the agendas yet.
I didn't screen till I print them.
Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. there we are. Can you do the like All right. So, please that because my eyes are there. We call that beautiful thing. A
simple agenda tonight. Very simple. Okay. So, we have my greenhouse. Is she supposed to speak? Are we waiting for Marina to come back?
Excuse me.
Waiting for taking the notes and everything. So,
well, believe already.
Okay. So, all to order. We have one, two, three, five members. Mike Greenhouse, Fred Red Oliver. Actually, we have four members and we'll see an alternate when the regular meeting week starts. Oh, okay. We'll see Joan. Okay. At that time. Okay. So, Bill, Kathleen, and so this is our continuation of the application of Christine Gomez seeking the variance for the Lola road. So, presentation by the applicant. just for the record attorney for representing the applicant I have the applicant home owners here with me or property owners I should say. I didn't really prepare an additional presentation. I know that we were continued primarily because we wanted to have a full compliment of five members to vote on the application. there was also a question of me just putting down
a a bit of a a summary that I presented at the last meeting so you could digest it further. And then I'm really more prepared just to answer questions at this time. I certainly don't have any new legal argument that hasn't already been expressed.
Well, I know Joan will be seated as an alternate. So we have five time.
Yes.
I don't know. I know. I I've been the chair for so long.
Yeah.
But she might have questions that
Absolutely. And I presume that you had an opportunity to either review the recordings or review the minutes and I vote for
Okay. Okay.
Thank you. We appreciate that.
And you feel that you were qualified to to to participate or vote in this matter.
Say if they seek me, I am.
Yes. She she feels that she's been updated by watching the video. Watch the video. You've reviewed the file, right? And so you feel fair to to participate in orgs.
Yes, I can.
Thank you.
That's the Thank you.
So, yes. So, if there's any questions, again, if you want to refer to the summary of the argument in my legal basis for it that I had submitted that really walks you through what I had presented at the last time. we're starting with the premise that well I guess what what I should say is the primary first and foremost question that we presented before you is that we would like your confirmation this is a legal non-conforming law and as such then the basis for our requested variance can be the aden principle which is a reduction in nonconformities we would be reducing via this law and adjustment the nonconformities nothing to do with lot with and law size. there will be no other non-conformities, no new non-conformity videos created, just those two will be reduced and made more compliant. I've set forth my arguments as to why we maintain that it should be found a legal non-conforming mod. As you know, we're in a bit of a quandry. We can't definitively prove it one way or the other. We can't definitively disprove it either because the town's own records only go back to 1956 despite having purported to adopt zoning in 1950. we've done the best with any information at our disposal and we can either I I think it's it's for you to now based
on the arguments I've made make a determination. Have we given you enough information in the record to make a reasoned conclusion that yes, we will deem this to be a non-conforming lot and therefore evaluate a variance request based on Adal sin or or not. and and even without the direct evidence of what the regulations said in 1954 when this lock was created, we've given you some inferences, right? the best we can get based on what the regulations said in 1956 based on some minutes of a zoning hearing that repealed and modified changes to regulations. All of that I think is also a basis for you concluding that you could infer that the prior regulations either didn't set a minimum lot area or width or set one that's different than what's in the 1956 ones. Otherwise, why would they have changed it in 1956? and therefore lead to the conclusion that it it was likely a compliant law when it
was created. So, I I wish I could be clear. I mean, I wish it could be cleaner is what I want to say. I wish it could be cleaner. I wish I could give you a definitive answer. I did research who is the keeper of the town's records. And according to the state library, they're to be maintained in perpetuity with the town. So, the state librarian wouldn't have a copy of these. This is something that should be housed in the town clerk's office. Again, there's just nothing there prior to the 56 Rex. So, based on all of that, is there anything specifically you want to ask?
I don't know if this John. So, I have a kind of a lawyer report, but you might I feel like you're So, now we're going to put a house on a lot that never had a house before, but and your argument is based on the old lot, but you've changed a lot. So, I feel like I don't know. Does the reduction in nonconformity really apply? Because now you have a brand new lot that's non-conforming.
Well, we have a lot that was non-conforming. We have a lot from 1954, a piece of land, and whether you call it a building lot or not, it's a it's a parcel of land that's been in existence standalone without any adjoining property in common ownership since 1954. And in 1954, that that piece was created and it's been vacant ever since. So that parcel exists. What we want to do now is modify the lines, the lot lines of that parcel and enlarge it to become more compliant with the regulations. Whether a building goes on there or not, it would be more compliant with the regulations because the regulations require 40,000 square foot and 200 foot minimum lot width. So, we will be making it more compliant. Still not compliant, but more compliant than what's presently existing with the law. and and the house the house will fully comply with all setback requirements and all lot coverage requirements. So, it's really solely a matter of the lot width and area and and whether there's a house there or not,
the principle doesn't change that we're making that parcel more compliant with some of the regulations.
