Heat. Heat. Okay. Welcome to the zoning board of appeals. Please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV. Any private party that is recording this hearing, please come up
to the podium to request permission. I'll introduce the staff. On my right is Frank Duffy, the clerk. My name is Suzanne Murphy. I'm chair. To my left is James Moss, vice chair. Then we have Tony Patuuchi, a voting member tonight. And Nick Haney, another voting member
tonight. Then we have Noren Stockman, our zoning administrator, and Ashley Dlo, the 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 applications. All decisions are made through the
public hearing process. Our goal is to hear testimony from the applicants and the public and to allow a full and fair discussion of the project prior to closing the hearing and 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. Two, the applicant or the applicant's representative will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation, but the time may be extended by a vote of the board. Three, the board will then question the applicant. And then 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. Speak into the microphone. It will not amplify your voice and record audio for FCTV viewers. And before we
start, if anybody wants to make a um a statement before we start tonight on anything that's not on our agenda, you're welcome to come up. No takers. All right. So, we'll start. Um I'm going to move um 0621
Hines Fantasia 214 Gford Street only because they has to be continued and we'll let anyone that's here can go home. So, I need a motion. >> Madam Chair, just clarification. Is this a continuation or request to withdraw it? >> It's a >> It's a continuation. >> Continuation.
>> Do we have a date? >> Uh we are looking at May 7. >> Madam Chairman, I move to continue 00626 to May 7th at the request of the applicant. >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second by Tony. Any questions? >> All those in favor?
>> I oppose? None. >> And then we'll take up 08325 I think I say it. Vochi 391 Courier Road. Did I say it right? >> Yes. >> Close enough. >> Oh, sorry. If you can tell me how I'm
supposed to >> How vi >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. >> Okay. This is application 083 of the year 2025. Joseph and Mary Ellen Vosce uh have applied to the
zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 2461B of the FMA zoning bylaw to allow boat storage on their property. The property is located at 391 Courier Road in East Falmouth, Massachusetts. And before we start, I'll
make a public announcement that the Vosis were clients of mine about 15 or 20 years ago. Um and I have filed uh an disclosure of the appearance of conflict of interest with the board of selectmen and feel that I can proceed and act partially in this matter. So the
properties in an AGA uh zoning district the they've applied under section 6.1B of the Fment zoning bylaw for boat storage in an agricultural aid district. The property's located in a walk bay coastal pond overlay district. There's
also a wildlife order involved here. Um, on the 14th of November, 2025, the applicants received a notice of violation from the building commissioner informing them that they could not have boat storage in their property without a special permit from the board of
appeals, which brings them here. Uh, there's a previous zoning board of appeals decision affecting this property. It's uh decision 104 of the year 1992 which allowed them to employ a non-family resident in a home occupation
on the property. Uh the property has 4.27 acres in a zoning district which currently requires 1 acre. We got plenty of property. The street frontage is 442.9 ft in the district which requires 100. Curry road is a public right of way at
this particular point. I have no other public details about the property. Um, as far as referrals from departments, the engineering department has informed us they have no comment. We have nothing from the board of health, conservation, water. Uh, building commissioner has no
comment. Planning board has no comment. And we have no letters either in support or in opposition in the file. >> Take it away. >> I have some letters here. If you want >> bring them on up. Sure.
Great. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> You did. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We Thank you. They might all >> just wait for the room, I guess.
>> Not to worry. Did >> I say something wrong? >> No, it >> was all on me. We can blame me. Not to worry. >> Um, as you can see by the first letter, I was heavily involved in the sailing program, sailing school in the
foundation of a 501c3, a nonprofit sailing school. And beginning in the beginning of around 1991, I volunteered a lot of time and the program has grown um tremendously
through the efforts of a lot of volunteers and I allowed the school to put their boats their boat inventory. now is pretty extensive. Some of them are on our property. A lot of them are
on our property right now. And um the school provides sailing instructions to somewhere between two and 300 kids a year. Um so they were very grateful to be able to do that. Um the second letter
is from the neighbor due north of our property who uh approached me in um because around August last year of 2025, he was selling his house and he had collected a a significant number of
collectibles uh from boats to RVs to some lawn equipment to wood chippers, uh couple of uh 20 foot floats, and he asked me if I could put them on the property while he's trying to sell his
property. So, I agreed to do that. And that's what his letter is there. And then because of that, um, another fellow approached me, Matt Prozac,
who ran a boat repair and hauling business and ran into a lot of hard times. During the time that he was operating, he had donated in excess of $30,000 of services to the Felma Harland
School and he ran into some difficulty in the business u a divorce, a serious accident where he wound up in the hospital on life and support for a couple of weeks and said Joel, he says, "I still have some clients that want me
to take their boats out of the water and storm any chance you can store the boats there? Why not? So, that's how it evolved from where we started. Um, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> Okay. Want to start down this end. We'll change it up. >> Um, I'm good right now with question. I'm I'll chime in in a minute. >> Okay. >> Just a few questions. Um,
do do you run this as a business? >> I I started it but then I just dropped it. I just didn't want to get into that stuff. >> Can you tell me this board how you do uh manage the property right now? I was
there today um and I will tell you I had no idea what I was looking at. I drove all the way out of the house on that left side dirt driveway. Obviously to the left side as you face it, it appears to be set back. Everything's set back 50 feet as
required. There's nothing about the front. On the right side, I had no idea where the sideline is on that. So, you have to operate this um with at least a 50 foot setback. So, all of your boats, everything of that nature have to
be at least 50 feet back. But if you don't do that, there has to be 30 ft minimum with screening. Now on the right side, you've got a nice open field. So I don't think there's anybody on that side that's going to bother you. So my question again, just so I understand,
is do you do any kind of work because you're not supposed to be doing that sort of thing under the bylaw on these boats? Are you cleaning them? Are you working on them? I mean, how do you demask them? Is anyone working on them? because that's not supposed to be happening.
>> These sailing school boats, I've donated my time and winterized them, covered them, uncovered them, washed them out, that type of stuff. >> All right. It says, um, no activity such as cleaning, waxing, repairing, or painting
shall be allowed. All activities shall be approved by the board of appeals. I don't know that means one it says you can't do these things and the next sentence it says that we can tell you what you can do. So well that's part of how our zoning bylaw works. Um
so I certainly don't have you've got 4.27 acres there. I looked at it it I mean I don't think if I live beside you I would like that the way you've got everything there. But um it's a big piece of land. The thing that bothers me
with regard to that uh is that I couldn't tell where the sideline was on the right side where you're supposed to maintain that 50 feet. There's absolutely no way for me to know that and to see if you're in compliance with that. >> Uh certainly you don't have a fence up.
You don't have uh any screening up uh on that. So, if this board were to approve this, I'm not sure how it would I don't I'm not sure what the findings would be. The board went out and looked at the property and somehow magically figured
out where the sideline was. I I don't know if that's what we put in the findings or our decision is to do what? So, that if it was a violation, how would your rebutters know that you were in violation? How would the zoning enforcement officer understand if you're
in violation? if we don't even know where the sidelines are. So my concern is I don't I wouldn't know how to permit this. I wouldn't know what the decision is, but that's why we have others on this board who are better than I am on
these things. But I wouldn't have a problem with you using it this way. I just want to make sure that if it were permitted that there'd be some way of measuring whether or not you remain in compliance or even if you're in compliance today.
