So, do we have a motion to open? Yeah. >> Motion to motion to open the zoning board of appeals meeting for October 1st, 2025. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> I have a little poll on Robert. >> Yes.
>> Colby. >> Colby. Yes. >> Am I you appointing me as a full voting member? >> I will be. Yes. I guess I can. >> Well, then I can vote. Okay. >> Yeah. And then I'll say yes. So we have three this to open administratively. Um so at this point I will be appointing
Darlene as a full voting member of the ZBA for purposes tonight. I think you're able to do that before the motion to open the meeting just as a point of war. I think >> can you check on that for us? >> Yeah you can open the meeting and
immediately >> or we can get a motion to open the meeting. No, she I've never heard of a motion to open a meeting other than you guys. So, I don't know where that tradition. >> Yeah, I know. >> We open the hearing, but the meeting
Okay. >> Yeah, you call the meeting to order. >> Call the meeting to order, which you can do, which I can do. And then I can appoint >> We'll get this straightened up. >> Um >> technicalities. >> Is that a motion to appoint her? Did I hand >> Oh, I just do it.
>> Yeah, I get to You're right. That's one of my powers. One of my superpowers. Okay. So, um, this meeting is being recorded. Uh, did anyone get a chance to review the minutes?
>> I did. Did. >> Yeah, I did. >> All right. So, why don't we since we have a couple of minutes, why don't we just get through those? Um, so why don't we start with the 6th of A
of August to move to approve the August 6th meeting minutes? >> Second. >> Okay. I'll uh Darlene, >> yes. >> Colby, yes. >> Robert, >> Robert, yes. >> Okay. And I'm also Yes. So, we'll approve those. And then the second one
is September 17th. >> Move to approve the September 17th meeting minutes. >> Second. All right. Um, Colby >> Kobe, yes. >> Robert, >> Robert, yes. >> Yes. Yes. And Vicki, yes. All right. So,
we can get to carry administration here. And let's see who's on. Just doing a quick look. All right. Looks like it's just us. And the meeting was set for 6:35. I don't
see the applicants. >> I did send them an email and let them know when we have the information for the meeting. But um I don't know where they are. >> No, since we're continuing the meeting, we we just move to open it.
>> Reopen the meeting. >> Move to reopen the hearing. Um the look for the applicant's name >> move to open the Addison NP uh hearing.
>> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Darlene, yes. Robert, >> yes. >> Colby, yes. >> And Vicki, yes. Um, so Addison is on the Zoom now. All right.
>> All right. So that's good. Close that. Hi Addison, thanks for joining. >> We just reopened the meeting um for the hearing from um previous time to go over your request. Uh in the meantime, Beth,
I believe we've gotten feedback from council, town council. One question I had is in the um I did everybody uh get a chance to look at that that message.
>> Yes. >> Is Yeah. Is it was that directly from town council or was it because I couldn't tell who it was from? [Music] >> Okay. Under the director. So it was an associate of lawyer
associate of town council is what you meant. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Did you guys get to read the um the opinion from town council? Addison, did you get to read it?
>> Yes, I did. So, um, was there additional information that came in? I don't think I think this is the only thing we've gotten additional. >> Yeah, we we continued the hearing so that we could get the legal opinion from town council. Um, so, can I can I speak?
