2026-08-18 - Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

0:03We're gonna start it up. Okay.

0:07Today's t Tuesday, August 18th in the year 2026. This is the Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm calling the

0:15meeting to order. Uh first thing we're going to do is that the the legislature

0:21has made amendments to uh you want to take you want to take this out and this right here.

0:32I might have copy text you all. Yeah.

0:42[clears throat]

0:42So, uh, so last month the state legislature revised chapter 4A,

0:50specifically variances and special permits. So, they relax some of the standards for

0:57variances. Um you look at page two or page four of the

1:05one that that um Kurt printed out for us.

1:13So um in making our determinations on a variance now

1:21we can consider practical difficulty related to soil shapeography or land structures whether

1:29strict enforcement would per pose financial hardship.

1:34We can look uh whether wait again financial hardship can be yeah we whether there's a practical difficulty on the part of the appellent that was not self-created.

1:44Okay.

1:45Yeah. And then um whether it can be achieved whether um with the petition whether it can be

1:53achieved by some other meth method feasible for the appallet um or almost something almost like is is the proposed

2:01um the petition for the variance is it you know any more detrimental to the neighborhood almost to that same

2:08standard that way and those are all the things now so it's not just limited to soil shape topography graphy um whatever and we also can consider housing stock.

2:19Yeah, they seem to have put in Yeah, very specific that hey, if they're supporting the production of housing, right, but I mean I don't think that I

2:28mean everything supports the production of housing or you know the new construction does. So the garage Yeah. So that I don't think that is we

2:37should weigh the benefits of that. So I think if we're going to take that in consideration and I think at least

2:45you know we should have our findings of fact why we're going to grant something or findings of why we wouldn't grant

2:52something um a little bit more concise at least for the next couple of years or so until someone sues somebody on this.

3:01Um hopefully not us not us.

3:06So, I don't know if you want to just take a minute, take a quick look at that because this is in effect right now.

3:16And then on page two, is that the same thing, different wording?

3:23So, page two is special permit. Special permit. Special permits.

3:29So, this changes to special request for a special permit as well.

3:39compies with the current dimensional regulations.

3:45So that that part right there is is that they can build they wouldn't have to come in front of our board as a matter of right as long as they comp comply with those things.

3:55So if the if the property was look otherwise be getting a special permit if if it complies with the current dimensional regulations height and

4:03setback requirements then they wouldn't even need to come to our board anymore for a special permit.

4:09So there's no longer a continuation of pre-existing non-conforming. It is, but it but so if if the extension alteration

4:17um whatever doesn't com comply with those current things then they would I think they still need to come here.

4:25Okay.

4:37All right. We good. There will be questions.

4:42All right. So, um, first one we're going to call David Holmes, 24 Willis Drive.

4:56Want to just state your name for the record?

4:58Uh, David Holmes, 24 Drive, Charlton, Mass. I'm here with my wife, Don.

5:06Would you want to just tell us what you're proposed doing and why the board should

5:13grant you relief from Sure. I'd be happy to. I I did try to capture [clears throat] all my thoughts in the narrative that I attached the application, but effectively I know Mr.

5:23Mas sent me the letter uh identifying three areas that my plans don't conform to current zoning. uh two of them I

5:31really have no control over because they were essentially created by the town of Charleton when the zoning regulations were enacted. One being the required

5:40frontage of 175 ft when we have 41. Uh the other the required lot size of 60,000 square feet and our lot is a little over 10,000.

5:51U the other uh request that we have is [clears throat] for a sideyard variance.

5:57Uh currently the existing structure that was built uh approximately 1955 is uh 8 feet from the property line. Uh we look

6:05to add a second floor above that not reducing that 8 ft in any way but only adding one story. Uh and then we're

6:13looking to uh add a small addition for a bathroom and an entry and then an oversized onecar garage which will be no closer than 10 ft to the property line.

6:30And if if you noticed in my narrative that about this time last year, uh, we went in front of conservation commission. Yeah.

6:37And with this basically the same plan and footprint site drawing that you're looking at now. In fact, I included the engineer Liz Dupra's uh, drawing that

6:46was approved by the U conservation commission. the septic system has been installed [snorts and clears throat] and the of course the the approved plans

6:55have been um filed with the uh western registry deeds.

7:01So I was under the assumption essentially that once I get through conservation that the next step was a building permit.

7:08Okay. So the the the footprint of the existing main structure that's not changing. Correct. No, I'm just going to go up one story.

7:15Okay. So then you're going to put on towards the road a garage in a what does it say?

7:25An entry in a in a bathroom. Yes.

7:27In an entry and a bathroom in that little space in between. The shed that's there. Is that staying? The shed stays. Yes.

7:34Okay.

7:38And you're not moving the patio or the gazebo or anything like that?

7:42I'm sorry. Could you say the gazebo and the patio? in that stage two.

7:46That's sort of a future phase. I just ask this to include it as part of the plan. So that's not there right now. No. Okay.

7:53No, that's not critical in any way that would ask for any variance for those

8:01items. Just basically the the footprint going vertical and then being allowed to build as close as 10 ft to the north property.

8:16And another thing I'd like to point out as well is with the strict application of the yard requirements for the zoning regulations, uh, we would have

8:24approximately 11 ft on the street side to build in and I think it's approximately 24 ft on the lake side.

8:32Um, and then if you take the buildable area, uh, we have just under 24% of our lot would be buildable.

8:40believe that that's certainly a a hardship with the strict application of the zoning regulations.

8:56So you you're you're in compliance. So when I'm looking at this plan right now on the southerntherly line, you would be

9:04within the 15 ft for everything on the southern line, just the northerly side.

9:08So, you just be right on that 15 foot um line there. And then on the northerly side, you're looking for between the

9:17garage and the existing cottage uh setback relief on that.

9:21Yeah. It's kind of ironic because I've been working on this plan for I don't know how many years. We we raised the structure in 2003, put it on a real foundation.

9:31Yeah.

9:31And since then, I've been playing around with the design. And when I started the design, the sideyard requirement was a total of 25 ft with a minimum of 10 on either side.

9:39Yeah.

9:40And and since then, the zoning regulations have been amended which created the non-conformance on the north property line.

9:59Um Do you guys have any questions for the petitioner?

10:07Yeah, you usually if you guys have anything you're looking at, if you have any questions or whatever, we'll go through the the motions on that.

10:14Garrett, Jason, no, nothing.

10:19All right. So, we'll hear from the building enforcement, the zoning enforcement officer, building inspector.

10:24Good evening. Kurt Mas, building commissioner, zoning enforcement officer. If I may, the usual handouts for the board.

10:49So, we're at an interesting jition of time here because when I wrote this decision, the law hadn't changed, right?

10:57And our wonderful legislature, as we've discussed, changed correct our considerations this so let's just

11:06play this slowly all right the usual uh set of photographs

11:12um the ortho of course just claimed because because this is not a survey

11:21got another one Sorry.

11:37Um, so the registration in our GIS and the ORTO are off.

11:47Uh, the next page, the picture, 24 Willis Drive below it. 24 Willis Drive and 26 Willis

11:54Drive. Mr. Triplet's here. This is a property that we did a similar action for a number of years ago now. Um, and

12:03this is nothing unusual in this neighborhood, which like most of the lakes, we have lots of lots Yes.

12:09that are small and have become pre-existing non-conforming because of the change in zoning. uh 28 Willis

12:17Drive, a little further down. This was a house that we dealt with a number of years ago. 22 Willis Drive was done 15ish years ago.

12:27Um so we've been in this neighborhood before. Yeah.

12:33And we've been in similar things. And then across from 26 and 24 and everything, there's sort of a there's a

12:41little bit of uplands, but there's a big swamp across the street. So there's not there's not much there. Um,

12:50so what's the question? Well, the question is is if this wholly fit within the current setback requirements under

12:57the way the law, the way I understand the law is that I would be able to issue a building permit because the law now

13:04says the nonconformity is because of area, shape, frontage.

13:13Okay. then a permit could be granted as long as it does not offend the current setbacks. Well, the current setbacks are

13:2215 feet on each side and 30 feet from the lake or a high water mark and 30 feet from the rear. So, this clearly

13:31offends the setbacks and needs action by the board to grant a special permit weighing that is it any more detrimental to the neighborhood.

13:42The thing I do notice and as Mr. Holmes who I talked to several times, I haven't met him personally. No, you came out inspected.

13:50I inspected, but I don't remember. Okay.

13:52Well, we know that was when I first started. Exactly.

13:56Um, it looks to me that this garage offends the setbacks on both sides. So, you need to be careful about what you're asking for.

14:05That's because that's that's the roof plan. No, it's the eve overhang. Okay. That's fine. That's a good explanation.

14:12All right. The gazebo that you say you're not going to do anything with now, that would be considered an accessory structure and that is governed

14:20by the setbacks also. So, you know, either No, I'll state for the record that I'm not interested in getting any approval for the gazebo at this point.

14:27Okay, that's fine. Just want to offer that.

