►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board 9 19 23
Description
The City of Beacon Zoning Board Meeting from September 19, 2023
B
Hello
and
welcome
to
the
Tuesday
September
19th
meeting
of
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
My
name
is
Jordan
H
and
I'm.
The
chairman
of
the
board
also
present
tonight
is
every
other
board
member,
our
attorney
our
Municipal
secretary
and
the
building
inspector
welcome
everyone.
The
application
materials
that
will
be
discussed
tonight,
including
any
proposed
resolutions
and
other
documents,
are
available
on
the
city's
website.
Also
on
the
city's
website,
is
a
link
to
the
rules
and
procedures
of
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
B
Take
a
minute
to
explain
the
board's
procedures
we'll
hear
each
application
tonight.
There
will
only
be
one
in
the
order.
It
is
noticed
on
the
agenda
for
each
application,
we'll
hear
first
from
the
applicant
and
then
the
board
will
open
the
comments
to
the
public
yeah.
Everyone
kind
of
knows
the
rules.
These
is
a
continuation.
B
Please
be
respectful
direct
your
comments
to
the
board
and
not
to
the
applicant.
No,
no
cross.
Chatter.
Please
first
item.
Has
everyone
on
the
board
been
able
to
review
the
minutes
and
are
there?
Is
there
any
need
for
edits
and
or
comments
and
or
deletions?
No
none.
All
right
can
I.
Have
a
motion
to
accept
the
minutes
from
the
motion
to
accept
the
minutes?
B
B
Knock
it
off
okay,
yeah
and
then
so.
There
was
a
an
additional
review
of
five
I'm
sorry
359
Cherry
Street.
That
has
been
asked
to
be
adjourned
so
that
agenda
item.
What
was
agenda
item
one
I'm,
not
sure
if
that
ended
up
on
the
final
agenda
or
not,
that
is
that
will
be
not
held
this
evening
and
then
I
will
ask
for
a
motion
to
go
in
executive
session
for
advice
of
councel.
Can
I
have
a
motion.
B
D
And
and
others
we
have
a
letter
that
we
submitted
to
the
board
this
evening.
It's
basically
just
to
be
illustrative
of
what
we're
going
to
present,
but
we
figured
it's
easier
to
have
physical
copies
of
that
we'll
be
on
the
you
know
we
rather
than
putting
on
the
board
it's
just
kind
of
easier
to
have
these
things
in
Paper.
So
it's
not
really
a
submission.
It's
it's
a
material
materials
that
we
would
use,
but
we
did
submit
it
to
the
CBA
secretary.
Just
so
it's
for
the
file.
Is
there
anything.
E
B
G
H
B
All
right
and
then
just
one
housekeeping
item
before
we
continue.
There
is
a
tolling
agreement
that
was
executed
last
month,
which
told
the
applicant's
ability
to
file
an
article
78
proceeding
we're
through
a
date.
That's
not
in
front
of
me.
We
are
going
to
extend
that
until
November
16th
2023,
with
the
ability
to
continue
to
extend
the
thought
process
behind
that
is.
B
H
B
G
D
Good
evening,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
board
welcome
back
Taylor
Palmer
with
the
law
firm
of
cudy
and
fader
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
tonight,
I
am
joined
by
Jonathan
Burns
of
Hudson
property
advisers,
our
Financial
Consultant,
as
the
chairman
mentioned,
we
are
before
you
in
continued
review
of
our
appeal
of
the
interpretations
made
by
the
building
inspector
and
tonight,
in
particular,
regarding
our
alternative
request
for
an
area
variance
and
a
further
alternative
for
a
use.
Variance
in
a
minute
as
it
pertains
specifically
to
the
use
variance
component.
D
Should
we
need
to
get
there.
I
will
ask
Hudson
property
advisers
to
address
our
financial
analysis,
which
includes
some
details
that
we
did
as
I
mentioned,
just
submit
to
you
all
today.
That
again
is
sort
of
a
spoiler
of
our
presentation,
but
we
thought
it
best
to
have
that
available
for
your
review
and
that
piece
specifically
relates
to
the
minimum
release
necessary
component,
albeit
the
reasonable,
viable
return.
D
H
D
As
we
discussed
at
the
August
15th
hearing-
and
we
also
detailed
how
the
proper
the
project
will
not
be
a
detriment
to
Community
character,
of
course
it's
located
across
from
the
same
use
in
across
the
street
at
916
Walcott.
We
did
a
note
in
that
supplemental
submission
that,
and
it
was
a
question
that
the
board
had
presented
relating
to
community
character.
The
court
does
indeed
consider
how
long
a
use
has
existed
when
considering
its
impact
on
the
community
character.
D
Indeed,
the
Ed
variants
resolution
that
this
board
granted
for
52
52
South
chest
Street
or
the
former
n
elect
Auto
Body
Shop
noted
that
that
restoration
was
of
a
use
that
was
destroyed
in
that
case
the
out
of
body
shop
and
that
did
not
harm
the
community
character.
So
we're
talking
about
the
anal
Body
Shop
use
variants
that
this
board
granted
as
the
this
is
quotes,
as
the
property
had
been
used
as
an
automobile
shop
for
at
least
30
years.
D
So
that
was
part
of
the
justification
for
that
approval
for
use
variance.
