[Music]
[Music] Give me a minute. You're talking. Don't need that. Welcome to the zoning board of appeals. Please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV. If there's any private party recording this hearing,
please step up to the podium and request permission. I'll introduce the board and staff. On my far right is Mark Finan, who's always on time now. And to his left is Scott Peterson, and to my right is Frank Duffy, the clerk. My name is Suzanne Murphy. I'm chair. To my left is
Tony Patui, a voting member. and our staff is Ashley Dlo. 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 every application. All decision decisions are made through the
public hearing process. Our goal is to hear testimony from the applicants and the public and to allow a full and fair discussion of the project. prior to closing the hearing process and reaching a decision. Number one, to begin chairing, the clerk will read the public announcement for the hearing and read pertinent information from the file.
Two, the applicant or the applicant's representative will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation. Time may be extended by vote of the board, though. Three, the board will then question the applicant. Four, the public will then be invited to comment. Comment should be limited to two minutes and strictly
related to the proposal. All members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair and should come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Speak into the mic. It will not amplify your voice, but it will record audio for FCTV viewers.
And then we have a a public comment time right now. If anyone would like to speak, but nothing that's on our agenda and we don't comment on it. Anybody for public comment? All right, let's get started then. Okay, we have no continuations. Our
first hearing is uh 051251 Worcester Court. Okay, application 051. Are we going for one second? Before we um Madam Chair, I'm a director Butter to this property. So, I'm going
to step down. But before doing so, I'd like to take a page out of Kevin's book or paraphrase him and say that these are perhaps the nicest neighbors in all of Faloo. That's a good point. Thank you.
Try to comb my hair right to cover it. Okay, Frank. Sorry to interrupt you. No, fine. It's appropriate. Um, this is application 051 of the year 2025. Caroline McCarthy has submitted an application to the Falmouth zoning board
of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 2410.2A of the zoning bylaw to raise the existing non-conforming detach non-conforming dwelling detached garages and dwelling and rebuild a new single family dwelling on the property properties located at one Worcester
Court in Felman. So, uh, the zoning district is RC. Um, the flood zone is AE13. The existing property has a footprint of 1658 square ft. It's four bedroomedroom. The proposed property will or structure will
have a footprint of,528 square ft and it will also be a fourbedroom. We have no previous zoning board of appeals decision on file that at least that I found. The lot is third 3,788 square feet in a zoning district which
currently requires 40,000 square feet. So, it's a non-conforming lot. Frontage is 50 feet 50.57 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 100 ft of frontage. So, it's a non-conforming frontage. It's a public uh right away. Worcester court is public
right there. Existing lot coverage by structure 43.6%. It will be reduced to 40 40.3%. The limit is 20, but they're already over it. Um, lot coverage by structure, parking, and paving currently 53.6% be
reduced to 49.8. The limit is 40, but they're already over that. So, there's nonconformities there. Uh, the setbacks on the east is 3.1 ft. On the west is uh 12.7 ft. Now, that is the street frontage, so that's non-conforming. Um,
as is the others. Uh, north 3.4, south 12.7. Um now on the files that were presented I could not find a height of the existing structure. So maybe they'll tell us during the public uh during the comments but uh the proposed structure
will have a height of 34.5 ft. The the limit is 35 ft. We have referrals from various town departments. Engineering has noted that we should pay attention to storm water runoff. There should be three parking spaces for on the property and they've
asked that we uh condition the project for erosion and sediment control during construction. The board of health has noted that the properties on the sewer conservation commission has advised us that they have approved the project via an a negative request for determination
of applicability. The water department re suggest actually requires that the water service be upgraded to 1 in PE and the meter be in the house. The U building commissioner has confirmed wants uh confirmation of the dimensions
and lot coverage. Um planning board no comment. Fire department has submitted no comment. Um I found one letter in support in the file, none in opposition. Thank you. Uh good evening. For the record, my name is Jack H. Hearnden. I'm
an attorney with Sen Associates and Brewster. Um here this evening on behalf of the owners of One Worcester Court, Caroline and John McCarthy right over here. Uh regarding the request for a special permit for a raise and rebuild. Um now, as you mentioned, the subject property one Court is improved with a
four-bedroom single family dwelling and detached garage. Uh they were built sometime around the 1930s. The property is in the residential C zoning district. uh is non-conforming as to lot area and frontage and the existing dwelling is non-conforming as to coverage by
structure and setbacks. The proposed plan this evening is to raise the existing dwelling um and detach garage and rebuild within a similar footprint. The provision of the zoning bylaw that applies uh to this application is uh section 240- uh 102A, which states that
this board may issue a special permit for a change, extension, or alteration to a pre-existing non-conforming structure upon a finding that the proposed structure is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Um now just jumping into the uh not
substantially more detrimental criteria. Uh it states that in determining whether the reconstruction is considered substantially more detrimental uh you shall consider three main things. Uh whether the extension or alteration extends or creates a new dimensional
nonconformity, whether it impairs views or vistas, and whether it reasonably conforms to the average dimensions of the neighborhood. First, uh there are no new dimensional non-conformities. Um as Mr. Duffy mentioned, there are existing non-conformities here, but we are not
making any of them more non-conforming. Uh the lot coverage is decreasing from 43.6 to 40.3 while improving the uh setbacks um from the sideyard facing uh
the uh Mr. um Fineran's property. Uh it's going from 3.1 all the way to 10.6. So there was an exi there is an existing garage that is right up against uh the property line. Um because we're getting rid of the garage, we're now adding a
substantial amount of space in between those two properties. Um front yard is going from 12.7 to 12.8, rear yard from 3.4 to 3.7. Um and as as was mentioned, no additional bedrooms are being proposed. Um so there there isn't really
an impact on the the sewer here. Um while ridge height does increase I just want to note the existing ridge height is 24 feet. Um it is being raised to 34t 5 in. Um we are 7 in below uh the conforming um maximum requirement um for
the area. Um the main reason for adding uh about 10 feet here is because uh the building code in Massachusetts has changed and because uh Felmouth Heights is in a flood zone um the area needs to be raised up. So that's really the only
reason for adding um adding the height um it's to comply with uh the new building code. Um next, the proposed raise and rebuild does does not impair views or vistas. Um, even with the increase in ridge
height, uh, the increase is in keeping with the neighborhood. Um, this is the heights. This is, uh, you know, tall houses on small lots. Uh, it's it's going up in 10 ft, but it's not blocking anyone's roof deck or deck, um, you know, along along Worcester Court
specifically. That would be blocking their view of of uh, the beach or the green space across uh, Worcester Court. um it's not obstructing any abuts in any way on on the sides by proposing any any you know part of the house that's that's
sticking out. Uh so therefore nothing that we're proposing will substantially block the views or vistas. Now finally the proposed raise and rebuild reasonably conforms with the average dimensions found in the neighborhood. Uh if you see on the coverage worksheet that was submitted uh the proposed
dwelling conforms with the average coverage in the neighborhood. We took data from neighboring homes on on Montgomery Court, Grand Aav, and Worcester Court and found that they um they are all either similar or larger than uh one Worcester Court. Um with the
exception being uh let's see, four Worcester Court and 95 Grand A, but these are lots with substantially um more square footage. The average lot size in that area is is around, you know, just under 4,000 square ft. those
two lots are well over 7,000 square feet. So, uh because all the houses are kind of similar, the coverage is going to be a little bit smaller on on those lots. So, for those reasons, we ask this board to approve the proposed raise and
rebuild um under section 240-102A and find that uh it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing than the existing nonconformities. Um, with that I'll I'll turn it over to you for questions. Thank you, Scott. You're on you're you're at you're
on you're on base actually. Well, thank you. Thank you for the information. Uh, more confirmatory because looking at the application uh page 8 and nine and then again on 18. So could you just confirm one more time what is the existing structures
percentile and the existing structures parking and paving just we had some different numbers there. Um so I submitted a new existing conditions plan uh which which should say 43.6 uh for uh the building coverage. I don't
have um the plan in front of me um but it should Can you can you read 50 50? Yeah, that's correct. Okay, great. Uh, again, confirmatory the um ridge height I'm looking at 34T 5 in.
