right I'll call the uh meeting to order at 7:01 this is a meeting of the town of Norton zoning board of appeals I am uh Tom Noel um and with me tonight Brian Spangler and Jim Tori also with us Nick Fredy The Building Commissioner and Brian carmik Our Town Theon and all around good guy we've got a full agenda tonight so let's try to keep moving through the first item on the agenda is building inspector appeal the property is 21 samet Street um I think Mr junior is here Mr junior thank you yeah come on up and is this your Council yes you are James Creek thank you um this has been going on for some time I see uh Miss qule is here is that correct all right I am Mr chair thank you good evening good evening I'm not sure um i' I'd ask Council Mr freed to pull this together for us a little bit I have a few legal memos from you opinions sir not a criticism but for me it's not jelling what is it that your last letter from a week ago I think July whatever the date was what are you trying to convey there where does that get us for the ultimate decision that we're supposed to be looking at well we have there's two aspects to what we're presenting to you tonight what we hope to do is present the planning board aspect of it first and then answer your question if we need to because I think the planning board aspect of it that Mr Junior sent you the the minutes uh not the minutes but the video of the plan board meeting where they approved the uh Street improvements that he has already uh uh engaged in and constructed on big Nell Street um if that doesn't satisfy uh your requirements here then we can get into the back and forth on the memos okay fair enough uh I understand that you were before the planning board in December correct I was he wasn't there okay sure that's fine yeah um before me there was before you before counsel BC so there was not a decision rendered from that meeting from what I understand I never got anything in writing although I asked for it and uh the most I got was the the video because as I you can correct me if I'm wrong uh I never got minutes because I don't think they were ever written or approved okay so we have a record of the meeting by way of minutes understood but it's actually it's actually video yes and there's a vote by the planning board in the video I believe at right what time on the video 1 hour 26 minutes they voted to do a conditional approval and I satisfi those conditions okay then can I ask Town Council Amy qule is here with us by by video link Amy does that what does that do for our final process tonight does it do what the applicant is is suggesting it does which is no in my in my opinion thank you Mr chairman in my opinion it does not I don't know anything about the planning board approval but um the issue that we have is that um they are trying to make a lot buildable and they're trying to claim that it's buildable by Frontage they've created which is not the way to do it because big nail Street is not a street they um they have most likely um and my file on this is extremely large um Mr chairman but they're f um they're they have they most likely have Frontage it's not on um Sam set it's not on big Nell it's not a street it's on it's on the other there's Frontage on H Street 108 and a half fet correct so they have Frontage on pop Street and so that's the Frontage that needs to be um accessible so the Building Commissioner if that if that Frontage was accessible The Building Commissioner could um most likely issue a uh building permit on that because there's 50 ft of Frontage and 5,000 square ft um the issue that we've been going back and forth for probably a year now um is the fact that um Bell Street is not a Street it was never created um in any way that a street should be cre it wasn't created by a subdivision plan um and so okay that that was my understanding what is the applicant suggesting that the planning board did and I'm not we were I'm not pring to that meeting except by I think the planning I think that the planning board might have been told that um that big Nell um I don't know if they were told big Nell was a street and they did Street improvements to it but but the it it doesn't matter it doesn't get them anywhere because under the underlying issue is still that big Nell street is off Street what what happened what has to happen for big Nell Street to become a street I guess that's oh they have to go through subdivision um that I don't think they can do that um I don't we don't know who has rights to Big Nell um that that would be a um that would be quite a task in my opinion but but again I that would be up to them but um they would have to file for a subdivision to make so big now would become a street that's not what happened before the planning board then yeah that was just improvements to WR that's kind of what I was getting at what is it that that the applicant is is suggesting that the planning board gave them the right to do and how that affects us hear I'm hearing from miss wle that that doesn't affect us uh the planning board did not do what would be required to be done that that goes to the heart of the matter with your town council's opinion that big Nell Street's not a street and it wasn't created by way of a subdivision we take the position that it was created by way of a subdivision we've provided you plans from 1945 1948 and indeed from 1950 the 45 plan shows what the layout of Big M Street as pole line and the 48 plan and these are all attached to my June 20th memo the um 48 plan and again big Nell street is shown as are all the other streets that were created by Leon Lincoln the exact same way the exact same width and the exact same type of layup on the 48 plan he designates it as New England TNT right of way now in order and part of the memos and I think where your question comes from Mr null is the legal ease in that is that in order to create a right of way by way of an easement like that you have to have offer and acceptance what's known in real estate as Livery of sa New England Telephone and Telegraph at the time had to accept that right of w and they did not they did and I provided you the background research from Verizon which is the the successor and interest to New England Talent tell that they never accepted they have no knowledge of this right of w it took me quite a while to get that information from New Jersey where their records department is and in point of fact they also provided us information that in 2007 over the same right of way they had to obtain a an easement from the then owner of 21 sanet Street to put a poll in so that's that's the proof positive that they just had no interest in the in what had been known as New England Telephone and Telegraph rero up until 1950 and that's when we get to exhibit D which is Leon Lincoln deeding out in 1950 that lot and calling that same right Way Big N Street for the first time as best I can tell from the records at the Bristol County registry of deeds so that indicates to me as a as a matter of law that Mr Lincoln never gave up the rights in and two what is what he's now calling in 1950 big Nell stre and he gave up as a pertinent to that lot rights to the the center line under chapter 183 section 58 and the right to install utilities under chapter 187 Section 5 to the purchaser of that lot in 1950 and who is the purchaser I'm looken them a lot as sorry their names are the okay what happens brons so what happens to that well at that point at that point it becomes their they have rights into the street layout the braget okay and they have the right to the center line the right to make improvements to it as a street but that doesn't turn it into a street oh general laws chapter 41 section 81 FF turns it into a street that's the subdivision exemption under the subdivision control law and the operative Provisions that which I believe I also provided to you state that it's it's somewhat long but I'll I'll read in which I'm sure Amy and I go back and forth over it which letter is that in or which uh you say provided was that in it wasn't in the June was it I I believe I cited to it in the memo but I have a copy of it for you so anyone F which is known as the subdivision control law exemption so far as land which has not been registered in the land court is affected by the subdivision control law recording of a plan of a subdivision in the registry of deeds before the subdivision control law was in effect in the city or town in which the subdivision was located shall not exempt the lot within such subdivision from the operation of SE of s law except and this is the operative language except with respect to Lots which had been sold and were held in ownership separ separate from that of the remainder of the subdivision when said law went into effect in such a city or town and to rights of way and other easements app pertinent to such Lots this lot was sold in 1950 so it was privately held prior to the adoption of subdivision Statewide which was 1952 which is later referenced in the statute and before you your town adopted subdivision in 1955 so that provision applies 55 from I'm getting that from your town council's memo I have no independent knowledge of that I thought it was 74 or that's that's the zone that zone subdivision and goes on to state in plans and subdivisions of subdivisions which were recorded in the registry deeds and subdivisions made without the recording of a plan after said law had gone into effect in such city or town and before February 1st 1952 without receiving the approval of a planning board of such city or town and this is again the operative language shall have the same validity and effect as if the subdivision control law became effective in such city or town on February 1st 1952 as provided above so big Nell street is a street and it doesn't need to be approved by the planning board because it's exempt under the subdivision control law by virtue of that statute um I take it Town Council disagrees of the applicant I do I do Mr chairman so essentially um what we have here is we have have exhibit B which shows it as a pole line we then have Exhibit C which shows it as New England TNT uh right of way Mr Creed has um indicated that um it is no it it's it's not an easement it's not a right of way for New England telephone so therefore goes back to a pole line so we then have it as a pole line and then we have exhibit D where someone uh Mr Lincoln named it Big M Street you can't just name it it's a pole line it it's not a street it's an e it is it's absolutely not a street and um I don't have in my um voluminous documents here on 21 s set that goes back years I do not have because we we did we did give an opinion on this um years ago uh so this isn't the first time we 2et Street um I don't have anything I don't know what I I really don't know what he's saying about FF and I'd have to look at that but I don't have anything on that in writing so that's part that's part of that's part of council's letter of June 20 just so you can look at it later I have I have the June 20 letter but I don't have where he's actually citing oh bottom of page two you're just he's just citing the statute he's not citing that's what I was confused about it's in the letter itself okay all right if that's the case then I don't agree yeah you're right I I don't okay so another question um if it just assume it's a street for a second if there's already if there's sufficient or more sufficient Frontage on Hope Street doesn't that