Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Yeah, because you were an alternate down left and we had an alternate.

Didn't you get voted in by the select board?

Yes. I wasn't at the meeting.

Switch is on.

Oh, thank you.

I've been waiting to hear whether I've been reappointed or not.

I'm sure you did. They were. They were.

Hello, everyone. This is Thursday, June 18th, 2026 at 7 o'clock p.m. This is the Littleton Zoning Board of Appeals. We're in the Littleton Town Offices, Room 103 at 37 Shattuck Street, Littleton. We have one scheduled hearing tonight, but we have 15 or 10 minutes of administrative work to get done first. So the first thing on the agenda at 7 o'clock p.m. is the reading and approval of the minutes of the last meeting. And is there anyone who wants to comment?

I found some very unusual mistakes. On the first big paragraph, at the end it says, I was on the town of Acton Planning Board. That should be Littleton, obviously.

Got it.

And then the beginning, the number one and the next one, it says alternatives from two to five. I don't know what, let's say the town voted to increase the number from two to four, and we want to go back to two, not five, right?

No, they increased to five.

It was five?

Yeah, and that's what I wanted them to reduce back to two.

And then the second, next to last row, I said if it was vote necessary since the ZBA has two alternates. I don't really remember saying that. I'll leave it, but I can take it out.

Tell me where it was because it can come up.

The second sentence up. I asked if a vote was necessary to go to two alternates.

Yeah, we just can take it out.

I don't remember saying that.

It was superfluous anyway.

Okay. And then the second page in bold with a five-member board, it's hard to say four yay and two nay. I thought it was five yays.

It was five yays. I think it was five yays. It's hard because she's listening to a tape and we all talk at once.

Right.

She did a very, very good job. I think we should tell her she doesn't have to get to this level of detail. This must have taken her hours.

And also, just above that, Tom, John, Cheryl, and Sherry. My name's not there. I should be there as well. The five of us.

At least I know you read it.

I tried to. That's all I had.

I'm sorry, the last one I didn't catch yet. I'll write it and send it to her. Where was the last one you said?

Just above the bold. I should be included there, too, since it's a five-nothing vote.

Oh, Tom, John, Cheryl, Rod, and Cheryl. Yeah.

Whatever. So under number five... Cheryl noted that volunteers needed to raise funds for the Littleton Scholarship Trust. I don't remember talking about the Littleton Scholarship Trust, but I wouldn't have said we needed volunteers for that. So maybe just cut that line.

That's fine. It's also superfluous. Yes, it is. I thought the whole paragraph should be taken out just because it was filler of town news, but I don't mind it in either. So I'll just take the sentence out.

Take that sentence out.

I did note that we ratified that Cheryl and John can sign bills, but I don't see that she sent that off to the Finance Committee or wherever it goes, so I want her to send that off, please. And I don't see that a letter was written to the Selectmen asking them to reduce the number of alternates, and I'm going to ask her to send that off if no one has any objection. there was another one it was more informational than it was actual minutes but I wanted to this is the one talked about generally the new zoning provisions that are coming down under the Mara Healey Affordable Homes Act and I meant to talk about it in a general sense and maybe I gave you my personal views on it but I don't want it to be reflected that my views are the position of this board so the two things were the demerger or the demerging of lots. And the other one was the ADUs. And I just want it to be made clear that our board is not taking a position on this, nor do we have the authority to do so under the authorities granted to us as a zoning board of appeals.

We certainly have the authority to follow our town attorney's advice that an ADU means subservient and not separate ownership.

just want to correct you for that statement this way your attorney did not render that advice in a general sense yet he was responding to an email or a series of inquiries that one or two people gave him you from this board and from planning board and this should not be taken out of context whatever his response was should be parroted should be paired with the letter sent to him so people reading his response can see what it was responding to that's the only thing I'm not challenging anything you're saying I'm just saying that he did not give his blanket advice that in all instances the ADU cannot be in separate ownership from the main dwelling that wasn't asked of him yet

I disagree. I think it was asked of him. And I do think that he said that by definition, an ADU is an accessory dwelling unit. And if it's a separate primary unit, such as a convex, it is not an accessory. So I think that we can hang our hat on the definition of an accessory dwelling unit as by its name.