Correct. That is the proposed the existing according to uh statement from our architect is 24 ft for existing. So, we probably want to have an as built on the height. Um, no. Very, very nice uh
step up from what you have right now. It's a tough lot in a tough neighborhood over there. Um, got to have a safe place for that Cadillac I that we walked by. We all look at that. But, uh, no, very, very nice. And thank
you for your input. Thank you. I love the Cadillac, too. That's nice. I I bicycle by there regularly, and I always look at it. Um I think in my opening uh when I read the uh relevant facts I said that the proposed height
would be 34.5 ft. It's really 34T 5 in. Is that there's a little difference there? Okay. But I want to we did get this revised existing condition plan and it's got some information on it that was not on the plan that I saw. But anyways, I want
to confirm the set setback to Worcester Court is shown on this new plan as 4.2. Is that the correct number? Um, is that the existing or the the existing 4.2? Uh, yes.
Okay. Now, so that's the west dimension. So, what is going to be the proposed setback? I believe it's 4.7. So, it's an improvement a little bit. Yes. It's a tight lot. Um,
all right. Uh, the other uh dimensions I don't have any difficulty with and I think I don't have any further questions. Thank you. Thank you. We just got that plan that shows the parking on it and that was the only question I had. So, I'm all set. Okay, Tony.
Um, most of the questions have been asked and answered. I appreciate that. I just want to clear up something on the proposed site plan. based on something from engineering. It says, "Please revise the plans and demonstrate that uh the three 9 by8
uh foot parking spaces would be located entirely within the lot, including dimension labels. Is this plan dated revised 9325? Does it it shows 38.2 by 18 gravel parking? Am I
I don't think that's correct. I think it should be 9 by 9 by So you'll just comply with with the engineers. Okay. My only questions. It fits in very nicely. Any further questions? I have none. Would anybody anybody from the public
like to comment on this? All right. Uh what do you think, Scott? Motion to close. A second. We have a motion to close in a second. Do you have anything further? No. You all set? Everybody's all set up here. Good.
All those in favor of closing say I. I. Opposed? None. Motion to approve with conditions. Second. We have a motion in a second. Let's go. Frank. Okay. I've read most of the relevant information, but I'll go over some of it
again. We have a lot that's 3,088 square feet in a zoning district that requires 40,000 square ft. So that's a nonconformity. The frontage is approximately 1/2 of the required current frontage. It's 50.75 ft. Um and
in zoning district it requires 100 ft. Um Worcester Court is a public right of way at this particular location. Reviewing again lot coverage by structure will be 40.3% which is a decrease. Uh the limit is 20 but it's already been exceeded so that doesn't
really apply. the lot coverage by structure parking and paving um will be 49.8% and that's a decrease from the existing the limit is 40 that's already been exceeded so we're over it anyways the average uh lot coverage by structure in
the neighborhood as revealed on the worksheet submitted by the applicant is 40.68% 68% um which is very similar to what the 40.3% uh that's in the proposed structure. Uh
the setbacks um the setback of the street um worster is 4.2 ft. The proposal is to increase the setback to 4.7 feet lessening that nonconformity. The other non-conforming uh dimensions will also
be improved. Uh the existing height is 24 feet. The proposal is for a height of 34T 5 in. Um I have read the referrals from the various departments. Um I note that there's one letter in support and
one person voiced favor of the project at the hearing. Um under section 240 10.2A, 2A were authorized to grant a special permit provided that the um new structure will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood. We note that there will be no new nonconformities created by this project. In fact, the existing non-conformities will be improved. Uh there's no negative impact on existing views and vistas and the uh prop project conforms to the
average lot coverage in the neighborhood which is 40.68%. 68% and it is the proposal is for 40.3%. As far as for a special permit under section 240 12.1E we find that the site is adequate the property is adequate for the proposed
use. It is suitable for the proposed use. There's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh there'll be no negative impact on neighborhood visual visual character views and vistas. There's adequate sewage disposal as evidenced by the fact that it is serviced by the Falmouth town sewer.
There are adequate utilities and there will be no negative impact on the supply of affordable housing. And now we do conditions. Um the certification the as built on the ridge. Yeah. As built on the on the height
per plans per plans um per all boards. Yes. Department reference referrals. All referrals. Right. Applicant said no bedrooms will be added. No. 44.
Um I don't know if they need a police detail. I don't know. Hopefully. Well, it's not. Yeah, they might cuz it's right up on the street. It's very difficult site for uh construction. Yeah. You'll probably have to contact the police. Okay. To um you know
do the construction. Just turn the construction. All construction materials and vehicles be kept on site. Um, no further instructions or in the neighboring
driveway. Norine, anything else that you can think of? Uh, so I just had a note about the den and the office maintaining that case open. Oh, okay. Good point. Did you hear? No, I did not.
You want to repeat just um for the den in the office to maintain the cased opening so that it doesn't show as a bedroom for the the plan will be uh corrected per
the request of the town engineer. Mhm. On the on the on the parking spaces. Yes. And he did the he did the coverage change. Yes. Yeah. I think that's it, right? Yeah. Anything else you can think of? Anybody?
Okay, you guys ready to vote? Yes. All those in favor? I oppose. None. All right. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you, guys. All right. Next at bat, we have 637 North Felmouth Highway. This is application 05. Madam Chair,
um, far as this one is, did there were no stakes there? I couldn't even find the lot. I assumed it's the pullover in the um off of 28A or North North Elmouth Highway, but I I
But this is a byright uh construction. Doesn't need stakes. We're only approving a third bay. Oh, yeah. That would be correct. Yeah, it's just attached to the house. So, it's it's in the house. So you owe me for gas, right? You too.
