Heat. Heat. I'll second. >> We have a motion in a second and a roll call. We'll start off down then. >> Finan I. Peterson I. >> Murphy I. >> Mors I. Patruchi I. Good. Thank you, sir.
Is being taped by FCTV. Uh, any private party recording this hearing, step to the podium to request permission. I'll introduce the board and staff. On my far right is Mark Finner and a voting member. Then we have Scott Peterson, a voting member. I'm Suzanne Murphy, the
chair. Tonight we have double James Moss as the vice chair and the clerk. Double duty. >> And to his left is Tony Patucci, an associate. And then we have Nick Haney and also an associate. Norin Stockman, 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 applications. All decisions are made through the public hearing process. Our goal is to hear testimony from the applicants and
the public and to allow a full and fair discussion of the project prior to closing the hearing process and reaching a decision. Number one, to begin chairing, the clerk will read the public announcement for the hearing and 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 the by the vote of the board, though. Three, the board will then question the applicant. Four, then the public will be invited to comment. Comment should be limited to two minutes and be strictly related to the proposal.
All members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair and should come to the podium. State your name and address for the record and speak into the mic and it will not amplify your voice and record for record audio for the FCTV viewers. And before we take the first hearing, if
anyone wants to make a public comment of anything, anything you want to say that's not on our agenda, you're welcome to come up. >> Anybody? >> So, we'll start off. Y >> um I'd like to motion that seeing how Attorney Morris is doing double duty
that he should get paid double. >> Yes, I agree with that. >> Two times zero is >> two times zero. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. >> It's important. >> It's important. and his taxes will reflect that. >> Yes. >> All right. Our first hearing tonight is
00326 Doyle 43 Ocean View Avenue, North Phelmouth. It's a continuation and it's already been opened. >> Madam Chairman, continuation of hearing 0326 Doyle, 43 Ocean uh Ocean View Avenue, North Falmouth. Request pursuant to 240-10.2A
of the code of Falmouth to remove the existing deck and construct additions to the existing single family dwelling. uh continuation from the last time there was some concern or questions about uh the bedroom count. Um we've had since then on April 23rd, 2026, we've had a
ruling from the conservation commission uh determination of applicability which is now in the file and I think that's all the updates I have at this point. there was no opposition and have we have numerous letters in support of the project in the file >> and just to fill in
>> some letters from uh wastewater and also one that stated she's been paying taxes on four bedrooms. Yeah, I was going to say I did rep receive a reply from the wastewater sewer and she confirmed that the house at 43 Ocean
View app did have four bedrooms at the time that they connected to the sewer and that she determined that the applicant would still be entitled to have the four bedrooms total. And then the other issue that was
outstanding was um engineering and the applicant has met with engineering. One of the things they requested was that there was some pavement out in front that's in the town's road layout that should be grass instead. So the
applicant has requested permission from us um if approved to allow the grass to be replaced at the end of the project. So I think you know we could certainly condition that.
>> Do you want to say anything? >> Come on up. >> I think you did a great job. >> Oh, thank you. I I I first I have to say I've been through so many agencies in the town and >> you have to introduce yourself so everybody knows.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Joe, 43 Ocean View Avenue, uh North Valmouth. um from the board of health to the building department, the conservation department, public works, wastewater and engineering and I have to say every
single person that I met has just been wonderful, wonderful, um helpful, knowledgeable, patient. Uh this is a a whole new process for me. So I I really
am very grateful for that. Um, I did engineering. The reason that we waited was because my land is small. The driveway is only 10 ft wide. And with the with a dumpster and the builder's
trucks, they'd be driving over the brand new grass and lom. Um, so they allowed they requested, could we do it as soon as the is over? >> That makes sense. >> That is it. But um thank you to the board. You've been wonderful to me even
though I had to come back. Um but Noren has particularly been so valuable to me guiding me through this process. It's >> think how much you've learned. >> So wonderful. So many people say trying to get a building permit in in
>> in Fall is a nightmare and I found it a total pleasure. Um >> now you can help all your kids too if they need help. >> Yeah. Right. >> I think it's great. >> That's it. >> I think it's great. >> Anybody have any questions?
>> No. I don't want to rob her of any of her pleasure. >> Anybody down here have any questions? Anybody from the public want to comment on this application? >> All set. >> I motion we close. Madam Chair,
>> you seconding. >> I'm going to second. >> There you go. We have a motion to second. Any further questions? You all set to close? >> I'm all set. >> Once you close, you can't. It's game over. I'm just explaining the last part of this for you. >> No, I'm
>> You're all set. >> I'm all set. >> All right. We have a motion to close. All those in favor? I oppose? None. Unanimous. >> Motion to approve with conditions. >> Second that. >> We have a motion in a second. >> Okay. You're going to have to bear with me. I'm not going to be like Frank. I
did not have this scripted out like he is. Uh he does. >> You'll earn your money. >> 43 Ocean View Avenue uh is a lot of >> I'm glad to help you. >> Thank you. Anytime. >> 5,399
square ft. >> Applicant seeks to get back to >> fill in some please. >> Be glad to help you. Uh special permit under 10.2A. >> Uh Based on the performance standards,
the board needs to find that the site is adequate in size of uh items for its proposed use and we do so find it is suitable. The site is suitable for the pros use and the board does so find there will be no impact on traffic flow and safety and the board does so find there will be no impact in the neighborhood visual character including
views and vistas. Uh there's adequacy methods of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. Uh there was some initial concern about number of bedrooms which has been cleared up by the wastewater superintendent. testimony from her in correspondence is that four bedrooms uh is in existence and that the applicant is entitled to four bedrooms
and we do so find uh there's adequacy of utilities and other public services. The effect of the project on the adequacy supplies affordable housing will there will be no effect on affordable housing. Uh there was a comp sheet submitted. There's going to be the project was a reduction in lot coverage. Uh seven
letters in support not an opposition. No opposition offered at the heading testimony is that a shed that is existing will be removed. Just need to get going. See, >> you're in a roll. Let me get back to normal. Uh, go ahead. Sorry.
>> Zoning district C uh overlay wild harbor coastal pond overlay nitrogen sensitive area >> will be no effect because it's on sewer. It is in a flood zone X. It is in a windbone uh a high windborn debris region. I have RC on the the plot plan.
>> Yes. Residential C. Yes. Yep. >> Uh the ridge heights 2810 and 1316. >> Yes. >> Yep. And 2810. Uh the lot coverage is going from 35.25%
to 30.74. Uh there's a limit of 25% but the applicants pre-existing non-conforming and they are reducing the total lock coverage by structure. And then lot coverage by structure
parking paving exists as 36.82. They're reducing to 32.3. So they are remaining conforming with the bylaw for that. Uh applicant has been requested to remove
the paving in the town's road layout um and to restore that area along the street. Uh the applicant has agreed to do so. Uh they require a driveway permit um they've met with engineering about
that issue. They've met with conservation. Uh water department has I guess recommended an upgrade. Um >> current service is 1971 3/4 copper. They're recommending to a 1 in PE to
remove any pits, >> right? And that's effectively the choice of the uh homeowner to do that. So conditions >> for plans >> for plans all boards
um hours of operation 7 to 7 Monday through Friday 8 to 4 on Saturdays no Sundays uh no Sundays or town observed holidays >> shed to be removed per plans and testimony >> and um grass um repair not to be done
till project is completed. Is that >> uh yeah so we usually say prior to the issuance of the certificate of occup well no they not the certificate of occupancy but the final sign off by the building department and if they haven't been able to get it done by that time
they can post a bond for the value of the work just to ensure that it gets completed. >> Okay. Construction vehicles on the lot. You already know that one. >> See how much you learned. I'm sorry, Madam Chairman. I think you should have caught this at the beginning. Since Mr.
Duffy's not here, you need to appoint an alternate >> for the purpose of the decision. >> Which one? This one. It's up to you. You're the chair. >> Oh, yes. One, two, three. Tony Sts. >> You were already here on this, too, right? >> I was.
>> Yeah. >> All right. Any other conditions we can think of? Anybody? >> I think that's it, right? No. What about any further structures? Oh yes, we need that one. >> No, no further lot coverage. >> I think that's it, right?
>> Yes. Good morning. >> Finding that uh it will bring the project brings the location more into harmony with the zoning bylaw by virtue of the special permit and the reduction in lot coverage. >> There you go. >> All right. All those in favor?
>> I I opposed. None. >> Good luck. >> Thank you very much. All right. Next at bat, I need glasses to figure out. We need 36 Hayawa Street Ticket requesting a special permit to raise
both structures. All right, Madam Chairman, uh this is application 16-26. Steven and Stephanie Keith, trustees of 53, excuse trustes 53 Pedro, Weston, Mass, applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to sections 240-10.2
A2A and 240-11.3A4 of the code of FMA to raise both of the existing non-conforming dwellings and construct a single family dwelling increasing lot coverage by structures. Subject property is 36 Hayawaka Street.
We have referrals from the board of health. This is on town sewer. We have comments from the building department which I'll come back to. Concom has no comment. Engineering has several comments to get to. No comment from fire. No comment from planning.