14:29Yeah, I appreciate it to to you. So, here we are. You know, is the change alteration or extension any more detrimental to the neighborhood?

14:39And the reason we're make that determination is is because the proposed plan offends the current setback requirements.

14:47Thank you.

14:48You're asking for a variance on this special permit, correct? Yes.

14:56Yeah. 7 foot variance asking for

15:06I'd rather just do it the way he's asking.

15:10to start changing that around. You know, I thought I thought I heard if we grant

15:18a variance that the rest of it would be okay with the building commissioner.

15:25All right. Well, if we variance for all the things that he's asking for, I think you the building commissioner would be okay with that, right?

15:31I mean, just a setback, right? But he's already fine with everything else. Just the setbacks are the problem. That's it. Well, the frontage and the square footage.

15:50Yeah. The petition though was for a variance, not for a special permit.

15:56My my advice to the my denial letter was that they needed to seek a special permit to change alter extended pre-existing nonconform. We have a pre-existing nonformity.

16:06Yeah, that would be the more that's when I look at it. That's the most and the variance to do the lack of compliance setbacks for the proposed construction which is what how we've handled the you know in until today.

16:17Yeah.

16:18Or until July 1st you know we the change in the law the only issue really is the setbacks not even the frontage.

16:28But the preponderance is that the special permit the change in the special permit was that

16:37if it met all the current setbacks it had to seek a special permit right doesn't meet it doesn't meet all the varian so it needs

16:46a special right no but I just want clarification though if it grant the variance doesn't it then meet the setback

16:54no the setbacks are still the setback you've given relief Okay.

16:58Okay. So, let's take take all the girrations out of this. If we had a

17:04square lot and the setback was 15 ft, which it is in most of Charlton the side

17:11setback, and someone wanted to be 10 feet off, that would be a straight variance request, right? The lot's got 60,000 square feet, 175 ft of frontage.

17:22It's not a special permit to change all or extend the pre-existing nonconformy.

17:27It's relief from Yeah. No, but you answer my question because just by granting the variance doesn't meet the requirement of the rest of it.

17:37No, I don't think so. I don't think the variance does that. I think it needs the special permit coupled with the variance because of the setback issues.

17:50So, it's just like on every other one around the lakes.

17:54Yeah, we have to extend the pre-existing performing. Are are you recording? No, my wife's listening. Oh, okay.

18:02I don't have a problem with it. I just No, not if we are if there's there's nothing

18:10that says that you can't record. It's just that I would have to just announce that it's being reported separately by the itself.

18:19So we need to gra but I don't think he's got anything in here for special permit. No.

18:26So he needs to request we need to make a motion for that. But he can request that here. Yeah, I'll just do that.

18:35But we'll do that at the end.

18:41Um, all right. Do we have um I'll go through all the boards and commissions.

18:48Um, does anybody from um conservation have any comments? Planning Board, Town

18:55Clerk, Town Administrator's Office, Selectman Assessor, Board of Health, Collector,

19:04Senior Center, Economic Development, Dudley Charlton Regional School System,

19:10Bay Path, Treehouse Brewery, uh, Nobody. Don't forget Fay Mountain Farm. Fay Mountain Farm that is town owned.

19:19You're absolutely right. Uh is there any uh other parties of interest or butters that have any comments or questions for on this application?

19:28All right.

19:29Does uh you guys have any more questions for anybody?

19:32I'll make a motion to close the public section. Oh, yeah. Um there's a second on that.

19:39All in favor say I. I.

19:42All right. Now we deliberate. I don't see any problem with this. Oh, we close.

19:48We need to grant the special permit. Oh, the special permit wasn't on.

19:57It's not. And we close it. We can close it.

20:04I make a motion to open it back up again.

20:06Motion for to to ask the petitioner to uh consider this as a for a special permit as well.

20:12Okay. So, I make a motion and this is for the petitioner uh to ask for a special permit

20:19to amend a mend your petition for a special permit.

20:23Uh can I request to amend my application to include a special permit? Yep. Is there a motion to accept that? I'll make a motion to accept. There's a second. Second.

20:31All in favor say I.

20:32I So in terms of the deliberation as to close again. No, I don't think we need to do that.

20:41Um, in terms of this, I think that this board in in previous iterations has

20:48granted other special permits to for other houses in this area. So, I don't

20:55think so. One of the standards is is for a special permit is the proposed

21:02are I are you okay with I understand. Yeah.

21:08Okay. So, in my mind, I don't think this is any more detrimental to the neighborhood in terms of any kind of variance that we're going to grant.

21:16I don't think that the given the shape of the lot along the lake um that it was set out originally

21:24from the 1950s is definitely unique and causes definitely causes him, you know, the hardship that way, although that's not absolute anymore.

21:33Yeah.

21:34On that. So, I don't think there's any issue with this at all. So, I don't know what what anyone else thinks about this. Anyone else have any comments about it?

21:43Seems like it'll bring it up to to what everyone else is doing.

21:46Keep it up with the Joneses in the neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. 26 is right there. Up and going.

21:53Yeah. So, now they're two separate motions though. There's one for the special permit and there's one for um the variance. The variance. Yeah.

22:01But can they be done together or they have to be done individually? I I would do them as separate motions. I don't think I would do them together.

22:08All right. So, we should do the variance first. So, I'll make a motion uh for a variance of plus or minus 7 ft on the north side.

22:18Um as shown on the plan as shown on the plan. Um and but he has a gazebo on here.

22:26No, that's not that's not there. Okay. So, we don't have to worry about that.

22:29That doesn't exist. I think it was proposed. Doesn't exist. He's not putting it in.

22:33But it's on the plan. Doesn't make that doesn't make a difference.

22:35Yeah. That's not going to be 7 ft. I mean, that looks like it's a lot closer than That's a lot closer. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't going to Right.

22:44include that. Just say that. Excluding the gazebo. Yeah, you can say excluding the gazebo.

22:48So, fine. Excluding the gazebo. Uh, which uh petitioner mentioned isn't being built at this time. Yeah.

22:57Um and uh so the hardship now doesn't matter or

23:03no special permit did that the the the hardship being the shape of the lot. Right.

23:10Right. And the shape of the lot is the hardship. Okay. It is an odd shaped lot.

23:15Okay. So then the hardship being the the shape of the lot.

23:18Yeah. And then is there a second on that motion? Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Motion carries.

23:26Now a special permit. So you wanted to say the ex the change extension alteration of the existing structure is no more detrimental to the neighborhood.

23:35Um the proposed the pause is no more detrimental to the neighborhood.

23:39Yeah. So um I'll make a motion uh to grant a special permit to extend the pre-existing non-conforming uh structure

23:47as it is no more detrimental uh to the neighborhood. Um, yeah.

23:57As shown on the plans. Thank you. Is there a second on that motion? Second. All in favor say I. I. Motion carries.

24:06So, um, thank you very much.

24:09You're welcome. So, here's what happens from here is that u we'll prepare um the

24:16special permit of the variance has to go to the town clerk. sits with the town clerk for 20 days. At the end of the 20 days, you would come and pick it up. You

24:23need to record the complete copy at the registry of deeds and then you would bring that back to the building inspector, however, the board for Is the 20 days an appeal period or

24:32Yeah, it's a 20-day appeal period. And it's the 20 days starts when we submit it to the to the uh to the to the clerk. That's fine.

24:39So, I don't know, might be a couple of days before that happens. So, um could be the end of this week or next week that it gets submitted and then the 20-day appeal period starts from there.

25:10Okay, you're good to go. Good luck. Can you put the gazebo in? Step by and see it when it's done.

25:19Maybe put a pizza oven in when you come back for the gazebo.

25:24I don't think we're going to be doing that, but give it some thought. Have a good evening. You too. Take care.

25:32All right. Next. Uh, Ariel Lask 83 Jennings Road.

25:46Okay. Okay. Saying that he was going to speak. Okay.

25:55So, just say your full name for the record. Do you want me to sit here? Yeah. Yeah. This is that's good. Marcus Winger. Yeah.

26:05So, just you want to give us a propose what you're looking to do and the reasons why this board should grant relief.

26:11Sure. So, I think we did spell some of that out in the packet that was submitted. Um, but what we're requesting is a the 3.7 foot dimensional uh

26:20variance relief uh required on from a 15 foot setback. Um there see there there seemed to be some confusion on this

26:29property. Um when we went into design on this uh the this proposed garage um we

26:37were as well as the uh the homeowner. Um that there was an easement between the two properties and that the property

26:44line was at a different place than where it actually ended up being. Um because then with the further investigation

26:52um it turns out that the Charleton Heritage Preservation Trust actually owns a small strip of land there and it's not an easement. Okay.

26:59Um and so the way the property was set up originally where the leeching field, the septic system went and uh the area

27:07for proposed garage, what happens is it it encroaches into the 15t setback by approximately 3.74 feet. Um, and that's

27:16tucked over as far as it can be to the house. It's actually set behind the house a little bit, but just like the enough so that we the garage door can still be used.

27:26Okay.

