Minutes

Board of Appeals · from the Town's website · 14 pages · 967 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

TOWN OF WINTHROP
OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS

100 Kennedy Drive, Winthrop, Massachusetts 02152
Telephone (617) 846-1740 Fax (617) 539-5814

Meeting Minutes March 31, 2022

March 31 2022. Meeting called into order at 6:34pm. In attendance are Chairman Baird, members
lrene Dwyer, and Tom Chiudina, associate members, Jason Wright, and John Young. Associate Member
Jamie Stern cannot attend tonight.

The first matter that we are considering is matter number 15 of 2020 which is 25. Locust Street, the
applicant is John Rollender, They are seeking in approval of a plan renovation, because they hit some
issues during construction that affected their initial plan. And they're here to have us review and
approve as is required in all of our decisions. Their change in the plans. Attorney Cipoletta, | believe
you're on this matter. So sitting on this Chairman Baird, Tom Chiudina and Jason Wright.

Attorney Cipoletta addressed the Board- Mr. Chairman, thank you and members of the Board of
Appeals. This is a request by John Rollender for an approval of a plan that was approved by the Board of
Appeals on October 29, 2020. In case number 015-2020. As they had pulled the building permit and
began to do the redevelopment reconstruction of the house they ran into some structural problems.
And it forced them to downscale their plan a little bit. And so, what | have done with respect to the
request for approval of the plan, | submitted the decision, the 2020 plans and the 2022 plans. And just in
a nutshell, and Mr. Griffin is on with Roland to reside here, too and he can explain it a little more detail if
the boy bequest. So, he needs to construct a retaining wall to bolster the front foundation and that
would be accomplished by backfilling the existing foundation with dimensions of approximately five feet
by 11 feet. He reduces the scope of the project by eliminating the proposed top floor and remain within
the height limit. He is going to eliminate the previously proposed dormers that appear on the 2020 plan
and create a gabled roof which is shown on the 2022 plan and eliminate the second or lower deck at the
rear of the property and in its place, construct a stairway along that rear elevation that is also shown on
the 2022 plan, which should be behind our engineering report the structural engineering report that was
submitted. All the work proposed is proposed to be performed within the existing footing The essential
relief that was granted by the Board of Appeals with respect to dimensional regulations was a three-foot
variance on the right to foot variance on the left. And parking, none of that is going to change, especially
since it's within the same footprint. All parking will stay, as it is on the site plans that the Board has, as
part of the record. If |, | suspect that it anticipates that the Board has had a chance to look at the plans

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

and to compare them, | submit that this is a scaled down and a much less intensive, much less
aggressive proposal than the one that was approved by the board, but by necessity needs to be scaled
down. So, John, who goes by the name of Griffin, | see him up there on the on the Zoom roster. If the
board has questions about any of the construction and sort of what happened along the way from 2020
to 22, he can certainly give up on the grounds report from his position. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. |
have nothing further at this point but would ask the questions at the appropriate time.

Chairman Baird- Right because we do have, | mean, | don't think anything here that's being requested is
new relief. So, we're standing on the old decision, and the question is whether the board is inclined to
grant you know, approval of the revised plans. So, | will briefly open it up any comments from the public
just on the revised plans. We are not reopening the existing relief that was granted. So, you know, work
started pursuant to the relief, correct attorney Cipoletta. Yes, they're doing the work started pursuant to
that relief that that relief was exercised and therefore valid. And so, there's no we're not talking about
revoking or modifying that relief. We're talking about the change in the plans or at least it's, you know,
what we should be limiting the conversation to. So, with that as sort of a table setter, | will open it up to
any comments on the plan revision for 25 Locust. Second Call 25 Locust Street anyone like to be heard
on the chain changing plans? Third and final for 25 Locust? All right, seeing no hands. | will ask for either
Mr. Chiudina or Mr. Right to move to close any public comment.

Jason made a motion to move to close public comment. All right, as moved by Mr. Right. Do | have a
second? Mr. Chiudina, second. All right. As moved in seconded by roll call to close public comment. All 3
votes to close public comment.

Jason -Mr. Chairman, like to make a motion to approve the revised plans, case number 15 of 2020, 25.
Locust Street to be built as shown on plans, resubmitted? | apologize. | don't have the date in front of
me but 2022 with the application.

