good evening this is the town mayor zoning board of appeals Wednesday April 17 6 PM hybrid meeting agenda' this meeting hearing of the zoning board of appeals will be held in person at the location provided on this notice members of the public are welcome to attend this in-person meeting please note that while an option for remote attendance and our participation via Zoom is being provided as a courtesy to the public the meeting SL hearing will not be suspended or terminated technical problems interrupt the virtual broadcast unless otherwise required by law members of the public with particular intent in a specific item on its agenda should make plans for inperson versus virtual attendance accordingly meeting will be live on Zoom public May access the pro meeing by joining Zoom meeting ID 857 9728 7177 or by calling 312- 626 6799 for additional information about remote remote participation please contact Samantha Benoy administrative coordinator at zba a.m. us or 978-772-4864 April 17th 2024 second have a second uh all those in favor signify by saying I you have to do roll call yes jessino I Mike Gibbons ey Ron Philip ey John Ellis ey all right appr the agenda has been approved first item on the agenda variant extend ition request 201 to 205 West Main Street Building height we going to do them both at once or we going to do them separately there two we have to do them separately don't we yes yes okay uh first item on the agenda is the variance extension request 201 205 West Main Street Building height uh you open Mr Mr Gibbons yes good evening board members my name is Tom Gibbons and I represent DMG Investment LLC regarding 2011 to 205 uh West Main Street so the the request for the extension the the presentation is the same so I'd ask that I make the presentation and you consider that in both or open them both at the same time and and have it heard whatever the board's pleasure is but again I don't think we'll need to go through the argument twice um so we're seeking a six-month extension for the two variances that this board granted on April 19th of 2023 the variances were for Building height and lot with and copies of the recorded variances were submitted with the application Mass General law 48 section 10 paragraph 3 provides that quote the permit granting Authority in its discretion in upon written application by the grantee of such rights May extend the time for exercise of such rights for a period not to exceed 6 months as you know the project that this relates to required site plan approval and we filed site plan approval had many meetings and one of the issues that the planning board had some difficulty was with was our request for reduction in unit size so ultimately we withdrew that application without prejudice at Springtown meeting Monday night uh there is a warrant article on to change the bylaw and if it passes it'll change the unit size requirement in certain circumstances and if that passes um we believe that the unit size issue will not be an incontable issue uh if we would to reapply for a site plan so because of the timing of the bylaw change in the town meeting schedule uh we're asking for the six-month extension to these variances okay I see I see considerable push back from department heads um Economic Development Town planner zoning uh the uh Building Department public works so Sam can Department I mean Sam can I can I just ask a a clarifying question so I don't recall a time when we've been asked to Grant an extension where we've gone through this process again okay could be um but in truth this felt to me like we were rehearing the original variance applications again I I don't recall a time in my time in the board we've denied an extension request um nor done this amount of research with input all the way up to Town Council um so that's just my my opening thought here is you know it it feels like we're rehearing these applications when I I don't think that's the intent tonight but that's just my opening thoughts Sam all right well we we discussed it that length when we when we first went through the whole process I don't I don't disagree with that and we did have some foolish back at the time but and I was surprised when I saw the compilation of everything that came back of this and you're absolutely correct we shouldn't be going through this process again our our BAS of right now is whether or not we'll allow the extension of it because for for whatever reason I I I read the the um Town council's letter so there's going to end up with two of these on the table so we I don't remember how many extensions have we done I don't remember one or two I don't think we've done one Sam they get one year from the time we issued and I think we issued initially on April 19th oh yeah if I may on this one there hasn't been any extensions this is the first extension request no no no no I'm talking about we're talking about other I see other hearings try I don't think we Sam there's people in the audience who need who would like to speak I don't know if you can see them no okay I can Sam if I could Charlie would like to uh offer a com all go Charlie go ahead I'm sorry I can't see you from here here we go okay so I think the whole Crux of this lies in the initial approval for the variance um if you read Town council's um letter to the town it's um a three-prong approach that need you need to prove a variance and I don't believe that was done on the first hearing and I've taken the time and gone through each of the prongs and it's uh I'll I'll I'll do them in part but owing to circumstances relating to soil shape or topography um you have to prove that a lot is considered as having an unusual or unique shape if it substantially differs from other Lots in the immediate neighborhood and with within the zoning District this lot does not meet that criteria the shape and justifying a variance is generally considered to be odd shape such as a pork chop lot the shape does not meet that criteria odd unusual unique shape does not include deficiencies in depth width and area Frontage so as to justify a variance this lot's large enough to do uh a number of different uh scenarios for building a project on so it doesn't meet that criteria soal conditions in topography must be unusual or unique um they're not they're the same as everyone in that zone and B a literal enforcement of the provision of the bylaw would involve sub substantial hardship Financial or otherwise to the petitioner uh first one hardship entitling a land owner to a variance is usually present when the landowner cannot reasonably make use of the property for the purpose or or the manner Allowed by zoning it can easily be used for the uh Criterion our zoning is three stories and 92 ft wide so there's no financial hardship there as a lot can be used for its intended use and purpose um two hardship generally means due to soil condition shape and topography um the development of the property consistent with the zoning bylaw is prohibited it can be used by the owning by law so it doesn't mean that crer criteria hardship must be based on a circumstance directly affecting the property not on circumstances creating a personal hardship for the landowner there's no hardship affecting the property as it can be used for its current zoning so it doesn't meet the criteria for hard uh variance there and four hardship cannot be self-created by the landowner they would be creating their own hardship if this variance is granted and they we still haven't got to the parking issue although um we talked about this the attorney Gibbons talked about the 750 size issue may go away there's still a huge parking issue that goes with that and finally that the planning board has that they took it right out of our hands I can I can appreciate your your your listing but case in point is the variances have been granted right if I'm understanding everybody correctly what you're all saying is we shouldn't have done it is that what I'm hearing that's that in my opinion all right it's my opinion that the applicant does not meet any of the criteria outlined in chapter 48 section 10 to qualify for Avance in the first place and therefore the extension should not be granted if you read attorney qule who was uh presid at the meeting on Zoom she could probably expand on that further as to uh why it doesn't need to be granted even though it was granted the first time Sam did I ask a question please Jess yeah it it it go ahead I I I would you know since we do have Town Council to hear um going to Mike's earlier question that this feels like it is rearing the initial graning of the variances as opposed to consider ing an actual extension so I I I'd love to hear more from Town Council on that you know and and how we're making that distinction and yeah we we right or wrong we granted the variances period there was no question about that we did that we discussed it we debated it and we finished it these points did not come about during that discussion so now what's on the table before us is an extension for the variance that we granted and I'm hearing that we shouldn't have done it to begin with so if our Town Council would be so kind as to elaborate on this I'd be tickled um sure I'm I'm here Mr chairman if I may please thank you Amy thank you Amy qule Town Council so um your decisions that you issued you issued two separate decisions for two separate variances um those decisions unfortunately don't lay out these three prongs um that you know proving that these three prongs were met it is undeniable that the courts in Massachusetts have held that