the agenda. We have a minute. >> Yeah, we have we have minutes. It's there. >> Do you guys have the minutes? >> It being a little after 700 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18th, 2026.
I'd like to open uh the zoning board of appeals. Can I get a second? >> Second. All in favor? >> I I >> since we have to wait a couple minutes before we can do our first um >> I guess first person we have can we can
do minutes. We have 115 minutes 123 and 1217 minutes. So we'll start with the 115 minutes. How does everyone feel about those?
>> That's fine. Can I get a motion? >> I made a motion to approve the approve the minutes of uh November 5th 25. >> Can I get a second? >> I >> second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> There we go. >> I feel like we've been gone for a while.
We got to get back >> get our feet back underneath this. >> Next one is December 3rd, 2025. I move that we approve the minutes for the December 3rd, 2025 meeting. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I
>> Very good. >> December December 17th, 2025. >> I move that we approve the minutes for the December 17, 2025. >> Can I get a Can I get a second? >> Second. All in favor? >> I think that's done.
You might have moved too fast. We have to wait two minutes. Um, are David's on there? That our David >> on the board? >> I don't know. Oh, okay.
>> Oh, okay. >> Who wants to read? I don't even know how it it's going to come out >> cuz there's no notice. >> Yeah. One more minute. >> You want to read a notice even though no notice?
>> Sure. >> We don't have a notice at all, do we? >> No. Regal said that we didn't endow. >> So, just read it over whatever's on the agenda. especially
this front to back. >> Yeah, I was waiting for >> Mr. Chairman, do you know if anybody from the building inspector is going to be here? >> We have town council. >> Okay. Matthew's up there. >> Oh, okay. So, our count town council is
here. Do you concur that we didn't need to publicly notice this hearing? >> Uh, not sure what you mean. I'm looking at the agenda that's posted on your website and it contains a notice of the public hearing. Says 7:10 p.m. Appeal of
electrical permit issued for map 74, lot 4, Indian Pond Country Club, electrical permit to Russell Tyler. Attorney John J. Dana, which is all of the information that I have exchanged that comports with Valerie and Jean, the messages I've had
with them. So, as far as I understand it, from what you have, this was a validly posted uh public meeting containing a hearing at 7:10 p.m. >> It didn't have to be published in the local newspaper then, as most of our other hearings are. Usually, there is
>> that that I'm not aware of, but I don't know whether that was part of it. I've only engaged with it, >> you know, whether we need to get this on the agenda and how it's gonna go. >> This is also continuence, >> right? But Val said we didn't need to post a public hearing on >> this is the agenda
>> if it was previously opened the hearing and this is a continuence to a date and time certain. That would not require another round of advertisement. That's why you can only continue to a date and time certain so that um anybody who looks at the minutes or hears anything about it would know when, where, and how
the next uh hearing session is going to take place. >> Are we ready? Because I think we hit the 710 mark. >> All right. Being said, >> read it. >> An appeal of electrical permit issued from map 74, lot 4, Indian Pond Country
Club, electrical permit to Russell Tyler on 63 2025. Attorney John J. Danning, >> right? Make sure the little green light is on >> there. Can Can you hear me?
Good. All right. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, and fellow uh board members. Uh my name is John Dani. I am the attorney representing the applicant or the appellant uh which is EBFI um LLC uh a direct butter to the the
golf course. Um many of you know Fred Vonsber um uh who's also sitting here with his wife. Um, this is kind of an interesting case to be candid with you because what we're appealing is is an electrical permit that was sought by uh
Russell Tyler back on June 3rd, 2025, a year ago. Um, and the reason why it's interesting is because what it's relating to is a building that is on the premises of Indian Pond Country Club. And I provided you a little background
history. Um, obviously I think many of your board members know about the history of the golf club through a special permit being able to be built. Um, and a lot of good things came out of it. No doubt about it. Golf course, uh, uh, subdivision, uh, pool and facilities
that, uh, obviously people were using. Um, but one thing that happened back in uh 2001 along with what was presented to the zoning board and approved through their special permit was that they added other buildings to the facility. Buildings that were not necessarily detailed or
you know um described. Um and so in 2001 April, uh there was a building permit that was requested by um Kevin Tonsburg on behalf of the golf course to build a two-story garage and also a barn and um
that building permit which was 01-086 uh which is a part of the packet um which happens to be exhibit A uh details the application for it. And um so that's the building that's the building that ultimately uh Mr. Tyler was looking to
connect and what he was connecting based upon what we submitted as a part of exhibit um I believe it's B as in boy. I just want to make sure I get my it is um is to put together a 200 amp electrical
service to that building. And obviously from our perspective looking at it, when you have a structure that's been in existence for a fairly long period of time, in this case, the twotory garage/bar for 24 years um used
for some capacity. As to what we we we're not really sure. Um electrifying it changes it. It changes the use because the use that was there for 24 years now is going to be altered. And that's the big question that I think uh is important for the board to tussle
with because this is a part of a a special permit process that whenever there's a modification whether it's a major modification saying I want to build this or this or that or a minor the applicant or rather the um um in this case the applicant being
Indian Pond should come before this board to explain it to the board so that the board can take a look at it and see whether it is a minor change or whether it's a major change needing other reviews. And when you take a look at it from that perspective, why is that set in that
kind of structure? First is it's it's put into the special permit that was issued by the board back in 1997 98, but also for health and safety reasons to kind of review and make sure that yes indeed things are being built properly, that there is some access, but if there's a fire, can you get access up
there? Is the fire department able to get up there? For those various reasons. So what ultimately happened is, and just so you have an orientation of the structure, what was built um back in
2001, if I could just show you, and I realize that's not beneficial for town council, but what it is in essence is a uh depiction of I think it's a Google Earth looking down. Uh, basically on the bottom portion of of this is the
clubhouse and um I can represent that by showing here the clubhouse is this area and then um the parking lot to the to the right of the clubhouse when you're facing it, parking lot to the left and the building that was built back in 2001
was built up near the driving range. Now, the driving range is depicted in this area here. And the building structure um 01- 86 is this area right here. That's structure. You can just see there's a roof line right there. So, that's what we're talking about.
