Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 07/21/2026Town of Mansfield 6 Park Iiov, Mansfield, Massacbeesetb 02048 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes July 21, 2026 Meeting Held in Persons in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinnar Plalfornni Present: Darlene Pruitt/Chair, Matthew List/Clerk, Edward Valanzola, Joseph O'Malley, John McGarry, Noah Benner-Potash/Associate, and Brian Mukasa/Associate Sarah Raposa/Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill/Administrative Secretary Absent: None Ms. Pruitt called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for video recording. She also read a statement regarding MGL c.40A, §10, which was amended, effective July 1, 2026, to replace the former statutory variance criteria with a "practical difficulty" standard. NMI Public hearing regarding the application of Edward & Loretta Martin for a Variance from Section 230-4.2A for a front yard setback of 20.5 feet, where 30 feet is required to constrict a carport. The property is owned by Edward Francis Martin and Loretta T. Martin and is located at 2 Jewell Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 006/115 in the Residential 1 zone. Edward Valanzola is recused from this hearing. Mr. Bernier -Potash was appointed voting member for the hearing. Loretta Martin/owner and Craig Cygawnoski/RIM Engineering were present. The applicant requested a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 20.5 feet to constrict a 14-by-16-foot attached carport. The purpose of the carport is to provide covered, wheelchair -accessible access to the home for Mr. Martin, who is disabled. The home, built in 1960, is legally nonconforming and has been occupied by the Martins since 1975. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that relocating the carport to meet the setback requirement would place it on a sloping portion of the lot near wetlands, requiring significant grading, fill, and retaining walls, creating unnecessary expense while reducing the carport's accessibility benefits. The proposed location utilizes an existing level area partially on the driveway and lawn, allowing direct covered access to the front entrance. He also noted that the opposite side of the house is already closer to William Street and would not provide practical access. Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 1 of 10 Board members asked questions about the carport's size, visibility at the corner lot, accessibility, and the costs associated with relocating the structure. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the carport would accommodate one vehicle, consist primarily of a roof supported by posts, and would not obstruct sight lines due to its open design. The Board discussed the recently enacted "practical hardship" provisions under Chapter 40A, noting that the proposal appeared to satisfy the intent of the new variance criteria by balancing the applicant's accessibility needs against minimal impacts to the neighborhood. Ms. Raposa reviewed the revised application narrative and highlighted relevant factors for consideration, including the existing placement of the home, the lot's topography, the impracticality of strict compliance, the limited nature of the structure, and that the hardship was not self-created. She also noted that the Board has greater discretion under the new statute and that the proposal appeared to support findings consistent with the revised variance standards. Motion by Mr. O'Malley, seconded by lvh•. List, to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. List, seconded by Mr. McGarry, that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the requested variance for the property located at 2 Jewell Street, Assessor's Map 006, Parcel 115, in the R-1 Residential Zoning District, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, § 10 and § 230-7.2.B(3) of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw, for a variance from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement under Attacluuent 2, Schedule 4.2A of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw to allow construction of an attached carport with a reduced front yard setback of approximately 20.5 feet. Deliberation Board members expressed support for the requested variance, finding that the proposal provided a clear practical benefit to the applicant while presenting little to no detriment to the public or the neighborhood. Members noted that the request satisfied the balancing test under the revised Chapter 40A variance standards and observed that the application likely would have met the criteria under the previous, more restrictive law as well, given the corner lot configuration and site topography. The Board also commented that the open -sided carport would not obstruct sight lines or negatively impact the surrounding area. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED .�-.=' ?.,,. r �� „- � ..�-�.' may+` Ar h3� ,uw" a --' s^-a ",c' mC'�r,-�''"'."s^.✓/'�'.�'o sue" ,,9' uj1 ,r . Public hearing regarding the application of AbdelGhany Moustafa for a Finding from Section 230-3.10 and Section 230-7.2B(4) to alter the pre-existing non -conforming structure to add a rear addition and front/side addition. The Board will consider whether the proposed alteration or extension is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure and whether the proposal results in any new noncompliance with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw. The property is owned by AbdelGhany Abdelghany and Reham Abdelsalam and is located at 433 Elm Street; Assessor's Map/Parcels 007/076 in the Residential 1 zone. Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 2 of 10 AbdelGhany Moustafa was present. He stated that he is seeking to square off the two intersecting house sections. Ms. Raposa noted that the recent MGL Ch. 40A changes do not affect this application. The Board clarified that the proposed addition would not increase the existing nonconformities. The closest point of the house to Elm Street would remain 28 feet, and the side yard setback would also remain unchanged. The Board confirmed that the requested relief pertained only to the front yard setback and that the proposal represented an extension of the existing nonconforming structure without encroaching further into the setback. Ms. Raposa also noted that a proposed garage accessory dwelling unit shown on the site plan was not part of the current application, as it had previously received administrative site plan approval. There were no public comments. The Board agreed that the additions are intended to square off the existing irregular footprint of the existing nonconforming building without increasing the setback encroachment, describing it as a straightforward request. Motion by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. McGarry to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. McGarry that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the requested Finding for the property located at 433 Elm Street, Assessor's Map 007, Parcel 076, in the R-1 Residential Zoning District, pursuant to § 230-3.10 and § 230-7.2B(4) of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw, to allow construction of two additions to the existing single-family dwelling, consisting of a 19.0-foot by 13.0-foot rear addition and a 15.0-foot by 16.25-foot front/side corner addition, maintaining an existing front yard setback of approximately 28 feet where 30 feet is required. There was no further deliberation by the Board. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Public hearing regarding the application of David & Amy Walsh for a Variance from Section 230-3.10 Nonconforming Uses where the non -conforming parcel is comprised of two vacant land parcels, one situated on an island in Greenwood Lake and one landward parcel. The applicant seeks to construct a single-family home, on -site sanitary disposal system, and potable well on the landward parcel. The property is owned by Mary A. Carty & Danielle F.L. Keane, Trustees of the James P. Carty, Jr. Living Trust a/d/t October 21, 2024, and is located at 1769 West Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 002/366 in the Residential 1 (R-1) zone. Scott Rolfe of Plymouth Bay Associates was present on behalf of the applicants. He explained that the applicants were requesting zoning relief for three dimensional deficiencies: lot area (12,242 square feet where 60,000 is required), no frontage where 150 feet is required, and 84.6 feet of lot width where 150 feet is required. He explained that the lot's limitations are longstanding and not created by the current owners, consisting of a mainland parcel and a separate island parcel where a house once stood, but burned down. Rebuilding on the island was deemed impractical due to emergency access concerns, so the proposal is to construct a single - Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 3 of 10 family home on the mainland parcel. Mr. Rolfe argued that the hardship stems from the property's unique physical characteristics, that there is no feasible alternative development that can satisfy zoning, Title 5, and Conservation Commission requirements, and that the hardship is not self-created. He also noted that legal access is provided through the condominium master deed, and while Board of Health and Conservation Conuuission approvals have not yet been sought, a previously approved septic design and a proposed innovative denitrification system indicate the project is feasible. Mr. Valanzola questioned whether the property legally qualifies as a buildable lot, noting that both Massachusetts law and the local zoning bylaw generally require frontage on a public or private way. Mr. Rolfe argued that the parcel has long existed as pail of a condominium association with legal access granted through the master deed and that it fiunctioned as a lot when a house existed on the island parcel. Mr. Valanzola was concerned that, despite being part of a condominium, the parcel itself lacks frontage, raising the threshold question of whether it can be considered a separate lot eligible for zoning relief before addressing the requested variances. Mr. List referenced the unusual condominium layout, noting that the GIS map shows a large common parcel with frontage on West Street and several individual waterfront lots that do not have direct street frontage. Mr. Rolfe confirmed that the subject property is part of this atypical condominium structure, consisting of two commcted portions (the mainland parcel and the island parcel, identified as Units M and N) that together make up a single legal unit under the master deed. Access to the proposed home would be provided by an easement across the condominium's common land connecting the property to West Street. Mr. Valanzola questioned the role of the prescriptive easement, emphasizing that while it may provide legal