2026-10-28 - Board of Appeals

All set. >> Yes, sir. >> Welcome to the October 28th, 2026 meeting of the board of appeals. This meeting is being recorded and streamed by Milbury public access cable television available live on

public access channel charter 191 or Verizon 26. This meeting is also available through Zoom USD download or by phone. Anyone who is participating through Zoom us.d download or by phone should state

the name and address when speaking. And now the approval of minutes of September 23rd, 2026, which don't have in my packet. No, we don't. Anybody? >> Nope. You want to pass that time? >> Yep. We'll

pass that and we'll move on to Next here and in accordance with chapter 48 the masterpiece of general laws in the zoning ordinance of the town of Milbury on Wednesday October 28th 2026 at 7 p.m. A

public hearing will be held at this Milbury town hall at 127 Elm Street, Milbury, Mass 01527 to act on a petition from the applicant, Dylan and Taylor LLC, 17 Mana Road, Milbury, Mass, as a recorded

owner of the property located at 2-4 How Avenue, Hillbury, Mass. The applicant is seeking a special permit to provide the existing mixeduse lot in a B1 district. The applicant is also seeking to demo

the existing two family structure and rebuild on the proposed lot B as shown on the existing condition plan for 2-4 How Avenue dated 82124 construction lot B of the proposed two family structure will

require a variance variances per section 26.3 of the milzoning bylaws requesting relief from lot area front yard setback back from Canal Street and How Avenue. Rear and sideyard set back and lot

coverage. Okay, so now we can call up the applicant. >> So, um, good evening. My name is Don O'Neal. I'm a lawyer in Worcester here to see me on behalf of the applicant. And what we I'm sure most of

you are familiar with the property. Um it currently has as mentioned uh an existing repair garage and also a a two family dwelling which is in um pretty rough shape uh and it needs um extensive

repairs. uh to the extent that it's it makes more sense basically to uh demolish that structure or replace it um with a new building. Um there is a plan that um we had submitted uh which is shows the

uh location of the existing house is shown in blue and the proposed um new building is shown in purple. Um and pretty much with the exception of the porch that is proposed for the uh canal street um

frontage area um we're we're basically right practically on top of the foundation for the existing structure. And I did prepare a chart um that I had submitted that um did a contrast between uh the

what current setback provisions and what we're proposing uh and and basically you can you can see from the u from the plan uh that it is very close to what is there. Uh only what is there is you know

it's a much older building and it's um um we're it's essentially the same size building. uh the location um on um broken down on the chart uh on how we're just talking basically other than I said that

porch area on Canal Street it's a couple of inches six inches or so uh and um based on what's what is there presently uh the proposal that we have would ask for permission to divide the property into

two lots. Uh the repair garage actually with the division still would satisfy all of the requirements in the zoning ordinance or bylaw for what's needed in terms of frontage and area for that

location. Uh the existing house um is um on a lot which doesn't meet current zoning requirements, but it it doesn't meet the requirements currently. Um and it would be a situation where if forced to,

you could just repair the existing structure in place. Uh and it wouldn't be uh it wouldn't be as nice as what we're proposing to do. But that is another um option. Um the new provision in terms of

the zoning law talks about situation where there's a practical difficulty as a result of provisions in the um zoning um bylaw and I I don't know if you've and I when I did submit the brief in support

of this provision I did address the questions that are raised under the new law in terms of what the board should be looking at and in terms of you Traditionally with hardship it was soil shaped

topography. Uh it's a little bit more um broad now and it's intended to uh be more practical basically about the granting of variances. And in this situation, having both structures on one lot uh

creates a problem for the owner because the um existence of the the commercial use with the residential use uh creates a problem in terms of typical financing for a residential structure. You can't

get financing for a residential building if you've got a a repair garage on the same lot. Um so that the um because they'd be looking at the entire building and also just having two buildings on one

lot is is a complication in and of itself. Um now the um understand that the previous owner of the property um had the garage and actually lived in the house. So it was a little bit um different than

the current situation. But what my clients are looking to do is to get permission to split the lot, uh, demo the existing structure, uh, and replace it with a new building. And we have submitted the,

um, house plans that you've seen. Uh the uh proposed porch on Canal Street um is a feature that would be uh we think you know beneficial to the people who are going to be living in the house. Um it is

um you know something which we don't need to have the porch there. I mean that could be eliminated but the over thinking was that it's a benefit to people living there and it's also we believe would

improve improve the appearance of the structure in terms of from canal street uh and it could be you know could be a nice feature. Um if the porch became an issue you could replace it with a patio um

instead of instead of a porch structure but you wouldn't have the architectural detail that you would have with a porch. Um so the um practical solution in this case that we came up with was to

provide a lot too um and then uh request relief for the variances which again are pretty much uh very close to what's already existing. Um, and I did did receive um this evening this um uh letter from

uh one of the abutters. Um and um I don't know if you want me to to I can go through all the points that are raised in the abuters letters if you want me to or wait um and address them like the butter

addresses and respond to them at that point. But I'm just looking at this uh the first point that raised is that the separation would make neither property in compliance and that's actually not true.

Uh the garage building on that lot would comply with the zoning bylaw. Uh and division of the other lot creating an additional lot. Um the same house is already there. So that's I don't believe that

that's of any significance. Um I'm not sure what this risk of the house being hit um by um by someone coming down the hill. Um that's an existing condition has been the house has been there certainly

for quite some time. Um, and we don't feel how this basically what we're proposing to do by replacing the old house with a brand new house um um would in any way exacerbate that if anything I mean a

newer house is going to if that happened um I'd rather be in a new house that got hit by a car than the old house um you know just because of the condition that it's in. But I don't don't think that

that's really um should have any bearing on what we're requesting to do in terms of replacing the structure in essentially the same location. Um there's a question here about the power line and

needing to comply with national grid um electrical code. Um that's kind of a given. We're going to have to comply with that um regardless. Uh, I don't think that that's really an issue for the board.

I mean, if there's an issue with the power company, you'd have to comply with whatever the regulations are with respect to that. Um, um, moving the property towards Canal Street will change the sight

line for pe people taking a lefthand turn. Um we're still going to be almost 13 14 ft back from um the edge of the property and then there's a sidewalk. Uh and I would say that the neighbors property

which is shown on the plan is actually uh much closer than what we're proposing. This is the house right here and the um getting closer to how it's actually somewhere around five or six inches. It's

it's decimals. So I I'm not sure but one was uh existing structure I think is um 3.8 2T from how and the new one would be 3.4. So it's a point4 difference which is um it's significant. Um if the

elevation of the land is changed, if the retaining wall is eliminated, it could change the um runoff especially where permeable ground is very minimal. Uh we're not proposing any change to the u to

the existing retaining wall. Um we have prepared the plan which does provide for uh separate parking uh for the house. Um, in addition to the parking that would be available for the um, garage

building and um, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Is that shown on here? >> It's shown on We have another plan that shows that there's uh, you should have two. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Sorry. We'll get to you, Terry. We're going to let Miss Mr. Attorney on the thing is we're going to ask him questions now. Anybody wants to ask questions? We're going to ask questions to the attorney

first. I want to see you can sit if you want. >> Pardon me. >> I said if you want to sit down, you can. >> Oh, okay. It's standing there. It's kind of our our regular board >> filled up with voting

machines. >> Okay. Harold, do you have any questions? I want I could direct that right now. Maybe you come back after, but just is there any way you put it at 4613 square feet, right? Can you get that

to 5,000? I mean, you're going to own both. It's an imaginary line, but on the paper and if it ever got sold off, it'd be a minimum of the 5,000. Is that something that's encroaching on the other

place without taking away from it's like again I say it's probably an imaginary line on paper. If you're going to own both, it's always going to be the same piece of land unless you put a wall up. But

could you move that so that it gets to 5,000 square ft? >> Um because we had a lady in that wanted to build a house on a 5600 foot and at the time we denied her but she didn't own the land side of

her. You do. And again, it's going to be on paper unless you decide to sell it off or it's there's a wall put up or a fence, >> but you'd cover the 5,000 which is a minimum. >> It's just 400 more. >>

