##VIDEO ID:ByL7XR8dKrs## let's get the meeting started 7 o'clock this is a meeting of the town of nordon zoning board of appeals there are four items listed on the agenda tonight the first is the continued application for zero point Street the applicant um is Dan Rich owner is Joanne Horton and I think I see Mr Rich sorry run through the agenda first no no we'll uh open that okay we continued this from um couple times I last meeting of course and um so did you come up with um any further information that we had discussed or that we didn't discuss I I think and you can correct me if I'm wrong one of the issues was that the the lot was created by his parents I don't know you know 20 something years ago when they needed part of it over to the gentleman they retain themselves a smaller block which is the one in question yeah and the issue was that time up can you um it's sort of like you created your own hardship I think one that was raised I I did look at I have a case out of Taunton Massachusetts lamb versus his Zoning Board of appeal and that particular case the individual subdivision and they were two L it was out of subdivision they were undersized we sold the subdivision they person bought it um developed the subdivision but had these two lots that were undersized okay he let them go he didn't pay any taxes on them because he didn't think he could do anything let them go by tax title the original person that subdivided it bought to went back to the town and asked for vs and the J excuse me and he only appeals Z board and time said no because you you were the original person yeah you got and you knew that uh they actually went to Spirit Court spirit said yeah I agreed with the Z appeals they appealed to the appeal score the appeal Score says no that's not a fact that shouldn't be a fact of for now just because he was virally he's the one that did it so in this particular case that was BL versus the bo bo appe and they they cited uh appeals court cited different um reasons why that he this person even though he initially started and he knew it when he bought it back in tax out that it was not other side but that should not prude him from getting the bar so in this particular case it's a little bit different is Mr bacon yeah was three the three siblings they got it from their parents who the parents were the one that did this a long time ago and that shouldn't preclude Chris and and his two sisters from giving a variance because they in fact they didn't start the process it was given to them through from courts oh actually through it wasn't really a probate done PRI to the death so technically wasn't a probate would have been a probate had it gone to probate but they didn't do it they got it through deep but the three people that own it now had nothing to do with them this was done well before them it doesn't denigrate from the variance rules uh it doesn't denigrate from the from the uh attention of zoning this in that area there are a lot of lots that are very small because they were created way pride of zoning this was not created Pride zoning I'm not trying to tell the bo that it was it was not z uh so it didn't qualify for smallen but it it didn't denigrate it doesn't denigrate from the zoning intention it doesn't denigrate from the neighborhood there the opposition to it the house is going to be 300 ft back and u i I understand that and it's a concern I was bra last 7 I'm not sure which me that they felt well you know it wasn't you but it was your parents and again I alluded to that lot at the end of tipping place with that lady it was a little bit different issue it wasn't undiz lot it was a furnish lot and this this this this board plant to heri she actually sold a lot and retained half of it for herself in the back it fronted on tipping place with only FL 44 to front it then she came back to this court and obtained relief from this from this board and she obtained relief saying they gave her the they gave her the varies that she subsequently sold a lot but she created she actually created her own h on that one in this particular case it's different as they take it when the parents the parents did it gave it to them later on if he can I his bl's not big enough but it's 300 ft you w't even see it from the street uh there's several locks right through continuous to it that they were built on PR zoning with they built P zoning that don't compart with the 880,000 foot now in fact a lot of ony don't comp with the 80 80,000 Square feat in required right now I I just don't think that the Deni of variance based on well you didn't create it but one of your relatives did so that's too bad I don't think that's that's fair to the the baker family the three owners right now and I have that case if you want yeah I'm not you know I haven't seen it yeah um not a problem would have to read it over obviously but uh when were the Lots divided what year I think 1993 let me just I got that here so it was after the implementation of Z no you know yes no I'm sorry the um that that LW was relatively uh 2023 no 2023 was when the last this piece that we're talking about was granted from the mother to the three children that was in 2023 the other one uh they did it to uh let me see I have that but when was the L created when she sold it yeah I got that get that information for you B actually received a lot back in 1983 and then that was that then the the bigger piece and they they Mr Baker and Mr Baker that one second it was after the Z obviously okay so the notes that I have where the parel was created in October 1994 when an anr plan was recorded 1995 I have it they they subdivide the parle to Joyce major and it was took place in April 25th 1995 okay but what about 102 to Leonard Street yep the lot off to the other side2 it's on your yeah that was going by I think Mrs Baker I don't think it going by Mr Baker but I we had asked for if you knew the history of that lot you know what I don't because that was cleaved off as well right I'm not sure when that was I sure on my MTH I know there was a big parcel on 11 Street okay so think Mr was on that it was the lotting question was created in 1994 after zoning was in effect right oh yes absolutely it Wasa the small lot statute 1033 was in the zoning bylaws at the time yeah but that wouldn't apply I I initially had written the letter to Nick Nick said this I think Nick's opinion was it doesn't apply talk to the build actually Town Council and Town Council came back to me and say you have to prove these things and we couldn't because it was simply not a small yeah it was created after right small exemption numbers does not apply but when it was created the the zoning was in effect so great yes the small lot exemption was there in the bylaw so we have to understand that they knew they were creating a nonconforming laot oh I'm not disputing that yeah I'm not disputing that at all what I'm saying is the his parents had done this and they get it from that and so you're saying well your argument to me it sounds like is that well they created their own ex they created their own hardship so therefore there shouldn't be any Rel for them but but the cases that I just told you the one especially right off tipping place right up the street they she created her own hot sh she in fact I think she had applied I think I have the the opinion she applied many many years ago and it was denied and she came back again or she withdrew it but that was that was to create a CIS sack that's how it was