[0:00] He said
[0:05] Yes.
[0:06] OK. Welcome to the
[0:12] September 17th meeting of the Town of Scituate Zoning Board. The
[0:15] Scituate Zoning Board strives
[0:16] to create an atmosphere of
[0:17] respect during
[0:18] meetings. We ask
[0:19] all participants
[0:20] to behave politely,
[0:21] even if
[0:22] disagreements arise. We
[0:23] value the participation of our
[0:24] community. We want
[0:25] all participants,
[0:26] including
[0:27] marginalized and
[0:28] minority groups, to
[0:29] feel welcome
[0:30] and respected. We
[0:30] ask our
[0:32] community members and all
[0:32] participants
[0:33] to adhere to these
[0:34] standards out of
[0:35] respect for our
[0:35] community. OK. The
[0:39] first application is from Satuit
[0:41] Marina Realty LLC, Meeting Street
[0:43] Realty Trust, for the addresses 21
[0:45] Central Ave, 7 Marshfield Ave in
[0:47] Scituate. The applicant
[0:51] requested an
[0:52] adjournment of the hearing
[0:53] . Elizabeth, what
[0:55] date did they ask for
[0:56] the hearing to be postponed?
[0:57] By July of next
[0:59] year, which actually
[1:00] means October 15th.
[1:01] I propose
[1:02] to postpone the consideration of the
[1:03] first application to
[1:05] October 5. Sorry. Who is "
[1:08] for"?
[1:09] Me.
[1:10] You will move on
[1:11] . OK.
[1:13] Next up is our second
[1:14] submission from Catherine
[1:15] Smerling of 25 Grove Street,
[1:17] Scituate. We are seeking a variance
[1:20] to allow
[1:20] the construction of a
[1:21] single-family
[1:22] home that is of
[1:23] appropriate size
[1:24] on the lot at
[1:26] 326 Grove Ave. It does not
[1:27] meet the requirements
[1:28] for lot area,
[1:29] facade width, and
[1:30] lot width
[1:31] under sections 5.1
[1:32] and 6.2 of the
[1:33] zoning law. We
[1:34] are seeking such other
[1:35] relief as the council may
[1:36] deem
[1:37] necessary. Is there
[1:39] any other evidence for the
[1:40] record? Uh
[1:41] , here. Judge
[1:42] DeLucca and attorney
[1:44] DeLucca and Harris
[1:45] represent the
[1:46] applicant, Catherine
[1:47] Smerling. Uh, okay.
[1:50] Therefore. I have glasses
[1:54] . I'll just do it
[1:55] without my glasses. So, uh,
[1:57] the property
[2:00] is located as you
[2:02] indicated, 326, as far as
[2:06] I know, I spoke to the
[2:07] clerk about it. I
[2:09] think I am the first
[2:10] application for a derogation from the
[2:11] rules that has come
[2:12] before you since the
[2:13] adoption of the new
[2:14] law. Am I right
[2:16] about this, or does
[2:19] it seem like there was one in
[2:20] front of us, but we didn't
[2:21] give way because we didn't
[2:22] think it was
[2:23] needed. So, we didn't
[2:25] have to give a
[2:26] concession because it wasn't
[2:27] needed.
[2:28] Okay, great. So,
[2:30] Yes.
[2:32] I'll go by the
[2:33] standard of deviation
[2:34] from the rules so we
[2:35] can discuss this,
[2:36] but here are a few
[2:37] facts. I think I
[2:40] should remind the council
[2:41] about this property.
[2:42] It has already
[2:42] been considered by the council
[2:44] before. So let
[2:45] me do it now
[2:47] . Er, er, the property
[2:50] is located in the R3 zone,
[2:52] right? It's not
[2:54] in
[2:54] any zoning
[2:55] district in Humarock,
[2:57] right? To build a
[3:02] single-family home
[3:04] on a lot in the R3 zone,
[3:05] Article 610 of the
[3:06] zoning regulations requires
[3:08] the lot to be
[3:09] 10,000 sq. ft. feet and a
[3:15] frontage width of 100
[3:16] feet. This property,
[3:20] the lot itself, is not
[3:21] up to code,
[3:23] as it was marked on the
[3:24] 1940 Land Court plan
[3:27] as
[3:29] having about 7,600 sq. ft.
[3:31] feet of floor space and a little over
[3:33] 50 feet of
[3:34] frontage. Therefore, it has
[3:36] not met the
[3:36] current
[3:37] standards regarding the area and
[3:39] width of the facade since
[3:40] its
[3:41] creation. By the way, as a
[3:50] side note: this plot is
[3:52] very similar to others in
[3:53] the area; and when I
[3:55] looked at the
[3:56] land records plan,
[3:57] specifically the record for
[3:58] this property, there
[4:00] were at least 75
[4:01] lots
[4:02] about 50 feet wide and with 50-
[4:03] foot frontage. So
[4:11] in this particular
[4:12] area, it's probably
[4:13] more common
[4:14] to find
[4:15] plots that don't
[4:15] meet the standards
[4:17] but have houses on them
[4:18] . So,
[4:22] for about
[4:23] three-quarters of a
[4:23] century, a residential building stood on this
[4:24] site
[4:25] . This is an
[4:27] existing house
[4:29] that does not meet
[4:30] modern standards and
[4:31] dates back probably to the
[4:33] late 1940s.
[4:35] Its nonconformity
[4:36] is that it
[4:37] was slightly
[4:38] out of
[4:39] size on the
[4:39] north side, but
[4:41] otherwise met the
[4:42] setback requirements. Specifically, I
[4:45] think it was
[4:47] 5.2 feet from the
[4:48] right margin
[4:50] setback. In the 8-foot
[4:51] zone. As I think everyone
[4:55] here knows, because we've
[4:56] discussed it
[4:58] before, in 2012
[4:59] there was a fire on this site
[5:00] and the house
[5:02] burned down. After three
[5:05] quarters of a century. It
[5:07] was a category 3 fire
[5:09] that spread to
[5:10] two neighboring houses.
