Heat. Heat. All right, welcome everybody 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 recording this hearing, step up to the podium to
request permission. I'll introduce the meeting staff. On my far right is Mark Finan. To his left is Scott Peterson. To my close right is Frank Duffy, the clerk. My name is Suzanne Murphy, chair. To my left, it's James Mos, vice chair. And then we have Tony Patuchi, an
associate, Nin, an associate. Then we have Noren Stockman, the zoning administrator, and Ashley Dlo, office assistant. The zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state zoning statutes as well as the t 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 should come to the podium. Statement state your name and address for the record and speak into the mic. It will not amplify your
voice and record audio for FCTV viewers. And then but right before we start the first hearing, if anyone wants to make a public comment on anything that's not on our agenda tonight, you're welcome to come up to the podium. Anybody want to come up?
Last call. All right, we'll start. First hearing is 07225 Cape Cod Aggregates. Uh >> Madame Chair, uh going to have to recuse myself from this application. >> All righty, Tony, you're in. Okay.
Okay, this is um application number 72 of the year 2025. Cape Cod Aggregates Corp. Um, they've applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 240 14.5b through 24014.5G
and 240 12.1B of the code of Felmouth, which is the zoning bylaw to continue the earthmoving operation and reclamation of land on properties located at Dimmick Avenue and Draper Road in East Felmouth, Massachusetts.
Now, there's not too many pertinent facts to report to you, but um the zoning district is AGAA. Um the overlay district is the West Palm Harbor Coastal Pond Overlay District, and we also have a wildlife corridor
that's in effect here. There's uh 12 previous zoning board of appeals decisions relative to this property. The most recent is 72 of the year 2022 and there are 11 others going back all the way to 1989.
The property is 60.11 acres and the it's way over the minimum in the zoning district. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Bill Collie of Collie Site Services. Uh I'm representing Sam and
Paul Larusa, owners of Cape Cod Aggregates. Delusa brothers are requesting an extension for special permit number 07622 to continue the earth moving and reclamation of land located off blacksmith shop road. The
permit was first granted in 1989 has since been reviewed every 3 years as required and been approved. The lot which is a combination of four parcels consisting a total of 60 acres which 27 acres have been set aside as a buffer
for whitetail deer in adjacent properties. It is bordered on the west, northwest and southwest by the town of Felmouth. on the north by windmill and commercial properties. On the east is Cape Cod Aggregates, Lawrence Lynch in the town of Felmouth. And on the south
two residential properties, Cape Cod Aggregates in the town of Felouth. as required. Uh along with Richard Hood, uh professional land surveyor and John Kelly, professional engineer, I prepared an existing conditions plan dated 93025
that depicts reclaimed areas actively worked area and buffer zones as required. We have calculated the volume removed since John Doyle's plan dated July 30th, 2022 to June 18th, 2025.
The estimated volume removed was 1,8747 cubic yards, well below the 750,000 cubic yards that are allowed in a 3-year period. Uh second, they maintained the hall road uh to the processing plant
by frequently spraying the water to control dust for personal safety and air quality. The hall road is exclusively used so no public way is third. They have reclaimed the previous areas worked with a top soil mix and
seed. Also, they have not disturbed the buffer zone in any way. The Larusa brothers have followed the guidelines that were required and request a three-year continuence. If there are any questions or comments,
>> anybody? >> No. Um, as far as I'm concerned, they've been doing this forever and uh I don't think there's ever been any negatives. they reclaim what they uh harvest. And I
this is as close to a rubber stamp as anything that we look at as far as I'm concerned. >> Frank, do you have any questions? >> Yes. Um, one of the requirements of the zoning bylaw is that you post security
for the reclamation and I believe it's $75,000 and I have no idea if that's adequate. uh that that was posted years and years ago and I think it's been just carried forward. Um how do we know that's enough security?
>> It has been Go ahead. >> Sam um I actually just recently dropped off probably like a month and a half ago with the one of the offices here and they didn't know where even know where to put it the
bond, but we did have a bond. they have it and I I didn't have an answer for them as to where they were supposed to put it. So, but I can get another copy and uh bring it give it to the board. >> I don't think there's a question that there is security posted. That's a
condition of your previous permit. Um and I think I assume that there's security, but the amount was $75,000 that I'm asking. Who determines if that's adequate? I mean, we've got a 60 acre parcel out here and I don't know how far $75,000 will go on reclamation.
I have no idea. So the only So the only answer I have for that would be um right now we're trying to we're doing well the cost of reclaiming the land >> but this is if this is for the town to do it if you walk away
>> right and I get I totally get that because we're dealing with we own the uh we just recently purchased the blacker shop farms and it's the same type of thing and we're in this big discussion with the D on this exact same exact thing. Um, and the way that the D does
it is, and it's it's weird, but you do it once, you set the thing, and no matter what changes, the D never requires you to change it again, which I agree with you. It is weird that it's not every so often, >> we only give you a three-year permit. It
has to be renewed every third year. So, I think anything that's out there, we can look at >> Oh, yeah. >> bring it up to date. That's That's my concern is >> Yep. Yeah. We'd be totally open to it. If you um if you look at what we're doing, the reclamation is always
ongoing. So the the part that would have to be reclaimed if some like god forbid we disappeared for whatever reason would just be the one face. And um >> you do all that reclamation.
>> Yeah, we do it all. Yep. And now it's even better because we do have the stump dump. So we're creating really good material now >> that >> you can transfer over. >> Yeah, it's been awesome. So >> but yeah, no, I totally understand what you're saying.
>> So I I don't have an answer though. >> If you were to believe they you say you're working on one bank, say you were to all up and leave $75,000 would be sufficient to bring in an outside contractor to just >> Yep. Because what >> top soil and seed it or whatever you do.
>> Yeah, exactly. It'd be a bulldozer and you'd push it down to a 3 to1 slope as required >> and then um >> in the past we even used the town >> um leaf dump. They have excess leaves and that's been really good too. We just
spread those along it at one point and that grew amazingly. But yeah, no, I I totally understand what you're saying. It doesn't get rechecked. >> Well, I'm I'm not opposed to your to extending this permit. Please don't think that I am. But um I I'm inclined
to ask the board to put a per put a condition in the permit that the next time you come back you bring some uh >> money for us. >> No. Yeah. But um uh some document worked up by an engineer or somebody explaining
how much this cost and do we have adequate security. Right now we have absolutely no assurance that it's adequate. >> Yep. No. Yeah. It's fine. We would have no problem with that and we would probably do it the same exact way we're doing it for the D with the stump dump. Same exact deal. But yeah, we
>> present something to D. >> Yeah, we had to send we and it's we had to send them um what we assumed it would cost to reclaim the whole piece. >> Well, that might be the data you're looking for right there for.
>> Yeah. again. And it's backed up by, you know, not >> extensive engineering, but it is backed up by engineering. >> That's a different property, >> different situation. >> Different situation. And also, they said they never check it either. So, >> reclaiming what they're doing is much
easier. I suggest >> Yeah, the stump dump is a lot more >> Yeah. difficult. >> So, think of your condition and we can do that, >> right? >> You have a question? >> I do. Um this is I think the third time Cape Cons has been back before me sort of excuse me from the board when I've been on it. Um in the past I know there
was an abuter who was concerned that u the excavation is getting a little close. Is there been any further excavation towards this particular >> we've actually um we've actually reclaimed and replanted and it's all growing in front of her now. Uh and I want to say this is the
first year that I don't think she has complained at all. It's why I asked the question when I was going through the files. I didn't see a I don't know if she's in the the audience tonight or has a comment, but uh I didn't see a written uh letter. It's not so much opposition. It's just a letter of concern. >> We've had a very open dialogue with her.
Anything that we're doing there, we let her know before. >> It's been really good. So, >> you have a required buffer anyway. >> Yeah, the buffer is pretty big. >> Pretty big. >> I forget what it is. >> 200 feet. Yep. >> First time I remember that we weren't invited for a sitewalk. I just personally the first time I saw had this
case being able to walk and see exactly what you're doing in terms of the trees and other it was very helpful but >> yep and if you guys want to do a sitewalk absolutely it's just mshot we have uh mind safety rules so you can't >> just go out there but um yeah anytime
>> perhaps three years from now who knows uh >> yeah it'll well you heard the yardage that we took out was like a thousand or something >> how many yards did we take out in three years >> well years 187,000 So it won't look much different. >> I have no other questions. Thank you,
Madam Chairman. >> Anybody else? Tony, >> I just want to try to understand something. You may have said this, I didn't hear it. Maybe who certifies the reclamation work that you do. Was it D or the town? >> So initially I I that was like 1989.
I don't even know who's who came up with that number. But the way it's done, I mean, probably what we should do is get engineered plans for a reclamation and then we would, and it's the same thing I'm doing for the other place, but
we had a contractor that does that work, give us a price on, you know, an official price to do that. And that would be >> I mean it just it sounds like you just do you reclaim the land the way how you want to reclaim the land and then no one certifies anything that's been done
>> right. >> That's the way it works. >> Yeah. But the for on our end at some point we're going to want to utilize that land for the next best use. And it's definitely in our best interest to keep that land as >> But you're dumping stumps that rot away. >> No, no, no. This is a gravel pit. The
stump thing that's a whole different property. >> Yeah. It's a whole different business. Everything. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. So, there's you do what you do to reclaim the land as you're supposed to. No one certifying it either from the town >> or some other authority with regard to
land. >> I mean, I have I have no complaints. I'm I'm just asking this question. It makes sense that if you've got a $75,000 bond or maybe someday greater than that and the town would then be responsible for doing the reclamation for whatever unfortunate reasons that somebody should
be certifying that the work done over here in the back or wherever it is. Um, now I'm all thrown off but anyway in that coming forward otherwise it's just green pastures green pastures and maybe it's I don't know if it's a big
deal or not. I just wanted to ask the question. >> Yeah. And there's rules. We have to have a three to one slope and it has to be reveated as we go. So we have to stick to that. But um >> this this plan that is dated September of 30th 25 has got contours on. So I guess it's all here.
