I've called the meeting to order. Okay. >> Um we have four applications on the agenda for tonight. Um the first one is 7 Rosedale Avenue. Um, I move to open the continued
public hearing for the application of Arman Aaro for a special permit under section 7.2 2 and 12.5 at a zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to raise and rebuild an existing
non-conforming enclosed front porch within the front setback. rebuild it in a different location and add a second story at 7 Rosedale Avenue, assessor's map number 48, lot number five in
district D1 filed with a town clerk on January 29th, 2026. Mr. Faro, would you like to present your application? >> Good evening. up. Um so it's um let me start with a brief
overview of the the property uh on Rosedale Avenue. To the right hand side, number seven Rosedale Avenue is a parcel of land, the 1926 Fireman's Memorial. And to the left hand side is 11 Rosedale Avenue. Fireman's Memorial I'm going to
reference as Fireman's parcel from here on out. Um, what you have is an instrument survey of the property. What you'll find on that instrument survey is that previously there was a two-car garage and a fence
on the between seven gross nail and the fireman's parcel. The garage was on the property line. The fence encroached onto the municipal property of the fireman's parcel. The day that I had the surveyors come,
the fence was removed, placed between 7 Rosedale and 11 Rosedale. Then I released 11 Rosedale from a use easement and called an excavator to remove the foundation of the garage.
The rear uh means of aggress was concrete steps to the um existing rear door. It was non-code compliant. Building code requires a 36in platform with handrails. If I was to make just the building code
compliant for means of aggress seven Rosedale would have pierced its both sideyard setbacks and it front yard setback. Parcel is by town records 4,092 ft. By the survey it's 4,136 ft.
My proposal is to remove the existing for uh 15 by6 front entrance that is enclosed and to rebuild it at 5x 14 ft which is actually about a 20%
reduction in the piercing of the front yard. The property is so small there's basically nothing I can do but yet I've done as much as I can do to make it as conforming as possible. So the proposal while making it conforming
does increase the intensity by adding a second floor. That's why I'm here having spoken to Paul Orlando. There are um additions on buildings which frankly are unnecessary, garages, trophy rooms, things like that. This is
for bedroom space. So I'm increasing the bedroom space that I have on the second floor. The house is tiny. Its foundation size is 22 by 27. So it's very small. Um but even though it it is small and I've added above the
uh previous kitchen, all the work is permanent and so far, like I say, is is underway. Other than the front of the house, which leaves the front of the house open to the weather, um it's it's just waiting on this one special permit.
Really, this is a very simple uh request. Like I say, it's making it smaller than it presently is, and it's simply shifting it from its location approximately 4 feet to the left.
That very simple project. That's it. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh you have any questions, Colleen? >> I don't. >> No. >> Oh, come on. One. >> I asked him on the site visit. Uh, John, do you have any questions?
>> Not at this time. >> Thank you. Um, I don't have any questions. I think we saw it on the site visit and it seemed to be not a significant change. Um, it's one of our twothirds of
our properties is non-conforming. Um, is there anybody in the room who wishes to speak on this application? You look small and boring. >> Take it and run. >> Is there anybody on Zoom who would like to speak with respect to this
application at Seven Rose Lab? If so, please raise your your hand in Zoom so I can see it and call on you. Seeing none, um I move to close the public hearing and have the board enter into deliberations
with respect to the application. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Vote. >> Yes. Yes, John. >> Yes, >> Sarah Rochess. Um,
does anybody have any concerns? >> I'm okay with it, Sarah. >> Okay. So, we feel it's not substantially more detrimental than the existing. >> Correct. >> No, right. Exactly. >> Okay. Um, with that, I'll make a motion.
I move to approve the application of Armand Dearo for a special permit under section 7.2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to remove an existing non-conforming enclosed front porch which encroaches 5T
into the front setback and build a smaller 5 foot by 14 foot open front porch. Is that correct? It's open. >> That is correct. But it will then only encroach into the front yard set by by four feet because the first foot of the face of the building is 11 ft to the
property line. >> Okay. >> So open front uh front porch centered on the house with an enclosed second story which will encroach 4 feet into the front setback. Good. at seven Rosedale A, assessor's map number 48, lot number
five in district D1 file with the town clerk on January 29th, 2026 based on a finding the proposed project is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw will not be substantially more detrimental or
injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the existing non-conforming enclosed front porch. and the requirements under section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on
the following conditions. The addition is located as depicted on the proposed conditions plan prepared by Mil River Consulting dated 116
25 with revisions dated 129 26. The addition is constructed substantially in accordance with the hand drawing included with the application. Do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Colleen seconds. >> Any discussion? >> Take a vote. Georgia, >> yes. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> John, >> approve. >> And Sarah? Yes. >> I can write this one. >> You'll write that? >> Yes.
>> Um because >> and I know he's ready to go. So, >> yeah, because we had to continue it and we didn't have a full board. It would be nice if we do it as soon as So, we'll be ready by Monday. >> Thank you. I greatly appreciate that. And I understand you've got a period of time and I do appreciate you uh jumping
on this one. What I cannot draw with a pencil, I can build with a hammer. >> Is pathetic. >> No, it's not. >> Who would like to review it? >> I can review it. >> Colleen will review it. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Yeah.
questions. >> Um, the next U application is for nine Mascanoma Street. I move to open the continued public hearing for the application of Joe Cunningham for a special permit under
section 7.2. to a 4.5 zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to raise a non-conforming residential structure and detached garage and rebuild residential structure with attached garage on a non-conforming lot.
And a variance under sections 5.3 and 12.3 and other relief is may be necessary to construct a residential d You have an attached garage which
encroaches approximately 4 feet into the side setback nine Mascanoma Street assessor's map number 16 lot number four in district Eve filed with the town clerk on February 19th 2026. Do I have a
second Georgia? >> Yes. >> Colleen yes. John, >> yes. >> Sarah votes yes. Um, so does do all the members of the board have the copy of the revised plans that were submitted to
us on Monday? >> I saw >> Yes. >> Y >> Okay. Um, with that, Mr. Stein, would you like to present the applicants? >> Yes. Thank you. Um Brian Stein with Vanstein Architects here with Joe
Cunningham, the owner of the property. Um I know I know we all um were out there a month or so ago on the sitewalk. I'll just uh do a quick review and uh talk a little bit about what we did in the revision. Um, initially we had um,
you know, we're proposing to rein the existing structure, the existing accessory structure or garage and construct a new home with a hatched two-car garage. The existing structure is non-conforming on the front setback.
The existing accessory structure is non-conforming on the side setback. With with our new proposal, we are proposing to have the house itself be conforming on both side setbacks
and technically the front. The garage which we are proposing to be attached is also conforming on the front now but not quite conforming on the side. Um hence I think pera the reason for the variance is we are
since the accessory structure is non-conforming now um on that side setback the house detached from the garage is conforming on the side setback since we're attaching the house to the garage which is non-conforming it requires a variance
um and I know that there was a think a brief discussion last time before the meeting was continued about the house also being non-conforming at that time with the side setback. We we've made that fully conforming. We've taken off the side porch roof is on the southern
side. Um but we have kept the attachment to the garage. Um given the narrowness of the lot, the slope of the site going down towards the back, it is really tricky to get a garage down behind.
