[Music]
[Music] welcome to the zoning board of appeals please silence cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV any private party recording this hearing if so step up to the podium to
request permission i'll introduce the board and staff on our far right is Mark Finan a voting member and then Scott Peterson a voting member and to my right is Frank Duffy our clerk my name is Suzanne Murphy chair to my left is James Mos vice chair then we have Tony Patuchi
associate we have councel George uh I was going to say Haney because I'm reading George Pooie and then we have our administr zoning administrator Norine Stockman and Ashley DLA our office assistant the zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state zoning statutes as well as the
town zoning bylaws and reviewing and voting on every application 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 decision of the project prior to closing the hearing and reaching a decision
number one to begin each hearing the clerk will read the 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 time may extend time may be extended by vote of the
board three the board will then question the applicant and four the public will be invited to comment comment should be limited to two minutes and be strictly related to the proposal all members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair and should come to the podium state your name and
address for the record and please speak into the microphone it will not amplify your voice and record audio for FCTV viewers and we also have a moment now before we open up that um if anyone has a public comment something that's not on our agenda you're welcome to come up and
speak anybody for public comment okay so we just came out of executive session uh for 357 Sandwich Road 375 375 Sandwich Road thank you all and uh we
voted on a modification to a decision we had granted a uh comprehensive permit for the development of 300 residential units units at 375 Sandwich Road in July the developer then appealed and then agreed to meet mediation which started
in the fall of 2024 there were many months of meetings with the negotiating team our council George and the developer the appeal singled out the sidewalk nitrogen from the wastewater treatment plant and the use of town water
through the negotiations we were able to move the project up we reduced the risk of having 900 units and we have a sidewalk which the town projected to be a cost of 1.2 million saxon will also be required to use best practices to
discharge 3 milliliters on an annual average of nitrogen which matches the town saxon will also contribute a one-time payment of $750,000 to aid the town's nitrogen reduction efforts and then the developer
must go to D he already has started his process through D but they must finish up and that's what I have on that and that's what we just completed and the void voted voted unanimously in favor of the modification
okay anything else if you just wanted to add that that will then be filed with the housing appeals committee to Yes it will be filed with HA with housing appeals and that the modification that you uh voted tonight uh will be made public um as early as tomorrow morning
okay did everybody hear that it will be made public okay great so now we'll move on to our regular agenda and I'll say good night yes thank you very much George thanks George we have a continuation it's um 11 1924
Horn 57 Carriage Shop Road not a continuation a withdrawal uh requesting a special permit to allow boat storage and they have a request for withdrawal so I would entertain a motion on that madam Chairman I'll make a motion to allow hearing 119244 and 57 Carrot Shop
Road to withdraw without prejudice second we have a motion and a second to withdraw all those in favor i oppose none and then we move on to JJC Development for Sandwich Road which has already been
opened good evening good evening Madam Chairman for your record I'm Bob Ament this is a continued uh hearing with me is Tom Bunker uh right
here eric Escander who has been at the previous meetings was unable to be here tonight u he's from the applicant it's been quite a while since we uh met on this January uh 16 and we requested a
continuence along the way because uh frankly we weren't sure that the project could go forward uh for financial reasons because of the increasing cost of construction um and in the course of the um review of uh costs the conclusion was
that the project could go forward if it uh was affordable and uh subsidies that are available for affordable housing were made available and to that end we've had conversations with Kim Fish the town's housing coordinator and an
application has been prepared and uh will be uh submitted to the affordable housing fund uh so the proposal now is for all 10 of the uh apartments and they are rental apartments and would be
permanently restricted as such uh would be um affordable one at 80% of the um median income for the area area median income three at 100% of AMI and the rest
at 120% of of uh AMI so that's a significant uh change um the impact of a project on affordable housing is a criteria uh specifically mentioned uh for the board of appeals to consider in
uh considering a a special permit application and obviously uh now there will be a significant beneficial uh impact uh for the town with 10 additional units all of them um to be on
the SHI in addition since the last meeting um the planning board has issued about a month ago on March 7th its site plan review uh decision a favorable uh
decision um under all the criteria that the planning board uh looks at with regard to the um the site um and the plans that have been uh filed with you um and I have the full set available to put on the screen but I'm showing the
landscape uh plan in part because it's uh prettier than the others it's in color and shows the uh illumination from uh lighting uh but this was u all approved by the uh planning board under
site plan review um and there were a number of changes not all that significant perhaps in the uh uh totality of the project but um a number of changes on the plans which are
responsive to both concerns of the board of appeals that were raised and the um the planning board and they include uh that the um number of uh trees will be increased
um we're now showing 92 i'm going to discuss with you a proposal that could increase those um even a few more um and the play area shown on the plan
in the uh northwest corner of the property has been reduced in size and the fencing requested by Butters has been uh moved to be 15 ft within the property line uh leaving a a significant
area that can be um um where vegetation will be saved new trees can be planted and more vegetation um is possible um the parking arrangement has been improved as you can see on the plan here we now have angled parking and a
one-way traffic flow so that cars leaving this parking would simply go around uh this island and go out we've eliminated two parking spaces which were over here which there was concern that they might interfere with the uh
entrance to the to the site those have been eliminated um the existing aisle um between the building below for this plan and and this island is wide enough so
that we're able to put three parallel spaces there if we need so there still are 39 parking spaces even with two parking spaces per uh apartment there are 38 spaces required we we have 30 uh 39 and that we
think that the parking is uh very uh generous the engineering department of the town is pretty firm about their request that the granite curbing in Sandwich Road be extended all the way to the northerly
property line and so our plans now show that the granite curbing will be extended all the way to the property line uh the a walkway leading from the apartments will lead to the street and
then access to a uh a ramp with the typical handicap uh tactile pad and the same on the other side the sidewalk will be extended um from the south the distance up all the way up to the uh to
the curb cut so those are pretty much the changes that um are shown on on the plan um every development obviously uh involves the removal of uh trees in
most cases sometimes the site's already cleared uh but every new house in town every new driveway and street in town involves the re almost involves the removal of vegetation and
um it's noteworthy I think that the criteria for special permits that's in the zoning bylot does not specifically reference uh an criteria of uh saving trees or addressing wildlife concerns
that's not to say obviously those things are important but the zoning bylaw controls development um through such ways as lot coverage requirements and in a business zone and by the way this property has been
reszoned was reszoned i believe it was 1979 i have the 1979 zoning map with me it it was business owned property back then for more than 45 years this property has been zoned uh for business
and in a business district um imperous surface that is paving parking and structures is allowed in the zoning bylaw to be 70% and the coverage by structures
themselves is allowed to be 40% in our case we're nowhere near 70% the coverage is 48.14% and the structures which is allowed to be 40% is only
13.25% so this isn't dense development in the business district um and yes trees will be removed and yes there will be temporary and perhaps permanent impacts on wildlife but we're
going to put in 92 new trees which will grow and become more and more important and we have room to put in um a lot more vegetation of shrubs and and the like and in some areas they will grow
themselves i think it was the planning board we've had number of hearings it's hard to remember which the planning board or the board of appeals but I think the planning board proposed and we suggested that we have a play area and that's why the plan chose the play
area um there probably will be some children who live there that's speculative but we proposed a play area and then we reduced the size to increase the buffer from residential uh
neighbors we can eliminate that play area subject to the planning board agreeing because they've issued a site plan review decision that shows that but I really leave it to the board um to decide whether you want us to
eliminate that and just leave as more of the woods or reveate more of that area because some of it is where there'll be underground uh drainage structures um but that's a choice that can be can
be made um reserve more of that area as woods or or have the play area and if the board thinks despite the low lot coverage that we have that we should
have um more trees and less play area then I would suggest you make that a condition but make it subject to approval by the planning board under site plan review and we will then ask
for it if that's the that's um your preference there is open fields play areas sports fields behind the administration building the school administration building just across the street there are lots of reasons why a play area
might be nice here but I leave it to you to decide in your opinion what's most um important so the most important message we've given you is that this is an affordable housing project now um even though it's
under 4A it's under u the density is only five units per acre six is what's allowed in the business district um and we've made the changes I've described to I think make this a very good project i'd be delighted to answer your
questions mark you want to start off yeah um my opinion and you can look at that and and determine yourself that this is just too
congested um you know six units an acre is kind of a uh standard you uh if you take the the portion of that lot where
these 10 units are constructed and I use the uh GIS uh polygram uh feature and I size that off and what you have there is
about 31,228 ft which is exactly 3/4 of an acre um and you put are proposing to put 10 units there
[Music] um that works out to 12.5 units per acre per acre in a highly congested uh area busy commercial use i know these standards are very loose because the
same amount of land um could be a mom pop quarter store or whatever uh this is a highly used as I said parcel um at uh six units an acre times 75
acres you're um you come up with 4.5 units per acre um I uh I find this to be just too congested um I mean not that the planning board has anything to do with us but you just
barely squeeze through there with a three 3 to2 vote um you also have uh the land out front which is basically the front lawn and I use the same uh polygon feature on the GIS to size that up and I
went straight across the front of the parking lot i didn't go around the side or include any of that but but that uses up 29 acres of what's this a 2.1 acre lot i'm sorry I forgot two acres two acres um there's
just in my mind you're um you're trying to put 10 pounds of potato in a 5 lb potatoes in a 5B bag um I think it's just too congested and too many units and when you consider there
are going to be children there playing now I brought up the fact that I've seen the traffic from Dunkin Donuts out into Sandwich Road and also I brought up the fact that you absolutely needed a curb there which engineering
agreed with um and you came back with an affid affidavit from Kelly Harris that she's supposedly reviewed all the films from December to April and and saw none of that but all that tells me is that uh this business is slow during the slow
season it does nothing to address the concerns um I have with the traffic and the congestion um uh the bottom line is you're looking for 12.5 units an acre um if you do the
real math and that's just too much for me um I mean it's there if you got 10 units on 3/4 of an acre that's equal to 12 units on a full acre and it's it's with
the with the business the congestion and the traffic it's just it's too much for me do you want to address well thank you Madam Chairman uh well first of all it isn't 3/4 of an acre it's 2 acres and the zoning bylaw
says for mixed use it says commercial use plus residential use up to six units per acre that's what the zoning bylaw says if you talk about congestion I'll go back and say it's 48% lot coverage when
70% lot coverage um is allowed the front yard is wonderful open space and very attractive why you wouldn't include that in the lot coverage calculation I don't know
as I've told you before the mixed residential commercial overlay district extends right up to the property line so if it was on the other side of that
line the density would be 20 units per 40,000 square feet or about 21 something per acre yes it's not in that district but is it too dense for the
neighborhood here instead of right next to it here so I mean I understand your position i disagree with it of course and I think that your position is not
consistent with the zoning bylaw or the need for housing in town affordable and otherwise for rental housing in the business district and this is a good location and while you have said and said at the
last hearing implying recent visits to the store that traffic was backed up to Sandwich Road we didn't know then now we do know there's actually a security camera that
proves that the traffic hasn't even backed up in that queue to where the proposed parking is far away from the street the operator of the Dunkin Donuts disagrees that even in the summer that
the traffic backs up that the queue backs up to the street what we do think happens and we've said so is that traffic backs up from the intersection that's at Ticket
Highway and Sandwich Road and that may interfere with access to the property but that's a problem that is not exacerbated in any measurable amount by the proposal for housing and at the
end of the day the benefits from creating this housing far exceed the speculative concerns that there could be adverse impacts thanks scott can I respond you want go ahead
um it's not a by right i mean you're still required to come to the zoning board of appeals here we are the reality is that the housing is put on 3/4 of an acre of that parcel it's a very busy
