[0:00] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

[0:01] Welcome to the city of Gloucester zoning

[0:03] board of appeals meeting of September

[0:05] 24th, 2026

[0:08] here at Kyru's Auditorium.

[0:10] This meeting is being held with a hybrid

[0:13] Zoom link also for people to participate

[0:16] from elsewhere. For the record, the

[0:18] meeting ID under Zoom is 810

[0:22] 111972493.

[0:26] I recognize in attendance members myself

[0:28] Joe Paresi, Lauren Norton,

[0:32] um on Zoom, Michael Nyman, and also to

[0:37] my right, Ron Wilson. And I declare we

[0:40] have a quorum.

[0:43] First order of business will be the

[0:45] approval of minutes of August 27th,

[0:47] 2026.

[0:51] I pro propose that um they be approved

[0:54] as shared.

[0:56] >> Second.

[0:57] >> Motion made and seconded on the minutes.

[0:59] Roll call vote.

[1:01] >> Mr. Nyman.

[1:02] >> Yes.

[1:04] >> Mr. Wilson.

[1:05] >> Yes.

[1:06] >> Miss Norton.

[1:07] >> Yes. Mr. Pey.

[1:08] >> Yes. Minutes are approved. Our consent

[1:12] agenda tonight is the uh vote to give

[1:14] the chair permission to sign the

[1:16] following decisions. 10,00 Washington

[1:19] Street and 15 Traverse Street.

[1:22] >> I would move that uh the chair be

[1:25] authorized to approve the 1000

[1:28] Washington Street and 15 Traverse Street

[1:30] decisions.

[1:31] >> Second.

[1:33] >> Made and seconded. Roll call.

[1:36] >> Mr. Nyman.

[1:37] >> Yes.

[1:38] >> Mr. Wilson?

[1:40] >> Yes.

[1:40] >> Miss Norton? Yes. Mr. Prey?

[1:43] >> Yes.

[1:45] >> Okay. One of our applications that was

[1:47] continued tonight um was for Jamie and

[1:51] Benjamin Seolo seeking a special permit

[1:55] at 21 Walnut Street. At that previous

[1:58] hearing we had one of the neighbors had

[2:00] asked if we could continue it to October

[2:03] 8th. However, at the time, Attorney Fero

[2:08] representing the people uh didn't have

[2:10] their permission. Since then, the the

[2:13] applicant has agreed to let it be

[2:16] continued to October 8th, and Attorney

[2:19] Fero has agreed to sign an extension

[2:22] beyond the 65 days for the hearing. With

[2:25] that in mind, I'll entertain a motion to

[2:27] move 21 Walnut Street to October 8. Is

[2:31] it?

[2:33] I will move uh that the application of

[2:36] Jamie and Benjamin Sevel for the 21

[2:39] Walnut Street application be

[2:43] continued to the October 8th meeting.

[2:46] >> Second.

[2:47] >> Motion made and seconded. Roll call.

[2:51] >> Mr. Nyman.

[2:52] >> Yes.

[2:53] >> Mr. Wilson?

[2:54] >> Yes.

[2:54] >> Miss Norton?

[2:55] >> Yes.

[2:56] >> Mr. Paris?

[2:57] >> Yes.

[2:58] >> Okay. Our other

[3:01] continued application was the

[3:02] application of Ab Barothomu M. Driscoll

[3:05] and Heather EM Driscoll seeking a

[3:07] special permit or variance to construct

[3:10] a deck at 8 Angle Street.

[3:19] [clears throat]

[3:27] Good evening.

[3:29] Bread in as a panelist. Now,

[3:32] for the record, my name is Joel Favaza.

[3:34] I'm an attorney at Casside Leo Solutions

[3:36] with an address 123 Main Street here in

[3:39] Gloucester here on behalf of Heather and

[3:41] Bart Driscoll, the trustee owners.

[3:43] >> Hey Joel, just make sure I keep that mic

[3:45] on your chin there. Thanks very much.

[3:47] >> You know me. I'm just such a quiet guy.

[3:49] Sorry. Uh, let me pull up my screen

[3:51] here. So, as you remember, we were here

[3:54] um I believe a month ago or actually

[3:56] Baker a month ago looking to get a

[3:59] special permit to construct a first

[4:03] floor deck and a second floor deck at 8

[4:05] angle street and there was some concern

[4:09] from one of the director Butters about

[4:12] privacy etc. And at the time I talked to

[4:16] my clients and they agreed to go back

[4:18] sharpen their pencils and try and

[4:20] further address these concerns. We

[4:22] submitted I think about 3 weeks ago

[4:25] updated plans. And the big change here

[4:29] is

[4:31] what was kind of a triangular deck. We

[4:34] used to have the face of the deck kind

[4:36] of angled out this direction has been

[4:40] chopped. The deck protrudes at its

[4:42] furthest 3 feet 10 and a half inches.

[4:45] When you deduct the joist and the the

[4:47] joist and the railing, it's about three

[4:49] and a half feet from the door to the

[4:52] back of the railing. And we've

[4:55] maintained the privacy screening and

[4:57] actually enhanced the privacy screening,

[4:59] which again you can see um in these

[5:01] renderings to make sure that the

[5:04] neighbor's yard um is as protected as

[5:07] possible. What I want to point out is if

[5:10] we look now, so this is the first floor.

[5:14] Oops, that's a little too far. This is

[5:15] the first floor door that would lead out

[5:18] to the deck. And as you can see, the

[5:21] ground here is maybe about 2 ft below

[5:23] the doorway. And because this ground is

[5:26] elevated already, the neighbor um the

[5:29] neighbor's fence here is maybe about 3

[5:32] ft high above ground. And so this yard

[5:36] area um you know if they're not able to

[5:38] do a deck would likely become a patio at

[5:40] which point you have a chest height

[5:43] fence and people right up to that fence.

[5:47] Um again if we're concerned about the

[5:50] proximity to this yard you're better off

[5:52] to keep them pulled back with a railing

[5:55] that'll be running across this face.

[5:59] This is the sorry sensitive this view.

[6:03] the zoom here. This is the view that you

[6:06] get from the first floor. As you can

[6:08] see, it's a beautiful shot out

[6:12] of the harbor. What I'll also note is

[6:14] that again the the the chief opponent,

[6:17] this is their yard here. You have a much

[6:20] larger deck just as close if not closer

[6:24] than we're proposing on the other side

[6:26] of this yard. So again, the idea that

[6:27] right now this neighbor has some sort of

[6:30] oasis where they can't be seen from the

[6:32] neighborhood around them is not the

[6:34] situation. And this is a deck where you

[6:36] could have, you know, people sit out and

[6:38] lounge, you can entertain, etc. The deck

[6:41] we're proposing is again, stand out

[6:42] there with your cup of coffee. You

[6:44] probably couldn't even get a seat out

[6:46] there unless it was a small wire seat.

[6:48] Now, if you go upstairs, the second

[6:51] floor, these are the windows that would

[6:54] become the door. What I want to point

[6:56] out specifically is that again you have

[6:59] kind of the straight shot view which

[7:01] exists now would still be the view you

[7:03] would get from that second deck but

[7:06] right now you can look out these windows

[7:09] and the neighbors have a deck a nice

[7:12] little screenhouse on there that's

[7:13] obviously where they like to spend time

[7:16] and if you're standing in this house

[7:18] currently you can just you know if you

[7:20] wanted to watch them right again that's

[7:23] not my client's goal and This view here

[7:26] is the view that gets blocked by that

[7:28] privacy screening. So if these become uh

[7:31] doors and the deck exists, the privacy

[7:33] screen comes across this and there'll be

[7:35] no longer this ability to look out from

[7:38] this kitchen at this deck or from that

[7:40] deck at the neighbor's house look into

[7:42] this kitchen. So it enhances privacy in

[7:44] both directions.

[7:46] Um otherwise, again, as we discussed at

[7:48] length,

[7:50] the standard here is whether or not

[7:52] these proposed decks would be

[7:55] substantially detrimental to the

[7:58] neighborhood as compared to what

[8:00] presently exists. And I've just shown

[8:01] you what presently exists as far as view

[8:03] into the neighbor's yard and proximity

[8:04] of uh the yard areas of these two

[8:07] neighbors. and also remind you that we

[8:10] have uh direct butter across the street

[8:12] and two direct to butters um six angle

[8:14] street and one western avenue in

[8:16] support. So again I would submit as I

[8:19] did last time that this revised design

[8:21] certainly would not be substantially

[8:23] more detrimental to the neighborhood

[8:25] that presently exists. I hope the board

[8:27] recognized the hard work that went into

[8:28] trying to um respond to the concerns of

[8:32] the neighbor nonetheless and that if

[8:34] we're tr truly concerned about enhancing

[8:36] privacy out here, these decks will

[8:41] increase privacy between these two

[8:42] properties versus what is presently open

[8:45] today. Thank you.

[8:51] » Any questions by the board?

[8:54] No control, take your screen down,

[8:56] please. Yep.

[8:57] >> Thank you.

[8:59] >> We'll um

[9:01] left the public hearing open. So, let's

[9:03] um

[9:05] let's take testimony.

[9:08] Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the

[9:10] application? Anyone in favor, please

[9:12] come forward. If you're on Zoom, you hit

[9:14] your raise hand button.

[9:26] No one. Anyone wishing to speak in

[9:29] opposition to the application.

[9:44] » Good evening. U Mary and Jose Duran, 17

[9:48] Middle Street.

[9:50] Okay, we um we realize that the new

[9:53] proposal's been submitted and it does

[9:56] alleviate some of the privacy concerns,

[9:59] but it does absolutely nothing for the

[10:02] safety concerns, the fire hazard that

[10:04] exists already with these properties in

[10:07] closest proximity at that point and even

[10:11] more so when you add on an additional

[10:13] extension in the form of a deck.

[10:17] At the last meeting, the board expressed

[10:20] concern about allowing just one neighbor

[10:24] to dictate whether or not you approve a

[10:27] special permit.

[10:29] And attorney for the petitioners

[10:32] um told you that the standard you must

[10:35] apply, of course, is whether or not the

[10:37] proposal would be substantially more

[10:40] detrimental to the neighborhood than

[10:42] not. And he also told you that the way

[10:45] you can figure that out is you simply

[10:48] ask the neighbors. So we took him up on

[10:52] his advice and we did ask the neighbors

[10:55] and we came up with no less than 18

[10:58] other neighbors who share our concern

[11:00] and who are also opposed to this and

[11:03] some vehemently so I might add. And you

[11:06] have that in front of you as I submitted

[11:09] it um by the deadline.

[11:12] And um I I so I ask you if one neighbor

[11:15] does not a neighborhood make, do 19

[11:17] neighbors a neighborhood make? Because

[11:19] if not, I'd like to know how many do.

[11:27] Attorney for the petitioners also at

[11:29] that last meeting told this board that

[11:32] you know with proposals such as this a

[11:35] petitioner does not need to show any

[11:38] necessity. They don't need to show

[11:40] popularity.

[11:42] They don't even need to show any wisdom.

[11:44] And that's true. A petitioner is always

[11:46] free to make any proposal they want

[11:49] simply based on want, a simple desire.

[11:54] And I agree with that. Okay. But

[11:56] although they are not required to

[11:58] exercise any wisdom, I believe it's this

[12:02] board's role to do just that. to

[12:04] interject some wisdom, some good

[12:06] judgment, and common sense in evaluating

[12:10] all the proposals that come before you.

[12:12] Some may be wise, some may be foolish,

[12:14] some may be beneficial or neutral to a

[12:17] neighborhood, and some may be even

[12:19] dangerous, as we believe this one is.

[12:22] Our main concern is a fire safety risk.

[12:25] I mean, you don't need to be a fire

[12:27] safety expert to walk down that pathway

[12:30] or on our side and you look up at that

[12:32] precise location and think this is a

[12:35] good idea. I mean, it is almost

[12:37] ridiculous. Although, we have heard from

[12:38] a fire safety expert at the last

[12:41] meeting, a 32-year veteran of the

[12:43] Glouester Fire Department who told you

[12:46] that this is not a good idea. He has

[12:48] seen many deck fires in his time caused

[12:52] by and not even decks on grills, but

[12:55] careless disposal of smoking materials

[12:58] and any other cause. Once a fire gets

[13:01] started, these properties are so close

[13:04] together. And a deck is just more

[13:06] kindling and a privacy screen, although

[13:08] we appreciate that. Um, it just adds

[13:12] more kindling to a fire as that

[13:14] firefighter told us at the last meeting.

[13:17] So I I I don't know what more to say. I

[13:20] mean it's incredulous to us that they

[13:22] are not as equally concerned about their

[13:25] own safety as we are about ours.

[13:28] I mean their house is as close to ours

[13:30] as ours is to theirs. They should be

[13:32] just as concerned. We heard from their

[13:34] attorney expressing their concern about

[13:36] privacy that they are just as concerned

[13:38] about their privacy as we are about

[13:40] ours. And I believe they are. Everybody

[13:42] wants privacy, right? Nobody wants to be

[13:44] looked at while they're enjoying their

[13:45] property. inside or out. But I haven't

[13:48] heard one word about fire safety. Where

[13:51] is their concern about fire safety? And

[13:54] if they're not concerned, I believe it's

[13:56] this board's role to protect the whole

[13:58] neighborhood, including them, from their

[14:00] own poor decisions. I mean, we all want

[14:03] what we want, right? But sometimes we

[14:06] don't always see it from all

[14:07] perspectives and, you know, and how it

[14:10] affects everybody, including them. I

[14:13] believe this is this board's role to

[14:14] interject wisdom in that regard and

[14:17] protect them even from their own folly.

[14:20] Um, you know, we're not trying to be

[14:22] difficult neighbors here. We have no

[14:24] problem with these neighbors. But this

[14:26] is just getting too ridiculous. This is

[14:29] too dangerous.

[14:31] I I just we can't even, you know,

[14:34] believe that that nobody sees this.

[14:38] Common sense needs to needs to be, you

[14:40] know, used here.

[14:43] And another thing that we do is we have

[14:45] a a perennial bed that sits right below

[14:48] this precise location on our side of the

[14:50] property. And we mulch that every spring

[14:52] and every summer. And I don't think I

[14:55] need to tell anybody here how flammable

[14:57] mulch can be. And all it would take

[14:59] would be one flick of one cigarette to

[15:02] land in that mulch and you could get a

[15:04] fire smoldering very quickly and ignite.

[15:08] And I know their attorney will get back

[15:09] up here now and tell you, "Well, they

[15:11] don't smoke." But after all, this is a

[15:13] three family home here. You're going to

[15:15] have owners, you might have tenants, you

[15:18] might any occupants and future

[15:19] occupants. Once a deck is placed there,

[15:22] you cannot control what people are going

[15:24] to do. Even if you uh impose

[15:26] stipulations on the use, we just uh just

[15:30] don't think this is a good idea

[15:32] obviously. And um you know I'll leave

[15:35] you with one final thought that a

[15:37] firefighter told me one time when I

[15:39] asked him why you know people do things

[15:42] that seem to be so common so why they

[15:45] don't take common sense precautions with

[15:47] all kinds of fires inside and outside.

[15:50] And he said to me the foolish decisions

[15:53] of people are the reason I have a job.

[15:57] So I will leave you with that and I I I

[15:59] just ask you I beg you let's not give

[16:02] our Glossia firefighters yet one more

[16:04] foolishbased fire deck fire in

[16:07] particular to have to extinguish

[16:09] risking their own lives and the lives of

[16:12] everyone concerned

[16:19] » to reaffirm what Mary has just uh said.

[16:22] Our main concern is fire safety and

[16:27] the recent events in Rockport show that

[16:30] a catastrophic fire destroyed

[16:34] a historic

[16:36] um institution in Rockport and as a

[16:39] neighbor of Gloucester the house the

[16:41] Rockport house of pizza. One of the

[16:44] reasons that

[16:47] the outcome wasn't more catastrophic was

[16:49] that there was separation from that

[16:52] building to other buildings and so the

[16:54] [clears throat] fire did not spread and

[16:56] thankfully for our first responders it

[16:58] was contained.

