[music] It is 7:00. Calling to order the zoning board of appeals meeting of July 16th. [gasps] Uh our first agenda item is the Olive Air Investment Incorporated. It's a new hearing. I'm going to read the posting
into the record. Uh Lakeville's zoning board of appeals acting in accordance with Mass General law chapter 48 as amended will conduct a public hearing on Thursday July 16th 7 p.m. in the Lakeville Public Library for Precinct Street upon the petition of Olive Investment Inc. Special permit is
requested under section 2-6.8 6.1 A2 and a variance is requested under section 270.8.2C. A variance waiver for 70,000 square ft maximum lot dimension in 175 ft frontage. The site is located at 47
Beachwood Avenue application and all sort of documents are able to be viewed in the planning department. So who do we have here on behalf of all of air investment? >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Uh my name is attorney Nicholas Gomes. I represent the optim. >> Sit down. Relax.
>> Perfect. >> I don't think it's going to go that quick that you can stand up. So all right uh why [clears throat] don't you give us an overview as to what you guys are looking to do. Obviously you have um requested both special permit
and and a variance. So maybe if you want to clarify that in in addition to telling us what you want to do and then there's some correspondence I'll read into the record and then we'll go from there. >> Perfect. Thank you very much Mr. Chair. Uh members of the board, residents of the town of Lakeville, uh thank you for
allowing me to come before you for this public meeting to discuss this project. [snorts] Uh my name is Nicholas Gomes. Like I mentioned, I'm an attorney from the city of New Bedford and I represent the uh the applicant Oliver Investment Inc. He's a local licensed real estate
professional and also engages in real estate development. We're looking forward to add a single family home uh to your town. Uh in particular, we're looking for something uh small that's going to fit this little neighborhood over at Beachwood Avenue. Uh it's within
the Clark Shores uh community here. We're proposing a a thousand square ft home on slab grade and then to also have it as a one-bedroom or a two-bedroom. Uh that would ultimately depend on the septic system. We work with the uh local
engineer Zenith Engineering. I provided to you a site plan drafted by him showing that the lot had about uh just over 16,000 square feet. It's actually a combination of a few parcels that came forward to come here. Uh prior it was uh
a uh a summer cabin essentially. So we're looking to it's been vacant for many years. We're trying to transition it into a uh full-time single [clears throat] family home uh for an individual to be able to live in. Now, I
want to go uh first to special permit criteria and then the variance and then I'd be happy to answer any questions if that's a good format. >> Sounds good to me. >> All right. Uh so, as I mentioned, we're this is a starting point. We need zoning
approval before we can proceed further. Uh we're not going to need a well uh because we'll be able to uh utilize the local uh water source. We are going to need a title five septic system. We're expecting it to come to meet the criteria of a 1500galon tank uh that's
going to supply for the onebedroom house. Uh so when we're looking at the special criteria under chapter 270 of the um bylaws [clears throat] in town, we're asking to essentially find that
this former residential use should be again revived. so that someone can live in this property. Uh this is reestablishing uh what is known as the >> Excuse me, sir. Just got to keep it down
in the back. >> Yeah. Reestablishing the protected non-conforming status. So here we believe that uh your approval here tonight would be a reasonable uh decision to make. Here
we're putting up a relatively small 1,000 ft home on a former residential use. Here we're not trying to overburden. Uh the current [snorts] setback calculations
uh are within the guidelines. So it's showing that this is not a overburdened or over intense use for the particular 16,000 square ft. uh it's reasonable in that respect. [clears throat] Adding this uh into a in being allowing
the development of a single family home here is a benefit to the town on a tax basis uh in that it is also uh in line with this local neighborhood of all other residential uses. So to contrast, we're not trying to put a business or
something that's just not suitable for residential [clears throat] neighborhood be there. So it's in line what was once there. Uh so again that decision would be reasonable in line with your uh current bylaw. Uh then lastly is that it's not going to be detrimental to the
existing uh property and the surrounding uses around it. Again, it's not noxious uh type of use that's being proposed. It's not going to going to cause interference uh become a nuisance. Uh actually the way we look at it is the
flip side of having a vacant uh area allows for uh potential unwanted problems because no one's watching it as if it was someone's home and protecting their four corners. Now moving towards the the variants and they're very [clears throat] they're
very similar in my opinion but there are two different legal mechanisms in which we're presenting to you. Uh the second being the harmony of the neighborhood. Here we're just trying to uh revitalize what was once used and cherished part of
your community, updating it. Uh building a uh a home that you can be uh proud of and want to live next to. Uh the renderings that I showed you was a basics on grrey almost coastal New England feel is what the developer was
going for. Um [clears throat] the hardship, this is a hardship that any person who owned this property would come into the same issue. Uh with the zoning bylaw, you need the large square
footage of the lot itself as well as the frontage of 175. Uh we're essentially asking for uh because we have 114 ft. So it's officially a 61 ft variance on the frontage required. uh that we're looking
for. Uh so anyone who's coming forward, it's not um unique just to this owner in particular. Um so it's not a method of favoritism, spot zoning as sometimes you hear when these matters come forward.
