Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

We need Leslie. Oh, yeah, we need Leslie maybe in the waiting room.

She is not. But we're at 7.02 now, so I think we should commence the meeting. Who's coming in on an iPad? Oh, it's probably Rick.

Hi, I'm Rick. Jackie.

Oh, hi, Jackie. No, somebody else saying that they're Office of Municipal Services. Oh, I see. Oh, hi, Jackie. Hello. Yes, it is Rick. Okay, I'm going to let everyone in from the waiting room and commence this meeting.

There's Leslie. She's hiding under a different name. Let's give you, let's fix your name too. All right. So it looks like we have everybody from our side in the board that we're going to have. All right. So I call this meeting to order. Yes, please. This is the town of Maynard zoning board of appeals. It's Monday, July 27th, 2026. It's now 7 0 3 PM. Uh, we have two cases in front of us tonight and we have an update on a special permit condition for the one powder mill road BP gas station. And I think we will start with that, uh, One Powder Mill Road item. So Zoe, if you wanted to tell us what's up with that.

Well, we had a brief check-in with the owner of the BP station at One Powder Mill Road to discuss ongoing vegetation management on the Waltham Street side of the property. He completed some of the plantings that were discussed as a condition of the special permit. and opted for a lower-lying ground cover on the area closer to the intersection so as not to interfere with sight lines. He also planted some evergreen trees, I think one evergreen tree a little bit further back, and we spoke to him about keeping up on some weed control on the Waltham Street side, which he has done. And he doesn't appear to be here this evening, but Bill, was there anything else you wanted to add on that?

No, I think it's going the right direction. We should probably just check in before the end of summer to make sure that everything's in place. Because this has been delayed unnecessarily for whatever reason. And it's been, you know, a while. So I think it would be a good idea to check in, period, you know, and give the board an update next meeting too. And we'll just give a quick advisory on it.

Okay. There's nothing for the board to, there's no vote, there's no matter before the board on this right now. Just an informational update.

Excellent. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is 16 Waltham Street. And following that, we have another case that is 11 Pleasant Street. Between the time that these were applied for and we're holding our meeting, the wonderful state of Massachusetts came up with a new set of rules. And I just wanted Lisa to give a quick summary of how that will change how we deliberate on these two cases. So Lisa is our town council there. And if Lisa, you could give us a quick summary of what we're in for now.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board, and for the record, Lisa Mead, Town Council. So as the chair indicated, on July 9th, the governor signed into a number of amendments related to the Zoning Act, Chapter 40A, which were rather sweeping. They were effective retroactive to July 1st. The one that you will be dealing with this evening is the standards for a variance under Chapter 40A, Section 10. And you might recall that your typical standard for a variance prior to July 1st was whether there was a hardship related to the land, a shape to part of your soil condition that the applicant didn't create that caused a substantial hardship that didn't derogate from the purpose and intent of the ordinance and was not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. That no longer applies at all The new standard is that the board must specifically find that the strict enforcement of the ordinance or excuse me the bylaw the result in practical difficulty period and then it requires you to make a specific finding and It says the permit granting authority shall weigh the benefits to the applicant and to the public interest, including the interest in supporting the production of housing against the detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. And then, so that's a required finding. And then the board may also consider whether the practical difficulty relates to soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or structures. Whether strict enforcement would impose a financial hardship, not a substantial financial hardship like it used to be. and whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to achieve, and whether the practical difficulty was self-created. So that's the new standard. I do know that the applicant on Waltham Street has submitted a supplemental memo to address this new standard and I believe is probably ready to discuss that with you. But I'm here to answer any questions. I will tell you there is absolutely zero legislative discussion about this aside from the press release. And obviously there are no cases interpreting any of these words. And so you will be breaking ground.

