Welcome to the zoning board of appeals. Please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV. If there's any private party that wants to record this hearing, step up to the podium and and request permission. I'll introduce the board and staff. To my right is Frank Duffy, our clerk. My
name is Suzanne Murphy, chair. To my left is Tony Patuchi, a voting member, and Nick Haney, a voting member, and our uh zoning administrator, Noren Stockman. 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 for 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 prior to closing 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. Time may be extended by a vote of the board, though. 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, state your name and address for the record. Speak into the mic. It will not amplify your voice and
and record audio for FCTV viewers. And if anyone wants to make a public comment about anything that's not on not on our agenda, you're welcome to come up to the podium. No, nothing on our agenda. Come on up.
Name and address, please. >> Sure. Steve Borkland. Um, and I want to come up just quickly to uh, one, let the board know, and I'm not sure how much the board has been watching the last few weeks, but there's been some monumental
changes in the in the zoning act. >> Don't need that. And I just wanted to say this is going to provide some great housing opportunities in the town of Felmouth um both through non-conforming situations and through zoning variances
that it's the changes are going to allow you to make uh findings on on variances where you couldn't do it before. So, I think you're going to be able to help a lot of people in the future that do want to improve their properties to certain standards, whether it's adding a room that they couldn't do before because it
always had to do with the soil shape or topography that has now changed in the I'll call it the new zoning act. Um, I won't go in depth on the variances. Um, but it's certainly changed the history since at least 1976. So, I'm hoping that
all the members will have a chance to go through these changes. It's actually called House Bill 5555. And I hope if you don't have a copy yet, I'm hoping you're going to get a copy. Um I speak at a lot of zoning board meetings in the state and uh this is all I've done is since July 1st is gone
through these changes that were implemented and signed on the 9th of July. And um it also goes through uh things that would be either findings or uh or special permits um just in general where
uh there's certain criteria for these things and that criteria has somewhat changed. I think some of you uh have heard me speak before in the room and I think probably some of the audience has heard me speak and I am the Steve Borland. That is the state uh Supreme
Court case which I actually lost 18 and a half years ago. And I'll say I have to say my opinion just so I don't get sued by the Supreme Court. I think it was a horrible decision 18 and a half years ago and finally the legislature caught up with it and they actually reversed my
decision. So, I'm going to take that as a win. And I actually take it as a win for everybody that's in the room because most of you are probably on these undersized lots. And uh local regulation is not going to be as strict as what it was before July 1st. So, if you want to
do additions and things on your houses under this new law, you should learn what the law says or hire an attorney that understands it. But I'm uh myself I'm thrilled, but it took him 18 and 1/2 years to actually agree with the the case that I actually had. So
>> that's really all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So tonight I'm going to take a few out of order. I'm going to take 03121, 03326, and 03426 out of order. So we'll
start off with 03121. >> And that is what's the name? Ziko. >> Okay. Uh this is um application uh 03126. Josephine D'Angelo and Mario Kulo Kula. Trustees have applied to the zoning
board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 240 10.2A of the Falma zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming structure. The subject property is 9 Sycamore Street in Ticket, Massachusetts. We have
um a letter uh filed today or yesterday rather with the board of appeals. Um dated July 22, 2026. It's addressed to Mario Kula D'Angelo and Josephine. 9 Sycamore Street uh East Falmouth, Mass
02536. Ray House Bill 5555 changes to pre-existing non-conforming structures. 9 Sycamore Street, East Falmouth, Mass 02536. Dear members of the zoning board of appeals, I would like to respectfully bring to your attention the changes enacted under section 43 of House Bill
555, Mass General Laws, Chapter 48, Section 6, regarding pre-existing non-conforming structures and residential uses. Under the revised law, pre-existing non-conforming structures or residential uses that do not conform to zoning because of lot size or shape, frontage,
lot coverage, or floor area ratio requirements may be extended or altered as of right without the need for a finding by the special permit granting authority. If such extension or alteration complies with the current dimensional regulations regarding height, stories, and setback. This
legislative change is intended to streamline the permitting process for qualifying projects while ensuring the new construction remains consistent with applicable dimension regulations. Therefore, a special permit will not be required for the proposed project at 9 Sycamore Street. Signed, Gary Street,
CBO, building commissioner, town of Falma. Um, based upon that, Madame Chair, I make a motion that this appeal be dismissed or application be dismissed for wanted jurisdiction. >> He would like to be. >> Yeah. >> Any second on that? >> Second.
>> Second from Tony. >> All set to vote. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> And then we'll move on to 03326, which is 82 Hudson. >> Excuse me. A point of order for the board. Why was there no discussion on
the motion or questions on the motion? >> It's not before us. It's not It's not our jurisdiction. >> The motion motion that you just voted on under Robert's rules. There's discussion on that motion. The questions on that motion. Why was that not allowed? >> We have no jurisdiction >> for discussion on your motion you just
made. >> The building commissioner says we don't we have no juris. He doesn't need a special permit. We if you don't like if you don't like his decision, you can appeal his decision. That's your remedy. >> Okay. >> Okay. 82 Hudson.
>> One last question. Is he an attorney? A town attorney? >> This person, is he a town attorney? >> Negative. >> Thank you. >> 82 Hudson. >> This is application 3326. John and Linda
Mod Modvesi trustees have applied to the Falma zoning board of appeals for modification of special permit 6321 pursuant to section 240 10.2A and 240 11.3 3A4 of the code of FMLA to reconfigure
existing first floor space and add a second floor above the garage creating new habitable space. The subject property is 82 Hudson Street in Felmouth, Massachusetts. What did I do with this? >> We have a letter from the building commissioner
uh dated 23 July 2026. It's to John Modelves and Linda Modelves. 82 Hudson Street, Falmouth, Mass 02540. [snorts] Ray correction to um section number house bill 555
82 Hudson Street Falmouth Mass 02540. Dear members of the Falmouth zoning board of appeals, I would like to respectfully bring to your attention the changes enacted under section 43 of House Bill 555 Mass General Laws chapter 48 section 6 regarding pre-existing
non-conforming structures and residential uses. Under the revised law, pre-existing non-conforming structures or residential uses that do not conform to the zoning because of lot size or shape, frontage, lot coverage, or floor area ratio requirements may be extended
or altered as of right without the need for a finding by the special permit granting authority if such extension or alteration complies with the current dimensional regulations regarding heights, stories, and setback. This legislative change is intended to streamline the permitting process for
qualifying projects while ensuring that new construction remains consistent with applicable dimension regulations. Therefore, a special permit will not be required for the proposed project at 82 Hudson Street. Signed, Gary Street, CBO
Falmouth zoning uh building commissioner. Uh, based upon the letter from the building commissioner, I would move that the application for special permit at 82 Hudson Street be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I oppose? None. And then we'll move to 0342686 Edgewater >> Drive Eastbound. >> Okay. This is uh application 3426.
