[0:43] Good evening. Welcome to the Shrewsburg Zoning Board of Appeals, regular meeting for Monday, August 24.

[0:49] First, on the agenda is to review and sign a bill for $185.90 to the community advocate for the August 24th, 2026 legal notices.

[1:00] It's going to get a motion please.

[1:02] I move to accept the bill and pay the bill for $185.90 in the ad.

[1:08] I'm going to get a second.

[1:09] Thank you.

[1:09] All in favor?

[1:11] All right.

[1:11] So moved.

[1:12] Next on the agenda is to review and accept meeting minutes from the June 29th, 2026 meeting.

[1:18] Any discussion?

[1:21] So just to confirm that the corrections had been made that my participation was in person

[1:26] and not remote and that we went to executive session after the meeting was called to order.

[1:32] Correct.

[1:33] With those corrections, I would make a motion to accept the meeting minutes.

[1:37] You get second, all in favor?

[1:41] All right.

[1:42] So moved.

[1:43] Next, on the agenda, this is, we've corresponded in some memo from the playing and economic

[1:49] development department regarding amendments to the Mass General Law 48, and second is a memo

[1:55] from Town Council regarding revisions to the Mass General Law Section 48 Section 10.

[2:01] And we are, in attendance this evening is our Town Council Steve Models without further

[2:07] do if you'd like to take a minute to fill us in on all this new legislation.

[2:13] You might best, good evening to the board. And I know the Assistant Director also submitted

[2:21] a memo on the changes to 48. These were surprised to everyone in my office. I haven't found

[2:28] anyone yet that knew this was coming from a legislature. And a number of us, I'm on the

[2:34] last municipal lawyers association, listserv seems like most were surprised by these changes.

[2:41] They were put into the budget bill for the next fiscal year.

[2:46] And I don't know in legislative process, if that goes through committee or not, someone

[2:51] in my office speculated that it expedites the revisions and they're also effective immediately.

[2:57] So they didn't give us time to kind of digest all of these changes and address procedural matters like changing our application form to reflect the new standards or the new criteria for granting a variant.

[3:15] So all the cities and towns are scrambling now to both understand these revisions and then modify what's necessary and have our local boards of appeals aware of the significant changes.

[3:31] particularly, I would think what's of interest to this board is section 10 on variances.

[3:37] The amendments were two sections 5 of 48 relative to electronic mailing, which probably

[3:47] is not much of an interest, but now we can send by email notices section 6 relative to

[3:56] protections for preexisting uses and structures.

[4:01] And in the amendment section 47 of the Acts of chapter 137 of the Acts of 2026,

[4:10] amended section 10 relative to variances.

[4:13] So that's what I was going to focus on for the board of appeals.

[4:19] So you'll recall the standard that we've all known since I think 1975, the last time

[4:25] there was a significant revision to chapter 48,

[4:29] is it's a strict statutory standard

[4:31] that the board must make a finding

[4:33] before you are empowered to issue a variance.

[4:37] A finding that there's a substantial hardship

[4:39] owing to the soil condition shape

[4:42] to the poverty of the lot.

[4:45] The familiar with that,

[4:46] that's been the standard for so long.

[4:48] And if a variance was issued

[4:49] that didn't meet that finding,

[4:52] or merely recited the statutory standards

[4:54] without an application of the facts, it was vulnerable to a challenge, frankly.

[4:59] So, variances were pretty hard to get because it wasn't discretionary, like a special

[5:03] permit.

[5:04] It was this strict statutory standard that applied.

[5:09] Well, now, so I'll go through the revisions of ten, just kind of from the top.

[5:14] Previously read that the Permagranding Authority, the ZBA,

[5:18] shall have the power after a public hearing.

[5:20] They revised that to the permigrating authority's show after a public hearing, and so you

[5:27] wonder why did they strike, have the power, and put shall, as if almost, you know, in

[5:33] subdivision control law, if a plan complies with the standards, you must approve it.

