2026-10-06 - Zoning Board of Appeals

00:01Okay,

00:03going to

00:04>> call the meeting to order.

00:06Roll call.

00:07>> Member Marsi absent.

00:11>> Member Gilang

00:13>> present.

00:15>> Member Majio

00:17>> present.

00:19>> Member Lopez Hernandez

00:20>> present.

00:22>> Member Olsen

00:24>> present. Okay. What about the

00:27>> entertain a motion to approve the

00:28minutes?

00:30Okay.

00:32>> I'll second.

00:33>> Okay. Thank you.

00:37>> All in favor?

00:38>> I

00:39>> I

00:40>> opposed abstensions. Unanimous.

00:44>> Um, you want to take the 7:30?

00:47>> Yep.

00:47>> Out of order.

00:49>> Yep. You can go out of order.

00:50>> Yep. You hear on 7:30 Lyn Way?

00:54>> Yep. She's going to read it.

00:59>> Little [ __ ] 7:30 Lway and Harding

01:01Street, Lyn, Massachusetts. Press number

01:04034758004

01:08034758005

01:11034758006

01:14034758007

01:17034758008

01:20and 034758

01:23009 car realy LLC Kenneth Park manager

01:27PO Box 350 Lynn Massive attorney Sam

01:31Vitali ZB BA 10154

01:34to pursuant um to primary pursuant to

01:38mass uh general law chapter 40A section

01:426 910 and section 5B of the city of Lynn

01:47zone ordinance the re renovation and

01:50reconstruction of a pre-existing

01:51non-conforming building and and an

01:54extension and change in uses from a

01:57retail furniture store greater than

01:595,000 square ft and with the front step

02:01back greater and 12 ft. an existing

02:04license class

02:06class automotive dealer to license class

02:10automotive dealership for the sales of

02:13lease of new and used vehicles pursuant

02:16to mass general law chapter 140 section

02:2058 such as showrooms and associated

02:23services facility facilities finding

02:25that such changes or extensions are not

02:27substantially more detrimental to the

02:29neighborhood than the existing

02:31non-performing uses and such

02:33other relief as may be determined

02:36required or necessary. The zoning board

02:38of appeals may vary may grant a variance

02:41if it specifically finds that the strict

02:43enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw

02:46would result in a practical difficulty.

02:49In making its determination, the permit

02:52granting authority shall weigh the

02:54benefits of the

02:57appellant or petition to the public

03:01interest, including the interest in

03:03supporting the reproduction of housing

03:05against the detriment to the public

03:08health, safety, and welfare of the

03:10neighborhood. and may also consider

03:13whether the practical difficulty relates

03:16to soil conditions, shape or topography

03:18of such land or structures. Whether the

03:20strict enforcement would impose a

03:22financial hardship on the

03:25applicant or petitioner. whether the

03:28benefits sought by the applicant or

03:29petitioner could be achieved by some

03:32other method feasible for the applicant

03:34or petitioner to achieve and whether the

03:37practical difficulty was a selfre

03:40>> can you read that letter

03:42>> yes

03:45>> please

03:46>> yes

03:48dear chair crowits and members of the

03:50zoning board of appeals on behalf of the

03:52city of land development team I

03:54respectly respectfully

03:56further request continuence of the

03:59petition for 7:30 Lynway and Harding

04:01Street. Since the board's last

04:03consideration of this matter, the city

04:05and petitioner have continued to make

04:06progress toward finalizing and executing

04:09a development agreement that will

04:11address the conditions and commitments

04:13previously outlined by the city to allow

04:15the parties additional time to complete

04:17these negotiations and and execute the

04:21agreement. We respectfully request that

04:23the board continue this matter to a

04:25future meeting date. Thank you for

04:27consideration. Sincerely, Dan Smith,

04:30executive director, EDIC.

04:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm attorney

04:35Vitali. I'm familiar with the letter. I

04:38spoken with Daniel. Um, if you recall,

04:41this is a proposal to take uh a Hyundai

04:44dealership that was across the street

04:45and move it across. Um on the major

04:49points that has been absolute uh

04:52concurrence and agreement, part of this

04:54involves my client building a road and

04:57uh a performance bond for the

04:59construction of the road and the timing

05:00of the road and giving up certain other

05:03permits that were already on that site.

05:05Um

05:07we're very hopeful that this is going to

05:09get resolved because as I say from our

05:11perspective, we've agreed on the four

05:13major items that the city wanted. It's a

05:16I've been dealing with the law

05:18department and the drafting uh and

05:20they're dealing with the development

05:22team to put the the finishing touches on

05:24it. I I'm hopeful that uh we'll come

05:27back to you with the agreement resolved

05:30and signed as I say on the fundamental

05:33uh main concerns

05:35which are performance bond the

05:37construction of a road um surrendering

05:41certain other licenses and keeping the

05:43vehicles parked on the front parcel

05:46that's really made up of several other

05:48smaller parcels. Uh those have all been

05:51agreed to and um this project would be a

05:55$6 million investment and create 60 jobs

05:59that pay 100,000 more and kids from the

06:02tech

06:03automobile repair business and services

06:06changed. It's uh would provide an

06:08opportunity for employment. So from our

06:10perspective, we think it's a a benefit

06:13for the city and I think the city uh

06:16wants to ensure that u it's confined to

06:19that front site that in fact uh the road

06:22gets built to do that you have to post

06:24what's called a performance bond which

06:26means if you don't finish the road they

06:29have the money to do it. So those points

06:31have been agreed to. I just think it's

06:34now in the drafting stage. uh and I hope

06:37that by the whenever your next meeting

06:38is

06:40we can all uh go through the uh

06:44specifics of what the agreement uh

06:46entails but I've I think I've given you

06:48the four major areas in which we agree

06:54>> on the 20th

06:56>> when is it the

06:57>> October 20th that'll be enough time

06:59>> yeah oh yes because um yeah I would well

07:03I'm speaking I turned in my homework and

07:07I'm just waiting to get the paper

07:08corrected essentially.

07:10>> Okay. All right. So, I'll entertain a

07:12motion

07:14>> to

07:15>> to continue the 20 or so. You want to

07:17make that motion?

07:20>> I can second.

07:21>> You second. Okay.

07:26>> Motion's been made and seconded.

07:28>> Member Gilway.

07:30>> Yes.

07:30>> To continue to October 20th.

07:32>> Yes. Member Majio to continue to October

07:3420th.

07:35>> Please to continue. Member Lopez

07:38Hernandez to continue.

07:39>> Yes to continue.

07:41>> Thank you. And member Olsson to

07:43continue.

07:44>> Yes to continue.

07:45>> Thank you.

07:47Walter Street can be next.

07:50>> That's an easy one.

07:52>> We need to read that. We've already read

07:53that.

07:54>> No, we've read that 100 times. Yeah.

07:57>> Somebody here uh 40 Walter Street.

08:01That's Sam.

08:06>> Thank you. Thank you.

08:10Sorry.

08:13Thank you.

08:32There we go.

08:41>> What are you guys doing?

08:43>> 40 Walter Street.

08:44>> Yeah, you're doing that on the street

08:46now.

08:47>> Oh,

08:47>> what?

08:48>> 90 Walter Street.

08:49>> Yes.

08:51>> No, I

08:59Did you put that up there?

09:00>> It's like

09:02I

09:03>> No. Who put that up there?

09:09>> It's got 98

09:11and 98.

09:13I I think the last time we were looking

09:15um looked like we had um had snow

09:20trash

09:22um area show the snow removal where

09:25trash removal will be

09:27>> you want to see the impervious areas the

09:29driveways

09:30>> y

09:32m we presented that plan and as I

09:35understand it um

09:38>> it's in the folder

09:40>> the answer I thought for questions that

09:41you had with respect to

09:43uh issues that raise.

09:47Yes, we have impervious shown.

10:08Anybody

10:12else have any questions on it? I want to

10:14look at I think this one looked okay.

10:16You addressed all our comments that I

10:18can see.