resolved I think wa right but what I'm telling you this no is that that she created that and she got a variance in that but there was all there was already a house there no the the house was in the front this so there was a separate lot it was a vacant lot it was he's correct it was a vacant lot okay you does the board have questions so the note I could on my last one was when when it changed was our question one of our major questions and we got the answer was we're not arguing that at all but I don't think we for some reason I wrote that so I think that was one of our questions so um that's the only thing I okay I think that's the only question that I [Music] had we don't know what the zoning requirement for loot size was at that time I think we they I think it was 60,000 remember I told you last time even at that time it wouldn't have been a legal lot right okay I then changes only to 80,000 afterwards but it wasn't would if just say we go back in time and she she somebody tried to do it then still wouldn't have comported to the to the the zoning byw at that time it still would not have been big enough at that time questions for the applicant I'm going to ask if anybody else in attendance has uh input on this for or against the application is filed or in attendance remotely No Hands raised no no hands raised remotely anybody else in attendance to speak for or against the application no okay is there a motion to should we close the public hearing or do we need to know more I haven't read that case so no that's my only question like I want to look at that case yeah I the one I just saided yeah and I haven't looked at it I have no problem with that I'll give you that and I do have your own cases on that one on bir street because I think that's that's perect I can that's your own decision I give you a copy can you give us a copy of the appeals court decision yeah okay can you do you have a copy now or do you want to email but I'll ask you to email it before the meeting not yeah yeah that's fine I the reason I I I was the attorney I didn't the attorney that did I was going to ask him some questions so no I think that we should at least look at that before we make a decision okay it may in fact all right I mean the next meeting is December 11 is is there a desire to that laude absolutely I do it this is to important you want to do that make a to continue I would say yes just because he I mean he brought it to our attention we should definitely look at it okay I know we're continuing again for a third time fine to council ask for their opin yeah we have some Council um emails in the file from but it was from May or from February actually this is all changed a couple of times times from that that that letter was in my response to the small exemption you gave it to me which I could I do not call if I don't know should you C my response to that was we couldn't comply with a small I that's part of this email chain I'm just noting that it back in February and I actually crossed out part of what she said I said it doesn't apply anymore so that's right um okay then motion to continue to December 11 at again ver 701 to call it is that a motion I'll make that motion I any further discussion um I will try to contact councel to see if you guide us further but with that case that we'll hopefully get within the next couple of days so we can chew it over Thanksgiving chew I would send it to Brian Brian Brian yeah yeah either one EAS yeah either either person not to us directly you know we'll get it from them and thanks for pass it I mean I wouldn't mind probably having decision at that next meeting well I think I think we should be moving it along right the motion is to continue to December 11 y all those in favor of that motion Mr tari Mr yes so continue to look at that but yeah send it to us in the next day or two so we can thanks yeah thanks thank you um how also dig up Bird Street again I remember that matter but didn't bring it okay the next item on the agenda is um zero East Main Street Island Brook LLC comprehensive permit chapter 40b they had sent a continuance I today I don't know if you got it I don't know if it's brushed all the members too but yeah Brian passed it along right I afforded to uh them during the meeting okay yeah so they've asked for continuous Gra engineering peer review is still not done I don't know what's going on there but we we had a signal in September I think that there was some scheduling issue I don't know if it's internal de Graves or if it was the applicants delay in getting plans to them but I don't see any reason to not um honor the request to send you unless there's any other no I'm do that yeah so we're continuing this is there motion let's do motion to continue Z the second item on the December 11 agenda say 703 or yeah second all those in favor Mr Mr Mr so we're just continue with things tonight well there are two other matters so let's get to that now the next item on the agenda is zero Hill Street the applicant is Dan Campbell owner is an luto who is here to speak about that uh just yes you are what who's going to speak to it can you identify yourself to the record I'm just but are you Mr laruso yes and is this uh who who is setting up uh Nick NOA from Level Design Group level design yeah Okay C you want me to point the board we don't have okay yeah unfortunately it's on our computer you got to be here to see pictures yeah we haven't we haven't fully set up the town hall yet so probably turn that turn the camera yeah point it if you want or this way it's not a whole lot going on but it's okay have you officially opened or yeah go right ahead and tell us what you are looking for it's a little confusing I think you're looking for variance relief for three part in one application but are they separate carsales yet they all well that's the thing they're hold on one second yeah how far is it what's the uh I I don't know how far is that that I what's the distance it shouldn't be it's I'm not a bu I should be okay right yeah did you get a notice no so I should be all right then that's more than you if you didn't get a notice and you weren't on your bu list you shouldn't be in bu it's um it's not that technical if you feel no no I'm good I just want to make sure I'm good I'm not I live on crane so okay and disclosure to the applicant Mr on street is is comfortable it's a we [Music] Havey by now okay that noise there was one of the butters that up their M on okay um go ahead sure so for the record Nick fasten level Design Group um I work with Dan Campbell he's the person who submitted the application and has been coordinating with uh the town on this so to answer your question to the town it's one lot there's one assessor parcel or what I'll show as this whole area okay except for what it's that's separate lot four is is a separate property owned by uh a separate owner um the reality of the situation is that these three lots here were created back in um 1967 yeah which is they show up on the assessor uh in GIS map as like dashed so it's that they're there but I don't think the town was officially recognizing them as individual Lots that's why the application came in as one one application for the three lots they don't have parcel numbers but they're legally created Lots from an plan extend upward or is it just the lower squares so the existing Lots today are 1 two and three and this is their extent So currently they're buildable pre-existing not conforming Lots that's what they would be