Michael J. and Melanie Tanonos. Um they've applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 240 10.2A of the code of Felmouth. That's the zoning bylaw to expand the first floor and add a halfstory addition. The subject property
is 86 Edgewater Drive East Falmouth, Massachusetts. We have basically the same letter from the building commissioner which I will read into the record. It's addressed to Michael Tanonos and Melanie Tanonos. 86 Edgewater Drive
East, East Felmouth, Mass 02536. Ray House Bill 5555, changes to pre-existing non-conforming structures. Uh 886 Edgewater Drive East, East Falmouth, Mass 02536. Dear members of the Falma Zoning Board of Appeals, I would like to
respectfully bring to your attention the changes enacted under section 43 of House Bill 555, Mass General Law, Chapter 48, Section 6, regarding pre-existing non-conforming structures and residential uses. Under the revised law, pre-existing non-conforming
structures or residential uses that do not conform to zoning because of lot size or shape, frontage, lot coverage, or floor area ratio requirements may be extended or altered as of right without the need for a finding by the special permit granting authority. If such
extension or alteration complies with the current dimensional regulations regarding height, stories, and setback. This legislative change is intended to streamline the permitting process for qualifying projects while ensuring that new construction remains consistent with applicable dimension regulations.
Therefore, a special permit will not be required for the proposed project at 86 Edgewater Drive East. Based upon that information, uh, I would make a motion that the application for a special permit at 86 Edgewater Drive East be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
>> Second that. >> We have a motion and a second. Second by Nick. All those in favor? I >> I oppose. None. So then we'll move on to continuations. 027261 Studley. >> Madam Chair, for the record, that case
has not actually been opened. It's continued because it was previously scheduled. >> Okay. So, I'll read the public notice. >> Thank you. This is the public notice application 2726 of the year 2026. William and Jean
Harvey, 69 Parson's Lane, filed an appeal with the Felmouth Town Clerk pursuant to general laws chapter 4A, sections 8 and 15 and section 240 12.4A of the Falma zoning bylaw appealing the building commissioner's determination.
The subject property is 11 Studley Street, East Felmouth, Massachusetts. The owner of that property is Mark A. Babulli. Um I don't have much information because this is an appeal by an abuter. We normally have a lot of information about particular property and this one we
don't. But I'm going to read the building commissioner's letter which generated this appeal and also a memorandum um which followed it. So on March 27, 2026, the building commissioner issued a
letter to William Harvey, 69 Parson Lane, East Felmouth, Massachusetts 02536. Ray complaint on 11 Studley Street, East Valmouth. Dear Mr. Harvey, I have received and reviewed your complaint regarding the above reference property that abuts your property off Parson's
Lane. I find that there is no existing violation on subject property known as 11 Studley Street, East Valmouth, Massachusetts. You have the right to appeal this determination to the zoning board of appeals within 30 days of this letter. An administrative appeal may be brought
pursuant to section uh 240 12.4A of the town of Falmouth zoning bylaw respectfully Gary Street uh [sighs] building commissioner town of Falmouth. Now subsequently Mr. Mr. and Mrs. Harvey did file an appeal of this
decision. And after that, on June 1, 2026, the board of appeals received a memorandum to the file regarding 11 Studley Street, East Melmouth, Massachusetts. Um, it's not signed by anybody, but it
says it's from the zoning department. So, it's to the zoning board of appeals from building zoning department. Dates June June 1, 2026. Appeal of building commissioner's lack of enforcement on complaint of 11 Studley Street, East Felmouth, Mass. For
record of the above reference property and complaint by Mr. William Harvey, one early in March, Mr. Harvey came into the building department to complain about noise coming from 11 Studley Street and wanted it investigated. He said he would
submit a complaint form. Two, Mr. Harvey filed an official complaint on March 12, 2026. Three, Inspector Scott Holmes visited the site on March 13 and March 14, 2026 to see if he could see anything being
constructed or a use that was non-compliant. He did not access the subject property as there was no building permit pending for said property. He reviewed the street. He reviewed the property from two side streets.
Um and on four on March 17, 2026, Inspector Holmes submitted via email results from his observance of 11 Studley Street. Um and uh he also notes
here that on three occasions he was out there and there was no one home. So, we now have a question as to whether or not the the decision of the building commissioner was actually based upon observations. >> Is anybody here first? Oh, good evening. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of
the board. U my name is TJ Hurry. I'm a lawyer with an office in Hyannis. I'm before you tonight representing my clients, uh Bill and Gene Harvey, who are the immediate abutters to 11 Studley Street. uh and they're with me tonight. Uh we're here to appeal the building commissioner's determination of no
zoning violations at 11 Studley Street. Uh for the reasons in our correspondence dated May 29th, 2026 and also uh with what I'll outline tonight, we respectfully disagree uh with the building commissioner and we ask the board to overturn his decision. Uh my
clients are not here to make life difficult for their neighbors. uh they're here because the zoning bylaws exist to protect the residential character of uh the single residence a district and the current use of 11 Studley Street has cross that line uh
that the bylaw draws. Uh respectfully, as uh member Duffy pointed out, the building commissioner's determination and the subsequent memo that was placed in the file was brief and it was focused uh I'll say on the structure and the permitting aspect of what's occurring at
the property, not the use violations uh that have been ongoing. Uh I wouldn't quite say that the building commissioner got it wrong. Uh it's just that he didn't he didn't reach that part of the complaint. Um, so tonight I just want to look over the facts, um, the legal
framework, uh, and then address the permitting that does exist on the site, uh, and then wrap everything up as a conclusion. Um, so I'd like to start tonight with what's not in dispute. Uh, it's clear to us that there's an impermissible contractor's yard, which
is a landscaper uh, business being operated out of 11 Studley Street. Our correspondence to the board outlines observations made from my client's property, GIS photography, uh, and there's also federal data that we included. Uh, and it's important to also
note that attorney Clower did send in, uh, a correspondence to the board. I believe it was dated July 16th. Uh, and there's several important concessions in there that I'd like to point out tonight as well. Uh, first, I'll address the landscaping business that is real. It does exist on the site. Uh, in fact,
Attorney Clower's letter states that it's accurate that Mr. Favouli, the property owner, uh, does operate a landscaping pro company. Uh, and that's an important predicate fact here tonight. Everything else that follows is a dispute about the degree and intensity of what's occurring on the site, not
about whether uh, a commercial operation simply exists. Uh, there's a skid steer on the property, and that was admitted to in attorney Clower's letter. Uh, there's also trailers on the property. Um, and the current use, uh, basically contractor's yard is simply not
permitted. Uh, with our correspondence that I submitted, uh, roughly a month ago, I did submit, uh, as an exhibit B, I believe, the federal carrier registration of Mr. Fui's business, uh, Four Seasons Landscaping. It confirms that the landscaping business has a
principal place of business of 11 Studley Street, US DOT number associated with that. It also points out that the fleet of Four Seasons Landscaping consists of two power units, three trailers, and two drivers. Uh so that's confirmation that commercial activity is
occurring on the site. The registration date uh was November 27th, 2018, and I believe the most recent update that I could find anyway was February of 2024. >> I have to interrupt. Fourman board. >> I'm sorry. >> I have a fourman board. I forgot to
remind you at the beginning. All that's so it would have to be unanimous. That's all right. I'll I'm >> happy proceeding tonight. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um so as far as the federal registration goes, that's not our interpretation of a
photograph or aerial imagery. Uh that's Mr. Favouli's own federal filing, his own registration designating 11 Studley Street as the principal place of business of the active commercial activity. uh again with those commercial vehicles, trailers, uh that's been
