lack of return communication 78 00:25:34.520 --> 00:25:51.520 indicates that the amount of effort put forth was not in fact an extreme amount. I did seek clarifications previously and received no feedback. Um which is not the first time. I also requested clarification and feedback on how to approach this process and I did not receive a reply from Mr. Bodachi or 79 00:25:51.520 --> 00:26:07.480 Marzi Galaski who both were included on the email chain. And I said, "Hey, I would like to know what steps I need to take to remedy this issue." and I got no feedback from the town. So I'm finding >> The letter provided Both letters provided 80 00:26:07.480 --> 00:26:23.840 notice of what he alleged the violations were at time and informed you of your pellet rights to come to this board. So he can't give you legal advice. But he gave you the information >> advice on how to approach the board and how to submit an appeal was what I 81 00:26:23.840 --> 00:26:39.400 requested. >> Yeah, and I I don't think that's something that the town necessarily has a an affirmative obligation >> Fair enough. >> to do. It's It's very tricky. We don't get these very often. >> Yeah. >> Appeals of building inspector determinations. >> Um 82 00:26:39.400 --> 00:26:55.680 >> Years ago we we had a bunch of them. That's why I've I knew about the jurisdiction issue. >> [clears throat] >> I think that brings me to the third and and final point which is regarding the fines assessed. There is a determination of fines based on two separate 83 00:26:55.680 --> 00:27:11.560 storage containers as they are described now, but storage sheds as I referred to them. I think that those are being misclassified as two different violations. They're in fact one violation based on classification and the you know, the determination of how 84 00:27:11.560 --> 00:27:27.440 much fines should be applied. It would be reduced in that case. >> And my thought on the sheds are that you're untimely as to the classification question, but you are timely as to the the fine question. So perhaps this board could 85 00:27:27.440 --> 00:27:43.640 decide. So what are the sheds? They're still there, right? >> They are. They're anchored to the ground. They're relatively permanent, so I don't know how to see further. >> They're it's on compacted gravel, which is a a form of foundation. Yeah. Um so 86 00:27:43.640 --> 00:28:01.080 >> I mean we do have the our bylaw does address what is a storage container. >> Yes, and it specifies um no foundation and that they are and for temporary storage use. Since these are not and for temporary storage 87 00:28:01.080 --> 00:28:17.320 use, I don't believe that they fall into that classification, but if the board's not willing to make a determination on that classification issue, I would request how to take further issue with that matter up with the town. I don't know what other board or body I would approach. >> Well, it does say that storage container 88 00:28:17.320 --> 00:28:32.640 shall include but not limited to the following and then it lists multiple things including storage container box. Um portable warehouse, box trailer, um which is definitely a storage container box. >> But it does also specify and must be 89 00:28:32.640 --> 00:28:50.960 used for temporary storage purposes. >> Okay. >> That is an and, which is legally deterministic in my opinion. They are not for temporary storage use. They are permanent accessory structures utilized by my property for maintenance. 90 00:28:50.960 --> 00:29:09.800 >> Well, just it I mean this is a completely different sentence where it says storage containers shall include but not be limited to the following and then it lists what they are. Um but whether jurisdiction has passed for us to make that determination, um 91 00:29:09.800 --> 00:29:26.240 I agree with Mark that but but I understand because there was that email in the middle but that email was very to me it was sort of like a the way it was worded was very much and I'm going to formally um you know, I'm going to formally request 92 00:29:26.240 --> 00:29:42.960 evaluation of this but but then you never did. >> I I hear that concern and I the only thing I can ask is how I would proceed on getting clarification for the future because I the what body or board or member of the town can make that determination if the ZBA 93 00:29:42.960 --> 00:29:59.200 has no authority over it. >> So, if you're um assuming the time has passed for the ZBA to make a decision. >> Yeah. So, I would I'm prepared to make a motion on the on on that. I don't know if any 94 00:29:59.200 --> 00:30:15.240 >> His question is what recourse would he have um if if any if if it is expired as far as a the zoning board jurisdiction does it default to >> Well, >> inspector jurisdiction or is there is there something >> It's just on the classification issue 95 00:30:15.240 --> 00:30:30.960 that I think there's no jurisdiction on the storage containers. >> Mhm. >> Um I think that his appeal was timely as to the fines. Because the fines didn't start until the April letter. >> Right. >> So, I think he's timely. 