Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

7:06 p.m. This open meeting of the Grafton Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted both remotely and in person consistent with the temporary provisions of the open meeting law [snorts] which extends remote meeting protocols through March 31st, 2027. This meeting is convening via Zoom video conference and in person as posted on the meeting agenda which can be found on the town of Grafton website. Please see the meeting agenda for details on how to participate remotely. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. All participation in this meeting will be visible to others. [snorts]

Um, anything that's broadcast or screen shared uh will be captured by the recording and may be published or rebroadcast later. [snorts] This meeting may feature public comment for anyone that's attending virtually. If you'd like to request acknowledgement to speak, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom and the meeting administrator will enable you to speak when it's your turn. Um, for those on the phone, the meeting administrator will enable you to speak. [snorts] Um, anyone in person will ask you to step up to the podium. And all speakers, please state your name and address prior to your comments or questions. [snorts] And each vote taken in this meeting will be done by a roll call vote. [snorts] Okay.

[snorts] So, I guess we'll start with order uh case number 92031 Old Westboro Road. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recuse myself from this case.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Um, so I will appoint Mr. Lette and as a voting member for purposes of this case. [snorts] [snorts] So the applicant can step forward. [clears throat]

Yeah. [snorts] All right. So, first I'll I'll just read the rules of order, and this will apply to both cases this evening. So, the petitioner will have um well, first we'll have the clerk read the petition. Uh and then the petitioner will have the opportunity to present their case. The petitioner will have 15 minutes to present. Um petitioner shall have shall present the required information and all comments should be specific. Uh, anyone wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition will then have an opportunity to do so. [snorts] If you wish to speak, please state your name and address for the record. Uh, the board may ask questions from time to time. However, all conversation should be directed through the chair. [snorts] After all evidence is presented, the board will enter into discussion and render a decision. At any time during this hearing and prior to a decision being made by this board, the petitioner has the option to request that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice or continued to a later date, at which time the petitioner could provide additional information favorable to the petitioner. Uh, so I'll ask the clerk, Miss Reed, do you have the petition?

Yes, I do. And this is um 31 Old Westboro Road, just to confirm. Correct. Correct.

Okay. The Grafton Board of Appeals has received a petition from David W. Mason, 31 Old Westboro Road, requesting the zoning board of appeals grant a variance from the requirement that vehicular access to the building lot be provided through the frontage of the lot to allow principal vehicular access to the property at 31 Old Westboro Road to be from to come from North Streets. Um, this is, uh, the board will conduct a public hearing on January 8th, 2026 at 7 p.m. in conference room A at the municipal center, 30 Providence Road, Grafton to consider this request and or to take whatever action is necessary, including the granting of a finding, special permit, variance, or other necessary relief allowed under the zoning bylaw. Any person wishing to be heard in conjunction with this request should appear at the time and place designated or by letter to this board in time to be read at the hearing. Um, zoning board of appeals, Brian Waller, Will Mckusker, K Reed, Alex Mahia, Peter Adams, Jiffy Thomas, and Brian Majiman.

Thank you. Uh, so um have a motion to open the public hearing. Do we have to do that? No, I don't think we do. We do have to close it. Okay. Um, so I'll turn it over to the petitioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [clears throat] My name is Henry Lane. My address is 100 Main Street in Whitensville, Massachusetts, and I'm here this evening on behalf of Mr. Mason, who is seated next to me. Um, I guess this property has some history. Uh but we're here uh requesting a variance uh from the definition of a front of frontage in the

you you can sit like but it's up to you. Unfortunately in my business we we're required to stand so that's what I'm used to doing. [snorts]

Sorry to interrupt

but usually when Mr. Riley is there on the I'm on the opposite side. [laughter] In any case, yeah, this this property on well, it's actually on Old West Road and also on uh North Street, but [snorts] uh there is some history with this property. Uh Mr. Mr. Mason and his family have owned it for about 20 years. Uh but as you I suspect you're familiar with the plan that was submitted with the application. It's a it's a fairly large parcel. the two lots together about 25 26 acres 27 acres somewhere around there but it's very oddly shaped and it unfortunately is um encumbered by substantial wetland areas and just for the sake of terminology I guess under the statute talk about soil conditions so we call them wetlands but technically I guess they're hydric soils so we have a large uh section of hydric soils which generates wetland ve type vegetation uh and makes it difficult to develop um this this parcel in a normal way. And for the first 10 years or so that it was owned, u it was a perfectly legal buildable lot. And for some reason that lost the history, it wasn't developed. But in 2013, uh the town amended its bylaw to require that access to a buildable lot had to occur through the frontage, the legal frontage. As it turns out, the lot, this parcel has legal frontage on Old Westboro Road, uh, of the required distance, 200 feet, I believe. Uh, it also has 70 ft of frontage on North Street, but unfortunately, the North Street frontage is technically not meet the, uh, the distance requirement. So we we could legally develop the lot by using the frontage on the old westboro road. But as I indicated uh that that access is is u is extremely difficult because of the

presence of the hydric soils and the wetland vegetation. It's in fact pretty hard to see how you could do that. you'd have to have a very very long bridge or a gigantic culvert or something to cross that uh that welding area to get to the buildable part of the of uh what's identified as lot 2 R. But we have good dry access from uh North Street. So the request this evening is for a variance from the the definition and the newly imposed requirement that access has to be through the legal frontage. Um, so that you know that's that's basically what we're asking. We're proposing as you see from the plan that we we have a some upland area has considerable area of upland uh on the north north street side and we have a well 50ft access strip there 70 ft at this at the road but it's about 50 ft as you go further back which is you know more than adequate to provide driveway access and as I'm sure you're familiar many surrounding towns allow what we call pork chop lots and this would be very standard grafted I guess uh I I won't say it's behind the times but hasn't adopted a pork chop bylaw. So, uh we have to go through the variance process to get it. But I think we we technically meet all the statutory requirements. Uh definitely developing it with the frontage on old westboro would be a a a significant hardship uh simply because it's you know virtually impossible to cross those wetlands uh with as I say a bridge or a culvert or anything else that could could be built. Uh secondly, the hardship is related to uh soil, you know, the hydric soils. So we we have the soil conditions issue and I think we can do it without any real

detriment to the um to the neighbors. Now I sus I understand that uh at least one of the neighbors has some serious objection to this proposal, but I would suggest that the impact on the neighbor is relatively minor. it's a 50- foot strip. Uh it's going to have a driveway whether uh it had, you know, the full 200 feet of frontage or not, there would be a driveway. Uh so the impact is going to be no different than any other development or any other neighbor. It's going to be a single driveway uh on the lot between or adjacent to his lot with with no real serious impact [snorts] because of its uh frontage and width. theoretically we could put a road in there and and generate some real traffic and you know frankly I don't think it's any mystery that you know if we can't do something that makes sense with this land we have to look at alternative if other alternatives which might include uh building a road or a two lot subdivision or you know some other development that would have a significantly greater impact on the neighbors than what we're suggesting. This appears to us to be um you know the option that provides the least impact on the neighbors. And as you can see from the plan, we're suggesting that as a condition for approval, we'd be willing to allow to um have the board impose, you know, buffer zone requirements and the hatched area on the plan so that you know we can minimize any impact on u on neighbors. So, as I say, I think we hit all three criteria and I think this makes sense uh from every perspective as it's designed. Um lot 2 has almost 20 acres of area. So, putting one lot on a 20acre parcel seems entirely reasonable and much less dense than any other alter uh development alter would allow.

Now on the plan we did show also lot 1R which is approximately 6 acres that also has legal frontage and I guess uh you know the argument could be made that well we created a sort of a hardship of our own by carving that off but in fact that lot doesn't add anything. Um it's also access to that lot is also entirely encumbered by hydric soils and well and vegetation. We did carve it off um on the thought that perhaps in combination with some neighboring property, it could be used for some purpose. it it seemed like since it doesn't really add anything to to lot 2 um there's really no reason to include it but [snorts] you know if it if it's um if it's a matter if it's an issue that's an issue for the if a matter that's an issue for the board we have no problem with uh dropping that separate lot and including that so that'd be one 26 acre lot as I say we don't you know it'd be difficult to develop on its own but we thought it might [snorts] have value to one of the neighbors is or could be used in conjunction with neighboring land for access. But um you know that's strictly optional. It's not critical. U I know the you know I if the argument or the cons concern is that we're creating a hardship on our own that's something we were willing to give up. That's uh that's basically an afterthought on our part and it's not critical to our application. So that's sort of the thumbnail sketch of what we're proposing. We're obviously here. We'll answer any questions that you may have. And um if Mr. Mason wants to say something, I guess he's speechless.

I think he covered most of the basics. [clears throat]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCusker, so the um unique soil conditions uh basically being wetlands Um, as you know, the statute requires that it's not just soil conditions, but unique within the zoning district. Yes.

And, um, you know, I I don't think that we can, you know, say with good conscience that wetlands essentially are unique within the zoning district, right? There's wetlands all over Grafton. And so, you know, I'm going to get hung up on on that part of it right there. Um the the other thing is I I can't help but wonder even if this was perfectly dry um but there was some other reason you couldn't build a house over in the old Westboro road area whether you know whether you would build a driveway over to where the house is located. Um, you know, it it just seems like, well, I don't want to say it's it's self-created because because that ties into something else, but it just I it it just feels like it's not [clears throat] this lot isn't intended to be built about. Um, is is is just the sense I get looking at it. Um, so you know that that's my main concern is it's not a unique situation at all within the zoning district. [snorts] Um, the the only thing I'll say is just, you know, we we've we received a lot of material, a lot of history, and I thank you for not diving into all that because quite frankly, it's not relevant. So, thank you for not going to that. Hopefully, we don't get bogged down in a lot of the history.

I don't have anything else. If I can respond to that, I

go right ahead. There's two things. I guess one of the reasons that um Old Westboro Road is a problematic is that you'd have to put a septic system in which again be very difficult with the with the wetland conditions. North Street has sewer. So, um it just makes a lot of sense to come in off of North Street where you have sewer and water available and don't need a septic system. So, that's a serious consideration. Secondly, with regard to the wetlands, um the statute doesn't say it has to be unique. It has it says it has to be something that doesn't generally affect the entire district. And I I grant you that there are significant wetlands. In fact, there's wetlands right across the street. But if you look at the whole zoning district, there are very large sections of that zoning district that have no significant wetlands. So, it's not a condition that generally affects the entire district. It does affect portions of the district, but not the whole district generally. So I think again you can um I think you can make that distinction. At least we make that distinction. I mean I believe that the language is unique to the parcel. Um [snorts]

[clears throat] Are these [snorts] lots titled um to the same individual? Excuse me. There's two lots here, right? 29 31. Yeah. And are those titled um are those both under common ownership?

Yes. And [snorts] Mr. Mason owns both of them. He owns the whole piece. As I say, this was a proposed way to divide them, which which we're not married to. You know, if that's an issue for the board, we're willing to forego the creation of the second lot and just merge the two of them into a single lot. If if that's an issue, we can make that a condition or we [clears throat] can just continue the meeting and produce a new plan showing those as a single lot. It's it's it's a bonus we'd like, but it's not something that we um are going to make an issue out of. Any other questions or comments from the board?

Mr. Chair, just a clarification. [clears throat] So if if the applicant would be willing to combine the two into a single lot, you would still be seeking to access the lot from North Street. Is that primarily because of the sewer and water considerations or is there something else?

Well, uh the the other lot, lot 1A is also um you know 80% wetland. [snorts] So it really I mean there's a little bit of upland in the middle there, but it would still be a major effort to try to cross those wetlands. Uh it it just as I say we we see it as potentially usable in conjunction with neighboring land, but independently we don't think it can be developed, which is why we're willing to give it up. You know, realistically, if one of the neighbors wants some extra land, we can make a few dollars selling it to them, but independently we don't think it's um developable because you got the access problem, you got the septic problem. Um, you know, the the the decent access is on north is on uh North Street where you have water and sewer and the rest is probably going to remain in its current state in perpetuity. And I'm sure the board would make that a condition if it votes to grant the variance. [snorts] And I guess just a small point timing wise. Um you had mentioned that the the portion of the definition of frontage referring to to primary vehicular access was added in 2013. I think the original ANR goes back to 2005. So that was added after the fact, but the frontage requirement certainly was in place in 2005. Right.

And I think that was the the cause for the the planning board's comment in Yeah. Um in their original ANR.

Yeah. No. Yeah. before 2013. You know, if we presented the plan properly, it would have been buildable without without zoning relief. Unfortunately, you know, things happen and, you know, the timing wasn't right and probably didn't realize the zoning change was going to have that kind of an impact kind of, you know, all if we knew then what we know now, we would have done something prior to 2013 when it was a conforming lot in all respects and access wouldn't have been an issue. So, it's, you know, from our point of view, it's a relatively minor a minor request. We're not looking, you know, to eliminate frontage or increase density or do anything of that sort. This is simply a from our view a technical issue that that 2013 bylaw kind of sideswiped us and um you know created the difficulty that we have and that's why we have zoning boards so that we can take care of people who are asleep at the switch and not paying attention. I don't have anything else. [snorts] So, I guess I'm struggling with how this is not a self-created issue.

[snorts] In what respect?

Um [snorts] well the pri prior to 2013 it was entirely conforming. We could have developed it with just a building permit. So we really haven't done anything that has made it less conforming than it was in 2013. Nothing has really substantively nothing has changed. As I say, we did carve out one hour, you know, for other purposes, but that doesn't make the the property any less um or any more non-conforming, shall I say. And as I say, we're willing to give that up. That's not critical. But from our point of view, this was a conforming lot until 2013. And through no nothing that Mr. Mason did it became non-conforming because of the of the bylaw change. So, it's sort of the classic definition of a pre-existing [snorts] non-conforming law.

But it isn't the hardship only economic.

