Zoning Board

Page 1 of 4 Page 2 of 4 Chairman D’Agostino asked the petitioner if they want to move forward with their application, as there are 4 Board members present to vote, which would require a unanimous decision to approve the petition. Attorney Arthur Broadhurst stated he did want to move forward tonight. Mr. Broadhurst stated that they came before the Board last month seeking relief of a 1,000 square foot restriction of a garage, which was continued. They went back to the engineer based on feedback from the Board, and came up with a new plan that decreased the footage of the garage from 1600 to 1190 square feet. The petitioner also will be hardwiring with smoke and carbon monoxide detectors for the 600 ft storage area upstairs. Mr. Broadhurst reminded the Board that the garage doors would be standard size, and stated that the design would be the same, just shrunk down the 1190 square footage. Chairman D’Agostino asked if there would be a bathroom in this structure. Attorney Broadhurst confirmed that there would be no bathroom. Nick Boucher asked if the Fire Department had any concerns due to the location of the garage, and the ability to get behind it if necessary. Attorney Broadhurst stated the driveway size was the width required by the code and there should be no issues getting in the back. Felix Zemel stated that there is no code for driveway size as far as the fire department is concerned, and it is a moot point. Nick Boucher asked what the maximum head height would be for the room above. Mr. Trejo stated 7 feet high then go to the peak (about 10 ft). Felix Zemel stated that building code requires heat detection, not smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and believed they will get a lot of false alarms with smoke and carbon detectors. Mr. Trejo stated that they will put in whatever is required, but a Board member had concerns so they added that to the proposal to resolve their previous concerns. Nick Boucher stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the size of the garage, he has an issue with the 2 nd story ceiling height and wonders why this can’t be 4 ft instead of 7 ft if it is for storage only. Mr. Trejo stated that the storage area is just over 500 square feet. Mr. Trejo stated that the storage is a loft, and is open to the garage, so there will be no full wall. Mr. Trejo also stated he is willing to remove the windows on the 2nd floor if the Board is concerned about this being used as a living area. Chairman D’Agostino opened public participation. No one came forward in favor or opposition to the petition. The Chairman closed public participation. David DiNatale stated that he is concerned about the ceiling height as well, and the location being used as a commercial garage in the future. Attorney Broadhurst asked what size storage area would the Board be comfortable with. Chairman D’Agostino asked Nick Boucher, who is familiar with building codes and plan, if eliminating the storage area would change the square footage altogether. Nick Boucher stated that the square footage would be reduced if the loft was removed, and confirmed with the Chairman that it would reduce the size under the 1,000 square foot restriction, not needing approval from the Zoning Board. Mr. Broadhurst asked the Board if they would be amenable for another continuance to review the plans again. Chairman D’Agostino stated he believed that would be a good idea based on the conversation. Laura Walta mentioned lowering to a single level and widening a bit may be a better plan. Nick Boucher agreed with Ms. Walta. Chairman D’Agostino entertained a motion to grant a continuance. David DiNatale so moved, seconded by Nick Boucher. Roll Call: David DiNatale- yes Chairman Matt D’Agostino- yes Ms. Laura Walta- yes Nick Boucher-yes Philip Cultrera- yes Page 3 of 4 New Business: 2022-16 Siyla Meas and Saokin Meas (Maurice P. Mason, Esq) A variance is required to reduce the front setback to 14.2 feet in a Residence A (RA) Zone. A 25’ setback is required pursuant to Appendix B and Section VI-D of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Property was demolished following a fire in December 2020, with no special permit obtained pursuant to Section IX-G(3) at 115 West Street (Parcel ID 114-128-17H) Attorney Mason came forward representing the petitioners. He said they are looking for a variance of a front setback requirement of a historical property. The property was demolished without getting approval by way of a special permit. The original property had a 15-foot set back and they are looking for 14.2, trying to remain as close as possible to the original structure. Required in this area is 25 feet, but they are trying to keep the historic nature where the home needs to be built on the land. Chairman D’Agostino asked if the structure will look the same as the original structure, and Attorney Mason responded that “yes” it would be similar. Laura Walta asked the Chairman if