parking lot um the land out front is not is open space fine i mean it's a lot but it's still it still makes it all that much more congested and when the and this is the decision of the bon zoning board of
appeals and when the rubber hits the road you're putting 12.5 units on 3/4 of an acre and I personally find it to be too congested with the business that goes on in
that property if I could add one thing to that you know we could have built a single building theoretically a single building with 10 units in it and then you'd probably be saying you're building 10 units on a
tenth of an acre or whatever area was that's not the way we measure development and impacts and how much lot is being used and every lot every lot that has development is there's a certain amount that's covered by structures a certain
amount that's covered by paving and parking that's what the zoning bylaw addresses we're well below those figures in the bylaw it is not a dense development and again the fact that the town allows by
right 20some units immediately next door is an indication that this is not an excessively dense uh development can you put that picture back up sure if I I can try not sure what's
happened there i think it speaks for itself with a busy business do you want to look at the whole uh site or just a portion of it that shows the that's as again as I said that's where the rubber hits the road
and well obviously we will disagree about that that's all right scott what do you have for questions it's it's unfortunate to your point we have a twoacre site yet the housing itself is what 10 or 12 feet from that that back
lot line that's the unfortunate part you wish that the the utilization could have been a little bit more uniform i don't know that did you ever discuss having the play area out front i guess you would risk cars going by on Sandwich
Road but trying to give the abutters a little bit more protection and I you you kind of offered that up when we when you first came to the podium my guess is we could do that i I'm not sure if we haven't thought about that yeah i I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do with children and get them closer to
Sandwich Road but well in in buildings four and five I think you're only 10 or 12 feet off that lot line could you kind of elaborate you also offered up the potential for additional screenings for some additional plantings i know that
that you're already at 92 is there any way that you could get some more plantings along that back property line because the properties are getting pretty close yeah well first of all let me point out a couple of things and I appreciate your comments the zoning
setback is 10 ft agreed and although we have structure there uh be actually we don't we have patio that's shown correct the buildings themselves which can be 10 ft from the property line are farther from the line i could also point out
that that abudding property is businessowned um and perhaps someday will be used for a business use and somebody will want to take advantage of the same setbacks that are allowed
uh in the zoning bylaw there are a row of existing I think there are bravity there we can um we can try to have more plantings but we don't have a lot of room for it there
is room on the abuing property for more screening if somebody wanted these buildings are very residential in in nature they are relatively small they're not mansions
um they are not two and a half stories this this you know people have to take into account that zoning property rights allows people to
build on their property next to theirs and we think we've done a good job in the design we can we put more plants in yes i'm sure we can find more room we're already putting in 92 trees remember there are 72 trees being removed and yes
those are the larger trees but these trees will grow up and some of the trees that are being removed that count towards those 72 are probably towards the end of their life i'm not an arborist and we haven't But that's I'm sure that's the case so
we're we're we're going to put a lot of trees back no that's I think we heard that that was some of the abut's concern that just like anything they're used to having that open space that's being taken away so again what I'd like for the applicant and you to think through
is is there a way to get some additional screening and that that's just my point yeah let me just if I can I'd like to just point out that um let me just show something that's not the one I
wanted but this is so here's the neighborhood here's the lot in question and this is this wooded area that's really quite wooded now notice this dark area these are trees that were planted and
they've become a substantial barrier um they were planted in connection with the conversion of the former bank into the into the Dunkin Donuts we're really proposing an awful lot of plantings along here which are going to have the same impact as those in not too many
years but I also want you to notice how much the abbutters who are concerned about the removal of trees on our business owned property have removed the trees on their property these areas show the
open land all the way to the property line we are providing a significant buffer we've moved fencing which should be allowed to be should be can be allowed to be on a property line and moved it in
15 ft we can we can do more but there's no I I appreciate the thought and I point out that we we've that all of the costs involved in the project including the costs of landscaping including the cost
of the of the road but mainly the cost of construction of course and materials today have made this project unaffordable to create housing even on land you already own can't be done without a subsidy and so we're going to
provide affordable housing which we need we do need it thank you yep i have no further questions frank do you have any questions uh yes uh just a comment as a as a clerk i'd just like to let everybody know that since the last
hearing we did receive another letter from Cynthia Rose and she has concerns about wildlife and and trees on the property and if she's here she can explain her details but um what is the breakdown of the units
now there are 10 units in five buildings how many two bedrooms how many onebs they're all two-bedroom units Mr duffy originally you applied for a couple of onebedrooms right yes we applied for 11 units right um Okay and two bedrooms
they were not they were not all there were a total of I believe 20 bedrooms in the 11 units um and now it's they're all duplexes i'm sorry they're all two-bedroom two bedrooms in five buildings that's
correct okay um you know I've heard the comments of uh some other members here about the density um and this is a mixeduse development where commercial and residential is allowed on the same lot and looking at the bylaw I think that uh
while you can you're going to experience a greater density and mixed use than in a single residence district I think you have to look at the whole lot to determine the density which includes the two acres um
The play area though I I to me it just doesn't look like it's a significant play area um it's very small it's actually almost smaller than a house um it I think you might personally
be better off just converting it to screening uh I I I don't think it's going to be very useful as a play area very small up there on the corner well we have no
objection to that um and the expense of the greater fencing and so on and any playyard equipment can be put into um more shrubs um I approve of play areas i like them generally but this one just
doesn't look like it's going to amount to anything so that's that's my comment well we don't have an objection to that we do uh don't want to be caught between the planning board and the board of appeals on the issue i think that the planning board will probably go along
with the elimination of that even though it was their idea okay what were the two votes that it was 3-2 vote in planning what were the two people that voted against what were their issues was it the play area one of the issues
um I will tell you that I've been told by somebody who we would all trust who talked to one of the people who voted that uh there was a vote against it um in part because the person thought
that the project would be approved even without um his or her vote and um was concerned about other projects in town um and his and his or her position
on those so um I don't think that person had a real concern about the project itself and I don't know the reason for Mr lir's um uh vote um against the project okay and my
other question is you did no traffic study for this project the the one we have is 2016 for the Dunks that's right we had a discussion um with the town planner and
the town planner agreed that it wasn't necessary for us to get a traffic study because the number of traffic trips under the IT and it's consistent with the uh operators figures uh was in the
250 trips per peak hour of course that's in and out so 125 customers and the number of trips from uh 10 apartments is under the IT would be 4.6 six trips and
that's both in and out although in the morning they would be mostly out and the opinion of the town uh planner was that to that to do a traffic study to determine the impacts of these apartments
was unnecessary given that the primary traffic onto this site is existing and already approved now a traffic study would cost in the
neighborhood the traffic study would analyze you know how many trips um are in Sandwich Road and what the turning movements are and so on that would cost around $10,000 and my experience with this board is
that if we got a traffic study even if it said there would be no significant impacts as a result of adding a number of apartments if you're if you think that there's too much traffic it won't make any difference to
you so no we did not get a traffic study for adding 4.6 6 trips per hour in the peak hour in or out of the site my concern is that we've approved so this area is
getting itself slammed with development we've approved 300 not too far down the street 40 not too far down the street none of those calcs are included in any of this so there's going to be a hell of a lot more traffic on Sandwich Road but the but the adding these 10
apartments won't make any measurable dis difference maybe it's measurable but any significant the commercial part of your project it definitely will definitely I'm not sure what uh you're saying in terms of are you talking about impacts
on the area roadways including Sandwich Road i'm I'm saying that the 300 units and the 40 units and all the 40bs and all the development that's on Sandwich Road a lot of them might go to Dunkin Donuts and we have no calculations on
that at all well the Dunkin Donuts is approved the Dunkin Donuts exists but you're using the same driveway as Dunys your people are parking in the same driveway as Dunks that I just think you could probably
even do the calcs without hiring someone you know just like a rough calc you know that's all i just think it's going to be a lot of traffic that's all jim so my initial concerns have been addressed u initially through the site plan review
of the planning board with curbing along San Road reconfiguration of the traffic flow angle parking um I share Mr duffy's concerns i you have a rather large ball field across the street and a rather unsubstantial play area i would rather
see just additional screening for the neighbors if this is approved um I think most of my concerns actually been addressed through site plan review so thank you Tony i guess just a couple questions um you have um a lighting a
landscape plan and I think you had it up there earlier and it shows the lighting for the front going into the parking lot but I'm not sure it shows because there'll be a concern about light trespass in the back even though I know that's a business zone in the back but
the the houses in the um AG what is it the uh AGA district to the left um what are you doing this will all be docy compliant lighting yes and the and and the only lighting behind the units
would be a a light uh next to the door as in any residential um and I appreciate that i just wanted to confirm it'll be Doc Sky compliant and and that because it is even though
it complies with the zoning setback uh I I think it exceeds the zoning setback because you get patios that are really close to the uh setback the houses are much further back but I just want to confirm that uh one of the things about parking u
um you're required to have 20 parking spaces dedicated to this project under the bylaw um will you be uh reserving and assigning those parking spaces so that customers to the doctor won't be
parking in there yes I think so uh the um you know I I nobody wants to have more signs around a property than necessary um the residential spaces would logically be the spaces
closest to their uh these residences they also happen to be the farthest away from the uh the Dunkin Donuts and the operator thinks that there's plenty of um parking for the um restaurant and we
think that there's plenty of parking for the residences at two per unit remember right next door in the mixed residential commercial overlay district development will be allowed with only one space by right by the way with one space per uh
partner area and the peak hours are different um for the use of the spaces between residential and um and the commercial on this site at least I think that's the case a traffic
engineer the reason I'm asking the question maybe is is not maybe the reason I am asking the question is because you're required to have them and you can't lose them to some other use and I understand what you just uh outlined that the owner does not think they'll be used but I would uh because
you are required to have the 20 you cannot lose them to others and you can't have the homeowners parking on the other side of the Dunkin Donuts drive-thru so my only suggestion is no more signs yeah no more signs but maybe something on the
pavement that says reserve for unit one yeah I think that makes perfect sense i think that uh that the developer can figure the landlord if you will who's running can figure that out but um if the board thought that it should
require that the residential spaces and I would suggest if that's what you did decide that designating at least one space per unit as dedicated to a particular unit and then that would be in violation of the code it would not be in violation we are providing the
required parking throughout the entire property yes and the zoning bylaw specifically refers to shared parking and allows parking reductions in situation like this we haven't asked for that we're providing more 39 spaces when
only 38 are required i'm not I'm not disputing i'm not arguing with you but there would be no reason to request a reduction because you have the spaces all I'm saying is that you need 20 spaces you certainly have the space for all of them plus the Dunkin Donuts 18
for the Dunkin Donuts 20 for the houses just that it might make a lot of sense to this board uh that at least they'd be reserved on the pavement not signs for those units and they don't go to customers and I get it i I think we
could do that because we're confident that even with two spaces per unit we have plenty of spaces for the Dunkin Donuts i believe you're right on that absolutely believe that thanks and with regard to uh landscaping I think that's been brought up um my concern about the
play area um this is a uh very very busy area i'm worried about children uh having a place to be there i think that you can my opinion is you can still have just a play area it doesn't have to
have swings it has to be a place where children can congregate as far away from uh Sandwich Road as possible but I can see plenty of places where you could add u 1 2 3 4 5 6 You could add 10
12 U additional um trees not our provides our provides too thin but trees but I think you can do both i don't care if the parking at the play area is there as this board member but I'd like to see the screening for the folks uh on
