Good evening everybody. Uh this is the zoning board of appeals. It is Thursday, March 19th, 2026. It's 7:30. We're here at the Newberry Municipal Offices on 12 Can Way in Biffield. We're on the second floor hearing room. Um and tonight who
is on the board of appeals meeting we'll have u one public hearing. We have our administrative assistant Christy Pri. We have member Mario. Myself Eric Swan the chair. We have associate member uh Michelle Weedler. We
have associate member Josh Walker. And we have member Jack Kelly. And with us as always we have Larry Murphy who is the liaison to the planning board. So, welcome. And with that, if you would read uh the first public hearing held
from the meeting. >> Uh Gerald Fandetti, 15 Sunset Drive. The applicant is requesting a special permit finding for relief of section 97-4D5C01 increase in footprint and 02 increase in height of the Newberry zoning bylaws and
any other permit relief as may be required under the tenant Newberry zoning bylaws to allow the proposed use project for the raising of the existing family dwelling on the property and the construction of a new single family dwelling on pilings with a garage on property located at 15 Sunset Drive on
mileberry, Mass 01 951, Cess M U02, lot 80. >> Excellent. Is the applicant here? >> Hello. >> Hi. >> How's it going? >> It's going all right. >> Do you want to tell us what you're up to?
>> Um, please. We, as as you know, we were in front of the board several months ago to re-ubdivide the property so we could have frontage on Sunset Drive. So, that was completed. We filed the plans and
now we're at the point where we want to uh get approvals to do the design for the house. And what we've done is basically shrunk the house down. So we have uh the max amount of coverage which is 20%. And uh we are significantly
below the F and it's still basically a one-story house which is what we need. And we have a room above the garage. So that's basically it. It's really uh not that complicated. We uh comply with all other setbacks. Uh like I said, F is
well within range. Um uh yeah, I I think we're and the coverage is at maximum coverage 20%. So we we uh we're able to get what we wanted within that that coverage. And the reason is it's a one-story house. It doesn't go up uh
>> to two stories on stilts. So it's not that really not that high except for that section that's over. Yeah, we tried to get it as low as possible so we could get the garage to be somewhat the same level as the uh
level of the first level. So that's the plan. >> Okay. Uh any questions you have, I'll be happy to answer. >> Sure. >> So to open it up to the board members for questions or comments on the plans.
one. >> Um I'm just a little uh concerned about what you call an office. >> Um basically it has a closet, an eress window. It's a large room. Um has a bathroom and a private door. It looks
like a bedroom. Um, one more I I understand that, but I'm just saying you have three bedrooms right now and that can be considered a bedroom based on the closet and
>> according to the last one of my um the city or town solicitor mentioned in a letter that because we label the properties what they are. The
architect Leah labeled the properties what they are. They are what they are. They're not bedrooms. They're what they are. Office space. There's a library. There's a studio. They're bath half. It's a half bath. It's not a full bath.
>> That is true. And we have had discussions about rooms that are labeled as other things but appear to be bedrooms. And part of the discussion um and the give and take is that rooms like that don't have a door on it. And so in
looking at that, looking at the plans, you don't have doors into your office. Is that true? >> Um the intention is to have sliders because um because of the accessibility issues um we're not dealing with we've eliminated as many door swings as
possible. So there would likely be a sliding door >> if the bedrooms do have the graphic for the sliding door, but the office does not have the same graphic as presented. >> Yeah, that's probably just because it's
a schematic design and and we really didn't get into that level of detail. We do like complete plans because we in making approvals we always say that if there are any changes then it needs to come back before us. >> Sure that makes sense.
>> We try to make it easy for you and make it easy for us. We'd like to just understand the final and not kind of sort of it needs to be you know 99% date. Um we're not here to get kind of sort of. We're here to review and grant what what is in front
of us so that everybody understands what what's going on. Understood. >> So would would it be um is is what you're looking for is a door to um the office on the um if you will the >> the office side. >> On the office side.
>> Yeah. I mean you if you look at the plan uh I had the first question because that popped up and then in looking at the plan you have a entry, you have a living room, you have a library, you have a um
kitchen and that is the public guest half bath that they would use if you had visitors over to the house. >> Right. >> And that's the intention. So the door to the office would be on the office side and not on the outside corridor side. >> Absolutely. >> So the bath isn't integral to the
office, let's say. >> And the and the reason we didn't put the door off the hallway is because that's really not a hallway, it's a gallery space. So we're trying to retain because Charlotte is an artist, we're trying to retain as much of the wall space on the hallway as possible. And we we do take
people's word and we we do respect what you guys say, but we're also just trying to guard against somebody else's, you know, you live in the house, you sell the house, somebody else comes in, they I totally get it. >> construed to something else and all of a sudden they're using it for something that it wasn't intended and it seems
like we we approved that, but that really wasn't the case. So, >> right, >> that that's uh that's how I see it. >> No, that makes makes a lot of sense. >> Yes. So you have another you get a recommendation for the door or >> Yeah, I I would asked and if if we could
put that in there and note that and bring that up as a part of the discussion later. >> You want a door? >> You want a door? >> That's saying that's saying though that usually we ask them to remove the door, right? >> Yeah. And what I'm saying is if there's
a door on the office side and that the bath isn't within the the bedroom and it's a public guest bath that people would use then it I see it differently and there's not a shower in there. There was a shower in there and have much more concern. >> Yeah. >> Um I actually have a question about the
bedrooms. Um just the number overall um for from the assessor's card here it calls out the existing house has one bedroom. >> Um so it looks like you're showing three though bedrooms. If we don't talk about
the office or the studio or the library um which I think is one more than right where the zoning allows for one more than what's currently there which would be two. There's two bedrooms there, >> but you have the guest suite >> over the garage.
>> No, there's two in the existing. So, >> this thing has two bedroom. >> So, >> do we have do we have plans for the existing structure? >> I'm just going off. >> Is the existing structure still there? >> Yeah, it's still there.
>> Okay. So, we have asked people to draw the existing to prove out what is there because the challenge is is that your assessor card says one one bedroom >> and you're saying the existing has two. >> Yeah. >> And the bylaw says that you can get one
extra bedroom. >> So, it would it would have been helpful. We probably if I looked at it sooner would said, "Hey, it would be wise if you draw the existing >> some representation of the existing." Probably should have done that. Didn't realize the assessor card had it as one,
but it is definitely a twobedroom. >> Has it been his Airbnb for the last couple years? >> So, um, that's something to consider in terms of proving out or getting the assessor to update the assessor's card so that this this is the information that's
provided and we'd like the assessor card either to be updated or we'd like the existing condition to be proved out. >> Okay. >> Um, I had the same I have the same question too. >> Yeah, you catch yourself. >> Nothing right now.