technically so so if you identify those be lot then what the what's the back so the back this is just a separate parcel of land that lot number four that's what you're trying to explain to us the fourth lot no no this there's lots one two three four and this never had a lot in number this is just a parcel this is all one owner right one correct yes um except for the ex except for the little except for this for the existing houses there there's a home there correct correct it's been it was there in 1967 when this subdivision plan was endorsed by the planning board okay and recorded So the these are yeah than for coopera for the camera this the primary Reon this is why I brought this plan as well this is the record plan is there an anr in process now so there is no formal anr what we have here this is a draft of a plan and it just shows what we're proposing to do should the relief be granted and what has occurred over the past few months yeah Dan has been in contact with planner with Town Council and the building official because there was many interpretations on how to look at this and what their determination Town officials planning building and Town Council was that a variance would be required to add additional land to these three existing Parcels so what the goal is I'm sorry I kind of got into I want you to keep potatoes of it I didn't understand what it happened and not happening so this is exactly good the goal of the application is to add this remaining land behind each of these existing one two three lots to give them more land area right it's an r80 Zone required um you know that's 80,000 sare ft of required land area these have about 20,000 ballpark existing existing what would they have if they would have anywhere from 50 to about 50 53 so just under 50 to 53 and so still not meeting the R8 still not meeting the r80 which is why I believe zoning yeah is saying that it's a variance um well you have your building official right here Building Commissioner yeah okay I'm sorry I wasn't interrupt second so you're you want to extend it from Hill Street all the way back to say the new Walking path correct that's that new Walking path yes sure right correct okay that's one Mitch I was understanding that right yeah and then this would be uh a remaining parcel where uh possible future development or whatever whatever would occur this really is just time but I'm sorry that where he was just pointing to is a body of water correct I mean if we could fit a single family house here they they would they would like to do so there's also a cemetery there five cemeter yeah yeah I thought there was also an eess in there for something I didn't see development so that expains it I just looked on Google Maps quickly that's the one house that's there the is the owner of that one house here yes all of us yeah three of us what is your name I'm Amy Carley we live at 61 that's the one house in the cent of all the Horseshoe thank you I actually know your house well I swear to God well I know the old wior that used saws we'll ask we'll ask you to comment in just a minute um go ahead yeah sorry yeah so the goal here or the goal of the location is I mean these are three buildable Lots no matter what they were created these three they're not buildable without relief of some sort no well they're pre-existing non-conforming they were created prior to the implementation of the zoning bylaw requirements which you have today in the r zoning District so if I may real quick yeah um what I was talking about earlier was the packet of emails that we sent back and forth to the out Council her opinion of these three lots is that they were they're now having common ownership but from a z standpoint there one lot that's what [Music] I that's what I was going to you in a minute but go ahead and tell us what you're intending the intent is to have three buildable Lots here and put up three residential put up three standard residential single family dwellings with with septics and you know you did give us quad PL showing the house where it would sit the where they yeah so you're given a plan showing that of a house on the tiny lot and a house on the expanded lot and what the difference I don't think I saw on the tiny L placed on the tiny lot but I saw on the expanded lot oh it is on the tiny they become bigger if you keep going in the package which which one's that under D because there's two it should be the zba one zba yeah oh I printed out so they're pictured on the small Ro I don't think I see a pictur on the larger exted l oh I got yeah I'm sorry I got but okay oh yeah well you know shows how much I paying attention when I looked at this yesterday okay and that's why 1 a 2 a 3 a as opposed to 1 123b a signifies the larger expanded one so modified one correct okay not yeah you want I was going to wait till he finish to give them up well let's let's listen to I mean no that's that's essentially the the application um with regards to what's being proposed here has one lot no see that's that's one issue that's one question how would we handle it I'm not aware of the full conversation there but you know a record plan subdivided this into three lots going back to 19667 correct so we have records of that it's right here and I believe it's in the do you have a plan before the planning board now no no be before we go to playing board to do said subdivision or modification a lots it was detailed that this relief would be required so you get the relief first then based on my experience if you get zoning relief to create uh or modify Parcels you're then a definitive subdivision with a thousand waivers on it but Town Council also said no it' be an an anr so there's a little bit of it's not the way I have seen seen it done multiple times in the past so there's been a lot of back and forth on this item with the interpretations of Town Council and we respect Town council's opinion and that's why we're here with this application to me these are pre-existing non-conforming lots and we should be here for a special permit to modify legally created pre-existing non-conforming lots and an attempt to make them more conforming to add more area can you tell me why between 1967 and now the records weren't clarified I I don't have that information and the owner doesn't have history on might what what has occurred I mean obviously when lots are created and they don't get built on right away sometimes these things get lost in the shuffle but it is noted that if you pull up the gis Map There's clearly dashed lines here signifying that the town was semi aware of this situation whether yeah it was they gave them actual parcel names and numbers but it it's clear that there was some sort of awareness understood to to do that so um now are there individual Deeds for each parcel no I don't believe so so that's I think that's maybe why separate assessor um lots and numbers were never created but just because the assessor doesn't create an assessor parcel doesn't mean it's not legally created lot that's kind of okay where we are today can I ask members you have questions for the applicant at this point on what the applicant said or what he's looking for no I I think I understand what he's doing one was the how long has Mr own the property now couple months yeah recent so my question after that is why these didn't merge by operation of the same thing I was just citing when when buing was created yeah which is this for the record it's bylaw 175 6.3 small Lots continuous lots