[17:02] Another point that I'd like to make is

[17:04] as Mary pointed out, we have neighbors

[17:07] that have signed on to our petition or

[17:09] our letter opposing this um

[17:15] request.

[17:17] Every time I talked to them, one of

[17:18] their first reaction was,

[17:21] "Isn't that a fire hazard being so

[17:23] close?" Not just one person or two, the

[17:27] majority of these people addressed,

[17:29] isn't this a fire hazard? And they also

[17:33] pointed out to the privacy issue.

[17:36] Granted,

[17:39] now I'm not an expert on the

[17:42] construction or whatever it is. So I

[17:44] looked up the setbacks and requirements

[17:47] and all of that. And one of the the main

[17:50] thing that comes up on setback is that

[17:54] the evolvement of it was fire

[17:57] prevention.

[17:59] Not fire prevention within the a

[18:01] structure itself, but from spreading to

[18:04] another fire to to another building

[18:07] adjacent to it, which as as I just

[18:10] pointed out helped contain the fire in

[18:12] Rockport. Now,

[18:16] the building on 8 Angle Street is

[18:18] already non-conforming. Now, due to

[18:20] grandfathering and all that, it's legal

[18:22] to be there. What they want is not only

[18:25] to

[18:29] go out of that non-conforming

[18:31] um distance. They want to increase that

[18:38] beyond the non-conforming.

[18:40] That that to me doesn't make any kind of

[18:42] sense.

[18:44] Now, the zoning codes, the boards, they

[18:47] have put

[18:49] certain requirements trying to

[18:53] um increase safety in new constructions

[18:58] more than multifamily houses. Fire

[19:01] sprinklers are required

[19:04] in most in all houses. Now the detectors

[19:06] are required all designed to prevent

[19:10] detect and also mitigate a fire if it

[19:13] does start. However, nothing is provided

[19:18] on for the outside other than the

[19:21] setbacks. That was the wisdom of the

[19:24] original design of of the zoning

[19:26] founders

[19:28] to provide distance between properties

[19:31] so that the a fire originating in one

[19:34] doesn't go to another.

[19:39] uh because of the location of the of the houses where we are so close an

[19:44] older city. This is why the they were

[19:47] grandfathered. Again, the distance is

[19:49] already outside the conforming of the

[19:54] setback requirements and they want to

[19:57] increase that.

[20:00] I request that that request their

[20:03] request be denied.

[20:06] Thank you.

[20:08] And one more thing I'd like to add, the

[20:10] business of the fact that we have a deck

[20:13] and the neighbors on the other side have

[20:15] a deck. That's irrelevant. We found that

[20:17] deck there. Their deck was there. I

[20:20] mean, what are we supposed to do about

[20:21] that? That we bought the property like

[20:23] that and the other property has the

[20:26] deck. It's set further back in the yard

[20:28] like their other deck is. So, at least

[20:30] it gives you some distance. But again,

[20:33] we have no control over that. We found

[20:34] our properties like this. But now again,

[20:37] they're looking to be more

[20:38] non-conforming at a location that is

[20:41] just so incredibly close. I'm sure

[20:44] you've all seen it in person. I think

[20:46] you're all required to go there in

[20:47] person. I I don't know how anybody can

[20:50] walk down that pathway, look up at that

[20:52] precise location, and say, "This is an

[20:54] okay idea." I I mean, it it boggles the

[20:58] mind.

[21:00] Thank you.

[21:01] >> Thank you.

[21:03] >> Anyone else wishing to speak in

[21:04] opposition?

[21:18] seeing none.

[21:20] Rebuttal.

[21:26] Thank you.

[21:29] [clears throat]

[21:32] So,

[21:34] as the the board may recall,

[21:37] the discussion last time was focused

[21:40] almost entirely on privacy. I appreciate

[21:43] that one um friend of theirs came up who

[21:46] has experience in fire protection and he

[21:48] had um you know stated some opinions as

[21:51] to the prior design, his concern about

[21:53] the prior design. But one of the reasons

[21:55] that we focus so heavily on privacy is

[21:57] because that's what we were talking

[21:58] about for 98% of the hearing last time.

[22:01] I find it quite rich. But now the whole

[22:04] time their their their issue hasn't, you

[22:06] know, privacy, okay, it's about the fire

[22:08] prevention. That's really where, you

[22:10] know, their concern is. And so what I

[22:14] just want to, you know, point out is

[22:16] that in that opposition we just heard,

[22:20] we didn't hear that, you know, we're

[22:22] very concerned about fire safety. And

[22:26] so, of course, we're going to take down

[22:29] our fabric screenhouse and our fabric

[22:31] chairs and our fabric swing and we're

[22:32] going to get that gate off the deck to

[22:34] make sure that pathway is not obstructed

[22:36] because we're so concerned about how

[22:38] likely a deck is to catch fire. We heard

[22:41] none of that. We heard them say they

[22:42] throw down what they believe to be

[22:44] flammable mulch. I don't actually know

[22:46] how flammable mulch is, but according to

[22:48] them, they think mulch is very flammable

[22:50] and they put it down every year right on

[22:52] the property line. And because they do

[22:54] that, we shouldn't build a deck. They

[22:56] weren't saying, "We're so concerned

[22:57] about fire, we're not we don't use mulch

[22:59] anymore because we're so They said, "No,

[23:01] we're going to keep doing the things we

[23:03] do, but the neighbor can't do any of the

[23:05] things they would like to do because

[23:07] we're the only allowable fire hazard in

[23:10] the the neighborhood." You didn't hear

[23:11] them say, "Oh, you know, we're going to

[23:14] um remove I'm going to switch over and

[23:19] switch over. Hold on." It didn't say

[23:21] we're going to go back out to our

[23:24] driveway and we are going to take down

[23:28] um you know this wooden fence that we

[23:30] have erected that goes from basically

[23:33] another one of our wooden decks right to

[23:35] the property line because again we're so

[23:36] concerned about how things constructed

[23:39] near the property line are flammable and

[23:40] will cause the whole neighborhood to go

[23:42] up in flames. I don't see any of that. I

[23:45] also want to point out that as the board

[23:47] knows, you sit in a quasi judicial

[23:49] posture here. You have to make a legal

[23:52] finding. There is nothing in the record

[23:54] except conjecture from non-experts as to

[23:57] the purported fire dangers or fire

[23:59] unsafety of this design. However, in the

[24:02] record, you do have stamped

[24:04] architectural plans from a licensed

[24:06] architect who can only design the stamp

[24:08] plans that conform with all applicable

[24:11] codes. So there's no violation of

[24:13] applicable building and or fire safety

[24:15] codes as designed with this deck. And I

[24:18] will also point out again anecdotally

[24:20] that my client Bart was a firefighter

[24:23] for eight years, an EMT for three. So he

[24:26] is also very much aware of the dangers

[24:29] of, you know, house fires in congested

[24:31] neighborhoods and would never, as his

[24:33] neighbors were concerned about, put he,

[24:35] his family, or his neighborhood in, you

[24:37] know, harm's way. He's very much aware

[24:39] of the risks and would not have proposed

[24:41] a design that would have been something

[24:43] that he as a firefighter, a former

[24:45] firefighter would have thought was

[24:47] inherently dangerous. So again, the

[24:50] standard is is this substantially more

[24:54] detrimental to the neighborhood than

[24:56] what presently exists? I don't see

[24:58] anything in the record before you that

[25:00] allows such a finding. And if there is

[25:01] not such a finding, you find

[25:03] alternatively that there is no increase

[25:05] to this or substantial judgment to the

[25:06] neighborhood, then a special permit is

[25:08] warranted. These are 39 square foot

[25:10] balconies at this point. I would hope

[25:13] that you would have the the wisdom to

[25:14] see through that these are so minute

[25:18] um that the neighborhood couldn't

[25:20] possibly be impacted to such a degree

[25:22] and that a special permit is warranted.

[25:24] Thank you.

[25:26] >> Question.

[25:27] the um

[25:29] two years ago we approved this property

[25:32] conversion to three family. Has that not

[25:34] taken place?

[25:35] >> That has not taken place. It is still a

[25:36] two family

[25:37] >> because that would have triggered the

[25:38] sprinkling of the building and probably

[25:41] would have alleviated some of the fire

[25:43] concern. I mean, obviously, we don't

[25:46] allow accessory dwellings too close to

[25:49] main houses, and why could that possibly

[25:52] be? Except for the fire hazard of an

[25:55] accessory building being too close to

[25:57] the house and causing a more expansive

[26:01] fire in the event of one. So the other

[26:05] thing I you pointed out um the other the

[26:10] third home

[26:12] deck is beyond the residential homes.

[26:15] It's not next to a neighbor's

[26:17] residential.

[26:18] So it's kind of a different situation

[26:21] um when it comes to the fire hazard. So

[26:24] I just think those were some points that

[26:28] we shouldn't overlook. So, are they not

[26:31] intending to utilize the three family

[26:33] that we granted which allowed you to

[26:36] apply to correct all the imperfections

[26:40] of the lot, the setbacks and everything

[26:42] which were all granted thinking it was

[26:44] going to be convert to a three family

[26:47] which would have triggered the fire, the

[26:49] sprinkling. Is that abandoned now? It's

[26:52] almost up to expiration at this point.

[26:54] It has not been formally abandoned, but

[26:56] right now they they have not um chosen

[26:59] to exercise that relief and it may

[27:00] expire before they're able to. Bart's

[27:03] about to move his mother into one of the

[27:04] units.

[27:07] >> I don't speak.

[27:09] >> You need to tell us who you are.

[27:10] >> Heather,

[27:11] >> where you live?

[27:12] >> Heather Driscoll, 8 Angle Street. Um

[27:14] last year when

[27:16] >> Heather, you need to put your chin right

[27:17] on that mic. I can't hear you. Thank

[27:19] you.

[27:20] >> Thank you. Uh when my father-in-law

[27:23] passed away, we decided that it would be

[27:25] better for my mother-in-law to move in.

[27:28] So um we've spent the last year

[27:31] reconfiguring the first floor to build

[27:34] out um a nice apartment for her. So two

[27:38] family. It's not going to change. My

[27:41] mother-in-law moves in tomorrow.

[27:46] » So it's a two family. Yes, there remains

[27:48] a two families.

[27:54] » Any other discussion by the board?

[27:56] >> Uh, yes. Um,

[28:00] I want to be careful that I'm and be

[28:02] respectful,

[28:04] so I'll choose my words carefully. Um,

[28:08] it's not an issue for me. I I feel like

[28:11] um that these two relatively small decks

[28:16] I feel like they've answered

[28:18] uh with screening. So I would concur

[28:20] with the attorney that most of the

[28:23] conversation last time uh the fire

[28:25] concerns were brought up but

[28:26] [clears throat] they were they were not

[28:28] primary in my estimation. Um and they've

[28:31] become primary and there's very little

[28:33] discussion about privacy because I think

[28:35] these two designs have taken care of it

[28:37] pretty well. the lower and the upper

[28:38] deck. Um, so for me, these two

[28:42] relatively small

[28:45] decks, we have to call them decks

[28:47] because you're walking out away from the

[28:48] house. Um,

[28:51] uh, they are not substantially more

[28:53] detrimental to the neighborhood in my

[28:55] estimation. I feel very strongly about

[28:57] that's my comments.

[29:03] » What are the materials that the decks

[29:04] are going to be made out of?

[29:09] wood

[29:15] which again is building fire code

[29:17] compliant.

[29:26] » So the the decking will be ASAC and the

[29:28] frame will be wood. Sorry mistake.

[29:34] Can we make this uh contingent on u

[29:38] following through on the special permit

[29:40] that was given earlier?

[29:42] >> What does that mean?

[29:46] » Meaning if they they can't build this if

[29:48] they don't do the three family.

[29:52] >> Oh, come on. What are you talking about?

[29:56] >> Help help me with the relevance. I'm not

[29:57] understanding.

[30:00] I just think that they're, you know,

[30:02] they're going through a needle that

[30:04] they, you know, they created an avenue

[30:06] to do this via a special permit

[30:10] um of alter expand instead of dealing

[30:12] with talking about the slightly more

[30:15] stringent criteria of uh variance only

[30:20] because they got a new code of um

[30:25] >> no, they have an existing

[30:27] >> they cleaned up all of the variants is

[30:29] or the nonconformity by saying they were

[30:32] going to convert it to three family and

[30:34] now they're not going to do that.

[30:36] >> I'm sorry if they and they building

[30:41] >> I'm I'm just totally missing what you

[30:42] talked about. They have a two family.

[30:44] They had a two family. We granted them

[30:47] permission to do a three family which

[30:48] they're not going to do. So they still

[30:50] have a two family which they've always

[30:51] had. So I I'm not I'm just missing it.

[30:54] What the conversion did is it allowed we

[30:58] allowed all the nonconformities to be

[31:00] cleaned up because they have to be

[31:02] before you can be a three family. So now

[31:05] you even though they're not exercising

[31:07] the three family, they got the benefit

[31:10] of cleaning up. In other words, this

[31:11] would be a variance right now instead of

[31:15] an alter and expand.

[31:17] >> Mr. Chair, it it would not be. I'm sorry

[31:19] to interrupt, but so the the relief the

[31:22] dimensional relief granted as part of

[31:23] the three family conversion is not

[31:25] effective until that takes place. So we

[31:28] are still at status quo. This was a

[31:30] pre-existing non-conforming structure

[31:33] before that relief was granted. That

[31:34] relief has not been exercised. So it

[31:37] remains a pre-existing non this was

[31:38] always a special permit. The relief that

[31:41] we got previously does not impact the

[31:44] relief required today. If we had never

[31:46] come here seeking permission to go to a

[31:48] three and this is the first time you

[31:50] were seeing us here, it would still be a

[31:52] special permit to alter and expand a

[31:54] pre-existing non-conforming structure.

[31:56] That previous permitting did nothing to

[31:58] change to make this easier, so to speak.

[32:02] Well, my point still remains the fire

[32:04] safety. um the argument of substantially

[32:08] more detrimental to the neighborhood

[32:10] seems where the houses are so close

[32:12] together and we've witnessed Middle

[32:16] Street and chunks of it burned to the

[32:17] ground and Main Street burned to the

[32:19] ground and other things like that to

[32:23] encourage something this close to the

[32:26] boundary I think is wrong. It reminds me

[32:29] of so many cases we've heard where there

[32:33] were you you got houses so close

[32:36] together to allow a potential fire

[32:39] hazard

[32:41] which would be detrimental to the

[32:43] neighborhood

[32:44] if the a fire started there. And that's

[32:47] the that's the thing I've been hanging

[32:48] on to is this

[32:50] the fire safety. I don't Yeah. I mean,

[32:55] they can look out the window just as

[32:56] good or the door. They could put um

[33:00] Juliet balconies rails and enjoy the

[33:03] view. They don't need somewhere where

[33:06] someone goes out onto a deck and

[33:07] potentially creates a because we all

[33:11] know what happens on decks. People go

[33:14] out to barbecue. I know they've shrunk

[33:16] it down, but people go out to smoke and

[33:22] I I still see it as a hazard. And that

[33:25] fire hazard

[33:27] I can see being substantially more

[33:29] detrimental to a neighborhood that

[33:31] congested. Just my thought.

[33:34] >> Um Mr. Chair, I just want to remind the

[33:36] board we offered a condition last time

[33:37] that we would prohibit the use of um

[33:39] grills on the last deck and we continue

[33:41] that for

[33:42] >> not hearing you, Joel.

[33:43] >> Sorry. I was reminded the board that

[33:44] last time we offered a condition that we

[33:46] would not allow any um grills or their

[33:48] cooking stuff out there. Again, the

[33:50] first floor is going to be to hold

[33:51] plants so they can pull some tomatoes

[33:52] from their garden while they're cooking.