All right. So this is application number 053 of the year 2025. Um Nicholas W. Peters trustee has applied to the Falma zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 246.6B 6B of the Falma zoning
bylaw to allow a third garage bay at the subject property which is identified as 637 North Felmouth Highway in North Thalmouth. The property is located in an RB zoning district. There's no overlay districts noted. Flood zone not noted.
Uh however, there is a note in the file that the property is in the D nitrogen sensitive area. There are no previous zoning board of appeals decisions applicable to this property on file. The lot is 23,738 square feet in a zoning district which
currently requires a minimum of 40,000 square ft. Street frontage is 252.7 ft in a zoning district which currently requires a minimum of 100 square uh 100 ft. Um North Bmouth Highway at this
location is a state highway, so it's a public rightway. Uh there's no current structure on the property, but the proposal proposed structure is 8.8% of lot coverage by structure. The limit is 20. Um again, lot coverage by parking,
paving, and structur structure. There's nothing to report, but the proposal is for 18.9%, the limit is 40. Um there are no setbacks to report as the lot is vacant. Um the proposed structure uh will be 34T
5 in. Uh nothing there to report. The engineering department has asked us to consider storm water runoff and to apply the erosion and sediment control standards for during construction. Board of health says there are no issues now
um because they have to go when they apply for a building permit. uh but they may face a potential for a dite system depending upon what regulations apply at the time of construction. Conservation Commission has no comment. The water department notes this is a new
service so they'll have to comply with all current regulations. The building department has no comment. There are no letters in opposition, no letters in support. That's it. Take it away. Um, so we're looking to build a new house. Um, the
board of health has approved our septic design. Um, so I do have a approved septic from them. So there there shouldn't be any issues with that. um we applied and got it approved prior to
um the ruling saying that you had to do denitrification, but it does show a spot where a tank could be if we make any changes other than what we're going for now. Can you speak a little louder, please? Yeah. Um we do have an approved septic
plan and I apologize. The engineers were supposed to stake out the house anyways um a few weeks ago, but they I guess they never got there. You don't need it. It's a byite construction. They just had to approve the
third garage bay on site. Yeah. So, in the original plans, it did have a third garage, but we changed it and it should show on the new plans that it's actually living space. It's just going to have a a garage door that's going to be all glass. So, in the office
that we have now where it's going to be like a game room and an office, it's going to have a door that you can open up all the way out to a like a patio where the driveway and stuff is. Cool. So, it's not going to be used, I guess,
as a garage, but it's going to be used as um an office and just like a a a theater game room. I had my money on a boat to be honest. Very tall garage door.
Yeah. What's the height of the garage door? Um I will probably put a 12t door. Um I just to get a 12T opening glass door. It costs 20 times the amount of a glass garage door. So that's why we're going
to go with a garage door. Only 20? Yeah, things aren't so bad. Mark, do you have any questions down there? No, it's cool. I mean, technically it is a garage even though they're not using it as a garage, but it's all good with
me. Nice place. Good for you. Thanks. I know you're here for the garage, which is fine uh in my estimation also, but I I just one point. The plans seem to show three bedrooms,
but the septic design is for five bedrooms. Am I missing something? And again, I'm fine with garage. So, it's just So, that's just I I do excavation. I'm a contractor. So that's it's less expensive to build the system as big as
it's allowed than it is to go back and do it later. So if we ever plan to do an addition or something like that, we would, you know, we would already have the capacity. We wouldn't have to dig up the whole yard again and redo the system or add to it. So I guess you're prepared to do that IIA
system pretty soon, too, right? Uh I will if I have to. They're expensive. Yep. No, it's just again that's uh board of health might be developing that regulation fairly soon. So that's fine. Set up for as accessory structure.
Yeah, you got Yeah, I'm okay. Frank, I'm all set. I'm all set too, Tony. I just just a quick question. um beyond the garage uh door because we
don't have plans that indicate the size and the setback and all that. The building commission is going to review the plans before he gives out a building permit. And so you're aware because we can't see anything on the plans how much more you're going to be encroaching on the sideline setback where you're now
set at 28 ft if I'm correct. You you realize that that's going to be an may well I don't think it'll be an issue if it's only a 12 foot or addition to the garage. You mean if we do an addition in the future? Oh, no. If you put a garage door on right now, you're you've got a 28T
setback. All I'm bringing it up is that you you're a contractor. You know that you're going to have to manage the sideline set back. So Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then the last question I have, and again this is going to come up with the building commissioner. Um, are you aware if this lot existed prior to uh or
on it before 4193? So that it's uh like you mean it's non-conforming? Yeah. Yeah. So this lot existed prior to 4193. Yes. And you can be able to prove that to the
building commissioner? Yes. Yeah. We and I before we purchased it, we um that that was already like determined and figured out and I believe that's how we got the septic approved prior to it.
Thank you very much. Any followup up here? No. Anybody from the public want to comment on this project? Shy group. I'm sorry. Do we get your name for the record? Uh Nicholas Peters. Oh, thank you.
We're up. Motion to close. Second. We have a motion to close in a second. Anything else you want to give us for information? Everybody's all set? Y. All those in favor of closing? I oppose. None.
Motion to approve the conditions. I'll second. We have a motion to approve and conditions. Frank. Okay. We have an application before us under section 246.6B 6B of the final zoning bylaw to add a third garage bay.
We're not approving the house that it's going to be in, but just the third garage bay. It's an RB zoning district. Um the lot is 23,738 ft in a zoning district currently requiring a minimum of 40,000 square ft.
The frontage is 252.7 feet in a zoning district currently requiring 100 ft. Um, North Belmouth Highway at this location is a state highway. Um, the lot coverage by structure of the proposed structure will be 8.8%. The zoning limit is 20. So,
it's conform. Lock coverage by structure parking and paving of the proposed structure. Uh, and parking and paving will be 18.9%. The limit is 40. So, it conforms. The setbacks uh will all conform to zoning as determined by the building commissioner at the time. We do
not actually have a have that detail, but we do know that the height of the structure is proposed to be 34T 5 in. So, it's very close to the 35 ft of the zoning bylaw. Um, we have no letters in support, no letters in opposition.