[5:38] It's the legislature, and these are, there's more unknowns, unfortunately, than known

[5:43] as to what was intended, are they now kind of liberalizing the issuance of variances

[5:48] and saying, boy, shout out if you make these findings

[5:51] issue of variance.

[5:54] That's my first question that is a risen from this.

[5:57] But the standard, right?

[6:00] Previously, it was that statutory standard.

[6:03] Now, it's if the boy specifically

[6:04] finds that a strict enforcement of the bylaw

[6:08] would result in a practical difficulty.

[6:14] So no one knows what practical difficulty is.

[6:18] I, you know, my view of what might be a practical difficulty could be different for members

[6:25] of the board, for the abotter, to the property owner,

[6:30] but so if a property owner has a practical

[6:34] difficulty due to a strict enforcement of the bylaw, and the permit-graining authority shall

[6:40] way, the benefits to the appellant or petitioner, and to the public interest, including the

[6:47] interest in supporting the production of housing against the detriment to the public health,

[6:54] safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. So clearly there's some way towards housing production

[7:02] in this new standard in that that tilts the scale perhaps a little bit in favor of the applicant,

[7:10] according to the legislature,

[7:14] but then what is welfare of the name hood. These are not

[7:19] defined terms, but these are factors you must weigh as to whether a project, the proposal,

[7:24] seeking a variance would be detrimental to those interests of public health safety and

[7:32] And further it goes on that this Board may also consider, which that itself is in my mind, vague, doesn't say shall consider, but may also consider.

[7:45] And then it reintroduces what we previously knew, whether the practical difficulty relates to soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land or structures.

[7:57] That's the first prong, the second is whether strict enforcement would impose a financial hardship.

[8:04] So now we have financial hardships in play, which we didn't have that before.

[8:08] We just had substantial hardship on the appellant or petitioner.

[8:17] Whether the benefits sought by the appellant or petitioner can be achieved by some other method feasible for the appellant or petitioner.

[8:24] and whether the practical difficulty was self-created.

[8:30] So it's kind of wide open, I'm sorry, to say,

[8:33] and then as it, this was all introduced with may consider.

[8:37] So how much weight you give to these factors

[8:39] is at the discretion of the board, I would say.

[8:46] The legislature also struck,

[8:49] there was another change was that under the original law,

[8:54] cities and towns or and boards of appeals could not issue use

[8:58] variances unless you're a local bylar explicitly allowed it the

[9:03] legislature amended that to say now other than residential use

[9:07] variances those are now available across the Commonwealth or

[9:10] regardless of your local bylar but in shoesbrew we already allowed

[9:13] to use variances so that change is of no impact for this board.

[9:20] The legislature struck the language in the original of 4A10 that said the permit granting authority may impose conditions, safeguards and limitations, both of time and use, including the continued existence of any particular structures, but excluding any conditions, safeguards or limitations based upon the continued ownership of the land or structures.

[9:48] So they struck this paragraph and does that mean that this board can no longer impose

[9:54] conditions or safeguards because they struck the language, so oftentimes in interpreting

[10:02] legislative action, there's deemed to be some intent by what the legislature did in

[10:08] removing it, that they must have met something.

[10:11] So did they mean to say that boards can no longer condition

[10:15] variances, this is an open question or did I just don't know why they slightly struck it.

[10:22] So, what casalize is going to start to fill in.

[10:25] I expect some of the questions that have a risen and not just for shoes, but for all the

[10:32] shoes and towns.

[10:38] It also extended the timeline by which someone who receives a variance may exercise their

[10:44] to two years.

[10:47] So that started to say that I don't have a lot of answers as much as it raises uncertainty.

[10:56] But this is the language of legislature enacted, and the governor signed, and it was effective as of July 1.

[11:06] Do you know if there will be any regulations issued or answers to FAQs by any of that?

[11:16] So I don't know, I did see there was something issued by housing and livable communities saying that they were going to attempt to issue some guidance.