Can I speak? >> Yes. When we So, we're going to move into board discussion at this point. >> Yeah. Um, so one of the reasons originally when I had a problem when I was I was I just want to say when I was talking about what's allowed and specially permitted
um I hadn't really reviewed the previous decision special permit decisions that were on file. So the part I was kind of missing is that this was a was a special permit for a nonconforming use structure type of a thing. What I
was seeing was the hotel motel and in the outline commercial district it's in permitted and it's also in specially permitted. So I was thinking we gave him a special permit for the hotel motel the
transient use and then so when I was reviewing all this I'm going boy why do we get into the definitions so much um it seemed like Garside got into what you call it
so I guess basically what he's done is he's trying to call a spade a spade all right so he must have got in there for some reason said hey this isn't transient in nature. These people live here, might have addresses, probably getting mail. I'm just making some assumptions. Somehow he determined these
people are residents, not transient in nature. So he kind of went the route of, well, what is it? It's a c he came up with cottage dwelling. I did a little bit of homework on this,
so I'm just sharing what my thoughts are. I went through all these definitions and I'm like, well, okay, he for some reason he didn't like the hotel somehow. They picked up on the hotel trans okay it's transient nature
but it doesn't allow kitchens and I'm like what is like why are we making a big deal out of that? If you go back to the special permit that was issued, it was for an existing nonconforming use which was hotel and nature and the
buildings had had some kitchens. So I think the kitchen part is what caused the nonconforming nature of that special permit. So when you go through the criteria of special permit um you know
is it not more detrimental than the existing use. So, if you've already got a hotel going on, I'm motel, whatever, you get transient nature. Yeah. >> You're going to revamp these buildings. >> I guess the zoning board said, "What's the big deal?" If they have kitchens,
>> you know, if you have transient, transient can be what, up to two weeks, 14 days. Is that what they consider transient nature? Well, more than a few days, someone's probably going to want to get anyways. That's where I think the nonconforming nature of those previous
special permits came in because they were allowing the kitchens. So, did it have to fit the hotel definition? I don't I don't see that that. But building inspector did and it was trying
to get it to fit a definition. In the end, I'm going, what is it? Okay, so here we are now. Let's let's just say here's where we're at now. There were two special permits given. Let's just go with the last one.
2010 the zoning board issued a special permit for hotel motel transient insisted it be transient in nature and allowed the kitchens and they found it not to be more
detrimental. So now what's being now in the meantime that was this permit and I'm going to just say this with a little bit of caution Addison so pick up on this part of it that special permit that was issued in 2012 uh 2010
should have been renewed every two years I know you didn't own the property since then so it's not this isn't all your fault kind of thing right why where we are today >> so every two years that permit should have been renewed and there should have been application or should have been re
or we should have specified a different renewal date, right? Because we can when >> in the zoning bylaw if you don't specify it's automatically two years. >> Yeah. >> So that I went back and checked on that.
So it's been what 13 years since this permit was issued. So basically this permit sorry is >> is it valid? Is it right? So now you're asking for a modification of a special permit. Number one, we don't do
modifications. Number two, even if we did, I don't see how we could do one on a permit that's not in existence or value. >> Yeah. So, where I'm thinking, and this creates a little bit of sticky here,
the um decision, not I don't want to say decision, the opinion of town council even says in there that the applicant should be reapplying to ask for a new special permit for what you're looking
to do. That's my opinion as well. I don't see how we could go possibly go through all the criteria to see if something's more detrimental than what an existing use that's expired, that's
not happening. Um, so I I I just legally I don't know where to go with that. That said, if a new So, basically what you would do is I think in Beth could help. You'd withdraw this application, do a new one
that says I want to do what I want to do kind of thing. Um, and while we were saying that, I would be more than willing to wave any any like new application fees because you've already gone there, you've already done that. Um, I don't think that would be fair.
While we're on that, when you when you do an up, you've seen the criteria for special permit. I don't have it in front of me. Um, there are some easy stuff, the visual, character, nature, blah blah blah. Oh, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't
change. It's really the use that's nonconforming. >> Yeah. Not to mention um I think the building inspector was being really nice picking on definitions. Basically what he could have done was said you're in violation
um of a special permit that was issued. And maybe he I don't know whether he's being nice or maybe he did that because he considers the permits not valid to say you're in violation. Either way, I I think he kind of gave you he gave you a way to try to go rectify a
problem. >> Um, so those are my two things. You got a permit that's kind of expired and the use currently doing right now is in violation of our bylaw. It's it's or
in violation of the special permit that was issued before. So I think in front of us if we had a new application I believe what you're trying to ask for is permanent um what would you say uh not transient
residency but lease I don't I don't >> long longterm residency >> regular teny right >> um >> what I would be looking for in this new application is >> the criteria that we have to go through
to decide whether this is not more detrimental than the existing and your just so you know your existing use of this property should be what the previous decision allowed you to do. So
that's what you're going to compare it to. You're kind of going to pretend, okay, the permit that was issued in 2010, that's existing because that's what was allowed and that's what we'll compare to to what you want to do. And show us,
>> okay, >> show us how what you want to do compared to what was allowed and approved is not more detrimental per the bylaw. I would, if it's confusing, I would probably talk to
someone who has some zoning experience to help with that because as someone who has zoning experience, um, I need to be convinced. I'm having a hard time with it. Um,
and I we can go into that part of it if you want, but I just wanted to lay out kind of the the basis of what I've seen where we are and how do we get >> to some relief. >> Yeah. >> Um, procedurally, then there's, you know,
passing the special permit criteria. >> Does that make sense? >> That makes sense. I mean, our our obligation is to make sure that we're following the bylaws and any legal, you know, any laws that apply to this even if they haven't been followed correctly
in the past and we just can't continue a wrong forward. Um, right. And I kind of was trying to like maybe give some hints along the way to the applicant. Um, it's tough. You have to think about,
okay, you got all these classifications of zoning. You got your residential A, your residential B, your downtown commercial, your neighborhood commercial, your outline commercial. And as you go down the line, you're like, okay, well, my downtown commercial and residential, that's kind of where um
rental is. And as you get outline, you're you're more commercial, right? So when you look at the bylaw, it doesn't say anything about multi. Now I'm just going to call this to me this is multif family housing. You got a you got a
house, single family house. Well, maybe with an accessory apartment and a lot of other dwelling units. That's a multifamily property. You have multifamilies on it. So we can it doesn't fit any of the definitions and I'm not worried about that per se.
