[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] appeals. The board will be entering into
executive session under GLC 30A section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation in the matter of West Palmouth Estates LLC 19 North Falmouth Highway in North Phelmouth where discussion is where discussion in open
session would have a detrimental impact on the town's litigation position. Following the executive session, the board will reconvene in open session and invite the public back into the meeting. At that time we need a second. Second that motion
and a roll call vote. Veneran I. Peterson I. Murphy I. Murphy I. Morsai. Patruchi I. Henny I. Let's go. Okay. I'd like to open with a moment of silence for Jerry Pomeus who recently
passed away. Jerry served on the ZBA for seven years plus he was a wastewater superintendent and most importantly a veteran. So, I'd like to take a few minutes for Jerry in a moment of silence. Okay, thank you all. Uh, this is welcome to the zoning
board of appeals meeting. Please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV. Any private party recording this hearing needs to step up to the podium and request permission. I'll introduce the board. On my far right is Mark Finan, a voting
member. Next is Scott Peterson, a voting member. To my right is Frank Duffy, our clerk. My name is Suzanne Murphy, chair. To my left is James Moss, vice chair. Tony Patuuch, an associate, and Nick Haney, an also associate. Then we have Noren Stockman, our zoning administrator, and Ashley Dlo, office
assistant. The zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state zoning statutes as well as the town zoning bylaws and reviewing and voting on each application. All decision decisions are made through the public hearing process. Our goal is to hear testimony from applicants and the public and to allow a full and fair discussion
of the project prior to closing the hearing 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 be invited to comment. Comments will be limited to two minutes and be strictly related to the proposal. All members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair and should
come to the podium. Please state your name and address for the record. Please speak into the microphone. It will not amplify your voice and record audio for the FCTV viewers. And we also take a minute if anyone has a public comment, not about anything on our agenda, you're
you can come on up and make a comment. Anybody want to? All right. So, we'll move on to our first hearing, which is Mom's Beach Place, 369 Walker. Okay. This is application 1525, Mom's Beach Place LLC. They've applied
to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 240 10.2A and 2401.3A4 of the code of Falmouth, which is the zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling and exceeding lot
coverage by structure or exceeding 20% lot coverage by structure, which is the um limit of the bylaw without a special permit. The property is at 369 Walker Street in Felmouth Village. This property is located in an RC zoning
district. Um the flood zone is noted as AE12. The existing single family dwelling is a four bedroomedroom uh 138 ft. The proposed dwelling is a single family dwelling four bedroomedroom 200 two excuse me
2456 ft. The shed in the rear is to be removed. The lot is 9,976 square ft and a zoning district currently requiring 40,000. Street frontage is 46.2 ft in a district which currently
requires 100 ft. So that's a nonconformity. Uh Walker Street is a public right of way at this point. Lot coverage by structure exists existing is 13.1%. It's going to increase to 24.6%. The limit is 20. So they need
need a special permit to exceed 20 but they cannot exceed 25. Um the uh average in the district is 18.72. Lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 20.5. It'll be increased to 30.2%. The limit is 40.
The nonconformities are um the properties uh um to the east uh the we have a nonconformity excuse. Well to the east which is the streets
34.7 ft. I don't think so. But anyway, what is it? Sideyards 9.1 versus the sideyard set back to the north is 9.1 where 10 is required. Right. Okay. the others are is conforming in other respects. Um the
height of the building, uh it's going to be 34.9 ft, but I don't know what the existing one is. It didn't show on the plan. Um we have referral from engineering. They're concerned about that we address the issue of storm water runoff. There's a driveway permit that's
required. They recommend dry wells or a rain garden for roof runoff and erosion and sediment control. The board of health has advised us that the property is on the sewer system. Conservation Commission has issued a negative request for determination of applicability. The
water department has suggested an upgrade of or requested an upgrade of service to 1 in PE and have the meter moved inside the building. Uh the building department um has requested an elevation and height certificate upon
completion. Um and also suggested that we that the wall between the garage and the multi-purpose room be removed so it cannot be used as a bedroom. Uh we have no count letters in support or in opposition as
noted. Um and also there's a condition um recommended by the building department that the second floor storage space uh not be converted into a bedroom. Wastewater, no concern. Planning board, no concern. assessors. No concern.
Thank you very much. Um, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Kevin Clower. I am an attorney here in town, and I am before you tonight representing Edward Edward Weka, who is the manager of Mom's Beach Place LLC. Uh, he's the owner of
this property at 369 Walker Street. I'm joined I don't think that was me, but I'm joined tonight by Brian Foley from Clancy Construction, who's the designer on this project. Um, the applicant seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling.
So, 369 Walker is located at the southern end of Walker Street. It's only four houses from the end of the road. Uh, the lot's just under 10,000 square ft. It's 9,976. It's in the RC zoning district and it is in the AE12 flood zone.
Presently, it is a three-bedroom, possibly four bedroomedroom uh home depending on how you count it. uh single family dwelling with a total footprint of 138 square feet. Uh the existing dwelling is non-conforming to the sideyard set back to the north again being 9.1 where 10 is required. It's
otherwise conforming to setback and lock coverage requirements. This property has been in the applicant family for 35 years. Uh and the needs of the family has changed over that time. Uh they're looking to make significant upgrades structurally, functionally, and aesthetically. So
given the location in the flood zone being an AE12 the scope of repair repairs necessitate compliance with the flood zone standards uh that would require elevation of the structure. So the bottom of the the first floor of habitable space needs to be at least one
foot above the flood zone requirements. Um in this case that would be elevation 13 which just about 8 ft above existing grade. The proposed dwelling would reduce clutter on the lot. It eliminates an existing shed and patio uh provides garage parking where none currently
exists uh which be part of the primary dwelling and reduces the need for outdoor parking. There are four proposed bedrooms but this is on the sewer district which allows for four bedrooms of brack matter. Um the non-conforming sideyard setback would be eliminated. It
goes from 9.1 to 12.3 ft. The lot coverage by structure does increase but it increases 24.6% which may be allowed by special permit. Block coverage by structured paving and parking also increases to 30.2% which is well below the 40% that is allowed by right within
the district. And then lastly, this will also comply with the FEMA requirements uh once reconstructed. So due to the existing nonconformities, this requires a special permit under both 240.2A and 2401.3A4. Under 240.2A, 2A pre-existing
non-conforming structures would be changed by special permit provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists. You're asked to consider the standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities, impairs views and vistas and reasonably conforms to the
neighborhood. Here there's no new nonconformity uh and the only existing non-conformity is eliminated. A lot of these requirements overlap with those of 2401.384. So I'm going to kind of jump there. Um under that section in the RC zoning district lot coverage by
structure may exceed 20% by special permit. And then considering that the board is asked to look at the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood, the effects of shadow impacts and views and distance public ways and the effect of nitrogen on coastal invements. In preparing the law
comparison worksheet, um this house is and will be among the larger in the area. It is a very dense clustered neighborhood, but it's important to note that the homes at the southern end of Walker are generally larger and this is very much in character with that proposal. The design of this house fits in fits in that neighborhood very well.
Uh it was prepared with that with an eye towards the immediately abuting properties. Um the second floor or is pulled back. It extends to the rear and it's by no means an outlier within the area. It's very similar to a project that was approved by this board about two years ago. um directly across the
street. Uh there should be little impact or shadowing on views and vistas from public way. The it is an improvement over the existing conditions and the existing setbacks are improved. There's no effect of nitrogen on it because this again is on sewer. So this project represents a significant improvement
over the existing conditions. Again the only existing non-conformity is limited conforms with all setback requirements. The lock coverage by structure may be allowed by special permit which is in line with the surrounding properties. and the lock coverage by structure paving and parking again is below uh what is allowed by right and this will
comply with flood plan requirements. So there's no new dimensional non-conformities, no adverse effects and certainly none that I believe would over um overbalance the benefits that I've outlined. There's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more detrimental than what is there today. So I believe this meets all the
requirements of 240 12 uh 10.2A uh 241.34 and 240 12.1E. For those reasons, I would ask that you grant the special permit, but I would be happy to address any of your questions or uh defer them to Brian as need be.
Mark, you want to start off down there? Uh yeah. Um this kind of brings me back to our uh um discussions on the issues of uh you know, density and bulk and what's the
definition of a neighborhood. And uh I think I made my uh known that I believe that there are many parts of this town where it's I mean maybe I I use the term lost or whatever but uh this is a
perfect demonstration of that. Um it's not uh substantially different than anything that surrounds it. Um, and uh, it certainly is an improvement and um, I
uh, have no argument with this one. It's all I got. That boat that boats poorly for the for some to follow, but you know, those bridges. The waterfront is is is lost. We'll cross We'll cross those bridges. Yeah. Every
week. Uh Scott, Attorney Cloud, could you pull up the street view where it shows the four homes? Yeah, absolutely. Just so folks can kind of get an idea. I thought this was really um informative and helpful in looking at this. And this is
um this is what's proposed right here. So obviously, and we we'll get into it, but we'll need as builds and height and things because you're kind of tickling the 25 at 24.6. uh more of maybe if you go back to the
floor plan. Uh oh, I should note that the floor plan was revised and uh to address the building commissioner's comment. There was previously a wall here where this was a storage area, but that's been eliminated. Okay. And maybe with the uh
architect I I never seen uh a shared deck as opposed to just a deck. I think it's just to be used by sort of all facets of the house. There's there's only one unit here. So, I'm I'm home with but not sharing it with us. Yeah,
you if you ask nicely maybe. And the only other one again I was just looking at phrasiology. The sto storage area to me is should have been a sitting room. You're up with your elevation. You're looking out into the water. I don't think I'd have that as a storage area.
