[Music]
[Music] You guys all sat down there for now that I've gabbled. Welcome to the zoning board of appeals. Please silence any cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV. If there's any private party
recording this hearing, please step up to the podium and request permission. I'll introduce the staff. Our absent member who will be here any minute, I hope, is Mark Fineran. Next is Scott Peterson. To my right is Frank Duffy, the clerk. My name is Suzanne Murphy.
I'm chair. To my left is James Moss, vice chair. Tony Puchi, and Nick Haney. And we have Ashley Dlo, our office assistant. The zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state zoning statutes as well as the town zoning bylaws 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 discussion of the project prior to the closing of the hearing process 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. The applicant or the applicant's representative will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation. Time may time may be extended by a vote of the board. Three, the board will then question the
applicant. Four, the public will then 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. Please state your state your name and address for the
record, please speak into the microphone. It will not amplify your voice and record audio for FCTV viewers. And we also have a minute before we start. If anyone wants to make a public comment on anything that's not on our agenda, you're welcome to come on up. Anybody?
So, we'll move in. Welcome, Benerin. Good evening. All right. Our first is a continuation. It's 02125 uh 9 Sycamore. And we have a request for a continuation
to August 14th. You want to address it at all or Thanks, Madam Chair. For the record, Kevin Clower. Um, we've been in contact with council for some of the abutters, attorney Lebers, and knowing that Miss Stockman was out tonight and that this was likely to be continued anyways, we
figured we would try to utilize this time to further negotiations with the abutters um in hopes of coming back with something that is more palatable. um if if we're able to reach that sort of agreement. Uh so in conjunction with them, we decided that it was best to request a continuation.
Sounds great. So August 14th at 6 p.m. We wish you the best. Uh motion to continue to August 14th. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any comment? Everybody else? All those in favor? I oppose. None. Thank you very much. Have a great night. Thank you.
Sorry. All right. Next up we have 03525 Andre 209 Courier Road East Felmouth. Okay. This is application 35 of the year
2025 Ronaldo A. Andred trustee um has filed an appeal with the Falmouth town clerk pursuant to Mass General Laws chapter 40A section 8 sections 8 and 15 and section 240-12.4A1B.
4 A1B and 240 2.3A3 of the FAMA zoning bylaw appealing the building commissioner's determination. Um, and they've als he has also applied to the zoning board of appeals for a variance pursuant to section 240 12.3A of the zoning bylaw
for permission to exceed the height limit on the accessory structure uh at property is at 209 Courier Road in East Falmouth. the further information. Um, there are actually three matters before the board tonight. The building
commissioner, and I will read from his letter in just a minute, but he has made a determination that the building as constructed does not comport with the plans that were approved by both the planning board and the zoning board of appeals and that the uh accessory structure as built exceeds the height
limitation of 22 feet for a um accessory structure. Um then the applicant has applied for a variance under section 24012.3A to exceed the height limit. Uh the property is in a zoning district AGA.
It's in a Wquite Bay coastal pond overly district in zone 2 wildlife corridor. There are there's a special permit uh that's at issued tonight. It's permit number 16 of the year 2020. And there's also a planning board site plan review
dated uh March 2, 2020, but it just for information, it's actually the planning board that has to handle that. The lot is 92,950 square ft in the zoning district which currently requires 45,000. Um so it's
conforming the street frontage is 191.4T in the zoning district which requires 100 ft. So that's conforming. There's uh um there's no uh no other nonconformities on the structure. Lock coverage by structure, lot coverage by parking,
paving, and structure all conform to zoning. All the setbacks conform to zoning. Um the height, however, of the of the accessory structure is at issue. Uh is alleged to be higher than the 22 ft allowed by the zoning bylaw.
Um, now we have a letter from the building commissioner which is addressed to the applicant Ronaldo Andred. It's dated May 14, 2024. Um, and uh, it is is I'm just going to read relevant parts of it, not the whole
thing because it's quite long. It has come to the attention of the building department that the subject property is in violation of special permit 1620 granted to set property by the zoning board of appeals as well as site plan review by the planning board dated March 20, 2020.
Uh based upon an observation made, it appears that the proposed use of the first floor garage and the second floor affordable dwelling have been modified. This modification requires approval by the planning board of condition number one of their decision of March 2, 20, 2020 and approval of the zoning board of
appeals pursuant to conditions 1 and 13 of special permit issued by the board which I just referred to. Um the building commissioner issued an order. You are hereby which is one of the orders being appealed. You are
hereby ordered to cease and desist the use of the garage structure both first and second floor until such time as a building permit has been issued for the changes beyond the scope of what was originally approved and included in the original building permit. Violation of
the planning board site review um and the zoning board of appeals has been noted as the garage structure as proposed to both the planning board and the zoning board of appeals has been modified and therefore a violation of both permits. It has been noted that there are no garage bay doors as
proposed. The first floor of the garage structure has been finished with a full bathroom uh located within it. The plans submitted to and approved by both the planning board and the ZBA plainly show a twocar garage on the first floor and an instru and an accessory apartment on
the second floor. The second order uh based upon the above you are required to file an application with the planning board that's separate and also with the board of appeals uh to see if these boards will approve the modifications.
Um, a second issue has to do with building height. Uh, in a letter dated May 6th, 2025, uh, the building commissioner notes that the zoning bylaw provides for a 22 ft uh height of an accessory structure. The
garage is is an accessory structure. um he made the determination that the uh actual height of the structure is 24.96 ft. So it's 2.96 ft beyond the limit of the zoning bylaw.
And then um he has issued an order based upon the this information you required to file an application with the building department uh complete with plans showing that you will reduce the non-compliant house,
excuse me, non-compliant height of the accessory struct accessory garage structure. Uh so it's no more than 22 feet as allowed by the zoning bylaw. and you have an al alternative and you have accepted that you have applied for a variance to see if this board will grant
you the variance. So that's quite a bit of information but now I'm turning it over to you. Okay. Um so I just wrote this down. I'm not really good at speaking in front of people so I'm just going to read from the paper and then go from there. Um good evening members of the zoning board of appeals and thank you for your time today. My name is Ronaldo Andre and I'm respectfully
requesting a variance for the accessory dwelling unit located at 209A courier road. The issue we are facing is the ADU was constructed taller than the special permit allows. The height violation was only raised over a year after the project was completed despite the fact that the issue had been addressed much
earlier despite the fact that the issue should have been addressed much earlier in the process. I would like to explain the background of the situation and why granting a variance is the most reasonable and fair solution for everyone involved. I'd like to provide um
full context of the permitting process. So the peritting process began with a structural with was with with architectural and structural plans that were submitted to the building department reviewed and approved. A building permit was issued and all work was done. Inspections um the foundation was inspected and passed without issues.
The framing inspection was completed successfully. However, at this point the height issue was never raised despite the fact that it should have been noted during the inspection if it was a concern. Um all the rough inspections were done. plumbing, electrical, HVAC inspections completed without any comments regarding the height or
structure. Um, there was never a final occupancy permit inspection conducted for the ADU. The first official notification of a height violation came from the building commissioner over a year after the project was completed following a a different violation which was the original one that you noted. Um,
this is what has caused the hardship as we are unaware as we were unaware of the potential height issues until we received this notice more than a year after construction. The height violation should have been flagged during the framing inspection when the structure was in progress, not after construction was complete and the project was already finished. The initial violation was
related to a different issue as you mentioned and no mention of height was made at that time. If the height discrepancy had been raised at that point, it could have been addressed immediately avoiding significant financial hardship caused by the delay. Um, so according to the Massachusett state Massachusetts may be granted if
the following criteria are met. One, unique conditions. The property at 209A Curry Road is located more than 20 ft above street level, making the ADU ADU largely obscured from view. The additional height of the building does not impact the aesthetic character of the neighborhood, nor does it obstruct any views. The ADU is not visible from
the street or surrounding properties, and the unique elevation of the lot means that the building is barely noticeable in the community. Um, substantial hardship, too. Um, the hardship is significant to to bring the ADU into compliance with the height requirement. It would require tearing off part of the roof and rebuilding it.