doesn't that diminish the need to take any action I mean we can't find a variance we're not they're not asking for a variance I guess but you know VAR I I so Mr chairman I don't know what they're asking for I they're they're appealing The Building Commissioner determination that the lot is not buildable um problem is is that I I I think and and again they haven't actually provided us with any um with any documents but if if Hope Street were to be improved then I think the lot would be buildable and there would be no um it wouldn't even be before you um but I think what they're asking you tonight is that you need to for you to overturn The Building Commissioner and say that um big Nell street is a street and therefore he only created you know the 50 ft of Frontage again um again this is a situation where um you know the the lot was purchased for um for not a lot of money um and and I think that um he's trying to make it buildable with the least amount of of um he's he's trying to make a buildable and and um unfortunately I I don't think big Nell street is the way to do it um if he wants to make this lot buildable then Hope Street is probably the way to go um but again I I I just I I'm not seeing how um how one can take a po easement and turn that all of a sudden turn that into a street with 50 ft of Frontage is that a term of art pole line or pole it is not it's not anything that's known to me and I would listed on the 19 on exhibit B it's listed as Pole Line it's shot as po line and and I would point out that on exhibit B and on Exhibit C and exhibit e the subdivider of the Lots is Leon Lincoln in the 45 plan in the 48 plan to June 20th memo yeah M ends at exhibit D I'm sorry well exhibit D you said exhibit D yes the point is that Leon Lincoln is the subdivider in both 45 and 48 and he's deeding the lot out in 1950 so Leon Lincoln isn't some person who just transgressed onto the lot and decided to name Big N Street he was the owner of the entire subdivision he did after he created the subdivision naming King Philip Street samet Street and and then he named this as pole line he didn't name it as bignell Street he all of a sudden came up with bignell Street in whenever this deed he just deed out a deed name because he owned all the rights he he didn't them out there is there is out right there was no subdivision there was no plan naming it big Nell Street it just all of a sudden show showed up your your position then is that the 45 and the 48 plans aren't subdivision plans oh defies they don't name it they don't they name it as Pole Line and they name it as New England TNT right away you can name it as Venus it doesn't matter what the name of it is let me ask a different question if I can then where are who owns it now I mean how did it get from bragen back to it's a it's a private way and butter is on either side under chapter 18358 which is the der fee statute owned C line that's your position that it's a private way owned by bragon he has the derel fee statute benefit you have the right you own to the center line a private way okay okay but you it's subject to the rights of others who have rights in that way to pass and repass over okay so the the purpose and the reason it's called the derate Fe statute is in the Commonwealth land just can't not be owned if if a RightWay goes away the tile has to go to some so we don't know where bragon is Bron's not in the picture the property's been sold over and over again and those rights go with it the the rights to I bought his rights well that's what I'm asking did you buy rights as described in exhibit D when you when you buy the lot unless the unless the subdivider the original subdivider of the land reserves the right of way to himself okay and has to be specific language in the deed where he does that he gives up the rights to theer your memo that okay you put it you're putting it together for me so I at least can follow what you know pieces are saying so I understand that the other question if she says I should do 50 ft of Hope Street how do I get to Hope Street if I don't have the rights to big now Street I I'm not sure I can answer that but do I do I just go out in the woods and pay 50 ft of Hope Street now does Hope Street connect to another cross street big big well it goes fur the only cross street that it the street it goes to it go there no Street to the goes beyond Bell to this Bell goes another Hope Street doesn't touch any other any other Street or right away or access point other than so just ends it's a dead end paper Road no no no it ends but it ends at the other end yes there's no cross street ever no it's only 200 ft long let me on the uh I don't think it m no it doesn't matter for our for us Mr chairman but um that would that seems very strange or a subdivision to have a street that doesn't that only that doesn't that it's very unusual to have a a street that only connects to a PO e that Hope Street itself is that a accepted Road or not the same status as jig n it's a private Way open to the public that is not constructed so if so does exist it's trees it's a layout just like we're contending street but so does the layout connect to another Street only only to the only way you can get to Hope Street is by passing and repassing over big street okay so there's no lot lines between them they're all connected all the street outs are connected there's no divisions of land between the streets I didn't know that and I um I must have looked at something else or I'm remembering something else but I'll accept that so if this comes down to Legal argument what we what we're supposed to decide is whether building inspector aired right well it's a matter of is the is the the constructed portion of what we contend as Bell satisfactory to provide 50 ft of Frontage to the lot that's no that's what you're here for Mr chairman yeah it's an appeal of the building inspector's decision um and I'm looking for the U statute and the bylaw for uh appeals 175 five it just seems to me that in order to pave another 200 feet of a dead end that doesn't go anywhere doesn't make sense have to do where would the 200 ft get you to Hope Street Hope Street I would have to go up big now and go down hope it's the only way to get there no there no that's not what I'm asking Hope Street has to end it has to come out somewhere besides just big now it doesn't just um I I know this from before on the plans I'll have to go through my entire file so where where is the uh bylaw on our duty with respect to uh building Commissioners decision I'm just looking for the standard I thought I had tabed it but I have not 10 um 10.8 Tom there it is thank you just Sor the same time the board of appeals us may hear and decide appeals taken by Officer or Board of the town or by any person agreed by not being able to obtain a permit from any administrative official that's what's happening that's what this is that's why it's before us correct yes that as well um I'm assuming that uh Nick made a determination and they um they appealed it within 30 days but that should be checked to make sure that it's a um that it's timely yeah Nick's determination letter is in the file um okay I'm looking my file is not as thick but it's more confused than yours this goes back to at least my file right now that I'm just glancing at goes back to 20 2006 that we've been dealing with this I I didn't know that yes so if I may yeah go ahead try FR um Amy the way this came about was um I believe in and Mr junor can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the parcel was up for sale and the prospective buyer had submitted a building permit application correct and I denied the building permit application based off of the grounds that we spoke about in the opinions given so it was actually a denial of a building permit application um for the construction of a house on this property and they would have the ability to appeal your denial of a um building permit that's a letter of January 8 2024 correct is Mr Broly the prospective James Broly was the prospective buyer at the time he was the applicant on the building permit application basis of denial is that the parcel of land known as 21 samet does not meet the basic zoning requirements set forth in bylaw 175 section 62 and 63 therefore deeming it non-buildable in its current state the parcel consists of 40 ft of Frontage along samet and in bylaw 63 small Lots recites what a small lot is must be a minimum of 50 ft and minimum of of 5,000 square ft of lot area so that's what's being appealed um in this process this current stage of the process as far as I can tell Mr so we have to determine whether the building inspector went beyond his [Music] discretion yes and of course building inspector was relying on an opinion from Town Council um Miss quell's office at the time which we also have I mean we're not we're not a court of law here I'm just a little and I'm not a um I'm not a judge and we're not we're not judges we have to apply the bylaw and that's that's that so I'm just trying to simplify to what we're what we're looking at um either side gets to take it to the next step which would be superior court I suppose or land Court one or the other I yes yeah we just like to submit for the record Assessor's plan so this which shows that hope Street's a dead end thank you I thank you and has no other connection other than big Nell and I've highlighted in blue that's the Assessors for the assess B comes off it's the official copy of the official yeah so the only way to get to Hope and pay hope is to do the rest of big now I got you and then do hope understood that's where I'm scratching my head why am I going another 200 ft to Nowhere when if they're all connected the First Street I would have to have the right to pass and rep pass over the First Street to get in Second Street so when did you pay I I would say Mr chairman I would say that Bell Street is not a street so that means that his only Frontage is on stamas set and he doesn't have enough Frontage yeah I was just asking though when did you improve uh sir big Nell when did you do that Paving uh within the last year after the planning board or before before it was before the before it was before the planning board and then I went to the planning board I said this is what I did is it okay and that's what shows in the video and they said no but if you if you move the pavement over a little bit because I had I had skewed the pavement out of the RightWay that's the 110 square ft oh yeah right yep they said if you move the pavement over a little bit and put a note on the plan from an engineer regarding drainage you have our approval so they gave me a conditional approval if I did those things I did those things and then I gave them a new asilt but they haven't acted on it to deem it a road well they gave me a conditional approval they said do these conditions and we approve them so so that's what I did that's I mean I guess what I'm saying or asking councel that's not part of our record that's before us it's it's the video is the video and I understand what the applicant is referring us to um but wouldn't it have to go to planning board for a final approval yeah we would have to subdivision approval it's not a road I'm not subdividing anything there's no cre a road okay so I'm completely uh in the dark as to what could be appropriate here or would be appropriate I assume that the building inspector didn't have any better information I mean any different information