e e [Music]
e e e e welcome to the zoning board of appeals we are going into executive session for a few minutes before the hearings begin do you want us to leave yeah not
really but you have to just a minute folks hold it before you go we have to tell you that at this conclusion of the executive session we will go back into regular session and you will be allowed back in so don't leave the building or go home okay okay
hang out there you should roll CU we'll miss you yeah so we're going into executive session to discuss pending uh pending litigation with the Town Council we have a motion second right we need a roll call vote finin I Duffy I Murphy I
Nick okay Nick any I all right e e e all right 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 to request permission I'll introduce the board and staff on my far right is Mark fineran to my closest right is Frank Duffy the clerk my name is Suzanne Murphy chair and Nick Haney over here is a full voting member
tonight and we have noren Stockman our zoning administrator the zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the State zoning statutes as well as the town zoning bylaws and reviewing and voting on every application 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 the closing and hearing process in reaching a decision number one to each hearing to begin each hearing the clerk will read the public announcement for the hearing and read pertinent information from the
file two the applicant or the applicant's representative will then will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation but time may be ex extended by the vote of the board three the board will then question the applicant four then the public will be invited to comment comment should be limited to 2
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 please speak into the microphone it will amplify your voice and and record audio for the fctv
viewers and we also have a moment right now before we start all hearings if anyone wants to make a public comment about anything that's on on tonight's agenda anybody want to come up all right let's go our first hearing
tonight is a continuation Lawrence Lynch is Mr Kirk in the room so this case was actually not opened oh was not open it was continued because of the date got it so you may want to ready few items into the record okay then I'll
read the uh read the items into the record let's do it before you get started this is um application 10624 Lawrence Lynch realy Corp um of Falmouth Massachusetts applies to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit P
pursuant to section 240 12.1 of the zoning board zoning bylaw to renew existing special permit 20-90 that's the year 1990 for excavation and restoration and to allow continued use of processing and storage
of materials the subject property is known as lot zero uh it's also has a street address of 160 Thomas B Landers Road in hatchville Massachusetts the zoning district is AGA the overlay district is the Great
Pond overlay District we also have a note that D has approved Zone 2 Wellhead protection area up up there there are several previous zoning board of appeals decisions uh that are relevant to this particular matter tonight there's um
1965 case number 1882 um which allowed a screening mixing crushing and batching plant there was uh 1968 case number 2175 which allowed the removal of sand and gravel um from the property and had
a 20-year life there was also uh a case in 1990 uh where the zba issued uh an ex extended the Earth removal uh for to the full 36 Acres um the street Frontage is 880 ft
which is well in excess of the zoning District requirements Thomas B Landers Road is a public right of way there are no non-conformities here because there's no structures we're discussing um we have referrals from engineering who caution us to be
concerned about the storm water permit Board of Health has no comment conservation no comment water no comment planning board no comment assessors no comment the building department however has informed us that it considers the permit that's the permit
1990 uh to be null and void and requests thirdparty verification of that any conditions have been met if that's an issue thank you hi good evening Madam chair members of the board Edward Kirk uh uh I'm an attorney in austerville
representing Lawrence Lynch Corporation um there's been extensive correspondence uh with the Cape Cod Commission about this project and whether or not uh it uh it needs
commission review in order for the permitting process to go forward here in the town and uh it's it's my understanding that uh the chief regulatory officer of the commission uh believes that this does
require uh review by the Cape Cod Commission and uh I was informed that as a result of that tonight uh there would be formal referral by you as the original uh permitting authority to
refer our application to the commission and so I understand that's going going to happen and uh if if that's going to be the case we W be back here to see you probably for some time I would make it motion to refer the
case to the Cape Cod Commission for the information that's been given to us by the commission okay do you have a question well uh I just my question was simply um isn't the uh threshold for Cape Cod Commission 100,000 square ft and this is well beyond that right so
it's it's a no-brainer so to speak yeah so that was a motion mark second Frank yes do we want to have any public uh I guess we would have to have them I think we should before we not on a referral not okay we have a motion you second
even though they came did you second uh yeah but I mean there are are there I'm curious as to if there are any members of the public that are here uh wanting to speak relative to
this the only thing they can speak about is a referral right what what I would recommend is that upon the board's referral to the Cape Cod Commission the Cape Cod Commission will take its time with this process at which point in time the hearing will be back before the
zoning board and we will Ren notice the public so they would have certainly an opportunity at that time to talk about the case well I just my concern always is for the public well that works for me though we'll come back to us so you okay
Nick okay okay so we have a motion in a second all those in favor of referral I I oppos None thank you thank you thank you okay next we move on to 118 oyster Pond all right let's find the file here
found it hold some over here and get them out of the way are you representing tonight huh I am okay this is application 11724 Melissa M Beford trustee has applied to the uh zoning board of
appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 24102 A of the zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling at 118 oyster Pond Road bouth Massachusetts the zoning district is
RB uh the existing dwelling is 3,313 ft² the proposed dwelling is 3,100 177 Square ft the flood zone is v15 and ae13 there is a previous zoning board of appeals decision it's number 35 1995
variance and special permit for an accessory shed in the front yard less than 50 ft from the street the lot size is 18,300 um Square fet in a district that require currently requires 40,000 square fet the street Frontage is 95 FT 1 in
95.1 ft in in a district that requires 100 oyster Pond Road is a public right of way and also at border surf Drive which is a public right of way lot coverage by structure is presently 18.1% uh it's going to go to 17.36% in a
district where 20% is the limit lot coverage by Structure Parking and Paving is 26.4 4% it'll be uh the proposed structure will be 24.14% in a district where 40% is the
limit the uh non the setback that creates the nonconformity is the one to the east uh to oyster Pond which is 22 ft uh 50 is required from the body of water uh the property is set back 52.9
ft from the street and the other um setbacks conform to zoning um the proposed height of the the of the building will be 34 feet which is within the 35 ft Allowed by the zoning bylaw as far as referrals go the
engineering department has asked us to inform the applicant that they will need driveway permits uh also to pay attention to storm water runoff and advises us that there's a possible encroachment in the public right of way
which I think is surf drive but somebody may explain that to us the Board of Health has advised that a dite uh May is required for the property Conservation Commission has approved an order of condition uh on December 18th 2024 for
the proposed project water department has advised that it's necessary to upgrade to a 1-in service with the meter to be located inside the building department has advised us that they have designated oyster Pond Road as the front yard for zoning purposes planning board has no
comment and the fire department has no comment I did not note any letters of support or opposition Tom before you start we have a four-man board tonight yeah I saw that yeah what's what's the requirement all four yeah
um yeah any want to doing it let's go we'll go okay yeah the rec my I'm Tom Bunker I'm a registered land surveyor with BSS design uh before I get started I was wondering you read a referral from the health that
wasn't sent to me uh but I did have a later uh uh communication from Scott that did not mention the requirement for a denitrifying septic system I don't think there is one excuse me if I
misspoke uh he said a dite may be required and you allowed for the space so you're all good okay and right that's right okay just wanted to make sure that thank you uh yeah so uh the existing conditions were and the uh uh
the uh non-conformities were were read out I didn't realize about the uh the shed I was going to call that a non-conformity but it's it's okay I guess um so I have this plan and the uh property lines are highlighted in the