>> No, I was just curious about the bedrooms. >> Josh, >> just the effect of it includes the pilings or is it from natural grade? That was the only question that I can't understand. Now, >> uh, it's not on pilings. Correct. >> I'm sorry. the house
>> currently not >> but the new one new one will be >> that was my question on pilings is it from from grade the effective height at 25 ft or is it is it taking a balance into consideration >> so it's the average grade around the house so you if the site is flat it's
fairly easy if the site is sloped you take the average grade from the average grade to the mean height of the roof and that that's the height and then you know you can consider or look at people usually put the scale the ridge or to the top or whatever the highest piece is, but it's it's the
average grade and the pylons are inconsiderate. >> So, how is that working with the garage? I'm just looking at the elevation where the garage door goes down to >> garage driveway, right?
>> Garage is but there's pilings. garage. The way I envision the garage, the way it is is drawn is the garage is at grade and there are pilings to keep it 2 ft above grade.
The structure of the garage 2 ft above the grade, >> but you're going to have a retaining wall at the front entrance and the driveway is going to come up so you can drive into the garage. >> Yeah. Driveway is going it's going to be graded to come into the bridge. So the grade will hit the front door or the
garage door, but the garage will actually still be on pilings above the door. >> So the rest of the building will be on pilings, but the grade will meet the garage door. >> Yeah, that's how it's usually done. The garage door comes down. >> So it be like a concrete wall. >> It does look like there's a little overhang on the rear elevation
>> 4T or something. What's that all about? I don't really understand that. >> Or what's the question? The far right hand side of the rear of the garage shows an open space with no foundation wall under it. >> Yeah, that's what they ask question. >> I just don't really understand what's happening. >> That's the piling. It has to be
>> found. But there's a gap between the first piling and the edge of the foundation. We got >> But you're looking at >> Are you looking at this image? >> I'm looking at this. >> That's actually the garage door. Oh,
that's the question. >> Yeah, I was I was looking at a little bit here. >> We used a higher level of drawings for Mr. We've seen a lot of his drawings. They're usually not this loose. >> Well, we're
consulted here. >> Oh, there we go. The drawer of the loose draw. >> I'm comfortable now. It says rear, but now I understand it is the garage door. So, >> okay. Yeah. >> Um, I have a few questions.
>> So, the driveway that you placed crosses both Sunset and Dartmouth Way. >> Yes. So, it would seem to me that the the effort in what we were asking for and swinging
the lot line was to get frontage on sunset so that the driveway could come off of sunset. >> Yes. So to me, it would be better if the driveway was either all on sunset or predominantly on sunset so that if if
for some reason the private way ever in the future became >> paved or improved. >> Uh you wouldn't have a driveway at the intersection of two >> two streets. >> Can you swing the driveway a little bit? >> Yeah, I can do that. >> Okay. I have it drawn here if you want
to look at it later or something. But that the the dragway is a a question that I have. >> The reason I did that was because that's the way it already exists. >> I understand. >> Okay. >> I'm just thinking for the future if something would happen and we're trying
to just >> Yeah, that's right. Okay. Um the assessor's card. Um, so the excessives card also says the building, the existing building is 1,384 net square ft and it seems on the Is it
a twotory existing? >> No. What? >> But does your application then says existing building 778 ft? >> So does the assessor card wrong or is the application need to be updated?
could it has a little basement to it that we didn't didn't count. So, it's sort of unfinished. It's not a basement. It's an addition that doesn't have a floor uh concrete. >> Draw the existing building and you put the square footage on it. Then we all
know exactly what it is. And >> and we'll label it as what it is. Yep. If it's a concrete floor, slab on gray, >> your existing drawings drawn to scale that anyone can go see will prove and assessor's cards are sometimes not
exact, not as exact. So, we just need to get the information that you provided on the accessor's card and the information provided on the application to align. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, we talked about the driveway, the site plan, the drawing list 6.4% for
lot coverage in the application is five. And so there's a few things that I would just asked that the application and the drawings that are always presented need to need to match. And since the surveyor stamped his drawing, I'm assuming his
calculation is more accurate than what was put on the application. >> Did you discuss a few things with him, but I never >> so we'll go and make that. >> So applications and and plans always
need to to match. Um >> so the uh surange plan has coverage as >> it says lot uh maximum lot coverage 20 ft. It says existing is 6.4. It says proposed is 20 and your application says
uh it looks like 5% 20% 20%. So >> Oh you mean the existing coverage? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just just would people present stuff. I took the existing coverage off a
aerial photo so it could be off a little bit. Okay. >> And the application says the height for the existing is 15 and the surveyor's drawing says um
he says 10.3 ft. So >> just >> again information on drawings information application need to be the same. >> Okay. >> That that's my that's >> the existing house. Yeah. >> Yep. >> All right. We'll get that mailed out. >> Okay.
>> Um you guys anything else to add? Is anybody in the board before I open it up to the public have anything to >> I have one more thing. I just want to be clarified. The everything else is nice. It conforms. We made a lot of improvements with the variance which was
a separate thing and everything. How come we have the non-conforming five foot setback on the deck? Why do we do that? Appears it says in writing now it has a non-conforming setback of approximately 5T. So I assume this was from the
proposed deck and I scaled it out and it was 5T. Is that am I misreading something yet? >> Which deck are you referring to on the proposed design? The one that says proposed deck is it can you just tell me is it 10 ft from the closest corner of the deck to the property line? That's
all I don't have a ruler with me. >> The proposed or the new >> the the it says proposed right here >> which is right in the driveway. >> That's sheep two of three. >> Yeah. >> So So this must be the existing even
though it says proposed deck >> house. >> Okay. >> Well, you're on the driveway. >> Yeah. So it's on the driveway. So where it says proposed deck is actually proposed driveway. >> Okay. That's why I'm confused. >> You want to look at that? >> No, that's okay. >> Yeah, it should say existing
>> existing house, I guess. >> Lot line chimney. It's the existing house. >> Okay. >> Existing house that there. >> Yeah. There's So there's a >> there's no non-conformity there. >> There's a typo that says proposed deck that shouldn't be there. Okay. >> You're looking at the survey plan,
correct? >> Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yep. because I >> think it's just tagged incorrectly. >> There's a chimney, there's an electric meter, there's it's pointing out what is existing below the new. The new is overlaid on the existing, which is
typically how it's shown. >> Yeah, it's there's no performance. >> That that makes me happy. The whole idea is >> is the screen and port part of is that in your calculation? That is
>> that's part of the coverage. And they are Oh, yeah. Cover desk, porches, sun rooms. Is that what it is? All right. I'm going to open up the meeting to the public that's here. Is there anybody that would like to speak
in favor of the project? >> In favor? >> Yeah. Everybody would like to speak against the project. >> I have a question. >> Um, listen to what's going on here. >> Could you just state your name for the record? >> Margaret Thomas. I'm at 14 Columbia Way
and my property abuts the back of their property or the side of it. >> And so my question is, we've talked about the house. I'm concerned about the environment around the house. So, there's a dune in the back of it. There's um our properties are contiguous
and there is a um post and and rail fence between my property and their property. So, I'm curious about when do we talk about what fencing might be used, what's going to happen to the dune, what's going to happen to the trees, and what the driveway is going to be comprised composed of.