Well, economic hardships are real as long as it relates to the land and not to the individual. The hardship is is created by the the hydric soils. it's not created. It's not you know so financial hardships are are considerations as long you know the distinction always is that it can't be a financial hardship that affects the individual you know I'm old and poor I need to make money that's not that does not qualify as a hard it's not a qualifying hardship if the hardship the financial hardship relates to the cost of development I have to blast a mountain a ledge or I have to build a suspension bridge across Ross the wetland. That's a financial hardship that does qualify [snorts and clears throat] as I understand it. [cough] This has been one parcel for many years prior to me buying it. I didn't subdivide any land off of it or sell any lots or sell frontage or anything. This is how I bought it and it's been like this for many years prior to me owning it. Any [snorts] [snorts] other questions or comments from the board? Is there any um public comment? step up. [snorts]

Hi, my name is Mary Kennedyc. I live at um 80 North. I am here to formally oppose this variance. Um uh the private well to my home, I can show you here is extremely close to where they want to put the driveway up alongside my house. Um it's the the land where the driveway is being proposed. Um right now is like a private buffer between our house and the neighbor's house. Um there's daily wildlife a multitude of wildlife. Um we have children that play in the yard. I have a pet that plays in the yard. The neighbors behind us have a pet that plays in the yard. I don't see how this like I feel like this creates a safety issue um not only with the vehicles but with the water runoff and the groundwater going so close to my well. Um I can also show you a picture from my bedroom window as to how close this driver would be to mine and my children's sleeping rooms bedrooms. I um request that uh we oppose this variance.

Um how long have you lived it? Uh we in May. We purchased in May. We moved in in August. [snorts] Any questions? Thank you. Any other public comment? Did you want to see the photos? Oh, good.

So, we're at 80. So, extremely close. This is the And this is where we want to build [snorts] the driveway. This is my 25 ft from the streets and my bedroom window. Very very close. Thank you. Yeah.

[clears throat]

Good evening, members of the board. Mr. Chair, my name is Andrew Denzo. I am council for Owen Carr who lives at 84 North Street, which would directly abut the strip of land. U Mr. Carr has been traveling out of state, but I understand he is present on the Zoom and observing this evening. Um, speaking in opposition to the request for a variance and just a few quick points I'd like to make in addition to the written submission from the other evening. Um, this is not just a a typical driveway in a typical neighborhood. As you can see from the plan, the proposed structure is is behind the rows of houses on Old Westboro Road and on North Street. And the pro the proposed driveway will go um directly through or adjacent to forgive me adjacent to [clears throat] Mr. Carr's front yard and then the other adjacent of Butter's front yard. Um so this is is not a driveway that leads directly to a house. It's a driveway that goes between two houses to another house behind. Um, so with respect to um the legal points for a variance, I I'll address those and I understand the board doesn't want a full recitation of the history, but I I do think I need to correct a couple of things. Um, our written submission included the Dantis decision uh of the Worcester Superior Court. It was a just uh Judge Lamir decision from I believe 2011. Um, if you were to look at page seven of that decision, um, bottom paragraph, it says it it addresses a a prior appeal filed by Mr. Mason with the zoning board of appeals of the denial, uh, by Dantis, the former building inspector, for the zoning permit. The appeal sought to overturn the building inspector's decision on two grounds. one that the ANR plan does not comply with the

frontage requirements and two lots must be accessed over legal frontage. Um so this is an issue that's been out there for over 20 years now. Um was addressed by several boards in town and it was ultimately addressed um by the superior court in favor of um Mr. Carr and the other challengers. And that was not with respect to a variance, but I would submit to the board that uh the issues are largely the same. And in fact, on a request for variance, they're even stricter and weigh mitigate even more against the granting of relief that um Mr. Mason seeks here. And so I'll just focus on two of the points for a variance. one um is the requirement for a hardship and um I I think that's where we have to go again to the history of this and on that same page of Dantis uh the first full paragraph there's a sentence that begins on April 4th 2005 council for Mason sent a letter to the then predecessor building inspector for the town of Grafton Ronald Dantis in aine that Mason's had demonstrated to the planning board that his access over west old Westboro Road was possible and not elucery. Um, and so now we have a new plan where there's a statement that access to this entire piece of property is impossible, but there's no evidence to back that up and especially where the exact opposite statement has been submitted to the board in the past. Um, that cannot pass muster for the granting of a variance. with respect to um a hardship generally um you need a lot more than um it would be uneconomical to build the property given the current conditions if it's if it's possible to do it but it may be less expensive or

more convenient um to Mr. Mason to go from North Street. That's not a hardship. Um a hardship can be economic, but it has to be um that the applicant is unable to make any use of the property for the other reasons permitted within the zoning district. And and we heard a suggestion here tonight that if this is denied, then they would look at other uses. Um we've also heard a suggestion that this lot R1 or 1R could potentially be used for some economic use. And now it may not be the use that Mr. Mason ideally would want to have um but that's not the purpose of a variance. And so the the submission that's been sent to the board by the applicant here is deficient with respect to the hardship prong and that's enough for the denial of a variance. Um and then I I would just briefly address the uniqueness. Um it it does need to be the statute. it's section 48 or chapter 48 section 10 talks about soil conditions issue which are specific to the property in question don't generally affect the neighborhood or uh the zoning district that the land lies in and here um the application itself talks about well there are other there are wetlands in the surrounding properties I think that's enough to defeat the uniqueness prong u but then there's just a general statement of well the the abuing properties have been able to construct houses the ab budding property owners. Um we cited a a case in our written opposition, the um Empire acquisition case that was a 2022 land court decision that um addressed and squarely rejected that argument. It it left open the possibility that um an applicant could make a uniqueness claim on those grounds. Um but the court was very clear and very emphatic that it's the applicant's burden to show um that not

just abuing properties but properties throughout the district itself um are are not hamstrung by the same condition that affects that one property. Um and here especially where we have a proposed um division of this property into um two lots. It could be it could even be said that um those two abuing lots are are not unique to one another and and that again could defeat the condition. So um really here what we have is a situation where there's no hardship. Um the issue that's facing um this particular property is not unique. it may be more extensive than um what phases other properties, but um I think there was a comment that well, you know, this does not really appear to be a property that was intended to be developed and and I think that's what it goes to. I mean, this was a property that um was purchased a long time ago and and perhaps there's been some waiting out to develop it for a profit, but um that hasn't occurred yet and that's not the purpose of a variance. And and I I would go so far as to say that would be um outside of the board's authority to grant a variance to accommodate that desire by the applicant. And so unless there are any questions, I'll leave my comment there. Thank Thank you,

Mr. Chair. Yes. Um I do have somebody who's attending that has their hand raised. Can I let them into the meeting? Um one sec. We have one more uh one more. Just let me know when you want me to let them in. Yep. Right after the Okay. Thanks. [snorts] Melissa Dery, 104 North Street. You can pull that mic down. I

Yeah, I know. I'm very short. Melissa Dery, 104 North Street. I am kind of diagonally across from um the proposed property um behind my house. And I first wanted to point out from the council um and I I I completely support your points. Um I oppose the variance. Um, first off, a road that was potentially, you know, alluded to for a development would not be allowed under the current zoning bylaws because the subject access on North Street is almost directly across from the new development at Clear View. So, I can tell you as far as I know, I'm I'm not an attorney. I work in engineering, but I think it's pretty close. Isn't Clear View Street almost directly across the street? So, that would definitely not be allowed. Um, and I did not see on the plans where the proposed structure was. Was that included? And

it was there.

Okay. So, why was only the buffer zone uh 50 ft from the other homes? To me, that's a little suspicious. Shouldn't it be, you know, 200 ft if we're talking about uh 20 plus acres? Um, you know what else is this? Like a bait and switch where we you grant the variance and then he comes in with like a 40B. I don't know. [snorts] So if any variance is even being considered, it must be restricted to a single family home. And I still don't, you know, support that. Um, and then I I guess that's about it for my points. Um there's there's another property adjacent that's directly across my land and that's an a typical example. They also cannot build on it because of wetlands. So you know that's a risk when you buy land that it might not be buildable now or never at least for the proposed use right now. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, Katrina, you can. [clears throat] Uh, Kim, you can speak now. Just please state your name and address. Okay. Thank you. My name is Kimberly Johnson and I'm the fiance of Mr. Charles Eric Rian, known as Eric Rian at 86 North. And I just wanted to confirm something. Um, has the property ever been designated as chapter 61 forestry? Yes. Yes, it's in there now.

Okay. It So, for a 10 year or for the last 20 years? I believe you have to get an extension after the first 10 years. I believe it's been in for 15 years. Okay. So, so the hardship, what where does the hardship come in? because under the chapter 61 forestry, it's a significant significantly reduced tax rate uh property tax rate that Mr. Mason is paying. I believe you have to pay um back due taxes if you pull it out of 61A. You do um or the town the town also has first option, I believe, to purchase the property if Mr. Mason decides to sell the property. Yes. Yes.

He couldn't just sell it to a developer immediately, I believe. Is is that correct? I'm sorry I didn't hear you. Yes, I believe that's the that's the the the law on forestry land. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. That's all I had. Thank you, Katrina. Are there any other No, there's nobody else with a raised hand. She was the only one. Okay. Somebody back there. I just raised my hand because that was my fiance.

That's why I was raising my hand. Congratulations. Thank you. [laughter] We're obviously opposed to it. Um, so I do have a question. [snorts]

Um what about the um finding in the prior court decision and I know this is water under the bridge at this point but um that the access over Old Westboro Road was possible and not elucory. Um, and [snorts] what's the basis for taking the complete opposite position now?

Because we lost the case, we were wrong. Well, I actually should say we because I had nothing to do with that case, but obviously [clears throat] you know the result of the case was that um you know we didn't have actual access from Old Westboro Road. That was that was the decision. So you know we kind of live with that. So acknowledging that that's basically confirms that is in fact a hardship and we have to find an alternative. So, you know, that's it may sound counterintuitive, but that's exactly the result. If you conclude that, you know, we made the pro the proposition was made that that there was access there. Apparently, the town decided there wasn't. Town prevailed, which means we have to find another way in. [snorts] Fortunately, we have another way. And if they, you know, as I say, back in and, you know, it's it's kind of interesting because apparently the court decided agreed with the building inspector that even back then, uh, you couldn't use that you had to get access through your frontage, which actually wasn't a town bylaw until 2013. So, um, you know, I I can't tell you what else was considered or happened or whether it was appealed or what, but in any event, um, because of that decision, that's essentially why we're here. We need court decided we needed a variance and now we're here asking for that variance.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCusker. Yeah, I I think there's some confusion and perhaps it's on my part, but I thought that the prior court case basically was agreeing with the inspector that the lot could not be accessed from North Street.

Right. [clears throat] On April 4th, 2005, there was apparently a statement made that um access [snorts] from Old Westboro Road was possible and not elucery. So that's that point is basically saying that Westboro Road will work. I don't think that really had that that [snorts] wasn't what was being argued as far as I understand. what was being argued was access from North Street. This statement um you know about Westboro Road I think is I don't want to say it's unrelated because obviously it is but that's that wasn't the central part of the case.

No. Um, and [snorts] then related to this, I I'd actually and started to look for this when I first was reviewing this. [clears throat] I didn't go back to double check, but does anybody have that communication from April 4th? Okay, I guess the answer is no. Yeah, I'd love to see it, but um, regardless, it's, you know, it's part of the decision, so it had to pretty confident it existed at some point, but Okay. [snorts] All right, Mr. Chair. [clears throat and cough]

So, I think um various members of the board have expressed some skepticism about the um the water on the site creating the hardship. Um but I guess I I'd pose this through you to the to council. Um is the access to water and sewer a different animal? Um, you know, we the argument could be made that the site could be accessed from Westboro Road, although perhaps incredibly expensive um to to get through the wetlands. [snorts] Um, nothing the applicant can do um is going to establish water and sewer access off of Westboro Road. Is that a different animal for any reason? Are you directing that to?

Yeah, I suppose. Oh, I thought you were asking. [laughter] I take um I I both answers. I wish the town would take legal advice for me, but they typically don't want to do that.

Um I mean, different animal. So, I mean, I think it, you know, if you could, if you could, you know, let's say they didn't split these two lots and we can look at this isolated upland area. Um, [snorts] you know, maybe that wetland crossing would obviously obviously be shorter than to go all the way down to where they're proposing. um they're only asking for a variance having to do with um the North Street access, but I think there is a a practical consequence that if they could somehow build closer to Westboro Road, um it's not clear to me where the water would come from or if any even exists. So, that is a problem,

I think. But I don't know. I think I think the the short answer is that they're only they're only here for the access question. Um, you know, I I don't know if they would argue that that was an additional hardship. I'm not going to make an argument, you know, for them, but I I don't know if it's possible to build something, you know, close to Westboro Road, one way or another. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. anything else to add or it it it does not look practical at this point otherwise we wouldn't be here. Mr. Mr. Kusker,

I I don't think that the water and sewer is an issue at all because their the their current plan is to go to North Street [clears throat] and I don't think that would matter whether the house was where they proposed it or even if the house was all the way over on Westboro Road. I mean, there may be some gravity issues and maybe pumps and things like that, but so I don't I don't think that's an issue at all. Yeah, you still theoretically come back to an economic issue. Yeah, it might be incredibly expensive to run a sewer water line, you know, all that way, but [clears throat] um perhaps but so yeah, doesn't feel building a bridge. I don't know.

Well, and and that's what I was just thinking, too. The applicant hasn't presented anything on what's the cost of building a bridge or gaining access from Old Westboro Road. [snorts] I mean it you claim a hardship but we don't have any context for that. I mean building a bridge is very expensive obviously

and uh and also getting sewer from Old West Road to North Street is thousands of feet through wetlands uphill and [snorts] water through wetlands uphill. You know it's very it's not practical. It would have to be a well and a septic down there, which is extremely difficult. It would be a raised system. You know, probably raised five feet because of the water table. I'm not saying it's it's impossible, but it's definitely a feet to accomplish. [snorts] But I think it's not it's not 100t away to get to old to get to North Street. It's thousands of, you know, [snorts] it's probably 100 feet elevation. I would guess 80 ft. I'm not [snorts] sure.