operating consistently since 2018. Uh when you take a look at the aerial photography as well as uh photography taken from my client's property, uh when you piece them together, you begin to see what's occurring actually on the site itself. Uh when you look at the GIS
photos, uh there are open air storage bays uh particularly in the middle and rear of the property uh concerning bulk materials that appear to be wood and other m other materials that are associated with landscaping. Uh there's heavy equipment on the site including that skid steer. Um and there's
additional structures on site. Uh they've been called hoop houses. Uh there's been uh another structure on the site and as well as the uh the most recent structure that's been getting permitting uh what Attorney Clower refers to as the barn. Uh when you look
at one photograph, one photo in particular toward the rear of the property, Attorney Clower has represented the board that it shows a personal firewood delivery. Uh respectfully, I believe the board should apply some common sense here and consider whether a wood delivery of that size and also observed year round
through multiple years of GIS photography uh explains the full scope of what's occurring on that site uh and what's visible across these photos um the open air bays, the equipment, the structures, the vehicles all on site. Uh when you take a look at the Falma zoning
bylaws, uh there's a few things to point out. Uh, is the use considered a contractor's yard? And we respectfully submit to this board. Uh, the answer is yes. It is an impermissible contractor's yard. Uh, 2403.3 defines a contractor's yard as a premises used by a building or
construction contractor or subcontractor principally for the storage of equipment and supplies, fabrication of subasssemblies, and parking of wheeled vehicles. Uh, there are three elements there. The storage of equipment, there's a skid steer confirmed by attorney
Clower. storage of supplies. There's materials in the aerial photo photography as well as the photos uh from my client's property. Uh there's also the parking of the vehicles, the two trucks and uh the multiple trailers involved. That's also confirmed through
the FMCSA registration uh and attorney Clower's own reference. U is the contractor's yard per permitted in an RA district? No, it is not. Uh when you look at 246.6, Six. It sets forth the use table for the residents
district's contractor's yard does not appear anywhere in the RA column. Not as a permitted use, not as a special permit use. Uh and under 2405.1 uses not listed are strictly prohibited. Uh a contractor's yard is an industrial
classification under the bylaw grouped together with salvage law a salvage yard and it does not have any place in a residential district. Um, I also noted in my correspondence, uh, would a homebased business pathways, uh, save
the owner from what's occurring on the site now? Uh, and my answer to that is no. And when you look at the bylaws, it says so explicitly. Uh, it outlines a number of reasons. Under 249.5, uh, expressly prohibits the exterior
stockpiling of mulch, crushed stone, top soil, sand, gravel, wood chips. um also prohibits all the exterior storage of material or equipment or any change in the outward appearance of the premises and the photos that we've submitted to
the board uh prove to you prove that that is in fact occurring here. Um I would argue to the board that this is not a borderline case. These bylaws name these exact materials that are observed on site. Uh the conditions shown in the
photos and confirmed by the federal records trigger these prohibitions on their face. Uh the board doesn't need to speculate or infer. Uh they only need to look at the bylaw and look at the record that we've submitted to you. uh regarding the barn permit and the per
the recent permit history uh regarding that structure. At the time of my correspondence to the board roughly a month ago, my review of permitiz did not reveal any building application existed. Uh, Attorney Clower has confirmed that the barn permit has recently been
submitted and uh, essentially what the argument is being made is everything that's being observed outside uh, that's not permitted under uh, special permit use for a homebased uh, special permit. Uh, they're essentially bringing
everything inside. Um, my point my point to make regarding that is that the bylaw defines a contractor's yard uh by what the premises use is used for, not for the visibility of equipment, not for what's uh not for what the storage is on
the exterior. Uh whether things are placed inside a barn structure or not, uh it's still a contractor's yard. Um so that's what I would say uh regarding the barn permit uh that's currently pending. Um, I will note that the building
commissioner's findings visited the property twice and concluded there was no violation. Uh, as member Duffy pointed out, uh, several observations were made from the road because there was no pending permit or anything, uh, having to do with the site itself.
And u I did note earlier that the building commissioner I believe his focus was on the uh struct the barn permit itself uh not any use violations that are occurring at the property. Uh so he didn't he didn't reach that with
his decision. Um tonight the board is reviewing this denovo. I believe that we've provided all the evidence that you need to overturn the building commissioner's decision. Uh we're not asking for anything extraordinary here. Uh we're simply asking the board to
enforce the bylaws that Fwmouth has adopted to protect residential neighborhoods uh like the one in question. Uh so we are asking the board tonight to please reverse the building commissioner's no violation determination. I would like you to make
a finding that the current use of 11 Studley Street constitutes a prohibited contractor's yard in an RA district in violation of 2405.1 246.6 and that the impermitted structures exist in violation of 240
2.1C and to remand to the building commissioner with instructions to issue a notice of violation in order to cease and desist consistent with your findings tonight. Um, I'm available for any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. Want to start off, Tony?
>> Not really, but I will. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> This is a [laughter] really interesting one. >> It really is. >> From everything that you've described and everything I can see without going onto the property suggests that this is
being used exactly as the complaint has outlined, uh, that this is a contractor's yard. It's being used that way. And I would love to hear from the other side as to what why they think this is not a
contractor's yard. And I agree, you can't put something inside. It's the it's how the propertyy's being used, not what you can see with regard to the property. So everything you've described, as far as I'm concerned right now, I think is a is a contractor's job.
But we have to hear from the other side of this whole thing. >> Understood. Thank you for your comments. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Suggest that um it might make sense for >> up to the point. >> Thank you. Sorry, I'm just doing it for cable. >> Uh good evening, Madam Chair, members of
the board. For the record, Kevin Clower. Um, I would suggest that it might make sense for us to present a brief rebuttal um to Attorney Har's um testimony here and that that might inform much of the questions the board has moving forward.
Um, so I would like to address some of the misrepresentations and incorrect information that's been provided to the board. Um, I'm here on behalf of Mark Vavouli who's with us this evening. He's a lifelong citizen of Falmouth. He is the owner of 11 Studley Street. Has been since 2016. He resides there with his
wife and a six-year-old daughter. It is a 2.4 acre parcel which is approximately 900,000 ft deep at its deepest point. Uh it's somewhat oddly shaped. Um I think it's important before I go any further just to note that um Mr. Duffy I think there was a second page of Mr. Street's
memorandum that you did not read. Um the second page of that memorandum includes items five, six, and seven. Item five says Mr. Harvey came in to talk with Mrs. Street beginning of May approximately stating that he disagreed with the inspector's findings at the site visit. Item six. As May 12th, 2026,
Commissioner Street and staff conducted a site visit. The owner of 11 Studley was on site. Postmarking a future structure existed. Commissioner Street explained to property owner that any accessory structure over 200 feet in size requires a building permit. Item seven on May 19th, 2026. The property
owner submitted an application to build a structure for storage. So, I just think that's very important to note uh because there's been some insinuation that Mr. Street's finding was made without a site visit. That is not accurate. Mr. Street and building
staff were on site with the owner and uh have been on the property with the owner. So, it is undisputed that Mark is the owner and the operator of a small landscape company. Um he is preparing an application for a homebased service business. He's an engaged engineer to prepare a site plan to that effect.
