##VIDEO ID:XigBZkkAOBo## uh call the meeting to order it's a town of Norton zoning board of appeals meeting we had to postpone till from 7 to 7:30 tonight so there was a new agenda this morning three items on the agenda for anybody waiting uh on zero Main Street East Main Street the island Brook comprehensive permit we received communication today from the applican council that uh they are not ready to proceed tonight so we're just going to take that the second matter tonight and end up continuing it till hopefully the October meeting if anybody's here for that part of the meeting just advising you now okay the first item on the agenda is uh zero Burt Street uh Mr Rich attorney Rich was before us last month with his with his clients and you are back tonight thank you back tonight y thank you we had heard uh what this was all about uh we had an opinion from Council and I had stated that I would try to contact Council I did try to contact but I have not communicated to the council successfully on this matter or the other matter so it is back to us uh we are back in hearing on this Mr Spangler and Mr Tor are here with me tonight uh Mr Spangler you had some concerns um or questions that you wanted to try to clear up have you cleared those up or were you waiting to here from Town Council yeah I think I think we were waiting to hear from Town Council we were we were trying to compare it to the zero Oak Street application um and I'm not sure if it's comparable zero Oak yeah okay I thought I have a zero nollwood street that we denied a couple of years ago that's not the one this is the one you and I I think we had emailed about it um this was this was probably last year sometime um but it was Zero Oak and it was a parcel that was part of a larger um property you have the decision or the papers we denied it yeah do you have the papers with you though to no I don't okay um you just look but I don't have my computer files so um I think you had sent the decision over through email Tom yeah I would have um I should I think I would have I'm not really sure if it's analogous to what what is on the table did you want to First zero Oak yeah zero that's a denial sure that's that's what Brian is talking about uh can you uh can I take a look at that sure I have on the scre yeah going to be able to not going to be able so this was is that October 3 of last year October 4 of 20 2023 I did not look at this in room I'm sorry yeah yeah thanks oh this was the tax case yeah that was part of it yeah I think I think what what I remember is that this parcel was part of a larger property and after zoning was implemented it got kind of chopped up and different owners took different pieces of it but you know zoning had been implemented after it was um right kind of chopped up and I thought we kind of determined that well that's that's kind of on the on the owner that they you know um created a parcel that was non-conforming um it wouldn't really be non-conforming because it wasn't um built right but it was it it was a um a small lot but yeah we determined it wasn't buildable because it didn't mean well the determination was the applicant was saying that the town gave the parcel back after taking it and they could not show us that the town didn't give it back at all but I think what's happening in this case and you for sure can correct me if I'm wrong in a minute but um um it was a larger parcel that was in common it had an owner it was subdivided amongst um some folks that inherited the land but this was done very recently and so it was divided into Parcels that now are not amongst common ownership right um and it's a small lot so I just don't know what the bylaw allows us to do in a situation like that where someone has a conforming property and then divies it up into these smaller pieces into non-buildable Lots per the current zoning bylaw but Z and we can show you uh the paragraph indented is what we base the decision on which is 175 this- 6.3 section c that says any non-conforming adjoining Lots held than single ownership established by recorded plan or D prior to the adoption of zoning prior to the zoning shall be combined for building purposes right so are you suggesting that these Lots were owned in single ownership I'm just asking for me big picture right we there's the zoning bylaw that says you know it's an r80 Zone we want properties to be so large in this Zone um and we have Provisions in the bylaw that say okay if your property wasn't that size that the time zoning was implemented you're considered you know a non-conforming lot um but to me it's a different situation if you know you've got a big property large property that conforms to current zoning and then you subdivide it into smaller Lots split up all that ownership and now you want to build on a small lot that to me doesn't meet the overall intent of the bylaw which is to kind of preserve the the nature of that neighborhood okay let let me back it up then by asking Mr Rich can you succinctly explain why that's not or is applicable that's exactly why have the Z board of appeals I leave I Rel for people that have a hardship but the hardship wasn't created by them now and I don't want to jump into horn Nest here but a couple years ago right behind my house on tipping place a lady had The Farmhouse she subdivided it kept the back for herself and you gave her a v the the people she sold to you gave them the variant she had the lot she subdivided the lot herself her last name was um Miner yep and she sold she so she she stld the farm house up front and she kept the lot in the back the guy came from in front of this board seeking a variance and you granted a variance to that person so if you have to be consistent the the purpose of the 40 uh the the zoning board of appeals and the bylaw is to help people that because it's a hardship to comply with the zoning now like I told you Mr Baker his mother and father did this many years ago it wasn't Mr Baker he they took it the from the his sister his two sisters and he took it from his mom but it had already been subdivided so right now effectively that you have a a lot that it really doesn't denigrate from the neighborhood because there are a lot of small Lots here need Z all and I think you have the power to Grant the variance because of a hardship to Mr Baker and his bus otherwise you have a lot that's no good so what is he going to do is he going to pay taxes on something he can't use that's the purpose of his that's the purpose of the VAR okay but let me ask what Mr Spangler I think is getting at is it was held in common ownership I'll ask you to be U respectful in the audience while we on this matter sorry no I agree no I agree with you I I'm I'm I'm not saying that's not the the that's not the situation here I think did you get my Deeds to I I email you would send something to me you would sent me a letter regarding the ownerships of the the properties and I sent you we emailed them back to you should have gotten that it went when was that a couple days ago you had emailed me about 5 days ago you were asking me for the for the um the history of the Lots next to it and I hear you were Brian no you I thought it was you a couple days ago yeah no it was about a week ago you did that but we just got back to and I had sent you the letter I had sent to the building inspector I gave him all the deds I actually have a copy right here yeah sure yeah this let me let's can we see those yeah the only one I don't have is the the the lot that was subdivided out I do have the information on it this is this is the package that I had originally sent to the to the um plan board so that's a history when when was the common this is a January 2 that was that was to the building inspector letter to the building inspector yes cuz I was applying for