Thank you, Lisa. And so with that, I'd like to call the 16 Waltham Street case. Let me read the announcement here. The public hearing relative to the application filed by Michael D. Rosen, Roberto Israel in Wiener, PC, 255 State Street, 7th floor, Boston, On behalf of the owner, Daniel Souza, 16 Waltham Street, Maynard, for the property located at 16 Waltham Street, Maynard. The subject property is a pre-existing non-conforming multi-family residence located in the downtown overlay district with underlying zoning in the business district. The property is non-conforming due to insufficient lot area for a residential unit, 1,500 square feet required, 1,283 square feet per unit provided. For Section 5 of the Maynard Prospective Zoning Bylaws, the applicant requests a variance from the dimensional requirements for a four-unit multi-family residential use. And I know that might be slightly dated because of the new legislation, but in any case, the applicant, please.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Board, Attorney Michael Rosen representing Ms. D'Souza. With me this evening are Attorney Ryan Clements from my office as well as Mr. Souza. So let me give you a little bit of history on this particular site, and then we'll go through the new law with you briefly as well. So this property was a property that was built pursuant to a permit pulled in 1987 and built and received a certificate of occupancy in 1988. When it was built, it was built for one apartment unit and one commercial unit. So the reason I bring that up is the structure itself is conforming on the basis that it was built in accordance with a properly issued building permit. And the structure has been in existence for more than 10 years. The variance that we need stems from the use of the property, and it is the use of the property that is really the question. My client purchased this property last fall, has owned it for about nine months now. When he first bought it, he came in and pulled a permit to do some work to add solar. I got that permit and then about six months after that, he was contacted by the building commissioner who let him know that the property in fact should not have gotten that permit and that property was in violation of zoning because it was being used as a four family residential property. My client was not aware of the nonconformity of the use. My client bought the property through normal means. Anybody who would buy a four-family home, they go, they hire an attorney, they negotiate a P&S, they go to a bank, they apply for a residential Fannie Mae four-family mortgage. An appraisal is done. The appraisal comes back. The bank reviews it, approves it, looks at the rent roll and provides a mortgage, and he closed on the home. What he was not aware of is that somewhere between 1988 and I am going to venture to say 2009, the commercial use went away and somebody built residential units in the property. If they got permits to do it, those permits are not in the records in the town of Maynard. Although I will point out that since 2010, Maynard did switch the taxing of this property from a multi-use property into a multifamily residential property. The reason I give you that background is really kind of this is, I guess, what I would not consider a standard hearing for me. Normally, I come prepared to argue the law and provide you, you know, legal arguments for why something should or shouldn't be allowed and drilled down on the details of the bylaw and the statutes. That really isn't necessarily the case here tonight until the most recent law change. At the end of the day, we were going to appear in front of you and really explain the situation to you and kind of explain what my client is doing is now trying to bring the property into conformity with local building code, local zoning ordinances, local variance requirements, because quite honestly, my client's a good guy and he was taken advantage of by the person that sold him this property. I do think, as Attorney Meade explained, the law and the change in the law actually makes the decision for you a little bit easier this evening because it does provide you a path that I believe is more straightforward than the path that we were originally thinking about discussing. Why I say that is this. Under the new law, the mandatory balancing test is the benefit to the applicant and the community, including housing stock, in comparison to potential detriment to health, safety, and welfare. If I look at that balancing test, I'm looking at a four-family that's been a four-family for at least 17 years. It complies with the parking requirements. It has 6 parking spaces for 4 units. So it's 1 and a half parking spaces per unit. It is in the downtown, the overlay district. And it is walking distance to amenities in the downtown area. It is providing housing. That is what I would call. less expensive and it's so it's providing an alternate type of housing in the community and i believe it adds no burden to the health safety and welfare of the community because quite frankly it's been operating as a four-family property for 17 years the benefit is you you get to maintain this housing stock uh by getting a variance and by the way we'll have to go and get a special permit and we're going to do that tomorrow evening You'll make the property legally conforming instead of pre-existing non-conforming and potentially in violation. And the applicant has been working with the building department to try and remedy and cure any and all building code or other defects with respect to the property. So we have a gentleman who is, again, this is his first venture into owning commercial real estate or multifamily property. He's going to end up significantly financially burdened by this particular project because of his unawareness of these pre-existing defects, but he's doing all of the right things. And so with that, let me stop my presentation there and see if anybody on the board has any questions. If I can drill down on any of the detail for you or provide you any further information with regard to the property. I could also, if you want me to share my screen, I could probably pull up a picture of the property for you. As all of you are citizens of Maynard, all the members of the board, my guess is if I showed you the property on the screen, if you haven't already driven by it and taken a look, you'd be familiar with what the property is. Again, 16 Waltham Street in the downtown overlay district.

Thank you, Mr. Rosen.

Thank you.

I would ask the board members, Jackie, Leslie, Brad, and myself, Let's start with Jackie. Do you have any questions of Mr. Rosen?

Well, I live a hop, skip, and a jump from that house, and I have never seen the fact that it's a four-family to be even evident, really. I mean, the parking is definitely adequate. I don't really understand a So when he moved in, it was a four-family. Yes. It was supposed to be a three-family. That's what I understand.

Technically, it's supposed to be a mixed-use. It's supposed to be one residential unit, and the rest is supposed to be commercial.

Oh, that's right, because the permits weren't pulled. I forgot about that part, yeah, because I knew he would have had to have permits to make it purely residential. Okay, I understand. I understand. Okay.

And so what, because it is residential and there are four units, you need 1500 square feet per unit. Right. And he has roughly 1285 square feet per unit. So it's the lot of land, which is the deficiency here.

Okay.

Anything else, Jackie?

No, I understand. Thank you.

Leslie, got anything? Yeah, push that mute button.

No, no questions, but didn't except didn't we already hear this property a few years ago?

Yes, we did.

Yeah.

And what was that?

