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. If any private party wants to record this hearing, step up to the podium to request permission. I'll introduce the
board and the board and staff. On my far right is Mark Finner, a voting member. To his left is Scott Peterson, a voting member. To my right is Frank Duffy, the clerk. My name is Suzanne Murphy. I'm chair. James Mo Morse. To my left is vice chair. Tony Patucci is running a
little late. And Nick Haney is an associate member. And we have Noren Stockman, our zoning administrator. 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 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 time may be extended by a vote of the board. Three, the board will then question the applicant. Four, the public will then be invited to comment. Comment should be
limited to two minutes and be strictly related to the proposal. All members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair and come up to the podium. State your name and address for the record and speak into the mic. It will not amplify your voice and record for the FCTV viewers. If
anyone wants to make a statement tonight about something that's not our on our agenda, you're welcome to come up if anyone wants to. Other than that, we'll proceed. And if anyone has the agenda, I am taking one out of order. I'm going to
take 214 Gford Street F first. They have requested a withdrawal, so that's why I'm taking it out first. So if anyone would like to go have fun somewhere. So I would love a motion. >> Madam Chairman, is that by writing? Just a point of information. >> Letter letter.
>> Madam Chairman, I uh make a motion to allow 00626 uh Pines Fantasia 214 Gford Street requesting a modification of a special permit to raise an existing non-conforming dwelling and construct a three frame family dwelling to withdraw
>> without prejudice. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion in a second. Any any further discussion? No. >> All those in favor? I >> oppose? None. >> Okay, they're done. >> Okay. And then we're going to take next
uh 391 Korea Road. >> Not here. >> Is not here. >> Tony's not here either. >> No, he's gonna be late. >> But he's on this case tonight. >> Yeah, >> we're gonna go out of order. So I think we'll maybe we'll move to the
last one and see maybe if he comes >> move to show. Does that sound okay? >> All right. Since the applicant is not present, I'm going to move then to new hearings. We'll do 0206
back rack 197 drive. >> You weren't even prepared for that, were you not, Frank? Neither was I. >> 197. This is um 197 Shorewood Drive, East Balmouth. Michael and Pamela Bachrock, they're trustees of this
property. Uh they've applied for a special permit under section 240.2A 2A and 24011 A1 I to raise the non-conforming single family dwelling and construct a new one new single
family dwelling with the detached garage in the front yard less excuse me more than 50 >> 50 ft from the front it's kicking in >> is it less than 50 ft >> yeah yeah less than 50 ft from the um
street we have an RC zoning district they're in Great Pond Coastal Pond Overlay District. The flood zone is AE12. The existing single family dwelling on this property is a 3bedroom. Footprint is 1433
square ft. The proposal is for a single family dwelling 3bedroom, 1748 square ft. The lot is 13,200 ft in a zoning district which currently requires a minimum of 40,000 square ft. Street frontage is 75 ft in a zoning
district which currently requires a minimum of 100 ft. Uh Sherwood Drive is a public right of way at this particular location. Existing lot coverage by structures 10.77%. The proposal is to increase it to 13.14%
which is within the 20% limit of the zoning bylaw. The lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 13.21%. The proposal is to increase it to 14.36%. The zoning bylaw allows up to 40. The existing dwelling is
non-conforming as to set back to the north at 7.6 where 10 is required. Um and to the south 1.6 which is pretty small where 10 is required. Um the uh proposal for the new structure
will be 26 ft in height. 35 is allowed by uh allowed by the bylaw. Um and the garage which will be the second structure will have a height of 20 ft to the ridge. Um the um
we have from engineering a referral for driveway permit storm water runoff to be considered uh dry wells for roof runoff. Um board of health has no issues. However, they've informed us that this is a nitrogen sensitive area and an IIA
system will be required. Uh, by the way, engineering also requires that we consider sediment and erosion control and note that there's a possible encroachment into the public right of way. Uh, conservation has issued an order of condition uh on February 4th,
2026 approving the project. The both the planning board and the building department have submitted no comment. Um, so that's the comments on that property. I believe just and I'm sure attorney Clower will clarify. I had the garage at
50 feet. 50.2 feet. >> Yes. The plans. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> 50.2 ft. Yes. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> Quite. All right. >> Okay. >> We had some computer difficulties there, but I think >> we need the special because it's in the front yard. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Uh good evening. For the record, Kevin Clower, uh attorney here in town and I am before you this evening representing Michael and Pamela and Backrack, the owners of 197 Shorewood Drive. Uh they're seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming
dwelling at this property. So 197 Shorewood's located at what's effectively the northern end of the Yakapesca Peninsula. Uh it's in Shorewood Estates. Um the lot's 13,200 ft, which is pretty typical for the area. It's a dense residential neighborhood. uh and they are
residential B zoning district and it's not in a flood zone. Uh so presently there's a three-bedroom single family dwelling with a total footprint of uh 1433 ft which is just 10.77% lock coverage by structure. >> Uh there is a septic that was installed
in 2017 which is >> designed for four bedrooms. Um the existing dwelling is non-conforming. Sideyard to the north uh is 7.6 six feet where 10 is required and the sideyard to the south is 1.6 feet where 10 is required. It otherwise conforms uh with
lot coverage and setback requirements. The front yard setbacks 115 ft uh where 50 is required there. Rear yard set back to the waters of Vineyard Sound is 76 ft where 50 is required. Lock coverage by structure as noted is just 10.77%
which is below the 20% allowed by right or the 25% allowed by special permit. and the existing lot coverage by structures, paving, and parking is only 13.14%. So, this f this property has been in the applicant's family since at least 1955.