than what you he's heard tonight um I just don't know what else to do with this numbers do you first of all question from Members Jim or Brian who paved hope how how did hope even it didn't hope is not paved hope is not paved right now not right now it's wood it's Woods right now okay it's paper Road and there's 40 ft of Frontage on samet street and I think that's what Nick was saying it doesn't fit under the small lot 6.3 either because the only Frontage that's there is on samon Street there's only 40 on that right and you need 50 exactly that's why it went up big now and it did 50 of big now so we would hit 50 essentially I have like 300 ft of Frontage but only 40 is on S set which isn't enough so I did 50 a big now I just want to go back and read the sure and I guess I asked Town Council where does this where do we go from here on this uh is is there anything further that you want to take a look at you know before our next meeting this has been kicking around already for several months here um you know or are we are we in line to take a vote and and as to whether we feel the building inspector acted outside the scope of his authority that um that fact to you or I guess or if the um you know if the applicant has further information they want to provide but I don't see any way that big Nowell Street all can all of a sudden be a street so big Nell only 50 feet of big Nell is paved correct so it does not extend down toward the bottom of this page right the the right of way does the but only the pavement goes 50 again he's calling it a RightWay because it's not a street it's a right of way it's an easement to no I get it I understand I thought these connected into other roadways I just I wasn't familiar with that area that's all so go ahead Jim did you um Brian did you have questions not really I mean for me I think it's pretty clear um that big Nell is not a not a street um and the fontage requirement isn't met for for me Jim did you have question or no just went back and and read um plenty of board's kind of their M memo back to us oh from just yes his email yeah his email that's what I but it's not it doesn't explain yeah it doesn't doesn't explain anything on that end um I just want to make sure you know I I think our question is whether the building inspector uh acted appropriately and I'm assuming based on the building inspector's letter of January 8th he's saying exactly what council is saying parcel currently has 40 ft of Frontage along Samoset and that's not within the small lot exception in our in our bylaw the rest to me is it's interesting but it's legal positioning and legal argument argument I don't know how to resolve that at a a board level like us that's why I'm asking I I would defer to our Council well we have deferred to Town Council and I guess Town Council and Mr Creed is there more for us to consider is it I'm not asking you to continue this but is there more for us to consider I think as long as Town Council is taking the position that no matter what is presented that this there was no Street created not withstanding the plans that were all created by Mr Lincoln and and the deing out of that lot uh by Mr Lincoln um whether he called it a poll location or a poll line or telephone right away he didn't he didn't Grant any rights by way of a deed no one accepted rights by way of a deed so the easements of the right ways were not created the the roadway is shown just as all the other roadways it's the same as hopes street it's the same as samet Street it's a subdivision road and it was created prior to the adoption of subdivision it's entitled to the exemption under 81 FF the language couldn't be clear but so but as long as Town Council is taking the position it's not I assume you're going to follow her advice and you're going to deny this and that will lead us to a choice as to what we do next okay so the taker in the deed exhibit d bragon has done nothing did nothing with that deed he he didn't he didn't have to he bought the property and he had the impertinent rights to what Mr Lincoln called in that deed big neler did he take the main property as well so I think you're getting confused he didn't buy the right away he bought my law he's the predecessor to my law he is okay and he also had rights to what we na stre well right but this is a separate instrument council is saying granted the rights in big nail Street separately they no no no they they go with come with if you if you describe a lot bounded by a street you have the rights in that street unless the grandor in this case Mr Lincoln reserves the rights to that road in other words specifically kept the street as his own property by not reserving it he grants those rights and those rights are under and I know this is legal but he he grants those rights subject to chapter 18358 which is the deric fee statute which allows the rights for others to pass and repass over that street so you can't build anything in the street you can't obstruct the street but people did not pass it pass on it either as a street well they don't have to it just exists because it was laid out FR in 1952 and the lot was sold sold from the other subdivision in other words back then when you did a subdivision planning board didn't exist so there was nobody had assigned the plan so all he did was go to the registry and recorded and that divided up all the land and showed all the streets so does this does your argument apply to what's shown as Hope Street also yes yeah so you could Mr chair Mr chairman the biggest difference here is that under 4A section 6 paragraph 4 the isolated lot or the separate lot protection is that it has to have 50 ft of Frontage shown on a subdivision plan and this does not this has 50 ft of Frontage shown this has 50 ft of Frontage on an easement it has 100 it has more than 50 ft of Frontage shown on Hope Street but you cannot the subdivision plan does not show big Nell Street Big Nell Street was created by some D somebody just decided to change the name you can't do that you can't just go about changing names on and again it's not somebody it's Leon Lincoln the man who subdivided the land in 45 re subdivided it in 48 and renamed that right of way and then name it a street but Mr chairman if I may finish yes go ahead thank you so under 4A section 6 paragraph 4 it specifically states that it has to be shown on a subdivision plan plan it's not it it he can CH he changed it he just changed the deed in fact what I what I find um I I have it in one of my documents here oh actually it's shown it's in the June 20th letter yeah where um someone just crossed out New England right away they just they just crossed it out and you know put big out that is not that does not give you prote ction on from on the isolated lot protection or separate lot protection it has to be on a street shown on a subdivision plan you can't just simply take an easement and turn it into a street and and that's where that's where we're at here that is that is the issue here Nick can actually attest to the fact that this is not our first 4A section 6 paragraph 4 issue that we've gone through in town Nick and I Nick and I have gone through quite a few of these in town and it's the same we go through the same process and if there's a if there's a street shown in a subdivision plan and it's they have 50 ft of Frontage and they have 5,000 square fet and there and there's been no merger there's it's always been held separately then most likely they they have the exemption here Unfortunately they don't have the exemption big Nell street is not a street shown on the subdivision plan it's a pole line shown on the subdivision plan Hope Street is but if they claim they they can't do Hope Street they can't do Hope Street but okay that that's where we're at right now so another question could the applicant give him what he's arguing improve big Nell and improve hope or a portion of Hope go back to the planning board and get subdivision approval or or not I mean is is that a remedy that he could pursue if he has the right to do that um that I mean that would be him he he you know it's subject to other people that have rights in the pole easement and in Hope Street but he has the rights to do that that that's A Private Matter up to him but um because then anybody else can use those streets as the applicant is stating it if if you take the applicant's argument anybody can pass those streets now right most likely most likely any Improvement would be in accordance with um the deric fee I don't know about in accordance with New England telephone if they still have an easan or not um prove that they applicant is saying we got an email saying they can't find the eement we don't have an email saying they definitely don't have it so unless we have a full title search saying they and even then I don't know what we would do about that but it's listed on the subdivision plan as new New England telephone right or what well because I note that what's called Hope Street where there's 108 ft of Frontage quote unquote and then they now there's 140 ft of Frontage quote unquote if it were a approved uh Road um the the plan that was given to us wants to use big nil street because it allows for a larger house because it has to be so far off the Front Street under the small lot exemption I think in other words applicant using the frontage would have to reposition the intended construction there and and doesn't wish to do so and I understand why applicant doesn't wish to do so but it seems to me that there are options here and it's not up to us to sort of create a new rule so I'm going to ask if there are any further questions or comments from the board members or for Mr IOP or or counil or town counsel and ask if there's a motion to take a vote on whether the building inspector exceeded his authority which is what's before us I'm Al I'm good too um is there a motion that Mr to deny the applicant's um appeal of Mr a fr's decision of January 8th 2024 I'll make that motion second okay um motions made and seconded is there any further discussion on that in my view Mr drr acted in good faith based on Town council's opinion and the file that apparently has been going on in this on this particular parcel for some time I don't see how we could say he acted improperly or outside of his authority there's a disagreement an Earnest disagreement and I follow now what council Mr cre saying but that's a to me that's an issue for the courts correct if the if the courts are to be involved by either side or there's an Avenue to do these improvements and get it actually approved by the planning board which is I understand the the process for doing that we don't do that in this board anyway so that there are options and it's not up for us to direct which option is to be taken uh that's my view on this I'm feel the same we said okay then the motion is uh that I believe that mrr did not exceed his authority or act of discriminately in denying the application uh by way of his letter of January 8 Mr Tor how do you vote uh that Nick did not exceed his authority or act improperly yes Mr Spangler yes and Mr Noel votes yes as well thank you I hope you're able to work out uh some other solution uh but thank you for explaining and for talking us through good luck luck thank you okay item two on our agenda is uh to be continued I have a note um it is a property address zero Bert Street the applicant Dan Rich attorney rich is here we got noticed that this is going to be