So we'll do a roll call. >> Presley Cole present. >> Kobe present. >> Robel present. >> Okay, Rob. Thank you. >> This is really bad. >> Dave, you want to roll call in?
>> David Chanel present. Darlene is gone again. Okay, so we'll add her back. Um, and present. Um, who we've all been introduced. There's no one here for the for the signin sheet. Um, what I'd like
to do is, uh, just so folks know, this is being recorded and will be uploaded to YouTube in a reasonable amount of time. Uh, we have minutes from our meeting on
May 19th. Has everyone had a chance to review it? >> Are there any changes that are? >> No, not we. We have a mo motion to accept the
minutes. I make a motion to accept the minutes from five May 19th, 2026. Kobe. >> I second. >> Abigail Farley. Yes. >> Kobe Strereer. Yes.
>> Call. Yes. >> Abigail. You uh approved the meetings minutes. >> Yeah. Said yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Um Okay. >> I didn't participate. No. No. And but we
have uh I'll also say yes. Um I don't see Darwin at this point. Uh Robert, you were here as well. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yourself? >> Could you? >> And yes, for Vicki. So I think we only
need three free to pass. So we're good there. I can move that out of the way. Um, so I guess we should just proceed into we have enough right now. So, Robert, me a col. So, we've got four
at this point. So, we can open the reopen the hearing. Um, do we have a motion to reopen the hearing for 159 Brooks? >> Yeah, David Chanel also moved. >> We have a second.
Second Kobe Straighter. Kobe. >> Oh, >> did you say yes? >> Okay. Kobe. Yes. >> Nine. Natal. Yes. Abigail. >> Uh, Abigail Farley. Yes. >> Dave.
>> David Chanel. Yes. >> Rob. Yes. >> And Darlene. How we doing? >> I'm on my phone and and it's working. So, >> great. Y >> really my apologies, guys. That's okay.
>> You're resourceful. Thank you. So, we're opening the hearing to the 169 Brookline. Uh we just doing roll call to confirm opening the meeting that the hearing >> Darene Sedano here. >> Thank you,
>> Madam Chair. Just to remind you have to reappoint um Darene as a voting member because she was not on Zoom when you did that. >> Yeah. Uh so um appointing Darlene Sano as okay member for purposes of the reopened hearing that also includes Dave
Chanel. >> Uh I make a do I >> No, I I just Yeah, that's one of the ones I have to roll calls. >> Okay. Um so at this point we've had uh multiple
hearings. So, thank you Addison and uh Brendan for joining us uh to uh continue this uh discussion. Uh do I I don't remember did we close out sort of the public comment portion?
>> Yeah, you actually closed out and then five minutes later you reconsidered. So, it's we're back open. >> Yeah, >> I listen listen to it this afternoon. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Oh, thank you. Yeah. and chair, you might want uh madam chair, you might want to read the legal notice again for you know just for information. We'll tie
everything in. >> So I will ask the clerk. >> I don't think you're really asked. Okay. >> Okay. Uh, in accordance with MGL chapter 48 section 9 in the towns and zoning bylaw, the towns and b the towns and
zoning board of appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 19th, 2025 at 6:35 p.m. of the town hall 272 main street towns and mass to consider the application of Edison new for a special permit under the under towns end zoning bylaw chapter 14518 and
14565 to authorize the use of nine previously permitted motel units as long-term residential rental units at 159 Brookline Road session map 38 block 9 lot zero located in the outline commercial district and the aquifer
overlay district. Do you want me to keep going for >> that? Oh, okay. I don't think that's >> All right. Thank you. So, let's uh we have things open. We can still ask questions and get feedback. Uh
we did request um Adam Costa, our town council to join. Uh we had question some of us had questions around the opinion that he provided on January 2nd 2026. Um don't know if we would like to start
there. Okay. Um so uh >> what are you looking to do, Vicki? I mean I know Adam's here at the town council. What is it you're looking looking to do with the town council? Uh so I want to uh I would what I'm going
to request is he summarizes his opinion that we had he sent us on January 2nd, 2026 just to really get context and then we can ask him questions. >> Yeah, I I actually don't have that opinion. Um it was
>> I didn't provide that. So it's it's really not relevant to the public hearing. Correct. Well, it has to do with it has to do with the legal standing of my concern and I thought that was drafted by his associate, not Adam directly. Adam, did
you drop that or your associate? >> So, there are there are a couple of opinions and there might be some confusion there. We we were asked um about uh the substance of this application in one instance. We were also asked in another instance about um amendment of
or potential amendment of the zoning bylaw. >> Correct. There there are a couple of opinions. There's one dated September 29th of 2025. That one was drafted by Steve Chaplan, an associate of mine, but I I consulted with him and reviewed it
before it was sent. So, it's as much my opinion as it is Steve's opinion. Uh there was then subsequently a further opinion that was issued on January 2nd of of this year 2026 uh a related opinion and that one I drafted.
>> Okay. So I I actually don't have either of those. Um the oh the one on J on the second though that was regarding whether or not the amendment that was brought to the planning board was going to be going to pass must have from your opinion. Correct. >> That that's correct. The second opinion was was uh directed more toward a
potential zoning amendment that I think was intertwined with this application, but was certainly its own thing. >> Um but but yes, that's that's what my opinion was directed toward. Whereas Steve's opinion was more specific to um the the 2009 and 2010 decisions in this
case and how those related to the application that's now before you and what's within your purview and what authority you do and don't have, etc. Okay. Yes. Um I did bring the September 29th opinion um for people to look at if
if they'd like. I I emailed that to you, Beth, just prior to the meeting. I don't know if you saw that. Um that's the one I have. I don't have the January. >> Okay. >> I don't think the January the January doesn't really matter. I mean, that's that's passed. That's >> okay.
>> Well, the other one was regards to the first application that was withdrawn. So >> you you know what I'm saying? It's kind of >> Yeah. But but well the thing is the this the reason I with it's the same application except that in the first one
I was asking for an amendment to an existing special permit and then you guys told me that it'd be better if I just rescended it and then did essentially the same thing asking for a totally new one. So I I you're correct in that Adam's opinion
here is regarding the first uh application, but I think it still applies because of the similarity between the two. >> So um chair uh Janicki, do you want to give the history or or do you just want to focus on this public hearing before
you? >> Um >> my suggestion is look at the facts before you. Um >> yeah. Okay. Um so why don't we move over to um to see if there's any additional
information or facts that Addison or Brendan may have since we've, you know, opened the hearing. >> Can I just ask a question before we get into this? Again, I'm still confused. I know what the applicants want, but I'm
confused as to what part of the bylaw they're seeking relief from. Are they seeking a special permit under special permit criteria under OCD or are they looking for an alteration of a pre-existing nonconforming use?
That still doesn't clear cuz we've been all over the place with this and I still am not clear exactly what I want to know where to look for in this bylaw to see if we can help them. >> Well, did you look at the application?
Um the application does say uh 14518 which is pre-existing nonconforming alterations. So that is what they've applied for and that's what you have to look at. Then I would like the applicants to start out with the
pre-existing nonconforming use that they're looking to change. >> So we go through this two hours. >> Yeah. >> What I'd like to do is can we just do you guys have the the opinion from Adam that I'm referring to the September 29th
>> legal opinion? >> Until you until you can answer my question with clarity, none of that matters. So, I I I am not as articulate as Adam is, and that's why I want to look at his writing here just to put
into words maybe just to clarify the situation. I >> Yeah, but Addison, you you understand Adam's not your your attorney. He's town council. >> I I know. I know. But can Why is it a problem to just look at what town council wrote? >> Because you're the applicant.
