Gloucester Zoning Board of Appeals, Sept. 24, 2026

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the city of Gloucester zoning board of appeals meeting of September 24th, 2026 here at Kyru's Auditorium. This meeting is being held with a hybrid Zoom link also for people to participate from elsewhere. For the record, the meeting ID under Zoom is 810 111972493. I recognize in attendance members myself Joe Paresi, Lauren Norton, um on Zoom, Michael Nyman, and also to my right, Ron Wilson. And I declare we have a quorum. First order of business will be the approval of minutes of August 27th,

my clients and they agreed to go back sharpen their pencils and try and further address these concerns. We submitted I think about 3 weeks ago updated plans. And the big change here is what was kind of a triangular deck. We used to have the face of the deck kind of angled out this direction has been chopped. The deck protrudes at its furthest 3 feet 10 and a half inches. When you deduct the joist and the the joist and the railing, it's about three and a half feet from the door to the back of the railing. And we've maintained the privacy screening and actually enhanced the privacy screening, which again you can see um in these

renderings to make sure that the neighbor's yard um is as protected as possible. What I want to point out is if we look now, so this is the first floor. Oops, that's a little too far. This is the first floor door that would lead out to the deck. And as you can see, the ground here is maybe about 2 ft below the doorway. And because this ground is elevated already, the neighbor um the neighbor's fence here is maybe about 3 ft high above ground. And so this yard area um you know if they're not able to do a deck would likely become a patio at which point you have a chest height fence and people right up to that fence.

Um again if we're concerned about the proximity to this yard you're better off to keep them pulled back with a railing that'll be running across this face. This is the sorry sensitive this view. the zoom here. This is the view that you get from the first floor. As you can see, it's a beautiful shot out of the harbor. What I'll also note is that again the the the chief opponent, this is their yard here. You have a much larger deck just as close if not closer than we're proposing on the other side of this yard. So again, the idea that right now this neighbor has some sort of oasis where they can't be seen from the

neighborhood around them is not the situation. And this is a deck where you could have, you know, people sit out and lounge, you can entertain, etc. The deck we're proposing is again, stand out there with your cup of coffee. You probably couldn't even get a seat out there unless it was a small wire seat. Now, if you go upstairs, the second floor, these are the windows that would become the door. What I want to point out specifically is that again you have kind of the straight shot view which exists now would still be the view you would get from that second deck but right now you can look out these windows and the neighbors have a deck a nice little screenhouse on there that's obviously where they like to spend time

and if you're standing in this house currently you can just you know if you wanted to watch them right again that's not my client's goal and This view here is the view that gets blocked by that privacy screening. So if these become uh doors and the deck exists, the privacy screen comes across this and there'll be no longer this ability to look out from this kitchen at this deck or from that deck at the neighbor's house look into this kitchen. So it enhances privacy in both directions. Um otherwise, again, as we discussed at length, the standard here is whether or not these proposed decks would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood as compared to what presently exists. And I've just shown

you what presently exists as far as view into the neighbor's yard and proximity of uh the yard areas of these two neighbors. and also remind you that we have uh direct butter across the street and two direct to butters um six angle street and one western avenue in support. So again I would submit as I did last time that this revised design certainly would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood that presently exists. I hope the board recognized the hard work that went into trying to um respond to the concerns of the neighbor nonetheless and that if we're tr truly concerned about enhancing privacy out here, these decks will increase privacy between these two properties versus what is presently open

today. Thank you. >> Any questions by the board? No control, take your screen down, please. Yep. >> Thank you. >> We'll um left the public hearing open. So, let's um let's take testimony. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anyone in favor, please come forward. If you're on Zoom, you hit your raise hand button. No one. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application.

apply, of course, is whether or not the proposal would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than not. And he also told you that the way you can figure that out is you simply ask the neighbors. So we took him up on his advice and we did ask the neighbors and we came up with no less than 18 other neighbors who share our concern and who are also opposed to this and some vehemently so I might add. And you have that in front of you as I submitted it um by the deadline. And um I I so I ask you if one neighbor does not a neighborhood make, do 19 neighbors a neighborhood make? Because if not, I'd like to know how many do.

Attorney for the petitioners also at that last meeting told this board that you know with proposals such as this a petitioner does not need to show any necessity. They don't need to show popularity. They don't even need to show any wisdom. And that's true. A petitioner is always free to make any proposal they want simply based on want, a simple desire. And I agree with that. Okay. But although they are not required to exercise any wisdom, I believe it's this board's role to do just that. to interject some wisdom, some good judgment, and common sense in evaluating all the proposals that come before you. Some may be wise, some may be foolish,

some may be beneficial or neutral to a neighborhood, and some may be even dangerous, as we believe this one is. Our main concern is a fire safety risk. I mean, you don't need to be a fire safety expert to walk down that pathway or on our side and you look up at that precise location and think this is a good idea. I mean, it is almost ridiculous. Although, we have heard from a fire safety expert at the last meeting, a 32-year veteran of the Glouester Fire Department who told you that this is not a good idea. He has seen many deck fires in his time caused by and not even decks on grills, but careless disposal of smoking materials and any other cause. Once a fire gets

started, these properties are so close together. And a deck is just more kindling and a privacy screen, although we appreciate that. Um, it just adds more kindling to a fire as that firefighter told us at the last meeting. So I I I don't know what more to say. I mean it's incredulous to us that they are not as equally concerned about their own safety as we are about ours. I mean their house is as close to ours as ours is to theirs. They should be just as concerned. We heard from their attorney expressing their concern about privacy that they are just as concerned about their privacy as we are about ours. And I believe they are. Everybody wants privacy, right? Nobody wants to be looked at while they're enjoying their

property. inside or out. But I haven't heard one word about fire safety. Where is their concern about fire safety? And if they're not concerned, I believe it's this board's role to protect the whole neighborhood, including them, from their own poor decisions. I mean, we all want what we want, right? But sometimes we don't always see it from all perspectives and, you know, and how it affects everybody, including them. I believe this is this board's role to interject wisdom in that regard and protect them even from their own folly. Um, you know, we're not trying to be difficult neighbors here. We have no problem with these neighbors. But this is just getting too ridiculous. This is too dangerous.