Yeah. 380 or something like that. Yeah. So, it's like 12 by 20 areas. driving to that was kind of >> it's about the Yeah, it's about the size of a small onecar garage. It's like Yeah. 12 by 24 or

something roughly. But it's again, unless you're putting the fence up, you're not going to know where the line is anyway. Yeah. But at least on the plans and in this room, we know we kept to the

5,000. >> No, I I just looking at it, I I think that could be adjusted. Um and the um uh shifted uh north, I guess. Um looks property lines about 40t wide. So, it's just um >> uh you know, the I'm

looking at the building. 10 ft further back. Right. >> Change anything. >> No, unless you change the shop being on a parcel of property that is good. >> That's right. >> That is big enough. I mean,

right now the way it is, the shop is on a piece of property that is big enough and meets everything it needs to meet. >> Changing that over another 12 ft. Is that going to change the property? >> Oh,

just state your name for the record. So, >> address the address. >> Yeah. Home address 17 road. Okay. And I believe the um um I can double check it but but I think that would still bring us clients.

There's I believe there's no minimum watt size um for this for housing but not for the commercial. >> And you got in the future you may have ability to expand going that way. Obviously you're not

going to get into the road if you ever wanted to buy more land. So you could make it up. I mean, not saying you want to or anything like that, but it's that possibility, right? >> It is. >> Yeah.

Versus going forward, you're not going to go right next door and have a car wash, >> right? >> It's a good idea. >> I'm full of them. >> Yeah. So, in response, um I believe we could do that if that

was the condition of >> Okay. And maybe it could be if if that's something the board wanted. Um, you know, petitional approval is revise the plan to increase the minimum lot size to 5,000 ft. >> On

that same topic, what is the box here that I mean on the uh that's the other second plane? >> Yeah, it shows the parking spaces. and the lot line between the shop and the two family. And where the

text says lot 1B, that's like a little separate box. >> What's the significance of that box? >> It's not. >> Well, yeah. See this little box from here to here? >> Yeah. >> What is this little piece of

land? >> It's called nine. >> I mean, it's part of this. Why is they relying here? >> What's this? >> Well, I think it's the whole lot. But you know what? Is that a >> What is this little piece of

lid? Is that a separate lot that's part of this parcel? >> No. >> No, >> it's all one lot. >> This is one B. That's one. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that this was not part of the >> No, no, no. I

I think that's >> We have a line here here to make this little block. >> Right now, we're just It could be the pavement that's accessibly. >> Oh, okay. So, yeah. So, this actually says batuminous

concrete and I think that's just a pave area. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Attorney O'Neal, I think Terry wants to see your plan. >> Sure. >> Could you put it maybe over where Harold is and then everybody could

look at it? >> We may need to view it through that. >> We We have our own. small. So, I don't know that >> you have an extra You have an extra plan you could give her. Here, take Mike on his package.

Hold on. We have one. >> We'll give her one right now. >> Okay. >> We have There you go. Now you have one. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> So, there's two. This one shows that's the existing

building. Opposed. And then this one just shows the proposed building with the parking. >> Where is that? >> It's right behind us. >> Zoom up on that. >> Well, it's a it's a it's a two two family

house two. >> Terry Terry, you got to you got to ask your questions when it's >> all right. >> Time. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. >> So anyway, the question question was how many parking spaces

and I said we're showing four spaces for the um >> two family which I believe complies with the zoning uh bylaw requirement. >> Are are there structures from the existing building being reused? Is

there a reason why it's going where it's going and can't be pushed back a little bit? Um I think the um well again if you um if we push back too much then you're going to you're going to get interfer

with the parking. Uh if you look at the other plan, the park new, you know, new proposed parking is um behind the house. Um and also I also part of the um thinking I believe was that the um um you

know essentially we're we're dealing with a known quantity which is the existing building which um we wanted as much as possible to stay on Um so that it um just in terms of the you know justification

for the relief that we're getting it's essentially to instead of repairing the old building replacing the the old building with a new building. >> I can't on the um proposed the second page. >> Yeah.

>> The one with the parking on it. I can't see the dimensions of the existing building and I see them there on the plan. Even with my glasses and cheetahs, I can't see the numbers. So, if if you can

see I can't see the numbers either. >> Please let me know what that is. I want I'm just trying to figure out what the the the existing structure. >> I see it. It says the proposer has the numbers. I

assume they're going to match this plan. >> Yeah. But >> there is the existing existing house. >> It doesn't have the footprint dimensions of the existing foundation. >> So I guess my question is is

it the same as the proposed? >> Perhaps we can look at your plans and see the numbers. >> Yeah. Is that your one? So there's actually that number. Yeah. This is the I'm not sure I have this one. >>

The second page, >> right? >> This other one actually we don't have but I have the M. Is this this the is the new that one? Um I think it's just a different the um when they prepared the plan they >>

Oh, do we have that? >> They put um existing condition. Oh yeah, you >> but it's actually the proposed >> the one with the parking spaces is the proposed >> proposed right is this one >> right and on

on the proposed >> it's this one >> it has the dimensions on the two family right here and I'm assuming that that's the same dimensions that are on this architectural plan. Yes. So what I'm looking

for I was asking is on the existing house what are the dimensions of the existing the same >> um that is the >> so the whole the house is >> it's the same except for the porch right >> yeah this the

house that's there now doesn't have a porch does it >> uh we'll get to your There is >> there's no porch on it. >> Three season on the front. >> There is one story. >> It's enclosed. >> It's the

little bump out in the front. >> That's a side though. That's how I have >> the porch is on Canal Street, which is this side. >> Can't see. You got to go to Canal Street on there. >> That's just a

photo. to go. >> And the other one with the the one you're looking at shows there like two bump two bay windows on either side to the front which is showing that >> for all intents purposes. This plan

is showing the little bumpouts, right? So yeah, it's 25 wide by 41 long. I'm trying to determine the existing home size and this is the existing home size, right? I'm trying to clarify the the plan

because you got two proposed plans or exist. You got one existing and one written in says proposed. >> Well, the the the existing the the title, but he did both plans, but he didn't change the title.

