001Good evening everyone and welcome to the April 9th Zoning Board hearing. We've got uh Looks like three hearings tonight. First on the agenda is general business. Uh I'm looking for a motion on the minutes of the March 12th hearing. Motion made. Motion by Bob. Is there a second? Second. Second by Chris. All those in favor? Opposed? That is unanimous. Pass that on, please. That'd be great. Um any board members have any conflicts on this particular first hearing, which is Three >> Three Colonial Road. Okay, so on on this hearing here, we will do myself, Bobby Capp, Mr. Pine. One, two, three, we will do uh Where are we? Chris Burns, and uh do Mr. Claro. Um by the way, Ruth, it's nice to have you back. We've missed you. So, make sure that we continue
002to ask questions and comments that you may want to have. Thank you very much. So, with that, um this is on the application of Lorabel Santos, 24 uh Haywood Hayes Street, Marlborough, for special permit relief in sections 3.1.3 of the Zoning Bylaws in relation to a parcel of land on the northerly side of Colonial Road, known and and numbered as 3 Colonial. It's consisting of 30,203 square feet, plus or minus. The special permit relief is sought in order to permit the applicant to erect and uti- utilize a second story addition on the existing residential structure. With that, uh, within the application um, it's indicating that the, uh, he's looking for relief from section 3.1.3. Extension of a non-conforming structure. Currently, the the structure is non-conforming. The proposed use is to add a second story addition
003to the existing structure. Therefore, the applicant states there's no impact. Um, so that's about it. Uh, number of families in the housing units which will be, uh, which in the building, it'll be one single family house. And, uh, plans, um, plans have been submitted upon, um, tonight's decision. With that, um, the planning board heard this, uh, this application on February 18, 2026. Planning board reviewed the petition as listed above at the regularly scheduled hearing and recommends the following. The planning board has made a favorable recommendation with the following considerations. Town planner wrote a letter indicates that the applicant requests a special permit relief from section 3.1 for the extension of a non-conforming structure. Specifically, the applicant is trying to build another story onto the house. The height of the building is within the height limits
004of the zoning bylaw. The footprint of the house will not change. The non-conformity is a side yard setback. This was originally an encroachment which was resolved by an 81P plan that was recorded at the registry of deeds in book 988 plan 12 on January of 2026, thus creating the new non-conforming. Therefore, they also recommend, uh, approval. So, with that, um, you want to put that up on the board over here so we can everybody could see it. Our GIS maps if you'd like. Yeah, we we got them, David. We got them. Oh, you got them in there? Oh, okay. Great. Oh, good. Okay. So, you've got this one, too. And we got And we got the plan and >> Okay. Perfect. Right here, please. All right. So, here's the big plan I will share with
005the this side of the table first. So, how would you like to be called by your first name? What It won't stay up? Yeah, no, it won't stay up. Okay. All right. Then You can put it on that chair. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. That'll work. This That'll work. So, you you had a side lot issue that's been corrected. Yes, I wasn't encroaching and I bought from the neighbor. So, currently the house What's the style of the house now? One story? Was it Cape? Yeah, but there is two bedrooms upstairs, but they about 71 in high. Okay. So, it's roof line, right? Yeah. Want me to bring the picture close to you? Okay. Oh, yeah. How are the ceilings above? 5 ft? Yes. Yeah. So, those are those are the ceilings. 70 in to the ceiling.
006Yeah. The ceiling's coming down. Yeah. Okay. Do you know the age of this house? Do you know? No. Old. Old. So, currently is it vacant now? It is. Okay. All right. Questions? Can I see that plan? No, that that ain't the plan. Just want to see the bedroom. >> So, the second floor will contain a master bedroom, Yes. >> two additional bedrooms with bath two baths and a uh three baths? One below. And that's the cross Okay. Yeah, there's three up there. That's a cross section. This This is a very nice area and Can I see a first floor and a second floor? >> Yeah, this this is a cross section. So, it's cross section. I You got a first floor plan and a second floor plan. >> I have an actual It's back one
007page. Back one page. One more page. I missed it. Right there. There's your first floor. There's first floor. Second office over here of some sort. It's going to be an office. Uh and then the bedrooms are on the second floor. Well, when I looked at the second floor, second floor has got three bathrooms. Yeah. There's no If you If you're thinking about potentially a two-family, the door would be on the first floor over here. There'd be really no way to Right. you know. Is there a reason why you have three bathrooms on the on the top floor? >> Yes, for convenience. For convenience? Yeah. Okay. Like I said, this is a very nice area over there. Everybody's got their own bathroom. It's nice. Convenience, like America. As long as we're not red rooms. Okay. It
008makes sense. Okay, any questions? Chris, do you have any? I do not. Bobby? All set. David? All set. Ruth? All good. Good. Mr. Claro? Um I guess any kind of landscape or driveway driveway plan? >> That was that was going to be one of my questions. And uh landscape is my thing. Will be Yeah. Are you living there or are you going to No, I'm not going to live there. Well, are you taking any additional trees down? Yes. We we took because it was a tree like leaning over the house, I took down. >> Yeah, I'd like probably It will be a nice cute fancy Well, You probably should put in a couple of trees. Yeah. Any recommendation? Fruit trees or I'm going to put them in the front or anything really. Three gallon trees
009or something? Uh say that again? Maybe a couple of three three gallon trees. Mhm. What do you want on the caliper? Three inch caliper? Two inch caliper? Three inch caliper? Okay. Something substantial, you know. Yeah. So that looks nice. So it's not something dinky. What a maple or What do you want for What do you like? I like oak is I like better. It is more expensive than than maple. So Yeah. Oak is a nice tree and it's strong cuz uh maple tree they tend to break the branch easily than oak. All right, so what we'll do is we'll put a condition in there that you provide three Yeah. three inch wide caliper oak trees >> Yeah. to be dispersed. Uh-huh. Probably one on the front, one on the side. I have the I have
010the plot plan if you want to put on on that. Couple in the front just so it looks good. Yeah, you just got to keep it away from the driveway. Right. Any trees in the back right now? No. No. I have the plot plan if you want to draw on Let me take a quick look at that. Just I don't want to waste a lot of time on just a couple minutes. I don't want to make sure the trees are going to be positioned properly. Driveway's going on the right side, right? Yes. Facing the house? Yes. Does this show the driveway in relation to the center? It's the same thing. IT'S THE OTHER SIDE. THIS ONE DOESN'T SHOW THE DRIVEWAY. THIS ONE SHOWS ACTUALLY, YOUR plan might show So, you want to take a picture
011of that? It's up to you. Can I have that plan again? There you go. Yeah, this is the driveway, so maybe just do one more, one more. One, two, and then one on the back. This one belongs to this guy. Oh, that's in color. So, he doesn't touch the house. Okay, this one doesn't touch it. Okay. All right. Anybody from the audience want to be heard on this application? Okay. If not, uh Yes. Yes. It's It's just a kind of an oddity. How many bedrooms are on the the new flooring? Three bedrooms? Yep. And three bathrooms? Yep. Wow. Nice. It's convenient. Sounds Sounds pretty nice. Pretty looking house. It's definitely going to improve the neighborhood. Okay, so currently right now not hearing any objections. We're looking at three 3-in wide caliper oak trees, two in
012the front which I placed on the plan which I'll sign and one in the rear. Um is there a motion? I motion to approve. Motion by David Cloud to approve as submitted. Second. Second by Bobby. All those in favor and that includes the three 3-in caliper wide oak trees, two in the front, one in the back which is identified on the plan. Any questions? Any comments? If not, all those in favor? Opposed? That's unanimous. You're all set. So you have a 20-day appeal period which means someone could appeal our decision and then that would prevent you from starting but you cannot start and submit and get your building permit until the 20-day appeal period is up. >> Okay. All right. And thanks for coming in. Thank you very much. You made it. Do you like