So, um getting to the permitting here and why it's significant. Part of the problem with the original building permit 86186 is that there were never any
inspections. If you take a look at exhibit A, there's no followup on it. One of the things that's uh brought to our attention from getting the uh building file or the materials from the building file, I believe, and I I'll correct that. It may not be the building I think I got it from a Freedom of
Information only to get materials. So, I'm assuming it's in the building file, but um the application indicated that it was going to be 24 ft by 36 ft. Okay. What we submitted as exhibit C happens to actually be a rendering of what was
being proposed to be built. So, they they pushed it out by 2 ft, 26 by 36 ft. And when you look at the rendering on exhibit C, it also shows that there are three bays on one one level, two bays on the other. And that's the two-story
garage barn. But the reality of it is is that's not what they built. And when you look at exhibit D, you can see what I'm talking about. So if I show you just as we go through here the um render rings.
And you might recall seeing these before. Yes, they were. They were in another zoning hearing uh dealing with a maintenance building in the upper parking lot. Um this is the actual structure that was built. And the difference when you take a look at it is instead of having a 24x 36 kind of
square or rectangular structure, what you're finding is that they're they added actually outward. And what I'm referencing to is you look at the very first photograph, there's this structure here. um
this area here and um this is the back side I believe of it and then um you can see it again. So I'm trying to talk into the mic here this area here. So obviously what was built wasn't what was proposed or
submitted. And I think when I put into the letter um council probably either can agree or disagree, but um a structure was built. We call it a non-complying structure because it wasn't built pursuant to the building permit. It wasn't checked. It's allowed.
It's it's a structure that should be able to remain after 10 years. And we're not saying anything wrong with the structure, just that nobody knows what the structure is for. So now we get to 2025. They're connecting electrical service. We don't know what the building is. We don't know what's
been used for. From these pictures that I have in front of you, clearly they've been doing storage. Well, that's allowable because that's what they wanted in the barn. But I will say in the most recent one here, the concern might be that's certainly an inquiry is there seems to be some um fertilizer
um containers that are on the outside. So obviously what's on the inside that's a question nobody has an answer to unless it's Indian Pawn who would be here before you to give you an answer. So our perspective is is that you know um they should come before this board
because there's a change the change of uses they have electified it. Now I should give you another fact that is true because um it's changed since the application the appeal from June 30th. Um since June 30th,
the um Indian Pond did have space at the maintenance building that they were renting. They vacated it November 30th. So no longer in that building. So all of the maintenance activity that was going on next door, whether it was from all the parking there or whether it was the
the trucks, everything is now somewhere on site. So, electrifying a building, the maintenance is somewhere. The the carts are somewhere. Um, obviously, it certainly begs the question of what's what's going on. Shouldn't Indian Pond
come before the board and say, "Hey, this is what we did to the building. Maybe they just put lights in there." If that's the case, it's a minor change. And if lights just to be able to see in the inside, maybe not. But I think that's where the board should be actively looking at it because it's your
perview. So that gets me to okay the the um electrical permit and I know there could be a difference of opinion of is there a change of views by it but our position is well yeah there is because something's going on that wasn't there for the past 24 years and part of the
problem with the electrical permit is it's got to be my understanding is it's got to be premised on a building permit. There was no building permit. It was from 2001, but unless you continue it and you get a certificate of occupancy at some point, the building
permit is now abandoned or it's it's null and void. You have 180 days presuming to u the regulations to do something or ask for an extension that has not been done. So now you got a electrical permit that's issued based upon what? And they're electrifying a
building. So, we're seeking your your help here to be able to say to Indian Pond, they should be coming before the board to say what's going on there. Our position would be that it's electrified, that they should probably uh be um um
prevented from electrifying any further until they come before the board and explaining exactly what they're doing. And um you know at that point the board will have input to be able to see exactly and go through what its due diligence. Part of the problem is and I
think you know um sometimes people like to build first ask for forgiveness later. It's just not a great way of managing things and especially trying to make sure that people do the right thing. And I think you know sometimes that emboldens people. Um but I just
think that in this case that's really what we're seeking. It's nothing complex. It's just basically trying to suggest to everybody here that there's transparency. What's going on? What are you doing? And if it's something innocuous and the board can say that's what it is, but right now nobody knows
what's going on. I think that's that's a major flaw and a problem because it's in violation of their special. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any quick question for attorney Dan before I move to our town council real quick? I I well >> I'm going to do town council. If it's a
quick question, you want to have him while he's right there. >> No, these would be substantive. >> Okay, hold on. >> Not procedural. >> Town council, do you want to do your side now? >> Um I'm happy to address the question, Mr. Chair. I just I don't know if
there's anybody else there who is looking to speak um either in favor or in opposition to the appeal before you move to, you know, thinking about it or you want to have any discussions with me. They usually say it's best for the board to get any factual information they want to gather from anybody who
wants to speak before, you know, you have an attorney weigh in. So they're not so the board doesn't have any concerns that they're tailoring their comments based on whatever I might say. >> Very good. All right. If you have any questions, take it. >> Oh, thank you. Um,
just so I'm clear, exhibit C, this two looks like a twodoor garage building. Is that right? C. >> That came from the building file. It It
should be two pages. Um, uh, the first page would have two garage. Um and then the second page would have three would be three. >> Okay. So it's these two draws that represent. >> Correct.
>> What the uh town approved in 2001. >> That's our belief because that's that's what we got out of the file. Yes. >> And and there's a build a corresponding building permit for this or was it part of a a comprehensive permit? It was Oh,
I'm sorry I interrupted you. >> Because comprehensive permits can at times approve multiple buildings. So, I'm just trying to learn was it part of the Indian Pawn Country Club's
comprehensive permit or did they seek an uh a separate building permit for this? So, if you look at exhibit A, that's the separate permit that they sought to build uh the building. And um it's
it should say location of construction 60 Country Way. >> Um I I can give you mine if you'd like. >> Just hold it up so I can try. Yeah, it should it should be like this with a bunch of
>> I'll >> There's nothing wrong. >> Okay, you found that. Okay, I was looking for >> it's some back page. Yeah, there's something back. >> I didn't see >> you can have mine. I if I may give this
to the madam clerk if that's okay. For some reason, it's just not part of my package. >> Oh, thank you. >> I don't really have this. >> I mean, I know what they look like. So,
>> this is very familiar. I think this was introduced during the country club's comprehensive permit application for their new maintenance building. Is that true? Do you >> I believe it was used I think I used it
um back in the um modification I think they filed for the maintenance building two years ago. I I'm trying to guess. I think it was 2023 24 >> and my recollection is that there was more writing on it.