But what we have in front of us is it's it's less economical to for access from Old Westboro Road. Um but [snorts] but no real context for what is that difference. [snorts] I I I mean I'm willing to accept that building some sort of a bridge or you know a wetland compatible crossing for a single family house would make it uneconomic um considering the distance. I'm willing to accept that. Um, but as previously stated, I I I get stuck on this idea that we're, you know, that the hardship is tied to to to wetland, which I think, you know, is, you know, something that is very common [snorts] throughout design. And and it's that's where I get stopped. And also, you know, I'll say I'm a little hung up on, you know, the intent of the bylaw and all. I mean, people say the intent of the bylaw is It's a single family home and that's the intent of the bylaws. No, not I I don't interpret it that way. The bylaw is pretty clear that access has got to be through the frontage and it seems to me that you know very we would be definitely going against the intent of the bylaw. Um but I I I think that's a little bit more vague in my mind than the lack of uniqueness or the generally generalness of of the wetlands. Any

other comments? Okay. Any

No, no comment for me at this point. [snorts] All right. So if there's no further comment, um close it. Probably should. Um yeah, I move that we close case 920 to public input. Should we [snorts] 920, right? Yeah. We do that. Yeah, we got to do it before they Is that second? Second. Motion was made and seconded. We'll take a roll call vote. Before you do that, oh yeah.

Um would it be out of order for us to ask for a continuous for a month to address some of these issues? You can you could do that. I think we'd like that opportunity. I withdraw my motion. Withdrawn. So I'm well we can what issues are if I can what issues are we

well the two issues that that were raised I think one was the economic aspects of it I think we can produce some evidence with respect to that I I did look at the wetland issue too unfortunately I couldn't find uh a set of maps that I could overlay to show what the actual wetland content in the zoning district is compared to um well in the zoning district, but I think if you if we put that together, you will see that it is not generally a condition in the zoning district. And I'd like an opportunity to be able to demonstrate that as well. [snorts] I mean, I don't think I wouldn't um I mean, I think the wetlands issue is, you know, maybe worth it, but um I don't know that you need to necessarily present anything on the economic side of it. Um, I don't know that we can get by the uniqueness of the land. Anyways, um,

Mr. Chair, um, I don't know if, not to put her on the spot, but if Katrina could pull up the GIS with the wetland layer, um, if that might help. I imagine that's probably what you would be looking at for support, right? Yeah, but you got to overlay it on the zoning district. I don't know if that available. That's my house. [laughter]

So on this is is the green all the what? Green's the wetland. Yeah. But it doesn't show the district. So you know you can't I think that can be added.

We zone out a little bit. [snorts] Yeah. I mean, I think if it was more wet, there wouldn't be a neighborhood there. So the yellow is R40. We're in the R40 zone. So Katrina, if you can move that around maybe, you know, just show us more R40 area. Let me zoom out a little bit more.

Yeah, I thought she loses it. Uh it's not looking all that, you know, but doesn't generally affect the zoning district. I mean, I'm seeing a lot of green. There is a lot of green, but there's a lot of non-green, too. And clearly a lot more non-green than green. So, I [snorts] guess depending on how you would interpret generally.

I'm I'm I still feel the same way. A lot of the non green isn't even accessible by roads if you look at that map. Any comments? You you have to come up to the board, but sorry. [snorts]

If you withdraw, you can come back within two years. the board's leave. We'd like to request leave to withdraw. Withdraw the application. Yes. Um I move that we allow case number 920 to withdraw [snorts] without prejudice. Second. Motion made and seconded. Uh Miss Reed, yes. Mr. Mahia, yes. Mr. McCusker, yes. Yes. Chairman votes yes. So case 920 is withdrawn without prejudice.

Thank you. Until until we meet again. All [clears throat] [clears throat]

right. So the next case is 921 60 Water rail streeter step up. Excuse me.

[snorts]

It's interesting on that side. All right. And Miss Reed, could you read the petition or the public notes?

The Grafton Board of Appeals has received a petition from Kevin Bowman for uh 60 Waterville Street requesting that the zoning board of appeals overturn the decision of the zoning enforcement officer dated October 15th, 2025. The board will conduct a public hearing on January 8th, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. in conference room A at the municipal center graph 30 Province Road in Grafton to either consider this request and or take whatever action is necessary, including the granting of a finding, special permit, variance, or other necessary relief allowed under the zoning bylaw. Any person wishing to be heard in conjunction with the request should appear at the time and place designated or by letter to this board in time to be read at the hearing. Um, zoning board of appeals, Brian Waller, William McCusker, K. Reed, Alex Mahia, Peter Adams, Jiffy Thomas, and Brian Langman.

Thank you. Turn over.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Shane Picard, 129 Southeast Main Street, Douglas. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Kevin Bowman, who's seated beside me. Uh we are here uh with an application to overturn the decision of the zoning enforcement official regarding a uh the application of bylaws to 60 Waterville Street. It's not my client's property. It's a neighboring property. Uh 60 Waterville Street is located at the corner of obviously Waterville Street and a private way called Birch Street. Um, my client lives on Birch Street and essentially what this comes down to is a question about a parking area that's in the front yard of 60 Waterville Street. Frequently a significant number of vehicles parked in that um parking area and they impede my client's views. He's attempting to pull out of Bur Street onto Waterville Street. Uh we requested that the zoning enforcement officer enforce uh section 4.2.3.2 two of the Grafton zoning bylaw uh which essentially prohibits uh on two different bases the the activity and and more specifically the maintenance of the parking area there on the property. Uh first it does not allow the maintenance of a parking area within 10 ft of the sideline of a road. And so um the evidence shows that parking area actually is not only within 10 ft of the sideline of the road but is actually within the layout of the state highway uh in Birch Street. And then secondly, um the zoning bylaw section 4.2.3.2 uh does not allow the maintenance of a parking area for over four vehicles in the front the required front yard setback which in this case is a 30-foot setback in the residential 20 zoning district. uh not brought to the zoning enforcements zoning enforcement officer's attention but now uh set forth in our application is also a violation

of the water supply protection overlay district requirements uh with respect to recharging surface water and uh and that has actually led to a a discreet issue on the neighboring property that's owned by national grid um if you're familiar with the area national grid installed a sorry I'm not a national grid guy but they installed a substation I think it is immediately north of 60 Watermark Street. And as part of that installation, they included a a drainage system. And I believe on two occasions, I'm certain that at least one occasion that drainage system completely filled with gravel and sediment from the 60 Waterville Street parking area. Uh and then the result actually impacted my client because he owns owns additional land in the rear that was flooded as a result. So um I submitted a essentially what is a memorandum um to the board. I believe I believe believe that's been provided uh sort of um countering point by point the the bases upon which our application for enforcement was denied. Uh basically what it comes down to I think I can summarize it to a slight misinterpretation of the zoning bylaw. [clears throat] uh in her letter back to us, the zoning enforcement officer mentioned that, you know, she had driven by and didn't see a lot of cars parked in the driveway or or in the parking area in the front yard. Um but actually the zoning bylaw does not address cars parked in yards. It addresss parking areas specifically. So, um it appears the intent may have been when the town meeting passed the bylaw to avoid the need to, you know, monitor how many cars come and go, but rather to focus on the conditions on the ground. Uh I have submitted some photographs um some of which were taken by Mr. Bowman, some of which I've taken myself which show a large area in the front yard um which is largely devoid of of vegetation. Uh again areas can be seen to have uh eroded due to rain and there are some photographs that show in the wetter seasons such as winter there is

significant ruting in the front yard because of the mud and and related traffic there. Uh I think perhaps more importantly I've submitted a plan that was uh completed by Grass Engineering. Interestingly enough that plan was prepared at the request of the Okconors who own 60 Waterville Street. And the engineer also established that there is a an area there which I believe he refers to as a drive and parking area. I believe that plan is before you or at least has been submitted and should be in the file. So the short version of of it is that there is a parking area that the engineer agrees is a parking area. the photographs show as a parking area and the most recent photographs which unfortunately the the second that would be the the most recent snowstorm got there before I did. Um if you look at those photographs closely you can see that sections of that parking area have been plowed but if you look more closely you can see that there are actually snow banks uh which are at the edges of a far more extensive area which were plowed in the prior snowstorm. So I think that's really important to look at because it shows Sorry. It shows that uh that that parking area again ex extends not only through and and into the 10- foot buffer zone that's established by the bylaw, but actually extends into the state highway layout. I think I'll leave it there for now if there are any questions. [snorts] Uh, any comments from the board?

Just one question. 4232. [clears throat] How many parking spaces can you have for a two family? Because that is a two family. Yeah, it doesn't it doesn't distinguish between is it four or eight? Maximum of four. Maximum of four.

Yeah. Uh just to be clear, that's within the the setback from the road. You can have 100 parking spaces out back or beside the house as long as you're beyond the 30- foot setback. The restriction only applies to the 30- foot frontage requirement, if that makes sense. And I believe that was a point raised. I hope I'm not out of order. I believe that was a point raised in the commissioner's response to us that that the zoning bylaw doesn't restrict the number of parking spaces. That's true. You can have a 100 parking spaces on the lot. They just can't be within the 30 ft from the road.

So, if you've got an old house that the driveway is straight in and the house is only 30 ft off the road, they can't park in their driveway. Uh, I would say two things in response to that. Number one, if if it's an old house, then this is not pre-existing non-conforming, you'd call it. Yeah.

Right. which this is not because this particular parking here. Just for a little bit of history, my client owned that owned that house in the past. And so, um, of course there is a 10-year statute of limitations on structures and there's statute of limitations on uses that apply to these zoning issues. None of those apply here. The GIS photographs all show that this is relatively recent activity [snorts] as far as this expanded parking area is concerned. So, if you had an old house with parking that's historically in the front, then it would be grandfathered. I went by there probably four times in the last week and I I tried to do it. I mean during the day there's not a lot of cars there. There's the ones in the backyard, the camper. Uh I think there's a boat back there. And there's I think there's two cars with snow on them to the left of the house. And they they didn't seem to move in a week, but um uh I've seen the pictures, and we all have seen the pictures that were in the original packet that shows a car right

by the mailbox, right on the road basically. Um, I mean that that's I guess that's this whole case hinges on that type of parking. Um, and you I I've se I see how the the whole front yard is plowed and you can see that in the pictures Katrina. Is there any way to bring up the eye in the sky on some Sunday in the summer? I'm serious. That's one. Yes. No, we used it on We had all those pictures for each street.

So, can I just ask what's what's the practical problem this creates? Is it sight lines when you're out? The neighbor across the street is running a business. Oh.

With the people at 60 Waterville Street. So when their illegal tenant has a friend over, they have to park their vehicles in 60 Waterville Street. When I own the house, I put an easement in so I get my trucks in and out of my driveway, which was a packing spot off of Birch Street. When my wife took the house and sold the house to Pad O Connor, three three realtors came down and I went I'm told you can't park here because there's an easement there. So they left. My wife sold the house to Pat O' Conor. Pat O' Conor shows up with his van, parks right in the middle of my driveway. He says, "Hey, what are you doing? Get out. The best thing you do is go get your money back and get out of the house. Don't worry. I won't block you. It wasn't a month later. People are pulling in and parking in the middle of my driveway. I have to take a chain and tow the vehicles out of the way so I can get in out of my driveway. When I was plowing my driveway, the upstairs tenant come down told me if I get one more inch close to his car, which was packed 3/4 of it in my driveway, it' be the last breath you take. That was the last day they packed there. put up the barriers. Okay. So then they took and moved all the cars out front [clears throat] and then all the mud going down going into the catch basin which Grid just put a $100,000 regen system in. Plug the thing up. There's an intake in my property. The water comes down Waterville Street in the gen right out into my property. Floods my whole field. And then I mean they pack everything in the whole front yard. You can't see to

get out of your driveway. I guess that that's what I was [clears throat] kind of looking for there at the end. If I if I may, Mr. Chairman, uh and also Mr. Adams, part of the part of the issue that you're seeing is that they're in Florida currently is my understanding that the family the Okconors are in Florida with their horse trailers. So what horse trailer? It'll be three trailers back in three weeks. Sure. Three two three three trailers and two trucks. That's why I'm trying to get a picture from the sky in the summer. I have the I have um I have the timeline of the pictures. Not this not this summer, but Well, tell Katrina what the dates are.

Um well, you can see this started this start around like 2017, 2018. Yep. Yeah. About right. Um, so I I have pictures up from September of 2025. Can you see them right now? Yeah. Okay. If I may. [snorts]

Yeah. So, there's Jersey barriers down here that if you go back to 2018 weren't there and then they were added cuz they used to park here for years. All of this was green. Parking was here. [snorts] And then in 2018, April of 2018, jersey barriers were added here. If you go to 2017, there were no Jersey barriers and they used to park here. So, somebody put the jersey barriers up. Then the homeowners could no longer park in this spot. They had no choice but to go to the front because they were pass easement. I

mean, I can go back to 2014. Parking has always been in this spot. until the jersey barriers were installed by somebody. Um, between 2017 and 2018, somebody put the jersey barriers up that block them from parking here and here. They had no other choice but to then park out front or or or come through the front to those spots. Right. But there's a tree. There was a tree there. I think the tree is gone. Now, if I come up to current, can you just Yeah, that's current. Can you go back to that? That's

this one right here is current. Yeah, this one's current. So, 2018, April of 2018. And then [snorts] there's a there's a tree here. And Huh. I'm sorry. The arrows where the dates are. Can you just scroll through those? Oh, okay. There's it. Yep. Yeah. So, there's April of 2018. 2019. Can you do by the day or is it just a month? It's just whenever the satellite went over. So that's the dates we have. Whenever the satellite pictures were taken, but if you go go back one. No, this this one right here and even on 15.

I mean, I don't even think there's a law against packing on the street. Yeah, there is. Burger told them that they couldn't pack on the street. Oh, I mean that I only know of a few places in town where you can't park on the street where it's posted. Um you one highway may be one, but yeah, I I wouldn't. Is Birch Street uh private or town? It's private. Does a town plow it? No. Okay. [snorts]

Okay. Um All right. and then just keep going forward from there. Thank you, [snorts] April, June, June of 21.