So without belaboring the point, I would just caution this board that this board has not asked him to render that opinion in writing. And if you want that opinion, you should ask him of that and ask him if he will go on record as putting it in writing to the board. That's all.

But I don't really think... So he answered my inquiry, but he didn't put it in writing to the board as a general.

But he also answered your inquiry in response to one particular case that was pending at the time and that you were referencing. It is not a blanket overall statement and shouldn't be taken as such. And I don't think we have the power to say that. I don't think this board has the power to say to town council, will you give us a blanket opinion on ADUs? I don't know that we do or don't. That's not our purview. Our purview is to only hear special permits, variances, and appeals. so if we had before us for instance a case that said I want a variance from the requirement of accessory and then you ask the question what's accessory that's an answer to this board that we have the authority to ask them for and get an answer to but this board has no authority to say to him can an accessory dwelling unit be a separate ownership from the principal dwelling unit. I'm not sure that's our purview, but that wasn't what was asked yet. What was asked was with relationship to the one case before us.

He opined that by definition accessory is accessory.

So let's get that in writing into this record, into this board. That's the way you want to reference it.

I think we should. I feel very strongly about this. I think we need to prepare ourselves for an onslaught.

Well, I don't disagree with that statement and I think that This board would have to make a decision to either request it on motion. I'm willing to entertain that motion if someone wants to make it. And if that's the motion you're making, maybe we ask him if he will make that opinion to us. I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying I don't think that's been done yet.

Okay, because I asked him about one particular case. Yeah, yeah. And in general, we want to ask him about the definition of an accessory dwelling unit. Yes.

Do you want to make that motion to ask the building inspector, excuse me, the town council, to please render an opinion to this board to give us guidance?

Okay. I'm fine with making that motion.

Specifically with ownership?

Pardon me? With ownership in mind. I mean, can every building that has an ADU become a context?

Yeah. I don't like it framed that way.

What else would you call it?

I think you need to say under the definition of accessory dwelling unit, Can an accessory dwelling unit have separate ownership than the principal dwelling? Simple as that. I don't like you then using the word context and having us have a new definition for that.

What else would it be?

It would be an accessory dwelling unit with a separate owner. It wouldn't necessarily be a context. With two owners.

With two owners, it would be a context.

Not necessarily. Not necessarily. That is the definition of a contact.

If they have to share something like the septic system, maybe.

That's not, I don't think that's where you want to go with this question.

I think it's cleaner if you just ask, can they be in separate ownership? Yeah. Then it doesn't, someone can't come back and tell the contact, just ask, can you have, can the ADU be under separate ownership than the primary house? I think that's the way you want to go. Yeah, that's the question you want answered. But what that might imply later or beyond is that what we don't ask.

Yeah, why is it that you feel it's important to have context in the question?

No, because when you have separate ownership of one building, And that's what we're talking about.

Two different buildings.

Or even two different buildings on the same property with the same septic system. Then you have to have an agreement.

Well, first of all, they might not be the same septic system. For instance, if I wanted to put an ADU on my property, I'd have to either upgrade my septic system or put a new one in because the existing one can't carry it.

Or what if one connected to the new smart sewer?

We're going a little beyond the scope of what the question is. Because my store is a good answer to him. The second answer to you is right now Title V doesn't allow you to have two systems on one lot. So now you're talking about whether there's going to be a zero lot line clearance or something different.

Which we've never had.

But don't introduce context into your question to town council. You want the answer about...

How about we just phrase it this way? Please define accessory dwelling unit. You won't get to the answer.

No, you have to specifically ask the question.

This board wants guidance on whether an accessory dwelling unit can be in separate ownership from the principal dwelling, period. Am I right?