Orange Line around here and I can jump right to this this location uh on the town GIS it looks like if you click on that area it looks like actually a parcel owned by uh
hoie I believe u but it's it's not there's the old original layout of surf Drive um Scott schutter had some good uh pictures in his referral actually if you take this line
and extend it up across the flume going out or the river going out there and it it comes up to the bike path right up about in line with surf drive and it's just that uh there was a uh a widening a realignment of the curve
to Surf drive going out this way uh to connect to oyon Road uh but it did used to come down here and the intersection between surf drive and oy Pond Road was down down in this location uh it took it took some uh
research and and sleuthing to figure that out but but that that's the case so we did get the front yard letter uh saying that oyster Pond Road is the front yard and this could be the side yard um without that letter this is actually
a non-conformity here it's only 20 ft from the house to this street line and the other nonconformity is the uh to the uh 3ot ngvd line is 9 ft here 10 ft uh
38 ft and this corner house is 47 ft over to here um because the zoning does have a a flood plane district and I think this house is also non-conforming uh in that the uh the
floor of the house is too low in the flood zone uh it's only 9.5 and the flood zone as you read out is is uh 13 uh the velocity zone is out the velocity flood zone is out here the
house is not in the velocity flood zone but it is fully in the AE elevation 13 flood zone here um I think that covered it the shed will be removed so there'll be no no more need for that uh special permit variance
there the septic system is also non-conforming but that's to Title Five not to zoning it's h too close to the it's too close to the Wetland and we could do nothing about that but it's also too close to the groundwater and so on the next page you'll see that we've
elevated it to be above the more than 5 ft above the groundwater um so that's that one if I can so this is the proposed plan and I can go over the the floor
elevation it's up to 15.5 so that's the uh building building code design elevation is 1 foot higher than the azone so it' be required to be at 14 uh but this is a foot and a half higher than that and that's uh so that this
would be usable storage area there there this is a uh well it's B basically a walk through a grade where the the driveway is at 5 and a half and it'll come out here so it only made sense to bring that up high enough so you could actually walk through it and out the
back but of course it can only be used for storage parking and building access uh in that lower level and there are no space down there uh the setbacks are being uh to the
ngvd that zoning line there is uh is increased the minimum on the existing was nine it's 13 here it is uh 32 at this point where it was uh um basically
I think it was 10 feet at this location the red line here is the uh existing house so you can see it that they move from this red line up here down to this point where the shed is you move from 10
ft to 32 ft um this one is moved now it's outside of the 50ft setback in this location um and there is patio in this area but the house is all retreated away from the that and further out of the
it's actually out of the Falmouth Wetland cons conservation Wetland uh requirement uh velocity flood zone uh and also on this line because there is a front yard letter um the
houses uh uh closer to this line but now only a side yard is 10 foot setback is required and this setb is 11 and A2 right here and as was read out the um see
there so the coverage has gone from existing 18.1 to proposed 17.36% [Music] zoning coverage the uh nonconformities have been reduced that is the setback
distance has have been increased the non-conformity to a side our street line here has been eliminated um the septic system is up on a uh retaining wall now it's a mounted
system to be more than 5 ft above the groundwater elevation U as is required and the in the uh Health uh Health regulations for an upgrade where we're more than 50 ft but
less than 75 ft from the Wetland which is over here which the existing SE septic system was and we are now but uh required to put in pressure distribution and that is shown there a a septic tank and the pump chamber here and the uh
leeching field is up here on top of the uh the fill that's placed inside the uh the retaining well um so also the I was read the uh
peak of the roof will be basically 34 ft above average grade that's 1 foot lower than the uh than the allowed 35 ft and uh
sh has been removed front yard setback went from 52 ft down to 37 ft so it still conforms we basically moved the house back from the Wetland resource area as much as possible and up to get out of the flood zone and away from the
groundwater um we moved it as far as we could while still allowing the septic system to be put in here uh conforming to the SE back requirements so the no Varian is required uh we still have the driveway we can turn around it's actually a little better for turning
around uh so nobody have to back out um in here the coverage has been reduced non-conformities have been reduced the believe the site is adequate for this use it has been in this use for quite some time there's no increase in
bedrooms here either it's a two-bedroom and will remain a two-bedroom um the the utilities are adequate for this site uh no impact on traffic flow or
safety um I believe it's it's uh not more any more detrimental I don't believe it's not detrimental at all to the character of the uh of the neighborhood so uh with that I will uh leave it open the questions sounds good
Mark you want to start off yeah um what I did notice is uh uh first off uh uh do you know what year they changed the layout of the road um I think it was in the 30s 30s 19 when they put the round in the corner
there and changed oyster Pond and all that yeah that that there's a big curve out here it's I'm not sure if it filled any an interesting thing there's another layout for oon road that actually is uh landw of where you drive now but it's a street but yeah I think that I think I
believe that was around the 30s 35 or something when they when they put made that change like so the property that's South and say Southwest whatever of the property line yeah right along that line back back and forth this this line is yeah who owns
all the property south of that that's Town property Town property that's what was referred to by Scott that there is so how long has this house been uh on the town property and mowing say all the way down to that box of letters and up
because the the existing property that they're maintaining is is well beyond the property L and yes and that's one of the things that almost puts these people in uh uh position for adverse possession uh of town land wouldn't it well it
could except a can't yeah well then uh uh do they plan on continuing to use that land that they've been usurping so to speak no we we started realizing that this would be a condition probably put in by the board U actually on the
original plan we filed with conservation we we included removing all this as part of that application until the state agency for endangered species or whatever said oh you have
to do lots of stuff so we withdrew it from the conservation application said that when the requirement if the requirement comes up to license it or remove it then we will go back and remove it under a lesser
filing with conservation like an RDA um so when this is complete conservation will take possession of that land that here to for you've been Mowing and useing for a front lawn well it'll be up to conservation and and Engineering what
will be required to be removed from it I mean you know there's a if I go back you there's the Hedge there's a flag flag pole all all kinds of all kinds of things there yeah so it'll be up to conservation and engineering and and you guys to see what what should be done
with it uh well obviously you don't own it so that's just going to naturally be part of the process excuse me they don't own it so it's naturally going to be part of the process anyway that's it's like hardly like that you're going to be able
to to to maintain that and continue with your wall and edges and mowing what whether it's yeah lawn whether it's fully planted with Native shrubs or whatever I mean that's we don't know what will happen with it it's not part
of 118 anymore it's not yeah all and other than that um you know we we're sticklers for lot lines and stuff and uh and you you drove the stakes right into the patio and uh I was very proud of you on that point cuz it's guy be sure that
that um and you had offset Stakes which is a simple solution to omitting all together and I was glad to see one of those it's actually the first time I've seen one and Corner was inside the in the back uh would have been the South uh West corner but um there have been
numerous occasions although we had a house today where somebody drove one underneath I was very proud of him for that too but other than that I it was fairly obvious about the the the use of the land there and I was just curious cuz it is Town land and such but uh it
is Town land yeah other than that I mean I thought it's a beautiful house to begin with but it's a nice upgrade and God bless them Frank uh no I have sufficient information I think I think this looks like a a very reasonable solution to the
problems down there I thought I read in one of the referrals it says must remove all encroachments I think it was engineering that's engineering yes I did read that Nick do you have anything I'm just curious you said it's townland but what it's not Woods holes it's not hoie