>> Okay. Um, I mean, we might have to address that at somehow, but how do we get to those pieces? How is he going to tell us how it's not more detrimental when our bylaw doesn't even allow it if somebody
was to come just apply for it new and then figure out how it's not more detrimental to these seniors? Does that am I confusing anyway? Is that clear or >> Yeah. Okay. Okay.
>> Right. So I think for me, you know, it's it's clear that we need a new application because the the both special permits have expired and were not renewed and um we can't amend an ex a permit whether
it's expired or not. So a special permit. So we we need to go through that process and I'm I would be in favor of you know waving the fee u at this point we you know we want to come to a good resolution here and we
don't want to have that in the way. Um so um I don't know u Beth may be able to share with you the special permit criteria so you know what to work against. >> Okay. Do you have it right there? it well it's in the decision. So I'll start
from the bottom impact on ground and surface water quality environmental that's really not us anyways we that's other boards to decide whether I think in this situation it's not anything we would find adequacy of utilities you're not changing most likely anything to
that adequacy and method of sewage disposal border health is is going to um be on top of that source of water and drainage top none of the topography and stuff. None of that's changing.
It's uh impact on neighborhood visual character views and vistas. Most likely that's not changing. It's really A, B, and C to me. If and that's why I would want the applicant to address those and tell me how how it
doesn't um it isn't more detrimental than the current use. as a board, we shouldn't sit here and try to make things up for the applicant. That's that's just not how it's done. So, adequacy in terms of the site in terms of for proposed use,
um suitability of the site for the proposed use, impact on traffic flow and safety. The first two, the one thing that comes to mind is you can't even get multifamily housing in this town unless you have eight acres. Um, and there so there's there's
different areas throughout maybe and I don't know I'm not a lawyer and that's why if you want to contact somebody who's got zoning experience to help frame this that says yeah tell me get me to think differently. Um
it doesn't mean I'm right. I just need to be convinced that what you want to do isn't more detrimental than the existing use. Okay. So, if I understand correctly, I'm submitting a new application and I'm asking for a special permit, a new
special permit to be granted um allowing for uh permanent or long-term residency. Um I get that. Could we um and I know you said it's not it's not your job to make up or to invent a reason or whatever,
but I'm I'm wondering if you could give me some examples of either something that you would find convincing or unconvincing maybe of this that legal term of not more detrimental like do you have any ideas of like what would an unconvincing like for example if I
brought up um if I said you know at a time when housing is very expensive you know we're providing affordable housing for people who don't need anything more than a than a studio apartment. Is that something that you find like I just don't want to go through the
application process and then find out that it's not really what you you know I missed the mark of what you were expecting. >> That's why I highly suggest you consult with somebody who has some zoning background that can help you answer
those questions. >> Okay. Right. And so I'm thinking though, like let's say I talked to, you know, Mr. Garside and Beth and in collaboration we come up with something. At the end of the day though, I have to convince you. So it's not that an
expert, you know, an expert or somebody else who thinks they're an expert might just be on a different wavelength than you are. That's why I'm I'm wondering about your opinion specifically. But if you if you know what what do you think about that? So, think about so the original permit was
for short-term hotel motel. How is having um >> transient? >> So, transient versus long-term, how does that change
the use of the property? So, um I'm trying to think of an example. It's not like that. Like when we we talked um how traffic >> well yeah >> traffic one um
>> transient versus long time I mean traffic permanent res I don't know there's could be more I don't know there could be but see you know how the property's being used and is some of it still
transient and some longer residents um maybe some of it still transient with I don't know. Do you sign leases for have people there for two, three, four, five years? Uh people there for a couple weeks a month. You have a mixture.