However, he's been accused of many things, a vast majority of which are simply inaccurate. Among those are an uh multiple open air storage bays for bulk quantities of landscape materials, heavy equipment, um heavy commercial equipment, including excavators and skid steers, multiple unpermitted structures,
uh commercial trucks, trailers, and other vehicles, and active commercial loading and offloading of materials and equipment on the premises. The majority of these are simply untrue and factually inaccurate. There are no storage pages. There's none depicted in the photographs that I purportedly offered off offered as evidence of same. The only photograph
showing any materials was a wood delivery which as was noted in my correspondence was for Mark and his family's personal use. They heat the property with a wood stove. Takes quite a bit of wood to do that. There is a building permit application submitted for their new barn which um
and and the building commissioner has visited the site and has witnessed no violation regarding either the uses or the structures. There's two memorandums to that effect. His first memorandum um to Mr. Harvey and the second memorandum to the file which states that he went to the property and met with the property
owner there. There is no commercial loading and offloading of materials and equipment at the premises. There's no materials brought to the site when Mr. Fouli purchases materials for customers. He purchases them directly from a wholesaler and brings them directly to the customer. There is no stockpiling of
materials on this site. There are some elements of truth. There is a small skid steer which is kept hundreds of feet behind the home, not visible from any public way. There's no excavators or heavy commercial equipment. Regarding commercial trucks, trailers, and other vehicles, Mark does keep his truck on the site. It is his primary and only
residence and it is his primary form of transportation. It is alleged has been alleged to you in great detail that this is a contractor chart definition of which says premises used by a building or contract construction contractor or subcontractor
principally for the storage of equipment and supplies. This site is principally a residence for Mark and his family. That is its primary and main use. Anything beyond that is accessory to its main purpose as a single family dwelling for his family. It has been explained to you in great detail why this can't be permitted as a
contract yard. Thankfully, we're not asking for that. No such use exists and none is being sought. One skid steer does not a contractor's yard make. As noted, Mark is applying for a homebased service business permit. And it's also been explained to you why this
isn't an available remedy, but that analysis is based on incorrect assumptions and inaccurate statements of facts. That question is not before the board tonight, but I'd be glad to refute some of the analysis that's been presented. It's been said to you that homebased service business prohibits stockpiling
of landscape materials and materials requiring motorized loading and the exterior storage of materials and equipment and prohibits any change in outward appearance. Thankfully, as discussed, there is no stockpiling of landscape materials presently or contemplated. There is no motorized loading of materials or
equipment and there is no um excavator or stockpiling of materials. There will be no exterior storage as has been discussed. The applicant submitted a building permit application for a barn which will house any equipment. The primary purpose of which is not as a contractor's yard. It's as a single family dwelling with an accessory
homebased service business. There's no change in the outward appearance. The area in question is well set back in the street over 300 ft from the street far behind the dwelling on the property. It's not visible. After visiting this property, Gary Street found again in two separate writings that there were no violations.
I believe based on that and based on the information that's been presented to you, the board has the information that's required to uphold the determination of the building commissioner. I'd be happy to address any questions and I'm sure attorney Harry would as well start up.
>> I I need to ask a question. How the skid steer that's stored on site, how is it used uh on a daily, weekly, monthly basis? Where is it used and how is it used? So, it's used both on-site and off, not daily, probably not even monthly. I think it's used mostly uh in
the winter for snow removal as I've been told. >> So, it would be used to clear snow for the residential use, not for moving materials on site. >> Not for moving materials on site. There is no stock. >> He never uses it for moving materials on site load his truck. >> I'm not going to tell you that he's
never moved materials on site, but there is no stockpiling of materials on site. And there is a difference between doing landscaping work on your own house versus stockpiling materials for other people on your property. >> What gives him the right to uh uh store
commercial equipment on his property? >> So it is his primary form of transportation. Um he >> the skid steer. >> No, the the the commercial vehicles. So >> can you tell me what commercial vehicles? Just can you describe the commercial vehicles? >> There's two there's two commercial trucks the power units that were
described by attorney hurry. Um, those are registered as commercial vehicles to the landscape business. >> I I just from you though, can you tell me what they are? What kind of vehicles they are? >> Yep. Um, I can uh bear with me for a moment. Uh, there is an F350 and uh a
3500 which are for business and personal use. >> The F350 is considered a is that a dump truck or a pickup truck? >> Dump truck. >> Dump truck of that size is considered commercial. Um the F the 3500
uh is also considered commercial. They're registered as commercial vehicles. >> So that doesn't necessarily make them personal vehicles, >> but they are his personal vehicles. They're registered as commercial, but he uses them both for commercial and personal use. >> You use a dump truck to go back and forth to your office. >> Well, I know, but I'm also not a landscaper. It' be kind of funny if I
did. >> Yes, I would have to admit that. That would be very funny. But I would enjoy seeing that. >> When you see me holding a hammer, something has gone wrong. >> I would enjoy seeing that, too. Um, so the skid steer is simply stored there at night.
It's not used to load materials that he's stockpiling. Even though it appears that there is stockpiling going on, we don't know what that stockpiling is. I mean, I couldn't get on site. I wasn't allowed on site. So, I don't know. I looked at the same photographs that were
submitted to this board and I didn't see any evidence of stockpiling of materials in those photographs. >> All right. Nor, and I should point out, nor did Gary Street find any evidence of stocking material. >> And he did go on property. >> He did go on the property. That's incorrect. He had a site visit with the
property owner on the property. >> What's the date? >> Um, it was in the on the second page of the memo, it says, "On May 12th, 2026, Commissioner Street and staff conducted a site visit. The owner of 11 Studley was on site, postmarking a future
structure existed." So, Mr. Street has been on the property. It is inaccurate to say he has not been on the property. He has been on the property with Mr. Favvulli, walked the property with Mr. Favulli. He did not find any evidence of violations. >> May I ask one more question? >> Sure.
>> So a home he's going to be applying for a homebased business, >> right? And it says here in 243.2 two definitions home use of a portion of a dwelling unit or an accessory building which he's applying to build for permit
which is clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes and that's what the definition when you come back to this board to do >> I may have other questions >> I have a couple when was the building
permit sent in >> um It says in Mr. Street's memo, on May 19th, 2026, the property or owner submitted an application to build a structure for storage. >> And how does the mulch get on the site? I >> I don't believe there's any mulch on the
site there. Again, there's no stockpiling of materials here. Mr. Vouli's told me a number of times. >> There's no mulch on that site except for around his own garden beds. >> Correct. >> Did you w I'm sorry. Did you witness it? We want >> I have not been to the site, but I've spoken to my client a number of time. Actually, I take that back. I've been to
the site. I was not there with Mr. Favulli. I did not explore every nook and cranny of the site, but I have been to the property. I was there. I happened to be driving by on a Saturday and decided to stop over. >> Okay. >> When's the date of the of the homebased
business application? >> Uh, it has not been submitted yet. We're waiting on a site plan. We're where we've engaged an engineer to prepare a site plan which when once received will be submitted >> July >> probably not um Mr. Mr. Favulli has
engaged I believe Capan Islands. Um >> Mikeelli, >> oh Mike Porcelli, I'm sorry. Found with Engineering. Um I don't know Mike's timetable. Typically with most engineers, um they run 8 to 10 weeks for for a site plan to be prepared. Um my
testimony to this board is as soon as we have a site plan, I will be submitting an application. I don't I cannot give you a date as to when that will be because it would be complete speculation. And what were the structures in the back that look? They're huge and they're like round. I
don't know what you call them. >> It's a hoop house. >> Hoop house. There [clears throat] was several of them. >> There's two. >> Two. And what's inside them? >> Just storage of you know tools. >> Storage of what kind of tools? >> Tools. Personal. >> Those are huge. What's the size of those units?
>> Um I I don't know the square footage of them. >> Can you find out for me? >> I I certainly can. I I don't know that I can do it right now. They were pretty big. >> Yep. And again, I would say >> so they're filled with tools. They weren't locked. They were open. And so that's tools are in there. Wide
open. >> Okay. >> It's a pretty >> And only tools. >> To my knowledge. >> Landscaping tools >> to my knowledge. >> But we don't know the size. Okay. Okay. Um
All right. That's all I have for now. I I drove down. >> So, >> did you go on the property? >> I sure did. I didn't know I wasn't allowed >> and I drove down. >> Yes, I drove down through the back.