I just feel like it's not that parcel anymore. It's a new parcel. Well, with the variances, it would be a a modified parcel, but we're not creating it out of nowhere. I mean, it does exist right now and it has since 1954 based on the chain of title.
I mean,
that that plot has always existed without structure.
Correct. But there are lots of pieces of land that have not yet been built on.
Sure. Right. Right. And the and the I guess I want to not lose fact of the site that or lose sight of the fact that it built upon the structure itself can conform with all applicable regulations. The structure can perhaps. Okay. I just was wondering if there's like precedent of similar type. and I I apologize that I haven't had time to get here in a couple weeks to to research it for myself. but perhaps examples of because there's many non-conforming lots apparently around the lake is my understanding. where similarly a vacant lot was purchased with the intention of placing a structure and has zoning issued variance previously? And then a second follow-up question to that would be has zoning also granted variance in the past? Does there pass precedent for zoning to grant variance with the stipulation that they make an adjacent lot less conforming or make it non-conforming? That's specifically in regards to the situation regarding the septic plan. because foreseeable future if one lot was sold, I I just I just
want to know if there is past president. I I can't talk to whether there's past president, but I do want to caution you. We are not making the existing house lot non-compliant in any way with zoning. Zoning is fully satisfied. It will still meet all u bulk area requirements, size, setbacks, frontage. the that lot will remain compliant. So, I know it'll be a little unusual because the septic u it will have someone else's septic via easement on the front part of it, but there's no non-compliance issue. If we were making it non-compliant, it would be an issue. Then the advice and principle really would not come into play because you can only use that to make properties more compliant, not create new non-compliances. So, that that's kind of an important differential there. So, I just like to point that out. and with regard to the septic being on the existing house lot and kind of off property, kind of a little bit of both. having septics within an easement on adjacent property is something the health department has allowed will allow. and it's really no different than having an easement for drainage onto your neighbor's property. I mean, often times you see a a roof drain, a curtain drain, or something being drained from one property to another. Here we're, you know, putting our leech fields and draining that into the property. But we can memorialize that via permanent easements that will run with the land, be apparent to anybody who would buy the property and
and you know, spell out the rights and obligations in that document. So on on that note, one of the thoughts I had, it's kind of going a little bit here.
I went to a a site where they had a bamboo forest on this bamboo forest
and it's green year round in Rhode Island and I thought, "Wow, this would be really cool."
Bamboo is invasive.
It's my point. It's very evasive. So I was told never plant bamboo or any because it's invasive. It goes into your septic system.
But then that made me think too is so this piece of property right here that the septic system would be on
the the owners of this lot and I know it's you now but in the future they would never be able to build something in that area, put trees or plants in that area because the septic systems there. And I also thought again I'm pontificating a little bit. I put a trench down the side of my yard once to put underground lines out to my pool house and the guy that dug the line said your sh is right there. I said, "Yeah." He says, "Well, you got all these trees you want to plant and you have to dig this." And I said, "Yeah." He goes, "You don't want to do that." So, I guess my point is, how far of an area in addition to this would you have to say to people, you can't plant trees in this area? They didn't didn't know because those trees could grow roots into that septic system and now the person that owns the new house could say you have I have dam you have damaged my my septic system and I'm going to sue you for damage is because your trees that you planted on your lot even though they're outside the septic system area had roots go in there and now that's my one of my thoughts I had in my head.
Yeah, I don't think that we really have to worry about putting any restrictions beyond the septic easement area. Number one, it's a steeply wooded is a steeply sloped area. Correct. Yeah. I was just thinking if if you were to go to see the pro property
then did you go to see the property and then the main property
just from the road you know
right and so our main house and the yard and you know the whole area that we used we have never in the well 35 years
used that down there in 35 years because the the area and the yard is is big and the grass and everything is lovely up there. Like you wouldn't even go down there for that. So the slopes really separate the house really separate if you were to see it. But I I mean I appreciate you really giving thought to this. I I appreciate that.
So within the actual septic easement, you can see where the primary would be to see where the per tests are. The primary is pretty close to the to the property line in the interior part of the sept of the of the septic easement. So I don't think even if someone planted which again based on the topography and photos I think it's unlikely anyone would plant but even if someone planted outside of that easement area I don't expect that
I'm sorry.