[33:54] Um that sort of thing. Um or second

[33:55] floor rather. So we're willing to take a

[33:57] condition no smoking, no grills

[33:59] condition. Like that's that's fine.

[34:01] >> And when do we enforce that? After the

[34:02] fire.

[34:04] >> Nobody's going to be looking at it.

[34:05] >> I'm sure again these neighbors these

[34:07] neighbors are close. If we put those

[34:09] conditions on there and they spend the

[34:11] money building these decks and then they

[34:12] go out there and decide in middle age to

[34:14] pick up smoking, the neighbors can drop

[34:16] a dime and Rob will come out and be

[34:18] like, "Hey guys, you know, you're losing

[34:20] your occupancy on these because you're

[34:21] violating an express condition." Again,

[34:24] the benefit of this close neighborhood

[34:25] is that people would see if if all of a

[34:27] sudden there's a grill out there,

[34:28] multiple neighbors are going to see that

[34:30] grill out there and call Rob, he can

[34:32] come out. Enforcement order can issue. I

[34:34] mean, that's, you know, this is it's not

[34:36] the woods of West Glouester where you

[34:38] permit something and never see it again.

[34:39] This is clearly under the eye of of

[34:42] neighbors who are concerned.

[34:45] » Are we ready to vote?

[34:48] >> You want you want to say?

[34:50] >> Nope.

[34:51] >> Okay.

[34:53] Close public testimony

[34:55] and we'll entertain a motion on the

[34:58] application.

[35:03] of Arab Bartholomew

[35:06] M. Driscoll and Heather EM Driscoll

[35:08] seeking a special permit and/or variant

[35:11] well special permit to alter and expand

[35:14] to create decks at 8 Angle Street.

[35:19] I move for approval.

[35:23] » Second.

[35:25] >> Have a motion made and seconded. Roll

[35:27] call vote.

[35:30] Mr. Nyman,

[35:32] >> yes.

[35:34] >> Mr. Wilson,

[35:35] >> no.

[35:36] >> Miss Norton,

[35:38] >> no.

[35:39] >> Mr. Prey,

[35:40] >> no.

[35:44] Our decision denied.

[35:47] Thank you.

[36:03] We'll figure it our next.

[36:06] Where is my gone?

[36:11] No, I had one. Here it is. I had it

[36:12] marked up. Easier for me.

[36:17] Hey, our first regular application of

[36:19] the evening is the application of MS9

[36:22] Rosey LLC seeking a variance extension

[36:25] for 18 to 18B Rogers Street.

[36:31] Uh hello for the record, my name is Sean

[36:33] Lynch. I'm an attorney at Seaside Glue

[36:35] Solutions, address of 123 Main Street

[36:38] here on behalf of MS9 Rosey.

[36:42] um here requesting an extension um on

[36:47] variances uh for 18 Roger Street. Uh for

[36:50] a quick summary, in 2023, this board

[36:53] granted a bit of relief for um the

[36:57] construction of a multi-use building on

[37:00] 18 Street. Uh the first floor would be

[37:03] for the sugars m sugar Sugar Mags

[37:05] restaurant where the top two floors

[37:07] would be for a residential floor or for

[37:09] sorry for two residential floors.

[37:12] um as part of that relief included as

[37:15] sle of dimensional variances. Um

[37:18] normally those have an expiration date

[37:21] of one year um under loster zoting

[37:24] ordinance. Um but uh the there's a state

[37:28] law called the mass leads act in 2024

[37:31] that any variances that were in effect

[37:34] from 2020 through 2024 were

[37:36] automatically extended for two years. So

[37:38] the uh deadline or the the lapse of this

[37:42] of these variances that were granted in

[37:44] October 2023 um are for November 2026.

[37:50] Um

[37:51] so we are here to request for uh the

[37:55] extension of those variances for six

[37:59] months to uh May I believe 19th 2026

[38:03] sorry May 15 2027 my bad.

[38:07] Um the standard the board uses for this

[38:10] is the board is has discretion um to

[38:14] grant a six-month extension to the

[38:16] variance if they so desire. Uh that can

[38:18] be determined by determining if there's

[38:21] good cause for the extension. Um

[38:24] this project as evidenced by the fact

[38:27] that the lot is so empty has had a lot

[38:28] of construction issues or a lot of

[38:30] construction complications that have

[38:32] arisen um over the years that have

[38:34] delayed the ability to pull hermits. Um

[38:38] there have been conflicting information

[38:41] from the state that uh the state gave to

[38:43] our cl my client um when it comes to uh

[38:47] the applicable standards for building on

[38:49] the property. Uh there's also a change

[38:51] to the building code that happened that

[38:53] um initially the building was going to

[38:55] be on stilts. Um but because of the uh

[38:57] change to the building code that

[38:59] required um buildings to be 2 feet above

[39:02] the base elevation in a flood vein, uh

[39:05] that was something that had to be

[39:06] changed in the project. So um the

[39:10] uh and also just coordinating to all the parties for the project. Um

[39:14] we've had to talk to lawyers uh speaking

[39:17] people from the state um surveyors and

[39:21] trying to coordinate all these people

[39:22] together has been really tough. Um but

[39:24] that being said we are close to the

[39:26] finish line. It's just not going to be

[39:28] finished in time for uh the uh the

[39:30] November um uh date of lapse. Uh so

[39:33] that's why we're requesting a six-month

[39:36] extension for the variances here. Um, I

[39:39] think also the state has been the state

[39:43] knows that uh it's pretty challenging

[39:46] oftentimes to be able to get projects

[39:48] like this going with a short timeline.

[39:50] That's why you saw stuff like that mass

[39:52] leads act with the extension of or the

[39:55] uh the two-year freeze for for uh

[39:58] variance timelines and also why in that

[40:00] recent variance law that you guys keep

[40:02] hearing about um they uh changed it so

[40:07] variances now don't last until two years

[40:10] and on top of that they can be extended

[40:12] for up to two more years. Um, that being

[40:14] said though, again, we're only

[40:15] requesting six months variance for this

[40:17] case. Um, and I think uh we have shown

[40:21] good cause for it, but I'd love to hear

[40:23] from the board or the public if they

[40:25] have anything to say. And thank you.

[40:27] >> Thank you. This is a traditional

[40:30] extension that we grant routinely on the

[40:33] first request. And so I would think we'd

[40:36] be ready on a motion to grant a

[40:38] six-month extension.

[40:41] I can make a motion

[40:42] >> on the application of MS9 Rose realy LLC

[40:46] seeking an extension of the variances

[40:48] for 18 and 18B Rogers Street um to

[40:54] extend

[40:55] until May 15, 2027

[41:00] because um

[41:02] the interests of the neighborhood and

[41:04] the city are not impaired and um good

[41:07] cause has been shown.

[41:11] Second motion made and seconded for six

[41:13] month extension for the variance. Roll

[41:15] call vote.

[41:18] >> Mr. Nyman.

[41:19] >> Yes.

[41:20] >> Mr. Wilson.

[41:21] >> Yes.

[41:22] >> Miss Norton.

[41:23] >> Yes. Mr. Priesty.

[41:25] >> Yes.

[41:26] >> Thank you.

[41:28] >> Okay. Our next application is the

[41:30] application of Suz Suzanne Rose seeking

[41:33] a special permit variance to construct a

[41:35] porch at 22 Calder Street.

[41:42] Good evening. My name is Kelly Max

[41:44] Elves. I'm a Glouester resident for

[41:47] 29 years.

[41:49] >> What's your address?

[41:51] >> 36 G Avenue.

[41:52] >> Thank you.

[41:54] >> We're seeking relief on a non-conforming

[41:56] property. The existing property was

[41:58] built in the 80s by the high school

[42:01] students and right now sits at 15.3 ft

[42:07] from the side setbacks.

[42:10] To build the uh porch, the front porch

[42:12] will increase that. The new porch will

[42:15] be 14.8.

[42:17] So we increase by 5 in. They already

[42:20] nonconfirming.

[42:22] So we're seeking relief on that. They

[42:25] have a very spacious uh yard, but the

[42:28] house was just set on the wrong spot of

[42:30] the yard. So, it's too close to the

[42:32] right.

[42:40] Okay.

[42:42] So, we're looking for

[42:49] we look are we altering expanding or it

[42:52] didn't

[42:53] >> Yeah, it's already

[42:55] >> non-compliant to the left sideyard, I

[42:57] think.

[43:01] » Yeah, the house is already

[43:03] nonconfirming. It sits at 15.3.

[43:09] Yeah. Okay.

[43:19] It's five inches.

[43:20] >> Yeah. It's just an extension of the

[43:21] existing non-conformity, right? As the

[43:23] deck comes across the front and meets

[43:24] the left setback.

[43:26] >> Yeah.

[43:26] >> Right. The last five feet or whatever.

[43:31] » And the lack coverage is the same.

[43:35] >> Oh, it's 9.3%. Yeah. We could determine

[43:38] there's no increase

[43:40] in nonconformity.

[43:43] I mean, there's five in.

[43:44] >> Well, he's got Yeah, I don't have a

[43:45] problem. How How we decide, but he's got

[43:47] a 14t deck that's going to extend 5T

[43:49] into the left-hand setback that doesn't

[43:51] currently do that.

[43:55] Right. Isn't that what's going on, sir?

[43:57] >> Yes.

[43:59] >> So, he doesn't need anything along the

[44:00] front. It's just when it approaches that

[44:02] left setback where the house is already

[44:04] in it. He's going to actually go seven

[44:06] inches closer.

[44:08] >> So it's not just the seven inches, but

[44:09] it's

[44:10] >> expand.

[44:12] >> It's not beyond the house.

[44:16] >> I I don't know why you need seven to

[44:18] grant the

[44:19] >> Yeah,

[44:20] >> expand. But let's uh let's take public

[44:22] testimony first. Allow the public to

[44:24] speak. Anyone wishing to speak in favor

[44:26] of the application, please come forward.

[44:28] or if you're on Zoom or hit your raise

[44:30] hand button.

[44:33] Anyone in favor?

[44:35] Seeing none, is there anyone in

[44:36] opposition to the project? Anyone

[44:38] wishing to speak in opposition?

[44:44] Seeing no one close public testimony. No

[44:46] rebuttal.

[44:48] Motion.

[44:50] I can make a motion.

[44:52] >> Please.

[44:54] application of uh Suzanne Rose seeking a

[44:57] special permit to alter and expand an

[44:59] existing nonconformity uh to build their

[45:01] porch along the front at 22 Calder

[45:04] Street. Uh I would move it is not

[45:06] substantially more detrimental.

[45:08] Borderline doesn't need a special

[45:10] permit, but I would move approval of the

[45:12] special permit.

[45:15] >> Second.

[45:17] We had a motion made and seconded to

[45:20] grant a special permit to alter and

[45:22] expand non-conforming structure. Roll

[45:24] call vote.

[45:26] >> Mr. Nyman.

[45:27] >> Yes.

[45:28] >> Mr. Wilson.

[45:30] >> Yes.

[45:30] >> Miss Norton.

[45:31] >> Yes. Mr. Prey.

[45:33] >> Yes. Heard our decisions favorable.

[45:35] We'll issue a decision. Get it out.

[45:38] >> Thank you.

[45:40] Yeah.

[45:43] Lauren.

[45:54] Okay, our next hearing is the

[45:56] application of Kayla and Peter Canavo

[45:59] seeking a special permit of variance to

[46:02] construct an addition at 103 Essex

[46:04] Avenue.

[46:17] I guess my question is for Rob at this

[46:20] point before the applicant comes up. Uh

[46:22] are are they asking for a special permit

[46:25] or are they asking for a variance?

[46:26] Because there's no

[46:29] dimensions. So, uh, I can't decide for

[46:32] myself what they're asking for.

[46:34] >> They're asking for a special permit,

[46:36] Michael.

[46:41] » There no dimensions and there's no site

[46:43] plan.

[46:47] » This is a

[46:49] non-conforming

[46:50] lot building on a non-conforming lot.

[46:54] So, it'll be an alter and expand. And it

[46:56] is it it passed the 10%

[47:01] test by the uh

[47:04] um flood plane manager of the city. So

[47:08] it's not over the 10% threshold.

[47:11] So without a site plan, just want to

[47:14] challenge us a tiny bit. without a site

[47:16] plan, without dimensions, how can we

[47:20] I don't think I have an issue with

[47:21] what's being asked for here, but how do

[47:24] we how do we know that we do they do

[47:26] what we they say?

[47:31] » I agree.

[47:33] Well, the the addition

[47:38] is attached to the existing home

[47:41] and it's those have those have

[47:44] dimensions. I think what's we seem to be

[47:46] missing is the uh the plot plan

[47:51] with those measurements.

[47:53] But even even still I guess it would be

[47:57] still a alter and expand non-conforming.

[48:01] I think that's what the office kind of

[48:03] determined.

[48:06] » All right, I'll get off my horse and

[48:08] I'll just follow here.

[48:10] >> We could ask for uh

[48:13] it not to issue until we had the plot

[48:15] plan. I guess if I mean we should have

[48:18] it in the question. It may be in

[48:21] somewhere in the file, but this was not

[48:23] in our packet.

[48:26] On page A4 of the drawings, the proposed

[48:30] foundation plan, you can see how the

[48:33] building is going to overlay the

[48:35] existing sun room. It it will, but

[48:38] there's no measurement of that right

[48:42] now. So, it is going to extend closer to

[48:44] the left sideline

[48:47] um by a few feet, but we don't know

[48:51] >> that would that would fall under the

[48:52] altar and expand.

[48:58] Yeah, it would fall under the alter and

[48:59] expand. And again, I'm sorry.

[49:02] >> I know what you're saying.

[49:03] >> What's that?

[49:04] >> I know what you're saying. We should

[49:06] have a lot plan.

[49:08] >> Well, if if if the if the if the small

[49:12] addition on the house, the little bay

[49:14] addition on the house,

[49:16] uh, hasn't violated the setback, then he

[49:18] needs a variance, right? So I'm I guess

[49:20] we're I guess my understanding is from

[49:22] Rob that does violate setback. So only

[49:24] needs special permit, but there's just

[49:26] no dimensions. That's all to support

[49:27] that. That's that's my only

[49:29] >> that's um we could continue and um and

[49:34] give them a time to submit the

[49:36] appropriate site plan.

[49:39] Hold on. I think he's they may have had

[49:42] trouble getting on. We haven't had the

[49:43] applicant on yet.

[49:49] Hi. Sorry.

[49:54] » Peter, what are your con what are your

[49:55] sort of time frame on your construction

[49:57] plans? Are they like right off or or

[49:59] not? Not not right off.

[50:02] >> What was that, Michael? I'm sorry.

[50:03] >> Hold on. Hold on before we giggle.

[50:05] >> Yep.

[50:07] >> The applicant needs to give his name and

[50:08] address for the record.

[50:10] >> Yep.

[50:11] >> Hi, my name is uh Peter Canavo. I live

[50:14] at 103 Essex.

[50:18] What we've found, Peter, as we began to

[50:20] dig through, we didn't get a site plan.

[50:24] >> So, we don't need measurements.

[50:27] >> There should there was elevation plans.

[50:32] >> Yeah. But no, no plot plan. So, we know

[50:34] the boundaries where your setbacks are.

[50:37] >> Oh, he didn't. Okay. That's not around.

[50:43] >> I

[50:46] um I have I have the application before

[50:49] me and it shows the plot plans. Um I'm

[50:53] holding on to it right now. I don't I'm

[50:56] assuming it got printed up when I

[50:57] submitted everything as a copy for

[51:00] everybody. Um,

[51:03] I could tell you right now, um,

[51:07] I don't know if I could share it, but I

[51:09] would have to put it on the

[51:10] >> the timeline, Peter.