That is towards the rear of the lot. Yeah. Um but yeah, I mean it's interesting, you know, nomenclature for our friend here. But uh yeah, um no real I guess to Mark's point,
um nice architectural aspects to it. It certainly needed it. Uh and that is what the neighborhood has become. So um I have no questions or qualms. Frank, there goes that word neighborhood.
I would like to just follow up with a point that um Mr. Peterson made that street view uh with the four unit four houses side by side. Uh I really appreciated that and um I think you know if if applicants submit something like
this when they're making a rather dramatic change to the property, it would be very helpful. I found it very helpful. So I just want to comment to you on that for future. No, I I I agree. And you know, I mean, it it I think it's a you know, it's hard to dictate, you
know, when comp some different people use different architects and different architects have different tools available. But I really appreciated Brian putting this together because I thought it was very informative for this project. All right. Other than that, uh I'm I don't have any questions. So, is it going to be the tallest one up
there? I don't believe so. Um I think it's 37 with that thing on the top. No, it's 34. I can. It's to the ridge. Um to the to the top of the deck. It is 349. Uh to the top of the rail. Yeah.
Oh, mine says 37 deck. Uh that's from that is mean that that is um elevation. That's elevation. So you measure we measure from grade. So from four pointt. So the red line is the height. I was just wondering about that house that was
down further because it's it looks way down. How did they get away with that? Yeah, that's always confusing because the architects use uh from from different use elevation use the NGVD whereas we uh our bylaw defines height
as from existing natural grade. So, so we start at 4.7. Um so where that says 37 that is not really 37 from the ground. Yep. I'm outside Jim. Well, the only concern I had was just addressed uh
what the actual height of the deck was going to be. Um otherwise, I would agree it's a neighborhood that's changed. It's very aesthetically pleasing. I like the architecture. It's very nice. Um significant improvement and I as to the height, we can deal with that with the
condition of framing, a height certain framing. Um and I've never punished nor am I'm going to punish anyone who's bringing a house into FEMA flood compliance. So, I have no questions and thank you. Tony, thank you. Um, yes, now that that was established as an elevation, that's
a question off. One of the things that I had trouble understanding, and I usually can read plans relatively well. So, if you go down the right side of the house, which page are we looking at? Uh, look at the site plan first. Let's start with that first. So, look at the right side of the house going down, you see that
first job? The other side. Other side. Oh, this from the street. The other right. And uh anyway, so that is that's the foundation. Mhm. And then you go to the elevation itself on A2.1, page A2.1.
Mhm. And what I couldn't figure out is that back room where has the overhang uh if you look at the left. So now go to A2.1. So that on the left side, you see that overhang there with the stairs.
I can't tell by looking at the foundation plan, looking at this if that overhang is now going into the setback. So that is that is the bumpout because if you look at the floor plan, that might be instructive.
Um that is the bump out there. That is that overhang. But you have to remember that we're above grade. So the the this is the this is the the unfinished space here and then above that on the first floor. That's where that bump out is. All right. So it's not going out beyond
the foundation. I mean it's so so we're measuring not to the foundation on the site plan but to the bumpout. I'm not sure that I understand. So So as I go down the right side of the house, I've got the jog. Yep. And then I've got
12 foot 12t 3 in is to 12.3 rather is to this this bump out to that and so that bump out is within is in that 12t3 that is 123 from the bumpout to the property line from the so all right so
it's from the from the bumpout itself the vertical wall of the bumpout y to the property line is 123 so because the because the bumpout doesn't have um a vertical wall so to speak. You'll see this is the foundation here where this line is. This is the bump out. So
the 123 would be to that point. So it goes beyond the foundation. It does but it's meas but the but the setback here is not to the foundation. It's to the bumpout. That's not foundation. That's not foundation. Foundation is straight. Yeah.
Well, then that answers that question. Um All right. I'm satisfied with that. Going back to the and I I think it's a great design by the way. It's a wonderful design. Um let me just go back to that area called storage area on the second floor.
Um that could easily be made into a bedroom. How will that be handled? So it's not a bedroom. I mean it can be this can certainly be conditioned that it's four bedrooms and you can have an inspection by the assessors u prior to occupancy.
All right. then um because of its height and because we're at 24.6 probably going to need a certified asbuilt for height. Yeah, I think the building department had requested those and we're happy to have those as conditions. Wonderful design. Thank you. Nick, you have anything? You're all set.
All set. Follow up, Madam Chairman. Go for uh through you to the clerk. I'm sorry I didn't hear when you were reading the record. Just want to be clear. Uh no letters in for or against in the file. I didn't see any. Thank you. Um, I do have a question. Uh, I think
there was a note on one of the pages that said I think that the stairs and porches were not included in the lock coverage by structure and I wanted just to double check on that because so I think we we
had submitted a revised plan last week which addressed that that the the stairs and porches were in fact counted. That was a a note from an early draft. The draftsman was corrected that they are included and we made sure those were counted as part of that percentage.
Okay, good. So that's part of the 24.6. Yes. Thank you. Go ahead. Uh just a follow up on Frank's comment and I and I agree that the uh picture of the four houses does give a perspective, but um it can also
be used as a tool. I mean, the houses on either side of it could be the typical beach houses that uh were common to that street in the past. And I mean, we this is something we deal with all the time. And I mean,
everybody's looking for the biggest and the best always. And I mean, I um you know, you do all the bulk calculations and this is just something I'm wrestling with. And I mean, that can be used. That that's all. I I don't disagree that it it it's works well
there, but um just kind of a cautionary note and you know, I'm always looking. I have a friend who's an engineer who told tells me numbers don't lie, people do. Uh that's what I was saying. That's something. Anybody have any other
questions before we go to the public? Anybody from the public want to comment on this? Wow. Mark, I have a motion we close or excuse me. Yeah, I'll second.
Motion to close in the second. Anybody have any last minute questions or comments? Public comment. No, no one. Yes. Just a little behind. Did ask. Everyone's all set out there, right? Okay. Motion to approve with conditions then. Well, let's vote on the close
first. All those in favor? I oppose? None. There you go, Scott. Motion to approve with conditions. Second that. Okay. A motion and a second. Take it away, Frank. Properties at 369 Walker Street in Fmouth Village. It's in the zoning district
RC. Um the application is for a special permit under section 10.2A and 240 11.3A4 of the Falmouth zoning bylaw to raise and reconstruct a non-conforming single family dwelling and exceed lot coverage of 20% um by structure. flood
zone is AE12 requiring compliance with the flood zone uh conditions. Uh the lot is 9,976 square feet in a zoning district currently requiring 40,000 and frontage is 46.2 ft in a zoning district
currently requiring 100 ft. Walker Street is a public way at this point. Now the lot coverage by structure is currently 13.1%. It will increase to 24.6%. Under the zoning bylaw, the limit is 20%, but the applicant is allowed to
request an increase up no more than 25% uh by special permit from this board. The proposal is to increase it to 24.6%. Um the average lot coverage by structure according to a worksheet submitted by the applicant is
18.72%. Um lot coverage by structure parking and paving conforms to the zoning bylaw. It's uh will be 30.2% the limit is 40. Uh the existing structure is non-conforming with the nor the north
sideline setback is 9.1 but according to the applicant will be increased to 12.3. All other setbacks conform to zoning. The height of the building will be 34.9T. Uh in the zoning district the
maximum limit is 35 ft. Just to clarify, you use 34.9. It's 34 and 9/10 or 34T 9 in 9/10. It is. Yes. 34 9/10. 9/10. Okay.
Uh I previously read the referrals from departments into the uh into the record. Um there is uh no letters of opposition or in support on file and there was no public comment uh on this project at the public hearing.
Um, with respect to section 240.2A of the family zoning bylaw, non-conforming structures, they may be sub uh shall not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than existing non-conforming structures. And we make a fi such a finding. the uh the
change in this particular case will eliminate uh the zoning nonconformity with respect to the north sideline uh and it reasonably conforms to the average dimensions in the neighborhood and bulk characteristic with respect to section
241.3A4. This is to increase the lot coverage by uh structure. Um, we make a finding that the size and height of the structure proposed is in relative conforms relatively to the average dimensions in the neighborhood.
There's no evidence of adverse shadow effect on adjacent properties. There's no evidence of impact of views and vistas from public ways. And because the property is on a sewer, uh, there'll be no effect of nitrogen on coastal embainments. Um, as far as the general
general conditions for a special permit under section 2412.1E, we make a finding that the site is adequate for the proposed use, that it is suitable for the proposed use. There's no evidence of impact of uh traffic negative impact on traffic flow
and safety. There's adequate sewage disposal because it's connected to the sewer. There's adequate utilities in this neighborhood and there'll be no effect on the supply of affordable housing. Um, we also note that um the uh houses in the immediate
neighborhood are similarly elevated to conform to the FEMA flood zone requirements and this will allow for a parking garage to have parking indoors and no outdoor parking. I have two additional madam chairman. Go for it. Uh Con issued an NDA in this
matter and there was a referral from building uh concerning a wall on the first floor. testimony from the applicant that the and revised plans indicate that that uh referral was addressed and that the wall has been removed. Thank you. Got it.