10:19>> Yeah. Um

10:23what's the will of the board?

10:25>> Motion to approve.

10:28>> Second. Okay.

10:39Member Gilway.

10:40>> Yes to Grant.

10:42>> Member Majio.

10:44>> Yes to Grant.

10:45>> Member Lopez Hernandez.

10:46>> Yes to Grant.

10:47>> And member Olsen.

10:48>> Yes to Grant.

10:50>> You're all set. Thank you.

10:51>> Yep. Thank you.

10:58>> 91. Um, you're going to have to tell

11:01them that if the four votes if I

11:08>> have we read that one in yet?

11:10>> No, because they want Remember I told

11:12you.

11:13>> So, um, we can take up 91 Rare River

11:16Street. Um, next, uh, just to let the

11:19petitioner know, we have four members on

11:22the board.

11:23So if we go forward, there needs to be a

11:26unanimous decision for it to pass with

11:30only four members. You may request to

11:33continue to the next meeting when we

11:35have five members.

11:37>> And in order to pass, you need

11:40>> four votes to one vote.

11:43>> So this is going to call a chairman

11:45who's

11:46>> I don't know if they're on their way or

11:48they got delayed.

11:49like it's mesh.

11:53>> Take a a two-minute recess.

11:55>> Can we take a two-minute recess?

11:59>> Back.

12:00>> Call call the meeting to order.

12:04>> We got uh

12:06>> 91 Rear River Street,

12:10Massachusetts. Can you read that for the

12:11record first?

12:12>> Sure. Locus 91 Rivers Street, Lyn,

12:15Massachusetts. Parcel number 019305011

12:20Jonathan Alvarey's 91R River Street Land

12:23M0905 by his agent representative

12:26Douglas Castro ZBA10153

12:30to petition for Sri Lant to mass general

12:34law chapter 40A section 9 and section 5

12:38of the city of Lindone ordinance for a

12:41special permit to construct a two-level

12:42addition addition on the left side of

12:45the house for a a total of 480 square ft

12:48where the proposed addition does not

12:49meet the required front or rear yard

12:52stepbacks. The city of Lynn's own

12:54ordinance states that the zoning board

12:57of appeals may approve a special permit

13:01for any other reconstruction, extension,

13:03alteration, or change of a lawfully

13:05pre-existing non-conforming structure.

13:08if it determines that such

13:09reconstruction, extension, alteration,

13:11or change will not be substantially more

13:13detrimental to the neighborhood than the

13:14existing non-conforming structure and

13:17will not result in any new

13:18non-conforming.

13:21>> Can you just state your name and

13:25address for the record?

13:31>> Did you get that?

13:32>> I'm sorry. What?

13:34>> Yeah.

13:36straight leg mask.

13:40>> I I want to get uh another day if

13:43possible when I get the a lawyer or the

13:46guy that made the plans cuz right now

13:48I'm like hands up.

13:50>> So you like to continue to our next

13:51meeting?

13:52>> Yes, please. October 20th.

13:54>> By that time I should guess. Okay.

13:58>> Um

14:00the board.

14:00>> Yeah. I'll move to continue. Okay,

14:05>> we got a we got a motion in a second to

14:07continue

14:10>> the 20th.

14:11>> October 20th.

14:13>> Okay,

14:14>> enough time.

14:15>> Yeah, that should be.

14:16>> Okay, we have a motion and seconded to

14:18continue the meeting till October 20th.

14:20>> October 20th.

14:22>> Who was on first? I'm sorry.

14:24>> Ibraham and um Gil. Is it Gil? join

14:30your own way.

14:35>> Okay. To continue October 20th.

14:38>> Yeah. All right. Thank you.

14:41>> Member

14:44Gilane.

14:44>> Yes. To continue.

14:46>> Member Majio.

14:47>> Yes. To continue.

14:48>> Member Lopez Hernandez.

14:50>> Yes. To continue.

14:51>> And member Olsen.

14:52>> Yes. To continue.

14:56going to take another uh two-minute

14:57recess just to wait for a fifth member

14:59to join the board.

15:01Let's call the meeting back to order. We

15:04have a new case here for 313 Eastern

15:07Avenue, Lyn, Massachusetts.

15:09Read that for the record. I understand

15:10they want to continue the case.

15:12>> Yes,

15:14>> Locus. 313 Eastern Aland, Massachusetts.

15:17Parcel number 105423

15:210327 Karina Aras Avenza Multi-ervice LLC

15:26313 Eastern A led last mass by his

15:28attorney

15:29Alexander Kapano ZBA 10155

15:34to petition pursuant to Mass General Law

15:37chapter 4A section 9 and section 5 of

15:40the city of Linds ordinance for a

15:43special permit to use unit one left side

15:47first floor as a multi-service office

15:50without changing any other existing uses

15:53in the R2 zoning district. Section five

15:56of the zone ordinance states that the

15:58zone board of appeals may approve a

16:00special permit to change or extend a

16:02lawyerly pre-existing non-conforming use

16:04for a change from one non-conforming use

16:07to another non-conforming use in

16:09accordance with this section. only if it

16:12determines that such change or extension

16:15is not substantially more detrimental to

16:17the neighborhood than the existing

16:18non-conforming use.

16:22>> So I understand they

16:24>> they want to continue to the October

16:2620th

16:29wish of the board you like to continue

16:31and need a motion

16:32>> make a motion to continue. I'll second

16:34it second. Okay.

16:37>> Okay.

16:56member Gil Wayne to continue to October

16:5820th.

16:59>> Yes to continue to

17:00>> member Majio.

17:01>> Yes to continue.

17:03>> Member Lopez Hernandez.

17:05>> Yes to continue.

17:07>> Member Olsen,

17:08>> yes to continue. Member Crow has to

17:10continue.

17:12>> Okay,

17:13>> we got um

17:16145 Maple Street. Want to read that for

17:19the record?

17:20>> Sure. Locus 145 Maple Street, Lyn,

17:23Massachusetts, parcel number 086166024.

17:28Your uh

17:30Wander Diaz 145 Maple Street by her

17:34attorney. Samuel A. Italy ZBA10156

17:38to bear pursuant to Mass General Law

17:40Chapter 48 section

17:44uh 69 10 and allowed by Mass Chapter Law

17:49Chapter 41 section 81P and provisions of

17:53the city of Lynn zone ordinance

17:56construction of a single family dwelling

17:58in an attached ADU on a 458687

18:03ft parcel shown as lot C on a plan

18:06recorded in plan book 43, plan 24 with

18:10the Essex Registry of Deeds, said lot

18:13with less than the required frontage

18:15with access there to a right of way and

18:18such relief as may be required or

18:20necessary to allow the construction of a

18:22single family dwelling in an ADU on the

18:24lot in the RT district. The zoning board

18:26of appeal may grant invariance if it

18:28specifically finds that such ordinance

18:30or the ordinance or by law which result

18:34in a practical difficulty. In making its

18:37determination, the permit granting

18:39authority shall weigh the benefit to the

18:41appellant or petitioner and to the

18:44public interest including the interest

18:46in supporting the production of housing

18:49against the detriment to the public

18:51health safety and welfare of the

18:53neighborhood. and may also consider

18:56whether the practical difficulty relates

18:58to the conditions, soil, topography of

19:01such land or structures. Whether the

19:03strict enforcement would impose a

19:05financial hardship on the appellent or

19:07petitioner. Whether the benefit sought

19:10by the appellant or petitioner can be

19:13achieved by some other method feasible

19:16for the appellent or petitioner to

19:18achieve. and whether the practical

19:21difficulty was self-generated.

19:27>> Anybody here for this?

19:30>> Do we not have a letter to read the

19:32>> Yeah, we do have a letter to the letter

19:34be

19:38I didn't mean the letter.

19:42>> I have a letter.

19:44>> Hold on. Wait.

19:47I there's a letter I think should be

19:49read into when you read that.

19:52>> Okay.

19:53>> You know what I mean?

19:54>> Yeah.

19:55>> Okay. Okay. I'm attorney.