Comment from wastewater from engineering applications reviewed for impacts on right ofways and public utilities. Hayawat is a public right ofway in this area. There are alterations proposed to the right of way that would require a filing of a permit
with engineering division. Uh would shown in the plan would not need to be approved. Driveway material not noted. Information on the removal of the walkway and second apron reconstruction of the shoulder of the rightway would be required. Erosion controls across the front of the property and construction entrance will
be required for demolition and construction. It's a request that the board require the applicant to obtain an approved driveway permit. Any connections to alterations public utilities to require permission from the appropriate town department. Standard comment about storm water runoff on the public property of butters or public
rightways. Dry wells are shown for infiltration for roof storm water runoff as recommended. Uh and we have only have one address on record for this parcel. If it goes forward, they're requesting they contact the DPW to assign a secondary address.
If the project goes forward, the building department will have to determine if the guest suite qualifies as an ADU or requires an address. Standard deferral concerning affixion of legible numbers required. They're recommending standard erosion and sediment controls.
Had no issue because the property is on town sewer. We stated no comment from fire and there's a plot coverage competition sheet in the file. >> Take it away. >> Mr. Mora, do you think there were uh
four letters of support on my page one to four? I think four. >> Four. Thank you. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that was noted for the record. Um, >> I'll get you at the end. Don't worry. >> Speaking of the for the record, uh, my name is Kevin Clower. I am an attorney here in town and I'm before you tonight
representing Steve and Stephanie Keefe, the owners of 36 Hayawa Street. I'm join they're join they're they have joined us this evening as well as the architect Denise Benoli. The Keefs are seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwellings which
currently there's a dwelling there's a single family home and a separate detached cottage at the site with a new one singular single family dwelling. So 36 highwa is located at approximately the midpoint of the Mara Vista Peninsula. It's a dense res residential
neighborhood in the midst of a transition. This particular lot is 9600 square ft which is fairly typical for the area. It's in the RC zoning district and it is surprisingly given its location not in a flood zone. So, presently there are two dwellings on site. There's the primary dwelling
located closest to the street which has uh currently has five bedrooms. It's a two-story dwelling. And there's a detached cottage in the rear which is a two-bedroom uh dwelling with which is one and a half stories. Total footprint by structure is presently 1,929
square ft which is 20.1% lot coverage by structure. So this is uh non-conforming in a number of ways. There's two dwellings on the lot where only one is allowed. Uh you have a existing non-conforming setback of 6.4 ft where 25 is required. The sideyard setback to
the west is 2.2 ft where 10 is required. The rear yard setback is uh only 0.4t where 10 is required. And the existing lock average by structures 20.1% where 20% is allowed by right up to 25 by special permit. The applicants have owned this property
for the last six years, but it's been in their family since 1976. They're looking to make this their primary residence. Um, and the existing structures are both not practical and in need of significant improvements both aesthetically and structurally. So, they're proposing to raise both existing
dwellings and construct a new single family residence on this site. This proposal will improve or eliminate all of the existing non-conformities. The front yard setback will be improved from 6.4 ft to 13.8 ft. The sideyard setback to the west will be eliminated
as a non-conformity going from 2.2 ft to 11 ft. The rear yard setback will be eliminated as a non-conformity going from 4 ft to 23.7 and the second dwelling on the site will be eliminated leave only one single family home. Um the sideyard setback
will also remain conforming at 29.5%. The lock coverage by structure under this proposal will increase to 24.7% but that is allowable by special permit from this board. The lot coverage by structures paving and parking will likewise remain conforming at 38.1%
which is below the 40% allowed. Uh relative to the lot coverage by structure we fully expect um that the board may want that certified and would certainly accept that as a condition if this is approved. The proposed ridge height here is 32 ft.
So due to the existing nonconformities as well as the proposed law coverage by structure, this does require a special permit pursuant to 240 10.2A and 240 11.384. Under 240 10.2A, 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. In this case, there's no
new dimensional non-conformities created. The only existing um uh it does doesn't affect the uh views and vistas and is consistent with the neighborhood and as I discussed it either eliminates or improves all of the existing non-conformities. Under 240 11.384, lot coverage by
structure above 20% may be allowed by special permit. And under that provision, the board is asked to consider the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood, effects of shadow on adjacent properties, impacts and views and vistas from public ways, and the effect of nitrogen on coastal abayments. In this case, there's no view uh no
impact to the views and vistas and public ways. And as to the size and fit with the neighborhood, we've submitted a lot comparison worksheet for nearby properties. uh in fact 37 properties within a 300t radius. On that worksheet you'll see that the average lot coverage is 23.67%
with proposed 24.74%. It's similar in size to a number of homes permitted by this board and constructed recently within this neighborhood. There's no change in the effect of nitrogen. Um it's certable upon sewer. As I've mentioned, there's the existing dwellings have a combined seven bedrooms. They've reduced that to six
bedrooms in the proposed dwell. Beyond that, this meets the requirements of 240 12.1E. The site is adequate and suitable for the proposed use. There's currently two dwellings. It's being reduced to one dwelling as allowed by Wright. There's a decrease to the number of bedrooms, so there's an improvement to the wastewater flow. There's no
impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh proposal is improves the appearance and functionality. And there are adequate utilities already servicing the property. We did receive the engineering referral. Um we did we have updated the existing and proposed plans. I did not submit those just yet cuz there's no
changes to the plans other than labeling. So we've just noted that the existing concrete walk is to be removed lman and seed after removal. They they questioned this second driveway cut that's to be removed l and seated after removal. And we've noted that the
proposed driveway would be crushed stone. Those can of course be submitted uh after the fact if this board is in favor of the project. There's no changes to the building to the lot coverage to the setbacks. Um so I don't think it's relevant in that sense but these changes were done and to
address the concerns of engineering um and of course we will have to seek approvals from the appropriate and appropriate permits from all departments. So the keys proposal represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions improves or eliminates all the existing non-conformities again improving the
front yard setback eliminating sideyard setback to the west rear yard setback and eliminating two dwellings on the wall. There's no new dimensional non-conformities. There's nothing ad uh there's no adverse effects that overbalance the benefits that I've outlined. Simply put, there's nothing in both proposal substantially more
detrimental than what currently exists. This meets the requirements of 240 10.2A, 240 11.3A4, and 240 12.1E. I believe the board can and should grant the special permit, and I would of course be glad to address any questions that you may have at this time.
>> Let's start off. >> Yeah. Uh I guess uh interestingly this uh property um you know there can be a difference in the road layout the actual road or whatever and it uh it is exactly 25 ft from the road to the proposed
structure. So I mean it will look like it's you know in compliance but um I just have to comment is there any plan on uh planned on uh this thing being rented? >> No. >> No. I mean, because it uh it's certainly
laid out that way. Um it's not currently being it's not being proposed as an ADU. If they ever wanted to use it as an ADU, the need >> Yeah. It would be a by right anyway, I guess. Right. >> Yeah. And they'd need to go they need to go through the appropriate process with the department. >> Yeah. I mean, and it it um of course
everything that went down at town meeting there with, you know, board of health coming up and counting all the people in the bedrooms. I mean, I can see 14 here. No problem. But, uh, whatever. It's just a job. Uh, I'm good. >> Okay. Okay. So, you clarified the building
department and the ADU. Uh, Attorney Clower, could you just show me where the Ridge Heights 32? I'm just looking at a slide in the >> Sure. We submitted revised plans. Yeah. No, we were submitted revised plans um a week or two ago. >> Okay. >> Um which are shown here and that shows a
ridge height of 32 feet. >> Can I have a date on those plans, during flower? >> Unfortunately, they're not dated. Um >> so they were submitted I I submitted them with Norin and Ashley um a little over a week ago. >> Okay. >> But the plans themselves don't have a date.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> So, but we would have date stamped them the day that we received them. So >> you only changed the rich. Yes, >> thank you. >> Yeah, and I think in my cover letter I noted that was done to accommodate the structural members that were going to be required by the structural engineer. >> I saw to want Thank you.
>> Actually, madam chair. >> Um and and what's the size of this lot? >> Uh 9600 square feet, I believe. >> I'm going to uh ask at our workshop that those dumpers be on all our applications, but uh that that's all I want to know. I didn't find
it anywhere. >> Thank you. And as you mentioned, we probably look to have you give us the asbuilt for the project. Okay. >> Be happy to do that. >> No, no other questions. >> I'm good. Jim, >> very pleasing. Architecturally, I have no questions. It's all been addressed. Thank you.
>> It's a It's a wonderful plan, but I just want some clarification. You've not applied under article 9 for an ADU, but you have a separate second dwelling unit, which is not allowed. You're not allowed to have two kitchens. Well, there is are you referring to the
existing or the proposed? Just >> proposed. >> So, you are allowed to have two kitchens. Uh, you can have two kitchens in a home. It's it having a second >> It's a second dwelling unit. It's not the kitchen I'm worried about. It's the fact that you have a second dwelling unit, separate entrance. It meets all
the criteria for a second dwelling unit, which in this case would be an ADU, and you haven't applied for that, even though you get it by right. >> Sure. But there is actually no prohibition on having two kitchens within one dwelling. You can have two kitchens within a within a single dwelling, which is what this is. >> I'm not arguing about the kitchen. I'm
arguing about the fact that you created a second dwelling unit. >> They're connected. They're not separated. Um there's access between the units. It's it's not, you know, this isn't a demarcated separate unit. You can see here that there's access through
uh this area here. It's I mean, it's not a second dwelling in that sense. This is being this is being um applied for as a single dwelling. >> I am not voting on this one. So, you're fortunate because I think it's a second
dwelling and I think it should be applied for under article 9 as an ADU, which would be great. I mean, it's it's wonderful, but I think this is a second dwelling and an ADU. >> Not till you close the door. >> What? >> Not till you close the door. >> Yeah. Well, that's easily done.