all three proms have to be met for a variance to be granted Grant um variances are to be granted sparingly and once granted they are supposed to be acted upon swiftly um I cited to the pertinent case law in my memo that I that I um distributed or hopefully was distributed to you guys um and so when you're looking for an extension of a variance it is this board it's it's um incumbent upon this board to prove that the elements are all still met and so meaning that there is still a soil shape or topography problem there is still a hardship that's created by that soil shape and topography and that it doesn't substantially granting of the variance does not substantially derate from the intent of the by law so yes you are actually going back and you're looking at the variance again you're looking at the three prongs of the variant here because your decision is devoid of any analysis of those of the proms that are required under 48 section 10 you need to do that tonight you need to say okay you know the the soil shape and topography is still there's still something unusual about the soil shape and topography of this lot not other Lots in the area only this lot um and it can't be that it's too small or too narrow or anything like that it has to be you know a pork chop lot or or there has to be Wetlands cutting through only this lot an isolated vegetated Wetland something like that um or there has to be substantial Ledge in a certain portion of the lot that creates it so therefore you know building can only be in one corner of the lot um and then there has to be that hardship and then there has to be you know by granting this variance would there be a substantial derogation from the zoning bylaw now I I can tell you that variances are very hard to obtain um they are very hard to obtain if challenged by the courts they are almost always a granting of a variance is almost always overturned um but without these three prongs being met they should not even be granted so where we are here is they were granted now they're looking for a six-month extension they have told us why they're looking for a six-month extension that has to do with permitting and a combination of Permitting and an upcoming um bylaw change um that doesn't have anything to do with the three prongs so in my opinion this board does have to go through the three prongs and decide if an extension should be granted um the other thing that I did want to point out is that no one is entitled to a variance Ergo no one is entitled to an extension of a Varian so it is up to this board to make sure that um the elements are met thank you you're welcome Mr chairman very interesting Mr chairman may I respond who's that attorney Tom Gibbons go ahead sir yes thank you so I'd like to hand out um for the board copies of uh chapter 48 section 10 and some past decisions of this board so and I'm going to I'm going to say all this with with all due respect and I mean it Charlie and I have been friends and colleagues for 28 years I've been practicing in law for 28 years and and with all due respect to attorney qule as a as a fellow attorney however I'm perplexed by her opinion so if we look at chapter 48 section 10 there is three paragraphs to that that um statute and if we look at the first one it says the permit and I've highlighted some of this wording the permit Grant in Authority shall have the power after a hearing and I'm going to skip to the highlights to Grant of variance we such permit granting Authority specifically finds that owing to circumstances related to soil condition shape or Topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures and I won't read the whole thing but it's all of the criteria for this board to Grant a variance now I respect Charlie and I read his his comments and Charlie I think you you had submitted that prior to the other variants but it's this board that makes that decision and it did in fact make the decision to approve it so this board found that we met those requirements now attorney qule says well but you didn't lay out the findings in your decision well if you look at the copies I've given you four decisions of this board and they date from 1980 1997 2001 2023 and you have the two variances that were granted in this case and I could have found dozens more I I just got attorney qu's um opinion earlier today and I went online and I pulled those up if you look at those decisions the format is is basically the same as the format of our decisions right they don't lay out the findings of fact um so it's not unusual your de your decision is Not Unusual now attorney qule I think you would agree with me that when a board makes a decision there's a 20-day appeal period I've seen planning boards in other towns sue the zba maybe Charlie as the building inspector would have had a right to appeal certainly as a resident of the town if he had standing he would have had a right to appeal but the appeal period has expired so all of this talk is about basically should we Grant a new variance that's not we're asking for today or laying out claims for an appeal the appeal period is passed so I say with that with all du respect now most importantly because if I could address that quickly please just that he's I do agree that um I do agree that there is a 20-day appeal period however what perhaps he's going to get to which I haven't heard yet is there there is no entitlement to a to an extension and and and I did cite to cases so so with all due respect I I don't think I'm presenting to this board that I'm entitled or my clients entitled to an extension been before this board many years over my 28- year career was on the planning board in the town of air so I am not not coming forward saying we're entitled to this however if you go to paragraph 3 of chapter 48 section 10 and that's on the second page so let's read that if the rights authorized by a variance are not exercised within one year of the date of the grant of such variance such rights shall elapse provided however that the permit granting Authority in its discretion in upon written application by the grantee of such rights May extend the time for exercise of such rights for a period not to exceed 6 months so with all due respect attorney qule I don't know under what statutory um construction you can say that we have to rehear all of the elements because and everybody on this board and um except for the newest one who I'm not familiar with has been on this board for many many years and when you read that statute it's not a very complicated one when it comes to the extension there's two requirements we request an extension in writing before the expiration of the variant and then you exercise your discretion now if the if the legislature wanted it to say that if we're coming in for an extension that we have to redo all those things and attorney Quest I think you would agree with me they wouldn't have needed paragraph three what they would have done is in paragraph one they would have said the permit granting Authority shall have the power after public hear to Grant an a variance or to Grant an extension where such permit granted Authority specifically f those elements so so I would point to the Lopes case which says that you know the courts have held that variances should be acted upon swiftly and that um they're intended in part to curb the widespread abuse of variance granting power so you shouldn't be just granting an extension you have to make sure that the variance that you're extending is still applicable with all du respect where does it say that in in 9A in 4 a section 10 because it does in case law that case law that cites to section 10 you're you're citing case law that would have been a a reason for a board maybe to deny the variance that's not what we have here uh no the L's case has to do with an extension um no it it's it's and the um the other case that has to do with the extension is the um Hunter Brook case has to do with the extension so there's no question that the extension in fact the statute even said I I can't remember the words that you used um just a few minutes ago but I think it said under the in the discretion of the um zoning board of appeals to Grant the extension so um it just goes It goes without saying that you can't Grant an extension without justification for that extension now if you're extending a variance that has no justification it shouldn't be Grant it shouldn't be extended well so and and I I I certainly don't want to alienate the board and and Attorney question Li you and I could have a a discussion about this for hours I'm sure but the fact is that it's the duty of the board the the Town Council the building inspector with all due respect doesn't get to usurp the zoning board of appeals Authority it's within the board of appeals authority to do this as I said I've been practicing for 28 years I have gotten many extensions over the over that 28 years and I'm certain some from the town of air I I can't recall it right now but I'm certain that I have and what the boards have always said is why are you before us is there good cause right so they're looking at why are you here well so we could have someone might come in and say I'm here because you know I got that decision and then I I really didn't do anything and now I realize I want to continue the development and so I need an extension that's probably not good cause it wouldn't be in mine and it would be up to the board's discretion their discretion is there what I'm saying to you is that the reason we're asking for the extension is because a warrant