>> Yeah. And and the stuff that isn't 3:1 that's the actively being mined area. Yeah. >> Would um you say it's a fair statement to say that essentially when you're done reclaiming it, it looks better than when you started? >> Yeah. You'd be shocked if you went there
and you if you could see a before picture and the after where we've already receded and um put the 3 to1 slope in. It's >> it's remarkable. >> There's um sounds ridiculous, but there's deer. I've seen a paragan falcon
in that area now probably daily the past like three months. Um yeah, it looks it's >> But who's certifying uh that there's no dumping going on or >> me? >> Is that >> I would certainly hope so because it's going to reduce the value of the uh
>> Yeah. No, we've been fortunate. We uh we have gates, we have everything and you know there have been instances where people have dumped stuff and it's so expensive for so we are very >> are there groundwater monitoring wells or is any water issues involved >> on that side but on the other side where
we do that stump dump we have groundwater monitoring >> and who's monitoring >> uh god I can't remember the name of the company but we have to send everything to the D. >> All right so you have a professional company monitoring that y >> just curious. >> Yep. And that's a weird one too because
it's on the other this side of the the way the water goes I guess is what I'm told where down water from the dump. So it's it's a weird cast. >> Have you ever had a report anything um we'll say nefarious uh to the police at
any time for these years? >> Any illegal dumping things that you cleaned up later on or you might not want to report it? I don't know. >> Four-wheelers. Yeah, we >> dirt bikes. >> We have the place dirt bikes. >> Dirt bikes, >> but that back. So, that's the one issue
we have up there is they just constantly make new trails in every time we block one. >> But, um, >> I'm getting dehydrated, but we have I have a new method of receding the slope. >> And we're using I call it loom tailings.
So, there's some a few big logs in there. They are not touching the slope anymore. So, >> yeah, I bet. >> Hopefully that continues to keep them out of there. But, >> thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Anyone? >> Do you have any questions? >> No, >> you're all set. >> We have had uh the conservation agent go
out in the past. >> Oh. >> Um that particular agent just retired. Um but that being said, I suppose, you know, for the next three-year period of time, they could provide something in writing certifying that
they reclaimed the particular area. Yeah. >> Is there anything anyone wants from him in writing? Any documents that he might have for anything? >> I think they've shown a pretty good record that they know what they're doing.
>> They have. I think what we can do is I'm going to propose this is granted a condition that the next time around they submit written documentation um certified by an engineer that they have reclaimed all the land that Dave Mines
under the previous permit and also the amount of the bond being satisfactory and then we'll have a record which we don't have >> and and being done as required. >> Yeah, >> we saw it last time when we walked. >> Anybody have any further questions?
Anybody from the public? Come on up, sir. >> I'm going to sit down. Thank you guys. >> Thanks. >> Hi. Hi. My name is Dan Webb. I represent uh two abutters to this site. The float realy trust and Neptune properties. Both
of those properties are in the Falmouth technology park on this sort of northwest side of the Cape Cod Aggriates Pit. Uh I'm just here to voice support for their application. They've always been a good neighbor. We've never had any problem
with their operations. Float Realy Trust has been there since 1992. So, I just came to um voice support for their application. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public? I
>> think we can probably close, right? >> Motion to close, madam. Second. >> We have a motion to close in a second. Any further information? Anybody? >> It's closing testimony. Right. >> We're closing testimony. >> Not the hearing, right? >> Yes. Can I remember this now?
>> Testimony. Um, so we're closing testimony. Everyone's all set. >> Yep. >> All those in favor? I oppose? None. Now we need a a motion.
>> Motion to approve with the Frank's amendment. Would that be proper? >> Does that sound okay? >> Well, we're going to discuss it and then >> any discussion >> or a motion to approve with conditions, >> right? >> Conditions. Yeah. So I I would move that
the we approve the application for another three years with the condition or one of two conditions that when it comes up for renewal at the third and thirdy year anniversary there be written submission by a certified engineer or professional engineer to two points. one
that they have satisfactorily completed all the reclamation as required by section 24014.5D of the zoning bylaw and that they have a written estimate of that sets the 115%
uh cost of reclamation for the security bond as required by section 24014 of the zoning bylaws. >> Okay. >> So, we had a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. Didn't you make the motion? >> I didn't make the motion. I suggested it. >> We have a motion and second. And we have
Frank's condition. Are you all set with that? >> I think it was Mark's motion. >> Mark's motion. Okay. So, we have a motion and >> very well worded, too. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Any other discussion? >> Anybody? All set. >> All those in favor? I oppose? None. >> All set. Thank you.
>> So, I want findings. >> Findings. >> Okay. We're not done yet. So, we have our earth moving regulation. Um, a special permit is required under section 24014.5B of the zoning bylaw, which limits um u
moving to a three-year period. So, we're approving this uh condition, this permit for a three-year period. Um, and this applies to any parcel more than five acres. This is a 61 acre parcel, so
it's more than five acres. Um there's sat there is evidence of of satisfactory completion of the reclamation of previously permitted areas. Um the uh special permit must have a reference to all of the regulations in
section 24014.5e of the zoning bylaw and it will be so incorporated into the special permit. Um the um we find that there is no evidence of a nuisance or danger to public
health, that there's been no work within 100 ft of a public or private way, that there's a vegetative visual barrier from any public street, and that there's been no work in a water resource protection district. As far as a special permit is concerned, we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use. It is
suitable for the pro for the proposed use. There's no uh negative impact on traffic flow and safety. In fact, most of the traffic stays on site. There's no uh evidence of a visual visual visual, excuse me, a detriment to the visual visual character of the neighborhood
views of vistas. There's adequate sewage disposal. In fact, it's not required. There's adequate utilities and there's no impact on affordable housing. May I add a few? >> Sure. >> Uh testimony from the applicant uh and questions concerning a his historical
and a butter with historical concerns was addressed. Uh no opposition offered at the hearing. Uh one butter spoke in support. >> There's no letters in filing. >> Thank you. >> So we have findings and we have Frank's
condition already. So I think we're all set, right? And we voted. All good. >> Yeah. >> All right. Great. You're all set. Thank you. >> All right. Next hearing is 07325
Luwendowski at 123 Birch Lane, North Falmouth. >> Okay. This is application uh 73 of the year 2025. Michael S. and Denise C. Luwendowski. They've applied to the Falmouth zoning board of appeals for a special permit
pursuant to section 240.2A and 240 11.3A4 of the code of Falmouth, which is the zoning bylaw to raise the existing garage and rebuild a garage with habitable space above increasing lot coverage by structure.
So, uh we have RB zoning district. We're in the Wild Harbor Coastal Pond Overlay District. We're also in a nitrogen sensitive area. The existing structure is 3,31 square ft. It's a three-bedroom. The
proposed structure will be 3,613 square ft. It will be a threebedroom. The frontage, oh, excuse me. The lot is 15,600 square ft on in a zoning district which requires 40,000. The street frontage is 130 ft in the zoning
district which requires 100. This um birch lane is a private way at this location. The house the structure is currently non-conforming as to lock coverage by structure. Uh the maximum is 20. This is
21.2%. That's triggers the response the requirement for the special permit. The proposal is to increase it to 23.2%. We're allowed to grant a special permit up to 25%. The average in the neighborhood is calculated at 17.5%.
Lot coverage by structure parking and paving is currently 32.3% will be increased to 34.3% which is within the 40% limit of the zoning bylaw. The um structure on the property currently conforms to the zoning bylaw
in terms of dimensions. Um the propos the uh proposed structure will be 20.5 ft high. We have referrals from engineering um that we put a condition on the special permit that storm water be contained and there erosion and sediment
control practices be employed during construction. The board of health um has advised us that the TV room is qualifies as a fourth bedroom, but we also have some information that that has been changed. So, it's now okay. The uh
septic system will be upgraded to nitrogen removal. Conservation Commission has determined a negative request for determination of applicability. The water department recommends an upgrade to 1-in PE service. The building commissioner require notes that the project must
comply with FEMA regulations and with respect to letters on file, none are noted. >> Thank you. I I don't know if I can really follow that up with much more. >> You kind of did the job for you, huh?
>> Um I don't know if there's anything you want me to address before we get started or if I could just jump into it. >> I think you can just >> um >> My name is Jonathan Paloney. I'm an attorney with Sen Associates out of Brewster. I'm here representing the homeowners Michael and Denise
Luwendowski who own this property at 123 Birch Lane in North Falmouth shown here on the site plan. Um we're here under chapter 240-11.3A seeking approval to demolish and rebuild the existing garage. Um the goal is to
enlarge the garage making it sized for two cars and to create um a single room above the garage. Um, as shown on this plan, the slots identified as lot 96. It is located in the RB district. Um, as Frank mentioned,
it is compliant um, dimensionally complies with all uh, setbacks and complies with frontage. Um, the nonconformity is with the lot size. Um, it's undersized at 15,600 square ft. Um, the lot is currently improved with a
house and garage. The garage is attached through a breezeway, which I will bring up the architecturals and I can show you the detail with the breezeway and how it connects to the house. Um, and then there's a deck, excuse me, a deck in the rear of the house. Um, with all of these structures, the
lot coverage currently exceeds 20% at 21.2%. Uh, the proposed changes will are limited to the garage. The addition of uh area under the garage will increase lock coverage to 23.2%.
Uh which is well below the 25% maximum allowed by special permit. Um we submit that this project is a minor expansion and is appropriate under the bylaw. Um we're simply expanding the garage to accommodate a vehicle and creating
additional room for the family to operate and use around the property. Um the existing house is one story which you'll see here. This shows the existing house um which is one story stands at 17 uh
feet 5 in and u being single story there's not much to add on to in that within the existing structure. So given the renovations that are being proposed to the garage, the intent is to add that space on top of the garage. Um this shows the existing breezeway
here with the doorways, the kind of the layout for the inside of the room. Here is the uh garage, the TV room. Um and as the health department noted, um as shown on these plans, and these were the original plans that were submitted,
so there were not new plans submitted. Um there was just a mockup for the health department to point out the details on this plan. Shows that um the casing is being removed on this doorway. So there will be open passage all the way into the upstairs and no privacy for
that room to be segregated from the rest of the house. Um, and as was stated before, the increase uh in the elevation or the increase in the height of the structure by adding this to the garage is going to increase
the height from 17, which is the height the ridge height of the existing house. Um, just for the garage will go up to 20 ft 5 in. In terms of impacts, um there there are no impacts really to the surrounding properties as result of this project. The garage is situated on the
west side of the property. Um, so any shadows are going to be reflected back onto the house itself and towards the rear of the property. Um, with the with the addition there is still uh 24 20.4 ft from the side setback. Um, and it's
going to be roughly 35 ft from the house on that side. At the rear there's 45.5 ft to the property line and abudding that is open park area part of the original subdivision when it was created. Um to the east there's is the
existing house and the south is birch lane. So in terms of shadow effects there aren't really going to be anything coming out of increasing the height of the garage. Um, as was noted in the bulk calculations, the size, the increase in
size over 20% is in keeping with other properties in this neighborhood. Um, it doesn't stand out. Um, there's no change to habitable space, so there's no impact to coastal waters and based on all of those, I think with the conditions that have been pointed out by the
departments, we think this meets the requirements and um, we're asking for you to grant the special permit. Happy to take any questions. want to start down this side. >> No, I know the house very well. I think it's a great addition to the neighborhood. The neighborhood's going
that direction. I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner in there, but yeah. So, I think it'll be good. It's a small little garage. >> I have no questions. I think it's a great project. I don't think it's going to septic.