So, they both say existing. >> Yeah, I understand what you're saying. He didn't change the title on the plan. I get that. >> But that's that's why I think the um >> See, but he has a 7 foot wide in

the front right here. >> Right. on the Canal Street site. So, is that indicating the porch? Is this the new >> That's for the existing this house that's there today. They're saying it does have a

overhang porch over >> closed >> or roof. >> Okay. So, that So, all right. I got Yeah, >> now I got it. I understand. So this is the existing home that's there now with a 7 by 25 porch in the front

and the whole thing is 40 41 ft long plus the seven. So it's 48 total in the new house. You see that one? >> The new is >> 48 plus the >> It's 48 the same. >> Well, plus the six plus the four six

feet. >> So, what's that? 6 ft. >> Yeah. >> When you look at a parking spot, it's like half a parking spot wide. >> So, the the overall box of the foundation is still 48. Same as the existing. Yeah, I

think we're adding a six foot porch onto the front of that. >> Correct. >> And that's what's getting closer to canals. >> That's that's the only thing that's significantly closer than the others are,

like I said, really really close. Um and the um I guess they I guess the existing house and the close house both have porches. Uh but the um um you know the uh existing house is slightly further back

from Canal Street. So on the diagram right here on the blue that's the ex the blue is the existing >> and it's got I'm not sure what that back >> that's another bump out >> another bump out that's

going to be gone right >> well the whole the whole blue the blue is all blue is going to be gone yeah >> and but so bas Yeah I see what you I can see it now the pink is If you look at the uh proposed,

it's more of a it's like a box, more of a square box. Um, >> is there going to be a new uh new foundation? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> Foundation now. >> That back porch is >> You can't even see the

foundation. >> That's ground level. So, it must have water. You can see >> it's obviously it's obviously stone. It's an old >> should be a little higher. >> You can literally see >> how high is the

ceiling in the basement. >> It's pretty high. >> Okay. So, you do have a >> I want to say probably down there. Oh, you should stop that. >> Is the house occupied? >> No, it hasn't been occupied in

many years. Right there. >> Been looking at that place for years. >> That was the old board of health at one time. >> Really? >> Yeah. >> I think everybody in town's been looking for a lot of a lot

of years. >> So, Dan, any questions? Any other questions? >> No. Bob, >> no questions. Yeah, >> Carol, >> no. Maybe later, but no. >> Well, I I guess I would ask what, and this would be a question for

maybe a little later, the wording on the the variance is sometimes the the tricky part and so sometimes the attorney that represents the client provides suggested wording for the variance. Um, >> our

woodsmith is not here today. >> He's a pretty good one. >> Oh, that's right. Mr. >> D, this one's on you. >> All right. >> Um, well, again, we have the new standard, too, which is um >> more

flexible. >> Is that what you say? Well, it's supposed to make u it easier for boards to grant variances without being strictly tied to, you know, it's the triangular shaped lot or ledge or things of

that nature. And in this situation really is just that the part of the other thing that they're looking at in terms of granting variances is does this encourage additional housing? Another thing that

the change was made in order to cancel the house and in fact I think we are doing that in this case because we've got we have a two family but it's not really habitable in its current condition. Uh

and this certainly is going to add you know two new brand new um units which don't exist now and wouldn't be in that building. So I think that this granting of this relief would allow for additional

housing which the now needs uh to address an unmet need for the same and that the relief truly is um I believe the dimensional relief is is is minor. Um and part of that just has to do with the you

know you're building a a modern building. um we're not we're not trying to replicate what's there uh you know completely other than just basically essentially the same size house occupying the same

space. Um so that the um and the um relief is really just recognizing the fact that you have two different uses on the same lot. you've got a commercial use, you've got a residential use, and that

the um you know, division, not not that we went out and created an undersized lot that had no house on it. Uh and we're looking for approval from the board. This is just allowing for the replacement

of a house that's in need of replacement with the minor relief that's necessary um to do that with that's not significantly different than what you already have. And it will be significantly

different. Um it's going to be a lot nicer um and a big improvement. I think it would and good for the good for the town, good for the applicant, good for the overall appearance of the town. Um, and

it's um, you know, beneficial I I would say to the public >> be safer, too. Won't be a fire hazard. The new house, >> it's it's there's nothing really good that can be said about the condition of the

existing house. Um, so, uh, and, uh, it would seem to be, um, you know, talking about practicality, it's not really practical to repair it either because even after you repair it, um, you're never

going to have what you would have if you had a burning house, >> right? >> Any other questions? >> I I think the only concern, and it's not a concern, well, it is, but, is that a con lot makes the

safety factor. That's what I I built it to my thoughts. That's all. Yeah. >> But if it was probably anywhere else. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. And and in terms of um if you felt that you wanted to get it um

up to 5,000 square ft, we could adjust that line to provide 5,000 square ft. Okay. But I think the easy, you know, just by shifting it back um uh wouldn't be a problem on our end. Okay, I will we'll

let the public speak. >> Terry, you can speak. >> Three minutes. >> I wanted to look at that. That's all I wanted at this. >> That's all you wanted. Do you want to speak? No. >> My needs are small. >>

You don't want to speak? >> Not at this point. >> Okay. >> Who's up next? Um, you guys state your name and address. step forward. >> Yeah, you could step forward just for the cameras and >> one person

at a time though. >> You want to say >> lucky it's not a catch. >> Mark and Marlene 17 Canal Street. We are direct buggers down the >> Did you say Mark? >> Mark. >> Mark. Okay. >> Yes. And Marlene

Mlette. >> 17 Canal Street. We have direct buggers down the longest length of the property at 24 how and um we wrote a letter that you have before you. Uh thank you for some clarification about the

lot size of the business property. >> One second. Which of you? >> 17 Canal Street. It's >> the house right next door. >> This house. This one right here. >> Yes. The one out front. >> Yes. >> Yes. >>

Um some clarification if I could. Um please bear in mind though they are looking at uh using the existing footprint that so they say about the house uh the impact is that the old um town office that

is on the canal street side is currently only one story it would go up to three stories. So that line of sight you know just for the visual is going to be changing. I don't think that that changes

what the traffic um sees. Do you understand? >> You're saying the existing building is one story? >> The existing story, the the existing addition that was made onto the house, which extends to the

the full extent that it is now at 20 ft from the property line approximately, is one story tall. They're proposing to take that outside point and go up three stories. So, it just a change. It's not

going to change the footprint, so to speak. And the same thing with the bumpouts. The bumpouts extend from the main uh line of the house in two small like bay window type of structures. They are one

story. Those would go up as I understand two stories. So essentially the outside face of the house does come out um by that distance. So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that the bumpouts

on the existing >> the bumpouts on the existing house on the how side >> go up to the >> go up one floor, >> right? the bumpouts. >> The bumpouts and they are like bay window extended bay windows. >>

These windows are bay windows and you're saying that >> in the existing and they're probably about 8 ft wide in total >> and at the front they're probably about 4 feet and >> okay >> they flank the

front door. >> Um so that front edge that they are uh has had a draw line drawn across the front and extended up two stories. So again, the extension of the house does go closer to the to the road as

a general line even though the outside point of the bumpouts themselves is um at the same basic point or the blue line may come out a little bit further. I don't know exactly, but just that

clarification uh and the fact that the house will be going up about 10 ft above where it is currently to accommodate the the extra story. It is a little bit wider. So, it does go up a little bit more.

And um >> so my my observation about the power line I think is a valid point because it becomes >> stop right there for a second. We'll get back to that. I want to go back to your your bumpouts. Yes.