>> Um that could have been there are a number of um building permits but that one is is actually >> Are you asking for the actual comprehensive permit? >> Yeah. >> No, I'm looking at the exhibit A now the 01 086 permit dated >> and that's that's specifically a
reference to that permit itself. It's not a part of the comprehensive permit that would have been granted in 1998. >> And it doesn't indicate indicate what it's intended purpose would be, whether it be
uh a commercial purpose, a residential purpose. >> It has on the remarks says twostory garage barn. >> Yeah. But a garage can be a commercial garage. Doesn't necessarily mean a residential structure. Do you know if it was intended to be a
residential structure? >> That's the only information we have. There's pretty scant information about what they were applying for and and lack of followup. Um, >> but no certificate of occupancy was ever issued in connection with this building
permit application. >> We we do not have any information that we we I've asked for information from building department and nothing was provided. So the short answer would be no because it should have been on that. >> And do you have any evidence that it was ever occupied for residential purposes?
>> No evidence whatsoever. >> Do you have any evidence that it was ever uh electrified prior to the electrical permit? >> Nothing in the file to indicate that there was any kind of electrification other than the most recent one from last
year. That's all that we have. Does it have water? >> A water connection? >> We have no information on that either. Nothing in the file to indicate one way or the other. >> Is it connected to the sewer? >> Again, I would I would have to defer to
the fact that if it's not there should be something in the file to indicate otherwise, and there's nothing to indicate that it's connected to the sewer or their septic system. And the building is owned by >> it is owned by the golf course Indian
Indian Pond Country Club >> and Kevin Tonsburgg's relationship to the golf course is >> so my understanding is um he is the son of
um the developer Frederick Tonsford not not the not the individual here um and I'm not sure if he is I not looked at the corporate structure as to where he may be, whether it's Indian Pond or or anything else, but I understand that he
um he's the one who applied for that building permit. >> Weird. >> And I noticed that you applied about eight months ago. >> Yes. And I know there were a couple of
delays, but it's still I saw you asked for a delay from January to this date. I I just don't know what took so long. Is there was there a reason for that? >> So, unfortunately, we filed promptly uh June 30th. I walked it down to the town
hall and um I was um it was accepted, which was which was fine. and um I did communicate uh subsequently as to trying to get a hearing date. The downside is and then my understanding is and I can completely
understand having been involved in town government myself in my own town is that I think the building inspector had left the position. There was a a temporary who came in to help out and um for whatever reason um I did have
communications with the former temporary building inspector. Um I did get an email communication because I said I wanted something in writing back in October. Um, and I did I did send some letters requesting an update on the
hearing date. Um, I think there was one in September and I think there was another one in November. Um, and I I will say the zoning secretary has been nothing but wonderful helping me out. Um, so I think I think the delay primarily probably administration of of
filling in positions. Otherwise, I was more than happy to be here back in in August or September, October, November. the last date was uh moved um for for me which I appreciated for personal reasons uh but that was the only that was on my part >> and do you believe this board has
jurisdiction to hear your appeal? >> I do and the reason is because it's a use issue and I think that's really the the the issue is does electrifying a building potentially change the use and I think the answer is yes. If a building
has been operating something different in this context because of the special permit now we know for um there's going to be electrified for what again I could I can give you potential examples but I think the fact that the maintenance building is no longer functional because
they vacated it. It certainly raises issues then it's electrified for something other than what the use was prior which was storage and and clearly from the pictures here they had outdoor storage and stuff which I get but now electrifying it does change the use and I think that that tips it I think that
tips it for the board to be able to say what's going on. I I would agree with you that um you could speculate about it's being
used as uh a maintenance building, but I don't want to do that. I want to just focus on this building and you keep saying a change of use. It sounds to me like we don't have any idea what it was used for. I mean, if we don't have uh
any disclosure on the building permit, um we don't know if it has water, we don't know if it has sewer, you know, it didn't have electricity. Um what else don't we know? There's a lot we don't know
what the use was. So, I guess that's my my question. If we don't know what the use is, uh, what is the proposed use? And we don't know anything. >> I I think >> I agree with you. I, it seems >> I think that's a dilemma that the board
is tussling with because again, you have a lack of information other than it's been electrified as of last year. And you're correct. I would say uh, no speculation or it shouldn't be speculating in the future. That's a
that's a bad precedent. It's actually not good. But I would say that clearly um Indian Pond really has a duty to really explain to the town and the board exactly what they're doing with this building if they're going to electrify it. >> Oh, and frankly, I believe the people
who live in that neighborhood. I mean, this is a residential neighborhood that bought homes uh you know, thinking they were going to live next to a a nice country club. Um, they had a maintenance building that
they disguised as a single family dwelling uh to sort of lend to that vibe and um now and they came and they asked for a brand new maintenance building and it was
denied. I don't know what the status of that appeal is. I I don't but I know this board denied it and um if they did not renew their lease for their old maintenance building and I
again you know it does seem coincidental. I don't want to speculate but I do want to know what the proposed use of this is before it goes any further. I I think that's >> and if it means deelectrifying it,
withdrawing the permit, um that's all what I'm in favor of. I >> I think that's certainly an option the board could entertain of saying, you know, until they come forth with what they're doing there. Um taking the electrical and and I say
shutting it off, putting it, it would be a step. Um, clearly I think there there's explanation that should be made by by the golf course to say this is what's going on because of the lack of information. And again, it's their obligation under the special permit to
do it. That's really what it it comes emanates from. And I think, you know, it's only fairness for transparency to be able to say this is what's going on. Again, we can speculate could be innocuous, it could be something, it could be major. Bottom line here is that's their obligation to at least do
it. And that's the only reason why, you know, I did when I I did communicate with the um building inspector, the substitute, I was saying, you know, again, difference of an opinion, but the opinion was electrifying does change
things. And so now it begs the question, what? And I think those are questions that the board and people should have answers to and take it from there. But you're not, just so I'm clear, you're not really questioning the electrical
inspector's judgment about, you know, is it >> No, it's not for the building component. In other words, you know, they installed it and that's that's fine because that would be another avenue if you've thought that they didn't do it properly. I'd be like, I think that's through the building code. you have to go through.