I believe they were trying to convert it to a six unit. And we did when so we did not represent Mr. Susan when he bought the property. After this all happened, Mr. Susan came to our firm to help him. And we did go and pull your prior records. And there was something that was brought before this board, I'm going to say, five or so years ago, and I believe two owners previously, none of which was advise to the subsequent buyers and eventually my client.

Thank you. Rick, do you want to comment on that? Building Commissioner? You're on mute still. Sorry.

Just to clarify a few things. The hearing you had a few years ago was actually an appeal of my decision. The The original owner's son was trying to sell the building and it was being advertised for something that it wasn't, which was he had, I think, I think he had four proposing that it was available for six residential units. And what had happened was his father had gotten a site plan approval from the planning board. And because of the size of the lot and because it was only in the business district at the time, They were only allowed to approve one residential unit in four condominium business spaces that could be rented out, either used as an office or trade shop spaces. And for some reason, the... John Potter, Unexpectedly there's no record of it, the planning board signed off on the position of the building, which has zero setback from the rear lot line and questionable setback from the side lot lines. John Potter, And so the building became protected after seven years because there was a building permit issued for it, but there was never a variance for the setbacks. And now the building is fully compliant because it's in the overlay district and you don't require setbacks in the overlay district. It's not because of its age or anything else.

It's now compliant.

So after your hearing in the past, someone bought the property, the person who sold it to the current applicant, and worked with Bill and I on a plan to bring the property forward with six residential units. And then we lost touch with them, and before I was aware, there was occupancy of the building. The solar permit really has nothing to do one way or the other. A person can put solar panels on a vacant building or a building of any particular use. I was never there to revoke the solar permit. We're just here to straighten this out. And fortunately, the change in state law that went into effect on July makes this, I think, a very easy case for you. That's about it, unless anybody has any questions.

Appreciate it, Rick. Brad, do you have anything to ask? You're on mute still. Brad, push the mute button.

My apologies. Yeah, I guess the only question I have is for our building commissioner. There was some issues surrounding whether it was each of these units are compliant to building codes. And there's something going... Is there something going on? Are they compliant?

There was only one building per... permit issued for this and that was the original building permit in terms of these units and the certificate of occupancy that was issued was for one residential unit and these other business units so in the and i talked to fred i can't can't remember fred's last name who built the building and um Well, actually, I talked to his son and his son had said that because his father had passed away and said that his father said he just couldn't rent out the business unit. So he decided to convert them to apartment. But there's no permits, building permits, electrical permits, plumbing permits to build these other kitchens and bathrooms and accommodations for residential units. So no, we have residential units whose wiring and plumbing has gone uninspected.

But what about the egresses and things like that?

The required egresses are being worked out with the new plan that's been submitted by their architect. And the egresses will be compliant or are compliant with current state code. And we'll be doing various destructive examinations of the wiring and plumbing to see what has to be replaced and what can remain. In addition, state law, the adoption by this town requires that Any building with three units or more has to have a fire suppression system in it. So that will be added as well.

Okay, so if they get a variance for it and it goes through the planning board and all that, before there's an occupancy, it will have to pass. To get an occupancy permit, it'll have to go through your department. Is that correct?

It will, but we've agreed with the owner to do this if that's their preference, to do it on a unit-by-unit basis, on a continuous basis until we have all four units up to code. And that way, he'll be able to deal with his tenants in a way that he's only putting himself out of a place to live.

Well, thank you very much for that information.

And to the extent it's helpful, we have fire suppression, fire safety, mechanical, electrical, plumbing. We've got, I think, all but one of the reports in. We have one more to come in. We have drawings. We have architecturals. And we're putting together a complete package for the building commissioner. And we have agreed with him to work with him. to remedy all of that. So you happen to be the first, I would call it, three steps to remedy all of this. You happen to be before planning because you are tonight and planning is tomorrow. We're going to be going back to, we're going to be going to planning tomorrow to deal with site plan special permit issues. And we're going to be continuing to work with the building inspector on all of these other issues.

Appreciate it. So, I was just looking through the staff report under the new guidance of the state law changes and looking at what we need to consider. It shall evaluate the petition to determine whether strict enforcement of the zoning laws would result in practical difficulty and whether the benefits to the petitioner and the public including the interest in supporting production of housing outweigh any detriment to the public health, safety, welfare of the neighborhood. Those are the two key ones. And the basis of this, if I can summarize it, is simply the square footage per unit. That's the basic point. Is that right? Correct.

Yeah. Okay. Square footage, lot area.

Yeah.

Divided per unit.

Yeah. All the technical numbers that were in this presentation. Board do we do we have any thoughts on this? Leslie Jackie Brad.

