##VIDEO ID:aSExerjSM_0## at 7:03 I'll call the meeting to order it's a meeting of the town of Norton zoning board of appeals uh we have four items on the agenda tonight um they should go fairly quickly I think the first item on the agenda uh now that we have a we have a quorum uh first item on the agenda zero Bert Street and Mr rich I saw you when I came in where do I go anywhere you want just step up a few feet maybe so we can talk to you without squinting so use the table that way you put sure you get [Music] next thank you thank you Mr Baker this is Mr Baker he's the owner of the lot with his two sisters the lot in question it's on Bird Street uh there's a brief history of the lot that would be helpful yeah actually this some of my GS go back to the early 60s and I followed it through until his parents got it his parents received it in 1983 and they at some point in time on and I don't know why they they subdivided they sold a lot to the right of it uh I think it was in 2006 they retained this portion right here at some point in time Chris's father gave it to Chris's mother and then back in the end of 23 or the mid 23 Chris's mother I think she was in her 9s yeah she conveyed it to the three children unfortunately it's a lot that's it doesn't have the frontage requirements it's like 400 ft long it's a it's a weird shaped lot and the reasoning why it was done like that I don't know everybody seems they're deceased so we are besides not having the frontage we had to get I talk to I fres said get the plan for the side yard so side yard set back also I think the plan that was drawn up by RIM should have a copy of it and the house would be one long driveway I think it's over a football field just to get to the front of it yeah 330 ft yeah so it's a touchdown on the field goal to get to the house so what he intends to do is just to put a single family home on there um if you look at the neighborhood there were other smaller Lots there the bottom were created before zoning bot there First Street not too much before I bought my house my 196 was was a dirt R but now obviously it's a regular street it's getting quite busy so with for the record the plan we're looking at is the one submitted since the last meeting dated July 31 202 that would be for Mr um uh room engineering I believe yes showing the house placed on the to the rear of the L yeah here it is sorry right that's the one yeah we I'm sorry so it does the reason he'd like to put that in back see it does flare out about 100 yards back it flares out to give them more um more area however it still doesn't mean zoning so we need a variance for the frontage variance for the area and bar beside that uh again you probably won even see it from the street the I know the house did lot to the left Mr mad they just sold a lot to the left of them which was over a small house they just put a beautiful home up there so that's what we'd be looking to do and again Mr Baker and his two sisters received it from the mother shortly before she pass and why they did this at some point in time I don't know I can tell why she did it back in are they the listed owners those it should be Linda vulmer and Chris Baker the way I think Joan Horton Joan Horton okay I think when I put on the application Horton yeah that's the name I remember okay I think that's how was indexed at the reg important at all okay um now Brian you had a question right off the bat yeah um I'm not I'm not post the project I was just curious on section ACC because it's not you need variance relief right for side yard sidey area and Frontage and that area and those are significant but your question concerned isn't that yes so what are bylaw just looking at this here 175 1.6 that's the nonperforming single and two family residential that all refers I believe to just reconstructions extensions or alterations of the existing structures so this doesn't fall under that because there structure right so then you maybe go to 175 1.5 which now refers to uses that's what I think this falls under so except what's your question first well I'm just guessing that uh I'm not sure which subsection it is but it it does say that non-conforming uses may be changed so maybe it's section e I'm not sure but that's just a point of just a claric question I got your and I'm in the same space except I'm always confused by this language and you know we should clarify it sometime um the use right now is a vacant lot so it's not nonconforming the lot is nonconforming for one who wants to build on but it's technically not nonconforming so I don't even know if we need a finding under 1.5e but I think it would fall under e um building Commissioners here I would ask uh do you have any guidance or sight on this Insight my my thoughts would be that there's no finding meeting because there's no structure so we it would just be whether or not you want to Grant the Varian as as they requested and then set yeah go from there but I don't think there's a finding necessary there but I agree you know it begs of that because when you have a small lot somebody wants to expand on it which we have later tonight you have to go to 175 right to look at that and I I wondered that as well and when you mentioned it just before the meeting started I I said yeah and is it's not really a non-conforming use either the use is going to be different right but it's not presently nonconforming so I don't think it technically comes under 1.5 either right because it does say it's the intent of this subsection that such change of use be permited by the board whenever the proposed uses of the same general class as the existing non-conforming use but its uses a non-conforming right now it's a vacant right so I think we just put that aside and discuss it as variance relief that's what I was going to suggest but the question I think is a fair one and a good one right especially here is it's not a non-conformal use and that's why I just don't think it become well in order to make the variance we have to site a variance the variance itself requires uh a finding of some hardship and that it wouldn't derate from the other purposes of the zoning bylaw given the local it's very close to this anyway yeah but I don't think it comes under 1.5 and and you I've been told by Council pass the use variance can there's a section that says there shall be no use variances and I know yeah okay so it's more