So, um on the Courier Road frontage, there is a stone marker between the property next door and ours. The right side or left
>> on the left side. left >> that left driveway. >> Yeah, that part I'm not worried about. It was the right side. I had no idea what I was looking at today and I drove all the way down to the back and I know the road goes down like this and around, but you know, it makes me nervous to
drive around someone's property. So, >> anytime. >> No, I know. But it's a lot better now than it used to be. Um but on the right side to your point if you were to walk out to the driveway where it intersects
with Courier Road there's a um a pit that the core of engineers when they were doing the um assessment of the groundwater migration from the base they dug a pit
there and that's on the property line because I had to sign a document to say that they could put it there. >> Let me ask this question and madam chair just >> so on the on the left side was the driveway to the house I think where you
live in the back and I saw the uh sailing uh Felmouth Harbor sailing school truck there and there was a another building there. I stopped at the house, pulled the parking, and then the road, as you know, goes around the back and I suspect it then comes out on that
right side dirt road. That right side dirt road, is that the far right side of the property? >> Um, very close to that. >> All right. I >> to your point then, the boats that are stored on the right side of the property
looking at it from the street are probably in violation of that 50 foot. Well, this is what concerns me. So, if you were in violation of that, you can't remain in violation of that. And how would you know what would you do to rectify that violation? How would a
zoning enforcement officer uh understand how to enforce this if they didn't know where it is? How would your abutters understand if you're in violation to file a complaint? I mean, zoning is here to protect all of us and um that's the
part I'm concerned with. There has to be some standard that has to be set up so that someone knows where you're supposed to be on that. I don't think it's a difficult thing to do. And again, big piece of land, so I don't have a lot of problem with you storing boats as long
as you follow um uh what is it? Um 6.1B items one through seven on boat storage. So, if you look at the plot plan that I attached here on the left side of that, it's got a CB. It's a cement
device. I could measure the 442.88 ft >> that let those are my concerns. I It's unfair. I need to let the other board members um do whatever they're going to do on this. I I am concerned about not knowing what I looked at today, not knowing how you
would be permitted to do this without knowing where the sideline is, not knowing how zoning enforce will be able to enforce it if you were in violation in the future. >> Um, >> but I let the other board members talk. >> Go ahead, J. >> Good evening, sir. So, one of the
prerequisites generally we have a special permit application where sideyard setbacks are going to be an issue as it is under the special permit for boat storage is the property needs to be staked out. And the reason for that is that then the board can go and look at it. We can say here's the
boundary line. Now we know where approximately where the 50ft setback is. Now we know how many boats are there or are not in compliance. So I Mr. Fineran who's normally the real sticky wicket on this is not here tonight. So, I'm gonna step up and >> play mark.
>> Play mark. >> Fair enough. >> In terms now, you've got a very large property and I would suggest I I subject to, you know, objections from your Butters, uh, it it is, I think, permittable, but the board would need to see these setbacks. Um, just for the
purpose of the record, how many boats would you say you have currently on the property? I know what I saw, but I'm just creating a record. There's probably a half a dozen if not more 8-foot prams and there's another
dozen or so 12 foot sailboats and then it goes on. So I don't I is it 50 maybe you know >> and would is it fair to say that as the spring and summer comes these boats go into the water? >> Yes. the uh the fellow that brought the
most votes, Matt Prozac. I spoke to him the other day and starting May 1st, if not before, he's going to start removing them. And I told him the debt is paid. You're not coming back. >> So I want to make Oh, I'm sorry. >> He's the one that brought a significant
number of boats. I think probably around 20 boats. Bigger ones closest to the street, closest to the property line on the right side. And he's coming back next year, too. >> No. >> Oh, he's done. Okay. >> As far as I'm concerned, >> my my thought on this, Madam Chairman,
through you and the board is that I I think it does need to be staked. >> Yes. >> So, I I think we're looking at a continuence. My thought on this would be it might be beneficial, and I don't know if Mr. street would be agreeable that I do did note that there was an enforcement letter in the file about this issue. But um if the applicant had
time to stake the lot, it might be better to look at this going into the summer when everything's staked out. You can see where the boundaries are and then we would be able to say, "Okay, well now we know where they now we know where the boats can go versus where they're not supposed to be." Uh it might actually reduce the number of boats that
could be offensive to the neighbor since they're not there and then down a little bit. So, but because it's not staked at this point, I think we need to continue this. >> Madam Chairman, >> and if he's losing 20, >> yeah, >> that helps. >> And if we have I'd like to go through us all and if like I was wondering about employees and fire and I had a few other
questions that >> he could take home in his pocket and maybe answer >> any power boats. >> Yes. >> Um, >> actually the majority of my pile boats >> the Again, I'm just creating a record. the the bylaw about these special
permits very you can't be doing bottom sanding, painting, and so on on the property. It's essentially it's storage, no marine maintenance. So, if it's approved, that's going to be a condition. Um, those are the questions I have at this point, Madam Chairman. >> Okay. Is the oil drained out of them and
the all that? >> The power boats, the oil is drained out of them and they're clean. Um, the boats that I'm directly responsible for, uh, that way they're all outboard engines, so they're not, uh, leaking
oil. The engines are all pretty new, so they're not leaking oil. But the bigger boats have been all um, stored properly and they're not leaking oil >> because I have a concern with the leaking of oil. Are there any employees? >> No, >> just you two. Just you two guys. Okay,
that's all I had, Frank. Well, I did go out and visit the property and I share the concern of Mr. Petruchi and Mr. Morris about the sideline and you have I think it's your southern sideline that we're really concerned about and I'm looking at your plan and it's 500 ft long. So, my
suggestion would be that you stake the two corners the of the but also put a couple of stakes at visible stakes at intervals along the 500 ft so we can see this we can visualize this line. Um, and then the building commissioner when they go out to do their inspection can also
uh visualize it and anybody in your neighborhood who can can tell if you've got 50 ft there because the bylaw specifically requires that you have a 50ft separation from your property line to the boats. >> It's clear enough, >> right? >> And we should do this after he gets rid
of the 20 boats, too. You know, go down there and be easier for him to stay. Could it be easier for us to all walk it? I either way, as long as we could see the sideline, understand where that 50 foot mark might be, make sure that this is all enforcable,
uh, in the long run. Um, that's fine with me. However you want to do that, Madam Chair, >> anybody do you have anything yet? >> You're good. Any other questions? Do you have anything else before I go to the public? >> No. >> Anybody from the public want to talk on
this? Come on up. Hi, my name is Linda. >> Mark to the mic, please. >> Oh, you're welcome. >> Thank you. >> I'm his neighbor. My name is Linder. I live at 79 Regis Road. I'm the person that's right in front of the property. All the boats. That's in my back my
backyard where the boats are. I feel for parking for my son. >> Um I I don't know my neighbor. I'm sure they're wonderful people, but I woke up one morning and I saw a lot of boats. And there are people working on the property on the boats. I asked him, you know, you work on, you know, do you
have, you know, permission to do this? I'm concerned, you know, the noise. We're both abut, he's abuting a a bird sanctuary. Are they going to work on the boats? There's RV, motor home, size of houses there. I'm sure if you've been by there,
you've seen that. >> Is that included in the permit? >> Do they need to be that close to the road? Could they push it back or screen it in like uh one of our other neighbors said? I'm just concerned. I'm the person who's directly directly involved. You
know, his he has his house is way off. He doesn't see the boats. He don't hear the boats. When I open my door, my my uh kitchen, I see and hear the boats. I'm just concerned. Is there going to be a time frame of him hauling these boats in and out? It's pretty noisy. I'm not at
McDougall's. I live I live I live, you know, in the woods, you know, next to bird sanctuary. Do is there any rules to that? the time frame Sundays can they work on it Mondays, Sundays, all week, you know, is boat works going in and out of there all week. Is there any
guidelines for me? That's all I don't want to just drop my neighbor or upset him, but I want to, you know, make sure that my family's >> What is the noise that you hear the towing? >> Uh, lot and the uh during the summertime
there was a gentleman there boat works at a had a gas tank hooded. He had a hood hoodie on walking around the boats and I got a little, you know, upset. Ask him, you know, do you have permits for this? What are you doing here? And and and they were working on the boats.
That's I was just concerned. You know, I don't want to upset my neighbor, but I want to know what's going on in the back of my yard. >> Madam Chair, the bylaw does not allow working on boats. >> And and and then I got upset and I I did get upset. I did. And I And they're very
close to the road. I as you can see, these boats are big. They're not small boats. There's also uh docks, 20 foot chop docks there. They come in. I saw a big truck coming dropping up docks in a motor home the size of my long as my house. I I I mean, what next? A plane? I
don't know. But I'm not I here to upset him. If he if he can do it, can you screen it in back it down, you know, to to where you live? You know, I just want to work with him so I don't have to be quite involved with the boat situation. That's all. And I don't want to upset him either. So that's all I have to say.
Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? So, you want to come back up? So, you heard from a neighbor. It's got to sink in. Okay. Please. And we'll continue this. I think Do you want
to take a date? >> I think I'm not sure what the noise was. Yeah, it might be the towing cuz that that's all I could think of too. >> The the boat hauling equipment. Yeah,
>> big trailers that lift the boats up and then put them back down. Uh they're big trucks. Obviously, one of the boats is probably a 35 ft boat. Uh and that's not coming back. And I think um maybe one
other noise that I can relate to, the same fellow that owns most of the boats there, the big power boats and stuff, I know he without any authorization for me, wound up putting some shrink wrap on them. And
the shrink wrap involves putting the plastic on and then taking a propane torch and it shrinks it. >> Yeah. >> And the toach. But that's only two or three votes that I think he did and I wasn't aware of that going place and that's just I
wouldn't want that to happen again anyway. You know, >> Madam Chair, >> if this comes back I'm I'm going to condition things like that. >> Yeah. >> In my mind, >> but because I want to make sure that he that the applicant fully understands what he has to come back with. >> Feel free. >> Does
you understand what we're asking for when you come back? the staking. Um um a plan plan for mitigation for screening for your neighbor at the minimum. >> Is there only one mobile home? >> Yes.