96 00:30:30.960 --> 00:30:45.440 >> But he's saying if he wants to further question of the classification >> I don't think we have I don't think we have jurisdiction if if if we if the decision was made by the building inspector that these you know what they are 97 00:30:45.440 --> 00:31:01.600 there was notice of appellate rights you if he was aggrieved he failed to timely in in in looking at the email in between he recognized you know he argued that they were accessory structures so I think he recognized that there was 98 00:31:01.600 --> 00:31:17.800 a disagreement between his opinion and the building inspector's determination and the the appeal would have been right so the appeal from here on the classification so if we were to find there was no jurisdiction on that part 99 00:31:17.800 --> 00:31:34.280 there's a right to appeal to a court um to challenge the decision of this board and therefore the building inspector >> But is he but he only be challenging um the decision that we're making on jurisdiction or would he be able to [clears throat] challenge the classification? 100 00:31:34.280 --> 00:31:50.720 >> He can challenge everything. So that would that's what he's that's the question I think we're >> Yeah. >> Um how he would >> You can challenge whether we're correct on the on the jurisdiction issue on the storage container the foundation you can challenge that all in court but it's 101 00:31:50.720 --> 00:32:05.400 that review um on the building inspector appeal I think is a de novo review different than this here but I'm not [snorts] positive about that. Whether or not there's evidence that's received 102 00:32:05.400 --> 00:32:22.040 on all of the the issues um but I'm I'm ready at least to make a motion partial motion on the timeliness on the jurisdiction. >> I I do have one other procedural related question then. Um what I have from Mr. Baldacci on 103 00:32:22.040 --> 00:32:37.720 September 3rd is uh regards to response >> [snorts] >> to complaint 29 Littles Point Road um I inspected property company view at the time of my inspection I saw nowhere in here does it say that this is a determination by the building inspector 104 00:32:37.720 --> 00:32:55.640 as opposed to the letter issued um in April which is a clear determination. I inspected the property Your failure to remove the unregistered vehicles you are hereby notified of fines >> Well, he says you're aggrieved at this determination. He says it in the last 105 00:32:55.640 --> 00:33:11.000 sentence of the letter. If you are aggrieved by my determination >> yeah. Yeah, yeah. >> of this action or the right to appeal that's this appeal here. Um So I think he >> I was I was treating these as one matter 106 00:33:11.000 --> 00:33:27.400 but I can see from your perspective they're not it's not a continuation of the same matter but rather a new matter. >> new determinations and I think he did in the April letter on the fines >> Yeah. >> but not on his underlying determination of what those 107 00:33:27.400 --> 00:33:43.520 items were, you know, the storage >> Okay. >> containers. Um I think he made his determination on that and I think you're untimely as to the that determination. But I think you're timely on 108 00:33:43.520 --> 00:34:18.879 on on your um appeal of the the fines. That was something that changed >> Mhm. >> in the April letter. >> Thank you for clarifying. >> So do you want to make a motion as far as >> I'd like I'd like to to make >> to as two kind of this is a two separate motions 109 00:34:18.879 --> 00:34:33.320 >> we should bifurcate it as so we can determine what we have jurisdiction for. So I'll I would make a motion on the jurisdictional issue. >> Does anybody on the board have any questions about that? >> No, the jurisdiction makes sense to me. 110 00:34:33.320 --> 00:34:50.639 >> And then we can hear the appeal of the fines to the extent we have um we have new information that we think should be considered about the fines. That's how I see it. >> Okay. Yeah. 111 00:34:50.639 --> 00:35:06.640 >> To clarify the public comment would be just on the appeal of the fines. >> If we don't have jurisdiction, I don't think we need public comment um unless someone had a specific you know, basically a legal 112 00:35:06.640 --> 00:35:25.640 um comment about the issue, the limited issue of the sports jurisdiction. >> Okay. >> I just have a just a quick question or clarification. When you were reading there from, you know, the what's determined is a 113 00:35:25.640 --> 00:35:41.520 foundation, I didn't quite catch it, but were you able to confirm or not travel is considered a foundation? >> We were We didn't make any sort of determination. So, right now we're just going to um we're going to make a motion about jurisdiction, whether or not this 114 00:35:41.520 --> 00:35:57.640 board whether or not the um appeals period lapsed for the initial letter from the building inspector. Um and if that appeals period lapsed, then we do not have jurisdiction. So, that's the motion that um So, if you have any if you have any 115 00:35:57.640 --> 00:36:19.760 questions about jurisdiction or anything that relates to that motion, feel free to >> Okay, so I'll make a a motion for the following. First, to bifurcate our 116 00:36:19.760 --> 00:36:35.800 our ruling so that we can address the jurisdictional issue and remaining issues separately and to make on the jurisdictional issue a finding that the building commissioner's September 3, 2025 letter constituted the operative determination 117 00:36:35.800 --> 00:36:52.040 classifying the subject structures as storage containers and directing their removal. The property owner had actual notice of that determination as evidenced by the September 16, 2025 response disputing the classifications. The April 13, 2026 letter 118 00:36:52.040 --> 00:37:07.080 did not material alter the legal interpretation or impose new container violations but instead enforced the prior determination and assessed penalties for continuing non-compliance. Accordingly, the appeal filed on May 11, 2026 119 00:37:07.080 --> 00:37:24.720 is untimely as to the storage container determination under Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 40A, Section 15. And um that the board has jurisdiction to hear 120 00:37:24.720 --> 00:37:40.960 whether the the vehicle violation and the um container fines present issues that arose in the later April 13, 2026 letter. >> Do you have a second? 121 00:37:40.960 --> 00:38:06.800 >> If I follow all of that, I second it. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Okay. >> So, now the conversation is about the fines. >> And with the with respect to the vehicles, hearing that it's now registered 122 00:38:06.800 --> 00:38:25.120 on that piece of it, my recommendation would be to remand it for the building inspector to confirm it's registered and determine whether or not the fines are appropriate. Anybody have thoughts about that? >> I think that's something 123 00:38:25.120 --> 00:38:41.600 >> Just as the vehicle. >> At the time that the fines were given, it was unregistered. >> It's it's up to the building inspector. Um we're just giving him the opportunity that he was just looking for compliance. That God is compliance. Cuz you're still 124 00:38:41.600 --> 00:38:59.080 looking uh is the town still looking to enforce the fines? They were validly issued and if [clears throat] we remand it and um the landowner is still aggrieved of that 125 00:38:59.080 --> 00:39:16.360 determination. If there's no change, he would then have in my view a further appellate right to come back here to challenge um the fine. So we could have to hear it again. But um you know, that's 126 00:39:16.360 --> 00:39:32.240 I see this all the time. Back back in my career, 25 30 years ago when I did criminal law work and there were unregistered vehicles and the judge would say, "Okay, is the vehicle registered now?" And then it is and we'd dismiss the case. 127 00:39:32.240 --> 00:39:48.200 >> get a ticket for your car cuz you're parked wrong, but then you go move your car and you park somewhere else. Now the ticket's >> It and it's >> It's the same thing. >> I Right. And I'm I'm not in the best position to judge whether the I Do I think the fines are appropriately 128 00:39:48.200 --> 00:40:04.440 disclosed, that they're in the bylaw, and that they're proper? Yes, I do. But >> It's a hard determination. >> I mean it I might be a waste of time. I could ask Why don't I ask Rich what he if he's interested if we remanded it on 129 00:40:04.440 --> 00:40:18.800 the fine issue, if he thinks that might be something productive or not. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. >> There's also um although the fines are very clear in the bylaw, there in the letter it is a 130 00:40:18.800 --> 00:40:35.960 little unclear as to the fines per um per violation versus the the The original letter mentions a fine of up to $300 per day. It doesn't 131 00:40:35.960 --> 00:40:55.400 distinguish doesn't say that per violation. Um although I know that is um found in our bylaw. >> Okay. >> And then the actual fine was per violation meaning at $900 a day. I think it's fair to send that back for review 132 00:40:55.400 --> 00:41:12.600 um considering there's there is a discrepancy there in the in the wording. >> And regarding that, I'm not seeking that um it uh the the question that I brought on that third point was that there are two containers, but I suspect that that 133 00:41:12.600 --> 00:41:29.400 constitutes a single violation. Not each separate violation. >> you had 20 cars, that would be 20 violations. Yeah, the violation is per it's per it's it's not you're violating it and then once you violate it, you can just violate it indefinitely for $300 a day. 134 00:41:29.400 --> 00:41:47.960 Um it it's accumulative. Yeah. Um But I do think it's fair to go back um because I think the goal of a lot of these bylaws and the goal the goal of the fine is compliance. The goal of the fine is not punitive. It's not to punish people. It's to encourage compliance. 