Um, and it's in need of some significant upgrades and repairs. So, the applicants have proposed to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling as well as to construct a new detached garage. This proposal would result in an
improvement to the existing non-conformities. The sideyard set back to the north has a slight improvement to 8 ft. Uh the sideyard set back to the south is improved uh to 4.3 ft to the bulkhead, 5.1 ft to the dwelling at the nearest point. There's no new
non-conformities created. Uh the front yard setback uh would remain conforming at 51 ft or 50.2 two feet rather to the proposed garage and um 112 ft to the dwelling itself. The rear yard setback
would remain conforming at 53 ft. Uh lot coverage by structure would only uh increase by 320 ft. So it's 13.2% well below 20% allowed by right and lock coverage by structures paving and parking would be only 14.36%
where uh 40% is allowed. Proposed ridge would be 28 feet to the dwelling which again below the 35 feet allowed and the proposed garage ridge would be 20 feet uh which is below the 22 feet that's allowed in that instance. Uh it is to be designed as a fourbedroom house three
bedrooms and an office which I think would count as the fourth bedroom. Uh but there is an existing fourbedroom title 5 system at the property. There is also a proposed garage which is parking for a single car uh as well as unfinished loft storage area.
Due to the existing non-conformities, this requires a special permit pursuant to 240 10.2A. That section of the bylaw holds that pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed by special permit, provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists. You're asked to consider the
standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities, impairs views, and vistas, and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood. In this case, there's no new non-conformities created. The existing non-conformities are improved. Um
and the there's no effect on the views and vistas of public ways uh which are actually improved with the addition of the garage. It's set back uh set well back from the street and remains consistent with the neighborhood. In addition, uh the dash garage that's proposed is located in the front yard,
but it's set back more than 50 ft from the street. So this requires a special permit pursuant to section 240 11.4 A1 AI. There's no standard set forth in a bylaw for such a special permit. So we have to look at the standards of 240 12.18
um which kind of governs all special permits and the threshold question there is does the proposal have adverse effects that overbalance the benefits and view with specific characteristics of the site effectively is it substantially more detrimental than what exists. The answer is clearly that it's not in any way substantially more
detrimental. It satisfies all the applicable elements of 240 12.1E. The site's adequate and suitable for the proposed use. Uh as I mentioned, the lot's typical for the area. Proposal is only 320 ft larger than existing. And the garage will provide the parking for car and storage for the applicants.
Doesn't affect the number of bedrooms. Uh there's no impact on traffic flow or safety. There's no adverse impact. There's no change in wastewater requirements. And there's adequate utilities servicing the site. There's no adverse effect on public services or the supply of affordable housing. The backracks proposal represents a
significant improvement over the existing conditions for the applicants and improves both of the existing non-conforming setbacks with no new dimensional non-conformities uh created. There's no adverse effects here that overbalance the benefits that have been outlined. There's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more
detrimental than what presently exists on the site. I believe this meets all the requirements of 240 10.2A 240 11.4 4 A1 AI as well as 242.1E. For these reasons, I would ask that you grant the special permit, but I would of course be glad to address any questions
that the board may have at this time. >> Kevin, I have a question. Sure. >> The file says it's in a flood zone. >> It's not. Um, so if you look here on the map, there is a flood zone A, which is located at the top of the coastal bank. This is a flood zone X that goes from here to here, which is not considered a
flood zone under uh you know when we talk about flood zones, we're talking about velocity zones and NA a zones. We don't typically worry about X zones. >> I mean your own plan says it. >> It's but you'll see it says flood zone shaded X. >> That's so it's >> yeah.