Conditions shed removal um and also the height certification as requested by the building commissioner. He wanted elevation and height certific. Elevation and height certification in setbacks. No, he only said elevation. only said
elevation and height that I read. Well, I think they're tight. It's a tight lot. You got to go with 4.6, right? We should and cover. All right. Fine. I'm opposed to it. I mean, they're going to be there. They're going to do the whole thing. Yeah.
Standard hours of work, upgrade the water service per the referral. Uh, all boards, all boards, all department requirements and requests as presented. Consult the police for traffic control as necessary. Uh construction hours limited to 7A to 7P Monday through
Friday, 8 to 4 on Saturdays. No construction on Sundays or town observed holidays absent an emergency. Uh any violation of work hour limitations reported to ZBA may result in the applicant being recalled to meeting of the ZBA with such notices the board deems proper. Uh to outline and explain
the reasons why there's a violation, what will be done to avoid further violation of the condition, construction vehicles to be within the lot and not on the street unless approved by the police department. Uh, dark sky compliant lighting. Uh, four bedroomedroom
fourbedroom remain four bedrooms for sewer rags. Uh, no additional lot coverage. You want the Yeah, that's all I can think of. Yeah, that's all I can think of. Right, Norin? You think of anything else? Oh, I have a question for you, Kevin.
Attorney Clower. Um, I read in the in the file it was AE12, but I thought I heard you say AE13. It is AE12, but in order to be in compliance, you need to be at least operation 13. All right. I just wanted to make sure the record was right. Okay. No. Uh, so we I guess you did reference
engineering. Um, yeah, they did ask for the plan to be updated with dry wells and a construction entrance. So, we'll have to add that in as well. We can do that. And we're good. We do have infiltration chambers and for the
downspouts. Would that be I mean, isn't that effectively the same? Doesn't that effectively have the same uh effect as uh drywalls? Oh, for the Yeah, as long as you're complying with the engineering requirements, the
hearing is closed. That was a kind of procedural thing I should have passed earlier. He walked back. Everybody else set to vote on this? Yes. All those in favor? I oppose? None. All right. Great. Thank you very much. All
right, on deck we have ABC Co Shows. Okay, this is um application [Music] 16-2025 ADC Coast Shore LLC. They've applied to the Falmouth zoning board of appeals for a special permit
pursuant to section 2410.2A and 240 11.3A4 of the code of Falmouth, which is the zoning bylaw to raise the existing detached garage and construct an attached garage with habitable space
above. The subject property is located at 80 Co Shores Boulevard in East Balmouth. Um, with respect to the details of the property, um, it's in an RC zoning district. They've applied for a special permit under section
2410.2A and 2401.3A4 of the zoning bylaw to raise the garage and construct an attached garage with habitable space above. There is um, uh, flood zone is designated X. Um,
the existing single family dwelling is a one-story 3-bedroom, 1996 ft. The proposal is for single family dwelling, one and a half stories, four bedroomedroom, 1967 square ft. The lot size is
8,50 square ft in a zoning district which currently requires 40,000. Street frontage is 115 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 100 ft. C Coast Shores Boulevard is a public right ofway at this
location. The lot coverage by structure is currently non-conforming. It is 24.79% um and it will be decreased very slightly to 24.43% but in either case it exceeds the
limit of 20% of the zoning bylaw. So they will require a special permit uh which we can give them up to 25%. According to the uh calculations submitted by the applicant, the average um lot covered by structure in the
neighborhood is 15.41%. Lot coverage by structure parking and paving is currently 36.2% will be decreased to 35.5%. The limit is 40 so it conforms. The uh nonconformity is the uh frontage which
is 20.7% which I think is going to remain the same. Uh the other dimensions conform to zoning. Uh and there will be no new nonconformities. As far as the height of the building, uh the proposed
structure will be 22.1 ft which conforms to the zoning bylaw limit of 35 ft. We have a referral from engineering department. They've requested that the applicant obtain a driveway permit. Uh that there be that the board consider
storm water runoff and appropriately condition the project. And the there's also an issue with the septic vent in the sideyard which appears to be in the public right of way of I think it's Atwater Avenue. Um and also for
consideration of soil and sediment control. Um uh and also a note that the concrete walkway in front in the front yard appears to be in the public right of way. Um there's also a hedge at the corner
with Atwater which blocks the view of some people driving cars. So make this some we should address that. Uh the board of health says that the septic system is okay for a four-bedroom house provided uh and however if the uh fourth
bedroom septic system is okay for four bedrooms but if there is four bedrooms you may need a dennitation system. Uh conservation has no concern water they're okay and wastewater has no concern. I noted no uh letters in
support or opposition in the file. Thank you. You're at the plate, Attorney Flower. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board. Again, for the record, Kevin Clower. Uh I am representing Dave Fill, who is the owner of ADCO Shores Boulevard. Uh Mr. Fuchillo is here with us this evening.
Uh as well as his architect, Denise Benoli. We are seeking permission to alter the existing non-conforming dwelling uh and by raising the existing detached twocar garage which will be rebuilt as an attached garage with habitable space above. 80 cohes is um
located at the northern end of the coast peninsula as the board is aware. It is a very dense residential neighborhood. This particular lot is 8,50 ft. It is in the RC zoning district and it is not in the flood zone. So, presently there's a three-bedroom single
family dwelling with detached garage. Um, the existing septic system is designed for four bedrooms despite there only being three in the property. Um, the total footprint right now is 1,996 ft which is lock coverage by structure of 24.5%. It is non-conforming to front
yard setback being 20.7 where 25 is required. Um, and to lock coverage by structure being 24.5 or 20 is allowed by right and up to 25 by special permit. that there is no existing special permit for this property. Uh this otherwise conforms to set back and lock coverage
requirements. So as I mentioned, we're specifically requesting to raise the existing two-car garage and rebuild uh with habitable space on the second floor. This is not proposed as an ADU. It is simply additional habitable space. Uh due to the existing non-conformities,
this does require a special permit pursuant to 240 10.2A for alteration to a non-conforming structure. and by 241.384 for lot coverage by structure above 20%. Under 10.2A uh again pre-existing
non-conforming structures may be changed by special permit provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists. You're asked to consider the standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities impairs views and vistas and reasonably conforms to the
neighborhood. Under 11.384 uh lock coverage by structure may exceed 20% by special permit. Uh and the board is asked to consider the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood effects of shadow impacts on views and vistas from public waves and the effect of nitrogen from
coastal. We did provide a lot comparison worksheet. Um there's really no change to the footprint. It's it's coming down slightly by about 30 some odd square feet. Um the only change is the addition of habitable space above the garage. Um so this is will remain among the larger
homes in the area but this is a modest addition and the home is certainly not out of line with those surrounding properties. Though there is an increase in the ridge height from the existing ridge of 15 to 22 ft 10 in um which remains well below the 35 ft line. It
should have little to no impact on views and vistas or shadows. Um and as I mentioned although it does include an additional bedroom the uh septic system is designed for four as noted within the health referral. Um, if it's helpful, I actually have a copy of the title 5 report from uh two years ago as well.
So, this proposal results in lot coverage by structure of 24.4% which again is a minor reduction from the present coverage and is allowable by special permit. And with the issuance of that special permit uh under 240 11.384 actually eliminates that as a non-conformity. The law coverage by
structured paving and parking though currently conforming is also improved uh as low as from 36.2 down to 35.5. Um, as I noted, this is not intended as a separate ADU. It will lack cooking facilities and would welcome a condition prohibiting a stove or other cooking
facility in uh in the new habitable space. So, the threshold question under 240 12.1E is does the proposed use have adverse effects that overbalance the beneficial effects the neighborhood in the town. This lot is more than adequate in size. It doesn't change the nature of
the existing or proposed use. It remains a single family dwelling. it only increases the utilization of that property. There's no impact on traffic flow or safety and it remains in line with the neighborhood character, doesn't affect public services in any way. So with this project, there's no new non-conformities created. Um the
existing non-conforming block coverage by structures limited um and uh reduced from its existing point and it doesn't have any adverse effects that overbalance the benefits. For those reasons, I believe this meets all the requirements of 240 10.24 2 A4,
241.3A, and 242.1E. I would ask that the board grant a special permit, but I'd be happy to address any questions that you might have. Let's shake it up and go to this side first. Let's rock the world. How's crazy?
Yeah, I have no questions right now. Tony, I do. Mhm. And um is the is there an existing septic system that's going to be utilized? Yep. And the existing septic system is four bedrooms. It's designed for four bedrooms though there
are three in the home. So and that is why you made that statement that um you said in your application there'll be no negative effect of nitrogen in coastal abments because there is no additional nitrogen. Well I mean so we're we're
utilizing a septic system that's designed for the appropriate number of bedrooms which is what we typically look for. Um there is an increase in the bedroom count, but I think that it's not as though we're going above what our septic system is designed to accommodate. And I understand that.