land to the Southwest correct South Southeast or this lot right here yeah right I we we started out thinking that it was whoie because that's what the gis says but it's uh uh both right couldn't couldn't it it it it's shown as
a street line on many previous plans it's but it's it's a hard one okay all set yeah any other questions before we go to the public up here I'm good you good anybody from the
public want to speak on this project quiet looking good for you Mr bun absolutely anybody want to give me a motion I'd say we motion to close and move on to the we have a motion to close
in a second any further discussion all those in favor I oppose none anybody else want to give me a motion motion to approve with conditions second we have a motion to approve with conditions any further discussion
no all set everyone we got to we'll do findings findings properties 118 oyster Pond Road in Falmouth uh owned by Melissa of Beford trustee zoning district is RB they've applied for a special permit under Section 2410 point2 a to raise and
rebuild an existing non-conforming single family dwelling the existing dwelling is 3,313 square ft with its two bedrooms the proposed um dwelling is 3,177 square feet and it two will be a
two-bedroom house project is located in ae13 uh flood zone district and also in a v15 district uh as previously mentioned there's a there's an ex existing special
permit 39- 95 variance and a special permit for 8x6 accessories shed in the front yard less than 50 ft from the street and based upon a representation during the hearing tonight it will be removed the lot is
18,300 Ft in a district that currently requires 40,000 sare ft Frontage is 95 and 1/10 uh feet in a district that requires 100 oyster Pawn road is a public right of way and the Building Commissioner has designated oyster Pond
Road as the front yard for zoning purposes the lot coverage by structure uh will be 17.36% excuse me percent I 17.13 36% and 24.14%
um the setbacks will conform to zoning um the height of the building will be 34 ft um and we have in referrals uh which I previously read um under 240 10.28 it's a special
permit for non-conforming structure the board can find that the proposed structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing uh non-conforming structure and section 2401 12.1 e of the zoning bylaw
contains the uh criteria for the grant of a special permit the board finds that the site is add that there site is adequate for the proposed use it is suitable for the proposed use there's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety it will be there's no impa
negative impact on neighborhood visual visual character views and vistors is adequate sewage disposal as exhibited by a permit from the um Board of Health there are adequate utilities and there'll be no impact on the supply of affordable
housing fine job and then we are conditions want but Mr finman's encroachment issue I would say yeah that should be restored back to must remove all encroach must remove well and that
store the land as per conservation with administrative approval afterwards because it is our something to that effect also petition the select board to maintain structures also so yeah but these structures aren't on their property
right so they can't they can't they they can still ask um because it's off of their a lot and it's into the town's Road layout or the town's property so they can they can technically request
prior to having to remove but they're they're not on their property the RO the layout extends 10 ft or whatever the road layout is beyond and they're not eligible for that kind of a I mean this is blatantly into the town property so
they need to remove it and then restore it as conservation says so it's in the uh flood zone the velocity whatever all those different color Stakes mean it's not the fame they can't get a license for that from the selectman I'm quite sure but you know conservation will
determine and they should just come back to you for administrative approval that's all I would think okay okay so other conditions are all Town boards mhm mhm um d d may be required re in the
future but not as of now well as Mark pointed out there's something in the file that says they've made yeah they have a sufficient space sufficient space to add aight so that's um they will need a street opening permit um driveway permit
yep I think that's it oh Town working hours what' you say do they want the 1in service yeah that's all Town boards yeah new water line um working hours regular working hours
um sheds being removed vehicles on the what what ve work vehicles on the lot yeah well they may actually need police at that you may have to contact police for that maybe because it's on such a bad
curve maybe there's a good amount of par in there they could just take that upon themselves they're always responsible for that anyway yeah any other conditions Norine think of anything two bedroom that's two bedroom yep per plans
did we say that one per plans we going to say it now though y I think that's it right sure all that Frank all those in favor I opposed none thank you thank you that
did look like a great project okay next we have um 57 carot shop road which has requested a continuance so I'll make a motion to continue if I could have a second did they ask
how long they wanted to continue April 10 April 10 is our date I'll make a motion to continue to April 10th second it there's a second there a motion in a second all those in favor I oppose
none okay now we have 50 to asking [Applause] [Music] oh do Ive again no okay this is appeal or application 12124 Taylor C Kurt and Cara L laferty
trustees have applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 24102 A of the zoning bylaw to allow a pool into raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling at 50 nascet Road
West Falmouth Massachusetts the property is in an RB zoning District there's no noted overlay districts um the existing house is an, 1488 squ ft the proposed uh house will
be 2436 Square ft there's in be18 flood zone no previous decisions of the board of appeals noted the lot has 38,43 Square ft in a zoning District
which requires 40,000 square ft the property has Street Frontage of 16142 Ft in a zoning District which requires 100 the masket road is a private right of way at this Loc ation
the loot coverage by structure uh is currently 3.9% it will be increased to 6.3% the limit in the zoning bylaw is 20% so it's within that lot coverage by Structure Parking and Paving is
6.5% be increase to 99.3% the zoning bylaw allows up to 40% so it's within that limit the setback uh to the east is 5.8 uh feet which is non-complying or non-conforming uh to the West it's
79 Square ft to the north it's 20.4 ft and to the South it's 200 ft um the height of the building is 25t 5 in the proposed building will have a height of 34t 2
in the um new front yard setback will be 20.7 feet the sidey yard will be uh six feet that's to the east I think yes East the new rear yard is 191.168 Department advises that an upgrade in
service to 1 in is required along with the meter being located in the house building department has asked for height and elevation certifications given the fact that they're going very close to the 35- Ft uh limit of the zoning bylaw
and fire and planning have no comment Kevin before you tury Clow before you stop uh Forman board M if I could make a request Miss Murphy um I I know your practice has been to remain fairly silent on matters but given that
there's no margin for error if you'd be willing to share your thoughts as part of the discussion I think that would be very helpful sure much appreciated um good evening Madam chair members of the board for the record Kevin Clow and I am before you this evening representing Taylor Kurth and car laferty the owners
of 15 damasc um I'm joined tonight by Norman corain of salt architecture uh the applicants are seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling and to replace it with a new single family dwelling this property 15 a masket is located in West Falmouth just south of
old silver this may seem like uh deja vu all over again as we uh were just discussing 51 theask two weeks ago this particular lot is 38436 ft and as was noted by Mr Duffy is in the RB zoning district and is also in
a v18 flood zone presently there's a three-bedroom single family dwelling and detached garage total footprint is 1,488 Ft the existing structure is structures are non-conforming the front yard setback to the house is only 20.4
where 25 is required and the side yard setback to the garage is 5.8 where 10 is required it's otherwise conforming to the rear yard setback and all lot coverage requirements this house is built in 1963 it is not in a historic district or on any list of significant
structures the applicants recently purchased this property and the house is in need of significant repair and upgrades in order to accommodate their handicapped child given the location in the flood zone v18 the scope of repairs really necessitates compliance with the flood zone standards requires an
elevation of the structure so they must raise the existing and rebuilding compliance with those requirements in this case the bottom of the joists supporting the first floor of habitable space and Mechanicals have to be at least 2 fet above the flood zone elevations that's elevation 20 in this
case which is about 12T above grade the applicant proposed dwelling is an attractive design which is in character with the neighborhood maintains the same number of bedrooms um the existing non-conformities are effectively unchanged the the front yard set back is is effectively the same it's going from
20.4 to 20.7 the side yard set back to the east is also uh similarly slightly improved from 5.8 ft to 6 feet the lck coverage will remain conforming lot coverage by structures will be only 6.3% and lot coverage by structures Paving