article at town meeting Monday Monday there's a there's a meeting and if that passes it will have an impact on this decision now again we may have to come back for a variance in the future and I'm sure Charlie and and everybody else will be ready with their arguments and Charlie I think you did submit most of those comments previously I went after the uh amount the financial okay feasibility for the school system never been studied their recommendation on how many people would be living in this state above or below what the state allows they didn't use any of those numbers okay so so I didn't do any of this by oh go ahead well well so you know how many bites at the Apple do you get in in our state you have 20 days to appeal if you're not happy with the decision so this board has made that decision I think it was the right decision other people can disagree but what we're asking for now is a six-month extension and and I believe it's with it's absolutely within your discretion but it I it shouldn't be within your discretion to say Hey you haven't convinced us twoo night that it's because of large shaped soil condition of topography we met I think more than once and I can't remember right off the bat but we had nights of presentations I get this this opinion tonight or this this morning do is it reasonable to expect that we're going to gather up our whole team come back in and present in maybe 20 minutes that we have nights and nights worth of presentation it it really to me is unfathomable that that you could read this this this requirement like that it just it it's beyond reproach so what I'd say is I'd ask the board to exercise their discretion now you might you might disagree with me that because to there's a warrant article Monday that would affect our our application you might disagree that that's good cause I I would hope that you wouldn't I think it's absolutely good cause but I I don't think rehearing the whole thing is what is intended in the statute nor clearly the Lang clear reading of the language doesn't indicate that all right thank you do we have any other public Sam Jess Jess has a question I think I'm sorry Jess go ahead um just a question if we were to not Grant the extensions um because we initially did Grant the variances that wouldn't be the same as denying an application and then they have to wait two or 3 years to reapply would that be the true no okay correct yeah would not okay thank you do we have any public input anybody their hand up anybody in the room nope doesn't look like it Sam all right M Mr chairman if I may okay guys um what do we think Mike I think I got an idea what it's on your mind you do Sam but just to add on to what I said earlier um I I you know I want to reiterate that in truth this feels like we're rehearing two variances we've already granted yes I I know that Town Council has said that it's essentially not but it feels that way additionally I wasn't aware that the applicants received the memo from Town Council today so I have to agree that they they could not have had time to prepare for what is essentially a rehearing of Varian as we granted last year and and so can I ask a question about that just let me just let me finish sure and I I I I'd have to Gander that if you took a look at every decision we've issued since we've issued this decision these two decisions they look nearly identical albeit the parcel information property information and the variance or special permit granted is different I I understand and I I know just to wrap this up Sam we've spent a lot of time in the last 6 months you know rewriting our our rules and regulations document and I do think it's important that we going forward stick to this un fortunately extensions weren't addressed in it because I did take a look every decision we've made again I think would have to look exactly like the one that we're looking at tonight we've granted a number of extensions Through The Years including for we did it for the the the the auto body place by Shop and Save there or or I think it was a doughnut shop at the time yeah it was a coffee shop or that's right y again I I wasn't prepared to rehear these applications tonight I did bring the them the the applications from last April with me but you know if I wasn't prepared I don't know how our our applicants could be so if Well here here's an interesting question though that being said when does the when does it expire when the variance expire on the 19th yes yes all right why are we here today what's today's date 17 two days before expiration really we're waiting till two days before before we even address an extension I think that's pretty poor planning may I may I respond sir G you meet once a month I believe Y and I filed on March 28th and again the statute requires that that you file it before the expiration date I filed it on March 28th here we are April 17th I I I don't think that that's I I with all due respect I don't think it's outrageous but certainly it's within the time period set forth in the statute which is the only rules and regulations I can go by well I understand that but by the same token I don't want to hear that we got well we only got a notice yesterday and we didn't have time to go through it but they didn't they did just get it today Amy qule has a yes ma'am so my my question is is why why is there such a huge presentation necessary it's either soil shape or topography so what is it the lot has anything changed in the past year so what is the unusual is it the soil is it the shape is it the topography and did that change what what has changed in the past year it did anything and and the answer could be nothing it still is an unusual soil shape or topography there's no need tonight to re-evaluate The Proposal what you're re-evaluating is this the variance and and your your decision you know quite honestly um you know your decision needs to address the find you need to have findings in your decision and then you need to have you know a re reasoning for your decision so um and and that's something I'm more than willing to work with the board on um going into the Future on You Know establishing certain findings for each whether it be a special permit whether it be a a variance um so I don't think that by an extension the board is is has to re-evaluate the entire project the project is the project it's staying the same it's the variance that why why is there a height variance necessary what are the soil shape and topography that creat create the need for a height variance and without that height variance what is the hardship created and does that substantially derogate from the zoning bylaw so so so that's just what I was trying to get across earlier that that you we're not looking at a whole new evaluation with plans of the proposal and all this stuff it's just yes as we discussed a year ago the soils somehow require a height variance I mean height variances are are are very hard they're probably one of the most difficult to come by because what is creating the need for the additional height a lot of times you'll see a setback variance necessary because there are uh there's an isolated wetland in one corner of the property that pushes the entire development to you know into a setback um you know attorney given you know claims that he's gotten numerous variances and and that's great I have boards that do not Grant variances ever because the case law is clear that it's extremely hard to Grant a variance so um you know you I I do see sometimes I I'll see stepback variances but with a height variance it's more of you know what what is you know what is what what is the soil shape and topography that's creating um a height variance I guess Mr chairman if I may respond Tom Gibbons Mr gibons go ahead attorney qule did you watch the um the videos of the meetings okay so then I think you you probably know the answer but this board has already made that determination so we only we have look we we have to abide by the regulations in this case it's a a state statute so I'm just simply asking the question where in section 10 of 40a does it say you have to do that and that's the board's decision and we can go back and forth and again um I mean I you know attorney qu I can argue back and forth but it's the board's decision but I think if having been on this this board for so many years and read so many you know whether it's a town regulation or a statute there's nothing in paragraph three that says in order to Grant an extension you have to find that now you know I get that there's been a lot of work and the board's working on on you know changes to their policies and procedures but if you look at those decisions you look at these two decisions and I again I could probably pull up dozens of others that's the format that you've used and if someone wanted to file an appeal because they said hey the board didn't spell out in their decisions the case law says you have to do this you have 20 days to do it I mean the Towners are going to come back at those four other U people that got variances and say oh the board didn't spell out the findings and so you know we're going to take your variance away the decision is final that's why we have courts that's why we have statutes that declare so so it really comes down to this it really it's not being the variance is not being taken away the variance is good for one year that that was all the respect question it's not being taken away Sam Sam yes yeah okay um on the one hand I think if you look at some of our old decisions uh yeah we didn't do findings this is