Um, and which is why we're proposing it in the front. We also think it brings the scale of the house down a little bit visually. Um, so that's why we have it in front. Um, in general, the house is larger than what is there. Um,
not by a ton, but we are, you know, two above grade. We're about 4,500 square feet with with finished base of the house. Um, since we do have a walk out situation with the grade dropping off so much, the owner is proposing to finish around 2,000 square feet of the
basement, which is about, you know, a little over half of that basement. Um, you know, we we have talked with many of the neighbors just this morning actually and and prior um and hearing some of their concerns. A major one was the
trees along the kind of northernly northerly property line which we are not touching other than maybe a little leaning up here and there but just to clean them up but we are not taking any trees down on that side of the property. I don't even think we're taking any down on the other side of the property to get
the driveway in the potential septic system in. Um I know that was a major concern. Um another concern was just the um size of the home. Um, you know, it is larger than what is there, but we feel it's in keeping with many of the houses
in the neighborhood. I I have a whole list of homes in this in this area that are at or above this square footage, whether it's finished square footage or gross square footage, however you want to calculate it. Yes, there's some that are smaller. Yes, there's some that are larger on similar size lots. I think
we're right in kind of the the sweet spot of where a lot of people, you know, want this home to buy this home. home. We have a four-bedroom home for a family. Uh that it is in keeping with everything in the neighbor at most everything in the neighborhood. Um we
are again conforming to height and you know again the only big thing here is that connection to the garage that the lot is undersized um to zoning the
reason for the fresh. What's the difference in the footprint between the proposed structure and the existing structure? Roughly I actually did it. It is a little larger. I don't know the exact
number. I don't know how much you can see on the overlay. I had done this a little while back, right? You can see the dark red is the existing flip. Flip 90 degrees to kind of just give you a reference of how much bigger
the new is. >> So that's the existing house, not the existing garage. Is that correct? >> The existing house is the sketch red line. Yep. Okay. >> Flip 90° >> and then and then yeah, the garage is about half the size what we're proposing for the new garage. It's a one it's
almost a one car we're proposing it to. >> So in general terms I can the house itself is rough numbers 550 600 ft bigger on footprint and then bust the garage. What? I'm
sorry. What' you say? How much bigger on the footprint? >> The house itself is about 550ish um larger than the existing house. The garage is about 2x what the garage is now from a one car,
>> right? >> And um >> we're not taking questions yet. >> Okay, we will. Don't worry. >> We're gonna the board will ask questions first and then we'll take questions from the public. Okay. Um yeah, so in general
we're bringing the front yard into conformance. Um the sideyard house obviously in performance other than the garage. >> Um John, do you have any questions?
>> Uh no, I don't have any uh questions in particular at this time. I I do appreciate that the the new design is is more set back from the street than what's existing there. Um yeah, I've reviewed the uh revised plans. I'm looking at them right now as
we speak. So, uh but no questions. Thank you. >> Georgia, do you have questions? >> I just have a quick design question. So, on this front elevation you showed us. So the garage doors I'm coming off Masanomo. Garage doors are going to be on the side.
>> They're on. >> They're on your Well, >> sorry. Yeah, >> you kind of come in towards the front of the Yeah. Got it. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If you look If you look at the If you look at the site plan, you kind of come in off the street. There's a parking court and then the garage doors
are >> just gives us a little more opportunity for off streetet parking that way instead of facing the doors to the street. >> Not right now. Not right now. I guess what I struggle with is what's the impediment moving
the garage towards the front of the house so it's not in the setback and making the mud room a little smaller so it's doesn't go into the front set back.
>> So, part of it is, if you look at the little rendering I I gave you, is to allow kind of the front door, front porch to be uh kind of open to the street, not be encroached upon by the garage. If you
move that four feet over, you almost lose one bay of the or one column line of the porch. Um, it's more of a design thing. Um and it is a little bit of a you know room to maneuver thing but not as much as the as
the design. >> I do have a question. >> Go ahead. >> Just maybe the audience may so the variance is required because now you are attaching the accessory to the main structure >> right. So the accessory the original
accessory structure >> was detached >> was in detached in the setback. So that was a nonconformity with respect to an accessory structure. The garage is now attached to the house. So this is now a
nonconformity with respect to a primary structure. Got it? So it's a new nonconformity which requires variance. >> But you said you improved the setback on that side of it. >> We've improved we are now not
encroaching on the front. >> Y >> and we have improved the side as well >> from the original >> from the original accessory garage. Yes. >> Okay. I think the original design had about 80 feet in the setback from
front to back which included the garage plus the house. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. The house and the garage aligned pretty much in that last in the previous scheme and we've just moved it over to >> not
Okay. You'll have chance again to ask more questions. I I think at this point I'm going to open it up to comments from the public. Um, you will need to state your name and address for the record.
Um, and we'll try to address your concerns as much as we can. Okay. So, who would like to go first? Yes, sir. >> Yeah. My name is Joe Bane. Uh, I live at seven Mascan Street. by standing I'm gonna flutter to the right hand side of
this prompt just >> okay >> and um it's convenient that you were asking the question about previous size and plan size uh according to your
submitt on page two the existing conditions is a gross lower area how you can provide this >> chief >> what >> the existing conditions here, right? >> Yes. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. >> Yep.
>> Um his is 3,182 ft. The requested condition according to this is 6748 square feet. That's a you know 100 plus% increase. And that that frankly is
you know I look at this and I live next door it's a looming plan. the 80 feet whether it's set back few feet difference is looming over our property u and I consider that a
substantial detriment to my property and to the neighborhood and I can point to as I have submitted my letter uh a month ago to several lots it's more than a few that are roughly the same size as this
lot which is 30,000 square F feet. Um, my lot is 22,000 square feet and my house size is roughly 3,000 square feet. It's interesting that I have a very similar experiences to Mr. Cunningham. I
rebuilt my house, but uh I chose to rebuild it right on its foundation partly because the head of the planning board was my neighbor, which is nine Mascanoma Street. >> Right, Ron? And Ron Ron made it very
clear, don't don't move. And so I'm looking for the same protection here. I'm not asking I I'm in favor of them building, you know, building a new house. Um, and I'm not opposed to the look and design. I just would like it to
fit in the neighborhood. And you know that frankly that's a size 14 and that lot is a size six. Um so one of the things we do look at >> Yes ma'am >> is um
coverage. So we're concerned about the footprint of the house and what percentage of the lot >> yes >> it covers. In this situation, the maximum allowed coverage by
structures is 15%. And they're coming in at 12.6%. So, as far as the proportion of the structure that's covering the law, it's conforming with
the bylaw. And that is something we look at. We don't have anything in our bylaw unfortunately that speaks to gross floor area. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> You know, a lot of towns do.
>> Yeah. >> Um but our town does not. We we look at the footprint. Um, you know, we also look at massing and and I think, you know, the question I would have
in response to that question is the roof line on the existing structure had varying height roofs. This has one height roof.
What's the difference in that impact? Because we always are concerned about massing and this seems a larger mass, but I don't know if it is. >> Yeah. The existing house, old church if you will, has essentially a partial second floor. Much of the house is
cathedral as you might imagine in a church. Half the house, I don't know if Ron did it or who did it, but converted part of this second floor to a bedroom and bathroom, whatever. Um, and you know, there's a small dormer or two on the house. Um, but the height of the
house is actually pretty similar to what we're proposing to what's there now. Yes, it's got the gable end to the front. Um, you know, we're able we we have gable ends as well, but we're also turned 90 degrees as well. Um, and in terms of the height in the back, we're
also very similar to where it is. Uh, both obviously drop off because of the slope. Um I think it's the existing is around 30 feet in the back and that's roughly where we are too. Um but yes there is when you have a full
second floor versus a partial second floor within the roof you know you do have more uh vertical wall if you will. Um, >> did the the gross floor area in the existing
structure include the lower level? >> That was from um the town website >> and the town website gives the the square footage per level. Did you look at that? >> Yes, there's a little bit. it it
typically is giving you the finished square footage. Um there is a little bit of semifinish basement space on the lower level of that house. I think it did include that if I remember >> because again the first floor is x square footage. The second floor is
probably a third of that and then the basement's a maybe a fifth of that. >> But you said you're proposing like 2,000 square feet in the basement area. The finished space. >> Oh yeah. about. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, that's almost half of what the rest of
>> the >> Yeah. And it's it's partly just because we do have the walk out. If we didn't have the walk out, we may not be finishing the basement and it would be a 4,500 foot house. >> Oh, who else would we like to speak? Oh, yes.
>> There's two things points. One is I took the plan and if you don't mind happy to submit it. I because we had a question this morning about the square footage of the proposed building
and I took the liberty to spec it out and Brian is the gym is part of the finished area that's 13 in where it seats. >> Is this the existing house?
>> This is the proposed house as of today's >> Okay. Okay. And so what I did was attempt to come up with the square footage, the first, the second floor, the mudroom, and then I also added the garage, which
is 576 square ft. I added the basement, which showed on the plan as a gym. >> Okay. >> At,298. So, I'm coming again to double the existing
and very close to the number that you submitted with the garage footprint. >> Well, yeah, your total footprint is not footprint. That's the total square footage. Yeah, >> this is indicating that the
footprint 3000 >> that >> Yeah. with the garage. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. 2416 plus 57. >> Yeah. >> But the application says 3,000.