[11:30] It's not in the legislation, so I don't know when that will be forthcoming, and I would expect

[11:37] they're going to wrestle with this language as much as everybody else.

[11:41] But I did see in one of the correspondence, someone forwarded that from housing and

[11:48] of communities on the Municipal Lawyers Association,

[11:51] listserv.

[11:59] In the questions, I'm not surprised.

[12:03] I feel like we're, like, Neil Armstrong landing on the moon.

[12:06] Like, it's, it happens all that we've known,

[12:09] all the case law that we've relied on, to say that you may

[12:14] consider for criteria.

[12:16] I don't know what that means, may consider.

[12:19] May, could you elect not consider the four,

[12:23] that before, and then what's a practical difficulty

[12:26] as the main consideration to be weighed against welfare

[12:31] of the neighborhood?

[12:33] Right.

[12:33] What does that mean?

[12:36] Before it was as difficult as it was,

[12:40] if there was certainty as to the standards,

[12:43] here there's a lot of discretion.

[12:46] And I think we'll see more case

[12:49] of butters challenging the issuance of variances and probably case upholding the decisions

[12:57] because of the broad authority now that you have in making findings. You not pin to a strict

[13:04] statutory standard. Yeah, I mean it opens the doors to a lot of interpretation. Yeah.

[13:12] One more question. Do you think it's arguable that on the one side, the way it's written,

[13:20] on the one side, we are to evaluate the benefits for the appellant or petitioner and supporting

[13:31] the production of housing against the detriment to public health safety and welfare of the

[13:36] neighborhood.

[13:36] Is that the equation that we're, yes, we call the benefit of that?

[13:41] So, it's just the way the text is, so we are to weigh the benefits to the appellant or petitioner

[13:48] and to the public interest, so the benefit to the petitioner and the public interest against housing production.

[13:56] Well, sorry. I've stirred.

[13:57] It's stopped.

[13:59] Including the supporting a production housing against the detriment to the public health safety and welfare of the need of it.

[14:08] And then we may accept it.

[14:10] So that's the equation.

[14:12] Okay.

[14:12] Yeah.

[14:13] Yeah, with those terms on defined practical difficulty.

[14:18] We were wondering in my office as to whether the legislature looked at some other state

[14:23] as to their standards and that other states had some definition of practical difficulty,

[14:29] but we haven't found it yet if they turned to Maine on New Hampshire someplace.

[14:34] We haven't found it yet.

[14:35] Don't we know what Maine means?

[14:37] Just entirely permission is what it is, correct?

[14:40] Yes.

[14:40] I mean there must be definitions of what may means and legal sense here.

[14:45] So we can choose to or choose not to at our own discretion.

[14:48] Correct.

[14:49] That's how I read it. May is permissive.

[14:51] Okay.

[14:54] We'll see if a court issue is something differently.

[14:58] That's how it is.

[14:58] It's how it is.

[15:04] So, in my memo, I just did the forwarded red line of the changes the 48 and just so you could see.

[15:12] I found it odd that they retained the original standards as may also consider.

[15:18] Yep. Why do you, I don't know why they would do that when they upended the whole apple carnival with the new standard of practical difficulty weighed against public health and safety.

[15:29] Don't ask, don't ask, I understand what's coming out of the legislature.

[15:36] Mayor, or the governor?

[15:38] Well, I think it opens up.

[15:39] We have a lot of two.

[15:40] We have, you know.

[15:42] Yeah.

[15:42] We don't have strict rules anymore.

[15:45] It's interpretive.

[15:47] Yeah, I mean, there's language here.

[15:48] You can work with on finding a decision one way or another.

[15:55] And I think, I guess that's going to be the challenge, right?

[15:57] as a board, we were so wide open, which other criteria, as Tony Raphola was saying,

[16:04] you know, favoring the production of housing, is that going to outweigh the welfare

[16:11] of the neighborhood, whatever that means, that a room full of a bottles is opposed to it,

[16:15] is that the welfare of the neighborhood I don't know.