[51:12] >> Um, whenever. I mean, obviously, I'd

[51:15] like to try to get it going as soon as

[51:17] possible. I I still have to go before

[51:18] conservation.

[51:20] Um, but I mean, if if you're missing any

[51:23] information, I can uh just do a

[51:25] continuence and get that plot plan in

[51:28] there.

[51:29] >> That would be best.

[51:31] Okay,

[51:32] >> we can do that.

[51:33] >> Are you sure it's not in that? I have

[51:34] the whole application right before.

[51:36] >> So, we've been through the folder and

[51:37] everything.

[51:38] >> Really? Okay. I'm sorry about that.

[51:42] >> All right.

[51:43] >> So, Rob Hey, Rob.

[51:47] >> Rob, all I would say is if we're going

[51:48] to continue, let's get a plot plan and

[51:50] let's get some uh let's get some

[51:52] dimension so we can see where that house

[51:54] sits

[51:55] >> so that we can just clearly see that

[51:56] it's a special permit. And I believe

[51:58] that it is. I just for Peter's sake, I

[52:00] just want to make sure it's all on the

[52:01] plan. That's all.

[52:02] >> No, absolutely. I didn't um it is a

[52:06] special permit. I I'm too close to the

[52:08] uh to the street, so I'm already

[52:12] non-compliant and the lot is

[52:13] non-compliant.

[52:15] >> Um and all that stuff, but yeah, um

[52:19] I have it right in front of me, so I

[52:21] don't know why that happened. Okay, no

[52:22] problem. I I I appreciate a continuence

[52:24] if if

[52:25] >> Let's continue to October 8th. We have a

[52:27] light schedule that week that's only two

[52:29] weeks out.

[52:30] >> Okay. Need a motion.

[52:32] >> I'll make a motion on the um application

[52:35] of Kalin Peter Canavo

[52:39] 103 Essex AV to continue the application

[52:42] to the October 8th meeting.

[52:45] >> Second

[52:47] and seconded. Roll call.

[52:50] >> Mr. Nyman.

[52:51] >> Yes.

[52:52] >> Mr. Wilson.

[52:53] >> Yes.

[52:54] >> Miss Norton.

[52:55] >> Yes.

[52:56] >> Mr. Crazy.

[52:57] >> Yes. Okay, we'll take it up at the next

[52:59] meeting.

[53:00] >> Thank you everyone. Sorry.

[53:02] >> No problem.

[53:02] >> Have a good night.

[53:04] >> You too.

[53:05] >> Bye.

[53:16] » Okay. Our next hearing is the

[53:17] application of the YMCA of Northshore

[53:20] appealing the denial of a sign permit

[53:22] for the building at 67 Middle Street.

[53:49] Okay, go ahead, please.

[53:52] >> Hello, my name is Jen Hawkerman. I'm an

[53:54] architect for the YMCA with SV Design,

[53:57] 126 Dodge Street in Beverly.

[54:01] >> I'm happy to bring up the materials that

[54:03] were part of the application.

[54:05] >> Jen, uh, on Zoom here, just got to have

[54:08] that right on your chin. Put Hold it in

[54:09] your hand if it's easier, but right on

[54:10] your chin. Thanks.

[54:12] >> Sure thing. Before you get started,

[54:13] could we clarify something?

[54:16] >> Yes.

[54:17] >> So,

[54:19] every one of these applications that

[54:21] we've had for the the 40BS and all this

[54:24] stuff, we we go out of our way to say

[54:27] put everything on there that you want.

[54:30] And I've cautioned you with the YMCA

[54:33] one, with the other one down the

[54:35] Cameron's, you know, get it all on there

[54:38] so that you don't have to keep coming

[54:40] back for this kind of stuff. I'm a

[54:42] little confused by you're appealing the

[54:45] denial. Why aren't you just applying for

[54:47] a special permit if the sign is too big?

[54:50] >> So, we are we have not been denied. I

[54:52] think there's a

[54:54] >> clarification for a sign permit. I have

[54:58] an appeal of the decision of the

[54:59] building denying a signed permit.

[55:03] Am I missing something?

[55:05] >> We were also surprised to see it listed

[55:07] as an denial, an appeal of a denial. We

[55:10] have not received a denial. We have not

[55:13] submitted. We wanted to come to this

[55:14] board first and get your blessing before

[55:17] submitting for a signed permit.

[55:22] » So you're asking for a special permit

[55:25] for the sign that you proposed.

[55:26] >> That's correct.

[55:27] >> Okay. So let's start the started from

[55:29] that perspective. We were under the

[55:31] impression there was a denial. So

[55:35] okay, go ahead. Thank you.

[55:37] >> Sure.

[55:39] So, if I think everybody has our packet

[55:41] information, what we're looking to do is

[55:43] uh two things with the signage on the

[55:45] front of the Patillo building at 67

[55:47] Middle Street. Uh one is to add

[55:49] dimensional letters to the existing sort

[55:52] of three panels above the front entry

[55:56] and the second is to add a sign that is

[55:59] over the center opening. Both of these

[56:02] design moves are in keeping with the

[56:04] historic character and we have included

[56:06] historic photos of the building in our

[56:09] um packet. We also had visited the

[56:12] historic district commission and gotten

[56:14] their blessing on the design as well.

[56:17] We are looking to use um historically

[56:20] appropriate colors

[56:23] to complement the both what was there

[56:25] before and what is there now. The

[56:26] building is being named after a

[56:28] wonderful supporter of the YMCA and

[56:30] their mission who has helped to bring

[56:32] about housing uh within this town and

[56:35] for the YMCA in general. I'm happy to

[56:39] answer any specific questions regarding

[56:41] the signage.

[56:42] >> I I do um what's the number really going

[56:45] to be?

[56:47] >> It's 67 Middle Street. Interestingly,

[56:50] >> like upside down 29.

[56:51] >> It does. So, interestingly, back in the

[56:53] day when they initially um did this, you

[56:56] can see in the historic photos, they did

[56:57] use an upside down 29. And so, what we

[57:00] have done is taken the two, the upside

[57:02] down two, and made it a little less

[57:04] obvious. So, what we're proposing is in

[57:07] keeping with the historic character, but

[57:09] doesn't look exactly like an upside down

[57:10] two.

[57:13] >> So, you are putting it as shown on

[57:15] because we I will have to sign a stamp

[57:18] plan at some point.

[57:19] >> Yes. So my first reaction is wait a

[57:21] minute the number's wrong. So that was

[57:24] my reaction [laughter] too.

[57:28] » So I just have a question.

[57:31] Are you requesting

[57:33] relief under section 4.3

[57:38] one?

[57:41] » What would that and what would that

[57:42] square footage be? That's got to be in

[57:44] the decision, too.

[57:46] >> So, so do you need do you need a special

[57:49] permit for the three larger,

[57:53] you know, sort of in the Mckne Commons

[57:56] uh estimate established 2026 or is that

[58:00] just replacing what's there?

[58:02] >> It is replacing what is there with

[58:04] different letters, different font, uh

[58:07] different sizes than what was previously

[58:09] there. And then the sign that hangs

[58:11] below is something new. It is not. Sure.

[58:13] >> We haven't had a sign like that, you

[58:15] know, since it was the furniture store.

[58:17] >> When you change a sign, you have to

[58:19] permit it.

[58:20] >> Yes.

[58:20] >> Okay.

[58:21] >> So, what we're interested in is

[58:26] the square footage that's allowed and

[58:28] how much square feet do you need so that

[58:31] we can approve the right amount.

[58:33] >> And then also there's a detached sign,

[58:35] right? like under

[58:38] >> the the detached sign underneath in the

[58:40] center is 84 in by 30 in 7 ft by 2 and

[58:45] 1/2 ft.

[58:47] >> So 17 and 12 square feet. Is that right?

[58:49] >> And 17 and 12.

[58:51] >> Yes.

[58:54] >> Want to make sure we get it all correct.

[58:55] That

[58:56] >> Thank you.

[59:07] Okay. Anybody have any other questions?

[59:14] » So, Joe, again, this is just

[59:17] >> Go ahead.

[59:18] >> Well, just to clarify, so the detached

[59:21] sign would be under 4319

[59:24] and then the other sign is just a

[59:29] general sign permit.

[59:32] It's is over the footage. So you're only

[59:35] allowed I think it's what 10

[59:40] » CB. So they're

[59:42] >> 30 square feet. What do we have?

[59:49] » Right. All this

[59:52] >> and that.

[59:54] >> So how much are we total footage?

[59:58] Anybody know?

[1:00:01] We have to permit anything over 30

[1:00:03] square feet.

[1:00:06] >> Well, it says maximum total sign area

[1:00:08] square footage of 60.

[1:00:10] >> Yeah, CB total sign CB would be 30

[1:00:17] page.

[1:00:23] So if we are looking at the

[1:00:26] total signage, the pieces that say Mckne

[1:00:28] Commons established 2026, each of those

[1:00:32] is roughly 10 ft uh by 14 1/2 in. The

[1:00:36] signage itself, the actual letters is

[1:00:38] not that big, but that is the panels.

[1:00:41] >> Yeah, the letters is what 32 by

[1:00:46] >> the letters are 9 in tall.

[1:00:48] 3 32 33 34 about 35*

[1:00:52] 75 right that's the letters

[1:01:04] » uh 26.25

[1:01:06] for the letters.

[1:01:08] >> Uh,

[1:01:10] detach sign setback because that's not

[1:01:15] located within the front yard.

[1:01:19] » This one,

[1:01:19] >> that would be a not the one hang that

[1:01:22] would be attached.

[1:01:25] >> It's not one hanging. It's an attached

[1:01:26] sign.

[1:01:28] Yeah, that's a tax total.

[1:01:30] >> So if if if the letters on the on the

[1:01:33] sort of long horizontal panel are less

[1:01:36] than 30, do they need a permit for that

[1:01:38] or are they good with that?

[1:01:40] >> Oh, they need it's total sign area.

[1:01:42] >> I see. Okay. Yeah,

[1:01:44] >> they're over 30. No question.

[1:01:47] >> Let's just do a special permit for to

[1:01:49] exceed

[1:01:51] the square footage of sign. So I I came

[1:01:55] up with

[1:01:56] 26.25 for the upper and 17.5 for the the

[1:02:02] lower panel.

[1:02:04] >> I show you.

[1:02:05] >> So 43.75. So 44 square ft.

[1:02:09] >> Actual letters

[1:02:10] >> permit to exceed the square footage up

[1:02:13] to whatever that number is. We got

[1:02:16] they'll have to include that in the

[1:02:18] decision.

[1:02:21] We'll get the hard number for the

[1:02:23] decision. The exact They did the math.

[1:02:28] >> Okay.

[1:02:31] I want to open public testimony. Anyone

[1:02:34] wishing to speak in favor of the

[1:02:35] application? Anyone in favor?

[1:02:38] Come forward or raise your hand if

[1:02:39] you're on Zoom.

[1:02:42] If there is none, anyone in opposition

[1:02:45] to the sign? Any opposition?

[1:02:51] Okay. See no reason why.

[1:02:54] Close the public hearing.

[1:02:56] Entertain a motion.

[1:03:01] Okay. Um, on the application of YMCA of

[1:03:05] the Northshore,

[1:03:07] 67 Middle Street,

[1:03:10] uh, I make a motion to approve a special

[1:03:13] permit for

[1:03:16] the aggregate of the signs on the front

[1:03:20] of the building,

[1:03:23] approximately 44 square feet. Um,

[1:03:28] under section 4.3

[1:03:32] two

[1:03:35] » second.

[1:03:36] >> Motion made and seconded. Roll call

[1:03:38] vote.

[1:03:40] >> Mr. Nyman.

[1:03:42] >> Uh, yes. And just a comment, I just

[1:03:44] really It does not that it matters. I

[1:03:46] just really think you've done a really

[1:03:47] tasteful job with the signage.

[1:03:50] >> Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

[1:03:53] >> Yes.

[1:03:54] >> Miss Norton?

[1:03:55] >> Yes. Mr. Prey?

[1:03:56] >> Yes.

[1:03:58] The decisions favorable.

[1:04:00] Will you be doing a draft

[1:04:02] or no?

[1:04:04] >> I can.

[1:04:05] >> Okay.

[1:04:05] >> I can

[1:04:07] >> the office can help with the template

[1:04:09] >> and and the wise attorney can also

[1:04:10] assist. Thank you.

[1:04:12] >> Our next hearing is the application of

[1:04:14] Nick and Christine Geekas seeking a

[1:04:17] special permit variance to construct a

[1:04:19] single family home at 29 Flume Row.

[1:04:48] One moment, please. Let's get my

[1:04:49] PowerPoint up.

[1:05:17] Sorry guys, it's just loading.

[1:05:38] Okay,

[1:05:41] for the record, my name is Joel Favaza.

[1:05:43] I'm an attorney at 123 Main Street in

[1:05:45] Gloucester, Massachusetts. They're on

[1:05:47] behalf of Nicholas and Christine Gigas,

[1:05:49] the trustee owners of 29 Flume Road in

[1:05:51] Gloucester. They are seeking to

[1:05:53] construct a single family home on a

[1:05:57] non-conforming

[1:05:59] grandfathered lot.

[1:06:03] That's the site plan right there. So, by

[1:06:06] way of background, we are in the R20 low

[1:06:08] medium density residential district. The

[1:06:10] lot is non-conforming. It has 10,000

[1:06:12] square feet where normally you'd have

[1:06:14] 20,000 in the R20. It is protected as a

[1:06:18] legally buildable lot pursuant to master

[1:06:21] law chapter 48 section 6. This lot was

[1:06:24] created in 1964 and conveyed out of

[1:06:26] common ownership in 1973. When it was

[1:06:29] conveyed out of common ownership, all

[1:06:31] you needed was 10,000 square ft. This

[1:06:32] was an allowable separate lot at the

[1:06:34] time. My clients acquired the property

[1:06:37] in 2025 and again they intend to

[1:06:39] construct their primary residence here

[1:06:41] on the lot. You may recall they were

[1:06:43] before you unrepresented in May with a

[1:06:46] previous design. They withdrew that

[1:06:47] without prejudice to retool the design.

[1:06:50] The last one was pressing, you know,

[1:06:52] height exceptions and a few other

[1:06:53] things. So what has changed since the

[1:06:56] May application? Well, one is that

[1:06:58] during the May application, you

[1:07:00] reviewing it under the so-called

[1:07:02] superseding setbacks. That was

[1:07:04] incorrect. Unfortunately, the

[1:07:06] superseding setbacks only apply to

[1:07:08] structures that were in existence when

[1:07:12] the um the new dimensional requirements

[1:07:14] came through. It does not apply to

[1:07:16] vacant lots. We are stuck using the full

[1:07:18] R20 dimensional restrictions. Again,

[1:07:21] they also decreased the height of the

[1:07:25] structure to get under the 30 ft above

[1:07:27] average grade. Um they did attempt to

[1:07:30] shift the placement of the house around

[1:07:33] some more. Um Unfortunately,

[1:07:36] you can't make everyone happy. And if

[1:07:38] you push it left, then one neighbor gets

[1:07:40] upset, so you push back right, another

[1:07:42] neighbor gets upset. And there was

[1:07:43] really there was no sweet spot where it

[1:07:45] was satisfying everybody. And then

[1:07:48] another uh change that's important for

[1:07:49] tonight is that in the interim, the law

[1:07:51] has changed as to what is needed to

[1:07:54] demonstrate to um obtain a variance. So

[1:07:59] the relief we're looking for are three

[1:08:01] variances. We need a front yard

[1:08:03] variance. 30 ft is required. We're

[1:08:06] proposing 12.9 ft. Sideyard would be 20

[1:08:09] ft required. 10.2 is being proposed. And

[1:08:12] if you deem necessary, we'll take the

[1:08:13] lot area variance. Case law is a little

[1:08:16] murky. It's the protected buildable lot.