>> So you're you're really approaching this and and coming to us from a as the body that has jurisdiction over >> I guess this development uh in the because it has a comprehensive permit.
>> Correct. >> That's why you're here. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Town council. I have a I I have a couple questions. Um let's say we as a board we collectively said that this is a major change to this it's to a special permit not a
comprehensive permit. >> Um if we said this was a major change the couple questions I have is the application for the permit was written given to Kevin Tonsburg. Now I find that weird because this is a
a business entity. Wouldn't it have to be written to Indian Pawn Country Club in order to get the permit cuz that's the owner of the property? In other words, I'm trying to say is is having too many deficiencies as this went does it effectively make everything null and
void because the the barn is owned or built by Kevin Tonsburg but or the application the applicant and that's not the owner of the of the property. >> So, Mr. Chair, I don't view it as a material issue. If you look at what's been marked as exhibit A in the
submission, you can see that the applicant is listed as Kevin Tonsburg, but the owner is Indian Pawn Country Club. And that's frankly not uncommon at all because obviously there needs to be a person acting on behalf of the corporation. >> So I I think that there's no real ambiguity here. I think everybody knows
who the players are and who the actual owner is. So I I don't think anybody, especially given the number of applications, whether to this board, to the building department, or other town departments that relate to Indian Pond Country Club and Kevin Tonsburg, I would view it very unlikely that there would
be any sort of confusion arising from that sort of thing. >> And then keeping on exhibit A is to me it is makes sense that nothing's been signed off on this on this building. So this this building's never been finally finally inspected.
like there's no sign offs on on initial construction, there's no final, there's no nothing. Like this has never been finished out. >> So, to be perfectly honest with you, I have I have no idea what the provenence of this document is. I don't know if this is and the application um or if
this is the final one that would have been posted on site. It might be hard to figure that out. It's from, you know, over 20 years ago, >> right? But what I would tell you is that the technical compliance with the terms of the building permit, whether the plans are sufficiently detailed and accurate, whether it's supported by an
application from a licensed contractor who's capable of doing the work, those are all typically matters that are addressed to the building official under the building code. And when there's a dispute about them, as Mr. Dana just referenced, they're typically brought to a separate administrative tribunal
called the building code appeals board. That body which is within the state government interprets and applies and addresses questions about how the building code should be applied as it relates to a request for a building permit. In the zoning context, I agree
that this is typically not an appeal that would be brought to a zoning board because the actual issues here seem to be related to the contents of a building permit, when it was in force, whether the electrical permit was validly issued, whether that's as a type of
building permit or an action taken by the local inspector of wires. There's also a separate administrative appeal track for those kind of determinations. Just like with the building code appeals board, it's called the board of electricians appeals. And that here is technical issues with which relate to
whether an electrical permit should be issued. Can it be issued under the current version of the building code that governs things similar to that. So the questions I have about that or I think what the question is aimed at is what kind of information would you
typically get on something like this? And my answer would be pretty little because normally that would get worked out in the first instance between an applicant and the building inspector or commissioner. As soon as they get a permit, if they feel it doesn't have enough information, they tell the applicant, I need more information to make a final decision on this. And then
if they say no, you might get an appeal if the denial is in part based on a zoning determination. Um, but here there don't appear to have been any zoning issues raised with respect to the building permit nor on the application for an electrical permit.
And I I want to clarify one thing. Um, the associate member asked Mr. Danhee, do you disagree with the interpretation of the building inspector? And he said, no. Um, I have to remind the board this is an appeal from a determination. They
wrote to the building inspector and asked him to make a zoning determination as to whether the electrification of the building changed its use. His opinion was that it is it did not. That is the appeal that's before the board. They are asking you to overturn the decision of
the building department. So I I understand that he might be saying, you know, with charity to the building department. I I don't really I understand that he's trying to resolve a difficult issue, but as a technical procedural question, they are necessarily disagreeing with the building inspector's determination, and that is how they came to be before the
board. >> With respect to council, I think that the applicants were instructed that they had to appeal to the zoning board. So, I I don't think >> but the building inspector's determination was that he was not going
to take any action and he didn't view it as a change of use. They do view it as a change of use and they are asking for action to be taken. So necessarily that means if they want that to happen, the building inspector told them he's not going to do it. So they're coming to you asking you to overturn that determination and order the building
department to take a different action. >> I maybe I I guess I think they're asking us to overturn the determination that it's not a change in use. We don't know what the use is. There never was a use established. So we are seeking I don't
mean to put words into the applicant's mouth but it seems that they are seeking in the very first instance now that we all realize it that no use was ever established for this structure. It can exist in perpetuity under the 10-year
rule. I understand. But I think that since no use was ever established for the structure other than what's on exhibit A, no followup ever occurred. no
certificate of occupancy was ever issued that we should exercise our discretion and determine in obviously the first instance what the
use of this structure is and I think we have the discretionary authority to do that. >> I'll tell you right now you don't. >> You're a zoning board of appeals. You're not a zoning board of the first instance. you handle appeals from the building department. So
>> that's what they're trying to do. I I again I think you're putting form over substance here and just uh kicking this can down the road again as we have done continuously when it comes to this development.
And I for one am tired of seeing my tax dollars wasted in court fighting these people when they are simply asking us to do something that I think is within our
discretion. >> I don't think appeal it if we do it. I think if we don't do it, they will appeal it. So I and I I say this to zoning boards all the time. Um the the first thing is
that obviously everybody comes into this knowing what the backstory is. Um, I would counsel you to try to put that out of your mind as much as possible and focus solely on what's been presented both to the building department and to you because you don't generally want to
make a decision on an appeal based on considerations that are with solely within your personal knowledge and not contained in the record of appeal that's before you. It's an extraneous consideration and it's usually not an appropriate basis to make a decision.