[16:18] I would suggest we make a lot of findings and have them in the record.

[16:25] I believe I find you, everybody.

[16:29] Yeah.

[16:34] Okay, well, if I, if I find, if I we see any guidance, we'll certainly forward it.

[16:41] Yeah, we were waiting with faded breath for this, but, you know, we're kind of home.

[16:46] Not coming, so we're just going to have to go out there and, and so our own path, I guess.

[16:53] All right.

[16:53] for the certified mail to show us.

[16:55] Exactly.

[16:56] That's exactly.

[16:57] Got news to that.

[16:59] So, any other thoughts comments before we move on?

[17:03] I'd thanks Steve for helping us with the research.

[17:06] Wish we could have had a little more earlier,

[17:08] so we could have digested.

[17:09] Maybe a little bit more rather than tonight.

[17:13] But yeah, we were grateful for it.

[17:16] Thanks for the opportunity and good luck.

[17:20] Well, thank you.

[17:21] I'm not sure that thank you, we're through you out of the room, but that's the side of the point.

[17:26] You're the messenger, you're just the messenger.

[17:29] Well, we appreciate you being here and giving us that guidance.

[17:32] So thank you.

[17:33] Thank you.

[17:34] All right.

[17:35] That further ado.

[17:36] We're going to continue on with the rest of our public hearings.

[17:41] First public hearing.

[17:43] This is a request to withdraw without prejudice.

[17:46] the hearing for eight ninety four Boston turnpike. You want to pick that up?

[17:54] What do you mean? It's over personal control.

[17:57] Yeah, so it's just a request for withdrawal, so we have no need to.

[18:01] No need to.

[18:01] You don't need to state anything more.

[18:03] All right, so can I get a motion for the request to withdraw without prejudice for eight ninety four Boston turnpike.

[18:11] Commercial business are Jay Foley LLC.

[18:14] I moved to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice.

[18:18] I'm sorry.

[18:19] All in favor?

[18:21] Hi.

[18:21] So moved.

[18:23] Okay.

[18:23] Before we proceed forward, I should mention we are a four member board tonight.

[18:28] We used typically a five members, but one of our members is not feeling well, so we're down to four members.

[18:33] So if you are to come in front of us, depending on whether you're coming for a special permit or a variance,

[18:38] that will change how many yes or no votes you could, you would need in order to get your appeal approved or denied.

[18:49] So when we see through, we'll bring it up again and it'll be up to the appellant whether they want to continue their hearing to the next meeting or proceed forward with the form member board.

[19:01] So, without further ado, next up is to hear the appeal of 22 Ridge Road Robert Cotes for variants.

[19:11] Yes, this is to hear the appeal of Robert Cotes for 22 Ridge Road.

[19:14] Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, the 1545 for variants.

[19:17] Shrewsbury, zoning bylaws, sections 7, table 4 to allow for a swimming pool for feet.

[19:24] When the principal dwelling where 10 feet is required on a property located at 22 Ridge Road

[19:29] in the rural B zoning district.

[19:32] So the premise is described on the Shrewsbury sister's text plate 0-8-0-8-0-5-8-0-2-7.

[19:41] Mr. Codes?

[19:43] Good evening.

[19:44] Who would, even if you could state your name for the record?

[19:46] Yeah, my I said.

[19:47] Yes, please. Absolutely.

[19:48] Robert Codes, 22 Ridge Road.

[19:51] Who would, evening? Welcome.

[19:52] How are you?

[19:53] Good. You could let us know what you're looking to do.

[19:56] Yeah, so we bought the property about six months ago for Ridge Road and we wanted to put it in above ground pool in the backyard.

[20:05] Unfortunately, what we found after serving the site is to biography concerns on if I'm going to do this from facing the back of the house.

[20:12] The left side's got the biography concerns where I can't put it above ground pool.

[20:16] In the middle of the yard is the septic field in Leachfield that I can't do.