non-conforming lots and I I won't read the whole thing but basically a and seat a vacant lot having at least 50 ft of fontage and 5,000 square ft area each of those small Parcels has that they have at least that yes yeah right laid out by a recorded planner prior to the adoption of zoning in [Music] 74 and not adjoining at the time of the adoption any other vacant lot or lots of the same owner may be built upon so as to conform to a minimum side yard 13 ft minimum front set back of 25 ft okay that's what part A says b if the Lots or lot in subsection a at the time of the adoption of zoning and join other vacant lot or Lots or non vacant lot lots of the same owner they may be built upon within 5 years from the date of the recording of the de or plan or from the date of the endorsement of the plan as not requiring subdivision approval whichever is earlier now I don't know which which one of those two things operates but we're talking about 1967 and then adoption of zoning in 74 so basically if one owner had small Lots sitting side by side contiguous zoning comes in 74 and says well you need a bigger you need bigger LS so it's not to be unfair to be fire owner this says you got five years to build on the small LS that was a 5 years from 1974 that's Part B and then part C says any non-conforming to joint in single ownership prior to the adoption shall be combined for building purposes in order to to provide a lot as close to the zoning minimum requirement as possible so if you don't build that within 5 years GL owned it then 60 74 was owning yeah five years to build houses on these small Lots will give you that because we Chang the law on us change the law you you give you five years to build that doesn't happen they this I think part C say they merge into one to create as big a lot as you can get now maybe that's more than one law then there can be some other division into two I don't know but like eight years ago on the reservoir where they had check the checker board this is not the check what you're reading is correct so without having read the email thing and I I will ask for copies of that is that basically ni what you understand council's position was or was there a denial of anything from your office this is not an appeal no no no it's an application for bar yeah so question just was was this opinion conveyed to today was have all the emails let's ask Nick first yeah what what is your understanding of the history when did this come about and so that this whole situation which email change show Dan reached out to Paul the town planner about this asking some questions brought me in um we sent over the proposed plan originally he wanted to do an anr um yeah so an approval that required planning board I think is the only board that can approve the movement or changing of lot lines and a lot not the zoning board right so that was the original proposal was to an anr these three lots we'll call it four Lots right the bigger parts of back okay the three in the front to create three bigger Lots the taller Lots yeah yeah Town council's original opinion was that the planning board cannot endorse anr plan if there's not sufficient or adequate fundage based on the zoning District of L B these L teach have 125 ft of Frontage take 125 so so in an R8 zoning District you require to have 150 so council's opinion was that they that the planning board cannot Endor a in our plan because there's not adequate frage second to that her opinion was now that these even though these Lots were created before zoning as you just read in 6.3 they're held up in common ownership now been merged for owning purposes in one single lot I assume they were in 197 they've been having Tom own for 11 months give or take yeah but Mr Luso yeah I I don't know what what the the action or how many people bought them from uh it was one a state yeah so one state yeah so that that was that was her opinion of of all this stff secondly to that kind of like a 2A thing was that if the lot lines are recreated through an our plan these are no longer pre-existing non-conforming Lots right they're newly created lots that do not conform the OWN yeah so you're creating a nonperforming lot which I don't believe from the zoning standpoint you're allowed to do well then they would have to come to us and say either way right and that's but but then you get jammed up because now you created your own hardship right right so it's kind of like a catch 22 yeah um from from our standpoint okay so then applicant applied to us for varant Rel that they yeah so again I didn't I maybe I missed it my suggestion and you'll see it in the email to Mr Campbell was three really four separate applications so each individual parcel had a decision on it um you know I guess not assuming for I can better term assuming you know the variants were granted the decision would have to reference the individual par number for each law yeah U which is a technical problem that I solv I these Lots or not and we never had one application for like three or four Lots that's PL board have to come for for each you run into this issue before like what comes first the the kind of thing right planning board is running board but this is like exactly what we stand by I think I think it's it's on our perspective yeah I think we have to go back to again like we were talking about the I think when the zoning was created after five years it was mured and it's one L for building purposes for building purposes it's not three yeah or four as all three really four the same I gu the only question I would have through you Mr chairman but be the three small Lots up front and the bigger Parts on the back were those purchased from the same person or were those separate lots that you just acquired separately I know the three up front were purchased together no I purchased them all together okay so they were all sold they were all purchased from the same person right what what I the question I have real question is did one owner own them all in 74 the adoption was zoning I think it sounds like that is correct hold on hold on I think it sounds like they were from what we understand but we could ask the applicant to present us with who owned the property I mean that's what AM tells us to do right I have the ask the applicant for information that would allow action but in this case we're kind of asking the applicant to shoot himself in the foot because yeah he's gonna I assume and come back they were held by state before the estate it was people or company or something I don't know that but not knowing that I mean I'd suggest we should find that out before [Music] we a decision although you have it you do have a deed in the documents y that's that's from 86 it also reference as a sale in 78 I saw that from ' 86 and I wondered why that was there you know what is that the whole partial or you don't I don't it's not really clear to me what whether it's for the three of front or for the whole thing right yeah and to be honest I don't have those details we'd have to do some detailed you know digging at the registry of deeds um to to get that information the take for our purposes is aren they merged into one assuming that they were this Deed from 87 whether it's one big parcel or as the town records kind of show or three or four different pars as the town records kind of show and I I'm not faulting you know the applicant Town records but I I'm not sure how we could come out and say how I mean the applicant could go to planning board