and parking will be only 99.3% both well below the allowable thresholds of 20% by lot coverage by structure and 40% by lock coverage uh for lock coverage by structures Paving and parking the ridge height is uh proposed at 34' 9 in uh which is largely uh due to the flood
zone requirements and the applicant is agreeable to a height certification at framing as was noted in the building furl and lastly this will obviously now comply with femur requirements which is an improvement giving the existing non-conformities this does require a
special permit under 240 10.2 a that provision holds that pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed by special permit provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists this board is asked to consider the standards of 2401 12.1 e and whether or not the alteration creates any new
dimensional non-conformities and pairs views and Vistas and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood there's no new non-conformity created by this proposal and the existing non-conformities are effectively unchanged slight improvements design and character the design is in character of the neighborhood especially considering
the recent approval at 51 namas there's no effec of nitrogen U same number of bedrooms as presently exists and there was a new septic installed in 2018 I should note that we submitted revised plans in January in response to the concerns of the Conservation Commission and to eliminate a bedroom by
uh using a cased opening in response to the referral from the health department this project represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions it's designed to accommodate the lifestyle needs of the applicants and their son conservation has reviewed and closed this matter the order of conditions was issued on
February 6th there's no new dimensional non-conformities there's no adverse effects that overbalance the benefits of outlined there's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more detrimental than what exists I believe that it meets all the requirements of 240 10.2 a and 24 12.1 e for these
reasons I would ask that this board Grant the special permit and I'd be happy to address any questions that you might have at this time Mark you want to start off again yeah um what's the uh length and width of the existing
house um I don't have the dimensions shown on the plan um let me see if I have it on the architectural plans [Applause] um I don't have it scaled out here but the current square footage is 1,36
square ft in the house and 328 in the garage so I don't have those exact yeah they're not there yeah uh and then you got to do the uh uh the new house you have to do some math to figure it out I mean just those
those dimensions are are are missing as far as the board's ability to look at this house um you know objectively whatever well so this does show all the dimensions uh yeah
but we have to search anyway um and and as of the if you add them up it's it's there I mean it would be nice if you just provided them up front you know I I can discuss both both instances they you know it's kind of blatant that they're missing um so we can certainly ask the
engineers to do that moving forward um I mean the uh you know the bulk traits left the station and all that so I mean just to make our work easier I mean it would be nice if all those Dimensions were included on the prints um other than that it's it's a nice spot I mean
uh they own a fair amount of wetland and swamp and God bless them the you know I I uh appreciate the 3 in but uh in the front but you can see that's about all they had to give um so uh I'm glad you pulled out the shoe horn on that for what it's worth didn't didn't dare call
it an improvement no anyway uh other than that it's uh you know the neighborhood's trending that way Kevin um you know there's a couple more I saw the way down that we'll probably be seeing you back somewhere in the near future as well um but other
than that I'm good to go Frank you have any questions uh not at this time no I think that Mr clar has given us the information that I need anyway yeah well you didn't tell us about what's at the end of the street again it is it is truly a lovely
beautiful spot but uh no this looks like a great project to me it practically mirrors you see I mean it happens to be the same architect happens to be the same engineer um but I do think salt does a really good job of of not um going there will be similarities but
they will not look like mirror images it's funny when I looked at the one two weeks ago I said to Ashley let me see the other one I want to see and and they are they're a little bit different just enough yeah I I agree and they have a lot of Windows which that's what I was looking for and also go ahead the uh beach at the End of the Street the
association is allows the public to use it as long as they respect it and I think that's a yeah extremely says something neighborhood yes I think it's one of the nicest neighborhoods in town isn't it Kevin might be might
be Nick any questions no no good project should I go to the public and you can follow up if you have anybody from the public want to speak on this project wow if I might I didn't note I didn't make a note of this when I read
the um previous information but we have no letters on file everybody's happy all around I motion we close second all right I have a motion to close in a second any discussion all those in favor I oppose
none I'll take another motion to approve with conditions second motion to approve conditions all those in favor I oppose none all right let's do find findings the property is 50 nascet Road West Falmouth um zoning district is RB
they've applied for a special permit pursuant to section 240 10.2 a of the F zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling and add a pool the existing dwelling uh or the existing structures
uh 1488 Square ft the proposed structures will be 2436 Square ft it's in a flood zone v18 no previous decisions of the board of appeals the lot is 34 38436 sare ft in a zoning District where
the minimum requirement is currently 40,000 square ft Street Frontage is 16142 Ft in a zoning District where 100 ft is the current minimum requirement nascet Road is is a private right of way at this point lot coverage by structure
will be 6.3% which is within the 20% limit Allowed by the zoning by law lot coverage by Structure Parking and Paving will be 99.3% which is within the um 40% Allowed by the zoning bylaw the height of the building will be
25 fet um five excuse me is currently 25 ft 5 in but the new building will be 24t 2 in 30 34 excuse me did I say 24 34t 2 in which is very close to the
35 uh foot limit of the zoning bylaw and that is why the Building Commissioner has uh in his referral requested a height and elevation certification um Mr here just one quick one quick correction it's 34t 9 in N it's 34t 9 in 9 in that's even
closer they took the 3 in from the front and put it on top I just I I want no no fine fine I I maybe I wrote it down wrong but I got the 34 anyway so it's uh it's close U there's a Conservation
Commission um order condition on February 6th 2025 and there are other referrals from the Departments as previously read into the record um as as I just mentioned there
are no letters in support no letters in opposition now under Section 240 10.2 a of the zoning bylaw uh which is the provision for special permits for non-conforming structures we make a finding that the proposed structure shall not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure and under 241 12.1 e which are the criteria for Grant of a special permit we make the finding that the site is adequate for the proposed use the excuse me the proposed structure the site is suitable
for the proposed structures there's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety uh there's no negative impact on neighborhood visual characters views and vistors there's adequate sewage disposal the Board of Health has uh advised us that a septic system will be required
there is adequate utilities and there's no impact on the supply of affordable housing and we note again that the Building Commissioner has required that there be a height and elevation certification I guess prior to occupancy
per oh I think I think that's typically uh the height certification done a framing typically oh whenever okay so that can be our first condition right okay okay other conditions per plans work
hours um jeez there's a lot of space on this I can't even say no sheds um all all all departments it's a three-bedroom I think that's it think of
any other conditions I understand the the building the Board of Health originally said you had needed a new septic system but you dropped one of the bedrooms is that right you don't need a new septic we do not need a new septic the septic was installed in 2018 uh the original plans showed three bedrooms in
an office which the office constituted a bedroom but we enlarged the case opening there to make that not a bedroom so the existing septic is efficient all right okay any other conditions maren you can think of think we're else that everybody ready to vote let's go all those in
favor all opposed none thank you very much appreciate your time on this one all we still have next up we have 13 amphibian this is ation 122 12224 13 amphibian
LLC as applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section 24 111.3 A4 of the code of Falmouth to raise and rebuild the existing single family dwelling exceeding 20% lot coverage by structure
property is at 13 amphibian Road East pal Massachusetts which is in the Sea Coast Shores neighborhood the uh property is in an RC zoning District it's in the W white Bay Coastal Pond overlay District the existing structure is