basic question can we come in for a parcel that is vacant and undersized I think we can under the variant statute if it if it passes our judgment under variance uh conditions okay that's my thought is not proed certainly add your thoughts if you if you disagree with that no I it's not a nonperforming it's not nonperforming use yeah the suggestion is that if it would undiz zonian C into is it then it's a it's a um small lot exception do we know what the status was it was part of a bigger lot then so right I don't that 1974 I [Music] dis so we could say I we've heard from the applicant we we could say well this is undersized and we don't our judgment we don't have to do anything so no you can't build there because it's an otherized lot somebody CED it off for some that we're not familiar with you don't know that you could ask the applicant to dig into that and to find out more or we can take it as a an application you know we've heard that the um previous owner is deceased fairly recently and that it's passed on to children so you know it's our judgment under variance or to say nope shouldn't be able to do that it's neze a lot we want to keep clear land in in town in this case I'm I'm not inclined to take that position because again it's changed hands due to life events not not due to the same owner cleaving it off and then say wait I want to build on this now yeah I'm I'm not opposed to speak up because we could take the other position it's a good question for councel at some point there must be we've said before in fact yeah I I remember one the last few years where [Music] we I think the same one um in this case it's different in that passed through right right that that was deceased the owner being the well I believe it was part of the larger property it was a different discussion right so yes okay well I appreciate that yeah curiosity so I think given the area of the other properties there uh let me ask first if there's anybody else thank you U attorney Bridge Is there anybody here to speak in favor of or in opposition to this application which we're going to take as an application for variant I know the your clients are here or some clients are here obviously we we've heard your position is there anybody else to speak in favor of or an opposition to it but just a question could you identify yourself no it wasn't two separ was two separate never mind I was just trying to clarify two separate at one point no you're talking about a different one I think no yeah no no okay ready anybody else uh to speak in opposition to to this nope record none so our discussion is then under the variance statute um you know is there a hardship shown [Music] again it's obviously a Nal lot however it's size of is 400 ft long I think Mr Rich was right I added up the distances today where did I wrote it down somewhere the frontage is only 50 I that's that's really di Minimus I don't think we've ever gone below that but it does fall not that this is a small lot exception statute property but using that as guidance this does have 50 ft of Frontage and more than 5,000 square ft so it doesn't violate the tenant the thought of this small lot exemption exemption either though this doesn't fall under it you know legally I don't think so it doesn't bother me I think the hardship is the size of a standard house um they're not trying to do anything untour there and the other Lots in the area um have been developed or some of them not all um I don't see a problem with this but please ask whatever questions of the applicant you like or whatever observations you'd like to make I'm just read am's email that's a different different applic it is that's what I thought that's what I thought that's funny the gentleman in the audience I think was confusing them too is that a different okay all right we're good we have another one with her separate Lots but that's no no no no this one was Zero bir right this is zero Amy's is on on a one I don't think Amy gave an opinion oh yeah she did I don't believe she did [Music] not that email is about Pat Ro p [Music] z i I thought oh for I didn't yeah there's an emailing here pay me where is that yeah where is that no it was in one of our emails and I thought I I thought I remembered it it's not in the file I mean it's not in open go while than well thanks so it's an email June 18 2024 from Nick I Fray to Brian and Paul a lot of it's about the non it's a non it's doesn't mean the exemption right for small right that was a letter a while the original that was the original before this [Music] a do you have it yeah it's the same thing yeah yeah I I thought I remembered it and I was reading it I'm like is this the same one sent to us at some point yeah was I remember reading that about small was about patent is it [Music] [Music] P yeah it's from right I had sent the building inspector a letter on the small forward took her she came back with questions right on point it wasn't a small that was her answer she I think her answer to me or letter to me was show me and that's what we that's what we you and I were just saying it's not a small lot exemption that's what I just yeah but I want to make sure this was the same application referring back to it'ser that's why [Music] didn't which this this is what we were saying this this this is above the application isn't for an appeal or for a determination of whether or meet that examp the application in front is for is for you to determine whether or not you're willing to Grant variances onage area [Music] this is an order for it to become this that would have been an order for fall under the exemption was that it wasn't two applications right no I in January Town Council and she came back with something to the effect that if you're saying it's a small exemption show me this show me that show me that and we couldn't we did not qualify for small and that was her response to [Music] back after building per applications she's saying don't give advice or your yeah that was separate that was just St to myself great see she doesn't address what we were just saying that does it mean we can't give a variance for a lot without at at the point that that email was provided in the correspondence back and forth that wasn't even a discussion between myself and the app that that was Sol forgot to that because the applicant was solely looking for determination on whether or not it met the SM like