013any specific kind of trees? No, not a maple guy. >> It's an odd background. Yeah, I'm not sure. Chris What is it with this office guy? He's staring at you all night. We just stuck in 17 by 11s on the plans. Just those. Um I've got a note on the plan to go to page two on the locations. Okay. Just so that you're aware. These go Follow through with this. I can submit it those that could be without a moment. Okay, this the next hearing is Constellation Real Estate Investments, 12 East Walnut Street. Why don't you come on up? And I'll read it into the hearing. What did we have on the last one? We had everyone but Ruth. Okay. So, we had you Yeah, we're still going to do with the first two alternates,
014okay? One, two, three. Chris Ruth. and Dave and Dave Clarrow is on this one as well. Yep. All right. This is on the application of Constellation Real Estate Investments LLC 19 Pond Street, Hopkinton for a variance relief from the provisions of section 2.4 and 2.5 of the zoning bylaw in relation to parcels of land on the northerly side of East Walnut Street known and numbered as 12 East Walnut Street and 0 Lein Lane Ave. Shown on assessor's sheet 42 and lots 52 and 57 consisting of a total of 39,819 square feet more or less. A variance relief is sought in order to permit the applicant to reconfigure the existing parcels into two parcels one to contain an existing two-family dwelling one existing two-family dwellings and one lot which would be available for the construction of
015a duplex dwelling notwithstanding the provisions of section 2.4 and 2.5. With that I'll read the application. So on this particular section of the zoning bylaw why they asked for a variance the applicant seeks variances from the minimum minimum frontage of 34.26 feet versus 100 feet and a minimum width of 34 feet 34.232 feet versus 100 feet requirements contained in section 2.5 of the zoning bylaw for one of the lots lot 2A resulting in resulting from a proposed reconfiguration. Uh on the question of item number 12 which section of the zoning bylaw you want to vary the applicant seeks a variance of the minimum frontage of 34 feet versus 100 feet and a minimum width width of 34.32 feet versus 100 feet requirements are contained in section 2.5 of the zoning bylaws for one of the
016lots, lot 2A, resulting in the proposed reconfiguration. Uh on the item of 13, what circumstances relate exist to the relation to the soil conditions, shape, and topography of the subject premises, which do not generally affect other land in the zoning district that would war the requested relief? Uh the applicant states the premises consist of three smaller lots that when combined create a long multi-sided parcel with 134.32 ft of frontage on East Walnut Street and 244.51 ft of frontage on an undeveloped way of Leland Avenue. On the question if the variance was not granted, what hardship would be caused by the circumstances described above? And if the variance was not granted, the applicant would be prevented from using the majority of the parcel and from maximizing the value of the premises. Uh next question indicates state
017why you state why you feel the grant of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public good. One in resulting lots 1A would would meet or exceed all intensity of use requirements contained by the bylaw. And the other lot 2A would meet or exceed all intensity of uses requirements contained by the bylaw except the minimum frontage and minimum width requirements. The lots resulting from the proposed reconfiguration would be larger or similar in size to others within the vicinity. The proposed use of uh proposed use of the resulting parcels is permitted as a matter of right in the zoning district in which the premises are located. The proposed reconfiguration of use of the property would not negatively impact traffic and pedestrian safety or car other issues that would detrimentally affect the the public uh
018in in general. So, with that, I'll shoot over to the planning board's uh comments. Planning board reviewed the petition at their scheduled hearing on March 3rd and recommends the following. Planning Board has made an unfavorable recommendation due to lack of hardship. Town Planner letter indicates that the the applicants request a variance for relief of frontage on a lot with for a proposed new lot using back land combined with an existing property at 12 East Walnut Street. Specifically, the plan is to create a new lot with a two-family structure with a minimum frontage of 34 ft and a lot width of 34 ft and change. The minimum of both criteria is 100 ft. Sections 2.4.9 lot shape of factor, residential district is barely met at 21.98 of the maximum of 22. The Board must consider the
019hardship of soil shape topography as the application as the application lists being unable to maximize value of the property as a hardship and that does not clearly identify one of the three characteristics of hardship. Therefore, they made they made a unfavorable recommendation with that. Before I turn it over to the Board, if there are members here on this hearing, I I suggest that all communication come directly through the chair, not to the applicant or its uh his designated attorney. So, with that, we'll turn it over to Attorney Bernazzi. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Uh so, uh my My name is David Bernazzi. I represent Constellation uh Real Estate LLC. With me is Marlon Nagera. He is the principal of that entity. That entity is the owner of uh the property situated at
02012 East Walnut Street 0 Leland Street. The application relates to those parcels. The property is situated in the residential A or RA zoning district. The property consists of merged lots containing a total of 39,819 square feet situated on the north and east side of East Walnut Street backing up and leaving Leland Avenue, which is an undeveloped public way. You got that. Um This There's a number of lots that are Is this Highland Ave here and Leland Ave here? Um and there's a number of lots that were created around those uh lots which were never I mean those ways which were never fully developed and the result is that there are a number of parcels that were developed based on the understanding that those might exist at some Those streets might exist at some point and
021now have no frontage on um on an existing public way. And I have a couple of copies if you're interested um from the assessor's maps. I've highlighted locus in yellow and you can see up behind it there's that sort of Y-shaped Is it backwards line? um shaped roadway. It's actually shown on the major plan as well, but you can see all the other parcels that are sort of situated around it. Okay? And if that park If that um Leland Avenue had in fact been developed as planned, this applicant could do this about as a right. Uh the size and and area and everything is adequate to to develop a duplex housing residential unit in um in the residential A zoning district. You need 16,000 square feet of land. This has 23,354. So, but for the
022fact that this uh the street was never developed, you're now you leave um a situation where uh we have um a sort of back land that can't be used by the owner. Uh so, the applicant again could propose this to reconfigure these merged lots uh such that the result is a 16,000 plus square foot parcel with frontage on what East Walnut Street that contains the existing structures and meets or exceeds all of the requirements in the zoning bylaw and then a second lot that would be available for construction that meets or exceeds all of the requirements in the zoning bylaw except for frontage and width and again would meet that if Leland Avenue had ever been developed. So, in order to do any of this 30 34 feet 32 inches of frontage and width versus
023100 feet required for for frontage and for width. So, in order to proceed with this proposal, my client would require a variances pursuant to section 2.4 and 2.5 of the zoning bylaw. I can't disagree more with the recommendation from the planning board. I don't know how they can look at this and say that there is no hardship relating to shape topography and soil conditions. You have these merged lots that that create this oddly configured long lot that has twice the required area in the zoning by in the zoning district and then you have this frontage along this undeveloped public way. These are absolutely unique circumstances only to shape topography and soil conditions that affect this parcel that don't affect many other parcels within the zoning district maybe a couple in the in the direct vicinity
024of this. Um and uh you guys as a board sort of agreed with that when you granted similar relief for a parcel on Highland Street and Laurel Street which was an undeveloped public way that ran behind the courthouse from West Street to Highland Street. And And you granted similar relief in the decision in April of 2014. I have copies of that decision for you if you are interested in reading it. But again, you determined that there was hardship in these exact circumstances. So again, I I I can't disagree more with the the conclusion that the planning board reached on this application in making its recommendation. So, this proposed use is permitted as of right on a lot of this size in this zoning district. The resulting lots that would be created if the pro- proposed