19:59Fabiana is one of the Diaz family

20:01members. The

20:04145 is owned by her brother and 141 is

20:08owned by her father. and so she's hoping

20:12to join them uh in the back lot which

20:15has existed since private zoning. Um

20:22the buildings and the and the uh lots uh

20:25were shown on a plan that was recorded

20:28at the registry of deeds uh in 1925. In

20:32June of 1925, the city adopted a zonal

20:34ordinance that became effective. So

20:37these buildings are pre-existing

20:39non-conforming. Why I cited in the uh

20:43advertisement the subdivision control

20:44law because the subdivision control law

20:47understood that until it was adopted

20:50there were many buildings that were

20:51built

20:53that did not go through the subdivision

20:55control law. There is a record plan at

20:57the registry of deeds that creates three

20:59lots. Uh the two family is on lot

21:05and the three family is on lot A and

21:09where we propose to put the single

21:11family would be lot C. Uh each of these

21:14lots the B and C A and C uh in excess of

21:19the required lot size for

21:23a two family uh dwelling.

21:28There is a doctrine called merger, but

21:30there's no need to have merger because

21:32the building that's a two family meets

21:35the zone ordinance for lot size and

21:37front digits pre-existing

21:38non-conforming.

21:40The three family likewise pre-existing

21:44non-conforming. So under the subdivision

21:46control law where there is a building uh

21:49those buildings can remain. So why we're

21:51really here is the issue for the back

21:53lot is frontage. And in order to uh

21:57construct a home, you need to have

21:59either frontage along and improved

22:01public way or access to a public way.

22:03And since they both the family members

22:06own both buildings, the plan that Mr.

22:08Reed uh proposed uh increases the width

22:12of the right of way by taking a small

22:15piece from each of the the brother's

22:18land and from the father's land to make

22:20the rightway uh larger and increase the

22:22frontage area uh for the back lot. The

22:26least intensive use

22:28um in a residential district is a single

22:31family home and that's what proposed.

22:33Also the zone ordinance says that uh by

22:36right

22:38uh wherever there is a single family

22:40that exists or is allowed uh an ADU is a

22:45permitted use. So what is proposed is a

22:50a single family with an attached within

22:53the building uh ADU uh not larger than

22:57uh 900 square ft. Uh the plan Mr. read

23:02shows uh the parking uh we submitted a

23:06plan from the architect and what is

23:09before you is what is the practical

23:11difficulty? The practical difficulty is

23:13clearly when these lots were

23:15established, they were established to uh

23:19if there was no need to use the back

23:21lot, then it wouldn't be a right away.

23:24And it wasn't there to plant flowers, it

23:26was there to be used. And in terms of uh

23:30the old standard and with relates to

23:33shape, obviously it's an irregularly

23:35shaped lot. And the practical difficulty

23:37is that now

23:40um there's a new zone that ends 100

23:43years later. Uh it does say that a drive

23:46should be at least 12 ft and then we've

23:48added uh sufficient it was six and six

23:51anyway and we've added uh 2 ft I think

23:54from one side and one from the other to

23:56expand uh the right of way uh in uh also

24:03it's established case law that

24:07it's a hardship if you can't use your

24:08land. So what if this is the least

24:11intensive use is to build a single

24:13family home

24:15uh and you have as a matter of right an

24:17ADU

24:19uh what we're asking for is to be

24:20allowed to use that parcel of land for

24:23what it was created for. Um

24:27and it's would provide housing which is

24:30if you read the new statute it says is

24:34uh if there's a practical difficulty

24:36with respect to uh the parcel uh but

24:39that the goal is to promote housing.

24:42It's not an overintensive use. It meets

24:45every dimensional requirement except

24:48frontage. Uh it would improve because uh

24:53obviously we put some plantings along

24:55the rear abide.

24:57We would only use the area that showed

25:00for parking as pave driveway. Um so

25:04there'd be an improvement in terms of

25:06curbousness of the lot. Um I did speak

25:10with counselor uh meanie uh because I

25:14understand he said there was a concern

25:16about the uh funeral home. So, I wanted

25:21to advise you that um

25:26the only other alternative would be this

25:28lot of butts, the Cuff McGin Funeral

25:31Pro.

25:32And if it can't be a home, maybe it can

25:35be a parking lot. And I that's what I

25:37talked to council mean about. I said,

25:39"What would you rather see?" I I don't

25:42know enough about the the uh

25:46you I don't know if somebody's moving

25:48that but they does that neighbor but if

25:51you see the yellow house the yellow

25:53house is owned by cuff managed there's a

25:55right way as shown on the assessor's

25:57plan from uh the funeral home to the

26:00yellow house and it goes it leads to

26:03that lot and so I said well if that's a

26:06concern

26:09then let me reach out and I attempted

26:11to, but it's a conglomerate that now

26:14it's not Walter Cuff any longer that

26:17that owns the funeral home. And so, uh,

26:21I think the real choice is you you

26:24cannot deny all uses. If the least

26:28intensive use is a single family, the

26:31only alternative use

26:33would be uh

26:36an accessory parking lot perhaps to the

26:39funeral. I haven't been able I know that

26:41the manager of the funeral home is an

26:45employee of the owner, but the last

26:47owner was in Texas. It's a it's a

26:49conglomerate that runs with these

26:52they're like franchises or whatever. So,

26:56uh if that's a concern that uh and I

27:01don't know the volume of the the

27:02business, I'm not in that business. But

27:04if that's a concern,

27:07firstly, I don't think it should be a

27:09burden on the owners of this property to

27:12solve a community concern, which may be

27:16parking when there's funerals. But if

27:19that's a concern, then you should allow

27:21me the opportunity

27:24to speak with the funeral home. I mean,

27:25I all I can say is that lot's been

27:28available for years and they haven't

27:30availed themselves. I can't speak for

27:33them because I haven't reached

27:36>> the real decision makers. The the

27:38individual who lives in the yellow home

27:40is like the manager. Uh and I have his

27:44name uh and I'd be glad to speak with

27:46him, but I don't know that he has uh the

27:49authority uh to say yay and a but I'm

27:54just giving you a realistic choice.

27:59It's not going to stay empty. The least

28:02intensive use is a single family. But if

28:04you're not going to have a single

28:05family, the only other possible use for

28:08that lot

28:10is packing. And and under the new

28:12ordinance, in order to have packing,

28:15it's got to be accessory to a principal

28:18use. And the and the nearest principal

28:20use that we can deal with is is the

28:23funeral home. So I I think on its merits

28:29and in in terms of there's no

28:31obligation. We provide on-site parking.

28:35Traffic is a community interest. It's

28:37not a specific harm or injury to

28:38anybody's property interest. We meet

28:40every dimensional requirement.

28:43Um so we don't adversely affect in any

28:46way uh of others. And in terms of the

28:50people uh on Maple Street, if if it

28:53really is a legitimate concern about

28:56packing during funerals,

28:59let me explore with the funeral home if

29:02they're interested in the lot. Um but I

29:05think on the merits

29:07um

29:09it is sufficient that there exists a

29:12practical difficulty the irregular shape

29:15uh and the fact that the lots were

29:17created prior to the adoption of zoning

29:20and the adoption by the state of the

29:21subdivision controller that

29:25a home would work well there and that we

29:28have improved

29:30uh fortunately uh the existing right of

29:33way because the family owns the two and

29:36the three. Um, I'd be glad to answer

29:39questions, but I just wanted to tell you

29:42how I got to where I am.

29:46>> April's

29:47>> I have questions. I don't know if the

29:48letter is going to be re be first or if

29:51we can go ahead with

29:52>> You have to wait till

29:56you may ask a question.

29:59>> Thank you. Um so attorney Vitali looking

30:03at what is the current use if any on the

30:07lot lot C itself right now hockey for

30:10the uh homes

30:12for the two family essentially the three

30:15family um was in a separate ownership

30:19but there's no parking requirement for

30:22either the two or the three

30:25>> there's no change in the building

30:26there's no expansion of the use there's

30:29No required parking for the two or the

30:31three.