So
while
we
touched
on
it
at
the
August
15th
meeting,
the
use
variance
for
that
form,
manalac
Auto
is
important
in
part
because
their
Council
didn't
know
to
pursue
an
area
variance
and
whether
it
needed
to
because
a
very
well-known
name
in
the
community,
but
for
other
important
reasons.
If
we
must
get
into
those
discussions
again
we're
going
to
present
our
financial
analysis
in
just
a
moment.
But
we
did
highlight
the
case
law
supporting
that.
H
D
That
included
some
details
to
sort
of
allow
the
board
consider
I
believe
the
Chairman's
mother
may
have
been
the
chair
of
the
board
at
that
time
and
montos
and
Judith
I
believe
you
sat
on
the
board
at
the
time
of
the
issuance
of
that
variance
just
by
for
the
rest
of
the
board
members
that
weren't
a
part
of
that
application.
Honor
about
September
10th.
D
Excuse
me
in
2011
an
auto
body
shop
was
destroyed
by
a
blizzard,
so
the
the
building
itself
was
completely
destroyed
and
the
use
itself
was
destroyed
in
September
of
that
year,
the
owner
submitted
a
use,
variance
application
to
permit
the
Reconstruction
of
the
use,
and
then
that
was
ultimately
granted
by
this
board
later
in
November
of
that
year.
The
fact
patterns
of
these
two
matters
is
certainly
important.
D
D
We
note
that
the
use
variant-
that's
an
issue
here-
will
have
even
less
impact
from
our
perspective
than
the
use
variant
that
was
issued
for
the
anac
auto,
as
the
use
to
be
reestablished
at
925,
which
is
a
lesser
intense
use
than
was
already
existing
on
the
property
is
residential
in
nature.
It's
surrounded
by
other
residential
uses,
while
the
use
at
the
ANC
Auto
was
a
commercial
Auto,
Body
approximate
to
single
family
residences
in
a
Sim,
similarly
situated
single
family
residential
zoning
District.
D
I
In
order
to
make
this
a
lot
more
make
more
sense,
it
made
sense
to
reduce
the
building
size,
for
example,
when
we
went
to
an
8un
building,
instead
of
retaining
the
building
size
at
3670,
Square
ft,
which
is
what
was
proposed.
We
used
a
proportionately
smaller
building
size
to
see
if
that
would
be
financially
viable.
We
did
the
same
thing
with
the
the
seven,
the
six
and
the
four,
in
other
words
proportionately.
We
reduce
the
size
of
the
building
based
on
the
number
of
units.
I
Okay,
so
that's
why
there's
about
eight
or
nine
eight
nine
different
Alternatives?
That
we
studied,
if
you
want
to
turn
to
page
five
I
know
the
font
is
very
small
I
apologize
for
that,
but
I
was
trying
to
fit
it
all
on
one
page
and
I
should
have
blown
it
up.
Much
larger
I'll
take
a
second
to
walk
through
the
proposed
action
from
start
to
finish,
and
we
did
the
same
type
of
analysis
for
all
of
the
other
Alternatives
okay.
I
So
in
order
to
determine
in
in
layman's
terms
in
order
to
determine
if
it's
financially
viable
first
thing
you
look
at,
is
construction
cost
and
total
site
acquisition,
cost
cost
and
calculate
the
income
that
the
property
would
be
required
to
produce
to
determine
whether
or
not
it's
financially
viable.
In
other
words,
if
it
costs
more
to
build
it,
if
the
return
on
the
cost
to
build,
it
is
more
than
you're
going
to
be
able
to
rent
it
for
it's
not
financially
viable.
It's
that
simple.
I
So
if
you
take
proposed
action
from
the
top,
a
three-story
building,
3670
squ
ft
with
nine
units
construction,
hard
cost
at
275
per
square
foot,
soft
cost
at
15%
of
that
total
construction
cost
a
milon
160.
The
land
acquisition
was
650,
total
cost
plus
38,000
in
demolition
costs,
which
were
required
after
the
fire,
Demolition
and
removal
of
U
of
the
debris.
So
the
total
project
cost
comes
out
to
m850
at
a
cap
rate
of
6
and
3/4%
that
comes
out
to
a
net
operating
income
of
120,
roughly
$125,000.
I
So
the
average
unit
size
is
303
Square
fet,
the
projected
income,
the
unit
average
unit
rental,
was
1950
a
month
which
comes
out
to
$210,000
achievable
income,
which
is
$23,000
above
the
$187,000
that
would
be
required,
so
that
use
is
feasible
and
it
shows
a
12.4%
basically
23,000,
divided
by
the
feasibility
rent.
So
that
shows
that
it's
a
12
point
12.4%
return
that
exact
same
calculation
was
carried
all
the
way
across
under
each
of
the
Alternatives
like
I
said,
the
alternative
1
is
the
same
size
building,
but
with
eight
Apartments.
I
D
Were
there's
only
one
use,
it's
a
single
family
home
which
we
did
in
our
prior
analysis
and
versus
multif
family,
and
then
there
that's,
the
only
use,
that's
permitted.
So
then
we
evaluated
the
existing
use,
and
then
we
took
that
one
of
the
extension
questions
that
was
brought
up
by
the
board.