exemption no I could if you want oh you all right I get it you would just ask me if it was and that you just looking for determination for myself is so whether or not the the exemption respon to at that point in time there was no discussion of a host design what potential setbacks you were going to have any of that stuff and then when we got that response that's when I I spoke to attorney Richard said well if you want why don't you come up with the house plan and then let's determine if you need variances or what and maybe you can go that route as an option you could if you can if you can achieve the relief from the board then it's a different story we don't have to worry about the small exemption because it's it's irrelevant yeah I'm sorry I just remembered there being a letter from her on this and I thought it that's good for you I was going crazy I'm like but wait is it how can it be the same how can it be a different application you get it then it was in our it was in our email back back out of it when it was 319 Jun 18 June 184 because think it it was on the agenda meeting I see June 18 you got it from Brian yeah okay I I missed that or or maybe I had it that and then just forgot about it now here's it doesn't answer the question though that the hypothetical I said does this mean that we shouldn't Grant variance relief if you want to consult Town Council we can ask her that specifically in other words doesn't come out with a small lot exemption well she's saying no small lot she's calling it separate lot which is different that has to do with how it was owned how it was owned at the time but that's a different issue I would say it would be it says the purp prevents a valid from [Music] being is this the same thing that you that it was part of a larger property and was sub Ed now into a piece that is too small right small lot and we said well you it was part of this larger property before you know it was sub about it in a way that didn't no longer me the zoning requirements but it wasn't done because of the inition of Z was after by by choice and I I just I wonder if there's parallels there well if you if you feel better asking Town Council about it we can continue it till the next meeting and ask her I think she's talking about something I mean I know she's talking about something different whether her thinking would ever get to does that mean we shouldn't Grant variance relas I can't answer that was there ever followup to this email chain no because there was never discussion at that point as far as where where the proposals at now they continue me they continued the hearing we never got to it and then he submitted the plan with the house on it he was he was coming in first saying we have this lot are do we fall under this small laot exemption I'm not sure not the very first time though I already knew that we didn't when I I my son L him in January okay and and I asked for that and he came back and said Dr Cil and then she wased to to him when she came to me saying okay if you want a small L exemption show me ABCD and I couldn't do ABCD didn't qualify so that's that's that ended my quest for small so the other relief would be the VAR sorry to go down this rapit I just it's well again I guess we go back to theh and all that it was divided by choice of at some point subdivided into if you want that information we can ask the applicant to come back and I I know I know they did it back in 2006 why his mother did it so late like I'm just guessing that she want to V probate because she was 93 so she could cuz if she had died with in her name then the family would have had to have G from probate to get any type of title to it and I think that she was trying to avoid probate so what she had left she gave to her children before she died but they didn't create this she did but was it part of it was part of a bigger lot owned by her it was way back when when with her and a husband they they subdivided it back in 2006 to to one one side of it which thought this that was like in 2006 and then 2023 the husband died and just before she died she conveyed it to the children and I don't know why but I'm just guessing it was no that's understood that so subdivided six yeah right but there was the wasn't descendant of the uh of the owner mag time now asking us you know for this relief so if you want clarification for Council that you can public Providence in these circumstances right we can ask her off to answer I'm not opposed to that because I that's the question I was Raising just before yeah Jim found that email which I had forgot about before I think it would be helpful for me anyway uh and I would want to make sure that we're acting consistently too you know um because I think the position we took of Oak which is the only president that I I to I see it being very similar okay then then and I would ask um for a motion to continue so that we can consult Town Council on whether the fact that it doesn't come under the small lot exemption means we also should not or cannot issue VAR ready for for that lot I want to suggest that we continue this till the next meeting which is September 18 yeah um yeah you make the motion I'll I'll make that motion still discuss it we don't have to yeah I mean if he wants a little more clarification I don't think it'll be hard are you going to second I'll second the motion okay now the discussion you're not opposed to continuing no it's only one February February what September 18 can can you Mr Rich attend either personally or I'll be okay the same time yeah yeah we'll put it we'll put you down first and apologies but it's the question that came up and members have some question was not the small one that's y understood and that's what I think you're right that's what she was talking about in June the date of that email I think he's right that we should be we should be consistent okay you also um if I remember we also could confirm o don't what happen to that's that's fine we can just wonder any that we can get into that I have to look at I don't remember if it was oak or something else I think I know the one yeah Mr Spang was referring to but we can look at that yeah we'll look at it and and U share it with Amy and with Mr Rich you know we're not trying to hide anything obviously we want to we wanted the question answered um so that members feel you know positive with what's being requested that's