Wednesday June 26 and I will call the zoning board of appeals order we switch the order on the posted agenda that we're going to do um nine Bennett Street first and then 35 school because the attorney for um n Bennet street is dou book with it happens um um so both 35 school and nine Bennett are continued public hearings um John berys was at the last public hearing um diim Dietrich was not but diim Jim Dietrich has watched the video for a nine Bennett um and then for 21 Union um Brian will be recusing himself so Jim will be sitting in on application um with that I as I did at the last public hearing I am refusing myself from nine Bennett Street because I am a direct butter impacted by the variance I will be speaking as a resident um and Katherine how will be conducting this portion of the mov I will move myself no I have to be on okay good all right I think just making sure that we're all good on Zoom time me just open the hearing I'm going to go ahead and open the continued public hearing for the application of Jill M Ryan kowsky doil and Timothy P doy for a special permit under sections 5.4 7.2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to decrease the current encroachment into the front set back and extend the current encroachment into the East Side setback and a variance under sections 5.4 and 12.33 of the zoning bylaw Andor other relief as may be necessary for an encroachment into the West setback at N9 Bennett Street assessors map number 28 Lot number 10 District a filed with the town clerk on April 22nd 2024 as chairwoman melish just indicated John Benz who heard the first part of this application is not present at tonight's meeting however Jim Dietrich has listened to the full audio of the prior arguments and we'll be hearing tonight's arguments and voting on this application is there someone here to present for the applicate name for the record share my screen yes please so uh as mentioned I'm the homeowner and I'm joined tonight by our attorney Bill ha who's available on Zoom our architect Fred Bosworth uh who you sure heard present last time and most importantly my wife joining us in room fromis so last month uh you heard our attorney Bill Heeney speak in dep about the the elements of both the variance and the hardships speaking particularly about the the lot it's a non-conforming lot it's significantly slopy left to right and front to back and has a significant amount of ledge on it really rendering only about the front third of the lot building um before I talked about the changes that were made in the last meeting I wanted to give the committee the chance to see if you had any additional questions or want you a summary of the hardship from Bill had any additional questions board members anyone have anything I don't from rereading everything does anyone else have anything at this time before the no okay go ahead thank you okay great so um last month obviously we heard your feedback and you'll see the changes that were made but the primary feedback that we took took in made changes to is in general we were over on lot coverage and over on lot coverage plus imperious and cther I think you made the comment you don't have a hardship to justify as big of a house as you want to build and then once we get past everybody several committee members HED in and screen for you heard Kurt and Don speak about their concerns in general they thought the screen Port was too big and that it was too close to this to the fence then lastly there was discussion about can we modify or consider modifying the conplete driveway because of a lot of the runoff concerns that neighbors have on Ben Street as well as can we either eliminate or we can C the bulkhead on the side house again because of how close it is to uh to our Bud neighbors pretty So based upon that I'm going to kind of walk you through in general the changes that we made I'll then show you how the changes to the house sit on the site survey and I'll throw it over to Craig to give you a little bit more of a detailed look at the updated plan but in general we kind of made the house smaller it's roughly 2 feet narrower than it was before it's also the garage is one feet narrower in depth we also you'll see in the photo pretty much we didn't eliminate the front porch but we but we reduced the size of the Swing the front porch considerably making ju the front porch cover over the front steps the biggest change you'll see is we reduced the screen porch both the size of it we made it 6 ft smaller so on the original plan it was 10x 20 it's now 10 by4 we also moved the screen porch over indented it so it now sits roughly 12 feet from the fence was before it was 5 fence and and I think that gets to a lot of the concerns that were raised in general by you folks as well as by Daughter regarding noise in sight mitigation having it so close to defense the other thing is um we're going to build it on peers as opposed to building a slab and that will absolutely address again some of the concerns CT Donna raised regarding the the trees and the roots that that are in our yard their tree we also um are going to make the front driveway partly uh perious we have committed to roughly 25 % perious that's again in response to both concerns about run off as well as getting on coverage ratio we don't know as of yet what that's going to look like we're just committing to 25 C perious and then as you'll see in the drawing we we changed and went from a bulkhead versus a walk out and we rotated at 90 degrees so the the walk out is is narrow in scope much closer to the house and the net result of that is it significantly increases the relief on the right side of Curt D's house as you'll see in the next slide that the relief is is much greater than what's currently there any questions on this and so far anyone that's fine okay so this is the updated site plan I hope you can all see it um it's harder to appreciate without seeing the last one but I'll give you the highlights um the the proposed structure now sits almost 4T further back than the current house sits and for those of you who know that the red house it sits very close close to the road um but it's it further increases the relief to 7 B stre you'll now see we're almost 14 ft away at the front of the house from there from the propy line and obviously there a couple feet off the poty line as well as 12 ft in at the back of the house to the scen forage and the key thing to know this is curtain Donna's house here you can see how much further back so from the standpoint of of the amount of sunlight that the their house will get going to be increased now because of where the house is situated U your buddy neighbors to include Sarah will also get improv sight lines because of the way that we push the house back Sarah kind of looking towards town hall looking up that we're converting I'm going toate some of the things you said last month we're taking what was a two- family house and building a one family house uh we only have one child although we do have older older children but essentially there won't be as much of a parking issue additionally because with the driveway we'll be able to fit four cars on the driveway as well as two within the garage and probably the biggest thing and you'll see this more clearly in the next slide this design now gets us in in compliance with both lot coverage structure lot coverage in fact below the the maximum lot coverage structure in the any questions any questions so far members of the board no we're good thank you you're doing a great job so this you saw this spreadsheet last time and this really kind of lays out um the key metrics that roll into our coverage ratios so you've got the existing conditions in the current house what we presented last month and most importantly what the updated conditions are and I've highlighted the most important metrics I think are there the grow square foot of the of the house that we proposed last month was 2,287 ft it's now down to 1,981 almost a 14% decrease in size additionally as I mentioned the house is sits even further back than it did before what used to be just shy of 26 now it's just over 26 feet um the the setback on the right side rting 7t value seven went from 11.4 to 13.8 ft we kept the setb the same on uh SAR side ENT we anchored the existing setb back there so all the relief that we got was on the left side nothing changed in terms of front to the rear set backs or the the heighted house the elevation of the house is identical what be presented four so the net result of this is it gets the coverage by structure down to 15% coverage by structure impervious below 30 to 28 any questions before I pivot is showing you renderings of the house okay so I'm going to show you a couple slides here exist existing instuctions on the left this is what we proposed last month I think you can get a visual of how much bigger this house is compared to what's there today and that was noted by several of the members so if you overlay the updated structure to the proposed structure it's not dramatically different in size we kind of just squished it a little bit like I said two feet um left to side to side in the garage is a foot a foot narrower but here's where you can see there used to be a fun porch here there's no fun porch here what you can't see on here but you'll see when Craig our architect shows you is the the walk out is on the left side but it's been rotated 90 ft 90 degrees and the back of the house you'll see when Craig I turn off the Craig this scen porch is is indented get smaller so let me pause here unless there were additional questions and I'll throw over to Craig architect we can give you a little bit more of a detail that see thank you how do I do that it should be all set you need to sh yeah stop sharing he should be able to share okay okay you should be able to see my screen here um thank you Tim that was great uh we have some existing condition floor plans and elevations that were part of the packet um what I'd like to do is just you're going to see our original proposal and the new proposal tonight so this is the basement floor plan uh there there are a lot of little pushes and pulls that happen as we we had to sculpt out and steal some of the space so um where you might see 30 6' 5 in is reduced so the garage might be reduced but probably the bigger thing to pick up from this floor plan is literally we had a bulkhead here in this location we've changed that now to just an open area way keeping again it tight to the adjon house just giving us access for Mechanicals and things like that to gain access to the basement by doing such obviously we've increased uh that the um the setback distance to that area way the the first floor probably has the bigger change uh this is what was originally proposed we did have this larger covered porch and again the larger green porch on the back these two porches are are really a bulk of the sare foot area that we reduced by you can see the original bulkhead here uh projecting out towards the right hand setback that I just represented that area way um our proposal here tonight is that we reduced the screen porch it's now 14 by1 and again I think as Tim mentioned we're about 12 feet off of the property line to this edge of our proposed green porch now in doing so uh again the the the footprint shrinks um area if you look at there'll be po places where I've pulled in a foot or 6 in and things of that nature because we did have to come up with just over 300 sare F feet to be compliant with coverage again that front porch is now eliminated the only covered porch we have a couple columns here is for part of a entry Portico um it gives us basically a larger planting area I suppose the second floor again not a whole lot you're going to see that has changed here except for the elimination of kind of covered roof for the porch and the back porch you'll see it has changed there are dimensions that change the you know candle levers and things like that the the inches and feet I had to pull out of it uh do make a difference to the second floor and it's represented here it is slightly smaller the program is essentially the same um maybe a couple little hardships to make this diagram kind of tweak and work and make bedroom sizes and things like that work but we were able to make that happen as represented I think Tim mentioned the front elevation where we did have the original kind of front porch uh things again tweaked down you'll probably uh again this is the back kind of screen porch that you'll see in this this is the side elevation a couple of the can levers off the back and front uh were were massaged in this exercise um the elimination of that porch you know gives us that planting bed but buys us some of that square foot area um Dormers slightly adjusted can't deliv slightly adjusted you seeing the porch Beyond it goes to basically a very simple gable roof uh at this point in time because it's smaller the rear elevation again this is what we proposed um and the other side elevation you're not going to see a dramatic change here other than the bulkhead goes to area away but this is your screen porch which once was really very close to the edge of the house now is our proposal we pulled that in we've dramatically reduced that um some of the you know the organization of my