I can tell you from the plan that's submitted that the back corner of the garage is 33.1 ft from the the very back property line. >> If you'd like to come up look at the plan >> that's not what my question I don't have any question about that. Okay. What are they going to is the driver going to be
a gravel drive like most of us have to have? >> Right. No, I understand. I just want to make sure there's a couple that aren't and I wanted to make sure it wasn't. That's number one. >> That will all be discussed at the conservation hearing. That will be helpful. >> Understand when do you talk about those things and the type of fence that gets
put up between the properties because that I have a concern about as well. >> Normally when the projects run concurrently through zoning and conservation. So Jerry's going to do a submitt next to conservation and then we'll notify Butters about that. >> Okay. >> And then you'll be able to do all of those concerns with the conservation commission.
>> Perfect. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Yeah. your this the site context and materials that you're talking about are really not our purview. >> Perfect. Yep. Great. Thank you. >> There's somebody else. Yes. >> Yeah. I'm Paula Irving. I'm at 26
Columbia right next to Margaret here and I just had a question about the height. Um I'm surprised you didn't bring up the 44 feet there. I'm just a little confused how you would determine that the mean elevation if that's at 157 and
then you're going up like why would they be granted uh above 35 ft? So the point of the garage at the highest point is at the highest point of grade is 25
rad tall. Um, >> says elevation how you figure >> I'm assuming elevation 44 means 44 ft above sea level, right? Like the actual ele where is that show? >> Oh. Oh yeah. So the mean grade around
the house starts at is 15.7. Yeah. >> So, if you take 15.7 and you take the mean height of the roof and and measure that, that's supposed to be supposed to be and I can get a ruler out and look at it. That's supposed to
be 21 ft tall. >> I thought it Yeah, the garage says to the well to the peak of the garage >> to the peak >> is 258. So, we usually do to the mean, right? >> Mean height. So we don't we don't really know what that is.
>> But grade looks at 15. I think that's at >> 19. >> Well, the peak is 25 and we're 35. He's 10 foot and he's actually closer.
>> That's actually only two sto regular ruler. >> What's four* 4 and 34 Hold on a minute. 17. >> It's quarter inch. It's >> a quarter inch equals a foot. So there's
a quarter there's four feet per inch. So there's four 8 12 16. I think the point is is I think we need to see the actual numbers on here. >> No, you absolutely do. I was going on vacation just before we needed to submit
and so the surveyor didn't have enough time. We just ran out of time to put that number in. Our apologies, but since so much of the roof is at a one-story level, um you know, the mean height is going to be considerably lower than than
>> and it's the mean height for the highest point. point. It's not the mean height of the main roof. It's the mean height of the the highest roof. But >> putting it on >> I thought, excuse me. I thought it was the mean height of the mean height of
according to the state code is the mean height of all rooms. I'm just throwing that out. Well, that's my understanding. One here. definition that I looked up the highest
>> E5 plus high >> U this is U section 11 building height the dimensions in feet as measured from the mean level of the established grade at the building to the mean height of the highest roof.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Because you would think it would be the highest peak and then the >> Well, yeah. I mean, that's >> right. So, roughly, real roughly, the maximum height is 35 ft and it looks
like you're at maybe around 30. plus. >> Okay. >> Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak? If you'd tell us your name and address up. >> Yes, please do.
Thank you. >> Good evening. Um, this might take a bit, so I apologize. I'm glad you guys have comfortable chairs. Um, my name is Jay Martell. I own property for Bin Mall on Plum Island. I was born and raised in Plum Island and I've remained around for the last 50 years. Typically, I only stand in support of these applications
in the last 20 years of real estate development. Tonight's the first time I stand in strong opposition. I want to be direct with you about why I'm here and what I'm going to do tonight. I'm going to get read into the record a detailed written opposition of the special permit application. It's substantial. I won't apologize for its length because every
page of it exists for one reason, to give this board sufficient, documented, and legally irrefutable grounds to deny this permit. I ask for your patience and I ask you to listen carefully, not as a courtesy to me, but because what I'm going to present goes directly to this board's legal authority to act tonight.