all I don't think you hear you know negative thoughts toward uh what you're asking for aside from wanting some clarification small is undiz there are various ways to attack right problem useless to anybody other than the deer that run through there the turkeys that's about it understood if you have any more information you want to provide I'd invite you to I look at yeah I will look at to communicate with Amy you know yourself if you don't mind but we can ask you know how to get we can ask that question of hers to so I will do that then is there a motion uh to continue there's a motion I'll take a vote on the uh motion to continue to September 18th at 7:00 Mr stangler yes yes Mr J Mr Noel votes yes as well we'll see you in a few weeks thank you very much we'll get [Music] ex but we didn't have that we should you know something comes in automa understanding was go into don't share Council but I can but verify always open go it's open it's accessible yeah I got it but I'm not sure that was I'll have to look at it again I'm not sure that was attorne I think the reason that that I maybe didn't get because that was a separate sure it was a the of the day but that had already been decided between Council myself and the applicant and then he came in after with his application for a different request so maybe that's how we looked at it we can attach it if I would say if there's any of even I mean even if it doesn't apply we should at least have that because it yeah just take a look just make sure we're not we were talking about small lock exemption mean she talked about it in her letter I don't want to go against C no let me ask let me ask every if she has an opinion on on this beyond what she wrote which was a slightly different [Music] question okay all right next on the agenda is 78 Barrow Street yes 78 Barrow Street Mr Phil row F they spelled it wrong on the form close enough sorry about that no problem uh we have a letter from progress Contracting Corporation and that is you yes okay I see it now I see the correct spelling you spelled it right didn't you I think so hopefully so so uh it's a narrow lot septic system located in the back go right ahead explain to us yeah so it's a small it's a small lot I mean it's uh it's a nonconforming lot it's 75 yeah 75 ft wide in the front that's right I can see it's a small house I mean I took a pulled this off of Google today I I can best that around to see it it's a tiny house it's like 600 sare ft maybe um they've been there for 10 or 11 years or so want to stay they want to put an addition on the left hand side there the bush line is not the property line though it's it's uh it's a little bit beyond Bush that's what it looks like here according but the addition we're the addition we're proposing is about the width of the driveway and that's a so it' be 14t wide 22 right yeah so still give us 14 ft this way gives you 10.7 116 in the back and 10.7 in the front yeah so this would this would be um variance relief and theing because it's nonconforming use um structure there an undersized lot now uh the other side of the building is um too close to the property line yeah it's even smaller yeah so this is a change to an existing night format yeah and I provided that picture just so you can see that pretty good distance away from the next house yeah in fact is that the neighbor who wrote okay do you have this yeah the wel yes that's them yeah that is them on this yes yeah and they have no objection right in fact they say that the homeowner spoke with two other neighbors that have no objection but I didn't get anything in writing got it got it so questions uh from the [Music] board septic is around the back yeah so there's really no right other place to put this that's not going to encroach extending the c% right cuz it's more than 25% it fall under that section of 1.6 I guess that's that's why Nick K it here so be 1.6 a yeah 1.6 see increase unconforming nature or a midable floor area 25% or more and that's the standards that we discuss and it w be substantially more detrimental to the arogant neighborhood than the present use whether it's that increas avable for spases much more to us for that yeah cuz I think the house is about it's about 600 and this is you have other questions um or comments that now let me ask is there anybody else here to speak in favor of or in opposition to the application no um if there are no other questions is there a motion to close the public hearing I'll make that motion second uh Mr jro yes Brian and U Mr Noah votes yes as well uh public hearing is closed and is there any further discussion on this I'm comfortable with what's presented it's it's on the it's as per the plan the FR will not be uh should not be po closer than 10.7 and the rear of the intended structure not closer than 11.6 ft from that site easterly Side Y said that is there a motion for approval under 1.6 C that this change to the non-conforming U structure will not render it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I'll make that motion second any discussion on that aspect no um Mr spanger I vote Yes Mr nor yes MREs yes for that finding then we need variance relief this being an r60 so the sidey yard setback is supposed to be 25 ft reduced to those um 107 and 116 that we just discussed um septic is on back there's no other way to do this that all of dep Y is there a motion to Grant VAR Rel with those numbers as shown on the I'll make that motion second any further discussion and that's the uh plan of June 1724 uh Mr spanger how do you vote on the variance Rie yes Mr Jor yes Mr no yes as well okay thanks good luck all right sorry we got the name wrong no problem thank you good luck with it we have to write up a decision then there's a slight appeal period but yeah nobody has a posted so all right okay good luck have a good night thanks okay um moving along third item on the agenda is uh Island Brook Z East Main Street comprehensive permit that's been before us Mr itani and Mr austino the attorney cor Chris agustino we had been in contact remember the last meeting they submitted to us their plans but they needed to get more particulars down to submitted to Graves per review ran there's been communication with Graves and the there is peer review money in place now in the account yes but communicating with the applicant with the permit holder they need just a little more time to get