dorm I had to slide this over to make the composition work you're seeing a little bit of that balance as I had to tweak the diagram down but in essence that represents um our diagram here tonight that uh buys us the compliancy with coverage if anybody has any questions I'm happy to answer the board and then new design oh cool no questions good question okay if there are no questions at this time are you finished with your presentation just minute if are you finished with your presentation sir yes thank you great I'd like to open this for public comment at this time if you're a member of the public that wishes to comment in this room please raise your hand yes sir please state your name and address to J Avenue that's this presentation has effects on another one that I'm also interested in tonight um is that property with within the 200 foot of the harbor and if so we have elevation contour lines property honestly I'm not familiar with that 200 fo Harbor I don't are I don't know the answer are you within 200 feet of the harbor likely not um Within feet of the harbor I think that would be kind of shocking I've done aite miss it I'm not really good at estimating things but I I expect you're not um are there further questions sir along is you don't have to conom right that's fine any concom approvals would come after this they are required to go to concom for any necessary approvals they might need anything related to uh adjacency to the water or anything else after our hearing go ahead further on the interior space I have consideration been given to the laws and regulations on habitable space particularly for bedrooms and the living quarters as a whole and there something else that walking down into walls and building new walls does come into effect as a limiting minimum and depends on the number of bedrooms as well the uh other is the absolute elevation above the main level now of the building as it sits which is the governing with the height when you're finished so is that the end of your comment sir okay just just a minute I'll recognize you in a minute members of the board I didn't understand a word that Mr Gates said um um so it's very difficult to hear you Mr Gates um but um I I I just don't know what your point is Rob if Rob heard let him take so this is a brand new house and all the considerations I believe for a single family residency have been have been taken in that and the size of the house with uh 200 square ft for residency for residents per resident um I I believe this is covered in the size of even if it's not I don't think it's in our jurisdiction it's not something we but just by looking at this I think that that it's covered yeah agreed anyone else want to address inp Gates comments on the board no I just think that uh while I appreciate what he has to say I don't think that we're here for not right now I'll call on you just a minute please we're here for uh relief setbacks the interior of the building really doesn't I don't think that it's our you anyway right so um we appreciate your comments Mr Gates we will you know if it is with in 200 ft of the harbor I'm sure the applicants will address any necessary issues we can put that in as a condition even if they would agree to that the interior space is actually not within our purview or jurisdiction on the zoning board it's not something we address here it's something that would probably be related to an occupancy permit um situation whether they would grant that or not with the spes um so I've heard your concerns I appreciate them the board will consider them is there anyone else who wishes to be heard yes ma'am name and address please in School Street yeah yep I don't agree with him okay I think that house I'm very aware his mother many years ago had renovated to the store and it has nothing to do with the water because even high and it has a lot of land behind it but is a lot higher so it doesn't inove with anyone I think and um I think that the whole thing on our side is negative you have no objection okay thank you any other member of the public in this room yes Sarah uh Sarah melish 11 Bennett Street um I'm thankful that the applicants decreased um the coverage to meet the requirements um I think that this house dates back 1700s as does the green house at s been at next door they were built very close together um I spoke to the doy and when they shrank the size of the house they asked me if they could leave the line of the H proposed house in my setback as they had originally proposed and I said yes that I supported the variants because the height of my my house is about 25 or 30 feet higher than their house so the fact that it's closer to my line really doesn't impact me because I'm looking up over the house and I had lots of room on my side and the room on my side is all ledged so it's not buildable so um I I support this application thank you Sarah any other comments in the room yes sir courage toak Usry yeah speaking for Donna and I we appreciate everything the board's done to review this from the past time to this time we appreciate the changes that doors have made uh the only comment I make and this maybe maybe more to Tim than anybody is uh we just want to work together on mitigation of damage to trees during construction and uh also I guess we don't know the process for ledge removal and all that and how that might impact the structure of our house or potential drainage changes based on so any other comments in the room okay are there any Zoom comments figure yeah you got to go to my laptop guys out and if the ra hand is raised it should come to there are no raised hands Sarah I was gonna say I don't think I see any all right then are there any anyone want to raise their hand on Zoom now is your chance okay members of the board any response to the last two comments we we received from Sarah and c I don't have any no I think it was it's it's a fine change it it definitely addresses all the issues that were raised at the previous hearing and I think will be an asset considering what's there is an incredible isore this will be an asset for the town and for benett Street and I appreciate your work I I just wanted to say that I appreciate eron said last month addressing all the items it's R than C any do you have any further comments sir or we move on to board deliberation thank appreciation all right I'm going to close the public hearing and move to board deliberation uh motion to close the public hearing so move okay vote to approve the motion close the public hearing second second okay motion approved to close the public hearing we'll move on to board deliberations I'm working on it here don't ask me to chair any boards now all right we'll take uh comments members of the board Rob no comments I have no further comments my comment would simply be that I noted the changes you guys made the efforts you made to comply with both neighbor and board requests and appreciate them um appreciate the improvements that have been made to the application and the fact that you're now under a lot of the uh limits that you were over up against in the past Ryan uh I Echo what you said and what I said earli uh it's refreshing thank you I have no addition no further comments okay um in which case we are going to vote take two separate votes here special perent and one for a variance um I move to approve a special permit under sections 5.4 7.2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief is maybe necessary to allow the raising of an existing non-conforming two Family Residence which encro encroaches into the East Side setback and into the front side setback and construction of a new single family residence which encroaches a approximately 12T into the East Side setback and approximately 4 feet into the front setback at 9 Bennett Street assessors map 28 Lot number 10 in District a filed with the town clerk April 22nd 2024 this motion is based on a finding that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw the proposed new residence which encroaches encroaches into the front and side setbacks will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the existing non-conforming structure and all conditions under sections F 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for a grant of a special permit have been met the following conditions must be met for this permit the residential structure is located as depicted on the zoning board of appeals plan prepared by Northshore survey Corporation and dated June 13 2024 and that the residential structure is built substantially in accordance with the following plans uh done by Bosworth architect LLC dated June 16th 2024 A1 A2 and A3 proposed floor plans and A4 and five elevations do I have a second roll call vote approved appr approv approved approved approved unanimous approval all right we're all set I'll turn the meing back over to Sarah no thank you folks oh sorry one more vote you're right I I need to further move forther variance request sorry my fault I further move that release relief um for impervious surfaces hold on a second let me just find out what I'm moving for here I'm moving for Relief on the variance which is going to be for non imperious surfaces it's oh I got it okay we are going to move for Relief excess coverage by services in total coverage is not required because it now conforms based on the new document submitted but I'm going to move to approve the application for a variance under sections 5.4 and 12.3.3 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to construct a single family residence which encroaches into the West Side setback approximately 6 feet and this motion is based based upon a finding that owing to circumstances relating to the shape and topography of the land especially affecting such land structure but not generally affecting the zoning District in which it is located a literal enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve substantial hardship Financial or otherwise to the application and desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating the intent or purpose of the bylaw the following conditions would accompany this relief the residential structure is construction constructed in accordance with all the plans listed above under the conditions for the special permit and the lot covered requirements for district a are met and the existing shed is removed as shown on the plans do I have a second Jim second and a roll call vote Rob appr Jim approved approved okay all right now I think we're done with this application the vote the motion had second motion for the variance was approved unanimously and I will close the public hearing on this application and turn it back over to Sarah for the rest of the applications thank you all did such a great job thank who wrote on that was Sarah yeah I just would suggest that maybe we need a volunteer to write the decision it needs to be somebody who will be on the board after June 30 oh yeah I know wanted to do it so bad and I've got cookies to pass out too right who's gonna write I'll write it all right and who will review I'll review it thank you Jim What's the timing like 90 days okay would you like a cookie I doesn't want a cookie Katherine said she do anything for cookies and this is her last night so I brought cookies must a lot of fun in college too watch my cake s we're losing two people we're losing two people yes welcome to the board we've all been here a long time Sarah I did amazing um we now move to the um the 35 School Street I will open the continued public hearing for the application of James gadus for a special termit under sections 5.4 7.2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to extend the current encroachment into the setbacks and the variance under sections 5.4 and 12.3.3 the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary excess coverage by structures and excess total coverage by structures and impervious surfaces 35 School Street assessor map number 51 lot number five on District D1 f with the town clerk on March 21st 2024 hi hi verica hson and the homeowner Tim gtis and property owner Tim gtis um and so um the board and the neighbors may recall that we were here last month with an application to demolish the existing single family home and St that sit on the corner of a uh School Street and Brook Street and the house is in um extreme disrepair uh due to um just a hoarding situation and I think kind of um neglect over the years in fact this shed has already been taken down which sits um pretty much right on the property line can everybody see that okay um this has been taken down the current um the current configuration of the lot includes uh parking that is along Brook Street so this is the corner here that school this is Brook and the existing parking area is um is a long Brook and is AB buding via the neighbor at three Brook Street here and I believe that house has been torn down as under construction as a two family um unit currently to give a little bit of kind of step back and a little context there this is the one that is being uh renovated right now and this is the current structure let me just get the so at the last hearing um you know we heard some uh concern about first of all the the size of the structure on the lot in especially as it related to the um lot coverage and also the the impervious