I didn't know the I hadn't done I hadn't run the history of it so I was going under the small exemption let me just right and that's not that's not app you're going for a various right not apply I didn't know that until we ran the be so the question is whether we can grant a variance or should Grant a variance can the owner of the lot show hardship in addition to that it's not going to be detrimental to the area you know it's not inconsistent with zoning and I think Mr spangler's concerned that this these Lots were held in common ownership I'm not denying that right when were they it was it was a bigger lot they uh I just need here you can have them you can look at them I'll just give you a brief review pass that's okay so the lot in question of the goes goes back to 1970 and he follow the uh it was owned by a gentleman by the name of bell and he he gave it to oats and oats gave it to uh his wife and himself and they sold it to a stock the stopage gave it this this big piece eventually gave it to Bakers to Mr Mr Mrs Baker's mother father and they had it this was they received it back in um 1983 and then in two in 198 so it was one lot at that time it was a lot and then M Mrs Baker right Mrs Baker then subdivided that lot and gave the the lots of the right I I have the book in page but I don't have the actual Z but suffice okay so when was that that was I think in 2006 let me just 2010 is what council had cited in her letter is that uh it may have been 2010 I gave a copy of the D I must have given it to the build inspector without keeping a copy for myself is CRA that's the other but I I I maybe 206 I believe it was well council's communication says that in 1994 the planning board signed an a anr plan right did that create this lot in 1994 I think that was for the lot that they sold so we didn't they for that lot that they sold and they kept this piece right here this is yeah for me you know it's a question of the hardship right and so to me it's not a hardship if someone is in 2006 dividing up this land into well Council say 1994 anytime after 74 so that's what I'm getting good so go ahead coun no but he's right no you're right but what I'm saying is those people are now dead now we have a piece a piece of land that's virtually useless the children got it from their father or the mother and they all they're asking for now is I have something that it's I'm just going to Pi taxes on it or give it back to the town right so they're asking for a variance the purpose of a variance or the for the appeals is to to alleviate a hardship from something that's not caused by them it technically was not caused by them I don't think they said we're going to give you this land and then when we die you could you go and get your Vance I don't think that was the purpose of it the purpose was they gave it to who actually it now who actually owns it now I'm sorry the three children it's is it a trust or is it no no no it's it's it's is it the three yeah I have a copy of that and two sisters okay I have a copy of that Mr Baker just answer I do have a copy of that that to you don't okay um and Mr Spangler I think is concerned that the owners work common ownership and after the institution of zoning decided for whatever reason to split it off right that's correct so the question is whether the people who did that um well the question is now whether the owners uh created their own hardship and and that's why I was comparing to zero Oak because if you acquire the property I mean it's kind of you got to you got to do do the due diligence to know whether it's but I believe on zero he purchased it right it wasn't from from the town right but these this is inherited correct that's correct it's inherited on the death of the people who I I think that is that is a a significant difference I remember Z purchased it and I said well you didn't we didn't didn't do your due diligence it was that's a little more than that too because it involved saying the town had given them yeah no there was there was a lot more to that but I think they there's a different the difference is purchasing it versus in Hing it yeah so the I think the legal question would be if we turned it down I think the applicants would just picture this would would go to Superior Court and say our parents divided the Lots years ago and kept this small uh undersized lot they sold the other one back in 1995 right thank you that's the reason for the anr right and sold the other one thir I'm sorry when did they pass away or the last this last recently I mean in the last no when did your mother pass couple years ago two years ago my mother P water bottle I'm sorry to bring it up again I'm just saying 25 or 30 years later it's inherited by in this case the children it could have been inherited by you know could have been willed to anybody so are we to are we supposed to look at the history of the parcel and say the current owners can't show a hardship because their parents spit it up and I don't know that I don't know what the Superior Court would do with that I'm being very honest hold on just one sec I'm not arguing I'm trying to draw it out we're talking about it I don't know what the Superior Court would say we could ask the three children to come and and put them under oath and say did you ever discuss with your parents before they divided it or split up the lots that you know they were going to do that they knew it was not a buildable lot but they were going to leave it to you and then you could go to the zoning board get you know we could ask them under oath but we don't have any I don't have any suggestion that that happened yeah I don't know what a court would do with that Court put put them under oath on the stand and say to each of the three children did you have such a conversation with your parents I mean through the lawyers obviously each side would the town's lawyer and Mr Rich would be doing it I don't know that the court would say I'm going to hold you responsible for what your parents did 30 years ago because they might have talked to you about it and they might have schemed it out I'm not saying they did well do do we have precedent that's kind of why I was hoping to get En in so hold on you're going to talk about tipping place and I actually just pulled up the decision tipping Place different was a lot different because that was also some from Superior Court that was a culd act that was a culde act and it was Superior Court and planning board and it was a lot more involved than just coming for the zoning board but she needed a variant to access that that's that's what you gave her to to cuz she cut the she cut the lot herself right she cut up she didn't have she did not have there is there's I I have to look a little bit down but I think that was that was kicked back from Superior Court okay maybe I that was kicked back from Superior Court I understand what you're saying to to planning board and then we we basically we took that we had to by the court like I didn't read the decision but I know she got no and I thought it was and I remember you saying that and I was like that is that that was kicked back from suprior court was I was doing something else and you were here and no one objected to it and I said to somebody all I have to do is say no and they can't do it and that Court would not made that decision when you when they took that there you you gave them decision no one objected to it I I'm not sure what you're bringing out part for tipping place for tipping place but that's that you gave them a variance for a lot that shouldn't that did not meet the qualifications because they didn't have Frontage right but yes based on a Court Prior cour prior Court decision coming back to us okay that had not did they did did attorney CL Sue this the board in the spirit