>> But we can condition no rentals. I know you really can't. >> I don't have to. >> We can't. >> I don't think so. >> I think we can, >> but >> I think I think what you would do is, you know, this is being characterized as a single family dwelling. And so you
would reflect that in the decision if they choose to make a change otherwise then they will need >> we can do no rentals. It's >> a single family dwelling. >> I miss Murphy. I think what you do is until such time as the appropriate permits were obtained just I think we
never want to say that someone can't do something when they can do that as a byite matter. They're not looking to in this case but they could make they could seek permitting for an ADU down the road if they sought to >> because they're over 7500. So it's >> so I could do no rentals until they
apply for an ADU. Um I I don't >> all I want to say is it meets all the criteria for an ADU under >> exercising article 9 the definition in the 3.2 dwelling unit. Uh but I have to
defer to the rest of the board. >> Okay, Nick, he's perplexed. >> This ADU stuff's new. I mean I I don't I mean but it it's even if it were that they said they're not going to
do it until they a violation don't if they use it as ADU then then I guess we'd have to address it then but that's my opinion madam chair I think what what's been done in the past is not to be used as a
sec separate dwelling or rented as a separate dwelling until such time as applicants seek appropriate approvals from the town. I think that's we used wording that >> that would be my condition. >> That's we've used wording to that effect in the past. >> Okay, >> that works.
Anybody else have any further questions for me? Anybody from the public want to comment on this? >> You all set, >> Kevin? Oh, sorry, Mr. Clower. Could you confir um confirm? I think I had this listed as a new five- bedroomedroom dwelling, but I think you referenced
six. So, I just want >> I did say six and I'm pretty sure the application said >> I thought I check my application. >> Yeah, the application that's submitted called it a six-bedroom dwelling and I think the plans reflect >> Let me see here. We have >> there's four upstairs, right?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, there's room. >> We have one bedroom downstairs and >> two three four the >> five. So, uh, >> that is only five. >> Yeah. >> Suspect that the
>> maybe they want to make the kitchen into a bedroom. >> Oh, how about the upstairs bonus room there of the uh >> Can in the findings. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> they got room to expand. >> So, yeah, we're only showing we're only showing five bedrooms. Okay. Yeah, then
that was my error on the application. I thought it was six bedrooms going in >> in the how will the findings reflect that this is not a separate dwelling unit in ADU how will the findings reflect that >> I mean this is this is an easy viol I'm
not saying they're going to do I'm not it's just how will the findings reflect that this is not under the definition of article 9 an ADU that's what I'm asking >> I think because we're not we're not seeking for it to be approved as an ADU
would have to but in fact it is. >> Yeah. I think when you have an open connection to the main house though they consider that to be part of the house. It would be you know separate if there was like true separation meaning a wall
there so that you couldn't walk from the main house into what's this secondary living area. Right. So I think if this if this area here didn't exist, right? This connection here didn't exist and it was you just had this area above the
garage and you just had this area and this was open >> that would you know even that I think unless it's pursued as an ADU isn't necessarily an ADU but >> and it wouldn't have a second means of egress. So it wouldn't be legal. >> Well, now I know how easy it is to have
a rentable unit without having it being a designated need. does have two egresses, >> but that that would be I mean they would be violating >> if they closed off the one. >> You can't presume that people are going to violate the zoning. >> Two more stand. >> I just want it in the findings. That's all. >> Yeah. >> I got a question.
>> Go ahead, Mark. >> Um technically. >> Yeah. >> As they stand now, >> um cuz the buildings are standing, you know, they got seven bedrooms, they're asking for six, >> five,
five. Changed it to five. Uh, so they can never come back and ask for another bedroom cuz they're already one over the four. >> That's correct. >> Right. >> So, uh, but they certainly have plenty of room. >> They only have seven bathrooms. I call
it. >> And the way the way that works is you're allowed to have however many bedrooms you have, you're allowed to maintain or less. >> Yeah. >> Could you confirm when they proposed to make this change? like when they propose to raise and rebuild. Do you have any
clue? >> Um I mean realistically from a timing like when when they plan to start construction. >> Yeah. >> Would it be >> I I don't I don't think we've nailed that down yet. Um because it would be >> 3 years anyway. So
>> within 3 years um I mean just from a pragmatic standpoint I think they're probably 8 to 10 weeks out from getting a building permit. >> Okay. just from from issuance of this appeal period, structural plans, and engaging in engaging a builder,
>> you know, I think I think from a pragmatic standpoint, it's 8 to 10 weeks at at the earliest. >> Okay. Because what I was going to suggest is that if they were going to look toward the end of the season or some point later on that if that back
unit is being occupied in any way, >> but they are eligible to get a temporary address from engineering so that if there is a 911 call, the emergency responders are able to identify where the call's coming from.
>> Number 36B, >> right? But it just would be that they would formally ask engineering to assign an address in the interim so that if that issue arises and then you know once there's a raise and rebuild that would go away. >> I I don't think they'd have any objection to doing that.
>> Okay. >> One one more thing and I will leave it alone. I I promise Mr. Clark it it bothered me. Is this this is single residenc? >> Mhm. >> Right.
>> Well, then you've created a two family and they're not allowed in that zone. >> But we're not creating a two family >> because it's >> But in fact, it is a two family. >> It's not though. It's a single family dwelling. You because there's no, as we've said, there's no prohibition on having >> Yeah. >> It's what? >> There's the the dwellings are connected.
>> Connected. >> You can have a duplex condo or a duplex side by side two family. >> Yeah. There's a wall. So, in other words, if you and I share a duplex, you can't walk into my house and I can't walk. >> There are plenty of houses in town here where they they're old houses and you
have a door that used to be there and they just lock that door so that one becomes one unit, the other one becomes the other unit without a solid wall. >> Mr. Patricia, if it's any consolation, I would say that as we've talked about under other circumstances, this is not a this is not a blanket permit. And if the building commissioner objected to the
plans, we'd have to amend them accordingly. >> I have, Mr. Cl, I have now done my best. I will now sit quietly for the rest of the evening or rest of this hearing. >> I was going to say about don't get carried away going. >> That's a long time. >> Oh lord.
>> I the only other note that I had made on this file was with the finished attic and it's listed as some office space up there. That may have been that I may I think I was counting that as the potential sixbedroom when we >> That's the thing I was going to you I I
don't understand as much as you're getting black from myself and Tony why in the world wouldn't you designate that a bedroom? >> I think I think that is exactly why I said six bedrooms in my application because I think that falls within >> you don't designate it now you can't go
do it later. I think that falls within the definition of a bedroom and and that would be why I listed it as a sixbedroom in the application. >> So, we're back to six. >> Back to six. >> Back to six. >> Was keeping it at six, >> which is still less than seven. >> Yes. >> Very good. Math >> last I checked.
>> And there'll be no kitchen on that third floor for you. >> No. >> Make it a threebedroom three unit. >> So, nothing from the public, I guess. So, >> no one from the public, you guys. Okay, >> I motion we close before we come up with
any more questions. >> We're stepping up. >> Are you guys all set? Tony, you sure? Okay, he's zipping it. You're all set. Motion to close. All those in favor? >> Opposed? None. >> You're a bet.
>> Motion to approve with conditions. >> I'll second. We have a motion and a second to approve with conditions. Applicant seeks to raise and reconstruct a pre-existing non-conforming uh dwelling pursuant to 240 10.2A and to
increase lot coverage pursuant to 240 11.3A4 of the code of Falmouth. Location is 36 Hayawa Ticket Locus is in a RC zoning district. It is in the great pond overlay district flood zone X. It is a
nitrogen sensitive area. Uh lot consists of 9600 square ft. location is currently sits on the Little Pond Sewer District. Uh existing two-bedroom cottage and five- bedroomedroom dwelling with a footprint of 1,929 square ft or 20.1%
lot coverage. What is proposed is a single family dwelling with six bedrooms, footprint of 2375 ft or lot coverage of 24.7. Lot coverage existing with uh structures pavement and parking is 22.6% 6% what is
proposed is 38.1 still within right uh existing nonconformities uh front yard setback of 6.4 ft where 25 is required sideyard setback out of the west of 2.2 ft where 10 is required rear yard setback of 4 in where 10 ft is
required uh lot coverage at 20.1 where 20 is uh required. The project will reduce or eliminate existing nonconformities uh bringing the project uh bringing the location more in harmony with the zoning
bylaw. Proposed ridge height is 32 ft. Uh there is a one red one-bedroom reduction based on what has been proposed. The applicant has in fact a comp sheet. There are four letters in favor. Uh testimony is that plans were
revised at to 32 feet ridge height. Those will be the plans. Uh the control zoning administrator indicated that those are date stamped. That's what we'll control. We are required pursuant to the performance standards to make a finding that the site is uh the adequacy of the
site in terms of size for the proposed use and the board does so find. The site is suitable for the proposed use. We do so find there will be no impact on traffic flow or safety. Uh there will be no impact as to neighborhood visual character including views and vistas uh
based on credible evidence presented as well as the comp sheet. Uh there's adequate method of sewage given it is in the sewer little pond uh sewer district. There is adequate uh utilities and other public services. Uh the project will have no effect on the adequacy of affordable housing within the town.