>> That's not before us. >> Let me let me ask one more thing if we could. Um I have to believe you have a scaled plan somewhere in your possession. a scaled plan, a measurable plan, something that has a scale on it. 1 in equals 20, 1 in equals 40, something
like that, something that you can put a uh engineers scale on, you can measure it at. So in other words, when you come back, when you provide something to this board, instead of having to spend a lot of money on an engineer beyond the stakes,
which you're going to end up having to do, uh, somehow on a plan showing where that is and showing that 50-foot setback on the plan, >> the third page of the attachment that he passed out to you has a scaled plan.
>> Let me just make sure that's one inch equals 100. Yeah. >> All right. So something on the scale on this meaning if if this is truly scaled um so on on the right side you would
show where your stakes are. >> Sure. >> And then you would show 50 feet in so it's measurable. Um and then we have something to put in the findings that we saw. I mean otherwise we have nothing. >> This question >> is that enough do you think?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I can't think of any other conditions. >> Well, we may want to condition how many boats. >> Yeah, we can do that, too. >> We should have an inventory of how many boats there are now. >> Yeah. Tell us when Well, when he comes back, it'll be after the the failing the
Felmouth Sailing School fleet is gone. >> So, then you could take an accurate because those guys are going to be gone forever. So, you could have an accurate of how many are left and that will help her to get rid of those boats big time. I don't want to explain. >> No, I mean you have a right to your
comfort in your home. I mean, >> and um but get as much information as you can for us when you come back. You got plenty of time. You got month of, you know, six weeks or whatever it is. Right. So, I think that's all. Do we need anything else you can think of? >> Well, come back with maybe some pictures
showing where the stakes are. Yeah. >> Showing where that 50 foot uh bench >> and we'll all take a ride up again. I'm sure we'll take a ride. Take a look at it. >> Easy enough. Y >> I know when I went up today I was like holy cow I didn't think there were going to be that many and I felt for the neighbors myself
>> but yet I I feel if you screen it if you put up some aravite or do something it will >> it'll help >> you know you have to be neighborly >> well actually if you look at it from the street there is a about a 100 foot row
of u >> shrubs >> spruce >> oh are they yeah >> they're pretty prominent from the street. They're all lined up. I planted them there about 20 years ago. And any boats I could put on the other side of the >> Okay. >> Well, just one last thing, Madam Chair.
The code requires that if it's less than 50 ft, but a minimum of 30. If you go to 30 ft, you've got to screen it. There's just no choice. That's what it says. I mean, if we're going to live by the >> Yeah. >> bylaw, >> if it's 50 feet, it'd be better if you did screen it for But you do have a bird sanctuary on the right side. The front
is the frontage is evidently not governed within the bylaw that I can tell. I can't see anything that governs other than the two sidelines in the in the back lot. >> I think it's 75 front front yard setback shall be a minimum of 75 ft. >> Well, means you can't put anything in
that 75 foot mark >> from the street. >> So 75 ft from the street or 50 from the side. >> So we need that stake as well. >> We'll need that steak too. Okay. Right. Is that is everybody everybody's all set?
>> I have a question. One more question for this this lady. What was your address again? Cuz I'd like to go out and look at your property and see what you can see. >> 79 Reges. >> Okay. >> 79 Reges Road. My backyards. >> What is the address? >> 79 Reges.
>> 79 Reges. Okay. >> Okay. All right. Yeah, it was all the back of those houses on the other side. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's mine is directly directly >> kind of close to the street. >> You'll see it. >> Yeah.
>> We'd like to just verify that. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I'll take a motion from anybody. Are you all set? Oh, you go ahead. >> No. Is it continued to a specific date? >> Yeah. Norine said it was May 7th. >> Okay.
>> Is that doable? Is that okay for you, too? Okay. Want to give me a motion? >> Sir, we make a motion to continue 08325 till May 7, 2026 at the request of and with the ascent of the applicant. >> Mhm. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. You're all set for tonight. >> All those in favor? >> I oppose? None. Great. Thank you. >> Thanks for your time. >> Thanks. >> All right. Next at bat, we have It helps if I have the glasses cuz we're not
going to get anybody without the glasses. We have O9265 Robinson Road. Okay, this is um application number nine of the year 20 26. Uh Michael J.
Alietta trustee has applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to sections 240 10.2A of the Falmouth zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling. The property is
located at 15 Robinson Road in Falmouth. So some further details um the uh zoning district is RC. The property is located in the Falmouth Harbor Coastal Pond Overlay District.
It's also in a nitrogen regulated area. There's apparently no flood zone. There's existing a single family dwelling, four bedrooms, and the square footage is 1,627 ft. The proposal is to replace it with a single family dwelling, four bedrooms,
2,376 square ft. No previous decisions of the zoning board of appeals were noted. The lot is 1 thou is 12,916 square feet in a zoning district which currently requires 40,000 square feet.
Street frontage is 102 ft. The minimum is 100 ft. So that conforms Robinson Road is a public way at this particular location. Currently the lot coverage by structure is 12.6%. It would be increased to 18.4%. The limit is 20. So it's within
the limit of the zoning bylaw. Lot coverage by structure is 14.6 structure parking and paving excuse me it's 14.6% would be increased to 23.3% the limit of the zoning bylaw is 40%.
Um there is an existing um see the um the street the nonconformity here is the street which is the east boundary it's 16.9 in a zoning district well it's required 25 ft so this we do have a non-conforming structure here
um the in we have referrals from various departments the engineering department has advised advis us that a driveway permit may be necessary that we should consider uh that storm water be retained on the property not flow onto the street or onto a budding property and also
there should be erosion and sediment control uh included in the conditions. The uh engineering department also notes that a tree hearing may be necessary as one of the trees that apparently is going to be cleared appears to be within the town rightway. The board of health
um has advised us that they have no issues, but they do note that a denitrification septic system is required at this location. Conservation has no comment. Water department requires an upgrade of water service to 1 in PE and the meter in the house.
Building uh no comment. Fire is okay and planning board no comment. No letters either in support or opposition noted in the final. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Kevin Clower. I am an attorney here in town, and I am before you this evening
representing Michael Alietta, the owner of 15 Robinson Road. He is seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling on this property. So, this is located in the Belvadier Plains neighborhood just west of the harbor. Uh the lot is 12,916
square feet, which is fairly typical for the area, and as Mr. Duffy noted, it is in the RC zoning district and is not located in the flood zone. So presently there is a fourbedroom single family dwelling uh with a footprint of just about 1,600 square feet. That dwelling is non-conforming to front yard setback
at 16.9 ft where 25 is required but otherwise conforms to setback and lot coverage requirements. The property has fallen into significant disrepair in recent years. The uh previous owner passed away in 2005. Uh the property was inherited and lived in
by a nephew. um but he was unable to maintain the variety uh maintain the property for a variety of reasons. The applicant uh recently purchased this property. He was raised here in Falmouth and actually owns the abuing property at 25 Robinson for the last 11 years. That property has been in Miss Rally's family
since 1954. He didn't want to see this property continue to deteriorate. So what he's proposing is to raise the existing structure and given the condition of the property uh really makes the most sense and to rebuild a new single family dwelling in a similar footprint.
The existing non-conforming front yard setback would be improved from 16.9 ft to 22 ft and while increasing in size uh the lock coverage by structure would remain conforming at 18.4 which is below the 20% allowed by right. The proposed ridge is 23 feet 8 in which is well
below the 35 allowed. The number of bedrooms would increase to five, but uh it's worth noting that the existing cess pools are going to be abandoned and filled and the applicant has proposed a new denitrification system to be installed in accordance with the health board of health requirements.