I'm sorry. It's very funny. Maybe some of it's still transient. >> Maybe it's not all more like detrimental. I don't know. But remember, we want to we want to see if what the difference is and then is
that detrimental. >> Okay. I guess um a point of clarification detrimental to to who or what because I'll give you an so what I would if I was just off doing this right now myself I would be making those arguments of you know providing
affordability like you said there's less traffic that that um you know potentially less noise because there's fewer people coming in and out frequently and better like integration of the you know citizenry into the community because they're not transient and but so all of these things that are
coming to my to are things that I consider benefits, but I don't know that they have anything to do with zoning and so I that's what so you think that would not be all those would be irrelevant >> right so like when the a lot of people make comments here oh you know yeah the
impact if if something was to happen and you and you had to do transient only and those poor people that are expecting to stay there a long time that would really stink and that's that's not a reason you know the when they gave that as a reason. Oh, that would be a terrible
impact. Well, it's not the town's fault that you're not using the property as was allowed. You know, you're you're basically >> right. So, so this kind of gets at the heart of my question, which is so we've established it's not that I'm making the case that this is not or not more
detrimental to the town or its citizenry or or the citizens. So, who So then what is the thing? Is it the zoning board that that that I'm making that like it's not any more detrimental to you guys as the zoning board? >> It's kind of like a legal case. It's
That's why I said I would talk to someone who has experience in zoning. Not the building inspector, not Beth, but maybe a builder, an attorney, um somebody who knows zoning,
um land use person that >> it go a little deeper than that >> and and look at the special permit criteria, >> right? >> Because that that's what we're going to be looking >> detrimental is a word that like >> I understand how
>> All right. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but here, let me just try to So, it's not that I'm confused about the word detrimental. It's more about detrimental to whom it and I do. I need to seek out an expert to understand that because I feel like that's a really basic thing that I'm just trying to understand. >> Well, detrimental to the zoning bylaw in
itself, the town, the the impact on zoning in general. So, >> well, it's it's the neighborhood. >> It's the neighborhood. >> In the neighborhood. Yes. >> Um, >> what the neighborhood means? I couldn't find a definition for that, but so if you can outline
>> Well, it doesn't say detrimental to the neighborhood and the town, >> right? >> I didn't see him in the town. >> What's the What's the um what's the motion that we have to make? >> Uh let's see. The proposed give an example of the a motion would be the
proposed use will not have adverse effects which overbalance its beneficial effects on either the neighborhood or the town in view of the particular characteristics of the site. >> That's the motion we have. Um well
that's the special permit motion but then there's the uh nonconforming motion. >> Yeah. which I don't know. >> And that's the one that says that has the word detrimental into it. >> Okay. Yeah, I'm looking at the um the
legal opinion. I do see the language um it detrimental to the neighborhood. So, I see at least that part um with I guess the neighborhood being people living in the surrounding area. >> Correct. Yeah.
>> So, if if I'm understanding that correctly, then I think that all of those reasons I gave earlier off the top of my head would be applicable in a bigger sense. I mean, you could also add in there. It's not just the people in the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is zoned outline commercial district. So, what is Yeah. So, what's being done in the neighborhood? It's kind of a broader picture. Um,
>> yeah, we're struggling because >> I'm not Yeah, we're not allowed to do this for you. You sort of we could get too much detail. We get it's not not appropriate. >> I would like to see you get creative and come to me and say,
"Yeah, this is but we have two other board members here. I've done a lot of talking and I think they should have some input >> and maybe I have better thoughts. >> Go ahead, Colin. >> Okay, I I'll jump in unless you do want
want to, Robert. >> Yeah, we're going to call on you first. >> Okay. I I guess I didn't foresee it going this way. I thought the way I interpreted um the lawyer's remarks
was that you the special permit even though it's flawed or there are things that need to be revamped, you have a special permit that is applicable. Um and the the the it's the use of the the
uh structures that is in that needs some more verbiage, some more uh better outlines >> and for us to decide if it the non-conforming use is more detrimental
to the neighborhood. I I didn't see such a legal issue. Um, and I was surprised uh that there wasn't more of a definition use in the in the
proposed uh motions. I thought that was kind of crucial and it seemed like cottage dwelling was the best fit for the for these properties for well for the for the structures on the property.