This would result in substantial financial costs, not to mention the disruption to the property. More importantly, the ADU has been unoccupied for over a year because of this violation, resulting in lost rental income and ongoing financial strain. This issue could have been addressed promptly if the height concern had been raised during the framing inspection,
but instead it was only identified after the fact a year after construction was completed. The delay in bringing this issue to light has caused unnecessary hardship for the property owner, preventing the building from being used as intended. Three, there's no detriment to the public good. Granting this variance would not cause any detriment to the
public good. The ADU does not interfere with any neighbors privacy, sunlight, or views. It is located on a secluded lot over 20 ft above street level and is barely visible from the road or neighboring properties. No issues have been raised regarding the impact of the height discrepancy on the surrounding community and the additional height does
not affect the aesthetic harmony of the neighborhood. And fourth, uh, no deriggation from the intent of or purpose of the bylaw. The intent of the zoning bylaw is to ensure that construction is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the ADU fits seamlessly with its surrounding with its surroundings
despite the height discrepancy. The additional height does not block views, infringe on privacy, or create any other negative impact on neighboring properties. Furthermore, Massachusetts recent laws promoting the development of accessory dwelling units was were designed to encourage housing growth, particularly to address the state's housing shortage. Forcing the removal
and construction of the roof would undermine this goal and create an undue financial burden with no clear benefit to the community. In conclusion, I respectfully ask the board respectfully asked the board to grant the bearings for the height violation. The adu was built in good faith in compliance and
passed all inspections up until the final stages. The height violation, however, was not raised until over a year after completion despite the fact that it should have been addressed during the framing inspection. This delay has resulted in significant financial hardship as the property has been un unoccupied due to the issue.
Granting the variance would have no adverse effect on the neighborhood or the town and it would allow the ADU to be used as intended. The hardship faced by the property owner is significant and granting this variance would allow them to move forward with the use of the ADU without further unnecessary costs or disruptions. Thank you for your time and
consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thanks. Who wants to start up here? Mac, you want to start? Uh, sure. Um,
as you read from the state law, um, variances for the most part are if there's a difficulty in the terrain, if you got a rock or, uh, soils might not be compatible. Um, but
variances are extremely hard to get in the state of Massachusetts. Uh I I asked around and nobody can even remember the last time we've given one and um uh I I'm
they're just not given for mistakes. Um this board anytime anything is close to a maximum height um we have it certifi we asked to have it certified. I wasn't on the board when that happened. I mean, I probably would
have, but um the uh I mean, it's it's on you, sir. I hate you know, I mean, it's it's a mistake maybe, but um we just
we don't give out variances. I mean, it's just extremely rare. And in this situation, um, as I say, it's not if somebody made making a mistake. Um, so, so I'd like for it to be taken into consideration that, you know, um, so so
throughout the process of, you know, the building process, I was required to pull permits, right? So, I'm I'm I'm using the town and and all of the, you know, the building departments, the required departments. I I'm I'm thinking that they're going to check in the work,
right? I mean, so the reality is uh a height certification needs to be done by a registered licensed surveyor. Um and um you know, whoever it it's kind of on the lap of whoever did your plans and
and whoever constructed your structure. Um I mean it's just I mean just the rules. John. Yeah, it sounds unfortunate, right? I mean, uh, it would have been nice if when you had your framing inspection
done that they had picked up on it. Uh, also, Mr. Andre, one of the conditions that you received when you got your permit. Um, item 10 was an asbuilt plan shall be provided to the zoning board to demonstrate the height.
You know, again, if that was caught by you or the town missed it, there was an obligation in a condition here that that would be done at that period of time. Um, I would hope that you would be going back after the framer because you had
plans submitted. Uh, it showed the 22 foot height. uh the town might have missed something, but clearly, you know, you as the owner, I would think, could go back after the framer who didn't frame it to the 22 feet. So, um to to
Mark's point, it's very difficult for a variance, it's uh the the languages involve substantial hardships. And in this instance, hopefully you have a collar ties and they could knock those collar ties or
put them up a little bit. And I would push back on the framer and have them pay for it. I don't think it's necessarily your fault, but uh again, there is a condition in your original uh permit that you would also have an asbuilt uh that would demonstrate the
height at 22 feet. So just unfortunate set of issues here for you and I feel for you but um I wish the town had caught it. Your framer certainly should have caught it and you had a condition that you were supposed to show that it was 22 ft if you would if everybody had
kind of done those things. You would have caught it earlier. So I feel sorry for you but um I again I I don't see the substantial hardship and I would hope that you would go back after your framer and have them fix I think the substantial hardship is the fact that we haven't been able to utilize a property
that we built and and we're not able to generate any income from it. You know, um there's no reason why didn't you go back to the framer when you heard about this. I this this was just this was just brought o over o well over a year after the project was complete. They didn't this is not something that was addressed
um any at any time during the the the frame, you know. I mean, we went through every inspection. And it took about a year and then after the fact they real they you know there were other issues that arose for the first floor level which we rectified. If there was an issue with the height at that point why wasn't it addressed then you know when
when it originally happened that they they had there were violations that occurred then and there. So at that point why wasn't it addressed that there was an issue with the height? You know um I'm not I I I I'm not a builder but I don't I don't know anybody that builds a house I mean that gets up on the roof and measures the height. I I it looked
fine to me. I don't know. I'm I'm not a builder, you know, but um I I I just thought that the town was going to do their due diligence and make sure that everything was done correctly. Why Why am I filing permits? Why am I having them come out and do inspections? Um I I I thought that's what what was
happening. You know, I thought that they were making sure that everything was done correctly up to state code and it was signed off. You know, the rough inspection was signed off um for for for the rough frame that everything had been done correctly. And then after the fact, they came back and told us that it wasn't. I'm I'm I'm just a member of the
community that's pulling permits and hiring people to get it done. And you know, I'm confining in the in in the in the contractors as well as as well as the town, I think, to to make sure that things are being done correctly, you know, and and that's what I thought was being done because everything was signed off on, you know, there was there was
never any issues throughout any process throughout any point in this process until the very end when the house was completely finished. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, Mr. Andre, um, you hired a contract. This is
new construction, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. So, you you hired a contractor to do this, uh, for you, or did you do any of the work yourself? Yes, I hired a contractor. Was a licensed contractor? Yes. U, one of the questions I I would like to ask relates to something that the
building commissioner noted. This is a garage, but there are no garage doors, correct? So, how did that happen? So, we thought from the beginning when that when this process happened, if any changes were going to be made, as long as there were no this is what I was told, I'm not a builder, but as long as there were no structural changes made to
the property, if if you change the doors, the windows that it wouldn't be an issue. And they came in and signed off on it. The plans were there. Everything was there existing, you know. So, they walked through. It's it's not as if we, you know, just built this place and didn't call for people to come in and inspect and make sure everything
was up to what was required. I called for every inspection. I had everything done. We thought that it was okay to make to make those changes and come to find out after the fact I was misinformed. It was not okay, but um we rectified that and um they I I had
meetings with um all the departments and they came up with a with a scenario to to fix that, you know, which was separating the upstairs from the downstairs structure, putting a wall, zoning it for business on the downstairs level. and um and and I got a um
administrative approval to do that. So that so that's I I don't know why that's even on here because that was already addressed and we already spoke about that. What is it? I now you know I was out at the property the other day taking a look at it and I suppose all the other members were were I didn't go inside. Yep. And I don't know who did if anybody