And then additionally, the physical boundaries of this property. It's a corner lot, uh which I think has a added benefit for visibility being still being able to see around the corner. the building is going to be towards the what
you'd characterize as the back of the property with the septic system in front and the driveway uh for access in the front. So, it's um visually set where a house should go uh and the engineer did
keep that in mind in his design and what we put forward. Uh this last lastly here, this is in the uh public interest. So moving forward and I took care this is new um and not something that you would generally see maybe 5 10 years ago
uh but Massachusetts has taken a tremendous step forward in uh trying to increase development. You hear um newspapers of there being a housing crisis, housing stock issues, and this is an opportunity to meet what the
common commonwealth of Massachusetts has already put forward as one of their public policies. They uh want housing production and they want uh efficient use of existing properties. So I made the analogy to the affordable homes act
how they uh recently came out with the you know to go against merger of lots to allow development meeting the uh [clears throat] sorry the parameters set forth in there. So again we're trying we're bringing a reasonable project forward. We're not
trying to uh go with a multif family a large house that just simply wouldn't fit on the lot. Uh and it's what is known under that affordable homes act as infill development where uh they want to see board zoning boards essentially uh
looking at creative real estate and see how can we put a house here and make it work even though um zoning potentially in the past has been sort of restrictive and they're looking for that flexibility. So, we believe that this project that's being put forward uh
meets the criteria of your local uh zoning bylaw for the special permit, also the variance, and then also it's um essentially approved and supported by the overarching statutory of Massachusetts. So, I'm happy to answer
any questions. Uh but that's the basic overview of the project. >> Thank you very much. Yes, as you pointed out, we have uh almost literally cut off the press new legislation in regards to the uh to the variance criteria. So,
um quick question for you, then I'm going to read a couple things into the record. Um and just for everyone in the audience as well, I'll open it up to questions from the board. We will have an opportunity to ask if anyone else uh here tonight has any comments or any uh anything they'd like to add. Uh, and
then we'll we'll we'll work our way towards a decision. So, how long has the um the house was completely demolished, correct? >> Yes, completely demolished. >> And that was what year? >> I don't have that exact information. I know my client acquired in 2023.