>> Um I don't think there's there's nothing uh proposed for changing the septic system at now because there's no changes to the bedroom count. Um but if there were a change in the future and they wanted to add the bedroom, then I think it would include a denitrification.
>> Questionate project. >> Yeah, it wasn't very clear in the board of health's referral. At one minute he did say IA then he said three bedrooms the original one was four bedroom. Um, you said the height is 20 feet
in >> five inches. Right. That's what I Yeah. Okay. >> That's all I had. >> I think I said 20 ft 20.5, which would be 20 and a half, but that's that's correctable. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I'm all set. You have any questions? >> No, I'm I'm all set. Very good
presentation. Thank you. >> No further questions. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Nothing here either, but pretty modest. Well, within the parameters. >> Anybody from the public want to comment on this project? >> We're all set, I guess.
>> Motion to close testimony. >> Testimony. Right. >> Second. >> We have a motion to close testimony and a second. Any further? Everybody's all set. You're all set.
All those in favor of closing testimony. I oppose. None. >> Motion to approve of conditions. >> Motion and a second. >> Go ahead, Frank. Findings. >> All right. So, we have uh a
non-conforming structure in that the lot coverage by structure is 21.2%. It will be increased to 23.2%. 2% 25 by special. Um
there was uh no um no letters in support or opposition noted in the file. No public comment. Uh there will be no new nonconformities as a result of this project. Um
the uh section 2410.2A 2A applies to single family structures and accessory structures um that are non non-conforming as is this provided that the um proposal shall not be substantially more detrimental to
the neighborhood than the existing structure and we so find this is in an RB district um so the lot coverage by structure may be increased to a maximum of 25% allowed by special permit from the zoning board of appeals taking into consideration
uh and we so find that the size and height of the proposed structure is in keeping with the relative size and height of the existing structures in a neighborhood. There's no evidence of adverse effect of shadow on adjacent properties. Uh there's no evidence of
negative impact on views and vistas public ways and there's uh no evidence of nitrogen impact on coastal payments as reported by the um board of health. uh under section 12.1E special permits
we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use. It is suitable for the proposed use. There's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There's no negative impact on neighborhood views and vistas or or neighborhood vis visual character. There's adequate sewage
disposal proposed. There's adequate utilities and there's no negative effect on the supply of affordable housing. Any further findings? You want to set any other findings? Anybody? Conditions. Do we put the must comply with FEMA in
conditions? Do you think? >> Well, that'll be taken care of at the building permit stage, I think. But >> I think we should just throw it in. Yeah. >> Just cuz it was on, >> right? >> Was it engineerings? Was it >> building's referral?
>> Do you think that's okay, Norin, to put must comply with? Yeah. Okay. >> Any other conditions? I had a note that uh we got a room which is a family room. It's in a separate section of the house. Probably should be a note in the file with her in the condition that it's not
>> a bedroom or a separate residential unit. >> You get that Norine? >> Okay. >> Any other conditions? Although >> per plans per all >> structures,
>> no additional instructions >> per plans all boards. >> Um, we didn't ask about lighting, >> standard hours of work. >> Yeah, hours of all
the sheet. I should be taking it out. I think that's just for this. It's pretty simple. Yeah. All right. So, I think we're good to vote on that, right? Yeah. >> Do we have a motion? Yeah, we did. We're all set. >> All those in favor? I oppose? None.
>> Thank you very much. >> Good. Thanks. >> Interest. >> Shut the heat off. I think I turned it down. >> You turned it down. >> It won't shut off. >> Trying to spun me out of here. >> There we go. >> Thank you. Save the day again, Nory.
>> Yeah, >> 10 minutes is going to be freezing. >> That's okay. >> We'll take the breather, right? >> All right. Next at bat, we have uh 07425 16 Hudson Street.
>> Uh this is application 74 of the year 2025. Matthew S. and Jackie D. Adams have applied to the FAMA zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to sections 240.2A 2A and 240 11.3A4 of the code of Felmouth, which is the
zoning bylaw to construct a detached pool house with habitable space and an inground pool increasing lot coverage by structure. Um the property is in an RC zoning district.
Uh it is in a nitrogen sensitive area but no overlay district. The existing uh structure is a single family house, three bedrooms at 247 square ft. The proposal is for a single family dwelling, four bedrooms uh at 2,944
square ft. The lot is 12,080 square ft in a zoning district currently requiring 40,000. The frontage on the street is 90 ft in zoning district currently requiring 100. Uh Hudson Street is a public right of
way at this location. The lot coverage by structure is currently 16.95%. It would the proposal is to increase it to 24.4% uh which is within the 25% that we can approve by special permit. The average
in the neighborhood is 16.1%. The lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 26.2% will be increased to 36.2% 2% within the 40% limit of the zoning bylaw. Um the non structure is nonconforming in
that the southerntherly uh setback is only 4 feet. Um the proposed height of the po of the um pool house which is an accessory structure is proposed to be 21.9 ft within the 20 22
feet allowed by the zoning bylaw. The engineering department has advised us that a driveway permit may be required. It doesn't say it is, but you'll have to figure that out. Um, and also that storm water be contained on the on the property and erosion and sediment
controls be um implemented during construction. They also note that the fence on the property may be within the rightway of the street and that's a problem for the homeowner to address. Uh, the property's on the sewer. Uh the
water department uh has advised us that the detached pool house needs an independent water service. Um there are no letters in opposition or in support noted in the file. Um so that's it.
>> Thank you very much. Uh good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Kevin Clower. I'm an attorney here in Felmouth and I'm before you this evening representing Matt and Jackie Adams, the owners of 16 Hudson Street. Uh, I'm joined tonight by Ken Costa, who is the builder on this project. The Adams are seeking
permission to construct a pool and pool house, which will result in lot coverage by structure in excess of 20%. 16 Hudson is located uh in the northern portion of Falmouth Heights, which as you know is a dense residential neighborhood. This particular lot is 12,080 square ft. It is in the RC zoning
district and it is not located in a flood zone. Presently, there's a three-bedroom single family dwelling with a detached shed. The uh combined footprint is 247 square feet. As it exists presently, then there is only one existing
nonconformity, which is the sideyard back setback to the south being 5T where 10 is required. It's otherwise conforming to front yard, sideyard setback to the north, and rear yard setback as well as lock coverage requirements. The existing ridge height of the house is approximately 18 ft. The
applicants purchased this property just over a year ago and they've used the last year to assess the property and what they'd like to do with it. And what they're proposing is actually no changes to the primary dwelling, but the addition of a pool and a detached pool house will have uh some habitable space on the second floor. This proposal does
not affect the existing non-conforming setback. Uh the bedroom count will increase to four. The habitable space in the pool house will meet the definition of a bedroom as set forth in title 5, though it's not intended as such. However, this project is on the Little Pond sewer district uh which allows for
four bedrooms by right. The proposed ridge height of the detached pool house is 21t 9 in and the existing shed is going to be removed. The lot coverage by structure including the pool in the pool house will increase to 24.4%.
Due to the existing non-conforming setback, this requires a special permit under 240 10.2A 2A for alteration to a non-conforming structure even though we're not actually altering the non-conforming structure. As well as under 240 11.3A4 uh for lock coverage by structure above
20%. Under 240.2A pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed by special permit provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists. You're asked to consider the standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not that alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities, impairs
views and vistas and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood. This application does not create any new non-conformities or affect the existing non-conforming setback. Under 2401.3A4, uh lot coverage by structure may exceed 20% in the residential C zoning district
by special permit from this board. You're asked to consider here the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood, the effects of shadow, the impacts on views and vistas from public ways, and the effect of nitrogen on coastal payments. I think it's important to note that the majority of what brings us above 20% is the pool,
which is about 512 square ft. The pool is a structure by definition, but it's really not what the bylaw contemplates and looking at the size and height of structures and and the massing of structures. We did prepare a lot comparison worksheet looking at 21 properties within a 300 foot radius of this. It's
certainly not out of line with those surrounding properties. It is among the larger and without the pool including that calculation, it's actually much closer to the average. The architectural design here is thoughtful. It's intended to replicate the existing style of the home. As mentioned, the proposed ridge height is 21t 9 in, which is allowed
under the bylaw. And given the location, there should be no impact on views and vistas and shadow on adjacent properties. The bedroom count as of noted does technically increase although it is allowed by right within a little pond sewer district. Uh the site plans before
you have been updated in response to uh comments from the uh building department and the engineering department. Um the driveway has been modified as to not require a driveway permit. We've added the um sediment and erosion controls to the plants as well.
The threshold question under 240 12.1E is does the proposal have an adverse effect that overbalanced the beneficial effects to the neighborhood and to the town. This lot's more than adequate in size. Proposal does not change the nature of the proposed use. It remains a single family dwelling. It just increases the owner's utilization.
There's no impact on traffic flow or safety. It remains in line with the neighborhood character and it doesn't affect public services. This project doesn't affect the existing non-conformity and there's no new non-conformities been created. This does not have adverse effects that over balance the benefits. I believe that
this meets all the requirements of 240 10.2A, 241 11.3A4, and 240 12.1E. I believe you can and should grant the special permit, and I'd be happy to address any questions that the board may have at this time. >> Mark, you want to start off?
>> Yeah, I don't really have any um questions. It's a nice place. It's a nice addition. Um, it's right in my backyard basically. But, uh, I had forgotten when you cross Jericho Path, how the lots get much larger.