[20:23] And then on the right, where I'm proposing to put the pole,

[20:26] is, unfortunately, four feet from the deck that's attached

[20:30] to the house.

[20:31] That deck is an existing structure attached to the house.

[20:35] The backyard is fully fenced, so I can't move the pool further.

[20:40] It creates a huge financial hardship that

[20:42] have to go in, cut trees, expand the fence, move the wood.

[20:45] I've got plenty of setback from the town permits

[20:48] from the back and side property lines.

[20:50] So I'm trying to shoe horn this pull in and we are going to do a 24-foot above ground pull.

[20:56] We were down-sized it to a 20-foot above ground pull to fit into this smaller space.

[21:02] It gives me adequate space around the deck to walk around the deck and service the pull of the pump and equipment.

[21:09] In addition, it gives me adequate space between the pull and the fence to bring a machine back if we had to do something with the septic or the concern.

[21:17] So we requested a building permit.

[21:20] It came to say that we were not in compliance with the ten foot rule from the structure.

[21:26] 12 feet from the existing house before feet from the deck.

[21:30] So requesting a variance to that four foot rule so that we can install the above crown pull.

[21:37] The pull is 54 inch wall so it does not meet all the pull requirements by the state code.

[21:42] The latter axis is away from the deck, so there's no transition transition from the deck to the pool or any concern there.

[21:50] With respect to the neighborhood, several pools in the neighborhood, above ground pools in the neighborhood, frankly, many of them are attached to the existing decks of people's houses, ours won't be.

[22:01] And you know, as the Ridge Road note, if you're familiar with it, you know, just a nice suburban neighborhood, so won't be any visibility concerns, public safety concerns.

[22:12] over the other things, financial, I just read them.

[22:15] All those concerns and the health and welfare in the neighborhood won't be affected by this.

[22:20] Talk to my neighbors, nobody has a concern to both of my neighbors have pools, so that's what

[22:25] I'm requesting from the board tonight is a variance from the four foot rule, are from

[22:29] the ten foot rule.

[22:31] The poll equipment will still meet color. It will be more than three feet from the poll. And the rest of the poll access codes are all in place.

[22:38] Great. Thank you. Thank you for explaining that.

[22:42] All right, Louise, anything else we should take into consideration?

[22:44] The only thing I would note, which is in the cover letter or the cover sheet, provided is that there are handful of waivers requested.

[22:52] center, you know, it's drawn on the plot plan, but no issues with that or otherwise.

[23:07] Okay, okay, this is to yourself, friend, okay, all right. Before we open up any comments, questions?

[23:15] Well, yeah, I'd have, I'm trying to understand this. So the pool does not exist yet. That's correct.

[23:20] The deck exists, the deck exists.

[23:24] You will be how far from the house to the pool from the exact, from the corner of the house,

[23:30] the existing house structures 12 feet.

[23:32] 12 feet.

[23:33] That's correct.

[23:34] And that satisfies building factor.

[23:36] It does not.

[23:38] The building inspector told me that,

[23:41] because the deck in the existing feature to the house,

[23:44] that it's considered part of the structure.

[23:46] I said, well, the house is the existing structure

[23:48] and my mind was in a pertinent to the existing structure.

[23:51] She wants you 10 feet from the deck.

[23:53] She wants you to want it in much 10 feet from the deck.

[23:55] I can't get 10 feet from the deck.

[23:57] Doesn't make any sense.

[24:01] The sloped area over there that's falling away from your house.

[24:05] That is correct.

[24:10] You've got a septic leaf field, you've got fence.

[24:12] How high is your fence?

[24:14] I think I drove by.

[24:15] A big white fence?

[24:16] Yes.

[24:16] That's correct.

[24:16] We did a six foot around and then in the back is a four foot chain look fence behind

[24:22] that as you know by in the house is the transmission corridor for the power lights.

[24:27] I don't want anybody to get up on top of the six foot fence and I work for the electric

[24:31] company again to close the power lights and so.