but what is actually inside that building on the first floor because he notes in his letter it's just a finished first floor. There's a there's a laundry room. There's a there's a storage area. There's um there's a bathroom down there. They have they have photos of all
of it that that went through the town. And we we had a meeting after the fact with that. That was the original violation that happened over a year ago, which prevented us from being able to utilize the the property. And um there was never any any talk about the height at that time. So when that happened, you
know, there was there were a lot of things that were going on down here at the town hall that just that I well with the building commissioner in particular that I I don't think should have happened, but it did, you know, it it went the way it went. I was told to bring in a set of plans to to to show what we had revised and what we had talked about in the meeting in regards
to how we were going to change it to comply. I came in and did that and um and I brought the plans into um the building commissioner. and I gave them to a secretary and I, you know, I wasn't aware that I was supposed to upload them onto uh perodize because when we originally pulled this permit, there was
no permodize that it was just, you know, you were just bringing the plans in and giving them to whatever um department required it, you know. So, I did that and um you know, 30 or 40 days went by with no compliance from anybody from the town and um the end of July they began
sending fines for $1,300 a day um for for non-compliance. So, I came down and I spoke to the building commissioner and I said, "Hey, I you know, I dropped off three sets of plans that that to to your to your secretary and you know, I mean, I don't know if you really want me to get into it, but I mean, he said some
pretty ridiculous things to me. He told me, you know, that um for all he knew, those three sets of plans that that I had dropped off to him were rolls of toilet paper that he used to wipe his behind with. So, I went and I spoke to another department and they guided me. The planning department, Jed and um Melinda were very helpful and they
showed me what I had to do to comply, how to work it on permit eyes. So, I did that and um and from there it's just it's it's just been like an ongoing issue with this property, you know, um with just with the fines and them coming up with with new things that that that have been arising after the fact, you
know. I mean, I knew that inspections had to be done. If I thought anything was done incorrectly, I would have tried to rectify it from the beginning. You know, I wasn't trying to hide anything. All permits were pulled. I was I I you know, I thought we were doing what we what what we were in allowance to do. Obviously, we weren't. But um like I
said, we did rectify the situation for the downstairs. And um and yeah, that that that got situated, you know, and um so now so now we're just we're just talking about the height. I if if you look at the property, I don't know if any of you went there, but I know that um the
building commissioner is is adamant about where the where the property lines lied or where or where the elevations lied prior to the construction, but um if you look at the if you look at the property, it's it's it's it's in like a
little sinkhole, you know, it's dropped down and it's it's it's literally I mean, when we had the surveyor come out and take measurements from the point of the wall, which is where the original grade is from the original property at 209 Courier Road. There's the the grade just comes flat in and then you can see
that we cut it and put about a two a little over a twoft tall retaining wall around the entire property because it was dipping down into what into what was built. So we put that retaining wall which is you know it's about this high and it wraps around the entirety of the
project. So realistically, when you when you pull up the driveway, when you're looking from anybody else's property, um you're looking from the natural grade, and you're actually looking at something that's set 2 ft below grade, over 2 ft below grade, you know, so when you're looking at it, it's not as if you're
looking at a 24T build. I understand that it is. And it's and it's and and the and the measurements that he got at 2496 are not accurate either. The surveyor came out and took a measurement from from the from the foundation to the roof ridge. That's 23 feet. Where he got
this 2496 is is So there is two letters here. The first one he says the building commissioner says it's 24.96 ft. He's changed it twice. Then there's another one that says that it's 23. Which one is it? You know, I mean I 23 23 feet 3 in. But either one of them are both. They're
both over. Yes, correct. Both. at the 23 ft um elevation. If you go from the highest point where the grade where the where the natural grade actually is, if you shoot from there, I had my surveyor put those plans in and that's 22 ft. It's actually under 22 ft from that point to the roof ridge, which would be,
you know, which would put me in compliance. Gary Street refused to accept that height. If you walk there, I'm, you know, I'm I've been in ling landscape construction my whole life. So when when you're looking at grade, you know that it's pretty clear to see when you walk into that yard where the original grade was. I'm not sure. But we
don't have anything in our file that I saw. I gave them all that information. No, no. This board, we don't care what you give them. We have to have it, too. I I wasn't aware that I had to give it. I thought that any information I gave to There's absolutely nothing nothing in our file showing that there's compliance
or even an ability to prove compliance. Uh um excuse me to to to prove there's nothing in our file that shows that's what that's why that second letter was wrote was written by uh Mr. Street um because because I because I brought a set of site plans in to comply with the
height. No, I have the emails. Well, no. See, whatever you file downstairs doesn't automatically come up here. I'm sorry. I was unaware of that. Well, sorry. He summarized what he has in that letter and Yeah. So that so so so the height
that he's doing now he he's saying that's based off of the the mean original grade which is a bylaw that states that it has to be from a certain point from the mean original you know from the from the mean natural grade which was when the construction at 209
Curry road was done. Do I understand you said you have a surveyor who's filed something that shows it is 22 feet from from the original from what we were saying is the original grade which is that which is if any of you have gone to the to the property and seen if you if you look at it did everybody go to it or so if you if you look at where the
retaining wall is I mean it's it's pretty clear there's there's three steps going down from from the driveway from the original grade at every point around the property at the point over over to the right hand side of the lot where you can see the original grade that's that's where the grade is coming from 209 or the original
property. It just comes flush into there. Could you file it with us so we could see it? Sure. You might require a continuance, but it's stamped and everything. Uh yeah, by the by the surveyor. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I had to bring it. I had to I had to bring it and and and when I brought it I brought I
brought it to the zoning zoning board of appeals and they originally said that they would accept it based off of that and then Gary Street wrote a letter stating that um where he was basing it off the mean grade and you know just to the to the naked eye I I'm not a I'm not
a Lancer. I'm not you know I don't I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know how all those numbers work. But when I walk under the property and I see where the grade is, I walk from the driveway, that's basically the original grade from from the reason why we shot from the point where the yard is is because in landscape when you when you
when you create where the say the original grade is here, right? And then you have an area that starts pitching down. What we did was we created a retain wall all the way around there and then from that point on everything has to pitch away from the house. So So that's what we did. So, so you're going to get lower points as you come further
down the driveway, as you come further down the property, you know, because grade is pitching away, you know, so it's not that isn't going to be the original grade. But what but what I argued with him was that the original grade existed where the grass is. If you look over to the right where the yard is, where the retaining wall was put in, I mean, I didn't put a retaining wall
there just because I wanted it to look aesthetically nice. Uh, it does look nice because we did a good job doing it. But the the bottom line is if that if that thing was the foundation was put where it was supposed and it wasn't put too low, then I would have sat it right
at the top of that wall and I wouldn't never had done all that work with the retaining wall, you know, but but we did and and that's just what happened. But, you know, it's very good that you're explaining all this, but it would mean a lot more if we saw it in Sure. on a plan. That's I mean, I can I I do. Is
there a way that I can plug in this phone and show you like a email or something or no? I mean, I have the PDFs for that plan that show the height. I brought it to the zoning board of appeals. I brought it to planning board. It is in the file. There's not I didn't see it. So, the plan that we
have um has the most recent revision date of May 4th, 2025. Is that the one you're referring to? Yeah, that's in the plan. That's in the file. May 25 is in here, correct? The only one I got is a plot plan. Yes, that's it. Um, so
there's a note at the bottom of the May fourth plan uh for the elevation. It says building ridge elevation. There's a note at the left hand corner. Did you ever end up submitting the asbuilt?