go was it somebody else's know history but I do know she specifically broke that up on her home I remember it I remember it but I I also remember and I just read it it was kicked back by spirit all right so that was a denial that went yeah okay all right there were complications I would say that I don't remember and I haven't reread it but my point my point is for the general proposition that attorney brid is saying you got to be fair and consistent which is what you said the last time and I nobody argues with that but I think tipping was different I think zero Oak was different circumstances I'm just I come back to you you hold the heirs responsible by saying no you can't have a variance because you can't show a hardship because your parents divided the property in a way that they shouldn't have done that I don't know how that would pass how that would be upheld in Superior Court I'm not sure maybe the court would say oh you've got to have evidence and you know uh we don't know but in the absence of evidence that the parents plan to do that I can tell you this though I bet you when they when they did that back in '95 it wasn't you didn't need 80,000 ft on bir Street you probably only need 60 or 40 but that's what that's what council Town Council said you should show us when did the zoning change on that can you can you find that yeah I'm sure we can change I'm sure we can find out but that's that's but I'm going to tell you this probably this lot probably wouldn't comport to the zoning requirements then but it wasn't an 80,000 s foot that was relatively new that's what that's what Amy was getting at though that's what Amy actually said in her email that you showed us at the last meeting that I had forgotten about cuz it was for months earlier she said attorney rich as an obligation to show us that it was conforming at the time and that the laws changed it wasn't conforming at the time I tell that right now it just wasn't 80 I just bring that up because I think it was 60,000 ft this still would not have met that with 60,000 but I'm just just just as an as side I'm saying at that time it wasn't 880,000 ft that should need by but regardless we're here today and it was an 80,000 is zoning today so you have to make the determination on today's not back then so again it comes down to variance requirements of hardship and whether it would substantially derogate from uh zoning bylaws and given given the area um now it's it's a judgment call I can't tell you I don't know what the right judgment is yeah I'm just playing I just playing it out in my mind what would a court do with that if we say no an attorney Rich the the children appeal to Superior Court which they can do and um you know the court would would lock it into so what the zoning board did was say no to the present owner heirs because their parents and that we said they couldn't show a hardship um I don't know that we would win on that and I'm not terribly comfortable denying it on that basis on the other hand if we Grant it and a butter could appeal or I suppose the town could appeal I don't know if the town ever appeals you know grants I'm actually not sure of that um you know we we could send it to Superior Court by saying no I'm just not sure that I'm comfortable in these circumstances given that I have no reason to suspect that the kids who were probably in their teens then you know I can't see how old you are but it was 25 yeah be kind 25 or 30 years ago had you know schemed it out with their parents I just I don't see that I don't have any suggestion that that happened and you know the parents for whatever reason split off a sliver and then it devolved to the their theirs their children the children are now applying for a variance I guess what bothers me about it right is anybody can do this right they can say well I'm just going to divy up my property into two or three or four whatever size it is and then and then pass it on to their three four children and then say and then you know all of a sudden it's a hardship because no one's been diligent about you know reading through Z and making sure that it's being subdivided in a manner that's buildable MH um and I don't see that as a hardship if you're not you know if you're not doing due diligence prior to the subdivision although it's not the current applicant's maybe decision right uh it's was someone's decision and and you know I don't know where it stops if if you if you allow folks to just keep subdividing their property and saying oh well I just gave it to my kids you know I'm sorry it's a real small lot I don't think that's in keeping with overall zoning goal which is to limit density so you think it would substantially d from the zoning bylaws I think so it's an r80 Zone it's largest Zone that we have let's put it to a vote you know the town want to hear from the public first yes thank you okay and and from Mr Rich if he has anything to add I mean do you feel that you could show us anything different next time the lot next door where the house on to the left has nothing to do with this piece that was only 46,000 is that Mr P no to the left of that is um Mr mad and then he has a lot that they just built a brand new house on that one that was a small rock they're not they're not 8,000 ft that whole area no that whole area a lot of them don't have 80,000 squ ft and this is where it might be helpful to understand well was this a conforming lot at the time zoning was implemented um did4 so that's how over right but was it conforming then and it was a bigger L if so that would just support my my own view that well you know it was we shouldn't the intent of zoning isn't to say well if you have a conforming lot you know you're okay to just start subdividing it right the intent is to say all right well you know if you have a lot that is nonconforming we're you know we're open to working with you the time that zoning is implemented or zoning is Chang if you're creating the problem over time and not doing the due diligence to understand it then okay I I don't I don't I just don't see the hardship there then I let me suggest two things we could put it to a vote and turn it down or if you feel that you know we can get these details as to when the lot sizes under zoning changed uh for the next meeting motion to continue again with the applicants you know but ask the applic how they feel about it uh as well that's another that's another option mhh I'm but we can't keep spinning this around let's do something yeah I I think for are you comfortable denying it tonight I would not be an affirmative vote at this point um based on got it for me personally you stated it well I'm not criticizing I'm just questioning Mr Rich would you prefer us uh move the matter to a vote which is indicated will be a denial or would you prefer to try to establish I can bring it in I'm not so I can find out when the when the zoning change from from 60 to 80 yeah but it wasn't do you know that this was a 60 Zone before it was an 80 zone I'm feel I'm not positive but not positive I'm pretty sure we could also I can find out when it changed to 60 we could right it might have been relevant that time period might have been relevant you also try to communicate with Town Council again I mean I I did try and I just um I haven't heard back uh on another understand Mr Spang was Point say I'm going to give you land I'll die if you go for that I you understand it but this is almost akin to like the the stepped up basis when when person dies they the government says you know what your basis in the house was 200,000 but if you die your kids take it at 400 they don't have to pay the capital gains that's because it's death it's unless you shoot your parents just to to get the blot and that's not the case they didn't we're not I me see I mean I