>> So I'm just going to cross that out then. Okay. >> It's not an AE flood zone as we typically be concerned with. >> Flood zone X isn't required to comply with flood zone standards. >> Okay. don't think you're proud of it. >> So anyway, we'll start off with regular questions. Mark, you want to start off?
>> Um yeah, I um don't have much really. Um it's it's kind of nice. Um this is one of those ones you're going to like to drive by afterwards and take a look at. I feel the only real question is here is the uh
garage and um the shape of the lot kind of determines that that's your only alternative. >> Mhm. >> And um as I say uh I think you've done a nice job here and
uh when it's all one done we'll drive by and see. uh I've seen some of their work before and I think uh this is going to be just fine and it'll be a nice addition to the neighborhood. >> Um I should note I I uh I don't know if
it was in Mr. Duffy's uh summary there was a certificate of order conditions issued by the conservation commission. >> Yes. >> All set. >> I'm good. >> Yeah. Uh more confirmatory attorney and clower. So I'm looking at the ridge height here on slide 16 of the applica.
Is it 26 or 28? The copy wasn't right. >> I was reading it as Oh, you know what? It is 26. I read that as 28 because that little line there, but it's 26. >> All right. >> Always questioning your math. >> Sorry. No, no math. Just just illiteracy. >> Uh unfinished garage
>> about that. >> Unfinished garage on up. >> I guess uh unfinished uh loft storage space. >> Correct. Okay. And there is a IA system required. >> So I wasn't aware of the health department referral. Um, obviously we'll comply with any requirements from town boards. I'd prefer that not be a
condition of the decision cuz I haven't had a chance to discuss it with Mr. Man. I checked and I didn't see a referral in the uh in perise um only because there was a new system installed just a few years ago. So I'd want and I'm not sure if what was installed was an IIA or not um and whether or not that would trigger
an upgrade. So I think we'll of course comply with any requirements from the various departments. Health is going to impose their own requirements if they're needed. I would just want to have that discussion with uh the health agent first. >> So we just make a condition all boards. Okay, >> that's all I had. Thank you.
>> We're going to make a fighting may require an IIA system. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I would just prefer not to have a condition saying you will have an IIA system. >> I saw a note in the file that the septic system is for a fourbedroom and you said that the office could be a bedroom. So you're going to have to have a
fourbedroom septic system anyways, right? So the the existing septic system is fourbedroom. I think we have an proposed office on the first floor which I think meets the definition of a bedroom and there's going to be proposed bedrooms. So >> all right but nice project. So >> okay. Yes. I took a site visit and um it
seems to make sense to me. Thank you. >> I just have a couple questions. Did you add the apron in front of the garage and all the steps into your final numbers? >> I I'm going to assume that Tom Bunker knows what he's doing. He's been doing this for an awful long time and um
>> but does he know we're being strict about that now? We're not like, you know, dancing around anymore. >> And I think that we are well under anything proposed. I mean, we're at 14 13. >> As long as it's in the stats, that's that's cool. >> As far as I'm aware, Miss Murphy, it is. Uh but >> this isn't a case where we're up against
the edge of it. >> And I didn't see anything from water. Is it going to be water in the garage? >> You know, I don't know the answer to that question. Um, it looks like the water service loops around the garage and there's no proposed facilities there. So, I'm going to say no. >> We didn't receive anything late from
water since yesterday, did we? >> No. >> Yeah. So, we that's another one we may condition. >> Well, I think per town board, you know, you know, >> we can just same thing. Yeah. >> That's all I have. >> Just for the purpose of the record, I see by plans is for the audience. Uh,
access to the storage area above the garage is by pull down stairs. Correct. And the height inside the storage area I note is 7 feet to the rafters and it would be just presumed would be significantly less as the roof pitches down. >> I think that's a fair assumption. >> Just trying to make sure we don't have a bedroom creep over time.