access to the property, it does not establish the street frontage or legal lot status required under zoning. Mr. Rolfe clarified that access rights are granted through the condominium master deed, which provides perpetual access over the common land to and from West Street. Mr. Walsh, the applicant, confirmed that Units M (the island) and N (the mainland) are legally a single, indivisible condominium unit, although the proposed home would be constructed only on the mainland portion (Unit N), with the understanding that the combined unit would be limited to one dwelling. Barry Young of 1785 West Street, a condominium owner and Condo Board member, explained the property's history, stating that the original 25-acre parcel contained seven camps dating back to the 1920s. When the land was reorganized in the 1980s, the seven camp owners created a condominium association because traditional financing was unavailable. Each owner received a unit consisting of the land around their home, while the remaining 20 acres became common condominium property. The island unit was uniquely divided into two connected portions consisting of a mainland parcel for parking, utilities, and boat storage, and the island parcel containing the former seasonal camp that later burned down. Mt•. Valanzola inquired about a master plan that shows the lot layout, noting that it would be helpful to the Board. Mr. Young confirmed there is one unit, but two lots on the condominium plan for this owner. Mr. Valanzola also questioned why the Board had denied a similar proposal in 2014. Mr. Rolfe responded that the earlier denial appeared to be based on the view that the mainland parcel was intended only to support the island camp, not as a separate house lot, but argued that they had found nothing in the condominium documents or zoning bylaws explicitly prohibiting construction of a single-family home on the mainland portion. Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 4 of 10 Mr. Valanzola questioned whether the condominium documents specify the intended use of Units M and N, including whether they were intended for recreational, seasonal, or residential purposes. It was clarified that M and N together represent a single condominium emit, with one portion being the island parcel and the other the mainland parcel. Mr. Valanzola asked if additional condominium documents, including the trust, bylaws, and rules and regulations had been submitted to better understand permitted uses and restrictions. Ms. Raposa noted that the master deed and bust, and additional recorded condominium plans were added to the Dropbox for review. The plans were recorded separately at the Registry of Deeds in 1986. Mr. Young explained that the 20-acre common parcel is protected under Massachusetts Chapter 61 reforestation and has remained wooded for approximately 40 years through ongoing 10-year forest management plans. The condominium association maintains private access roads from West Street, while addresses, mail service, and trash collection are coordinated through West Street. The intent is to preserve the common land as conservation/open space and not allow further development beyond the existing homes. Mr. Young noted that the condominium structure is unusual but that the association members work cooperatively and support maintaining the property's wooded character. Mr. Valanzola asked about the legal access from West Street to Units M and N. Mr. Young responded that the Master Deed shows access to all parcels. Public Comments Scott Freerksen of 63 Lakeview Avenue, a direct abutter, spoke in opposition to the application. He explained that he and his wife are the closest residence to the proposed structure, approximately 35 feet away, and while they support reconstructing a cottage on the island similar to the structure that existed before the fire, they oppose constructing a new residence on the mainland parcel. He referenced the prior 2014 ZBA decision, noting that a substantially similar proposal was unanimously denied and that, in his opinion, the relevant circumstances have not materially changed. The condominium association remains governed by the same documents, the property has not been rezoned, and the zoning requirements are unchanged or more restrictive. Mr. Young stated that the mainland parcel was created to support the island residence by providing parking, boat storage, access, and utility connections, rather than serving as a separate residential lot. He noted that the parcel is approximately 16,000 square feet, significantly smaller than the zoning requirements in place when the condominium was created in the 1980s. He argued that while the master deed does not expressly prohibit construction of a residence on the mainland parcel, it also does not authorize such use, and that relocating the residence from the island to the mainland would fundamentally change the intended purpose of the condominium unit. He farther explained that the other Clark Shores unit owners who reconstructed or replaced homes did so in locations where residences previously existed, whereas this proposal would create a new residence on land that never previously contained a dwelling. He interpreted the master deed's reconstruction provisions as supporting rebuilding the original island cottage rather than developing a new mainland residence requiring additional site improvements, utility extensions, and modifications to common areas. Mr. Young also argued that