I know he stands I'm I'm on I'm going to be I I'll be honest I'm on the fence yeah that's fine um so does have go ahead I'm I I like your position I understand his position I'm trying to think of how it would be if I was in their shoes and I get inherited a lot that you know you can't do anything with you know I would I could see myself in there she was going so let me build a house and sell it right so it's not just sitting there I'm pay tax on the property or stop paying taxes or stop paying taxes aband land town and it just sits there right like which is not a bad sometimes it's not a bad thing right land is good and it's going very quickly in nor so yeah and I wonder if that is partly the goal of zoning is to preserve the land and maybe in some ways compel those kinds of situations that's what the small lot the conservation of land is is happening and um that's why we have different zones to allow different that's small lot part C that undersized lots are going to be merged where [Music] possible I just wanted you just you get win I I am so I am on the fense I could I could probably go either way I I then does the applicant wish to continue this yes we do and I'll bring that in the history of not I know I know uh full disclosure well there's been no there's been no determination yet on right um I understand the okay I I suggest a motion to continue this to the next meeting which is October 16 if that's what applicant is also agreen should be done in this circumstance is there such a motion I'll make that motion you're going to bring in zoning I just I'm baring it down so I know next we probably bring in 197 stoping that it should be prob yeah I suppose it's a book somewhere for each change right so I don't know what the changes have been either you know but it went from 20 to 40 to 60 80 or whatever it was our our area in down that end of the town is because the 80 was implemented because it's a Water Resource protection that's why it's that's why it's different than the other areas of town I mean down the town you have 5,000 down the Grove with Reservoir you have 5,000 ft LS but we're in a water recharge area which which is I mean I don't know you know but we under that you a lot of things you can do which is fine okay motion to continue Mr spanger how you vote uh yes Mr jori yes and Mr yes okay with all do respect and thanks thank you for listening come back and we'll try to sort this out uh with other information please uh keep us informed if you did email me or it was the F it was the that letter I showed you that exact letter I'll look for it I'll look for it maybe it's in my I can I'll just make a copy Brian you going be in the new town hall or the Old Town Hall we'll be in the opening that's a good point well I heard that we're going to be opening the public next Tuesday I'll wait till the new town okay so it doesn't get lost in the email should be the same yeah the email should go into the same email well actually I well I'll find it we'll get it I'll get it to Brian all right thank you thank you thank you okay um so the second item on the agenda is zero East Main Street the island Brook 40b application I have a u communication data today um just received this afternoon from attorney Christopher agustino another update regarding uh preparation and submission of Island B revised plans unfortunately uh Frank gallager Gallagher engineering prevented from making complete submission to Graves engineering for peer review as that was the process we were in uh based on Mr Gallagher's updated plan submission schedule anticipates a submission to Graves engineering by the week of September 23 so they're planning on getting it to grave shortly and graves will likely have peer review comment to the board by the week of October 14 we're meeting on the 16th so uh is there a motion to continue the zero um East Main Street Island Brook application to October 16 and say 7:05 I'll make that motion second Mr spanker how do you vote Yes Mr Tori yes and Mr no yes thank you now the third item on the agenda is the patent Road app application which was also continued at the last [Music] meeting who is here to speak on I see attorney lonza yes I'm attorne Mark lonza representing the applicate thank you actually there's two applicants one is uh Paul Freeman one is Freeman J properties each ones two lots merged into one two sets of lots side by side and you are asking um your goal is to get two buildable Lots yes Town council's advice was that it should be one lot and subject to other various concerns right as well can you remind me remind us where we left off last week last month I'm sorry um well there are two reasons Town Council was of the opinion and probably still is of the opinion that not only do we not have two buildable Lots we don't even have one buildable lot um Town Council is a that opinion because Town Council believes um that the two sets of lots here 287 and 288 289 and 90 um 287 28 are owned by uh the LLC 28990 by Paul Gan individually tackles that opion because Town Council believed based on the information Town Council initially had um that Mr Freeman um controlled both um then we showed Town Council that no um the LLC has an operating agreement that says it is owned by Mr Freeman and his father who's here 50/50 so if you and it says clearly um it takes both agre by both to do anything with respect to any assets held with the LLC including the real estate so that means legally Mr Freeman does not control both properties and they're not merged for that reason um after 19 after he after the LLC and Mr preman acquired them um which was last year and I provided the board with a copy of the operating agreement um to document our assertion our position and Mr Freeman and his dad you know effectively testified that um yes we signed this document on the day we said we did um and it is the operating agreement um Town Council was a little bit concerned I think that you have to record and file certain documents with the state or County the the documents that create the LLC have to be filed with the state and it states who the manager is well Paul Freeman is the manager of the LLC so she looked at that and said well that means the LLC and he are really the same without going below the surface um and then pointed out that the operating agreement is not filed or recorded in the state and what I took away from that was maybe there's a question in mind that maybe gred after the fact oh no was graded the same day that he recorded um dated that day and we have two people to attest to including me who graded well also the the state record show it I I had looked it up and it's it dated July whatever it was 23rd or I don't remember the exact day but it was it was a couple weeks or a week or or so before the real estate transaction yes and that's of record with the state so the other issue is is a little bit more complicated um and I have to just preface it by saying usually when the merger issue comes up someone's trying to convince the bo that Lots didn't merge okay well we're saying just the opposite we're saying that the two sets of Wads you know 40 ft Frontage on each making it 80 and roughly 8,000 sare ft each on patent roow um the 240 Frontage LS 287 288 and then 289 and 90 merged separately into 2 80,000 plus foot LS with 8 fren before 1974 um so we're we're we're arguing just the opposite of what people usually argue and we're saying that as of that time um they were owned by two separate people one was owned by a woman named Amanda Carter one set of two the other set of two was owned by the delal Ted Ted and the yeah and he he owned it they owned it um by one Deed from way back in 1947 up until the town took it some time in the mid-70s for not paying the taxes to then the same thing happened to Carter LS merged