>> On the new proposed plan, it's a it's a >> a flat face. >> Flat face wall with just a little can roof over the a two foot overhang over each door. >> Correct. >> So that's not a new bumpout. >> No,

it's not a new bumpout, but they're extending to the furthest point of where the bumpouts currently are and calling that the footprint. >> Yeah. >> Just for clarification purposes, I thought you

should know that. >> Yeah. And if but if I look at this the blue diagram versus that's the existing the bumpouts are coming off. >> Yeah. But the bumpouts are not there but the outside wall is pushed

further in. >> Yeah. It will line up where the bump out the main house is. >> It doesn't line up with the bumpouts. >> Yes, it does. >> Julie just told us >> these little red things here is an

extension. The purple's the >> Yeah. And so where the bumpout >> I'm not talking about. >> She told me that the whole length of the house would end where those bumpouts end coming out. >> So I'm

talking about the how side of the house. >> Yes. The how side of the house. >> So the existing bumpouts are closer to the curb to the sidewalk than the new proposed. >> No. >> We got to look at the

plan. >> So today >> because the plan is showing it differently. Today when we spoke with Julie, Julie showed where the bumpouts ended on the property line, she said what they want to do is bring the

house over >> to where they end so it goes straight all the way down and looks >> right. So for all intents purposes, it's just a twoft overhang, right? It's just covering the door. If you stand at

the door and it's raining, you want to get the keys out, you you're undercover for two feet. Yes, there is a there is an overhang, but the width of the house, the basic width of the house is bigger

and here >> just in that one spot. >> Yeah, I see. I see it right there. Yeah. Okay, I got you. You are correct. I see that. >> Yes. >> So, again, I'm concerned about safety in the fact that the house

gets mighty close to the power line, >> especially at the where you might have a gutter down the edge of that roof. people doing work on the house or even on the power lines. >> Yeah. Like so like

that's a that's a requirement from national grid post code enforcement >> which would be >> building department >> um mass codes um high tension wires telephone cable >> sure >> they all have specific

heights and distances away and I understand your concern >> but that's not our jurisdiction. So then my >> So we can't comment we can't even even do anything with It's an observation that I felt that

I need to bring forward >> so that the plan we are in favor of this plan by the way >> we saw >> yes I have seen we have seen the plans >> and it looks it looks beautiful 100% >> but we also don't

want pickups either >> to that corner >> right so >> um but the thing that that I question is Parker who owned the property before they bought it he lived in that house for about two years on the

bottom So, it wasn't unoccupied as long as people are claiming it to be. My second question is, why can't you build on the existing lot with the existing perimeters? You'd still have a beautiful home

and add to the housing as they're calling for. Um, and in order for the housing to really meet our needs, it would need to be low income housing. [cough and clears throat] We don't need any more

elevated rents in town. That's not solving our pro our problems. >> Well, that's a whole another thing. >> Yeah. >> That's trying to solve the problems of the world. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. We have

limited uh >> So, my big question I would say is why can't a new house where they've taken everything out be built within the same perimeters that have already been grandfathered in? Okay. Any

questions yet? >> No. >> Bob? >> No. >> Ben? >> And another question about the parking. When we put our driveway in, there was two family home. Upstairs only has one bedroom. Downstairs has two. And

we were told that we had to put six parking spots in >> when we put our driveway in. >> Who told you that? >> The town. >> The town. >> Oh. Which which department >> every committee has >> different

set of personalities and different >> was more than 10 years ago. >> Yeah. >> They said 10 you have to have six marked spots and you can't be parking on railroad court. >> Yeah. >> So we're just

wondering >> was that the town planner that said that? >> I I don't know. We we asked several people and they said the same thing and he said all right well then that's the way it is. We're just

wondering what is the actual rule about parking in this town because we should be hearing so many different things. >> Who has the >> That's a question that I don't know. Zoning bylaws can >> my

experience is >> you know that has exactly constantly changing >> the way I read this >> there is no single family two family. It's >> two spots per >> flavor of the day. get into multifamilies and

it's three spots. >> So for a two story, >> but once you get into a multif family, then it's three spots. You got two more bedrooms. >> So there's your there's your >> So it changes from three

bedrooms each. >> It's only two. >> It's only a two family. >> It is a two. The house is a two family. >> Two spots per unit. Not per bedroom, >> but one per unit. Per unit. So there's >> So we have

we have a two family. So when when were you required to put six in? That was 10 10 years ago. >> So you have a two family and an and a third apartment. Did you say? >> No, it's we own the whole

apartment. We live on the premises. >> And we just rent one floor. >> I mean it could have been different back then. I just without knowing. >> Yeah. Well, >> so Jim is going by what he's has in front

of him. >> Yep. I have no further questions at this point in time. Feel free to call on us though. >> Okay. >> Anyone else want to speak? >> Nobody else. Terry, >> I'm looking that up um right now,

but u usually I'm sorry, Terry Burke Dots 20 Terrace. Um uh usually the parking is two for the first bedroom and one for each additional bedroom. is figured out by bedrooms and parking spaces. What

What do you have over there that's different? >> Do you have anything? >> I don't know. I'm asking, >> but I mean, if you wanted to find out about parking, that's what I had. >> So, this is what I'm

reading. Two spaces per building and three spaces per twobedroom multif family dwelling unit. >> Yeah. So, this is a business one district, too. Let's remember >> uh the parking requirements is

probably different than >> Where did that come from? What are you reading from? >> This is section 33.2 of the bylaws. I only have this one page. >> Okay, it says dwellings one space for two dwelling

units if serving subsidized elderly. Okay. Two spaces for a dwelling unit and three spaces for a for a twobedroom. This is what I've got. The heck? I don't know who's got the right stuff. I don't

know. Do you want it? >> Different zoning districts >> sometimes have different requirements. >> Okay. But this is talking about dwellings. Yep. And just the rule of thumb, the first bedroom is two

bed >> two parking spaces and then each additional parking space. >> But it depends on what what you've got in front of you. That's all I have right now. >> Many bedrooms or anything? Um it it's for

it's like a single family house if you had five bedrooms in it. Are they saying that you you would need um six parking spaces for single family house? I mean I mean it's pretty clear. It says that two

two family one and two family it's two per unit and we have two units so it's four. I don't I think that's >> each unit. >> You have to be much clearer than that. Yeah, but this is 33.2. I mean, I'm

just The text of 33.2 says, >> get the elderly part. Two spaces per dwelling unit and three spaces per twobedroom multifamily dwelling unit, >> but we're not a multif family. >> Multif family is three

units. >> One and then the next line is one additional space per bedroom shall be added for each. So it's multif family as well, >> right? Yeah, I agree with you. >> Do you understand? Do you do do

you have any questions about it's >> I didn't want to muddy the water. I just wanted to show you what I >> Yeah. No, >> it's pretty clear that it's two spaces per dwelling unit in a two family and a

business one. >> Thank you. Okay. >> It's pretty clear on how that is worded >> in the bylaws. >> Is there a telephone pole right at the corner there? >> Take a look. >> So, the issue with turning is

likely created by the telephone pole, not so much the house, I think, >> and the radius. But the telephone pole prevents the house from being an issue. Would you agree with that >> because it's at the

corner of the property. >> Tractor trailers are constantly getting it. So they replaced that pole and that same month it got >> But that has nothing to do with the house. >> No, it doesn't. But takes

one good hit and that pool is going into the house. >> Well, >> that could happen anywhere, >> right? >> That's what I'm talking >> I mean for all intents purposes, that's a vehicle accident thing.

Um, you know, >> but it still doesn't answer >> it's really not up. >> It still doesn't answer the question why they can't build a brand new home on the existing the existing footprint. >> Yeah. The

issue with that is I mean we are required to decide what they put in front of us. This is what they're proposing. >> We can't then well why don't you do this? Why don't you do this instead? So, we

have to stick with what they give us and make a decision on that. >> I mean, we're talking about six inches closer to however. So, I think if a telephone call is going to hit the house, I don't think

that 6 in is going to make a difference to be honest with you. >> It's not like it would it would it wouldn't hit the old house, but it would hit the new house because it's it's this much further to

the street. >> Why couldn't you keep the the house in the exact same footprint? It is except for >> I mean I think I think it's just that the building of the house that you want to you've got

dimensional lumber. Um it's not going to be uh you know to to recreate what's there. It's it is um you know I mean again we are so close to what's existing there only we don't have strange bumpouts.

We don't have you have regular size rooms. you've got dimensional lumber that you know is sized for the construction of a modern house. Um and um you know the um the difference between the two is is

so slight that the um uh you know we feel that it just makes it's more practical basically to to end up with a box that's 48 by 24 than one that is um you know sort of an oddball um configuration.