[snorts] [cough] What's that in the Is that a tra uh those uh like truck trailers in the back? A trailers. Are those theirs? Those are mine. Oh, okay. Well, [snorts] that definitely there. What What date was that one? Uh, Katrina with the trailer. This one? Yeah. October. October of 23.

Okay. August Sunday. That's a Sunday in that last two years ago, correct? Mhm. Yep. Okay. [snorts]

Boy, tell me big brother isn't watching us, huh? Jesus, this [laughter] is awful. You You asked for it. That's That's the latest picture. [laughter] That's the latest picture I have is September 29th of 25.

[snorts] So, so line of sight is the in pulling out of Yeah. where the um

I know we're looking at different monitors, but on the sort of right in the middle there looks like there's an RV parked there and there's a white SUV ahead of it. Yeah. Right there. Uh frequently they'll back their horse trailer into the driveway right where that white SUV is and their tow vehicle will its nose will actually be within the layout of the state highway not on the pavement but within the layout and that's that's probably the most egregious. And then as you saw in a couple of the satellite images they sometimes park right up against the mailboxes and again that's within the layout of the where where are the mailboxes? Are they on the corner drive? I mean it you can I think one of them was a red okay

truck that it was basically this but the aerial view of it

Mr. Chair M Reed sorry can Katrina can you show me where Mr. Bowman's property is so I can I'm seeing it on my maybe you guys have some materials that I don't have access to. He's back here. So, he's coming out this street here. Okay. If I may, he also owns the property to the south on the corner as well. He doesn't live in it, but he does own it across Birch Street. So, the parcel with the trailers, his house is further in the back in the bottom right corner of the screen. And then he residence up at the front on Waterville. 58 Water 58 Waterville Street. I own too.

Kevin, do you own um Brett Street? Yeah, if I may, with respect to the derelict fee statute, the at least half of it uh from Waterville down to the far that would be the back boundary line of 60 Waterville Street would have passed because it wasn't reserved in a deed. So, whatever that's worth. I I don't what say that again.

Yeah. Yeah. So, if I may point to the diagram [clears throat] here, um there's a he'll probably shoot me to this way, but without respect to that, there's a portion of Bir Street right here, half of it that would have passed pursuant to the derelct fee statute. Um so, he doesn't own that piece of it, but the rest of it. So, who does that belong to? That that little piece of it actually belongs to the owners of 60 Waterville Street. It wasn't But there's still an easement on it for for no no parking. I take it. You can't. Correct. It is. It's an easement for passage. You cannot park in it. Yeah. And then to complicate things slightly, there is a 5- foot additional easement that he referenced earlier

that is actually on 60 Waterville Street. They're the subservient estate. He owns the dominant estate. Again, that is for passing purposes. And they can't park there either. So, so Bridge Street is basically a common driveway for I take it you and your brother. Yes. Okay.

Correct. Oh, I I bought the house in 70 and in 80 and [clears throat] then divorced. I did research on the drive on Bird Street because Dolphin said the house that I bought owned that driveway and Dolphin hauled out of there for how many years? I mean, a long, long time. [snorts] I didn't even know that was a pit. So, that was a gravel pit way back. Okay. And then the people that I bought the house from, her daughter gave me paperwork stating that that driver was owned by the house that I'm living in.

Okay. But I gave it to a lawyer that lost it. Mr. Chair, I I don't know why, but I guess I just want to know if it was a town street or privately owned. No reason. I follow it. I sand it. I maintain it since 1970. Katrina, I have sighteline photos from the street if you would like to see them. Are those in our packets? No. No, they're in a a previous case that was a cease and desist with Mr. Bowman. So, I do have sighteline photos. I I don't know if they're relevant. Yeah, Mr. Chair,

if you want to see what the sighteline looks like from the end of that road, just let me know. Okay, Mr. McCusker. So, we are here um over an appeal of the decision of the zoning enforcement officer and I would love to hear from the zoning enforcement [snorts] officer about her decision um that we're here to overturn. I was going to get to that. [snorts] You can if you'd like to say it. Okay.

Sure. Okay. So, I suppose we start with the definition of parking. Tracy Shy, 30 Proidence Road. Parking area, temporary parking, more than four automobiles. So, as we can see on the aerial photos, it looks like a driveway with cars parked kind of scattered around. I haven't seen four cars together parked on the property at any time. And I also don't see a formal parking area that can fit four cars. I believe the intent of this definition from the time that it was adopted, which I did look up the the bylaw adoption meeting and the commentary behind it was for commercial properties, uh, non-residential properties where they didn't want the pro the congestion of the traffic and they didn't want the cars parking lots to be close to the road. So, I have not I've addressed complaints almost constantly. [snorts] Um, even when uh Mr. Burgerer was here, uh, I've gone out taken photos immediately. No issues. So, I have not seen a violation. This parking or loading area section is not applicable to this property. So, that's my position.

The what? Say that again. the parking loading area section that he's referencing is not applicable to this this location. Why do you say that?

Because there's not more than four cars parking area of more for more than four cars [snorts] and the sighteline. That's why I was concerned about the sight line. There's a telephone poll. I have the photos uploaded on one of the complaints from 2023. I'm at the edge of pavement beyond the telephone pole. That's where you stop at. There's clear sight line both ways. No problems. So that's why I had those photos uploaded in 2023.

Is that what you were going to show, Katrina? Yes, Mr. Chair. Um [clears throat] the um um applicant the um mentioned commercial activity across the street that people might be parking in 60 Waterville Street um and going across the street. is that so obviously 60 Waterville is residential. Um but does the fact that there's commercial activity that could be crossing the street change our interpretation? Anything we need to consider?

No, not my interpretation. And just to go back to parking in the the road right ofway, isn't that a police enforcement issue? Correct. Um and and Waterville Street is a double line road. I don't believe parking in the public right away is is legal. Um to me that's a it's a law enforcement issue. Mr. So [clears throat] work with me a little bit here. My driveway I could put 10 cars in easily. Right. I just live in residential neighborhood half acre locks.

Is that a parking area? And I think I'm getting into something that Mr. Riley addressed in his letter and I may go to him next, but yes. Is that a parking area with more than four cars? So if you have a driveway with more than four cars and then you move your car to the That's Wait, that's not what I said. So my my driveway can fit more [snorts] than probably fit 10 cars. I didn't necessarily say what was parked there. It's just a space. It's paved. It'll hold easily hold 10 cars or more. Is that a parking area? Right. But it's not within the front setback part of it. Four car four cars. More than four cars. Sure. Area.

Yeah. Sure. Then I would consider that parking area. If you have four four cars within from the driveway to the roadway, you're telling me you can fit four cars? Yeah. Yeah. So in the front in the front setback. Yep. You would not be able to park those there. Park if you're interpreting the bylaw as because that would I I think that would make a lot of the developments throughout town with these illegal parking areas. And I don't think that's the intent, right? Yeah.

And I think that's really what Mr. Riley got into a little bit in his you you kind of reference a little bit of that. Yeah. So, in general, I think, you know, there's a difference between capital P, capital A parking area and a residential driveway. Yeah. I mean, if you're having a Christmas party,

you shouldn't get zoning enforcement because the car is parked at the bottom of the driveway. Um, I think I think this situation is kind of unique just because of the way the history of the property and the way it all looks. I mean, I think you're right that if there's cars parked in the layout of the public way, that's either, you know, police issue or the select board has control of all the roads. So, that's not really a zoning um problem. But it seems to me that the parking area really has to do with commercial uses or larger residential um uses. [snorts] um you know the section referencing

how far it has to weigh how far away a parking area has to be from you know a lot line talks about um multifamily uh developments and that's three or more um I believe this property is only two so I don't think there's any regulation in town that says a residential driveway is limited in any way in how it can be used um and I think that makes sense I mean practically If it was the other way, then Tracy could be driving around every day, right? Zoning enforcement letters because people are parking in their driveway, which you know, but there is the idea of a parking area.

I I think it it Well, let's put it this way. You you said it doesn't apply. 4232 doesn't apply because it's not a parking area for more cars, I think, is right. So, if it was They paved an area that would hold four more cars within this front setback. Within the front setback, then you would perhaps have a different decision perhaps. Perhaps. Yeah. So, I guess that's kind of what I was that I just think the distinction is a residential driveway from what a parking area is. Yeah. Um the number of matters.

I agree completely that. So, how how do we get there? I mean, how how do you decide what Well, I don't know. I mean, I don't think [clears throat] in my view, regular driveways aren't regulated, right? And how you can use them. Um, this is also [clears throat] strange because it's it's different than what you'd think a regular driveway would be. Um, even to consider it a parking area. It's not striped. It doesn't seem like the parking is consistent or organized in any way where you you can actually count how many cars should or should not be there. Um, so it's not ideal obviously, but it seems like it's

kind of a mess, but I I don't know where I I don't know where there's a zoning vi a technical zoning violation. My my my driveway goes down the right side of my property. Um, but there's a whole lot of land to the left of that called my front yard that I could pave. Yeah. And park cars there. And I think that becomes a parking area. It seems like it would. You don't even have to pave it. They didn't. They didn't. No. Plowed their lawn. I'm just saying you're right. You You wouldn't have to pay if you don't mind.

Started routinely parking four cars in essentially in my front yard. But I don't think I don't think Grafton has a regulation saying you can't do that. Some towns have that. Saying you can't. I think 4232 says it. I think it does, too. No. No. I mean, um, if you wanted to like park a car in your front yard, but if I routinely park four cars, like I got a whole bunch of kids or all got cars and some towns say you can't do it for that reason. But

I think 42 32 is saying we can't do it. I think it comes down to whether or not we can appine on if that's a parking area. I think Sharky and um and council have both pointed to a review of the historical record discussing parking areas pertaining to multif family housing three plus units and commercial development. That's unfortunately not in the bylaw. Um I don't see it anywhere. Um but I think you know I for me it comes down to how confident we are in that interpretation. If we think parking area as illdefined um is restricted to residential buildings of three plus units or commercial uses then I don't think we have a parking area and the section can't apply if it's not a parking area. I I think another thing too, [clears throat] you know, based on their presentation and I don't think it doesn't look like the property owners are here to, you know, give their side of it, but you know, I'm kind of referencing the normal residential driveway. If they are using this as something else, um, then maybe there's a maybe it becomes a parking area. you know, it it jumps to that because what's actually being done there is, you know, some kind of commercial purpose. I don't know, but

or something other than a other than a regular residential use. I mean, I know they said that and, you know, and I don't know any details one way or another, but I could see where that would, you know, turn this driveway to a two family house into something different. Um, aside from other potential zoning issues with a a commercial use of the property like that, I I don't understand why we're getting hung up on the commercial piece of it because 4232 specifically reference it as R40, R20, and you know, so I I don't think it has to be commercial. What Miss Shy said was there was no parking area of four spaces or more.

And that's what I, you know, that's what I said. If there if there were clearly was a parking area four spaces or more, would there perhaps possibly be different? Well, I I think it's I think the hangup is because the bylaw defines parking area as an area other than street use for temporary parking of more than four automobiles. Um, and Tracy said she looked at the, you know, the history of, you know, when these things were passed and they were discussing, you know, commercial situations. And I don't and I think it's her interpretation, you know, that the temporary parking reference means something different than like what a residential driveway would be. Like I wouldn't consider my drive driveway of my house to be like my temporary parking area.

Yeah. It's my driveway where I could I could leave a car there for 20 years if I wanted to and no one could do anything about it. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, may I just make a couple of comments? [snorts] Sure. Uh first I think it's I think it's really important um Mr. Lang Langin did that I sure lang

uh pointed it out that there is no distinction in the bylaw with regard to commercial and residential that's that's not in there you that's a really important point because I agree that this is a residence I have personally spoken to one of the guys from across the street but we're not make I'm not making that argument this is a residential property uh but the bylaw does not distinguish in fact it's it literally the heading which oftentimes is not taken into account but literally says generally applicable provision so clearly applies to uh both commercial and residential. And had the town meeting wanted it to be limited to just commercial, they easily could have drafted it that way. And when the AG's office reviewed it, they easily could have given that. So, I think that's really important. Second, I think there's an important factual distinction on these these words we keep tossing around. People keep saying driveway and parking area, driveway and parking area. I think if we just stop for a moment, we'll quickly understand the difference between a driveway and a parking area. And I think the principal difference that we all know is true is that one of them allows you to access multiple spots without moving all the cars and the other one if you have a whole birthday party full of people parking in your driveway. You got to back them all out and come back in. Right? There's a difference between a driveway and a parking area. And if you look at the photographs and if you just look at the size of this area that's at 60 Waterfall Street, you'll recognize the fact that you can move easily, and I'm not exaggerating, easily eight to 10 cars into this parking area and move any one of them back out again without having to move any of the other spots. And that's what makes it a parking area. So I think that's an important distinction. The bylaw does give some definition of parking area. does not distinguish that from driveway. But the courts are very clear that ordinary dictionary definitions is what you would use in that case to distinguish between a driveway and a parking area. Because I do agree, Mr. McCusker, that if it was a driveways, then we would have major problems because all the driveways in the zoning area would be in violation. That's not the case. Driveways are typically narrow, typically built for one car to pass up and down, and that's why we all have to run out in the middle of the birthday

party to move the cars. The uh deal counters don't have that problem.

When was this house built? 70 60 61. In ' 61, you probably didn't even need a plan. So, no [clears throat] one would have Well, I mean, like we do today, you have to show a house. You have to show the driveway. I would love to see that, but they didn't do that back then. [snorts] The dragway was a onecar packing spot. Is that coming in from Waterville? Bird Street. [clears throat] He come in Bird Street and was right there at the side door. Yeah, but you just shot your foot in yourself in the foot cuz you said they can't come up Bird Street. There's an easement there. You can't park in an easement.