>> I was informed that we were not allowed on the property. >> I didn't know. >> I I saw it only from Mr. Harvey's backyard, but you can't see much. Um and you can't see anything from anywhere else. Um and I thought Mr. Hurry did an excellent job in his letter in which he
outlined apparent violations anyways. Now whether they're really violations or not is for somebody to decide. It's us for decide. But um I I am concerned because whenever we get an application it's really I think our duty to go out and take a look
and see what's going on and make our own decisions based upon what we observe. And I was denied that opportunity and I think maybe other members of the board >> I was denied >> were denied that opportunity too. So um I'm personally in a position where I don't think I can vote until I can go
out and take a look and see what we're talking about here. Uh and for that I would need permission from your client to go on his property and take a look. >> Um Mr. Duffy I would say that um it's been known since June 3 approximately
that I was representing Mr. Vouy at no point have I received a request to access the property. Um I would have discussed that with Mr. Vouy and I'm happy to do so at this time. >> All right. But we were given the information that we're didn't have permission. [clears throat] So it wouldn't occur to me to ask for you. But anyways,
>> um the way this has come before us is really kind of an odd situation that the way it's presented. Now, uh, if you file an application for a homebased service business, uh, at some point, which you say is very soon,
within a couple of months perhaps, >> right? Um, then this whole matter is going to come before us again, >> and we're going to have to do a site visit for that homebased service business. Um, and then we'll find out exactly what you intend to do and we can decide what if the building commissioner
issues a a decision, we can and it's appealed, we will then have an ability to take a look at the whole thing holistically. >> Seems to me that that may be the best way. >> I think site visit might be easier for everybody too and we could just all go at once and set up a date, >> you know, go back. I guess my question
is um my question to that would be would it make sense to hold off until we've had a chance to receive a site plan and submit the application so we can address both items at the same time. >> You would agree to continue this case until that time? >> That's not my decision. That would be >> I know, but you'd have to discuss it
with them. But >> um we only have so many days to make a decision here and I don't want the time to run out before you buy your application. Mhm. I just can't. Um I haven't had a chance to speak with Mike Borcelli about his timetable for this. Um I'm happy to do
so and report back to the board. Um I just don't want to arbitrarily agree to a date that I don't know. I can >> that's understood. But um maybe we could have this continued for status review. >> Madam Chair. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Is there any
reason why we should not hear directly from the property owner themselves as to how they conduct themselves on a daily basis since Mr. Cloud isn't there every day didn't really get
a good look at it and may would it be prudent for us to at least hear how the property owner uses it without being counseledled? Well, I mean, I think that's the point of having him having counsel before you. >> I I and I agree with you. I I absolutely
agree with you. I'm trying to find a way forward one way or the other. Um because this is difficult, >> right? I mean, there's a lot of conflicting information going on here. I think both sides might have a point, but
this is being used as a non-permitted business on site. The way I would see, understand, interpret the uh this as a contractor's yard right now. If I had to, and I have
tremendous respect for our building commissioner, it's very difficult. He has a very difficult job. >> I'm not trying to dispute him on this. I just don't understand and what I hear, what I see indicates that this is being operated as a contractor's yard
illegally. If I had Well, no, I can't say that. So, and I and I don't I'm not trying to dispute the building commission. It's just the evidence suggests that's what this is. >> Um, two two prime primary points on that. Uh, Mr. Patricia, one, um, again,
contractor's yard has to be the principal use of the property. The principal use here is it is his home. it is the home for him and his family. That is the principal use of this property. That is its primary function. Um all other all else being equal, that is its primary function. Um and I also think
that much of the testimony and much of uh what the board had thought maybe coming into this and I don't want to presume to know what you think exactly, but I think based on what's been presented to me uh was predicated on the idea that Mr. Street had not been on the property. He has been on the property. He's been
>> Well, I knew he was. I read the whole thing. >> Yeah. And um you know in his determination as zoning enforcement officer as the building commissioner which his other role is zoning enforcement officer he did not find any violation. He did not find it was a contract charge.
>> This was was so difficult about this because the evidence suggests that it is. >> Yeah. >> You've you've been presented with some evidence but I also think you've been presented with evidence to the contrary as to why it is not a contract. What happens on one day may not happen on another day.
>> That's true. [clears throat and cough] >> I know what I'd be doing if I thought the building commission was coming out there. And I don't I'm not casting dispersions. I'm just saying the fact could be that things can get cleaned up and put away, things of that nature, but
we have all too many contractors in town here using their yards uh in an appropriate manner and uh not enough people speak up to say something about it to bring before this board or not before us, before the building commissioner. I'd like to get this
cleared up. I'd like to have this defi well defined as to what he's doing. I'd like to have a better idea from the person that's there every day, what that person's doing. By the time you come back to us as a homebased business,
knowing what we all know now, things can change drastically. I'm not sure that this would even fit into a homebased business if you came back to us. I mean I mean based on and I'm always somewhat confused with use of a portion of a
dwelling unit or an accessory building would be the barn I guess that he's applying for which is clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its residents for a business profession. I mean you know this better
than I know this uh or trade involving providing a service or the crafting preparation sale or delivery of good or delivery of goods but excluding any manufacturing. So he's not assembling.
I don't know. This is just a lot of >> I this this will be presented at a different time, but I think this very clearly fits into the definition of a homebased service business. And we have a number of similar businesses that have been permitted within town. Um but that will be presented as part of an argument
for a homebased service business. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Nick, do you have anything? I think, you know, without getting on the site and just going off of the evidence presented, I don't I don't feel comfortable
making it, you know, if I if I had to base it on aerial photos that are GIS M, you know, and I I would say this looks very contractor yard, but again, I
understand the both arguments and I would hate to um railroad someone's livelihood just over not getting all the information. I think getting out to that site is >> imperative to this, you know, decision here. And I know I understand Gary was
there, but I mean that it's an appeal against his. So we have to see, you know, for ourselves, not just go well, we trust Gary as much as I do on things. But >> so that's where I mean see if we can work this out to get out there.
>> Why were we not allowed on a site? So typically when someone applies they're applying for themselves and you are implied to be have access to the site. In this case Mr. Favulli isn't the one that brought this application forward. I'm not aware of anyone telling
the board specifically that they're not allowed other than the fact that he's not the applicant. And then when someone's not the applicant, the board has no right to access their property unless they're specifically granted authority to do so. To my knowledge, no one has asked and had had the question
been presented, I would have gladly discussed it with Mr. Vuly, and I expect the answer would have been yes. But we we weren't asked that question. So, I've never said no. I don't know that Mr. Vuly has ever said no. >> I got screamed at like >> no. So, just just for the board's
information, this application was filed by an abutter. >> They cannot give you permission to access someone else's property. So, as part of the application being forwarded to you, the information also included the fact that you don't have
>> permission to access the property because the application came from another party. So, that was just where it ended. >> We never sought permission to access the property because the application was made by Anna Butter. I just took my four
places I had to go for my four agenda items and was doing my homework and I drove down there to do my homework and wasn't pretty. >> So typically someone has a notice that someone else is going to be on their property and I would just >> a person was there. They came right out.