I think the surveyor did that originally. I Yeah, I believe so. I I think that ASBOT was required before we started. I thought it was never submitted. If it was done, this would have shown up and this wouldn't have gone this far.
Wait, it wasn't as submitted. It would have to It would have shown that the building was too high though. So obviously who who gave that as had to be a licensed John Doyle did all the surveying at the property.
Everything that was that was required I did you know I mean I I'm believe I wasn't trying to get to this point here with this you know I I don't see that information in the file let him look at it maybe he can show us take a copy and show us maybe you know
where we don't know the building origally on like 23. Yeah. Elevation right here. So top of stone top of existing stone wall elevation 71.93. Um building ridge elevation 93.96.
So that that got 22 ft. So is it top of the wall fusion is between where we're taking the measure measurements from. Yes. So, so from the foundation, from the top of the foundation, it's 23 ft from where Gary and this is where Gary You should go back behind the podium. Thanks. Thanks. Um, so they can hear you
at home. Uh, the the original elevation that that that they said that it was um from the top of the foundation, which is where they measure from, apparently was 23 feet 23 feet 2 in or something that that's what they required originally. And then
um I filed this showing that from the top of the wall, which was which is what we believed was the only location left on the property that showed natural grade was we're getting 22 feet. And then Gary sent a letter stating that I don't know where he came up with the
next number at 2496. Um he he he did his own calculations. I'm not really sure, but um that that's lower than the lowest point anywhere on the property. Despite the fact that you have two dimensions here, uh heights, it's still not a calculation. Well, it would be it would
be the So, so it's going by elevation. Yes, but he says top of existing stone wall. How do we know what that means? Well, that that's just the only thing to measure it from is from the mean level. That's that's the only place elevation. That's the only thing they could where we could take it from that everything else has been cut down. Everything else
on the property has been cut down and pitched and everything else is pitching down. So there there there is nothing else that that would give an accurate elevation of where the natural grade was. And like I said, I mean there's there's no reason for me to put a retaining wall in it. It just it's it's illogical. Why would I put a retaining
wall in if it was if there wasn't an issue, you know, if if if they didn't cut it too low. They cut too low where the foundation went in. So we so we had to make up for it because otherwise all the water would be pitching down into the house. So, so that's just what had to be done and that's the only location
on the property that shows elevation prior to any to any work, you know. So, I mean, so we went from that point and from that point is where it's 22 ft tall. Okay. So, uh just one further question. You you've talked in your presentation,
Mr. Ander, you said that the unique condition here is the elevation of your lot above the street. Yes. Approximately how high is that? Uh the the surveyor told me it's over 20 feet above. So So when you drive past essentially I mean right now this time
of year can't see anything. You can't see it when when you when you when you drove up the neighbor's house. I mean we have green giants all the way down the nobody can see it from anywhere. The only person that where where where the uh the view would be blocked potentially
would be from my house which is substantially taller than this building. So um no one can see it from anywhere. It's a conservation area. There's there's no houses anywhere around. There's no people around. It's a it's a secluded lot. It's a, you know, it's an over twoacre lot where no very rarely do
people come up there and even see it, you know. So, I mean, I just thought that that would be constituted as unique and I I just didn't, you know, I understand that the height is over uh based off of what's being given. But, you know, I I think that there was a lot of
misinterpretation of where the grade is. There's a lot of um I guess miscommunication in regards to what's going on. I like I've been given a lot of different information from the building department, you know, so they give me one height, then another height, and you know, then they told me to have a surveyor go out and shoot it from what we constituted his original grade, which
we did. And he then he wouldn't accept that, and he came with a different height, you know. I mean, I don't I don't know. I mean, ultimately, we we built this because, you know, originally there is a housing crisis in this community. We were looking to provide more affordable housing for people, you know, by putting by putting this
building up. And I don't have any more questions. Perhaps some other members do. So, first comment just to kind of piggy back on what Mr. Finner had said is um under 40A section 10 of variance. Uh it's really more for lot shapes, not so
much uh mistake on elevation. So, I that's extraordinary relief and I don't think it's applicable in this particular situation. Um can you clarify The correspondence has been going to a couple different entities. I just want to make sure that the board and its decision understands. Are you the
trustee of a realy trust currently? Are you the applicant's representative? Because when you were before So this is this is this is where it gets a little where it's a what's a little bit interesting is the fact that and and so there are some issues that I'm having with the building department. Um so oddly enough when this when this
incident originally happened I was not the owner of the property. Okay. I my mother was the owner of the property. I advocated in 2020 all the way up until 2024. Um but when the fines began coming in and when all the information was being sent, they were finding me as an
individual which is you know I Your name was probably on the application. It was on the application. Correct. But I was not the owner at any point. You're the trustee now currently though. Yes. Okay. I just I was on No, I am not. No, I am not the trustee. No, my mother is the trustee. It's an it's it's
Andre family irrevocable trust. I'm not the trustee. Just want to make sure that gets corrected in the records have Yeah. It just the correspondence is going back and forth. It's listing Mr. Andre as trustee and there's other it's listing
uh Deborah Robbins as owner, Ronaldo Andre as applicant. I just want to make sure that the record is clear. Yes, I'm the the first page he's he's listed on the of the application. He's listed as the trustee. Yeah. Why? I didn't I didn't pull the permits. Uh Deborah Robbins pulled the permits. I didn't you
know I mean it's my mother. We helped her through the process. She came down here and pulled all the permits herself. Yes. There were I believe in initially there were architectural schematics submitted to the board as well as to the planning board. Correct. Yeah. And it was a
construction supervisor or a general contractor who was retained to do this particular work? Yes. Well, our family did it. My her brothers are are contractors. Um, did you review the decision from uh 2020 when you were back before with the
board? It was during the pandemic, I think. So, those are all like on Zoom. On Zoom. Yeah. Did you review the written decision though that was that was rendered by the board? Um, we were just talking over um over video. I'm sure they they had given us some, you know, I didn't I don't think I went through there was a big pamphlet that they gave us some things that needed to
be done. I think you never actually got a copy of the written decision though of this board. The written decision written special permit decision. I I I would imagine probably I'd have to say yes. I mean I don't see how they wouldn't send it to us. I think so. I mean it was clear I was I was on
the board. I was not I didn't vote on this particular is that it was very clear that it was the ridge height was not to exceed 22 feet. It was a specific finding. There was testimony as built was to be submitted. It was the plans were to be when was the asbuilt
supposed to be submitted prior to construction, right? That was after the framing you have to certify the height. So once the rough frame is complete, it's what's it's supposed to be built once the rough frame is complete. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean that was the asbuilt was there was an asbuilt after the rough
frame and the first floor was a uh the town should have it. There was definitely a certified as the first floor was was supposed to be a garage was unfinished. When when did you get permission to change the first floor and who from zoning wise? Not till after the fact. So you never came back and asked
for permission to put in Oh, that's that's that's what the original violation occurred. We didn't you know, so like I said, we were I was just given misinformation. We were I was told that if you don't change anything structurally, we didn't change any of the any of the beams, any of the struct you know, everything stayed the same except for the fact that we put windows
in place of the of the garage door. Just just so you know, one of the conditions that Mr. Mos is referencing in number 13. Any deviation no matter how minor from the plan submitted have to come back to the board to be approved. So, well, they've we we've we've addressed
that issue though. The um with the with the doors and the downstairs. So, I don't think it ever came back in front of the board. Came back before the You got administrative approval from Administrative approval? Yes. From I got administrative approval from the zoning board of appeals. Really? It's not in the file. I don't see it in the file. I
don't So I believe that you submitted the request to planning and to the ZBA. Oh, I don't know that the day when I went in there, I paid for I paid for the approval was finalized. What did you say? She doesn't. I have Yeah, I had a receipt and a and a and a
copy of the paper. I have it at the house that for an administrative approval what was being changed on certain plans and then the the last and then there was never any talk of it after. So I was just under the assumption that that was well just the last set of plans was May
of this year the site plan right they had me bring in new plans and everything for this I mean for the for the changes everything was done I brought I brought in the new set of plans which is required to the building department planning department to everyone which showed the downstairs as as what
it is now a wall put up to divide the upstairs from the downstairs um I I mean I did everything that was asked of me I don't I don't I don't think I have any other questions at this point. Thank you, John. I have a couple questions. First of all, I just want to put some things in order as I've
listened to everybody. Um, you were aware that a uh special permit was provided number 016-20 of 52120. Were you aware of that? Yes. Uh were you aware that in paragraph 10 it was outlined earlier today that you
would provide uh asbuilt height uh plan to the uh ZBA? Did you do that? Pretty sure the asbuilt was provided here. If you had done that, you wouldn't be here tonight. Um you're right now over according to
uh what we have 2.296 ft over. Um, if we had the asbuilt, if the building commissioner had the asbuilt height plan, this would not be an issue. Did anybody when you filed your building permit, uh, you filed a proposed plot
plan? Well, you did you had to file a proposed plot plan to show because that would show the mean grade and that mean grade then establishes where your height's going to be. Did you do that? I would imagine so. I I mean, did you ask Mr.