>> Well, I I can, >> you know, I can tell you. So, there there was there was a section. It was read out in the last hearing and I actually had a fundamental concern or problem with the with the opinion. I think it's wrong because he was talking about you you could adjust based on a
special permit but he the um the location is an OCD as permitted and other uses by other use and structures by special permit. The long-term long-term uh resident does not part of it which means on under section four it's prohibited use. And he
and and the associate did not bring that into effect. He just said you could do it by special permit. That's wrong. So I don't I you know I we went through this whole thing for two two hours and 15 minutes back back in the fall. You know what we could do differently.
>> So maybe Adam can help help me sort of parse this out. Um so in in looking sort of did some research and there's this idea of grandfathered non-conforming status
>> and then there's the you know the buying and there seems to be something at the state level that might over rule or take precedence over local zoning. Is that not right? No, no, no,
>> no, no. You talk about the 10-year statute of limitations if you don't take action. That's not even in front of us, he's got to go to court to do that. Not here. But no, there's no the state can't override us other than for a 40B type of
application. Our bylaws are the bylaws, Adam. And correct me if I'm wrong, Adam. >> No. So, so that's that's correct. Okay. If you'll if you'll give me the floor for for just a moment, Madam Chair, I'll try and maybe offer a few points of clarity. I don't want to go too far. I
don't want to offer advice that's not being sought. But let me try and at least answer the the question that you asked. So, chapter 4, the zoning act, you're all familiar with it because the relief that you grant with some frequency all arises under chapter 48. Your bylaw arises under chapter 48. Uh
section six of chapter 48 deals with nonconformities. There are three types of non-conformities. Non-conforming uses, non-conforming structures, non-conforming lots. And there are provisions of that statute that provide a what I often refer to as a baseline of protection. Uh minimum protections that
as a matter of state statute are provided to uh whether it be a use, a structure, a lot, every use, structure, and lot in Massachusetts. And there are a variety of freezes that apply that will uh afford property owners vested rights. And you just heard Mr. Schnel
refer to um to to to sixyear and 10-year statutes of limitations which are referenced in the statute as well. Periods of time after which uh protection is gained or protection can be lost if non-conforming uses are are discontinued. So you're right, Madam Chair, in saying that there are some
baseline protections provided by state statute, but that's not really an overruling of your local bylaws. It's just a a a number of basic protections that are provided by state law. You then have the authority as a municipality, any city or town does to incorporate
those minimum protections which of course apply whether you incorporate them or not. But you have the ability as well to go above and beyond. And in some instances, you're going above and beyond and simply providing standards or criteria for um changes to be addressed
through a particular process. Uh, in other instances, you're going above and beyond, or you could be going above and beyond to provide greater protection than what's provided by state law. And not all municipalities provide greater protection. Some do, some don't. In your
bylaws in towns, you have sections 17 through 21, which is your non-conforming, it's entitled non-conforming uses, although it's a bit of a misnomer because it addresses not just non-conforming uses, but also non-conforming structures. And really an at issue here and it's a
section that's cited by the applicant is section 18. And section 18 is entitled extensions and alterations special permit required. That's the subtitle of that section. And I'm going to read the first sentence because I think the first sentence is maybe the most important. It
says pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses may be extended, altered, changed, or rebuilt only by special permit from the board of appeals and subject to the provisions of section
145-65F, which is your usual special permit criteria. And so you have the ability as a as a town to apply to in the sense that you're allowing modifications or changes or alterations or extensions or
reconstructions of non-conforming uses or structures. You're not obligated to do so. But when you do that, the state statute says you can do it by way of a simple finding, which is a simple majority vote, or you can do it by way of a special permit. In Townsen, you've chosen to do it. I just read you the
language, by way of a special permit. And so that's why your board sees from time to time applications for special permits to extend, alter, change, or rebuild, those are the four terms that are used in the sentence I read to you, pre-existing non-conforming uses or structures. I think what's really an
issue in this case, and I'm going to defer to your interpretation, I guess I'm going to defer in the first instance to your building commissioner's interpretation, but you're not necessarily bound to agree with it. But what you've got to determine is whether what is being proposed here, you have
decisions from 2009 and 2010 at which it was determined that the use of this property, at least as I read those decisions. I wasn't representing the town at that time. I wasn't involved in the issuance of those decisions. But I read those decisions to say that determinations were made at that time
that the use of the property qualified. It was grandfathered. It qualified as pre-existing non-conforming. That's the term we use, grandfathered. The courts have disfavored that that term of late, but that's the term that has generally been used, grandfathering. And so it was determined in 20 2009 and 2010 that the
use was grandfathered and permission was granted at that time for modifications to be made to that use consistent with the sentence I just read you, which as I understand it existed at that time as well. You now have an application before you that is asking for a further
modification. Now whether you qualify it as a modification, extension, alteration, change, reconstruction is sort of up to you. What's being proposed is a change to a use that would otherwise be prohibited to Mr. Chanel's point that would otherwise be prohibited in towns. Now,
there are two ways to interpret sentences like the sentence I read you from your bylaw. Some communities are are have interpreted that sentence to mean that if you have a pre-existing non-conforming use, I'm not going to talk about structures because the focus is on use. a use that that that is
pre-existing non-conforming, meaning it's grandfathered, meaning it would not be permitted today, but it predates the provisions of the bylaw that say it's prohibited today, and therefore it's protected. Some communities say if you want to change that to a different use altogether, and that different use
altogether is a use that would also be prohibited, that you can do so by way of a special permit under that sentence that I read you. they would qualify that as a quote unquote change. Other municipalities say that's not a change at all. That's not what the we
what the authors contemplated when they said change. When they said change, they were talking about changes that are like those other terms, extension, alteration, reconstruction. They're talking about changes that are changes to something similar in type or something that might otherwise be permitted today in Towns End, but not to
an use altogether that would be prohibited in Towns and today that you could never you could never operate if it weren't for the fact that you had a pre-existing non-conforming use on the site already. Those are two different interpretations of essentially the same language. In some communities, there's a
huge benefit in the sense that the language is much more specific than what you've got in your bylaw. Um, I was involved in a case a few years back where the language was more specific. There was still some question um but it was more specific about the types of changes that could occur. Your bylaw
offers no guidance. And so that's the decision you have to make. Now, your building inspector, your building commissioner, uh, back in May of last year, issued a letter to the applicant and made the determination, and you can read in as much or as little into this as you want because he also didn't get
too specific, but he said, "My determination, I'm just reading one sentence in his in his letter, which is only about a page. My determination is that you need to reapply to the ZBA for use as a long-term rental unit in lie of the hotel motel use which was directed
in these decisions. So I suppose you could give that inter different interpretations. You could say that that was a determination an interpretation by your building commissioner that this is allowed. the change from one pre-existing non-conforming use, which I don't think anybody is contesting exists
today on the site as modified back in 2009 and 2010, a modification from that to long-term residential rental units, which is a prohibited use today. Um, you could interpret it to say that that's permissible by way of relief from the
ZBA. Or you could interpret it to in a different way and say, "Well, well, no, he was directing it to the ZBA, but the ZBA doesn't is not bound by his his his instruction that this should go to the ZBA." The ZBA can say, "No, we're not prepared to permit an altogether prohibited use." That's a determination
that I suppose is up to you, giving as much or as little difference as you choose the determination by the by the zoning enforcement officer, by the building commissioner. But that's I think sort of where we are. Um, I can respect Mr. Chanel's point because his point is one one of those two options I
just expressed. But the other option is to interpret these terms extend alter change rebuild to allow by way of a special permit the conversion from one pre-existing non-conforming use to a different use altogether that happens to be prohibited in the district today but
would be allowable if you make a determination that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood which is the standard for a change under section 18. Thank you. >> Okay, Darlene, is that you raising your hand? Okay.