Nobody testified at the public hearing. Um, Mr. um Peters informed us at the hearing that he has an approval for the septic system. Um he also informed us that although there will be a third garage bay and a garage door, the
present uh intention is not to use it as a garage, but to use it as a portion of the living space of the house. It'll be a 12-oot garage door. Under section 246.6B of the FMA zoning bylaw, a special
permit is needed for any structure on a lot less than 30,000 square ft. This particular lot is 23,738 square feet. So, the special permit is necessary and we make the finding that the proposed u third bay garage will not
be more detrimental to the neighborhood. Um just won't be any special detriment to the neighborhood. As far as a special permit under section 240 12.1E, we make the finding that the lot is adequate for the proposed use. It is suitable for the proposed use. There's no demonstrated
impact or negative impact on traffic flow and safety. No demonstrated impact or negative impact on neighborhood visual visual character, views or vistas. Uh the sewage disposal will be handled by permit from the board of health. There's adequate utilities and there's no demonstrated uh negative
impact on affordable housing. Thank you. All right. conditions per plans all boards um construction hours 7 to 7 Monday through Friday 8 through 4 and Saturday no
holidays um no construction on Sundays uh construction vehicles materials will will be located on the lot not in the street dark sky compliant lighting um
police I Oh yeah, police. You may need police if you for street work. Find you need to. Yeah. The other thing I did read in the file, it says he must go through Mass Dot. Did you read that? Well, that's because it's a state highway for the for the for the driveway.
Does that have to be a condition, do you think? He's not going to get his permit unless he goes there. So, okay. So, we don't we can just leave it out. Anybody have any other conditions? No. Um, I had the height listed as 28T 6
in and I think maybe somebody said 34. Yes, what I got. Was it Was I wrong? I'll double check. I think it is 28. I don't think it's it's not 34. All right. Well, then if it's wrong,
I don't 35. So, just I would try and make a 34, but sometimes these plans are the way we get them. They're very tiny and it's just strain your eyes to read them. Maybe we check on that. I I think I thought I read 28, too. So, I can't see.
But it doesn't matter. It's the house. So, it's But I didn't know if we need a a We can't give them certification for the building commissioner is going to give him a permit for the house, so we don't really care. Any other conditions? Everybody's all set.
All those in favor? I oppose? None. You're all set. Awesome. Thank you. All right. Next at bat is 27 Dartmouth A. Hello. How we doing tonight? Good.
Okay. This is um application 055 of the year 2025. John and Barbara Okonnell have applied to the thus owning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 2410.2A of the thus owning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing
non-conforming single family dwelling located at 27 Dartmouth Avenue in Falmouth, Massachusetts. The property is in an RC zoning district. No noted overlay districts, but it the lot is bisected by the line
separating the AE13 and the AE14 zoning district, excuse me, flood flood zone. Uh there's no previous zoning board of appeals decision on file for the property. The lot is very small. It's 2,156 square feet in a zoning district
currently requiring 40,000 square feet. Street frontage is 48.15 ft in the zoning district currently requiring 100 ft. The existing single family dwelling has a footprint of 878 ft and it's three bedrooms. The proposed dwelling will be
a single family dwelling having a footprint of 866 square ft and it will be four bedrooms. The lot coverage by structure the existing is 4 40.72% will be decreased slightly to 40.16%.
The limit is 20 so they're already over it. That's a non-conformity. The average lot coverage by structure in the immediate neighborhood per the worksheet submitted is 41.27%. Lot coverage by structure parking and paving currently 55.75%
will be decreased to 55.19%. the limit is 40% and so it's already non-conforming. It's over the limit. Um the nonconformities the street uh setback which is the east is 1.4 ft. Um
25 is required and 35 is required actually. Uh the west is 2.9 um or 29 excuse me 29 north 13.8 and south is 2.4. That's another nonconformity.
Um I do not have in the file I couldn't find any reference to the ex to the existing height or the height of the existing structure. So we'll we'll pick that up in the presentation. Um the uh engineering department has
advised us that the property will require a driveway permit. They've advised us to pay attention to storm water runoff and to condition the property on erosion and for compliance with the town's erosion and settlement settlement control u regulations. The
property is on the fa sewer conservation has advised us there is incomplete permitting um for this property. Um the so that'll have to be completed before the project can go forward. Um
the water department requires an upgrade of the water service to 1 HPE and the meter inside a new structure. Um planning board has advised us the demolition delay bylaw applies and that the applicant will have to conform to
it. Uh the building department asks that we have confirmation or make a condition for confirmation of the first floor elevation. As far as letters and support in the file, there are five letters in support. None in opposition noted.
You're right at back. Ah, good evening everyone. Um, so good intro there. So, I'm here in representation of uh John and Barbara Okonnell. Um, excuse what was your name? Sorry. Uh, Brian Bourke. I apologize. So, uh, John's been vacationing here for
more than 60 years. His family's actually owned that property since 1965. So, uh, he's spent a a good part of his life down here. Um, as we know, uh, we're applying to the board for a special permit pursuant to
section 240 102A to raise the existing cottage and rebuild a new dwelling on the undersized lot. As it was said, the subject properties 2,156 ft. I'm glad we had another family with Heights in here before. That was kind of nice. But, um, it's it is on town. So,
it's located in what you guys must be seeing now like the Limweather coastal Azone, which is a new zone. um for the flood plane. So that's why the conservation had to clear up how to file it and they decided it would be an RDA. So that's good. Um the cottage was built
about 1915 and obviously the pre-existing nonconformities are setbacks and lot coverage. Um, as you can see in the bulk calc worksheet, which if I can figure out how to [Applause]
There we go. Um, so 18 17 of the 18 lots, 94% are over the 20% lot coverage. I was hardressed to find a lot that wasn't over lot coverage. Um, there's one in that neighborhood that's 60% lot coverage. Um, the average is 41.27 27
and the O'Connell's proposed home would be less than that at 40.16. Back to the park plan if that's up there. So on the on the plan, the current coverage is is um 878 ft of structure. So it's 40.72%.
The new dwelling will be 866. So that's 40.16 lot coverage. Although minimal, it is a reduction of 12 square ft.56% and based off the size of the lot that was really tough to get, you know, any kind of decrease there. So, we're happy
with that. The biggest improvements uh will be the the yard setback requirements and I think that's going to have a really substantial impact on the property and the neighborhood. Minor improvement on the right side 2.5 from 2.4. The left side will remain
conforming going from 138 to 101. The rear improves significantly from 2.9 to 10.6. So we take a non-conformity and make it conforming. And um the most notable is the front going from 1.4 ft set back to 7.8.
So as we all know the area with the narrow streets and busy summers um moving the house back from the road was was an important goal to obtain and design. Um, we believe the proposed home would be very much in line with the neighboring community. Um, doesn't block
any views or vistas. There was, uh, a lot of support in the neighborhood. Most people in that area have already raised and rebuilt or added on to their homes. So, it fits in very well. Do not feel that it would be in any way more detrimental to the area. Uh, rather a
really good improvement if you look at everything else there. I'm sure you guys went to the site. Um, and again, we've had a lot of support from the neighborhood. So, uh, as John and Barbara prepare for retirement and full-time residents in Felmouth, they're excited to turn that quaint cottage into
their year- round home. So, giving them the opportunity to appreciate all that Felmouth has to offer, relax, enjoy retirement. So, John, Barbara, the family, um, hope the board will approve this appeal so they can enjoy the home for many, many more years to come.
Thanks. You want to start off, Mark? Your neck of the woods. Um, yeah. Uh, it's I mean, it's fairly obvious this is maybe 2 or 3 weeks overdue. Um, but uh I don't have anything except Frank the uh height of the existing is here 20t.