Okay, as move Do | have a second? yet? So, second? All right. As moved by Mr. Right and seconded by
Mr. Chiudina. vote to approve the plan. The plan modification by roll call.

Vote all 3 by roll call to approve.

Chairman Baird-Yes. Okay. So, plans have been approved plan change has been approved attorney
Cipoletta. There's no further need for a decision from us or anything else. | think at this point, you can
substitute these with the building inspector, and, you know, continue with the project.

The second case that's on the list for this evening. Number 006 of 2022. The applicant is George Collins
and the address is 96 Nahant Avenue. On this will be Chairman Baird, Irene Dwyer and John Young. So,
the applicant attorney Cipoletta, are you? Oh, yes, you are. | am. So, you have the floor.

Attorney Cipoletta addressed the Board Yes, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of the Board of
Appeals with me on this case is Dr. Lloyd who is the architect. This is an improvement to a preexisting
non-conforming structure. And as the plans show that we should be attached, drawn by Mr. Lloyd.
There is one element of the architecture that requires relief. And that is, since the front porch currently

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

extends or encroaches into the front yard setback. The deck that is proposed above that, according to
the building inspector, | did not disagree with requires relief in a minimal way. The other exterior
improvements are going to be a deck at grade, but that deck is not actually in compliance with the side
yard setback, rear yard setback. So, the building inspector did not call that out. Any of the dormers that
were proposed on the top level of the building do not exceed the height and do not come outside the
current footprint. The building inspector deemed those to comply. So, what we are asking for Mr.
Chairman is a special permit to alter or extend a preexisting non-conforming structure pursuant to 17.28
.030. As pointed out by the building inspector

Chairman Baird- just as a point of information attorney Cipoletta | thought I'd ask it now because it goes
to the relief being sought. There is not a request for a third story there is no okay. And, and parking is
remaining as is. Yes, sir. And it's a single family.

Chairman Baird- did open for public comment. We have received three different communications as a
board from one from the owner of 85 Nahant Avenue, Robert, and Elaine Melvin, one from the owners
of 100 Nahant, Gabriella and Brian Anderson, and one from Stephanie Tufaro at 92 Nahant Avenue, and
that all three of them are in favor and support in support of the project. Those communications are in
the Board of Appeals record. | just wanted to note them for the record, they are on file, and we have
read them. So, with that, I'll open it up to public comment.

Christian Helleberg addressed the Board- So | did have a couple of just quick questions on this. | guess
the first is whether a notice of intent was required to be sent out on this project to neighbors and
abutters. But the second one is !'m limited in time is whether conservation is going to review the
proposed deck on the outside. Third is that the permit that Mr. Collins applied for says that there is a
special request to build a deck above an existing porch, and then just a deck on the east side with the
permit. And to your point you just mentioned this to Mr. Cipoletta a lot of has nothing to do with the
request to extend the third floor, which | mean we have the building plans and I'm looking them over It
doesn't really look like it's just extensions of dormers, it looks like it's a renovation to the entire third
floor. And then just the last part is whether these copies that were sent out, | guess this is just the email
for the abutters and interested parties. If there's a stamped plan or an approved plan by an engineer, |
think what we have is just the computer generated one, but those are the few questions that | have that
like to be heard on.

Ellen Helleberg. | had a couple of questions, because what | received, like | said, in the mail of what the
intent was, when | went down to the DPW, it's something totally different. My question is, is there going
to be a roof top deck? Or is it only the deck coming off, Like, say, one of the bedrooms and the deck on
the east side? Because | see that he was looking for a variance for a full third story. But then what my
plans are looking at is that he was going to open the dormers. But it's not just opening the dormers. It's
I'm making a whole second floor, a new second floor. But is he also making a third floor also with a
deck?

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

Thomas Semino- A couple of questions. I'm not clear on the plans. What's intended by a building on to
an existing porch, or is it just another porch that is like the existing porch? Or is there an intention to
enclose the porch that's going to be constructed? At some point is that going to be enclosed. And
secondly, in a former career, | was director of real estate and construction for a retail chain that did
work nationally. And in every instance, we needed to have a certificate of occupancy, which required
inspection. That meant, you know, the inspector came and made sure that we met the plans that we
had submitted. And here is this once this is constructed? Is there going to be an inspection for a CEO
such that the plans that were submitted, have been adhered to? My understanding from neighbors is
that other construction on this property has never been inspected to ensure that previous construction
has met the plans that had been submitted previously. So, construction has been conducted. And there
has never been an inspection to make sure that the plans that were submitted, complied with what was
approved. So, my concern here is that what is proposed and what is constructed is what you're
approving. So that's my constraint.