>> No, I understand. But if they if they had no expectation someone was going to be driving through their property, you can understand why they might have been startled. Yeah, I guess >> I would be quite upset if I happened to look out my back window and saw someone through my backyard. >> I never get out of my car.
>> No, I'm not saying you did, Miss Murphy. I'm just I'm just as an example. >> Had my tag on. I just told the person I was trying to do my job. I was just looking at it to see what it was. >> So, I do apologize for breaking any rules or whatever. I was just trying to
do my job, my very poorly paid job, if you know what I mean. Mhm. >> So anyway, um let's go to the public. You guys want to go to the public? Everybody's all set for questions up here. Anybody from the public want to comment on this? >> Attorney Curry, do you have anything
further? If I may, thank you. >> Uh, regarding attorney Clower's representations that a special permit will be forthcoming. Uh, respectfully, a future application to this board does not cure a present violation that's occurring on site. I do believe the
board has the ability to make a decision tonight uh to overturn the building commissioner's decision. Uh, and to Mr. Haney's point, uh, we we do respect the building commissioner very much. Uh, like I said earlier with my comments, I I just don't think the building commissioner realized there was a use
violation on the property. I believe his focus was uh on the barn and the barn only. Um, and now that we have that building permit uh filed, I think that was honestly I think that was his prerogative uh when he went on the site itself. Um, and with respect to the barn
permit, I don't believe the barn permit will solve the issue. who I don't believe a special permit will solve this issue either. Uh, Attorney Clower didn't mention uh that a contractor's yard is a primary use. Uh, it can't be an accessory use. Uh to that I would
respond that under Massachusetts law, an accessory use of a property can indeed be transformed into or superseded by a primary use if its frequency, intensity, and scale expand to the point that it overwhelms the original primary or
principal use. That's Giovani v Pope 20 LCR 44 2012. Uh that's also cited in Falmouth Auto Center, Inc. for Magnamera 22 23 LCR 268 201 in 2015. Uh
specifically in that Falmouth case, the court concluded that any lawful accessory use of the property in question had quote long since been overwhelmed and superseded by commercial trucking operations which had become the primary or the principal use of the
property because it grew to such a degree that it could not be characterized as minor in significance. uh when you apply those cases uh and what I just mentioned to uh this subject property uh it's an old property the the house is up front there's minimum set
back to the street uh and it goes back quite a ways uh I think when you take in cons consideration the rest of the property uh which is uh the contractor's yard uh with the trucks and the the various uh bays and the uh and the
accessory properties. Um, I think I think we get to it there, uh, that the site as a whole has really become a contractor's yard rather than a principal residence with something else going on in the back. Um, so again, I do believe the
board does have enough uh evidence before them to uh make a decision uh to overturn the building commissioner's decision. Um, I do understand I I presented the evidence that I could. Uh I know the board's been struggling tonight with uh lack of access to the
property uh procedurally. I do understand uh that this application was brought by my clients who are abutters to the property, not the owners of the property itself. Um but we've presented the the best evidence we can uh to the board tonight. And again, I do believe
you have the ability to overturn the building commissioner's decision tonight. >> Thank you. >> Excuse me. >> Sure. Name and address, please. >> Jean Harvey, 69 Parson Lane. I just want to say that since we put the letter in,
all the noise, the trucks, the cars going back there have all stopped. It's been very quiet. So, I don't know if he cleaned out or what he did, but there were trucks coming all the time, going to work, coming back from work in the noise, and it's been very quiet since
the first letter went in. That's all I wanted to say. Madam Chair, >> thank you. >> M just could you >> Here's a question for you. >> This is part of what's missing. We're not hearing about what you saw uh personally. Uh you're describing
comingings and goings of trucks. I don't know what kind of trucks. >> Are they delivery? Are they delivery trucks? Uh business trucks? Are they employees coming to the site and parking while they go work for
>> Well, I saw a 10-wheeler go in there one day, drop off stone. Um, there are trucks that go in there, people's personal trucks, and then they park there and they're gone for the day and they come back and get their trucks and go. That's what I've seen. My house
is right there in the back and everything's right be, you know, right behind me. >> And is that consistent every day? Are there days that that does not? Yes, it was consistent every day. They either were working at Mark or they were taking their own vehicles and their own equipment or were they renting space back there or what? But there was a lot
of noise going back there. >> Is it is it possible that the day that the building inspector came to the site that they weren't there? >> Well, I'm saying once we got the letter in, everything stopped, the noise, the trucks, people going back there. Like you said, maybe he cleaned it up.
I mean, we all we can see is I'm looking at the uh u >> but I think you should go back there and take a look. >> Well, we can't right now and we have to get permission to do that. I'm trying to understand because nobody wants to hurt somebody's business. >> No, I don't want to hurt his business either. >> But we don't want a butters hurt as
well, >> right? >> And trying to gain a better understanding by what you've seen as the person who brought the complaint. I I have I have no, you know, disrespect for Mark. It's just that he seems to be expanding his business. The big hoop
house, another hoop house, and another structure going up and then the traffic going back there. I mean, if he only had the two hoop houses, I probably wouldn't have cared. But then it seems to be moving and there's more stuff going all the way down to the end of Parson's Lane. You can see all the equipment back there. So, you have to go and take a
look. That's all I can say. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. That's the public. Okay. Anybody else from the public want to comment? >> Come on up, sir. >> Yeah. >> Alan Driscoll, 52 Parsons Lane.
Familiar with that area. What I haven't heard mentioned is the boat storage that occurs in the fall. the firewood production that is down there. If you get out in the fall when the leaves are off, you can see large piles
of firewood. You can see a conveyor belt used to drop the the split logs off. And you can see the uh the trucks down in there. I don't know how you define a contracted storage yard. I don't know what that definition is for the town,
but it seems to me that the land use is being pushed as far as it can and especially if they want to let you on site. >> I don't know. I would think a nice field trip would work. >> I think so.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. I >> I think there's two things for me anyways that are missing here. Let's start with the building commissioner's letter. I think it's inadequate. He just gives us his conclusion that he found no
violations and doesn't really give us any details about what he saw, what he concluded, what provisions of the zoning bylaw he was considering. uh I think uh our zoning administrator should ask him to supplement his letter with the facts that support his conclusion because just
on the basis of his conclusion I don't think there's enough at least for me I I I I just find it inadequate and I want to be fair to Mr. Favouli and I want to be fair to Mr. Harvey and right now based upon that letter I don't know how
I can be fair to either one of them and the other thing is that I think that uh we also need every member of this board to have the ability to visit the site and see what's there um which would help us come to our conclusions. So, I'm not
prepared to vote tonight. Um, and I would suggest that we consider continuing this to the I give you a date of the 3rd of um >> September. >> 3rd of September. Um, and in the meantime, uh,
asked the building commissioner to clarify his decision with additional facts to support his conclusion and to, uh, ask the owner of the property, Mr. Favi to grant permission to members of the zoning board of appeals to make site visits to confirm the facts set forth by
the building commissioner >> or Mr. Hurry one way or the other. >> I agree because the the building commissioner went out there within days of the barn permit. So he might have been more focused on the barn permit and that's why I agree with that too.
>> Anything else up here? >> I agree with what was just put forth. That's a motion, Frank, to to continue to September 3rd. >> Yes. Second. >> We have a second from Tony. >> Any further discussion? >> Do you want to uh clarify access with
the owner prior to closing or continuing? >> If Mr. Clar, if you're willing to discuss that issue with us before we close tonight, it would be fine. Uh, Mr. Duffy, uh, and speaking with Mr. Fully, he's happy to provide access to the property for members of the board.