Yes.
Go ahead.
I just point you pointed out the exact location of the primary the primary field versus the ement area.
Yeah. So the easement area is actually quite a bit larger
ight
han the
I think we've given the surrounding area to protect the the structure in there. So so I for for for reasons of the fact that I think it's impractical that anyone will plant anything down there or do anything with
that area other than the septic system. I don't think we're going to have any interference. another thing I'll just note and and I know variances can't have anything to do with the ownership and who owns the property, but I will just note from a practical standpoint, my client does expect her son to build a house there. It will be a familyowned property, at least in the foreseeable future when it's first built. so with that, you know, relationship in mind, I I don't really expect any any incompatibility by having the easement on the rear houses's property.
Can I ask about the easement? I I'm assuming the easement is going to give the give parcel B
the right to pass and repass and maintain.
Yes.
Including
repair, replace,
including mowing and and repairs and all that good stuff.
It'll be very broad. I mean, I I'm happy to review the language with the town attorney to make sure it covers everything, but I envision that it will be the right to pass, repass, construct, maintain, repair, replace as necessary, a septic system, and allertinances that may be necessary and to do routine maintenance. It will also allow the owner of the house lot, the existing house lot to use it for a purpose that's not inconsistent and interfere with any of the septic. so title still remains in the house property and they have some limited rights to use it but again it's so kind of remote in a way from the house
that it's really impractical for use anyway. So so I don't envision them retaining any real activity and and exerting any control over that land. They really just own the underlying fee.
Right. But somebody's going to have to maintain it to prevent trees from establishing themselves.
And that will be an obligation on par owner to make sure that they protected their their son system
and and if by chance that was poorly maintained and caused pollution on someone else's property, who's that would be
whoever it's it's the septic owner's responsibility. So they would be responsible for any damage there, right? I mean, you can almost kind of wipe out the basement in your mind and almost make it seem like that that land is really primarily for the benefit of and under the control of parcel be but legal title of the underlying fee is still owned by the the house so that the house can stay compliant. That's the I think I mentioned to you that was the important drive behind that. it also only works if we're not creating new non-compliances. We wanted to make sure that the existing house lot that my clients live in stays compliant with all zoning requirements.
so can we just review how much of a nonconformity are we asking in terms of square footage of the lot and the different dimensions?
Sure. So right now I put that in my memo. right now we are making the lot, which is presently 18,73 square ft.
We're increasing it to 25,18 square ft and we're increasing the lot width from 50 ft to 88.7 ft. And so 25,118 is the square footage and the minimum called for by the zoning regulations is 60,000
. Okay. So that's still a big Okay. 60
and keep going. And as far as the dimensions, so
how how far off are we on the on the various dimensions?
Oh, no. We're not at all. the the the as you can see from the proposed location of the house lot we will be front side and rear yard setbacks. Yeah, I see the setbacks. But in terms of the dimensions,
the the frontage for example, is that
Well, that you don't have a frontage requirement. You only have a lock wick, which is the 200.
we actually do have a frontage requirement as of January 15, 2026.
Okay. But not as of the date we submitted the application. But what is it now?
200 200 feet.
Okay. So, lot within and frontage are 200.
They changed the change. So 200 feet is what's required. 50 feet is what's existing. 88.7 is what we're proposing to increase it to.
And set that road is 50 feet from the center.
And they're in 83. Yeah.
What's the square footage of the proposed house
of the house?
the Well, we don't have a final building plan for the house. I mean, that could change, but it will have to comply with all setbacks. What we're showing here just because it's a it's still a small lot so it can't really accommodate the McMansion the vanish store is a gosh I don't I don't have
four bedroom can you tell the rough dimensions of it I don't have
30 by 40 on the rough
3000 short
yeah 300
it could be I mean again there's no final building plan for it
so I'm sorry
so somewhere in the neighborood 2,000 square ft. It sounds like it would be kind of a ballpark. Visit is 30 by40. That's 1,200,200. Yeah. So, if it has a second story, then it could be up to
Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. Mr. Chairman, on the recommend I I have a question on that. I was going to follow. Typically, if your plan shows a 30 by 40, that's like the envelope within which the building will occur. So, it won't if this variance is approved, it can't go bigger than that. Oh, no.
No, we don't expect to go bigger. I mean, I guess the only thing I would say though, Mark, is
Attorney Grant, sorry.
Sorry.
is that as long as we still don't need setback variances, I would think there's a little flexibility with that. I mean, we as long as we're out of the front, side, and rear. I mean, that because the size of the house doesn't really change the variance that's being granted for the this is really more of an ac for the lot area and width. This is really more academic because my clients can live with working within that but I I
notra case you know that various case where where you know sort of what you see is what you get and I think that it is relevant for the board.