Chairman Baird-Yeah, we will address that as well. | understand the question we can address that when
we get through public comment when we get done with public comment will respond to all the
questions. I'll respond to the procedural ones just because there have been a couple about notice and
about back end at the CFO, just how that works. And then the applicant can respond to the more plan
related issues.

Gabriella Anderson, hi, can you hear me, Darren? You can? Yep. Great. So first, | want to say that I'm the
closest abutter to the Collins property. We've heard from several neighbors that don't live on the
handout. So, my house is the director abutter. | have seen the plans, and | am 100% in favor of the
improvements that Mr. Collins wants to do on his home.

Stephanie Furfaro. | am a property owner at 92 Nahant Avenue, and I'm the other abutter to George
Collins. And while I've not been in the neighborhood a long time, what | would say is, is that my
experience that Mr. Collins has been upkeep the property, upkeep the home, the surrounding areas as
well as neighboring property, in terms of contributing to really preserving what is a beautiful, beautiful
neighborhood. | do understand the plans. | have seen the plans and it seems to me that Mr. Collins is
just really trying to extend the benefits of being on a waterfront property. So, | just wanted to voice my
support for you know what Mr. Collins is hoping to do with his home and his contribution to the
neighborhood.

Chairman Baird- asked to close public comment. Moved by John Young, Second by Irene Dwyer. Roll
call all 3 yes to close public comment.

Chairman Baird- Okay, so a couple of things that | just want to address before | turn it over to Attorney
Cipoletta relative to procedure. So as far as notice goes, notices are sent to abutters and abutters to
abutters within 300 feet by mail in addition to a posting in the paper in a town hall. So that's how
notices should work in Winthrop for zoning appeals. So, if you directly but you're directly across the
street or you're within you know what you are but one of those people within 300 feet of the property
you get written notice of a hearing. As far as whether Conservation Commission is required or not, |

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

don't know that's up to the applicant to go to Comm Con calm and file a noi. You know us granting relief
does not absolve them from having to get other relief from other boards including the Conservation
Commission. So that is, | mean, | suspect that they may need they could be within They could be within
100 feet, they could be within a resource area, | just don't know, because they don't have the contours.
And then as far as COs go, | mean, when so when we approve something that's based on plans as a
Board of Appeals, and this has been the case, since I've been on the board, the building inspector, when
they issue their building permit must issue a building permit based on those plans. If there's
modifications to those plans, our condition in any in any relief, we grant, whether it's a variance ora
special permit, specifically says any material changes to the plans need to come back to us for approval.
So, you know, case in point, the matter that we heard just before this at 25 Locust Street was that
situation, it was a material change the plans, they had to come back, we had to approve it. So, if all
occurs in the building inspector issues on those plans, when the certificate of occupancy is issued, for
the project at the back end before they can occupy the new construction. They should you know that
the CFO should reference back to the building permit, which references the plans that we approved. So,
there shouldn't be a situation when we approve something, and something gets a CFO that's different. If
that's happening, that's a different issue. So, but that is not how it should work currently, you know,
with our approval process, so hopefully that is an adequate answer or a sufficient answer to that
question. I'm not a building inspector, | don't issue the certificates of occupancy, and we don't as a
board, but if there are plan changes, the inspector usually catches that, and they must come back. So
that's all | had from a procedural standpoint. | know there were some other questions Attorney
Cipoletta I’ll let you address the substantive ones.

Attorney Cipoletta -Thank you, Mr. Chairman. | believe the initial one had to do with the jurisdiction of
the Conservation Commission. We have filed it has been advertised and the public hearing will be taking
place on April 5, the Winthrop Conservation Commission. | believe the chair answered the two or three
other answers that | had jotted down the questions that concern the plans. | would, Mr. Chairman,
request leave to defer to Mr. Lloyd, the architect who is on this zoom.