Street for that? Uh, Mr. Street, for what? For the for the for all of the evidence. In other words, you're here. In other words, your hardship right now is self-imposed. And that is something under 4A section
10 in our and then our own bylaws. You can't have a self-imposed hardship. You were given a special permit. We have bylaws that say you weren't supposed to go over 22 feet. Yep. you applied for a building permit. You had to show the uh
mean grade and establish that where that height was going to be on the ridge. You were required by the special permit paragraph 10 uh to provide an asbuilt on the height. If you had, you would have known before you ever you have that
information that states that the asbill was provided. I'm asking you. No, I'm asking you because you have to provide the evidence. I know that there that there was supposed to be an asbuilt that was provided. That's what should be here tonight as evidence that the building commissioner is wrong. So in other words, you have to
establish where you started on the mean grade. That's your proposed plot plan that was showing this. You have to establish that you did an asbuilt and that as built did not go over 22 feet as the building commissioner um suggests or
in fact believes it did by 2.296 ft. um just because you changed the topography, put in walls, all that that that doesn't matter. You had to start from the basics. So if you have a plot plan that shows
where the mean grade was and established where the height was going to be and many engineers will put that on the they supposed to put on the plan, architects will put it on the plan. Uh, and then if you had gone out and done exactly what paragraph 10 said to do prior to even roofing
or at least by roofing and got that as built that said it's elevation whatever it is isn't as built on on record. There has to be and that should be here tonight. I didn't know that. Okay. I mean, well, you're trying you you have to provide evidence. Um, we don't have to we have to listen
to it, review that, but you're the one that's got to provide that evidence. And if is there a way that you can look up to see if there was an asthma? No. All I'm saying is I feel bad. I truly feel badly about this is a terrible situation. It's a terrible situation. And it would be nice if you could find a
way to fix this. But frankly, as one board member, I don't see anything tonight that's been presented other than the insinuation the building commissioner did something and did something else and did something else and that there are plans sitting
someplace that we don't have. So if you have asbuilt plans or the building commissioner has them, you have right to go get those and you have a right to present them to the board to show that the you're appealing this that the building commissioner is wrong. None of that's
been established right now. Everything you talked about as a hardship for you right now, financial, all of that was self-imposed. It's self-imposed by paragraph 10. It's also self-imposed by paragraph 13. But only paragraph 10 really is what you're
here for. You're here for one thing, and that's a variance on height. And there's nothing you presented tonight in evidence that says that you should get this variance. I I I just don't understand how you think that this is self-imposed because you did if you because I hired a
contractor and because I hired the town to let me just say this because to validate the heights you have a you have a special permit special but the special permit is not even required anymore for ADUs, right? What is a special permit even required anymore for ADUs in the state? That doesn't matter. You got this
back in 20 uh 2020 52120. Yeah. They still have to be under 22 feet construction by right but it still has to conform with height s safety health standards etc. Yes. I mean, so, so, so if there was a certified asbel required prior to me going after construction, then that was should have been required
before anything else was continued and we can finish. Right. I was still signed off on Let me just say this after the fact. Can you go and get the evidence necessary now that you've heard the one more member? Yeah. Now that you've heard with this board and bring it back to this board to show that you met the 22 foot height and the building
commissioner is incorrect. So what so what do I have to do? Get a certified as I'm just asking questions right now. Can you do that? I can't give you direction. What? No. No. Let the board talk. I'm just asking questions. And there's one more member that is here to ask
question. All right. So, you can't give me direct. I mean, I guess I can do that. Maybe I can hire an attorney to to to help me through this process a little bit more. Um, but you can see there's an issue. I mean, at the end of the day, man, I I built the house is a foot too tall, man. You know, I I wasn't trying to build the house too tall. I didn't
think that I was doing it that way. I I mean, everybody's coming at me here in a way as if I everything was You believe me? I didn't self-impose anything. I hired people to get the job done. Rule of law. What's that? You believe in the rule of law? I do believe in the rule of law. And then we have two places for the
rule of law. All right. Section 48. Section I'm not I'm not an attorney. I don't understand this lingo. You know, I'm I'm just a regular guy, man. I'm just a regular guy who has a house that's a foot too tall in an area where nobody can see it. That's all I'm saying. I understand what you're saying about Sir. Sir, come on. I mean, come on. Just be reasonable here, you know? I
mean, let's be respectful, sir. I am. I'm trying to be. Keep trying. Thank you. I have no more question. Nick, do you have anything? I I feel but the variance is for very specific things and we can't use the variance for the accountability of this mistake.
Like there's someone has to be accountable but it can't variance just says no one's responsible for this. Okay. and and some you know I think if you can provide this asbuilt and proof of their where the grade was set it's it's taken care of because if the the house was built to spec
then everything was done right you just got to prove that that's all that is it's just a it's a right now we're but a variance can't be used as a tool to I wasn't I mean they told me to file for a variance man I don't know anything about this I was told to file for it's like a last shot deal kind of I think that's
what they you know I I don't Like I said, I don't I'm just I'm I'm tired of going through this, man. It's been a year and a half and we haven't been able to utilize a building. Imagine how you would feel. You know, I'm I'm a father. I'm trying to provide for my children. You know, this is ridiculous. I'm with Scott. I'd go after your frame. I would
I would do seriously if it was I'm not going to do that. So, I mean, like, does anybody else have any further questions or are you is everybody on on the same wavelength? wait for a an asbuilt or well um if the adu asbuilt actually had
been done this problem would have been arisen and everyone would have known about it. Um what if the uh the the mean grade is generally lower than the uh um top of the sill and as it sits now it's
23 feet from the finished floor elevation. Um I I don't see how an asbuilt ever could have been done. Uh so searching for it seems like an exercise in futility
except that the applicant has said that he could said that he could come up with it. So if so so in the event that there is an asbuilt, right? So you're saying if the asbill was provided to them after the frame was done, right? Then this would have never happened. So what if there is an asbuilt that was provided to them and this did happen? Then what that
means that whoever provided you the asbuilt was wrong and that's who you go after. All right. So let's let's take a look at the as bill. I mean I don't I don't I don't know what to do from here. I mean you look if you guys walk out there to your naked eye and you look at the grade of the land. Oh we got to put off till
the 17th anyway, right? No, we can do it tonight if you want. Vote tonight. Does anybody as built or vote tonight? I would like to give Mr. Andre the opportunity to show us anything. Whatever he can and because he's he's in
a serious situation and I appreciate the gravity of his situation. Well, can we but um vote this in it's up to him to produce the evidence, not for us to guess it. Correct. Can we vote this in lie of an asbuilt? Is that allowed? I
can't. Not going. Well, you can if you don't think the evidence exists or you don't think I I would hope the applicant come back. I'd love to give him that chance to come back. That's what I I So we'll continue. Yes. That's what I think we should do. Give him the chance to come up with whatever he can
come up with. We'll do it again. That's That's what I think. We give him a chance. Okay. Can we have discussion on this? Sure. Yeah. I would like to see him succeed.