But
we
anticipated
because
the
The
Mention
Of,
if
there
is
a
if
the
board,
reviewed
or
considered,
which
it
does
part
of
the
factors,
the
minimum
relief
necessary.
A
Bruce,
if
you
don't
mind
me
asking:
are
there
any
of
the
special
permit
uses
such
as
bed
and
breakfast
Museum
Social
Club,
Hospital,
Animal,
Care,
a
university
private
school?
Any
of
these
other
uses
that
are
permitted,
whether
as
a
right
or
or
subject
to
a
special
permit
are
any
of
those
feasible
for
the
property
or
is
the
single
family.
The
only
thing
given
the
constraints
of
the
propert,
that's
feasible
there.
It's.
J
D
C
D
D
So
just
by
way
background
I
wanted
to
sort
of
lay
this
all
out
and
it's
generally
provided
in
our
materials
throughout,
but
I
thought
it
might
be
good
to
just
highlight
that,
because
this
goes
back
to
our
original
submissions
going
through
the
tests,
the
factors
that
are
considered
from
an
area,
variance
and
use
variance.
Of
course,
what
we're
talking
about
right
now
we're
we're
contemplating
sort
of
the
use,
variance
discussion
and
we're
kind
of
jumping
between
those
and
that's.
Why
we're
talking
about
the
financial
analysis?
D
D
A
landowner
that
seeks
to
have
a
use
variance
must
illustrate
factually
by
dollars
and
cents
proof,
that's
okay,
that
there's
an
inability
to
realize
a
reasonable
return
under
existing
permissible
uses
in
the
zoning
District.
So
we
just
talked
about
how
the
only
permissible
use
notwithstanding
the
existing
non-conforming
use
is
a
single
family
home.
D
D
So
we've
shown
that
the
that
the
construction
or
sale
of
a
rental
or
single
family
home
on
the
premises
would
not
would
result
in
a
loss
for
the
applicant
based
on
the
dollars
and
sense
evidence
that
U
we've
utilized,
namely
showing
the
zoning
feasability
in
our
August
28th
submission,
which
looked
at
the
purchase
price
of
650.
Sorry.
This
is
this
is
not
going
to
address.
So
it's
I
don't
want
to
it's
going
to
be
a
long
answer.
D
Are
you,
okay,
with
me
sort
of
trying
to
tie
it
into
the
you
get
to
an
answer?
It's
the
the
insurance
payout
was
99,
977
$977,000,
so
I'll
start
with
I'll
start
I'll
start
I'll
start
with
the
the
the
actual
question
and
relay
it
back
because
it
has
no
bearing
on
what
you're,
considering
so
I'll
I'll
I'll
explain
that
momentarily.
D
D
G
D
B
D
D
C
I
have
a
question
for
the
Financial
Consultant.
What
he
just
projected.
Would
you
want
me
to
finish
the
the
presentation
on
I
want
it
related
to
that?
So
what
you
just
presented
to
us
is
a
house
has
to
sell
for
1.85.
You
have
it
here
in
writing
in
order
to
get
a
rate
of
return
of
12.4
and
in
there
you're,
including
a
soft
cost
of
5%
you're,
including
a
vacancy
rate
of
additional
5%
you're,
including
a
loss
factor
of
an
additional
26%
you're
saying
in
order
to
make
a
12.4%
return.
I
So
all
right,
what
this
is
saying
is
this:
at
$275,
hard
construction,
Cost,
Plus,
15%,
soft
Cost
Plus.
The
total
cost
of
the
site
of
688
m
is
total
project
cost
of
a
m850.
Got
it
a
return
on
that
fair
rate
of
return,
6.7,
5%
cap
rate,
rather
not
a
rate,
gives
you
a
net
operating
income
of
$125,000.
Typical
expense
ratio
is
30%,
which
means
you'd
have
expenses
of
roughly
53,000,
which
translates
to
an
effective
gross
income
of
178,000
with
a
5%
vacancy
rate.
B
So
I
just
want
to
understand
what
you're
saying
at
least
we
again.
We
know
the
650
is
locked
in
right.
So
my
the
question
I
have
is:
what
does
your
analysis
say
because
I
don't
have
it
in
front
of
me
the
it
would
cost
and
then
what
do
you
need
to
sell
a
single
family
house?
For
for
what
do
you
need
to
sell
it
to
to
break.
I
G
I
I
No,
that's
total
development
cost
uhhuh.
Okay,
and
we
compared
that
to
the
low
the
survey.
We
did
a
low
high
average
and
median
sale
price
right.
Okay.
So
we
compared
that
the
the
low
to
the
low
and
the
high
to
the
high
so
to
speak.
So,
for
example,
the
survey
low
was
$340,000
sale
price,
which
means
you
lose
73%.
The
survey
High
was
a
4,800
ft
house
that
sold
at
a
million
N9,
and
even
that,
if
you
built
that
4800
foot
house,
your
total
cost
would
be
2
million2.
I
B
I
C
I
Okay,
so
that's
2,38
that
should
really
be
plus
$38,000,
so
that
2
million
I'm
sorry
2,34
is
2,.
204
I,
apolog
2,
204
is
the
total
development
costs
for
a
4,800,
ft
house,
okay,
okay,
but
the
high
that
we
sh
we
found
for
a
house
around
that
size
was
a
million
n,
which
would
mean
that
you'd
lose
$300,000.