John Lloyd- Thank you, Darren, and members of the board. | think some questions came up about how
many stories were here. The existing houses essentially, | would classify as a one and a half story. The
second floor has two very small dormers on the front and back. And Mr. Collins is looking to extend
those dormers and maintain the roof lines that he has on the rakes of the building and extend those
dormers to create additional space on that second floor. If you looked at the floor plans can see it's
pretty constrained up there. It's two bedrooms and bath. He's only looking to have two bedrooms and a
bath there. But I don't think we are here for the any of the dormers so, but | just thought I'd clarify that.
Then going to the item, we are here for the roof deck that's on the existing sunporch at the front of the
residence that is just being created on that roof to access from his second floor. It's an open exterior
deck with railing. And that's pretty much it.

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

John Young- | just have a procedural question. I'm looking at the denial letter from Mr. Legee. And he
has three things number two, number three. Number four. are we discussing just number four? | just
want to be clear about what we're asked to vote on?

Chairman Baird- Yes, just know. | view it as just number four. Because basically so basically, here's what |
don't know. And this was one of the questions | had. So, I'm just going to pile on to your question, was
there a previous plan here that had a third floor on it or going more vertical? Because | just, I'm
confused by the reference to a full third story.

Attorney Cipoletta- ! can answer that. When | received the denial letter from the building inspector, it
was a denial letter that pertained to a different property. And it was one of those cut and paste things
that sometimes happen. And | brought that to his attention on 17 February and on the same date, he
issued the correct denial letter, which should be in the file, and it says the owner proposes to improve
the interior and exterior of single-family home located era zone. The exterior improvements involve
installations of a deck on the east side, that would be the front facing the ocean, and a flat deck atop the
existing poor side of Twitch facing the hideout that would be the one facing the ocean, the building is a
preexisting non-conforming structure, it doesn't meet the front setback requirement. Proposed deck will
therefore encroach into the setback. Therefore, a special permit is required from VOA for alteration
extension a preexisting non-conforming structure pursuant to 1720 8030. That's the correct denial
letter.

Chairman Baird- It's purely the expansion or alteration of a non-conforming structure?

| don't mean to use this term, we're going to use this term, even though it's not technically correct
judicial notice of the fact that right? Neither of those variances are required for this project, right. So,
the denial letter me say that we can choose to ignore them and say that was issued incorrectly. The
important thing is that the denial letter does reference the alteration or extension of a non-conforming
structure, if we didn't have that, that would be a problem, right? Because that is a relief that's being
requested. So, | mean, | don't see the need to stand on ceremony to wait for it for our corrected denial
letter to be show up. In our record, when the relief that's needed is listed on the existing denial letter,
we can just choose to take notice the fact that items two and three on that denial letter are not, you
know, aren't relevant in this situation. And we're not going to grant relief based on it, because we're
only going to grant relief in the form of a special permit if we're inclined to, for the extension of the of
the non-conforming structure right then because that's all we need to do. And we would just be specific
if people want to go that route, and approve it, about the fact that that is all we are approving. It's the
only relief being requested and the only relief we're approving and then the decision would reference
obviously, the fact that only a special permit has been granted for the extension of a preexisting non-
conforming structure. | think that's if people are worried about or hung up on the denial letter being
incorrect. | think we're okay because our jurisdiction attached by the denial letter at least has the right
you know, and contains within it the right relief that's needed, even though it has other ones that aren't.

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

Only the request for an extension of a preexisting nonconformity. So, | mean, from that perspective,
even | would say this, if they needed a variance, they'd be in trouble, because we wouldn't be able to
grant it because it wasn't noticed. Right. So, we can only stay within the bounds of our legal notice,
which is the preexisting non-conforming analysis. So that's, you know, | think, procedurally, we could
decide if we were inclined to on the relief that they need.

Attorney Cipoletta Mr. Chairman, if | just may put a little short tail on that, because | believe that's a
correct analysis. In our application, it asked us specifically, what is the exact nature of the appeal or
variance requested? And we asked for a special permit to Walter extend a preexisting non-conforming
structure by the deck above the existing porch. So that's a number 11 of the application. So, | don't |
don't think that we are looking for anything more than what we had requested in number 11. The next
exhibit or paper after the board's standard application is the town of Winthrop building inspectors
denial letter that was attached to our filing, the one | have here, in my office copy is the correct one, the
one that had superseded the controversial one, so I'm not sure if that got through. But we're only asking
for that special permit, Mr. Chairman,