[1:08:19] So, I don't know that we need the 10,000

[1:08:20] square foot relief, but while we're here

[1:08:22] asking for relief, we just put it on

[1:08:24] there as a belt and suspenders kind of

[1:08:26] thing. Um,

[1:08:29] okay.

[1:08:32] And we have the updated chart here. I

[1:08:34] think that um the one we submitted had

[1:08:36] an incorrect calculation on lot width.

[1:08:39] Um but either way the corrected version

[1:08:42] is here and there's lot with complies.

[1:08:44] Um regardless

[1:08:49] per usual we have the full set of plans

[1:08:51] if we need to go back to reference those

[1:08:53] renderings 2D elevations

[1:08:57] floor plans

[1:08:59] etc.

[1:09:01] view looking out toward the ocean

[1:09:05] 180 plus 180 degrees but looking back up

[1:09:08] at the lot.

[1:09:10] This is the aerial photography and that

[1:09:13] is just the GIS map. So, as you are

[1:09:16] hopefully well aware, the new variant

[1:09:19] standard that took place this summer

[1:09:22] says that the board shall grant a

[1:09:23] variance from a particular term of

[1:09:25] ordinance if you find that strict

[1:09:28] enforcement would result in a practical

[1:09:31] difficulty.

[1:09:34] The new law gives you a balancing test

[1:09:37] you're supposed to employ. And the the

[1:09:38] test is whether the benefit to the

[1:09:41] petitioner, that would be my client, and

[1:09:43] the public interest in supporting the

[1:09:45] production of housing. You weigh that

[1:09:47] against potential detriment to public

[1:09:49] health, safety, and the welfare of the

[1:09:50] neighborhood. You're allowed to consider

[1:09:54] uh several factors. You're not required

[1:09:55] to consider all of them, but you may

[1:09:57] consider all of them or some of them as you deem relevant. We'll get into

[1:10:01] those one by one in a moment.

[1:10:04] Um, but again, this is a pretty big C

[1:10:07] change. Variances used to be you could

[1:10:09] only get a variance if you had a

[1:10:11] substantial hardship, etc. It was really

[1:10:12] supposed to be the exception. And the

[1:10:14] legislature took a look at what was

[1:10:16] going on and the lack of housing

[1:10:18] production and one of the big things

[1:10:19] being difficult variances were to obtain

[1:10:22] and how many things needed variances.

[1:10:24] And so they really flipped it on its

[1:10:25] head intentionally. And now it says

[1:10:27] instructs the board you shall grant one

[1:10:29] if you find that there'll be a practical

[1:10:31] difficulty in requiring strict

[1:10:33] enforcement. In this case we'll go

[1:10:35] through the practical difficulty is

[1:10:36] trying to site a conforming structure

[1:10:38] within the building envelope um on this

[1:10:42] lot.

[1:10:43] So again

[1:10:45] here is the aerial showing you the funny

[1:10:48] shape. If this line wasn't here you'd

[1:10:50] look and go oh it's just like the rest

[1:10:51] of the lots. It's a nice rectangle.

[1:10:53] Unfortunately, layout of flume takes a

[1:10:55] very large chunk of um what otherwise

[1:10:59] appears to be lot area and therefore we

[1:11:02] have to measure setbacks off of those

[1:11:04] lines, not off of the the physical stuff

[1:11:06] that we have out there. So at maximum we

[1:11:10] have 33 feet of width

[1:11:13] um to build a house. Uh unfortunately

[1:11:17] most of that is at the southern end. You

[1:11:19] can't build the house down there because

[1:11:21] the suitable soils for a septic system

[1:11:23] are at the southern portion of the

[1:11:25] property. So that last that bottom third

[1:11:28] basically of the wider part of the lot

[1:11:30] of the buildable envelope is off limits

[1:11:32] because you need to sight your septic

[1:11:34] system down there and then you need to

[1:11:35] have sufficient distance from the septic

[1:11:37] system to your house. That pushes

[1:11:39] everything toward the north. As you go

[1:11:41] toward the north, as you can see, that

[1:11:43] red triangle up there is every part of

[1:11:45] the so-called building envelope that is

[1:11:47] less than 20 feet in width and is not

[1:11:49] practical for um a residence. So, you

[1:11:52] have less than 10% of the lot becomes a

[1:11:57] viable building envelope where the R20

[1:11:59] district allows you otherwise that's a

[1:12:01] 25% lot coverage for for structures. So,

[1:12:05] it's a huge constraint to try and get

[1:12:07] something into that little um that

[1:12:10] little window of yellow.

[1:12:13] So, you're supposed to analyze how

[1:12:16] granting a variance will benefit my

[1:12:18] client and how benefit the public

[1:12:20] interest of creating housing. Well, of

[1:12:22] course, the benefit of my client's

[1:12:24] pretty easy. It's going to allow my

[1:12:26] clients to construct their primary

[1:12:28] residence and move into the property

[1:12:30] they've purchased. And then you go,

[1:12:32] okay, will it benefit the public

[1:12:34] interest of creating housing? Again,

[1:12:36] that's a pretty easy one. We're going to

[1:12:37] be creating a unit of housing where

[1:12:39] currently there is none. This variant

[1:12:41] standard is designed to make sure that

[1:12:43] housing is created in the Commonwealth

[1:12:44] and that um you know, otherwise

[1:12:47] unbuildable or difficult buildable lots

[1:12:49] don't remain vacant. And then you go,

[1:12:52] okay, well, what about the detriment to

[1:12:54] the public health, safety, or welfare of

[1:12:55] the neighborhood? Again, I don't think

[1:12:57] you'll find any um detriment to either

[1:13:01] of those categories and we'll discuss

[1:13:02] that in a bit. So again, these four

[1:13:05] factors, you allowed to weigh them,

[1:13:08] you're allowed to not weigh them, but I

[1:13:10] think um we should go through all of

[1:13:12] them and you can decide what you find

[1:13:13] relevant. So the first one is whether

[1:13:15] the practical difficulty relates to soil

[1:13:17] conditions, shape of land or structures.

[1:13:19] So we talked about the shape of the lot

[1:13:21] is driving a huge component of this

[1:13:22] practical difficulty and that has that

[1:13:24] funny curve throughout the northern

[1:13:25] corner. As to soil again all the good

[1:13:29] soil for a septic system is down where

[1:13:31] you would otherwise want to build the

[1:13:33] house where the building envelope is

[1:13:34] widest. And because it is a corner lot

[1:13:38] that frontage line which has the

[1:13:40] greatest setback um or tied with the

[1:13:43] rear line takes the northern the entire

[1:13:46] northern and eastern sides of this lot.

[1:13:48] So right there, the practical difficulty

[1:13:50] clearly comes out of soil conditions,

[1:13:52] the shape of the law, etc. You should

[1:13:54] also consider whether strict enforcement

[1:13:56] would impose a financial hardship on the

[1:13:57] petitioner. Well, my my clients paid

[1:13:59] $840,000 to purchase it. The city deems

[1:14:02] the property buildable and taxes them at

[1:14:04] a half million valuation every year. Um,

[1:14:08] and if we don't get variances, that

[1:14:10] little yellow area is barely big enough

[1:14:13] for a garage and an ADU above it. Um but

[1:14:16] you still have the same site prep costs,

[1:14:18] the same septic system installation

[1:14:19] costs. It' be a huge financial loss to

[1:14:22] uh require strict enforcement and build

[1:14:24] something within that small yellow area.

[1:14:26] You can also weigh whether the benefit

[1:14:27] sought by the petitioner can be achieved

[1:14:29] by some other method feasible with a um

[1:14:31] that's feasible, you know, complying,

[1:14:33] right? So again, there's no practical

[1:14:35] design that sits inside all of the

[1:14:37] setbacks.

[1:14:38] My client has tried to appease the

[1:14:41] neighbors with the sighting, but again,

[1:14:42] as you move it one way to the other, you

[1:14:45] end up, you know, appeasing someone and

[1:14:46] upsetting someone else. So, this is the

[1:14:48] best they can do with the myriad of

[1:14:50] concerns and requests that came in.

[1:14:53] And then you're allowed to consider

[1:14:55] whether the practical difficulty was

[1:14:56] self-created or not. This one was not.

[1:14:59] Again, this lot was created in 1964 and

[1:15:01] not by my clients. It was conveyed out

[1:15:02] in 1973 and remained buildable

[1:15:04] thereafter. The MLS listing

[1:15:07] unfortunately claimed it was R10 zoning

[1:15:09] and I have a copy of that listing right

[1:15:11] there. Build your dream home

[1:15:12] grandfathered into R10 zoning.

[1:15:15] Incorrect. And the city assesses it as

[1:15:17] residential and developable. So even the

[1:15:19] city anticipates that a structure will

[1:15:22] be built on this property.

[1:15:25] Now you received a letter submitted by

[1:15:28] attorney Elotis in opposition to this. I

[1:15:30] want to just quickly go through because

[1:15:31] unfortunately that letter seemed to

[1:15:32] misstate the law throughout most of it

[1:15:34] and cites some nonprotected interests

[1:15:36] that I think need to be uh cleared up.

[1:15:39] So the first argument is that the lot

[1:15:41] with variance is needed but not

[1:15:42] requested. Um with all due respect,

[1:15:46] attorney uh misunderstands the GZO

[1:15:49] treats corner lots. He says this lot

[1:15:51] only has one sideyard setback. That's

[1:15:53] wrong. He incorrectly measures the lot

[1:15:55] width based on that misunderstanding.

[1:15:57] Again in the diagram here, the front

[1:15:59] yard line is that green line which runs

[1:16:01] again the entire northern eastern side.

[1:16:04] Lot width is a line is a line drawn

[1:16:06] parallel to the frontage line at the

[1:16:10] that intersects at the point of the

[1:16:11] structure closest to that line. So that

[1:16:14] dashed orange line by definition is the

[1:16:16] lot width and that is um more than 2x

[1:16:19] the required lot width. So we don't need

[1:16:22] a lot with variance and that's why there

[1:16:24] is no lot with variance requested.

[1:16:27] Second argument he makes is about loss

[1:16:28] of view and loss of value. As this

[1:16:30] board's well aware, view is not a

[1:16:33] protected interest in the Gloucester

[1:16:34] zoning ordinance unless you're exceeding

[1:16:36] the maximum allowable height. This

[1:16:38] proposed height is sorry, this proposed

[1:16:40] house will be under 30 feet above

[1:16:42] average grade. So there is no protected

[1:16:45] view interest um per the GO.

[1:16:48] Additionally, a reduction in value of

[1:16:50] neighboring properties is not a

[1:16:52] protected interest under the GZO or 4DA.

[1:16:56] There was um a recent superior court

[1:16:58] case where someone was appealing a um

[1:17:01] recent a 2024 decision that you had

[1:17:03] granted. One of the arguments that

[1:17:05] appellant made was, hey, this is going

[1:17:07] to reduce the value of my house. And the

[1:17:10] judge um granted a motion dismiss and

[1:17:12] threw it out and said that's not a

[1:17:14] protected interest. just because

[1:17:16] someone's house devalues your house.

[1:17:17] It's nothing that the local ordinance or

[1:17:19] the state um says is protectable.

[1:17:22] Then um attorney amuses gets into an

[1:17:25] argument about hardship. Again, we're

[1:17:27] very clear. There is no hardship

[1:17:29] standard. That is gone. You no longer

[1:17:31] need to prove quote that it's virtually

[1:17:33] unbuildable without variances. You only

[1:17:36] have to show practical difficulty. And

[1:17:40] you'll note that in his letter, attorney

[1:17:42] Ambiotus um admits that the neighbors

[1:17:45] concede that there does exist some

[1:17:48] practical difficulties due to the nature

[1:17:50] of the law. So even they admit that

[1:17:52] we've met the correct standard. Their

[1:17:54] argument, however, about hardship tries

[1:17:56] to um basically blindside you with

[1:17:59] irrelevant arguments on a extinct

[1:18:01] standard.

[1:18:03] There's an argument about the front yard

[1:18:05] and the distance from the street.

[1:18:06] There's concern about a quote extreme

[1:18:08] reduction the established visual

[1:18:10] character um and the safety as you come

[1:18:13] around this corner. So the vast majority

[1:18:15] of this neighborhood does not come close

[1:18:17] to meeting the 30foot front yard

[1:18:20] setback.

[1:18:22] Regardless, this structure is more than

[1:18:25] 30 feet from the improved portion of

[1:18:28] Flume Road. It's actually more than 55

[1:18:31] ft from that corner intersection. So

[1:18:33] although it may not meet the technical

[1:18:35] front yard of being 30 feet back from

[1:18:37] the property line, as far as um

[1:18:41] conforming to the idea that you want

[1:18:43] some space between a house and the road

[1:18:44] to make sure there's good sight lines,

[1:18:46] again, we're 55 ft back from the

[1:18:49] traveled intersection and it's closest

[1:18:51] um no closer than no closer than 30 feet

[1:18:54] from the paved part of the road.

[1:18:57] And that is again the superposition of

[1:19:00] the proposed house. And you see how far

[1:19:04] away it is from the actual traveled and

[1:19:07] paved portions of Flume Road. It's just

[1:19:09] close to the layout of Flume Road that

[1:19:11] has not been improved and would not be

[1:19:14] improved uh going forward.

[1:19:19] There was an argument about crowding.

[1:19:21] And so again, it's, you know,

[1:19:23] unfortunately, one of the chief

[1:19:24] opponents, the neighbor next door,

[1:19:27] throughout this letter, every accusation

[1:19:28] seems to be a confession.

[1:19:31] This neighbor is three feet off of the

[1:19:34] property line with their house. They're

[1:19:36] about a foot off the property line with

[1:19:37] their deck. We're going to honor at

[1:19:40] least 10 feet, right? So, we're 3x on

[1:19:43] that. Um, in addition, although the

[1:19:46] superseding setbacks unfortunately do

[1:19:47] not apply to this lot, they apply to

[1:19:49] this neighborhood because there was some

[1:19:51] wisdom in enacting these stricter

[1:19:53] controls saying this is one of the

[1:19:54] neighborhoods that well you're going to

[1:19:56] zone at R20, but it doesn't make sense

[1:19:57] to try and get these art these lots to

[1:19:59] comply with, you know, 20 foot sideyard

[1:20:01] setbacks and 30 foot front yard

[1:20:03] setbacks. And then again, storm risks

[1:20:05] and view of oceans are not protected

[1:20:07] interests.

[1:20:09] Um, there was also this argument that

[1:20:11] well on the on the septic plan there was

[1:20:13] a viable design that was conforming and

[1:20:15] so the neighbors could just build that

[1:20:17] conforming structure. Again, that was

[1:20:19] incorrect because that septic plan also

[1:20:22] incorrectly used the superseding

[1:20:24] setbacks. That house that attorney

[1:20:27] amotus says would be acceptable requires

[1:20:30] the exact same three variances this

[1:20:33] house does. It's a front yard variance,

[1:20:34] a sideyard variance, and potentially a

[1:20:36] lot area variance. So that house does

[1:20:39] not conform. There is no viable house

[1:20:41] that conforms.

[1:20:43] Again, I um believe we've met the

[1:20:46] standard of showing that the practical

[1:20:48] difficulty would exist if you required

[1:20:50] strict enforcement. Believe we've shown

[1:20:52] that the benefit to the petitioner and

[1:20:54] the benefit of the good of creating a

[1:20:56] unit of housing outweigh the virtually

[1:20:58] non-existent detriment to the

[1:21:00] neighborhood by allowing a single family

[1:21:01] house on an otherwise vacant lot. So I

[1:21:04] ask that you would grant a front yard

[1:21:05] variance, a sideyard variance, and if

[1:21:07] you think you need one, we can take a

[1:21:09] lot area variance. I leave that to the

[1:21:11] discretion of the board and I thank you.

[1:21:16] Any questions up front by the

[1:21:19] members?

[1:21:22] Okay, we'll uh open public hearing.