all their ducks in a row to submit to Graves and Graves today we got a letter saying Graves is probably not going to be able to meet the September 18th meeting meeting but we can continue into September 18th that was the suggestion of letter Y um you did see y um and then we can always continue again to October the October meeting at that time I'll we go the the what's it the 180 the days on the like he's they've extended it every time and he said he would extend it again we're just taking it a month at a time right he's given us that extension writing so that's not a problem and now the issue is getting the plans in engineering detail so that Graves can review them the way Graves needs to review them and then they'll do a report to us and they for us if that'll be October or I September or October but it's looking more like October so is there a motion unless you want to discuss anything else to continue zero East Main Street to for now September 18 at say 705 I'll make that motion second okay Mr J have you vote Yes Mr SP yes I vote Yes as well so continue to 705 oh two continuances so far all right the last item on the agenda is um nine Paton Road the uh applicant is listed as Mark L is it attorney lonza it is attorney lonza you're representing the uh I'm representing uh two parties is Paul Freeman who was here and the entity known as Freeman Properties LLC um Mr Freeman joint Allan are 5050 owners that soorry okay so here the building inspector determined that Lots weren't buildable the way they were yes go ahead so so Mr Freeman had reached out and asked me same thing I I believe it was okay nice to meet you me and attorney L have gone back and forth over email finally met person so um I think it was a a determination that whether or not the locks were buildable correct me if I if I miss speake a little bit but um determination as to whether or not those locks were buildable the way they were um and if they met the small exemption status um as with the previous application it was forwarded to Town Council for her review and her opinion um and after a couple emails back and forth and some information um transferred back and forth I believe in her most recent email her most recent opinion is that the Lots um have now been merged or are considered merged and uh into one lot and have insufficient air area and would need variances in order to be buildable I I don't I'm not sure Council said they merged for a couple of reasons but but the applicant has submitted a an old U Norton Grove Annex you approach sit right here yes of course communicate better you can come up [Music] so the applicant gave us this this is yours cor yes showing a green and blue square comprised of four Lots what I see though on the tax database is that two of the lots are apparently considered one now that's why I was yeah so her and her email dated June 9th yep of this year um um at the at the bottom of her email one of the last sentences is therefore my opinion remains that the four lots have now merged into one creating a lot of 17378 Ft in area and 160 ft of Frontage and the one lot does not have sufficient lot area to be buildable and would need a variance that was from an email dated June 9 of 2024 yep I see do you know why it shows as two different Parcels in the tax database so and and again correct me if I'm wrong we can talk through this but um I believe from my recollection these were individual Parcels that were purchased at an auction correct so originally before before Mr Freeman and Freeman LLC purchas these properties y they were individual lots that were auctioned out by the town and then Amy's Amy's stance on this is that once they were purchased essentially under the same entity or by the same person they merged into one um by operation of common ownership okay can I ask the applicant why does the entity own some and the IND idual own the other part so to make it um easy to follow um The Entity owns the alcohol property it really is one property um outlined green that's owned by m Properties LLC the property I'm calling it a property because that's our our view will explain why um outlined in blue is owned by PA individually the reason they are owned by two separate let's just call them entities is to avoid merger you know and Town Council believes that um because um Mr Paul Freeman is the manager of Freeman properties not Properties LLC um that that alone is evidence that it's really all the same person common control right but that's but you know after she had given that opinion I I produced a copy of the LLC operating shows that all Freeman alone can't dispose of any assets including this property in the LLC okay do you have that I don't have that okay I'm going to give that to you I did send it to Mr and yeah I'll work that forward it to us is that's what I was asking apparently council's assuming this Council has seen this as well and her her response when you started was well it's not notorized um and it's not recorded any in any public place but it doesn't have to be LLC operating agreements don't have to be and I have Mr Paul Freeman and his father here to test that they signed it on that date July 27 uh 2023 which is the date he took took took title that to the property outline we not stud that but see I see is last year um check to see [Music] that's so your point Mr lza is that you want two buildable LS there we we firmly believe there are two builds and I'm not yet to fully explain why go ahead so I'd like to sure so as you know the ls in this area I'm sure you dealt with this plan before Norton Annex 1941 they were all created in 194 y um all of them probably are under 5,000 sare ft and 50 ft of Frontage now in 1946 um two the Lots were required by I'll just tell you which ones um Lots 287 and 288 together in one D were acquired by people by the name of Ted de of deline they acquired those two together on November 27 1946 so they didn't acquire them as separate procs they acquire them as one pro is that green the green box yes it is and they held them they held them until the town took them um for not ping the taxes on September 30th 1976 so they after after zoning correct so so as of the as of the time zoning came into effect you had one fow land held by two people and there's no dividing line down the middle they never attempted to build on them separately they probably knew that under any circumstance 4,000 ft is