Oh, they can cross it though. They can cross it. Okay. But there seven feet from the easement to the house. Oh. And when they got kicked out of there, they just moved out front and I already when I put the easement in, I tried to put a dragway in the front yard. Is there a curb? Is there a curb in on um No. On Waterville Street? No. So there's no curb cut. Well, Bob Burgerer told me it was because of u water going back into the ground. I couldn't put the driveway in. I spent $20,000 trying to put a driveway in the front yard off of Waterville. Off of Waterville. That's what happens when you ask permission.

It looks to me like the whole front yard is a packing area. Yeah. It might not have been dug out and graveled, but well also if I could just add that there's been nothing submitted to me that there's a parking area within 30 ft from the front. So I have do not have a plan that shows a parking area. I do not have within the 30 ft front step from the All right. Front step. Did they give you these? Did they give you these pictures? Yeah. Oh, but where is the front step back?

If I may, I that is a scale drawing. All you need is just to check it and you can see that. I mean, as I said, that the parking area is actually within the layout of the state highway and it it extends through the 10 foot space. It's clear it's clear as day on the plan if you just look at it with the scale. Um, I guess I'm not seeing a parking area on the plan either. If I may, it's it's indicated by a set of dash line that comes in close to the north corner from the the pavement [snorts] edge. It's a dash line that comes in to the east and then kind of does like a funny two-finger thing and then hooks back down to the house. It's that that dash line. Which one are we looking at?

Which which picture are we looking at here? Oh, I'm sorry. We're talking about the plan that was submitted. This is the plan by grass engineer. I don't have that. Oh, I think that's I think I think Graz's is in our package. I I don't know where these other two came from. I believe those are old ANR plans related. One Oh, one is 1963 and uh The [clears throat] other one's 1990 or around there.

So the 1990 plan would have been the one by which Mr. Bowman established that. So this we're looking at the one by Graz. Yes, Mr. So that's not it. Does anybody have that? Yeah. Right. This one in your packet. Oh. That must be that one. Yeah, that one. Yep. Mr. Chairman, if I may just indicate again that this is a plan that was prepared by GR Engineering at the request of the Conor. This is not a plan where my client called up an engineer and said, "Hey, exaggerate the parking area."

But that's what's on the screen. That's right. Is that is that August August 12th, 2000? I can't read that. The what? What the last what year? Too small. 2020 was the is the date. 2020. Yeah. Well, I mean, you have a real plan. I have a Would you like No, I'll I'll take your word for it. Katrina, can you go back and see the 2020 parking area? Yeah.

So, Tracy, you've not had this before. Um, I probably saw it at some point, but I don't believe it's defined and there's no measurements and the front setback's not shown on it. And from the aerial photos, it appears like there's a driveway. One goes to one unit, one goes to the other unit, and there is not room for well, I can't even tell within the 30 ft if there's a parking area for more than four cars, [snorts]

but that 30 ft regulation only applies for a residence containing three or more dwelling units. which is this is not where does it say that in 4.2.3 it only applies to a parking area serving a multif family dwelling and multif family dwelling is defined as a building designed for and occupied exclusively as a home or residence and containing three or more dwelling units. And this is a two family house. So it doesn't apply then

4.2.3 doesn't apply to this property. So then within 30 ft you're the 30 ft parking area setback does not apply. So you can be within 30 ft. Yeah. Really the only thing that comes down to is 4232 which says you can't have a parking area which is more than four spaces. Right. So I think the question is is this a parking area or not? And Tracy, you're saying you can't determine whether it's parking area because it's not it's not really established. Right.

Correct. And every time I have um addressed the complaint, I immediately leave the office, take photos, which we have, I think three or four, and go to the site to see how many cars are there. So, [snorts] but even that you wouldn't, you know, unless it's surveyed, staked, you still would be going off your best educated guess as to where the the road layout ends, right, and the setback begins. Yes. But I so I saw more on on a Saturday than I did on a Tuesday or Wednesday because I went there yesterday also. Um

yesterday you saw how many cars did you see yesterday? I mean there's the two to the to the left of the house as you're looking at it from Waterville Street that haven't moved zero to and then the ones out back. But uh out front there was maybe one or two, but nothing near the road. But I mean these pictures are evidence that he's seen them and he seen them in the snow cuz it shows them packed there with the snow and it shows they're plowing the whole front yard.

There's three trailers and two pickup trucks are in Florida. They're at a horse show. They left November last year. They left November. They came back the middle of February. So after February, it's going to be a full year out again. You might want to continue till April. It doesn't matter. If I may couple of things have been said. Um with regard to town council's comment on 4233 up here that does apply. The 30 is here. That doesn't apply because it's multi. Do I look at this? Yeah. I think Mr. McCuster just was talking about my point. uh 4233 is obviously a different section than 4232.

That section only applies to multif family dwellings. The section immediately preceding it from a statutory interpretation perspective definitely applies because it there's no limit no limiting language there. So just to be clear again the section we're talking about does apply to residential uh residential properties. Um right

the other thing I think is really important to to be careful but get hung up on here. I know we want to talk about the cars because obviously it is an important element here and it's our primary complaint on but the bylaw does not prohibit parking cars anywhere. What it prohibits is the maintenance of parking areas. And I would argue that if you drive by there every Tuesday and every Sunday and every time we call and there's no cars in the driveway, that does not satisfy the will of the town meeting when they said there shouldn't be a parking area in this particular section of the property. The problem is the parking area. Now, I know it's cart before the horse kind of stuff because parking area. They've chosen to establish it by repeatedly parking in it, but the evidence does bear that out. This is not a situation where we're claiming, hey, this is a parking area and there's never been a car in it. The cars are there. It's been plowed. There's muddy ruts in the photos. I do believe, much to my sugar, that when Miss Tracy goes down there, the cars are not there. When I I can't explain that. All I know is sometimes there are cars there, sometimes there are not. But the parking area is there all the time. You can go see it right now if you'd like to take a look. It's always there and the photographs uh from the satellite bear that out. I know some of the older ones you could definitely see the lawn then it's transitioned.

Yeah. Now the grass got killed or whatever. I don't think they I don't think they removed the the grass or the the loom. I think they just packed on it and plowed it and whatever and that um Kevin from the highway department is sick [snorts] and tired cleaning out that catch basin after every rainstorm. What is it? Mud from their yard going into it.

Yep. I got plenty of pictures of it. Full stream of mud right out of the driveway right down the road. right into the catch basin and grid's entrance into that manhole is only that far above the drain the regular range for the septic system of water and that is a separate issue because the property is fully within the water supply protection uh overlay district. all of that additional which I I never brought to M Sharki's attention in fairness to her because I wasn't aware of it frankly at the time and I guess just point of information from the new guy since that wasn't part of Mr.'s decision are we able to consider it

no so I don't for us wait what so the water supply protection overlay district concerns like they weren't part of ni's decision so I I don't think we can Mr. Sure. Is so is is one of the issues because you've uh m if you've never because you haven't seen four cars there is that I haven't been supplied any evidence that area yes that would be considered the definition of the bylaw. That's my interpretation. And then every time you mention a couple times every time you've gone there's just been no cars or like one car, two cars.

The usual. There's like a boat, there's a trailer, there's the where the um unit on the right is. Uh there's two cars parked there sometimes. Um we have a 10-ft vegetated buffer around the perimeter. So, um they've been maintaining that distance. So, they've done they've done that. The if we zoom in on this, we can see where the telephone poles are actually on their property that are laying down and the jersey barriers. So, they're going 10 ft from um their property line on that side. Mhm.

So, they've been maintaining that buffer. I've had many conversations. Um, and then the aerial photos also show the driveway access as one main access to either side of the duplex that's there. So, I guess my next question is, is there do we not have photos of four cars sitting in that area? I've submitted past photographs, which I believe should be in your packet. I can tell you that right now they're not there. They're not home. Um, I think the most I've seen is three cars there right now. But even in these photos, I'm not seeing Oh, I'm sorry. Those photographs were taken just within a week. Those Oh, okay. Because there's not four in these.

Correct. Those photographs from the last snowstorm. Well, here's one right right here. How far is it from the telephone pole? I have surveyor stakes in my driveway. No, I mean from like the mailboxes with the telephone. I have surveyor stakes in my driveway and grids got surveyor stakes on their property. had severe stakes. Land management across the street tore the one out of grid property. But even in these photos, I'm only seeing I mean, let's just assume I I mean I guess what you're saying is that there is a car there because it looks like there was a car there. So, we could say there's two cars there. And then are you saying that there's two cars behind those cars?

No, not not at all. Those photographs were taken by me within a week today, maybe two weeks ago. So, so I guess but I I don't think fact that there's four cars or six cars or two cars there matters. It's a Isn't the decision whether or not this is a parking area? Period. I thought you Yes.

Yeah. So, it's whether it's a parking area and then but we don't the the sub question to that is um or the the parking area is defined as temporary parking and you kind of have to determine whether this use is temporary parking or more permanent parking. Well, it would seem illogical that temporary parking would be prohibited and permanent parking would be allowed. So, I don't know that we would need to

Well, no. I I think I think the point is and I think um when you look at a parking area, right? So, what is temporary parking? Driveway or house is not temporary parking. The parking lot at the bank is because can't leave your car there all the time. Mhm.

So, you know, what does it mean to be temporarily parked or, you know, for more than four cars? Is that what's happening here? It would be helpful if the property owner was here to maybe, you know, explain a little more about what they were doing, but we don't have the benefit of that. But yes, whether it's a parking area or not and whether the cars are temporarily parked. Temporarily is a good word. I'm going to remember that because uh that the bylaw, it's not coming from me. So it's like what's the definition of a repair? That's the definition of parking area. An area other than a street used for temporary parking of more than four automobiles.

That's in your uh that's in your letter, isn't it? Mhm. But it doesn't mean that there has to be four cars there. Well, that's what I thought it meant because that's why it's not considered unless there's four. Is that what it means? But I think I think I Sorry. Go ahead. I think you're saying the same thing. It's not literal cars. I think it's the space it that's a space that allows for more than four automobiles. All right. Yeah, Mr. camera. So when I look at this picture, right, I I see the front yard has been plowed. Yeah. Did you plow yours?

No. Why? Cuz I own park. Well, it might be a it might be a fad now. I don't know. But okay, but in in all seriousness, I I guess when I look at that, what else could that be other than a place to park? [laughter] You know what? What else could that be other than a parking area? And then um and then when when you look at the aerials that that we showed earlier, that all sure looks like a parking area. So I I guess that's what I'm struggling with is that's what I'm having. I mean, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck.

Well, but one other consideration, they would need to plow that area if they wanted to access the parking that's to as we're looking at that picture to the right of the building. Not that way. Not that not that much. Not [snorts] that much. Mr. Chairman, may I make just one comment on that photograph that Mr. McCusker is looking at? That series of photographs which I took. Uh again, I think it's important to note that while there is an area that's clearly plowed, you can see the ground. If you look closely at those photographs, there is a larger area where the snow banks from the prior storm got pushed to.

So the parking area that you're talking about is actually larger than it appears in in those photographs. And again, I'm not making that up. You can see the evidence of it in the photographs. You can see dirt pushed up and you know, that kind of stuff. Tracy, have you talked to the owners at all? Mhm. Would they just kind of move everything back 20 25 ft on their own and I have never seen them parked within the 30 ft. Okay. So, we have an entrance that we can see on this on the TV right now. So, you have to try to use your imagination for 30 ft in and that is to their unit. Then the driveway curls around to the other side of the unit

and that the duplex and those are the the lot lines right approximate yeah approximate within what couple of feet at the most. Yeah. I mean we have a picture of the the car right almost near the pole. So, it's got to be on town property that came with our packet and that red. And there were aerial photos as well, but more than four, but not area simultaneously. Yeah, that's what I that's what I'm that's what I I don't Yeah.

So, the area itself, how do I prove that four four cars more than four cars can fit there if I don't have any dimensions? I don't have a plan submitted with my um request for enforcement. So, what am I going by? A few photos that have no measurements on them, that have no dimensions. I it it would be it's my denial of their request, their specific request did not support me enforcing the bylaw. So we yes we have there are cars moving around they this is a long long long history here I have talked to them many times saying do not park within the 10 foot of the side setback maintain your buffers do not park you know don't park in the sighteline we can see this plan you can see the the edge of the roadway you can see where the pole is it's way way forward. So, where you're meeting the they're not parking where that grass I know there's not a lot of grass there. They're not parking there. So, my my request from the applicant for enforcement did not support this interpretation of the bylaw or give me any evidence that there was a violation.

Mr. Chair, can I ask a question again, please? So I think what then that's why I asked if there was four or more cars there because if there was four or more cars then it would be an issue or unless they were parked within that you know within that grass area and more than four more than four and you have not seen more than four never and that would be clear evidence that that was a parking area. So to for me and to your point and I think you both mentioned it whether you guys said whether there's four there's four cars or not even though it looks like a parking area that doesn't matter.

But that's my interpretation. So, because it looks like a parking area, I guess we're in in in your defense, it's it it doesn't really matter unless they're using it as a parking area and there's evidence that there's four more cars or it's within their parking in outside the outside the zone. But what I mean, we'll have to make findings. I think I mean I would support a finding that this area holds more than four vehicles. There's eight unregistered cars in the lot. Mr. Chairman, may I just make a couple comments? Mhm.

First, really important. I believe I submitted this engineering plan with my original request for enforcement. I realize it does not have the 30- foot setback and not every dimension you could want is on there, but it is a scale engineering drawing with the scale on the bottom of the paper. So, you can determine the size of the parking area to a reasonable certainty and determine how many cars you could fit in there again to a reasonable certainty just because it's a scale drawing. That's why it's required. Uh, number two, Mr. Mickey, I think if you uh look at the file, which I know you don't have before you, but the photographs I had submitted to Miss Tracy previously and then they were also provided to the board, I believe, in your electronic files. Perhaps you'll see the photographs with more than four cars. So, that's important. I think that evidence is also present. But I I guess in regards to the interpretation though, if I had if I let's just say that entire lot that we see in the front was paved with pavers and it looked pretty with pavers. Would that's would that and but cars weren't parked there. Would that be an issue? I guess it wouldn't. It still wouldn't be an issue. I guess what you guys are saying is because it looks paved, but there's only been one or two cars there parked with what we have as evidence. So, sorry, Kevin. It it doesn't it doesn't matter.