>> Okay. >> But it's fair it's fair to answer your question for I believe the bylaw long. It's fair to say it was uh more than three years ago. >> Correct. That's kind of I just wanted to clarify that. I thought it was, but I wanted to get it on the record. So, uh, okay. Just, uh, to get things on the
record here, I'm going to read a couple of, um, uh, memos or emails into the record. So, we have a email from, uh, Lori Kennedy, uh, on behalf of Nancy
Yates asked me to email the zoning board regarding, uh, both 47 and and 17 beach would have. Neither property has any issues with Hong Kong. So, that's one kind of box checked. We also have an another letter from the board of health
dated July 8th and that email was dated July 9th. The one I just read uh July 8th from the board of health regarding [snorts] 47 Beachwood Avenue. The board of health has received a copy of a petition for hearing for 47 Beachwood Avenue. We have received a draft of what may be a septic plan, but there are not
sufficient details in the draft plan to make a determination if the lock could sustain the proposed dwelling. The board of health requests a more detailed septic plan that has been stamped by an engineer. Also, the architectural plan shows a two-bedroom dwelling which is too large for the proposed lot size of 16,876
ft. The area where the dwelling is being proposed already has a dangerous level of nitrates in the groundwater due to the density of the housing. So, the lot would not be allowed to increase the septic flow from what the what was there originally or what was originally there. The assessor's record shows that the previous structure was a one room cabin
with no heat or bathroom. Therefore, based on the limited information provided, the board of health cannot recommend an approval. If you have any further questions, please contact this office signed at Cullen Health agent. Um, obviously, you made reference to um already being touch
being in touch with the board of health. So, you're aware that um you need a full set of engineered plans and it looks like they're going to restrict you to um just one bedroom. Is that >> Yep. I would um I would expect that today's decision would be contingent
upon um all other necessary approvals including the board of health. We intend to go before them and it does appear that the uh onebedroom is what is going to fit here and we're okay with still proceeding forward and still interested in the relief here. >> Yeah, the board of health has purview
over that. I just wanted to clarify that uh you know you got you weren't looking for two or three bedrooms or something along those lines to because that would probably be a non-starter. >> Yes. Yep. And I've um in the past I've worked with Mr. Cullen on um this specific issue as well regarding a
second bedroom and making sure the legal requirements as well as um his interpretation of that and we're plan on working with him like we did in the past. >> Okay. Going to open it up to the board now to see if anybody has any initial
questions. Uh I'm just curious on the footprint size of the slab. >> This um house is um 1,000 square ft is what we are putting forward. Um and it's
going to be in a slight rectangle format. Um I do not have the exact footprint, but I will tell you the general of what I expect it to be in one second. So this is going to be um the 30x 40 uh
size. So not a perfect square, a rectangle, just off size criteria. uh a little bit less than that to make the specific spot. It's not gonna be bigger than that. >> Good.
>> Anyone else have any questions right now? >> Maybe some to come later. So, you uh obviously you you explained that you've applied for both special permit and variance. Um and I would assume where you applied to both, you do not have a preference for which one. My guess is it's whichever one works is what you
guys are looking for, right? >> Whichever one works really. Um, but I commend the town for their spec their special permit language. I thought that was very creative um piece of zoning and that's what I think was correct. Uh, and
then I did the variance as a uh safeguard. >> Okay. >> Basically. >> All right. Uh, at this point I'm going to ask is there anyone else in the audience who you can stay there that's fine. If anyone else in the audience has a comment or anything they'd like to add
or say, come on up and you can head over there and announce your name and address for the record and then tell us what you have. [clears throat] >> Good evening. Uh my name is Patrick Sullivan. My wife and I live at 43 Beachwood Avenue directly next to the
proposed project at 47 Beachwood. We respectfully ask the board to deny this position. At a minimum uh petition at a minimum, if the board is inclined to approve it, we ask that the approval require an independent engineering and storm water review paid for by the
applicant, appropriate nitrate mitigation for the affected abuing homes, and an 8 a.m. construction start time. The applicant previously owned four continuous lots on the street at the same time, lots 39, 41, 43, and 47.
Rather than using that available land to create a plan that complied with the current zoning requirements, [clears throat] the lots were kept separate while at a higher density development approach was pursued. [gasps] As real estate investors and licensed
real estate professionals, the applicants should have known that the condition and the zoning status of these properties could create future development issues. They had the ability to evaluate those issues and make development decisions accordingly. Instead, the property
remained vacant for years and the applicant is now seeking special relief from the zoning requirements. The board should therefore carefully consider whether the claimed hardship was truly unavoidable or whether it is resulted from the applicant's own development decisions and the length of
time the property was left unresolved. We are also concerned because the applicant's prior development activity has already affected our property. Grading and drainage conditions on the property they previously owned and remodeled contributed to water being
directed onto our property. We had to install an emergency French drain at our own expense and an independent R.J. Home inspections report was documented the has documented these concerns and I'm going to submit a copy tonight.