[1:21:24] Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the

[1:21:26] application,

[1:21:28] please come forward. or if you're on

[1:21:30] Zoom, raise your hand

[1:21:32] on your device.

[1:21:39] Seeing none, is there anyone wishing to

[1:21:41] speak in opposition to the project?

[1:21:44] Any opposition?

[1:21:47] I remind everybody name and address

[1:21:49] first, please, and then

[1:21:52] say what you like to say.

[1:21:57] » Good evening, members of the board. My

[1:21:59] name is Nicholas Amblyotus. I'm an

[1:22:01] attorney practicing law at 99 Rosewood

[1:22:04] Drive in Danas, Massachusetts. I'm here

[1:22:06] on behalf of the director of butter,

[1:22:09] Margaret Bonakos, who's also here to my

[1:22:12] right.

[1:22:13] >> Uh Nicholas on Zoom, you got to uh you

[1:22:15] might be better if you take that

[1:22:16] microphone and put it right just hold it

[1:22:18] under your chin. You know, maybe even

[1:22:20] just lay it right up on under your chin.

[1:22:22] >> Okay.

[1:22:23] >> Thank you.

[1:22:24] >> So, I'm Nick Ambbleotus. I'm an attorney

[1:22:26] practicing law in 99 Rosewood, Danver,

[1:22:29] Massachusetts. I'm here with the

[1:22:32] director butter representing the

[1:22:34] director butter Margaret Banakos who

[1:22:36] lives at 27 Flume Road and she is here

[1:22:39] to my right. Um, I've listened to the

[1:22:44] presentation and reviewed the materials

[1:22:47] and um, the neighborhood is pretty

[1:22:52] Margaret Banakos and the rest of the

[1:22:54] neighbors are pretty much united um,

[1:22:56] against this project. Um

[1:23:00] the reasons that we are against this

[1:23:03] project one I do believe that this

[1:23:06] project this this um particular project

[1:23:09] does not uh ask for all the requested

[1:23:12] relief. I do not believe it complies

[1:23:14] with the lot width area. Lot width

[1:23:17] according to my reading of the lost to

[1:23:20] zoning ordinance is the defined as the

[1:23:23] horizontal distance between the side

[1:23:24] property lines of a lot measured

[1:23:26] parallel to the front property line at

[1:23:28] that side of the principal building

[1:23:30] closest to the property line. I don't

[1:23:32] see anywhere in the petition that shows

[1:23:38] uh where where that where the um how

[1:23:42] that uh dimension is met for the lot

[1:23:45] with and I find it to be a practical

[1:23:49] impossibility because there's only one

[1:23:50] side setback. Therefore, I don't think

[1:23:53] it complies with u the lot with

[1:23:55] requirement in that the petitioner

[1:23:57] should be seeking that relief. Secondly,

[1:23:59] I'd like to point out that the lot at

[1:24:01] for the reasons set forth in the um

[1:24:04] applicants uh application, it's already

[1:24:06] buildable. It's a pre-existing

[1:24:08] non-conforming lot. They just have to

[1:24:10] abide by the current setbacks uh which

[1:24:13] are 30 ft for frontage and 20 ft for

[1:24:16] side yards. The the applicant can build

[1:24:19] a home. He can build a smaller home. Um

[1:24:22] the

[1:24:26] zoning changes that have been instituted

[1:24:29] over the summer have lessened the

[1:24:31] standard for for granting variances and

[1:24:35] we acknowledge that and it's lessened

[1:24:37] the standard from substantial hardship

[1:24:39] to pra practical difficulty.

[1:24:42] That doesn't mean that a petitioner can

[1:24:46] go and build whatever they want and

[1:24:48] maximize the the building footprint

[1:24:51] without um regard to the to the

[1:24:54] considering the the public welfare and

[1:24:57] the and the u um its neighbors and in

[1:25:02] and how that project fits in with the

[1:25:03] neighborhood. It it's it's

[1:25:06] designed to create more single family

[1:25:08] housing. the um the new the new statute

[1:25:12] um that by lessening the standard from

[1:25:15] substantial hardship to practical

[1:25:17] difficulty. It's not designed to allow

[1:25:19] people to build McMansions on postage

[1:25:22] stamp lots with ocean view um to to

[1:25:25] maximize their um their ocean views.

[1:25:28] this project is is he's creating to pres

[1:25:32] um he's designing a a oddly shaped home

[1:25:36] that fans out like a trapezoid and he's

[1:25:40] and it's going 10 it's not just a 10-ft

[1:25:43] sideback uh 10-ft um sideyard setback

[1:25:49] relief in one spot. He's proposing a

[1:25:52] 10-ft sideyard

[1:25:54] setback relief the entire length of the

[1:25:56] home. and it's like fanning out like a

[1:25:59] trapezoid and it's without any regard to

[1:26:02] the to the rest of the neighborhood and

[1:26:03] how it how it fits in there. Um, and

[1:26:06] he's also expanding asking for the

[1:26:10] relief on the frontage on the curved

[1:26:11] side of Flume Road where he has that

[1:26:14] breakfast nook and in that area sticking

[1:26:16] out and he's and he's and and and

[1:26:21] it's it's much too big for the lot. And

[1:26:23] that's not what the the um the zoning

[1:26:26] change was designed for to to allow

[1:26:28] people to to build these excessively

[1:26:31] large homes. It was designed to create

[1:26:34] more single family housing. Now the the

[1:26:38] it was brought up at the last meeting

[1:26:41] that you know the the the petition and

[1:26:43] did get approval for a septic design

[1:26:45] plan for for a four fourbedroom house on

[1:26:50] a and he had and he

[1:26:53] um proposed a dwelling footprint that

[1:26:56] was 28x 38 with a 22x 22 ft garage and I

[1:27:01] attached that plan I I attached the plan

[1:27:05] um two versions of the plan. The actual

[1:27:08] tire plan, which is hard to read because

[1:27:10] it's so small, and then I blew it up so

[1:27:12] you could see the the setbacks. And

[1:27:15] that, as the petitioner correctly notes,

[1:27:18] is asking for the same sideback relief

[1:27:21] of 10 ft, but it's only in one corner of

[1:27:25] the of the lot where the garage is. And

[1:27:27] then it's the the the the the um the

[1:27:31] footprint of the home is appropriately

[1:27:34] um configured on the lot. So it's angled

[1:27:37] and it and it does open up um some more

[1:27:41] area in between

[1:27:44] 27 Flume Road and 29 Flume Road. So

[1:27:47] there's not this 25 to 30 foot wall

[1:27:51] um on on her side of the of the lot as

[1:27:55] proposed by by the application. It's a

[1:27:58] much more reasonably designed home and it's not a a small home. It's by my

[1:28:05] calculation, it's a 2600 ft home. Um and

[1:28:09] it and it's much more appropriate for this lot and it's and it's much more

[1:28:14] appropriate for the neighborhood. And I

[1:28:17] think if the board is considering

[1:28:19] granting relief because of this

[1:28:21] practical difficulty standard, it

[1:28:23] doesn't have to grant the petitioner

[1:28:27] the relief. It it's it seeks to build an

[1:28:31] overly excessive home u sized home on on

[1:28:34] this small lot. It should it should ask

[1:28:39] the the petitioner to build something

[1:28:41] that's more in line with with the rest

[1:28:44] of the neighborhood in that that in in blends in with the neighborhood much better. Um

[1:28:55] is there anything you'd like to add

[1:28:56] Margaret?

[1:28:58] >> Yeah. Margaret Bakus.

[1:29:00] >> Hi, I'm Margaret Bakus. I've been a

[1:29:02] Gloucester resident for over 50 years.

[1:29:06] Um, the direct to Butter.

[1:29:08] >> What's your address, ma'am?

[1:29:10] >> 27 Flume Road. The Direct to Butter.

[1:29:13] >> Um, it's been our family home for over

[1:29:15] 50 years.

[1:29:16] >> Can you bring that mic a little closer,

[1:29:18] ma'am? Thank you. Sure.

[1:29:19] >> So, said it's been our family home for

[1:29:22] over 50 years. I've been a widow for 18

[1:29:25] years. I've continued to work to pay off

[1:29:27] this family home, and I only have a few

[1:29:30] payments left.

[1:29:32] Um,

[1:29:34] however,

[1:29:36] if this oversized plan goes through,

[1:29:40] I'll have this 30-foot wall built in

[1:29:44] front of me,

[1:29:46] which will take a great portion of the

[1:29:48] view and devalue the property.

[1:29:54] Um,

[1:29:57] and several of those neighbors around

[1:29:59] me. I'm not just speaking for myself.

[1:30:03] It's not like there aren't some other

[1:30:05] choices here.

[1:30:08] Our neighborhood is opposed to the

[1:30:10] oversized footprint of this home. We all

[1:30:14] just want something more reasonable.

[1:30:17] We're not opposed to a home being built

[1:30:19] here.

[1:30:20] I think with something more reasonable,

[1:30:23] everybody wins.

[1:30:27] It just doesn't seem right that Mr.

[1:30:29] Gikis can try to take so much from us,

[1:30:33] our views, our property value to get the

[1:30:36] large footprint he wants. It's a

[1:30:39] beautiful lot with incredible views.

[1:30:42] Again, I just hope they can do something

[1:30:44] more reasonable.

[1:30:46] Thank you.

[1:31:01] Anyone else wishing to speak in

[1:31:02] opposition?

[1:31:06] Yes, I'm Sue Herszika. I live at 24

[1:31:10] Flume Road, which is a right directly

[1:31:13] across the street. Uh

[1:31:16] Margaret and myself

[1:31:19] and all of the nearby neighbors

[1:31:23] um have signed a letter to you stating

[1:31:28] that we oppose

[1:31:30] uh this plan.

[1:31:32] And as Margaret um very nicely said,

[1:31:37] it's not that we oppose having a

[1:31:39] building a h a home built there. We

[1:31:42] understand that it's a buildable lot. We

[1:31:46] are just

[1:31:48] opposed to the scale of this lot of this

[1:31:52] building.

[1:31:54] Um I'm pleased to see that they came

[1:31:57] into compliance with the height

[1:31:59] restriction. They originally wanted 35

[1:32:03] ft and now they're down to 30. So that

[1:32:06] was a good uh that was a nice

[1:32:08] accommodation.

[1:32:10] Um, and I just hope that

[1:32:16] the geekases and the board realize that

[1:32:22] building a McMansion on this lot

[1:32:26] is unreasonable.

[1:32:29] Um, [clears throat] again, the new

[1:32:32] there's been a lot said about the new

[1:32:34] law. The new law was not designed to

[1:32:39] allow someone to build any size home

[1:32:43] that they wanted on any lot. It was

[1:32:46] really designed to

[1:32:49] give opportunities to increase housing

[1:32:51] units, whether it be ADU units or other

[1:32:56] splitting of property to allow for more

[1:33:01] housing for people.

[1:33:05] So I think that's a misrepresentation

[1:33:08] when folks refer to

[1:33:13] the new law is giving

[1:33:17] uh handing over complete permission to

[1:33:20] do what you want.

[1:33:24] The lawyer re representing the geekases

[1:33:28] mentioned something about how they paid

[1:33:31] a handsome sum for this property as if

[1:33:37] that entitles them to build a large

[1:33:41] home.

[1:33:42] He also cited uh a

[1:33:47] ruling

[1:33:49] that talked about

[1:33:52] whether or not

[1:33:54] another person's home would be devalued.

[1:33:58] My understanding is that

[1:34:01] um the person people can't I'm not sure how

[1:34:09] to say this but that

[1:34:14] I don't think that the what they paid

[1:34:16] for that lot

[1:34:18] is a factor in this argument at all.

[1:34:23] They they knew what they bought. They

[1:34:26] knew what they paid for. They could have

[1:34:27] offered less. They could have offered

[1:34:29] more. But they offered and got the lot

[1:34:32] at a certain price. That price does not

[1:34:35] entitle them to do anything they want.

[1:34:40] I

[1:34:42] so I I wish that we could come to a

[1:34:46] reasonable compromise

[1:34:49] so that as Margaret said, everyone would

[1:34:52] win. uh that people would be allowed to

[1:34:55] have build a lovely home with a nice

[1:34:58] view.

[1:35:00] Um [clears throat] and

[1:35:04] you know that the neighbors could feel

[1:35:06] comfortable

[1:35:08] with a plan that is more reasonable. If

[1:35:12] they're looking for a 10- ft

[1:35:15] um

[1:35:17] exception on one side and a 17 ft

[1:35:20] exception on the other, you're talking

[1:35:23] about 27 ft.

[1:35:26] That's pretty much that whole

[1:35:30] It wouldn't be the whole bump out that

[1:35:32] they're looking for on the side for the

[1:35:36] breakfast nook and etc. above, but we're

[1:35:40] talking like a huge a huge space.

[1:35:44] So, I noticed that in the application,

[1:35:47] and maybe this isn't something that's

[1:35:48] required with the zoning, um, but

[1:35:52] they've never mentioned how many square

[1:35:54] ft this house is, and by our estimates,

[1:35:57] it's got to be like over 3,000 square ft

[1:36:01] home. Um, I'm not exactly sure because I

[1:36:04] didn't really know how to figure that

[1:36:05] out, but um, it's huge.

[1:36:13] There's probably a lot more that I could

[1:36:15] say, but it may be repeating some of

[1:36:17] what other people have already said. So,

[1:36:21] I don't think I need to say um more

[1:36:25] about that, but

[1:36:27] um I do believe it will devalue

[1:36:30] Margaret's home and mine built at this

[1:36:33] scale.

[1:36:34] And I will definitely take that into

[1:36:37] consideration

[1:36:39] uh in regards to asking my taxes to be

[1:36:41] lowered, you know, if my value of my

[1:36:44] property is less. So anyway, there's a

[1:36:47] lot of complications here and I just

[1:36:49] hope that, you know, we can come up with

[1:36:52] something that's acceptable and that we

[1:36:55] can all get along. All right. Thank you

[1:36:58] very much for your time.

[1:37:00] >> Thank you.

[1:37:02] >> Anyone else wishing to speak in

[1:37:03] opposition?

[1:37:09] One hand up.

[1:37:43] a dairy. There you are. You're muted. If

[1:37:46] you can unmute.

[1:37:50] » How's that?

[1:37:51] >> There you go.

[1:37:53] >> Okay. Hi, I'm Ann Sedary. I live at 26A

[1:37:57] Flume Road, Magnolia. [clears throat]

[1:38:00] and thank you for the opportunity for

[1:38:03] all of us to express our feelings about

[1:38:07] this potential home being built. I am so

[1:38:12] in agreement with the fact that he

[1:38:15] bought the lot and absolutely should

[1:38:18] build a house,

[1:38:20] but that lot is too small for a 3,000

[1:38:25] some odd square foot home

[1:38:28] and every I won't go over what has

[1:38:31] already been said, but I really believe

[1:38:35] that there is a um problem there will be

[1:38:39] a problem with foot traffic and um cars

[1:38:45] and and blinders being put on people

[1:38:49] driving by because

[1:38:52] it's leaving very little room to be able

[1:38:56] to see around the corner. And we noticed

[1:39:00] this week, I noticed actually when there

[1:39:04] was some trees being taken down, you you

[1:39:06] couldn't get through the road. And many

[1:39:09] times when I come down Lynon,

[1:39:12] as I did today, I had to pull over and

[1:39:15] wait for someone to pass me by till they

[1:39:18] get to the stop sign. And then all I

[1:39:21] thought was, what are they going to see?

[1:39:24] They're not going to be able to see the

[1:39:26] right or the left. So,

[1:39:29] my concern is is is number one, it's too

[1:39:34] big a house for that lot. And if he

[1:39:38] didn't or the people that bought it

[1:39:40] didn't know that when they bought it, I

[1:39:42] feel bad for them. But a lot of people

[1:39:45] buy homes and don't realize exactly what

[1:39:48] they're getting or think they can do

[1:39:50] something and then they disco discover

[1:39:53] they can't. So in this case, the

[1:39:56] solution is truly to be respectful to

[1:40:00] the neighbors, to the land, to the

[1:40:04] city of Magnol Town of Magnolia

[1:40:07] and and build something beautiful but

[1:40:10] appropriate in size.