continued however if I could just if I could yes yeah what did happened is after we filed this Mr I think it was last week I had an email from mrr and from Brian they're looking for a a plan where the house would be drawn and we don't have we have a plan of land we don't have a plan where go they tried to stop and seem as they afraid several times but it's very busy sorry I didn't know what type of plan he was going to need is he going to need a plan by an engineer or how how do you want this plan so we can come back because it is I may have to amend my application so so if I may yes um I I think yeah I think we need to see a proposed plot plan um so we can determine where the house is yeah because in my opinion I think we need to be able to determine whether or not we need potential variances for sidey yard Frontage setback whatever the case may be with with just a vacant U mortgage inspection plan it's tough to determine and what I don't want to see is have have a ruling today and then have you have to come back because now we have a house on a lot and need other relief well it has to be an engineered plan signed stamped by an engineer showing us the dimensions of what's there and what's proposed that's what we act on so yes I I certainly agree with that disc so you intend to do that we have to I can't use a mortgage plan no right no and and and it has to show the location regarding the setbacks and the positioning of the intended construction okay um what our next meeting is I mean do you August 21st do you intend to do this by yeah yeah I couldn't get it done in the week no understood so we'll continue this to August 21st is that agreeable to the board Mr R so continue to August 21st to talk to you thank you yeah whenever absolutely I did try calling you back for the record but you're tough to get a Dutch with as well you didn't hurt your hand by fist biting no no we're friends like each other I know I do crazy things that would be wonder I hope your finger is better in the next couple weeks looks so August 21 is the next meeting time uh we start at 7 we'll say we'll say 7 be at the media center and media center is 18 18 yeah okay thank you okay thanks thank you um next item on the file is the uh variance application for finding three Brian Road betet Mr betet thank you yeah come on up so we can talk to you what I can say is Mr Lincoln I hope did not build my sub just say uh no I think this is simpler simpler than what we saw and apologies for everybody else who came on these other matters we don't always order them put them in the right order uh cuz I know yours is U you are three Brian Road correct so let me just ask a general question Nick just stepped out was there a denial of a building permit here no no no I explain to us why uh why you're here um I needed a variance because of the lot size I did all the pr uh proper paperwork um my wife and I have been here for5 years we plan on staying my daughter my son-in-law my granddaughter are going to live in the main house we're going to live in the inla um I brought everything to Nick checked with him double checked everything is in line um it looks like a pretty easy build uh as soon as I get the approval hopefully God willing um it'll go fairly quick and my wife and I can enjoy being in Norton and for the record I live one street over from Ralph Stefan Al so I just think I should get a sympathy vote no comment I see and I looked at this earlier so the plant construction am I right that it's above the existing garage it is there's a garage there now and you're going to build up on top of it yes we're going to put an inlaw above it connect it to the main house yep do any of the setbacks change no no I went over all this with Nick to make sure that yeah no he stepped out so I apologize for asking something I wouldn't have done any of this check with him first y i one one question I wrote down where are the structure Dimensions you know where do we see how much square footage is there now and well the garage itself is 242 24 and the biggest that is that listed here it should be yeah I had the same question I didn't 2424 and what we're going to do is overhang the front by 4 feet I so that's four it's a little hard to read the pr and this says something different this says a six foot overhang it does say six yeah it might you Nick had the old Li ink right he has the updated one from the lumber company which was the engineered Lumber because everything has to Mid so it only can be 4et this is the only plan that I think is uploaded to yeah Nick Nick knows it's 4et cuz I gave him another set of plans from cap c l so he should have that and it looks like there's a new deck that's part of the Improvement as well it's going to overhang the backyard which is um overlooking the pool yep we there's a six foot deck and that's probably for the a dedicated entrance on it is for yeah for can you point that out right right here me regress oh that deck wraps around yeah the printing the blue ink didn't come out on my printer very well but I see it I see what you're there's a breezeway as well yes to connect back to the existing house okay Nick we're talking about Brian yep um not me this was fine this he saying there Brian is there an updated plan Nick Nick remember the front only go 4 feet and I relate I thought I gave you the copy of the cape C plan the plan that we have shows overhang over the front of the or is it the front yes the front r Road front an overhang of six feet right that's what's on the plan but is there an updated plan that's not in our file there could be you may yeah from and I apologize all time but I do recall having a conversation about the overhang and having to change it to 4 feet for potentially structural reasons structural reasons and because of the micro LS and stuff like that it made more sense to make it a little bit smaller so we didn't have to deal with a lot of structural stuff M but do we have that plan to go on tonight is that an engineered plan it is from the from the L company yes it has to be and that's why I made sure Nick knew it's an AR it's an architectural plan the site plan wasn't updated okay it was the building plan so we have to use this and say accept that overhang road yeah so the so the front setback would be changed from 364 to 384 you just add two feet to that setback from the front yard thank you that that yeah right cuz I had 36 for where did I get that that's current the oh that's 423 minus 6 feet right right right my question was how do we get the building Dimensions here or the buildable living livable area that's not shown on this is it I don't see it it is not but I think if you if you write into your decision we've done in the past that the the accessory dwelling unit cannot exceed the 700 50 ft allowed or not bylaw I think you covered yourself cover does this not I mean thumbnail this does not exceed 750 ft I've I've worked with with jacqu on okay this before he that was my question um I we like to see it on the plant the dimensions it's there cells on the plant but I I took out my calculator and I didn't see Dimensions here so thank you mhm so so the new shall not exed 750 ft does that include the Breezeway though or is that just the overhang I think so I think again if I that's liveable space right but if it's deemed common space I don't know if we calculate that within the accessory dwelling unit I think we've gone through this before with one actually this past year I believe in the fall in the spring yeah that if it's common space it's technically I wouldn't deem it part of that 750 so the Deb for example at the Breezeway no that's not considered liveable or whatever it says in the statute bylaw okay so let me just clarify yeah please so the current garage does not have the overhang correct the overing would be on the Second Story would be on does that change the would he because that would obviously be under 50 ft in the front but it is now it's 42 three okay but the overhang doesn't change it though right it does it does you project it under the ground okay so he would need a a variance that's what I'm saying he would need a variance on absolutely okay yeah from that's what I was getting noting that it's currently closest place is already 42t 3 in right we would be granting it for that new construction over the garage down to 384 yeah yeah and he would need the side as well right yep and that's 118 that's the 158 shown there minus 4 obviously um is that deck ground level deck no or upstairs no it's going to be upstairs yeah I'll I see the stairs yes thanks thank you we like to see as much detail as we can on this that's why I'm asking well it's kind of small so I it's yep and plus the printing uh the blue ink didn't print out well on on my printer uh but I see I see the references that the applicant's making um are there other questions or issues not only question and maybe Nick has already looked through this but there's other requirements here that we're supposed to check you know that it has a kitchen and a bath we don't have a floor plan so what is that section that 75 2. it's actually the definitions 175 2.2 yeah yeah cuz we've included reference to that and other decisions as well that the the requirements shall be met as this is accessory apartment right dwelling unit we're saying inlaw but that's what under the bylaw it's accessory so are there other questions for the applicant or do we need to see other things on the plans I think we could probably write in yeah it seems to be um um well thought out and given what's there already this is going up not outward by that much so Y no other questions or issues nope Mr RR you agree yeah I agree I believe just to a clarification that this is a it's a finding a side yard set back and a front yard set back yes that's the way I see it okay as well yep so yeah I'm the concrete for the swimming pool not that that's that's not before us now we asked you this before concrete can go right up to property line you don't have that's not considered a um structure no I don't bylaw has anything that that prohibits that interesting yeah I've never seen I mean often we see a there'll be a pool with a deck around it and the deck is a structure but concrete slab is not okay just curious G well it has a bow on top of it so what don't tell us things and there the bar open well if we get this meeting over we can't do that let's take a look this is in line for a finding under 1756 uh that this planned alteration addition um shall not render the um the use substantially more detrimental than what is there in terms of noise except for the bar um and the other factors in the bylaw is there a motion that this um passes that requirement that this shall not render uh the use substantially more detrimental I'll make that motion second is there any further discussion on that no Mr Tor how do you vote Yes Mr Spangler uh is there any um input from Community folks thank you thank you very much um and I didn't ask for the vote to close off is there anybody here to speak in favor of or in opposition to this application um Mr chairman I I'm not um speaking in favor or in opposition but I did just want to let you guys know that you have a special um you have a kind of a interesting um take on what your bylaw defines as structure and it says that um a structure is a man-made arrangement of materials requiring a fixed location on the ground blah blah blah but then it says that um the use of all structure shall conform provisions