That's clean and the answer should.

All right, so I'm going to frame the motion that way. Okay. Can an accessory dwelling unit be in separate ownership than the principal dwelling under our current bylaws?

Under our current bylaws. Thank you.

And do we want to add that if it is allowed, can the bylaws be modified to disallow it?

That would be Planning Board, not us.

Sorry. Don't dismiss that too soon. Planning Board is taking that up as a discussion item on rephrasing our zoning bylaw to parrot the Marahili legislation. And that's precisely what we want to get to. But I don't think Town Council is going to give you an opinion on that until Planning Board starts conducting its open meeting hearings.

Can we make sure we're notified when they start doing that? Yeah, we are. All right. We are now. Can we make sure we are notified when they start doing that? We've asked more than once.

Okay. So is the motion made in that simple form?

We have a motion in the simple form. Can an ADU be under separate ownership from a principal dwelling under the current zoning bylaw? That's a motion. I'll second. Anybody second it? I'll second. Rod, second it. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Are you getting

I agree with having to be broad like that. Because you can always have follow-up later with detail.

You brought up a good point, John. The septic systems are going to potentially limit ADUs in the town.

They do. And they always have. But It's not the existing houses and ADUs that are a concern. It's what's going to be suddenly built. Land in Littleton is very expensive and has become very precious, and property values have skyrocketed in Littleton. We have an excellent school system. We have excellent public transportation. We have great highway access. Our school system, like I said, is excellent. So it's fed property values a lot. And consequently, builders are looking to maximize what they can build in the town. So what we do sets precedence. We've got to remember that. And we've got to remember that there are builders out there that would happily build

But that's no construction. But I'm talking about a lot of the land in town that's in existence. Septic systems can't handle an extra bedroom or two.

And I'm really not worried about those ADUs because we've had ADUs allowed by right for many years now. And if we did it the way we did, it had to be specified. It had to have owner.

I didn't mean it to be a discussion. I was just making a speech. I know.

But our ADU laws required an owner-occupant. The new legislation from the town says we cannot require an owner-occupant. So suddenly, instead of this doing what we hoped it would do, which is help seniors stay in their houses, help families be able to do that.

I understand all that. That wasn't my point. I know.

I'm trying to explain this to other people also. It suddenly creates an investment opportunity instead of a way of helping people stay in their homes, which is what our goal was in passing the ADU. All right.

So that was one of the pieces of the Marahee legislation, and my reason for raising it to this board was just to keep your eyes open as it comes down the pike, especially if the planning board starts to have hearings on it. As many of you as possible should attend those hearings and think about it. because one of our jobs is to enforce the zoning bylaw. So we have a lot of intimate relationship with the various exceptions that come before us and are asking for relief. And the other part of her legislation was to de-merge merged lots. And again, without rendering any opinion except my personal one, the board ought to be invested somehow into the ability to de-merge a merge lot provided that has 10,000 square feet and can build an 1,800-square-foot home with 75 feet of frontage and three bedrooms. And it's just proof of thought. I had one come into my office, and it's giving me a little bit of heartburn because it's 8,000 square feet, not 10,000 square feet. And our Littleton zoning by-law and the state by-law says a lot that was 5,000 square feet is grandfathered. So in my mind, if Maura Healey's intention is to de-merge merged lots in order to get more affordable housing in town, there should not be cutting of hairs between 8,000 and 10,000 square feet. It was a lot that merged that can be unmerged under the existing legislation.

Do you guys understand how does everyone understand how a lot gets merged?

Yes. Okay. So anyway, just two things that are, it's always interesting when new legislation happens that you, almost out of the gate, you get an exception to the rule immediately and you say, what are you doing? Okay. That's that for the minutes and we didn't get to both of them. Does anyone else have changes they want to input to? I've got no more second, right?

Yeah.

Sharon, you just said it was a little more in detail.