So you know that I bring this up just about every time that we're in a coastal bond overlay district because um I don't have definitive answers from uh anyone. And just let me read this because I'm going to need your help on this for your client.
12.1E um paragraph one is review criteria and it says specifically that the special permit granting you know this but I'm going to read out loud the special permit granting agency shall grant a special permit only upon its written determination that the proposed
use will not have adverse effects that overbalance it is beneficial effects on either the neighborhood or the town now I'm not I don't think it has an issue with the neighbor neighborhood because it's a typical design of the neighborhood, but because we have a very
serious nitrogen problem in this town, it has a detrime it may have a detrimental effect on the town. And this is this this bylaw, as we all know, is wide open for interpretation. Um, and I think I need one speaking as
one member. I need your help to help me understand why there is no detrimental effect to the town with regard to nitrogen given that we have a very bad problem and under a mandate by the state and you're not providing any evidence that we are not having a problem because
how do we write this up? Well, I don't think it's incumbent on the applicant to show that there's no nitrogen problem throughout the whole town. Um and we know that there's an issue but um 12.1E H12 128. So
um says adequacy of method of sewage disposal source of water and drainage. That's the consideration relative to to septic and we can establish through uh what the health departments referred and also through the title 5 report that there is an existing four-bedroom
system. So, I would say that the system that's on the site as is is adequate for the sewage disposal that's going to be required. Um, I think that if this was a situation where they were replacing the system that I would 100% agree that it should be a denitrification system, but because they're utilizing an existing
system that's already designed to accommodate the number of veterans that they're proposing, I don't believe that they should be required to put in a new denitrification system and that's not part of the application in general. Um if and when the health department ever requires a denitrification system to go in, that's something they'll have to
deal with. Um but you know, there the health department isn't real clear what the regulations are going to be yet. Um it might be triggered by some sort of substantial improvement. It might be triggered by any number of things, but as of right now, there's no requirement for denification system. They're not putting in a new system. And even if
they're putting in a new system in general, I would say yes, they should do a denrification system. But because the existing system is designed and is more than adequate to address the septic flow that's being proposed, I would defer to the health department which says that they're they they've agreed that it's a fourbedroom system. Um and that that is
adequate for the consideration under 242.1. I'm not sure I completely disagree with you on that. uh as I do struggle with this but you did make a statement there will be no negative effect of nitrogen on coastal abments
and that comes without any basis foundation whatsoever and so how does this so when you take that statement that you've made all right how does this board write it up as this 12.1E paragraph one requires it to write it up
because we're doing it without any basis of fact to know that. Well, um I think you have some basis of fact to say that the system that is there. So you're we're conflating two things. We're conflating 240 11.3A4 which talks about nitrogen on coastal abments and then we're talking about 240 12.1E which
talks about adequacy of sewer disposal. So under the considerations for 240 12.1E, the board can make a finding that the septic system is currently designed for four bedrooms. Uh and that there were proposed four bedrooms and therefore So how do you define that what this says? And I and
Madam Chair, just give me a couple. Go for it. Um so how do I see or how should I look at whether or not there's a detrimental effect to the town? I can see why there's not a detrimental effect to the neighborhood because the house fits in.
All right, the setbacks work. The height works, but the town itself has to suffer from every new bedroom added to the community in one way or another. And you're not proving or giving this board an opportunity to be
able to write this up in a way that it can satisfy 12.1E. See, um I think you can because those are factors the board has asked to consider and they're not it's not as though you have to satisfy each and every one. They're factors for consideration and I think that one you can establish that there is an adequate
sewer septic system to address what's being proposed and and madam chair one more and I will end this. I promise you I will end this please. Um because but when we use the word shall shall grant a spe this the special permit granting
shall grant the special permit only upon its written shall grant the special permit only upon its written determination that the proposed use will not have adverse effect. What do we write? Help us write something. So I think you can find that the the adverse effects do not
overbalance the benefits that I proposed. Um and I think you can find if you continue reading it says the determination shall indicate that the pro us will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw and she'll include consideration of each of the following. It's a consideration. It's not a it's not a must. It's it's
these are factors for you to consider and I think that you can find that again we satisfy the adequacy of method of sewage disposal source of water and drainage. Um, I think that if we start taking the position that any addition of a bedroom is is a detriment, well,
that's going to really hamstring a lot of development throughout town. Um, here we have a system that is we're not even it's not even though we're proposing to put in a new system to accommodate it. We we have the space to accommodate it. they could put it they could create a new bedroom within the existing house
and you know that would that would have been allowed or we could and if there was four bedrooms we could have rejiggered that such that we eliminated a bedroom to add one above the garage my last comment and I'll end when you made a statement in the application that it does not have any detrimental nitrogen
effect your words all right that means in my it says will will be no negative effect of nitrogen on coastal But that means that you have evidence that exists that you can help this board write into its decision and I don't think you have
that evidence. Well, I I'm happy to submit a copy of the title 5 report which does indicate that it's designed for four bedrooms as evidence to the board. Thank you, Jim. Couple. Thank you very much. Attorney Clower, just one followup on a septic question. Is there sufficient
space or reserve area if DITE is ordered after these changes are made? Sure. So there is um I don't think these changes will impact the ability to put in a new system. Now we're utilizing an existing system. So it's not as though it's designed to accommodate a ditrification
system the way we have these new systems that are going in that aren't dite but but are able to slot in. Um however I haven't had this discussion with Mike Borceli who's the engineer, but just looking at the existing versus proposed, I don't think that if there if there is
room, there's room. If there isn't room, what we're doing isn't changing that ability. Thank you. Um, just to clarify, what is the ridge height? I've heard two conflicting. I 22.1 and I heard 22. So, I just want to make sure we have it right. Findings.
Um, on sheet it is shown as 10. I have Yeah, it is shown as 22. Wait, what? Yeah. So, 22 ft 10 in. Yeah. Thank you. well below what's allowed. I just want to
make sure we have an accurate finding. Um, so there were a couple comments from engineering that uh raised I think some concerns. Uh, I presume that your client's not going to have any problem obtaining a condition or not have any objection to obtaining licenses for any
encroachments? No. Okay. Of course not. Um, in terms of the lot calculation and coverage, uh, the engineer, excuse me, uh, building noted that, uh, there were some betterments, namely the concrete walkways that had not been previously noted. We did submit a revised uh, plot
plan, okay, a few weeks ago, which is the one we're looking at right now. And I just want to make sure that your lot calculations based on coverage include those. So, it was, you know, I think the original plan showed this as a gravel walk and it became a by 2 minus concrete walk. Um, this revised plan also shows
the existing septic vent to be relocated. So, it's existing. It's right here. It's being relocated here. You can see that on the plan. Um, so all of the concerns that were raised by the engineering referral have been addressed through the revised plan which was
submitted two or 3 weeks ago. Yep. I think that's it. Your your client's in the right business to to put in the walkway. So, I have no objection. Just want to make sure that for the record that the uh that's part of the calculation. So, thank you. And um the hedges came up in in Mr. Duffy's reading of the referral. Uh I'll just note that the the engineering referral actually
says the hedges appear to cause a sight distance issue. We will require we meaning engineering will require removal trimming to provide adequate sight distance as part of the driveway permit. So we have to get a driveway permit as part of this. So that will be addressed through that process. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm all said,
Frank. Just want to clarify. Um there are existing three bedrooms in the in the principal house. Now, are there going to be four bedrooms in the principal house? Three bedrooms in Well, it the short answer to that is yes, because the garage is part of the
house. Now, the garage being Well, it is part of the house, but it's it's a it's habitable space. It doesn't say it's so it is a bedroom above the garage. It's a bedroom above. So, there'll be one bedroom above the garage and three three in the main portion of the house. Fine. But so the comment then by uh guess
board of health that if the fourth bedroom becomes an ADU there must be a dite system uh installed on the property but you have said that there's no intention of making an ADU or an a this doesn't meet the requirements to be
an ADU. There's no cooking facilities or separate entrance or anything. Well, it's not well there are no cooking facilities. Um the the main reason we didn't do an ADU is because the size of the main portion of the dwelling because it's limited to 50% of the main portion of the house which is only about 1,000 ft. So um because of that we chose not
to do this as an ADU which was discussed with the building department and with the planning department. So they're they're not putting in cooking facilities. So it would will not be an ADU um at this time. So we make that as a finding you've represented it. It will not. Yep. And and again I you know anytime we make a finding like that I
I'd like to leave it open. So that if the regulation should change down the line and they want to go and get a permit to become an ADU. I think that's understood but um present time you're not doing it correct. All right. Thank you Scott. Uh all said uh great questions from the panel here. So
answered all of my open questions. So thank you. My turn. First off uh you just said buminous. It's buminous containing bumin which is tar. Mhm. Um, I put the wrong
emphosis on the wrong salable. Yeah. Um, in your application, uh, you're looking at seeking a special permit under 240 10.2A and 11.3A code of FMA to raise the existing
garage, detached garage. Um, you're asking permission to raise the garage. You already have raised the garage. uh it no longer exists. So perhaps you can explain to me if the garage doesn't