of this bylaw but only structures projecting above ground level so if you have concrete apparently you can have concrete to the lot on your um under your definition of structure but it shouldn't be above ground level apparently well yeah so I mean you could have a concrete slab but then you can't have railings and stuff so um it's interesting I'm sorry I asked the question but yes yeah I'm not suggesting Nick go back out to see if it's 6 in or 4 Ines up and then I would thank you thank you coun I didn't hear any Community objection no no other comments from the community by way of um internet so I'll vote Yes Yes we'll continue with our vote and u i I take it there's a motion to close the public hearing sector of this yes I'll make can you do that motion first please I'll make that that second second Mr Tori yes and Mr spanker yes yes so the public hearing is closed and now resuming the vote Mr Spangler has voted yes that this is appropriate under 175 1.6 yes then for the Varian is necessary is there a vote that the applicant is granted a variance on the sidey yard uh which is the West Westerly sidey yard um down to 11.8 feet as shown on the plan of record um it's already at 15.8 FT and uh the applicant has um shown the U criteria for variance relief is there such a motion I'll make that motion second any further discussion NOP Mr Tori yes Mr Spangler yes and Mr Noel votes yes as well and then the front yard setback present uh setback is 423 yep feet um here we have to note that the overhang shown in the plan of record though it says 6 feet shall be 4 feet yep it differs from the plan submitted but will be noted in the decision so that the front yard setback will be no closer to Brian Road I almost said big nail Street shall be no closer than 38.4 ft is that math correct yes is there a motion to grant that variance second any further discussion internal Mr Tano how your vote Yes Mr Spangler yes Mr noell votes yes I think that's all we need to do on this good luck thank you very much for your time I appreciate thank you thank you for clarifying thank you we'll we'll drop the decision and then it has to be posted for a certain amount of time thank you Mr thank to you soon I'll you what's next next is the application for finding 11 Union Road Justin FL and Rita Todd thank you come on up and I had gone over this today as well and this looks fairly straightforward are you can you identify yourselves from the record I'm actually Rita fler but Rita Todd in the town record for some reason okay I'm Justin flry uh my name's St madas I'm an architect okay and we have the letter is from you Mr mados so you're going to present for the applicants uh yes sure and thank you that I found the letter very clear we often ask why are you here in other words how did you get here this tells us exactly why you're here and what you're looking for and I appreciate that thank you um yes I was was hoping that the drawings and the narratives somewhat spoke for themselves um but to summarize uh my clients uh have an existing Square uh House of about 860 Square ft and with one bedroom 800 what 884 we have 90 here that's why I'm asking 890 I may have round it up okay yeah 890 ft yes all right um and uh there hoping to get another bedroom as they are um soon expecting to expand their family and uh we looked at a couple of variations and deemed this the most logical and uh and simplest and uh and also most conforming in my opinion given that it's completely within the required setbacks right um so this is a pre-existing non foring lot I take it existed prior to zoning because of pre-existing due to Frontage um does not meet Frontage lot size and front setback it looks like I wrote down FR it doesn't meet any setback the entire house is outside of the setbacks if you can if you look at the existing site plan oh I see you need a bigger one no I can see it again it's the ink is not yeah got replace yeah the entire house is outside of the setbacks and there's no setback reductions for undersized lots that I know of I when I delved through the zoning um so yes our our new so we're proposing a twocc car garage with a master bedroom above and a connecting piece between which would provide the stairway up and down right because his finished floor is about 5 ft uh above ground and uh yes we're proposing to add approximately 73 sare ft which is more than 25% of the uh livable space which is why we're here requesting the approval of the f look looks nice so this the room would be above the garage sure oh I did provide an elev and yep I see the current dwelling is nonconforming as to all setbacks but the proposed addition or garage is conforming to all of them as far as I understand so under 175 1.6 whatever subet we are only looking at whether because this is more than 25% increase we're only looking at the simple question that we faced at the last application does this make this substantially more detrimental in a nonconforming status the there the deck fall the deck does fall outside the uh setback it looks like so we might need a where well the proposed 5 by1 13 deck the wet plan west side looks like it falls outside the you are correct setback that that length was um honestly fairly arbitary um it's more of just a uh Landing I don't think it's a big deal I just we to make two you're right we to do two vs it's not that measurement that measurement's not here do you know what that distance is to that deck from from the sidey I 14t uh I will set it at whatever I say right now I will say it goes three feet over the setback and I will place it there yeah that's yeah and it's oddly drawn because it extends beyond the Breezeway uh by there's an existing chimney which is that little double square yeah I see it so I just extended it beyond that by 6 in to to catch it um so we can say then side setback what 22 no closer than 22 is that 3 ft techically I mean we again required side setback is 40 ft so if we extended at 3T we'd be at 37 so say like no more than [Applause] 35 this is an R40 uh according to the site plan yes the survey yeah that 25 uh oh the reason I call it 40 is because it's a it's a corner lot so my understanding was there's two two fronts and I think in there but we usually pick a frontage Mr chair yeah I believe this is a corner lock correct yes so our bylaw yeah that's correct um in chapter 3 is it three I'm sorry it's 2.2 the last definition of yard yeah 23 of the way down on Corner locks front yard setb shall be measured from both streets so if there's concern on that deck technically I believe it would meet the setback from the front yard so he may not need a variant on that on that porch I don't know again I without knowing that the question is mention right the question is whether it's 40 ft right is in R40 you're showing a 40 you're showing a 40ft setb on both streets right yeah in the drawing I'm sh I think that's correct in the in the proposed I'm showing a 4 guess on both streets right so it's not it's not di mention I think what he's saying is this is this is 40 ft yeah so this is how about going this way and This is 40 ft but how if that's 141 how big is this dwelling I like dimensions on these oh the dwelling is 26 by 34 so 26 is 40 40 you're exactly 40.1 so yeah technically he he's encroaching in that front but by two or three feet couple feet so we're still about the deck right but it would be a front yard setback variant it wouldn't be a side yard cut it right but is that so do we allow three feet there write it in I mean can do a Minimus it's not really yeah it's really stairs that comes out stairs are right it's the stairs that come out well I don't want to leave the one to pick so what what setback would for there no closer no closer than 35t goes out no closer than 35 on the on the sturdy Street side is that agreeable Y and we can note yeah I got to remember to put all these things in the decision um no closer than 35 sure and thanks for pointing that out I didn't I hadn't s seen that are there any other questions or issues on this applicant I'll set and then is there motion to close the public hearing do you want to hear from the public thank you again I don't want to shut it off the public is there anybody in attendance remotely to speak or in person to speak in favor of or opposition to this application for the record I do not see any is there a motion to close the public hearing I'll make that motion second Mr T yes Mr Spangler yes Mr Noel yes the public hearing is closed uh is there a motion for a finding again under 175 six the sub c c thank you that the plan of record as Modified by the cqu here tonight will not make this substantially more detrimental than the existing construction I'll make that motion second uh any further discussion no Mr Tori how do you vote on that yes Mr Spangler yes Mr no votes yes as well then we're looking at just one set sturdy Street side is that right so applicant has been very upfront with us and has talked through that it looks like the proposed 5x1 13 deck may encroach somewhat over the 4 foot front yard setback as measured from sturdy Street on this corner lot and appreciate the applicant working with us on that is there a motion uh to Grant variance such that the front yard set back measured from sturdy Street shall be reduced from 40 ft to 35 no more than 35 ft I'll make that motion um no less than yeah I know what you meant and I was saying in my mind the same thing I need an army to correct me I yes okay um Mr tenori you made that motion yes uh is there a second Mr span no second second Mr Tori any further discussion no no how do you vote Yes Mr Spangler yes Mr Noel votes yes as well is that all we need on this one variance I think that is good thank you again for the clear explanation and for talking us through that that glitch hav congratulations congrat luck we can make this a half hour hearing if You' like thanks very much what okay next is three Kingsley Road Mr sanosi is here for that I is thought we had another one that was going to continue oh there is even there's a third page to our right right right good evening uh Mr sski again um to you I would say thank you as well for your letter of June 28 um pretty nicely setting out what you're looking for and explaining the um you know why you're here thank you that's the board appreciates that kind of um introduction letter so it looks to me like this is another finding plus variance to pre-existing non-conforming in the r80 zone uh pre-existing non-conforming because of lot size correct it was a subdivision was created in 1965 the house was built in 68 so we have an 18,000 foot lot and an 880,000 square 880,000 foot minimum uh Zone Frontage on Kingsley if you include the turn is over the 150 that's required so we do have Frontage oh if you include the turn I guess you because I'm never really sure how the turn is you inter that half of the curve well it's the intersection yeah so I mean that curve is required for Kingsley it's not required for Newland so I count that as that's we have the minimum 150 ft of Frontage on Kingsley right so we're lacking front uh lot area so I'm just looking for any dimensions on that I can see I can eye it up uh in the chart I got 152.4 ft oh you do yeah thank you and it's also at the top at the top of the property uh direction is the northern side um is measured at 15971 right so it's just less than that you will go with your this is engineered and you say 152 Frontage got it I see it thank you okay um so interestingly