025zoning relief is granted, and you have copies of portions of the assessor's map, will be similarly size similar in size to many of the other lots in that surround this this parcel generally in this area. And this proposed reconfiguration isn't going to negatively impact the public. There's going to be no impact on on traffic. There's going to be no impairment of safety. There's going to be no detrimental impact on the public at large. So with that, if there are any questions, we're happy to >> a quick question. So what's the total frontage on East Walnut? Total frontage? >> 100 There's 100 for for the lot that >> No, total frontage. >> It's 134.32. So out of the 134.32, is one of these houses coming down that's on one lot? There are no houses. There's no
026There's no plan to raise any of the houses on Well, you got two houses on one lot now. Correct. Those are pre-existing non-conforming. Are both of these multi-families? No, they're both single families. So it's a two-family on a 16 square >> Well, there's one of them that has a staircase from the second floor down. Your back one. Is that a two-family? Um multi-family. Two units each. Oh, so that So, you already have two two families there. Yes. Is one of those coming down in order to try and make this No. Oh, so that's not even in in the realm of things here. >> That was not part of the proposal. >> No. No. David, as a matter of practicality, if you have uh pre-existing non-conforming and then you alter it in any way, aren't you
027increasing the non-conformity on the first lot? So, in other words, if you cut out the 34 ft in order to give it access, wouldn't you be increasing the non-conformity on the existing? Well, they they comply. So, there is no non-conformity. Well, it's pre-existing non-conforming structures. And then, if you >> But, the dimensions aren't pre-existing aren't pre-existing non-conforming. They conform. So, the existing structures that are there >> Existing structures are non-conforming, but the existing parcel is conforms. Correct. Okay, so if you have a >> So, we're reducing the size of the lot, but we're keeping it in compliance with the zoning regulations. So, that's why it was divided in this manner. Yeah, cuz we we take each case individually, and sometimes it's warranted on some and some on the other. >> You know, I was just
028just suggesting to you that that this board had had in its decision stated that there are circumstances similar to this that affected another lot that created a hardship So, can you show Can you tell me What What is your hardship? Are you indicating that Leland Avenue would be would is creating some of the hardship? The existence of So, this lot was created prior to zoning based on the understanding that Leland Avenue was going to exist. But, you're not coming you're not going in front of the planning board to try and get Leland Avenue actually paved. That is Well, I You're not using any of Leland Avenue unpaved area. >> correct. Have you thought about doing that? I don't know if you have if you considered Um We I came here like uh 2 years ago,
029spoke with Larry Duncan at the time. He mentioned that some neighbors wouldn't like that. But Leland Avenue that's privately owned. That's not That's not the town. >> I know. It's a town paper road. It's a town paper road. That goes way back when it was when it was laid out. >> to like this dotted lines. It's only paved a short distance here on this side. The Highlands to there and the Highlands to like there or something. It's It's shown on that the the paved portions are shown on that sec- portion of the assessor's map that I gave you. Okay, just cuz it says private way, Leland Avenue 33 ft wide undeveloped private way. >> It's an undeveloped Town owned. >> It's not owned. It's town owned. It's not Town owned. It's town owned. It's town
030owned. It just was never developed. So you're not counting frontage on Leland Way then. We can't. Correct. It's not important. But It's not important. You know, the way that So So my question >> these parcels were laid out, they were laid out such that they would have frontage on Leland Way, but Leland Way was never developed. So now the now you're you're saying because the town chose not to develop this road this road, all of these parcels that were uh designed to front on it that were leaving without frontage have no remedy. Well, that's what the variance remedy is. >> So what are you stating as your hardship? I guess >> So owing to >> Value? Owing to the to the circumstances He What he's saying is that there are no circumstances that make this
031a unique parcel that create hardship. He's acknowledging that we have hardship. He's just He's saying they're not created by the shape, topography, and soil condition and other matters that affect this parcel that don't generally affect the other parcels. And I I would suggest that they do. You have an oddly shaped resulting parcel that that from from the from these merging that is two times the required lot size for a um for a duplex with all of this land to the back um that it was fronting on a road and it was created that was never developed and it was created with an understanding that it would have frontage on that road. So the town is coming in and saying, "Sorry, we didn't develop this. You're out of luck. You can't use that." So there are
032circumstances relating to the shape topography, soil conditions that affect this lot that don't affect all this lot and that lot and that lot and all these other lots around in this zoning district. They just affect this one. Uh and there may be one over here on the other street. What? I think the road the lots were developed because the road was supposed to be there. Now it poses a safety concern with fire engines getting in there and which >> What do you You're going to have You're going to have a driveway what? To Correct. The driveway comes into it. 10 ft long? 10 ft wide? Well, if there's a fire or let's see how many structures. One There is a garage back there, too, guys. You see that they're proposing? Ronald, do you know how
033wide the fire truck needs to be? 16. I believe I'm not sure if it's 15. Yeah. I told him it's 30. It's It's 30 ft. The driveway is saying it's 30. It's It's not even a conforming road. Roads are supposed to be what? 50 ft? But it's not a road. It's a driveway. Well, I know, but I'm saying once again the proposal lot was there and created in good faith that legal land was going to go in there. But it didn't go in there and just be because it's not in there and that kind of You're right, it does wipe out that lot, but it's it's it's So that's why the road odd circumstances that relate to this lot that that cause hardship to the owner. >> But you're indicating to maximize the value of
034the premises. So he he bought this what? Six years ago? Five years ago? >> Five years. So he he knew what he bought that. >> pieces. Right? And now we have two two-families and now you want to put another two-family plus a 36-ft wide garage. It I mean that's the proposal that the board If the board thought that the proposal exceeds what this particular lot could handle, and you know, I'm sure that my client would be willing to reduce, you know, the development on that second parcel. Dave, I'm sorry. Did I hear So, he purchased this not that long ago. Did he purchase it in its entirety or was it combined? >> he Are you entirely That was always Both transactions showed that it was purchased at the same time. >> been the same shape
035for as long as you can remember. That That part of it. Yeah, I I don't Yeah. Correct. But but the the lots the lots have been in common ownership, so they merge. Yes. So, they were separate lots going way back in time prior to the zone. But when zoning came into effect and the zoning Yeah, they merged. Then it all merged. >> It was a separate lot. >> But they were separate lots originally created. >> is where the exact dimensions of a separate lot and then eventually because of common ownership they merged. >> They merged into a single lot. Although the the assessor's office still assesses them separately. >> Yeah. So, how how old Look at the assessor's map. You can see that they still show it as two There's only one lot. I took
036out my crayon and colored it yellow. But there is a line under the house. So, how old are the two the two two families What's the front How old is the front two family? I would say early like 1940. Uh it's old. Predates zoning. I think both things predate zoning. They wouldn't have been able to Hypothetically >> construct this under current zoning by regulations. Dave, hypothetically, if you if you had enough land for two conforming lots, but on one side of it you had a non-conforming structure. This is hypothetically. It has nothing to do with that. Oh, okay. Sorry. Okay. So, you have enough land for two conforming lots, but on one side, you have a non-conforming structure. And you divide it in half, and you have two conforming lots, but you have a non-conforming
037structure on one of them. Would you have to go to the ZBA in order to split off that second lot? >> think so. I think you can just chop that lot off. >> Because you're not increasing the non-conformity. >> the non-conformity. On the zone on the on the actual zone line. >> have two deep lots to be able to like a front lot. Lot of you if you were doing a division a subdivision, you always cut off the street front lots first cuz you can just do them on any any So, in this case, it doesn't increase the non-conformity of of that Correct. >> even though you have a non-conforming lot. >> Correct. We're leaving purposely leaving it as a conforming lot. But you're changing the lot itself. So, when you change that lot, it's