exist. How do you maintain your pre-existing condition? The only non-conformity would be the lot coverage by structure which we were requesting to go to 24. Um the garage itself was not non-conforming to any setback
requirements and will continue not to be non-conforming to any setback requirements. And uh the setback from the road is 20.7. So that's to the front of the steps. Um the garage is 28.5 from the
road. Okay. Um other than that, I like it's it's very unusual. I mean, I went there and the garage was uh gone. Non-existent. Gone. which um and of course to be uh put yourself in that condition is
very unusual and uh that's all I got against advice of council. Huh. Was the garage raise permit? Did you get a permit to raise it? Yeah. That's the the other obvious. Uh did you get a permit? Did you get a demo permit? Yes. And the
garage had to come down. I know. I was shocked when I went there today myself. I had the building permit and then once we got the building permit issued, we got issued a permit for the demolition of the garage and then it came that we had to come from the board for the ZBA, but I had to take down the garage for
insurance reasons. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Go ahead, Tony. I just want to point out that uh this is just a title five official inspection. Does not support the statement that there'll be no negative effect of nitrogen. This is just a title five subject system
inspection and has no uh measurements as to nitrogen load. So you can keep that for the file. Unfortunately, Mr. Clower, I'm a backbencher tonight. Will not be voting, but you can look forward to further. Yeah. Uh page six, I believe, does
indicate the size it's designed for. It's designed, it does not talk about nitrogen flow. That's not part of a typical title five inspection. Why not? I don't have the stamp so don't forget. Anyway, any other further questions up here before we go to the
public? Very good. Anybody from the public want to comment? Mona, name and address, please. Hi. Uh, my name's John Trobridge. Uh so I live at uh 24 Atwater
Drive and I am uh directly adjacent to ADC coast and uh that's anyway that's my permanent residence there at 24 Atwater. So I'm uh also I'm a civil PE
so I I have an understanding of uh zoning regulations and construction drawings. So, I do want to make a comment about the uh proposed living space over the
garage. Now, I know the uh applicant Kevin has said that it is not an ADU and I uh I don't know Kevin uh seems like a nice guy, but I disagree with
him. Uh absolutely disagree. This is an accessory apartment. It's got a bedroom, a full bath, uh an area up there that's a combination dining, uh
kitchen, living room. It has a separate entrance going up to the garage. And the uh existing living space in the main house is not connected to this uh
proposed living space over the garage. So, it's it's not simply just an extension of some uh living space that's there. So, my concern
is that uh that I don't know if the town has reviewed this uh this plan uh so that they uh take it under
consideration as an accessory apartment because I feel it absolutely is an accessory department. Now, I I've heard Kevin say that, oh, there's not going to be a cooking surface provided in and I'm looking at
this saying, well, I can go buy an electric range and install that in that apartment in less time that it takes to hold this meeting. So it's for me it sounds like uh oh there's there's no
coffee maker up there so it's not an ADU. So so I I don't agree with it with that uh at all. I think it absolutely is an ADU and I think that just the town needs to look at it as an ADU and make
sure it's compliant before we build it because after it's after it's built, then it's it's too late. then all all you're going to do is be back here in 6 months for uh another uh you know zoning
appeals when when the unit is going to be used as an ADU because I think it will be used as an ADU. There's no other reason why you would put a bedroom, a bathroom, a living, dining, kitchen area
over a garage and not use it as an ADU. that doesn't make sense. So, I just want to make sure that we're going the right way and the town is looking at this appropriately before it's approved. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. Can you
address that? Cuz it does say kitchen right on the plans. It does. You can have a kitchen. You can't have You can't tell me you're not going to have a kitchen and then put kitchen on your plans. But you can have a kitchen. Um what you can have is cooking. So definition of dwelling is a building
a portion that used exclusively for residential occupancy, living, sleeping, cooking, and eating. The building department and this board's position has long been that if you eliminate cooking facilities as well as conditioning it, um that it doesn't constitute a separate dwelling. The point of an ADU is that
you can rent it separately. They're not looking to rent this separately. This is to be rented as or used as one unit. So, you would do an ADU if you wanted to bifrocate it or be able to rent that portion separately from the main dwelling. That's not what's being done
here. This is we do guest suites and houses all the time. You can have a kitchen, you can have a wet bar, you can have uh cabinets, you can have or refrigerator, you can't have cooking. Um, and that is how we have always conditioned decisions of this nature.
So, in in speaking with Gary, because we did speak with Gary Street about this, he agreed that if it's if we're not putting in cooking, it's not an ADU. That's always been the way we've handled these things. So, what we're proposing is a condition that it not be an ADU, in which case that could not be used
separately from the main portion of the dwelling. It can only be used in conjunction with the main portion of the dwelling. May I ask a question? Feel free. Um, this is I'm going to make the statement. This
is an ADU. Just because it doesn't have a stove or an oven, it doesn't matter. It says kitchen. And I and I understand the explanation. I guess what I would like to know as one member is how do we know
that two years from now the applicant decides that they're going to put a stove in there? So easy. You can do that in a less than a day. Put it in there. I know it's going to be recorded, but we need to condition this that it's not going to be an ADU. Mhm. That special
permit is then recorded. I'm just trying to give comfort here. That special permit is condition is recorded. But the plans, I'm wondering if maybe uh in the plans you take out that corner counter sink and refrigerator and under counter
unit, whatever that is, because it's not labeled, and take off the word kitchen just to make everybody feel comfortable. The thing is, you can have a wet bar and you can have a refrigerator, but that's not what this is. It says kitchen. Sure, I can take off the word kitchen. If it said living
room, dining room, wet bar, cathe, whatever cathedral is ceiling. Yeah, I know. But that might be different. But I think people have concerns. We have an who is concerned by that and I know this one member is concerned about that and I
don't know what the others. So there are enforcement mechanisms by which if someone violates uh a special permit, they can be uh brought you know brought uh enforced through the building department. And I would say that um you know there there is case law that says
you can't use conjectured bad acts against an applicant. You can't assume they're going to do the wrong thing. Uh here we have some am I conjecturing? Well, conjecturing that they're going to put it in the stove in two years. Okay. I just want to understand um so you know you you what you're not supposed to do
is assume someone's going to do the wrong thing. We have someone the applicant here is a business owner in town. He's lived here in town his entire life. Um he's someone that has ha had had to for for many reasons have a good working relationship with the building department. He's not going to jeopardize
that to put in the stove. Um and the the fact of the matter is, you know, we we put conditions on decisions and we have to believe that people will abide by them because they're supposed to. Um this, you know, an ADU is is a defined
term. Um it is not proposed as an ADU. It's not proposed to be used separately apart from the house. It is meant to be used in con conjunction with the main portion of the dwelling. Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. The from my experience, the building department for
years has considered the dwelling to include cooking facilities. They don't use the word kitchen, they use cooking facilities. It's a distinction. I understand it's a but it's the way they've been doing it for years. Now we got ADUs in the ball game and those were never around which you know require one
more extra step in the septic right which uh Mark you have a question. Well no just uh point out it's a matter of semantics. Uh you said that uh it won't be used separately but there is separation.
Well I think that's just the nature of the design. Well, yeah, but I mean it's, you know, when when you're adding a garage to an existing dwelling, um, you know, you're you're not going to tear off the entire outer wall to to to blend it together when you can connect it with a
breezeway. I'll put a door. What's the size of that room? 728 ft. Thanks. So, it's a good size room. three rooms. Okay. Anybody else from the public want
to comment? Anyone else up here have any? Well, motion to close. I guess you guys all set to close. I'll second. Motion to close in a second. Frank, you going to do the
findings? We're going to vote on a motion to close. We'll vote on that. We We shall. I forgot last time. I mean, I remembered last time. I forgot this time. All those in favor of closing. I opposed. None. Now you motion to approve. Conditions. Conditions. Second.
Okay. The property is located at 80 Coast Shores Boulevard uh in East Balmouth. It's in an RC zoning district. They've applied for a special permit under section 240.2A 2A of the Palma zoning bylaw and 241.3A4 of the Palma zoning bylaw to
raise the garage and construct an attached garage with habitable space above. The flood zone is designated as X the existing properties a single family dwelling one story three bedrooms 1996 ft. The proposal is for a single family
dwelling one and a half stories four bedrooms 1967 ft. as represented. The lot is 8,50 square feet in a zoning district currently requiring a minimum of 40,000 square feet. Street frontage is adequate. It's 115 ft where 100 is
required. See Coaches Boulevard as a public right away at this location. The lot currently uh lot coverage by structure currently does not conform to zoning. It is 24.79%. It will be 24.43% 43% upon
completion of the proposed uh construction. Uh the limit is 20. So they need a special permit to exceed 20 with a maximum of 25% allowed. According to the calculations submitted, 15.41% is the neighborhood average. Lot
coverage by structure conforms to the zoning bylaw, which is 40%, it's going to be 35.5% upon completion. the um nonconformity of existing nonconformity is the of the wester the westerly sideline which is
the front yard it's 20.725 is required uh there'll be no new nonconformities uh in this project the height of the building uh the proposed building will be 22 feet 10 in which conforms to the zoning bylaw which has a 35- ft minimum
or maximum requirement um I read into the record the um referrals from engineers. U Mr. Clower has indicated that he has submitted a revised plan which u addresses some of the issues of
the engineering department um namely the storm water runoff and also the issue of the front uh walkway uh the vent um for the septic system which is in the right public right away of Atwater Drive and
the um hedges hedges at the corner of Atwater Drive and Cosores Boulevard, which will be addressed as part of the driveway permitting process at D or at DPW, excuse me. Um the
um there's also representation that the space above the garage, which is a habitable space, will not be an ADU. Uh it can not we uh probably will have a condition about that. Um, it has no cooking facilities or none or planned.