Due to the existing non-conforming SEP act, this requires a special permit pursuant to section 240 10.2A. Under that provision, pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed by special permit from this board, provided it's found they're not substantially more detrimental than what
exists. The board's asked to consider the standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities and pairs views and vistas and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood. In this case, there's no new non-conformities created. It will comply
with side and regard setbacks as well as being below the allowable lock coverage by structure at 18.4 four and below the allowable lot coverage by structures paving and parking being 23% where 40 is allowed. The only existing non-conformity being the front yard
setback is improved from 16.9 ft to 22 ft. The effect of the views and vistas of the neighborhood is an improvement over the existing overgrown dilapitated dwelling. The applicant's proposal represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions not just for the
applicant but for the neighborhood. It improves the only non-conformity and doesn't create any new dimensional non-conformities. There's no adverse effects that overbalance the benefits I've outlined. And there's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more detrimental than what currently exists. As such, I believe this meets all the
requirements of 240 10.2A and 240 12.1E. For those reasons, I'd ask the board grant the special permit, but I would of course be glad to address any questions that you may have at this time. >> You want to start, Frank? Um, well, I I went out and saw the
property. It certainly needs um something to be replaced. >> Um, but I think it's fairly straightforward project, so I don't have any questions at this time. >> I have questions about the stairs. >> Okay. >> Because you you show the stairs in the
front. Are you not including those? >> So, the the stairs outlined here in red are being removed. That's the existing stairs. >> Well, it says 22 ft and it goes way back. the 22 feet from the from the street. >> So >> that's the sidewalk. >> This here.
>> Okay. >> That these stairs won't be here anymore. That anything up in red is being >> The red ones are gone. >> Yes, that's that's showing what's being removed. >> Okay. >> So the nearest point is 22 ft. >> Okay. All right. That's all I have. Other than
that, go ahead. >> I agree with Mr. Duffy. It's the property needs some improvement. Uh but for the existing of non-conformity which you're reducing would this be a byite project? >> It would. >> I have no other questions. >> I have absolutely no questions. This is a wonderful project.
>> Awesome. >> Anybody have any further questions? >> Actually going to ask you why they didn't just move it back like a couple of feet. And >> that's what I was wondering too. >> It's a fair question. Um as I mentioned, Mr. Alietta owns the abuing property at
25 right over here. Um, the idea is to really kind of make these properties work together and have a cohesive backyard. So, having more backyard space allows for creation of more of a family compound area in that area.
>> Okay. All right. >> Anybody from the public want to comment on this? Boy, everyone thinks it's a good project. Wow. All right. I'll take a motion from anybody on this close.
>> I'll move to close, madam chairman. >> Second. >> We have a motion in the second. We have Jim and Frank on that. Any further questions? You all set? Attorney CL. >> We have a motion to close on the table. All those in favor? I oppose? None.
>> I'll make a motion to approve with conditions. >> Second. >> Second. Just >> pati on that second. Okay. Let's do findings. Okay. Under section 240 10.2A of the FMA zoning bylaw, alterations,
reconstruction, extension, or change to a single family or two family residential structure that does not increase the non-conforming nature of the structure. It may be allowed by special permit from the zoning board of appeals. In this particular case, we note that the nonconformity is the front
is the setback in the front. It's currently 16.2 two um I think >> oh 16.9'll be increased to 22 feet. So there's there'll still be a nonconformity but it'll be a lesser nonconformity.
Um we also make a finding that the proposed structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. The criteria for a special permit are found in section 2412.1E of the Falazoning bylaw. We make findings that the site is adequate for the
proposed use. The site is suitable for the proposed use. The proposed use will not have a proposed structure will not have any negative impact on the visual character of the neighborhood. There'll be no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There are adequate utilities. Uh there's adequate sewage
and this is in a ditrification required neighborhood. Uh and the proposed structure will not have a negative impact on the supply of affordable housing. >> All right. Conditions
um per plans >> all town board requirements. >> All town boards >> standard working hours. >> Hours 7 to 7 Monday through Friday, 8 to 4 on Saturdays. No holidays, no Sundays. Um, construction materials shall be located within the lot, not on the
street. >> Um, >> work with the police department if necessary to mitigate traffic issues. >> What is our percentage on this? Do we do >> we don't need it? >> 23. We don't have to worry about further structures. >> Um, anything else you can think of for
conditions? >> Uh, just for them to contact the uh tree warden for proper. >> Yep. I think that's it. >> Is there any reason to limit the bedrooms to five? >> It's limited by the virtue of the
building permit and the uh health regulations. >> Okay. It's per plans, too. So, >> just what we just said. Yeah. Five bedroom. >> Yeah. >> Five bedroom. Yeah. In the findings. Everybody all set with those conditions? Frank, you good? >> Yep.
>> Okay. All those in favor of this? I >> I oppose. None. Thanks. >> Great project. All right. Next at bat we have 11 Garnett um case 01026. Okay. We have um
application number 10 of the year 2026. Stephven J. Kelly and others uh have applied to the family zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section sections 240 10.2A and 11.3A4 to raise and rebuild the existing
non-conforming single family dwelling exceeding lot coverage of 20%. Uh that's requires a special permit to exceed by 20%. The property is at 11 Garnett Avenue in North Bland. Property is in an RB zoning district.
Um the property is in the Meganet Harbor Coastal Pond Overlay district. There are no no applicable flood zones that I noted and there no previous decisions of the zoning board of appeals on record. The the lot is 10,68 square feet in a
zoning district which currently requires a minimum of 40,000 square feet. The street frontage is 110 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 100 ft. Uh Garnet Avenue is a public right ofway at this particular location.
Presently the lot coverage by structures 13.1%. It would be increased to 22.3%. The limit of the bylaw is 20% but we are allowed to grant a special permit up to 25%. The average in the neighborhood according to the worksheet is 19.59%.
Our coverage by structure is currently at 16.3%. It would be increased to 27.8%, the limit of zoning bylaw is 40%. The uh nonconformity is the um street
setback which is only 6.1 ft in the zoning district in the town which requires 25. So that's a non-conforming structure. Um the uh height of the existing height of the building is 34.6
34T6 in uh it would be increased to 35 ft according to my notes. Uh we have engineering has given us a referral that a driveway permit may be necessary, that storm water should be contained on the property and not drain onto either the
street or a budding property and that we condition uh the the special permit if granted to include a provision for erosion and sediment control. The board of health has no issues. They note that a dite system must be approved for this property. Conservation has no comment.
Water has no comment. Building no comment. Planning board notes that the building is historic uh and it may need a demolition delay bylaw from the historical commission and I found no letters in support or in opposition to
the project in the file. >> Good evening again, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Kevin Clower. Uh I am representing Steve and Diane Kelly, the owners of 11 Garnet Avenue. uh they're here with us this evening as well as Mike Borcelli from Fwood of Engineering and Greg Cerunian
from ResCom Architecture. The Kelly's are seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling. So 11 Garnet Avenue is located in the Gansit neighborhood not far from NY Park. Um it is a residential neighborhood generally comprised of smaller lots. This property is just over
10,000 square feet which is fairly typical for the area. It is in the RB zoning district and is not located in a flood zone. So presently there's a four bedroomedroom single family dwelling uh total footprint of 1321 square feet uh as well as a detached garage u I'm I'm
sorry no there no detached garage um the existing dwelling is non-conforming front yard setback 6.1 ft where 25 ft is required but it otherwise conforms to setback and lock coverage requirements. The property has been in the applicant's family since 1971. Steve and Diane are
in the process of purchasing out uh the interests of his siblings and uh making this their primary home now. And this house needs significant repairs cosmetically and structurally. So given the scope of the desired renovation, it's most prudent for them to raise and rebuild. The applicant's proposal is to
construct a new four-bedroom dwelling with with an attached garage. That's what I came from. It improves the only existing nonconformity, improving it from 6 feet 6.9 ft to 12 feet. does not create any new dimensional non-conformities. The sideyard setback to the northeast will be 21.5 ft where
only 10 is required. The sideyard setback to the southwest will be 23.3 ft where only 10 is required. And the rear yard setback is 25.6 ft where 10 is required. The lot coverage by structure will increase. Uh it'll be 2243 ft which
is 22.3% lot coverage which is allowable by special permit from this board pursuant to 240 11.384. The proposed ridge height is 34 ft 6 in. Due to the existing nonconformities and proposed lock coverage by structure,
this does require a special permit under both sections 240 10.2A and section 240 11.3A4. Under 1040 240 10.2A, uh, pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed provided the board finds a not substantially more detrimental than what
exists. Again, consider the standard 240 12.1E. whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities, impairs views and vistas, and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood. In this case, there's no new non-conformities created. The only existing non-conformity is improved with
no effect on the views and vistas in public ways, and it is consistent with the neighborhood as we will elaborate. Under 240 11.34, lot coverage by structure above 20% but under 25 may be allowed by special permit. And the board's asked to consider the size and height of the
structure in relation to the neighborhood, the effects of shadow, impacts on views and vistas from public ways, and the effect of nitrogen on coastal embainments. In this case, there's no impact to the views and vistas in the public ways. Though the building is larger, it's in an area with many similarly sized structures. The
only effect of nitrogen on coastal vements is an improvement as they're maintaining four bedrooms, same as the present, but installing a new denitrification system. And as the size and fit with the neighborhood, we submitted a lot comparison worksheet for nearby properties looking at 20 homes within a 300 foot radius as proposed.