>> Oh, double the size. >> Yeah. And it it it almost makes it one of the nicer neighborhoods. >> It's awfully pretty up there, Mr. Ferin. That's all I'm going to say. >> And that's all I have to say as well, except for your shirt. It's kind of subtle but electric. >> You know, it's I need a little I need a
little flare in my life. Uh just I think we should request it as built. We're kind of getting a little tight on some of the numbers. So just an asbuilt. >> Okay. Uh was that would you like an asbuilt as to height and uh and lot coverage, >> please? >> Okay. Yeah,
>> we can certainly do that. >> Thank you. >> Frank, do you have anything? >> No, the questions that um you took care of it. Thank you. >> Does the office have a a wide door >> in in the main house? >> Yeah. Um, it must um is the short
answer. >> It didn't look like it on the plan, but it's hard to tell. >> These plans are from the listing. Um, these are not engineered plans. So, the town has this assessed as a three-bedroom, and if um we needed to increase the width of any
of the doors, we can certainly do so, but uh it hasn't come up in any of the referrals. >> Yeah. Did no one said anything? I just was looking at the plan. you know, I I take those plans with very much a grain of salt. Um, okay. It's >> it's I think marginally better than me
hand drawing one, but it's uh it's what they'd use for the real estate listings. >> Okay. >> Do I condition something like that, do you think, >> the um office? >> It's all on sewer, so they are limited to a max.
>> But doesn't the pool count as >> counts as the fourth, >> right? The pool area counts as another bedroom. So that would make five. >> I know when the assessors have had a concern in the past, they've issued a referral requesting a walkthrough, but that didn't seem to be a concern in this case. >> Okay. >> How about you also have a new assessor
who may not have picked up on that. So maybe what we should do just to be on the safe side is to include either the assessor or the board of health verifying that it complies. >> Okay, let's do that as a condition then. Yeah. >> Remain four bedroom. >> Yeah,
that's all I have. Jim, do you have anything? Um, >> two very ground ball questions. Not going to affect my decision. Just want to make sure I'm kind of completely where it's going. Is this a plunge pool or actual pool? >> It's an actual pool. It's it's it's a it's >> I was looking at the schematics. It was on my computer. I
>> There's um there's it's one of the pools where you have a a hot tub within a pool. >> Uh I've never seen this on a plan before. I just wanted to know what it is. I presume it's when they're constructing the pool, but uh stockpile
error. Is that for as during excavation? >> I would assume. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I think that was part of the erosion and sediment control. >> Never noted. I've never seen that note on a plan before. It's why I wanted to get clarification. Thank you. I have no other questions. >> Tony, >> I have no questions. Nick,
>> you good? >> You guys also will go to the public. Anybody from the public want to comment on this? >> Everybody's good. Okay, everybody's all set. Can I get a motion? >> With testimony. Yes, we get we're
getting there. We're getting there. Second. >> We have a motion in a second. You're all set. Attorney Glower, we're all set up here. Anybody have any further discussion up here? >> No. >> All those in favor of closing testimony. I oppose. None.
>> Motion to approve. good conditions. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Let's do the findings. >> Okay. Um there are no public comments, no noted letters in support or opposition in the file.
Um under section 240.2 non-conforming structure may be extended or altered by special permit from the zoning board of appeals. Um provided that the extension does not increase nonconformities. And in this particular situation, there are no new
nonconformities. Um, and the proposed structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. This is an RC district, so lot coverage by structure is a maximum of 20% with special permit allowing up
to 25%. Um, taking into consideration the size and height of the proposed structure relative to the size and height of the existing structures in the neighborhood. And we find that this is consistent. Um there's no effect no evidence of effect of shadows on adjacent properties. No
evidence of effect on neighborhood views and vistas or views vistas from public ways. Um the property is on the sewer. So there's no negative effect or nitrogen on coastal invements. With respect to the special permit, we find
that the site is adequate for the proposed use. It is suitable for the proposed use. There's no evidence of impact negative impacts on traffic flow and safety. No evidence of negative impacts on neighborhood views and vistas and visual character. There's adequate sewage disposal as evidenced by the
sewer. There's um adequate utilities and there's uh no impact on the supply of affordable housing. In this particular situation, the shed will be removed and also uh there's there was on the plan it said that the paved driveway will be
converted to pvious surface. Was it any further findings? >> Did you reference the possible u entry into the rightway? >> Uh that was one of the comments from the engineer who said that the fence may be
uh in the rightway. He didn't actually measure it, but that's something you'll have to get a a license from the board of selectment if it is or remove the fence. And also uh the engineering department commented that a driveway permit may be necessary but didn't say why. So you'll have to deal with that.
>> We um we the revised plan was addressed that and there was an email from the engineering department saying that this the plan as shown would not require a driveway permit. >> Fine. Okay. So those are findings conditions >> the asbuilt
>> per plan uh the asbuilt on both all boards probably will need to contact police in that it's a kind of a tight you know during construction
>> I don't think so traffic on that street >> I suppose they did look like mostly all summer houses around there >> if needed if needed. Yeah, we don't have to have a beer. >> And to remain fourbedroom. Is that the condition we'll use? Is that okay, Norine? Just say like that. No further
structures, right? Um what's the lighting? Uh dark. >> No, >> don't mention lighting. Okay. Hours of op. Anybody else have any other further conditions? a license or remove an
obstru intrusion into the rightway if there is one. >> Yeah. And that's it. Anybody anything else? Norin, anything else you can think of? I think we're all set. Okay. All those in favor? I oppose? None. >> Great.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Next at bat, we have I'm not even going to attempt to say that last name. >> 20 Crosby Lane. How do I say it? >> Petroitz. Patriots. >> Patriots. Okay. Thank you. >> I hope I got that right. >> Well, a name like Murphy, it's
everything's tough after that. 20 Crosby Lane. >> Okay. This is application 76 of the year 2025. Paul Petroitz um has filed an appeal with the
town clerk pursuant to general laws chapter 4A sections 8 and 15 and zoning bylaw section 12.4A 4A appealing a denial of a building permit by the building commissioner for property at 20 Crosby Lane in East Belmouth,
Massachusetts. Um the property is in an RA zoning district. Um it is in the Waka White Bay coastal pond overlay district. Uh it is in a nitrogen sensitive area.
The house on the property has been destroyed by fire and was demolished. So there's no structure on the property at the present time. The prior structure though was a five single family dwelling, five bedrooms, 3,200 ft². The
proposal is a single family dwelling, four bedrooms, 3,34 square ft. Um, but we first have to determine if this is a buildable lot. The lot itself is 25,354 square ft in a zoning district which
currently requires 40,000. Street frontage is 130 ft. Uh 100 feet is minimum allow required. Um you didn't see whether it was a public or private ways. I think is that private out there? Do we know? >> Private.
>> Private private way. >> I didn't see that either. Um the lot coverage by structure there's nothing there but it will the proposal is for 14.5% which is within the zoning bylaw lot coverage by structure parking and paving there's nothing there but
proposals for 20.7% the zoning bylaw allows for 40%. Of course there's no zoning nonconformities on the property because there's nothing to not conform. The board of health has advised us that they're okay for standard title 5 septic
system if a building permit is issued. Uh the conservation commission um has conducted a an administrative review and has no comment. The water department advises us there's no water service at the present time and the uh
building commissioner um sent a letter saying that the house and foundation were removed without a building permit and it lost its protection. But today, oh, there's no there's one letter in support um in the file. Uh today we received another letter from the
building commissioner which I'm going to read because it's kind of brief. This is from Gary Street, certified building commiss, building official of the town of Falmouth, dated December 11th, 2025. Um dear members of the board of appeals and the chair, please read this letter
into the record at the public hearing. The above reference subject property is before your board appealing my determination of denying a building permit for a dwelling on said property. My denial is based on the fact that the previous structure being removed with no building permit to construct a new
dwelling. The applicant's only option was to appeal my determination so that he can receive relief from the board of appeals to be able to construct his or her home. The board of appeals is the only one that can approve relief to allow this to be a buildable lot. I would support and sanction a positive
decision on from the board. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Gary Street. Um, so u there was another letter that was the subject of the appeal which basically said the same thing. The
building commission had determined in a letter on October 16th, 2025 that the lot is non-conforming lot. It is a non-conforming lot, but that's may not be important. lost its protection when the structure and foundation were removed without a building permit and it
has been vacant for two years. So that is what we are appe uh determining whether that's correct or not. Oh, just as a excuse me, as a point of clarification, there was some confusion in what was sent to the board in writing
and the building commissioner confirmed that the demolition of the former structure did have a building permit for that demolition and removal. What he found was lacking was a building permit
application for the replacement structure. >> Okay. I didn't understand that ma'am. >> So, just as clarification, >> tear it down. You're supposed to have a permit. And >> so, they they had a permit for the demo. They just did not have sub a plan for a
new replacement house at the time. >> Demolish. Yeah. >> And they sold and moved to these previous owners. this >> it was actually on on solid waste with us and they couldn't find a place to rent in the inter room and I believe
they moved to Plymouth and stayed there as I recall but it's been several years he's a good kid >> sir would you like to talk to us >> good evening um my name is Paul Petro it's my wife Ann here um we're here to
regarding our request for the special permit uh to build a single family home on the property at 20 Crosby Lane It was mentioned that there's a four bedroomedroom. We're actually only building a two-bedroom home there. Um, and that's what the plans indicate. Uh, we purchased this lot after the previous
owner, a five uh previous home, a five- bedroomedroom single family residence was there destroyed by fire. The property has long been recognized as a residential lot. and the board of health has already approved our septic system conservation and um we were just denied
on the on the building permit itself. Uh we understand this lot is considered non-conforming um under the current zoning bylaws, but it had a legally existing home on it for many years. We've made every effort to follow the proper procedures, submit all uh
submitted plans, required plans, and ensure compliance with all Belmet zoning bylaws. It's worth noting too that the previous owners did have intention to rebuild after the fire, but unfortunately they had a lot of personal
problems because of the fire and um following through with pulling the permit and restarting that um construction simply wasn't possible for them. Uh their intention, however, was always to restore a home that was stood there for decades. At this stage of our
lives, um, we're simply trying to rebuild a modest home for our retirement. I'm 75 and I will not say how old Ann is, but she's much younger than me. >> I respect that. >> My and we have invested quite a bit of money um in this property, a large
portion of our retirement. And at our age, that money would be impossible to recoup. I just I I I'm done with work. Um, and Ann is just about to to be done with work. So, we're just hoping that we can get this special permit through.