Given that history, we do not believe the board should rely solely on the applicant's paid consultants. We ask for an independent engineering and stor storm water review to ensure that the project does not worsen existing drainage problems or the groundwater nitrate concerns raised by the board of health.
We also ask that appropriate nitrate mitigation and other equivalent protective measures approved by the board of health be provided for the affected abuing homes and applicant expenses at the applicant's expense. Sorry. Finally, because of the board the
because of the property directly abutz our home, we ask that heavy equipment and other disruptive construction activities not begin before 8:00 a.m. My wife is 7 and 1/2 months pregnant and we are expecting a newborn. A 6 a.m. start time for loud construction equipment
would be highly disruptive to our household and neighboring households, especially with a newborn. The building commissioner confir confirmed that the board has the authority to require a later construction start time. For these reasons, we ask the board to deny the petition and at a minimum, we request
independent engineering and storm water review, appropriate nitrate mitigation, and an 8 a.m. construction start time. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah, I also have the uh inspection report. >> Bring that on up.
>> Thanks. Uh, I'm going to pass this around and I'll guess I will ask the applicant's attorney uh if he has any insight or response to the I mean I guess I'll start with the um the storm water is
really the only thing that um I think you can respond to. Um if if that if you have any comments in regards to that. >> Uh yep. I would say I believe that the board of health regularly works with its own uh peer review uh to work with the
developers um professionals to make sure that uh what they are proposing and what goes in the ground uh is doing what it's supposed to and it's proper for the particular law. Um so I don't have any
real issue regarding um those type of conditions. The only disagreement I really have with the gentle gentleman neighbor was that u for you to deny the position. I believe that would be I believe there's first u substantial weight in favor of the project being
approved uh from a a zoning standpoint in the local municipality of Lakeville as well as the state of Massachusetts. Uh and what we're trying to accomplish. It's a reasonable project and these type of um conditions are regularly a part of
um the process and in particular for storm water. Uh we've had tremendous success um as well with groundwater infiltration units being installed basically roof drains that go down into the ground and to chambers and other
tactics to uh help alleviate these concerns. Um, so there's a potential that the when it's when the storm water is [clears throat] analyzed, it might even be a better site than what it is now, uh, with nothing on it.
>> Okay. Uh, does anyone else have any comments in the audience? Come on up, sir. My name's Dennis Bratton and I live at 6 Wildwood Road, which is just up the
street from that corner lot. Um, I was wondering if that has been surveyed yet to get the proper dimensions of the lot and if they're going to do it so we know exactly what size it is because I work
on the road committee in Clark Shore. So, I m help maintain the roads there. So, I need to know where the boundary lines are and they're not going to build into the road or anything like that as
far as what's going on there. And the type of septic system that is going to be put in and be a sealed tank or with a small leeching field. >> So, when it comes to septic or anything along those lines, that's under the the board of health.
>> That's under the board of health. Okay. I mean, you can brace it here and the applicant has the ability to answer if they want, but we can't for force them to. >> I And I know the lot that he was talking about because I've had my house in the shores there for 46 years now. And there
used to be, I'm going to say over 40 years ago, a cottage that was there, but it was condemned and torn down over 40 years ago. So, um, as far as using that as a reference to build there, it was up
on some, uh, concrete blocks. So, because that is a lowlying lot that fills with water every time it rains. So, it's >> and as far as your other question goes on uh surveying the actual property
lines and whatnot, um, our concern is setbacks. So if we were to approve, >> right, >> whether it's a special permit or variance, our setbacks would have to be met. So if if they're if they're planning off of an inaccurate survey and
they're going into the setback, then they're going to have a problem because during the inspection process, um the building inspector will make sure that if for argument sake, you need to be 43 feet. If they find out that 43 feet is into the towns or the Clark Shores
roadway, then they're not going to be 43 feet and they're going to have to make sure they're 43 feet. So, >> right. Thanks so Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> M Mr. Chair, if you'd like me to answer the questions regarding the survey. >> Yep. Go ahead. Uh there you
[clears throat] Mr. Chair. Uh the plans were drafted based on two benchmarks and public records that we do have. A full survey as well as staking out the law where the septic system was is going to go will happen a part of the process and