Okay. I mean, if if the house is going to be twice as big,
that might affect their their their if it's if it's roughly this if it's a little different shape, I don't think it's a big deal, but if if if the board knew that the house is going to be much bigger, that is a factor. I'm not saying there would make a difference, but it's a factor they would consider. So, so my understanding is this, you'll be within that envelope
or smaller because Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Actually, I was thinking smaller. They were thinking smaller.
Okay. But yes, that that if you want to tie the approval specifically to this footprint, we don't object to that. No.
Yeah.
and I'm going to ask this question before. So if I did, I apologize. So the the area for the suffix system, could that be sold along with that or would that make the original lot too small?
It would make the original house lot too small. And not too small really. It would affect the lot width. So we could probably still make the lot area work, but they wouldn't have the requisite 200 ft of lot width. So it would become non-compliant there.
So that's really the the the Okay.
touch point. Yeah.
I mean that would be the easy solution, right? Then we
I just said we'll just add it to this piece. But my my biggest concern all along was let's folks protect what we have and not make our existing lot non-compliant.
Right.
So that's really my you know playing lawyer and being real particular about complying with the law.
So yeah. So to make the new lot compliant you'd have to bring it from roughly 25,000 square feet up to 60,000. So that's just no
there's not enough land to do that. Okay.
Yeah. And I mean I I and this gets into the whole, you know, is this in accordance with the comprehensive plan and consistent with the neighborhood. I talked about this at the last meeting and I also put it in my summary. I mean there are a lot of undersized lots in this area. we pointed out at least four within street, you know, 700 or 700.
If you drive around the lake, you'll see 700 feet or so that are what when I would I walk the lake loop all the time. the lake and you start seeing the house. You see, you get to know everybody, you get to know the houses. The house,
right? No, agree.
Once you cighted, the newest one's 35 years old.
Well, no. The one that was built in 1930, 1953, 194. So,
prior to prior to the zoning record is 1954. Let's just be I just want to touch on that because I know, you know, we're we're building a new house and I know that's causing you a little concern, but I want you to recognize that people can even do that without a barrier on an undersized lot. the the zoning regulations have some protections for non-conforming lots. And it says that as long as the lot was of record by 1950, which is the only issue and the only reason we're really here is because we can't get those darn zoning records from 1950. We only go back to 1956. But as long as the lot was zoned separate as of 1950 and as long as you can comply with health code and don't need any setback is then they can get a zoning permit to build a house on an undersized lot. So the only reason I'm not fitting my clients aren't fitting squarely within that and the reason they're coming here is because of this issue with the lack
of regulations. So, I have to somehow get you to agree that we're not going to hold tight to that 1950 date because there's nothing there to tell whether or not we were existing or or what what was what was existing at the time. so that's that's really the only reason my client can't fit into here and I advise them to come before this board to get a variance because of that six-year gap. But if Wayne had an application to build a house,
yes,
on a lot that was less than 60,000 square feet, wouldn't you be checked it because it didn't?
I would say you need to get a variance. Yes.
Yeah. That you would have to get a
But you don't need to because it's a legal if it's a non-conforming lot under section 4.12 of your zoning regs. If it's a non-conforming lot and it was non-conforming as of 1950 when the regs you know if it was legally existing prior to rags and there's no adjacent property owned just like here and you comply it with health code and you don't need any setback variances then you can get
if you can if you can fit it
if you can without setback but if it's undersized with regard to area or width it you don't need a variance.
So, so those are those are where we're undersides.
That's also dependent on the 1950 timeline. So, I think that's where my question I I I don't know if I'm asking it appropriately, but in regards to past president, are there cases this side of 1950 where variance has been granted or is it reasonable to infer from the other existing non-conforming lots that have structures? Is it reasonable to infer from that that at the time those were what was recognized as as legal building lots and this was never intended to be built upon.
For the record, Mark Brands I first of all precedent for for CBA variances is is mostly non-applicable because every every situation is so unique. okay whether whether the houses that you're observing some of them they may have predated zoning they may have gotten variances but it it really isn't determinative for your decision I mean the question before you is is whether u in these on these facts in these circumstances you feel that that a variance is is in order by by virtue of the aden case as attorney riser said that that by the reduction in non-conformity so So, the fact that there are other
houses on non-comparing lots, maybe they were varants, maybe they predated zoning, it doesn't really cut one way or the other for you.