I was going to say I thought it was on the plan. It's on the first with the pictures. Pictures top left picture. What's 202? What's the proposed height going to be? Uh proposed 32. 2.2
2t and yeah 32 2 in and 1/8 32 feet two and 18. Well, the CAD system puts the dimension in. So that's why you get the eighth. Thanks. All right. Can you pull up the ele? Yeah. Could you
leave the elevations up? That'd be nice. I can so they fit a little bit. So the other thing we're going to do is we're going to incorporate everything to stand to that because again a lot coverage even though it's a neighborhood. So they'll have parking underneath it. The stairs stay underneath the building. So they're not outside of the footprint of
the building. Anything that's going to happen is going to stay within that footprint. So outside of that structure, the home, there'll be nothing but grapple parking. Are you all set? I'm good. Are you going to keep the sign Johnny Patunia? Is that's going to stay
change his name? Can we condition that? Yeah, condition that. Uh, no. Uh uh to Mark's point, uh it's uh it would be a nice change. It's a it's a a tight lot and uh you're doing a nice job on the upgrades. Um as you
mentioned the historical commission, I guess we confirm the first floor height. You need the driveway permit. Um no, everything's good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good luck. What are you going to do about the um delay demo delay bylaw? That's right. Good point. Then we'll
delay B. I'll file with uh conservation. We're not doing this till next fall so that we have a lot of time. You're aware that you have to do something? Yes, I am. Okay, fine. Yep. Yep. Yep. I've done it before. Yep. So, uh then again, we got an incomplete um referral from conservation. So,
you're going to go be Did you have a hearing last night? I did not. No. So, I did not. We have not been involved with conservation yet. Again, there's a little uncertainty with the Limoir and the the Coastal A being new. So currently it's not covered technically in Felmouth wetlands regulations because even though it's an
Azone it gets treated like a V. So they sent us an email saying we're going to do an RDA but they're changing their bylaw. I think they're changing the wetland regulation to make it now an uh NOI but we're going to be under an RBA till they change that. Okay. So that's down the road.
Yep. Okay. Fine. Um and I I got the uh the building height clarified here while we were just talking. So, that was my other question. So, thank you. All right. Thank you, Frank. And you still have to go to historical. Yes. Okay. Yep. Yeah. I talked with uh Melinda and
Good job. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's all I had too, Tony. Yes. U nice u addition to the neighborhood. Uh, I always ask these questions when it comes to roof deck because I'm always concerned with neighborhood uh
uh oversight and I'm going to bring it up today and it appears what is the distance setback from those on the back railing is really what I'm concerned with. Uh, it does overlook
a backyard only, but I'm always concerned about what one might see from that roof deck. So, on the back of the lot, we improved that set back in the neighboring house there is kind of set back off to the left. It's yard, so it's not looking into any house windows, that
kind of concept. Did keep roof line on the sides where it's tighter for that privacy concept. and just at the railings in the front, the street side and the rear side because on the street side it's great and on the rear side it's it's someone's yard behind them so it's not looking
well the street side I don't generally I don't have an issue with that but I do generally have an issue with uh roof decks overlooking someone else's backyard and um I know nobody ever likes me to
say that but I do because we have to consider our neighbors around us. Um, it's a double lot behind him. Well, one of the things that I look at is how much how directly does that roof
deck bear on what is uh behind it. In this particular case, from all appearances, it looks like you're not looking into someone's home. Um, they have a garage evidently to the
right that goes into that house at U 207 grand. Correct. All right. Then I I'm going to I'm going to leave that alone. Um because I think that the setback of that
railing will prohibit much leaning over and looking into the backyard. Thank you. Anybody else up here? No, I got to go to the public. Oh, Christ. Anybody from the public want to comment on this?
You're going to be happy, huh? Motion to close. Not my Not you. I was talking about the nice people that are building this twin. Motion to close. Sorry, the bride knew.
A lovely shout out. We have a motion to close. I'll second. Second. We have a motion to close in a second. Are you all set? Yes, I am. Thank you. Everyone else appears all set. All those in favor of closing? I oppose? None. Motion to approve with conditions.
Second that. We have a motion approve. Okay. We have the property at 27 Dartmouth Avenue in Falmouth Heights. Uh RC zoning district. The flood zone is split on the lot AE13 AE14. There are no previous zoning board of appeals
decision. The lot is 2,156 square ft in a zoning district currently requiring a minimum of 40,000 square ft. Frontage is 48.15 ft in a zoning district currently requiring 100 ft. The existing single family dwelling is 878 ft. It's a
threebedroom. The proposed single family dwelling is 866 ft. It's a four bedroomedroom. Um Dartmouth Avenue is a public rightway at this particular location. The proposed house will have a lot coverage by structure of 40.16%
which is above the 20% limit. It's pre it's presently non-conforming. It will remain non-conforming uh but it will be slightly improved. Um the average lot coverage by structure in the neighborhood is 41.27%
and the proposed structure will be slightly less than that at 40.16%. lot coverage by structure uh proposed structure will be 55.19% the limit is 40 so it's non-conforming will remain non-conforming but it will
be less than than the existing lot coverage by structure um the setbacks are non-conforming the street Dartmouth Avenue is 1.4 ft it will be increased to 7.8 8 ft. Um the other uh dimensions will also be increased so there'll be no new
nonconformities. The height of the proposed building is 32 point 32t 2 in. So it's uh within the 35 ft of permitted by the zoning bylaw. Um I have read the um referrals uh and
during testimony uh Mr. board testified that they will be getting uh dealing with the planning board and the historical commission for the demolition delay bylaw and also with the conservation commission to address the issues in the or address the incomplete
referral we got from them. Uh the building commissioner has also noted um that they want confirmation of the first floor elevations um after construction. Um there were five letters in support. There is no testimony at the public
hearing. Under 240 10.2A, um we're authorized to grant a special permit to raise and rebuild the existing single non-conforming single family dwelling provided it does not increase nonconformities. It does not uh does not
serly impact existing views and vistas. It does not it conly conforms to the average lot coverage by structure in the neighborhood at uh which is 40.27%. 27%. Since this will be 40.16%, it does
reasonably conform. Under section 240 12.1E, the criteria for a special permit. We find that the site is adequate for the proposed use. The site is suitable for the proposed use. There's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There's no negative
impact on neighborhood visual visual character views and vistas. There's adequate sewage disposal as evidenced by the fact that it's on the town sewer. Um, there's adequate utilities and no negative impact on the supply of affordable housing. Did you get the heights?
Yeah. 30. Okay. Yeah. I didn't know if I missed them. Okay. Conditions. Um, historical. We're going to make it subject to concom. Huh? Does it have to be subject to concom? Yeah. Well, I'm just starting off with
my list. He's got bunch of them. Historical has to get a waiver from historical. Um he has to get a elevation for FEMA for from the building department. He has to go to concom
for the demo permit and for concom um planning board planning board does the demo take care of the historical commission and they grant the de they wanted um a waiver of the demolition delay by law. Oh that's what I I wrote he has to get a waiver right. Okay.