Well, for one thing, they can't pave it. Exactly. Because of the uh water protection overlay zone, they can only pave so much. So, and that's what that's what I mean. We can't because it looks like one. We can't just assume. [snorts] But I think we can use our common sense and our you know just observations that this area has more ample capacity for four plus vehicles.

And you also can consider there's actual driveway access. So we're talking back to the the party time, right? So, we're not counting the the zero to the 30 right in front of the house because that's the access to the parking area for that second unit. And we're not counting going from the street to the where the cars parked. They're not doubling up and having, you know, blocking people in on either side. So we're not counting if you're saying okay the area. So the only area would be the north side but we're not counting that fronted that front portion in right in the front of the house to the street because the the second unit parks on the side there.

So it's a pass there essentially. Yes. Yeah. So there chair. May I ask applicant a question? Sure. All right. So the board can affirm the order or denial overturn the denial or modify it essentially issuing a different type of order. Right? So what would the what would like a different type of order look like? Like what are these people allowed to do on their property?

So the order we requested would contain two things. It would order them to to stop parking within the 10 ft from the front line of their property which is approximately uh 24 ft I think from the edge of the pavement. So they wouldn't be allowed to park in there and then they would only park or maintain parking I should say for up to four cars within the 30 foot setback which would be between that 10-ft line in front of their house or wherever the 30 foot

and that would apply to their and I know you've said they've used the property more than just a normal residential use but that would apply to a residential use if they had a couple people over. It's just I'm having a hard time understanding part. I think it's a question of where they maintain the parking. So, for example, if if they came in off the road and then they had four parking spots and they had people over and those people parked behind them even right up to the edge of the pavement, I mean, that's permissible because that's

because the as it was I think it was uh Mr. McCusker was talking about his long driveway. Parking in a driveway where where the space is normally maintained open for the use of the homeowner to get to their parking spot. Right. Temporarily parking someone in at the birthday party, for example, is different than parking there regularly and using that spot for routine [clears throat] parking. So, if I maintain four spots, but then my friend comes over and parks me in, he's not in a parking spot. He's in my driveway and I got to tell him to move before I can leave. Right. But what if someone in Grafton just wanted to park at the bottom of their driveway? Nothing we could do about it because it's a driveway, not a parking area. Right. So the question is whether it's parking.

Correct. Okay. Could I see that big plan Mr. Chairman? So I just heard it brought up both of the attorneys this idea of 30 ft and I thought we established that the 30 foot does not apply. Oh, I don't think it applies. No, I I think it does in 4232 because um so it continues uh no parking or loading area should be located within 10 ft of the street line. Period. All right. That's stand is long. No parking area containing Oh, in the front yard. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So reference nor within required front yard in R40 um district.

Yep. No, you're right. You're right. So the front Yeah. In the front yard is 30t. Uh yeah. And if anybody 30 feet does still apply. Okay. Um, so, all right. I'm sorry, Mr. So, if anybody's curious what approximately 30 ft looks like, I just emailed Katrina. Um, so GIS lets you do measurements. Um, and I did a measurement from the edge of the road layout towards the house, and it's basically the entire distance from the road layout to the um to the house. The house is the deck, that side deck facing Waterville Street is basically 30 feet from the house. [clears throat] 30 feet from property line.

30. Yeah. But that portion also allows access to the other side. So the people So some portion of that theoretically is driveway to the side of the house. So the Okconors they park like at the you know beyond the house portion as to not block their tenants.

[snorts] I I don't understand one thing on this plan. Maybe you can interpret it. It shows telephone pole, but it looks like a telephone pole laying down. That is indeed a telephone pole laying down. Yes. Okay. But they didn't put the regular pole that's standing that shows in the picture. Yeah. This is a pole. Utility pole right here with the little squiggies. That's utility pole. This is overhead. So, [snorts] are you are you basically saying this utility pole right there is this one? Yes, sir.

Well, this this trailer then is basically on town property. Okay,

Mr. Kusker. So, as I said earlier, we're here because we're being asked to overturn a decision of the zoning enforcement officer. And the zoning enforcement officer has said she doesn't see a parking area. And I have said, you know, and I held up this picture said, "Well, it kind of looks like it." But you know what? I'm not gonna overturn her decision off of, "Oh, it looks like it." I you know she's the professional and I mean I know I know it we we have the it's kind of our job to you know kind of be the checks and balances on her but I I think I would need something a lot more substantial which I think is exactly what she's asking for also that says this is a parking area. I don't have it. So, I I I don't see how I could vote to overturn her decision based on sure looks like a parking area. I just I can't do it. Um can we um can I know they can ask for a continuence, but can ZBA ask for a continuence to like May because they did state summer weather other vehicles come back and it makes it worse. But you haven't just looked in the last couple of months.

No, it's been two years. In all the pictures we flipped through, I don't think we saw four vehicles in front of the house in any of those pictures. If I may, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I've said it repeatedly. I know it's a little bit confusing, but I submitted those pictures from just about a week ago. There is a whole other group of photos that you should have in the file. And if not, Katrina will have them that I submitted to the building commissioner that show far more cars in the driveway. that that's the evidence we're talking about. I I acknowledge that the photos I just submitted don't show that because they're not there, but the other photographs do show that. I wonder if it's worth buying a uh inexpensive drone. I'm serious. And

so, [clears throat] do you need a permit to move your driveway from here to here if it if it goes out into the street? Yeah, you'd need another curb cut. I would I would assume. You said they they could pack anywhere they want. Okay. That's what Pat Connor told me. Let's Let's see here. Let's bring it up. Do we um I'm looking for these pictures. Um do we have the [snorts] case file there, Brian? Um yeah. What? These pictures, Bill? No. The ones in the packet or the ones they just

There's supposedly there's been other ones submitted. Oh, it's coming up.

I just put them up on the screen. I'll scroll through all of them for you. And sorry before you go. So, Miss when you were in that prior photo, the prior slide that you had up because there was one car there parked right in front. That's not a violation, right? So unless we're seeing and regardless if it looks like a parking lot or not, I think we need to be clear on that. It's unless there is four cars, it's not it is not considered a parking lot. I I disagree with that. Or how about how about if they're within the 10 ft? That's a violation. I don't

It's the the side setback. So we're talking within the 30 foot front setback. Wait a minute. How many can park within the 30 foot setback? None. More than four cannot. So four can four. So [laughter] so more than four cannot. So this is more the definition is more than four. So in other words five or more. Yes. Five or more. Five or more. Can or can't? Can't. Can't. If it's five or more, it's a parking area. Yes. And the 10 foot.

So where they plowed the whole front yard because we're not seeing a picture with four cars in it. Doesn't that we don't I mean I guess there's no law against plowing your whole front yard. Correct. Can I Sorry, Mr. Chair. I can ask another question. It's the It doesn't state because it looks like a parking lot. It doesn't matter whether it looks like a parking lot or not. Is that council am I correct on that? I think a parking area. I think it's describing like what's on the ground. You can have a parking area with 20 parking spaces and two cars in it. It doesn't matter how many I don't think it matters how many literal cars are there. It matters how many cars are in Okay, so

and that's what I'm saying. We don't need a picture with four cars. Okay. So, that's that's where I'm confused because Miss Sharky is saying unless there's five or more that she which she hasn't seen, right? Yes. Then it doesn't qualify. But if it looks like a parking lot, then it does.

No. No. I I think [laughter] she's saying it has to be five or more because there isn't, you know, uh parking space lines laid out. There isn't other stuff to make it very obvious that that's a parking area. Right now, it's just a grass blank area. So, how how can how can she call that a parking area, especially when there's not even any cars parked there, right? But if they'd actually drew lot uh parking spot, you know, you know, stalls and and and that sort of thing or somehow, you know, made it very clear that this these are places to park cars, then how can you how can you say it's a parking area? And

but so just by wait a minute. What's what's how many cars in that picture? I see three. I think one's clearly in the roadway. Zoom in on that one. [snorts] The other zoom. There's four. Is that a fourth one on the right? Yeah, I think it's a tree. But even if it is, I mean, it shows the red car. That truck's 10 ft. That that red thing is definitely in the town right away. Yes.

The the next one is definitely within the 10 ft. 30. We're struggling to establish whether this is a parking area or not, which is exactly what the zoning [clears throat] force officer. I don't see how we can overturn her decision. We can't even come to terms with it. Mr. Chair, sorry.

One thing though, I so I think we can differ in the interpretation of it. Um because I I completely understand her interpretation. Um, but I I don't agree that just based on all of the other evidence here, it and knowing that it's not staked out, there's no lines, there's no, you know, consistent surface. Um I don't know how you it's clear that it's used regularly for part um and and I don't know that it needs to be a formal defined area to be considered a parking area. if just based on repeated use that's what it turns into which is essentially what happened. They made no effort to turn it into this, but by their use of it, it's now compacted and um, you know, used for that purpose. But she has to make a decision that would stand up under appeal, that would stand up in in court, and she doesn't have the evidence to support it. And you know, we're here to overturn her decision or not.

I would think that we should also have the evidence. And that's where I I'm stuck with Yeah. That looks like it, but I I don't think that's sufficient. Now, you you may disagree with that, and that's fine, of course, but you know, we're here. We're here over her decision. Her decision. Well, I Yeah, but circumstantial evidence is evidence. It doesn't have to be. I mean, half half their case is that they're parking within the 10- foot setback, isn't it? Yes. Two separate.

I mean, that was evident right in that photo. They had one car, the the red one was in on town property and the white car was definitely within I mean, what's how wide's a car? 6 8 ft. I don't think Tracy's decision even mentioned the 10 foot, did it? Well, that only matters if you determine this to be a parking area. Well, they park in there, so Well, I know, but if it's a parking area, they can't park within 10 ft. But if you consider it to be a there's no definition in the zoning bylaw, but a regular residential driveway, the 10 ft requirement doesn't apply. So, if he parks here every single night,

but that that isn't a driveway. That was the lawn. Separate issue, I suppose. But so, [snorts] so two cars parked every single night in the 10-ft area. Two two is not a parking area. No. What is it? Two cars parked in parked where they're parked. Yeah. How many how many calves are allowed on the property, Kevin? So there's also that other word. So you had mentioned, okay, we're re we're re we're using the area consistently. Would you consider that temporary parking?

Yeah, that word confuses me. I'm not really sure either um why that's in there, but you would think I'm going to CVS. I temporarily park to go inside. I come back out. I move my car. That's why the commentary from the original adoption of this maybe it maybe the wording was not quite right and this I think this 4232 morphed also um but that was to address congestion and location of a lot of people parking near the roadway. So that leads me so an area

but isn't that what we have here? Well, you said it's permanent though because we consistently use it. Same exact person uses it and is there for eight hours. I'm going to CVS. I'm there for 10 minutes. It's temporary. It's not consistent or permanent. Mr. Chairman, if I may, what building commissioner is suggesting is that we don't want cars permanently blocking people's view and the side of the roadway, but it's okay if they leave their cars there permanently within the 30oot setback. I think that's a a difficult interpretation to accept.

I And by the way, I I'm not saying it's unreasonable. I just I think it's [snorts] difficult here. Well, we have that word there [clears throat] and we we're Yeah, it's reasonable. I'm not I'm not I get it. It's a struggle. Mr. Sure.

I'm not sure if this helps kind of square the circle on parking area or not, but it where I get hung up, I think I would be comfortable calling it a parking area whether we saw cars there or not if it wasn't for the fact that we do have lots of photos of parking to the right of the building and you need to get there somehow. So, I think what I would require, what I would need to see to evidence the fact that we can fit five or more cars there and still provide access to the side of the house where we've seen cars repeatedly over years. That's why I would feel more comfortable with a photo showing five more cars there. It's like, all right, well, it happens. Whereas, I think one of um M. Shark's points is, you know, we don't really know what would be parking area and what would be kind of passed through to get to the right side of the house. So, yeah, the whole thing is paved, but are there two parking spots that are paved um because they're parking spots? They're intended, you know, the the homeowner intends to use them as parking spots and the rest is paved to get access to the right side of the house.

4.2.3.2 also references spaces There's nothing paved in that yard [clears throat and cough] or designated in any way. When he took me to court, the judge ordered him to go to land court and pave his yard. [clears throat] Uh, Mr. Chairman, if I may, just briefly in response to town council's comment, I believe Katrina had pulled up the photographs that I had submitted previously. Yeah, I think only one of them was actually shown, but there is I know at least one photograph in that shows I think six or more cars in the in the area. So, Katrina, could you do that? And there was one that I happen to see where you could see the where cars had been parked. Um

the ruts. Yeah, there's eight unregistered cows in the yard. Okay. which I don't care about because they're on the back side of the house. Oh, but I think that would be a separate enforcement issue. Y I understand that. But she's she's talking four to five cars. There's already eight unregistered cars in the backyard. There's no limitation on they can park all these cars.

I understand that. But she's saying there's only four to five cars in the app. So you can see one, two, three, four, five, six. No, but the ones up by the uh electric company there, that that I think is a driveway. No, no, that's not a driveway. That end of the property. No. Oh, that whole front yard was all blonde all the way around.

I mean, that picture right there makes it a little bit more clear that it's a driveway to get to the other side of the house, which is exactly what Miss Shy, I think, was saying. Did I just put words in your mouth? No. Yeah. So, that that looks more like a driveway than a parking area. But that where that trail is packed, that's not a driveway. Yeah. Can you go back up one? That pickup is on on loom. Oh, [snorts] sorry. Maybe it was down. Sorry.