[5:13] All three homes were
[5:14] occupied at the time of
[5:15] the fire. A firefighter from
[5:17] Marshfield was
[5:18] seriously injured and
[5:19] had to be
[5:20] urgently evacuated
[5:22] to Boston. Two
[5:24] other firefighters from
[5:25] Skythwaite
[5:26] were taken to hospital
[5:27] with minor injuries.
[5:34] I was informed that
[5:35] this particular fire
[5:36] caused a great deal of
[5:37] suffering to the
[5:38] property owner at the time.
[5:44] Of course? He was
[5:46] upset that
[5:47] his neighbors' property had
[5:48] burned down, people
[5:49] had been injured, and
[5:50] his own house
[5:51] had been destroyed.
[5:55] As I understand it,
[5:57] and this is probably well
[5:58] known in the area, he
[5:59] required medical
[6:00] attention for a
[6:01] very long time in the
[6:03] hospital. Ahem. And
[6:09] after that, in 2020
[6:10] , the property was
[6:11] sold to my
[6:12] client. It is likely that
[6:14] the proceeds from this
[6:15] sale were
[6:16] used to
[6:17] support the medical
[6:18] care of this
[6:19] individual, who is continuing
[6:20] treatment. So, a
[6:24] few years
[6:25] after the fire, 3
[6:27] years later, around
[6:28] 2015,
[6:29] most of the
[6:30] foundation
[6:31] was removed for safety reasons. There is something
[6:33] left. Um, there was a large hole
[6:37] left in the ground
[6:38] that
[6:39] contained parts of
[6:40] the structure and the old
[6:41] foundation wall.
[6:46] Matt, I see you're
[6:47] looking at your photos,
[6:49] because what I'm saying is that hole in the ground and the
[6:52] foundation wall that are
[6:53] partially left over
[6:54] from 2015, when
[6:55] my client bought
[6:57] this property, she
[6:58] was told that she
[6:59] couldn't insure
[7:01] the property because of this
[7:02] particular, um,
[7:03] situation. And so it
[7:09] happened that her neighbor
[7:10] was doing
[7:11] earthworks, they took
[7:12] the soil from there,
[7:13] filled in the hole,
[7:14] buried
[7:15] the remains of the foundation under themselves, and
[7:16] leveled the area.
[7:22] So, right now, there is actually still a partial foundation under
[7:23] the surface of the lot
[7:25] ,
[7:27] as well as a septic
[7:28] system or
[7:29] filtration field. At the time of
[7:35] the fire, the zoning law in effect
[7:37] required that there be a
[7:39] provision that
[7:40] addressed circumstances
[7:41] where property was
[7:42] damaged by an
[7:43] accident,
[7:44] such as a fire. And
[7:48] this provision
[7:49] allowed for
[7:50] the rebuilding of
[7:51] non-conforming structures
[7:52] without a permit, as long as
[7:53] they remained
[7:54] within the same or
[7:55] smaller size of the
[7:56] foundation. But this
[8:04] reconstruction was supposed to
[8:05] be completed
[8:06] within 4 years. It should have been
[8:09] done in 4
[8:10] years. And this
[8:12] particular gentleman was
[8:13] obviously unable to
[8:15] do that
[8:16] because he, uh, was taking care of
[8:20] himself on his own. And in
[8:22] 2022, after
[8:23] my client
[8:24] purchased this
[8:25] property, the
[8:27] zoning law changed. And
[8:30] there were a few changes that
[8:31] were, um, essential
[8:33] to this discussion. The
[8:36] first change is
[8:37] that the section that
[8:38] dealt with the
[8:40] accident and the 4-year
[8:42] fire recovery rule was
[8:43] completely removed
[8:44] from the
[8:45] zoning law. Instead, the
[8:53] zoning law provision
[8:54] contained in Section
[8:55] 810, which previously
[8:56] stated that
[8:57] a property that is
[8:58] abandoned or unused
[9:00] for 2 years or
[9:01] more loses its
[9:03] compliance with the code
[9:04] . This particular
[9:10] provision has been
[9:11] amended in several
[9:12] significant ways.
[9:13] First, two years
[9:14] was changed to
[9:15] four years. So
[9:18] now there is no
[9:19] neglect or
[9:20] disuse, uh, and
[9:22] if the disuse
[9:23] continues for
[9:24] four years.
[9:30] Additionally, this
[9:30] provision was two
[9:32] or four years, or,
[9:33] sorry, was changed
[9:34] to four years from
[9:35] the date of entry into
[9:36] force of the law. This
[9:39] was a provision
[9:40] we talked about a couple of
[9:41] years ago, and I'll get
[9:42] to it. Um,
[9:48] and then a
[9:49] provision came along that introduced
[9:50] language that
[9:51] allows this
[9:52] zoning board to grant an
[9:53] exemption from the
[9:54] four-year
[9:55] rule when an applicant
[9:56] requests a
[9:57] special permit
[9:58] or opinion. So, in
[10:05] 2003 or 2004 in that
[10:06] particular area, I
[10:08] think it was
[10:09] December of 2003, which
[10:11] went into 2004, I
[10:14] filed an application with this
[10:16] board on behalf of my client.
[10:17] 43?
[10:18] Er, 2024. Did I say 04?
[10:22] You said 03.
