[Music] Hey, [Music] you are stressful. [Music]
[Applause] [Music] Hey, welcome to the zoning board of appeals. bills. Tonight, we do have an executive session
first and we're going to go into that mode. There is a room down the hall that we've saved for you guys with air conditioning. So, you didn't have to sit outside on the steps. There's only two chairs in the hall, but down if you go down the end of the hall on the right, there's a
a nice comfortable room for you all. So anyway, um the board will be entering into executive session under GL 30A21 A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation in the matter of West Falmouth Estates LLC 19 19 North
Palmouth Highway North Falmouth 85 Brook Hill Road LLC 85 Brook Hill Road and Sullivan 0 Melrose A Felmouth where discussion in open session would have a detrimental impact on the town's litigation position.
Can I have a motion to go into executive session? I'll make that motion, Madam Chairman, with a friendly amendment that we will come back into regular session at the conclusion of our executive session. Second. And we have a motion and a second and we'll do a roll. Veron. Peterson. I Duffy I.
Murphy I Morris I Patruchi I and then we will come back in. So if you would mind going into the cozy room regular hearing. Welcome to the zoning board of appeals. Please silence all
cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV. I'll introduce the board and the staff. On my far right, we have Mark Fineran, a voting member. Then Scott Peterson, voting member. To my right is Frank Duffy, our clerk. My name is Suzia Murphy, the chair. To my left is James
Moss, vice chair. To his left is Tony Patui, associate. And then we have Nick Haney, another associate. And we have Ashley Dlo, our office assistant. The zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state zoning statutes as well as the town zoning bylaws in reviewing and voting on every
application that comes before us. All decisions are made through the public hearing process. Our goal is to hear testimony from the applicants and the public and to allow a full and fair discussion of the project. Prior to closing the hearing process and reaching a decision one, to begin chairing, the
clerk will read public announcement for the hearing and read pertinent information from the file. Two, the applicant or the applicant's representative will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation, but time may be extended by vote of the board. Three, the board will then question the
applicant. Four, the public will be invited to comment. Comment should be limited to two minutes and be strict strictly related to the proposal. All members of the public wishing to speak should wait for to be recognized by the chair and should come to the podium. State your name and address for the
record. Speak into the mic. It will not amplify your voice and record audio for the FCTV viewers. And we also have a quick time before we start if anyone wants to make a public comment on anything that's not on our agenda. Anybody?
So, we'll start off. U madam, may I make a motion about tonight's agenda? I move that we take case 06224 um Sullivan 0 Melrose Avenue in Famouth out of order and here at first given the fact that we have a number of people
present who have a distance to go to get home after this hearing. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor? I I And we have Tony voting on this one. And
and madam chairman, just for the record, um the majority of the cases tonight uh indicate, actually none of the cases tonight indicate that I would be a voting member. Uh looking at the dates and going through my notes, um if you recall, approximately a month ago, I pinched my sciatic nerve and was not
able to walk. Uh since all of these has been con uh continued, I'm going to be stepping off since I will not be a voting member on any of these this evening. So great. Thank you. All right. We have nothing from the clerk on this, right? Uh we already opened the case and we heard testimony.
Uh so we just continued it till tonight. So So attorney Clower is at the plate. Uh good evening madam chair, members of the board. Uh for the record, Kevin Clower, attorney here in Falmouth, and I am before you representing Larry and
Valerie Sullivan. If I can ask a quick point of clarification, um I can't help but notice that Miss Stockman is not here tonight. Last time we did not proceed with any decisions because of your absence. What is the board's intention tonight? Just so I can have
adequate expectations. We might decide. We can decide if we so choose. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I was just That would be the goal. I don't know. I can't just try just trying because I'm last time we basically said, you know, we're continuing everything tonight. Okay. There is a chance.
Okay. Great. I just We're voting on all those other ones that we continued over. Great. Just trying to understand so we we know where we're going. Um, as I mentioned, I'm here before you representing Larry and Valerie Sullivan who are seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming structure at
Zero Melrose Avenue in the RC zoning district. We presented to this board on June 6th on a remanded application uh reviewing the new site plan and architectural plans. Um, review that. I'd like to review that briefly since it's been six weeks. Uh, and I'd also like to address the
correspondence that's been submitted since the last meeting. So, as you know, this is presently a detached two-car garage, which conforms to setback and lock coverage requirements, but the use itself is non-conforming, being an accessory uh dwelling without a primary, accessory use, rather, without a
primary. Uh they're proposing to raise the existing garage and to replace it with a modest single family residence which will include a uh singlecar garage on the first floor and um a single bedroomedroom home on the second floor. The footprint of this
proposed structure is 756 ft which is 20.37% lot coverage. Proposed ridge height is 23 feet 11 in. This application requires a special permit pursuant to 240 10.2A1. 2 A1 240 11.3A4
to alter the existing non-conforming use to a conforming use of single family dwelling which is allowed by right within the residential C zoning district. This proposed dwelling will conform to all setback and locker requirements. So you as the board are asked to determine whether or not this
change a non-conforming use to a conforming one allowed by right is substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use. 240 10.2 2A1 allows for alteration and changes to pre-existing non-conforming structures and uses by special permit
and again provided that change is not substantially more detrimental. We have previously reviewed and set forth in correspondence why the existing garage is a legally non-conforming structure legally non-conforming structure though it is a
non-conforming use. So, under Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 48, Section 7, non-conforming structures, even if in violation of zoning laws at the time of their establishment, are deemed to be lawful pre-existing non-conforming structures if no enforcements taken within 10 years, and
therefore eligible to make changes and alterations pursuant to 4A section 6 and the local ordinances and bylaws. Our bylaw itself was changed at the November town meeting to reflect this. 243A1 specifically states that structures that
qualify as lawful pre-existing non-conforming structures under general law chapter 48 section 7 are considered non-conforming structures and entitled to treatment as such as provided in this section. This amendment to chapter 48 section 7 and our bylaw make it clear that since
this structure is well over 10 years old, it is considered legally non-conforming and eligible to seek relief pursuant to section 6 and a special permit pursuant to 240 10.21. So I want to be clear generally when this board hears requests for changes to
non-conforming uses uh it's a request to change to an alternative though perhaps less detrimental non-conforming use. We've seen this a lot with conversions of um motel to condominiums. That's not what's being requested. The applicants are proposing to eliminate an existing
non-conforming use and to instead have a byite conforming use. Given that the residential C zoning district allows for single family residences by rightight, it's difficult to see how that change would be substantially more detrimental than the present non-conforming use.
It's been alleged that the residential use has been abandoned. Um and and that's included citations to ces cases such such as Shia loose versus zoning board of dialway company versus the Auburn zoning board of appeals. Those cases however pertain to the abandonment
of structures where non-conforming structures have been removed and years later have sought to be replaced. This is easily distinguished because in this case the structure is still there. It has not been removed and the non-conforming use is still in fact in effect. were proposing a by right use.
Our bylaw was also changed to add language regarding the abandonment of non-conforming uses, not conforming uses, non-conforming uses where again the proposal is to modify an existing non-conforming use to a byright conforming use. It's been asserted that the lot is insufficient for the proposed
use, but these are lots that are laid out in 1800s. Lots of lots of this size and smaller are incredibly common in this area, and this house is built on many of those lots. Those are certainly suitable for use of single family dwellings. This is no different. In fact, this proposal is more conforming to the bylaw than those existing
structures and by would by no means be out of character. Submitted correspondence showing that within a few hundred feet, there are at least 25 homes on lots of 3900 ft or less. Of those 25 homes, the average lot coverage by structure is 42.53%.
We're proposing 20.37%. This is entirely in character with other properties in terms of lot size and in terms of the size and style of the dwelling. So 240 10.2A requires a finding that the change is not substantially more detrimental than the existing
non-conforming use of structure. Again beating a dead horse here. We're changing an existing non-conforming use to a conforming one. Single family dwelling which is allowed by right. Proposed structure will conform to all setback and lock coverage requirements. Does not create any new dimensional non-conformities. doesn't impair public
use and vistas and does reasonably conform to the neighborhood. It also meets all the standards set forth under 240 12.18. The lot is adequate in terms of the size of the proposed use as noted is at least 25 lots within just a few hundred square ft similar or smaller than a subject
property used for the same use as the subject property. This project will meet all setback and lock requirements. The site is suitable for the proposed use. The applicants proposing a single family residence in a zone that allows it is a buy right matter proposals in compliance with lot coverage and setback
requirements. There's no impact on traffic flow and safety. The addition of a one-bedroom home in a densely developed area that provides for three on-site parking spaces where only two is required is will not have any impact on traffic flow or safety. The neighborhood visual character will be largely unaffected. This is an area that's dense
with existing dwellings which vary greatly in architectural style. It's an aesthetic improvement over the existing garage. There's adequate method of sewage disposal, water and drainage, entirely conforming system served by municipal water and the drainage will be improved significantly with the addition of a
burm on the street and the dry wells on the site. There are adequate utilities and other public services that will be unaffected by the proposal. Public utilities are already in this area. There was a concern expressed in one of the abutters letters regarding um the
rent potential rental of this property. There's no intent by the owner to rent this property. It's going to be used for family. However, we'd even be willing to include a provision restricting rentals to no less than 6 months. There is no intent to rent this property. I know I'm repeating myself, but this is
pretty straightforward. This is the elimination of a non-conforming use of an unsightly age garage with a byright use and a functional attractive dwelling. The applicants made significant efforts to listen to the butter and board comments, made substantial changes to the plan, reducing the scope of the project, the
size of the building, and it's a design that's much more in character in the neighborhood. This will not create any new dimensional non-conformities, will eliminate a non-conforming use, is entirely in character in the neighborhood. For all these reasons, I believe this meets the requirements of 240.2A1,
240 11.3 A4, and 240 12.1E. So, I know there was a lot of recap over what we went over at the last hearing, but I also wanted to talk about what was in the correspondence. A lot of those points were raised in the letter that I submitted uh about a week ago. And I would be happy to address any questions
that the board may have at this time. Anybody have any questions? I really don't have any questions, per se. I mean, we've already kind of been through all of this. I mean, uh
um my my position hasn't changed. Um and um you know, it's it's common place for um a council to um rely on some kind of
case law to uh bolster their argument. And I think the case law that was presented to us is is to be honest with you quite thin gr. I mean uh with uh uh Sherluchcci and Dialay
um as far as the abandoned goes they were obviously abandoned. We all know that. I mean we we we permit structures that should have been torn down years ago but the people keep them up because they don't want to lose their um pre-existing nonconformity. Um this this
thing was never torn down. Um, I think that um at least 30% of the lots in in in Thalmouth Heights are are are this size. Uh, one of the neighbors complained that uh all they have is 50 ft of road
frontage. Um, when 100 is required, I I would be surprised if 20% of the lots in Fmouth height meet the required um frontage. um this yard meets all the setbacks and
it's only 20.37 um% lot coverage. I mean that's I mean Kevin described it earlier as a unicorn. I mean you're not going to find 5% of the lots in Falmouth Heights that that can do that. Um and another argument in
his um from uh uh the other council was that um 7500 square ft is required to build a house. Well, now 7,500 square feet will get you two houses. And and I think this structure um qualifies as
nothing better than an an accessory uh dwelling anyhow. Um and also take an empty lot anywhere in America um that's been empty for some time,
wherever. um better than 50% of all the abutters are always going to be against somebody doing anything with that lot and and and I think that's a pretty pretty fair statement. Um, I just, uh, I look at
this as a substantial improvement and I think it absolutely should be allowed and um, and if we don't, I would bet everything that these the applicant will prevail in court.