when they built this deck which uh my client doesn't know when it went on she bought it 5 years ago the deck is in pretty rough shape so I'd say at least 20 years but they actually champed the corer so that it is parallel to the property line and it does meet the 25 foot setb back so whoever did it knew knew where they were on the lot and didn't want to get cited by the building inspector right so what my client's looking to do is to convert this from an open deck to a basically a Breezeway so it's a raised ranch style house so the first floor is you know 6 feet 8T above the ground that's where the deck sits I thought they were doing a full Foundation but they're not it's just going to be a Breezeway with you know room walls they want the Privacy with a sitting on post so the entire addition is 241 sare ft going by the time towns um uh on the town um information about the square footage you got 1,34 ft of the house this works out the 23.3 Ft addition so we're under the 25% yeah so we're looking to basically it be 18 squ ft of area that would be nonconforming and we'd be at 21.2 if they square up this corner they want a square room that's OD yeah um so we you know thought about moving the room over but the slider glass door is what 3 ft from the corner so then you'd be changing the interior as well as the exterior that's why we're seeking the variance yep so the variance relief is on the sidey yard setback on the North side but I believe that would qualify as the rear yard yes in this case it helps us because the side yard in this zone is actually 35 which would be a larger variance this is a r yard it's opposite the frontage so 25 down to 21.2 yep re yard yep sorry okay and is that the only relas I believe so and it's and a finding I don't think you need a finding you're under 25% oh okay so it's not3 that is on the plan right so we're good all right so uh are there questions from the board nope I will remember this time is there anybody else here in attendance the present or by the internet to speak in favor of or in opposition to this application for the record none uh other questions oh no from the building commissioner opening um is there a motion to close the public hearing I'll make that motion second Mr gor how you vote Yes Mr Spang yes Mr to close the public hearing as well this is in order for uh variance relief uh I think the applicant has shown the hardship given what's there now the variance from 25 to 212 is minor um I don't have any ISS isue with variance relief for this project anything from either of you we have discussion is there a motion I'll make that motion second okay um Mr Tor how do you vote Yes Mr Spangler yes Mr Noel votes yes as well thank you sorry to keep you waiting all that time it's always interesting when they have the Legal Information yeah definely should have went to court how do we decide that um thank you for all the information that you includes plan as well that's what we reference good luck to you good luck to this is like AE I know this is why I shouldn't skip meetings yeah is Brook we won't keep them waiting any long all right good evening Mr arani yes good evening were you here alone I thought I saw your Frank oh there's Frank I thought I saw him and chairman uh Christopher agustino Council for Island Brook is here as well thank you sorry to keep you uh waiting uh the matter is Island Brook which has been before us before um go ahead Mr dagostino or mran can you update us on yeah Mr chairman I'll I'll bring the board back up to speed um if you recall uh we were supposed to be before the board on June 20th uh but the hearing was continued this evening uh because the board was unable to reach Quorum um but before that what we were asking the board to uh review and accomplish was endorsement of Island books uh final plan set pursuant to the comprehensive permit and if you recall um that is a process that involves reviewing compliance with all of the conditions of the comprehensive permit and in this case there was also a settlement agreement that had altered certain provisions of the comprehensive permit so the applicant created a conditions compliance Matrix and went line by line through every element of the permit to uh demonstrate to the board that the final plans that were submitted to the board for endorsement um and final approval were in compliance with the comprehensive permit and during that process the uh one element that was raised as something that um was still up for consideration under the terms of the comprehensive permit was that the applicants final plans had proposed phasing of the development into uh two separate phases that the applicant uh felt was sort of The Logical way to develop the project and the comprehensive permit and the settlement agreement uh contemplated that the board um would have time to view the issue of phasing and the applicant would provide the board additional time to determine whether uh the phasing implicated what is referred to under the regulations as a substantial change to uh the applicant's proposal and um during the last few hearings the last one was on May 16 uh the board had essentially articulated that if the applicant is going to do phasing that the first phase would need to essentially stand on its own as a project by itself um if for whatever reason the second phase were not completed and in going through that analysis the board um identified concerns about you know whether or not we could Loop the water M whether or not the recreational areas would be uh placed in Phase One um whether or not we'd have adequate uh um traffic access uh whether or not uh some of the other aspects of the development in terms of the ratio of affordable units to market rate units would be maintained um so in reviewing that the applicant took a hard in in trying to address those issues that the board had raised um the applicant took a hard look at its plans and uh had discovered that there was sort of an easy way to accomplish the goal and in doing that it raised the possibility of redesigning phase two essentially uh to provide for um a single roadway in phase two and then moving the recreational areas to phase one and we submitted a letter um back in uh June and we solicited comment to that sort of proposed uh schematic design that showed that that Ro so that was the letter that was originally drafted uh dated June 19th um and we were going to discuss that during the June 20th hearing yeah when we uh were were essentially given the extra month um we had uh Frank Gallagher our engineer go back and continue to find that that revised proposal that's intended to address this phasing question and so we submitted a little more detail but still sort of to a schematic design level um with a letter that I just submitted today right uh and and you know that was submitted just for the board's convenience and what we're really asking the board to do at this point is to um provide some feedback on what we're proposing as a solution to all of those issues that the board had raised with phasing and then once we get the board's feedback we'll decide whether to provide um you know whether we need to make any additional changes and then provide a definitive plan set to the board's Consulting engineer so that they could do peer review of the plan and report back to the board since in reviewing this phasing question and and whether or not the uh phase one portion of the site could stand alone there were several technical issues that the board had raised as far as emergency vehicle access um again looping of the water main and functionality of the the storm water management system so with that we we do anticipate I think our goal this evening would be to solicit feedback from the board on on this design that that you have in front of you again was originally submitted June 19 uh the plans today really were just intended to provide a little more detail to the extent you know the board wants to discuss in details um but solicit some feedback and then uh sort of plan plan a uh next steps as far as whether or not we submit this design to peer review by Graves engineer thank you I I just have a quick question these plans that Mr itani just gave us larger copies of dated June 18 I just want to make sure we have the right ones so so actually um where's the update I if you're looking at the revision date the revision date you got that I see the July 18 uh General revision thank you for Mr spanker pointing it out I always look at the bottom the latest and greatest is the July 18th but generally the the the the M or the the the revision you'll see is to phase two um yeah this makes a lot makes a lot of sense remind yeah please remind me how this the phasing was going to be split in a different manner before go what they've done is they the the dog park in the playground to occupy Parcels um as opposed to they were up here right houses and that makes a lot of sense um I I think cuz I looked at these prior my my only I'm not even sure if I would call it a concern but we talked about infiltration Basin 3 needing to be part of phase one and that kind of goes up up into kind of a dog leg and there's a really thin access point there is the facing line also represent the limit of work and the reason I'm asking is because I think we discussed last time um limiting disturbance of phase 2 area so you know how do you construct infiltration Basin 3 without I think it just the question is in the further development of this can we uh can you clarify the limit of work if it's different than the phasing line if that makes sense yeah no understood and I think the phasing line for purposes of this schematic is intended to show the units that will be phased because that was really the critical evaluation from our perspective but but I'm sure that um in in showing the evolution or more detail of this uh we can show a limit of work that would demonstrate how that Basin would be uh constructed because that was one of the things that that Frank had identified when we discussed this before um and that we do need that Basin to uh allow phase one to function from a storm water management perspective um at the same time the revised design dramatically reduces the overall disturbance um rather than having all that extra area much better uh in phase two there so I I think that's certainly something we could provide more detail on absolutely um quick question the parcels that are now designated for playground in dog park did those remain assuming Phase 2 is built as do they remain as dog park and playround they're not to be moved they don't get moved in phase two correct no and and we actually looked at it and having those sort of more Central to the design provides for sort of open space in the middle and it's it's an overall more attractive location for those I think so the board seems to agree yeah that's good creativity uh the units number the number of units hasn't changed correct I don't uh I don't think still 52 yeah yeah you just put buildings where there was going to be a dog park and right switch got right right plus you know that both the playground and the dog park are quite a bit larger than what we had in the prior design the areas for those those two amenities have increased so it'll allow for a little bit more you know it'll allow for more as far as those amenities are concerned understood uh questions from the board members this um looks like a took a lot of creativity and work and I I like it yeah me too I