I I just we can't even, you know, believe that that nobody sees this. Common sense needs to needs to be, you know, used here. And another thing that we do is we have a a perennial bed that sits right below this precise location on our side of the property. And we mulch that every spring and every summer. And I don't think I need to tell anybody here how flammable mulch can be. And all it would take would be one flick of one cigarette to land in that mulch and you could get a fire smoldering very quickly and ignite. And I know their attorney will get back up here now and tell you, "Well, they don't smoke." But after all, this is a three family home here. You're going to have owners, you might have tenants, you

might any occupants and future occupants. Once a deck is placed there, you cannot control what people are going to do. Even if you uh impose stipulations on the use, we just uh just don't think this is a good idea obviously. And um you know I'll leave you with one final thought that a firefighter told me one time when I asked him why you know people do things that seem to be so common so why they don't take common sense precautions with all kinds of fires inside and outside. And he said to me the foolish decisions of people are the reason I have a job. So I will leave you with that and I I I just ask you I beg you let's not give our Glossia firefighters yet one more

foolishbased fire deck fire in particular to have to extinguish risking their own lives and the lives of everyone concerned >> to reaffirm what Mary has just uh said. Our main concern is fire safety and the recent events in Rockport show that a catastrophic fire destroyed a historic um institution in Rockport and as a neighbor of Gloucester the house the Rockport house of pizza. One of the reasons that the outcome wasn't more catastrophic was

that there was separation from that building to other buildings and so the [clears throat] fire did not spread and thankfully for our first responders it was contained. Another point that I'd like to make is as Mary pointed out, we have neighbors that have signed on to our petition or our letter opposing this um request. Every time I talked to them, one of their first reaction was, "Isn't that a fire hazard being so close?" Not just one person or two, the majority of these people addressed, isn't this a fire hazard? And they also pointed out to the privacy issue.

to be there. What they want is not only to go out of that non-conforming um distance. They want to increase that beyond the non-conforming. That that to me doesn't make any kind of sense. Now, the zoning codes, the boards, they have put certain requirements trying to um increase safety in new constructions more than multifamily houses. Fire sprinklers are required in most in all houses. Now the detectors are required all designed to prevent

detect and also mitigate a fire if it does start. However, nothing is provided on for the outside other than the setbacks. That was the wisdom of the original design of of the zoning founders to provide distance between properties so that the a fire originating in one doesn't go to another. uh because of the location of the of the of the houses where we are so close an older city. This is why the they were grandfathered. Again, the distance is already outside the conforming of the setback requirements and they want to

increase that. I request that that request their request be denied. Thank you. And one more thing I'd like to add, the business of the fact that we have a deck and the neighbors on the other side have a deck. That's irrelevant. We found that deck there. Their deck was there. I mean, what are we supposed to do about that? That we bought the property like that and the other property has the deck. It's set further back in the yard like their other deck is. So, at least it gives you some distance. But again, we have no control over that. We found our properties like this. But now again, they're looking to be more non-conforming at a location that is just so incredibly close. I'm sure

you've all seen it in person. I think you're all required to go there in person. I I don't know how anybody can walk down that pathway, look up at that precise location, and say, "This is an okay idea." I I mean, it it boggles the mind. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? seeing none. Rebuttal.

Thank you. [clears throat] So, as the the board may recall, the discussion last time was focused almost entirely on privacy. I appreciate that one um friend of theirs came up who has experience in fire protection and he had um you know stated some opinions as to the prior design, his concern about the prior design. But one of the reasons that we focus so heavily on privacy is because that's what we were talking about for 98% of the hearing last time. I find it quite rich. But now the whole time their their their issue hasn't, you know, privacy, okay, it's about the fire prevention. That's really where, you know, their concern is. And so what I

just want to, you know, point out is that in that opposition we just heard, we didn't hear that, you know, we're very concerned about fire safety. And so, of course, we're going to take down our fabric screenhouse and our fabric chairs and our fabric swing and we're going to get that gate off the deck to make sure that pathway is not obstructed because we're so concerned about how likely a deck is to catch fire. We heard none of that. We heard them say they throw down what they believe to be flammable mulch. I don't actually know how flammable mulch is, but according to them, they think mulch is very flammable and they put it down every year right on the property line. And because they do that, we shouldn't build a deck. They

weren't saying, "We're so concerned about fire, we're not we don't use mulch anymore because we're so They said, "No, we're going to keep doing the things we do, but the neighbor can't do any of the things they would like to do because we're the only allowable fire hazard in the the neighborhood." You didn't hear them say, "Oh, you know, we're going to um remove I'm going to switch over and switch over. Hold on." It didn't say we're going to go back out to our driveway and we are going to take down um you know this wooden fence that we have erected that goes from basically another one of our wooden decks right to the property line because again we're so concerned about how things constructed

near the property line are flammable and will cause the whole neighborhood to go up in flames. I don't see any of that. I also want to point out that as the board knows, you sit in a quasi judicial posture here. You have to make a legal finding. There is nothing in the record except conjecture from non-experts as to the purported fire dangers or fire unsafety of this design. However, in the record, you do have stamped architectural plans from a licensed architect who can only design the stamp plans that conform with all applicable codes. So there's no violation of applicable building and or fire safety codes as designed with this deck. And I will also point out again anecdotally that my client Bart was a firefighter

for eight years, an EMT for three. So he is also very much aware of the dangers of, you know, house fires in congested neighborhoods and would never, as his neighbors were concerned about, put he, his family, or his neighborhood in, you know, harm's way. He's very much aware of the risks and would not have proposed a design that would have been something that he as a firefighter, a former firefighter would have thought was inherently dangerous. So again, the standard is is this substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what presently exists? I don't see anything in the record before you that allows such a finding. And if there is not such a finding, you find alternatively that there is no increase

to this or substantial judgment to the neighborhood, then a special permit is warranted. These are 39 square foot balconies at this point. I would hope that you would have the the wisdom to see through that these are so minute um that the neighborhood couldn't possibly be impacted to such a degree and that a special permit is warranted. Thank you. >> Question. the um two years ago we approved this property conversion to three family. Has that not taken place? >> That has not taken place. It is still a two family >> because that would have triggered the sprinkling of the building and probably would have alleviated some of the fire concern. I mean, obviously, we don't allow accessory dwellings too close to