Sounds good to me. Harold, any other questions? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. And there's nobody on Zoom, right, Kevin? Zero. Put that in the record. >> She's the clerk. >> Yeah. >> Building that name. >>

Oh, Jen. Okay. >> Can you tell us about the lot coverage issue >> and how it'll change if it's increased by 400 square ft. So, you need a variance from lot coverage, I assume, because the requirement

is can only cover is it 30? I believe it's 30%. 30% and I'm not sure how much the new the new building covers >> when the math is changed as well. >> Um >> because generally the only reason I ask is

when we if someone makes a motion they're going to have to say what percentage >> and usually they put that right on the plan. The civil engineer does that calculation. He puts coverage and addresses

that point on the plane. I don't see it. Of course, I can't read some of this. Um, no, I don't see it on here. Dan, what you are asking us to look at? I don't see it either. But I mean, so what Adam's

saying is we got to figure it out basically. Um and and your my thinking was that in terms of the adjustment of the um lot square footage, could could I suggest maybe if you do a as a proposed

condition of approval that the lot be in increased uh to 5,000 square feet provided it doesn't um uh violate the uh coverage limitations for for both parcels and then I can have them calculated. I

just I I don't there's not a number there and um >> if it's done that way um you make the adjustment uh but if it throws something off >> uh then it would remain um as proposed. Could you write it

that way? I mean, you're definitely going to be over the coverage of the 5,000 foot lot. >> Yeah, just by looking at it, it looks like more than a third. >> When you divide it, there'll be no issue

with the with the other lot because there's no requirement of coverage, >> right? And and the other lighthouse says substantial area behind, right? Um >> this is where that new rule applies. >> No,

I'm just saying they're looking for a variance from coverage. You can only cover 30% of the lot. >> When you increase it by 400 to make it 5,000, we don't know what the coverage of those buildings

going to be. Suppose we could do the math. Let me see. Let's >> do a napkin style. Everybody just go ahead. >> I was going to say the in the business one the um non-residential there is no requirement

for lot coverage >> and if you add the 500 square f feet onto the residential property the lot coverage is obviously going to go down. So I mean that's >> but but we don't know if it's still if it's

violated. >> Yeah. >> Is it >> but I mean he he did ask for relief from coverage. I know but when we write our opinion we usually say relief from 10% >> I don't we don't Yeah we don't know what that

number is that's >> Can we just write a general statement to rule >> do whatever we want >> you're going to be the one >> yeah doing it >> it's all on you tonight Mike's not There a fill in. You want

to take a minute try to figure it get it right. The 6T and 48 ft >> is 54 * 20 >> 28 28 actually it comes out to 30%. Okay. >> So I don't think you need that variance anymore. I don't know if you

agree. >> Pardon me. Yeah. So, if I do the math on the size of the house divided by the size of the lot, it comes out to 30%. Which is what the what the requirement is. >> Okay. >> So, I'm not sure

you need a variance for lot coverage. >> No, I don't think it wasn't flagged as something that needed. So, that's probably >> it. It says it in the >> That may be why it's it's sized the way that it

is in order to comply >> uh with that provision. >> All right. >> Does it say lot coverage on you? >> It does. And and if we add if we add to that, it's it's it's only going to make it better or 29%

or whatever whatever it might be. >> Well, no, with with the 5,000 is what you did your calculations >> exactly 30%. Okay. >> Oh, okay. All right. >> So, 4,613, what would it have been? >> That's

probably why they're asking for What is it? 4,000 >> 4613. >> Yeah, you were a few percent short then. It was like 20 uh >> what about what if we had a if if you said that the lot size be increased so

as to bring it into compliance with the 30 foot 30% um lot coverage provision. Yeah. Then if we have to add 410 ft. >> Y >> um >> but it will you always hit the 5,000, right? Get to the minimum 5,000

5,000 brings it right to >> 5,000 plus if you need it in order to comply with the >> but you'd stretch it if it has to go. >> So it might be 5,10, right? 15 whatever. So both streets are frontage. >>

They're both front. >> Okay. >> And towards the neighboring lot. Is that rear or side? >> The street address is high. So usually opposite would be rear. right here. That's what you're looking for. >>

I'm just trying to structure the the vote. So, in that zone, what's the area inside said that? >> 10 ft. >> 10 ft. So either way it's 10. >> Either way it's 10. I mean >> in in the rear yard setback

we're not we're right on it. Uh what's what's existing and what's proposed is exactly the same. >> Excuse me. No, it's not. >> The front is >> it says existing is 4.9 for the uh lot 1A which is the um

garage. Lot 1B shows 6.1 and proposing is 6.1 >> I thought it was 7 ft and then you're coming >> to to the property line shared with you >> yes >> it showed the same on both plans that I have 6.1 >>

if I'm reading this right >> right here >> you're talking about this >> I mean it could be slightly put here. This is >> That's the closest point. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. 6.1. >> So, is your front

of your house now going to be on Canal Street instead of how AB >> or it's still going to remain on? Okay. All right. >> You know, it still be facing how AB. So, that would >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.

>> Front is 25. >> 25 this way. 25 10 in the rear. We have two front yards and how y >> So what's your closest point to how? >> Closest point to how is >> that's this number here. >> Uh 3.4. >> Oh, I

see it. I see. I see. >> Wait. Do you see it? Right here. It's these two arrows according to this this 13 All right. So you're looking for relief of 18.9 ft from the rear side from the sideyard the

rear yard >> I would say I don't think you looking at this because he's not changing the distance. >> Okay. >> There's a lot of them on there. >> Okay. >> So, if there's no rear because it's the

same. >> Okay. >> Okay. So you'd need 11.1 relief from Canal Street which is frontage. You have need 25. You have 13. You have 13.9 >> correct. >> You agree? >> Yeah. >> That math right. >> That's

with the >> Yeah. So that's 11.1 3.4 is the new old is 3.8. >> Does he need relief from the difference or relief from 25 >> 25? Okay. So you need 21.6 six for the frontage on how and 7,500 for the

area. Does that sound right? >> Yeah. The only thing I would I would ask is even though we're not moving the the back line we talked about and there is true that if you um we are taking the structure

down and replacing it so so as to avoid any conf confusion. I would ask for that relief as well, even though you could have asked for it with a special permit, but I didn't ask for a special permit.

>> Um because that allows for >> if you're not increasing on conformity for a single family, um it doesn't require a variance require special permit. But since the whole building's coming down and

everything's going up, uh just to be crystal clear, I'd rather um get the relief even if we don't need it to be on the safe side. So on that that rear property line where we're um >> what's this one

>> you know 6.1 ft off if we would um actually the way up at the the rear is um 4.9 ft of relief I guess would be required >> I'm showing the rear yard set back as 10 >> feet >> so 3.9 >> okay so

that's Rear 3. All right. So from the rear set back you need relief of 3.9 ft. From House Street you need 21.6. From Canal Street you need 11.1 and then you need 7500 depending on how the area works

out. We'll put that language in. 7500 area. >> 7500 a lot. >> Uhhuh. >> A lot area. >> Yeah. because it needs to be 125 and it's going to be at least five. So those are the var the uh reliefs that we

glad you are we going to close the uh public hearing and finish this discussion. >> Yeah, we could we could Anybody else have anything? >> Anyone else have any questions? >> No. >> Okay. I don't that

motion. >> No, she's the um our new administrator. >> What's F? >> Francis. >> Francis D. >> Can ask him if he has any questions. Can Frank, can you hear us? >> Is muted. Oh, >> he's coming alive. >>

There he is. >> We can't hear you. Unmute. >> Can't read your lips. >> There you go. >> There you go. >> Good. >> Why not? >> You got any questions? >> You You were unmuted. Now you're not. >> You

pressed the button again. Something's >> okay. >> We can hear you now. >> We heard the okay. That's all we heard was okay. >> Okay. So when I'm on it, there's a lot of relief required there. the way

my understanding should be. It should stay within the footprint of that um structure. I don't know why it's before the ZBA. I would have thought it would been planning board for such things. The ZBA

would come after for the uh relief uh the variances. So help me out with this. How is this happening like this? Uh Kenny, if you would. We have the applicant seeking a relief um based on our bylaws.