in enough um so that's how they held them for all those years 30 years all together um and when zoning came into effect in 1974 they were the owners were both Lots together little over 8,000 sare ft little over 80 ft of Frontage 80 and how many square fet little low over 8,000 8,800 I think he's TR to get his numbers it's 80 both the Lots 80 squ ft of uh 80 of furn that would have triggered the U merger at the institution of zoning because there was then one common lot held at the institution of Zing more than 5,000 more than 50 ft of Frontage so what we're saying is um they were really one before zoning and if there was any doubt about it there were one as a zoning by one I need the two of them 287 and that now our view is because they're vacant because they're being used or could be used for single family residential um and they will not own in common with anybody any abing Lots okay they they are a so-called isolated lot of chapter 48 section 6 paragraph 4 sentence one which says essentially it's it's a state grandfathering law that says lots that are not only common other abing lots that have at least 5,000 ft area at least 50 ft of Frontage are used for single or two family are grandfather and they vacant course my grandfather um until such time as a brother is suris and that was the status as a Time zoning became an the other two lots have a similar history they were required this is 289 29 by a woman by the name of Amanda C um one was acquired in 1966 the other in 1970 she too held them together as a single water roughly 8,000 ft and 8 F of Frontage on P well um and again she didn't own any abing property nor did the so so now you have as of zoning um it means she has no choice they they were held as one before zoning and then as of zoning they are absolutely one they merged yeah merged you know they will merge before as a matter of practice and I don't know if you know but in your definition of Lo Amazon byla it says an owner can treat two abing lots even though they're separate Lots on oh 63 for no that's okay in the definition of l it says the owners can treat the buing Lots at their option as a single one that's what these people did okay so as of as of as of zoning in 1974 you have two lots owned by two separate Aries um each 8,000 s ft giot tape plus 80 ft of Frontage and again both meet the uh the small lot exemption of state law so what happened to combined lots that were those taken they two were taken later by the to yes when do you know yes um one was taken in 76 the other was taken in 86 and the blue in 86 one one blue one of the part of it was taken in 76 part of it was taken in 86 Park do together knows who knows the child did now a question that might enter your mind is so now the town own owns all of them okay so why don't they merge and the town owns all of that well Town Council and I agree on this when a when a Treasurer collector holds property for the town for not being the taxes he doesn't have the authority to merge them so they stay separate so so long comes PA Freeman and his his LLC and he buys him at auction last summer um after we had done this research and come to this conclusion and he brings to the Mr and says just please confirm that they're buildable and by buildable I mean dimensionally I don't mean um you can use them for anything I don't mean you it could be who knows Wetlands issues environmental issues there could be other other things that we just don't know about um so um he um reasonably seeing that there's a lot of legal issues here refers it to town counc who I know well she knows P we don't always agree don't always agree on he issues so um what we'd like you to do is review all this and find that they are 287 and 288 separately and 289 and 290 separately are entitled to the small law exemption under state law and available for dimensional purposes and we realize that we're asking we're asking to do something you don't usually do we're asking you to disagree with Mr eate who and also to some extent the Town Council well we have no problem with doing that not me it's funny you say that I have I have clients I just have to I know way I said no it's not that way and the way I I said you don't have to take my advice you do have to pay for but the small lot statue 175 6.3 talks about bacon lots that will be 50 ft ofage 5,000 area he said more I the but the four individual Lots at first I none of those that small lot standard and we're not saying they don't no I'm I'm just trying to clarify the record and discuss it out we're saying that they merged before before zoning even came into effect into 2 8,000 or so square foot LS and then when zoning came into effect there's no question but the moment the zoning bylaws were adopted that's what they were and that's that's the point in time that's the point in time that you have to snap shop so I don't think if I made two I don't think there was ever a discrepancy that as to whether or not he had two lots of full lots yet I think from the beginning we were on the same page that there's two individual Lots one held yeah in in two entities the the stance that Town Council took that I supported was that once Mr Freeman took ownership whether it was him personally or through the LLC they then became one lot the same way that the full loot became two Lo if you can follow that yeah we can right so that that's I think where my stance through town council's came through the determination I think that's why addess with the operating agreement with the LLC that's yeah and I understand what Mr L is saying an LLC is Corporate entity it has powers but who are the members of the LC Mr Freeman Paul Freeman and his father's name is John Freeman they're 5050 and neither one can can convey property or do anything to it must both agree so it's not Mr Lon is urging us to agree it's not common ownership because one guy owns the blue and the green Lots which is which yeah and then a company involving one guy and his father owns the other blot and under LLC law the LLC can't just do what the one guy wants to do it has to be both has to be both MERS that agree with it now I haven't read the LLC agreement I didn't see that either until the thank you I'm going to ask that if we given to Brian is it here can I can we that the file I can do it in my office too um I think we're going to need to look at that I'm sorry to say I think have to come back to this