Oh, I guess you just use some mud. >> Well, we also probably had at the time the roofed porch and the um the deck in the back or the deck in the back, too. >> So, what was submitted? You haven't
updated this with the new plan you have. >> The only thing we took off was that porch, >> right? >> You took the porch off or just the roof? >> Just the roof. >> Right. expression on the porch. >> Al, >> excuse me. State your name and address.
>> Yep. Alfred Reeve, number 11, Masanovo >> on the southern side. >> Yep. >> Um, and the porch extends seven feet into the setback. I think the would likely consider it landscaping, but it is over 10 feet off the ground, made of
masonry, and attached to the structure. Would the town consider that landscaping or is that structure A deck is a structure. A patio is not. >> What's the porch? Like >> the walls under feet. It's not >> But the porch.
>> What? >> What's a porch? >> Is it off the ground or is it completely filled in under the ground? >> 10 feet. >> Depends on where you >> Yeah. 10 feet of masonry off the ground
current elevation. It's a patio. >> A patio is retaining off the ground. >> Patio with retaining wall. So >> patio is not 10 feet off the ground. >> It's connected nowhere is to the ground at floor level. If it was at half of it was at least connected to the ground and
you could call it a patio with a retaining wall on the outside, but if all three sides of all four sides of it elevated, >> would it need a building permit on its own? >> Yeah. over 36 inches. I definitely
>> um let me read you the definition of structure in the bylaw. >> Structure a combination of materials assembled at a fixed location
to give support, shelter or utility. Very clear, but not limited to buildings, whether principal or accessory, platforms, and decks,
swimming pools, tennis or similar courts, satellite dishes of three feet diameter, agree, sheds, shelters, and display signs. So,
a patio would not be considered a structure. >> Is a patio 10 feet off the ground >> on all sides? >> It's not all sides. >> Uh, under the not under the of your propros grade, but if you go measure it
today, it's over 9 ft off the ground. >> Doesn't matter. >> Where you attach it to the building at the pre-construction grade, it's over 10 feet off the ground. Is there a crawl space underneath it at any point? No, >> it does require a building permit. That was one question was >> over 30.
>> No, there's nothing underneath it. >> Patio does require a building. >> 36 inches of masonry requires a building permit. >> It's 10 ft. That's >> or something. The patio doesn't If there's a wall around that, it may need it. Is that >> No. >> Or not even.
>> I mean, I don't see that it fits the definition of a structure. Yeah, >> which is what we're concerned about. We're not concerned about whether or not somebody needs a building permit. >> Yes, I totally agree. >> Okay, which you you're probably right because I'm certainly not an expert on building.
>> We lost our one building inspector. >> Yeah, the building inspector would probably be the judgment call, >> right? Yeah. >> Um, anybody else in the room wish to say something? Please state your name and address.
>> Just say one word comment. >> Okay, >> sure. Um, >> yeah, I get I >> just repeat your name because >> Yeah, Joe Bane. >> A lot of this >> minutes are done via AI. >> Yes. >> All right.
Yeah. And we're opposed to the set the garage in the setback area. Uh, you know, our contention is, hey, the minute you raise that garage, you now have a non-conforming lot. And so, you know, our feeling is, hey, abide by the
setbacks, please. >> Anyone else? >> Yes. Uh, Pat Kak, 107 Beach Street. I am on the western uh side of the property. share the um my concerns are
a bit different. My focus is on incurious service increase property. >> Um at this time I've been in my property for 30 years. Um and then 105 was developed.
>> So 105 is the white one. >> Yes. >> And you're the house with the flat roof. >> That's me. >> Okay. Got it. Thank you. That's how everybody >> Yes. Okay. And um I've been there for 30 years and um the drainage has most
definitely changed over that time and I think the greatest impact I observed was when 105 was redeveloped >> and what happened was that now the tidal wetland actually uh extends around 105
and is uh separates um our our boundaries between 107 105 and and when I moved in it it was not wet. Now it's wet year round. So it's really tidal active. Um so what what I'm observing
and my concern is not you know that a house is being developed but has considerations been given to the drainage. Um when I see the increase in percent impervious um structure I mean the structure is
large h tw twice the size of the house that Ron was in um I helped Ron in terms of the wastewater on-site system on my background I'm an engineer my own company 30 years um we were dear friends
and he was a great neighborh but he did ask me because the lower part of the property is quite a slope is is is tidal. It's very fine sand, clay. Nothing penetrates quickly. So, even now
with a moderate rain, you'll see ponding at the base of um Joe's new property and it extends to my rear uh property. it just there there is no permeable material no in in soil um because it was
all tidal at one time and Alfred has this situation as well because it extends to nine but I I think you know my concern and I'm happy that they're not removing any of the trees or the large trees because they do such a magnificent job in terms of trying to
keep the drainage going but um you know if there was a drainage plan um my hearing this morning that now the on-site septic system that Ron and I designed and put the only place on the property was up against the back of the of the house where we could perk. We
parked six different spots I believe in none past and and I know they're moving it to the side between the house and outwards property up towards the front to extend the uh footprint of the house. Is it 20 feet back or 10 feet back?
>> 20 feet back. >> 20 ft. >> About 20 feet. But you're going to be covering the what's now the existing leeching field. >> Oh, not that far. >> You know the existing leeing. So then why do you have to move?
>> Well, it's so much further from where? >> We need to have proper clearance between the field and the house, right? 20 ft, which we won't. >> Right. So, your original plan, you were moving the tank um just behind where the
garage is now. You were moving or putting in a new tank on your >> Yeah. >> On the original, but now you're moving it around to the opposite side up towards Masanova Road. >> Yes. >> Okay. But and you feel you have to move the leashing field as well
for engineer. Yes. With the design that Yes. Well, the thing is that that system since I was involved with the design and installation of it, it was it took a lot of effort because we couldn't work all
the way beyond it. You had a system that was approved in June of 24 past title five when Ron's brother was trying to sell the property. Um, and I guess what I'm getting to is it not only is leeching built for your sanitary
wastewater, but it also helps in terms of rainfall and runoff. It's it's a permeable area in a very well non-conforming property, but a property that has very low permeability in terms of the soil and soil structure. So if
you build out back over that and put your new leeching field on the side, you're going to lose that permeable. >> We're not building over because that's probably 30 ft of back. So that's that will remain. Why can't that remain? >> Well, I thought you said this morning
you taking it out. >> We we are. But the back of the new proposed house would be too close to the leech field that's there. It needs to be 20 ft. It's It won't be that which is one which is one of the main reasons we're moving it because we know we can't
push it back farther into the lot. >> So get me I mean I I've been on that other side of the house. How could you possibly design and install leeching field that would be 20 ft from the new structure that you're proposing
on Alfred's side >> because remember well it's it's the front the front and side. Yes. Oh, can the leeching field extend over the setback? >> Yeah, >> 10 10 feet off property line is what they can go to. >> And the and the setback's 20.
>> Okay. >> So, they'll probably be straddling that. I don't know exactly where, but straddling. >> So, you're This morning it was unclear. So, you're not going to be ripping out all the perforated piping from the leeching field. >> We may not need to. I mean, that's I don't think that's necessary. The same
>> if we can use it for some drainage for the roof runoff, great. But we'll have to determine that with the engineer. >> And as you know, the same person that designed Ron's septic system, septics design, submitted that is the same person that we had to ours. So Dan
Johnson. >> Yes. >> And he's submitted. You could I'm sure check the check the paper with the >> And again, I'm not I'm not u what am I saying? I'm not telling you that I have comments about your design, your new
subject. What I'm concerned is is once you start increasing or losing impervious uh square footage and you've done that both by increasing the size and the loop line of the house and now you have patios and you're pushing the house back
over the one area on that whole property that was permeable. >> Yeah. Um it get it makes me think now the water's going to sheet and it's just going to create more of a drainage issue at the bottom of your property and across the back of my property. >> Okay. Um what are your plans with
respect to drainage? >> I mean we'll definitely have cutters and we can do you know perimeter train around the house train. So >> um >> yeah we're going to make sure that it's not worse than what's there. Yes,
>> we'll have infiltrators from u the down spouts whether it's a dry well or infiltrators at each corner, whatever the engineer wants, but something along those lines, which is very typical for
post construction these days. >> Would you consider anything like a rain garden? Then it's then it's more you know piping to that rain garden wherever that goes right and you know there at some point you know we we do hit the the buffer
line so we I don't want to do that but trying to keep everything up towards the house where possible >> but you did say that you're using the designer who designed the what's there now so he's very familiar with the the area and situation >> correct he's the one who did all the
test beds and everything in the previous system 20 plus years ago. >> It's 2006 20 years ago. >> I know but system is a great system when you can't do a traditional system and
that's what Ron and I had to go with. We couldn't do a traditional leeching field because of the lack of permeability of the soil. Well, I suggest that perhaps you touch base with the board of health if all the designs are on file with the board of health. >> That's a great Yeah,
>> that they're the ones that would be controlling that. That's kind of a little bit outside of our >> but square footage. Is that not part of your >> Right. And according to this, the maximum out is 25 and they're at 18.3.