30:31>> Is it is it parking for a business or is

30:33it parking for residential purposes? I'm

30:35seeing here satellite imagery from April

30:382026 and and August. And there's a lot

30:41of pickup trucks. Some of them have snow

30:44removal equipment in the front and

30:46there's storage space.

30:48>> Well, there's been no, as far as I know,

30:50there's been no violations with respect

30:52to the

30:52>> I'm curious what would be the plan if

30:55this were to be approved as proposed.

30:57What would happen with that equipment

30:58and those?

30:59>> It shouldn't be there. I mean, I that I

31:02You said it was in April. I I I'm only I

31:05I see a truck back there that on the

31:07picture, but

31:09uh and when I've been there, there there

31:11was I think there were people parked

31:12from the two fifth, but uh they're not

31:17required to have parking, nor is the

31:19three. and and we would provide parking

31:22for the new uh single family home with

31:27the idea.

31:28>> And what would happen to those vehicles

31:31related to snow removal or like they

31:35like

31:36>> they would be moved

31:37>> moved somewhere else,

31:38>> right?

31:38>> Okay.

31:39>> Yeah. I mean, if they're there, I mean,

31:41I see a truck, but I I don't I don't

31:43>> I see I see four and I can show you.

31:45>> Oh, yeah. No, I'm not doubting. I'm just

31:47saying I'm looking at this picture.

31:48>> Yeah. Um

31:52the other question was the current

31:54proposed single family home

31:57um ADU that would be two parking spaces

32:00for whoever is going to be

32:01>> because there because a single family

32:03home does require two parking spaces and

32:06the ADU does not because

32:09um the regulations that go with an ADU

32:12say that if you're within a half mile of

32:14a bus stop uh there's no need for

32:17parking space. There's only 11 addresses

32:19in the city of that are not within a

32:22half mile of us.

32:25Okay.

32:27>> How I'm sorry

32:31explain the practical consideration of

32:33choosing to do a single family plus an

32:35ADU as opposed to a two district. See,

32:40>> sorry. What were the what was the

32:42considerations that went into choosing

32:44this path of a single family plus ADU as

32:47opposed to a two

32:53lease?

32:57>> As far as I know, least intensity.

33:02>> Yeah. I mean, you're entitled under the

33:04R2, but

33:06>> yeah, it's like 4700.

33:10I think the other thing is I think this

33:12map on the uh

33:14there's a provision in the sub zoning

33:17that says even though it's 3750, it's

33:21like land to unit is like 23 something

33:25which is more than 3750.

33:27>> Yeah. So uh that would have been a need

33:31for another I mean that's what it says

33:33but that would have been a need for

33:35another variant

33:37to

33:39>> Yeah. Okay.

33:41>> So my question is you seem to be using

33:43ADU and single family home

33:45interchangeably. So is this a single

33:47family home or is this an ADU?

33:50>> That's a hell of a good question

33:52>> because if it's an ADU

33:53>> the way I understand it is this. But

33:56I'll tell you why I think that's a good

33:58question. All right. I I think that the

34:02ordinance in Lynn in the state statute

34:04says it's an accessory dwelling unit.

34:07And why it's accessory is it can only be

34:09900 square ft or less.

34:12But uh in reality it's a a a single unit

34:16and an ADU. But that that that goes to

34:21whether is that better than having two

34:24two units? It's it's it's within so it's

34:27attached and and the reason for that is

34:30to to build this

34:34you have to run the the utilities down

34:37that uh

34:39>> track and that's a a long run

34:43and if you have an ADU you're required

34:47to have uh sanitary facilities for the

34:50ADU. So if it's attached then you don't

34:54you don't have to bring two line you

34:55follow you and bring two water lines and

34:57you bring one water line and one sewer

34:59line.

34:59>> I see.

35:00>> Yeah, that would make a change.

35:03>> Um and yeah, you're 200 short of what it

35:07would have been for floor area to

35:10>> Yeah, it's a I mean so many dollars a

35:12foot to run the the lines.

35:15Uh also just to where there it's it's

35:18900 ft or half of the dimension

35:21>> but no it can't be it can't be hot more

35:23than 900 ft

35:25>> right and it can't be more than it can't

35:28be more than half of the square

35:30principle small

35:32>> yeah it's but but I think it's 8 the

35:34plan's like 830 something 8 something

35:37for the year

35:40um I have another question so as

35:43proposed Presumably

35:45two parking spaces, presumably two cars

35:48would be usually there on the property.

35:52Um,

35:55is there any additional vehicles

35:57expected? I'm just trying to understand

36:00the concerns from the communications

36:02that we've received in terms of

36:03congestion and how that plays out with

36:05what is being proposed here. Can you

36:08talk a little bit about that? I don't I

36:09don't think congestion is a factor that

36:10can be considered because if you meet

36:13the required parking on site, you

36:15satisfied the ordinance. I do think I I

36:18anticipated a different question. I uh

36:23a great judge once said you can't drive

36:25a fire truck over a plant. And what he

36:28meant is you can show me a plan. It does

36:31and how does it work? All right. So,

36:35I can't speak for this, but they're all

36:37related. I mean, and the three family,

36:41the two family, and the single. So, it's

36:44conceivable that there may be other

36:46people parking there. I can't say that

36:48that won't happen.

36:51But if it comes to separate ownership,

36:56then it's a question of whether you meet

36:58what's required. And what's required so

37:00far is just for the for the new

37:02construction.

37:04>> How does this affect the other two

37:06houses?

37:07>> Excuse me.

37:08>> How does it affect the other two houses

37:10parking?

37:11>> The other two don't have required

37:14parking. These are the two family and

37:15the three family.

37:16>> Correct.

37:17>> Correct.

37:18>> Yeah, there's no required parking for

37:20that.

37:21>> Yeah, but they have

37:22>> 1964 the city of Lynn adopted a parking

37:25ordinance. It says that any uh building

37:29in existence today, which was April of

37:321964,

37:33is not subject to these uh packing

37:36regulations, but any expansion of the

37:40building or expansion of the use. The

37:43two families unchanged, the three

37:45families unchanged like many properties

37:47in the city of Lynn,

37:50there is no required parking.

37:52>> Yeah, there is some existing parking

37:54there. behind one of the buildings.

37:57>> Well, the only because it's in one

37:59ownership on one side or it's it's

38:02family.

38:03>> Yeah.

38:03>> Yeah.

38:04>> So, how many how many park

38:07I I can see looks like some parking

38:09there. Did they park there on the

38:11existing lots?

38:14>> But in terms of

38:16>> is there two parking stalls there or is

38:18there any parking lot?

38:20>> I I haven't seen a plan that shows

38:22parking for the three family. I know

38:24that we could get a space if we needed

38:26one in front of maybe the two, but it's

38:30not required.

38:31>> Yeah, I know it's not required. I'm just

38:32curious how many are there.

38:35>> But I think it would make it more

38:37detrimental cuz they technically have

38:39parking right now. They're parking on

38:40the back lot.

38:42>> The three family was owned uh previously

38:45by a different owner. They had no

38:47parking. Now the and the two family came

38:51into the same family. than the three

38:53family. But there's no obligation to

38:55provide parking for either the two or

38:57the three. They're separate lots. That's

38:59why I cited the subdivision control law.

39:01It says if you exist and you have a

39:04building on a lot and it was there

39:05before the adoption of the subdivision

39:08control law, which is a state law, or

39:10before the

39:12adoption of the ordinance, which they

39:14were, you can't impose a packing

39:16requirement on either of those. There

39:18are many built these buildings were

39:20built in the 1900s

39:22when automobiles were probably far

39:25fewer. Uh but but the reality is you

39:29can't burden the owner of the back lot

39:33to solve the problem of the the

39:35community.