Number one, if he says there is an addis bill plan out there, bring it back. ask for continuence, bring it back. I suspect there is nothing there. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an issue today. We wouldn't be here today. Uh so
that's one side. As Mr. Finan was saying, we could vote on you folks can vote on it tonight because you believe that nothing's going to be done. But if there's any hope for this applicant, if he truly believes he can do this, do
it. If you can't, you're gonna get a vote of well, I'm not gonna say I you could be denied. And when you're denied, that's it. You're done. So, if you're telling this board that you can put your hands on something to
refute the building commissioner's claim, I know there was an asbill. I I a one that says this is where we started. This is what the building commissioner had. This is where we ended according to uh the engineer. and this engineer really has you too high. Um then you
should say I can do that and it'll be back here now. Otherwise you're going to get you have the potential to be get a no. Okay. Varian is as Mr. Fman said earlier it's almost possible to get. Yeah. I didn't I I like I said I I wasn't trying to pull a variance. I this is what I was told to do. I don't know.
I I otherwise plan on putting a gamro roof or something on your roof. I don't know. Bring your roof your ridge line down. But don't don't waste your time if you can't come up with the evidence. Yeah, I think that I I believe that there is an ASB bill. I know that there
was a required ASB bill for this project. And and I think Miss Andrew, maybe talk to Mr. Doyle if that's who you're going to go back and chat with. Okay. And to Mr. Duffy's point, you should probably have him do the math. That confirms that it's it's measured
from mean level so that it conforms with Mr. streets request too. Okay. Make it as black and white as possible for us. But uh yeah, it's Mr. Petrus's point because this is kind of a tough one that uh bunch of issues
here. Yeah. Ashley, just a quick comment. So the um the building commissioner references two plans in his letter. Yes. one from May 4th, 2025, which is this
most recent plan noting that elevation. Is that the asbuilt that you are referring to? I thought the asbuilt was done prior like during the construction can't be done till the framing is done because it certifies the height of the structure. There was a certified until
the structure I remember that there was a certified asboat required. John Doyle had to do it for me. I I know that. I don't I'm not not a builder. I don't I'm not sure, but I know that there was a certified ASB bill that was required at one point during the permitting process. And if it hadn't been given, I mean, I I
know that we gave them a certified as because I remember John bringing it to me. I know that for sure. I don't Well, that's just You can bring it. You'll be fine. Yeah. So, I'm just going to have to add I'm just going to have to contact John and just see. May I ask one more question, Madam Chair, and that is Sure.
Did you did you sit down with Mr. Street. No, no, no. Don't do that. Did you sit down with him? I have sat down with Mr. Street. Yes. And when you sat down with him, did you make the same argument to with him as you just made to this board
that there's exists I didn't receive an opportunity to make that same argument, Mr. Street? I didn't receive the same opportunity to make that argument with Mr. Street. I don't know what to say to that, but um he said no. Said no. So, you did not get I've I've had
multiple I've had multiple sitdowns with Mr. Street and he has been less than willing to cooperate and communicate with me. Can you go back and get that as built and walk down to his office and show him that? Is that what you want me to do? And give us a copy and give us a
copy. If that's what's required of me, yes. I mean, I I I'll know that I have emails from John Do. I I mean, I could probably look it up now if I had if I had You know what that means? You have to do you have to demonstrate no higher than 22 feet, right? This board has to know that you
started from here and you ended up at 22 feet. So the proposed block plan theoretically you gave them one um and that your engineer said based on that and what exists is 22 ft. If you can't
and then you affirm Mr. streets findings, then you're wasting your time and you really should be putting it towards figuring out how to lower that roof. Yeah, that's What date do you have? Uh July
17th. July 17th. Suzan, will you do me a favor to and email him a copy of the decision since he wasn't really sure if he even read it? Please. Mark has a push. So, do I do I have to be present on July 17th because I'm not going to be on bringing in your asbuild? Is there
any other date that I could do besides that? Because I'm not I'm not going to be in town. You're not gonna be around? No. What other date? We have a family trip on July 17th. I'll be gone. We can do another day. August 14th would be the next August 14th. I'll make that work. Yes.
Yeah. So, you're bringing whatever ammo you bring everything that I have. I'm going to I I guess I'll just hire an attorney as well, maybe. Is that Do whatever you need to do. Okay. I mean, if you got the ASB bill sitting around, but she's going to also email you a copy of the decision because you were kind of I wasn't sure if you read it. I'm sure I
have it somewhere. Anyway, you'll get another one. So, you now you can really read it and yourself and Okay. Anything else you guys have? No. And so, in in the event that the that the height is still not correct and we're over, you know, there's no there's no there's
nothing that can address that except for me potentially going after somebody or just correcting it myself. Right. Correct. That's what I feel. I'm only one human. So, the roof would have to essentially get cut off. I would go after your framer. Yeah, that would be me. I don't know what anyone else thinks. Giving him any advice on that,
but it's if if you have some information that helps us. All right. Let's just Yeah, let's get it. Madam Chairman, if I may. So, we need Go ahead. That the information, sir, needs to be submitted one week before the hearing so it can be put into the file that everyone can see it. Don't show up night of and start passing documents. everyone by August
7th if you're writing it down. That's when we need all the stuff. Okay. Yeah. So, we need the copies of all the stuff you're bringing ahead of time, too. Please. Can I just I'm just going to put this in my notes. Point out something obvious. Yeah. If he was in fact
correct, the uh grade would be up on the sidewall. There's no doubt about it. I mean, well, we'll find out more information when we get off. It's everything's cut down to there. I mean, if you if if you just go there and walk, if anybody went there and walked it. I mean, I can show
Can I show you guys a video really quickly or No, we're good. We can look at you bring I can show you a video that that demonstrates where the original grade was at the original house. I I shot it, brought it, gave it to Street. August 14th. 814. Uh, Madam Chairman, I'll move
to continue this hearing to August 14th. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? No. Everybody's all set. All those in favor? I oppose? None. So, bring your homework. Okay. Okay. August. Get it in the by the 7th
at the latest, please. What happened to the plans in the file that got sent out? Right. Thank you. Have a nice evening. Thank you. Perfect. Thanks. Got it. Thank you. Okay, that file's complete. All right, moving along.