>> Yeah. And but you know what's interesting is when you do the math, that's an 86% increase in impervious surface. I mean, I get your math, >> right? But that the challenge we have >> is our job. We're controlled by the
bylaw >> and I get that by the legal >> and you know, the bylaw says you can go up to 25%. But I'm wonder I'm just wondering the person that wrote that bylaw whether or not >> it doesn't matter >> right. Well whether they examine the fact that right now the drainage
capacity and the buffering capacity of that title area is at its limit. It's it's filling up. >> I the problem is is our job is with res with respect >> to exceptions to the bylaw approved by
the town. If there's and I'm sure the the impervious surface numbers are based on zone uh districts and the districts are vast and there's a vast difference in the types of properties in
each one of those residential zones. So it's not perfect. Well, but again making these decisions without considering say simple I mean drainage it should be a part of your your calculation in terms of whether I mean impacting or
increasing the drainage or impacting my property because drainage is now all pondied in the rear of my property. What recourse would I have? Didn't we all agree that there's a going
to be an engineer involved during construction to make sure that these things aren't an issue? >> What' you say, John? >> Didn't we just all agree that there's going to be an engineer involved during construction to make sure that drainage won't be an issue?
>> Yeah, they'll have the for the septic system. Yes, they have their own expert for the house is separate from the what they're doing for the septic system. I think that's what >> I just don't understand what we're arguing about here. >> I think our thing in the Manchester
zoning bylaw, the ZBA does not regulate specific drainage on site. >> There you go. >> No, I understand all that. >> Yeah. >> But if someone's building a new construction, you know, all the proper safeguards have to be implemented during construction by an engineer to make sure
that drainage is not an issue. Yeah, we'll have somebody that will size the infiltration. It's Yeah, pretty straightforward. >> But would that be a plan up front now to review? >> No. >> So,
back to brass tax here. >> The new structure is 4 feet over the side setback. >> The garage. the garage. >> Did you guys do any design where you were not over four feet? Because in so in my mind, I just want to say in my
mind, if you you're starting from scratch, so it's not like you're keeping the existing structure and you want to add on, you are erasing everything, you're starting with a blank behavior. So I'm wondering why you could not design it to fit within those parameters.
I mean, again, part of it came down to the look of the house that they were looking for and, you know, a balance and getting that front entry to look great and also to have, you know, enough room, which we do in that in that parking court. Um, you know, is it impossible to do? No. It's just we think it looks
better this way. Okay. >> Yeah. No, >> and that's the same the one we're going to have one in two hearings from or the next one we have on the agenda. I asked the same thing. Hey, did you have a design where it fit full conformity? You may lose a little bit of driveway or it
may be weird pulling it or it may not look good, but it >> Okay. >> Yeah. And we we did think about, okay, we we now meeting the front setback, right? Which it doesn't, right? We're improving all the setbacks that we're not conforming was kind of the mindset.
>> Uh, hold on. I've got to ask um more people. Was there anybody else in the room who has anything to say on this application? Is there anybody on Zoom who wishes to speak on this application? If so, raise your hand in Zoom.
Katherine Warren, you're gone on video. Do you wish to speak? >> No, I'll pass. >> No, she's with him. >> She's like, don't call him. She works for me.
>> Um, anybody on Zoom wish to speak? Okay, sir. I'll give you one more chance. >> Thank you. >> Joe Bane, seven Masanomo Street. Um, you know the point about the garage in the front. Brian's a comment I made this morning. I've tried to find a house
where a garage such a beautiful house where a garage is placed directly in front of it and I can't find one. In fact, I did was list the budding properties and I listed who has a garage. And you know what? Not many
people do. >> Say for mask that did that house. >> My house. >> I didn't go very far. I said our neighbor. you live in a hot dog and you know I happen to be one who has a garage but it's built underneath and
it's okay with me if you build your garage inside the building I don't care I just again want to get back to it's a looming structure and you are making your own hardship by placing a garage two-car garage smack in front of a
beautiful house >> thank Thank you. >> Um, >> you know, I'll be very honest. I'm conflicted with this application. I think that this board has had two different situations in the past few years
where we've had an existing residence and an existing detached garage that met the setbacks for an accessory structure.
And in both instances, the garage was within Well, in one case it was six feet from the residence and in another it was maybe 10 or 15. And in both of those instances, we did
approve a variance, but that's because there was no change in the usage of the garages. There was no change in the use of the residential structure. It was merely creating a connector
to allow access from the house to the garage without having to endure the New Hampshire the New England weather. Um, and I see this as different.
This is not an existing house with existing detached garage where you're just creating a connector. This is a raising of an entire structure
and now you're building a new structure and I'm not inclined to grant a varian to allow a portion of that primary structure to be in the setup that I think there's an opportunity.
This is a 24x 24 ft garage. That's a very large garage. There's no reason why you can't knock a couple of feet off the back of the garage and move it a couple of feet more towards the house. I mean, you're
dealing with four feet. Um, and it just seems to me that it's feasible to make it conform with the setbacks. Um, and you know, it's a small lot.
Um, so I think it's even more important on a small lot to have it conform with setbacks. >> What if it wasn't attached? >> I'm still going to struggle. I mean, when I'm on that site visit, I look at
where that existing garage is and I look at where the next door house is, and there's not a heck of a lot of room. And you're now creating a house that's going to go up, right? It's going to be much higher.
It's going to be much more >> No. Not really taller. No. >> No. No. Then the ridge lines. No, they're not. >> When I look this >> Mhm.
>> and I compare that to what was there. This is a much more massive structure, >> right? It's not tall. >> Same height, but a lot more. >> Oh, there's more of it. There's more of it. Yeah. >> Well, this has height, but all the roofs are all
different heights, and so a lot of the roof is much lower than this. Um, and I just I just think it should conform to the That's my >> Well, the house does.
>> No, the garage is part of the house, so it doesn't. >> Right. Wait, why if it's detached is my was my question. >> I don't think I would have a different opinion. I think you're building such a large structure
on a small lot that we have to look at whether it's substantially more detrimental and you're what district is this E.
So your lot is less than half of the required size in the district. I know there's many many lots in the district that don't conform with a minimal lot size. >> Oh yeah. That are have larger or similar size house. There's I have a list of about eight of them. >> Yeah. But they're here.
>> Yeah. >> And many of them were built before zoning went into effect. This is a new structure. >> Correct. >> Which gives every opportunity to conform with zoning. And that's one of the things we're trying to do. If people, we
understand when people have non-conforming lots and non-conforming structures that often times, they need to add additional space, but they're not making a massive change
and they're not tearing the whole thing down and starting fresh. >> And I just see that as different. You, you know, you can make the house smaller if you need to to fit on the lot. Yes, Mr. Cunningham. >> Wouldn't a detached garage fall within
the setbacks or No, it's still required detached. >> It's over the setback, >> not for accessory structure. >> Access qualify for the accessory structure. I think
>> accessory structure from the front edge needs 10 additional feet. Right. It needs 40. Correct. >> Right. And uh >> you're at 30 feet 7. >> Yeah. So it would have the garage would have to go back
>> 10 ft. >> Detached. >> So it's worse going back 10 feet or coming in four on the side and staying attached. I think that >> two two and two >> pushing the whole thing back.