Chairman Baird- Understood. And thank you for the clarification. me from my point of view, we're
talking about adding an open-air deck on top of an existing porch and connection with a basically a
rehab of the house. | don't think that from my perspective, that that change, and that extension is, at
best a vertical extension, from a use perspective with some flooring, they're not asking for a vertical
wall, they're not doing anything that's going to be truly obstructive, from a view perspective. So, | mean,
and you know, they're facing out at the ocean. So, to me, | think that it's one of those things, it's not
substantially more detrimental than what's there. And | don't think would cause any, any harm, and |
think is consistent with sort of the spirit and intent of our zoning. You know, there's already an existing
encroachment into that area with a vertical structure. And this is just a vertical extension of that it
doesn't exceed the bounds of that existing nonconformity. So, for me, it's like, | just think that under our
standards and the standards for granting a special permit for this sort of an extension, this is not a
material to the property, and one that would not cause any substantial detriment to the public good
based on the existing structure, and the use of that structure to single family home. And | think that
that's, you know, for me, if some we're going to make a motion on that, | think it's important to have in
our findings to be specific about that. Because, you know, we want to see exactly why we think this is
not more detrimental than what's there presently.

John Young-For the folks who asked about the Conservation Commission, it says that an order of the
Conservation Commission must be required before work is to begin. So is in Mr. Legee's order. I'm
assuming if that's the question on the table for anybody.

Chairman Baird- just so it's clear, we can't condition our decision already found the action of another
board, but obviously they can't build without all other approvals being had.

irene Dwyer= | would move to grant the relief requested to allow the construction of decks over the
front porch and to extending on other the other deck on the side of the house, as shown in the plans

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

that have been provided with this application. And that we grant the special permit to alter existing non-
conforming structure.

Chairman Baird- And I the only thing | would suggest adding to that motion is that, you know, upon the
findings made in referenced earlier in the conversation, relative to not being more substantially more
detrimental to the public welfare and, you know, the typical 40A findings.

lrene- that's my motion to grant relief requested is also since this is a modest an amendment to an
existing structure, it does not impede anybody's vision, the Conservation Commission will have to be not
that we're talking about making them go with the Conservation Commission will be reviewing this, and
that is not therefore substantially more detrimental than what is already there. And presents no safety
or hazard to the public.

Second by John Young, Vote by roll call to grant relief was all 3 yeses.

Next case number 007 Of 2022. Joel Ribera 620 Shirley St. On this matter will be Chairman Baird. Mr.
Wright and Irene Dwyer.

Attorney Cipoletta addressed the Board - | represent Joel Rubiera. And he's here on the zoom with his
architect. And we've reviewed the plan for the building inspector. And in his set out in his denial letter.
He has sent us to the board of appeals to seek a special permit to alter our extended preexisting non-
conforming structure pursuant to 17 28 03. Oh, and we did that, and we have asked for in paragraph
number 11 for the board to grant this. So, just a quick description of the building. It is a three-family
unit it's shows that in the records of the building department and that was reviewed by the building
inspector before issuing to me it is zoning review letter. So, Joel wants to improve and develop the
existing three unit building by completely renovating the interior space as well as locating the front
exterior stairway. And adding a second exterior stairway to the second level on the north side of the
house. Just orientation this very close to the Crystal Cove in and it's diagonally across from the Winthrop
Yacht Club, obviously, on the landward side. So, it's on the east side of Shirley Street. Other than those
four, those exterior alterations, which do come outside by necessity of the carbon footprint, all the rest
of the construction of the development or improvement of the property would be done from the
interior. So, to give a better description, | would beg leave of the chair to allow Mr. Medina, the project
architect to finish the presentation with respect to the improvements.

Carlos Medina- How are you all. So, what we're trying to do here is we're just going to try to rehabilitate
the entire building internally. We're going to redo all the exterior, trying to maintain the identity of the
building, we're not increasing the footprint. We are as the as our lawyer mentioned, we're going to add
one more stair and decide just to create a second means of egress for the unit in the second floor that
currently doesn't have. And the reason why we're here is because we're trying to raise the roof for the
rear unit. So that was apparently the latest unit to be added to the property. And when they did it. They
saved around seven feet for height for interior. And that's uncomfortable for our means and for today's
standards. And what we're trying to do, it's to raise the whole structure 2 feet, maintaining the roof, flat
as it is right now. And leveling, trying to match the second floor as the second floor for that unit is not
match with the rest. And that's all that's practically all there's, there will be reinforcements needed and

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

suggested by our structural engineer, there will be any creasing of finished area as we're going to grow
to the to the basement, we're going to add one more bedroom in the basement for one of the units. But
all that have been solved by the structural engineer and civil engineer working with us.