9392 squ Ft the proposed structure is 2582 square ft there are no noted previous zoning board of appeals decision on file for this property the lot is 10,375 Ft in the zoning District which
currently requires 40,000 square ft the street Frontage is 100 uh feet which is exactly the requirement of the zoning bylaw at 100 fet amphibian road is a public right of way at this point the uh
current structure by uh lot coverage by structure is 9% it will be increased to 24.9% the limit is 20% but the board of appeals May Grant a special permit up to 25% the worksheet provided by the applicant is suggested that the
neighborhood average is 14.83% l coverage by Structure Parking and Paving will be 33.9% and that's within the 40% Allowed by the zoning District uh bylaw the current setbacks are
conforming to the zoning bylaw um the height of the ex of the proposed building will be 28.7 ft is what I took off the plan um the setbacks of the proposed Street proposed project will be 25 ft from the street 19 ft from
the East 36.9 ft from the south which is the back lot line and 15 ft from the West um we have a board of health uh advising that you may need a dite in the future uh conservation has no comment
water has no comment um building department has no comment the planning board has no comment and I didn't see an engineering referral when I look through the
file I was I don't have one either you have one I do not he doesn't have one oh you don't have one either no no okay well I'll just
note now um we have 12 letters in support uh and we have one letter in opposition which we received yesterday or today um it's from Mr Ry Metrano who identifies himself as the as
the a butter at 10 nollwood Drive which is a director butter in the rear um this is a four-page letter which will take a long time to read into the record so I'm going to just kind of summarize it have you seen this letter Mr I received it today yes
okay um he has three concerns one is the issue of drainage he doesn't want any prop any water draining off the property onto his property he's also concerned about privacy and and and the lack of buffer um and he's also concerned about
what he calls in his letter context and scale that the new building relative to others on the street will be out of scale it's much bigger than all the other buildings on the street he also has some discussion in here about a variance but there is no variance in the
application we're not going to consider a variance and we're not going to vote on one so I won't consider that no right um before I begin there were three additional letters of support that I had nected so 15 total
15 once again Kevin we have a foran board my same request would would hold hold still here but I think we have actually some people in the audience who are here for this so would like to proceed tonight because they've taken the time out of their day to be here got it uh so for the record my name is Kevin
Clow uh I'm before you representing Michael and Crystal O'Brien who are the managers of 13 amphibian LLC and the owners of this property as well both are present with us this evening uh we also have a number of their neighbors who have come to express some support for
the project the O'Brians are seeking permission to raise and reconstruct the existing single family residence uh on this property 13 amphibian is located uh in SEO Shores uh the southern the southern third of the peninsula the lot's just over 10,000 sare ft and it's
a residential sea uh zoning district and it is not currently in a flood zone presently there's a small single family dwelling with a footprint of just under 1,000 square ft it's in pretty poor condition as you've seen it is conforming to all setback and lock coverage
requirements as noted um the dwelling is in tough shape and so they're proposing to raise the existing and construct a new dwelling Mike and Crystal have owned uh a property just around the corner from here at 331 Edgewater West for the past 8 years and have become very ingrained in the SEO community in that
time um they've also undertaken a number of construction projects in the area they have a growing family um and they often have friends and relatives staying with them they plan to use this property for their own purposes the proposed plans uh will not create any new dimensional nonconformities the setbacks all meet or
exceed requirements law coverage by structure will increase to 24.9% which does require a special permit pursuant to 240 11.3 A4 there's a new title 5 system already approved um it is not a denitrification system but it's been designed to accommodate a denitrification system if
so required the proposed Ridge here is uh 28t 7 and 3/4 in uh that's to the ridge there is a uh a roof deck railing which is just slightly higher than that at 29 ft 4 in as noted this requires a special
permit pursuant to 24 11.3 A4 that section allows for lock coverage by structure exceeding 20% but below 25% the board is asked to consider the size and height of structures in relation to the neighborhood the effects of Shadow on adjacent properties the impacts on views and Vistas from public ways and
the effect of nitrogen on Coastal embayments I I should note that um there's been substantial support from the neighbors uh there 15 letters that are on file um the applicant went door too with his plans to review and discuss these uh the The Proposal with the
neighbors prior to submitting as we've gone over a number of times SEO Shores is a VAR and changing neighborhood it's very much in transition contains homes that are both quite modest in size and also very substantial there was a lot comparison
worksheet this property is larger than the immediately surrounding homes on amphibian Road however the board has recently approved a number of homes either similarly sized or larger very close to this property and found those to be in character with the neighborhood The Proposal is only 500 ft
above the 20% limitation otherwise it could be constructed by right we could achieve similar square footage under 20% but that's not what they're trying to do they're trying to they're proposing a house that is attractive in design and fits with their needs that is allowable by the
board there's no impact on views and vistors from public ways and fiban is a private road in this area the effect of Shadow should be uh negligible as the ridge is only at 28 ft 8 and 3/4 and it's approximately 75 ft from the neighbor to the west 45 ft from the neighbor to the East and 65 ft from the
neighbor to to the South and as was noted there is a new title 5 which has been designed for an appropriate number of bedrooms and approved by the Board of Health I was made aware of the letter submitted by Mr matano uh this morning um he had reached out to me two weeks ago we promptly responded to his email
in a thorough and comprehensive manner uh addressing his concerns and agreeing to a number of his requests we also encouraged dialogue with the applicant provided the him with the applicant's number and and suggested that they speak directly uh a copy of that email correspondence was
I I it was noted as part of his letter I didn't see it uh but I did forward that to the board this morning as well I'd like to address some of the issues that were raised in the letter as well as point out some of the falsehoods that were included it was stated the O'Brien didn't reach out the O'Brien did reach
out to their neighbors they went door too unfortunately not everyone was home Mrs O'Brien specifically discussed this project with Mr mrr's wife well in advance of the hearing we did correspond with Mr matano we addressed his concerns his questions and concerns regarding grading lot
coverage and privacy provided an explanation regarding the grading and runoff noting that the existing grade will not change in any significant way if anything it'll be made flatter moving the existing 15t Contour further from the 14t Contour we also explain that dry Wells have been proposed to contain roof
runoff we did agree to a vegetative buffer there is an existing 6-ft fence and the applicant intends to add Evergreens along the length of that fence 6 to 6 to 8 ft in height which are intended to help with both runoff and private it is simply untrue and offensive to say
that responses were inadequate or that the applicant was uninterested in addressing his concerns relative to the further concerns to expressed in this letter the drainage as mentioned is effectively unchanged if anything it's made flatter across the lot we're prohibited from increasing runoff to a Butters and we
are installing drywalls and plantings to assist with appropriate drainage this will be an improvement over what exists as the context and scale I've noted in this presentation this may be large for the street but it is not out of character at all for the neighborhood it will comply with all setback and lot
coverage requirements Mr Metrano sites approving this as a concerning precedent but to not approve this would be contrary to precedent just within the last few years this board has approved a number of similar homes including 72 Woodside 63 Bayside 205 Edgewater 182
Edge Water 258 Edge Water 11 Plymouth 15 angle side 134 edge water and those are just the ones I've I've permitted in the last say year and a half rather than being a cause of community concern as indicated by the letter this is largely supported by the community there are 15 letters to support many of
whom are here tonight as to the buffer the existing trees were removed fairly recently which is necessary for the construction and the septic installation one of the neighbors actually takeen down so we could use it as firewood which the O'Brian agreed to the o'ri agreed to plant Evergreens along the existing