set a plan where he divides it up into bigger lots that have Frontage either two or three I don't know if there's up to three and I guess if they're side by side no only two you know um and then say we're going to move for this anr um and then come back or maybe ja conforming La that if theyr it although you said planing board is is looking solely from town Town opinion solely at Frontage so the AFC could create two lots sufficient Fage and maybe sufficient area too byr and then would need to come to us at all or why does that beting here show the map is like a recorded you know I mean a plot plan and it shows it sold it sold as one but well the itself is even says one two and three oh it does I can I can write that on my deep that I have three LW yeah but I think I think the point to to reference is that um even though in in say in 74 there were four laws the second bylaw was adopted in 79 you know that day in 74 5 years later the Helen ownership you know your your window is ceased no I know that but why and I guess I don't understand maybe that process of the how how does that get filed but at the end of the day was the I get it totally get it I get I get at that point if if we're arguing just for argument purposes if it was owner one owner yeah zoning comes in five years later you know zoning says Hey NOP sorry it's all one loot how can you file a deed you can record anything yeah you can I I know that paid 45 whatever it is now and a tax stamp at the recorder of beeds and we had but you could file it I don't know if it was filed for separate Lots or for the whole one laot I you could file anything you could file people have filed Deeds or reads against judges that they have gpes against I did a case once a judge in rhod Island sued the person who mess his title by just filing BS we had to we went to court and got the court the judge was trying to sell his property so just because that now suggest that there's three different yes it's not the end of the story okay but I know what you're saying I just I wanted to just make sure that I just but even so as Lucas is saying mon before then I this is 86 this but this shows that there were separate small than because common hea he can no I just didn't yeah I just wanted to know about I guess he can I just wanted to make sure that I want to know how that could be filed I guess there's no checking right you can file just don't check it the recorder takes it you check with the number know the numbers here yeah it's part of my 48 years I've never done so you don't want to be registered exactly these things up here just get stuck in a book and given a page number book number I mean the deed suggested one paral it says it but but the map that goes along with it says it's it could be just they mentioned separate I mean yeah but right I don't hope [Music] pars I mean the only that's what the question is but doesn't yeah doesn't have the story they have to prove other know that's something that is is I I answer we answered my question I know I understand what you're saying now okay it can be filed and there's no back check back check the deed that we have deed is 86 in the cas that was sold by James Carter yeah so it was held in common ownership in ' 86 I suppose the applicant can go back and see who owned it the or we can go back and you know ask any of Arch who owned it in 74 but that's up usually says the applicant has to give you materials by which they can we've done it before so I think what we have to say right now is I it looks like assum these were held in common ownership we can't do anything because they it's one laot then they would have to go to plan board and say we want to divide so much of it to make either conforming or nonconforming and for what Nick saying we don't want to do that to make nonconforming because then we could next St say well Sor you can't do that yeah you know how to make two conforming Parcels here right and they can do that now so I think at this point we have to ask the applicant to continue to December 11 and if they have information that these weren't held in common ownership from 67 to 74 um to to us but I'd suggest that you you consider what we're saying that you might have to divide them differently than what was shown and I give you credit I see what you're saying something happened in' 67 yeah I mean request the continu on to do a little bit more uh research and then you know facts don't pan out then yeah we TR to withdraw without prejudice yeah I think that would be smart on your part and I think need to do at this point so sorry is there another emotion to continue this matter again before we do that can I hear from the woman in the audience again what what is your name Amy Conley con yes you said that thank you and you live in the house that's lot four what was known as lot four and what do you have to add to the discussion for or against or just factual or question well maybe just factual because I well so we bought 61 Hill Street maybe two years ago that's that okay it's lot four uh we bought it from someone named Paul lamb um who resided there for a couple of years and actually I know Mr James Carter very well um he and I actually um appealed a project on Hill Street on the opposite side on the Kesler project so he and I both fought that um and actually I tried many times to purchase the land from Mr well I didn't want the whole I couldn't afford to buy the whole thing I wanted to buy a piece to give us a little bit bigger because our we're like 19,000 you know can't do anything uh but he really wanted to you know he had to set price and that was that so he is still around he's around he he he sold it to um Mr Luso uh he did not no he so sorry I believe that's his wife so actually I think if know you probably know the numbers better than I do I don't have the paperwork to show that I think Mr James Carter James Carter and Joanne Carter actually own the land back 67 no not 67 74 maybe um anyways a long time they it was sold I mean we we've done the historical because it's it's a very our house was built in 1790 oh wow so it's a very historical home and the land around it I don't know that we have found bits and pieces um you know of historical things from when it was U uh World War II hostage camp and was it really yes that whole area bi Standish was why don't I know so they us the railroad in the back to transport you mean p yes hostages yeah I do that so on the land and actually yeah surprised Mr Carter owned he lived in the residence actually and then he divorced while it was a PW uh M Mr Mrs when they were Mr and Mrs Carter they lived there and he actually tried to to buy it back he wanted to buy the land back I mean the house back but someone else bought it um where I was going but anyways like he had a farm on that land and you can actually see the old wood be of where theyes you can see the electrical but those wood beans now actually sit in water because the that parcel is very wet uh and my question I guess for the Building Commissioner would be that r80 is continuous upwind is that correct continuous up in the B so if you look at the 6.6 Acres it is very wet and I know they've just been out to do the we see all the wood flags all over the place so if you actually take away the wetlands the square footage of each lot is actually much smaller so from a Our concern is because we're already like our our boundary is like right there is that if we're looking at septic plans not to mention the disruption to the