Scott, well, thank you. Um, again to Mark's point, I I do like the conforming aspect of of uh all the setbacks that that's that's important. I do like that the applicant is willing to
add a condition for no rentals less than 6 months. Um I think that that, you know, hopefully appeases some of the abutters. Uh we do have town council's uh representative here and I I would like to hear um his thoughts also after
attorney we hear from attorney Kirk um who also brought up some very salient points but um right now from my perspective I again I would probably agree with Mark's comments. I I don't believe that this is more detrimental. I
like that it's keeping on the same footprint. It's it really is conforming when the vast majority of homes in that area are non-conforming. So, um guess that's it, but I would like to hear from
council at some point. Frank, do you have anything? Uh yeah, briefly. I'd like to uh acknowledge um that we in the last couple of weeks we've gotten some very interesting and comprehensive letters from attorney Clower and again from Attorney Kirk outlining their positions. And I really
personally I appreciate their effort um to present the issues that way. It's it sometimes comes off a lot better when you can sit down and read it uh than you get at the oral presentation. Um so I I want to appreciate tell you that I appreciate your effort. Um I I find that
this particular situation we we we were getting kind of tied up in knots the last time we were here over the fact that this is a very small lot and it was created in 1873. Now the in the meantime there have been zone zoning was adopted and there's been a lot of minimum requirements put on z
on on lots that are created at that time afterwards. But uh in general, this is just a general statement, a lot that is buildable at one time remains buildable unless it's specifically not buildable. And I've always looked at these minimum
requirements of of 3,000 ft or 5,000 ft or whatever as applying to empty lots that are not built upon. But a lot that is built upon and there's a lawful non-conforming structure on it, I believe there you allowed to come in under the provisions of the zoning
bylaw. um and um replace it with a conforming building. So that's that's my view of the situation. Um but I again want to thank both council for really helping us out with this. Thank you Tony.
Thank you. Um so in this particular case, uh Massachusetts Chapter 48 section 6 really doesn't pertain. uh what we're considering here basically is whether or not this is substantially
more detrimental or not detrimental to the community. So I think section six does pertain um I think you might be referring to the area that talks about 5,000 ft but that would be for if this was not built upon lot right now we have an existing lot that is built upon um that's the
differentiator there. So the first section of chapter 48 section 6 talks about lots and then we're talking about non-conforming structures and uses which is sort of the next section in chapter 48 section 6. Um in this case we have a lot that has been utilized and built
upon. So I don't think that that first section is relevant because that's talking just about a lot that is really um unbuilt or uh untouched at that point. So this section it talks about changes to non-conforming structures and uses which can be allowed provided not
substantially more detrimental. Thank you. So we have an average lot coverage by structure uh in the community in that neighborhood of 30.51% versus the proposed of 20.37 substantially less.
Mhm. Uh we're far below uh the ridge height that's allowed uh under the bylaw. We're at 23t 11 in. Uh all the setbacks as been mentioned before have been met and exceeded.
Uh they're 12t 1 12T 9 and they're greater than 10 ft on the sidelines in the front. Um, so I guess that I have to as this as one
member look at this whether or not uh it is substantially more detrimental or it's not detrimental. The fact that it is has less coverage than the average home
plays a big part in my mind. The fact that it meets all the setbacks that we require today plays a big part in my mind. So why would this be substantially more detrimental? Not owner occupied.
Now we talked about rent and you're offering up that it would be rented if it were to be rented. It would be not less than six months. and the rental part. And what concerns me is that you're sitting on the top of the
hill there. You're sitting above the Abata behind. I don't think that a butter has come to one of these meetings. I'm unaware of that. Jim Fox was here as representative of uh the Arnes. So who doesn't live there? Who doesn't live there? Correct. So
that is in my mind detrimental to that of butter. uh the fact that you have a deck on the second floor which is at elevation 10 ft higher than the grade or at least the bottom of the top of the
foundation looking into that. Um, I think that if you could take that deck, which now has an open railing, and enclose it as we had done on other cases, they have to look backyard so that you don't have a party going on,
especially if it's rented or could be anybody, and we're not creating a nuisance to the people that sit well below. So, that's part of my concern with it being more detrimental. Other than that,
um, if I can, um, just clarify, are you saying right now I think we're showing sort of wire or railing? Yes. If that was a solid panel and speaking as one member, if in my mind I'm sitting if I'm the butter down
below and I'm looking up at that 10 ft above the foundation and I'm down lower than that, yeah, I've got a problem with that. And I think that's detrimental. that creates a detrimental effect that did not exist and does not exist with the garage. If you were to take and use
the same type of siding, for instance, I'm not saying it has to be, and you enclose that at railing height, as we did in another case, if you recall, with a garage that was being used as a uh an apartment, that would make me certainly look at this a lot better. But I think all in
all um I think it's a substantially better much bigger improvement. Um if I can if I may for a second um the concern that was expressed from from that particular butter was not relative to the deck. It was about drainage which we're trying to address via the burm in
the front and and dry wells. Um if that if that was to be the difference between this being approved and not approved I can I'm only speaking as one member but um I I know that they would be amendable to that. Um, my recollection of of that particular property is that the yard is actually really situated in the front of that property.
I didn't hear you. What? My recollection of that that property on the backside on on um on Vernon is that the house is situated very far back on the lot and really what the front the house the yard rather is in the front of that property. So to the extent that there would be
any overhang of the deck, it's it's it's looking at really the the roof of the other house. uh because that backs up pretty far to the to the property line. Well, I see the deck uh 10 ft above the foundation as detrimental to it. You
don't have that situation now. You're creating a situation. Uh I think that you can eliminate that speaking as one member by enclosing that deck as we did with another case. I mean other than and if and if in fact the board decides that
um it could be rented or accepts that terms of uh not rented for less than 6 months that eliminates a lot of my concerns as one member. So I think all in all it's substantial approval.
You have anything? The the the uh applicant they bought the this property right there. Um the applicant actually has a house kind of around the corner from this that's not connected to this lot. No, because there if there was there would have been a merger at some point.
This property has never been owned in connection with any of the directly abiding lots. Okay. I have a quick question for you. The nonconforming use for the structure that you're using and you feel it flows over to use. Well, I mean it is you know it's
non-conforming in the sense that it's accessory to nothing. It's accessory without a primary. Um, generally speaking, you have to have a primary use on the lot in order for there to be an accessory use to it. So, in this case, we have an accessory without a primary on the same lot. So,
that is, I believe, a non-conforming use as it stands today. What we're proposing is an entirely conforming use that's allowed by right within the residential C zoning district. But you feel the nonconformity gives it protection. Well, the the fact there's a structure
there gives it protection that's been used. I mean, there is there is a structure. It's been built upon. It's been taxed separately. Um, but right now, we have a structure with a non-conforming use, and we're proposing a conforming one. This is where I have a hard time. We're going to get another one that's going to come in with their doghouse and say,
"Hey, this is it's a structure. That's whatever. We'd have to deal with that when it comes." But yeah, we'll deal with it when it comes. Madam Chair, can I um go ahead? since our last hearing. Um there's been there was a submission from the uh building commissioner and uh I
don't know if everybody saw it but uh this is to inform the zoning board of appeals here and after referred to as the board that the referral uh with the map attached from the building department regarding the above reference property uh which is before the board at this
time was to show the board that said property was created long before zoning existed and is therefore protected. How however I believe that any lot less than 5,000 square ft in size is required to apply to the board or any increase or
change to the structure on the site. So I mean he's well within his rights to do this and um you know in as far as Tonyy's concerned um this I
think this guy meets all the stepbacks. I mean for us to go adding that on to he's talking privacy. Yeah. I mean, for us to add that on to something that's conforming, but it we're adding it on to something that's conforming. We've done this to every
We have um I already doesn't want the wires. He wants it covered up. I I will say that property was non-conforming to rear yard setback, though. Madam Chair, may I? Yeah. This is not sitting well with the
community there, and I understand that. uh we have to deal with bylaws. All right? And that's the only thing we can deal with. What I'm trying to do if this board should vote approval here is to make it if it should be approved a
little more palatable to at least the abundance from uh in the rear. I don't know what everybody else is going to feel about it on the other side of it, but the fact is this second floor deck sits very high
and I don't think it's a burden knowing how construction works for them to enclose that. In fact, it'll make it a better situation for them uh if they're sitting with more privacy. So, I don't see it as an issue. Mr. Petr, I I just spoke with the client
and he's more than agreeable to enclosing that as a solid piece. Thank Thank you. And the and the uh the offer to um uh no rental will be less than 6 months. I think that's important.