regarding lot coverage, the bedroom size. That's not it. Oh, now we're gonna have a little Hold up. Uh there'll be no effect on views in vistas coverage. >> I got those in already. >> Oh, okay. >> Uh you want lot coverage is going from
20.1% to 2474. Yep. >> And paving structures paving and parking from 22.6 to 38.1. I thought I got those in there. I lost some of my sheets. The performance standards concerning um
lot coverage increase. Uh no impact as to views and vistas. In fact, by eliminating uh non non-conformities as to sideyard setback uh impact on shade will be I would suggest that we could find that it will be reduced given that they're not going to be so close. >> Uh I would just say that the performance
standards for lot coverage increase have been met. Y >> got the shade on that 4 inch backyard. >> I think that's improved. >> We have four letters in support. >> I got that. Yeah. >> Um there was a
referral from the water department. It seemed that perhaps they misunderstood um because they were talking about I think a second water line or something like that. So I think as long as there's a single house, they would expect a single water
line. And I think if there's an ADU or something separate habitable space, they would look for a separate water line for a separate residence >> conditions. >> Uh we would like to ask >> certify. Yeah. Certified.
>> Um submit the plans when you finish them up. >> No, they're they're done. We can submit. I just didn't want to >> You didn't put six in there. >> Six bedrooms. >> Well, no, that's a >> that's actually on there. But I we'll be we'll be revi submitting the revised site plan. >> No, the room up top. You got to call it six. >> Uh driveway permit.
>> My marker, >> right? Said that in there somewhere. >> All permits. >> And what was the verbiage that Kevin gave us on on that to be a rental? Uh I think his expression was that they're applying as uh this being a single
family home and that the intent is that that would be the continued use absent them requesting some type of modification that it be allowed as a separate dwelling unit. >> Okay. Condition. You got that? Okay. Um
anybody else? Oh, regular regular conditions per plans. Well, per new plans. Uh all boards um police the hours 7:00 to 7:00 Monday through Friday 8 to 4 and sad days no holidays no Sundays
construction vehicles shall be located within the lot. I think that's it. Any other conditions anyone can think of? >> Um the assessor has requested inspection prior to CO so that they're properly taxing. >> There you go.
>> I missed that one. >> Tax man cometh. I think we're I think that's it. I think we're in good. No further structures. >> Y and then just if there's going to be any delay or habitable space in the
cottage post this hearing that they should request um even a temporary address from the engineering department >> for safety purposes. >> I'm sorry. What what was that? >> Uh so the cottage and back does not have a separate address. So, they requested
that. >> I hear it. >> Yeah. >> All right. I think we're ready to vote on that. We got everything. >> Yes. >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. None. >> Thank you very much. >> Enjoy, whoever you are out there. There
you are. Enjoy. All right. Next at bat we have 01726 35 Pleasant View A and Felmouth Murphy no relation requesting a special permit to remove the existing deck and construct additions to the existing non-conforming dwellings.
>> Madam Chairman, this is application 017-26. Robert and Lyn Murphy, trustees of 246 Circus Street, handover mass apply to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit section 240-10.2A 2A and 240-11.3A4
of the code of Falmouth to remove the existing deck and construct the existing non-conforming dwelling exceeding 20% lot coverage. Subject property is 35 Pleasant View Avenue, Falmouth, Massachusetts. We have comments from the board of health. Recent three-bedroom septic has
been installed. Not located in a Falmouth regulated nitrogen sensitive areas. Okay. For a maximum of three bedrooms. Building department has no comments. Uh Concom was it no comment from con?
>> Yeah, the comments are like in a little finer print line. >> Comments is based on GS and submitted survey. Alicia Berseron of 4626 uh and department engineering application was reviewed for potential impacts on
public right ofways and public utilities. Pleasant view have is a public right ofway in the area. No alterations are proposed within the right of way. Any future changes within right ofway would require a permit with engineering division. Any connections to or alterations of public utilities would require approval from appropriate town
department. Subject property must be designated so that no storm water runoff is directed on the public property of budding properties or other public rightways. Dry wells are shown on the plans for infiltration of uh storm water runoff consistent with our typical recommendation. Address for this parcel is in the system and conforms to the
current address and policy. Erosion controls are shown of the plan and appear adequate to protect the budding properties and public right ofway recommending the following conditions be included in any approval. Construction shall follow the town's soil erosion sediment control standards. References to department of public engineering division shall be replaced with zoning
board of appeals which is the permitting authority. Health has no comment again not located within a felmouth nitrogen regulated area. And we do have a letter of concern from an abot
>> listing excessive noise if the construction is approved taking place during peak summer vacation weeks. Stock a fence and previous owner 35 uh Pleasant View which is separated fence went down during a storm.
Not really within our jurisdiction at the moment. >> You good? >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Take it away. >> Oh, hold on. >> Um, and and while I like to see homeowners, you're the homeowner. >> Yes. >> To present. Um, I mean, and this has
nothing to do with you, but we have a basic set of rules and it requires that all the law corners be staked because all applications are in the same. I mean, this is a quasi judicial board and and and we're sometimes have to make
decisions and we need all the information to make the decisions and one of your lock corners isn't staked and I mean we we've we've had this from this company before. I mean, they're familiar. It's it's right on our
application. I don't, you know, I mean, the first page >> the law is state >> the back corner >> of the back right corner as you're looking at. >> Yeah. And then there's and and we've asked them I climbed up, you know, I had to stand on took a picture of it. It is there's two at the behind the
>> And also we've asked them if there's any that we need some kind of indication there's an offset because you can't ask I mean I had to pretend somebody was chasing me >> to to look over the fence. And I mean they can hang a a a ribbon there. they can make some indication. Sometimes
there's there's a situation where the building is where the uh stake supposed to be. So, we ask for offsets. I mean, it's nothing to do with you, but um you know, if there's something over a fence that nobody can climb, I mean, there should be some indication there
for us. I mean, that's all. And I mean, I don't recognize this person's name. That might be new. John Jacob. I don't think that's Jingleheimr Schmidt. >> Jake Jake Frick. Is that >> Yeah, whatever. But um uh >> Well, I apologize.
>> I be I'd be um Yeah. And it's not your uh issue, but I mean it's >> in the future, and I'm not going to hold this thing up, but in the future, there has to be some indication. I mean, what are we supposed to climb over the fence and look I mean, and if if you were
asking uh you know, we can be a board of relief if if you were asking us for something. I want to know if your fences are properly located and um which actually one one corner isn't and one is. >> Uh I mean I I would take all this into
consideration, you know, when I was going to be lenient or whatever and it's not your fault, it's the engineer. But um I you know at some point we just have to say no. Like there's another one coming up tonight that we're absolutely going to say no. Um anyway,
I >> you know >> I'm sure they're going to be aware, you know, but I mean at some point >> No, we'd like to know cuz we paid for it. So >> yeah, exactly. I want to make sure I'm getting paid for it. But I think you know >> it is there. They say it's there. He has
a picture. I mean I was hanging over the fence and and and and so I saw one under >> the fence and then like you said on the far right. Yeah, the one on the far left isn't, you know, the fence isn't properly placed. I mean, and this is all things we have to take into consideration. And um
>> I mean, these guys are engineers with the stamp. I mean, they're supposed to be placing these things >> perfectly and or the people behind the fence and they put it on our land. But >> well either or it just switches the perspective but >> I think just for everybody's
clarification we do issue the rules to people and we do specify that corners be staked. We don't ask people to you know make accommodations so that if the stake is on the back side
of a fence >> I have plenty of times. Well, what I'm saying is we should amend the rules specified. >> No, that's coming up. And also, we want the square footage. So, we'll discuss that. >> So, I I wouldn't specifically hold these people. >> Oh, no. I'm I I have no intention and I
it's not because these um >> the person if they technically put the stake on the lot corner, if there's an obstruction, >> it's not their fault. >> Yeah. But they it's the same as an offset. I mean, there has to be an indication somewhere. And I mean, uh,
they know better. >> We're We're not going to punt. >> No. >> Anyway, now that you've been scolded. >> Yeah. You're not. None of this was intended for you. I mean, >> I did. I saw it and I was like, "Oh, where's it? You know, where's the lot line?" And I had to do what you said. I had Where the hell is it? And whoever
had the fence up, it's on the other side by >> Yeah. And uh, whatever. >> Tell us about your project. >> All right. We do have three letters of support. Do you want those now? I don't We didn't have them originally. >> No, we just No. Okay, great. Thank you.