>> Go ahead. >> Yeah. The only I say is >> based on Hold on. Hold on, Fran. >> We still need to divide the lot too, which we can't do. If you replace if you replace the building, you still have two

buildings on the on one lot, >> right? and you would still have all the issues that we talked about in terms of financing residential versus commercial. um all of those issues would still exist uh

because we need to get approval um you know for the division into two lots right does that answer your question so it's a variance in the division of two lots plus the setbacks in the site Uh there

are he is correct. >> Yes. >> You do realize it's a fantastic safety issue over there. >> Okay. And what have you come with? Pardon. And what have you come to a conclusion? >> We haven't come to a

conclusion yet. We're still discussing this project. We're We're at a point we're at a point that we've >> we've listened and >> I'm sure you want >> Go ahead, Frank. >> I'm sure you understand the

congestion over there. It's seeing that there's one house that has its own traffic light, >> right? But the traffic, the roads, Fran, the traffic, the roads, the wires is not our jurisdiction. It's

not it's not for this board. It's it's an existing condition. I mean, Canal Street's been there how long and how how long has that been in existence? And when was the house built that's there now? >>

But the house that was built there now, anybody >> 1900? >> 1900 it was built way before our time, >> right? Oh, >> that's fine if he stays within the footprint of that. But that's not what he's

doing. And that's what this board's determining. >> Okay. All right. All right. I I just hope you're aware of adding something like that in that area is is very dangerous. Very dangerous. But balls in

your court, I guess. >> Okay. We got >> Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Go ahead. Um, >> can I ask a question? >> You gota state your name again. >> Marlene, 17 Canal Street. >> So, if

they're coming before you to ask that the lots be separated because of the hardship, why doesn't it stop there, you separating it and then going back to the planning board where it originally should

have been? I'm not sure this would be the planning board issue >> with the bylaws. >> Uh the only thing that I know that would trigger you going to planning board and I'm not even sure maybe Jim can

answer it. Um is like u site plan review stuff like that. It's kind of bigger stuff. I I don't think Jim do you do you have any input on that because I'm not sure that this would end up at planning

board. >> No, the only reason to go to pling was for the ANR to split the if it was a multif family. Um typically the special permit grating authority is planning for it but to me clearly this is the

long >> right so that's that answers the question >> and they still have to file the ANR >> they still have to file >> so if we were to approve this they still have to file an ANR to have the lot

split we don't have the authority to split the lot So planning boards the next stop. >> But an ANR >> just >> it's not for a nonconforming grandfathered law is it? >> It would be to split the law into

two lots. >> Yeah. But I mean the ANR is is technically supposed to be do you have the required frontage and we do have the required >> now you have the minimum area too required minimum frontage >>

which is u 100 ft >> and we have 177 ft and 111 ft. >> So both we have um >> you know almost 300 ft of furniture there. So it does meet the it does satisfy the ANR requirement. Uh and the >> relief

from you would deal with the zoning issue. >> Yeah. >> Because you could have an ANR lot with 100 ft of frontage and you know it's 2 ft deep. Um so we can't build anything on it. But that we need we

do need both. >> But that's why you're here first because if you went to planning board first >> they wouldn't approve it because you don't know a lot big enough to build the house. >> Correct. >>

Right. Okay. and the height size just to address his question in the back there that didn't go anywhere. The height is not going to exceed where it is or not by much or what what's your number as how

much goes up higher? >> Well, I I think what I think the point that they were making is that the setback is being measured from the bay window. >> Okay. >> And actually the building goes goes up

that's more like the building facade. So, but and that's on the second I I don't understand how at ground level the second floor is out um you know literally um how's that going to block anyone's >>

well the asking about height >> on the second floor >> yeah overall height is 34 five >> yeah and a that I'm sure the town is probably 35 foot maximum >> well it goes by the midspan of that that roof.

It's a 30 foot. >> It's a 30 foot height, but on that roof, the specification is midspan of the roof. So, the middle of the roof, which this is in regulation. >> So, the midspan would be around here

would be under 30. >> Under 30, correct? >> Okay. >> So, it's not the overall height. It's a flat roof is >> Okay. flat roof can be right at the the limit. And Jim will correct me if I'm wrong because

he knows the codes better than I do. Then you have a gable roof like this. It goes to midspan. >> Okay. >> So, >> yeah, and we're not asking for relation height, >> right? Just >> I just wanted to

address the question that was asked that we didn't go back and I didn't know if >> it will be taller. >> What's the current height be within the height limits? >> It it it presumably will will be

taller. It may be taller, but it's still within the limit that applies throughout the entire town. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> Does he have another question? >> So, everybody's clear. We understand that

there's wires that can be unsafe. Canal Street, the design, you could say it's unsafe or you could some people might say it's safe. So, you see where I'm going with that? It's not for us to decide if

>> the roadways mass highway. You're going to go to state >> if you want to complain about the road. >> Mass highway dictates signage, stop signs, crosswalks. Huh? the town called the highway

department town planner. >> I'm not saying the town the town the town follows mass mass dot mass dot um when it comes to traffic and safety. So anything with like stop signs if town wants to add a

stop sign somewhere they got to get permission. >> It's not like they can't just go put a stop sign in the corner somewhere because the neighbor wants one. So and I've experienced that directly

myself. That's how I know that answer. >> No, but what I'm saying is like so I just wanted to be clear everybody in the public when it comes to that stuff. This it's not for us to decide or condition

because the wire might be 10 ft without getting up there and measuring. We just can't do that. That's not our position here. So I just want to get that out into the public so you understand it. So at

this meeting, what are you looking for to grant them what they're looking for? >> We're we're looking at what they proposed >> versus the condition [cough and clears throat] of what it is today and if

it if it's detrimental to the neighborhood surrounding neighborhood. Is it not detrimental? Is it is it an eyesore? is we're not putting up a 40s story building next to 25 houses. So that's like a

little overkill on way I'm saying it, but that's just what we're looking at. So in in my position, if I look at this business one and I look at Canal Street and I look at Main Street and I look at