>> Well, you know, >> clearly this is a storage area. >> Uh your your init your I think your decision would state that this is uh you know proposed as an unfinished storage space and they wanted to change that. They need to come back and amend the decision. >> What's the height of the garage when you add the Koopa and the weather vein? Uh I
don't know but the uh koopa ornamental koopas are specifically >> exempted >> exempted I know I'm just asking the question though. >> Yeah uh they're typically about 4 feet. I don't know the exact height of that one. It wasn't listed on the plans >> and we're at 20 ft otherwise before that. Okay. So not going to be too just concerned about neighbors but thank you.
Uh it's a architecturally a very nice project and I have no opposition pending public comment. >> Do you have anything Nick? >> I'm good. You're all set. Anybody further before we go ahead. Uh, the only thing that I was thinking, do we might want to request an asbuilt where they're at 50.2
feet for the garage. >> No. Oh. Uh, for the distance setback for the distance. >> Yeah. >> All right. Yeah, >> it's pretty close. >> Yeah, that's that's a good point. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Uh, nothing further. Thank you. >> Objection on All right.
>> Are you okay with that? >> Anybody from the public? >> Come on up. >> Time need to come up to the podium. Yep. >> We need your name and address, too. >> Uh Karen Kaufman, 193 Shorewood. >> Start over, please. >> Karen Kaufman, 193 Shorewood.
>> Okay. >> So, I didn't understand all those numbers you were throwing out with the non-compliance and it's only 8 foot from the property line. Are you allowed to still be nonconforming?
>> This can't be more nonconforming. >> Got to be less non-conforming. So there wasn't a thought to move it back to make it conforming. >> Not a requirement. >> It's not a requirement. That was my main question to be does it have to be
>> it just can't be more like more worse than it is now. Not a good way to put it, but >> no worseer. Yeah, there you go. Well, it is worseer because I believe in looking at the pictures that what is now part of an open deck is going to be enclosed and
be a two-story house >> still within the footprint. That's what we look at. >> So, that's part of the footprint. That was my question. That's all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else for Shaw would drive? >> Anything for you? Norin, do you have anything for
Mike? You want to draw it up? I would say that we should close this hearing and >> I will second. >> Get out of here early. >> Are you >> I guess that's a motion. >> I think it is. And we have a second. >> You're all set to in order to motion.
>> Yes. >> All right. All those in favor of closing? I >> I >> oppose. None. >> Now, Scott, you're a pat. >> Motion to approve with conditions. >> Second. >> Motion is second. All right. Frank, now you >> Okay. Uh correction, the um flood zone
which I reported to be AE12 apparently has been corrected to be X. It's not subject to flood um flood building code. Um also I neglected to mention that I did not see any letters in support or in opposition in
the file and we did have one butter testify at the public hearing. um the prop they have requested a special permit under section 240.2A of the Falma zoning bylaw to um alter, reconstruct,
extend or change a single family dwelling. Um and there is no increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure. So we qualify for a special permit. We also make a finding that it that the proposed structures will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing structures. As far as the garage in the front yard, section 2401.4A1i requires a special permit for an accessory structure, which is a garage in the front yard with the provision that it not be closer than 50 ft um to
the street. And this one is 50.2 ft according to the testimony of Mr. Clower. So, the general special uh permit conditions apply. We make a finding that the site is adequate for the proposed use. It is suitable for the prop for proposed use. There's no
negative impact on traffic flow and safety. No negative impact on the visual characters of the neighborhood, the views and vistas. Um there are adequate utilities, adequate sewage uh and uh the applicant has acknowledged they will have to comply with anything uh required
by the board of health and there's no impact on the supply of affordable housing. >> And we didn't hear from water. >> We did not. No. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> There was a question about uh whether or not calculations of lot coverage
included steps. Testimony from the applicant was that they believe Mr. Bunker had. However, uh what is proposed is well below the at the by right lot coverage percentages. >> Y any other findings you can think of? Norin?
I think it sounds good. All good >> conditions. >> The as built on the garage. >> As built on the garage. Um >> plans >> for plans. All boards. >> How how should Yeah, I was figuring out
how to word the water one and the health one >> cuz we don't even know if water's going to the garage. >> Uh yeah, I believe it's not. Um >> if I may, we get out of finding that uh question was asked if water was going to the garage.
water service runs through the street, loops around >> and we can condition that should water wish to be added to the garage, it must comply with all town standards. >> Yeah, that's perfect. Yeah. And then do the board of health form too. >> And my well the suggestion is to the board of health finding is that the referral states that due to the fact
it's in a nitrogen sensitive area an IIA system may be required. >> We defer to the board of health. >> Right. Yeah. Those two sound that's doable to me. Uh construction hours Monday through Friday, 7 to 7, 8 to 4 on Saturdays, no
holidays, no Sundays. Uh construction vehicles on the lot. Um and I'm sorry, was there a referral about numbering because it's a separate detached structure? >> No, not
okay. I'm not just want to make sure. >> I didn't mention numbering on there. Well, because it's there's no res the only number of residences. >> Sometimes they get weird with detached structures. So, I just want to see if there was a referral. >> No, there was nothing. >> Can you think of any other conditions?