surfaces the other concern that was expressed I don't know if everyone will recall but the we had the garage um for each unit this is the two family unit that's being proposed so there was a single car garage that was located between the units as opposed to keeping it where it is today and so there was a lot of neighborhood concern and board concern that this is a very busy um intersection and that moving the cars backing out further close you know closer to the corner was creating a hazardous situation and so what we did is we took a look at um various ways of of keeping the structure keeping the livability of the structure and trying to maintain a garage and so we looked at maybe putting the garage underneath the structure um and what that does is it lifts the structure out of the ground and it just became inconsistent with the architecture of the neighborhood the scale of the neighborhood it created its power situation so um Jim and I went back and forth and what we ultimately decided to do was to illiminate the garage and I'll show you when the floor plane what we've done instead is we've given each unit just a small shed large enough for some crft and a bike or two so what that allowed us to do the elimination of the garage was to shrink the length of the structure considerably so each um we just started with the Liv livable unit the habitable units We Shrunk those by two feet each and then one foot in depth um so this shun shrunk by two this shrunk by two and then we took an additional 8 feet out of the center so in total we've reduced the length of this building by 12T and the depth of it by um by 1T and the fact that we no longer need to accommodate parking between the units I was able to bring this Center section forward a little bit breaking this uh rear elevation and just getting rid of that kind of long wall breaking it up a little bit so as far as the setbacks go we've held that front corner and this is what was previously um proposed the existing structure structure is currently 4 1/2 ft off of the lot line at this um at this corner at this radius the proposed structure would be 5et so a little bit further away the existing structure is only6 feet off of um off of the side Lot line we're moving the whole structure away and so now the closest point is 5T and we're conforming um with regard to rear um to the rear lot line and that's where we brought that 12 feet in the other change that we made is the parking and we're required to have three parking spaces but we're allowing for four because we know we also recognize that street parking is an issue so we want to make sure that we have two spots per unit and not just required three and because we are trying to create um just a bit more green space that's all impervious surface now so there's no there won't be like a a parking lot next to this house this is all going to be perious surface to tr and make it look more like Landscaping so this is the first floor plan you can see this is where we had the two garages and now what I've done is I've taken the um utility portions of the house so the stairwell the half bath and then these small little shed areas here those are now in the center um each run by 2 feet um and you can see the way that the the four car parking would sit on the left we have a bulk head on each unit that would give access to the basement which would be which would remain unfinished second plan um we lost a fair amount of square footage because we lost the 12T in width which meant we lost the um the little home office space and the all of the bedrooms had to shrink a bit um but we think that they're still all manageable with you know smaller beds we have full size beds smaller room and then C in the others but it's still liveable it still works so as far as the Aesthetics of the house we're still trying to keep it in scale with the neighborhood and aesthetically consistent with the neighborhood so we still are trying to create the appearance of um of two volumes with a connector piece that is set back just a little bit and we change material up just again to just kind of visually try to break up thec side of the house and again the parking be over to the right when We Shrunk um the widths of everything we were able to also bring the height of structure there's a 35 foot height U like maximum height requirement now we were I think a little over 30 foot six before we're 30 so we're able to bring it down even a little bit further so we're 5T you know below the required maximum height or the this is now the rear elevation so you can see this is just the sh shed access that set back a little bit um little bulk heads and then we do have just um a little window for some light in that basement space and then the side elevations are just mirror images of one another so again this is the this would be the front this would be the rear and the parking is on this elevation this front's um School Street I think that's it so you know one of the you know additionally one of the elements on this site that wasn't really noted before um but does exist you can see it best I think in one of the photographs and I can pass this around is there's a retaining wall a stone retaining wall along this whole corner it starts here and it wraps around and it starts to die out somewhere right behind right around the shed um and so it really does force all the circulation for the you know walkways and the driveways and everything else to be over to the left side of the um of the property along so it really did make sense to keep the parking in that area and the fact that it the the safety there also just was a bonus so um yeah so we you know we we did reduce it by 12 feet in with one feet in the rear we are now conforming to both the lot coverage and the ovious surface the lot coverage um the maximum allowable is 40 we now at 38.2 and the impervious uh surface coverage the max allowable um is 50 and we're at 45.4 any questions from the board talk a little bit about the parking area what you plan to do and have you gone to get a curve cut yet from the planning board already curve cut there oh there is there is so there yeah if um this image shows it really well actually this entire cut is existing and so the intent is to utilize that existing cut so tell me a little bit about the uh pervious parking area so we haven't made a final decision whether it's going to be more like a gravel um kind of uh parking area maybe with a cobbled edge or if we're actually going to look at um they have the papers that allow actual like green to grow up through um I think that's ultimately going to be a budget decision but those are the two that we've been talking about any so you're saying that where the cars are going is an existing driveway on the property yeah okay it's hard to tell when we out there yeah so this is the existing right there and that's the so this is the house that's been demolished at the we building so that be would they be parking on the sidewalk excuse me I'm sorry I have not yet asked for questions from the public sorry I'm new to this I just blur with that I will ask if there's any questions from the public and so pleas state your name and address Dale marier seven BRS ask question ask your question through me please I'm sorry too so I wondered if there was the parking was going to impact the sidewalk no or how far it will no so the parking does not impact the side walk so the lot line actually starts on the other side of the sidewalk the sidewalk would be here so all of the parking is contained well within the lot okay and there's plenty of room for four cars there's plenty of room for four cars there yeah with a little bit of extra buffer thank anyone else have a question Miss Gates please your name Gates 30 I'm sorry used to be 33 School schools and we are the only ABS to that property and the other ones are the ones that they just um we have no problem with anybody building any place they Pur but when they purchase the property they are aware of all the rules and regulations of that piece of property if they real told out and that was a nonconforming law made you don't care but they're asking for a special permit do we the only ones who are affected nobody else in town will be affected they're asking for the back distance between them the long structure and almost 5T instead of the 10 the regulations we that we're the only ones infected nobody else the property of Mars is higher than the lot so it's quite anation you see and um so we're trying now to put probably of building there that he's asking for special permits the only reason weing is the distance between them and us because one building that now is side is this one so it would be an L of all these structures going up FL and then we look right in our um we don't even have a window we have a property already our property is a bu G I think there only six in property for him and the rest is ours so um it's amazing to me we don't have a window towards this property because you don't want to look at somebody's face open the window look Bears so that's what they have and 5T away is really a big dist that's why between neighbors they have that's our only okay thank you is there any other member of M um Catherine Comm Le um your address uh summer six Summer Street Manchester um so I was been walking down Allen today to visit my sister who lives right across from um she's at a 37 School Street she's right at the opposite corner and like the traffic there and the school is right at the end of you know end of the street and I walked during my lunch I I work at the school and I just can't imagine to have this this double this duplex this um I'm concerned about the safety of children and traffic that's my biggest concern okay thank you Mr Gates Jim gates to and of course I am VI opposed to the 10 foot set setback being violated by a five foot ten type of thing this enormous mass of a ordinary building dominating the few Shed from Desmond Street has been now and no redeeming features whatsoever as I can see they're tearing down the house that is reputed to have been a health hazard that's presumably why Mr D wants to waste no time getting rid of that older building and it's only one and A2 ft it's got I believe Le if block foundations as we do that be perfectly used for building two and a half story building on the same Foundation we'd have no problem whatsoever that the uh problems go back further in time this planning board in 2 nine in July with Mr Whitten had come to an agreement that an existing building for a cuddle an additional drawing unit but built and occupied after that there can be no additional building unit just one unit on the law I'm going to presume that that agreement is in principle is still in effect Mr that know what happen we go based on the zoning bylaw that's in effect and under the zoning bylaw this property is zoned to allow a two family residents and in addition under zoning bylaws and under all case law if a person is currently encroaching into a setback they do have the right to build a new structure within that same setback the special per it would F on the same Foundation doesn't have to be it doesn't have to be under Cas law and zoning bylaws and you can imagine all of you to sh this huge mass the people next door on three Brook to Desmond very carefully give their additions to the gutted structure well within the setback 10 ft both on the Westerly side our the Easter M side Mr Stafford and uh that uh is the same problem an enormous mass of building but Mrs Stafford's building is of a similar construction this is going to dwarf the immediate neighborhood across the street of Brook Street and the uh people were concerned there about the traffic and the parking and the exit and entry uh as I said it earlier they're well within the 100 foot of sell of my own book and they'll need to me concom approvals before they can be with me and as my wife just commented they've already started digging away at the boundary line which is creating a nuisance as our fencing has started and the land that's on and DK which is a problem that we're going to fix possibly with constructing a small concrete reinforced wall on that line with columns for fencing and thereby Reserve some degree privacy along vegetation this s uh is going to upset the balance of the immediate neighborhood it's well from the back side it's not attractive I don't think it's all that attractive from the front either that's [Music] judgment aesthetic thank you Mr Gat yes sir hi Dan yoro 6 Brook Street I live directly across from here well next to my neighbors here sorry again for speaking out of turn um so I just had a comment about the fact that it's a their existing the existing house is a single family and because of the zoning they're allowed to you know build a two family there but it still has to conform within the space uh which it apparently that all does but by making a two family now you're making it you know you're implying that there's more parking which there really isn't any more parking than there is currently there and I challenge the fact that there was ever a garage there i' I've lived there since 2003 there that thing's been like half falling down the whole time and I don't think it was even big enough for a car so I wouldn't call that a garage by any need to be a