39:37All all the obligation the owner has is

39:40to provide what the ordinance says the

39:42required parking for that use. The use

39:46of the two and the three haven't

39:48changed. What I'm suggesting to you is

39:51if there's not a residence there,

39:54>> we're not going to grow marijuana back

39:56there. They got to have some use. And if

39:59you deny a landowner all possible uses,

40:02that is a hardship. And so I'm I'm

40:04willing to explore

40:07um a possible alternative. I but I can't

40:10speak for a business that I don't

40:12represent. But I can tell you that uh

40:16the problem that the ordinance presents

40:18is that you can't have an isolated

40:20parking lot even if we wanted neighbors

40:22to park there. It has to be accessory to

40:26the principal use.

40:29That that's in the new ordinance that

40:30came in when they adopted uh the new

40:33ordinance. They did away with uh uh

40:37packing that was not accessory to a

40:39principal use. And so the principal use

40:42would be a single family and it it's got

40:44two spaces.

40:46>> How many stories of the proposed new

40:48building?

40:48>> Excuse me.

40:49>> How many stories? How many floors is the

40:52new proposed building?

40:56>> It just has the the dimensions. Does it

40:59tell me

41:02about the spaces? No. How many stories

41:04the building structure?

41:12>> I think it's

41:15very

41:19elevation still

41:21>> that's

41:24difference. So question I have is the

41:28architect drawing A1 shows a site plan

41:32and it shows the two cars to the left of

41:34the driveway and it shows a car parked

41:37to the right of the driveway. So is that

41:39hammerhead also to be a parking spot

41:42like which

41:42>> No, what I think we were concerned about

41:44is you wanted people facing driving out

41:49we didn't want people to back out onto

41:52Maple Street.

41:52>> Okay. So the spaces are so you can make

41:54the turn and come out.

41:55>> So the idea is to back into that

41:57hammerhead and turn around,

41:59>> right?

41:59>> Okay. As the architect plan showed a car

42:02there.

42:04>> So it's a little it was a little

42:06confusing because it looked like it was

42:09>> not in sync with the

42:10>> I know what we told them was we wanted

42:12to be sure that vehicles faced out.

42:15>> Understandable.

42:22Does anybody have any more questions?

42:26>> Thank you very much.

42:27>> Okay. Is there anyone else here who

42:29would like to speak in favor of this

42:31project?

42:34>> Okay. Is there anybody else? Well,

42:36before we um talk about opposition, we

42:39do have a letter to read into the

42:41minutes.

42:46Um,

42:48dear chair, chairwoman Crowitz, as you

42:51aware, I'm the duly elected Ward One

42:53city councelor for the city of Lind, a

42:55petition has been filed with zoning

42:58board of appeals requesting a variance

43:00to construct a single family and an

43:02accessory dwelling unit ADU on a lot

43:04with less than the required frontage on

43:07Maple Street in Ward One. The lot

43:09currently houses a two family home and a

43:10petitioner is seeking to subdivide the

43:12lot and add an additional single family

43:14home and an ADU. Following a

43:16subdivision, there will be three

43:18separate units on lot that currently

43:20contains a single two family homes.

43:23Massachusetts law has been amended to

43:25allow ADUs to be constructed in many

43:27cases at a m as a matter of right.

43:31However, the law specifically requires

43:32that the parcel with ADU is to be

43:35construct constructed comply with the

43:37dimensional requirements of a

43:39municipality ordinance. Here, the

43:41petitioner lack sufficient frontage. The

43:44current frontage required by Lynn's zone

43:47ordinance was relaxed significantly in

43:492025 to more accurately reflect existing

43:53neighborhoods in the city. Despite a

43:55significant reduction in the required

43:58frontage, the petitioner's law does not

44:00comply with the 2025 zone ordinance.

44:03This parcel is near the C Mcan funeral

44:06home and parking is difficult during

44:08wakes and funerals for residents in the

44:10area. I've received numerous calls from

44:13neighbors who are in opposition to the

44:15project as it will increase congestion

44:17in the area. It does not fit with the

44:19current character of the neighborhood.

44:21As a duly elected Warun city councelor,

44:23I must advocate on behalf of the

44:25residents of this neighborhood. I am

44:28aware of nothing unique regarding the

44:30soil condition, shape, or topography

44:32that would warrant the granting of a

44:33variance. I'm also unaware of any

44:36practical difficulty in the petitioner

44:38complying with the city of Lynn zone

44:41ordinance. I urge a zone board of

44:42appeals to deny this request for a

44:44variance as the proposed use would

44:46increase congestion and be substantially

44:48more detrimental to the neighborhood

44:50than the current two family dwelling

44:52there on.

44:54Thank you for consideration of this

44:55matter. Yours truly, Dr. Peter V. Mini

45:00Council Ward One.

45:02>> Okay. Is there anyone else here who

45:04would like to speak in uh against this

45:06project? Would you please come up and

45:09sign in? Do you have something you can

45:10understand? I'll just let me turn this

45:16up.

45:16>> Yeah.

45:16>> David,

45:32my name is Michael Donnie. I live at 29

45:34Gauge Street. We had wrote a letter that

45:37we wanted to speak to, but we have to

45:39listen to this gentleman speak. That

45:41yellow house in the back, if you zoom

45:43into that, that is 29 gauge street. That

45:45is not Cuff McGuin. That is my house.

45:49So, I don't know. He said he tried to

45:51get a hold of people. I don't know.

45:52That's my house. 29 Gauge Street. That's

45:54the garage on the left.

45:57And that's my yellow house right there.

45:59That's not Wayne. Um, somebody else

46:02talked about

46:04>> So, your house is directly in front of

46:06this parcel that's vacant,

46:08>> correct? Right. So, that fence, that

46:11white fence, actually, there's a there's

46:13a um small rock wall. That's my property

46:17line.

46:19>> Um, somebody asked about what's being

46:21used that there's seven pickup trucks

46:24there as of 3 days ago. And there's

46:27plows, there's snow blowers, there's two

46:30container boxes, there's a pile of um

46:32pallets. I have a video of it and

46:34pictures if you want to see them. So,

46:37that's what's going on with it. It's

46:38been going on for a while. You asked

46:40about the parking.

46:42The back of each one of these houses,

46:43there's always a pickup truck. See where

46:45it says do not enter? There's a pickup

46:46truck backed in there. And on this house

46:48on the right, there's a pickup always

46:50backed up between the house and that

46:51fence. I I walk this neighborhood a lot.

46:54I'm a walker. Um, when you see this bay

46:57window, the car parks there a lot. I

47:01can't say every day. So, you asked about

47:03parking. It's people are using that

47:06property and that right of way as

47:09parking.

47:11Um,

47:15and then my

47:15>> So, if somebody parks in that driveway

47:17now, then then the house in the in that

47:20they're proposing in the back would be

47:23blocked. They wouldn't be incorrect. And

47:24it's there a lot. And this this picture

47:27is taken a long time ago. He has worked

47:28on them and painted these houses and

47:30everything. But right where that bush

47:32is, a car parks there I would say every

47:34I could say faithfully every other day

47:37right there. So that yeah, that cuts

47:39that off. And then they do park on the

47:42back of that those houses. There's a

47:43pickup truck boy where it says do not

47:45enter and there's a pickup truck on the

47:47other house. So, those are just the to

47:50answer the differences that I believe

47:53that I just heard. Um, we wrote a len we

47:57didn't have time to get a lawyer. We

47:58because we wanted to. Um, we wrote a

48:01kind of lengthy letter of what we'd like

48:03to say. We have enough for everybody. If

48:05I have to read it, I can. I'm not very

48:06good at reading, but I can hand them out

48:08so you can see our concerns.

48:12>> Have you sent them in yet? What? No, I

48:15told them at this meeting so you guys

48:17could read it.

48:18>> But I can hand them out to you if you

48:19want. So you know what I mean? Yes.

48:21>> Can I read it in or No.

48:23>> Yeah.

48:31need to be addressed.

48:48>> We can have a secretary read it. I can

48:50read it.

48:50>> Oh, that'd be great. Appreciate

48:52>> that.