So, I'm I'm a little bit at a loss here as the >> Yeah, it's it's a little messy. >> It's It's a little messy because like we're taking we what how it was handled
ended up not being the proper thing. And so, we're trying to clean clean it up and do it properly. >> I understand. I can I can I I can see the application being redone with >> Here's what makes it messy. the the building inspector is trying to call it
something a definition and I'm saying don't focus on that because that's irrelevant. It really is. What is allowed in the OCD is what's relevant. what's allowed, what's permitted, what's specially permitted, that's what's relevant. And you got to look at the
bylaw and go, okay, this is what the previous if it's not allow if you were to just come in today and go, I want to I got a single family home and I want to put in nine cabins in the OCD. No, you can't do that. >> Does that do you make does that make
sense? >> Yes. But isn't that why he's, you know, submitting an application for a special permit? Isn't that >> If he wanted to do a special permit to do that brand new, it would be no. It's not allowed. >> Exactly. Yeah. But >> but because there was it was preexisting
nonconforming, that's where But it was pre-existing non-conforming for a hotel motel use transient nature. That's where it was pre-existing non-conforming. He wants to change it to
longer residency which is like multifamily and it's not allowed. So tell me how it's not more detriment something that's not even allowed if somebody was able to walk in. So how is it not more detrimental? >> So maybe maybe the answer to that is
that it's not multif family, it's cottages. >> It's still the same thing in my there isn't one. Okay, there's cottages. But who are you putting in the cottage? If if you were to say, I got a cottage,
a dwelling, okay, an accessory apartment is um a distinct portion of a single family dwelling or or a unit and accessory structure on a single family lot having its own kitchen, sleeping, bathroom facility, subordinate size to the principal part of dwelling or
structure. Okay, that's an accessory apartment. Apartment unit. A room or enclosed floor space within a dwelling or apartment multif family building used or intended for use by one family for living, sleeping, cooking, eating.
Apartment multif family um a a building a structure having a roof or cover and forming a shelter for persons, animals or property. We got the cottage dwelling. And then there's a dwelling, a building or part thereof designated, erected and used for
continuous and permanent permanent habitation for one or more families or individuals. The cottage dwelling. Okay, that's so fine. Cottage dwelling is the definition. How do you get there? How was that ever
allowed? Is it allowed if you wanted to come into that zone and put in nine cottage dwellings around a single family home? Would it be allowed? Is that what was there to be approved
for nonconforming use? It's that's a nonconforming is very difficult. >> Yeah. >> And we can't was we like it. >> So So hold on, hold on a second. Wait, wait, wait. So So I just want to understand this this comparison
um where you're saying you wouldn't grant the constru the new construction of all these units to someone who just has a single family lot. Therefore, there's that my application is sort of suspect or not suspect, but you you you're sort of saying, well, why would I
grant this after the fact thing if I wouldn't grant the construction in the first place, right? Um, and I guess I mean, I'm looking at the the um legal opinion here and it says the ZBA may grant the relief
requested. So, well, there I'm seeing it's at your discretion. So, so you could kind of do whatever you wanted. And then two is that >> Okay. Oh, wait. Let me stop you right there. >> Sure. >> If you answer the quest special permit questions that make us decide it's not
more detrimental. That's where I'm guiding you. >> Right. Right. I guess I guess what I'm getting at is this question of not more detrimental. I can I feel like there's an argument to be made that it is more detrimental to construct from scratch this stuff that you this you know this hypothetical scenario you're laying out
about taking a single family home and then suddenly adding all this residential these c these cottages on top of that right now you're going to get all these detrimental effects whereas in this case to what I'm saying is that by making long-term residential which is already existing illegal that's
going to cause a lot of detrimental effects similar to to the reasons why you wouldn't want to build them in the first place to displace all these people and then get transient in andout, you know, people there. That's instead that's going to create this these detrimental effects that you're that you
sort of are looking to avoid in that that scenario you laid out. Does that make sense? I don't know why the fathers thought transient was okay and multif family wasn't, but you've got to convince this board that putting in regular that was not thought of is not
more detrimental than transient. That's a basic and I'm just trying to give you a >> Sure. Sure. And I'm trying to convince you. So I just and and all these things I'm saying is exactly what I'd probably write in the new application. And so I would just like to get some feedback. Is what I just explained convincing or not?