>> Yeah, I don't want to do that. >> Yeah, that would make it fight the grade. >> Yes, exactly. So, I think yes, we we just chop off four feet of the back side. >> Well, well, you can't take four feet off the garage. yet to
24 is the semi minimum for most garages. But >> yeah, 24 width and 24 depth, >> right? >> I have >> I Well, I know you have a fairly small car, but not everyone does. >> No, but I have a 20 by 24 garage and I
have toades of ext loads of extra space. I even have a stair staircase going to the second floor that takes up some of the width. I mean, >> mine's 23 and my wife's car is pretty tight, >> but yeah. No, I just say that's what a
typical standard garages, but if he's willing to do 22 and we slide it over two, then, you know, to keep it attached, that's probably the best scenario. I think you put it well Sarah but my
concern is that again I don't see the hardship if I just look at the straight bylaw saying hey these are the rules if they can meet it and make it conforming they should and I feel like that's this scenario where you have the opportunity >> and like I could say hey it's only four
feet you could say the same thing hey it's only four feet >> but I'm looking at the rule book and I feel like we could you guys could probably make that four feet or a detached and move it back in. But that may not be the the best
>> that Yeah. fully Yeah. fully detaching it and pushing. >> Yeah. That's that changes a lot. It's a dominoes from there. >> But I think also Sarah has said, you know, it's conforming to impervious coverage, height, all of that. You know,
you're improving the front setback, but for me, I'm still stuck on the side setback. That's all. And I also would like to see something on the plan for drainage around the house. >> We just called out that there'll be
cults at the corners for now until we have an engineer look at it if that's all right. >> Yeah. >> French drains might be something to consider. >> We will earlier that we'll be doing French drains. Yes. So with that, I'll suggest that we continue it till next month to give you
the opportunity to come back with a new plan. >> Can we just condition it? I'll give you a new plan a month. >> No. >> Yes, you can push it on. >> You did have to wait that extra. >> Yeah, we Yeah, we didn't have a quorum last time, so it'd be nice to
>> I think I This is an easy change to lop off two feet and slide it over two feet. I can have that to you tomorrow. It's a condition, >> Dar. I mean, I'd be okay with that, Sarah. >> Okay. Thanks, J. >> But, but if according to your plan, if
you move it over two feet, you now hit a front set back. >> It it slides a little bit because of the triangle or the ankle. >> Have to change it so he doesn't go into the front set, >> right? Um, what's your feeling, Colleen? >> No, I think that that's a good plan and
I think it it solves the issue of being conforming with the um the bylaws. So, I agree with that. >> And do you agree that we can >> Oh, yes. >> Go ahead. And >> yes, I think he >> contingent on receiving >> I agree with that. >> Okay.
Okay. With that, I will make some motions. Um, number one, we'll close the public hearing and then I'm going to make a motion that you
withdraw without prejudice the portion of the application with respect to granting a variance. Okay. And then it will just be a special >> um excuse me.
>> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. I need to Joe Bane seven mask street I I'm not sure I mean we talked about mass we talked about double the size we didn't talk about how that compares to the
majority of the neighborhood the size of this and that being detrimental I mean I'm I'm going to butter with standing and I played within the rules and this this
house is double double what it was. And so my point is, hey, this is this is a huge pro, you know, project and and it is it's offensive, as an abutment. >> The challenge is is he is playing within
the rules. if he if if he meets all of the setbacks and the height requirement, he is meeting the rules under the bylaw. Um, and it makes it very difficult for
us to say, "Yeah, but we want you to come in with different rules." >> We don't set the bylaw rules. And I'll be honest with you, I have a lot of concerns
>> about a lot of the bylaw and I have a lot of concerns about the way the districts were drawn because the problem we have in this town is districts were created in order to restrict new building. and
therefore they created districts over lots that are much smaller than what's required in the district. Um I happen to live on Bennett Street. >> I'm in district A. Across the street is a general district.
I'm one of only two houses on my side of the street that conforms with a lot size for a district a house. And some of the houses were built in 1700. I mean, you know, so so it's clearly a problem, but
that's not a problem we can solve, although I would like to. Um, and and and that's that's the challenge. Um, it is an undersized lot, but I think the other thing is is that the because it's
in district E, the coverage requirements are lower, the setback requirements are higher than in districts with smaller lot sizes. So, um, from that standpoint, reason,
>> right? But there's been case there's been case law that says in Martha's vineyard that, you know, you you do an extra percentage increase on a property, you're you're dealing with, you know, things that are offensive,
>> but that's not in our bylaw. If if the residents of the town want to restrict the size of houses in town, then they need a fire requirement in the bucket. um which would restrict how large a
house can move. >> And granted, you look on I happen to be across the harbor from park district and I'm looking at all those new houses. >> There's a lot of them. >> There's a lot of >> and I will say there's some that could
if this law was fully conforming, we wouldn't be here. You know what I mean? It could have been, hey, you're waking up to bulldozers and or something's happening. Maybe the neighbors Joe would let you know, hey, I bought this property. I'm doing this, but I got the building
permit and I'm ready to go. It's fully conforming. So, I think at least there's a layer here of opportunity to give your feedback. But like Sarah says, I think of >> maybe some citizen petitions going forward at a town meeting to add a floor
area ratio >> planning board. >> Yeah. But in this case, you've got probably at least five neighbors who have come and said, "Hey, we object. We oppose >> and we wouldn't be here if it wasn't such an ominous prop
structure, I should say." >> Well, and I think I think the input from Cabas has helped us because we've been able to push back on conformity with the setbacks. Um,
you know, it's, you know, it's >> it's difficult. Houses are growing. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Just a quick question. Just say your name. >> Oh, sorry. Pat Kak 107 Beach Street. >> Yeah. Um, just for some clarification,
having been here 30 years and seen houses be developed around me, um, it was always my understanding that if you were a non-conforming lot, you were required to build on the existing footprint. >> No.
um under no the the that may have been true at one point, but if you you currently so the fact that there is a structure today >> on a non-conforming lot allows them to
build not on the same footprint but another structure um if it's substantially not more detrimental. It's a special permit. >> That's interesting because 105 Beach Street. Yeah. my neighbor uh that I uh
Conways they were held and again different rules different boards they were held to the in of being on the existing footprint of the ground propert >> the um case law does not support that
what case law says that if you currently have a nonconformity then only a special permit is required to extend that nonconformity. If you don't have a nonconformity, then
it's a variance. And that's what we were talking about early on is because the the side setback, the primary structure on I'll say the right side, it's what's
at the north side. um because that existing primary structure conformed with the setback. The garage didn't, but that was an ex accessory structure nonconformity. >> But that if they go into the setback
with an attached garage, that's part of the primary structure. That would be a new nonconformity, which would require the variance, which requires a demonstration of hardship. And the challenge we have is do you have
a hardship just because you want to make a house larger than what you can fit within the setbacks. >> I see. So >> when is a new structure? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But years ago it was that the existing footprints
>> the the case law has has significantly changed over the year the rights of property owners. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. They're basically saying property owners can do pretty much what they want want as long as they meet the 10 avenues of the bylaws.
>> Yeah. And that explains Brooksby Village up there. and she's a lawyer. So, >> they they did try to come back to us on those Proctor Street houses and they did an ANR for three conforming lots and they tried to come back to us to create
make one of the lots non-conforming and we said no. >> It's unbelievable. >> Yeah. >> Oh, the ones at like 1315. >> Yeah. Right there. Right behind me. >> Yeah. 11. Was it? Yeah. 135 17 I think. Yeah. beautiful old house and now there's
three ginormous ones. Okay. Anything else? Okay. I'm going to do my best. >> I'm going to nail. >> That's tricky. >> There was one other discussion which was mentioned earlier.