Some of what I raise is not merely a reason to deny. There's a reason to question whether this board can lawfully approve this application at all. At the conclusion, I'll submit a copy of my opposition to the board for inclusion in the record. I want to be clear about who I am and why I'm here. I'm not here as someone who objects to his neighbors improving their home. I have watched
this island change for five decades. I have seen families build, restore, and care for properties here. In 2007, our property suffered a catastrophic and total loss fire that required complete rebuild of our property. When we rebuilt it, yes, we could have expanded and redeveloped the entire property into a
dream Plum Island mansion. We didn't. We kept with the modest Plum Island landscape and reconstruct a comfortable home that fits within the island setting, just as many of my neighbors have done. What is before this board tonight is not a family improving their home. What is before this board tonight is a professionally designed multi-year
multi-phase development scheme engineered by a credential architect and commercial developer who has built boutique hotels across Massachusetts and Rhode Island who has attempted to build a 52- room waterfront hotel in Providence and was stopped by coastal authorities and who purchased these two properties on Plum Island knowing every
constraint that the Plum Island overlay district imposes and then set about a deliberate step-by-step plan to engineer around those constraints. This is not a hardship. That is strategy. And Massachusetts zoning laws don't reward it. I'm going to be I'm going to place before this board tonight five categories of concern. I want to name
them at the outset so the board understands the scope of what follows. First, the doctrine of merger, which has been discussed before. Under Massachusetts law, when two adjacent non-conforming lots come under common control, they merge into a single lot by operation of law. I will present evidence and legal authority that these
two lots 11 these two lots 11 Sunset and 15 Sunset merged the moment this applicant took common control of both through the trust he controls. If they merge then the 2024 vote by this board to adjust the lot lines between them was an act taken without jurisdiction. You
cannot adjust the boundary lines between two lots that the law already considers to be one lot. That vote may have been as a matter of law ultravirus and void from the beginning. And if it and if it was void, then the lot on which the special permit application is premised does not legally
exist as a separate parcel tonight. I would further question that these parcels in fact emerged decades ago. Second, the detrimentality standard. This board is required by statute to affirmatively find based on substantial evidence that this project will not be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing use. I would demonstrate that this application on its face cannot satisfy that standard. a 426% increase in floor area, a four-fold increase in lot coverage on a coastal dune, a 20fold increase in deck and porch area. No evidence-based
detrimentality analysis has been submitted. The burden is on the applicant, not on us. Third, the feasibility failures. This application contains no fire suppression plan, no water supply analysis, no emergency vehicle access documentation, no storm water management plan, and no flood zone
compliance analysis for full demolition and new construction of over 4,000 square ft on a constrained coastal lot with 20 ft of frontage. A board cannot find that a project is not more detrimental when it has not been shown that the project can safely be built, served by utilities, and safely
occupied. Fourth, the bait and switch. This board granted the 24 variants based on a proposal for a 3,462 ft structure. This application before you tonight is for 4,98898 square ft, 636 ft larger. The library
studio that raised questions in 24 at 525 ft has grown to 768 ft. The board has never shown the full scope of what would follow from the lot line change it approved. The escalation that pattern incremental disclosure itself is grounds for this board's heightened skepticism
tonight. Fifth, the president. Every decision this board makes becomes a template for the next application. If this board approves this permit tonight, it will have told every property owner on Plum Island that the path to replacing a modest cottage with the 4,000 square ft luxury structure runs for the ZVA.
Acquire two acquire two adjacent lots through trust. Adjust the lot lines, build the largest structure that technically fits the dimensional envelope. The Palm Island overlay district will become a ceiling to build to, not a protection to honor. That is a consequence this board has the power to prevent what follows by formal written
opposition, which I may ask to be entered into the record in its entirety. It includes specific citations to Massachusetts statutes and case law. Not here to be difficult. I'm here because this community deserves a board that applies its bylaws as written and because the people of Newbury enacted the Pllean Overlay district for exactly
this situation. I'm prepared to take whatever steps the law allows to protect the integrity of those bylaws, including judicial review if necessary, but I would rather not. I would rather this board make the right decision tonight on the record and let this community zoning framework do the job it was designed to do.
Um, I submit this letter on beha as formal written opposition to special permit filed by Derald Fandini on behalf of the Redwing Trust for this property at 15 Sunset Drive. This letter supersedes and incorporates by reference my prior correspondence of November 24 and all prior letters submitted today and should
be entered in the record in the proceeding its entirety. The application in front of you is not what it appears to be. The board is re not reviewing a homeowner seeking to modestly improve a family cottage. It is review reviewing a professionally engineered multi-year development screen by credentialed architect serial commercial developer
who has designated who's designed and built boutique hotels urban infill projects and luxury hospitality venues across Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Every step of this application from the trust structure to the lot manipulation to the design of the so-called library studio bears the hallmarks of professional real estate strategy.
Beyond its deficiencies, this application is also demonstrabably incomplete. It lacks utility plans, fire protection analysis, storm water engineering, and life safety documentation that any responsible regulatory board must require before approving new construction of this scale on a fragile barrier island. I respect
respectfully submit the following substantive and procedural objections and requests. The threshold legal standard governing this application is not a balancing test or a matter of discretion. Under Mass General laws and the POD, the board must affirmatively find based on substantial evidence in the record that the proposed alteration
or reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use. If that finding cannot be made, the application must be denied. There is no legal pathway for approval. The objective evidence before this board makes that finding possible.
Floor area increase from 778 ft to 4,98 ft. A 426% increase. Lot coverage increases from approximately 4 and a half to 20%. A quadrupling of impervious service on a coastal dune lot from approximately 800 ft² to 3500
ft². Deck and porch area increases from 42 ft to 856 ft, a 20fold increase. A new 561q ft attached garage is proposed where none currently exists. The structure will be elevated on piling substantially increasing its visual mass
and built presence relative to the existing cottage. No storm water management plan, no fire protection plan, no water supply analysis, no utility plan, no life safety access documentation has been submitted. The application is f facially incomplete. The burden of demonstrating compliance with the not more detrimental standard
rest on the applicant, not not on objectives. In Buork verswell, the Supreme Justice Court, Supreme Judge Court held that even where proposed structure meets all setback requirements, a board may deny a permit where a massive increase in scale is inconsistent with neighborhood
character and the protective purpose of the bylaw. In Gail versus Gloucester, the appeals court required a specific finding on whether the alteration intensifies existing nonconformities. The courts confirmed the intensity of use increase alone is disqualifying. The scale and the real world impact must be