I've been a remodeler and a builder for over 40 years. And throughout my career, I've helped many families build and improve their homes. This project represents something deeply personal. The chance to finally build something for Ann and myself, a home of our own
where we can enjoy our latter years together. We have both been coming to Felmouth since our teens. um at different times and we've each had always had a strong affection for this town. Um my daughter, our daughter and
her family own a home in Felmouth, which Anna and I visit often. Um so be able to live nearby would be a very big benefit for us. We believe that granting this permit will not only comply with the intent of the zoning bylaws, but will also enhance the neighborhood. The lot
has been overgrown and filled with dead trees since the fire. Uh, and our plan to clear landscape and rebuild will greatly improve its appearance safety and overall appeal. We've already had the pleasure of meeting several of our neighbors. They've been very supportive,
inviting us down for barbecues, even to Christmas gatherings. The neighbor directly behind our lot told us he was excited to see us come in clearing the property and restoring it to a well-kept livedin um home. We love the town of
Felmouth and look forward to becoming active members of the community. We respectfully ask for your understanding and support in improving this approving the permit so that we can make this long-awaited dream a reality. and just thank you for your time that's spent on
this. >> Great. Let's start down this side. >> I have nothing right now. >> You're okay, >> Tony. >> Um, this um under 240 for B,
paragraph 3, subset A, 1 through 4, next paragraph B. This seems to be a buildable lot. I pulled the plan at the registry. it, this goes back to June 23rd, 1966. >> So, it existed prior to January 1st,
1981. Uh, it has at least 50 ft of frontage because it has 130 ft of frontage. So, based on what I've read, uh, in the bylaw, this is a buildable
lot. Um, and this I would encourage this board to, uh, to approve it as such. Jim, >> I agree with the assessment. This is a situation which we are looked at as a board of relief. I think the relief is appropriate. >> I agree. Frank,
>> I I think this is a buildable lot. Um, and under the zoning bylaw, we have the authority to reestablish the buildability of the lot under section 2410 583. And I would say vote when we get to that.
>> I I support the uh building and zoning commissioners uh letter that was uh read by Frank into the uh testimony this evening and u it's a perfect lot for you to finally get going and I'm sure the butters will be pleased that uh you'll build this nice little home there. So
I'd approve it all. So good luck. >> Thank you. Um the only thing I'd like to add is um yeah we're the border relief and obviously we're going to give you the relief that you ask but um also we have to limit it. So you would my
understanding the way I look at it you would have to abide by all the setbacks which would be 25 in the front and 10 on the sides which you have ample room to do so. And uh other than that good luck and God bless you. >> Well thank you. Thank you.
Oh, one point for clarification. While your plans identify two specific rooms as bedrooms, when the board of health looks at plans, they count bedrooms based on what would qualify as a bedroom
by title five. So, for example, if you have an office that exceeds 80 square feet and has a door, >> you don't use it as a bedroom, but they call it a potential bedroom. So I think according to board of health they would
technically be referring to you having four bedrooms but again it's just a matter of the board of health identifying that your septic is >> aren't you reusing a five bedroomedroom septic that was there already? >> No, we're putting a brand new one in
>> the new one. Actually, when when I first um received the plan of the um uh deed and the plans, an engineer had lived there and they had plans made for a septic. I brought it to the health department and they said they would
prefer that I had it redone in our name and it was actually upgraded from what they had had. So, uh we had that done. >> So, that's a new home with an IIA. It's outside of our purview anyways, but it's not. >> Board of Health, I think, identified
that based on the time of his application with them, he preceded the IIA requirement. >> But maybe this isn't a special permit. We're just we're just dealing with the building commissioner's determination. >> Just more for my clarification. I apologize. Yep.
>> Okay. >> So, uh >> Motion to close this. >> Motion to close testimony. >> Second. Are you all set? >> Yes. >> Everybody's all set up. Wait, I didn't go to public. >> Public comment. >> I did not go to public. Time out. Time. Anybody from the public want to comment
on this >> application? Appeal. >> Everybody's all set. Sorry. All right, back to that. So, we have a motion to close. No further testimony. Everyone's all set up here. >> All those in favor of closing? I
>> opposed. None. >> Um, so we're just here on the appeal itself. I'll make a mo. Go ahead, Frank. Um the building commissioner's u letter didn't specify a condition of the zoning bylaw for the denial, but I'm assuming
it's 240 10.5 A3, which says that a non-conforming use that has been abandoned, abolished, or dem or demolished without reconstruction and not or not used for a period of two years shall lose its protected status. However, the zoning bylaw may
reestablish a non-conforming uh use by taking into consideration the following. Uh there's no substantial detriment uh to the neighborhood and we make that finding. Also, the lot we find that the lot is adequate for the proposed use for
residential purposes that uh there appears to be adequate off- streetet parking. Um the lot coverage issue is not before us right now because we don't have a plan for the house. Uh there's no evidence of negative impact on traffic.
Uh no there's adequate access to public ways. Um the intended use conforms to the zoning bylaw and there's no evidence of negative impact on public safety. Uh, as far as the special permit goes, under section 240 12.1E of the zoning
bylaw, we find that the um site is adequate for a single family house. The site is suitable for a single family house. There's no evidence of negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There are adequate utilities in this neighborhood. >> Um, there's adequate sewage disposal because there will be they'll have to
apply to the board of health for a septic permit. Uh there's no evidence right now of ne impact on visual characters in the neighborhood. Um and doesn't appear to be any negative impact on affordable housing. >> So hand me the motion.
>> Yes. So, I guess the motion, and please, I'll be happy to a little word smithing on this, uh, to affirm the appeal overturning the building commissioner's determination and denial of the building permit for
the reasons that Mr. Duffy stated. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. >> I think >> everyone's all set on this. >> Yes, absolutely. >> All those in favor of Jim's motion? >> I >> oppose? None. Thank you so much. >> Good luck. >> Yeah, good luck.
>> It's a beautiful lot up there. >> I will be when you're done. >> All right, moving on. We have 483 Central A. >> This is application 77 of the year 2025.
Elizabeth F. Wadman, trustee, has applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to sections 24 10.2A. 2A of the code of Falmouth, which is the zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the rear portion of the nonconforming dwelling. The property
is located at 483 Central Avenue in East Felmouth. The zoning district is RB. This we're in the Borne Pond, coastal pond overlay district. We're in a nitrogen sensitive area. We're in an
AE13 flood zone. The existing structure is a five- bedroomedroom single family dwelling 2589 ft. The proposal is for a five- bedroomedroom single family dwelling 2657 square ft. No previous decisions of the
board of appeals on record. The lot is 14,250 square ft. 40,000 is the minimum in the district. Street frontage is 100 and that conforms to zoning which requires 100. Central Avenue is a public right
ofway at this particular location. The existing lot coverage by structure is 18 18.16%. It will be increased slightly to 18.64%. The limit is 20. So that's conforming. Lot coverage by structure parking and
paving is currently 22.4% would be increased to 24.6% within the limits of 40% of the zoning bylaw. So that's conforming. The building uh current building has two nonconformities noted. One is the easterly setback of
2.1 feet which is the setback from central avenue and then the uh northerly setback of 3.4% where 10 10 ft is required. Uh on the street by the way 25 ft is required. Um
we have engineering referral. Uh they asked us to consider that storm water be retained on the property. Uh health has no issues. Conservation advises us that they have approved the project by issuing a negative request for determination of applicability. The
water department recommends an upgrade to 1 in PE with the meter in the house. The building commissioner has advised us that uh the constru that the proposed structure must comply with FEMA regulations. There's one letter in
support of the project on the file. >> Good evening again. Uh thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh again, for the record, Kevin Clower. Uh for the applicants, Elizabeth and David Wadman, who are the owners of 483 Central Avenue, and they're seeking permission to renovate the existing non-conforming
dwelling by um removing the existing back portion and rebuilding it. 43 Central is located at the very southern end of Central Avenue. It's located directly between Herie Street and Bulock Street in an area that I've heard referred to as Old Manat a number
of times. Uh this lot's 14,250 ft, which is pretty typical for the area. Uh it is in the residential B zoning district and it is in an AE AE13 flood zone. Presently, there's a 5-bedroom single family dwelling on the lot. Total footprint is 2589
square feet, which is 18.2% 2% lock coverage by structure. Uh, as Mr. Duffy noted, the existing dwelling is non-conforming to the front yard set back to Central Avenue, which is 2.1 ft, where 25 is required, and the sideyard set back to the north, which is 3.4 ft, where 10 is required. The existing ridge
height is uh 23t 11 and 316 in. This property has been in the applicant's family since at least 1972. And while it is lovely, uh, the house is in need of upgrades and repairs, both cosmetically and functionally. So, what they're proposing is to raise the
western portion of the dwelling and rebuild in a manner that offers them better functionality. It's going to provide garage space on the first floor when none exists, and the second floor space is to be a primary bedroom for the for the home. The existing non-conforming sideyard setback to the north will be entirely eliminated.
that'll be improved from 3.4 ft to 10.2 ft. Lot coverage by structure will remain conforming at 18.6% which is an increase of only 68 ft over the existing. The ridge uh of the proposed addition will be slightly higher than the ex main
portion of the house. It'll be 29 ft 6 1/2 in which is again below the 35 ft that's allowed by right and there is no increase in the number of bedrooms which will remain at five. Due to the existing non-conformities, this requires a special permit under 2410.2A,
which allows for pre-existing non-conforming structures to be changed by special permit, provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists. And 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-conforming sideyard setback is entirely eliminated and there's no effect on the existing front yard setback. There's no effect on the views and vistas from the public ways and the area of change here is really set back
from the street and it will remain consistent with the neighborhood. Um though we're not seeking a special permit under 240 11.3A4. I did submit a lot comparison worksheet because I think it shows just how consistent this is with the neighborhood of the 28 properties within a 300 foot
radius. This is almost exactly at the average. The propo the footprint is 28 square ft larger than the average. The gross floor area is only 71 square ft larger than the average. Um I did note the referral from the building commissioner which we discussed with him. Um this project will comply
with flood zone standards uh and FEMA requirements and he simply said basically affirming that we had to which of course we do. So, um we have every intent to and um we've had a um not that it matters to this board, but we had a
FEMA worksheet um completed which does show that this can be done for less than 50% of the value of the structure. The Wadman's proposal represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions for the applicants. It eliminates the non-conforming sideyard setback with no new dimensional
non-conformities. There's no adverse effects that overbalance the benefits here. And there's nothing about this proposal proposal that is substantially more detrimental than what exists. This meets the requirements of 240.2A, 240 uh and 240 12.1E. For these reasons, I
believe uh you should grant the special permit, but I would of course be happy to address any questions that the board may have at this time. >> Sounds good. You want to start off? >> Why not? Start off with uh nothing. It's fairly obvious that uh an improvement's
necessary. I mean, there's no way they can spend any winter moments down in that existing structure. And uh things probably been there since 1929. >> 1927, actually. >> A good guess. >> Yes. I was going to ask how old it was.