Trotting Pond Road and in the back there even though that's a uh businessowned area so as far as landscaping is concerned I would certainly hope this board requests just a little bit more in that corner area may I May I go on Madam
Chair yep all right um I just want you to confirm for me we work with very little plans i need a magnifying glass actually to see them uh will you just confirm for me when you're up against the AGA uh zone on Trotting Point Road you have to maintain
a 25 uh foot distance from a U from that zone is that is that the case is the can the engineer okay so that's confirmed um can you just remind this board that
uh how you've complied with 247.2B uh paragraph B in the coast overlay district regarding the reduction of nitrogen in that area and I think you're doing it with uh IIA systems nit nitro so that is a that's still in the plan
sure okay i'll do the best I can well just that if you confirm that that is is being done that you are not you are complying with 7.2B well as has been pointed out at the previous hearing the
uh nitrogen uh loading uh per um acre is going down the total amount of nitrogen is a bit more because there's so much more development um but we are putting in a
denitrification system the most expensive and the best and we're going to connect the Dunkin Donut store to it to do the best that we can
i've discussed the nitrogen loading situation with the town planner and I pointed out that when the zoning bylaw recontification was done a couple of years ago significant portions of the coastal
zone overlay district bylaw were omitted in error including the section what was 240 which talks about strategies to be required if you're in the high quality
areas that is where the goal is to maximize protection of the water body in this case a great pond we are not in what was the high quality area because of our distance from the pond but
nonetheless what the bylaw said and it was not changed was not intended to be changed by town meeting because no substantive changes were intended it said that in that when you're in a high quality area remember we're not in a high quality area but even if we were in
a high quality area um one should reduce the number of units that can be required and we've done that from 6 to 5 it also says that the application may be required to install a septic system uh certified for denitification but perhaps most
important it says the reviewing board may limit any project in the coastal pond overlay district to wastewater discharge total systems operated and maintained by a licensed wastewater um operator and the standard is 12 um
milligrams per liter or less and that's the standard i think I said square uh acre but it's per liter and we're now at uh 5.04 um if I have recall that correctly
compared to 12 so we've complied in our opinion we're by doing denitrification and keep in mind that most of the recharge area for great pond is to be sewered um shame on me but I don't know
that town meeting passed that but I assume that they did they did it's going to be sewarded um I I think that I I understand what you're saying i just wanted to make sure that you that you were telling this that you're complying with that
um section we We can't do better the sewer comes right up to our property and we can't connect to it we have learned so much about nitrogen uh in these past several months so I madam chair one last question one last one um you are one of
the preeminent uh land use attorneys in this uh town so I want to ask you your opinion about section 24012.1F sub paragraph 1 on page 129 if you have the zoning book there and that has to do with guarantee
uh performance bonds sure where you have 20 or more parking spaces uh the the bylaw says the board the the special permitting board shall require this that you put up a
performance bond uh I have a little bit of a debate going on uh right now about this uh but 24012.1F says the SBGA special permitting grading shall require that
construction site alteration permitted so be secured by it goes on just because you do this all the time what is your opinion of that because it cost your money thank you we do we practice land
use law all the time too much of the time I would say um but that doesn't mean that every day we address every issue that that can't come up and when you raised this issue in January I told you I would want
to check and of course I did and as you have said the bylaw requires a per uh performance guarantee um for a project involving 20 or more parking spaces and if a performance guarantee is
required there are two choices one is to post some money or post a bond and the other one is to execute a covenant and record it at the registry of deeds and all the covenant says is that construction will be completed before
the buildings may be eligible for an occupancy permit we don't have much of a problem in complying with a requirement that there be a covenant question does this case require 20
parking spaces 20 new parking spaces we're eliminating eight seats from the Dunkin Donuts and therefore reducing the required parking by eight we're only increasing the required parking by
12 i don't think the bylaw tells us clearly uh the answer to that i also think that it just doesn't matter to the town we can't get an occupancy permit for a building we can't get a building
permit till the zoning administrator signs off that we've done everything we need to do from preconstruction and we can't get an occupancy permit until the Hope that's not me if it is tell them I'm busy
um we can't get an occupancy permit uh until the zoning administrator signs off a covenant does nothing more to protect the town and we of course have to have recorded the special permit a covenant between the recording
fees for putting it on record perhaps recording a partial release somewhere along the line recording a final release the attorney's fees involved in drafting it in drafting the release of it drafting the partial release dealing with the
town covenant's going to cost $1,500 $2,000 maybe more to provide this we can do it we can do it just record a document says we can't have an occupancy
but I think that this is a case where it's not clear the board doesn't need to do it and I would ask that you not require it that's all one last thing I'll just say thank you for I appreciate the words
shall require there's no Hey guys think about it for a little bit it says shall yeah if it's if we're adding 20 parking spaces and you are no we're not oh we're adding 12 i just needed enough to be able to have a discussion with the board i appreciate that thank you very much no
I appreciate it thank you any other further questions up here before we go to the public awesome i have a quick one will you show me the handicap spots will you show me the handicap spots um I don't have my magnified yes I can
see the handicap spot right there do you see it can you see it i'm right on it it's just not marked on my plan yeah and then of course there's handicap spots in front of the uh So only one I think that meets their requirement there's one in by the
Dunkin Donuts yes there's one at the residences and there's only one for all the apartments yes that meets the the state's requirements and that's all I had thank you everybody else is all set up here we'll go to the public anybody from the public want to comment on
this much your time come on up you have two minutes to speak name and address please good evening kathleen Crowley Braa 63 Deepwood Drive i'm more surprised to be here this evening than what you are cuz I didn't know about something else that
was taking place earlier this evening that I'm not going to speak of specifically um but I got lots of phone calls better get down to town hall find out what's going on and I just want to say this as a public comment i love the
town of Felmouth i moved from the city seven miles north of Boston to come here met my husband raised two wonderful boys i'm now a grandmother worked in a local school district my husband is a tradesman i love the town of
Felmouth i feel so strongly we need to have affordable housing in this town but that the cost of what i just left Boston a suburb of Boston and as I drove over the Bourne Bridge you're supposed to have that feeling
like and then I drove into the city of Famouth it's not a town it's a city i don't recognize Main Street i don't recognize the place that I wanted to invest my children's
future i don't recognize it and it makes me really sad now that I have a granddaughter that this is what she thinks it's supposed to look like and her family's from the inner city very rude to do this at a meeting so I'm not trying to be
rude i moved to the house that I live in with my husband because I got a little mud on my boots cuz I wanted a little country i live on Dwood Drive which is off Sandwich Road we have friends from Maine that came to visit and I would like to share this with you specifically about your Dunkin Donuts it was kind of
funny but not so funny our dear friend wanted coffee at 4:30 in the morning he text me i said "I'll get up i'll go get it for you cuz I don't have a coffee maker it broke." He says "Well," he's from down east Maine he goes to the end of
Deepwood Drive you can take a left and go to Dunkin Donuts you can take a right and go to Dunkin Donuts you're not going to get lost come out of Deepwood take a left on Sandwich Road you'll end up at a Dunkin Donuts on the corner of 151 and Sandwich Road come out of Deepwood take
a right go through the Brick Crow Extension and it'll end up at another Dunkin Donuts by school administration building i understand that there was not a traffic study done and you had made comment about 2016 i can tell you in my experience of living in this town or city as I'm going to call it now and the
nine years since that date you can't tell me that traffic has not increased because it tfold has it's unbelievable to me you can't get down Sandwich Road but most importantly not my convenience or anyone's convenience that lives in this town having an extra 10 minutes 20
minutes 30 minutes to get to work to get to school i want to talk about for one second and then I'll sit down safety on Sandwich Road i drive Sandwich Road every single day coming in and out of Deepwood Drive sometimes I go around the back way by the high school that put you
by Jenkins Pond all these little shortcuts i see so many people struggling on bicycles to get down Sandwich Road and they're coming from Brick Hill Road and Sandwich Road intersection and they're going up towards Deepwood being on your left
which would be past 375 Sandwich Road when you're coming out of Deep Wood and you take a right and go through the intersection you go to the Dunkin Donuts that you're proposing to build this at have you ever been when there's a big storm and you can't get through cuz it's
flooded you're going to have to wrap it up okay it's flooded there yep and the last concern that I do have there is a woman that walks all the time people know who she is she was walking today and this is fact because I was driving out of town
to go to Boston i was driving up took a right from Sandwich Road onto Brick Hill Road right in front of the dog park and this woman was pushing a baby in a carriage and I to try to be considerate as a fellow parent and a human a human being i have a big SUV i pulled out a
little bit just to give her a little more space she was on a sidewalk on a sidewalk there's no sidewalk on Sandwich Road when you get from the intersection up past where Deepwood is and now you have very little sidewalk
space and only one side that's really accessible from where you're talking never mind if you have this playground what's to say kids across the street around the corner don't want to run over and play i just think that I don't know what's happening but
it's very very sad to me that I live in the city of Felmouth thank you thank you anybody else want to come out and make a comment come on up name and address please good evening my name is Lori Lopes and
my address is 35 Trotting Park Road i'm an immediate buyer and I would just wanted to thank the board this evening for everything that you took into consideration for the neighbors we really appreciate it you made some really good very good I think progress
and I I just want to say thank you very much thank you thank you anybody else anybody else have anything further up here i think we're in good shape um just
want to add uh I mean uh to go along with what she said it's it's a very dense area sandwich Road is on the town's wish list that intersection the town wants Well they determined that they don't want a roundabout there they
want a tea with a full stop at uh I mean it's just extremely congested and so is the Dunkin Donuts and uh I I'm not wavering i I think this is too dense too
congested i I look at look at that fifth building i mean you you fall out of the building you're in the drive-thru i think it's just too much okay anybody else up here shall we close anybody want to make
a motion to close make a motion to close with discussion a second we have a motion to close in a second any discussion further discussion anything else from the applicant before we just before we close real
quick this site is right next to Main Street if we're going to have affordable housing it's probably going to be should be in areas like this we shouldn't be here's an alternative to 100 unit three
and fourstory buildings here's an alternative to 300 unit projects we talk about encouraging owners of business property uh and businessmen themselves to include some affordable housing this seems like the kind of
project we should be approving all right so we have a motion to close and a second all those in favor i opposed none all right another motion uh if there's no additional discussion
then uh I would say motion to approve of conditions i have a qu sorry before we act that through you madam chairman um through you to the chair the zoning administrator this project under 4A with the legislative change if you just require a simple majority because it's
affordable housing now was a legislative change I recall that economic development of projects I just want to make sure if this qualifies or not affordable housing is now proposed it was not applied for as affordable housing it hasn't been
voted so it's technically not affordable housing No I understand i just I just procedurally if this was still required a super majority or simple majority so I guess the question here is that based on the application that was submitted it
wasn't applied for as affordable housing uh they're proposing that it be affordable housing they've applied for funds 120% does that have something to do with it but I think the the problem I would
have is in the details where if we put a condition on then it's affordable housing it's not approved yet though right but it wasn't specifically for but if we put a condition on it's affordable housing then they have a problem of getting the
funding otherwise they don't have a project yeah is that okay with you does that make sense to you oh no just Yeah that's fine that's fine thank you so finding we get an answer no no we're
going with your answer oh your council i made the motion to approve with conditions was there a second i just wanted because Jim needed I'll second and now we'll do findings
well okay okay this is a project at For Sandwich Road by JJC Development LLC to uh it's a modification of an existing special permit
08316 it's under 246.2B 2B and 12 240 12.1 for 10 apartments in five duplex buildings all to be two-bedroom units um the zoning is B2 it's in the Great Pond
Coastal Pond Overlay District and Flood Zone X the previous decision of the board of appeals as I just recited was 083-16 for Dunkin Donuts the fast food restaurant at the site the lot contains
86,200 excuse me 86,827 square feet conforms to zoning the frontage conforms to zoning sandwich Road at this location is a public right of way um lot coverage by structure exists at 3.8 excuse me 3.48% is going