>> Yeah. So, I did serve on the zoning board when that decision was made and the way I see this property now is there is no nonconforming use. the use is permitted. It was the it
was we use the word use like you even said people will go oh non-conforming use but it also appears to um takes in structures and lots. Well the the the reason why they had to apply because they were rebuilding those units with
kitchens which the kitchens were not allowed in the motel. So the motel use was allowed. It was just the structural nature of the kitchens. So that's why I'm having a problem putting this into context because if I don't see it as a
pre-existing non-conforming use that can be changed because it doesn't exist. Does that make sense? I if I may say so I I I I thought by definition we said it is a pre-existing non-conformance and we're looking for an
alteration to it and it seemed pretty clear Mr. uh was saying it's really up to the ZBA's determination of of if the alteration would be uh less detr not more detrimental to the community then
it would really be um up to the ZBA's uh determination if it was acceptable to alter it. >> I don't think you heard what I just said. >> If
And and if I if I if I could add I I M I heard what you said and I understand the point you're making and as I as I said as I sort of prefaced my opinion with I have no firsthand knowledge of what occurred in 2009 and 2010. So my opinion and that of my my associate are simply
based on us reading the papers. But as I look at the 2009 and 2010 decisions, the board specifically voted and made a finding under section 18 of the bylaw, which is the same as section 18 of the bylaw today. And that finding would only have been required if there was a
nonconformity. So, um, you seem to be suggesting that maybe that was because of a structural nonconformity, although I I I don't I don't read that here. There's nothing in the context of the decision to suggest that that was the case. But again, maybe you have firsthand knowledge of it, but there was
a finding made under section 18 which would seem to suggest that there was some discussion or belief that >> some type of nonconformity existed on the site. >> Yeah, Adam, Adam, I agree with you. It was a pre-existing non-conformity. What they were doing back 2009 2010, they
wanted a rebuild. One permit allowed for rebuilding of five and the other one rebuilding four. they wanted to update them, you know, bring bring them up to up to code space, basically bring up the spec. Um, including the kitchens. So, it was based on a pre-existing non-conforming structure use. Um, well,
I don't I I won't even say pre non-conforming uh use because even back then and throughout the life of my my time on the zoning board in the 34 years is those those units have all always been determined as short-term rentals. I mean, what what the owners did, you
know, undercover I can't tell you, but it's always been everything we've done and this has been this property has been coming to the zoning board for years. I mean, years, you know, um and it's always been short-term rentals. Um the 2009 2010 again were done to to update
the structure. Um so, Adam, just let me let me ask you then. So, you believe section 18 allows for the addition of of or change of use, even though it's specifically prohibited under today's statute or bylaw. >> I believe it can. I'm not saying that it
definitely does. I believe it can be interpreted. There's actually conflicting case law on this on this point and I've research. >> I I read them today. >> Yeah. So, there there's there there's conflicting case law. It's a little it's difficult to reconcile the different trial court cases. Most of them I think that there's one that's an appellet
court case. The others are all trial court cases, mostly land court cases. And it's difficult to even compare because it's not apples to apples, right? Every case is based upon, and this goes back to what I said initially, one of the first things I said, which is that while the state statute provides a baseline of protection, every city
ordinance or town bylaw has the ability to be a bit different, to offer greater protections to to to alter the manner in which um relief can be awarded, special permit finding. What are the factors that are considered? And so in each case, you have to look, you know, you can't just consider it in a vacuum or in
the context of the state statute. You have to look at that community's ordinance or bylaw and say, okay, what was the language of that ordinance in bylaw? How does it compared to ours in this specific case? And then what was the outcome? What what did the court what did the court rule based upon that specific language? So it can even be
diff difficult to reconcile similar cases. And in fact, there's two trial court cases decided within a few years of each other with almost identical language, and one came down one way and one came down the other way. So it it it's it's very much challenging. Um, but but yes, I believe that you could
interpret, if you so choose, the language of section 18 to allow a change from the current pre-existing non-conforming use, if you conclude that it is a pre-existing non-conforming use, to a different use altogether, even if that different use altogether is a
prohibited use. And I've had I've had communities do that. >> What did the appeal court say? I didn't read that one. I didn't see it. >> Well, the appeals court case was sort of nibbling around the edges. It essentially concluded what I just concluded that it's up to the bylaw to make the determination in terms of
looking at specific cases that talk about okay what is what what is determined in this instance based on the specific bylaw language. We're left with trial court cases and there's there's there's two or three on either side of this debate. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Interesting. >> Like a loophole. Well, it's not a loophole. It's >> you know, I will say as I'm looking again at the decisions here, there there is a statement um in a separate motion to grant a special permit for the
rebuilding of five rental cottages which are a pre-existing non-conforming use under the towns and zoning bylaw. So, just just to be clear, structure versus use, that finding was made back in '09 and again in 2010. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I have no firsthand
knowledge. I'm simply saying that that's what that board at that time determined. And so certainly I I wouldn't fault the applicant for now coming before you and making that request consistent with what was determined back in 2009 or 2010, whether you're of the same opinion as the board that existed back then and
whether you want to go the further step to allow a further modification of that non-conforming use to to be a use that is prohibited altogether or would be prohibited altogether in towns. today. Those are decisions that are left to your discretion now.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> And the decision clearly stated as a condition that um there it would be for transient use only. So that was considered. Um so if it was for
transient use only, that wasn't the nonconforming part of the decision. That's my whole point. Um I I don't I think the decision wasn't written as clear as maybe it could have been because there was this whole thing like like you said about the rebuilding of the structures and the part about
allowing the kitchens and somehow that I don't know I guess that didn't make it into the decision that part of the conversation >> and and I will say I think it was maybe a challenge and again I'm purely speculating here but it it might have been a challenge for the board at the
time because By allowing reconstruction of the kitchens, it brought it out of compliance with the definition of hotel motel. And so the only way that you can develop a use but not comply with the definition of that use would be to get a
use variance which wouldn't have been available to to the applicant. And so, uh, I if the applicant had had a vacant site and come to you or any other board and said, I want to build a hotel motel, but I want to build it with kitchens.