>> The trees. >> Yeah. I'll make that a condition to I was going to say that um >> no trees would be removed on the north side of the property >> and south. >> Okay. >> And then west
needs two. >> You may need some tree removal for >> do you need to fit the septic? There may be, you know, one that needs that one big one. Maybe something on the west on the >> So, but I mean we're not we plant a lot
of people. We will plant a lot of trees and we you don't want a big wide mass open open field with nothing in there. I mean, there'll be plenty of coverage. We have no intention of taking any of the trees down unless there's really bad
shape or need to come down. We we have no intention of How about if I say retain sufficient trees to provide adequate screening for the >> Yes, I would request there are six to
seven giant 100 foot over 100 year old trees on the right hand side and you know if you're going to cut a major lead off I'd like an arist and the town tree department to agree that be cut off and the tree would
survive >> maybe protect the trees during construction >> but I don't know about a town arborist coming >> No I want an arborist to say that if you're going to cut a lead off I mean >> the tree is viable if you cut a
>> I don't know have we ever done a conditioning >> or if you had they don't want to lose They don't want to learn the trade either. >> Yeah. But when you say you want to keep them and you're not having an arborist, hey, you guys aren't aist. So, I want somebody who knows something.
>> I mean, I'd prefer to not have an arborist involved telling us what we can and can't do. But, um, >> I mean, iron to the big trees. We do not int I mean we might have to trim a couple of the over things that are
overhanging but we're not taking the tree down at all. We have no intention of doing that. >> I I think what >> the trees are half half on my property. Right. I I think what he might also be getting at is that
the trees are quite old and if you just start lpping off different feed theaters, you could kill the tree if it's not done and sealed properly. I think he's thinking more about trying to maintain
the trees as long as you can. That's all. We have, you know, pre people that we work with that are some of the bigger tree people in the area and they, you know, they're not going to say, "Oh, let's just send guys up." >> That's all.
>> What? Century trees. Is that what they're called? You What's the tree policy? >> Uh, yes. >> Century heritage trees. Heritage. Okay. >> I added something else. >> Okay. So I'll say retain sufficient
trees to provide adequate screening for the neighbor and retain integrity of existing heritage trees. >> Okay. >> Heritage trees got to do with the diameter. >> Yes. Diameter breast he
>> but I will say those big like Iron Tree and those guys they have arborist on staff. >> That's who we use. They Yes. So, not >> just so you know, I'm living on a property where the neighbors clean cut their entire their entire yard next to me when they build a brand new house.
>> They went set back to set back. >> Which one was that? >> Oh, she writing. >> I'm an architect. I seem to know right in the back. You're in the back. >> And they also they have the right to trim on their side. So, at least this is an added benefit of, hey, if you're
going to trim, you need to make sure they're protected. Okay. The first motion I'm going to make is I move to close the public hearing and allow the board to enter into
deliberations on this application. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I mean second. >> So John, >> John, >> yeah, I mean I have nothing really further to add. >> No, no, no. We're just closing the
public hearing. Yeah, that's fine. I Yeah. Okay. Approve. >> Georgia. >> Yes. >> Ali. >> Yes. >> Sest. Okay. Um
then I think I'm going to make a motion with respect to withdrawal of the varants piece. Okay. Um, at the request of the applicant, I move to accept the withdrawal without
prejudice of the request for a variance at nine Mascanoma Street, assessor's map number 16. Lot number four in district E filed with the town clerk on April 20th, 2026.
>> Second. >> Georgia seconds. Any discussion? No >> vote. Georgia. >> Yes. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> John, we're voting on withdrawing the var. >> Yes. Yeah, I heard you. Yes.
>> Vote yes. And Sarah votes yes. Okay. So, the variance is off the tape. Okay. So, I got a lot of notes here >> and now we just have the special permit with conditions. >> Right. So, you know, my thought on the
motion is that that it would be rebuild a conforming residential structure that attached garage. Okay. Um and that the structure will be located as
depicted on the plot plan and we're going to have it dated April 20th and then we'll say revised >> as of tomorrow >> April 4th 23 26
and then it will be in accordance with all of the plans And it'll only be dated 423, >> right? Yeah. >> You want to give yourself one day extra just in case or >> say Friday.
>> Yeah, Friday. >> Sure. >> Just in case. You never know. >> This is an easy one. But yes, sure. >> 24. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um you could have a sick kid tomorrow. You never know. >> And that >> what are those?
that will retain sufficient trees provide adequate screening for the neighbors and retain integrity of existing heritage trees that there'll be a perimeter drain around the house. How do we word that? >> We could say adequate perimeter drainage
>> but he may want to do French drain. >> That way there's opportunity to change the type of Yes. French drain around the perimeter to avoid drainage wear >> to the western property line.
>> Right, >> that's true. That's where everyone wants to go >> to the west. Yeah, to the west. Okay, question. Okay. >> And then >> you'll have an engineer approved the
drainage plan. >> Yes. >> Should we include anything else? Thank you very much. >> My delighting. >> Yeah. from
>> we'll come back for >> six months. >> Okay. Excuse me. >> I move to approve the application of nine Mascanoma Street for a special permit under section 7.2. 2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief is may
be necessary to raise a non-conforming resident res residential structure and nonconforming detached garage and rebuild a conforming residential structure with attached garage on a
nonconforming lot at nine Mascanoma Street assessor's map number 16 lot number four in district filed with a town clerk on February 19th, 2026
based on a finding that the the proposed conforming residential structure with attached garage on a non-conforming lot is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw will not be substantially more detrimental or
injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the existing non-conforming residential structure with detached garage and conditions under section 12.5.2 the zoning bylaw for the grant of a
special permit have been met based on the following conditions. The structure is located as depicted on C2 proposed font plan prepared by Vancestein Architects/
Interiors dated April 20th, 2026 revised as of April 24th, 2026. The residential structure is constructed
substantially in accordance with the following plans prepared by Vanstein Architecture/ Interiors. Proposed plans A100 A101 A102
dated April 2026 revised April 24, 2026. Proposed elevations. >> Proposed elevations A200 A201 dated April 20th, 2026. Revised April
24, 2026. Existing site conditions and building height E 100 dated February 18, 2026. Existing plot plan C1 dated February 18, 2026.
Retain sufficient trees to provide adequate screening for the neighbors and retain integrity of existing heritage trees. construct a French drain around the perimeter
of the structures of the structure to avoid drainage of the wetlands, particularly the west side, and have an engineer approved the drainage plan. Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Vote. Georgia. >> Yes. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> John, >> approve. >> And Sarah votes yes.
All right. Who would like to Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you all. Thank you for all your input. >> Thanks. >> You have two You have two more tonight. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. I'm just going to run this.
>> I'll let him know. >> I'm assuming he's coming back. I think so. Thank you very much. >> She's very good. >> I'm sorry that you're getting old. We bought property fallen down. >> Good. Good for you. She set it up until
11:30. Oh jeez. >> Yeah. No, >> I think these other two should be >> What happened to the person from 14? >> Oh, he's on the phone. He's on Zoom. Okay. I did drive by both the properties today
because Yeah. to see what what was >> good. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> We can find Philip Kingsway. >> I did. Well, my my daughter called, right? I'm like going down the street and then I'm I'm looking. I'm like, "Oh, okay." And I'm talking to her. Then I realized like I need to go back. Then I went back again
>> and you can't really see from the street. So then I went on Zoom, >> you know, Zillow and stuff and I really looked at it. I'm like, "Okay." Because yeah, it's up its own little driveway. or the stream continuing or >> we're continuing. >> Okay. Continuing the live stream of it.
>> Oh, yeah. I've got two more applications to do. >> Just making sure. >> Oh, it's just that our second one that all the people wanted to listen to. >> Okay, that's fine. Just making sure I have that. >> We're still rolling. I just needed the woman who >> I just went to the ladies from the
airport. She owns 54 Norwood Avenue. >> No. Well, I was definitely more foc I got the came back to the office today to get because I had never received >> um what's what's her name that gives up
sends us the emails and stuff. >> Yeah. So, so I was in Florida, but she didn't send in attachments last time for me. >> I oversee. So, when I say brown >> No. So when I sent her an email this
morning, I said, "Hey, can you because I have everything else." So I came back here today and she left me the package and then I realized I didn't have Rosedale. So I'm like, "Oh, wait." So that's why I had no comments because you're >> just like, "Oh yeah, yeah. >> I didn't have rose in front of me
either." But like I remembered if I didn't go on the say visit, I would have had no idea. >> I get everything directly from the town. So if there's ever a time we don't have an electronic copy. Well, that's like I like I have my own printer at home, but when you start looking at all these plans, I'm like, "All right." >> Yeah. No, you don't want to waste your ink on that either.