[24:34] I don't have any more questions.

[24:36] Okay.

[24:36] Dave.

[24:40] The deck has, did you say it has a normal railing around the?

[24:44] Yep.

[24:44] I'm just in code complying, railing around it.

[24:48] Yeah, I mean, I think you've demonstrated that you're very

[24:54] apt to work with the shoe here.

[24:55] You said that you went from one size pool to a smaller pool.

[24:59] You really worked to keep this thing out of the property

[25:02] lines that back areas.

[25:05] And I think you said it right.

[25:07] You shoe-wanted in there is best you can.

[25:09] So I think it's in is what it is.

[25:11] OK, thanks, man.

[25:13] I think the application meets the requirements for us to find that we should issue a variance.

[25:22] There's soil conditions, there's topography, there's septic, there's also, there's an existing fence.

[25:29] So I don't have any problem with it.

[25:30] Thank you.

[25:31] Okay.

[25:32] Nor do I.

[25:33] All right.

[25:33] This is a public hearing.

[25:34] Is there any of them that wishes to be heard on this matter?

[25:39] Okay.

[25:39] I'm going to get a mask or a question, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'll ask him.

[25:44] Sure.

[25:44] Can I get a motion to close the public hearing, please?

[25:46] I moved the close public hearing.

[25:48] Can I get a second?

[25:49] Second?

[25:50] Fall in favor?

[25:50] Aye.

[25:51] So moved.

[25:52] You said there's no connection between the deck and the pool.

[25:56] You've got to go down off the deck and climb up in the pool on a separate device.

[26:00] That's correct.

[26:03] I'm done.

[26:04] Okay.

[26:04] Can I get a motion, please?

[26:06] I think we need to see if there's any public input.

[26:08] We're going to close, call them close, I'm sorry, that's okay, that's all right.

[26:13] I moved to, I moved the board to approve the applicant's request for a variance from

[26:19] section 7, table 4 of this shoes were zoning a lot to allow for a swimming pool of four

[26:25] feet from the principal dwelling where 10 feet is required at 22 redrode within the rural

[26:30] B zoning district.

[26:32] Can I get a second?

[26:34] It's like a width waivers.

[26:36] Oh yeah, we have waivers in.

[26:37] I'm sorry.

[26:39] Sorry about that.

[26:40] I moved the board well, so that motion is pending, so.

[26:47] Move the board to approve the applicants for quest for waivers as requested from article

[26:53] three section three plans of land from the zoning board rules and regulations for property located

[26:58] 22 red road within the rural be zoning district.

[27:02] I second that.

[27:04] All in favor.

[27:05] All right, some of you need relief now.

[27:10] Yes.

[27:11] Do you want to do the relief?

[27:12] Do I have anyone to do the relief?

[27:14] No, you can do it.

[27:17] I moved the board to approve the applicants request for a variance from Section 7.

[27:23] Table 4 of the screws buried zoning by law to allow for a swimming pool for feet from the.

[27:30] I strike the word principle dwelling and I say,

[27:34] deck because he is over 10 feet from the principal dwelling. So I'm modifying this.

[27:42] The building commissioner sees that the existing deck attached to the dwelling is a principle

[27:50] dwelling, which is why we are here. All right, well then, I'll leave the board it as it is.

[27:58] Four foot from the principal dwelling, where 10 feet is required at 22 rows, within the wall

[28:03] be zoning district. Thank you for the second. Second. All in favor? I'm so moved. Thank you.

[28:10] Thank you.

[28:17] Excuse me. Here's the appeal of Mark Paris, 19 Ashwood Circle, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts,

[28:22] 0.5, 4.5, for a variance of the Shrewsbury zoning bylaws, section 7B, subpart 10, to create

[28:31] lot with a lot of shape factor of 0.41 where a minimum of 0.45 is required on property located

[28:39] at 13 John Street and the resident's B2 zoning district. So, the premise is described on the

[28:45] truth-free assessor's tax plate, 45 plot 019001.