fence which again would be 6 to 8 ft in height which grow fairly rapidly Mr Mato demanded 12T trees from the outset the O'Brien's offered to split the cost if he wanted to install those trees on his lot which he did not find acceptable the letter references efforts to work together but that's not accurate
making demands is not Cooperative the O'Brien's offered a number of concessions and paths forward Mr mrr's letter also spends a significant am amount of time discussing how the application does not meet the standards for variance which would be true but for the fact we didn't apply for a variance
this is a special permit under 240 11.34 I've already outlined the board considerations by which that special permit can be granted I believe this application meets all the standards it is true as of mentioned that the house could be constructed without the benefit of a special permit by reducing the footprint they could
eliminate the garage in the space above but that's not what the applicants want to do and concerns of Mr mrr would not be addressed by that what I found particularly ging was the line that said this could have been avoided through open collaboration and transparency the O'Brians and myself have been incredibly
open we've tried to dialogue we've addressed his concerns we've responded to emails we've suggested that they talk together we've agreed to much of what he requested but certainly certain demand simply went beyond what the O'Brien were willing to accommodate that doesn't make them obstructionist that doesn't make
them unwilling to work with someone I can tell you what isn't open collaboration and transparent it's submitting a letter of opposition the day of a hearing without the Coury of providing it to my office when he's already emailed me thankfully the zba staff is diligent in distributing these
matter matters for which I'm very grateful The applicant's Proposal is a significant improvement over the existing conditions both for the applicant and the neighborhood there's no new dimensional non-conformity there's no dimensional non-conformities at all the proposal is
in character with the evolving neighborhood there's no impa impact on views and visitors from public ways there's no effect of Shadow on adjacent properties and there's minimal effect of nitrogen on Coastal payments there's no adverse effects that overbalance the benefits there's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more
detrimental than what exists I believe this meets all the requirements under 240 111.3 A4 and 24121 E I'd be happy to address any questions that the board may have can I start yep is a 6ot fence in
the back is it only in the back that's all I could see um yes it's only along the back line and that's going to stay and be maintained mhm and that's going to be that'll be directly in front of or behind theet buffer right and um I
appreciate as you know I nag about going around talking to the neighbors I appreciate that big time and this looks like a good project to me that's about all I have this is the um letters of support that I thought was pretty instructive oh good that's nice we had a comp sheet too Mark you have any
question where's the house and uh this is the this is the Locust and this is Mr Patron's property right here okay that's the uh right behind um I just a couple of things uh there was a uh the South uh East Stak
was missing for the house but I wasn't going to dig in the snow for it cuz my feet were already wet um just one thing about the uh every anybody knows that 21 ft is more enough room to put the dite in but often times it's it's noted on
the plans and um other than that I mean you know the everything's getting bigger there and honestly I have to say that uh Mr O'Brien builds some nice houses and goes a little bit extra and puts some details on there and I just think uh
that's worth noting Frank one of the concerns in uh the letter we received which we've been talking about from Mr matono is uh he's concerned about storm water runoff onto his property we do not appear to have a
referral from engineering but they typically suggest that we put a condition on that all storm water runoff be contained on the loot you'd have no problem with that that's a standard condition um I'll note we have we do show detail right there
yeah we show proposed RWS on either side of the house um the grade here you see the 14t Contour and the 15t Contour this is being pulled slightly back further away so it's really flattening out the lot more than anything but would certainly be open to that as a condition okay thank you
go ahead next we should probably look at engineering's normal is a condition anyway no but we should probably look at engineering's normal conditions and include them all yeah Norm yeah but I mean all all roof runoff supposed to go into dry Wells he's got a detail right there so um but it's a normal condition
anyhow you know what I mean we should look or rain Garden if they prefer yeah Nick you have anything I don't no looks good you all ready for the public anybody else have anything let's hear what they got to say all right guys big night out huh come on up come on up we
just need your name and address oh come on up Sir yeah I live at uh 15 amphibian road which is right next door to this uh name building do everybody in the public wants to
know oh so how do we turn on you're on live all right all right uh it just tell them your name honey oh my name my name is Al ronstrom and I uh we've had this house
at 15 amphibian for about 16 years now we've been living down there and uh Mr O Brian he has been uh doing work around the area and everything and I have never
seen anything that I wouldn't want to live in myself all the time it's just uh he does beautiful work and that that kind of says it all yeah when you're when you're uh putting it putting it
together you know I mean I I've been a carpenter all my life and I've worked many places all in town Wellsley and everywhere you know and I
and I've very rarely seen as nice work you appreciate good work huh as Mr O'Brien does yes and that's that's all that's just about all I do great say sounds good thank
you anybody else want to come up him help give him the microphone woman does he have a dance routine too not for a while my name is Bob mlin
and I'm from our thought you could talk a little bit better we live in this neighborhood where Mike's really part of the the whole situation what's your address what's our address your
address what's our address amphibian 28 our address 28 amphibian Road that's okay okay but um there's a lot of pluses that go along with anything Mike does and it really it really impacts
everybody you know you're saying like so what's going on for the weekend Mike's pig [Music] roast so it's that type of thing where everyone has a a favorable comment to do
about everything that they do and u i support it 100% thank you that's great thank you sir anybody else okay I'll say one thing hi my name is Bob janetti a 28 no drive I'm down
the street from the people uh I've lived down here since about 83 and uh when you see new houses coming I mean that's what you want in this town because some of the houses you see are really dilapitated and the one that he
took down there it was dilapitated so bad nobody could live in it so this is a good point this is this is what we're here for really so thank you very much thank you okay so not that's kind of scary actually
any further questions up here not everybody's all set motion to close second I have a motion to close in a second I'll set all those in favor of closing I oppose none motion will approve with
conditions second here we go Motion will acud with conditions the application is 4 13 amphibian Road East bouth Massachusetts in the SE Co Shores neighborhood the zoning district is RC and the application is for a special
permit pursuant to section 24.3 A4 of the fet zoning bylaw to raise and rebuild the existing single family dwelling exceeding lot coverage by structure which is of 20% not more than 25% properties in the W white Bay
Coastal over Coastal Pond overlay District not in any flood zone there's no noted previous decisions of the zoning board of appeals on file the existing uh single family dwelling is noted at 939 ft the proposed single
family dwelling is 2582 square ft the lot is 10,375 square ft in a zoning District where the current requirement is 40,000 sare ft the lot's Frontage is 100 ft and so it conforms to the minimum uh
Frontage requirement of the zoning District um now I have a question Mr CLA is this is this a public or private way here cuz private private it's private yeah all right so um amphibian road is a private right of way at this
location the uh current lot coverage by structure is 9% it's increased to TW proposed to increase it to 24.9% the limit is 20 but by special permit we are allowed to increase it to 25% as the worksheet submitted by Mr
clar notes that the neighborhood average is 14.83% l coverage by Structure Parking and Paving will be 33.9% within the 40% limit of the zoning bylaw the current structure conforms to zoning so we're not dealing with a non-conforming structure here we're only asked to
exceed the lot coverage by structure um the uh height of the proposed building is 28.7 Ft um and the Mr Duffy I just note um that the height of the the railing is
294 and a half so that that's the railing on the top 29 be the roof deck thing all right so the ridge is the ridge is is um correct at um 28.7 yeah 287 and 3/4 but
the the railing height is 29 42 okay but they're both within the 35 ft Allowed by the zoning byw yes but the railing height is actual because they use the deck um I read the previous referrals into the record earlier uh we now have
15 letters in support and one letter in opposition which was discussed um at the hearing um so under Section 24.3 A4 of the zoning bylaw this is the provision that allows us to Grant a special permit