[1:40:13] So and none of us would object.

[1:40:17] So um that's my feeling and thank you so

[1:40:21] much for letting me say it.

[1:40:24] Thank you.

[1:40:26] Anyone else?

[1:40:32] Seeing none,

[1:40:34] we'll close public testimony. It' be

[1:40:37] rebuttal

[1:40:39] time.

[1:40:44] » Going to share my screen once more.

[1:41:03] So, I think it's um important at the

[1:41:06] beginning of my rebuttal to remind the

[1:41:07] board that what I just heard, the

[1:41:11] complaints were about size, about view,

[1:41:15] and about value. And as I've explained

[1:41:17] previously, the law states, our own

[1:41:20] local law states that view is not

[1:41:22] protected interest. So when you go to

[1:41:23] weigh this test, people complain about

[1:41:25] view does not get put on the scale.

[1:41:28] Reduction in value also is not protected

[1:41:30] interest. So that doesn't go on the

[1:41:31] scale either. We can talk about sizing

[1:41:33] to the degree that that somehow affects

[1:41:35] the public welfare, etc. Um, but I want

[1:41:38] to just point out

[1:41:41] that 27 Flume Road, same size lot,

[1:41:45] 10,000 square ft, inadequate frontage.

[1:41:48] Actually, more nonconformities. We at

[1:41:50] least have adequate frontage. That one

[1:41:51] does not. That encroaches into the front

[1:41:53] and left side yard setback. It's three

[1:41:55] times closer to the shared property line

[1:41:57] than we're proposing. It has the same

[1:42:00] technical distance. like the front of

[1:42:02] their house is the same technical

[1:42:04] distance um from the from the actual

[1:42:09] layout. Sorry. The front of the house is

[1:42:11] the same practical distance from the

[1:42:12] paved portion of the road um or for I'm

[1:42:16] stumbling over my words here. I want to

[1:42:17] get this right. Is the same technical

[1:42:19] distance from the layout of Flume Road,

[1:42:20] but it's closer to the actual pavement

[1:42:22] than ours would be. It's also bigger. 27

[1:42:25] according to the city's records is 2589

[1:42:28] square ft including decks. proposed

[1:42:31] house on 209 would be 2,450 square feet

[1:42:34] including decks. So, it's actually a

[1:42:36] smaller house than is at 27 despite

[1:42:38] being on the same size lot. Um, again,

[1:42:42] this is the the superimposition.

[1:42:44] You can even see

[1:42:45] >> Joel, could you just repeat that for me?

[1:42:47] You said the size of this proposed house

[1:42:50] is what?

[1:42:51] >> 20. The proposed house including Dex is

[1:42:53] 2,450 ft. We have to stay under 25% of

[1:42:58] 10,000 square ft. The neighbor's house

[1:43:00] exceeds the maximum lot coverage by 89

[1:43:03] square feet is the 2589 including decks.

[1:43:07] And when you superimpose the footprint,

[1:43:09] you can even see that this house is

[1:43:12] smaller than um 27. It's actually also

[1:43:15] smaller, quite smaller than um 211

[1:43:18] Hesperess, which is right down here.

[1:43:19] That one is 2,999

[1:43:22] square ft of uh footprint including

[1:43:25] decks on a 10,000t lot. Same size lot.

[1:43:28] um 500 square feet bigger in the same

[1:43:31] neighborhood.

[1:43:32] >> Jo, which which house that

[1:43:34] >> that would be that would be 211, which

[1:43:36] is down here. But unfortunately, if I go

[1:43:38] back way back to

[1:43:42] this one, you can see this house here is

[1:43:46] just a scoch under 3,000 square foot

[1:43:49] with a footprint on the same 10,000 foot

[1:43:52] lot um that the rest of these have. So

[1:43:56] this is, you know,

[1:43:57] >> do you happen to know um the square

[1:43:59] footage proposed relative to the

[1:44:02] neighborhood average square footage?

[1:44:05] >> No, I I don't have the full

[1:44:07] neighborhood. I tried to grab the ones

[1:44:08] that were um closest. I thought 27 was

[1:44:12] particularly of interest seeing the, you

[1:44:14] know, the characterization of this as a

[1:44:17] McMansion despite being smaller than her

[1:44:19] own family house. Um it's also

[1:44:21] interesting seeing as this house has

[1:44:23] been uh in the family for over 50 years.

[1:44:27] That means um shortly after it was built

[1:44:32] uh it went about 20 years later in 1987

[1:44:35] her family took to the ZBA to get a

[1:44:38] front yard and a sideyard variance

[1:44:41] because they wanted to expand their

[1:44:42] footprint to the current almost 2600 ft

[1:44:45] it is and get within about 3 ft of the

[1:44:48] property line. and this board or your

[1:44:50] predecessors granted a front yard

[1:44:52] variance and a sideyard variance so they

[1:44:54] could expand the footprint of the house

[1:44:55] to over 200 square feet and get within

[1:44:58] three feet of this shared line that all

[1:44:59] of a sudden 10 ft is too close and 2450

[1:45:03] is too much.

[1:45:06] Um,

[1:45:08] and this is again and actually a more

[1:45:10] accurate survey shows that there was

[1:45:11] actually an error here and the deck per

[1:45:15] that relief was only supposed to be the

[1:45:17] closest point. It's like 3 3.2 two feet,

[1:45:19] something like that. The deck is

[1:45:20] basically a foot off the line, and the

[1:45:22] house itself is 3 feet.

[1:45:27] Um, and again, this is a shot of, you

[1:45:29] know, this is the house that the

[1:45:31] neighbor is complaining about,

[1:45:32] McMansions being built in this

[1:45:34] neighborhood and how inappropriate a

[1:45:36] 24,000 uh, sorry, 20 2,450T house would

[1:45:40] be. Um, you can also see, talk about

[1:45:42] proximity, this is 27. You can see her

[1:45:44] entire fence is over the property line

[1:45:46] onto my client's property and we're

[1:45:49] complaining about how close my client's

[1:45:51] house might be to her property line when

[1:45:52] she's onto my client's property.

[1:45:56] Um other people who wrote in opposition

[1:45:58] 19 Flume Road, that's the red star down

[1:46:00] there. There's been no impact to the the

[1:46:03] well-being um the welfare of the public

[1:46:06] health relating to 19 Flume Road. what

[1:46:09] we're doing over here at 29

[1:46:11] 24 was an opposition. Uh again the

[1:46:16] concern was about views etc. Those are

[1:46:19] not protected interests. You can't weigh

[1:46:20] those when weighing whether or not this

[1:46:22] will um provide these detriments. And uh

[1:46:26] again market value is not something that

[1:46:29] can be considered is not a protected

[1:46:31] interest by the state law or the local

[1:46:33] law. 21 Flume Road also joined that

[1:46:35] letter. Again they're four lots down.

[1:46:38] nothing we're doing over at 29 is going

[1:46:40] to impact them in any way.

[1:46:43] Uh 25 is two lots down. We're still 70

[1:46:47] feet away

[1:46:49] um from the the lot here. And again, we

[1:46:55] are similarly situated back from the

[1:46:57] paved portion of Flume Road as 25 is.

[1:47:01] 28 again is going to be 50 ft plus away

[1:47:04] from the structure. Sorry, it's 50 ft

[1:47:06] from the the lot and 85 ft from the

[1:47:08] structure. Again, a high school

[1:47:10] basketball court could fit in between

[1:47:12] this house and the house that is

[1:47:13] concerned about um what we're building

[1:47:16] on 29.

[1:47:18] We also have 26 joined in letter. They

[1:47:21] are over 130 ft from the structure. So,

[1:47:23] you could actually have a Boeing 737

[1:47:26] taxi between these two houses. Um, I

[1:47:30] don't see how anything going on at 29 is

[1:47:31] going to be impacting uh 26. And then we

[1:47:35] have 22 and 22R. Again, so far, like

[1:47:38] nothing we're doing at 29 is going to

[1:47:39] impact these people. I appreciate that

[1:47:41] everyone has this kind of free lot in

[1:47:43] the neighborhood and they've had it for

[1:47:44] years and they're probably bummed out

[1:47:45] the free lot is going away, but those

[1:47:48] are not, you know, reasons to deny

[1:47:50] reasonable relief. So again, as we

[1:47:53] remind the board of the new standard

[1:47:54] says, you shall grant a variance if you

[1:47:57] can find enforcing it strictly would

[1:47:59] result in a practical difficulty. You

[1:48:01] shall weigh the benefits to my client

[1:48:03] and the public interest of creating

[1:48:05] housing versus public health, safety,

[1:48:08] and welfare of the neighborhood. And

[1:48:09] you've heard no one give a viable

[1:48:11] argument about health, safety, and

[1:48:13] welfare. You've heard about devaluation

[1:48:15] of property values and loss of views.

[1:48:18] And to the degree that any opposition

[1:48:20] cited concerns about proximity to the

[1:48:22] road, we are further back from the

[1:48:24] traveled road than the majority of

[1:48:26] houses on that street. And if anything,

[1:48:29] that tree that's on the corner now

[1:48:30] that's going to come down will improve

[1:48:32] the site across that corner. So I

[1:48:35] believe we've met the standard for

[1:48:37] granting a variance under the current

[1:48:39] standard. I would ask again for a front

[1:48:41] yard variance, sideyard variance, and if

[1:48:44] you think it's necessary, a watt area

[1:48:46] variance. Thank you.

[1:48:49] [clears throat] Discussion by

[1:48:51] the board.

[1:48:53] I think um

[1:48:56] the most telling stat is the fact that

[1:48:58] it's not exceeding the lot coverage. So

[1:49:01] to make a statement that's too big for

[1:49:03] the lot

[1:49:05] may be applicable if they were looking

[1:49:08] for 40% coverage, but they're under 25%

[1:49:11] coverage, which is the standard for this

[1:49:13] neighborhood and for those lots. So, I I

[1:49:16] saw that as to me the most compelling

[1:49:19] argument against saying it's too big for

[1:49:21] the lot. Um,

[1:49:25] just something I noticed.

[1:49:27] >> Uh, I think the comparison to some

[1:49:30] houses uh in the area uh I was under the

[1:49:33] impression uh that this house had more

[1:49:36] square footage uh than Joel is uh

[1:49:39] telling us. I was just doing some very

[1:49:42] quick calculations but I didn't um I was

[1:49:44] just looking at some the you know the

[1:49:46] plans but um I I believe what he's

[1:49:49] telling me. So uh so it to me it's it's

[1:49:53] a comparable size to a number of homes

[1:49:56] uh close by. Uh I also I personally

[1:49:59] don't have a big issue even with the uh

[1:50:04] large variance that's being asked for on

[1:50:06] the front uh because of the the uh the

[1:50:11] way that the road goes very far away

[1:50:14] from the legal property uh itself. Um I

[1:50:18] don't think it there are going to be uh

[1:50:20] any issues

[1:50:22] um for driving uh for obstructing views or

[1:50:30] uh you know visual there was concerns

[1:50:32] that you're not going to be able to see

[1:50:33] the cars coming and stuff like that. If

[1:50:35] you look at um one of the the uh pages

[1:50:38] that Joel put up showed it uh very well

[1:50:42] uh that the road goes far if I'm um with

[1:50:46] the ocean to my right hand side and I'm

[1:50:47] looking at that road it goes far to the

[1:50:49] right uh from where the property line

[1:50:52] actually is. So I don't have an issue

[1:50:54] even though it feels like a large

[1:50:56] variance on the front. Um I don't have a

[1:50:58] big issue with that variance.

[1:51:01] I agree the um

[1:51:04] >> I guess I would add also um that the

[1:51:07] diffic with the septic

[1:51:10] um positioning that adds additional

[1:51:13] difficulty in terms of sighting.

[1:51:18] >> Yeah. It takes away a substantial

[1:51:20] portion of the lot for building. Yes.

[1:51:23] >> When this was developed and these lots

[1:51:25] were carved up, this lot was meant to

[1:51:28] have a house just like all the other

[1:51:29] ones. some reason that lot didn't get

[1:51:32] built on for whatever reason. Maybe

[1:51:34] somebody else owned it in conjunction

[1:51:36] was going to leave it. But we in 10

[1:51:39] years doing doing these hearings, every

[1:51:43] there's such a demand for housing. Every

[1:51:45] vacant lot out there and every

[1:51:46] opportunity to divide more open land to

[1:51:50] create housing is going to come forward.

[1:51:53] And people get to en you know the

[1:51:54] statement you get to enjoy this. And

[1:51:56] we've seen that so many times. Oh, it's

[1:51:59] there's been nothing there. I don't like

[1:52:01] something going there. Well, that's not

[1:52:04] an excuse to deny home to be built on a

[1:52:08] buildable lot. So,

[1:52:10] it's it's happens too much. People are

[1:52:12] used to it. They think it's their open

[1:52:14] land and it's not. So, somebody owns it.

[1:52:18] So, anyway, I would support the

[1:52:21] application. Anybody run?

[1:52:24] >> Yes, I would support it. Um my major

[1:52:27] objection was the uh height previously.

[1:52:30] Um I think some of the this is a an

[1:52:34] example of the the

[1:52:40] difficulty for the public to understand

[1:52:44] zoning. And it's probably ever thus

[1:52:48] um

[1:52:50] it just isn't going to do what a people

[1:52:55] when they're confronted by a development

[1:52:58] in their neighborhood would like. It

[1:53:01] it's if you

[1:53:05] object to this, take another look at the

[1:53:09] criteria that we are asked to to use

[1:53:14] that some of the arguments about not

[1:53:17] being able to see around the corner.

[1:53:20] Frankly, it's an absurd argument

[1:53:24] given that stretched out corner. So that

[1:53:27] doesn't help the the situation very

[1:53:30] much. And saying McMansions and calling

[1:53:34] names and then having it's pretty

[1:53:37] apparent to anybody who drives through

[1:53:38] that neighborhood that a 2500 square

[1:53:42] foot home is is going to be around the

[1:53:45] median. So I I have nothing against

[1:53:49] this. I look forward to seeing a nice

[1:53:52] home on that lot.

[1:53:55] entertain a motion.

[1:53:56] >> So, do we think he needs a a lot of

[1:53:58] variance or not?

[1:54:01] >> He wasn't asking lot area. Oh, for the

[1:54:04] 20 to 10.

[1:54:05] >> Yes.

[1:54:08] » Grandfather.

[1:54:10] >> We're definitely grandfathered um

[1:54:12] against belt and suspenders. Grant the

[1:54:14] variance. Case law is a little muddy on

[1:54:16] it. So, I'd appreciate the variance.

[1:54:21] I think the super proceedings changed

[1:54:23] over time, but it's what it was intended

[1:54:26] to be.

[1:54:30] » Right. Yes. Lauren, please on the

[1:54:32] motion. Make a motion on the application

[1:54:34] of Nicholas

[1:54:37] >> Gas

[1:54:38] >> and Christine Geekas, trustee of the

[1:54:41] Lassa Realy Trust, 29 Flume Road,

[1:54:46] Blaster

[1:54:47] uh for a variance for lot area, front

[1:54:51] yard setback and right sideyard setback.

[1:54:56] And I think the applicant has

[1:54:59] demonstrated

[1:55:00] practical difficulty given the lot

[1:55:04] shape, the um septic position and um has

[1:55:10] demonstrated the consistency with other

[1:55:13] structures in the neighborhood.

[1:55:16] I would second I would add that this is

[1:55:20] a very difficult lot, very unusually

[1:55:23] shaped and the way Flume Road is laid out makes it

[1:55:30] extremely deceptive. I second the

[1:55:33] motion.

[1:55:34] >> We have a motion made and seconded.