I mean to you it sounds like it's it sounds like maybe not. And I would be interested to hear what the other members have to say. And then at the end of that if not I mean why not? I I I want to do what's right by the law and and make a convincing case
to you guys. I just want to understand if I'm not thinking correctly right now like what can what else is there because I'm sort of struggling to think of what else what other what you know case
>> there's going to be oh if I was in the neighborhood the difference would you be well what's the level of activity >> activity >> um you you've got a lot of permanent residents on a smaller lot than what's normally allowed
How is that not more detrimental? Um, let me just throw a strange one out there. What's your pet policy? >> Um, by default I don't allow uh pets, but I sort of do it case by case.
>> So on 2.2 acres, are you going to have people with 10 to 20 dogs on 2.2 acres or just throwing it out there for the neighborhood? If I live next door, I wouldn't want 20 dogs next door.
>> And I I agree with you there. I think um there need to be better outlines for this property as far as like, you know, number of parking. Um the it's a busy intersection there. You have to consider the traffic in in and
out. But the the bylaw um I'm not getting hung off on it. Because even in the outline commercial district, they allow detached single uh one family dwellings. >> Okay. However, the bylaws say you only
can have one per lot. >> Per lot. >> It does say that somewhere. >> Yeah, it was in the legal. I think that's just Yeah. >> Robert, what say you? I think the point the point of this is that all the previous applications plus what the
attorney is saying that this is this still is and and it will remain basically forever a pre-existing nonconforming use. Um so we have to keep that in mind and then yeah the explanation of that
that this proposed change from transient to um to uh full-time occupancy whatever it's called um is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. That's that's really the crux of it I think right
there. And I think going back to the 2020 2009 and 2010 special permits that were issued. Um I mean they were issued saying yes, this is a pre-existing nonconforming
use. So I think it'd be hard for us to suddenly come out and say, "Okay, it's a pre-existing non-conforming use and we're going to deny it all of a sudden." I can't really see that happening. But yeah, we need we need following our
rules and regulations um to be able to explain basically to explain to the town to know why this was why this should be approved and why it's I mean I'll say why it's to the benefit of the town to
do this >> displacing people. I wouldn't go there, but I would just go with the nature of the use, transient versus longtime residents, and what differences on each would there be and describe those differences and and how it won't be
worse than what you have. I don't want to say what you have now, what you should have now. >> Um, >> and I think you should make a point of of the previous applications being citing hotel motel. Um, you should make
a point that that this is a change fromo potential hotel motel to cottage dwelling following the definition of that a detached one family dwelling that does not exceed 1,800 square ft um
excluding non-dwelling areas, attic and stuff which is which it seems to me that's what these dwellings are. I would not I would not consider these multif family by any means. I know there were nine on nine on the lot or whatever
10 on the lot, but that's still not the definition of multif family. >> No, it's not the definition. But whether you had nine families put together and the buildings were connected or whether they all have a you can drive around them. To me, you got nine families on
the same amount of acres as name all living on the same >> Yeah. Yep. >> So, not definitionwise, like I don't there really isn't a definition for what this is, >> right?
And I think this should be I you know we should be care I really think that if the town wants to go to start allowing um long-term tenants on any type of land
in town. There needs to be some revisitation of these descriptions, the definitions and um of the bylaw. Maybe they should go into the OCD and and add that in there.