C
D
97
7400,
so,
generally
speaking,
this
is
not
something
that
we're
we're
listed
as
the
factors
in
determining
whether
a
non-permitted
or
permitted
land
use
is
feasible
on
the
property.
The
the
analysis
that
we've
prepared
for
you
is
looking
exclusively
at.
If
there's
a
reasonable
return
on
the
investment
the
applicant
spent.
You
know
he
has
construction
loans.
There
was
a
loan
on
the
property
to
purchase
it.
There's
significant
incumbrances
that
go
along
with
this,
as
well
as
the
cleanup
and
other
costs
that
were
expressed
to
develop
the
site
so
W.
It's.
B
B
D
Again,
we
we're
focused
on
something
that
isn't
considered
as
one
of
the
and
you
turn
to
your
Council
to
ask
that
same
question.
I
think,
that's
better,
probably
directed
at
your
Council,
whether
they
you
should
be
considering
the
insurance
payout
as
this,
as
as
as
determinative,
what
what
about
the
insurance
payout
to
pay
for
the
loss
to
pay
for
the
the
destruction.
What
what
about
that
is
is
is
is
questioned
by
the
board
about
whether
there's
a
reasonable
return,
we're
talking
about
what
can
be
built
on
this
site.
D
It's
a
vacant
property
right
now,
it's
it's
got
a
foundation
of
a
destroyed
building,
we're
trying
to
say
that
we
can't
build
a
single
family
home
on
this
property,
where
there
would
be
a
reasonable
return
on
building
that
use,
and
thus
we
need
at
a
minimum.
We
need
the
nine
units
that
were're
proposing
which
were
existing
on
that
property
and
assured
rents
for
a
period
of
time.
This
is
not.
This
is
not
a
one
fixed
payment
take
take
a
you
know,
go
away
and
and
and
and
set
sale.
D
B
D
Like
we
need
to
provide
more
information
about
the
acquisition
cost,
the
loans,
all
the
other
components
to
this
and
detail
an
exu
of
how
the
reasonable
return
is
about
the
highest
and
best
use
of
this
property,
not
about
the
insurance
payout,
not
one
one.
You
know
all
these
things
get
worked
into.
These
costs
we'll
have
to
adjust
the
analysis
to
account
for
this
Delta
that
I
think
the
board
is
struggling
with
for
your
example,
just
for
the
benefit
of
the
board.
D
That's
why
we're
before
you
I,
don't
need
to
go
all
the
way
back
to
why
we're
before
you.
We
believe
we
could
do
this
today,
with
the
building
building
permit.
That
was
issued.
The
building
inspector
issued
a
determination
saying
that
we
can't
none
of
this
discussion
even
takes
place
if
this
is
indeed
an
area
variance,
so
I
just
kind
of
want
to
walk
it
back
for
a
second
to
that,
because
this
factor
is
exclusive
to
the
use,
variance
discussion,
so
I
think
Council.
D
We
had
presented
it
and
we'
submitted
in
our
our
our
files
that
this
is
indeed
an
area
variance
application.
So
this
discussion
needs
to
happen
and
we
can
table
that
I
think
in
corporate
more
details
to
the
use
variants
about
the
insurance
pay,
because
that
seems
to
be
a
sticking
point
for
the
board.
We
had
listed
out
all
of
the
the
the
other
sort
of
individual
itemized
questions
which
we
tried
to
incorporate
into
this
study
and
in
the
August
study.
D
But
again
this
only
comes
into
conversation
if
we're
talking
about
a
use,
variance
if
it's
an
area,
variance
we're
not
getting
into
the
details
about
the
reasonable
rate
of
return,
we're
looking
at
whether
there's
a
hardship
and
the
other
factors
that
are
associated
with
this,
which
this
is
a
perfect
example
of
a
a
really.
You
know
if
you
all
bought
a
property
today
and
you
had
somebody
come
burn
it
down.
D
C
Taylor
I
have
to
say
this
because
I
was
on
the
board
at
the
time.
Okay,
do
we
agree
or
disagree?
Every
case
is
unique:
yes
and
considered
individually.
Yes,
okay,
the
analect
property,
just
for
the
record.
That
was
commercial
non-residential.
It
wasn't
the
same
as
this
from
that
perspective
was
that
100%
destroyed
I
to
the
rest
of
my
recollection,
I,
don't
believe
it
was
100%,
it
was
50%,
so
those
are
two
key
factors
that
differentiate
the
difference
between
the
intellect
property
and
the
current
property.
C
Today,
because
you
keep
honing
in
on
that
set
precedence
and
almost
implying
that
this
is
identical,
so
I
just
want
to
put
out
there
for
the
record.
I
was
on
the
board.
Judy
was
on
the
board
at
the
time
I'm,
not
speaking
for
Judy
I'm.
Just
speaking
for
my
recollection,
they
weren't
100
apples
app.
So
one
was
commercial
and
50%
destroyed,
not
residential
and
100%.
D
Right
so,
just
by
way
of
reference,
you
know:
presidentially
I,
I,
understand
your
distinction,
saying
it's
a
commercial
use
in
a
residential
district
which
I
think
by
definition,
would
make
it
much
more
non-conforming
than
a
residential
use
in
a
residential
district.
That's
just
my
presentation.