Chairman Baird asked for public comments, no public comments, motion by Jason, second by Irene all 3
yes votes to close public comments.

Chairman Baird- So | do have an | have a question just because | want to understand what the current
state of play on the property is. Is there a staircase today? on that? The northerly side, so the called the
left-hand side of the building that's being replaced, or is it a brand-new stair? There's nothing there
today.

Carlos Medina-There's a there's an existing stair connecting first floor and second floor and we're going
to maintain it There is no readers there that was created as a second means of egress for the second
floor unit once the rear unit was added, and that's the one that's going to be replaced by interior stair
within the third unit, but the existing and original stair, it's going to, it's going to be maintained, we're
just going to refinish it, it's actually in very good shape. It's not it's not slanted or sagging anything. And
the balusters are decent and good looking. So, we're just going to maintain it.

Chairman Baird- So my question is the one that is going on the left side of the building new.
Carlos That's new. That's brand new. Yeah. Huh.

Carlos- We currently have six parking spaces. And we are not adding or taking out. So, and what we're
doing by moving the axis, it's actually trying to create a little bit more landscape to | don't know, to
diminish a little bit the amount of impervious surface that we have in the area. But we are not | mean;
we're not adding barking or increasing the size of the existing

Jason- is there any sort of setback variance or whatnot required on the left side of the house? If there's
going to be a stairwell placed there the stairwell place?

Chairman Baird- If we take the immediately prior case, right. And that was a special permit to extend a
preexisting non-conforming structure within its footprint, right? We're just going vertical with that
whole thing, to me a brand-new encroachment within a required yard that didn't exist previously, is a
little bit of a different animal. Because it's a different encroachment and a different violation.

Tom Chiudina-it's already encroached on that side by far more than what the stairs encroaching, correct.
So, it's an extension of a preexisting non-conforming.

Carlos Medina- And we created that because one of the jobs we had | was the owner of the property, is
planning to keep that unit for him. He loved the area. He's he has lived in Winthrop for a long time. And
he would like to have like direct access to the to these parking spaces is that we need that. But we didn't
see a problem as we were already approaching in that setback, way more than what we are asking.

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

Chairman Baird= Yep. No, | understand. | think that's important. That's an important fact. Yeah, | was
wondering that with that stair, is it comes off the side? Are you going to still be able to get two cars in
that driveway? From a tandem perspective? So, you can still have six off street spaces that work? Or is
that stair going to prevent the second car from getting in that driveway and therefore you only have five
spaces?

Carlos Medina- Um, actually, yeah, that was that was one of his questions. And | think | could clarify that
in one of our meetings with the elevation with the elevation showing the stairs. So, I’m just looking.
What we're going to do is we are going to count the lever the landing. So, by cantilever in the landing,
we're not going to need the posts going down to the to the grade and that's going to help us to park as
far as possible the first car in there.

Chairman Baird- Oh, so the stair, the stair. It's showing very far, like very far forward in. When | look at
the plan, and | look at the Shirley Street frontage. The plan would have you believe that the stairs come
down to towards Shirley Street they run away from Shirley Street because they come off that deck on
the second floor and run away so you'd be able to park under that candle lever decks that probably
gives you enough distance to get two cars in there. Correct. Okay. All right, that makes sense to me. |
don't have anything further, | guess I'm moved by the fact that the encroach the existing encroachment
of the rear of the house is much more extensive in that yard. And so, from that perspective, It is an
extension of a preexisting nonconformity. And | think we could handle this by special permit. Because it
is it's less intense than existing encroachment is it had stuck out even an inch more, that would be a
variance. Yep. So, |, | think that the special permit for an extension of a preexisting non-conforming
structure is probably the right relief, if people are inclined to granted, | do think that, um, you know,
since it's an existing three family, it needs to be refurbished, rehabbed. That, you know, and it would be
a safer, it'd be safer not only for this building, but for the community to have something as a safe egress.
I think that it's not substantially more detrimental and it does not create any health safety or welfare
issues, at least in my mind. So, I'd be comfortable getting to a finding in support under both our
ordinance and under 40A section nine of granting the relief requested. So that's me. Curious as to
whether other board members have questions, or if there are no questions are inclined to make a
motion on this matter. No further questions. Okay. So, there's no further questions. I'm happy to take a
motion from either Mr. Wright, Miss Dwyer on 620 Shirley Street case number 007 of 2022.