Yeah, yeah, I don't I don't see an issue with it. I think I think we should allow a 4. 4 units to be there as long as it, you know, as long as there's occupancy permits that are. regardless of occupancy permits I think yes a for family on that site with I think we should give them the variance for that all right Jackie do you concur with that yeah I think it sounds like a well thought-out plan and I don't see any reason not to do it not to okay Leslie good

Now, before we make that motion to that, I just want to check on the other series of items that we should consider. Is the practical difficulty relating to soil conditions shape topography of the land or the structures? I don't think that one applies. Do you?

No. Probably practical difficulty of the structure. I guess it's a mathematical.

Ah, yeah, OK. whether strict enforcement would impose a financial hardship on the appellant or petitioner. And I think the answer is that's one we need to be careful of because it would.

He would lose his mortgage. If we don't get this variance in the special permit, we will end up having to remove at a minimum one tenant. We will have to notify the lender and he will be in default in his mortgage and it will put the property most likely into foreclosure.

That sounds very ugly. The next item is whether the benefits sought by the appellant or petitioner can be achieved by some other method feasible for the appellant or petitioner. I don't think there is another way.

He could get rid of one of the units, and again, that would put him in default with his lender and render a substantial portion of the property unusable.

And the last item on the list here is whether the practical difficulty was self-created. And I don't think this was self-created.

No, not at all.

Okay. And so reading my notes here on the form, the board vote would be to find that the above reference criteria have been met By the determination, and that would be to grant the variance to allow a nonconformity in the minimum lot area for the 4 residential units. Is that. Is that a good summary?

Sounds like it good.

I can't make the motion. So I volunteer 1 of you 3 to do that.

I have a question 1st before we do that. Is there any public comment on this?

yeah good point i keep forgetting that i am sorry is there any public comment we have no members of the public on our zoom meeting uh and if uh paul uh if you look around up the um the chair uh i believe should recognize the building commissioner yeah i just saw him raise his hand go ahead rick

I just wanted to point out in the course of you doing your findings that there was a provision in the change for July 1st that you should look favorably if the granting of the variance would create additional housing units. Which this will.

Additional or just to legitimize the four that are there? Yeah.

What's the difference?

Just checking. What's on record?

What's actually on record? If the lack of a variance would leave them with them or any future owner with only the option for three dwelling units. So the granting of the variance does produce an additional, the potential for an additional legal dwelling.

Good point.

I'm just saying the state seems to want to make that a sale point in their changes to the Zoning Act.

It's a good point.

All right. And so to phrase the motion properly, is this something you want to tackle, Leslie? Or should we give it to Jackie?

let's let leslie she does it so well oh but i'm stepping back from the board i know but you can do this your last official act would be uh a motion under the new law which would be kind of you know a nice way a nice way to step aside honorable right well okay

Thank you. Only doing this from my scanty notes here. Okay. I make a motion to grant the petition for a variance for the property at 16 Waltham Street to allow for the nonconformity in the lot area and thereby allow the additional... production of an additional legal dwelling, given that we have weighed the benefit to the public and to the owner in so doing, and find that there is adequate parking. And that's just one. OK, that's all I have. LESLIE TCHEYANSKI- Lester, you're muted.

Can you repeat that?

i think we're being recorded all right i second the motion good took the words right out of my mouth so all in favor jackie yes leslie yes brad yes and i'll be a yes as well and so i believe that concludes this portion of your discussions and so What is the write-up step for this? Is this one that we have to wait so many days, Bill or Zoe, to get them the document?

Mr. Chair, it's a standard variance. So the staff would write up the variance and the chair would execute the variance in conformance with your standard practices.

Okay. And so then my question would be, can one of you two recite the timeline of that?

zoe you want to take care of that well um the board has um the the board or the chair should produce a decision on the variance on the document and then i believe it has 14 days for that document to be um stamped by the town clerk and that um date stamp begins a 20-day appeal period um before um yeah until for any kind of appeal that might come in from an abutter or any other party who was standing to do so. And at that point, the applicant should obtain a letter certifying that there has been no appeal from the town clerk, and then the decision can be recorded at the registry of deeds. But where this is legitimizing an ongoing use, I think for all practical purposes, I don't think there's anything that has to be done at that time other than to have the decision recorded.

And I do think based on what happened several years back, I will make sure that I coordinate with town staff and make sure we get this and we get it on record. Again, Fred or Fred's son, or whoever got that last decision on that site plan and didn't go ahead and record it if he had. And again, I'm not picking on anybody, but it certainly would have saved my client some hardship. So we will absolutely make sure we stay in touch with the building commissioner and Zoe with your office and we'll get that decision from you when you have it ready and we'll get it on record and then we'll get you a recorded copy back at your office.

We will be in touch. We will be proactive about making sure.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Attorney Meade, And building commissioner, I want to thank everybody that this was a very awkward matter to begin with. And I appreciate the professional way that everybody handled it. So I want to thank you.

Thank you for your patience with us.

Thank you. Have a nice night.

You too. Thanks. All right. So our next case.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Lisa said she'd stay with us if you wanted.