main houses, and why could that possibly be? Except for the fire hazard of an accessory building being too close to the house and causing a more expansive fire in the event of one. So the other thing I you pointed out um the other the third home deck is beyond the residential homes. It's not next to a neighbor's residential. So it's kind of a different situation um when it comes to the fire hazard. So I just think those were some points that we shouldn't overlook. So, are they not intending to utilize the three family that we granted which allowed you to

you. >> Thank you. Uh when my father-in-law passed away, we decided that it would be better for my mother-in-law to move in. So um we've spent the last year reconfiguring the first floor to build out um a nice apartment for her. So two family. It's not going to change. My mother-in-law moves in tomorrow. >> So it's a two family. Yes, there remains a two families. >> Any other discussion by the board? >> Uh, yes. Um, I want to be careful that I'm and be respectful,

so I'll choose my words carefully. Um, it's not an issue for me. I I feel like um that these two relatively small decks I feel like they've answered uh with screening. So I would concur with the attorney that most of the conversation last time uh the fire concerns were brought up but [clears throat] they were they were not primary in my estimation. Um and they've become primary and there's very little discussion about privacy because I think these two designs have taken care of it pretty well. the lower and the upper deck. Um, so for me, these two relatively small decks, we have to call them decks because you're walking out away from the house. Um,

uh, they are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood in my estimation. I feel very strongly about that's my comments. >> What are the materials that the decks are going to be made out of?

which again is building fire code compliant. >> So the the decking will be ASAC and the frame will be wood. Sorry mistake. Can we make this uh contingent on u following through on the special permit that was given earlier? >> What does that mean? >> Meaning if they they can't build this if they don't do the three family. >> Oh, come on. What are you talking about? >> Help help me with the relevance. I'm not understanding. I just think that they're, you know,

they're going through a needle that they, you know, they created an avenue to do this via a special permit um of alter expand instead of dealing with talking about the slightly more stringent criteria of uh variance only because they got a new code of um >> no, they have an existing >> they cleaned up all of the variants is or the nonconformity by saying they were going to convert it to three family and now they're not going to do that. >> I'm sorry if they and they building >> I'm I'm just totally missing what you talked about. They have a two family. They had a two family. We granted them

permission to do a three family which they're not going to do. So they still have a two family which they've always had. So I I'm not I'm just missing it. What the conversion did is it allowed we allowed all the nonconformities to be cleaned up because they have to be before you can be a three family. So now you even though they're not exercising the three family, they got the benefit of cleaning up. In other words, this would be a variance right now instead of an alter and expand. >> Mr. Chair, it it would not be. I'm sorry to interrupt, but so the the relief the dimensional relief granted as part of the three family conversion is not effective until that takes place. So we are still at status quo. This was a

pre-existing non-conforming structure before that relief was granted. That relief has not been exercised. So it remains a pre-existing non this was always a special permit. The relief that we got previously does not impact the relief required today. If we had never come here seeking permission to go to a three and this is the first time you were seeing us here, it would still be a special permit to alter and expand a pre-existing non-conforming structure. That previous permitting did nothing to change to make this easier, so to speak. Well, my point still remains the fire safety. um the argument of substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood seems where the houses are so close together and we've witnessed Middle

Street and chunks of it burned to the ground and Main Street burned to the ground and other things like that to encourage something this close to the boundary I think is wrong. It reminds me of so many cases we've heard where there were you you got houses so close together to allow a potential fire hazard which would be detrimental to the neighborhood if the a fire started there. And that's the that's the thing I've been hanging on to is this the fire safety. I don't Yeah. I mean, they can look out the window just as good or the door. They could put um Juliet balconies rails and enjoy the

view. They don't need somewhere where someone goes out onto a deck and potentially creates a because we all know what happens on decks. People go out to barbecue. I know they've shrunk it down, but people go out to smoke and I I still see it as a hazard. And that fire hazard I can see being substantially more detrimental to a neighborhood that congested. Just my thought. >> Um Mr. Chair, I just want to remind the board we offered a condition last time that we would prohibit the use of um grills on the last deck and we continue that for >> not hearing you, Joel. >> Sorry. I was reminded the board that last time we offered a condition that we would not allow any um grills or their

cooking stuff out there. Again, the first floor is going to be to hold plants so they can pull some tomatoes from their garden while they're cooking. Um that sort of thing. Um or second floor rather. So we're willing to take a condition no smoking, no grills condition. Like that's that's fine. >> And when do we enforce that? After the fire. >> Nobody's going to be looking at it. >> I'm sure again these neighbors these neighbors are close. If we put those conditions on there and they spend the money building these decks and then they go out there and decide in middle age to pick up smoking, the neighbors can drop a dime and Rob will come out and be like, "Hey guys, you know, you're losing

your occupancy on these because you're violating an express condition." Again, the benefit of this close neighborhood is that people would see if if all of a sudden there's a grill out there, multiple neighbors are going to see that grill out there and call Rob, he can come out. Enforcement order can issue. I mean, that's, you know, this is it's not the woods of West Glouester where you permit something and never see it again. This is clearly under the eye of of neighbors who are concerned. >> Are we ready to vote? >> You want you want to say? >> Nope. >> Okay. Close public testimony and we'll entertain a motion on the application.

the uh deadline or the the lapse of this of these variances that were granted in October 2023 um are for November 2026. Um so we are here to request for uh the extension of those variances for six months to uh May I believe 19th 2026 sorry May 15 2027 my bad. Um the standard the board uses for this is the board is has discretion um to grant a six-month extension to the variance if they so desire. Uh that can be determined by determining if there's good cause for the extension. Um

this project as evidenced by the fact that the lot is so empty has had a lot of construction issues or a lot of construction complications that have arisen um over the years that have delayed the ability to pull hermits. Um there have been conflicting information from the state that uh the state gave to our cl my client um when it comes to uh the applicable standards for building on the property. Uh there's also a change to the building code that happened that um initially the building was going to be on stilts. Um but because of the uh change to the building code that required um buildings to be 2 feet above the base elevation in a flood vein, uh that was something that had to be changed in the project. So um the

uh and also just coordinating to all the all the parties for the project. Um we've had to talk to lawyers uh speaking people from the state um surveyors and trying to coordinate all these people together has been really tough. Um but that being said we are close to the finish line. It's just not going to be finished in time for uh the uh the November um uh date of lapse. Uh so that's why we're requesting a six-month extension for the variances here. Um, I think also the state has been the state knows that uh it's pretty challenging oftentimes to be able to get projects like this going with a short timeline. That's why you saw stuff like that mass leads act with the extension of or the

uh the two-year freeze for for uh variance timelines and also why in that recent variance law that you guys keep hearing about um they uh changed it so variances now don't last until two years and on top of that they can be extended for up to two more years. Um, that being said though, again, we're only requesting six months variance for this case. Um, and I think uh we have shown good cause for it, but I'd love to hear from the board or the public if they have anything to say. And thank you. >> Thank you. This is a traditional extension that we grant routinely on the first request. And so I would think we'd be ready on a motion to grant a six-month extension.