All
we
are
saying
is
that
in
that
instance,
the
board
looked
at
the
history
that
it
had
been
there
for
30
years.
It's
explicitly
in
the
in
the
record.
The
quotes
are
there
from
the
board
itself
and
making
its
decision
saying.
D
8%
was
the
necessary
minimum
viability
test
for
that
particular
use,
and
it
also
looked
at
the
the
history
of
being
in
that
part
of
the
community
and
not
impacting
Community
character,
because
it
had
been
there
for
30
years,
but
again,
a
commercial
use
in
a
residential
district.
We
are
a
residential
use
in
a
residential
district
and
we
are
again
reducing
that
non-conformity
from
16
units
down
to
nine,
so
we're
respectfully,
more
less
non-conforming
or
less
impactful
than
would
be
a
an
auto
body
shop.
I!
D
C
A
Taylor
has
submitted
some
some
cases,
we're
still
researching.
So
just
for
the
sake
of
efficiency,
we
are
analyzing,
it
I
think
Taylor
understands
that.
I
want
the
public
to
understand
that
there's,
no
necessarily
locked
incision
right
now.
It's
just
there's
no
need
to
come
here
and
stand
around
and
wait.
It's
let's
proceed
with
the
back
half
and
then
you
know
consider
the
front
and.
F
D
A
few
hundred
feet
away,
I
I,
know
and
we're
we're
right
down
the
street
neighborhood
my
neighborhood
at
the
time
and
Jud.
You
know
we're
right
down
the
street
from
the
city's,
affordable,
housing
develop.
You
know
and-
and
we
have
a
lot
there's
multif
family
from
Creek
Drive.
We
are
there's
different.
D
Off
Main,
Street
and
I
do
want
to
have
one
one
Zinger
for
monos.
Do
you
know
if
the
insurance
payout
was
requested
during
the
review
of
the
analo
Auto
Body
application?
I,
don't
recall
all
right,
but
we'll
we'll
look
into
those
materials
for
supplemental
I
know
it's
the
public
hearing
and
if
the
board
wants
to
more
questions
for
us
or
wants
to
turn
it
to
the
the.
D
Absolutely
and
I
and
I
and
I
would
also
suggest
that
916
W
cut
Avenue
was
the
exact
same
use
directly
across
the
street,
from
our
property.
And,
of
course,
you
know,
the
nothing
Beacon
is
a
it's
a
a
cool
amalgamation
of
all
kinds
of
things
right.
That's
what
why
we
all
love
it
and
why
we're
doing
the
things
that
you
you
see
happening.
D
It
took
a
lot
of
legislative
policy
to
get
there,
but
you
know
effectively
it's
it's
that's
why
these
things,
the
development
pressure,
it's
like
you
know,
nuisance
law
and
everything
came
and
and
F
protections
came
from
people
leaving
the
city
moving
next
to
a
farm
being
like
those
cows
stink.
Let's
get
them
out
of
here
right
coming
to
the
nuisance.
This
is
not.
This
is
a
multif
family
building
that
had
been
there
for
100
years
and
development
around
it
has
taken
place,
but
it's
a
combination
of
affordable
housing,
the
most
dense
development
in
the
city.
B
D
D
B
D
Okay,
so
I
I
think
that
really,
unless
Jonathan
had
I
think
he
he's
presented
his
report,
obviously
we're
going
to
submit
that
to
the
board
as
a
we've
submitted
it,
but
we'll
provide
it
further
and
I
think
supplement
it
to
mos'
and
ela's
questions
specific
to
the
insurance
and
how
that
has
any
parity
to
the
to
the
the
test.
That's
before
you
and
then
you
know
that
would
be
if
we
get
to
the
use
variance.
H
D
Yes,
for
the
from
the
when
we
looked
at
the
multif
family,
when
we
did
sort
of
the
analysis
of
the
Alternatives
from
nine
units
or
eight
units
in
the
same
size,
building
or
eight
units
in
a
smaller
meaning,
shrinking
the
unit
so
to
speak.
That
was
where
we
were
able
to
to
to
to
balance
that
and
in
our
submission
you
know
ultimately
we're
our
our
position
is
that
seven
would
be
too
low,
which
is
the
eight
units
at
a
smaller
building
and
12
would
be
the
reasonable
return
for
this
investment.
D
You
know
sort
of
again
looking
back
only
as
the
only
evidence
we
have
really
when
it
comes
to
those
percentages.
It's
it's
the
board
to
determine
the
percentage
we
just
Rel
laid
back
to
that
8%,
because
it
was
something
you
have
in
in
history
here,
but
there
is
no
set
percentage.
It's
not
10!
It's
not
20.
D
B
I
D
D
G
D
B
D
D
A
H
A
D
No,
we
we
highlighted
I,
think
one
of
the
comments
that
came
out
of
the
last
meeting
was
Community
character
and
we
we
there
was
a
question
specifically
or
a
statement
that
we
can't
you
know
the
building's
gone.
We
can't
look
at
it's,
but
the
court
explicitly
provides
that
we
should
and
do
look
at
in
considering
impacts
of
community
character,
the
longevity
of
the
use
on
the
site.
So
we
we
incorporated
that
in
submission
we
we
can
we'll
plan
to
do
this.