I I think I expect places. I I think I think then I I want to make sure that I'm not looking at it from from the so so we were told that we need to approach it from the realm of the fact that these zoning regulations were not on the record prior to a certain date. So we were told that we needed to look at how the how it applies in regards to the time frame that the zoning regulations that was that was how we were instructed or that was that so so to say that like we shouldn't be looking at past president I mean you can consider it but it's not determinative I mean people will always say to you people always come to you and say well you gave a variance to that guy so you have to give me one to no that's what I mean by precedent not being binded The fact that you had a certain topography, a certain location, a certain number of square feet, you thought a variance was in order in that case doesn't mean that anything that's roughly comparable, you have to give a variance. And vice versa. Fact that you deny one in one's case doesn't mean that you can't approve it in one that arguably is similar because no two pieces of propert are ever exactly the same. Right? The only way you precedent would be in a case where you're interpreting what the regulation means. And that would happen
if you were getting a CEO appeal wouldn't wouldn't arise in a variance. But if you were getting an appeal from the decision of the zoning enforcement officer, then it might be relevant as to whether how that how those words were read in the past. But for purposes of tonight, you don't need to worry about that.
Attorney Roger, do you do you
I agree with that 100. I think variances are all case by case. I don't I people might say otherwise but I don't think you should worry about setting president or abiding by president. I think you need to look at this based on the facts and circumstances and they're fairly unique. I mean I don't you know we've got a situation here. How many properties can you say go back to their chain of title in 1954 years after adoption of zoning regulations. Yet we can't have zoning regulations. I mean this is the first time I've ever had to make this argument. so, so it's it's a it's a fairly unique situation all around. I guess I I'm imploring on you to not hold it against the property owner and the applicant that the town doesn't have the records we need to squarely within the zoning right that says we can, you know, build even if we're undersized. and prove to you that we were without a doubt legally non-conforming when the lot was created in 54. Yes.
So because I did my due diligence, I I actually had a because I didn't know I did I had a title search done which I wasn't actually required to do. I I went I felt like was my due diligence going above and beyond. and I had a attorney do the the the closing. The title search went all the way back. Everyone, oh, it's a clean title. They went all the way back as far as they put when and that I mean that for me was doing my due diligence. If I the title search had come back and brought something to my attention, I I you know, I would have had to make a choice at that point, but I did my due diligence and and there was the the town doesn't simply didn't keep records for as long as we're now talking about this situation. So, I'm not sure what else I could have done.
So, I guess I just got to understand like this minimum lot area square footage. I mean, this rule of 60 was in place before you bought the lot, I guess. I mean, I could see where like if it was the original owner and they bought it when it was considered buildable, but now it's not real. I don't know.
What you're saying is she bought a lot that she knew was non-conforming and decided, I'm going to try and make it.
But the nonconformity runs with the land, right? That that if it's a legal non-conformity, it's a vested right in the property. It doesn't matter if the property changes hands. someone buys it knowing it's legally non-conforming they still have the same rights as the pre the previous owner's if it if it's legally non-conforming that's invested property right that doesn't go away despite transfer of ownership
it is legally non fact so what they're saying like around lake they have a lot of
I know that and that's the houses are there and if something is there for more than three years it's grandfathered kind of
don't don't that's don't don't go there that's a totally different
so this so my times going where I mean I guess it doesn't apply. It's just
right it you know
the and and by the way attorney Riser is correct. If a predecessor entitled had had a hardship or had an adosent argument then the current owner has a hardship or adosent argument. So the what you're referring to is often called the buyer with knowledge rule. The buyer with knowledge rule only only applies where where the the prior owner had no no hardship either. All right. So it's true if if if the first owner could have gotten a variance under the Edson rule, then the current owner can get a can get a variance under the Edson rule.
In I and forgive my naivity, I simply I and you all have far more knowledge about this. You have to understand as a lay person, I walked around Lake. I saw there's that there. I I contacted the owner and and it is my naivee which is why I hired an attorney and did a title search. So that was my due diligence because in you see all of this all the time. You sit here every and I appreciate your service to our town and I love this town. I I just didn't as a lay person you look and say well there's a house there's a house there's a house here's a lot for sale you know I can buy this lot. So, I appreciate you're coming from a different knowledge base than I am and and literally I thought I was going above and beyond with a title search. I was kind of a little bit proud of myself as a retired teacher. I like to do my homework and I was proud of myself that I did that
and and yet it I guess it it still had it still couldn't go as far as it needed to because of the town record. So, that but I I hear what you were saying,
Madam Chair. We're not going to get rich. Just to keep this balanced, a title search typically wouldn't disclose zoning history or zoning rights. Okay. It's looking at title. So, no title search is going to tell you whether you do or don't need variance.