similar no we didn't that's right but uh I will acknowledge we are getting better especially thanks to Sam benoit's work with us and we're now tightening up some uh weaknesses we've had sure second um you know I'm I think there's a lot more uh information presented in some of the Town comments than we had last time especially from the fire department um and the DPW uh well what what we had at the original meeting we didn't have the concepts or the detail that they got when they went to the planning board so they're they're in fact lies a bit of a difference yeah so we do have more information with these comments but um what I asked before was um does it if we deny the extension does that mean that they can't do anything for two or three years no it doesn't take that right away they can immediately reapply I'm still troubled and you know we were all troubled back back a year ago about the parking issue and the DPW superintendent made the comment in his comment to this hearing that the height issue the height variance is directly related to the part the parking problem I would be happier myself with um having this go back before the planning board regardless of what happens on the size of the units at Springtown meeting they still have to resolve the issue of parking with the planning board and if that can be successfully resolved one way or another then I'd be happy to revisit new variants applications on height and width and uh so I think that's where I'm now thinking there's no harm in us there's a lot of information provided that suggest we should Recons consider you we that we might have made some errors I will still stand by some of the reasoning I had for supporting it a year ago including uh advice from the town planner at that time um and also observations made by members of another board that the uh the form-based code was appearing to be too restrictive um and there were some public good arguments but I can see that you you know at least on the financial hardship prong you know we're tightening up so I don't think that should be used against us but I think there's no harm uh they can reapply for the variances but I'd like to see the parking issue uh resolved that's not us you know I know I know she knows so I'd rather not you know put I'd rather so I'd rather like to see the variances reconsidered with that already dealt with thank you Pauline's had her hand up for a bit Pauline you got a question um yes Mr chair thank you for recognizing me I'm sorry I didn't ask this during the public input but you've discussed it further since then um Mr gib's letter to the board specifically addresses change potential changes to the zoning bylaw on Monday April 22nd um I've read these articles I'm looking at one of them right now and my guess is uh Mr Gibb is referring uh Mr Thomas Gibbons is referring to Article 28 um but I would like him to at least address that and then I would like to suggest he's asking for six-month extension we don't know what's going to happen at town meeting but town meeting traditionally denies every zoning bylaw so your um current approval may exist by right since you've already done it no the appeal period has expired so I just want to throw that out there if Tom will please explain the particular article on town meeting that he's referring to and then thoughts from you or any other members of the board thank you thank I think I know I think I know where she was headed with that attorney given it's about square footage is it sure and I'll be happy to respond so uh it is it is about the uh square footage of the unit sizes so that's one aspect that's the big thing for us and and why we would through our our site plane approval but again I I and I don't want to beat a dead horse here but the fact is that uh the fire department had five concerns they're all site plan review issues the DPW had concern about the parking now the parking is is a sight plan issue now they say it's it's partly caused by the the height of the building but the original variance for the elements for a variance did not say well how does it affect parking so you know the the zba has its role planning board has its role and and we wait a minute excuse me when you first brought them to it there were three variances parking was one of them and that's when Mr disin stood up and pointed out that the parking belonged to the planning board and therefore took it out of our purview well right but and correct yes we withdrew the the varant request for parking from this board but but again so parking has when you when you boil it down as a zba member and you look at the the legal requirements parking has no impact on this I'm not saying the parking is not an issue it's an issue for site plan approval it's an issue for the planning board so I I respectfully say that if you're concerned about parking as a board member that should not come into play on whether you grant an extension here um so you know again to go around and around but in in M jino if if you know you say there's no harm in having us come back now Charlie if I can just finish though Mr chairman there there is harm there's great harm I didn't me interrup you there is harm there's great harm these projects cost a lot of money to permit now that's not your concern I get it but let's take this this area of town we we passed the the bylaw that Allen had had put through and it's passed this is the first applicant that has come this far and I can tell you that it's cost a lot of money and a lot of time not saying that that's your concern but there is harm there is harm by saying well just come back and redo it you you know the team that we brought here each of those meetings that's not that's not cheap now in a grand scheme of things not this project in particular but we have to understand that that we want our towns to have housing that is Affordable not not affordable in the sense of restricted but affordable to people that that on the police department on the fire department and work for the town when when you make it so difficult and and so costly it has an impact on the cost so that's more of a soapbox speach but there is harm uh the the statue provides what the extension within your discretion what the elements are it's not a rehearing of the whole matter and you know we may find that we can't get through the planning board in 6 months so we may be back before you anyway and then everybody's going to have their opportunity to to um input again and to appeal if you choose to to issue it again but that's the process we have the opportunity tonight for for our input because it said we may Grant that's right with in your discretion like bu sh out of this process toight right and what I would ask is is if you are going to make a decision that that because it is within your discretion nobody can make make you make that decision not me not Town Council not Charlie Schultz but I would ask that you know there' be at least a brief explanation as why you feel that it shouldn't be granted and ien said that yet no no I know that but I'm just saying that that hopefully it's not because of lot shaped so condition of topography because that's not what the law requires not not you know okay yeah thank you Mr SCH if I could one last time so just for just it's a the not only is it a 25% higher at four stories instead of three it is if I remember correctly 262 or 264 ft wider than 192 so it's 33% longer and then 25% higher with the 33% so that is substantially uh different than the bylaw that the economic developer had passed for this form based code and it was voted by 172 or 74 people unanimous unanimously at town meeting for these perimeters at three stories and 192 because that's what form based code is all about for stories downtown work your way out smaller buildings on the outskirt yeah it's supposed to as our economic fell said paining a picture of what the town wants the town to look like by going four stories and 25% higher and 33% wider that is substantially different than what 172 174 people pass and furthermore there you know it does take a lot to put a team together it's expensive but people are in business you take risk I used to have my own business they lost a lot of money sometimes they made money that that's not the town's problem and I and with all du respect I said that's not why I was bring no no I'm just give my position on this it's it's not Town's not in business that property is still there if they don't want to develop it someone else can come in and develop it and we don't I don't believe that there's been a hardship shown and that is what the cause is to Grant the Vari but we we've covered that right just saying thank you okay thank you yeah Focus all all right I think we're about done with public input we're going to discuss it amongst ourselves Sam just one more Mr disin has a comment I think where is he he's sitting in the back trying to hide I'm trying to watch the proceedings and listen carefully before I say something wrong um so there was a reference to the fact that it could go back to the planning board but as you probably know if you don't know they withdrew without prejudice at the planning board so they have not attorney Gib said that okay sir you said okay uh I thought there was a misunderstanding because Mr eugo kept saying they could go back to the planning board a couple of times but they didn't go back to the planning board because they were through without prejudice right but they could go back they could go back but they won't go back without the variances being granted if the variances