I would pass on to Sophie that she doesn't need this kind of detail. We don't need this kind of detail. John?

did you get a chance i read it i don't have any comments i i would agree i what i've been used to is more bolded type you know things because you get it it gets too uh yeah it just it gets wordy and then it's like that's not exactly what i meant and you know yeah sometimes bullets are easy bullets are more concise is easier i think

I don't disagree. I think that's a good idea. Okay. So I'll take a motion to approve the minutes as amended. I usually get yelled at all the time for that.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as amended. All right.

Want to second it?

Yeah, I'll second it.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Unanimous. All right. The next thing on the agenda, believe it or not, is the Senate hearing for 7.10 p.m. Case number 26-982. I'll open the hearing of 6 Long Lake Road. The petitioners Mr. William and Ms. Christine Donahue seek a special permit under sections 173.10b and a variance pursuant to the intensity of use schedule for a porch walkway and deck addition and such other businesses may properly come before the board and we do this very informally we have you come up to the front and state your case you can bring another chair up if you want the board members will then ask you questions, then we'll see if anyone in the full audience would like to comment.

All your concerned neighbors that are worried about your addition.

Well, hello. Hi. Hi, Kristen and William Donahue. Everyone calls me Kiki, though, for those of you who know me. Yes, so we have a, for lack of a better terminology, dilapidated porch on our 1950 house over by the lake that we purchased in 2018. And so we obviously need to remedy that. And then our front concrete steps are also dilapidated. We've already lost one railing. So every time the Amazon guy comes, I'm praying that he doesn't fall off the side and there's going to be an issue. So we also decided to take the time while we were doing it to really... make a change. We have no access to our backyard from our home. There's no back door. There's no way to get to the backyard other than walking out the front door and walking outside in the grass. And so that's what we've enlisted. Our builder, Paul Lemieux, has come up with a nice fix to that problem. So we're going to be replacing the current footprint of the deck that is currently there, putting a little screen porch, very simple screen porch on top, and then a small walkway to access the back of the house and with a small deck off the back so that we can utilize our backyard. Also replacing our crumbling concrete front steps and damaged railings with safer steps and a small covered portico on top of this. We have no covered entryway of our house either.

How far out does the portico fit?

I think it's very small. Let me look at the plans here.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, sorry. And, of course, I just got this from the builder.

We are musicians, and so we are builders.

You're a musician? We are musicians, so we're going to do our best here. What do you play?

So I'm a singer, and Bill's a pianist and an organist. Bill, what's your last name?

John.

What do you play?

I'm the music director at St. Chronicles.

Oh, very nice.

And I'm at St. Ann's here in Littleton and St. Catherine's. I saw a footprint. Where did I see that?

Because I do want to make a comment.

Oh, sure. So just to answer your first question, it's about, it looks like on here it's less than four feet out, the quarter coast four feet.

I don't understand the line there.

That line is the actual house, right?

Which line? Because they're not adding on to the front of their house.

No, the one you see out, the dotted line you see?

Mm-hmm.

That one, that's the setback from the street. The line in front of it is the actual house. That's my question because... The house actually sticks out past the setback line.

We have an exemption to the zoning by-law setback that if the houses contiguous on either side of you are closer to the street than 30, then your setback is reduced to the same setback as they are. And believe it or not, I used to own eight Longwood. Oh, really? They're dilapidated. Don't talk about it. And I do believe that the house is continuous on either side, maybe as close to the street as these steps, but I didn't measure it.

Yeah, I believe that came up in our, we had a previous hearing where we put our shed in, and that did come up that the setback was... We can... One second, let her finish her sentence, please. That the set I had read that I had read that in the documents that never came up like publicly but I did see that written in there that all of the houses on our street had that Sometimes it's cleaner if we're inclined to approve it anyway to go ahead and approve it so there's no question.

I don't disagree with you I just want to educate all the new people that work in this town so that they're not forcing costs and hearings before a board that don't need to be here i know but they need to be here for this yeah okay no problem but this is a variance and this is a special permanent let me look again but that's what i yeah he did um amend the um henry fontaine did originally send us a first letter and then amended it to the second letter saying we didn't need that second because there was originally i think three yeah let me see what his letter says

This is a two, yeah.