48:56to the Lord Court of Appeals. I am at a

48:59butter to the above property and

49:01respectfully oppose the requested

49:02variance for construction of a single

49:05family dwelling and attached accessory

49:07dwelling unit on lot C. I want to make

49:10clear that my objection is not in

49:12objection to housing or to an accessory

49:14dwelling unit. Generally, my concern is

49:17whether this particular rear parcel with

49:19its unusual configuration, lack of

49:22ordinary street frontage and access

49:24through a 12T right ofway between

49:27existing resident properties is

49:29appropriate for the development proposed

49:31and whether the applicant has satisfied

49:33the standards required for the requested

49:36variance. The original recorded 1925

49:40plan identifies lot C as a 4587

49:44square foot rear parcel. The same plan

49:47shows lot A containing the existing two

49:49family dwelling and lot B containing the

49:52existing three family dwelling between

49:54lot C and Maple Street. Access to the

49:58rear is shown through a 12T right ofway.

50:00I recognize that lot C exceeds the

50:02current R2 minimum lot area requirement

50:04of a 3750

50:07square ft. Therefore, my objection is

50:10not based simply on the size of the

50:13parcel. The significant issue is that

50:15LTI does not have conventional frontage

50:17on Maple Street. Uh def deficiency

50:22expressed expressly acknowledged in the

50:24hearing notice. The Lynn zoning

50:27ordinance defines frontage in relation

50:30to the street providing legal and

50:33physical vehicular access. The hearing

50:35notice states that lot C has less than

50:38the required frontage and obtains access

50:41through right ofway. The applicant is

50:43therefore asking the board to grant

50:45relief from an important characteristic

50:47normally required for residential

50:49development. I respectfully ask the

50:52board to require the applicant to

50:54identify specifically what practical

50:57difficulty necessitates this variance

51:00and how that difficulty arises from the

51:03physical characterist characteristics of

51:05this property rather than simply from

51:08the desire to develop this rear parcel.

51:11The hearing notice identifies whether

51:13the practical difficulty is self-created

51:16and whether the benefit sought can be

51:18achieved through other feasible method

51:21as considerations for the board. I'm

51:25also concerned about the

51:27adequacy and

51:30safety of access. The proposed principal

51:33dwelling in ADU would depend upon a

51:3612-oot right ofway located between

51:38existing developed residential lots.

51:40Before granting relief, I asked the

51:42board to require evidence demonstrating

51:45how ordinary vehicles, emergency

51:47vehicles, service vehicles, and

51:49construction vehicles can safely access

51:51the proposed development. The applicant

51:54should also demonstrate where vehicles

51:56serving the new dwelling and ADU will

51:58park and maneuver. The ADU provisions of

52:00the ordinance ordinarily require an

52:03additional parking space for an ADU.

52:05Subject to the exceptions and waiver

52:08position provisions contained in the

52:10ordinance. The applicant should identify

52:13all required parking spaces and

52:15demonstrate that vehicles can enter the

52:16rear parking the rear parcel park

52:19maneuver and leave safely without

52:22depending upon neighboring property or

52:25creating additional problems along the

52:27shared access. Utilities are also

52:29concerned because lots is a real parcel.

52:32The applicant should identify the

52:33proposed routes for water, sewer,

52:35electricity, and other utilities,

52:37including whether construction,

52:39maintenance, or replacement of those

52:41utilities would require excavation or

52:43other work within the right of way or

52:46affect adjoining properties.

52:50Drainage and impervious coverage should

52:52also be addressed. Construction of a

52:54house, 80 related improvements,

52:56driveways, and parking on a 4587

53:00ft parcel would change existing

53:02conditions. The board should have

53:04sufficient information to determine

53:05whether storm storm water will go and

53:08whether the project could adversely

53:10affect neighborhood neighbor neighboring

53:13property. I am also concerned about the

53:16proposed building's height, massing, and

53:19effect on adjoining property. My

53:21property contains a longestablished

53:23vegetable garden that receives a

53:25substantial

53:27daylight from the direction of lot C.

53:30Because an R2 principal building may be

53:33as high as 35 ft, I respectfully request

53:36that the applicant provide the proposed

53:38building elevations, finished grades,

53:41and actual building height together with

53:44a professional seasonal shadow study

53:47showing that the anticipated shadow

53:48conditions created by the proposed

53:51structure at representative times of day

53:54and seasons of the year. At a minimum, I

53:57request that the study depict existing

53:58and proposed conditions during the

54:00winter solstice, summer solstice, and

54:03spring and fall equinoxes, including

54:05morning, midday, and afternoon

54:06conditions, and show the resulting

54:08shadows on adjoining properties. A

54:10single snapshot or a general generalized

54:13representation would not adequately

54:16demonstrate the year-round effect of a

54:17building of this size and location on

54:20neighboring properties. This information

54:23would allow the board and affecting of

54:25voters to evaluate the actual impact

54:29rather than speculate about it. The

54:31city's ADU provisions require an

54:33applicant to include existing and

54:35proposed zoning compliance information,

54:38floor plans, and a plot plan showing

54:42existing and proposed structures,

54:44utilities, access, parking, and

54:45landscaping. As an abuter, I have not

54:48had an opportunity to review these

54:50materials in advance of tonight's

54:51meeting hearing and understand that I

54:54may not see the applicant's actual plot

54:57plan until shortly before the meeting.

54:59For that reason, I should respectfully

55:01request that the board not make findings

55:03concerning access, parking, vehicle

55:06maneuvering, utilities, drainage

55:07setbacks, building height, seasonal

55:10shadow impacts, or other impacts upon

55:12adjoining properties based upon plans or

55:15supporting materials that affecting a

55:17butters have had only minutes to review.

55:21If the seasonal shadow analysis,

55:24detailed elevations, finished gradings,

55:26access and vehicle turning information,

55:29utility plan, parking layout, drainage

55:32information, or other material plans,

55:34and supporting information are not

55:36available for meaningful review at the

55:38hearing. I respectfully request that the

55:39board continue the matter rather than

55:42approve the variance on an impro

55:43incomplete record. A continuence would

55:46allow affecting a butters a reasonable

55:50opportunity to review the materials

55:51against the applicant ordinance and

55:53provide meaningful informed comment

55:55before the board makes its decision. I

55:58also ask the board to determine exactly

56:01what zoning relief is required. In

56:03particular, the applicant should

56:04identify any requesting requested relief

56:08involving frontage, lot west, setbacks,

56:10parking, dimensional requirements, or

56:13other provisions rather than relying

56:16upon a generalized request for such

56:17relief as may be required or necessary.

56:21The existence of lot on an old reported

56:24land explains a historical configuration

56:28of the property.

56:29It does not by itself answer the present

56:32zoning question or whether the board

56:34should grant relief allowing new

56:36residential construction on this

56:38frontage deficient rear parcel. For

56:42these reasons, I respectfully request

56:43that the board denyed the requested

56:46variance unless the applicant

56:48establishes each requirement of for the

56:51relief saw and demonstrates with

56:54adequate plans and evidence that the

56:56proposed development could safely and

56:58appropriately be accommodated on lots

57:00without substantial detriment to the

57:02surrounding neighborhood. In the

57:04alternative, if the board believes

57:06additional information could resolve

57:08these questions, I respectfully request

57:10that the hearing be continued rather

57:12than approved tonight. So, the required

57:14plans,

57:16the requested seasonal seasonal shadow

57:19analysis and other supporting

57:21information can be meaningfully

57:23reviewed, respectfully submitted.

57:27Um,

57:27>> Michael,

57:28>> Michael,

57:3029 Gate Street.

57:35>> Is there anyone else here who would like

57:37to speak out against this project?

57:42>> Please um provide your name and address.

57:46>> What's your name? Mark,

57:49>> address.

57:51Thank you.

57:54Thank you.

57:57Hi, Mark Helman. I live at 30 Gauge

57:59Street. I'm just off to the back there.

58:01And pretty much Michael covered

58:03everything that I have concern about.

58:04And like he said, there are seven pickup

58:06trucks in there now. Two storage bins,

58:08two big storage bins.