um I'll be sure that the comments that were provided regarding the roadway the uh type of septic desired by the the neighbor on the field side uh is uh made a part of our equation when we're finalizing. But to answer the question,
it's a narrow uh rectangular shaped system for the leeching field approximately 11 feet by 30 feet and uh it's towards the front of the house and there's going to be room for a driveway. So, it's going to it's going to fit. >> Well, the good news for us is the board of health is going to make sure it's
going to work. So, um I I have one question and then I'll I'm not closing anything. Anyone else who else wants to come up can come up and in the meantime I'll see if anybody else has questions on the board. obviously the water issue um which isn't
uncommon for any of these you know undersized lots uh on on most of our lake communities. Um, could I mean I would would the applicant be willing to have the engineer um
confirm the the water plan uh for the um the storm water management for that property to kind of show us we've done this in the past to basically show us listen we're designing this to make sure that the water isn't going to go to the neighbor's house. I mean, at the end of the day, nature can do whatever it
wants type of a deal and then that becomes a civil matter. Um, but is the applicant willing to um open to having his engineer um create some type of a water runoff plan and to show us what mitigation they're going to do to make sure it doesn't impact any of the um
abing properties. It is tight down there. >> Um so, thank you, Mr. Chair. So when when we say water issues, there's really um two big type of water issues. The um nitrates in the ground by having a house
and the septic system and then the uh water management from um rain and then on the site and it draining off of the site. >> Yeah, the nitrates is in my opinion and I'm not even close to being an engineer. Um that's more of a border health um issue [snorts and clears throat] that
I'll let them that I think we should let them deal with. I'm more worried about the storm water, the runoff where you're putting up structure on a property that doesn't have anything there now and depending on how you design it, you know, all of a sudden someone else's property's getting flooded type of a deal.
>> Yep. So, I would say um we're not opposed to it. It's something that is regularly done. Um but what we're looking for is to do that uh further down the road. And we were what we were really looking for was a uh from a
zoning analysis that we can um start the process and then from there that's when the the fully engineered uh septic system um storm water water infiltration and the more advanced planning gets done. So it's more of a um economics.
>> No, I get it. I get it. You want to make sure that if we're going to if it's a hard no, what's the point of spending all the money on doing the engineering? I I I get it. My my question is more so is it is it a hard no on your end to say no we don't want to do that type of a deal and it sounds like it isn't a hard no it's we'd be willing to
kind of on a contingent basis say if if this board were inclined to move forward that yes you will provide that. >> Yes. So if it was um your the board is inclined to uh approve and one of the contingencies is that it it does um it
meets title five does storm water satisfaction um satisfactory that is a reasonable condition. Um but as long as we know that there's uh we're admitted to the race so to speak and then we're we're willing to get to the green light
and do everything that we need to um at before those appropriate boards. So, it's not a hard number at all. Uh, I'll stop and see if any of the board members have any other questions at this point or clarifications or anybody.
Do we have anyone else in the audience who wants to speak? All right. Well, since we're all guys, I can refer to you as gentlemen and ask what [clears throat]
what's our our preference at this point. So, kind of maybe just to frame it, obviously the special permit um route is what they would prefer to, but the I guess the biggest issue with the special permit is there hasn't been a
structure there in well beyond what our bylaws dictate. um doesn't mean we can't go ahead at that route. Um and then the variance uh normally prior to this legislation, it probably would be a pretty hard no um on on the variance,
but now with the new legislation, and I'm not going to pretend to profess to be an expert on it at this point because it's brand new because uh council has just started reviewing it. Um, if we were to go the variance route, my
personal preference or recommendation would be we probably want to continue at least one meeting only because we'd want to I I'd want to get council's uh input on that to make sure we we do this the right way. Uh because if we do it the wrong way, it's a it's a no- win for everybody. It's a no win for the applicant because it can be appealed.
It's no win obviously for the neighbors. um because it you know if we don't do it the right way it doesn't benefit them and doesn't put it down in a good spot if we do it the wrong way. So anyone have any other comments or you guys going to let me do all the talking tonight?