>> Neighbors three. >> Now we have three letters. >> Perfect. >> Okay. So, good evening. Uh my name is Lynn Murphy. I'm here with my husband, Rob. Um we're the owners of 35 Pleasant View Street. Uh thank you for coming tonight and hearing our application. We
bought the property in December. So, we are proposing a small addition to the existing home which includes a master bedroom bathroom off the back which would be about 280 square ft. Uh we're going to increase the size over the
current existing deck of the kitchen and reconfigure the entrance to the house to be the back and the bulkhead that's existing there now would be a a dog house um instead of the current bulkhead. Current bulkhead is leaking. It needs to be repaired. The sun room
that's on the side of the house is also leaking and needs to be repaired. So, we'll be opening that up. So, we understand that the property is a pre-existing non-conforming lot and this project would increase the lot coverage to approximately 22%.
Um, we've worked to keep the addition modest in size and consistent with the scale of uh existing houses and surrounding neighborhood. So, our neighborhood is approximately eight homes. They're all two-story homes. Ours is the only one-story home and we're
going to keep it one-story. We had looked into doing a second floor, but felt that that would be um not it would take a lot of time. There's a structural issues. Um so, we decided that the best way to do this would be a smaller
addition out back and and um ex um improving the kitchen. Um, so we are aware that a neighbor on Allen A did write in some concerns. So we wanted to note that the demolition part of the
work where the um sun room is is on the opposite side where the tree line is. And so the butter would not actually even see any of that work going on and hopefully the demolition would go quickly and we would not have too much
noise. the addition for the bedroom uh that abuter may be able to see through the side of the two yards because they abut each other but we've also decided to forgo having a foundation and work with either sauna
tubes or I forget the name of them >> conicle >> yes so we won't have extra excavation work or um trucks coming in so again to try and minimize the amount of time and noise that the project will take. Um so
we believe um you know we're trying to be mindful of the construction impacts. We we did talk to our neighbors and got the letters of support. Um so overall we think it's a modest reasonable improvement to the home. The reason we're doing it is right now it's a
one-bedroom, one bathroom. We have three boys. We want a little privacy when we go down to enjoy the property. And our intention in the next 10 to 15 years, if we're lucky enough to retire, is to retire to this home. Um, so we're just
trying to make it as comfortable uh living space without going overboard. >> That's it. >> Want to start? Oh, you're on this one, Tony. You want to start off? >> Would you like me to? >> I would like that. Trying to switch it up.
>> I have no questions. >> There you go. >> Do you have any questions? Write that down, >> Jim. >> That's remarkable. By the way, >> uh, thank you for working with your neighbors. Uh, always makes our decision a little easier. Uh, I would agree this is a very modest addition going from
inclusive of a shed, 821 square feet to,14 square feet. So, it's certainly not uh invasive by any stretch and I think you're still going to remain one of the smallest. >> We will >> on your block. So, I have no questions. Thank you. >> Yeah, I'm all set too, Scott. Oh, Jim
called it. So, I appreciate it. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, nice little I mean, modest is >> perfect. Uh, >> simple. >> I have no Yeah, simple. I have no uh no questions. I mean, and uh none of that was was meant for you, but I I
>> if I had a lot, it's a pain in the ass. I >> I want it to be heard and uh because I mean, >> we work for nothing and and we, you know, drive around and look at four or five things a week. And I mean, I'm I'm too old to be climbing fences, but I
have to have all my information. And again, that's not you. That's for >> John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt or whatever his name was. >> Everybody all set? We'll go to the public. >> Anybody from the public want to speak on this project?
I >> think we're all set. >> Motion to close, Madam Chair. >> We have a motion to close and a second. You guys are all set, right? >> Yes. All those in favor of closing I >> opposed. None Scott motion to approve the conditions.
Second. We have a motion in a second. All right. Jim applicant is applied to zoning board pursuant for special permit pursuant to 247.2A 2A and 240 11.3A uh to construct a modest addition addition to the dwelling exceeding 20%
lot coverage by structures. Properties located 35 Pleasant View Avenue, Falmouth. Pleasant View Avenue is a public way. Uh existing lot coverage by structures, house, and shed is 821 square ft or 16.7%. The proposed addition lot coverage by
structures house and shed will be 1,14 square feet or 22.7%. Uh existing lot coverage by structures paving and parking is 1,481 ft or 30.2% by right. Uh proposed lot coverage by structures paving and
parking is 1783 ft or 36.3 uh% also by right. Um location is within zoning district RC. Lot is within the windborne debris region. Uh not within a Falmouth uh
nitrogen regulated area. Not located within a D approved zone 2 wellhead protection area. Uh wind exposure category is B. Uh we've had requests or should they uh findings? No, that's not our findings.
Uh, three letters of support were provided by the applicant the night of the hearing. No one spoke in opposition. There is one letter of concern uh in the file uh referencing a fence which was not within our purview uh as well as construction hours
findings. >> Uh so the lot is 4,910 square ft, street frontage 50 ft both of which are nonconforming. uh no new nonconformities are being created by this particular uh proposal
as to the findings we must make for uh increasing lot coverage. The size height the structures relating to the average size height of neighborhood structures uh that we find there will be no impact given this project is remaining a one story in a neighborhood of primarily two stories. Uh there will be no effect on
shadow or adjacent properties as the ridge height is not increasing. uh no impact on views or vistas and there will be no effect on nitrogen or coastal payments given that there's no bedroom count increasing >> I'm sorry >> one to three
>> 23 I'm sorry with sorry not exceeding what is the existing septic system you go >> thank you u pursuant to our uh performance criteria we find that is not more detrimental we find that the site is adequate in terms of the size and use of proposed use it
is suitable for the proposed use. There will be no impact on traffic flow or safety. There will be no impact on the neighborhood visual character including views and vistas. Uh there is adequacy as to the method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage, adequacy as to utilities and other public services. Uh and the effect of the
proposed project will have no effect on the supply of affordable housing within the town. Fine. All right. conditions, per plans, all boards, um construction hours. It's going to be
tough. You you probably will end up needing police, maybe. It's tough over there, >> as you as you know. >> Uh hours of 7:00 to 7:00, Monday through Friday, 8 to 4 on Saturdays. No Sundays or holidays. Construction, vehicles, and materials have to be located on the lot.
That's where you you can just call them and ask them, you know, the police questions because we send Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Um, any other conditions? Threebedroom. >> We have a fence in the rightway. So, do they have to get a selectman to approve
that? >> Well, so currently the town is requesting if there's an encroachment in the right of way that it be removed. >> So, we have that put that down then. >> Yeah. Um, >> you aware of that? >> No. >> No. >> Okay.
>> In here. Sorry. >> Yeah. So, if as you look at your plot plan, you have a fence that is off your lot but within the town's road layout. >> Okay. On the front of the the front of the lot. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, so technically
>> we can get Mark to jump on it for you. >> Technically, >> technically that area is belongs to the town. >> Okay. So, what they would tell you is that if you have a fence there or anything else, it needs to be removed. >> That's fine. >> That's not a problem. >> Or you can get a license for it.
>> Yeah, >> potentially. >> It's in the engineering comment. I don't see it in the engineering comment. What's a step up from the street to put >> I I don't I want one, but >> I don't see that. And it's not actually the street. It's the road layout, which >> can vary greatly. >> That's fine. The
>> It's going to be on your fell over in the snow anyway. So, there's half of it left. Well, then it's the town's problem, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Take care of it. I didn't say that. >> Expunge that. Uh any other conditions? No further. No further. >> Did you say as built? Do you need
>> No, I did not. >> Yeah. So, uh no storm water runoff. They want you to follow the town soil erosion and sediment control standards. Um let's see what else we have. Um they're recommending an upgrade to the
1953 water service. >> Yeah, we saw that. Y >> you know that that choice is up to you. But if you choose not to, they'll ask you to sign a waiver. >> Okay. >> So that if you don't have the water pressure you wanted, it's not their fault.
>> Yeah. Um All right. Threebedroom is your maximum, you wouldn't be able to exceed that for the subject. Do we need an asbuilt? >> It's a special permit to go to the to where they're going to go. >> Yeah. >> I mean, you're close.
>> It is close. Yeah. >> I don't I I don't see the need for it myself, but whatever anyone else. >> Well, then don't then don't do it. >> We don't have to worry about that. >> That's it. You good? Everybody good? >> Yes. M. >> All those in favor?
>> I oppose. None. >> Enjoy. You did a great job. >> Have a good night. >> Have a good one. >> All right. Next at bat we have six Felmouth Heights or
>> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> There's another one. This property has absolutely no stakes. >> Yes. And uh it's just completely unacceptable. Uh nobody read the application page one.
>> Uh do we want to open the hearing first? I think >> go ahead Jim. Do you want to open? >> Sure. Of course, Madam Chairman's application 01826 Jason F and Terry J. Born trustees 22 Brentwood Drive Northeast in Massachusetts apply to the zoning board of appeals for a special
permit pursuant to section 240 10.2A 2A of the code of Falmouth to raise portions of the existing structure and construct an attached garage with habitable space above. Use will change to residential use. Subject property is 6 Fmouth Heights Road, Falmouth,
Massachusetts. Currently located in RC zoning district. The lot size is 7,43 ft. Sits Falmouth Heights Road is a public right ofway. Uh it is uh the lot coverage is currently requires 40,000 square ft. So it is pre-existing
non-conforming as to lot size. Front yard setback on Fmouth heights road is requires 25 ft. Current existing setback is 47.5. What is proposed is 25 ft 1 in. A front yard setback to Alma Road is required to be 25 ft. It is currently at
5 5.6 ft. That would remain the same. Sideyard setback to the left is 10 feet. Currently is at zero feet. What is proposed is 6.5 ft. Sideyard setback to the right 10 feet is currently at 2.6. and would remain at 2.6.