Yeah. Henry's letter?

Yeah, so Henry's letter that's here has two. He had originally sent us a letter like two days before where there were three, and then there was a, I know they've got a lot of.

Could I call on one of my members, David, how about you to read it into, actually. The letter? Yeah. Yeah. How about the alternate? Let me ask the alternate to write it in, because he's the one that put his hand up first that he had it in front of him. He's not going to get any other jobs today. I know. You just want me to read the letter? Yeah, tell us who it's from and what it says. Okay, the letter dated May 22, 2026, to Mr. William Donahue and Ms. Kristen Donahue.

regarding Six Long Lakes Green Porch and Deck Special Permit Variants. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Donahue, from the information that has been provided to this department, a certified plot plan from Stampski and McNary, dated April 29th, 2026, and building plans from Colonial Home Design. The applicant proposes to add to the front of dwelling a landing and steps and to the side of screen, porch, deck, and walkway. Your submittal requires approval from the following board before a building permit can be issued. Zoning Board of Appeals, one special permit, section 173.10b, item 1, and variance intensity of use schedule. Pursuant to 173.10b.1, alteration of non-conforming structures with respect to an existing non-conformity. The Board of Appeals may, by special permit, allow the reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change of a pre-existing non-conforming structure that extends or increases into existing non-conformity, where it determines that the proposed modifications are not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. Pursuant to intensity of use schedule, note 9, where structures exist on the adjacent lot on either side of the property, the street setback need not be greater than the average of the setbacks of the adjacent structures. Therefore, a special permit is required. The applicant proposes to construct a screen porch, deck, and walkway to the easing side of the existing dwelling. Pursuant to table of intensity of use schedule, the side yard setback easterly is 15 feet, where the applicant proposes 12.1 feet, therefore a variance is required. It goes on to say contact the Town of Littleton Zoning Board of Appeal at 978-540-2431 for information regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals. Respectfully, Harry Fontaine, Building Commissioner.

Can we thank you? Henry for this detailed letter. Because this lays it out beautifully and keeps us from making any guesswork about what we need to do. It's quite detailed and lovely.

Absolutely. I do want to make some comments to this letter and to the classes generally. This board is allowed to give variances and they're allowed to give special permits. A variance is required when you are making a new nonconformity. This letter says it exists at a 15-foot setback and it needs to be, and it wants to be a 12-foot setback. That's a new nonconformity that requires a variance. And this is instructional as well as lecture. I'm not meaning to lecture. I have new members and I want everybody to be on the same page. A special permit is granted by the Board when we're authorized by the Zoning By-law to grant special permits. And a special permit is easier to get. Special permit just has to be not any more detrimental to the neighborhood than what's there now. The only thing I don't understand from Henry's letter, and it's a good letter, is that why would a front setback that's already in line with contiguous properties require a special permit? And I'm not going to question it. I agree with you. We'll grant it as long as they're here. But I think I want to question that because if the properties continuous on each side already are set back the same distance, this qualifies for the exemption under the setback requirements and it doesn't require that anyone had to come here for a special permit at all. I have a feeling that Henry couldn't measure and your engineer didn't measure and maybe he sent you here because an inch difference would be a difference. on the other side on the variance you have to prove several things for this board to be able to grant you the variance you have to prove Anyone want to help? That you have a hardship, financial or otherwise, that there is a detriment to you not to get this variance, not to be able to do this. You have to prove that your lot or this part of your lot is unique by soil shape or topography from anything else, and that's why you need a variance. And then you have to prove that it's substantially not more detrimental than the existing zoning bylaw. all of those things in order to grant the variance.

Not detrimental to the neighborhood.

Did I say that or not? You didn't say the neighborhood. Sorry. Not more detrimental to the neighborhood. So you need to explain to us, why is your life different than other lives? And you started to say it. You said you don't have a way to your backyard. You don't have usability of your backyard. You're on an undersized lot. But so speak to that a little bit.