This is on below both the average footprint and gross floor area with the number of homes being significantly larger. A few items to note um relative to the referral from the health department applications um from sorry from the uh planning department. The applicants have submitted an application to the planning
board for demo or historical commission for a demolition delay waiver. uh that is scheduled to be heard on May 5th because there is no April hearing. So that would of course be a requirement for any building permit moving forward. Uh but that is in the works. Uh the engineering referral does correctly note
that there's an encroachment from the neighboring property at Five Garnet. The applicants have been in touch with the owner and they're working towards a resolution of that issue. Uh I think the most likely outcome is that it will be it'll be removed, but that is something they're aware of and are currently uh in the process of dealing with the Kelly's
proposal. uh I think represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions. The only existing non-conformities improved. There's no new dimensional non-conformities. There's no adverse effects overbalancing the benefits. Again, the threshold question is, is what's being proposed substantially more
detrimental than what exists? And I think it's clear the answer is no. Therefore, this would meet the requirements of 1040 10.2A, 240 11.384, and 240 12.18. Uh, I'd be happy to address any questions the board may have or Mike or Craig could chime in if if anything comes up that might need their
expertise. U, but otherwise I would ask that you grant the special permit. >> Just a quick question for me. Is it 35 the height? >> 34.6. >> It's staying the same. >> No, the current height. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> I thought the current was 34.6. >> No, it's proposed at 34.6. >> Okay. All right.
>> I'm sorry I got that wrong, but u >> Yeah, I couldn't see it on the plan what it said. So, do you want to start down this end? uh the new system with that encroachment. Does it have to be removed for that new system to be put in? Does your setback
have to be >> Yeah, Mike can answer that. >> Good evening. For the record, Mike Weli, Felmouth Engineering. I represent the applicant. Um the title five requirement for the uh setback from a leeching field
to a slab which is what the building is next door is 10 ft. Um the property owners are uh working out the details of how to resolve the encroachment which is likely
to be removal of that building. If that can't be resolved, we would be required to get a variance from the board of health and they they routinely grant those especially with a condition like that. >> But we hope that the building is removed.
>> Okay. >> Tony, I I'm curious. I've not asked this question in the past. When you have an encroachment of this nature, does the square footage of that encroachment affect the uh uh total coverage? >> So, we did not include it because I
think it's wrong to penalize. >> I I'm I'm not saying it is. >> Um even if it was though, it's only about 90 square feet, which keeps us we're still well under the 25%. Um but we typically don't include that because it's no fault of the property owner that it is occurring.
>> No, thank I never asked that and I appreciate >> No, it's a fair question. appreciate the uh answer on that. Uh on this septic system, is it u because we don't have I don't know what the septic system allows and doesn't allow for bedrooms. Is this
a u maximum threebedroom septic system? >> It's actually four. It's existing four and designed for four. >> Yeah. or so it is designed for four which means that um you could use that office as a bedroom or you
could do something in the attic as a bedroom if you >> Yeah, I think the office would technically count as a bedroom which I think is why we're counting it as a fourth bedroom now where that's why the statement was we have four proposing four. Uh the attic is intended as unfinished storage area. So the office
would count and you have the three bedrooms on the second floor. of your total four bedrooms. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Jim. >> Uh, which is it Hennessy McNamera that's encroaching or Collins that's encroaching? >> Uh, I believe it is McNamera.
>> Yeah, it's McNamera. >> Yep. McNamera. >> Yeah. >> Just wanted to be clear having brought up in Mansa that I didn't have any sort of conflict tonight. Thank you. >> No. And and all of all of the conversations with Hennessy McNamera have been very productive and positive and by no means adversarial.
Um, nice project. Uh, I hate to see McGans changing, but it has, and this, I think, but very much keeping in the neighborhood, and it's not it's certainly not a McMansion, which is, uh, I saw on a lot of Old Maine and
parts of County Road. So, I I like this project. So, thank you. >> Yes. Not using every square inch. We appreciate. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, pretty considerable setback still. Um, it's it's you know, I thought it was really well designed and kind of takes a lot from the existing house into the new architecture. So,
>> which a lot of those houses in that neighborhood have. So, it's it's nice. I have no questions. It's a great project. Frank, do you have anything? >> No. I um I concur. I think it's it looks to me like a pretty well-designed project given the the neighborhood and I think it's in keeping with it. So, thank you. >> Did you design it too, Mike?
>> No. >> Well, we'll give Rooney the credit for the design. >> Is it you? Good job. It is. It's it's lovely. >> You gave him a lot of pointers. >> Everyone's going to raise their hand in a minute, but no, it's it's it's it's lovely. >> It's really nice to see a well proportioned design. Yeah,
>> we appreciate that. It's the little things that get makes us happy up here. All right, we'll go to the public for any comment. Anybody want to come up? >> Wow, we got a happy group tonight. So I just think for the board's purposes when
you look at law coverage, we've had these circumstances before where sheds, garages, whatever cross property lines and similarly occasionally driveways do. And I think when you're looking at lot coverage, you're actually asking what
exactly is within the lot itself. So I guess what I would suggest for the future is that the law coverage as it exists right now technically includes that amount of structure that is on that property
because it's on the property. So but I think when the board issues a permit you can take that into account such that you know for example if that puts them over the 25% by the removal they'll be under it. you know, you could navigate that
without sort of fudging the numbers >> because we also have circumstances where a driveway may cut over someone else's lot >> and that technically is part of the impervious surface on that property. So,
I I think I just would caution that you be consistent in considering those things. >> I think we should discuss it at our >> six month Saturday workshop. I think it's case by I mean testimony is that it's not going to affect the coverage
>> triggering a pro what you count or not should be consistent. >> Oh, I agree. I think consistency is important. I think it's something that should be discussed when the full boards here though. >> But we can condition this project tonight on hopefully a removal.
>> Yeah. But I think either way you don't have an issue because they're not exceeding and with that >> they would still very likely not be exceeding. So, >> I'd really prefer not to have that as a condition because, you know, the resolution of that may take more time
than the building permit process would because we're still going to be well under 25%. I think that could be >> Yeah, I I think we can just note in the findings that we we've considered the encroachment and they're still under that should be sufficient, Madam Chairman. >> Got it. >> All right. So, everyone's all set up here. >> Y
>> you're all set. You give me a motion. >> Motion to make a motion, Madam Chairman, to close testimony. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Frank seconding. You're all sec. You said all those in favor of closing. I oppose. None. >> Madam chairman, I will make a motion to
approve the special permit with conditions. >> Second. >> Senator Patuchi second on that one. Okay. Frank. >> Okay. Um, we have a couple of sections of the zoning bylaw to consider. First is section 2410.2A, 2A, which is a
special permit to raise and rebuild a non-conforming single or two family residential structure, provided that we make a finding that it does not increase the non-conforming nature of the structure. Um, and we so find that the existing nonconformity is the setback
from Garnet Road, which is 6.1 ft. The new setback will be 12 feet, so it's less non-conforming. That's the only non-conforming noted. We also find that the proposed structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure.
And we have section 241.3A4 of the family zoning bylaw which allows us to increase the lot coverage by structure to 25%. 20 is the standard allowed by the zoning bylaw. um provided we make the following findings that the size and height of the proposed
structure relates to the average size and height of structures of similar structures in the neighborhood. There's no effect of uh shadows on adjacent properties. There's no negative effect on views and vistas from the public ways and because there's a dite system we
find that there'll be no negative impact on nitrogen in coastal and bayons. Section 24012.1E is the standard for special permits. We make the finding that the site is adequate for the proposed use. The site is suitable for the proposed use. There's no negative impact on the visual
character of the neighborhood. No negative impact on traffic flows and safeties. There are adequate utilities. There's adequate sewage proposal with the dite system to be approved by the board of health and no negative impact on the supply of affordable housing.
>> Good. >> Additional finding. >> Yeah, go for it. Yeah. Uh there is an encro I'm sorry if I miss this Frank uh there's an existing encroachment uh from lot 15 under the locus of the special permit uh board questioned as to the
square footage approximately 90 ft. Testimony was that even if that is considered uh as total lot coverage uh that it is still under 20% and would be permit could still be granted >> under 25% excuse me. Thank you madam.