That's the statement that was made by Mr. Clower. Uh, under section 2410.2A, uh, we make the finding that the proposed structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than existing non than the existing non-conforming structure. Um,
the change will not result in any new nonconformities and it reasonably conforms to the average dimensions uh in the neighborhood. Under section 241.3A4, uh we find that the size and height of the struct proposed structure is in
keeping and relative to the average in of the neighborhood. Uh there are no uh shadows reported that will impact adjacent properties. There's no um evidence of an impact of views and vistas from public ways and there's no
evidence of an impact of nitrogen on coastal bayamments. um the special permit um conditions, general conditions under 2402.1E, we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use. The site
is suitable for the proposed use. There's no impact or negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There's adequate flu sewage disposal as evidenced by a statement of the board of health that the septic system is designed for a four-bedroom house. the
ad there's adequate utilities and there's no evidence of a negative effect on the supply of affordable housing. There was no noted letters in opposition, but however, we did have a uh an um speak uh at the hearing. Mr.
Trobridge uh at 24 Atwater Drive spoke in opposition to the project and he was concerned about the use of the space above the garage as an ADU. um findings. Any other findings? Anybody
else? Did you uh get the uh title 5 inspection in as a finding? Yes, I mentioned that it's being used to support u the statement that there'll be no negative effects of nitrogen on coastal embainment. Uh, I just got the the fact that there
is a uh referral from the board of health that the septic is appropriate for a four-bedroom house and the the board of health did say that if the fourth bedroom becomes an ADU, they would need a DNI system, but they represented at the hearing they're not
going to use it as an ADU. We're going to see a few more of these. Yeah. All right. conditions. ADU, no ADU, number one condition. I would also suggest we put in no cooking facilities. Yep. And no rental. No
rental. No rental. Separate from the main house. Separate from the main house. Going to charge your kids rent. They live there. I got too many kids. I need to start paying per plans. Per
plans. Um all boards work hours. Police applicant shall consult with police for traffic control. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4 on Saturdays. No construction on Sundays or town observed
holidays. Absent an emergency. Any violation of work hour limitations reported to the ZBA may result in the applicant being recalled to a meeting of the ZBA with such notice as the board deems proper to outline and explain the reasons why there is a violation. Uh
construction vehicles and materials should be located within the lot, not in the street. Dark sky compliant lighting. Four bedrooms, right? Four bedrooms increasing from three bedrooms to four bedrooms. Right.
um driveway permit is going to encompass the hedges. Does the driveway permit affect this the septic vent? So I was going to propose madam chairman that u all encroachments into public the town uh ways are either
removed or the applicant must obtain licenses from the board of selectmen. Okay, that's that's perfect. Yep. Um that includes the driveway apron and all that, right? Okay. Y All right. Anybody have any other conditions? Uh,
Atwater's private I believe in that area. So that that apron would not require They're both public record in here. That's where didn't engineering say it was public. Atwater the cross street clarify my condition. All encroachments into public ways shall
either be licensed by the board of selectmen or removed. It's not public. It doesn't apply. Any other both streets are public. That's what I thought it said in here. Yeah, Norin, anything else?
I think you got it right there. Okay. No sheds or do we have to add any other structures on the property or anything like that? I think Yeah, I think we're good for our plans. Did you say that one right off the bat? All right, so ready to
vote. I'm having a tough time actually. All those in favor? I opposed. All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time on this hearing tonight. All right. Okay. On
deck, we have 28 Boston Street. DY, this is the application 18 of the year 2025. Um, James R and Kathy M. Douly. Uh, they've applied to the Obama zoning board of appeals for a special permit
pursuant to section 10 240 10.2A 2A of the code of Fmouth, which is the zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling. The property is located at 28 Boston Street, East Balmouth, Massachusetts. All right. We have
property which is located in an RC zoning district. Um there's an existing single family 3-bedroom dwelling that measures out at,69 ft. The proposal is for a single family dwelling, four bedrooms
at,252 square ft. Um the flood zone is AE12. So there will have to be some accommodation of that. There's no previous decisions of the board of appeals on record. The lot is 4,800 ft in a zoning district which requires
40,000. The frontage is 60 ft in a zoning district which requires 100 ft. Uh Boston Street is a public right ofway at this location. The lot coverage by structure is currently
26.4% which exceeds the uh limit of 20%. The lot coverage by structure will be 26.1% which is a tad shorter or tad less. But again, the limit is 20% with a special permit up to 25%. But since it's
it's an existing condition and they're reducing the size, it's probably have a special permit, but we'll decide that. Um lot coverage by structures 30 structure parking and paving, excuse me, is 32%. It will
increase to 39.9. The limit is 40. Um the setbacks, there are two non-conforming setbacks. The east is 7 is 7 feet and the um south which is the street is 10.7 ft. Uh that will remain
non-conforming. The uh east sideline will remain non-conforming. The other the other setbacks are conforming. Uh there's no note on this that I could find in the file on the present height of the building but the proposed
building will be 33 feet 8 in. We have referrals from the engineering department. They require a driveway permit sto that we consider storm water runoff, dry wells for roof runoff and erosion and sediment control. The board of health notes that this property is on
the public sewer. The conservation commission has issued a negative request for determination of applicability. So they're satisfied. The water department requires an upgrade of the service to 1 in PE and the meter be in the house. Wastewater
has no concern. building has no concern. Fire is no concern. And we have two letters in support in the file. Before you start, Kevin, um we have a Go ahead. In the interest of time, Madam Chair, um Kevin, this is almost like
they staked out a different house. Um there are just numerous things. Well, let's start at the front. The uh stake on the front that says the steps is 1 ft 6 in. You got three steps here which is the minimum 21 in. It does not include
the 4 foot. There's no stake for the 4 foot for the covered landing. The front left corner of the house is marked corner of the house. The stake in the back is 13 ft away from the
existing 24T7 house which instead of 32 as indicated on this plan brings you up to 37. You're uh and if you multiply 13 by the 38, you got what? Uh 134 520us 26, you got about
496 square ft extra plus the uh 60 on the front. I mean there's no way that you can be reducing the coverage of this. You say that you uh are reducing the e setback from 7 to 8 when the stake
is clearly in line with the side of the house. Um this is just completely wrong. I can address the last one because the eight is to the utility area 11th to the house uh on the on the eastern setback. Um but there's no there's no change between
the stake and the existing house. So, so how can the unless you stretch the land out on the side? So, I had emailed um the engineer. I I send out reminders when I get the notices. Um I had spoken with Tim Santos from Merrill. Uh he confirmed that the
site was staked. Um but I will have to I have pictures, but I mean the the the back corners of the house, the two stakes are 13 ft beyond the existing house. The front stake indicates is right on the corner of the house. It indicates that that's the front of the
house. Like I said, this the stakes for the steps are I measured them. They're one point they're they're they're 18 in. They're 1.5. There's just no way that the stakes that you have there are this house. Absolutely not. So I don't I mean
to continue was just a waste of our time. So I don't do the staking. Um but I I had reached out to the engineer. um I'll have to reach out to him again. Um he's obviously not here this evening um to have him go out and verify the
staking. So uh I can't do much beyond that. No, I understand. But I mean there's just some mistake that was made. I you know you're not you're not trying to sneak another uh you know 520 square ft and say you're reducing it by whatever it is 12. I mean it's just a
mistake. I I don't understand how it happened, but I'll I'll I'll have to speak with Tim. I just, you know, I can't I can't speak to how it was done or or um why you might be wrong. Um but if there's an error, I will make sure that it is rectified. Um understanding we're
at an impass for this evening. Um what would the continued hearing possible continued hearing date be? Claraara, if you're going to redo a staking, I I found it uh not very useful that your the plan submitter was only the proposed house. You don't have any existing
condition plan. It does show the existing house on on plan. It's very okay. Not not a very useful plan, frankly. Okay. I have one other issue that I believe Mr. Duffy started to get into when he was reading the opening the file. Uh and I don't know how the board
feels. I would ask both the applicant and I'll ask the board through you, Madam Chairman, if they want to ask the affinity of town council. We have a pre-existing non-conforming structure that's over the permissible lot coverage. What's proposed is not modification. It's a raise and then
rebuild and it would then be and I'm looking at is this considered a new structure that can we give a special permit that it's going to be at 26%. I realize there's a reduction. The plans and what's proposed are are significant improvement look very nice. I just want to make sure that we have some legal authority to do that. Uh so I don't know
if the board has an appetite just to ask town council to weigh in if this is permissible. I would concur with that. Um a raise and rebuild. Yes. We're going to continue it anyway. So I mean historically we have historically done a lot of them. Yeah. Just to make sure we have some solid footing if the case law
holds that on commercial structures they need to come into compliance, but residential structures don't. If there is a section six finding that what's proposed is not substantially more detrimental. That being said, of course you should verify that. If you want to throw in some case law between now and the continuence, that would be appreciated. Nothing would make me
happy. Okay. Tony, do you have anything? Lexus Nexus Flower. Thank you. Nick, you good? Norin, do we have a date? June 5. June. Jeez,
may go. Uh June, Madam Chairman, through you u Norine, are you clear what the the question we are asking we're asking the town council to weigh in on is? Yes. Okay. Thank you. June 5th is fine for me. I'll be here. Anybody want to motion? Thank you. Motion continue to
June 5th. Second. We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? So, we're not going to the public because we're just continuing. All those in favor? I none. All right. Thank you, guys. All right.