27:27Um, [clears throat] so we're looking for that 3.7 foot dimensional relief. Okay.

27:35Do you guys have any questions?

27:37So, just to be clear, the garage is already there.

27:39It is, right? Yes.

27:43Oh, so you're asking for forgiveness rather than permission.

27:46However that works. Yes. It's exactly how it works.

27:50That's why he was explaining the misunderstanding. Okay.

27:54So, just a quick question. What at what point in time did you guys find out about the misunderstanding of the land?

28:01Um, well, when it was bu after it was built and the and an asbuilt was requested uh by the commissioner, um, that's when it it came to light. So you

28:10when you when the garage was built, you got all the necessary permits, went through all the other necessary boards. Correct.

28:17Okay.

28:42Okay.

28:44Any other questions? I didn't realize it was already there.

28:48Yeah. [laughter] Not the first one.

28:53No, it happens. Um, do you want uh do you want to hear from the building inspector uh zoning enforcement officer?

29:00Yes, please.

29:03Good evening. Kurt Me, building commissioner, zoning enforcement officer. If I may, the usual hand

29:13holding out. I live I live for this.

29:22Yeah, somebody screwed up.

29:29So, this is a somewhat dated ortho. It isn't quite up to today's, but we see on

29:36the first page the house, the property line, and the uh not easement, but actual piece of land owned by the Heritage Preservation Trust between the two properties. Okay.

29:49We uh show 83 Jennings Road and the garage that has been constructed.

29:55Um, we show 85 Jennings Road, the neighbor.

30:00And then on the next page, we show the on the top of the page, the proposed 24x 24 ft garage, clearly meeting the

30:09setback requirements and the property owned by Charlton Heritage Preservation Trust in between.

30:18During the uh process of inspecting this, it became concerning to us that because they had

30:27um decided to locate the garage so close to the property line and as I'm sorry, it's so close to the setback line and as

30:34built was requested and the asbuilt came through clearly showing that it's 11.3 ft from the

30:41property line and clearly shows the strip of land, access land to the Charlton Heritage Preservation Trust Land.

30:52And during an inspection um of the frame for that building, the picture showing the garage being used

31:00for storage of miscellaneous materials, and then there's uh for some reason two pages of owls in a snowstorm.

31:12It's unfortunate that we're here at this point. Um but um to me it was it was clear during

31:21the permit application process that the property line and the setbacks were well known that there was nowhere on any plan submitted to me or any plan that I can

31:30find related to this project that says this is an easement. Easements come with their own problems. Right.

31:38But

31:41[clears throat]

31:43no I'm sorry. Can I say something in regards to that just real quick? Yeah.

31:47Well, I would I think where the it the original um plan or or uh plot plan that we were going off of, it was considered

31:55open space. It's it's calls it open space, which yes, you're correct. More due diligence should have been taken

32:03into that, but it was the homeowner and our assumption that it was the more of an easement scenario.

32:09So the the the original building plan did the original building plan the open space how many feet?

32:17Um on this plan it doesn't say do we have the original building plan?

32:29I don't think it's 13 ft wide. Is it? I believe it is about 13 ft wide.

32:35So, in the original building plan, were you 25 ft from the property line then?

32:40Is that what your pl the original plan submitted when you built the garage and then you realized afterwards that it's only 11 ft? Were you more than 20 ft from the line?

32:54I'm not sure if I have that all right in front of me here, but what we were pull I know what we were pulling off of because on the

33:03property it like if you're there at the property, it looks like the property line is is right in the center of that the way the grading is done and whatnot.

33:12Yeah.

33:13Um and so we were pulling off of what uh what appeared to be the property line. Um and then the overage was the

33:22what what we were our understanding was the the open space easement but then turned out to be what we described.

33:30Does um is is the garage constructed in the place that was originally planned for?

33:38Is it in the location that it was? It's not like you moved it over from the original plan when it before construction.

33:48Cor as far as I know. Yes.

33:51That's hard to tell without seeing the original. I know. First try to find something else. Oh, is that the original?

33:59That is the plan presented for the building permit showing the setback line and the garage clearly meeting the setback requirements.

34:12Yeah, I see that.

34:18Yeah, if the garage or if the proposed structure had been shown over that setback line, the permit would have been denied.

34:26It would have been here granting a variance.

34:29Well, the first option always is is to redesign your project to comply with the requirements.

34:45and then I'll say something about open space when you're ready. You go ahead.

34:50So, this is a what we call a flexible subdivision. Flexible subdivision in Charlton is an allowance for a reduction

34:58in road area, frontage, lot size in exchange for 25% of the raw property. So

35:07the big parcel that this was divided out of to be deed over to be preserved in permanent open space.

35:17So the open space is a deed parcel that is owned by the Charlton Heritage Preservation Trust

35:25to be preserved for some recreation, you know, swamps, birds, stuff like that.

35:31And for that to work, the applicant who designed the subdivision has to provide access to

35:38that open space. And that's what this 13T piece of property is. It's not an easement.

35:46It's the access point for this open.

35:48It is is a part of the larger parcel that's behind this.

35:55So it is not, you know, it's not an easement for someone to pass and repass.

35:59It's not a rightway. is an actual owned parcel.

36:06That's not on it. It's not obstructing it either. Closer than we like.

36:17I mean, the structure itself is not encroaching onto the onto the adjacent strip there. The driveway definitely is, but that's not a thing.

36:27Well, just looking at the fence, next door. Yeah.

36:57So, whose responsibility is it?

37:00God society isn't here.

37:04I mean I think of it society doesn't really impact them. Yeah.

37:10They just don't bother like anybody else.

37:14I mean I think if we if somebody came to us with a variance request for this in the first place, what are the chances for me? I would have voted to approve it.

37:24Yeah. That's how that's how I look at this.

37:26There's a lot of's a lot of It's not like but the time would have been what's the hardship.

37:36Yeah. Or shrink it down or whatever. Yeah. It's a it's a new property.

37:44But we get to consider financial not self created.

37:47Yeah. That's true. Now we get but it's self created though.

37:52Yeah. They created Well, if you do notice the uh the

38:01property like the way the septic was designed and everything, there is really no other place to put it or it would

38:08have started impacting the uh the septic system as well.

38:20This is it right there.

38:39and I don't really have an issue with it. What do you guys think?

38:49Close to the public.

38:50No, you know, still Yeah. Well, I mean, it all goes back to this original drawing that they were that they worked off of. So, right, they

38:58had a drawing they thought they were conforming because that's the drawing that they were going off of.

39:06Yeah, it seems like it was an honest mistake whether it was due to lack of research. It's questionable, but you can have them take three feet off

39:14the garage if you want. [clears throat] motorcycle.

39:22Well, a couple of things. I mean, number one, we're looking at this drawing. Um, most of the time when people have to put

39:30these structures in, they do um make sure that they are aware of where the boundaries are before they put it. Excuse me, I didn't hear what you said.

39:38They usually make sure where the boundaries are for the survey for the land before they put it. And then in addition to it, if they did apply for

39:46this and there were going to be changes to where they were going to place the garage, they should have also referred back to you to notify you as well of

39:55that. Correct. When people make changes for it, that's what they correct. And that wasn't also done as well.

40:06Huh?

40:06I don't think they I think they just put it in there.

40:11Put it in based on the property lines they thought were actually but what he was saying was that they were clearly given this. Yeah.

40:19Um can you reexlain what you said? You clearly said that they were given what again? They were given that plan that you showed.

40:27They they th this plan

40:35was part of the building permit application. Correct. And this is shows the house as built.

40:42Okay. And shows the dotted line is the required setback line and the proposed garage clearly

40:52is over is on the correct side of the line is on the correct side of the line. Yeah.

40:58And this plan clearly shows this strip of land that is owned by Charlton Heritage Preservation. It's not an ement. It's

41:07not a rightway. It's and they made an assumption as I heard them say

41:14that they thought the property line was down the middle of that other the Heritage Preservation Trust plan.

41:23So this diagram with the dotted lines was developed by came from the builder or it came from the town.

41:31What this is is is this is from the application to build this garage and this is an as built

41:39from a plan showing the location. The proposed location of the house is shown in light gray and the actual location of the house is shown in red.

41:51So that was a surveyed plan showing where the house was provided by the applicant.

41:59Yes. Yeah.

42:00As the initial application were generated. Correct.

42:07[clears throat]

42:08And then where changes were made was the next step.

42:12Um those were not well I don't I don't from what I'm understanding the applicant saying there was not a change made. Their their

42:20intention was is to build it where they thought the you know based on where they thought the property line was.

42:29where the property line actually was. Correct.

42:34Yes, you're correct in that. So, when when our site crew went out to stake out the garage and get, you know, dig the foundation and everything, um the it it

42:43looked pretty clearly to us where the property line was because of the way the grading was done, the landscaping, all of that type stuff was done. And so they

42:52pulled off um they pulled off of that I believe it was 17 feet to give us you know be be within the well within the 15

43:00foot sure setback and that's where where the mistake was made. So there was you know it was it was our understanding and then

43:09our crew going upon going with that understanding. So, we didn't know that that we were making any change or

43:15mistake until um you know, uh Curtis requested the uh the as built and then we're like, "Oh, wow. What's going on

43:23here?" You know, so what's interesting is it looks [clears throat] like lines up the corner

43:30to the back of the house push from the proposal looks like it's where it's supposed to line up too. It's pretty much corner to corner.