assessed and that lawful changes can still be denied in sensitive coastal areas. Both 11 Sunset Drive owned by Blackbird Trust and 15 Sunset Drive Redwing Trust are held by trust sharing the same trustees Fandetti and Foresight and the same address 42 Forumway and
Newberry under the doctrine of mergers articulated by Dico once adjacent non-performing lots come under common control not merely common nominal title they merge for zoning purposes courts look past nominal title of the realy reality of actual control I also want to
direct the board's attention to one additional fact that fundamentally changes the merger that changes the merger analysis. These two parcels were not first brought into common ownership by Fandetti. They were held under common ownership by Janet Minahan for decades prior to Fandetti's acquisition. Under
Dico and the doctrine of merger, these lots merged under the Minahan teny potentially decades ago by operation of law. When Fendetti acquired them, he did not acquire two separate buildable lots. He acquired a single merged parcel conveyed by two instruments. The 24 lot
line variance was premised on a lot configuration that had not existed as a matter of law for decades. The board was acting on a legal fiction that pred predated Fandetti's ownership entirely. If these lots were legally merged at the time of the 24 variants proceeding or before, then the 24 variants was granted
based on legal fiction. But unmerging them, the applicants did not reduce a nonconformity. They increased it. The total non-conformity across both parcels is now greater than before the lot line redrawing. Pursuant to McGibbon vers Duxbury, the SJC has made clear that
zoning relief must align with the purpose and intent of the applicable bylaw. Relief engineered through a deliberate trust structure designed to defeat merger analysis is precisely what Mcgivven forbids. I respectfully request that this board stay all proceedings on this special permit application and
direct town council to issue a written opinion on whether the lot at 11 and 15 Sunset Drive were legally merged prior to the 24 variance proceeding and if so what the legal effect on the validity of both the 25 variants and this special permit application are. The board should
not take any action until that opinion is received. The applicants split this development into two phases to conceal its true scale. In phase 1 20 in 24, they sought a lot line variance disclosing a 3,462 ft square foot proposed structure. In
phase two, which we're in, with the variance in hand, they now seek a special permit for a 4,98 square ft structure, 636 ft larger than disclosed. The library studio has grown from 525 to 768 ft. The FAR has grown
from 14.6 to approximately 20. In 2024, this board granted the lot line variance without ever seeing the full scope of the project that would follow. This constitutes a material omission and bait and switch, but this board should be should explicitly address on the record. The 26 application is substantially more
intensive than what was disclosed during the variance proceeding justifying a complete reopening of the underlying variance inquiry. Mr. Fandetti is a credentialed professional licensed architect and serial commercial developer. The document the documented record includes nearly 200 town houses built in Cambridge under Bell and
Fanetti. Co-ownership of the Kendall Hotel and the Mary Apprentice Inn, architect and developer of Brierbar Inn, a 30- room boutique hotel in Raleigh, and a proposed 52- room waterfront hotel in Providence, Rhode Island, abandoned after the Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Management Council denied a variance for overbuilding to the W's edge. A coastal regulatory authority has already found his development ambitions incompatible with coastal protections under Adams vers Broly and Warren verse Amhurst. A property owner is not entitled to zoning
relief from a hardship they deliberately created. The applicants purchase both lots knowing every pod constraint. A professional architect who engineers a multi-phase regulatory strategy cannot claim innocent hardship. The board should give this argument its full legal weight. This is perhaps the most
concrete and immediately actionable basis for either denial or continuence before the board tonight. The application contains no information whatsoever regarding fire suppression, emergency vehicle access, water supply, or storm water infrastructure on a severely constrained coastal law with limited frontage.
>> So we we you've repeated yourself several times. I think we >> So this is public still, correct? >> It is. >> Is there a time limit on it? >> Yes. >> You disclose that at the beginning. I'm telling you that you're repeating yourself and we've heard it and we've heard it again and again and if you would just make concise arguments we'd
appreciate that. That's all. >> And I have a chance to speak. Correct. >> Yeah. Just don't repeat yourself over and over again, please. >> If I can keep reading, I'll I'll continue it. >> I will tell you if you keep repeating yourself and to try to move it along
please. Under the Massachusetts State Building Code, incorporating the international residential code, all new one and two family dwellings require an automatic fire sprinkler system. This is not a renovation of an existing structure. It's a full demolition. >> We appreciate that and I'd like you to understand that there is a Com
Commission in town that will deal with the site and and the environmental issues. There is a building inspector in town and he will deal with the building issues. We're here for zoning. So, if we can keep it to zoning, we'd appreciate that because we won't comment on any of that stuff in here.
>> You can take it to the right >> committee, please. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So, I'll just highlight for the rest. >> And please don't repeat, but you can make your closing. >> So, the applicant has not demonstrated how a code compliant fire suppression system will be provided on a severely constrained coastal lot with limited
frontage, which is zoning, shared easement access, and Plum Island's wellocumented water pressure and infrastructure limitations. This alone is sufficient to require continuence and a complete utility and fire protection plan before the board acts. Frontage on Sunset Drive is
approximately 20 ft. Vehicular access on the site is provided not through the lot's own frontage but through a broad easement granted by Sunset 11 Sunset Drive. Easement based access raises direct questions about whether a fires apparatus turnaround can be accommodated within the legal access.
If it would please you, I will I will conclude my request if everyone can review what is submitted. We we will review. Um you had a lot in
there. The property was presented to us and it immediately went to legal counsel for legal the town's legal council opinion on the pathway for the property to be u divided or the property line to be changed. We went through several
meetings of of this. We made the applicant prove out the size of lots within the neighborhood from the smallest to the largest. >> I was involved. I'm aware. We challenged that in terms of making two lots that were more equal and not one lot that favored the other.
>> That made them more non-conforming. >> It didn't make them more non-conforming. It it it took the conformity and it shifted it and and in the opinion of the board, it didn't make it any more or less detrimental because the size of the lots were relatively equal to each other and the size of the lots were in keeping
with the lots within the neighborhood. So what was legal council towns legal council's opinion on the doctrine >> that it was in the path that there was a pathway that yes the lot line could be revised um and that the the two entities
um two you know you can have an owner own two adjacent properties with two different dwellings on them and have them separated. What you have when you have other parcels that are non-conforming that you can't build on and then the other owner
owns them and they take the advantage of using that square footage and using that frontage in order to make their lot more conforming then yes the lots are joined because you're you're taking advantage and using the metrics dimensional metrics of that. So I if if you wanted
to have a lot and claim area and frontage on it and then try to separate it then you can't do that because you already built on it. And I would say that if you challenge this too much and it becomes one lot, then then you'll really see a large development on this. >> Understood, >> right? >> It's a risk we take.