I mean, if we got to see a photo, I haven't I really haven't seen one yet with four in the front yard or five yet. I guess there's a picture with the the backside of a vet. The black vet. I think they're up. [snorts] Bingo. Where where is that? We're standing on We're standing on Birch. Standing on Bur. Oh, that's the telephone pole right there. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Okay. Did you put that poll there years ago, Kevin? Okay. stop him from blocking my driveway.

Oh, I was pushing training training cabs, dragging them down my driveway till I go to work. [snorts] I'm I'm still in in the same place. I I'm not seeing enough to to overturn. Mr. Chair, just to let you know, there is an attendee raising their hand to speak. Just so you guys know, I was draw gravel drive and park. Don't Who prepared this? Grads.

They're out of Fitz William, but they have an they used to have I don't know if they still have an office in uh Worcester, but they did. But I mean that says I didn't notice that before, but that says gravel drive and parking both front yard. Show that the bill. Yeah. No, I see it. This drive and parking, right? Huh? It's drive and parking. Yeah. So, what's the driveway or what's parking here? Yeah.

But just by leaving it big used as either.

I guess I'm I'm I'm I'm trying to see it from Tracy's point of view. Is that a parking area? Prove to me that that's a parking area. How can I prove it's a parking area? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. And even Graz has maybe it is maybe it's both you know so it just it's vagueness that I have trouble getting to a point where I can overturn her decision. Tracy, what's the what like the most important thing that leads you to conclude this is not a parking area?

Any real time evidence? The photos are undated. I I have no idea when those are from. I have photos from 2023. um and the use of the property and the lack of any evidence that they're they qualify. So, it's the burden of the applicant and also the we have to go by when this was requested as well. So, I'm acting on the request. I've denied the request for enforcement based on that moment in time. So, that's what they're trying to overturn. So just want to bring you back to there was a request from the applicant at this date in this time not necessarily 3 years ago 10 years ago 20 years ago. So um they have not proven to me that um in there's any violations at the property. [snorts] Does that answer your question? And I've also not seen what my interpretation of the definition of parking area is. I've not seen that on this property.

That I think that's more what I was getting at. Yeah. [snorts] With on-site with documentation with plans. But is it because this plan that was provided by the applicant? I mean the owner that was that was drawn for the owner of Waterville. Yeah. And it says gravel drive and parking.

Yeah. [snorts] Why do we have a copy? If the owner paid for this, did they did the owner give this to you or where did this come from? I submitted that. I got that from Grass. It's a kind of a long behind thescenes story, but Okay. Okay. Um,

also, Mr. Well, I mean, the the pictures at least show that they're in violation of the 10-ft setback. No, no. Parking in it. I think we would need to con or the enforcement officer would need to conclude it's a parking area first to trick to bring any of the other Oh. terms into it. Okay. So, you can park there overnight. No big deal because it's temporary. No, we're we're saying it's not temporary. We're saying five or more cars. Can I Sure.

So, [clears throat] I I think where I'm confused and I'm I I think, you know, as as much as this is, you know, confusing and it obviously clearly looks like a parking lot. The bylaw does not say it's a violation because it looks like a parking lot. I think that's where I'm confused. The trigger in the bylaw is what she's mentioned. If there's more than four vehicles, appearance of worn grass is not itself the violation. So the violation occurs only if there's factual condition in the bi the bylaw is met which is more than four vehicles. Warren grass is is not the legal basis. I think that's where I'm getting confused because we can't just just because, you know, I I I don't know. I just I I I want to you can't judge a book by its cover, I guess, is what I'm saying. And part of it and the other thing that I'm getting confused on is part of that because now there's those barriers. It's also a pass through to where they actually need to park that's not within the setback that's outside of the setback and where they're parking. They're not in tandem. They're, you know, they're side by side and it looks like, you know, to your point, they can, you know, pull out and go as they please. It's not.

So, so if there was one I don't know what what date this was specific to October maybe October there about the request the date of the request October is good enough. Um I think so. Yeah. So if if there was one photo from October showing four vehicles, would that be the smoking gun that five? Five. More than four. I can get I would say yeah, they're utilizing

pictures of six K pictures right now. Go home and take the pictures. Come right back. Six cows in that lot right now. And there's five of them in Florida, please. So, uh, I don't think pick even if it's five, I don't think I mean it's evidence that would maybe support [clears throat] the finding that it was a parking area, but if it if if it's not a parking area, the fact that there's five cars there doesn't make it one. It's whether it's used for temporary parking or, you know, a more permanent situation. or within

because those terms are undefined in the zoning bylaw. And and that's that's what I'm hung up on. you don't need. [snorts] It seems like or my sense is that we're looking for this smoking gun evidence, but in my mind, there's enough circumstantial evidence to show that this is used regularly for parking. I [snorts] agree with you, Mr. I mean this shows on the plan parking area [clears throat]

and then we're also looking at within 30 ft. So we're saying the house is at what distance off the front setback? Brian, it was it was roughly it was just under uh or just over 30 feet um to the edge of the deck. Okay. So when based on the GIS when they're parking beyond the front face of the home, that's not that's not a parking area. So that that's the other section, the 4232. No parking loading area shall be located within the 30 ft. So it's not just five vehicles. It's five vehicles in the front yard. Yes. In front of the house. No. No. No. No. No. If it's not a parking area, none of that matters,

right? So that so the if it is a parking so if you determine it to be a parking area then you look at those you know how it's set up and where they're parking and how far away from the lot lines right that's what I say so five vehicles in front of the house five vehicles behind the house not a problem five vehicles in front of the house problem only if it's a parking area well yes okay and then I think we have that's the like step one is it a parking area right

and I think we have to consider you know what Mr. Ar was able to find going back to when definitions were changed. I don't know if it was the definition or the um you know 4232 um but speaking to parking area being intended to address multif family housing 3 plus units and commercial uh so if you know if we get there then we're kind of done. Um

Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe Katrina said some time back that there was a person online with their hand raised. Just wanted to bring that to your attention. [snorts] Katrina, do you want to allow that? [snorts] Hey, can everyone hear me? Yep. Yep. I just need your name and address, sir?

Yep. Uh, my name is Nicholas Tala. actually was at 57 Waterville Street. So, I believe I was referenced a few times this evening and uh there's quite a bit of mischaracterization of of what's been going on. So, I kind of want to help clear that up. Um first off, there isn't a commercial business being run out of either property. My wife runs a online and mobile tech business with her partner Liz Oconor who lives across the street. So, there's no temporary usage, right? We're not having people shopping in our house. So, that's that's false. Um, I also wanted to highlight the snowbank ins issue. I work from home, so I see Mr. Bowman when he plows and he's the one who actually plows those snow banks up on either side of Birch Street. It's not something that um the Okconors do. He's the one who kind of builds that up on either side.

Talking about Birch Street, though, correct? But, you know, he mentioned the snow banks and he's the one who plows the snow up um onto Waterville and Birch Street to to block the view himself. I don't think it's come up at all. It's not really part of the discussion.

Okay. Um it was like two hours ago. [laughter] I've been here for a little bit. Um but anyways, the other thing I want to call attention to was that plan and I think what Mr. Bowman's lawyer is trying to call to the fact that they had this engineering piece done to kind of show this was a driveway, which is 100% false. They actually got that done due to Mr. Bowman putting the jersey barriers on their property. Um, so that was just a survey done just to show the property lines and to show that Mr. Bowman was actually trespassing on their property to block their access to their property. [snorts] So this is kind of a bit of self-inflicted wound on his part um putting those up. And he also noted that a judge ordered them to pave their front yard. That's also 100% false. There was a harassment hearing um over CO with Patrick Oconor and Mr. Bowman and the judge just said it's a better um idea to go to land court than anything else. There was nothing with paving. So there's been a lot of mischaracterizations of the Okconors and their property usage. I just wanted to clear up. Okay. Thank you.

Is there anyone else? Katrina. Katrina. Katrina, you're on mute. Sorry. Nobody else but him.

Okay. Thank you. So, I don't know. I'm kind of at a loss. Um, it seems clear to me that this is a parking area and I know there that's not a universal sentiment. Um myself I think it's a a parking area myself too but

but I also understand the the reasoning behind how this came to be the bylaw and that it wasn't intended to be residential. Um,

I I also think it's a parking area, but I don't think I [snorts] I don't I I I I don't think that we know that or there's enough evidence to support it being a parking area to um to overturn the zoning enforcement officer's decision. You know, my gut sense says it's a parking area. But uh there's just not enough there. That's so that's that's where I'm at. And I I I think we gota you we got to consider that. I mean, you know, do we do we do we have the required evidence wishes was like some of the other things like variances and all where it's very clear what the findings have to be. Unfortunately, we're not in that situation. But I I don't I don't I don't feel strong enough or have that I have enough evidence to overturn her decision.

And and maybe the thing to do is is close the hearing and and let's make a motion and vote. or would the applicant want some time to gather more information? But hold on though. So it this kind of goes back though to the point in time, right? October of 23. That's what you're deciding on, right?

You're not This is not an open-ended thing. It's the denial of the enforcement request from October. And I'll also bring you back to parking area definition. So I want to make sure you're saying this looks like a parking area, but does it look like used for temporary parking of more than four automobiles within 30 feet from the front from the front line? [clears throat] You're saying it looks like it. Yeah. doesn't justify from from where from what document just just a picture pictures

of cars in various temporary parking so that means so what you think what you're seeing used for temporary parking of more than four automobiles within 30 ft of the front sub front Mr. Chairman, may I just mention one thing that I think is important?

Um, the idea that this inquiry is related to a specific date in the past is is I don't believe accurate. It doesn't even make sense because if that were the case, then then the whole thing would be meaningless because every time we went down, by the time she even looked at it, that date would be passed and then she would just say, "Oh, that date passed." That's not the question. And the question is whether there is a continuing the existence or maintenance is the word that the um bylaw actually is the maintenance of a parking area. That's the question whether that's ongoing. And I I think we can all agree that if there had been back in October and then that maintenance ceased and they weren't using it that we wouldn't be here. I I have other things I could be doing and I'm sure you all do as well.

It's a question of whether it's being maintained and I think the best evidence of that is actually the snow plowing. But that's my opinion. Mr. Sure. I guess I guess the question would be if we were provided because I still think in the photo you know I think the definition is if there's four more than four cars just because it looks like one I mean I guess it's you know we can use the temporary case but if we were provided a photo a real you know within recent time a photo of five cars parked there then what then what happens I guess at that point Do we say, "All right, it's now considered a a parking lot, but that it's now considered a violation."

Well, that's what I'm saying. We don't need this smoking gun picture. I feel like I do. I feel like based on the definition is I feel like that's what we need. I agree. I think it looks like a parking lot. But based on the definition, it it's it we we can't call it a parking lot. So, that's that's where my confusion is. But my question still stays the same. If we if we get a photo with five cars, then from there, is it is that what turns it over? Is that what would turn it over in your mind? If it's within the front setback within in front of the house

and and blocking every other car so not to be used as driveway access for the other portions, the parking portions that are outside the 30 foot front step back. M so you can't block that way in where it's a pretty well- definfined way in. I know the snow plowing is one thing, but if we look over historical time, you see that there's one exit in and one way out. So I suppose if you arranged the cars to block to not block anyone else in and there was a parking area within 30 feet that fit five cars. Yes,

but I think we would still need to overcome what Mashi found in the original adoption of the provisions that pointed to multif family and commercial properties is where we have to get past that to even start the consideration of why would we because if we if we thought that the original change to the definition of for creation of the definition of parking area only pertained to what's the bylaw say though? Well, I was say it's not in the bylaw, but I think you can point to other evidence from, you know, contemporaneous evidence of what the intent was. Why Why do you need to Why [clears throat] can't you just rely on the words in the bylaw? Because it's not clear.

Well, we're not seeing we're not seeing any of that. What do you mean? All the research she So, we haven't we haven't seen the evidence, and I'm I'm assuming that it wouldn't be readily available um to to generate tonight. I mean, I'm take I'm assuming that that's all true. I'm just saying [clears throat]

why why do we need to go to that? Why it might explain what temporary means, you know, the discussion around passing of the bylaw town meeting, what people talked about. I mean, I just don't I don't know. I don't know what any of it says, but [snorts] I guess I I don't know that that's the first stop. I It seems to me that if we can't even establish that it's a parking area or I think we wouldn't have to think about it. If we said that that parking areas could only be in

commercial applications or, you know, multif family, residential, then I don't think we have to consider anything else. Um okay. But if we think that's ambiguous because it's not in the bylaw and at most it was part of the discussion at at the adoption, then yeah, I think you keep going down the tree.

Yeah. And and I'm I I need to change what I said. I I said I think it looks like a parking lot parking area. No, that's not really what I mean. I think it could be a parking area. That's what I think it could be a parking area. Um [snorts] I don't necessarily think that it is because there's just not enough evidence in my mind that to say that. [snorts] So, what do you do? You need pictures, a every day of the week picture of the seven cars parked there out front for evidence.

I I would defer to what Miss Sharky needs. What does she need? [clears throat] Because I on some level we're I think we're acknowledging there's heavy vehicle usage here, right? Yeah. So, if we're not 100% of the way there, we're pretty close. But what gets us over that hump, I guess, to call it a parking area or what gets you over that hump to call it a parking area? It's not temporary.

So, you're saying it would never be parking? I don't think so. We've looked at it at every every angle. [snorts] I guess I'm surprised to hear that said. So, I guess now I I've got to ask, what is a temporary parking space versus a permanent parking space? or no I guess they can't even say permanent because that's that word is not there. So what is a temporary parking space versus a non-temporary parking space? In the context of the zoning in the context of zoning,

it's not defined, but I would use the example of going to the supermarket, parking my car, going in, coming back out, temporary on a parking, you know, parking meter, parking sign, temporary parking, 15 minutes. Whereas the house that I go into and come out of 10 hours later, that's temporary or not? I don't believe so. You think that's permanent? Well, non- temporary other than temporary. I don't think What if I don't live there? I don't think it's I I don't think it's I think it's non-temporary because you you're owning the property. Well, what if I don't live there?