Sure. So beyond the pieces I already brought up, also when we purchased our home, it had the new septic system put in, which is a new alternative septic since we're so close to the lake. And during that process, the topography of the yard was changed and so now it's raised and it is such a tilt we had to give up our ride on lawnmower because we were going to fall over it's such a tip over so we have it's crowns yeah in the middle of the yard yeah um and so we don't have that usable space either to be able to have any kind of flat land even when we put our shed in you know we had to get twice the gravel as what you know, the shed company had recommended just to level off that area. So part of the goal in doing this is to make a more usable space there and to be able to utilize that area that's dropping off. That's really, I mean, you can't put a chair on it because you fall over. The children like it for the slip and slide, but they're getting to be older now, so it's not really as much of a draw anymore. And I also think it just brings usability to our space in a way that we really can't use our, like as you said, all of us on the lake are on undersized lots. sort of on top of each other. And so, yeah, I think that it'll just bring us more ability to get to the house. Plus, it gives us more ability to actually access the back of the house, which we currently have no way to do outside of our bulkhead from our basement.

And we're supposed to review with you on a change, extension, or alteration of a pre-existing nonconformity, which is what you hear about. We're supposed to review with you and for you What are the existing nonconformities? So you start with your frontage is less than normal. Normal, yeah. And you have, do you know what your frontage is? I didn't look. 75. 75. And then you have a lot that's undersized. One acre zoning in your lot is what? 75.

7,500? Yeah.

Thank you. And then you have sideline setback on the westerly side. Looks like it meets the 15th.

Yes.

On the left side, it does not.

Wait. On the right side. On the right side, it should face the house. On the westerly side, it meets it, and you're not changing it.

Correct.

On the easterly side, It is currently non-conforming at?

14.4 and a half.

So 15 is required, 14.4 is current, and the proposed is 12.1.

On the right, on the easterly side.

And then front setback currently is what?

To the steps is 17.7. And to the landing is 22 feet 8 inches.

I'm going to go to the steps, right, John?

Yes, let's go to the steps.

And so what is it now? And it will be 17 feet. 17 feet.

No, I think I'm looking at current. Current is 17 feet, 7 inches. And then what will it be when they're done? I believe they're not bringing it out any further. We are not. That's okay.

Just rebuilding that place. Yes, it's safe. All you need to do is adding a portico.

We're adding a portico on top. Portico, nice word. A portico.

Rare setback is fine. I need 15 in the rare. That's fine. Okay. And I need to know about...

There's a portico directly across the street from home exactly like this.

Adjacent properties. Now, I had a member who's no longer here who used to always bring his laptop, and he would always Google Earth in. So we can see exactly... And just a hint to those of you who are standing out in this crowd. There is a portico directly across the street. It's a very nice cortico. It's not a cross. Unfortunately, that bylaw says contiguous on either side. Oh, there you go. Jason, I think it says it.

I'll pull it up. The portico is required for safety purposes.

I'll pull it up for you. Yes. Oh, you're going to pull up the G?

I'm satisfied that you told the board everything it needs to know. Now, does the board have any questions of these applicants?

I know, I'm just asking questions.

You can't even look in the window.

I don't want to look in the window. We call it the piano room.

Why don't you punch a door on the back?

You know why? We actually brought that when we bought the house. That's what we originally wanted to do. But the way that they put it in, the heat is separate for that. And the heat is coming in and out in the one place where the door could go. So it was going to be, we bought the house in 2018. They quoted us $25,000 just to put the door in. So we said, okay. We love the piano room just as it is. So we put the grand piano in there and we make lovely music. Yeah, but that was what I, when we first bought the house, that was what we thought we would do, was punch a hole there, put like a, you know, some kind of a French door.

We're not going to put one on the side wall where the deck goes by.

Yeah, we just lose all of our, like any seating space in there if we do that.