The obvious answer would be you you can't do that. And there's no mechanism under the zoning bylaw by which you can possibly do that. So, you are completely 100% out of luck. The only way that that was able to occur back in '09 and and in 2010 was because the use was determined
to have been pre-existing non-conforming already and pre-existing non-conforming uses can benefit from this change, extension, alteration, reconstruction language of the bylaw that allows those changes to be made if the ZBA determines that they're not going to be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. That's they had kitchens previously, so that was what was non-conforming and they were rebuilding them and they wanted to rebuild them with the kitchens. >> Got it. >> My question would be why was why were the kitchens allowed to be built if it
was agreed that they don't conform with hotel and motel usage. >> They were pre-existing non-conforming. They existed by they existed. They were just they just wanted to renovate the units which already had kitchens. They just allowed them to renovate it and include the
kitchen in it because they were already pre-existing non-conforming at that time which included the kitchen. They just wanted to update the services of the building and whatever insulate it and so on. >> So, we're simply asking for an an alteration
to a pre-existing nonconformance uh just like they would have been at at that time. And it seems like that was a more extreme case if if kitchens don't fall under hotel motel usage. >> Yeah, I would disagree with you that what they were doing is they were taking
five units and then four and say I want I want this unit to I want to rebuild it and put it just like it is now but under new updates in the exact same spot. We they weren't adding anything else. They weren't they weren't adding a kitchen. The kitchen was already already pre-existing. It was already there. They
just wanted to update it. You're asking for a whole different in my opinion a whole different ball of fish. You're asking to to go from transit which is that's what you're supposed to be doing to long-term. And that's I that's that's that's
different. I in my opinion and and I take Adam I take Adam's opinion, you know, I've known Adam for a long time. I take his opinion to to heart. You know, I I didn't look at it, you know, section 18 like that way for this particular application. So I'm I'm I'm thinking
about it, but um it's the 2009 2010 do not are not replicated here. It's it's it's different. >> Dave, would you mind if I I asked why you feel that long-term versus
transient is significantly different? Well, based on the current current structure of the bylaws, and this is what we spent two hours or maybe the first hour in the last hearing, it's not allowed. It's not it's not a permitted use. It's not a a use that's allowed by
special permit. It's just not allowed. Adam's Adam's position is that we can we can link we can jump that fissure, if you will, by using section 18 to get past my concern. Remember I told you I just needed I wanted you to come in with an attorney to tell me I was wrong or to give this maybe give the speech that
Adam just did. Um you know that's that that's that's what I need. Uh because you know section four if it's not listed it's it's prohibited and OCD long term is not allowed. It's not it's not mentioned. So there's too many
things that that stack up against you. But if 145 section 18 allows us to bridge that gap maybe that's something we consider. we can we can look at. >> And then there's also the other the other part of this that makes it such a stretch is that through all throughout
our bylaws all throughout only one structure, one dwelling unit is allowed on a lot and anything other than that becomes an accessory use. Even the open space preservation development has to have a total amount of acreage for all
the units you want to do and then they let you densify them and and create open space. So everywhere in our bylaw suggests that and um that's that's the other part that that I can understand why it's not allowed. O OCD is supposed
to be to promote businesses that we don't have enough of in town. Um not the o long-term residential. That was my other point. >> And here's where I disagree with you. Um Darlene, I I think this does fit into
OCD permitted uses. I've I've said this at the last prior meeting, you know, under 12 14529 B6. These are I would call these detached
single family dwellings. If they were a single family dwelling, give me a second in here. Per um that said one unit per property, that would be that would not make sense for to be under in a commercial district. this makes more
sense um to have multiple dwellings um within a commercial district. Why do you think they would mention, you know, a residential area here embedded into the outlying commercial district? That doesn't make sense to me.
>> Because it's it's um it's grammar. It says detailed single and then has one in parentheses family dwellings. What that means is that single family dwellings are allowed in the district. It doesn't mean more than one on a lot. So if you wanted to read if it said if you wanted
to read your grammar like let me finish. If you wanted to read the grammar like that if if number six said dwelling >> and with without the s then that means in all of the OCD you could have one house
not for a lot one house. So that's an interpretation of grammar there. But the one the one thing that could we talked about this last meeting too is that you can't have one more than one dwelling on one piece of property. Uh 145 section 14 says that. So that would that so that's
a that would be a variance or a special permit anyway. So you you're trying to you you were trying to pigeon hole to to give him an out. I mean the the the way I see it section 18 is the is the only way that I that what Adam suggested is the only way to even give him some kind of relief. Not funny that those Wait,
I'm talking. Excuse me. I'm still talking. Okay, don't interrupt me. >> You have you have a unit you have a unit with a primary house and nine small 8 by10 units. I don't even know how you can consider each one of those nine a separate dwelling and under the section
14514 says it's specifically prohibited. Where do you how do you get around that unless you're just trying to force force it down? >> It's pretty simply stated there. It says detached single family dwelling >> and a section >> and a separate section says one one dwelling unit per per lot.
>> It also says you know the commercial commercial uh outline commercial district again is uh for the widest range of permitted commercial activities for Mr. new this is commercial activity. These are rental properties which again
kind of fortifies that that statement doesn't um in include a one bu one dwelling on a single property and I think that was it seems more like that was written for um like a mobile home
park or some similar use. Oh god, >> it doesn't it's not qualifying that way. You have to take the you have to take the bylaw. We talked about this last minute. You have to take the bylaw as a whole. I mean statuto statuto construction, you can't just read something in a vacuum. You got to look
at it. You need to look at other sections that may apply. And that's just where the other section within the special >> term is. Yeah. Yeah. What number? >> I was going off of 14529 for >> commercial district
6. It even has one in parenthesis meaning one dwelling. So the interpretation there I think is is just a huge stretch compared to the rest of the bylaw. Especially the part like Dave says it says only one unit per
lot. So >> I couldn't find anything about density requirement or density limits for outline commercial district. Um so I I don't know if that's accurate.
>> Read section 14. Would you >> have to bring it up? Section 14 on 145, >> right? >> Principal buildings and frontage. >> Yep. It's under the it's under the lot the lot size and frontage or sideyard
setback. All that stuff. >> It just mentions one one residential uh dwelling per per lot. >> Yeah. No building shall be erected except on a loted on the street and there shall be not more than one principal building on any residential
lot except as provided for in this bylaw. >> Right. >> Does that apply apply to all zones zoning districts >> Adam? >> Yes. >> If I said yes, it would have he would
have thought I was lying. So that's what >> it would have specified if it wasn't >> agreed. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> If you guys if you if you if you you want to do this, we got to you got to
zone in on section 18 with Adam's Adam's um presentation. That's where it's going to happen. If it's going to happen, not by not by trying to claim those those nine units as separate dwelling units. That's not going to happen. And to argue that the permitted use is is where we're
at, then we wouldn't even be here. The building inspector would have brought it up and said, "Oh, I I see this as permitted as of right." And we wouldn't be having this conversation. So, >> I I could be arguing over this. >> Yeah. I mean, I I agree that it's uh
special. It's the section 18518 is where we got to go. >> Okay. So, if we refocus on on this section here, um, like Adam said, the the text is alteration, extension, or a
change and and going from shortterm to long-term, I think clearly falls under one of those. So, I'm confused at that point. then we need to be talking in terms of whether or not
this is more or less detrimental in my view. That's how I >> I interpret. >> If you recall the last meeting we had, last meeting I was involved with in OC in the fall, I told you I I look at I look at an application and determine whether or not we have the authorization
and jurisdiction to do what the applicant's asking. Then I look at the facts based on on on on the application itself. you're looking at a 65 finding, you know, 14565, the six six or seven steps on a special permit. That's what you're looking at. We we haven't gotten there yet because we haven't been able
to get past my question of whether or not we had the authority. >> Right. >> So, Adam's given me he's giving me giving me he's giving me pause to reconsider my position. >> Right. Right. So I guess I then the
follow question is what about Adam's explanation about the flexibility and scope of your authority which was bigger than what you believe. >> Oh no I I've no I've always felt we have a lot of authority to to to to for
interpretation. I like I told you the OCD was a specific it was not a permitted it was not mentioned. So by section 4 says it's not if it's not mentioned it's per it's it's prohibited. That's that's the basis on what I was of my position was. Adam's saying we can
use we can go around that by using section 18, you know. Okay, let's take a look at it. So what I guess I'm not what is it that you would need to see or or hear that
that would make you think uh consider otherwise because we already have tried to go down the route uh of of the building department and and they sent us back to the ZVA.
Yeah, sorry. >> Yeah. So, the point uh what we've determined I think at this point is it doesn't fall into permitted uses. So, we need to go down the special permit path
um or examine the special permit path with section 145-18. Um, so that's why the building inspectors determined we need to go in.