garage it's a curb cut off the street it doesn't require a garage I'm saying is by going into this idea that we can build a two family in a in this District which is within the bylaws the lot size needs to kind of jive with the fact that it's a two family not uh because it's currently a one family which you could you know comfortably have about two cars there now but now you're going to like take away all the lawn build it make two family you know two SE separate structures not separate but adjoining um and with the expectation that there's G to be four parking spots and there really isn't I mean sure you can stack them in there like you do out find my Park but it's not like someone's going to be able to pull in in and out of there easily and then you're getting to the situation with the fire trucks coming around the corner because we're a cut through for the emergency vehicles to come through to get to the west side of Manchester so it's it definitely is a dangerous situation for cars to be like you know Jerry rigging in there like you have shown that St 2 by two right so so for a two family home um they're only required to have three parking spaces okay so they're they're providing more than the minimum required in the zoning bylaw okay it's an existing curve cut yes it is um so there's really nothing in our purview regarding that parking um they could theoretically make a single family home exactly that size looking exactly like that yes that's true and then you're implying there's two cars there or it's not necessarily well if it's two different families living in this location currently there's one family living there now you're selling it as two different families will be living there each family has X many cars but we're just looking at the parking requirements in the zoning B I get it I get it and they they I'll let you speak once more yes oh great um pleas you say your name again Catherine Katherine kosy um I'm just concerned the traffic for when people whip into Brook Street people pulling out of that driveway to have you know four cars it's it's it's a very tough situation I'm sure um I live on Bennett street and there are only two driveways on Bennett street that don't require cars to park out and it's a three-way so we have it all over time yeah the one ways there are crazy yeah yeah would you have something you want to say about no okay is yes sir coms Excuse excuse me your name and address name Michael Gates I live at 31 School Street um I'll start my comments and possible question um whenever it's brought up that this is going to be within the conforming of the bylaws it should be pointed out that that's only if you give them an exemption and without the exemption then they do not conform that's that should be understood not passed over um secondly as far as um this is more common towards all of the proposals that been not just this one but the other ones as well it seems as if a lot of the developers are um using the neighbors to provide the Privacy for their proposed projects not just this one but also the the red house that's they're they're sort of using your you know elevation to give the Privacy for the backside of the house and all these other things and the the 10 foot setback is partly for privacy if you take that away and make it five you're basically making the walkway and if the neighbor in this instance it's my parents decided to eliminate their HED R the Privacy is eliminated and then the owner of the property adjacent to it going to have the issue where they have no privacy because they have aiv space no space to put anything for their own privacy um and so you're creating a problem for the future owner even if the current one doesn't care um so that's another just on that um and then I do agree theic situation and the idea of the sh sor we have multiple cars ourselves so I'm familiar with having win time that's sort of a small town for in city that just you just have can so I'm not sure that's not really a new problem that's a problem for probably everybody in town um and the question I have it is a question is when you're considering Prov providing relief for a situation where someone's asking for hardship relief um in this situation the owner has created their own hardship because they want to put something there that was not existing there and so without that it's not really a hardship it's more of a I want to do this and so I created my own problem how how do you think that that as a board considering it well um this is a special permit which does not require hardship I just remember from the previous yeah the previous one was asking for variance which requires a hardship in this case um there was an existing structure which was closer to the lot line um the the housing next door is well within the setback already so that's not a problem we can solve um the issue is is is this more detriment of the that's a that's what only other comment I have was to do the existing structure the adjacent structure um as was mentioned earlier the back side of my parents house does not have any window so even though it is only a 6 inch set back for the existing structure there was really never an issue of visibility because neither house really saw each other right now if it's going to be the whole length of the property you're creating a situation where the whole length of the property is Right upon the law ESS so you create a visible obst a visual obstacle that was not previously existing because there was no window to look at thank you um is there any member of the public on Zoom who would like to speak on this application if so please raise your hand and Zo um seeing none um does any member of the board had have any more questions of the applicant um yes I'll follow Captain's lead and take a motion to close the public hearing second second seconds approve V approve Sean ran yes yes Kim yes Rob S yes okay um so deliberation yeah and during deliberations what is the board's I'm just struggling with more detrimental to the a that's the only thing I'm strugg neighborhood the lot small yeah there's not much you can do with it the two small units two probably young families who going to start out I think it's a good design yeah again what I'm struggling with is what I'm hearing from the neighborhood as far as more detrimental to the neighborhood I don't is there a rule sorry me to cut you off go ahead I don't think it's going to be more detrimental to the neighborhood and given give the lot size and what what there is to work with and I mean Cy design I'm familiar with with her work she's a good designer I think that that's probably the the best that we can hope for in this situation um question I can't find it in our new revised bylaws here but is there a bylaw regarding backing out of a driveway and not for residential not for residential okay yes that was that's the other thing I'm concerned with right that's what I'm someone who's two people in one car is going to back up while the other it happens all the time and then I saw on Pine Street this morning heading out of town it's just a bad part of town for this to happen in with where the kids go to school I mean I appreciate that this is within the overlay district for density zoning and I appreciate that we need more two family housing and I appreciate that they cut down they did so much to come within the requirements and I actually to Rob's Point think it's a great design for this I share some of the concerns that have been expressed regarding you know kids walking to school and the dangerousness of that intersection but I don't know that there's a lot within our purview that we can do about that if there's no zoning bylaws that address that I'm I'm I kind of SLX about what we could do about it um that's my comment I guess I appreciate the concerns for sure on the parking I also appreciate the efforts that that applicant has made to putting this into Conformity with a lot of requirements and and make a really pleasing structure that would serve two families nicely but I think our challenge with the parking is the fact that the curb cut already exists yeah exactly um if it don't have to go to planning or anything if it didn't exist they would have to go to planning and they would have toate and then planning could require certain CH arounds or whatever which we don't it's not within our purview corre was reading it to and it's not yeah you to make those requirements yeah if it was an existing curb cut then I think it would be a different situation yes planning could but why I ask that question right yeah and I think with whether you have the single family or a double family you're still going to have the same situations with traffic you're still G to have the same people you know getting around buses everything through there it's you're not changing anything the house that they could build there as a single family could even be you know six cars or something you don't know right you don't know I mean some of these houses with some of the kids yeah have at Le six cars cars c than I own yeah you too but letting that aside um so I don't know I mean I understand and and agree with some of the concerns but I don't know there's anything we can do within the scope of our authority to address them really on the parking otherwise I think they've done a great job I think they've addressed the parking adequately um the fact that um fire trucks pay go around that corner I live on Pine Street I'm I'm not a longtime resident to the town I moved here in 2008 and I took an old house and spent a fair amount of money redoing it and I'll tell you there's more traffic on Pine Street there is on Brook Street and cars go flying down Pine Street particularly in the morning when all the trucks are going to Crosby's um I said to myself well if you want to live in a small town there are things you have to deal with um small towns are changing more people are coming here not that many more we have a lack of housing this is a great way to get another family probably two families because whoever was living in that house as existed I understand it was it was a bigger um the design is a nice design the fact that um comments have made about how it's going to present a a wall to the back well I would point out that the dwelling next to it is probably sitting in the setback um yeah significantly in the setback So like um it's sort of like I was down south where I was born it would be like the pot calling the kettle black um it's it's a good design we're going to have to learn how to be flexible that's why we have zoning and when we bring up zoning at town meeting I would encourage people to start reading the warrants and pay attention because they keep voting these things down we try to do the right thing and people say oh zoning we're g to vote against it well um we have to start paying attention people because we are dealing with the law and is the zoning regul ations that exist we don't create them we just have to administer them and I think this particular applicant has done a really good job considering the comments that were made at the previous hearing to reduce the size to deal with some of these issues this should be a nice attraction to Brook Street considering what's there which is an isore that place needs a good fire um and it's close to the Firehouse so it would be convenient for them too but I mean we have to kind of think about the future of our towns we I'm sorry AI is talking to us um Jim I will I will Accord with what you said on the setbacks they are improving them they are improving the non-conformities in the setback not increasing them exactly um and so from that perspective you know they're improving an existing non-conformity they're not bringing it totally in compliance but they're improving it pretty significantly so I'm not sure um there's a ton of complaint on that on that matter really to consider when they're making an improvement to the existing yeah closeness of the properties and houses so I would agree with you on that one Clos and cons here pros and cons pros and cons and I got now I've got the pros or the cons here you go any more discussion we've closed the public hearing we're not diing any more comments from I would like to respond to no I'm sorry Mr G Mr D sah made a mistake would you um would you consider uh would we board members con would we like to consider or would we consider any condition on rentals of this property given our concerns about parking and familiarity with the area Park you know could be a thing short-term rental renters would not be familiar with the street they're backing into long-term renters would be or own you know owners would be so I would just that could you know short-term renters condition shortterm rentals have the authority we do we've done it before yes I would not want to see this use as short prohibit short-term rentals I don't know if the applicant's okay with that under the town and the state short-term rental definition yep I don't know do you have any comment on that Mr gtis I don't think I understand what you're saying um I was sorry go ahead Sarah no you go I I about Airbnb yeah I was proposing that no short-term renters with the concerns about parking short-term renters wouldn't be familiar with the area or the parking so I was proposing a