to be increased to 13.25% the limit is 40 lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 32.69% be increased to 48.14% the limit is 70 um the restaurant which currently has 26 parking spaces
out required will be reducing the number of of um seats inside so that the parking requirement at the restaurant is reduced to 18 there'll be total of 39 parking spaces um the septic system uh the owner has in
informed the board that there will be a dite septic system for the entire property which includes all five uh residential building buildings and the restaurant um the project otherwise conforms to zoning in terms of setbacks
uh and building height requirements um the board received uh comments from a detailed comment which was sent to the board of appeals and the planning board for site plan review from engineering uh there was a
the board of health has advised us that they have approved alternate technology system for the entire property that took place on September 16th 2024 conservation had no issues um the planning board completed site plan
review and approved it uh in March of 2025 um the water department has advised us that they want separate water services for each residential unit um the building department has advised us to require directional signs for the
drivein fire department has no comment there was one letter of o excuse me one letter of opposition and there were testimony in opposition at the hearing um with respect to
um uh section 246.2B in a business B2 district uh residential and commercial mixed use are permitted um by special permit for the residential component with the provision that there be not more than six units
per acre um as far as the special permit itself is concerned um we are able to make the site the uh determination that the site is adequate for the proposed use because there is two acres um the suitability of
the site while not ideal is nevertheless not unsuitable for the project there will be some impact on traffic flow and safety uh but it has been we can determine that it will be manageable um there'll be no impact on the neighborhood visual characters views and
vistas there's adequate sewage disposal as evidenced by the denitrification system applied approved by the board of health there are adequate utilities and with the condition of affordable housing for the 10 units uh the project will
advance the supply of affordable housing did you get green uh Gray Pond Coastal you did that one did you get the height yeah well there's no that's not an issue okay all right isn't there uh if I may Madam Chairman 3U do we have to make a finding Frank that uh the public good is
served that the business zone is not adversely affected through the multif family use and that the business use allowed is not noxious to family use fine we can do that and adopt that okay are we ready to vote yep conditions
do you want to vote first or do conditions first don't we usually do conditions conditions first let's do conditions first um where's that list rental only is a condition only
and then the as he he pointed out that there are going to be 10 units uh in five buildings one at 80% they're affordable all will be affordable they're going to apply for um funding from the town which will result in the
units being affordable one at 80% of AMI three at 100% of AMI and uh the balance which would be six units I think at 120% of AMI yep uh all units should be included in the subsidized housing
inventory um the planning board has approved site plan review in March of this year um the planning board approved 92 trees on the property um there are 39 parking spaces two
handicapped um there are other conditions I think we should include in the conditions all the conditions of the site plan review so we don't have to repeat them um all boards yeah
consult with police for traffic yep during construction y construction hours yep monday through Friday 7 to 7 saturday 8 to 4 yep no construction on Sundays or town observed holidays construction vehicles located
on the lot not in the street dark sky compliant um Tony did you want to add in the one about the bond i would propose that one of the conditions be under uh 24021 is in fact
that they uh they file a covenant which would be subp paragraph B of uh 242.1 as the applicant's attorney uh outlined yeah fine you okay with that one you have any i didn't know how we wanted to
finalize the play area did we want to remove the play area yeah I'm in agreement with that i'd rather those trees over there are beautiful and I'd rather save the trees myself right is I don't find the play area to be
particularly useful or attractive but keep the kids out of the parking lot well I don't really know how many kids are going to be living there but it's a this the play area is smaller than one of the houses it's not even big as half a basketball court i I understand that
as well that's because as I said the whole thing's so congested if they determine to maintain a what they're calling a play area it's it's just a gathering area there are no swings so don't in So there'd be no um play articles no swings uh no no
slides things of that nature no maintenance no maintenance and if they uh remove trees that they add an additional four or five evergreens along the property lines but I think that this place needs
a place for children to gather if they do the traffic is just too much on Sage Road that's my thought uh well I guess I would like to say that remove the play area there is 18
trees that are shown uh that abut on lots seven and eight if we could increase that to 28 so remove the play area and increase the plantings along
lot 7 and 8 from 18 to 28 I agree with you so if you want the play area removed would that stay natural now trees that are existing there would be maintained
that's what I would like does that make sense to you any other conditions up here norian do you have any other conditions no other structures other than what's shown per plans did we already say per plans do we have something early on
about there being sheds there are sheds on the I have something about it says condition the dumpster and I don't know why I wrote that one condition that's in the middle of the project that was down here that's somewhere else
so we're used by the restaurant you all set norin we're all set norin you good everybody's all set we're all set to vote okay all those in favor i I All those opposed i No no one or 32 32
whatever okay all set bye all right now you need some folders Frank okay what are we dealing with we're doing wittier first whittier
it says Mets Mets Dorf all right let's find our Let's find our stuff let there be light okay this is um Hello we're moving on to the next hearing
this is hearing 00925 Martha Murphy Metsdorf 17 Whittier Road East Felmouth Massachusetts it's applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 2401.3A4 of the code of alma to remove
the existing deck construct a screen porch add an addition to expand the first and second floor habitable habitable space and an and an attached garage exceeding lot coverage by structure beyond
20% property 17 Whittier Road in East Balma um the uh zoning district is RB the overlay district is the is a combination of Great Pond and Green Pond
coastal overlay districts um the existing structure is 1434 ft the proposed structure is 2386 ft there's no flood zone here although I think there is no flood zone
no no flood zone uh we didn't find any previously existing zoning board of appeals decisions with respect to the property the lot is 10,000 square ft in a zoning district that currently requires a minimum of 40,000 square ft the street frontage is 100 ft in a
district which requires the same woody road is a public right of way at this point lock coverage by structure presently is 14.34% it's proposed to increase it to 23.86% the limit is 20 and they need a
special permit to go over 20 with a maximum allowed by the bylaw of 25% um the lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 20.37% proposal is to increase it to 33.05% the limit of the bylaw is
40% uh this is a 4bedroom uh property um I note that they submitted a worksheet of lot coverage by structure but I didn't see on that um worksheet an average for the neighborhood uh which is that's what we
used for our decision um so I I leave it to the board to decide if that is incomplete the um setbacks um the street is 25.8 ft which is compliant with the zoning bylaw and the other um setbacks
comply with the zoning bylaw what we're dealing here with is increasing the lots coverage by structure uh the building height is 20 ft per plans it'll be 19 ft 8 in um we have a referral from
engineering uh they note that a driveway permit may be necessary they require that we look at storm water runoff dry wells for roof runoff and erosion and sediment controls the board of health is okay with the septic system conservation's okay uh the water department recommends
a um upgrade of the water service to 1 in i think it's actually more a request to comply with current standards planning board has no comment fire department has no comment the building department has no comment i found no letters in opposition on the file
good evening everyone we're going to have good night tonight my name is Brian B human representation of Mr mesdorf um his wife was not able to make it um as Mr duffy went over that's pretty uh sums up the project i can repeat the same stuff but I don't think we need to um I did pull this up because
you brought up the question is this what you're concerned with is an average did you have an average on there i I did not i can compute that though obviously well that's what we use is the average that's that's the standard we have to comply with so I think that may have to be submitted additional information
you can just submit it later though all right fine yeah whatever you'd like i can do the calculations and submit it i can do it this evening i'll submit it later so okay well again we have um I think the easiest I get this to work here
tell us what's coming down and what's going up yeah that's what I was going to say the easiest way to do that I'm just trying to get it on the screen here is is on this plan the the bylaw says that when we're increasing lot coverage over
20% to 25 we look at the size and height of the structure relative to the neighborhood average that's why we have Oh no understand Mr duffy that's fine i no problem whatsoever and adding that i mean it's all there with the percentages it's just it's Excel all I can do is hit the cells and say divide by the number
it's going to pop it up for me so that's perfect not a problem so I think this is the easiest representation hopefully to show what's there um this is what I submitted uh to the land surveyor so he could do the site plan so you can see here we have the existing house um in
this area right here this small square is an existing structure it's a sitting room and then in back here this is all existing deck so we're removing the small sitting room and this becomes the addition right here with a garage space to incorporate
this this addition here is not in a basement because of its proximate to the septic system so we'd have to keep it back 20 ft from the septic field so this is all addition with a small screen porch and then a farmer's porch up
front so if I can get rid of this guy here oops and this is represented on the site plan by Mr doyle the existing the addition this part with a basement this part on peers this to the be of the garage the screen
porch and the farmer's porch so so here's the front elevation um and you can see the main structure on the right side here and then this is how the addition will tie into it um and we believe that this addition to be you
know very in line with the neighboring community such that it's we don't feel it be non more detrimental to the area um the match did send out a group email to their neighbors and there was favorable response from the neighbors they sent the plans and uh a lot of the comments were just we can't wait to see
it it's going to look great in the neighborhood so there was no objection amongst the neighbors i have a few emails I can forward if um if the board would like them so as David and Matthew you know plan on coming down here full-time um to live in Felmouth this will you know project to them is going
to fulfill the potential of this property you know for the rest of their enjoyment down here you know in later life so I have uh all the plans here if you guys have any questions I can make that correction for the bulk sheet again not a problem
mark you want to start off uh yeah um it's understandable what they're doing it It's It's a nice project i uh certainly think there's plenty of room it's a good size lot for the neighborhood i I really don't have any
uh any questions um Thank you onward and upward uh no further questions thank you no I I went out and took a look at the property it's very nice i think this will be an appropriate um enhancement
i'm in favor of it yeah is the height 192 in yeah but it conforms to the 35 but kind of funny because I think it I had a hard time it's going to be a little bit lower than the existing building which is hard to believe it's going to be the way it worked out with
the pitch in the math because it's actually less it it ends up being 4 in lower than the existing roof line or something like that okay all right so what's what's the actual height then can I zoom on this or control 20t 6 in 20t 6 yes well thank
you northeast there's a plus at the bottom right hand corner i think you got to do it 1982 oh I see it thank you 1982 1/2 is what it's going to be got to hold it right so we're going to
go with 20 26 is that what you 20 20 ft 6 in yep so 20.5 what's 20 point what's the existing or the proposed existing oh yeah so but it's the proposed is 1982
isn't it that's what I had yes yes i use the magnifier too 1982 pretty confusing yep i'm blind in one eye can't see out of the other i got my glasses on and I'm still having
trouble i have some I'm right there with you all right Tony you have any questions i think it fits well i just quick question you're utilizing the pre-existing septic system um let me pull that up for you g
so this is the existing site plan here and we are putting we are putting in a new system right John's designing a new system I'm not sure to be honest with you no he's using the existing sorry yeah he's using the existing system using the existing y that I cannot ask
you I'm not going to go through my normal you put an IIA system in it's an existing system and the actual bedroom count is not changing with removing one bedroom from the main house and that's going above the Well I just wanted to be consistent i asked everybody this and you're using existing system yes no
absolutely understood yep and no change to the bedroom i just wanted to add that note you want to confirm that there's four bedrooms is that what you're saying no I I know for 100% there's no change to the count gotcha that looks good to me anybody
have any further questions up here before we go to the public anybody from the public want to speak on this project come on now we need entertainment come on say as a homeowner if it's okay you have to come up come on out
i'll just do Sorry you're the homeowner yeah my wife's away it's her birthday um but uh we've been here 31 years and we just love the town so our kids are you know hopefully get married someday soon and going away yeah but I just that's
all I just want to say we love it here we come down here yeah we're here we're going to be here full time you know and so thank you that's all I want to say thank you motion to close there you go second second there you go we have a motion to close in a second any further discussion
up here all those in favor of closing i have I been appointed you have i thank you i didn't anoint you properly motion to approve the conditions second
that conditions here we go so let's do findings repeat again Frank right um 17 Whittier Road in East Balmouth is located in an RB zoning district they've