Last but not least, I don't I don't What happened? Two minute recess. An obvious It wasn't intended. I can guarantee that. [Applause] This is application number 19 of the
year 2025. Lars Bergrren. Um he's applied to the family zoning board of appeals for a special permit and or variance pursuant to sections 240 10.2A 2A and section 24012.3A of the code of Almouth, which
is the zoning bylaw, to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling and to allow the existing dwelling to remain in place until the proposed dwelling has been completed. The property is located at 33 Martin Road in East Falmouth, also known as
Walk Quite out there. So, the properties at 33 Martin Road and Wait. Uh the zoning district is AGA. The special permit requirement request is under section 2410.2A of the
zoning bylaw. And the um um variance request is under section 12.3A of the found zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling and allow the existing dwelling to remain until the
proposed single family dwelling has been completed. The property is located in a historic district. It's also in the Walk White Bay coastal pond overlay district. The flood zone is designated AE10 or part of the property is designated
AE10. Again, it's within the walk white bay ACE which stands for area of critical environmental concern. The this there's coastal bank on the property and there's wetlands in the property and related buffer areas for the those respective zones. Um the lot which is a
new lot by combining under the approval not required require approval not required procedure of the planning board 39,123 ft in the zoning district which now requires 45,000 square ft. The
street frontage is 227.4t which is adequate because the zoning district requires 150 ft in this particular zoning district. Martin Road is a public right ofway at this location. The lot coverage by structure existing is 7%. It will be increased to
10.8%. The limit is 20. So that conforms. Lock coverage by structure parking and paving is 7.4%. It will increase to 12.4%. The limit is 40. So that also um conforms to zoning. The setback the the the non-conforming
dimension is the northerly line which is the street line at W at um Martin Road. It's currently 8.4%. The proposed building will be 21.9. Did I say percent? I mean feet. Um 21.9
ft. I have no in indication in the file about the height of either the existing building or the proposed building. So we'll have to get that from the applicant during the public hearing. Engineering has um sent a referral. They want us to consider storm water runoff
and they note there's a build might be a building numbering issue which has to be addressed by them. The board of health has also advised us that this property or at least part of it is in a nitrogen sensitive area. They're okay with the four bedroomedroom septic system that
exists uh and there's it has an IIA it has excuse me has a reserve area for future use for an IIA system. Conservation Commission has jurisdiction over part of the property and they issued an order of condition for the project. On September of 2024, the water
department has receded that the water service be upgraded to 1 in PE. Um the planning board um approved or excuse me endorsed an approval not required plan to combine two lots to create the existing
lot and the um demolition of the existing property has been approved by the historic commission. Um, the building commissioner also requires that the ANR plan, which is the subject of the property at the present
time, be recorded in the Barnesville County Registry of Deeds. Looking at the file, I noted no letters in opposition or letters in support of this particular project. And as for findings, we can uh address them because there are some unique characteristics to this property,
including topography. Okay, Madam Chair, Mark, again, in the interest of time, uh I uh visited this property earlier this week and when I pulled into the driveway, the uh applicant approached me and uh asked me who I was. I told him I
was with the zoning board and he said, "Well, I'll be seeing you uh tomorrow night." And he I go, "Technically, we're not supposed to talk or speak." Um, and he goes, "Well, I just wanted to tell you why I moved some of the stakes." And I asked him if he read the
application. He said yes. And that was the extent of our conversation. Um, I got out of the car and did my usual, started at the front. There was no stake on the right hand side of the property as indicated on this plan. Uh, I don't know when the
property was staked, but the stakes are very old. It says here that the concrete corner bound was found. I went and found the concrete corner bound. It was 3 ft in front of a stake that existed and it was leaning at an angle which you see sometimes especially in older
properties. So I put my foot on it and it just rolled away. Uh the concrete bound had been removed and moved somewhere else. There was no indication of the broken piece of concrete underneath it. Um, I went into the backyard and
uh walked around the front. I didn't even bother to go into the backyard. When I got back to my car, I saw the applicant leaning one of the stakes up against the picnic table that I wasn't aware. Uh, so just as in the last case, the I mean the the staking requirements
aren't met. I mean um it's an absolute necessity for me. I'm you know I mean I it's a necessity for everybody. on the application. So, to continue was uh and and like I said, that concrete uh bound being moved. Um you know, there's there
there's you know, maybe it broke somehow or whatever, but you're not supposed to touch or move historic bounds. No. Um those two stakes were in the driveway. That's the only reason they were rem um there's no corner lot. The the the corner bound, as I said, is uh the
concrete bound is not uh attached to the ground. I mean, where it broke off of, I I didn't I wasn't going to search because there were already four. Yeah. Right there. Um, and that's why I asked you if you read the application. I know. One of them is actually on the
neighbor's property. Oh, it's still the fence is actually on my property towards town. The chain link fence. Yeah, that chain link fence. That's the guy used to be in charge of the highway department. He's since retired. my property goes actually
onto his property. That's where one of those is. The other one I can't speak to those things. Yeah. And then the I'm I I'm sorry. I didn't realize the importance of there's there's 30 stakes all over my property that a lot of those are conservation which we don't concern ourselves with. Oh, okay. Well, I mow
around them and I leave them there and I haven't touched them. The two that were in the driveway are the only ones to remove because it it's been some time obviously and it's just not sufficiently st for our and I mean it's on the application. Oh, I thought the house is what matters. They both matter. It's all
on the application. I mean, you indicated that you read it, but apparently I saw one leaning against the picnic table myself when I went. You mean we can't proceed because of those two stakes. Is that what you're saying? Yeah.
Yes. It sat right there. All lot corners. It's the first row with the application. Well, the engineers should have done that. I thought they did their due diligence. You admit to me that you moved some stakes. I came back and uh that's cuz
they were in the driveway over. When I came back, you were leaning one against the picnic table. Um the one in front of the grill I actually back my car out of and make a point of not hitting it. It's like it's been totally in my way and I leave it there and I don't even touch
it. Well, we need them done correctly before we can proceed. Okay. I was unaware of that. I'm hoping after 17 years to move forward. That's how long this has been in the
works. To be honest with you, some of those stakes look like they've been there 17 years. But um you know, I mean, it starts right out there. All locked corners. You didn't even comply with the first line. And I mean, we treat everyone equally. You saw that by the last uh applicant. You were here. And I
mean if you watch us I mean we're it's important. Yeah. So let's make a motion to June 5th again. Is June 5th open? Yeah. Motion to continue. I I guess one other go ahead from the chair. The applicant's also
asking to stay in the residence while construction again. Should the town council review that? I have no issue with that but I just No, that's a good point. make sure that it's fair. We don't want him to come and then something else to happen and and delay.
So, well, I would have figured that would be the most important issue for you guys because based on a conversation I had with Gary's predecessor, he wasn't all that nice to me about it. This is about six or seven years ago. He said, "Oh, we're not going to give you a permit to do that." I go,
"Why not?" He goes, "Well, we had someone else do that." And my words, not his. They gave the town the middle finger and they said, "We're just going to live there anyway." and they put up a breezeway. It's like I'm not going to do that. Gary called me one day to shorten his day and his schedule. I said, "Gary,
this is exactly what I said. We could walk around that house in 5 minutes and I can convince you I don't want to live there." So, you know, no one's going to be sneaky at the last minute and put up a breezeway and try to live in both. It's like that house is so old and so crappy. It's so poorly insulated. My
snow melts off the roof. There's barely a foundation on the northwest side by the road. It's an old junky house. I don't want to remodel it and live in it. I'm building a new house. I'm going to go broke and lose my mind building a new house so I can get rid of this old ugly
house. There's no lighting and no getting you're getting beyond I mean you haven't even made it to step one. And I mean you are asking us for something that's out of the ordinary and and I'm not adverse to it and I don't think anybody is here but you have to abide by the same rules that everyone else does.
I think Scott's motion to I want to be clear madam chair. Yeah I just want to be clear Scott's asking but because it would require uh him he's asking live in the house that is a variance uh and that what we're asking the town
council to weigh in on. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's a great idea. Yeah, I think it absolutely is. Yeah. Well, we have a we have a motion for June 5th, second, right? I'll second and a request for an opine. Okay, everybody. Hopefully, we can do everything at once
and you can Can you tell me what I need to stake? It's in the application. There's two driveway stakes that were missing. I didn't realize what corner lots missing. Your corner bound is uh the the concrete bound has been moved.