mean I does it solve the problem we were bringing up I think it does the limit of work so this the answer is the red line is not a limit of work line it's just to separate yeah and I think that's a Next Level Development question probably anyway um CU you know I'd still want to see the utility plans and some other things here this is just to send to peer review to say does this work right um are there other questions or issues to you did get in a butter L I don't know if yeah thank you you want all I see the U the owner's name right here Jason and Antonella Donovan she's on your Zoom call Miss Donovan uh you are with us tonight may I interrupt what we're doing Miss Donovan did you want to say uh something I was just going to read your letter into the record oh I appreciate that um I was just going to say what it was in the letter if it was possible um if the applicant can do some buffering and keep up some trees for privacy between their properties and mine yep and the letter uh dated today just for the record not concerned with the project they are building would like to ask the board to consider keep some of the trees for privacy and buffering between my home which is 122 and you can see this is their home right here on East Main Street there's also there is a note on the plans that indicates a a vegetative buffer to 120 and 122 they've already indicated on the plans that a vegetative buffer where did you see that yeah what what does what does that entitle is that like keeping up trees or just putting like bushes around this like there how are going to separate the two properties because I'm not really concerned what they're really building I'm just more concerned of privacy for between my property and the properties they're building there is there is indicated Wetland behind you yes so they wouldn't be able to they wouldn't be able to to touch that area Okay so does that mean where I'm directly in front of those properties Y and there already trees that are behind me in front and um there and I was wondering how many of those trees would stay up because it is beautiful it does keep the Privacy out um my husband and I did talk about it if you guys were concerned and you wanted to take down the trees because you're afraid that the trees might fall them to my property and damage the property uh we've discussed that we wouldn't ask to for you guys to fix anything on our property just to remove the tree like but that would be it like I wouldn't as long as the tree stay up I like the Privacy the beautiful Long Tall Trees um it gives a buffering between me and the other 52 properties you're putting up there kind of seems like that's going to be more of a community on their own versus me and the lonely neighbor next to me you know no I appreciate your comments the board appreciates your comments it does show uh buffers on the plans already and you can get a copy of these we can send them to you um the more detailed plans that were submitted today um but it does show buffers you know the the applicant is here and can I'm sure offer some assurance that he'll do what he can in that regard the the goal is not usually to tear down all the trees uh you know next to the site this is this is own W yeah I think it' be reasonable in the future we can certainly work that call out his own and say you know um we're not at the final approval at this point where we're going to have exactly what kind of trees and bushes but Mr atani did you want to address the uh butter I just circled the area for Mr atani on that on that and gave him the uh thank you respected members of the board my name is Mohammad aani I'm I'm a managing uh director of uh Island Brook LLC uh absolutely our intent is to keep the buffer uh like what the board mentioned is that there's a wetland area there so we can't even touch it legally we cannot touch it not only that we have to stay 15 ft away from it based on the approval so there's going to be a lot of buffer and as we're building the houses we not we cannot clear anything outside you can see there's a clearing line I don't if you can see it which shows like hay bales that are running and if if and we don't mind adding more ever greens to that line as well so so it's we will keep what's there and then we can add few few few trees where it be the trees are thin so we'll be more than happy to do that thank you so much I really appreciate it no that's fair that's reasonable thank you thank you for your comments and we will work in in our in our decision you know that buffer shall be maintained where at all possible um so I I think you're going to be covered and I think you will be satisfied we we will we appreciate your comment and we will work to try to ensure that thank you so much thank you thank you Mr yes sir uh I I kind of jumped out of order and and um there is a letter that will be in the file that was just submitted um from Miss Miss Donovan you have that right you gave it to me I think so okay um what's next has this been sent um Mr Gallagher has this been sent to peer review so not yet Mr chairman uh we were looking to solicit any other refinements or comments uh that the board might have um in kind of looking at this to you know for instance we just got the feedback about um showing the limit of work on the final plan as to constructing that Basin and uh you know we do have the note on the plan but um you know maybe we can add some detail uh about the buffer uh that was just discussed but if there are any other sort of you know feedback or comments from the board in looking at at this layout then we'd like to kind of collect those and then uh we would we would add some refinements and get this over to grave so that they could take a look at details like the looping of the water M uh location of fire hydrates potentially and obviously it would be circulated um by Brian you know the pl set would be circulated for comment uh you know to the to the fire chief or anybody else that was interested so the other plan sheets we're looking at three right now but the other plan sheets show the underground the uh utilities correct right so we provided these three again just to sort of the the critical ones that show this this redesign for schematic and feedback purposes but we do intend to submit a plan a plan set you know the revision date will probably be through August 1st um you know as soon as Frank uh he's got a lot of new grandchildren so he's been he's been booked this summer playing with the grandkids but um congratulations once we get him back in front of the computer uh he can he can create a fully developed plan set that includes all of these details and we'll get it to Graves and and they'll issue a report and we can move this along I think that's a good idea members of the board are you in agreement that this is satis satisfies our concerns at least what we can see at at our level yeah so that the rest of the plan sheets can go to Graves where are we with Graves we we had made contact with them a month ago or so but nothing's been sent to them uh hold on if I may yes we have contacted Graves they have made a contract and I sent it to Frank Gallagher so the applicant is aware of uh the contract and how much we still need would need to complete the contract yep understood yeah I think we were just kind of waiting to get our arms around exactly what we're were going to submit um so we'll take a look at that and and we'll coordinate to get that you know funded and executed and whatever else we have to do because I think that has to be done before we we ask Graves to do work oh c certainly understood y okay so board members were satisfied this is this is a good uh revision yeah they it addressed everything we we wanted to it should be sent so maybe that extra month really helped yeah sorry about that by the way that was me I apologize not a problem none of us wanted to come that night either so but it meant more work for tonight unfortunately I was still working no matter what so so I guess uh we're we're suggesting that U you finalize with Graves uh get the uh peer review contract and money uh to the town uh or to and to Graves I guess and uh um notify us uh as to what's being done Town Council is here Amy are we on good track with that yes y honor I have no questions Mr shamman I'm sorry Mr shamman I have no questions wow is that Mr President I know are you in court today Amy yes I was no so yeah I no comments we're we're satisfied with these plans thank the applicant mrani and Mr Gallagher and Mr dagostino for uh presenting to us so uh just follow the protocol for getting the contract in place and send the the plans on carbon copying us so that we know where we are and so uh maybe Mr chairman um we could continue this to a date certain and um you know plan to try to make some progress it um you know maybe in August and then even if we needed more time we could continue it you know we could notify Brian how things are going um but just to get something on the schedule and I do think just uh for just out of formality um just to confirm because we had submitted this as a notice of project change back in May so we'll obviously continue that that deadline to after whatever the hearing schedule is and obviously you know as this Contin continues to um play out we'll continue that as needed uh as we work with Graves so just you know let us know what your hearing schedule looks like um we'll get it on the schedule and then continue not knowing what grave schedule is of course but the hearing schedule is excuse me we just have August 21st August 21 is the next date for us Frank that's probably tight no yeah Mohammad what do you think how's your timeline looking here no September meeting is fine yeah September meeting is probably fine and and we'll do our best to get something to Graves you know early August I know everybody's slow in August but we'll try to get them something in August and then you know maybe they can turn it around in advance of your September hearing um I think just to foreshadow a little bit you know we had confirmed that the permit uh is good through January um there's actually some legislation working through the state house to extend all permits uh as part of the uh housing production package that's going uh through the state house right now in light of covid and uh you know housing costs and everything else so that may kind of do our job for us but um you know as this sort of approaches the end of the year it's just something to keep in mind um obviously you know would like to see this get going I I don't think we need to address it tonight but um if we're into September and obviously there may be some technical discussion that Graves wants to have um you know might take another few weeks yep we'll we'll come up with our September date in just a minute if you want to say or we can notify you of that we just have a disc I thought we actually did have a September date I just looked and I don't have one okay first we got was August okay uh so this sounds like a sounds like a good uh good plan and thank you for your assistance um if for should we just continue to the August meeting just for a status anyway we can always just yeah tell the applicant that U we're you know we'll continue it from there since we only have the August U meeting schedule why don't we uh continue this to August 21 at uh say 710 um but again not to box you or or Graves or Mr Gallagher in just to have it on the schedule so that it doesn't fall off