applied for a special permit under section 2401.3A4 of the zoning bylaw to remove a deck construct screen porch um and have an addition with second floor habitable space and attach in attached garage exceeding lot coverage
by structure over 20% there's no flood zone they're in the great pond and green pond over coastal pond overlay districts the existing structure is 1434 square feet the proposed structure is 2386 square ft um
I've given you the lot size which uh is 10,000 square feet and is it's a buildable lot but it uh the current zoning requires 40,000 square ft street frontage conforms to zoning public rightway um the lot coverage by
structure will increase to 23.86% the limit is 20 so the special permit which we're granting tonight will allow the increase in lot coverage by structure um the lot coverage by structure parking and paving is within limits of the
zoning bylaw the setbacks are within limits of the zoning bylaw or um the height of the building is and as existing and proposed uh is within the limits of the zoning bylaw um I read the
um reports from the referrals from the departments um we had no opposition at the uh public hearing and there were no letters on file under section 2401.3A4 of the zoning bylaw which
allows a maximum of 25% lot coverage by structure when we make a finding that the site and size and height of the proposed structure is relative to the neighborhood average which Mr bork is going to confirm um that there are no shadows that will
affect adjacent property the views and vistas from the public ways are not to be are not impaired and there'll be no adverse effects of nitrogen on coastal embainments with respect to special permit conditions we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use the
site is suitable for the proposed use there's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety there's no negative impact on neighborhood visual visual character views and vistas there's adequate sewage disposal there's adequate utilities for the site and there'll be no negative impact on the
supply of affordable housing nice all right uh conditions so we'll have him shoot an email with the comp sheet to Nor yeah okay that can be a condition all right let's do that can be
the first condition fine you got it did you hear me okay and then we'll use Tony's worksheet her plans all boards tri driveway permit
um construction hours um dark sky lighting we didn't ask about lighting in the back dark sky lighting um what are our percentages
um did you get the building height in we already talked about that in the findings the building height um 40 ft 6 in yeah you got that don't worry anybody think of any yeah yeah anybody
um think of any other conditions rivals per plans yeah I did per plans no further structures no further structures there's a good You have uh construction vehicles on site all construction vehicles within the lot not on the street
the hours of op 7 a.m to 7:00 p.m monday through Friday 8 through 4 and Saturday no Sundays of town observed holidays um engineering requested uh erosion and sediment controls and a construction entrance so the plans will need to be
revised to show that so the budding properties are protected from any storm water no absolutely we'll put up a soap barrier especially the street because it's pitched so they'll just want that demonstrated on the site plan so that they can verify that yeah
100% i'll have John add silk barriers on there and I'll also have show some proposed drainage also good i think we are all ready to vote up here ready all those in favor i opposed none tony
are you in i'm in 5 you're all set thank you all right thank you very much for your time you guys have a great evening thanks good luck enjoy enjoy all right next up is nursery 151 nursery
okay this is application 011-25 Michael McGau 70 eastbound the highway is applied to Court of Appeals you're on the wrong one what you were you were reading in um five Indiana yeah I know
what happened to my I'm looking sheets did I mess you up oh here's nursery road i got got them out of order sorry I messed them up i tried to get it ready it was your fault that's on me it's on me
okay this is application 01025 robert A and FAT Newton uh have applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 2410A 10.2A 2A and 241 11.3A4 of the
code of Alma to remove the existing deck construct an addition and attach garage increasing lot coverage by structure the property is located at 151 Nursery Road in Falman um okay the propertyy's in an RC zoning
district the applicable provisions of the zoning bylaw are are sections 2410.2A 2A and 2411.3A4 the existing structure is a three-bedroom structure at 2,227 square ft the proposed structure
is a four bedroomedroom at 2,659 square ft um there's no uh overlay district flood zone X there's no previous decisions of the board of appeals on file lot is 11,074 square ft in a zoning
district that currently requires 40,000 square ft street frontage is 85 ft in a zoning district that currently requires 100 ft uh nursery road is a public right of way at this particular location the current um lot coverage by structure
exceeds the zoning bylaw it is 20.1% the resulting uh after the work is done will be 24% the limit is 20 so they need a special permit uh to exceed the 20 also to confirm the existing one um they have submitted a
um worksheet which shows that the neighborhood average of lot coverage by structure is 14.68% lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 27.4% and will be increased to 33.2% the limit is 40 so
they're within that the um uh property conforms to zoning in terms of setbacks and it is um 21.3 ft set back from the street is it 21 it is so it's front yard
setback's not conforming but otherwise front setback's not conforming it's 21.3 ft and it will remain at 21.3 feet okay uh the building height conforms to zoning we have a report from the engineering department suggesting that we consider storm water runoff dry wells
for roof runoff and erosion and sediment control the board of health has advised us that they have approved the plans for a four-bedroom septic system the conservation commission has no comment the water department requests an upgrade to a 1-in service the building department has no comment the fire
department has no comment there are no letters in opposition or in support in the file can I just add something to that i thought the building commissioner did have a comment on this with regard to being in the flood zone i don't have it
being in a flood zone it's not in the flood zone that nursery road's nowhere near a flood zone no all right i I must have pulled the wrong one i'm sorry i have to change all my notes nursery Road is up near the Kunames yeah i think we're just trying to test the applicant
behind the Yeah I just had the All right Kevin I mean attorney Clower kevin's fine uh good evening Madam Chair members of the board for the record Kevin Clower i am before you tonight representing Robert Adam he goes by Adam
and Eth Newton the owners of 151 Nursery Road they are seeking permission to alter the existing non-conforming dwelling so 151 Nursery is located not far from here it's between here and Aunames as uh as Mr tffy pointed out it's really in the heart of what I call
the village uh this lot is 11,074 ft and it's in a residential C zone in district presently there is a three-bedroom single family dwelling with a small shed at the rear our total footprint is uh 2,227 ft which is 20.1% lot coverage uh
as has been noted it is non-conforming to front yard setback being 21.3 where 25 is required and also to lock coverage by structure being 20.1 where 20 is allowed by right and up to 25 by special permit so the applicant's requesting permission to construct an addition to
the side and rear of the home this will not affect the existing non-conforming setback however it will increase the lot coverage by structure to 24.0% uh it's an increase of 432 ft uh and it will in fact remain a one-story home so this proposal requires a special
permit pursuant to 240 uh 10.2A for alteration to a non-conforming structure and also 240 11.3A4 for lot coverage by structure above 20% in the residential CZ zoning district under 10.2A pre-existing non-conforming structures
may be changed by special permit provided the board finds that they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists we're asked to consider the standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities impairs views and vistas and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood our application does
not create any new non-conformities or affect the existing non-conforming setback under 240 11.34 uh in the residential seed zoning district lock coverage by structure may exceed 20% below 25% by special permit from this board and in uh considering
that the board has asked to look at the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood the effect of shadow on adjacent properties impacts on views and vistas from the public ways and the effect of nitrogen on coastal bayments we did prepare a lot comparison worksheet uh looking at 21 properties
within a 300t radius uh this is certainly not out of line with the surrounding properties it is among the larger but it's designed in a way as to be un unobtrusive um the architectural design I think is actually quite thoughtful it replaces the existing garage space which the prior owner had
converted to a bedroom and runs it to the rear of the home uh so there's really no massing from the street view there was a slight increase in ridge height uh the area of the addition will be at um 20 ft where the main host is at 16 ft 10 1/2 in however that's still
well below the 35 ft allowed by right there's no impacts on views and vistas or shadows um they are going to utilize the existing septic how are they going to expand the leeching field um we are aware of the health referral saying that there may be a change in regulations uh but this is not within a nitrogen
sensitive area or coastal pond overlay however they did provide space that in if and when they were ever required to convert to an IIA system and they would have the ability to do so so this proposal results in law coverage by structure of 24% which again could be allowed by special permit and with the
issuance of that special permit would actually eliminate the existing non-conformity so the threshold question for the board is does the proposed use have adverse effects that overbalance the beneficial effects uh to the neighborhood and to the town this lot is more than adequate in size the proposal
does not change the nature of the uh current use it remains a single family dwelling it will just simply improve the owner's utilization of the property there's no impact on traffic flow or safety and remains in line with the neighborhood character and does not affect public services uh with this
project there's no new non-conformities created and there's no adverse effects that'll balance the benefits i believe that this meets all the requirements of 240 10.24 2.11 I'm sorry 10.2A 240 11.3 A4 and 240 12.1E i would ask that you grant
the special permit but would be glad to address any questions that the board or the public may have do you have any questions um no oh I I I actually I think the whole place is a kind of a sleeper i mean the backyard there is is it's a big backyard quite
nice and and they have some nice plantings i think it's what they've done here is it does increase it but it's it it's kind of subdued you can't really I I I think they've done a nice job um I drive by it almost every morning cuz I draw I drive down nursery to drop my
kids off at school so every every morning I turn and look at it and I keep thinking how you're really not going to see it from the street cuz it's going to run back no everything goes back and and there's ample room in the backyard and there's a nice variety of plantings back there it's green as can be it's
beautiful yeah that's all I have uh just confirm four bedrooms correct thank you i have all I'm all set thank you yeah I'm good tony I saw what I needed to see thank you
wow anybody from the public want to comment on this wow we're rolling should get over that first cruise i know I shouldn't say anything i a Murphy i jinx anything I can get my hands on
it's the law it is the law uh how about a motion to close anybody want to make a motion to close certainly second we have a motion to close any further discussion motion to close all those in favor i opposed motion to
approve of conditions i'll second that we have a motion approving conditions all right no discussion let's move on to findings property is located at 151 Nursery Road in Falmouth um it's located in an RC zoning district there's no
applicable overlay district flood zone flood zone is X we've applied for a special permit under section 2410.2A and 241.3A4 to remove a deck and construct an addition of the garage
um uh and exceeding lots by structure of over 20% now they were already over 20% to begin with so they do need the special permit relief the existing structure is a three-bedroom uh 2,227 ft the proposed structure is a
four bedroomedroom at 20 2659 square ft the lot is 11,074 um square feet in a zoning district which currently requires a minimum of 40,000 square ft street frontage is 85 ft in a zoning district which currently
requires a minimum of 100 ft uh nursery road is a public rightway at this particular location the lot coverage by structure existing is 20.1% they're increasing it to 24% the limit is 20 so under section 240
11.3A4 we can grant a special permit to allow up to 25% the neighborhood average per the worksheet is 14.68% um lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 27.4% the proposal
is to increase it to 33.2% 2% the limit allowed by the zoning bylaw is 40% uh there's one nonconformity to the structure that is the front yard at 21.3 ft set back it will remain the same uh the existing height is 16 ft 10 1/2
in the proposed structure will be 20 ft uh we have engineering um uh referrals which we will consider in the conditions uh the board of health has reported that the four bedroomedroom
uh plan that plans have been approved for a four bedroomedroom septic system which will require expanding the leeching field and the applicant has advised us they will leave room for the future addition installation of an IIA septic system if required or IIA
component to the septic system is required conservation has no comment the um water department requests an upgrade to 1 in service um building and fire have no comment we had no letters either in opposition or in favor on file and
there were no public comments under section 240.2A the special permit uh for a non-conforming structure when we find that it will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure uh under section
2411.3A4 the special permit for a lot coverage by structure exceeding 20% with a maximum of 25% provided that the that the size and height of the proposed structure is in is appropriate relative to the neighborhood average we make that
finding uh we make finding that there's no effect negative effect on shadows on adjacent properties there's no negative effect on views and business from public ways and that there's no negative effect for nitrogen and coastal nayments because of the appropriate approved septic system and its this property's
location section 12.1E the general special permit um criteria we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use it is suitable for the proposed use no negative impact on traffic flow and safety no negative impact on neighborhood visual visual character
views and vistas there's adequate sewage disposal there's adequate utilities and there's no negative impact on affordable housing wow i need a break huh all right conditions short and sweet
tony's sheet per plans all boards um construction hours 7:00 a.m 7:00 p.m monday through Friday 8:00 a.m 400 p.m on Saturdays notes Sundays are town observed holidays construction vehicle shall be
located within the lot dark sky compli uh compliant lighting um is there a given that the new structure comes within 3 in of the required