>> So, uh engineering had a note about a post and rail fence and landscaping that appears to be in the right of way. Um the town standard is that any objects that are in the town's road layout are
to be removed. There was a follow-up comment from engineering in the >> perodized chat saying it's not >> closed. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You of all people. >> No, she can speak to us. >> No, she was speaking to someone else, not us. >> Um, and the assessor has also uh asked
for action prior to CO. >> I did see that. I forgot that. >> Good catch. I forgot. >> Sorry. You asked me to be the conscious of that issue though. >> No, you you are correct. >> That was a Saturday discussion. Good point. Um any any other further conditions you
can think of anybody? >> Should we have some discussion about the encroachment or how do we want to condition it? >> I don't know that there's going to be an encroachment after they finish. >> You know, I think what we can do is say if there is an encroachment that it has to be removed and if there's not an
encroachment then there's nothing they have to remove. >> Just word that there shall be no encroachment on town property. Period. >> Right. Period. Pretty simple. Per >> per our discussion, I would just say remove it or obtain other appropriate relief.
>> Yeah, you got a license. I I >> I don't think they're I don't think they're looking for us to direct people to request relief. I think what they're saying is that the town's road layout, the land belongs to the town and the effective note to all the residents,
thou shalt not >> install anything in the town's land, right? So, they're not looking to license everybody. >> And I I I absolutely understand the direction you're getting, Norin, and I agree with it. I just I but as per our discussion last Saturday on this issue
is like I would like a directive from the licensing authority telling us we're not doing this anymore. >> I did ask about it but I think what happened is this was momentum by the zoning board. So the select board or engineering never offered people to
obtain licenses typically and that we had been forwarding people as an option. And I think what they're telling us is that they don't want us to offer that option. >> Don't want us filling up their dance card. >> Correct. >> If the board wants to reopen the
hearing, I can speak to this issue because there's an answer to this issue. >> We have no more reopening. >> I I I will get like torched. >> Should have come Saturday. inviting wasn't invited. >> I want to live to my next birthday meeting. >> Good.
>> So anyway, so anyway, I do feel mine was better. >> There shall be no encroachment on town property. >> Yeah. And I think I think regarding water, you know, basically the water referrals for a raise and rebuild are pretty standard. >> You you have to permit
>> the service. If there's um any meter pit, it has to be abandoned. and the new meter has to go in the house and not in a crawl space. But they will reiterate all that upon permitting anyway. So >> they offer a friendly amendment to what you're proposing. >> There's going to be no unauthorized
>> approach into town. Okay. >> I'm not they go get a license. >> You pass the bar. We haven't told them to go get a license for the select one. I just don't want to foreclose appropriate relief that people can get it based on our decision. >> All right. >> That makes sense.
>> All right. legal to me. >> Did sound legal? >> How this is how I make money? >> We're going to teach them a little Latin and then they'll throw you for a loop. >> All right, everybody's all set on that. >> Yes. >> All those in favor? I >> oppose? None. >> Thank you all very much. >> Thanks. You
>> okay? So 3 91 Courier. What shall we do? Uh so I would recommend where the applicant is not present and we haven't heard from them that we would continue the hearing to uh June 18 and in the meanwhile we can get in touch with the
applicant and find out if there was some misunderstanding >> uh through you madam chairman. What's the uh constructive grant deadline on this application if we don't have a decision or >> the file may say >> usually on the case file. >> Yeah. um you know we can certainly
contact them and if we can't get a hold of them >> as as long as June 18th is within our timeline >> I think the first hearing they were not able to attend so we did continue them based on their request
>> so this one's just list 4826 I mean I what was the date we opened Uh it should be listed on the top of the folder >> two weeks before town meeting. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Cuz that was the one I missed. >> Yeah. >> So the first the first
>> 24th March. >> So we opened March 26th, correct? >> Yeah. 26th. >> So 90 days. >> They have till June to end it. Okay. That >> this one already knew. >> Yeah. The first one was continued. I just want to make sure we don't have a
constructive grant. No waters have concerns. Good concern. >> All right. >> So, what was the I'm sorry. June 18. >> Uh June 18. Yep. Um any other comments from the board as far as staking went. Did anybody >> Well, that was the that was the reason
for this, >> right? >> I went out and took a look. There were some stakes there. I don't know whether everybody else saw them but or whether they're adequate, but that's they were there. It was staked by the land by the applicant is what I was my understanding but
>> painted >> that's what he said. >> Okay. So we will get in contact with the applicant. >> So motion to continue to June 18th. Is that >> no?