into one they were taken also 7s for not came taxes so these two lots merged and these two lots merged but not so a year ago yeah when they were acquired by an LLC and the individual who is also the manager of the RLC yeah so we're saying that as of 1974 you had two lots which were comprised previously of two lots and they so you have two sets of lots side by side non-owning common no common ownership of any other abing Lots that's been provided that's not disputed um and then there may be it may have been a question I don't think there was and maybe there was in the building mission's mind for a period of time the town own all four um however the town can't merge Lots because the treasur collector only holds them to you as a collateral collect the real estate taxes that have been paid a private party could something so Town Council agrees that the town holding them didn't really have any impact any any sort of merger impact so um so here we are point out one other thing at the last session um of the meeting one of the people that lived in the area presented an opin opinion letter from KP W then cop and pagee then Town Council now Town Council dated September 12th 2002 she was PR presenting it for a different reason that I'm now presenting um because if you look at the letter careful this is September 12 2002 same Town Council page four I'm going to [Music] read the two Parcels were held by one owner prior to the ad of his owning Provisions that rendered the pars nonconforming and the only held the two pars separate ownership from all adjoining land then the parel may be built upon pursuant to the exemption in master law 48 section 6 paragraph 1 so I mean Town council's opinion supports and you apply the facts to the opinion in the water it supports our position so um that's our position The Building Commissioner this is really complicated stuff I don't blame the building commissioner quick you know for saying you know Town Council is saying there could be a problem here so I'm not wishing building so here we are we're before the zoning board of appeals asking the board to uh no offense to the bilding commissioner no offense to Town Council to rule that we have two La understood I I think we are on the same page there and I think what town council's position is as I understand it from her earlier communic ations is that is what Mr lonza said at the beginning that you have an LLC comprised of father or son and then you have son or was it father purchased son son purchased the adjoining lot as an individual and Mr Lonzo is saying those are two different legal entities I agree with that Town Council has said in her earlier Communications that uh they're controlled by the same individual because the individual who bought this pair is the manager of the company the LLC that bought the other pair so he can control everything I I'll tell you what I think but open this to discussion completely I think Mr lonza is right they are not technically they are not the same name owner of course one is a company with two people in the company that get to make the decision of what the company does one is the individual who happens to be the manager of the company now here we have kind of the opposite of what you were concerned with in the first hearing here and Mr lonza of course agreed last meeting it was done this way to avoid merger and there's nothing there's nothing wrong with attempting that um a company was formed to purchase one pair and the individual said I'll purchase the other pair they took the law and they said we're going to do it this way so they don't merge I mean that's what that's what people do all the time in trying to live under the rules of the laws and statutes that we have there's nothing wrong with that the question is whether we decide that one individual can in fact control both owners of the combined Parcels again think of it of is if we say no no uh and deny the relief requested and goes to Superior Court I don't know what Superior Court will say because I haven't done research into to similar cases Mr Lono let me ask you do you know if there have been similar reported decisions where yes there been many this is this merger issue is nothing new it's been around for decades no I'm not asking about merger I'm asking where the two yes owners are said to be the same control one is a company and one is an individual within the company the court looks to the exact issue the Town Council looked at and I've looked that okay can that one individual control the assets of the company in some cases the answer is yes in this case the answer is no it takes it takes both Mr Freeman he could he could say Dad this is the greatest thing in the world we should sell this property for $500,000 okay D say no it's really 600 worth 600 slow down some okay he can't so hypothetical if it was 5149 your dad 51 would it be the same question you mean the sun 51 I assume the sun is no because it has to be two separate orang who again the individual is the son the individual owner is the son right well the individual yes the individual trying to argue it's two separate yeah so are you saying within the company who owns 51 the dad so then it would be two different owners right it would be you on the other two and your dad on the because he he would have the the majority share I don't know how that so then there would be no question right then there okay there might be some question but you're you're saying that would be a clearer case um I think you're saying it doesn't matters 50/50 it takes both anyway but right that's that's what the oper 49 then you have no argument that it's two different be clear yes but that's how LLC operating agreements work they they give specific right to the members to vote on issues involving money and assets be 5050 but in this case it is so they need to they need both owners to agree that's that's no different than the 5149 scenarios we're I'm going with this is does it really matter I I I think they could probably on paper figure it out such that it's probably more clearly two separate owners I don't I don't see but it doesn't matter they that's the ownership now that's what we have to deal with with I mean no I know but count Town Council is making the claim that it's the same owners right and it's can I just point out Town Council is not saying that because of the operator Town Council is saying that only because she saw the registration certificate that says this man is to manage she didn't look at the operating well she looked at it but she said it's not it's notorized it's not recorded so whatever value that has or doesn't have and frankly I don't think I don't think Town Council was right on that I I'm a lawyer you I don't know if you know that I figured that out okay I don't want to inject my opinion here but I think technically there are two different owners here the question is you're bothered by the fact they set it up this way they set it up this way I think it's two separate owners I think I am an agence two separate own yeah one's a personal I own please sorry based on your description and I don't contest that at all and big picture you're trying to build two homes out of four total Parcels one is divide yeah I mean I don't know if you look at the area um I don't know it's tough I'm looking at the toning not here I mean it's there are other similar lots that each house contain a houseing abing this one right see one two three but that's not that's not I suggest the controlling issue no right I think it's if we say no because we think it's the same controlling party I think I don't know what the court would do with that because I don't know if there are cases that I've looked at this and Court might you know laugh and say oh that zoning board Was Naive but I think it looks to like