Mullain Funeral Home across the street, I look at the old Providence building, >> they're all taller than this. >> Yeah. >> You know what I'm saying? So, and it's it's there's some big houses up on

that that area, Mile Street. Um, and this is all in that same district. >> And how would this affect sales of the property down the road? So, say they want to keep the house, but they want to sell the

garage or say they want to sell the keep garage and sell the house. How will that have impact? >> Dad, I don't know. I mean, I don't >> Well, if they get they get an ANR approved, it becomes two

separate lots and they can sell them as if anybody else could >> and it would be sold as a residential duplex uh two family, not two points. >> Yeah. >> Or he could sell his commercial property, which

he bought that commercial property from. I think you said the Parkers owned it before. Um, so but he bought both. You know what I'm saying? So it it's >> that's only one of my concerns is when they

went into this, they knew the condition of the house. They knew that this house had a lot of work that would need to be done. >> That might have been the plan from the beginning to do what they're

doing now. I would assume so. >> You know, it's it's a business thing at that point. um people are in business to grow or stay status quo and be happy and making their millions with what they got or

they don't or they make their we pay. Um >> so >> I guess my only question for them would be what would be the hardship if they built um out of the dimensions that the house is currently within the

perimeter that the house is currently? How does that cause a hardship on them? >> I don't think they mentioned that that would be a hardship. >> I'm not I'm not sure. >> Financial hardship. >> Yeah. I

mean, you don't have to have a hardship in the in the traditional sense. It's a financial hardship. Um is >> I think you mentioned something about financially between a commercial property getting a

loan >> and a residential mix on the same um you'd have to go to to a commercial bank uh in order to get financing for house construction, but those loans are typically they're higher interest rate,

shorter term. You don't get a 30-year commercial um mortgage. >> No, you get a fiveyear. >> Yeah. And then it then it's going to change again and so on and so forth. And it just it um it's it's a bad

situation to have two on the same lot. Okay, that's not how I understood her question. I I think and the issue that's probably bothering me most is that you're moving it closer to the road. Now,

whether that's a safety issue or not, you're moving the house, you're putting a porch 6 feet closer to the road instead of building in the same footprint. >> Yeah. >> So, you can move the property

line back to make it 5,000. The house can't go back six feet to keep it off the road the same amount. I think that's kind of the main >> Well, the the we could eliminate the porch on Canal Street. >>

Yeah. >> Um I mean the other side it's like six inches. So >> Oh, no. I'm not talking about >> on how >> how I'm talking about canal you. >> So So uh if if that's an issue for the board, um we can

eliminate the porch and maybe it'll it'll eliminate some of the appeal of the look of the building from Canel Street. But if you think that >> that that is somehow safer or that you need to do it,

then um we can um uh agree not to uh >> not to put the porch out. >> The house is 28. I don't know how, >> but if you said on the sidewalk, >> so it's not like we're not we're not moving closer than

somebody else. somewhere still further than that. >> Yeah. And I think that what my clients have just said is that if you push it back, the uh butter's house is still going to be out in front of them

regardless of where you are. Even if you push it forward another six feet, you might be even with them at that point. So >> our house, I'm sorry, but our house was built in 1780. We had much more

frontage the town took from our house. So we were never that close to the road. So it came it probably took their property as well. Maybe >> probably well that would have >> probably but were it

wasn't like we built our house that closed. >> It's been there a very long time. >> I'm just >> so I I think the point is that there's already a house that's that's much closer to the street than what

we're proposing. But again, if the board if if you as a condition of approval you want to eliminate the porch, >> is that feel you need to do that? It's open or is it? >> Yeah, it's going to be open.

>> It's an open port, >> so you can see through it. >> Yes. >> See the spectra? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, but you could you could easily seal that up. So, >> the the curb appeal would be nice from Canal

Street as well as how is what we're trying >> lastings was trying to beautify canal street. So instead of just looking at the side of a house >> it would look nicer from canal is >> the only issue

have >> so just >> I mean you could have a provision that says that you know that we >> so I guess >> allow the porch but provide that it maintain and you know not that an open porch >> um you know um

might have to be identified provision >> about 10 ft. >> So, >> let's close the camera and just discuss it and you still need >> Yeah. >> Right. So, >> can't talk. >> You where we going to take the f

the from the 4600 is probably like 10 ft. You're going to go back to make it 5,000 square feet. The law >> go back 10. 5,000 or as much as is needed in order to not less than 5,000 but right but >> to

whatever is required to make it comply with the lot coverage provision. >> Yeah, it's about 10 ft there. >> So say it's >> about 10 ft. Yeah. >> So if you just slid this back >> that little bit. >>

No. >> Yeah. But I think it's going to mess up the parking >> parking the parking for the garage. >> We'd rather get rid of the porch than move the house back. >> Right. >> Oh, I see what you're

saying. >> Yeah, but it will look like a road. I was against >> That's an imaginary line. I was against the porch, but when I realized it was open porch, it is going to look like a like a row house

there. It's going to look like a >> with no porch inside of a house. >> Yeah. >> Is the way the parking would be messed up is by putting these two close to each other if you moved it. Is that driving

in and out of that garage? You need you need so much space between here. They have it. >> Yeah. I'm ready to close it. >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Fran has his hand. >>

Oh, I second. >> Yeah, he's on. I a motion. >> Fran. >> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. The way I'm I came in late on this. What way I'm understanding is this is all based on a 5,000 square foot

lot on a law that hasn't been passed yet. >> No. >> Correcting that statement? >> No. They're seeking a variance from the 12,500 that's required of 7,000 square 7,500 square ft to be able to build on

a 5,000t lot. has nothing to do with the ballot initiative because that only applies to single family homes. >> No, that applies to duplexes. >> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. >> Read it.

That's what it says. A duplex. >> But this is not a duplex. >> That law is not in effect. It has nothing to do with this hearing. >> I know it's not in effect. That's what I'm saying. It's based on a

5,000 square foot lot, which is not in our bylaws. 7,500 ft isn't in our bylaws. 12,500 ft is in our bylaw. >> That's why they're here seeking relief. >> And that's why they're seeking a special

permit for relief from the 12,500. >> Well, that's a big relief. I I don't see how you could do that with a clear conscience to be honest with you >> because they're somewhat grandfathered. >> They're

grandfathered on the original footprint. Yes. >> They're an existing >> not in any existing nonconforming lot. >> Somewhere along the line, the zoning got changed after the buildings were built. And

every time that happens, everyone has to come to this board because of zoning changes that affect existing buildings. And that's why this board is here. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And I'll say this

again, the existing building is grandfathered in. No doubt. If you were to tear that building down, your grandfathered in to the original footprint. >> I think we've already this argument >> enough.

>> Well, go ahead. >> I'm sorry if I bother you. >> Okay, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second >> and do a roll call. >> Yep. Roll call vote. Harold >> I. >> Bob. >> Hi. >> Dan. >>

Hi. >> I >> I. >> Public hearing is closed. Now it's just us. My my opinion is it's an existing home. It's going to be so close to what's there now. It's going to be new. We can't change any of the

safety things that we talked about. And I think a new building is a lot better than what's going to be there. >> Yeah. >> I agree. >> My only issue is moving it closer, but it is an open porch. Um, >>

you can just put in there. Does it remain open porch? Is that possible? Yes, it is possible. How does that work down the road if you do that? >> And being there to be in the conditions. They came back

to do anything. They're going to have to ask and it's going to show. >> Well, right. That you need >> you would still need if you were going to close it in, you need a permit. So, it would come with

that. >> But then it would be mentioned that we was given because they wouldn't. Yeah. >> And it wouldn't have happened probably. porch or no porch. I I drove the sight line. I sat at the at the stop

line >> and there's a light there. Yeah. >> And there's a light there. But I sat at the stop line and at the stop line I could see through into the neighbor's house. Y the Mlette's house from the stop

line, not the crosswalk from the stop line. I could see past this house. I could see that the neighbor's house blocks the sighteline down to the Canal Streets light, but I could see over behind the um