So we know it doesn't fit in with the bylaws and OCD. So >> the thing we can look at is 145-18 which has the aspect you know if we if we want to go down that then we also
need to determine is it if it's more detrimental than the current use >> right >> you got to do the special permit criteria first before you can make that finding >> okay >> why don't we why don't we go through the
special permit criteria then I I Yeah, >> see if you can change my mind, but I don't think that um that a pre-existing use that for a hotel motel which was not
nonconforming is is relative to this, but that's just me. >> Yeah, >> this is 8 through two, right? >> Yeah, Vicky, I agree. maybe could just go down the findings and maybe that will
help settle some minds. >> Okay. Um so this is the specific requirements for special permits. The first one a is adequacy of the site in terms of size for the
proposed uses. >> What's the lot size? >> It's 2 2.22 two two acres. But I mean it's ex it's been running the same way for the last 40 50 years. That's not going to change.
>> Yeah. But um how many how many units are on there? Take that times what it would be normally for usage and there's your difference. >> Well, there's there's nine units, >> right? >> Can I ask I'm gonna ask Anderson the house that's Adam? I'm sorry. The house
that's on there, do you guys rent that out or one of you guys live there? >> Uh no, that's rented. That's rented, too. Is it multi? Is it multi-rened or just one one family a person? >> Um, it is just two halves of the house that are rent. >> So, it's a duplex.
>> Um, Brennan, do you know if it's classified as a duplex? >> There's two units. I >> think so. >> Yes. >> Is that part of the lot or is it separate? >> It's part of the lot.
>> I don't have the chart. What's the minimum lot size in um OCD? >> I don't know. >> I don't I've tried to find the chart in the in the zoning uh bylaw and I I can't find it.
>> Well, Donnie, to your point though, I don't think um I lost the uh the list. Beth took the list down. Um I don't think the u adequacy for sight is is any is is is a question. I it they've been running the way they have been for years. I think
it's a no nobrainer myself >> for transient versus long-term use. >> Yeah. I don't I don't see it. I mean, they've been there. Some of those people probably the kids have probably graduate from high school for God's sake. They've been >> you have to compare it to the use that's
allowed. Transient, >> what's the what's going to change? transient use versus long-term number of vehicles. I think he's saying if long-term residency was an inadequate use of the
property the sizewise then how could it have gone so long being used for this purpose without issue >> as for this point I would I would ask that you and Brennan um only answer questions that are asked you not because we're we're going to be discussing the
the bylaw applic >> I'm just I'm just going with the minimum lot size for a residential unit that is allowed in town versus the multiple units that are there. Whether how it's being used illegally right now is not of
I'm not entertaining that. That's >> that's how we've done it though. How what is the change? How is the change of requested going to going to alter what's happening now? I mean whether they've been doing it illegally or legally, that's they've been doing it. >> How is how is the trans
>> non-conforming? >> Right. Right. >> Is it I don't see Yeah. I don't see a difference myself on this particular one. Oh, there you go. >> Is this what you were looking for, Darlene? >> Yeah. Can >> That's That's really small. And her cell
phone must be really small. >> Yes, it is. >> 50,000 square feet. >> It's only 50,000 square feet. >> They got it. They got 2.2 acres >> because it's for businesses, but All right. >> Yeah, they got 2.2 acres.
>> Okay. Should we move on? >> Yep. So I So on Vicki on that one I would or Beth on that one. What would you say? And Vicki your call. >> Not not dimminimous as Bill would say.
>> I would say that it's not more detrimental than >> currently as a short term. >> Okay. Uh B suitability suitability of the site for the proposed use
that seems >> I'd say the same thing. >> Yeah, >> I don't think it's suitable at all because it's not allowed. Multif family isn't allowed in OCD. More than one structure is not allowed. It's not a suitable site because it's
not zoned properly. >> Pre-existing non-conforming. It's not pre-existing non-conforming. The motel is is not pre-existing non-conforming. And what they're doing illegally, you can't say that. >> Well, no, darling. It is pre-existing
non-conform. It's just the long-term long-term rental is what they're asked where it's non-conforming, >> right? >> But the Okay. So, tell me what's pre-existing non-conforming right now. What are they doing that's pre-existing non-conforming that is has been allowed
>> is from what I see and what I what I understand is happening over there. They're doing everything that they're allowed to do except for checking the people out after two weeks. They're staying there longer, right? What else? I mean, that's long-term versus short-term. That's everything else they're allowed to do. They got buildings there. They got
kitchens. They got two part I think it says on in the bylaws two parking spots per per unit. Everything they're allowed to do, they're doing. It's just they just want to do something more by the long term the long-term residency. >> Yeah. >> So, the zoning of the the zoning of the
district, I don't think is suitable for it because it's not allowed. >> Just because they're doing it and nobody's complained doesn't mean that makes it more suitable in my opinion. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean,
>> but that's okay. You can put down what you want. That's that's the whole point. You know, it's not suitable because it's it's basically it's prohibited. It's not there. >> I know. But we've always in the past over the years that you and I have been on the board together, 32 years, whatever the hell it is, we've always
taken what happens today versus what would happen tomorrow with if the application was accepted. Right. So what what they're doing is what they're doing >> has >> but if we give but if we give them long if if we say yes they can do long-term look at me changing I'm 180 degrees off
right now if we get if we allow them to do a long-term rental at this place what are they doing differently what is the site doing differently what is the impact of the flow on the safety doing differently >> we don't know what they're actually really doing
because it's it's not allowed it's illegal so we don't know if there were problems or any of that stuff. We we don't we don't know. That's a hard question to answer. >> Well, if I could, there was a site visit and there had this was um noticed the
abutters were notified. Um I think you know that counts for something. >> There was a site visit, did you say? >> Yep. >> Oh, >> and there was this was this uh was legally uh notified. I mean the process is it's any special permit application
it was in the paper it was you knows were notified so that counts for something and and I don't believe anyone came to the public hearings but they were notified. >> When was the site visit? I would have loved >> was it? >> Yeah, you were invited. You you didn't
make it. It was uh Vicki, myself and Robert. >> Yeah. Oh, >> it was called >> Don't you do you want to report on that site visit? I mean, normally you go on a site visit, you report back to the other board members.
>> Is there anything with that? >> Yeah, you can go ahead Vicki and tell them what you thought. You're a board member. >> I mean, I can let Robert if you want to, you know, give you a chance to talk as well um your summary of the site visit and I can add any detail.
>> Yeah, we did we did a sitewalk. We um we saw all the units. We saw how many there were. We saw how the what the use was, what the condition was. Um, >> okay. So, Robert, bas based on what you observed going down the list, I'm I'm
I'm over there for se number of years 2009 2010, but based on what you observed on the site visit, adequate adequity of site suitability impact on traffic flow. Is that any of that is impacted by it changing it from transient to long-term? No, I don't I
don't believe so. I I believe it's actually a an improvement because transient, like you said, people come in and go in two weeks, they don't really know the area, they don't understand traffic, whatever. Somebody that's there for longer term
understands the neighborhood, understands what what's going on. I I think that's a safer condition than than transient would be. >> Okay. And I believe that is a pre-existing
conforming use. The change is transient to long-term. That's that's the whole issue. >> Well, the other part of suitability of the site I just want to bring out to your attention is it's zoned outline commercial district which is suitable for businesses
and everyone's always complaining we need more businesses. We got to attract them. I know people complain we need more housing obviously too, but so you're taking away business opportunity by creating the long-term residential. So
>> except there is it isn't vacant. >> They got the storage facilities there too as part of the part of the 2.2 acres. Is that that's correct? Addison, right? >> Okay. >> Yes, that's correct. And that's the last time I had a hearing. I think we had when they were doing the transfer, we
would we had a hearing on the on the storage. But I again, A, B, and C, I don't think there's there's a change significant enough change that would have an impact on the >> Yeah. >> on the >> Okay. No, B is a big one. I don't think
it's a suitable site for what for long-term residential use like with multif family dwellings on there. >> Okay. based on the bylaw, but that's okay. >> Thank you. And that's noted. Uh so for A, B, and C, I also agree that it's no
more detrimental um in from the change in use. Uh there's also D impact on neighborhood visual character including views and vistas. Change of views would be a little more. Yeah. >> The same.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Darlings is noted. Yep. >> Uh, adequacy of method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. >> Border health. >> Border health was fine. >> Health. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Addison and Brendan, when you went to the border health, you did those as residential, not uh for a residential flow, not for a transient flow. Do you know, >> Brennon? Do you know the answer to that? I mean I I wouldn't you didn't we were
not aware of the this whole uh the discrepancy in the the zoning issue right so we would have done it as residential >> yeah no reason to >> differentiates but just to that was done as a residential
>> system or set of systems >> yes >> madam chair would you like me to read um it's been a while would you like me to read the mandatory referral from the board of health would that be helpful. >> Yes, thank you. >> Um, in accordance with um I'm sorry, uh,
comments, the septic system and well on the property are adequate for the proposed use regardless of whether the occupants are long-term tenants or transient in nature. And he also provided a mass state title 5 diagram.