So, we need to move with the >> But wouldn't that open up I mean like I what I I sense that you don't want this um decision to open up some sort of Pandora's box where you feel like obligated to do things that other you
know grant requests from other people. So, I feel like I don't I don't want to go down that path. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do this where it's sort of uh you do you know what I mean? Like I'm just I'm just
>> Well, whether specifically allowed or specially allowed, that's what's happening here. If we grant a special permit to allow long-term residency in this type of a zone, we better have a darn good reason. So, we better have a really good reason
for it not being more detrimental to allow a use that's different than what's allowed in that non-conforming use, >> right? And I think I mean, not to belabor it, but I think that like the the reason that sort of threads this
needle here is that we have something going from existing that's been in operation for decades and making that legal versus building new things. Does that make sense? I mean, that's kind of how I'm thinking about threading that needle for you, where you could feel
free to sign off on this without feeling obligated to check off some big construction project for any anything else. If that makes sense. Or >> in the end, what's the difference if you have
>> the difference is that it was existing versus new construction. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Okay. But once it's built, how is it different? >> It's different in that it was built because because
>> I mean, but in the end, >> I'm giving you I'm trying to come up with some out, >> right? So, >> this is just a non component. >> Yes. for the use that was granted. Not >> keeping up with times. We our bylaws are
constantly changing with accessory >> dwelling units. They are, but this is different. This is something separate from that. >> Let's see how it's not more detrimental. >> All right. I think so. So I think the next step here is to officially withdraw
the application, >> the current application. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That has to be um assigned in writing by the applicant written the withdrawal. >> Okay. >> Do you want us to continue so that we're active? You want us to continue until he
comes in and gives you a sign and then does this just go away or >> if he withdraws? I remember that sign. I think that you know we've paid his word for it >> that he'll bring in a signed written
request for withdrawal and withdrawal without prejudice. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, so Addison will need just a written your withdraw note sent to Beth to Beth >> signed to the sound board of appeals.
>> Yeah. that you would like to redraw the application without >> meaning you can reapply >> and then reapply >> not as a modification but as a new special permit. Yeah, >> sure. >> Y and
does someone want to make a motion to wave the application fee for this second applic. And also you would need a motion to accept the withdrawal, right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. On pending receipt of the written
request um for this application. That would close that out and then you can work on the new application. Okay. So let's start with uh accepting the a motion to accept the withdrawal pending receipt.
Anybody want to make a motion? >> Oprah, Kobe. >> Yeah. >> He looked excited to do it. >> Um, >> I'm okay doing it. I'm okay doing it. I just want to make sure I do it right so that I'm not wasting your time for a
third a third uh meet or you know a third or fourth or you know I want to do it right the first time so that that way you know I don't present it and then you guys say oh it's wrong do it again but >> that's understand that you got to send
Beth something in writing >> yes I will send her right a written letter stating my intention to withdraw >> all right based on that >> a motion I move to >> I move to
accept the withdrawal once it's in pending the receipt >> pending receipt in writing. >> Yeah. >> Second. [Music]
>> Right. Okay. >> You got that? >> Okay. >> She's typing all the right way. Uh, Robert. >> Robert. Yes. >> Kobe. >> Kobe. Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Uh, Vicki. Yes. Uh, do we have
a motion to wave the >> I make a motion to wave the fee for the forthcoming >> application. >> Application for a special permit regarding 159 Brookline Road. >> Second.
>> Robert. >> Robert. Yes. >> Colobby. Yes. >> Yes. Thanks, Vicky. Yes. Unanimous. >> Thank you, Addison. >> Look forward to seeing you again and we
can wrap hopefully in a nice tidy package. >> Okay. Sounds good. I'll see you guys at a later meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Close the hearing at this point. >> Yeah, I would. >> Okay. Do you have a motion to close the hearing?
>> Move to close the hearing. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, Robert. >> Robert. Yes. >> Kobe. Yes. >> Darlene. >> Yes. >> Vicki. Yes. All right. So, I think there's one thing left. Um,
just uh for folks, if you didn't see the email, John Page has resigned. Uh, I don't think willingly. Circumstances have changed for him. So we uh hopefully
can't continue. So reach out if you have any know any folks who would like to have some fun times with us and I get some good work done. Uh I posted in Facebook if you want to com you know comment on it saying yeah you know
um recommend us and I get a few more fill out. Um I think we have >> two full member. >> You guys are the three fulls. So we have two fulls empty.
>> Yeah. >> And two associates. Yeah. Two and two. [Music] >> I don't know if he's on. >> So I think that is all we've got. Do we have a motion to close the meeting? Move
to close the meeting. Second. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Kobe, yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thanks everyone.