58:11And with all the construction equipment

58:14that's there. And one of my concerns too

58:17is the actual footprint of the house. I

58:19did see a drawing where it looked like

58:22it was had its offsets, but then it had

58:24an overhang. And I'm concerned that the

58:26overhang of the building

58:28gets too close to the property lines.

58:30Even though it's on the ground level,

58:32it's fine. But and the parking obviously

58:34is a concern and I guess the the two and

58:38three families are grandpa in with not

58:40needing parking, but they all have one

58:43parking space behind there and

58:45they it's a very congested area as it

58:48is.

58:49then to put another burden on it. So,

58:52I'm really not in favor of adding to the

58:55congestion in the neighborhood.

58:57>> Thank you.

58:58>> Is there any anyone else here who would

59:00like to speak out against this project?

59:04>> All right. What is the wish of the

59:06board?

59:08committed to council meeting that I

59:11would talk across

59:13>> from

59:18I never seen

59:20>> yeah new be let me read what they

59:24>> can you can you

59:25>> in 1925

59:28when the laws were created it said this

59:30conveyance is subject to a right of way

59:32for all purposes in and over a strip of

59:35land 6 ft on the easterly side 6t on the

59:38westerly side. Uh today's zone ordinance

59:42says the driveway is 12 ft wide. That's

59:4412 ft. We added to it. So I'll I'll

59:46leave you that, but if I could you would

59:48share with me what I I could get an

59:51opportunity to address that and also try

59:54to reach out to the people

59:57who may

59:59want to use it for an accessory use as a

1:00:03parking lot.

1:00:04>> So I have a question. So it seems that

1:00:07some of the concerns or observations on

1:00:11the current use of lot C is the storage

1:00:15of vehicles and just want to make sure

1:00:18>> and that's why a single family home

1:00:19would be better in my judgment. So, just

1:00:21to confirm, if the proposed the current

1:00:24proposed

1:00:26um structure is approved and the

1:00:28petition is granted, the vehicles that

1:00:31currently are there would be out of any

1:00:34of the three corresponding lots A, B,

1:00:36and C. They would be out of the whole

1:00:38general area.

1:00:41I know that the two family

1:00:46has talked about a space to the front,

1:00:48but I know that when the three family

1:00:50was owned um by a different owner, uh I

1:00:55think there was a fence across or a gate

1:00:57across, so they couldn't buy. Um but uh

1:01:02now

1:01:03again because it's fortuitous that

1:01:05they're all family members that doesn't

1:01:07mean that they are all obliged to to

1:01:09chip in and and and provide parking. But

1:01:13I'd be glad to speak to the owners, the

1:01:16father and the brother of uh uh the

1:01:19woman who would like to build a single

1:01:21family home. And I I I'll look this

1:01:23over. I there were many questions, but I

1:01:26I just saw I haven't read it. We just

1:01:29got a two.

1:01:30>> Yeah. Yeah. I know.

1:01:32>> Just just to be clear, the only variance

1:01:36you're asking for

1:01:37>> is frontage.

1:01:38>> Correct.

1:01:38>> Right.

1:01:39>> Yeah. Okay.

1:01:40>> And and you you understand that uh the

1:01:43new statute says a practical difficulty

1:01:45to pro but that would prevent the

1:01:47promotion of housing and the status of

1:01:50the current law for the last four or

1:01:52five years is you got to have a specific

1:01:53harm or injury to your property. And if

1:01:57I meet the rear yard with that single

1:01:59family home, I'm not causing people on

1:02:01Gage Street specific counter injury to

1:02:04their property.

1:02:04>> Yeah. So, you meet all the offset

1:02:06requirements.

1:02:07>> But I I mean, I'd be glad to read this,

1:02:09but I I did commit to to the councelor

1:02:12because he stated the about the funeral

1:02:15home and the traffic that comes from

1:02:18that. Uh

1:02:19>> I did notice you did submit some

1:02:21architectural plans that show floor

1:02:23plans and elevations.

1:02:26uh that are that are on file that are

1:02:28available for review if anybody's at the

1:02:31>> Yeah, Richard Smith's the architect. I'd

1:02:33be glad to do that.

1:02:34>> Yeah,

1:02:34>> that'd be great.

1:02:35>> They understand what's being built.

1:02:36>> Why don't you find it acceptable then

1:02:39all of you if we would continue this

1:02:40case until you've had an opportunity to

1:02:43speak to the name?

1:02:44>> Yeah, I just

1:02:46>> I don't know what or

1:02:48>> I mean I I did some research at the

1:02:49Secretary of State and I found addresses

1:02:52in Texas. Um, and then I reached out and

1:02:55I I haven't talked to him, but I think

1:02:57the gentleman who lives in the yellow

1:02:59house that's owned by Koff McCann, I

1:03:01think he's the local

1:03:03>> Yeah, but he's saying he he's living in

1:03:04that house.

1:03:06>> The yellow house.

1:03:10>> I was told that

1:03:11>> it's the home. It's to the left is where

1:03:14with the homes to the left.

1:03:16>> Yeah. Walter C brought me properties

1:03:19when he was the the cuff of the cuffs.

1:03:21own property right now. Who?

1:03:24>> The yellow house.

1:03:25>> No, the vacant land that everybody's

1:03:28using for parking apparently without

1:03:29paying anything.

1:03:30>> The Diaz family.

1:03:32>> So, they own all three now.

1:03:33>> You're right. They own all three.

1:03:34>> So, they're allowing people to park

1:03:36their construction equipment.

1:03:37>> Well, again, I I I'll inquire. I don't

1:03:40know whose vehicle was back there, but I

1:03:42know they own all three lots.

1:03:45>> So, that's a problem, too. So

1:03:48>> I think I think that's a relevant piece

1:03:50of information that I would be

1:03:51interested in particularly in terms of

1:03:55congestion. Congestion doesn't only come

1:03:57from parking. It comes from traffic flow

1:03:59and a sizable amount of vehicles that

1:04:02can be seen with satellite imagery

1:04:04throughout the years. A reduction in

1:04:06that number would be a significant

1:04:08variable in my end for understanding a

1:04:12little bit better the implications of

1:04:13congestion. So, who owns the fleet or

1:04:17the vehicles? How is it operated? And

1:04:19what would happen with it is at least

1:04:21for

1:04:22>> like where would they go after if if it

1:04:25got built out? Where would those people

1:04:26go? Right. On the street,

1:04:28>> I don't I don't know who those people

1:04:30are, honestly. So, but I'll I'll try to

1:04:32find out.

1:04:33>> Thank you.

1:04:34>> Yeah.

1:04:35>> Yeah. And then you have some a chance to

1:04:37to go through some of the neighborhood

1:04:39concerns and address those um

1:04:41>> directly at maybe our

1:04:43>> next meeting.

1:04:44>> Well, but I can see the 4587

1:04:47is more than the required 3,750. I mean,

1:04:50I can go through it. Yeah, I'd be glad.

1:04:52>> This whole thing fell apart. Somebody

1:04:54could legitimately buy the land, build a

1:04:56single family housing on it and go

1:04:59through the same thing. And it could be

1:05:00some big high structure. You know, you

1:05:02always have to worry about what might

1:05:03come with this.

1:05:05So I I'll go through this. I'll do what

1:05:07you asked about the vehicles.

1:05:08>> Can you um also just what is your

1:05:12understanding of the required frontage?

1:05:15What what are what is the actual

1:05:18>> 45? I think it's I think in the

1:05:21two it's 45.

1:05:24It's either 40 or 45.

1:05:28I I can tell you a second.

1:05:31Uh that's

1:05:35>> Yeah, we've got the

1:05:38number on top

1:05:41that

1:05:42>> it's no more than 35 ft height.

1:05:48>> I got it open here. I just got to find

1:05:50the right table.

1:05:55[ __ ]

1:05:58See signs.

1:06:30Yeah, you're widening the right away,

1:06:32right?

1:06:32>> Yes.