the claimed hardship is not a zoning hardship because the challenges associated with an island property are inherent to ownership and were known when the property was purchased. Mr. Young expressed concerns about neighborhood impacts, including the removal of mature trees, loss of privacy, increased noise, changes to the natural buffer between properties, potential storrnwater issues, shoreline impacts, and increased wind exposure. He concluded that the property historically functioned as an island residence and that rebuilding a seasonal cottage on the island would be Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 5 of 10 consistent with the property's history and the condominium's intent; however, he respectfully opposed construction of a new residence on the mainland parcel where no dwelling previously existed. Barry Young reiterated his opposition to constructing a permanent residence on the mainland parcel. He stated that there is no financial hardship supporting the request and argued that the proposal would actually create a financial benefit by transforming what was purchased as a seasonal island camp in the 1980s into a valuable waterfront buildable lot. He stated that the proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the condominium association and requested that the Zoning Board deny the application. Christina Miller of 99 Lakeview Avenue, a direct abutter, spoke in opposition to the application. She clarified that she and her husband do not oppose rebuilding the seasonal cottage on the island but object to relocating the residence to the mainland parcel where no home has previously existed. She asked the Board to consider the original purpose and intent of Parcel M, which she stated has historically functioned as an access area for the island property, providing parking and utility access rather than serving as a residential building lot. Ms. Miller also encouraged the Board to consider the views of the Clark Shores Condominium Association, stating that five of the seven unit owners believe Parcel M was intended solely to support the island property and not become the primary residential location. She further noted that prior Clark Shores renovations and rebuilds have occurred on sites where homes previously existed, and that approving a new mainland residence would represent a departure from that longstanding pattern. She respectfully requested that the Board deny the application in order to preserve the historic character and established use of the Clark Shores commiunity. Colleen Wade of 1779 West Street, a member of the Clark Shores Condominium Association, spoke in opposition to the application. She explained that she is the newest association member, having purchased her property in 2004, and that she reviewed the master deed and condominium documents when purchasing her unit. Based on her understanding, the unit in question was intended to include a building only on the island, where a seasonal camp existed at the time of purchase. She stated that no residence had ever existed on the mainland parcel and expressed concern that constructing a home there would negatively impact the character and overall nature of the Clark Shores community. Ms. Wade also stated that she did not believe a hardship existed for the proposed purchaser and respectfully requested that the Board deny the request to allow construction on the mainland parcel. Stephen Staples of 1787 West Street, a longtime Clark Shores resident and association president, opposed the application. He highlighted the property's natural character, the association's Chapter 61 forestry management efforts, and the importance of preserving the area as intended. He expressed concern that constructing a home on the mainland parcel would harm the character of Clark Shores and requested that the Board deny the application. Amy Demelia of 1777 West Street, a Clark Shores member, opposed the application. She stated that the unit was intended to support the island home, not serve as a separate mainland building lot, and that the island cottage could potentially be rebuilt in its original location. She noted that the access and frontage issues that led to the 2014 denial remain unchanged and requested that the Board deny the variance. Elizabeth Schofield of 45 Lakeview Avenue, a seasonal cottage owner on the island, spoke of a claimed prescriptive easement affecting the property. She stated that electrical infrastructure Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 6 of 10 serving her property has crossed the 1769 West Street parcel for more than 50 years and requested that any approval protect the continued use and access to that electrical service. She asked the Board to acknowledge the easement on the record, condition any variance to prevent interference, and prohibit development that could damage or obstruct the existing utility infrastructure. Mr. Valanzola clarified that a prescriptive easement is generally not a recorded written easement and noted that the Zoning Board does not have authority to determine whether one exists. He explained that any dispute over the existence or validity of the easement would need to be resolved through the appropriate court process. He thanked Ms. Schofield for bringing the issue to the Board's attention. Mr. List asked Ms. Schofield how they access the island camp. She replied that the access is on Lakeview Avenue. Mr. Valanzola said his review of the trust documents and master