Yeah, sure. Appreciate it. It's the same kind of challenge, but on a slightly different focus. So the next hearing we have is 11 Pleasant Street. Public hearing pursuant to a variance application filed by Studio Insitu Architects, Inc., 63 Main Street, Maynard. On behalf of the owner, Matthew Jenick, 11 Pleasant Street, Maynard. The subject property, 11 Pleasant Street. is a pre-existing non-conforming multi-family dwelling located in the General Residence District. The property is non-conforming due to insufficient front setback, 25 feet required, 15 feet provided, and lot width, 70 feet required, 66 feet provided. Per Section 4.1 and 5.1 and 8.1 of the Manure and Protective Zoning Bylaws, the applicant requests a variance for proposed construction of an accessory dwelling unit that would create a new nonconformity on the right side setback, 15 feet required, 12 feet, 8 proposed. And there are some documents and diagrams and so forth, and I would say, applicant, please explain.

John, you're not muted, but we can't hear you.

Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you, board and chair, for your time tonight. My name is Josh Eagle. I'm a representative of Studio and C2. I'm joined here by our client, Nat Jancek. As Bill, I think, described, our client is looking to add an ADU to his house. So his house was built in 1880, approximately. Three units currently, two units over three stories in the main structure, and then a sort of attached ADU off the back that had recently suffered from a fire. That unit is a little 280 square foot studio apartment. So our proposal is to remove that and replace it with a new two-story circulatory space. So it's a deck and a staircase. And I will get into the layout of that a little bit later in the presentation. And then a new 882 square foot ADU off of that. We recently did go through conservation. So this site plan, as you guys have seen it, and that was submitted, has been approved by conservation. So, Lisa, also thank you for your description of the new changes in the laws. I was not aware of that going into this meeting, but I think it does change the sort of direction that this presentation could take. But I will just go through our sort of hardships that we were trying to demonstrate here. As you can see from our site plan, the site has a fairly aggressive sloping topography down to the Aspen River. And the majority of the site sits within the 200 foot riverfront setback. So a lot of the site is restricted by the weapons protection effect and the riverfront area protection bylaws. So what we've tried to do is really intentionally straddle the existing interventions on the site. So there is an existing gravel driveway that is surrounded by a stone wall. that's noted on our site plan. That has been in existence on the property, and the two driveways that sort of straddle the main structure were also pre-existing. So the location of the new ADU is intentionally cited to maintain these existing interventions into the site and not create new impervious surfaces and create new disturbances into this sensitive resource area. So we've tried to intentionally site this new ADU as close to the existing structure as we can. And I apologize that I did not attach a basement plan to this, but as you can see, there's sort of a buffer zone around the existing ADU. And if it's helpful for me to share these plans, please let me know on the screen.

I think it would be because there's a lot of information on a very small- Yeah, it's a close neighborhood.

Yeah, it's a very close neighborhood. And as you can see, The existing setback clips the existing corner, the right bottom corner of the house. So part of this proposal is to demonstrate a couple of things. So maintaining access. So currently there is, and actually if Zoe, if you'll allow me to share my screen. Sure.

See if you can request it.

Sure. It just says it's disabled.

All right. One second, please.

No worries. All right.

Try it again, please.

There we go. Okay.

Let's go to this one. OK, so as you can see here, there is an existing deck and staircase that accesses the top floor unit, which is actually Matt's unit. And the ADU here, there is a dashed red line. That is what's being removed currently. And then you can see the existing stone wall and gravel parking area where my cursor is. So we believe that this was granted a variance previously. There was a request in 1980 something, I believe, for that. And we're basically moving that. Let me just stop sharing again, reshare this new frame. We're basically moving that outside of the setback here. So if you can see my cursor here. So this new open air circulatory space, which will connect to the second floor off of both driveways, is moved here and actually detaches the ADU off of the house. So here you can see the footprint of the ADU. So there is actually a basement underneath this, which is part of the structure that is over the setback. Part of the reason for this is so that we can stabilize and maintain access to the basement, which actually sits right under this block here. So this staircase comes down and is where you would access the basement to the main house. So part of the proposal is to sort of shore that up and provide a covered access into the basement. The second point is to create an accessible ADU. So the main tenant parking is this gravel driveway here. The intention of this design is for someone in potentially a wheelchair to be able to walk right onto this platform here and access their unit. So the unit now is substantially better than the one that was there previously, has a full bathroom, full kitchen, and a full living area, and then sort of a flex space down below that can be used or not used. And site accessibility was paramount to the design here so basically having no threshold to get into the front door of the unit and then maintaining access around the entirety of the unit so That is for practical reasons as well. As a landlord, Matt has expressed his desire to be able to access all sides of the unit. And especially during winter months where we have snow, being able to get equipment around here just because of these grades, the topography, getting snow blowers around here is quite difficult. His other tenant actually accesses their unit not only from the front here, but from the side is their primary entrance. So maintaining access all around the site to both driveways is paramount. And then I want to go into the visual character of the design. So as you can see from the elevations, the general massing of the ADU is actually set back beyond the setback. What is actually over the setback is largely visually just like a farmer's porch, a wraparound farmer's porch. It's substantially below grade. So we were really intentional about that, giving the ADU enough space to be practical. So I know that the AD threshold is around 900 square feet. So we're under that, but it's still a very generous layout. So, you know, someone moving to Maynard really does have quite a bit of space to, you know, live comfortably. And visually, it's not, you know, a blight on the neighbors because that portion that sticks over is really subgrade.