Jason made motion case number seven of 2022 620. Shirley Street, like to make a motion to grant
special permit to alter a preexisting non-conforming structure under Section 17.28 030. Granting special
permit based on findings made during discussions of this hearing | we find that to be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, said special permit is consistent finding that said granting special
permit is consistent with the spirit and intent of zonings proposed changes will be an improvement to
the neighborhood. The renovations themselves under 40A,

Chairman Baird | think the only thing the only amendment | would offer to that would be that, you
know, obviously construction being according to the plans that were submitted. And any material

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

changes must come back for approval to the board by the board. So, I'll move that amendment to your
motion. Do | have a second to the amendment? Second. Alll right. So, on the amendment as moved by
me and seconded by Ms. Dwyer, vote by roll call as the amendment.

All yes by roll call.

So as amended the motion as amended, offered by Mr. Wright. Do | have a second? Miss Dwyer?
Second. So as moved by Mr. Wright and seconded by Miss Dwyer, the amended motion vote to approve
by roll call.

All 3 yes by roll call.

Chairman Baird- Okay. So, approval has been granted for the requested relief of a special permit to
expect to expand or alter a preexisting non-conforming structure in accordance with the plans.

Lastly, this is case 008 of 2022 PV BI Realty trust Patrick Butler, 24 Beacon Street there's a request for a
special permit to alter a preexisting non-conforming structure. I'm sensing a theme here and their
variance requests. So, sitting on this Chairman Baird, Tom Chiudina, and John Young.

Attorney Cipoletta addressed the Board= Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. This is a
proposal by Shawn Butler, the butler brothers who have purchased this property. It's a two-family
house. It's in need of some repair and upgrading. So, they're going to do that. They've applied to the
building department for a permit to expand those dormers out so that it will look substantially like what
is on page two of the plans after the site plan, where you will have all four elevations. By extending out
the dormers it would then create a third a full third floor but does not exceed the 35-foot height, which
is shown on the plan. Reviewing this with the building inspector. He pointed out a couple of things,
obviously, and as the boy can see from the plans, you know, they are modifying the parking there's
some parking there on the left side. You to avoid PMs on the property they've sketched out as best they
can. And it is tandem parking. Parking spaces on the on the property. | understand and Sean and,
Patrick. | understand because we discussed this about what is looks good on a plan. Sometimes in real
world application doesn't work out. And that's sometimes the nature of tandem parking. But they can
get six spaces on the on the property, the nature of the neighborhood and why are we suggesting that
the relief can be granted without substantial detriment? It's a very nice neighborhood. This is probably
not the best-looking house in the neighborhood. | would say not by a longshot. But the brothers do want
to improve that and bring it up to the standard that's been set in the neighborhood, which is currently a
mix of one to one to two family homes and number of multifamily homes. | believe the building
immediately if not immediately to the right is a six-family house. There appears to be ample parking
when we're going to be taking up any parking spaces off. off site. If we do and the board does not like
the plan with the tandem spaces, then there may be a motion to modify the request in the plan. But
even at that, looking at what like you know the photographs that | essentially will Google Photos and
street views show that there's substantial parking, even given the number of multifamily units and that
six family that's in proximity. Patrick is on here. If there's questions from the board, if you need him to
give any expanded explanation of the worker, he's certainly capable of doing that. But then | would just
reserve the rest for questions.

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

Chairman Baird opened it up to public comments.

No comments given, Chairman Baird asked for motion to close, given by Tom seconded by John. All 3
yes by roll call.

Tom- I'll start if that's all right. Attorney Cipoletta. There's a photograph. That's in here it says, remove
stairs, it says three full levels, both sides. And then on the left side, it says fill in? Yeah. What is that?

Attorney Cipoletta- Yeah, | called after | file this and | spoke to Patrick, there is this sort of a U-shaped
indentation or cut in? That doesn't show completely on this photograph. And this was the sketch that he
was using when he was drawing the plans. So, | think what his plan is here, Shawn, is to just fill in that
empty space, which is a cut in, between the main house and whatever that other part of the house is.
And | think he can explain it better.