Milbury Automotive. That's where the line goes to. I drive up 4 feet to the crosswalk. I can see straight down to Canal Street traffic light. So, sight line is definitely not an issue. As long as you

can see 200 feet of sight line, it's legal. So, the placement of the crosswalk is my gauge. Whether that's in the right spot or not, I have no idea. Or the stop line. Me personally, I don't care if

the porch is on there or not. If it's on there, it's open. If we make it, we make it open. So it can never be closed up then. Great. >> I agree. >> Cuz if it was closed, I think it would block >> some

of that. >> Some of the sight line. Yeah. >> I don't think it would. >> No, >> it's Well, it's 6 feet. It's just not quite. >> Yeah. You could make the porch 4t, too. You don't need to have a sixoot

porch. How do you ever sit on my porch? As old as you are, you're not on a porch. I unfortunately two feet, three feet. So, yeah, it's up to the person who makes the motion. >> All right, I'll give

it a shot. Are we all set? >> Yeah, we're all set. All right. I move we allow the application for variance of Dylan and Taylor LLC for two-4 Howav map 45 lot 205 allowing the following relief from

the Milbury zoning bylaws. One, relief of the minimum lot area of 12,500 ft allowing for relief of 7,500 square ft with the condition that the area of lot 1B will be increased from 4,613 square feet

shown on the plan to a minimum of 5,000 square F feet and to a maximum of enough square footage to ensure that there's at least at most 30% of coverage of the building. Does that make sense so far? >>

Yes. >> Two relief from the rear setback. of 3.9 ft, relief from the front setback on how a of 21.6 ft and relief from the front setback of Canal Street of 11.1 ft. question >> with the condition that

the porch built along Canal Street will remain an open air porch as shown on the plan submitted. >> Do we have to do each one of those separately? >> No, there's one decision. >> You waiting for a

motion? >> Does that cover all the variances? >> I think it did. Then yes. Second. >> Second. >> Harold seconds. Yeah, we'll do it. >> We'll do a roll call vote. >> Say it once more. No, just kidding.

>> Dan. >> Yes. >> I >> I >> I do a special permit, right? We can't. >> Oh, I think Well, I think that's everything, right? >> Special commit. I had flagged the uh yeah >> lot area front yard setback

um the house street front yard setback Steve and the rear yard set back. So the request on the form is was for a variance right here. This one need a special permit to subdivide but we determined you

didn't have to do that. >> Yeah, I'm not. >> So you're saying I see Is the request for the special permit to divide indicated on the application or is there a separate application? Um the um well I

thought that the division of property would require a variance as well for the lot size if he has our variances and he gets an A and an R. Does he need a special print from us? You guys are okay with

the variances. I'm okay with it. I think it's cleaner with the special But if you didn't, it wasn't on the application. We have written it in with the >> written with the u the notice. >> Yeah, it's

just it's not on the application that I can see. >> Okay. >> And I'm not >> Well, the application said um the uh divide the property into two lots didn't say use the word special permit or variance.

So, whichever it is that >> Do you have an opinion on whether you need a special permit to divide the lots? Are you looking for that from this board? um because of pre-exist well the um we're getting

all the variance relief including the one that is already there so I think it's just straight variance and we're not doing it by special permit >> I agree >> so you're all set >> okay I agree >> and

if not we'll see you again >> let's hope not >> okay so Yeah, >> this is the comment that Caleb made. >> Feels otherwise. >> Caleb, I think that's a typo, Dan. >> Okay. >> Caleb wasn't here for this.

>> Do you feel we need the special permit? >> I think it's cleaner with the special permit, but it'sn't on the application. Okay. >> So, if it's not on the application, >> yeah, it's just not in front

of us as far as I can tell. As far as >> Yeah. I don't >> and we're getting the approval for those the lot. So I don't believe that in the um >> basically by doing the vision we're getting rid of the

nonconformity because the >> does the does the notice indicate that though? Is that okay? Because it know the public did know the notification >> will be conforming. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, the fact

that we don't do it, I don't think is an issue if it was put on the >> I I it just seems to me you have the variances. Now, when you apply for the ANR, you're going to be able to show that the lot

sizes and it's it should be, you know, preuncttory to get an AR, >> but that's just a notice. It's not on the applications. I just don't think it's in front of us right now. mean that if it's not on

required >> which means nothing to us right >> so I don't require >> that's correct >> but I mean I could see I couldn't see us given one if it wasn't on this >> but the other way I don't know if it

you know what I'm saying the public didn't know about it >> public knows and the public now knows that it wasn't on the application yeah >> so I don't think it's in front of us >> right Okay, >>

that's my opinion. >> You're a lawyer. >> Yep. Nope. And I agree with this because it's not on there. It's really not there yet. So, so we had our vote. It's been approved, >> right? >>

Congratulations. >> You want to do the >> um Oh, you have a 21day appeal period from the decision being signed off. that that sometimes can take up to like a week, two weeks to get the decision done

>> through this through the zoning board office, >> Jim's office. >> Uh and then it gets stamped in at the clerk's office. Once it gets stamped in at the clerk's office, >> this uh >> it can be

appealed somewhere. >> You get 21day appeals. Then you got to go record everything at the registry of deeds. Make sure you do that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> That would be his that

would be his job. >> Thank you for your patience. >> Thank you, >> Terry. Thanks for coming in today, Terry. >> I didn't want to muddy the water, but I had to answer. I thought we >> Good luck this

agenda. >> Hey, we're not done yet. Sit down. >> I can't stretch my legs. >> Oh, yeah. or sneak out. >> All right. So, what's this? >> We have something on the agenda. >> We have other business. >>

Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> So, Julie has come at the request from me the use of electronic signatures. I think it was mentioned once before um for decisions

so people who have to sign don't have to comment different times in our decisions get into the town clerk's office quicker. >> Was this because of my bad penmanship? >> No, I'm kidding. Oh, >> it's

come down to the wire on some of the uh deadlines and getting people in to sign in person has been an issue. >> Yeah, like the last two decisions went in to the clerk's office >> well past the

deadline. >> So, that's not a good thing. >> I'm not sure you need to say that, but >> So, we we want to we got to do this is open discussion, right? >> Yeah. >> So, what's the chairman's opinion? So,

is that for the chairman to do? >> It's for the clerk, the chairman, anything that >> Well, the board has to accept the general law. So, there'd be a motion to accept the general law that allows you

to do electronic, >> but you don't necessarily have to. It's just that it gives the board Oh, okay. >> Yeah. This is a draft. >> Okay. >> If you look at the draft motion, it says that both wedge and

electronic signatures carry the same weight. >> Yeah. So, what do you do? Sign a form that goes into a stamp? So, we would make the motion if it passes, uh, they have to draft something up. It has to

be recorded. And once it's recorded, you can just vote electronically. >> Oh. Oh. So, it's not an actual copy of it's going from a wet signature. It's just a digital signature. You can approve it. >>

We're not voting. >> Yeah. We have to vote to accept that. >> Accept it. Right. But then after that, you said >> after that, you're just allowed to do it. >> It's like like Dropbox or whatever. Yeah.

Doc Doc sign. >> Doc sign. Will we continue to sign anything? >> You can you can sign it or you can electronically sign it if they send it to you. Depends on what they set up. >> Okay. >> So, they

send you an email >> and then you sign. You sign. You make your signature and then you press enter and it goes on the paper >> right where it's supposed to and then it's legal >> or you come here and

sign >> or you can come and sign. Either way, if you want to wet sign it. >> Gives more options. >> Okay. Okay. >> You like options, right? >> Yes. Yeah. >> As long as nobody's putting my name on any

checks, I'm good with it. >> Never mind then. >> There's no liability to us for this. >> No. >> Nope. So you want >> So I move that the Milbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby recognizes and accepts

the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 110G regarding electronic signatures and that its members will henceforth execute documents with either either with electronic signatures or with

wet signatures and that both will carry the same weight in effect. >> I second. >> Dan seconds it. Roll call. Harold. I >> I >> I >> I >> So >> now we can make amend to move to adjourn. Do I have a

second? >> Second. >> Harold seconds it. Roll call. >> I I Good night. I'm going to collect these.