Oh, no. I wasn't it wasn't about the variance. It was simply about the records going back as far as we would need them to go back as one. So, right. So the title search went back confirmed good title for 40 years. The title search went typically when an attorney gets a title search they will review it and see okay what's happened to the property during that period of time. I would I would say a good attorney should identify if a property has been divided over that period of time. They would want to be investigating whether that division was properly done. if it required subdivision. If it didn't require subdivision, then you'd have to go another step further to make sure that the parcels conformed. it doesn't appear that that was done. And there would have been no way again, even if it had been done, for them to verify
because the records, those records, the zoning records don't go back far enough. The only way we can definitively verify is if we knew what the regulation said in 1954 when the lot was first created. And we just have a big blank there. So we can either assume it was legally created due to the lack of records or we can infer based on what the 1956 regulations said that the 1954 N you know un available records were complied with you know and were different than 1956. Again, I really do think they had to have been different than the 1956 ones cuz why else would they have made a change to minimum lot size and width? It had to have been something different. You don't make a change. It's the exact same. But I don't know what it was. So, I can't say definitively it complied. But I think there's enough reason and inference there for you to reach that conclusion and a court to
uphold it if you so choose. The courts will will give you a lot of discretion in doing the best you can under the circumstances with the information you have and as long as there's a basis in the record for reaching logically reaching a conclusion. I I believe the courts will uphold that.
I have a question for the attorneys here. as has been stated, this lot seems to have been created in 1954 by basically but by
I don't know what the word is what the words are by not being included in transfer of land. Does that actually create a lot or was the lot actually created when the first deed that I can come across is from 1980 that described this 50 foot lot in a transfer.
no it would be created when it was severed off from any adjoining parcels. I mean it it first shown as a portion of a lot in 1927 but it was only a portion and then it and it was conveyed along other person from lot to lot
I'm sorry
it moved from lot 53 to lot 54 and then it was left out
right so it was you know it was part of lot 54 and five right it was kind of those three and the southerntherly piece of of lot 53 those were all kind of grouped together then she could the owner conveyed away 54 and 55 which created in essence a a leftover piece a a lot a parcel maybe not a building lot that's that remains to be seen but a parcel of land and so in 1954 is the first time that we see it as a standalone piece and then conveyed separately from that just because there wasn't a deed that specifically described it as a standalone in 1953 it was effectively created because the balance of the land around it was conveyed off. So she retained the owner at that time retained just this 100 foot by 50 foot.
so it was never I'm understanding what you're saying Wayne. It was it was never actually created as a nonconforming lot. It was just a piece of land that was left off of two other pieces of land that made to other people and just created this vacant lot. was never actually I don't know how you say created as a built as a non-performing lot. It was never set up as a legal non-forming some someone to buy. I don't think you want to use the word legal non-p performing lot as a a parcel.
Was it ever created as a parcel of land? It was just a
locked off se parcel of land was left there
in 1927. This wasn't shown as a separate parcel. was shown as part of lot 53 which which is kind of I mean with the line it's it's it's a little unusual kind of looks like one two three it almost looks like four of the surrounding lots all grouped together but like the 19 the 1927 map shows it as this part as part of lot 53 and then in 19
you said 53
19 I'm sorry 19 27 it was part of lot 56 and then it conveyed over the course of time with lots 54 and 55 which were similar in length and width to this piece. They were 50 by 100 or 370, I'm sorry. 50 by 370, which is very similar to this one, but for some reason on the 1927 map, there was a compilation of like three or four of them that were all kind of grouped together as lot 53. So, so lot 54 and 55 were 50 by 370 and then those conveyed along with the southerntherly 50 ft of lot 53, which is this remaining beach. Then after that 54 and 55 were subsequently carved off and sell it to someone else and the owner Shirley Bradley retained that 50 foot.
I I'm reading to the board a copy of the 1927 bag that was amended in 1934. Yeah.
So when you're talking about lot 53, this is lot 53. It comprises all of these.
All of these is lot 53
from here to here.
That's all left.
Lot 54 and 55 were were sold separately.
Somehow in 195354 this 50 foot piece this piece that is in question right there
that's partial B and this here was sold to somebody else
right this was this was actually sold to the people to to someone who bought 54 and 55. It was included in 54 and 55 and then 54 to 55 or so soul was leaving that piece. Correct.
I in in 1927
sort of 100 years ago.
I I was actually 1934. So they drew that like maybe 30,
but those were all like individual.
Those were all lots
50 by 100 foot lots all over the place on the lake.