>> Yeah, it is a risk you take. So, the lots already divided. We already went through that. You had your chance to appeal that at that time. It that is what is in front of us. And the premise for that is that we didn't ask to see a house because we weren't approving any kind of plans for either site. We were
approving a lot that had a size and a frontage uh and an area and then with that are the same rights that everybody else has, the same rights that you have for your piece of property. And if your piece of property is smaller or your piece of property is larger, then the dimensional requirements afforded to the
applicant and and the dimensional requirements that are forwarded to you are what we're we're assessing and we're reviewing to make sure they're they're within keeping of the dimensional requirements that are set within the bylaws. So, >> you know, you you went through a lot of
things. You you covered a lot of ground of com, which isn't our purview, the building inspector, which isn't our purview. you went back on the the decision that's already been made in terms of the lot lines. We we took great effort to make the lots more equal so
that development on each lot uh one wasn't overshadowing the other and so we we've already covered that ground. >> Understood. And this is public comment that the public has a chance to voice there. Can I can I speak? >> Yeah. And I'm you've spoken and I'm
giving you the rebuttal and the reply. You can >> now I'm asking >> go ahead. >> So what we're asking from the as the public with everyone here in opposition and no one here in support is for us to voice our concerns with this so the
board can make a decision that this is more detrimental to the neighborhood. The only way we can prove that is to have the full scope. You guys don't even have a complete application. They said that they were unprepared to show up here tonight and you're going to you're prepared to act on an incomplete
application and not consider what new developments >> you're putting words in our mouth. We didn't I don't think we said we were prepared or unprepared to act. I think we we are going through the process of the hearing as we speak. No one said we were acting. No one said we we weren't acting.
>> Just you have to take an act tonight. >> Maybe, maybe not. You have to take a continuence, a denial, or an approval. That's an act. Correct. >> So, you're acting. >> Yeah. But we're in the process of it. >> I agree. And I was trying to be in the process of advocating why I'm not in support of this and why the and to be
able to give the board legal authority to deny it. >> Yes, I appreciate that. And as we go through that, we can open it to the discussion of the board. But I'm I'm taking the lead here in talking about some and basically rebutting some of the
things that you have said and you know uh the applicant may be a great developer. The it may be a terrible developer but the other past developments aren't in consideration here. We don't have design perview. >> I'm not asking you to take that consider
that's part of my presentation. >> Yeah, I know. But okay. So we're going to I'm just going to say we're going to admit that for the record. I'm not sure how this is helping formulate your decision >> because you made a lot of I'm telling you how I feel about what you presented to me and
>> I agree and you don't approve it and you don't appreciate it. >> Yeah. Well, I don't agree with a fair amount of it. Let's say I appreciate you >> thoroughly putting this together and putting it in writing and we can discuss how to take action on this as a as a board
>> and I would appreciate that. >> Okay. So, are are you done? >> I don't believe I have any more of a forum left. >> Okay. Is anybody in the crowd uh together or joined in this argument
or this presentation of what he said? >> Argument. >> Well, I'm sorry. >> I've not heard it before. So, so an applicant I use the word argument because that's how I was taught as an arch architect is to when you present
something you have to, you know, make a pitch. You have to explain it and and not in negative terms. It's an argument that you're formulating whether it's a design premise or not. You're putting the pieces out there. So, if if people don't like the word argument, I'll
retract that. But you're they appreciate that they're making a pitch. You're making a pitch. That's what I'm saying. I just like to know if if everybody is joined with your pitch or you're making it separately or everybody's acting as a group. I'm just trying to understand that >> I've known this group for 50 years that
that I grew up with. >> Okay. >> I have not spoken with them in >> Okay. That >> years >> that's all I'm asking is just you know just just trying to assess where it's coming from. That's all. >> Yes.
Donna Finnegan, six foot hallway right behind the U property. I just want to say to Jay, thank you for all your efforts. Um, I'm not saying that I disapprove of it.
Uh, I was here for quite a bit of the fall meetings and I have to uh admit we were here for our own interests. I didn't want that driveway going around the back of the house with
the lights coming into my house. I did not like the driveway going to the rear of the house. Um I am satisfied that it's going in the front of the house where I always thought it should. I um I appreciate what Jay has
said about all of the different things that he has said and they are important. Uh I think that um it needs some thought. Um it needs some clarifications
and uh I think you should take the time to do those things before you come to a final decision. There are some questions. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate that. I I'd just like to add that I agree with
that it's a slippery slope when you you buy property that's very small and then you work to for the purpose of just building a bigger structure and if we keep doing that on every piece of property then we're ruining the integrity of the island
and >> we appreciate that and and we are here to for checks and balances and we are the bylaws have metrics to set those checks and balances and then the POD does give us leeway to make a
determination in in terms of how we interpret what is presented against the neighborhood. So, we do have some broad interpretation. We we want to be as fair to a developer, a new person as to you.
And you know, in a month you may decide that you need to do something with your property or sell it or somebody else may buy an adjacent piece of property and and they have the same rights that the zoning dimensional requirements afford for the size of their lot for the size
of this lot for the size of the next lot. >> So, you know, >> special and we're glad that everybody's here talking about it because that's what makes Newbury great and and resident input is is what we like. We don't particularly like to have um
hearings in a vacuum where there's just one person presenting. So, we appreciate your arguments uh and the ability to to sit down and think about this and how you're helping everybody and residents, but we'd like to make sure that everybody understands that we're all
trying to do what is equal for somebody is equal for somebody else, right? and and we're, you know, if if things are um if things are conforming,
uh it's the question of whether they're um ex exacerbating existing nonconformities and and trying to cross a line or are they reducing nonconformities and making improvements and are they within keeping
of the bounds of what the property size allows >> or are they more detrimental? Yes. And it's >> which project is detrimental. >> True. But everybody has the right to build on their property, >> you know, and again the the act of
detrimental comes in the idea of what is in the surrounding neighborhood. Um and whether the proposed plan meets the the requirements of the de the dimensional requirements in the in the zoning bylaw. So,
>> and it's not just the dimensional requirements, it's also the So, Jay brought up a point that I just haven't heard you repeat to say that he's gotten it wrong. The number of rooms, the space um that's gone from a 3,500T house now to a 4,000 foot house. >> The ADU, >> there's a huge difference in that. And
so, I do agree with him. When I was here the last time, 3500 floor to me going to 4,000, it's absolutely ridiculous. So, that's handled by this committee though, right? Yes. Size and and shape and the positioning uh and the location on the
piece of property is what the zoning regulations that that we you know that we govern have. Um, again, the presence of what was originally submitted made this lot even bigger or was proposed to
be bigger, which would have allowed technically allowed a larger structure on this piece of property previously. and the ZBA worked hard to to sort of figure this out to get frontage uh appropriately on Sunset Drive and to
make the lots more equal in square footage so that an equal developed on both lots would be equal more equal in size. >> But that doesn't answer what you're telling me what you're telling me is this lot was they originally came in and asked for this big of a lot. They got
this big of a lot but then they went they had this big of a house on the first lot. Now they have this big house. >> Yes, there's something wrong with that. >> No, if I could address that for a minute because that that was I think the the uh the neighbor made some good points, but but technically I don't think the board
ever really accepted or evaluated the first set of planes. We couldn't. They weren't even on the same lot. He did submit one perhaps for informationational purposes, but we never went over them, checked dimensions, did any of the things we're doing. We're doing that now with the
first time. I think the board was pretty clear that whether you agree with it or not, the two things, the variance and the subdivision was completely separate. Once that was done, then the applicant had an opportunity to come up with a new set of plans, which you did. So that's what we're talking about now. So it's an
it wasn't so as much of a bait and switch as it appears. >> I'm not talking about a bait and switch. I'm talking about just reasonleness of the idea of giving you a smaller lot, but you're building a bigger house on it. It's just doesn't seem to make sense. common sense, >> but it's not the case. >> It's a it is the case.