elapsed they have nothing to go back to the planning board on so there's a point in order of that to take basically what's going to happen tonight and my concern is that you you this board granted the variances initially despite whatever objections might have existed at the time I don't know personally what has changed in 12 months I'm not necessarily saying I'm po or against the proposal I'm just saying I don't know what's changed in the eyes before this board that's different than a year ago when you granted it so I think the extension should be granted based on this the sheer fact that this applicant hasn't done anything different except apply for an extension an extension should be granted pretty much without all this education that we've got tonight had we not had that specialist in the room with us from Town Council and other people I I tend to think that the extension might have been granted without any question I'm just making a speculation here so can I just ask not can I ask a question of clarification you done Mr disc yes thank you thank you asking question of him um Ken get back here oh you should go yeah just the question is but just you know because it's like sometimes we run into this the cart before the horse or the horse for the cart issue in terms of coordinating different boards and permitting so you're saying that without the variances there's no site plan review for considering other issues like parking well the drawings they turned turned in and show four stories and so the num is calculated based on that building size and that lot size and there was there was I believe an issue at the beginning about the variant and the fact that there is Wetlands on you know you there's Wetlands as a flood plane issue there's a number of different criteria on the lot itself which may or may not exist on adjoining Lots the Wetland cut it could but the point the point is that there is there were conditions so those conditions drove the site plan and the building height drove the parking count so those drawings are no good if the variance goes away those four-story buildings change to whatever they come back at or nothing so they can't just say we're going to come back with that same building cuz it won't be approved okay it's it's it's a very confusing dance project it takes a lot of thought and takes a lot of work so thank you anything else yes no John I I think that this has no path forward um sorry I I don't think I don't think this has a path forward so we're talking about you talk about reducing the size of the units and that's what 25% of the units are going to be reduced because those are the uh affordable housing units yeah so I I don't recall the percentage exactly well but I I thought the I thought the percentage of affordable was 25% in your proposals um Marilyn was mentioning this earlier I thought it was like 20 21 to 25 unit okay so those are those are the only ones that are going to actually change in size because only only the affordable housing units can be reduced in size if the bylaw passes you mean if the Warren ticle passes or well even even going forward because that's the way um I guess that's the way the mass law is if it has to be affordable housing well so in in order to reduce the size of the the O the size of the dwelling unit it has to be affordable because we were told everything new has to maintain the current 750 or whatever it is yeah and that can't change unless it's affordable so that means the only ones that are going to be affected by the town meeting are the affordable units so so anyway getting beyond that the the reduction of the size of the units will allow the reduction of the footprint of the building and it would be it would not require a height variance I think the plans submitted were were based on that's that submitted but now now that the plans are going to change because now there's going to be smaller units no I think the plans were with the smaller units weren't they not the 500 they were 700 for the I I can clarify that on I was were were uh the smaller units John when they went into it that's why I think that's why the planning board kicked it back well I I again with all due respect I think this is unfair to the applicant to the idea of the the mo the idea of what they're doing is to reduce the size and and we wouldn't have they couldn't have approved it the way it was with the larger units that's why they had to go to four stories but if they reduce the it it was someone in here said if when they reduce the size of the unit it will allow them to um go forward and they won't require a height they can I think that's accurate I think that's incorrect I can clarify that if you want if you'd like Mr chair when with their submission they had not taken into account the town of Beard's bylaw that it was 750 square ft per unit so when they came in with their submission they had some under I like 500 and 600 so in order to keep four stories they want they need this inclusionary bylaw to pass to shrink the square foot SEC secondly at this at the current footprint um the fire department has says they do not have the access they need whereas when it was presented to us before uh Drew Gavin had said that they had met with the fire department and they were fine with it but well at this point they're not fine with it for clarity though John that's something that I think will be taken during site plan they've they pulled that application the parking the the the room size the fire department access that's all in site plan review what we are determining is whether or not we're going to allow the over height variant stand or the um lot width what the lot width extend is that the other one yes I'm drawing a blank I'm sorry yes that's what we're looking at is we reviewed this package and agreed to allow them to go over the height for whatever reason now the fact of the matter is regardless of whether or not we don't like the parking we don't like the room size we don't like the fire truck can't get around there that site plan review our business right now is to determine whether or not we're going to allow the variance that we granted a year ago to stand as is for another 6 months plain and simple there's no difference if if nothing has changed is it still is the variant still acceptable regardless of why they asked for it I mean they could say well we're waiting to hit the lottery I don't know we suspect it's because of the town meeting they're going to change the room size but that still does not change the building height whatsoever we did not we did not have we did not have this letter from the fire department where they say that they don't have access and they were concerned about the weight of the trucks on the lot and all this other stuff and but we would it wouldn't have mattered to us anyway because it was that was not our concern Our concern was the building height and frankly that wasn't presented at the time that we made the decision that's right this we did not have this information because they told us that they had cleared everything with the fire department and so this is new Mr chairman if I may uh so this is this is the danger of trying to you know make these decisions based on a comment from a board because we did have the fire chief was at the meeting we we talked about different changes we talked about different uh access having a side access for the fire department but you have to do that in a process we were doing that in the process and we will continue to do it in the process you know I don't know know if some of those comments were were previously dealt with but we you know we can't make that decision here because the fire chief made a comment it's a decision that will be dealt with and if we I get that so I'm I'm you know just asking that we apply the criteria that's required for this decision and that's not dismissing any other concerns or or future permitting that we have to go through it's it's what this board is you know statutorily required to do deliberation right now sir thank you Ron well you just know is that it no no no no I think this is our chance to to uh in in light of all these this these new um observations is to to correct a bad decision I um the the uh Charlie brought out all these um uh things that that uh should have been entered into decision the last the last meeting on this process was was a a 100% Zoom meeting and it was it was it was the meeting was terrible it was it was uh it was a it was a meeting attrition where all we heard was this the all the pro people you know practically drowning us out and and uh you know and and telling us how wonderful this project was was this is our chance to to to stop this thing I mean the the applicant should have taken their money and run you know they should have put the shovel in the ground before this damn thing uh expired we we couldn't have done that though Mr D Filippo because we don't have San approval there's absolutely no way we could have put a shovel on the ground all right well anyway and and and I know that it was a 4 to1 vote and you would voted against it so I do understand your position thank you I don't I we looked this over we went with the information we had a year ago Town Council tells me that tells us that we did it wrong we didn't follow the guidelines from from the law we didn't we didn't do the three PR attack whatever you want to call um in any case do is there any more board comments I have two final two final questions for Town Council Sam when we granted the variance we needed a super majority what is the uh