038no more that non-conforming lot that once was. You're taking a piece out, and now you're making the the remaining lot non-conforming. >> But the lot is non-conforming. The structures The structures are non-conforming. >> isn't that non-conforming when a structure is non-conforming? If it doesn't require >> but the lot is conforming, so we're not doing anything to increase the non-conformity. I I disagree with that on that. It's tough. Why don't we uh I'd like to hear what some someone in the public would like to make some comments on. Please state your name and direct everything through the chair, please. Who would like to speak? I'll speak first. Yes. Your name, please, ma'am. I'm Carol Avery. I am one of the trustees of the property at 14 East Walnut Street. A family home that has been in
039my family for 65 years. Currently, I know about I mean, I grew up there. I know about the two dwellings um at 12 East Walnut. Currently, my one of my concerns is it's already a parking lot. There are eight vehicles there at any given time. Um you put two more houses in there, that could be another four vehicles. Now we have 12 vehicles in a very small area. Um, also, I wanted to talk a little bit about um, the property in the back. I do own um, uh, two lots that are on that April View and Avenue. Um, I grew up there. I played in that woods. There's ledge there. I mean, is there a possibility of blasting in that area that could be so close to my home that it's damaging? Um, just two
040other quick points that probably don't have anything to do with any of your zoning bylaws or anything, except the best kept property on the street. And I'm sure the police department are very familiar with that address. Thank you very much. >> Can you do me a favor and come up and show me on this plan where you are? So, Here's East Walnut. >> Yep. Here's that property. >> Yep. This is the home and I own right here. Okay. Yep. Okay, thank you. Anybody else care to be heard? Chair? All right, let's go let's go to you. You raised first. Your Your name, please? Uh, Brienne Collette Tree. Um, thank you. I cannot say I really appreciate everything you have to say. I can't agree more. Um, couple questions. First, our So, I live at 12
041East Walnut Street, where the property right next to 12. Those properties, dwellings, they're right on top of our property line. It doesn't feel like it's big. You hit it right on the nose, they're not the best kept properties. If you you own 12 East Walnut Street, you own those properties, what makes us think that you're going to keep them any better or more kept than what's going on right now? I mean, we've got dog houses that are overgrown with brush. We have Is that a chimney out in the back there? There's jugs that look like they're filled with urine. There's wash cloths mixed. It's gross back there. On top of that, that might be even even as it is, it's going to be the only green space, if you will, that I have we have
042to look at. And now what? It's going to be a parking lot with another dwelling? I am 100% object to this. Do you need a Yes, please. They're all the time. Uh Michael, you were you were good. I don't speak very loudly, so it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman. Knock yourself out. Sure. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and and allowing me to speak. Thank you, board members. Uh Mr. Chairman, I I I need I'm sure I need not remind you or any of the board members that when they were appointed as board members, they swore to abide by the zoning bylaws and base all their decisions on those zoning zoning bylaws. There are four requirements before you can vote to uh give relief to a to an applicant. I won't go through
043them all in detail. I could, but in the interest of time, I'll I'll I'll I'll save you that ordeal. In any case, I think the most important one here is the issue of hardship. And while the council for the applicant attempted to present a hardship case, it was at best, with all due respect, weak. There is no hardship here. And any hardship that is here was self-created. The property is no different in terms of lot size, shape, or topography than any other lot of the lots in that district. As a matter of fact, it's probably the most buildable lot there. In terms of the the other lots, when the zoning bylaws came into effect in the early '60s, the lots in common ownership were given the opportunity to keep them as separate lots, or they
044would be merged into into one lot, which is what happened. Now, the advantage to the to the owner of those lots was a a huge tax advantage, where they were not taxed on individual lots. It was a great savings. Now, to come forward and say, "Oh, you know, yeah, I saved a ton of money on taxes. Now, I want to do an end around and and use those lots to create a lot that I can build a couple of duplexes on." As board members, and and I don't want to remind you again because I know you don't need to be reminded, but you swore swore to uphold our zoning bylaws. So, if your intent is to ignore what you swore to, then you should approve this application. If, on the other hand, you decide that
045you should stand by what you swore you would stand by, then you have no choice but to deny this application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, board members. Thank you. Anybody else care to be heard? Um We'll go ahead. Which one, me? Yes, ma'am. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry. Pam Fields, I live on Carroll Street. Okay. I don't even know where to start, okay? Which What number Carroll are you? >> It's up on the corner. Five. >> it, okay. >> Right behind me, and they own the property next to me. It's just deplorable. Um my property's over 100 years old in my family. My grandparents built it. Um their property is 1986 next door to me. Uh they don't take care of the property. They don't own it. A variance that was there for
046the fence, it's always broken. I fixed it about 50 times, and I'm too old for that now. They just collect the rent. You never see anybody. Um fence is broken. Yard is a mess. They throw trash in my yard. They blow leaves in my yard. There's some kind of a weed growing over the fence into my yard. They need to kill it. Uh there's trees behind my house from their land that they want to build now. Uh and they're almost touching my house, and they don't take care of that. There's all trash in the woods from the house on Walnut Street. I remember seeing I go behind there to check my garage. And I remember seeing a couch, an easy chair, television, uh three tents. People were living in the tents behind my house. And
047I'm sorry, but I'm very emotional about it right now. The police are next door frequently, and they can They do anything. Uh it's a civil matter. Well, I don't want any more civil matters, okay? Um one time the state police were there, well, maybe 15 years ago. They broke the doors down with battering rams, next door, the the one that he owns. And um I called the police cuz I saw a policeman there with blue with somebody with blue jeans with a gun drawn. And I said uh somebody's here with a gun. Oh, that's one of ours. I said, "Should I duck?" I mean, what's going on over there? And then about a week ago there was a a guy in my yard. They're always like in my yard near the fence, and I said
048I opened the window. Um I said, "Hello, could you come here a minute? I'm on the front street." He looked at me totally ignored me walked away, jumped over the fence, and left. And I said >> He was in your yard? Yeah. He takes responsibility very well. And um so, that's not a good That doesn't make good neighbors. That's not a good landlord. Um so the years ago when they built that house next to me they dumped all these big boulders behind my house. And now it looks like a wall. And there's also a big barrel. We don't know what's in the barrel. I can't imagine. Um the um There's always people jumping over my fence. The The fence was put there for variance to keep them out of my yard. Who put the fence
049up? Vidmar Realty. The original owners? >> Sidney Smith was the original owner of all the slumlord properties. And then then they um sold it to Vidmar for about 35 years. And now there's new owners. I didn't know till about 2 years ago. And I said and it hasn't Nothing has been done in good faith with me to be a good neighbor. And so um about 4 years ago, somebody from that house came through the fence with a motorcycle. And right into my yard, the whole thing is coming down. And it took a while to get someone to fix it. And you know, and the police said, "Gee, this is He said we are no strangers to them." And I said, "Yeah, you think?" Um So, the man that came I think was the same one
050that was there last week. He looked the same. And he said I said back then, "What are you doing?" I opened the window. "I'm fixing it." He was patching it together. It's all patched. It looks It's all holes now. I said, "It looks terrible." I said I said, "You need to fix that the right way. You need to replace those pieces." And he says, "Oh, this is all going to be replaced." 4 years ago. So, it hasn't been. Um Now they want to build another two houses or whatever, duplexes, four families. Oh, that should be great. The noise is terrible. There's a lot of drama. Uh there's somebody that chases people out of the house with a broom and yells um F bombs all the way down the street. Um it's really awful. Who's going