will increase that. The new porch will be 14.8. So we increase by 5 in. They already nonconfirming. So we're seeking relief on that. They have a very spacious uh yard, but the house was just set on the wrong spot of the yard. So, it's too close to the right. Okay. So, we're looking for we look are we altering expanding or it didn't >> Yeah, it's already >> non-compliant to the left sideyard, I

think. >> Yeah, the house is already nonconfirming. It sits at 15.3.

It's five inches. >> Yeah. It's just an extension of the existing non-conformity, right? As the deck comes across the front and meets the left setback. >> Yeah. >> Right. The last five feet or whatever. >> And the lack coverage is the same. >> Oh, it's 9.3%. Yeah. We could determine there's no increase in nonconformity. I mean, there's five in. >> Well, he's got Yeah, I don't have a problem. How How we decide, but he's got a 14t deck that's going to extend 5T into the left-hand setback that doesn't currently do that. Right. Isn't that what's going on, sir? >> Yes. >> So, he doesn't need anything along the front. It's just when it approaches that

left setback where the house is already in it. He's going to actually go seven inches closer. >> So it's not just the seven inches, but it's >> expand. >> It's not beyond the house. >> I I don't know why you need seven to grant the >> Yeah, >> expand. But let's uh let's take public testimony first. Allow the public to speak. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application, please come forward. or if you're on Zoom or hit your raise hand button. Anyone in favor? Seeing none, is there anyone in opposition to the project? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing no one close public testimony. No rebuttal.

I guess my question is for Rob at this point before the applicant comes up. Uh are are they asking for a special permit or are they asking for a variance? Because there's no dimensions. So, uh, I can't decide for myself what they're asking for. >> They're asking for a special permit, Michael. >> There no dimensions and there's no site plan. >> This is a non-conforming lot building on a non-conforming lot. So, it'll be an alter and expand. And it is it it passed the 10% test by the uh um flood plane manager of the city. So

it's not over the 10% threshold. So without a site plan, just want to challenge us a tiny bit. without a site plan, without dimensions, how can we I don't think I have an issue with what's being asked for here, but how do we how do we know that we do they do what we they say? >> I agree. Well, the the addition is attached to the existing home and it's those have those have dimensions. I think what's we seem to be missing is the uh the plot plan with those measurements.

But even even still I guess it would be still a alter and expand non-conforming. I think that's what the office kind of determined. >> All right, I'll get off my horse and I'll just follow here. >> We could ask for uh it not to issue until we had the plot plan. I guess if I mean we should have it in the question. It may be in somewhere in the file, but this was not in our packet. On page A4 of the drawings, the proposed foundation plan, you can see how the building is going to overlay the existing sun room. It it will, but

there's no measurement of that right now. So, it is going to extend closer to the left sideline um by a few feet, but we don't know >> that would that would fall under the altar and expand. Yeah, it would fall under the alter and expand. And again, I'm sorry. >> I know what you're saying. >> What's that? >> I know what you're saying. We should have a lot plan. >> Well, if if if the if the if the small addition on the house, the little bay addition on the house, uh, hasn't violated the setback, then he needs a variance, right? So I'm I guess we're I guess my understanding is from Rob that does violate setback. So only

needs special permit, but there's just no dimensions. That's all to support that. That's that's my only >> that's um we could continue and um and give them a time to submit the appropriate site plan. Hold on. I think he's they may have had trouble getting on. We haven't had the applicant on yet. >> Peter, what are your con what are your sort of time frame on your construction plans? Are they like right off or or not? Not not right off. >> What was that, Michael? I'm sorry. >> Hold on. Hold on before we giggle. >> Yep. >> The applicant needs to give his name and address for the record.

assuming it got printed up when I submitted everything as a copy for everybody. Um, I could tell you right now, um, I don't know if I could share it, but I would have to put it on the >> the timeline, Peter. >> Um, whenever. I mean, obviously, I'd like to try to get it going as soon as possible. I I still have to go before conservation. Um, but I mean, if if you're missing any information, I can uh just do a continuence and get that plot plan in there. >> That would be best. Okay, >> we can do that. >> Are you sure it's not in that? I have the whole application right before. >> So, we've been through the folder and everything. >> Really? Okay. I'm sorry about that.

>> All right. >> So, Rob Hey, Rob. >> Rob, all I would say is if we're going to continue, let's get a plot plan and let's get some uh let's get some dimension so we can see where that house sits >> so that we can just clearly see that it's a special permit. And I believe that it is. I just for Peter's sake, I just want to make sure it's all on the plan. That's all. >> No, absolutely. I didn't um it is a special permit. I I'm too close to the uh to the street, so I'm already non-compliant and the lot is non-compliant. >> Um and all that stuff, but yeah, um I have it right in front of me, so I don't know why that happened. Okay, no problem. I I I appreciate a continuence

if if >> Let's continue to October 8th. We have a light schedule that week that's only two weeks out. >> Okay. Need a motion. >> I'll make a motion on the um application of Kalin Peter Canavo 103 Essex AV to continue the application to the October 8th meeting. >> Second and seconded. Roll call. >> Mr. Nyman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wilson. >> Yes. >> Miss Norton. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crazy. >> Yes. Okay, we'll take it up at the next meeting. >> Thank you everyone. Sorry. >> No problem. >> Have a good night. >> You too. >> Bye.

were part of the application. >> Jen, uh, on Zoom here, just got to have that right on your chin. Put Hold it in your hand if it's easier, but right on your chin. Thanks. >> Sure thing. Before you get started, could we clarify something? >> Yes. >> So, every one of these applications that we've had for the the 40BS and all this stuff, we we go out of our way to say put everything on there that you want. And I've cautioned you with the YMCA one, with the other one down the Cameron's, you know, get it all on there so that you don't have to keep coming back for this kind of stuff. I'm a little confused by you're appealing the denial. Why aren't you just applying for a special permit if the sign is too big?