43:38Correct. Yes, that is correct. It's set back a little bit on the plan like so it's actually it's just a few feet um behind the house that corner so the like

43:47the garage door is in line if you know what I mean. So we couldn't have really pushed it anymore any further away from the property line and the garage still

43:55worked, you know. So when they originally staked it, they didn't take into account the 13 foot space. They went up to what they assumed was the

44:03property line between properties, right? Which is probably halfway between the 13 ft. Right. Correct. And so the whole thing shifted.

44:11Yeah. That way. Yeah. Seven feet.

44:14Yeah. I'm just interested because on the on the plan it looks like it lines up.

44:18So they built they built it exactly as they thought based on where they were making an assumption about the property line.

44:26Correct. So what do you think? Well, first off, it's there.

44:35It's there. It's there.

44:37It's there. Um I I have been doing this long enough

44:44that we had a guy an who built a garage and had to cut it off twice because he was over the property. Twice.

44:54Twice. Twice. Over the actual property line. Yep. Oh, wow.

45:02Get a variance. It's like can't give you a variance to trespass over the property. Need to cut it back. And they gave a variance to be really close to

45:11the property line and then did not execute the removal properly.

45:17The only one that I remember is we had someone come for a variance. I forget it was an accessory dwelling and he was he was over the setback and he was on a

45:26zoning board in one of the adjacent towns and he said I built it and I should know better about the zoning board in that town.

45:36All right. So, um, we call, um, anybody from conservation, planning, town

45:45clerk's office, selectman, administrator's office, assessors, collectors, board of health, senior center, economic development, police,

45:54fire, any other board or department have any say? Any of Butters, parties of interest have any say in this?

46:01Heritage.

46:04the heritage. They're not they're not a technically a governmental body, are they?

46:12Um, do we have any more? Anybody on the board have any more questions for the petitioner? Anybody else?

46:20Make a motion to close the public portion.

46:23There's a second to mo close the second.

46:26There's a second on that motion. All in favor say I. I. Motion carries. in the deliberation.

46:35I mean, aside from telling the applicant that they need to remove the structure. Yeah. It's 11, what is it? 3.2 ft.

46:453.7. Yeah. 3.7.

46:47Yeah. So, we asked them to chop the chop the wall off and move it or move the whole thing. Gave them three options in this letter.

46:53Actually, one of them was to to reduce the remove and reinstall the garage to comply with 15 foot setback,

47:00which sounds like it's not possible due to the septic.

47:03Yeah, the septic and Yeah, the house where the house sits wouldn't necessarily work. You'd have to put it like right in the backyard.

47:13They could shrink it. They could do that. Is that necessary?

47:24I don't think so. I don't think so either.

47:32I mean, mistakes happen.

47:35Doesn't look like they're trying to steal space.

47:38No, I don't think that's the case either.

47:41I don't I don't think that it was I mean, it might be somewhat negligent on the part of the surveyor not to do it

47:47properly. That's I think that's that that seems pretty apparent at this

47:54point that the surveyor could have messed this up or whoever was doing the lot lines. Yeah.

47:59But I don't think it was the intention of the builder or the or the homeowner to try to to do it outside the setbacks in any way at all.

48:13Yeah, I agree.

48:16So if we were to grant a variance on this, the hardship would be the location of the septic system in the open space area.

48:27How do you do a variance on structure?

48:30You just still grant the variance with granted. Yeah.

48:36For the as shown as as as current you could just as do it that way.

48:46What what side of the property is that garage on? I'm sorry.

48:50What side of the property? Uh, north side, south side, south side, I believe. South side.

49:00We should get confirmation. There wasn't enough confirmation. This originally went in.

49:04Oh, no. Right here.

49:07Say in accordance with the as provided by this.

49:12Just do it that way. This is already full as built that's stamped and everything. So we can I can get that into the record. I just you know clipped

49:21out what I needed for the presentation.

49:28All right. So I can make a motion uh to grant a variance of plus or minus four feet um

49:35in compliant with the asbuilt uh the hardship being uh location of uh the

49:41septic uh topography uh and uh financial because it's already built.

49:50Yeah. Second. Is there there's a second on the motion? All in favor say I. I motion carries.

50:00So, there's a 20-day appeal period. You do need to record the full variance at the registry of deeds. Um, if the

50:07surveyor is not under your employee, you may want to have him to a little bit more uh make sure that he

50:16gets the lot lines right. Is the guy that you relied on, is he is he one of your employees? I believe so. Yeah.

50:23Yeah. Yeah. Send him back to surveying school.

50:28Yeah, we'll see what we can do. We can't have this happen again. No. No. Well, lesson learned.

50:34Yeah. No, I appreciate you guys working with us uh getting through this for a client. So,

50:41all right. Next on the agenda. Good luck. We need to wait 20 days.

50:45You have to wait. So, she'll prepare the variance. Uh TW, you have to once it goes to the clerk, it's 20 days. 20

50:52days, the clerk's office will notify the uh the homeowner. Someone needs to come down and get the full uh variance and it needs to be reported at the registry of

51:00deets and then just provide a copy to the building uh commissioner's office.

51:03Okay. And then you sign off on the the final. Okay. All right. Thank you all. You've been very helpful. All right. Good luck.

51:14Uh so what thanks

51:20[laughter]

51:21for this is Justin. He's my local inspector. my or the assistant. Hi, how are you?

51:27So, I'm you know, he's he's been working with me for a year. He does most of the residential permitting and stuff and I'm, you know,

51:34sort of bringing him along to uh if he chooses to to fill, you know, take my position when I leave.

51:41So, he's going to, you know, start seeing some of the the other things that happen out of the office. Fantastic. You're leaving us?

51:49No, not yet. [laughter] He says he's not ready. I says I can't cram 23 years in. It would take me 25.

51:59[laughter]

52:03All right. So, um we have the um meeting uh minutes from the last meeting.

52:09Does anybody have comments on it? Does someone want to make a motion on it? Motion to accept the meeting minutes. Is there a second on that?

52:18Not here. Yeah. You want to take a second? Yes. Yes. You were not here. Alani has a second.

52:27All in favor say I. Just the three of us need to vote that I need to sign that too.

52:35All right. Next on the agenda is we want to do that now. We want to do that next month. ZBA member reorganization

52:42because Rob's not Didn't you have some notes for us on that reorganization? No, it's just like who's going to be the chair, who's going to be the clerk, who's going to be that.

52:51Sorry, the reorganization that I was referencing was actually because we only have four full members.

52:57So, I didn't know if you wanted to make an alternate a full member.

53:02Who was next in line for that? Was all So, the three of us can vote on that and just do that.

53:08All right. So you're So the way we've always done this is you if there's five full members um and then we have alternates whoever

53:17was appointed whoever has been appointed first or has had the longest as the alternate would

53:25be just automatically we would vote in as the next full member. Who do we lose? Marco. Oh that's great.

53:33The last time he announced Yeah.

53:35Yeah. He had a lot going on. young children and all.

53:41So, uh, we'll just, um, I'll make a motion to accept El Johnny as a full member of the board. Is there a second? Second.

53:48All in favor say I. I. All right. That's done.

53:53All right. So, everyone got a copy of the administrative rules. Where's my copy? Here.

54:01So, I reviewed them. I don't know if you got a chance to review them. Is that my No. No. This is the one that I printed out today.

54:08I did review them, Frank, and I did have question. Are we going to do this over the course of at least two or three meetings?

54:16We can. It's totally up to us. Okay.

54:18All right. So, I had some additional comments that I had typed out and I forgot to print out and bring them anyways. Okay.

54:26But, um, if we have certain comments now, we can do that and just do one final copy. This is like the the

54:34regulations that we've had in place have been there for since 198 something like we don't need to change it like if we don't change it in one week I don't

54:42think it's going to be a huge issue at all. So I you know I just like the ones that are there they need to be updated and and is you

54:51know if it takes us three you know the course of three meetings to do it then that's fine but the other thing too is

54:59is I didn't print out there was two documents there was one that was the rules and regulations and there was another two-page document that was said

55:06like procedures or whatever we I I didn't go through that because the zoning since the chapter 48 changed It's

55:14going to change that. So, we need to go through and revise that.

55:19Yeah. Yeah. So, um So, once you guys are ready, because I went through it with a fine tooth once you're ready to go through. I didn't

55:27know if we were going to have like a working group on it or not.

55:30No. Well, there's not enough of us that we would do like something separate like that. Sure.

55:34Um All right. So, what where where where first would you want to start? So, as I was looking at all three documents, I was thinking more so of having kind of a consolidated kind of format.

55:45Yeah.

55:45To put all of these in because a lot of it were redundant with a lot of the information going back and forth.