condition that only sort of long-term rentals we could talk about the term maybe six months to a year are allowed in the in the building no airbnbs weekends weeks that sort of thing so so under the definition of the town and the state the town's definition of a short-term rental is under a week the state's definition is under 30 days okay any objections I hadn't thought of airb me to be honest with you so I don't have any objection I didn't even know that that was under your jurisdiction to tell somebody that they can Airbnb their house or not I know but I hadn't considered it so I don't have an objection to it it's not my intent never has been but I guess I learned something that the only board can tell us what to do right well um I didn't know it's we we're not going to tell you what to do we're not going to approve you to AC it was never it was never I thought I was in a consideration so you would be willing to accept that as a condition would mitigate the safety I'm sure you can understand why Sor there was a mistake no it is a mistake and it shouldn't go on I'm sorry I we closed the public also I want to say that we're going to appeal um everyone appeals us nowadays and inbox okay um are we ready to take a vote and the votes will be since Jim is the sixth member he will not be voting application okay um I move that relief under a variance for excess loot coverage by structures and total loot coverage by structures and impervious Services is not required based on the revised plans filed with the town cler on June 10th 2023 and move to approve the application of James gtis for a special permit under sections 5.4 7.2 and 12. five with his Zone bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to allow the raising of an existing single family residence which encroaches into the Southside setback over 9 feet and both front setbacks over 5 feet and construction of a new two Family Residence which approaches into the Southside setback 5 fet and approaches into the front north northwest corner setb 5 ft at 35 School Street assess professor's map number 51 lot number five in District D1 filed with the town clerk on March 21st 2024 based on a finding that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw the proposed new residence which encroaches into the side and front setbacks will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the existing non-conforming structure which will be raised and all conditions under section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on the following conditions the residential structure and parking in the driveway are located as depicted on the zoning board of appeals plan prepared by Northshore survey Corporation dated March 14 2024 as revised on May 30th 2024 the residential structure is built substantially in accordance with the following plans prepared by taic Design dated 31424 as revised 6124 A1 and A2 proposed fours A3 and A4 proposed elevations and no short-term rental rentals under town under the town or Commonwealth and Massachusetts definitions will be permitted on the property do I have a second second C seconds any discussion roll C vote Sean approve Brian no Catherine approve Rob approve and Sarah approv thank you great thank you very much I'll write this one who would like to I missed you I miss you say short term that's why I ask what a crazy person here last night tell every just going to blow everything up right now on I ask a g question those players are presented to you you get to keep a full set you can get a full set at that town hall yes anytime you can go to the town clerk you get a copy where is that count downstairs Hunter Siri didn't like what he said sir the house fire up okay I'm sitting here next to this AI thing hearing everything don't say anything well pick trust me it's trying to tune you out defense attorney I think what I'm going to do next is do 16 loading Place Road okay um this is the applicant has requested to continue what we had it sign oh good okay um so the applicant requested a continuance to our July meeting I I'll tune in maybe so for fun I might Jo I'm oh yeah at at the request of the applicant I move to approve the continuance of the application of luck verbus 16 loading Place Road for a special permit under sections 5.3 6.3 7.2 and 12.5 with the zoning bylaw to add 1,087 square feet to existing floor area by a first floor Edition and second floor ders raised the roof Ridge and heighted the entire structure to a project approximately 34 ft and add two second floor dormers on the portion of the structure flies within the 20ft set bag at 16 loading Place Road assessor map number 37 Lot number 49 in District a file with town cler on May 13 2024 do I have a second second Rob seconds all in favor okay approved and I will sign sorry Mr Zer I just wanted to get okay next application is 21 Union um I will open the public hearing for the app apption of Adam and Cynthia Zer for modification new special permit under Section 5.0 7.2 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary add dormas to a previously approved special permit and variances under sections 4.3 6.1 6.3 and 12.3.3 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to allow parking in the setback and allow our residents in an accessory structure the occupied by persons who are not employees of the property owner at 21 Union Street assessor map number 45 Lot number 12 in District G filed with the town clerk on April 23rd 202 Mr Z thank you this application two parts part number one is amendment permit the position by the board and filed with the registry on February 10th 2022 uh to allow us to create a dwelling unit uh for an employee in the barn and cl our property at 21 Union Street U the first part of our application seeks to amend that the the plan that was originally approved on the southernly side called for four skylights and as we evaluated the project um started to connect some utilities and started shot the contractors and pricing um and started to really dig into the uh what the space was going to be like um and how the structure was going to work it just became clear to us that it was not going to be a viable project uh those would be the only Windows actually it's on the Westerly side uh those four skylights would have been the only light coming in to the upstairs which is really going to be the main Liv space and there are no windows on the easly side so what we did is we worked with our architect jcoer um and historic to have a new warmer approved um it's a shed apologies I'm not connected but as you can see here uh this west elevation shows a shed dmer that'll really expand most of the roof line um three windows and that's going to allow us to bring light into the structure um already have that it's the first page of our exibit a elevation that shows the new door so for that you we think it's a very simple uh minor change uh but we wanted to come zba just to make sure that we had your approval before we proceeded with the work um given the great cost involved uh we don't see how this could possibly be substantially more detrimental for the neighborhood that what already approved um there's not going to be right now we're showing four Windows um we may slightly move those depending upon interior wall layout um that we finally arrive at but we don't think there's going to be any more light or noise anything else that would affect any of your others than what was already approved uh so that's really the structural aspect of what we're asking for um it's not going to result you know any kind of change in the character as set District commission already future um there's no the element that special per it's almost silly to list them because none of them would be affected by dmer things like noise vibrations Wildlife uh natural resources utilities it's really the same structure it's just going to have a little bit better light exposure on the Westerly side um we think it's really necessary make it use space the upstairs so that covers the structural piece I don't know if the to tackle the structural ver and then the variance on the occupant second or I think we can probably do special permit first um what maybe you want to hear everything maybe because I okay I guess we'd like to hear everything sure going down Flames so in addition to the the structure and the request for the amendment um we're we're requesting a variance to allow this this living space this living quarters to be occupied by someone other than an employe of the owner occupant of the property um we feel that this is a classic case where variance is required based upon all the elements under the bylaw and under the state statute uh 4A section 10 um we've got incredibly unique circumstance where we have a barn that is constructed with literally at the epicenter of the central business district um it is historic it's existed for almost 200 years it has a wood floor um it's been worked on for decades the there's there's some serious structural issues with the building that we going need to address in order to save it um and as I showed members of the CBA who are on the site visit yesterday the the Westerly wall is sort of ping outward on the second floor there's literally a sealed cable that ties whole building together which prevents you from really creating any space and for that reason we have to are very likely are going to have to remove the entire second floor cre a whole brand new second floor structure um which is going to be incredibly expensive in addition to that we have foundation work to do uh the the foundation is only a partial foundation so the contractors we've spoken to so far Le more than likely they think we might have to even raise and lift the whole structure up to shore up and finish the foundation beneath um so and in addition to that there was over the years there was a there was a concrete floor that was installed in front right quadrant of the bar which is sort of dragging it down and so we've got to do structural work to Shore that up there's just a whole of issues that are going to make this a very very expensive project uh it's uh so we think this is a classic case where literally enfor is going to result in substantial hardship to us we have uh financial and otherwise um we have talked to talked to folks to finance this project and essentially with the way that the code is written with an employee unit you can't count any income from that unit towards your appraise value and towards your loan so we what a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars that we would entally be unable to borrow to build this to save the structure and create this living quarters uh if we can only rent it to an employee um we also think that there there's also another element to this that we're asking for a variance the the park is it turns out we have we have a requirement in our in our zoning bylaw that parking cannot be located within 5 feet of a lot line um which means like the actual parking space that's in our barn that's been existing for who knows how long we actually understand it might have been the first place a car was ever parked in Manchester B SE turns out to be pre-existing non- performing um and given the change in use we would like a variance to make sure that that is uh is legalized um so in essence you know we feel that this really is a situation where we're trying to just take a structure that exists and save it and do it in a way that's in in harmony with the bylaw um we don't think that there's going to be any difference in U effect of the neighborhood and having somebody who uh there who might work in town they might be a teacher in town they might work at a restaurant in town or they might work in Boston it doesn't us we don't think it has any difference U it doesn't matter and it's important to note that we're in the General District which is supposed to be the area that we're trying to create housing we're trying to do smart things to build our housing stock and and the district potentially allow four units per property we could take our existing house right now and put three units in it as a right without changing it yet ironically we're faced with a situation where we can't have two units one in the house and one in the barn which really is the most to us it's really the proper and the best way to make use of the property to keep everybody you know spaced out in a way that makes sense and to uh and to have another dwelling unit on site um so another route we could go would be to try to connect them with a Breezeway or something we just don't think that makes sense um it just seems to disrupt the flow of the property in the yard and it just seemed most sense it seemed most uh expedient for us to say let's make with a variance request because we think it it fits all the elements we've got a unique situation in the barn if the have the center of town that doesn't you don't see it generally anywhere else uh is completely that type of building with four stalls is completely unsuitable to the area we've got to do something with it it was all built with a dormer that used to be heated upstairs there's a coal heating uh system that's been dismantled years ago um so we just really feel this was the this is the best way to tackle the problem unlike some of the residential districts in town we don't have