Um, the allowable lot coverage existing is 2,35 ft or 31.1%. So, it is non-conforming. What is proposed is 2,276 ft. So, a reduction to 30.7. Uh, and then allowable coverage as to structures, pavement, and parkings
currently at 3,97 ft or 52.8. There will be a reduction to 2419 ft or 32.6%. We have numerous referrals. I'm happy to get into them, but I believe Mr. Finteran has something you may want to ask for
before I get to that. Now, um sir, uh when you came and picked up your application on the uh first page and read lettering, it told you that we require
the lot corners and all the buildings things be staked. There's no staking there, just spray paint. Um, and that's simply not enough information for us to make decisions on. Uh, while it may even be enough, you could argue to make a decision on your particular in your
particular case, it isn't in all cases. And, uh, we have to all be treated the same and equally. So, uh, there's really no way this board can do their preliminary work and and look at the piece of property and, uh,
certainly we if we couldn't get that done, we can't go on and and hear this application this evening until it's staked properly. >> Did you read that in the application? >> I did. Um, two things. We we first
applied for under sorry Kurt Raber uh from Catalyst Architects and Interiors in Yarmouthport. Um and we're pleased to be here to present this project tonight. Um we initially met with the building department and were referred for a
variance. Um, and I understood that when we did that that the staking was required for that. And then we Norin helped kind of discern what the project really was and the fact that we were had an existing special permit and that we were coming. So we filed under the
special permit. I misunderstood the rules and thought that that the the staking was required for the variance only. when we got the notification in the or the copy of the agenda uh via mail last week um or 10 days ago um I
got the attachment I reached out to our engineer who's off Cape in Brockton um and that gentleman um is going through some serious medical issues so he was unable to schedule his office to come down um so
my office we stake things, but we very carefully used the old triangulation method with two long tape measures and plotted out the corners of the building and the the corners of the property. Um the uh I
think in this case we very clearly marked what is going to be demolished, what is going to be where the footprint of the new garage is in the front yard and we clearly marked the corners. Now the the front left corner of the is in
the middle of a giant U. Um and it's not aligned with the telephone pole or anything. So we we couldn't actually get in there and put a stake in there if we had one. Um, but I would argue that >> who's we? >> Me and my staff. >> Are you a licensed engineer, surveyor?
>> I'm a licensed architect. >> But >> you got to read that first page. >> Well, I don't think I don't think these corners matter at all in this application. Quite frankly, >> it may not matter in this application, but we get hundreds of applications and
in many cases it absolutely does matter. And it's not for the applicant to discern, pick and choose. Well, >> you know, I mean, we have to have everybody go by the same rules. >> That's not unreasonable. I mean, we we do a lot of work here and um we need the
information that we need to make the decisions that we make. >> I would I would argue that the information painted on the ground out there is is >> that's why we put it on page one >> is un is beyond adequate to carry on. We'd like to present our project tonight
um and move forward. Um >> I think we need a continuation then if it's hasn't been staked that that is going >> I sorry I said oh not staked I kept I didn't even get out. Yeah, that's >> there is also I mean >> through you madam chairman there was
also and I'm not sure if u the representative is aware there was a referral from the wastewater superintendent uh received by the board April 28th uh that requires six falmouthite roads is an existing sewer area and is connected to the sewer change uh conversion from office to
residential use requires a variance under the town's flow neutral bylaw because though the increase of flow is not large the change will increase the title 5 wastewater flow and the property by more than 10%. Um I don't know generally that's been required by the board or not before but I just want to make sure that uh
>> we were made aware okay going through the permit eyes and looking and we saw those comments um that document also said that this board has made grant 4A requests during 40B requests generally it's the select board uh for
non comprehensive permits who only grants the flow neutral bylaw variance. >> Yeah. So in other words, the zoning board does not issue these variances for wastewater except in a very rare circumstance which is comprehensive
permits. But for all special permits, variances, all the usual cases, >> right, >> it's the select board that issues that variance. And this is kind of a unique thing because it's conversion from office which has a very low flow right >> per thousand square feet or whatever um
to a residence which obviously um so we're we're fine with a condition that this as any building project would require is numerous permits ahead of us after we've gone through this process. So we would um certainly agree to a
condition that we appear before the board of selectmen for the required flow variance. >> That's we can't even get to step one here. And I'd also like to point out it appears that you have five bedrooms here and four is the limit on the sewer.
>> Uh they're proposing seven. I thought, >> well, one's numbered bedroom number seven, but you really only count five of them. >> Questionable. >> Those are those are the room numbers. Sorry. >> I apologize. >> Yeah. Um, >> but anyway, you do have you do have five bedrooms. Even though you call one a
bunk room, it's still a bedroom. And then others that qualify. So, you really um have more than just the staking to uh to to look at before you come back in front of us. So I like motion that we continue. >> Right. I I think the wastewater super
did capture that they were proposing five bedrooms. >> Okay. So she has >> So she's she's familiar with their request. >> Okay. >> But they will still need relief from >> now. What what was her what were her comments on that?
uh she noted that they were going with from office with uh 2,300 square ft and provided their title five flow and then she said proposed is the five bedrooms
>> and then she recognized the increase in the flow. So she did not specify that they would not be allowed to have the five bedrooms. >> Is not four bedrooms the limit on the sewer?
>> Well, so yes, except that they may have counted rooms within the office as being an equivalent to a bedroom. >> Two of which we're proposing to knock down. So, so what she's basically saying is that if you
>> This is This is all moved anyway because we can't even get to step one, but I count five bedrooms here. >> So, but what she was I think what she was doing is counting the prior office, >> but they switch. It's not a commercial there. I mean, that's >> No, but they look at the rooms and the
size of rooms and determine that that would be the equivalent equivalent of X number of bedrooms. I I I disagree with that and and besides we don't even need to get into that tonight because >> I think the applicants heard what's needed stakes. I think there's a sewer
issue and now the applicant has heard that and if you want to continue it continue it. >> I have one more question for you Norine. The intersection is the driveway too close to the intersection of Felmouth Heights and Alma >> the driveway.
So the driveway is ex existing, >> right? The existing driveway is almost in the Alma drive intersection. >> We're proposing to move it. >> Oh, you are okay. >> To the left side, >> closer to the telephone pole. >> Okay. >> So like from a process perspective,
should they go to the select board first prior to coming back to us? >> I think the building department can >> I would think they could technically do both at the same time. >> No, it's fine. I just want just so there's a clear path while we're waiting
to get it staked. I'd hate to slow their process down >> so they could apply with the select board for that. >> That could help to save time. >> Madam Chairman, through you, I would also suggest that since it's not a board of health issue, but I think that the wastewater super should be asked as to
what she is prepared to support as to a bedroom count so we can make an appropriate. I >> think her memo says it's not a very large flow and yeah, >> she didn't say she wouldn't approve it. She she said it needed approval from this board or the select board. >> Well, the um she would provide
>> the the rules state that any house in the Seward area is limited to four bedrooms >> unless you previously have more bedrooms than that. And I think what she's looking at is the number of rooms in the office. >> I I disagree with that premise,
>> but it might be a weird calc since it was a commercial, >> right? But so she will evaluate this and give a referral to the >> commercial doesn't translate into residential in any fashion. I mean you can't carry over any the way I look at it. >> I would suggest madam chairman that >> let's pick a date
>> wastewater super is the subject matter expert on it. >> Yeah deals with it more often than we do. >> We're looking at June 4th. >> June 4th. >> Yeah. >> Um >> so June June 4th. Okay. >> Is that okay with you? >> Uh yeah. There's there's no hearings
coming up in May. We have we have seven but that's >> two >> next Friday next Thursday. >> Any no other ones in May? I couldn't remember. >> And I still maintain that we can't
u give a permit for a five- bedroomedroom house. >> Well, so yeah. So that will be a determination by water super and select board. Yeah. >> So, June 4th is okay.
>> Um, yeah, we can't come sooner. >> I don't I don't know. I'm not familiar with the agendas on the other evenings, so I don't know. >> Well, you're telling us June 4th, so I'll make a motion to continue to June 4th. Hopefully get it st get those septic information pulled together, and
frankly, we can move a lot quicker when we're together. >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion in a second. We didn't close for We're not closing. We're continuing. We're not used to that. >> You're all set for tonight. >> Just a quick question. >> Yeah.
>> Um but a couple different things. You think the the sewer department will tell us? They'll answer the question on the four or the five or they >> Yeah. And they're going to recommend to the board of selecting.
>> Okay. They're good. >> Yeah. She advises the selectman on it. >> Try and get the selectman behind you before you come back on June 4th so you can move forward. >> All right. So, we have a motion in a second, everybody. Tony, you're on this one.