>> All right. >> Um >> motion to approve. >> I'll second it. We have a motion >> to continue to the >> to continue to June 18th. Second from me. >> Uh, who's the motion? >> Scott. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion? We're all set. >> All those in favor?
>> I Okay, move it along. Where's my agenda, hiding? >> It's just for the record, I was out there yesterday or day before and they were there and they indicated they knew
about this. So, I wonder if there some problem. >> Okay. Yeah, that's what I was thinking it might be. Um, we'll move down to minutes. We're only doing April 16th. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to accept April 16th, 2026. Minutes. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I oppose? None. And then Norine, you can do number two. >> I won't make any comments. >> Okay. Uh we have a request
from 18 beach which is part of the 40B development and they are looking to uh remove their existing rear deck which is dimensioned uh 14x 5t by 10 ft and it's
cited 11 ft from the southerntherly or rear lot line and they'd like to replace that with a 16 ftx 10 ft addition. And then to the side of that addition, they're requesting a deck with two risers. >> Sorry, Norin. What was the size of the
deck? >> The deck is going to be uh 8.7 ft by 9.5. >> What about the pens? So, they do have uh a vinyl fence shown
on their plan which encompasses their sidey yards and then they show a stockade fence across the rear property line. The vinyl fence appears to exceed the lot line on the two sides of the property.
They have a fence on the side of Beach Plum that goes into someone else's land. Pretty far in. >> So I I feel if we're going to stay in this mode, it has to be moved. >> Well, it's not town property. >> No, it's human. It's a >> resident
>> for Yeah. >> You have to come up there. >> Sorry. >> I'll talk about the fence. >> Oh, okay. My wife and I are the owners of of the 18 path. >> Okay. >> My name is Scott Pacling. I'm uh the
owner with my wife Lauren 18 Beach Plum Path. On the two fences, we're the last house on the left of the street. The facing the house, the fence on the right goes on the easement that the comp that the um homeowners association owns,
which is the back end >> LLC. >> The LLC owns. And then uh that's also the electric wires are there too. So there's no building there. There isn't anything there. There couldn't find a lot lines when they were putting the fence up. Same thing on the other side
where my neighbor John um has the house there with his uh wife. That fence was going straight like we were told where to put it. It wasn't boarded properly and it went over like 2 feet and a 10ft length. Well, total two feet. We asked them
>> uh we could move it. Not a problem. and he said, "Nope, we're happy with it because it they also use it as well." And >> part of our fence, you know, for the Ayard and we told him we, you know, he's be >> I said, "I'll move it. It's not a big deal. Don't move it." >> He goes, "We're fine with it. We're not going. Can >> we do a letter?"
>> I think we have the paperwork on there, right, John? >> I did not get that one. >> I have a text I have a text from them telling me, you know, that >> if we could get something in writing from them, I that would work for me. No. Is that >> I have >> That's a good idea, but I have not seen
anything on this. There was Was there a file on this? >> It's an insubstantial change for >> I know, but I don't even know what we're talking about. >> There there should be a folder on the cart and Ashley said she had distributed copies to everybody. I think it's yellow.
>> Oh, there it is. >> I didn't get it. >> Until you showed me that plan, I had nothing. >> We can pass around. >> I did not see this. Was it upstairs in the uh cart? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I didn't see a dealer. >> So, I'm I'm sorry. I just don't know what they're talking about.
>> Okay. >> Look at this plan. I'll show you. >> Oh, we have we have the plan as well. >> Okay. >> So, they have copies for everybody. >> They have an existing rear deck. >> There's one there anyway. >> That they would like to
>> um create an addition over the rear deck that would be a single story. And then where the um addition will be that's the only if you want to show SC had a deck to the side.