setback should we require it as built is it a 10 foot three i mean it gets very tight and those things easily move agreed as built yeah no I agree
any other you can come up with down here no f no other sheds or anything right what are we at 33 so they can I think that's it do you have any
further conditions from the engineering referral the storm water runoff dry wells and erosion and sediment okay because I was going to say I didn't see any drywalls on the plan so they're looking to have those added put in all department requirements and requests as
presented all department requirements and requests yeah just your usual drywalls yeah drywalls are in this drywalls it's one of the condition one of the referral conditions of the I don't think there's any objection to
adding drywalls to the property okay anything else snoring i think that's it okay I'll set the vote yes all those in favor i oppose none thank you very much great
i'm not touching anything over there now so I'll mess you up well we're all set for this one we'll see how we go some of these cases get so big when they they take five minutes but you got I know these plans are big that's why
all right next up is um uh 5 Indiana Avenue okay this is application 0125 michael McGau um has applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 2410.2A of the code of Fment
zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming structure and construct a detached garage subs properties at 5 Indiana Avenue in Felmouth that's Felmouth Heights or Felmouth Beach
whatever um the zoning district is RC um they've applied to a for a special permit pursuant to section 10 240 10.2A uh to raise and rebuild a non-conforming sing non-conforming single family
dwelling i didn't find an overlay district but it is in an AE flood zone 13 um the uh existing structure is a four bedroomedroom at 1589 ft the proposed
structure is a 3bedroom at 1559 ft there's no previous zoning board decisions on file the lot is 5,615 uh square feet and a zoning district currently requiring a minimum 40,000
square ft frontage is 75 ft and a zoning district currently requiring 100 square 100 ft um Indiana Avenue is a public right ofway at this location block coverage by structure is
28.3% it will be 27.8% when complete um so they do need the permit um they're exceeding the lot coverage by structure uh the average according to the worksheet in the um that's been
submitted the average in the neighborhood is 27.77% coverage by structure block coverage by structure parking and paving existing is 38.6% it will be 36.8% 8% u completion and the limit is 40 so
it's okay there is non-conforming um in terms of uh everything set back we have u I can run through all that every side yeah everything is non every side
everything is non-conforming um the to the east it's 10.9% the west 12% to the north.2 not percent feet um 2 feet to the south
28.5T um the height of the building is currently 23 23 feet 3 in it will be 33 feet when completed uh engineering has commented that they will need a driveway permit they've asked us to condition
storm water runoff dry wells and erosion and sediment control the board of health has advised us that they have approved a septic system for four bed that it has a septic system for four bedrooms um it's in a FEMA flood zone and it needs
conservation commission approval um and I don't believe you have that right no an RDA has been submitted for it the it's only concom because of the fact it's work within a flood zone but that's an RDA all right uh I didn't see a comment from water um the planning
board raises the question of whether or not there's an accessory apartment over the garage we'll let you answer that during the uh presentation fire department has no concerns uh the building department um concern with the garage right yeah
the garage they I think it's been addressed but Mr clara will call there was a water there was a water referral mr concerned that the that the proposed garage is 5 ft from the sideline which and it's so the maximum number of stories is 1.5 but I believe you've made
a change okay um we have one uh five letters in support one letter in opposition uh thank you uh madam chair members of the board again for the record Kevin Clower uh I am before you with this application representing Michael McGuff
the owner of five Indiana Avenue uh Mr mcguff is here with us this evening he is seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling so Five Indiana Avenue is located really in the heart of Fmouth Heights which as you all know is a very dense largely seasonal neighborhood uh
which is currently undergoing a lot of change this particular lot is 5,615 square ft it's in a residential C zoning district and it is in an AE13 flood zone uh the applicant has owned here in Famouth for over 10 years and and has been a full-time resident in
Famouth for the last four years he purchased this property in December of 2024 with the intent of building a home for his family um there's presently a I'm going to call it 5ishbedroom home uh and shed on the property um there appears to have been
used as at least a two-unit dwelling potentially three units it's hard to say um on a footprint of 1,589 ft it is non-conforming in many respects the front yard setback is 4T where 25 is required the sideyard setback to the north uh actually encroaches over the
lot line so it's negative.2 where 10 is required uh the sideyard setback to the south is less than a foot the lot coverage by structure is 28.3 where 20 is allowed by right and up to 25 by special permit further there's a shed which is an accessory structure located
in the front yard and it's more than less way less than 50 ft from the street um which is again a non-conformity the existing dwelling uh is in poor condition structurally aesthetically functionally uh and while it's old it's not in a historic district and it's not
on the list of historically significant structures so it's not subject to review um it's really not possible to rehabilitate this existing structure without triggering substantial improvement under the FEMA guidelines so the applicants proposed to raise the existing dwelling and rebuild a new uh
three-bedroom home with a detached garage which would have habitable space above which would constitute a fourth bedroom uh the first floor would be elevated in compliance with flood zone standards which is about 2 ft above the existing grade the detached garage would have no habitable space on the first
floor um but would provide an actual garage space uh to decrease cluttering on site there's a slight decrease in the footprint by structures it goes from 28.3% down to 27.8 uh the front yard setbacks improve from 4T to 6.9 ft
sideyard setbacks are improved to the north it goes from.2 to 3.1 uh to the south uh from it goes from less than a foot to 10.1 which is eliminated as a non-conformity and it would also eliminate the non-conforming accessory structure in the front yard perhaps most
importantly it would eliminate the current use of the dwelling as a multif family use um in a single family zoning district as I said it's unclear whether this has been used as two or three units uh but what is proposed is a conforming single family use which is allowed by right within a zoning
district lock coverage by structures paving and parking would remain conforming at 36.8% the structure does increase in height it goes from about 23 feet 3 in to 34t 10 in um partially due to compliance with flood zone uh but it is two and a half stories and we would
fully expect and be amendable to um a framing uh height certificate of framing um the bedrooms again are being reduced from five or six depending on how you count them uh which are presently on a cess poolool uh being reduced down to four bedrooms on a new title 5 system uh
again this is not in a nitrogen sensitive area or coastal pond overlay so it has not been proposed as an IIA system but I have spoken with the engineer and he's confirmed that it could be converted if need be uh in addition um as I mentioned an RDA has been submitted to conservation for work
within a flood zone though we're improving all the non-conformities this does require a special permit under 240 10.2A pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed by special permit provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists you're asked to consider the
standard 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities impairs views and vistas and reasonably conforms the neighborhood in this case there's no new non-conformity created the number of existing uh a number of the existing non-comfortable performities are improved uh including again lock
coverage by setback uh by structure front yard setback uh significant improvements to the sideyard setbacks to the north and south and the elimination of a non-conforming accessory structure as well as the elimination of a non-conforming use as a multif family there's no effects on views and vistas
from public ways and it is consistent with the neighborhood as I will elaborate though I did not apply for a special permit under 240 11.3A4 uh because we're going to remain over 25% I wanted to also review those requirements to establish that we do in fact comply with those as well under
that provision the board's asked to consider the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood the effects of shadow the impacts and views and vistas from public ways and the effect of nitrogen on coastal bayments in this case there's no impact of views and vistas from the public ways though the building is larger uh it is an area with many
similarly sized structures um it's going to be an improvement on nitrogen coastal bayments we're replacing uh septic assess pool uh and reducing the number of bedrooms down to four there'll be a new septic system design for an appropriate number um and again changing
the use from multif family to single uh as to the size and fit within the neighborhood we submitted a lot comparison worksheet looking at 32 properties within a 300 foot radius as proposed this is below the average footprint and uh very much in line with the average gross floor area of those 32
properties 17 have larger footprints and eight have larger gross floor areas this property is proposed certainly appropriate with those nearby properties um as the board is aware the plans were revised to shift the location of the garage it is now 10.1 ft from the
southerntherly lot line um we are also aware of the letter received from one of the abutters in opposition um those abutters were actually the partial owners of this home when it was sold to my client and they were aware of the applicant's intent and
plans um there's a number of inaccuracies I think in their letter much of the focus was on a perceived inaccuracy in lot size for which they rely on assessor records and the real estate listing uh the lot size we used was based on the engineered plot plan and regardless it's a difference of 48
square feet i don't think it's meaningful in any way but it's also based on the civil uh civil engineered plan uh there was a typo in the original lot comparison worksheet in which I mistakenly reflected the existing home as a one-story home as opposed to a two-story home i did correct that on the
revised lot worksheet that was submitted but I don't think it's necessarily relevant to the discussion or changes the analysis the letter states that we're applying for a variance which we're not um as you know we're seeking a special permit in which the primary question is whether what we're proposing is substantially more detrimental than what exists it's
hard to say that's the case because we're eliminating non-conforming use that those sellers took advantage of renting out multiple units in a single family home as well as improving all non-conforming setbacks and lot coverage and eliminating the non-conforming accessory structure
this project represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions replaces an aged cesspool and a house in significant disrepair will not create any new dimensional non-conformities improves or eliminates all existing nonconformities including again the front yard setback sideyard setback to
north and south and lot coverage by structure there's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more detrimental than what exists i believe that we've outlined why it meets the standards of 240.2A 2A 240 11.3A4 and 240 12.1E i believe that the board can and
should grant a special permit and I'd be happy to address any questions that you or the public may have you want to start off Mike yeah um woven this together I guess uh in uh
within all the parameters uh you know it it certainly unlike any structure in the neighborhood but I mean I can't say anything about that any more than I can recommend what shoes or shirts they buy
you know I think it's you know it it's Not it's not homogeneous that's for for certain but I think it's an attractive design what's there and uh it's an improvement and uh you know and uh I don't have to bring other properties
into the picture no uh I don't have anything um it's uh could you pull up the front elevation just for the Yep folks at home and here that is the front elevation and we actually have what I think might be helpful is some some
renderings of this property kind of in scale which I think does a nice job of sort of outlining how it does it actually looks better than the uh elevation yeah yeah i think you know it fits in it fits in well um it's it's unique that's for
certain but I I don't think it's out of place it's a different design but I don't think it's you're going to drive down the street and go what what is that one right no I agree so three bedrooms in the main house one in the garage for a total of four correct
uh I guess the garage ridge height was 1811 the ridge height on the main house is that 34 10 yes okay and as I mentioned would be obviously agreeable to uh a height certification at framing thank you for doing that
um and and you did improve the setback so that that was nice ia space is there uh no to Mark's point it's a a nice change from kind of what's been there for some period of time so thank you Frank you have Yeah I just want to
clarify something Mr clower um are you applying for a special permit under 240 11.34 i didn't see that no we're not you're not we're not i I thought it was I thought it might be helpful for the board though to establish why this does fit in with the neighborhood the same way we would do through an analysis
under that provision so the the application is just under 10 2A for 10.2A yeah 10.2a okay so um the property has been used as multif family housing i assume that's been sort of illegal use i I didn't find anything
that would have allowed it um but I I don't think it's relevant because we're not trying to keep that because we're going to it's going to be a single family house going forward yes and it is not to to clarify a question that came up earlier it is not an ADU in the garage there is no cooking facilities
there's no cooking facilities in the garage there'll be there'll be water service to the garage right yes yep it's habitable space absolutely it's habitable space so there'll be bathrooms and whatever okay all right thank you and as far as the multif family they're not the lone ranger in the neighborhood
no but if we can eliminate it we it's good we eliminated Tony um I I know that this is not popular uh I think the house is tre Well this part I like this the house is
tremendous uh tremendous improvement i absolutely agree with that um and I know that we go around and round with this because it's never clarified but 240 121E D and it says impact on
neighborhood visual character this does not fit in the it's a wonderful house but under that out of the bylaw it doesn't fit it does not fit the uh visual character of that neighborhood and I and I I bring
this up many times in other properties i frankly don't know how to handle that well I think that you could look at it this way uh Mr puchi it's that is one of the factors the board has asked to consider it is not the determinative factor um and again I think it's sort of an eye of the beholder question um