>> Well, it's a it's a perception of scale of what was and what is proposed. >> And so the the um most everybody, not everybody, but most everybody in Plum Island, the lot size and the frontage are the two uh
pre-existing non-conforming issues that are not going to change on a piece of property. So, the next one is lot coverage. you're limited to to 20% coverage of area of man-made on top of that lot. If this house is 20%, it is it
is at the maximum, but it is still at the allowable 20%. The next is the F, which takes the floor area, and when you have two stories, obviously you're counting both stories, but that's at 25%. Um, and if this house is at 25% or
less, then it's not over its allotted size. And then the height is 35 feet to the mean height of the highest roof. And if it's if it's proven to be that or less, um, again, that is not an exasperation of a nonconformity. And if
they if they're actually down at 28 ft, then then they've given up some height that they possibly could do in a structure um because they're not at 35 ft. then the bedrooms are a check, the setbacks are a check. And if if the
setbacks for a building are 20 feet on the front and they're at 60 ft and the building uh on the side is 10 ft, this is at 10.5. Uh and on the opposite side, it's 10 ft and they're at 20.2 feet. And then at
the rear, it's 10 ft and they're at 33.1. they this this sized house in the shape that it's being presented is meeting those that are checking those boxes. >> Can I make a clarification on it that the bedrooms are not in check whatsoever and you would you already acknowledge
that? >> We have a question about that. >> Correct. >> For sure. and and we've we've stated about existing drawings and we've stated what's on the assessor's card and we have found uh that the assessor's card are not um sometimes not as accurate as
>> I just wanted to correct I wanted to correct what you state >> okay so yeah I hadn't gotten down to my bedrooms yet so that's what we're doing is we're we're looking at this and we're we're checking the boxes of the criteria and we're now at the point of reviewing the
application and reviewing the drawing So, um, think we can try to work to sum this up where we stand before >> I I have a question. >> Yep. >> It just occurred to me as you were talking about the extra height and
everything else in this room over the garage. My question is, who's going to live at this house? >> Andis have three other houses on the island. >> We >> who's going to live there? We we appreciate when people make a personal pitch for their property or their
forever home or their whatever, but at the end of the day, that's really not something that we take into consideration because it's a structure on a piece of property that could be built and sold tomorrow, just as anybody could sell their house tomorrow for any number of reasons that they they may
need to. So again, if if the floor area ratio and the height and the lot coverage are within the limits, then the the structure that's being proposed, whether they're going to live there or not, is is those are the boxes that we're checking. We we we do appreciate
when people come and have thoughtful uh personal uh pitch about what they are what they are trying to do and why they want to do it. Uh, and sometimes we call BS on that and sometimes we don't, but it it doesn't really matter because it's the structure that we're doing, right?
>> I wasn't questioning them. >> Yeah. >> I was questioning the room. >> True. So, I I guess to that point, you know, if if they want an art gallery that's the full first floor and it meets the F, it's really not in our purview to question whether they have have that. If
if they have something that is a room that has a bathroom adjacent to it and it looks like a bedroom, we've already sort of called it out or try or stated that. Um, you know, people want a big exercise room over the garage. I can
have it. just >> I I I understand and we we do try hard especially with um structures on Plum Island that people say they're going to live in and it looks like a glorious rental unit that we do have some art, but we also have
some limits in terms of we don't have a design purview. We like we like buildings to fit in. We like buildings that will improve the value of that property and improve the value of the neighborhood at the same time. Um, and
yeah, and we don't like to see things that are detrimental or that that we might consider, oh, that's that looks pretty cool now, but would cause problems later on or not be uh seen the same way by other other people in the future. That's the way I look at it.
This house gets built, this house gets sale sold three times, and every time somebody moves in, it's it is what it's supposed to be, and it's not causing an issue down the road. Is that answer? >> Yes. No. No.
>> Okay. >> I just have a question. How how are you going to really determine if that other structure existing there is one bedroom or two bedrooms which hinges hinges on if they can >> so have that extra room? >> Yep. That's a great question.
>> What is which way are you going to go? But like >> so I'm not >> I'm not going to close the public meeting but I am going to stop the the discussion >> right now for tonight. >> Okay. >> Okay. So there are a bunch of things with the
application. Okay. We um and if you guys would like to say or would you like me to take the lead? I I can do that. >> Miss something we'll correct. >> Happy to correct you. All right. But but
okay. So Chris, you going to take copious notes? >> Yes, I am. >> Michelle, maybe you take the same notes. >> So one is that um in no particular order, we'd like the existing building documented.
>> Yes, we agreed to do that. >> Yep. And um and upon that, it it might be beneficial for one of us to go see it. >> Mhm. Okay. >> To to prove out what you've drawn is is
there. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Second, uh I asked about the driveway shifting over so that the driveway meets Sunset Boulevard and is not uh is not on Dartmouth Way and Sunset
Boulevard. Okay. Um we asked about an office door being shown at the office side. Um, I I I will ask town council
uh to resend the memo on the lot division. So, we have it right. You know, do you want the door on the bathroom to make it more like office >> on the outside to make it more like a
bedroom? >> Look like a bedroom. >> Feels like we want no door. >> Yeah, >> we want no door. >> I I don't know. You could have a door to an office to some >> or take the closet out because the closet is considered part of the bedroom.