>> Any further findings? All right. Conditions per plans per boards. Um, >> the historical waiver. >> Yep. >> That's kind of per boards.
Um, construction 7 to 7 Monday through Friday, 8 to 4 Saturdays. No holidays or Sundays. Um, construction materials should be located within the lot. You should have a nice lot next door to use. That'll help. All right. >> They owe us.
>> There you go. >> Any other We traditionally when we get this close to the ridge height of 35 ft, we traditionally ask for NAS built. >> Yes. >> Yes. Good point. >> At framing. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> No issue with that. >> And should we condition fourbedroom
so the attic stays untouched? >> I think we should. >> Yeah. I think I think even just the finding that it's fourbedroom and and having to remain a fourbedroom >> sounds like I feel safer that way. Any other conditions we can think of?
Everybody's all set. All set to vote. All those in favor? I oppose? None. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Great. >> Another great project. All right. And last but not least,
final batter, 01126 274 Edgewater Drive East here before I start meeting. >> Yeah, >> we're going pretty fast. >> Yeah. >> Well, they're actually good projects. >> Okay, so we're going to go to
application number 11 of the year 2026. Gale M. Connelly has applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit for sections pursuant to sections 240.2A and 2401.3A4 of the Falma zoning bylaw to raise and
reconstruct the existing single family dwelling and detached garage and rebuild the dwelling with the attached garage increasing lot coverage by structure above 20%. property is located at 274 Edgewater Drive East in East Belmouth,
Massachusetts. That's in Seco Shores. The um property is in an RC zoning district. It's in the Wakite Bay coastal pond overlay district. It's also in a nitrogen sensitive area. We have some
flood zones applicable. That's an AE12 and a BE14 uh are the applicable zoning districts. We also note that the garage currently is I think non-conforming because that's 24 point 22.4 ft
>> 50 is required. It's in the front yard. No previous decisions of the zoning board of appeals on file. The lot is 10,928 ft in the zoning district which currently has a minimum of 40,000 square ft. The lot frontage is 90 ft in the
zoning district which currently has a minimum of 100 ft. Uh Edgewater Drive East is a public right ofway at this particular location. The lot coverage by structure is currently in excess of the 20% limit. It's 20.8%. It will be
increased to 24.7% but they've applied for a special permit to permit that. The average in the neighborhood is 17.25% according to the worksheet submitted. Lock coverage by structure parking and paving is currently 29.7%.
it' be increased to 35%. The limit is 40%. So, it's within the limits of the zoning bylaw. The um the nonconformity um is the uh north sideline or property
line is 7.6 ft. Um and the um it's also non-conforming to the east because it's set back only 24 ft from the pond and 50 ft is required. Is that correct, Mr. >> 34 ft? >> 34 feet. Okay. Sorry. 34 ft. >> You you read my numbers correctly. I
just had the wrong number. >> Okay. Um the uh we have in referrals from town departments, the usual from engineering. They say that there may be a necessity for a driveway
permit. They've asked us to condition that storm water be retained on the property and not drain off onto a budding property or into the public right of way and that the we put a condition in the permit if granted for erosion and sediment control. Um it's
also subject to the conservation commission. So they may have something to say about that. The board of health has advised us that a ditrification septic system is required for this project because of its proximity to the water. The conservation commission also has issued an order of conditions
approving the project on February 18th, 2026. The water department has advised that is necessary to upgrade the water service to 1 in PE with the meter in the house. Building department has advised us that we must certify lot coverage.
Um, and the planning board and fire department have no comment. There are three letters in support of the project in the file. U Mr. Duffy, I just point out there was a revised referral from uh health department which noted there is an existing denitrification system and
there would be no requirement to upgrade it. >> Okay. I I read it was required but that's fine. You satis you satisfied that requirement. No problem. >> Yeah, it came over um just a few days later. I I'll get to that in my presentation. >> Fine.
>> Um thank you madam chair, members of the board. Again, Kevin Clower. Uh I am before you representing Gail and Ed Connelly, the owners of 274 Edgewater Drive East. They're both here with us this evening, as well as Mike Borcelli of Fmouth Engineering. The Connleys are seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling.
This is like a theme tonight. Uh 274 Edgewater is located in uh the Seco Shores Peninsula, a little over halfway down. Uh it, as you know, this is a very dense residential neighborhood with a mix of yearround and seasonal homes. This lot is just shy of 11,000 square
feet, which is pretty standard for the area. Uh, it is in the RC zoning district, and shockingly, given its location, it is actually not in a flood zone. Presently, there's a three-bedroom single family dwelling with a detached garage. The total footprint is 2272 ft. The existing dwelling is
non-conforming in a number of ways. The garage is non-conforming as it's an accessory structure located in the front yard without a special permit. The setback to that accessory uh structure is 22.4 at 4T where 50 would be required and at least 25 ft for a residence.
The sideyard setback to the north on the house is 7.6 ft where 10 is required and the waters of vineyard the setback to the waters of vineyard sound is non-conforming at 34 ft where 50 is required. Lock coverage by structure is also non-conforming. It's 20.8% where 20% is allowed by right and up to 25 by
special permit. So the applicants have owned this property since 2001. uh they are nearing retirement and looking to make this their full-time residence and they're find they you know over the years they found they need more space. The house needs significant improvements. So they are proposing to raise and rebuild with
a new three-bedroom dwelling which will improve or eliminate all of the existing dimensional non-conformities. The accessory accessory structure in the front yard is to be eliminated. The front yard setback will be improved from 22.4 to 25.7 ft thereby eliminating that
as a non-conformity. The sideyard set back to the north will be improved from 7.6 feet to 13.5 ft, eliminating that as non-conformity. The setback to the waters of Vineyard Sound will be improved to 35 ft. The lock coverage by structure, though increased to 24.7, will be eliminated as a non-conformity
with the issuance of the special permit because there isn't one as exists today. The proposed ridge height on this is 28 ft 10 in, which is below the 35 ft that's allowed. Due to these existing non-conformities, this requires a special permit pursuant
to 240 10.2A and 240 11.384. Pursuant to 10.2 10.2A, pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed if this board finds that they're not substantially more detrimental than what currently exists. Again, you're asked to consider the the general standards of
242.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities, impairs views of vistas, and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood. here. There's no new non-conformities created. All of the existing non-conformities are either improved or limited, including, as I just noted, the accessory structure in the front yard, the front yard setback,
the sideyard set back to the north, and a lot coverage by structure that exists without a special permit. And we are improving the setback to the waters of Vineyard Sound. There's no effect on the views and vistas from public ways, and this is consistent with the neighborhood. We'll discuss under 240
11.34 lock coverage by structure above 20% may be allowed by special permit. The board finds that there's no negative effects of the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood effects of shadow on adjacent properties on the impacts of views and vistas from public ways and the effect of nitrogen on
coastal payments. Again, in this case, no impact on views and vistas or in public way. Though the building is larger, it's an area with many similar structures. We've discussed the changing nature of seco shores um to death. We've discussed it at a lot of hearings and this is a neighborhood that is
consistently in a state of flux and this proposal >> gentrification is what I call it. >> I I was not going to use the G-word, but that's okay. Um, this is a proposal that is very much in alignment with previous approvals for this neighborhood. There's no effect of
nitrogen or coastal invancements. The applicants will have a den and applicants have a denitrification system which will remain maintaining three bedrooms same as at present. Um, Mr. Man did issue a revised referral which just said no issues with health as plans indicate they are maintaining the three-bedroom septic that was approved
with variances by the board of health in 2002. The system installed in 2002 has a denertrification system so they already meet the requirements for IIA systems for raisin rebuilds and that is part of the file already. Um a few other comments regarding some
of the town referrals. Uh the building department suggested a condition certifying lot coverage by structure. I think the applicants would be glad to include that as a condition. Um I already mentioned the health department. Uh the water department uh sent a referral requiring an upgrade of service which the applicants are glad to comply
with. And I would just like to discuss the engineering referral u briefly. So the engineering referral indicates that there is alterations which will alterations to the rightway which will require uh their approval. I don't believe there are and I don't know if
that's part of their standard referral package and they suggested a requirement for driveway permit but the driveway that that's proposed is the driveway that exists today. There's no changes being proposed to that at all. So rather than requiring that as a condition or having a blanket condition that per all
town boards it is the case that this is not a blanket approval. We have to go through all the various departments in order to get a building building permit sign off. So, I think that could be addressed through the building permit process because I what I wouldn't want to have happen is this board to include a condition that we get a driveway permit and then engineering to say, "Well, you don't need a driveway
permit." And then I have to come back and alter this decision in order to remove that as a condition. Relative to the comments the building uh engineering department had regarding driveway drains, uh that driveway has existed since the septic was installed in 2002. The leeching field actually runs under the driveway and drains
require a 25t set back from leeching field. So there there's no possibility of putting a dry uh drain in the driveway. And as established through conservation, the application is a net decrease in impervious surface on the lot. We're also providing dry wells where none currently exist, which is a
significant decrease in surface water. Uh we can of course provide a limited work on plans submitted for the building permit. The colony's proposal will be a significant improvement over the existing conditions here. As I mentioned, the existing conform non-conformities are all either eliminated or improved, and there's no
new dimensional non-conformities. There's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more detrimental than what currently exists today. This meets the requirements of 240.2A, 241.34, and 240 12.18. Um, I along with Mr. Porcel would be glad to address any questions, but
otherwise, I would ask that you grant the special permit. >> Okay. You want to start off? You looking something up? >> Well, I was just looking something up. Mr. Clower mentioned the referral from the department engineering department about a driveway permit. So let's just see if we can clear that up.