Oh,
this was a man.
Yeah, the lake was a real estate real estate.
So these similar lots then you said 54 and 55 are sold together. They're sold the property much more valuable 57 58 the other ones that look very similar. Are those individual lots that were built on?
They were actually sold together, too. I don't think they're relevant to this discussion.
Well, what's relevant to me is that are were other homes or other lots designed at that time to be sold as lots as 50 foot by whatever were all these design because it looked like that the way they designed all the way down the street there's like 10 lots that are all 50 foot wide. Is that the way the land would be sold in what was in the mind of the end? You know what I'm saying? Why was still all these different Why
attorney Brand can I can I chime in because I think he said that this that holds no bearing, right? That's what I gather from you.
And also it was common for these you have to remember no one understands today what a difference air conditioning made right during during this period of time you have these lake communities being built all over New England. So people built a cottage, a summer cottage on a body of water to get escape the heat of of of summer in the city, right? And people bought two or three of them. You might put a little tiny ting on one of them. Some, as you can see, some people bought several, a bigger house. Over time, they were winterized. but I I think what I want to drop back to is something that that that Wayne was saying a few minutes ago that this parcel was not quote separately described in a deed as of 1954,
right? And and the regulation the the regulation that attorney Riser was was referencing is the deed it's legally non-compliant. It was separately described, but it wasn't separately described. But that in my opinion is why they're here for variance. All right. That the fact that it was a se that's why they would have an argument that they don't need a variance if if it had been separately described in 1954. It wasn't right. But it it does exist as a separate parcel separately described or otherwise. And and and I since we are low on time, I do think that you have to echo something that tree riser said, I do think that you have discretion to to grant or denied and I think you do have open discretion and in terms of is it in harmony with the purpose of spiritual regulations? is the reduction in in non-conformity sufficient to balance the creation of another house? all those sorts of factors that you've been kicking around here are all relevant
and so I I think you have discretion whichever way you go
and also does limiting it to the footprint so it's not an oversized house also that balances in if you feel that's appropriate we can make that a specific you know tie tie the approval if you so so fit to the specific footprint so it's not a McMansion out there and disproportionate with what else we're seeing And I probably shouldn't advocate for the proponent, but there are two letters on record of support from maybe from 66 Priscilla, which is up the hill, block 54 and 55.
And across the street, I
right the house is closest to where this house will be.
Where this house will be. They're very supportive and the house there's our
66 basula was at the public hearing last.
Yes.
Yeah. Their only concern was the blasting and that doesn't need to be done because there's no ledge there and once that was satisfied they they were all set.
Yeah. They didn't speak in opposition to No, or hopefully. So, if there's any other Okay. asking any other questions from this board we watch through. So, do we have any more questions? Are we done? Anybody have any more? so we can wrap up this part of our meeting.
I don't have anything else to offer. The the only thing I would say is if you're still, you know, on the fence and you're feeling rushed now because I know we have another meeting coming in. Even if you close the hearing, I mean, we would love that decision, but if you don't feel there's time to deliberate tonight, then you know, you can always deliberate at the next meeting.
Again, I would really want to make sure that both of you were here though at the next meeting. That was the
That's the applicant's decision though, right?
No, no. It's up to you. You can do that whenever you whether I want you to or to vote tonight or not. You have the discretion of closing and then you don't have to make a decision for a period of time.
If you close the public hearing, you have up to 65 days to make a decision. So, it could be your next regular meeting and you'd be fine.
Yeah. Okay. So, do we need to make a motion do this or we just close the
post? Okay. So, motion we're done. I think we need
Okay. So, close the public hearing. And now we do a call to order for our special meeting at 650. 650. Call to order at 650 to need to seat.
Okay. So, we need to make a motion to seat alternate. I make a motion to seat Jones Ross as an alderman. motion in discussion about that.
The only discussion I have is the only reason I'm not going to use you is because she was here a lot longer here a lot more than you'll get your chance a little late. So anyways so therefore all in favor I
anybody against ordaining?
So Joan is hereby seated. Any new business? This is our
seating somebody needs.
I'm sorry.
I don't think so.
The vote was
to seat but she she abstained correct from seating herself.
She can vote. Okay.
Even if she didn't
I abstained from that vote. I vote.
You didn't have to.
Okay. All right. I hope for myself. Come on.