051to want to buy my house? Um it says, "And if they build behind me that's my only place of peace and quiet. If you take that away from me I have to get out of Milton." Um And if you give them a variance I want a high wall. I don't want a fence, I want a wall. Fences are broken, they don't fix them. I want at least 8 ft. I want I to don't want to look at these people. I don't want them wandering onto my property. I've had enough. I'm too old for this now. And you know, I'm a cancer survivor. And the doctor says, "You shouldn't have any stress." I says, "Well, you don't have my neighbors." There are some good ones here tonight, don't worry. Um so, anyway, um So, they're not
052good landlords and they don't make good neighbors. I don't know what they're doing over there. That was the smart thing to do. And if they do, we've built on ledge. And you would have to blast. I don't want any blasting because that the blasting up on their hill when they built all those things, um caused damage to my house. So, if they're going to blast, if you give it to them and they're going to blast, I want a million-dollar insurance policy. I want to be protected. And the duplex will be fronting on Leland Ave. Leland Avenue is a private right-of-way colonial law. They do not have a hardship at all. They own numerous places all around town. They're getting a lot of rent money. And so, there's no hardship. Um and they they're going to
053be wanting to use Leland Ave. Well, they're going to have to come through me cuz it goes right by my house. And right there, I had it surveyed. I had a lawyer there years ago. And they told me exactly what the scoop is. Um And I want one more thing you should know. I don't know if you're aware. On the map they're presenting, and the way they reconfigured, it's that that is not accurate. That does not represent the real configuration of the land. That's um fake news. And I hope you deny it. Please. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Cabassa? Can I ask a question before you start? Was there already a variance on this before? And what what was the fence uh She's talking about another piece of property. The variance was at
05426 Haywood. And she know she's talking about another piece of property in that period that my client didn't own the property. Well, get a bunch of liars here. Before this question, I was going to ask about lot B. And that's the property she's talking about. It fronts Haywood Street, ma'am. Yes, 26. It's a duplex. Oh, and the variance that I got for that back then that that I have the copy um it was conducive to a one-family home. When I wasn't around, my grandmother was living there. 86-year-old woman. They took advantage of her. They built a duplex. I screamed when I saw it. And um it was like, "Too bad." And they didn't They were in violation for a long time because they didn't put the fence up. But that's a different day. And there
055was a woman there with a Well, a dog. And I said, "Is that an attack dog?" And she said, "Yes, it is." I said, "Well." Well, that's a That's a separate parcel in a different day. You don't know that development. You don't know that development. You don't know that development. It doesn't matter because they own it now and there's still problems. It's 40 years of problems. And um Thank you. >> good. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. He gets signs. D Mr. Cabassa? I'm a no. I don't We we might as well just close the hearing and go. Well, I want him to Well, I know, but he's going to speak against it. So, what we're wasting time. Okay. Well, I mean, you don't want any information on the property. I'm the only one
056in the room that knows the land up there. I know I've lived there since 52. My grandmother bought property there in 37. You want to know about that property? Ask me. I'm the only one in town alive that knows the property. Okay? First of all, there's a road there now. Relax. I want before I get more involved, I'd like to see the revised plan. I don't have a copy of it. Is it possible for me to see it and then be heard? Is that a possible? I'll take a copy of it. Thanks, Dave. While you're looking at that, I want to Now, this is ChatGPT. I'll be the first one to admit it. I'm not a lawyer. And we talked about it being a non-conforming lot versus a non-conforming structure. Massachusetts, a non-conforming lot, often
057called a grandfather lot, is a parcel of land that was legally created under older zoning rules but no longer meets current zoning requirements. What that means in plain terms, a lot is considered a lot is considered non-conforming if it falls short of today's zoning standards such as minimum lot size, required frontage, road access width, and setback, distance from property lines. >> But this is a conforming lot. I think what what he's saying is that he's not increasing the non-conformity because he still meets the zoning But it's not a conforming the structure is is is not within the setback. It's not the structure, but it's But he's not he's not increasing the structure. There's no change to the to that lot. There's no change to this, is what he's saying. It's not a non-conforming >> There
058is He's making a This lot is newly formed from this lot. He's making a new lot. So, he's making a non-conforming lot. The idea is that he's not increasing the non-conformity in that he's not >> lot conforms. The lot conforms. Because the lot still conforms to today's standards. So, he's not incre- He's not increasing any non-conformity. That's the idea. So, now if he touched the structure in any way, he'd be increasing the non- >> not a non-conforming lot ever. It's always been properly dimensioned to be a conforming lot. It has non-conforming structures on it. Okay. Okay. There's one thing I forgot to say. Real quick. Years ago, just one thing. Years ago, Cena Hallworth was on the planning board, brilliant lady. She said to him, "If they ever try to build behind you where the
059house is built." She says, "Please call me immediately. They cannot build it." And she went through a whole story about it. And I thought, I remember that. I said, "Cena was really smart and she did a whole >> board has already voted on that. So, Cena Hallworth is not on the planning board. Yes. Okay, Mr. Clavijo. Thank you. If I drove by your house or your house, I would see a well-kept area in amongst the neighborhood well-kept area. Drive by that one, it's a dump. I wonder if it's indicative of what we'll have to chase to get something new proper so that it's not a detriment in our neighborhood. I have the original plans for that neighborhood. All right? I have them at home. I didn't think to bring them. I didn't think I needed
060to. >> That's fine. You don't need There's a road there, Lillington Ave. It goes from Cow Street. I understand. Goes up around and intersects with Highland Street. That property back there, that open land, was sold off as narrow parcels to whomever wanted to buy so they wouldn't have to put up with anybody behind them. My grandparents did, the Mancinis did. Camolli Your grandparents did? >> Camolli Now, just looking at the condition of the property at 12 Is it Is it 12 East Walnut Street? Yeah. Yeah. To me, kind of looks like we might have a problem back there. It's a dump. Okay? It's a dump. If you'd like, at another time, I'll take some pictures and I'll bring them to you. Now, there's two roads up there right now. It's Leland and Highland. Why not
061use those roads, if it's possible, to do something proper? Maybe it would be so expensive to develop the roads that it's prohibited. I This is The The only hardship I can see is if you vote against it, you're going to deny it. I'm just speaking frankly. Sorry, the way I do it. It's a good neighborhood. It's a well-maintained neighborhood with very few exceptions. We want to keep it that way, and I am dead set against saturation housing and blowing that Leland Street all the way up to East Walnut Street. You want to develop it? Develop the road the way it's designed. It's already there. It's on paper. I have it all. If you put it >> Absolutely not. I have it, too. All right. Thank you. >> Absolutely not. Saturation housing at the to make
062a profit off the people that live there. Thank you. Anybody else? Can you be heard? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Michael Lagace Jr., 2 Highland Avenue. Uh my wife We we abut Highland Avenue. Uh we're actually right across from where this property is going to be. So, we see it from our house every day. Um you know, a few things that uh I have issues with. Um the idea of creating or asking for frontage on a road that's not developed, that's a bunch of trees. The idea of frontage is for emergency vehicles and whatnot. Um Leland Avenue's it's it's not developed. So, asking for frontage and then going somewhere else uh for access is just it's just weird to me. Um the density, there's already two you know, there's already four apartments, right? On the property.