>> No. So, like she was good. She only gave me that one >> before us. Okay. >> But I do love >> I'm now going to move to the application of four kings way. Sorry. Um, I move to open the public hearing
for the application of Tom Riley for a variance and special permit under sections 5.3, 12.5, and 12.3 and other relief is may be necessary to construct a singlestory
13.5 foot by 23.1 foot sun room sunroom addition to a conforming residential structure such The proposed addition will encroach approximately 10 ft into the front setback on a private road at
four kings way assessor's map number seven lot number eight in district C file with a town clerk on March 19th 2026. >> I second it. >> Yes. What was the question?
>> Open the public hearing. >> Yes, I agree. >> Yes, you agree. John, you agree to opening the public hearing? >> Mr. Benerys. >> Well, we only need a majority for that. We're okay. >> Yeah. All right.
>> He's unmuted. He wasn't muted. >> Good evening, board. Good evening, Chairman Melish. This is Samuel Robertson, architect for for Kingsman Way. Um, with us this evening we have
Tom and Jane Riley, the homeowners. >> Good evening, chairperson and board. Thank you so much for your consideration of our application. >> Thank you. >> Uh, what I would like to do is keep it
short tonight. I'm going to say what we have on the application. Um the lot at for King's Way has a peculiar frontage condition where the private road that is King's Way um is considered the front setback. Visibly
the existing architecture of the homes on King's Way face south towards the ocean. The home at Fort Kingsway is a colonial in style with bookmatch symmetry in the front facing the ocean. Our plan is to
have a sun room off to visually the side. On paper, you're going to see that that means toward the front setback. Um the front setback in this zone is 30 ft.
The house um we submit a survey drawing. The house is approximately 33 feet away from the front setback. Um so we were requesting about 10 ft of relief
um on which you can see on the drawings. Um, the lot is larger than RESC C minimums, uh, but it is unusually narrow and there are unusual sight features that create hardships such as steep
slopes off to both the west and east side of the property. And the um the north side is been developed to handle the slope um for the driveway. So is largely
undevelopable undevelopable. The proposed neocclonial shingle style sun room is in keeping with the Georgian and colonial character of the neighborhood. The total lot coverage remains well below the zoning maximum. The addition is served by existing
utilities, generates no traffic or parking impacts, and places no burden on town services. The easterly exposure supports passive solar gain to the sunroom. And the beneficial impacts, the neighborhood compatibility, reasonable
residential improvement, and a modest increase of the tax base clearly outweigh any adverse effects. Um, so with that, we respectfully request the board to review the application.
>> Thank you. >> Questions? >> I do have a question because I um on the site visit, I feel like you mentioned a small change to the size or the setback, right?
>> Yes. So tonight we would like to have a consideration for a conditional approval of the design um with the south and north location of the walls u of the sun room. We do not
want to extend the sun room in size past the existing north and south what visually is the front and back of the house and we do not want to encroach further than proposed than the 13 and 1/2 ft that we've put on that plan. We do not want to encroach further than
that. However, just the existing window locations of the house have inspired some small design changes of the north and the south wall. That's what I'm >> additionally the roof design on the paper has a transom roof.
>> I like that. >> Well, we did a sun study and it did not actually increase the light substantially in the room. >> Oh, okay. >> So, it was a it's something we would like to change to just a standard roof without a transom roof.
>> Okay, >> that is all. So, I have a question because unfortunately I was not able to go to the site visit and I did drive up in that area today. So, to the right of that, if I'm looking at the A1 um and I see on the left side where you
have the plan, so the driveway is coming up to the left of the house or the right of the house. So if your if your back is the front of the house faces the ocean. >> Yep. >> And if your back is to the ocean.
>> Yep. >> Facing the h front of the house. The driveway is on the left. >> Oh, that's what I thought. >> And there's a garage further to the left of the driveway. >> Okay. Okay. And on the right, beyond the
sun room in the front setback. >> Yeah. >> Between this sun room and King's Way, which is the private road. >> Yeah. >> There is a driveway to the Abutter's house. >> Okay. >> Which is in effect through their
frontage. Isn't that correct? >> That is correct. >> Yeah. So the butter's driveway goes through the front setback. >> Okay. Okay. So it it seems to me that
the bylaw didn't contemplate this type of a situation with respect to frontage. And the other thing was there were all trees >> um
between where the sun room would be and the road so you couldn't see the road. >> Okay. >> From where the house was. >> So there really is no impact to any of the abutters or or other people in that area because there's only one. Yeah. >> I don't think there's a house on the other side of King's Way.
>> Okay. Yep. It it's it's a recent subdivision and the way they did the lots is quite curious. >> It really is. Talk about so like med hardship soil shaped topography. This in my mind this site >> checked two boxes of shape oddly shaped
with weird frontage and then >> launch a ledge. >> It launch a ledge. Exactly. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um John, do you have questions? You went to the site visit. Did I explain it right? Mr. Vanerys,
you >> got a sneezing fit. >> Is that what it was? >> Yeah, you did. But actually, we haven't heard from John since >> All right. But you said we could we could vote on it, right? >> Well, just the opening of the >> We need John. >> We need him for the vote.
>> And your vote. I know. >> That's a good sign, though. >> Did he think we were? He knows we're not. >> No, because he's still logged on. Hey, John. >> I don't know. >> Okay. talking. She said it just wasn't
something I had to say. I said, "Well, I guess we're done. You got to pick it up." And I said, "The nurse said exit. >> Can we call John?" >> Yeah, she is right now. Sorry. texted him, but >> uh
>> it's hard for you to tell from there. >> Green whenever I go to him. It doesn't say delivered. >> Oh, that's fine. It's probably He doesn't probably doesn't have an Apple. >> He doesn't That's not That's a Android device he has, but it goes green. >> John has dropped out of his >> iPhone.
Is he on? >> Yeah. You know, can we ping him? Can I ping him on here? Is that okay with me? >> He's not there anymore. He's not on on >> I don't have it. But if Sarah can text him, she can send me to call. >> Yeah, he's not there.
>> I see John just signed back into the Zoom. >> Can you guys hear me? >> Yes. All right, we're the finish line. >> I don't know what's going on, but I could hear everything you you guys are saying. I can see you, but I don't know why you couldn't hear me. I'm still here, though. I've been listen
>> Yeah, I've been I've been listening and I saw the the property yesterday. Um I understand what's going on. It's, you know, it's along the the treeline uh driveway road area. So, I understand. >> Do you have any questions? >> No, I have no questions.
>> Okay. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to speak on this application? No. Is there anybody on Zoom who wishes to speak on this application? Okay, don't go away, John. And we're all we're okay. Okay, let me close the public hearing. I move to
close the public hearing and allow the board to enter into deliberations on this application. >> Second. >> Georgia seconds. Vote. John. >> Yes. Second. I mean approve >> Georgia. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And Sarah votes. Yes. Okay. So,
do people understand the change they want to make? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So that the the window that's shown in the picture will be hidden. >> Well, the transom the second sort of >> the transom will be go. Do you have this
picture? >> I do. Y >> transom. And that the wall will come in front of that window. >> Okay. >> Minimus. >> Okay. And there appears to be a hardship
based on the topography and the shape of the box. Yes. Right. Okay. I'll make a motion. I move to approve the application of Tom Riley for a variance under sections 5.3
and 12.3 of the zoning bylaw under other relief as may be necessary and find a special permit is not required uh to construct a singlestory sunroom addition to a conforming residential structure such that the addition will encroach
approximately 10 ft into the front setback at four Kingsway assess 's map number seven, lot number eight in district C filed with a town clerk on March 19th, 2026
based on a finding that the front setback on this private road within a butter's driveway within the property's front setback is not as envisioned under the zoning bylaw owing to circumstances
relating to the shape and topography of the land. especially affecting such land and structure but not generally affecting zoning district C in which it is located. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicant, and that the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent
or purpose of the bylaw based on the following conditions. The sun room addition is located as depicted on A1 site assessment prepared by Studio North home design
dated 220 2026 revised. Um Mr. Robertson when will you get us a revision? You have some date you can give us?