Yeah. Somebody has to. All right. So, deliberation and action on the application of Christine Gomez seeking a variance applicant seeking relief from section 11.2 two of the inzoning regulations intended to reduce the nonconformities of a currently vacant particle part parcel on Basalo Basa road MD there's no 32 to 48 53 CB the applicant's intention is to adjust the boundary line between the vacant property owned by the applicant and B solo road by the applicant the proposed additional land added to the vacant parcel and an easement on 52 Bola to locate a septic system is intended to support the construction of a single family dwelling on the vacant parcel. So now you would basically entertain a motion.
Okay, we we deliberate further but okay. So, do we do we have a motion? Anybody wish
Mr. Cassuk has prepared for you a motion for approval and a motion for denial. And I would note for you the motion for approval he already drafted for you has complied to the plan submitted. So, you don't need a special condition about the house sheet or anything like that.
Do we have that here? Sorry. Thanks.
square may not be that shape by very nice.
So there was two motions prepared. One to approve, one to get on.
There's actually a third vote through there. Third motion to continue the deliberation. Oh yeah, too. That's true.
I I read the motion. I I read the proposed motions. I being a newer member, I not made the first.
Okay.
You know, if that's okay. I don't I'll I'll make a motion to approve. we can discuss it and then we continue the vote either way. It's how it would go. So I'll make the motion to approve move the the application 2515 GBA Christine Colmes be approved at the PO provides for a reduction in non-committees associated with the parcel NBLU 32483CB volume 147 page 77. Specifically the board varies section 11.2 to Andover Lake District lot area from 60,000 ft to 25,000 ft 118 25,18 ft and the front is from 200 to 87.71 ft as depicted on the boundary reconfiguration rec yeah reconfiguration plan prepared by Rob Holstrom land surveying LLC dated December 4th 2025 with the conditions also stated here. So that makes it open for discussion.
We'll do a second.
Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Does anybody to second Bill's motion.
I I will I will second. All right. So, Mike's house has second. So, that makes it open for discussion. Yes. Any for discussion?
I'm just not sure I'm comfortable. I know there's a million little non-conforming lots and a million little houses on them, but that mean we have to keep progating that. I don't know. And the and the and the septic thing, two septics on one building lot is a little weird to me, but I but I you know I don't have a lot of experience, so I just I'm saying I'm not real comfortable.
But this isn't going to be a room house. It's just not going to be the what they're what they're planning,
right? There's going to be two septics on one building lot
and then a house on a lot that doesn't meet our current building requirements.
I I don't think that that's what we're here to
52 poula meets the requirements for the lot.
Yeah. it does now and it will after.
And I and I think that the attorneys kind of made it a little bit more clear to me that we're not really here to deliberate that aspect of it. It's more so how the parcel was conveyed at the time. And I think it would be reasonable to infer that, you know, first of all, you're looking at this was the original lot size right here, and they're asking for variance to have it be more conforming. So, at the time, I think it's reasonable to infer that those were the
confused 1934 with 1950.
Yeah, that's true, too. Yeah, that that was again to go into that lander 1934 1954,
right? But we're also to understand that there aren't zoning regulations that existed.
Unfortunately, to my sugarin, I ordered this building a building for
five minutes, please. Five minutes we don't here likely were but we just don't know what they
I have I have probed everywhere I can think of I've asked every person I can think of and I don't think there's anybody alive from that period of time
right so I think so what's hang me up is the just the smallness of the lot even with the additional piece of lot 53 or the additional piece of the conforming lot that we're bill talking very a small lot and I I agree with Jim that I don't know that we should be keeping perpetuating small lots.
I agree with that also and I seated. So okay we should question third discussion four minutes to
so what happens if there if there needs to be a continuation that
here's need to be continuation there's a motion we have a vote on it right now
if you want to keep talking about it we can keep talking about it if you want to go to another third meeting or we can call the question and take
so we've moved and we've seconded so let's shout so we're going to call the question if they want to move question. Okay, don't move the question.
I don't know what that means.
You want to vote?
You want to move to another meeting?
Those are our choices. Either keep it rolling or let's do it.
Okay. Vote. Do you want to vote?
You feel comfortable voting?
I'm comfortable voting.
Are you comfortable voting tonight?
Yes.
Okay.
Vote. So all in favor of Bill's motion to approve of this proposal say I I
that gives us three three and so all against
so it's two.
So you voted twice.
No she just voted once. So voted to approve. We have two votes against that means motion not carried before.
Yeah.
Sorry about that folks.
No.
So we have to So our next thing is next regular meeting February 18th.
I will not be here.
Do we have anything here? Do we have anything for that Wayne or
Yeah.
Okay. No. so if we hear from Wayne motion to adjurnn
billion motion to adjourn at 7:00 on the button second all in favor is adjourned.
No keep coming. We'll give you
time. Thank you. I should future sex.