063So, adding two more just seems just way too dense for that small space. And and three uh the 36-ft garage is just I mean that's just ridiculous, right? Um and then everything else everybody else said that the condition of the property, it's a dumping ground back there. It's just not kept. It's very very concerned, you know, for the area. Um I urge the the board to vote no. Thank you. Anybody else care to be heard? Board members? I move to withdraw and deny it. Mr. Chairman, Michael Lagace would like to withdraw the petition. Would like to withdraw it? So, so there's been a request to withdraw the the petition. Any uh objections to withdrawing the petition? Not at all. Okay. With that, there's uh do I have a motion to withdraw? So, he's requesting to
064withdraw it. So, therefore Is there a motion to withdraw this? >> motion to withdraw it. Second? Second. Second. All those in favor? Opposed? That's unanimous. The application has been withdrawn. Thank you. withdrawn indicated with or without prejudice without prejudice without That's the That's the purpose of the withdrawal. So, if you could present it again It always says without prejudice. Peter, nobody would ever withdraw with prejudice. Well, we did. He withdrew it, so it's a choice. Oh, uh we don't We didn't prejudice. Oh, no, we didn't prejudice. No one said without prejudice. You withdrew without prejudice? That was the whole point. We only voted on the withdrawal. You can say it 100 times. Well, I know that. Well, I'm just trying to clarify. Well, they're telling you withdrawal without prejudice. That's the whole point of doing
065it. >> Yep. We do. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. So, with that with that next hearing is Sanchez Realty LLC. I've got to recuse myself on this one. Should the chairman say okay? Which Christmas? Yeah, both of us got it. I can't counsel him until he gets back, then. Should I get a crown? No. Do you know how to do this? I'll try. You know what? Best shot, David. A million years. So, that's chief? You're out. I'm in. I'm the king. Okay. We all set? Oh. Audience, can you move it out, please? Mr. Fields, if you move it outside, we're going to have to continue our meeting. It's okay. Good evening. Uh my name is Bobby Cabazzal, I'm taking over for David as he's recusing himself. Uh this is on the meeting uh 6:15
066on the application of Sanchez Realty A. Megna Corp amending for special permit relief through section 3.1.3 of the zoning bylaw in relation to a possible land on the northerly side of Water Street, known as number 17 Water Street and consisting of 6,600 square feet of land, more or less, as shown on assessor's sheet 48, lot 334. Special permit relief is sought to is sought pursuant to section 3.13 of the zoning bylaw in order to confirm the use of two dwelling units on the lower level of the property. A two-bedroom unit containing 1249 sq ft known as unit one and a three-bedroom unit containing 1376 sq ft living space called unit two and to continue the use of the upper level as office space. Uh the applicant states that Uh the special permit is sought in
067harmony with the general purposes is the property sought in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw and the applicant states the zoning bylaw permits the zoning relief sought by the applicant on a special permit basis basis and the proposed residential use of a portion of the premises is permitted in the zoning district in which the premises are located. Uh the explain the reasons you assert that the proposed use of the premises will not create undue traffic congestion or impede pedestrian safety. And the applicant answers there is sufficient off-street parking for the proposed dwelling units, there will be no increase in traffic volume from that generated by previous uses of the premises. Peak times of activity for the proposed residential use will be opposite to and will not conflict with peak times
068of activity for the office use. The reasons you assert that the proposed use will not cause harm to the neighborhood or create a nuisance. The applicant states the residential use of the premises is consistent with other uses in the vicinity and will have no adverse effect on the neighborhood nor create a nuisance or hazard affecting the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. The planning board met on March 3rd and they're issuing a unfavorable recommendation due to numerous non-conformities already tied to the property and lack of sufficient parking. And that was the planning board, the town planner says that um specifically the plan is to create a two-family residence on the first floor. A structure that currently exists as a non-conforming business on the main floor with a residential apartment on the lower level.
069The main floor business is not changing, only the first floor proposed converted to family. According to the zoning bylaw, the lot itself is non-conforming. It has 6,500 sq ft of the required lot size of 12,000 sq ft for a two-family and has 67 ft of frontage of the required required 100 ft. The structure is also non-conforming as it has setback encroachments in the front, rear, and rear side setbacks. For parking, there are driveways on both sides, one presumably for the business and the other for the residence. Recently, a fence was constructed, effectively shortening the residential driveway to a maximum of two cars. Given all the nonconformities and lack of parking, I recommend an unfavorable report be forwarded to the ZBA. Matthew Benoit, town planner. With that uh I will hand it over to Attorney Bernazzi.
070Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, my name is David Bernazzi. I represent Sanchez Realty LLC. With me is David Sanchez. He is the principal of that entity. Uh and Sanchez Realty LLC is the owner of the property located at at 17 Water Street. And this application relates to that lot. The property is situated in the general residential general residential or RA zoning district. The property is an approximately 6,000 sq ft lot situated on the northeasterly side of um of Water Street. It's improved by a an existing commercial building um that contains approximately 3,000 square feet on two floors. It has a store it was built in 1950. It has been historically used for professional office space and medical office space, but at some point prior to my client's ownership, the lower level was
071converted to two residential dwellings by the prior owner. So, we are not proposing to create something new. We are seeking to confirm what is already there and existing. These two existing residential dwelling units are a two-bedroom with approximately 1,249 square feet in it. The second is a three-bedroom with approximately 1,376 square feet. Since this application was submitted and the plan was submitted, my client has improved the property by paving this driveway from front to back to the rear lot line from paved and paving this driveway from front to the back lot line. That shed's been removed. Correct? Shed's been removed. It was always asphalt, but I just took the old asphalt and put new asphalt. There is in fact a gate there, but oddly enough, gates have doors. That hence the name gate, which would
072allow you to open that gate and continue with your vehicle to park it on the other side of the gate. So, there has been no decrease in parking at all since since this was filed per the um the planner's um letter. These are photos um with the lens. Unfortunately, um these lots I mean, these driveways are not wide enough such that any parking on them is going to have to be stacked. So, that doesn't really work well with commercial uses. So, the plan would be to have the tenants of one of the units control the parking on that side and they would again have to stack whatever vehicles they have. And then on the other side, the other unit would be again they would have to stack their parking. So, again, the the proposal here
073is to confirm the right to legally use these existing dwelling units that were constructed by a prior owner. My client purchased the property in December of 2025. In order to do this, he would need a special permit under the section 3.1.3 of the zoning bylaw for the alteration of a non-conforming use. If the zoning relief is allowed, there is no proposed structural alterations. Again, these units exist. Obviously, if the relief is not granted, then the lower level will have to be converted back to commercial space. Our residential units are permitted as of right in the zoning district and this parcel is surrounded by other residential uses. And I understand over the years the commercial use of this property solely caused some issues with the neighbors. There should be sufficient off-street parking for all of the
074residential uses that are proposed. There should be no increase in traffic issues and no increase in parking issues. These are existing units. The property has been used unlawfully in this manner for some time without any complaint from the neighbors about it. So, um I would suggest you that there is not going to be any increases because we're not changing the use that has been there. We're just confirming the legality of it. Um I would suggest to you that there would likely be greater traffic issues and greater parking issues if you were to convert both floors to commercial use. The upstairs has eight individual four on each side small offices or examination rooms. And presumably prior to its conversion, the lower side had the same with with a big central office space in the middle. So,
075if you were to put in convert this to a professional medical building with 16 examination rooms uh and the accompanying medical personnel, clerical staff, and patients, I would think that you would significantly increase the flow of traffic onto and off of this parcel, and you would significantly increase your parking issues because there just isn't enough parking for that kind of a use on this particular property. Uh the other thing that you would be doing would you would be eliminating this what presently exists as sort of opposite peak types of use. So, obviously a commercial use is going to have all of its peak use, all of its traffic, all of its problems happening Monday through Friday 9:00 to 5:00. So, if we make the whole building like that, then everybody descends all at once and
076then leaves. But, if you have a mixed use in the building, then the upper floor is going to have its peak of times of operation Monday through Friday 9:00 to 5:00, and the residential uses are going to be opposite of that. So, there would be less likely to have a huge pile of of people in in of patients, personnel um pouring into this building all at the same time. I would suggest you this is very similar to the relief that this board granted with relation to the former School Street Market property in January of 2014. In that instance, the old Charlie's Pizza that was up on the second floor was converted to residential use. That was not even in a a fully residential zone. That was in a mixed I forget the name of the
077of the zoning district that permits mixed uses. But I have copies of that decision if anyone has any interest in looking at them. So with that said, I again I know that there was there were issues brought up about bedroom counts and the like. Um you know, the the three-bedroom you know, we we could certainly my client would certainly be amenable to reducing the bedroom count in that building if if it made the court I mean it made the board more amenable to granting this relief. >> Okay. Um could you show me Dave whoever either Dave show me I'm just a little confused here which I think I got this right. >> Yep. The first unit is here, here, here, here. That's correct. >> Here? >> Mhm. That's in the front. That's in the front.