next month as well but I now understand I didn't understand if Al was asking for two buildable Lots or one buildable lot I just didn't understand what they're asking for makees sense that they want two the ability to put up two houses is probably more economically attractive we know the one house um I think we're going to have to look at this and probably talk to town councel if not ask person next mon in the meantime uh your next be September 18th yeah and we just contined on two others to September 18th so I have five other us over here in theut we ask questions please we're not done yet um Mr Lono let me ask you as the applicants Council presenting here is there anything else we should know now that you wish to add let me just take a look at my notes Here Yeah and thank you for the LLC agreement I do want to have that in the record [Music] and I'm just looking at my [Music] notes that was kind of I thought but I didn't know there's no there's no question on the lot dimensions and then cuz the what is this map Geo is yeah that's where I go now is it is that supposed to go for Dimension you can the dimension of the dimensions right but and this has this has these two lots still separate Lots but it has the green I think it's the green lot green lot together together so I don't know I mean assesses map probably just the way it was built one who knows well no it's supposed to be up to date and if it's common ownership it's common ownership that's why I didn't understand why this is still separate but this one is all all assessor maps have a little qualifier that says not to be used for conveyancing purposes right right I mean it's good information but that's why I was confused I wasn't even sure what which two laws we were talking about tonight so you you clarified that thank you if you're looking for a survey though I think you need to determine what surve want you want a survey that shows two lots you want a survey that shows one lot hard it's just hard to that's why I didn't we didn't go down that road with this I think we need a because the dimensions are all here on the I call it the tax card or the cessor card you can have copies of trying to determine whether it's buildable or not to uphold your decision is that whatt it they're asking us to overturn the decision so we don't need respect I understand of course Very but the dimensions of the lots are all on this and you can obviously look it over tell us if it's wrong but there's no dispute about the so I don't think we need a plot plan yeah I have I haven't got my plot plan sorry I had I hav't got my OT back only reason I ask like this you can ask for that as to where would you put the houses as part of our if we get there I would give that to him when I yeah but the first question that's before I usually say we need a PL plan to show them where the house is but this is this isn't there yet this is there because the Building Commissioner with Town council's help has said well I would just say disagree Tom you you were referring to this 6.3 yeah which you know says has things in here like a vacon lot having at least 50 ft Frontage right we this is just I'm telling you here it says 40 ft Frontage I think for each of the four Lots 40 ft Frontage and 4,000 something Square ft each they're on the town record we don't I I don't need to ask them to spend money that's through the accessors yeah the odd measurements because the backline so that's what Mr L is pointing out I can let me walk over you're welcome to look on but I think it's these two lots and this this is actually two lots yeah this Isen [Music] this document is record this is recorded the red which gives you yeah down back in 41 we don't have to rely on that you we could say well we want a new a record I'm just saying you have to go by some Town record and if we can verify we get the assessor cards that'll have the dimensions of each each of these Lots this one it shows as one lot these two still shows two lots even though it's Mr that owns each of those lots so I don't know why that is but we can figure that out so the dimensions of the lots are of record we don't need to say give us another engineered plan I assume you agree yeah I that's why I didn't ask for it there they a record yeah whether we have that tonight we get the tax cards yeah we'll get we'll get to that point and that's a that's a topic too Brian if if at the next meeting Council attends you can obviously ask that question of her if you wanted to and say you know is this sufficient enough or do we need more than I don't know I just don't see anything that has ever been surveyed to say it's actually 4 or 50 whatever it is I don't know where do the once they build on it though once they build on that they're you're going to have to have an UC can I see something just to EAS your I did I did have him so I'm going to go here if you want to give us those in the meim my engineer has been so busy I asked three months ago and I asked for a couple of things I had from him he's honestly been so busy but I don't think there's any I would be comfortable yes goad with views and know numbers because I know once he tries to build he's going to have to show it in his plan plus he bought these on the town right at a tax sale so the dimensions are set somewhere they're in the deed right here and they're on the tax card too we can p so it's not not we can age the questions are more complicated so let me just stop at this point now there are other people who wish to be heard is this in favor of the application no no opposed to thank you could you have to identify yourself one at a time where you live one at a time please and then you're invited to give your point of view I'm Judy Constantino I'm on Five May Flower Road where excuse me five May Flower Road Five May Flower okay the next Road over um it is my understanding that when you are combining Lots I understand that that two were held prior to 74 by one person two were held by prior to 74 by another person but from legal stuff that we've had to go through with the town if you're combining Lots you need to get as close to the r60 I believe we're in you have to get as close to that r60 as possible so if he's owning all of these properties there should only be one house on the all that property okay and also it is going to be more of a detriment to our neighborhood our neighborhood is small it's already congested