the “grandfather” approval of the setback would need to be the same as the original structure, as she believes it is supposed to be, staying in the original footprint. Felix Zemel stated that they can build in the original footprint had they obtained building permits to demolish the structure, which they did not. Since they didn’t have permits, they need to come before the Board for a variance. They no longer qualify for a Special permit to rebuild in the same footprint, after a catastrophic event, because they did not obtain the necessary permits to demolish. Felix Zemel stated that there is a long history with this property with disregard of City and State laws and Conservation, and the Board has a couple of emails regarding those situations. Chairman D’Agostino opened public participation. No one came forward in favor to the petition. Paul Soucy a neighbor to the property, #117 West Street, came forward and stated there were a couple of concerns he had. Mr. Soucy stated that the back lot was filled in illegally. Mr. Soucy is also concerned about lead leaching into the ground in the first foot or so of dirt. Mr. Soucy mentioned children had high levels of lead in the area, but they didn’t know why. Felix Zemel stated he would read into the record the email that was sent to him from Mr. Soucy this morning, about the concerns. Concerns contained in the letter from Mr. Soucy were as follows. If the neighbors want to build a large house with more bedrooms they would need to install a large septic system or tie into the City Sewer, which would need to be run to the top of the hill. A sewer line installation should be done prior to the construction of the home. The back field looks like a junkyard, with the following: 3 unregistered cars, a junk BOBCAT, an old boat, and all sorts of old boards, devaluing neighbor’s properties. The owners are also riding 4 wheelers 50 feet from the house, and the police department has been out. They are concerned with high levels of lead dumping near the slope that could leach into the water table. The back of the property was filled in illegally. The Chairman asked Mr. Zemel if he believed there were Health code violation issues at this property, along with the other issues they discussed. Mr. Zemel stated the property is in violation with conservation, historical, health code (chicken coop), demolition without permit, and harassment of staff. Felix Zemel stated those issues were prior to Attorney Mason coming in to represent the applicant, and since then they have been making progress with Attorney Mason’s guidance. Mr. Zemel also read into the record a letter from another abutter, Dennis Holland and family, and Christine Holland. Concerns contained in the letter from the Holland Family were as follows. Page 4 of 4 They are not apposed to setting the building back to the new code as long as there are no other changes down the road. They are opposed to any rooms or spaces being added that were not in the original Historic structure. The are opposed to an in-law addition. If a septic system is required, they are opposed to this being funded by taxpayers. They stated that the current property owner has pushed boundaries, and they would like the City of Methuen to move forward with the Historical Society’s guidelines, for this location. Laura Walta stated that the request of a variance is a privilege, with the rules being standard for everyone. Ms. Walta stated if they are already not meeting requirements of existing rules, it makes it difficult to approve additional variances. She stated that the applicant should get everything in order with other City departments, prior to coming to the Zoning Board for a variance. The Chairman concurred that they had another applicant clean up their property prior to allowing a vote on the petition in recent months. The Chairman also wants a plan to show that lead from that property will not leech into the City’s wetlands and water supply. The Chairman believes voting on this petition is premature at this time. Member Cultrera also concurred with Ms. Walta and the Chairman, with this petition being premature. Dave DiNatale also agreed with the other members, and said that maybe they should be more critical, when this comes back to them, based on the feedback from abutters and other City Departments. Nick Boucher also agreed with the other Members. Attorney Mason asked the Board for a continuance, to come back before the Board in good faith demonstrating that some outstanding items are being addressed. Laura Walta made a motion to accept a continuance for this variance. Phil Cultrera Seconded. Vote: unanimous ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Board, Chairman D’Agostino requested a motion to adjourn. Laura Walta so moved. Phil Cultrera Seconded. Vote: Unanimous Discussion: None Chairman D’Agostino adjourned the meeting at 7:50 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Lori Moriarty HHSI Clerk III