environment because we've got snapping turtles that come up from that pond and they come up to the Upland to plant their their eggs um but we we've done a lot of history on I'm looking this up because well because there's a cemetery up in that right corner the eddes the Ed family but that they would have to approach that oh yes but I'm just saying that in a different B that's not us we don't have jurisdiction over that oh no but I'm just protect I can tell you that that the parcel has been in single ownership as long as we've been able to actually find records okay well we just from a historical perspective we found it so interesting anyway um okay thank you so you're here to give us information but I assume you're opposed to well I you know I I have talked uh with Mr Luso and we are still interested in purchasing you know things you know don't go quite to plan um um just to give us a little bigger room Elbow Room so to speak um where from where we said understood let me yes ma'am can you identify yourself for I'm Metta Woods I own the other piece of property five at one time yeah it was probably lot five at one time on the right hand side here this is me that's all you that's all me so I thought let me look at the other map I thought applicant own that as well now I own this right here and so this is supposed to be a proposed um entrance but there's because of the Wetland here there's not even 100 ft from my property to the Wetland so they they could never go back here where the cemetery and everything else is okay and yes I've been there 33 years there's snap and turtles that come up every year in my yard enormous ones laying eggs and everything so yeah that's all very protected and again that would be an obstruction for them but we don't that would be right contct I was here because I wanted to know what their plans were thank you appreciate that could I just one more thing I know I said this The Building Commissioner okay this was from building commission oh okay Paul lamb was looking to buy the land just uh for the record U as conry has handed and we'll put this in the record you can take a picture of it or we can send it to you um a letter to Paul lamb 61 Hill Street September 10 2020 from Chris carmichel Building Commissioner um I don't think he really spells out okay whether or not there's more than one lot there or there's only one lot there he just simply says which correct me if I'm wrong but if if this was hypothetically to be approved you're not looking to do anything other than single family homes right so he's talking about Frontage and minimum lot size which is a requirement of that zoning District anyway okay yeah send me a copy of that okay um if the want get a copy of [Music] that play I skate out on the pond I skated on the pond 100% I did yeah I'm not that far I'm like I'm on the other side of cran Street when you make that turn um the second Hall I didn't know you grew up there yeah so our was friends were grm  and Ian the wi that lived there they've probably sold 100 times now since then but yeah that back in the day that was a when I bought my correct I remember you buying your home uh but that used to be a one family home it used to be stairs that went up to the second floor yeah from the what I don't know what it is now but it was a kitchen it's a two family yeah now it's a two I think they shut it off yeah took it right down to the studs and and we did the whole inside okay yeah I I just happen to know that well okay so we need some more information um is there a motion to continue this to December at say 7:05 though it won't go at 7:05 it'll have to be later I'll make that motion any further discussion and this is with the applicants permission um Mr Jor yes Mr W Mr Noel votes yes as well U thank you if there's information you can come up with and provide please let us know ahead of time right I will I'll look at the email has them all they're all emails with anyway but uh thank you for the explanation and your time and we'll be back on December 11 uh the third item on the agenda as you heard thank you thank you um okay the last item on our agenda tonight is 78 L stre the applicant present remotely movich 48 minut oh I have 7 here on the have a good night thank you thank you yes I'm present we send it to yes thank thank you um who is presenting this application um so it is uh myself and the sign installer which is present National sign team for IDI Boston Warehouse can you identify yourself for the record yes Mira velkovich velkovich okay thank you uh Miss velkovich are you the owner or an agent I'm the agent for the owner and the sign installer okay so I think I understand what's going on with this one it's nice to have one at night that I can understand ahead of time you're looking for some signage that exceeds what the bylaw says the bylaw I believe says no greater than 72 square feet and somewhat dependent on the length the front of the building but in any case no bigger than 72 square feet here you calculated 165.024 Square F feet roughly in yeah signage area so 93.0 Square addition ft um I see I see the plans and thank you for them I just a [Music] question or note for the record the page showing uh can you see this the front of the uh building which is I guess a warehouse is this not in use at this time it's it's vacant they're in the process of uh P didn't f up they're in construction right now it's building though it is new building correct okay so this image the front of the uh building is the U the sign that measures 160 square feet correct yes yep and just for noting to numbers they calculated it as follows they took this Square for the IDI Distributors and then a smaller section just to the top and the bottom of the lettering add them together and it's 165.024 height area insulation and that comes out to 160 there are some other renderings though here in the packet for some other signage on the building one is on a glass door and then for the side of the building that's not part of this application correct no I I believe I was advised to submit um for everything that we're going to be installing and including the the sign that's non-conforming okay but this application only concerns the one non-conforming on the front of the building correct yes what what is your name for the record mea belovich oh you I'm sorry another person appeared on camera Mike is also there he's the sign installer so he has more details on the sign specs and installation details what is what is your name Mike for the record Mike moral okay thank you y I couldn't see the screen from for a yeah um so it's not up to us to look at like all the signs they submitted this application is just about the front sign because the sign bylaw does say something about the number of signs and total square feet and all that but the application concerns just the sign on the front of the building the lighted large sign that's the 165 .06 Square ft so with all due respect to the applicant submitting the other renderings I don't know where that fits in the bylaw and I didn't research the bylaw to to wonder if that needed variance as well just Varian for that okay so you're dealing with just the sign the lighting sign on the front of the building um I I understand that is it IDI that's moving in and and they want a sign marking the building is that visible from the road at that point I couldn't tell from uh Maps Google would be hard I I don't know if there's share screen capabilities on here but I there is what is