So, that's number one. Number two, I understand the impulse to prioritize substance over form, but people who come before the zoning board are not served by the zoning board failing to note what it legally has the power to do or not
do. If you try to take an action that is not in fact within your discretion and is outside your jurisdiction, it will be an illegal action and that does not serve anyone's interests. It doesn't insert serve the interests of an appellant. It doesn't serve the
interests of anybody who might be affected by an order of this board. It doesn't serve the interests of the board and it doesn't serve the interests of the town. There are certain things where when they're not really questions of form, they're questions of jurisdiction and legality. So to the extent that what
the appellant is asking you to do is take action on an electrical permit based on what they contend is a necessary change of use under the building or electrical codes that is not within your jurisdiction. To the extent that they are saying the building
inspector made a determination that we have not supplied any information that shows that the use of this structure which they concede is lawfully present on the property albeit due to its age and not due to the appropriate course of permitting in the first instance. They
are saying the building inspector's determination was that we did not submit any evidence that shows a change of use in the structure other than the electrification and that in his opinion electrification of this structure alone is not sufficient evidence to show that there's been a change of use.
What you're going to have to do as a board on this appeal is determine whether that determination should be overturned. I thought you told us we don't have the legal right to do that >> only to only to appeal against
>> again I you have so confused in my humble opinion the issue here you started out by telling me the associate member that you know we couldn't do it because it would be an illegal action
and that and then you come around the bend and and say we can do it. I I I'm >> It's because there are two separate issues. One is a request for enforcement to the building department. The
appellant is contending that the owner of this property, Indian Pawn Country Club, has violated some term of a special permit that was issued back in the late 90s or in 2001. I don't see that special permit contained within the application file either for the
>> And I didn't hear them say that. I I've heard them say that the use has never been determined. >> I understand that. And if you could please let me finish. >> When they say the use has never been determined, that is an argument. It is a
legal conclusion. It is not a factual allegation that any individual can make. They need to show if you want to show what a use is going on the property, you want to say this building's being used as a single family residence, you would say, I see a parking driveway. I see
people coming and going. It externally appears to look like a home. Therefore, I as the building official can determine the use that's being carried on in this property is that of a single family residence. If I see a single family residence with two separate entrances, I see multiple cars. I see people coming
and going at different times of day. I would advise a building official, you could form the conclusion based on what you have observed and seen that what you are seeing is a multif family, a two family duplex. that's illegally being operated in a single family zone. And
that's the difference between what we're talking about. So there's no first instance determination at the board of appeals. The first instance determination is made by a building official who can go out who can gather information and evidence, physically
observe things and then say as a matter of fact, I witnessed these events and this is what was happening and thereby determine what use is being carried on. So to return though to what I was saying is there was an a request for zoning
enforcement to the building official on the basis of a special permit which I have every reason to believe exists and I have no reason to believe the appellants have mischaracterized in any way. But I've not heard any mention of the fact that electrification of this building was prohibited as a condition
of the issuance of that special permit. I haven't heard any information about what use is being carried on. They simply say, "We don't know what's going on there." And the building officials response to that was, "So, what you've been able to provide me is with
information that the there was an electrical permit pulled for the building and issued that that electrical permit does not appear to have been appealed under either the building code or the electrical code. So to the extent they are asking this board to take
action to suspend, modify, revoke or take action on that electrical permit, it's not appropriate for this board to do because this board addresses zoning issues. It doesn't address building code issues and it doesn't address electrical code issues and it doesn't address fire code issues. Those all have separate
administrative pathways. That's box two. Box one is you have a request for zoning enforcement. the building official said that he would not take action on it and you need to determine whether or not you want to overturn that decision. Other actions on the issuance of the permit,
whether it was validly issued, whether it complies with the building code, whether it should or should not have been issued are really beyond the purview of this board except in so far as they relate to zoning issues. And because the permit was issued, we can conclude that the building department
did not conclude that there were any zoning issues with the application for that permit because if they did, they would have denied the permit, not approved it. >> So questions moving forward, obviously there's an appeal in front of
us for the electrification of the building. Can we use basically the lack of knowledge of what the building is? It's called a barn. And yes, it was given electrification,
but can we use that as a trigger to say since we don't know what that that building is and the special permit didn't really have that building on on the original special permit? Can we request
that, you know, this is a major modification we would like to see and get knowledge of this building? In other words, the permit's been, you know, changed without coming in front of the the zoning board and request that they come back and show us exactly what this
building is so that they aren't changing it under the under the guise of of whatever. And we say we want to know what this building is. If you are storing more than just storing, you know, sticks and and rakes, you
know, a fire department still has to take a look at it. The health department has to take a look at it. Um, basically putting it reopening basically the special permit because they violated it. So, what you would need to do there is there there are a couple of ways you
could do it. Um, the first thing you could do is someone could make a motion to overturn the building inspector's determination that the electrification is not sufficient evidence of a change of use of the building for zoning purposes.
The difficulty there that I would counsel you with is that you do not have very much information about what if any use is being carried on there, right? >> And so I do not know what you would base your decision that the building inspector was wrong upon. um you have an absence of evidence really more
>> even if not to interrupt you even if we did say that the building inspector did it correctly but we're just it's now coming to our attention that this is this building is is basically changing it it's changing its use slowly and they're going to possibly come ask for
forgiveness down the road and get ahead of this before something we don't know if it's up to fire code standards at all we have no right side onoff phone and it has 200 amp, you know, service to it out in the middle of the woods. Um,
>> I mean, I so I I think there are two ways to do that. The first is I don't know what if any subsequent follow-up was undertaken by the building department and the inspector of wires to confirm what work was done, whether it was done to code, um, if it was appropriate, if there are any collateral
inspections that need to happen with that. Uh my understanding is there's nobody here from the building department who's able to tell us exactly what the status of those investigations if any is. Um so you could continue the hearing and wait to hear from them. You could continue the hearing and invite the
owner to attend and then, you know, based upon whatever information they may or may not give you or whether they even agree to appear at all would give you some basis to make a determination as to, you know, what's going on on the property because the refusal to appear
and testify allows you to make some inferences about whether what they're doing is in comportment with the special permit and the restrictions attendant upon it that when it was issued, you could do that. Um, >> could we suspend so suspend the permit meaning put it in basically in in limbo?