>> So, we are we have not been denied. I think there's a >> clarification for a sign permit. I have an appeal of the decision of the building denying a signed permit. Am I missing something? >> We were also surprised to see it listed as an denial, an appeal of a denial. We have not received a denial. We have not submitted. We wanted to come to this board first and get your blessing before submitting for a signed permit. >> So you're asking for a special permit for the sign that you proposed. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So let's start the started from that perspective. We were under the impression there was a denial. So

obvious. So, what we're proposing is in keeping with the historic character, but doesn't look exactly like an upside down two. >> So, you are putting it as shown on because we I will have to sign a stamp plan at some point. >> Yes. So my first reaction is wait a minute the number's wrong. So that was my reaction [laughter] too. >> So I just have a question. Are you requesting relief under section 4.3 one? >> What would that and what would that square footage be? That's got to be in the decision, too. >> So, so do you need do you need a special

permit for the three larger, you know, sort of in the Mckne Commons uh estimate established 2026 or is that just replacing what's there? >> It is replacing what is there with different letters, different font, uh different sizes than what was previously there. And then the sign that hangs below is something new. It is not. Sure. >> We haven't had a sign like that, you know, since it was the furniture store. >> When you change a sign, you have to permit it. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, what we're interested in is the square footage that's allowed and how much square feet do you need so that we can approve the right amount. >> And then also there's a detached sign,

right? like under >> the the detached sign underneath in the center is 84 in by 30 in 7 ft by 2 and 1/2 ft. >> So 17 and 12 square feet. Is that right? >> And 17 and 12. >> Yes. >> Want to make sure we get it all correct. That >> Thank you.

>> So, Joe, again, this is just >> Go ahead. >> Well, just to clarify, so the detached sign would be under 4319 and then the other sign is just a general sign permit. It's is over the footage. So you're only allowed I think it's what 10 >> CB. So they're >> 30 square feet. What do we have? >> Right. All this >> and that. >> So how much are we total footage? Anybody know? We have to permit anything over 30

square feet. >> Well, it says maximum total sign area square footage of 60. >> Yeah, CB total sign CB would be 30

So if we are looking at the total signage, the pieces that say Mckne Commons established 2026, each of those is roughly 10 ft uh by 14 1/2 in. The signage itself, the actual letters is not that big, but that is the panels. >> Yeah, the letters is what 32 by >> the letters are 9 in tall. 3 32 33 34 about 35* 75 right that's the letters >> uh 26.25 for the letters. >> Uh, detach sign setback because that's not

located within the front yard. >> This one, >> that would be a not the one hang that would be attached. >> It's not one hanging. It's an attached sign. Yeah, that's a tax total. >> So if if if the letters on the on the sort of long horizontal panel are less than 30, do they need a permit for that or are they good with that? >> Oh, they need it's total sign area. >> I see. Okay. Yeah, >> they're over 30. No question. >> Let's just do a special permit for to exceed the square footage of sign. So I I came up with 26.25 for the upper and 17.5 for the the

lower panel. >> I show you. >> So 43.75. So 44 square ft. >> Actual letters >> permit to exceed the square footage up to whatever that number is. We got they'll have to include that in the decision. We'll get the hard number for the decision. The exact They did the math. >> Okay. I want to open public testimony. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anyone in favor? Come forward or raise your hand if you're on Zoom. If there is none, anyone in opposition to the sign? Any opposition?

relief. I do not believe it complies with the lot width area. Lot width according to my reading of the lost to zoning ordinance is the defined as the horizontal distance between the side property lines of a lot measured parallel to the front property line at that side of the principal building closest to the property line. I don't see anywhere in the petition that shows uh where where that where the um how that uh dimension is met for the lot with and I find it to be a practical impossibility because there's only one side setback. Therefore, I don't think it complies with u the lot with requirement in that the petitioner

should be seeking that relief. Secondly, I'd like to point out that the lot at for the reasons set forth in the um applicants uh application, it's already buildable. It's a pre-existing non-conforming lot. They just have to abide by the current setbacks uh which are 30 ft for frontage and 20 ft for side yards. The the applicant can build a home. He can build a smaller home. Um the zoning changes that have been instituted over the summer have lessened the standard for for granting variances and we acknowledge that and it's lessened the standard from substantial hardship to pra practical difficulty.

That doesn't mean that a petitioner can go and build whatever they want and maximize the the building footprint without um regard to the to the considering the the public welfare and the and the u um its neighbors and in and how that project fits in with the neighborhood. It it's it's designed to create more single family housing. the um the new the new statute um that by lessening the standard from substantial hardship to practical difficulty. It's not designed to allow people to build McMansions on postage stamp lots with ocean view um to to maximize their um their ocean views.

this project is is he's creating to pres um he's designing a a oddly shaped home that fans out like a trapezoid and he's and it's going 10 it's not just a 10-ft sideback uh 10-ft um sideyard setback relief in one spot. He's proposing a 10-ft sideyard setback relief the entire length of the home. and it's like fanning out like a trapezoid and it's without any regard to the to the rest of the neighborhood and how it how it fits in there. Um, and he's also expanding asking for the relief on the frontage on the curved side of Flume Road where he has that

breakfast nook and in that area sticking out and he's and he's and and and it's it's much too big for the lot. And that's not what the the um the zoning change was designed for to to allow people to to build these excessively large homes. It was designed to create more single family housing. Now the the it was brought up at the last meeting that you know the the the petition and did get approval for a septic design plan for for a four fourbedroom house on a and he had and he um proposed a dwelling footprint that was 28x 38 with a 22x 22 ft garage and I

there's not this 25 to 30 foot wall um on on her side of the of the lot as proposed by by the application. It's a much more reasonably designed home and and it's not a a small home. It's by my calculation, it's a 2600 ft home. Um and it and it's much more appropriate for for this lot and it's and it's much more appropriate for the neighborhood. And I think if the board is considering granting relief because of this practical difficulty standard, it doesn't have to grant the petitioner the relief. It it's it seeks to build an overly excessive home u sized home on on