an accessory dwelling unit provision in in our bylaw that that appli to the G District so it really leaves us with no alternative but to either take it down and do something else by adding to the house or connect a Breezeway or just to request this variance and since we think it meets all of the requirements under the statute and the bylaw we want you to present that to the board and give your thoughts um I guess have a cou well one concern I have is that your special permit expired on February 10th of 2024 under the new B been for three years now it was issued for two years when it was issued okay three years does not apply retroactively so that requires Us in my understanding is it requires us to issue a new special CL okay just wanted St that I'm FR well in that case we would request that it would be reissued I think it's under it would be under a different it's a whole different F I think was under table of uses there's a new use um I think it's note 13 so we would request that the same permit just be reissued with all the same conditions just what we're reting tonight yeah plus the doas right um Rob do you have any questions I mean if it's the same uh circumstances that was issued last time just for the addition of a dormer I don't see any what about the Varian us again do we want well I mean I I guess um I'll I'll address this through you Sarah but I have an issue because reading this it it it sounds like you know we're going to evict an otherwise peaceful resident and then on the other hand it sounds like it's not occupied right now so like what's going on here really and if we issued a special permit for a um a an employee then we did that for reasons that were really relateded to an employee needing to live there but there's no employee living there so you know that is actually my biggest problem with the application is it seems it feels may not be but upon first read it feels a little disingenuous to me well and I have a bigger concern go ahead with respect to that at our November 133 2023 special town meeting there was article four there was a request to amend the bylaw um to eliminate the pat of the employee and to allow any any type of renter um to rent the property um that article was not approved by the the town it failed um the 2/3 required um vote um so it seems to me that one of the requirements for issuing a variance is it with it has to be without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derivating from intended P purpose of the bylaw seems to me that if the town voted not to expand that section of the bylaw that we' be derogating from the intent and purpose of the bylaw and I'm reluctant personally to issue a variance or something the town voted down six months ago can I respond uh because we we do recognize that we probably would have been here before you before had that not been pended um it didn't get actually by Presidential standard pass the landside it got 60% voting in favor and 40% no um so I'm not sure if that's actually I understand your point and I I agree with the fact that we have to be focusing on that that's one of the critical variance elements but the town vote didn't say that we folks couldn't come before the board and ask for a variance if all of the elements were satisfied and here I think you really have a situation where like I said we could as a right put three units in our house the the the or four if we got a special permit we're in the General District yet we're stuck in a situation where at least according to our code we need to come in front of the board and ask for a variants just to have two so I don't think that we're asking for really derogates from the intent and purpose of the bylaw because what we're really asking for at the end of the day is to have two families living on this property when the bylaw in fact we we changed our plan we could be here asking for four or could just be going for permit for three U unfortunately I disagree based on the way of I love I I I agree 100% with you yeah that what you're saying makes sense but I am very reluctant to issue a variance on a topic that the town did not pass because first you come to us when somebody else comes to us and then we have everyone in the general dis District coming to us and the B needs to be changed well that may be true but you also have the ability to analyze and evaluate each proposal on its individual Merit that's what variances are for and I don't believe that it's actually you know it's not part of the criteria when you're considering considering the variance to say well I don't want to do it because we had a chance to change the bylaw last year and it didn't change the fact is because the bylaw didn't change is the reason why we're here um and and to happen to your point about the application we would have been this farm would have been built earlier much sooner and there would be an employee living there if we could afford it but the fact of the matter is we haven't been able to obtain financing for it because of the way the code is written and frankly even if we could I think we'd be very reluctant this is going to be a very expensive project and we're looking at 1,600 feet or so probably $350 a square foot maybe more with the demo involved with jacking up the foundation um this is a sign it's it's a significant investment that I don't think somebody realistically would make unless they had a ton of cash um just to have it become illegal when you know we don't know we don't need an Nanny anymore we don't some an on-site employee so I it's um that's that's why we're here we're not trying to you we have all we want to do is have a unit there that we can have somebody live in um we don't really have any concrete plans it's probably going to be for babysitter SL family as as we know in the code right now we technically couldn't even have my mother come it's just not the way it works which is why we we're asking for a variance and we think where it's to units when we could as a right do three weely the the code really should be doing um I I think the other challenge is is the varant needs to be based on o owing to conditions of the shades topography the soils of the land NE the sto it also applies to the structure under the state statute under 4010 it can also be unique unique circumstances that relate to the structure and we do feel that we've got what could be more unique than a barn with horse stalls it still has the horse stalls in it that are it's 50 feet from the center of town um you know something has to be done with it we're not going and we haven't been able to to come up with a plan that um that works financially just because it the investment that's required these days with construction costs is so great um that we just can't Advance it unless we know that we've got that flexibility and we can and we can Finance it um so it's also just one last thing I just feel like this structure may may get torn down so that we build on the back of the house another unit right within setbacks if it's and it's it's just not right I mean that if if the board is not opposed to another dwelling unit on the property I mean another if you if we could get around that that particular code issue by building a Breezeway connecting connecting the two buildings and instead we'd ask for a variance on setbacks it's another but it just seems like it's it just seems like you're going about and doing things that are unnatural I don't disagree with you but you understand I mean I know your profession you understand that we're constrained by the bylaws and what they tell us to do have very broad authority to interpret bylaws however you we do yes not when a vote is been taken by the town I would say that's a I don't appreciate your argument it is not part of you're when you evaluate a variance there are statutory elements that you evaluate the variants under and the fact that there was a town vote a year ago or derating from the intent of the Bible going against what the town voted on the town Mee in my opinion I mean I'm all in favor of accessories dwelling units personally like as in general like I'd like to go one my parents to stay at my house like I'm I'm not a person that's opposed to high density or accessory units or multiple family homes or anything like that so there's nothing about that here it's just it's just what are we allowed to do and what can we do without derogating from the intent of the bylaw here um well I haven't no I agree with you I think um the reason we have bylaws is because it's the will of the town and this comes up at town meeting almost every town meeting we have proposed changes to the zoning board but zoning regulations in more more cases than not they've been denied um for us to go against wishes of town meeting would be a a bit of a reach yes you could say it be our Authority I suspect it would get overturned um and I think it would be not in the best interest of the zoning board to do that um you have no abutters here tonight we objecting the direct Butters it doesn't matter whether there are abutters objecting or not the variance and the zoning bylaws are very clear about this um the fact that um the original special permit lapsed um is another fact um so there is no special perent that's gone um and you have not in spite of all that if we were to look at all this you have not proposed how you're going to handle parking uh you haven't talked about pervious or impervious because from my visit there on Monday night it looks like the entire area paved over there's very little open space so I have no idea what the perious impervious ratio is because we haven't been given any information so I think um you have a very iffy case here if I were voting tonight and I'm not sure I am voting tonight Brian has recused himself Brian has and so I am voting tonight I would say um you could you should be able to judge from my comments how I prob would be probably inclined to vote so you may need to rethink your proposal we we hear you and and we will draw it and uh we will draw I mean we'd like to actually move forward with the special permit on the Dormer if you would consider that um but we're not I can address the parking there's going to be one car that's parked in the garage and then there're going to be two cars that are parked how would you park a car in a garage if it's going to be occupied you look at the you he's keeping the garage the upstairs oh okay well the horse the information is pretty I guess my concern about the parking is that this is not zoned as a residence the assessor map has it as 01 three which is multiple use primarily residential but contains commercial in the first floor so the question that presents to me is do you meet the parking requirements for the commercial on the first floor plus the residential in the main building plus that first home there's no as far as I'm as far as we're aware that first floor it's a one room that's about isure are there any employes come in it's rented to someone that works there for their office it's my office it's my real estate your home office well yeah EST but I have another office not even there right the real estate office has moved to down street so that is just home office where people maybe work when they're home and so so our understanding is you don't require the code to B doesn't require initial add if we needed to we could put many more I mean we could fit probably five cars I if you're allowing tandem parking because as you pointed out for residential against backing out probably stuck eight cars on that lot if we had to but again we're not looking to do that all we looking to do is to have two dwellings on one boot do you um know what your total lot coverage and it's below it's below the reement is it changing from current no you building exact same Foundation that same exactly same footprint is not going to change at all and I mean look if if you were inclined to approve it we would we could obviously accept a condition if somehow we were over over the impervious that we go and we grip up portion of the driveway to get underneath but um yeah I mean are you going to ask any public moment in this place we will get any more questions in the board so you covered the ones okay I'll open up to public comments is there anybody in the room that would make Miss Gates SCH Street his wife are they on Union Street where Dr basic's office house was um that place was always a business and a living family situation and I know the back they use it for different purposes but all the area there they have no ground with grass they all have Asal and that property he's not building an other structure he is building on what it is to I suppose and what is the problem with someone creating a space that is actually useful other than being a bond or a storage space because it's there yeah so there again I I I I do I mean you you are you you guys are are very focused on the bylaw and I understand the point about the intent and purpose of the bylaw but I really do think you have to be you can't just say okay the Town didn't approve this change you have to look at the actual bylaw and and and and what do it do what is it what is what is it supposed to do in the General District that's the area of town where we're supposed to have the most density and and we're asking for half of the of