[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.

Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - 09-17-2026

Transcript