>> Yeah, just ask me. >> That's That's pretty That's pretty good. >> Well, you can tell it's it's there was a lots of changes in that period in the styles, whatever. But uh anyway, no uh obviously they uh well within their rights and it's
certainly maybe even a couple years past due >> well after the finer and carbon dating. I have no further questions. Thank you. >> Walk through. We had one of those uh you know uh things you use to date the
dinosaur bones. He's dusting it. >> Just do have one clarification for the record. The um the nonconformity to the north is currently 3.4 ft. It's going to be improved to 10.2. >> That's correct. >> Right. And this the front setback on the
street of 2.1. That's the closest of any house on the whole street. >> Changing it so you can keep it. But uh you can just basically reach out and touch the cars going by. >> Well, they have the hedge in front. I mean, it's one, you know, to their benefit, there's actually a substantial amount of the road layout that's not
developed. >> Yeah. Um, so you know, as you stand on a sidewalk, there's probably still 10 to 10 feet before you even get to their property line, but it is awfully close. >> Yeah. All right. >> Doesn't look like it's ever been hit. >> Tempting fate.
>> It did say in the file that you need a disposal work permit. Did you see that in the file? >> Um, yeah. We'll, you know, whatever whatever is required, we'll of course obtain. >> It'll be under in the, >> you know, the decision. You know, as as we've discussed, this isn't this isn't a blanket permit. So, we we understand
that we have to go through all the appropriate steps with all the other departments. >> Other questions? It's a very nice project. >> What's that? Just a dumpster permit? >> I think so. I just read it in the file. I didn't even remember. >> Sounds so much nicer than a dumpster permit. >> It does. >> I think you also run into issues with uh
older structures. If you know, anything that they're demoing might be technically hazardous, they may have to comply with separate. Yeah, you can't tear anything down till they ensure that there's no asbesus. They'll go and they'll they'll cut holes everywhere to
see. They're very efficient with that. >> I remember when 40 Maine was was was completely renovated, they um they found horsehair insulation and and had to, you know, do quite a bit of asbestous remediation there. And um you know, they'll again, of course, >> I think they charge by the hole because
they do them all over. It's crazy. >> They'll of course, you know, >> they don't let anything get by them. You're all set. >> I'm good. Thank you. Tony, you have any questions? >> Very nice project. >> No, >> just a statement. Just a statement. >> And you're all set. >> You guys are being too nice tonight. You
know, I'm getting concerned. We're >> now to treat that lucky shirt with respect. >> Anybody from the public? >> Next week, too. >> Sorry. Anybody from the public want to comment on this project? >> All right. Any further questions up
here? Anybody? All said motion. Close testimony. >> Oh, he beat you. >> You can second them. >> Second that though. >> All right, we have a motion to close testimony and a second. >> Are we all set? All those in favor?
>> I I opposed. None. Frank, we'll do findings. >> Question. Fine. Under section 240.2A or SE 2410.2, two, we have a non-conforming structure um because the uh easterly setback,
which is the setback from Central Avenue, is 2.1 ft and the setback to the north is currently 3.4 ft. Um so you need a special permit for any alteration, extension or reconstruction of the single family house which is
non-conforming. there shall be no new nonconformities and in this particular case there are no new nonconformities and in fact the northerly nonconformity will be uh rendered conforming and it will be 10.2 two feet set back on the north. So we find that the proposed
structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. We qualify for a special permit conditions for the special permit. We find that the site is adequate for the proposed use. The site is suitable for the proposed use. No evidence of negative impact to traffic
flow and safety. Uh there's no evidence of negative impact to neighborhood visual character, views or vistas. There's adequate sewage disposal. there's adequate utilities and there's no negative impact on the supply of affordable housing.
We had one letter in support in the um uh file and no opposition at the hearing. Okay. And then conditions. Um,
all plans per plans. Have to sneeze. >> Sorry. You got rid of it for me though. All boards. Um, construction hours that will probably you you can handle
the construction. Um, any other conditions? check on the disposal disposal work permit that I read about. Um any other conditions? Do you have any?
I think that's it. Right. Yeah, I think we're good. All right. So, we have a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the with conditions and the findings just uh
read into the record and agreed upon. >> And I'll second. So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I oppose. None. >> All right. Thank you all very much. Appreciate your time this evening. Yeah. >> All right. >> Have left, but you're cooking with gas right now. >> Yeah. Aren't we?
>> We got bruins. All right. >> Great night, guys. Thank you. >> Thanks. We have minutes. We have October 16, November 6, and November 20, if I'm correct. >> So, I'll make a motion to approve those. >> Second. We have a motion in a second.
Everybody's all set with those and read them and we're all good to vote. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of October 16, November 6, and November 20 of 2025 say I. >> I oppose. None. >> All right. Next, we have a request for
an ins insubstantial change. public hearing. >> Good evening. This is not a full public hearing. >> David Calhoun from Felmouth Southerntherly LLC Sax and Partners. Uh we're here
uh uh follow up. Um as you know, we've been through a long process. We're now starting to get to the point where we're developing construction drawings and uh we reached out to um Gary Street for a
pre preconstruction meeting. Under our permit, we're required to have a preconstruction meeting, which happens just before you get going. And we have a practice of wanting to go and meet with a local building inspector to find out if there's anything that he likes that
isn't really written in the rules and regs so that we make sure that everything we do goes as smoothly as possible because we know there's a lot of uh desire to see this actually finally happen. Um and and um so when we
uh met uh with Gary, we presented a revised footprint which shrinks the buildings slightly. Uh the buildings are about a foot thinner and about 15 ft shorter. Uh when you do that, what winds up happening is the actual physical
units are reduced slightly. uh and uh he and uh Norine actually was one of the many participants. We had the fire department, we had a lot of folks from the town departments. Um they felt um
that it was a good idea if the building was shrinking uh as long as we stayed within the guidelines for what's considered not a substantial change uh and that our units stay don't decrease or increase by more than 10%.
Um, so what it winds up doing in uh in addition to making the filing electronically the way you guys work now, we also had these prepared so you guys would have a quick look at what what we're doing, the letter that establishes the position. Um, and then
if if you look closely at drawing C103, the plan that we hopefully you'll see, if you look at that first one on your right hand side, you can see the blue dash lines.
You see the little blue D? That's just the um so that we could clarify to the board where the old foundation is. And then if you turn to the next page, you will see the whole project in anything
any dimensional changes that changed. So that there's obviously the building got thinner, got shorter, some of the dimensions on it changed. Uh and it was recommended that we submit this to you all clouded so it could quickly be looked at and um we also provided a
revised layout. As you'll recall during the uh zoning board process for a 40B, you're not really requiring providing many dimensions. You're just giving an average unit size and the number of units. Uh and this will be the revised
layout. Uh we provided a revised building footprint. And actually what winds up happening when we're all said and done with this improvement is the impervious area on the project will decrease by approximately 10,000 square feet. Um but uh we believe we meet all
the requirements for this to be an insubstantial change and our goal would be to get you to confirm that today uh so that we can keep cranking on drawings. Go ahead, Mark. Um, >> so what precipitated this? Just for my
own curiosity. >> Well, well, they were just rough drawings in the beginning and when you started to throw it together, you dimensionally it just work better. >> When you go to the ZBA for any 40B, your goal obviously is to get your biggest footprint you can, as much height as you
can because you're getting the zoning relief. So you you lay out a very conservative layout. Then once you get that approval, you move from what I would refer to as very preliminary conceptual plans. Seph, your your civil
plans under the 40B process are almost I would say they're 85 maybe 90% construction drawings because of the storm water review and everything that has to happen. You have to get that far >> close. >> But on your building drawings, uh it is uh truly conceptual at that stage. So
then once you get your approval, you then get into the meat of it and you start doing your layout and determine, okay, the building's all electric. I don't know need rooms for gas meters. I don't need this. I don't need this space. So the building starts to get closer to what you can really build. You
then look at the market and you look at your final approved mix. And in this case, for example, uh the average units when we were be for you, a onebedroom was 848 ft. It's now 786 ft. So it went
by down by 62. We felt that the two bedrooms needed just a little bit more room. So they went from,229 ft down to 12 up to 1248. Uh the three bedrooms kind of oversized those. They
were 1670 square feet. They're now down to 1555. Uh I I have a cheat sheet if you guys want a copy of it to see. >> Yeah, I was just looking for a rough answer. I uh now was there a change in in uh
parking or or something? No. >> I thought somebody pointed out the circle there, but uh no, >> still the same number of parking spaces. Still the same exact same way up. >> Yeah. Good evening. I I know it's not why you're here this evening. Um but I was
just wondering is would it be okay for you to give us some additional color on the wastewater permit or when you potentially might seek a permit here with the building commissioner? Any timeline at all? Rough? >> The goal right now is to try to be in the ground by June blowing and going.
>> So the permit will be long before that. the our groundwater discharge permit our groundwater discharge permit has been issued in draft form uh and once the uh that that should be completed I would imagine uh sometime mid January
>> 100%. So it's uh but the DE process E D process was very thorough as they always are. uh and uh they took a lot of comments from a lot of different people and yeah so uh >> no problem in that April date
>> with a building permit >> our April date >> right now just talking um it typically takes 6 to9 months to do construction drawings um because we have civils further along and if this footprint is okay we're going to then start cranking
uh the hope is to get two construction drawings in less than 6 months. So, if everything goes well and we have those, it would be supportive of being in the building department. Uh the meeting with the building department uh
was very very helpful. Uh Gary and his team was was were very supportive. They appreciated the fact that we were there as a pre premeating. Uh the fire department was there. They went through a lot of the different qualifications and different things that they want. And
I do think the electronic filing process is very helpful. Uh and that may push things along faster, but I would I would think we would be in the ground by June. May start a little bit earlier than that. You know, site work, but I would hope you'd see some concrete going in
the ground by then. Thank you. >> Frank, do you have any questions? >> No. >> I don't need it. Jim, do you have any questions? >> I don't have any questions. I would like to offer a comment to the audience just so they understand what exactly is being asked tonight. I know this is a very
contentious issue. If you recall, this is a permit 40B that's been approved. Uh you've heard Mr. Calhoun talk about once things are approved, they're moving things around. The statute, the CMR 760 CMR 5605 basically sets out when a 40B an
approved permit wants to be modified, the board has to be is asked is this change substantial or insubstantial. And there's a very strict criteria of what constitutes a substantial change. If the board finds that what is proposed is a substantial change, a full hearing is
triggered. If it is an insubstantial change, there is not a full hearing. and what is proposed or what is being asked tonight as a matter of law doesn't qualify. Uh a reduction in the size or placement of the buildings or the square footage or the footprint uh clearly doesn't qualify. Uh it would be substantial if he came back and said,
"Well, we want to add another 100 units that would trigger a full hearing. Uh but what is being proposed tonight as a matter of law is not a substantial change in my mind. So I don't want to I think it's important. And I see there's a lot of people who are I saw I remember during the permitting process of this and just wanted to make sure that you
understood what procedurally is going on tonight. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. >> Thank you, >> Tony. >> I have no questions. Glad to hear that you're going to be starting soon. >> So we all set you good.