deed found nothing explicitly requiring each condominium unit to have its own structure. However, he noted that the master deed states each unit is intended solely for residential use, which he interpreted as implying that each unit has the right to contain a residential structure. He also pointed out that the master deed grants all unit owners equal rights of access and use, suggesting Units M and N have the same development rights as the other condominium units. Mr. Valanzola questioned whether a variance was even necessary, noting that because the property is governed by the Massachusetts Condominium Act (Chapter 183A), the rights established in the master deed may already permit the proposed development without additional zoning relief He compared the situation to a phased condominium project where a second building can be constructed later if it was contemplated in the master deed. Mr. Young agreed that the master deed supports the proposal and emphasized that the request is simply to place a single residence on the landward parcel while preserving access rights established by the condominium documents. I-Ie stated that the proposal is not intended to enlarge the lot or adversely affect neighboring properties and that the house complies with side - yard setbacks and is set well back from the shoreline. When questioned about the lot area shown on the plan, Mr. Young clarified that the 12,242-square-foot figure represents only the landward parcel, while the combined condominium Units M and N contain approximately 34,940 square feet, including the island parcel, consistent with the master deed. Mr. Valanzola questioned whether the application should instead be viewed as a condominium matter under Chapter 183A, arguing that the recorded master deed may already grant the right to construct a residential building on Units M and N. He compared the proposal to a phased condominium development, where later construction can proceed under the original condominium approval even if zoning regulations have changed. Ms. Raposa explained that she was uncertain whether the building inspector could issue a building permit based solely on the master deed. She noted that, unlike a typical phased condominium where future buildings are explicitly approved, this situation involves a unit that does not conform to current zoning. She suggested that while the cottages that existed when the master deed was recorded were likely grandfathered, the cottage on the island had burned down, and the time allowed under the zoning bylaw to rebuild may have expired. As a result, she believed the proposal would likely need to be evaluated under the current zoning bylaw and its "practical difficulty" standard for relief. Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Valanzola acknowledged that reasoning but continued to struggle with the condominium issue, noting that the master deed expressly allows residential use for each unit and that the property remains part of the condominium association. He observed that, viewed as a condominium, the lack of frontage may not be an issue since the units were legally established under the condominium documents. However, he distinguished the proposal from rebuilding the former island cottage, stating that reconstructing on the island would still involve building on a substandard lot under current zoning. Mr. Young emphasized that the proposal does not alter the condominium arrangement or separate the property from the association but seeks to place the residence on the landward parcel while keeping it within the existing condominium. Colleen Wade of 1779 West Street explained that while she was not involved in creating the condominium association, two original members were present and could speak to the original intent of the master deed. She stated that the unit in question originally contained a structure on the island, not the mainland, and suggested that the original intent was for development to remain where the pre-existing island cottages were located. Mr. Valanzola stated that the master deed does not explicitly state this restriction. Mr. Young said that property owners within the condominium have historically been required to make improvements only to their existing structures and within their original building footprints. He said that any renovations or expansions required approvals from the Building Department, Conservation Commission, and other local boards, all of which insisted that improvements remain on the existing cottage locations. Mr. Young reiterated that the mainland parcel was created only to provide access to the island unit and was intentionally kept separate from the cormnon area. He felt that allowing a new structure on the mainland would be inconsistent with both that intent and the way all other owners have been required to develop their properties. Mr. List said the key issue is the balancing test under Chapter 40A, Section 3, weighing the public benefit of creating housing against the potential detriments to the neighborhood. He noted that the proposal would create a home on a 12,000SF area in a district requiring 60,000SF lots. He also cited neighbors' concerns about noise and neighborhood character, stating he was not convinced the proposal satisfied the required balancing test. Mr. Valanzola suggested that the underlying issue may be less about zoning and more about the rights established under the condominium's master deed, which lie believed the Board