[10:23] Oh, yes. Er, 2023, 2024. Er,
[10:29] so I filed a petition with
[10:30] the council, claiming that the
[10:32] effective date of
[10:33] the ordinance
[10:34] was 2022, because that was the
[10:38] year the
[10:39] ordinance changed
[10:41] . And then I
[10:42] tried to
[10:43] apply it for four
[10:44] years starting from that
[10:45] moment. And that
[10:46] argument was, um, not
[10:50] very convincing
[10:51] to this council, I think
[10:53] , at the time. And for
[10:55] whatever reason, perhaps
[10:57] because there
[10:58] was a
[10:59] similar statement before the board, and I
[11:00] think you might have been
[11:01] a little worried
[11:02] about the precedent. Uh,
[11:07] the point was that
[11:08] we were looking to
[11:09] renovate a
[11:11] pre-existing structure in a way that would
[11:12] address the
[11:14] side yard inconsistency, and we
[11:16] were requesting a waiver
[11:17] of the 4-year
[11:18] provision to
[11:19] allow us to
[11:20] do that. And we also
[11:23] sought to obtain a
[11:24] conclusion in addition
[11:25] to this. I would do
[11:27] it without restriction of rights
[11:28] . Um, after that
[11:38] was done, this
[11:39] city that
[11:40] continued
[11:41] to assess this
[11:42] particular
[11:42] property as a
[11:43] development lot
[11:45] from the time of the fire until
[11:46] that hearing, uh,
[11:48] this city
[11:48] continued
[11:49] to assess the property,
[11:51] uh, after that
[11:52] hearing as if it
[11:53] were a
[11:54] development lot, uh, until
[11:55] my client was
[11:57] forced to
[11:58] file for a
[11:59] tax abatement in 2025, uh,
[12:01] to reduce the
[12:02] assessment bill by
[12:03] $529,000. Also, uh, what
[12:11] I think is probably
[12:13] a little bit significant,
[12:14] maybe not, I don't know. There
[12:16] was a detached building on the site
[12:18] that existed at the
[12:19] time of the fire, which
[12:20] currently continues to
[12:21] exist and is still
[12:22] in use.
[12:23] It is not damaged.
[12:25] Therefore. As a matter of fact, and, uh,
[12:29] earlier this year,
[12:31] the Commonwealth
[12:32] changed the standard for
[12:33] granting exemptions
[12:34] . Uh, and the
[12:38] first thing I
[12:39] thought about was this statement,
[12:40] because I felt like I
[12:42] really felt sorry for
[12:43] my client, that I
[12:44] couldn't get them the
[12:45] help they
[12:46] wanted. I thought it was
[12:52] unfair
[12:53] how it was handled
[12:54] at the time. So, the
[13:01] zoning variance law
[13:02] was changed a few
[13:03] months ago, which
[13:04] significantly and substantially
[13:05] lowers the standard
[13:06] required to
[13:07] compel the council to
[13:08] grant such a variance.
[13:23] To give the council some
[13:25] context: the old
[13:26] law, which has just been
[13:27] replaced,
[13:28] provided that the council
[13:29] had the power to grant
[13:30] exemptions only if
[13:31] it made a number of
[13:32] findings: there had to
[13:33] be special
[13:34] circumstances relating
[13:35] to the soil, shape or
[13:37] topography of the site;
[13:38] the question was
[13:39] whether
[13:40] it applied specifically to this
[13:41] property and not to the area as a
[13:42] whole; it
[13:43] was also necessary
[13:44] to prove that literal
[13:45] implementation of the
[13:46] bylaw
[13:47] would cause significant
[13:48] hardship, financial
[13:49] or otherwise. And so on, and that was the
[14:04] reason why
[14:06] retreats were
[14:07] rarely granted in this city.
[14:11] Although I will say from my own
[14:13] experience that other
[14:14] cities on the South
[14:15] Shore were much
[14:16] more lenient and more
[14:17] willing to consider
[14:18] deviations from the old
[14:20] standards than our
[14:21] city, but that's how it is.
[14:27] The new standard
[14:28] is not that the
[14:29] zoning board has the
[14:30] authority to grant
[14:31] waivers. It
[14:36] clearly states, from the
[14:37] very beginning, that
[14:39] the council is obliged
[14:40] to grant a concession if it
[14:41] reaches the necessary
[14:42] conclusion.
[14:47] It is further explained that the
[14:48] required conclusion is
[14:49] now simplified,
[14:50] much more than
[14:52] before. The council
[14:58] must now grant a derogation
[14:59] if it specifically
[15:01] establishes that strict
[15:02] compliance with the
[15:02] by-law
[15:04] would result in any
[15:05] practical difficulties
[15:06] . The text further requires
[15:14] the application of the test in
[15:16] cases
[15:16] involving residential
[15:18] real estate. The Board,
[15:27] in making its decision,
[15:28] must weigh the benefits
[15:29] to the applicant and
[15:30] the public,
[15:31] including the interest in
[15:32] supporting housing
[15:33] development, against the
[15:34] harm to the health,
[15:36] safety and welfare of
[15:37] neighbors. That is, it
[15:47] shows that we
[15:49] prioritize
[15:50] the creation of housing, and it is
[15:51] considered a
[15:51] public good
[15:53] that can
[15:53] only be challenged in the
[15:54] event of
[15:56] problems for the health,
[15:57] safety, or
[15:58] well-being of the area. That's
[16:03] how I see it. It so
[16:06] happened that last
[16:07] month I had my
[16:08] first opportunity
[16:09] to argue this
[16:10] standard. It was in the
[16:12] town of Hanson.
[16:20] The city councilor was present in person at that zoning meeting, which is
[16:22] unusual, especially
[16:23] for Hanson, and
[16:24] his name was Jay Talerman.