No, that's what he's saying. Visiting. Oh, [snorts] there's a reason why it says temporary parking. Oh, I wouldn't be so sure of that, but [laughter] I would hope that there's a reason why it's a temporary parking. So, I mean, this could be flawed a bit, but I still Well, [snorts] that would be a first in our bylaw. We'll work really hard to revise some things. So, That's why we're here. We're the cure all for everything.

You're right. You're you're absolutely right. You're right. We're the cure all. But but I I I I don't I I don't feel comfortable curing because it it looks like Right. Well, you know, and maybe I have a higher level of of curing than than others, and that's fine. Um but you're right. You're absolutely right. That's what we're here for. And I think part of that cure would be understanding what the intent of the bylaw was. So then it goes back to the discussion because we're trying to interpret something that's not there.

So [clears throat] So I said a little while ago that I think we should um close in motion and vote and then Peter said or and I don't know that ever got I think you were the one who said or or if you had something with something else in mind. I don't know if we ever if they wanted a continuence to get more evidence. Okay. pictures, whatever. Dated pictures. Uh, I'm I feel like I'm with Peter on that as well. What? To get more more evidence, but that's their decision. We can't We can't No, I know we can't make it, but that's I agree with with what Peter suggested.

I have a hunch there isn't more to get that there isn't. If I may respectfully, um, I suspect two things. Number one, I suspect it's going to be a while before the Okconor's return back home. So, that evidence isn't coming forward. And I suspect Mr. Talcott, who's listening to this meeting, is probably not going to be parking there for a while. At least that's just a guess. I could be wrong. So, I mean, I'll park within the boundaries. Do I need your permission to park on someone else's property? I guess that's my question, too, here for the ZBA. You know, I I do visit them, right? Is that are like a zoning violation to park in their yard? [snorts] Well, you live across the street. Yeah, I we move stuff back and forth sometimes.

I I don't think it's hard. I don't think that's for us. Maybe. And I'm doing I'm doing a maybe. Maybe if he's number five in the front yard. [snorts] What I would get. But that would be temporary. So, I don't have any hope that I would have five cars parked in there in the next I don't know how long it would be. Um, I also don't know if it would be helpful if the members of the board just went and looked at it. I know I know I've heard at least four of you at different times say I think that looks like parking, but I'm not sure. Maybe it would be helpful to and and if that were the case that the board wanted to just look at it, we we would certainly not object to a continuence. Well, you need to request continuance. We would request continuence for that purpose as well.

Yeah. I I mean I I've looked at it and and um I could go look at it again, but it's not going to change, [clears throat] you know, where I'm at. I I'd like to I I've looked at it, but I I didn't do a deep uh deep dive. I do have the notes from the bylaw amendment from May 13th, 1991 town meeting. I also forwarded it to you remember on the 23rd. I don't know if you want me to submit that to the board or just read it from the Actually, could you submit that to Katrina so we can make it part of the record? Yeah,

maybe request a continuence then to allow us to also review that language. Tracy, what date was that? It was 1991. No, no. When you forwarded to me? about um December 18th. [snorts] Um before we do the continuous, you want to just check and make sure there's nobody else. Yeah, Katrina, anybody anyone else? And you're muted, Katrina.

Yes, there's another person. Hold on. Okay, Mr. Raymond, you can speak. I just need your name and address. Mr. Hello. Actually, this is Mrs. Whitehead. I live on the second floor at 60 Waterville Street. Are you able to hear me? Yep. Yes. So, what is your full name, ma'am? Janine Whitehead.

Thank you. I just I just wanted to kind of go on record here with the the parking situation and to state that occasionally my children come to visit me and I've had to deal with Mr. Bowman who I have on ring cam video threatening to tow my children's cars away because they're here visiting me. So, I want to clear the air that I want my children to be able to come visit me from out of state without being harassed that they're going to be towed away. Also, the picture that was depicted earlier where where there were a lot of vehicles, I can say that the black vehicle in that that picture has long since gone to um storage many years ago. The Crown Victoria in in that picture has long since been sold. The blue Chevy truck in that picture has long since gone to another uh area to be stored. And the red truck parked by the mailboxes has not parked there in over a year. That was kind of all I wanted to pipe in and say.

Okay. Thank you.

So, if we were to do a continuence, when would we be continuing it too? When's our next um snow road meeting? Does Does it matter how long you continue it to? If if we go beyond the whatever the statutory requirements are, they'd have to agree to it. It's it's our request respectfully. The the 100 day period wouldn't apply because it's our request to continue.

No, I'm the only reason I'm asking that is because they did bring up the fact that the people that live there are in Florida and they come back whenever. So, should we have the hearing the next after beginning of May or end of April or something? Or is that too far off? I I don't know. I mean, if I were them, I would want to that that was stuck out in my mind that [snorts] I think we could continue to

and this whole thing might go away between now and then. I don't know. I guess Mr. Chair, if the applicant's primary consideration would be looking at the language from the town meeting council just pulled it up and it was fairly explicit. I don't know if you'd want to take a read through now and potentially change your mind about continuing. It's um it's pretty explicit that the planning board brought the amendment. I actually [clears throat] like time to look at that.

Sure. Um, [cough and clears throat] what if we said March 12th? Trouble would march as he said they won't be back. If I may, I I'm I'm not that worried. I'm more concerned with the the character of the actual area than I am about how many cars happen to be parked there when people walk or drive by. I I understand some of the board members think that's positive, but I I'm not I'm not going to hold my breath for that photograph.

So, March, well, maybe February 12th. When is when is our next no road meeting? two weeks the 22nd.

Katrina, do we have any other 48 cases? Not at the moment. Um, a woman has been calling me that she will be submitting something, but I haven't seen it yet. I don't know when it's coming in.

February 12th probably. When's uh when's president? Is that the 16th? 16th is president. The 16th is president's day. Yeah. So the 12th the 12th would be better for me than the 19th. The race is the 16th. So maybe the 20th. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. If it's possible to schedule it a different week um later or earlier, my client will be out of town for two weeks. I'm gone that week, too. What week is that? The you the 12th I'll be gone. How about February 26th? 26? Yeah. That works for me. February 26th. Yep.

Yep. Fine for me. I'm out of town. Well, you wouldn't want to miss this either. [laughter] I mean I mean we can deal with that, right? [clears throat] Mr. Chairman, I move we continue case number 921 to February 26th at 7 p.m. Second. Uh, Miss Reed, yes. Mr. Mahia, yes. Mr. McCusker, yes. Mr. Adams, yes.

Chairman votes, yes. Case 921s continue to February 26th at 7 p.m. Thank you. Thank you.

This is your Yes. Thank you very much. [laughter] Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Good night. Wow. That's why I wouldn't want to be in a zoning enforcement officer. You got to admit. All right. Some minutes. Can I suggest we uh push him again? I thought you said push them again. [laughter] Well, I really want to come running in here and choke us.

Why can't we do what Brian did? Why don't we all just look at them at home and then send our notes into Do we have to do it at together? Yeah, cuz we have to vote on them. Well, you you can I mean, you could send your corrections and then it would be quick. No. Yeah, we have to vote. Yeah, that's right. When we do do them, I trust Brian found every correction needed. So, let's just Well, some more questions, but yeah. I Is the red ones uh your correction? Brian, are these your corrections? Oh, Brian's. Oh, definitely. Smart Brian. So many Brian. All right. Sounds like we're going for it. Yeah. Let's go.

Can maybe Katrina can put up August 21s. I think that's the oldest one, right? Yeah. But the um Brian has a question about the impervious area that Mr. Newan mentioned. I I suggest we strike it because I think the impervious discussion was more on our end, but I I really don't recall. But I I say we just strike that bullet. I think Yeah, I think it was I'm good with that. I think it was consideration of whether or not um the parking area, right, um was was pvious or not, but we have it under discussion with more and I think that's probably sufficient. And then I've got the same comment here. And so you're saying that was a park? [laughter]

I believe Mr. Turkey day. [cough] Um just didn't know for the couple times that we had snow road without any um testimony if we wanted to make that explicit. I I I think we should. So I think what you called it out there. Case 910. If there was no testimony heard, we should add a sentence. Katrina, are you getting this? Yeah, I am. Okay. I I think there should be a sentence added there. Yeah, that was my error. Sorry about that, guys. I didn't have any other [cough] changes on that.

Yep. Same here. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the meeting minutes of August 21st, 2025 as amended. Second. Uh, Miss Reed, yes. Mr. Mahia, yes. Mr. McCusker. Yes. Mr. Adams. Yes. Chairman Rotes. Yes. All right. Did I get us out of hot water? Katrina, can we go home now? We get them all done. Yeah. The clerk will stop yelling at me. All right. September 11th. Let's do another one. Do the next one. September 11th.

Yeah. I'd rather see basement than ground floor cuz basement that question was asked and I have to admit I didn't look at the plans good enough that I just assumed there were basement so that was pretty important to me but I don't think they're subsurface. I think they're the same level as the garage. There is no basement in them. I don't even know about the new ones now. What? But I don't think so. But those back then I was I think Bill asked a question. I was surprised when I found out there was no basement.

If there was four of the buildings in the in the quadrant, but if there's only three, they're going to do the You mean the the underground? The town houses. Oh, the townhouse. That was the town houses. [snorts] Yeah. So, what are you saying? You're saying that you don't want to call them basements or you do want to call them basement? No, the question was asked about basements, but what Brian is saying here is should be the architecture drawing. It says basement plans for town houses and he's saying no, it should be ground floor. And I think he's right. Agreed. Yeah. Because they're not basement, they're ground floors.

And then what is the ground floor willing? Correct. Then maybe we need a sentence that there was a question asked if there were basements cuz you asked about storage in the basement. Okay, I'm fine with that. If we add a we could add that question asked. Okay, there was basement. Answer. No.

Right. There's no there's no basement. The ground floor is going to be um pretty much all garage. Correct. I'm also good with Brian's comment about trash recycling pickup frequency. Yeah.

Okay. I do like this is uh September 11th and uh we have uh get a new fly over video without leaves on the trees. We still haven't got anything. You probably should change Brian's comments, you know. He's the one who said it. [clears throat]

I just don't want the implication that anybody's comments are invalid. Yeah, good point. [snorts] Jeez, you catch everything. I wouldn't say that. [laughter] Yeah. And then a couple other ones I think are good to go. Anyone else have anything? Otherwise, I'll do a motion. Good to me. Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the meeting minutes of September 11th, 2025 as amended. Second. Miss Reed? Yes. Mr. Mahia? Yes. Mr. McCusker?

Yes. Mr. Adams? Yes. Chair moves? Yes. October 1st. Should it be stated that there was I mean it says applicant request. Oh, okay. Brian I mean All right, Brian already fixed that. Should we? I agree. It should state no testimony was uh given. Which one are you on? September uh November 12th. Are we on November? October 1st.

I'm on October. Oh, she helped to be on the right one, huh? Was I really remote on October 1st? Yes. Mhm. Was that when you were in Australia? I don't think you did one when you were in Australia, did you? I don't think so. I don't know. But I know you've been remote a couple of times, Bill. Maybe you weren't. Yeah. I think it was when you got back from Australia or somewhere else. Yeah. You weren't feeling well or something. Maybe that was the most recent one. Oh, [clears throat]

cuz this is when this is when we went through Oh, you know what? You might know you were here. I I just duplicated it from the previous one. Nope. You were here. Yeah. That's me just cutting and pasting. Sorry. Yeah, because we then we get in Dan's memo and I know I was here for that. Yep. And I can go back and double check the video, but that's my cutting and pasting. I'm sorry.

[cough] [clears throat]

I am good otherwise.

[snorts]

Anonymous attendee question online. [cough and clears throat] Was that a red comment like a typed comment? Must uh on the first page, did we want to see anything [cough and clears throat] more than just kind of the the general reference to to workshops? um you know discuss the potential for workshops or where is this

uh first page? Well, certainly the typo for applicants [clears throat] [cough] [snorts] Yeah, I I I I see your point. We could remove it entirely under attorney entirely. Yeah. Under attorney Hill, um there's a bullet for take request from applicant for workshop. Yep. Yeah. Okay. So, you're removing the word workshops and and the hyphen, right?

Yep. Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the meeting minutes of October October 1st, 2025 as someone want to second that. Uh, Miss Reed, yes. Mr. Mia, yes. [clears throat] Mr. McCusker, yes. Mr. Adams,

yes. Chairman, November 12th. [snorts] Wait a minute. November 12th, there was no testimony heard.

No, they had asked for continuence. So basically, I think it was [clears throat] [snorts] me and Alex and someone else just showed up and we opened it and continued it cuz that was when they were trying to redesign everything and we were scheduling the workshop for November 19th. I mean, it says pres members present. Present all of us present except Well, yeah, because you were either online or remote. Everybody appeared, but we literally opened it. We continued it. I don't I don't remember being there for that. You were I'll I'll double check the video, but yeah, I'll double [snorts] check the attendance on the video, but I think almost everybody was there that night and just add

And we opened it and continued it and no testimony was heard. Yep. I'll add that in. And do you need an and right after Brian Langan or and absent? Is that Do you need that and there? No, I'll fix it. Okay. And then you'll up it update it to say remote for anybody that was Yep. I will get online and look at the video. Sorry about that, guys. Then uh I move we accept the meeting minutes on November 12th, 2025 as amended.

Well, actually one second. The that what gets read at the beginning of the meeting is that the rules of order or is that like the open meeting? So usually it's it's you you read the um remote rules of the remote rules and the rules of order. You usually do them both combined. That's the rules of order. Well, you you do the remote. You do the remote. I I didn't rules of order. Sorry, I'm splitting hairs. So, yeah. Sorry. Second. Um, Miss Reed, yes. Mr. Mia, yes. Mr. McCusker, yes. Mr. Adams, yes.

Chairman, yes. I move we adjourn. Second, M. Reed. Yes. Mr. Mia. Yes. Mr. McCusker. Yes. Mr. Adams. Yes. Yes. Chair votes. Yes. We're adjourned. Good night, everyone. Good night, everyone. Thank you.