135 00:41:47.960 --> 00:42:05.080 So, I think it is fair to to go back. Um >> Let me ask you on on the um on the issue of remand are you um do you plan to keep the storage containers go forward if you were if it were 136 00:42:05.080 --> 00:42:21.920 remanded and you had the opportunity during the remand period to um remove them >> Mhm. >> and perhaps in consideration of that, if the building inspector were to waive the fines to date, is that something you would be interested in? >> It's something I would strongly consider 137 00:42:21.920 --> 00:42:38.680 with the note that I would have to replace them with another suitable structure. I do need the storage space. >> was compliant structure, I don't think there's an issue. We don't have >> issues, yeah. >> I and I I I hear that. I just I'm still a little hung on the fact that I think that the structure is technically 138 00:42:38.680 --> 00:42:54.600 compliant. So, I would have to do some research as to what constitutes a compliant structure and why these are considered non-compliant. >> Excuse me. Um maybe you were able to um ask the >> Hang on a second. We We haven't opened up public comment yet. >> Okay. 139 00:42:54.600 --> 00:43:10.560 >> Yeah. But I I would seek alternative options and I would be happy to do that research and consider whether I needed to do, you know, make further um inquiries into getting them compliant or finding a compliant alternative. >> There's one thing we could do is we 140 00:43:10.560 --> 00:43:26.400 could remand it, come back in a month to see if there's still um that then we can make our determination on everything after there's been an opportunity to get the compliance and see where things are at. >> But can we 141 00:43:26.400 --> 00:43:42.800 >> Or we could also re- We could re- But we could also >> Remand it and close it. >> close it. Yeah, I think that would be the better thing cuz then if it is done, it's done. And then um if um if there's a new appeal, then we >> Okay. >> I think that. >> I think we could do either option. I defer to you on that. 142 00:43:42.800 --> 00:43:59.120 >> Yeah, I think that's a better option cuz I agree with Susan, but hearing from the building inspector, we might not need to come back here Yeah, on this issue. So, I think that makes sense. >> Okay. Um and so, typically we do open these things up to public comment, um but it's 143 00:43:59.120 --> 00:44:14.040 really important that the public comment is um is only about what we're discussing um right now. And the only thing we're discussing right now is um fines for a an unregistered vehicle and for two 144 00:44:14.040 --> 00:44:29.360 sheds. We are not discussing whether or not they're sheds. That did not that that we that we don't have jurisdiction on that. So, it's just um we're only talking about the fines for the for and and So, if you have any questions about that 145 00:44:29.360 --> 00:44:45.320 for the board, um please raise your hand, but specifically about fines for these >> and remanding >> and remanding it back to the building inspector. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um I'm Pat Sullivan. 146 00:44:45.320 --> 00:45:01.480 I'm the chair I'm the president of our board of Whitecourt. And everyone here tonight is residents of Whitecourt. So, um is that working? Can you hear that? Can you hear that? >> Oh, that's >> Got it. Okay, I'll take it closer. Let me start over again so you can hear 147 00:45:01.480 --> 00:45:17.600 that. So, Pat Sullivan, I'm the president of the condo association. I have two of my fellow trustees here, Kathy Healey and Janet Gottlieb. And these are residents of Whitecourt. Um we've had concerns about just these storage containers, 148 00:45:17.600 --> 00:45:34.160 unregistered vehicles, you know, all which affect the value of our property. Um we're substantial, you know, taxpayers of of of the town. And I understand just, you know, having been, you know, a bank president for my whole life, so I understand the legalities and have gone before zoning board appeals. 149 00:45:34.160 --> 00:45:49.800 They understand of the jurisdiction here and the various things. I just think one thing we just want to kind of voice our concern about the fact that, you know, we do have unregistered vehicles. There have been others in the past. I'm not making accusations. I'm just saying there are. And um 150 00:45:49.800 --> 00:46:05.520 if it comes down [clears throat] to what time and is factor, we would hope that was raised earlier that it would be appropriately addressed in relative to that unregistered violation because to us, you You that's kind of blighting our property cuz as we drive into our property, we have unregistered vehicles 151 00:46:05.520 --> 00:46:22.080 sitting well on CP Wilkinson's property. It does affect as you enter our property cuz the properties coexist with the easement. Um so that's kind of our concern number one. >> Point of order. Here. Um the property is 152 00:46:22.080 --> 00:46:37.600 share a property boundary, but there is no specific easement from Blythewood to Whitecourt or vice versa. The easements in question are from the respective properties to the town. I just want to clarify on that point. >> Well, I I don't want to debate 153 00:46:37.600 --> 00:46:54.520 the easement legality with you other than the fact that it's been a 200-year easement and is in fact a legal easement for the benefit of the zoning board of appeals here. So So we may agree to disagree, but that's not for you to hear our disagreement other than 154 00:46:54.520 --> 