Again, these things can become nuisances. They can become obnoxious. This is so when you talk about setbacks being met, I think that's a wonderful thing obviously that is being met. We're talking about this tiny little lot. So
everything is more exaggerated. It's going to be exaggerated to the folks on the street side. It's exaggerated to people left and right. It's it's not the same as if you had a 40,000 square foot lot, which is which is required in this district
right now. So I think things like that and they're offering I think we need to we need to give them some privacy. And it's true we're dealing with a rental unit possibly. Well, we do have there is there is no intent to rent this. Um I wouldn't want a condition that there never be rented because
circumstances changed. However, I'm happy to agree to a condition that prohibits any type of short-term rental. So, I think by agreeing to no less than 6 months that that would that would prohibit the potential use of this as a short-term rental um but provide the client with flexibility moving forward
because circumstances do change. But he's not planning to rent this. Madam Chair. Yeah, I just I said he this is conforming. I mean, what if the lot was 40,000 square feet and long and narrow would be the same? I know. I'm just
application, but I'm just I'm I'm just What about if he's got his grandchildren down there? They they won't be able to see the water. They won't be able to see the view. I I I I think it's we're asking for too much of a restriction and I think it's going to come back and bite us because people are going to request
these things more and and they're going to want to design their neighbor's house and and and I don't I don't find that proper in America. Sorry, Madam Chair. May I address that? We have a right as a board to put conditions in
uh we have a community that has expressed uh a lot of concern about this as a board. Uh we are part of this community. I'm just trying to find a way that helps
some folks at least get past this. If this board should approve this, there going to be a lot of people not happy about this. All right. I'm just trying to find ways if again that satisfy me as one board member because I see problems. And yes, this is America. America. Hear
how I said that? America. M um but this boy has a right to put conditions in and we do that all the time. And more than that, we're more than happy to agree to that condition. So I think I'm just having a discussion with him. But I don't like when mom when mom and dad fight.
That's all right. We do it all the time. Dad never wins. Yeah, dad never wins. Yeah, that's the way I look at it. It's a give get and they want to give it. So let's take it. I think it's a good outcome. You want to close the deck to that point? That's That's Does anybody have any further questions
for Attorney Claw before we go to Attorney Kirk? Kirk. No, all set. Everybody's all set up here. Good. Attorney Cler Kirk, would you like to come up to the plate? Oh, sure. Take a swing at it.
Yeah. We'll get one more attorney after that. The trifecta. Yeah. Madame Chairman, members of the board, Edward Kirk or Mr. Healey, Mr. Kent, and Mr. Harmerson.
Um, I have two categories that I'd like to talk about. One is You're going to have to speak up, please. Thank you. I have two categories that I'd like to talk about. One is the bylaw and the ins and outs of structures and uses and lot
sizes. And the other aspect is the proposal itself. The existing structure there is a garage. It's 16 ft at its highest point. No noise, no impact at all at all on the
neighborhood. and certainly not a detrimental uh detrimental uh impact on the neighborhood. Um it may be a little shabby in its condition, but that's
not a good basis on which to approve this project. The first floor consists of a garage or shows a garage and a storage area and it also has a bathroom
and you have two doors leading into the storage area. Now, I think it's sort of unusual, at least in my experience, where your your garage has its own bathroom. Uh it it sort of leads you in the
direction that the storage area and the garage area may end up being used for something else. And what you're going to have essentially is potentially two units in within this proposed structure
because the second floor also has its own bathroom, kitchen, living room and a bedroom. And the second floor has a separate entrance which leads up from outside the structure to the balcony that's been
talked about. Uh the question of a rental I think is is pretty hard to avoid. Uh this doesn't really set up much like uh your traditional single family
residence. So, um, you know, a six months limitation, that's basically you can rent from May to October, uh, be rented probably for for the for the entire summer. and
you don't know uh making a you know a minimum of six months doesn't necessarily cure the problem but what would happen if this does become a summer rental with say more than one family living there now I
understand that there's not a kitchen there's only one kitchen but the way rentals can go college kids and so forth they get by without a kitchen as long as they have a roof over their heads
So, uh there's there's been no shadowing here, no presentation of a shadowing in terms of how this uh new elevated structure at 9 ft higher than what's there now is going to impact on the
neighbor. And it Mr. Healey was here last time and he did explain how from the balcony is going to have a direct view right into his yard and that certainly would be detrimental to him.
So, it's one thing to make a statement that there'll be no uh that it won't be substantially detrimental, but there has to be proof. And the burden of proof for an for a special permit is on is on is on the applicant. And you got to get by with
more than just representations. Now, uh, with respect to the zoning aspect, what the applicant is trying to do is bootstrap some facts and put them together
for a uh to try to get uh across the goal line. This structure is not a nonconforming structure. It complies at this time with the dimensional requirements, the town zoning bylaw.
There's no violation of sideline, no violation of setback, no violation of yards. It sits there in perfect compliance. There's no nonconformity. And the fact that it's been there for more than 10 years, therefore
doesn't matter. It's it's not a structure which is entitled to the benefit of a quote nonconforming structure. And you can't make it a non-conforming structure
uh by trying to bring in a use. And and what is the use of this structure? It's a garage that is not a nonconforming use. That is that is it has never been
a a principal use such as a garage on this lot has never been a conforming use, a lawful use which was then rendered nonconforming. It's basically been non-compliant and and non-legal right from the get-go. There's no
conformity. there's no lawful nonconformity that attaches to it that gives it a leg up on this on this process um either as an and not as an accessory use
either because it's never been accessory to another structure on the same lot. So what you have is a lawfully conforming structure that's been put to a use which is unlawful for for many many years
that does not qualify as a nonconforming structure which can be extended or altered. Uh so that's that's one point I want to make that it is not a
non-conforming structure and the use is not a lawful non-conforming. What it is is a a structure that complies with everything uh but is is non-compliant with in terms
of dimensional. It's compliant with the town's bylaw, but its use is not and never has been lawful. Uh, if you want to build a single family residence today in the town of Felmouth,
the minimum area requirement is 7,500 square ft. You basically have to look at this this lot as if perhaps there's there's never been anything there other than the fact that the fact that the structure has been there is supports our
argument that it the potential use of it as a as a residential uh purpose has been abandoned. There was never any intent to use this as a residence. It was set aside by the owners years ago. This is going to be where our garage is.
And I think, you know, Kevin's done a masterful job trying to bootstrap this thing to a point where he can say, "Oh, it's a non-conforming structure and a non-conforming use, and we're going to make it now uh compliant. It
those those steps uh don't add up. Um and it would not be uh and it would be a detriment frankly based on the potential uh impact of a residence of this kind of
residence uh that that it would be a detrimental have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. You have to just keep in mind the the classic tradition of a non-conforming use is one that was
once lawful by law changes. The use which was once lawful is no longer allowed. But there's a pro there's protection there for what's already
what was once lawful and now is non-conforming. And there are certain rights that spin off from that including these these provisions which will allow the expansion or alteration of a non-conforming structure and also with
respect to use. So this this particular situation is unusual because most people don't go out and acquire property and just put up a garage but that's what was done here. uh you know the garage was up put up I think in 1957
and that's what it's been used for and the the uh it is the lot the the key here is the lot the size of the lot 30 3700 square
ft and rights can be lost I mean it may seem inequitable because there are so many other houses in the heights that are built on small lots and that's a fact. You can't deny it. But they didn't sleep on their rights. Those people went
ahead and built when they could. Uh and therefore they have what they have. Whoever owned this property way back when decided we're not going to build a house here. They could have, but they didn't. And that's the situation that
you're faced with today. And so from a legal point of view, both with respect to abandonment and the the fact that it's not a non-conforming structure and it's not a non-conforming use, um believe that the
the board should deny the permit. I I hear where the sentiment may or may not be going, but I think that would be uh not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw. Primary purchase
purpose of which is uh conform to the bylaw as written and avoid overcrowding uh and conform to to the requirements. Uh this one this one does not. Um,
just want to make sure. Can I ask you a question? I think he's done. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Tony, go ahead. Thank you. If if the applicant came to this board
and or to the building department, the building department is saying, "Look, it's it's not 5,000 ft, so you got to go to the board. You're going to get a special permit." Am I correct? Yes. And that's I I that's the first I was aware that the building inspector
had weighed in, but I noticed if and I haven't seen his letter, but if he's talking about 5,000 square ft. So, so if he I don't have here. If if the applicant walked in, if the applicant walked in the building department, theoretically
you wouldn't get a building permit, the building commission would say, "You got to go get a special permit." My So my question is if the applicant took the garage structure as is, didn't change any of the dimensions in the structure, but put a bedroom in a bathroom and a
kitchen. Could the applicant then do that? Not changing anything but make, you know, new siding, new insulation, things like that. Could the applicant then do that without changing, you know, height? Yeah. Um
I you know I hate to be one of those guys that says that's a good question. It is a good question but it it is a good good question. Now uh I think it's possible. Yeah. I don't want to wouldn't want to commit to that but the the structure wouldn't be
expanded uh and they would be going to a use which is conforming. the the only reason I hesitate is because for residential structures uh for
it's it's not it wouldn't be a new structure would be a new residence. So I think if if by being a new residence it it should be at least the building commission maybe 5,000. Well, that's that's the point I'm trying
to make is that the building inspector wouldn't give a by right u uh building permit. Building commissioner is saying got to have 5,000 ft before I can do that. In this town,
the minimum lot size is 7,500 square ft. So if in fact the applicant could build a residence in the existing structure without changing anything but making improvements even at that point the building
commissioner might not give a a a construction permit and it would still have to come to this board for a special permit. At that point, this board would have to consider simply whether it is substantially more detrimental to the community or what else would we
have to consider? Um maybe the the legal issue about whether you can put a a residence or or transform a structure from a garage into
uh convert it I guess is you know to to a residential use without having the minimum area requirement. There's no minimum area requirement for a freestanding garage that it can stay where it is. But, uh, I think when you
when you make that transition, uh, and you want to make it a house or a a residence, uh, you know, I I think you might have to you need more land to do that. It's it's a good law school question, too.
Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions for Attorney Kirk? Nothing. Nothing. You all set down here? You want to ask a question? I'd like to comment when
Oh, okay. Are you all You're all set? Yes. Thank you very much. Just need your name and address, please. Uh good evening uh members of the board. My name is Mark Harmson and I along with my sister own the property at four
Melrose Avenue uh directly uh south of um lot number eight. I feel like I'm in a scene from Groundhog Day given the the time and effort we've put into this, but I have a a deep and treasured love for Felmouth
Heights. Our family has owned our cottage, Snug Harbor, for 120 years. We have summerred at Felmouth Heights for 140 years since my great-grandparents
started renting a room in a rooming house in the circle in the 1880s. So, we have a a tremendous love and respect for the town, the neighborhood, the character of the town, but I also have a respect for the rule of law. And I think
the applicant here is using some incredible legal gymnastics to try and get around the rules that the town has set in their zoning. The town has set minimum lot size standards. This lot
does not meet those lot size standards. The board determined that in their hearing and decision in December. They said the lot was too small. They also said the lot was a the applicant was building a home which is a change of
use. That seems pretty obvious to me that a garage is not a home. It's being changed to a home. The board said and voted in December that they could not do that. And yet that is what they are
trying to do now. The lot is too small. It's a change of use and it is going to be a detriment to the other residents of Melrose Avenue. I live just directly south of the proposed applicant. My
neighbors who live at number three Melrose and number five Melrose, the three residents and of Butters who are most impacted by this are all here tonight and are all adamantly opposed to this application. And the reason why is
not only that they're seems like they're trying to get around the town zoning laws, but they're also going to build a resident that is going to have a detrimental impact on our livelihood and our enjoyment and our ability to enjoy
our property. Which is why I respect your questions because I know from the the home that was recently remodeled on Vernon Avenue that has a deck in the back of their home, which is exactly kitty corner with our backyard, we can
hear every time they have a party, we can hear every single word from their deck in our kitchen inside our home because the way the sound echoes around there. So, the fact that you were considering to build another home that
could be used as a party house is something that would be a tremendous detriment to us who live on Melrose Avenue. Now, they say they're not going to rent it. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But they also said when they bought the property, they were just going to use it for parking. They had no
intention of building a home. And yet, here they are building a home. So, what's to prevent them from running into a bunch of college kids, whether there's one bedroom or two, and having 20 kids come in with a cake of beer? I'm old enough to remember the 1970s in Felmouth
Heights. And it kind of made spring break in Florida look like a day in the park. And the last thing we want to do is to bring that back. Our neighborhood is so wonderful now. We've cleaned it
up. It's a wonderful place for families. It's a great place to enjoy the summer. Why in the world would we want to cause a loophole that's going to be used by others in zoning laws in the future to say that, oh, I've got a 3,000 foot
lot. I want to build a house. And that's one of the the arguments that Mr. Clower made that I really take exception to. He's comparing apples and oranges. Sure, lots of homes in the Heights are on 3,000 square foot lots or less, but they
were built in the 1900s or the 20s or the 50s or the 60s. They followed the zoning rules that are in effect at that time. And today, we live in 2025. The zoning rules the town of Felmouth has say that the lot has to be 40,000 square
feet, 7500, whatever it is, a lot bigger than 3,000 square feet. And so, um, it makes me wonder why we would want to create a loophole that other people might be able to use, um, in the future
to avoid the town zoning laws. The town wants to change the zoning laws. Go ahead and change the zoning laws. Let people build on 3,000 square foot lots. But until you do that, you should enforce the laws that we have and not allow people to uh usurp the current
laws that the town of Felmouth has. So, I would urge the board to do as you did in December to deny the application on the fact that the lot is too small. It's a substantial change of use and it would be a severe detriment to the residents
of Melrose Avenue and you're opening yourself up to having another party house. That's going to be something that's going to cause a great deal of loss of enjoyment for those of us who live on Melrose Avenue. The applicant does not live on Melrose. The applicant
lives two blocks away. So, um, they aren't going to be bothered by the noise. But would you want to be bothered by the noise? I wouldn't. And a car is not drinking beer at 2 in the morning yelling and screaming. It's sitting there quietly in the garage. So, I would
encourage you to deny this application as you did in December and um give the residents of Melrose Avenue, allow us to continue to enjoy the heights as we have for so many years. Thank you very much. Thank you. Tony, do you want to come up
and um weigh in? Anybody else? We'll do the rest of the public first. Okay, we'll do the public first. Sorry. Anybody else from the public want to come up? Come on up. We just need your name and address, please. Hi, I'm Aaron Kent. I live at 3 Melrose
Av. The only thing I wanted to add um in terms of what makes it detrimental um that hasn't been addressed and I'm actually surprised that it hasn't been given more thought is that there already is a pretty significant drainage problem for the people especially on Vernon
Avenue. I think especially at the I don't know what street number it is, but it's Brian at Mr. Healey's house. I know that they they're struggling with water that comes down into their home all the time. So I would like to see if I mean if you actually are thinking of going
forward with this I would want to see more scientific evidence that putting yet another residence with another septic system with another overflow um how is that that's not going to help Mr. Keely and I think having a chronic flooding problem is in incredibly
detrimental to someone's quality of life in their home. So great. Thank you. Anybody else from the public? Sorry. Go for it. Thank you. So, are there any questions or you just want me to give
some of my thoughts? Yeah. Thoughts? Thoughts? Thoughts. Okay. Um, well, I I hate to be the judge in between two lawyers that are doing a good job, but I would have to tend to agree with uh Mr. Clower's argument. I
think there's two things going on here. I think the the first part is I think this is a non-conforming structure. Uh despite complying with the setbacks and the lot coverage, uh, another thing you have to determine is, you know, the lot
size. So obviously you know you've heard that the lot is too small for the zoning district and since uh 2007 uh the SJC has determined that when a structure is on a lot that is too small it's non-conforming structure and you
know if you want to do something with it you need to come to the board and get a finding um whether it's more detrimental to the neighborhood or not. So, so it's pretty clear to me that this is a non-conforming structure and under uh 48
section 6 and the town zoning bylaw, you people are allowed to come here and request permits to alter or expand them. So, I think um they, you know, they properly made this application. And then the the second point is that it is a non-conforming use. Um, I I agree with
attorney Clower that, you know, you can't have a garage on its own um on a residential lot. It's supposed to be accessory to something, but that's not the case here. And turning this garage into a residential structure is removing the nonconformity. So, because
you're allowed to, of course, build houses um single family houses in this district. So, they're allowed to uh they're allowed to seek a permit for the for the structure and they don't need the permit to build uh
the house for the you the purpose of the use. They're only I think they only need the permit to be allowed to u you know build the structure. I think by right they can turn the garage into a house because they're making it more they're making it
conforming with the zoning district and you know if this was a lot that conformed with the zoning um and there was a garage on the property they wouldn't need a section six finding to turn the garage use into the house use. But here because the lot's too small
they need one to do the actual construction of the physical building. And now that they're removing the non-conforming use of the garage, um I mean, I think I I think they're on solid legal ground on those two issues. Now,
you know, part of the section six finding is that the board has to determine whether it's um more detrimental or not. Um I don't really have an opinion on that. That's for I think the board to consider uh based on the facts they presented and what you've heard from the um the abutters. But um
so that's you know that's the standard that you apply and you all discuss and see where you come out. But I think if you were to make a finding that it's not more detrimental to the neighborhood, I think you know you're on pretty solid ground if you were to choose to uh
approve this permit. So we're throwing use out the window. Well, we're not throwing use out the window. The the use is changing to a conforming use. Conforming use. Well, what use? Conforming conforming use.
Conforming use. Okay. Okay. Anybody have any questions? Thank you. I think we're good. Madam, I chairman, I've been out to this property a couple times. There was been a lot of discussion about flooding out
here. And one of the things that I saw is that that house at the corner of Melrose and Grand Avenue to the south has got a paved over backyard. Yeah. The whole thing is The whole thing is paved over and then there are drains coming out of the
retaining wall dumping all the water on the street. They've actually plugged them since then. I think I drove by the other day. I think they've actually plugged them. But the fact doesn't change that. That's probably 95% lot coverage there. And that never should have happened. It never should have happened. That's outrageous.
And also he's adding more drainage than uh and drywalls than required. And I mean, but he's adding septic and he's adding people are going to live there. He's adding septic, but they have two drains in front of the house.
They are addressing the drainage issue, but it doesn't necessarily created on this lot. It comes down. It comes from somewhere else. Yeah. And I mean we had a video of it at one of the hearings. Remember somebody Well, that was the that's the house below, but it does flow
through there. Showed us the town. That was number 10 when we had that. 10 mil. We Yeah. Number 10. Is it 10? Yeah. And u the town has since put in a couple of uh catch basins, but there's there's no
burm. And I believe he's agreed to incorporate a burm into it along with the two extra catch bases in the front. I mean, he's reduced the size of this property. I think the gentleman has bent over backwards. Um I I honestly I don't if
there's more to do, I bet you he'll do it, too. I just But that's a speculation. I don't We either condition it or we don't know what he's going to do. Well, he's already put more uh dry wells and drainage structures in there than
are necessary. I I I don't even know that. Um, they're in the prints. I mean, I'm looking at the prints right now. May I do this? Yeah, go for it. I I'm looking at this. It It looks like it's pretty standard. I don't see anything that's overboard considering
the slope of the land, the conditions that exist. So, I'm not sure that I can go along with that statement that he may do even more. Should he do more? I I don't know. This is all engineering. And um but if you think that or anybody thinks that there should be more
on this property, then we should condition it that way. The same way I'm hoping that you'll condition the the de the more uh the the two structures that the town put in. They don't function properly because there's
the lack of a burm. You want a condition that he puts a burm in. Initially he was against the burm, but he said last time he didn't. Well, but that madam chair that is a as far as the burm is concerned that's on town property. He can't just put a burm in. He put on his own property. I mean
that's where the problem is. So the the the the catch basins don't work. They flow over the top of the catch basin and they go onto his property. It would be in his own. So I I think I can address this because our our plan does show the paved apron with a burm to deflect storm water in addition
to two 100gallon dry wells which typically we do one 100-gallon dry well and they're showing two 100-gallon dry wells but the note on the front of the on the driveway apron does say paved apron with burm to deflect storm water and if you were to condition this per plan that would be a condition of the
decision. Okay thank you. So may I have a clarification on that? when you talk about two 100gallon drywalls, which is extremely small when it comes to water. Um, and that's from my own experience.
You're saying that would go on the applicant's property. We show that at the uh southeast and northeast corner of the property. They're on sand, too. It's Oh, I I'm sorry. I I thought you were talking about something new. I'm I'm sorry. No, on on the plans we do show
the two dry wells and burm and therefore capturing roof water. So the design for that what Mr. Finner's talking about uh is the water that comes off the street and flows into the property. So I thought you were proposing that there
would be uh an additional catch basin on the property. There's there's two catch basins right in front of the property. Yeah, I see that. And then the burm on driveway apron would prevent that from overflowing onto the lot as much as it has been. So the batteries are concerned about
flooding. We just heard Mr. Wait a minute. We just heard uh Mr. Duffy talk about another property that is has 95% coverage. It's paved and may I I think that means it's probably contributing to the flooding in the
back. I don't know that. So the real issue is how do we overcome the concern that we can deal with if we can only deal with this one. How do we overcome the concern for the abutters should this be approved uh with regard to flooding
because that that's the major issue. So Mr. Fener is saying well we haven't put a burm up to keep the water from flowing into the property. I don't know from an engineering's perspective if that works.
Well, see the two catch basins there now. Yes. All right. They don't function because there's no burm here. The water flows right over the catch basins to this gentleman's property. It goes too fast. And it also not only comes from that property that we're speaking of up here
where the two seals are. That's 95% lot coverage directly across the street. It runs down their driveway and it runs. So would you condition would you ask would you condition that there be some Burm on his property on the epic property? We're proposing it.