for a structure to exceed lot coverage by structure maximum 25% we make a finding that the site size and height of the proposed structure relative to the uh height average height and size of neighborhood excuse me of structures in
the neighborhood is reasonable we make a finding that there will be no adverse effect on adjacent Properties by Shadows uh there's no apparent effect on views and Vistas from public ways and there's no uh issues with nitrogen and Coastal emment noted or raised by the Board of
Health um section 24 12.1 e of the zoning bylaw contains the criteria for the grant of a special permit um we make a finding that the site is adequate for the proposed structure the site is suitable for the proposed structure there's no noted impact or adverse
impact on traffic flows and safety there's no noted impact on neighborhood visual character views and Vistas there's adequate sewage disposal there's adequate utilities and there's no negative effect on the supply of affordable housing
nice uh one point here the plan from the engineer list amphibian as a public spread away yes that's where I got it uh I checked the street listing I checked the Town Street listings today um and it is noted as a private road within the town so that was just an error on the
plan if you'd like us to revise that and submit for No it's it's fine it just the only difference there will be whether you'll need you know any type of driveway permit or something like that with private you would not public you would potentially my understanding is most of those interior streets on SE
Coast are still considered private yeah they've been taking some of I no that this amphibian looked to me to be in fairly decent condition yeah which suggested it might be public well I checked the street listing today I have I have the street listing town all right I did the same thing and I wrote private
down okay okay conditions um per plans work hours um all boards but we're going to have to um do the storm management right so I would suggest that
um if there's not an engineering referral um in the file that you put in the typical standard conditions for engineering Wells and or rain garden and then the provision about storm water management this isn't concom so right
yep posting the address that you know if if they need a construction entrance that will certainly let you know four bedroom new septic we already have that um hours I think that's it right think of any other conditions
no storm water management so that's takes care of that complaint right yeah I think we're good you okay okay ready to vote yep all those in favor I I oppose none great thank you
very much thank you all right and next up we have 26 Deacon Avenue I found this I think it was around oh it's it it was probably pile of trash trash yeah it
was probably with the yeah okay okay this is um application 123 of the Year 2024 Robert Parker and Pamela Parker have applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to section
240 10.2 a and 24 111.3 A4 of the Cod of fouth to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming single family dwelling located at 26 deacons Avenue on Falmouth Harbor in Falmouth
Massachusetts the zoning district is RC um the overlay district is the fouth Inner Harbor overlay District um there also I have a note here that it's in a historic district is that I don't think well
hisor we don't have a referral from historic any historic says no they don't have a yeah we have no comment from historic they have no comment from them anyways right I wanted to make it one um the flood zone is ae13
the existing structure is um 1,90 ft it's a three-bedroom house the proposed structure is 984 s ft it's a three-bedroom house there are no previous zoning board of appeals decisions on file the lot size is 3,000 square ft in a zoning District which
currently requires 40,000 square ft the street Frontage is 50 ft in a zoning District which currently requires 100 sare ft deacons Avenue is a public right of way at this location lot coverage by structure currently is
36 uh 3% uh it will be reduced actually to 32.8% the limit is 20% so uh it's non-conforming for that purpose both ways lot coverage by Structure Parking and
Paving uh it's currently 37.1% will be increased to 38% so it conforms to the 40% limit of the zoning bylaw according to the worksheet supplied by the applicant the neighborhood average of uh lot coverage is 24.4
1% the setbacks are non-conforming to this property uh to the east it's 1.9 ft to the West it's 3T to the north 3.4 ft and to the South it's 1.8 ft uh the new setbacks will be to the east 29 ft to
the West 3.5 ft to the north 8 ft and to the South 6 ft they're proposing height of the new structure is going to be 31.8 ft we have a referral from engineering requiring uh notice noticing that a driveway permit will be
necessary uh and also noting that there are various encroachments in the front yard into the layout of deacons Avenue um which the engineering department has asked us to address and it may need some relief from the board of selectman
depending on what you're planning on doing but the fence is in deacons Avenue and the engineering department has suggested they don't like it um the uh Board of Health has advised us that a dite is required which they have approved conservation held a hearing on
January 29th 2025 and issued an order of condition on February 6 2025 for the property the water department notes that an upgrade to a 1-in service is required with the meter placed inside um fire department has no no
comment planning board has no comment historical sent us a note saying they're not concerned we don't have a uh I didn't note any letters in support or in opposition on file and we'll let you take it over
thank you very much um good evening again for the record Kevin Clow I'm before you representing Bob Bob Parker who is the owner of 26 deacons Avenue uh we're seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling so 26 Deacon is located at the
very edge of Falmouth Heights uh facing Falmouth Harbor and set well below the properties of long Grand this is a den dense and still largely seasonal neighborhood uh the lot as has been noted is only 3,000 ft it's the RC zoning district and it is an ae13 flood
zone I can say this in earnestness um this is a beautiful Street it is a really beautiful Street um presently this home is a three-bedroom single family dwelling with a shed the footprint is just uh under 1100 ft and it's non-conforming in almost every
way a property can be non-conforming the front yard setback is currently 3 ft where 25 is required the side yard setback to the north is 3.4 where 10 is required side yard setback to the South is 1.8 Rend is required the rear yard setback to the shed is 1.9 ft
where three is required the lck coverage by structures is currently 36.3% where 20 is allowed by right and up to 25 by special permit um it is somehow conforming to lock coverage by by structures Paving and parking um just one second I just wanted
to check one quick thing before I launch into this the existing structure is uh is dated it's in kind of poor condition structurally aesthetically functionally um the waste is currently handled by a Cess pool of indeterminant
age and though the property itself is old it's not his historically significant I just checked Mr Duffy it is not in a historic district okay uh not therefore not subject to review it is not possible to rehabilitate this existing structure without triggering substantial Improvement under the FEMA
guidelines so Mr Parker has proposed to raise the existing dwelling and to rebuild a new three-bedroom home with installation of a new three-bedroom denitrification system which has already been approved by the Board of Health this would result in a first floor elevated in compliance with the flood zone standards approximately 8 ft above
the existing grade this would allow for use of the that space as a garage which decreases clutter on site and allows for the elimination of the shed um there's a decrease in footprint of the structure uh slightly over 100 S ft which reduces the lot coverage by structure from 36.3 down to
32.8 the front yard setback is minimally improved it goes from 3 ft to 3 and 1/2 uh the side yard setbacks are improved in a more substantial manner to the north it goes from 2.4t to 8 ft and to the South it goes from 1.8T to 6 feet the rear yard Set uh non-conforming
setback is eliminated will go from 1.9 ft to 29 the lock coverage by structured Paving and parking will also remain conforming at 38% structure does increase in height from approximately 15 ft to uh 31 ft 8 and 1 12 in which is due in large part to compliance with those flood zone
standards the number of bedrooms Remains the Same and there as I mentioned a new a new denitrification system this has been reviewed by concom um and an order of conditions has been issued I don't think anyone uh that's present tonight was on the board at the time but there
was a very similar project uh at 52 deacons Avenue that the zoning board approved in August of 2021 I looked at the decision and Mr Morris was the only one voting member who's still here um but nearly identical facts um very similar projects very similar Lots very
similar proposals same engineer and architect on that case I'm not sure who their attorney was I've heard he's very handsome and funny and he somehow got it approved so he must have done okay um so we need we don't know who it is not sure it remains unclear is that the Hudson property um it is the Wagner
property um it's down by the yach club I think it's I can show you cuz I have it's down by the yach club it's not the one I'm thinking of no I can show you it's um it's right here and what's that one no that was um this