D
Submission
assuming
Council,
confirms
our
analysis,
which
does
confirm
that
it's
an
area
variance
we'll
plan
to
present
that
as
though
it
never
took
that
our
area
variance
discussion
just
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.
They
don't
have
to
look
back
to
other
videos
to
get
our
support
for
that.
But
that's
not
you
know,
for
purposes
of
a
supplemental
submission
we're
probably
not
going
to
do
more
to
the
area
variants
we're
just
going
to
address
those.
Should
the
board
need
to
get
to
that
meeting
for
a
use
variant.
D
B
Okay,
so
I
just
have
one
question
for
Bruce.
Then
I'll
allow
the
rest
of
the
board
to
ask
questions
to
anyone
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
to
the
public
Bruce.
There
was
a
discussion
at
either
either
of
the
previous
meetings
of
unauthorized
work
done
at
the
building
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit.
Do
you
know
the
extent
of
that
there
was
a
comment.
Well
go
ahead.
J
J
The
first,
the
first
instance
was
when
they
took
off
the
front
porch
of
the
building.
Dave
Buckley
was
the
building
inspector
at
the
time
he
had
placed
a
stop
work
order
in
regard
to
that
work,
so
they
had
to
go
through
a
process
with
him.
You
know
to
pull
permits,
you
know,
and
then
they
were
allowed
to
move
forward
when
I
took
over
probably
about
a
month.
J
I
think
it
was
a
month
after
I
had
taken
over
I
was
actually
asked
by
the
health
department
to
go
out
there
because
they
were
doing
an
inspection.
That's
when
our
office
had
found
that
he
was
renovating
the
inside
of
the
building.
He
had
most
of
the
top
floor,
gutted
and
part
of
the
second
floor
as
well.
At
that
point,
we
put
another.
J
B
J
B
B
J
And
at
that
point
it's
up
to
the
owner
to
come
in
and
apply
for
a
building
permit
and
through
that
process
we
have
to
hash
out
whatever
issues
are
that
have
to
be
addressed
and
then
once
they've
met
all
the
requirements
for
the
building
code
to
show
that
they're
going
to
be
in
compliance.
You
know
when
they
complete
that
work,
we'll
go
ahead
and
we'll
issue
a
building,
permit
to
go
ahead
and
do
the
work.
J
They
would
have
to
turn
around.
They
would
have
to
basically
take
out
a
permit
at
that
time
to
legalize
the
work
possibly
have
to
know.
We
do
have
some
fees
but
they're,
really
not
additional
fees
that
would
have
to
be
paid,
but
they
would
have
to
pay
for
the
full
cost
of
the
building
permit
and
possibly
if
it
was
felt
necessary
depending
upon
what
was
done,
they
may
have
to
go
to
either
the
planning
board
or
zoning
board.
B
J
B
A
J
D
J
D
C
B
J
When
they
were
issued,
the
building
permit
the
fire
happened
shortly
after
it.
So
so
we
had
issued
the
building
permit
to.
Let
them
go
back
to
work
at
that
point,
then
they
can
go
ahead
and
they
would
start
straightening
out
everything
that
you
know
that
needed
to
be
straightened
out
and
then
also
move
forward
with
the
rest
of
the
work.
But
we
never
got
as
far
as
having
an
inspection,
because
the
fire
had
taken
place
right.
C
D
Okay,
but
the
applicant
proceeded
as
a
so
prior.
The
applicant
had
not
been
represented
by
Council
in
connection
with
any
of
the
work
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
building
permit.
The
we
our
office
was
only
contacted
once
the
fire
had
taken
place
and
the
building
inspector
had
issued
a
a
stop,
a
a
violation
for
not
cleaning
up
the
property
and
had
issued
the
determination
that
the
use
could
not
continue
when
when
the
building
permit
was
resubmitted
to
rebuild
the
use,
that's
when
we
were
contacted
since
that
time,
I
think
Bruce
can
attest.
J
D
J
K
B
And
there
was
a
comment
and
I
don't
know
who
made
it
at
a
previous
meeting
that
the
and
I
don't
know
if
it
was
I.
Don't
know
if
you
made
made
the
comment
or
if
it
was
possibly
Bruce
that
the
fire
may
have
been
accelerated
by
by
the
gutting
of
the
building.
Yes
was.
That
was
that
conclusion
made
by
you
was
that
conclusion
made
by
the
fire
department
was
that
conclusion
made
by
whom.
J
D
D
D
Have
created
just
to
be
clear,
this
was
a
individual
who
committed
arson
who
poured
gasoline
again.
It's
all
documented
and
committed
it's
all.
A
public
record
of
of
a
of
of
the
act
so
I'm
not
sure
that
any
well
I
don't
need
to
speculate
more
than
the
Board
needs
to,
but
to
say
that
it's
self-created
by
having
someone
else
burn
it
down
is
that's
a
true
Mr.
B
B
B
A
K
Concerned
many
neighboring
and
City
residents
have
spoken
out
on
this
application
here
in
City
Hall
through
public
comments,
letters,
petitions
and
in
the
media.
This
is
our
last
chance
to
show
this
board
the
mayor
and
councel
just
how
passionately
opposed.
We
are
to
these
radical
densifications
of
beacons
neighborhoods
that
are
not
realistic,
realistically
ideal
for
over
development,
with
a
stroke
of
pen
granted
area
and
use
variances.