And again, may I interrupt you?

Absolutely. Please.

I'm trying to catch up on what you're meaning by subgrade. You mean it's down in a pit?

Sorry. So the lower floor of the ADU is actually below grade. So it's sort of like a basement, but there is windows to it. And then there is actually access to it from the common stair here. So if I may just switch my screen again here.

And that goes out back.

Yes.

I mean, the entry, yeah.

I will share that here.

So you said the farmer's porch is below grade?

No, sorry. The additional square footage of the ADUs.

Like a walkout. It's like a basement type thing?

Kind of, yeah. So here you can see this is the basement portion of the ADU here. So the circulatory space that's covered that separates the main portion of the ADU actually has its own staircase down to this lower level. This lower level is sort of like a basement flex space. And that is visually below grade. Whereas the main living space of the ADU is above grade here.

Oh, I think I get it.

Yep. And then, as you can see from the elevations, this unit, so that basement portion is sort of underneath here. The main living space is above, and they have sort of lookout windows here on this elevation. And then here you'll see the two-story circulatory space. It is open air, but it is covered. And that will access the top floor unit here and then the ADU. And then it will maintain and improve access to both the existing basement and this new subgrade space.

And so the issue that you are requesting a variance for is for that basement under the farmer's porch.

Yeah, it's over the setback.

Yep. Okay. Just checking.

And part of the reason for that, as you can see from this plan here, is that this entrance is the current entrance to the basement and we're actually creating a protected entrance here and maintaining that existing entrance it is the second entrance to the basement here you can see the stairs that go up inside the house from the basement so this foundation wall here sort of extends and is what's driving that line

where are the neighbors um they're they're not i mean it doesn't matter but i mean they're not the neighboring buildings aren't here right uh no i think there's a shed nearby is that right matt and i thought there was a shed in the backyard behind the house when i went by maybe that was the neighbor's shed they do have a shed but it's quite a bit uh ways down uh the slope okay But that's not on this property.

There's a shed on the other side further down. Josh, I don't know if that's on this plan. It might be. OK.

I'm asking because of neighbors.

Yeah. That's my shed. The shed that's on the other side is my neighbor's shed. This shed are you talking about here? It's not. The shed I think she's talking about is not on these plans. OK. Yeah. Yeah. OK.

Got it. Okay.

So bringing up the question of neighbors is something that I would like to explore a little further. Is there, Zoe or Josh, is there an easy way to get like a street view or not a street view, a satellite view to see where the neighbors are or some kind of a regional map?

Sure, yeah. Let me see if I can pull that up.

Can I ask a question while he's getting that up? Please do, Rick. He says that the ADU is going to be 800 square feet. Should I assume that one of the existing residential units is at least 1,600?

Could you explain that a little bit more? Sorry.

Well, I don't know if Lisa's still on, but it was my understanding that the ADU is 50% of the living space, not to exceed 900 square feet. And in a multi-unit building, that would be from the largest unit. It's my understanding that you wouldn't use all the units collectively to get your half.

That's right. So it's 50%. Or 900 square feet, whichever is less, 50% of the largest unit, whichever is less. And it is both, it includes the basement.

Right. And so there would have to be a 1600 square foot unit existing for an 800 square foot ADU. Is that right?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

So, Josh, to answer his question, what is the square footage of the various portions?

Yeah. I can give it to you.

Yeah, I just found something online. It has to be no larger than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. Yeah. Just what you said.

i don't know if we called out those dimensions anywhere on the plans but the don't think of the house is approximately 800 square feet and my unit is two floors yeah so before you're just going to need to verify that um sure yeah we can definitely verify that sorry i'm just trying to pull up our existing conditions here I'm not sure if we even measured the rest of the house.

Yeah, and the only other point I wanted to make is that you have a basement that's not wheelchair accessible, but you're designing a unit that's accessible?

The first floor is accessible. Okay, so the basement. It's like the primary level.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, so based on our existing conditions, I believe we meet that threshold. But we can definitely verify that for you. I'll have to go and get accurate dimensions, because I think you're right, Matt. I don't know that we actually

measured the main house in great detail we pull up a listing possibly yeah i'm trying to pull up the uh property assessments records right now i'm having a problem the building sketch on the gis shows uh first floor and second floor of 34 by 26 footprint and also Now, but I don't know what the breakdown is of the. The units within the footprint.