>> No, I would lean towards what you said >> which is continue >> like to get some clarification on the varian >> get some legal counsel. >> Yeah, we can do it that way or special permit. I mean I don't think this is the worst thing for clock shores. collection needs to be
cleaned up. Um, you know, there's been lots all over town. One was next to me years ago. Bush was done. The house was burnt down 40 something years ago. I don't think it's in a lot of other sides. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world. I do agree with, you know, the neighbors concerns. Storm
water mitigation should be looked at and, you know, that should be part that's not really our, you know, what we're approving here. We're approving the dwelling on a non-conforming lot. we can wait and continue to for variance
or do special permanence. >> Yeah, the whole the the waiting thing has to do with if we don't want to go to special permit group. If we're going to do the variance, that's where I would kind of say we should pump the brakes and make sure we're going to interpret the the law correctly. Um
but either way um you want to any any other somebody want to make a a lean in one direction or the other or >> I mean would you prefer the variance or
would you prefer the special permit? Well, I'm not I don't object to the house on the property. Um, all right. So, let's It sounds like no one thinks putting the house on the property is is is a bad idea. Obviously,
the neighbors would prefer definitely not to have it, but if it's going to be there, they want some reassurances, some protections in place. that that is the one thing that's come up in the past as far as storm water management and properties being done and then years
down the road neighbors are having problems. So I believe there should be an outside review or somebody to make sure that the storm water runoff is is going to take u not be an issue for neighbors and cause problems with the
neighbors. That that would be my biggest concern here. It is a tight piece of property. It's a thousand square foot roof. It's going to be adding water and runoff. So there are, you know, other
properties in the area that building permits have been granted to to enlarge them. So I I don't think I I don't oppose the house. I don't. But I do believe in the conditions to make sure. Uh,
>> so the conditions we're looking at at this point are what we really want to get our head wrapped around. It sounds like you guys are fine with the 8 a.m. start time. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the real the real issue becomes how do we, you know,
assure ourselves that the design or the property is going to be engineered so that we know the storm water is going to be handled um in a positive way for the entire neighborhood. Uh, Storm
water health's perview. Correct. It's not We don't approve storm water. We >> No, it doesn't. No, it's not ne my understanding is it's not necessarily their purview. Their purview is the septic. >> So, who's
good question? It kind of lands back with us. >> Okay. >> Um, so >> as much as it can. I mean, you can design [clears throat] anything you want, but again, like I said, mother nature can do whatever it wants. You can you can have something designed to say it's going to work this way and then [clears throat] it doesn't work that way ultimately. U we just want to give
ourselves as much reassurance that it's it's being addressed and they're doing the best they can to make sure that it's not going to turn around and impact neighbors negatively. >> Are we able to partially approve maybe the building itself on the property so they can go to board of health and get
their septic design all that fun stuff. Can they come back to us with storm water? >> Sure. I mean, what we could do is we could we could appro I believe we could approve it with the condition a that you know construction doesn't commence on a
daily basis um before 8:00 a.m. Um and then um the permit isn't issued until we have a storm water um that the engineered plans show proper
storm water mitigation that's not going to impact the neighbors. So, um, you know, just to say, listen, you guys make sure you come up with your own storm water management plan. We I think we would probably want it to come back. >> Correct. Review it. >> Yeah. To review it and and make sure an
engineer has done it and stamped and if we need someone else to look at it. So, could you live with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. That sound like a good compromise in the back. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion to approve the
special permit. >> Sounds good. >> Uh, with the conditions of 8 a.m. start time, >> correct? >> And a storm water approved engineered plan showing storm water remediation, >> storm water management plan to come back
before this board before uh permit is issued by the building department. >> I like Yep. I like that better. >> I'll second that. >> Any further discussion? >> [snorts] >> All in favor? >> I I motion carries unanimously.
>> Thank you very much uh everyone on the board and the community members who came here today to speak. >> You're welcome. Hopefully everyone's close to happy as you can be. All right. Next hearing. Zoning board. Let me make sure I'm reading the right one. Yes.