[16:28] He is one of the
[16:28] most respected
[16:30] city lawyers in the
[16:31] Commonwealth. And in
[16:34] that situation, you know,
[16:35] he presented the council with an
[16:36] analysis of the case. I won't
[16:39] put
[16:40] words in his mouth, but there was a
[16:41] decision made in
[16:42] that district because
[16:43] the circumstances are similar, so
[16:45] I just wanted to
[16:46] mention it. There was no fire
[16:51] , it was a
[16:52] smaller vacant lot
[16:53] , planned
[16:54] before zoning in an
[16:55] area where most of the
[16:56] houses stood on
[16:57] similarly small
[16:58] lots. And the council
[17:07] voted to
[17:08] grant the variance,
[17:09] recognizing in particular that
[17:10] prohibiting
[17:11] housing construction on a
[17:12] site similar to
[17:14] others where it would be
[17:15] permitted would be a
[17:16] practical
[17:16] difficulty. And in that
[17:23] case it was
[17:25] provided. So I
[17:30] just wanted to point out that there
[17:31] was a similar
[17:32] situation where a variance was granted for a
[17:33] vacant lot
[17:35] due to identified
[17:36] practical difficulties
[17:37] . So, today I
[17:45] see it this way: the law
[17:46] requires this board to
[17:47] determine, in relation to this
[17:48] application, whether
[17:50] strict adherence to the
[17:51] rules would cause any
[17:52] practical difficulty
[17:53] . The law requires that if
[18:02] you see a
[18:03] practical difficulty
[18:04] , you must grant a
[18:05] waiver, and then it goes on to
[18:06] talk about the
[18:07] necessary
[18:08] screening criteria. I think that in
[18:15] this particular
[18:16] case there are many
[18:17] facts that
[18:17] confirm
[18:18] the presence of practical
[18:20] complexity. This housing
[18:23] exists...There has already been housing on this site
[18:26] for three-
[18:27] quarters of a century.
[18:33] I believe that allowing housing there again
[18:34] will
[18:35] benefit the cause of
[18:36] creating housing
[18:37] conditions. A building is proposed
[18:43] that
[18:44] meets all
[18:45] dimensional standards.
[18:48] Thus, what
[18:49] previously did
[18:51] not meet
[18:52] the requirements will be eliminated. The building that
[18:57] will be constructed if you
[18:58] approve the application
[18:59] will fully comply with
[19:00] electrical,
[19:01] building, and
[19:02] fire codes
[19:03] . So, we will have
[19:08] proper indents and
[19:10] code compliance. Access will be
[19:14] safe from
[19:15] Central Avenue, the
[19:16] main road, and there will
[19:20] be no anticipated burdens to the city if you
[19:21] allow it.
[19:27] Frankly, the city will be able to
[19:28] rebuild its
[19:29] tax base again, and I
[19:31] already feel that in
[19:32] this case,
[19:32] given the
[19:34] facts I have presented, the practical
[19:35] difficulty of
[19:36] strictly applying
[19:37] this bylaw
[19:39] to this
[19:39] property has already become
[19:41] apparent. Em. and it's,
[19:52] you know, some
[19:52] reluctance on the part of this
[19:53] board to grant a
[19:54] waiver of the
[19:55] four-year
[19:56] rule earlier, which
[19:57] effectively deprived
[19:58] my client of
[19:59] using the
[20:00] property in accordance
[20:01] with residential
[20:02] uses elsewhere in
[20:03] this area in
[20:04] Pomona. So, um, I
[20:11] think denying
[20:13] this application would be
[20:14] practically
[20:14] unfair to
[20:16] this particular
[20:17] applicant. I really
[20:20] think, um, that there were
[20:25] difficulties because the
[20:28] waiver had not been granted earlier. The difficulties
[20:31] were the
[20:32] previous
[20:33] owner's medical problems. I think
[20:35] these circumstances
[20:36] require a
[20:37] waiver.
[20:38] I believe this is a
[20:39] completely unique
[20:41] situation. You will not
[20:42] encounter this
[20:43] pattern of facts from
[20:44] any other
[20:45] applicant. And I
[20:48] honestly believe that
[20:49] the permission to
[20:49] build a house
[20:50] on a plot of this
[20:51] size in that area
[20:53] is exactly the reason
[20:54] why the standards for
[20:55] deviation from the norms
[20:56] were relaxed. So I
[20:59] strongly urge the
[21:00] board to grant this
[21:01] waiver. Thank you.
[21:05] Jeff, I remember
[21:06] last time there was a
[21:07] discussion about
[21:08] merging the sites.
[21:10] It was, yes.
[21:11] We talked about it.
[21:14] Well, the Splane family
[21:16] owns the property
[21:17] behind this one, which
[21:18] adjoins this
[21:19] lot. Although the
[21:25] Splane family owns
[21:26] the property behind
[21:27] and adjacent to it, um, it's not
[21:30] incorporated. And there are several
[21:34] reasons why it is not
[21:35] unified. First,
[21:37] the merger
[21:37] only applies to
[21:38] vacant lots, and
[21:39] none of the lots
[21:40] were actually
[21:41] vacant, right? Um,
[21:44] secondly, you need
[21:46] So, you're saying
[21:48] they owned
[21:49] the plots before the fire.
[21:50] and now.
[21:52] Sorry, not before the fire,
[21:55] Sorry. The fire
[21:56] occurred in 2012. My
[21:59] client, Catherine Splane
[22:00] , who owns this
[22:01] property we're
[22:03] talking about. Her parents
[22:05] own the property
[22:06] behind her. Understand
[22:08] ? She, my client,
[22:11] bought this property in
[22:12] 2020. So, if there
[22:14] was a merger, it would
[22:16] happen in 2020.
[22:19] But there is no union.
[22:21] And the reason there is no
[22:22] association is
[22:23] because they are not
[22:24] jointly owned.