>> Is it Nick now? Sorry. >> Sorry, I'm not doing it. >> We didn't. Yeah. >> All right. All those in favor to continue to June 4th. I >> oppose. None. >> Sorry, you have homework. >> That's okay. Was there anything um
um any kind of uh understanding or misunderstanding of the questions about what we were taking down and and what we were proposing to build? >> Okay. >> No, no, >> I don't. >> Because we were ending up with a, you know, net improvement on setbacks and
lot coverage. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Saw that. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll be back. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Next at bat, we have 35 Sitters Lane requesting a special permit to allow
garage space for more than two cars. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. For his application 007-26 Steven H. Ogaly Jr. 318 Elm Road, Falmouth, is applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 246.6B
of the code of Falmouth to allow garage space for more than two cars. Subject property is 34 Citers Lane, Falmouth, Massachusetts. I don't have much. Citers Lane has a lot area of 41,421
square ft. Existing lot coverage by structures is 894 square ft or 2.2%. What is proposed is lot coverage by structures of 4585 square ft or 11.1%. Existing lot coverage by structures paving and parking is 1,879
ft or 4.5%. Uh proposed lot coverage by structures p parking and paving is 65 square feet or 14.5% that is by right. We have no comment from the building department. No comment from the fire department. No
comment from the planning department. Engineering uh standard review. It's been assessed for potential impacts to public rightaways or other public utilities. Uh Ciders Lane is a private right ofway in this location. Any connection to alteration to public utilities require prior prior approval
from appropriate town apartments. Storm water runoff may not be directed onto public property, adjacent properties or any public rightway. Dry wells are shown on the premises consistent with typical recommendation. Address is currently in the system and conforms to addressing policy. Uh they
are recommending the following condition in the event of an approval. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall ensure that the address for this residence is posted in accordance with section 99-1. A fixing of legible numbers required. Time limit for compliance. Uh erosion controls are shown on the plan appear to be adequate
to protect a budding properties. Recommend that the following condition be approved at any approval. Construction of this project shall follow the town's soil erosion and settlement control standard condition document which can be found in the engineering division of the town's website. References to Department of Public Works engineering division shall be replaced with zoning board of appeals
as the permitting authority recommend the applicant install a driveway apron cobbles of at least one foot behind the edge of the roadway to reduce the risk of snow plow damage. You got it. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Kevin Clower.
Uh I am before you this evening representing Steven Oglev, the owner of 34 Sitters Lane. I'm joined by Christian Valley from the Valley Group who is the builder on this project. Uh, Mr. Rogie is seeking permission for garage space uh for more than two vehicles. So, 34 Sitters Lane is a quiet
residential neighborhood which is essentially downtown. It's a it's a really lovely street. It's a little oasis sort of back there. Uh, this particular lot is is pretty large. It's 41,421 square ft. It's in a general residence district. Um, it's not in a flood zone. Flood zone touches the very
southerntherly portion of the lot but not the structures. Um and the structures are not within historic district either. Um historic district touches the very northerly part of the lot but none of the structures. So presently there is an existing barn um on the site and but a building permit
was recently issued for the construction of a new four-bedroom single family dwelling. Um as you've seen uh there's site work that's begun at the property. Uh, as permitted, the dwelling is proposed with a two-car garage, and we're see here seeking to modify that to allow for a three-car garage, threecar
attached garage to the dwelling. Uh, in addition to the barn, although the barn is not used for parking. The entirety of the project's conforming, meets all setbacks and lot coverage requirements. Front yard setback is 28.4 to Sitter's Lane. Sideyard setback, there's lots of sideyards because it's a funny shaped
lot. Um, southeast is 17.3. South is in excess of 40 feet. East is 18.9 ft. North is 35 ft. Lot coverage uh as proposed by structures 11.1% which is below the allowable 20%. And uh by structures
paving and parking is 14.5% which is well below the allowable threshold of 50%. So for reasons that I've never quite understood, our bylaw requires a special permit for garage space for more than two vehicles in a general residence district. there's no standards set forth in the bylaw for that permit. Um so we
have to look to the standards of 240 12.1E which kind of governs all special permits. And the threshold question there is basically is what's proposed substantially more detrimental than what exists? Um or in this case what has already been permitted? The answer is clearly that it's not in any way substantially more detrimental or
significantly more detrimental. It satisfies all the applicable elements of 240 12.1E. The site's adequate uh and suitable for the proposal. The lot's nearly an acre in a district that only requires 20,000 square feet. So, it's twice the required size in this district for a single family dwelling uh and
which is allowed by right. The special permit request does not affect the number of bedrooms. There's no impact on traffic flow or safety. Uh there's no change from the use as permitted and proposed. Uh there's no adverse impacts. There's no negative impacts to use in vistas from public ways. There's no change in the wastewater requirements
based on a special permit. And there are there are adequate utilities servicing the property. has no adverse effects on public services or the supply of affordable housing based on this special permit. So this propo project as proposed with a three-car garage, threecar attached garage is not in any
way substantially more detrimental than the project as presently permitted. As such, I believe this meets the requirements of 246.6B and 242.1E. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to address them, but otherwise, I would ask that you grant this special permit.
>> Mark, you want to stay a minute? Sure. Um I have no problem with this. I I think it's um certainly fitting and uh it's kind of understated even. Uh I it's what's not to like about this place.
>> It's a beautiful design. Beautiful. Absolutely. Beautiful location. >> Totally. >> Those three beautifuls. >> A lot of beautiful lot of beautiful going on here. >> It's a beautiful design. Beautiful. >> I went I went to I went to the site today and I I was I went to the site today. I was just standing there. I was like, Jesus, >> you're beautiful, too. Did you go inside
>> into the site? >> Into the house? >> No, it's not. >> Doesn't exist. >> There's no house yet. >> Built. >> There's no house yet. >> Well, there was a >> there's a hole. >> Barnard. Barn. >> That's what I meant. >> No further question. >> I can't speak to the beautifulness. I can't speak to the beautifulness of the inside of the barn.
>> I'm all set myself. >> There's no cows in there. >> Tony, anything? >> Darn. I have to ask questions. >> That's all right. >> All right. for the record because just just for the record, why is a
covered walkway, not a habitable space, provide a connection legitimate to violate the 24 22 foot height, 22 foot height and closer than 50 ft? >> So, but before you answer the question, let me just say this is an absolutely
outstanding plan. Absolutely outstanding. >> So, it's a that's a fair question. Um, it's always come down to basically the building commissioner's determination and they've always I don't know that it's ever been defined, but it's always required a substantial or significant connection. Typically, they want a continuous foundation or a significant
uh connection such as a covered walkway. Basically, it can't just be, you know, I remember stories of someone putting like a timber from the garage to a house and saying it's connected. That's that's not what this is. This is this is a substantial connection. >> You're familiar with my father's old house? I was it Barnick? I think it might have
been Barnick. >> Uh Hudson Street. >> Okay. Um so, you know, ultimately it would come down to Mr. Treat's interpretation of it. Um and he has already approved this plan, but for the three-car garage, he's approved it as a twocar garage. >> I just wanted it on the record. It's absolutely outstanding. Outstanding
plan. >> You all set in the room? Go to the public? You guys all set? >> I don't see any public. Well, there's one public that's doing a great job in the back. >> Would there anybody like to speak on this? >> I made sure he wasn't here for this one.
>> Okay. >> All right. Mark. >> Motion to close, Madam Chair. >> Second. >> You're all set. Attorney Glow. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I. >> All right. Motion to approve with conditions.
>> Second. >> All right. Take it away. Uh applicant seeks relief for a third uh garage bay pursuant to 246.6B. Location uh is 35 34 Siders Lane, Falmouth,
Massachusetts. Uh existing lot consists of 41,421 square ft. Uh there is currently a four bedroomedroom home being constructed. Applicant 63 garage bay. Uh there are no performance standards generally for this
sort of request. However, the board finds that the site is adequate in terms of size for the proposed use. Uh the site is suitable for the proposed use. There will be no impact on traffic flow or safety. There'll be no impact on neighborhood visual character including views and vistas. Uh there will there is
adequate methods of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. There is adequate utilities and other public services. And what is proposed will have no effect on supply of affordable housing. Uh no opposition offered at this in the hearing or in the file. Uh,
no letters against or for. Um, not more detrimental. There you go. All right. Conditions. >> Oh, I would just suggest where there's a barn on the property. That was actually part of the conundrum with the
evaluation of this property is we had the existing barn and the possibility that one could park a vehicle or vehicles in the barn. So, I don't know if you just want to rec recognize that
they are building the threecar garage bay, but that there exists this additional barn on the property that potentially could be used for storage of vehicles or something, right? >> So, what do you want to classify? >> Put a finding.
>> I don't know. You just say that there's an existing barn on the property, right? Just so it's, you know, >> just put that in the findings. existing part of the >> Yeah. >> And the conditions for plans
>> standard hours of work. >> Yeah. >> All boards, >> right? There's nothing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Lot to get I have never understood why this requires a special role. >> You know, it's probably something that the bylaw could use updating. Oh,
perhaps we can discuss another section >> through mad ter we discuss at the workshop or at a future event if this is something that we the board just wants to give >> uh approval to do approve these things administratively. >> Yeah, could bring it up Saturday even.
>> Um I think we're all set, right? >> Most of them aren't this expansive though, you know, >> with a whole acre for a lot. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, a three car garage isn't good for everybody.
>> Fair. >> All right, let's vote on this. Everybody all set? All those in favor? >> I know. >> Great. Thank you all very much. Appreciate your time this evening. >> Thanks. >> Make it home in time for the Celtics game. >> Oh, yeah. >> All right.