>> So, said it's been our family home for over 50 years. I've been a widow for 18 years. I've continued to work to pay off this family home, and I only have a few payments left. Um, however, if this oversized plan goes through, I'll have this 30-foot wall built in front of me, which will take a great portion of the view and devalue the property. and several of those neighbors around me. I'm not just speaking for myself. It's not like there aren't some other

choices here. Our neighborhood is opposed to the oversized footprint of this home. We all just want something more reasonable. We're not opposed to a home being built here. I think with something more reasonable, everybody wins. It just doesn't seem right that Mr. Gikis can try to take so much from us, our views, our property value to get the large footprint he wants. It's a beautiful lot with incredible views. Again, I just hope they can do something more reasonable. Thank you.

opposed to the scale of this lot of this building. Um I'm pleased to see that they came into compliance with the height restriction. They originally wanted 35 ft and now they're down to 30. So that was a good uh that was a nice accommodation. Um, and I just hope that the geekases and the board realize that building a McMansion on this lot is unreasonable. Um, [clears throat] again, the new there's been a lot said about the new

law. The new law was not designed to allow someone to build any size home that they wanted on any lot. It was really designed to give opportunities to increase housing units, whether it be ADU units or other splitting of property to allow for more housing for people. So I think that's a misrepresentation when folks refer to the new law is giving uh handing over complete permission to

do what you want. The lawyer re representing the geekases mentioned something about how they paid a handsome sum for this property as if that entitles them to build a large home. He also cited uh a ruling that talked about whether or not another person's home would be devalued. My understanding is that um the

the person people can't I'm not sure how to say this but that I don't think that the what they paid for that lot is a factor in this argument at all. They they knew what they bought. They knew what they paid for. They could have offered less. They could have offered more. But they offered and got the lot at a certain price. That price does not entitle them to do anything they want. I so I I wish that we could come to a reasonable compromise so that as Margaret said, everyone would

win. uh that people would be allowed to have build a lovely home with a nice view. Um [clears throat] and you know that the neighbors could feel comfortable with a plan that is more reasonable. If they're looking for a 10- ft um exception on one side and a 17 ft exception on the other, you're talking about 27 ft. That's pretty much that whole It wouldn't be the whole bump out that they're looking for on the side for the breakfast nook and etc. above, but we're

talking like a huge a huge space. So, I noticed that in the application, and maybe this isn't something that's required with the zoning, um, but they've never mentioned how many square ft this house is, and by our estimates, it's got to be like over 3,000 square ft home. Um, I'm not exactly sure because I didn't really know how to figure that out, but um, it's huge. There's probably a lot more that I could say, but it may be repeating some of what other people have already said. So, I don't think I need to say um more

about that, but um I do believe it will devalue Margaret's home and mine built at this scale. And I will definitely take that into consideration uh in regards to asking my taxes to be lowered, you know, if my value of my property is less. So anyway, there's a lot of complications here and I just hope that, you know, we can come up with something that's acceptable and that we can all get along. All right. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?

already been said, but I really believe that there is a um problem there will be a problem with foot traffic and um cars and and blinders being put on people driving by because it's leaving very little room to be able to see around the corner. And we noticed this week, I noticed actually when there was some trees being taken down, you you couldn't get through the road. And many times when I come down Lynon, as I did today, I had to pull over and wait for someone to pass me by till they

get to the stop sign. And then all I thought was, what are they going to see? They're not going to be able to see the right or the left. So, my concern is is is number one, it's too big a house for that lot. And if he didn't or the people that bought it didn't know that when they bought it, I feel bad for them. But a lot of people buy homes and don't realize exactly what they're getting or think they can do something and then they disco discover they can't. So in this case, the solution is truly to be respectful to the neighbors, to the land, to the

city of Magnol Town of Magnolia and and build something beautiful but appropriate in size. So and none of us would object. So um that's my feeling and thank you so much for letting me say it. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll close public testimony. It' be rebuttal time.

does not. That encroaches into the front and left side yard setback. It's three times closer to the shared property line than we're proposing. It has the same technical distance. like the front of their house is the same technical distance um from the from the actual layout. Sorry. The front of the house is the same practical distance from the paved portion of the road um or for I'm stumbling over my words here. I want to get this right. Is the same technical distance from the layout of Flume Road, but it's closer to the actual pavement than ours would be. It's also bigger. 27 according to the city's records is 2589 square ft including decks. proposed house on 209 would be 2,450 square feet including decks. So, it's actually a

smaller house than is at 27 despite being on the same size lot. Um, again, this is the the superimposition. You can even see >> Joel, could you just repeat that for me? You said the size of this proposed house is what? >> 20. The proposed house including Dex is 2,450 ft. We have to stay under 25% of 10,000 square ft. The neighbor's house exceeds the maximum lot coverage by 89 square feet is the 2589 including decks. And when you superimpose the footprint, you can even see that this house is smaller than um 27. It's actually also smaller, quite smaller than um 211 Hesperess, which is right down here. That one is 2,999

square ft of uh footprint including decks on a 10,000t lot. Same size lot. um 500 square feet bigger in the same neighborhood. >> Jo, which which house that >> that would be that would be 211, which is down here. But unfortunately, if I go back way back to this one, you can see this house here is just a scoch under 3,000 square foot with a footprint on the same 10,000 foot lot um that the rest of these have. So this is, you know, >> do you happen to know um the square footage proposed relative to the neighborhood average square footage? >> No, I I don't have the full

neighborhood. I tried to grab the ones that were um closest. I thought 27 was particularly of interest seeing the, you know, the characterization of this as a McMansion despite being smaller than her own family house. Um it's also interesting seeing as this house has been uh in the family for over 50 years. That means um shortly after it was built uh it went about 20 years later in 1987 her family took to the ZBA to get a front yard and a sideyard variance because they wanted to expand their footprint to the current almost 2600 ft it is and get within about 3 ft of the property line. and this board or your predecessors granted a front yard