>> In other words, >> I don't I don't think you have a basis to suspend the permit. >> Yeah, I don't mean, you know, deny it. I just mean since it hasn't been finally hasn't been final checked, >> we don't know the status. We know that they were given a a permit, but I don't know if it's gotten a final.
>> Right. And the problem with that is that you you you typically wouldn't get any of that information because a question about the propriety of that kind of permit wouldn't come to you, >> right? >> So it's some of the information that's contained in those final inspections may
be relevant and could be presented in a zoning appeal. You know, for instance, if they said on our application, we said we want to electrify the building and we're changing its use from a garage barn to, I don't know, a clubhouse or something. we're going to use the space in a different fashion. That could be
presented to you and you could say on that basis, you're substantially changing the use of the building and that violates a term or condition of the special permit that you were issued when you were allowed to construct this building. That would be different. But even then,
you would be coming in after the fact. And so, I don't think that you have jurisdiction to take action as a zoning board to overturn, modify, or revoke an electrical permit. Okay. >> You do have you do have the power to enforce terms and conditions of a
special permit that was issued by this board. >> I I thought you said earlier we could make a motion to overturn the building inspector's permit authorizing the electrification
of the structure. >> That's not what I said, ma'am. What I said was >> what I said was the applicants wrote for a zoning determination and an enforcement decision in writing to the part-time building inspector who was formerly here, Mr. Armstrong. His
response to that request for a zoning determination and enforcement was, I do not see that there is any evidence of a change of use and I do not feel that the electrification of the building is necessarily a change of use within the meaning of zone. Um, it's an appeal from
that determination that is before you. If you look on the first, I have a 24page packet that begins with an application for an appeal of electrical permit stamped received November 13, 2025 by the town clerk. The next two pages are a letter dated
November 13, 2025 from Mr. Dana. Exhibit A to that document is a letter from Paul Armstrong. >> No, the electric Exhibit A is the TW 2001 building permit,
>> right? That's a different exhibit A. There are multiple letters from Mr. Dana in the packet that I have. >> That is exhibit A to a June 30th, 2025. I am looking at exhibit A to the November 13th, 2020. >> You know, sorry, I just asked you. I thought you had said that we could make
a motion to overturn uh the building inspector's permit authorizing the electrification. Um because he did not find it was a change of use. We could vote. >> No, I did not I did not say that. >> Okay. Did you repeat what you said? Just
what you said. >> I said that you could make a motion to overturn the building inspector's determination that there was no evidence of a change of use on the property for zoning purposes. the specific language that he used. The reason I was directing you to his email
is that quote first, thank you for your patience with this department as to the electrical permit issuance by this department. As we discussed, I do not feel that the electrification of a structure changes its use. So to the extent that they sought zoning enforcement on the basis that the
electrification of the building necessarily changed its use as far as compliance with the special permit, the building inspector said no. I do not think it does. You can make a motion to overturn that decision. That is not the same thing as overturning the issuance
of the permit. Those are two different things. >> Again, I thank you. I appreciate that clarification. And if we make that kind of motion, could we then continue the hearing to take evidence from the
country club, the owner of the country club, as to what their intended use of the struct the now electrified structure is. >> It depends upon what you do. If you close the hearing, you can't take any
more evidence. >> But but I could make the motion and not close the hearing. >> No, you can't make a motion. You You should not and cannot make a motion to render a final adjudication before closing the hearing. You need to take all of the evidence that you want to hear in and then make a decision on the
outcome. If you vote to overturn the building commissioner, the hearing is over. You have made a final determination. That decision will be filed with the town clerk. It's subject to appeal under chapter 48, section 17. you would have nothing further to do once you make that decision as a board.
>> So that was kind of why I was trying to get to the point where the special permit seems to be changed. Could we ask the board to say the building that was put out there and has been built since it's not on the
special permit could we say is a a minor or major modification leave the appeal open continue that so that we can then ask uh Indian Pong Country Club to submit
proper plans and use of that building to be put into the special permit. I I think what you what you could do if you wanted to do something like that is what I would suggest procedurally is that you continue the hearing to a date and time certain ideally with sufficient
time for anybody from Indian Pawn Country Club to respond. You would invite them to the next hearing. You would invite them to submit plans, uh, documentation, arguments, memorandum of any kind they wanted to submit showing that, you know, they're in compliance
with the terms of the special permit as it relates to the use of this building. Um, you can ask them in a communication to address the fact that the use of this building does not appear to be documented by the records that are on file with the town clerk and in the town
building department. You could ask them to supplement that in the event that anything was misplaced, lost, not found despite a diligent search. You could ask them to do all that and then you would have all that information available to you before you made a final decision on the resolution of the appeal that's before you.
>> That's basically what I'm getting at. >> But but how do I get that? The bigger problem is he doesn't have to give us that information. So how do we This is like pulling the teeth out of an alligator. You know what I mean? How how do you get how do you how do you get that
information to happen and like how do you get it to come forward? >> Well, the other thing you could the other thing you could do is that in the intervening time you could also include in that communication. You could ask for their consent for an inspection of the property by the individuals who are
currently serving as building officials and zoning enforcement officers within the town. And it's for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the terms of the special permit. Um, >> I'm sorry. Was there a question? >> I'm just Go ahead.
>> Can Can So, it looks to me like the status of this permit has it has been issued. Is that correct? >> This electrical permit has been issued. >> Yes. >> Yes. And >> correct.
>> So if we ask Indian Pond to come back, >> my opinion would be that until we get a permanent building commissioner on site. I mean they can go ahead and electrify this now. They have the permit. They can do what they want. >> It is electrified. It
>> is electrified. >> All right. And we don't know what the use of it is. It's never been occupied. It's never been signed off by any inspections, by any framing permits or any of that. And
you know, shame on the town for not following up on that. But I I would like to have a permanent building commissioner on hired to review the status of this to look at the building. You know, that's
the building commissioner's right to see what the use of it is. if it's being used in a way that you had said that the fire department uh if they're storing things that they shouldn't have, is it sprinklered?