So, are those the property records or is it the proper off the property card? Because they are, there is a difference between the 2 of them. 1 of them is not unofficial, but it has a sketch. On it, and if you go by the sketch.

That's what I was looking at from the Patriot. It's on the field card as well. It's the same drawing.

Okay. If you have two stories of that, then you're not going to have one unit that has 1,600. No, I don't think so. The property card says it's 2,490.

There's one...

if there are a couple of different rooms there's the largest area which is on multiple floors is 34 by 26 then there's a first floor base that's 18 by 14. um but seeing as there are currently three units in the property we would i think need more detail than what's provided in the card

Thanks, Zoe. That's all I've got. I'm going to take off, folks. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks for your help, Rick. Thanks, Rick. So anything else, Josh?

I think that's everything I have. We can definitely do those calculations for you all, though.

Yeah, they would have to be presented before we take a vote.

Yep. OK. Could I ask a question, please? Please. If we need to hit a certain square footage number, it occurs to me that we could achieve that just by shrinking the size of the basement. Would that be an acceptable way to proceed?

Yeah, you just need to make sure the actual unit is less than half. I mean, is half or 900 square feet, whichever is less.

I mean, above the main building level, we made every effort to make it as small as possible and still actually function properly. So, like, the first floor area would be difficult to change, I think, in land, but the basement would be, you know, in theory, very easy to change.

Right, you just need to do the numbers so you can know the answer, right? We don't know the answer. We can't give you an answer to that question until you know the size of your units.

Got it. But the basement counts is what I'm...

Right, the basement counts, yes.

Great. Now, Lisa, does that basement count if it's just... a utility room for the HVAC equipment?

No, it has to be less than six feet, right? It has to be less than the building code height, right? So it could be kind of an over-larged crawl space with your mechanical equipment.

Right, and so that doesn't count then? No.

That's correct.

That's a good point. But if it's a full-height basement, now it's potentially living space if he's got exits and so forth.

The crawl space might be a practical idea. I have a question, too. Where's the septic? Are you going to hook into the main septic that's already there?

We're on town sewer.

Oh, that's right. What am I thinking? I'm thinking about another project I'm doing. Isn't that excellent?

So, Brad, do you have any questions? Yeah, actually I do. I'm guessing that your footprint is going to get smaller based on what you're going to find is the square footage of your house.

Okay.

Okay. So at that point, I think that you can move your property over so you can be compliant with the 15 foot setback on the right side of the house. And you can gain that two and a half feet off that corner. And then you don't have to come to us to get a variance. And I think that's probably that is you're probably, in my opinion, it might be a good alternative for you.

My understanding was that corner of the house is already over the setback. So no matter what we were doing, if we're touching that corner, I needed to obtain the variance.

That's why I'm saying if you make it smaller, then- You can't do that and maintain access to the basement.

That's right.

That's the biggest thing driving is maintaining access to the- Well, from looking at your drawings, it seems to me that there is a fairly simple way to move it over. you know it's the one corner that you have in the basement which is towards the end of the house which is which is over by you know two and a half feet it seems to me that you should be able to get away um from downsizing the your project and make it compliant and i don't think that that would be considered any kind of a hardship to be able to to be compliant with with the um with the building cover, I'm sorry, with the setback on your ADU.

Well, Josh, you've got some work to do.

Yeah. So, Leslie, do you have any questions? Don't forget your button.

No. No, but it seems complicated in a way. I don't know. No.

So what I would suggest is that we make this a continued meeting to some date certain in the future. And to target a date, Zoe, what is our next probable meeting date?

um that's going to be august 24th is it the fourth it's the fourth monday in august or is it the third i don't remember fourth i believe it's the fourth monday unless it was rescheduled for something i don't think it is i think we're looking at the 24th of august is that

give you guys, Josh and Matthew, enough time to figure out and maybe think about Brad's ideas?

Yep.

If that makes any sense to your plan?

It does.

All right. So in that case, I need a motion. If you're willing to do this as a continuance, I need a motion from somebody to make that continuous.

I'll make a motion to continue this to August 24th. Thanks.

Do I get a second?

I second the motion.

All right. Leslie, yes, no? Yes. Okay. Jackie?

Yes.

Brad?

Yes.

I'll be a yes as well. So we wish you well, and we'll see you in a month.

Thank you.

It's a neat design. Oh, it is a neat design.

Will any new findings... that create some visuals be sent out ahead of time?

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's really helpful.

And if Brad's ideas force you into not having to come in front of us, it would be good to let us know that ahead of time.

Yeah, absolutely.

You could check that box.

All right. So there is another item on the agenda. If we're done with this one for now.

I'm going to take my leave. Take care. Have a nice evening.

Thank you very much. So thank you very much.