1:06:33>> So, so that's going to be a revised

1:06:36easement from both of those adjacent

1:06:39properties, correct?

1:06:40>> Okay. So, there'll be an updated

1:06:42easement plan for that right away.

1:06:44Right. That'll be filed.

1:06:46>> Two feet up one.

1:06:48>> Yeah. So there there's plot plans

1:06:51showing that on those two parcels as

1:06:53well.

1:06:57>> So all three deeds will show that right

1:07:00away.

1:07:01>> Yes.

1:07:03Yeah.

1:07:04We have a rightway

1:07:07what's called benefit and subject. So

1:07:10these two would be subject that would be

1:07:12>> right. And so the only thing I would

1:07:14like to see, obviously all the utilities

1:07:18would need to run up through that right

1:07:19away. They can't go through the private

1:07:21property. Um I I I know that I don't

1:07:24know if the existing driveway is still

1:07:26gravel, but I would because of all the

1:07:28increased traffic. I would like to see

1:07:30that paved right away. 15 ft paved.

1:07:35>> I don't I don't know what kind of I

1:07:38think it's

1:07:40>> Well, yeah. I don't It looks like gravel

1:07:43to me.

1:07:43>> Yeah.

1:07:44>> From that road picture. But it should be

1:07:47the 15 ft should be paid.

1:07:49>> Looks like

1:07:51he's got seven.

1:07:52>> Yeah. But the existing is

1:07:54>> the existing is smaller. So if you're

1:07:57going to widen the rightway, the full

1:07:59width of the new rightway should be

1:08:01paved to demark that. That's the

1:08:03rightway.

1:08:04>> Okay.

1:08:06I I will get st,

1:08:09>> but it should be paved because there's

1:08:11more traffic. You're not going to trap

1:08:13the full width. You're not driving over

1:08:17gravel or

1:08:19>> lawn area or anything else that's

1:08:20tracking out to the street.

1:08:24>> Um,

1:08:25>> yeah, he would have made it.

1:08:29>> Yeah. Was there a landscaping plan or

1:08:33areas showing in the proposed lots the

1:08:37impervious versus pvious surfaces?

1:08:40Given that there have been comments and

1:08:42concerns about storm water and the fact

1:08:44that the lot is so close to the other

1:08:46properties, knowing where the green

1:08:48areas are to mitigate any water runoff

1:08:51also would be of interest of me to know

1:08:53where that green area is. So,

1:08:55>> well, I think we can take up some of

1:08:56that current that would improve

1:09:01uh

1:09:04>> I can get I know we did the math with

1:09:06proposed footprint of the driveway in

1:09:09the house and then we had more than

1:09:12sufficient we didn't violate but the

1:09:14question is what the material

1:09:18>> yeah just put on the percent pvious you

1:09:20got an impervious area is 45 is that

1:09:22right so that exceeds what's recorded

1:09:24All right. Right.

1:09:27>> I think it's 65. You can't exceed 65.

1:09:31>> So, it's less than that.

1:09:34>> Yeah.

1:09:35>> Okay, that's good.

1:09:37>> And tra would have to be taken to the

1:09:41Just

1:09:43>> Yeah, they'd have to take the trash.

1:09:44>> Yeah. Okay. So the only notes that I

1:09:46have is that you are going to check

1:09:47you're going to check the impervious

1:09:49versus pvious um hardscape

1:09:52um

1:09:53>> green areas

1:09:54>> uh of the lot and then talk with the

1:09:57neighbor speak was lean if required and

1:10:00um and what did you say

1:10:03>> the green areas of the property

1:10:05landscaping

1:10:07>> green areas

1:10:08>> yeah I think I think

1:10:09>> that's what you wanted

1:10:10>> I think you I was looking for

1:10:14the drainage the drainage patterns

1:10:17>> running off the site. In other words,

1:10:18we're not going to increase runoff to

1:10:20one.

1:10:20>> Yeah.

1:10:23>> Yeah. In other words, it's

1:10:24>> I assume the grading is going to

1:10:26>> sort of run out down the rightway. I I

1:10:29don't know where where

1:10:31>> whatever it is to believe that cuz you

1:10:33kind of landlocked back there and now

1:10:35you're developing it.

1:10:36>> We don't want to increase the runoff to

1:10:38the

1:10:40>> Yeah. Um, it seems that in addition to

1:10:43the vehicles currently being stored or

1:10:46there throughout the year, it seems that

1:10:48there's like two structures or storage

1:10:51or something.

1:10:55>> What also or shipping containers looks

1:10:57like from the grainy aerial picture. So

1:10:59would like to know what would happen to

1:11:01that. Is that going to be removed? Is

1:11:02that also part of the package of the

1:11:04vehicles currently in use for the house?

1:11:15contain.

1:11:18>> Yeah, I recall I recall this coming in

1:11:20front of us before and and seeing I

1:11:22think there was another container there

1:11:24at one time.

1:11:27>> Yes, I think in 2024 this got

1:11:32[ __ ]

1:11:37salt

1:11:41for roads.

1:11:45>> Well, there are vehicles with snow.

1:11:53>> That

1:11:54actually

1:12:00we have

1:12:01>> Oh, I believe they do.

1:12:06Yeah,

1:12:10>> I think that's all for me in terms of

1:12:12things that I would like to see for the

1:12:13next one.

1:12:14>> Yeah.

1:12:15>> Okay.

1:12:16>> Okay. You have more homework, Mr. Patel.

1:12:20>> Yeah, I haven't seen that.

1:12:21>> So, let's u make a motion to continue to

1:12:24What do you need? You do more than two

1:12:26weeks.

1:12:27>> Yeah. Whatever. First meeting in

1:12:29November. Whatever. up in November of

1:12:31October

1:12:36>> 17th.

1:12:38Oh, November 17th. Yep.

1:12:40>> Okay. So, uh I move to

1:12:42>> motion to the 17th.

1:12:45>> Continue this to the 17th of November.

1:12:47>> Y

1:12:48>> there's no meeting.

1:12:49>> There's another one election.

1:12:51>> It's another one in October, but it's in

1:12:53two weeks. So, I don't know if that's

1:12:55enough.

1:12:55>> November meeting. So, that's why

1:12:58>> Yeah. Yeah. November.

1:12:59>> That'll give you time to flush out all

1:13:01the hat.

1:13:02>> Yeah.

1:13:03>> So that's November. What did I What did

1:13:06I

1:13:07>> Okay. Thank you.

1:13:09>> Yes.

1:13:10>> Yeah. Okay.

1:13:13>> We have a second.

1:13:14>> Second.

1:13:15>> Second.

1:13:20>> Okay. To continue to November 17th with

1:13:23all the um stipulations. I can send you

1:13:26a list of stipulations. Sure. I'm sorry.

1:13:29>> Um,

1:13:33member

1:13:35Gil,

1:13:36>> yes to continue with all the

1:13:38stipulations. Member Majio,

1:13:40>> yes to continue.

1:13:42>> Member Lopez Hernandez,

1:13:44>> yes to continue.

1:13:45>> Member Olsen,

1:13:46>> yes to continue.

1:13:47>> Member Crow,

1:13:48>> yes. To continue.

1:13:49>> And I'll send you all the stipulations

1:13:52>> on all the they're not the requests,

1:13:55right?

1:13:56>> I'll send them all to you.

1:13:57>> Yeah. and then you can tell me if I'm

1:13:58missing anything. How's that?

1:14:01>> Okay, I'll do a motion to adjourn.

1:14:04>> Oh, I thought there was one more case.

1:14:06>> No, we're done.

1:14:06>> Oh, we're done.

1:14:08>> Good.

1:14:09>> We need a second.

1:14:10>> So, I need your email. I'm going to send

1:14:12everything out to you. If you can just

1:14:13put your email in,

1:14:15>> you ajourned, right?

1:14:16>> Yeah.

1:14:17>> Okay. You need a second. Second.

1:14:20>> Can we submit those photos?

1:14:22>> All in favor? I Sorry. Oh, yeah. Next.