Um, you're you're going to have to uh get a steak there or replace the bound. Um, you know, I mean, I stepped on it and moved it some more. I mean, it's like you said, you got a good engineer. Just get them back. They know what
they're required to do. They'll make you don't have to let them gohead. And I just want to make sure that what I'm gonna Can I spray paint a spot on the driveway where the Exactly what I was going to suggest that if that's acceptable to the board that spray paint we're staking if it's obstructing the
driveway. No, that I mean I could spray paint but moving them around. Uh yeah, of course that didn't happen. Can I put an orange spray paint spot where those two white stakes go for in the driveway? The engineer has to do it. The surveyor has to do it. They usually put a pin. They'll put a pin in there to your point
painted orange. Yeah. Make it with an orange with an orange plastic strip. He knows what we want. Yeah. There you go. All right. We have a motion in a second. Everybody's all set to vote. All those in to continue to June 5th.
I thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Norin, are we doing any minutes? Let's let's do February just so we can pretend it's not winter. Let's get February behind us.
Winter. I I believe I have sent you February 27, March 13, and March 27th. All right. I'll make a motion to accept February 27 25, March 13, 25, and March
27 25. Second. We got a motion, a second. All those in favor? I oppose? None. All right. Two, request for insubstantial change. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of
the board. for the record attorney Kevin Ericson on behalf of Felmouth Hospitality LLC here before you tonight seeking a determination of insubstantial change. Um the architectural change in question pertains to a small portion of
the east elevation of building one. Briefly, there was an extension of the fourth floor roof line of that area by 5 and a half ft. There was also a window added to the building in that location. um that particular unit in the corner
there increased by about 20 square feet. Um as the board's aware, 760 CMR56 details the type of changes that would be considered in substantial. Examples of those in the regulations include increases in height of the building of less than 10%, increase in total unit
count of less than 10%, increase in total bedroom count of less than 10%, reduction in size of the lot by less than 10%. So in this in this instance um you know and we certainly believe that this qualifies as an insubstantial
modification. Um we do understand that the normal course of business here is that this should have been presented to the board prior to implementation uh through inadvertence and mistake the development team that process wasn't followed. So we do apologize for that.
Just to uh clear this up, building one is the building that was built second. I'm not sure of the chronology of it. I apologize. This is the one that got the cease and desist on the corner. That's correct. And that this pertains to that
modification correct. I thought I saw them taking it down. The incorrect they added like a window and they added square footage. They added a window. Taken it down. I don't think they removed it. I think they were told they cannot work in that portion of the fourth floor because the
cease and desist was issued. And then I know Republic Building Contractors filed um the current insubstantial change modification. Um I drew the straw to come here tonight um and present it to this board. Um but it is that unit did
increase by about 20 square feet because of the linear uh 5 1/2t extension and there was a window added. That's the building closer to Duncan. That's correct. Yes. Okay. Building one was built second. Yeah. Can we get a couple
of abroades thrown out there or something? I mean, what do we get extra room? I mean, it's hard for me to believe that architecturally people following plans, but you just had five feet in a window. It's kind of I understand the insubstantial aspects of it, but there to me there should be a
give get. Yeah. Was there anything submitted by like in the way of a written description or a plan showing what you're talking about? I don't Yeah, there was a sub there was a submission with the application that highlighted the um the sheets of the plan that were modified. Um see it this is actually a
result of an abutter complaint, isn't it? Yes. I've not seen the butter complaint. Observation slash complaint. They really did just tell you go to FA question. What if what if this board decided not to do that? I mean, I agree
with Mr. Peterson that both of us have done been involved with these types of projects and pretty pretty hard thing to do when you know how to read plans to do something like this. It makes you wonder what else is there. Yeah. I mean, I don't understand how something happens,
especially with a company like that. I think it's honestly and and it's human error. It's a mistake. It's a lot of humans to make a lot of errors, though. understand that you talk just like one human. I understand it and and that does happen and and humans do make mistakes. But I'd like to ask, let
me get an answer to the question. What happens if this board did not approve it? Was it an instantial modification? Um they go back to their real before or after or or if if the board didn't approve it as an insubstantial, there's other appeal options available to the
applicant. It doesn't have to necessarily be removed. We obviously don't want to go that course, especially in this case. the the change is truly so minor. I would have always advised my client to if it had been observed and and brought to anyone's attention ahead of time,
yeah, let's file for the insubstantial modification. If that's done beforehand, I understand that can be even be handled uh administratively without a a body even coming to this board. Um that'd be my preference 100% of the time. So, I do
apologize that I'm here tonight taking up your time and my time. Um but truly it it it was a mistake. So for and we asked for some dispensation, right? Well, so for the board's edification, if you So tonight you have to determine if
this change is insubstantial or not. You you cannot just decide you don't like it or it's a change. You have to decide insubstantial or not. I passed out to everybody just a cheat page from 760.
CMR56, which describes to you basics about what the court is determining to be a substantial or insubstantial change, but a screw up should be but but here's the problem is that the court is very specific and they don't reference
errors in plans or not. What they say is you have to evaluate what's before you and determine if it's substantial or insubstantial. And only if you determine that it's substantial, and that has to comply with what the court refers to as substantial,
then you would hold a hearing within 30 days, and it would be advertised and people would be invited to come in. But I would suggest to you that separate from people feeling dismayed that this was an after-the-act request, if you
look at what they carve out for substantial versus insubstantial talking about it's a state regulation and the state is zoomed out. So what's important to you is not what's important to the state and not
specifically supporting the applicant but supporting the applicant. They do fall within what the court determines as an insubstantial change. That being said, it's the board's determination. So you're saying it's an ins I'm sorry,
Madam Chair. Are you you're saying that this is an insubstantial change 01% that that finding is left to the board. Um I would suggest to you based on the parameters that the state provides you
that you would have a very difficult time determining otherwise. I make a motion that we determine this to be an insubstantial change. Yeah, I'll second. So, as prior to your vote, once you determine it's an insubstantial change,
it's automatically approved. There's no further steps. But, but and what if he goes and finds it? Because I saw it being taken down. He doesn't even know. What if he goes back and it's back to the real plan? I don't I don't think it was taken down. You probably saw them
preparing to construct this. Well, I saw them um taking big boards down next to that window that's not supposed to be there. Why don't you just go out 12 ft? Yeah. I I just don't It's unbelievable. There's no The applicant won't even come up with the solution for the butter or
or the town. So, why don't you just build it 12 ft over next time? It's the only reason we're here. They got caught. It's the flaw of the statute. Yeah. And the regulations. You can't 12 or five. I know. I know. It's it's hard to stomach that we have all of these engineers with
GPS in my pocket and I can't get it right and then they come to the board and say it's insubstantial with no dispensation for the town. Nothing. Yeah. Or your voters. Well, anyways, I'll vote against I think the board could certainly I did, you know, comment
to the applicant that they anticipate that these future errors will not occur or that if there's a change, they will come back and ask prior to All right. Frank has a motion that it's an insubstantial change. Seconded by Mark. It's seconded. All those in favor
of the insubstantial the move the motion say I. I opposed. No. Well, it's three to two. So, yeah. Doesn't matter. But thank you for your time. Who voted no? Madam Chairman, the administrator had a
question for the purpose of the minutes. I was just asking who voted no. These two Mark and Scott. Did you get second and all that, too? Okay. All right, moving on. Wow. Yeah, that's crazy. It is crazy. Uh, zoning administrative
updates. Um, given the I want to praise you for doing the YMCA. Thank you. I know that must have been a ton of work and I appreciate it. You're welcome. So, I'll just whip through a couple of
these. um 836 Palmer A, which is the campground. Actually, you voted, but I wrote it up for you. Uh they're just going to submit a yearly occupancy staffing. Uh 326 East Falmouth Highway,
which is everybody's favorite ice cream destination. They are adding an 8 by8 freezer on a pad at the west to accommodate more ice cream for everybody. Yep. You scream. We all
scream. It's critical. 33 sandpiper. They are removing or they Yeah, they're removing an um exterior set of stairs and replacing with a bulkhead. Uh one 220.
Who is he? Nathan. Uh Nathan S. Ellis Highway. We have issued them administrative approval for their annual Barnstable Fair, which you all need to attend. and 269 Grand AB. They have added a 12x
8.5 ft shed for food distribution. I like that you're doing Bonsville County Fair. Yeah, I think you know it certainly relieves the board of some No, that's good. I kind of enjoyed it last year. You
would um board discussion. We got Saturday board updates. and future agenda items. Future is one. Go ahead. Question on that. Norin, is it still too late to add something for discussion on Saturday? No, we can if we
get minutes out or is it uh two days or three days? Two days. Yeah. 48 hours. 48 hours. But it's posting. So, because today is Thursday, you would be officially out of luck other than we have miscellaneous. We do
have miscellaneous. If we can't get it in legally on Saturday, I would just like to ask through you, Madam Chair, we're noticing an increase of applicants that are LLC's. And I would just like to discuss at some point in the board's appetite to require them to file uh for
the purposes of the board to make sure we don't have conflicts uh who the members of the LLC are. That is a point. Good point. Certainly. I think that's a mechanical item that can be I think we can handle that in our next meeting as a under miscellaneous under miscellaneous.
I agree. I would I would approve of that. All right, Mark. It's up to you. Motion to adjourn and get out of here. Second. Everybody seconded on that one. Where's the next meeting? Oh, the next meeting
is on May 15th at 6 p.m. Oh, we have a workshop on Saturday. Saturday. Next public hearing is um May 15th at 6. All those in favor of adjourning I
I thank you.