What's in there? And I think that's the right of the building commissioner to inspect the building to see to make sure that it's not being used in a way that we don't know. Um
>> yeah and typically it on >> just and then just one other thing is it's I I don't want to approve or deny anything that's speculative. Um as a board I like to see black and
white in front of me. Uh the question is do we switch off the the permit that's been issued? I I don't think that that's our right to do that, but I think it's our right to ask
what the use of the building is since it's never been inspected. And I would ask that we continue to look at this building until we get a permanent building commissioner
to go into the building and see what's going on. That's my opinion. So is that something for I'm ask rest of the board too. Is that something we can entertain? You know, like again, continue the appeal that's in front of
us, but then request, you know, like I said, I don't know how to do it procedurally with the fact that we say we feel that this is a major modification to its special permit. We would like you to come in front of the board and show us this building, what it
is, how it's where it's laid out. Again, I don't think that's in any I don't the special permits one it's one page, >> so there's not much to it. So, what I would tell you procedurally is that what you're contemplating is, you know, you would have somebody go and do an inspection, whether there's a
consent inspection or the town would need to obtain an administrative search warrant to view the building to determine whether it's in compliance with zoning and the building code and the electrical code. Um, typically you would do something like that to look into it if a building official feels
that it's warranted. You could ask certainly as a board or individual members of the board, you could ask civiling department to undertake that work. Um it wouldn't resolve this appeal, but also it wouldn't nothing in this appeal would prevent the town from doing that. The ordinary procedural
course would be that if the building department does an inspection and they uncover something, whether you know the property is in some way not in compliance with the terms of the special permit, in compliance with town zoning, in compliance with the building code, you would have a notice of violation issued. Then you would see whether there
was an appeal from that notice of violation. And if there was not an appeal from that notice of violation, it would become final. The building official would start issuing fines. the town could theoretically pursue an enforcement action in a civil court, but the the and I I don't want to keep
returning to this, but the question for the board on this appeal and whether you want to have additional information before you answer that question is within your discretion, that's entirely up to you. But the question is, do you feel that the building inspector's determination was wrong based on the information that was provided to him?
And >> I guess the other question, you know, it I just see the status approved. Um I haven't seen the permit application. Where's the power coming from? If it's not electrified,
you know, is is the power coming from a substation? Has Edison, whoever that is, have they approved it? Do they have is is all that electrical power um approved? I mean, is it underground?
Is it overhead? >> So, if you look on the second page of the permit um which just has it's a it appears to be like a screen grab from the town's electronic permitting portal, you can see that it's an electrical permit. And if you look on the second page, there's an estimated cost. Below
that there's a project description that says a new 200A that's usually 200 amp electrical service from an Eversource transformer type of electrical work underground service with trench. So it looks like an underground electrical connection. >> So Eversource has to have that their
permitting. So they have to excavate excavation permit to get out there. Has to be inspected by them, signed off by them, signed off by our electrical inspector that it's up, you know, the that the conduits are are encased in concrete. All of that.
>> Um it just it just seems to me that oh, we're going to put power there. Again, there's a whole process involved with it that I I don't see. >> Maybe it's maybe it's there. It's just not in front of us with with that. So, I
depend on the electrical inspector to have gone through that process. I'm assuming he has. Um, but I I still my my my my opinion again, my opinion is let's let's get the building commissioner here to review. I mean, are they going to
have an illegal casino in there? We don't know what the heck they're going to be doing in there. It's all speculation. I I I don't like to approve or deny speculation. And to me, this is one big speculation. >> I guess I'd like to make a mo try to
make a motion. How's that? >> Give a give it a stab. >> Yeah, the give it a stab. I want to see see what you say. I move that we continue uh the hearing, the appeal hearing
before us tonight um and invite the um representatives of the Indian Pond Country Club, the owners of the Indian Pond Country Club. >> I think we'd have to I I don't think we
I think we have to instruct the building commissioner to do it. >> That's up to him to do that. We we have only we can funnel to the building inspector or the zoning enforcer, >> right? Because they just said they could say, "No, we're not coming. There's no reason for us to be there. We have our inspector." >> Again, I thought council again I thought
council said we could do that. We continue it. Um >> continuous. I agree with >> definitely continue the hearing. We don't have enough evidence to do really much of anything. Um I'm not sure
to find out and to find out what is there what has the use of this building been do they intend to change the use if they don't want to come they don't
have to come but at least that will be some you said I thought that's some indication and we could set the hearing far out. >> Let me let me town council, what would be the the proper wording to basically I get what she's trying to say to request
to get information from >> building commissioner >> from a from a building commissioner to go in there and inspect and see if there is a if there possibly is a change of use since we don't know its original use to begin with. >> Why do we need a building >> that would allow it to come back? But so
when she does make a motion, she has correct language. Do we need a bill? Do we need to direct somebody or can't we just >> continue the hearing to a date way out, you know, in the future
in invite direct them to please come to present information to us >> until we get a building commission? We can't. >> Why can't we do that? >> Because we don't have building commission. >> All right, hold on guys. Town council, please give me information.