was approved in 20 uh August 2021 okay what's the setback on that one in the front about the same about about 3 ft because you get the the road the road layout comes up comes out 10 from yeah yeah at least 10 um so very similar project and I think it's it provides a
really strong comparison um because of the existing non-conformities and because will remain non-conforming in many ways this does require a special permit under 240 10.2 a that allows for pre-existing non-conforming structures to be changed by special permit they not substantially
more detrimental than what exists you're asked to consider the standards of 240 12.1 in and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities impairs Us in Vistas and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood in this case there's no new non-conformity created the number of uh existing the a number of the existing
non-conformities are improved including lock coverage by structure the front yard setback significant improvements to the side yard setbacks to the north and south and elimination of the non-conforming rear yard setback there's no effect views and vistas of the public way the view here is really um of the
harbor to the to the west and it it is consistent with the neighborhood many of the requirements of 240 10.2 a overlap with those in 240 11.3 A4 that provision allows for lot coverage by structure uh exceeding 20% in the residential
seasoning district and again you're asked to consider the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood the effects of Shadow impacts on views and visitors from public ways and the effect of nitrogen on Coastal ements in this case there's no impact to the Views and Vistas from public ways though the building is larger it is an area
with many similarly sized structures there's no effect of nitrogen on Coastal abatements as is a new denitrification system designed for the same number of bedrooms as to the size and fit with the neighborhood we did submit a lock comparison worksheet for nearby properties looking at 25 properties
within a 300t radius uh as proposed this is below the average footprint and certainly not out of character with the average gross Flor area of those 25 18 have larger Footprints and seven have larger gross floor areas this property as proposed is certainly appropriate with uh and in character with those
nearby properties we did see the referral from the engineering department um the intent would be to remove the uh existing fence but to leave the cobblestones or the flag Stones which engineering indicated they were fine with this project represents a
significant improvement over the existing conditions replaces an HS pool uh and a house in significant disrepair both structurally and functionally it will not create any new dimensional non-conformities will improve existing non-conformities or eliminate them entirely there's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more
detrial in what exists and it meets all the requirements of 240 10.2 a 11.3 A4 and 240 12.1 for these reasons uh I would ask that this board Grant the special permit and I would be happy to address any questions that you may have at this
time take it away Mark well Kev you were on a roll but but um the uh staking there is not proper um on the North side the
the one Stak on the lot line is knocked over on the South Side both of the stakes are obviously have been removed and someone stuck back they're not driven in even halfway down the taper um you
profess here that uh there the uh South side's been removed to 1.8 uh 1'8 to to 6 feet uh when I measured to the two stakes Southwest and Southeast one was 48 in and the other
one was 81 in and I mean this is a small lot and going ask another question about that but um I like to see what I'm dealing with I literally measure them just so I can I'm just that way spatial relations whatever you want to call it and this wasn't sufficiently staked uh I
don't know if it was cuz the ground was frozen but I suggest simply they can just bring a piece of Rod and start the hole first because the stakes have been fallen and moved without a doubt um also I like to comment um you know I mean and
it's not we it is what it is but uh I have to note that there's 21 29 ft in the backyard but yet you're only giving up 5 Ines in the front but um that that's kind of a side to this but I was also curious um you said you compared 25
properties and 18 were largest so there are seven Lots in the neighborhood that are even smaller than 3,000 ft no the footprint of the home oh the footprint yeah okay cuz there's the 3,000 is about as small as I've encountered in the heights but everybody as far as I'm concerned you know has a right to build
on a whatever was a lot is a lot but um there's no way I can vote on positively on because I I wasn't able to uh determine what you were doing um sorry uh you know and I mean I went in the slush and you know looking for the
corner bounds but when the the the the it just wasn't possible and like I said um just Gathering uh you know roughly estimating 48 in the front and 81 in the back doesn't doesn't jive with what you're doing we can have this reate you
know if if it well if you're not willing to vote in favor then we continuation just for simple you know so we can have it restake though prior to the next hearing yeah that's I would make a motion we just continue this hearing until the property's been restak um would it be possible to continue discussion just uh you've already opened
it so in case there's any in case there's any other issues that come up that we need to address I do have one question for the board um I note that the existing house is set back some 3T from the lot line the new proposed house has a Pergola
attached to the house M that actually hits the front lot line so I think as part of your determination you're going to need to consider whether that's needs to be pull back structure and whether
that's an additional encroachment CU I knowe that there's an existing ramp wooden ramp that accesses the house that exceeds the lot line but I think there are exceptions made for access
or they could pull it back the whole house Burg well yeah I mean the whole they got 29 ft in the backyard I think the issue there Mr fer is is complying is is fitting the septic system in an appropriate manner um because we're trying to get a few variances from The
Bard of Health as NE as possible um with 29 ft I bet and I'm not a septic engineer but I I I still question that anyway but that's not for me to answer but I as as you'll see here it will be when we uh or I I'll find it
out myself uh when you come back but I mean that is kind of noteworthy um especially as they say the fact you got 29 ft in the backyard but he's doing a d night too mhm yeah yeah as um increases the length
it doesn't increase the width it's just a chamber uh there's currently a 4.8 ft encroachment of the wood ramp onto the road layout which would be eliminated that is being eliminated it is being eliminated yeah but but I think that's
different than structure that's raised going right up to the front lot line cuz obviously you need access and potentially I don't know if the wood ramp was handicap accessibility or whatever it was um it's just something
to consider no yeah no you'll have to talk to the client or whatever you do with that we can do that yeah anybody else have any other questions up here anybody from the public want to speak on this is ramp the ramp is coming out he said
yeah right yeah okay so we'll continue right you have a motion Frank um did you want to go public comment just again I wanted I just nobody want I just did didn't I yeah we're good they're all good it's
quiet group tonight uh you have a motion you have a second motion to continue a second excuse me motion to continue do you have a date for us n so your next hearing is February 27 so I think you know perhaps where you've got the bulk of this case yeah
discussed I think it should be pretty quick yeah yeah that work M February 27th so we have a motion to continue February 27th seconded by Mark all those in favor I oppos done thank you very
much appreciate time this evening all right let's move on minutes so we have minutes to vote for December 12 and December 19 I'll make a motion for December 12 and
19 wait a minute did you look at them oh yeah but was that I didn't look that closely then I was just wondering if that was the meeting that you missed and then it wouldn't be yeah right around that time so you missed so you abstained and three is enough oh three is enough
anyway yeah yeah move it on through so you abstain okay okay so we'll vote we'll vote them separately December 12th all those in favor I I December 19th I I and one
abstain does that work perfect okay zoning administrator carrying the load this week fine job yes um so I know it's been before the board um just as a general update for the board we did have a land
news meeting this past week uh the Board of Health agent has indicated that requirements for the Ia systems are moving pretty rapidly and so it's highly
lik that many people that are looking at projects now or for the future are likely going to IA requirement for the health right now in their referrals is just sort of warning people because
there's not a way to definitively know what it's going to change but fun meeting that's that's it board discuss look at us not enough people here to bring it up look at us quarter of eight yeah that's my discussion
that's um board updates at 8:00 and we hope board members that are not feeling well feel better better soon including our number one partner in crime future agenda items our next
meeting is February 27th at 6 motion to adour before 8:00 wow next Frank we have a next week off next week so don't tune in folks oh you watch
Roll All right we have a motion I seconded it all those in favor of adjourning hi hi all right [Music]