[22:25] She owns hers,
[22:27] they own theirs.
[22:31] And although people have the
[22:32] same surname, the same
[22:34] family, the law of
[22:35] association deals
[22:36] with the same
[22:37] ownership, or if
[22:39] it is different
[22:40] ownership, it
[22:40] deals with property
[22:42] that, in essence, can be
[22:43] managed by the same
[22:44] person.
[22:48] Trusts.
[22:49] with the same
[22:50] beneficiaries. This is not
[22:52] the case. We have
[22:53] one person who
[22:54] owns this and two
[22:55] other people who
[22:56] own that.
[23:01] Sorry? This, this, this is the
[23:07] fascinating question
[23:08] that lies before you
[23:09] . Um, yes. But I find it
[23:18] fascinating, what
[23:19] really interests
[23:20] me about this area is that
[23:22] it's in a
[23:23] type X zone, where not much is
[23:24] happening, it's not
[23:25] in a speed zone or a
[23:26] flood zone.
[23:38] The size of the plot, as
[23:39] attorney Alicia points out
[23:40] , is very similar
[23:41] to neighboring plots; and the
[23:42] proposed
[23:43] house size or
[23:44] building area also
[23:46] seems a bit
[23:46] smaller, but very
[23:48] similar to the
[23:48] surrounding houses
[23:49] considering the standard
[23:51] deviation due to
[23:52] practical difficulties.
[24:00] We don't really have
[24:01] any guidance from the
[24:02] legislature
[24:04] on this.
[24:06] The purpose of this term seems to have been to make
[24:10] decision-making easier. This is
[24:12] certainly a simpler
[24:14] standard than the one that
[24:15] came before, but
[24:16] at least it has
[24:17] some justification.
[24:26] We have some advice
[24:27] from
[24:28] land use lawyers,
[24:29] but as to how to
[24:30] apply it here, I can't
[24:32] comment on that.
[24:41] Thank you. Is there anyone in the
[24:43] hall? Comments,
[24:45] questions for the commission?
[24:46] You don't have any
[24:47] virtual
[24:49] hands raised yet.
[24:49] No virtual
[24:50] hands. Thank you, Seth. Wait
[24:53] a minute, I was wrong
[24:55] . One hand is still
[24:56] raised. Do you
[24:56] screen
[24:57] virtual
[24:57] participants? Sorry, I have
[24:58] another
[24:59] meeting at the same time. Are you ready?
[25:01] Yes.
[25:01] Mr. Bonner, you
[25:02] can turn on
[25:03] the microphone. Just
[25:04] give your name, address and
[25:05] speak.
[25:15] My name is Robert
[25:16] Brian Bonner. 318
[25:18] Central Ave. I'm
[25:21] over 60, and there was
[25:24] a house on that lot my whole life until it
[25:25] unfortunately burned down. I'm
[25:31] not at all against
[25:32] building
[25:32] another house there, if it's the
[25:34] right
[25:35] size. That's all.
[25:41] Thank you, sir. Is
[25:48] anyone else online? There
[25:51] are no other virtual hands raised.
[25:53] Thank you, sir. I think
[25:55] Steve De Armond. I'll
[25:58] just give my
[25:59] address: 861 Main Street
[26:01] in North Hampton.
[26:06] I think it's great that
[26:07] the state
[26:08] has finally closed this issue
[26:09] for people
[26:10] rebuilding their homes,
[26:11] because previously the courts did not
[26:12] grant extensions, and
[26:13] everything depended on the composition of the
[26:15] soil and topography.
[26:20] So seeing these changes, for
[26:21] reasons that most people
[26:22] understand, is great,
[26:23] especially for
[26:24] building a
[26:25] private home in a
[26:26] private
[26:27] development area, where it was
[26:29] before. This is definitely
[26:30] to the benefit of
[26:32] homeowners. Thank you. Is there
[26:37] anyone else in the room? Or
[26:43] unless these two
[26:44] thoughts are not relevant to
[26:48] the explanation
[26:49] Yes, sir.
[26:50] It seems the law
[26:51] has changed.
[26:52] Right.
[26:52] Yes. That's
[26:54] not the point.
[26:57] There are actually two paths
[26:58] , two options that
[27:00] can be taken to
[27:01] provide this release.
[27:04] One is to waive the
[27:06] four-year
[27:07] rule instead of a
[27:08] waiver, and the other is to
[27:09] simply waive the
[27:11] lot size standards.
[27:15] But since four
[27:16] years have already passed, we
[27:17] use this
[27:18] discrepancy for the
[27:19] route, i.e. the
[27:21] section.
[27:22] Yes.
[27:23] according to the new
[27:24] indent, it's
[27:24] Yes, of course. plot area
[27:26] ,
[27:27] correct
[27:27] plot area, facade
[27:29] and width
[27:30] Yes. OK. Yes, this is
[27:34] clearly the right way.
[27:36] So that I could say it.
[27:37] Of course, this is the path
[27:39] we are taking. Therefore.
[27:41] OK. I move
[27:43] a motion on the
[27:44] second application of Catherine
[27:46] Bruce Bolling of 25
[27:47] Pepperell Street,
[27:48] requesting a
[27:49] permit to
[27:50] construct a
[27:51] two-family
[27:52] dwelling at
[27:53] 326 Clark
[27:54] Street. It does not
[27:57] meet the
[27:59] lot area,
[28:00] frontage, and width requirements
[28:01] set forth in
[28:02] sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the
[28:04] zoning law.
[28:08] According to the Morse
[28:10] Engineering plan dated November 1,
[28:12] 2023. Ahem. and for
[28:20] the commission to find that
[28:21] such a permit does not
[28:22] create any
[28:23] proposed...um...