You are proposing it. It's shown right here. It's shown right here. Paved apron with Burm to deflect storm water. He's added that since his original. If you if you Mr. Puji, even up on the screen right here, I have the mouse right on it right here. I guess we got to be a little careful that we're going to put a burm up to
deflect it. We're not engineers. So, but but engineering has reviewed this plan. This is a plan that was reviewed by the engineering department. If you go up there when it's raining, you can watch the way the I've been there a dozen times. So, you can watch the way the water works.
If they do this, BM is going to do a tremendous amount. It's going to make the the two catch basins that the town installed um much more effective. The fact that he's putting in 200galon dry wells when one would do that means nothing from his
roof is ever going to have a a a net effect on the water problem. It's it's going to be the opposite. Um I mean I if I guess if water goes down to the abuters that they'll hire an attorney to come back or the uh homeowner the clouds
they can they can fight it out again, right? That's it. That's my the water is not generated on this lot. That's my not at all. And I mean it's the the the burm like I said if you go up there during when it's
pouring and I've been there numerous times. Um and that that's going to be hugely effective. The town put the catch basins in there for that. But I mean he's not generating any of this problem. Um, you know, it's the fact that it's on a hill and and the guy up the street who
got away with 95% lot coverage. Um, lies. I agree. Okay. The lies. Yeah. Anybody have any further questions for anyone? Are you guilty by associ Oh, you want to speak?
I just want to make a comment about that drawing. Can you come up? Sure. Come on up. We just need your name and address, please. No roads. Hopefully. Um, there are two drains. If you look at the wall halfway down the property on this drawing here.
Yes. So, not only is those 100 gallons taking the roof leaders, they're also taking those drains. So, if any water should enter the property before it goes down the wall and over to number nine, it's going to catch in those drains the way it's graded. So, not only do you have the two catch bases that were installed too high at the street, which
I can fix easy enough, but you also have I have two additional halfway down my property. I don't want the water, as much as you don't want the water coming down there, I don't want it either. So, that will be rectified either way. Right. Thank you. Did you mention what your background was also? I mention what
your background is. Construction. Thank you. Okay. Not in. Yeah. Thank you. Attorney Kurt, please. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask is it Mr. Riley? Yeah. I just did the chair ask Mr. Riley. He mentioned the SJC's uh a decision that dealt with non-conforming lots. Uh I if if I'm not mistaken, those
cases involved residential existing residential structures on lots which once upon a time uh conform to zoning. But there was a zoning there was a increase in the
minimum area requirement uh so that the lot on which these existing residential structures were located uh became undersized but lawfully nonconforming
and the the structure became nonconforming because of the lot size. But the two foundational points which are not present in this case and correct me if I'm wrong or maybe if I'm right you can affirm that those cases involved
residential structures on residential lots which were lawfully nonconforming. Go for it. Yeah, I think that's true. That's what that's what that is what those cases said. But I think the principle still stands that if you have a structure on a lot that's too small, still a
non-conforming structure. Otherwise, what else would it be? And you know, if you have a commercial building on a lot that's too small, then you can never do anything with it, you know, or you couldn't convert it to a residential structure if you were in a
zone that allowed residential structure. So I think the the very high level blanket rule is that you don't only look to setbacks and lot coverage and uh the percentages. You have to look at the lot to see if the lot complies. And if the lot doesn't comply with zoning and there's a structure on it, it's a
pre-existing non-conforming structure. Simple. Thank you. Anybody else have anything further? No. Anybody else from the public before we close? Anybody have anything further? Uh Attorney Clower, are you all set? I I
don't have much to add. Um I you know there was some talk about uh lawfully non-conforming versus pre you versus non. Um I I would say I would agree with attorney Kirk's position about that if we were trying to convert this to an alternative non-conforming use, but what
we're proposing is con converting this to a conforming use. So that talks about pre-existing lawful non-conforming uses being changed by special permit. In this case, we're changing it to a conforming use. I would also state that, you know, we went through this in circles um in in
December trying to date this uh garage and and you know, best estimates were early 1900s which predate zoning. So this would be a legal uh lawful non-conforming use because found with zoning didn't come into effect until 1927. Um so those are my only points.
Other than that, I think bootstrapping facts to put together to get across the goal line is going to be my new tagline. Uh because that's that's about the best job description I think anyone's ever done. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Too big to put on a bumper sticker. Almost. Figure out an acronym.
I'd make a motion to close. Second. We have a motion to close in a second. Everybody all set? All those in favor? I oppose? None. All right. Well, I'll uh make a motion to approve
of conditions. Second that. We have a motion to approve with conditions. We do findings. Do some findings. Yes, we shall. We're dealing with uh lot 8 Melrose Avenue in the Falmouth Heights section
of town. I note that this hearing is on a voluntary remand from the land court. The previous decision of this uh board uh has been appealed to the land court, but the matter is still pending up there, but this matter is back on remand for for us to reconsider
the case. Uh the owners of the property, Lawrence and Valerie Sullivan. The zoning district is RC. They've applied for a special permit under section 2410.2A 2A and 241.3A4 of the found zoning bylaw to raise and
reconstruct the existing garage and built and build a single family dwelling exceeding lot coverage by structure of 20%. The board can find that the existing structure which is a garage is a lawful non-conforming structure in that it is an accessory structure which
the board treats as an garage is an accessory structure and there is no principal structure on the lot. The lot also is a non-conforming lot. Uh there are no overlay districts involved. There are no flood zones involved. The existing garage is 497 square ft. The
proposed one-bedroom single family dwelling will be 756 square ft. Um there's one previous decision, decision 6224, which was a denial issued by this board I think in December of 2024.
The lot is 3 thou 3,711 square feet in a zoning district that today requires 40,000 square feet. The street frontage is 50 ft in a zoning district that today requires 100 ft of frontage. Melrose Avenue is a public
right of way at this particular location. The lot coverage by structure existing is 13.39%. The proposal is to increase it to 30, excuse me, to 20.37%. The bylaw limits it to 20%. With a
special permit, it can go to 25%. So, the they've asked for the special permit to exceed the lot coverage by structure. According to the worksheet submitted by the applicant, the average lot coverage by structure in this neighborhood is 30.51%.
Lot coverage by structure parking and paving is currently 16.41. 41%. Uh the in it will be increased to 25.41%. The zoning bylaw allows up to 40%. So it will be conforming. The existing uh accessory structure conforms to zoning
in terms of setbacks. The proposed single family dwelling will also conform to zoning setbacks. Um so there are no nonconformities as to setbacks. The height of the existing structure is 16 feet 4 in. The increase will be to 23
feet 11 in. Uh the zoning bylaw limits it to 35 so it complies with zoning. We have references from various town departments. The engineering department has suggested that there be a driveway permit uh is necessary and also to make
sure that there's no storm storm water runoff and that we appropriately condition it for that purpose. Also during construction appropriate erosion and sediment control methods must be employed. The board of health recites no issue. However, they say the septic
system must be limited to 330 gallons per day. Um, conservation has no concerns or no comment. The water department says a new service will be required and the water meter must be in the building. The building department has sent us a a
referral which Mr. Finan led saying that uh anything under 5,000 ft he now requires that the board consider a special permit. Um, and that's what we are doing. Um, we've had, according to my count anyway, six letters in
opposition to the project, one letter of concern, which wasn't necessarily opposition. We had three letters in support, and we had multiple people testifying, multip multiple people from the nest from the neighborhood testifying uh at the hearing.
Um the nonconformity as I said is the ex uh it's an accessory structure a garage which is treated as an accessory structure under bylaw. There's no principal structure on the lot. Um
now um we are able to make a finding under section 240 10.2A 2A uh which provides that pre-existing non-conforming structures may be extended, altered, or changed by special permits from the zoning board of appeals upon a finding that they shall not be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. Um and we so find uh also the um the proposed structure will lessen the nonconformity
um in that it will be a conforming uh structure. It will be a residence rather than a non-conforming garage. There are no new dimensional nonconformities. Uh there does not we have no testimony of impairment of views and vistas and
the uh proposed structure reasonably conforms to the average dimensions in the neighborhood under section 2401.3A 4 which allows for 20 an excess of 20% over 20% of lot coverage by structure by
structure maximum is 25%. We note that this the size and height of the structure is relative to the neighborhood average. Um we also have no particular evidence of a shadow on adjacent properties. And also I will note and we can find that the
proposed structure is only 9 ft higher than the existing structure and we typically do not require a a shadow study unless there's multiple stories involved. Uh again there's no no finding that views and vistas are impaired from public ways. Uh and we have no comment
from the uh board of health suggesting that there's a nitrogen impact on coastal and bayments. Uh as far as a special pro uh permit is concerned, we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use uh and suitable for the
proposed use. And we have evidence that there are at least 25 uh properties in the neighborhood uh on similar size lots. There's no impact on traffic flow and safety. There's no impact on tra on neighborhood visual characters, views, and vistas. There's
adequate sewage disposal, adequate utilities, and no negative impact on affordable housing in the town. Good job. A lot. Do you want to do conditions now? Take the conditions from the
few vote first or conditions? We do. I think we take conditions and then vote. Let's do conditions. So, they've mentioned that there be no rentals for less months, right? Um
and also the enclosure of the second floor deck that Mr. Kruchi has talked about. He can probably be more specific. Second floor deck um shall be enclosed with solid wall with the exterior matching um the exterior of the house to a height of not less than railing
height. Do we want to condition the fact that there are two entrances that someone brought up? There's a bathroom on the first floor, bathroom on the second floor. I hate to confuse this, but um how about if he has a privacy
fencing where nobody can see in, but he can see out. Oh, no. That's going to eliminate the whole Just we could apply to amend if need be. Pardon me. We could apply to amend if need be. Do we have to address the bedroom in the
cellar? that can be a bedroom in the cellar. Or do we address the fact that there are two entrances? Do we need any conditions? I don't think there's anything in this bylaw that says there can't be two entrances. For cheating purposes, I'm talking
we can't assume there's going to be cheating. I think per plan, Madam Chair, per plan covers that. Okay. and we'll just assume that they're never going to use that storage as a bedroom even though it's perfectly set up.
Well, there's been no evidence of it and um Okay. You can't assume people are going to be cheating. I mean, it's a rental property here we're talking. So, well, but can we stop them? I just The building commissioner is in charge of enforcement. If he finds people in there that don't belong there, he can chase them out.