variance and a sideyard variance so they could expand the footprint of the house to over 200 square feet and get within three feet of this shared line that all of a sudden 10 ft is too close and 2450 is too much. Um, and this is again and actually a more accurate survey shows that there was actually an error here and the deck per that relief was only supposed to be the closest point. It's like 3 3.2 two feet, something like that. The deck is basically a foot off the line, and the house itself is 3 feet. Um, and again, this is a shot of, you know, this is the house that the neighbor is complaining about, McMansions being built in this neighborhood and how inappropriate a 24,000 uh, sorry, 20 2,450T house would

this house and the house that is concerned about um what we're building on 29. We also have 26 joined in letter. They are over 130 ft from the structure. So, you could actually have a Boeing 737 taxi between these two houses. Um, I don't see how anything going on at 29 is going to be impacting uh 26. And then we have 22 and 22R. Again, so far, like nothing we're doing at 29 is going to impact these people. I appreciate that everyone has this kind of free lot in the neighborhood and they've had it for years and they're probably bummed out the free lot is going away, but those are not, you know, reasons to deny reasonable relief. So again, as we remind the board of the new standard says, you shall grant a variance if you

can find enforcing it strictly would result in a practical difficulty. You shall weigh the benefits to my client and the public interest of creating housing versus public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. And you've heard no one give a viable argument about health, safety, and welfare. You've heard about devaluation of property values and loss of views. And to the degree that any opposition cited concerns about proximity to the road, we are further back from the traveled road than the majority of houses on that street. And if anything, that tree that's on the corner now that's going to come down will improve the site across that corner. So I believe we've met the standard for granting a variance under the current

standard. I would ask again for a front yard variance, sideyard variance, and if you think it's necessary, a watt area variance. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat] Discussion by the board. I think um the most telling stat is the fact that it's not exceeding the lot coverage. So to make a statement that's too big for the lot may be applicable if they were looking for 40% coverage, but they're under 25% coverage, which is the standard for this neighborhood and for those lots. So, I I saw that as to me the most compelling argument against saying it's too big for the lot. Um,

just something I noticed. >> Uh, I think the comparison to some houses uh in the area uh I was under the impression uh that this house had more square footage uh than Joel is uh telling us. I was just doing some very quick calculations but I didn't um I was just looking at some the you know the plans but um I I believe what he's telling me. So uh so it to me it's it's a comparable size to a number of homes uh close by. Uh I also I personally don't have a big issue even with the uh large variance that's being asked for on the front uh because of the the uh the

way that the road goes very far away from the legal property uh itself. Um I don't think it there are going to be uh any issues um for for driving uh for obstructing views or uh you know visual there was concerns that you're not going to be able to see the cars coming and stuff like that. If you look at um one of the the uh pages that Joel put up showed it uh very well uh that the road goes far if I'm um with the ocean to my right hand side and I'm looking at that road it goes far to the right uh from where the property line actually is. So I don't have an issue even though it feels like a large

variance on the front. Um I don't have a big issue with that variance. I agree the um >> I guess I would add also um that the diffic with the septic um positioning that adds additional difficulty in terms of sighting. >> Yeah. It takes away a substantial portion of the lot for building. Yes. >> When this was developed and these lots were carved up, this lot was meant to have a house just like all the other ones. some reason that lot didn't get built on for whatever reason. Maybe somebody else owned it in conjunction was going to leave it. But we in 10 years doing doing these hearings, every

there's such a demand for housing. Every vacant lot out there and every opportunity to divide more open land to create housing is going to come forward. And people get to en you know the statement you get to enjoy this. And we've seen that so many times. Oh, it's there's been nothing there. I don't like something going there. Well, that's not an excuse to deny home to be built on a buildable lot. So, it's it's happens too much. People are used to it. They think it's their open land and it's not. So, somebody owns it. So, anyway, I would support the application. Anybody run? >> Yes, I would support it. Um my major objection was the uh height previously.

Um I think some of the this is a an example of the the the difficulty for the public to understand zoning. And it's probably ever thus um it it just isn't going to do what a people when they're confronted by a development in their neighborhood would like. It it's if you object to this, take another look at the criteria that we are asked to to use that some of the arguments about not

being able to see around the corner. Frankly, it's an absurd argument given that stretched out corner. So that doesn't help the the situation very much. And saying McMansions and calling names and then having it's pretty apparent to anybody who drives through that neighborhood that a 2500 square foot home is is going to be around the median. So I I have nothing against this. I look forward to seeing a nice home on that lot. entertain a motion. >> So, do we think he needs a a lot of variance or not? >> He wasn't asking lot area. Oh, for the

yard setback and right sideyard setback. And I think the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty given the lot shape, the um septic position and um has demonstrated the consistency with other structures in the neighborhood. I would second I would add that this is a very difficult lot, very unusually shaped and the the way Flume Road is laid out makes it extremely deceptive. I second the motion. >> We have a motion made and seconded.

requesting a special permit under section 5246 for 900 foot detached accessory dwelling unit on a property with an existing,080 ft principal dwelling. Some history on the property to begin. Uh my grandfather purchased the property in 1965 roughly 12 years after the api Andrew bridge was completed. This at one point was the only dwelling on Rust Island. Uh subsequently now the third [clears throat] generation owner I own the property. Our goal is to update and renovate in such a way to leave this to the next generations of our family with minimal burden. The addition of an ADU uh that is built with ADA compliance in

mind gives us the opportunity for an aging parent to remain in place on the property in a one-story accessible dwelling. As you can see from the plans, a garage offers access directly into the living area. This will afford us the opportunity to renovate or upgrade the current 100-year-old dwelling to today's standards without displacement. That renovation will likely bring the existing dwelling, primary dwelling, uh, above 1,800 square f feet. Uh, the existing dwelling now has two bedrooms on the second floor, one bathroom on the first floor. It's a 2acre lot. Uh, it's the largest of 36 lots on Rust Island to the north side of 128.

Um, the proposed ADU is located, as you can see on the plot plan, about 130 ft from the existing primary dwelling. We recognize the normal calculation under 524.5A would limit the ADU to 540 square ft. That's why we're before you uh the board today. Uh, section 524.6 Six specifically provides a special permit process for an ADU that does not meet the otherwise applicable requirements. The standard, as we understand, the board must consider is whether the proposed ADU meets the purposes of section 524 and will not have a detrimental impact to the neighborhood. We believe the proposal clearly meets that standard.