>> Are you Scott and Lauren? >> Yes. >> Okay. So you wrote a letter. Okay. >> And Jonathan's our builder. >> Hi Jonathan. I'm >> not changing the footprint at all. It's just >> No, I'm just I just want to keep it
clean. So, I want you know like if you sell your house, you know, the next guy might not be as nice and well, you know, whatever. We just want to keep it so no one >> gets the we can move the fence. That's not a big deal. But we can get in writing though from our neighbor. >> Yeah.
>> How will the room be utilized? >> Just as extra living space for our growing family. You know, our first floor area is kind of small. >> Be a little additional room. So that >> Did you see it in that map? >> Mark's got it.
>> Like a family little family. >> So >> where's this fence? >> What do we got? A fence on the croaching on the neighbor's property. >> Yeah. On both sides. >> No, >> the other one encroaches into the common area, >> right? So that's no big deal. But there's one in someone's like their own
yard. I have a text from them on my phone. >> Well, you know what? >> I think a letter doesn't >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You could just submit it, Taro. You don't We don't need it right this second. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No, I just We just want to make it clean that, you know. >> Sure.
>> Anybody else have any questions on this? >> I just wonder if >> this is a homeowner >> gives everybody else license to put fenced into the common area. I think >> I'm not against any of these things, but I like to see that before we go forward
that everybody's >> abiding by all the rules and correct and right and holy >> it's on the plot lane that's a floor plan >> it's pretty easy >> you know I mean >> I'm always looking at >> so what you'd ask all the neighbors to
uh >> sorry >> there's only two houses that are at the end of the street that um but the easement house. >> We're the last house on the on the >> And here's the >> This is an easement thing.
>> And is it, you know, >> and how do we handle the fence in the easement thing? >> That's really not >> not our worry. >> No, it's not. >> Okay. So, just require a letter and we're good. >> Yeah. I wouldn't touch that side of things because that's that's uh not a
town issue. >> Are you all right with that? until the next time it comes up in in a different form. Um, might not be so easy. >> I'm just not sure if you're allowed typically you're not allowed to develop in the easement area.
>> So, I I I don't you know, I mean, it's no big deal, >> but I still don't like it >> cuz it's not clean. No. >> You know, and when you're getting a one of these, I mean, you should be all clean coming in the door >> because we are doing you a favor. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Typically you can improve in that area. >> So what did you see in it? Norine when you were reviewing it, did you see anything that concerned you on >> Well, you know, the the fences are none on the property line. And I, you know,
think perhaps part of that issue is that there's no requirement for people to survey before they install a fence. And if you're not clear about where your lot line is, you know, >> well, like you say, you're clear when you survey first before you put the
fence up. >> All right. So, they're going to get us a letter. They'll submit it. >> All right. >> To town hall. >> Yeah. >> You can even email it if you get something. >> Of course. >> And no other conditions, right? That's it, right? >> We can't condition. >> We can't condition anything. We we have
to make a finding either that it's insubstantial which case it is an approval by right >> or we have to make a finding that it is a substantial change and we have to notice a new public hearing on changing the special permit and I'm just rereading >> it's in substant >> CMRs and I'm not
>> it's um 760 CMR 5607 of which I actually have a copy here I can share with you >> magic >> but it does not yeah it does not fall under what would be a substantial change and do look at substantial changes as a
reduction in the number of housing units, uh, a decrease of less than 10%. Oh, excuse me. >> Things are >> those are not substantial changes. >> Not substantial, right? for for things that are substantial, an increase of more than 10% in the height of the
building, uh an increase of more than 10% in the number of housing units, um a reduction in the size of the site of more than 10% in excess of any decrease, uh change in building type, a change in form and tenure. So, you know, this this
type of change does not qualify as a substantial change. And where this is a home ownership unit, I feel they should be allowed to do what any other homeowner should do. They do. >> Does the lot coverage change do anything for the calculation?
>> You know, it's a minor change. Their uh addition is effectively going over their existing deck and then they're adding a small deck to the side. >> That's another 80 ft. So that's >> okay. >> But you know, they're not encroaching on
the rear setback. I think it's cool. Want to give me a motion, Jim, for this? >> Uh, I will make a motion that the board finds with proposed a insubstant comprehensive permit as defined in 760 CMR 56.074A
sub D. >> Second. >> Oh, we have a motion. Was that you, Mark? >> No, Scott. >> Scott. >> Scott. Second. Any other questions? Anybody? We're all set. All those in favor? >> I >> Okay, board discussion.