proposed versus what is within sure go ahead go ahead and share if if you can yeah I'm gonna try here while he's doing that y the sign this the front for side faces the Lenin Street Extension project but from act from Len meaning the the new Yale Appliance building and then this building right so from that cisac area call it where that extension order is you can see the sun it's on the front side of the building okay but from Leonard Street without going down the extension you can't even see these building that's what I because I think I looked on Leonard Street on Google Map can't see the building that but we have on screen now what your sharing right this uh this top image shows the conforming sign built to code showing it to scale on the building I see um so you could see with the length of the mass of this building how tiny that looks on the bottom here this is where we have the the application that we're applying for to Mo so we can modify this to a larger sign takes up more space uh I got you understood and Mr Tori just commented it actually looks more proportion yeah does lger sign and that is a big building what's the front uh measurement of the building the total length Mera I believe you have that don't you on the plot plan I was looking at it but my my PDF froze my Adobe froze I chair this is uh Jeff O'Neal the developer representing also with our client IDI yes as well so we developed the park uh and built the building so the front dimension of the side of the front is 300 feet long by 200 feet wide the total building is 60,000 square feet so the building certainly large supports a larger Dimension sign go ahead Mr wak do any of the other buildings that have been developed needed this uh variance I our company has personally not been involved in any of those uh other buildings at all um none none of them have sought a variance and for the reason being that this is the last building that's in the bark so when you come up the phase 2 Leonard Street Extension the roadway this building is about 1,200 feet from the turn where you're solely focused on Yale so it really acts as an additional way way finding sign to designate customers and of Idi employees because this is all the way back of the park okay other other other questions from the board is there any reason that the sign can't conform to the requirements and you guys can have another sign Midway I don't believe code allows for two signs yeah there only one sign for per occupancy and and the other areas further are not uh the Lots where IDI could place a sign so Yale owns their lot and there's another lot lot four back there there's no signs at the entrance to this there's there's signs at the entrance of the phase 2 roadway down way down the bottom but that's it so this is really a a facade sign that's on the front architecturally it fits well within what's proposed as you see um because we have a wide swath of Frontage that's on the panel that's uh sitting there that actually looks well with a larger sign okay are there other questions from the board let me ask that if there's anybody to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application uh for the record there's nobody in the room except us uh is there anybody else online Brian could you take down the sherff oh yeah I'm sorry what zone is it this is industrial Zone Oh I thought it was [Music] commercial so there is no hand raised there is no unmuting of mics for any of Butters they can have multiple times I I thought it was commercial Zone but hold on yeah it says Zone commercial okay I could be wrong well the applicant application says commercial it does say in the B that one threee standing sign we ask the developer for it's industrial commercial in case it's it's industrial Zone this industrial yeah I'll tell you right so zoning bylaw mentions that um one freestanding sign per Street Front is not to exceed 12 ft in height and 48 ft in sign is allowed no more than that two free standing signs are allowed industrial so industrial allows it seems like industrial allows two freestanding signs so you could have Waypoint signage are you looking at D and D's on D's about Billboards he is the maintenance Provisions for signs I'm just my opinion is um they've developed several buildings there no one else is needed this exemption you can have a freestanding sign yeah well is the is the building of the tenant I guess and the The Sign Company not cond you also have to think sorry not to interrupt go ahead and Jeff correct me if I'm wrong this is Nick um the free sitting sign is on said lot not on the on the roadway so he can have two free sitting signs on the laot but the lot isn't the road correct and there is a monument sign that's at the entrance to their building but the monument signs font and lettering is only about four inches tall yeah it's not very large it's an organized Park where all the monument signs were were done in uniformity so if you look if you look at the property at at the site plan Lucas they're they're if they were to put two Monument signs they really would be for lack of better term you would have one on the right corner of the building one on the left corner of the building on the PAC way down at the very end of the road not on the Leonard Street portion if that makes sense you know what I mean and there's only one entrance before I say let me pull the plot PL up been there I want to I know build that is it just opens up how how many feet of Frontage is on the street street Frontage I believe I have calculated roughly 421 feet is that right Mirza I can't look at the PLS my my Adobe crashed but it sounds about right so an industrial Zone a second free standing sign of same height in areas allowed if a lot exceeds 300 ft of Frontage yeah no more than two freestanding signs but this isn't the freestanding sign 42.5 Jeff is what the the certified plan shows for Frontage okay is that plan in front of you now on the screen I have it on my iPad I'm not attached to the zoom though sorry but this is industrial Zone will you agree correct it is industrial yes what is um I don't have my book what is the lead up ex that number what are you looking for Tom uh 185 is it 175 84 84 what comes before this standing SIDS for that's great there it's it's 84d regulation of on premise Signs by Zone 175 8.4 d d and that gets you into the industrial zone so it would be D 2 C and 2D I see at Village commercial commercial and Industrial zone signs for L as follows than yeah but if you continue on there they're seeking relief from that same section 84d and then number three which is one wall sign for occupancy not to exceed two square feet in sign areas but there's a calculation to that as well that's the one I was talking about though this three says maximum is 72 square feet or 15% of the frontal area whichever is smaller but that's the applications for a variance to this for a wall sign correct so freestanding sign is different right yes all right yeah um so for the record nobody else to speak in favor of or an opposition to the application do you have any other questions or is there a motion to close the public hearing make a motion public um all those in favor Mr vori hi let was yeah no well okay so the public hearing is closed um open for discussion I'm not sure I'm following um the interplay between freestanding and the wall sign this application is just for the wall sign yes right I mean they're subject to the by law for the freand signs if they if there's a problem with what they