vote needed to pass an extension it would be the same okay four four out of five and is there uh a 20-day appeal to an extension um most likely I would say no because they're not they're not really entitled to an extension um okay that's all all right um that being said I we take a vote on this you haven't said what you think about this yeah what do you how do you feel about this I think that my personal opinion we looked this over we talked about it we discussed it and we felt comfortable with what we did when we did it now the the comments that I read coming back from the fire department from the building department I understand all that but that doesn't cloud my issue those are all site plan review issues we were brought forth to te to to Grant a variance for a building height and what I read is that we did it wrong we didn't meet the requirements we made the decision but we didn't meet the requirements of the law in order to do that so I'm kind of tossed whether we should start over Grant a variance I mean there the the continuation of the variance is is strictly economics they're holding off to see if they get the the the the room size reduced at the town meeting Monday night I don't know what's what's going to happen if they don't get it reduced then then what happens but in any case in my opinion I I think we might have hosed it up I I'm not sure we might have not done due diligence we might not have done what we should have done when we originally heard this plan so I'm not going to I'm not in favor of it so Sam truthfully I I don't see what's changed since we granted this last April nothing really that's correct I also every decision this board's made we're not infallible but I've stood I stand by every decision we've made I 100% I haven't agreed with all of them but I stand by every single one you know whether it was unanimous or not for so many reasons number one timing we have two days until this thing expires I don't feel the applicants could have been adequately prepared for tonight's meeting they did not expect to rehear this and I didn't either I brought the application but I shouldn't need it we've never done this for an extension in 11 years on this board not once I I I don't think it's right and if we're not in favor of granting for 6 months I think we ought to grant for an extension for something because at the very least the applicants like I said there there's no way they could have been prepared for this tonight I mean like we've all said when they were here in April there was a team of 20 people you know they had engineers and and attorney Gibbons and everybody else here to present they've got you know the gentleman from Mr Hamill y Mr Hamill here tonight but I'm certain he wasn't prepared to give us the the presentation they gave us last year you know I I'm in favor of granting the six-month extension you know if not for past practice because to me nothing's changed I agree with the decision we made last year and I'd make it again and that's all that's my final thought on it you don't think we did anything wrong I don't I I don't I I agree with the decisions we it wasn't like it was a a Fly by Night 20-minute meeting we had more people on that Zoom no no no and I'm not I I I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you Sam I'm just my opinion of it is we had a number of people on that call who disagreed with it you know it's not as if it was a one-sided argument it it wasn't a quick meeting and we've spent an hour and 5 minutes on this tonight it took a long time last year the decision we made I think is still valid and I I still agree with it what do you think about the letter from Town Council I understand it but again if unless does it tell you that we we did it wrong well Sam if that's the case we've done every decision I think that this board has issued in the 11 years that I've been on here wrong and that may be the case and like like Jess like J said like just said going forward thankfully we now have Sam and attorney qule to help us through that process right but again my my opinion here is nothing has changed I I thought this was a good idea last April and I think it's a good idea now all right thanks yeah want to make a motion there's one more comment yes yes oh there's a comment from the public we're not taking comment we closed that 20 minutes ago okay anybody else have any you want to make a motion Michael go ahead all right I make a motion to uh Grant a variance extension request for 2011 to 205 West Main Street for Building height nobody second second all those in favor signify by saying I roll count please being swayed by Mr Gibbons I'm going to vote Yes I Michael Gibbons I Ry pH John Sam good one thank you very much so the the next item Sam is that the other variance extension the other variance that was um wi W what was that I'm sorry lot wi wi with yeah I think we extended it up from [Music] 192 must be getting old I don't remember [Music] that all right L with you're right okay rather than go through the entire uh yeah there it is rather than go through this entire process again um attorney gibons do you have anything different to add to this yeah I think just a couple house um issues is closing the the well it's not a public hearing so I don't think it needs to be closed um so so now I mean you know my presentation would be the same on on lot width the issue is the same when it comes to an extension so I would respectfully request that that the extension be granted on lot with thank you any debate any uh excuse me comments from the public seeing none in the room Sam okay thank you um board board debate nothing anybody no that's straight forward all right that should be straightforward then I make another motion I make a motion to Grant the variance extension request for 2011 to 205 West Main Street for lot with second all those in favor signify by saying I roll call vote please jino I Mike gibons i j good one I thank you very much I appreciate your time and consideration thank you sir all right I make a motion to close hearing was it that's right it was not a public hearing Mr chairman you don't need me anymore who ask oh oh no no thank you very much for your input I appreciate it thank you have a good night good night uh next item on the agenda public hearing application for special permit Kevin hard and 27 GR [Applause] all right yeah so much for 600 p.m meeting our public hearing notice arba will conduct a hybrid public hearing at 7:07 p.m. on Wednesday April 17 2024 at Town Hall one main treat regarding an application submitted by Kevin Harden for a property location at 27 Grove Street air mass applicant is Seeking a special permit pursuant to air zoning BW section 7.6 CB reconstruction after a catastrophe to allow for construction of a new building to be to not be located within the original footprint for Zoom or call in information please contact air zba contact zba at a.m. us or 97 8772 8220 extens 114 is Mr Harden in the yes I'm Kevin Harden you have the floor sir good evening to the board members reps and everybody concerned I said my name is Kevin Harden and on November 12th 2023 I had a catastrophic fire that destroyed the house at 27 Grove Street I purchased the house in 1984 it's been 40 years the house was built about 150 years ago and I'm in front of you tonight to ask permission to make changes to the existing footprint and location of the structure on the lot I think rebuilding the structure in the existing location is a hazard for First Responders having free and easy access around the building and if the wind had been blowing in another direction that night it's most likely the house next door would have been lost as well so I'd like to replace the existing three family structure and I'm proposing to construct a new two family structure on the existing lot located at 27 Ro street I'm requesting permission to reconfigure and relocate the new structure on the lot by doing so it will improve the SP sprawling footprint to a more modern compact footprint that will improve setbacks and provide an aesthetic appearance while fitting in with the current structures in the neighborhood it will protect the existing vegetation on the west and the south side of the house by eliminating the need to put a new foundation in the current footprint because the current Foundation is most likely not going to meet existing code requirements the structure the new structure will have an assess value which will increase which will increase tax base for the town and it will reduce current traffic and parking demands for the house as well as Town Services the new fit footprint will have a positive effect on the current shogy the location cuz the new structure would be on the flat section of the lot avoiding destru destru destruction of the vegetation the new footprint would improve some of the nonconforming setbacks of this lot it will alleviate the concerns of the Westside neighbor while adhering to current setback requirements on the east side neighbor the new proposed should accommodate parking under the structure which will decrease the on site parking requirement on the lot so for you to ask for your approval and thank you for your time I have a number of uh letters that were sent in Samantha said she has quite a few so I think you might already have the ones I have I have pictures of the existing lot and uh site plan I think everybody has that for the review but I have copies here if they're needed uh and I received one additional letter of support um yeah an hour well and I received one about an hour before