Zoning Board of Appeals, acting in accordance with Mass General Law, chapter 48, as amended, will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, July 16th, 7:15 PM in the Lakeville Public Library for Precinct Street upon the request of James Caceri, a special permit under
requested under section 277.4B. The owner wants to add a 28x6 shed, [snorts] 448 ft. The existing 150 ft shed will be removed. Our goal is to maintain the more strict setback than the existing house. The site is located
at 17 Beachwood Avenue within the sort of documents where at the planning department to be reviewed. All right, Mr. Casseri, come on up. >> Tell us your story.
Well, these folks here at 17 Beachwood, [clears throat] they want to construct um a shed, slab on grade shed, and they did full engineering for it. And um so the setback is 15 ft, which is [clears throat]
a little bit more than the house. So, we were trying to maintain at least the existing setbacks and [clears throat] we went a little bit more than that uh from the side street, carry street,
and not a whole not a whole heck of a lot to tell, right? >> No, it's about it. It's just got some barn doors on it. It's uh going to be rough inside, rough frame. So, let me read a couple things into the record, then I'll open it up to the board, and then we'll see if anybody else has any comments from the audience.
Um, which I don't think there will be because there's no one else left in the audience other than our esteemed planning board member who's here to support her guy on his first zoning board meeting. So, >> I would hope not. That would not be a good move. So, uh, okay. The same email that I read in the prior hearing dated
July 9th, uh, that came from, uh, Lori Kennedy. Nancy Yates asked me to email you regarding 47 and 17 Beachwood and either property has a concom issue. We also have a letter from the board of health dated July 8th 17 Beachwood Avenue. The board of health has received
a copy of petition for hearing for 17 Beachwood A. We have received the site plan for proposed garage dated 61826 by Outback Engineering which shows the proposed garage more than 30 ft from the existing Legion field. based on this plan and providing the garage will not be connected to water. The Lakeville
Board of Health has no objections to the proposed garage for 17 Beachwood. If you have any further questions, contact the office. So, I think you got thumbs up from the other two boards that we need thumbs up from at this point. Uh, I don't see an issue. I think this is
more of a bookkeeping kind of thing where you have to come before us because of the size of the lot. So, um, yeah, >> I'll open it up to the board to see if anybody has any questions. I do not. >> Not at all. >> And I'll ask for the wreck. We got a hand up over here.
>> It's a shed. >> Okay. She's clarifying it's a shed, not a garage. It's an [clears throat] out building. How's that? >> I think you're fine either way, even if there was a car going in. So, uh I don't see anyone else in the audience. So,
I'll leave it up to someone to make a motion if uh we're so inclined. Guys, >> how about your first motion? Oh, tell me how to say it. >> You're good and easy when all you got to say motion to approve the special permit as proposed applied to >> to accept the special permit as proposed.
>> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We'll give it to Chris since he actually spoke up. Uh, okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Motion carries unanimously. >> Good luck. And tell your dad I said
hello. Hello. >> All right. Thank you. Take care. >> So I believe now just we have some minutes to approve. We have uh April 13th which was a remote meeting uh
basically to continue Simmons Hill. So uh were we all on that call or it doesn't matter. We just explained that. I'll take a motion to approve unless somebody has any revisions they want to make. >> We'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> I'll second that motion. All in favor to
approve the 13th uh meeting minutes. I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. And we also have the meeting minutes of April 16th. So um Colleen's already distributed to us. Hopefully we've all had a chance to
review them. I'll entertain a motion to approve or changes if need be. >> I'll make a motion to approve minutes. >> I'll second that motion. Do we have any further discussion? >> No. >> All in favor? >> I >> I
>> opposed. Motion carried unanimously. And our next meeting will be on August 20th back here at the Lakeville Public Library. It'll actually be will have been posted at that point. It will include the Simmons Hill kind of restart. So, let's make sure we're all
here on a consistent basis so we don't have to go through that again if you don't mind. So, we'll make sure Jerry knows that. Yes. >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to adjourn at 7:41. Make a motion to adjourn. Second. All >> in favor? I
>> motion carries unanimously. We are adjourned.