078Okay. And then the back has the three bedrooms. >> That's in the little mechanical room in the back. They won't be part of those units. Okay. What's existing is uh All of it. Is that is that existing? Yeah, it's it's the way it is. Because I remember when I had the ice cream store back in the day, okay, with Paul Buffalo, God bless him, had his offices downstairs as well as upstairs. >> has got bathrooms, toilets, bathtubs, stoves, kitchens, got kitchens Out of curiosity, who converted this? Any idea? It happened during the ownership of the prior owner. I don't know who did it. The prior owner was you know was I think a trustee. Okay. Okay. Uh as far as the driveways go, it would be tandem parking obviously. Tandem correct. Correct. Which which would
079not work with a commercial use because you can't come in to get Well, it's clean. Yeah. Then you have to knock on the next guy's door and say, "Hey, can you move your car or go back to work?" I don't think it's it's it's not going to work. Well, it works up it at country clubs cuz they have the garages in a tan. That's only two cars. But if you have How many cars can fit in there? Four? But presumably there wouldn't be that many cars for a two-bedroom apartment. >> Right. It's probably going to be two or three at the max and those people will have to make arrangements to get in and out. >> Right. So you're going to say one is designated for one >> Yeah. So this this whole side cuz
080this has an entrance door here. Okay. So this whole side We have this driveway if you will. Is this wide enough here? Yeah. It is. >> It's 12 Well, it's actually right here is 15.9 ft. Right here is 12.9. >> And then it widens up. Can't get your trucks in there. No. This bedroom is on those photos Mr. If you want to see them. Not my tenant with them. I mean Okay. Yeah. I I know. I I I I I like your idea about the two bedrooms per unit. I know. And I wouldn't oppose to that. I'm I'm promise you like I don't That would be one of my He could convert one of them into a living space because the living space is sort of an >> It's tiny. It's kind of >> Yeah.
081Yeah. It is. It's It is enough living space. It almost looks like a dining room when you go I don't know if you can put a couch there and walk by it. Walk through it. So I I think I think he would be amenable to converting one of those bedrooms into living space. The engineer drew it up that way cuz that's what it looked like. >> Yeah. We think this bedroom three would be part of the living area. That's fine. I'm good. I'm good with it. I'm fine with You going to go with that? Yeah. I'm fine with Yeah. One one one thing that I'm Right. One thing that I'm not sure about is looking at the picture of it. Like none of the windows meet any egress. And the reason why this is important
082is because if you're going to go and convert it, you're going to have to meet egress. How do you meet egress? >> So, there's there's actually three means of egress. You have you have windows, your windows have to meet egress size. Right. And so, that they don't they don't meet it. So, what is what is the dimensions? >> it has two it's multiple doorways that lead in and out of both their entrances in the back. Yeah, there's actually two entrances. Egress in the back. size windows. And so, they don't >> Each bedroom does? >> Yes. And each clear opening has to be 20 by 24. And so, looking at the picture of it, it doesn't meet it. >> Oh, no, there there's windows. So, there's the glass um blocks. Those obviously are fixed, but there's
083windows that are I think I just ordered them. They're like 36 by I want to say 32. So, there's a couple of criteria for it. >> Yeah. And the clear opening has to be 20 24. So, if you open it up, Sure. half of it. Right. So, it would have to be one window that opens up with that full size completely. Okay. But, also there's height from the floor to the bottom of the window. >> Sure. Right? And the maximum maximum is 36 in. If you don't meet that, >> Right. So, you go to pull a permit, you don't meet that, how do you meet it? You can add a window well, for example. >> Right, right. Yeah. So, if you start adding window wells, you cut into your driveway. You not can't >> No,
084no, there's there's still room. Well, what I'm saying is >> Yeah. they take up a decent amount of space. Sure. They're not small. Right. So, now if you start adding them, how do you get by them? So, I think there's there's plenty there's 15 ft 9 in. A car A car parking spot is 9 ft wide. Is this applicable in existing? Well, yeah, it would be because once you approve something new, Approve something new. the new standard. There's a few other things that you probably um I I know if you know or don't know, but once you start altering it, you got fire code, sprinklers, you have handicap access. There's There's a lot of things that just aren't on here. And it um so handicap for the For the business. For the business. >> alter
085anything in the building, you start bringing up all that stuff. Sure. And that's really building permit stuff. Sure. Right. Some of it applies to this because if you're talking about narrow spaces and then you have to bring stuff out like windows or wells like fire escapes, things like that, then you start to narrow it up. So maybe you're better off looking into whether it's feasible um you know before we approve it. That would be the only comment that I have. Um So if uh Well, wouldn't we have to get it approved by John Erickson anyways? I would think so. And if he decides not to proceed He decides not to proceed. Yeah, wouldn't wouldn't We're back to commercial. Yeah, we can approve it, make it subject to John uh As far as everything's always but
086yeah, everything's always subject to Yeah, but him, right? Because we In between him and John at that point. Yeah, as long as John is is able to approve it or not approve it, then that that would be my concern. That's That's just I'm just I I do construction, so No, I get it. Yeah. So I just want to So I'll show you really quick. So this Where's the drive Oh, so this driveway So this third uh bedroom here. So this is 92 ft of parking. So let's say you can fit four cars three cars. Let's say three cars. Which side is uh the side? >> the left side. >> This is the front. So this left side. No, the front's on the other side. >> Uh the front here. All right. Okay. Yeah, the stairs
087are here. Right here. So if you look at the this picture here, this is the this is the view down this driveway. >> is the left side. See these windows here? So this So looking at that, just so you know, those don't meet it. The you you did not even close. >> Right, but I could like if I wanted to, this back one here, right? This This is the back apartment. >> Yeah. If I needed to, but it already has two doors anyways, but if I needed to cut out one of these windows, I could still cuz this is 92 ft. >> You're saying you still have enough room to get by the car. >> So I still have 60 something feet before I get to this last you know, almost third to last window.