Any other conditions here? No, no further structures. Driveway permit as built. Driveway permit. Let's go through that. Per plans, all the boards, all departments. The police, the applicant will call
police for um traffic control. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 through 4 and Saturdays. No construction on Sunday or town holidays. Um violation of work hours. report to the ZBA. Construction
materials and construction vehicles all within the lot. Dark sky compliant lighting. What is that? We need a funnel and a shoehorn. Did we get uh did we get as No, we did not. It's 32 in the height, right? Well, I just want to clarify
something on Asbel. When we have these small lots, when I suggest to the board, uh as I'm not just talking about the height, but I'm talking about setbacks because we're within 4 to2 inches in some places. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's legit. Yeah. So,
yeah. Yeah. I don't want them to give us an inch and then take it back. I don't want anyone taking an inch ever. They need every inch. I know. Okay. Um, any other conditions, Marine, you can think of? Everybody's all set.
All those in favor? I oppose? None. Good luck. All right. Thank you so much. You guys have a good evening. Congratulations. Thank you. All right. Next at bat is two Lawrence Street. All right. This is application 057 of
the year 2025. William J. Mcdana and Laura Mcweeny have applied to the Falma Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 240 10.2A of these Falma zoning bylaw to construct a second halftory addition to the existing
single family non-conforming single family dwelling located at two Lawrence Street in Marav Vista which is in East Valmouth Massachusetts. The zoning district is RC Uh they're in the little pond, coastal
pond overlay district. They're within a couple of flood zones. They're within AE12 and the VE15 district. There are no previous zoning board of appeals decisions of on file. The lot is 5,119 square ft in a zoning district which
currently requires 40,000 square feet. The frontage is 80 feet in a zoning district which currently requires 100 square feet. Um, Lawrence Street is a private right ofway at this location. The existing structure, it's a single
family dwelling, has a footprint of 1300 uh 1,314 square ft. It's three bedrooms. The proposal is to have the same footprint, 1,314 square ft, but it will be four bedrooms because of the addition of the half
story on the second floor. The lot coverage by structure is currently 25.7%. It will remain the same because the footprint of the building is remaining the same. The limit is 20. So there's a nonconformity there. The average lot coverage by structure in the
neighborhood is 20.1, excuse me, 20.91% according to the worksheet uh submitted with this application. Lock coverage by structure parking and paving existing 39.7% will remain at 30 excuse me 39.7%
will remain at 39.7%. The limit under the zoning bylaw is 40. So they're okay there. The um setbacks are 10 feet to the east. To the west that's a street it's 8.6 ft. Um
oh excuse me. Um to the west it's 8.6. To the north it's 7 and to the south which is street it's 8 18.8. That's the nonconformity. Um there'll be no change. It'll remain the same. Um the height of the existing
building according to the plans is 16 feet. It will be increased to 22 uh feet 3 in. The limit is 35 ft according to the zoning bylaw. We have some referrals from town departments. Nothing but engineering uh has advised us to uh
condition storm water runoff to remain on the property. Board of health has advised us the property served by the phalma sewer. The conservation commission has advised us that they are holding a hearing on September 17th, which was last night, and Mr. Clower will probably tell us what happened. Uh,
the water department requires an upgrade to 1 in PE. Building department, no comment. Planning board, no comment. No letters in opposition, no letters of support. Thank you very much, Mr. Duffy. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Kevin
Clower. I'm an attorney here in town and I'm before you representing uh my clients Laura Mcweeny and Bill Mcdana, the owners of two Lawrence Street. They're here with us this evening and I'm also joined by Greg Serunian of Rescom Architecture. So the applicants are seeking permission to alter the
existing non-conforming dwelling on this property to Lawrence is located just about the central portion of the Maravista Peninsula. It is a dense residential neighborhood, a lot that is about 5,119 square ft. As Mr. Duffy noted, it is in the residential CZ
zoning district. The dwelling itself is within an AE12 flood zone. Um there is a small portion of the lot that's with within a velocity zone, but it does not touch any of the structure. Therefore, the AE12 is what controls. Um presently, there's a three-bedroom single family dwelling with a footprint
of 1,314 ft. As it exists, uh there are a few non-conformities. Uh the front yard setback is 18.8 8 ft where 25 is required. Sideyard set back to the west is 8.6 ft where 10 is required. And the lock coverage by structure is 25.7%
where 20% is allowed by right and up to 25 by special permit. The existing ridge height here is 16 ft. So, the applicants have owned this property for the last 12 years, but they're now looking to make this their full-time residence. And as such, are proposing some changes to make
it uh, you know, more useful, habitable, and and uh, fitting of their needs. So, what they're seeking to do is the addition of a half story on a second floor, which will be entirely within the existing footprint. This allows for reallocation of space within the
structure itself. There's no proposed changes to the footprint. The proposal does not affect the existing non-conforming setbacks nor the lock coverage percentages. The bedroom count will increase from three to four, but that is allowed by right as this was within the Little Pond sewer district. And the proposed ridge
height is 22t 3 in, which is well below the 35 ft that's allowed. Due to the existing non-conformities, this requires a special permit from this board pursuant to 240 10.2A. Under that provision, pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed
by special permit, provided the board finds that they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists. You're asked to consider the standard standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities, impairs views of vistas, and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood.
In this case, there's no new non-conformity created. There's no effect on the views and vistas from the public ways, and it is consistent with the neighborhood, as I'll elaborate shortly. though we are not applying for a special permit under 2401.384 that would allow for lock coverage by
structure above 20%. Uh we're not applying for a special permit under that because we're we're going to remain over the 25% that would be allowed. So it's going to remain non-conforming. I do want to review the requirements of that provision to show why this does uh conform with the neighborhood. So under that provision, you'd be asked to look
at the size and height of the structure relative to the uh structures in the neighborhood, the impact on views and vistas. Um and and in this case there are no views in impacts of views and visitors in the public way because Lawrence Street as is noted is a private
way in the area relative to the size and fit with the neighborhood. We submitted a lot comparison worksheet. Uh looking at 26 properties nearby properties within a 300t radius as proposed. This is within 7 square ft of the average footprint and it is about 150 square ft
larger than the average gross floor area. certainly within uh the character of the neighborhood for gross floor area and square footage. As this board has discussed and noted in a number of cases, Marav Vista is a rapidly changing area. Um
but this is not a radical change from what currently exists. This project as proposed represents an improvement for the owners, adds useful habitable space, and is by no means substantially more detrimental than what exists. There's no new dimensional nonconformity. There's no change to the
existing nonconformity. As it stands, I believe this meets all the requirements of 240.2A and 240 12.1E. For those reasons, I would ask the board grant the special permit, and I'd be happy to address any questions that you might have at this time.