[28:26] Excuse me.
[28:27] Continue. Sorry.
[28:28] You can
[28:29] continue.
[28:30] No.
[28:30] Do we need...Is there
[28:31] ...There are two
[28:32] different areas in
[28:33] square feet listed there.
[28:34] One in...
[28:36] the statement itself, and the
[28:37] other in the plans. The
[28:39] application states the first
[28:41] floor area is 3,234
[28:42] square feet, and
[28:44] then...Did you specify that?
[28:47] Was that it? 3400, 3415 on the
[28:50] plan.
[28:51] If there is a disagreement, I
[28:53] would rely on the plan. And, to be honest
[28:58] , the application
[28:59] was about
[29:00] allowing the
[29:01] construction of a
[29:01] suitable
[29:02] residential building on
[29:04] this site. I think
[29:10] that perhaps one can...
[29:14] acknowledge that there is
[29:15] freedom of action as long as the
[29:17] boundaries are respected.
[29:19] OK.
[29:22] And grant permission to
[29:23] build a
[29:23] single-family
[29:24] home that
[29:25] meets all
[29:26] setbacks.
[29:29] The permit concerns
[29:30] the area of ​​the plot and
[29:31] the width of the facade. And this is
[29:37] our statement. As I
[29:40] said, who's for it? By.
[29:43] Thank you very much. Elizabeth
[29:46] wanted me to
[29:48] write it down.
[29:49] Yes, please.
[29:50] Yes, I am happy to.
[29:52] Thank you.
[29:57] Okay, let's move on to the
[29:58] third statement from Harley
[29:59] Tobias, who works
[30:01] at 13 Miller
[30:02] Avenue, Concord, and 20
[30:03] Main Street, Marshfield,
[30:05] Massachusetts.
[30:06] The applicant is seeking a
[30:08] special permit
[30:10] and opinion
[30:11] pursuant to
[30:12] sections 960 and 812 of the
[30:13] zoning regulations for the
[30:14] demolition and
[30:15] reconstruction on stilts of an
[30:16] existing
[30:17] single-family
[30:18] home
[30:19] located at
[30:20] 133 Homrock Beach in the
[30:21] R3 residential district.
[30:24] They will
[30:24] pave the area.
[30:25] Pre-existing
[30:26] unsuitable areas
[30:28] . Congratulations.
[30:29] Greetings.
[30:29] Name and address for
[30:31] Hello, I'm Carly
[30:32] Spiers. I represent
[30:34] Pat and Megan McShane
[30:36] & Foley at 133
[30:38] Homrock Beach. Sorry, once again
[30:50] . Greetings. I'm Carly
[30:52] Spiers. I represent
[30:54] Pat Foley and Megan
[30:55] McShane regarding the
[30:56] property at
[30:58] 133 Homrock Beach. The applicant
[31:03] requests a special
[31:04] permit and/or
[31:05] opinion pursuant
[31:07] to Section 960,
[31:08] Special Permits,
[31:09] and Section 810.2,
[31:10] Changes to Single-Family
[31:11] and Two-Family
[31:12] Nonconforming
[31:13] Structures, pursuant to
[31:15] zoning regulations,
[31:16] for the demolition and
[31:17] reconstruction on stilts of an
[31:18] existing
[31:19] single-family
[31:20] home. This property is a
[31:28] pre-existing
[31:29] non-conforming
[31:31] parcel
[31:31] located in an
[31:32] R3 residential area as
[31:34] well as a
[31:36] floodplain and watershed protection area,
[31:37] and is within
[31:39] FEMA flood zones VE16
[31:40] and AE13. The property does not
[31:46] meet the requirements
[31:47] for lot area,
[31:48] lot width,
[31:49] frontage, and side
[31:50] setbacks. This
[31:57] proposed
[31:58] project consists
[31:59] of the demolition of the
[32:00] existing dwelling and
[32:01] the construction of a new
[32:02] single-family
[32:03] home, primarily
[32:04] within the existing
[32:05] built-up areas of
[32:06] the site on a new
[32:07] pile foundation
[32:09] . The proposed
[32:16] design improves upon the
[32:18] existing dimensional
[32:20] conditions by
[32:21] increasing the front
[32:23] setbacks from approximately
[32:25] 51.5 to 53 feet, the left
[32:27] setbacks from 5.2 to 6.7
[32:29] feet, and the right
[32:31] setback from 0.15 to 2.2
[32:33] feet, while maintaining a
[32:35] corresponding
[32:37] rear setback of
[32:38] approximately 29.5 feet. 0.5
[32:44] . I can't read it
[32:46] on the screen. The
[32:50] proposed
[32:52] total
[32:54] floor area will increase
[32:56] from 2,533 to 3,127 sq m. feet,
[33:00] that is, by 23.45%. The
[33:05] rebuilt building
[33:06] will retain existing
[33:08] side setback discrepancies,
[33:09] although both
[33:10] non-compliant side
[33:11] setbacks
[33:12] are improved
[33:12] by the proposed
[33:13] design. Pursuant
[33:21] to Section 810.2 C,
[33:22] the applicant requests the
[33:25] Zoning Board to issue
[33:27] a finding pursuant to MGLC
[33:28] 40A, Section 6, that
[33:30] the reconstruction will not
[33:31] be substantially more
[33:32] detrimental to the area
[33:34] than the existing
[33:34] nonconforming structure
[33:36] . Due to the
[33:43] property's location in a
[33:45] floodplain and watershed protection area,
[33:46] within
[33:47] FEMA flood zones VE16 and
[33:48] AE13, the proposed
[33:49] home will be
[33:50] raised and
[33:51] rebuilt on a
[33:52] new pile
[33:53] foundation.