55:52This is only So, this is the the new documents, not the old ones.

55:57So, what we what was submitted was the meeting procedures um document. It was the zoning board of

56:07appeals public hearing practices and procedures. That's what's existing right now. Correct.

56:12So I think what what was what we I think that we're just going to disregard that all together.

56:18Okay. So you so you don't want to update it because some of the No, I think we're going to replace it with the new proposed one

56:24because that was very redundant and it and was in had the same language in

56:31different places and it was in my mind was disjointed in how it it was set up.

56:38It was like they set up a set and then they did like the second set and it ended it but it still said it repeated some of the things that were

56:46in the first set. So I'm sorry to waste your time on all No, no, no. But the reason why I say it is we can that was my suggestion to do

56:54away with it. But the if we put it into a different format like for example um there is site visit on this one.

57:02Yeah.

57:03And there's also site visit on the rules and regulations one and the language is

57:10completely different on both of them. So we can kind of if we're going to do away with that, we can just update the new

57:18language on that one and do it. So what I did is I went through and kind of looked at all the redundancies for both of them. Yeah.

57:25And then the 40A I looked at where it changed for the different um information and then added that into it.

57:34This is the new 4A.

57:36This is the new 4A. So based on the information that we have Um, hang on one second.

57:47There are actually That's the new one. That's the proposed one that that the town administrator sent to us. Correct.

57:54Right. So, that's the one I think is it's it's more consistent, I think, and it's more organized than what we have existing.

58:04Yeah.

58:05Correct. And so out of all of it, there are about seven

58:13quote unquote laws and regulations that affect all the documents. So there's like the 53G,

58:19there is the SE 760 CMR56, and then we have the 40 that is also

58:26here. So all of those were in it, but they all got updated [cough] somehow with that. So, I just went

58:34through and saw what was old language and updated with new. So, whenever we're ready. Okay.

58:42Okay. We'll jump right in. Um, which document do you want to start with first?

58:48I think I think in my mind, let me know.

58:51I think I I looked at the proposed rules and regulations that was sent to us.

58:57So, in my mind, and if you guys disagree or whatever, The way that I would like to do it is is at the end of

59:06the day take the the the format for the new set that we have and make any just additions or adjustments to that set.

59:18And unless there is something in our existing rules that it is not addressed

59:27in the the new set of proposed rules that was provided to us. then we can add that in. But other than that, I don't

59:36think that I we need to go back to we need to take anything out of those old rules at all. I think everything that's

59:44in the these proposed rules pretty much covers that. And there's some things in the old rules that it didn't as a

59:52practical matter don't make sense to use at all. Like like you know I told you guys this is before you were here

59:59is the old rules had a set in saying that we needed to make a determination of finding a fact before we vote. And

1:00:07what what would happen sometimes is we would come up with all the finding in facts and we would vote on it and then we would take the actual vote on the

1:00:14appeal or the petition and the and and the vote would be opposite to what we agreed on in the finding of facts at the end of the day. So like stuff like that

1:00:24I don't like we don't need to do stuff like that anymore, you know.

1:00:28So I'm just the old the old finding of Our existing rules say that we need that

1:00:35if somebody's going to speak on behalf of of an applicant that like we need a written power of attorney or whatever.

1:00:42And I don't think that we really need that standard. Or it also says that anyone that's giving testimony to us um and presenting the evidence needs to do

1:00:50so under oath and we don't really need to do that either. Um so there's a bunch of things in there that it's just not practical for a board like this at all.

1:00:59Um, and maybe they just got it off of someplace and who knows, you know.

1:01:03So, is this the only document we're working from or Yeah, that's the document I think that we should work from.

1:01:07Are there additional attachments that go with this?

1:01:09There's another document that has to do with procedures and variances. Okay.

1:01:13But since chapter 48 was amended, it refers to like the standard for a variance under the old before it was

1:01:21amended versus the new one. So, we have to go back and we have to put the new standard under the new chapter 48 and

1:01:28then go over that. So, maybe we'll just have Dale in the next meeting maybe if she

1:01:34has time to prepare a um like make those changes and propo send give us a proposed one.

1:01:42So, the only redundancies would be in this document as it sits here if there are any. There wouldn't be Yeah, but there's some things in it like I went through it. I went through this

1:01:50document and there's some things And I think Dale, you might have highlighted some of these things on that. So highlighted this.

1:01:58So if you want I don't know if you want to go right from the very beginning off of that document or what what do you what do you have that you want to want to address first?

1:02:05So there was three. So just for clarity, there was another one that was a PDF that was just a copy. There was three documents.

1:02:14I believe that was the old one that you're referring to.

1:02:16Yeah. So there was three things. There were like a PDF document and then the procedural document and then there was a third one the rules and ranks.

1:02:27Yes.

1:02:27So the rules and regulations this one that says section one organization was the one provided um by our town administrator.

1:02:35So on on that document is there anything on that document that you see that you want to change or make an addition to um on that at all?

1:02:47Yes. Okay. So, what do you got?

1:02:50So, um this was just like language just the top one 1.1.

1:03:00Yeah.

1:03:01Um just a minor thing. Um, a lot of times when people are reading it for clarity, um, I put ZBA in

1:03:09parenthesis and then I say also refer to the board of appeals because people use it interchangeably just for language type of thing for that 1.1.

1:03:19Do you know what I'm talking about at the top? So it's almost like a parenthesy ZBA. Yes.

1:03:24So that people there's a designation of the uh, you know what I'm saying when there Yes.

1:03:30Is there any other place in the in the I'm getting to that.

1:03:33No, no, no. What I'm saying is is there another is there a spot in

1:03:39the if if if in the regulation itself it refers to the zoning board of appeals as the ZBA, then you're absolutely right. We shouldn't be doing that.

1:03:50But if it doesn't, if it's not abbreviated, if it's abbreviated in the document, I I typically wouldn't do that. We can do

1:03:58that. um just to be on the safe side because I don't I didn't really looked at that at all.

1:04:07I don't see any but yeah we can do that too also too for um as I looked at this I was also looking at

1:04:16best practices for people who have already adopted this as well if that's something that matters to you all.

1:04:24So the next one is other other towns.

1:04:27What sub What subsection are you looking at?

1:04:29Um this is 1.3 1.3 or 1.3.1 or this is um 1.3 and then 1.31.

1:04:38Okay. For quum. Yeah.

1:04:42Um I felt that we could possibly um combine that into one section.

1:05:01She may also.

1:05:21So the only I would say say about that is this is that

1:05:29the the the membership of the board is set by the selectment and statutoily speaking is that what our number is sets what our quorum is.

1:05:39Correct.

1:05:40So I I don't think we need all of the

1:05:48language under the quorum. Um, the one thing that I did, you know, maybe we should change some of

1:05:56that. Um, yeah, I mean, I don't know what you guys think about the the chair may designate other associate members.

1:06:06I don't even know if we need all that language.

1:06:08And the only reason is why I said combine it because both of them are labeled quorum.

1:06:16One doesn't say like quorum for the board and one doesn't say like You know what I mean? For the meeting, forum for voting. Yes.

1:06:24You know, so if we um were to delineate those two and say one is for, you know, voting public hearings and one is for publicly

1:06:33then you could keep it separated, but because we did not have that, it's confusing.

1:06:37I and I said it was repetitive. My thing is to just say and I kind of did this paragraph um all meetings and public

1:06:46hearings shall consist of five regular members because in the selectman language they use regular members versus

1:06:54associate. They don't use sitting unless you guys are okay with that but I have all me I'll just read it out and you guys can tell me what you think. All

1:07:02meetings and public hearings shall consist of five regular members of the board. In case of an absence, inability

1:07:10to act or recusal due to conflict of interest of a regular member of the board, the chair shall designate an associate member to sit in their place.

1:07:20The chair may also designate other associate members to sit as alternatives for an application. Alternates may be

1:07:28later designated by the chair to sit in place of a regular member in case of absence rec recusal or inability to act.

1:07:38And then after that I set a a quorum for meetings and hearings must have four members present to hear cases, take

1:07:47testimony and vote on zoning applications with the exception for administrative business which was

1:07:54already there such as conveying um or adjourning a meeting or approval.

1:07:59So, I just combined those two and just made it one. But if you guys want to still separate it and put forum voting,

1:08:07then we can still keep the two paragraphs and just fix the verbiage associated with it.

1:08:15How does how would that affect the cases where we don't have four people and we still vote to like continue it or whatever?

1:08:23Well, you're not making Would that be considered three members constaction?

1:08:33You're not voting. It's Yeah, I'm just thinking procedurally when we when we've had only three people, two or three people here, we've done like open the meeting, close the

1:08:42meeting, continue stuff because we don't have the people here to to vote. So those are administrative or basic stuff, right?

1:08:51Yeah.

1:08:52But if Yeah. So that'd be routine.

1:08:53So it shouldn't say It really shouldn't say four sitting members for concert from all meetings and public hearings.