Thank you for so for me then the um e method of sewage disposal is no more detrimental than current use. >> Yep. >> Is probably better than it used to be. Uh F adequacy of utilities and other
public services. >> I would say no change. >> I I agree there. And then power is there. That's not changing. Um, is that on private or public water?
>> That is on >> is a well. >> It's a well. Okay. >> All right. Um, and the impact on ground and surface water quality and other environmental and natural resource
considerations. >> No change. >> No impact. Yeah, >> just backing up just a little. I believe the water department said no water lines. Um and that was the the extent. >> Yes, >> that's right.
>> There's a well. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, so having walked through our special permit considerations,
um, is there any other discussion or questions before we we uh close out the the uh I guess what do you call it? The question period, close the testimony portion be the best
way to put it. Uh, can we do a vote for this one? Beth, >> need a motion? >> Yes, you do. >> Oh, for closing the public hearing. I'm sorry. >> Yes, we go into decision and and voting. >> Sure. Yeah, you can do that.
Do we have a motion to Is there anything else that anyone wants to ask uh or any information that they would like to contribute? Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? >> David Chanel so moved.
>> We have a second. >> Second. >> Rob Nel a second. We got Rob for a second. >> Dave. >> David Chanel. Yes. >> Robert. >> Yes.
>> Robert Chanel. >> Yes. >> We have to have you say your name first. >> I I already said David Chanel. Yes. >> Robert. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Slight delay. All right. Uh Cole >> Colobby Sher. Yes.
>> And Vicki Juniki. Yes. All right. So for for Addison and Brendan's point, >> Darlene Sedano. Yes, >> darling. I'm so sorry. >> It's all right. >> Uh there's too many of us now. Make it a little harder. Okay. So So Addison and
Brendan uh will um at this point we'll just discuss um the period for comment is over. So I will ask you to remain on mute. >> Thank you. Uh so is there any additional
discussion or questions for amongst ourselves? >> Don't we have to do a motion Vicki for um the section section six finding? >> They prepare a draft decision um late in the afternoon. So I don't know if you
saw it. If you'd like I can share it. >> Okay. So, well, the motion would be something like um that the you know that the um >> move that the proposed that the proposed use will be more detrimental than the existing use rather than the neighborhood of the town. That thing.
>> Yeah, it's it's right in the first second paragraph. >> Thank you. >> Oh, aren't you good? >> Holy cow. >> For some reason, I'm I'm not able to uh Oh goodness. >> Happy with the verbiage in it.
>> Oh, so you you actually made Oh, that is pretty cool. Beth, you know, I've been on the board 32 years and no one has ever done that for me. I'm my last days today and now you start doing it. What's up with that? >> I know. Problem is I'm having a few difficulties. So bear with me. I'll try
again. Overwhelmed. Hang on. Sorry. All right. Okay. Right. So, we we do the >> any windows. That's weird. >> The F section first.
>> Yeah. The the proposed the proposed um decisions you had you had put on the screen that had the motion on it right there. >> Get it back. Um almost there. Yeah. Right. So, your findings are back. I'll fill in. I didn't do them in real time.
Uh so this would be the motion for the special permit and then the finding. >> Oh, are we ready for a motion? I move that pursuant to section 145-65F of the town's zoning bylaw, 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. Uh, David Chanel second. >> Nicely done. >> Like you've done that before.
>> Only done it a couple times. >> Yeah. Who? >> Darling. >> Uh, no. >> David Chanel. >> David Schnell. Yes. >> Robert.
>> Robuc. Yes. >> Kobe. >> Kobe Strader. Yes. >> Vicki Janiki. Yes. All right. So that discussion if this permissible >> for the next part. >> Yes.
>> Before we go to the next part. >> Well, I have a question about the duration of the special permit. >> Um, yeah. And that's what I wanted to get to is like is there a duration? Are there conditions that we would put on the permit? >> Yeah. So do you have thoughts on that?
>> Well, it's you know under um 45 4565 special permits uh G the duration is for the special permit is two years. Um, do we do you want to
is there can we allow for a longer time period so that the the property owner does not have to come back every two years? >> Yeah, Kobe, where are you reading that? >> Yep. Uh, under special permits. And tell
me if I'm off base here. >> 145-65 G >> G. Okay. >> I I if I if I could through you, Madam Chair, that that's a um respectfully that's a misreading of section G. Um
although I I I concede that it does say special permits granted under this section shall lapse 2 years from the date of issue. Um if you were familiar with case law, you'd appreciate why it's a misreading. Case law says that when ordinances and bylaws establish time
frames for uh special permits, those time frames are periods within which the permit needs to be uh utilized. Once use begins under the permit, all rights under the permit vest in perpetuity unless the permit says otherwise. So, as
long as the applicant begins using the property in the manner that you would be, and I don't want to presume anything, but if you vote yes on all the remaining motions and you grant the relief that's being requested, as long as the applicant begins using the property consistent with that relief within 2 years, they would then be
permitted to use it indefinitely unless there is a more restrictive time frame included as a condition of the approval of the special permit. >> Yeah, I I agree. Adam, what's your position on transfer of ownership? Does that trigger a review of the special permit or is that does that right with
the new owner? >> Uh, it it it is transferable um from from owner to owner, successors and assigns unless the permit says otherwise. And there is case law indicating that in the context of a special permit, you do have the discretion to either make a permit
non-transferable or to require some sort of review or approval, formal, informal, uh, at the time of transfer. So that's left up to your discretion as a special permit granting authority. >> Okay. So Kobe, >> as an example, we had um when we had inlaw parts was still under our
jurisdiction. We used to make them all five years and then they had to come back. >> It was kind of like a it was kind of like a revenue generation stream when it's out. Every five years they had back and reply. Um we we dropped that but we we did at least I believe we did. We changed it. So but on pawn transfer the
the permit lapses. >> Yeah. Um, so, so you can do that. You can do whatever you want. I I was just have wanted Adam to answer instead of me. >> And I would just caution the board to be mindful of the consequence. And this is not me putting my thumb on the scale at
all. I couldn't care less whether you choose to limit the the duration of the permit or not. But I've had instances where boards consider and I would agree with uh Mr. Chanel saying that um it's common for example in the context or it used to be in the context of accessory
apartments because many accessory apartment bylaws or ordinances or in-law apartment bylaws and ordinances required the in-law apartment to to to be occupied by somebody with a familial relationship. So it wasn't unusual to say upon transfer it expires or expires
and needs to be renewed every 5 years. With projects that are different than that, something like the project that's at issue here. Um, in the event that there's going to be some sort of financing, for example, uh, required in connection with a change of use or a reconstruction, it can be very difficult for an applicant to get the requisite
financing if they show their lender a piece of paper, a special permit that says you can use the property in the following manner, but only for 3 years. Um, the finance is going to say, then what happens? The board decides to pull the rug out from under you, and we're left holding the bag because you can't
repay your loan. So again, I don't know any of the particulars of this particular applicant or this particular project. Um, but you just want to be mindful about that that risk. It could effectively invalidate the the the benefit that you're you would be granting in and issuing a permit.