If
you
do
not
stop
it
now,
it
cannot
be
undone
and
will
only
spread
to
other
neighborhoods,
hopefully
you'll
you're
too
smart
to
fall
for
the
scare
tactics.
K
There
is
no
affordability
component
to
any
of
this
proposal.
Replacing
a
non-conforming
use
structure
with
a
new
build
non-conforming
use
structure
is
not
justified,
replacing
that
what
fire
destroyed
is
not
going
to
solve
a
housing
shortage.
It's
wishful
and
needlessly
destructive
thinking
instead
get
the
city
to
be
Progressive
in
building
affordable
housing
elsewhere,
but
don't
destroy
our
single
family
neighborhoods
by
shoehorning
this
back
in
where
it
simply
doesn't
belong.
Please
deny
this
application,
contrary
to
Mr
Palmer's
statement
that
the
city's
new
development
is
all
good
I
hope
he
only
speaks
for
himself.
K
G
L
Time,
hi
I'm,
Lisa,
Wagner,
66,
Sergeant
Avenue,
just
two
two
light
comments
from
this
evening's
discussion
that
I
appeal
to
the
board
with
the
first
one
is
regardless
of
use,
regardless
of
variance,
regardless
of
all
of
these
things
that
we're
looking
to
make
exception
for
on
this
property.
My
biggest
concern
with
this
as
well
is
the
Integrity
of
the
investor
looking
to
make
the
exceptions,
you
know
the
professionalism,
law
abidance,
Conformity
to
laws
and
policies
and
protocols.
L
It's
not
a
good
track
record
I
see
so
far,
and
it
gives
me
great
concern
that
we
may
end
up
giving
an
allowance
for
this
project
to
move
forward
with
someone
who
I
don't
know
if
we
can
trust
in
our
best
interest
to
do
what
they're
supposed
to
do
with
that
property.
So
that's
just
my
first
comment
on
this
hearing
what
I
heard
tonight.
My
other
question
that
I'd
like
to
pose
to
the
board
from
the
financial
aspect
of
this
is
I'm
very
curious.
L
M
M
Now
in
Beacon,
according
to
Zillow
and
realtor
$500,000,
that's
half
a
million
dollars
in
listening
to
all
that
went
on
I'd
like
to
comment
and
say
that
I
do
agree
that
the
comparison
with
the
antac
situation-
and
this
is
does
there-
is
no
comparison,
two
separate
different
things
and
also
to
say
the
9
25
was
in
use
for
a
hundred
years.
As
a
boarding
house
I've
never
seen
evidence
of
that
I've
tried
reaching
out
to
the
historical
society.
M
That
would
mean
that
in
1923
that
beautifully
architecturally
special
home
was
used
as
a
boarding
house
I'm.
Not
quite
sure
about
that.
I'm
also
saddened
to
hear
that
the
person
involved
with
the
development
of
this
property
or
wanting
to
be
is
working
on
other
properties
without
permits
and
to
pig
piggy
back
onto
what
someone
else
just
said.
That's
not
a
very
good
track
record
and
as
a
homeowner
in
Beacon
I,
don't
understand
and
people
that
sell
and
buy
in
Beacon.
Are
we
guaranteed
a
reasonable
return?
Are
we
guaranteed
a
guaranteed
return?
M
When,
we
go
to
say:
I
went
to
add
on
to
my
house
and
I.
Didn't
do
a
very
good
job
and
I
took
a
loss
who
is
protecting
me?
Where
are
we
getting
this
reasonable
return?
Is
anyone
really
guaranteed
that
I?
Don't
understand
that
and
I
guess?
That's
all
I
want
to
say
the
other
thing.
I
found.
Oh
one
other
thing
with
all
these
numbers
going
all
around
it's
very
confusing.
If
you
look
on
realtor.com,
it
says
that
the
property
was
sold
in
2022
for
$50,000.
It
says
it
right
on
there.
N
N
Joe
malolo
66,
Sergeant,
Avenue
I
would
just
like
to
piggyback
on
your
conversation
with
Bruce
about
the
work
that
was
being
done
in
the
short
term
before
the
fire.
Besides
the
violations
and
not
having
the
permits,
there
was
also
work
being
done
after
hours
at
night
weekends
before
time
was
allowed,
and
we
know
this
because
we
are
the
house
right
next
to
it.
So
I
would
constantly
hear
the
work
going
on.
Obviously
you
guys
can't
be
there
all
the
time,
but
living
next
door.
N
We
saw
so
just
a
point
of
information
that
was
also
going
on
on
top
of
all
the
other
violations
and
there
were
also
rumors
again
rumors
of
unlicensed
workers.
Don't
have
any
proof
of
that
because,
but
that
was
also
things
that
we
were
being
heard
because
we
live
right
there
and
we
care.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
B
M
H
P
O
O
The
I
think
it
was
68,000
for
the
cost
of
cleanup
and
maybe
off
on
that
amount,
but
there's
a
certain
amount
and
then
the
land
itself
is
worth
about
100,000,
so
I
would
say
with
the
point
that
that
you
made
it
could
be,
it
could
be.
You
know
at
least
even
if
not
some
money
made
just
I,
don't
understand
why
it
has
to
be
based
on
what
could
happen.
What
could
happen
what
you
could
build
and
how
much
money
you
could
make.