legally there are two separate owners and this happens this what statute this what lawyers do I mean lawyers figure out oh the law is this yeah here clients I'm going to advise you to do it this way Dad form a company right and to me for me you know the question for us is obviously always whether it's detrimental to the existing neighborhood and I'm just looking at the map I know there's some folks that want to speak but um I don't know from from me I'm leaning a little toward more towards it's it's not not really more detrimental to the neighborhood it's already kind of a dense area and maybe that's going to be the argument that some folks right I I don't see two more homes new new homes in this area significantly AFF hold on hold on you we're discussing this right now among ourselves then we're going to go to other other parties yeah that's so we're I think we're at the same point in the same spot the question is how we you know what we Ely decide Mr Lonzo attorney Lonzo again um I know you're you have to deal with a lot of variance applications special permit applications findings section 6 findings under all of those type of applications you need to make a finding as to whether or not what's being proposed is detrimental or more detrimental under this under administrative appeal that issue is not an issue oh that's actually good point Thank you for clarifying that um this is an appeal of the building inspector so we're in effect deciding was the building inspector I see yeah yeah you're right you're right wrong in his decision yeah so we're not actually applying the VAR issues at all that's a great Point uh it is it's a very good point because I think that removes the consideration of hardship of other areas in the neighborhood I think it's a legal issue and maybe we naive but maybe the town should change the bylaw to say you know no two individuals may participate in a a company that buys an adjoining but that's not what the law says that's not what the bylaw says they clearly were clever to do it this way defin so we can say oh we don't like that but yeah I don't think I don't know that that would be upheld that's my view um now can I open it up to comments from abs are you in agreement yes so people who want to speak on this issue can you if you want to raise your hand we're going to ask you whoever speaks to state your name and address for the record just so it's in the record who you are that you are a uh you know an affected AB butter um is there anybody who would like to speak for or against this application yes what is your name and address Constantino 5 Mayer Road do you want her to come up here come up here could you step up so we can see you where you're behind a bright light yeah thanks Judy Constantino 5 May FL Road my my complaint was going to be that it is a detriment to the neighborhood it is very dense and I know that that doesn't matter here but it should matter it should not be allowed that he's taking two lots and you even read it that combining it you need to get it as close as possible to the zoning laws and where are 60 it just it just doesn't make sense that he can just oh because he bought the property now he can put two houses he bought the property because he wants to make a a lot of money but that it's a detriment to those of us that live down there if it were one this is just a response I'm not trying to say that doesn't count as a you know a comment or a question but you realize that if we say no they can apply for a very on the one combined property and I don't know how we could turn down a variance request one house is so your one house would be fine the issue is one house versus two residences okay correct if you saw the piece of property that he's already stripped right and you say how are you going to get two houses on this piece of property it's I can't even say it it it's it's beyond words it's just it's not a big piece of profit and you put two houses there on a a road that's already tight as it is it doesn't make sense it does not make sense one house fine he's already stripped it he's already bought it but two it's over the top in my opinion away that one is there is there someone else who wants to State their opinion or question you can ask question what is your name and I'm sorry can you come up Happ yes I'm the same way one house is fine but there's no need to put two on on the postage stand can you ENT to your name for the record I mean I don't Road I didn't hear I've been here for 24 years y okay I don't mind having one house okay I have no problem with it but two you're just putting too much space you're killing you killed all the trees already yeah you don't have much left in the neighborhood it's very tight neighborhood it is it tight there are some plots that have a house on every 5,000 s ft plot right correct yeah some on four some when were those houses hold on a second the road but let's we can look at the map and see what's there are you on that section is this the SE this is the section so you get a house on right see right here 150 no 150 that's a double lot the one behind it isn't there are there are many that are on 5,000 this is foot par 122 like behind it yeah most of them built prior to4 right the block here there's some sing yeah yeah yeah it's down by the water down the end so we can see the map and and the plot of houses on the lots and understand what you're saying but there are many small lots that have a single family residence there many 5,000 and perhaps less square foot Lots although the small lot exception is supposed to be 5,000 square ft you going to write that small lot exemption out of Mr n somebody else want to speak yes could you say your name and address Richard plum Mayflower Road this is the second time I've been in front of this board and listened to an attorney talk about the neighborhood the nature of the neighborhood and respectfully our attorney nor you're talking about the neighborhood you're saying because the neighborhood has been this way because it was built that way in 1938 when they started it and there all these little lots and then in 1970 they built some more Lots does that change the intent of the zoning law no your intent of the zoning law is to not have any more clustered housing in an already clustered area so why in the name of whoever would you allow them to build two houses in an already clustered neighborhood when your intent of your zoning law is the opposite thank you cons is there anybody else who wishes to ask a question or voice their opinion is there do you see anybody online Brian I don't at this moment there's no one else online yeah okay uh next is there a motion to close the public hearing and then we would discuss what's in front of us closing the public hearing closes off the public comment and also the applicants comment of course I'll make that motion second okay um is there any discussion you're ready to enter a discussion phase just with us yeah Mr Spangler how you vote on closing the public hearing yes Mr Tor yes and Mr mil yes as well um now it's up to the board members to further discuss this is there further discussion here here uh or not I think we've stated I think we've discussed it out and our concerns with respect to the comments from abds I absolutely respect their concerns their anger and when I first saw this I said haha look what they tried to do but the law says they can do that and I think the only question for us is whether there is common control the company and the individual I don't think there is they were clever but the law allows people to be clever it's why you go 10 mil above the speed limit not 40 um you know with all due respect to our law enforcement uh allies um I'm not I'm not patting I'm not patting Mr Lonzo or the applicants on the back and I'm not