[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.