00:47:10.360 it's a valid legal agree easement because in order to enter our property, which is a $100 million property and a substantial taxpayer to the town. >> I'm sorry. I have to point of order. I just said >> if it wasn't a legal easement. >> Right. Just so you know, that like 155 00:47:10.360 --> 00:47:26.560 we're not discussing any of that right now. This is the focus on the fines. If you have something specific about um the possibility of remain, you know, back to the building inspector to look over the fines um and to work on compliance a little further. Um if you have specific questions about that, that would be 156 00:47:26.560 --> 00:47:41.920 fine. >> No, we have no further questions because we understand that has to be, you know, legally dealt with in appropriate major procedures. Let me see. Any of our other trustees who have any other Okay. That that's that's what we'll state tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. And is there anybody on If 157 00:47:41.920 --> 00:48:02.080 there's anybody online, um they can use the raise your hand. >> I have just uh one question. Uh in most states, um other than Massachusetts which have a registration requirement. They also have an inspection requirement, and they have 158 00:48:02.080 --> 00:48:18.200 a therefore a determination whether the vehicles are operable. Is that applicable here? >> Um we just mentioned registration. We don't mention um inspection. That is at the state level, but our bylaw just mentions registration, I believe. Is that correct? 159 00:48:18.200 --> 00:48:34.320 >> Yes. Yeah, it's it's only for unregistered or registered vehicles. >> one one more point of order. >> The >> That's the only enforcement that you're that you're um issuing here is registration. >> Could the speaker please identify himself? >> These vehicles 160 00:48:34.320 --> 00:48:51.920 have been there for many many months. And they appear to be inoperable and abandoned and in disrepair. That creates an eyesore. Just for informational purposes, I wanted to share that. >> We we don't have we don't have jurisdiction. I we didn't let 161 00:48:51.920 --> 00:49:08.360 >> Yeah, can you say your name and address real quick real quick? >> Uh I live at 35 uh Littles Point Road. >> Okay. >> My name is Alpert. >> Your last name? What's your last name? >> Just your full name. >> Last name is Alpert. >> Oh, your last name is Alpert and your first name? >> Robert. >> Robert, thank you. Sorry, we just want 162 00:49:08.360 --> 00:49:28.560 to make sure we have it. Um So yeah, we don't that right now the only thing we have is the specific violations mentioned by the building inspector, and um we're just discussing the fines. >> So should we have our some discussion 163 00:49:28.560 --> 00:49:45.640 amongst the board here and see how we want to do it? >> I think we're going to let's close the public hearing. Can we have a motion to close the public hearing? >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. All in favor. >> Aye. >> So I I mean as far as the um 164 00:49:45.640 --> 00:50:01.560 I mean just move back too far but just to see everybody. Um the I I agree that the um that I would like the building inspector to work on um enforcement and I think having that opportunity um to go back would help with that as opposed to just 165 00:50:01.560 --> 00:50:15.680 having this be kind of a punitive problem that then just continues on and um and this seems like an opportunity to maybe have some resolution. >> Dale Scales. >> My my thought is that we remand to permit the building inspector the 166 00:50:15.680 --> 00:50:33.840 opportunity to reconsider fines with uh there being potential compliance or actual compliance, but it's totally within the building inspector's discretion whether to waive any fines, to keep all the fines, continue to fine uh all within his discretion that we're 167 00:50:33.840 --> 00:50:50.000 not overturning that. >> No, definitely. Yeah. I think in light of the goals of the policy about enforce- it being enforcement instead of punitives and the building's inspector's comment here tonight that he will consider the discussion we're 168 00:50:50.000 --> 00:51:05.920 having, I think it makes sense to remand on that issue. Anybody else? >> Yeah. >> You go for it. >> So, I'll finish my motion. Motion part two. >> Motion part two. >> So, I'll make a motion to remand the fine issue as presented in the April 169 00:51:05.920 --> 00:51:22.040 2026 letter that was timely appealed to this board uh for the building inspector to consider whether to um to keep to compromise, to waive 170 00:51:22.040 --> 00:51:38.120 uh or to continue to fine for violations um as provided in the April 2026 letter. >> Did we add anything that we are not um we are not overturning any decision made by the building 171 00:51:38.120 --> 00:52:00.040 >> that's right. So, and to make a finding that we uphold the determination of the building inspector. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> You motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjourn. >> Motion to adjourn. 172 00:52:00.040 --> 00:52:04.760 >> All right. Second, second. All in favor? >> I. >> I.