criticizing or denigrating The abutters Who obviously want fewer constructions houses residences I'm going through it now so yeah as actually others are I'm actually going through it this minute yeah I I when we boil it down I think for I want to say no you can't do this I do but I think when we boil it down I can't in good face say that they're one entity I can't and that that I I really believe everything I've heard leads me to believe that there's there's two the business bought one the individual bought the other and he got over no disrespect don't I think got over a restriction there I got over a restriction I think it I don't think there's any bad U no and I don't mean that in any way in in no disrespect I I don't I don't think there's any disrespect in saying that Jim that's all I'm to I think it got around what we were trying to prevent but it you know unfortunately I mean that's how I feel I feel it is two entities but the bylaw says common weals are merged if they're owned commonly prior to the institution of zoning right this happened last year right and again the town could Implement a bylaw saying that you know it doesn't matter common ownership doesn't matter we're going to merge all small Lots or you know the individual purchaser cannot be a member of a company that buys the one next door but the town didn't do that and with all respect to the applicant they paid money for these plots from the was it from the town that they were purchased from the tax sale or yes yes so they read the law and they said here's what we have to do they spent money to incorporate her LLC form the LLC and then they put their money down for these Parcels from the town thinking understanding that they could construct two residences they probably wouldn't have I don't know what the cost was I don't want to know we don't need to know what the expense was or the you know the purchases purchase prices but I'm guessing they wouldn't have made that decision um if they didn't think they could do it legally yeah and it is legal yeah um yeah I don't think I anything and I had the same reaction as everybody else in the room at first saying wait a minute are we could can they get away with that I think they they did the appropriate thing under the law at the time and that's that's the law today I don't think we have I don't think we have a choice I think if we said no and it went to court the court would bounce it right back that's true and perhaps impose costs I don't know if the court does that against towns but I think I don't think we have a legal uh leg to stand on is there is there a motion for a vote as to whether the uh original decision of the Town building inspector was erroneous that would be the vote this is an appeal of the building inspector's denial of two building permits uh I would I would say yes is that a motion that's a motion okay is there a second to that motion I'll second okay is there any further discussion on the motion no and this is not in regard to saying they're two buildable Lots by the way cuz they have to go back to the building inspector and say okay we have a decision here do they meet the other criteria for uh access access is obvious you know we're not say we're not giving them building permits we're just saying right we think Nick Mr ifra was not correct in denying two building permits on the basis that he denied them correct uh whether there are other zoning issues I don't know we'll let Nick Mr AA FR and the applicant work that out this might be back in front of us for right relief on some other ground I don't know and at that point it may be a conversation about whether it's t right then we have the option too right we have was going to be it's going to come before yeah but I mean it sounds like it's going to be the frontage anyways yeah it's got to be front they all nonform they're all nonform well but combined it's 8,000 ft I'm sorry about 8,000 ft no new evidence 80 ft of Frontage over 8,000 ft 8 80 ft of Frontage is what so you might have it they might have that I'm just saying I'm not presupposing other issues that Nick mrra might have come up with I we don't know that we're not granting a building permit or two building permits we're just saying Nick was wrong to deny U the two on this basis so Mr U Spangler how do you vote on the motion that the building inspector was erroneous in his decision uh yes and Mr Tori how do you vote Yes Mr Noel votes yes as well um thank you uh for your input and your concern I hope you understand why we did what we did uh the law is written that way uh according to our interpretation and according to our reading of the facts um Mr Lono we appreciate your um explanation of what happened and coming back to us a couple of times we appreciate you're hearing us we we know how you know I have a very deep background in representing cities and towns as your Town Council knows so I know exactly what you have to deal with um and we we we completely understand you know the ab Butter's concerns who wants if you have vacant that who wants a house on really right so so you're going back to the we'll write up a decision in the next two weeks you have to get it posted there is an appeal period so vs can appeal the decision if they wish to do so um but then the opportunity is there to go back to the building inspector to carry through we don't know where you were with the building inspector other than this so no other decisions U on on that issue no of course it's a limited time decision very yes thank you um so this matter this matter is closed go ahead if you like to ask a question good post question to this and that is is I understand that this will now go before the sound engineer is that correct who's who's making the decision about the lot conforming well the building inspector building per true that the two lots that they're planning on don't meet the code we can't we can't say that right now I don't know that we don't know that don't know I don't have Dimensions I don't have anything I I can't say yes or no and would the abutters have an opportunity to come in discuss that well the next step is for the applicant to go back to the after the appeal period or they could start now if they want a subject to an appeal if anyone wants to appeal they have a certain number you have a certain number of days to 20 to by fing an appeal but the next step for the applicant is to go back to the building inspector with our decision and say Mr a FR um here is what the zoning board decided here are our building plans we don't we don't have the building plans we don't know that that's essentially saying yes to my question okay if you have any questions you can also call me I I'm a reasonable guy I think I think the applicant is signaling that he's trying to work with concerns as well try to be reasonable I'm sorry it's me if it wasn't me it would be somebody else sorry not necessarily and please don't park on my property anymore I live on the corner of Pat and and wood Vine don't park in front of my mailboxes and tell your lackes please do the same okay this this matter is over the matter is over very much Mr Good Luck Good Luck thank you for your comments appreciate the comments thank you thank you thank you for saying that thank you they work um Mr carmichel yes what other business do we have before us tonight town hall is opening we here yes uh the New Town Hall New Town Hall we're moving currently we have our boxes they already this might be our last meeting in the wellit though that think is awesome when they look it right at that it's terrible yeah they can't stand behind the light so we are told right now that they're going to open to the public Tuesday as to whether or not that's the exact date when we be ready is to be determined however we are more than likely going to be