You want to let Tony stop, Mark? Why not break it up? But I don't want to. I think it it is well suited to the area. um because you told us it is on the sewer line. I just couldn't find the
soil line marked on the plan, but this particular plan is just filled with a lot of good things. Um but I believe it's on the sewer line. I just think it's well suited to the area and uh should work well. Great question.
Um I should note uh very quickly we did have conservation last night. The it's been continued because we're just looking at the placement of some of the mitigation plantings. So any decision from this board, should you choose to grant one, would just be subject to the decision of conservation as it would be
in any other circumstance. Kevin, it says that little slab patio thing in the front's going away, right? Yes. And we're just keeping the one set of stairs. Yes. And they're going to be granite. Um, whatever they are is going to be
remaining. Greg, any other Yeah. No, no change to those stairs. Okay. So, those stairs are staying because they both just say stone on them and then they don't look the same at all. So, I think that's all I have. Frank, uh I think my questions have been
answered already. Thank you. I'm fine. Also, uh Attorney Clower, I I guess for my own education where the property line on the west to the reventment, who owns that land? So, that was actually part of the discussion at conservation last night.
There's a Massachusetts general law um and the exact number of it is escaping me but it's referred to generally as the derelict fee statute and what that holds is when property abuts a private way and there's no specific reservation of the fee ownership of the way in the deeds uh
the a butter is presumed to own at least to the center line of that way. So in this case the applicants own at least to the center line. Now the original subdivision plan for this area um showed no parcel on the other side. So, they would actually be presumed to own the entirety of the way subject to the
rights of others to pass that might have rights to pass over it. Uh, but the fee ownership would be in in the applicants. Good move. That's nice. Okay. Thank you. Were you talking though about the yard, not the street? Yeah. Well, I still this this con has still
got the he's there, but it's a nice benefit, I guess. Yeah. It's a nice nice place to sit out and look at the sunset. Yeah. that I I only had two. Uh first off, it's it's by no means are you going overboard
here. Um it's nice. It's tasteful. It it's it's not excessive. And then that was my other comment. I mean, we see numerous uh properties that uh benefit from the road layout, but never like the pond layout, so to speak. Good for you.
And then the third thing, I have a friend who looks exactly like you. As a matter of fact, I thought you were him at first. Eyesight's going. Yeah, I was at the eye doctor today. He told me I'd be fine. I'm blind. A dashingly handsome man is what I think you meant to say. Obviously, you have
the same problem I have. Blind in one eye, can't see out of the other. Contacts are a lifesaver. Tony, I have just one more question. And on the plan when it's notated land under the ocean in this particular case, what what does that or any particular case,
what does that mean? What does that mean? Uh can you just point me to where under the words little pond? Little pond. Where land under the So there is um there are some parcels that were on the side of Little Bay
Street but have since uh succumbed to erosion. Um and uh so when it's it's secretion as opposed to accretion. So they've lost the land over there. Um that was never part of the original subdivision, but there were was a paper road there, wasn't it?
There was a paper road, but the paper road was the extent of the subdivision plan, but there was there was a little there was a little parcel that kind of came down like this way and it's no longer there. Thank you. Good question. Some states have like subquous rights.
They refer to it as Massachusetts doesn't. Massachusetts ownership ends at It's a shame. We should have subacrius rights. It's a fun word to say. We actually do have subacrius rights going back to 1650 when they created that the colonial ordinance of colonial ordinances of fing.
Were those difficult to write, Tony? I um I took some time but I got it done. That was before crayons. Any other questions up here? Not all set. Anybody from the public want to comment? You want a new house, huh?
It looks great. My I feel Mark make a motion to close. Madam Chair, second. We have a motion to close in a second. You're all second. Attorney Clower, you're all second. Motion to approve with conditions. Let's close first. Okay. All those in favor of closing? I I
And none none opposed. Now motion to approve with conditions. Second. We have a motion and a second. Okay. Um, getting the work out. We have an application before us under section uh 2410.2A of the FAMA zoning
bylaw to add second half story to the existing single family uh dwelling. Uh project is in an RC zoning district and it's in the little pond coastal pond overlay district. There are two applicable flood zones AE12 and VE15. No
previous decisions of the board of appeals on record. The lot is 5,119 square feet in the zoning district currently requiring 40,000 square feet. So, it is currently non-conforming. The street frontage is 80 ft in the zoning district currently requiring 100.
So, it is non-conforming. Uh large street is a private uh right of way at this location. The existing structure is 1314 square ft um and it's threebedroom. The proposed structure remains at 1314 square ft will be four
bedrooms. The lot coverage by structure is 25.7%. It will remain the same. The limit is 20%. So this is non-conforming as it exists. The average uh lot coverage by structure in the neighborhood according to the worksheet submitted with this
application is 20.91%. Lot coverage by structure parking and paving uh is 39.7%. uh it will remain at 39.7% the limit is 40 under the zoning bylaw. So it squeaks in under the 40% limit of the zoning
bylaw. The um there are several nonconformities noted with respect to setbacks. The west setback is 8.6 ft. The south setback which is the street is 18.8 8 ft. There'll be no change. They will all
remain the same but there will be no new nonconformities. The existing structure is 16 feet in height. The proposed structure will be 23 feet 3 in. Is that a freejack shirt? Um we had we have one letter in support of this I
think. Yeah. Yeah. One letter in support uh in the file. Um under section 240 10.2A um we make the finding that the proposed changes will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing uh structure. There will be no
new nonconformities. There's no impairment of existing views and vistas. And the proposed structure reasonably conforms to the average dimensions and lot coverage in the neighborhood, which is 2 20.9 uh%. This one will be 25.7%.
The conditions for a special permit generally are found in section 242.1E of the FAMA zoning bylaw. We make the finding that the property is adequate for the proposed use. It is suitable for the proposed use. There's no evidence of negative impact to traffic flow and
safety. There's no evidence of a neighbor of negative impact on neighborhood visual visual character views and vistas. Sewage is handled by the Fmouth Town Sewer. There's adequate utilities and there's no evidence of negative impact on the proposed excuse
me on the supply of affordable housing. Pine up tonight, Frank. All right. Conditions. Um, per plans, all boards, including Concom, um, all departments, any referrals. Uh,
you probably will have to do police for this one. Um, dead end street. Dead end. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. And until the mitigation plantings go in, there's pretty ample space in the front of that lot. No, it I forgot it was dead end. That's true. Uh, construction hours 7 to 7 Monday through Friday, 8 to 4 on
Saturdays. No construction on Sundays or town holidays. Um, construction vehicles must be located within the lot. Dark sky compliant lighting. Nothing else on No further structures. And since it says it's well below the 35
ft at 22 ft 3 in, we don't need a built. No, I don't think we need one. Yeah. Any other conditions? Norin, can you think of any? I think we're in good shape. All those in favor? All right. Enjoy guys. You got through four approvals in 1 hour and 10 minutes.