the units that we could potentially have in that District um and doing it for for what I consider to be the very Noble purpose of trying to preserve what I consider to be an important structure I I don't want to take that Barn down um and a lot of people would I mean a lot of the contractors would look at us and tell us like that first thing they say that should come down there's just too much to deal with like we don't want to do that we want to preserve it we think it's Charming we think it's historic you know we've talked in depth to this or District commission about it they want to keep it there they we've we've gone through iterations with them we proposed a triangle window in front they didn't really want that um so we're trying to do everything we can to save it but we cannot invest the the the kind of money that it's going to take to save it if we if it can only be lived in by an employee it's just not continue to take um I have a hand raised on Zoom Gary Gilbert good evening I can't help but um offer a comment here um what you're dealing with is is really an antiquated law I think we're all pretty aware of that and to my mind I think there's no definable definable virtue in having an employee live in a second unit on a piece of property versus having a rental unit it just it's just a concept I'm not sure where it originated probably 3 1950s or something um and you guys mentioned the intent of bylaws and town meeting vote but you equally could rest your hat on and um you do have the right to evaluate what is uh substantially beneficial to the town um and I don't see this as having any substantial detriment to the town his proposal of have of being able to have a second rental unit there's already a strong as we all know a strongly established need for rental housing in town and a strong desire to keep our the buildings that exist in our town and not have them torn down um this is an Adaptive reuse you could choose to make a decision and your logic behind it could be that this is substantially beneficial to the town and it preserves existing buildings so that's just my two cents for whatever it's worth thank you sir Michael Gates more or less just wanted to second that those comments were I I appreciate that he's attempting to establ and preserve existing um somewhat historic building in the town that I think adds to the character of the town um rather than he eliminated put something else should be taken into consideration with the intent of the bylaw maybe that's part of looking at the intent of the bylaw whether it preserves part of character of the town of things thank you sure again again I think this goes straight to um again the fact that we're proposing to do less than what the bylaw could potentially allow and that's why I think that what we're proposing is actually very consistent with bylaw I I fully recognize the vote that happened uh last fall U but it was 60% in favor uh but again that's just not one of the factors that you look at I think you have to look at you kind have to avoid looking at this Vote or that vote and just looking at what does the bylaw say and you've got a General District that can allow up to four units and you have an applicant here who's proposing two uh much less and that could even be a condition on the application I so I hear you but the the town bylaws are created by the town so what's in the bylaws is the the intent of the bylaws directed by the town if the town takes a vote that doesn't make this change in the bylaw they don't think it makes sense for the zba to start making its own BS you're not it's the same exact that the town the town we have a 10 foot side setback but we sometimes allow people to to go into that just like saw tonight and those are new structures okay Mr I just think that um The Challenge here obviously is what you've about find but it wouldn't a zoning board of appeals if we weren't looking to uh uh you know go for a variance or go for a uh uh special exceptions Pard make exceptions that's words simple so that's why my my point is that we are struggling here in town for housing uh the applicant here has uh I think articulately very the stated the purpose and uh although I'm not voting I I just I don't think that they shouldn't even be talking about well I've been sitting here he talks all the time accuse himself fine I'm done question that you make that point for me I think that I don't see any reason why this property is any different from every other property in the town that has a detached accessory structure that wants to make it available for rental that and every other property in the General District which by right can create three units in the existing structure I just don't see that this is a unique enough situation for us to Grant a variance that's supposed to be on a per lot basis where it's something different than all the other Lots in the district and I just don't see that we have that go ahead J okay just I'm not trying to change the subject I think we've pretty well covered your person but I've been puzzling here I'm looking at the drawings you submitted um by Brooker design drawing a1. and drawing a 1.0 there two drawings actually oh yeah there's there's there's multiple oh you know there may have been an extra might have been an extra one of the identical um one shows two cars parked inside the structure the other shows one car parked inside the structure and a bedroom which is it um I I think that the second page we have Jim is a revised second FL correct well I'm looking at the first floor plan okay I'm only looking at first floor most of the first floor plans I see it's only one car there's one car in one and two cars in the other Excuse excuse that set please disregard that third that third one was a prior iteration last page last page that was part of our original different way around yeah so which one ISD page it's there's one car there'll be one car so that was um that was the 7206 iteration the one on top was revised on the second one they both have the same no no no the first one has a DAT 722 720 and the 72 the original one has the 216 so the two cars on that first floor is not the that's not correct one car see this is the one this ISS my apologies that got two car they all say 16 to 722 they have to look in the revision2 16er but it's later than 720 so was shows one but 16 is still yes oh yeah and this I believe these two I believe are duplicates it's K tree sorry so the last page is a throwaway yeah and the next last page is a AIT of the one ahead of it okay so there's only 1 A1 Z correct and then there's this this page with no date no nothing on it right that's the new plan that shows the second floor layout right right and then the first page is elevation with the so looking for a special apartment on the dmer and a variance on thees living par and lines a whole new special apartment including what we is should be four plus right and a variance on the parking and a variance on employee employee and I don't see why is there property lines I don't see Reon for a variance on the parking that garage space was there preon right but if we be changing the use someone could argue that we would need to obtain a variance to legalize it and I just wouldn't want any there to be any question in the future if we go to finance or sell the property that parking space like we said that parking space that's parking space may be the most long-standing parking space in all town we don't want to lose it so essentially the exact same proposal from two years ago except we're going to add total coverage by structures in surface shall not exceed 70% employee the occupation of the residents is restricted to employees of the of the um no that was in the original special then if that is going to be changed that's a separate variant the original special perit is already lapsed so we don't really have to do anything with the terms of the original one just ignore it like it never even existed right so you don't even have to leave in the whatever about the employees yes because that's a variant I know it's a separate variance but I'm just saying you don't get in the special permit part I'm not willing to take it out people so your basis for not wning to take out is that you you believe it would violate the intent of the bylaw that special permit you asked for was for an employee of the owner occupied property right but the original special permit I'm asking we we asked for a variance and that's a separate thing separ right so I was I was trying to separate them and talk about the different standards for the special permit I didn't really succeed but I was trying to sort of make a separation here between what we're considering on special permit versus variance and the standards for the two um sorry special permit it has to be restricted to employees of the problem correct do the current bylaws corrent the same thing at 39 C so I mean he's agreed to withdraw the variance for yeah I would I would withdraw without any kind of prejudice that request for Varian so we'll deal solely with the special par dos for the Dormer right to be able to reconstruct the barn with the D the barn with the DOR with with the D so the question really boils down so is that substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what exists today kind of like a chicken in the egg situation really because you can't really consider like you're constructing a dormer right that's all find and good but there's a purpose behind doing that and it's to let another family or person live there which right like you're not just putting a dor on a barn like because of it like the whole the whole special permit was to to make a residential unit right the original under the original the entire Barn is going to beu back then the same thing is going to happen we can go are you really you're not leaving much told me for this I think he so the original special permit was requesting to take an existing non-conforming accessory Bond and make it into living bers family living Borders or an employee of the owner that's lapsed that's lapsed but we can't issue a special permit unless we restrict it to right living quars for an employee exactly so it's intertwined right with the varing where is the I okay we ready to close the public hearing yes I move to close the public he second SE yes approve yes Jim okay now we're into deliberation are we still deliberating I don't know we've been doing that all on yeah so are people in favor of issuing a special permit yeah to renovate the non-conforming accessory Barn in family living borderers for an employee of the only office property based on finding that is not substantially more detrimental to the yeah I mean if that's what it was issued on last time I don't see a problem reissuing it on that again okay and if they want to add a dorment to the Vine I don't have a problem okay legally you know I think it's fine and I don't have a problem I'm not sure practically like where that gets anyone because they've said it's financially invasible I guess that's very well may not happen right here we paid for plans I don't think I mean we just to continue working on with my finance guys it's it's a tough provision to try to get over yeah um you know we I you debate it's it's it's an interesting bylaw provision well we the Z board is the one that asked yeah I think your com I think your comment at the meeting was that it makes absolutely no sense to require everybody to be stuffed in one house when you we don't dis I don't disagree I I don't even know that it's enforceable but I'm not going to go there that's that's not somebody were to appeal any of these things we would probably not pursue it um we're not trying to litigate our way to get a result here we're trying to work with the board to do something that makes sense since the original um permit expired did you make a new application yes I is the new application H this is the new application you pay another fee well he paid the ,000 oh for this application for this one yeah which is for the special permit because I don't have that oh you don't have the cover sheet we paid $1,000 which is part of the reason why we'd like to just proceed notay another that was to modify a special permit by adding a door and we're saying well we can't modify it we need to issue a new special permit but the fees is the same whether it's a modification or so all we could really do is issue a special permit to allow the dber with an emplo and all of the stuff we originally approved with a special permit just he submitted he submitted all of the plans to us yeah that includes the changes with the Dormer so this is the original stuff we received plus the Dorma piece this revision to the second floor and he's accepted a condition of not going over lot coverage and impervious serves even though he hasn't specify that in his application which is okay with me why would you um go to all that trouble of putting all that living space in up there if you can't rent it out it's for an employee of for an employee only right we also may use it ourselves which we're also allowed to do we can use it ourselves for you family in there yeah I mean what the zers do is their own they can move up back and rent the [Music] p stri with B names because if he doesn't we don't go can't back for two years