there in our October meeting okay that's great and you're own yeah well sorry to hear bu I know me too yes for for the public record yeah for the public uh Mr Spangler is planning a move to another town so will not be eligible to serve on the board yeah um we have an our alternate member Mr wak uh in contact and he said he's ready for October meeting but um that's actually good cuz we started KN your business well no so this we should discuss off offline offline um I know I understand I don't know maybe let's we're going to have to figure that out here's here's an idea no hold yes go ahead if you'd like to discuss I the way the way things are written up right now I would still be a Norton resident in October um in October I was going to ask I was going to call in all my favors yeah ask for one more and I'm okay with that um well but we don't you don't have to discuss it publicly I don't want your your personal business and you're buying a house you know you're moving out of town eventually we think I think to some degree when you do something like this you you have to disclose dis just a little bit right so um I I can believe flexible if if needed I mean I did thank you I did submit something to mik I so maybe if needed that should be followed up with right away yes a writing asking you to continue through the October meeting and for purposes of winding up current business perhaps U something like that I will talk to Mike and but Luca should still come so that I can abstain from anything needs to and then should we at least catch Lucas up on island for CU I don't know how long it's different for 40 BS I can't tell you how but it is oh yeah cuz I remember I came in on one when I first came two of us approved 140b that never got built but there were two of us on it the third member we were down a member yeah well that would be my role on island Brook too cuz that was started way but we were allowed to finish up because on the on 140b and I have to look at the record as to which it was I don't even remember was the over on uh Bay Road it didn't get built didn't get built it was uh Bay Road heights yeah sign stole there yeah it is yeah that's the one cuz I when I first when I got on the board that was had already been started and came through I think so the rules are different for 40 BS but we should we'll have to consult uh Town Council as to how to do it properly so the next one is scheduled for October 16 16th so that should still work 7 what I can do is I'll follow up probably tomorrow morning nobody's responded to me anyway yeah I responded I started crying but I didn't respond to anyone else well I can talk to you guys no I would request if possible of you're if you're still a resident and you're going to be a resident October 16 I would request ask you to sit in on that meeting as well that that's just a clean up with the knowledge that after that you are we're going to have to clean those up though those going to have to be decided on that night then the B it would have to be B and what other one did we no was it just B there must be some provision we just did right so it's bird and and the 40b but the 40b okay that's what I was thinking was 40b that's why I was saying it's different but we'll clear that up we'll clarify sure um I would thank publicly uh Mr spood for his great service these last yeah it's been likees almost two years it feels like decades but but thank you yes I appreciate that that would return the same S I mean love being part of it you know like I love this kind of stuff and contributing to the town and and uh you you guys are into it everybody's into it here everybody's trying to do the right thing and um you know if I can say so great friends you know um all here together so thank you for doing it and I'm bummed to be leaving but agree you're not gone yet if they if they let if they let me do it as a nonr I do it I do it but uh we asked that the last time too I think yeah we did and just get on wherever you going yeah it's really keep a small you can have one of the rooms in my house actually for like 50 a month wow maybe a dollar I might take that is that legal doll you want to give me the down payment I can keep my house R then i' still have an address here oh you got to be a resident yeah you have to keep your residency as The Corner Room in Town's house or something like that it's been fantastic I was so glad to partake in the short time I was here but you never know um It's a small world so where you end up I think you should join that town so i' I've already checked it out actually they've got a full contingent right now but out for that yeah yeah swap houses with one of them F plan bille must be hot uh but okay we'll see lot to get from A to B right now even so so it's congratulations on the thank anticipating um keep us informed but we'll we'll talk in the next few weeks yeah is there anything else before us tonight no okay um motion to adjourn at 8:44 I was just going to say i' take it di the NS it's fine if you didn't I just wanted to ask seriously I have we have to I don't think you got up to any meetings that I was part of yet no I had some Mar there there were there were 20 23 meetings have you sent them yeah we have an email I remember going through one or two of them I they go through all of them and I said I was going to get to him and it's it's fine I just want we got get can you res that can I should s that can you send us a text a week before next meeting ago please minutes please seriously I I can remember please the that would be the best thing I think thank you um did you guys get served with the I never didn't I didn't either I didn't uh the thing that I was asking you yeah Brian about it I haven't been served yeah oh I haven't either I did right I I responded yeah you said I didn't I think the rule is they're supposed to certify each board member uh C each board member uh I don't know maybe they don't pay attention to that rule anymore I mean it's kind of archaic you know serve the board why you have to serve each member I don't know if there's a procedural thing that needs to be brought up whenever that gets discussed but I I would never Ser well I'll tell I'll tell Council that you guys were not sered I okay yeah I got inserted by mail and I guess I emailed but yeah wasn't that in August is that August for your term ending yeah I think they had my name they did have my name wrong on on some of the spangle instead of Spangler so maybe they couldn't find the uh that's weird contact info the lawsuit theal an appeal was filed on oh for um Sam was it samet no I yeah it was one of them I have copies for everybody at the top okay you mean service papers for each member of the thing I showed you guys online of the the copies made yeah I saw Jim's Jim is all written out yours is all but I have Tom's and yours as well it's just the front cover is different don't they have the what the service though they're supposed to to Jim is different so I have copies that have say Jim one this say Brian one this says Tom but that's not playing lawyer service means they're supposed to go to our house or certified mail our house yeah but but I'm saying that's all we have is the three copies I was given from the attorney right but they did that means they they served us all they think they served us at the Town Hall I don't know that's what I'm saying that's not good service from what I understand but yeah I don't I didn't think they could that's good we Cann that's perfect let Town Council worry about it let Town Council worry about that I'm taking my name tag well actually if you're going to be here next time Brian I can give you see we'll never let you go um is there a motion to adjourn at 8:48 I'll make a motion to 848 yeah all those in favor I thank you great uh Shane and