because it is a slightly different design but it's not you know it it borrows a lot of the elements that many of the surrounding properties do have um and you'll see inspiration for a lot of the architectural features in other homes very close by so I think it's it's
really again a beholder question but more than that I think it is not that we have to satisfy every condition it's the board has asked to consider the following um and it doesn't say shall meet it just says they're considerations thank you
no other questions i have no questions anybody else have any questions before we go the public anybody from the public want to speak on this come on up need your name and address please thank you my name is Susan Daniels i'm at For Hope in Falmouth Heights
hopeav and I too had uh rebuilt my house in 2008 and we're excited about all the refurbishing new construction and every all the great things that are happening in Falmouth Heights right and I agree that the House Five Indiana needed to be uh rebuilt and I think the um folks in
opposition the Conrads agreed as well however to Mr uh Pruji's uh point this is way out of character with the architectural design of Felmouth Heights it does not fit in and it actually takes away from the uniqueness and the beauty
of Falmouth Heights so um I've been here since 1959 and I think this is really really um unfortunate to put a structure up like this and I would hope that the um the new owners could rethink and
maybe redesign or uh a structure that really is more suitable to the neighborhood thank you okay thank you thank you anybody else have a comment on this project come on up madam Chairman Manny
Damrosio 77 Grand A i'm at the Connor Grand A in Indiana on lots two and four i'm diagonally across the street from five Indiana A which is lot number five i've been here since
1988 i have a house that was built in 26 i support this plan i think it is it would be great especially what we had there have there now it it was really an I what is there is an eyes
saw the the uh design it's everybody's opinion as to what what it is it's wellconceived and I support it thank you very much thank you thank you
anybody else motion to close madam Chair we got another any further discussion we got what further go ahead tony has Tony has a question with regard to the the design it it obviously it bothers me uh because
of sub paragraph D and it says with review with review criteria within that paragraph says only upon its written determination that the proposed use will not have adverse effects that overbalance and and again something
subjective what is overbalance overbalance its beneficial effects on either the neighborhood or the town should I look at that this has more
beneficial effects on the neighborhood rather than the design being not beneficial to the neighborhood that's exactly the argument I would make that we're we've established a number of benefits that that are being done by this project elimination of non-conformities elimination of
non-conforming uses um improvements to to any number of things cesspool septic um and it's a balancing test and I think that we've established that the benefits we've outlined outweigh the any potential adverse effects i I like the
house very much i just don't like it there but as I read this part of the bylaw we're just here to apply bylaws all right um as much as I'd like to see this someplace else I suspect given what's there that u they're more beneficial
effects in the neighborhood than there are negative because of this could you pull the rendering up one more time or just It is better than the flat design in the application and I mean you you take any side or
portion of that house and it's mimicked somewhere nearby i mean not in its entirety i mean it is different but I I mean look at what's there oh yeah from what's there it's
absolutely a huge step up well it's not about design i guess it comes down to is does it create a a uh as it says here is there more beneficial effect to the neighborhood uh than you have to look I have to look past that
design um well I I u u knocking down what's there is a big benefit to me you know in my my eye and and I I don't think it's our job to tell
somebody how to you know to to micromanage if you will how they design design their house well I think I think it's our job to read this bylaw and determine whether what the benefit is or not and right now
it appears as much as I don't want that particular design there that there is much more of a benefit to the neighborhood than a detriment to the neighborhood by this particular design it definitely does not fit with the
house next door or some of the others but I have to consider is it more beneficial uh than what exists that's all I I don't want to belabor that that's I I can't you have to speak to the chair i think the two the one on the
end of the street that's condos is like Victorian like the other one across the street is like farmhouse like so it's kind of all over the place yeah but if you go down Nuck there's there's it's all kind features on houses that are similar and I mean let's face it what's
there is an absolute eyesore and overall I look at it as a benefit all right anybody else before we close come on up i just want to emphasize that I agree
that the new structure is a benefit to the neighborhood do I need to say my name again mom however that it is clearly not in line with the bylaws that you just spoke about and if we're to roll on this right what's going to happen to the uniqueness of Falma
Heights because I do disagree that there's like a lot of different things because I again I've been here since 1959 and everybody that is rebuilding is doing it very much aligned to the uniqueness of the neighborhood in a very tasteful manner i do not find this
tasteful to the neighborhood and I would hope that there could be some concessions made to really bring this in line with the neighborhood because if we if we just let this go then what happens to the next one and then we lose the beauty and the uniqueness of Falmouth Heights that's all okay thank you may I
say something Madam Chair yeah go ahead you know when you listen to that argument which I don't disagree with uh because I am struggling with this u um that I have to agree you do one and then
there's another one and there's another one and you lose the visual card that's a beautiful n well it it truly is a beautiful area up there and you and you lose it and that's what's partly wrong with our bylaws is that we have a lot of
things that become subjective to the person sitting here and we have to use our best judgment and apply these bylaws the best way we can and I truly struggle with this i wish that there would be concessions but I don't see how that's
going to be done in a house like this this is very specific very stark i I don't know what to say i could certainly vote against it but you still have a if there were four more it would certainly pass i mean it's not my favorite by any
stretch of the imagination but I honestly I I just don't see where we can tell them what color to paint their house yeah it's their house i think that you can under this bylaw because it is subjective to that you
choose not to do that that's perfectly okay because that's your right as a member here to you read this and use your best judgment i can't disagree with what you're saying other than we do have a right to look at all of these things but I mean
what you're almost um quoting like a subset or what I mean of I I just don't see enough there to to vote against it yeah when I drove around I saw all different kinds i saw front porches some
without I saw all and there like I said you don't have to go far and there's features there that are elsewhere not far away there are other neighborhoods further down where the femur is requiring even higher in Those are really different styles all over the
place okay everything that's going up there most of is going up um and because of FEMA within a very close postw walk there's a number of new buildings that are quite high they approach the 35 ft and you see how how
these renderings look better than the print and and I would it does submit that when the thing is done it's going to look even better i mean nobody it's not going to be everybody's favorite but like I don't think we can dictate
another official part is a single family dwelling now too that's what I'm trying to see the balance here so that I so I don't vote no on this you're up i'd make a motion to close
second we have a motion to close in a second any further discussion all those in favor i got Scott motion to approve for conditions i'll second we're finding properties at five
Indiana Avenue in Thomas Heights uh owned by Michael McGuff zoning district is RC they've applied for a U special permit under section 10.2A of the Fal zoning bylaw to raise and reconstruct
the existing non-conforming structure there's no applicable overlay district the flood zone is AE13 there's no previous decisions of the zoning board of appeals applicable to this property the current use of the property is a is a multif family where
only one is allowed in the zoning district the existing structure is a four bedroomedroom with 1589 ft footprint the proposal is for a three-bedroom 1559 square foot footprint
with a with a detached garage and one bedroom on the second floor of the garage so a total of four bedrooms the lot size is 5,615 square ft in the zoning district that currently requires 40,000 square ft
street frontage on Indiana Avenue is 75 feet in the zoning district which currently requires 100 ft indiana Avenue is a public right of way at this proposed location the current lock coverage by structure is
28.3% which exceeds the uh limits of the zoning bylaw and also the allowed limits that we're go to 25% um uh the proposal will be the proposed structure will cover structures I guess
because there's two now will be 27.8% uh the limit is 25 excuse me is 20 um and according to the worksheet submitted by uh attorney Clower the average in the neighborhood is 27 77
27.77% block coverage by structure parking and paving is 38.6% it will be reduced to 36 did I say uh 38.6% yeah 38.6 down to 36.8 36.8 uh the limit of the zoning
bylaw is 40 there are multiple um setback violations uh resulting in multiple nonconformities of the property uh some of them remain um the I think they all improve they all
improve a little i don't know i think a little a little but they're still not going to be a conforming structure the height is 23t 3 in the proposed structure will be 34 feet 10 in
2 and 1/2 stories the engineering um referral uh notes that driveway permit may be required storm water runoffs uh dry wells and erosion and sediment controls uh the board of health has advised us
that they have approved a four bed excuse me a septic system for four bedrooms um and uh conservation uh notes that uh this is
in a FEMA flood zone and we need conservation approval um I didn't see any comment from the water department um and I read the building department's comment but that's been addressed by Mr clower in his presentation there were
five letters in support one letter in opposition there is one uh test one person testified in support one person testified in opposition at the hearing um the current use of the property is multifamily the proposed use will be
single family but multif family use will be discontinued um the applicant has acknowledged that they will remove the shed from the property the garage will have a habitable space on the second floor um the applicant is to submit a
height certificate uh at the appropriate time and will need conservation commission approval um the provisions under section 240 240 10.2A uh is that the proposed uh structure not
be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure the general conditions for a special permit under section 240 12.1E are that the site be adequate for the proposed use we find that it is adequate uh is it
is suitable for the proposed use there's been no testimony of of negative impact on traffic flow and safety um with respect to neighborhood vis visual character we acknowledge that the proposed structure is of different architectural style uh from the
neighborhood but not unacceptable the sewage uh disposal is been approved there's adequate utilities and there'll be no impact on affordable housing stock nice may I ask a question Madam Chair those findings because I'm not sure I
heard it have we with regard to 12.1E uh decision review criteria have in our findings have we uh determined that the proposed juice will not have it says we have to do this will not have adverse effects that overbalance its beneficial
effects on either the neighborhood or the town is that in there I mean it says that we're supposed to do this say special permanent granning agency well be that's but then when we make a decision ision on the various component
parts that results in the findings that's what happens that's what happens right sometimes that's the result of all of the findings that we make all right so then 12.1 I just want to bring order to this this this truly bothers me when this happens and I want to have a
standard by which we can follow through on a consistent basis this is going to happen again and again it does all the time but if we can make the make an a positive or affirmative finding on the criteria in 12.1E we can make that ultimate determination that you have um
kind of have to look at it as just one piece of the puzzle oh I I I agree absolutely just trying to find order i had the garage at 11.6 if I'm correct 116 in uh 10.1 off 10.1 okay and then
one other finding I want to make sure yeah maybe it's because it's per plans but do we have to notate that there'll be no kitchen in the garage well we can do that in conditions all right do No cooking facilities no
cooking facing the right because you can have a you have a sink you can have a fridge you just can't you just can't have a stove or other heating element yeah we'll do that in condition okay any other findings Norin any other findings
moving on to conditions gave you some but you want the height the height certificate the multif family used to be abandoned to be used it only is a single family dwelling they'll remove the shed the garage habitable space as Tonyy's mentioned there'll be
no cooking facilities uh the height certification and they need concom approval no further structures and the sheds to be removed and let's go to the regular all um and the conservation condition because he hasn't gone before then that's one of the
conditions they need approval yeah she'll go with conservation when he gets and uh all plans her plans all boards uh department requirements and requests police for traffic control that
might be needed uh construction hours 7:00 to 7:00 Monday through Friday 8 to 4 and Saturday no construction on Sunday or town observed holidays construction material shall be located within the lot dark sky
compl dark sky compliant lighting um any belts because we're sidelines are very tight and roof height is within 2 in yeah he just said that built at foundation just to Well I want to just make sure to clarify something i mean
when we say asbuilt for me an asbuilt is just a foundation plan uh but in this case where you're within 2 in of max height you have to have asbuilt elevation as well the frame
four bedroomedroom three in one the third floor we did see that must remain open mhm the two and a half story it's got to be less than one half of the I think I think per plan we'll address
that because I think you're right it's quite evident um we can do it as a separate one though just to keep it alive anyway uh I think that's it you think of anything else or you say there was or was not a water
referral there is one there was garage needs separate line is all I saw i have it here mr duffy if you'd like a copy of it okay here i saw it in there you think of anything else no I was just going to say Yeah I saw it to comply