the meeting as well so okay if you want to read it it's okay guys what do you think input I have a question for Mr Harden Mar Mr Harden how many parking spaces are you going to do I know you don't have really a definitive plan of what you're replacing for your new building but what what's your plans it's a concept plan the engineering hasn't been done because there is no approval yet but uh my thought would be that the we'd have parking under the structure itself which would get some of the parking off of the the lot and parking in front of it as well do you know what the requirement is for parking for a two for a two family house um I do not you need two spaces per unit does your plans allow for that so if there's two that are under there's room for two in front it would be one of the draws I've got shows a proposal that would appear that way as well as this one this one is Pearl Street structure this one happens to be in Westford this one is Marshall Street so these are ideas that I have of how the structure could be design so it would take an architecture drawing to determine exactly how it can be laid out was was the the one that that was three family wasn't it three familyi from three to two so that's the park and yeah and people have parked to the side of the building as well in the past so I'm not is that allowed with the setback to park in the setback well that that's that's the other thing is is some variance issues here are those not to be considered because it's making it less non-conforming and it is um a a a catastrophe rebuild I thought I thought a cat a catastrophic rebuild was in kind it is that's why he needs a permit because he's he's changing the footprint no that's not in kind John in kind is he's putting the same he's putting the house back on the same footprint right why that's why the special permit yeah that's why he's here yes I understand that I'm just trying to clarify that I know that but even even where he's putting it now it's not where it was and and now there's issues with the boundaries because now we have zoning laws for setbacks and stuff and and those aren't going to be met then he has to have variances for the that's my question issues yes you're correct I think so my qu one of my questions then was if you're making it less non-conforming what are the setbacks or what are the issues that remain nonconforming well the setbacks the setbacks are still nonconforming in parts of the lot they're just a lot better setbacks I me if you take a look at this existing drawing one corner of the structure right now on the northwest corner is one foot from the lot line the proposed will have a setback of 27 ft at least maybe it's had more three 20 30 ft setback the um east side of the house has quite a bit of setback existing and the setback requirement is 15 ft and the new structure is placed at 16 ft so it has an additional foot of clearance so that meat set back on that end it'll meet set back on the other end the spot that it doesn't meet is this corner that jogs in we're still close on that spot but we're a lot further on these others by moving it down and condensing it so I guess my question is if if we if we Grant a permit he'll still have to come back for variances or how does that work from here I I don't think so so I think with reconstruction after catastrophe he does not need to so the the section of the bylaw that they're citing in the application 7.6 CB uh it says in the event that the proposed reconstruction would cause the structure to a exceed the volume or area of the original non-conforming structure or B be located other other than on the original footprint a special permit shall be required so I I don't think correct but but now it's a new construction and it's not on the same footprint and it's not within the variances that are required so I don't know if because we're making it less non-conforming I I don't know if if they'll give him a building permit or if he has to give their answers I guess that's my question I I think you would did Charlie already leave yeah yeah Charlie so this originally started as a building permit that was rejected and Charlie wrote the letter with the building permit saying this is what you need in order to rebuild so Charlie's already seen that's true he did and I have a copy of Charlie's letter here um but he didn't address the variances he just said because it's a different then it would footprint so it was in his review of the building permit in which these things were seen that he determined it was only a special permit either he's the one who determines okay well then he's still going to if we if we approve he has to go back for building permit yeah no matter what okay and then he will tell you if you need variances yes fair enough John good idea okay I just wanted from my own mind because I thought I thought it was he had to put it back in the same footprint he but since he's not he's applying for the permit okay so he's going to tear this down and the start all over again yes and he's actually making it better than the existing but it's still non-conforming yep and I just didn't know but us issuing a permit is not going to um alleviate any requirement of variance relief and when he goes for his building permit he'll find out that okay that's right okay then I'm good right MH um Mr Harden do you have a letter from your immediate neighbors Whitney roor and Sean Meritt were they in favor did you rece they're actually here Good Sam could we hear from the abuts are we ready for that well by all means go ahead I didn't I can't see him so go ahead um hi uh Sean Mar 25 Gro Street uh we are actually in favor of uh Kevin's request uh due to the fact that we were in such close proximity to him uh during the fire we almost lost our we could have lost our house but thanks to the fire department uh we didn't so um on the corner that's facing it's I think it's the corner of the yard so West is this yeah the back corner that it would be closer we're okay we're with that if that's you know just to move it away from our house we're happy with that good and I think you said like it would be 20 26 ft that's you know the distance there that's great um so we just want to and here's one the pictures the space between the two structures is barely walkable so to be able to move that down gives fire apparatus access police emergency Personnel in that area we could hear the tracking of the fire when here's another picture of the two face on how close they [Music] are thank you and there was there was a letter from the other butter she wasn't going to be able to be here Kim Kimberly br yeah we we got that yeah so she is the abider on the east side Sean is the abider on the west side as well as behind the structure good okay um any public input hi I live on Grove Street at' hi I live at 21 Grove yes and I think it's a great plan what they're doing moving it away from from Sean and Whitney's house and you know centering it more on the lot so I'm totally in agree agreement with it very good thank you any other I live on Elm Street and I think it would be very beneficial to have that lower and um it'll make the neighborhood look nicer okay that being said uh so Sam just for good measure I think we should go through the six criteria for a special permit okay go uh I don't have cop in front of me so go ahead I got it so I'll just read them off uh social economic or Community needs which are served by the proposal um I think social would be uh cleaning up a a essentially a blighted lot uh economic probably increase the tax base um and Community needs more housing in my opinion number two traffic flow and safety in this case he's going from a three family to a two so I think you could argue that both will decrease yes three adequacy of utilities and other public services same as above yep neighborhood character and social structures this family was an existing multif family use uh to reduce a unit probably is an a Bad Thing mhm impacts on the natural environment um you know you're going to have new building material so you there may have been building materials like some of the older homes in that area have a specti sighting I don't know if Mr hardens does but um I I can't see a negative impact on the natural environment and potential fiscal impact including impact on Town Services tax pace and employment again the tax base it's a new building so you'd imagine the assess value will be higher Town Services it's one fewer unit so you could argue that there are fewer services that would be needed uh and employment folks will have to build it not going to build [Laughter] it that's all if you'd like a motion I'd be happy to make one go right ahead all right I make a motion to Grant a special permit uh pursuant to section 7.6 C Construction after catastrophe to 27 Grove Street filed by Kevin Harden second all fa signify by saying I st name jessino I Michael Gibbons I John sorry go ahead John elai Rond phip I same good one I thank you sir thank you very much thank you everybody luck make a motion we close public hearing 27 Street all in favor signify by saying I jessino I Michael gibons I I side all right next item on the agenda thank you for your time youly next week i'lll next step okay than app all right next on the agenda public hearing notice airba will be conducting a hybrid public hearing at 7:25 p.m. on Wednesday April 17 2024 air Town Hall One Main Street regarding application submitted by Jane re for the property located at one hardword road airbass applicant is Seeking a special permit pursuing to a zoning B