>> In terms of the form of the motion, I think the only motion the board needs to make would be to continue the this hearing to a date and time certain. You can have the ZBA secretary um you could reach out yourselves. You could say I would like you to send a communication
noting that this hearing has been continued. Um we are seeking a representative from the building department to attend. You could do ask them to do the same thing and send a letter to Indian Pond Country Club asking them advising them of the continued hearing date inviting them to attend and the subjects upon which you
know you would like as the board would like to hear from them on. >> Does the board have to does the board have to take a b not a vote but a pooling and say listen we want >> we want to get some information because I I just have a feeling like like she said they don't have to show they don't even have to let us in. So how do we
move it? How do we basically move it? So you you don't this board you can't issue a subpoena or anything like that. You just you would issue a an invitation. Um but I would tell you that you're allowed to assign some evidentiary weight or value to someone's refusal to attend or
provide information, you know, in ter in the course of making your decision. This is a civil thing. It's not I don't think anybody's fifth amendment rights are being implicated. You know, this is just about it's a zoning matter. So you can ask somebody to come. you can make whatever inference you can from the record you have at the time that you
close the hearing. >> So, if you want to ask the building commissioner to come and provide some information, you know, to try to attempt to make an inspection between now and whatever date you choose for a continued hearing, you can do all that, but I think the only formal vote motion you
would need to entertain is to continue the hearing to do that because that's really that's the only thing that's within you. Like let's say you invite the building department to send a representative and they don't. That's a matter of you know I don't endorse it. It's not good comedy between municipal
departments and boards but it certainly can happen. Similarly if you extend the invitation to Indian Pond to attend and they choose to neither submit anything or to attend and provide new testimony. That's where it's at. Um, again, and the
reason I I bring up the fact that this is an appeal from a determination by the building inspectors because it goes to one of the things you're going to need to evaluate on this is who has the burden of proof here? There's a party who's seeking action to be taken by the
town's zoning enforcement officials and they disagree with the determination that those officials made in the first instance. And typically the statute doesn't expressly assign a burden of proof, but typically the person making a contention or a proposition in this case
that the building department is wrong needs to put some evidence before you that shows why that decision was wrong and why this board should overturn it. council in order to give evidentary weight as
you say to um someone's declining our invitation to come to address concerns that we might have. Um should we be very detailed in our uh
invitation to the country club? Would that be the more detailed the better the more evidentiary weight we could give it? I'm just trying to I I'm prepared for them not to come. Um but I would like um to know that continuing the
hearing and issuing the invitation is worth um something uh of of has some value to us if they declined to participate. So, the the question of how much weight you place upon it is a question for the
board as a collective um because you're going to need to review the evidence and you're going to need to deliberate and make a decision. Um typically, you know, how that decision gets hashed out would be something that would occur in private. Um that is separate, you know, because the that you would hear evidence
in public and then deliberate, but the final decision you could prepare in consultation with my office. Um >> I understand that. I was just talking about the letter. It would it be better to be very detailed for our request or
just say please come. Just trying to get some free legal advice from you here. In terms of moving forward, I >> I don't think that you're going to be harmed by asking the secretary to include some additional detail about what you're looking for. You're also, I
think, free to say if if you're have any concerns about it, I'm not aware of any prohibition on you writing individually and saying, "I'm a member of the zoning board. We are hearing an application concerning your property. I am inviting you personally to come and attend and give the board because we are grappling
with these specific issues and we would appreciate your input on them." >> Um, you can approach that however you see fit. It's really, it's not really a legal question. It's a I mean how much weight at the end of the day you assign to it is going to be up to you because you're the individuals who view and
weigh the evidence in light of your common sense, your experiences, your reason. Um that I think you know certainly the manner in which you communicate with an individual informs how you view that but I don't think it legally binds you to one or another interpretation. You're all free to view
the evidence however you see it. >> So someone want to make a motion to continue. I move >> continue to hear >> April 1st, April 15th. >> I say April 15th. That's me. I I don't
care if it could be 1st or 15th. I just >> first is the first one. April 15th. >> Oh, yeah. >> There's nothing on the books, right? >> That's so >> tax day. >> Yes. >> That's terrible. >> Um and then so the motion moving to
continue it to what did they say? April 15th. >> 15th. >> I think there's already one scheduled for the 15th, isn't there? >> No, not for April. >> I thought >> we have March um March 4th is 19 Rocky Nook and then the following March. >> So, I just want Yeah. on rock. There's
one there's a addition at Rocky Nook. >> Yep. >> Yeah. All right. That's March. >> March. >> All right. I thought that was April. Okay. >> Something around April 15th with all like school or vacation stuff to try to make sure that we're all going to be here. >> Tax day. >> Tax day. Yes, we'll all be here. 15.
>> Um, all right. So, we got a motion to continue >> just just one >> one additional question. Can we >> can we ask uh the the motion >> taxation >> to continue until we have a building commissioner?
>> Yeah, that's the bigger >> we don't have a date. We don't have a building commission. Shouldn't Shouldn't we just say we'd like to this continued until we have a full-time building commissioner? >> I I I don't want >> Can we do that? I think we I don't know if we'll ever have a building commissioner from
>> what I >> whether or not you will you can't continue a hearing indefinitely is a matter of law. >> Okay, that's that was my question. >> All right, then how about >> you can you can only continue it to a date and time certain >> if on that date and time you still don't have what you need. >> Maybe April 1st, >> but you would need to do that.
>> Well, I might not be here for you. >> I think that's he's saying that's April vacation. I I've been probably accusing myself. >> Um, >> I don't know when >> Oh, we could do May. May 6.
>> Yeah, that would be May 6. I can do May 6. There's nothing there, right? >> That's fine. >> All right. >> We'll still do the first one, right? >> Yeah, nothing there. So motion to Marshia made a motion to >> to continue the hearing until May 6,
2026. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board members. >> Thank you. And then I guess as a board can we you know collectively ask the secretary
to send out some sort of correspondence to the country club >> requesting together and send it out. >> And then if if not I guess at that next meeting we can request that the building inspector or building commissioner or zoning enforcer goes out there and and
does the um inspection maybe prior to the meeting. Okay. >> Is that okay? Town council. Are we allowed to say that? Yeah, that's fine. Um, and I I just wanted to also advise you um I am departing my current position and so I will not be here for May, but what I'm
going to do is brief uh Jay Talerman and I will let him know about everything that went forward tonight and the information and arguments that were presented here along with the questions from the board and so we will have somebody ready to um assist you when it comes time to reconvene this hearing in May. >> Very good. >> Sorry to see you go.
>> Thanks. It's been a pleasure. I appreciate working with all of you. It's been an honor. Um, sorry to go, but just >> Best of luck to you. >> We'll see you on the other side, right? >> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> Take it easy. Thank you. Um, >> should Is there anybody that we should have asked?
>> No, I thought about that, but >> Okay. Uh, someone want to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I make a motion we adjourn. >> Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? I I