Tom- | think you've explained it fine. But I'll say it's, it's hard to get an accurate account of that by a
picture when you don't have existing floor plans that have or even proposed floor plans that have
dimensions on them. You know, looking at that photo, | see the stair that you're going to remove to
make these six parking spaces work. Is that correct? You’re not getting two spaces from with that stare
there. So how are you going to continue the two spaces back with the basement bulkhead that's just
beyond that.

Attorney Cipoletta- | think that's going to be removed, but I'm going to kick that one to Patrick

Patrick Butler- The bulkhead has been so removed. And right now, that current U shaped is there's a
handicap exit accessibility deck on that side of the property. And so that's where the huge that's close to
where the U-shaped part is.

Tom-Okay, and that deck is all coming out?

Patrick= Yes, yes. Yeah. And | heard Jimmy mentioned, there was a six-unit next door, there's a 10 unit.
that's abuts the property to the right, is a four unit that abuts it to the rear and there's six unit three
doors up on the right on the corner Beacon and Shirley Street all with no parking.

Tom- Again, without having dimensions, it's hard to say whether this is even going to work this parking,
meaning your property depth is 62 feet. Are you saying that there's you're going you know, 54 feet for
the three spaces deep? It says 18 feet on your plan. | think | read | mean, I'm assuming that's from the
property line to the building, which means you have no buffer, which is required. So, you'd need relief
from that as well. The parking relief is Yeah, | guess it's tandem. You know honestly try not to | don't |
don't think We should be looking to only be as good as the existing structures that are around. | don't
think that's beneficial to the neighborhood. | think what you've designed here is less than desirable for
the neighborhood. It looks just like a simple box. I've seen you guys do a lot better than what you're
showing here. You know, and it'd be, it'd be nice to have plans that are somewhat accurate. The floor
plan has the deck at the back going beyond the building, which would interfere with your parking and
coming down into the driveway. You know, which is inconsistent with what the site plan shows.

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

Patrick- 1’ll redo the plans, and I'll get the existing
Tom- So is the front porch being removed? Or are you building on top of the front porch?
Patrick- No, not the front porch.

Tom- So it was being removed. So not just the steps, but you're being you're removing the front porch?
And then just squaring off the existing third floor? | don't | don't have any more questions.

John- | think Mr. Butler was going to bring him bring it back to the committee. I'm not certain that was
his intent. Yeah. But | remember the last thing you brought before the committee, you got kudos for the
drawings. There were superb. | remember the folks on the call talking about how good they looked. And
I think that would be helpful to us.

Patrick- Yeah, well, um, {'ll go back with the architect and, and take care of that. Thank you. Thank you.

Chairman Baird- when you do that, just let's make sure the elevations match the site plan and show how
it lays out site plan wise, because | do think that to one of Mr. Chiudina point, | think when you actually
lay out the tandem parking, you're going to find that there's an additional piece of relief that's needed,
because you don't have a you won't have a two foot buffer strip between the side lot line the extent to
your side lot line, and where the parking starts. And that is a requirement to have a two-foot buffer, and
there's no way you can achieve that end, Park two cars, they're side by side and get that in before you
get to that side of the house. So, | think just look that if it requires additional relief, | just think that's a
something will, you know, that we'll have to address, and amend the filing accordingly. But | leave that
to your very able legal counsel on that.

Tom- So there's obviously there's a fence on that property line, and you know, rarely are fences directly
on property line. So, if it's if it's on your property, now, it's restricting the width of your parking even
more.

Chairman Baird - so my recommendation would be to continue this matter to our next hearing, which |
believe is April 28. Only at 6:30pm. Will that be enough time to get the revised plans? And | assume it
will be?

Patrick- yes

Chairman Baird- So with that, I'll take a motion Mr. Young Mr. Chiudina to continue this matter to our
next hearing on April 28, at 6:30pm.

Motion to continue by Mr. Young, seconded by Tom Chiudina. All 3 voted yes to continue.

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022

Next matter is approval of the meeting minutes for March 10, 2022. Motion to approve meeting
minutes from March 10, 2022, by Jason Wright, seconded by Irene Dwyer.

All members voted yes to approve meeting minutes.
Next meeting will be in person at the Harvey hearing room.
Also, we received a stop order. Yes. On Crystal Cove. They will have to petition to start work again.

Chairman Baird took a motion to adjourn at 7:54pm. Motion to adjourn by Jason Wright, seconded by
Irene. Roll Call all voted yes.

Meeting Minutes 3-31-2022