want to do they'll have to apply so I'm I'm viewing just the wall sign the lighted sign on the front of the building which allows 72 square feet isn't there a calculation depending on Frontage maximum of the building whenever smaller 72t is going to be much smaller than 15% of the front side of that building where it comes from oh okay 72 [Music] Fe yeah so 72 sare feet is bigger than the 15% the 450 ft then that would only allow them to have 50 square feet or whatever so up to a m so let's just say we give them ma7 the second part doesn't even matter no I don't think it does I didn't do that calculation um but the point is they're looking for 160 5.06 um I don't have any issue with it it's a it's a building sign that's I'm not sure it's even visible from the road they may be spending money on something they don't need but that's what they applied for um I don't have a problem with the variants um but open for discussion I'm good I don't have any questions you know I always go back to setting some precent where someone approaches us later on and said well they got that 180 foot sign they didn't need that no the building in the park has that size sign so I just don't want to have a situation down the line where cand Farms walks in here and says I want my gas station sign to be three times the size we just approved that Yeah we actually we actually approved that in a rain remember that was that was like 72 but their logo design was 78 right it wasn't 72 to 200 but I did the same thing I I remember doing this exact same thing I looked at what it would be on rendering and what it they were asking for and it made sense right again it sounds like it doesn't make sense and the location is it is set far back from the neighborhood or anything like that but I would think if this if like when you look at it it's within the doors right if this thing spend was out by the Windows like hey come on like let's throw it down a bit that makes sense to me to me anyways it balances and I get the square footage I totally get it it to me it's not offensive to anything and it doesn't um I don't think it harms anything in terms of the U Vantage from you know from pastor's body or I I think it's actually more proportioned that way too I I think the bylaw is pretty Antiquated and you know doesn't fit a lot of situations and we're trying to um you know the town wants more commercial tenants I I just don't see a reason to say no to this I'm not saying no to that I'm just I always go back to the precedent situation but you know number five does talk about you know because it's always it comes down to Residential Properties right so Lumin should not be pered to shine onto residential property so that protects that's outside of this application yeah um and they have to have the the the sign off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. so that's in here as well so right there are other there are other restrictions to the use right so yeah as long as there's no okay residents nearby so is there a motion to approve the variance as presented I will attach the um as the plan of record you know the the dimensioned um thetion signed on the front elevation page of the plan um which shows the approximate measurements and I will and will note the measurements on the uh Dimension sheet as well uh is there a motion to approve the variance for for those for ass sign the front wall sign to those directions I'll make that motion second okay any further discussion um how do you vote Yes yes and Mr Noel votes yes as well okay uh thank you very much the you grant appreciate your time thank you very much we appreciate it we'll we'll draw up an opinion a decision and we'll attach a couple of the pages from the presentation 100% the the board discussion was that the owner still has to abide by the other aspects of the bylaw that deal with the Whiting of the sign and the time of day and night and things of that sort the very only concerns the sizing for the front Wells sign uh but with that thank you for your patience and thank you for taking part appreciate it thank you night okay well we did a lot of nothing I love the uh the signs that don't require premise I was looking at that the exact same thing political supposed to be down within so many days of the election church church signs can be as big as they want to be process everyone um okay so is there anything else tonight to uh discuss notless Nick has anything then we're good anything new coming December 11th or no there's nothing else in open gov for zoning board don't jinx it maybe we'll get rid of these three yeah once and for all well that's the 30 days now it's we're under 30 days so we'll see them in January what right it's 30 days from one day apply three weeks oh three weeks well it depends when they can advertise yeah you're right yeah I know what you're saying yep we have meeting set up for next year I don't think we get only through December right you J my time is getting four kids and basketball and all the crap that's going in my calendar y I hear youed January you got the 8th to 15th of the 22nd the three wi GR in the middle of the month 8 15 22nd yeah 15's right in the middle of the month I can't do 22nd I can do the EAS of for the 15 15th looks good to [Music] me St out a little bit too what is it I'm sorry the 15 January 15th the sener will be coming back hopefully it is depressing yeah 3:45 is going to be dark in the next couple weeks yeah and it starts getting better though like December 10th turns around pretty quick the afternoon starts extending on December 10 the morning doesn't extend till like January 2 6 but's not available after January [Music] first tied up for a little bit uh February yeah so January 15 I can do the 12th I have nothing on that tell I don't know how you guys feel that's not the holiday right the holiday president say is the 17th okay so the 12th February 12 yeah back on Scottville yeah Scottville right I know I have a training coming Friday night we go out Saturday's Waste Management tournament Sunday's Super Bowl The Bachelor oh birthday party is on Monday we fly back on Tuesday bachelor's party on Monday no the the bachelor's birthday is also on Monday W day it's going to be Lucas is going to be is W's birthday you guys are wondering but but that's not the holiday doesn't that because yeah yeah I think Washington it's supposed to be Washington Lincoln uh okay then want to look to March 12 12 or 19 um oh wow it's a repeat 12 I can do 12 okay so three M three meetings for the first three months and that's all we're going to do we're going to quit after much all right is there anything else tonight see what they come up with in all of these three but I think the one on H those prop I remember that check four times and he proved us wrong I was like you're right well the checker board is different I wasn't here enough had lot spaced out they're all non-conforming small but then they're all like combined one know if you want to put it in the record yeah I'm going have scan these in oh we can SC iish okay I can scan him in well I could yeah that's easy enough tomorrow with Brian copy just SK it in attach it yeah file separate applications for each a lot I I don't know how we do that anyway but it's oh yeah you got close the meeting it's funny I didn't realize it I didn't realize it until I saw it I'm like hey wait a minute I know that L I didn't realize inter his was is there a motion to adjourn at 8:24 I'll make that motion all in favor thank you