All right. So, let's get back to regular conditions. Per plans. All boards. Uh any department requirements? Um they'll need police potentially. Yeah. Small road. Yeah. Yeah. Small road. Construction vehicles must be on site.
Yep. Uh dark sky compliant lighting. Um uh working hours, the regular working hours. Um guess we don't care about that. Um con
Okay. Any other conditions anyone can think of? No. No. Okay. All those in favor? Right. You guys all ready to vote? Yep. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Me.
41. Thank you very much. We appreciate all the time and effort that's gone into this and uh you hearing us out and appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you all for being patient with our little delay this morning. I mean this evening, too. Thank
you very much. All right, moving along. We're up to we'll do Winslow Road, Clemens. And I figure we can just take out the decision that she drafted for us and let go through it if that's okay with everybody. Frank can do the uh
you're going to make a motion to approve or uh with conditions the findings close for first we have to close right and I'll do the findings from her proposed decision. I'd like to like open up and just make sure the public first. Fine. Go ahead and do that. You know what I mean?
Just to make sure. I don't want to get snagged on that. So, all right. So, first we're doing um 85 Wslow Road Clemens. Yes. That's you. Hi, Doug Clemens, 85 Winsow Road.
Do you have anything further before we close the hearing? The only thing I'm going to add is that um per uh Mr. Fineran's suggestion, I made an application with the select board office for a grant of license for the uh public right away obstruction and
that is uh in the works and pending. So, thank you for that suggestion. Good. They give him out like okay with this case. No comment. I'm still waiting for my case. He's the next one. You're coming.
You guys all set with the applicant? Everybody's all set. Motion to close. Second. All those in favor? I. All right, Frank. Motion to approve. Motion to approve with conditions.
Second that. There you go. Motion to approve. We're moving right along now. There you go. We're moving. All right, let's do findings. Okay, we have uh property is 85 um Winslow Road in North Balmouth. The owner is Douglas C. Clemens.
I don't even think you have to read them all, do you? No, I'm not going to read them all. I just got I got Does anybody have any some pipeline? Oh, you have Okay, perfect. Do that. Um the property is in in a um RB zoning district.
Uh Mr. Clemens has applied for a special permit under section 2410.2A and 246.6B 6B plus 240 11.3A4 the Fment zoning bylaw to raise and reconstruct the detached garage exceeding lot coverage
by structure of 20%. Property is in an RB zoning district and it is in the Fiddler's Cove Coastal Pond Overlay District. The premises contains 16,000 uh 151 square ft of area in a single
family in RB zoning district. The minimum lot size is now 40,000 square feet. Uh the premises has 110 feet of frontage on Winslow Road. The zoning bylaw now requires 100 ft. So it conforms. Premises is located in the
Fiddler's Cove Coastal Pond overlay district. There's a private septic system. No private zoning appeals decisions on the premises. Premises is currently improved by a single family dwelling which will not is not the subject of this application. the detach
and a detached garage which is the subject of this application. Um the house on the lot conforms to zoning so there's no nonconformity there. The detached garage is 433 square ft and it is non-conforming in that it
sits 5.5 ft on the easterly sideline where 10 ft is required. The replacement garage uh will be uh 28 feet by 36 feet and be 1,008
square ft. So it'll be more than double in size. And the replacement garage will be cited 5.8 ft uh from the sideline on east. So it's a slight improvement over the existing non-conforming dimensions.
The um new garage will be 21 feet in height and is below the 22 foot height of the zoning bylaw which limits accessory structures to 22 feet in height. Uh the proposed garage will not have any water
service. A dry well is proposed to manage any new storm water runoff from the garage. The existing lot coverage by structure is 18.1%. This is on the whole lot now. it will increase to 21.7%.
The maximum is 20% and uh they may go to 25% by special permit. So we're going to vote on that. Lock coverage by structure parking and paving is currently 27.7%. It will increase to 31.2%. 40% is allowed by the zoning bylaw. So
it conforms. Engineering notes that the project must not direct storm water runoff onto any abuing properties. Um, it notes the existing D gravel driveway encroaches into into the um
encroach onto a budding property. Uh, but the driveway is proposed to be repaved and is going to be handled by the applicant. The retaining wall in a portion of the parking space is within the town's road layout and the applicant is going to
apply to the board of selectment for a license to maintain the same. Um there was no opposition letters noted in the file and there was nobody appearing uh at the public hearing.
That's it. So we're going to go on to then conditions. No, we're going to go further. Um, on section 240.2A, non-conforming structures shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing
non-conforming structure uh based upon the factors in section 2402.1E which is a special permit which I will get to later. But the reconstruction may be allowed as maintaining or lessening any nonconformity. In this particular
case, uh the nonconformity will be lessened. The uh property is being moved further away from the easterly lot line. So there are no new nonconformities. Um there's no ev evidence that any views or vistas will be impaired and the proposed
garage reasonably conforms to neighborhood average dimensions. Uh in fire under section 246.6B 6B under use tables in an RB district. And this is in an RB district. A special permit is necessary for a garage of more than
900 square ft. Uh the applicant has applied for a garage of 1,08 square ft. So he needs a special permit under section 246.6B. Um under section 2411.3A4 um any increase in lot coverage by
structure um up to 20 up to a maximum of 25% over 20% up to 25% rather needs a special permit. The findings are that the size and height of the proposed structure relate to neighborhood averages. Uh as to size and height there's no
evidence of affecting shadows on abuing property. There's no evidence of impairment of views and vistas and there's no evidence of impairment of coastal embeamments. In fact, the new garage will not have any water service. As far as a special permit goes under section 240 12.1E,
the special permit may be granted upon a determination that the proposed use will not have adverse effects that overbalance beneficial effects in in the neighborhood. Considering we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use, the site is suitable for the proposed use. There is no impact
negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There is adequate sewage disposal. There is adequate utilities and there's no negative impact on affordable housing in the town of Felma. Okay. Conditions you doing?
Yep. Per plans per per plot plan per garage plan. Uh applicant shall be comply with all uh departments engineering the soil erosion and sediment control standard conditions.
Applicant shall either remove the encroachments within the town rightaway which he stated he's tried or receable a license. Applicant shall ensure that no driveway or paving exceeds the lot line. Due to the lot coverage by structures exceeding the as of right limit per
bylaw. There shall be no further structures installed, including a shed, absent prior to the approval of the zoning board. The applicant shall submit a foundation plan for the garage to the building department prior to the issuance of a final signoff.
The height limit is is to 21 ft. Construction vehicles and materials will be located within the lot, not on the street. Um, construction hours 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. through 4 on Saturdays. No construction on
Sundays or holidays. Town observed holidays. This permit shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the town clerk that 20 days has lapsed. Uh, any deviation, no matter how minor, from the approval issued from this board shall be submitted to the
board for approval. Uh, special permit shall lapse within 3 years. Everybody all set on those? Everybody all set? And we'll take a vote. All those in favor? I oppose. None.
Great. You're all set. Enjoy your workshop. Thanks for your time. Do you want my copy of your plan? Do you want another one to hang around the house or something? It's good to keep one in the truck anyway. You never know. Totally going to recycle it.
All right, let's move along. Dulie, next we have Duly, 28 Boston. That's you, Attorney Plow. Do you have anything before we close? Uh, I do not. Uh, no changes since our last hearing. Um, I don't think there
was any homework for us from the board. Um board seems generally satisfied with the proposed plan. Happy to address any questions. Otherwise, ready to move on. Motion to close then. That's good job. Second.
Everyone's all set to close. Anybody from the public want to comment? We're all set to close. All those in favor? Opposed? None. All right, Frank, take it away. How about a motion to approve? Oh, motion to approve with conditions. I'll second that.
Well, you don't do that yet. Second it. Findings. All right. Findings. So, the property is located at 28 Boston Street in Eastbrook, Massachusetts. The owner is James R. and Kathy M. Douly.
Um, want me to do it? No. They've applied for a special permit under section 240.2A to raise and reconstruct the existing non-conforming single family dwelling and replace it. They're in an RC zoning district.
The um property again is in an RC zoning district. The minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet. This particular property is 4,800 square ft of area in a single family residence RC zoning district.
The premises has 60 ft of street frontage. Um, and 100 ft is required under the current zoning bylaw. Premises is located in the Little Pond Coastal Pond overlay district. It's also in a high wind high windbborne debris
district and a search and re search and rescue overlay district. It's also in a town nitrogen sensitive area and AE12 flood zone. The premises is on the town sewer. Um there was no there's no previous zoning board of appeals
decision for this property. The uh premises is cited 10.7 ft from Boston Street in a zoning district which currently requires a 25- ft setback from the street. So it is a non-conforming
structure. Dwelling is also cited 7 ft from the easterly sideline. So it's non-conforming in that respect. Um the reconstructed dwelling is proposed to be 14.5 ft from Boston Street. uh which is an improvement over
the current 10.7 feet and the uh sideline uh setback will be uh increased to 11 ft thus eliminating that nonconformity. The setback requirement is 10 ft for
sideline. The replacement dwelling is proposed to be 2 and 1/2 stories. Uh the height will be 33 feet 8 in in height. So, it will be within the 35 ft height limit of the zoning bylaw. The water department notes
that the service is currently a 3/4 in and recommends that it upgraded to a 1 in service with the meter to be located inside the building and not in a crawl space. The existing lot coverage by structure is 26.4% 4% which is above the
minimum of the zoning bylaw will be slightly decreased to 26.1% which remains above the um zoning bylaw. So we're going to have a special permit vote to take care of that issue. Um the lot coverage by structure is
non-conforming and will remain so. The according to a worksheet submitted by the applicant the average lot coverage by structure in this neighborhood is 22.4% 4% which is above the 20% minimum of the zoning bylaw. Um the existing lot coverage by structure parking and paving
is 32%. It will be increased to 39.9% which brings it very close to the 40% limit of the zoning bylaw but it does not exceed the zoning bylaw. engineering requests uh that there be an application for a driveway permit
uh and also that there be adequate erosion and and um sediment and erosion controls uh in place during construction. Conservation Commission has issued a negative request for determination of applicability.
Um there were two letters of support uh submitted um in behalf of this u application. There were no letters of opposition noted in the file and I don't believe there was any testimony from the
neighborhood uh at the hearing. Now the under I got it someplace. Almost the same speech. I know. Almost the same speech.
So many variations. I had so many of them. I tried to make some make some notes. Where's Cyprus? That's in the back. Well, I can You can probably read off the other one.