>> Yes. Um, does Friday work? >> Yeah. It doesn't have to be that quick. If you don't want to do it by Friday, you want the clients to return. >> It It's drafted. >> Okay. >> Just want to make sure it looks good. >> And Friday is the 24th. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Revised 424 2026. Um, the sun room addition is constructed substantially in accordance with the following plans prepared by Studio North home design dated February 20, 2026
revised 424, 2026 zero 3D view cover sheet A1 site assessment A6 and A7 elevations S
and another condition retain existing screen of trees in the front setback or similar landscaping so the sun room cannot be seen from King's Way. And I'll just say that those revised
designs will eliminate the transom and adjust the walls. Yep. >> Um, do I have a second? >> Second. >> Colleen seconds. Any discussion? >> Vote. Georgia. >> Yes. >> Colleen? >> Yes.
>> John? >> Yes. >> And Sarah votes yes. >> Uh, who would like to vote this? Write this. >> I can write this one. >> Good. >> Are you sure about that one? >> Well, I think this one might be an easy one compared to the me to review it.
Yes, please. Okay. I'm sorry. >> I picked the easy one as opposed to Nanova which was going to be a little more complicated. >> Yeah, I'm sorry that one. >> Okay, >> thank you board. Appreciate
>> we appreciate your consideration so much. >> You're quite welcome. >> Finally, we get to Thank you. Um get to 22 21 Vine Street. I move to open the applica I move to open the public hearing for the
application of Gan Allen AIA JMA Architects Inc. on behalf of Sha and Rachel Mastersonson for a special permit under sections 5.3 7.2 2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and
other relief as may be necessary to alter an existing non-conforming residential structure by expanding a second floor bedroom to cantal lever it over an existing first floor deck which encroaches into the side set bath
and expanding the front of an existing singlecar non-conforming detached garage which encroaches into the side and rear setbacks. at 21 Vine Street, assessor's map number 50, lot number 10 in district
V1 file with a town clerk on March 23rd, 2026. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor opening the public hearing. Georgia, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> John,
>> yes. >> Zero, yes. Okay. Um, Miss Allen, would you like to present the application? >> Certainly. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Jean Allen. I'm with JMA Architects and I'm here to
represent the Mastersons and their application for a special permit. Um they need we are proposed the proposed project is the expansion of the second floor so that we can get two
comfortablesiz bedrooms for their teenagers. Um there are two bedrooms now for the kids. The daughter's bedroom is very small and cramped and basically the whole second floor has a 4 foot knee
wall around the perimeter. And so um they they just need more space for their kids. And um so by can levering the wall 2 feet that would give us equal size
bedrooms for each child, each teenager. And um so the cantal lever would be 2 feet deep by 17 ft long and it would cantalveriever over the existing deck, but it wouldn't go beyond
the deck. It's like halfway um above the deck. And um that that's that's the first project. And the second project that we're requesting um approval on is the expansion of the singlecar garage. We're
going to the homeowner uh Mr. Masterson is it does a lot of woodwork and he needs space for a shop and so we would like to expand the garage by 10 to 12 ft um so that he can get his uh wood shop into
that structure. Um and that's pretty much it for what the what we are proposing. So the wood shops the the extension of the garage
will still encroach into the side set back to the same extent it does today. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And it won't >> not as severely. It's um right now it's 3.9 ft in. With the expansion it would be 3.11. So pretty close.
>> Okay. >> Do you have any questions? I don't. >> Did you understand when you drove by what? >> I did. Yeah, I had a chance to kind of look at the the because the it's going to be basically sitting on where the drive the existing driveway. So, it's just coming up further, >> right?
>> And the the front door, the front look would remain the same. We would just push it forward towards the street. >> Yep. No, I I thought it looked fine. Do you >> have questions? >> John, do you have any questions? >> No, it's pretty straightforward.
It's smart to make the bedrooms exactly the same size. The teenagers can't fight over that. >> Yep. >> Each bedroom exactly the same. >> Can imagine the issue. >> Right. Right. >> Um, let me open up to public comment.
I see somebody in the room. Do you wish to speak on this application? You've been here the whole night. >> No, I I got all the information I needed. >> Okay. Is there anyone on Zoom? Nobody's left. >> I came back.
>> They have a martini right now. >> Uh, with that, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing and have the board enter into deliberation with respect to the application. >> Do I have a second to close the public hearing? >> I second it. >> Second. Vote. Georgia. Yes, Colleen.
>> Yes, >> John. >> Yes, >> Sarah. Yes. >> Um, any concerns about this? >> Nope. >> Moving this? >> Nope. >> I'll make a motion. I move to approve
the application of Gan Allen AIA JMA Architects, Inc. on behalf of Shaun and Rachel Mastersonson for a special permit under sections 5.3, 7.2, 2 and 12.5 the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be
necessary to alter an existing non-conforming residential structure by extanand expanding a second floor bedroom by approximately 2 feet by 17 ft by cantalievering cantalievering it half
the width of an existing first floor deck which encroaches into the side set bath and expanding in the front of an existing non-conforming de detached garage by approximately 10 ft 3 in by 12 ft to add a woodworking
shop which encroaches into the side and rear setbacks at 21 Vine Street assessor's map number 50 lot number 10 in district D1 filed with the town clerk on March 23rd 2026
based on a finding The proposed project is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it's located than the existing non-conforming structure
structures and the requirements under section 12.5.2 of the zing zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on the following conditions. The additions are located as depicted on the
plot of land prepared by David P. Teranzone dated March 19th, 2026. The additions are constructed substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by JM Architects dated
March 20, 2026. A1 and A2 second floor bedroom expansion A3 accessory building expansion. Do I have a second?
Georgia seconds. Did you pardon him? I'll second. >> I was going to give him one this whole meeting. >> Not a member. >> Let me second sometime. Sorry. I second. >> Any Oh, any discussion? >> No.
>> I'm just sluming. >> A vote. John, >> approve. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> Sarah, yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Sarah, I can write this. Thanks, John.
>> And I'll review it. >> And Georgia will review it. Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry. >> Thank you. Sorry for so long. >> Very entertaining. >> Go get a martini. >> Okay. Now we go to administrative matters.
>> I just take a quick peek at the I'm just curious. >> Oh yeah. >> You actually can take that with you if you'd like. >> Yeah. Okay. Brian, he'll live inside it for you. >> Do you know what was there before? >> You have to go look at it. >> I can show you. >> Drive up. Yeah.
>> I still want to make sure the same >> church in it. >> Yeah. >> Birds in the front of it. >> It matches a church that's up the street. >> Was originally a church. >> Why the two?
>> We had been in it. I understand why. >> Yeah. It's not a really easy Oh, okay. The title is beautiful, >> guys. I have I have to log off. Um >> Okay. Thanks, John. >> You need my vote. Do you need my vote for anything? >> No, we just want to approve the minutes from last week. You weren't Were you there last week?
>> Yeah, I read them anyway. But yeah, um that's fine. Have a good night, everybody. >> Thank you. >> Um and she wasn't there. And if he's gone left, too. So, >> he voted yes. >> Yeah, he voted yes. Yeah. So,
>> and I also vote yes on the minutes for the last meeting of 2026. >> Okay. >> Vote yes, too, because I read pretty well. >> Okay. >> My name got mentioned. >> Moved and seconded and approved. Yes. >> Perfect.
>> Okay. Um there's one application for next month. >> Okay. >> Which is It is 22 Rockwood Heights. >> Oh, Rockwood Heights. >> That's up off Pine Street is the >> I was going to say is that near 95 or
>> It kind of comes from Crooked Lane around Pine Street. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> So, our meeting next month is what date? >> May 27th. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's the um Memorial Day week. >> Yep. >> I may not. >> That's my birthday, so I'm not sure I'll
be here. No, I will be. >> I mean, you have a better excuse. I'm going to I know I'm coming back from Florida, so I either may be home or I may need to join >> via Zoom. >> Yeah. >> And at 26 I'll have a hard time doing the site visit, but >> Okay.
>> Um they are increasing the footprint from impervious surface by 52 square feet. >> They are >> I don't think I need to do the site visit. They are converting an existing porch to an enclosed room to aid in entering and
exiting the house. >> Oh, that makes me feel bad. >> They even had to >> We don't have >> um motion to adjurnn. >> Motion. Second. >> Yes. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> All done.
>> Great work, Sarah. >> That's very good. Yeah, I hear