Something. That is uh lucky. All wonderful projects tonight. That is pretty that is pretty speedy. Mark your rugby guy, Mark. All right, let's not witness.
Oh, he's a lawyer, so it's even worse. Was he in Was he in the public view? All right. Um, are we doing minutes? Yes. Do you want all of those or do you want to peacemail them or what do you want to do? So, we are doing them all. Um, if you
Yes. If you want to vote them separately, that's fine. Um, one comment for the board members regarding August 14th. Uh we did re uh receive some comments about the draft minutes. Uh there was a party that was
less than enthusiastic about the minutes. Um I explained to the party that the minutes do meet the state requirement for minutes. Um and I gave
them the section the requirements that are listed. Um, Ashley does a fabulous job as you all know and goes above and beyond the requirements, the minimum requirements. You have virtually virtually a transcript, not a transcript. The party
had a preference to have a transcript. I explained to them we don't do that. Uh, town council concurred with my assertion. So, I I'm just raising this to you so that I'm completing the circle and informing you that there was a party
that was unhappy. Well, the party should um go read some other minutes and then they'll find out what gold Ashley's minutes are. From other towns, other towns, other I've never read minutes better than Ashley's. No.
Um I haven't been able to find a mistake. I've almost given up. Um is it We never make errors. No. Is it all right with Is everyone comfortable with the 14th her? Can I lump them together? You can. I read them all and I had no comments. Okay.
So, we'll make a motion for July 31st 25, August 14th 25, August 212, and August 28:25. That's a motion. I'll need a second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Everybody's all set with them? Yes. All those in favor? I oppose? None.
Good job. Uh, board discussion. Uh so next for the board I did just want to bring up um the Benjamin Nye staking. Um clearly the parcel is of sufficient substantial
size and the fact that it's largely wooded at the perimeters makes it very difficult to stake and probably not likely that most board members going to wander to those perimeter areas. So, wanted to uh sort of have a conversation
with you. I figured probably scheduling a group sitewalk made sense so that the board could go out there with tick spray representatives. I was just thinking we're going to have to wait, you know, so that you can get, you know, a feel for where they want to put
things. But that being said, I did want to check with the board about we walk the site prior to the hearing or do we have to wait till it opens? Well, as a group, I'll talk about as a group. Prior would be more preferable to me. I'd like I'd like to know what's going on.
That's all. Oh, we do. Yes. Where's our drone? That's the main drone. Yeah. Where's our drone? Ashley, can you fly that drone? Actually, the building department is the proud parent of a drone. That being said, they are. And uh presumptively,
where do they get $99.95? uh you know, roof exams after roofing or something. I'm not sure exactly what their roll out is, but I know that they've all practiced driving the drone and Well, Gary has his pilot's license, so I
think he can do Okay, that's right. He could probably fly and fly the drone at the same time. It's kind of an interesting situation where these rules are not within the public view and they're videoing videoing that without the homeowners permission or do they have to get the homeowners permission to do that? I I'm
just bringing that. I don't know the rules on drone stuff. Some towns do have rules. I know, but I don't know. I'm just curious. We don't have any. The drone just has to put on one of those tags like we have. That's right. So, the staking I thought I was okay with the staking if they did road
layout. That's what I Yeah, that was my answer. How many acres is the thing? So, what I asked for eight total? Yeah, seven or eight projects on. What I asked for was just that over on the Cameron Road side that someone put some orange markers at eye
level just with that buffer zone into the backyards in the buffer. So just to see that because Cameron wrote is the one that's going to be most directly affected in my opinionffected by affected by it. I'm not sure that you heard back that would be something they're willing to do or capable. Yeah. So so I guess there's a couple of
issues there. Um you know when you're asking for a stake at eye level I don't want a steak. I want a flag on a tree. Yeah, the orange the orange marker. Yeah. So, there's an outer perimeter and then they have a no disturb zone
and then they're clearing after that. So, do you want the marker at the clearing or at the actual lot line? Because there's they're not going to be the same, right? Because where you're leaving a certain amount of the property
from the perimeter natural, if the marker goes at that line, someone may have the assumption that they're going to clear to that marker, right? Which is not what's intended. I obviously I don't have and I've not
thoroughly read the hearing docks. All I hear about is estimating the distance between the back of the lots on that Karen roadside and the buffer zone to approximately where those houses are. I was just looking for that when I go out there. I mean, for me, this is a pretty
easy site to look at because you have a lot of reference points with the buildings. Yeah, because you can walk there. Well, yes, I may. I may. Uh, that's all I was looking for. If the rest of the board doesn't want that, that's I'm not I mean, I guess the other thing I would point out to the board is that the
setback from the lot line is 10 ft. Under 40B, you don't have to comply even with the minimum setback requirements. You can set it wherever you want, but I think Habitat in making a best effort to
be a good neighbor left a buffer area and then they're stepping in the house further from there. So, it will be effectively nowhere near the 10 ft allowed from a lot.
Well, we're going to go look at this first. So if any we have any questions we we can it only makes sense to we can follow up or whatever. Yeah. I think is road layout comfortable for everybody. Is that
Yeah. Yeah. I we'll ask them for road layout and then if there's something more particular because when you ask for road layout are you talking about center line or uh edge to edge? Center line. It should be center line I'm guessing. Well, I just want to get
it. I mean, that's what they want. Center line. Let's go center line. Let's go center line. Okay. And it will be 20 ft either side. Yeah. Just We just want to see approximately where it is. 40B. So, it won't be because it's a 40B. I think it's only 22 wide.
Isn't it only 22 wide the road? I don't exactly work. Yeah. I haven't looked at the file. We're in safe harbor. I know. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure it's in here somewhere. Board discussions. We have a fall meeting coming up.
No, we're supposed to have a Saturday. So, uh, we have a board member who is by and large going to be out during October. So, I don't know if you want to wait and look at November. And we have Scott, too. We should
look at the first week of November. It'd be nice to have the whole board. It would be nice to specifically schedule so that everybody can make it. Yeah, let's let want to issue for that the first Saturday in November maybe. Sure. Sure. We'll we can circulate dates and why
don't you do that? That's circulate dates cuz I That's a good idea and we can all have our calendar what I'm going to be doing that day. He'll be back. Frank and Nick will be back. The world travelers Nick may Okay, board updates. I think we're all
set, right? Yes. Future agenda items that we just did it. The meeting will she'll she'll put us out some dates. We all mail back that. I think that's a good idea that we wait. I I forgot about next. That's true. Makes logical sense. Yes.
As is a motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor by Oh, next meeting is September 25th at 6 p.m. What are we doing? Yeah. Which which project is first?
809 Sandwich Road. Okay. 809 Sandwich Road. Yep. Okay. All right. So, all those in favor of returning I So, that's another [Music]