1:09:00It shouldn't say that then. Um because we need a we don't need four me we need

1:09:07four members to vote statutoily for variances in appeals. I can't remember if it's if

1:09:16if special permits require four member out of five to vote. So statutoily we don't need

1:09:24we don't need four members to vote for other things just to make those decisions. So

1:09:32whatever requires a four four out of five for a five member board we would need four members present to vote

1:09:41but whatever doesn't require that we don't need four members to vote sort of thing. So there's there's

1:09:49definitely a quorum for the purposes under the statute. So but a quorum for other purposes is not four members.

1:10:00So I think the wording 1.31 is fine because it breaks that down.

1:10:05No, but it does say a quorum for four members cons four members shall concent for all meetings and public hearings.

1:10:14All right. So if if we open up a petition, if we continue, you have to have four people here.

1:10:22Is that a meeting or is that is that a hearing?

1:10:26Yeah. So like you like you like you said, if all of a sudden we're we're down, there's only three people here.

1:10:32Yeah. If we were just going to have a separate meeting to discuss this, that would be a meeting, right? we would only need three members

1:10:40here and we could vote on those things unless the statute or the town bylaw says otherwise.

1:10:46Right. So the way it's written would limit our ability to do so.

1:10:49Yeah. But the question is is that if we're voting, we're not making actual determination on a petition or appeal.

1:10:58Does that require the four member quorum? The way that this is written is it kind of certainly seems like it you would

1:11:05require it if it's public hearing. you wouldn't be able to uh vote for continuence if you only had three people. So, I think you're right.

1:11:13I think we should have one that should just be one um thing we could combine because it is confusing this form twice

1:11:20because also another example is that you came in late. We could have went through the minutes which is part of our business right

1:11:28part but we couldn't address any of the voting from the the um variance or any of that stuff because we would have

1:11:35needed four people in order to do the vote for that right but we could do general business we need to clarify that before we do that

1:11:42I had a note on there it just says unless otherwise required by statute or whatever because certain things require certain things by

1:11:51under chapter 48. So I mean and we can define what administrative means and what the other one means to follow it because we already did.

1:12:00But I think I think what we probably what might be worth us doing is saying what requires of um four members present

1:12:08and then everything else requires three members. You know what I mean? Correct.

1:12:12Because you don't want to you don't limitate yourself. Yeah.

1:12:16Yeah. So because we're required to have four members. we know we're required to have four members for, you know, certain things, but then if we say that everything else

1:12:25only requires three members of the board, then it leaves us open that if we because when we have a snowstorm in the

1:12:32middle of January and and we have to have put your 4x4 in full action to get here and we have to continue the meeting.

1:12:42Sure. Are there cases where one or two people could continue it themselves or would you have to have three?

1:12:50Uh well I mean call we had snow storms where like I just showed up or like all right we're not having the meeting you know continue

1:12:58it. I'm not going to make everyone like risk their lives to come in for meals.

1:13:03But if you say three people are needed it limits that ability to even say one person can continue it if needed.

1:13:08So what do you have to say except for acts of God or I don't know how we I'm just thinking through kind of worst case

1:13:16stuff all you know there's not really much we can do on that you know I mean my main concern is losing our ability if something's at the end of its

1:13:24date and we need to continue it and nobody can show up because of a snowstorm.

1:13:30Do we have that ability to continue it with one person? I don't know the answer to that. We won't be able to. No.

1:13:37Hopefully we never get to that. If you're the only one here, don't walk in. Turn around.

1:13:45[laughter]

1:13:46If you're the only car in the parking lot, don't come.

1:13:49We're not having a meeting. So, do we all want to think about the language and come back to Yeah, I think we I think that's Yeah, I

1:13:57think that's a good idea to combine that as one and then we just have to further clarify

1:14:03what um yeah, that's a lot. We have to take this in sections.

1:14:14Yeah.

1:14:15And now do we have to we can vote on the document as a whole. We don't have to vote on I think we should make all changes over the course of the next couple of

1:14:22meetings and then once we were all have a comfort level then we just vote at the document. Okay.

1:14:28As a whole um and you only need three people for that.

1:14:35Yeah. All right. You have anything else?

1:14:42Yeah. The section directly underneath it. The Mullins world. Yes.

1:14:46The bane of my existence. [laughter] So, uh, what comment? I I didn't make any changes to that.

1:15:00Should we say something like email is acceptable or is that automatically acceptable in writing? What Mullen's rule? Yeah.

1:15:07No, the Mullen's rule is if you miss have to be signed. Yeah, that has to be signed.

1:15:11And I think we I need to submit a copy to the administrator's office that you complied with the Mullins rule. So, we need two copies. one for the file, one

1:15:20for the town administrator that you did all the things necessary under the rule and um and comply with it and you're able to vote in in that meeting.

1:15:28Yeah, I've seen the video. I signed the document. Yeah. Voted.

1:15:33So, should it say wet signed or does it matter? Yeah, I think well signed.

1:15:38Yeah, I mean electronic signature is it's a is is legal. I don't see why an

1:15:46electronic signature is not in this case. Not that I mean if you're going to be here, why would you not just sign it anyways? You know, [laughter] I'm just put my lawyer's cap on, right?

1:15:55Certification.

1:15:56If you're going to be here, why would you just sign it? What does written certification mean?

1:16:01Um, for there's a form. Yeah. Yeah.

1:16:05I'm just asking if we should define it or not.

1:16:07No, I don't think you need to do that because there is a specific form that's presented that the whole town uses. Okay.

1:16:15The reason why I say it's the bane of my existence because we had an appeal years ago where one of the board members was

1:16:22not here and I don't know if we had accepted the Mullen's rule or not. I know this board hadn't even considered

1:16:31it and there was probably any between 100 150 people at each meeting and the

1:16:38people that wanted this board member available kept yelling at me. you need you to let him vote under the milling

1:16:45one and I'm like no like he hasn't done any of the stuff and and so he's got 150 people oh yeah and that was the one that

1:16:53I told the other board member I said no matter what happens half the people are going to hate you at the end of this meeting I just have a question about that yeah

1:17:01if the hearing extends over several nights um do we need a predictable kind of

1:17:10procedure for replacing or retaining members and

1:17:16will the record make it absolutely clear what each

1:17:24board member quote unquote reviewed for that continuence. Do you understand my question? It's on the form.

1:17:31They have to write everything that they reviewed, the minutes, the video, the date that they missed and what hearing it was.

1:17:37I haven't seen the form. So that's why I just asked because if it if it encompasses that. Yep.

1:17:43And luckily right now with with the with six members hopefully we don't have that issue. Okay.

1:17:51Um but you know we've been at five members before and if we two people miss then we have a problem you know. So Okay.

1:17:59And it's part of the meeting minutes of of the whoever signed it and stuff right. Yes. It's a part of the record.

1:18:04So it's it is recorded. It's clear who's done what.

1:18:09I never I've never had to use it, so I really don't.

1:18:12And then just one clarification on the spelling of it. Is it m u l i n because that's the spelling I kept finding is that that's the correct spelling.

1:18:21I have no idea to be honest with you.

1:18:22Yeah, it's the correct spelling that I got to change that spelled incorrectly.

1:18:31Yes.

1:18:32Yeah. Look up at the huh? Thought it'd be easy to look up that.

1:18:38Oh, I was a little I was enjoying this a little too much. [laughter] I'm the one who always reads the fine

1:18:45print on the insurance stuff, so I kind of geek out on this information. Read 150 pages.

1:18:51So, are the read all 150 pages of your mortgage closer? Oh, I I did. Yeah. You did not. Did you?

1:18:56I I actually did. Yeah. They were not happy with me, but that's okay. You have to read what you signed. Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

1:19:05Because your responsible for it. Oh, come on.

1:19:10Exactly. [laughter] Having done probably 15,000 real estate closings over my career. Yeah, I guess

1:19:19the only really the only people that I really had consistently read closing documents were

1:19:27um there was certain like people that had had recently immigrated to the United States from third world countries with

1:19:35where there was a lot of corruption that they like you know they didn't trust the documents and a lot of times I would try to send them a day in advance so they

1:19:45could read it you know like okay let's sign at this point, you know, but I was I was down to like I could probably do a

1:19:53closing one every 25 minutes. I was I was down to a sign. Yeah.

1:19:59I could do like six six to seven closings before noon. Yeah.

1:20:04It's even quicker now because they e sign half of stuff. Yeah. They come. Some of it's 10 or 15 minutes. Yeah.

1:20:09Which I think is more dangerous, but that's another point. I agree.

1:20:12Um what else do you have um on this I think the annual meeting one.

1:20:20That's the one that's Yeah, we we haven't had

1:20:27No, we used to do it at after the the the [clears throat] first meeting after

1:20:34the new fiscal year, we would create um you know, we would reappoint chair, vice

1:20:41chair, all that stuff. Usually we would do that. Do you do team building? Like we do it at treehouse?

1:20:47No, we could do that if you want. We can do a meeting there if you want.

1:20:50I think I think I think it's should be on the table. We can call a meeting anywhere we want. Doesn't have to be at the town hall.