[33:56] In accordance with the current
[34:00] FEMA National Flood Insurance Program,
[34:02] Massachusetts Building Code, and
[34:03] local requirements for
[34:05] flood-resistant structures. Simply by
[34:10] section 470.6 F,
[34:17] zoning regulations
[34:18] provide for a
[34:19] special permit
[34:20] for substantial
[34:21] improvements to
[34:22] existing structures within the
[34:24] floodplain and
[34:25] watershed, provided they
[34:26] comply with the
[34:27] National
[34:29] Flood Insurance Program,
[34:30] applicable
[34:30] state
[34:31] building codes
[34:32] for
[34:33] flood-resistant construction,
[34:35] and preserve
[34:35] natural
[34:36] drainage patterns. Because the
[34:45] proposed work
[34:46] is determined by the
[34:48] Building Commissioner to be a
[34:49] substantial
[34:50] improvement, the
[34:51] applicant requests a
[34:52] special
[34:53] permit pursuant to
[34:54] Section 470.6 F. The project
[34:56] will remain
[35:02] within the existing
[35:03] use of the property
[35:05] as a single-family
[35:06] residential building,
[35:07] replacing the existing
[35:08] building with a more
[35:09] flood-resistant
[35:10] structure and
[35:10] improving the
[35:11] spatial
[35:12] setting of the building
[35:13] relative to neighboring
[35:14] lots. The
[35:16] proposed
[35:17] reconstruction does not
[35:18] increase the existing
[35:19] discrepancies regarding
[35:20] setbacks from the lateral
[35:21] boundaries of the site. On the contrary,
[35:23] both inappropriate
[35:24] side setbacks
[35:25] are improved within the
[35:27] proposed
[35:28] project. Uh-huh. We also
[35:33] reduce the total
[35:34] area of
[35:36] waterproofing the site
[35:37] because we
[35:37] are rebuilding the house
[35:39] on stilts, which is a more
[35:40] flood-resistant
[35:41] method. For these reasons,
[35:45] we ask the council
[35:46] to accept that the
[35:46] proposed
[35:47] redevelopment
[35:48] will not be significantly more
[35:49] detrimental to
[35:50] the area than the existing
[35:51] non-conforming structure
[35:52] . That's too many words. I'm
[35:58] sure you
[35:59] guys would rather have
[36:00] this in writing than
[36:01] listen to me read it out
[36:02] loud.
[36:03] OK. Uh, Secretary
[36:07] , yes, I understand that
[36:08] considering the option of
[36:09] jacking up an existing
[36:11] building
[36:12] seems like a pretty
[36:13] good change. Er,
[36:18] it was not deemed
[36:19] feasible because
[36:20] the site is small and the
[36:21] logistics would be
[36:22] too complicated. This is a
[36:25] high
[36:26] flow velocity area and
[36:28] we certainly have
[36:29] FEMA requirements that we
[36:31] face every day. Uh,
[36:37] and I looked at the plans,
[36:39] and the building area
[36:40] deviates less
[36:41] from the norms than the existing one,
[36:42] so I think it's
[36:44] reasonable. This is the type of
[36:52] project that is
[36:53] being implemented in
[36:54] many places, so
[36:55] I think it is typical
[36:56] of what we
[36:57] will see in the
[36:58] future. Thank you. Is
[37:02] anyone here?
[37:05] And they are improving
[37:06] their property, that's
[37:07] nice.
[37:08] Uh, maybe someone in the
[37:10] back rows. Uh,
[37:11] follow-up on
[37:13] So, when you
[37:14] mention the 25-
[37:15] minute, 22-minute
[37:16] walk to the
[37:17] train station. Uh, a question
[37:21] about the new plan regarding the
[37:22] land where the fenced
[37:23] area is—is it a covered
[37:25] parking lot with a deck
[37:26] on top?
[37:30] Yes, there will be parking underneath it
[37:31] .
[37:32] Of course.
[37:33] And there will be flooring on top.
[37:34] I understand that. What's up there
[37:36] now? Is this part of
[37:38] the house?
[37:39] This is a house. Yes, and he is
[37:41] on stilts.
[37:42] And it goes right
[37:43] to the edge of the plot.
[37:44] It goes right to
[37:46] the edge of the plot. So, we're
[37:47] improving it.
[37:49] It's on a flat slab now, and the
[37:51] rest of the house
[37:52] is raised on, um...I
[37:57] was going to ask what kind of
[37:58] wood that is? Pine or...
[38:00] Cedar logs.
[38:02] That's
[38:03] right. I say: yes.
[38:05] Those cedar logs.
[38:06] That's right. Cedar
[38:07] logs.
[38:08] One question. I didn't
[38:09] look at the details. Do you
[38:11] know if that flooring is
[38:13] waterproof?
[38:14] In other words, is
[38:15] it a roof?
[38:16] No, that's not true.
[38:17] So,
[38:18] this is an open terrace.
[38:19] Water can pass
[38:20] through it.
[38:21] Um...
[38:22] and drip on my
[38:23] cars.
[38:29] No, that terrace...That
[38:44] terrace is
[38:45] waterproof.
[38:47] So it actually
[38:48] becomes part of the
[38:49] house. Although it
[38:50] doesn't change anything.
[38:51] Yes.
[38:53] Well, it's a building with a roof
[38:54] , even if there's parking underneath it
[38:56] . But it's still
[39:00] less of a
[39:00] departure from the norm
[39:02] than what's out there now.
[39:05] True.
[39:06] Therefore. And one more thing I will
[39:08] say: at least
[39:09] part of this
[39:10] structure must be
[39:11] fireproof and
[39:12] fire-resistant.
[39:15] True.
[39:15] And it could even be the
[39:17] boundary of the plot. So, it
[39:19] could be the land
[39:20] side.