just withdraws it change for an occupancy permit there will have to be an I think we've discussed this before they're going to have to see like an employ I'm not saying no they don't ask for that they don't ask for an employee contract no that was the problem we had 309 said um okay I moveed to approve the application of Adam and Cynthia Zager for a new special permit since the previous special permit expired without commencing construction and cannot be modified under sections 5.0 7.2 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and to other relief as may be necessary to renovate including the addition of a Dorma and exist in non-conforming accessory Barn into family living quarters for an employee of the owner occupied property at 21 Union Street assessor map number 45 Lot number 12 in District G fed with the town clerk on April 23rd 2024 based on a finding that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw the proposed renovation into a residence will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood W is located then the existing non-conforming structure and all conditions under section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on the following conditions the renovations are completed substantially as depicted in exhibit a of the application elevations new second floor plan layout out A10 proposed FL plans prepared by Brooker design LLC data July 14 2016 Revis 7226 excluding the second floor portion which was modified as depicted in the new second floor layout plan above occupation of the residence is restricted to employees of the property owner sufficient off street parking is is provided pursuant to section six of the zoning bylaw total coverage by structures and pervious surface shall not exceed 70% okay do I have a second second Sean second any discussion ready to vote Sean R nothing approv Jim approved approved approves okay now you want a variance for the parking in that corre so that the parking space in the barn U can be located within 5T of the way to Mo it people good with that am I further move to approve the application of Adam and and Cynthia Zager for a variance under Section 6.1 and 12.3.3 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to allow parking in the driveway and the garage space within the existing non-conforming bar Barn which encroach into the five feet parking side setback based on a finding that owing to circumstances relating to the shape of the land especially affecting such land and structure but not generally affecting the zone District in which it is located a literal enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve substantial hardship Financial or otherwise to the applicants and that the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intented purpose of the bylaw based on the following condition a minimum of three off street parking spaces 9 by8 must be provided I have a second second Johan seconds any discussion Johan approve C approve Jim approved Rob approved zero approves okay um now with the consent of the applicant I move to withraw without pre Prejudice the portion of the application of Adam and Cynthia Zager for a variance under sections 4.3 and 12.3.3 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to allow the renovated Barn to be occupied by persons not employed by the property owner do I have a second second Johan vote Sean approve approve Rob approve Jim approve and Sarah approv um I'll write this decision since nobody seems to be pretty excited about who would like to review I'll review it again you guys are off the hook something really exciting Dr the next time you guys Mee see you with town meeting make public comment Well we I'm going to need you to sign this before you escape we're G have to figure out the way I'm escaping we agree it probably needs to be presented different L add on thank you sign second y she would like to sign it to thank you thank you everyone congratulations on finishing your terms have a good night okay our last one [Music] still let see I think so 11 noia app I will open the public hearing for the application of Gary Gilbert for variance under sections 5.3 5.6 and 12.33 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to construct a 12T x 30 foot Tool Shed which will encroach into the front and side setb at 11 Magnolia Avenue assessor map number five Lot number 38 in District c f with town clerk on May 13 2024 Mr Gilbert are you still await to present your application yes I am thank you to listen um should I um can I share my screen so we could look at some some of the submitted drawings hello she should be all set okay um if you don't if you don't hear me briefly on this sometimes I've lost listening to you because of the storm going on but it comes back so oblivious here um no uh I can't share the screen um I don't have permission got the jacket okay I think something just popped up okay great uh to hit the no instead of the yes to confirm all right can you see um this uh site plan yes okay I'll be as brief as I can it's not that late but um I think my site um is a um is a a a classic uh site that has clear hardships due to topography which is the stream um which is why we bought the property love it um and the zoning lot setbacks as well as septic component setbacks um originally 22 years ago when I moved here I got a variance to add an addition to the house which is what this illustration is from um uh the left side of the site is South so uh the addition was built towards the street or to the West just for orientation um and it was quite clear to the zoning board who unanimously voted to give us this um the the variants to encroach upon the front yard setback because the stream is to the east of the building we couldn't build there and the uh zoning setbacks uh lot line setbacks are to the north um as well as the driveway and the septic component setbacks were to the South those pink circles are the septic tank and the pump station Etc um let me see if I can go to the next oh uh there um so the existing garden shed can you hear me yes okay the existing garden shed sits um uh halfway over the the setback for the leeching field um and um the the new proposed shed which I'm going to try to get to there the new proposed shed is just an unheated shed um that's bigger but it has a the reason for its size uh is the program which is um I want to house a 22t um wooden kayak I built by hand that needs to be kept dry instead of being under my deck um three other kayaks and then snow blowers an antique device um lawnmowers and more and shelving units for uh tools and supplies so uh that's how we arrived at the size of this um it over apse or or Canal levers um over the septic setback slightly which which is allowed uh you're allowed to do that according to the the state uh septic laws and it's pushed tight up against the existing fence um the southern edge of it is up tight against the fence but it's built not I'm not proposing to build it deeper into the side yard setback um be um I I pushed up against the fence to minimize how much it sticks over the 30 foot no disturb zone for the for the stream and I didn't want to go push it up break open up the fence and go deeper into the side yard setback because this seems like a more logical um sighting for the the structure um I believe globally speaking side yard setbacks are important uh much more so in districts A and B but they become less relevant on larger Lots which have to topographic and site constraints um and especially when you're Jas in an unbuildable Woodlands portion of my neighbor's property his house is on the other side of the stream and um these are just Woodlands to his West to the south of my property um so in this case I'm not proposing to go closer to the lot line which is fully 15 feet away from the corner of the uh uh one corner of the shed I just merely want to do what makes sense in terms of land use and uh just a logical sighting of the shed as well as architectural sense I believe this is a very logical lo location for a garden shed and uh I I'm happy to answer any questions anybody on the board have questions I think for the people who didn't make the site visit um it was clear that there was a fence there and that there was was a stream the other side of the fence between his house and the neighbors house through the set Mar and a large leing field that sort of thing so there wasn't a lot of space I could tell um anybody any member of the public wish to make a comment on this application there's nobody left I don't think qu okay can you stop sharing your screen for a second absolutely yeah does anybody on Zoom wish to make wish to speak on this application and so please raise your hand no okay you ready to close the public hearing I moved to close the public hearing do I have a second Catherine seconds all in favor yes okay I'm voting my Bo deliberation excuse meing himself so he can talk it's only if you recuse yourself you can't talk I didn't understand that where were your Robert rules you had to go sit in the audience and make a a comment as a member of the public if you recuse yourself like Sarah did why don't you me out I would have called on you good Lord excuse me Sarah yeah um there is one um hate to this being an architect but uh the section drawing I gave you shows a landing and a slight ramp um my site plan doesn't show that so we in making your decision if you you might make additional comment that this would include um a landing and ramp to the north of the structure because it being built on um peers concrete peers it's up above the soil a bit so we need to be able to get up into it okay okay I move to approve the application of Gary Gilbert for a variance under sections 5.3 5.6 and 12.3.3 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to construct a 12T by 30ft Tool Shed containing a landing and a ramp which encroaches into the front set back one foot and into the side set back four feet 11 Magnolia Avenue assessor map number five Lot number 38 in District C fil with the town clerk on May 13 2024 based on a finding that the location of the proposed Tool Shed owing to circumstances relating to the shape and topography of the land and the requirement to meet septic system and stream buffer setback requirements especially affecting such land and structure but not generally affecting the Zone zoning District in which it is located a literal enforcement of provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship Financial otherwise and the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw based on the following conditions The Tool Shed is located as depicted on the partial site plan new prepared by Gary Gilbert and included in the application filed with the town clerk on May 13 2024 The Tool Shed is constructed substantially in accordance with the plan elevation framing detail prepared by Gary Gilbert dated five 12 24 I have a second any discussion vote Sean approv Ryan cther Rob thank you right want the only question I have yeah is and perhaps it seems counterintuitive to try to keep a kayak dry I just don't understand oh during the winter so it doesn't get snow on it okay okay okay now we move on to administ ative matters thank you very much thanks Gary um we have meeting minutes from January 17th 2024 February 21st 2024 and March 20th 2024 I reviewed these and Katherine has made amendments today I submitted some minor amendments today so I'll make a motion to approve those three minutes as amended by Katherine do I have a second yes you like it I guess I my amendments all in favor I approved yes okay I approved my own amendments okay we'll do that we can't leave we have to remain sheltered for 30 minutes shut up it's like Ohio where I grew up with tornado warnings we better go in the basement and there's well the the other administrative matters is that we have two new members um Georgia Pendergast and Linda ringis Dian Diane Diane oh God thank you Dian Lee I'm gonna call Linda forever why I don't know Lind you went to you went to school with someone named Linda no it's Diane um Diane yeah um and they have been appointed by the select board effective July 1st 20124 so I'm hoping that Brian and Katherine will send Debbie Powers an email now sure resigning confirming that you're resigning as of 6:30 2022 add my name too and I I want to thank you guys I just want to know where my chair is you did a really good job and we're really going to miss you take this one and you staying on I come back my kids are older don't count me out but for now okay good I'm out for a while we count on it before you close your meeting can I add something because a mistake and I think been corrected for your records because it's wrong feel free to send me an email send a letter or an email for the record you can send an email or letter for the record spoke you can send an email or letter for the record send an email to Gail Hunter yeah it'll get what please she's at Town Hall it's Hunter G at she does our she's our administrative she put it in as part of the record she's the clerk for she'll notate it in the minute he said he our property encloses theirs and we never did that okay well your your building's in the ZB but we are we are that house is 250 years old I know way too happy about getting I know so you're gonna keep coming I'm also on the e for