people speed up and down the roads adding more people adding two more houses back when we had issues back in 2001 I have a letter from the town's attorney from then but they didn't want any more building done then and it's happening again so that's why we're not in favor of the for thank you thank you is there somebody else who wishes to express an opinion or ask a question no we live on the corner of Patton Road po Patton Road we're justk fine I'm trying to speak that's fine uh if you want to speak separately you can just give us your name and address otherwise we we're not making a decision tonight you understand because we have some questions and some things we need to clear up different things and we're going to vote in a minute to continue this to September 18th so we can answer those I know exactly what you're saying and that's our ultimate is is this one lot or is it two lots two lots one can e can have a house on each lot on each of the two um if it's one big lot they would ask for one house on that big on that lot and may need variances for that as well I'm not sure we haven't gotten there yet and if you can consider the detriment to the neighborhood I appreciate that as well no of course under under 1.5 175 1.5 and 1.6 we do that exactly okay we're not doing that tonight because we're not making a decision we'll just discuss that as we go forward we just have to get some Basics first and I appreciate Mr wanza explaining um you know where this came from uh we're going to look at the LLC agreement put that in the file and um I'm going to talk to email with a to see if we can get some clarification as well um but I I think Le understand where the parties are coming from and I understand the the neighbors who showed up in their their concern as well so is there more to do tonight or should we should we vote to continue this to September 18 and say [Music] 7 Mr L was there anything else tonight no nothing else there well we're not closing the public heing at all Contin continue this we'll give the neighbors the ABS again another chance next time you know when we get some more information and talk about that you'll have every opportunity to speak also 7:00 and the 18th well we're to start this is now third item so it's going to be 7:15 maybe 7:30 but but the meeting itself will be start so we'll we'll put it down for 7:15 we have a already is there such a motion I'll make that motion second uh Mr yes Mr Spangler yes Mr Noel votes yes as well we'll be be in touch in the meantime though if you have other plots to give us go right ahead send them to Brian and we'll distribute just a clarify in our minds but I think we'll have what we appreciate you hearing us fully appreciate thank [Music] you all right guys [Music] [Music] I'm the are thank you get all the materials thank [Music] [Music] get that because I'll also be talking sorry I'm sorry all reports we go all right I know what I remember my first [Music] time I got I got on that I got kicked off somehow yeah we I think I was playing with the password too much and start I saw I got no I'm on no I'm good I was on it a week ago and then I don't know what happened I was like I don't understand remember old password I had password and that screwed me up to start over they had to wipe the account down or something time no last minute [Music] so I think I actually said i' read them [Music] and understand [Music] what take yes just a quick read I read one of there was three of them right yeah I read one I thought it task Brian with having work but he reminded me that the cl wants us to yeah them to make sure you'll have done I got the one that's how I was on yes take a quick vote for the next next meeting right set some dates then yeah I think we I think we have a bunch don't we I don't know if I have anything we don't May I'm we just have September 18th and that was Amy's recommendation last meeting for zba for zba yeah okay what was I never Amy gave us the 18th as the next date for think we agreed she planning to come for that I have someone that's I think it's oh for yeah cuz Island Brook right yeah that what we were expecting yeah that's right I didn't even think of that let's look to October I have something already own for the 23rd you do kind of remember getting into October November as well I thought we went all the way through till this go ahead you had October 23 I can't be 23rd I can we stick to the third Wednesday is I can do the 16th was there a reason we didn't do the [Music] 16th I don't know what that is though oh you know what are you still you're still getting Charlene's that's Charlene's invite yeah I know it is yeah she's still stuck on the you you all were doing the uh fourth Wednesday for on time and all her old invites are probably still oh maybe that's why all right yeah so I'll delete that right so we're going to pick a date so the 16th of October 16th 18th of September 16th of October 20th of November let's not get too close to that's right right before Thanksgiving we might want to do the week or no Thanksgiving is the 28th Thanksgiving is the following oh you're right what do you know so the 20th is a we say OD year so the 20th November works you might as well said something for December yeah no later then add that because or we can do it earlier if you want I prefer to do like 16th or 17th just because you know get schedu that 18th yeah that week is probably going to you want to do the 11th December week before be safer yeah December 11th all right that's just safer for yeah cuz that next week that's who knows Christmas party that day you should have her own Christmas party right downstair cupcakes Beer de what really that's good I'm not giving yeah we'll hold it to you next but there's a chance I'm just saying there's a chance looks good is it going to pass building inspector be fine we've been a job it looks good what's that November got pushed back oh yeah yeah November same as the town hall I'll make sure the grass is growing it's looking good though they know they don't know it's someday so someday I don't have dates yet um for many okay um we've got some homework look at the minutes and um I got to get to am on I'll men the I work schedule for but also [Music] it right asking the questions asking questions so thanks Nick thanks again for your thanks Brian are we ready to adjourn at 8:17 motion make that motion all in favor thank you