>> What what it says is that what >> well number two what is shown on the plan would not be approved for a driveway permit. The driveway is within 5t of an abuing property line. The
opening is greater than 24 ft wide. There is no proposed storm water mitigation for the driveway pitch toward the public right of way and there are no erosion controls on the parcels frontage and the two nearby inlets to the town storm water system. So that's what it
says. Now you you're taking issue with with that. >> So what I would say is a lot of times this board will say per all town referrals. We'll have to work through this with the engineering department whether that's included as a condition or not because we have to go through engineering to get
a building permit sign off. What my concern is is if there is a condition in the decision that we can't satisfy because engineering decides that we don't need to or whatever the case may be, we then run into a push pull of we have a decision that has a condition saying you're going to get a driveway
permit. But if engineering says you don't need a driveway permit, we'd have to come back to this board to modify that decision. Modifying that decision to change a condition requires a full submitt to the board. >> Well, couldn't we just say per the referral of the engineering department, you may need a driver drive
driver? >> That would be perfectly fine. >> And then you can just >> Well, and we'll work through that. I just I just wouldn't want kind of the blanket statement per all town, >> but you need one. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we could say you may need one and you'd be happy. All right. >> And we'll work through the engineering department. >> All right. Fine.
>> Kevin, what about the railroad ties? >> So, wall. What was what was that about? >> I mean that you know there are I think what they're referring to are there are a few railroad ties that are shown down here. Uh that neighbor is actually the one who one of the ones who wrote a letter of support. If if there was an issue with an
encroachment there it would be worked out between the two parties. It's not a structure that needs to be governed by the special permit. Um that neighbor's aware of it. Our clients are aware of it. There doesn't seem to be an issue. So I don't see any point in creating one where one doesn't currently exist. >> It doesn't say remove. I don't think
>> it just says uh it's not our it's not our jurisdiction. This is just something for the board to consider. >> All right. And what's the height of the new building? >> I I think I said it was 28 ft >> 2810 >> 2810 >> 10 in 28 10 in. >> I'm getting so old I can't read these plans.
>> I said it I said it two minutes ago and I had to look it up again. So >> you're not even getting old yet, Kevin. All right. Anybody else have any Are you moving on down? >> Um no questions. I mean, as you say, Secos Shores is in flux. It's But this
is not outrageous compared to other projects. So, I have no issues. I just note it is amazing, too, what they could do with modular housing. Now, >> how does that work? Do they build it here? >> So, they bring it in in segments. >> Is it coming from New York like it says? >> Um, that's where it would be. Yeah, they they they bring it in in segments and
they then piece the segments together and then you still have a contractor who does all the finish work. Yeah. >> Um, it it's pretty astounding to watch. I was just thinking I feel like across the street watching the show. >> It's pretty cool because they found a mass turn >> significantly faster than if this being stick built. So the back of the
neighborhood is significantly less. >> Yeah. It's my neighbor did modular construction and it was like >> it was fascinating. >> Oh yeah. I've never seen one go up. I I would be Can I come over? >> Yeah. They've come they've come a long way from from what we think of with
modular construction. I mean it's >> these are high-end homes that are being constructed this way. >> Yeah. I'm picturing the tin box with the, you know, fake windows in it and piling them up on top of each other. But I mean, this thing is gorgeous, you know. Yeah. >> Anyway, that's enough for me. Tony, do you have any questions?
>> Yeah. Back in back in 1979 was a when I was in banking, my board wouldn't allow us to finance >> uh prefab homes, so we couldn't even do it. >> Uh, quick question. How do we deal with the 22 foot 5.5 ft on the stairs? how we
how do we deal with that and the encroachment there the front stairs what's normal with that >> so um the existing non-conforming setback is 22.4 four feet and we're proposing a 22.5. So, it's not any more non-conformant
than what currently >> half a foot. >> That's kind of too small. >> No, I that's fine. Thank you. You answer my question. I appreciate it. >> We actually were very careful there to make sure we weren't creating any new non-conformities. And the stair, you'll
notice the stairs come down to the south and that's intentional. >> Well, it says granite on it. And whenever you have something with granite on, I get very nervous. >> Yeah. But we we I I I I anticipated this comment and we had this conversation and I I may have mentioned you by name in
our conversation. Um and you'll that is why the stairs face to the south to go up to the granite slab. >> Thank you. >> There you go. Do you have anything, Nick? >> Set you think of anything you >> Yes. So you're showing three bedrooms on
the second floor, correct? Yes. >> Okay. So, if you go back to the first floor, >> it appears as though there's an office there that I'm I guess I'm questioning whether that could potentially
constitute a title five bedroom. >> So, there is no door on there and we you could condition that as a cased opening. It's >> got a nice bathroom though. There's a door in a bathroom. >> Well, it's shown as a pocket door.
>> So, that could be taken off if if if the board conditioned it as such. Um, you know, the the board the health referral wasn't wasn't concerned with it and said that we're showing a three-bedroom and proposing, you know, have a three-bedroom and proposing a three-bedroom. So, again, uh you could
condition you can conclude a condition that that it is a three-bedroom per plans and per >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Like we did the last one. Yeah. Right. >> You go ahead. >> Uh just I didn't know if I heard it. Uh there I didn't see any. There's no
opposition of the file. Correct. Frank, >> there was three in favor. Three in favor. >> I saw those. I just want to make sure that there's a not and a butter who's concerned about size, scope, and so on. >> No, didn't hear from them. >> You guys all set up here for the public? >> Do you want to come speak for your house?
>> No. >> There you go. >> You got shut right down. We don't. >> Turns out >> why risk snatching to be a victory. >> Boy, you got shut right down quick. >> Jim, want to give me a motion? >> Uh, I make a motion to close testimony.
>> You're all set. >> Yep. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Yep. >> We have a second from Frank. Motion to close. All those in favor? I oppose? None. >> I'll make a motion to approve the conditions, Madam Chairman. >> All right. Need a second? I'll second.
Me seconding this time. All right, Frank. Okay, we have three sections of the zoning bylaw to consider here. The first is um to raise and reconstruct a non-conforming single family or two family residential structure. This is section 240 10.2A of the Falma zoning
bylaw. We must find that the um there's no increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure and we make that finding because uh all of the non-conformities will be improved. uh they may still be non-conforming but they will be less so. We also find that
the proposed structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. Under section 240 11.3A4 of the FMA zoning bylaw, we note that the current um lot coverage by structure is 20.8 8,
which exceeds 20% of the zoning bylaw, but we will grant a special permit um to increase lot coverage by structure to 24.7%. Uh upon the finding that the site and size and height of the proposed structure uh is in keeping relative to
the average size and height of structures in the neighborhood. There's no effect of shadows on adjacent properties. There's no effect of views and business from public ways. and there's no negative impact on nitrogen and coastal embainments. The health department has informed us that there's
an approved denitrification system on the property. Um, under section 12, excuse me, 240 12.1E of the Falma zoning bylaw, which is the standard criteria for the grant of a special permit, we find that the site is adequate for the
proposed use. Um, the site is suitable for the proposed use. There is no negative impact on visual characters of the neighborhood. Um, there's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There are adequate utilities. There's adequate sewage disposal on the property and there's no negative impact
on the supply of affordable housing. >> And you did the three in favor already, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And there's no Well, >> yes, there's three in favor. I I read earlier testimony. >> Yep. All right. conditions
um per plans per boards save that one. How should we word that? >> I think how Mr. Duffy put it was >> you may need >> yeah you know engineering has indicated you may need >> you may need um that's a condition hours
of off 7 through 7 Monday through Friday 8 to 4 sad days no Sundays no holidays construction materials on within the lot unless you need to work with the police as I pointed you >> I'm just going to suggest only because the I've seen these put up before madam chairman they come in it's usually large
cranes u suggest just a meeting with at least with the police and with the building commissioner just to consult about the possible need. I'm not going to condition or require police details but just to condition to talk about if they need them or not. >> Yeah. And that would all be done through
the building permit process. >> Yeah. >> Shall remain threebedroom, right? >> Yes. >> Um I'm trying to >> cased opening in the office. >> Yep. Cased opening in the office. Is that the first floor? I think right >> first floor.
uh condition uh certification as uh Mr. Street had asked for for the uh coverage of 24.7. >> Oh, and as build for that. >> Yeah. >> The lock coverage. >> Lock coverage. >> Okay. >> No additional lock coverage afterwards.