First, the project complies with the applicable height and setback requirements. The additional living space is therefore being provided without creating an encroachment or setback issue on the property. Uh second and importantly, all but one of the abutters notified, including the direct abutters. I've personally uh briefed on the proposed construction. They've all expressed their full support of the project. We believe that this is particularly relevant to the board's consideration of the neighborhood impact. The people most directly affected by the project have seen the plans, understand what's being proposed, and fully support it. Third, the property's septic plan has been reviewed and approved by the board of health. Al

also conservation commission has re uh reviewed and subsequently approved the proposed septic plan as well as the ADU footprint uh with an order of conditions issued on September 16th, 2025. Uh that proposal included 3,000 square feet of mitigation plantings to address lot coverage with the assoc uh with the associated uh associated with the ADU. If we look at the lock coverage, even with the proposed ADU, we're still at roughly 4 and a.5% coverage. I think uh sitting in R10, I think it's 30% if I'm not mistaken. Um

so this is not a proposal that creates unresolved issues regarding any setbacks, height, septic capacity, or lot coverage. Uh those aspects of the project have been specifically addressed previously. Most importantly, the project advances the purposes of section 524 by creating an additional housing opportunity while maintaining the residential character of the property and neighborhood. We're not asking the board to overlook the city's ADU requirements. We're just asking the board to apply the specific special permit provision that the city established for circumstances such as this to evaluate the actual impact of this particular proposal. The ADU is appropriately lo appropriately located on the property.

Height and setbacks comply with the applicable requirements. The septic plan has been approved by the board of health. Conservation Commission has approved the footprint of the proposed dwelling and the septic system. Mitigation plantings address the additional lot coverage. The director Butters and other Butters have been personally briefed and fully support the project. Uh is my understanding. The proposal also provides an additional housing opportunity consistent with the purposes of the city's ADU ordinance. There's no drainage or storm water issues. Utilities and infrastructure are not affected. Public health and safety has been considered and addressed with the upgrading of the septic system. Uh

it's well within the neighborhood character. Uh it's compatible with the surrounding development of Rust Island. Any environmental impacts have been considered and mitigated. It's consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. So for reasons uh for all those reasons, we respectfully ask the board to find that the proposed ADU meets the purpose of section 5.24 and will not have detrimental impact on the neighborhood and to grant the requested special permit. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Questions by the board. So I guess so the issue is it's a 900

square foot ADU on a 1080 square foot primary res which is the section of the ADU ordinance that they're asking us to defer The standard is the lesser of 900 square ft or 50% of the principal. >> I couldn't hear you, Lauren. >> Sorry. Uh the standard under 5.24.5 24.5 for the size of the ADU Michael is a

maximum of 900 square feet or 50% of the total habitable space of the principal dwelling whichever is less and their principal dwelling is um would only really permit them to have an ADU of 540 square feet and they're asking for 900. I I sort of read it as the intent was to create another housing unit without going against our longstanding objection to building two homes on one lot. And so that's I think where some of the uh restrictions came into play. Um,

but I think you know if they were asking for 2,000 feet ADU, no matter how big the house was, that would be >> another house. Yeah. >> 900 foot limit. Um, state regulations are different. Um, if they was going to if they could meet all the setbacks, they could build even a bigger ADU in the state ranks. But I don't think the fact that they're sticking to the 900, I don't really have a problem with that. I think it's Yeah, maybe someday they'll build that other house or make that other house bigger. I'm sure that will happen, but in the meantime they get to utilize and create another housing unit. So, I could go along with that type of a Would it be a special permit to that? Yeah, the ADU calls for a special permit

Seeing none, we'll close public testimony. No need for any rebuttal discussion. Are we ready for a motion? Make a motion on the application of Joseph Borland seeking a special permit under section 5.2 24.5 to build an ADU of 900 square ft. Um I think it's a nice project and has the support of the neighborhood and doesn't seem to have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. Second. Motion >> made and seconded. Roll call vote. >> Mr. Nyman.

>> Yes. >> Mr. Wilson. >> Yes. >> Miss Norton. Yes. Mr. Paresi. >> Yes. Paradise decision. We'll get a we'll get a written decision out to you in a few weeks. >> Thank you very much. Have a good evening, >> Lauren. Okay. We have one other thing on our agenda tonight. We were asked again to review the rules and regulations for 40B and comprehensive permit. If you recall, this was in discussion about fees and ways we were going to try to uh cover what's involved in uh 40B permitting. We've reviewed it before and I know uh

Lauren had submitted some uh suggestions which I thought were incorporated but they've asked us to take a look at it one last time. Um and we review this over the next two weeks. I'm not accustomed to reviewing a fourpage legal ease document on first exposure. I mean that's that's fine with me. I have no problem with this. Uh legal is just asking for us to get this addressed and taken care of. So, if you guys want to take a a couple weeks review it, Lauren, I'm going to ask if you can find

the revised notes cuz I don't have them. That way, we can get them over to legal and have everything taken care of. They're just looking to get this completed and submitted to city council for approval. >> So, we'd have everybody review it. Um, >> there's no there's no possibility of getting a a a document with that wonderful feature. Um, edit, you know, show changes. >> I think I think they've already done that, honestly. Like I I think >> I think we've seen this. I think we've made comments. We've seen the changes made, but it's been a while, so we might as well take another look at this. >> All right. So, we'll have one last crack

at it. If you don't see anything you don't have an issue with, we'll leave it as is. If the changes that we did come up with were made, we'll we'll figure that out and everybody can take a look at it. So, we'll continue that for a recommendation in two weeks. >> Going to continue it. Or >> would it be appropriate to say let's table this until the next meeting? Yeah. >> I move that we table this until the next meeting. We put it to a vote or you know >> motion made to table it for two weeks. >> Second. >> Seconded. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Nyman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wilson. >> Yes. >> Miss Norton. >> Yes. Mr. Pey. >> Yes. Want to chain a motion to adjurnn?

>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Seconded. Roll call. Mr. Diamond, >> yes. >> Mr. Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Norton, >> yes. >> Mr. Pey, >> good night, Michael. >> I'm leaving without him whether he says yes or not. [laughter] >> Good night, everyone. >> Yes, we are ajour. Do it.