088Cuz this is the mechanical room back here. >> cars can fit before you can get there. Exactly. >> Maybe maybe the judgment based on on um you know, making sure that you actually can get by them because it's not really up to John cuz John as long as you have egress, um you're going to you have to get a building permit. Yeah. He doesn't really necessarily care if you have space to get a car by. That's building code. >> So I think that's the difficulty in making sure that it actually works cuz one of the biggest considerations on this is that you have a lot of bedrooms, you have a lot of things going on, you don't have a lot of parking. Sure. >> So if you start limiting on the parking, now you have
089less parking. Right. So So say we have two bedrooms per apartment and each bedroom or each apartment has say three, let's say four cars. Let's I mean, they don't, but let's We'll just say it's four cars overall. Right. But it's 92 ft and 100 ft, right? So you could fit Does it stink that they have to move their cars? Yes, but a lot of people are in the same situation, let's say Boston anywhere, any city, right? So does it suck? Yeah, it sucks. I mean, I live in I don't >> It's not about it sucking or not sucking. It's just making sure that it works. That's really what it is. >> So could we make this bedroom number two and then he converts this to a living area or does he have to have a
090that window down in here or could he make the window up in here? That's what it would be for the bedrooms, not so much the living room. But I think all the mechanical stuff is in here. Well, no, no, what I'm saying you you're saying once So excuse my ignorance with the building code, okay? You talking about he needs to make the swimming in this bedroom right here, he needs to make that window bigger? Correct. In all the bedrooms. In all the bedrooms? >> All of them. And that's the the problem. >> not a bedroom, if this is the bedroom, now it's turned into All right, so if this is a living room, then Yeah, yeah. The height from for example, the bottom of this window to your to your foot. >> it's it's almost
091like this. It's But then like >> really took a measurement, but you can crawl out easy. Cuz it's half in and half out. Okay, if they were a requirement I'm not sure you're going to have to be Yeah, whatever requirement I have to have, you know, I'll do it. I'll 100% comply with whatever needs to get done. >> Right, and there's no doubt about it. It's just the the question of whether it's feasible to maintain those parking spots. Right. That would certainly be easier than for him and less costly for him than pulling out two new entire apartments for restoring it to commercial use. So not only, once again, getting back to the means of egress I always thought it was if you have two means of egress for each apartment doorways, you were all
092set. But now you're talking windows in here now? Each window has to be a certain size. >> Really? Okay. Even in existing? Well, because we're approving a new This new now. Um well, do you want to make that a Maybe just make it a condition that um if in fact you can meet the egress that as long as the costs can be met safely and you can actually truly use them as parking spots. Because if you lose those parking spots, then there would have been a different consideration on whether we allowed it or not. Right. Okay, so let's say it's all commercial cuz it's roughly 6,000 sq ft of commercial space. Let's say it's all commercial and I do put a doctor's office or a dental office, whatever it may Pre-existing. Right. So now I'm
093I'm trying to reduce traffic and reduce cuz I can get more for commercial than I can for residential, right? I mean you get say 10 to Commercial office space is off now. But let's Anyway, you You what I mean? But, let's But, let's just say like if I put medical Whatever it may be. Yeah. It's going to be way more high. I'm trying to reduce the traffic. I don't like I don't like problems. I want easy, you know? I mean, I have several properties in town. I No one's ever called the building department. No one's ever called the board of health. If you drive by any of my properties, it's nice and clean. Like It's not so much I I see what you're saying. It's not about that. It's just making you aware of the
094things that you have to do, right? Yeah, no, I get it. Like, for example, so so you want to make the decision such that the the the it's conditioned upon there being X number of parking spaces on either side of the building for the residential uses. And that way, if you can't do that because you have to put Then you have to come back or Then he's going to have a problem. He's going to have to come back. He's going to come back and then we have to just look at it again. Correct. So, basically, we're we're basing on the premise that you can in fact park that many cars. But, if you can't, then we would wouldn't be able to do what we're supposed to do, and we shouldn't get occupants. Yeah. So, I
095mean, this So, this Um cuz I need to put this down. We're going to condition condition it upon Conditioned upon four park two parking spaces on each side. >> Yeah, whatever it is. dedicated tandem I just put parking space. I don't Condition upon two parking spaces on each for each unit on each side. One One side. Each side. Each side. Conditioned upon two parking spaces on each side. Mhm. I have to put down two legit parking spaces or two legal legal parking spaces. Thanks, Melissa. Okay. Anything else? Anybody else? Chris? No, I think we should go with the two bedrooms. Instead of the Okay. Two bed I I agree. Two bedrooms good? >> That's fine. I don't That's fine. Two bedrooms on each unit? Yep. Ruth? I think that sounds great. Sounds good? Yeah. Anybody
096else? Nope. Good. Nope. So, we want to make them The entrances to the bottom floor. Can you get to the bottom floor through the through the main entrance on the top? Yeah. Okay, so then you you go in that main entrance on Wall Street. >> Yeah. Yep. I saw the side entrance on the right-hand side. >> Yep. Does that go to the top floor, too, or just the bottom? >> Only if you go all the way back and then go up the back stairs. >> a way you can take that up? >> Yeah. Okay. And then you said this entrance is in back, too? That's correct. For the apartment? >> Yep. Or for both access both floors? >> Yep. So, there's actually one, two One, two. Yeah, there's two back doors. One has stairs to
097go up to the top floor and one has stairs to go down to the basement level floor or first floor, whatever you want to call it. Do we Do we think that we need to restrict the the entrance up to the office for the residential or vice versa? How would you restrict it? Well, I don't think it's just the main corridor. No, I know, but I think that I mean, you have >> Can you say you go you go in? >> Business is upstairs and privacy. Like if if if this if I was living downstairs >> No, I wouldn't Yeah, no, I and I had somebody Yeah, that doesn't make any business that was upstairs >> Yeah, yeah. Of course. Yeah. And you could put a lock on the door and that way you it
098would still be a For safety reasons you needed to use that as a means of getting in and out of the property. >> Right. Right. Yeah. I'm just I'm just thinking if I'm renting that that apartment on the bottom floor >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course. and some person comes upstairs that's meant to go upstairs >> Or vice versa, yeah. Or vice versa. Yeah, exactly. Like that's how I was trying to just separate Yeah. So, the doors would have locks on them. >> totally separate. So, I can show you on the plan. Um Chris, why don't you come on over and look? So, you got to Dude, what were the violations? I I totally misheard that. It was So, there's Do you see this? This goes to the top. Did you mention It comes So
099there's a staircase right here and a little and then this is the top. This is the top and then you come from this driveway and go to this back door here. And then This is the bottom floor. Exactly. Yeah. Okay, so this goes to the top. >> I'm just trying to say like if you if you just look at this as a whole, right? So this is the driveway on this side, right? Yeah, yeah. And it wraps around and there's a set of stairs that goes to the top floor. Okay. >> Okay. So how do you get >> to do with the bottom floor. Nothing to do with the bottom floor. And then we go to the bottom floor. You just go over here and then go right there. Oh, okay. All right. So it
100is separate. You're not separate entrances. Okay. That's all I was saying. And the same thing for the front. Same for the front, yep. Okay. Yep, that front stairs goes to the main >> Main and this goes to the Yeah, exactly. To the apartment downstairs. Okay. Okay, once again, I got conditioned upon two legal parking spaces on each side and with the stipulation that that three-bedroom now becomes a They're both two-two bedroom units. Sure. Looks great. I vote to approve it. Okay, you get a motion to approve? And second anybody? Second. Second. All those in favor? Favor? With the conditions that we put >> With the conditions, correct. Favor? Yes. All those in favor, passed. Approved. Now you have you know your deadlines and Absolutely. >> 30 days and appeal periods and making sure that you
101can build it with the right windows. Exactly. Okay? So this there's a lot of Yeah. You know what I mean? I'm just trying to We have a motion to adjourn, somebody. Motion to adjourn? First, second, all those in favor? Um handicap access. The problem is you can't start altering the building.