section 5.3.2 Point C accessory of Department to allow for the conversion of existing Carri excuse me into a dwelling unit or Zoom or call in information please contact zba a.m. us or 97877 28220 extension 114 um Jane Reed are you here yes you are I am here in the hot seat everybody else formed it up so I am proposing to convert our Carriage House uh which is a nice spot for storing all my family and neighbors and Friends stuff into a dwelling unit to put make it more usable it's not going to change the footprint at all EX on the exterior except add a an second door out of it I propose that I will have a finished first floor storage on the second floor the basement uh has been reinforced and slab poured in the basement but there's Town sewer Town water already present in it and so I would like your approval to proceed and Al living there now pardon is someone living there now couple of mice no the uh the other thing I noticed the comments from as this got passed around to everybody the police or the firemen had a question about uh the the address which Charlie when I get the building permit Charlie will assign an address I'm guessing it'll be something creative like 1A or three but at any rate that that that's not something I can address the police or the fire department also had a question about parking and I have a couple of pictures before of an empty driveway and Sunday morning breakfast at my house so we got a bunch of cars in there so I brought three separate copies if anybody's interested in seeing the what did I've got plenty of parking yeah yeah yeah so your your drawing shows that existing bar is that you carry down yes and it's it's pictured in the paperwork I said over too yes it's a beautiful structure in terms of size and it just looks rather nice and now that I got the basement fixed up it looks even nicer those are very Elemental plants I'm I was going to say you're not doing anything on the second floor that will be storage okay no bedroom no I'm making it I'm making the first floor accessible my husband and I have been joking that when our children throw us out of our existing house which is attached or is right there on the same property that we'll move out to the barn because we have three kids all of whom want our house it's a beautiful house it is and it isn't well so the only thing we're considering is the square footage right I think all you're considering is blessing change in use isn't it yeah it's access is a change in use yeah I think I mean this is not my territory Sor well it said the owner is looking to finish 912 sare ft where 815 is allowed no we we've changed that um okay well that's we we dropped we lost 100 ft oh okay I didn't know yeah what we did was change the it has a very tall second floor and so we're going to bring in walls improve okay that's fine it's just that's what I had was going on yeah we're going to play nice and so just going over uh The Memo from Charlie because it this rule has all these conditions yes uh and one is you're the owner and you live there right and uh and you're going to maintain ownership of that with no Condo Association or any of that you're just going to own that out right yeah the only other thing is I guess is it some sort of verification process every year about you still being the owner and if you sell the I've not seen have you seen that before I've not seen that in the package it's a letter from Charlie y no I saw that but I I've never seen anybody have to do a an annual verification this this is the first Adu you guys have seen this is the first one that qualifies okay that would explain it you're the first okay so so this and they have to confirm every year that it's all that how is that monitored and who monitors it that is a good question I would assume yeah it would be Charlie so okay yeah okay I fully intend to be here in another year so I'll do it and I mean we would label the Hope f i I guess I guess the thing is is is that we confirm that so we don't have to put any conditions on it because it's already agreed upon and I just want to make sure that you know everybody's on the same page because he you know like on five and six comply comply but there was no comp on these so I just wanted to confirm that it's all good and we don't have to put any conditions to meet those yep no any questions from the board answer them all any in the public no okay so Sam just for good measure again special permit three for three Mike uh what I am going to do is go through the uh six criteria again and uh if anybody thinks that we we uh this application doesn't serve one of these are is a detriment uh just let me know social economic or Community needs which are served by the proposal uh additional housing additional housing I think is a a great Point uh traffic flow and safety including parking and loading while it would be an additional unit that's already a pretty heavily trafficked Road I take it a few times a day and I I I don't I think it would be an an undue burden uh adequacy of utilities and other public services as far as I know already yeah already there yep neighborhood character and social structures uh there are you know a number of multif family homes within I would say 400 right next door is two is a two family there's a rental apartment attached to the house yeah so so not uncommon in that part of town uh impacts on the natural environment the buildings existing so I you know they're not expanding the footprint outside of it looks like that little egress but uh I don't see any negative impact having a hers it's going to be a hers certified building perfect so even better it's sustainable uh and potential fiscal impact including T impact on Town Services tax base and employment uh Town Services it would be an additional unit but the tax base will increase employment enough for kids though for school I was just going to say that having looked at the plans I don't see a family of five moving in there so I don't think we'd have additional costs from school perspective so I don't find anything to be espe since out of order right I agree I'll make a motion if you'd like by all means sir make it all right make it an even number I make a motion to approve a an application for special permit to Jane Reed at 1 Harvard Road sorry again uh let's see pursuant to airiz zoning bylaw section 5.3.2 Point C accessory apartment to allow for the uh conversion of existing carage house into a dwelling unit second all those in favor signy by saying I state your name please Jess Gino I Michael Gibbons i r pH I and good I thank you very much thank you than you m i make a motion to close a public hearing for special permit for Jane Reed second allv by jessino I Michael Gibbons i r okie dokie um so we have now minutes minutes minutes of the meeting February 21 anybody see any problem with them no problem nope nope I make a motion to accept the minute of the meeting for February 21st as published second Jess by saying I Jessica G i Michael given i r i [Music] all right board discussion next item on the agenda board discussion upcoming meetings and topic of discussion I have a question what 42 Park Street we what we did a permit on 42 Park Street to put in a business in the salon next to uh um across from under on Park Street yeah yeah yeah they're building over there yeah I saw that yeah well we issued a permit and they were going to retain the existing structure and remodel the inside the building is gone it was written as would they would retain the structure if possible Unfortunately they ran into some serious rot and damage and Charlie went out and determined it was not safe so what happens now because the thing was only 3 foot from the road how are we going to are they going to they're going to build on the foundation just they kept the foundation looks like new sure it wasn't the structure was notable looked awful but and everything that they have everything they saw through the zba and the planning board and even the building permit says we'll retain if possible knew there was a chance okay so that tells me that they're maintaining the original foundation for the front of the house but all the back was in addition anyway and that's the New Foundation I'm looking at okay and Charlie will know more as things go okay I was just curious yeah all right are they U are we have anything on the next meeting uh at this time I have no app ations but they have until the 23rd of April so next Tuesday is the deadline for the May meeting um and then possibly somewhere in that time frame if I do get applications we may want to discuss so technically we don't have a June meeting it falls on a holiday oh that's Jun juneth June 19 June juneth so June 19th is a holiday we won't be open we can't hold a meeting yeah so we don't need to resched the meeting to another night for that month I was going to say we may have to or we may want to consider depending on what applications I get so I will keep you posted through May if I get any applications we can discuss from there we might not have a May meeting if you don't get any exp application so we could juggle around with that okay I just I'm good with that yeah but just as a heads up I don't quite know what's okay fair enough but I don't know anyone who's coming up either all right anything else we want to talk about I got nothing blank faces blank faces weird that's that's that's a wrap in guys it's been a really good meeting thank you for all your input Michael thank you very much absolutely sir motion to adjourn I me suck that all those in favor say bye bye Gibbons bye