was not equipped to interpret. He questioned whether the condominium documents and Massachusetts condominium law might independently allow development of Unit M&N without relying on the zoning provisions governing reconstruction of a nonconforming structure. Mr. Rolfe responded that the property is already governed by a condominium association and argued that the master deed grants each unit the right to residential use. Mr. Valanzola suggested that because M&N is a single condominium unit, the owners may have the right to obtain a building permit to build on the mainland parcel. He was uncertain whether the requirement to rebuild in one year under current zoning bylaws is relevant since the parcel is governed by the trust, the master deed, and Chapter 183A of the General Laws. The Board considered recessing the public hearing to allow Mr. Rolfe and Mr. Walsh time to convene before continuing deliberations. Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 8 of 10 Motion by Mr. O'Malley, seconded by Mr. List to recess the public hearing at 8:38 pm. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Si nnnnary of changes to Chapter 40A mere discussed as noted beloul. Motion by Mr. O'Malley, seconded by Mr. McGarry to resume the public hearing at 8:41 pm. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Mr. Rolfe asked whether a denial by the Zoning Board would prevent them from applying for a building permit under the condominium's master deed. Mr. Valanzola explained that the Board could not provide legal advice or determine rights under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 183A, and that while the applicant was free to apply for a building permit, the decision would rest with the Building Inspector to approve or deny it. The Board suggested the applicant consider requesting a continuance to seek legal advice and discuss the matter with the Building Department, noting that a denial by the Board could prevent the same relief from being sought again for two years absent a material change. Based on that discussion, Mr. Rolfe indicated they would request a continuance to explore those issues further. Motion by Ms. Pruitt, seconded by Mr. List to continue the public hearing to August 18, 2026, at 7:00 pm. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Minutes — June 16, 2026 Motion by Mr. McGarry, seconded by Mr. List to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Summary of Chapter 40A Changes Ms. Raposa summarized recent amendments to Chapter 40A under the Affordable Homes Act, noting that changes to electronic notice requirements primarily affect the Planning Board. She explained that revisions to Section 6 now protect applications filed before the first publication of a proposed zoning amendment, rather than only permits already issued. She also noted that certain pre-existing nonconforming residential structures may now be altered or expanded as of right, provided no new nonconformities are created, and that this change is generally consistent with the Town's existing zoning bylaw. Ms. Raposa reviewed additional changes to Chapter 40A under the Affordable Homes Act. Building permits now receive zoning protection for up to 24 months instead of 12 months, while special permits and site plan approvals are granted a three-year zoning protection period. The period before a nonconforming use or structure may be considered abandoned has been extended from two years to fora years. She explained that the new law appears to allow residential use variances in zoning districts where residential uses are otherwise prohibited, even if local bylaws do not generally allow use variances, although nonresidential use variances remain prohibited in Mansfield. The time to exercise a variance has increased from one year to two years, and the Zoning Board may grant an additional extension of up to two years instead of the previous six- month extension. Individual hearing notices will also be allowed to be sent electronically, which presents an issue of how to collect email addresses. This does not replace newspaper notices. Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 9 of 10 Ms. Raposa said that she will begin the updates for the bylaw for a future town sleeting submission. The new laws may also trigger past applicants who were denied to come back to say there is a material change and that the law has changed. The Board discussed how the new variance law shifts decision -making from a strict hardship standard to a broader balancing test that weighs the public interest in creating housing against neighborhood impacts. Members expressed concern that the changes could weaken longstanding zoning protections, increase variance requests and appeals, and create uncertainty until the courts establish legal standards. The Board still has discretion to deny variances when appropriate, but decisions must be well -supported by the record and clearly explain the balancing of the statutory factors. s 7'l�[� Au1C�titleJl�� Motion by Mr. List, seconded by Mr. McGarry to adjourn at 9:01 pm Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED The next Zoning Board of Appeals Iteeting ivill be on August 18, 2026, at 7:00 p.n? Clerk Documents Submitted for the Meeting; 1. Meeting Notice and Agenda for July 21, 2026 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for June 16, 2026 3. 1769 West St. Application and supporting documents Date of Approval Meeting Minutes 07/21/26 Page 10 of 10