[1:55:36] Roll call vote.

[1:55:38] >> Mr. Nyman.

[1:55:40] >> Yes, I concur. Uh yes for the three

[1:55:42] variances.

[1:55:43] >> Mr. Wilson.

[1:55:45] >> Yes. For the three variances,

[1:55:46] >> Miss Norton,

[1:55:47] >> yes.

[1:55:48] >> Mr. Py,

[1:55:49] >> yes.

[1:55:51] >> Decision, it's favorable. Appreciate a

[1:55:53] draft.

[1:55:54] >> We'll do. Thank you.

[1:55:56] >> Okay. The last hearing tonight is the

[1:55:59] application of Joseph Bland seeking a

[1:56:03] special permit of variance to construct

[1:56:05] an accessory dwelling unit at 47 County

[1:56:09] Road.

[1:56:16] Good evening. Joseph Borland, 47 Old

[1:56:20] County Road, Gloucester, Mass.

[1:56:23] requesting a special permit under

[1:56:25] section 5246

[1:56:27] for 900 foot detached accessory dwelling

[1:56:30] unit on a property with an existing,080

[1:56:33] ft principal dwelling.

[1:56:36] Some history on the property to begin.

[1:56:38] Uh my grandfather purchased the property

[1:56:40] in 1965 roughly 12 years after the api

[1:56:43] Andrew bridge was completed.

[1:56:46] This at one point was the only dwelling

[1:56:48] on Rust Island. Uh subsequently now the

[1:56:52] third [clears throat] generation owner I

[1:56:54] own the property.

[1:56:56] Our goal is to update and renovate in

[1:56:58] such a way to leave this to the next

[1:57:00] generations of our family with minimal

[1:57:02] burden.

[1:57:04] The addition of an ADU

[1:57:07] uh that is built with ADA compliance in

[1:57:10] mind gives us the opportunity for an

[1:57:12] aging parent to remain in place on the

[1:57:14] property in a one-story accessible

[1:57:16] dwelling. As you can see from the plans,

[1:57:18] a garage offers access directly into the

[1:57:21] living area. This will afford us the

[1:57:24] opportunity to renovate or upgrade the

[1:57:27] current 100-year-old dwelling to today's

[1:57:29] standards without displacement. That

[1:57:32] renovation will likely bring the

[1:57:35] existing dwelling, primary dwelling, uh,

[1:57:37] above 1,800 square f feet.

[1:57:41] Uh, the existing dwelling now has two

[1:57:43] bedrooms on the second floor, one

[1:57:45] bathroom on the first floor. It's a

[1:57:48] 2acre lot. Uh, it's the largest of 36

[1:57:51] lots on Rust Island to the north side of

[1:57:54] 128.

[1:57:56] Um, the proposed ADU is located, as you

[1:57:58] can see on the plot plan, about 130 ft

[1:58:01] from the existing primary dwelling.

[1:58:05] We recognize the normal calculation

[1:58:07] under 524.5A

[1:58:09] would limit the ADU to 540 square ft.

[1:58:13] That's why we're before you uh the board

[1:58:16] today. Uh, section 524.6 Six

[1:58:19] specifically provides a special permit

[1:58:21] process for an ADU that does not meet

[1:58:22] the otherwise

[1:58:25] applicable requirements. The standard,

[1:58:27] as we understand, the board must

[1:58:28] consider is whether the proposed ADU

[1:58:30] meets the purposes of section 524 and

[1:58:33] will not have a detrimental impact to

[1:58:36] the neighborhood. We believe the

[1:58:38] proposal clearly meets that standard.

[1:58:41] First, the project complies with the

[1:58:44] applicable height and setback

[1:58:45] requirements. The additional living

[1:58:47] space is therefore being provided

[1:58:49] without creating an encroachment or

[1:58:52] setback issue on the property. Uh second

[1:58:55] and importantly, all but one of the

[1:58:57] abutters notified, including the direct

[1:58:59] abutters. I've personally uh briefed on

[1:59:02] the proposed construction. They've all

[1:59:04] expressed their full support of the

[1:59:06] project. We believe that this is

[1:59:09] particularly relevant to the board's

[1:59:10] consideration of the neighborhood

[1:59:11] impact. The people most directly

[1:59:13] affected by the project have seen the

[1:59:15] plans, understand what's being proposed,

[1:59:17] and fully support it. Third, the

[1:59:20] property's septic plan has been reviewed

[1:59:22] and approved by the board of health. Al

[1:59:25] also conservation commission has re uh

[1:59:29] reviewed and subsequently approved

[1:59:33] the proposed septic plan as well as the

[1:59:36] ADU footprint uh with an order of

[1:59:38] conditions issued on September 16th,

[1:59:40] 2025.

[1:59:42] Uh that proposal included 3,000 square

[1:59:44] feet of mitigation plantings to address

[1:59:46] lot coverage with the assoc uh with the

[1:59:50] associated uh associated with the ADU.

[1:59:53] If we look at the lock coverage, even

[1:59:55] with the proposed ADU, we're still at

[1:59:58] roughly 4 and a.5% coverage. I think uh

[2:00:03] sitting in R10,

[2:00:05] I think it's 30% if I'm not mistaken. Um

[2:00:10] so this is not a proposal that creates

[2:00:12] unresolved issues regarding any

[2:00:14] setbacks, height, septic capacity, or

[2:00:16] lot coverage. Uh those aspects of the

[2:00:18] project have been specifically addressed

[2:00:20] previously. Most importantly, the

[2:00:22] project advances the purposes of section

[2:00:24] 524 by creating an additional housing

[2:00:27] opportunity while maintaining the

[2:00:28] residential character of the property

[2:00:29] and neighborhood. We're not asking the

[2:00:32] board to overlook the city's ADU

[2:00:33] requirements. We're just asking the

[2:00:35] board to apply the specific special

[2:00:37] permit provision that the city

[2:00:39] established for circumstances such as

[2:00:40] this to evaluate the actual impact of

[2:00:43] this particular proposal.

[2:00:45] The ADU is appropriately lo

[2:00:47] appropriately located on the property.

[2:00:50] Height and setbacks comply with the

[2:00:53] applicable requirements. The septic plan

[2:00:55] has been approved by the board of

[2:00:56] health. Conservation Commission has

[2:00:57] approved the footprint of the proposed

[2:00:59] dwelling and the septic system.

[2:01:01] Mitigation plantings address the

[2:01:03] additional lot coverage. The director

[2:01:05] Butters and other Butters have been

[2:01:07] personally briefed and fully support the

[2:01:08] project. Uh is my understanding. The

[2:01:12] proposal also provides an additional

[2:01:14] housing opportunity consistent with the

[2:01:16] purposes of the city's ADU ordinance.

[2:01:18] There's no drainage or storm water

[2:01:20] issues. Utilities and infrastructure are

[2:01:22] not affected. Public health and safety

[2:01:23] has been considered and addressed with

[2:01:25] the upgrading of the septic system. Uh

[2:01:27] it's well within the neighborhood

[2:01:28] character. Uh it's compatible with the

[2:01:31] surrounding development of Rust Island.

[2:01:33] Any environmental impacts have been

[2:01:35] considered and mitigated. It's

[2:01:37] consistent with the purposes of the

[2:01:39] zoning ordinance. So for reasons uh for

[2:01:43] all those reasons, we respectfully ask

[2:01:44] the board to find that the proposed ADU

[2:01:47] meets the purpose of section 5.24 and

[2:01:49] will not have detrimental impact on the

[2:01:52] neighborhood and to grant the requested

[2:01:55] special permit. Thank you.

[2:01:58] >> Thank you.

[2:01:59] >> Questions by the board.

[2:02:05] So I guess

[2:02:07] so the issue is it's a 900

[2:02:12] square foot ADU on a 1080 square foot

[2:02:16] primary res

[2:02:19] which is the

[2:02:21] section of the ADU ordinance that

[2:02:24] they're asking us to

[2:02:27] defer

[2:02:40] The standard is

[2:02:42] the lesser of 900 square ft or 50% of

[2:02:47] the principal.

[2:02:49] >> I couldn't hear you, Lauren.

[2:02:51] >> Sorry. Uh the standard under 5.24.5

[2:02:55] 24.5

[2:02:57] for the size of the ADU Michael is a

[2:03:01] maximum of 900 square feet or

[2:03:05] 50% of the total habitable space of the

[2:03:08] principal dwelling whichever is less and

[2:03:11] their principal dwelling is um would

[2:03:14] only really permit them to have an ADU

[2:03:17] of 540

[2:03:20] square feet and they're asking for 900.

[2:03:24] I I sort of read it as the intent

[2:03:31] was to create another housing unit

[2:03:34] without

[2:03:35] going against our longstanding

[2:03:39] objection to building two homes on one

[2:03:42] lot.

[2:03:43] And so that's I think where some of the

[2:03:45] uh restrictions came into play. Um,

[2:03:50] but I think you know if they were asking

[2:03:52] for 2,000 feet ADU, no matter how big

[2:03:55] the house was, that would be

[2:03:58] >> another house. Yeah.

[2:03:59] >> 900 foot limit. Um, state regulations

[2:04:03] are different. Um, if they was going to

[2:04:07] if they could meet all the setbacks,

[2:04:08] they could build even a bigger ADU in

[2:04:11] the state ranks. But I don't think the

[2:04:13] fact that they're sticking to the 900, I

[2:04:16] don't really have a problem with that. I

[2:04:17] think it's Yeah, maybe someday they'll

[2:04:19] build that other house or make that

[2:04:20] other house bigger. I'm sure that will

[2:04:23] happen, but in the meantime they get to

[2:04:26] utilize and create another housing unit.

[2:04:28] So, I could go along with that type of a

[2:04:31] Would it be a special permit to that?

[2:04:33] Yeah, the ADU calls for a special permit

[2:04:36] to exceed any of the amounts.

[2:04:42] Um, we can take open the public

[2:04:44] testimony and see what if anyone has a

[2:04:47] thoughts on it. Anyone in the audience

[2:04:49] or at home wishing to speak in favor of

[2:04:52] the application, please come forward.

[2:04:53] Anyone in favor?

[2:04:57] There's a hand up.

[2:04:59] Tobin

[2:05:01] AP Marina.

[2:05:14] » Hi. Can you hear me? Towin Dominic.

[2:05:16] >> Yes.

[2:05:17] >> Hi, Towen Dominic. I'm at 43 Old County

[2:05:20] Road, which is a direct abutter to

[2:05:22] Joseph Borland and the the family's

[2:05:24] property. I think that this is um an

[2:05:28] easy ask and request. Um the family's

[2:05:34] been there for a long time. Uh the

[2:05:36] property definitely is one of the larger

[2:05:38] lots on in the whole area and I think

[2:05:41] the addition of the 900 square ft is a

[2:05:44] reasonable ask and complies with uh the

[2:05:47] rest of the abutters which I believe are

[2:05:49] also in favor.

[2:05:53] » Thank you. Anyone else in favor?

[2:05:58] Is there any opposition? Anyone wishing

[2:05:59] to speak in opposition to the project?

[2:06:06] Seeing none, we'll close public

[2:06:07] testimony. No need for any rebuttal

[2:06:11] discussion. Are we ready for a motion?

[2:06:18] Make a motion on the application of

[2:06:20] Joseph Borland seeking a special permit

[2:06:24] under section 5.2 24.5

[2:06:28] to build an ADU of 900 square ft. Um

[2:06:36] I think it's a nice project and has the

[2:06:40] support of the neighborhood and doesn't

[2:06:41] seem to have a detrimental impact on the

[2:06:44] neighborhood.

[2:06:45] Second. Motion

[2:06:47] >> made and seconded. Roll call vote.

[2:06:51] >> Mr. Nyman.

[2:06:52] >> Yes.

[2:06:53] >> Mr. Wilson.

[2:06:54] >> Yes.

[2:06:55] >> Miss Norton. Yes. Mr. Paresi.

[2:06:57] >> Yes. Paradise decision. We'll get a written decision out to you

[2:07:02] in a few weeks.

[2:07:04] >> Thank you very much. Have a good

[2:07:05] evening,

[2:07:10] » Lauren.

[2:07:12] Okay. We have one other thing on our

[2:07:13] agenda tonight.

[2:07:14] We were asked

[2:07:16] again to review the rules and

[2:07:18] regulations

[2:07:20] for 40B

[2:07:22] and comprehensive permit. If you recall,

[2:07:23] this was in discussion about fees and

[2:07:26] ways we were going to try to uh cover

[2:07:31] what's involved in uh 40B permitting.

[2:07:36] We've reviewed it before and I know uh

[2:07:39] Lauren had submitted

[2:07:42] some uh

[2:07:45] suggestions which I thought were

[2:07:47] incorporated

[2:07:48] but they've asked us to take a look at

[2:07:50] it one last time.

[2:07:53] Um

[2:07:55] and we review this over the next two

[2:07:58] weeks. I'm not accustomed to reviewing a

[2:08:01] fourpage legal ease document

[2:08:05] on first exposure.

[2:08:10] I mean that's that's fine with me. I

[2:08:13] have no problem with this. Uh legal is

[2:08:15] just asking for us to get this addressed

[2:08:18] and taken care of. So, if you guys want

[2:08:20] to take a a couple weeks review it,

[2:08:23] Lauren, I'm going to ask if you can find

[2:08:26] the revised notes cuz I don't have them.

[2:08:29] That way, we can get them over to legal

[2:08:32] and have everything taken care of.

[2:08:33] They're just looking to get this

[2:08:34] completed and submitted to city council

[2:08:36] for approval.

[2:08:39] >> So, we'd have everybody review it. Um,

[2:08:43] >> there's no there's no possibility of

[2:08:46] getting a a a document with that

[2:08:48] wonderful feature. Um, edit, you know,

[2:08:51] show changes.

[2:08:52] >> I think I think they've already done

[2:08:54] that, honestly. Like I I think

[2:08:57] >> I think we've seen this. I think we've

[2:09:00] made comments. We've seen the changes

[2:09:03] made, but it's been a while, so we might

[2:09:07] as well take another look at this.

[2:09:10] >> All right. So, we'll have one last crack

[2:09:11] at it. If you don't see anything you

[2:09:13] don't have an issue with, we'll leave it

[2:09:15] as is. If the changes that we did come

[2:09:17] up with were made, we'll we'll figure

[2:09:20] that out and everybody can take a look

[2:09:22] at it.

[2:09:24] So, we'll continue that

[2:09:27] for a recommendation

[2:09:29] in two weeks.

[2:09:30] >> Going to continue it. Or

[2:09:32] >> would it be appropriate to say let's

[2:09:34] table this until the next meeting? Yeah.

[2:09:37] >> I move that we table this until the next

[2:09:39] meeting. We put it to a vote or you know

[2:09:42] >> motion made to table it for two weeks.

[2:09:44] >> Second.

[2:09:45] >> Seconded.

[2:09:47] >> Roll call.

[2:09:48] >> Mr. Nyman.

[2:09:50] >> Yes.

[2:09:51] >> Mr. Wilson.

[2:09:52] >> Yes.

[2:09:53] >> Miss Norton.

[2:09:54] >> Yes. Mr. Pey.

[2:09:55] >> Yes. Want to chain a motion to adjurnn?

[2:09:58] >> Motion to adjurnn.

[2:10:03] » Second.

[2:10:03] >> Seconded. Roll call. Mr. Diamond,

[2:10:07] >> yes.

[2:10:08] >> Mr. Wilson,

[2:10:09] >> yes.

[2:10:10] >> Miss Norton,

[2:10:11] >> yes.

[2:10:11] >> Mr. Pey,

[2:10:17] » good night, Michael.

[2:10:18] >> I'm leaving without him whether he says

[2:10:20] yes or not. [laughter]

[2:10:22] >> Good night, everyone.

[2:10:22] >> Yes, we are ajour. Do it.

Gloucester Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - September 24, 2026

Transcript