>> No, no further structures. >> I don't think we need to address the railroad ties in the Stonewall. Do you think any condition? I think >> that's not in the zoning by. >> Yeah. Any any other further conditions you can think of, Norin, or anyone else? >> Was there anything in the concom's order that we need to address in this decision?
>> Uh, so they have an order of conditions anticipated. So, >> uh, it was actually issued. >> They will just have to comply with whatever conservation requires. >> That's fine. >> for I think it's in the file. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that's it, right?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, everybody ready to vote? >> Yeah. >> All those in favor? I oppose? Done. >> Enjoy everyone. >> And I really do want to come watch. That's going to be something. >> There you go. >> On New Silver Beach.
>> I just did one on New Silver Beach. >> Yeah. >> And I was there. >> Did you watch one? They're up in like a day. >> Yeah. >> Did you just watch one? >> No, but I was in the neighbor. I'm always driving through the neighborhood. New Silver. >> Oh, yeah. >> And I was like, that wasn't Wait, what? >> I wasn't there yesterday.
>> That's so awesome. I'd love to watch one of those. >> Amazing. >> Yeah. I've never seen one like watch. >> You don't have, you know, for the neighborhood, you don't have that constant >> constant truck every two minutes. Yeah. >> Come in, they drop it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's just every now and then you get utility.
>> Well, like Kevin said, the quality is so changed in >> No, it's really quite amazing. >> Yeah. >> All right, moving on. We do we are we doing minutes? >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve March 12th. Is everyone all set on them? >> I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second.
Everybody's all set. We'll vote on um March 12th minutes. All those in favor? >> I oppose? None. All right. Then we have a request for an insubstantial change. >> Look who's back. The neverending insubstantial change.
Take it away, Nick. >> Good evening. So, we had a innovative advanced system designed and approved for the project. It's an amphome system. It requires a building to house the components. I think I
included that in the request. There's a lot going on in that building. So, because it's not on the original plan, we're asking for a change to put the building on the on the site. Okay. We need to go through the pictures and things. I would like to see it.
>> Yeah, I was just going to ask what's going in it. Yeah. >> Ask a question of the zoning administrator while the applicants pulling up the free. >> We've had this situation before. Correct. And these are buildings are necessary for something. Correct. I did confer with the building uh board of
health and they did confer that um agree that there are other developments that similarly have these control buildings. >> Josiah >> similar size >> force cove. >> Yeah. >> Serest.
>> Do does he need to change his plans to show density? >> No. or any storm water? >> No, I mean, you know, they they should update the lot coverage, etc. But >> I feel they should and >> you know, it's it's one large lot, so you're not going to have the impact that
you would have with separate lots, >> but the plan should match what they're doing. >> And um we it doesn't have any effect on storm water or anything because there's a new building involved now. >> Shouldn't they update all calcs?
I mean, we can certainly supply the information to the pier and they can look at that and take that under consideration. I mean, very likely the the lock coverage of this structure adding into the entire lot is going to be pretty minimal. >> Yeah. >> And you know, it's centrally located so
it's not likely to impact storm water to a butters. So, >> and that and just be sure that's because it's considered one big lot. >> Correct. >> Okay. Where is it going in on the Yeah, >> I'll show you that first >> because I would be concerned if it's
near that house that's flooded out a couple times and it's not near that. Okay, >> it's up at the end. >> Okay. Well, that's what this is what the building would look like. And we're tiring up to it. So it's going to have more impervious too.
Towering it. the companies that sell these systems sell to >> I don't know. All right. So, here's the uh this is a site plan and the system is this is the leeching
field and that's the building right there where the where my cursor is. >> I can't see right to the left of the green field area. >> So, the center of the lot. >> Yeah. Right by the existing leeching field
>> right right here is where the >> in that little left. >> Yeah, it's where all the tanks are and the components go into it and treat the treat the sewage and put it back out and >> pump it. >> And let's see inside the building >> before you Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Before you go, how will you be screening this from the residence there? >> Yeah, >> I'm sorry. >> How will you be screening this from the residents? That's the size of a >> It's not screened from the res. It's a 12 x 16 shed. >> That's all it is. It's only a 12 x 16 >> 12 x 15 shed. >> That's all it is.
>> 12 in 12 foot by 15 foot shed. It's going to look the same colors, vinyl siding, 8ft ceiling with a pitch roof, same vinyl, same plastic trim that we use on the buildings. Only difference is on the end, one end
it has to have a double door with a ramp so they can get the chemicals in and out. Is there any reason you folks didn't know this when you designed this? Was this designed? >> We didn't know what kind of system we were having. >> Like you said, we do an IIA system. This system requires the building the
treatment. >> Norin, what did you do about storage of all the chemicals on Josiah? No one. No fire department doesn't worry about it or anything. Okay. >> Are these permittable? I mean it's something that has to be permitted by the fire department or are they are they
costic in any way? Are they agreeing any kind of polluting? I can't imagine they would and they have to comply with fire regulations or board of health issues. So it's >> all right. Before I show you the inside of the building, this is a list of components
in it. There's a main control panel, an auto dialer, there's blowers, there's UV treatments, chemical tanks, all these things. You can you can see that they require which includes the desk, workbank, tankless water heater, backflow prevent,
eyewash station, shower combo in case the chemicals get on somebody that can wash >> and the board of health has approved this. >> Pardon me. >> The board of health has approved. >> Board of Health has approved it. Yeah. >> They were like requiring. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
So all those things, I can't tell you which is which, but all those things are here. You're looking at two views. One of the one more one of the other. >> Okay. >> So for instance, these things here, the back of it is this >> must require a licensed operator.
>> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. We have to hire a special contractor to operate it and submit tests for the first two years to D. I'm yeah the G for the uh they have to take water samples and until the board
of health uh is happy that we're down to the minus seven >> which is under the 10. We think we can get to seven or lower. >> Well, that would be wonderful. >> Any questions? >> Anybody any other any questions?
>> I'm I'm going to vote that this be insubstantial, Mr. Marion, but I think there's going to be a lot of people on the board that are pushing back that that would have preferred to have seen this structure on original plans terms of placement. I I I I understand, but this is given the posture of this
particular development. Uh it's frustrating. >> Well, this has to be located near this the leeching field. >> So, there's really not much choice of where it's going to be located. >> I understand. And regardless, I >> We should have known ahead of time. Well, fine, but it it would have been
where it is now anyway. So, >> I'm going to be voting to approve because it's not within the CMRs as a substantial change. So, >> right. >> You want to make a motion? Anybody? Anybody? You're all set? Any everybody? >> Please help me word smith this if necessary. Frank, I'll make a motion that the board finds that what is
proposed pursuant to the CMRs is not an OT a substantial change. that we make a finding it as insubstantial as defined in the CMRS and that it be approved as a matter of right. >> That sounds good. I'll second it. >> We have a motion in the second. You guys all set?
>> All those in favor? >> I none. >> So, is there approved? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Nice hat, too, Nick. >> Thank you. >> It's amazing. >> Okay. Board discussion.
Anybody? Wow, we're hungry, huh? >> Where are we? >> Board updates. Zoning administrator. Future agenda items. >> Did we pick a date on our next >> We have not. >> We should wait till all members. We can do it next, Madam Chairman.
>> Yeah, we'll do it next meeting. >> I Anybody have anything? All right. Who's going to You're going to have to play Mark. When when is the next uh >> April 16th? >> Wow. Madam Chairman, I uh move that we uh adjourn to our next scheduled meeting
on April 16th, 2026. >> We have a motion and a second from Frank. Right. Motion. >> All those in favor? I >> April 16th at 6.