>> It's also the coat closet for the house. It's the front front coat closet. It's the front. >> But that's the front. That's not the front door. >> Makes sense. Makes it >> But if the door is if the door is on the opposite side, you have to leave the room in order to get to the bathroom and
you're out in the corridor. >> So, okay, hold that. >> Um, so I'll ask down council. I'll also ask that we have the um the the presentation you did about the
neighborhood and the size of the houses. >> You did a a study that showed here are the largest, here are the smallest and >> and you color coded it and it gives everybody an understanding of what the neighborhood if we want to talk about the neighborhood >> Yeah. >> and where we're going with that. um then
everybody can can can have something in which to base our everybody's discussion. >> I think that's important because it's a closeback neighborhood. Was it 300 ft? Is that what we asked for? Was is that the number? >> Um
it was the definition of neighborhood. What was it? And I used the assessor's maps to define the neighborhood. Okay. So, uh, as I recall
it, um, it went past, uh, oh, the, uh, was it the >> I don't remember the street name >> where where the, um, Sunset Sunset Club is now. It went past that
uh going in that direction because that was just how the uh was it all that was the only way to find a neighborhood. >> Well, we've asked it before. It's not an uncommon question. What's our definition? I thought it was 300 ft. I could be mistaken.
>> 300 is required by zoning neighbor. >> Our determination of the neighborhood on Plum Island is what we determined it to be. because the document I'm asking for is already made. >> It was already submitted to us and >> we're accepting it. Okay. >> I'm not asking for anything new. I just
like it to be reinstated as part of this so that we can look at it again. >> Yeah. Um I'd like you to double check the application and and make sure that any information on your drawing and your application match so that we don't have any confusion there.
>> Okay. Um and in and you the existing structure um will be labeled and will be measured right. Uh and then if you would look at the assessor's card and the existing and you would point out any inconsistencies
then then we all can understand um what's an inconsistency on the assessor's card or what's on the assessor's card that doesn't make sense. FYI, the surveyor I'm remembering the conversation the surveyor's number is the 750 number. So I think it's the assess and I had a discussion with him.
I think he he believes the assessor's page is incorrect. But I we will demonstrate that. >> Great. We got to prove it out somehow. Somebody's got to prove it out. Yeah. >> Um >> uh I'm just checking checking checking. Um
>> the assessor's card matching the >> Yes. Yeah, that's what I just saw. >> Well, the existing structure drawings will be labeled sufficiently to and it it will be clear what is either
right or what is either wrong. >> So, um Michelle, >> yeah, I guess if when you're working on the plans, if we can understand what guest suite means, >> according to this plan, there's no
bathroom up there. So, um, that's how we would read it right now, but we would read it as a bedroom right now. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I think just making sure that we understand that that there's no doors leading up to that that you can close
off that this could then be rented out separately, things like that. So I think just understanding >> yeah that brings a good that was again in the opening sort of speech is that if there's anything to tweak now's the time to resubmit it so that
everybody can see the same thing and you're you're you know this is fully baked not sort of kind of sort of baked and we're we're we're relying on the building inspector are asking him to double check this that only brings everybody back after some process has happened
>> or not happened, I should say. Um, so that would be helpful. And then I think you need to update the elevations with this with the height from the mean grade. >> Prove out the mean grade. Here's the high point. Here's the low point. Here's the mean grade. Here's the mean roof of the highest roof. And there's a
measurement. Yeah. So I think where we're going with the next step is that I will make a motion to continue this um to next month which is April is it
>> 16th >> 16th um and also with that I have to say that um I will not be here on the 16th so that Mario, Jack, and we would go in order
that Michelle would be um voting members at that hearing, whatever happens at that hearing. But I will not be here. So, with that, I would ask that you get the drawing done, please, in a timely manner. The drawing can go to Chrissy.
Anybody that wants the drawing, she can send it back out to the neighbors to see that. Um, and that I'd ask one of the board members to to to walk the property just to look at the plan and and see what you drew and someone can we can say we understand it.
We do take your word and we know you're honest, but I think in this case it behooves us to understand what's existing because we have questions and we'd like to make sure um what you drew and what is there is there. >> How do we initiate or coordinate?
Um, >> Chrissy, what usually happens on Wednesdays in here? >> Uh, planning board has a Zoom the first and third of Wednesday, but >> but we can use the room if they're not if you're zooming. >> No one's using it. >> No, we can't. Yeah, I think so.
>> But Larry won't be here. >> What's that? If if if Okay, so Mario had asked if there's any way that we might move our third Thursday of the month a day so that I could be here at the next meeting.
>> Yeah, I wouldn't be able to attend the Okay. >> planning board meeting. But >> do do you have any comments on the proceedings tonight or anything that was No. Okay. Um, can everybody make it on Wednesday the 18th?
Can you make it on a the 18th? Can the people >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. I can get >> Are you only be open that Thursday. >> Week >> I think I'll be at the airport at noon
on Thursday. >> Okay. >> I just I won't be anymore. >> Yeah. 15 >> 15th is tax day. Get your taxes done before checkers. I I can I can do Wednesday. >> So, can everybody here do Wednesday?
>> 15th works. >> Yes. Can you do Wednesday? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> On the calendar. >> People in in in the audience that would like to continue on with this understand that we're moving it a day. So, we're going to I'm going to propose that we continue the hearing to April
15th uh here in this in the town hall second floor room >> at 7:30. >> Is there a mo a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor?
>> I did take notice >> of what is required? >> Yes. Did you type and send myself an email? >> Not in bullet point. >> Okay. You send Mr. Bullet point. >> Okay.
>> That me so I can scan it in the email all of you. >> Yes. >> And add it to the file. Okay. >> Right. So the public hearing is delayed. >> I have the memo. Do you want to delete email?
>> Yes. >> Everybody can have it. >> I think in this case I will >> if you would like to talk to town council, you can talk to town council. >> We're not going to talk to town council. >> No, >> no, no. Because there is a difference.
If if we talk to town council as a group as part of the public record, if I talk to town council on taking notes on something that I have, I for me. >> Okay. >> Yes. So, >> I need Jay's email. I know he left shortly to the town council.
>> I want to send I have that letter from town council. I can email it out >> on town council. >> Yes, I I will probably take forward how to move forward. I have that. So, I need his email address. >> We like exercises.
>> I'll get it >> and I can email all of you. >> So, we're Yes, >> meeting. >> Okay, hold on. >> I know I have all your emails. >> Um, get on camera.
>> I was hearing the year and a half ago. >> I know I have all your I'll show you. I I will send it out. I have a list from my old notes. You >> good? You all set? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So,
All in favor?