Oh, Cypress is Hispanic. Okay. Under under section 240 10.2A 2A of the zoning bylaw. Pre-existing non-conforming structure may be extended, altered, or changed by special permit from ZBA shall not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood um than the existing non-conforming structure. Um provided it maintains or lessens nonconformities. There's no new dimensional conformities that we have noted um and actually they're improved. Uh the struct the new
structure does not impair views and vistas and it reasonably conforms to average dimensions in the neighborhood. Uh under section 240 um 10 uh one um for the special permit we note
that the site is adequate for the proposed use. Site is suitable for the proposed use. There's the no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There's adequate sewage disposal as the property is on the municipal sewer, adequate utilities, and there's no
negative impact on affordable housing in the community. Can I bang out conditions for you? All right. Conditions. Um plans per plan peril floor plan. Um applicant shall comply with all town
boards. No storm storm or run runoff storm water runoff. talk much. The applicant shall post the address in compliance with 991 aff fixing the legible numbers. Uh that he must they they must follow
soil erosion and sediment control standard conditions. The applicant shall apply or gain approved driveway permit from engineering post any required bond and timely complete work as permitted with storm water mitigation. The applicant shall apply for any
connections or alter alterations to public utilities with the appropriate department. The applicant shall post the address. Uh engineering sign off is required for the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall upgrade the water service and locate the meter
inside the dwelling, not in a crawl space. The meter pit shall be removed. The applicant shall uh comply with applicable wastewater department requirements regarding the sewer system. The dwelling is limited to four bedrooms to include the office at is in
parenthesis to include the office as it qualifies as a title five bedroom under parenthesis. No non-bedroom space including the second floor loft and third floor bonus room shall be converted to a bedroom. Five, there shall be no further structure placed on
the lot including a shed given the lot coverage by structures um exceeding the maximum amount limit. Any further change to the structure shall require approval by the zoning board. The applicant shall provide the building department in the zoning board
of appeals a certified stamp um stamp by the surveyor attesting to the lock coverage by structure and by structure paving parking paving um does not exceed the limit of the special permit. The applicant shall provide the building department with an elevation certif
certification stamp by a surveyor. All construction vehicles and materials will be located within the lot and not on the street. The applicant shall contact the police department if a detail is necessary. The cost for this detail is on the applicant. Nine, the applicant
shall comply with all requirements of the con conservation commission. Construction hours 7 through 7 Monday through Friday, 8 to 4 on Saturdays. No construction on Sunday or town observed holidays. This permit will not take effect for 20 days for for an appeal.
Any deviation no matter how minor from this approval issued by this board shall be submitted to the board for approval prior prior to implementation of said change on this zoning per this permit shall lapse three years from now. Lapse that.
So we're all set to vote. Everybody all set? All those in favor? I opposed. None. Thank you all very much. Have a wonderful evening. Thank you. And next we have 33 Martin. I thought you had left. I was worried.
Glad you stayed. All right. No comment. No comment. My car is right there. I just All right. It's cold. My body's adjusted to the heat. I work outside. Oh, you Yeah.
All right. So, let's go. Mark, do you have anything further to say to us? Uh, you probably remember what I said. I'm just I'm No, we remember just we're going to close and once nothing additional. Yeah. Nothing new. No, everyone's been really nice. Concom
was really nice. You know, you probably don't know. I violated Concom. I had to plant $5,000 worth of plants. I There's even more to go. She let me to do that. Then there's going to be more plantings. That's not our business. I know.
I'm gonna have the most mitigated property in Wu when I'm done. God, my 25 foot setback was done for you guys. That's why I asked engineering to put that on there. Thought it would make the ZBA happy and it just happens to be where I want it. So,
happens to be the rule. Yeah. Motion to close. Second. We have a motion to close in a second. Everybody's all set. No. Go ahead. What would you like? I want to have a clarification uh with
regard to what the applicant is applying for. And I as I understand the applicant is applying for a variance. Am I correct? He's applying for a special permit for the building and a variance to allow um
there to be two dwellings on the lot during the construction period. as a as a have the conditions of a variance been met? That won't have until construction's I think the only the the glitch is a
variance is forever and this isn't going to temporary. So if this is approved it would be a temporary variance. It would be a temporary variance. Yes. But even a temporary variance requires that it meet the conditions of a variance. Are there any issues with that on this board right now? Well, he's got a very
strange uh topography and he's got a very steep slope um on this lot. So, it's different from every other lot in the particular neighborhood. I also been thinking about the same question and um I'm not sure that this gentleman
needs a variance, but um because I think he can get it another way, I'm willing to vote for one. But let me just explain. The bylaw says that there shall be one dwelling per lot. That's right. Okay. Now, but the definition of a
dwelling is a structure used for residential occupancy. So, he's only going to be using one structure for residential occupancy. Um, and he can't get a permit to occupy the second one until he's made arrangements with the building commission to take the
first one down. So, I think the building commissioner probably could have handled this administratively. Um, but because he can handle it administratively, if they feel more comfortable with us granting him a temporary variance, I'm willing to do it, but I not positive that it's necessary.
And I agree with you. Absolutely agree with it. I just want to get that on the record because I think he should go forward with this project uh and then condition it to that effect that how that temporary variance expires.
Mike can I want to say one more thing on the record. I see that this doing it this way can create litigation uh and problems for the town. And I just want to put this out there. If in fact
the applicant did not comply with this, then the town must litigate it. And then the town in the conditions we would put on this would even give us I think what they would give us is the ability to enforce
compliance via uh demolition. But I'm not sure the town has the right to demolish the existing house. Am I correct on that? Don't they have the right? The process is they in they instruct the
applicant to demolish the the illegal structure. Uh and if after a passage of time the applicant or the owner of the property does not comply with that um order the building department yes may go on the property and and demolish the
property and they can also beyond that they can lean the property for the cost of demolition um which we have done before. Is that what you're concerned and not give an occupancy permit in the conditions on number nine. Do you want me to read it? Um, I just want to
make sure that was a concern of mine. I think that's clarified now. I wanted it on the record. Could you read that, Madam Chair? Number nine, it says there should be no final number eight. There should be no final certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling until the old dwelling is
demolished. The old dwelling shall be de demolished within 3 months of the issuance of a temporary uh certificate of arriving for the new dwelling. Number nine, the variance is granted temporarily for the convenience of the applicant. Should the applicant
fail to timely demolish the old structure, the town shall have the authority to enforce compliance. The applicant shall be responsible for any legal costs associated with the town's enforcement of the removal of the old. That's right. That's a statute that they have the right to do that. So that's I think what you're
I'm comfortable. Thank you. It won't take three months. Okay. Do we have to vote on two different No, we've voted as as the You've made a motion to approve as according to the application,
right? Do we have to do one a separate one for the special permit and a separate one? No, because it's we're going to handle that. We're just going to do it once. Okay. We have you voted. It just wasn't. Chair. All right. So, we got to vote on the close first.
We're going to do findings. No, we're going to close. We already We did close. He He voted. Oh, you did not close. That's right. Are you all set? He didn't. We haven't voted yet. Motion and then the public probably just wants to go home. Not so voted to close. He's the next.
No, we're about to. You made the motion to close. You seconded. I will second it again. Sir, are you all set out there? He's the next application. Okay. So, we're all set to close, right? All those in favor? I opposed? None. All right, Frank. Now we can do findings. So we have a motion to approve
as um motion to approve with conditions. Approve with condition that she's let me off every time. I keep forgetting you. Okay. All right. So we have property at 33 Martin Road in Wquite. Lars Bergrren is the owner of the property and the
applicant for the special permit and the variance. The zoning district is AGA which stands for agricultural a district. They've applied for a special permit under section um 240.2A of the zoning bylaw and
variance under section 12.3A to raise and reconstruct the existing non-conforming single family dwelling and allow the existing single family dwelling to remain until the proposed single family dwelling is completed. The property is in a historic district. Um
it's also in the Walk White Bay coastal pond overlay district. I thought you might be with me. The minimum um the lot is 39,123 square ft in area and and the minimum lot size in the district is now 40,000
square feet. So the premises is close to zoning but nevertheless non-conforming. The premises has 20 227.4 feet of frontage on Martin Road. The minimum street frontage in this district is 100 ft. So the frontage is
conforming. The premises is located within the overlay districts which I just uh noted. It is also located in a flood zone X. Um and it is bounded in part by the Quashnet River. Uh it's also in an A10
flood zone for the southerntherly portion of the lot. There are no previous zoning board of appeals decisions on this property. The existing dwelling is cited 8.4 ft from Martin Road in a district where the minimum setback from the street is 25 ft. So
that's the u existing structure is non-conforming as to street setback. The remaining dimensions of the building are conforming to the zoning bylaw. The reconstructed dwelling
is proposed to be cited 21.9 ft from Martin Road. It remains non-conforming because the setback remains at 25 ft, but it will be substantially improved from the existing non-conforming situation. U the property is on a private septic
system. The board of health uh notes that a reserve area is shown on the plan for a possible IA septic system should be required as this is a nitrogen sensitive area. The existing dwelling comprises a single story. The replacement dwelling will be 25 ft in
height and is within the 35 ft height limit of the bylaw. water department recommends a survey to determine um the materials and size of the water line. If the line does not meet
standards, it will be required to be upgraded to a 1-in service. Um I presume that's going to be handled by the applicant. Lock coverage by structure is currently 7%. It will be increased to 10.8%. Lock coverage by structure up to 20% is
allowed by the bylaw. Lock coverage by structure parking and paving is currently 7.4% will be increased to 12.4% and it will remain below the 40% limit of the zoning bylaw. The planning board has endorsed an ANR plan that
stands for approval not required plan to merge the two existing lots that comprise the premises. The building commissioner, by the way, has issued a requirement that the ANR plan be recorded in the registry of deeds prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Um the historical commission has issued a demolition delay waiver for the for the uh existing u single family dwelling. Engineering requests that uh no storm water leave the leave the site and that the applicant apply for a
driveway permit. Conservation Commission has issued an order of condition uh for the property on September 24th, 2024 as the property disbounded in part by the Quashnet River. Um there was neither any support nor opposition submitted and
expressed uh expressed at the hearing and there were no letters uh in file. The application is unique in that the applicant requests a temporary variance to allow him to reside in the existing dwelling while the replacement dwelling
is under construction. Section um 2401.2A2 of the Fmouth zoning bylaw says that there shall be one dwelling per lot. Uh and for a period of time while the second building is being constructed, there will be arguably two dwellings,