Um, I'd like to have an approximate time frame because he does have a child and dogs and it is his home. Um, if we keep this in sort of the same time frame as we do most ZBA hearings of within a week of the hearing, I think that would probably make the most sense. Um, just so he can have some level of expectation
of when people might be visiting his property. >> Well, I'm willing to notify Dorene and she can tell you. >> Perfectly fine. >> Okay. >> I I would, Madam Chair, >> I would as we do I don't give anybody
notice. I just before the meetings, our hearings, we go out there roughly a week in advance, maybe a couple days in advance. I just show up. I put my lanyard on to identify myself and I walk on. That's what I'm looking for. I don't want any forewarning that I'm >> No, that's and that and that's what I would expect. >> All right.
>> That's that's what I would expect, Mr. Petr. But I was just saying if we can expect that within about a week of the hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, as for the uh the applicant, would we be able to access their property to see what they see from their house since
they're >> there's a note letter in the file? I think >> that said we could before. Yeah, >> you can access. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we have a motion in front of us for September 3rd and the 2nd.
>> All those in favor? I oppose? None. >> Thank you. Thank you all. >> And our next case is 029. I need glasses or I'll mess it up. 0292619 Maple Street. >> So, let's keep that aside.
>> Excuse me, Madam Chair. Who seconded the last application? >> I think you have to open this one, right? >> Yeah, we got to open this one. >> Maple. The name is Melo. Oh, here it is.
This is um application 29 of the year 2026. Kyberio, also Ted um and Christine Melo have applied to the FA zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 240.2A, 2A 240 11.3A4 of the Fallet
zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling increasing lot coverage by structure properties located at 19 Maple Street in East Belmont. Property
uh is um in an RC zoning district. Uh it's in the Little Pond Coastal Pond overlay district. The flood zone is AE. There's an existing two-bedroom uh single family dwelling, one story on the property. The proposal is for a four-bedroom single family dwelling, two
and a half stories. No previous zoning board of appeals decisions that I found in the file. The lot is 4,800 square ft in a zoning district which currently requires 40,000 square feet. Street frontage is 60 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 100 100 feet of
frontage. Maple Street is a public rightway at this location. The lot coverage by structure existing is 21.4 which exceeds 20% limit. It will be increased to 24.5 which is still over the 20 limit but we have authority to
grant up to 25% by special permit. The average in the neighborhood is 20.3. Lot coverage by structure is uh 29.5%. Uh it would be increased just a little bit to 29.8%. The limit is 40%. So
they're within that limit. There are two nonconformities noted on the on the property. The westerly um setback is 5.5 ft and the northerly setback which is the street is 18.1 where 25 is required.
Um the height of the building is currently 17.3 ft. It would be increased to 34.8 ft. 35 is the max. We have engineering um department referrals. They've required that we uh let storm water be retained
on the subject property, not go onto a budding property or the street. The current driveway um the town engineer said the current driveway may not be approvable. Um we'll leave it to the applicant to figure out how to handle
that. And erosion and settlement control conditions be part of any special permit that's granted. The property is on the public sewer, no septic system, and the conservation comm approval is necessary and we've been advised that a hearing is
scheduled for October 5th, so we do not have the benefit of their decision. >> Uh, good evening members of the board. For the record, Jack Hearnden with Sen Associates and Brewster here this evening on behalf of Ted and Christine Melo who are right over here, the owners
of um 19 Maple. Um, we're here tonight seeking a special permit and a finding of no substantial detriment um in accordance with sections 240102A and 240 1113A4. Um, as you mentioned, Mr. Duffy, that we are in the RC zone. Uh, this lot is
4,800 square ft. Um, this there's an existing single family dwelling with two bedrooms that was built in the 1950s. Uh, the property is non-conforming as to lot area frontage width. Uh, and the dwelling is non-conforming as to coverage by structure as well as
sideyard setback. Um, and if any of that is not shown on the plan in front of you, please let me know. Um, we are proposing to raise and rebuild uh the dwelling on the property. Um, it will will still be a single family dwelling,
but it will be larger to fit um some of the family needs that the Mellows have. Um, we are slightly increasing the footprint as well as the height. Um and the only non-conforming setback that we have is uh going from 5.5 to 7.1 feet.
So that's an improvement um of one and a half ft. Um and the rest of the setbacks are remaining conforming. Um just running through the sections. So uh 240 102A this is the non-conforming single family dwelling section. Um and
we are we are allowed by special permit to uh reconstruct or you know alter the dwelling um so long as we get a finding that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Um and the other section is the maximum lot coverage section as Mr. Duffy mentioned.
Um and there are four specific criteria that we're asking you to review tonight. Um this is the size and the height of the structure as it relates to the average of the neighborhood. um the effects of shadow on adjacent property, the impact of views and vistas and uh
the effect of nitrogen on coastal invements. Um so starting with the size, if you see the coverage table that I submitted, um we are pretty, you know, the average is 20.3. Um this is above, but again, we do have this special
permit provision that allows us to go up if if you make a finding. And there are, you know, other uh properties in the neighborhood that are above 25. I mean, you have uh two of them at 27% and and one at 25 and a few others above 20 as
well. So, I think as far as, you know, coverage, it's it's it fits within the neighborhood. Um and the height, you know, we have two and a half stories proposed. Um you have several other properties in the neighborhood at one and a half um or two or even three
stories. Um, so while this will be a little bit larger than some of the other properties, it it does fit with with what you find around there. >> Can you clarify the height for me? >> Sure. Uh, two and a half. >> I had a different number than Frank. That's why I'm >> What number? >> I had 33
11 in and 3/4. What did you You had 34. >> Well, it's 3311 and 3/4 is mentioned and 34.8 is also >> I just want to clarify. >> So, which is it? Yeah, >> I believe it's 34, but both I mean it is below 35.
>> I got 3311 and 3/4. >> Yeah, it was hard to read for me. Was magnifying glass time. >> It should be Yeah, 3311. >> 331. >> 3311 and 3/4. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Um the second point is uh effects of
shadow. Um, unless anyone here tonight has any concerns, we haven't received any concerns from abutters about, you know, what this will do to people's backyards or anything like that. And again, with the height, we feel that this this fits in some of the other, you know, properties in the neighborhood.
Um, impact on views and vistas. This isn't blocking any view that wasn't wasn't there before. Um you know this is the area over by Mar Vista where you have uh you know lots of houses kind of all all together. Um and then impact on
nitrogen and bayments. Um we're within what's allowed under title five um and we have submitted to uh conservation commission as well. I did want to note um I don't think it's the October 5th hearing. I believe we're going to be heard August 5th. >> I did I say October? I
>> meant August. It says right here is August 5th. Okay. Um, and so we submitted the RDA and uh really the only concerns that the conservation commission had is they wanted us to show uh some of the existing arborites um that were on the property. So you should
see them on that site plan. Um and as far as the uh the driveway that has been updated and the plan that you have has been sent to engineering with their uh specifications in mind. Um, so I don't know if if you know a note hasn't come
in from engineering yet, but we feel that we have uh satisfied their requests. Um, specifically it was the apron um around the the driveway that was the concern. Um, and some questions about the tree that was that was by the driveway. >> Tree is on town property.
>> Right. Correct. >> Can't be removed. >> Right. Right. So he just want um engineer just wanted, you know, more information on that. So, we've been in contact with uh engineering as well as the zoning department. Um, and based on everything that I've heard, we're we're in the clear. >> Okay.