1:20:57Um as long as it's published 48 hours in advance. Okay. Okay.

1:21:04My birthday's coming. It's the 18th of October.

1:21:09Just if we're going to do that, it just tends to be on a night that they're serving pizza. That's all I say. Okay. Yeah, they got nice pizza. They have good pizza there.

1:21:16Oh, they got a nice pizza.

1:21:18They don't do it every day though in Charlton. They do it. Okay. Yeah.

1:21:22Like four days a week or something like that. And they only do it by the No, no, they actually have they have a pizza oven in there. It's like a ceramic outdoor pizza oven.

1:21:30Woodf fired. It's It's They have one outside too.

1:21:34Yeah, there's a there's a there's a dome in just outside the pergola. Oh, I didn't know that. Okay.

1:21:41So is the question to strike the whole section or No. Um I mean is the first Tuesday in

1:21:50December or just I I think we usually would do it the next meeting following the beginning

1:21:58of the fiscal year. So the fiscal year begins July 1. Um that that next meeting was part of the meeting.

1:22:06Yeah. We wouldn't do a separate we never did a separate meeting. So, we would set like the the organization of the board every year. Um, if we were going to

1:22:15change the fees the per for the application, we would typically look at that once a year. We haven't done that.

1:22:22And I mean, I've been here six years and I don't remember any of this being part of any of them ever.

1:22:28No, I think I don't remember when we did it or whatever. We had some turnover or whatever, but that's initially that's

1:22:35what we would do. um would be in and no, we wouldn't look at the fees every year and I think we've only looked at the fees since I've been on the board twice maybe.

1:22:45Okay.

1:22:46Um and my take on the fees is that is that the purpose of the fee is to cover

1:22:54whatever administrative costs associated with this, not necessarily to generate revenue for the town.

1:23:02Do they cover the cost of day? Probably not. But I'm sorry.

1:23:08Do [clears throat] the Do the fees that we collect cover your salary? Probably not. Then should we examine that? Yeah. I mean, do you want to make it so?

1:23:17I don't know.

1:23:18Given the given the amount of applications that we have, we'd be charging like $1,500 an application. She makes like like, you know, close to seven figures.

1:23:28Nice. just [laughter] No, just because you were saying we're trying to make those fees to cover tree house

1:23:36cover [laughter] your sport and tree house.

1:23:42Um, so [clears throat] besides that the other thing is 2.4. We also reference voting again.

1:23:50Yeah, I think for that part I I was looking at this.

1:23:56Yes, in 2.3 and 2.4 before I think we should remove completely. I I don't think it it it I think we don't do any of that stuff

1:24:04at all. Um we don't review we don't approve plans signs or other items or conditions or whatever. I don't think we need either one of those in there. I think they should be removed completely.

1:24:20I was just waiting for someone to say the same.

1:24:23Yeah. Like it's not not even applicable to us in any way.

1:24:27Um the next section is section three for public hearings. Yeah.

1:24:34Um that was the section that really um went hand in hand with the new rules as

1:24:41well. So if we jump I don't know if anyone has anything before that but 3.3 public notice. Yeah, that needs to be changed.

1:24:50The one where it definitely so like the notice of the public hearing shall be published twice

1:24:57um in each of the two consecutive weeks that goes off this. So, um I just went

1:25:05ahead and just changed the language, but take your time look at it.

1:25:10I think whatever Yeah. Whatever the changes under chapter 48 is needs to be adjusted that way. My issue is 3.2.

1:25:18and I had I had typed out like a paragraph and a half for 3.2. So the way

1:25:25that the open meeting law is written um so I think that all public hearings have to be open to the public without limitation

1:25:34except for u executive sessions which I don't think we need to necessarily addressed because that's not a public

1:25:42part of the public hearing. But the second paragraph on this, no person shall be excluded from attending or speaking at a public hearing unless

1:25:50determined by the chair with good cause to be a serious hindrance to the working of the board. So the way that the open meeting law is written is that it's that

1:26:00any questions and and this is not I'm not looking at it as me being chair. I'm just looking at

1:26:08it as the chair in general. So the way that I was reading um someone from the AG's office on that and the way that

1:26:17they have it written is that that any questions or testimony any questions u would be presented through the chair at

1:26:25the chair would just you know you you have to be recognized by the chair to to speak um and then the chair would have

1:26:35the authority to um you know recognize someone or tell the room to be silent.

1:26:40and then if someone was disruptive that the chair through the board would have the authority to remove that person uh

1:26:47from the meeting. Um, and it does say that although

1:26:55I'm can't believe I forgot to print it out my computer. Although that it is not

1:27:01required that the that everyone has. So the board doesn't have to recognize and let everybody in the room speak. That's

1:27:10not required in under the open meeting law. we don't have to do that if we don't desire to do that. Now,

1:27:19my take has always been that we should allow anybody that has something to say to to to speak. Um and if it doesn't

1:27:30relate to zoning, then we just say, "Look, you know, that thank you for, you know, your participation, but um you know, we're only dealing with zoning

1:27:37matters." Um because a lot [clears throat] of times people will bring up stuff that has nothing to do with zoning. throwing throwing gasoline. Yeah.

1:27:46If that put gasoline throw gasoline.

1:27:48Okay, that's great. But that's not the fire department.

1:27:51Yeah. Um so anyways, um I think that just to say that we have to

1:27:58allow everyone to speak is not following the law. I want to change that part of it and I can email you that when I get

1:28:05home and that we can discuss that the next thing because the second part of that says there was a second part of the

1:28:12paragraph that talked about in terms of speaking

1:28:23was it removable?

1:28:27Is it the one that says to cheer me limit repetitive or unnecessary?

1:28:33No. No, it was something was something different and I can't think of what it was.

1:28:42Oh, it had to do with recording.

1:28:44So, um, at a public hearing, a member of the public can record. They can bring

1:28:50their own device to record. Um, but that that the the member of the public needs to notify the board that they will be

1:28:59recording. They can put their recording devices close to us or wherever they want to be, but and then then the board needs to notify the public that somebody

1:29:08else is recording. It's not a big deal as long as it doesn't impact the meeting in any way, but it's still we need still

1:29:15need to put it in there that that if you can do this, but you need to notify and that was the other part of it that I wanted to add in.

1:29:32So, um, extensions 3.4.

1:29:37So, um, it says that that so open the hearing a public hear within

1:29:4465 days. That's still correct, right? 65 days. Um, that the required time limits may be extended by written agreement by the applicant. I think we should keep that by written agreement.

1:29:54Um if we're in the timeline, we could continue um up until the end of the timeline, but if it looks like

1:30:01that we won't have the thing resolved that our two options are to ask the applicant to extend the timeline in

1:30:09writing in which we would vote on the extension.

1:30:12If they refuse to to extend, then then the other options that we have is to vote then right then and there and make

1:30:19a decision. um or um we don't do anything and then it's constructively approved which I don't really want to do.

1:30:29Um so um I think that's fine the way it is.

1:30:33I got a question that doesn't necessarily go in here but should we have a form that we can hand them at the meeting?

1:30:40You know I was thinking about that. We don't have a form right now. Usually we just give them a piece of paper and say, "Hey, you know, maybe we should come up with

1:30:47one, you know, just uh an extension form. I created one. Did you?

1:30:52I have a draft of one that I can give to the board." Yeah. So, we could formally adopt that if it works. Yeah. Okay.

1:30:58Do you bring one to every meeting just in case? No.

1:31:01I've just been working on it. I didn't know if you guys would be interested in Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Yeah.

1:31:07And then, uh, representation and absence. So our old our old uh set of rules essentially said that if someone

1:31:16is going to like that contractor that came in place technically I think our existing set of rules said that they would need like some sort of written

1:31:24power of attorney in order to um acting as an agent act as an agent. Um, traditionally we

1:31:31would just require written authorization from the from the applicant and and that's not necessarily a formal writing.

1:31:41Um, we would typically accept like an email from this person will be speaking on my behalf at this meeting. If the

1:31:49applicant's here and they have, you know, the contractors, it's not an issue at all. If they're not going to be here, I think that we should have at least

1:31:57some sort of something in writing for the rec for the file and for the record that says that that the applicant

1:32:04designated exerson to to speak on their behalf. So I think under 3.6 an applicant may present an applicant in

1:32:12person or be represented by an agent and attorney. We should have we should add something to saying that um

1:32:20that it um that the applicant shall provide uh written notice to to um to

1:32:29the board of um consent.

1:32:33Yeah. Yeah. Written notice of the designated attorney or agent uh to speak for at the hearing.

1:32:41So be represented by an agent or attorney with I have Oh, do you have Well, you have the same thing like written authorization and then it says like the designated representative.

1:32:51Yeah. I can Yeah. When we start emailing, I can Yeah. Well, we can't do that. We just send it to her. Yeah.

1:32:58Because if we start emailing to each other No, but I mean, you said you're going to send yours. So, when we start Yeah. I'm going to send it to her and she's going to send her to us.