>> Yeah. I would I guess offer one additional comment and that is that the all the conditions of the original permit except as modified in the modified permit are still in full force and effect and that the only thing that's before the board tonight is a
specific request regarding shrinking the footprints essentially. >> Got to add an insubstantial change cannot be withheld or denied. It's it just gets approved as a matter of right if we find it's insubstantial.
>> Anybody else have anything? >> I'm going to let you guys speak, but it's I mean it's not even really a public hearing, but if you'd like to come up and make a quick statement, you're welcome. Come on up.
Hello, Marjgerie Pariner, Meredith Drive. I understand the substantial versus insubstantial. So, I'm going to drop my plea for that. However, these footprints could have
been changed any time, right? So, why now? Why wasn't this done earlier? By lowering the footprints, the buildings impact the total imperous surfaces. Determining the total impervious surface
area is part of the MEEP review process and their thresholds. Well, right now is Saxon is working with MEPA regarding the MEPA review. So, I I just can't help but wonder if it's more than just a coincidence
that um now it's coming up. It's a sensitive thing with the MEEP review considering where we live on the Cape. So, I'm just saying it's I don't think it's a good idea for you guys to make changes like this or for them to do
it while it's being discussed in the MEEPA office and it's not yet finalized. So, I'm asking you, could you possibly postpone this request until after the MEPA review process is done? Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Anybody else? Come on now. >> Good evening. Kathleen Crowley Braa, 63 Deepwood Drive. This is my public comment. MEPA review is intended to inform the proponent and each participating agency
to maximize consistency between agency action and to facilitate coordination of all environmental and development review of permitting processes of the Commonwealth. It provides an opportunity
in one or more review documents for the proponent to identify required agency actions and describe and analyze how the project complies with applicable regulatory standards and requirements. I am not going to read the entire thing
that is online. I'm you're all intelligent people and you can check it out for yourselves. But I would like to say as part of my public comment to please remember as we move forward and I want to say one thing. There have been board members that have made
comment like congratulations, good luck, hope it's great. Not so much. That's not how we feel as your constituents. Please remember if you haven't and recall directly access to directly across the street from 375 Sandwich Road. I invite you to go on a nature walk with me and I
will happily show you myself. It's mayor's pawn well. Mayor's pawn well is 3% of our clean drinking water that comes from that well. Now with all these new buildings and community and members coming into our community, there are lots of units and lots that are being
built. All you have to do is drive around FA to see them. Where's all of our clean drinking water going to come from in the future? a reminder of a fireman that came to Lawren School when this all first started who spoke very professionally
and eloquently and comment quote unquote you're going to drain Long Pond if 375 catches on fire. You will drain Long Pond. Where is the water going to come from if there is a fire? Remember not too long ago 30 plus firefighters were at Lakeshore Drive
across the street from my home for one structure for one dwelling. 30 police, excuse me, 30 firefighters for one dwelling. It was a small simple cape, four occupants were in that home. Four, not 300, not 600, not 900. Four people,
two dogs died. They couldn't get the trucks to come down Deepwood, Pinerest Beach Drive. It was too narrow, too difficult for them to get in. Think about Lakeshore, Deepwood, Crankfest Beach Drive, and the surrounding neighborhood. That neighborhood mirrors across the street
of Meredith Parker Mill Road. Remember Kunameset River Foundation and the millions of dollars that was spent and still being spent to save the herring run and the Kunameset River. So when we congratulate this building being put in, think about the eastern box
turtle, the lady slipper, the herring that we need to have to feed our ocean larger fish, the cod, the hatock. Think about how much fried fish is produced for people to come here as tourists. We need the herring.
Remember yesterday when you were sitting in construction traffic along Sandwich Road in front of RJ's variety, in front of Papa Jake, in front of the lovely little Brazilian restaurant shop that's there next to Hand in Hand. Remember that yesterday when you're
trying to get up town and you couldn't or buses were running late and things were detourred? What is it going to look like on Sandwich Road in June? Congratulation. That makes me sad that we're congratulating us.
How I ask you, will traffic be when 375 Sandwich Road is approved? How will construction trucks materials get in and out safely? And what off con what off construction companies might they be used? How will that loss of revenue for
our local tradesmen, our local companies affect our community, our revenue? As a mother and a grandmother who chose Falmouth, chose to raise my children, chose to build my home, chose to volunteer in this community, chose to
work within this community. I didn't choose this. You chose it for me. So when you congratulate somebody, please think of that this monroity does not belong by ripping
down the woods, by destroying the Kunameset River, by destroying our little community. I am not against affordable housing at all. I'm against 375 Sandwich Road in its location.
Once more, I'm not a housing expert. I'm not a contractor. I'm a mother and a grandmother and a wife and I oppose greed and I will not be intimidated in that hallway by you or anyone else. And that was
>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> This is not a public hearing, Madam Chairman. This is not a public hearing, Madam Chairman. I I I applaud you for extending some comments, but this is not
>> Can you be quick, please? >> Yes. You have my statement sorry already. Um I just >> Are you the one that wrote the statement? >> Yes. I just want >> came too late. Um >> yes. So I just want to make sure it's on the record for the people on at home in television land too.
>> Um thank you for having the meeting and >> whatever. It's not a hearing so I can't thank you for listening but I wish somebody was listening. My understanding is that they are supposed to be doing a Meepa review and there's concern that
this last minute change is an attempt to evade that responsibility. It's been clear since the outset the developer has no regard for the well-being of this community. They've left a tree sitting on the old farmhouse for months like a reminder that they couldn't care less
about the neighbors. Those of us who call this home need clean water and want our government to enforce laws, regulations, and standards to protect us. We cannot know Saxon's intent or if this proposed change is an attempt to
change the requirement of MEPA. We do know that a MEPA is critical and that it would be a bad idea to pro approve any changes to the building plan now before the MEEPA review and possibly keep them help keep them help them avoid that
important process. It's also been almost impossible to even know what the plans are. So having another change of plans was just like really unacceptable. Please do not approve any changes and we ask that the developer do a better job of accurately presenting their plans.
That's the least they can do for this agricultural community. And I also just want to mention that a kid was hit by a car, a hit and run right across from where this project is going to be in November. And the number of accidents has just been out of control. And I'm
just horrified. There's been no kind of safety planning in addition to the water and everything else. this community is losing and it is disappointing not only to feel we haven't been heard but to see you congratulating him it's so sad >> madam chair
>> yes mind if I say something >> I mean >> you were all there and and >> you saw us work and it went on for a long time >> and we did the very best that we could as far as the safety part uh we secured
a sidewalk walk on uh from Brook Hill Road up to this property, which is absolutely an improvement and something that I fought hard for. As far as the MEEPA thing, I mean, I'm no expert. I did go to an engineering school, but uh
it would be my uh suggestion that um to shrink the footprints of these buildings would only lessen the impact. Um and uh that's all I have to say. I mean we did our very best
>> through the chair. >> Is this okay? >> Sure. >> Just a quick clarification on Meepa. We met with Meeper 18 maybe 24 months ago before the process started and people kind of have
a this conception that Meeper is a regulatory authority. Meeper is not a regulatory authority. They do not issue a permit. They uh are they were designed to be a sounding board to make sure that when all of a
sudden the state is building a highway that the conservation knows that the highway is coming and it's more of a coordinating of efforts. Uh and we met with Meeper. There are very very clear
thresholds which you have to exceed to require a MEPA review. Uh and we do not exceed the thresholds requiring the review. Uh so we're in good standing with MEPA. Uh and if you also uh look at
the current regulations, MEEPA has been is in the process. they just finished a six-month, maybe even a nine-month uh reforming of their regulations. that if you're doing housing because they saw me as being a stumbling block or a delay,
uh that if you're doing housing and your development has at least 60% of a residential element, the whole meer process collapses into a very short notification form because they recognized that it was stepped beyond
its original intentions which was to keep the government from building things and not communicating with their other agent. gencies. So, it's a good thing for housing development. Um, the position that we're trying to skirt something or do something, we would not
be making this large of an investment without checking every single box three times till Sunday. And we have done that and we'll continue to do that. And I hope when we're done that many of the people that don't like it may find that it's a great place to live. And so
that's where we're at and we think we meet the criteria for this to be insubstantial. We hope that uh you guys agree. >> Okay. Thank you. Jim, you want to make me a motion? >> Sure. Um having reviewed what has been proposed, there is nothing that would
trigger a substantial change as defined in 760 56.05. So for those reasons only, I will make a motion that this is constitutes an insubstantial change. Second. >> We have a motion and a second.
>> No further discussion. >> All those in favor? >> I oppose? None. >> Just procedurally for the for the benefit of the audience that if the board did nothing, this gets automatically approved within 20 days. So, this had to be taken up tonight.