Shortcut though, the backyard.

Yeah.

How about you Bill, any questions?

Maybe just general. Any input from the neighbors? How do they feel about it?

Yeah, we did speak to the Lowmans next door, which is the easterly side, and they said they were fine with that. They're hoping nobody looks over their yard.

a fence, I assume it's their fence, because it's a nice side station.

That's their fence, yeah.

And then there's trees and green stuff, so it's almost like it's a wall you can't see through.

Yeah, very much, yeah. And there's a wooden fence there anyway. Yeah, so we have a lovely relationship with all of our neighbors. He recently put in his own thing in the back and has a shed and everything there, so we're always very conjugal. But yeah, we did tell him about it, that we were planning on doing that. He got a postcard.

Yeah, and he also got a postcard, right. I don't know about your house. I think all these houses were Sears kit houses. I believe it.

Yeah. Somebody told me ours was.

It used to come in a box.

Yeah. From Sears.

Yeah.

And they were all, they threw them all up. I think ours is, and the one across the street, because the two, eight, and then the Laumann's, theirs are still the little old bungalows, the one level. Yeah. Well, actually, next door, he put a top on, but then I think he told us he pulled the building permit because he didn't finish it. So it's just sort of framed and nothing's up there.

That's funny.

Yeah, but that's kind of what's happening over there by the lake is everybody's building on top of the... Gentrification. Yes, exactly. David, do you have any questions?

No. You already asked, and do you have any questions? No, I already asked one. And Roy, do you?

No, I'm all set.

And anybody who's appearing here for or against, no.

I make a motion we close the hearing.

Somebody second?

Okay. Okay.

All those in favor? Aye. Hearing no opposition, the hearing is closed. Board, deliberate or make a motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve both the variance and the special permit based on what we heard tonight.

We've heard enough hardship. This lot is certainly unique. No conditions?

Just to follow what the setbacks have shown on the plan.

Just substantially show it.

Substantially show, yeah. Okay. I don't want to take it to the nearest ether engine.

I have a motion. Anybody want to second that?

I'll say it.

All in favor? Aye. Congratulations, you have it. There's a 20-day appeal period. The building inspector will not give you a building permit until the variance appeal period expires. A special permit you can get earlier, except you're at your own risk that somebody might appeal it.

I like your plans. They're nice. Thanks, we're excited about it.

Yeah, we started right before COVID and then had to put it all on hold. Back up and running.

And thank you very much for walking me around and explaining it to me. Of course. I appreciate your patience.

I know we had a nice conversation. Usually I call the police if I see anything.

Change women wandering around here. He's used to strange women.

It happens all the time, really. Before you got here, we talked about that for a second. Basically, if you apply for a change to the ZBA, you have basically given us permission to walk onto your property to look at what you're asking to do.

Oh, really? Okay.

Otherwise, you can get to an informed approval. Right. I was there a week ago. Oh, okay.

I was going to say, I saw people on my camera. We have a ring camera. I was last minute.

That's okay.

Good luck. Thank you so much.

Have a great night. Thank you so much.

Nice to meet you. Take care. Good luck. Thank you.

Yes, we had something to do. It's been a while.

The rest of the agenda says read the mail. I don't have any. Member comments? Anybody want to waste time? Excuse me. Take the time.

Tomorrow's a big holiday.

Yes.

And the holiday is because my wife and I got married 50 years ago.

I was just going to say it's your wedding anniversary.

That's the holiday.

It wasn't a holiday when we got married.

It's a national holiday.

It's now a national holiday. Wow. Congratulations.

Just the comment that we haven't seen the minutes from the second to how to one road hearing yet I will bring that up to Sophia tomorrow when I hear this stuff.

Thank you And we're having

We did see the minutes for the planning board meeting.

Yes.

When we got married, we got married in Concord, and then we had a reception in Westford of Tiki Lau. Really?

I make a motion that we adjourn. Second. Second. Those in favor?

Aye. Aye.