Okay. Now we have 04025 Martin 24 Elizabeth Gan Drive. Okay. This is application uh 40 of the year 2025 Robert and Carol B. Martin. Um, they've applied to the
zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 24, excuse me, 240 11.3A4 of the code of Felmouth, which is the zoning bylaw to remove the existing deck construct additions and an attached garage exceeding 20% lot
coverage by structure. Property is 24 Elizabeth Gan Drive in East Fountain. The zoning district is RC. Again, they've applied for a special permit under section 2411.3A4 to exceed lot coverage by structure at
20%. The bylaw allows us to permit up to 25%. The overlay district is a Bourne's Pond coastal pond overlay district. The flood zone is X. The existing structure is a single family dwelling. The existing structure is 278 square ft. The proposed
structure is 2364 um square ft. things today. There is a previous uh zoning board of appeals decision on file. It's uh appeal 2926 of the year 1978. So it's kind of old which allowed for the construction of a
dwelling on an undersized lot. Lot itself is 10,78 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 40,000 square ft. The frontage is 69.56 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 100
ft. This is a public right away. Lot coverage by structure right now is 19.22 ft. The proposal is to increase it to 23.45%. Uh again the limit is 20% with 25 allowed by special permit. The
neighborhood average according to the uh calc the worksheet is 15.31. Lot coverage by structure parking and paving is currently 30.81%. 81% it'll be increased to 30.21% the limit is 40 which is fine. The building itself
conforms to the zoning bylaw in terms of dimensional setbacks. The height of the building is 21.5 ft. So that conforms. The following um referrals have been re received. We
have the board of health notes that the septic system is very close to the foundation. Um not quite sure what that means, but that was the observation that the office in the house appears to be qualify as a bedroom. Um but the existing septic
system is for three bedrooms. So we'll have some discussion about that. Conservation has no comment. Water department is okay. Building department, no comment. Planning board, no comment. But we do have an engineering application. They have notified us that
um Elizabeth Gene Drive is a public right of way. Um the sto the project must not direct any storm water runoff to public property or butters or private rights of way. Drywalls must be shown for the infiltration of roof storm water runoff.
Um and this is a small lot close to a budding property. So they advise that we uh condition erosion and sediment control on the construction and that's it. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of
the board. Uh I'm Joe Clancy of Clancy Construction. I'm accompanied tonight by um Wesley, who is a designer for the company, and Mrs. Martin, the owner of the property. Uh just to offer she's the sister of owner. Sister of the owner.
Sorry, my apologies. Sisters count. Uh I'd like to offer a correction to our summary of u uh lot coverages for the neighborhood. I discovered an error today and I recalculated um the average lot coverage for the
neighborhood. Submitted it to Ashley this afternoon. My new calculation is 14.28. Initially my first uh you probably have is 15 and 1531 1531 so the correction
today was 14.28 c can I ask you one question for the applicant's address you have it at 10270 I'm looking at your worksheet but then on the engineering uh component it's
10,78 square ft. So again, I just want to make sure we're starting from the right. I think we'd like to use the engineers uh Thank you. 10,78 because that's what the lot coverage calcs are based on. What did we read? 1078. Oh, I see. So on
his application, it's 10,78. Correct. Okay. But here it says 10,270. So all right. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. All right. As Mr. Duffy said, this is a three-bedroom Cape Cod dwelling that was built in 9 1978.
Uh it did have a rear edition um and changed a bedroom in the year 2008. Today we would like to propose to add 349 square ft for a family room, 272 ft for an attached garage with an
unfinished second floor, 93 square ft for a bathroom addition, two small landings of 39 square ft and 42 square ft, and a generator pad. Um the dwelling height as reported by our engineer is
21.5 and our proposed height for the garage is going to be 21.1. Uh as you said in the referrals, DPW has uh explained DPW water has said that the 1- in water service is sufficient and
meets the standard and we would of course uh comply with the uh engineer DPW engineers for the sediment conditions that we typically do. Um I believe there have been four letters of
support supplied for the project. Um it was that that are in Mhm. Um and again just to iterate the existing is 19.22 so it's under the 20%. And we are proposing 23.45
which is a combination of removing some landings and replacing some landings taking off a deck and adding the addition. But the net change gets us to um the 23.45 45 which would get us under the 25% that the standard is is is
there. Um so in summary uh the subject property is presently conforming to all lot coverage and setback requirements. The proposed dling um additions will not create any new nonconformities uh but will require a special permit
under 240 11.3A.4 for uh where the lot coverage is allowed to get up to 25%. Um the proposed onecar garage and small additions will be comparable with the size and the height of structures that
are in the neighborhood and won't have any negative effect on shadow adjacent properties. It won't negatively impact views and vistas from public ways nor the effect of nitrogen on coastal and bayments as the number of bedrooms three
will remain the same as presently exists. Uh the proposal will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood um than exists already. So we believe it's a an approvable project. Uh it's welldesigned and laid out. Um
the the homeowners would like to have a garage uh to be able to have a vehicle coverage. I'm available for questions. Great. Mark, you want to start off again? Uh just on the uh comment that the office
uh qualifies as a bedroom. I believe I know what you're talking Wesley. He's he's done the as builds. Yeah. Anyway, before I go any I tried to scale it off on your prints here. It says the scale is a/4 in equals a foot.
The scale is actually 8 in. That's incorrect on your Thank you. Are those um 11 uh 11 by 17 sets? Yeah. Yes, they've been reduced. So, those have been reduced. Okay. Well, these are what no scaling off to see if
uh it qualifies as a bedroom or not. That's my point. Uh all right. So, that's that covers that. But, all right. explain. Um, this is the area that they're talking about, I believe, because there's a closet. That's the existing.
That's the existing condition. Point of interest, Madam Chair. Yeah, I didn't hear Mr. Fernum, did he get the uh the fact that the square footage is over 70? I haven't got it yet, but I mean that's I didn't you know these have been reduced, so you can't scale off on them.
So, the question is, is that room 70 square feet? He's about to answer it now. Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. I actually don't know whether or not the office is 7 hard to scale off these things when they're reduced. Yeah, I never knew. Um, and I generally
I've scaled before off plants and they've been all right, but I'll keep an eye out for that. So, yeah, I learned something today. We print all of our um PDFs to 30 or 24 by 36. So, when they're printed on 11 by 17, they're I think
they're 49% scale compared to Well, that's an easy one to figure. I just checked permanodized today to see if the rear bedroom addition was permitted. It showed up on permanodized in 2008 and it
did show as a closed permit. So, the building department did inspect the property and u you know that permit was closed. So, we've been operating under the u the fact that we have a three-bedroom house. Well, I think he's saying that the
office makes it four, right? Could make it four. Could could it condition it to because it's the existing is open now. The office according to my plan. Yes. And then you're closing it off to make a room out of it. Uh yes, that's where
he's getting the fork out. Yeah. So if you're if you are at 49% that's close enough to 50. So I could I mean we'd be happy with your decision if you would so state that that room is to be not used as a bedroom and to be used as an
office. We'd have to move doors around and widen and do structural through you madam chair. What we normally do would we certainly can what we've done before is we would approve subject to revised plans showing cased openings or removal of whatever privacy whatever is satisfactory to the board of health.
Usually if you remove a closet or you have 4ft cased openings it's sufficient uh reduction in privacy that it's no longer considered a bedroom. It just makes it 8 by10 just we'd be happy to submit a revised set of
plans to comply with that. Very good. You you good? Uh yeah, that's basically all I had. It's other than that um it's kind of a sleeper there. What you got? Much more than meets the eye, you know, when you're looking at it
from the front. But no, it's a nice nice project, nice house to spend the rest of your life in. Thank you. Uh just a quick question just to follow up uh when Mr. Duffy was reading everything into the testimony. So you are aware that the septic tank apparently usually there's a
10-ft set back. You're according to your site plan you're pretty much on it at this point. So I saw that on the plan as well. It was all done prior to us getting into this project for the garage. Okay. So that septic tank is
currently next that that um that deck on the back of the uh site plan. Yes. um that's currently existing and it's on peers and we're replacing it with a family room also on peers. Um so theoretically it shouldn't interfere.