>> You're all set. >> Could I ask what that means? >> You get what you wanted. >> You're good. >> Have fun. >> Your letter and have fun. >> Thank you question. >> Sorry. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> You're out early tonight. >> We are out early tonight. >> Flying bridge if you want.
>> Oh, have some sushi for us. >> U board discussion. Everybody, you're welcome. Everybody's good. >> I I guess one board discretion and and I when we were just talking about uh previous case where the applicant doesn't show, are we still required to
to have that applicant within a 90-day time frame? >> If he doesn't show it, we deny it. >> Well, we deny it. >> Yeah. If we do nothing, it's an administrative grant that's requested. >> If he's not here on the 18th, it's a denial. >> That's why he was looking at the >> constructive grant. Excuse me.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. I just wanted to get my head around that. Thank you. >> No, it's why I asked the questions. Otherwise, I would have >> Yeah, it's usually pretty rare that somebody that's continued or scheduled doesn't appear. So, typically as a courtesy for somebody, assuming that
something came up or whatever it is, you know, you just continue them >> through you, Madam Chairman. If we had to vote a denial, can we do that without prejudice or does does the lockout period We can wave the lockout period if they want to reapply
or can we not? >> No, the planning board has does. >> We have to. >> No. So, if you if you um withdraw I would recommend if you're going to vote it, I would recommend that you withdraw it without prejudice. >> Can we do that without the applicant
asking that though? Well, I I you've already voted to continue. >> I understand, but I'm just looking down the road. They don't show up again. >> Legally, you can. >> Yeah. I think what I Yeah, >> I think since we don't know, we give the guy >> if they don't come the next time you
don't hear from them, then you know, you could just deny based on their failure to prosecute, right? >> Yeah. >> This this >> that's them. >> It is them, >> I think. So, >> but we already voted. So, >> unless you want to take it on. >> No, fighters have left.
>> I will get torched again, right? They left. >> All right. Well, you may >> Maybe he thought it was seven. >> Oh, you know what? They were probably told that the time was going to be later. >> You guys missed the boat. >> Did I?
>> Yeah. We're all done. >> Oh, good. See you later. >> Time. Time. We have to tell you we continued due to June 18th. >> June 18th. >> Yeah. We thought that a butter's already left. We thought something might have happened to you guys. >> Oh, >> no. We didn't know. >> Oh, is this June 19th, 18th, 19th?
>> 18th. It's another month. Yeah. >> At 6:00 at 6:00. >> June 19th. >> June 19th. >> Yes. So, the day before on the 18th. >> Now, there's a uh >> at at 6:00. >> Yeah, we start at 6. Yeah. Now there's a
uh question >> ready for you at six and then we thought something you know might have come up like an emergency. We didn't know so we continued it. >> Now there's a uh question about the stakes. >> Um >> did you put the stakes in or did a
licensed surveyor you got to read the application that's doesn't work. >> Okay. I was under I was under the impression from the last meeting
>> certified encourage him to get in touch with the zoning administrator. >> Mr. Vochi, I I encourage you to get in touch with the zoning administrator and she can help you figure out exactly what we need to do. She'll go over the application with you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Because we're not supposed to
talk. We already voted. >> Okay. Sorry. Thank you. >> Thank you. We'll catch up. All right, moving on. Board updates. Everyone's picked their date. You want to What day is that site visit now? >> Uh, so it looks like I'm going to ask
the developer to host two sitewalks. We'll do one on the 22nd and we'll do one on June 11 pri in the afternoon prior to the hearing. So, between the two of them,
>> do you know what times they are? Uh, I will verify that time. >> Okay. We'll just get back to us. Okay. >> Everybody, >> you mail it out. Okay. Thank you. >> Can you also just indicate where they want us to park that day? >> Yes. So, this is for 809 Sandwich Road.
So, they have ample parking on that property. >> Yeah. >> And they're bringing an engineer, >> not a real estate agent. >> Okay. So, zoning administrator updates. I have nothing new since our last
meeting a week ago. So, >> and future agenda items. I >> think we're off for the rest of May for good behavior. >> Wow. That's a nice item right there. >> Yes. All right, Mark, take it away.
>> Motion to adjourn before 7:00, Madam Chair. Woohoo. I'll second. >> Motion in a second. All those in favor? I didn't think I'd get many.