>> Yeah, I'd agree with that. So my my opinion, Colby, would be we don't put a timeline on it myself. I don't I don't think that would be appropriate. >> I don't think so. >> I agree. >> I agree. Right.
Thanks, Robert. Any other conditions? Do we explicitly need to say you can't make any structural changes? You can't change the footprint. Um you can't add any more >> um
units. >> That would be that would be a building permit, wouldn't it? I would think so, but I I just wanted to sort of want to cover our bases and make sure that >> um >> well, I think you can make us make a an openended statement that says any any um
substantive changes to the to the structures on on site um shall be brought to the attention of the building enforcement officer or something. But I mean, that's that that's the way it works anyways, >> right? >> But if you wanted to use that as a catch-all, you could do something like that. Well, if if they were going to
expand on this, they'd have to come back to the zoning board anyways. >> Well, that's that's my point. Yeah. >> Yeah. And that's that's what I want to just make sure that that we felt that that would be covered through the normal processes. >> All right.
>> All right. So, are there any other restrictions or cons uh that we might consider? >> I just got to I still got to think about section 18. >> Yeah. So, we've got uh you the board of health is handling anything to do with
the septic um >> I don't have any further comments. >> Okay. So, uh, if there's nothing else, we could entertain a motion to either grant
or deny the special permit. >> I make a motion to grant this special permit to Addison N for the property at 159 Brookline Road pursu pursuant to zoning by by law sections 145-18
and 14565 with the following conditions. can't re >> which we did we have >> and which we didn't have so we wouldn't have conditions >> what but you but Robert was talking
about conditions you said with with the following conditions where you left it open did you put anything in there >> no >> so you >> just read what she's typed that's all >> right >> I can strike it >> okay but I think I mean like what Vicki
said >> we don't have any extra conditions. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just as a general just a general concept saying that um they must maint you know you have the standard stuff Beth maintain awareness of the building co building code you know building requirements and
so on. Reach out for the Yeah. All that stuff we put in there right for the for um >> yeah at the end. Yeah. It's pretty boilerplate. >> Yeah. >> Unless you have anything specific I'll write it right in there. I I really don't I mean this is not a
I mean aside from the the logist the the legal aspect that I had trouble jumping over there's nothing changing. This is not something we have to >> you know removing earth and you know moving stuff around or building stuff. It's just it's just a rubber stamp on what they're already doing.
But I will say before the motion uh before this motion is is voted on, Adam, I want to thank you for opening my eyes on this one because I did not I'm still not 100% behind you, but I'm I'm behind you enough to make it work. >> Thank you, Adam, for attending today.
>> Sure. Happy to help. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Okay, we'll we'll do a roll call. So, I'll start with >> Colby. Yes. >> I I just want to hear the motion again. Is is that on the screen here? >> Yeah, you could mention it without the
conditions. >> Yeah, >> just end it at 165. >> Just Yeah. A motion to grant the special permit to Addison New for the property at 159 Brooklyn Road pursuant to zoning bylaw section 145-18 and 145-65.
>> Period. >> Don't we usually say what the special permits for? To conduct long-term say like Yeah. >> Yeah. There would be something like the um >> allow the change from the existing
pre-existing non-conforming use of a short-term rental to a new non-conforming use consisting of long-term rentals. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. So, we have Can you do a re second on that?
Do >> we have a second on the addition with the allow the change from pre-existing? >> Yeah, the modified. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Do you want me to uh we want to have someone read it again with that in there or >> Yeah. Can you read it again?
>> All right. I make a motion to grant the special permit to Addison N for the property at 159 Brooklyn Road pursuant to zoning bylaw section 145-18 and 145-65 uh and what was it for the
change of the existing pre-existing non-conforming use for transient housing to a pre-existing non-conforming use for long- term term housing. >> Yeah. To to include long-term Yeah, that
that's good. Yeah. >> Is that a second, David? >> Um David Chanel, second. I didn't want to steal it from Kobe, but >> Right. >> Madam Chair, can you ask for discussion about this motion >> before the roll call?
Um, that motion I don't believe is accurate because the pre right now transient use is not pre-existing non-conforming. It's allowed by right. >> So you can amend the motion friendly
amendment. Well, I think so to to to ref to to address Wayne's concern if the motion said, you know, after Robert said 1458 165 to include the to uh to authorize um
long-term rental period, something like that. And that would get get away from the pre-existing. That way this motion will be a little more clear than the one read before because the previous decision was given
to give them kitchens for for an for a legal use and now you're taking a legal use trying to saying it's non-conforming so that you can change it. Yeah, I think I think the prior decisions were part were pro were kind of badly drafted, but if
>> Exactly. >> What do you think, Robert? Having that change? Um 14565 to authorize long-term rental period. >> Would that >> Yeah. >> Would you accept that as a as a amendment? >> Yeah, I accept that.
>> Okay. I'll I'll David Chanel, I'll uh second on the amended motion. >> Okay. Any discussion? just are you removing the all the pre- noncon all of the pre-existing non-conforming
from it? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, after 14565, you're simply saying to authorize long-term rentals. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Discussion. No, that makes sense to me.
>> Okay. All right. So, we are now voting on the special permit decision as amended. >> I'll start with Kobe. >> Kobe Straighter. Yes. >> I'll go to um Robert.
>> Robert Us. Yes. Dave. >> Um, >> pregnant. Um, I will say David Chanel. Yes. >> Darlene. >> Darlene Sedano. No.
>> Uh, Vicki Janiki. Yes. >> So, with four yeses, it passes. >> That's right. Right. So permit is granted. Um so that will be recorded with the town clerk.
>> And I still not practice that enough yet. >> You needed to record Bill when he was doing it. >> Yeah, I know. I I should have had that part of the script here. Um, >> can you allow can you somebody make a
motion if you want to to allow uh the chair to sign or >> whoever? So move. David Chanel. So moved. >> Darlene, sit on a second. >> Right. Dave. >> Uh, David Chanel. Yes.
>> Darlene. >> Yes. Darlene. Yes. >> Kobe Strer. Yes. >> Robert. >> Robert Usili. Yes. >> Okay. And I guess I'll say yes as well. I'll be around. Uh so this um go to the
Beth, can you help me with this? >> Yes. >> I should know this, but I will I will do better next time. >> Okay. How can I help? >> Um so it's >> Oh, for process for the process.
Yeah, I I'll I'll I'll I'll finish the draft probably, you know, within the week and then um as soon as you sign it, uh we'll um submit it to the town clerk. Um and it will go on a 21 20-day sorry,
appeal um process um where basically if anyone files an appeal, they'll file it with the clerk. And um if at the end of that 20 days no appeals are filed, the clerk will issue
a certification um as such and the applicant can pick up the um decision for recording at the registry. And that's it. >> Um thank you.