>> Okay. Board discussion. >> I have something. Go >> ahead, Mark. Um last week, uh we had an application which required a peer review, a peer
engineers review. Um and that review, even though the applicant pays for it, it's for our benefit. That review wasn't submitted until 2:00 on Thursday afternoon. I had absolutely no chance to
review it. Um, and this isn't the first time this has happened. And um, I'm just would like to say demand that these peer engineer reviews are delivered to us 5
days before the hearing. It's I'm not able to do my job. Um, some of you got to review it that afternoon and not thoroughly enough, I might add. Right. >> And, uh, you know, I came in and Scott pointed out to me, he said like no sidewalk and and I'm thinking sidewalk
like Sandwich Road and sidewalk like the entrance and the other applications, you know, outside the property. And of course, he was, you know, his retired meter must have been pegged at 11 because he was talking about the inside and it simply because I had no
opportunity to review this. Um, and so, uh, and then the following day, I mean, I had to think this through and I I did some other relative things to it, but, uh, I just, if this situation comes up again and we
don't get our peer review 5 days before the application, I won't participate in the hearing. >> Um, and I think it's uh that it's not an unusual request. Uh I I need my facts before I do my job. And uh
the these last minute things, they they they're getting paid. Um I'm sure they don't uh whatever. I don't want to go any further, but I just um just the way I asked. I I hope you all agree. >> Yeah. Um I did definitely
>> we issue the scope of we do normally ask that those peer reports come in a week ahead for that purpose. I mean normally we ask everybody to be you know I mean applicants uh I have to generally follow by the one week uh a butters I mean we
can't shut them down but I mean there's certain instances where um a butters can put something in at last minute just to try to I'm not saying all of them but it leaves the opportunity for them to throw a monkey wrench in our uh gear box. with
this. Um, it just I'm >> No, it's I'm firm and absolute with that. I won't participate >> because I can't come into a hearing >> and and uh stupid and do my job properly and I'm here to do my job for everyone in this town and uh they're getting
paid. >> Um you madam chair when Mark is done. Sorry. >> I think it's a it's a very valid point and it's I share Mr. Finan's frustration about being on the fly because I don't always have time and certainly not I don't think anyone's blaming you nor >> No, I we do typically ask for a week
ahead and I think it's perfectly reasonable for us to remind them that we need that. >> My suggestion would be in the scope of work or the contract that the town assigns is to include a very specific provision >> in a week. I mean 5 days is sufficient but >> I agree. >> Two or three days isn't. I mean some of
us still work and uh I mean we have uh >> getting back this week >> not being able to make a a informed decision I I think at that point is to announce that this is going to be a continuation >> uh due to the fact that we don't have our peer review submitted timely. That's perfectly acceptable thing.
>> That's an even better than you know me not participating because >> but it's good to put it in the contract like he said too. >> Yeah, it's a good idea. >> Well, the applicant wants it earlier also so they're ready to respond. So they were just Is that what's going to happen then? It will be in the contract. >> Can we do that?
>> I don't I don't know that that the contract gets to that level, but I think we can certainly have that conversation when we're um arranging a date because we typically will go through the contract process with the peer and
what's typically in the contract is what their >> scope is for example, right? And that what we would do is we would say okay so you know we're having a meeting on X date and because we're having you know we're confirming with you that you can
attend on that date and confirm that you will have us a written report a week in advance of that date. >> So just add that part some of these are tight. I mean I mean 5 days is good for me. I would think it would be good for everybody else, >> but um you know, I mean somewhere you
got to write in there that they just risk a continuation and that's going to be their time wasted as well. Not that I'm concerned with their time at all because they don't seem to be concerned with ours. >> Just a fact. >> I think you just added on to the email that works. Yeah,
>> that's pretty simple thing to do. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I think that's >> okay. I skipped over number three. Discussion and possible vote on creating a negotiation committee to coordinate with 40Bs. >> I don't think it needs any discussion.
>> I don't know if anyone wants to comment. >> I concerned about this. I think it's a good idea that we have somebody that we nominate to perform this function. But this is a subcommittee. Um, and it doesn't matter how many people are on it, whether it's one, two, three, as
long as it reports back to the board. It's a subcommittee and it's subject to the open meeting law. And I think we ought to have some guidelines from town council as to how this committee is to operate and how it's to perform because the last thing I want to see is a 40B project get jeopardized by a
subcommittee that meets in violation of the open meeting law. >> Okay. >> Well, you'd have to have a quorum for that. >> Subcommittee. >> Subcommittee. another subcommittee. >> So we'll take Can you explain >> a one person subcommittee? >> Yeah. >> A one person subcommittee. >> No, in other words, how does how I don't
understand how that affects >> because you have to well >> we're going to go we're going to do it correctly going forward. >> You you you have to have compliance with the open meeting law anytime the subcommittee meets. And a subcommittee meeting is any number of the people who
report back to the body. Well, you could um you could just incomp put in compliance with the open meeting law and uh we could vote on it, >> but but I I would like to see how it is. We don't need to do it tonight, but I think we should do it.
>> Well, absolutely. I think that we've proven that verbage from >> I I would prefer to see how everybody understand how they're going to how they operate. >> Okay. >> Well, I think we they've already have experience with that and >> so when would we have this for? So we'll do it we'll put it on the agenda for
next week. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I guess I would just point out to the board that at this particular time we don't have anything from special town council requesting specific mediation. So the question I have is
what exactly are you creating a subcommittee to do >> to uh ensure that our our position is um monitored and um you know I mean they're work they're
working for us and and >> it's to be in it's to be in place when we need it instead of having to come back. Look at look at how long now this is going to take. If we need to have somebody in people in place, whoever those people would be now, we have to wait another week. We need something in
place with whatever opportunity requirements are necessary >> just ready to go when we need look at what's happening right now with all the 40bs >> in front of us now and depending on when they pull their permits, you know, all the 40bs that could come in after them.
We need this in place so it can function when we need it to function. Not one thing about government I found out is that it moves as slowly as you can possibly make it happen. >> So let's just get it in place now if
>> uh Mr. Duffy wants to have some more definitive rules as to how we operate. I I can certainly understand that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I like the idea of having us ready to go >> and and we're already going on on on one hand already. And I mean something might come up between now and next week where
they we should be monitoring the progress and uh >> so this should come up next week. How do you how will you propose getting it done? >> We'll get the guidelines. You'll email tomorrow get the guidelines that Frank is looking for. >> Okay. So the particular problem is that
we don't have a specific purpose for a mediator at this time. We do >> on advice of counsel. I was told we did not. >> And the statute does not require that. >> Yeah. >> There is nothing in the statute. I And I'm not an attorney, folks. I mean, we
have two attorneys here, so I'm not going to act like I read the statute. There's no requirement for that. I read our bylaws or our uh procedural rules. We can we can set up a subcommittee anytime we want.
>> Okay. But the other part is that the subcommittee's role is not defined and depending on what case it is. It may be before the entire board and not subject to mediation. >> Well, the board will make that decision.
>> I I I feel quite comfortable with uh Scott and Tony with with Suzanne's oversight. worked quite well the last time and I mean I I I we should have the the engine running and ready to go at all times. >> This subcommittee will I mean you can
you can think about language where and I was thinking I've been thinking about this will serve as a liaison between the full board which is what Mr. Duffy wants to make sure of and the councils or special town council. Uh, it will report back. This is the way I was thinking
about it and I had to put in writing because I had to understand myself. Report back to the full board at each scheduled meeting with updates and recommendations. Uh, operate solely within the scope of coordinating legal strategy and communic in this particular case legal strategy
and communication. It can be expanded uh with independent authority to bind the board. That part you may not like because we have to come back. So I Right. >> Okay. So >> wait let me finish please madam chair. Uh the subcommittee shall remain in place until a full vote of the board is
attained to remove or replace individual board subcommittee members as necessary or dissolve the subcommittee in total under 7.01 of our rules of procedure. We have a right to do this. >> This is a standing subcommittee. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> What they call a standing subcommittee. >> Yes.
>> The stat the statute does not prohibit it. our our rules of procedure do not prohibit it. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. But I guess what I would recommend is that uh for parties that are interested that they work with town
council on this idea and on the wording because it sounds as though one of the references you've made is that you can make uh binding determinations on behalf of the board. I'm not prepared as a board member to be
delegate that >> and I think the other part should be that there should be an independent vote um where people should express who's interested in this subcommittee as well >> however we get there but the subcommittee needs to be >> I think the subcommittee has been
established proven its worth >> we did this with 375 >> right but that was >> we did this with 85 Rick Hill this is not the First time we've done this. This is not a new invention with this board. >> Those were cases that were referred back
for mediation as opposed to the 40Bs that we currently have. That is not the case. It's an open case before the board. >> It's not. >> And when it happens, this board, this committee will be ready to go. >> Up and ready to go. Yeah.
>> These guys got more real world experience with this than anybody in this building. O otherwise otherwise the whole process moves so slowly. I mean we're going to end up we we could all be dead by the time we get anything done. Let's just get this committee done. >> Absolutely. Agree.
>> Properly worded and I agree. It should it should be coming back to this board. But >> um >> we don't have to reinvent. >> Let's do this by next week. >> So how do we get the wording done? >> I I'm not sure how to do that. I can I suppose >> I could meet with with some
>> You had a good start. Maybe I'll meet with town council. Would that would that work? >> And I'll get the verbiage and we'll do this on next Thursday. >> We'll get it on for next. >> Is that okay with everybody? >> Agreed. >> Y >> and if if I need you to help me, I can call you. Is that okay? >> You got my number. >> All right. >> Good.
>> Is that okay with everybody? I'll meet with town council. Is that okay with you, Norine? >> Sure. >> Okay. Is that >> my Would you like some of the language that I >> Anything anyone wants to give me and I will take it with me tomorrow and I'll set up a meeting with her maybe. >> No salty language. >> Yeah. No. >> Are you are you familiar with 4A and
that there are no restrictions? Section 12. >> You can >> I'll give you all that. >> That would be great. >> Okay. Good. >> So, we'll table this till next Thursday >> for a vote. >> For a vote. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Discussion. Further discuss. >> Discussion. >> Discussion and vote.
>> And vote. Okay. >> Now, I just want to make sure of something. Is that what's going to be on the agenda for next that way for discussion and a vote similar to this be listed as >> more. Is that something the board is requiring? >> It can just read exactly what this says
on here pretty much. I think right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We got to keep moving this discretionary pos any further. Tired of that. >> We'll just put the exact same thing on next week. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is that all right with everybody? >> Yes.
>> All right. So, board updates. >> We have Christmas night off. >> Good morning. >> That's my only update. and Fourth of July and Halloween this year. >> Wow. >> All right. Zoning administrator updates.
>> I don't have anything new for you. >> Woohoo. >> Future agenda. >> I think I kind of just did that. >> Yeah, I think so. >> So, I think we're good. >> I think we're good. >> Everybody, >> Mark. >> All right. Motion to adjurnn. Bruins at 8. 3 minutes late.
>> I'll second that. >> We got December 18th. Oh, we our next meeting is December 18th at 6 PM. Thank you, Scott. You're welcome. >> All those in favor? >> I