[28:51] And a reminder, Mr. Paris, that we have a four-member board, so you'd have to get a unanimous

[28:57] vote in order for your appeal to be granted.

[29:00] So it's up to you whether you want to continue the hearing till next meeting with a five-member board if we have a five-member board or continue tonight with four-member board.

[29:09] May I continue?

[29:11] If that's what you want to do?

[29:13] Yeah, certainly do that.

[29:14] Do you know when the next meeting would be?

[29:16] Yes.

[29:17] Last Monday of the month.

[29:19] Well, hang on.

[29:20] Oh, I guess.

[29:21] It will be.

[29:22] It will be.

[29:22] So that's how I can look at that.

[29:24] I just...

[29:24] At the 10th or 20th.

[29:25] Oh, it's pushing to the 28th.

[29:30] No, I will continue.

[29:32] You want to continue?

[29:33] Yes, please.

[29:33] Okay.

[29:34] All right.

[29:36] So can I get a motion to continue the hearing for 13 John Street, please?

[29:40] Is that what you want or do you want to do it tonight?

[29:42] No, may I continue it?

[29:44] Okay, I guess.

[29:46] Continue tonight.

[29:47] Continue the meeting.

[29:47] I want to continue.

[29:48] No, no.

[29:49] Continue to continue the next meeting.

[29:52] I moved to continue the appeal of Mark Paris,

[29:55] regarding 13 John Street for a variance from section.

[30:02] 7b, 2 September 28th, 2026, 6 p.m.

[30:07] I get a second.

[30:09] Second.

[30:09] All in favour?

[30:10] Aye.

[30:11] I'm so moved.

[30:11] So that's automatic, right?

[30:13] I do I have to refile or I am on.

[30:14] Nope.

[30:15] You'll continue right on.

[30:17] Yep, we'll put you at the front of the hearing as well.

[30:19] Oh, thank you.

[30:19] You're welcome.

[30:20] Just bring doughnuts.

[30:22] I'm sorry.

[30:23] Bring doughnuts.

[30:24] Yeah. That's a joke.

[30:26] Yeah.

[30:26] All right, thank you, all right, next on the agenda, this is a continuation request to the September 28th meeting for 9.57 Boston Turnpike, so can I get a motion to continue that hearing please?

[30:47] I move the continued to continue

[30:51] adhering for 9.57 Boston turnpike

[30:54] from a cardee engineering for two special permits

[30:57] to September 28th, 2026.66.

[31:02] Can I get a second?

[31:04] All in favor?

[31:05] I so moved.

[31:07] Okay, and the last on the list is

[31:09] this is a request to withdraw the hearing

[31:12] for a 47-lear street

[31:15] We'll be Daniel Ford, can I get a motion please?

[31:19] I move to approve the request to withdraw for 47-year street money for Daniel Ford for variants from section 7 C table 4.

[31:31] I go second.

[31:32] Okay.

[31:32] Question?

[31:34] Is this withdrawn without prejudice, right?

[31:39] Okay.

[31:40] I'm good.

[31:41] Can I go to second?

[31:42] I can.

[31:42] All in favor?

[31:43] I really, there's two variants, let me make the motion, sorry.

[31:48] I also move to approve the request to withdraw 47 Leer Street for Daniel Ford for the

[31:56] variants from Section 7D Table 2 and Special Permit and a Special Permit, too, sorry.

[32:04] A Special Permit from Section 4, C.

[32:08] Can I get a second?

[32:09] So I get all in favor, all right, so moved, all right, that looks like that is basically

[32:17] it for the evening, so I can I get a motion to adjourn and move to adjourn.

[32:23] Any other second?

[32:24] Good.

[32:24] All in favor?

[32:26] Aye.

[32:26] Moved.

[32:28] Oh, that's a world record.

Zoning Board of Appeals Aug 24 2026

Transcript