Uh so at this point I think we're done with the special permit. Um I hopefully that instructions um are clear to you Brandon and um and we can move on to the next topic.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Good. All right. Well, thank you for your patience through the process and good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Adam. You feel free to
>> Yeah. Thanks, Adam. Nice seeing you, buddy. >> Yes. Good to see you all. Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, we have some more business to wrap up before we head out. I think uh most important business is to
thank Darlene and David for their 30 plus years of service to the ZBA. uh they will be um not they will not be renewing their memberships and definitely I've learned an awful lot from both of you probably not enough yet
uh and uh it's been a pleasure and an honor to uh to just you know be a member of the board with you guys. >> Thank you Vicki. >> Thanks. I I I don't have the agenda. Are you guys going to talk about the bylaw um the rules and regs at all?
Yes, we will. >> Do you want me I I have that. Is that Did I send to you or Beth the um my word version of that? >> Yes. >> Yes, >> I did. So, you have that? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we beat it up or they beat it beat
you up on the last meeting with it. >> Well, so it's >> it was it was it was a starting point anyways. >> It was good. >> Thank you. And it was really helpful. >> Sorry, I'm gonna have to leave. Thank you. Thanks. >> See you, Robert.
>> Um, so I did, um, take the notes and updated the word doc, uploaded it to the folder so it's there. >> Um, what I also want to do is I've located three towns that also have publicly posted rules and thought I would compare and see what we can
borrow. >> Borrow's a good word. Good word. Yeah. >> Yeah. We'll borrow some uh things that maybe they've thought through, you know, have more detail than what we have. And so I'll bring that up for a future meeting. >> Did you find that they were a little bit more robust than what we have?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> In certain. >> Yeah. >> For sure. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. I guess >> so. Feel free, darling. You can stay uh if you want for the rest of the
business. Uh that's your choice. >> No, I can um I thank you very much and um I'm happy to be like pass the torch and and be done after all these years. It's so cool. So, wish you guys the best of luck. And hey, you know, we're always
here if you had, you know, just sometimes it's it's helpful to talk something out like if when you're reading something and you go, "Hey, I how do you interpret this or how do you read this?" And the minute you start reading out loud, it's like, woo. And it can come to you a little differently. So, we're happy to We're here for you.
>> Thank you. Makes you feel better for sure. >> It was a wealth of knowledge for Thank you. >> Between the two of us, it's close to 70 years. >> Hey, don't be counting. It's just a number. >> All right. Good luck, everybody. All
righty. Byebye. >> Thank you. All right. So, Robert, so I'll just go over the B. Um, there's a notice of ADA nondiscrimination in your folder. Take a look at it if you wish.
Uh, next uh let's see what we got here. Uh, there's board guide. Oh, ex this is important actually. If you haven't you haven't read this, it's the um exparte communications. Uh so this would be really good to
either review or read for the first time. It's when you can talk business outside of you know so the the meeting >> um and when it's appropriate or not and it can be um you do have to be careful like if we go
on a site visit it's really important not to do any discussion because if there's more than two of us or three of us at the meeting and then you start violating Um, yeah, there's violations here. So, take
a look at that. Uh, let's see. We have a referral here. Uh, let's 5.3. We have correspondence from the other town. So, that let's see. Will need to be amended on page two before this
application. Oh, this is this is just a pending application. >> It is. Yeah, the board received that a little while ago. Um, so I would ask if the board could pick a uh time for the public hearing, a time and a a date so I
can uh go ahead and schedule it. >> Yep. >> This Do you know what the address? Let me see what the Let's just take a look in the folder. The address is uh mailing address. So the property direct is 142 Fsburg Road
>> and so you Yeah. So there's Yeah. You don't you can't have any substantive discussion on it. You can simply schedule the hearing and I'll move forward with taking care of everything administratively. So pick a date if you would.
>> Uh do you want to look for a date now? >> Yep. please. And then I'll start working on it. Just want to make sure everybody will be in attendance. I know we don't have Robert online, but hopefully he'll be able to make it.
So, it has to be held before August 4th, um, which is a Tuesday. It the public hearing has to be open within 65 days of receipt of an application. um for the statutory guidelines and it's
did not nothing move forward in June on it. I was on vacation and the applicant needed still needs to do a few revisions but I am working with the applicant on that outside of the meeting. I can still post a legal notice and get it moving
forward. Um, but I would pick a day in July, you know, that you can work and then you can hold a meeting and I'll get it scheduled. >> So, I I only have one >> board that I'm on and I think you have a
couple or more. So, what >> what works for you guys? >> We typically are Tuesday, Wednesday. Um, and there's also a Zoom, right? I'm gonna be gone from the 23rd to the 29th of July. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we can zoom it if if you're
willing to zoom. >> But I was I'll draw out some dates and let me know. Uh the 14th >> of July. >> Oh, a Tuesday. >> Yeah. >> Oh, again.
>> Uh I don't think that message with me. >> I have a I have a BFW meeting. >> Okay. >> How about the 15? >> I can do that. 15th's a Wednesday. The the Tuesday is normally um select board night, so I don't know. And Monday is normally
planning board night. So, I mean, whereas I can check with them. Usually Wednesday nights are better, but I know that's conservation commission night, too. So, it's that works for >> So, could we do the 15th?
>> Yes. >> Okay, let's do the 15th. Uh check with just check with Robert make sure that um see if he can make that. >> Okay. >> All right. >> And what time is it? Is it 6:30 regular
time? >> All right. So, I got that. Uh, administratively, um, we'll need Colby to be reappointed. Um, I haven't gotten any paperwork for that.
>> Can we do that tonight or does that that wait for the next meeting? >> He's filling out the paperwork. >> I have it here. >> I'm really having second thoughts about turning it in. >> Okay. You not want to stay on this one?
>> You're you're on a number of committees. >> I mean I can I do it at this point. I'm having trouble with zone laws right now. >> Yeah, you can you can do it at another time. It doesn't have to be now. That's absolutely fine.
>> Well, we should do it now before he changes his mind. >> I know I can resign at any time. So, >> I'm I'm submitting it now. >> Okay. So, can I re uh recommend for reappoint? >> Yeah, you might as well while we're
here. Um because it will go to the select board. So, yeah, that that would be great if you could take a vote to recommend Kobe Strider for a reappoint to the ZBA for a term to expire five years from now, whatever that is.
>> The tables have turned. to recommend a motion recommend. >> Okay. So for five years >> for five for five years. >> Five year time. Yeah. >> So who did the motion? I'm sorry. The motion. Oh, thank you Natalie.
>> You're welcome. >> Abigail. >> Thank you. >> So Natalie. >> Yes. Natalie call. Yes. >> Abigail Farley. Yes. >> Yes.
Apparently, you can vote for yourself. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we got Kobe. >> The tables have turned. >> What do we got left? Uh, we did that. We talked. Um, >> you did vote, right, Vicki? Chair, >> I did vote.
>> Okay, conflict. Oh, that was that's over. Over scheduled the meeting. Is there anything else we're missing, Beth? Uh just looking real quick the regulations. We can go over that. You can go over
that out of session, right? Um yeah, the bylaws out of session. Yeah. No update on 6.3 and schedule the next meeting. Yeah. No, I think that's great. Yep. And I'll send any training opportunities that come up
to you individually, especially new members. Um, highly recommended if a a course comes up for uh planning board and zoning board roles and responsibilities. Um, really a recommended class, but I'll
I'll uh send that along. Um, you guys. All right. Yeah. >> So, make a motion to adjourn now. >> I seconded. Roll call. Kobe. >> Kobe. Shooter. Yes. Abigail. Yes. >> Abigail Farley. Yes.
>> Yes. Thank you all.