My pleasure.

So the, I, we closed the meeting, closed the hearing. How are we doing? No, you didn't close it. Continued it. It's been continued.

That's right.

Continued it.

Okay. Okay. Now, if you want, when you're done, you close this meeting.

Yeah. And so the next item on the agenda is something about electing a chair and a vice chair. You guys want to do that? You want to vote for a chair and a vice chair?

We have enough people here?

You only need three for that. Oh, OK. So you can really fix Jerry's wagon.

Oh, yeah, I vote for Jerry as the chair.

Paul, are you throwing your hat in the ring, Paul?

I don't know. I just got sworn in for another term, so I'm available. Brad, you're the vice chair, right?

I am, and I would love to continue on at being the vice chair with you as the chairman.

Okay, and Leslie, you're You're going back to alternate status, down to alternate status?

Yeah. And Jackie is stepping in. She's going to have to take notes.

Although, Leslie, I think you're on the hook for one more meeting.

Yes, I know. Well, unless they don't continue. Yes, of course.

Or there's something new that comes up.

No, no, no, no.

So I guess we need nominations.

All right.

I nominate Paul to be the chair.

All right. That's good.

I nominate Brad to be the vice chair. And I second, yes?

Perfect. Like I guess I guess that means we need to take a vote. Is that the way it works? We have to go together.

Don't have a democracy still.

Yay. Is this voted on as a slate?

That's what I was wondering. Brad, you want to do this as a slate?

Sure. Alright, I did turn a light on. I'll be right back.

Wow. Bright lights.

Here we go.

Okay. So we have a chair and vice chair on a slate. What's the theory you guys going to vote for us? You ladies going to vote for us guys. So Brad, are you going to vote? Yes. Okay.

I recommend that you take a roll call vote.

All right. Leslie?

Yes.

Jackie? Yes. Brad?

Yes.

I might as well be yes, too.

How's that? Perfect. We don't have to change the website.

How efficient.

All you have to do is flip-flop Jackie and

On the Board of Assessors, we're down to two people, so we only have a general advice. Two? Yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah. So just to fill Brad in on why I'm here at Town Hall, I live in a two-family, and I let the tenant run my internet. I was the visitor on his internet.

He moved.

What'd you do, raise the rent on him?

No, he moved into my house next door. But it was too far away for his internet to be broadcasting for this. And the internet box that we had in the house was too old. So I had to get a complete new service and it's not in yet.

I was wondering. So what did you get for your service? I don't know. My wife figured it out.

I think it's a Verizon thing. I'm sorry to hear that. Yeah, I know, but they got the cable already there.

I have a Mint Mobile box that sits in my window. That I get great, um, wireless wifi throughout my apartment in my house. I have tons and tons of, um, uh, devices that can run simultaneously. And, um, I, they also use my, took my telephone service and I get both of them for $30 a month. Wow. And it's basically it's T-Mobile, which is who runs it. The only thing is that you cannot do is if you run into a problem, you cannot talk to a person.

That's true of most of them.

Yeah. But three times a month and my wireless speeds, when I hit the speed, you know, the Check the speed of my internet. It's much faster than any of the Comcast or Verizon that I've had in the past. Wow. I'm very happy with it.

We didn't know anything about that. We just wanted to get plugged in again.

Sure. It's pretty easy to get plugged in because you just put this thing, a box in your window, and you plug it into the wall outlet. And then that's pretty much it.

You know, so my wife wrestled with somebody on their customer service line twice for about an hour each time.

Right. It also depends if you have cable TV or not, because I stream everything, and I have a TV antenna, so it works for me.

Yeah. But anyway, that's why I'm at Town Hall, and Bill here was very, very nice enough to let me come in. With my own phone. internet troubles which is completely it's very official yeah yeah so anyway thank you very much guys for for this evening and i think we were one of the first struggling with that new uh state rule yeah it makes it easier doesn't it yeah i think it does yeah i especially like the idea that if somebody claims that they have a hardship is it really a hardship

Yeah, is it self inflicted hardship? That's the big 1.

Yeah, well, they no longer have to, they know it's no longer they're no longer obligated to prove a hardship. Yeah, right.

Oh, well, we can we can determine whether it's a hardship or not.

Is there anything else from Zoe or Bill that we should talk about tonight? Or are we done?

I believe there's nothing else that we have, no late-breaking developments. Maybe we'll see you guys on the town forum Wednesday night. Yes, if you would like to attend the public listening session for our housing production plan already in progress, it's on Wednesday evening on Zoom at 6.30 p.m., and you should register. all through the town website so we can get an idea of who's coming i know that a number of you have already registered and i appreciate that but other than that um then i will yield to someone who wishes to make a motion yeah please somebody make a motion motion to end the meeting great excellent and so are all in favor right yes

Excellent. That's unanimous. Thank you very much again, Guy. Thanks, everybody.