>> Um, and sorry, I'm just running through my notes here. Um, yeah, so I just I ran through the four criteria points on 113A4. Um, and we feel that this is not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. Uh, so with that, I will turn it over to the board with any questions. >> Want to start off again, Tony? >> I have no questions at this time. >> I have a couple. Did you include all the stairs and the and the pad for the
bottom of the stairs in your calcs? >> Yes. >> Both the back. There's two different. Okay. >> Yep. >> Those are included. I think that's all I have. Frank, do you have any questions? >> Um, no. I went and did a site visit out to the property and um this appears to
be reasonable application for me. >> Nick, >> no question. >> Marine, >> I feel personally we can condition this with the I I read what the uh Concom said. >> I think we can condition it percoms.
>> Yeah, I would agree >> with the meeting, >> right? >> Rather than punt. That's my opinion though. >> Um we can go to the public. Yeah, I think >> anybody from the public want to comment on this? >> No takers.
Come on. It's a nice project. All right. Um, what would anybody like to do? Does anybody agree with my >> I agree with you >> with the um concom is >> I think it's fine. >> Just put it as a condition. >> Yeah. >> Move to close.
>> We have a motion to close. >> Second. >> We have a motion to close and a second with Nick. Um, are you all set? Anything further? >> Yeah, nothing further. >> Everybody, public's good. All those in favor of closing, I opposed. None.
Um, I'll make a motion to >> I'll make read the findings first. >> What? >> Findings? >> Oh, >> we got a >> You want to make a motion to um approve? >> Approve of conditions and then I'll read the findings. Yeah, >> I'll second. >> I made the motion. You'll make the
motion to approve conditions. I'll second. So in addition to the facts which I read at the beginning um I note that the setback on the west sideline will be increased from 5.5 ft to 7.1 ft. The setback at the street will be
increased from 18.1 uh which is non-conforming to 25.1 which is conforming. Um the east and southerntherly uh setbacks both currently conform to zoning. Uh, I'll make a correction in the height of the
building to of the proposed building to 33 feet 11 and 3/4 in. I will note that there are no letters in opposition uh or letters in support uh on the file and no there was no um public testimony.
>> Sounds good. >> Right. >> Conditions. >> Well, driveway um >> driveway approval >> permit >> permit, >> right? um tree not to be removed. >> Right. >> I would like a certification on the height.
>> Well, yes, because it's so close to 35. And I think Madam Chair, you should we should consider on the front setback. It's at point 25.1. >> Although it's a tremendous improvement, but I mean he's got to do a foundation certification anyway. >> Do that one too. >> Yeah.
>> Okay, that sounds >> all other Could you repeat that? Uh cert certify the ridge height, certify the front. Well, the setbacks. You're going to do that anyway, but yep. >> Make it put it part of the condition.
>> Um per all other boards, per plans, um construction hours are 7 to 4 Monday through Friday, 8 to 4 Saturday. No holidays. This is all memorizing. I should get my sheet out. I say it too much. Um, no
other structures on the property. Um, anybody think of any other ones? >> Do you have construction vehicles on site? >> Oh, construction vehicles. Yeah, you may have to hire police. >> They have to remain on site. Construction vehicles. I don't know how
much. There's not a lot of space. So, you can hire. >> You can come on up and tell us, please. >> Good afternoon, Ted. Melo 19 Street. Thank you very much for the opportunity. There's a current construction project up the street at 41 Maple, which is a very similar size and structure that
we're building. >> So, you've watched the show and you watch what you got coming. >> Well, well, yeah, I've seen the movie and I'm I'm trying to do the same thing. Yes. >> Part two. >> Yeah, exactly. So, yeah, 41 Maple Street was same thing, non-conforming in a couple different areas and uh very familiar with that. And as far as the driveway is concerned, it's incorporated
in the uh the second survey. It's a five foot setback from the property line plus the apron as well. >> Okay. Thank >> Thank you. >> Any other conditions you can think of? So, uh, I think we just did not incorporate within the findings that they have an existing non-conforming shed at the southwest area of the lot
that's being removed. >> So, um, we would >> I didn't catch that. Good. >> Remove and not replace. Um, >> sort of just to double check, we also have a um note from the wastewater about
what they want the sewer pump protected, etc. So, just worth um >> and that will be under all boards and the conditions too, right? Okay. >> Um I did have a question and I sent an email to the architect this afternoon and appreciate he got back to us. We
just wanted to confirm that their third story actually only comprises a half story because as you look at the floor plan, it appears to be pretty close square footage wise to the second story and the town is pretty specific about
what is or is not allowed for a half story above the second floor. >> Um, so their architect was able to confirm that that was within the appropriate >> Good. They got back so quick. Good. Madam, I forgot to read the um
finish the findings. I'm sorry. >> About the >> finish the findings. Com sheet is one. >> Yeah. Okay. Um under section 240 10.2A 2A of the family zoning bylaw for a non-conforming single family dwelling alterations, reconstruction, extension
or structural change is permitted by special permit from the ZBA if the work does not increase the non-conforming nature of the structure and the proposed work will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. We make the finding that the uh proposed work
will uh not increase the non-conforming nature of the structure. In fact, it will improve it and bring it into compliance. In part, section 241.3A4 of the Fazoning bylaw provides for an increase in lot coverage by structure in
RB, RC or AG um agricultural B district and we are in an RC district. So, this bylaw applies. We may allow um lot coverage by structure up to a max of 25%. Um the maximum lot coverage by structure
um will be 24.5%. We make the finding that the size and height of the proposed structure is consistent with the size and struct size and height of similar structures in the neighborhood. There's no negative effect on the shadow on adjacent properties. Um
there's no negative effect on um views and distance from public ways. Uh, and because the property's on the sewer, there's no effect of nitrogen on coastal embainments. Under section 242.1E of the Fazoning bylaw, the general conditions for a
special permit are that the proposal will not have adverse effects which overbalance the beneficial effects of the project on the neighborhood or the town. Considering we find that the uh site is adequate for the proposed use, the site is suitable for the proposed
use. There's no evidence of a negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There's no evidence uh of a negative impact on neighborhood views and vistas or the neighborhood visual character. There's adequate sewage disposal because the property's on the sewer. There's adequate utilities
and there's no negative effect on the supply of affordable housing. >> Thank you. >> So, we have the findings, the conditions. I think we're all set. >> So, just one more. Uh there's an office on the effective third floor. Um so we
would require that that remain as a cased opening so that it doesn't exceed their bedroom allowance. >> Yes, that's fine. >> Yeah. >> The updated plans incorporate I think a five foot opening with no door. >> Yep. So we just um memorialize that so
that there's an understanding going forward that >> there's a max number of bedrooms. Everybody else have to vote up here. >> All those in favor? >> I oppose. None. >> Great. Thank you all. Enjoy. >> Look like a good project to me.
>> All right. Moving on. Minutes. >> Are we doing any? >> You know, at this point in time, I don't even recall which last minutes you >> uh I don't remember either. I I guess what I recommend is we just um table it for now and
>> Okay. >> vote next week. >> Um board discussion. >> Um zoning administrator updates. >> Busy, busy, busy, >> busy, busy. I was going to say you're alive. Board updates. There are none. Future
agenda items. And our next meeting will be held on July 30th at 6 PM. Who's going to help me take Mark's job? >> Nick to adjourn.
>> To adjourn to adjourn. Want a second? We have a motion to second. All those in favor? I