I'm okay with your theoreticals. Be careful. Sorry. Um no further questions. I'm When I originally had done the math to your point, Mr. Clancy, when I was doing the 350, 272, 93, and 42, and 39, I was
like, "Wow, you you're you're over your 25%." But as you as you mentioned uh in your testimony, there is an offset here and there. So, uh the engineering uh calculation is is is sound. So, I appreciate that. Thank you. It took a
little bit of uh figuring out what we were losing and then what we were gaining and uh the landings and so um thank you. Thank you. Further questions, Frank. No. Mr. Peterson asked the question I
was going to ask, so I pass. You're all set? Yeah. The attic is going to remain unfinished at this time. Yes, it is. Um, nothing wrong with finishing it, but we'll probably put a condition on. It's not to be used as a bedroom. Uh, um, I did have a question about the
generator pad. What is the setback to the sideyard there where the pad is going to be located? Can you answer that, Wesley? Um, you're talking about the proposed proposed generator for the generator. Yeah. Um, I had called Gary Street. Um, I think, um,
and I talked to him. He said that the proposed generator pad did count towards lot coverage, but not towards setbacks. That was going to be the next question. Just make sure that wasn't counted. U, I don't think we have anything about generator pads. It's not a dwelling, but there's nobody here. There's no there
was no opposition to the file. Sometimes living next to two homes with generators, you hear them, but no one's complaining. I'm not going to make an issue. So, there's a fence on one side, excuse me, on on on one side of the generator. Um, it says new fence. Yeah. So, um,
there's currently an existing fence that divides or it separates the um, sorry, it separates the driveway from the backyard. Um, and because of the new addition, we're going to have to take that down. Um, so we just included the new fence that would connect to the
existing fence. Um, I believe it's shown on the site plan as the filledin circle. Um, as opposed to the non. Is there fencing there now? I don't remember. Yeah. Okay. I thought there was. Okay. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. No, that's it. Uh, it's a very nice looking project. So, thank
you, Tony. Thank you. Uh, my questions have been answered. Nice project. Nick almost anybody have any followup? I think we can condition the office to the public public. public. Would you
like to speak in your sister's behalf? They just sold their previous home. Oh wow. They got a lot of stuff. They got a lot of stuff. I've been a good sister. I've been up there. Oh, no. Aren't you nice? But that's a lot of work. And I'm
thrilled because I'm worried about hopefully this is going to work for a long time. Good. Thank you. It's nice. Those bedrooms upstairs are looking pretty nice. To close. Second. Motion to close and a second. Everybody all set up here? Do
are you have anything further before we close? Uh just on uh the new plans that we'll get you showing the case opening, we'll send them electronically and uh hard copy. Okay, good. Okay. Anybody have anything else before
we close? All those in favor of closing. Oppos? None. Motion to approve with conditions. Second. All right, let's go, Frank. So, we have property at 24 Elizabeth Gene Drive in East Falmouth. lives in an RC zoning district, the Bourne's Pond Coastal Pond
Overlay District. They've applied for a special permit under section 2411.3A4 of the Fallen zoning bylaw to exceed lot coverage by structure of 20% and the uh request is to increase it to 23.45%.
Flood zone is X, as I mentioned in the opening, the um existing house uh is 278 ft with three bedrooms. The proposal is 2364 ft again with three bedrooms. Um street frontage remains the same. Lot
coverage by structure will increase to 23.45% thus requiring the special permit. Um and as Mr. Clansancy has noted the uh average in the neighborhood is 14.28%. Lot coverage by structure parking and
paving comports with zoning. It's uh less than 40%. the dimensions uh on the setbacks of the structure con conform to zoning. So there are no nonconformities and there will be no new nonconformities uh as a result of this project. The
height of the building will not increase. It is currently 21.5%. Um, we have referrals from engineering. Uh, the board of health, conservation, water, uh, and conservation has no no change. Water's okay. Building
department had no comment. Planning board had no comment. And I read into the record the referral of the engineering department. Um we have four letters in support of this
application in the file and at the hearing there was no testimony either pro or con. Um the applicant has acknowledged that they will submit new plans uh showing the disposition of the office
um bedroom issue. Now, they've applied for a special permit under section 2401.3A4 of the zoning bylaw, which provides that in an RC district such as this is, a maximum of 25% lot coverage by structure
may be allowed by special permit considering. Um, we find that the size and height of the structure relative to the average size, height and uh size and height of the of neighborhood structures is acceptable. We find there is no
effect of shadow on adjacent properties. We find that there is no impact on the views and vistas from public ways and that there's no effect on the nitrogen and coastal embainment because the septic system currently services the three-bedroom house and it will not be increased.
Um, as far as for a special permit is concerned, the proposed use will not have adverse effect at overbalance beneficial effects on either the neighborhood or the town in view of the particular circumstances of the site. considering we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use. The site
is suitable for the proposed use. There's no impact or on traffic flow and safety. There's no negative impact on neighborhood visual character views and vistas. There is adequate sewage disposal. There are adequate utilities serving the project and that it will not adversely affect the supply of
affordable housing in the town of Felma. I think Jim's going to add a couple findings. Fine. Okay. uh applicant had submitted a comp sheet concerning lot coverage uh at a hearing testified as to modification. Let me just uh make sure that that
reference what the modified lot coverage would be uh regarding the referral from board of health regarding the septic tank. Uh applicant acknowledged the close proximity of uh the proposed addition to the septic tanks. testimony was that the existing deck is on peers
and that the construction of the new uh family room will also be on peers that they're aware of the close proximity. It will hopefully not have an incident. Um sheet septic uh question was asked regarding whether
the attic would be finished or the applicant testified that it will not be used as a bedroom. Vote of conditions. We haven't done anything in a while. Conditions. Conditions. We haven't We haven't voted anything weeks. Couple weeks now. All
right. Conditions. Um, no bedroom in the attic. Remain three bedrooms. Remain three bedrooms. U applicant will submit uh revised plans concerning uh the office. Must reduce uh either privacy protections or case openings. Do do
whatever is necessary to reduce make sure that's not a bedroom. So that remains at three bedrooms. Applicant will submit modified plans. Per plans per plans per new modified plans, right? Per the other boards per hours per all referrals,
standard hours of work. Um work with the police department if they can't keep uh construction vehicles uh all on the lot. Uh just come up with a traffic plan. Um standard hours of work. plan. What's stuff? What's the shed's remaining? It's
included. Remaining. Okay. That's it. Another finding, uh, the applicant testified that they did include the proposed generator pad in lot calculations. Um, I can't think of any other conditions. Anybody come up with any other one? I think we're good. Mhm.
Everybody's good. Yep. Okay. All ready to vote? Go. All those in favor? I I oppose. None. Great. Enjoy. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you for your patience. I All right, moving on. Did everybody get a chance to read the May 15 minutes
today? She sent them out kind of late. I did not, but I will defer to the board. I don't know if you just want three votes so we can get it in. I don't know if that's all right with you or what. I read them. They seem Did you read them, Scott? I'm I'm okay. Okay. So, we'll vote on the two. It's just the majority.
So May 1, May 15. Is that okay? I'll make a motion to approve May 1, May 15, 2025 minutes. I need a second. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I I like it. For the record, I'll abstain from May 5th. Actually, no.
Strike that. I thinking of a different date. I was like, I wasn't here that meeting. Oh, all right. Board discussion. Everyone's nice and quiet. We're all hungry. Board updates. Oh, no. We have Fourth of July coming
and new meeting. Hey, yeah, remember to have a good time on the fourth, pick up a fifth on the 3. An old Irish American saying. Our next meeting will be July 17th at 6 p.m. We're all set for future agenda items, right? Everyone's Yeah, we're all
done. All right, Mark, bring it on. Motion to adjourn, madam chair. Second. Do we go? I. All those in favor? I I [Music]