with the typical water department okay i think we're in good shape you all right with that one yep so we're all set to vote everybody yep all those in favor i opposed none thank you very much for your time and
this one shoehorn that one in all right moving on to three tons road okay this is um appeal 014 of 2025
3 Tonset Road in North Thalmouth the owner is Mary H finey trustee uh they've she has applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit under section 240.2A and 240 11.3A4 to construct an
addition over the existing garage as far as an overlay district is concerned we have a search and rescue district the flood zone is VE19 the existing structure is a single family dwelling three bedrooms
3,025 square ft proposal is for a three-bedroom single family dwelling again same structure same footprint 3,025 um square feet uh we have on file an administrative approval of the zoning
board of appeals in 196 excuse me 2016 um for a new deck um which I think increases the um lot coverage by structure to
23.7% um the lot size is 12,100 ft in a zoning district currently requiring 40,000 square ft street frontage which is kind of strange because it goes around the whole property cuz this this has frontage on two streets 216.6 ft there's only 100 required i'm
not sure which is the front street is the corner lot has two fronts all right anyways that's okay this is a private street lot coverage by structure is currently
23.7% um it will be increased to 25% the limit is 20 but we can grant by special permit up to 25% according to the worksheet submitted by the applicant and attorney Clower the average lot coverage by structure in the neighborhood is
24.13% lock coverage by structure parking and paving is 32.5% will be the same when it's finished the limit is 40 um the setbacks are conforming to zoning um the building height I don't have did
you see that i had trouble reading that on that you aren't the only one brother 22 22.31 these plans were 22.31 what was your term wonky wonky wonky and what's what's the It's going to be the
same when it's finished no oh yes okay same okay engineering has asked us to look at storm water runoff uh the board of health is okay with the septic system the conservation commission approved an order of condition on July the 10th 2024
water department had no comment i have no letters in opposition or in support on file um before I start Mr duffy there was actually another administrative approval that wasn't part of the application package because when I submitted the
application it hadn't been issued yet so I'll submit that file what What is the number of um 594 all right we have a administrative approval um case 059 of 2024
i'll be happy to review and it's dated um March 18th 2025 just right off the press mhm um I'd be happy to go through what does it do so that allowed for an increase in law coverage by the addition of a pool
uh and and some modifications to the deck so the allowed lot coverage or the the currently approved lot coverage right now is 25.0% 25.0 mhm okay okay so it's going to stay the same it is okay
uh good evening again is this on file uh it it Well we can keep that yes you can keep that um I I didn't submit it with the application because it hadn't been issued yet we applied for that quite some time ago but we had some problems with our plans that needed to be rectified um so we had planned on
phasing this which is still what we're doing um for the record Kevin Clower uh I'm before you right now representing Mary Feny the owner of three tons road uh I'm joined by joined tonight by Paul and Jack Gallagher who are the general contractors on this project um Miss Feny
is seeking permission to alter the existing non-conforming dwelling with a modest expansion kevin I'm not letting you get away with talking about this house it's Well I I I haven't gotten there yet come on now i did sunset for my for my sight i haven't I haven't gotten there yet so don't steal my
thunder all right um the the ground floor is really the basement level and and the second floor is really the first floor so when I say first floor I mean the uppermost level so it's a modest expansion of the first floor living area over the existing garage entirely within the existing
footprint um three concept road is um located just north of Serest it is a um pretty dense um still largely seasonal residential neighborhood uh with perhaps the most stunning sunset views in all of Famouth um I can think of one or two
other roads that put up against it but it's it's it's a tossup yep this lot is 12,100 ft um it's in a residential B zoning district and the dwelling is within a flood zone so presently there's a three-bedroom single family dwelling uh which as I've mentioned recently
received administrative approval for a pool and alteration to the decks which increased the allowed footprint to two 3,205 ft which is a lot coverage by structure of 25.0% so it is conforming um as to
setback requirements however the lock coverage by structure even uh though 25% um has been allowed by administrative approval so the proposal is a modest addition uh again it's an expansion of the living area on the first floor over the existing garage entirely within the
existing footprint and it allows for basically increased utility uh and functionality it's more more living area they're going to eliminate one of the existing bedrooms and relocate a bedroom into that area the ridge height will remain 22 ft 22.31 ft uh that's
unchanged the expansion will be in line with the existing ridge uh the proposal does not impact any of the existing setbacks or change the lot coverage by structure or to lock coverage by structures paving and parking um which is still going to be uh
32.9% the bedroom count will remain um at three um due to the existing nonconformities well due to the law coverage in fact we have some administrative modifications on this it's not really a non-conformity uh requires a special permit pursuant to
240 10.2A 2a uh and 240 11.3A4 so at the risk of boring you I've gone over this a few times but 10.2A pre-existing non-conforming dwellings may be changed by special permit provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists and as
you're supposed to consider the standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities impairs of views and vistas and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood in this case uh there's no new non-conformity created um there's no change proposed to the
lock coverage by structure or the structure lot coverage by structures paving and parking there's no changes to the views and vistas and it does conform to the neighborhood under 11.384 uh lock coverage by structure exceeding 20% up to 25.0% is allowed but it
requires a special permit and the board's asked to consider the size and height of structure in relation to the neighborhood the effects of shadow the impacts and views and vistas from public ways and the effect of nitrogen on coastal embainments uh I'd point out that the reason the last administrative approval didn't require a special permit is because there was no habitable space
being created um it was just a modification of the decks and a pool um and I think in in an effort to keep um items from clogging up the board's uh agenda uh Miss Stockman was willing to do that administratively
um here uh we did provide a lot comparison worksheet uh this is clearly not out of character with the surrounding properties it's actually well below the average footprint and gross floor area there's no increase in ridge height so there's no impact on views investors or shadows uh there's no change to the footprint or the overall
ridge height and as all work is within the existing space there's no increase in the bedroom count and there's no negative effect of increased nitrogen and coastal bayments this project as proposed represents an improvement for the owners it adds useful habitable space improves the functionality of the
property and is by no means substantially more detrimental than what exists there's no new dimensional non-conformities and no change to existing nonconformities setbacks or lock coverage for those reasons I believe this meets the requirements of
240.2A 240 11.384 and 240 12.18 i would ask the board grant the special permit and I would be happy to address any questions that you might have at this time start off down there the only question I got is [Music] Are you ever going to bring us prints
like this again don't do I don't I you know sort of like we don't get to choose paint colors i don't get to choose who does the who does the plants i I mean I honestly I I I found it easier to read if I got out stood on my head but uh
other than that it's it's you know it's well within reason i mean they're just throwing a bedroom over the garage i mean I I still can't decipher the uh the handwriting there but uh anyway that's the rare elevation up in the right hand
corner yeah and and some of the things don't actually match but I mean you know go crazy with your pencil oh Lord uh dope questions nice little project so thank you Frank awesome thank
you Tony i really I I love the script i haven't seen this kind of script in 40 years but I can't read it but last time I saw that I was in my pyramid i have to you know I have to bring this up i mean you were just outside of the
coastal pond overlay district in the mass D nitrogen sensitive area this plan says C septic plant i can't tell you putting an IIA system in um I don't think they're putting in a new system not in that area yeah we're not conventional yeah but I it's um you know we're going to comply with whatever the
health department requires um this project started quite honestly quite some time ago um even before some of these new regulations started coming into effect or even being discussed um I I normally would not ask if someone's not in a coastal park district which
this is not mhm uh but I am asking because of its location and I obviously we cannot mandate that um but I like to ask people if they understanding our problems here in town it's going right into the ocean never going to be a
demand for I don't know that because I don't know ground gradients i don't know any of that but I bring it up to be consistent mr clower heard that motion to close no we have to ask the Oh god anybody from the public i think there are two i
think they're neither of the public they're technically not the public they're the builder they're technically kind of public he's the builder and he has a vested interest motion to close second do we have a motion to close in a second any further discussion
all those in favor of closing i oppose none go ahead approve conditions second we have a motion to approve and second let's go Frank let's Okay the property 3 tons road in North Balmouth uh the zoning district is RB they've applied
for a special permit under section 240.2A and 241.3A4 to construct an addition over the existing garage the overlay district is search and rescue the flood zone is V19 the ex existing structure is a
single family dwelling three bedrooms 3,025 ft the proposed structure will be the same um there was administrative approval in 2016 for a new deck which increased the lot coverage by structure to 23.7 and
then there's an administrative approval in March of 2025 for a plunge pool which increased it to 25% the lot is 12,100 ft in a zoning district currently requiring 40,000 square feet the frontage as I
reported goes around on it's a double front double front um 216.6 ft 100 required concert road as a private right of way at this location the existing lot coverage by structure is currently 25%
it will stay at 25% the limit is 20 were allowed by special permit to in to permit up to 25% according to the um neighborhood worksheet sub mr duffy if I could um maybe we could say that
it's currently 23.7 but approved at 25.0 okay um the new neighborhood average is because the pool's not in it's been it's approved but not but not installed not in Okay fine then the neighborhood
average according to the worksheet is 24.13% lot coverage by structure paving and parking is 32.5% it will remain the same the limit is 40 the uh setbacks will not be changed there are no uh setback
nonconformity the existing height of the building will be remain the same it will not change and it is conforming the engineering um referral asked us to consider storm water water runoff but that's probably already that'll be included the storm water runoff i think
it's already addressed board of Health has approved a septic system for the three-bedroom um house conservation commission has issued an order of condition on July 10th 2024 the water department has no comment and we received no letters in
opposition no letters in support and there was no public testimony with respect to 10 section 240 10.2A of the zoning bylaw we find that the proposed addition will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing structure and with respect to the general conditions for a special permit under section 2402.1E we determine that the site is adequate for the proposed use it is suitable for the proposed use there's no evidence to suggest there'll be a
negative impact on traffic flow and safety there'll be no negative impact on neighborhood visual visual characters views or vistas there's adequate provisions for sewage disposal there's adequate utilities serving the site and there's no negative impact on the
affordable housing inventory nice conditions are pretty easy shed to be removed no there's no shed here oh that was the last one removed that was a previous one oh was already removed okay thank you oh I just read it in the file
okay per plans uh all boards um all department requirements and requests police for traffic control they do their own policing up there big time uh construction hours 7 to 7 Monday
through Friday 8 to 4 on Saturdays no Sundays or town reserved holidays construction vehicles and materials shall be located within the lot not in the street dark sky compliant lighting um rest of this I think that's it
anything else anybody threebedroom anything else Norine uh yeah so they'll just need a cert at uh completion to make sure the lock coverage is still okay conforming to the limit that sounds good
anybody else in the meeting uh do you know if that propane tank is installed uh it says proposed right it is not yet it's going to go in the same time as the pool so they're going to dig that okay so you'll need approval from the fire department there's a permit application
in at the moment we're waiting for that i didn't see that in there just for the board's edification when we have two streets like this and there's a curve what you do is you split the curve so that each road gets half of the curve so
that you can calculate a street frontage that way but it conforms so yeah it's fine fyi like I'll call you the next time I Please do all right I think we're ready to vote
everybody ready yes all those in favor i oppose none all right thank you all very much appreciate your time tonight okay so now we got an administrative approval we have one now is this just for our edification yeah that's just for us to
add to the file okay actual stamp of So we're moving on to minutes are we doing any we are doing minutes for January 23 January 30 and February 13th wow motion to approve
January 3 January 30th and February 132 i'll second everybody's good with all those i I All those in favor i oppose none zoning administrative updates she feels better she feels better i'll spare you
thank you i'll update you next meeting okay um board discussion are we still doing May 3rd is it Can we bring May 3rd up right now sure are we doing May 3rd for our workshop everyone doing May 3rd okay 9 9:00 here i think
Nick was the only person we've not heard from so we can check back with him or if he's watching us okay so okay yeah board updates future agenda items that could have come under May 3rd and our next
meeting is May 1 uh at 6 p.m yay motion to adjurnn second all those in favor i [Music]