B
Q
You
hello,
my
name
is
Britney
Maus
I'm,
an
8
sergeant
Avenue,
as
you
may
know,
I've
already
written
a
a
long
letter.
So
hopefully
you
know
my
concerns
already,
there's
just
a
few
things
that
I
wanted
to
make
clear.
I,
obviously
opposed
all
variance,
requests
and
I
think
we
just
have
to
wait
to
hear
back
for
the
area,
variance
which
I
still
don't
think
is
applicable,
I
just
like
to
adjust
the
building
permit.
Q
Since
that's
what
we're
basing
the
new
construction
on
the
building
permit
for
the
renovations
for
this
property
last
year,
I
believe
was
in
violation
of
the
zoning
code
because
it
increases
the
non-conformity
both
regarding
the
building
and
the
use
and
increases
the
value
over
25%.
As
a
change
from
SRO
to
multif
family
designation,
I
was
in
I'm
within
250
feet
of
this
building
and
I
was
unaware
of
this
change.
Q
I
was
unaware
of
you
know
a
lot
of
the
illegal
activity
going
on,
but
I
thought
that
they
were
just
maintaining,
maintaining
condition
sound
condition
to
continue
operation,
but
the
change
from
a
boarding
house
to
multif
family
apartment
buildings,
with
amenities
in
each
individual
unit
violates
the
Zing
code
and
it's
not
a
reduction,
but
it
presents
a
huge
impact
to
the
neighborhood,
which
would
also
apply
to
the
area.
Variance
sorry
I'm
shaky
it's
clear
that
they
bought
this
property
with
the
int
ition
to
make
a
big
return.
Q
Without
considering
these
limits
they
did
not.
This
did
not
go
to
the
zoning
board.
There
was
no
public
hearing
and
in
response
they
said
that
they
were
just
simply
going
to
clean
it
up,
so
we
don't
need
one
problem
to
replace
another.
The
amount
of
parking
traffic
safety
issues,
disturbance
that
this
would
create
is
significant
when
considering
this
is
a
single
family
Zone.
Q
Okay,
I
may
not
finish,
but
section
H
states
that
the
surrounding
neighbors
can
register
a
complaint,
which
is
what
we
intend
to
do
if
non-conforming
use
is
granted
in
any
scenario,
whether
it
be
a
variance
or
lawsuit,
determination
or
anything
so
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
and
that's
it.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
H
H
P
Paul
pazone
949
Walcott
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
one
simple
thing
about:
with
a
12%
return
on
the
properties
use
at
330,
Square
fet
per
unit.
They
said
that
they
they
need
$1,900
a
month
rent
that
just
seems
even
in
this
real
estate
market,
improbable
like
it
just
doesn't
seem
to
make
sense
to
me
thanks.
Thank
you.
H
A
M
Back
just
a
two
things:
if
I
can
remember
it,
the
one
thing
I
remember
name
and
address:
oh
sorry,
Charlotte
Woodward,
821,
Walcott
Avenue
during
the
time
that
the
construction
or
the
refurb
was
being
done
in
that
building
those
residents
were
displaced,
including
the
person
that
committed
the
arson.
That's
number
one,
and
the
second
thing
I
sorry
did
didn't
come
to
me,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
and
I
am
really
against
any
variances
and
I
guess.
M
B
R
You
hello,
I'm,
Norma,
Manny
weather,
9231,
wart
Avenue
next
to
925.
My
house
was
the
house
that
caught
on
fire
at
the
time.
Also,
my
my
thing
is
I
just
feel
like
we
do
not
need
any
multi.
Anything
in
our
community
at
all
single
family
homes
is
what
should
be
there
and
I
think
they
should
also
rebuild
but
rebuild
as
a
single
family
home
and
not
9
10
12
Apartments,
because
that's
going
to
turn
out
to
be
the
same
thing
nobody's
going
to
pay
192,000
for
350
square
fet.
R
Nobody
going
to
pay
that
so
they're
going
to
end
up
being
right
back
to
where
they
started
from.
You
know
renting
out
as
rooms
or
bringing
in
migrants.
So
they
can
get
the
money
from
the
state,
the
city
and
they
just
going
to
be
a
issue.
It's
going
to
be
a
problem,
especially
for
me
I'm,
the
closest
one
to
that
house.
R
B
H
B
Yeah
I
was
that's
where
I
was
going
to
go
next.
I
just
wanted
to
acknowledge
into
the
record
a
bunch
of
emails,
James
case
Le
Stephen
and
Meg
Oaks
Joseph
SS,
Bry,
mauses
Nolla,
and
then
additionally,
there
was
a
petition
that
was
submitted
that
had
a
bunch
of
signatures.
We
just
wanted
to
acknowledge
that
they're
all
in
the
record
and
posted
we,
we
have
read
them
and
Taylor.
Would
you
like
a
final.
D
A
No,
the
tolling
agreement
I'll
get
to
you
tomorrow,
we'll
sign
that,
obviously
the
public
hearing
is
going
to
remain
open,
we'll
be
back
next
month.
If,
if
you
guys
come
up
with
anything
else,
you
want,
you
know,
we
can
always
be
in
contact
with
Taylor.
Let's
make
sure
that
everything
that's
requested
is
provided
and
vice
versa.
So
next
month
we
you
know.