said schedule and we can uh you know talk informally before then if if nothing is to be done that night and just reschedule it for September from there all right sounds like a plan all right thank you Mr chairman Mr chairman if I may I'm just um so August 21st is a Wednesday tonight is a Tuesday do you normally meet on Wednesdays or Tuesday we normally meet on Wednesdays however the past couple of months we've had just wanted to make sure yeah okay this this is the unusual night okay got it um thank you so if that is all for tonight uh do we need to vote to continue this um do we need to vote Amy to continue this yes have to continue it to a um day and time to to a time and date certain so most likely your September meeting will be September 18th the 3rd that would be the third Wednesday in September is that okay that's okay with us yeah we're just setting that meeting right now no I just I'm just checking but yes you would want to continue the hearing to um August 21st um at 700 p.m. or 7:10 I think yeah yeah is there is there a motion to continue this matter till August 21st 7 10 p.m. um I'll make that motion second all right uh Mr Tor yes Mr Spangler Mr Noel votes yes we're on for August 21 710 however may or may not have anything to discuss that night and we will be in touch thank you very much thank you Mr chairman I I'll send a letter to confirm continuance of any deadlines and I'll confirm verbally as Council now that uh that that's extend yeah thank you and just keep us informed as I said your communication Graves as to timing so appreciate that great thank all right thank you very much thanks everybody appr have a good good night night okay um Mr chairman do you need me to stay on or can can she stay for a minute I have a question after actually yes I'm glad I is it is it on the next application no it's after that I just have a question on something else quick question question uh but the next application is to be continued is that correct Brian Mr carel yes um so we just started having applicants mail out their own letters and so they sent out their letters however they didn't pay with the Sun Chronicle so they did advertise halfway so we have it on the agenda but we have to continue them because they didn't do it fully what what is that mean halfway they sent it out to the abutters but they didn't do the legal ad I so this is on our agenda but we have to continue we okay so um Mr car if if I may sure um the statute requires that the town do the notice okay I was okay do their own yeah that would so you you are responsible to send out the hearing notices and send it to the newspaper obviously they are required to pay for everything but um it's it's on the board to send it out under the statute under Section 11 48 section 11 thank you Amy I didn't know that Paul Paul thought otherwise but okay we're blaming Paul yeah let's do that that was quick that was easy like blaming Paul U does that reverse anything that's been done then or do we can we jump in here it it would only be it would only be significant if somebody challenged it but no right now no so just just from now on do it so for this matter you can pick up what Amy is saying send the notice or create a notice or something yeah I'll get the talk to Paul yeah okay thank you um then um is there a motion to continue the application of Robert Amaral the applicant is actually Timothy Phil rillo for 78 Darrow Street um to the August 21st uh meeting date at say 7:05 is there a motion I'll make that motion uh second Mr Tor how do you vote Yes Mr Spangler yes Mr Noel votes yes as well so 705 on August 21 we'll see if we can get it done for for them uh that is the end of our U agenda except for General business Mr ifred did you have a question for councel um yeah Amy can we discuss um something from the first item on the agenda real quick just so I have clarification s s yeah can we can we do that or but well I'll ask a question you tell me to to quiet or not if I if you have to so based off of everything we've talked about big now is a right of way not a street right yeah right so with it being a right away not a street the applicant and the neighbor across on the other side of the RightWay both own 10 ft of that RightWay it's a 20 foot wide right of way correct correct what type of issues do we now have that he paved 14t of that right away with no permits and then on top of that what type of issues do we have that he paved that right away in general at all with no permits if he can't pave that right away now what's like what's the next step from the town standpoint so there is there's really no Next Step from the town standpoint he can um so with the derel fee statute meaning that he owns the he owns to the center line he also owns the ability to pass and repass over that yeah over his whatever his Frontage is on big Nell Street he has the right to pass and repass and with the right to pass and repass comes the right to improve so he he technically does have the right to improve that um my only concern would be which is A Private Matter would be between him and New England telephone which is now Verizon because if he paved any of the they have a superior right of easement to put polls in and so if his Paving or anything affected their right to put in polls they would have the right to make him take it out but that that's not up to us that's that's A Private Matter between the two of them um his attorney has said that you know Verizon responded to him that they don't know of any rights that they have to that but that's not the same as having a full title search saying they have no rights they might have rights we don't know but um right but it what he did you know um what he did I think he he we could he could claim he did under the pretext of the fact that he has the right to pass and repass over big Nell Street okay so no no or right away poll line yeah no no violation needs no no next steps from my side let's say theoretically or hypothetically if if the other butter that owns four feet of pavement that he created has a complaint that becomes a civil dispute between them it does but I I don't think they have much of an argument because again he does have the right to pass and repass which means he has the right to improve the entire right way yeah and I don't I I there's no correspondence or grounds for me expecting that to happen I'm just ask him for my own knowledge yeah you know in this situation so but thank you that's all that was my only question and thank you for staying for that thanks very much it wasn't a long wait appreciate the help tonight and always okay thank you so I will be here on August 21st unless I hear that it's continued yeah great okay thank you all right Perfect all right have a good night guys um are there any bills or warrants okay just one thing I did get sworn in a couple weeks ago when you asked that oh y thank God thank God but is's I think it's is I didn't I got the letter from selectman and I I just put it away I didn't answer it but they brought it up at the meeting anyway so um but we have to we're supposed to vote for a chair every year we've done it in the summer at the end of the summer so how would if we do that in August I'd encourage anybody who wants to be chair to step forward I can't be chair you have to be a member to be chair yeah it's like in the Congress you can be speaker of the house can we vote um you could be speaker of the house without being Congressman yeah we're voting Lucas yeah if he doesn't come that's his fault well that's a good point right then yeah chair Vice chair right yeah boas than Top Notch yeah that's it all right well let's put that on the agenda for the next meeting um but if anybody would like to um you know you can step forward at that time and but let's put it on the agenda anyway name right this this is just getting hard for me to get out I know it's getting hard your kids sports and working stuff I I do apologize and any late ation I try and give you guys as much notice as possible things come up for everybody we handle it as best we can okay um we have minutes I got to be honest with it I have not looked at I haven't either so let's try to look at them for August 21 all right thank you hopefully there will be more there should be more yeah I'll try if you email on I will make a note to read them before my hour bedtime don't make them fall asleep in the first line Jim don't worry all right fantastic Nick thank you very much for absolutely coming in and explaining yeah as that was a big uh uncertainty for all of us samet with the history so so I thought this might have looked familiar I might have seen this in ' 06 it's been yes a while was there a DEC or something like there there was a decision uh basically it looked like the same thing except it was conservation instead of planning board so so conservation issued in order of conditions for this project in March of 2022 March of 22 okay but they yeah they issued an order in 2022 but it's not conservations pred determine whether or not it's applicable to zoning or anything else so they they didn't the best of my knowledge they didn't they didn't step any cross any lines or do anything they shouldn't have done they had an application in front of them based off of environmental concerns and they made a judgment or a ruling from the sounds of it the applicant took that as I can do it to do what he did but it it's it it was it was confusing because there's also a bunch of legal yeah mumbo jumbo behind it that says if he went in created a subdivision plan he's now losing his pre-existing non-forming protection because it doesn't meet the current requirements of zoning there's a bunch of legal stuff um background to it so that's why he was kind of hesitant to go and do that that's what I was trying to get at that there might be other options form C or something like that for the planning board that he didn't want to file because he he was afraid he would lose his protection I just didn't understand why the planning board took a vote but there's no decision because as I said in the email I don't know what exactly decision would be written so chair why did they take a vote why take a vote if you don't know what you're voting on I mean we can look back I'm going to look back at the meeting I didn't know about the meeting that recording and all until today I think maybe yesterday but I'll look back at it I'm just curious yeah because cuz that was my point if they didn't I'll talk to Alan let me call I'll call Allan Alan Allan you still recording yeah we're still recording we're still Alan Allan expressed his concerns at that meeting um a lot of the board members had questions concerns and but I again I think watching the video Council Town Council wasn't there y the applicant gave his opinion which there's nothing wrong with that but he gave his opinion of whether or not it was just he kept calling it a street street to Street to Street mhm so I think after speaking tonight there was a little bit of there's there's a difference in opinion which one way or the other could sway an opinion of the project right depending on the situation without knowing the legal background I can understand both sides of it but I was just looking I had asked so is there a decision we should be looking at but there isn't one so okay so nothing else to come before us tonight nope uh motion to adjourn at 8:59 so moved second all those in favor yes I thanks everybody okay meeting is adjourned