[39:21] Well, that's okay.
[39:22] This side must be
[39:24] protected.
[39:25] True.
[39:26] Good. Virus. And that's
[39:30] if they...Now
[39:31] I have it as an impenetrable
[39:32] structure, and that's
[39:33] if they
[39:33] continue in
[39:34] this direction.
[39:35] Yes, I know that.
[39:37] impenetrable.
[39:37] I don't think it's
[39:38] necessarily affordable
[39:40] .
[39:43] Also, the building that
[39:45] stands there has a very
[39:46] large area. I
[39:50] mean, we're
[39:51] bringing it
[39:52] up to
[39:53] FEMA standards, and the height
[39:54] remains the same,
[39:55] but what's there now is a
[39:57] whole...Technically it
[39:58] could be two
[39:59] stories. This is a huge
[40:01] open room. We
[40:04] went the way of
[40:05] raising the house. This
[40:08] was my first project
[40:09] , we chose this path
[40:11] because we thought it would
[40:12] save them money.
[40:15] Well, I didn't think so. I
[40:17] never thought so
[40:18] from the beginning,
[40:20] but when they
[40:20] got the numbers, it didn't
[40:22] save them any money.
[40:23] It was much, more expensive. So I
[40:26] said, "Okay, we'll
[40:27] design and
[40:27] build a new
[40:28] house." Let's not
[40:29] be too
[40:30] greedy, let's
[40:31] downsize the house a bit and
[40:32] bring it up to
[40:33] code, especially with the
[40:34] side setbacks, so
[40:35] we don't have to
[40:36] make everything
[40:37] fireproof.
[40:40] Otherwise, almost the entire
[40:41] house remains
[40:42] within the same boundaries. Everything
[40:45] remains unchanged.
[40:47] Does the council have any questions?
[40:50] Does
[40:51] anyone online have a question?
[40:53] No.
[40:56] OK. Hello, are there any
[40:59] questions or
[41:00] comments?
[41:01] No.
[41:02] OK. I make
[41:03] a motion regarding the
[41:04] third application of Karl
[41:05] Byas, who is
[41:06] the applicant on behalf of
[41:07] the owner. Mr. Kushner
[41:09] , this concerns a
[41:10] special permit
[41:11] under the provisions of
[41:13] Section 968 and Section
[41:14] 810.42 of the Central
[41:15] Zoning Law
[41:17] for the demolition and
[41:18] reconstruction on
[41:19] stilts of an existing single-
[41:20] family dwelling
[41:21] located at
[41:22] 153 Oakhurst.
[41:25] Each in a residential
[41:26] R3 district. I hope
[41:28] this is correct. According
[41:30] to this
[41:31] Sternbeck and Taylor plan
[41:33] dated August 24, 2026.
[41:37] And the council believes that
[41:38] the reconstruction does not
[41:39] create new
[41:40] inconsistencies with
[41:41] existing ones. Such
[41:44] intensification is
[41:45] much more harmful
[41:46] to the region. Therefore. Who is
[41:49] for it?
[41:49] By.
[41:51] Thank you, colleagues.
[41:55] Good evening.
[41:57] Elizabeth, do we have
[41:58] any other business?
[42:02] You are waiting for me to
[42:03] announce that we are
[42:04] meeting on
[42:05] Monday regarding the
[42:06] Village Parish.
[42:08] We need to
[42:09] set a date.
[42:10] Because we
[42:11] need to decide
[42:12] on a day. We have to
[42:13] hold the first
[42:14] vote on whether
[42:15] to establish an
[42:16] extension. No, we
[42:17] have to decide
[42:18] on a date and then
[42:19] vote. So,
[42:23] there are several dates that the
[42:26] applicant's lawyer has suggested. Monday,
[42:30] October 26, Monday,
[42:32] November 2, Monday,
[42:34] November 9 and
[42:35] Monday,
[42:36] November 16. Our
[42:39] external expert from
[42:41] Merrill just
[42:42] received the revised
[42:43] plan and is reviewing it
[42:45] for us. I don't know
[42:48] how long this might
[42:49] take. She is
[42:51] holding a
[42:52] Zoom meeting with an engineer and a
[42:53] lawyer. It seems that
[42:55] next week,
[42:56] they haven't yet reached a final agreement
[42:58] . So we'll
[42:59] find out more
[43:01] after that. And then,
[43:02] of course, we also
[43:03] have to conduct an
[43:04] interdepartmental review
[43:05] .
[43:06] We also need to
[43:07] find out if
[43:08] the applicant agrees to a total
[43:10] period of 380 days.
[43:11] Yes, of course. And we
[43:13] need this written
[43:14] confirmation if
[43:15] they agree. So, I
[43:16] guess.
[43:17] We should probably
[43:18] find out before
[43:19] making a decision on
[43:20] extending the deadline.
[43:21] No. Yes. Great idea.
[43:26] Chris is on
[43:27] vacation now, he
[43:28] will be back on Sunday.
[43:31] He is supposed to
[43:32] be here for a meeting on Monday.
[43:35] Do we want
[43:35] to discuss the date
[43:36] before the vote?
[43:39] I think it's worth
[43:39] finding out if
[43:40] they'll agree to a
[43:41] general term
[43:42] before we...
[43:43] So I can send
[43:44] the lawyer an
[43:45] email
[43:46] asking them
[43:46] to confirm that. We
[43:47] want to ask for a
[43:49] time period like for the
[43:50] two previous
[43:51] extensions.
[43:51] What did they ask,
[43:53] yes.
[43:53] Perfectly.
[43:54] Good. OK. If
[43:56] there are no other questions,
[43:58] I propose to close the
[43:59] meeting. I
[44:01] support.
[44:02] OK.