although one only one will be occupied and used as a dwelling. Um the there are some unique circumstances to the topography of the lot. There's a slope of some 30 ft in elevation down to the Quashant River. Therefore, the board is able to make a
finding that owing to circumstances relating to topography of land or structure specifically specifically affecting the land but not generally affecting the zoning district in which the land is located. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning bylaw would invol would involve
substantial financial hardship uh to the applicant and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially deraggating from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. with respect to the
application for a special permit under section 12 um.2A mean 240 102A 240 10.2A 2A. Um, we note that the site is adequate. Uh,
we note that there will be uh the proposed structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure and that under section 12.2 240 12.1E of the code of found with the zoning bylaw which provides for a special permit, we
can make a finding that the site is adequate for the proposed use. The site is suitable for the proposed use. There will be no negative impact on traffic flows and safety. Um there is um adequate septic system. There's adequate
utilities and there's no effect on affordable housing. Nice. Conditions. Yes, please. Um uh plans per plan uh site and septic plan. We have a copy of that existing
floor plan to be followed. Proposed floor plan. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the engineering department and all other boards. Uh there shall be no storm water runoff from the premises and construction activity shall not cause erosion or
sedimentation to abuing properties. The applicant shall post the address in compliance with the town's regs. Construction shall not adversely affect the town drainage system or right away. The applicant shall comply with the requirements found in the to town soil
erosion and sediment control standard conditions. The applicant shall apply shall apply for an approved driveway permit from engineering post any required bond and timely complete the work as permitted. The applicant shall apply for any connections or
alternations alterations to public utilities within the appropriate department. Engineering sign off is required for the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall survey the water service and upgrade the service if required by the water department. The applicant shall locate the meter inside the
dwelling and not in a crawl space. If there is a meter pit, it should be removed. The applicant shall comply with the applicable board of health requirements regarding the septic system. You think we need to have a reserve area for an IIA in the conditions? I think
they didn't they put it in I don't know. Isn't that in the board of health referral? It's been pretty standard. Is it in the board of health? I'll I'll do let's word it this way. The applicant shall comply with the applicable board of health requirements
regarding the septic system and if required reserve area for an IIA. Okay. Does that sound okay? Yeah. Yeah. All right. The applicant shall comply with any requirements of the conservation commission including soil rosen and sediment controls. Sorry about
that. The applicant shall file an a shall file the ANR plan that was endorsed by the planning board with the registry of deeds prior to the issuance of a building permit. Number seven, all construction materials um vehicles and materials will be located within the lot and not on the street. The applicant
shall recont the police department if a detail is necessary. The cost for any detail will be at the applicant's expense. Martin Road shall be kept kept clean of any construction related material at the premises for the duration. Eight. There shall be no final
certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling until the old dwelling is demolished. The old dwelling shall be demolished within 3 months of the issuance of a a temporary COA. Uh substantial completion shall be for the new dwelling. Nine, the variance is
granted temporarily for the convenience of the applicant. Should the applicant fail to timely demolish the old structure, the town shall have the authority to enforce compliance, the applicant will be responsible for any legal costs associated with the town's enforcement of the removal of the old
dwelling. 10. The variance shall terminate upon the removal of the old dwelling unit, wherein the premises will premises will then be in compliance with the zoning bylaw. 11. The construction hours is 7:00 to 7:00 Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 on Saturdays.
No construction on Sunday or town holidays. 12. This permit shall not take in effect until the 20-day uh appeal period is lapsed. Any deviation, no matter how minor, from this approval issued by this board shall be submitted to the board for approval prior to in
implementation of said change. One more. This special permit shall lapse three years from the date from this decision. That wraps up. And the plan did, Madam Chair, did show a re um a reserve area of 10 show on the plan. Yes, it is.
Well, at least we covered that. Yep. Okay. So, I think we're all set. Everybody ready to vote? All those in favor? Opposed? None. Great. You're all set. Fabulous. Thank you. Thanks for all your help. Thank you. Good luck.
Very helpful. Yeah. Great. Thank you. I'm glad they uh Good luck. Good luck. All right. Well, moving on to 65 Cyprus. Do you have anything to add for us?
I really have nothing new to add from our meeting last time. Well, then I'll motion to close. I'll second. No, you go first. Did you get that? Second
to Tony. Tony did his first variance tonight. He's good. Yeah. Isn't that great? Very proud of you. Big night. All right. So, all those in favor of closing. I oppose. None. Motion to approve with conditions.
Thank you, Scott. You're welcome. I'll second it. Okay. The premises is 65 Cypress Street. Uh in some of the owners are Scott and Holden Lutz. Um they've applied for a special permit
um under section 240 10.2A to raise and reconstruct this the existing single family non-conforming dwelling properties in an RC zoning district. It's in the great pond coastal pond overlay district. It's also in the search and rescue overlay district.
Um Cypress Street is a public right of way. The lot is 4,800 square feet and a uh zoning district which currently requires 40,000 square ft. The premises has 60 ft of frontage
on Cypress Street in a zoning district where the current minimum is 100 ft. Uh the premises is on the town sewer. There's no previous zoning board of appeals decision on the premises. Uh the dwelling the existing dwelling is
cited 8.3 feet from the westerly sideline which is a non-conforming dimension. So the dwelling is non-conforming. Um the uh way there is a shed on the property which is proposed to be removed and not replaced.
The reconstructed dwelling is proposed to be cited 10 ft from Cypress Street which uh which will remain non-conforming but will be slightly improved. The dwelling will be cited 10.3 ft from the Wesley sideline eliminating that nonconformity.
Um, as noted, the property is on the town sewer, so up to four bedrooms may be allowed under the sewer bylaw. The existing dwelling consists uh is a single story is 12 ft in height. The proposed dwelling will be two stories
and 27 27 feet 10 and 516 of an inch in height. remaining within the 35 ft limit of the zoning bylaw. The water department notes that the current water service is a 3/4
in and recommends upgrading to a 1- in service and that the pit be removed and the meter lo be located in the dwelling. The existing lock coverage by structure is 25.71% and will be slightly decreased to 24.76%.
The um bylaw allows 20 with up to 25% by special permits. So the special permit is necessary. The lot coverage uh is non-conforming. The lock coverage by structure, parking and paving is 32.2% will be increased to 39.76%
just barely below the 40% limit of the zoning bylaw. Engineering requests uh that no storm water leave the property during um and that the applicant apply for a driveway permit. Also that erosion and sediment controls be applied during
construction. Conservation Commission issued no comment. There were no letters of support or letters in opposition submitted and no opposition was expressed at the hearing regarding the proposal. The average um lot coverage by
structure in the neighborhood we have determined is 23.7%. Also the uh building commissioner noted that uh because the lot coverage by structure uh wants a certification of lot coverage by
structure. It's in the conditions. It's in the conditions. Okay. And she did the 240 right here. So the um pre under section 240 10.2A of the zoning bylaw, pre-existing non-conforming structures may be
extended, altered, or changed by special permit from the zoning board of appeals, provided they shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. and we so determine there'll be uh lessening nonconformities. There's no new
dimensional nonconformities created. Uh the new structure does not impair or there's no evidence that they impair views and vistas and the new structure reasonably conforms to the average dimensions in the neighborhood. With respect to the U special permit under
section 242.1E, we determine that the site is adequate for the proposed use, that the site is suitable for the proposed use. There's no negative impact on traffic flows and safety. There's no negative impact on neighborhood views, characters, views, and vistas. There's adequate sewage
disposal as evidenced by the fact that the property is connected to the municipal sewer. There are adequate utilities and there's no negative impact on the affordable housing supply in the town of Farmer. Nice. the walls conditions.
Uh, all plans, there's a plot plan and front and back elevations. All all plans shall be followed. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the engineering department. There shall be no storm water runoff from the premises. Construction shall include installation
of the required construction entrance and erosion controls, drywalls to be installed. Uh, the applicant shall po post the address in compliance with section 991. Construction shall not adversely affect the town's drainage system a right away.
The applicant shall comply with the town's soil erosion and sediment control standards. The applicant shall apply for an approved driveway permit from engineering posting and required bond time and timely complete the work as permitted with storm water mitigation.
The applicant shall apply for connections or alterations to public utilities with the appropriate department. Engineering sign off is required for the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall upgrade the water service and locate the meter inside the the dwelling and not in a
crawl space. The meter pit shall be removed. The applicant shall comply with the applicable wastewater department requirements regarding the sewer system. The dwelling is limited to four bedrooms. No nonbed, no non-bedroom space shall be converted to a bedroom.
Five, the existing shed shall be removed and not replaced. There shall be no further structure placed on the lot, including a shed given the lot cover by structure approaching the maximum amount. The any further change to the structure on the lot shall require a further approval by the zoning board of
appeals. Six, the applicant shall provide the building department and zoning board a certified plan stamped by the surveyor attesting to the lock cover by structure and by the structure paving parking so it does not exceed the limit of the special permit.
Uh all construction vehicles and materials would be located within the lot not on the street. The applicant shall contact the police department if a detail is necessary. The cost for any detail will be at the applicant's expense. The applicant shall require
with all shall comply with all requirements of the wastewater division regarding the cut and cap of the existing sewer connection and the submission of a plan for sewer connection modification permit. Construction hours 7 to 7 Monday through Friday 8 to 4 on Saturdays. No
construction on Sunday or town observed holidays. This permit will not take effect until a copy of the decision after the town clerk has 20-day appeal period has lapsed. Uh, any deviation, no matter how minor, from the approval of this the
approval issued by this board shall be submitted to the board. Wait a minute. Any deviation, no matter how minor, from the approval issued by this board shall be submitted to the board for approval prior to implementation of said change. And this shall lapse 3 years from the
date of this approval. All right, everybody's all set. All those in favor? I I against none. You're all set. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry to make you wait all night.
Worth waiting for though. Yes. All right, let's move on to our uh everybody look at the minutes. Get out of here fast. Think you could wait more than just tonight. Can we do the minutes quick? Yes. Yeah.
I'll make a motion to approve June. Are you all set with approving the minutes? Yeah, you can do all three of them. Well, I I'll make a motion to approve June 6th, June 12th, June 26, all of 2025. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor?
I I Board discussion. Well, I guess they built it and they're going to dig it up and put it where it should be. I think we're okay with it, right? Board updates. I had one tonight. He's having a baby down there. Okay. Yes.
Yeah. Not me. You not Tony. Um, congratulations. I didn't know. Yeah. Uh, future agenda items. Our next meeting will be on July 24th at 6 p.m. What are we doing? Motion to adjurnn.
Second. All those in favor of adjourning. Bye.