1:33:05All of us. So, yeah. She's going to circulate.

1:33:07Yeah. Because if we start doing that, it's a meeting.

1:33:10But, yeah, we're all going to see it. Only if there's three of us present.

1:33:14if there's three of us in making any determination.

1:33:17Well, just one person. [laughter] So, I I just can I um

1:33:23can I go back uh let's see on um can we go back to section 1.2?

1:33:32Okay. No, we already went by that.

1:33:34No, it's too bad. So, um so in the highlighted section, it says uh all notices. This is the

1:33:42administrative secretary. Um, your your technical position is not administrative secretary though, is it?

1:33:50I'm not sure.

1:33:52You have a you have a designated It's not administrative.

1:33:56Uh, my official title is land use assistant since I work for conservation and zoning.

1:34:07Well, let's add assistant to that, too.

1:34:10Yes. Let's let's not to put secretary in there. Okay.

1:34:15Um administrator.

1:34:17Yeah. Just figure something we'll put out with maybe even Warren line.

1:34:21Whatever the your official title is should be in there.

1:34:24Okay. Um and then instead so it says that part of their um

1:34:32their role is to send all notices review application for compliance with the zoning bylaw rules and regulations of

1:34:40the board. She doesn't do that and we don't want her to do that. No. Um, so I think what we should just take out the

1:34:46part that says for compliance with zoning bylaws and regulations and just put review applications to ensure complete

1:34:55application. That's what it should be replaced as because that because what what typically they do is that the application is submitted to the town

1:35:03clerk's office and then the clerk will bring it to to Dale to to take a look at. If it's incomplete, it goes back to

1:35:10the clerk's office and then and they get notified that the application's incomplete. Once we have it once the application is submitted, we had an

1:35:19issue with this that a um a petitioner submitted an application that was

1:35:26incomplete and then said, well, because I submitted it that told that starts the clock running for the meetings. So, we

1:35:35don't start the clock until we have a complete application. And we had a problem with that once.

1:35:43He's actually a pretty good guy, but we still had a problem with it. Um, so I think that we should say to ensure a complete application with the zoning bylaws and regulations. That's what it

1:35:51should say on that. Um, we already did that.

1:35:58Um, the supplemental information within 72

1:36:05hours of a scheduled meeting. Um,

1:36:15we do accept and I had put some stuff in that writing too. So, we do accept documents at the meeting.

1:36:25Mhm.

1:36:25Um, and that is supplemental to the petition. It must be submitted at least.

1:36:32So, what now? We don't we don't put a rule in there that we want. So, bring something in a day before the meeting,

1:36:40you usually will put it in our packet, right? Yes.

1:36:51So, we could do we could do a couple of things. I think we could leave that in there and add some language in there

1:36:57that any documents, any supplemental information or documentation provided to the board u within the 72 hour, you

1:37:06know, less than 72 hours from the meeting, then it would be up to the board's discretion to accept those documents. It already says that.

1:37:14Does it say that? Yeah. It says, "Unless deemed appropriate at the discretion of the chair, the board will not consider blah blah

1:37:21blah unless deemed appropriate at the discretion of the chair." And do you want to make it just the chair's discretion or the board's discussion? The board.

1:37:31I think it should be board. And the way I was looking at it, I was looking at it in three parts. There's routine submission, late submission, and then material submission.

1:37:43Okay. I don't know. you want to get that technical and the only difference is is that with the supplemental information received at

1:37:50least 72 hours before the scheduled public hearing. That's the routine submission. The late one is received

1:37:58less than 72 hours and that's the one where the public hearing shall be identified by the chair at the meeting.

1:38:04The board shall determine whether the information can reasonably be reviewed and considered without you know and it

1:38:12goes so forth and the may in consultation with the board um and we can fix this language declined to place

1:38:20a late submitted information before the board for consideration at the time of hearing. And then the last one is the material late submission which is if the

1:38:29supplemental information submitted less than 72 hours before the hearing is deemed by the board to be material to

1:38:36the application or reasonably likely to affect the deliberation. So sometimes

1:38:43you might get information that just might not be able to support it. I mean I can send it so you guys can look at it.

1:38:52Yeah, send it over. I don't know if we want to get that hyper technical on this because you have to think about it this way and is that

1:39:02do we want to do we want to be too technical that and we have to think about like we're

1:39:10changing these rules now how long the like I I'm not going to be on the board forever my wife will

1:39:19probably end up hitting me in the head with the shovel and bury me in the backard You and Curtis retiring at the same time. Yeah, she will.

1:39:26You and Curtis should do dual retire. Yeah. So, I'm a little younger than him.

1:39:31So, anyways, [clears throat] um you know, so do we want to at some do do we want to make it so at some point that

1:39:39other that the board makes it more difficult for people to do things than than we want them to do? Do we want to

1:39:47be practical and reasonable? We have to figure that Yeah.

1:39:52that these are our neighbors, you know, people live on our street, you know, that we see in the town.

1:40:00I'll send it we can take a look at it and go there from there. But I think but I think though I don't think it should be the

1:40:08discretion of the chair. The only downside to that is is that if if we do that then we may have to take a vote every time someone gives us a piece of paper.

1:40:19True.

1:40:19Unless un But only if somebody protests on the board.

1:40:24No. I mean, we we're making these rules up. So, every time that someone submits extra paper or anything like that, like Kirk gives us these things. This is

1:40:33supplemental information. We would have to vote every time that see Kirk got up and did that.

1:40:38But how many times have we gotten pictures from somebody that they didn't have in the file, right? I think what's important is if it doesn't come within that 72-hour period,

1:40:46it allows us to do an extension so that we can process that information two meetings ago.

1:40:54But how do we approve it is the question.

1:40:58So, how just for clarification, when the information comes in, typically with the late one, and you say you just include

1:41:06it in the packet, we would get that before the meeting, but if anything came after, let's say we're having this meeting now and it

1:41:14came after, we wouldn't know about it until the next meeting. No, I would inform, Frank.

1:41:22You'll let us know ahead of time.

1:41:24Yeah. And if we if we keep this in the rules the way it is, technically if something comes in the day before, we would have to vote on it before we accept it.

1:41:31Yeah.

1:41:35But at the discretion does not necessarily mean at the at the vote of the board.

1:41:47This says the board will not consider it unless it's unless it's under the discretion of the chair. So, you know,

1:41:55my t my feeling about anything that someone submits is that I would take everything just because

1:42:02number one is is that if if it's a member of the public that's submitting this, why do I want to exclude that?

1:42:08Like, I wouldn't want to be excluded even if I was late on something. So, why do I want to do that to somebody else,

1:42:16right? You know what I mean? Um, and you know, if it's helpful us for deliberations, then why would I not you know, regardless of when it came in.

1:42:25The problem the problem is is that you send us the packet two weeks before our hand and if it comes in after that, we wouldn't

1:42:34necessarily you don't necessarily send it out again. Uh so if more information came in other than the packet, then you wouldn't necessarily send that to us. We

1:42:42wouldn't know until we got to the meeting. So luckily I haven't had that happen yet where I've gotten the extra information and not sent it to you guys.

1:42:53Um so going forward if you would like to direct me on how I should approach that.

1:43:00That's what we're writing exactly.

1:43:02Yeah. I think it might be better leave it discretion of the chair procedurally just so there doesn't have to be because I think you're right. I think a vote would be called for based on how it's

1:43:10worded. If we say in the discretion of the board, I think we should vote every time that the supplemental, we have to vote. And I don't think

1:43:18or if it's left the discretion of the chair, but I'm not always going to be the chair. That's the thing.

1:43:22Whoever whoever is the chair has the I mean, we're going to vote a chair in. Right. Right.

1:43:27And they can still take the opinions of the rest of the board before they make their decision. Right. Right.

1:43:34I mean, I like it the way it's a chair, you know.

1:43:39Um, if we got a problem with the chair, we we boot them.

1:43:45Yeah, if [laughter] we can. You could you can if you want. You can boot the chair.

1:43:55We love Frank. We're talking about Frank's replacement.

1:43:58You know, I'm the only I'm Where's your shadow? I'm the the zoning bylaw has been in effect since what 1986.

1:44:05I am only the third chair of the zoning board of appeals. There's only been three chairs. Wow.

1:44:12That's kind of a weird That's kind of crazy, isn't it? That's good to know. Yeah.

1:44:17Is there is there a plaque or No, you get an add boy after like 20 years. I think that's what they gave Rya.

1:44:26I think they gave ramp. The guy that was the first chap, he got deposed once and he wanted he wanted reimbursement for

1:44:35the for him losing time at work and they wrote him a check for $5 and he's like, I'm never going to cash it. I think he framed it, right?

1:44:44Uh I hate to uh we're making good progress here, but we're gonna have to do this in chunks because I I do I do I think we should call the meeting tonight.

1:44:52Yeah. Someone want to uh I'll make a motion to end the meeting. Is there a second on the motion?

1:45:01I think we have good progress on that.

1:45:04There's a second from Jason. All in favor say I. Meeting is adjourned. Okay.