Do you want to take the open meeting things out of order and dispense? We'll we'll take all minutes. Are we doing minutes? >> Uh so March 26th has been circulated. >> I'll make a motion. Does everybody read March 26? We all set to vote on it.
>> I'll make a motion to approve March 26, 2026. >> Second. >> Any questions? Everybody else set? All those in favor? I. And then we'll move down to board discussion. Anybody have anything?
All set. Board updates. Saturday, right? >> Nine. Correct. >> Yes. >> On zoning administrative updates. >> Uh so just to update you on a couple of
properties. 481 Quaker. Uh you approved a location for a cell tower there. Um they reduced their compound slightly and then they shifted the pole itself by 2 feet. So we gave them an administrative
approval for that. Uh 1220 Nathan Ellis they have applied for their annual Barnstable County Fair. Um, we have approved their events for the year. Uh, 487 Brick Kilm, the Y, they did some
minor interior changes. We approved those. Um, and then just for the general public's knowledge. On May 14th at 6:00 p.m. at the Lawrence School, there will be a hearing for um a quote tap station,
which is transmission or distribution substation um by Eversource, and it's relating to uh 228 and 280 Sam Turner. >> And that's it.
>> All right. Thank you for doing all those future agenda items. All right, we'll move to habitat. Everybody get their cheese stuff out. >> So, since we voted on the majority of
it, we're only going to skip two sections that we need to. >> Uh, we did make an update just for everybody's knowledge on page two. um where we continued the vote for the
draft. We have added that continuation date um and a motion for that. Do you want to approve it by page like this or just we'll do it at the end? >> I think we can do it at the end. >> Is that okay? We'll set up an office.
>> So page three looks good, guys. Four is good. Five. >> I mean, no on seven. >> Seven. The public schools, wasn't that in it already? >> Yes. So, these um these bolds are just
to reflect what was stated last. Correct. >> All right. So, that >> let's just look. >> Wild Harbor Road. I remember we changed that. >> And do we need to do 53? I don't think so.
>> These are just corrections pretty much. >> Yes. >> Do we need G28? >> Need G7. >> Oh, G7. I skipped over that. Where is G7? >> We didn't we didn't vote on that. >> Or did we?
>> Uh, we did I believe that this was just um correction word smithing. So the this bold was what you had spoken about last time. >> We might have used the word HOA or something like that. >> So I think the ones that just are like a
quick word or stuff we voted on. >> Yep. >> Is G28 one we voted on though? >> No, that was going to be refined. I I provide the language and that was going to be refined, but we have to go back up to G26. >> Oh, okay. We I don't remember voting on
>> without encroachment into the uh natural vegetated state and that it will become where's that language? I lost that language. Part of the HOA documents >> in G26. >> Yes. So that's not any it's not a
substantial change. We just added that this would be added to the HOA docs >> at the end of the word perpetuity. >> Yes. >> Okay. Everybody got that one? >> Mhm. and G28. We can vote on all the G. Then
we'll vote on these two together. >> And G28's all set for everybody. >> So I'll make a motion that we do G26 and G28. >> Second that. >> We have a motion in a second. Everybody good on those two? >> Yes. >> I
>> I >> none. So we'll keep moving. The storm water is just a you know that one there that S7 is just a S10 is just a you know
>> Yep. >> So I don't know that you I mean it's up to you if you want to >> Yeah, we were heming and holling over that one. It's just to expand um the abbreviations so there's not specifically a change >> on which one
>> uh for the um >> what number >> for the S7 and for the S10 there there's not any change. What happened is there was an abbreviation within each of those and we just spelled out what the
abbreviation means. So, it's up to you if you want to revote the conditions or not, but >> they haven't changed any. >> They haven't changed. >> I think we're okay, right? >> Yeah. >> Do you want to vote on it or are you okay with >> like who doesn't know what W?
>> I think it's fine. It's just spelling out what the abbreviations meant. Do we have to do the one at S9 then too and make that not not a just basket them all and say >> there's no change to S9. >> No, but I mean it's abbreviated
>> NPD S7. >> No, but S9 also has capital letters meaning it's the same type of thing. That's what I'm getting at, >> right? But we didn't spell out >> and there's no need to change it. Okay, >> that's fine. >> All right. Um just for um my own uh
edification, >> what is NPDES National? >> Uh yes. >> Oh, we'll build it. >> I'll look that up next week. Okay. >> Yeah, it's the national
>> design engineering standard >> solution design. I think it's >> engineering standards probably. >> Yes. See, told you everybody knew. >> Do you want that spelled out? >> No, that's all right. >> Okay. >> Who can't spell NPDs?
Nice. >> That would probably be me. All right. Three on page 19. Did we decide on that? I don't remember. That's for the street light at the end of the street. So, um I think this was the word
smithing that we had agreed to and I think I put it in bold because it was a change from the last draft, >> right? >> Or from the original draft. So, I believe this is what was agreed to. >> And how was that turned on?
So, uh, the town approved street light will be however the rest of the town has their street lights go on, etc. So, this will just be effectively because they're putting in a new street, we want
passengers on Benjamin Nye to be able to notice that this is where they want to turn if they want to go into the new street so that they don't drive by. >> Those street lights come on just the time I get home. My mother told me. >> Yes, that was a favorite. >> We all had to go home.
>> That was a favorite. Yeah. >> And then any newly in ' 06. That's okay, right? >> Yep. >> And then we flip and we have 04. This is the sidewalk. We didn't decide this if I am if I'm
correct. Right. Uh, we did talk about it, but I that's a good question about whether that one was specifically voted. >> I don't think it was. I think that was the bullet point one. >> Can we just vote it? >> Yeah, if you want one. Yeah. Or if you
don't want one, we can You want to keep it in there as is? >> I They're going to make a path anyway. >> I mean, they were proposing that there not be any sidewalk. I think my specific concern was if you have pedestrians at
that area where you have at the intersection with Benjamin Nye down through the first lot, you know, you're going to have vehicles coming and going and it's dark at what 5:00 in the winter. And so the idea that a
pedestrian can step off of the roadway at least to get to the first house and get to the mailbox area seems like it would be a safer opportunity. It's not a it's not going to be an overly well lit right area by any means.
>> There are two there are two posts that are provided in the area of the mail kiosk. So it would presumptively also illuminate that area. >> Downward lighting isn't going to do a heck of a lot. >> All right. So we'll vote we we'll vote
on the three changes in the prior to occupancy permit. We'll keep that the way it's written. Everybody's okay with that? >> Yes. with 014 the way it is. So I'll make a motion to do the prior to occupancy permit section 0306 and 014.
That's my motion. >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. Everybody voting on that in favor? I >> I >> And then we do waivers. Now we hadn't done any waiverss yet. Right. That be cool.
>> So, we had three waivers. We had three waivers that had been missed in the original drafting of the decision and it was pointed out that those were missing. They were added in. There was a question about whether the board was adequately noticed that those
waivers were requested. We did review the documents and the waiverss were properly listed and were available to the board as well as the pier. So, um it's still up to the board to
vote on uh what is now W2.5, W10.5, and W1.5. Any discussion on those three from anybody? >> No, >> everybody's comfortable with them.
>> So, I'll make a motion on the waiver section W2.5, W10.5, and W1.5. >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. You guys all set with it? >> Yeah. >> All those in favor? >> I.
And then we do a final vote. Correct. >> Both. >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. None. Voted five >> unanimously. >> Zero unanimously to grant a comprehensive permit with conditions for
the construction of 14 home ownership dwellings including the five Cape designs, eight ranch designs, one colonial colonial design. The 14 dwellings shall be affordable in perpetuity to households whose income is not more than 80% of the area median
income as determined by HUD and EOHLC at 48 Benjamin NY North Felmouth, Mass. The premises assessor's map 05 section 02 parcel 022 lot O4 the premises the comprehensive permit shall be subject to
the following conditions. And then we we did all our conditions. No. >> Yes. >> Um so just as a correction, um we did not have Scott Peterson listed as a
voting member. Um I think you missed two meetings. >> The only thing I missed was the the review. I I believe I was here for all of the others. Mhm. >> Was he here last meeting?
>> Well, that that's I went the draft when you reviewed the draft. >> Oh, you missed out here for the draft review. >> And you missed all you didn't miss any hearings? >> I don't No, I I don't >> I don't believe so, but >> Okay. Cuz I think here's the other part is that the board voted at the last meeting.
>> The rest of the conditions. >> So, I think the the voting members that I had were u Miss Murphy, Mr. Fineran, uh Mr. Duffy who's obviously asked this evening, Mr. Petroi and and Mr. Haney. So I think in order to have a proper
vote tonight, >> we need to have the vote be uh Murphy Fineran, Patrrui, and Haney. >> I Yeah, it keeps it clean. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So not that I'm trying to exclude you, but just >> line with that. I'm not losing sleep
over it. >> Just to be proper. >> That's the what we got to do. >> Okay. So, we have a motion by Ms. Murphy and a second by Mr. Petruchi. And >> did you second anything? >> Four to zero to approve.
>> Yes. >> There you go. Brilliant. >> I'm taking it to the game. >> We need right now motion to adjourn, Madam Chair. Second is all set. Secondly, a motion of eight. All those in favor? I see you on May 7th.